<p>Even if the grandparents came through for all three granddaughters, there is still the issue of the stepdaughter who is the same age as the oldest granddaughter. The difference in circumstances would likely be a source of tension in any second marriage. My kids are in a similar position with their blended family on their dad’s side (except without the extreme wealth) and it has been awkward at times to understand the grandparents’ thinking on things. They have shown favoritism on a smaller scale toward one of the kids and it has caused rifts and had repercussions. It’s just hard to constantly try to make things seem “fair” when there are so many outside influences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why did you bring the step D into the discussion at all? Seems to me that she is completely irrelevant to the situation with the GPs. There are 4 kids here. We know 1 has good grades and 1 doesn’t. The other two could be all over the map. Since when are children in a family all cut from the same cloth, academically or in any other way? The only thing her situation bears witness to is the character of the OP, who is apparently willing to support her and send her to school, without the assistance of her bio father. </p>
<p>I would suggest that you refrain from attempting to psychologize. My in-laws were both dead by the time my S was ready for college, and they certainly would not have been able to afford to contribute substantially had they been alive. They weren’t my favorite people, but I certainly wasn’t burning with resentment, either. (At least, not most of the time. 
)</p>
<p>Oh so only assist the “stars”? That’s kind of obnoxious. Oh, you aren’t as special as number one son and your only going to state school so we won’t help, this dismissing you. I find that elitist in a very sad way. If I had a young daughter who loved to paint but wasn’t the best painter, do I not pay for art lessons or buy her paints? Not going to Harvard doesn’t make one less deserving then another. Makes me sad that other kids interests are supported by some parents becuase they aren’t seen as special. I knew a family like that, it was all about the sons sports. Daughters interests and ecs always took second place. She resents that, and had every right too.</p>
<p>It doesn’t always have to be equal but it should be fair.</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s entirely fair, Seahorsesrock. Surely, there is some room for making honest assessments of talent and operating accordingly without devaluing the accomplishments of other children. At the extreme, would you suggest a parent that sacrificed to see their kid compete in the Olympics would be obliged to go through the same expense and effort to see their other kid compete in a high school swim meet? Or that telling one kid you weren’t going to spend money on a pricey sleep-away camp means you can’t let the other kid go to the expensive academic program that has accepted them?</p>
<p>In the case of college, I think it makes even more sense to differentiate in certain case. If D1’s dream school is Columbia and D2’s is Syracuse - and assuming that both get in - I think it would be perfectly valid for parents or grandparents to reason that Columbia might be worth tens of thousands of dollars more than a SUNY school, but that Syracuse is not. While there are a variety of circumstances under which that reasoning might not apply - for instance, if Syracuse has a specific program D2 wants to pursue - in most cases, I think that would be a fair call, even if it isn’t the call every parent would make. </p>
<p>In the OP’s situation, I think the grandparents’ reasoning for favoring D1 is relevant. If either the behavior of the girls or something in their academic backgrounds is at stake, I’d be inclined to take the money - if, of course, it is actually on offer (I’d also make sure D1 was the one handling the money, not me). If, on the other hand, their choice is arbitrary or based on faulty/manipulative premises (i.e, they’re doing this as a power play to punish and reward the daughters’ willingness to side with them in the divorce), I’d turn it down.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Given the family politics involve, the OP should make it clear to D1 that dealing with the GPs’ money offers is D1’s responsibility. In particular, if D1 uses it to supplement the OP’s contribution to college costs to attend a college that would otherwise be unaffordable, it is solely D1’s responsibility if the GPs cut off or threaten to cut off the money, meaning if the money does get cut off, D1 would have to figure out how to replace the money or transfer to a lower cost college. Also, the OP should make it clear to D1 that he will not be bound by any conditions that the GPs set on the offer of money to D1.</p>
<p>I.e. any offers from the GPs to fund D1’s college are solely the responsibility of D1 to manage, with the OP staying out of it (neither deciding the matter nor being responsible for the consequences).</p>
<p>I’m suprised that some posters are not willing to accept simple facts of OP’s several posts regarding his inlaws. Their daughter, his ex, is estranged from her parents, and not supporting her daughters. The inlaws are wealthy, significantly so, and have a conflicting history of “gifting” (downpayment for OP’s home, suing for repayment during OP’s divorce, though it houses their own grandchildren). It sure sounds like GPs use their wealth as a carrot and a stick. Sure sounds like folks who’d favor one child/grandchild over another.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All the more reason to not put yourself in serious debt to them.</p>