To think stepparents should not be financially responsible for other people's children?

As a family, wouldn't you just each put in what you can afford and make sure each child gets treated equitably irrespective of where the money comes from?

Husband & I had a son each when we met then had a daughter together. The lads are now adults. They've all always been treated equitably as children of the same family by us, grandparents, wider family & friends etc. This includes in everyone's wills.

Our lads always lived with us as their primary residence and neither of their other parents contributed financially. Sometimes one had more material goods than another coming from the other parent but they were always treated the same by us and from the same pot - we are a family and do not differentiate funding streams.

I am the higher (currently sole) earner and we receive no benefits, including no child benefit.

I remarried when my son was 9 (he’s now 23).

My husband has always treated ds like his own son. Even when ds dad was paying maintenance.

We are a family. Dh still takes care of ds financially now when he needs it, and ds still lives with us.

To be honest, if Dh hadn’t seen ds as his family, I wouldn’t have married him. He’s treated no differently, financially or emotionally to the children we’ve had together and rightly so.

Dh will is split equally between ds and our two children together.

Christ, even his parents have my equally in their wills with the other grandchildren - he’s their grandchild no matter if ds isn’t his biological father.

If one parent (who has other kids) gives up work to enable their spouse/partner to concentrate on their career, I do think the maintenance to those kids other parent should still be paid though. It is not fair on them to suddenly lose maintenance, especially if the 1st couples household income stays similar to what it was.

Would you allow the children to be treated differently based on finances. That’s not particularly nice is it? What if the step kids were in poverty?

You sound all high and mighty because you're the higher earner and you seem confident and secure in your job. That's fine.

What if something happens to you (I truly hope not and certainly don't wish it, so this is entirely hypothetical) and you're no longer able to provide for your children longterm, would you be okay with it if your children go without enough food sometimes or clothing or christmas gifts, new school uniforms, school trips, the basics, etc while the child you have with your husband gets all those things?

Going by your quite rigid rule, would you choose for your other children to watch their 'half sibling' get what they aren't able to because their mum doesn't believe their stepdad should contribute to their welfare?

Basically i want to know if there is any situation where you'd change your rules or feel the opposite way. If so, what would that be? If not, could you answer the questions above?

OP you are insufferable. Will you ever give this a rest? By now we all know just how bloody marvellous, independant, righteous and better than everyone else you are.

However I fear that the overwhelming message you will be passing on to your kids is that money is the most important thing in the world. Far more important than love, generosity or family ties (though my definition of family is not your miserably narrow one). I don't think any of this will serve your children well. Perhaps you'd like to reflect on your messaging to your children and see relationships as a bit less transactional and a bit more about love.

What happens, if for some reason, you suddenly became unable to work? You won't be entitled to benefits as your DH works.
You have a strict I pay for me and my children arrangement so who will pay the mortgage/ food bill? Will your children's father be expected to step in and pay your (more than half) proportion of the mortgage, utilities and food? Savings only last a short time.

It's up to the step parent. My friend's partner didn't pay out for step kids hobbies, holidays or uni. He did own the home outright that they all lived in, and picked up the costs related to home. She's always worked full-time and had child support from ex, and has paid her DC costs out of this money. She said it might have caused issues in relationship if he had to pay for stepchildren so she went out to work.

I think it works for you OP because you, your ex and your partner sound like good earners, and there’s not two ‘sets’ of children.

If your new partner had his own children with a low earning ex, the situation would be different.

But that always keeps a line between bio and step parent. In some families that goes and the step parent becomes a parent in all but biology.

In your household there is and always will be a divide and some don’t want that

What does what others do matter? People are different and do things differently and as long as everyone is happy what does it matter

personally I find your viewpoint depressing

But her husband doesn't have childcare costs does he? If she's a SAHM then she doesn't have childcare costs. Would you be happy for pay for someone else to stay at home with kids that are not yours? I certainly wouldn't. She may not get any benefits after marriage

I think the OP has some IRL axe to grimd she isn't telling us about

To me this is a family. A family where the children are loved and cared for without negotiation and calculation.

That all sounds one sided

I bet he has

Thank god my dp hasn’t taken this stance with me or the family could feel very divided. Given I’m on mat leave with our shared child, and so on a reduced pay, yes I should think he should help provide for my eldest who isn’t his, given I have taken resources away from my eldest to raise our shared child. We operate as a family, everything is shared. My dp treats my eldest as his own, my eldest adores him. We have a happy family home life, I think things would be different if I had to separate everything into “my kid” and “our kid” boxes.

I personally think if you love the person then the children are apart of them naturally you should love them too , yes I feel a step parent should provide along with the parent/s what ever the child needs , and a child should never think ... I can't ask my step parent for that , as im not his / her child what a horrible way for the child to feel , and causing a devide straight off , would be healthy .
They day the step parent falls in love with a parent and chooses to spend his or her life with them , is the day they become a parent also .... or maybe dont date single parents if you dont want the responsibility of a family life and all it entails

It’s not about needing it or not. It’s not about money. It’s just about being a family and WANTING to provide for every member of the family.

Just my opinion, if your way works for you then fab!

@Mrsnothingthanks yiu view sounds very transactional very much people have to put in proportions etc

whereas I agree it shouldn’t be expected and certainly not by the state and I suspect you find the idea that his income will be taken into account for any university stuff abhorrent that doesn’t mean it has to be

not all relationships work on such a transactional basis

The money remaining from her job and benefits after marriage? Childcare savings due to her part time working or being a stay at home parent?

I am not suggesting marrying someone then making them solely financially responsible for your children whilst you contribute nothing.

All I am saying is that marriage is a big deal, something you shouldn’t do lightly and, to me, means taking on a person and their dependents and being a family together. Why should the children living in the household not be subsidised by both parent and step parent when they would subsidise each other in the event of job loss/illness?

If you don’t want to subsidise non bio kids, then don’t marry a parent!

And in that case what's HER contribution to HER OWN CHILDREN