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

What do you want from this thread OP? Will you just keep going until enough people recognise how superior you are, or just til you get a good row going?

I didn't say he was unable to work, I said he doesn't work. What he does or doesn't do is irrelevant to my finances.

If moving in means all benefits stop, then the step parent has to step up and bridge the gap.

After 12 years with my husband, we have made lifestyle choices which mean that he has significant financial responsibility for my children. They were decisions we made jointly, with full appreciation of the implications, and he chose financial responsibility. We have no shared children, and their father doesn't work whereas I worked full time when I met my DH. He was never expected to support them financially, however he has chosen to in order, for example, me to reduce my working hours.

I kind of agree that, as a general rule, financial responsibility for a child should rest with the actual parents and not the step parents.

BUT there are certain caveats to that.

For example, if the parents can't or don't earn enough to actually support the child, then I think a resident parent's income should be taken into account before expecting the state to step in. It would be ridiculous for the taxpayer to pay welfare benefits to a mother on a low income, for example, if she happens to be living with a millionaire partner and enjoying all of the lifestyle benefits that this might provide.

I think it would also be fundamentally wrong for children in blended families to have very different standards of living from one another because of what their parents can respectively provide. In that set-up, I would say that there is a duty on both parents to provide equally for all children in the household, and if they don't want to do that, then they shouldn't live together.

Of course, non resident biological parents should be forced to pay their fair share, and that should always be the first port of call. But I don't think that entirely lets step parents off the hook.

Basically, if you don't want responsibility for someone else's child, don't move in with them.

If you're in partnership, which I hope you are, then the new partner will undoubtedly contribute towards your children from a previous relationship, albeit indirectly in some cases, but that doesn't mean the non-resident parent doesn't have to also support their child.

I think the general mumsnet view is that if a guy starts a serious relationship with a woman with kids, then he knew what he was getting in to and if he doesnt help financial with he kids he is a greedt heartless bastard.

and if a woman starts a serious relationship with a guy with kids, then absolutely not should even be contemplating assisting anyway financially.

Do it the way you want to do it but I can't say I agree. But then I prefer love and grace over shame.

Adoptive parents and step-parters may not be biologically related to the child but they still have "parent" in the title and are, therefore, a parent. When you choose to marry someone with a young child you are taking on the responsibility of raising that young child, emotionally, financially and in every other way. Personally I wouldn't want to be with someone who didn't feel that way. But if you and your partner are both happy with the arrangement do it the way you feel you want to do it, that's your choice. I hope your children agree with you as they get older and I hope, for your sake, you don't ever lose your income due to unemployment or illness.

I would WANT to contribute to gifts and for my step kids though. I would want to buy all the children I love presents.

I guess although you are right there’s no legal obligation, I think it’s a bit clinical to refuse to contribute towards the costs of your step kids on the basis they’re not biologically yours even though you love them, raise them, worry about them, consider them family etc etc

@Mrsnothingthanks Would you think the same way if the suggestion to not contribute anything to "your" kids came from him and he earned a lot more than you? Throw in that you had a feckless ex too. Would you marry him knowing this? Just curious

I don’t think it’s natural or reasonable to not expect to pay something towards your stepchildren when you move into their home. I know everyone operates a household in different ways but to me, the bills are naturally split / money goes into one pot and out of that for food, bills, clothing etc. This means you will naturally be paying towards their food and clothing, as well as their housing. It also seems incredibly mean spirited not to want to contribute towards nice things like gifts or days out for example.

When you marry someone or at least move in with someone who has children, you take them on too. If you’re not comfortable with this, find someone who doesn’t have children.

I think Joseph did.

I think when you create a new family through marriage that means taking on the children as well.

In practical terms, if there is support from the other parent in the mix, there may be some differernt financial considerations, but the principle is that support comes from the step-parent as well.

This should be someone who if, god forbid, both natural parents died, would now be the remaining parent and would be prepared to fulfil that role. I've known more than one step parent who had to take something like that on - including in one case a step- parent who supported an adult step child undergoing cancer treatment by taking long term leave from his job and being primary caregiver for her toddler.

If someone isn't prepared to take that on for your kids, then you shouldn't marry them and make them a step parent to your kids. Maintain a separate household and date.

Yano what, I do understand the mindset of wanting to provide for your children yourself and I understand that would make you proud of yourself, I don't claim maintenence for my children and their father doesn't provide for them......

Doing it all by myself makes me incredibly proud of myself and I feel very internally strong for it..... but I'm a single woman living by myself

If I was in a relationship with someone and they wanted to move into my family home, live with my children and have a child with me - if they wanted all the positives and emotional support and the family image, then they should help financially provide for everyone, especially when they decide to have a sibling to the children

It's such an unusual way of thinking, it doesn't make you the person you think it does 🙈

"Please join my family unit and live with us as a family but don't help provide towards every child who lives with us, just your own biological child"

I'd see this situation as shameful, not as somthing to brag about.

If you choose marriage with a parent, you’re choosing family. His children become your children, and yours become his. Legally that may only change with adoption, but in practice the responsibilities are shared. I can’t understand people who willingly marry someone with kids yet try to keep those children separate from their own. It doesn’t reflect well on them, because marriage is about building one household, not drawing lines between children.

That's the deal they make when they get together with a parent.

I think the important this is that all children in a family are treated equally. Your scenario is easier to manage because you're the higher earner and it sounds like your DC have an involved father.

But what about children who's mum gets remarried, chooses to have more children, and then goes part time to care for them? Or just earns less than her DH? Especially those who's biological dad either shirks his responsibilities or is a much lower earner than the new stepfather?

Should those children watch as their younger half siblings are provided with gifts and experiences they miss out on because their biological parents can't afford it?

It might not be a stepparent's responsibility to fund their stepchildren's lives, but it's a parent's job to make sure all their children are treated equally. If they can't do this through their own means and their new partner doesn't want to voluntarily take on the responsibility, they shouldn't have more children. The children that already exist come before any adult's desire to add more children to the family.

How can you possibly expect your family to succeed if one or more members are treated differently? Doesn't that make the step parent just someone who lives with the established family unit or (worse) the child an outsider to the new family?
When we became a family, we became a family. Everything shared.
My DH treats all of our children (including my eldest, his ss) the same. As a result eldest ds treats DH the same way he treats me. He wouldn't hesitate to step up for us or his siblings physically, emotionally or financially. There has never been any question. We are family. All of us, no exceptions.
Finances are only one aspect of family life. If you exclude a child from that one part are you excluding them from every part?
The important part of the phrase step-parent is parent. If you are not prepared to fully take on the role of parent emotionally and financially then the being a step-parent is probably not right for you.
Unfortunately too many people rush into becoming step parents without fully realising what it means and end up resenting the child.

I think its gets a bit blurry, because it's nigh on impossible to arrange life so this doesn't happen, especially where the step parent is the higher earner. I can't see how a unit living as a family could work if a non parent on a high income made no contribution to the costs of the DC in the household. Are they to eat from budget ranges and go on cheap holidays while the high earning step parent enjoys luxuries alone? And what about any shared children the couple go onto have? Are they to live a life conversant with the higher earning parent while their half siblings are Cinderella?
I think your point is fair in theory. But in all honesty, unless the parent is the higher earner, and/or can afford to keep their DC to the standards of the household by themselves, it doesn't work.