Stepchild wants to see finances and money spent on his stepsiblings.

That would be something the DH would need to face in order to make whatever decision he would be most prepared to live with the consequences of.

It may be that hurting his marriage is more acceptable to him than hurting his children, or vice versa. Only he can decide that.

As I see it your husband can spend his income from the assets on whatever he chooses to, it's the same as any other income he gets. So no, nothing to scrutinise or claim back. His children are only entitled to their share when the assets are sold, at a future date, as an inheritance.

It’s not about whether the ski trip is easily affordable, or if he’s missing out or not, it’s about his father taking on a parental role for unrelated children.

Where does it say that the son is missing out on anything because the OP’s child went on a ski trip?!

i think the SCs need reminding, gently, that there is no inheritance currently, as DH is still alive.

he should also regularly tell them he plans to donate his fortune to a donkey sanctuary anyway - whatever it takes them to catch on.

or he should scrutinise their purchases, and complain they're spending his grandchildren's inheritances...

Knowing their parent’s income for a form and asking to see their parents finances and wanting to be reimbursed for money spent on others following a parent’s death are 2 very different things…

She was saving for it, but couldn't reach the amount in time. That's when her husband stepped in.

Most married couples combine their income. OP has not done that. If she was the gold digger that you think she is, surely she'd have pushed to combine finances and spend her DH's money freely?

Nope, I can't see anything in her behaviour that should lead anyone to think that she's taking her DH for a ride. So there's something that's either consciously or subconsciously, making a surprisingly large number of posters take against her.

Maybe it's just that she's a stepmother. Or maybe it's something else.

You're spot on about taking nothing for granted.

A friend's (very wealthy) DF had an affair with his secretary, left her mum, married the secretary and had a third child with her. He always promised friend and her brother that they would be well provided for on his death.

He was in the early stages of dementia when he died, and his last will left everything was left to the second wife, bar his telescope, which friend inherited, and an antique orrery which went to her brother. The expensive flat and what was left of the proceeds from the sale of the £2.5m house, plus all his investments (which were considerable) were left to the second wife. The gross value of the entire estate was well in excess of £5m.

Friend and her brother got advice about challenging the will, but were told that the chances of success were less than 50/50 and that the costs would be huge.

Some discretionary trusts would actually allow a wide range of family members to access funds, regardless of any letter of wishes and the trustees would make final decisions x wives , stepchildren and various family members might access money based on their need.

SS will Inherit the capital on his DF s death and until that time he should not question his DFs spending.

Spot on @WiddlinDiddlin ! I was about to post to point out that we have no idea what grandfather intended but if he wanted to put more restrictions on what tge money could be used for he would presumably have been offered that option when things were drawn up.

there is a balance between making children your priority and dancing to their tune.

Is it from a student finance point of view for university? Or are they just being an entitled 🔔 ?

"Also why would she mingle in the finances of her DH?"

Are you really asking this question?

Why? Well, that is a very normal thing indeed for married couples to do. In order to pay bills and spend money on things (such as holidays etc).

"But children going off to university do need to know their parents income if they are applying for student finance."

You're mistaken. For the purposes of the maintenance grant the Student Loans Company quite clearly says:

"If your parents are separated or divorced, we’ll use the income of whichever parent you’re financially dependent on, including the income of your parent’s partner, if they have one. This means we will not need income details from the parent that you’re not dependent on or have less contact with."

It is the income of the ex-wife (including any child maintenance etc) and that of any partner that the ex-wife is living with that is counted.

I presume that the DSS is living with the ex-wife.

Why doesn't she pay for her own child's skiing trip then?
Also why would she mingle in the finances of her DH? (Money that is not hers or her children's, but still she feels entitled to as it subsidies her way of living).

Yes, let's defend the op by making it xenophobic.

Nothing about the fact she has posted looking to elicit negativity about the DSS ...

And the bit about the "rights and well-being of the parents" in the context of a dad who has moved on as he wished and is spending the money as he wished. Yet even being questioned is somehow an unbearable affront to his "wellbeing."

Honestly ... the distortion ...

In what way? She works, she earns, she has property that she receives the rental for, she pays her way as far as she can, and she normally pays for her child. Her DH turns out to earn more and have a larger or better located house than OP can afford. But she's shown no signs of taking anything for granted, or being a gold digger.

I still think that there are some responses like this the one I quoted above, that wouldn't have been made if OP hadn't said that she's from another country. It might be that SS's attitude is also built on that fact.

The op mum sounds like an usurper to me.

What if the DH's own children are 'hurt' by their father being anything less than actively hostile towards OP's children?

What if no amount of normal, kind behaviour is OK with them?

It sounds as if the DH's eldest wants to ensure OP and her children do not benefit in ANY way from being with his Father - and that simply isn't possible, he's married to their mother, he lives with them, they share the same roof, same food, same heating and lighting and transport..

The level of invention and fiction on this thread is incredible - another PP has confidently stated the deceased FIL absolutely wanted the income from this trust to benefit his grandchildren exclusively - but they have NO idea if that is actually the case!

Perhaps he wanted his offspring to have an assured income for life, and assets to pass to children.

Perhaps he wanted his offspring to have enough to gamble on the gee-gees or keep a mistress - we do not know.

What we DO know is he did NOT put the assets into a trust to pay the income directly to the Grandchildren... by-passing the parents. So it is safe to assume he was happy with his children spending this income as they see fit. Which is what OP's husband is doing!

Yet we know intergenerational wealth is almost a sine qua non nowadays in order to get you pretty much anywhere.

Sickening that an first-marriage child has to suck it up and be labelled as entitled for not wanting DSC getting free skiing trips instead of him.

Honestly second families are so distorted.

And ok maybe DH decides this isn't how he wants to spend it, but the abuse directed at the boy for at least questioning it is OTT.

We don't know exactly the terms of the trust. but it isn't uncommon for trusts to specify a purpose for the distributions, especially in discretionary trusts.

ETA I struggle to believe the settlor's intention was to fund his son to fund OP and her dc. So, yes, there is a moral element to this, even if it slips through the legal technicalities on the wording.

I actually think where there are second marriages/long term relationships it is good idea to talk to existing DC, especially when they become adults, about finances. DH and his siblings knew that stepdad only had life interest in the house when he married MIL. He had come to the marriage with nothing. No other children. He died first so didn't end up being an issue

But children going off to university do need to know their parents income if they are applying for student finance.

Morally OP your dh is in a very poor situation if the deal was he got the profits of the business his DCs inherited with the understanding he would spend that money on them. I’d say half of that money should go to dss1 for funding uni and other half in savings for his dc2 (or go in boosted maintenance to his ex), and you and your dh live off your joint income. Not the income from the business the various grandchildren own.

i was very lucky to have two extremely devoted parents and I am a devoted parent. I think we underestimate how big it is to have your dad playing dad to other kids while you are growing up

I am never sure if they don't understand or defensiveness precludes them from accepting this.

But either way, it is perfectly natural for the DSS to have some negative feelings - probably bigger feelings than he fully understands - around this, and to then dismiss him as a grabby scrote is just beyond my comprehension.

His behaviour cannot be sensibly isolated from his family situation. This is, it would seem, the second thread (at least) OP has started complaining about him. Different if she were seeking advice as to how to help him, but instead she is seeking validation that he needs slapping down and putting in his place. That doesn't speak of a healthy dynamic for this boy to me - and I can see why he might resent her dining out on Grandad's estate because I bet his grandfather would not have liked to see these threads about his grandson, exposing him to the denigration that has been inflicted on him on this thread.

He's a cheeky fecker - no way should your DH countenance this - his money is his to do with what he chooses. At best SS should be informed how the almost trust might operate following your DH's death. Other than that he should be told that by DH that he doesn't intend to provide any insight into his foamces until he is 75+. He should also be reminded that nothing at that stage should be taken for granted as care needs etc will be a moving target.