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

It sounds like his behaviour is veering somewhat into bullying towards OPs kids. He's certainly picking on them. It will escalate.

That was my point. His father is funding him (however that may be) and his son still feels it’s not enough, so he wants to see his father’s finances or thinks it’s ok to question his step sister about who has paid for her theatre trip. That is entitlement

I think SS is grabby. Particularly one of your previous posts op where you said you’d been asked who’d paid when your aunt had taken your DD to a show! That is a weirdly inappropriate thing to say and if my DS had asked me anything of the sort he’d have been given short shrift. How adults spend their money is their business and since your SS knows the terms of the Gf will and knows the assets can’t be depleted then that’s all he needs to know surely? Your H could be spending his income on the horses and other frivolities and that would also be fine - it’s his money!

You're massively projecting

Do not mention the word "subsidised" and refute it's use if they claim your lifestyle is subsidised. You are married therefore the money in the marriage belongs to both of you and it is none of their business how you both choose to use it.

Draw a line under the matter and refuse to engage with the topic any further.

This.

It's the pps being harsh on the boy who are in fact the ones seeing everything through a monetary lens.

It actually has everything to do with second family dynamics - and I think it might be pps not in that situation who are taking umbrage and answering so nastily without considering that broader context.

As you say, dc do not own their parents assets, and they are not keeping them warm until inheritance (though in many, many case the parents have themselves inherited and imo that does mean it is a very normal parental instinct to do your best to do the same for your own dc).

However, here there is a second layer of complexity in that the money has come from a grandfather and is being, effectively, partly used by unrelated dc. That isn't the boy resenting his father spending on himself. There is a different context here. Yes, people will argue the father can spend it where and as he likes, but the choice to spend inherited money on dc unrelated to the grandfather is a different context from a parent simply looking after themselves, and I think it is a bit disingenuous not to allow that.

Quite honestly, in the OP's situation, I'd feel embarrassed for my dc to be benefitting from money inherited from a grandfather of other dc when mine were presumably outside the active contemplation of that inheritance. Money earned by her partner is a different story - though again often still a source of tension in blended families.

I think due to the cost of living, the poor job market and price of property these days, young people are increasingly having to cling onto the idea of a future inheritance to ever have any hope of a secure future. I think that's why we see so many entitled child/stepchild inheritance threats lately.

However, I do struggle to feel sympathy for this lad. I feel sympathy in the sense of it must be hard having your dad live with a second family, but he seems to be making it all about the money rather than addressing the true emotions.

This trust fund is clearly massive, I presume well into the 6 figures. He will get plenty upon the death of his father. OP has said that her husband ensures to have big expensive holidays with his children as well as his immediate family. He presumably got child maintenance paid to his mum and is being supported through uni. He is absolutely fine, is being supported by the DH's generated income, and is just being grabby.

It's shit that people are piling on OP for her husband having paid for the ski trip. The son is awful for thinking that every penny spent on OP's children needs to be reimbursed from OP's assets upon her death, when he is benefiting from a massive trust fund. I presume OP's children are teenagers but I'd be fucking devastated if I were them. It's absolutely fucking vile. Of course the husband is angry that his son is sniffing around the assets of his wife who is alive and well! What's he going to do if his dad dies first and OP needs care fees in the future? I guess he expects an amount to be ring-fenced just for him and when the funds deplete the OP can just fuck off into a council care home?

It's classic Mumsnet that everyone is acting like the son is hard done by here.

So many people don't inherit anything. My dad inherited 40k from his parents and spent it on an extension to his council house (terrible idea) without getting planning permission and it ended up demolished. I knew it was an awful idea but it was his money. He did provide me with a £2000 loan from the inheritance to cover conveyancing fees so that I could get on the property ladder, and I was presented with a contract and a payment schedule to repay the loan. And I'm the child of the "second family", not the woefully hard done by "first family" stereotype on Mumsnet. His first 2 kids did bloody well because he was a decent bloke and left their mum the house that he had provided the deposit (and years of mortgage payments) for upon the divorce as he wanted to support them. He felt so guilty about the divorce and the effect on his kids hence why he left her the house. He was never able to buy again. His ex wife went on to have more kids with a new partner and those kids will benefit from that house (which my half-sister delightfully tells me is now worth £500,000) whilst I get fuck all.

I don't go interrogating my dad about that decision though, because I'm not a grabby, privileged little so and so. So the son here has got a massive nerve the way he has spoken to his father after essentially being provided with a lifetime of support and security.

Tiny violin comes to mind. If the thread had been about the stepson feeling pushed out then I'd be more understand but it's all money money money.

There is no right to see the finances just because he is 18, who on earth does he think he is- if your DH so chose he would not see any of the finances until he died and the probate was granted, DH should tell his son that like everyone else he has to wait and see what he will inherit, if anything- it is never certain.

The SS is feeling rejected. I assume most posters calling him a scrote or anything else haven’t had to watch their Mum or Dad and their new families enjoying themselves with Dad (or Mum) paying for it all. It’s not hard to see he is feeling insecure and rejected.

I’m in my late 40s and have similarly aged brothers. We have a dad who was quite shit and didn’t do much for us as kids and we can see that when he dies, he will leave everything to his partner. I don’t need any money and wouldn’t care from a financial point of view but I would see it as another act of rejection - rightly or wrongly. In mine and my siblings eyes, we’ve been constantly rejected by him for years in one way or another - his new (not new now) partner was always more important than us and leaving her everything would just confirm that.

I don’t think it’s about being grabby. Obviously I could be wrong but he’s an 18 year old kid who perhaps can’t really explain why he’s feeling like he is.

Kindly funding a school trip isn't necessarily treating children "exactly the same", it's just funding a school trip.
The reality is, if children have a wealthy stepparent then they will likely benefit - it would be weirder and more awkward to determindly penny-pinch.

There is no confirmation that he paid for the ski trip.
The question was asked.
For all we know he contributed to it without paying for it in its entirety.

The Dad doesn't appear to be on deaths door. Presumably he could live for decades and then require a great deal of paid for care. There is no inheritance as yet.

Planning on invoicing any surviving spouse (if that is indeed the Op, who knows) seems premature.

See, I don’t really. It would be one thing if the expenditure meant the partners children going without. But there’s no suggestion of that. I just don’t think it’s ok to be totting up what parents spend their disposable income on and expecting it back in some way. This young man has a guaranteed inheritance. But he’s now effectively asking for his dad’s portion too. And that isn’t ok.

I once had a friend who was from a very well off background. Parents divorced, father went on to meet someone and remarry years later to a woman who had a child and my friend was very angry that this boy would get anything from her father. She would actually say it was her inheritance. It was deeply entitled and unpleasant and we ended up drifting apart because I felt it showed a side of her which was really unpleasant.

That’s not the point though, is it?

The son resents seeing his father treat someone else’s children in a way that most would consider parental, to the extent that he’s shoehorned them into family events they weren’t even invited to, and paid for ski trips.

The idea that step and bio children should be treated the same may be nice in theory, but in reality can be quite damaging.

That’s what I am saying. I haven’t seen anywhere in OP’s posts saying SS is being completely bankrolled through uni by his dad (apologies if I have missed that).

Funding children through uni doesn’t necessarily mean “no loan” or paying for everything. it can mean covering rent, bills, giving them an allowance.

That is kind and generous - to you. For some people, kind and generous is different things.

I went to private school on a bursary and had a friend’s dad offer to cover the cost of a ski trip if I wanted to go - that is also kind and generous. It wasn’t at the cost of his own children having or doing anything they wanted.

no where does it say that the ski trip was paid for at the expense of his own children missing out on anything they wanted.

Where does it say he has funded them through school and university (bearing in mind 17yo hasn’t started uni yet)? OP says dad will support him at uni but that doesn’t necessarily mean paying for everything and no need for loans. Most parents have to provide some form of financial support, most parents don’t pay tuition fees and all accommodation etc costs

This kid is extremely lucky in that he has a guaranteed inheritance in his future. That's very unusual, because most of us won't know whether we get one or not, due to the possibility of care costs using it up. But this not-a- trust is a definite, so he's not reliant on his dad not needing care or whatever else might eat up his dad's capital.

He's being horribly grabby, considering that his dad pays for him to go on expensive holidays and meets all his needs.

OP and her ex had saved hard for her son's trip, but couldn't quite reach the amount required. They didn't expect DH to pay for it, but he thoughtfully made up the difference. Considering how many people complain that step children aren't treated like family, I don't see why OP is being spoken about as if she's a gold digger.

I can’t tell whether he is or not. He does seems fairly well off. If I married a man better of than me & my ex and moved my two kids in to a nice house, went on lovely holidays paid for by him etc I’d feel self conscious about what his kids made of it. Which might be a factor.

Nowhere does it say that because OP’s child had a ski trip paid for, that the 2 son’s have gone without.
You also don’t know that the OP’s husband hasn’t been “loyal” to his own children? Finding them through schooling and uni to me sounds like private school was probably paid for, along with which there will have been countless ski trips and other extra curriculars.

some children feel a great deal of entitlement to their parent’s money and some children don’t like it when they think that money is getting spent in a way that doesn’t benefit them.

People are missing these key facts:

OP’s children are step siblings not half siblings. There is no blood relationship with her DH, or his children.

The SS has not mentioned the “trust”. The OP has added this for context.

The OP has said she intends returning to her home country, suggesting she expects her DH to pre decease her. She may be his main beneficiary if he does.

The OP does have an ex who contributes towards their children.

Adding these together, you can see why the SS is unhappy to see his father spending money on the OP’s children and he wants to know to what extent that will affect his and his sibling’s inheritance from their father.

I know he hasn’t any actual rights to his father’s money, but surely you can see where he’s coming from.

He sounds loaded, I'm sure he can afford it.

You don’t know what level of support the husband provides. There is simply not enough information.

the idea that an 18 year old should be able to audit their parents finances and bill a surviving spouse for monies owed is absurd.

nobody spends ALL their money on their own children - I certainly don’t. That doesn’t mean my children go without or that they are not well provided for. I’m entitled to some privacy.

Kind and generous is a nice birthday present. Paying for a ski trip is parental level support. Op says her ex pays his way and she works. These kids have two parents to support them.

Yes it’s a nice thing to do but DH doesn’t exist in a bubble, he has two children of his own to support and prioritise.