Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

On reflection, was this wrong of me?

61 replies

SplatteredEasterBunny · 23/04/2011 09:13

It doesn't really matter now, it was a while ago and it's all hit the fan now anyway but I just want some opinions on one of the many incidents that ultimately led to the end of my relationship.

So I have a 10 year old daughter. Live with my partner (he moved in with me) and he had a son who at the time was still living with his mother.

I am the breadwinner earning almost double was DP earns.

One day I bought DD some £65 trainers. I could afford them. She needed some new trainers. She liked these ones. I liked these ones. So I bought them.

When we got home DP started an argument with me about how DD is spoilt and he feels "awful" to see DD "swanning" around in designer gear when his own son walks around in "cheap shit". Remember the lad didnt even live with us and we were paying maintanance.

So he asked me to buy his son the same trainers to "make up for it" and then even suggested I pay a monthly "clothing allowance" towards his DS to make up for the stuff DD gets.

I was in the right to tell him to fuck off, right?

OP posts:
VajazzHands · 23/04/2011 15:09

But presumably the child already has 2 parents providing desperatly? And can you actually imagine asking your partner for a clothign allowance? Shock

Blu · 23/04/2011 15:10

A ittle sensitivity can go further than money, sometimes.

desperatelyseekingsnoozes · 23/04/2011 15:14

I buy clothes for my stepson all of the time. The money belongs to my husband and I. So it is not him paying for it or me paying for it but us as a couple because my husband has a son. I chose to be with my husband and therefore I chose to support his child. Just as my husband supports my child from my first marriage.

VajazzHands · 23/04/2011 15:17

Ah but it doesn't sound at those her partner was supporting child from first marriage- he was just upset and wanted more for his dc with out working for it. ALso we don't know how long they were together she just says after they moved in to together. I think the fact that you married shows more of a fmaily commitment which the Op hadnt taken on.

QuintEggSentialPaints · 23/04/2011 15:18

So, your dp was expecting THREE adults pay up for his son? The sons mum, him, AND you?

Will your dps ex sort a clothing allowance for YOUR dd, to make up for whatever stuff his son gets from her?

desperatelyseekingsnoozes · 23/04/2011 15:22

As I said before I am sure there is more to this than this thread states.

I would have thought that when you have children you live with people to whom you have a serious commimtment on a par with marriage.

I agree the commitment should go both ways.

PartofthePuzzle · 23/04/2011 15:42

I agree with desperately. I am in a blended family with my partner and we try to treat the children as equally as possible. Family money is shared so it's irrelevant who earns it, you can't make those sorts of divisions as it just leads to bitterness. If you just want to spend your money on your own dc then it's not sensible to live together if you can't make that sort of commitment.

Eglu · 23/04/2011 15:47

I think YANBU, your DSS has two parents to provide for him, if they can't buy him the trainers why whould you?

ItsCHEEKYTime · 23/04/2011 15:48

you wouldnt pay £40 for converse all stars but you paid £65 for some different trainers! Hmm

Bloodymary · 23/04/2011 15:56

ItsCHEEKYTime, yes she did, and why on earth not?

Sometimes you just know that your DC will wear an item and get your moneys worth. Other times you simply know that the item will end up at the back of a cupboard.

albania · 23/04/2011 15:58

YWNBU
I don't have much else to say, considering the relationship is already over.

QuintEggSentialPaints · 23/04/2011 16:27

converse is a fashion item, hardly worth it paying through your nose for something that ultimately is not so comfortable, compared to a good pair of trainers.

nijinsky · 23/04/2011 17:43

YANBU. He sounds a bit of a golddigger. His DS lives in a seperate household and will never notice it. His request was to make him feel better, at your expense.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 23/04/2011 17:50

I think that the biological parents should legally be financially responsible for their own children regardless of any other relationships and circumstances. There just wouldn't be this issue then.

janetsplanet · 23/04/2011 17:52

i think, when you take on a partner (male or female) you also take on the children. so OP shouldnt have just one DC, she now has 2 DC.
did the ex pay towards mortgage, food shopping, water rates, electric, gas etc. stuff OPs DD was using? if so he was supporting her. OP should also support his DS

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 23/04/2011 17:56

At what point do you take on somebody else's children though? Some people introduce kids at very early stages in their relationship and if they aren't committed to it, or break up, how is that good for the child(ren)?

Quattrocento · 23/04/2011 17:57

My DD costs around 5 times as much to clothe as my DS. They are both mine biologically and we live in a nuclear family unit (ie with their birth father).

This is because DD pesters for fashionable stuff from Jack Wills and Ted Baker and FCUK. I only buy a tiny proportion of the stuff that she pesters me for, but still, it ends up costing me far more. This is because DS is perfectly happy with anything I buy for him providing he doesn't have to shop for it.

The inequity was probably in your DP's mind rather than his son's and stemmed from other causes. I don't see why you should take on financial responsibility for a child when you don't have parental responsibility. But perhaps that is because I have no insight into blended families - which all sound hugely difficult to manage

desperatelyseekingsnoozes · 23/04/2011 18:06

I think when you move in together you take on that commitment.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 23/04/2011 18:09

Yes, but people move out again just as easily. There isn't the same commitment in all cases and I don't believe that every parent cares the same for step children as they do for their own. Do they maintain relationships with the child once the relationship with the parent is over?

desperatelyseekingsnoozes · 23/04/2011 18:11

Yes I suppose I am making the assumption that people are not running their families with revolving doors. Surely most of us who have children only live with people we think we are making a life time commitment to. I say that as a divorced woman so I am not judging people for those relatioships that go wrong

Diggs · 23/04/2011 18:27

You were absoluteley right to tell him to fuck off . Your not responsible for his son and he was bizarre to expect you to start funding his son when he doesnt even live with you . If he did live with you that would be differant , but then youd be getting maintenance from his mother wouldnt you .

I dont agree that when you take on a partner you take on their children , it all depends on who lives where . Im currently seeing someone with children , we dont live together and even if we did i wouldnt be funding them , theyve got a mother and thats her job . By the same standard i wouldnt expect my kids dads girlfreind to shell out for trainers for them . Why should she ?

fishtankneedscleaning · 23/04/2011 19:18

Confusion has set in here Confused If you and DP were both earning and the child was not living with you - therefore living with his mother I presume? Why could his mother or father not buy him new trainers? I don't see it as your responsibility, as a part time step mother, to buy trainers for a child who has both bio parents in his life TBH.

RumourOfAHurricane · 23/04/2011 19:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Northeastgirl · 23/04/2011 19:26

Not your responsibility to clothe his child (unless totally necessary) but I think £65 is a lot of money for kids' trainers

skybluepearl · 23/04/2011 20:35

his mum and dad should be clothing him really. it would be nice to have things completely and perfectly equal but life isn't so cut and dried. maybe his dad could have offered to give extra top up money next time new trainers were needed to enable son to buy more expensive trainers? if you had been together happily for along time and as a couple had properly shared incomes then i do think it would be fine to buy expensive trainers for both kids.