DH spending our joint money on his DCs

[ilikelongnaps]

I just want to post here to see if IABU before i tackle this with DH. I'm on mat leave atm receiving stat mat pay so things are tighter than usual. DH and I have a joint acc which we use for our DDs things (although if i'm buying her something not necessarily needed eg a new dress I'll use my own account. We put in an equal amount of money to the joint acc and i like to keep a buffer in there.

Xmas is coming and bearing in mind things are tight this year I've been so careful with buying for our dd. It's her first xmas and wont even notice that she has n't got stacks of gifts so i'm not bothered really but if i could i would have got her a few extra toys etc. I've bought her things with money from my own account and DH hasn't contributed to this.

Today i was checking our joint account online and its ALOT lower than I had expected. It turns out DH has been using the our joint account to buy his DDs bits and pieces eg among other things £30 spent in New Look and cash withdrawn here and there when he's been with them and almost £25 in mcds, all of which he told me about but I assumed it would be him paying out of his account, not ours. I know he's bought his DDs big xmas gifts this year that he said has left him short of money but now i'm stuck with hardly any money in the account to buy dd nappies and milk etc. and we were going to buy an xmas tree and a dd's first stocking.

It's not fair that he knows I'm not earning what I was and i'm going back to work in the new year but i was so careful and not done alot of things with dd that i would have liked to while ive been on mat leave and felt guilty about taking money from the joint account for 'fun' things and not bought any clothes for myself (I wouldn't spend £30 in New Look on myself atm as i wouldn't be able to justify it) and it just seems a bit unfair that just because he's low in his account he can just use our money to treat his dds which i would have no problem with if we could afford it but we can't.

So that was long! I guess i'm ranting and ordinarily i wouldn't mind him using our joint acc to pay for stuff for his dds as long as our dd was stocked in nappies and formula which i think are more important than a 10yo getting some leggings!

Poppy it's a case by case basis. I had two pretty easy going babies and managed consultancy contracts throughout both my mat leaves. Only a few hours per week but managed to bring in some extra income. Some babies sleep a lot and are pretty easy work.

If you were in recept of smp or ma and did more than ten normal working days worth of work during the whole time you were on ml, then you committed fraud

Sockreturning no it is not all about money but that is certainly a factor. Whether it is ensuring they have a comfortable home to live in or paying for hobbies .

So maybe the OPs DH should be looking for a second job to supplement his spending - rather than expecting the OP to fund his overspending by finding work while she is on maternity leave.

A child with 2 active parents in there life,has 2 parents to take responsibility for basic maintaining of the child then luxury maintaining of the child in accordance with there income and other financial responsibilities.

A parent who has responsibility for more than one child should not be splurging on some but not the others. To do so would be a disservice to all the children involved.

I never understand couple who have separate accounts and not all joint. Aren't you married? Don't you share everything?

Yes they're his dds and not yours, but they deserve the odd treat too, just like your infant dd will too one day. You both need to make sure there's enough money for nappies and milk though. Are you sure things are that dire?

I think you're being a bit of a meanie. Are you sure you're not jealous of the care and attention he gives his dds?

Our stepson is lucky to have three adults in his life. I am sure to be honest he would rather have had just two , his biological mother and father .

I agree that a parent should not splurge on one and ignore the others, however he should ensure that he can support the first before having another .

This thread is the perfect example of why I try to never breathe a word on here about my beloved ss. (I accidentally referred to my son as DTS2 )

NotaDisneyMum is right, we can't win! I don't dare post anything about him (plus, I think his mother may be on here) but I lurk and take my advice from the step parenting board if I have a question... Not posting though.
Wording a step parenting question the wrong way will have you eaten alive on this forum. Or abused anyway because you dared to marry and have children with a man who was already a father.

An iPad is not a 'reasonable present' for a 10yo when it means that her younger sister won't even have a Christmas tree, and is short on nappies and formula.

You can't dress that up as reasonable in any way, shape or form.

The stepchild thing doesn't matter here.

It would be like me buying an iPad for each of my older DC's and buying my 22 month old nothing.

Never going to happen.

Yes, ok, the toddler has had far less spent on him - but he still HAS presents!

If all three DC's were joint DC's, it wouldn't make this any less wrong.

The problem isn't the fact that they are stepchildren at all. The problem is the OP's DH being a Disney Dad to his eldest 2 DC's whilst being a shit dad to his youngest.

Put quite bluntly, that's what it boils down to.

Where is HIS contribution to his DD's Christmas? It's winging it's way to her older siblings, that's where. And that's just plain wrong.

Two iPads = about £800. If that was the OP's DH's total present budget, then it should have been split THREE ways, not two. Three DC's, that makes by my calculations, an equal split at around the £265 each mark. Maybe allow for the stepDC's being older, and spend £300 each on the older two, and £200 on the baby. Or £325 on each if the older two and £150 on the baby.

He has got THREE DC's now, and should be splitting his total present budget THREE ways now, not two. If that means he can't afford the 'grand gesture' presents of iPads for the older two, well then that's just the way life goes. He can still buy them stuff, just not an iPad.

My 14yo DD REALLY wants the new Samsung camera. If she was my only DC, then maybe she could have it. But she's not. I have 4 DC's. So she won't be getting it. I wouldn't buy that for her and leave my other 3 DC's with NO presents, that's not how having multiple DC's works!!

I'm NOT a SM, btw. But if the OP and her DH have another DC, do you not think that it will affect how much the OP spends on their DD?!

You have a present budget of £800. If you have one DC, you will probable spend a maximum of £300 on them. You have two DC's, you would probably spend up to £300 on each of them. You have three DC's, you then have to start to spend LESS on EACH child, so that you aren't leaving one child with far less than the others. You have four DC's, you spend less on each again, down to £200 each maximum now.

If your present budget hasn't increased with each additional DC, then the only right and fair thing to do is to drop the amount spent in EACH child.

Surely that's just common sense?! Which obviously needs pointing out to the OP's DH.

She needs to point out that his present budget now needs to be split three ways, not two!

Even my ex, with Autism and LD's has copped on to that since we had a second DC together and split up...

He has only ever had a £300 budget. It used to all be spent on my DS2, his only child. Since we had my DS3, his second DC, he now spends £150 on each of them. Didn't think that was rocket science tbh...

Arisbottle - I am the RP, and while I think a father should ensure he can continue to pay reasonable maintenance if he chooses to have further DC's in a new relationship, NO WAY would I expect DS1's dad to continue to spend the sane amount on presents now he has FOUR DC's to buy for (DS1with me, his SDS from his partner, his DS2 and his DD with his partner) that he did when he just had our DS1!

That is insanio!

I don't still spend the same on DS1 now as I did before I had my DS2 and DS3 for presents either.

You can't change essential living expenses, therefore maintenance should not change when an NRP has further DC's in a new relationship IMO.

However, I would fully expect my Ex to spend less at Christmas on DS1 now that he has 3 younger DC's to buy for. It doesn't make a difference that DS1 was here first, or that he was older, why should his younger half siblings miss out and get nothing just so that he can have an Xbox or whatever?!

That is ridiculous. My DS1 would not expect that or even think that. He would WANT his younger half siblings to have a tree and some presents MORE than he wants the Xbox. And he REALLY wants an Xbox!

I can't understand the mentality of an RP who would like to see their DC's younger half siblings go without presents at Christmas just so that THEIR DC doesn't have to get slightly less. I actually can't wrap my head around THAT kind of bitterness.

As long as they can still pay the prior amount of maintenance, that is for essential LIVING expenses, any other drop in treats and presents is to be expected, surely, and would be no different if you were still in a relationship with that DC's NRP and chose to have another DC.

God, this thread really has me riled.

I would far rather my Exes have my DC's their TIME than any grand gesture presents. It's not an iPad that my DC's will remember in 30 years time - it's whether they remembered this trip to the woods where they watched a squirrel, or they got a hug from their dad...

An iPad is far less important than their time.

Why is he buggering off out to New Look and McD's with just the older two anyway? Can't he take the baby along too, and go to the park instead, and give you a break? Then all 3 siblings get to spend time together. Which wouldn't cost anything either.

He really needs to learn to budget for the fact that he now has THREE DC's.

And talking about the earlier poster who said DC's don't want to save for their previous iPads - you're wrong. Not ALL DC's are like that.

My DS1 desperately wants a 3ds. He has wanted one since they came out. For the last two Birthdays, and last Christmas, he asked for money and has been saving it up. He is now just £30 away from getting it, and is jumping with excitement that he might have enough after Christmas to buy it. It's taken him two years of getting practically no presents to save up for it, but save he has. He's been saving since his eighth birthday. He is ten and a half now!

Not ALL DC's lack the understanding that having an extra DC, whether it is their mum and dad together, or their mum and a new partner, or their dad and a new partner, is going to mean that they have less spent on them.

We have four children in addition to our stepson , we hope to have more . We have never reduced what we pay to our stepson because we have chosen to have more children. We did decrease the amount of support when his mother went back to work and that enabled me to have a child, however in real terms there was no decrease as we paid off her mortgage.

OP chose to create her family in this way. She knew she was getting involved with a man who has financial commitments and two little girls who he was likely to want to spend money on. She doesn't get to come along and uproot that, she gets to come along and fit into it

IMO its not a case of either 'fitting in' or 'uprooting'. There is a massive negotiable space in between the two. OP is a person too and her DP has also chosen HER to be part of his family, rather than staying a single dad. Of course she shouldn't have to live her life (financial or otherwise) going along with whatever her DP and his children want no matter what.

The terms being used joint finances, financial unit, shared finances strike terror into me.

I was a financial unit with my ex for 12 years - there was no his and mine, it was ours.

He spent our money on gambling and porn - when I found out, we were weeks away from defaulting on the mortgage.

Funnily enough, the idea of joint finances is not one I'm entirely comfortable with now.

As it happens, my DP and I have both financially supported each other over the last two years as we have both been without any income at different times.
If my DP had ever given me the impression that he expected me to support the financial indulgence of his DCs, I'd be gone.
It's a state of mind - if a couple view each others money as their own, there is always the risk that a fundamental difference in values will bring things crashing down.

This is an excellent post and pretty much sums up how I feel about this whole thing.

I don't think it is about one child being worth more than another, rather you should not have another child if you can't meet the needs of the existing children , whatever the family arrangement

However when you have a situation where one parent has left the family home and set up home with another partner , extra care has to be taken to ensure the previous family are not left feeling abandoned or neglected.

And Sock, no it shouldn't have to revolve around money, you are right. But sometimes, it does have to revolve around money if a Father wants to spend some time alone with his oldest children, which is almost certainly what the children will want sometimes. The DH can't kick his wife and small child out of their home while he has some alone time with his DC, so where is he supposed to take them in this weather? If he wants to spend time with them without an attention demanding baby around, then he is likely to need to take them somewhere that requires money to be spent. The way I see it, this is an essential expense, it's not a treat.

And why is everyone still ignoring the fact that there is 'buffer' money in this account, and that it's OP who wants it there? Why is it being assumed that the DH is contributing nothing to his third child's Christmas when it's highly unlikely that that is the case?

We don't even know for certain that the DH paid the full cost of the iPads. He may have gone halves with his ex, it would still be a considerable expense if he only paid half.

Arisbottle, you sound like a lovely step Mum that I would welcome with open arms into the lives of my children. Thankfully, the mother of my children's half sibling is very similar.

outraged Your DCs stepmum, you mean?
What a convoluted way of referring to her - an easy, understandable label is available

Because we've read the ops posts and she's said that she has bought their dds presents as he was short after buying the iPads.

She has also said that buying the mcd out of the joint account wouldn't usually be a problem but as she is on mat leave and due to the cost of the iPads they don't have the money at the moment.

I'm saddened by what I'm reading here. She should get less because she came second?

So she has to be financially punished because her dad had a previous relationship?

That is insane! It's not fair whether you think babies should get less presents or not!

We budget for presents for my bio children and my sd. Imagine I decided to spend £100 each on my children because I want to treat them but £10 on sd because I ran out of money on the other fancy presents?

You'd all be up in arms. But it's ok because this child chose to be fathered by a man who has children. Oh wait. She didn't chose did she?

In a way she is my dcs step mum, but we didn't start referring to my DH as step Dad until after we were married. My ex and his girlfriend are not married, and my children don't stay with her when they have overnight visits with their Dad. He takes them to his Mums because my dc don't get on brilliantly with the step mums other dc from her previous relationship. They have some time all together and they go on holidays all together, but my children would be very upset if every weekend they had with their Dad they were also forced to spend time with children, one of whom is very difficult and they have fair reason not to like.

Either way, she's lovely, and she and I get on well.

So she has to be financially punished because her dad had a previous relationship?

This is ridiculous, and not what I have said. But you could just as easily turn it around and say that the oldest children are bing financially punished because their Dad decided to have a new relationship.

Why should the oldest children miss out on something that both of their two parents want to buy for them because the new wife isn't happy about it?

Moomin, so the OP has bought presents out of her own money for her own child that the DH hasn't contributed to? So what? That doesn't translate into 'DH has bought nothing for the baby and OP has bought everything'. It means that OP has bought stuff that wasn't needed but that she wanted to out of her own money. I can't see a problem. The step children's Mother has probably done exactly the same and bought presents for her own children that their Father hasn't contributed to as well. And that's ok.

outraged Do you and your DCs live together in another home, away from your DH, rather than live together as a family?
Do you have one home with your DCs and another with your DH?

And outraged wasn't your older DC financially punished when you had your younger, or did your household income increase every time you had another child?

No, obviously not. My DH and I chose to get married. My ex and his girlfriend have not made that commitment to each other, nor do either of them want to. My ex's commitment to his girlfriend is no different to the commitment he has to me, except they choose to have a personal relationship on top of that.

Ah, marriage. That one in a lifetime, til death us do part commitment.

Makes a difference to the stability of a relationship, does it?