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been using the our joint account to buy his DDs bits and pieces eg among other things £30 spent in New Look and cash withdrawn here and there when he's been with them and almost £25 in mcds, all of which he told me about but I assumed it would be him paying out of his account, not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!

[DoingitOnTheRoofTopWithSanta]

I would also say that while Christmas is an unusla time and you have to expect to blow money... maternity leave is also an unusual time and if you cant afford ipads and mcdonalds. YOu dont buy them,

[OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos]

I'd like to ask the mothers on this thread a question. Imagine your family had a joint bank account that both you and your DH/DP considered was there for family needs. Then imagine your DH/DP told you you were only allowed to spend money from that account on two of your four children.

Would you really be comfortable with that?

[Rudolphstolemycarrots]

I do think leggings can actually be essential and not extra if a child has few clothes. Nappies are more essential though!! Work out how much you need and request he puts x amount into the account to cover the cost of things. You and you DD should not be left short just because he went crazy in MD's and New Look.

I think you both need to sit down and work out an appropriate amount for you both to spend on all the children. Budget essentials first like nappies, pants etc. Then work out where the money should come from.

[Rudolphstolemycarrots]

Outraged - so two children would be entitled to unnecessary luxury items (Mc Donalds and fashion clothes) while the other children wouldn't be entitled to the basics (nappies and wet wipes)? Madness!

[wewereherefirst]

My DH used to be unreliable with money, so I did a spreadsheet of incomings and outgoings. If there's money left at the end then we can both spend it where fit, a joint account is joint and both parties should be consulted if something else than the norm is coming from it!

[OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos]

That's not what I said carrots.

[RacHoHoHog]

Outraged, that would be your joint money being spent on your joint children though. Of course if all the money was joint then he would pay for the dd's from there but as it stands they have a joint acc for their household bills and joint Dd and he usually has plenty left in his own account for his own dds. It just happens that on this occasion he has overspent his budget and took from his youngest to give to his eldest.
If spending money for all dc was to come from the joint pot thwn the dh should be putting extra in. Why should ops Dd go without so that the elder two can have, whilst the dp has lots of spending money in his own account?

[EMS23]

Arisbottle it sounds like we have very similar DH's. I, as a stepmother, support my DSS in many ways, including financially. I always will, he's my responsibility but that's my choice and not expected of me by anyone.

But I strongly disagree that people shouldn't have subsequent children if the first ones will suffer financially. Every time a family, together or not, adds a new sibling the existing DC's suffer financially and who can say where that line should be drawn? Who can say what is essential and what is luxury? It's all relative to each families circumstances and when it's trotted out as a reply on here, it oversimplifies the matter.

[Viviennemary]

I know it's hard but I think it's best to not think of this as a step-parenting issue. But the point is he overspent and there isn't enough money for essentials like nappies. It isn't because those children are step children but because he spent money unwisely. I am not a step parent and haven't been a step child. But that's my opinion so if I've got it all massively wrong I apologise.

[mercibucket]

But outraged, how is that the same at all? How would you feel if 2 of those 4 children were getting a financial contribution from an outside person and the other 2 were not for a start.
The op's dh should be paying for his children, all of them. The op has arranged finances almost as if she is getting maintenance from an ex, so he pays a set amount to a joint account to be spent on her dd. Not to be spent on his other children. He has a separate financial agreement with the mother of his other children. It's not how I would arrange my finances but it does seem quite logical.

[EMS23]

Viviennemary I think you've got it spot on.

[OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos]

Outraged, that would be your joint money being spent on your joint children though.

Exactly! You would effectively be excluding your own children from something fundamental to your living as your bank account.q They are all his children!

I don't believe that any mother on this thread that has children by two different Fathers would ever get themselves into a situation where they have two bank accounts, but only selected children would be able to be supported by both of them.

[KellyEllyChristmasBelly]

Maybe part of this problem is whether you consider clothes and treat time with the non resident children 'essential' or not.

Personally, I would consider them essential. Not more essential to getting food and nappies for the baby, but they are, in my opinion, as important. WTF??? As important as food and nappies which are a basic need for a baby. That's a very strange way of thinking!!

[OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos]

Mercibucket, I just don't agree with any of that. It doesn't seem logical to me at all.

[merrymouse]

It doesn't really matter what he spent the money on. The OP had budgeted that it would cover other costs. As Viviennemary says, this is really more financial openness and honesty in a marriage.

[OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos]

It's not about food and nappies though KellyElly.

OP said she wanted to get a Christmas tree and a stocking for her own dd with the money. I don't see how either of those are worth more than a chance to have time alone with your children who you don't get to live with, or how they are more important than clothes.

[RacHoHoHog]

His children have access to his bank account though, it is just a seperate one. They all have access to his money, what you are saying is that his first two children get access to all accounts, the one allocated to them and the one allocated to his younger Dd.

I have children by 2 fathers and dp has his own Dd. I pay for my own children of both fathers with my own money. He pays for his own daughter from his own money. Any extras my first dc need I get from the maintenance from their father. Anything baby needs I ask dp for a contribution.

I did however buy dsd some winter clothes and her Christmas presents this year because dp has been in and out of work. So dsd then became a joint expense.

I don't expect dp to fund my dc and he doesn't expect me to fund his, I also don't expense ex to fund my new baby it dsd.

[timeforachangebaby]

Its not about justifying spending money on his own children, its about justifying spending money he HASNT GOT exactly as if he had bought himself an ipad he couldnt afford.

FWIW, my DC1 is a lot older than my others, and there is money that comes in as maint for his dad that is ringfenced for him. I do not believe my ex husband pays me money to be spent on the other children in the house. Clearly a large proportion of it goes on food and bills, but DC1 certainly has more "stuff" and def no second hand stuff, than my other DCs, but they are too young to notice and at the end of the day, I have made the choices I have made.

That said, DC1 does not get anywhere near the amount spent on him he did pre my "second children", life is not all about money, and I believe he has "non financial" benefits to having siblings. If I had stayed with his dad the same would have happened, financially, he would have had less.

I would be livid if the money that goes into the joint account (and is budgeted for to the penny), was spent on anything additional. That covers essentials.

We then have a joint credit card that covers everything else,neither DH or I would make unilateral decisions on spending lots of money though,

[OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos]

Timeforachange, it sounds like your arrangement works for you and that's fine, it can work well when there is enough money. If you found yourself in a situation where your youngest child actually needed something and your oldest child's 'ring fenced' money was the only money you had available right at that time, wouldn't you spend it on the thing that your family most immediately needs?

[timeforachangebaby]

Probably not no - but then I don't see all of my maintenance as family money, I feel quite strongly that exh doesn't work to provide for me and mine, he works (bloody hard and long hours) to provide for him and DC1.

So unless it came to the point we literally couldn't eat/keep a roof over our hears, that ring fenced part would stay ring fenced, DC is older and it is transferred directly to their account.

Exh is on more money than our whole household income and when things are tight, it would be easy to dip into DC1s money, especially when DC1 was younger, but the choice to have additional DCs and for me to more or less become a SAHM was mine and DHs not exhs and DC1s.

It may have been harder if the age gap was smaller, as they may notice they have everything second hand and DC1 doesnt, but its not an issue.

I wouldn't for example use DC1s money to pay for a school trip for DCs 2 or 3 etc.

[foreverondiet]

I don't really get separate accounts - my DH and I share all our money and discuss any purchase that isn't really necessary. I think when you are sharing a house and food and children totally impossible and impractical to keep money separate in a totally fair way and best to just give up and have one joint account, especially when on maternity leave.

Out of your total money, you (both) need to fund presents for his children, and as they are older than one, they will need more expensive presents than a baby who doesn't know what Christmas or presents are.

That all being said you aren't earning, so if he used the money you'd saved for essentials like nappies and milk or Christmas presents he can't afford then he will have to fund the essentials like nappies are milk.

So I think you are being a bit U for various reasons.

[MulleredWhines]

Oh come off it - in 3 years time when you take ALL of your children to Mcdonalds, how are you proposing to split the bill ? You pay for one happy meal for your child, and he pays for 2 for 'HIS' children ?

Do you really have no money for milk and nappies? You say the account is 'low' - not empty then ?

YABU.

[Snazzyfeelingfestive]

Agree that this is a family budgeting issue rather than primarily a step one. OP has been hard done byin that she is still paying the same amount into the joint account despite not earning, and has to scrimp to buy stuff from her own account, only to find her husband merrily using the joint account to buy indulgences. Not fair and all this needs to be discussed calmly but without special pleading that favours one child over another. And OP should be paying proportionately less, not more, into joint funds.

[exoticfruits]

Have a joint account and discuss it seems the best option and treat all the DCs as an equal part of the family- bearing in mind that a baby doesn't need much- and they are really not going to look back at photos and feel aggrieved! (Or not unless they have a personality problem)

[JenaiMathis]

I'm interested to know how large this buffer is. Are you actually unable to buy nappies, or is that you don't want to eat into a £500 safety net, OP?

Totally agree that this is, for now, a finance rather than a step issue.