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been using the our joint account to buy his DDs bits and pieces eg among other things £30 spent in New Look and cash withdrawn here and there when he's been with them and almost £25 in mcds, all of which he told me about but I assumed it would be him paying out of his account, not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

It is a bit odd to have 2 of your DCs from one account and the third from another, when they are siblings.

Outraged I asked that as I wanted to know whether you were seeing it from the OPs perspective or not. You have a partner with no children from a previous relationship, he is a step parent to your children and a dad to the children you have had together. You have never been in the OPs position where you are being asked to contribue financially for another womans child so your view is from a completely differnt perspective.

Not really. I find the idea of splitting accounts a bit odd generally, but the way I understand it, when people set up a joint account for joint expenses they put in either 50:50 - unfair IMO as one person might earn twice what the other does - or a % of their earnings, and this money pays for the costs of running the home they share. The rest of their money is theirs to spend as they see fit. In this case essential purchases for their joint child are covered, as is food for his DC when they're around.

boney Are you a mum/dad?

How would you feel if someone else (your DCs step-parent) referred to your DCs as theirs?

Step-parents really can't win, can we?
If we refer to a child as ours we overstep, but if we refer to them as our partners rather than imply a relationship then we are also in the wrong.

I give up! OP - it's clear that no matter what you do, someone will be quick to tell you how terrible it is that you love/support/pay for your DSC, and someone else equally quick to point out how terrible it is that you don't!

Basically, he can't have his cake and eat it, but that's exactly what he's doing. He gets to spend £££ on Christmas presents for two of his DC without having to agree the cost with his partner (as they have split finances) and then bails himself out by misusing their joint account to cover more treats for his DC that he can't afford.

If they had joint finances I'd imagine the OP would have pointed out they can't afford to be spending so much on presents when she's on maternity leave. As it is, he's getting to splash his cash around and use money earmarked for household expenses to bail him out because he's overspent.

On the off chance that the OP hasn't been scared off, please take this as an opportunity to sort out your finances. What you've done in the past may need to change now. You've said this isn't the first time he's done this, but that it matters because you're not earning fully ATM. I think it matters full stop. Your DD will grow up and need more money spending on her - childcare costs, school uniforms, trips, pricier gifts - and you can't and shouldn't have to keep paying for more than your share of that to cover his overspending.

Notadisneymum I think there is a difference between treating a child as an equal member of your family and claiming that they are yours.

ilikelongnaps: I hope you have managed a conversation with your DH about this. IMO YANBU. Your DD should not have to miss out so that her SSibs can have more spent on their Christmas. Also, if the plan is for you to spend equally as a family on all children (your sds as well as your DD) then this should be discussed and shared.
In addition, I think those criticising OP's approach to DH's spending on SDs should remember that SDs have other ppl also contributing to their lives and to their Christmas.
good luck and happy christmas.

Narked I think that however odd I find split finances, this is what they both agreed to do.

That is a fair point, and I take that on board. I wonder if they both feel that they have agreed to the same thing though. They may well have agreed that the joint account is for family expenses, and as far as the DH is concerned, 'family expenses' includes all of his children, but in the OPs mind, family expenses mean herself, her DH, and her own children, and the extra children when she thinks there is a big enough family expenses 'buffer'.

I've been thinking about this and some may disagree but I think it is quite often a male approach to money, I know my DP and ex's have always thought 'well if the money is there I can spend it', they often don't seem to get that money can be ear marked for other things, especially if they're used to not having to budget.

I do think that an iPad is too big a gift for any child but that's my personal opinion, I think such a large gift should have been discussed with OP first.
Although I do think that presents should be equal to a certain extent I do agree that baby's don't really need any gifts, we're not buying anything for our baby as there's nothing she needs and she'll get plenty off family but we are setting aside money that will be spent on her as and when she needs it.
But there is 10 years age gap between me and my half sister and 17 years between me and my other half sister and my brother is 4 years older than me and as we were growing up all 4 of us got exactly the same spent on us for Xmas and birthdays so no I don't think it is that ridiculous to say older kids need more spending on them. Kids these days are spoilt and if they want such large presents like iPads then it should be joint between several family members or they get gift vouchers to put towards it. That kind of approach teaches them to have an appreciation for money and teaches them how to save.
But that's just my personal view, if parents can afford to spoil all their kids then that's up to them but from the sounds of things in this situation they can't afford it.

KellyElly, you say I'm not seeing it from the OPs perspective, and it's true that I have never been exactly in her position. But I don't think that matters. I am in a position where I have to handle the feelings of two children whose Father doesn't live with them but instead lives with his new baby. It's the children that matter.

However, I think if my ex had buffer money sat in an account but told me he couldn't afford to take our children on an outing that would enable them to spend a little time alone with him, I'd think he was being a cunt, and I'd be gutted for my children.

I've followed this thread and have been very interested in the different perspectives on it.

My view point is that if you agree that actual real essentials ( household bills grocerys nappies ) come from the joint account that both parties equally pay into but that wants come from personal money.

As it appears to be in the op,

Then your being dishonest to not stick to it. So op yanbu in being cross by this dh has basicly used his personal money for wants then moved onto joint money to continue with more wants,whilst you have been left in a position where you are nervous about needs and any of your wants or your dd's wants have been made impossible.

Your dc does not have another parent elsewhere to also buy Christmas stuff or provide gifts and treats in essence that is what your dh has forced you to do for children who are not yours but who also have another parent who is responsible for these things.

Fwiw unless you are well off and it sounds like you are not buying kids iPads for Christmas is silly and Disney parenting.

IMHO a step parent is under no obligation to be financially responsible for a step child unless they wish to be funding children is down to the parents ( however they do it) and that's everything inc maintainance,part of the responsibility of a nrp is to meet these costs. It's nice when step parents do wish to but they shouldn't feel obligated to do so.the only thing they should be responsible for is home related costs for when the step child is in there home.

I also think its a bit silly when divorced parents over compensate with expensive gifts and treats to make up for living apart from children and think any over compensation should be made with time and love.

NotaDisneyMum

My point is that the "DH" and "DSC" came as a family and should be treated as such.

The DSC may not be biologically her children but the DSDs are part of her family, the OP's view of you can't spead my money on your children is (to me) baffling.

Sock I can see so much of your view point so clearly, but this

Your dc does not have another parent elsewhere to also buy Christmas stuff or provide gifts and treats in essence that is what your dh has forced you to do for children who are not yours but who also have another parent who is responsible for these things.

This is what OP chose. The DH hasn't forced her, she has knowingly chosen to bring two children into a family that already contains children. That choice does mean that things will be different than if you had started the family together.

'I think if my ex had buffer money sat in an account but told me he couldn't afford to take our children on an outing that would enable them to spend a little time alone with him, I'd think he was being a cunt, and I'd be gutted for my children.'

The only reason he couldn't pay for the treats himself is that he's already spent £££ on christmas presents for these DC. And then taken money that's there to cover a christmas tree, household bills etc. A buffer gives some cover if a car or the boiler breaks down. Not because someone's spent all their money on very expensive presents and still wants to take his DCs for a Mcdonald's. The £500+ he spent on ipads would have paid for a hell of a lot of McDonald's.

The DSC may not be biologically her children but the DSDs are part of her family, the OP's view of you can't spead my money on your children is (to me) baffling.

When my DSC are emotionally a part of my family, then they will be treated as such financially.

I completely agree that he spent too much money on iPads. That was completely unnecessary for a variety of reasons. But if he wants to buy his children iPads then that's his business.

In my opinion, the second family are getting what they need. 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.

If it was all joint finances then the OP could have told her DP that they couldn't afford for him to spend £££ on expensive gifts.

She has fit in with it. He's overstepped.

Sorry, only read the title and thought it was your spliff money. That would have been totally unreasonable.

Why does she get to tell him how much they can afford? Surely as a grown man he can look at his own bank account and decide how much he can afford to spend.

Outraged, I do compleatly understand where your coming from but I don't think the op knew she would end up in a situation where the her dh would think its ok to blow about £660 ( iPad 2 new from TESCO £329 on offer a few weeks ago cheapest place I found them) as well as expensive trips out so near to spending that on two of his children with her contributing 50% towards the trips but think it was acceptable for her to solely provide all the treats and clothing for his third child.

No matter how you look at it that's not cricket

And it's not his business if that purchase led him to feel the need to use
Her money to contribute towards things that are his responsibility.or to abdicate his other responsibility and leave it up to her.

In my opinion, the second family are getting what they need. 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.

She gets to fit in but she shouldn't have to fund it