Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think I should be able to spend more on the kids that live with us for birthdays etc?

139 replies

Gladys71 · 10/01/2014 11:18

I've posted this is step parents but I'm being brave and posting here too for a balanced view.

Basically DP's kids live with their mother. Mine live with us.

A few weeks ago it was DSS's birthday and we threw him a party, had his girlfriend over, bought him a cake, gave him £50 and a bottle of vodka. He then went home and had a party dinner with his mum and her side of the family.

Now my DS's birthday is in feb. I've always given them £100 each however DP is saying that this year they'll only be getting £50 as that's what his DS got. My argument is that his DS would have had a lot spent on him from his mother, his main carer. I'm DS's main carer, whilst he'll get about £20 off his dad that's not the same as what his ds would have got from his mother.

AIBU to want to stick with giving my ds's £100 each? They live here, we get money for them in the form of child maintenance etc as does his ex from us for their kids.

OP posts:
brokenhearted55a · 10/01/2014 11:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DuckworthLewis · 10/01/2014 11:47

I suppose I think that it's quite a leap to assume that moving in with someone means that you have to treat their children as if they were your own.

I also think that we need to prepare DCs for life, which is inherently unfair. If all they have known during childhood is artificially induced 'fairness' they will cope very badly with the unfairness of adult life (this is where, I believe, the growing sense of entitlement in society comes from)

Don't get me wrong, I'm a bit of a socialist at heart and if I could wave a magic wand and make society fair, I would do so in a heartbeat, but it isn't and will never be. The only thing we can do is make DCs aware of this and acclimatise them to it early.

Grennie · 10/01/2014 11:49

I would spend the same, roughly, on both.

ChuckitintheBucket · 10/01/2014 11:50

Duckworth all it taught me was that I was less important to my dad than his "new family" .

2beornot · 10/01/2014 11:50

Duckworthlewis - I don't think it's ok to not treat other people fairly just because life isn't fair.

Grennie · 10/01/2014 11:53

Yes chuck, that is what so many don't get. This stuff isn't so much about how much money a child actually gets. It is about a child feeling less important and less loved.

ChuckitintheBucket · 10/01/2014 11:56

Exactly that Grennie. Even though my dad is now dead it still leaves a bitter taste

DuckworthLewis · 10/01/2014 11:57

2beornot So if one of your DC's friends received a Christmas present that was worth twice the price of your DC's, you would rush out and buy your DC one too?

Otherwise, you would be treating your DC unfairly, compared to how that DC's parents were treating them.

2beornot · 10/01/2014 11:59

Duckworth, no. I treat all my children fairly. It's fairness in terms of where it comes from not where it goes. My nieces and nephews all get the same from me regardless of the fact that my sister buys her children more thank brother does. To me that is fair.

flowery · 10/01/2014 11:59

"Where do you draw the line? Our DCs have to be treated exactly the same as the DCs next door? The rest of their class?"

No. But they should be treated exactly the same as each other . Nothing wrong with teaching them that life isn't fair etc, but sending the signal that some of the joint children are more important than others in that family is nothing like the same as teaching them that their mates might get more stuff than them.

LessMissAbs · 10/01/2014 12:00

How would you feel if you were one of those step children OP?

caramelwaffle · 10/01/2014 12:01

You are not being unreasonable.

Blondeorbrunette · 10/01/2014 12:01

Your argument is that because step son lives with his mum he should get less yet your son who lived with you should get more.

Have I read that right?

Why does it have to be a set amount for each child?

2beornot · 10/01/2014 12:01

So we may be agreeing.

I think the OP and her DH should be spending the same on her DSS as her DS. The fact that her DSS gets more from his mum might seems unfair on her DS but that's life.

DuckworthLewis · 10/01/2014 12:02

Yes, you treat all your children and all your nieces and nephews fairly.

OP's DS is not her DP's child. The DCs sound old enough to me to realise that point and that they have different parents with different circumstances, therefore they will be treated differently.

wontletmesignin · 10/01/2014 12:02

Duckworth - this isnt about dc and their friends. It isnt about competition.it is about fairness and equality amongst children of split families.

The mother shouldnt have to cut down on how much she spends on her dc who currently live with her. But the father also shouldnt need to give his dc any less who dont live with him.

If neither of them are happy with the set upm then maybe stick to the plans for this year, and xome up with a compromise for next year.

DuckworthLewis · 10/01/2014 12:05

flowery

I do understand your argument and I respect your logic. I think we will have to agree to disagree, however, because I don't see them all as 'joint children'

If they all were OP's DP's DC, then I would agree with you, but the fact remains that they are not. I don't think that moving in with someone means that their children (who you do not live with) immediately have to be treated as if they were your own.

wontletmesignin · 10/01/2014 12:05

And i dont mean that in materialistic terms. I mean that they should be treat the same as each other, as all children from the same family

flowery · 10/01/2014 12:05

"OP's DS is not her DP's child. The DCs sound old enough to me to realise that point and that they have different parents with different circumstances, therefore they will be treated differently"

It sounded to me as though the OP and her DP are living as a family unit with everything that that entails. So both her DS and his DS are equally part of that family unit, even though his DS happens to live elsewhere.

If they don't consider themselves a family unit and have very separate finances etc, that's a bit different.

flowery · 10/01/2014 12:06

x-post Duckworth.

2beornot · 10/01/2014 12:07

It's implied that regardless of parentage the gifts come from the op and her partner, so each child is getting a present from their parent and step parent. Seems equal to me.

soontobeslendergirl · 10/01/2014 12:08

It's not like one child has been bought a pony and the other a colouring book really is it now?

I think that overall if no party/vodka is happening for the DS then the DSS has probably been more favoured.

Goldencity1 · 10/01/2014 12:09

As someone with a half brother, I can remember the feeling when he got a huge bag of fantastic interesting presents for Christmas when I was staying with F and SM [no "D" from me for them!] and I got a bottle of Clerasil and some cotton wool balls. That wasn't the only time either.

Now I wasn't expecting the same amount as him, I did have presents from DM to open, but the blatant unfairness hurt a lot....

littlewhitebag · 10/01/2014 12:10

If you are buying vodka then DSS is clearly not a child so he is lucky to be getting such a generous gift at all. You don't say how old your DS is but if he is also a young adult i would say also give him £50 plus a gift of your choosing (alcohol, clothing, sports gear, whatever) Then you keep them the same.

DuckworthLewis · 10/01/2014 12:11

Golden, but that is different, you both had the same F and could therefore reasonably expect parity (or thereabouts) in terms of your gifts.

That isn't the case for OP.

Swipe left for the next trending thread