To only financially provide for my own children?

[tinyboxtim]

DH and I have been married for three years. Together we have eight (yes, eight) children. I have two (Ds11 and Dd9), he has three (SD10, SS9, Sd6) and together we have three (DTS2 and DD4mnths).

Our all entire relationship we have kept our finances completely separate. We do have a joint account that we each put our proportion of household bills and money for our childrens together needs in to. Besides that, I have always provided for my own children, and he has provided for his children/payed their child support. We live in the house that was gifted to myself and my first late husband. It has always worked well for us.

Because of our respective careers, the money my late husband left behind, and the amount that DH pays in cs, I have a lot more disposable cash than my husband. Because of this, my children have different lifestyle than my stepchildren.

Over the last couple of months, my eldest SD has been very resentful about this, making passive aggressive comments about how DD1 has something she doesn't have, etcetera.

WIBU to explain to her this weekend that we all have two parents in life that are responsible for providing for us, and just like how her dad, and to a much lesser expense, her mum (didn't say this) provide for her, I am responsible to provide for my children the best that I can? And to tell her that in the future she will need to bring it up with mum and dad if she wants something, not me, as, financially, she is not my responsibility?

This thread remains very sad and not one ounce of compassion on a single post from the op

Middle class neglect - voila

I've read this whole thread and I am still totally undecided whether YABU or not. The money from your deceased husband is an incredibly tricky situation, I don't envy you trying to manoeuvre that. Fwiw, if I was in your position I would honestly be having a good hard think about whether you consider your stepchildren as children you love and take responsibility for or children you just love. Whether the children you are bringing up collectively with your partner deserve a similar start in life.

Sorry to hear you lost your first husband - I'm sure you would rather have him back than have the money/house and I'm sure you kids miss their dad like mad.

Given that the OP not only remarried but has 3 DCs that she would not have if her first husband hadn't died, that is an incredibly loaded statement.

The complexities of losing a spouse/father of your children are incredible - bringing further DCs (both step and/or half siblings) into the family before the nuclear family are all ready to move on can often be the cause of regret.

OP I know this is AIBU; perhaps the relationship board is a better place for you to seek support if you are realising now that neither you or your DCs were as ready to move on as you thought you were?

I am pretty sure that the OP knows that when the stepchildren grow up they will be pissed off and go NC. She can then have a cosy family. Are the stepchildren in dh's will? If your dh dies will they honestly get an equal share?

Being exceeding cynical OP, I'd ensure your deceased dh's money is tied up for your dc from the first marriage and it cannot be reallocated if you ever decide to separate from your current dh.
Ok I know that isn't the most supportive comment I could make, but you must ring fence the money so it can't be wasted if you have future issues with your current dh.

So it's ok to do it to blood related siblings but not step ones?

it's not just step-siblings, it will also include half-siblings when they are old enough to go to school.

I think there are probably circumstances in which it would be reasonable to send one or more children to private school and not the others. I'm not sure there are reasonable circumstances being described here in relation to the half-siblings at least.

I think the post about 'sending 1 child to private school' was under very different circumstances and was a parent trying to do the best for both children.

The OP doesn't seem to give any indication that she even cares for her step children in her posts - the focus is on her biological children.

In my first post, I said that all of her DHs children should be treated equitably. By this, I didn't mean that the OP should pay for her DSC to attend private school. I meant that her DH should be putting away the money he would have been spending on school fees for their future. It sounds like OP is sticking her head in the sand.

Whilst I think it is important to retain some financial independence, your finances are linked and the OP really needs to talk to her DH as they have children together.

How very sad for your step children. You knew your new partner had children, he came as a package as did you. It's not easy being either a step child of step mother (I'm both) but your arrangement is a recipe for disaster. You have also ignored several questions about if you love your sc or see them as part of the family unit. I suspect in both cases it's because you know the answer is no. Your bedroom arrangement separates your sc from your dc even more. Why aren't the 2 older girls and the 2 older boys sharing? Your children with your current husband are presumely benefiting from any property or / and money your late husband left you. So should your sc, your a family now. How are you planning to hand down the house? Only give it to your late husbands children, not your youngest?

I feel I have to maintain for my dcs the lifestyle that their dad would have given them

I think it's a very generous thing to do.
I would like to remind you though that nothing is saying that their dad would have been able to do that if he was still alive. I'm pretty sure that what he would like to see is his dcs happy and loved.
That statement doesn't apply to the dcs that you have with your DH. When your DH is looking at taking decision regarding his children, I imagine he is looking at all his dcs, not just the ones he has with you.
Now my question is: Why is it OK for him to spend more money on the dcs he has with you (eg private school or a poney like your older dd etc...) but not on his older dcs?
If he can actually spend the fees for private education for his older dd and isn't because the mum can't afford that, what is he doing with the money? Is that money spent on the child or is it just gping back 'into the pot'?

I'm starting to wonder if the issue isn't with the way your DH is handling his money and where he is choosing to spend it too.

Why should any of Ops children miss out just because the ex can't afford her half?

as I said further up the thread, without having further information about the ex's financial situation, it is very difficult to work out whether demanding half from the ex is 'fair' or 'reasonable'. There is some kind of...weird mentality that goes on with separated parents which states parents much pay half, regardless of earnings and reasonable outgoings. Together parents rarely earn exactly the same and therefore rarely make an equal contribution in financial terms to their outgoings including things like school fees.

The simple fact of the matter here is the father concerned doesn't appear to be treating all his children in a fair and reasonable way. The fact that the OP has avoided answering questions which might shed light on the bigger picture and enable posters to take a more balanced view is why we are where we are now.

I feel I have to maintain for my dcs the lifestyle that their dad would have given them

Very few parents can maintain a particular lifestyle if they add three additional DCs to the family.
You have added to your DCs lives by choosing to remarry, accept stepDCs into the family and have additional DCs of your own.

If you had chosen to have further DCs with your late DH, it is likely that the lifestyle you had as a family would have changed. your motivation to keep things the same as when their dad died is admirable - but neither realistic or fair on the other DCs you have chosen to integrate into your family.

What is your DHs view on your desire to maintain your older DCs standard of living despite having further DCs with him?

I think the Op's husband needs to provide equally for all of his bio children. The OP should provide for hers. With blended families there is always disparity in inheritances not necessarily from parents but grandparents. When all children are together on a day to day basis then they should be treated equally. There is no way I would compromise my children's future to accommodate step children. What is more complicated is how the OP will differentiate between her own children as the house should only be inherited by the first children and if I had been the grandparents I would have ensured this. They lost their father.

I have 2, my Dh 3, none together. My Dh is a high earner and I do not work due to a recent disability. He pays for all his dcs' education but will not pay for my children. Other than that he treats them all financially equally, and they will inherit equally from our joint estate. He says this is because WE are married and now share everything including children.

The thing is though, in complete honesty, if it were the other way round I couldn't see myself doing the same, as his children never really accepted me so I would question them receiving money from me.

I presume the OPs DH knew of her plans when he married her, and therefore is ok with it.

The OP has every right to continue sending her children to whichever school she likes, as long as she can afford to. This has nothing to do with what her DH and his ex choose to do/can afford to do for their children. Their schooling is not her responsibility.

God, what a minefield! I feel sorry for all of the kids as they are the only ones who have had no say in things.

I found it hard to grasp at first OP, but the way you are dealing with your older children seems sensible and probably fair enough if a little cold. The issue is more that you and your husband thought bringing more children into the mix would not unnessessarily complicate things even more.

The issue is the new children and the way that your husband is going to treat all of his children. This is really more your husbands problem but as he is your husband and you have shared children, then surely it does affect you to a degree too.

I just hope he can find a way to try and ensure he provides for all of his children as fairly and equally as possible, if that means him paying a lot more then half what their mother pays or can pay then maybe he should, to try and narrow the gap between his two sets of children's lifestyle and opportunities in life. If you earn more and have the money maybe you can pay more for your shared children to allow him to raise up his first children.

I can understand that it has been harder for you then most of us and your experince has probably made you very wary about providing for your childrens future with the death of thier father and your MS.

It's a difficult situation, I don't really have an answer.

But looking from the point of view of your SD (I noticed you prefaced your own children with D e.g. Ds11, but SD11, not DSD11, so I shall do the same):

Their parents separated when they were very young, their father remarried and they only see him EOWE. When they visit their father, their stepmother, step siblings and half siblings, they see an obvious disparity in their treatment. Their step siblings have nicer, more expensive toys which they are not allowed to share, and are attending a private school.
Their step siblings each have their own rooms, whereas they must share a room. Their younger half siblings will also likely be attending private school, which their father will be paying half the fees for. He has not however, contributed to school fees for them, or put the equivalent into a fund for when they are older, but he does pay child support. They are going through a difficult time, and it doesn't look as though things will improve any time soon.

From your older DCs point of view:
Their father died when they were very young. They most likely had a very difficult few years, and things will never be the same. However fortunately their mother has remarried, so there is a new person in their lives who, whilst he will never replace their father, they will hopefully have formed a strong bond with.
They have three new young half siblings who they have formed a strong loving caring relationship with. They have three step siblings, but they only visit EOWE, and are not allowed in their rooms or to play with their special toys, so in general this has been ok (excepting SD's issues with DS which are hopefully being resolved). They attend a private school, and money from their father has been set aside to help provide for their future. Despite their difficult past, they have a secure future ahead of them.

I think you need to make some allowances for this disparity.

I can't imagine seeing my dad be a full time dad to someone elses kids, living with them etc, having more of his own kids who also have him full time and all these kids have a fabulous wealthy and privelged lifestyle compared to me and my siblings. My dad living this lovely life with all of these other kids - while we don't.

I find it hard to imagine that not affecting children.

I haven't got past the part where you said that your children have a private education (paid for by you) and your joint children will probably also have a private education.

So your DH will be in the position of three of his children having a privileged education, and three of them won't.

Is that right?

I'd be resentful too.

I think when it comes to inheritance, then yes, the children will be treated differently, but day to day, as far as possible they should be treated the same.

OP should not need to make allowances for the disparity, they are her husbands children and they have a mother of their own, the mother and father should sort out what is provided for their children themselves.

This could easily have been An AIBU from the step children's mother complaining that she is sick to death of her ex husbands new wife spoiling the children, buying their affection and making her look tight, buying them ponies, paying for them to attend private school when she prefers state school and constantly giving them things that she herself can't afford.

I can't see any reason why the ops first children shouldn't get to keep their own bedrooms without having to share. Those will have been their bedrooms long before the OP got together with her now husband, it would be incredibly unfair to take their bedrooms away from them, even without the fact that they've already lost their father.

The step children have their own bedrooms in another house, they are not being denied something that their step siblings have.

And as the OPs younger children are sharing a room and the baby is still sleeping with it's parents, then the step children are treated exactly the same as their half siblings.

I think re marrying after loosing your first husband is incredibly hard. I have a friend who was going to re marry after loosing her husband but didn't as although he was lovely he wasn't very independent and would have relied on her late husband's inheritance to not work hard. I lost my husband when my kids were 16 and 19. I was left very well off but we earned that money together and he invested well and put a lot into his pension pot which I received in full. To take that into a new relationship is really hard and I can see totally where the OP is coming from. It is emotionally very very complicated.

I can't see any reason why the ops first children shouldn't get to keep their own bedrooms without having to share.

Because irrespective of whom the OP chose to have more DCs with, she has gone on to have three more DCs. That is more DCs than there are bedrooms available.

And, in addition, the OP married a man who has responsibility for three more DCs. Which puts additional pressure on the rooms. When you marry a man with NR DCs, you are aware that he may at any time, suddenly and unexpectedly in some cases, become the resident parent. And you support him to provide a home, even part time, that is conducive to that possibility.

The DCs cannot be protected from the OPs decisions just because they have lost their father - if the OP wanted to maintain the same lifestyle for her DCs as they had in the nuclear family unit, then she could have made choices compatible with that.

Surely it's no different if you marry the first time and one of you is wealthier than the other?

I don't understand marriages where the money is not pooled.

However, I do think inheritances, where there are children involved, should be safeguarded.