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?

The OP talks about her step children like they are an annoying long lost crazy relative that has come to stay and that she can't wait to get rid of them. She hasn't posted one thing which remotely suggests she has any affection for them at all.

I do hope I'm wrong.

the OP and her DH have expanded their family, but the OPs DCs are shielded from the natural impact of that choice because the OP is unwilling to alter the status-quo that existed when their dad was alive.

The OPs older dc won't be completely shielded from it, there's no way that two children get three baby siblings and barely notice a difference. But it is right that those children should keep their own rooms. Just as the ops step children get to keep the rooms they have at their mums house.

But grumpy why should the money her deceased DH left for HIS children's education also be spent on educating children of no relation? if THEIR parents want them privately educating then they need to provide that. I would never have expected my step father to provide a private education, that would have been down to my parents.

When I married my DH I became a mum to my step kids, they became my family.

Any money I had / have is for my family, all of them, equally.

I cannot understand at all why, or how anyone can treat their kids (whether step, biological or whatever) differently.

There is a big difference between 'step siblings' and 'half' siblingsdd If some children were 'his' and some were 'yours' it wouldn';t be as much of an issue.But you cannot expect some of your DH's children to have a different standard of living to the others!!!

one of my best friends is married to a man whose parents pay for both their grandchilden and step-grandchildrens school fees because they think it is the right thing to do.

Rudawakening, if DH's money must not be spent on children of no relation, then it must also not be spent on OPs 3 children with new DH, as they are also not a relation of him.

Ideally the money should be in a trust fund that can be e.g. spent on educational costs in respect of her late DHs wishes, and any leftover be split equally between both DCs when they turn 18/21 etc. Then, with the exception of school fees, all children should be provided for equally.

yes i am sure lots of you would love to share your bed room with your younger brothers at 13 + (i know for a fact i would NOT!!)

My money is the step children would stop coming over and thus make the OP very very happy from the tone of the OP

Cinderella had NO parents.

There is no Cinderella in this story.

Or are you saying that 2 kids with 2 separated parents, who only have one bedroom each, are on a par with an orphan girl forced into the role of a house maid?

i've only briefly read through some of the thread...

my only point is that money doesn't necessarily make kids happy even when you are piling things on them (toys, clothes etc) so think it would help all the kids if you were to pull back a bit on these provisions, saving the real birth DCs funds until they are older to a) make all the kids (SC and birth DC) feel much more equal and b) teach the birth kids about the value of equality, improvisation, humbleness, joy, resourcefulness in basic things rather than bringing them up in what sounds like a fairly materialistic existence. Then they can access funds when older hopefully being a bit wiser too.

By all means treat the kids occasionally but treats should be spread fairly across both step and birth kids.

Otherwise I see the step kids becoming resentful to both the OP and their dad, and their step siblings. They are only kids and it is very hard for them to understand the differences in what they have and the resentment will build and build and build, particularly against the OP.

Fostering cross family relations is much more important than the monetary stuff.

Hopefully the dad is playing an important role in making sure all the kids are treated fairly.

But you cannot expect some of your DH's children to have a different standard of living to the others!!!

This happens all the time. Not because the shared parent treats his or her unequally or differently, but because of what the other parent provides. It cannot be avoided.

I don't think that private education is really the issue. I think it's perfectly fine for some children to attend private school while others in the same family attend state school. However, I do think that the DH in this scenario should treat all his children fairly, whatever that may mean WRT education. That wouldn't affect the OP's choice to pay for her older children's education but it may have some influence on their joint decisions about the younger ones' schooling.

But these decisions about private vs. state schools seem far less important than day-to-day family life. Creating a successful blended family can be a challenge, no doubt about it. However, it seems as though the members of this particular family are living parallel lives without any actual blending involved.

And if I God forbid lost my DH and got his life insurance, pensions etc, that would be for me to spend as I saw fit. On current children and future children.

I partially pay for that insurance and enable him to work for that pension after all.

imnotfat again the Op hasn't confirmed she would spend that money on her other children's education. She obviously earns a lot herself so could probably cover half herself. She has said that she has trust funds for weddings, house and uni. So unless the amount was in the millions I can't imagine there would be a lot left.

Very few people on this thread are blaming the Op's DH when in truth he should be the one providing games consoles etc for his elder DC if the Op buys them for her elder DC. Why should it all be on the OP's shoulders.

The OP is not willing to compromise anything for the step children and that is compeltely wrong and her DH sounds like a total tool letting the OP treat his other children so poorly

3 children of mixed genders sharing a room while 2 other children same age get their own room (i dont mind sharing rooms but not with 3 sharing of 1 room ) why can you not lose a down stairs room and make that a bedroom? so that the older ones dont lose theirs?

And why cannot the DH pay less into the joint saving account and actully make a saving account for his DCs like the OP is doing for hers?

With the schooling, it's right that the DH should treat all his children the same, but the OP has to to that too, and if anything, her responsibility to do that is even bigger as all of her children are sharing their home. So surely if treating all of the children the same is the most important thing, then the younger children will have to go to private school to ensure that they get the same as their siblings?

This thread has givee a headache! I don't normally bother reading 16 pages but I felt compelled to read it all so I could give an informed opinion. Here's my 2 pence worth....
School fees aside as that is twisting my melon
I am both a SC and a SM and I find your attitude towards these dc quite appalling tbh. I can't see, in any of your posts, that there is any kind of affection or love for your DSC.

It made me feel so sad for them that you, by your own admission, go out of your way to make sure 'big purchases like ds3 etc' are made when they aren't around. That's pretty calculating IMO and pretty spiteful. Last week my ds needed some new trainers, whilst we were looking I noticed my dsd eyeing up a pair of trainers she has good taste, they were lovely I didn't immediately pack us all up and run out the shop to avoid her wanting them, I asked her if she'd like them as her brother was getting some and it's only fair. The proud and wistful look on her face as she carried her bag out of the shop was well worth the £40. It didn't even occur to me that she's not financially my responsibility because I see her as my own when she's with us, I love her to bits and my ds HER BROTHER adores her and I would never separate them through finances.

None of my ds toys get put away when she is with us. Toys are for kids to play with. Equally, when she has gone to her other home, my ds plays with her toys. I find it odd that you would hide stuff like lego from a 10/11 year old. Dc that age are no longer destructive and understand the need to treat belongings with respect.

The room thing is weird. How can you possibly believe, in your heart of hearts, that 3 prepubescent children of different genders should share a room so all of your biological dc can have their own space? My dsd comes every 8 weeks or so (whenever school holidays fall) but up until we moved she had the biggest bedroom. All our rooms are now the same size so it doesn't matter now.

Throughout the whole thread I got the feeling that the dsc are more of an inconvenience to you rather than actual family members that you enjoy spending time with.

I get that your late husband has provided for his biological children but what about your other dc? Are you extending the inheritance to them or would you not buy them a big purchase if your wages didn't allow despite having that money sat there?

Personally I don't think you should have remarried, and definitely not to someone who already had children. I understand that you didn't choose to loose you DH and your dc didn't choose to loose their father but you are appearing to still be living in the past. I can't really articulate very well what that statement means but your whole way of thinking, through this post, revolves around memories and finances from your late DH.

My dad is my step dad but has provided for me for 25 years. I have met my BF once in my life. My 'step' dad has just bought me a car. His own son (my not-so-baby brother) missed out on a tumble dryer because of it......now there's love

Op, what was the bedroom situation before DH moved in with you?

Op doesnt have to treat all the kids the same at all.

rudawakening I know, she hasn't confirmed one way or the other, just saying that if the "only blood relations" rule applies, then it should apply fully.

It's hard to say what DH should and shouldn't be doing when:

1. We don't know much he earns, but it is implied that it is significantly less than OP who appears to have a high income.
2. We don't know where the OP's DC's presents have come from.

e.g. if OP's DD got an American girl doll from her mum and stepdad for xmas, and DSD got a much cheaper present when she wanted the doll, that would BU.
But, if the doll was e.g. a present from a relation on the OP's late husband's side of the family, and OP's DCs and SDCs got similar gifts to each other (excluding the younger ones who obviously have different needs), then that sounds reasonable enough.

It would probably be best if OP and DH gave joint presents from both of them, and tried to make them as fair and even as possible, even if in reality DDs doll is being paid for by OP, and SDD's doll is being paid for by DH. They will see it as fair.

you cannot expect some of your DH's children to have a different standard of living to the others!!!

Well, yes half-siblings might have different standards of living (if they don't live in the same home) because the standard of living is only partly down to their father's income. If the different mothers have differing incomes, then it stands to reason that one set of children may live in a bigger house or a nicer area etc. You cannot make all things entirely equal.

Aside from which, the OPs children from her first marriage are also half-siblings to her children from her second marriage so should have the same spent on them as the older two on those grounds.

Plenty of posters have suggested that as DH's ex-W/P can't afford to pay for part of her DCs school fees, the OP should compromise and not send her younger DCs to private school as this would not be fair on the SC (as they are half-siblings). This makes no sense to me- why is it perfectly acceptable for the OP's younger children to not have the same privileges as their older half-siblings on their mothers side, but at the same time it is deemed unacceptable for the older half-siblings on their father's side to have fewer privileges their younger half-siblings? That is odd logic, in my book- OPs DH must not "disadvantage" his older children, but the OP must (relatively) "disadvantage" her younger DC (in comparison to her older DCs) in order to be fair.

Op, what was the bedroom situation before DH moved in with you?

5 bedrooms, 2 DCs - one bedroom each.

There's another thread somewhere.

Meant for Dhs Dcs wherever he lived. Where did they sleep on access weekends? Sorry for being unclear.

Sorry, in addition to my epic post.....this has the opportunity to go fantastically wrong. You are now married so, unless there has been something drawn up legally, all of the assets you took into your marriage will be fair game if you were to divorce. I am in a battle with my own morals with this as I believe inheritance should be left well alone but as far as the house is concerned......

And, at the risk of sounding heartless as it's important to keep memories of deceased parents alive for children, what happens when your 2 eldest reach teen years and want to paint their bedroom black? Will they not be allowed to because their late father painted their bedrooms before passing? Are the bedrooms to be untouched because of sentiment? Things in life change, you adapt to these changes, your life changed massively when you married a man with dc yet you refuse to adapt.