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?

imnot the op mentioned Her DH pays a mortgage on a flat maybe he could sell that to send his Elder DC to private school? We know he earns enough to pay half of 3 x school fees now and potentially another 3 In the future. So should be able to afford a couple of 3ds consoles or American girl dolls.

He is the parent as well but seems to be getting away scot free with providing very much and the Op is getting the blame.

slithy it would appear that all 3 dc have to share a bedroom, 2 boys and a girl in one room. Eldest dc have a room each, eldest younger (if that makes sense) has own room, baby in with OP.

Please correct me if I'm wrong!

I wonder if the OP's children look to their new step dad as their 'dad'? She goes on about "I am responsible to provide for my children the best that I can" but isn't her new husband also now repsonsible for them? If he isn't, what was the point of getting married?

It all seems unnecessarily complicated, messy and very sad.

Agree with you totally alec it needn't be this complicated. It appears to be 2 families sharing a house, I don't get a sense of unity in the slightest.

Before op and her house came along, where did Dsc sleep when staying with dad?

Did they all have bedrooms in his flat?

Op's household money is apparently based on a 50-50 split on everything regardless of income. Using that as a flawed basis DH should have a pot of money to spend every month that is split 50-50 between his six children. His younger children have been provided with a home at no expense to him e.g.mortgage or rent, so are immediately better off than his older children whose mother still has to find the money for this, either from his allowance or her own income. Would this not ensure that they could have the 'toys' that are being denied them at the moment?
I agree with a poster who said asked what has happened to the money that he was prepared to pay towards his older children's private schooling? Hopefully in a trust fund or uni account for them. It doesn't sound like anyone in op's house is going short and needs that money.

He is the parent as well but seems to be getting away scot free with providing very much and the Op is getting the blame.

I totally agree.
The OP takes all financial responsibility for her two oldest children and I therefore don't think it is unreasonable to expect her DH to take all financial responsibility for his three children. Fair enough if he was depriving his children to divert money to OPs children (not the joint ones) but that isn't the case. If anything the DH has additional disposable income because he lives in a house which the OP already had mortgage free.

From the view point of a step mother who did fund her step children's education and stuff like furnishing and providing the deposit for their first homes YANBU you don't have to do any of that shit because it is not your responsibility.

But next time you post you could flower it up a bit perhaps put a few x's each time you write SS/SD that way you won't be accused of not loving your step children you could even start complimenting them after you post, something like this

xXxSD1xXx she's the one whose really kind to frogs.

Don't do it with your own children because nobody gives a flying fuck if you post in a normal way for a more practically minded person about them.

One small thing tho, the step children's mother does not really need to be refered to as their BM putting the B in front is only needed if you refer to yourself as their mother rather than step mother

Re different treatment of half siblings
'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'

True, if the ex remarries some one wealthy, then the 'original' children do better.But it can't be allowed to haoppen the other way.What business has teh OP's DH prioritising making other children above looking after those he already has.
Also anyone with one ounce of sensitivity and humanity would understand that DH + step DC are a package deal! Crikey I would not want dream of marrying someone who treated my DC as second rate to their own.I bet her own children look back when they are grown up and think what a twat the Op is to treat their step sibs like that!

I don't think the OP has any right to spend money left to her and her children by her late husband on her 'new' children. She chose to have a second family. If it had been as a result of divorce not death, there would have been no question of ExH supporting a new family's standard of living. So I think that money can rightfully be spent on private education for the older children, and to give them both a nest egg. And also perhaps a contribution towards OP pension.

Then, the younger children need to be considered based on the current income of OP and DH2. So if that covers private education, so be it, and if it does not, then they should not benefit from the death of DH1.

all the DC should be treated the same when the family is together, taken on the same holidays by OP and DH2, etc. school is just one part of life, but having built an extended family, the rest has to be as equal as possible when the family are together, pocket money, treats and so on.

xXxSD1xXx she's the one whose really kind to frogs.

I think there is a slight difference between being surprised you say DD, but not DSD, and expecting you to say xXxXxDSDxXxXx #mostamazingeststepdaughterintheworld #love

Don't do it with your own children because nobody gives a flying fuck if you post in a normal way for a more practically minded person about them

Actually in cases of discrepancy between different children e.g. attending private/state schools, or jealous older siblings, other posters do pick up on OPs using different language for different children. Which may mean nothing, but when there is discrepancy it is more likely to be picked up on

Re-reading OP and I think the last bit "to a lesser extent her mum" is where it is all wrong. OP can't seem to get that she is lucky, a mortgage free house, high income, new husband, inheritance etc. She glosses over all of that and seems to be willing to taunt SD about how little her mum 'supports' her, rather than face the sad truth that she is refusing to give the kids a level playing field. It smacks of trying to show exw up as a failure, down to not letting them share toys - which is a very mean thing for any parent to do.

SC mum is poor/poorer.

H is rich. OP is rich.

H needs to give more to ex and his children from that marriage.

OP needs to enable H to give more to ex and his children from that marriage by making a greater financial contribution to the current marriage.

You can spare it, can't you? A tiny dent in your lovely, lovely pony owning, private schooling lifestyle to make that poor rejected second best kid feel less rejected and second best.

As private education seems more important to the Op than the husband then she should perhaps fund it as it is her choice and want. Her husband felt no need to privately educate his children so is entitled to say he doesn't want to fund the younger three - also he would be treating his children in a more similar manner.

They tend to pick up on it when real actual negative language is used towards one but not the other, or when hostility is obvious towards one but not the other.

The op is consistently posting in exactly the same style towards everybody. She just has a brief more cryptic way of wording things.

I tend to use DD or DS when I post about my own kids tbh I find it cringe worthy and all a bit silly and rather happy clappy doing so but it's easier to understand than a random D or S. I love my SD dearly to the point that despite being seperated from her father for 4 years and having a protection order against him and no shared children she recently lived with me for several months whilst her mother was ill and I still pay her school fees and pocket money but do I feel the need to bung an extra D before SD, nope.

jack

Why? Why should the op's DH be able to contribute less towards his younger children and have less financial responsibility towards them than his older ones?

We have no clue how much CM he pays he could be paying far more than he could be forced to, we also have no clue as to what he is putting aside for his older children's future.

Just because the op has money it does not negate his responsibility towards children he shares with the op,it also does not mean she should be having to contribute more than she already does by Bill splitting 50:50 and freeing up money for DH because of no housing costs towards his kids.

Because if he can afford private school fees and she can't than he isn't sharing his income/assets fairly.

I cannot believe that anyone can do this to children. You married their father, so u took on his kids too. If u didn't want that responsibility then u shouldn't have married someone who had children. I feel so sorry for them, they must feel shit the way u treat them as second best. Disgusting.

Cinderella's Dad was alive. So she was neither an orphan nor entitled to an inheritance. The moral was not to keep your own children spoilt and a stepchild worse off, as the stepchild will probably turn out a lot nicer than the spoilt children...

I don't think it's a very good way for the OPs children to grow up viewing other people to be honest. That what is theirs is theirs and they deserve a better life than others.

In that position I would probably tone down what they got rather than give more to the stepchildren. It sounds like these children may be growing up with a massive sense of entitlement.

Depends which cinderella story you read...

And as for the utter crassness of calling the op lucky... She has lost a husband. Been widowed. Had to support two young children alone through the loss of their father.

It takes an odd person to balance that against wealth and come out with a verdict of lucky.

And I don't make my kids share toys if they don't want. Full bio siblings.

Because if he can afford private school fees and she can't than he isn't sharing his income/assets fairly

But then he still wouldn't be, he would be contributing less to his kids with the op. He is contributing nothing financially to the op's sole children the op is already making a greater financial contribution to him as due to her he has no housing costs, for all we know he could already be contributing more to the children with his ex and his lack of rent/mortgage facilitate this.

Have you posted about this before ?Your situation is practically the same as a previous OP whose DH was a firefighter. If I remember correctly his ex wife also posted about the difference in how the DC were treated, (schools, toys, ponies etc) . I believe that and the other posts were all deleted