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?

[Teslaedison]

I have been watching this discussion with interest.

My husband died, and I received an 'in service death payment' and also a life assurance payment. And yes, we are fortunate that my late husband had a good job but; the absolute agony of hearing my daughter wail in A&E when I told her her dad had died will never leave me. My son's 'shut down' him saying to me 'my dad is dead, I'm not, so I need to get on with life'. He was nine.

My partner came home for lunch and we talked about this thread. He has three children. His three children have a mother and a father. And yes, I knew what I was getting in to when I embarked on a relationship with a man who has children. But the money I have, is for my children. Of course when we are out and about all children are treated equally.

The money I have, in a way, is child maintenance in a great bit lump sum. It needs to be managed, to last. My children don't have a father. It is up to me to manage the money which we only have because their dad is dead.

My partner agrees with me on this. Unfortunately, life isn't fair, not everyone is equal. Whilst I enjoy buying/doing stuff for my partner's children, they are not my financial responsibility.

I am sorry if I offend people who have commented on this thread and I know that the OP is a troll but this does happen in real life.

[prorsum]

Does your partner not see himself as the father of your children, obviously acknowledging he is the BF, but he lives with them.

[Aermingers]

Tes I think the point of this (untrue) thread was that there was a lot of money for one set of children which was funding an extremely affluent lifestyle for one set of children whilst the other children had very little.

I think your attitude of being careful with the money and looking at it as maintenance sounds sensible and prudent. The situation as it was described here sounded quite different and was someone being profligate with their children rather than being sensible and making sure their inheritance was protected and they would never be left in penury.

I'm never sure if this troll is someone who was a SC and was treated badly or perhaps there's a grain of truth in there.

But the other alternative is that they're somebody who comes on and posts deliberately about a woman who is behaving really badly in order to expose the hypocrisy of some Mumsnet members who will defend any sort of bad behaviour right to the hilt as long as the person doing it is a woman.

[PeruvianFoodLover]

tes I agree with everything aerminger says, and would add that this thread - whether it or not is true - is significantly different from your own situation.
The OPs possibly fictitious scenario centred around issues regarding finances and space that had come about as a consequence of her choice to have more DCs with her DH.
If this story had been written about a blended family without any half-siblings born to the "new" couple, then the replies would have been very different.

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

Hang on a sec,in today's version of the story she had protected the older children's money with savings put aside and she was keeping them within the lifestyle they had all been accustomed to.

Obviously it turns out it's made up crap but if it was not based solely on this thread. She was not being reckless she was just maintaining a lifestyle

[Teslaedison]

I understand that the situation is different. What I am trying to get my 'head around' is some of the comments 'well you knew what you were getting in to when you got together' comments.

I think I have been over analysing a bit.

[Aermingers]

Yes, but the lifestyle she was supposedly maintaining was an incredibly luxurious one of ponies, private school and expensive clothes and toys. That is a profligate lifestyle even if the savings were protected.

Yes, you could dress it up as 'maintaining a lifestyle'. Tamara and Petra Ecclestone would probably tell you that their father is simply 'maintaining a lifestyle' for them when he buys them £60 million pound mansions. Most other people would probably agree he was indulging then, spoiling them and being profligate.

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

Just because a lifestyle is more affluent than someone else's does not make it wrong or anything negative

[ChickenLaVidaLoca]

Is this the one who everyone told not to get married but she did it anyway?

[PeruvianFoodLover]

I think it might be vidaloca - which is why I'm not convinced the posts are fictitious. There were two or three of those "should I marry him", "I have married him, now what?" type posts, and after the initial discussion they got revived by the OP after weeks of no posts only to rehash the same issue.

Sadly, I think there is a very dysfunctional family out there, and the OP keeps coming back looking for validation for her choices which are probably becoming harder and harder to justify - changing the facts and presenting her story differently to hide her identity, while maintaining the same underlying principles to seek support for her decisions.

This thread actually proves that she would have some support if only she would engage and not avoid questions that could help her think things through.

[Aermingers]

Surely if it was genuine HQ wouldn't have banned them though? I mean, I guess they would have things like browsing history from cookies etc to make up their minds?

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

For the person not to be genuine does not mean the story is not

[phoenixrose314]

D'you know what, I came on to this thread - just by looking at the title - intending to back you up, thinking it was about CSA or something...

I don't buy toys/clothes for my stepchildren because they don't live with me, none of their stuff is here, they bring over the things they want when they come (we have a very small house and no room for stuff, or we would!). I buy things for my DS because he lives here and if I didn't, nobody else would, whereas my stepchildren have a large family on their mum's side with a lot of wealth and they are the ones getting lots of expensive gifts (my stepdaughter just had her birthday and made more money than I do working for a whole month!!) - I do NOT expect my DS to have the same kind of things as them, in fact I think it does him a world of good not to get every little thing he wants, he is a considerate and thoughtful little boy and appreciates what he does have with such gratitude... We only bought him a wooden Thomas train set for Christmas and we're now five months down the line and it's still the first and last thing he plays with every day.

So, I agree that your husband should be the ones providing for the children, but your attitude towards your SD is quite shocking. I understand her comments may have hurt you, but do you recall what it is like to feel "less than worthy" as a teenager? Most of us experience it at some point and it is not a pleasant feeling. It brings out the worst in us. She is questioning if her dad (and possibly you) love your children more than her, as children fail to see the distinction between gifts/praise and love.

So instead of brushing over the emotional aspect of it and telling her that her "real" parents need to provide for her (which is essentially what you said), perhaps just remind her that her dad doesn't make a lot of money, although you do (she may not know the financial divide), and that just because you buy things for the children living in your house (PLEASE say it like that and not "my" children!!), doesn't mean you like/love her any less. Maybe get her interested in finding a part time job to earn some pennies to save up for the things she wants.

Good luck.

[PurpleDaisies]

Phoenix the op is a troll. Mnhq posted a few pages ago. It's a shame it isn't more obvious at the beginning of the thread.

[Aermingers]

A lifestyle being better doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Consciously treating children so differently that they will probably be emotionally scarred by being brought up to feel second best and inferior is.

I'm going to hide this thread now. Because quite frankly I find some of the posters on it utterly sickening.

[maroonedwithfour]

Was lying i bed last night sad thinking that this was a troll.

[PeruvianFoodLover]

Surely if it was genuine HQ wouldn't have banned them though? I mean, I guess they would have things like browsing history from cookies etc to make up their minds?

You can be banned for all sorts of reasons and tbh, it's highly unlikely that MNHQ know whether the story is true or false.
What they know is that in some way, the OP has broken the talk guidelines, and therefore, can have their membership blocked.

[Fromparistoberlin73]

Thank god it's a troll ! Really depressing thread otherwise

[ItsTricky]

How do you hide a thread?

[Jux]

Purpledaisies It's a shame it isn't more obvious at the beginning of the thread

This is precisely why we need trolls' posts to be coloured shit brown by MNHQ as soon as they are deemed to be one. Then everyone knows, and can read through for a laugh to familiarise themselves with the posting style, so they can recognise them more easily when they inevitably come back.

[PurpleDaisies]

Absolutely agree Jux.

[WhereYouLeftIt]

Brilliant idea Jux!

[Jux]

It's something I thought of as a bit of a joke a few years ago, but quickly realised I thought it would work quite well, so I trot it out when it seems appropriate. One day, MNHQ will appreciate me!