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?

Our children together will probably go to private school as well, with DH and I both paying half each. DH has offered to pay half of SC fees as well when BM made an issue out of it, but she wasn't able to pay her half, so that didn't work out

So...your dh and his ex earn exactly the same amount? She is also mortgage free?

Rainbow the youngest children are half siblings to the late DH's children. It is very different.

Op's children only have one parents, the sc have a mum and a dad. What happens if their mum marries a billionaire or wins the lottery - would she ensure all of the children benefit from her improved financial circumstances?

Worried Mum - did you miss that the OP's DCs don't get to see their dad at all as he's died? Yes the DSC only get to see their dad every other weekend, but that's better than "never".

The children aren't equal, one set have only one parent and one step parent, one set have 2 parents and a step parent, one set have two parents. (or is that one set have 2 parents and 2 step parents? OP - has your DH's exW got a DP?)

The SC have a better standard of living as it is than they would if their Dad was single/was married to someone else because he lives mortgage/rent free in her property, so has more disposible income than he would if he was alone.

There's an element of making sure you don't rub their noses in it, but for stuff like education and extra curricular activities, is it fair that your DCs miss out because their Step-siblings parents can't afford them? (Assuming you don't drag your SC along to watch but not join in said extra curricular stuff).

for toys and stuff like computers, can your DCs not just share their stuff when their step-siblings are visiting? It's one thing not have a computer console at your own house or one of your own, it's another to go to a house where there is one and not be allowed to have a turn.

It's neither the ops business or problem if the sc mother is mortgage free or how much she earns.

In step families there will always be imbalances in both the finances and parenting style.

The money and house were left by your late DH for the security of his children. That has to be respected. The DSC's will have to live with it.

Op, yanbu, as I see it. You have to be mum and dad to your eldest dc. Onmy you has that role. Your stepchildren have a mum and dad, your three youngest children have a mum and dad. I think you need to tread carefully not to alienate your DSC but YANBU.

nancy I don't think anyone is querying the 'difference' between the OP's 'original' children with her first DH and the step children. However, there is a very clear issue with her 'new' children who are half-siblings to the step-children and how they are being treated. There does appear to be some disparity - particularly from an educational point of view - and it is that that people are asking questions about.

Agree with earlier posters who wondered what the extras were.

If it's private education and uni funds then it's understandable. YANBU.

If you're buying your own DCs top of the range bikes, computers and designer clothes and your SDCs have second hand toys and Primark clothes, then yes, YABU. Ditto if your kids get 4 weeks in Disneyland and your SDCs get 3 days in a caravan in Filey.

Isn't there two issues there?
1- is the money left by the OP's DH, money that her dc can enjoy but only because they actually have lost their own dad. Who would be happy to negate them that 'treat' knowing the price they are paying for it? (I do think that it is something that needs to be highlighted to the dsc by their dad).
That money could easily be used only for very specific things such as school, go towards the Uni, or as money invested to protect the OP future as well as her dcs.

2- then there is the money she is earning NOW, which, if I understand well is also higher than what her DH is earning. Hence the fact, all her dcs (from previous DH and current DH) have 'more'. This imho, is where there is more leeway and maybe an 'extra' effort is needed from the OP. I would want to know exactely, though. what the dsd means by being treated 'equal'. Does she mean private school, extra curriculum activities, holidays abroad or jst a general feeling that she is treated the same? (ie clear example of when she is feeling left out would help sorting out what is the best answer)

3- I have to ask. If you are married with children, I imagine that all what you earn and all what you own, incl the inheritance, would go into the common pot. If you were to get divorced, it would get divided between you and your DH, therefore would enable your dsd to 'get' what she can't have atm?
Personally, I wouldn't have such a clear cut between 'his' children and 'your' children. By marrying him, you in effect go the responsibility for them, at least financially and at least partially. That's reflected in the way CS is calculated (less CS if the dad is getting married with someone who has children living with them). I personally would put all your income from work into the pot, have your DH doing the same and treating all the dcs from that.

Depending on how much discrepencies there are financially, it might be that everything will even out, leaving you with less disposible income but 8 dcs that will be happier all around. It might be that it's not possible to get them all that standard of lifestyle and you might have to 'choose' but the less choice you have to make, the better it will be iyswim.

I imagine the problem will resolve itself when the step kids become teenagers :-/

What's being missed here is the value of the relationships. While it might not be possible to make things completely equal, if the children perceive the situation as being grossly unfair then it will eventually erode the relationships between the step kids, their father and their half siblings.

If you're ok with that, then it makes perfect sense to carry on as you are :)

I don't think this will be the popular view but I agree with your sentiments although think this is something her own parents need to explain to her, rather than you. I am a SM, I don't financially provided for my DSC. That means that my DC and my SDC have different circumstances. That's life as far as I am concerned. When DSC are with us then they are treated identically but in terms of opportunities, extra-curricular activities and possessions, if it ends up being different then it's just one of those things. DSC have certain things/privileges that mine don't. DSC's DM and I get on v well and there's no issue that there are differences.

In your care I would say it's even more reasonable because presumably your DC currently have just one parent and your DSC have two?

Why tryharder? Is that not the dad's reponsibility? Doesn't sound as if he's living on the breadline to me. It's not ops responsibility to buy dsc clothes

Of course YANBU. And I was a child in this situation, seeing one parent leave and enjoy a lifestyle that never will be mine. However that didn't make it a problem the three adults involved should have 'fixed' for me.

Your step children deserve the sympathy and understanding that this is one of the several very, very sucky things you get stuffed with, with no say in it, when your parents' marriage finishes. You don't necessarily have to say this to them and you can be careful not to rub it in their faces, but they're going to see it and it's a basic fact. It is unfair, life is unfair, but whatever you have, someone will always have more or better or nicer than you. It's something everyone needs to learn to handle.

Roar They are free to play with whatever they want, except for the things my kids will not share, which are put away with nobody being allowed to play with until they have left. These are usually things that break or become messy easily (American girl dolls, Lego structures.), or special things that cannot be replaced. (specific teddy bears).

To the people saying that op should make things fairer and if needed her kids go without.

How would this work with regards to education. Her dcs are already in private education. The step dcs mum cannot pay half to help ensure that all the dcs have the same education. So what pull them out and send them to state school? The op pay for all the dcs to go private?

We don't know of any clauses in the will. It could be a scenario of which op has found herself in was covered and x is released yearly for the children, but the op has to keep financial records.

How is it fair that one set would have three adults contributing to their upkeep. One set has two adults. And one set has a parent and an inheritance?

Another suggestion someone made was for him to reduce contributions for his children with the op and increase the step dcs maintaince.. Surely this then affects the resident dcs

Even if they didn't have dcs together, the op would still be under no obligation to pay towards the step dcs education etc. and there would still be a gap between all the children in terms of lifestyles.

Actually, there is a good question.

Generally, when you live together and regardless of the reason for the money spent, is it fair to split all the cost 50/50 when there is a big discrepency in income?
Or is the point of marriage not to put all yourt assets together so that everyone is benefitting from it? (eg the situation where a man is working and the woman is a SAHM, should the man keep all his dispoable income? I'm pretty sure very few people would agree it's right iyswim)

In your position I would do the same and if the roles were reversed I'd want my life insurance/inheritance spent on my DC not some one else's.

I do understand this feeling, and don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with it, but I think if you have lots of money to spend, and you're contemplating marriage with someone else who has children it needs to be given really careful thought. Fair enough that you might want to ensure that you set aside a certain amount of inherited money to your own children in a will, but I think that otherwise it's important for the children to feel equally valued as they grow up.

If you're wealthy enough to afford private school for 5 of your children, then I would have thought a couple of extra DS consoles for the step children isn't exactly going to impact on your finances, but might go some way to helping them feel less like second best. Basically they're starting to notice it, so it does need addressing in some way.

What's being missed here is the value of the relationships. While it might not be possible to make things completely equal, if the children perceive the situation as being grossly unfair then it will eventually erode the relationships between the step kids, their father and their half siblings.

Exactly. One can scrupulously divide the finances in a marriage, but some things go beyond monetary value.

yes dinosaur but the OP is saying that the half siblings we be getting exactly the same treatment has her children which in my opinion is the problem (they have 3 children together) so unless the OP would be happy to see her new children treated differently then her orignal 2 (she doesnt has she has made that clear) she is in effect treating her DH children as second class and i think you should compromise in expecting you current DP to split all the bills equally so that your children you have together are treated the same has the 2 that lost their parents at the expesne of the other children which is not on and if you DH doesnt see that he isnt much of a father tbh

So while 2 of the children will never see their dad again the other 3 will enjoy all the benifiets provided and SEE THERE DAD full time or are people forgeting that the money will be spent on the half siblings as well which in my opinion is unfair esically if your DH could actully afford to spend slightly less on your joint children to make life better / give them more chances that all your children have would be fairer / just rather than him pay 50% for the joint children while he past children get a far worse standard of life / with assoicated life chances

And if your DH cannot see what is coming i hope he is prepared to deal with the massive fallout and masses amount of resentment that he will have to deal with when she is slightly older

If your children from your first marriage have school fees funded from your late husbands estate that is one thing and completely fair and easy to explain. If you decide that you wish to fund your younger children through school using your late husbands money that's also fine. What's not fine is for you and your husband to put the younger children through private school equally without making financial provision for his children. If their mother can't contribute then their father should be putting away an equal share of money for them.

In general I actually think it's ok to educate some children in the family privately and others not if it's the best thing for them and if standard of living is not compromised but in this case I don't think that's ok without other provision being made.

I also think that whilst you can obviously buy your children what you want a decent thing to do would be mindful of your step children and realise that part of being a blended family might mean spending where you don't want to. E.g making sure you spend equal amounts at Xmas, that treats are of a similar size, if your children go to the theatre a few times at least make sure that you include the SC in a similar treat.

I think that you also should understand it's ok to say no to your children and say actually, you know what, we can't do xyz because it's too much for all of us to do. That's an important lesson for them all to learn.

I think that it is wrong for your Dh's younger children with you to be privately educated in the future, but not his older children. This is guaranteed to drive a wedge between the siblings as the older ones, quite rightly are likely to feel aggrieved at the disparity and unfairness of the situation.

if you have the means to do so, you should pay more into the pot for the younger children's education, thereby enabling your DH to pay for the older children's education.

so what are the extras? Are we talking ponies and music lessons happening when SC are visiting, or stuff that happens when they aren't there anyway?

Is it possible that you need to talk to your DCs about not being rude about having stuff their step-siblings don't, eg, not making a point a console is 'theirs' rather than "a toy we can all play with at dad's house."- does that make sense?

Your DH needs to have the chat, stressing the fact that your DCs don't have a dad, which is why you have so much more (there's also an element of you paying, but for a 10 year old, it might just be easier to stress the inheritance issue meaning your children never get to see their real dad, perhaps explaining that if he died, any money he has would be split between all his biological DCs.)

If your DH could afford half private education fees now, is he saving that money for them for the future (as a PP said, perhaps an offer of private 6th form fully paid?) or is he spending that money on things for them now? Because that's a lot of additional treats. If he's not spending that money on his DCs or saving it but could afford to lose it (if the exW got the money for half private school fees), then the issue is more how he's chosing to spend his 'free' money, and perhaps the problem is his spending habits, not yours...

How close are you to your SC, OP? Would you say you love them?

I think it's important your DH treats all 'his' children the same. Paying for some of them to go to private school but not the others is surely going to cause a lot of resentment. Will he put the money he would have spent on their private schooling aside so they can use the money later. Perhaps he could put the money aside until they are older and then they can go private for their GCSEs and a levels?