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?

Seems like a rather selfish and unfair way to behave to me. The stepdaughter does have a point.

I think OP is getting a hard time, though I haven't read the other threads and the bedroom thing does sound odd...
A few decades ago I was SC in a similar position (though no death- just loads of divorces) and didn't have private schools, fancy toys etc. my dad had remarried someone much better off and her ex was also financially successful. Step-siblings and half siblings were all at very expensive schools. It took about 2 minutes to explain that age 6 and I never resented it, then or now. Dad was very good though at finding reasons for spending time with us on our own though so we felt special to him, and we have lovely family holidays. So when we were there all was equal and (now ex) step mum may well have subsidised that and was always very generous but I wouldn't have expected big stuff like school fees.
Only thing I found a bit was the putting nice toys away. That would have upset me- having your siblings to stay is not like a play date! I would probably have expected to be trusted with nice stuff! Jealous of the American Girl dolls though and I'm 31...

I don't think anyone would expect all the children to be treated strictly equally in this situation, and I doubt it's necessary anyway. The step kids probably don't care that they are at state schools whereas their half and step siblings are educated privately.

But the OP and her partner can probably do something to address the inequality in terms of material things, activities etc - I think in this situation a little would go a long way. If your kids have horse riding lessons, for example, why not pay for the step kids to have some taster sessions? Or take them on holiday with you if you have nice family holidays? Or buy them a cheap tablet if they don't have one? You sound wealthy enough that it would be easy to make gestures that would mean a lot to a 10 year old but wouldn't materially affect your standard of living.

Again, it all depends on whether you actually want a relationship with your future teenage stepchildren.

I think it is only fair, that if your dh [dsd dad] pays half for private school for your children together, than he should put the same amount that he is contributing for private school fees in a future fund towards for his children, if mum cannot afford private school or does not want to send them there. That I think is not fair, and that is what their dad should be doing. From that fund, he can get them some big items, and save the rest for their uni, driving, car, house deposite etc.

I can understand toys if they are things that their Dad bought them, like teddies, they are irreplaceable. Other stuff, does sound a bit off in general. Unless there is a history of damage to toys when the SC are staying?

I dunno about this.

On the face of it it seems unfair not to treat them all the same, but their circumstances are not the same. The joint children and stepchildren all have both biological parents living. The OP's children do not. They are never going to get a special extra present off their Dad, like the stepchildren might off their Mum.

My DSis is a widow and I remember her ranting to me about being asked by her stepchildren's grandmother if she could pick up one of the Stepchildren from ballet or something. She said to me: "they have got TWO parents, both alive, and a grandparent. My children have only got ME. Yet I am expected to look after my own children and then leave work early and pick up SD because neither of the three adults biologically related to her can be bothered."

Not entirely related to the OP but I think the sense of: "I am all they have got, I must provide the very best I can because there is no one, absolutely no one else, who is going to do it" is the same.

I know a family in which the younger half-sibling of the DH's daughter by his first marriage (are you with me?) is treated as an equal family member in the DH's second marriage. This young boy has no biological or legal connection to the new family (aside from his sister, of course) but he is bonded to them by ties of affection. He visits regularly, is always included in holidays, always receives presents on birthdays and Xmas, and they have even set up an account for him to help with educational expenses down the road. When his mother was ill last year he came to live with them for a few months.

That is an unusual arrangement. But I love the way they have chosen to embrace this child as a member of their family.

The hiding toys thing was a bit of a red flag to me too I'm afraid :(

Ok op does not have to pay for her sep children's private fees, but dad should be paying the same amount in a fund or bonds or whatever, towards his kids.

Mistigri- totally agree. SC shouldn't be sat at home if the other kids are off riding or some other treat, and I think holidays are so important for bonding.

If you have much ore disposable income than your DH but he can afford to pay 50% of private school fees for 6 DC (you mentioned he will pay half for your 3 shared DC AND offered to pay half for his own DC), perhaps you could fully fund your shared DC with your greater income, which would allow him to pay all of the fees for his own DC?

It is sad that op hides the toys, what if their mum is not well off and cannot afford all this stuff.

I think you need to think long and hard about how you resolve the SCs' feelings about this situation, or risk real resentment.

In some ways, your own older children are a red herring. Their financial situation is entirely separate because of the money available due to the loss of their father. However your younger children and your SCs are all the children of your husband, and entitled to equality of treatment. Unfortunately, your 3 younger DCs have inevitably reduced the pot of money available for supporting his older children - effectively halving it. He is paying 1.5 sets of school fees for his younger children, but none for his older children. What are they getting to even this out? Is he giving child support that is equal to the money he is spending on the younger children? Is he saving their 'share' of that money? Or are his younger children being schooled at the expense of the older ones?

We have a not dissimilar situation in our wider family - 2 sets of siblings from the father's first and second marriages. The second set have the private schooling and the ponies. The first get the bare minimum of child support. Until the second marriage, the existing children received much, much more from their father. Unsurprisingly there is almost no relationship remaining between the children and their father. He doesn't seem to understand why. He thinks the problem is his bitter ex-wife

Well, that said, I think it's ok to say to the OP's dcs that they are allowed to have somethings they are allowed to not share (particulalry if htey think the younger Step-siblings will ruin them), but a rule that anything you're not prepared to share can't be played with when they are visiting seems reasonable.

There was a thread a while ago from a woman who's mum had died then her dad had remarried. Her dad then died and she was upset that all his money had gone to his 2nd wife, which included all her mum's money (as her mum had left everything to her DH assuming he'd pass on to their DCs). That was going to be left by the SM to the SM's children and she was going to end up with nothing. There's more than one type of "fairness" - is it fair on the OP's DCs that her chose to remarry means they would have to have a lower standard of living and potentially some of their Dad's money spent on someone else's DCs who aren't related to them except via their mum's remarriage?

Ruda Why is a bit off? Everybody has certain belongings they don't want to share with others and keep nice. As long as they are not playing with them when they are here, why would it be an issue?

In fact, thinking about it, the OP's husband could presumably have afforded to fund private school children for his older 3 children if he hadn't had the younger three. He was prepared to pay half of the fees for his younger 3 and half of the fees for his older 3 as well.

I know it's not as straightforward as that, as there will always be a financial impact to older children when younger ones come along. But that's a big, big difference between the two sets of siblings, and one that everyone involved would be advised to bear in mind.

Re the toys thing I am just saying I would have found it hurtful at that age. Doesn't mean it's wrong but the kids involved here might also find it upsetting. The toys must be more at risk from your very little children than from the SC anyway. Do your SC have somewhere at your house to keep their special toys they don't want your children to play with? If so maybe it's all fine. I can be known to be a bit oversensitive...

tiny yes I can understand that everyone has stuff that they don't want to share but that generally doesn't apply to famiy. I take it your younger children are allowed to play with stuff that is 'put away' but belongs to your older DC.

It's the only thing you've said that makes me feel like you don't actually see the SC as part of your family. Maybe it was just the way you worded it.

Yanbu, to not want to spend your children's inheritance left by their father to them on other children. Ridiculous that you're being 'unreasonable' to want to keep your kids lifestyle to what their father has provided for them.

I don't imagine the OPs younger children being made to go without in the same way as her Step Children, surely that would be the only fair way to do it.

The OP will be back in a couple of years with a thread asking "why do my step children hate me?"

Rudawakening - yep. I'm fine with the school fees! It's this toys thing that doesn't sit right and you've explained it much better than me!

fastdaytears, But surely it would be just as upsetting for my children to let everybody play with them, and for them to become broken and destroyed? Why are my SC feelings more important than my DC? Surely the compromise is just to put them away and have nobody play with them why they are here?

My younger kids don't go into my older kids bedrooms. They are downstairs 90 percent of the time, and the doors are kept closed 99 percent of the time regardless.

Alec, shall we tell her now in advance, or leave her to screw them up first? Do you even think she would change anything based on our advice?

Regarding the toys, kids are very sensitive to differences and unless you want the step children to feel like guests rather than family when they come to stay I'd suggest you stop doing this. Can you imagine how a step child would feel if one of your birth children said to them "we're not allowed to play with our (insert name of toy here) when you're here." Kids aren't exactly known for their discretion and it is fairly likely to happen.