Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To only financially provide for my own children?

549 replies

tinyboxtim · 31/05/2015 15:37

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?

OP posts:
MorrisZapp · 31/05/2015 17:42

How is the op screwing up her step children? They have two parents to bring them up and to treat them.

I'm sure if op didn't agree with the mother's way of bringing her own kids up she'd be sharply told to knowher place and butt out.

But she's meant to spend her deceased husbands estate on kids he never met and who have two living parents?

Meanwhile everybody involved benefits from the house she lives in, presumably freeing up income for her dh to spend on his first family.

If he's able to pay private school fees
then his kids are hardly living on the breadline.

AnUtterIdiot · 31/05/2015 17:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PtolemysNeedle · 31/05/2015 17:44

I don't think there's a problem with ops older children being allowed to keep some of their possessions tidied away when their step siblings come over, it would be incredibly unfair to them if they were forced into 'sharing' with children that they have no choice about spending time with.

The OP doesn't send her kids round to the step children's house to play with whatever they want, so the DHs older children have the option of keeping some of tenor possessions to themselves if they want it, and ops children deserve the same.

Aeroflotgirl · 31/05/2015 17:44

No Morris, she is not, it's up to her how she spends her money, it's dh that needs to evaluate where his money goes as there is an inequality there.

AuntyMag10 · 31/05/2015 17:44

Good point Morris about the op providing a free house which benefits everyone. In that sense she is providing more to her sc because her dh is saving on mortgage costs. The op is doing more than her fair share.

Rudawakening · 31/05/2015 17:46

I think the toy thing struck me as growing up I shared everything with my sister, we were only 2 years apart and I've never known siblings have toys that only they can play with but that's probably just me, it might be normal to other families.

Aeroflotgirl · 31/05/2015 17:46

The step chikdren should have toys or processions at their dads house tgat are theirs, and get out away when they leave.

3CheekyLittleMonkeys · 31/05/2015 17:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Dismalfuckers · 31/05/2015 17:47

I think YABU and pretty horrible.

Not much of a family; two separate households in one.

I have stepchildren, adopted child and one with dh and don't like this kind of attitude.

worridmum · 31/05/2015 17:47

but he wont / cannot afford to send his older children to private school but will be paying to send his 3 youngest (and joint children to private school ) that is the problem the older children whose dad has died does not come into it

The OP is demanding / expecting her DH to pay 50% of their joint children to go to private school thus taking out of the money to possible send his older children there even though apprently she could afford to pay more of it so unless shes willing to not send her younger / joint children to private school she is infact causing the problems and her DH should actully make a point of actully attempting to treat the children equally (even if that pisses of the OP by paying less the 50% of the total future costs to send the joint children to private school as his children should be prioty not pleasing the OP otherwise he is a bad father)

NorahDentressangle · 31/05/2015 17:48

Has the OP said what the expensive things are she provides for her DCs and not the SDCs.

As long as the DCs are not brazenly showing off stuff they have which the SDCs don't and it is kept for when they are not here then I don't think it matters. But I could see things being tricky as they become teens, imagine DD has the latest trendy fashionable clothes/makeup/iphone and SDD has some rubbishy copy - it does not bode well.
Also DCs shouldn't brag about holidays etc.
Difficult but if I was a teenage SDC I would envious.

Aeroflotgirl · 31/05/2015 17:49

I agree, she is providing in a way to her step chikdren, as the house is hers, not her dh, but dh should be taking more responsibility for the situation and finances, it sounds like he does not.

Dismalfuckers · 31/05/2015 17:49

Oh, and I think that whilst this might seem reasonable to the OP now, she may live to regret it.

AlecTrevelyan006 · 31/05/2015 17:49

Dinosaur - I have a boy and a girl and they never really had any toys that both wanted to play with. I think they may have argued once or twice when they both had a PS1 and wanted to play the same game.

I grew up as the youngest of five so we had to share everything!

CornwallsFinest · 31/05/2015 17:50

I grew up with a half sister who's dad died when she was a few months old. The life insurance meant she was able to never go without when growing up and has enough tucked away for a house deposit (if she wishes to use it for that, she can travel the world for 5 years if she wished).

Have I ever resented her? No. Because I fully appreciate she has only ever had one parent whereas I've had both of mine. It was always explained to me from the age of 10 and I got it.

I don't see why the OP should have to bear the financial burden of all 8 children. Her eldest 2 had a dad who died and I fully see where the OP is coming from in terms of paying for them separately. Her step children are paid for by 2 parents and, whilst I agree they should all be treated the same whilst spending time with their dad I don't think OP should be expected to ensure they have the same lifestyle as her 2 eldest. That's not her responsibility.

DinosaursRoar · 31/05/2015 17:50

Rudeawakening - it's kind of normal with bigger gaps - and the Op's oldest child is 5 years older than the youngest SC, that's a big gap in the complexity of the toys and the ability of a younger one to trash it easily by accident. I also don't like the idea of children being expected to share everything and not have anything that's just for them. As long as the OP has the same rules between her own DCs then I don't think it's a problem or a sign of setting them up to hate each other (and as she said they do keep the 'special not shared toys' in the older DCs bedrooms where the younger ones don't go, so it does sound like she does).

MrsCampbellBlack · 31/05/2015 17:51

Pretty sure the OP has posted several times in the past over similar issues. Each time she gets similar responses but nothing ever changes.

The person I really judge in this situation is the OP's DH. It seems he has a lovely comfortable life now and I doubt very much he is saving the equivalent of 50% of school fees for his other children.

I get that the OP doesn't want to fund their horse-riding lessons (am sure there was a thread or a very similar one in the past about this) or their education. But her DH should be doing all he can to make things fair.

And perhaps he should have thought about the realities of a family of 8 children and keeping things fair for all those children.

NorahDentressangle · 31/05/2015 17:51

Perhaps OP, you could put money away for your DCs for when they are older, towards a house, uni or something. Rather than buy things now. SDCs should understand the situation when they are adult, when they might not now.

MrsCampbellBlack · 31/05/2015 17:51

I personally don't think the putting toys/special toys away is a big deal. I wouldn't share my handbags with anyone after all Wink

Theoretician · 31/05/2015 17:53

I have an idea how to make the fees situation feel fairer. For illustration let's assume the private fees are for ten years.

Currently father intends to pay 50% x 10 years x 3 children = 15 child-years for children shared with OP. Apparently he could also afford to fund 50% * 10 years x 3 children of his ex, so in fact he can afford to fund 30 child years in total. Therefore divide that by six to get five per child, he funds the last five years for each child of his.

His two step-children continue to be funded entirely by OP and their dead father, no change there.

Instead of funding half the cost of her youngest three children for ten years, OP now funds their whole cost for five years, up to the age her husband takes over funding. She takes on the whole cost because her husband can't afford to help. She is no worse or better off than under the previous arrangement, in any case.

Her step-children will see their father treating all his children the same, and the fact that their half and step siblings gets twice as many years is clearly linked to them having a wealthier mother.

Would something like this work?

Aeroflotgirl · 31/05/2015 17:54

Cornwall it is not on that tge shared children are getting half their private school paid for by dad, he is not making any like for like provision for his other children, op step children. That is not on. Her dh needs to evaluate and address this.

NotSayingImBatman · 31/05/2015 17:54

I'm not sure why some posters keep saying the SDCs mother wouldn't pay for the OP's children to have/do XYZ.

Of course she wouldn't. Those children are nothing to do with her. But the OP married their father, which makes them very much something to do with her.

FlabulousChix · 31/05/2015 17:55

In the ops case they shouldn't have had children together. Then the divide would be fairer. As it is her new kids have the same dad as the step children and in reality the dad has to treat all his kids the same. Ergo if the new kids go to private school his first kids should have that opportunity too. This is more about the ops husband treating all his four kids differently.

Rudawakening · 31/05/2015 17:55

It's been a long I've since I played with toys so I can understand that things move on and as the OP explained her other DC don't play with those toys so it's the same rule for everyone not just SC.

DinosaursRoar · 31/05/2015 17:55

If it is horse riding, just how expensive is horse riding then? Because if we at at least talking about him offering a grand a month towards school fees if the ExW could afford half, then would that not cover them being able to do it too?

I don't think the OP's DCs should be expected to give up their hobbies that their mum can afford, because their step-dad can't/won't pay for his DCs to do something similar.