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?

Norah I have money put away for their house deposits, uni, and weddings. That was always a priority, but I still feel it is my duty to provide them with the lifestyle that their dad would have provided them with if he was still alive.

You are being unreasonable, if for no other reason than as you're married, all assets belong to both of you technically. My solicitor advised me that if I ever married any income of my spouse would be used in an income calculation for the sharing of payment of school fees etc.

But I also think psychologically it's incredibly damaging to them. To be in a house where there's a hierarchy like that, I'm not surprised she's pissed off with you.

I agree that the husband is also at fault, but it just doesn't sound like a happy household. Kids need to be kids. They need to play. And sometimes they make a mess.

Do all of them get on?

I can't get my head around married people who don't pool finances. poor schildren. Very mean.

Ridiculous overreactions on this thread. Of course the OPs DC can put away their precious things when the other children come. It happens in every family. My DD has always had special things that she has kept away from her brother, because they are breakable and meaningful to her. He doesn't mind, and if he did he would just have to put up with it, he has lots of nice things of his own.

None of the children in this family are poverty stricken or deprived, the step DC are loved and cared for by their TWO parents. Their step siblings happen to have a wealthy mother, they get a bit jealous, it's natural. It is up to their parents to explain the reason for the inequalities, and help them to come to terms with it.

OP is getting a hard time but I don't think she's doing anything wrong. It isn't up to her to provide for her DH's DCs. As many people have said, they have 2 parents to do that.

Her DH needs to have a chat with them and explain the situation clearly. They are already better off because he's living in OP's house and thus has more available money to spend on all his DCs.

The way I see it: she is not their mother, they don't live there. She has to provide equally for her own children and he has to provide equally for his own. It's not OP's fault her DH doesn't earn more money. It's also not her fault that their DM is not earning/have more money.
However, I do think that she should've let her DH have this conversation. It's his DD, so she needs to hear it from him.

Theorectician's idea is a good one as far as making the "money for education" aspect fairer.

But it doesn't really solve the larger issue which is about how you integrate all these kids into a single albeit extended family. It seems to me that the OP doesn't see these kids as part of her family :( - yet they were part of the deal when you entered a relationship with a man with children.

Re the toys, it's fine for kids to have one or two things that are strictly theirs. What shocked me was that it was fine to have these toys around when the young half siblings are at home, but not when the older step children are there. If it's damage you're worried about then it wouldn't work like this. There is a subtext here.

But he can pay for the older children to go to private school. If mum pays for half. Same set up as the children with op. Both parents will pay half of the fees.
How is op causing a problem?

The toys I mentioned my children and guests as examples. I was aware that guests didn't have the same things as mine. And mine didn't want to share.. Imagine spending hours building something with Lego and in a split second someone else destroys it. The elder two had something sentimental to them from great grandma. Again noone was allowed to touch it. Yes it might have been fixed but really wouldn't be the same. They still treasure these now and are late teens/early twenties.

It is interesting this thread. Shows why it is so hard if you marry up or down I guess, financially speaking on a second marriage.

I just don't think I could cope with seeing my own children having such different lifestyles if I was the DH in this scenario.

The dh though can't treat the new kids he has with the op differently to his own. The ops kids are different and her responsibility. The kids she has with her dh have to be treated the same as her husbands biological kids that's only fair. It's why I never had more children when I remarried.

OP - you've not addressed the issue about what your DH is doing with the extra money he would have spent on half the school fees for them.

Saving it for them, over-paying on maintenance, spending it on treats (just different ones to your DCs) or something else.

Is it just private schooling or are you the horse riding person?

As I said ages ago - the DH could offer to fund private 6th form for his own children which would roughly equate to 50% of ongoing fees. However, I suspect he won't because am guessing he isn't saving that money for his own children at all.

Agree it isn't really the OP at fault but her DH. He is facilitating his own children being treated so differently. But then it seems that financially he has made a good choice in the OP.

I cannot belive her DH is actully blindly walking into this massive massive problem he cannot be this stupid.

Wait is this the OP that forced the step children to watch her older children horse ride because he had to work or something and combined with the room sitaution how the hell can the OP be so cold about and how can her DH let this happen?

toys/ special toys being put away is also a red herring but the room sitation mentioned in prevous thread and with the horse riding lessons in another (I wish i could link the threads or even find them on my tablet there is much more to this then in this post )

and from what i know from the other threads she /is being massivly unreasonable

Basically wnating the step children to share a small room together and forcing them to watch her older children do fun activities like horse riding when not prepared to pay to allow them to take part as well

Schools thing due to inheritance fair enough; and I agree kids shouldn't have to share their toys even with their own siblings if it's a particularly special thing; but it sounds like a few nice toys for your SC eg 3DS each would help a lot, and that you could easily afford it.

I can totally understand you.

Although I seem to be in a minority on this thread I wonder if I'd still be in a small minority if you asked 100 men and women in the street. I suspect not, to be honest. There's a certain mindset on MN which doesn't in my opinion always reflect real life.

If your husband was giving less to his children from his first marriage than those from his second and/or your children I'd be asking you what you see in the callous bastard. But he's not. He, rightly and respectably, is providing for the children from his first marriage just as he should. He's providing for them according to his means which is really all you can ask a NRP to do. You, on the other hand, are providing for your children according to your means. I can't see what's wrong with that.

I do think that any explanation needs to come from your husband, as father to your stepchildren, and not from you. It will be more appropriate coming from him and more tactful all round. In his position I'd be quite firmly telling my 10 year old to have a long hard think about the tragic reason why you and your own children have more money than he does and that I expect her to have more care and respect for you when she's worked it out. 10's plenty old enough to understand that and to understand that sometimes life just "isn't fair" and even when it is, fair doesn't always mean equal.

At 10, I think your SD is old enough to have it explained to her that [insert name of your first DH] left money to be spent on his children, and while it looks like they are better off, it's come at the cost of losing a parent. But I think your DH2 needs to say this, he needs to explain how hard it was for your DCs to lose their Daddy, they have more money, but that his DCs are better off in many ways as they have 2 parents to care for them.

I agree with this. I don't think YABU at all. But I think your husband should have the conversation, not you.

Your family is not the 'main' family of your step children. They are only there a fairly small percentage of the time. Their home is with their mother and she provides most of their lifestyle - material, emotional and otherwise. They need to feel loved and welcomed in your home and they need to be treated the same as everyone else when they are there - but when they are not there they are being raised by their mother in the way that she has chosen/is able to.

Mistigri My younger children are 2 and 4 months. They are not going to care if their 11 year old brother and 9 year old sister are playing with toys that they can not.

Why on earth should the inheritance be 'pooled' together and be part of the joint assets. Nobody except the dc for whom it's meant for is entitled to it.

I see your logic, OP, but an acquaintance of mine dealt similarly with her DH's son and it didn't take him long once he reached his teens to figure out that he'd been dealt with logically rather than lovingly. He's been NC with his dad, step siblings and my acquaintance since he was 18.

YWBU to have a chat with his daughter, given the way you separate finances you should tell your H to have the conversation with his child.

From your SD point of view she feels second class and that is a horrible feeling to have, given that you and your children have her Dad full time. I think it unrealistic to achieve parity but it's a shame that her Dad didn't think about the effects of his new family's 'lifestyle' on his older children.

worridmum I am not the horse riding mum. My daughter does have ponies, but I do not typically take my SD's along to that certain activity, because of the kind of agistment we use.

I'd forgotten the sc had to watch the other children do their riding lessons - such a lesson in creating harmony in a blended family.

To be totally fair, the house and other assets from the OP's first marriage should all surely be in trust for the children of that marriage?? Not funding her children from her later marriage if you wan't to go down that route.

As I've said many times, it is the OP's DH who I judge in this for letting his own children be treated this way. But I guess he'll learn his lesson in the years to come.

Ooops cross post and apologies for thinking you were horse riding mum.