Step-parenting - All money is family money vs assets

[Lelania]

This is more of theoretical one than a personal one. English is not my first language so I am sorry if my post contains errors.

I've noticed on here that it is generally accepted that if someone enters into a relationship with someone who already has children that they are expected to treat those children as their own which includes paying for things and making sacrifices that are best for the children (some emotional, some financial). However when the parent has an asset like a property the feeling is that parents should not share with a new partner and that these should be saved for the children, even if this means their partner has no security.

I feel like these two views are contradictory. I think that if you expect someone to contribute to your child's upbringing as your partner then you should expect to support them and share security with them. If finances and assets are seperate then the cost of children should also be seperate and borne by the parent.

If the person who does not have children is less financially secure then unless the parent is willing to give them some security then they should not pay towards the children and instead should save money for their own future.

What are people's views on this?

If the parent owns a property then there are ways to look after both the partner and children i.e leaving the house to the children, but with a legal agreement that the partner can remain in the house until they die.

I'd expect the parent to ensure the partner wasn't left with no income/savings if possible. (I'm assuming long term serious relationships here.) and equally to make sure their children would be looked after i.e to have made provisions (life insurance or similar) to cover child maintenance etc until they turned 18/left full time education.

That's my late night views anyhow

Why would the person who is less financially secure and childless be paying towards their stepchildren?

If they're less financially secure - do you mean lower earning? - then they won't be contributing as much to the household.

I would think in most cases a lower earning child free person (therefore able to full time) getting together with someone with assets (especially a property) is going to be financially better off in the relationship than they were single. Possibly not if moving from free accommodation with parents I suppose. But generally.

The thing with having an existing family, is you tend to be realistic about relationship outcomes. You want be just as committed to "together forever" - but possibly less inclined to rely on it! In which case - why are you going to sign over a share of your house to someone you may split up with?

I firmly believe that the onus is on the incoming financially less secure person not to make stupid decisions!

Don't leave your job to move in with them, unless it's part of going to an equal or better job.

Don't stop or reduce your hours to look after their kids.

Always be aware that it might not last - so save, or buy and let out your own house.

By the way, I wouldn't have known English wasn't your first language.

But I do think your post is a bit non specific to really reply properly.

They're not contradictory. The aim is to do what is best for the children in alll instances. They shouldn't have to suffer for their parent's mistakes.

^ What Ellisandra said in her first post.

And also, the right way to sort finances, when one or both in the couple had children before the relationship began, is as individual as every couple. But going into it unblinkered, and talking honestly about relationship outcomes, would help a lot of people.

Thank you for compliments on my English. I have been here a while but I worry that my written English sounds strange.

Contradictory might be the wrong word. I can't find the right one though. It seems unbalanced if that makes sense?

I don't think it's unbalanced as a general principle, but I'm sure there are individual situations where one person is exploited.

But again I make my point - it's their responsibility to make good decisions. Which is not to say I wouldn't be disgusted by the exploiter! But people have to take responsibility.

If you move in with a widower, go part time to look after his children and put all the money you do earn into a single pot, then he dumps you 5 years later with no savings... then you were a fool. It wasn't balanced.

If you move in with a widower, carry on working, leave him to pay for holidays and childcare but happily pay 50% of the food bill and frequently pay for treats for his kids because you want to (not expected), spend less on rent than you did single and keep your savings going... then that's balanced and you haven't lost out if you split up.

Speaking of moving in with a widower, Ellisandra, all well with yours?

Its the old saying - "whats yours is mine and whats mine stays mine."

In a second relationship, it would be expected that the man brings home the bacon and the woman secures her assets against pilfering! Not a lot has changed in how ever many thousand years. You always hear the expression "he takes on another mans child" but never "she takes on another womans child".

Step fathers do get the rough end of the deal a lot of the time

But conversely, if the original father is paying his dues, this goes into the "family pot" and is used evenly across any subsequent family children, because you arent going to take (eg wealthy Dad 1 maint payments) and use for pony lessons for one child, whilst the other watches.

Also, oddly, if someone has moved on and had a second family, the extended step family is upposed to treat the first family equally including birthday and chirstmas presents, treats etc. So effectively the child from the second family ends up with an extra set of presents - but does any one ever tell the first extended family that now there is a new child (which is a step or half sibling) that all future presnt buying must be equal? Of course they don't.

but does any one ever tell the first extended family that now there is a new child (which is a step or half sibling) that all future presnt buying must be equal? Of course they don't.

Umm, yes they do.
My children from my first marriage and second marriage are all treated equally, with time, attention and gifts by my extended family, my second husband's extended family and my first (late) husband's family. I know that human nature is such that DH2's parents, for example, will have deeper feelings for DS2, who they have a biological link with, and they've known from birth. And equally, that DS1 is very special to Dh1's siblings because he looks so much like their late brother. But none of them treat the children differently on that basis.

I think things evolve over time, depending on the longevity of the subsequent relationship. I can only really explain this using my own experience.

Dh had two young children from his first marriage when I met him, he had some equity in a new property and he earned considerably more than me but didn't have a huge amount of free cash at the end of the month after all outgoings including maintenance. So I took on a proportionate amount of the mortgage payments and bills when I moved in. I also contributed to hols and days out with the kids etc. I could not have afforded a house without his equity and he couldn't afford to keep a house without my mortgage payments. I ensured I was on the mortgage, but we were not married then.

Over the years as my career took off I overtook his earnings, we sold the house I'd moved into and bought a house together with me paying proportionately more. At that point we had an honest discussion about equity/ assets as we'd been together 7 years and agreed to make a will that protected his equity while recognising the contributions of made. Ultimately we ended up marrying and moving house again and now have two further children between us. Stepchildren have the same spent on them as ours together do (although both are now adult so maintenance is no longer paid). We're married so everything is equal - if we divorced it would all go 50/50. My salary is twice his so I still pay proportionately more for mortgage and bills and all remaining money after all outgoings goes into a joint savings account.

So much depends on individual circumstances, but a lot has to do with trust too. Dh and I are both honest and trustworthy, we compromise and ensure we are as fair as possible with each other and our children. Trust has never been an issue between us but we both accepted that we had interests that needed protecting and took steps to do so. Part of that was an acknowledgment on my part that he had children and I wanted to contribute so that he/ we were not always taking them on shit holidays and giving them presents that didn't match up to what they received from their mum and step dad. I know it's not a competition but there were times when dh really felt the pinch and was sad because they were clearly disappointed due to our lack of money (before we had our two, so not as a result of our decision to have children).

It's all very complicated and I can see how resentment and inequality can sometimes occur. The basis is a good, open, trustworthy and happy relationship that evolves naturally over time. Easy to say, harder to achieve.