Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

am i being unreasonable? Children are getting different amounts saved for them.

72 replies

user1985 · 18/04/2018 12:26

So my husband and I were talking finance's at the weekend, and I happened to mention that I had been putting money away for all the kids.

we have 3 children, one is mine, one is his and one together.

I put £60 a month away for my child and our child and £20 for his child. The reason being, her mother and I get on very well and were having a conversation a few years back when we discussed saving money for the terrors and she told me she puts £50 a month away for my husbands and her child and will give her the money when shes 21 (same plan for us).

SO works out that husbands child is getting £10 extra a month than ours (who cares, £10 is £10).

But when my husband found out that my child and our child our getting £60 a month saved and his is only getting £20 he was livid!!
I explained why, ie. they would all end up having the same lump sum when they were 21 etc and still, didn't seem to placate him. I then brought to his attention that his daughter is in line for a £500,000 inheritance (grandparents are 89 and 91) and ours and mine are not, but he just kept saying how unfair I was and that it is completely out of order to give them all different amounts and says its not his childs fault that they are getting an inheritance and that it shouldn't matter (this pissed me off).

The money I am saving is not for clothes and holidays, it is so our children can buy a house if they wish to. Its bloody hard to save up that sort of money and I just wanted to give them all a little head start. My child and our child would have far less than his child at 21 if I split it equally between them. They are obviously all written into our will equally and always will be regardless.

I am absolutely F'd off about the whole thing and just wanted to see what others thought?

I cant imagine I am being unreasonable but maybe I am? you never know...

OP posts:
Bettiedraper · 18/04/2018 13:31

Tell your husband he needs to learn and practice the meaning of the term "equitable". Of course you don't treat all your children exactly the same; you give each one what he/she needs. The daughter who stands to inherit £500k obviously won't need the money as much as the other two.
I would go so far as to say, why not just save all the money into one pot and distribute it equitably when the time comes?

Juells · 18/04/2018 13:34

I'd do a turn-around and ask him if his child with his ex is more important to him than his child with you. That he thinks that child deserves everything, and the leavings are good enough for your child. Stick him with that 🤣

Aprilmightbemynewname · 18/04/2018 13:34

Personally I would be saving to ltb with an attitude like his. He should be over the moon YOU are saving for HIS dc!!

applesisapple5 · 18/04/2018 13:40

YANBU! The best bit is that prior to this weekend your partner thought there was no money... now he knows about it he thinks he can have an opinion?!

Tartsamazeballs · 18/04/2018 13:41

What is equal is not always fair. What is fair is not always equal.

With each kids amount ending up with the same amount (well within £10, close enough eh) each month I think you're ok.

Nice of you to save for your step kid, not all step parents would be so nice.

UpstartCrow · 18/04/2018 13:43

So you save your money for each of the children, he does not because they should make their own way, and he says you're in the wrong?

That's a belief of male rights activists. They believe they should stop supporting their kids at 16 or 18. Which basically means they don't want to put their kids through University, or give them a start in life.

KT63 · 18/04/2018 13:45

And will he be putting £10 extra a month away for your child and yours and his?

gamerchick · 18/04/2018 13:49

Tell him fine, give him the passbook and tell him he can save what he wants and put that 20 quid with the other 120 for your kids.

Some men can be right tossers about the strangest of stuff sometimes.

lottiegarbanzo · 18/04/2018 13:54

I think what's not fair is the £10 extra for his child. Over time, with interest, that will amount to a significant difference.

I hope you're saving in your own name, just allocated to the dcs, not in accounts in their own names. That gives you the freedom, if inheritances go as you predict, to adjust things in favour of the child(ren) who won't inherit, should you choose to do this.

Your money, your choice.

You DH is being an idiot though, really weirdly childish. As well as a hypocrite, given he's not saving at all.

bringbacksideburns · 18/04/2018 14:01

Wow. You are saving for a child that's not yours when one of their parent's is going to be very wealthy, the child stands to inherit a fortune and the other parent clearly makes good money? Confused

He sounds an arse

Mummyoflittledragon · 18/04/2018 14:07

If I understand, you could put it as this: you are using the maintenance money divided thus:

£60 your dc (not fathered by your dh)
£40 your joint dc

The remaining money from joint funds:

£20 your joint dc
£20 your step dc

Therefore, you could say that you jointly are saving nothing for your biological child. I imagine the money he earns part pays for your dc, so I’m not suggesting you use it as the ultimate argument. But I think I get your reasoning.

As your step dc is going to inherit, and her mother is saving, I would say, YANBU.

Perhaps suggest to him that if your step dc doesn’t inherit or doesn’t receive the promised cash from their mother at 18 (I imagine) that you jointly top them up. Would that satisfy him?

Juells · 18/04/2018 14:10

Would that satisfy him?

It's not her job to satisfy him when he's being unreasonable, is it?

Mightymucks · 18/04/2018 14:11

Not joint money, coming from my wages I get £100 maintenance a month and take £60 straight out and put it in our childs saving..

No, this is not right. This means you are keeping money from your maintenance and putting it aside for your child depriving the rest of the family of those funds.

Yet your DH will be paying out money for his daughters support. That means he is worse off twice, because you don’t add the money to the family funds, plus he also pays out for his daughter.

If you want to save more for your child from a previous relationship then you have to ask her Dad for extra. The way you’re doing it at the moment withdraws funds from the family account which will mean he pays out a higher proportion towards bills meaning he does not have the money to give his child an equal proportion of money to his child from a previous relationship.

You should split it equally.

What you choose to do with your maintenance and your earnings in relation to saving for your children is not his business. If he's that bothered about his child, he can start saving for him/her separately.

As I’ve said on another thread, this isn’t really true. If the OPs DH is paying for her part of her daughters upkeep via his wages then he has a right to object if the OP withdraws money from family money intended for her upkeep if that detrimentally affects the amount of money that can be saved for his daughter.

If the OP doesn’t want to contribute to savings for his daughter as an equal child in the relationship then he is not obliged to support her child from a previous relationship either.

You can’t treat children unequally by expecting a stepfather to financially contribute to the upkeep of a child from a previous relationship whilst refusing to do the same for his child.

If it’s an equal split but you withhold money for savings, it’s not an equal split.

summacummamumma · 18/04/2018 14:14

Yeah, this conversation with your DH is def not over...and you are def not BU!!

You sound generous and lovely...if he can't see that then good luck to him!!

Mightymucks · 18/04/2018 14:18

If they split the bills 50:50, then he is making a contribution towards the cost of a child who is not his via the bills.

If the OP refuses to treat his child as an equal with the savings, he’s entitled to tell the OP he’s not treating the child equally via the bills either.

This is the second thread with this today, stepfather expected to contribute money towards the upkeep of mothers child but mother thinks she is entitled not to share the cost of his child.

FlippingFoal · 18/04/2018 14:22

Hang on - that maintenance is for the child with the absent father, not to go towards family funds. It is so the child gets the same benefits as if they were together. So if the DM wants to save £60 it is her perogatve. I think she is being fairly generous saving for a child who isn't hers when it's own father isn't...

Babyplaymat · 18/04/2018 14:24

Where is the father saving for their joint child? Or his solo child? The mothers are the only ones saving, and they both pay the same towards bills.

FlippingFoal · 18/04/2018 14:26

The only person who has a right to be upset is her ex as his maintenance is being used for her new partners child at the expense of his own. It's out of order - that money is for his child's future, not to split

Babyplaymat · 18/04/2018 14:29

Given that £100 doesn't touch the sides in terms of raising a child I don't really think that the father can get too uppity tbh.

Babyplaymat · 18/04/2018 14:30

And maintenance isn't for the future, it is for covering for cost of raising a child.

dirtyquerty · 18/04/2018 14:33

how come the inheritance isn't going to the mother?

Trinity66 · 18/04/2018 14:34

how come the inheritance isn't going to the mother?

She already answered that, the mother is getting inheritance as well well, twice what the SD will be getting

dirtyquerty · 18/04/2018 14:35

The more i readon MN the more apparent it is that the nuclear family is the gold standard

SleepingStandingUp · 18/04/2018 14:37

OP pays half the bills so is contributing as much to step daughters roof as partner is to his step child.

She's then saving £20 a month for step child and £60 for their child out of her wages. So £80 a month for his children vs him not doing the same back. Then tAkes£60 out the maintenance for hers. Even if you argue this is family money not savings she's only £20 a month out than if he paid half for his kids savings. So in essence she is only taking £20 of the maintenance money when they can clearly afford to live without it.
Surely its better any excess daughter's money is kept for her, not bulking up their savings?

KT63 · 18/04/2018 14:38

dirtyquerty add to that

  1. first wives are never wrong
  2. children from second marriages/relationships are second best
  3. second wives/partners have to suck up whatever shit is thrown at them
  4. men are bastards, without exception (fully aware that some are!)