Would you be offended if your spouse did this?

[PiecesOfPie]

I am an only child, my parents have quite a large estate which is in trust. I am the sole beneficiary of this (with them life time beneficiaries). The amount would be quite substantial.

My husband and I share one DC, he has 2 with his ex partner.

I have not yet discussed the situation with a solicitor but I want to broach the subject with DH and then get legal advice for when this happens. As far as I am aware, there are times when inheritance can be viewed as a marital asset in the case of separation?

I'd like to see a solicitor about essentially ring fencing this so that it can be left solely in my will to our 1 DC only. Essentially, I don't want any of the funds going to my husband and then onto my step children if we were to ever divorce.

Would you be insulted if your spouse suggested this to you? Yes it would mean that our DC would have the chance to inherit a lot more than my SC but it would be from me (my parents really), not their dad.

I must admit I'm not hugely clued up on all the rules and law surrounding this sort of thing and to clarify I have not yet sought any legal advice so this is entirely hypothetical right now.

Why can’t the dad buy his kids’ presents? Why does the step-mum need to buy them? Sounds like wifework.

I mean if they children were getting seperate gifts from the two (SM and Dad). So if DD had one pressie under the tree from 'Dad' and one from 'Mum', and the SC only had one from 'Dad' but nothing from 'SM', I'd think that was petty.

The ideal would be for all three children to have equal presents 'from dad and mum/stepmum' IMO. Chosen by both of them together. And never mind what the SC would get under their other tree in their other house, because having to have two Christmases with two families IS NOT AN ADVANTAGE.

ut if (as I suspect here), the OP has never treated them as her own, and never been willing to, then it is my suggestion that she could and should have done,

OP didn't ask for your suggestion, and there is no reason to believe that she could or should have done.

Which is why there is a requirement to treat them as if they are.

There is no such requirement.

Why are some of you so desperate to make out there is only one way to do things...your way? This ridiculous myth of the blended family, all children are equal and equally loved by everyone and everyone is happy...its such unhelpful bullshit.

Most step parents are not as close to their step children as they are their own children, and vice versa. And the important bit: most of them are perfectly fine with that! There's nothing wrong with that.

Your need to kid yourself that every "blended family" is your perfect notion of togetherness...it's about you, not them.

But OP isn’t putting any conditions of what her DC do with the money.

No, but she is trying to influence what her DPs do with their money. Becuase she doesn't want the responsibility of saying to her DH and his kids "I don't want you to have this".

Which would be fine if you left it at that instead of becoming increasing ridiculous in your efforts to portray everyone who disagrees as the wicked step mother of fairytales

There’s that defensiveness again.

@Youseethethingis

And I think I have simply spoken about what I think is right and wrong Which would be fine if you left it at that instead of becoming increasing ridiculous in your efforts to portray everyone who disagrees as the wicked step mother of fairytales. We are telling you that our families do the blended thing in many different ways, and you are telling us all we are being mean. You don’t seem to have the emotional bandwidth for this.

Indeed. It’s patronising to have someone come in and tell us in their inexperienced view that anyone who doesn’t do things exactly how she would is doing it wrong. And the comparison to child abuse.

Why would anyone give a shit what flaviaritt would do in her imaginary blended family?

What is usual is, assuming you aren't divorced or on bad terms, when you die you leave the money to your spouse, assuming he will take care of your children. But because he has children she doesn't want to benefit, she is trying to avoid/control that. Which, as I say, I find a little cold; and the way she is going about it a little cowardly and hypocritical. Butt it is perfectly legal.

There is no such requirement.

I believe there is a requirement to be willing to, and if you’re not, you absolutely shouldn’t be marrying into that family. I don’t require agreement from others about that.

And never mind what the SC would get under their other tree in their other house, because having to have two Christmases with two families IS NOT AN ADVANTAGE

TO YOU. IN YOUR OPINION. Can you try to grasp that other people exist that do not think like you?
Having double the presents is indeed an advantage, to many people. Having 2 homes is sometimes a good thing, to some people. But even if its not ideal, it is what it is.
Your notions involve not treating SC equally, but better, to favour them and give them more. That's not healthy and its based on your own issues.

Why would anyone give a shit what flaviaritt would do in her imaginary blended family?

I don’t expect you to give a shit. I am simply telling you because I want to.

I believe there is a requirement to be willing to, and if you’re not, you absolutely shouldn’t be marrying into that family. I don’t require agreement from others about that.

you're talking about other people and their families, so not only do you require their agreement, they don't require yours. Its not your business what other people do

Where does this requirement come from? The government?

In my opinion (as I’ve said) from morality and basic common decency.

In my opinion (as I’ve said) from morality and basic common decency

Your morality, not based in reality.

You said you can decide who you want to give it to. OP has decided she wants to give it to her child. She's specifically said what her child does with it thereafter is their business. What conditions are being added on?

But she doesn't want to give it to her child because she knows how that will look to her DH. So she wants to dodge making that statement about where he and his kids figure in her hierarchy by getting her parents to bypass her and directly gift to her DD. So she is trying to control things that aren't strictly speaking hers to control.

you're talking about other people and their families

This is MN and AIBU. Most of us are doing that. I have an opinion about what is acceptable. You don’t need to share it to do what you prefer. Crack on.

Your morality, not based in reality.

No morality is based in reality. You think this is fine, I don’t. That’s all.

@VeniceQueen2004

But OP isn’t putting any conditions of what her DC do with the money.

No, but she is trying to influence what her DPs do with their money. Becuase she doesn't want the responsibility of saying to her DH and his kids "I don't want you to have this".

I actually think it's more to do with it just being the easiest way to leave it to her child. What's the point in it going to OP if she wants to then leave it to her DC? Far more messy legally speaking. She may as well just be bypassed completely. Inheritance tax etc... makes much more sense to do it this way.

And I don't think it's influencing anyone, she's repeatedly said she will discuss it with her parents and if they don't want to do it that way then it's up to them.

@VeniceQueen2004

You said you can decide who you want to give it to. OP has decided she wants to give it to her child. She's specifically said what her child does with it thereafter is their business. What conditions are being added on?

But she doesn't want to give it to her child because she knows how that will look to her DH. So she wants to dodge making that statement about where he and his kids figure in her hierarchy by getting her parents to bypass her and directly gift to her DD. So she is trying to control things that aren't strictly speaking hers to control.

Or it's just the easiest way to do it legally?

PP said they can still think slapping a child is wrong despite never being a parent. I'm saying that's a completely different scenario. That is abuse. Slapping anyone is wrong. Everyone knows that.

Given the number of people who still defend the right to slap their children, I'd say it's pretty clear not everybody knows that. Plenty of threads on MN where the debate on this one rages.

I think if OP genuinely wanted to look like she had no part in it, she wouldn't have come on saying she was going to talk to her husband about it. She could just ask her parents to do it and then pretend she had no idea.

And anyway, the point @flaviaritt is making is you don't have to have done something already to know how you would try to do it, based on what you believe to be right in principle. So she could be talking about "I wouldn't slap a child if I had one" and "I wouldn't steal a car if I wanted one" - both situations she isn't in yet but has a principled opinion on what she would do.

Or it could be "I wouldn't treat my SC differently" and "I wouldn't crate train my puppy".

People are indeed supposed to think about these things before they do them. Aren't they?

Personally I wouldn’t want my DC to be disadvantaged by my decision to marry someone who has other children. I think it’s perfectly fine to explore ways of legally ensuring that YOUR family money remains within YOUR family. If your DH is annoyed then that’s his problem. I don’t think it’s fair to deprive your DC of part of their inheritance just because your husband is annoyed about it.

People are indeed supposed to think about these things before they do them. Aren't they?

They can think about them all they like but its a different matter once you're actually doing it. Everyone is a perfect parent before they have any children, and everyone ends up doing things they never thought they would do.

you don't have to have done something already to know how you would try to do it, based on what you believe to be right in principle.

Unfortunately what people say they will do is often very different to what they actually do.

It’s very easy to be generous with hypothetical money.

Then you should try listening. I said that already.

Yet, you keep suggesting that OP didn’t do enough towards them and that she should do more regardless if they want her to or not on top of giving money to them that they are not in any way shape or form entitled to.

People are indeed supposed to think about these things before they do them. Aren't they?

Yup.