Blended family and step-children costs split

[tiredoflondonwanttomove]

A hypothetical question. The situation is not mine (discussed with a friend over the weekend), but it got me thinking.
So the situation.
A single mother at the moment is a sole provider for her young children, and has been from their birth (dad is not in the picture financially). She is in a relationship with a man, which gets serious and the next logical step is marriage.
Her new partner wants to have children in this new marriage (he doesn't have any), and she is not averse to the idea herself. Which will, most likely, lead to a couple of years of decreased earnings for her (her job is not very compatible with caring after babies / toddlers). No one is on the breadline here, but not wealthy either - at the moment she probably earns a little bit more, but it is quite situational, their earning powers are roughly equal.
What is the "fair" way to deal with costs regarding her older children in this case? I am genuinely interested in all opinions, of course in every specific case the arrangements would be unique to the family. I am just interested in what people consider to be fair in the abstract case. Should her new DP pick up some of the costs in respect of the stepchildren or not?

X-post

@katy1213

But she doesn't really need any more children, does she? Sounds like she's doing quite nicely without. And how likely is he to step up to provide 50/50 care for this new baby - or is it more of a vanity project, passing down his male genes which, god forbid, mustn't be allowed to die out?

Well... I guess, technically, no one ever needs any children at all. And all children are, in a sense, vanity projects.

@stackemhigh no, not that one.

The mother posted to say her ex had given up work to be a SAHD to his new twins and so had no income to pay his child maintenance. Should the SM pay for his children in his stead as they had made a family decision to have more kids. Her opinion was as here, that the existing children still had to be paid for and so the maintenance should continue to come out of the family pot, which now consisted solely of the new wife's wage.

That's basically the exact question being asked here, and yet everyone on the other thread said no, stepmum shouldn't pay a penny towards the existing children.

I have no vested interest either way really, it's just interesting that the same question gets a totally different answer depending on whether it's SM or SD that would be paying

Ah ok. I disagree with that, I think SM should have paid CM in that scenario.

@justchecking1

I didn’t see that one - SM absolutely should have paid in his stead.

Utterly vile behaviour.

@justchecking1

I'm always fascinated by Mumsnet answers.

There was a thread here recently basically asking this exact question, with the sexes reversed. The NRP father was the one who had given up work to take care of their new baby, and the new wife was asking whether she should make payments towards the costs of his existing children.

The answers were the exact opposite of the answers on this thread, and everyone said no, his costs for his existing children were nothing to do with her!

Yes those threads happen with depressing regularity.

I can't find it now, otherwise I'd link just so you can see the contrast.

(Sorry to derail your thread, @tiredoflondonwanttomove)

IMO it wasn’t SM responsibility to pay, morally yes.

I had suggested that dad pick up a couple evening hrs then give the full amount after costs ( say 200pm) in CM.

But no, why should dad bite into ‘family time’ mum should get a job.

I think those kids were quite young and sad only had them once a month overnight.

Double standards were strong in that thread.

I think if you are going to share finances you need to discuss in advance "the rules" eg decisions on costs regarding the children will need to be shared once finances are shared for instance whether they can go on school trips.

Saves a lot of heartache later.

We share household costs but individually fund our children (older) eg university costs, presents

I have had this situation but other way around. My husband was a full time dad with minimal involvement from my stepsons mother, financially or practically. Once a month a few hours contact at the time (nothing for over 5 years now.)

When we moved in and married our money was put together and everything paid from the joint account even though I earned significantly more.

When I then had a child I took maternity leave and he went back to full time so I provided the childcare for both children.

Now many years later we are both working full time but again, I earn about double when he does but our money is put together to bay bills from and have equal 'spending money' and savings.

It never crossed my mind for it not to be like this. He lost tax credits ect when we moved in together, so wouldn't have been fair for him to have lost out financially. It is our family I was providing for and I was happy to do so.

utter mumsnet double standards - SMs should not contribute to the costs of SDCs but step dads should.

f you marry someone with dependent children you become a de-facto parent and costs should be split equally.

Maybe I'm old fashioned but to me it's family money in one pot, and if the ex was paying maintenance that would go into the pot also. Likewise if the dh had previous children they would also get paid for from family money.

A lot of the comments on that other thread were that the father shouldn't have structured his affairs such that he can't afford to pay for his two first children. This lady needs to do the same. If her new husband wants to have kids and that will mean her first are worse off, she needs to seriously think about whether she should do it. Nobody should be obligated to pay support for kids that aren't theirs, but the parent shouldn't get into a situation where they are reliant on that.

I think it depends on the couple. Some people join finances when they marry and some don't.

My DH and I have separate finances but both pay in proportionally to earnings towards joint bills. This covers food/bills for everyone (we have DSD 50:50) even though they both eat more than me & seem to like to have every light on 😁

Joint bills doesn't cover child maintenance - that comes out of his money. Or when he buys DSD clothes, pays for school trips etc. I do pay for one activity for her because it was my idea and we do it together, but that was my choice and certainly not expected.

Equally, I have pets from before meeting DH, including horses and I don't expect him to pay towards their upkeep either. Cat/dog food does go in the weekly shop though, which probably evens out the extra food/bills.

It works for us and we both have roughly the same left over. If we didn't we'd make changes.

That's what I'd aim for if I was your friend and didn't want to join finances. Having equal spends, assuming finances allowed for it.

My husband and I also are a "family money" couple. So if he had financial obligations, parental or otherwise, it comes out of the family pot (and I am by far the main breadwinner).

f you marry someone with dependent children you become a de-facto parent and costs should be split equally.

It's funny how you only hear this opinion when it comes to money or bring a free childminder.

No one says, oh but you're a de facto parent now you've married DH when it comes to making any parenting decisions. Step parents are told firmly to mind their own business. 🤷

These threads are fascinating and do reveal double standards. They reveal dilemmas and difficulties too.
Another interesting thread was about the tax credit letter asking OP if she was sure that she wasn't in a relationship, or in a partnership which friends regarded as permanent and official - albeit no cohabiting. Any sharing of money can mean you lose your right to tax credits.

I find it interesting because if someone is dating and it becomes closer and settled, they might start sharing money. Let's say a male partner is a high earner. He would probably make sure girlfriend doesn't go short and might even pay for all her shopping and kids' holidays and car repairs, if he loves her. People aspire to close and settled relationships, often - and actually respectability. It isn't just married people who thinks that way, and isn't the case that divorced people just like fun and no attachment. But how do you work out new arrangements when kids are involved?

Couples would probably think, the tax credits ought to go - and perhaps we should live together and do it properly: go the whole hog.

Well, in the eyes of many, it appears - based on other threads, that is wrong for the good of the first DCs: it exposes them to blended family woe and having the new partner foisted on them.

All views are valid, but how hard to navigate this is very tricky.

If he wants to marry & have children with her therefore she will earn less or none at all than he should provide. Yes they aren’t his kids but he chose to marry the mum and have potential children with her so he knew that was going to happen.

I have a DS with a previous relationship. I have Dd with with dp of 10 years. He is the main earner and provides for both of them.

utter mumsnet double standards - SMs should not contribute to the costs of SDCs but step dads should

For it to be a double standard, it needs to be the same poster saying the two contrasting opinions based on sex.
Mumsnet/women aren’t a hive mind, we’re not duty bound to check previous threads that we’ve not been part of to make sure we following the approved consensus.

I have 2 children from previous relationship. 1 child from current. We have seperate finances and I won’t change that at all.
It’s not only about the providing as such but also what lifestyle my children are used to. One does rugby and polo who also goes to private school the other is disabled and does numerous music lessons. I wouldn’t expect a new DP to pay for any of that. If I couldn’t afford to keep up their current lifestyle of it will effect them I wouldn’t plan to have anymore.

Why is him wanting children (sounds like he’s the driving force here) going to lead to reduced earnings for several years for her?

Why not a year maximum?

If he wants kids, he can share the practical side of caring for them 🤷🏻‍♀️

And then yes to them as a unit paying for all children.

But I’m a bit (OK - very!) 🤨 at this rather blasé comment about her earnings being impacted. That doesn’t have to happen.

It’s an unpopular opinion on Mumsnet where people seem to think you only have financial responsibility for your own genetic children but I think that when you get married and have children you are all responsible. I left my OH when DD was 6 and DS 18 months. My new partner and I then had DS 2 two years later. My OH paid the children’s school fees as his contribution but new OH and I share all money and he has definitely helped to support my children financially as well as emotionally. In our will we are splitting everything three days ways.

Why is him wanting children (sounds like he’s the driving force here) going to lead to reduced earnings for several years for her?
Long to explain, but she's in an area where it is either 60-70 hour weeks with max one or two week off a year (at her current level), or taking a much more junior position which will have more family friendly schedule but it won't pay her mortgage and the children's costs. It is OK now that her children are school age, but would be impossible with a younger child - unless her DP becomes a SAHD.

I had two DCs when I met and married DH. After being left with nothing when first marriage broke down I vowed I would never be dependent again. So no joint accounts or shared finances. I covered my costs and DCs costs. DH made a contribution to the bills minus mortgage.

I would not put myself (nor my DCs) in a vulnerable position by compromising my ability to earn by having more children.

I despair when I read these "all one pot" threads when often the DW earns a lot less (or nothing) and receives no maintenance from the XH.