AIBU? Would this conversation upset you?

[GroundFogDay]

DH is currently not talking to me and I think he's being a bit ridiculous.

We were talking last night about hypothetical situations, wasn't a serious conversation at first but then he brought one up and asked what I'd do in a situation where both he and DSCs mum had died, he assumed I'd say they'd stay living with me but I answered honestly that they wouldn't and I'd assume would go to some family or another (H doesn't have much family but their mum has some).

It got pretty serious then, the conversation, with DH asking me why I wouldn't want them to live with my and our children and again I answered honestly that I wouldn't want to become full time parent to two more children and I didn't think it was my responsibility.

He was upset by it, we argued and now he's still not talking to me. AIBU to think he's being silly over a situation that is very very unlikely to ever actually happen?! And I guess AIBU to have said what I said when he asked? I'm surprised in that situation he'd expect me to be the one to take on DSC full time rather than their families (DH and exs).

I feel ridiculous having an argument over a situation that's not even going to occur. But he says it shows how I really feel i.e. about them not being responsibility. Would you be hurt if your spouse said what I said?

YABU you'd be hurt if your spouse said the same.

YANBU he shouldn't be expecting it anyway and it's silly to argue over a hypothetical.

I would be very upset if I thought my husband wouldn't take on my children if their mum and I had both died

@Pluvia that's not what I meant and you know it 🙄

OP isn't related to these children. As sad as it would be if their parents died, they're not her responsibility in any way.

Do you have children with your DH?

If you do, I'd have thought you would want to keep siblings together in the aftermath of such an overwhelming tragedy.

@Stripedbag101 yes they do, who they see regularly. I often take them visiting family, both DHs and my own. Absolutely none of them would bat an eyelid if the children were to stay with me. It has come up in discussions in a roundabout way in the past and it was accepted (by all sides) this would be best. The children would remain in one of their homes, be able to stay at the schools they love etc. For them to go to anyone else would mean a new home and new schools. DSD is under ASD assessment and unnecessary change (in addition to losing both parents in this particular scenario) would be severely detrimental to her.

As I say, it's not an agreement for everyone.

I think having half siblings makes a difference.

A) they’re not unrelated and B) of course they would, gender plays no role in this

Totally this! But OP is a woman so of course she should be expected to 🙄

@ThisNameIsNotAvailable @FloydPepper the fact that they're half siblings is irrelevant.

OP isn't their parent. She shouldn't be expected to take on the full time care of two additional children, as well as all the financial costs that come along with that.

It's batshit that it's expected of any step-parent.

Whilst IL grant it's the same re staying with siblings, the difference is OPs kids don't have a home as their siblings Mom's house, they don't spend half their Ives there and they likely don't have a relationship with her. So you're compacting a virtual stranger to someone they live with 50%

I do sympathise with your DP.
He is probably disappointed that you don’t have enough feelings for your SC to want to be totally involved with them in the unfortunate event of his death. I guess he would feel that you consider his children to be less important, when in actual fact they would need extra love & care.
It’s good to have this out in the open, at least you both know how each other feel. It may be a deal breaker for your DP.

@SleepingStandingUp so by the same logic, if OP and her husband died the DSC's mother should take them in right?

If both my ex and I died, and his partner tried to keep our child, I’d fully expect my family to go to court to prevent it, whilst I was turning in my grave.

I quite simply would not be able to afford to support my step children alone, well not currently anyway. That might have hypothetically changed by the time this hypothetical situation played out.

This may already have been pointed out, but this hypothesis assumes both parents die at the same time, which is extremely unlikely. If your husband were to die first, the children would obviously live with their mum full time. It wouldn’t then make much sense For them to live with you if their mother subsequently died. But what if it were the other way around? If they came to live with you and their dad on the death of their mum, would you then move them out to their grandparents if your husband died one or two years down the line?

Like you said it’s unlikely to ever happen, so in hindsight it would probably have been best to just smile, say yes of course and nod along. I can see why he was a bit hurt.

YANBU. Talking as a step parent, I would expect the blood relatives of the kids have the responsibility of taking them on if the parents passed away, not myself.

This is completely wrong. I wish people wouldn't post rubbish as facts without knowing the actual facts.

It completely depends on how the property is owned. If it's owned as joint tenants, then all named owners own 100% of the property. At the death of each, 100% of the property is still owned by the other named owners. While there are other named owners, the property cannot be part of one's estate to leave to anyone other than the other joint tenants. The final surviving tenant can dispose of the property in their will as they wish.

If, on the other hand, the property is owned as tenants-in-common, each named tenant owns a specified percentage of the property. This could be 50/50, or it could be 1/99. Each tenant is free to do what they wish with their individual share in the property. They can sell it separately, they can mortgage it separately, and they can leave it in their will to anybody they wish separately.

Although joint tenancy is more common for most first time purchasers, new families and equal partners, tenants-in-common is a much better way of ownership for blended families or in any situation where there may be pre-existing equity to protect for one of the partners etc.

Therefore, if house ownership is by tenancy-in-common, and the share of the deceased is bequethed to their children, yes, they would have a right to that share of the property. If not, then they'd get no legal right.

All parents should consider and agree on who should look after the kids if they were orphaned. BIL volunteered it to us when DS was born, we discussed it and keeping DS in his locality, his school and they could comfortably take him financially - and were willing to offer so we agreed.

I remember my parents having a similar arrangement with a family relative for us.

Maybe their mother wouldn't want you to take her kids if both their parents died.

Oh such emotional blackmail bullshit.

OP didn't say completely uninvolved, just that given the circumstances there are other people better suited (legally,emotionally etc) to have them. The children would and should have a say. Their mother would and should have a say. So would their next of kin, which OP is not.

But yeah, sure, bash the stepmum for actually thinking rationally and logically about it.

You mean sex, not* gender *and of course sex makes a massive difference to the expectations society puts on any individual. We have a widower, a teacher at the local primary, in his 30s, who's considered an absolute hero for raising his two young children since his wife's death. People fall over themselves to offer help and support. Single mothers on the staff — meh, who cares.

Totally disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise.

Yanbu, but your answer has told your husband that you have no real feelings for his children at all.

My ex and I have DC together, we both have agreed with my DH that he would take DC on if we both died. My DH would have our DC together to raise plus his DSC.

I also know of a stepdad who did take on his DSC when the mum died suddenly. Her family were supportive but he did have to go to court to make it official.

I don't think you can expect a step parent to step up like this, though, they have to be willing and happy with it.

Interesting thread as a few days ago an OP who did not want to fork out for a holiday for a DSD got absolutely FLAMED that she accepted being a stepmother and should assume a mothering role.
Wonder if some of the people who commented there also commented here as the tone is very different.

Such ridiculous hyperbole.

I'd be upset if I was your DH yes because I think it shows that you don't view them as family. Now in itself I guess that isn't wholly unreasonable but its certainly completely different to the way my blended family is and obviously what your DH expected.

Me and my brothers guardians in the event of our parents death was my older brothers mum and her husband (so dads ex wife) and my mum and older brothers stepdad were guardians for my older brother. Indeed when my parents went on holiday for a fortnight when I was 11 (younger bro 8) we went to stay with my older brothers mum and stepdad. My older brother was 18 and was living elsewhere! Having said that though there were 3 social workers in that parental mix and we all just were raised as that we were all one giant family which was backed up by the wider family too.

He is BU to ignore you though. There clearly needs to be some sort of sensible conversation about it and I suppose you need to consider if your hell no is firm if no other family members are willing or able to step up.

If you were just partners then your response is reasonable. However you're married? That means you're the children's legal step mother, so why wouldn't you keep them? He may be best making a will. So on his death his half of the house gets sold, to put into trust for his children.