Just told DH I will Divorce him over a fucking wedding Part two

[KeenHiker]

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5018658-just-told-dh-i-will-divorce-him-over-a-fucking-wedding

I can’t believe the responses that I had.

Essentially I am going to that wedding so it won’t backfire on me and then as people have suggested reassess when everything has calmed down after Easter.

I am never going to look at MiL in the same light as she clearly thinks my daughter is an impediment to her own granddaughter.

She’s not unrelated and the OP has not left. Do you always deal and form your actions based on such hypotheticals.

she’s a small child who is part of the family unit who their son is bringing up as his own. they may not like it and they may wish it was different but that’s just how it is. If this isn’t down to pure spite and malice around ‘blood’ why not tell the OP what they are saving for their biological GD so she can match it?

they may not have rights to their biological GD if the OP left.

Well, whether you approve of those values or not, they ain’t changing!

She isn’t their grandchild and isn’t being treated as one, and I don’t see how it’s a shame for them that their son married OP given that their son has no problem with their opinions, and OP accepted that when she married him. It’s OP that has to come to terms with the reality that yes, her children do not have the same family members, and due to this they’re not going to have the same opportunities. This isn’t going to change, whether she remains with her husband or not. That her paternal family of her eldest aren’t present in her life isn’t the fault of her in laws, and they’re not in any way obliged to step in to remedy this.

I think it makes a difference as well, that this is not a long relationship, and the difference in family support and wealth existed way before OP and her child were on the scene.

It's different if they met, neither had a pot to pee in, built an empire together then chose to share it within the household who had been there from day one, for the good and the bad.

This is OP and paternal family having much less in both support and money, arriving in an existing situation, and then wanting to be part of it. You can't blame her for wanting, it's a very nice set up for her that she's not contributed to or been part of for long. You can blame her for the extreme entitlement she portrays.

It's also very double standards to want to deny her youngest private education whilst actively saving only for her eldest child. It's ok for mummy to leave out one of her biological children as she sees "fair" but how dare DH do the same for a child that isn't his.

It’s Op that has to come to terms with the reality of her situation. Regardless of whether she stays or leaves, her husband is an equal parent to her youngest, and he will still be able to provide for her the things her sister lacks.

In the time he has her, and that may very well be 50% of the time, he can of course facilitate the relationship with her grandparents. OP isn’t in fact necessary for that.

You missed my point that it’s those values that sow the seeds of resentment and damage relationships. Whether I approve of them or not is by the by as you rightly point out.

I also pointed out that whilst you cannot make them do anything, they could lose who they deem to be their ‘only’ grandchild if the OP chose to preserve the relationship and unity of her children. It doesn’t sound like it would be of any loss to the two children to be fair. Having people like this within a family is toxic.

Wow.

I think you’re indulging in a fantasy in which OP takes her two children off to be raised in a land of equality. She doesn’t in fact get to do that, and nor does she unilaterally get to decide that her youngest doesn’t get to have a relationship with her paternal family.

They’re not at risk of losing anything here (actually they’d gain something - being able to see their grandchild alone), it’s OP that stands to lose her marriage and half the time with youngest daughter, and it’s her eldest that risks losing the only father figure she knows.

I also pointed out that whilst you cannot make them do anything, they could lose who they deem to be their ‘only’ grandchild if the OP chose to preserve the relationship and unity of her children.

How exactly? She has no more right as a parent then DH. And he's not going to stop his family seeing their grandchild. It's not DH and his family who aren't going to have a choice.

@Pamelapamela2024 …..

Can I interject here - she is not a ‘small child’…… she is 10 and in less than 6 years may have left school and be in work.

Even if they told OP what they are saving for DD2, she is due an inheritance separate to this and it is clearly big enough that OP feels uncomfortable and cannot match it.

Regards them getting access, if OP separates the DH will fight for at least 50% custody with better lawyers and more clout. So they will of course see their grandchild and be involved in her life.

Also re. talk of toxicity, anything I give to my DC of substantial value will be ringfenced for them and my biological descendants, and I will support them in future to have prenups and other legal protection to prevent them being fleeced in the event that they marry (and to deter anyone in it for the wrong reasons).

Does that make me toxic for wanting to protect my DC/future grandchildren and to prevent money being lost/squandered?

While I would never be unkind or forget the birthday/Christmas of a step sibling if there are any, I absolutely would not want to support them and have finance diverted from my actual relatives…. I don’t want anyone profiteering off my family.

Bloody hell! 😯

Why wait until she's 16? Why not send her up some chimneys or something so she can start earning her keep now?

But, she is an unrelated child to them. Why pretend otherwise? If OP left they'd never see her again and would have no right too.
And with the ops attitude this is likely to happen
This couple have never considered adoption, the elder DD has never been considered the DD of Ops partner by Op.
This situation of making the grandparents hate figures is bazaar, they are following their DS's lead.

@Surprisedbuthappy

Your ire seems to be directed only at the DH and in laws. Presumably because they are the ones with money that they’re withholding.

They (most likely) had that money before OP came on the scene, before possibly/probably the eldest was even born. It’s theirs to do what they wish with, given they (I’m assuming) earned it. Why are you having a pop at them for not sharing it with people they don’t choose to share it with?

Presumably it’s because there’s an innocent child in all this, and she is the one who is going to suffer. But it was her mum who put her in this situation. Not the in-laws (the SIL to be didn’t even know she existed). The fault lies with the mum. If the DH made promises he’s now not keeping (doesn’t seem he is, but if he did) it’s also his fault and he should share the blame.

This really has nothing to do with the in laws. They’re just going about their business, doing their thing. She is not their grandchild.

My ire is directed at anyone and everyone who thinks that creating such obvious inequality between two siblings who are growing up together under one roof is an acceptable and justifiable way to behave! For one girl to be treated like an outcast while the other has innumerable privileges bestowed upon her.

I have actually said before that I don't think that OP can expect too much of her in-laws - and of course they have a right to pass on their money to whomever they choose. I think if they were nice people the complaints about never spending time with the younger daughter without her older sister present wouldn't have happened, but you can't force people to be decent and they made no promises to treat the girl as their own, so that situation is what it is.

On the hand, the husband absolutely should be expected to live up to his promises to treat OP's daughter as his own - in my opinion.

Have you read OP’s messages? She has said on more than one occasion that she does not expect them to give their step-granddaughter money. In actual fact, she was trying to take on the entire responsibility of providing equality in this situation, by matching their saved money with her own. But they won’t share the information, so she’s not sure what to put aside.

She also accepted that her DH was planning to leave his estate to his biological daughter.

Are you aware that the original post is all about her eldest being excluded from a family wedding and not about her expecting both daughters to inherit the same amount from their father?

When you say OP put her daughter in this situation, do you think that OP had a conversation with her “DH to be” and he confirmed ahead of them marrying and having a child together that he and his family would be spending lot of money on biological children, but not the daughter she already had? Do you think if she had had that conversation with DH, she would have married him and had more children? Again OP has said that he has treated both daughters the same in day-to-day life, so there is no reason to expect DH to suddenly say they will be treated differently, 5 years after having his biological daughter.

I do agree with you that DH should share the blame,
however. He is responsible for setting the tone with his family in all of this.

My ire is directed at anyone and everyone who thinks that creating such obvious inequality between two siblings who are growing up together under one roof is an acceptable and justifiable way to behave!

The person who is creating that inequality is the parent of the child who’s suffering it.

Next is the DH who is allowing it to go on under his roof. A good man wouldn’t do such a thing. Sounds like the bio dad is in some sort of rehab facility or something - who knows whether it’s delinquency on his part or merely a tragic outcome. If the former, he’d be the worst of the lot.

There is literally nobody else.

All my posts on both threads deal with all your questions.

Op you don't have to explain yourself. You are in no way unreasonable to feel hurt at how your dd is being treated. The question now is what will you do about it? The wedding debacle has clearly shone a light on other issues. You're aware of the disparity now and I don't see it improving now it's all out in the open. Your in laws don't see an issue with their behaviour. Are you going to subject your oldest child to this? I really couldn't let any child of mine grow up feeling like an outsider in a family. You'd be better off alone raising your two kids equally in your own home.

So you do understand that OP has no problem with the grandparents or DH providing inheritance? Yet you’re still mistakenly saying that she does have an issue, as per your comment below?

“Your ire seems to be directed only at the DH and in laws. Presumably because they are the ones with money that they’re withholding.”

Well, there are all the people posting here defending the inequality! My ire is directed at them too (since you asked).

Regarding the person creating the inequality - do you mean the OP? If her husband really did say he would treat her daughter like his own, then I assume she took him at his word and therefore had no idea there'd be this much obvious inequality while they're both young and living under the same roof.

Oh, and what @2Hot2Handle said - all this talk of OP expecting her eldest daughter to inherit from her in-laws is a complete fabrication!

If her husband really did say he would treat her daughter like his own...

Did he say that though? Or did he just agree to treat her well and fair. Because if they had agreed that he would become her new father, they did nothing to make it official, nor inform his family of this, nor arrange their finances to support this claim re: wills and inheritance. That sounds more like a stepfather than a father to me.

Ah - I confess I assumed that the DH’s ability to pay for fees (in addition to general costs of living) is at least in part because he’s getting help from his parents, now or in the future. You’re right, we don’t know that.

That said, and totally unconnected from that, she has said she’s fine with their wills as they are ie the girls each inheriting different amounts. You could ask how one blatant inequality is okay but not the other. OP said she was kicking that can down the road, until both girls are mature adults. I don’t see that that would change a single thing. If anything, it would ostensibly make things worse when the most financially stressful time of a person’s life in the western world is when adults haven’t reached peak earning but have peak outgoings (generally 30 and 40s).

None of it stacks up, to me. It is, to me, yet again on MN, adults not accepting responsibility for their actions and bringing children into the world to suffer the consequences of their own actions. It adds insult to injury when they then go on to say ‘won’t someone think of the children please’. Well yes - that should have been you, before you had them.

Yes the OP and the bio dad.

To Eg had wills drawn up around the time the youngest was born. Blatantly and obviously unequal. That was 5 years ago. There was plenty of notice. And OP says DH genuinely does treat them equally on a day to day basis. Why was the onus on him to say “if and when we ever have a child I will pay for it to be privately educated” and not in her to say “if and when we ever have a child I want them both educated to the same standard”. If anything they should have both had the conversation. At the very least, she should have been thinking about her existing DD. She had the most to lose, he nothing. But, he should have had that conversation anyway if he chose to marry a woman who already had a child.

You're right - I've looked back and OP didn't use those words. She did say: he has stepped up, you wouldn't know she wasn't his, he said he'd give her his heart if she needed it, he said he loves her (notably not "as his own")... None of us know what specific promises were made when they decided to get married and have another child, but it does seem that OP either seriously misunderstood the situation or was deliberately misled.

Either way, her daughter is not being treated "well and fair" by being excluded from family events, not being given the same opportunities in life as her sister and generally being treated as a hindrance to her younger sister's relationship with her grandparents. She will definitely be picking up on all this!

It depends on what they agreed "well and fair" to be. It could just mean that bills are split 50/50 rather than making the OP cover her daughter alone. Buying them both ice creams, new clothes, Christmas presents equally etc. Obviously they have been taking both children to spend time with his family (hence the grandmother's comment about never seeing one child on her own), so he hasn't been treating her differently in that way either.

But what he can't do is decide what is "well and fair" on behalf of other people, and he can't agree on their behalf either. It doesn't sound like that was ever a conversation had between him, the OP and his family anyway.

Also, we don't actually know what they agreed on together. What their setup was. How "equal" he is as a parent to her first daughter. We don't know if he is allowed to discipline her. We don't know if he was allowed to make decisions about her education, hobbies, health, or if the OP retained her right to override him and have the final say as her actual parent.

Like I said, he sounds like a stepfather, not a father.