to think grandparents do not have to treat their step grandchildren exactly the same way as their blood grandchildren?

[betnet]

Firstly, I am not advocating for step children to be treated badly in anyway.

But I think it is fine if grandparents do not give gifts or gifts to the same value to the stepchildren as to their grandchildren. If there was a divorce the stepchildren would generally not be seen anymore anyway.

People generally would not expect grandparents to give their non related stepchildren an inheritance. Those who advocate for stepchildren to be treated exactly equally, do you think they should inherit from non related grandparents?

I am talking about stepchildren in this instance where ones DD or DS has married a partner who has children from an ex partner.

Same for family holidays. Often grandparents will pay for a family holiday and want their grandchildren to join them. They should not have to pay for the step grandchildren also.

Stepchildren can end up with four sets of grandparents.

Are stepchildren washed around two homes? Is that what you call it when they are spending time with each parent? It is a reality of life that not all marriages will work. Parents will want to spend time with their children even if they do live across two homes. It does not mean they are washed around.

You talk like you know the children and how they feel!

The money that DD used for the school fees came from an inheritance pre marriage. Are you saying she should use these resources for her step children? Surely it is her choice.

Do you think inheritance money can never run out?

Where does it all end?

Thinking about it, as I mentioned previously, a relative has a daughter...but also has two adult stepchildren courtesy of her late partner. The stepchildren have children, so I guess that the relative is a stepmother and a stepgrandmother. Should the relative feel obliged to give her stepchildren and stepgrandchildren the benefit of her earnings?

Prior to her partner dying, she paid for improvements to her MIL's house and acquiesced whenever the partner's ex demanded more money.

The ex never worked and - as I've mentioned above - tried to claim half the relative's house when her partner died. Her stepchildren supported their mother in her unsuccessful bid to do this - in spite of it being known that my relative had paid off the house with no contribution from her partner.

The stepchildren and daughter inherited from their father, but there was only a moveable estate - he had no house to inherit. I spite of everything, my relative has facilitated the relationship between her daughter and her half-siblings.

Should my relative be handing over money to her stepchildren and stepgrandchildren for the rest of her days?

There are more financial arrangements than wholly joint or wholly separate.

It sounds like for the most part that they have joint finances to pay for joint expenses. His older children are not joint expenses, they are his financial responsibility.

Her inheritance wasn’t and isn’t a family resource available to her stepchildren, regardless of what she spent it on.

I think they should be treated the same if they are children and are now part of the family by marriage. If they are adults when they become step children that's different. Inheritance would go to the children rather than the grandchildren, then it's up to the children what they do with the inheritance?
If there is an existing financial commitment that predates the stepchildren/ GC, that would continue presumably.
Kids within a family having such very different lives would be very awkward. Plenty of people treat stepchildren/GCs differently though, adopted children too as blood is all that matters to them. It's not great really.

I don't see how divorce would help here. DD would continue to put her children in private education and the gap would still remain. The ex wife has a further two children and things are not equal there either.

Father isn't part of it then, it's not his decision in the eyes of his children. When they're together it means he's complacent. He must be feeling inadequate not being able to provide for all his children.

There are often good reasons why some people choose to leave an inheritance to their grandchildren as previous posters have stated.

It is easy to say they should be treated the same but not all relatives and friends are on board with that. DD's friends buy for her 2 DC but not the 4 step children. Her children have inherited from relatives. The step children get gifts from their side of the family. It is impossible to make everything equal.

The point you continue to miss is that it doesn’t sound like the adults in that house are trying to make it equal, or even close. The new, shared children absolutely have it “better.”

I still wouldn’t exclude SC from benefiting from any inheritance I received.

It does seem like you’re either struggling or refusing to see that your daughter could be prioritising her SC in the same way financially as she is her biological children, and that her partner could reasonably be bothered about that too. He evidently isn’t, but then neither of them sound like they see the SC as equal in their family.

That is fine if you would not exclude SC from benefiting from any inheritance you received. That is your choice. People do things differently.

How could the adults in the house make it equal? Pull the two biological children out of private school? I stop paying for the GC horse riding, school uniforms and school trips? Tell DD's friends they must buy for 6 children? Tell all relatives that they also need to buy for 6 children? Tell all family they must include SC in their wills?

Except the school fees are no longer being paid for from a separate inheritance, yet the OP’s dd has told her mother that she will take over paying for her children’s school fees again when she has sorted “her” finances out. I am struggling to see how she can do this as though their biological father has no share in the expense. In what way are his biological children with the OP’s dd not part of their joint financial reaponsibilities? And if they are part of their joint finances, then the money he has left over for his other children will be reduced by the cost of the private school fees. Hence my comment that the dd’s “inheritance” and bank-of-mum are highly convenient ways of avoiding making the unfairness obvious.

What kind of father chooses two of his six children to send to private school in the first place?

I understand your daughter may have had the preference but he could quite easily have said he didn't agree, or couldn't justify only two of his children getting that kind of advantage.

That's one way.

All six don't need to have the same hobby (horse riding) and frankly would all six have the exact same interests anyway? But by the parents in the family, all six should be given equal opportunity to pursue interests. Why isn't their father saying "these two are riding, let's take you swimming / to football / hockey"?

There's another.

The adults should be prioritising making sure all of their children are able to follow their own paths. Not arguing about inheritance and who pays for what while four of a mans six children feel less than his other two.

It's very much on their father. He's their common parent. He should be advocating for all six of them.

DD's inheritance is a convenient way of avoiding making the unfairness obvious? The money was left to her pre marriage. It is her choice what she spends the money on.

The SC have a mother, father, grandparents, extended family who can give them opportunities to pursue interests.

There are no arguments with DD and her DH regarding inheritance and who pays for what.

They could start by sharing their finances, all of them, between all 6 of the children and not just the two they created together.

I’ll be honest, how this reads - with all the talk of horse riding, private schools and family inheritance. Is that your daughter’s family, and therefore yours, are wealthy. The stepchildren are by all accounts from more humble background, and don’t have access to those opportunities from that side of their family.

It sounds like “we will not share our wealth and resources with those plebeians, because we do not claim them as our own.”

I say this because my mother would be disgusted if I left my stepson out in this manner, and would tell me such. She wouldn’t be saying it was my choice, my money, she’d be reminding me that I’ve accepted responsibility for that child and should behave like we’re a family.

There is not only model for family finances. Some may share everything, some may keep things separate, some may do something in between.

People from 'humble' backgrounds inherit as well. It is not exclusive to the wealthy.

That is fine if your mother would be disgusted if you left out your stepson and she would tell you as such. Your choice.

It is not hard with one stepchild. It is different when there are four of them and they have another two step siblings on their mother's side.

It is strange though, that it is the side with access to wealth and opportunity that see it was best to keep things separate.

They do, but they don’t inherit to the same value, and generally speaking - would not separate it into “mine” and “theirs.” That is anecdotal from personal experience, I can’t speak for all, but this idea that it wouldn’t be shared is completely alien to me.

Your daughter, and son in law are responsible for equity in their home, between their children. Shared and step.

They’re not doing that, there’s a separation between their two “sets” of children.

The step children don’t appear to receive the same treatment from your daughter and SIL as the shared children, and I’m completely staggered that you don’t see that inequality as unfair.

But clearly that inheritance money has run out - otherwise what on earth are you paying the school fees for? Make up your mind - does your dd have a separate pot of cash left, or doesn’t she?

Do you really have no comprehension of how pathetic it sounds to argue that the real reason for leaving the stepchildren out is that there are just too many of them and that maybe it would have been different if there were only one of them? Your DD and her dh really should have thought of that before they brought even more children into the world - unless you are willing to admit their view of the world is a particularly selfish one.

I’m assuming - the daughter paid for it from her family inheritance, that ran out and she can’t afford it without that pot available, and now mother pays for all school costs (trips and uniforms too?) and also the horse riding.

Yes, but with the promise that her dd will take over paying the school fees again once she has sorted out “her” finances.

She didn't only have the inheritance. She has other sources of money also but this cannot be accessed yet. Once she can access that, then she will take over again.

Is she waiting for someone else to die?

It is not pathetic when DD's friends do not buy for all 6 children and that some relatives only choose to buy for her children not the SC.

Did you expect my DD to say to her DH, let us not have any children together. I will invest all my time and wealth into the children with the ex wife?

Are you?

Smells like a trust fund.