to think grandparents do not have to ttoreat their step grandchildren exactly the same way as their blood grandchildren? Part 2

[betnet]

Previous thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/amibeingunreasonable/5308130-to-think-grandparents-do-not-have-to-treat-their-step-grandchildren-exactly-the-same-way-as-their-blood-grandchildren?page=40&reply=143511587

No one is advocating that people be cruel or unkind to step children.

But it isn’t about money, it’s about empathy. If you can see your step-children suffering, partly as a result of your own behaviour and attitude towards them, and your reaction is that they have more than enough relatives of their own and it’s not your problem, you are lacking in empathy towards them.

And really, it is a bit odd to view yourself as “missing out on your inheritance,” if the person leaving you money also gave some money to other people.

Ooh how condescending. I learned that word in state school 💁🏻‍♀️😂

I think other posters are capable of speaking for themselves.

My PIL don’t really bother with my son, but I don’t care because I’ve severed all ties with them since they don’t even bother with my daughter who is they blood grandchild; but still bother with husbands daughter from a previous lol it’s bonkers.

No one said it did. Choosing to pay for something does not mean that it was your responsibility to do so, or that it was expected of you.

Yes, families do things differently depending on their circumstances, beliefs, and objectives. When there are assets a lot of people will consider it sensible to discuss them. For example, in my family my parents established trust funds to benefit their two children, and managed investment accounts in our names. The same for my husband’s family. As such, being bothered by finances, and getting a financial education, was important, and assets were and are a topic of discussion.

Our respective parents didn’t have to do that, but they chose to, and I appreciate that as the generosity act it was and is, not as something I was or am entitled to. The same goes for inheritance. My parents, and any parent of the same mindset, wanting to leave their assets to the children (and believing it’s important for said children to be kept informed as to various details) does not mean they consider themselves obliged to do so, or that their children consider themselves entitled.

It doesn’t sound like that’s what the poster you’re replying to thinks of herself as entitled either - rather she’s asking why her father should or would be expected to.

I’m not talking about my inheritance. Although when you’ve been cut out a will and your sibling inherits 500k from your parents and you get nothing, despite you caring for them in their last days, and them swearing your entire life they treat you equally, yes it does burn somewhat.

if my dad wanted to leave money or split his estate between step and bio dc, I have no issue. What I take issue with is the expectation that he should, as anyone not treating them all the same is somehow cold and evil.

when you’ve have a blended family estate planning is essential. No one wants a new wife to inherit over their children, no one want their own children disinherited because they died first then their spouse cba to sort things so everything goes to your step dc, and your children nothing.

so yes, I have considered what to do with my assets. I have taken into account what the step dc will likely get from their family, and what my dc will get from me. Bottom line is me and stepdc mum are roughly in the same financial situation, we both own a house of the same value, with little other assets. So with the expectation her dc will get her house, I will leave my dc my house. Everyone gets roughly the same.

the house was originally Dh’s that he signed over in the divorce. So technically his step dc won’t inherit the same from him as his bio dc.

if I follow expectation of treating step and bio dc the same then step dc get 1/2 mums and 1/3 mine, so 2/5 of a house each, and my dc will get 1/5 of my house. Which I don’t think is fair. Both houses are c. 500k, so step dc will get 400k each, while mine gets 200k of a house I bought and paid for.

I’m sure she doesn’t - the point I make towards the end of my reply regarding being convinced I live on a different planet to some here is genuinely what I’m taking from this thread.

Those who have money to ‘share’ seem far more interested in who they should or shouldn't share it with, and what inheritance/wills mean for members of their family.

It seems that the more you have, the less you want to dilute that in a way you think is unnecessary or unjust. So those of us who couldn’t actually pay for a whole family’s education are thinking “Jesus just buy the kid a board game.”

This is a family with the wealth to pass around for school and horses, who don’t want to buy some children a token gift. It’s not galling, it’s baffling. That you could be comfortable spending thousands every year on some kids but won’t spend £20 on the rest.

I genuinely think it’s a difference in financial attitudes that comes from being “working class,” and being wealthy. That’s where the difference lies. Those of us with comparatively less, share more.

Genuinely - would your children conflate your inheritance with what the SC get from their mother? I see the two as completely separate pots and “issues.”

As in - if I was bothered what I was getting from my mother, I’d want to be treated fairly within the confines of our family and the people in that will, what happened in someone else’s estate wouldn’t come in to it?

I don’t understand. Are you saying her parents should pay for SC to do hobbies?

You constantly keep saying you don't understand why others do something different to you, how you must live on a different planet because others do not do what you do.

People are different. We are not all the same.

This is why I have to keep repeating for your benefit:

Not everyone is going to find your set up appealing, any more than you do theirs. That’s fine, the only one that needs to work for you is yours.

Yes because that is the only way you can have empathy - by paying.

So how do you show empathy towards your step-grandchildren?

I don’t know whether this has escaped your attention, but I can read.

The comment you have responded to was a perfectly genuine conversation about people prioritising financial conversations within the families, or not.

The point of that, if you’re confused, is to attempt to understand that world that you evidently live in and how other people may do things differently. The points that person made about their circumstances and how it works for them, was actually helpful.

There’s no use just repeating the same points without anyone trying to explain anything.

If you didn’t want conversation, you shouldn’t have started a thread.

I would never in a million years ask my parents to do that. Choosing to be with someone who has children is something I’m really picky about and look for values that align with mine. I absolutely refuse to pay for another adult and wouldn’t choose to be in a relationship with someone who couldn’t afford to pay for there children.
Asking my parents to take on financial responsibility of someone else’s child just because I’m an a relationship with them is just rude, and TBH I wouldn’t think a lot of a new partner who thought it was ok to ask them.
You sound completely bonkers.

My kids wouldn’t, no.

but the step dc might.

they don’t know our financial set up. They don’t know dh doesn’t own our house.

it’s not unreasonable for them to expect a share of their dad’s estate. Most couples do own their properties jointly.

if he dies first then they will assume I am the evil second wife who their dad leaves everything to. Then I go on to leave my child the house. In their minds I have taken their share of their dad’s house. If I die first and the house still goes to my dc when dh dies (he will have right to remain) then dh is the evil parent cutting them out the will.

this needs mitigating and expectations managing.

it’s not financially fair for the step dc to inherit my estate disadvantaging my children. But then it’s not emotionally fair for the step dc to think they’ve been unfairly treated.

There’s no use just repeating the same points without anyone trying to explain anything.

Is that not what you are doing by repeatedly saying you don't understand how anyone could not do what you do and being on another planet repeatedly?

I am happy to have conversation. That is why I started the thread.

It was sarcasm but OK.

Sorry OP not you. The poster suggesting grandparents pay for hobbies.

That makes sense.

I’m looking at this from the perspective of everything we have being joint - as you say, most people are.

I would have to actively remove things from my SC, remove my input into the joint arrangement, which is completely unreasonable (and not the same!)

🤣You’re calling the OP bonkers. Serves her right for putting words in other people’s mouths. 🤣

What other posters are doing, is discussing those points (including the lack of understanding in how their world works).

What you’re doing is saying “well we’re different 🤷🏻‍♀️,” coupled with a repetitive conversation about uncles, gifts and wills. The same points we’ve discussed.

Nobody has to explain anything, but if we’re not discussing those perspectives, I’m not sure what we’re doing here. I think a blog to sound off at might have been more helpful!

But is it not you suggesting that grandparents should pay for SC?

No. I’m suggesting, as Whatsgoingonherethenagain has put it, that there is financial fairness and emotional fairness, and the OP has made a thread where it is not actually possible to see the emotional fairness in the situation. She has basically painted a picture that sounds emotionally unfair, and made no effort to explain anything which should lead posters who have commented that this is the impression she is giving to think anything different.

Yes, I do think attitudes vary wildly depending upon socioeconomic status (for want of a better word).

As a topic it is interesting to consider, and quite complex when you start going into things like the altruism paradox. Generally, when a family/community has less, sharing resources actually works to increase the overall availability of resources for all members. By sharing you’re also benefiting yourself, and buying a level of security for yourself. Not sharing can leave you vulnerable and at a disadvantage.

Conversely, and still speaking generally because human behavior is not in any way simplistic or neat, those with wealth do not have to ensure their security in the same way. The interest is in maintaining wealth to benefit your own children/descendants, to provide the same security for them. That can also mean not just spending ‘because I can afford it’. This is not merely because wealth can be easily lost that way, but because people can and do look to take advantage. Someone being able to easily buy something does not mean it is their duty to do so, or that someone is entitled to expect to be provided for.

Image - perception of self as well as an interest in how you’re perceived socially also tends to play a not insignificant role.

I am by no means “well off,” not by the standards of those who have real wealth.

However I am definitely more comfortable than I was even 10 years ago, and certainly more than others in my family/circle.

If anything I’ve seen that make me more likely to share - gifts get more expensive, weekends away booked etc. To go back to an earlier point, I’d buy someone else’s child a game, and not think about the £20 that “lost.”

I see my high tax input as benefitting those worse off, and completely am fine with that. I’d pay more if it helped more.

The point I’m making is that having more, in my personal experience, doesn’t have to mean sharing less.

Perhaps the difference again, is that the money is earned and not generational or given.

I’m grateful to have it and see no issue with sharing it, because I’ve been a “have not.” Perhaps if you’ve never been a “have not,” you’re less bothered about those that are.