To not love my SC the same way I love my biological children?

[annasdltn]

I have 7 yo twins. Sadly, their dad, my first husband, passed away when they just one.

My husband has two children from a previous marriage, aged 9 and 7. While the official custody arrangement is every other weekend, he has a good co-parenting relationship with his ex, so we usually see them more often—about half of the school holidays and most weekends, at least for a day. We’ve been together for four years, lived together for two, and got married this year, so I’ve known his children since they were small. They’re genuinely lovely—kind, polite, well-mannered.

I’m now pregnant with our first child together.

Here’s the honest part I’m struggling with: I often see stepparents saying they love their stepchildren the same as their biological ones, but I just don’t feel that way. I care about my stepchildren, I’m happy when they do well, and I want good things for them—but it’s not love, and it’s certainly not the deep, instinctive love I feel for my own children.

There’s another layer to this. My late husband was very successful and left a substantial inheritance to me, with the understanding it would go to our children. That includes a property portfolio which I still manage (same business he used to run but on a smaller scale) and other assets generating income. Because of this, my twins attend private school, have private healthcare, access to more expensive extracurriculars and a very comfortable lifestyle overall. Each of the twins will have access to a very substantial sum of money to buy their first house in their early 20s. They will not be taking a loan for university. These benefits do not extend to my stepchildren. Of course, I contribute to shared family time—holidays, outings, housing, weekends together—and the stepchildren do benefit in that sense.

So, AIBU for not feeling the same love for my stepchildren? Isn’t it biologically normal to feel more love for your own children? Or are other stepparents really managing to bridge that emotional gap in a way I just can’t?

The love thing is understandable I think but the rest just leads me to imagine a future of five very fucked up adults (albeit some of them will have greater financial security).

It depends what you mean by "payment". If we're talking about food and all the normal other costs then yes.

But the father should definitely not agree to private schooling for this third child if it means he can't give his other kids things like help with university costs or flat deposits. How on earth is he going to explain to those kids that one child had luxuries while they got the bare minimum?

I’d have loved to have afforded you the same lifestyle kids but me and your mum can’t afford to… I know as kids you might have thought this was unfair but surely as adults you can understand that money wasn’t coming from me… It was actually from the sad fact that two small children lost their father.
Hopefully that’s met with.. If course dad, your wife has always been welcoming and caring towards us and we love our little brother/sister. Of course it would be nice if you or our mum won the lottery but at least we’ve had a dad to bring us up.

If the father can't afford to support his older children at university then he can't afford to send a child to private school.

But he won’t be paying, Op will. I personally don’t see this being an issue, I’ve said upthread of me and my husband were to have a baby now then it would have a very different lifestyle to my step daughter who’s mum is rich. If I were to try and pick this situation apart at most you could say the dad may affect his children’s opinion of him further down the line, but this isn’t ops problem.
Like I said though I don’t feel the same as most of the posters on here.

There's absolutely no way OP's stepkids are going to be saying that their dad's wife has always been welcoming and caring towards them! This is the woman who said:

'I’d pull them from a burning car or save them from drowning if I needed to, but I wouldn’t sacrifice my own children’s anything (time, money, enjoyment etc) for their benefit.'

So apart from doing something that people would do for strangers if they could, she would never ever do anything for her step-children if it even slightly affected her own children in any way. She expects her DH to make an equal contribution to their shared child's costs, so he will have to pay 50% of the costs of private education for just one of his children, meaning he will have even less money for his older children than he does at the moment. She was actually asked about whether she would allow her DH to channel a bit more of his his income towards reducing the lifestyle gap for his kids and she said:

'No, I wouldn’t. Because that’s effectively me paying for his children? Mathematically him underpaying £1000 towards joint child’s expenses (which means me overpaying £1000) would be exactly the same as me just paying £1000 directly for his kids. Which I wouldn’t do.'

The older her step-children get, the more they will be aware of their step-mother's attitude and the prioritisation of their step and half siblings, in which their own father is complicit and will probably vote with their feet and reduce contact with their dad.

You don’t have any obligation to ensure their lives and schooling is the same as your kids op. No obligation, these kids are not related to you and if your dh and you split then you probably wouldn’t even see them again. How would you feel knowing you spent your late dh money on people who you aren’t even related to. You should be kind and caring towards them, but you don’t have to make sure life is equal financially. That’s for their parent to decide. And if you want to send your new child to private school then that’s no one’s business.

Exactly @thepariscrimefiles. I'm gobsmacked at the OP's cruel attitude towards her step children. As I said earlier, it reminds me of poor Jane Eyre/Fanny Price always being made to constantly feel the poor relations in a deliberate way and the spoiled brat rich cousins, who turned into... thoroughly spoiled adult brats.

'I’d pull them from a burning car or save them from drowning if I needed to, but I wouldn’t sacrifice my own children’s anything (time, money, enjoyment etc) for their benefit.'
What an attitude to take! I would, if the occasion demanded it, sacrifice my children's enjoyment for a friend of mine of theirs who was in need. It would be a good lesson for my DC to learn empathy regardless of the needs of the friend. They still have masses of time, etc. As you say, a stranger would so what the OP says she would and more.
With step children, you make a carefully considered decision to blend families. No one forces you to make this choice. What you definitely don't do, is deliberately create a situation which guarantees a bunch of messed up adults at the end of it.

The response that you suggest the children may produce as adults is total fantasy, the sort invented by selfish adults to justify doing as they please, with no thought for others.

What I'm not fully clear on is whether the OP is going to force her DH to contribute half the expense of public schooling, Uni, etc to their shared child because she would otherwise be subsidising his other children.
Surely, if this is the case, the DH can just say no to the private schooling.

The issue is whether she's expecting her husband to contribute to private school etc.

That's the bit that's unclear. If she is then the older children are very much relevant.

'The response that you suggest the children may produce as adults is total fantasy, the sort invented by selfish adults to justify doing as they please, with no thought for others.'
Sorry- that was to @AndOnThatTree who was quoted above.

I meant everything. Whether that’s food or a holiday. He should pay his fair share for all of his children. Anything less is just a big cop out.

The private school thing I agree with. There’s no need for any of the other children to go to private school, and I also mean the joint child too. The twins had a different dad and their lives will always be different to the other children. It’s very easy to explain to all of the children why the twins have XYZ that they don’t.

It sounds like OP’s job pays well, her youngest should definitely benefit from her income. This doesn’t mean her husband gets to pay less for their child so that he can pay more for his older ones. Like I said it doesn’t work like that. If his ex had a well paid job it doesn’t mean he gets to pay less for his older ones so it works both ways.

Er, you seem to have completely over looked the fact, when making your comparison, that one of the women/parents is his EX-partner and the other is part of his household and his legal WIFE and part of the same household.

By the same logic, in a household with a SAHP and a parent earning a 7 figure salary, the SAHP should also pay 50% of every single bill, even if they have no income to be able to do so because, according to you, that's the way it works. Your 'logic' is flawed and, indeed, appears to amount to financial abuse. How depressing that so many people seem to put greed and selfishness on a pedestal and are unable to think of anything else.

One problem I can see for the husband is that op could use her higher financial power to overrule him on decisions regarding new baby. Could cause resentment in marriage, especially if she takes pains to let child know that mum and not dad is paying for the nice things like private school.

I haven’t overlooked it. I know full well the difference. But my point is that just because your children’s other parent earns well, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have to provide for your children too or pay significantly less. Whether you are with the parent or not.

If you have SAHP situation, surely that is a joint decision between the couple? They agree that the person earning the money will provide for the whole household. OP and her husband aren’t in that situation though.
He has 3 kids and he works so why can’t he provide for all of his kids equally to the amount he can afford? Do you think he shouldn’t have to? Nothing to do with greed or financial abuse on OP’s part. OP will be paying general household costs too and his children (her stepchildren) will obviously feel the benefits of that.

God I feel sorry for step children. They are always last in the queue, through no fault of their own. And it shows.

As it happens I understand what you’re saying, it’s human nature. That’s why ‘blended families’ rarely work well - yes there are exceptions.

The best answer is to give each child an equal share. But you won’t do that because you’ll feel it’s not fair nor what your husband wanted. You didn’t plan this future, but now you have this future, you have these children in your care, and they are innocents in all of it.

If the point is that step/half siblings should have the same, it’s entirely relevant.

It’s the way it works if the two people actually in the relationship agree that’s that way they want it to work (and in such a relationship there’s unlikely to be a sahp, unless of course a new financial arrangement was agreed upon). Married or not, the OP isn’t liable to take on her husband’s financial responsibility for his children any more than he is liable to take on hers.

The husband isn’t being forced into this situation. He was and is an adult with full agency, that agreed this with OP.

Why the hell would the parents of the step kids be pissed at her because she was prioritising parenting her own children instead of the theirs? The step kids have 2 PARENTS and the twins have only 1. If the mum or dad neither wanted to make the effort to take time off work to take THEIR children to a doctor then they clearly weren’t that bothered? 🤷‍♀️

Not loving or feeling the same about children who’s dad you have married is completely normal and most people are honest and say that but a lot just lie and make out they do but of course they don’t

You now seem to be agreeing with me that there are plenty of situations where it is fair and reasonable that one parent contribute more than the other.
It is exactly like a SAHP or one much lower earner contributing none/less. Where did I say that he shouldn't contribute? You won't find me making that suggestion anywhere. Please stop making things up.
It's absolutely greed and selfishness but many people either don't see it or are simply in denial.

I haven't suggested that the step sibs have exactly the same. Why such black and white thinking?
Again, you are entirely misunderstanding. The point is not whether the OP and her DH agree. Incidentally, we actually don't know what his opinion is on this. We all know that she is not legally obliged in a financial sense; I think you made the same point previously. We also know that he wasn't forced into this situation, although in a situation of financial abuse, that's a grey area (not suggesting that this is the case here).
I was responding to the other poster who seems to have a very rigid idea about the dad contributing exactly 50% of expenses so pointed out the difference between the ex wife and current wife and that there are many circumstances where this does not happen and is considered perfectly fair. She now appears to be agreeing with me! 🙄

You say the inheritance was on the understanding it would go to the children you and your late husband had together, so where is the line drawn between your new shared child benefiting from inheritance not intended for them, but them benefiting from your own earned income?

'I’d pull them from a burning car or save them from drowning if I needed to, but I wouldn’t sacrifice my own children’s anything (time, money, enjoyment etc) for their benefit.'

That part was horrendous.

'Yeah, I suppose I'd spit on them if they were on fire, but otherwise, fuck 'em.' About a 9 yo and a 7 yo, no less.

I would have run 10,000 miles from someone with that attitude if I were the father, not MARRIED them and gone on to have more kids.

I was responding to the other poster who seems to have a very rigid idea about the dad contributing exactly 50% of expenses so pointed out the difference between the ex wife and current wife and that there are many circumstances where this does not happen and is considered perfectly fair. She now appears to be agreeing with me! 🙄

I never said rigidly 50% of expenses. I said OP will be paying her contribution to the household and he should also pay a reasonable amount obviously based on his income.
My main point I was trying to make (but it kind of got derailed a bit) is that his youngest deserves a fair share of his income no matter what OP pays for that same child. This in response to other people saying he should be spending more on his older children than his youngest because OP has more money.

I agree with you regarding the SAHP point you made. Why the 🙄 face? Are annoyed that I agree with you?

Exactly. It really is incredibly difficult to defend the attitude of both the adults involved here.

I don't think you actually said he should pay a fair share based on his income.
You used phrases like 'cop out' and then compared this with a relationship with his ex partner!
I'm not annoyed, just perplexed that you don't seem to have thought this through. Perhaps you have but it hasn't come across at all well in your earlier posts.
To me, it isn't about 'fair share' of income, whatever that means. There will be a rather stark disparity between the childhoods of the two existing children and the new one. That is more of a concern than exactly what % of income each should spend when she clearly has multi millions.