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?

Presumably if she wanted the type of family you see as ‘family family’ she’d have chosen it. She doesn’t want the type of family where she acts as a mother to her stepchildren, or takes on parental and financial responsibility for them.

She didn’t need to be prepared to take on her stepchildren her own, clearly. That isn’t something she has to do, and nor is it something their father is asking her to do.

Their father left money to support his children throughout their lives, which very much encompassss the day to day. Similarly, their mother is using her financial resources to do the same. That the stepchildren’s parents cannot afford to provide to the same standard does not oblige OP to step in and make up the difference. She is responsible for her own children, not theirs.

This is one of the saddest threads I've ever read here (and I've been reading since 2019).

OP, you seem to think your children losing their father young was unfair and so you are hell-bent on your stepchildren experiencing their fair share of life's unfairness. Ofc life isn't fair but we don't actively go about creating hardships and challenges for those we purportedly care about, do we?

And quite frankly, whilst losing their father was hard, he died when they were so young that the impact is somewhat lessened as they will not remember life with him. And now they have a father figure in your DH. OTOH, your SC have 1 FT parent and 1 PT parent, your DC essentially has 2 FT parents. What I am saying is your SC have also experienced life's unfairness when it comes to their family life so I cannot understand your insistence on turning every possible occasion into a teachable moment about how tough life can be. They already know!

And the comment earlier about private ski instructors...are you saying OP, that if your kids and SC go on a skiing holiday, only your kids benefit from a private instructor? Surely not?

If she didn’t want to think about how the family set up might affect her step children , and create a family that works for them as well as her own , then she shouldn’t have partnered with a man who had children and blended a family with him. There are plenty of childless men to choose from.

I know what you will say because I’m familiar with your reasoning- she can do what she likes and no one can stop her. and of course you are right- she can - it’s not illegal to be a shitty human. But she came to AIBU asking for opinions on whether she is being reasonable.
her attitude and behaviour is unreasonable and deeply selfish.
Maybe her step children will say “ah well those are the breaks” like that pp just now, or maybe they will have a childhood full of misery and resentment because they are treated like second class humans in one of their homes. 🤷🏼‍♀️

This absolutely.

The OP should be looking to minimise the differences between the twins and their step siblings and even more so between the new baby and their half-siblings, instead she's going out of her way to maximise them.

Even out of self interest she could consider the possibility that rather than making the new baby and their half-siblings dislike each other out of resentment (which seems to be the intention), there's always the chance that child 3 actually prefers the paternal sibs and is closer to them. How is he/she going to feel about their mother's behaviour then?

Yeah, no, not really 😂 You want a family, and you get married with someone who already has family, then that family becomes yours. You can't just take the good fun bits and say fuck off to the kids. A basic tennet of marriage.

Exactly. If you don't want to care for another man and woman's children, then don't marry a man (or woman) who already has children! Choose someone without children or stay single. It's very simply!
Some people seem to be struggling with the concept of marriage or a loving relationship and definitely struggling with the concept or an adult not just putting their wishes at the forefront of everything all the time but also considering the children who are being swept along without being in a position to consent to anything.

Marriage didn’t make them her kids, or her responsibility. She can absolutely get married without accepting that, as evidenced by the fact she did.

This is such an alarmingly adult-centric view - which is exactly what some of us are trying to point out is wrong when blended families are “ badly executed.”

Yes she can @InterIgnis, yes she can.

And I “can” invite guests round to my house and give them dry biscuits while I sit and eat my most chocolate sponge cake all myself in front of them because, provided it isn’t actually illegal, we can all do we like.

The better question is why would we? And I think we all know the answer: because some people are mean and selfish.

ETA it actually even easier to gorge chocolate cake in the face of your guests if they are children.

It’s very easy to treat children any-old-how generally speaking right across the spectrum of life, because, let’s face it, they don’t have many avenues for resistance.

Thank you for making similar points to the ones I have been attempting to make. It seems impossible for this poster and some others to grasp, sadly! Some people cheer on people who are mean, selfish and see everything in black and white.

I don’t believe the guest example is in any way comparable any more than I believe that OP is ‘mean and selfish’.

Lol. I can grasp it fine. Disagreeing with you isn’t the same thing as failing to understand you.

Exactly. If you don't want to care for another man and woman's children, then don't marry a man (or woman) who already has children! Choose someone without children or stay single. It's very simply!

Seriously. And it's so easy.

I'm child-free, always wanted to be child-free. No interest in interacting with other people's children let alone having any role in raising them.

So....... I didn't date men with kids. That's literally it. Men with kids were off limits. If I accidentally went on a date with, or hooked up with, a man with kids, then there wouldn't be a second time (that only happened once anyway).

It is TOTALLY understandable not to want to care for a child that isn't yours. There's a really easy way of ensuring you never have to...

Why? I thought the guest analogy was very apt! Can you explain why it fails ?

👍🏻

Because providing cake to a guest is on a completely different scale to assuming financial responsibility for your spouse’s children.

They have two parents responsible for providing for them, neither of which are OP. It isn’t ’mean and selfish’ of her to not assume responsibilities that have never been hers to assume.

I don’t think anyone is saying she has to completely assume financial responsibility for her step DC but she was speaking of eg resentment over the differential in Christmas gifts, etc. I think that’s a very equivalent analogy to inviting guests into your home to watch you gouge on chocolate cake while they eat crumbs.
She was also very direct and honest about being selfish, she said that unless it was a matter of life and death she would always put her children first, that’s fine for children who aren’t living with you, but it’s an outrageous statement in a blended family setting. In a family setting you need to balance according to need and fairness, otherwise it’s quite literally the story of Cinderella.

Absolutely no-one has said that OP should assume financial responsibility for her step-children. People have said that it would be fairer for contributions to the mortgage, household expenses and their shared child to be proportionate to their incomes, rather than 50/50, as, given her obviously great wealth, it probably wouldn't even make a dent in her family finances, but would allow her DH to spend more on his children.

OP was horrified by this suggestion and said that it was akin to her directly providing some financial support to her step-children, which she would never want to do. It just indicates a complete lack of generosity and compassion.

but would allow her DH to spend more on his children.

Do you mean all three of his children or do you mean more on just the first two?

I understand the money from your first husband not going towards them. But why not any money you are currently earning from the business that is doing very well? Yes your husband set it up, but you and your current husband are now a team. Any money you are now earning from it should be treated as new money, not money your late husband left for his kids

Yes i agree. I have a funny feeling that if OP was the lower earner, they would be contributing to household expenses proportionately not 50/50.

OP is already getting a financial advantage from her husband. He funds 50% of household costs even though the two kids who live there full time aren't his.

This is a blended family where the blend isn't blending!

It’s not even a “blended” family is it ? It’s 2 people in a new relationship putting themselves first and just expecting the existing children to fit in around it

Yes, they have. ‘It’s family money’ and ‘treat them all the same’ and other such sentiments mean exactly that. Whether she can afford it or not is irrelevant, they are not her responsibility.

OP didn’t say that their finances were 50/50. She said they are each responsible for their own children (and jointly responsible for their shared one). She may very well already be paying a larger amount towards their joint expenses, and quite reasonably balked at shouldering more solely so he could spend a larger amount on only his eldest children.

That said, if the finances are 50/50 that is fine too. If it didn’t and doesn’t suit him then he was and is not forced to be in the relationship.

Exactly. And a much more reasonable way of ensuring it.

Sometimes being decent involves accepting you can’t have your cake and eat it. If you don’t want someone else’s children then you can’t have their parent.