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?

I agree with this.

I really do think more people need to think about what it means when they marry other people with children. Both OP and her husband should have thought more about what it would mean for their children and the other's.

Why is your late DH’s money going towards a child that’s not his? Maybe your twins will be unhappy that their inheritance is being diluted in favour of a person that was totally unrelated to their father.

I wish readers would be honest with themselves.

You would not expect your children's stepmum to love your kids like her own, but if you and their father were absolutely unable to pick up your sick child from school, would you really be okay with their stepmum not doing so for a SHOW? That isn't even love...that's basic care from a responsible adult who lives with a child (even part-time).

Why marry someone if you can't prioritise their child's health on just one occasion where there were no other options? Choosing a show over a child's health is just callous.

And in addition to the SC not having the same financial opportunities, let's not forget - they don't live with their DF full-time also. OP's twins live with her and her DH full-time and her husband seems to make an effort with bonding with her children which cannot be said about her and his kids.

Even if love isn't there, even if their financial outcomes are not the same, surely...SURELY when it comes to everyday life - presents, spending time together, doing family activities together - THAT at least in within OP's remit to balance out.

I think it’s natural to love your biological children more than step children of course. But this is a horrible situation for your step children and I feel really sorry for them.

Do you not want your youngest to be close to their OTHER half siblings (eg, your SC)?

Surely the ideal would be be for your youngest to have a good, close relationship with all four of its half siblings rather than just two of them?

No you don't love SC in the same way however you have to treat them in the same way. If you marry someone you undertake to treat any children in the same way as you would own. If you can't do this, don't get in a serious realtionship with someone with kids.

You can’t be forced to love someone, if you hide it well I can’t see the issue.

as for inheritance, that’s not their business and nothing to do with you what their grandparents or mother leave them etc

From an emotional perspective, that’s understandable. They don’t live with you and they have their own mum.

I think in blended families it’s important to show love and care to children, but it’s fine - and arguable natural - to love your DC more.

The financial situation though? Oof.

You are clearly incredibly wealthy. Evening up birthday and Christmas presents would be a drop in the ocean yet despite saying you’re very fond of your SC, you’re happy for them to be the poor relations? At age 7 and 9? 😕

And no private healthcare for them either, unlike your DC? What happens if they got seriously ill - the NHS is on its knees, and you could easily have provided them with better healthcare for a very small sum?

I don’t really have an issue with the house deposits, that’s a clear legacy from the father of your twins. But with so much disposable money for living expenses, I think you’re behaving poorly and I’m surprised your DH is willing to let his DC be exposed to this.

The problem is that you’ve said your baby will have access to all of these assets, despite it being a legacy from the twins’ dad. Your baby has no right to any of these privileges either.

You’re supposed to be a family. I accept there will be some disparity but young children shouldn’t be made to feel less than. It sounds like you could very easily afford to pay for private healthcare and Christmas presents without it affecting what you can provide for your DC.

If it were me, I’d also be looking to support SC through uni too.

You say life is full of disappointments and resentment - but that shouldn’t be the case with your immediate family. I’m not suggesting you sponsor everything by any stretch but your fairly dismissive attitude is pretty sad for your SC. You’re hoarding all your acquired inheritance when it sounds as if it would make very little material difference to make your SC more included.

The Christmas present disparity is mean. If your children have extravagant holidays and huge piles of presents, when their step siblings don’t, that rubs it in the other children’s faces. Future inheritance is less of an issue but if they open presents together and you’re expecting the SC to just suck it up and accept that they get presents of less value than your own children, that is unkind and thoughtless. It also makes your own children seem rather spoilt which I’m sure is not what you want.

If you're living together, and have shared household expenses (which I'd expect you do, as you're having a child together), you need to do something about this approach generally.
In your house, there are 2 parents, and you need joint responsibilities and rules, which you both enforce, ideally before the new baby comes. In a few years, when everyone needs to go to the dentist, for example, are you expecting DH to only take the new child, or take the new child and his kids (but not the twins)? Similarly, if all the kids sneak out as teenagers to go to the same party, are you each only telling off and punishing your own kids? Surely the washing getting done is a household responsibility, and you don't divide the kids washing up based on which parent is doing it?!
It's fine to say 'I have overall responsibility', and to also accept that in choosing to unite as a family, you've taken some responsibility for his kids, and him for yours.
It's fine to say 'ultimately I'm responsible for my kids, as their only parent' but if he's living in the same house as them, taking on a fatherly role, he needs the authority to go with that, alongside some recognition of his role outside your house, like being on the emergency contact list for school. You can be the closest to your kids, and him to his, but you need to come together as a family, which is what you are, and sort this out.

The doctors appointment issue, it seems like you should have said no in advance to taking the child to the doctors, and if it was an important appointment, one of the three of you should have then taken the time to take that child, but it probably would have been just as appropriate for one of their parents to miss work for the appointment, as for you to have to sort out childcare for your other two kids and loose the money you'd spent on the theatre tickets.

I'd also say, re finances, you need to get some things in order re your twins dad's money, v your money. If education costs, future house deposit, trust fund etc are from the twins dad, lock that down, and don't just pull from it willy nilly for other things, especially as they get older and will want more expensive clothes etc.
Your income from his previous companies is your income, and you should be putting some of that into household expenses, which includes stuff like family days out, food shopping and bills, no matter who is there/not. Xmas presents should be roughly even for all kids in the house, especially when you're bringing a joint child into the family too. How you split household expenses is up to the pair of you to decide.
It's fine to spend slightly different amounts on kids generally and as long as his kids don't feel deprived or like they're missing out, then I think the aspect of different schools and clubs is fine.

I think your mistake is that you got married & are now adding another child into the mix. In theory they should be treated the same as step children. The money left was for your ex’s children. So the new child shouldn’t really be eligible. Also if anything happens to you then presumably DH would inherit what you own? I think you sound quite cold.

This is such a sad post op. I am a stepchild but was never considered or treated like a 'step child'. I genuinely feel sorry for people who take on young children and can't get over biology...

The OP continues to run her late husband's profitable business, if I am not mistaken, so it's her elbow grease that the youngest will be benefiting from there.

The connection to her first husband does muddy the water a bit though.

My sister has SC and the first thing she did before introducing her husband to be and his children to my parents, was to speak to me and my parents saying that we must treat the SC the same way as her biological children.
Being a SP requires additional work. Without it I cannot see how such families would work.

Just out of curiosity, if the twins were sick and needed to see a doctor, would your DH choose to take SC to a show instead? How would you feel if he did?

I'm not trying to be mean. Maybe your DH would do as you did. But if not, if you think he would prioritise your twins in that situation, ask yourself if there is perhaps a discrepancy in care happening here as well as a financial one?

The SC may have both parents alive but they only have one full-time parent?

I think this is fine.
It’s similar to how I feel about my step son.
I thought I loved him like my own, until I had my own, and now I see the difference. I don’t have primal momma bear mode for him, more like the sibling love I have for my brothers, I’d still fight, but it doesn’t come from that raw place.

I think a big difference for me is that I don’t do the ‘parenting’ for him. I’m constantly thinking about life choices, medical needs, what’s best for my daughter - whereas his parents do this for him, so I more spend my time thinking how I can add value to his life and build our bond (obviously, I do that for my child, but when that’s all you’re doing, you lose the ‘responsible’ and ‘ownership/protector’ angle a bit.)

So, to be clear your twins are getting all this from the money from their dad's estate, and you can afford to give your soon to be born child exactly the same advantages in life - private school, private healthcare and a large sum of money to buy a house when they are of age, without any recourse to the money etc from your late husband? If not then you are using your late husband's money to support your child by another man.

I've always been the higher earner in relationships - I earn a very comfortable amount - and the thought of saying "if I let my current husband decrease his contributionby £1000, that's £1000 less than I have to spend on my kids (who have all that privilege already) is bizarre and feels very money focussed, when from the description of their lifestyle sounds as if having a bit less money wouldn't exactly put them in penury.

Legally you may be correct, but morally, you don't come out of it well.

You step children have advantages your first children will never have - both parents alive and well, plus a stepmother who cares for them.
You baby is lucky.

It's life. It sounds like you're doing your best by everyone

I admit I am appalled that you would admit that you made a child wait to go to see a doctor. I would never have done that.

A cautionary note. A friend had a similar set up to you. Unfortunately the step children's mother died suddenly. The children had to become part of the family unit. The friends clear distinction between the two sets of children drove the marriage apart. Now she sees her child who was the 'joint' for only 50% of the time because the now ex set up home with his two older childrenand insisted on seeing the youngest as much as he could. Her two lived with her, had lots of money and advantages but openly missed their half siblings and now in adulthood are very close to the older pair who they recognise were treated so unfavourably by their mother.

jamanbutter

But what do her actual children think about a stepchild being treated the same as them?

Trust me I have been left heartbroken.

It's actually not the fact that OP admits to not loving her step children as much as her own. I think that's probably natural and inevitable in many, if not most, cases. The important thing is to treat them kindly and fairly.

Perhaps more troubling for me is that she's married someone where there is a huge disparity between the lifestyle he and his ex wife can provide their biological children (the OP's step children) compared to what HER children and their joint child will receive.

I don't for a second think she should pay for private school or healthcare or give the step children a huge inheritance. But for the sake of fairness and fostering a good relationship between all five children, surely comparable Christmas and birthday presents to open at the shared home and cancelling a show to take a sick stepchild to the doctor (good grief!) are the very LEAST one can do to facilitate this?

I agree with this post.
I think it is really unfair to have such a huge disparity between your children and your DH's children when you all live together as one household. It is bound to cause problems in the future, perhaps between the children, perhaps between you and your DH or perhaps between your twins and the child that you are expecting. The medical appointments should have trumped a show, when they can clearly go to plenty of shows and have plenty of special treats. It doesn't even sound as if you like your step children very much. You appear to be generally lacking in empathy and your own DC may be just the same as you appear to put them first all the time.

If you choose to blend a family, why not actually be a family? Why not just date until your children are all older?

This, basically.

"if I let my current husband decrease his contribution by £1000, that's £1000 less than I have to spend on my kids (who have all that privilege already) is bizarre and feels very money focussed

I agree. I find this attitude really stingy and unattractive from someone who has clearly inherited many millions and a successful property portfolio.

Anyone (man or woman) who says they love their step children as much as their bio kids is lying to themselves or just plain lying. Exceptions to this rule are rarer than hens teeth.