Different Dads Different Prospects

[DelaneyDonkey]

I have no idea what I even want out of this thread.

When I first met my in-laws not only was I pregnant with their grandson even though I had only known their son for a few months I also had a three year old in tow whose dad was completely uninterested. I was quite a catch as you can imagine.

I thought everything worked out reasonably well. We got married and settled down. Broadly speaking they treated both boys well and my eldest had come into the family at an age where he knew they weren’t his grandparents so subtle differences in their treatment were accepted.

Now 17 years later things are beginning to change massively. Eldest dropped out of uni and in and out of work through no fault of his own, just the way it is with that kind of work. While youngest has had driving lessons given to him by in-laws, a second hand car, a course paid for, enabling him to get a part-time job. He has been told he will be supported at uni.

My in-laws are very ordinary people, who have worked all their lives but in the 1980s FiL had an industrial accident and built up a little property portfolio. Last week, completely casually younger son said that one of these houses la will be transferred to him when he is 18 of months. Apparently the two cousins have had houses given to them as well.

Elder son just became mute.

Husband and I are having to pare everything back at the minute but he won’t approach his dad to ask what is going on.

Youngest has his head screwed on but it is as if he has everything handed him on a plate.

Our mortgaged house is worth about £300,000 but husband will not hear of adjusting our wills.

If you had asked me 18 years ago if I expected in-laws to treat them the same I would have said no, it wasn’t their duty but I am just beside myself at the inequality, I didn’t expect it.

It's all very sad. Money is better when it's shared. Sad also, and sexist, how the elder son is said by some posters to have been "taken on" by the step dad, as if the mum can't provide for him too, and he's a burden. Children are an asset to a family. Or at least they are in mine. What is the point in being well off if it causes this much angst. It's not entitlement, to feel hurt by unfairness.

It’s always easy to share and spend someone else’s money.

Like hell would I just hand over some 200k to a step grandchild with their own even partly involved father and grandparents.

Just as I’d never expect to get a house just because my half sibling did from their family. That’s greedy and grabby. Not nice traits either.

Thankfully, they can decide for themselves what is better when it comes to their own money. The point of the money for them is using it to help secure the future of their descendants, obviously. That this has created angst in people that erroneously considered themselves entitled to it is neither their fault nor their problem. As it so happens they are sharing it, just not in the way OP thought they would. Oh well.

No one is being unfair to him. He’s not entitled to the same from people that aren’t his paternal family. They aren’t being treated the same because they are not the same. This judgement would apply to a father expecting this from the stepmother’s family, so I’m not sure why you think this is in any way sexist either.

Op clearly did think she could provide for him using her in-laws money. Tbh, I suspect she’s never liked her in laws, but having secured an agreement with her husband to split their asses 50/50 (a mutual will?), she’s been playing the long game with them believing that she’d ‘win’ in the end. This is despite the fact that her family was the only one that wasn’t given a deposit for a house, which was a warning she would have been wise to heed then.

I also wouldn’t be surprised if her husband has been kept far more informed by his parents and/or been an active participant in their financial planning, than she is aware of.

Well the whole point of the post is she's upset that the step dad's family is providing for the younger son and not the older one. If she can support the older one perfectly well without the step dad then what's the issue?

The lesson here is to not make assumptions about inheritance. Which is an MN trope for a reason!

It would've been wrong of OP to anticipate what DH was getting even if the ILs hadn't made it obvious they don't actually see DS1 in the same way as DS2. The fact that they've done stuff like not give birthday presents (and I suspect most people would stick a few quid in a card in this situation) means it was naive too. You just can't assume other people's money is going to come to you.

Thank you I can read and have basic comprehension skills.

I completely stand by my comment.

I think it’s odd that so many people prioritise equality over equity. I’d be fascinated to know where everyone commenting is from because in my country it would be quite normal (and happily accepted by the younger sibling) for the inheritance to be adjusted so that both siblings are taken care of.