To think stepparents should not be financially responsible for other people's children?

[Mrsnothingthanks]

That's just it really. I'm married. My husband is only financially responsible for our daughter, not my other children. Why should he be? Not his kids!
Surprises me on MN that others think stepparents should assume financial responsibility for kids that aren't theirs!

It’s easy for you to say that when you are the higher earner. What about if you couldn’t work due to illness, would you let him help support your kids then?

People keep saying "children should be treated equally" which I agree with but...it makes no sense in this scenario. A stepparent not contributing doesn't make it unequal. All children can be treated equally - all that is different is who is paying for it.

Im sorry you had to go through that, thats truly awful x

I don’t think step parents have a responsibility to provide so much as a responsibility not to be an arsehole to a child.
for example, if I’m arranging a trip for the family, I will happily pay for DSD. If I’m buying treats at the local farm shop I will of course buy a fancy cake or something for her.
I won’t, however be arranging my budgets to pay for her school uniform or clothes or clubs. Those are responsibilities I want no part of as I’m not her parent.

What is, in your view, the role of a step-parent?

I dont have an clear opinion but would love to see what you think.

It depends in what way, for the 50% of the time he's at my house, I will buy groceries to accommodate that, I'll buy him clothes or gifts as a treat and we (my boyfriend and I) split the cost of an annual holiday and Christmas. But when it comes to school clothes, essentials, clubs, activities, equipment etc, that's for the parents to split. I choose not to have children, I don't want to be burdened with the cost of a child regardless of who I am with! To those with children- being in a relationship with someone is not a ticket to get them to pay for stuff or help with the cost of raising a child, you should be able to cover your 50% your own self.

My bio dad had to pay a load of money (unpaid child support) to my mum and stepdad. They spent it on a holiday to Australia (didn't take me, obvs).

My dad had argued that he didn't have to pay child support as I was legally adopted by my stepdad and took his name (we all had to pretend he was my bio dad, even though I'm blonde like my real dad's side of the family and he is dark and swarthy) but he still didn't want to pay for me. It was a stupid, messy situation where none of the adults behaved with any kind of maturity or consideration for anyone other than themselves.

All well and good but what if you can’t work for any period of time due to, say, illness or other serious condition? Would your ex husband step up and fill in the gaps?

To those with children- being in a relationship with someone is not a ticket to get them to pay for stuff or help with the cost of raising a child, you should be able to cover your 50% your own self.

Juding by the responses in this thread there is an incredible amount of people ( women) who think it’s someone else’s responsibility to pay for their kids!

Would you expect your ex husbands wife or girlfriend to support you? Be for real. Its not up to someone else to ensure you're supported in life. Your ex husband should absolutely fill in if you cant but thats a parent, not a step parent.

I don’t see how that could practically work irrespective of whether there’s any legal responsibility. You’re going to spend $ on step kids.

Not unless a couple lives separately and keeps finances separate - or the one with children has a substantially higher income so I’ve they’ve paid for the kids there’s an equal amount of money left for everything else.

I think the family courts treat biological parents as primarily responsible for finances but they will make an order against a step parent in some circumstances where it is in the child's best interests and where the step parent treats the child as a child of the family. In practice, I'd say it is a matter of choice for each family to decide.what works for them.

Because not all children have a biological father in their life, your comment is very naive!! My daughter's "dad" walked out and didnt care less, my husband who has been in their lives for 15 years is who we all class as their dad and pays as much towards them as i do

So what would happen if the other biological parent is useless? Would you see your children being treated differently to any children you have together?

I agree to an extent but OP's take on it is a bit smug and lacking in self awareness. It's very easy i imagine to breeze around extolling the virtues of your financial independence when you are the higher earner and the bio dad actively coparents and contributes.

That wont be the same for all families where mum can't work FT or earns a lot less, perhaps because she's had more children with husband 2 and they agreed that set up. And/or some bio dads aren't on the scene or don't pay. Should those kids have a lower standard of living than the new members of the family?

I have no skin in the game as I have no stepkids nor are my kids stepparented. But even I can see that drawing a harsh line could be very unpleasant for kids in blended families where their mum hasnt got much of her own money.

I’ve just had a chat with dh about this over lunch.

He actually laughed at the idea that he wouldn’t have financially provided for my ds. Ds lived with us (saw his dad two weekends a month, then one, then less as he got older, Ds dad paid £300 a month maintance but we lived in London, it all went in the one pot we have and didn’t go far).

He said he met me, I told him I had a child. He said he could have backed out there and then if he wasn’t up for step parent hood if we got serious.

He said it never occurred to him that our lives would be any other way - he would work to provide for our family, all three of us. He said he’s genuinely never questioned it.

He sees ds as his son - absolutely no difference in the way he feels about him to how he feels about the two children we have together. He also said, you’d have to be a massive prick to live with a child, day in, day out and not treat them as your own in every way. He knew that when he married me, that’s what he was signing up for.

How does that work if you had a child with a wealthy ex who pays for fancy holidays cars uni, flats etc and you have a second child with your husband and a family income of less than 50 k.

Surely your second child has a far less wealthy lifestyle.
Do you expect your ex to cough up luxuries for that one also? Or tell him not to provide for his own child Or if not how do you even it out?

Mrsnothingthanks · Today 12:23
** There is no legal financial responsibility for any step-parent.
----------

Well that's not new information.

How about moral

not never! we are blended - a kid apiece and one shared and we are one family. husband & I would each always say we have three children and do things for and with them equitably, including financially.

it would never occur to me that my husband should pay for my stepson or I should pay for my son (his stepson) separately for anything.

The irony is of course that he probably does
in some ways pay more because her children exist / they must have one assumes a 4 bed house that wouldn’t be needed, how are utilities split etc/food bills or is she paying more

@Thechaseison71 It doesn't need "evening out." If ex partner is wealthy and supports his bio kids then great. That has nothing to do with the lifestyle of the shared child from the second marriage which of course has nothing to do with him.
So I don't see your point?

@Tiswa It was my house he moved into - not a house we bought together.

that's a ridiculous comment - many of us are saying we are the higher earners and very happy to pay for stepchildren

This thread is far too long to read it all, but thought I'd pop on it to explain what happens on divorce.

In the event of divorcve a step parent might be ordered by the court to pay child maintenance to any step children who have been treated as children of the family - in other words their main home was with the step-parent.

The court will also take in to account whether the other parent is paying maintenance - the likelihood being if they are paying maintenance and the step-parent has a similar income then they are unlikely to have to pay anything.

However, the rationale behind it is that marrying someone means you assume a financial inter-dependency. If you carry a step-child financially during the marriage then you cannot wash your hands of the obligation by getting divorced.

This.
How could you possibly treat any child in your family financially differently to the others, for any reason? Imagine the issues that would cause them then & in future - lack of self worth, feeling “othered”, or having more than the biological family members & so a sense of arrogance, entitlement

, or that only financial values matter?
Let alone the complexities of how to calculate which child was worth what value in particular circumstances!
Awful.
And I say that as a mother and step-mother.