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!

She decided to leave her other child???

oh my. Trauma here we go!

You seem to have a lot of strong opinions about how other people choose to organise their own finances, OP.

Maybe just accept that people might choose to do things differently?

@springtome I agree and disagree. If we take the three kids on holiday all together (as naturally we have done), I would pay the lion's share. I work in order to facilitate that. If I was a SAHM I wouldn't be earning so couldn't do that.
But if all three kids wanted to go, I would never take one and not the other/s.

I mean I can see the mortgage because it is your house but 1 bill and the occasional food shop is cocklodger territory

What do you call lions share?

because fairly give everyone say 20% (unless free child place) your boys are 40% so the remaining 60% gets split so it is a 70/30 split

that isn’t the lions share IMO

I think it depends on the person, my husband wouldn’t dream of thinking like that but some would. You get to choose who you want as your spouse.

I totally agree with you , if you don't qt to take responsibility for the whole family don't marry someone with kids, wether emotionally or financially they all deserve to be treated equally
When my husband and I married I and 4 children we the had 2 of our own. He took full responsibility for all of them jointly with me. If he hadn't been prepared to treat them fully as his own I wouldn't have stayed with him.

All big food shops, given the high price of food he actually spends about the same as I pay for the mortgage each month. I only buy top up shop if needed.

My husband treated my daughter as his own since she was 3, she is now 16,she calls him dad and he has always treated her the same as his biological children, including providing for her financially, as far as he's concerned she IS his child.

To be fair, after reading some of your latest posts, I agree with you about being a realist. People who get married should consider the practical financial side of things before taking that step.

The problem is that many get swept up in the emotional side of being in love and getting married - they get carried away and never prepare for the practicalities.

What I see with you is almost the opposite. You’ve dotted all your i’s and crossed all your t’s, but you come across as quite inflexible, which makes it seem as though you’re missing the emotional touch.

The answer, of course, is balance.

Your children are very lucky then. There’s lots of children out there that don’t have this. Everybody’s situation is different. I’m really not sure what the point of your post is. Ideally everyone should take on the responsibility of their child, sadly the realty is many don’t. And there is no accountability in the UK for parents who chose not to provide either financially or emotionally for their children. The system is not fit for purpose. There are also children who have had parents pass away, who this situation simply is not possible. Again I’m not sure the purpose of your post, whether it’s to make you feel better about something or simply to gloat!!

I would want my partner to love his step kids as much as his bio ones, and treat them equally.

But then I wouldn't probably marry someone if I had kids already.

The system isn’t fit for purpose, I agree. Men who choose not to pay seem to get away with it. It can’t be so difficult to sort this out, with a will, and would save the public purse a great deal. It seems irrational to criticise people on benefits, when some are on benefits because their ex partners are wriggling out of paying for their own children, one way or another.

Personally, I think if you enter into a relationshp with someone who has children then they are part of the deal. Financially, it depends on the ages of the children. If they are young and you are potentially going to have more together, then they all should be treated the same imo. If the kids are older or left home, that’s a bit different. My father remarried when I was at university. I wouldn’t have expected anything from his wife or him either as it turns out. I always supported myself.

I don't think this is a one size fits all situation.

I've been a single parent since my DC were small (now upping adults)
When their father moved in with his now wife, he reduced his CMS payments as she had children. They then had another child and he quit work as she apparently couldn't cope with 3 on her own. They then chose to have 2 more which is unfathomable, but there we are. They were delighted that he could reduced, and then stop, his payments BTW. They phoned me up and laughed about it down the phone.

I met someone else, and eventually we discussed him moving in. At this point I was working full time but also getting tax credits as a top up. When we looked at the figures we realised that if he moved in my benefits would stop, or near enough anyway. (I think we could have claimed about £30 UC PCM, but we didn't bother). I could not have afforded to pay 75% of the household costs on my wage, working more hours would have either cost more in childcare, or needed him to provide the care.
He was shocked that I'd ever considered that he would pay less than 50% of all costs, including those related to my children. If they needed shoes and I had no money until payday/ was working and couldn't get to the shop, he bought them. He never expected me to pay him back.
I never expected him to ne financially responsible for them, but realistically we couldn't live together if he wasn't.

I'm so sorry @Mangelwurzelfortea .

I do think these situations will be viewed by history in the same kind of way we now view Victorian workhouse children. It "wasn't uncommon" at the time so children were expected to get on with it.

It wasn't right you were caught in the middle like that. Every child deserves to feel they absolutely belong in their home.

@IDidntSayThatSorry I do agree. After being very badly burned and almost completely destroyed the first time around (and I have to accept responsibility for not seeing the red flags but I suppose I was young and naive), I have absolutely made sure I do account for every eventuality. I certainly recognise the importance of maintaining financial independence as you never know when you may need to rely upon it. My advice is never entirely trust anyone except yourself!

This.

@7563l Absolutely it is right for a stepparent to have a say and for that to be considered, but ultimately all decisions about bio children are down to the bio parent/s - I agree.

When you choose to create a family unit, you think that the non biological parent shouldn’t be responsible? That’s odd to say the least. Men tend to earn much more than women . Women are overwhelmingly left with the children while male parents often skip out lightly. If you are a family unit, you are a FAMILY and the nrp should still contribute according to their own family situation and earnings?

although I do think the American approach is the best. Nrps should absolutely pay according to whom they parent first. There is very little deterrent in this country to stop men just indiscriminately mixing in women and creating babies they can’t afford to pay for. The burden needs to be on BOTH parents and whoever you choose to form a family unit with.

I bet he did.

@Calliopespa He did - he knew I wasn't simply looking for someone to pay for my own kids as I think many stepparents find themselves unwittingly being expected to do.

If you are all sorted then, why are you on the rampage about families that don't operate like you do?

@GreenGodiva Yes the responsibility needs to be with mothers and fathers equally.