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!

This very much depends on the relative circumstances. Children living in the same household should as far as practical, on a day to day basis, be given the same opportunities (out of school activities, family holidays, clothes, meals out etc). If your husband had children from a previous relationship, wouldn't you want this for them?

Interesting that you think that a member of the household who doesn’t financially contribute isn’t considered a ‘proper’ part of the family. Do you think the same of stay at home mothers?

That’s exactly the position I’m in no holidays since 2017 for us (my DCs go with their Dad) my DC with my partner doesn’t get holidays but she lives with 2 parents who love one another and I think that’s more important.

You become responsible for each others children when you become one family, that includes finances! What a mean way to look at things.

If you are married (in the UK) there is no such thing as separation of finances, "I pay for my kids, you pay for yours" etc. Legally you are considered one financial unit when it comes to income and assets. So it doesn't matter which account you pay from for your 'own' children, it's still joint money - your money is his money and vice versa. E.g. if you divorced tomorrow, your husband would be entitled to half of that common pot of money and assets, or possibly more than half in some cases if he is a much lower earner. (In other countries there is the possibility of getting married in separation of assets so the rules are different)

So basically, if you are married in the UK, step parents do 'pay' for children who are not theirs, even if indirectly. They don't have an option to opt out, because all finances are joint. In fact, they legally should have a say on how you spend this money even on children who are not theirs, and restricting access to your money, which is also his money, can be considered financial abuse in certain cases.

Each to their own. I have 2 sons from a previous relationship and have 2 children with my husband.

in the earlier stages of our relationship i said that i was responsible for my 2 but he wouldn’t have it, he’s always supported us all as a family financially.

This. My ex does not has never paid a penny in CSA money for children. But my husband had to declare his income for university.

yet he would pay no maintenance for them if we divorced - crazy system.

Fortunately he sees mine as his and likewise. My insurance is split between all the children in my will and same for him.

Who got married

Not only step parents same goes for partners if you’re living together

Sahm's usually aren't dodging their responsibilities as a parent by not earning a financial income- they're doing it whilst the kids are in nursery because it's more cost effective etc. This is different as step parents are usually doing it as a choice, opting out of this bit of family life.

You tell me?

you think your kids stepmother should pay for your kids outside of the home?

@Tiswa Do you genuinely believe feminists can't get married?!! 😆 😂 You are pulling my chain on this one!

No it doesn’t fit with you and your beliefs - and yes the constitution of marriage has in the past heavily favoured the man I am surprised that given your views you got married even with all the legal documentation. The historical background of marriage isn’t feminist.

there are civil partnerships which fits much better without all the baggage a marriage brings

so yes it does surprise me with all your independent views you tied yourself legally to someone else

@Tiswa Absolutely ridiculous that you think there is no such thing as a married feminist! Isn't Michelle Obama married (to name just one you may know?)
For example, I would still want my husband and my family to be financially protected upon my passing - and possibly even more important as the higher earner.
However, we did tailor our ceremony to remove all of the patriarchal traditions (giving away by father, bouquet throwing, man-only speeches, name changing etc) and I am not a Mrs.

Furthermore, there are number of countries that don't recognise civil partnerships so we considered this in terms of should we wish to emigrate in the future. Dotting the i's and crossing the t's again 😀

Dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s again?
You sound stiflingly strait laced and stuffy.
Do you ever just relax and take life easy? You sound like my worst nightmare, be a bit more laid back for your kids sake.

In the nicest possible way, your friend sounds a bit of a mess? She’s considering child 3 with dad 3, despite choosing not to give her existing two the lifestyle she wants?

She doesn’t want a partner, she wants a sponsor.

My mother remarried when I was 9. She then went on to have three kids with my step father. My real father never wanted anything to do with me and certainly not financially. My mother had no money as she was a stay at home mother so my stepfather was financially responsible for me.im grateful he was - yes it probably should have been my deadbeat Dad but he didn't even let my mum put his name on my birth certificate.

My mother had no money as she was a stay at home mother so my stepfather was financially responsible for me.im grateful he was - yes it probably should have been my deadbeat Dad

Actually to be fair, it should have been both parents - so your mum didn't quite step up there either except that she managed to find someone else who was willing to do so.

If I was a stepparent and the child lived with me, then even more so I wouldn’t want to pay towards maintenance. So I guess my answer to your question is yes I would see it the same, even more so.

I used to be a stepparent and have been a single mum for 6 years now. As a stepmum and as a mum, I still hold the same opinion that the stepmum shouldn’t have to be involved with maintenance.

You sound stiflingly strait laced and stuffy.

I just thought smug when I read that.

I'm not even sure why, if she thinks she has everything sussed out to a "t", she is even here provoking discussion of what the ins and outs should be. Most people do it to explore the issue. I keep sniffing a "reverse" aspect in it all...

Yes because civil partnership does not exist in the US I am surprised given what you changed you didn’t go for one rather than a marriage and doing all the adaptions of it

Plus I never said that there was no such thing as a married feminist 2 - this isn’t a general thing I am just surprised given all your other individual beliefs why you chose marriage over a civil partnership

so don’t put words in my mouth!

I see that does make sense I didn’t read this.

The OP's trying far, far too hard. It's as if she's trying to convince herself.

If they lived with you there wouldn't be maintenance to pay. It would just be the usual day to day costs of having a child.