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!

If you become a family then I think you do assume joint responsibility though it shouldbe in addition to not instead of their absent birth parent where possible.

@Alwayslurkingsometimesposting We have separate accounts. My husband pays an agreed amount into my account each month and then I sort everything from there. Things like presents and clothes for the kids are down to me.

But it’s not expecting someone to take responsibility for your kids, it’s creating a family where you muck in together to raise your shared family - which includes all the kids!

@Lmnop22 I suppose to a degree, providing both bio parents are still working to contribute.

For student finance and child maintenance purposes I agree but family finance means FAMILY finance you don't want ours and their soaps in the bathroom

@mumzof4x What I mean by that is the boys have an involved bio dad so no - my husband is not their dad iyswim?
Is your daughter's bio dad on the scene?

Of course it is. Children are the responsibility of their parents, not their stepparents. Marriage does not make them a joint responsibility. If a stepparent wants to assume a level of responsibility then of course they can, but it isn’t something that can be expected.

It’s extremely common for stepfamilies not to join finances for this reason.

@InterIgnis I totally agree.

My DH grew up with a stepdad who took no responsibility for him and it has damaged him. This is someone he lived with most of the week and would rather he walk home for 2 hours because the bus wasn’t running than pick him up because ‘that’s your mums job’. Who would treat his kid and DHs mum to a steak but not the step kids

in your case you are the higher earner but what if that changed?

if you go to the park does he buy your joint child an ice cream but expect you to buy for yours?

and maybe you have the perfect set up 1 don’t you think that’s unusual for there to be economic parity

You are either family or you are not.

This.

My DHs father married a monster that decided that even he was not to spend time or money on his bio children let alone her. Their shared child got treated impeccably of course and spoilt rotten.

She made it very clear his children weren't as important as the child they shared together.

He never should have allowed that to happen and he allowed her to destroy his relationship with his son and subsequently the grandchildren.

Blended families are very often a disaster eventually if not immediately. Selfish adults with their heads in the sand oblivious to the harm it causes children.

Marry someone with kids and you better make damn sure those kids feel as much a part of the family as they would if you were their bio parent.

Stop putting sex lives above children's welfare and wellbeing.

It’s great that you feel a responsibility to your kids but not every parent feels quite the same way or is willing to? Does your husband have kids too because it all becomes more complicated when there is another child or half-sibling living in the same house as your children but with at least one different parent so being treated differently.

Imagine how awkward it would be if your kids woke up Christmas morning and you had got one of them, for example, a much desired pair of trainers for Christmas morning. Then their who lived with them step-sibling or half-sibling who lived with them got an iPhone, a new bike, a new jacket and the same trainers. (Because separate finances, for separate children right).

Then imagine if the little differences happened for everything, clothing, clubs, holidays, allowances, university etc. It’s awkward on both sides and makes it very hard to have any harmony, especially as it is not a one-off injustice but a pattern of behaviour where different siblings come to expect different treatment.

@Bruisername For little things like that of course he would all treat them. But big food shop, clothes, gifts - that is down to me and their bio dad between us. I am likely to always be the higher earner due to qualifications/career.

The answer to your question is so 'individual circumstances dependent'.

So many blended families have circumstances that are very different from yours, which is pretty crucial.

@PurpleBrocadePeacock We have one shared child. His first and last. He absolutely assumes financial responsibility for her alongside me as we are of course her bio parents.

I mean maybe if you get plenty of maintenance and there’s no difference between what the kids get it’s just funded from other funds but I’m a single mother and if I married someone with kids I would expect to pool finances and pay for all the kids in the family we chose to create. Mine and my partners and vice versa!

@RecordBreakers I understand that, but I still firmly believe a stepparent should have the choice to take on (joint) financial responsibility for a stepchild; it shouldn't be a case of "married so it's a given."

@Lmnop22 As bio father and I coparent then no CMS involved.

If you're going to be a household you have household income and household responsibilities. If you aren't going to share the same standard of living among all members of the household then it's cruel for whoever is worse off to grow up in an imbalanced environment and the adults are being crap parents to put their children in that situation. It would be better to maintain separate households if you are going to maintain separate finances. No one has to take responsibility for someone else's kids but no one who is a decent parent would move their kids into a situation where some people in the household are allowed luxuries and treats that others aren't - or if the same day-to-day lifestyle is kept equal, where some of the kids get cars/uni support/flat deposits ay 18/21 and some don't due to the disparity of parental savings.

@FenceBooksCycle It's up to me to provide nice things for all of my kids! That's why I work.

It’s interesting, because in law’s get ripped to pieces when they spend more on their bio grandchildren. than their step grandchildren, but stepdads don’t have too pay for their own step children. It’s a strange one.

It’s part of the definition/ point of marriage to me, that you join all resources and obligations and are one entity in that sense.

There are some blended scenarios that are real head-scratchers though, like if there’s one step-sibling that’s rich and the other is poor, due to the different parent or grandparents. I don’t think there’s always a perfect solution.

@Namenamchange Again, my in-laws spend less on my two older sons than my daughter because my sons are lucky enough to have a full set of bio grandparents. My sons are old enough to fully appreciate this and we are actually incredibly grateful that they are as generous as they are. My son's step grandparents on father's side don't buy them anything as far as I am aware.

It so depends on whether the children actually have two parents to support them. What if one parent has died? What if one parent is completely absent and pays nothing? If people decide to bring up a blended family in this situation, then they absolutely have to support all the children jointly. There’s never a guarantee that children will be happy with the new family setup, but that can apply to natural siblings.

Fine in theory but what If the other parent isn't in the picture or doesn't pay maintenence? My kids come as part of me.