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!

@Calliopespa No - as a feminist who believes in true equality, not a "feminist, but only when it suits me."

So you do agree he should take some responsibility if it is necessary. When you told him you didn't expect him to take any financial responsibility for your children did you clarify that is some circumstances you would expect it.

I get what you mean but I'm a bit squeamish about killing people off.

@TheignT I would never "expect" it; under exceptional circumstances I would hope for it to be freely offered. Just as it would be from me if my husband was unable to work for a genuine reason.
But would I have ever started out in a marriage in which one of us worked and one didn't/one of us paid on dates and one didn't/one of us financially contributed towards everything and one didn't when we were both perfectly capable of doing so?
No. Especially not as I have more financial responsibilities (3 kids vs 1).

@Owlmoonstar Further up the thread OP has stated she works on Sundays (6 days a week) and husband provides childcare for her kids as well as their shared bio child - "When I work Sundays he is at home with the kid/kids". So she does. She's still using his resources and expecting things from him for them, just time instead of money. If she didn't work that day to earn the money, she could spend it with the kids. As always a compromise between each and depends what you prioritise.

@GreyhoundGal1 First of all, much older teenagers don't need childcare. Second of all, my sons are not with us every Sunday. I earn more so it makes sense for me to work more in order to provide for my three children and also, again, I have more financial responsibilities. It really is quite simple - more kids, more costs.
Edited to add - looking after your own child isn't "childcare" - that's preposterous.

Not what you said originally.

@TheignT Re what exactly?

Read your posts. Your story changes and you try to cover it by picking at what people ask you. At the end of the day you'd "accept" your husband's contribution when originally you wouldn't.

Waste of time thread.

@TheignT Not what I said at all. I would only accept a contribution in exceptional circumstances, not because I couldn't be bothered to work.

You never mentioned being bothered to work in the first post. More shifting the goal posts.

@TheignT Oh do come of it! How else does one provide financially for their own children?! You're just being silly now.

*off

Classy. Hard to imagine your a high earner.

@TheignT Again, that's entirely your (false) interpretation. I have said nowhere I am a high earner.
By the way, it's not "your a high earner"; it is "you're a high earner." You're is the contracted form of you are - the apostrophe filling in for the missing letter.
I'm not sure your strengths are in either comprehension or grammar but I hope that helps 😀

Honestly op, you are something else ...

@Calliopespa Indeed. Looking forward to the part where I said I was a high earner being pointed out to me 😀

I'm not sure anyone is about to trawl back through this lot.

@Calliopespa How long did it take you? 😆

Say two people move in together and one has had to have been a full-time parent for whatever reason and was previously on UC, the new partners income is taken into account and dependent on income means they will have to provide for everyone. So if that person already has children with someone else who they don't live with. it is still taken into account when it comes to maintenance as their outgoings are much higher than if they stayed alone.

To be honest I don't know why anyone moves in with someone who already has children if they're not willing to be a family. Just live separately and be boyfriend and girlfriend. Not everyone is in the position to do what you do, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed another chance at a family simply because they don't have a lot of money. If people don't want a proper family, then live apart or meet someone who does.

@LuncheonInThePark In that situation I totally agree that the man shouldn't move in and take full financial responsibility for everyone whilst his partner does not work. I would definitely encourage him to live separately.
Fascinating that you equate a "proper family" as being a working man and non-working woman.

*@LuncheonInThePark *Unless of course you meant a woman moves in (although I don't think you did).
My encouragement to her would be exactly the same.

You misunderstood me (or I didn't explain myself properly!)

I don't equate a family with a woman not working, I was just explaining why they have to take a new partners income into consideration when working out maintenance, because of circumstances like that. If moving in with a new partner doesn't affect anyone financially then there is absolutely no reason that maintenance can't stay the same. CSA calculations are the minimum requirement, that's all.

My point about being a family is everyone works together and contributes to the family. Otherwise what's the point, why move your children in with your boyfriend? Not really fair on the children to live with someone that is not family. And often it IS the woman who hasn't been able to progress her career due to being a main carer.

None of this matters really if you are happy with your set up, but personally I wouldn't like my children living with someone who saw them as a financial burden and separate. And I also don;t think that that people willing to create a family shouldn't have that option simply because they don't have a lot of money.

Work full time on minimum wage you still need benefit top ups, that's lost when you move in with someone if they earn a certain amount.

The living wage is not really a living wage, so you could be working your bum off then struggle to get by while your partner who you live with is sailing through. I genuinely can't understand why anyone would want to subject their children to that - knowing that they don't matter to Mum's boyfriend. See your boyfriend on your own time (not you personally, anyone in that situation).

@LuncheonInThePark I can see it more if mum is working ft on minimum/very low wage. But if she isn't working then far less so.

Predictive text and arthritic hand. Hope that makes you feel like such a superior person although you really aren't.

You said you're the higher earner, if you aren't a high earner you probably aren't earning much more than him so not sure why you felt the need to mention it.