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!

I think with blended families you have to be all in to make it work in all honesty. Otherwise it’s a relationship with kids just tacked on rather than a family.

You seem to be missing the point that many step parents are happy to financially muck in when they become part of a family. I married my DH when my older daughter was almost 3. My DH has always treated elder DD as part of his family. He had no children of his own but we went on to have another DD together and both children were treated exactly the same in all regards by DH. I can't imagine how complicated it would have been trying to work out for example what proportion of household bills older DD was responsible for so DH could have been absolved of responsibility for that amount. I never asked or expected DH to do any of this but he would have been horrified if I had suggested he never paid for anything for my older DD. She is now 33 and my DH and I paid jointly for her wedding a few years ago. Since we married we have been a family unit -simple as that. DH's will treats daughter and step daughter the same, in fact I don't think I've ever heard him refer to her as a step daughter. If asked if he has children he says 2 daughters.

Maybe this is because older DD's father is a feckless layabout who has never done a proper day's work in his life or ever been financially responsible for her and has been absent from her life altogether since she was 14. Anyway if your situation works for you OP then great but other families have a different vibe and are still perfectly happy. You seem overly hung up on money when families are surely about so much more.

OP, your new DH is doing alright isn't he. He's got his own kid that he pays 50/50 for with you and an extended family he doesn't have to fork out for. Win win for him.
I honestly don't think you realise how 'off' you sound. Normal people with normal relationships have the conversation about shared finances. No one walks into a relations with someone who already have kids and thinks, not my problem.
You sound privileged, naive and judgemental. Why on earth start this post? I think it's deliberate to evoke response, maybe journalism based.

I mean, on one hand you’re saying that you assume all financial responsibility for the kids that are biologically yours and that he only has responsibility for his one. But you married him, meaning that if you die he’s likely to inherit all your assets and pass it on to his biological child, leaving your other ones with nothing. Why on earth did you get married if you knew he had zero intention of treating his step kids like his own? I certainly wouldn’t…

I agree with you OP.

The problem is, as shown on this thread, far too many people don’t take personal responsibility for providing for their kids, and expect either their partners or the state to do it for them.

Personally I am happy to provide for SC whilst they’re at our home or school. I draw the line at providing for them when they’re in their (resident parent) mum’s house. So maintenance and anything that goes back with them comes from their dad.

I completely agree.

People speak of men earning a lot more than women so of course women are going to agree step parents should pay for the children more than likely the mothers children they are talking about, no I wont link so people dont have to beleive this problem course but when women have to contribute to the dads kids from a first relationship there is complaining

So is it another case of men's money is everyone's money but women's only for her own children or herself?

Well each to there own, I didn't think about it tbh it just happened naturally as I had one when we first met and now 20 years on have to honestly say hubby has treat every single one his own and the one not in the exact same ways. People dont even know first isn't even his. But for us it's been a very happy family life because of always being the same with all

rightly or wrongly it’s household finances that determine university student finance, so if the RP and their new partner aren’t prepared to ensure the DC aren’t disadvantaged, then they have no business living together.

I can see someone taking this view if you marry someone and their children are already grown up. But if you marry someone who has children still living at home, you both become the parents in the household. Yes, you might not officially be their biological mother or father, but as part of being a family, you are all in it together and for me that extends to finances. Any kind of separation/ different treatment just breeds division. You’re not quite all in it together. You might decide something like a difference in allowance / pocket money because one child is particularly well treated in another household. But fundamentally, you look to make all things equivalent in the same household.

You should probably just not get married if finances are such a deal breaker. I would never subject my children to another adult unrelated to them living in their home but if this is a risk you want to take then I think family finances should be shared out fairly. One set of kids shouldn't miss out because their step parent doesn't see themselves in any way responsible.

If a single woman moves a man into her house - so not even married he benefits go down - so the government take an additional salary into account. Reason why so many woman live on their own.

And what if one parent suddenly decides not to? What would happen then? You are in a more privileged place by being the high earner as your children are not going to go without but if something happened that affected that badly, would uour husband see uour kids go without? Would he take your DD on holiday but not the boys.

Its really easy to say 'this is how it should be' when your situation is good. Being the high earner with a present ex partner and family who step us as they should means the chance of those kids being disadvantaged in comparison to your DD is very slim. For many step children the reality is very different and that can cause harm and resentment.

My stepkids were teenagers when we met. They have 2 competent parents who do all the parenting.
My children also have 2 competent parents: me and my husband.
It's actually very easy to keep finances separate. They sorted it between themselves long before we met and they carried on after we met.
I happily handed over money for bus fares, ice creams etc but it was never my role to pay for their lives.

This is basically the view here.

Women are happy for their partners to support the unrelated children they live with, but when their ex-partners do the same, it’s wrong.

I agree with you OP. Unless they formally adopted their step-children.

@JHound Absolutely in this case -.that is different.

To be clear I think it’s fine for step-parents to CHOOSE to be financially responsible for their step-children and in reality if they live with them they cannot avoid some degree of financial expenditure on them. But ultimately there is no real financial responsibility.

@JHound Also agree

I don’t think it’s as black and white as that OP because everyone does things differently. Your way is perfectly fine BTW, just to get that in there.

In our household, maintenance for DSS has always fluctuated with DH’s income so is his responsibility. However, now DSS needs GCSE tuition, I’m happy for the money to come out of our joint account. That’s purely our arrangement though. All holidays including DSS come from our joint account as our money is pooled.

Really? No account was taken of my step-dads income when I went to uni (at the time for assessing whether I qualified for my fees to be covered). It was just my mom as my step-father had never adopted us and we still had a father.

Do you have a source for this claim?

That would only happen if they could not be arsed to make a will.

That just says other children living with them. Those other children could be their own.

So imagine a situation where the parent (A) with children was a widow who has a low paid job, married a wealthy person (B) who has children. B takes their DC skiing every year and is happy to pay for A but not As DC as they’re ‘not their responsibility’. Or B buys their DC new phones for Christmas but A can’t afford to do so. Bs DC get driving lessons and a car when they are 17. As DC don’t.
The disparity in the living standards of each set of DC isn’t going to do anything but divide the family.