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 people should take more time to consider the financial implications of being with someone who already has children. You see it all the time on here, “I have 2 children I want to do x, y and z but he can’t” then you find out they actually have 5 children between them, you likely wouldn’t choose to have 5 children…why do you pretend the other 3 don’t exist when going on to procreate yourself.

My DH married me when my DD was 18, eldest DS 16 and youngest DS was 8. He has no biological DC of his own but he helped bring up 8 year old and we have brought up foster DC together too. He treats each DC as if they were his own. My DC are all adults now and I know if I were to die he has a strong relationship with my DC that would continue even after I had died. He has always insisted on providing equally with me for my DC. He has a better relationship with DC than they have with their biological Dad. Youngest DS broke down 3 miles from his biological Dads house last year but still rang DH for help waiting for recovery vehicle. DH drove over with a coat for him and cup of coffee and collected his insurance details from his house then waited with him.

This. I laughed when she said

I absolutely did not want him to take on financial responsibility for my sons - that's not his duty. I made this clear from the start and he very much respected that stance

I bet he did 🤣

Daily on mn?

Right from experience, and the old CMS website explained it far better than these new ones. ANY other child, bio or step.... if they are living in the same house as the non resident parent, the non resident parents payment is adjusted.

If you still dont believe me go and do a fictitious CMS calculation, one of the questions is how many children reside in the non resident home.

I really don't understand why this is hard to understand. Even other posters have said that this is indeed true.

@PollyBell I don't quite think that is the sort of reliable source @JHound meant.

@Namechangealldatime Absolutely. He respected the fact that I was a self-sufficient working woman who wasn't looking for someone to pay for her own kids.
I set my stall out from the very off - paying ny own way on dates etc, I wasn't looking for a man to support me or my kids financially as I was doing that already

I think its gets a bit blurry, because it's nigh on impossible to arrange life so this doesn't happen, especially where the step parent is the higher earner. I can't see how a unit living as a family could work if a non parent on a high income made no contribution to the costs of the DC in the household. Are they to eat from budget ranges and go on cheap holidays while the high earning step parent enjoys luxuries alone? And what about any shared children the couple go onto have? Are they to live a life conversant with the higher earning parent while their half siblings are Cinderella?
I think your point is fair in theory. But in all honesty, unless the parent is the higher earner, and/or can afford to keep their DC to the standards of the household by themselves, it doesn't work.

How can you possibly expect your family to succeed if one or more members are treated differently? Doesn't that make the step parent just someone who lives with the established family unit or (worse) the child an outsider to the new family?
When we became a family, we became a family. Everything shared.
My DH treats all of our children (including my eldest, his ss) the same. As a result eldest ds treats DH the same way he treats me. He wouldn't hesitate to step up for us or his siblings physically, emotionally or financially. There has never been any question. We are family. All of us, no exceptions.
Finances are only one aspect of family life. If you exclude a child from that one part are you excluding them from every part?
The important part of the phrase step-parent is parent. If you are not prepared to fully take on the role of parent emotionally and financially then the being a step-parent is probably not right for you.
Unfortunately too many people rush into becoming step parents without fully realising what it means and end up resenting the child.

I think the important this is that all children in a family are treated equally. Your scenario is easier to manage because you're the higher earner and it sounds like your DC have an involved father.

But what about children who's mum gets remarried, chooses to have more children, and then goes part time to care for them? Or just earns less than her DH? Especially those who's biological dad either shirks his responsibilities or is a much lower earner than the new stepfather?

Should those children watch as their younger half siblings are provided with gifts and experiences they miss out on because their biological parents can't afford it?

It might not be a stepparent's responsibility to fund their stepchildren's lives, but it's a parent's job to make sure all their children are treated equally. If they can't do this through their own means and their new partner doesn't want to voluntarily take on the responsibility, they shouldn't have more children. The children that already exist come before any adult's desire to add more children to the family.

That's the deal they make when they get together with a parent.

If you choose marriage with a parent, you’re choosing family. His children become your children, and yours become his. Legally that may only change with adoption, but in practice the responsibilities are shared. I can’t understand people who willingly marry someone with kids yet try to keep those children separate from their own. It doesn’t reflect well on them, because marriage is about building one household, not drawing lines between children.

It's such an unusual way of thinking, it doesn't make you the person you think it does 🙈

"Please join my family unit and live with us as a family but don't help provide towards every child who lives with us, just your own biological child"

I'd see this situation as shameful, not as somthing to brag about.

Yano what, I do understand the mindset of wanting to provide for your children yourself and I understand that would make you proud of yourself, I don't claim maintenence for my children and their father doesn't provide for them......

Doing it all by myself makes me incredibly proud of myself and I feel very internally strong for it..... but I'm a single woman living by myself

If I was in a relationship with someone and they wanted to move into my family home, live with my children and have a child with me - if they wanted all the positives and emotional support and the family image, then they should help financially provide for everyone, especially when they decide to have a sibling to the children

I think when you create a new family through marriage that means taking on the children as well.

In practical terms, if there is support from the other parent in the mix, there may be some differernt financial considerations, but the principle is that support comes from the step-parent as well.

This should be someone who if, god forbid, both natural parents died, would now be the remaining parent and would be prepared to fulfil that role. I've known more than one step parent who had to take something like that on - including in one case a step- parent who supported an adult step child undergoing cancer treatment by taking long term leave from his job and being primary caregiver for her toddler.

If someone isn't prepared to take that on for your kids, then you shouldn't marry them and make them a step parent to your kids. Maintain a separate household and date.

I think Joseph did.

I don’t think it’s natural or reasonable to not expect to pay something towards your stepchildren when you move into their home. I know everyone operates a household in different ways but to me, the bills are naturally split / money goes into one pot and out of that for food, bills, clothing etc. This means you will naturally be paying towards their food and clothing, as well as their housing. It also seems incredibly mean spirited not to want to contribute towards nice things like gifts or days out for example.

When you marry someone or at least move in with someone who has children, you take them on too. If you’re not comfortable with this, find someone who doesn’t have children.

@Mrsnothingthanks Would you think the same way if the suggestion to not contribute anything to "your" kids came from him and he earned a lot more than you? Throw in that you had a feckless ex too. Would you marry him knowing this? Just curious

I would WANT to contribute to gifts and for my step kids though. I would want to buy all the children I love presents.

I guess although you are right there’s no legal obligation, I think it’s a bit clinical to refuse to contribute towards the costs of your step kids on the basis they’re not biologically yours even though you love them, raise them, worry about them, consider them family etc etc

@IDidntSayThatSorry Yes because I still see it as my responsibility to provide financially for my own children.

@Namechangealldatime Likewise, I'd feel ashamed if I expected someone else who is not the father of my kids, to provide for them financially (especially solely) as that's my duty. I suppose we are all different.

@TwoLeftSocksWithHoles Joseph as in bible Joseph? Then he was a fool!

@logsahc I wouldn't have afforded to, or been prepared to, support someone else's children financially (especially more than one) and also wouldn't have enough rooms in my house. So wouldn't have looked to date anyone with children as it would have meant room sharing etc.

Do it the way you want to do it but I can't say I agree. But then I prefer love and grace over shame.

Adoptive parents and step-parters may not be biologically related to the child but they still have "parent" in the title and are, therefore, a parent. When you choose to marry someone with a young child you are taking on the responsibility of raising that young child, emotionally, financially and in every other way. Personally I wouldn't want to be with someone who didn't feel that way. But if you and your partner are both happy with the arrangement do it the way you feel you want to do it, that's your choice. I hope your children agree with you as they get older and I hope, for your sake, you don't ever lose your income due to unemployment or illness.