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 the general mumsnet view is that if a guy starts a serious relationship with a woman with kids, then he knew what he was getting in to and if he doesnt help financial with he kids he is a greedt heartless bastard.

and if a woman starts a serious relationship with a guy with kids, then absolutely not should even be contemplating assisting anyway financially.

If you're in partnership, which I hope you are, then the new partner will undoubtedly contribute towards your children from a previous relationship, albeit indirectly in some cases, but that doesn't mean the non-resident parent doesn't have to also support their child.

I kind of agree that, as a general rule, financial responsibility for a child should rest with the actual parents and not the step parents.

BUT there are certain caveats to that.

For example, if the parents can't or don't earn enough to actually support the child, then I think a resident parent's income should be taken into account before expecting the state to step in. It would be ridiculous for the taxpayer to pay welfare benefits to a mother on a low income, for example, if she happens to be living with a millionaire partner and enjoying all of the lifestyle benefits that this might provide.

I think it would also be fundamentally wrong for children in blended families to have very different standards of living from one another because of what their parents can respectively provide. In that set-up, I would say that there is a duty on both parents to provide equally for all children in the household, and if they don't want to do that, then they shouldn't live together.

Of course, non resident biological parents should be forced to pay their fair share, and that should always be the first port of call. But I don't think that entirely lets step parents off the hook.

Basically, if you don't want responsibility for someone else's child, don't move in with them.

After 12 years with my husband, we have made lifestyle choices which mean that he has significant financial responsibility for my children. They were decisions we made jointly, with full appreciation of the implications, and he chose financial responsibility. We have no shared children, and their father doesn't work whereas I worked full time when I met my DH. He was never expected to support them financially, however he has chosen to in order, for example, me to reduce my working hours.

@TaupeRaven Why is bio father unable to work?

If moving in means all benefits stop, then the step parent has to step up and bridge the gap.

I didn't say he was unable to work, I said he doesn't work. What he does or doesn't do is irrelevant to my finances.

What do you want from this thread OP? Will you just keep going until enough people recognise how superior you are, or just til you get a good row going?

I think it can depend on so many things. I've no intention of marrying anyone anyway so this is all hypothetical, but if I did I'd happily continue to support my own son if nothing else was changing.
But if we had another child that meant I took a career break/reduced hours because we both thought that was best, I'd expect more financial support from my husband because I'd no longer have as much.
(I'm sure there are men out there who want a housewife but still don't want to pay towards her existing children!)

Yes, that's the one!

@TaupeRaven It absolutely isn't irrelevant - and it certainly shouldn't be to your new husband.

MN is batshit about step mums. We are supposed to pay for everything and bow down to those ‘poor’ stepchildren.

I do not and will not ever pay for my step kids. They have two parents. My kids also have two parents so my husband is not responsible for my kids either.

there are just tonnes and tonnes of people who want someone else to pay for them so they dont have to make the effort.

I think the Mumsnet way is to expect step dads to financially provide for their step children but a step mum so much as buying an ice cream is being taken advantage of

@MellowPinkDeer This.

WTF???

no no no. The MOTHER steps up and gets a better job if SHE decides to move in with someone. Why is this someone else’s problem. This place blows my mind sometimes!

@MellowPinkDeer Also this!

Surely that's for him to decide, and not some random person on the Internet?

If he chooses to support the pp's kids because their biological father won't, what's it to you?

It appears you are living in a way that suits your family. That's great. I'm curious though as to why you seem to want to impose it on other people as the 'right' way? You are very fortunate in having been able to achieve a secure financial position and that the father of your DC takes responsibility.
Other women may not have well paid jobs. Having children impacts earning potential and there is the GPG in general. Often the children's father does not pay his way. In such cases, it would be very difficult for a woman to take full responsibility for providing for her children to the level of lifestyle a new partner may want to maintain. If that partner is happy to offer some support to the DC and/or sees them as his family, that's no ones business but theirs.

Your kind of personal pride is rare these days OP.

Why? People are different. Just because you are clearly obsessed with doing everything yourself doesn’t make it the only right way.

Just one right way that suits you

Should the state take it into account for CMS no of course they shouldn’t

they do for University Grants though - which actually I am not sure about

I had a boss like this once obsessed with the fact that the way she did things was the only right way and was dismissive of anything else even if the other ways were fine as well. She was a really difficult boss to have

it works for you great doesn’t mean it has to for all couples

My 'new' husband is, believe it or not, privvy to information that a demanding MNer isn't. I know... wild!

I am perfectly able to support my children alone. My 'new' husband knew that, and also preferred for that not to be the case. We have an incredibly happy and secure family, and you need not worry yourself about my poor husband's finances.

I’m glad I never had to consider this in my own life as happily married. But I think it’s a balance, if I had step-kids I would want to treat them as I treat my own (ice creams, days out, odd new top) but not to buy them a car for eg.

I am the higher earner lots of women aren't in that position though are they? And lots of women have worthless exs who don't provide, probably one of the reasons they are exs. I don't have any skin in the game as neither of us have step dc, but imo yabu.

If this works for you then carry on. I do think that people getting involved with someone with kids do need to realise what they’re taking on though & their is some responsibility to being with someone with children.

But naturally you will, the two of you could live in a one bedroom home, your children mean you need bigger accommodation, if you're buying a house together that has an impact on his finances