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 personally think that parents who marry someone else are being quite selfish it makes everything so much more complicated financially and emotionally - it could work if the stepparent does not have thier own children and so easier to keep a line between kids and the stepparents contibution but blending families does just not work. It can never be perfectly equal with other family members involved and at some point at least some of the children are going to feel like the poor relation or not as loved. Just put your children first and then move in together once they have grown up.

@BrieAndChilli My husband had no children of his own when we met - my preference was to date men without any.

Your opinion is clearly based on your observations and experiences, and it goes without saying that you're entitled to it. It's a shame, though, that you cant seem to imagine any scenario where children's lives are all the better for the change

But then you could end up with a poor kid/rich kid set up within the same household and that would be horribly toxic. Best to remain a single parent and go it entirely alone. You can't bring up two sets of kids under the same roof but with different circumstances. It's not the kids' fault one of their parents fucked up.

@StandFirm I definitely didn't fuck up by leaving an abusive marriage - best thing I could have my my sons. Also, I don't have a two sets of kids situation so no chance of that happening.

Not talking about you. You asked a generic question and my reply to that question points to a set up where one of the kids is not fortunate enough to have two working parents like yours do.

@StandFirm I do feel bad for children who don't have two (bio) working parents who fulfil their role and support them as necessary.

And if you married someone without kids would you expect him to be coughing up for yours?

I agree in principle although I can't see how it would work in practise. Working out what is spent on the children would be really hard to quantify exactly- higher rent, higher bills, more food, etc.- even things like the Christmas decorations you pick and choosing a sofa that wipes clean!

My husband and I share our finances and everything goes into the joint account so it's not something I think about with regards to my stepdaughter- it will come more into play when we start looking at inheritance planning.

However, people are quick to say you must "love a stepchild like your own", when often, that's not desirable for anyone. I love my stepdaughter, I don't love her like I love my daughter. She doesn't love me like she loves her Mum. That's the natural way of things.

My SKs didn’t live with us and I had one DC
i have never and never will pool finances
They are grown up now though

we have had joint holidays in the past when they were little but I would also go on holiday with my ds on his own and with my family mum dad sister and nieces and nephews as I like holidays and my DH isn’t that bothered

I never paid for anything for my step kids other than stuff like treats if we were out and about like you would if you were with friends and their kids
I bought them seperate Christmas and birthday presents / cards when they were younger
now I just add my name to their dads card

my dh took my son on as his son emotionally but not financially in that he was expected to finance him

to some extent is closer to him than one of his own kids to the point that he helped him decorate his house, chats to him regularly and they get on like father and son

It worked for us as a family but we didn’t have any kids together which can make a big difference and they never lived with us full time either

my ds inherited from both sets of his grandparents so is quite set up

stepkids won’t inherit anything from me as the house we live in is mine and my DH will have the right to live in it if I die but then it will go to my son
if dh wants to leave them stuff that’s down to him
i don’t really see them much now as they are all older and grown up unless there is a big family get together

no idea if they will inherit from their mum
possiblly if her husband died first they might

Recently I paid for my son and his partner to come on holiday with me and DH
it didn’t enter my head that I should pay for my grown up step kids and there partners as well

I image this only works if the parent bringing child(ren) into the marriage is a higher earner but even then I don't see how it practically works. More children would usually mean a bigger house, maybe a bigger car, more life admin, working more hours etc. I don't see how this wouldn't require their partner to contribute one way or another - there seems a focus on money but that's just one thing. When your husband cooks does he cook for your children too? Does he spend time on them? If you work 6 days how does it work in terms of chikdcare? / Raising?

If the parent bringing the children into the relationship has, for one reason or another, less money, should they and their children live a lower lifestyle in that marriage? What if moving in has cost them government support?

@ResultsMayVary So to answer a few questions...
My sons first of all are older so don't need childcare as such. My husband moved into to our home as he had no children so that was easily sorted; I had no intention of giving up the home I had worked hard to build after an acrimonous separation and subsequently divorce. We didn't need a bigger car.
Husband does all of the cooking as he is better at it. We both work weekdays - kids all at school. We share school runs as fits for all kids.
When I returned from mat leave he took a day off to cover one of my days and loved every minute of being with our daughter. If we could have afforded it, he would have done this for more than a year!
When I work Sundays he is at home with the kid/kids. I have three kids to provide for, he just has the one, I earn more ph, so this makes sense. We share life admin pretty much equally.
Neither of us have any government support apart from CB.

@TheCurious0range I already had a home.

Well good for you. If you blend finances with your spouse you inevitably end up paying for stuff for your stepchildren, directly or indirectly. I was happy to do it.

But all of your costs as a 4/5 will be higher than if you were a couple, even things like having to go on holiday in school holidays, having to have a family sized car, as a single man he could have a moped and be done with it, it all costs more and if you marry someone with children you accept that. Unless he's pricing up a two week term time break and giving you half of that cost while you pay the rest of your school holiday break for four plus a baby and if he is he's not the kind of person I'd marry. Does he never pay for dinner out? Ice creams, cinema tickets? Does he count out his ticket price and half of your daughter's? I just wouldn't want to live like that and I say that as the higher earner in our family, so I certainly don't need a man to provide for me.

I don’t understand the obsession with blended finances in any relationship tbh. Usually on here it’s only because people want access to more money than they earn! It’s entirely possible to live happily just splitting joint expenses 50/50!

Every blended family is different. Isn’t it crazy that other people might live their lives differently to you!

It's a shame their father didn't offer to pay for them, especially given he has no housing costs

You have a very fixed view on what is right and what should happen but that doesn’t make it right for everyone.

it is good that it works for you and your husband but others want the idea of a blended family to be completely blended and everyone treated that same and that is ok as well.

all couples/parents have different ways of working and as long as it works for BOTH of them and their children it doesn’t matter

I would expect to pool finances and pay for everything out of a shared pot - kids and hobbies and holidays and the lot.

I am perfectly capable of being self sufficient financially for me and my kids and I am not being grabby but I just think if you’re going to marry and make a family with someone and their kids then you have to be all in - it would massively give me the ick if I married someone and then they quibbled over what percentages of holiday costs we would each pay because my kids were coming or having to use separate bank accounts to buy presents for my kids or stuff for their hobbies or whatever.

Equally if I was child free and married someone with kids or if mine were older and moved out or something, I would still want pooled finances and to share the highs and lows of our pooled income as a family.

@TheCurious0range I take on the main for those things eg holidays as I have three kids and he has one. Hence why I work the extra day etc. I wouldn't want it any other way.

I don’t understand why you think someone who isn’t a parent to your kids needs to joint fund their hobbies. You do, absolutely, sound grabby.

I was the higher earner and he has three children, I have one. I expect you’ll tell me I’m a mug now. 🤷‍♀️

You make different life choices to me that’s for sure!

In the same way that if my husband had a more expensive hobby than mine or earned less than I do, I would still want to pool money in a marriage and use the pot to pay for our family.

If I was to lose my job or become too ill to work, what then? My kids starve and his feast? My kids quit their hobbies but our shared kids keep theirs?