Should my children have more than DH's?

[mumof2stepmumof2]

If I am the breadwinner (alot of my income is generated by having my 2 children) and DH cant contribute much to the household finances due to very low income, should his 2 children from his previous relationship (who live a 3 hour drive away with their mum and stay with us alternate weekends) have the same amount of money spent on them as my children who live with us?

By this i mean for birthday gifts and celebrations, Christmas, holidays, day trips, leisure activities etc.

I feel my children are missing out on so much more that they could have had because my income is being divided by DHs children also. Is this fair?

Thoughts please

The way we manage is that I buy DS his big gift and DP gives him a token gift. He is responsible for his own children’s gifts (choosing them and paying for them) and I was buying a token gift for his kids but they did not even acknowledge them or me aware it was not enough, so I just simply don’t anymore.

I was subsidising holidays as well but not anymore, as they were always complaining about how unhappy they were with the arrangements and having the holidays ruined for all of us.

DP is obviously free to plan nice holidays and gifts with them, but we live them to it.

Your DLA payments should not be put into the communal pot but be ringfenced for your children only. The money is provided for your children to have their needs met, no so your husband can access the money to spend on his kids.

I would not be counting the DLA money when splitting the pot between the children, you receive this money to enhance and help your disabled child with things they need. Not to help your step children who do not have the disability.

DLA shouldn't be going into the shared pot that's specifically for your children's disabilities and care needs. Stop doing this and spend this on your children and them alone to start with.

Universal credit would be a joint claim between you so it's only fair it goes into the pot. (Equally it would decrease if he earned more or if you earned more.)

Hoildays and days out I would ask him to contribute more for.

I don't think they should necessarily have the same but I would try to make life 'fair' so eg when all children are together if you pay for a trip to a theme park they all go. It might be however that your family holiday is 'better' than the group one.
I'd say the biggest potential for disagreement is Xmas and birthday presents. It's tough if one child has a iPhone and the other has a sweatshirt for Xmas.
Do you have shared children together or are you 2 from a previous relationship? If the latter, and your income 'from having children' is maintenance from their other parent then I think that slightly eases things. That maintenance isn't to support someone else's children.
It's tricky though if all the children are his. Might be worth dropping some hints now to manage future expectations eg letting it be known that you and ex will be funding driving lessons example for your children but his children might need to fund this themselves.

I think the way you've written your opening post is a little deceptive based on an update.

You say at the beginning you are the breadwinner and he is on a lower income. But actually he works full time, you work part time. You might be receiving more money but a big chunk of that is for, and should be spent on, the care of your children and their disabilities, it's not income. So it sounds like perhaps he is the breadwinner. Anyway...

You either share finances or you don't. If you don't, you pay for your kids and he pays for his. If you do share finances, then it's not your money and his, it's family money and it doesn't matter who brings in more, you mange it jointly.

Regarding presents, it's not relevant that your kids get less from their father and his get more from their mother. You cannot "balance" that and don't need to. You are only responsible for what they receive from you, the parents in your own household.

A better way to manage presents is to spend on them age appropriately rather than financially equally. A 3-year-old will have less spent on them than a 9-year-old. A 15-year-old will have more spent on them than a 10-year-old. Focus less on the balance sheet and more on what the appropriate and relevant presents are.

The children might only be with you a small percentage of their time, but DH is their father 100% of the time.

Yes, your DCs should get more.

1. ALL the payments from their dad and from the Gov because of their disabilities should be exclusively for them.
2. If DH's kids are getting a holiday from their Mum, I'm betting they don't take yours as well. So yours deserve a holiday on their own too, especially if it's to visit their relatives.

OP I think this change in your income means this is an appropriate time to revisit the decision you made earlier to split everything equally.

This wasn't a fair decision for you or your children at the outset and it is less fair now.

You need to reopen the topic and work out something more appropriate given your change in circumstances.

You are not beholden to this agreement that you made under different circumstances. You were earning more money, your child had less need for your assistance. It was a different time.

Again if he wants a better life for his children then he should provide it, even if it means commuting or working shifts. You've worked full time with two disabled children, including presumably as a single mum at some point. No one said it was easy, he should suck it up like you did and find a way.

You treat all children in the same family the same. It’s the only way. What they each get at their other parents house is irrelevant.

Its understandable that you feel resentful, but if you made a commitment to children you can’t just change your mind without there being very negative consequences for the whole family.

Of you are married, yes they should all be treated equally

What are the good things about you and your children living in this arrangement?

From what I'm reading, I can't make sense of it.

But if the change to your income was recent, then if you want to stay with him, use it as a pretext to have a conversation about revisiting finances.
And he should get a higher paying job if he can.
In this climate it isnt possible to please yourself around quality time with children vs earning enough for bills and obligations.

I'd say DLA is spent on the children it's for and the maintenance from their father too. Exactly the same as the maintenance he pays being spent on his children...

My total income including my wages, child benefit, child maintenance, children's DLA and the UC we get as a couple/family totals alot more than the £100 a week he brings to the table. He does pay most of his car expenses (I don't drive so do contribute by paying his car tax, insurance and I help pay towards his MOT and costs. He drives for all the fanily outings, food shopping, running my kids around, picking his kids up and fetches me from work. He pays for his petrol and most of the MOT/wear and tear on the car.

Firstly the UC is allocated to you as a family/couple so that's most definitely family money and not 'your income'.

Secondly him paying all petrol and MOT/wear and tear and doing all the family driving is HUGE. You resent 'subsidising' his kids but he does all the running around for your and for you? Time is valuable too. What the hell would you do if he got a job which meant he couldn't do these things? Because that's the way you're heading, he'll decide he needs more money for his kids and, as your separating every other part of your life, get a job to facilitate this which means he's no available to do the family running around. And then you'll have to pay for your own car/taxis out of your separate income. You can't pick and choose parts of family life based on what suits you alone. So think very carefully and go through all scenarios before you got full us and them.

Goodness me, no one wants to be working 12 hour shifts or through the night. They do it to support their families.

Yeah it’s massively unfair on your ex to be subconsciously funding his ex wife’s new step kids, that money is meant for his own!

This is outrageous IMO.

Imagine arguing that you should be entitled to siphon your step childrens disability payments.

Treating the children fairly doesn't always mean you treat them the same. If your sdc are having 2 of everything and don't live with you most of the time then I would reduce the amount you spend on them. That way it is fair as your dc don't have that extra amount from their df.

If you dh won't go to Spain, then you take your dc to Spain. Do your dsc have a holiday with their Mum?

So you can't spend any money on your children unless your SC are also there? This makes no sense, presumably their mum pays for things for them when she has them.

By default you should be spending more on your children simply as they are with you more often.

Birthdays and Christmas should be equal and potentially holidays (although it would be fine to just take yours if your SC get one with their mum) but day to day stuff of course you should be spending more on your DC.

The DLA should be excluded from any family pot. It is solely for the use and benefit of your children. It shouldn't be spent on your DSC at all. In regards to the holiday, I think you should go when the DSC are on holiday with their mum so all children get a holiday and no one misses out.

But you will be on a joint claim for uc? So his wages would r reduce that?

Are your children also his too?

DLA isn’t always because the child is more expensive. Are they? You don’t have to say here… but if they actually need the money for medical needs/ support/sensory whatever then YANBU. However, if the money is only to be used for luxuries such as holidays and presents then I don’t know.
Does their mum spend money on them?

Your DH is working full time to support you all and paying maintenance to his ex. I imagine he would feel guilty if your two get all the treats and his other two don’t.
However, if the step children get a holiday to Spain this year then I think you should be able to go on holiday with your two - as a family unit minus his two. Or personally I’d take my two children and if he doesn’t want to come, that’s up to him.

You’re working too- so I don’t think it’s fair that your DH thinks the pot should be split four ways. Your children should get more, but I can see how this will result in arguments. Are you prevented from working full time due to the children’s disabilities?

In retrospect I do think that the DLA should be ringfenced for your children. If it wasn’t for them then you wouldn’t have it. So it appears right they should benefit.

If your DH wants all children to be treated equally, then you should be able to have a week in Spain just the 4 of you, then everyone gets a weeks holiday, if you were to take SC then they would get 2 holidays and your own 1 holiday.

Totally disagree with this. Of course marriage does work like this sometimes but it doesn't need to - especially when it's a second marriage and nobody is sacrificing work prospects to care for shared children.

Everything being family money works when you only have children together and gives the primary carer the security and compensation they deserve for giving up or slowing their career and labouring with doing the principle caring and household management. It also works if one partner is the primary breadwinner while the other studies, raising their prospects to the shared financial benefit of the couple later. It also works because both parties are coming together often at the beginning of their economic lives, so they are largely building one financial vision together from a relatively similar shared baseline. basically, Each party are putting in something essential for the mutual benefit and shared vision of both of the couple, so 'what's mine is yours' works well.

However, in second marriages, you have an entire different set of assets and earning power coming into the relationship, that are a result of your labour/ decisions before the relationship. You also have a different set of obligations (debts, mortgages, children, family relationships and expectations) and quite likely different set of baked in financial habits. Particularly if you have no plans for further shared children, it's far less likely that one of you will be sacrificing earning power or putting more unpaid labour to the benefit of the couple as in a first marriage. It makes much more sense to take a fresh look at finances and work out what is actually fair.

Of course if one partner is super rich and happy to take the other partner and all their offspring on as dependants then lovely- but it's very 18th century and I'm not sure it's actually healthy for the relationship. (I think this is especially true when the man is the dependant, because it tends to erode their self esteem and sense of manhood). I think it encourages more unscrupulous people to marry as a meal ticket too.

OP, I don't think there is an easy answer to this. I'm in a very similar situation myself and I'm afraid it won't be just this that comes up as a question.... it goes to schooling decisions, housing, inheritance, everything....

My broad principles have been to make sure my partner contributes as close to his share as he reasonably can on costs, and that both parties should benefit from partnership. He is also committed to that and it's important to his sense of self esteem and my sense of not being exploited. His children are grown, but he provides for them when they need something, along with other family dependants he has. I step in in an emergency or when expenses are unmanageable, but he often pays me back when he can. He buys his own gifts for his loved ones and pays for maybe a third of our day to day dates. I 'treat us' both to luxuries that he could never afford- holidays etc.
We also have a prenup, so all my assets, including house we live in clearly remain mine and my child's inheritance. It is very much a win win situation, but NOT one that gives one person all the power and responsibility for finances or completely merges two very different lives.

He contributes a huge amount in labour - managing the house, car and garden in a way that makes my life way better, and his contribution to costs helps me as I'm not super rich. He lives in a property way beyond his means, including a work studio that allows him to develop his career and earning power in ways he never could have. He gets awesome holidays and splashes of luxury that I cover. But he (rightly) does not see himself as a dependant and remains ambitious about earning and managing his own money, rather than simply thinking that everything BraveGoldie has now belongs to him and his children!

His children are welcomed into the family, when they are with us, benefiting from everything we enjoy. But do I need to spend the same on them as my DD, or split her inheritance evenly between them all? No. I do build in money to spend on them and money to leave to them- but that's my choice, not obligation, and it's not equal to my dd.

Hope this is helpful.

I dont think what the other parent pays is relevant. You are a family and you treat your kids as siblings.

But

Any disability payments for a specific child should not be included in the joint pot.

You don't need the make sure each kid gets exactly the same amount spent on them, sometimes one wants or needs something more expensive like a new phone or whatever.

And finally, you have to feel like you're all contributing equally. It sounds like your partner is not pulling his weight and that's not okay.

Totally agree. Conversation is going so fast lots of new info was posted while I was writing my last post - so much may not be relevant there, But agree with this!

Take your kids to Spain, OP!