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

Put DLA ,child benefit and maintenance in a separate account

then you add £100 a week to the pot
so you both put in same amount
out of that pot comes bills
you pay for your childrens things
he pays for his childrens things

not enough in the pot for bills ?
well you both add a bit more …except he can’t or won’t
I expect he will whine he can’t afford to buy his kids presents either .

op ,you are being taken for a mug ,this man is a cocklodger,he’s using your childrens money so he doesn’t have to earn any more .

If you need further convincing on the 'child' aspect - DLA is not means tested on the parents incomes, child benefit only in recent times has an earnings cap and child maintenance is based on number of days residency not how much you earn. Because they go to benefit YOUR kids not you, DH or his kids.

I agree I'd be raging if I discovered my children's money was being spent elsewhere

They're only with you once a fortnight. Are you all meant to sit at home staring at the wall until they come back?

Of course you should be able to take your own children out for pizza. I am sure the DSC receive treats at their mothers house.

I don't think this is about being fair to DSC, it's about DH wanting to be a Disney dad on your dime.

Can I also point out how ridiculous it is that DH is refusing to get higher paying work because he would miss out on time with his family -- when his children are not even there except for once a fortnight.

He has plenty of time to work longer hours** without impacting his time with them.

Thanks Snowlolo.

For me, the point of getting married is that you want to say that the person is the most important adult in your life. That they are the love of your life. That you are committed to being together forever... that your vision is to grow old together. That you are utterly dedicated to building a happy life together. That you have a passion and deep deep love that reflects the highest possible level of commitment.

That's very different from seeing marriage as a financial contract that redistributes wealth and liabilities into extended family, erodes adults' pre-existing responsibilities, changes when you might be able to retire because you are now subsidising someone else, or (on the flip side) releases you from the responsibility of working to provide for yourself or your family, or constrains what is 'fair' to give to your own child. and radically adjusts their future wealth through an inheritance being divided with others who weren't around when that wealth was created.

Basically, it is about marrying the person for love, rather than merging finances for financial gain or loss. It is saying "I love you.... irrespective of your finances.... which I respect as yours."

If I found out that my maintenance was being spent on some other person’s kids I’d be really fucking cross!!

They come every other weekend yet your Arsehole husband guilts you about spending your money on a pizza for your kids when they’re not there?

He sounds like a dick.

You need to take responsibility here too though. You are putting him (his opinions) ahead of your own children. I bet you won’t like reading that, but you need to think about the fact that it’s true.

@BraveGoldie 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Fair enough. I just feel you can have all of that lovely stuff you describe without marriage, so I still don't see the point of it by your definition really. I don't think a beautiful lifelong relationship as you describe really needs any involvement or approval from the state (which is what marriage is, really).

By its very nature as a legal status, marriage involves going 'all in' financially with the other person. If you want to be married but don't want to do that then really I think you need a prenuptial agreement.

🙄🙄🙄to all the people who say marriage is about grand passion and not about finances.

Whether these people marry their “soul-mate” without thinking through the implications or, at the other end of the scale, whether they avoid marriage altogether because “it’s just a piece of paper which won’t affect our love” - either way, they’re allowing emotion to rule over common sense. Marriage is a financial contract which, if you love someone, you should discuss sensibly so that you both protect each other’s futures and children.

Thereisnolight agree with you. I find it laughable especially with the current divorce rate. Folks skipping in without protecting what they brought to the table whether that be men or women. Everything becomes a marital asset on marriage. There is a thread on here now with a woman being pissed off that her STBEX is likely going to get more on divorce as he is the low earner and she will be forced to sell her home she had before she got married. However in the OP case the notion that her new DH has access to her DC disability allowance and her kids get less is shocking. he saw her coming and OP has not been sensible or put her kids first. As I said before when people join assets it usually benefits both however this situation only benefits her DH and his DC

I do have a prenup agreement.

And if you insist on seeing marriage as merely a financial contract with the state, then you are wrong about that anyway. It is not laid down in law clearly at all how spouses are meant to deal with money through their marriage. Nowhere does it say all money is pooled on marriage. That is just a norm some people in our society at this time have decided. And nowhere in history has marriage clearly dictated via the state how money is managed. Other than sexist laws, in some countries, that dictate all the control is given to the man.

Even in the old days when rich noblemen would marry, the money didn't all become accessible to the woman! Yes she would be supported, generally given a spending allowance (dictated by the man's generosity and choice, rather than the state)... but the man's money remained his, with full discretion over spending, in accounts in his name, free to whittle it away on gambling or other women, and leave it to whoever he wanted (normally a male heir). The women would need to negotiate for a dress allowance.

Even in the situation of divorce it is not laid down by the state who gets what. Yes, there is a norm of 50-50 split after a long marriage, but this is debated in court in huge detail, with numerous criteria around length of marriage, children, sacrifices each spouse has made, career prospects and ability to support themselves, aid they have given to each others careers and inheritances they have received. Essentially the courts try to work out what is fair. The marriage alone mandates almost nothing.

I think it's a bizarre way of thinking that marrying is about only making a financial contract via the state.... especially when legally marrying defines almost nothing about the management of money.

The vows one makes on marrying are love vows, not declaration of financial commitments!

I think you are talking about me?
If you read my first post, I was very clear that we have detailed agreements about money and what is fair, to protect my child, including a prenup. What I am objecting to is the idea that marriage is ONLY a financial arrangement, therefore there is no point to marrying unless you want to split all your money 50-50.

The state does not lay out clearly what should happen with money during or after a marriage. There are some norms, but it is not a clear financial contract that you have to buy into, It is up to the couple to define what they want.