how do you handle the financial side of 'blending families'?

[trialsandtribs]

We have been together a couple of years and want to move in together soon.

Money is starting to seem like it could be a bit of an issue longer term and I would really like some advice on how to manage it.

We are lucky as we have enough money comfortably.
We both earn similar-ish wages although our "incomes" are quite different as DP pays maintenance wheras I receive.

Plan is for DP to move into my place.... I pay for 100% of everything now so don't financially need to live with him!
I live with DS (5 yrs) who is at his dad's eow and once in the week.
DP has 2 DC (4&7) who are with us EOW and once a week.

We have decided that it makes sense for DP to pay me rent in the first instance while we decide what to do longer term (his name on mortgage/him buy an investment property to rent/put his savings into an extension and make it OUR house.) We haven't discussed amounts but i think around 50% would be fair... maybe he'd want to pay less... i don't know.

The part which is causing difference in option is attitude to saving for DCs future and eduction. I can probably afford for my DS to go to private school in my current situation so I would still like to have that option. He thinks we should treat each of our kids equally and if his ex can't afford to send his DCs then mine shouldn't get to go either. He is happy to contribute towards the fees on top of maintenance for his kids but he feels strongly it's up to us to save for all the 3 kids whereas I think both our exes have a role to play in saving for their kids too. As I receive the child maintenance I do feel it is my responsiblity primarily to save for my childs education and I don't want him to miss out if we can'tafford for 3 kids to go! Then I feel like me choosing this man will have hindered my DS's opoportunities and I don't think that is fair.

I also have about £270K in equity and savings whereas he will be bringing about £100K into the pot. I do want us to be ONE family in most ways but i do feel I have worked my complete arse off to get to where I am and I want my DS to feel the benefits (i.e. support him through uni, or help him with a deposit on a house etc.) I would ideally want to be able to give the same support to all the kids but again I feel a bit uncomfortable about my DS's support going down because I have to chip in towards his girls.

The obvious question is about their mum.... She can definitely afford to save for their future but my DP says he doesn't want to rely on that and want to work on the assumption that me and him provide for all the kids... I don't feel comfortable with that as a principle as where is the role of the other parents...

I'd really welcome some advice! thanks

I guess I just don't want my DC

To be honest, I've never seen a successful "blended" family. Someone always feels emotionally or financially short changed. there are better and worse examples of course. Ones that have turned out better ime are ones that get together when the children are a good bit older and firmly set on their own paths, having had plenty of time with their own parents, even if separately. And also have had a long time to get used to new partners and kids, so things come together in a more organic fashion, things aren't so engineered.By that I mean about 16 or 17.

In your specific situation, I think yes, the left field "live close by but not together" situation sounds like it would be a good interim measure, and would certainly stop a lot of waters being muddied.

At the moment, with this much difference on some (very important) matters being discussed, it doesn't really sound like either you or your DP, or your respective family units, are ready for this yet. Part of this is down to where you ar epersonallya dn some of it down to what stage your children are at.

Sometimes there is a pressing financial need for families to blend (i.e. money is tight enough that maintaining two households just isn't an option, and everyone would be better off under one roof) but it doesn't sound like this is the case here. Just take it slow, let him make his dc his priority and you make your dc your priority. then, when they are a bit more grown, see where you are headed.

Completely agree with the last post. I've been on both sides of this insofar as having an exp who had a ds a year younger than my dd and also my dd's father being now married with two young children to his dw who has a dd also a year younger than my dd. My dd attends private school as I assume his two youngest will. His dw daughter does not. I know it causes issues there and my exp living full-time with me and my dd caused issue for him as he only saw his ds at weekends etc so had 'the guilt' and virtually ignored us when his ds was here. Am now with dp who has no children but still I would not live with him until my dd is fully fledged she's 13 next and if dp and I are right together we still will be in 5/6 years. Go with your instincts.

I agree with moustache you cannot blend a family Brady bunch style it is not possible.
The suggestion that lots of love and communication will make it all ok is not true. That doesn't make anyone selfish immature or mean it's makes everyone an adult. Pooling resources and "treating all the kids the same" does not make the step family experience better and the mn insistence that it does is quite peculiar.

Op you may need to accept that dp daughters will never be at a stage to accept their father moving in with you. And you will need to recognise that this would be their fathers fault not yours. And if you can accept the left field suggestion your relationship might be just fine.

You cannot have a Brady bunch outcome if your dp won't give his daughters the time, care and if necessary the outside professional help to get there.
You cannot teach him to parent.
You cannot love his daughters extra hard on his behalf.
You cannot and should not over compensate for the divorce.
You cannot let your dp guilt absolve of his responsibilities as a parent, potential step parent and partner to you. If he needs help on these matters you are not a superhero it's not your job to fix him and his daughters. Even if you didn't have ds it still shouldn't be your burden to fix another family you are not a social worker.

What she said ^

Oh yeah side bar you cannot have a child with a man who cannot parent the children he already has. No ifs no buts. Any parent that proudly tells you of his child's emotional distress (abandonment issues) and does nothing to help said child is not someone you want as a co parent.

Op you sound very capable and its sounds like your life is quite together ignore those siren voices that are tempting you to fix this man and his children. Sacrificing your sons childhood and your own time and money for something you are already having doubts about is unforgivable- keep being selfish prioritise yourself and ds. You have no legal, financial or emotional duty to your dp or his daughters.

Social workers are never thanked.

Whodrankmycoffee I think you're taking it a bit far. Hard done by step children do exist, they aren't a myth, they just aren't the only kind of stepchild.

They are sometimes the ones who no longer see the nrp, because he/she has a "new family" (either biological or step) and has forgotten about the previous children.

And they are sometimes the ones with bad step parents (there's another thread going at the moment about a new wife who leaves the room every time the child enters it).

And there are people who treat their children and step children in very different ways that is definitely not about fairness or loyalty to biological children- things that definitely can't be put down to well meaning incompetence.

It's just a case of working out what is really going on in any situation, not of dispelling a "myth" or "urban legend". Like anything, things can go too far one way or the other. People can go to far trying to make everything the same, and they can go too far prioritising their own children or not even attempting even-handedness. People can also put their own and their partner's needs far ahead of any of the children, and that is where I have seen the most damage- it's not deliberate but it is a type of blindness to consequences.

Moustache I quite specifically said there are bad, kind and bullied stepparents

But the problem is mn and wider society always assume step children are always hard done by. It is the default. It is problematic

*Whodrankmycoffee2 But you did specifically say that the hard done by stepchild is an urban legend i.e. doesn't exist or exist in a totally insignificant quantity. Which is I think incorrect. I think this is more likely a situation that a cliche has become a cliche for a reason- that hard done by step children are common.

I think part of that is because blending a family it is a near impossible situation to balance so that people don't feel hard done by, it's a tricky balancing act even when people are well-intentioned and competent. But, sadly, it also happens because genuinely, a lot of children are treated badly. That is sometimes down to being treated unfairly compared to other children, and sometimes because none of the children in the situation are sufficiently considered compared with the adults in the situation.

Going from one extreme to another (all step children are hard done by to hard done by step children are an "urban legend") is not going to help that at all. Frankly, such a broad brush attitude really underestimates the complexity of all the issues.

And for the op she is in danger of becoming a bullied stepparent. Her dp believes the divorce is the worst thing that has ever happened to his daughters and he is wanted op as well as himself to compensate his children for this trauma rather than get actual effective help for the girls.

You cannot treat resident and non resident children the same you can try to approximate and muddle through but treat the same is not a solution.

And let's say the girls are massively traumatised and the op a cruel and vindictive woman then her dp would still be responsible for parenting his girls, getting them help and protecting them

The burdens on stepmothers are much heavier compared to men

Hard done by step children is an urban legend in that it is the default position even when there is evidence it is not the case. Posters search ops for tenuous evidence of misdeeds to support it. That does not mean all step parents are kind. As I said before step parents can be kind and bad. But defaulting to assuming they are bad particularly in the case of women is actually creating situations like the ops.

And I am talking to the op I am not writing a blog post - the urban legend of hard done by step children stops all rational thought and communication in the op circumstance and I gave the example of my own childhood where my brother was assumed to be hard done by despite no evidence of this fact.

I am arguing that the op needs to look at the facts of her circumstances not the generic mumsnet view that most/all step children are being treated badly.

I lived with the urban legend as a child every birthday party, every Xmas present and every holiday - your poor brother. It was real. I am sorry I don't fit the world view but I am raising my example because in my case my parents were both good and caring people who bought into the myth so strongly is distorted everything and ruined my brothers social development

If you default to wicked stepmothers and their step children as babes in the woods how is that helpful to the op.
Would you go into a thread on lone parents and launch into tales of resident mothers withholding contact? Would you tell women in abusive relationships that actually most of the time women are lying about it? No you would not because it would be irrelevant

Finally how do we know most step children are badly treated? Where is this evidence of mass child abuse where are the government enquires and nspcc campaigns?

Finally how do we know most step children are badly treated? Where is this evidence of mass child abuse where are the government enquires and nspcc campaigns?

because the abuse of children by their NRPs and their step-parents is a universally accepted 'OK' thing to do? Rarely are men who move into new families and never see their 'old' family called out on it. And if they are, they will use the 'she won't let me see them' excuse. Because the non-payment of maintenance is the equivalent of not giving a shit if your child eats or not - abuse in Social Services circles but fine in parenting and step parenting terms because the 'single mother' can claim benefits so the child doesn't starve. Because anger and annoyance at a child are acceptable in step parenting circles as inevitable because you didn't give birth to them and it's OK to hate them just a little a bit because they pick their noses/jump on the sofa/don't flush the toilet. Because eye-rolling, sighing and smiling at just the wrong moment in front of the step children is acceptable as long as you don't actually slag off the mother, because of course, the step children are so stupid they'll never pick up on it.

I could go on. It's largely low-level abuse but it is, nonetheless, abuse. Way too many women (and some men) stand alongside men (and some women) who engage in frankly despicable behaviour towards their children/step-children and are, by proxy (and something actively themselves) taking part in that abuse. But as a society, we accept it. My ex has had no end of women happy to be with him - he has never paid maintenance, has gone long periods without seeing his children, takes no responsibility whatsoever for their medical care or dealing with holiday care or anything else but they all, without exception, have believed that he should support them and their children and moan about reductions in tax credits and are happy to say to my face that because I work full-time, he doesn't need to pay maintenance.

But fedup you and moustache are talking at cross purposes. Moustache is saying the default that step children are being abused is the default because is mostly correct and you are saying there is no social sanction for the abuse.

I am simply saying thr belief that the majority of step children are being abused is preventing the op from having a rational conversation with her dp.

I am not going to derail ops thread further.

But to your points fedup. Yes there is no sanction for shitty nrp re maintenance. And the standard for care in a lot of families is too low. But abusive people abuse because they are abusive. Not that step parents are abusive because they are step parents which is profoundly offensive. And I think it is important to make that distinction

Fwiw fedup your ex sounds like a cock

Whodrankmycoffee I did not say that hard done by step child was the default because it was "mostly correct". I said it was the default because it was common. I also said that there are a variety of consequences and situations, and that broad brush, simplistic thinking either one way or the other does not help people in the actual situation.

You seem to be arguing from one case (your own personal experience) to a universal rule. However personally distressing that situation was, it is not a basis for saying that no step children are hard done by. The things I said were a response to your insistence that hard done by step children are an "urban legend". I think minimising the possibility of abuse/neglect/unfair treatment to step children is not likely to make the situation better for anyone- a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the many challenges and difficulties divorced/separated people and their chidlren face might though.

Moustache we are talking at cross purposes. You are talking generally I used my one example to discuss with the op and floral why those two individuals found themselves taking on roles in their relationships that made them uncomfortable and unhappy.
So to repeat that was me talking to two posters about our experiences.

I never said all step parents were great I quite specifically said some were bad. But you cannot communicate or think clearly if you think all step parents are abusive. If you wish to extrapolate my thoughts further I cannot stop you. But I have said repeatedly I said some not all but if that is not satisfactory for you then i guess there is nothing more to say. You want to talk general and I want to talk about the op.

But I standby my comments that if you think an entire subset of families is abusive it will create problems particularly in the case of the op

I said previously I mean urban legend in the sense of always true despite facts

I feel like you mean urban legend = never true.

So we are talking at cross purposes

whodrankmycoffee You are arguing very strongly and persistently that the OP give your experience priority over the equally valid experiences of others and dismissing those experiences as "urban legend". That could give the OP a very skewed view of likely considerations and therefore outcomes. You are obviously very emotionally invested in a particular view of things, which is absolutely your right, but it might not lead to the most objective advice to the OP.
I know you are trying to counterbalance what you perceive to be an existant bias in society, but perhaps it might be useful to consider "hard done by stepchild" not urban legend but cautionary tale. It's not something you need to rail against in order to establish that there are other valid experiences and other cautionary tales. They can co-exist and be equally valid illustrations that things can go too far in many directions not just one.

Whodrank I think you are using urban legend as "doesn't happen often enough to warrant consideration" or "can be discounted/disregarded"

If op was being abusive I wouldn't bring u my example moustache I gave it to demonstrate to her that neither she nor her dp are bad people. It is just in a normal non abusive family adults can and do assume the step children are hard done by and this leads to negative outcomes. Eg my parents.

The fact that as fedup alluded to there are abusive step families that get a pass is irrelevant to the op because the ops scenario is not abusive. The point I was making to the op is that in a non abusive situation what can appear to be harmless over compensation for the daughters can (in my example) lead to negative consequences. I was encouraging the op to look past the normal tropes and focus on the outcomes based on her facts.

I have explained what I meant by urban legend and you have now told me that I am wrong and I didn't mean what I said when I clarified which is getting very close to you telling me what you would llike me to have said.

Moustache I will repeat myself because this is important I was talking specifically to and about the op, floral and myself. If you wish to extrapolate my thoughts you may but that is not what I intended.

Are you now suggesting moustache that the op assume that she is being abusive and her dp is right to insist she offer parity to his daughters when he is unable to reciprocate for her son.

What is your point in relation to the op?

Yes I believe passionately in what I say because if all step children are being abused and must be accommodated no matter the request and circumstances this prevents rational communication. I am not saying ignore the children but a blanket response of prioritise them ignores the nuance and potential pitfalls of doing so in the context of this op

More importantly for all the children in unhappy homes how do we seek them out and help them if we are wasting time worrying about step families which are non abusive.

Whodrankmycoffee What I am saying is very simple. I am saying that there are pitfalls for divorced people and their children in many directions. I am also saying that society does not pay enough attention to this and all it's complexity.

There are 150 posts on this thread so far. Your posts amount for approximately 1/3 of them. You are arguing very strongly for some very specific action. You are doing so from one very passionately held position based on personal experience.

That is fine, but in doing so, you are dismissing one (or possibly more) of the tropes as more or less irrelevant and I think that is categorically a mistake. This is not to say that the OP is abusive, not in the least and at no point have I even vaguely suggested that.

However, the trope you are so easily dismissing is the one of "hard done by stepchild" not "abused stepchild" or "abandoned stepchild". My point is that people, even well intentioned and skillful people, can inadvertantly make mistakes if they ignore (or are instructed to ignore) one whole set of the possibilities that stretch out in front of them.

Not all unfortunate happenings in step-parenting occur because someone is abusive, or ill-intentioned. Some things are just mistakes in evaluating possibilities. Our society does not (yet) really have a good grasp on all the myriad of challenges that face divorced/separated people and their children. That makes evaluation of what to do very difficult, but also very necessary for those people in that situation.

To be frank, I think that, as a society, we do not place enough weight or give enough credence to the situation and plight of any of the different variants of the step child. If we did, the outcomes for many children whose parents separate would be better.

To iterate, I think all the following types of stepchildren would benefit from better understanding and help from society and within that, their own families and communities.

1. The abused step child
2. The abandoned step child
3. The hard done by stepchild (i.e. a child deliberately or inadvertantly treated less favourably than siblings, step or otherwise)
4. The golden stepchild (i.e. the child favoured over other siblings)
5. The over compensated stepchild (i.e. the child encouraged to murse it's grievances by the behaviour of one or other or both birth parents)
6. The overlooked stepchild (i.e. the child whose needs get forgotten about compared to the adults in the situation)
7. The parenting stepchild (i.e. the child who has to act as the adult/go between with parents in dispute or look after either a parent or siblings, step or otherwise)
8. The neglected stepchild (i.e. a child who is not given the care they need)
9. The ignored stepchild (i.e. the child who is not neglected, but who learns that they and their wishes are not important and so fades)

I am sure there are more variants, these are just the types I have personally encountered. This is further complicated by the fact that over time, the same child can hold many different roles, even ones that in logical terms conflict with one another (this is especially true as a stepchild can be a stepchild in two homes, and can have multiple step-parents in the case of serial partnerships)

So I think it is a very big mistake to say that the possibility of the "hard done by stepchild" needs to be downplayed or disregarded. It doesn't. That type and all the others, need to be focussed on more, and not at the expense of the other types. More attention needs to be placed on the genuine needs of each of those children, not less. It should not be a zero sum game, some type of extended sibling rivalry where each type of child needs to compete for a share of a finite amount of care and attention. We should be trying to deepen our understanding and care for all these children. You are saying the equivalent of "we need more research into dementia...a lot gets spent on cancer research, some of that should be spent on dementia instead" when it would be better to say "we need to do more research into dementia and into cancer".

And yes, this applies to OP as well as generally. She sounds like a considered and well-intentioned, thoughtful person. She does not show any signs of abusing or being inconsiderate towards her potential step-children. But she does need to (continue to) bear in mind- for the sake of both her own children (whoa re also potential stepchildren) and her partner's children- that it is possible to make a mistake in parenting or in step-parenting that involves putting the needs or development of some children before that of others, even inadvertantly. She needs to (continue to) be aware of this (and obviously is by the fact that she is discussing this with people), as a potential step parent and also as potentially the mother to children who will be step-parented. It is not he only thing she needs to be aware of, but she shouldn't disregard it as a factor worthy of consideration.

This is a complex situation, with multiple people with different perspectives involved. It is not correct to artificially simplify that by downplaying the possibility that one or more of the children in this situation have the potential to be disadvantaged by the behaviour of the adults in the situation.

There are pitfalls and mistakes and challenges in many directions for people who are divorced/separated and their children. You are arguing very hard that she is mindful of the potential mistakes in only one of those directions. That is a direction that needs to be considered, of course, but it is not the only one. You have posted very forcefully, many times, in this thread, and there needs to be more balance.