second marriage, children and finances

[istherelifeafter40]

I am considering getting married for a second time and am very confused by our discussions about finances and my own feelings.

DP has 4 kids, most grown up. I have 1. We are considering trying for another child though I don't feel I can trust him - to get married and have a child, see below.

If we were to buy a house together, he'd put in more money, as he earns more/has more savings. He also has a share in a joint house with his ex-P, which is maintained (he pays for it).

In discussions about ownership and inheritance, he said a few times how he would like his share to go to his kids (my daughter would inherit what I have put in), or the house to be divided between our 5 kids equally (my daughter would inherit less than what I have put in). His share in the other house will go entirely to his kids (high value and almost paid out). In previous versions of that discussion, it would happen upon the death of one of us. Now at least the other can stay in the house until death.

There is great inequality in our positions: he has more money, and more children, I have less of everything. He proposes to leave the other house out of discussion and share this future possible house that we will get in terms of what everyone has put in. And then leave whatever he will earn/put into our joint house to his kids. I really do understand the need to protect them, though I can't fully grasp the idea that the parent is financially responsible for their kids forever, in their entire adult life.

But I also wonder what my role is in all of this. It feels like the stream of money from him to his kids needs to be protected at all costs (from me) - and I am a temporary companion. I like the fact that he is such a good dad, but I also feel that a more direct way to support his kids is not to have a relationship with me, then there would be no distraction of finances onto me! I know it is a bit of an emotional response, and may sound ludicrous. But I can't see how a marriage which requires in my opinion total sharing of life can fit inside this model. I can't see how I can trust him the way he wants me to while this is the background. WWYD?

I can't say as I like your dp very much if he isn't 50:50 on your current living arrangements x And then when you buy a house together wants you to pay 50% of every but only take a third

No ones entitled to a free ride

I feel the only issue you have to be concerned about is a roof over your head should he die first.

Assuming you are marrying for love then his previous property has got nothing to do with you. It is his outright.

There is no harm in setting up a document stating you can stay in the home til your death and on your death your daughter will receive what you put into the property and his kids will receive what their father put in?

With Foxes trust it seems like the surviving spouse can downsize and then spend all proceeds as the survivor sees fit so even then they might be no cash left. Also on a previous post on here I saw someone with that arrangement but then the surviving spouse changed the will and left everything to her own children meaning her step children got nothing!

Just to clarify, if my step mother downsizes the capital is invested to provide her with an income, the capital belongs to the trust and would be split upon her marrying or dying as per my Dad's will.

Since posting last night I've been mulling over the situation and yours is her different from ours. They married later in life and children from both sides are adults, whereas you have your young daughter to consider. I would be careful about making generalisations that the adult children are somehow unable to fend or support themselves as or being taught dodgy values. Unless they actually are which is another issue! We knew nothing of our Dad's will until he was dying and were certainly not dependent on him. As mentioned before, I would rather have him over a pot of money (that we potentially won't see for 20 odd years). My step mother is definitely better off and has a comfortable lifestyle and that's just what my Dad wanted. Absolutely shared income, as she now receives his pensions and other provisions until the point they both die and then the money splits proportionally as to what each person bought to the marriage.

I think what OP & I are alluding to re dependency is children who move into adulthood with a sense of what is my parents is mine - & this can happen in any family unit not just blended ones. Obviously you are not of that inclination Foxsticks 😊.
I suppose I get a little uptight around this stuff as I saw a lot of it in my exes family. His brother has had a huge sense of entitlement from a young age and it has caused untold stress for all involved. My Dps eldest displays very similar attitudes & already seems to feel that Dps assets inc. house & land should be his & got extremely affronted when Dp pointed out that he may need assets for care when elderly.
I can't speak for the OP but maybe she is seeing similar in one or more of her scs?

I know people like that too Magda, I'm probably being oversensative as my Dad only died a year ago, it's all a bit raw. I guess I was just trying to reassure people in this situation a bit. My Dad and his wife lived a lovely life what happened in marriage was definitely separate from what happened in death

I'm very sorry to hear that Foxsticks, yes it must be still very raw for you.
I wrote that last post as I certainly didn't want you (or anyone else) thinking I was tarring all adult steps or children with the one brush so to speak. I know there are many of us out there who absolutely want to see elderly parents happy & comfortable & who couldn't give a toss about inheritance etc.
This thread is really interesting & it's good to hear so many different experiences & perspectives & I suppose we are all influenced by our own experiences, both past & present.
X

It is really interesting you are right. It's not straightforward with second marriages, there is so much to consider. As with any stab at love there are always risks to take, both practically and emotionally but It's wonderful when the risks pay off. I feel for you guys with young children, it must be very hard making some of the decisions. I hope you manage to get the balance right for you.

suppose I get a little uptight around this stuff as I saw a lot of it in my exes family. His brother has had a huge sense of entitlement from a young age and it has caused untold stress for all involved

Anyone who thinks they should get anything have a sense of entitlement. The question is who should be more entitled and my view the answer is who the person passing on the money wants to be, be it children, spouse, siblings or charities.

There is also the fact that second marriages often means one or both parties having lost out financially once already, so leading to them being much more careful about future arrangements.

I pay the rent, and he pays the mortgage on the house that will go to his ex-P and DC. When I point this out, he says that as he contributes a part towards the rent, this benefits me and my DD because otherwise I'd probably rent the same size house but I'll have to pay for it in full on my own.

This is a red flag. Wouldnt marry someone who had that attitude. He doesn't see you as equals.

In fact I would rather live separately I think.

Presumably he would pay full rent somewhere else if not living at yours?

It sounds to me like you fundamentally see marriage and finances and responsibilities towards adult children quite differently.

I am a cynic who doesn't really believe in marriage, luckily DP is too. However at some point we'll have to sit down and properly look at the risks & benefits for each of us (and also DSS) in either staying unmarried or getting married. For me it's just about practical stuff, rights and finances rather than any idea of marriage making us "as one" or more committed to building a life together. Whatever it's still going to be complicated and I sort of dread it...

I'm sorry I don't have any proper advice.

What I can't marry in my head is the claim that he loves me so much with this desire to wall me from his wallet (hypothetically and preventively, I don't need money).
Because he probably that he was taken for a fool by his first wife, who did love deeply at some stage too, and doesn't want to repeat the same mistakes. His ability to trust someone fully again will probably require a lot of reassurance.

or I will need to say: "Treat my DD a little bit as your child as well"?
With this statement, I feel that you are accusing him or doing exactly what you want to do to protect your DD. In essence, what you are saying is 'don't be so over financially protective of your kids because my daughter deserves to be financially protected too and that includes your own wealth.

The fact that you mention that your DD will get nothing from her dad shows that you actually DO care about what she might/might not get. I'm not saying this to challenge you, but because that's probably what your DP is thinking. He is only doing the same thing that you, protecting his children because at this point, however much he probably cares for your DD and is prepared to take her on in his life, he just doesn't love her as much as he loves his children. He might do at some point, but not now. You can't force him to love and want to protect your DD as much as his kids. That's not what marriage is about and if you expect him too, that you are right that marriage is probably not for you two.

We have been together for five years, and lived together for two years. And he hasn't contributed equally to bills/rent as he has to pay for so much. Which means I pay the rent, and he pays the mortgage on the house that will go to his ex-P and DC. When I point this out, he says that as he contributes a part towards the rent, this benefits me and my DD because otherwise I'd probably rent the same size house but I'll have to pay for it in full on my own.
Did he move into your rented property, or did you move to a new place all together? Surely you discussed and agreed finances before you moved in together? How much of the joint bills does he pay? The way my OH and I worked it out initially was that what was fair was both of us being left with the same disposable income. We earned about the same income, so on the face of it, should have been a 50/50 split. However, he has a company car and phone and annual bonus, whereas I don't and have all the costs for my kids (and no maintenance), so it comes out that he probably contributes 75%. Still I could have argued that it was fair because his disposable income is for him only to spend whereas mine is for me and my kids, but I can't deny that my lifestyle has increased a lot being with him, and the kids have all they need. As it turns out, I discovered that although my OH is very protective of his money, he is also generous and he is the one who almost always pay when we go out to dinner, and will pay for new items for the house, even when I was the one desperate for a new bed whilst he was happy with the one we had!

It doesn't sound right you should be paying the rent in full if it means he has more disposable income in the end. Otherwise, it seems fair to me on the same basis than above.

I think you need to be careful with your approach because the more you'll put pressure on how you think he should spend his money, the more defensive he might become.

I'm with you op and to be honest I would be upset. It's the feelings behind the decisions that hurt.

I have 2 and dh has 3. Both came to our marriage with not much but he has since accrued substantial assets. He's leaving me the larger share and the rest equally divided between the 5.
His children will inherit millions from their grandparents, mine nothing from theirs or their father probably. He also took on mine financially since we married.

Had he not, I can genuinely say it wouldn't have been the lack of it that would've bothered me. It would be the making it plain to my kids who adore him, that they are second best. That's what I would've had a problem with.

I'm afraid in your shoes op this would be a deal breaker for me.

he hasn't contributed equally to bills/rent as he has to pay for so much

so you're basically picking up his 'tab' so he can finance his first family.....and then he expects you to carry this on in the new house?
Which you would as his money would still be going to 1st family.

so despite paying the majority of daily living expenses you are not allowed to benefit financially in any way or to have any long term security?

he doesn't want to live on his own as it is more expensive for him.
Living with you he doesn't even need to cover his 50% of living expenses let alone housework etc.

he's taking you for a mug OP.
It's one thing to protect assets for the 1st family but to then use you as a means of increasing their security at the detriment of yours?

I think you'd be better off with someone else who actually wants to be in partnership with you, not see you as a glorified gf .

he needs to have a look at what he can realistically afford to contribute to his 1st family. Especially if it means he can't afford to live on his own OR with someone else.

His children will inherit millions from their grandparents, mine nothing from theirs or their father probably. He also took on mine financially since we married.
I have to say this attitude really gets to me. What difference should this make? Why should they get less because of the partner you picked to have children with will have nothing to leave them? Are you saying that if your ex suddenly won the lottery so that they could leave millions to your kids, this should be shared with your sc because otherwise it wouldn't be fair?

It would be the making it plain to my kids who adore him, that they are second best. That's what I would've had a problem with.
This is the attitude that means that many kids don't care to see their father any longer once they remarry with sc coming into the picture. Of course these children should be second best to him, they are not his children. The fact that they adore him is irrelevant, it's great that they get along and even love each other, but that should not equal the love they have for his children. Or are you saying that you love his children as much as yours and they don't come second after yours?

so you're basically picking up his 'tab' so he can finance his first family....
It can't work one way but not the other. As suggested above, either all pay 50/50 but what has been accumulated prior to marriage remain to that person, or you take the approach that what is fair is for both parties to be left with the same disposable income when all bills are paid, and if this means that OP pays more into it because her OH has more bills, then that's what it is.

My OH pays more so that we can have the same disposable income mainly because my ex doesn't pay any maintenance so all the children costs are mine. It's not fair on him, but he also accepts that it's not fair that he should end up with much more money to treat himself whilst I would have nothing for myself because all goes on my kids.

Are you suggesting Swing that people who adopt children should love them less than their biological children? And there was I thinking there was more to being a parent than biology. Doesn't mean they love their first family any less, it isn't a competition.

How do you convince yourself that this is ok?

You don't. You are not obliged to marry him and it sounds like you aren't convinced. It seems you have different attitudes towards money and children so that is the issue in essence.

If I ever split with my DH every single penny that I had worked hard for would be ring-fenced for my dc, I have come across too many disaster stories of second marriages breaking down and the children losing out.

Your dd is young still (and I think this is relevant) so your DP has played a part in raising her for the last 5 years. To me his attitude is that he is not considering her as his child, so that itself would be a red flag for me OP.

Sorry OP but it does seem like your DP wants the perks of marriage but not the financial split. It also seems like you are 'propping' him up to be able to boost his future assets, which of course you will not benefit from.

It's nothing to do with biology. An adopted child holds the same status. They don't have other parents.

Are you suggesting that all are children should be considered on the same level? Surely if that's the case it should by all parents so SM should also agree to financially support their SC?

We know that's not the concensus here so is it a a case of one rule for the SM's children and another for the non resident children?

Belmotian why is it a red flag that OP OH doesn't consider her child has is when almost every posts we read is about SMs complaining that they are expected to care for their SCs like their own and everyone respond that this is outrageous.

I really feel for all their dads. They consider that all children should be treated the same and they get flamed for being selfish and too reliant on their partner and should therefore be ditched.

They take the attitude that children shouldn't be considered all on the same level and they get accused of not being fait and should be ditched.

It sounds like a common case of ' treat my children like yours but accept that I won't treat yours like mine or you're not worthy of my love and commitment'.

Yes Swing, if SM is in a position to support her step children then obviously the same goes. If a step child's mother/father wants nothing to do with their child and the child's step mum/dad fills that space and loves him/her as their own, is that wrong?

I don't think it's a case of gender, more of every situation and relationship being different and having different influences. For example, if I had 2 teenagers, one of whom rejected their stepdad and made his life hell, and the other who accepted and loved him, the step parent could be accused of treating them differently. Who could blame him? Not so straightforward always.

OP, I agree with what Swing said about trust.. no one gets richer though divorce and perhaps he has lost out financially having broken up with his first wife.

I also agree with your sentiment and that of Aroundtheworld that I wouldn't want my husband to treat my child differently at the point of his death in the sense that since he took me as wife (and as I took him as husband) we became joint, with a coalition on providing for and caring for the children, whilst all the time respecting the natural priority of biological bond. But we joined in marriage and share everything.

Magda asked about my kids and steps ages when we got together : they were 7yrs thru to 17.
Our back up plan on death of one of us was that the surviving spouse would offer continued housing and parenting if the child(ren) wanted it, with open and kind access to ex partners. Chances were they would have (or would still) want this! The ex's put on a good show but they currently won't have the kids any where near half of the time. Money would be tight but the mortgage (our lives) are insured so there'd be a far lower living costs at home.

Husband jokes of course how much better off financially I am with him dying sooner rather than later! He trots this out every time he finds a sewing needle on the bed/ a skateboard in the hall / something mouldy in the fridge.

Bottom line, in my case, the surviving spouse (which statistically will be me though you never know) might have to downsize.

And Magda I have also seen adult entitlement and my husband and I would hate to think our own children (when adult) could be this way!!

In our social circle, a retired lady who's late husband willed her the right to stay in the house or to get interest in the investment, until death, and therefore his adult children should wait til she passed, was harassed into a sale and settlement because the kids felt entitled, needed it 'now' and wouldn't wait. For her own health, she had to sever ties after a barrage of legal battling because it wasn't worth ruining her life's over.

My own husband saw this and would hate to have that awfulness, and also recognises it would severely STUNT my/ his life experience and trap us if there are conditions on keeping the house. His children won't inherit from him, I will. Nor will mine, from me. Sounds harsh. But they can expect our marriage to truly stand for something, and expect no inheritance and anything they get will be a bonus.

Lord knows what influences will be upon our children when the time comes. Some might be rich, others struggling. When all the children are grown, the children need to make their own ways in the world, and we will help them as much as we can, but they can't count on money.

Conversely, we have raised them to think that probably, they will need to support us when we are old or bereaved, like we do our elders!! Mum/Dad StepMum/StepDad asks - "please fix the computer, help me buy a new fridge, take me on a trip"...

The way I like it;
Loved and trusted spouses inherit.
Have life insurance.
Treat adult children the same on death.
In life, help the more needy.
Make everyone know they are loved equally.

OP have you spoken to fiancé about what you've explored her eyes with us?

*here with us?

Just to highlight that agreements made prior to marriage don't mean a thing. Individuals can make a will in favour of whoever they choose and they can change their will, without telling a soul. I speak from bitter experience.