Step families and finances

[AliceRR]

Interested to know how this works in other families where one partner has children and the other doesn’t.

My SH has two sons, 13 and 15. He pays 20% earnings to their mother as CSM.

We don’t currently have joint finances. We both work, earn a similar amount, and pay 50% towards all joint expenses (mortgage, bills, etc) which we pay into a joint account that the DDs go out of.

Although we earn similar (DH actually earns slightly more) he pays CSM and is paying off debts so he has a lot less money on a monthly basis but that’s largely as he is prioritising paying off debts. I have more disposable income.

DH thinks we should have a joint account. I have always resisted this as thinking I’m not ready and said that if I did I’d want to keep some money aside as I don’t want to pay towards CSM.

Anyone I have spoken to agrees CSM is his responsibility although when they are with us I share cost of everything and we pay 50:50 into the house.

What do you think? AIBU to feel like o lose out by sharing everything. We are a couple and things change over the years but sometimes I feel like I’m always the one who loses out...

This is maybe not just a step parent issue but that’s a large part of it.

If a single mother moves in with someone any benefits she receives as a single mother arevgreatly reduced or completely stopped. So she actually loses out financially. So i can understand that the partner is expected to contribute.

In the OP's case, her husband has NOT lost out financially. In fact, there is a gain because the standard of living will generally be higher.

OP's husband has decided to prioritise getting rid of debt. Admiral usually, except in this case he's trying to force the op to do that for him. He has the option of paying off the debt slower.

support her OH financially when it comes to his children, but turn it around, she comes with children, is on a low income, and of how dare her OH not help her. Lets remember all the threads when posters complained that their partner wouldn't help them financially because they only worked PT and everyone shouted 'leave him, he is a selfish scum, he committed to you, he should take on your children too'.

I don't remember threads like that...it's mostly women worrying a men doesn't take on her children emotionally..not financially. There is, however, a fair amount of topics where SM contributes A LOT but is told time and time again how she has no right to discipline, express opinions, request decent treatmemt, be in hospital with the SC etc...she should really just fade into background and let SC have time with their dad as that's what they are there for...she is only dads partner, not relevant or important to SC.... not when it comes to her money though- and thats a real double standard.

There is also a MASSIVE difference between living with a partner and their child full time and living with a partner and having children visit every 2 weeks. You naturally take on a more parental role when living with your SC and it's usually step fathers as still most of the time children live with their mothers.

In any case maintanance is responsibility of a parent, not a step parent.

The resident household and non resident household are in different circumstances and the stepparents go in the relationships with those parents knowing full well those circumstances.
The NRP does not receive benefits for their children so will not lose out by having a new partner, so there is no need for their partner to do any “making up for it”. If the NRP does receive a small amount of benefits (eg housing benefit) then that will likely stop but the partner should be paying towards rent anyway regardless so it doesn’t matter. The RP chooses to move someone in with them and the CHILD related benefits are effected as well as the others such as housing benefit. That’s a different kettle of fish but it is absolutely nothing to do with the NR household, certainly not the NR stepparent anyway.

I would never expect any new man to pay for a child that was not his, if he wanted to pay towards that child that would be his choice but I would never expect it
The government would though as indeed, you would lose any benefits claimed. So it would be a case of either somehow increasing your income, or accepting that you have a lot less disposible income than your partner or indeed, expecting him to make up the difference. Again, big difference between expectation of a new partner even when moving in together and a spouse.

NotNot that long ago, a poster was posting how she moved in with her partner, but she was getting upset because he wanted to go on luxury holidays but she couldn't afford it because she was on a lower income and paying for her children. The response was overwhelmingly that he wasn't being fair because he'd taken on her kids when he moved in with her and he was a prat for considering going on nice holidays when she couldn't join him. Why didn't everyone responded that it wasn't his children so it was her issues and if he had more disposable income, then good on him to enjoy it?

Priotising paying a debt as soon as possible when you are about to have a baby seems a very sensible thing to do indeed.

I don’t think any man or woman should be expected to pay for a child that is not theirs.
Really? So all SMs on this forum with children from a previous relationship pay 50% of every joint bill even when they earn half of what their husband earns and their partner are free to spend their disposable income as they wish with no issues because none have joint accounts? Yes, of course!

Again, big difference between expectation of a new partner even when moving in together and a spouse.

A big difference in expectation because there is a big difference in circumstances.

@swingofthings - I have no idea what all other parents do. I just know what my opinion is.

I guess it’s the government that reduces benefits to resident parents when a partner moves in, in respect of that partner moving in they will still pay to live there, they won’t live there for free, so they may pay the mother rent, or they may contribute to the bills to pay their way, that does not necessarily mean they are paying for her kids but they are paying to live there. Now many partners of resident parents will pay Above and beyond just as much as partners of non resident parents would but that should be their choice and not imposed.

And don’t forget if a father with kids from a previous relationship moved in with a mother with kids from another relationship then he can actually reduce his maintenance as he is seen as supporting another family! Which I think is terrible but what can you do?

Your attitude towards maintenance payments is awful. I sincerely hope that you are able to pay for both childcare and a mortgage on a house big enough for you and your children because when he doesn’t get the cock lodger status he is looking for, he will find himself someone willing to pretend his existing children are not important.

So he hasn’t delivered on the promise to share the house, you already pay his debts (by paying the food so he can pay his debts- even if you were sneakily manipulated into it that’s what’s happening) and he wants you to pay more? And if you pay more there won’t be money for your dc as it will go on his dc.... hmm Stick with separate accounts! As an aside, if I were with this guy and he suggested sahd I’d have to say what about the csm? Losing your job is one thing but choosing not to work and support your children is pretty disgusting- you aren’t trading work in to be their sahd, you are trading work in to give them nothing. Thinking you are lucky to have found a man paying minimum csm is also pretty unattractive...

How did he incur these debts? Sensibly or concerningly?

Now many partners of resident parents will pay Above and beyond just as much as partners of non resident parents would but that should be their choice and not imposed.
Well of course it can't be imposed, although again, the government does impose it the other away around just like a poster brought up a few weeks ago when she expressed frustration that her OH's income would be taken into account to work out her son's illegibility for the student loan when he went to Uni, so even after they become adults, the resident SD income is expected to support their SCs. And as you point out indeed, the reduction in maintenance when a father moves in with SCs.

My approach to it is not so much from a 'your kids, my kids etc...' view, but from the consideration of what marriage is all about. For the better and worse, everything shared, what is yours is mine etc... and I don't understand why everyone who doesn't sign up to the vows of marriage would consider marriage in the first place. At least, if the way forward is indeed that income is not shared, now or ever, then this should be jointly agreed before deciding to marry.

I see where you are coming from, I’m getting married next year to my partner, we do have separate accounts where our wages are paid to, however, we pay into a joint account for all the bills, my partner pays his maintenance for his first child my DSD before contributing his 50% however we do have DSD staying with us for the standard amount of time and I also contribute when she does stay in the form of food, clothes and looking after her. My partner also has to drive quite a long way to see his daughter and uses my car at the moment because it’s the only one with working air con! Anyway I digress, we have offered to have DSD on a more permanent basis and become the resident parents (long story!) and at that point my wage would be taken into account and I would not mind, as it’s based on the household, and if that did happen my partners ex should then pay maintenance towards her child, although if she was to go into a new relationship at that point I would not expect her new partner to contribute to that maintenance.

In conclusion I don’t think it’s sexist, it’s just that the government judge it and it’s usually the case that the resident parent is the mother, if the resident parent was the father I would have the same opinion that step parents should not contribute to maintenance but maybe should contribute if the child is staying with them (although that’s up to the individual) x

" everything is in his name anyway including mortgage as we never changed it but I pay half..."

does that not worry you? You are already subbing him for his children and then you just throw that out casually...

OverTheHedgeSammy

Good points.

And the cynical part of me wonders if OP's DP prioritised the payment of his debts in expectation that OP would pay half.

Alice please don't let him wear you down. Hold firm and do not combine finances with your OH.

You paid for your whole wedding, you pay towards his children, you pay half of his mortgage. What does he pay for you? Nothing.

You need to safeguard yourself and your baby. Perhaps when he finishes paying off his debt you can look again at the finances and decide whether you could have a joint account you both pay into for household/baby expenses while still keeping your own main accounts.

Do not give this man power over your finances.

@swingofthings you are too concerned in “what ifs”. I don’t want it all my way at all. It seems he does. You are thinking of this too much about your own situation to be honest and it’s not about that. My situation is not the same as yours but thanks for your replies.

@stillawakeat4amagain not sure I understand you or maybe we have crossed wires. I paid for all of wedding and I pay for more than half of everything in our home which includes anything that involves his kids like gas, water, food, any days out and treats. I often pay for more as I have more money. I knew he had children and I share responsibility for them when they are with us but I always said I would not pay CM and he never indicated he would expect me to.

Relevance of wedding is he always said he would expect to share house with me. I paid for wedding, with him having agreed to pay a contribution, but then he didn’t and said paying for the wedding is me “buying” half of the house. He didn’t just share his house with me so there you go for all those saying it works both ways!

@cptartapp Various reasons. The kids live in a different city so with us they don’t get to see their friends here so when they want to go out with friends on a weekend they stay at mum’s. They share a room at ours and once they got their own rooms at their mum’s the eldest found it more and more difficult to share with youngest. Says he hates him. Think that’s the main reason. I’m sure their mother would tell you it’s simply cause I married their dad...

" but then he didn’t and said paying for the wedding is me “buying” half of the house."
but only his name is on the mortgage, so you paying for the wedding is neither here nor there in relation to the house, is it?

@Faerie87 DH uses my car to pick up his kids too! Don’t want to go into long story but basically about 2 years ago we each had our own cars. Let’s call the the green car (mine) and silver car (his). We did not live together at this point. Silver car was slightly newer but DH was travelling 70 miles do woek every day so it packed in sooner. Her persuaded me that the right thing to do was for me to buy a new car as I could more easily afford it and then give him my car. His car was valued at about £200 more than mine due to being newer so he basically traded his car in and took mine and I have paid £220 a month since then for my now black car. Often we would end up using my car and petrol for anything we all did together as it was he nicer car and also I think so we’d use my petrol. Recently the green car broke down (February) and DH has insisted I share my car. He no I contributes to it but not quite fairly and he even uses it more as I only travel a mile to train station for work whereas he does more and puts more mileage on it! The main reason he needed a car was to pick the kids up and again I’ve often done the 1.5 hour round trip when DH can’t as it’s not something their mother gets involved with. Car is a sore point too as I didn’t really want to share, I planned to trade in next year but we are going to go over the mileage limited due to all his driving which means value will be less and every other weekend I have to work around him picking up and dropping off step son. And I feel I bought this so he could have be other which he took and used and now wants this one!

I think he is bow prioritising paying his debts, knowing I will have to pick up the tab for everything else. Last month or the mink th before (possibly both but I don’t scrutinise his accounts so don’t know) he paid a massive amount off to clear his loan but then I paid something like £900 last month on food and days out with him and kids. This whole thing kicked off as I suggested we would work out how much or that he would give back to me as we had done that the previous month and it’s really on that basis that I spent so much.

Those asking if he sees OSS yes usually when dropping off and picking up YSS. A couple of weeks ago we took both to Alton Towers as it was OSS birthday. Last weekend or weekend before we took both out for food at a place with games and pool and stuff. All my idea and initiated by me. I paid £60 on the day we went for the meal for food for all of us and then drinks from Starbucks. DH paid for Alton Towers but against when I spent last month that’s probably fair!

The thing is if someone moves in with the resident parent and shares the expenses of the DC that money is staying within the household and the step parent would at least have a say in how much to contribute and how those finances are spent. E.g. a family day out with the kids costs money even if paying for just a packed lunch - the step parent pays towards such activities as part of the family expenditure but it benefits the whole household they live in and they themselves can partake in a nice day bonding with their DSC.

IMO the role of the NRPs partner is to contribute financially to the household they live in, including expenses for their DSCs whilst they are with them. I don't agree CMS is a joint expense because, although going on the kids, it is being spent by another household. There is no say in how that money is spent (rightly so) and whilst this still benefits the NRP in that it helps ensure their own children are fed, clothed, housed etc the NR step parent enjoys no direct benefit to themselves unlike the resident step parent scenario.

You could of course argue that CMS benefits the DC regardless of who they're with, but as a step parent why should I have an obligation to fund someone else's children whilst they are not in my care? My DSCs are part of my family whilst I am with them but unlike their dad I lose any opinion or input into their lives the minute they're back at their mum's, and even then my opinion is entirely conditional on DSC's dad.

I also find that because NRPs are mostly men their female partners tend to contribute a lot more in terms of shopping, cooking, household chores etc for the family than the male partners of RPs do, so they contribute extra in that way. I don't agree with this sexist dynamic but somehow it always seems to happen - if we as women downed tools and refused to cook for or help with our DSCs we'd be accused of not liking them, making them feel unwelcome etc. A man however is never expected to contribute beyond finances and being "nice" to his DSC whilst mum runs round as usual and deals with all the wifework and the mental load (as in "together" families). If stepdad does help with the additional chores that come with having DC then that's nice but then he gets all the oohs and ahhs and you're so amazing, just like actual dads do for merely pulling their weight like they ought to. Society simply doesn't hold men to the same standard as women when it comes to kids therefore it is rarely useful to compare the role of step mothers with step fathers because like it or not, the dynamics are simply not the same.

OP please don't.

The only person who gains from having a joint account is your OH. You just lose out.

He only wants a joint account so he has access to your money. Where is there any incentive for you to do this, except to stop his nagging?

The wedding, the mortgage, the kids, the car, the bills...you have done more than enough. He has not treated you well.

You will be resentful if you do it. You are concerned with things being fair and the way that's fairest for you is to keep your own money and contribute as you see fit. Do not leave yourself in a position where he can use your money to pay off his debts and spend as he likes.

@ThunderStruckMuck Only youngest child comes. Baby will be in with us for a few months I imagine. We would like to move but it will depend on finances and if we can find something suitable within budget. Since moving into this house we have been doing it up and I find that stressful so don’t want to move only to move again ina year so would like only to move if we can find a house we can afford and will be happy in for at least five years but preferably more. I don’t want baby to share with SC either to be honest but it might be all we have and it’s realistically 4-6 nights a month so we may have to make do.

@FinallyHere
Thank you. I don’t know how I worded what I said about him avoiding CSM. I don’t think he wants to be a SAHD to avoid paying CSM. I think he wants to avoid working! Not that that’s much better. But he made he point that between the two of us we would be better off he gave up work for that reason. He might have just said that to make the prospect more attractive to me (as I don’t really want him to be a SAHD but we have time to work all this out) but I don’t know.

People don’t like that I say I’m “lucky” he doesn’t pay more than CSM. The fact is I am obviously better off the less he pays out to another household. Not saying he shouldn’t pay or I want him to pay less but that it is a fact. It is clear we have issues when it comes to money and it would be worse if he paid more. He can barely afford to pay what he pays. Similarly his ex would be better off if he paid more. That’s a fact. I don’t think she’d be worried about lhe household or my child. The reason I mentioned ex’s mother previously is because I think the kids are fine either way. Again not saying he shouldn’t pay more or less. I’m simply talking about whether I should contribute to what he does pay. The amount he pays is between him and her and CMS.

I think those of you saying keep separate finances are right. I don’t want to sound like I am bashing my DH as I adore him but I do feel taken advantage of sometimes. I would resent it if we had a joint account, not to say we may not later, but not ready for that yet. The problem is if I don’t then he resents it and I don’t want that either. I want him to be happy with whatever arrangement we have and that’s the difficulty as we both have quite different views about this.

The problem is if I don’t then he resents it and I don’t want that either. I want him to be happy with whatever arrangement we have and that’s the difficulty as we both have quite different views about this.

Yeah but the reason you resent it is because you're being taken advantage of financially, whereas the reason he resents it is because he would have an easier life if he could get his hands on your money.

You have a joint account to cover the household bills etc, that is good enough. There is no reason why he should have access to the rest of your money. He earns his own wages, he does not need your money.

Society simply doesn't hold men to the same standard as women when it comes to kids therefore it is rarely useful to compare the role of step mothers with step fathers because like it or not, the dynamics are simply not the same

So...just stand back and don’t challenge? We see this shite again and again and again....the OP dismissing the importance of paying maintenance with flippant ‘I don’t care’ and ‘it’s her business’ and ‘her step father is a millionaire so the kids won’t go without’ should just be ignored? The simple fact that women are happy to say this stuff and then go on and marry someone who, to the rest of us, quite clearly is taking advantage (and is happy to have more children whilst openly contemplating not supporting existing children), is everything that is wrong with our society. And it is what ensures thousands of children go without the financial support that they deserve. The OP should be ashamed but sadly, just about everyone who has posted has talked about protecting herself and very few have even recognised the importance of protecting existing children.

we split everything 50/50 and he pays his cm payment from his own wages. When his son is here, the 'cost' of him being here is split like the rest of the kids are.

The OP should be ashamed but sadly, just about everyone who has posted has talked about protecting herself and very few have even recognised the importance of protecting existing children.

Their father should be protecting them. It is not up to OP, she needs to do the best for herself.