What to do about extra costs due to DP's children ?

[TheStuffedPenguin]

We have DP's children here every other weekend . I have no dependent children. Obviously food bills are higher when they are here and then there are visits to restaurants etc .. I support myself BTW.

What do you do in a situation like this ?
Should DP contribute more to the household account? If so can you suggest a %?

I don't see why I should support his children 50% . Am I being mean ?

'His' xmas why the ' ' - they are his kids. They are not ops.

My OH ( soon to be DH) as soon as we all moved in together: treated my DD's as his own. He knew I had them and we came as a package. Our money just all goes in one pot for whatever it's needed for.
I understand everyone is different, but you wanted opinions.
My own stepdad was the same apparently.

If you want to stay in a relationship with him i think you may need to rethink your attitude towards paying for ' his' kids.

I don't think that is the case at all - they are "his " kids . I would not expect to pay for their clothes, Uni etc . Why would I ? And he would not expect me to either !

I don't expect him to pay for the things that I buy for "my" older children .

I’ve got dc from previous relationship. DP has never ever made any refusal to include them when we’re paying for things.

However, I always pay for my older dc myself, they’re not his financial responsibility, the fact that he treats them like his own means a lot to me and to my older dc but I’m not going to take advantage of him that way.

We have similar incomes and jointly own our home.

I don’t think OP is at all unreasonable in wanting to not take up the financial slack for someone else’s dc.

I think it’s very different if his children were quite young, then I’d say absorb the costs. But as they are an adult and almost an adult, you are unlikely to feel the same, and while groceries would be petty any extra things should be their dad’s responsibility. However, I still pay for my adult step children (28 and 30) when we go out to dinner (their dad passed away some years ago). They always offer to pay but if their Dad was there he’d pay, so I want to. I met them at 12 and 14.

Consider how this would sound in a few years time to your then adult step children, I think step parents often miss the mark, and this is absolutely one of those cases.

As a pp suggested work out really how much it is and either go out less or send them out and you stay home. I had/ have a step mother and I wound have been incredibly grateful if she had stayed at home and left me to enjoy my dads company in peace! (I still would!)

You've definitely posted about this recently and received loads of responses.

DP and I both have 2 kids each from previous relationships.
We have one pot, all our money goes in, all household bills get paid including CMS for his kids and their phone bills etc. We then split what’s left after putting a bit into savings.
We get £300 a month each for extras which we then put into our own accounts.
I also keep the child benefit and CMS from my ex in my own account so I have slightly more than him, but I cover my own children’s expenses with that such as trips, clubs, haircuts etc.

My kids are with us more so he obviously contributes towards their food more, but he also pays for things like mobile phones for his two (they’re older than mine) out of the joint pot so I think it evens out.

By the time my kids have phone contracts like his then his eldest will be 19 and be expected to cover her own phone bill so again... it’ll even out.

We also spend soooo much more when his kids are with us as they expect entertaining and we go out to eat etc. The weekends in between them coming we tend to not do a lot and catch up on housework/DIY/ironing so we spend very little... so again it evens out

Do you have kids that ever eat from the household food budget or you treat from the joint account? If yes then it's fair to simply share the costs

However, I do not think non-biological parents should be expected to cover 50% of the costs of eating out or weekend trips when they don’t have kids of their own. I would not expect DP to do this and I would not want to do it for my SCs.

Even DP’s kids are much older so eat adult meals he knows not to ask me to go 50/50 in a restaurant because mine and my DCs meals for example may come to £40 his will be closer £65-70 and it would be unreasonable to ask me to pay £65 towards it

work out really how much it is and either go out less or send them out and you stay home so basically pay for 2 adult children who arent yours and likely eat/cost more than you or fuck off? Seems fair

florencekettle

You've definitely posted about this recently and received loads of responses.

Please show me where I have posted about this before .

Their ages and you also having older DC complicates things.

What does your DP think should happen?

Mine are still primary age and we have mostly combined money so I pay towards towards food at home and out, clothes, days out and often have paid for our family holiday on my own as he pays hefty spousal and child support and in the past I’ve had more spare and have prioritised things for us all together.

I don’t know what’s fair in your situation but you need to both feel it’s fair or resentment will become an issue.

You are worried about a bit extra on groceries? A new level of petty has been reached.

Why is it that when a mum moves in with a man there is an immediate expectation that he takes her and her kids on and he contributes to the whole family yet when it is a dad moving with a women, there is a question as to whether they should contribute a penny?

It is nothing to do with closeness because kids are rarely close to their mums partner when thry move in and the principle is the same, you accept that the kids come with the person you decide to commit with. I really don't get this arguing over what is probably less than £100 a month when you move in with someone.

I think there are too many assumptions being made here.

What sort of expenses are we talking about?

If it's just groceries, I think it's ok to split, but older kids can be a lot more expensive than just 50 pounds a month each. Clothes, pocket money, school stuff, lunches, phones, hobbies, meals out, etc. It all adds up.

I would split household bills and groceries depending on income and he should pay for extras from his own own money.

I will never get why anyone thinks they should financially profit from a relationship.
If you are both equals in terms of salery and numbe rod dependents then great pay equal bills etc but in blended families this isn't the case.
The living costs for three children, one of whom is a teenager, vastly outstrip the living costs of a single adult.
I assume like myself op is paying half living costs, the house will be bigger to accommodate the kids, the electricity bill higher and the water bill plus council tax and the general food bills.
If someone is contributing half towards all of that why on earth should they be asked to pay for anything else? These children have two parents who are financially responsible for them. Presumably the dad supported them alone during their stays before op and he can continue to do so.
If op wants to take them out once in a while and pay as a treat because it's a nice thing to do then fabulous but that's her choice not an obligation.

"However, I do not think non-biological parents should be expected to cover 50% of the costs " Non-biological parents are those whose DC joined the family by adoption, wouldn't it. So of course they cover 100

That doesn't apply here. These are grown DC, and so adoption will never be on the cards.

Step-parents can and do see themseves as parents but OP has posted in a way that suggests she does not (though admits she is not posting the full picture, and certainly the mention of her own adult DC emerged quite late on)

It must be a common scenario, as I remember a thread about it too. I'll see if I can find it, as it'll probably be useful to OP.

*You are worried about a bit extra on groceries"

i'd agree with this if they were 2 small kids, but 2 almost adults probably cost quite a bit to feed no?

Why is it that when a mum moves in with a man there is an immediate expectation that he takes her and her kids on and he contributes to the whole family yet when it is a dad moving with a women, there is a question as to whether they should contribute a penny?

oh swing why do you feign ignorance so much? you comment on nearly every single step parenting thread so lets not pretend you are naïve.

Its usually 2 different scenarios, because usually women are RP's and men are usually NRP's.

If you get into a relationship with someone who is an RP, you know that you will live with their children at some point, so you go into it with your eyes open. You are agreeing to live FT with kids that are not yours. However, I still don't think you are, or should be expected to contribute directly to those children unless you want to, however a lot of the time things like tax credits or UC will be affected by a second adult or wage in the home, so you have no choice. You presumably know this and agree to it before you move in together.

When you get into a relationship with someone who is an NRP, you generally see their kids every so often, you have no expectation that you WILL live with them (though there's a possibility) the costs for these children are mainly maintenance which is paid to an ex partner - you don't and shouldn't expect to contribute to that. The rest of the costs eg food, clothes, going out whatever else, again I think you should contribute if you want to but shouldn't be expected to.

being in a relationship with an NRP is entirely different to being in one with an RP. Of course it is. The dynamic is completely different, the implications of you moving in together are different, finances will obviously be different.

I wouldn't expect anyone to contribute towards my child except his other parent tbh.

@AnguaResurgam why on earth would you take half of my sentence and misquote it to make a ridiculous point?
Non-biological parents who have no kids of their own... adopted kids are their kids fgs, they’ve adopted them!

The point was not ridiculous to me. obviously.

The DC are not adopted, nor likely to be, so there is no need to use a term whuch distinguishes between the the biological mother and the actual mother, because they are the same person here.

All it adds is confusion, because it postulates a parent which these (adult/near adult) DC do not have (or at least OP has chosen not to post about, though of course approaching adulthood is a time when the a new relationship with the biological parent can be established)

@AnguaResurgam by non-biological parents I mean stepparents. You knew that and you’re being pedantic. I am a stepparent and a biological parent, there is no confusion. It was a simple distinguishing remark to state that non-biological family members do not have the same legal, moral or financial responsibilities towards children they are not biologically related to. You are making a point which is irrelevant to this conversation for no reason whatsoever other than to be pedantic and misquoting what I actually wrote... are you a journalist because you’d be great at it 😂