Refuse to make financial sacrifices for DSS

[usernc76482]

NC but regular poster. Cannot sleep as I'm drowning in a sea of anxiety.

I'll keep this brief: we (DH and i) can no longer afford to send DSS (Yr 12) to private school. ExW and husband comfortable but I don't think in a position to pay till he finishes secondary education next year. ExW and husband also have DC together who are also at the private school), but I mean, why would the step dad pay for his step son to go to private school when that is my DHs job and part of the original court order? ExW does not work.

At the same time, our DC1 has started at private pre prep (Reception) in September last year. It's looking unsustainable being able to send her there now and we will have to pull her out next term.

We could afford to send one or the other but not both children.

So: we COULD continue sending DSS to school if we take our DC out. I just don't think that's fair? If the children's are going to suffer it should be all of them?

It's been a very financially rocky few years but we had made it work, sold our car, no holidays etc. to continue sending DSS to school. We rent so cannot get a loan or anything against a property.

I'm fed up of making sacrifices.

But if finances are shared with someone who has a child you have given up the rights to always prioritise your own child financially as in this case.

Do you know this is a really interesting comment.
And one that I think resonates with me, let me explain.

My exp has a high conflict exwife. This means that over a period of time, he has invested ridiculous amounts of time, energy, emotions and money into securing court ordered staying contact.
If you were to ask him, he would do it all again in heartbeat, even though it has depleted all of the savings he spent the last 20 years working for.
I can predict that the EXW will remain hostile and as such he will need to continue to spend money in this way.

I love him, I commend him for his fight. However the finances and his priorities are a huge (main) reason for my not wanting to progress the relationship further. Because all I saw ahead of me was a partnership where he continued to spend his money on his children, his fights for them and prioritise that time and again.
And me? Well my finances would absolutely go towards me and my children. But in the absence of my bleeding my money in legal fees, who would be on the hook to prop things up? Me.

Nice luxury holiday that I can afford? Fine. But if I want my partner to go, I’d need to take him. Certain lifestyle aspirations that I’d like to prioritise? Well I could, but again, if my partners priorities for his money are elsewhere then again it’s my money propping it up or it’s me sacrificing it due to affordability.

What am I saying? I’m saying that staying in that relationship (and mingling finances) would have potentially made it harder to prioritise my children.

If ‘we’ have £10k saved and earmarked for a holiday of a lifetime and suddenly my partner needs that to fight to retain contact in the courts, what happens? Do I say, ‘tough, I want my holiday.’ (Understandable for me). Or do I say ‘no, the money needs to spent on your kids, that’s more important.’

I know myself well. And I would want that money to go towards a holiday as I am sick to my back teeth of our finances taking a complete kicking because of his ex and his kids.

But is it the right thing? No. It wouldn’t be.
That’s a huge reason behind my ending it. I accept that his priorities are his children, but simply put? They’re not for me and never will be.

Could I have been that clear cut if we’d mixed finances? Probably not.

I should add, a joint baby massively causes complexity. If I was the OP and the EXW was a SAHM with 2 more kids in private and I couldn’t give the same opportunity to my own child? Because my husband is still paying for his child? I’d be sick to my back teeth of the whole situation and I’d probably feel the way the Op does if I’m honest.

It’s a rubbish situation and it’s not fair on the OP.

This is why I believe that you should only have one set of children.
Nobody will ever love a child like it's own parents and trying to blend children from different parents into one family will never really work because of those feelings.
So have one set of children/one child with one partner. if that relationship doesn't work out then , yes go on to mary again or have another relationship if that is what you makes you happy, but no kore children.

It’s unmet expectations that cause the problems @lockedownloretta
Don’t expect a step parent to love a child like the own etc and then nobody needs to create a drama out of the natural fact that they don’t.
It’s only an issue if people decide to make it one.

@lockedownloretta

This is why I believe that you should only have one set of children. Nobody will ever love a child like it's own parents and trying to blend children from different parents into one family will never really work because of those feelings. So have one set of children/one child with one partner. if that relationship doesn't work out then , yes go on to mary again or have another relationship if that is what you makes you happy, but no kore children.

I think it can be difficult going on and having more children. Probably easier if it's two blended families i.e two single parents merging their families as one with no joint children. Ive seen it with a couple of female friends who have had a child with someone who has already had children, and my friends struggling to understand that her husband has a duty to support and love all children and not just hers. I think it's natural to want your child to take priority but they might not always- and rightly so.

In one friends case it caused big problems with her husband when she said she expected his will to favour their son over his older children. Of course she wanted to ensure he was provided for, but it caused upset with her husband. She did eventually realise it wasn't right, so had a change of heart but in her defence her child is her number one and she was trying to protect him.

@Youseethethings
It is unarticulated expectations that create significant problems. You should never assume that a partner shares your opinions on significant matters such as family, finances, parenting, fidelity, or privacy.

Obviously, you cannot always predict how you are going to feel about things that may occur in the future, but most people who have children have some sense of how and where they place their children's status in terms of other relationships. People know how the feel about resources and assets earned prior to marriage. Most people can distinguish between what they consider to be the difference between privacy and secrecy, and yet so many fail to have these discussions prior to marrying or entering into what they perceive to be a long term relationship.
They fail to have these discussions, and then they feel betrayed or somehow cheated when the inevitable differences surface.

Many people seem unwilling to risk the frank and necessary discussions prior to marriage. They prefer the illusion of compatibility to the prospect of having to make difficult decisions and choices.

I agree with Tattler! 😲
DH and I and some very uncomfortable pre marriage chats. Better out than in. He knows not to expect anything of me that he couldn’t or wouldn’t do himself if it was me bringing a child from a previous relationship. He also knows not to expect me to not protect my DS best interests just as his eldest child’s mother protects hers. I know that my DS is up there with DSD in their dads eyes, and quite right too.

You should never assume that a partner shares your opinions on significant matters such as family, finances, parenting, fidelity, or privacy

@Tiredoftattler I so completely agree with this.

I forced these conversations (and trust me they felt deeply unnatural). We were poles apart when it came to blunt expectations. His world was his children and his expectations were that a partner should understand that and support his fight wholeheartedly.

It didn’t matter if holidays couldn’t get taken. Or life was punctuated with drama. Or if financially I couldn’t afford the lifestyle I may want. Because on balance, because his priorities involved his children, that trumped (every time) frivolous things like adult time/ holidays/ lifestyle.

I would never have thought anyone would be so entitled over their needs (because it was child related) unilaterally trumping my needs within an adult relationship. Because, well I’m an adult and I should understand.

Erm. No.

But it’s only by forcing very difficult convos did I find this out.

Sm bingo!

Another one for the collection!

I also agree that difficult conversations need to be had and we absolutely had them. I think it's one of the main reasons it works.

Unfortunately his ex wouldn't engage in any conversations and so some things were very difficult, however we have always been on the same page as one another and that really is the biggest thing.

Yup. If the adults can be the team. And respect that the couple have needs that need to be met in amongst the child needs? That’s the recipe to success I feel. It requires a degree of selfishness however that I think many people feel uncomfortable owning.

I’d pull them all out of private education if I was living in a rented house with no car and no holidays!!

Definitely. I have learned that you absolutely have to be selfish sometimes. Everyone does.

I won't lie and say we've agreed on a absolutely everything, we haven't, but fundamentally we know where eachother stand, we value the same things and we both know where the line is.

I respect that he has two children of equal importance to him, and he respects that I have one. That doesn't mean to say I don't care about his child, but I have never been or wanted to be a mother figure. However when he lived with us that was tricky but my role as "fun aunt" remained, mostly, the same. Perhaps, fun aunt who will tell you when you're being a bit of a dick and stop you from ruining your life.

FFs it's so obvious that the fair course of action is to allow your DSS to finish school. What is wrong with you that you can't see that!!?!

However I just can't stand these immature selfish women who have kids with men who have existing kids and want them to stop their financial/caring responsibilities for their first kids to give it all to their new kid.

“give it all to their new kid” - who on here has even said they want this from their partner?

Yup sm Bingo

I said nothing about private school. But I wouldn't day someone who spent all their money on one child and not the other was a very good parent either.

They wouldn't be spending all their money on one child though. They would be sharing it between the children as every other parent does.

@funinthesun19

But if finances are shared with someone who has a child you have given up the rights to always prioritise your own child financially as in this case.

It depends.

If the stepmum has her own earnings she can choose to spend them on her child. Let’s face it, she doesn’t go out working to pay for her stepchildren’s costs does she?

If she receives child related benefits for her child e.g. child benefit or the UC element or DLA for children. That money is for her child so she can 100% prioritise her child with that money.

So you’re wrong.

I'm not wrong because in the situations you are talking about finances are not being shared. OP doesn't seem to have a separate income or bank account.

@Belladonna12

I said nothing about private school. But I wouldn't day someone who spent all their money on one child and not the other was a very good parent either.

They wouldn't be spending all their money on one child though. They would be sharing it between the children as every other parent does.

They would if they paid him through uni

No they wouldn't be spending all their money on one child. They currently have about 11k to spend (if they can't afford to send one child to a private school). If they give 2.5k to the eldest, they will still have 8.5k to spend on the youngest each year. Whilst that is not enough to send her to a private school for the first year, if they save it they will have enough to top up the 8.5 K in the following years.

They would if they paid him through uni

No they wouldn't be spending all their money on one child if they paid him through uni as their share for uni would only be 2.5 k. They currently have about 11k to spend (if they can't afford to send one child to a private school). If they give 2.5k to the eldest, they will still have 8.5k to spend on the youngest each year. Whilst that is not enough to send her to a private school for the first year, if they save it they will have enough to top up the 8.5 K in the following years.

This is why I believe that you should only have one set of children. Nobody will ever love a child like it's own parents and trying to blend children from different parents into one family will never really work because of those feelings. So have one set of children/one child with one partner. if that relationship doesn't work out then , yes go on to mary again or have another relationship if that is what you makes you happy, but no kore children.

The elephant in the room is of course that more people want children than don't want them, so if you want to marry again or have another relationship, odds are you will be asking for a huge amount of sacrifice from your partner if you expect to have no more children and they do not have their own. But single parents can and do seek out relationships with childless people, and without focusing on ensuring their partner is somebody who happens not to want their own children (but who would still be happy to focus on theirs, presumably to the point they "love them like their own" if we're to go by what MN deems acceptable).

I don't entirely disagree that it would be better for people to just have "one set" of children, but then the burden needs to be on them to abstain from relationships or be very upfront and specific in their search criteria, because offering prospective partners a life where you won't have your own children but will be expected to centre yourself around your partner's is not very broadly attractive. I think it would do the world of good if the social responsibility for dealing with that stayed with the parents, rather than them pushing it onto their partners.

@HoppingPavlova

We could afford to send one or the other but not both children.

Why is this even a question! Of course you would continue a 17yo who is at the very end of their education and who pulling out would probably mean failure at this point (due to trauma of upheaval at that age), as opposed to a reception child who it will only fleetingly affect for a few weeks at most. I would seriously have chosen to eat dogshit rather than move my kids schools at that age. Deadly serious.

I have known some parents where 1 parent has had to move for work and the rest of the family has stayed behind in these situations and then moved with the younger kids when the one in upper senior years finishes, it's that critical.

Exactly what this PP says.

But seriously, even if DSS finishes his schooling where he is, do you really believe you can afford to send your DD to private school? You've had to sell your car, not go on holidays and already downsize your rental property. You have no spare cash at all. And IMO private school isn't just about the school fees. There are also the extras involved. Do you want your child to be the only one who can't afford the ski trip or whatever? Obviously that's being a bit dramatic but there are other costs to factor in when considering private schooling. From what you're saying, whether DSS was in the equation or not, private schooling is out of your financial grasp. And I'm not saying that to be mean, just realistic.