Inheritance

[BananaFluff]

I have inherited some money - not loads. But I want to save some of it to take my shared DC away on holiday with DH when they are a bit older. The once in a lifetime kind of holiday, maybe Disneyland not decided yet will see what they like when they are older. I don't want to pay for my DSC and I don't want them coming tbh. It would change the vibe DC will be in primary school and they'll be much older teens possibly even in 6th form. Anyway. I mentioned to DH this was my plan and he was like oh can I bring DSC if they want to come and offered to pay. So I have begrudgingly said well start saving and we'll see when the time comes if they want to come but I want it to be the holiday I choose because it's my relatives money I'm spending and your kids are tagging along. So far so good but it got me thinking, he should be paying for half of shared DC too shouldn't he? I'm a bit miffed he didnt even think about that.

Why is OP mean for not paying for her DSS's holiday/suggesting that if her DC is willing to pay for his older children in full, he could pay half for his younger children - but DH is not mean for paying in full for some of his children and contributing nothing towards the younger children's holiday?

I appreciate that OP offered to pay for her DH and their shared DC in full initially, but clearly DH accepting this without comment and then saying that he will pay for the older children has highlighted to OP the differences in the contributions that DH makes towards his children. I would feel the same. If he can pay 100% for some of his children, he should pay 50% for his other child. They're all his children. Because OP has already offered, I think it's tough in this situation now, but I would definitely be mindful in the future of how everything is divvied up, if OP is generally expected to cover the younger DC's costs for things and DH covers costs for the older children as if younger DC is only her responsibility and not their shared child.

Hi OP,
If your partner saves the cash to take his older kids (say for example it would cost 2k each) because of the age difference (them being older teens) they could be offered would they like to come to Disney/ go on an alternative holiday with their dad/ have the money towards driving lessons/cars/uni whatever.

If they go "yay Disney" at least they are up for it. If they would not be keen but would only come to not miss out they can choose an alternative without feeling lesser or hard done by. If they come to Disney everyone will have to take a turn at being priority/giving priority to others in what they want to do.

I agree. A friend of my DPs works at CMS. She says first of, many men are absolute bastards,but second to that are their new partners who want kids from the orecious relationship to be dropped. It's all about them and their kids, fuck the first mother and kids

Really? How does your friend from CMS know this? Because I'm sure they'll only speak to the person who's case it is and not their partner. I had to get some kind of weird authorisation to speak to CMS on my husband's behalf!

This is the biggest load of fucking shite I've ever read.

Exactly. She’s just making it up.

The anger. The irony.

I never said she had spoken to them. The men talk about why they don't want to send money.

Yes of course they do, of course they go into that much detail about it. Pack. Of. Lies.

How is it ironic? Do you know what ironic means?

I do know ironic means. She was saying that it was angry new partners causing trouble.

FWIW we were talking about CMS in general, with the bent on the men that don't pay enough.

The conversation was not a pack of lies and, judging by your responses, I would say she has a point.

I'm in no way angry about maintenance though, so it's not ironic at all. I'm just calling you out on your blatant lies.

Fwiw the only reason I contacted them anyway was because my dh was never able to take the calls but I could - and if you've ever dealt with the CMS you will know how hard it is to get hold of them.

So your friend who works at CMS, who has likely never spoken to many (if any) of these 'angry new partners' just knows THEY are the reason the men don't want to pay, because their very angry new partner who has no involvement with CMS or dealing with, wants to erase the first family?

Aye... Course. Maybe your friend did say that but she's clearly based it on precisely nothing but her own opinions on second families and 'angry new partners' rather than anything she's heard from the people she deals with during her job.

Just imagine all the father's telling CMS that the reason they don't think they should pay anything is because their 'angry new partner' says so.. 🤣 load of bollocks.

And I have absolutely no skin in this game as no maintenance is paid in our situation due to 50:50.

Just not having that it was a regular occurrence for people to admit to your friend during their conversations that their very angry new partner wanted them to pay no maintenance so they could erase their previous family. It just didn't happen. At least not frequently anyway as you're trying to imply.

It sounds very much like your friend just has an opinion on new partners/second families and has tried to make that out like fact and used her job to attempt to do so. Even though she's extremely unlikely to have ever even spoken to these people so how she thinks she can make a statement like that is beyond me. But sure use it as a stick if you like. It sounds very silly though.

No skin in the game either. Outside of mine my exes finance bracket.

However, my interest is in feminism and men who don't pay and why.

Again, not angry just pointing out blatant lies, and I'm not the only one who thinks it either.

However I'm sure your comment well be deleted because not only are you lying but you're now using personal attacks.

Your interest is in feminism but you call other women "unhinged" which is a misogynistic term. Aye ok. More lies.

Whatever🤷‍♀️. No lies.

So you're a feminist who a) blames other women for men not paying maintenance, b) thinks the word "unhinged" is okay to use as a feminist and c) friends with someone who really should be sacked from her job?

Okay. Not really covering yourself in glory there are you.

You also must think we were all born yesterday.

No he shouldn’t be paying half for your ‘shared children’. The whole point was to use the inheritance for that. You’ve got a bit of a cheek asking him to pay half for your kids as well, it comes across as petty.

They likely won’t want to come or will be old enough to do their own thing a bit. Leave it a bit longer till they’re out of 6th form to increase the likelihood, or let them just sense your ambivalence towards them and you may get your way and they will stay away.

So what are you actually going to be spending on this holiday out of the inheritance? It's gone from you, your DH and your DC on a once in a lifetime trip and has now got to you, DH and half DC on the basis of the argument that if your husband pays half of your childs, there will be more in there for their future.

I understand it is your inheritance to do with as you wish but you now seem reluctant to spend it on what you originally suggested which is your child. I personally would think that It may be nice to treat your children (plus DHs contribution for his other child/ren) without a financial burden on yourselves. If you can spend a couple of years saving sufficiently as suggested (DH saves for his kids, you save for you etc) then why do you even need to use the inheritance at all? I agree with other posters it seems to be a way to exclude your step children with a valid reason

As a mother and a "step" mother if your DH DC aren't treated the same why are you in this relationship? I would NEVER treat my DC any differently than my DSC! What you are saying is if you want your DC to come along then you have to pay for ALL DC. That's not right or fair. As a parent I wouldn't want my DC around you. And this is coming from a second wife! There is no way I would ever tell my DH if he wanted his DS to come along, he'd have to pay! Whether you like it or not you are in the wrong on this one, and if I were your DH I would tell you I'll take my DC (all of them) on our own holiday and if you'd like to come you can forget it.

I totally get an inheritance not being joint money - it was money given by a relative of your DC not even specifically to/for you but for your DC. You're respecting that deceased relative's wishes by spending it on your DC.

If your DH were to pay 50% for your shared DC, though, he gets a say on what you do and where you go. The difference is that "you" are not taking your DC on this trip, your deceased relative and your DH are (so to speak).

If your deceased relative would have wanted this for your DC, and that's for you and you alone to decide, then you should pay 100% of the cost and your DH should have no say on what it is except for obvious things (eg don't take my kids trekking in South Sudan please).

If my DP reacted like this about me expecting him to pay for his own kids I would be leaving him, this comment is just silly.

I agree that DH should pay for DSC due to the inheritance money being given to you for your DC specifically. However, the way that you talk about your DSC in saying you don't want them to come, it will change the vibe, only resentfully agreeing they can come but that they need to make their own accommodations, etc...it's just sad. If my DP spoke about my DD (who is his DSC) like this, it would be game over with him for me. It's pretty nasty tbh.

And to make matters worse, now that he offered to pay for DSC because that's the only way they can go, you want him to help pay for your DC even though you got an inheritance to do this for them? It just sounds to me like you're jealous of his relationship with his children outside of you and your shared child.