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.

Any adult who proposes a "dream" holiday and when children are involved usually means Disney and then proposes excluding children in that family - in my opinion is not a "nice" person.

One who then makes their DP pay in such a manner - puts their DP in a fairly shit position. So if the DP pays half for shared DCs and then the full cost of their own DCS does that make it unobtainable for the DP who ahs other DCs and then means the unwanted DCs can not come?

I feel sorry for the DP who is put in that position and that they are in a relationship with someone that petty.

@lookluv Not it will not be unobtainable. I am not nasty enough to dangle something in front of my DH that he cannot do.

You don't want your SDCs going and now regret agreeing to them being part of the holiday when your DP agreed to pay for them - pretty well says how you feel about your SDCs.

I haven't said I regret it. I said I have said ok they can come! It will alter the dynamic which is why I had reservations but now I have said yes let's do something together why do so many people seem to think I'm trying to make it so they can't come? Is this how people think and live their daily lives?

To be honest OP I see where you are coming from. But mainly due to the age gap. Had they been of a similar age I'd perhaps be thinking it's more unfair but the fact is they are teenagers possibly 17/18 if they are in 6th form. Heading to adulthood. It's a totally different dynamic of a holiday and yes their dad should pay not you

have no issue with Dad paying for the SDCS -
but you have "compromised" in letting them com on a family holiday. You as you said "muddied" the waters in agreeing to them coming and now wish you ahd said no - that is fairly obvious

Disney is Disney at whatever age and if they have never been it will be fairly harsh to see Dad take younger sibling but never having taken them. Where the money comes to fund it will be irrelevant to them.

The step kids are coming if they want to. That is not in question here.

@BananaFluff no beef with you. U have answered peoples queries and recognised where you were (potentially) unreasonable (asking dh to pay half for your dc) , and acknowledged that whilst you prefer otherwise the sdc coming is reasonable. I also think it's great you have a dh who recognises you are not there to fund his kids.

a lot of Chinese whispers taking place now. I'd take it with a pinch of salt.

@autienotnaughty Thank you yes I think i will bow out now. Thanks to everyone who has helped me see the error in my thinking.

You married a man with a child(ren) they come as a package

Look this has been discussed a million times - in becoming a SM no one agrees to take on everything for the SC. They have their own parents and their own Grandparents and their own Mother to go on holiday with. People feel differently about this and situations vary!

What do you mean by a package though? Your interpretation may be different. I married a man with children but they won't inherit from my estate eg.

You sound really mean in every sense of the word. Your poor husband.

This is one of those comments so often said to women but less often said to men.

To your first question, I don't think your husband should pay half for your shared children. Only because this holiday is only happening because you've got a sudden windfall and you were happy to before the issue with DSC arose. IF we were talking about just a normal holiday you save for every year I'd say he should pay half, but not an unexpected 'treat' like this. I wouldn't expect my husband to in this instance anyway. However, that being said I can understand how if you regularly live with the dynamic of 'i'll pay for my older kids and you pay for ours' then it becomes tedious. At the end of the day, the parent in that situation shouldn't be having more children if they can't afford to spend on them ALL, not just expect their current partner to pay for everything for their joint children so they can focus entirely on their other children.

I totally agree he should pay for DSC to go. I wouldn't be paying out of my children's money for stepchildren to come.

And I also think there's absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting them to go either. They will totally change the dynamic. If they were similar age to your children I'd say they should come (with him paying) but with such a massive gap I don't think there is anything wrong at all with them not coming and to be frank, I think it would ruin something like Disney. The likelihood is it will turn into a two group holiday, your husband with his older nearly adult children doing older, adult focused activities and you with your younger, harder work children, doing younger child focused activities. Shit imo. If he were going to insist on his older ones coming, I'd be saying FINE but he needs to understand that the holiday is intended for YOUR children and you won't tolerate him toddling off all day with his older ones OR even better, I'd be finding someone else to go with (or by myself but not everyone would be comfortable doing that) so you can truly focus on your children which is the whole point.

A going on 18 year old and a 6 year old are not going to want to do the same stuff at Disney.

Ignore any guilt trips of 'how would you feel if your husband said he was taking the eldest but not yours', they are all his children so the situation is not remotely the same no matter how they want to twist it.

The issue with comments like this is 'as a package' means something different to everyone.

To me it means being kind, welcoming and respectful of the fact my husband needs to be able to continue a positive relationship with his children.

It doesn't mean treating them exactly like my own children, paying for their holidays, sharing my inheritance and including them in everything I do for my own kids. It certainly doesn't mean they suddenly become my children or my responsibility equally to that of their parents.

No matter how often anyone says 'but but but but being a step parent means you HAVE to'. No it doesn't. Not to everyone.

This. You sound awful to be honest. You are all one family. Poor step kids. Doesn't sound like you like them much.

I think that just as DSC and their parents need to accept that their nuclear family is no more and the step family cannot operate entirely as a nuclear family because it's not one, step parents need to accept that finances also cannot operate as a nuclear family either. It's more complicated than that.

I struggle with this because whilst I see what you're saying, I think all too often the onus is put on the step parent to accept X Y and Z when it should actually be the parent of all the children who is expected to do X Y and Z. Why should you accept that your child's other parent likely won't pay a fair share toward your children because they have other children, simply because you chose to marry them?

It really bugs me that so often the onus isn't put on the parent to all of the kids in these situations to be the one to think ahead about this.

My husband has two older children, I am aware that means he is stretched more thinly than I am as I only have one child and I may, or may not, choose to then pay more toward some things for our child but I would be royally pissed if it was an expectation. Damn right if our son needs something, or its Christmas, or his birthday, or a holiday, I expect my husband to at last offer to pay toward our son, as his child, just like his older children's mother expects the same. Why should he not? If he wasn't able to do that, why is the onus not on HIM to reconsider having another child with me?

I don't think it's right that step parents should accept having to shoulder the majority of the financial burden of joint children simply because they chose to marry someone with older children. In the same breath, no one would expect the older children's mother to shoulder most of the burden simply because their ex has more children with someone else. I am aware a step parent chose to enter into a relationship and have more children which the ex did not, but I don't think it matters. I am also aware CM can reduce in the event a parent goes on to have more children with a new partner but I've rarely seen anyone on here agree that should be the case. Most people seem to think (rightly) that their contribution to children should remain the same. I don't think that expectation should be any different for new joint children either.

Men should be paying their fair share for any children they choose to create, whether that's with an ex or a current spouse. And if they don't, that is unfair and not something you should just accept and expect and the blame should lie squarely with them for choosing to have more children than they can reasonably afford to contribute equally toward, not the step parent for marrying them.

OP has already accepted he shouldn't be paying half for their joint children.

Why shouldn't he pay for DSC though? OP wants to treat her children with money she received from someone the DSC didn't even know. There's nothing wrong with that.

The post isn't about the step children inheriting her estate 🙄

The post is not about the step children inheriting from her estate

@pickledplump I hear you, and think you're coming from a good place.
But I fundamentally disagree.

You & your dh chose to have children. His ex wife and kids had no agency in their finances being spread more thinly. No agency in his time for his kids being spread more thinly. No agency in having to share their father with a woman they have no relationship with, forced to spend huge amounts of time with someone not related to them.

That doesn't mean that people should never remarry or have more kids, of course not. I'm a step mum.

But

The simple fact is you and your dh made
Choices. No one else got that luxury.
(Not just you, all second families )

Yes I know, I can read.

why does any of that mean the dad should get to only pay for his older children while the step mum pays everything for their joint children, or that a step mum should be paying equally towards their SC as their own DC?

"But the children had no choice" is not a logical response to that, it's a totally unconnected point.

@aSofaNearYou
Absolutely not. But if anyone at all considering further children have to drastically reduce the lifestyle/food/home/heating/sports/hobbies of their existing children then they should be seriously considering if that's the right thing to do.

Existing children don't eat less or need shoes less often because daddy wants a second bite of the cherry.

Child maintenance should never be reduced because of new kids being born.

So, if anyone has to go without (in terms of time or money) it's (in this order)

Dad
Stepmum
New baby
Existing kids

I get I'm old fashioned but I had to consider if I could afford a second child both financially and with my time. So should everyone.