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.

The suggestion that a new baby is less worthy than any older siblings is disgusting to be honest. The baby has no "agency" after all.

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

Dad

Stepmum

New baby

Existing kids

Why should the new baby go without time and money, or is less deserving? I’m sure the baby’s maternal side of the family would tell you to fuck off with that statement.

@Yousee & @funinthesun19 stop with the faux outrage.

Prior commitments need honoured first. An older child shouldn't be told to stop dance lessons because dad decides he wants a new little Prince or Princess.

Of course it's not the baby's fault but no one should add to their children without fully, thoughtfully, financially and time constraint considering the impact of their decision & sure as shit existing children shouldn't go without because dad & stepmum wanted a new fresh baby to play happy families with.

I wonder if when a mum has a new baby with her partner, her new baby is less deserving of time, money and resources compared to her existing children from her first marriage?

Nah, inflammatory statements like that one above only apply when a dad has more children.

ew. That post is dripping with bitterness. gross.

That's absurd. If we're meant to be an all in it together family and dad can't contribute towards DC then why the fuck should the DSC Still get their extra ciricular activities paid for.

Either we are all family or we are not.

And I don't know why you're using language like Prince or Princess and "play happy families".

And yes that was a name change fail on my part oh well

@funinthesun19 you're being deliberately obtuse.
Every mum gives consideration to the practicalities and finances when considering a second child.

Every single one of us.

Can I afford nursery/childminding
Can I afford work
Will I be too exhausted to balance it all
Will I have enough time and energy
Will I be able to afford a bigger car if needed
Will I be able to afford 2 x clubs/sports/holidays
Will I be able to afford 2 x university etc in future

That's as it should be, and dads & stepmoms who don't give it a second thought are the despicable ones frankly.

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
Because I accept that DSD costs more to run than my own children as she has two homes. I don't expect DH to spent the same on our sons as his daughter as it's just not necessary. I would expect maintenance to be cut in line with everything else if we were in financial trouble, however, I don't believe that DSD and her mum are above and beyond feeling the pinch like the rest of us.
I also know that in 10 years time when DSD is an adult and my children are still young, DH will be spending more in his sons then.
I see no need to either not provide what I want to for my children, or bill DH for half.

Nothing faux about it. It’s very genuine. You’re so full of shit.

Posts like yours do no favours in your fight for existing children. If anything it’s just pitting people against each other.

I have 4 children. My younger children are just as much entitled to my time and money as my eldest is.

@funinthesun19 did you not consider practicalities before you had more kids ? I did.

Yes I did, thank you.

Also, if my first child would have been seriously constricted I wouldn't have had a second.
I could afford it (time & money ) without any real issue so I went ahead.

Fathers (and yep it's largely fathers ) who lower child maintenance when they have a new baby with new wife/partner are lower than a snakes arse.

@funinthesun19 well there you go, we agree.

What a load of shit.
Absolutely no chance would my dsd ever be put before our children just because she was born first.

I don’t agree with your original sentiment at all that a new baby should go without. Whether the baby was carefully planned out or not. Still a human being no matter which way you look at it.

Well @Sarahzxcvb that says a lot about you & your dh.

@beachcitygirl
It was genuine outrage, I can assure you.
It would be despicable to say to one child "sorry kid, can't afford to feed you today, I need to pay for your sisters pony riding lesson and she was born first so tough".
Of course people need to consider how they will provide for their children, which is why I'm stopping at two. No need to labour that point. The fact is that if I had a third child then I'd still have to provide for that child, even though s/he was only my youngest, and if my sons had to go without extras or have less days out or whatever then clearly that's what would be happening.
Once they are here they are here, and they are all worthy of their parents care, regardless of birth order.

I think you’re being a bit mean. Whatever you do in this situation will be remembered. If it were me. I’d rather be generous with my inheritance and treat all of our children. Be the step mum who didn’t treat his children differently to your own.

Yeh that I love my children and il make sure they don’t get treated as second class citizens.

What would your loved one say, whose hard earned money you’ve been gifted? Don’t let their generous gifted cause a rift or bitterness

@funinthesun19 I never said it should do without. No one is suggesting babies ste are allowed to starve. Jeezo. Dramatic much.

I said prior commitments first
. Actually dad should go without if costs need cutting.

I just would never condone (as happens so fucking often) that fchild maintenance is reduced because the father & step mother CHOOSE to have another child

If shoes cost £30 - they still cost £30 even if daddy has a new baby.

If daddy doesn't think he'll be able to contribute to those shoes if he has another child

then I personally don't think they should choose to have another child.

Some people shouldn’t get involved with a man who already has children. If you can’t at least treat your SC as part of the family then that’s you. Honestly I feel bad for your Step Kids. Really bad because I doubt there unaware of how you really feel about them.

@Sarahzxcvb nah. It says you don't give a fuck if ex wife can't afford new shoes for child as long as you & your new baby are all right Jack.