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.

If shoes cost £30 - they still cost £30 even if daddy has a new baby
But some £20 shoes instead, baby needs a tub of formula.

Well he didn’t have an ex wife for a start😂

You sound awfully bitter😂

Yes I'm sure the siblings would rather have their lovely sibling than fancy shoes

Do you know how much it actually reduces by?

Not nearly enough to even partially fund a new child, that's how much. It's basically pointless and all these people raving about how unfair it is clearly have no idea how little of a difference it actually is.

This should be simple.

If it's a full family holiday now just split straight down the middle. You and your husband treat it as equal both money wise and decision making. It doesn't matter whether the children are directly yours or not, you're a family.

If you see this as something you want to treat your direct children with because this is inheritance (and you believe that the person you inherited from would want your direct children to profit from)then you discuss with your husband and either go with them by yourself or, with him if that's what you agree together.

If you want to go on a family holiday but, still make the decisions because it's your inheritance and your 'treat' then you should be stumping up the money. Your husband has already agreed to paying for the 'step' kids - what more do you want? We know the answer to this - it's option 2 therefore, you need to have the now 'difficult' discussion with your husband because, you weren't frank with him upfront.

Another post where the second wife resents that their husband has older children. If you don't want the complications of step children, don't have kids with a man who already has kids from a previous relationship(s)

Another poster who doesn't rtft and makes ridiculous baseless judgements just to stick the boot in. Fucking sad.

@Ineverwannabelikeyou very easy to say that if you're not in a position where every penny is a prisoner.
Many are. Including my pal. I help where I can but 🥺 she's literally struggling to buy even the smallest things : that little makes a big difference

@beachcitygirl do you rant at your friend for not thinking through the costs of her child?

Bold of you to assume the family paying isn't in the same situation.

In the same breath I'd be trying to earn more myself too, because you cannot rely on maintenance.

I don't resent them!

Oh come on of course not, you can't expect the first wife to take any financial responsibility. It's only the second wives that have to consider that, silly.

No. Not everyone plans it perfectly. You’re a bit naive if you think all mums who have more than one child have excellent financial, housing, career etc.. circumstances. A lot of us don’t. I certainly don’t.

@Yousee

No. Because she's bloody wonderful.

Because she's in the situation she's in because she had her child whilst working & with a husband & her ex fucked off and left her caring for a severely disabled child (he couldn't hack parenting)
She had no choice but to give up work & every single penny is a prisoner.

Wasn't long before him and his new wife popped out a few kids tho & her maintenance was reduced.

So yes, I judge

He's an asshole of the highest order
But his wife is also

What's it got to do with his wife? She doesn't owe his ex anything!

@Ineverwannabelikeyou
i hope sincerely that you never end up in my pals position.

What a despicable person you are. But aye, she should be shouldering financial responsibility alone because no one can rely on maintenance...🤦🏻‍♀️

Is that really your considered view ? That only the mother is responsible for the financial & emotional weight.

Jesus. H Christ.

@Yousee she should have considered giving birth to more kids when he wouldn't then Be able to afford the time or money to parent the kid he already had.

But if you think that's ok. Well that's you.

Even if I did, I am financially independent so I'd be okay, but thank you for your concern.

When did I say she should be shouldering the financial responsibility on her own? Don't lie, please. But the fact is that people lose their jobs, get ill or even die. It cannot be reasonably relied on for 18 years. It just can't. Even if your ex is a saint, they could get hit by a bus, have a mental breakdown etc. In the same way they could if you remained together. Do you understand that?

Perhaps you might try reading what someone actually writes before going off on one about something that hasn't been said.

Jesus h Christ indeed.

No, sweetheart, he should have thought about that. She doesn't have any responsibility to any children but her own. Blame this on him.

@Ineverwannabelikeyou I have consistently throughout stated that the fathers bear the lions share of responsibility BUT second wives should employ some critical thinking & empathy.

Startling obvious that many of you don't.

Your user name is apt. I'm so glad I don't think like you, sweetheart.

@beachcitygirl bit rich of you to say people need to apply empathy. You literally DID say that a new baby should go without before any changes can be made to the older child's lifestyle. That is not the same thing (like you are claiming) as saying they shouldn't have more children if changes would have to be made, you literally said that an existing baby should go without. If that's not what you meant, feel free to tell us all, but yes that is what you said. And you're digging your heels in and surprised that people think that comment was awful. You're calling others despicable over shoes whilst what YOU said about a baby was clearly worse.

But all that is notwithstanding the fact that this is a tangent. The comment you so disagreed with was talking about the father carefully considering if he could contribute to ALL his children, first and second, before having them. Not arguing that he should reduce what he spends on the first to spend it on the second.

But they don't, the bear all the responsibility. His new wife owes that child nothing financially. Nothing at all.

I'm really not offended because somehow I don't think I'd want a fully paid up member of the first wives club who struggles to apply critical thinking to be my friend anyway.

I am a first wife, DH had his accidental child with a mere girlfriend.
Guess that means its ok for me to suggest DSD shouldn't exist then.

Yes, that's exactly what PP are saying

If a man with existing DC goes on to remarry, and have more DC, HE needs to think of the implications. There's too much of this "but you knew he had children...." as some weird justification as to why a mother's own DC should go without, in order to placate children that she has no biological relation too, because their bio mother and father can't/won't provide the same.

If the existing children are going without, then their own mother and father need to sort it out. Not at the expense of children who have a different mother. That's for their mother and father to sort out respectively.

OP - re your holiday, I would ignore all the "oh, but those poor children" posts who are missing the point that you are planning a Disney holiday for primary aged children, and the SC are going to be in 6th form. They are going to be bored stiff for a lot of the time, or you and DH will have to separate so one can do the younger activities and one the older. We have 3DC, toddler twins and teen DS. Teen DS has been away with school, his grandparents, several times in the last year and had a blast. We've taken DTwins, once, to a tots style break, while DS stayed with grandparents because he would have been bored beyond belief. That's just common sense. At no point was anyone pearl clutching at poor DS, denied a holiday by his horrible parents.