Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Step-parenting

Connect with other Mumsnetters here for step-parenting advice and support.

Inheritance

361 replies

BananaFluff · 08/11/2022 08:06

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.

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
AlwaysLatte · 09/11/2022 14:42

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
I think the lack of interest in your SC that comes across in your post is quite sad, actually. They are part of the family too.

beachcitygirl · 09/11/2022 14:58

@aSofaNearYou let me spell out my thoughts for you with a rather extreme example.

If there only enough money for one pair of shoes & eldest child needs them & so does youngest.

I would expect the father to go without or sell
Something of his or work extra hours etc.

If none of that was possible in this scenario. The eldest should get the shoes. If his wife/gf can't afford for their joint child to get new shoes also.

That's horrible but.. THEY made their choices.

Yousee · 09/11/2022 15:03

@beachcitygirl but the younger child didn't choose for the elder to exist. Neither child "exists" more than the other. They should both just get cheaper shoes.

beachcitygirl · 09/11/2022 15:07

@Yousee we'll need to agree to disagree.

It's disappointing and horrific to me that some women will choose to have kids with someone they know to be a shit father.

If you're a first wife/gf you cannot reasonably know what kind of father a man will
Be

But

If you are the second and he's shit with his first kids & reduces maintenance etc then they bloody knew & just didn't care.

Time & again we see women on here defending men who are ridiculously shit fathers.

This is derailing as the OP's dh seems a good guy.

But the Op is behaving awfully to her dsc & it boils my blood how many women are so shitty & the men that allow that make me want to gag.

pickledplump · 09/11/2022 15:10

beachcitygirl · 09/11/2022 13:02

@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.

You've basically done nothing but reiterate my initial point yet say you disagree?

My point was that the parent to all of the children should be responsible for contributing equally to ALL of the children. Not having another child with a new partner and then expecting that partner to foot all/majority of the bill for their joint children because he's too busy paying for his existing kids. I don't believe that step parents should just accept that or it be an expectation. The expectation should be that the PARENT doesn't have more children if THEY cannot afford it, not do it but then expect their current partner to pay for it all.

It's so often a theme on here, blaming or putting expectations on step parents which should actually lie with the parents.

Where I don't agree with you is that existing children come before a new child. You talk about step children having no agency as if new children in a relationship do. All children once born are equal, none of them matter more than the other in terms of their PARENTS time and money so yes if that means little Sarah has to reduce her ballet lessons so little Peter can eat then that's what needs to happen. It should have been thought of by the PARENT before they decided to have more kids but neither child had any control over that decision.

What I didn't agree with PP about was that it's a fair expectation that a step parent should just pay more toward any joint children because their partner has more children to pay for. I don't think that's a fair expectation. It may be what happens in reality but it shouldn't be expected imo. If a parent is choosing to have more children with a new spouse it should be on the basis that said parent can afford to equally contribute, like would expect them to with any existing children, or if not possible, at least discussed beforehand, not just expect their new spouse to take on the financial burden once a new child arrives.

I'm the same as PP, I will sometimes pay for more for our son because I want him to have something that DH couldn't afford with having more children. I don't have a problem with that. I'd have a problem though if it was just an expectation with no discussion that I'll pay for everything for our son, a child DH CHOSE to have, because all his financial energy is being poured into his existing children. It was up to him to determine if he felt able to financially provide for 3 children. Thankfully he can but you see it all the time on here where the step parent pays for everything for the joint children and no I don't think that should just be a given.

It's like, if I left my husband and had my son majority time, should I not expect maintenance from him because he already has children from his ex? Of course I should. Because they are all his children and his financial responsibility regardless as to who came first.

pickledplump · 09/11/2022 15:12

beachcitygirl · 09/11/2022 14:58

@aSofaNearYou let me spell out my thoughts for you with a rather extreme example.

If there only enough money for one pair of shoes & eldest child needs them & so does youngest.

I would expect the father to go without or sell
Something of his or work extra hours etc.

If none of that was possible in this scenario. The eldest should get the shoes. If his wife/gf can't afford for their joint child to get new shoes also.

That's horrible but.. THEY made their choices.

So you believe older children are more deserving? Way to announce you're a complete dick but okay...

Younger/new children aren't responsible for their parents decision to have them anymore than step children are responsible for their parents choosing to separate.

pickledplump · 09/11/2022 15:17

Is it the same in between step children can I ask Beach? Or is just step children in general/ as a whole that are just more deserving than 'second family' children?

I.e. I have two step children, one of those obviously came before the other so is the eldest. They obviously didn't have a choice in their parents decision to have another child. If they both need shoes and neither parent can afford it, is it just my eldest step child who gets them? Or would you just do what any normal parent would do and get both children cheaper shoes?

Is it only when its second family children that they become unimportant/undeserving?

TwinsAndTiramisu · 09/11/2022 15:18

beachcitygirl · 09/11/2022 15:07

@Yousee we'll need to agree to disagree.

It's disappointing and horrific to me that some women will choose to have kids with someone they know to be a shit father.

If you're a first wife/gf you cannot reasonably know what kind of father a man will
Be

But

If you are the second and he's shit with his first kids & reduces maintenance etc then they bloody knew & just didn't care.

Time & again we see women on here defending men who are ridiculously shit fathers.

This is derailing as the OP's dh seems a good guy.

But the Op is behaving awfully to her dsc & it boils my blood how many women are so shitty & the men that allow that make me want to gag.

The problem is, you think someone who treats their children fairly and equally, whether a first, second, or third child, is a shit father.

You got pregnant first. That's it. Your child is not more important. Thinking your child always trumps another child solely because it's mother was chronologically first in the delivery room, is, to use your words, "gag" worthy.

pickledplump · 09/11/2022 15:20

That's horrible but.. THEY made their choices

The CHILD didnt choose anything. You believe a child sould be penalised for what you perceive are the mistakes of their parents. Nice.

As per my above comment I HIGHLY suspect this only applies in your mind to new family children and not siblings within the intial family. Funny that.

BananaFluff · 09/11/2022 15:22

But the Op is behaving awfully to her dsc & it boils my blood how many women are so shitty & the men that allow that make me want to gag.

Excuse me?! How am I behaving awfully to them?! I'm saying OK let's all go together. Is it because their own father is paying for them rather than me? Even though he will be able to?

OP posts:
pickledplump · 09/11/2022 15:22

I'm honesrly curious whether beach applies the same logic to nuclear families. Like my husband's parents are still together and he has a younger sister. Should he have been prioritised / more important to his parents because he was first? I'm confused.

pickledplump · 09/11/2022 15:23

And no one has said anything here about shit father's reducing their maintenance for a new child.

Just that said father should be expected to contribute equally to any new children he has... And not have them if he can't. Not just have them anyway but expect the step parent to cover all the costs.

BananaFluff · 09/11/2022 15:24

beachcitygirl · 09/11/2022 14:58

@aSofaNearYou let me spell out my thoughts for you with a rather extreme example.

If there only enough money for one pair of shoes & eldest child needs them & so does youngest.

I would expect the father to go without or sell
Something of his or work extra hours etc.

If none of that was possible in this scenario. The eldest should get the shoes. If his wife/gf can't afford for their joint child to get new shoes also.

That's horrible but.. THEY made their choices.

No, the mums will have to chip in to help buy shoes or they look at which child needs the shoes the most and save up for the other one.

It's not oh you were born first you get all the resources. This isn't the royal family.

OP posts:
Ineverwannabelikeyou · 09/11/2022 15:24

beachcitygirl · 09/11/2022 14:58

@aSofaNearYou let me spell out my thoughts for you with a rather extreme example.

If there only enough money for one pair of shoes & eldest child needs them & so does youngest.

I would expect the father to go without or sell
Something of his or work extra hours etc.

If none of that was possible in this scenario. The eldest should get the shoes. If his wife/gf can't afford for their joint child to get new shoes also.

That's horrible but.. THEY made their choices.

Wow. How embarrassing to have admitted that.

pickledplump · 09/11/2022 15:27

It's not oh you were born first you get all the resources

The fact that someone actually thinks this is an acceptable way of being once new children are actually living and breathing is astounding to me.

By all means it's entirely sensible to have this type of conversation BEFORE having another child. But you don't treat one as more important than the other when they are actually here for goodness sake! Yuck. The time for that has passed and the new child now deserves as much as any of your other older children!

JennyJungle · 09/11/2022 15:31

Ineverwannabelikeyou · 09/11/2022 15:24

Wow. How embarrassing to have admitted that.

I thought the same thing and how she has the cheek to say other women make her want to gag. She’s a joker.

SlouchingTowardsBethlehemAgain · 09/11/2022 15:45

RTFT people, OP I wonder if you are understandably hurt that your DH is happy to pay in full for his first children, but has not even offered to pay half for the child you share. I think the inheritance is a red herring. Step mothers so often say they feel their shared child is treated as a second class child whose needs are ignored by their father, whilst the first family get first class treatment. This would boil my piss too.

aSofaNearYou · 09/11/2022 16:16

beachcitygirl · 09/11/2022 14:58

@aSofaNearYou let me spell out my thoughts for you with a rather extreme example.

If there only enough money for one pair of shoes & eldest child needs them & so does youngest.

I would expect the father to go without or sell
Something of his or work extra hours etc.

If none of that was possible in this scenario. The eldest should get the shoes. If his wife/gf can't afford for their joint child to get new shoes also.

That's horrible but.. THEY made their choices.

So yes, you are saying the disgusting thing we all think you're saying. For some reason you genuinely think the youngest child should always be the one to go without if it comes down to it. Rather than both children being bought cheaper shoes.

That is a despicable thing to justify.

BananaFluff · 09/11/2022 16:18

aSofaNearYou · 09/11/2022 16:16

So yes, you are saying the disgusting thing we all think you're saying. For some reason you genuinely think the youngest child should always be the one to go without if it comes down to it. Rather than both children being bought cheaper shoes.

That is a despicable thing to justify.

Can I also please mention at this point that no one in our family is at the going without shoe stage

OP posts:
Navigatingthroughlife · 09/11/2022 16:31

I’m sorry but I cannot believe the slack OP is getting here. There’s so many people on this forums that to be honest sounds like the ex wife! It’s for step parents to discuss their issues! One moment step parents are being told ‘YOU’RE NOT THE PARENT, DO NOT GET OVER INVOLVED, STOP TRYING TO REPLACE THEIR MUM’ to ‘YOU SHOULD BE PAYING FOR THE SC TO GO ON HOLIDAY, YOU CAN’T LEAVE THEM OUT’

step parents on this forum cannot win. Op has no issue with SC going away. It’s a known fact a lot of singles dads parent through guilt to make up for not always being with their child from previous relationship. So yes as a mum you probably would get your mumma bear defence on as to ‘why does our child not get the same treatment as child from previous relationship’

RainyDaysareCarp · 09/11/2022 16:34

abblie · 09/11/2022 11:25

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

Well you can repeat it to every poster who disagrees with you but it doesn't mean you are right.

RainyDaysareCarp · 09/11/2022 16:41

beachcitygirl · 09/11/2022 12:46

@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.

You are so bitter to refer to children as a new little Prince or Princess. I feel sorry for you.

funinthesun19 · 09/11/2022 18:24

If none of that was possible in this scenario. The eldest should get the shoes. If his wife/gf can't afford for their joint child to get new shoes also.

It sounds like it brings you so much joy to say that.

No stepmum on this forum has ever said their dsc should go without a pair of shoes. Even on the most heated of threads where a people are disagreeing about money. But yet here you are blatantly saying one child should get shoes and fuck the other one. I can’t take your points about existing children seriously.

Instead of neglecting one child in favour of the other, how about doing what NORMAL parents do and do a thing called cutting your cloth accordingly.

TwinsAndTiramisu · 09/11/2022 19:37

RainyDaysareCarp · 09/11/2022 16:41

You are so bitter to refer to children as a new little Prince or Princess. I feel sorry for you.

It's really sad isn't it. You have to wonder if the overwhelming bitterness and situation this poster clearly finds herself in, is down to anything other than her appalling attitude towards other children.

beachcitygirl · 09/11/2022 21:09

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.