What’s reasonable?

[Walkingbythesea]

Looking to get some help figuring out if I’m being reasonable or not!

My partner has 2 children full time and I have none. I own my house outright. For various reasons connected with divorce my partner has no assets. We both work full time. My partner earns a little more than me.

my partner has moved in with the kids. The other bio parent does not provide financially or in any other way for the kids.

how should the finances be split?
should they pay any rent?
how should childcare be dealt with? (There is school pick up and drop off to be done & no easy other childcare available).
what is reasonable to expect from me in terms of parenting?
what should be the split of domestic work - cooking, cleaning etc?

I’m trying to get some unbiased opinions hence the lack of details!

No - not with someone else children.
This has cocklodger, free nanny taxi cook cleaner etc written all over it.
No you cant ask for rent but you can ask for wear and tear compensation, and an understanding that anything his dc break or damage he replaces.
He should pay at least 3/4 of the bills and does all the parenting.

Personally I would have perhaps suggested that we bought somewhere together, and then rented mine out to test the water for a year - but I'm not always that's tactful so don't listen to me!

Not that I think anyone is doing wrong here, but nothing should really be expected of you at this point, you'll find your way as you go along but dad should be responsible for most things as he's their dad.

Did you discuss in depth what this meant for you? And what is expected.

It's so difficult, I hope you manage to get the answers you need

I think it’s safe to assume that the partner is female.

Lack of details, kids live their ull-time, writing style.

Now let’s see if the responses are the same.

No I don't think you should be supporting his dc or caring for them equally with him.

Don't marry him whatever you do. He'll get half your house. You need a legal cohabitation agreement right now.

This man sounds like a drain on your finances and not a catch.

This is obviously something you should have discussed before they moved in.

There's no way you should be paying 50% of anything if they earn more.

Make sure you protect your property.

I think a massive factor for me before I can give my opinion is ages of the children and your relationship with them.

But I'm also coming from a biased view of being raised FT by a step parent (along with a biological) who had PR from a very young age

My answer is the same regardless of the partner being male or female.

I did say that marriage is not the ultimate end point or what makes s family. And I totally agree that someone in the OP’s situation would be mad to marry someone with two children and no assets.

But my actual point - poorly expressed - was that he’s not really throwing himself all in to this either. But seems to be trying to make the woman who is housing him and his kids believe that she’s got to want to be his nanny and housekeeper (as well as financier!) because they’re ‘forming a family’.

it’s not a nuclear family. He’s come to it with significant responsibilities and having given up his assets to a now absent ex. The OP is his girlfriend, not someone obligated to pay his childcare bills and do his school runs.

You will find the responses change based on the sex of those involved. If it is a woman and her two kids moving in with a man, there is absolutely an expectation that if he is a good man he will step up and take care of them and pay their expenses and share his assets with his new partner. He will also be expected to help with the kids and to make her life as easy as possible as a good partner. That all he has is now theirs. She is never expected to assume all costs for herself and her children while he only looks after himself.

But if it is a man moving in with his kids, you will see that the expectation is that she pay nothing and contribute nothing and refuse to engage or help in any way and that if he or the kids inconvenience her or her life in any way she should limit the children being allowed in her own and ultimately break up if the arrangements isn't financially benefiting her or if he expects her to feed or help or pick up / drop off or do chores related to him or the kids.

There is almost no overlap in the responses, they are completely opposite depending on which party is the woman / man.

Same and anyone who says otherwise needs to take a look at themselves

My position is the same whether the partner is male or female.

It makes no difference at all.

Very few families, even where both parents are the biological parents, manage all things 50/50. I’m not saying no one manages it, but the way it works for most families I know is one person taking on more financial responsibility and the other more childcare responsibility. Which is fine if you have worked out the arrangement so it’s fair for all (eg everyone has pensions being paid into etc). However it really is more complicated if you are going to give up part of your financial stability or taken on additional responsibilities for children who aren’t your own?

Are you going to be adopting them?
Have you been together a long time and you have a very close relationship with the children?

The reality in this situation is that you are the one who had the assets and potential to make a loss (loss of assets if he claim after a break up/ loss of children if you break up as you have no legal rights/ added pressure of childcare). So I think given he is the one who might make a gain and you are the one who might make a loss it is sensible to look to protect yourself.

you say is 50/50 not possible? Do you want to take on 50% responsibility for children that aren’t yours, despite that making your working life more difficult, adding chores for you, adding cost to you?

The only thing that really would possibly alter my position is income and if you'd been together longer than say 5 years and things needed to be equalled out a bit in terms of lifestyle.

Why would they be different.
it’s the exact same situation.

No one’s going to say oh well if your partners a woman then take her and the kids on with no thought to your own life and stability.

what would make a difference in my eyes is if the op has known the children for a significant amount of time, there was some intention for her to get legally tied to the children (eg gain PR/adopt) so that she will be a parent regardless of break up and if the op WANTS to take on a parent role and the children are receptive of her taking on the parental role.

I think also you have asked on the step parenting board. If you asked on aibu you'd be slaughtered.

That's complete nonsense @Freefall212

My answer would have been exactly the same regardless of the sex of either party.

I think some posters just hang around waiting to write that on every single thread, regardless of whether it is actually true or not.

Agree, I have seen this time and time again on Mumsnet.

Personally I think if the kids are with you 100% of the time and they are young, especially if under 5 but to an extent if under 10, it's simply not going to work to take the attitude that they are nothing to do with you.

If he got a live in au pair, who also cooked, drove them to activities/school, he would be paying through the nose. Plus the cost of a cleaner. And if he paid for regular sex, that would be a lot too.

Luckily you're there for free, plus a free house to live in. Lucky him...

Except that many men do exactly this. Even when it is their actual children.

So just existing in the same house as a woman’s children is viewed as a heroic act of step parenting.

The whole narrative that appears across loads of threads that women on MN are just awful man haters is tedious.

3/4 of all bills
All expenses for the kids, clothes, clubs, etc.
It's his responsibility to do school drop offs, holidays etc but if you are happy to do some and it suits you all, that's fine.
Basically remember he is the default parent not you. If kid is sick, he takes the day off etc.
Housework I would share, but if the kids are little he should do more - things like laundry and bed changing are a huge step up from 1 person to 4 and you shouldn't do it all.
Think about things like holiday expenses too, eating out - set your boundaries.
Make sure he doesn't start expecting you to co parent. Unless it's what you want too.

I have never once seen a thread where it was agreed that it was fine for a stepfather not to financially contribute to their step children. I agree that stepfathers do less childcare - I guess that's the patriarchy for you - but stepmothers don't seem to be expected to do anything

Exactly this being do no meaningful parenting at all, leave it to their partner and maybe occasionally do the odd fun or easy bit. Then expect everyone to fall down in amazement at how great a father they are.

Meanwhile, in stepmother land, women find themselves having mother expectations applied to them - they get to be nanny/housekeeper with benefits and who provides the bloody house and pays half of the bills too.

The whole ‘if the sexes were reversed’ thing is such nonsense because it remains steeped in bullshit assumptions about looking after children being something women are innately built to do for men.

I think the parent does the parenting, childcare, cooking cleaning etc for their children. I think the parent pays for their children, so bills split accordingly, with the exception of the mortgage.

I would protect yourself. Either of you could walk away from this with zero rights or responsibility for the children involved, all of you need emotional and financial protection from that. The parent certainly shouldn't be expecting their life to be subsided.

Occasional child care, treats, holidays maybe different, but not the regular arrangements.

The sex of any of the adults makes no difference.

Well stepfathers simply should not be expected to foot the bill. And you won’t see me saying they should.

The children’s parents should be providing financially for their children.

Yet pretty much every poster has said not to charge rent. I'd say free accommodation is a pretty big financial contribution?

That's more about protecting your asset - something that is considered deeply suspicious in a man - than being a unit.