Finances - AIBU

[Thelifeofawife]

DH and I have clashed a few times regarding finances and I just want to gauge how it works in other households to see if I’m being unreasonable.

We are not in the best financial position and are supposed to be saving to move house for the sake of the children (we both have DC but not together).

There have been a few instances where I have said about setting budgets for things for the children in order to help us get in a better financial position, mainly to do with their excessive gifts (he spends way too much, then I end up doing the same so my DC don’t feel left out) but also other things/top up on maintenance which should already be covered.
The problem is he then just goes behind my back and spends whatever he wants (or his ex dictates) when he knows it’s well over what we discussed and more than he/we can afford. When I try to discuss it with him all I get is that it’s for his DC so he’s doing nothing wrong. When I explain that he needs to prioritise us moving for the sake of the DC he just ignores it.

I am very balanced in that I never ask him to cut back for his own DC if I wouldn’t be willing to do it with mine, so it’s not like I’m being evil stepmum, simply trying to get us in a better position.

AIBU expecting him to cut back for something that is ultimately going to benefit our whole family rather than just flashing the cash for his DC all the time and top up his exes household (she also has income, a partner, etc and of course we pay maintenance)?

Please don't get a mortgage with a man who's ex still pulls his strings...

@Reugny if it was up to me she would have avoided so much stress and hassle over the years. "Agency" be damned, she's a young child.
Not my young child though so I've trained myself not to bother too much.

On the wardrobe front @Reugny nailed it in this.

"The only reason to have full wardrobes of clothes in both homes is if one or both adults play games with the child(ren)'s possessions. While not all separated parents indulge in this stupid game, unfortunately it is common"

That said you cannot hide the logistics from a child whether they have clothes at both houses or not. The going back and forth would always happen because they have two homes . And as another poster said, they always want the jeans that aren't wherever they are. The child shows upset etc but they aren't upset at the clothes, they are upset over having to homes and having to learn to balance between to probably fairly different houses and dynamics.

The clothes element is symbolic and something people focus on because they can't actually fix what's causing the child upset without a wand and a Time Machine. Kids want one home, with everyone as happy as Larry and not to have to do this. This is because they are children and don't understand that although this going back and forth is tough, mum and dad living together actually may have been worse. They don't have the perspective of adult lens.

It's actually kinds of when people say your married you should combine all finances or you aren't really family. Like why the fuck would a joint bank account/finances make me more married ? To have and to hold til death and your bank account never part 🤯

It's symbolic based on the nuclear traditional pattern and it doesn't work for blended step families.

A joint account that both pay into re bills sure, but anything out side of the heating, mortgage/rent bills, that need to be kept separate because pretending your a nuclear family doesn't work as it isn't just mum and dad who have input on finances- it's dad, sm, joint dc, DSc, exs that can influence where money is spent.

I speak as a sm now who's dh ex got very excited when I got a pay rise (my partner is in a well paid job himself) but apparently she was pleased as she thought us marrying would mean her maintenance would go up to include my income (I like my DSc mum and get on with her and usually she's not this out there but on money... people get weird)

Also v good advice above re wills. Also worth noting your will can be challenged by your DSc (I did not know this) so it's worth leaving something in your will to DSc - example jewellery and that's it etc so they can't say ahh well they forgot about me and I wasn't accounted for or made any provision for.
I can't believe anyone would do this against their step parents death but having witnessed it recently I have now decided with money people get can get v grabby. Unexpectedly so.

@namechangnancy talking to some of my friends and classmates, some of us were well aware from around 13 on wards what hell it would be if our parents had stayed together. In fact some parents were so bitter even at their graduations and weddings well over a decade after they had split up, some of us were enlisted to ensure others parents were kept apart.

@namechangnancy anyone can challenge anyone's will, surely? It doesn't mean they'd be successful.

@Reugny I well believe it tbh. I think at the heart of things people struggle because it maybe their mum or dad feeding the dynamics and it's still your mum or dad. And people are forced to pick a side or be deowned from the wider family. It's a mentality that on some threads mn encourages.

I hope most kids can see it as adults but I think sometimes it's a fairly painful realisation for some so they just ignore it or blame the east target.

I hate weddings for this reason alone as a adult.

@namechangnancy 's advice is spot-on.

It must be incredibly frustrating that your DH regularly gets into debt to buy popularity with his children through gifts. Hope a three-pot system can help here. Does he understand basic budgeting? Could you help him check his credit rating?

Your correct but the devils in the detail on this one. Any child (biological or not) who has resided in a house and been cared for is legally defined as a dependent on the estate even if not written into a will. That's why it's important to include dsc in your will to show thought was given and that's what the deceased wanted. Rather than they forgot.

These cases more often than not - if they can prove say sm paid towards the house/food/ general upkeep of a DSc in any way the case becomes stronger. If sm dies and didn't leave anything to DSc. That the expectation is that by doing those things, there is validity to that expectation with greater weight put on it because of the above that would be continued had that person not die (even if DSc is a adult although to a lesser extent)

Opposed to your neighbour who's annoyed they weren't left anything in the will of their dead neighbour. It's based on connections and actions done in the living to proceed even in death if not explicitly said.

Basically wills are tricky in blended families, factions run high as does emotions. It's better to have a v comprehensive will written up for that fact alone.