How do you split the costs?

[Woodstocks]

Hello all,

My partner has two sons from a previous marriage, they are primary school aged. We moved in together and bought a house and now split the mortgage, bills and food costs 50:50. The kids are here every other weekend and half the holidays.

I am getting to the point where I feel it isn’t fair to split everything down the middle - the mortgage (even though the extra room is needed for HIS kids) would at least build equity for me overtime but the food money is just gone and with them growing and the horror stories of “teen boys eating” and being here for a whole week during holidays, plus the other weekends etc I feel like I would be significantly out of pocket over the years to come.

I keep thinking “ah it’s only a bit of extra this and extra that” in terms of hygiene items, toothpaste, shower gel, shampoo, extra washing tablets, extra dishwasher runs etc. but then again- these things aren’t free and that’s what their mum gets maintenance for- to cover the extra living costs that are clearly involved.

What would be a fair reflection of the extra cost of them
being here?

And? Did he tell her before moving in with her then that he wanted her to financially support his children, or just felt entitled to it like some of the other parents here?

I repeat the points I've made earlier in this thread. Paying for a bit of food and toothpaste is hardly "financially supporting" his children. It's simply the behaviour of a decent person who has chosen to move in with those children.

Some PP have made ridiculously aggressive statements like "wouldn't be necessary if he adequately supported his own children". He has less money than the OP. He also pays CM from what he does have. The argument that no step parent should ever contribute a penny to their stepchildren's costs somewhat disregards the realities of romantic partnerships. What if the step parent earns £500k and the parent is, say, a teacher or nurse on £35k? Should they consign their relationship to the scrap heap because the parent can't afford to pay "their share" of joint expenses and also support their children?

If they want to do that, then yes. To the scrap heap it goes!

Being on an equal financial footing was important to me when dating, and I don’t think that’s a particularly controversial notion 🤷🏻‍♀️

What an unpleasant way to treat the person you love. "Sorry, you don't earn enough, you're dumped."

This is obviously an extreme example- I don’t earn anywhere near £500k. People asked me who earns more and I answered that I earn more but it is not a huge amount more. There is another thread going on at the moment where the guy is on £200k - I don’t even make half of that! I just earn more than him but neither of us are high earners by any stretch.

It isn’t about the “little
bit of toothpaste” that people are getting hung up on. When I mentioned it it was in context of listing ALL the expsnsss that kids incur by being in the house. I don’t mind these things at all. But I DO mind what other people with teen boys have warned against- that they will just eat and eat and eat . One poster says her kids eat a tray of 8 chicken legs between them for one dinner! That’s just ludicrous to think that having people eating like that for a whole week won’t have any effect on the budget at all. If it was soooo cheap to feed people then why is Marcus Rashford campaigning for free school meals? Why are there food banks? Why is the government giving out cost of living payments if there is hardly any cost associated to this?

If they weren’t together the dad would have to pay 100% of housing costs and pay for his children. Even on 35k and it could happen. Why because another adult has appeared are they suddenly expected to absorb over and above reasonable costs? As I frequently remind my partner when he tries to push me to pay for his kids. No, I did not choose to have children and part of the reason is because I have other things I want to spend my money on. They are his responsibility not mine and I do not feel guilty about it. Same as I don’t feel guilty for not paying his phone bill because it is not mine!

Whereas “it’s on you to pay for me and my kids” is a wonderful sentiment? Lol, okay.

Not her step children and neither is this a little bit of food here and there, it’s 50% of all their food and toiletries whilst at their dads house, as well as funding a larger house than she would need. If you’re so confident you’re right, why the need to minimise what Op does?

They aren't married. Who does his estate go to if he dies?
If the answer isn't her then they aren't really in it together at all

I don't think you are being petty or tight op. I'm not sure what is wrong with MN for jumping on ops, kicking them and then making ridiculous statements about weighing cornflakes.
I think you are being sensible in wanting a fair split of contributions based in the fact that there are two other growing people in your home a portion of the time that you have no responsibility for or rights to. By bashing this out now you are prepared for when it does get really expensive.
I think your way forward must be to tell your dh that he has to provide the extras for his dc when they are with you. Kids cost money, and even if they are with you say 25% of the time, of course that's going to have a financial impact, and as delightful as I'm sure they are, it isn't up to you to pick up the extra.
From his point of view his dc will always be his priority, and I have found that some people with dc will often expect others without dc to chip in the bit extra to cover their child.

It is a difficult one OP, I do sympathise as I am in a similar position myself - higher earner in a blended family set up. Only difference is we also share a child.

I appreciate there is definitely a cost impact when the SCs are with us. Just food shopping alone there are things we buy each time that we would not usually have in the house, much of which won't last between visits so not like it's just stocking the cupboard, plus any takeaways, treats etc. I do split this with my DP usually, but he also will always offer to cover it.

I think it's hard when you get into a position where you're a little resentful and there isn't much you can do without causing bad feeling. Even indirectly, you will likely always be 'subsidising' your partner in some sense as if you don't chip in for certain things then he will probably be short of money, which will leave you subsidising other things in your relationship, eg meals out for the 2 of you etc.

I think it's really a puzzle with no right or wrong. As you say, he would not have been able to buy this level of house without your input, but this also means he probably wouldn't have the means to run a house like this either.

If the main issue is food shopping, how do you do that? Is it a regular weekly thing? I just ask as here we don't do a big shop every week so when SCs are coming it would be easy for DP to just be the one who goes to the shops and picks up their bits?

I definitely think it's a harder situation to manage when it's the step-parent that's the higher earner, and that's getting a little more common now too.

The only thing is possibly food. I can't really believe you resent paying 50/50 on the mortgage and living costs though, especially if you earn more.

It's nothing new. In every step situation there will be potential for the step parent to earn more and has always been this way. Men have historically earned more so in each of situations the step father was the higher earner.
I think what you mean is that it is evening more common for the step MOTHER to be the higher earner. Interesting that people see this as a different situation requiring a different plan

Yes you're right, that is exactly what I mean.

I think definitely the 'social norm' element plays into it massively, I think a lot of women feel very cautious of being in a situation where they are financially supporting a man, whereas it's still seen as the norm to many for a man to financially support a woman. In fact, on here at least, it's often described as financial abuse if a man doesn't give access to his money to his partner.

I have seen many threads here where mothers have been supported and backed up that they are right when she's not happy that a man doesn't want to support her children, but then it does tend to go the other way on threads where they higher earner is a woman and the man ends up described as a 'cocklodger' etc.

I don't know what the answer is though. As I say, I am in a somewhat similar situation myself and I do find myself feeling resentful from time to time, even though I am fully aware that if it were the other way around my partner would likely not feel the same way.

Tbh I think a lot of it might come from the fact that many women are still carrying the bulk of the domestic weight - childcare, cooking, cleaning etc - and are now increasingly picking up the financial tab as well, so (some) men are not pulling their weight in any sense? It doesn't feel equitable now.

@MaMarysBigBowl
Women take on the huge financial and physical risk of pregnancy and childbirth. This has a lifelong effect. It reduces women's earnings relative to their potential if they had no children due to the time out of work where they aren't actively building experience/contacts/goodwill from colleagues etc, even if they get 100% mat leave pay.

The physical side effects are also obviously lifelong. Due to the massive increased burden on women and risk taken by them, I think it is fair for relationships to financially reflect that by the burden of earning money being lifted a little from them.

I agree it feels unequal where this is not the case.

Some PP have made ridiculously aggressive statements like "wouldn't be necessary if he adequately supported his own children". He has less money than the OP. He also pays CM from what he does have. The argument that no step parent should ever contribute a penny to their stepchildren's costs somewhat disregards the realities of romantic partnerships. What if the step parent earns £500k and the parent is, say, a teacher or nurse on £35k? Should they consign their relationship to the scrap heap because the parent can't afford to pay "their share" of joint expenses and also support their children?

It’s often very clear that some people see a relationship as a means of getting someone else to pay for them.

In your extremely skewed example, the high earner MAY choose to pay more because they aren’t wanting the lifestyle their partner can afford. But that doesn’t mean the parent isn’t responsible for paying for their own children.

The fact that a nonresident parent has to pay maintenance is NOT the stepparent’s problem. The parent doesn’t ‘deserve’ to be compensated because they have to pay for their kids. It’s not a punishment; paying for your kids is just parenthood.

This whole financial entitlement thing feels a bit like an extension of the societal narrative that maintenance is some horrible punishment imposed (by women) on nonresident fathers. It’s like everyone thinks any women who gets involved with him needs to compensate him for that and take on the burdens - financial and practical - of parenthood on his behalf. That’s apparently what stepmothers are signing up for.

@MaMarysBigBowl A big difference in many stepmother situations is that they are expected to pay and provide all the domestic labour. And, indeed, to pay more because the poor man has to pay maintenance.

It basically is a cocklodger situation. He gets her to pay and provide domestic services.

The sexes reversed situation is often where he provides money and she provides domestic services.

But, I don’t agree that a stepfather is required to pay for everything and support his partner and her children. He may choose to. But it’s not a requirement.

A lot of this attitude seems to flow from the discrepancy I see on this board all the time.

Children at the RP’s house cost a ‘fortune’ to house / clothe / feed - and the ‘legal minimum’ the NRP provides ‘barely covers’ the cost of raising a child.

However, these same children apparently live on fresh air at the NRP’s house - the mortgage costs to magic up extra bedrooms are nothing, and ‘it’s only an extra handful of pasta in the pot’ to feed them / how can you begrudge toothpaste etc etc.

Of course the father should provide for the cost of his kids at both houses. The SM shouldn’t just have to suck it up!

See also: Congratulations on your promotion honey. As I'm still working as a TA you are no longer in my lane, so we will be splitting up. Bye!

I think its a case for everyone dog for themselves unfortunately. As a struggling mum trying to make it all work and I don't mean just finicially. I mean in terms of childcare, school holidays and so on. All too often there's a disagreement over money in the first place because 50/50 evidently isn't taking place! Nor anywhere near.

the flip side of ‘if you loved me, you pay for me’ is hardly better, is it?

It’s not about lanes. But it is about responsibility and entitlement.

A new partner is not financially responsible for your kids. They do have to accept that your lifestyle will be profoundly affected by your having kids - but they are still your kids.

I think attempts to transfer nuclear family dynamics onto non-nuclear situations are unhelpful. The whole family money, contributing to the pool in different ways thing doesn’t translate outside of a situation where you both share responsibility for the kids. Denying the woman who contributes the lion’s share practically access to the money earned by the other is pretty terrible.

But the economy is different where only one party is a parent. It really isn’t other people’s job to absorb your parental responsibilities. The whole ‘that’s what they signed up to’ rhetoric is pure ungrateful entitlement from parents.

A better course of action than ‘promotion? Great! You now have an even greater financial responsibility for me and my kids!’.

Financial incompatibility is a huge stressor on a relationship, and one of the leading causes of relationship breakdown. It isn’t a minor issue that can be hand waved away with ‘but LOVE’ and the emotional blackmail of ‘if you loved me you’d…’.

she is not bearing a disproportionate burden of the cost of her SDCs. Typical MN hyperbole.

They have bought a house, big enough to expand in for when she ahs DCs, currently used by her SDCs but not really subsidising on that.

She needs to have a conversation with her DP about his contribution when his DCS are here - no issue with that. The issue is when you can already be thinking in terms of toothpaste, washes, washing tablets etc. they pay 50/50 on the mortgage and then 60/40 on the other bills, your mind set is present and resentment already in place

They have bought a house, big enough to expand in for when she ahs DCs, currently used by her SDCs but not really subsidising on that.

How do you explain the uplift in Mum’s costs for having to have and maintain a bigger house in order to accommodate their children? Or are those “not really” costs at all?

Funny how measurable costs are only such when they’re incurred by the Mother. Not the Step Mum.

Must go water that Step Mum money tree….