Ok to vacation without all the kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh OP. Please don't listen to all these jealous first wives or you will have no happiness, ever. Take some advice from a long time stepmom with a happy blended family. You cannot always bring stepkids along on trips. If you can, great. If not, that's okay too. Don't tell them about it though, and don't rub it in their faces. They get to go on trips with their other Mom too, and they will be okay.

Agree with other posters that the stepkids have been twice, your little one has been zero. Take your kid and have a great time. There will be other opportunites for family vacations.

I will say, I don't think you should use money as the reason though. It's one thing to not bring them because the other parent won't allow it, or the dates aren't when you have the children, but the money thing makes you look bad. Also, make sure you do bring them on some family trips.

Long time stepmom here - kids will completely resent it. We invited my husband's kids, mom refused (and refused visits) and they completely resent us for it even though we tried. I would have taken them. It doesn't matter these kids have been to Disney. These kids are part of OP household. They are with them 1/2 the time. It is cruel not to take them. They are equally a part of this family and should go, no question. It isn't a question of visiting her family, but a family vacation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking ahead will you pay for step kids college? What about cars? Will your DC get a car and not step kids?
All 3 children are DH and should be treated equally

You're assuming DH has the money. That doesn't have to be the case.

My DH has a daughter from a previous relationship. I am the moneymaker in the family while DH makes a low salary. Our two kids lead a much better lifestyle than his daughter. I don't feel any guilt about that. I don't understand why you insinuate it's her job to pay for her stepkids' college or cars. That's on DH. It's the parents' job to support their children, not their subsequent spouses.

And the evil stepmother speaks. Do you make your stepchildren clean your fireplaces, too?

Ugh. When you marry a person who has a child from a previous marriage, caring for that child is a part of the package. If you aren't willing to participate in caring for that child, do everyone a favor and find someone else, preferably someone with no children. Your callousness to an innocent child who is the victim of two parents who could not find a way to maintain their marriage through personal troubles is appalling. It's sad that her father has such poor judgment of people that he would consider marrying someone as ruthless as you who would create such a two tier system to a child.

So dramatic. The two-tiered system already exists for everyone. Tier 1: your children. Tier 2: everyone else's children. Why pretend it's not so?

That child has a mother and a father. I am kind and caring to her when I'm around her, but funding her college education or her cars is not my job. My money belongs to my children. Her mother and father should take care of her college and cars. They can always get better jobs if they are not happy with their current income. Marrying a higher-income woman in hopes she will fund your previous children is nonsense.

Actually, re: her college education, your income will count against her financial aid at many colleges... My step-mother's did against mine. (I would have qualified for some aid based on my parents' income. My mother earned high/mid-5 figures and my dad is retired for health-related reasons w/ a similar investment income. Based on my college's estimates, I would have gotten around $30,000 aid/year... Except my step-mother's income threw all of that out the window.) Thankfully, in the end, she agreed to help pay. Please don't screw your DH's daughter because you think your husband or her mother should be earning more. And, no, not everyone "can always get better [paying] jobs" just because they want to.

I thought that only applies to stepparents married to the custodial parent?

It does as my husband's ex never used my husband's income for anything college. She had very low income. Not sure what aid kids got as she refused to tell us telling us we just need to send a few thousand a month to cover expenses (we asked what expenses and she would not tell us - nor could we even do that when he was paying child support on all three kids which covered the college kid even though he should have cut it off at 18).

Not true at most 100% need met schools. Step-parents are a bit more complicated, but if assets (ash, savings, home equity, other real estate and investments) are jointly in a natural parent and step-parent's name (w/ a long lookback period), then those will count too.

See, e.g.:

How do you incorporate noncustodial parent information into the expected family contribution?

Yale’s ?nancial aid policy begins with the premise that parents, even if they are divorced or separated, have the primary responsibility to contribute towards their children’s college education costs. Thus, in order to calculate an expected family contribution and determine a student’s ?nancial aid eligibility, we require ?nancial information from both natural parents. Your ?nancial aid award lists an expected parent contribution that we determined from your parents’ information. Since we could treat the exchange of money between your parents in a variety of ways, we list only a total expectation from your parents. Your family will work together to determine how you will meet the family contribution and we suggest you keep both parents informed about your ?nancial matters throughout the year.

[Anonymous]

Here's Harvard's FAQ:

Yes, your custodial parent should file the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and the CSS PROFILE Application, and your non-custodial parent should complete the Noncustodial Parent’s PROFILE and both should submit their taxes. We feel strongly that both parents have an obligation to support you, and a divorce or separation does not change that obligation. We look at each case individually, and we make every effort to be sensitive to particular family circumstances when deciding how much to ask from each parent. If either parent is remarried, financial information about their new spouse and dependents, if any, should be provided. In this way we obtain the fullest possible picture of your financial background and can make the fairest judgment about your need for assistance. If we have received financial information from both your parents, the figure listed as “parent contribution” on your award letter will be the combined figure for your parent 1 and parent 2, determined by doing a separate need analysis for each. It is up to you and your parents to decide how to divide the responsibility for paying the termbills.

[Anonymous]

Basically, the PP above is right that Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA)-only schools only count custodial parent income, but most schools that actually provide generous aid do not.

[Anonymous]

No one HAS to go to Harvard. Or Yale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking ahead will you pay for step kids college? What about cars? Will your DC get a car and not step kids?
All 3 children are DH and should be treated equally

You're assuming DH has the money. That doesn't have to be the case.

My DH has a daughter from a previous relationship. I am the moneymaker in the family while DH makes a low salary. Our two kids lead a much better lifestyle than his daughter. I don't feel any guilt about that. I don't understand why you insinuate it's her job to pay for her stepkids' college or cars. That's on DH. It's the parents' job to support their children, not their subsequent spouses.

And the evil stepmother speaks. Do you make your stepchildren clean your fireplaces, too?

Ugh. When you marry a person who has a child from a previous marriage, caring for that child is a part of the package. If you aren't willing to participate in caring for that child, do everyone a favor and find someone else, preferably someone with no children. Your callousness to an innocent child who is the victim of two parents who could not find a way to maintain their marriage through personal troubles is appalling. It's sad that her father has such poor judgment of people that he would consider marrying someone as ruthless as you who would create such a two tier system to a child.

So dramatic. The two-tiered system already exists for everyone. Tier 1: your children. Tier 2: everyone else's children. Why pretend it's not so?

That child has a mother and a father. I am kind and caring to her when I'm around her, but funding her college education or her cars is not my job. My money belongs to my children. Her mother and father should take care of her college and cars. They can always get better jobs if they are not happy with their current income. Marrying a higher-income woman in hopes she will fund your previous children is nonsense.

That is heartbreaking. Is she not her father's child? Is she in the second tier of his heart, like she is in yours?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one HAS to go to Harvard. Or Yale.

Of course not. But it's pretty shitty if the reason they can't is because their step-mother is a bitch.

Also, my point was not that someone had to go to one of those schools it was, as I'll say again, that that is the normal policy of schools that guarantee need blind admissions AND promise to cover 100% of demonstrated need. In other words, the schools that kids in the squeezed "lower-upper-middle class" actually might get aid from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking ahead will you pay for step kids college? What about cars? Will your DC get a car and not step kids?
All 3 children are DH and should be treated equally

You're assuming DH has the money. That doesn't have to be the case.

My DH has a daughter from a previous relationship. I am the moneymaker in the family while DH makes a low salary. Our two kids lead a much better lifestyle than his daughter. I don't feel any guilt about that. I don't understand why you insinuate it's her job to pay for her stepkids' college or cars. That's on DH. It's the parents' job to support their children, not their subsequent spouses.

And the evil stepmother speaks. Do you make your stepchildren clean your fireplaces, too?

Ugh. When you marry a person who has a child from a previous marriage, caring for that child is a part of the package. If you aren't willing to participate in caring for that child, do everyone a favor and find someone else, preferably someone with no children. Your callousness to an innocent child who is the victim of two parents who could not find a way to maintain their marriage through personal troubles is appalling. It's sad that her father has such poor judgment of people that he would consider marrying someone as ruthless as you who would create such a two tier system to a child.

So dramatic. The two-tiered system already exists for everyone. Tier 1: your children. Tier 2: everyone else's children. Why pretend it's not so?

That child has a mother and a father. I am kind and caring to her when I'm around her, but funding her college education or her cars is not my job. My money belongs to my children. Her mother and father should take care of her college and cars. They can always get better jobs if they are not happy with their current income. Marrying a higher-income woman in hopes she will fund your previous children is nonsense.

I see. You are one of those "my money is mine and his money is his" type marriages. A marriage of inequality starts from position of weakness. You're not completely committed to your marriage or the family that comes from the blending of two families. It's fine most of the time, but if your marriage ever encounters hardship or stress, that weakness may be it's undoing.

You are not a very compassionate person. It's fine for the father who chose such a partner, but it's really unfortunate for his children who are innocent victims of his poor judgement.

Why do you think it's my job to create the same lifestyle for that child? She has her own parents. What does compassion have to do with this?

So, if it takes 75% of his income to support his first daughter, you're fine with him not being able to provide support for your child, right? You'll provide for him. After all, you are the child's mother, so you can take care of him, even if his father cannot because he has prior obligations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one HAS to go to Harvard. Or Yale.

Of course not. But it's pretty shitty if the reason they can't is because their step-mother is a bitch.

Also, my point was not that someone had to go to one of those schools it was, as I'll say again, that that is the normal policy of schools that guarantee need blind admissions AND promise to cover 100% of demonstrated need. In other words, the schools that kids in the squeezed "lower-upper-middle class" actually might get aid from.

They aren't in that class.

Let it be said, again, that the reason she wouldn't be able to go to Harvard (if admitted) is not that her stepmother is a bitch. It's because her bioparents didn't save enough to fund it. Let's point the finger where it belongs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one HAS to go to Harvard. Or Yale.

Of course not. But it's pretty shitty if the reason they can't is because their step-mother is a bitch.

Also, my point was not that someone had to go to one of those schools it was, as I'll say again, that that is the normal policy of schools that guarantee need blind admissions AND promise to cover 100% of demonstrated need. In other words, the schools that kids in the squeezed "lower-upper-middle class" actually might get aid from.

They aren't in that class.

Let it be said, again, that the reason she wouldn't be able to go to Harvard (if admitted) is not that her stepmother is a bitch. It's because her bioparents didn't save enough to fund it. Let's point the finger where it belongs.

But their savings would have been enough if there wasn't a stepmother. It is the father's fault for marrying a cruel and selfish woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one HAS to go to Harvard. Or Yale.

Of course not. But it's pretty shitty if the reason they can't is because their step-mother is a bitch.

Also, my point was not that someone had to go to one of those schools it was, as I'll say again, that that is the normal policy of schools that guarantee need blind admissions AND promise to cover 100% of demonstrated need. In other words, the schools that kids in the squeezed "lower-upper-middle class" actually might get aid from.

They aren't in that class.

Let it be said, again, that the reason she wouldn't be able to go to Harvard (if admitted) is not that her stepmother is a bitch. It's because her bioparents didn't save enough to fund it. Let's point the finger where it belongs.

But their savings would have been enough if there wasn't a stepmother. It is the father's fault for marrying a cruel and selfish woman.

What's cruel and selfish is having children you can't support, and insisting this is somehow other people's job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one HAS to go to Harvard. Or Yale.

Of course not. But it's pretty shitty if the reason they can't is because their step-mother is a bitch.

Also, my point was not that someone had to go to one of those schools it was, as I'll say again, that that is the normal policy of schools that guarantee need blind admissions AND promise to cover 100% of demonstrated need. In other words, the schools that kids in the squeezed "lower-upper-middle class" actually might get aid from.

They aren't in that class.

Let it be said, again, that the reason she wouldn't be able to go to Harvard (if admitted) is not that her stepmother is a bitch. It's because her bioparents didn't save enough to fund it. Let's point the finger where it belongs.

But their savings would have been enough if there wasn't a stepmother. It is the father's fault for marrying a cruel and selfish woman.

What's cruel and selfish is having children you can't support, and insisting this is somehow other people's job.

But it would have been affordable without the stepmom. The father is cruel and selfish for doing that to his child, but the stepmother is also callous and unloving. It is cruel to make a child live in the household of someone so indifferent to her wel-being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one HAS to go to Harvard. Or Yale.

Of course not. But it's pretty shitty if the reason they can't is because their step-mother is a bitch.

Also, my point was not that someone had to go to one of those schools it was, as I'll say again, that that is the normal policy of schools that guarantee need blind admissions AND promise to cover 100% of demonstrated need. In other words, the schools that kids in the squeezed "lower-upper-middle class" actually might get aid from.

They aren't in that class.

Let it be said, again, that the reason she wouldn't be able to go to Harvard (if admitted) is not that her stepmother is a bitch. It's because her bioparents didn't save enough to fund it. Let's point the finger where it belongs.

But their savings would have been enough if there wasn't a stepmother. It is the father's fault for marrying a cruel and selfish woman.

What's cruel and selfish is having children you can't support, and insisting this is somehow other people's job.

But it would have been affordable without the stepmom. The father is cruel and selfish for doing that to his child, but the stepmother is also callous and unloving. It is cruel to make a child live in the household of someone so indifferent to her wel-being.

She doesn't live in the household.

You're saying the father should have married a low-income woman? On an off-chance his first daughter would go to Harvard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one HAS to go to Harvard. Or Yale.

Of course not. But it's pretty shitty if the reason they can't is because their step-mother is a bitch.

Also, my point was not that someone had to go to one of those schools it was, as I'll say again, that that is the normal policy of schools that guarantee need blind admissions AND promise to cover 100% of demonstrated need. In other words, the schools that kids in the squeezed "lower-upper-middle class" actually might get aid from.

They aren't in that class.

Let it be said, again, that the reason she wouldn't be able to go to Harvard (if admitted) is not that her stepmother is a bitch. It's because her bioparents didn't save enough to fund it. Let's point the finger where it belongs.

But their savings would have been enough if there wasn't a stepmother. It is the father's fault for marrying a cruel and selfish woman.

What's cruel and selfish is having children you can't support, and insisting this is somehow other people's job.

But it would have been affordable without the stepmom. The father is cruel and selfish for doing that to his child, but the stepmother is also callous and unloving. It is cruel to make a child live in the household of someone so indifferent to her wel-being.

She doesn't live in the household.

You're saying the father should have married a low-income woman? On an off-chance his first daughter would go to Harvard?

I'm saying the father should suck it up and pay whatever it takes so that his choice to remarry does not adversely affect her finances or her education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one HAS to go to Harvard. Or Yale.

Of course not. But it's pretty shitty if the reason they can't is because their step-mother is a bitch.

Also, my point was not that someone had to go to one of those schools it was, as I'll say again, that that is the normal policy of schools that guarantee need blind admissions AND promise to cover 100% of demonstrated need. In other words, the schools that kids in the squeezed "lower-upper-middle class" actually might get aid from.

They aren't in that class.

Let it be said, again, that the reason she wouldn't be able to go to Harvard (if admitted) is not that her stepmother is a bitch. It's because her bioparents didn't save enough to fund it. Let's point the finger where it belongs.

But their savings would have been enough if there wasn't a stepmother. It is the father's fault for marrying a cruel and selfish woman.

What's cruel and selfish is having children you can't support, and insisting this is somehow other people's job.

But it would have been affordable without the stepmom. The father is cruel and selfish for doing that to his child, but the stepmother is also callous and unloving. It is cruel to make a child live in the household of someone so indifferent to her wel-being.

She doesn't live in the household.

You're saying the father should have married a low-income woman? On an off-chance his first daughter would go to Harvard?

I'm saying the father should suck it up and pay whatever it takes so that his choice to remarry does not adversely affect her finances or her education.

Ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. The child should not suffer because of her parents divorce and their subsequent remarriage(s). If her dad has ascended to a higher lifestyle than before, she gets to participate.