Does a blended family actually work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it just me, or are some people horrified by all the negative comments here? Sure, bad things can happen, even to UMC families in this area, but c'mmon? Do I live in a bubble? The reality is that, sadly, many marriages fail. My kids' friends at school have divorced parents, I have friends, who are divorced, but most of them remarried and nobody is facing the horrid scenarios that you all are describing.

The opposite, actually. As a child of divorce, now in my 40s, I am grateful that my fellow ACOD are speaking honestly at last. Look, I ended up having a great life, marriage, career, etc of my own -- but for years was pressured, both by my own family and by society at large, to be super resilient, adaptable and embracing so everyone else could feel fine about the divorce, the new partners, the stepsiblings. I'm totally over that charade. It wasn't fine and they're not my real family, and while I wish everyone else well, I'm also not sorry about feeling this way anymore.

PS you have NO idea what scenarios the families you know are facing, and even then, in my experience, kids deflect/coverup/lie. Ask the kids in those families when they are 35, then you'll get a real and less performative and nuanced answer.

+1000! I am just so extremely done dealing with the pressure to accommodate divorce and all its consequences. I DGAF about these people and never ever will. Their feelings about their family are not mine to manage or cater to. If they are disappointed in the outcome, well, so is everyone else so cry me a river.

Kids of divorce have no idea what is actually in store for them. If they say they are fine with it, either they are telling you what you want to hear or they are just naive.

YES thank you, seriously, this is all truth.

- Adult child of divorce

+1. "Resilient" is self-serving BS. Yes, the kids can deal with it. They won't die. Life goes on. But this insistence that we as a society are forced to pretend that divorce does no damage to children is a lie.

Exactly. No, my life is not ruined. But it's still harmful and burdensome and forever warps and alters my relationships with my parents. "Resilient" is a way that adults reassure themselves when they know that what's happening is harmful to children. And "resilient" is a way of putting pressure on children to accept it and do emotional labor. It's a way of putting the blame on the child for not being resilient enough, rather than on the parents for getting the family into a bad situation or making selfish choices. As an adult, having divorced parents is a serious logistical challenge that you can't "resilient" your way out of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been seriously seeing someone for 3 years. We each have a child with an ex-spouse, one is 9, one is 4. 9 yo is 50/50, 4 yo is 70/30 (with us). I’d like to get married and have 1-2 more children but I’m struggling with how that will impact the current kids. On one hand, they’re all young and could grow up together part time, but I don’t want them to feel left out of a “traditional family”.

I’d love to hear any experiences (good or bad) with blended families like this.

Hi OP,

I saw lots of negative responses, but it seems to me that many are geared toward the harm that comes from divorce. It seems like that ship has sailed for your children and for your step children. If you want more children and your partner wants more children too, then you should have more. You cannot control whether your kids will be close up their half- and step-siblings. Just try to make sure that you won’t end up divorcing again after another round of kids. Our blended family is not perfect, but very few families are. At least I am modeling a loving and respectful relationship to all of my children (bio and step).

Good luck, OP!

Exactly how do you propose someone make themselves "divorce-proof" especially when they have minor children they are responsible for? You may think you are being a perfect role model but you have no clue what is simmering underneath. No clue whatsoever. Just because you aren't divorced yet doesn't mean it still can't happen. [/i]Wait until some catastrophe happens and YOUR biological child needs special resources which your spouse may balk at. (Think: Teen kid gets into serious trouble, necessitating huge legal bills or rehab costs or raising a child as a result of teen pregnancy.[i]

And why must the stepparent undertake these problems and the financial burden? What’s in it for the stepparent to provide these ridiculous resources? Don’t malign the non-kid spouse just because they would be reluctant to aid troublemaker stepkids.

A stepparent who is not willing to help minor step children financially should not get married. correct.

IMO a stepparent should not pay anything towards raising someone else's kid(s). Ever. That's why it's best to not get married since you will be legally bound with any kind of mess those stepkids can get into. Likewise, if YOUR kid has problems you may find yourself trying to choose between your spouse and your kid. If you go on and have joint children, you've added yet another layer of problem - which kids get resources? What if your joint minor child who is bright and has great potential wants to go to an expensive school but Stepkid 1 needs an attorney because he is facing serious jail time?

Unfortunately, parenthood does not seem to end at the age of majority anymore. Parental responsibility is being pushed for "kids" well into their 20s and even 30s.

Let's say you have your own bio child. You marry someone with 2 bio children. Your bio kid completes education, launches successfully, begins a family and is fine.

Your stepkids have issues though. Stepkid 1 has had drug problems since teen years and as stepparent you've helped foot the bill for rehab twice while they were a minor. Now an adult, Stepkid 1 still has drug problems, has been arrested and needs an attorney. You spouse demands "the best" for his adult kid and wants to hire a high-priced attorney for his adult kid - which means dipping into your retirement account.

Stepkid 2 quit school, spent time partying, then rushed into marriage with a bad boy followed by a quick pregnancy because she had baby fever. Baby Daddy decides parenthood is not for him, doesn't pay support because he is an unemployable drop-out and takes off. Stepkid 2 has an infant to raise and no income with poor career options. Your spouse says he wants to subsidize her rent and other expenses since he knows they can't move in with you. You then discover Stepkid 2 is back out partying all night, baby's needs are being neglected and there is a threat of child protective services being called. Stepkid 2 calls crying, wanting spouse and you to help financially. Your spouse says this is my grandkid and I must do all that I can. This means paying for daily child care in addition to all other expenses until such time as Stepkid 2 can get her act together.

What do you say to all this? Your spouse never, not once, had to pay a penny towards your child at any point. You, however, are being asked to make some serious financial and household concessions for your stepkids - including your retirement plans. Oh, and by the way, both Stepkid 1 and Stepkid 2 have made it obvious that they can't stand you and give you the cold shoulder every time they see you.

On the other hand, what if the situation were reversed and these were YOUR two children? Would you want the same for them? Would you expect your spouse to subsidize your adult kids?

This is not a fake scenario. These two kids were raised in a high-income DC suburb. It can happen anywhere.

These are the kinds of issues people need to discuss when children are involved. I think most people, deep down, would put their bio children ahead of any subsequent spouse. And if they answered this question honestly, then you can see why people should NOT get married again once they've had children. Ever. Even senior citizen couples have problems dealing with adult stepkids and grandkids.

Date. Enjoy each other's company. But always, always, always have an out for you (and your kids) so that you can extricate yourself if need be. You must remain financially independent at all times.

I don't understand why the bio parent can't just foot the expenses and costs of their OWN children. Why harrass the spouse for money from their retirement account? What kind of spouse would put their loved one in such a scenario? The scenario may not be fake but it indicates poor boundaries between spouses, and it's not healthy to have such expectations. I will say hello and play host when adult steps come to visit but don't ask me to babysit or contribute financially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been seriously seeing someone for 3 years. We each have a child with an ex-spouse, one is 9, one is 4. 9 yo is 50/50, 4 yo is 70/30 (with us). I’d like to get married and have 1-2 more children but I’m struggling with how that will impact the current kids. On one hand, they’re all young and could grow up together part time, but I don’t want them to feel left out of a “traditional family”.

I’d love to hear any experiences (good or bad) with blended families like this.

Hi OP,

I saw lots of negative responses, but it seems to me that many are geared toward the harm that comes from divorce. It seems like that ship has sailed for your children and for your step children. If you want more children and your partner wants more children too, then you should have more. You cannot control whether your kids will be close up their half- and step-siblings. Just try to make sure that you won’t end up divorcing again after another round of kids. Our blended family is not perfect, but very few families are. At least I am modeling a loving and respectful relationship to all of my children (bio and step).

Good luck, OP!

Exactly how do you propose someone make themselves "divorce-proof" especially when they have minor children they are responsible for? You may think you are being a perfect role model but you have no clue what is simmering underneath. No clue whatsoever. Just because you aren't divorced yet doesn't mean it still can't happen. [/i]Wait until some catastrophe happens and YOUR biological child needs special resources which your spouse may balk at. (Think: Teen kid gets into serious trouble, necessitating huge legal bills or rehab costs or raising a child as a result of teen pregnancy.[i]

And why must the stepparent undertake these problems and the financial burden? What’s in it for the stepparent to provide these ridiculous resources? Don’t malign the non-kid spouse just because they would be reluctant to aid troublemaker stepkids.

A stepparent who is not willing to help minor step children financially should not get married. correct.

IMO a stepparent should not pay anything towards raising someone else's kid(s). Ever. That's why it's best to not get married since you will be legally bound with any kind of mess those stepkids can get into. Likewise, if YOUR kid has problems you may find yourself trying to choose between your spouse and your kid. If you go on and have joint children, you've added yet another layer of problem - which kids get resources? What if your joint minor child who is bright and has great potential wants to go to an expensive school but Stepkid 1 needs an attorney because he is facing serious jail time?

Unfortunately, parenthood does not seem to end at the age of majority anymore. Parental responsibility is being pushed for "kids" well into their 20s and even 30s.

Let's say you have your own bio child. You marry someone with 2 bio children. Your bio kid completes education, launches successfully, begins a family and is fine.

Your stepkids have issues though. Stepkid 1 has had drug problems since teen years and as stepparent you've helped foot the bill for rehab twice while they were a minor. Now an adult, Stepkid 1 still has drug problems, has been arrested and needs an attorney. You spouse demands "the best" for his adult kid and wants to hire a high-priced attorney for his adult kid - which means dipping into your retirement account.

Stepkid 2 quit school, spent time partying, then rushed into marriage with a bad boy followed by a quick pregnancy because she had baby fever. Baby Daddy decides parenthood is not for him, doesn't pay support because he is an unemployable drop-out and takes off. Stepkid 2 has an infant to raise and no income with poor career options. Your spouse says he wants to subsidize her rent and other expenses since he knows they can't move in with you. You then discover Stepkid 2 is back out partying all night, baby's needs are being neglected and there is a threat of child protective services being called. Stepkid 2 calls crying, wanting spouse and you to help financially. Your spouse says this is my grandkid and I must do all that I can. This means paying for daily child care in addition to all other expenses until such time as Stepkid 2 can get her act together.

What do you say to all this? Your spouse never, not once, had to pay a penny towards your child at any point. You, however, are being asked to make some serious financial and household concessions for your stepkids - including your retirement plans. Oh, and by the way, both Stepkid 1 and Stepkid 2 have made it obvious that they can't stand you and give you the cold shoulder every time they see you.

On the other hand, what if the situation were reversed and these were YOUR two children? Would you want the same for them? Would you expect your spouse to subsidize your adult kids?

This is not a fake scenario. These two kids were raised in a high-income DC suburb. It can happen anywhere.

These are the kinds of issues people need to discuss when children are involved. I think most people, deep down, would put their bio children ahead of any subsequent spouse. And if they answered this question honestly, then you can see why people should NOT get married again once they've had children. Ever. Even senior citizen couples have problems dealing with adult stepkids and grandkids.

Date. Enjoy each other's company. But always, always, always have an out for you (and your kids) so that you can extricate yourself if need be. You must remain financially independent at all times.

I don't understand why the bio parent can't just foot the expenses and costs of their OWN children. Why harrass the spouse for money from their retirement account? What kind of spouse would put their loved one in such a scenario? The scenario may not be fake but it indicates poor boundaries between spouses, and it's not healthy to have such expectations. I will say hello and play host when adult steps come to visit but don't ask me to babysit or contribute financially.

Because maybe the bio parent can't - or SHOULD'NT - afford it. See above for multiple examples as others have pointed out. Nevertheless, many parents will spend their last penny to help/save/bail out their kids well into adulthood.

As stated, if your adult child may be facing serious prison time wouldn't YOU "harass" your spouse and say you want to take it out of your retirement account? Even if it is not a joint account, a parent may decide to deplete their own funds for their adult kids and then there is an inequity in finances. No more vacations together (unless solvent spouse pays) No more home upgrades (unless solvent spouse pays) No more new cars (unless solvent spouse pays) and oh yes, let's say the bio parent then winds up needing medical care which has a cost they can't meet because their own funds are drained (and so solvent spouse will pay that too)

What do you say to that? That your spouse can get a second job to pay their medical bills, due to funding their adult kids? Do you go on vacations alone? Do you live with the home you have, not the one you want because spouse can't contribute equal share?

Do not get married to anyone with children. Ever. Date, live-in at a certain stage, whatever ... just don't legally tie yourself to someone who will (naturally) put their children first and will not make you the priority as their spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been seriously seeing someone for 3 years. We each have a child with an ex-spouse, one is 9, one is 4. 9 yo is 50/50, 4 yo is 70/30 (with us). I’d like to get married and have 1-2 more children but I’m struggling with how that will impact the current kids. On one hand, they’re all young and could grow up together part time, but I don’t want them to feel left out of a “traditional family”.

I’d love to hear any experiences (good or bad) with blended families like this.

Hi OP,

I saw lots of negative responses, but it seems to me that many are geared toward the harm that comes from divorce. It seems like that ship has sailed for your children and for your step children. If you want more children and your partner wants more children too, then you should have more. You cannot control whether your kids will be close up their half- and step-siblings. Just try to make sure that you won’t end up divorcing again after another round of kids. Our blended family is not perfect, but very few families are. At least I am modeling a loving and respectful relationship to all of my children (bio and step).

Good luck, OP!

Exactly how do you propose someone make themselves "divorce-proof" especially when they have minor children they are responsible for? You may think you are being a perfect role model but you have no clue what is simmering underneath. No clue whatsoever. Just because you aren't divorced yet doesn't mean it still can't happen. [/i]Wait until some catastrophe happens and YOUR biological child needs special resources which your spouse may balk at. (Think: Teen kid gets into serious trouble, necessitating huge legal bills or rehab costs or raising a child as a result of teen pregnancy.[i]

And why must the stepparent undertake these problems and the financial burden? What’s in it for the stepparent to provide these ridiculous resources? Don’t malign the non-kid spouse just because they would be reluctant to aid troublemaker stepkids.

A stepparent who is not willing to help minor step children financially should not get married. correct.

IMO a stepparent should not pay anything towards raising someone else's kid(s). Ever. That's why it's best to not get married since you will be legally bound with any kind of mess those stepkids can get into. Likewise, if YOUR kid has problems you may find yourself trying to choose between your spouse and your kid. If you go on and have joint children, you've added yet another layer of problem - which kids get resources? What if your joint minor child who is bright and has great potential wants to go to an expensive school but Stepkid 1 needs an attorney because he is facing serious jail time?

Unfortunately, parenthood does not seem to end at the age of majority anymore. Parental responsibility is being pushed for "kids" well into their 20s and even 30s.

Let's say you have your own bio child. You marry someone with 2 bio children. Your bio kid completes education, launches successfully, begins a family and is fine.

Your stepkids have issues though. Stepkid 1 has had drug problems since teen years and as stepparent you've helped foot the bill for rehab twice while they were a minor. Now an adult, Stepkid 1 still has drug problems, has been arrested and needs an attorney. You spouse demands "the best" for his adult kid and wants to hire a high-priced attorney for his adult kid - which means dipping into your retirement account.

Stepkid 2 quit school, spent time partying, then rushed into marriage with a bad boy followed by a quick pregnancy because she had baby fever. Baby Daddy decides parenthood is not for him, doesn't pay support because he is an unemployable drop-out and takes off. Stepkid 2 has an infant to raise and no income with poor career options. Your spouse says he wants to subsidize her rent and other expenses since he knows they can't move in with you. You then discover Stepkid 2 is back out partying all night, baby's needs are being neglected and there is a threat of child protective services being called. Stepkid 2 calls crying, wanting spouse and you to help financially. Your spouse says this is my grandkid and I must do all that I can. This means paying for daily child care in addition to all other expenses until such time as Stepkid 2 can get her act together.

What do you say to all this? Your spouse never, not once, had to pay a penny towards your child at any point. You, however, are being asked to make some serious financial and household concessions for your stepkids - including your retirement plans. Oh, and by the way, both Stepkid 1 and Stepkid 2 have made it obvious that they can't stand you and give you the cold shoulder every time they see you.

On the other hand, what if the situation were reversed and these were YOUR two children? Would you want the same for them? Would you expect your spouse to subsidize your adult kids?

This is not a fake scenario. These two kids were raised in a high-income DC suburb. It can happen anywhere.

These are the kinds of issues people need to discuss when children are involved. I think most people, deep down, would put their bio children ahead of any subsequent spouse. And if they answered this question honestly, then you can see why people should NOT get married again once they've had children. Ever. Even senior citizen couples have problems dealing with adult stepkids and grandkids.

Date. Enjoy each other's company. But always, always, always have an out for you (and your kids) so that you can extricate yourself if need be. You must remain financially independent at all times.

I don't understand why the bio parent can't just foot the expenses and costs of their OWN children. Why harrass the spouse for money from their retirement account? What kind of spouse would put their loved one in such a scenario? The scenario may not be fake but it indicates poor boundaries between spouses, and it's not healthy to have such expectations. I will say hello and play host when adult steps come to visit but don't ask me to babysit or contribute financially.

So in a situation like OP's, where they want two additional children...will OP "mommy track" or even become a SAHM when those two new babies come along? That will severely limit her earning power...yet she will be solely responsible for the expenses and costs of her current child? Even though she will be making the financial sacrifice to care for their shared children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How would they "compensate" Sally? If you are Mary (Sally's mom) in this situation, how would you handle this?

well to begin with, I would never give Sally the idea that she was being treated unfairly, or that money and things are everything, or that you should spend life fixated on what other people appear to have. By “compensate” I just mean the family would work to find opportunities for Sally to get physical activity and participate in sports (tons of free/cheap things to do), take inexpensive vacations, and develop a positive and fun family atmosphere and traditions.

I’ll say it again - this all has to do with the adults and their values, not the need for stepkids to be treated equally on paper.

So you have no answer.

they have an answer, sitting down a 9 year old and explaining that live isn't fair and that even though she like gymnastics and is better than her sister, she's going to have to spend weekends driving to far flung gyms to watch her sister because life isn't fair. She'll then understand perfectly, go sit down with her copy of Atlas Shrugged and be perfectly content while her sister does her routine.

Exactly. You can try to explain your insane coldhearted opinions to them, but they will hate you anyway. It doesn't matter if you still think you are right. Teenagers can make your life hell if they really feel aggrieved.

In this case it would be REALLY hard for a little kid to swallow that their sister gets to do gymnastics or travel soccer or whatever activity they both love and you can’t. This would make every dinner, every activity event hell for everyone involved.

It is stuff like this that destroys families. This is the reason that second marriages with kids almost always end in divorce.

Ok you’re right. if you don’t have the brainpower to figure out how to manage a situation where kids play on different sports teams, then yes, you do not have the good sense to manage a blended family and you should never remarry.

The rest of us can come up with multiple ways to make it work.

The example was not “kids being in different teams” which would be supper easy. Agreed. The example is both kids love the same sport and ONE gets to play in an expensive club involving travel and the other can’t. The child’s other bio parent is footing the bill. How do you deal with going to travel soccer games as a family when the children are the same age and only one gets to play?

Please explain your “good sense” approach that wouldn’t make the less affluent kid feel like crap — and rub it in her face every other week. So far, all you’ve said is that you have the “brainpower” to do it. No solutions.

I for one, used my good sense and brainpower to stay married instead of trying to explain to my kid why she has to be treated like Cinderella. You do you.

You're creating the most extreme "Cinderella" set-up and assuming that the parents have no ability to remedy it at all. I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a helpful contribution. You're trying to prove your case (that all divorced people are terrible?) by creating a hypothetical situation with no possible exit.

But to reiterate - I think kids can very much understand that their step siblings have different resources. I think it's the grownup bean counters who think it is a total catastrophe that Larla "gets" to do travel gymnastics, and Susie does not, are the ones who create the set up for this to be a disaster. There are all sorts of ways that parents can make sure that both kids get their needs meaningfully met. A successful remarriage would have to be predicated on that, not that each child gets everything exactly equal, or it will be a disaster.

Really, all this example does is prove your own values are almost exclusively material, and you can't imagine a world where Susie is perfectly happy and secure even while Larla gets to do "travel gymnastics."

not at all, you're forgetting the second part- namely that Susie knows her sister is able to do things that she can't even though they are ostensibly sisters. The cinderella trope exists because there is some underlying truth to the relationship between step parents, their step children and their bio children

again, you are entirely fixated on the notion that kids are equally fixated on "what other kids get." that's just not true, and I'm sorry that you live in a milleau where travel soccer is the pinnacle of child achievement.

and there are differences between biological siblings as well. one will be academically talented, the other less so. one will have mental health or physical health problems, the other won't. in larger families, entire cohorts of kids end up treated very differently based on their birth order. with some thoughtfulness parents can even all of this out, and kid understand.

OMG. You’re ignoring the real problem. It’s not about travel soccer or gymnastics. It’s about both children in a family having similar interests and having to watch her step sibling get things they desperately want.

You’ve exemplified how you would deal with it: You would expect the less affluent child to get over it and learn that life isn’t fair and stop bugging you with her kid problems. That puts the burden of your choices on your child. Eventually even the most self centered if parents will notice their child is having a hard time coping with her sister going to cheer camp that she has to skip, or travel soccer or violin camp or whatever it is that matters to the kid. Eventually, despite your best efforts to ignore and minimize your child’s feelings you will have to deal with it — either through a tumultuous relationship with your child or friction with your spouse.

Your insistence that if you belittle your child’s feelings enough the conflict will go away is very immature.

This is so true. Selfish parents ignore this and continue to do whatever they want and then wonder where did they wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it just me, or are some people horrified by all the negative comments here? Sure, bad things can happen, even to UMC families in this area, but c'mmon? Do I live in a bubble? The reality is that, sadly, many marriages fail. My kids' friends at school have divorced parents, I have friends, who are divorced, but most of them remarried and nobody is facing the horrid scenarios that you all are describing.

The opposite, actually. As a child of divorce, now in my 40s, I am grateful that my fellow ACOD are speaking honestly at last. Look, I ended up having a great life, marriage, career, etc of my own -- but for years was pressured, both by my own family and by society at large, to be super resilient, adaptable and embracing so everyone else could feel fine about the divorce, the new partners, the stepsiblings. I'm totally over that charade. It wasn't fine and they're not my real family, and while I wish everyone else well, I'm also not sorry about feeling this way anymore.

PS you have NO idea what scenarios the families you know are facing, and even then, in my experience, kids deflect/coverup/lie. Ask the kids in those families when they are 35, then you'll get a real and less performative and nuanced answer.

+1000! I am just so extremely done dealing with the pressure to accommodate divorce and all its consequences. I DGAF about these people and never ever will. Their feelings about their family are not mine to manage or cater to. If they are disappointed in the outcome, well, so is everyone else so cry me a river.

Kids of divorce have no idea what is actually in store for them. If they say they are fine with it, either they are telling you what you want to hear or they are just naive.

YES thank you, seriously, this is all truth.

- Adult child of divorce

+1. "Resilient" is self-serving BS. Yes, the kids can deal with it. They won't die. Life goes on. But this insistence that we as a society are forced to pretend that divorce does no damage to children is a lie.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been seriously seeing someone for 3 years. We each have a child with an ex-spouse, one is 9, one is 4. 9 yo is 50/50, 4 yo is 70/30 (with us). I’d like to get married and have 1-2 more children but I’m struggling with how that will impact the current kids. On one hand, they’re all young and could grow up together part time, but I don’t want them to feel left out of a “traditional family”.

I’d love to hear any experiences (good or bad) with blended families like this.

Hi OP,

I saw lots of negative responses, but it seems to me that many are geared toward the harm that comes from divorce. It seems like that ship has sailed for your children and for your step children. If you want more children and your partner wants more children too, then you should have more. You cannot control whether your kids will be close up their half- and step-siblings. Just try to make sure that you won’t end up divorcing again after another round of kids. Our blended family is not perfect, but very few families are. At least I am modeling a loving and respectful relationship to all of my children (bio and step).

Good luck, OP!

Exactly how do you propose someone make themselves "divorce-proof" especially when they have minor children they are responsible for? You may think you are being a perfect role model but you have no clue what is simmering underneath. No clue whatsoever. Just because you aren't divorced yet doesn't mean it still can't happen. [/i]Wait until some catastrophe happens and YOUR biological child needs special resources which your spouse may balk at. (Think: Teen kid gets into serious trouble, necessitating huge legal bills or rehab costs or raising a child as a result of teen pregnancy.[i]

And why must the stepparent undertake these problems and the financial burden? What’s in it for the stepparent to provide these ridiculous resources? Don’t malign the non-kid spouse just because they would be reluctant to aid troublemaker stepkids.

A stepparent who is not willing to help minor step children financially should not get married. correct.

IMO a stepparent should not pay anything towards raising someone else's kid(s). Ever. That's why it's best to not get married since you will be legally bound with any kind of mess those stepkids can get into. Likewise, if YOUR kid has problems you may find yourself trying to choose between your spouse and your kid. If you go on and have joint children, you've added yet another layer of problem - which kids get resources? What if your joint minor child who is bright and has great potential wants to go to an expensive school but Stepkid 1 needs an attorney because he is facing serious jail time?

Unfortunately, parenthood does not seem to end at the age of majority anymore. Parental responsibility is being pushed for "kids" well into their 20s and even 30s.

Let's say you have your own bio child. You marry someone with 2 bio children. Your bio kid completes education, launches successfully, begins a family and is fine.

Your stepkids have issues though. Stepkid 1 has had drug problems since teen years and as stepparent you've helped foot the bill for rehab twice while they were a minor. Now an adult, Stepkid 1 still has drug problems, has been arrested and needs an attorney. You spouse demands "the best" for his adult kid and wants to hire a high-priced attorney for his adult kid - which means dipping into your retirement account.

Stepkid 2 quit school, spent time partying, then rushed into marriage with a bad boy followed by a quick pregnancy because she had baby fever. Baby Daddy decides parenthood is not for him, doesn't pay support because he is an unemployable drop-out and takes off. Stepkid 2 has an infant to raise and no income with poor career options. Your spouse says he wants to subsidize her rent and other expenses since he knows they can't move in with you. You then discover Stepkid 2 is back out partying all night, baby's needs are being neglected and there is a threat of child protective services being called. Stepkid 2 calls crying, wanting spouse and you to help financially. Your spouse says this is my grandkid and I must do all that I can. This means paying for daily child care in addition to all other expenses until such time as Stepkid 2 can get her act together.

What do you say to all this? Your spouse never, not once, had to pay a penny towards your child at any point. You, however, are being asked to make some serious financial and household concessions for your stepkids - including your retirement plans. Oh, and by the way, both Stepkid 1 and Stepkid 2 have made it obvious that they can't stand you and give you the cold shoulder every time they see you.

On the other hand, what if the situation were reversed and these were YOUR two children? Would you want the same for them? Would you expect your spouse to subsidize your adult kids?

This is not a fake scenario. These two kids were raised in a high-income DC suburb. It can happen anywhere.

These are the kinds of issues people need to discuss when children are involved. I think most people, deep down, would put their bio children ahead of any subsequent spouse. And if they answered this question honestly, then you can see why people should NOT get married again once they've had children. Ever. Even senior citizen couples have problems dealing with adult stepkids and grandkids.

Date. Enjoy each other's company. But always, always, always have an out for you (and your kids) so that you can extricate yourself if need be. You must remain financially independent at all times.

I don't understand why the bio parent can't just foot the expenses and costs of their OWN children. Why harrass the spouse for money from their retirement account? What kind of spouse would put their loved one in such a scenario? The scenario may not be fake but it indicates poor boundaries between spouses, and it's not healthy to have such expectations. I will say hello and play host when adult steps come to visit but don't ask me to babysit or contribute financially.

So in a situation like OP's, where they want two additional children...will OP "mommy track" or even become a SAHM when those two new babies come along? That will severely limit her earning power...yet she will be solely responsible for the expenses and costs of her current child? Even though she will be making the financial sacrifice to care for their shared children?

Huh? She can work and contribute to just their shared children. What is the problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When i married my husband i had a 3 year old daughter (Single Mom by Choice) and he brought 2 boys to the marriage, ages 2 and 1. It can work when the kids are so young like this and they grow up together.

I did specify when he finally convinced me to marry him that I would be financially responsible for our daughter and he for our sons. Its a good thing because there is no way I could afford to feed the boys who each grew to be 6'2" and 6'1" (we called him the little guy). They are now 18 and 19 and on the way to becoming semi-professional soccer players. On the other hand our petite daughter is majoring in Violin performance.

Do you also have an ex and what about your husband? How much do you have custody of the kids with you?

Hello -- she is an SMC. There is no ex.

They stipulated before marriage who would support who.

Read again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How would they "compensate" Sally? If you are Mary (Sally's mom) in this situation, how would you handle this?

well to begin with, I would never give Sally the idea that she was being treated unfairly, or that money and things are everything, or that you should spend life fixated on what other people appear to have. By “compensate” I just mean the family would work to find opportunities for Sally to get physical activity and participate in sports (tons of free/cheap things to do), take inexpensive vacations, and develop a positive and fun family atmosphere and traditions.

I’ll say it again - this all has to do with the adults and their values, not the need for stepkids to be treated equally on paper.

So you have no answer.

they have an answer, sitting down a 9 year old and explaining that live isn't fair and that even though she like gymnastics and is better than her sister, she's going to have to spend weekends driving to far flung gyms to watch her sister because life isn't fair. She'll then understand perfectly, go sit down with her copy of Atlas Shrugged and be perfectly content while her sister does her routine.

Exactly. You can try to explain your insane coldhearted opinions to them, but they will hate you anyway. It doesn't matter if you still think you are right. Teenagers can make your life hell if they really feel aggrieved.

In this case it would be REALLY hard for a little kid to swallow that their sister gets to do gymnastics or travel soccer or whatever activity they both love and you can’t. This would make every dinner, every activity event hell for everyone involved.

It is stuff like this that destroys families. This is the reason that second marriages with kids almost always end in divorce.

Ok you’re right. if you don’t have the brainpower to figure out how to manage a situation where kids play on different sports teams, then yes, you do not have the good sense to manage a blended family and you should never remarry.

The rest of us can come up with multiple ways to make it work.

The example was not “kids being in different teams” which would be supper easy. Agreed. The example is both kids love the same sport and ONE gets to play in an expensive club involving travel and the other can’t. The child’s other bio parent is footing the bill. How do you deal with going to travel soccer games as a family when the children are the same age and only one gets to play?

Please explain your “good sense” approach that wouldn’t make the less affluent kid feel like crap — and rub it in her face every other week. So far, all you’ve said is that you have the “brainpower” to do it. No solutions.

I for one, used my good sense and brainpower to stay married instead of trying to explain to my kid why she has to be treated like Cinderella. You do you.

And I for one, used my good sense and brainpower to make sure I am able to support my kids so that they won’t be treated like Cinderella. But you do you, keep staring at the ceiling while ensuring your financial well being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How would they "compensate" Sally? If you are Mary (Sally's mom) in this situation, how would you handle this?

well to begin with, I would never give Sally the idea that she was being treated unfairly, or that money and things are everything, or that you should spend life fixated on what other people appear to have. By “compensate” I just mean the family would work to find opportunities for Sally to get physical activity and participate in sports (tons of free/cheap things to do), take inexpensive vacations, and develop a positive and fun family atmosphere and traditions.

I’ll say it again - this all has to do with the adults and their values, not the need for stepkids to be treated equally on paper.

So you have no answer.

they have an answer, sitting down a 9 year old and explaining that live isn't fair and that even though she like gymnastics and is better than her sister, she's going to have to spend weekends driving to far flung gyms to watch her sister because life isn't fair. She'll then understand perfectly, go sit down with her copy of Atlas Shrugged and be perfectly content while her sister does her routine.

Exactly. You can try to explain your insane coldhearted opinions to them, but they will hate you anyway. It doesn't matter if you still think you are right. Teenagers can make your life hell if they really feel aggrieved.

In this case it would be REALLY hard for a little kid to swallow that their sister gets to do gymnastics or travel soccer or whatever activity they both love and you can’t. This would make every dinner, every activity event hell for everyone involved.

It is stuff like this that destroys families. This is the reason that second marriages with kids almost always end in divorce.

Ok you’re right. if you don’t have the brainpower to figure out how to manage a situation where kids play on different sports teams, then yes, you do not have the good sense to manage a blended family and you should never remarry.

The rest of us can come up with multiple ways to make it work.

The example was not “kids being in different teams” which would be supper easy. Agreed. The example is both kids love the same sport and ONE gets to play in an expensive club involving travel and the other can’t. The child’s other bio parent is footing the bill. How do you deal with going to travel soccer games as a family when the children are the same age and only one gets to play?

Please explain your “good sense” approach that wouldn’t make the less affluent kid feel like crap — and rub it in her face every other week. So far, all you’ve said is that you have the “brainpower” to do it. No solutions.

I for one, used my good sense and brainpower to stay married instead of trying to explain to my kid why she has to be treated like Cinderella. You do you.

And I for one, used my good sense and brainpower to make sure I am able to support my kids so that they won’t be treated like Cinderella. But you do you, keep staring at the ceiling while ensuring your financial well being.

So tell us all how your supposed incontrovertible brain power helped you to "...manage a blended family" and for how long have you been doing it? Are your kids and your stepkids all successful adults now? If they are not, then I wouldn't be bragging about how successful I am if I were you. Is your spouse's ex still in the picture? If so, how exactly do you "manager" her/him - especially if s/he has parenting failures which result in your stepkids having problems. (Like ignoring/permitting behavior such as alcohol, drug use, promiscuity, etc. because s/he wants to be the cool mom/dad). Tell us how you would "manage" the ex? Especially if s/he decides to start alienating the stepkids from your spouse as retaliation?

Perhaps your way of managing that scenario is to tell your heartbroken spouse to figure it out on their own as it's not your problem. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When i married my husband i had a 3 year old daughter (Single Mom by Choice) and he brought 2 boys to the marriage, ages 2 and 1. It can work when the kids are so young like this and they grow up together.

I did specify when he finally convinced me to marry him that I would be financially responsible for our daughter and he for our sons. Its a good thing because there is no way I could afford to feed the boys who each grew to be 6'2" and 6'1" (we called him the little guy). They are now 18 and 19 and on the way to becoming semi-professional soccer players. On the other hand our petite daughter is majoring in Violin performance.

Do you also have an ex and what about your husband? How much do you have custody of the kids with you?

Hello -- she is an SMC. There is no ex.

They stipulated before marriage who would support who.

Read again.

Then it is a very rare case and can't be assumed like any other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been seriously seeing someone for 3 years. We each have a child with an ex-spouse, one is 9, one is 4. 9 yo is 50/50, 4 yo is 70/30 (with us). I’d like to get married and have 1-2 more children but I’m struggling with how that will impact the current kids. On one hand, they’re all young and could grow up together part time, but I don’t want them to feel left out of a “traditional family”.

I’d love to hear any experiences (good or bad) with blended families like this.

Hi OP,

I saw lots of negative responses, but it seems to me that many are geared toward the harm that comes from divorce. It seems like that ship has sailed for your children and for your step children. If you want more children and your partner wants more children too, then you should have more. You cannot control whether your kids will be close up their half- and step-siblings. Just try to make sure that you won’t end up divorcing again after another round of kids. Our blended family is not perfect, but very few families are. At least I am modeling a loving and respectful relationship to all of my children (bio and step).

Good luck, OP!

Exactly how do you propose someone make themselves "divorce-proof" especially when they have minor children they are responsible for? You may think you are being a perfect role model but you have no clue what is simmering underneath. No clue whatsoever. Just because you aren't divorced yet doesn't mean it still can't happen. [/i]Wait until some catastrophe happens and YOUR biological child needs special resources which your spouse may balk at. (Think: Teen kid gets into serious trouble, necessitating huge legal bills or rehab costs or raising a child as a result of teen pregnancy.[i]

And why must the stepparent undertake these problems and the financial burden? What’s in it for the stepparent to provide these ridiculous resources? Don’t malign the non-kid spouse just because they would be reluctant to aid troublemaker stepkids.

A stepparent who is not willing to help minor step children financially should not get married. correct.

IMO a stepparent should not pay anything towards raising someone else's kid(s). Ever. That's why it's best to not get married since you will be legally bound with any kind of mess those stepkids can get into. Likewise, if YOUR kid has problems you may find yourself trying to choose between your spouse and your kid. If you go on and have joint children, you've added yet another layer of problem - which kids get resources? What if your joint minor child who is bright and has great potential wants to go to an expensive school but Stepkid 1 needs an attorney because he is facing serious jail time?

Unfortunately, parenthood does not seem to end at the age of majority anymore. Parental responsibility is being pushed for "kids" well into their 20s and even 30s.

Let's say you have your own bio child. You marry someone with 2 bio children. Your bio kid completes education, launches successfully, begins a family and is fine.

Your stepkids have issues though. Stepkid 1 has had drug problems since teen years and as stepparent you've helped foot the bill for rehab twice while they were a minor. Now an adult, Stepkid 1 still has drug problems, has been arrested and needs an attorney. You spouse demands "the best" for his adult kid and wants to hire a high-priced attorney for his adult kid - which means dipping into your retirement account.

Stepkid 2 quit school, spent time partying, then rushed into marriage with a bad boy followed by a quick pregnancy because she had baby fever. Baby Daddy decides parenthood is not for him, doesn't pay support because he is an unemployable drop-out and takes off. Stepkid 2 has an infant to raise and no income with poor career options. Your spouse says he wants to subsidize her rent and other expenses since he knows they can't move in with you. You then discover Stepkid 2 is back out partying all night, baby's needs are being neglected and there is a threat of child protective services being called. Stepkid 2 calls crying, wanting spouse and you to help financially. Your spouse says this is my grandkid and I must do all that I can. This means paying for daily child care in addition to all other expenses until such time as Stepkid 2 can get her act together.

What do you say to all this? Your spouse never, not once, had to pay a penny towards your child at any point. You, however, are being asked to make some serious financial and household concessions for your stepkids - including your retirement plans. Oh, and by the way, both Stepkid 1 and Stepkid 2 have made it obvious that they can't stand you and give you the cold shoulder every time they see you.

On the other hand, what if the situation were reversed and these were YOUR two children? Would you want the same for them? Would you expect your spouse to subsidize your adult kids?

This is not a fake scenario. These two kids were raised in a high-income DC suburb. It can happen anywhere.

These are the kinds of issues people need to discuss when children are involved. I think most people, deep down, would put their bio children ahead of any subsequent spouse. And if they answered this question honestly, then you can see why people should NOT get married again once they've had children. Ever. Even senior citizen couples have problems dealing with adult stepkids and grandkids.

Date. Enjoy each other's company. But always, always, always have an out for you (and your kids) so that you can extricate yourself if need be. You must remain financially independent at all times.

I don't understand why the bio parent can't just foot the expenses and costs of their OWN children. Why harrass the spouse for money from their retirement account? What kind of spouse would put their loved one in such a scenario? The scenario may not be fake but it indicates poor boundaries between spouses, and it's not healthy to have such expectations. I will say hello and play host when adult steps come to visit but don't ask me to babysit or contribute financially.

Because maybe the bio parent can't - or SHOULD'NT - afford it. See above for multiple examples as others have pointed out. Nevertheless, many parents will spend their last penny to help/save/bail out their kids well into adulthood.

As stated, if your adult child may be facing serious prison time wouldn't YOU "harass" your spouse and say you want to take it out of your retirement account? Even if it is not a joint account, a parent may decide to deplete their own funds for their adult kids and then there is an inequity in finances. No more vacations together (unless solvent spouse pays) No more home upgrades (unless solvent spouse pays) No more new cars (unless solvent spouse pays) and oh yes, let's say the bio parent then winds up needing medical care which has a cost they can't meet because their own funds are drained (and so solvent spouse will pay that too)

What do you say to that? That your spouse can get a second job to pay their medical bills, due to funding their adult kids? Do you go on vacations alone? Do you live with the home you have, not the one you want because spouse can't contribute equal share?

Do not get married to anyone with children. Ever. Date, live-in at a certain stage, whatever ... just don't legally tie yourself to someone who will (naturally) put their children first and will not make you the priority as their spouse.

You know what you say to that? The adult kids are ADULTS. Their choices, their consequences. Why should a (bio) parent bail out their kids - at the expense of their own retirement, or long term care? The answer is, they shouldn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How would they "compensate" Sally? If you are Mary (Sally's mom) in this situation, how would you handle this?

well to begin with, I would never give Sally the idea that she was being treated unfairly, or that money and things are everything, or that you should spend life fixated on what other people appear to have. By “compensate” I just mean the family would work to find opportunities for Sally to get physical activity and participate in sports (tons of free/cheap things to do), take inexpensive vacations, and develop a positive and fun family atmosphere and traditions.

I’ll say it again - this all has to do with the adults and their values, not the need for stepkids to be treated equally on paper.

So you have no answer.

they have an answer, sitting down a 9 year old and explaining that live isn't fair and that even though she like gymnastics and is better than her sister, she's going to have to spend weekends driving to far flung gyms to watch her sister because life isn't fair. She'll then understand perfectly, go sit down with her copy of Atlas Shrugged and be perfectly content while her sister does her routine.

Exactly. You can try to explain your insane coldhearted opinions to them, but they will hate you anyway. It doesn't matter if you still think you are right. Teenagers can make your life hell if they really feel aggrieved.

In this case it would be REALLY hard for a little kid to swallow that their sister gets to do gymnastics or travel soccer or whatever activity they both love and you can’t. This would make every dinner, every activity event hell for everyone involved.

It is stuff like this that destroys families. This is the reason that second marriages with kids almost always end in divorce.

Ok you’re right. if you don’t have the brainpower to figure out how to manage a situation where kids play on different sports teams, then yes, you do not have the good sense to manage a blended family and you should never remarry.

The rest of us can come up with multiple ways to make it work.

The example was not “kids being in different teams” which would be supper easy. Agreed. The example is both kids love the same sport and ONE gets to play in an expensive club involving travel and the other can’t. The child’s other bio parent is footing the bill. How do you deal with going to travel soccer games as a family when the children are the same age and only one gets to play?

Please explain your “good sense” approach that wouldn’t make the less affluent kid feel like crap — and rub it in her face every other week. So far, all you’ve said is that you have the “brainpower” to do it. No solutions.

I for one, used my good sense and brainpower to stay married instead of trying to explain to my kid why she has to be treated like Cinderella. You do you.

And I for one, used my good sense and brainpower to make sure I am able to support my kids so that they won’t be treated like Cinderella. But you do you, keep staring at the ceiling while ensuring your financial well being.

So tell us all how your supposed incontrovertible brain power helped you to "...manage a blended family" and for how long have you been doing it? Are your kids and your stepkids all successful adults now? If they are not, then I wouldn't be bragging about how successful I am if I were you. Is your spouse's ex still in the picture? If so, how exactly do you "manager" her/him - especially if s/he has parenting failures which result in your stepkids having problems. (Like ignoring/permitting behavior such as alcohol, drug use, promiscuity, etc. because s/he wants to be the cool mom/dad). Tell us how you would "manage" the ex? Especially if s/he decides to start alienating the stepkids from your spouse as retaliation?

Perhaps your way of managing that scenario is to tell your heartbroken spouse to figure it out on their own as it's not your problem. Good luck with that.

you have some kind of weird anti-divorce projection going on here. I'm thinking that you're in a very, very unhappy marriage, and desperately trying to justify it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When i married my husband i had a 3 year old daughter (Single Mom by Choice) and he brought 2 boys to the marriage, ages 2 and 1. It can work when the kids are so young like this and they grow up together.

I did specify when he finally convinced me to marry him that I would be financially responsible for our daughter and he for our sons. Its a good thing because there is no way I could afford to feed the boys who each grew to be 6'2" and 6'1" (we called him the little guy). They are now 18 and 19 and on the way to becoming semi-professional soccer players. On the other hand our petite daughter is majoring in Violin performance.

Do you also have an ex and what about your husband? How much do you have custody of the kids with you?

Hello -- she is an SMC. There is no ex.

They stipulated before marriage who would support who.

Read again.

Then it is a very rare case and can't be assumed like any other.

And yet we can assume the long, detailed hypothetical where one child gets to go to travel gymnastics, and the other child is forever devastated, and no grownup can possibly figure out a way to help.

[Anonymous]

Mr. and Mrs. Brady did not have any children together. That would have been disastrous. 6 was enough, and Mrs. Brady did not have a job.