I'm a SAHM and my husband won't let me send money to my teen son. Who's right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, it’s actually not. He has zero responsibility to provide for a child that isn’t his.

What BS. He married a woman with a child, therefore taking the child on as his responsibility.

Legally, he is not responsible. Her xH and she are responsible. WTF would a new H be financially responsible for the child. He would have to adopt for that to be true.

GEEZ doesn't anybody understand basic laws.

I don't give a flying f**k about basic laws, I care about basic human decency.

This is not a thread asking for legal advice. It's asking for relationship advice.

When you marry somebody which a child who already has a father, the child is not your responsibility ... not legally or morally. He is the responsibility of his parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, it’s actually not. He has zero responsibility to provide for a child that isn’t his.

What BS. He married a woman with a child, therefore taking the child on as his responsibility.

Nope. Only OP and the child’s father have a responsibility to provide for the son. And if the kid is now over 18 then he may be completely SOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, it’s actually not. He has zero responsibility to provide for a child that isn’t his.

What BS. He married a woman with a child, therefore taking the child on as his responsibility.

Legally, he is not responsible. Her xH and she are responsible. WTF would a new H be financially responsible for the child. He would have to adopt for that to be true.

GEEZ doesn't anybody understand basic laws.

I don't give a flying f**k about basic laws, I care about basic human decency.

This is not a thread asking for legal advice. It's asking for relationship advice.

When you marry somebody which a child who already has a father, the child is not your responsibility ... not legally or morally. He is the responsibility of his parents.

Yep. And PP, you can keep tantruming but it doesn’t make you right. The stepfather doesn’t have a financial responsibility. Full stop. Doesn’t matter if you view it legally or from a family relationship status. He.has.no.responsibility.to.support.a.child.that.is.not.his.

And if you really cared about human decency, you would be encouraging mom to get a job and help support her son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I"m so glad that I work. All prospective SAHM's should read this thread a couple of times.

All prospective SAHMs should understand what they are legally entitled to in a marriage.

It is not his money. It is their money. If he doesn't like that, he shouldn't have gotten married.

Exactly and how the court sees it.

OP send him items he needs and some money. He's your child for life. If you need to debit your groceries, do the cash back option until you have enough to send him. You shouldn't have to ask your cheap o husband period.

Actually, that is not true.

A person can have income that goes into an account in their own name and the spouse has no right to touch or access that money.

They only have the right to 1/2 assets after a divorce, but during a marriage there is not law that says each spouse gets 1/2 the money.

Hahahahaha.

False.

It is very true. You think Bill Gates's wife was legally allowed to access 1/2 his money while married?. No. It's not her money until she divorces him. OPs husband is not legally required to give her money beyond food, board and clothes. It's not her money.

Here is another thing to worry about, any money you give your spouse access to, your spouse can spend it all on anything they want, drugs, gambling, women... and you can't get that money back because you were stupid enough to give him access to your money.

Another way to look at it is OP’s husband can open a separate bank account, with just him as the owner of the account, and have his entire paycheck deposited there. And there is absolutely nothing OP could do about it. She is not only not legally entitled to the money her husband earns, he clearly doesn’t see her “morally” entitled either or OP wouldn’t be in the situation she is in.

[Anonymous]

Op you need to get a job. It is clear that your husband doesn't value your work as a sahm. Find a way to support all your kids. Your son may not forgive you if you don't priority his needs as much as your younger kids

[Anonymous]

I think this thread has devolved into a blame game about OP and her DH. Both sound less than exemplary to me. OP has a child from a prior marriage and became a SAHM without any plan for setting aside money for this child. I bet OP knew of suspected that her DH didn't want financial responsibility for her older child but did it anyway.

[Anonymous]

I think this thread has devolved into a blame game about OP and her DH. Both sound less than exemplary to me. OP has a child from a prior marriage and became a SAHM without any plan for setting aside money for this child. I bet OP knew of suspected that her DH didn't want financial responsibility for her older child but did it anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this thread has devolved into a blame game about OP and her DH. Both sound less than exemplary to me. OP has a child from a prior marriage and became a SAHM without any plan for setting aside money for this child. I bet OP knew of suspected that her DH didn't want financial responsibility for her older child but did it anyway.

In what world would a man want to undertake financial responsibility for someone else's kid? It's unfair and based on OP's posts, I feel sorry for her DH. If she wants to send money to her son, fine. But it shouldn't have to come from her non-bio dad DH. His money should go toward their two DDs.

[Anonymous]

OP, I have had a similar situation in my own marriage. All the kids are ours, no prior marriages.

However, in our case, I was raised UMC and my husband was raised working class by recent immigrants to the US. Things that I took for granted that we would do for college aged children included:
1. paying fraternity dues and sorority dues
2. taking kids shopping for new clothing prior to going to college, new comforter set, towels, etc.
3. getting each one a computer
4. paying for junior year abroad
5. giving them a small monthly allowance

My husband claims (and I don't know whether or not he is exaggerating) that he was not given anything new to take to college, that his treat was that once a semester he would go to Subway and split a sub sandwich with a friend, that he never left campus, that his parents never visited him at college, etc. etc. etc.

Unfortunately, he has some psychological baggage attached to his upbringing. Even though we can afford to take good care of our children, he's like "i turned out fine and I had nothing. therefore, our children don't need anything either."

Over the years, we have fought (and yes, we have had therapy) about whether the following things are necessary: music lessons; summer camp; going away to college vs. living at home; whether we should force children to major in only math and engineering (despite the fact that they have no innate ability in either subject); buying children clothing for college, camp, school etc.; allowances; swim team; swimming lessons; whether they need computers, phones, etc.

It's exhausting! He also expects them all to have paying jobs with benefits lined up that will begin the day after they graduate from college. Still not sure how that's going to play out.

I completely understand OP's outlook, if she feels like she's the only thing that stands between her child and homelessness, etc. I sometimes feel that way too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, it’s actually not. He has zero responsibility to provide for a child that isn’t his.

What BS. He married a woman with a child, therefore taking the child on as his responsibility.

He married a woman with a child and then has woman be a SAHP. So, yes, if she is a SAHP, he is responsible. She needs to go back to work to protect herself.

[Anonymous]

But DH should value her contribution as a SAHM. Think of all the money he is saving (Since he sees it as HIS money) by not having to put his kids in Daycare. OP should get a holiday weekend job (her son can get one also) and earn money. DH can be left with all the childcare and other household errands on the weekend. OP really needs to show her son that he matters which is more important than insisting he gets a job his first semester away at college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, it’s actually not. He has zero responsibility to provide for a child that isn’t his.

What BS. He married a woman with a child, therefore taking the child on as his responsibility.

He married a woman with a child and then has woman be a SAHP. So, yes, if she is a SAHP, he is responsible. She needs to go back to work to protect herself.

Yup. When he agreed to her being a SAHM, he presumably takes on her fiscal responsibilities. If she had student loans or some other type of
debt, he would pay for those. The son from a prior relationship didn’t appear after the fact. And the guy isn’t footing the bill for the education. I received no money from home in college so it’s not that I feel parents should foot all bills. OP, if DH is not going to allow you to supplement your son in a reasonable way that your household can afford, you need to get a job. What he is doing is wrong, but perhaps he will change his tune if his house is impacted by your having your own money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I have had a similar situation in my own marriage. All the kids are ours, no prior marriages.

However, in our case, I was raised UMC and my husband was raised working class by recent immigrants to the US. Things that I took for granted that we would do for college aged children included:
1. paying fraternity dues and sorority dues
2. taking kids shopping for new clothing prior to going to college, new comforter set, towels, etc.
3. getting each one a computer
4. paying for junior year abroad
5. giving them a small monthly allowance

My husband claims (and I don't know whether or not he is exaggerating) that he was not given anything new to take to college, that his treat was that once a semester he would go to Subway and split a sub sandwich with a friend, that he never left campus, that his parents never visited him at college, etc. etc. etc.

Unfortunately, he has some psychological baggage attached to his upbringing. Even though we can afford to take good care of our children, he's like "i turned out fine and I had nothing. therefore, our children don't need anything either."

Over the years, we have fought (and yes, we have had therapy) about whether the following things are necessary: music lessons; summer camp; going away to college vs. living at home; whether we should force children to major in only math and engineering (despite the fact that they have no innate ability in either subject); buying children clothing for college, camp, school etc.; allowances; swim team; swimming lessons; whether they need computers, phones, etc.

It's exhausting! He also expects them all to have paying jobs with benefits lined up that will begin the day after they graduate from college. Still not sure how that's going to play out.

I completely understand OP's outlook, if she feels like she's the only thing that stands between her child and homelessness, etc. I sometimes feel that way too.

If you a take away the haggling about WOH ans SAHM, step and biological, this is the crux of their argument. She could get a job and he still won't want either of them to contribute money to her son or biological children because he simply doesn't agree with her that it's necessary. There isn't a right answer (although I'm on her side).

My parents could not afford those things listed above for me but would have in a minute if they could have. Still what they gave me was more than either of them got. I just don't understand the "I had to suffer without X, you should too" mentality toward kids. I want my children to have more than I did, just like my parents wanted for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If you a take away the haggling about WOH ans SAHM, step and biological, this is the crux of their argument. She could get a job and he still won't want either of them to contribute money to her son or biological children because he simply doesn't agree with her that it's necessary.

Many of you have told OP to get a part-time job, problem is:

1) unlikely a chauvinist controlling prick wants her to work (that would diminish his power/ego)
2) OP said she has 2 young bio daughters with DH, daycare costs would eat money she'd generate
3) as you said, DH would very likely still object to giving money to his step-son

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you able to get a part time job?

No, we have two young daughters.

Is this a second marriage?

Are the 2 girls your DH's daughters and the son is from a previous relationship?

Correct.

Two predictions: I guaran-freaking-tee his two daughters get a comfortable allowance when they head off to college. And I guarantee the petty scumbag husband takes all the credit if the step-son turns out successful.