If you were a stepparent who divorced, did you feel used by your spouse and stepkid(s)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who marries a divorced man with a living ex wife and children is crazy.

[phone]

[Anonymous]

You can give advice, if she asks, then step back. I had to do that with my best friend. Now I am listening to her vent constantly. I am still there for her, but man- why didn't she listen to me???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume that OP's friend does not have kids. Depending on how they set up their finances I do not think she would have to financially contribute in a material way. For example, they could contribute pro rata by income to a joint account from which joint expenses are paid (i.e. food, mortgage, utilities, whatever else). They could maintain separate accounts for their personal expenses (i.e. college funds for kids, clothes or early retirement account for OP's friend). There will be some overlap here because obviously the kids eat food and increase utility costs but most of the expenses for the children would come from the parent.

I really doubt children would even notice this type of setup unless OP's friend makes a boatload of money and lives like a rockstar and the husband does not make much money.

I can see this being a much more difficult situation if OP's friend has more kids with the guy or if OP's friend had existing children.

What if the stepkid's bio mom couldn't pay for things or wants more child support? What is the stepmom gonna do? I would suggest separate accounts and never conmingling their finances. Depending on how often the teens are with them, OP's friend can negotiate to pay a lower percentage of the utilities, groceries, etc. Don't contribute to mortgage unless he puts her name on the deed. Women need to be smart and know how to not get manipulated by men and kids who play the "we didn't choose you as our stepmom" card.

I think that's exactly what I said. If biomom wants more support she goes to the dad/husband and he can choose to pay out of his separate accounts or not.

I disagree with your statement about not contributing to the mortgage per se. If she is living in his house she would pay him a market amount for "rent" so to speak although as a renter she would not pay for repairs/upgrades. Or they can refinance and add her to the deed, either option can work.

Spouses don't pay rent. If she's working she can pay for other things but this being petty is a bit to much and then isn't a marriage. If Dad is smart, he'll pay for things directly over child support vs. sending mom the money. Learned that the hard way given most of the wishes were made up. Mom also has to contribute to her child's care and everything isn't covered under child support. You all are really petty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume that OP's friend does not have kids. Depending on how they set up their finances I do not think she would have to financially contribute in a material way. For example, they could contribute pro rata by income to a joint account from which joint expenses are paid (i.e. food, mortgage, utilities, whatever else). They could maintain separate accounts for their personal expenses (i.e. college funds for kids, clothes or early retirement account for OP's friend). There will be some overlap here because obviously the kids eat food and increase utility costs but most of the expenses for the children would come from the parent.

I really doubt children would even notice this type of setup unless OP's friend makes a boatload of money and lives like a rockstar and the husband does not make much money.

I can see this being a much more difficult situation if OP's friend has more kids with the guy or if OP's friend had existing children.

What if the stepkid's bio mom couldn't pay for things or wants more child support? What is the stepmom gonna do? I would suggest separate accounts and never conmingling their finances. Depending on how often the teens are with them, OP's friend can negotiate to pay a lower percentage of the utilities, groceries, etc. Don't contribute to mortgage unless he puts her name on the deed. Women need to be smart and know how to not get manipulated by men and kids who play the "we didn't choose you as our stepmom" card.

I think that's exactly what I said. If biomom wants more support she goes to the dad/husband and he can choose to pay out of his separate accounts or not.

I disagree with your statement about not contributing to the mortgage per se. If she is living in his house she would pay him a market amount for "rent" so to speak although as a renter she would not pay for repairs/upgrades. Or they can refinance and add her to the deed, either option can work.

If she wants more support she needs to go to court and get it modified. She can ask Dad to voluntarily pay more, but he can say no or offer to buy what the kids need vs. sending her money.

There are all sorts of arrangements. Its pretty hard not to spend your money on the kids. I had no issue buying clothing and food. They are kids. Its not a big deal.

Issues will ALWAYS crop up with stepkids. My advice is to never marry someone who has children - ever. No matter what you wind up subsidizing those kids somehow, some way, some day. And you WILL feel used.

My SO decided to voluntarily continue with "child" support for two years AFTER his requirement to do so. From ages 21-23 he paid it directly to his daughter. She did not need the money as she is a trust fund baby and her education was completely paid for, as were all her other living expenses including her own apartment, utilities, car/insurance, etc. She admittedly told us she was spending an additional $1,000 per month on "socializing" which was the amount he was paying her.

If we were married or had co-mingled finances I would have been livid. As it was, he was living in my home and paying me some "rent" as others have mentioned but it was well below what market value would have been in the DC area. (He had been paying $2300 in rent at an apt. and paid me $750 to live in a single-family home, inclusive of all utilities including cable.)

He would not have been able to pay his DD $1,000 in party money every month if I had not, indirectly, subsidized his living expenses. Nor would he have been able to provide her the expensive gifts he gave her over the years, like overseas vacations, latest electronics, designer clothes, jewelry, etc. No surprise I still harbor resentment over that!

Point is that once someone has kids there will be issues for the rest of your life. And many times you won't just feel used - you WILL be used. Don't expect any thanks for it either.

There is no reason why he shouldn't continue to support his daughter, especially if she's in school. You sound bizarre that you don't want him to take care of her, which is what parents do. That's not being used. Don't have kids. Being used is demanding money and never seeing that parent like my husband's kids did. But, if you have a relationship with your kids, you still take care of them. If he can afford it, why no. The issue is he had the money and you wanted it spent on you. You were not married. You had no right to expect him to take care of you until marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume that OP's friend does not have kids. Depending on how they set up their finances I do not think she would have to financially contribute in a material way. For example, they could contribute pro rata by income to a joint account from which joint expenses are paid (i.e. food, mortgage, utilities, whatever else). They could maintain separate accounts for their personal expenses (i.e. college funds for kids, clothes or early retirement account for OP's friend). There will be some overlap here because obviously the kids eat food and increase utility costs but most of the expenses for the children would come from the parent.

I really doubt children would even notice this type of setup unless OP's friend makes a boatload of money and lives like a rockstar and the husband does not make much money.

I can see this being a much more difficult situation if OP's friend has more kids with the guy or if OP's friend had existing children.

What if the stepkid's bio mom couldn't pay for things or wants more child support? What is the stepmom gonna do? I would suggest separate accounts and never conmingling their finances. Depending on how often the teens are with them, OP's friend can negotiate to pay a lower percentage of the utilities, groceries, etc. Don't contribute to mortgage unless he puts her name on the deed. Women need to be smart and know how to not get manipulated by men and kids who play the "we didn't choose you as our stepmom" card.

I think that's exactly what I said. If biomom wants more support she goes to the dad/husband and he can choose to pay out of his separate accounts or not.

I disagree with your statement about not contributing to the mortgage per se. If she is living in his house she would pay him a market amount for "rent" so to speak although as a renter she would not pay for repairs/upgrades. Or they can refinance and add her to the deed, either option can work.

If she wants more support she needs to go to court and get it modified. She can ask Dad to voluntarily pay more, but he can say no or offer to buy what the kids need vs. sending her money.

There are all sorts of arrangements. Its pretty hard not to spend your money on the kids. I had no issue buying clothing and food. They are kids. Its not a big deal.

Issues will ALWAYS crop up with stepkids. My advice is to never marry someone who has children - ever. No matter what you wind up subsidizing those kids somehow, some way, some day. And you WILL feel used.

My SO decided to voluntarily continue with "child" support for two years AFTER his requirement to do so. From ages 21-23 he paid it directly to his daughter. She did not need the money as she is a trust fund baby and her education was completely paid for, as were all her other living expenses including her own apartment, utilities, car/insurance, etc. She admittedly told us she was spending an additional $1,000 per month on "socializing" which was the amount he was paying her.

If we were married or had co-mingled finances I would have been livid. As it was, he was living in my home and paying me some "rent" as others have mentioned but it was well below what market value would have been in the DC area. (He had been paying $2300 in rent at an apt. and paid me $750 to live in a single-family home, inclusive of all utilities including cable.)

He would not have been able to pay his DD $1,000 in party money every month if I had not, indirectly, subsidized his living expenses. Nor would he have been able to provide her the expensive gifts he gave her over the years, like overseas vacations, latest electronics, designer clothes, jewelry, etc. No surprise I still harbor resentment over that!

Point is that once someone has kids there will be issues for the rest of your life. And many times you won't just feel used - you WILL be used. Don't expect any thanks for it either.

There is no reason why he shouldn't continue to support his daughter, especially if she's in school. You sound bizarre that you don't want him to take care of her, which is what parents do. That's not being used. Don't have kids. Being used is demanding money and never seeing that parent like my husband's kids did. But, if you have a relationship with your kids, you still take care of them. If he can afford it, why no. The issue is he had the money and you wanted it spent on you. You were not married. You had no right to expect him to take care of you until marriage.

Perhaps you may want to re-read the post because you obviously can't comprehend what was written. Please show me where I said I wanted the money spent on me.

The $1k per month was not to "take care of her" it was her party money which she admitted to. All of SD's needs were already being met by a trust. This is an ADULT we are talking about. It was my SOs choice to continue to give her the money because he has Disney Dad syndrome and is desperate to maintain a relationship with her, even if it is transactional and one-sided. I fault him for that.

The point was that her father WOULD NOT have been able to do this if I had not been in the picture and he had not been able to live inexpensively with me. This is why I felt used and why many step parents feel used. (See title of post: Did you feel used by your spouse and stepkid(s)?)

Do you understand?

Maybe not, because you have displayed some pretty archaic attitudes which belong to another century. Like your statement that I wanted him to spend the money on me - um, no. I supported myself and still do. And your other statement about once a woman marries then she has a right to expect her husband to "take care of her."

Now THAT'S truly bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume that OP's friend does not have kids. Depending on how they set up their finances I do not think she would have to financially contribute in a material way. For example, they could contribute pro rata by income to a joint account from which joint expenses are paid (i.e. food, mortgage, utilities, whatever else). They could maintain separate accounts for their personal expenses (i.e. college funds for kids, clothes or early retirement account for OP's friend). There will be some overlap here because obviously the kids eat food and increase utility costs but most of the expenses for the children would come from the parent.

I really doubt children would even notice this type of setup unless OP's friend makes a boatload of money and lives like a rockstar and the husband does not make much money.

I can see this being a much more difficult situation if OP's friend has more kids with the guy or if OP's friend had existing children.

What if the stepkid's bio mom couldn't pay for things or wants more child support? What is the stepmom gonna do? I would suggest separate accounts and never conmingling their finances. Depending on how often the teens are with them, OP's friend can negotiate to pay a lower percentage of the utilities, groceries, etc. Don't contribute to mortgage unless he puts her name on the deed. Women need to be smart and know how to not get manipulated by men and kids who play the "we didn't choose you as our stepmom" card.

I think that's exactly what I said. If biomom wants more support she goes to the dad/husband and he can choose to pay out of his separate accounts or not.

I disagree with your statement about not contributing to the mortgage per se. If she is living in his house she would pay him a market amount for "rent" so to speak although as a renter she would not pay for repairs/upgrades. Or they can refinance and add her to the deed, either option can work.

If she wants more support she needs to go to court and get it modified. She can ask Dad to voluntarily pay more, but he can say no or offer to buy what the kids need vs. sending her money.

There are all sorts of arrangements. Its pretty hard not to spend your money on the kids. I had no issue buying clothing and food. They are kids. Its not a big deal.

Issues will ALWAYS crop up with stepkids. My advice is to never marry someone who has children - ever. No matter what you wind up subsidizing those kids somehow, some way, some day. And you WILL feel used.

My SO decided to voluntarily continue with "child" support for two years AFTER his requirement to do so. From ages 21-23 he paid it directly to his daughter. She did not need the money as she is a trust fund baby and her education was completely paid for, as were all her other living expenses including her own apartment, utilities, car/insurance, etc. She admittedly told us she was spending an additional $1,000 per month on "socializing" which was the amount he was paying her.

If we were married or had co-mingled finances I would have been livid. As it was, he was living in my home and paying me some "rent" as others have mentioned but it was well below what market value would have been in the DC area. (He had been paying $2300 in rent at an apt. and paid me $750 to live in a single-family home, inclusive of all utilities including cable.)

He would not have been able to pay his DD $1,000 in party money every month if I had not, indirectly, subsidized his living expenses. Nor would he have been able to provide her the expensive gifts he gave her over the years, like overseas vacations, latest electronics, designer clothes, jewelry, etc. No surprise I still harbor resentment over that!

Point is that once someone has kids there will be issues for the rest of your life. And many times you won't just feel used - you WILL be used. Don't expect any thanks for it either.

There is no reason why he shouldn't continue to support his daughter, especially if she's in school. You sound bizarre that you don't want him to take care of her, which is what parents do. That's not being used. Don't have kids. Being used is demanding money and never seeing that parent like my husband's kids did. But, if you have a relationship with your kids, you still take care of them. If he can afford it, why no. The issue is he had the money and you wanted it spent on you. You were not married. You had no right to expect him to take care of you until marriage.

Perhaps you may want to re-read the post because you obviously can't comprehend what was written. Please show me where I said I wanted the money spent on me.

The $1k per month was not to "take care of her" it was her party money which she admitted to. All of SD's needs were already being met by a trust. This is an ADULT we are talking about. It was my SOs choice to continue to give her the money because he has Disney Dad syndrome and is desperate to maintain a relationship with her, even if it is transactional and one-sided. I fault him for that.

The point was that her father WOULD NOT have been able to do this if I had not been in the picture and he had not been able to live inexpensively with me. This is why I felt used and why many step parents feel used. (See title of post: Did you feel used by your spouse and stepkid(s)?)

Do you understand?

Maybe not, because you have displayed some pretty archaic attitudes which belong to another century. Like your statement that I wanted him to spend the money on me - um, no. I supported myself and still do. And your other statement about once a woman marries then she has a right to expect her husband to "take care of her."

Now THAT'S truly bizarre.

A trust fund has nothing to do with him. How are you used. He has the right to spend his money how he feels fit. If he wants to give his daughter fun money, it is his choice. She is still very young.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume that OP's friend does not have kids. Depending on how they set up their finances I do not think she would have to financially contribute in a material way. For example, they could contribute pro rata by income to a joint account from which joint expenses are paid (i.e. food, mortgage, utilities, whatever else). They could maintain separate accounts for their personal expenses (i.e. college funds for kids, clothes or early retirement account for OP's friend). There will be some overlap here because obviously the kids eat food and increase utility costs but most of the expenses for the children would come from the parent.

I really doubt children would even notice this type of setup unless OP's friend makes a boatload of money and lives like a rockstar and the husband does not make much money.

I can see this being a much more difficult situation if OP's friend has more kids with the guy or if OP's friend had existing children.

What if the stepkid's bio mom couldn't pay for things or wants more child support? What is the stepmom gonna do? I would suggest separate accounts and never conmingling their finances. Depending on how often the teens are with them, OP's friend can negotiate to pay a lower percentage of the utilities, groceries, etc. Don't contribute to mortgage unless he puts her name on the deed. Women need to be smart and know how to not get manipulated by men and kids who play the "we didn't choose you as our stepmom" card.

I think that's exactly what I said. If biomom wants more support she goes to the dad/husband and he can choose to pay out of his separate accounts or not.

I disagree with your statement about not contributing to the mortgage per se. If she is living in his house she would pay him a market amount for "rent" so to speak although as a renter she would not pay for repairs/upgrades. Or they can refinance and add her to the deed, either option can work.

If she wants more support she needs to go to court and get it modified. She can ask Dad to voluntarily pay more, but he can say no or offer to buy what the kids need vs. sending her money.

There are all sorts of arrangements. Its pretty hard not to spend your money on the kids. I had no issue buying clothing and food. They are kids. Its not a big deal.

Issues will ALWAYS crop up with stepkids. My advice is to never marry someone who has children - ever. No matter what you wind up subsidizing those kids somehow, some way, some day. And you WILL feel used.

My SO decided to voluntarily continue with "child" support for two years AFTER his requirement to do so. From ages 21-23 he paid it directly to his daughter. She did not need the money as she is a trust fund baby and her education was completely paid for, as were all her other living expenses including her own apartment, utilities, car/insurance, etc. She admittedly told us she was spending an additional $1,000 per month on "socializing" which was the amount he was paying her.

If we were married or had co-mingled finances I would have been livid. As it was, he was living in my home and paying me some "rent" as others have mentioned but it was well below what market value would have been in the DC area. (He had been paying $2300 in rent at an apt. and paid me $750 to live in a single-family home, inclusive of all utilities including cable.)

He would not have been able to pay his DD $1,000 in party money every month if I had not, indirectly, subsidized his living expenses. Nor would he have been able to provide her the expensive gifts he gave her over the years, like overseas vacations, latest electronics, designer clothes, jewelry, etc. No surprise I still harbor resentment over that!

Point is that once someone has kids there will be issues for the rest of your life. And many times you won't just feel used - you WILL be used. Don't expect any thanks for it either.

There is no reason why he shouldn't continue to support his daughter, especially if she's in school. You sound bizarre that you don't want him to take care of her, which is what parents do. That's not being used. Don't have kids. Being used is demanding money and never seeing that parent like my husband's kids did. But, if you have a relationship with your kids, you still take care of them. If he can afford it, why no. The issue is he had the money and you wanted it spent on you. You were not married. You had no right to expect him to take care of you until marriage.

Perhaps you may want to re-read the post because you obviously can't comprehend what was written. Please show me where I said I wanted the money spent on me.

The $1k per month was not to "take care of her" it was her party money which she admitted to. All of SD's needs were already being met by a trust. This is an ADULT we are talking about. It was my SOs choice to continue to give her the money because he has Disney Dad syndrome and is desperate to maintain a relationship with her, even if it is transactional and one-sided. I fault him for that.

The point was that her father WOULD NOT have been able to do this if I had not been in the picture and he had not been able to live inexpensively with me. This is why I felt used and why many step parents feel used. (See title of post: Did you feel used by your spouse and stepkid(s)?)

Do you understand?

Maybe not, because you have displayed some pretty archaic attitudes which belong to another century. Like your statement that I wanted him to spend the money on me - um, no. I supported myself and still do. And your other statement about once a woman marries then she has a right to expect her husband to "take care of her."

Now THAT'S truly bizarre.

A trust fund has nothing to do with him. How are you used. He has the right to spend his money how he feels fit. If he wants to give his daughter fun money, it is his choice. She is still very young.

Jeez enough already. Shrew much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who marries a divorced man with a living ex wife and children is crazy.

[phone]

? Don’t most marriages end in divorce? This would put all kinds of people out of reach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who marries a divorced man with a living ex wife and children is crazy.

[phone]

? Don’t most marriages end in divorce? This would put all kinds of people out of reach.

I think just a part of this point is don't MARRY someone with kids. Once you marry you are legally bound to that other person and you may incur all kinds of drama/costs relative to their ex and kids' behaviors. Financial stresses on second marriages can be immense. It doesn't go away once the kids get older, either. Then you begin to experience step-grandkids issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who marries a divorced man with a living ex wife and children is crazy.

[phone]

? Don’t most marriages end in divorce? This would put all kinds of people out of reach.

I think just a part of this point is don't MARRY someone with kids. Once you marry you are legally bound to that other person and you may incur all kinds of drama/costs relative to their ex and kids' behaviors. Financial stresses on second marriages can be immense. It doesn't go away once the kids get older, either. Then you begin to experience step-grandkids issues.

Reminds me of the thread by the stepmom who didn't feel like visiting with her husband because she wasn't welcomed despite being married for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anyone who marries a divorced man with a living ex wife and children is crazy.

Investing in children who are not your own is fundamentally at odds with human nature

Kind of wondering what the reaction would be if you reversed the genders here and said “you’d have to be crazy to marry a single mom, it’s fundamentally at odds with human nature”...

Most men will not marry a woman with children and they are crazy if they do unless it is spelled out in a legally binding agreement that he is not responsible for any of their expenses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Investing in children who are not your own is fundamentally at odds with human nature.

Only conservatives’ nature, where not giving a crap about anyone besides yourself is a badge of some sort of twisted honor.

The best part about all the conservatives who talk about not helping anyone else (“not investing”) is most of them don’t realize that tripe is all a lie marketed by the Koches and billionaire class to get conservatives to vote to screw themselves while billionaires walk off with all the profits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume that OP's friend does not have kids. Depending on how they set up their finances I do not think she would have to financially contribute in a material way. For example, they could contribute pro rata by income to a joint account from which joint expenses are paid (i.e. food, mortgage, utilities, whatever else). They could maintain separate accounts for their personal expenses (i.e. college funds for kids, clothes or early retirement account for OP's friend). There will be some overlap here because obviously the kids eat food and increase utility costs but most of the expenses for the children would come from the parent.

I really doubt children would even notice this type of setup unless OP's friend makes a boatload of money and lives like a rockstar and the husband does not make much money.

I can see this being a much more difficult situation if OP's friend has more kids with the guy or if OP's friend had existing children.

What if the stepkid's bio mom couldn't pay for things or wants more child support? What is the stepmom gonna do? I would suggest separate accounts and never conmingling their finances. Depending on how often the teens are with them, OP's friend can negotiate to pay a lower percentage of the utilities, groceries, etc. Don't contribute to mortgage unless he puts her name on the deed. Women need to be smart and know how to not get manipulated by men and kids who play the "we didn't choose you as our stepmom" card.

I think that's exactly what I said. If biomom wants more support she goes to the dad/husband and he can choose to pay out of his separate accounts or not.

I disagree with your statement about not contributing to the mortgage per se. If she is living in his house she would pay him a market amount for "rent" so to speak although as a renter she would not pay for repairs/upgrades. Or they can refinance and add her to the deed, either option can work.

Spouses don't pay rent. If she's working she can pay for other things but this being petty is a bit to much and then isn't a marriage. If Dad is smart, he'll pay for things directly over child support vs. sending mom the money. Learned that the hard way given most of the wishes were made up. Mom also has to contribute to her child's care and everything isn't covered under child support. You all are really petty.

It was painful, humiliating, and mostly futile asking my dad for things. I asked for very basic clothes (we wore school uniforms), food, to get the electric bill paid. My mom was too physically ill to work, but couldn’t get welfare because she and my dad were still legally married. My dad only occasionally voluntarily gave money and he would create this big ceremony over calling us into the kitchen while he extracted a big wad of bills and handed it to my mom in front of us. But we could see that it was just a bunch of ones and the occasional five. We were so hungry that I once ate an emergency candle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume that OP's friend does not have kids. Depending on how they set up their finances I do not think she would have to financially contribute in a material way. For example, they could contribute pro rata by income to a joint account from which joint expenses are paid (i.e. food, mortgage, utilities, whatever else). They could maintain separate accounts for their personal expenses (i.e. college funds for kids, clothes or early retirement account for OP's friend). There will be some overlap here because obviously the kids eat food and increase utility costs but most of the expenses for the children would come from the parent.

I really doubt children would even notice this type of setup unless OP's friend makes a boatload of money and lives like a rockstar and the husband does not make much money.

I can see this being a much more difficult situation if OP's friend has more kids with the guy or if OP's friend had existing children.

What if the stepkid's bio mom couldn't pay for things or wants more child support? What is the stepmom gonna do? I would suggest separate accounts and never conmingling their finances. Depending on how often the teens are with them, OP's friend can negotiate to pay a lower percentage of the utilities, groceries, etc. Don't contribute to mortgage unless he puts her name on the deed. Women need to be smart and know how to not get manipulated by men and kids who play the "we didn't choose you as our stepmom" card.

I think that's exactly what I said. If biomom wants more support she goes to the dad/husband and he can choose to pay out of his separate accounts or not.

I disagree with your statement about not contributing to the mortgage per se. If she is living in his house she would pay him a market amount for "rent" so to speak although as a renter she would not pay for repairs/upgrades. Or they can refinance and add her to the deed, either option can work.

If she wants more support she needs to go to court and get it modified. She can ask Dad to voluntarily pay more, but he can say no or offer to buy what the kids need vs. sending her money.

There are all sorts of arrangements. Its pretty hard not to spend your money on the kids. I had no issue buying clothing and food. They are kids. Its not a big deal.

Issues will ALWAYS crop up with stepkids. My advice is to never marry someone who has children - ever. No matter what you wind up subsidizing those kids somehow, some way, some day. And you WILL feel used.

My SO decided to voluntarily continue with "child" support for two years AFTER his requirement to do so. From ages 21-23 he paid it directly to his daughter. She did not need the money as she is a trust fund baby and her education was completely paid for, as were all her other living expenses including her own apartment, utilities, car/insurance, etc. She admittedly told us she was spending an additional $1,000 per month on "socializing" which was the amount he was paying her.

If we were married or had co-mingled finances I would have been livid. As it was, he was living in my home and paying me some "rent" as others have mentioned but it was well below what market value would have been in the DC area. (He had been paying $2300 in rent at an apt. and paid me $750 to live in a single-family home, inclusive of all utilities including cable.)

He would not have been able to pay his DD $1,000 in party money every month if I had not, indirectly, subsidized his living expenses. Nor would he have been able to provide her the expensive gifts he gave her over the years, like overseas vacations, latest electronics, designer clothes, jewelry, etc. No surprise I still harbor resentment over that!

Point is that once someone has kids there will be issues for the rest of your life. And many times you won't just feel used - you WILL be used. Don't expect any thanks for it either.

So why did you agree to him paying only $750 towards a mortgage on a house (presumably costing more than $1500 a month)? What did you get that was more advantageous to you? It could be $ related or not, but there was something else. I hate it when people only tell part of the story and the entire story sounds off.

[Anonymous]

To 750 woman: it sounds like the problem is you supported your partner more than was fair. That enabled him to give money to his daughter that really should have gone to household expenses. So your mistake was allowing him to pay such a low share of your joint expenses.