S/o meeting the ex-wife: what are the girlfriends thinking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone in the thread mentioned that for a single women with no kids, there’s many better options than marrying a man with young kids and an ex wife. That thread suggests there may be a lot of drama and even when no drama you’ll always be second to your boyfriends children.

Yet many women will want to do this and in fact do it. Why? What are they thinking is the appeal in this situation?

It's the most unideal situation ever. Never works.
Far too many horror drama baggage stories vs happy blended family ones.

[Anonymous]

Women still overwhelmingly underestimate the happiness they can achieve without a partner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women still overwhelmingly underestimate the happiness they can achieve without a partner.

I think they are realizing how good life can be solo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women still overwhelmingly underestimate the happiness they can achieve without a partner.

Umm, this is a relationships forum. You go off and be single. Join a snowboarding forum and complain about snow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Charm. It's hard to resist a charming and charismatic man. And if he is genuine and honest he will convince you to drop all your prior biases about divorced men with kids. I am remarried and when my ex wife she was 33 and I was 47. She had no kids and I had 2. She came into the relationship with skepticism. Like I said above good looking men, hard-working, charming, and honest will easily compete with any single man never married no kids. I have no issues attracting women due to my divorced status. Some of the divorced women on this forum were burned in their prior marriages. Their spouses might have cheated on them. They may have been sexually neglect etc So they don't talk positively about divorced men and lump all divorced men in the same bag going as far as predicting that such men will even abandon their kids. No all divorced men fit the dark profile portrayed by many women on this forum.

And let me say this as well. When you are one on one with a woman and you are entirely focus on her and she gives you the opportunity to prove to her that you are worth it, the task is not complicated for the man I described above. She will go back to her girlfriend they will still try to convince her to rethink but yet she will still meet you because you are intriguing and charismatic.

This is the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't everyone in the adult dating pool have something that is considered baggage? My 6 closest guy friends are all married, but if they weren't I'd consider them awesome catches, but:
-One has an alcoholic dad who goes through cycles of needing support in treatment and such
-One has seasonal depression that can get dark a few months of the year
-One has a sibling with down syndrome they will have to care for or manage the care of when his parents pass away eventually
-One has an overbearing opinionated mother
-One has a job that will likely requrie 55 hour weeks forever
-One has a constant pain issue from a car accident that prevents him from doing overly strenuous activity and can flare up worse with damp weather.

But these guys are all high quality humans- kind, funny, communicative, smart, good incomes, etc.

Idk, my ex spouse had a complete mental breakdown which I faithfully tried to support them through for 5+ years before I needed to take care of myself and leave. It makes me sad to think if I fell in love again, people would advise them to run away from me based on an ex I can't control when I have so much goodness to give a partner.

None of those things would impact your day to day life with a partner as much as him having young kids with another woman. And plenty of men with kids from a prior relationship ALSO have things like what you describe here. What you are listing is just life -- injuries, mental health issues, difficult family, challenging jobs. Sorry but if you are getting through life without a problem in one of those categories, you are just ridiculously lucky.

But kids are a totally different thing. It's every day, and it's forever. Plus it connects you to the ex-wife (or ex girlfriend) forever too, unless they are a widower. I actually can imagine marrying someone with kids and even enjoying that -- I love kids and I think I have the maturity level to be a decent step mom and to support a spouse in their relationship with kids they had before me. But the ex is a wildcard. Unless it's an amicable breakup and she's very cool, she could be a huge source of problems. And it's not someone you chose at all. It's like acquiring a really nightmare MIL but she has actual rights regarding people who live in your home.

A guy with young kids and an ex-wife would have to be really amazing and just absolutely perfect for me to marry him, whereas seasonal depression or challenging family obligations or a disability wouldn't really faze me. Everyone has something but not everyone has kids they are co-parenting with their ex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't everyone in the adult dating pool have something that is considered baggage? My 6 closest guy friends are all married, but if they weren't I'd consider them awesome catches, but:
-One has an alcoholic dad who goes through cycles of needing support in treatment and such
-One has seasonal depression that can get dark a few months of the year
-One has a sibling with down syndrome they will have to care for or manage the care of when his parents pass away eventually
-One has an overbearing opinionated mother
-One has a job that will likely requrie 55 hour weeks forever
-One has a constant pain issue from a car accident that prevents him from doing overly strenuous activity and can flare up worse with damp weather.

But these guys are all high quality humans- kind, funny, communicative, smart, good incomes, etc.

Idk, my ex spouse had a complete mental breakdown which I faithfully tried to support them through for 5+ years before I needed to take care of myself and leave. It makes me sad to think if I fell in love again, people would advise them to run away from me based on an ex I can't control when I have so much goodness to give a partner.

None of those things would impact your day to day life with a partner as much as him having young kids with another woman. And plenty of men with kids from a prior relationship ALSO have things like what you describe here. What you are listing is just life -- injuries, mental health issues, difficult family, challenging jobs. Sorry but if you are getting through life without a problem in one of those categories, you are just ridiculously lucky.

But kids are a totally different thing. It's every day, and it's forever. Plus it connects you to the ex-wife (or ex girlfriend) forever too, unless they are a widower. I actually can imagine marrying someone with kids and even enjoying that -- I love kids and I think I have the maturity level to be a decent step mom and to support a spouse in their relationship with kids they had before me. But the ex is a wildcard. Unless it's an amicable breakup and she's very cool, she could be a huge source of problems. And it's not someone you chose at all. It's like acquiring a really nightmare MIL but she has actual rights regarding people who live in your home.

A guy with young kids and an ex-wife would have to be really amazing and just absolutely perfect for me to marry him, whereas seasonal depression or challenging family obligations or a disability wouldn't really faze me. Everyone has something but not everyone has kids they are co-parenting with their ex.

This is so true. Personally, I never even entertained the idea of marrying someone with kids for all these reasons. Plus, I wanted my own family, not someone who's been there done that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real key to it working, besides the new woman not wanting to have kids of her own, is that the man is wealthy, like Emhoff. You can share your husband's time with his kids, but when you're not able to afford the house, car, travel, retirement that you want because he needs to fund their college and weddings and cover the cost for those kids to join you on vacation to Europe, there will be problems. For men who divorced women who didn't earn much or didn't work at all, they usually have onerous alimony payments that really drain their accounts, even if they are high earners.

Women who never had their own children will have a very difficult time truly understanding the parent-child bond, and that situation is ripe for lots of negative feelings. If he's a decent dad, he'll make sure that when he dies, his kids inherit at least half of his estate instead of it all going to his surviving wife. Most second wives would not be okay with that.

You are greedy. Kids aren't entitled to weddings, vacations, or college. My parents never paid for my wedding or trips (though I'd never go with them as we went once and it was miserable but we paid our own way). Kids also aren't entitled to an inheritance. My parents have given me nothing as an adult. My dad's estate when to my sister as she took over as executor (we were both) and she and my mom (divorced stole it all from me despite the will).

I am entitled to 100% of everything my spouse and I have. 1/2 should not go to his kids. They got supported as children and we as a couple will leave them what is appropiate based off our relationship with them. But, they will not inherit until we are both dead. My husband was married previously 10 years. We will be married 40+ years hopefully (25 already). His ex-wife got child support, alimony and 1/2 his mlitary pension which started when they were both 38. He's done his share for them. And, should we die sooner, our minor children will be taken care of through grad school before anything is distributed. None of our money was earned prior to us being married and I was the one who had some savings, not him. I paid for the wedding and much more early on (he's made it up to me and increased his salary). He was giving everything to his ex, who then came after me after we were married for more child support as she thought she was entitled to it from me as well (obviously the judge didn't agree).

If you want your kids to inherit as well as yourself, you should have stayed married.

You can think what you want, but as a mother, I do think my kid is entitled to money from both parents into adulthood. If my spouse and I divorced, I would 100% expect him to be leaving at least half of what he has to our kid upon death, even if he remarried. And truthfully, I think he would want that too because he loves our child as much as I do and we both want to make life easier for her.

You see it one way because they aren't your kids, because it's not your ex. But once you have kids, you really do have an obligation to them for life. Forever. Your husbands kids will be the legacy he leaves behind when he dies, not you. You'll die too and then what? Leaving money to his children and grandchildren will carry on his DNA, probably his name, and his memory into future generations. You cannot offer that.

You have to kind of hate your kids not to leave them your money when you die. And if I were your husband, I certain wouldn't trust you to be a good shepherd of that money for them until you die, either. He'd be smart to leave them all he can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real key to it working, besides the new woman not wanting to have kids of her own, is that the man is wealthy, like Emhoff. You can share your husband's time with his kids, but when you're not able to afford the house, car, travel, retirement that you want because he needs to fund their college and weddings and cover the cost for those kids to join you on vacation to Europe, there will be problems. For men who divorced women who didn't earn much or didn't work at all, they usually have onerous alimony payments that really drain their accounts, even if they are high earners.

Women who never had their own children will have a very difficult time truly understanding the parent-child bond, and that situation is ripe for lots of negative feelings. If he's a decent dad, he'll make sure that when he dies, his kids inherit at least half of his estate instead of it all going to his surviving wife. Most second wives would not be okay with that.

You are greedy. Kids aren't entitled to weddings, vacations, or college. My parents never paid for my wedding or trips (though I'd never go with them as we went once and it was miserable but we paid our own way). Kids also aren't entitled to an inheritance. My parents have given me nothing as an adult. My dad's estate when to my sister as she took over as executor (we were both) and she and my mom (divorced stole it all from me despite the will).

I am entitled to 100% of everything my spouse and I have. 1/2 should not go to his kids. They got supported as children and we as a couple will leave them what is appropiate based off our relationship with them. But, they will not inherit until we are both dead. My husband was married previously 10 years. We will be married 40+ years hopefully (25 already). His ex-wife got child support, alimony and 1/2 his mlitary pension which started when they were both 38. He's done his share for them. And, should we die sooner, our minor children will be taken care of through grad school before anything is distributed. None of our money was earned prior to us being married and I was the one who had some savings, not him. I paid for the wedding and much more early on (he's made it up to me and increased his salary). He was giving everything to his ex, who then came after me after we were married for more child support as she thought she was entitled to it from me as well (obviously the judge didn't agree).

If you want your kids to inherit as well as yourself, you should have stayed married.

You can think what you want, but as a mother, I do think my kid is entitled to money from both parents into adulthood. If my spouse and I divorced, I would 100% expect him to be leaving at least half of what he has to our kid upon death, even if he remarried. And truthfully, I think he would want that too because he loves our child as much as I do and we both want to make life easier for her.

You see it one way because they aren't your kids, because it's not your ex. But once you have kids, you really do have an obligation to them for life. Forever. Your husbands kids will be the legacy he leaves behind when he dies, not you. You'll die too and then what? Leaving money to his children and grandchildren will carry on his DNA, probably his name, and his memory into future generations. You cannot offer that.

You have to kind of hate your kids not to leave them your money when you die. And if I were your husband, I certain wouldn't trust you to be a good shepherd of that money for them until you die, either. He'd be smart to leave them all he can.

It sounds like that PP lady is a primary breadwinner and husband brought nothing to second marriage. I would oppose the children from first marriage inheriting a part of marital estate from the new family in this scenario

But in 90% cases it's a younger wife and older wealthier husband at his peak earning capacity, who already earned majority of his assets prior to marriage. I included the requirement of a prenup for all future marriages and that our child would inherit at least 50% of my exH estate in our MSA. Many people create trusts for kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is my friend at 37. Spent most of her 20s with a jerk and then worked on herself. Now at her age, the amount of single and childless kids who are good catches is small. She also likes kids but doesn't particularly want to have a baby in her late 30s so is fine if he has kids. Her soon to be husband is divorced with a 5 and 8 year old. There really is no drama. They all attend kids events without issues. My friend was also mature enough that she was fine with the whole "kids come first" part of the relationship.

If everyone is emotionally stable, combined with a new wife that is willing to put the kids first AND doesn't want kids of her own, can work.

That's the thing - if someone doesn't want kids, they definitely don't want stepkids. At least if you have your own kids, they might love you back and appreciate the sacrifices you make for them. More often than not, you can't win with stepkids - there's literally no upside.

I don’t think this is universally the case. One of my friends missed the window, didn’t want kids with her previous partners for various reasons, but is absolutely overjoyed with being a stepmother to her bonus children. My SIL is also similar - my bother had my niece but but by the time they met and got settled neither was super attracted to going through the baby phase and the like. She is an absolutely incredible “bonus mother” and you’d never realize if you saw her with me niece that’s she’s not actually her mother. ExSIL often makes things difficult, but she rolls with it and she, my brother and niece are a completely stable and healthy family during their time together.

It doesn’t all have to be drama when there’s grownups in the room.

I'm the PP and agree - it's why I said, "more often than not". I certainly don't want my daughter to date a divorced man with kids, but I recognize it works out occasionally, with Kamala Harris being the most notable example that comes to mind.

Kamala Harris was 49 years old when she married Doug Emhoff. When Harris and Emhoff married, Emhoff's children from his previous marriage were about 20 and 15. At their marriage, Harris was established as California's Attorney General, which likely meant she had both financial independence and significant professional responsibilities that left her little time for Emhoff. And being 49 when she married, Harris was beyond typical childbearing years, which probably eliminated potential tension around having biological children together. Also, Doug’s ex Kerstin maintained a friendly relationship with both Doug and Kamala - Kerstin has even spoken warmly about Harris as a stepmother on several occasions, suggesting she isn't someone who would create unnecessary drama in their relationship. So, the kind of exception that would warrant a single woman marrying a divorced dad with kids should include factors like (1) the woman is beyond her childbearing years, (2) the stepkids are in college or close to college age, (3) the woman has her own career or hobbies that keep her busy, (4) the ex-wife is reasonable and welcoming of the new wife, and (5) the husband is successful and not relying on his new wife’s resources to meet his financial or other obligations to his children.

Didn’t he bang the nanny when he was married to his first wife? She was probably glad to be rid of him.

Yes, I'm not sure why anyone would marry someone with that kind of character. Goes to show the dating pool is really shallow once you are in your 40s, despite being attractive with a good career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was headed toward divorce at age 37, I never in a million years thought women would want to date a man with two kids and two mortgages.

I had no idea how easy it would end up being to meet younger attractive accomplished women as a man who is successful and in shape.

Do the women you date understand your financial obligations to your 2 kids and 2 mortgages? I dated someone for a while until he shared details of his salary and his alimony, child support, and college funding obligations toward his kids. It didn't take long to figure out that even though he was successful and in shape, he was living paycheck to paycheck for the foreseeable future, and was not husband material.

So, like a true see you next Tuesday, you ended things?

Yes. I wanted marriage and biological kids. Breaking up with him freed me up to eventually have those things.

Well, at least you own being such a shallow twat.

This is exactly why. Women are judged as being shallow if they don’t want to date a man with kids and golddiggers if they care about a man’s finances.

Starting as a teenager, if I didn’t like a guy, I’d always hear “but he’s soooo nice! Poor guy! Give him a chance!” When reality is girls should be taught to be more pragmatic when it comes to choosing a partner, and understand fully what they are getting into if a man has kids/is underemployed/comes from a bad family/etc.

And I say this as someone who was a single mom. When I dated men without kids, I made it clear to them what life with me looked like. If a guy loved traveling, I let him know that I will never be traveling with him and if that was important in a partner, he needed to move on (I was blown away by how many men didn’t understand I couldn’t just leave for a weekend with kids, they’d say “can’t you just hire a sitter?”)

I was taught to be pragmatic when choosing a partner. Dating a man with prior kids was so absurd that it never came up. My parents talked to me about dating someone who comes from an intact family, shares our family's values, and has the same work ethic and ambitions that I have. This board is a good reminder that I want to talk to my own kids about how to pick a marriage partner someday when the time is right.

My DD is 16 and I think this is something I should start taking about more with her than I have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is my friend at 37. Spent most of her 20s with a jerk and then worked on herself. Now at her age, the amount of single and childless kids who are good catches is small. She also likes kids but doesn't particularly want to have a baby in her late 30s so is fine if he has kids. Her soon to be husband is divorced with a 5 and 8 year old. There really is no drama. They all attend kids events without issues. My friend was also mature enough that she was fine with the whole "kids come first" part of the relationship.

If everyone is emotionally stable, combined with a new wife that is willing to put the kids first AND doesn't want kids of her own, can work.

That's the thing - if someone doesn't want kids, they definitely don't want stepkids. At least if you have your own kids, they might love you back and appreciate the sacrifices you make for them. More often than not, you can't win with stepkids - there's literally no upside.

I don’t think this is universally the case. One of my friends missed the window, didn’t want kids with her previous partners for various reasons, but is absolutely overjoyed with being a stepmother to her bonus children. My SIL is also similar - my bother had my niece but but by the time they met and got settled neither was super attracted to going through the baby phase and the like. She is an absolutely incredible “bonus mother” and you’d never realize if you saw her with me niece that’s she’s not actually her mother. ExSIL often makes things difficult, but she rolls with it and she, my brother and niece are a completely stable and healthy family during their time together.

It doesn’t all have to be drama when there’s grownups in the room.

I'm the PP and agree - it's why I said, "more often than not". I certainly don't want my daughter to date a divorced man with kids, but I recognize it works out occasionally, with Kamala Harris being the most notable example that comes to mind.

Kamala Harris was 49 years old when she married Doug Emhoff. When Harris and Emhoff married, Emhoff's children from his previous marriage were about 20 and 15. At their marriage, Harris was established as California's Attorney General, which likely meant she had both financial independence and significant professional responsibilities that left her little time for Emhoff. And being 49 when she married, Harris was beyond typical childbearing years, which probably eliminated potential tension around having biological children together. Also, Doug’s ex Kerstin maintained a friendly relationship with both Doug and Kamala - Kerstin has even spoken warmly about Harris as a stepmother on several occasions, suggesting she isn't someone who would create unnecessary drama in their relationship. So, the kind of exception that would warrant a single woman marrying a divorced dad with kids should include factors like (1) the woman is beyond her childbearing years, (2) the stepkids are in college or close to college age, (3) the woman has her own career or hobbies that keep her busy, (4) the ex-wife is reasonable and welcoming of the new wife, and (5) the husband is successful and not relying on his new wife’s resources to meet his financial or other obligations to his children.

Didn’t he bang the nanny when he was married to his first wife? She was probably glad to be rid of him.

Yes, I'm not sure why anyone would marry someone with that kind of character. Goes to show the dating pool is really shallow once you are in your 40s, despite being attractive with a good career.

I don't know -- Doug Emhoff still seems like a catch to me even with the cheating. I think the bigger issues is that once someone has lived for 40+ years instead of 20+ years, the odds of there being something about them that has a "yuck" factor goes way up. Just because they've been alive for longer and had way more chances of making mistakes. What percent of married men in their late 40s are totally red flag-free? Including plenty of guys who really had no red flags when they married in their 20s or early 30s? My husband is great but he comes with a lot more baggage now, at 47, than he did when I met him at 29. No cheating, thankfully, but other stuff that I am sure would give a potential partner pause if he were single now. Very, very few people make it to their late 40s without at least one error in judgment or major issue in their past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was headed toward divorce at age 37, I never in a million years thought women would want to date a man with two kids and two mortgages.

I had no idea how easy it would end up being to meet younger attractive accomplished women as a man who is successful and in shape.

Do the women you date understand your financial obligations to your 2 kids and 2 mortgages? I dated someone for a while until he shared details of his salary and his alimony, child support, and college funding obligations toward his kids. It didn't take long to figure out that even though he was successful and in shape, he was living paycheck to paycheck for the foreseeable future, and was not husband material.

So, like a true see you next Tuesday, you ended things?

Yes. I wanted marriage and biological kids. Breaking up with him freed me up to eventually have those things.

Well, at least you own being such a shallow twat.

This is exactly why. Women are judged as being shallow if they don’t want to date a man with kids and golddiggers if they care about a man’s finances.

Starting as a teenager, if I didn’t like a guy, I’d always hear “but he’s soooo nice! Poor guy! Give him a chance!” When reality is girls should be taught to be more pragmatic when it comes to choosing a partner, and understand fully what they are getting into if a man has kids/is underemployed/comes from a bad family/etc.

And I say this as someone who was a single mom. When I dated men without kids, I made it clear to them what life with me looked like. If a guy loved traveling, I let him know that I will never be traveling with him and if that was important in a partner, he needed to move on (I was blown away by how many men didn’t understand I couldn’t just leave for a weekend with kids, they’d say “can’t you just hire a sitter?”)

I was taught to be pragmatic when choosing a partner. Dating a man with prior kids was so absurd that it never came up. My parents talked to me about dating someone who comes from an intact family, shares our family's values, and has the same work ethic and ambitions that I have. This board is a good reminder that I want to talk to my own kids about how to pick a marriage partner someday when the time is right.

My DD is 16 and I think this is something I should start taking about more with her than I have.

My kid is much younger but it's good advice. I think if you have a good marriage and a good relationships between all members of the family, it's easier because your kids will naturally see how choosing someone with shared values and without major issues (like kids from a former marriage) can work well. I think it's harder when you have to tell your kids "do as I say, not as I did."

But even if you made good choices and your kid is now reaping the benefits, it's probably very worth it to let them know how that happened. I didn't just stumble into a strong, stable marriage with solid finances. Some of it is luck (I could easily see a parallel life where I simply never got married because there were so few men who met my standards, even among the UMC, well-educated circles I did my dating in) but you need to know what you're looking for so you can seize the chance when it comes along. I met my DH at a time when I really was not sure it was worth it to get married, because so many of the men I was meeting were just not marriage material. So when I met him, I knew pretty fast (like within a few dates). We didn't get married for another two years because I don't believe in rash decisions, but at every step of the way he proved he was worthy and ready. That's what it takes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real key to it working, besides the new woman not wanting to have kids of her own, is that the man is wealthy, like Emhoff. You can share your husband's time with his kids, but when you're not able to afford the house, car, travel, retirement that you want because he needs to fund their college and weddings and cover the cost for those kids to join you on vacation to Europe, there will be problems. For men who divorced women who didn't earn much or didn't work at all, they usually have onerous alimony payments that really drain their accounts, even if they are high earners.

Women who never had their own children will have a very difficult time truly understanding the parent-child bond, and that situation is ripe for lots of negative feelings. If he's a decent dad, he'll make sure that when he dies, his kids inherit at least half of his estate instead of it all going to his surviving wife. Most second wives would not be okay with that.

You are greedy. Kids aren't entitled to weddings, vacations, or college. My parents never paid for my wedding or trips (though I'd never go with them as we went once and it was miserable but we paid our own way). Kids also aren't entitled to an inheritance. My parents have given me nothing as an adult. My dad's estate when to my sister as she took over as executor (we were both) and she and my mom (divorced stole it all from me despite the will).

I am entitled to 100% of everything my spouse and I have. 1/2 should not go to his kids. They got supported as children and we as a couple will leave them what is appropiate based off our relationship with them. But, they will not inherit until we are both dead. My husband was married previously 10 years. We will be married 40+ years hopefully (25 already). His ex-wife got child support, alimony and 1/2 his mlitary pension which started when they were both 38. He's done his share for them. And, should we die sooner, our minor children will be taken care of through grad school before anything is distributed. None of our money was earned prior to us being married and I was the one who had some savings, not him. I paid for the wedding and much more early on (he's made it up to me and increased his salary). He was giving everything to his ex, who then came after me after we were married for more child support as she thought she was entitled to it from me as well (obviously the judge didn't agree).

If you want your kids to inherit as well as yourself, you should have stayed married.

You can think what you want, but as a mother, I do think my kid is entitled to money from both parents into adulthood. If my spouse and I divorced, I would 100% expect him to be leaving at least half of what he has to our kid upon death, even if he remarried. And truthfully, I think he would want that too because he loves our child as much as I do and we both want to make life easier for her.

You see it one way because they aren't your kids, because it's not your ex. But once you have kids, you really do have an obligation to them for life. Forever. Your husbands kids will be the legacy he leaves behind when he dies, not you. You'll die too and then what? Leaving money to his children and grandchildren will carry on his DNA, probably his name, and his memory into future generations. You cannot offer that.

You have to kind of hate your kids not to leave them your money when you die. And if I were your husband, I certain wouldn't trust you to be a good shepherd of that money for them until you die, either. He'd be smart to leave them all he can.

It sounds like that PP lady is a primary breadwinner and husband brought nothing to second marriage. I would oppose the children from first marriage inheriting a part of marital estate from the new family in this scenario

But in 90% cases it's a younger wife and older wealthier husband at his peak earning capacity, who already earned majority of his assets prior to marriage. I included the requirement of a prenup for all future marriages and that our child would inherit at least 50% of my exH estate in our MSA. Many people create trusts for kids

It's not that simple. I know someone who is a younger wife who married a man at his peak earning capacity, who had older children. They then had children together. The husband, though wealthy and at peak earnings, had so many obligations to his older kids, from child support for a few years, to college and young adult expenses, plus he had to contribute to the new household. Due to his many obligations, he hasn't added much to "his" estate over the last decade.
Their home is owned as joint tenants with rights of survivorship, so it automatically passes to the survivor (new wife) outside of the estate. She contributed the down payment and mortgage, which isn't out of line. The younger wife maxes out 529 plans, her 401k, and a separate brokerage account with her earnings, so none of that goes through his estate if he dies first. Younger wife is acting on legal advice. Husband agreed because she needs to be able to take care of herself and their young, dependent kids if he gets hit by a bus. It doesn't matter much if a certain percentage of his estate goes to his first children, because they've allowed her to focus on building up hers during the marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real key to it working, besides the new woman not wanting to have kids of her own, is that the man is wealthy, like Emhoff. You can share your husband's time with his kids, but when you're not able to afford the house, car, travel, retirement that you want because he needs to fund their college and weddings and cover the cost for those kids to join you on vacation to Europe, there will be problems. For men who divorced women who didn't earn much or didn't work at all, they usually have onerous alimony payments that really drain their accounts, even if they are high earners.

Women who never had their own children will have a very difficult time truly understanding the parent-child bond, and that situation is ripe for lots of negative feelings. If he's a decent dad, he'll make sure that when he dies, his kids inherit at least half of his estate instead of it all going to his surviving wife. Most second wives would not be okay with that.

You are greedy. Kids aren't entitled to weddings, vacations, or college. My parents never paid for my wedding or trips (though I'd never go with them as we went once and it was miserable but we paid our own way). Kids also aren't entitled to an inheritance. My parents have given me nothing as an adult. My dad's estate when to my sister as she took over as executor (we were both) and she and my mom (divorced stole it all from me despite the will).

I am entitled to 100% of everything my spouse and I have. 1/2 should not go to his kids. They got supported as children and we as a couple will leave them what is appropiate based off our relationship with them. But, they will not inherit until we are both dead. My husband was married previously 10 years. We will be married 40+ years hopefully (25 already). His ex-wife got child support, alimony and 1/2 his mlitary pension which started when they were both 38. He's done his share for them. And, should we die sooner, our minor children will be taken care of through grad school before anything is distributed. None of our money was earned prior to us being married and I was the one who had some savings, not him. I paid for the wedding and much more early on (he's made it up to me and increased his salary). He was giving everything to his ex, who then came after me after we were married for more child support as she thought she was entitled to it from me as well (obviously the judge didn't agree).

If you want your kids to inherit as well as yourself, you should have stayed married.

You can think what you want, but as a mother, I do think my kid is entitled to money from both parents into adulthood. If my spouse and I divorced, I would 100% expect him to be leaving at least half of what he has to our kid upon death, even if he remarried. And truthfully, I think he would want that too because he loves our child as much as I do and we both want to make life easier for her.

You see it one way because they aren't your kids, because it's not your ex. But once you have kids, you really do have an obligation to them for life. Forever. Your husbands kids will be the legacy he leaves behind when he dies, not you. You'll die too and then what? Leaving money to his children and grandchildren will carry on his DNA, probably his name, and his memory into future generations. You cannot offer that.

You have to kind of hate your kids not to leave them your money when you die. And if I were your husband, I certain wouldn't trust you to be a good shepherd of that money for them until you die, either. He'd be smart to leave them all he can.

+1. I am divorced. Our kids get 100% of what we have when either of us die.