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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What? I gladly pay taxes so that the government deploys all kinds of program to help children who need help.

As for what's left, I will invest it in children I've birthed. Other people can do the same with their own. I wouldn't have married a man with children, nor would I marry again if my DH dropped off.

I don't even vote, for chrissakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What? I gladly pay taxes so that the government deploys all kinds of program to help children who need help.

As for what's left, I will invest it in children I've birthed. Other people can do the same with their own. I wouldn't have married a man with children, nor would I marry again if my DH dropped off.

I don't even vote, for chrissakes.

Speaks volumes of the type of person you are and this has nothing to do with the topic. And, please don't adopt. There is absolutely no reason that Dad cannot give money to his child. You are greedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

If it is only her house and not shared, then its reasonable he pay a set fee and that's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm guessing she agreed to that amount when he had a mandatory child support obligation with perhaps a view that he would contribute more when that ended. Agreed though that part of the issue is that she enabled him by not requiring him to contribute more when CS ended.

[Anonymous]

I could not marry someone who chooses to not vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm guessing she agreed to that amount when he had a mandatory child support obligation with perhaps a view that he would contribute more when that ended. Agreed though that part of the issue is that she enabled him by not requiring him to contribute more when CS ended.

He probably continued to pay the same amount as when he paid child support. The trust probably had nothing to do with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

If it is only her house and not shared, then its reasonable he pay a set fee and that's it.

750 is super low rent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm guessing she agreed to that amount when he had a mandatory child support obligation with perhaps a view that he would contribute more when that ended. Agreed though that part of the issue is that she enabled him by not requiring him to contribute more when CS ended.

He probably continued to pay the same amount as when he paid child support. The trust probably had nothing to do with him.

Right, I mean I'm guessing that PP prob thought he would direct some or all of that money towards joint expenses. Of course, they should have had an agreement in that regard to avoid misunderstandings which it sounds like is what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm guessing she agreed to that amount when he had a mandatory child support obligation with perhaps a view that he would contribute more when that ended. Agreed though that part of the issue is that she enabled him by not requiring him to contribute more when CS ended.

He probably continued to pay the same amount as when he paid child support. The trust probably had nothing to do with him.

Right, I mean I'm guessing that PP prob thought he would direct some or all of that money towards joint expenses. Of course, they should have had an agreement in that regard to avoid misunderstandings which it sounds like is what happened.

It sounds like her expenses, not joint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

which creates some truly heart breaking situations. It is cold hearted to be rigid about it.

Imagine a kid living in a home worth $1m+ in the suburbs but his dad is poor and has developed mental problems that are going to make it hard for him to keep a job. Mom works and struggled to manage for the family. Mom and dad divorce when kid is a toddler. Mom marries guy who is also divorced and has a son and is well off. Mom and new guy have a child. Step dad is rigid that he is not going to pay for someone else's child. He is a nut about his money not going to her son. Kids are in middle school and everyone sees step dad's bio son has everything he wants. Mom's son lives like a pauper in this ridiculous house. The step sons are close in age and are forced to spend lots of time together. Dad's son has money to do everything while mom's son gets to sit and watch. Mom's son gets to sit and watch his entire life. When mom and step dad have a child, that kid gets new clothes, toys etc. Mom's son does not. Mom's son lives with this his whole life. How is this ok? I've seen this situation twice with my kid's friends.

[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.

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.

Wow. So sorry pp. Adults can do horrible things.

[Anonymous]

I hate my stepdaughters guts. I have known her since she was 4 and she is now 20 and I hate every thing about her. It never gets easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DH raised his stepson after the divorce. The child was 1 when they met and not quite 5 when they divorced. And his mom cheated so DH had a good excuse to walk away. Instead he was a very engaged father socially and financially. He even paid for SS’s college. It is easy to forget that they are not biologically related. SS has no relationship with his biodad who was a prick as well as a deadbeat apparently.

Wait, what? DH got custody of a step-child he knew for 4 years? Wtf?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

which creates some truly heart breaking situations. It is cold hearted to be rigid about it.

Imagine a kid living in a home worth $1m+ in the suburbs but his dad is poor and has developed mental problems that are going to make it hard for him to keep a job. Mom works and struggled to manage for the family. Mom and dad divorce when kid is a toddler. Mom marries guy who is also divorced and has a son and is well off. Mom and new guy have a child. Step dad is rigid that he is not going to pay for someone else's child. He is a nut about his money not going to her son. Kids are in middle school and everyone sees step dad's bio son has everything he wants. Mom's son lives like a pauper in this ridiculous house. The step sons are close in age and are forced to spend lots of time together. Dad's son has money to do everything while mom's son gets to sit and watch. Mom's son gets to sit and watch his entire life. When mom and step dad have a child, that kid gets new clothes, toys etc. Mom's son does not. Mom's son lives with this his whole life. How is this ok? I've seen this situation twice with my kid's friends.

Stepson should count himself lucky that he gets to live in stepdad’s house and that his mom married well. What is the problem? Do you know how awkward it is to be given or bought things you know you had no claim to? Instead of being so entitled, stepson should re-examine his attitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I could not marry someone who chooses to not vote.

I'm married already and do not plan to remarry ever!