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

[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 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.

As long as you and your ex never remarry, perhaps. Spouses are entitled to an elective share of 33-50% of their deceased spouse’s estate.

[Anonymous]

My own mother was the absolute worst example for her children.

Half siblings picked and married men w kids and baggage - like her. They all relate so well w all the drama their choices.

I knew immediately I didn’t want a life as such. Ick

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

As long as you and your ex never remarry, perhaps. Spouses are entitled to an elective share of 33-50% of their deceased spouse’s estate.

The PP upthread was saying that adult kids aren't entitled to anything, that it should all go to the second spouse. That's not correct.

If you marry someone who already has kids, you need to be prepared for their estate to be divided among their kids AND you and any subsequent kids, if they die. Even if their kids are grown. The expectation that someone is just going to disinherit their children because they remarried is psychotic. Why would you *want* to marry someone who would do that to their own children???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

As long as you and your ex never remarry, perhaps. Spouses are entitled to an elective share of 33-50% of their deceased spouse’s estate.

The PP upthread was saying that adult kids aren't entitled to anything, that it should all go to the second spouse. That's not correct.

If you marry someone who already has kids, you need to be prepared for their estate to be divided among their kids AND you and any subsequent kids, if they die. Even if their kids are grown. The expectation that someone is just going to disinherit their children because they remarried is psychotic. Why would you *want* to marry someone who would do that to their own children???

For $$$

[Anonymous]

Oh gosh, I really see my best friend in all of this. She has always liked older men, and at 36 she married a man 10 years older with 2 children. He's spread insanely thin, the kids are a handful, and she complains about all the attention they suck up from him, while planning to do IVF for a third child that he by his own admission doesn't really want and is only doing for her. I see her morphing into the evil stepmother, and I just worry that she's adding far more stress to the family in the plan to have a child, even though I understand why she wants one of her own. It's such a mess and could all have been avoided by not getting involved with a man with kids! She started dating him at 33, which is certainly still young enough to find a never married, childless man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh gosh, I really see my best friend in all of this. She has always liked older men, and at 36 she married a man 10 years older with 2 children. He's spread insanely thin, the kids are a handful, and she complains about all the attention they suck up from him, while planning to do IVF for a third child that he by his own admission doesn't really want and is only doing for her. I see her morphing into the evil stepmother, and I just worry that she's adding far more stress to the family in the plan to have a child, even though I understand why she wants one of her own. It's such a mess and could all have been avoided by not getting involved with a man with kids! She started dating him at 33, which is certainly still young enough to find a never married, childless man.

Sigh. All too common. They both deluded themselves because they wanted the marriage. But there's just not enough Dad to go around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

As long as you and your ex never remarry, perhaps. Spouses are entitled to an elective share of 33-50% of their deceased spouse’s estate.

The PP upthread was saying that adult kids aren't entitled to anything, that it should all go to the second spouse. That's not correct.

If you marry someone who already has kids, you need to be prepared for their estate to be divided among their kids AND you and any subsequent kids, if they die. Even if their kids are grown. The expectation that someone is just going to disinherit their children because they remarried is psychotic. Why would you *want* to marry someone who would do that to their own children???

You disinherit because of the relationship or other reasons.

I had savings coming into the marriage, my husband did not. Everything earned in our marriage is both of ours. We have been married a long time. If he gets ill, I will care for him, not his kids. They wouldn’t even know or care. All my money goes to him, all his money goes to me. It doesn’t go to any kids till we pass. That’s called marriage. We then took the estate to 50-50 and I give who I want to, he gives who he wants to, which ended up being the same.

We disinherited his ex wife. She’s gets a ton of money for the rest of her life given they divorced before 30 and she got allimony, child support and half his pension despite being married 10 out of the 20 years. Enough is enough. She’d be the one to sue the estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh gosh, I really see my best friend in all of this. She has always liked older men, and at 36 she married a man 10 years older with 2 children. He's spread insanely thin, the kids are a handful, and she complains about all the attention they suck up from him, while planning to do IVF for a third child that he by his own admission doesn't really want and is only doing for her. I see her morphing into the evil stepmother, and I just worry that she's adding far more stress to the family in the plan to have a child, even though I understand why she wants one of her own. It's such a mess and could all have been avoided by not getting involved with a man with kids! She started dating him at 33, which is certainly still young enough to find a never married, childless man.

You are terrible to assume the worst of her. They are not her kids and her responsibility. Why should she have her own kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh gosh, I really see my best friend in all of this. She has always liked older men, and at 36 she married a man 10 years older with 2 children. He's spread insanely thin, the kids are a handful, and she complains about all the attention they suck up from him, while planning to do IVF for a third child that he by his own admission doesn't really want and is only doing for her. I see her morphing into the evil stepmother, and I just worry that she's adding far more stress to the family in the plan to have a child, even though I understand why she wants one of her own. It's such a mess and could all have been avoided by not getting involved with a man with kids! She started dating him at 33, which is certainly still young enough to find a never married, childless man.

You are terrible to assume the worst of her. They are not her kids and her responsibility. Why should she have her own kids?

I am not assuming anything. She uses me as a sounding board and everything I know has come directly from her own mouth. As I said, I understand why she wants her own child, but it will undoubtedly add another stressor to an already difficult situation.

[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.

There are just as many charming single men. It's not like you're blessed with special charm for being divorced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So, most of these single women missed their windows to get married and start families themselves and now find themselves in their 30s and all the men are either:

-- Losers living in their parents' basement;
-- Players and disease-ridden commitment phobes;
-- Married

The DESIRABLE men available to them are either:

-- Younger and would absolutely take a roll in the hay with a cougar, but they're not gonna put a ring on it;
-- Divorced, many with kids.

These are not typical hot young women in their 20s who find themselves in these situations -- yes, they have plenty of options. But by the time you're in your 30s and female and you know your eggs are drying up by the second, you discover the script is flipped. There really aren't any "good men" in your age group left, because they were already snatched up by other women a decade or so before. That leaves either chasing after aging players or men with baggage. And usually, they're the ones with options now.

I'm surprised you needed this explained to you.

I don't know why you would say that. In urban areas, many educated solvent men only begin to consider marriage by their 30s. Certainly when I was dating in DC in my early 30s, there were plenty of never-married men in my age bracket.

[Anonymous]

"
Anonymous wrote:


The PP upthread was saying that adult kids aren't entitled to anything, that it should all go to the second spouse. That's not correct.

If you marry someone who already has kids, you need to be prepared for their estate to be divided among their kids AND you and any subsequent kids, if they die. Even if their kids are grown. The expectation that someone is just going to disinherit their children because they remarried is psychotic. Why would you *want* to marry someone who would do that to their own children???


You disinherit because of the relationship or other reasons.

I had savings coming into the marriage, my husband did not. Everything earned in our marriage is both of ours. We have been married a long time. If he gets ill, I will care for him, not his kids. They wouldn’t even know or care. All my money goes to him, all his money goes to me. It doesn’t go to any kids till we pass. That’s called marriage. We then took the estate to 50-50 and I give who I want to, he gives who he wants to, which ended up being the same.

We disinherited his ex wife. She’s gets a ton of money for the rest of her life given they divorced before 30 and she got allimony, child support and half his pension despite being married 10 out of the 20 years. Enough is enough. She’d be the one to sue the estate."

You don't get it. First of all, an ex-wife doesn't have to be disinherited because she isn't entitled to anything. I've never heard of anyone giving money to an ex-wife and the thought of that makes me laugh. Unless you structure your estate plan appropriately, your approach allows whichever one of you survives to do whatever they want with the money. You will be free to cut off his children from a prior marriage if he dies first, and he could choose to give it all to a stripper he meets after you die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"
Anonymous wrote:


The PP upthread was saying that adult kids aren't entitled to anything, that it should all go to the second spouse. That's not correct.

If you marry someone who already has kids, you need to be prepared for their estate to be divided among their kids AND you and any subsequent kids, if they die. Even if their kids are grown. The expectation that someone is just going to disinherit their children because they remarried is psychotic. Why would you *want* to marry someone who would do that to their own children???


You disinherit because of the relationship or other reasons.

I had savings coming into the marriage, my husband did not. Everything earned in our marriage is both of ours. We have been married a long time. If he gets ill, I will care for him, not his kids. They wouldn’t even know or care. All my money goes to him, all his money goes to me. It doesn’t go to any kids till we pass. That’s called marriage. We then took the estate to 50-50 and I give who I want to, he gives who he wants to, which ended up being the same.

We disinherited his ex wife. She’s gets a ton of money for the rest of her life given they divorced before 30 and she got allimony, child support and half his pension despite being married 10 out of the 20 years. Enough is enough. She’d be the one to sue the estate."

You don't get it. First of all, an ex-wife doesn't have to be disinherited because she isn't entitled to anything. I've never heard of anyone giving money to an ex-wife and the thought of that makes me laugh. Unless you structure your estate plan appropriately, your approach allows whichever one of you survives to do whatever they want with the money. You will be free to cut off his children from a prior marriage if he dies first, and he could choose to give it all to a stripper he meets after you die.

The best thing to do in a second marriage for anyone with money and an income is to keep it separate. I favor owning a home as joint tenants with rights of survivorship so no one gets kicked out of their home at the death of their spouse. Besides that, you should have separate retirement accounts and keep an individual brokerage account in your name. Accounts in the living spouse's name are not part of the deceased spouse's estate, so they entirely avoid probate. I have a system like this because DH has several financially dependent family members (parents, siblings), and if he dies first, I expect they'll find someone willing to contest his will and get whatever they can. The likelihood of this happening in a second family with any means is very high.