This stepmonster gem from Carolyn Hax

[Anonymous]

Letters like this are the reason I hesitate to have my ex as the executor and trustee of my estate. (even though it would be easiest, since our daughter gets the bulk of my estate.) It would piss me off if some woman married him, got to raise my kid and took the money I worked for my whole life and spent it on her own kids. F that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Letters like this are the reason I hesitate to have my ex as the executor and trustee of my estate. (even though it would be easiest, since our daughter gets the bulk of my estate.) It would piss me off if some woman married him, got to raise my kid and took the money I worked for my whole life and spent it on her own kids. F that.

Have some trusted relative serve as the trustee. Unfortunately, men lose any backbone and the path of least resistance to disappoint/let down their children is chosen over standing up to the new wife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Letters like this are the reason I hesitate to have my ex as the executor and trustee of my estate. (even though it would be easiest, since our daughter gets the bulk of my estate.) It would piss me off if some woman married him, got to raise my kid and took the money I worked for my whole life and spent it on her own kids. F that.

Have some trusted relative serve as the trustee. Unfortunately, men lose any backbone and the path of least resistance to disappoint/let down their children is chosen over standing up to the new wife.

This. My best friend is my executor with one of my brother's as backup. I saw the handwriting on the wall with my ex early on. (My kids have already inherited real estate and small bequests from other family and my ex tries to reduce his CS accordingly.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those girls are never coming home to visit with step monster there.

What an awful thing - girls probably didn't even have time to grieve for their mother before monster moved in.

Dad - you suck.

+1

Don't know why the Dad is getting a pass here. If he wanted to remarry, he needed to find someone who would embrace joining the existing family and shared the existing values, eg the value of a private education. Falling in love is simply not enough in this type of situation. Why did he remarry someone who clearly does not share his interest in his daughters?

A colleague of mine married someone with a child for whom he had partial custody and she would complain constantly about his time away from her for doing things like being a boy scout leader and going to weekend camp outs with his son instead of spending the time with her.

I blame him for marrying someone who was so uninterested in his son and who had so much antipathy towards him. Not that she was a gem of a stepmom.

The Dad's first wife died 4 years ago. That's plenty of time for everyone to grieve and for him subsequently to meet a new wife.

Dad has told the Stepmonster no. As long as he sticks to that, then he does not suck.

It is unreasonable to expect a stepparent to have the same "interest" in stepchildren as the biological parent. It is not necessary for the stepparent to do so as long as the biological parent defends the children's interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those girls are never coming home to visit with step monster there.

What an awful thing - girls probably didn't even have time to grieve for their mother before monster moved in.

Dad - you suck.

+1

Don't know why the Dad is getting a pass here. If he wanted to remarry, he needed to find someone who would embrace joining the existing family and shared the existing values, eg the value of a private education. Falling in love is simply not enough in this type of situation. Why did he remarry someone who clearly does not share his interest in his daughters?

A colleague of mine married someone with a child for whom he had partial custody and she would complain constantly about his time away from her for doing things like being a boy scout leader and going to weekend camp outs with his son instead of spending the time with her.

I blame him for marrying someone who was so uninterested in his son and who had so much antipathy towards him. Not that she was a gem of a stepmom.

He picked the wrong woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those girls are never coming home to visit with step monster there.

What an awful thing - girls probably didn't even have time to grieve for their mother before monster moved in.

Dad - you suck.

+1

Don't know why the Dad is getting a pass here. If he wanted to remarry, he needed to find someone who would embrace joining the existing family and shared the existing values, eg the value of a private education. Falling in love is simply not enough in this type of situation. Why did he remarry someone who clearly does not share his interest in his daughters?

A colleague of mine married someone with a child for whom he had partial custody and she would complain constantly about his time away from her for doing things like being a boy scout leader and going to weekend camp outs with his son instead of spending the time with her.

I blame him for marrying someone who was so uninterested in his son and who had so much antipathy towards him. Not that she was a gem of a stepmom.

The Dad's first wife died 4 years ago. That's plenty of time for everyone to grieve and for him subsequently to meet a new wife.

Dad has told the Stepmonster no. As long as he sticks to that, then he does not suck.

It is unreasonable to expect a stepparent to have the same "interest" in stepchildren as the biological parent. It is not necessary for the stepparent to do so as long as the biological parent defends the children's interests.

No, dad sucks. He clearly picked a woman that shouldn't be near his girls - those issues are surely just the tip of the iceberg

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Letters like this are the reason I hesitate to have my ex as the executor and trustee of my estate. (even though it would be easiest, since our daughter gets the bulk of my estate.) It would piss me off if some woman married him, got to raise my kid and took the money I worked for my whole life and spent it on her own kids. F that.

Have some trusted relative serve as the trustee. Unfortunately, men lose any backbone and the path of least resistance to disappoint/let down their children is chosen over standing up to the new wife.

This. My best friend is my executor with one of my brother's as backup. I saw the handwriting on the wall with my ex early on. (My kids have already inherited real estate and small bequests from other family and my ex tries to reduce his CS accordingly.)

Yeah - they can try that but it's illegal.

Nice to set up trusts. We are doing that and none of us plan on even dying soon (but we have a special one so it's doubly necessary for him but all are getting one).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Letters like this are the reason I hesitate to have my ex as the executor and trustee of my estate. (even though it would be easiest, since our daughter gets the bulk of my estate.) It would piss me off if some woman married him, got to raise my kid and took the money I worked for my whole life and spent it on her own kids. F that.

Have some trusted relative serve as the trustee. Unfortunately, men lose any backbone and the path of least resistance to disappoint/let down their children is chosen over standing up to the new wife.

This. My best friend is my executor with one of my brother's as backup. I saw the handwriting on the wall with my ex early on. (My kids have already inherited real estate and small bequests from other family and my ex tries to reduce his CS accordingly.)

Yeah - they can try that but it's illegal.

Nice to set up trusts. We are doing that and none of us plan on even dying soon (but we have a special one so it's doubly necessary for him but all are getting one).

A good lawyer will write down everything in your meeting with him/her. Much of that will be contained in legal documents but all of your intentions and wishes will be in his notes. He specifically asked us both questions as he wanted to know the answers just in case different scenarios come up ever in the future

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those girls are never coming home to visit with step monster there.

What an awful thing - girls probably didn't even have time to grieve for their mother before monster moved in.

Dad - you suck.

+1

Don't know why the Dad is getting a pass here. If he wanted to remarry, he needed to find someone who would embrace joining the existing family and shared the existing values, eg the value of a private education. Falling in love is simply not enough in this type of situation. Why did he remarry someone who clearly does not share his interest in his daughters?

A colleague of mine married someone with a child for whom he had partial custody and she would complain constantly about his time away from her for doing things like being a boy scout leader and going to weekend camp outs with his son instead of spending the time with her.

I blame him for marrying someone who was so uninterested in his son and who had so much antipathy towards him. Not that she was a gem of a stepmom.

The Dad's first wife died 4 years ago. That's plenty of time for everyone to grieve and for him subsequently to meet a new wife.

Dad has told the Stepmonster no. As long as he sticks to that, then he does not suck.

It is unreasonable to expect a stepparent to have the same "interest" in stepchildren as the biological parent. It is not necessary for the stepparent to do so as long as the biological parent defends the children's interests.

There is a difference between a) the step-parent not being as invested in the children as the bio parent and b) the stepparent actively trying to undo the legacy a deceased parent left for the good of the kids. This woman wants to alter/decrease the benefit of the dead mom's money fot her DD and divert it to benefit her own future offspring. Talk about entitlement!

[Anonymous]

I think that part of the problem is that I can imagine circumstances when it would absolutely make sense to pull a kid out of a fancy private school. For example, if one of the kids developed severe medical issues and the decision was to have Dad stay home for a few years and use the insurance payout to replace income. Or if a child who was doing well in a rigorous private in early years began to flounder as the difficulty level increased. Or the father experiences sustained unemployment, and decides it's better to keep the girls in their family home than in their school. Or one girl has her heart set on studying abroad for her senior year and wants to disenroll and use her tuition for that.

So, part of the challenge is to write the will so that the surviving has enough flexibility to reallocate the money in "right" ways, while protecting the kids from situations like stepmonster. Hopefully an expert can help sort that out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that part of the problem is that I can imagine circumstances when it would absolutely make sense to pull a kid out of a fancy private school. For example, if one of the kids developed severe medical issues and the decision was to have Dad stay home for a few years and use the insurance payout to replace income. Or if a child who was doing well in a rigorous private in early years began to flounder as the difficulty level increased. Or the father experiences sustained unemployment, and decides it's better to keep the girls in their family home than in their school. Or one girl has her heart set on studying abroad for her senior year and wants to disenroll and use her tuition for that.

So, part of the challenge is to write the will so that the surviving has enough flexibility to reallocate the money in "right" ways, while protecting the kids from situations like stepmonster. Hopefully an expert can help sort that out.

This is why you have a trust and designate a non-conflicted party (i.e. not biodad) as a trustee to make these decisions. A will cannot account for many changes in circumstances. But a trustee can be authorized to pay out for categories of things as the trustee sees fit - educational expenses, living expenses, health expenses, etc. - without mandating so. Then trustee can pay living expenses short term if Dad loses a job, but can refuse to do do just because Dad wants a fancy mansion.

[Anonymous]

I would be deeply offended if my spouse did not name me as the trustee and executor of the trust/estate. Basically that says "you suck and I don't trust you to do the best for our children after I die". Why are you even married to a person for whom that is true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bio mom gets to decide exactly how her money will be spent after she dies, on what is essentially a luxury item. It necessary for raising her daughter. Meanwhile, the dad and stepmom are still required to actually raise the child, to pay for food, provide her a nice living space, drive her places, and do all that parents do every day. I find it really indulgent and self centered for a parent to provide a luxury good to their child, and to leave it to other (any stepparent a included) to actually do the heavy lifting of parenting and to pay for it. Also, I'm really doubting the daughter is the actual beneficiary on the insurance policy. I'd guess the father is, and that he is now informing his wife that the funds are restricted due to what his first wife would have wanted. Guess the first wife would not have wanted a roof over her daughter's head or food on the table, just the luxury of private school. Think if it this way, the step mom's contributions in time and money in raising and providing for her stepdaughter may well be far in excess to the money she and the dad would need to upgrade homes to a good school district. but let's just be sure that girl gets to continue in private school, because that's really the only important thing.

Okay stepmom.

We understand that you think marrying into an established family means you think your wants and comforts override any agreements or plans that the father and originsl mother had for their children, that the original wife's money is now yours (and eventually your own children's) right to have and spend as you see fit, and that your want of a luxurious house trumps the NEED of the original kids for stability following their mom's death and planned for and agreed upon by both their parents.

But your arguments only show that you have a greed problem and an ethics deficiency.

In a case like this (life insurance/inheritance from dead mom) it is crystal clear that you have zero claims to this money, not even a dime. To insist otherwise is just selfish.

There is no gray area when it comes to this situation.

So when the father married his second wife, she became a Mira pended there to assist him and support him with his and his deceased wife's plans. The stepmother is clearly only joining someone else's family, and is not an Intercal part of the family in her own right. Is that it? I wonder if the father told the stepmom this before she agreed to marry him? That she should feel lucky to be there, but it is an absolute privilege, yes, a privilege, to have the joy of all joys of living in a home where you are a second-class citizen but expected to raise another person's child. But of course to love her as though she were your own, though it is made clear to you at every turn that you have no rights, particularly if you disagree with a dead woman's wishes. I'm not in anyway saying that the stepmom has a priority over her partner husband and how finances are spent. What I am saying is that it is understandable for one of the two adults in a marriage to feel she should have an equal say when she has been asked to take on the burden, yes it's a burden, of raising someone else's child. So many posters here act as though it is a gift to stepparents to have children around. Well, it's not. It's hard. Just like parenting your own children. And if the father expected that his new wife would always play second fiddle to a dead woman, he better have told her that from the start. Because, really, who would sign up for that shit.

The thing is, it is true that a step parent is joining an existing family. That is what you sign up for when you date/marry a person with children. Which doesn't mean the step parent should never get a say, but at the same time, some things are going to need to be the way they were for the kids when their old family unit was intact. At the end of the day, the step parent always has a choice - you don't have to marry a man (or woman) with kids. The kids have no choice who their parents marry. For that reason alone, their needs require some deference from the step parent.[/quote

Then shouldn't by your logic the children have the right to demand that their father not remarry? Because, you know, there needs need to come first? Why does the dad get to marry, prioritize himself over his children in terms of his needs, and then expect the person he marries to be treated like a second-class citizen? Having one parent die has lots of consequences. Things that were easily affordable beforehand sometimes become less so. The surviving spouse moves on to the extent possible, sometimes move geographically for better jobs or to be near family, sometimes remarries, and sometimes has additional children. That is the way of life. There is no reason to think that the stepmom in this scenario isn't working as hard as the dad, isn't contributing the same amount to their joint family financially and isn't providing as much care and support to the daughter as the father is. Of course it is very unfortunate that a woman died young. Very. If as a result of her children are in such a fragile state, several years later, that they cannot switch schools, though, perhaps the father should have waited to remarry and join his life with someone else's?

Ok sure. I agree with you. Clearly dad should not have married this woman and is also to blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be deeply offended if my spouse did not name me as the trustee and executor of the trust/estate. Basically that says "you suck and I don't trust you to do the best for our children after I die". Why are you even married to a person for whom that is true?

No, it says, I recognize you will have different pressures and interests on you after I die. I am setting this up so you can be sheltered from that and someone else can help with this duty while you focus on your and the kids' daily life."

If I were the Dad in the Hax column, I'd be grateful to be able to say that I had no control over the money and that others determined what it could be used for. Stepmom basically would have to stop nagging the dad about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be deeply offended if my spouse did not name me as the trustee and executor of the trust/estate. Basically that says "you suck and I don't trust you to do the best for our children after I die". Why are you even married to a person for whom that is true?

No compulsion to tell your spouse that you have a trust and who the trustee is.

It's kind of like a pre nup. Yes, some people would not marry because the idea of a pre nup is offensive. Some people have the maturity to recognize that circumstances and people change.