Anonymous wrote:It sounds controlling- especially since your DH isn't actually paying for college. I think kids in divorce remarriage situations can get shafted. New spouses may limit what goes to kids who are not their biological children--esp. when both parents remarry. I think a) you should go back to work if you want your son to have spending money and b) you should let your DH know that want to limit money for your DDs when they go to college because it's not fair to treat your DS differently.
If something happens to my DH I won't remarry because I know this kind of thing can occur. I have a close friend with step children and she makes *no* distinction between her step children and biological children. They receive the same attention, love, care, and resources as her bio children and while she respects their bio mom, she refers to them as her children. If something happened to her DH she would care for his kids the rest of her life. Her DH is the same way- he refers/thinks about her two children as his kids. I know this was a carefully thought out discussion and plan of action before they got married.
Anonymous wrote:I am aware this doesn’t contribute to the discussion, but you can’t play sports and work 20 hours a week. It’s prohibited by the NCAA. You can only work off season and over the summer, and even then the amount you can make is capped.
Anonymous wrote:I worked all the way through college and grad school, starting the day I stepped on campus at 18 in 1990. My parents still sent me some extra money every month, and they didn't have a lot of it. I don't know why people are acting like this is some strange idea OP has.
Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is that in a blended family you can never know for sure that SD really believes the young man should stand on his own two feet vs. begrudging him $1800/yr.. There's a lot going on and OP never came back ...
Anonymous wrote:This exact scenario is exactly why I will always work.
Anonymous wrote:OP, I have had a similar situation in my own marriage. All the kids are ours, no prior marriages.
However, in our case, I was raised UMC and my husband was raised working class by recent immigrants to the US. Things that I took for granted that we would do for college aged children included:
1. paying fraternity dues and sorority dues
2. taking kids shopping for new clothing prior to going to college, new comforter set, towels, etc.
3. getting each one a computer
4. paying for junior year abroad
5. giving them a small monthly allowance
My husband claims (and I don't know whether or not he is exaggerating) that he was not given anything new to take to college, that his treat was that once a semester he would go to Subway and split a sub sandwich with a friend, that he never left campus, that his parents never visited him at college, etc. etc. etc.
Unfortunately, he has some psychological baggage attached to his upbringing. Even though we can afford to take good care of our children, he's like "i turned out fine and I had nothing. therefore, our children don't need anything either."
Over the years, we have fought (and yes, we have had therapy) about whether the following things are necessary: music lessons; summer camp; going away to college vs. living at home; whether we should force children to major in only math and engineering (despite the fact that they have no innate ability in either subject); buying children clothing for college, camp, school etc.; allowances; swim team; swimming lessons; whether they need computers, phones, etc.
It's exhausting! He also expects them all to have paying jobs with benefits lined up that will begin the day after they graduate from college. Still not sure how that's going to play out.
I completely understand OP's outlook, if she feels like she's the only thing that stands between her child and homelessness, etc. I sometimes feel that way too.
Anonymous wrote:
"Regardless of other things" is what this all turns on. Sure, in a perfect marriage/perfect world, a DH that withhold $200 is a controlling jerk. But what if DH has been asking OP to go back to work for 5 years, and OP has refused?
Anonymous wrote:New poster here. Regardless of other things, it is wrong when one spouse prohibits the other to spend $100-200 here and there. Unless of course money is super tight.
On a different note- your poor son.