Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is why I'm on Team DH. Parents invest in their children with some expectation of filial love and an ongoing relationship. It doesn’t always turn out that way…but that is the expectation. That expectation doesn’t exist for stepparents, so I don’t understand why people seem to think this stepdad should be financially responsible for his wife's son from her first marriage. $100, $10...it doesn't matter. It's the principle. The law doesn’t see stepparents as financially responsible…and I hope that more stepparents will start to be smart and set boundaries like OP's DH has. The son has two parents, and OP's husband isn't one of them.

Not true. Blended family kids have to submit both bio- and step-parent tax returns for college financial aid.

Absolutely not true. My husband did not submit his for his kids nor did I (nor would I). I am assuming despite mom getting child support she just claimed Dad didn't exist and got away with it as there is no checking on information.

The law can make a stepparent responsible if a parent is not working/married couple. What if this child were living with Dad and Mom not working? She shouldn't be responsible?

Google it. There are many situations where a stepparent was made financially responsible.

Your son needs to get a part time job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is why I'm on Team DH. Parents invest in their children with some expectation of filial love and an ongoing relationship. It doesn’t always turn out that way…but that is the expectation. That expectation doesn’t exist for stepparents, so I don’t understand why people seem to think this stepdad should be financially responsible for his wife's son from her first marriage. $100, $10...it doesn't matter. It's the principle. The law doesn’t see stepparents as financially responsible…and I hope that more stepparents will start to be smart and set boundaries like OP's DH has. The son has two parents, and OP's husband isn't one of them.

Not true. Blended family kids have to submit both bio- and step-parent tax returns for college financial aid.

Yes, that's an abomination. But only if the kid lives with the stepparent. Even then, there shouldn't be any obligation on the stepparent to pay for college. Or anything else for that matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Well, this thread is illuminating.

You are nothing unless you work. SCREW THE KIDS.

And if you work and spouse doesn't, then you are KING. Spouse can beg for scraps. No matter that she's caring for YOUR TWO KIDS and all the other house stuff. MONEY IS EVERYTHING, AND ONLY THE PERSON MAKING IT COUNTS.

Got it.

Signed, WOHM

Indeed. I love the geniuses telling OP to just go get a job. Yeah, because egomaniacs who get off on being KING are eager to see their wife elevate her household power.

Why do you think think he is acting like an egomaniac? For all you know OP is a lazy ass woman that doesn’t want to work. There are plenty of women in DCUM that profess working is for losers.

Absolutely. That "Do women really not want to work?" thread is a gazillion pages long...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Well, this thread is illuminating.

You are nothing unless you work. SCREW THE KIDS.

And if you work and spouse doesn't, then you are KING. Spouse can beg for scraps. No matter that she's caring for YOUR TWO KIDS and all the other house stuff. MONEY IS EVERYTHING, AND ONLY THE PERSON MAKING IT COUNTS.

Got it.

Signed, WOHM

Indeed. I love the geniuses telling OP to just go get a job. Yeah, because egomaniacs who get off on being KING are eager to see their wife elevate her household power.

Why do you think think he is acting like an egomaniac? For all you know OP is a lazy ass woman that doesn’t want to work. There are plenty of women in DCUM that profess working is for losers.

Some people on here are saying that, because DH is making a big deal out of such a paltry sum ($100), he must be a controlling asshat terrible husband.

On the contrary: My take is that, it's such a small sum, that no sane person would get controlling over that amount unless there was a whole lot of backstory that OP is not telling us. Backstory like other posters have speculated: she wanted to stay home and he resents it, she or DS is a spend thrift, she's already sent a lot more than $100 this semester, etc. It otherwise makes no sense that the DH would freak out over $100 a month, so i'm totally on team DH here unless OP comes back and gives more info to confirm he legitimately is an asshat.

Anonymous wrote:Here is why I'm on Team DH. Parents invest in their children with some expectation of filial love and an ongoing relationship. It doesn’t always turn out that way…but that is the expectation. That expectation doesn’t exist for stepparents, so I don’t understand why people seem to think this stepdad should be financially responsible for his wife's son from her first marriage. $100, $10...it doesn't matter. It's the principle. The law doesn’t see stepparents as financially responsible…and I hope that more stepparents will start to be smart and set boundaries like OP's DH has. The son has two parents, and OP's husband isn't one of them.

Not true. Blended family kids have to submit both bio- and step-parent tax returns for college financial aid.

Anonymous wrote: Well, this thread is illuminating.

You are nothing unless you work. SCREW THE KIDS.

And if you work and spouse doesn't, then you are KING. Spouse can beg for scraps. No matter that she's caring for YOUR TWO KIDS and all the other house stuff. MONEY IS EVERYTHING, AND ONLY THE PERSON MAKING IT COUNTS.

Got it.

Signed, WOHM

Indeed. I love the geniuses telling OP to just go get a job. Yeah, because egomaniacs who get off on being KING are eager to see their wife elevate her household power.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is why I'm on Team DH. Parents invest in their children with some expectation of filial love and an ongoing relationship. It doesn’t always turn out that way…but that is the expectation. That expectation doesn’t exist for stepparents, so I don’t understand why people seem to think this stepdad should be financially responsible for his wife's son from her first marriage. $100, $10...it doesn't matter. It's the principle. The law doesn’t see stepparents as financially responsible…and I hope that more stepparents will start to be smart and set boundaries like OP's DH has. The son has two parents, and OP's husband isn't one of them.

I'm a step parent. Give step dd $500/semester for fun money outside of her meals. Will do the same for younger kids. My parents did the same for me. Don't understand the issue here.

I
Because you aren't an evil, selfish witch who hates people and worships money, like the PP.

People spend more money on their dogs in a month than PP is willing to spend on a step child who is STUDYING in college. It's wicked twisted.

How does the PP hate people? Self-preservation isn't worshipping money. All the money you haemorrhage (whether you mind at the time or not) will never be returned to you if you and your partner break up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is why I'm on Team DH. Parents invest in their children with some expectation of filial love and an ongoing relationship. It doesn’t always turn out that way…but that is the expectation. That expectation doesn’t exist for stepparents, so I don’t understand why people seem to think this stepdad should be financially responsible for his wife's son from her first marriage. $100, $10...it doesn't matter. It's the principle. The law doesn’t see stepparents as financially responsible…and I hope that more stepparents will start to be smart and set boundaries like OP's DH has. The son has two parents, and OP's husband isn't one of them.

Because he is in an agreement with his wife that she not work. So, he needs to cover those expenses. If Dad is paying tuition/room/board, the minimum they can do is pay spending money and phone. Why should mom get off the hook?

Exactly. This is the mom's problem, not her DH's. OP never once said her SAH was a mutual decision. If SAH was her choice, then she needs to own it and not stick it to her poor schmuck of a DH.

Anonymous wrote:Here is why I'm on Team DH. Parents invest in their children with some expectation of filial love and an ongoing relationship. It doesn’t always turn out that way…but that is the expectation. That expectation doesn’t exist for stepparents, so I don’t understand why people seem to think this stepdad should be financially responsible for his wife's son from her first marriage. $100, $10...it doesn't matter. It's the principle. The law doesn’t see stepparents as financially responsible…and I hope that more stepparents will start to be smart and set boundaries like OP's DH has. The son has two parents, and OP's husband isn't one of them.

Because he is in an agreement with his wife that she not work. So, he needs to cover those expenses. If Dad is paying tuition/room/board, the minimum they can do is pay spending money and phone. Why should mom get off the hook?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is why I'm on Team DH. Parents invest in their children with some expectation of filial love and an ongoing relationship. It doesn’t always turn out that way…but that is the expectation. That expectation doesn’t exist for stepparents, so I don’t understand why people seem to think this stepdad should be financially responsible for his wife's son from her first marriage. $100, $10...it doesn't matter. It's the principle. The law doesn’t see stepparents as financially responsible…and I hope that more stepparents will start to be smart and set boundaries like OP's DH has. The son has two parents, and OP's husband isn't one of them.

I'm a step parent. Give step dd $500/semester for fun money outside of her meals. Will do the same for younger kids. My parents did the same for me. Don't understand the issue here.

I
Because you aren't an evil, selfish witch who hates people and worships money, like the PP.

People spend more money on their dogs in a month than PP is willing to spend on a step child who is STUDYING in college. It's wicked twisted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is why I'm on Team DH. Parents invest in their children with some expectation of filial love and an ongoing relationship. It doesn’t always turn out that way…but that is the expectation. That expectation doesn’t exist for stepparents, so I don’t understand why people seem to think this stepdad should be financially responsible for his wife's son from her first marriage. $100, $10...it doesn't matter. It's the principle. The law doesn’t see stepparents as financially responsible…and I hope that more stepparents will start to be smart and set boundaries like OP's DH has. The son has two parents, and OP's husband isn't one of them.

I'm a step parent. Give step dd $500/semester for fun money outside of her meals. Will do the same for younger kids. My parents did the same for me. Don't understand the issue here.

Just because you're so generous, doesn't mean that every other stepparent has to be like you. It's really like money flying away when you could be putting it towards vacation, retirement etc.

Anonymous wrote:Here is why I'm on Team DH. Parents invest in their children with some expectation of filial love and an ongoing relationship. It doesn’t always turn out that way…but that is the expectation. That expectation doesn’t exist for stepparents, so I don’t understand why people seem to think this stepdad should be financially responsible for his wife's son from her first marriage. $100, $10...it doesn't matter. It's the principle. The law doesn’t see stepparents as financially responsible…and I hope that more stepparents will start to be smart and set boundaries like OP's DH has. The son has two parents, and OP's husband isn't one of them.

I'm a step parent. Give step dd $500/semester for fun money outside of her meals. Will do the same for younger kids. My parents did the same for me. Don't understand the issue here.

Here is why I'm on Team DH. Parents invest in their children with some expectation of filial love and an ongoing relationship. It doesn’t always turn out that way…but that is the expectation. That expectation doesn’t exist for stepparents, so I don’t understand why people seem to think this stepdad should be financially responsible for his wife's son from her first marriage. $100, $10...it doesn't matter. It's the principle. The law doesn’t see stepparents as financially responsible…and I hope that more stepparents will start to be smart and set boundaries like OP's DH has. The son has two parents, and OP's husband isn't one of them.