Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The stepmoms' idea was not unreasonable. She handled suggesting it poorly. Should have left suggesting it to the dad.

She did suggest it to the dad. He said no.

Yeah so I could see there being more to the story here. Maybe there is only enough money left for the kids to get thru hs and everyone is so blinded by grief that they're unwilling to consider that maybe a better use of the money is to move to a better school district and spend the balance on college. Or maybe one of the kids really wants to be a doctor or something with a lot of post college education. Or maybe the house they live in now has become a money pit and they don't have the funds to fix big ticket items.

I could also see the stepmom just being a giant bitch.

Anonymous wrote:@10:56 The idea that a stepmom should have an "equal say" in how an inheritance is spent - equal to the actual inheritors and their father - is preposterous and untenable.

It is not relegating her to "second fiddle" to tell her to back off with regard to how her stepchildren's inheritances are spent.

I think parents are responsible for providing for the basic needs of their children. I think it is totally your responsible to leave your children a luxury item and expect someone else to foot the bill of raising your children. It is not like a great uncle Joe left the children money to be used for college. Great uncle Joe is not responsible for dedicating his resources to this daughters basic needs. So, this stepmother is responsible for raising her stepdaughter, putting in the time effort and a lot of money, because the mother decided to leave her daughter a luxury item. If the mother were still alive and decided that the only thing she would pay for was private school, would anyone think that was reasonable? Also, it's really not clear that the insurance was directed to the daughter as a beneficiary. It seems the dad is now telling me stepmom that that is how the mama wanted the funds to be spent. At that time, the now deceased mom had no idea that her husband would choose to remarry, that a stepmother would be dedicating resources toward her daughter, or that her husband and his new wife might have additional needs of their own, in part because they are paying to raise her daughter. Again, I have no problem with people keeping their inheritances. I just think it is selfish and irresponsible to provide your child with money dedicated to a luxury when you have not already fully funded and assess cities, and leave someone else responsible for that.

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.

Actually, step mom was aware of these kids and chose to join an existing family. If the kids of the existing family are a burden to her (or in this case you) then she (you) need to consider divorce, especislly for bringig any kids of your own into your marriage.

^^^

Stepmother chose to join a family with existing children and established lifestyle.choices, that were already provided for via inheritance by original mom and an agreement between dad and mom.

If stepmother had married this man and no first wife or originsal children ever existed, the inheritance from dead wife would not exist either. Step mom needs to budget her lifestyle as if this money never existed and plan for potential future children based off what she is able to earn going forward.

Step mother is already benefiting from dead wife's earnings as she is likely living in a house paid for by dead wife's work, picked out by dead wife, furnished by dead wife... Step mom has receieved all the benefits from dead wife that she needs.

The household money SHOULD indeed support original children. They were there first and are not a surprise foisted on step mom. Nor is their private school.

@10:56 The idea that a stepmom should have an "equal say" in how an inheritance is spent - equal to the actual inheritors and their father - is preposterous and untenable.

It is not relegating her to "second fiddle" to tell her to back off with regard to how her stepchildren's inheritances are spent.

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.

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 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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The stepmoms' idea was not unreasonable. She handled suggesting it poorly. Should have left suggesting it to the dad.

Hi stepmonster!

Mom's money belongs to her children. It does not belong to stepmonster so she can increase her lifestyle and comfort. It dies not belong to stepmonster's future hypothetical children, or her current children. It belongs to mom's children only.

If stepmonster wants a bigger house in a nicer neighborhood, she needs to get a higher paying job.

You miss the point. Mom's money still belongs to her children if it is invested in a house instead of spent on a private school. Indeed, in that way the children get to keep their money rather than throwing it away.

Pretty sure SM isn't intending to put her step kids on the title of her new, larger home and give them a percent of the equity that grows in the house over time and interest on the "loan". That is what you would have to do if you intended on keeping the inheritance as the kids' money but invest it in the house instead.

OTOH, if the insurance policy named the kids as beneficiaries, then the insurance money has to be put into accounts in the kids names. If one then withdraws from a child's account to use that money for the down payment on a house in an adult's name, then one has stolen. An 18 y.o. presented with a bank account with less than the ammoumt of the insurance policy and withdrawals made by adults for goods not in her name could reasonably hire an attorney (who could likely be found on commission) to successfully sue and get the money back, forcing the family to refinance or sell possibly in order to pay the judgement.

Dad likely understands legalities SM does not.

The mom acted correctly in protecting her children after her death.

The only people at fault are #1 stepmom and to a lesser degree, dad.

Op doesn't say the money was designated for her daughter, but that apparently this is what the first wife wanted to happen with the proceeds. Is DH just telling OP this now? Did OPhVe any reason to think this money was for stepdaughters schooling? I'm guessing the dad is actually the beneficiary on the policy and he is now saying what his first wife wanted.

I actually have mixed feelings about this. Yes, stepparents are aware pulling into marriage that they will be responsible for helping and raising children. That said, being a stepparent is a lot of work. With very little thanks often. Any parent reading mess with that knowledge that children can be a pain in the ass, and racing them can be really, really hard. And if they are your own. Stepparents have kids living in their home over home they do not have equal parental rights, nor do they experience the same love and affection generally. Still, most stepparent spend a lot of time and energy on their stepchildren. Driving places, hosting events, monitoring homework, and simply living their lives with children under there. This is work, plain and simple.

I actually think it would be selfish for me to try to acquire that my husband or any future spouse of his use money in a particular way after I die. This is especially true if there is the possibility of additional children joining my husbands family after my death. Heck, if my sister were to gain custody of our children if both my husband and I die, we have already provided in our estate planning for her children to receive payments that would allow them to have the same standard of living that ours have enjoyed through at these undergraduate years. And I have provided to pay my sister a stipend for every year that she has either of our children living with her. Because I understand that, even someone agrees to do it, raising kids is time and work.

In my view, everyone behaved badly. The bio mom should not have restricted funds. The dad should have told his wife earlier about his. Jew of the use of the funds, and second wife should not have raised it s kids directly.

Basically, I think everyone behaved pretty badly. The biological mother should not have restricted her husband's use of funds after her death, not knowing what his upcoming family obligations and family structure it would be. The husband, if he wasn't clear earlier,

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The stepmoms' idea was not unreasonable. She handled suggesting it poorly. Should have left suggesting it to the dad.

I think it was unreasonable. The life insurance policy was meant to benefit the deceased woman's children. Not the future children of her ex-husband. If the stepmother and husband have children and need a larger house, they need to budget for that themselves.

Not the way to endear yourself to your step kids. Fastest route to alienation.

There are ways to ensure that everyone's interests are met. All they have to do is structure the title of the property correctly.

Anonymous wrote:These girls are teens. Stepmonster can wait 4 years for them to finish at their HS before she moves into her Barbie Dream House and has her own babies.

The dad needs to set aside that money for college, wedding and/or a future nest egg for the girls.

If mom designated her life insurance policy for her daughters then all of it needs to go to them. Every last dime.

Stepmonster is not entitled to any of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The stepmoms' idea was not unreasonable. She handled suggesting it poorly. Should have left suggesting it to the dad.

Hi stepmonster!

Mom's money belongs to her children. It does not belong to stepmonster so she can increase her lifestyle and comfort. It dies not belong to stepmonster's future hypothetical children, or her current children. It belongs to mom's children only.

If stepmonster wants a bigger house in a nicer neighborhood, she needs to get a higher paying job.

You miss the point. Mom's money still belongs to her children if it is invested in a house instead of spent on a private school. Indeed, in that way the children get to keep their money rather than throwing it away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The stepmoms' idea was not unreasonable. She handled suggesting it poorly. Should have left suggesting it to the dad.

Hi stepmonster!

Mom's money belongs to her children. It does not belong to stepmonster so she can increase her lifestyle and comfort. It dies not belong to stepmonster's future hypothetical children, or her current children. It belongs to mom's children only.

If stepmonster wants a bigger house in a nicer neighborhood, she needs to get a higher paying job.

For all we know she has a good job but its going to the current family expenses. If she doesn't have kids yet, either she is probably working or a full-time parent/caregiver to his family. Its not unreasonable to want more space if they are going to add kids to the family.

Of course it's not unreasonable to want it. I myself want a bigger place.

It is, however, unreasonable to steal to get it.