Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The second wife who is posting in this thread sounds very pleased with herself. Will you support him cutting off his kids by you if they act out as teenagers or will that be different because they are your kids?

People like you forget that the young shall grow. I was the child of the first marriage left to fend for myself for college while my father and the whore he married next lived in a mansion with basketball courts and maids. Well fast forward 15 years later, my father lost a fortune in the the recession just as his kids from the second marriage were about to hit college. I am close to a millionaire now and am happily married with kids of my own. And I am looking on in amusement as my father has sold his mansion and cars and is pinching pennies with the second wife. Her kids aren't going to have college paid for either and their retirement is going to be tough. Karma is a bitch.

You are looking on in amusement as kids (you half siblings?) suffer from financial difficulties? If karma is indeed a bitch, you should be very afraid.

I get it. I love my half siblings but my full sib and I lived in the full out ghetto while my dad started a new life in the 'burbs.

I suggest therapy for your bitterness.

I suggest you close your legs to married men, whore, instead of lashing out on DCUM when people comment on situations that remind you of yours. You had better hope DH's money lasts because the kids from the first marriage are growing into their own as the man you poached gets older and less able to maintain his lifestyle.

Anonymous wrote:Adult child of Dad's first marriage. He later had two more kids with my stepmom.

Mine was an interesting case in that my mother was a financial mess and mentally ill. Dad totally played the game and came to the table with regards to child support, alimony, and helping my mom when she didn't have enough funds. For years. But, my two younger half-siblings grew up with a level of material resources, stability, and home security that my sibling and I never had. Dad/stepmom never fought for custody, even when it was clear my mother's mental illness/alcoholism was a dangerous environment for us. My stepmother resented my mother and us, and still lets us know that from time to time. I think her resentment of us is one reason my dad never stepped up and went for custody.

Stepmoms, your spouse's kids did not ask to be in the position that they are in. Be kind.

Anonymous wrote:That's one reason I vowed never to have more kids than I could afford on my own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Whenever there are more mouths to feed everyone has to give. If the first family had another child or 2, older children would have to get less. Sadly money really doesn't grow on trees.


Nope, I don't have to give and I won't unless the court forces me. His choice to have more babies should have no bearing on my finances. I am not taking less money because he has more kids with some new woman. The court order doesn't say he can do that either.

This. If a man can't afford to have more children without taking care of his existing children, who he has a legal obligation to provide for, then he has no business having more kids. Period.

Right. But there's no way to stop him and once those other kids are in the picture, his income gets split as it will. The court can't make him create more money though it can take as much away form him as is legally possible.

What do you mean his income gets split as it will? He has a legal obligation to the first set of kids. If he creates a second set, they'll have to live on what is left after the first set is paid for, as the court decided.

Except that'snot how it actually works, sadly. If so, men would stop fathering so many kids they can't afford.

The same goes for mothers - and some men can afford it. I think its interesting that all the blame is placed on the men. Some women break up the marriage and hold the kids hostage.

Applies to all custodial/non custodial parents. Custodials shouldn't have to suffer because of what NCs choose.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Whenever there are more mouths to feed everyone has to give. If the first family had another child or 2, older children would have to get less. Sadly money really doesn't grow on trees.


Nope, I don't have to give and I won't unless the court forces me. His choice to have more babies should have no bearing on my finances. I am not taking less money because he has more kids with some new woman. The court order doesn't say he can do that either.

This. If a man can't afford to have more children without taking care of his existing children, who he has a legal obligation to provide for, then he has no business having more kids. Period.

Right. But there's no way to stop him and once those other kids are in the picture, his income gets split as it will. The court can't make him create more money though it can take as much away form him as is legally possible.

What do you mean his income gets split as it will? He has a legal obligation to the first set of kids. If he creates a second set, they'll have to live on what is left after the first set is paid for, as the court decided.

Except that'snot how it actually works, sadly. If so, men would stop fathering so many kids they can't afford.

The same goes for mothers - and some men can afford it. I think its interesting that all the blame is placed on the men. Some women break up the marriage and hold the kids hostage.

Anonymous wrote:The second wife who is posting in this thread sounds very pleased with herself. Will you support him cutting off his kids by you if they act out as teenagers or will that be different because they are your kids?

People like you forget that the young shall grow. I was the child of the first marriage left to fend for myself for college while my father and the whore he married next lived in a mansion with basketball courts and maids. Well fast forward 15 years later, my father lost a fortune in the the recession just as his kids from the second marriage were about to hit college. I am close to a millionaire now and am happily married with kids of my own. And I am looking on in amusement as my father has sold his mansion and cars and is pinching pennies with the second wife. Her kids aren't going to have college paid for either and their retirement is going to be tough. Karma is a bitch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Whenever there are more mouths to feed everyone has to give. If the first family had another child or 2, older children would have to get less. Sadly money really doesn't grow on trees.


Nope, I don't have to give and I won't unless the court forces me. His choice to have more babies should have no bearing on my finances. I am not taking less money because he has more kids with some new woman. The court order doesn't say he can do that either.

This. If a man can't afford to have more children without taking care of his existing children, who he has a legal obligation to provide for, then he has no business having more kids. Period.

Right. But there's no way to stop him and once those other kids are in the picture, his income gets split as it will. The court can't make him create more money though it can take as much away form him as is legally possible.

What do you mean his income gets split as it will? He has a legal obligation to the first set of kids. If he creates a second set, they'll have to live on what is left after the first set is paid for, as the court decided.

Except that'snot how it actually works, sadly. If so, men would stop fathering so many kids they can't afford.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Whenever there are more mouths to feed everyone has to give. If the first family had another child or 2, older children would have to get less. Sadly money really doesn't grow on trees.


Nope, I don't have to give and I won't unless the court forces me. His choice to have more babies should have no bearing on my finances. I am not taking less money because he has more kids with some new woman. The court order doesn't say he can do that either.

This. If a man can't afford to have more children without taking care of his existing children, who he has a legal obligation to provide for, then he has no business having more kids. Period.

Right. But there's no way to stop him and once those other kids are in the picture, his income gets split as it will. The court can't make him create more money though it can take as much away form him as is legally possible.

What do you mean his income gets split as it will? He has a legal obligation to the first set of kids. If he creates a second set, they'll have to live on what is left after the first set is paid for, as the court decided.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Whenever there are more mouths to feed everyone has to give. If the first family had another child or 2, older children would have to get less. Sadly money really doesn't grow on trees.


Nope, I don't have to give and I won't unless the court forces me. His choice to have more babies should have no bearing on my finances. I am not taking less money because he has more kids with some new woman. The court order doesn't say he can do that either.

This. If a man can't afford to have more children without taking care of his existing children, who he has a legal obligation to provide for, then he has no business having more kids. Period.

Right. But there's no way to stop him and once those other kids are in the picture, his income gets split as it will. The court can't make him create more money though it can take as much away form him as is legally possible.

What do you mean his income gets split as it will? He has a legal obligation to the first set of kids. If he creates a second set, they'll have to live on what is left after the first set is paid for, as the court decided.