Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ It is NOT being treated like a second class citizen to save the mother's estate for her actualy children that she created the estate for.

Nor is it being treated like a second class citizen for the step mom to not be allowed to spend her husband's children's inheritance on a big fancy house in Chevy Cahse or similarly overpriced neighborhood for herself and her own potential future children.

You probably need to do a values reassessment stepmom if you feel so passionately that this money is your money to spend.

Fancy is relative and it was not stated in the article. To me, 2500 square foot would be big and fancy. And, the house I grew up in in C.C. was not a huge mansion. It was a very small house.

Stepmom has a right to have children as dad probably agreed to it upon marriage, especially if she is raising his kids. They may need a bigger house to have more kids or kids are going to have to share.

Then step mom needs to find a way to earn more money to pay for her bigger house. Nit is not the dead mom or kid's responsiility to indulge her greed and selfishness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ It is NOT being treated like a second class citizen to save the mother's estate for her actualy children that she created the estate for.

Nor is it being treated like a second class citizen for the step mom to not be allowed to spend her husband's children's inheritance on a big fancy house in Chevy Cahse or similarly overpriced neighborhood for herself and her own potential future children.

You probably need to do a values reassessment stepmom if you feel so passionately that this money is your money to spend.

Fancy is relative and it was not stated in the article. To me, 2500 square foot would be big and fancy. And, the house I grew up in in C.C. was not a huge mansion. It was a very small house.

Stepmom has a right to have children as dad probably agreed to it upon marriage, especially if she is raising his kids. They may need a bigger house to have more kids or kids are going to have to share.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't think the mom's estate should be used to pay for her own children's daily expenses? To pay for their food, camps, and the like?

No. Daily expenses should come out of Dad's current income. Stepmom knew when she married him that he had those expenses. She shouldn't have married him if she thinks that money he spends on his children is somehow "hers" and he's taking it away from her.

Their marital income is theirs, not "his." So, to sum it up, marital assets earned by both dad and stepmom should be used for housing, lifestyle, etc. Of husband, stepmom and dad's two kids. Stepmom's income should go toward mortgage got house exactly sized for her two kids with dad, so she should be spending more than she would for housing for two adults. Stepmother should share equally in all the financial expenses of raising his daughters, including lower retirement savings and other savings gif her and her husband due to these expenses. But, if there is a financial benefit, that should be reserved solely for the two daughters' well being? So step mom takes on all financial responsibilities, but the benefits go solely to pre-existing kids? That's way beyond "marrying into an existing family," that's getting screwed!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ It is NOT being treated like a second class citizen to save the mother's estate for her actualy children that she created the estate for.

Nor is it being treated like a second class citizen for the step mom to not be allowed to spend her husband's children's inheritance on a big fancy house in Chevy Cahse or similarly overpriced neighborhood for herself and her own potential future children.

You probably need to do a values reassessment stepmom if you feel so passionately that this money is your money to spend.

You don't think the mom's estate should be used to pay for her own children's daily expenses? To pay for their food, camps, and the like? Oh, all of those many expensive items should be paid for equally out if the dad's marital property with his wife, right? So long as the teenagers get to stay in private school for the entirety of their education. And if a stepmother says she wants a bigger house, it must mean a big, overdone Chevy Chase mansion, not just a bigger house capable of housing additional children in a better school district. It's perfectly normal to think of buying a bigger house and moving to district where public schools are strong as a couple thinks of having additional children. And I'd guess that the stepmom's salary has been joined with her husband's and us being useful pay hit his daughters' lifestyle. I don't at all condone the way the stepmother in the article raised the situation with the kids. That is completely inappropriate. But it is very expensive to raise children, as we all know ourselves, and from reading all of the threads. And it is stressful. Stepparents take on and a Normas burden, and are so often identified as the bad guy. But nobody is asking why the dad felt free to remarry if that would distract attention and money from his daughters if they were so fragile. Nobody is recognizing that the stepmother's work and time have been contributed to the daughter's well-being. All that is seen is a woman attempting to take, take, take. Without any view as to what she has probably given.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't think the mom's estate should be used to pay for her own children's daily expenses? To pay for their food, camps, and the like?

No. Daily expenses should come out of Dad's current income. Stepmom knew when she married him that he had those expenses. She shouldn't have married him if she thinks that money he spends on his children is somehow "hers" and he's taking it away from her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't think the mom's estate should be used to pay for her own children's daily expenses? To pay for their food, camps, and the like?

No. Daily expenses should come out of Dad's current income. Stepmom knew when she married him that he had those expenses. She shouldn't have married him if she thinks that money he spends on his children is somehow "hers" and he's taking it away from her.

Anonymous wrote:
Stepmom has a right to have children as dad probably agreed to it upon marriage, especially if she is raising his kids. They may need a bigger house to have more kids or kids are going to have to share.

Anonymous wrote:
You don't think the mom's estate should be used to pay for her own children's daily expenses? To pay for their food, camps, and the like?

Anonymous wrote:^^^ It is NOT being treated like a second class citizen to save the mother's estate for her actualy children that she created the estate for.

Nor is it being treated like a second class citizen for the step mom to not be allowed to spend her husband's children's inheritance on a big fancy house in Chevy Cahse or similarly overpriced neighborhood for herself and her own potential future children.

You probably need to do a values reassessment stepmom if you feel so passionately that this money is your money to spend.

Anonymous wrote:^^^ It is NOT being treated like a second class citizen to save the mother's estate for her actualy children that she created the estate for.

Nor is it being treated like a second class citizen for the step mom to not be allowed to spend her husband's children's inheritance on a big fancy house in Chevy Cahse or similarly overpriced neighborhood for herself and her own potential future children.

You probably need to do a values reassessment stepmom if you feel so passionately that this money is your money to spend.

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.

Presumably the girls were already in private school so mom and dad were able to afford it plus necessities just fine ....

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?