Anonymous wrote:"You are inferring information that isn't there. OP doesnt say she has no money left over. She says she refuses to pay more than "her share" for expenses. We don't know what her share is, her husband could be covering 90% of household expenses and she just pays for groceries and clothing for the kids and refuses to put another few hundred in to cover the gap."

And you are inferring things yourself. Per OP:

"Spouse is determined to cover step-child expenses in college (car payments, insurance, housing, and part
of tuition expenses), ... and is constantly asking me to pay some of their fair share of bills. ... I am at a point where I am doing everything on my own and covering our bio kids expenses without any financial contribution from my spouse."

That seems pretty clear to me. OP is SOLELY paying for THEIR minor children's expenses because DH is funding his adult daughter's expenses, AND is ADDITIONALLY funding more than the agreed upon (fair) division of household bills.

I don't care where you want to split hairs as far as "fair" percentage but in no way, shape or form should DH be abdicating his responsibility to pay for his minor children's expenses first, in favor of his adult daughter's expenses.

God forbid, what if minor children had serious medical needs and the bills begin mounting. Does that mean that OP should solely pick up the tab for those bills too, since DH feels obligated to provide a car, insurance, etc. to his DD?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't know if this is a man or woman but they are a family of FIVE with limited resources. If these adults are paying for housing, food, entertaimement, health care, car, car payment, insurance, tuition, books, etc. that is a huge chunk of income and at some point they need to put a cap on it. There is no reason this kid has a car and car payment/insurance if they are not working or internship. If they want a nicer lifestyle, they need to work part time and pay for it.

I would tell my child no to that lifestyle and they are not buying a car with a car payment they expect us to pay for. If they need a car for an internship or school, we'll get an older used one or pass down one of ours.

Its OK to say no. Its ok to teach your child to be responsible financially.

It sounds like the priority has been on this one child and its not sustainable. The younger ones are probably getting older and the ones told no to things and they are resentful and speaking up.

Right? Someone upthread commented:

Anonymous wrote:You need to face the fact that you were merely the gravy train for the kid that mattered. He used your pregnancy to entrap you.

The facts are messy, but if he's not paying for any of the shared expenses of himself, his wife, and his two new kids, and all his money is going to his 22-year-old daughter, and, after paying for all such expenses, OP has nothing left over, then this sums it up. Is she saving for retirement? The little kids' 529 plan? Is she saying no to the little kids because all her money is spent on necessities, and their dad isn't helping? If so, she's the gravy train for the kid that mattered. What does she even have to lose financially by divorce if he's providing nothing?

Anonymous wrote:We don't know if this is a man or woman but they are a family of FIVE with limited resources. If these adults are paying for housing, food, entertaimement, health care, car, car payment, insurance, tuition, books, etc. that is a huge chunk of income and at some point they need to put a cap on it. There is no reason this kid has a car and car payment/insurance if they are not working or internship. If they want a nicer lifestyle, they need to work part time and pay for it.

I would tell my child no to that lifestyle and they are not buying a car with a car payment they expect us to pay for. If they need a car for an internship or school, we'll get an older used one or pass down one of ours.

Its OK to say no. Its ok to teach your child to be responsible financially.

It sounds like the priority has been on this one child and its not sustainable. The younger ones are probably getting older and the ones told no to things and they are resentful and speaking up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an aside, why does this child have TWO a more years of college? Change majors 3 times or got a late start?

I question this as well. Is DH is expected to pay for his daughter for 2 more years? We're talking about significant nonessential (car, etc.) support for an ADULT vs. contributing to the basic living expenses of young minor children.

Let's be clear - 22 years old is not a "child" anymore. Plenty of young adults figure out how to fund their education without any help at all from parents, let alone being furnished a car with insurance, etc.

Maybe the daughter can learn from some of her contemporaries. Like, work a full time job to support her own living expenses and go to school part time. (Many companies offer tuition reimbursement.)

+1
We don't know the whole story. She could be working her tail off and have a beater and worked all summer. We don't know and OP isn't coming back. But all of the above sounds very sensible for a young adult who needs to start going it alone, for whatever reason.

Working full time is the dumbest thing a junior or senior can do. The best case scenario is that their current school has night classes and graduation only gets pushed back a year. More likely, it means transferring to a school designed around working adults which means hoping credits transfer and potentially years more school. More likely is working full time, trying to pick up enough shifts (usually across multiple employers because full time means benefits and employers avoid those like the plague) hoping shifts don't conflict with school and getting discouraged and exhausted and slowly dropping out. The graduation percentages for part time students are miserable, but people love to hold it out as an option

Anonymous wrote:We don't know if this is a man or woman but they are a family of FIVE with limited resources. If these adults are paying for housing, food, entertaimement, health care, car, car payment, insurance, tuition, books, etc. that is a huge chunk of income and at some point they need to put a cap on it. There is no reason this kid has a car and car payment/insurance if they are not working or internship. If they want a nicer lifestyle, they need to work part time and pay for it.

I would tell my child no to that lifestyle and they are not buying a car with a car payment they expect us to pay for. If they need a car for an internship or school, we'll get an older used one or pass down one of ours.

Its OK to say no. Its ok to teach your child to be responsible financially.

It sounds like the priority has been on this one child and its not sustainable. The younger ones are probably getting older and the ones told no to things and they are resentful and speaking up.

Anonymous wrote:You need to face the fact that you were merely the gravy train for the kid that mattered. He used your pregnancy to entrap you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Demanding 50/50 split for bio kids or household expenses is crazy when you are married. That's something divorced couples do.

In marriage there is give and take, and that includes providing expenses for college aged daughter, even if she isn't your biological daughter. You've been in her life for at least 8 years. However, you both need a firm line with the amount you are paying for college. Expense money (all of it) should come out of a combined pot, even when one spouse adds more to the pot than the other.

I say this as a wife who at times has contributed more and less than my husband. We are a combined unit.

If you read OP's original post she says, "I am at a point where I am doing everything on my own and covering our bio kids expenses without any financial contribution from my spouse. There are other issues in marriage on top of this one such as baseless infidelity accusations, emotional abuse, and etc." What's even crazier than splitting 50/50 is paying for everything. This couple is on their way to a divorce, and OP ought to be thinking now about herself and her little kids as her step-life sounds like it's coming to an end on its own.

I hope you feel the same way about SAHMs who's husbands pay for everything?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Stepparents are in no way responsible for their stepkids so anything they do is to be decent. Kid has two parents. Kid is living above their means. They don't need a car and car insurance (especially a car with a payment). And, if OP wants to spend money on their kids and themselves they have every right to. This stepkid and spouse sound irresponsible.

Nobody is claiming that the stepmom is legally responsible for stepD. (though try telling that to some colleges.) However, her H is responsible --possibly legally and DEFINITELY morally--to his D. Wife number 2 has NO legal right to determine how much her H pays to support his child vs. their shared children unless she divorces him or legally separates from him in which case a judge will determine how much he has to pay to support her and their kids.

Moreover, when their alleged deal re splitting expenses was entered into, his D was living with him and thus the amount he was willing to pay was probably based in part on how much it cost to feed and house etc. her. Now that she is not living with them, it is entirely reasonable to expect some part of what stepD cost while living with them to be transferred to her expenses living elsewhere and/or for the percentage of their mutual expenses he pays to be reduced. IOW, his share was set with the understanding that he was bringing 2 people into the shared household--himself and his D--while OP was only bringing herself. A readjustment of his share downward may well be warranted.

The support award set by a judge for her and their mutual children could well be less than the amount he has agreed to pay under their allegedly mutually agreed deal--which is highly unlikely to be legally binding. There is a possibility that if they divorced a court would order him to pay less than he is currently paying. We can't tell in part because OP has been very coy as to what that deal is

Whether he is responsible for funding his older D is partly a legal question and partly a moral one.
If he is LEGALLY responsible for paying for his older child X, that obligation supersedes his obligation to his second wife and their children. She knew he had a child when she married him. If he doesn't earn enough to support two families, that's on her for creating a second family with him.If there is a court order or a divorce agreement that says he has to pay certain expenses, he has to pay them. His second wife can't just unilaterally decide his daughter has to work more hours so her dad can pay less to her and more for her and their kids.

Whether or not he is legally obligated to support his 22 year old daughter, he may well be morally obligated. If for example, they discussed how much he would pay towards her support while she was considering colleges and she chose a college based on his promise to pay X amount, then in my opinion, he has a moral obligation to keep his word.

It is NOT a stepmother's right--nor ours--to determine whether or not the 22 year old needs a car or what kind of car she can buy. She may need a car to get to work and/or school. She may have worked hard all summer to pay her share of tuition--by her share I mean what her dad won't pay. It may not have been possible to earn enough to pay for a car AND pay her "share" of tuition.

He is the older girl's father. Her mother is mentally ill and cannot contribute. Wife number 2 is trying to force her H to choose funding her and their mutual children rather than his older daughter. It doesn't sound as if he's being madly generous and spending lavishly on this girl. He's not even paying her full tuition. She does work some during the school year and is covering her lodging and utilities. (For all we know, he cosigned the loan to buy the car in which case he is going to be held legally responsible for paying for it if she can't.)

If OP chooses to divorce H, here's hoping the amount of support she gets is less than he's paying now and that she lives in a state in which her then exH will have no legal obligation to pay anything to the cost of college. Maybe she'll be really lucky and he'll acquire a new girlfriend who will oppose him paying any amount toward the education of their mutual offspring voluntarily.

When you are married all income is shared. It is up to both adults to de use. They cannot afford this and that is the issue. Kid is an adult and needs to get a job or she does not need luxuries like a car.

OP doesn't say they can't afford it, she's just mad about him paying for it, causing her to use more of her salary. All income is shared, and expenses are shared. The my money and his money usually causes problems unless there is little shared debt.

The one-pot system is unusual in blended families, especially those that span multiple generations of kids, as the OP describes. Blended families have all kinds of complications, like child support, alimony, court-ordered shared expenses with an ex-spouse, elective gifts to adult children and then grandchildren, life insurance obligations to the first kids, and estate planning. The complications will never end. The risk of divorce in blended families is significantly higher, and to ignore that is just dumb. The risk of an estate battle if her spouse dies is also considerably higher. Blended families most often have a three-pot system out of necessity. OP needs a separate pot of money for herself and her young children.

Except none of that applies in OPs case, she just prefers to be a bean counter.

She describes her spouse giving money to his 22-year-old daughter without her buy-in. I doubt all financial support ends when the daughter is 24, and that's not the issue. The issue concerns how OP can set up a better financial plan so that her priorities don't get sidelined. The 3-pot system ensures both parties contribute equitably to their shared expenses, but each has money to fund their priorities. I have a friend who had to adopt a version of the 3-pot system because she was sending what her husband felt was an excessive amount of their family income to their parents in another country. It's the same but different. In my marriage, we don't have a 3-pot system per se, but a portion of my paycheck goes directly to my 401k, and my kids' 529 plans, and the remainder goes to a joint checking account to fund my equitable share of our living expenses. Knowing my family's spending habits, if my entire paycheck went directly to a joint checking account first, I couldn't retire until I was 80, and my kids would have to take out loans for college. I am a big fan of a bucket approach to family finances. It doesn't have to be "3 pots" - it could be 5 or 10 pots.

She's been a part of this girls life since she was 14. OP is probably the only stable "mom" figure she has. Her dad was a single dad with sole custody when they met. She knew all of this. She chose to marry in and, I assume, take on part of the responsibility of raising this young woman. It's only after she had her own bio-kids that she shuns her step-daughter and begrudges any financial support given to her. That's not fair.
A 3 (or 4 or 5) pot system doesnt really make the same sense in this situation. They are all one family. One member of the family has more expensive needs right now. It's temporary. Expecting a college kid to work FT just because step-mom doesnt want to contribute a bit extra to temporary expenses is extremely harsh.

I'm not arguing for her to shun her stepdaughter or begrudge any financial support. I'm suggesting that there will be conflicting priorities in all families, but more so in blended families with finite resources. I gave a real-life example of a friend who was sending too much money to her parents in another country, and her husband was understandably upset over it because it was taking away from their kids' college accounts. If you can't always agree on how money is spent and saved in your family, the solution is to contribute to joint expenses equitably, then save, gift, or spend according to your priorities with your share of the difference. Many parents recognize they can't pay for their 22, 23, or 24-year-old to continue college and fund their living expenses, whether blended or not. There isn't always enough money to go around. This probably is not the last time this family is going to have conflicting priorities.

There is a difference between supporting a child in college and supporting your parents. I wonder if DH will insist on cutting off the younger kids when they're seniors

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Stepparents are in no way responsible for their stepkids so anything they do is to be decent. Kid has two parents. Kid is living above their means. They don't need a car and car insurance (especially a car with a payment). And, if OP wants to spend money on their kids and themselves they have every right to. This stepkid and spouse sound irresponsible.

Nobody is claiming that the stepmom is legally responsible for stepD. (though try telling that to some colleges.) However, her H is responsible --possibly legally and DEFINITELY morally--to his D. Wife number 2 has NO legal right to determine how much her H pays to support his child vs. their shared children unless she divorces him or legally separates from him in which case a judge will determine how much he has to pay to support her and their kids.

Moreover, when their alleged deal re splitting expenses was entered into, his D was living with him and thus the amount he was willing to pay was probably based in part on how much it cost to feed and house etc. her. Now that she is not living with them, it is entirely reasonable to expect some part of what stepD cost while living with them to be transferred to her expenses living elsewhere and/or for the percentage of their mutual expenses he pays to be reduced. IOW, his share was set with the understanding that he was bringing 2 people into the shared household--himself and his D--while OP was only bringing herself. A readjustment of his share downward may well be warranted.

The support award set by a judge for her and their mutual children could well be less than the amount he has agreed to pay under their allegedly mutually agreed deal--which is highly unlikely to be legally binding. There is a possibility that if they divorced a court would order him to pay less than he is currently paying. We can't tell in part because OP has been very coy as to what that deal is

Whether he is responsible for funding his older D is partly a legal question and partly a moral one.
If he is LEGALLY responsible for paying for his older child X, that obligation supersedes his obligation to his second wife and their children. She knew he had a child when she married him. If he doesn't earn enough to support two families, that's on her for creating a second family with him.If there is a court order or a divorce agreement that says he has to pay certain expenses, he has to pay them. His second wife can't just unilaterally decide his daughter has to work more hours so her dad can pay less to her and more for her and their kids.

Whether or not he is legally obligated to support his 22 year old daughter, he may well be morally obligated. If for example, they discussed how much he would pay towards her support while she was considering colleges and she chose a college based on his promise to pay X amount, then in my opinion, he has a moral obligation to keep his word.

It is NOT a stepmother's right--nor ours--to determine whether or not the 22 year old needs a car or what kind of car she can buy. She may need a car to get to work and/or school. She may have worked hard all summer to pay her share of tuition--by her share I mean what her dad won't pay. It may not have been possible to earn enough to pay for a car AND pay her "share" of tuition.

He is the older girl's father. Her mother is mentally ill and cannot contribute. Wife number 2 is trying to force her H to choose funding her and their mutual children rather than his older daughter. It doesn't sound as if he's being madly generous and spending lavishly on this girl. He's not even paying her full tuition. She does work some during the school year and is covering her lodging and utilities. (For all we know, he cosigned the loan to buy the car in which case he is going to be held legally responsible for paying for it if she can't.)

If OP chooses to divorce H, here's hoping the amount of support she gets is less than he's paying now and that she lives in a state in which her then exH will have no legal obligation to pay anything to the cost of college. Maybe she'll be really lucky and he'll acquire a new girlfriend who will oppose him paying any amount toward the education of their mutual offspring voluntarily.

When you are married all income is shared. It is up to both adults to de use. They cannot afford this and that is the issue. Kid is an adult and needs to get a job or she does not need luxuries like a car.

OP doesn't say they can't afford it, she's just mad about him paying for it, causing her to use more of her salary. All income is shared, and expenses are shared. The my money and his money usually causes problems unless there is little shared debt.

The one-pot system is unusual in blended families, especially those that span multiple generations of kids, as the OP describes. Blended families have all kinds of complications, like child support, alimony, court-ordered shared expenses with an ex-spouse, elective gifts to adult children and then grandchildren, life insurance obligations to the first kids, and estate planning. The complications will never end. The risk of divorce in blended families is significantly higher, and to ignore that is just dumb. The risk of an estate battle if her spouse dies is also considerably higher. Blended families most often have a three-pot system out of necessity. OP needs a separate pot of money for herself and her young children.

Except none of that applies in OPs case, she just prefers to be a bean counter.

She describes her spouse giving money to his 22-year-old daughter without her buy-in. I doubt all financial support ends when the daughter is 24, and that's not the issue. The issue concerns how OP can set up a better financial plan so that her priorities don't get sidelined. The 3-pot system ensures both parties contribute equitably to their shared expenses, but each has money to fund their priorities. I have a friend who had to adopt a version of the 3-pot system because she was sending what her husband felt was an excessive amount of their family income to their parents in another country. It's the same but different. In my marriage, we don't have a 3-pot system per se, but a portion of my paycheck goes directly to my 401k, and my kids' 529 plans, and the remainder goes to a joint checking account to fund my equitable share of our living expenses. Knowing my family's spending habits, if my entire paycheck went directly to a joint checking account first, I couldn't retire until I was 80, and my kids would have to take out loans for college. I am a big fan of a bucket approach to family finances. It doesn't have to be "3 pots" - it could be 5 or 10 pots.

She's been a part of this girls life since she was 14. OP is probably the only stable "mom" figure she has. Her dad was a single dad with sole custody when they met. She knew all of this. She chose to marry in and, I assume, take on part of the responsibility of raising this young woman. It's only after she had her own bio-kids that she shuns her step-daughter and begrudges any financial support given to her. That's not fair.
A 3 (or 4 or 5) pot system doesnt really make the same sense in this situation. They are all one family. One member of the family has more expensive needs right now. It's temporary. Expecting a college kid to work FT just because step-mom doesnt want to contribute a bit extra to temporary expenses is extremely harsh.

I'm not arguing for her to shun her stepdaughter or begrudge any financial support. I'm suggesting that there will be conflicting priorities in all families, but more so in blended families with finite resources. I gave a real-life example of a friend who was sending too much money to her parents in another country, and her husband was understandably upset over it because it was taking away from their kids' college accounts. If you can't always agree on how money is spent and saved in your family, the solution is to contribute to joint expenses equitably, then save, gift, or spend according to your priorities with your share of the difference. Many parents recognize they can't pay for their 22, 23, or 24-year-old to continue college and fund their living expenses, whether blended or not. There isn't always enough money to go around. This probably is not the last time this family is going to have conflicting priorities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Stepparents are in no way responsible for their stepkids so anything they do is to be decent. Kid has two parents. Kid is living above their means. They don't need a car and car insurance (especially a car with a payment). And, if OP wants to spend money on their kids and themselves they have every right to. This stepkid and spouse sound irresponsible.

Nobody is claiming that the stepmom is legally responsible for stepD. (though try telling that to some colleges.) However, her H is responsible --possibly legally and DEFINITELY morally--to his D. Wife number 2 has NO legal right to determine how much her H pays to support his child vs. their shared children unless she divorces him or legally separates from him in which case a judge will determine how much he has to pay to support her and their kids.

Moreover, when their alleged deal re splitting expenses was entered into, his D was living with him and thus the amount he was willing to pay was probably based in part on how much it cost to feed and house etc. her. Now that she is not living with them, it is entirely reasonable to expect some part of what stepD cost while living with them to be transferred to her expenses living elsewhere and/or for the percentage of their mutual expenses he pays to be reduced. IOW, his share was set with the understanding that he was bringing 2 people into the shared household--himself and his D--while OP was only bringing herself. A readjustment of his share downward may well be warranted.

The support award set by a judge for her and their mutual children could well be less than the amount he has agreed to pay under their allegedly mutually agreed deal--which is highly unlikely to be legally binding. There is a possibility that if they divorced a court would order him to pay less than he is currently paying. We can't tell in part because OP has been very coy as to what that deal is

Whether he is responsible for funding his older D is partly a legal question and partly a moral one.
If he is LEGALLY responsible for paying for his older child X, that obligation supersedes his obligation to his second wife and their children. She knew he had a child when she married him. If he doesn't earn enough to support two families, that's on her for creating a second family with him.If there is a court order or a divorce agreement that says he has to pay certain expenses, he has to pay them. His second wife can't just unilaterally decide his daughter has to work more hours so her dad can pay less to her and more for her and their kids.

Whether or not he is legally obligated to support his 22 year old daughter, he may well be morally obligated. If for example, they discussed how much he would pay towards her support while she was considering colleges and she chose a college based on his promise to pay X amount, then in my opinion, he has a moral obligation to keep his word.

It is NOT a stepmother's right--nor ours--to determine whether or not the 22 year old needs a car or what kind of car she can buy. She may need a car to get to work and/or school. She may have worked hard all summer to pay her share of tuition--by her share I mean what her dad won't pay. It may not have been possible to earn enough to pay for a car AND pay her "share" of tuition.

He is the older girl's father. Her mother is mentally ill and cannot contribute. Wife number 2 is trying to force her H to choose funding her and their mutual children rather than his older daughter. It doesn't sound as if he's being madly generous and spending lavishly on this girl. He's not even paying her full tuition. She does work some during the school year and is covering her lodging and utilities. (For all we know, he cosigned the loan to buy the car in which case he is going to be held legally responsible for paying for it if she can't.)

If OP chooses to divorce H, here's hoping the amount of support she gets is less than he's paying now and that she lives in a state in which her then exH will have no legal obligation to pay anything to the cost of college. Maybe she'll be really lucky and he'll acquire a new girlfriend who will oppose him paying any amount toward the education of their mutual offspring voluntarily.

When you are married all income is shared. It is up to both adults to de use. They cannot afford this and that is the issue. Kid is an adult and needs to get a job or she does not need luxuries like a car.

OP doesn't say they can't afford it, she's just mad about him paying for it, causing her to use more of her salary. All income is shared, and expenses are shared. The my money and his money usually causes problems unless there is little shared debt.

The one-pot system is unusual in blended families, especially those that span multiple generations of kids, as the OP describes. Blended families have all kinds of complications, like child support, alimony, court-ordered shared expenses with an ex-spouse, elective gifts to adult children and then grandchildren, life insurance obligations to the first kids, and estate planning. The complications will never end. The risk of divorce in blended families is significantly higher, and to ignore that is just dumb. The risk of an estate battle if her spouse dies is also considerably higher. Blended families most often have a three-pot system out of necessity. OP needs a separate pot of money for herself and her young children.

Except none of that applies in OPs case, she just prefers to be a bean counter.

She describes her spouse giving money to his 22-year-old daughter without her buy-in. I doubt all financial support ends when the daughter is 24, and that's not the issue. The issue concerns how OP can set up a better financial plan so that her priorities don't get sidelined. The 3-pot system ensures both parties contribute equitably to their shared expenses, but each has money to fund their priorities. I have a friend who had to adopt a version of the 3-pot system because she was sending what her husband felt was an excessive amount of their family income to their parents in another country. It's the same but different. In my marriage, we don't have a 3-pot system per se, but a portion of my paycheck goes directly to my 401k, and my kids' 529 plans, and the remainder goes to a joint checking account to fund my equitable share of our living expenses. Knowing my family's spending habits, if my entire paycheck went directly to a joint checking account first, I couldn't retire until I was 80, and my kids would have to take out loans for college. I am a big fan of a bucket approach to family finances. It doesn't have to be "3 pots" - it could be 5 or 10 pots.

She's been a part of this girls life since she was 14. OP is probably the only stable "mom" figure she has. Her dad was a single dad with sole custody when they met. She knew all of this. She chose to marry in and, I assume, take on part of the responsibility of raising this young woman. It's only after she had her own bio-kids that she shuns her step-daughter and begrudges any financial support given to her. That's not fair.
A 3 (or 4 or 5) pot system doesnt really make the same sense in this situation. They are all one family. One member of the family has more expensive needs right now. It's temporary. Expecting a college kid to work FT just because step-mom doesnt want to contribute a bit extra to temporary expenses is extremely harsh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Stepparents are in no way responsible for their stepkids so anything they do is to be decent. Kid has two parents. Kid is living above their means. They don't need a car and car insurance (especially a car with a payment). And, if OP wants to spend money on their kids and themselves they have every right to. This stepkid and spouse sound irresponsible.

Nobody is claiming that the stepmom is legally responsible for stepD. (though try telling that to some colleges.) However, her H is responsible --possibly legally and DEFINITELY morally--to his D. Wife number 2 has NO legal right to determine how much her H pays to support his child vs. their shared children unless she divorces him or legally separates from him in which case a judge will determine how much he has to pay to support her and their kids.

Moreover, when their alleged deal re splitting expenses was entered into, his D was living with him and thus the amount he was willing to pay was probably based in part on how much it cost to feed and house etc. her. Now that she is not living with them, it is entirely reasonable to expect some part of what stepD cost while living with them to be transferred to her expenses living elsewhere and/or for the percentage of their mutual expenses he pays to be reduced. IOW, his share was set with the understanding that he was bringing 2 people into the shared household--himself and his D--while OP was only bringing herself. A readjustment of his share downward may well be warranted.

The support award set by a judge for her and their mutual children could well be less than the amount he has agreed to pay under their allegedly mutually agreed deal--which is highly unlikely to be legally binding. There is a possibility that if they divorced a court would order him to pay less than he is currently paying. We can't tell in part because OP has been very coy as to what that deal is

Whether he is responsible for funding his older D is partly a legal question and partly a moral one.
If he is LEGALLY responsible for paying for his older child X, that obligation supersedes his obligation to his second wife and their children. She knew he had a child when she married him. If he doesn't earn enough to support two families, that's on her for creating a second family with him.If there is a court order or a divorce agreement that says he has to pay certain expenses, he has to pay them. His second wife can't just unilaterally decide his daughter has to work more hours so her dad can pay less to her and more for her and their kids.

Whether or not he is legally obligated to support his 22 year old daughter, he may well be morally obligated. If for example, they discussed how much he would pay towards her support while she was considering colleges and she chose a college based on his promise to pay X amount, then in my opinion, he has a moral obligation to keep his word.

It is NOT a stepmother's right--nor ours--to determine whether or not the 22 year old needs a car or what kind of car she can buy. She may need a car to get to work and/or school. She may have worked hard all summer to pay her share of tuition--by her share I mean what her dad won't pay. It may not have been possible to earn enough to pay for a car AND pay her "share" of tuition.

He is the older girl's father. Her mother is mentally ill and cannot contribute. Wife number 2 is trying to force her H to choose funding her and their mutual children rather than his older daughter. It doesn't sound as if he's being madly generous and spending lavishly on this girl. He's not even paying her full tuition. She does work some during the school year and is covering her lodging and utilities. (For all we know, he cosigned the loan to buy the car in which case he is going to be held legally responsible for paying for it if she can't.)

If OP chooses to divorce H, here's hoping the amount of support she gets is less than he's paying now and that she lives in a state in which her then exH will have no legal obligation to pay anything to the cost of college. Maybe she'll be really lucky and he'll acquire a new girlfriend who will oppose him paying any amount toward the education of their mutual offspring voluntarily.

When you are married all income is shared. It is up to both adults to de use. They cannot afford this and that is the issue. Kid is an adult and needs to get a job or she does not need luxuries like a car.

OP doesn't say they can't afford it, she's just mad about him paying for it, causing her to use more of her salary. All income is shared, and expenses are shared. The my money and his money usually causes problems unless there is little shared debt.

The one-pot system is unusual in blended families, especially those that span multiple generations of kids, as the OP describes. Blended families have all kinds of complications, like child support, alimony, court-ordered shared expenses with an ex-spouse, elective gifts to adult children and then grandchildren, life insurance obligations to the first kids, and estate planning. The complications will never end. The risk of divorce in blended families is significantly higher, and to ignore that is just dumb. The risk of an estate battle if her spouse dies is also considerably higher. Blended families most often have a three-pot system out of necessity. OP needs a separate pot of money for herself and her young children.

Except none of that applies in OPs case, she just prefers to be a bean counter.

She describes her spouse giving money to his 22-year-old daughter without her buy-in. I doubt all financial support ends when the daughter is 24, and that's not the issue. The issue concerns how OP can set up a better financial plan so that her priorities don't get sidelined. The 3-pot system ensures both parties contribute equitably to their shared expenses, but each has money to fund their priorities. I have a friend who had to adopt a version of the 3-pot system because she was sending what her husband felt was an excessive amount of their family income to their parents in another country. It's the same but different. In my marriage, we don't have a 3-pot system per se, but a portion of my paycheck goes directly to my 401k, and my kids' 529 plans, and the remainder goes to a joint checking account to fund my equitable share of our living expenses. Knowing my family's spending habits, if my entire paycheck went directly to a joint checking account first, I couldn't retire until I was 80, and my kids would have to take out loans for college. I am a big fan of a bucket approach to family finances. It doesn't have to be "3 pots" - it could be 5 or 10 pots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Demanding 50/50 split for bio kids or household expenses is crazy when you are married. That's something divorced couples do.

In marriage there is give and take, and that includes providing expenses for college aged daughter, even if she isn't your biological daughter. You've been in her life for at least 8 years. However, you both need a firm line with the amount you are paying for college. Expense money (all of it) should come out of a combined pot, even when one spouse adds more to the pot than the other.

I say this as a wife who at times has contributed more and less than my husband. We are a combined unit.

This. Why are you splitting money and having separate accounts. The state views all of your money has joint.

Have you both considered getting second jobs? Marriage is a lot about give and take. Many times one spouse makes more.

You seem to have a lot of resentment.