You are here

Why children come first in a blended family

Jcksjj's picture

https://www.liveabout.com/why-children-come-first-in-a-blended-family-11...

Thoughts on this article? My first thought was what an idiotic comparison...

--figureditout--'s picture

I actually left a church due to a similar line of thinking/rationalizing.  My SD lived with us full time.  She had serious mental issues and was hospitalized because we could not keep her from harming herself.  The associate pastor informed us that she was THE most important person in our home.  DH and I had 2 other children in the home.

shamds's picture

In demanding her new husband of just a year has and should leave some of his estate to her should  he die and especially since she doesn’t have kids with him but shr shouldn’t be left dry. If she did have kids with him who were minors then definitely some money should  be kept aside to help her with their minor kids

i don’t agree kids always come first as expense of your spouse

Letti.R's picture

Children and priorities have a place that gets juggled.
Being children of  a divorce doesn't give kids an automatic first place on the podium in all circumstances.
If one is stupid enough to marry someone with this kind of thinking, it is your fault, though I can not imagine what made the doormat life attractive in the first place.

Until I got to Steptalk, I had no idea what step parents struggle with.
I honestly believe you should be very wary of people's advice who have no knowledge of what having skids is like because they just do not understand.

 

ldvilen's picture

That's what I don't get!  If society thinks we are supposed to marry someone and be okie-dokie being at the bottom of the list every time for someone else's children. . . BOY! They sure must think we are all desperate dumb-butts!  Like we are so-so dumb-dumb that all they have to do is tell us to suck it up and take it, and we will for years and years.  Nope.  Not happening. 

Like I always say, there can be very little expectation that the bio-parents suck it up and take it and stay together for their own kids, BUT step-parents are expected to suck it up and take it every time for someone else's children?!  Again, what a crazy-backward world for us steppies.

TwoOfUs's picture

Agreed. 

I also think it's very common for stepparents to get into these situations not realizing at all that they'll be put last every single time in the most ridiculous of circumstances...because their spouse pursues and courts them in the dating and pre-marriage phase. 

Then, once married...and they start to see their genuine needs put on the back burner for skid whims and luxuries...and they bring it up...all of society responds with: "Well. You knew he had kids when you married him!!!" 

Yeah. It's crazy and mixed up...and articles like this don't help the situation. I notice that this writer's "friend" didn't go off because of one dinner that got thrown over for a school play. The letter writer herself quotes this friend as saying that her husband always put the kids stuff ahead of her and that she felt like she never got alone time with him. Expecting our spouses to prioritize us sometimes and make time for us doesn't mean we're evil, trying to kick the kids out...or that we lack flexibility. It just means we're human. 

It's weird to me because in any other situation, the wife would get support from all sides...and therapists and marriage counselors would remind the husband that a marriage needs time and attention in order to thrive. No one would tell a wife who feels like her husband spends all his time at work: "Well. You knew he had work when you married him!!!" 

Nope. They'd work with the husband and wife to find compromises that work for both of them. It seems like only in the step-situation does "compromise" always mean "the stepmom gives grace, understanding, and flexibility to her husband without ever expecting any in return." 

 

 

Justanotherrefusingtobeavictim's picture

all of society responds with: "Well. You knew he had kids when you married him!!!" YES!!! I totally got this thrown in my face twice by DH sisters. Gets me so mad

ldvilen's picture

Further nonsense.  Like, we were supposed to know that our marriage would be thought of as sloppy seconds by pretty much everyone under the sun, and that our lives would further suck, suck just because DH had kids!?  I don't think so.  I've never read a romance novel yet where any step-mom had to deal with that.  Every romance novel I ever read re: SMs had to do with a few minor challenges, but certainly by the middle of the book, it is looking like dad and SM and kids are all on their way to being happy every after.  You know, just like for intact families.  Marriage is supposed to equal happy every after.  Now, most of us know that is not quite true for any marriage.  

But. . . in an intact marriage you can get married, have kids, and when those kids act up, get empathy, hundreds of websites to go to for support, etc.  Very few will retort back with, "What did you expect when you had kids!?  You knew it wasn't going to be easy!  Cackle.  Cackle."  On the other hand, what do SPs get when their SKs act up, Oh!, they are told, "You knew he hd kids when you married him," and suck it up and take it already will ya.  More of the never ending responsibility without authority.

But, if that's the case, and we are supposed to marry our men with children expecting a total last-on-the-list hell, then let's get the word out there ASAP, so these men (and women) can remain single the rest of their entire lives.  Because I can assure you, no woman would marry a man with kids expecting to be last in his life every time.  Last time I checked it was 2020 and not 1820.  Women are to believe in ther full value and seek out a marriage partner rather than feel lucky just to get a man, any man, and be around for cooking and cleaning and bedroom services.

sandye21's picture

"What did you expect when you had kids!?  You knew it wasn't going to be easy!  Cackle.  Cackle." 

sandye21's picture

"What did you expect when you had kids!?  You knew it wasn't going to be easy!  Cackle.  Cackle." 

tog redux's picture

Well, it is food for thought.  She is right that you shouldn't expect to inherit everything after a year of marriage, that makes sense to me.  But what about after 10 or 20 years of marriage? What if you are in the child's life since he/she was 3 and the parent doesn't have 30 years of history with the child to the one year with you?  What if the child is a horrible human being and you have stood by the spouse for 30 years?  What if the child stands to inherit scads of money from the other parent?  What if the stepmother is the reason the kids are estranged from the father (yes, it happens - not all stepmothers are good)?

I don't think there is an easy, quick answer. Frankly, I'd be upset too if my mother remarried now at 85 and left everything to her new husband. That doesn't seem right to me.

still learning's picture

What if the stepmother is the reason the kids are estranged from the father (yes, it happens - not all stepmothers are good)?

I can't imagine a stepmother being 100% at fault for children being estranged from their father. I know it's debatable but I believe men have brains and free will too right? If a father is estranged because of a relationship with a woman then he wasn't much of a father to begin with.  He's either one of those men who turned the responsibility of his relationship over to her and she said "Nah," or he could also be using her as an excuse to not have anything to do with his kids then blaming her for it. This happens all the time! Lots of men who walk away then blame someone else.  Not all men want to be fathers when the relationship with the childs mother is over.  Some want a "fresh start."

Swim_Mom's picture

I think when I first got divorced I would have agreed.  But as I went through the process of sharing my life with DH, I had a somewhat different outlook. We spent a lot of time doing our wills/trusts and putting a lot of thought into how we divide our estates, calculated equity split in our home etc. We settled very easily on 40/60 split - we leave each other 40% and remaining 60% is split among our respective children - his get 15% each of his estate and mine get 20% each of my estate.  The 40% we inherit from each other is to live well and then reverts back to kids (For example if he predeceases me, what's left of his 40% gets divided among my children, in addition to their initial 60%). We keep our assets totally separate. I do not want my hard work ever accruing to his kids.  

shamds's picture

Hubby was almost bled dry by the ex wife. She knicked off with nearly a million dollars from hubby illegally accessing his personal savings account he set aside for retirement. Hubby paid all the bills and exwife got a comfortable monthly allowance for personal spending and their joint credit card which she maxed out regularly. She no doubt spent that stolen money on her shopping sprees and not her kids but played the “oh poor me woman in court, judge oblivious to the fact she illegally hacked into hubbys private bank account”.

hubby only rose up the corporate ranks after divorcing her and most of his investments now (80-90%) were from after the divorce and when 2 sd’s ceased contact with him for 5.5 years because of pas and blamed him and not their mum (thanks to the brainwashing and conditioning). 

I have been married for 4.5 yrs and have 2 kids with hubby, i take care of him and our home (yes he bought the land and built it before marrying me) but this is the home he built after divorcing his ex. 

My husband doesn’t entertain the notion of leaving me dry and the skids looking to remove me or our 2 kids from any of his estate and inheritance as I have gone through hell with these 3 skids, hubby is disappointed in them all so he knows i’ve dealt with alot. 

Exwife on the other hand has her claws on all 3 skids and controls them, hubby didn’t work his arse off to have money revert back to exwife... also even though he was married for almost 15 yrs to exwife, she never supported him as sole income earner. She was supposedly a sahm and housewife who did no housework, no child rearing, nothing!! She went on daily shopping sprees with her girlfriends and boyfriends etc and was so hostile at home. Hubby owes her nothing and these skids for hubby are not automatically entitled to everything or a majority of things when they themselves have been a never ending source of problem and disrespect 

in the 4.5 yrs he has been married to me i have done way more than the ex-wife. He has moved money around as 2 skids are adults, he has sd14 and our 2 who are toddlers... he knows our 2 require way more financial assistance should something happen to him in the next decade as our 2 kids are too young to get a job...m

my husband told me he wants to gift each of the 3 kids from ex a lump sum amount each to use as savings (i doubt they are capable of savings) and its a large amount, enough to buy a house or put a big down payment for one. They have the money bio mum stole from hubby that they are entitled to. If she has wasted that then this is their problem... 

its not always a clear black and white what happens but i agree in the article this womans ego has been offended in the 1 yr of marriage (basically still in honeymoon stage). But i totally expect  a loving and supporting wife of the husband of say 2-3 decades does and  should get something

this article doesn’t address if the 1st wife was hostile and not supportive of her then husband (even though she gets nothing), it shouldn’t be seen well the new wife of say 5-6 yrs gets nothing if she has in fact sacrificed to support her husband...

so if in my case my husband was married for almost 15 yrs to a woman who sought to make his life miserable and was so hostile and affected his ability to rise up corporate ranks and then he divorces her and later remarries and say dies 10 years after our marriage, it just won’t hold up even in court exwife seeking her share of his estate of skids seeking to exclude me and the 2 kids i had with hubby and any subsequent more. I’ve been the supportive wife those 10 yrs of marriage which has allowed hubby to focus on his career so that we can live comfortably.

If a parent has remarried and the new stepparent from day 1 has sought to remove the bio kids and not been a positive role model, god help the spouse if she has brainwashed him to give everything to her should he die.

thats those horror stories we hear of

STaround's picture

But would have come to same answers

1.  Marriage of people of a certain age (the DH had kids in his late 20s), I would not assume that the new wife inherits a substantial portion of the DHs estate.  Most of the money was earned before she came in the picture.  She did not stay home years to raise any of his kids (presumably).  But I would ask, did they have a prenup?  In most states, the wife is entitles to a significant portion (but less than half) of a husband's estate.   

2.  As to going to the play, did the DH not tell the wife.  When you have kids, you do do not get to go again to dinner every night.  I think every couple should be able to have at least one date night a week.  

 

tog redux's picture

Yes, the play is an apples and oranges comparison to the will issue.  I would never have pouted because DH wanted to go to SS's play instead of taking me out to dinner, in fact, I would have gone with him to support both him and SS.

But if it was the 6th performance of the play and DH had gone to all of them already, I might feel differently.  There are no black and white answers that apply to every situation.

STaround's picture

The most I have gone to is 2, and I only went to the second because my mom wanted to go, and she could not go to the first one, and she cannot drive at night.  Again, I stress communication between spouses.  The wife may have thought that if the play was on the mother's time, Dad did not have to go.   And of course, dad does not have to go, but I can see why he may have wanted to. 

But it is not about kids always coming first.  

lieutenant_dad's picture

The advice was bad, how the DH responded to his wife was hurtful, and the wife has some lofty expectations to only be married a year.

If she contributes to the mortgage or upkeep on the home, she should be entitled to her portion of the sale or to keep living in said home after DH dies. If he has a life insurance policy or other investments, then DW should get enough to pay off any debt incurred by her DH, any money she spent on his care, and any money to pay off his portion of mutual debts.

But to get EVERYTHING just because they are married? No. That seems unreasonable right now.

tog redux's picture

Yeah, it's not a black and white issue.  I don't know why people keep trying to make it one.

Letti.R's picture

Of course it can be reasonable: marriage is easier than actual gold digging...

Notup4it's picture

Finances in blended families are HARD to wrap your head around and they have so many moving parts and could have so many different variables.   I can see both sides.  This marriage is pretty new, but I think that maybe the person asking is worried about her FUTURE (30+ years from now)??  It comes across like gold digging, but what if she is simply hurt that she was planning to leave all of HER money to him?

What if the wife and him retired in a nice apartment and then he passed when they were both 80? She can’t work to support herself at that point, and he was the family she has and who she built her life with.  All of a sudden all of his savings and assets go to his sons, how does she afford to keep that apartment? What if she now has to move at 80 years old and to where? What if the sons have acquired more money than dad has by that point and are very comfortable in life?  Is it fair for her to give her husband her inheritance? Should she then be making it an even playing field and give hers to her niece and nephew? What if the couple are only ok financially together in old age but not independently?  

On the flip side I know it is also problematic leaving everything to the wife (or husband) and then essentially/possibly cutting your kids out of the inheritance. You don’t have this issue in a nuclear family. 

Working at the bank I have seen so much.... I have seen blended families where they are hiding money from their spouse and shoveling it off to kids (even when the couple is in financial trouble).  I have seen spouses who have totally cut kids out. I have seen kids swoop in in old age to separate a couple to get inheritance.  I have seen a widow in a panic and having to go back to work as a house cleaner because ALL of their money after 40 years was given away to kids. All of this brings out the worst in people, no doubt about it. 

I think the comment about the play was a way to diminish a serious concern the person asking had and to drive the point home that in ALL regards and forever she would never be put first. I would guess she is only a BM?? Lol. 

 

 

ldvilen's picture

I think the response sounds horrible.  For one thing, what a bad-a$$ analogy, comparing a SM who wants to go out to dinner, but is miffed that his daughter's event is going to be come first this time to a SM who expects to have the same benefits being married to someone as any other married spouse does.  Just proves non-steps usually don't get it.

It is a stereotype that most SMs are akin to little girls who are just jealous and want to hog all of dad’s time. Some are, yes. But most are not.

Then, you have the respond-er who gives the age-old and tiring rationale of they were there first, kids’ first, etc. It appears she has never been a SM, yet feels she can so easily dispense advice to her SM buddy and the letter writer. “They don’t know what it is like to be a BM,” she implies. Apparently, it doesn’t even occur to her that she equally doesn’t know what it is like to be a SM. Relationships go by the bond/ relationship and not by a time limit. Father-child, Husband-wife, for example. These are two completely different relationships, and by far the majority of SMs know this. It always seems to be others who think that whomever was there first gets first dibs, regardless. Of course, if you go by time limit, that is always going to put the SM last, which is the point of those who try to make this argument, I’m sure.

A marriage is a marriage. Husband and wife are husband and wife. An ex- is an ex-. I get miffed when people try to put time limits or use math-like equations to come up with a figure to justify when someone should be treated like a wife or can be invited as a partner to someone. Doesn’t matter if you are currently married one year to 20+ years. You are still a spouse and entitled to the same benefits and respect any spouse would be.

tog redux's picture

So you do think that a man should leave everything to his wife, and his kids get nothing?

I think that whether we like it or not, having kids from a prior marriage changes the dynamics. If the children in a marriage belong to both people, then there is likely not much argument about inheritance issues.

In our case, our will says that DH leaves everything to me, with the expectation that most of what is left goes to SS after I die.  So I suppose, there could be nothing left, and he's not making a trust for SS that keeps some separate for him that doesn't go to me. In that way I guess he is treating me as a first wife would be treated (I'm his third).

But we aren't fabulously wealthy, and there's a good chance that I will use everything we save, so he's taking a chance that SS gets nothing.  But if he came into the marriage with a lot of money, I could see him wanting to protect some of that for SS.

Also - so you'd be fine with my mother remarrying now at 85 and leaving all that she and my father saved through their careers to her new husband of one year, and none to her kids? Even though my father intended it to go to us?

To me, your answer of "a spouse is a spouse" is a black and white answer that doesn't necessarily hold water when people remarry.  There are always other factors to consider.

elkclan's picture

Yeah, I don't think that ££ that my partner's family leave to him is intended to go to me and (and thus my son) cutting my steps out of the loop. We will have a complicated set up so that money we accrue goes equally (even though he has 2 and I have 1), but any big bulk monies can get passed on.

that is not to say that if he inherited money that we would stick it all in an account just for his kids. No that money is for my partner to enjoy and I have already said that I want to travel when those kids are out of the house. (We are pretty frugal, but there are things I want to see!)

Jcksjj's picture

I guess my viewpoint on it is that it's up to the person or people who earned the money (if you built a life together long term I would consider that earning as a team) . I dont think kids should ever expect a monetary inheritance, they were taken of by the parents until 18 and that's where the obligation ends, after that, it's the parents choice if they want to provide further support and never should just be expected. Heirlooms that mean things to them and not SM I can see caring about.

Also, the kids are likely 25 to 30 years younger than the SM and also likely have their own spouse they are building a life with. They are less likely to be in need when the parent passes, whereas there's a good chance the spouse will be elderly and possibly need more help. Also, they will most likely end up being the one needing to pay anything off for the deceased spouse.

Bottom line to me is if you didnt earn the money yourself it shouldn't ever be expected- relative or not. Also, the whole idea of fighting over a dead person's estate is kind of disgusting to me. 

And comparing it to a kids school play...uh that makes no sense. At all. 

tog redux's picture

Isn't that true for the SM or SF, too, though? They aren't earning the money they are now benefiting from.  Let's use my mother again - if she remarried now at 85, why should her new husband benefit from the money she and my father earned, that he intended to go the children?

I agree that an inheritance is not guaranteed - but I can see why people fight over wills when they are cut out in favor of a new spouse.  Would you be OK with not giving your kids anything if you remarry?

ETA: DH got half of their retirement accounts, which BM paid 100% into - DH was in school because of his immigration status and unable to work.  I feel weird sometimes that I am going to retire on money that BM earned.  But I'm not giving it back because she's a raging bitch and she took way more than that amount in child support.  Smile

TwoOfUs's picture

I agree with you 1000%. 

Yes...my DH was with his kids 10, 8, and 6 years before I came into the picture and 14, 12, and 10 years before we got married...but it's a different relationship. Also, studies show parents spend 90% of their time with their children by the time the kids reach 18. After that, they should be building a day-in, day-out relationship with their spouse. Not hovering over their kids.

DH and I have been married for 9 years next week. All his kids are 18+ now. I am certain that I've spent more time with him and love him better and know him better than anyone else in his life. He tells me daily how loved and secure he feels with me and tears up when he does so. It's also weird to me that we accept without question that married couples will put their spouse ahead of their parents/family of origin...but we don't have the same expectation for parents to put their spouse ahead of their children...even when those children are adults? It makes zero sense. Like, it's expected that the child will choose a spouse and put that spouse first, regardless of what Mommy and Daddy think about it...that's romantic. But if mommy or daddy decides to remarry (even after a death) no one blinks when the often adult children pitch a fit and everyone instantly starts "reminding" the new spouse about "her place" in this marriage. Ridiculous. 

I get miffed when people imply that married love is somehow "lesser" than the love you feel for your children. I even see phrases on here all the time along the lines of...well, you are "just" his wife. Personally, I know many, many couples who would tell you that their relationship with their spouse is the most profound and important relationship of their life. These are all people I admire and people who seem very happy with life...mentally, emotionally (and financially) stable.  By contrast, I also know a lot of people (in first marriages and second) who give their spouse the short end of the stick in order to indulge and over-invest in their children. These are the kinds of people who would describe their children as their "best friends" which kinda grosses me out. By and large, these people come across as needy, insecure, emotionally immature, unhappy, and not very stable.  

I think it's a symptom of the devaluation of the marriage relationship in general in our culture...and the glorification of the parent/child relationship is a symptom of this devaluation as well...and of emotionally-stunted adults who would rather put all their love and energy into that "parent-child" bond than have a real, complicated relationship with another adult. 

It wasn't always that way. Until very recently it was assumed that the marriage relationship was the primary relationship of life while children were an extension of that relationship. The oft-repeated "kids must always come fiiirrssstttt!" is just unrealistic and terrible advice that results in unhappy kids and unhappy parents. 

In this scenario...I would think that the wife should expect for her husband to leave an inheritance to his children...but she shouldn't expect to be left out altogether or be put behind his kids in day-to-day life...including finances. The letter writer's response is just absurd and rude. 

Justthesecondwife's picture

The timeframe hierachy really bugs me. Why should it matter who came first or for what amount of time? Should an older children receive more in heritence than a younger one simply becasue they were in the picture for longer? No, of course not, so why is society so concerned with the length of time a couple have been married? A spouse, the person you have chosen to be your life partner regardless if it is one day or 70 years, should most of the time be afforded the same respect and consideration than a "first wife". 

I cannot abide by double standards, which happen in stepfamilies and second (or subsequent) marriages. If my DH was willing to do something for BM then he has set a standard, and should be willing to offer his "new wife" the same treatment and oppotunities. 

I supect my current issues may be clouding my judgement to some degree, however it ruffles my feathers when I know what DH did for BM, or facilitated, or let her get away with, but I am held to a completely different standard. I work ridiculous hours and earn a great income because I studied and worked hard (while raising kids as a single mom). BM didn't and still refuses to work. DH expects this of me, but would never have expected it of BM and supported her choice in whatever she did. I don't get the same respect, if I don't live up to the high standards that he has for no one else in his life, BM, skids, in laws etc, then I really hear about it. But he would, and has never, spoken to anyone else in the same manner. It feels like I am paying (lterally in some ways) for the sins of his past.

I expect my DH to provide for me in death (I hope this is a long log way away) the same way he had planned to for BM (along with other matters). For the record though DH came into our marriage with no money and I was the one with the house, assets and savings, so everything he earns (should it happen) will be from during our marriage and has nothing to do with BM, nor his kids and will have been facilitated and supported by me. 

I firmly believe there should be no expectation for any "child" over 18 to receive an inheritence. They should have been provided with the education (not necessarily paying for college -  paid my own way and was fine) and tools in which to create their own financial future. I will not receive any inheritence from my parents when the time comes (they have already told me they are willing their estate to a charity for research into the condition my baby brother died from) and I completely support their decision. I'm an adult, I don't need handouts from others. I didn't earn the money or help/support them while they earned it so why should I feel entitled to someone elses hard work? My siblings feel the same way. 

I've told my bios not to expect an inheritence but instead we are teaching them practicalities and tools which, if they choose to use them and have a work ethic, will provide them with the knowledge to secure their own financial futures. I didn't say it to be selfish or cruel, just so they aren't sitting around relying on handouts without making an effort to reach their own goals. I will hopefully still have the ability to provide them with something, but I would prefer to help them along the way in practical endeavours which assist them fulfil their potentials.

My DH has other views. He came in with no money and has significantly increased his quality of life due to what I brought into the marriage. He works hard but gave everything to BM (incuding full time maids, nannies, gardeners, luxury homes they couldn't afford) so she could choose not to work (too busy committing fraud and cheating on him) so he has to start from the ground up again. DH, despite having no assets or funds of his own, minimal retirement savings, to will to the skids, has taken out large life insurance policies for his adult kids, who choose not to work or study and make no effort in their own lives to better themselves in any way. Apparently DH thinks providing them a large cash windfall in the event of his death is a good idea. I will never understand it myself. It is one thing if DH had the money, retirement savings, assets etc for a comfortable life and future and wante to share some of this with the skids. But this is not the case, he is literally just paying ridiculous unnecessary insurance premiums so the skids will never have to do anything for themselves, and never earn their own money and get a jackpot when he dies. From money he didn't earn.  

Now if DH had come into the marriage with money and assets which he accumulated during his marriage to BM and with her help and had raised decent hard working kids I would have no issue with him willling funds to them, however as his spouse I would still consider my future needs to be more relevent as I am his life parter and support him and with far more limited time in my working life left and would expect him to put the marriage first. Just as I have done for him in my will.

Apologies for my rant, I'm just very tired of the "second wife" being marginalised in society and feel each marriage should be given the same respect and consideration. Sorry for hijacking your post!

ldvilen's picture

Actually, I think the bigger question is why would anyone want to marry someone else who did not appear to feel any obligation to care for them in their laters years, so to speak?  And, why would anyone marry someone else feeling no such obligation?  If an 85-YO w/kids marries another 85-YO w/kids, I'd hope that prior to getting married, they would have either figured it out before how to take care of each other in old age if something happens to the other, or love and marriage being what it is or what it is supposed to be, that they'd just assume that when one passes, the other one would inherit the big enchilada.  Some states follow this thought legally as well.  I'd never expect it to be, surprise!, you're not in my will.

Whenever someone starts to put years or applying math to an emotional relationship, the real reason for the relationship--love, taking care of each other, and being together the rest of your life--quickly starts to become devalued, intentional or not.  And, of course, we all have our own ideas of the number of years that should = it is now okay to start taking dad's wife seriously.  Is it 1 yr., 2 yrs., 1 yr. if SM stays quit and gives you big gifts, but 3 years if SM is being in your face a little too often, or 10+ years if SM is being really pissy?  And, why should it even matter what any child thinks mom's or dad's spouse should get for an inheritance.  In reality, and legally too in some states/ countries, as soon as they say, "I do," it means pretty much everything, at least property-wise and financially, is now ours vs. just yours and mine.  And, the age they say, "I do," or the number of adult children involved from previous relationships doesn't matter.

It's called marriage and not living-together for a reason, palimony and pre-nups aside.

 

shamds's picture

Stating he remarried only for a short while and his new wife has not contributed to his income in any way... if she is a stay at home housewife, is she not maintaining the home and possibly traditional role of housewife?

i have a few drs in our family who all chose to marry traditional women whom they knew would take care of the home and kids while the husband focussed on a career but thats not to say the wife isn’t allowed to work, just that she tends to handle the bulk of chores/errands etc.

so is the new wife in this case, is she not a cleaner? A gardener? A cook? Grocery shopper? Laundry person? A babysitter for the sd? A chauffeur or taxi for taking and picking up sd from school.

i’ve been married 4.5 yrs to my husband, never would he say that i haven’t contributed to his income in anyway. He’s able to keep getting payrises and focus on his career because of me because i maintain our household, i care for our kids, i cook, i clean, i do the grocery shopping, i plan our holidays, i do errands for hubby when he asks etc. 

He was married almost 15 yrs to the exwife who did jackshit.... regrding supporting him, their home or their kids. She doesn’t get to be more important than me ever purely because she was married for 15 yrs.

you need to remember curious georgetta, its not always the length of marriage but the actual quality of it...

STaround's picture

Are married to other doctors or other professionals.   Aupairs are very common for school age kids in our community.  They can handle running the kid around and child's laundry, school holidays, etc.   There are many online grocery deliver services these days.  

shamds's picture

i know alot will say they also marry the same profession becaus they are more understanding. My bil is a teacher and married to a teacher/psychologist 

Dontfeedthetrolls's picture

In this case I don’t think the woman is entitled to half of her husband’s property should he pass away. She didn’t contribute in any way to its growth. Now 5 or 10 years down the road? Yes I think she should have a share of it and the longer she’s with him the more I think she should get.

To say children or spouse comes first is oversimplifying a complex topic. Minor children’s needs and want’s should come first for the most part but that doesn’t mean the spouse is ignored. We as adults are able to care for ourselves and in general can be more flexible. For example the kids come first when they are with us till 8PM. That’s bed time and me and his time. Throughout the rest of the day they need to be the priority for their wellbeing.

Now once we are looking at adult children the spouse should be first for the most part. They are the person you live with. If that relationship isn’t strong it will disrupt the rest of your life. Adult children are also capable of taking care of themselves at that point and should be creating their own life apart from their parents.

STaround's picture

If the DH and DW are older, leaving money to the surviving spouse may mean that the children of the surviving spouse end up with most of the money. IMHO, that is not fair.  

I think there are some hypocrites on this board, and they expect that they will outlive their DH, and their kids will benfit. 

Most people do not leave big estates.  But for those that do, it is fair for to arrange that the kids get part of their parents estate, and it does not all end up with the kids of the second to die.  Some people here have commented that not is a problem, they expect to outlive their DH.  

ldvilen's picture

I think the only hypocrites here are the ones who perhaps live in an area where, "Aupairs are very common for school age kids in our community."  How much does someone in that kind of community have in common with most of the women here (or anywhere for that matter)?  And, by the way, according to current statistics, 80% of women outlive their husbands, so to make that assumption is correct and it in no way implies delusions of gold-digging or such.

I think there are more than a couple of women on here, younger women, I believe, who live in upper-class society and somehow think that the way it goes for them and their friends and neighbors is how it should go for all of society.  Most women here and most women in general do not fall into that category.  There is a quote I read once that 80% are poor, 1% are rich, and the rest fall inbetween.  If you are closer to that 1%, how can you even begin to relate to the experiences of every day women?  Sure, you can use book-learning and the couple of experiences or so you have when you dare to venture into a Walmart in a "lower" class neighborhood.  But, real experiences, and most importantly, REAL empathy is going to be lacking.

If you add that that type of woman may not even have ever been a SM, then you can easily see where some leaning toward upper-class woman like that coming here sounding know-it-all and hoity-toity can come across as very unnerving, unsympathetic and even cruel.  It is like when Marie Antoinette said, "Let them Eat Cake," to the masses.  Too many people not in the know think they have the right to tell SMs to "Let them Eat Cake." We hear it all the time, and unfortunately not just from know-it-all, hoity-toity types.

STaround's picture

I said in my community, and a lot of this thread was about a doctor's wife.  I was assume a doctor could afford an aupair.I get it that women generally outlive men. 

That is why I find it greedy to take the general position that the surviving spouse should inherit all. If you are concerned about working class people, for the most part, there will not be much of an estate. 

MissDenise's picture

That's how it often works. You find out WHO you married during sickness, stress, and yes making your wills. 

I wouldn't expect someone to put my name on assets they owned before married. It's up to both of you to own and acquire things together. That being said I wouldn't live in someone elses home. Either we sell it or rent it out, and buy ours together. If one dies they don't lose their home, it's right of suriviorship. So the other spouse is protected. I remember seeing the story of Robin Willaims. His greedy his decended upon his widow within days of his passing. Robin and his wife should have planned better.  

I also wouldn't want to marry a spouse that chose to keep everything separate. We put our income in a joint checking/savings. Pay the bills from that. If my husband said his kids come before me I'm pretty sure I would start taking measures to protect myself.  The husband in the article is a creep imo. How about caring about everyone equally???? I guess when he gets ill she'd better call the kids to change his diapers etc. 

 

 

STaround's picture

1.  You say that you would not expect anyone to put property in  a spouses name on marriage..   What if you cannot afford to buy a house togehter?  

2.  Everything I read about Robin Williams, his late wife was the greedy one.  Why do you assume his kids would the greedy ones?  

3. Why are you saying the DH in the artilce is a creep?  It seems after one year of marriage, the wife wants all his goods?  So who is greedy?

 

There can be greedy people of all situations.  Second wives, First Wives, Husbands, kids, whatever.  

MissDenise's picture

I explained he shouldn't have said that to her.  That was lame. There's always a compromise, sell one home whereby the proceeds stay separate. Save to buy a home together etc. That's what we did. The article didn't say she wanted everything to go to her. More of the statement he made.

Robin's kids had 2 or 3 of his other homes and contents. They also wanted the contents inside Susan's home, AND right after he died. That's pretty crass imo. They ended up settling out of court.

 

STaround's picture

We do not know.  Unless you can cite something in a paper, I do not see who is crass.  

They may have been afraid the wife was going to sell stuff.  

CLove's picture

sux.

This is why marriages and second marriages fail - because of this kind of mentality. I JUST had a convo with a cousin of my hisband. She is newly divorced and no kids She thinks that children should always be first without exception, always (even grown children), and she cited an example of an auntie (an older sister of my husband). I had to just zip it because I know that behind the scenes, the two parents go out, have a great sex life, do for each other, and also, their youngest daughter is a total brat, and they are in a bunch of debt because they paid for expensive schooling for one of their children.

Yeah. The writer/marriage coach/whatever who wrote this article is a quack.

Just last night we were discoursing with friends about how Toxic Feral wanted to move back in. DH was explaining how after about 2 years of no contact,  relationship, she wants back in. He told her "ask CLove, you need to talk it over with her and she refused."

Everyone agrees that livng with a bratty asshole who doesnt have any consideraton just doesnt work.

So, no life doesnt work that way, kids dont get to be the center of the Universe.

MommyT's picture

I can understand the DH setting up a trust for his kids but the wife should always come first.

Sandybeaches's picture

First a second marriages  Will should be no different than a first in terms of what is left to a spouse.  I also think that with more than half of marriages being second marriages and even third I think the legal terms of who can disinherit and inherit is likely to change once we have the first landmark case to go by ..but until then .... 

With that said my simple answer that I will go in more depth with later when I have more time and everyone disagrees with me  (LOL) is the spouses reasonability financially is to their spouse be it a first or 12th marriage.  You are sharing finances and building a life with your spouse.  The only issue I see is family possessions you may want to pass down to your kids.  You want to make sure they stay in your family and go to your children.  Your children who will have a spouse of their own someday ... But your children are responsible to pay for themselves not get left so big inheritance to help them out.  It wouldn't happen in a first marriage.  No one would ever think of leaving everything to their kids not the mother or father.  I think a second marriage is no different.  Certainly include them on you estate as getting something but I think your responsibility is to your spouse the person who shares your bills and your life.  

 

STaround's picture

Are you in the US?  State law on inheritance (that you cannot generally disinherit a spouse, absent a prenup) is the same for first, second or twelth marriages. While spouses cannot be disinherited, the law generally provides they must be given a certain percentage and/or homestead rights.  If you want the law to provide that all property must go the surviving spouse, to me that seems that is up to the state legislaturers.  I dont see that happening, but try to lobby for that.   The fact is, people can leave all their assets to a spouse (in most states) if they want to. A prenup can be drafted to provide that assets must go to the spouse.  

There have been plenty of cases regarding estates.  Spouses challenge prenups, various heirs assert testator not competent.  What do you think a landmark case will say?  

Most people in this country will not leave much an estate.  Of course I don't think a spouse should be left destitute.  But do you think it is fair to leave an estate entirely to a spouse, who  may then leave the remainder to his or her kids?  And omit the kids of the first to die?  Or who may remarry and leave to a new spouse?  That certainly would not be my intent. 

Every situation is different.  I would anticipate that a very small estate would first pay expenses of the estate and then likely go the spouse.  If an adequate size, an  estate might provide for college of minor children of the decedent.  If very large, and no college needed, then I would expect some to go to kids. 

MissDenise's picture

In every marriage especially after a number of years both are on bank accounts and deeds.   Most people may end up using a lot of their assets especially if long term care etc. is needed. A lot of health issues can impact your estate. If one of us dies the property transfer to the other so the other spouse is protected. We'll make sure the kids get something, and personal stuff. I think life insurance is good to leave to kids because it passes directly to them. 

Sandybeaches's picture

Yes I am in the US. I meant Landmark case in disinherited Step Children.  Meaning that if you were in a second marriage and designated property to be left to your children that the surviving spouse couldn't write out the children from receiving It legally and they would have. No claim as today's guidelines are written.

Before everyone jumps on me this is only if someone designates it to be this way.  I think this is why a lot of people write their Wills the way they do in second marriages because steps can get written out in the surviving spouses Will and have no claim.  

I have been through the uncomfortable better do this now because when step dad dies we have no claim on grandma's China set if we don't take it now. I can tell you it is hurtful and awkward!!!

 

STaround's picture

The answer to me is the spouse who dies should have all family personal property go to the kids on their death.  Survivor can get every day plates from Target.   It was heartbreaking to read about Sean Lennon having to buy his father's memorablilia off of Ebay after his stepmother sold it.  

Sandybeaches's picture

sorry hit save twice

 

TwoOfUs's picture

I guess I'm just really glad that I married someone who loves me and cares about my wellbeing both while he's alive and after he is gone. We have mirror wills that leave everything to the other spouse. He understands that we are building a life together, and that a marriage is a partnership in all things. 

The fact that women outlive men doesn't mean that they are "greedy" or "hypocritical" for wanting to be treated as next of kin (which is how the law does and should treat spouses). It just means they wisely understand that they may need more retirement...more support for longer...than their husbands will need. No one should leave their spouse worried about how they will survive after they're gone for the benefit of kids who are still in their prime earning years. That is selfish and wrong. 

Now, if both spouses are older and have built up assets prior to a second or third marriage...then, yes. I do think the wills probably shouldn't or won't be mirror wills as that's not necessary at that point. But people are living longer and retiring later, and even a couple in their 50s may still live 30-40 years together (still over half of their adult lives, in other words) building assets and providing each other with companionship and support. 

STaround's picture

To say that all assets should go to survivor, and then to survivors kids.   Without estate planning that can and does happen.  The widow typically gets social security, and that should be factored in too, imho.  

Yes, people live longer, but not many build up assets after a certain age.  

A lot to consider, I certainly do not think widows should be left penniless.  But I also do not think that when anyone marries someone old enough to have kids pushing 30, they should expect him to re-tittle and will her ALL his property.   That is what the OP appears to want.  I agree, the response was callous.   But if my DH expected this one year into our marriage, I would be put off. 

Sandybeaches's picture

I actually don't think that is what the article said at all.  I don't think she expected everything I think she expected something.  After all they are starting a life together that could also last the same amount of time as the 30 years it speaks of with the children relationship.  

Let's face it the writer who responds to her responds by comparing her situation to a woman that is upset about a missed dinner and a dance recital to her real life situation of a what was to be her future if she is left alone after her husband dies, is ridiculously incomparable.  One is a one night frivolous thing to a whole life decision and discussion.  So I only mention this not in response to you but response to the article in general and its basis that is unrealistic as that response is apples to oranges.  

But with all of that said the children should get family heirlooms most definitely ... but if this was their mother and not a second marriage would anyone think that the kids should get everything and the surviving parent nothing?  If both contribute to the house which on some level ALL do then why should it be left to kids and not a surviving spouse?  If it is his house that she moved into when they got married, then sell it and buy a house you both own and it is deeded to both of you. 

Your spouse is the person you are sharing finances with and should be the other half of your estate.  Your kids will have their own spouse, life and house to do that with later.  I am not sure why anyone thinks you need to leave money behind to adult children that should be able to take care of themselves. Adult children are not dependent on their parents income but a spouse is. Kids did not contribute to the expenses of the house the spouse did so why should the kids get a windfall if their parent dies. Family heirlooms absolutely!! Money that should go to your spouse NO 

If there are kids from both marriages set up a trust that includes the house and when BOTH spouses are gone ALL kids get equal shares.  

 

STaround's picture

Actually, the LW said the kids got most, and that she get something.  She wanted more.  Even if the marriage lasts 30 years, one could ask, were any significant assets acquired during the duration of the second marriage?  Did LW not acquire any assets?  Will she not get social security upon the death of her DH, and how much will that be?

Of course the reply was awful. 

If the second wife is much younger, then the kids may never see any of the estate if it only goes to them after the death of a young SM. 

Sandybeaches's picture

LOL!!!!  Assuming, even asking if ANY assets were acquired after a 30 year marriage is so laughable... Of course there would be assets.... ummmmmmmmm anything acquired during the marriage is an asset and this is not what this is about.  

Any married couple sharing a life, house and bills would of course miss the contribution of the other spouse husband or wife should they die.  It doesn't matter what this woman receives in Social Security or her own assets, she has created a life with this man and therefore she should or he would, which ever dies first should be the beneficiary of the estate.  As I have stated numerous times the children should most definitely get family heirlooms but should not need to benefit from any Monterrey value of the father's estate.  

STaround's picture

When people retire, they generally stop acquiring assets. Of course we do  not know how old the LW's DH is, but he does has a kid pushing 30.  Once people hit 65 (and for some, years before that)  they start depleting assets.  So there might be assets, but none acquired DURING a marriage starting at a certain age. 

Again, as I have said, most people in the US will not leave an estate of any size.  At best, it will cover funeral expenses and other debts.  At that point the widow(er) will have to decide to downsize.  It is only for people with appreciably more money that the question of division of an estate exists.  

My DH owns what we call our vacation home and I own what we call our primary home.  Each home goes to our kids.  The time to discuss all this is PRIOR to getting married.  I don't agree with LW being surprised, but we need to know more facts before we come to the conclusion that her DH was not fair. Does she have any property?  Any retirement funds of her own?  If all the money goes to her, will it then go to HER kids and HIS kids twist in the wind.  Disregarding that is not fair.  I don't want my money to go my stepkids (and there  is nothing wrong with them).  

Many people here seem to count on THEIR kids profiting from the policy of surviving spouse gets it all, as they expect to outlive their spouse (likely a reasonable expectation).  How can you say that is fair? 

Sandybeaches's picture

You are assuming a lot about the Letter writer also…. Including that if you have a child pushing 30 that you are near retirement age.  I married the first time very young and was 47 almost 48 when my son was 30 not even close to considering retirement…. I wish!!! 

"So there might be assets, but none acquired DURING a marriage starting at a certain age. "

Really???  Again Assuming how would you know that about marriages in general and their assets? and also what someone would leave in an estate?  You are also assuming someone dies of old age instead of at an unexpected time.  Always a good idea to plan what will happen at death but it often times comes at an unexpected time.  

Also many people acquire their “vacation home” at or near retirement so there again that thought process is assumed and not necessarily accurate. 

She may or may not have assets of her own frankly that doesn't matter.  If anyone is worried about assets going to one or the others kids only, then set up a trust which only goes to children when both spouses have died.  Make all shares in the trust to each child equal.   Kids did not contribute to the household or expenses there is no reason to leave them money.  

Sandybeaches's picture

My answer was in general this is not my situation at all.... 

However I have been through it as the child in the scenario.  We had a bad situation when my mother died.  My Stepfather whom to that point I had adored and my mother had mirror Wills however it didn't quite go the way it should have. 

After a tremendous amount of arguing I had to buy many of my family heirlooms at a garage sale....  It truly was heartbreaking and destroyed the relationship with my stepdad... It could have been so much comfort to have him in my life after my mother had died. 

My mother and he had been married 32 years a good share of my life.  To add to it I couldn't afford to buy all of the things I wanted of hers and had to let some go.  Truly heartbreaking.  I guess sometimes you really don't know people and how they will react.  

ldvilen's picture

N/A

Swim_Mom's picture

...some of the posts here expressed skepticism about a post-nuptial. We have one, simply because we didn't get the pre-nuptial done in time. We have 7 kids between us; it was highly necessary. We spent about 18 months on the post-nuptial/trusts/wills - we are lucky because my Dad is an estate planning attorney. The way i felt when we first got married is different from how I felt a year later, and it continues to change. Before we got married, we naively spoke of "all of our kids".  It did not take me long to realize I will never be a parent to his kids nor think of them even remotely as my own, but he is a Dad to mine (mainly due to age of kids at time of marriage and the fact he lives with my kids...but also most of his kids are very strange to say the least).  I thought that I'd want to combine finances when he is done paying his ex wife maintenance (9 more payments!!), but I don't see that happening. I just cannot fathom a dime I earn going towards skids. However, my feelings of "us" continue to increase, if that makes sense? Meaning I would want to be sure he is taken care of - (not that I did not initially) and he wants to be sure I am as well. In my opinion, this topic needs to be revisited on a regular basis over time.

Rags's picture

Nope, kids never come first in a family whether that family is blended or not.  The adult relationship at the core of the family is the only top priority. Period.

If not... then the marriage is far more likely than not... temporary.

Minor children are the top relationship responsibility but never surplant the core adult relationship as priority.  They do not come first. Ever.  When those kids become adults... they are not even on the scale of important.   Yes, love adult children. But... it is up to them to privide for themselves.  

This person is... an idiot.

MissDenise's picture

The wife merely expressed feeling slighted by her spouse for having most of the estate go to his kids. Then of course the nasty comment which would have been a big red flag for me.  If they were married a year there's plenty of compromise. A life insurance policy, buy a home together with mortgage ins. incase eithers dies.

I could go on, but there wasn't any reason for his comment, or to leave her out. A healthy marriage should include your spouse being secure as well. Length of marriage doesn't matter, but she should have told him before the will whereby they could come up with something more fair. Not complain about it later.  On the upside they can redo, or update their will/trust down the road. Sadly the husband put a big dent in his marriage.

Rags's picture

Nope, they don't. They don't come first in any family. The marriage comes first. If it doesn't, it is in all likelihood doomed to failure.

The author, and the DH... are idiots. The wife is an idiot if she puts up with it.

The DH will soon be on wife #X+1 with this adult child worshipping BS.   It isn't his leaving his estate to his kids. After all he and SM have only been married for a year. It is the dipshit's "my kids will always come first" ball-less non man failed father bullshit that will end this marriage. And it should end earlier rather than later.

IMHO of course.

sandye21's picture

This article was written by a 'Life Coach'.  Minimal training / time frame to be a 'Life Coach' according to Google:  'Investing in Professionalism. The ICF's minimum training program puts you through 60 hours of coach training and 10 hours with a mentor to build you as a professional. You then need 100 hours of experience coaching actual clients before earning certification.'  A grand total of 170 hours, or at 6 hours a day, 28 days.  And this qualifies the author to publish life-guiding 'advice' on the internet!

My next job:  Life Coach!!!  LOL LOL  The sad thing is some poor soul is going to take this garbage seriously.

ldvilen's picture

Well, here are the five most overpaid professions according to MarketWatch: Mutual fund managers, washed up pro-athletes in long-term contracts, CEOs of poorly performing companies (a big one!), orthodontists, and motivational speakers and ex-politicians.  

I think we could put life coaches in the motivational speakers’ category.  And, especially if they have some sort of axe to grind too.

SCDad01's picture

New to the site and this is the first thread I clicked on.  Ironic since kids coming first is the reason our blended family is no more.  My DW and I have been separated for a few months and she finally told me that although she loves me dearly and wants to be with me, her BD/BS will always come first.  And since her BD (10) is not happy and doesn't always get along with my BS/BD, she wants to divorce.  She even said she wishes we could fast forward 10 years down the road so we wouldn't have this issue.  Obviously I'm a firm believer your spouse has to always come first.  This is all very recent, so I'm struggling to comprehend it all.