Spouse or kids, who gets top billing?
Forums:
Good morning! I have often wondered this with second marriages and adult kids. I think most couples start out marriages saying the marriage bond trumps all, yet clearly the distinction really blurs as the years go by.
Do you put your spouse first? And vice versa?
In many ways, the spouse should be golden given that adult kids leave the nest and have their own families.
Who to care for you when you are 75, infirm and your kids live cross country? It just makes sense to me. Yet does anyone believe it?
And I might add that I do
And I might add that I do this on a day by day basis. There are no clear guidelines I follow. I do think it is healthier for kids to see you united with your spouse and not allow them to manipulate. Money wise I have to say I
Expect ALL my assets go to my kids.
All assets to your kids? Ok I
All assets to your kids? Ok I get second marriages is a whole different ball game than a first, that is reality. I do not agree that all assets go to the prior kids, unless each person in the partnership is independently wealthy. For example, if you share a home that you both contributed to , I would not leave my half to my kids if I passed away before my spouse. Vise versa. What if the partner now goes onto struggling to survive because all of deceased partners children inherited everything. To me that's wrong.
OP and her DH have separate
OP and her DH have separate residences owning separate houses (he insists on keeping his own house) and have separate accounts, and she said they are both physicians. Most certainly under those circumstances I'd leave everything to my kid. I'd not give him a penny but that's not how most people live.
Thanks for the coles notes
Thanks for the coles notes version. Not a "traditional" marriage for sure.
OP yes the spouse should be considered "golden" especially if the kids are adults and live on their own. I mean I am certain when daddy needs his depends changed princess or prince will be nowhere to be found.
Exactly, but it seems most if
Exactly, but it seems most if not all of the posters here are experiencing the opposite. And it is hard because essentially step kids and spouses have totally opposite needs.
And I
Do think society doesn't view second marriages as first.
Just was reading article in NY times about finances for older women and how even if they have CIVIL relationship with second spouse, they will not respect their parent's will and go after the second spouse.
All of this should be
All of this should be discussed prior to making major decisions.
I'm with the OP. All of my assets will go to my son, nieces and nephews when I die. My opinion would be different if a SO had been there early on and helped to contribute toward those assests.
I'm not going to marry someone late i life then have them, their children, future spouse...benefit from my death.
"What if the partner now goes onto struggling to survive because all of deceased partners children inherited everything. To me that's wrong."
I would wonder what choices that person made that would result in him/her being in this stitution. I'm talking about older couples that met in their 40s/50s.
My reasoning with the house
My reasoning with the house if both partners bought the house together, it was their baby so to speak, that would be IMO inherited to each other. I would never consider my life partner whether I met him at 20 or at 40 benefiting by my death. I would think we benefited each other during life, and I sure wouldn't leave my partner in a bind through my death. But hey, I guess I consider my partner a priority during life and after death. In no way would I cheat my children to whats rightfully theirs. And that is for each individual to decide what that is. Chances are children have a lifetime to support themselves and viable in the working world, a spouse at 60 for example would not.
what choices got an older person 40's and 50's to not be able to solely survive. Depends on the situation, life advantages and disadvantages and achievements. Do I think everyone should try to maintain an independent wealth regardless of status, of course! But that is not always the case. Many reasons why someone isn't.
I also agree all of this
I also agree all of this should be discussed prior.
What I know now compared to
What I know now compared to what I knew before has totally done a 360.
People can say anything and then years later do something different.
The other thought is do couples really need to get married if the kids and spouse don't see eye to eye?
So, am I reading that if the
So, am I reading that if the children don't see eye-to-eye with the soon-to-be spouse the BIO parent should stay woefully single forever until the kids agree? Even if they are unbearably entitled millenials? Because with my SS I know the demands would be a new 50K car per year, every electronic device available, incessant funds for the to-be grandkids with the rules continuing to change on a daily basis. Sign me up!
No one (male or female) is going to find a quality second marriage with those demands.
Same here. We remarried in
Same here. We remarried in our 50s and had our own assets. We both knew that our assets would go to our kids. Otherwise what can happen is all the assets go to the surviving spouse and then from that person to his or her children, leaving the heirs of the first spouse to die with nothing.
When we do buy our own house together we plan to title it as tenants in common so we each own our half , unless we find a better way to do it.
My DH and I just bought a
My DH and I just bought a home. We both have kids from a prior marriage. His are grown, mine are almost grown and are launching any minute. My DH is older than me. I am in my mid 40's. When we got together, I was moving up the ladder at work, was independent and caring for my kids by myself since their father decided to take off. Well, we were merging our lives and I was fully able to save for my future.
Then in a matter of a few days, my life changed forever.
I came down with a severe, rare chronic illness that has left me disabled for the past 10 years. I can no longer work or care for myself and my children. I don't know what I would do without my husband. He is incredibly kind, caring, loving, supportive and understanding. He's never made me feel like a loser for getting sick. I know I didn't get sick on purpose but I do feel so bad about it. The vibrant young woman he married is gone. Now my life is full of physical pain and weakness that is so severe that it is a major feat just to take a shower and wash my hair. I love my DH very much and can never repay him for what he's done for us.
So, it's not always the choices that results in someone being in this type of situation. I didn't choose to be without money or security that I earned. In my case, it was a very sad and unforeseen circumstance and I wouldn't wish this type of illness on anyone. I didn't do anything wrong. I was responsible and hard working. I did not choose a life of disease and disability. Disease, disability and pain chose me.
I do find this a bit
I do find this a bit interesting as well... I'm a SM, put my SS through college because his Father couldn't afford it and I make well over 200% of what my husband does. I have no BIOs of my own (nor plan to). It's nice to understand that it's reasonable to abandon my spouse financially. Particularly since the funds will go to charity...
I don't really understand
I don't really understand your question. It really depends. If my adult DD needs my help with something serious and my DH wants to go see a movie, then my DD will come first. And vice versa.
Are you asking about your situation? In your situation your DH wants to spend time with his kids, and you don't, it doesn't mean he should abandon and never see his kids because you don't like them. I'd divorce my DH if he told me not see my DD even if hypothetically he didn't like her.
I guess it is just in
I guess it is just in general, not my situation. I think this board exists in part because spouses don't put spouses first.
And the set up is almost guaranteed for this. At least in a first marriage, the connections are equal.
Clearly spouses who align themselves with their adult children ARE NOT putting marriage first.
I was reading an article recently about how second wives are not taken seriously by society in general.
And I think that is true. I know w/me since I came on scene late and don't share kids, I was never treated as anything more than a girlfriend.
" I know w/me since I came on
" I know w/me since I came on scene late and don't share kids, I was never treated as anything more than a girlfriend."
In my two cents, no spouse should be treated as the GF who is disposable and doesn't count nor is worthy of respect. When a parent selects a new spouse and desires to rebuild their life and be happy and fulfilled as an individual adult, whether the adult child approves or not, the new relationship needs to be respected as their parent's decision. The new spouse should be treated as their parent's choice in life and be civil and accepting that their parent desires to continue on with his/her adult life and live life to it's fullest. I guess, in other words, if your parent is happy the adult child needs to be happy for their parent. Accept that their parent loves and has chosen to have this new spouse in his life.
I am also talking about your
I am also talking about your spouse's immediate and extended family. At our age, most of the players have known each other for 30 plus years and their kids are close cousins. My inlaw family all share email groups that I never was a part of. And I get that I was very late and share no kids, cousins with the parents. Do most of you have different experiences with your in law family?
I don't think that's why this
I don't think that's why this board exists at all. Not everyone is in the same boat on here. We don't share kids and got married at 50, but I certainly am not treated as a girlfriend. Perhaps you are treated as a girlfriend because you maintain separate residences. Also your DH is kind of a jerk. That's typically doesnt occur in every marriage.
I am not sure what do you mean by "align yourself with adult kids". What does it mean? We don't stop treasuring our adult kids because we married each other. We do have boundaries though.
In your situation you can't ask your DH not to have kids over or not spend time with them. It's unrealistic.
So many of the folks on here
So many of the folks on here have husbands without backbones
and balls in their daughter's
and balls in their daughter's purses
Thanks for the much needed
Thanks for the much needed laugh !!
I am still confused. How
I am still confused. How seeing ones children makes one "having no backbone"?
I am talking about all the
I am talking about all the horrible stories about many spouses and their adult kids! It is fine to see their kids! It is when steps and spouses collide and the parent condones the behavior.
Oh ok. You are making such
Oh ok. You are making such general statements so it's hard to tell what you really mean
Are the parents condoning the
Are the parents condoning the behavior or are they simply unwilling to carry/share in their spouses anger?
If you(general you)make the choice to remove your SKs from your life,you shouldn't expect your spouse to make the same choice.
That doesn't mean he/she is condoning bad behavior. They have decided that it is best to compartmentalize the various relationships.
This is a fascinating post.
This is a fascinating post. When we purchased our joint property DH and I both made separate wills. We both own half the property- if one of us goes first the other can either buy their share of the house and stay in it, handing over the half share to the children of the deceased partner. Or, the surviving spouse has two years to sell the property and hand over half the cash to the surviving skids. We did this because in Fairyland the spouse would automatically inherit the whole property, and could therefore leave it to their own children leaving skids without their inheritance. I know of so many examples of where one party has died and their families have been entitled to nothing- I think what we have done is fair to all parties. It has certainly given me peace of mind.
Sounds like a good plan. But
Sounds like a good plan. But as the times article pointed out, anyone can contest anything and many stepkids contest wills if lots assets involved. The one woman quoted in article kept her assets but spent tons money defending herself.
the queston should be "Are
the queston should be "Are second marriages worth it?" That is if you have all this to deal with. Gone are the days when someone passes away and an inheritance from great aunt edna was a surprised gift. Now it could be contested, darn!! How awful it would be to lose your loved one (spouse) and while grieving the kids are contesting what he left you.
Anyone can contest a will
Anyone can contest a will yes,but if I go first my kids will be ok. If DH goes first and his family get funny then let them take me on! I think our decision has been fair to all parties, in the end you can't completely control what happens to your money once you're gone, which means you're better off spending it!
Curious how folks would feel
Curious how folks would feel if the entirety of the down payment to "shared" property was made by the spouse who didn't come into the marriage with children and said spouse afforded a far grander lifestyle to SKids (who have said "thank you" maybe 3 times in a decade). This spouse with the biological children is approaching retirement age with $1,000 combined in savings, maybe $3K in 401K and a boatload of debt.
In our case should my husband pass first I'll use that cash to pay off his debt (not ours, HIS) at which point there will be nothing left... in fact I'm certain I'll still owe more out of my personal savings. That being said, I would COMPLETELY expect the SS will be a livid little beast and try to sue me for money that isn't there... or something like that.
I'm not nearly usually THIS bitter, but still a bit seething from a nastigram from the kid a few months back who has holding a copy of our joint tax returns (which he had to submit for school loans). SS decided it was appropriate to demand money because "our" (his Father and my) decisions on our taxes were "irresponsible" and "didn't agree with his (SS) values" so we should write him (SS) a check for what Turbotax deemed we would have saved if we had filed according to his beliefs. Yeah, sorry, I'll take my CPAs opinion over yours, kid. SMH.
My Sister died 2 1/2 years
My Sister died 2 1/2 years ago. She assumed her husband was going to die before her. She had worked hard all of her life while her husband made some bad financial choices. Fortunately, she had time to create a will and designate where her assets to whomever she wanted.
My DH made some bad financial choices too and did not save a lot of money. I worked hard and did save prior to our marriage. We both bought the house we now live in. If one of us dies the house will go to the spouse but my savings will go to charity. I am also going to look into the possibility of creating a will so that if I die first only 1/2 of the house would go to SD when DH passes.
There is no way I want to give SD anything. I know she would never give me anything nor would she come to my aid if I needed it. I know I am not in HER will. It's mutual.
Did the separate wills create
Did the separate wills create any bad feelings between your sister and her husband?
I can't really say. My BIL
I can't really say. My BIL seems to be doing OK. He got the home but her kids got her savings/
Newandimproved, in response
Newandimproved, in response to your question, my answer is the marriage should come first and anything that threatens that relationship needs to be dealt with as soon as possible. There are many things that can threaten or strengthen marriages, such as money, children, work, hobbies, health, relatives, friends, holidays, etc. and how you and your partner deal with these issues will define the success or failure of the relationship. What I have observed on this site is a large number of people are in situations where others (such as children, adult children, ex-spouses, relatives, friends and so on) think they have the right to define the marriage and major issues inevitably arise.
You nailed it. But aren't we
You nailed it. But aren't we all guilty of not protecting the marriage at times? And there are so many cooks in the kitchen
The spouse and marriage is
The spouse and marriage is the unequivocal priority for both partners... or at least they should be. My parents set and live this example.
Non adult children are the top marital responsibility. Adult children... dont rate other than as family members. They have their own lives to live, relationships to navigate and potentially their own family spouse to make their priority and their own family to focus on.
From an asset distribution perspective our situation is pretty simple. My SS (no adopted) is an only child in our family. My wife and I are each the sole heir and beneficiary to our entire estate should one of us pre-decease the other. In the event of our joint demise our son is the sole heir and beneficiary of our joint estate though it only gets released from a trust upon his 40th birthday or graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor's degree. The trust is to be administered by my brother and/or my father. The goal in that stipulation is to protect our assets from both the SpermClan and my ILs.
All I know is that if
All I know is that if something happens to DH or our marriage ends I won't be saying "I do" again. Love this man but the whole balancing act between blended families is something I'm done with. We've talked about wills but he doesn't want to make a decision and would rather have it all go through probate so he doesn't look like the bad guy in anyones eyes. I'm hoping this will eventually change but I almost think being divorced would be better than him dying and me having to deal w/the mess of nasty adult skids.
Spot on.
Spot on.
Our solution is to donate our
Our solution is to donate our house to charity, with the surviving spouse having lifetime occupancy and then no adult children will be thinking it's theirs someday, displacing the surviving spouse from their home. I have seen that happen to people, and it gets so ugly, we are avoiding any fight over our house we leave behind.
Lord willing, DH and I will have another 30+ years to enjoy our home and retirement years together. I'm keeping the worry out of it.
I have more assets than my DH
I have more assets than my DH - he got pretty wiped out in his divorce.
Everything is in my name. I've set up a trust that allows my DH to live in one of my homes (I have 3) during his lifetime. He will also get a modest income to supplement his. But he will have NOTHING of mine to leave to his worthless son or to the grandson. DH did have to sign off to agree to the terms of the trust since he is my legal husband - but that was never an issue.
I'm older than DH so I'm sure SS32 thinks his dad will inherit a boatload of money to give to him. He's going to be so disappointed.