How can I ensure my stepsons don't get a penny from my will?

*max*

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

And the OP's stepkids are grown ups! Grown ups! Her husband needs to nurture the relationship as much as she does, after all - he knew he had kids before she did.

Of course her husband should play his part in trying to ease the relationship. Everyone involved should. But all this talk about who is to blame is useless, it's just going round in circles and it's immature: "they don't make an effort, so why should I?", "she made it clear she doesn't like us, so why should we?". Actually, as her husband is in the middle of it all, and being torn between "allegiances" (not wanting to lose his sons again, and not wanting to ruin his marriage), he could try to be the mediator here.

The OP said she married a man, not his family... I think it's a moot point, and quite a blinkered way of thinking. As it stands, if the situation doesn't get solved, I can see it escalating, to the point that her husband will feel he has to chose between her and his sons. I'm not sure she would win that battle, to be honest!

catfish50

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

And the OP's stepkids are grown ups! Grown ups!

I think the OP said the youngest was 12. Whatever their ages, the step-mother's position is a *parental* position. She needs to learn to care about the welfare of her husband's stepchildren, or it will continue to be a problem between them.

Her husband needs to nurture the relationship as much as she does, after all - he knew he had kids before she did.

He needs to nurture his relationship with his kids also. A wise stepmother would try to keep things from coming to a point where the father has to choose between his wife and his kids. (If it's important to her to stay in the relationship, that is. She may dislike the stepchildren so much she'd rather leave than put up with them.)

Sambucus_Nigra

*max* wrote: »

Of course her husband should play his part in trying to ease the relationship. Everyone involved should.

My original response still stands to eloise who said Both have to make an effort, but mostly the stepmother.

I don't have an issue with everyone involved making an effort - I take issue with the stepmother having to make most of the effort. Why?

*max*

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

My original response still stands to eloise who said Both have to make an effort, but mostly the stepmother.

I don't have an issue with everyone involved making an effort - I take issue with the stepmother having to make most of the effort. Why?

Because she chose to join the family by marrying their father, the sons didn't have a choice, and she's a parental figure, as Catfish said. Again, saying she didn't marry the family is irrelevant, it's a package - she can't pick and chose who's family and who isn't. Also, being much younger, they obviously don't have the maturity and experience to deal with the situation as well as their step-mother (well, as well as she should anyway).

Mojisola

I think the discussion about whether the OP should make an effort to get to know and get on with the stepsons that she didn't think were going to be part of her life is irrelevant to the original question. Even if she does build a relationship with them, there's no reason for them to expect to be beneficiaries of her will. Regardless of how they get on, she still has the right to leave her money to the charity.

*max*

Mojisola wrote: »

I think the discussion about whether the OP should make an effort to get to know and get on with the stepsons that she didn't think were going to be part of her life is irrelevant to the original question. Even if she does build a relationship with them, there's no reason for them to expect to be beneficiaries of her will. Regardless of how they get on, she still has the right to leave her money to the charity.

Yup. The thread has gone on a tangent, although I think it was inevitable! A solicitor's advice was always the best option.

mumps

Jerryjerryjerry wrote: »

What makes you come to that conclusion?

Bitter and angry?

Or worried to hell that my hard earned cash is going to be fed to a donkey? There is a hell of a difference.. and only those who have slogged their guts out for 24 years+ without going on the dole would understand that.

You clearly are not of that calibre.

I have "slogged my guts out" i.e. worked, for 42 years and still counting. I have also brought up four children, been carer for my disabled husband, rescued four homeless dogs and more than a dozen stray cats. Sorry I am not of your calibre and I still hope you can find some happiness. Good luck.

consultant31

wannaberich81 wrote: »

are you a selfish step parent too???

Not at all. I have three children of my own (all grown up now) and they all know the value of money and work hard for theirs as their father and I have done for ours.

All our money will be left to our children and grandchildren but if they were shiftless and !!!!less, they wouldn't get a full share.

It's all very well to 'wannaberich' as long as you're prepared to work and save.

Jerryjerryjerry

Look, when all is said and done, my husband convinced me he didn't have his sons in his life anymore. He knew I wasn't the maternal type.

Ok... things changed upon marriage (which we all know, is life). I tried very hard to accept the situation and tried to get along with the children (young adults + 14 yr old son). It didn't work out. I'm not happy being around any of them. I can't feel something for them I don't.

I wouldn't dream of getting in the way of a father seeing his sons. As long as I don't have to spend my time with them.

We must remember they have a very loving grandmother and also their birth mother who is around.

I am not bound to my husband, ie. I don't need him financially or emotionally. I married him because I loved him.

Neither of us need each other financially. My husband will be left his mother's house so wont need my house.

HOwever, if we divorce or if I die I will still give him the option to stay in our house... even though he probably would prefer to go and live with his mother and his eldest. I'm sure his mother will leave her house to her son (my husband is the sole beneficiary).

I'm going to seek legal advice. The only reason we are living in a house of our own is because I had the money (from the sale of my house in London), and I didn't want to live with my mil and sil. I wanted my independance.

Although I love my husband, I'm not infatuated by him and i'm not reliant on him. Infact, I was better off, financially before I met him. However, it would be nice to try to build a life together.

If his sons get in the way of our marriage and it becomes too much for me, I will be forced to divorce. I don't see that as a problem. I wouldn't have lost anything.

I have never wanted children. Ok, I married a man with children, however, he ensured me time and time again that they were out of his life. Ok.. they're back.. that's fine.. I want him to be happy.. and I want his children to be happy. However, if they can be happy without me being involved, that would be great. But I would prefer to be left out of their lives. If this doesn't work... then divorce might be the only option. No problem there at all. I'm quite happy to walk away ... but I will go with what I came into the marriage with.

*max*

Jerryjerryjerry wrote: »

If his sons get in the way of our marriage and it becomes too much for me, I will be forced to divorce. I don't see that as a problem. I wouldn't have lost anything.

So, it really is all about money, isn't it? I find it so very sad.

You wouldn't have lost anything? You will have lost the man you love and your marriage to him, and you "don't see that as a problem". It's ok because you wouldn't have lost any money, isn't it? Only your husband.

I'm sorry, I find it really, really hard to feel any sympathy for you right now.