Savings Accounts and Children (Step Family)

Bluemeanie_2

19lottie82 wrote: »

She's unemployed. He could get the CSA on her for £5 per week, but what good would that do, apart from cause resentment? Even if she did get a job (which I doubt), I don't think he would ask her for anything in case she flipped her lid. He's trying to keep waters as still as possible for the sake of the kids.

True. I was just curious as I just find it interesting that if that was said by a female PWC the male NRP would have been ripped to shreds but because it is a woman not supporting her kids it seems ok.

Back to your original question lol, I as they live with you, and they are older than yours, in this case I would save all the child benefit, but cut it up equally (doesn't the eldest technically get more?), then as you started saving later for the stepkids, that really isn't your fault, just circumstances so the fact your child will get more can't be helped. their Mother has a choice to save for them if she wishes.

fannyanna

OP - This child is not yours and if you don't want to save for its future then you don't have to. Simples.

To me what seems logical is for your OH to save the same amount for both his children. That way he'll feel as though he's doing the right thing and everything is fair.

You can then top up the savings account of your own child with your own money.

Seems perfectly reasonable and logical to me.

Bluemeanie_2

clearingout wrote: »

yes, of course it's up to her who she chooses as a partner. But by saying that, aren't we basically turning a blind eye? isn't that the same as saying it's OK to create children and to then choose to move on and not support them? Surely as a society we shouldn't be shrugging our shoulders and saying 'her choice' but should be screaming at the tops of our voices that people who refuse to face their responsibilities (whatever they may be) shouldn't have a place in a civilised society? By choosing to turn our backs we are saying it's OK and we are standing by the side of people like my ex who refuse to face their responsibilities. That's not the kind of world I want to live in. No, that isn't what I'm saying at all. You are trying to twist my words. Your ex should support his kids, and the fact she helps him get out of this then there isn't a lot to be said about her poor moral fibre. But the fact that she wants to be with someone who does this to his kids, as you commented on before is nothing to do with you. You can have your opinion about her choice in men all you want, but ultimately that is nothing to do with you.

The OP has chosen to share her income 100% with her partner. You can't get away from that. Now she wants to gloss over that and save more for her child with the expectation that her step child receives less whilst still saying 'what's yours is mine' to her husband.... I have every empathy with why she might feel that way - but I don't accept it as right.

By earning a lot more than him, she already contributes a lot more to the relationship financially. If he wants to separate their finances now he will be a lot worse off if she earns that much more than him. I earn more than my Husband but I would not have him dictate how my money is spent. She is already contributuin a lot more so I don't see anything wrong with him wanting to share his income with his two kids and her income with her. Baring in mind she will technically subsidise his contribution one way or another.

Bluemeanie_2

fannyanna wrote: »

OP - This child is not yours and if you don't want to save for its future then you don't have to. Simples.

To me what seems logical is for your OH to save the same amount for both his children. That way he'll feel as though he's doing the right thing and everything is fair.

You can then top up the savings account of your own child with your own money.

Seems perfectly reasonable and logical to me.

Exactly my point.

19lottie82

double post in error....

jungle_jane

fannyanna wrote: »

OP - This child is not yours and if you don't want to save for its future then you don't have to. Simples.

To me what seems logical is for your OH to save the same amount for both his children. That way he'll feel as though he's doing the right thing and everything is fair.

You can then top up the savings account of your own child with your own money.

Seems perfectly reasonable and logical to me.

I also think this sounds fair...Only issue (unless I misread) is that there is no concept of 'your' money because the OP and her OH share money and it is all deemed to be 'ours'.

Perhaps the idea of saving the CB as a top up would get around this?

I still think OP and her OH need a serious chat though about what will be funded for SD out of the joint pot in time to come as she may find that her OH has sharply differing views to her!

19lottie82

Bluemeanie wrote: »

I would save all the child benefit, but cut it up equally .

Yes but CB will stop for the kids at different dates because there will be a big age gap.

If my OH and I had a child when his 2 are 12 and 15, then they would respectively receive (assuming they stay at home and in education until their 19th b'days), 19 years, 7 years and 4 years of CB.

I would certainly split it 3 years equally while they are entitled to it, but surely it wouldn't make sense to be putting aside 1/3 of a CB payment for the eldest who would be in her early 30s while we woudl still be receiveing for the youngest.

BUT if we just gave them "their share", then the amount they had saved up would be very different.

HOWEVER maybe another factor but my OH spends a LOT on his girls and while they are lovely kids, respectful and well behaved, they are spoilt. Not spoilt in the sense of being a spoilt brat in the slightest, but spoilt in the way that anything they ask for they get. New clothes, laptops, ipods, mobile phones, TV's, Sky boxes in their rooms. So their CB goes towards that sort of stuff I guess.
While I would never put my OH down for how much he spends on his kids, when / if I have a child, there is no way they will get given stuff like this, any luxuries that they want, they will have to work for them. Maybe they will hate me for it and think it's unfair, but thats just the way I am!

Their Mother is a recovering alcoholic, this is why my OH has custody of the kids and she doesn't work. The kids have been through a lot, which maybe explains the above.

There isn't a simple answer for this one I suppose, and as I said it's really just a "what if" at the moment, as we are not even considering TTC for at least another year.

Bluemeanie_2

19lottie82 wrote: »

double post in error....

What I meant was by "share" was, doesn't the eldest get £20.30 and the subsequent children £13.40? So I would add that all together then share it between the 3 accounts. £15.70 each. Rather than giving the eldest £20.30 and the others the less.

I didn't mean share it when CB stops being paid altogether for any of the children. When the olders stops it stops. You child will get more but you can't help that.

Acc72

FatVonD wrote: »

Your stepdaughter's mother will be in receipt of child benefit for her but because of lifestyle choices made by her and your husband she is not in a position to save the

I don't want to create another tangent, but the above is a massive assumption.

There could be lots of reasons (other than "lifestyle choice") why the stepdaughters mother does not work.

19lottie82

Bluemeanie wrote: »

I didn't mean share it when CB stops being paid altogether for any of the children. When the olders stops it stops. You child will get more but you can't help that.

Ah OK, I get you. Yes I know that makes sense, I would prob feel guilty tho. But then again, there wouldn't be a lot I could do about it.