Total tripe.

Utter nonsense.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.  

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.  

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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...

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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

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.  

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!!!

sorry hit save twice

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. 

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.  

N/A

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.