New Marriage, New Family Finances: What's Fair

Dear Carrie: I'm about to get married for the second time. I have two kids, 8 and 10, and my fiancee has two teenagers. Everyone gets along well, but my husband-to-be is a lot wealthier than I, and his kids have been raised with very different financial expectations.

It's not that I necessarily expect him to now pay for everything for my kids, but at the same time, I don't want them to feel like they get less because they're less worthy. What's fair in a situation like this? --A Reader

Dear Reader: Even the most compatible couple can have money problems and blending a family can raise even bigger issues. What's "fair" may be different to different couples, so it's crucial that you and your fiancee have a heart-to-heart now -- so that you can find what feels right to the two of you.

Talking it out is especially important because this isn't just about numbers. It's about your feelings and your values -- the "glue" that will hold you together as a family. So be open about your feelings. Trust me, by dealing with all these topics openly and honestly now, you can avoid some real heartache down the road.

Also, you don't mention if your ex-spouses are in the picture. If they are, your situation may be even more complicated, so start talking right away.

START WITH THE TWO OF YOU

Right from the start it's important for both of you to reveal exactly how what you own and anything you owe. Full disclosure is essential!

Next talk about how you'll "marry" your finances. There's no one-size-fits-all formula for everyone, but talk about who will pay for what and which assets you intend to combine and which you plan to keep separate. Just as an example, if one of you owns a home, will the other buy in?

Also discuss accounts. To me, a certain amount of financial independence is a good thing. In fact, I often recommend a "yours, mine and ours" approach so that both partners have some autonomy but also work as a team. It's best if both have the same amount of discretionary money even if one earns more.

And finally, how will you split up the financial chores? It's fine if one of you is more involved in your finances on a day-to-day basis, but you should both be involved in all the big decisions.

TALK ABOUT THE VALUES YOU WANT TO IMPART TO THE KIDS

Deb344 Wrote: Dec 28, 2011 5:38 PM

If I were the husband-to-be or his children, I would be very concerned by the letter writer's focus on his financial situation. She seems to view the marriage as an opportunity to financially improve her children's lives even at the expense of her future husband's own children. Let's suppose that he's saved an adequate amount to send his children to a private college without the need for student loans but not enough to provide that for her children as well. Should his children be harmed just because she and her ex-husband didn't save enough? This situation is exactly why pre-nups were created. Her children aren't entitled to her future husband's wealth or estate. She's marrying this man...not his money, right? Or is she a gold-digger?

Flag as Offensive

Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Dec 28, 2011 7:34 PM

No one should form a family where some of the kids ride first class while others have to ride coach.

Once the family is formed the resources of that family must be shared fairly with all family members. If you can't do that you shouldn't be marrying.

Deb344 Wrote: Dec 29, 2011 1:01 PM

I don't believe he should marry the letter writer if she's so interested in his money. I'm married to my college sweetheart, and we've worked extremely hard to save a large amount of money for our children's education. I've worked hard, and I've chosen not to spend that money on myself in order to provide for my children's college and grad school. My husband has done the same. If one of us were to pass away prematurely, it would be an incredible betrayal for the other to marry someone who would want some of that money for his or her own children. If we won the lottery and had more than our children would need for their education, I might feel differently.

Chries Wrote: Dec 28, 2011 11:05 AM

My wife required the following prenup:

What's her's is her's and what's mine is her's.

Pretty good marriage, so far.

Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Dec 28, 2011 9:44 AM

Marriage is a binding of two-made-one. If you cannot combine your finances so that all income and property is considered joint and so that all household members have an equal right to a share in what personal spending money remains after all household and child-related expenses have been covered you aren't committed enough to combine your lives into one life as a couple much less your beings into one unit as a couple.

USMC LM Wrote: Dec 28, 2011 11:38 AM

well said!

RockyMtnRick Wrote: Dec 28, 2011 3:02 PM

Sorry, “Mother of 4,” but you obviously haven’t entered a new relationship with the wealth of your lifetime being significantly more than your new spouse, plus new kids that will require years more of care. “Combining” assets isn’t about love; both parties have responsibility to themselves and their blood children that must be considered first. Once they are married, income and property earned during the marriage is split 50/50 is most states. What’s “fair” for the four kids is a choice of the four parents (assuming ex’s are still alive). Carrie is right—this will require a lot of work, and a pre-nup is about setting expectations and protecting everyone. Your ideal world may exist, but mostly for people who have nothing to lose.

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Dec 28, 2011 3:44 PM

If you can't trust each other with your joint finances then you don't trust each other enough to form a marriage.

Once you marry there is no more Me and You but only Us -- a single unit composed of two hearts, minds, souls, and bodies functioning as one being. In one of the great mysteries of existence, this actually enhances each person's individuality rather than extinguishing it as that level of trust and support permits all masks to be removed.

To enter a marriage with reservations and withhold the full measure of yourself from the union is to be false to your vows even as you speak them and to guarantee that the marriage will be on rocky ground from day one.

Deb344 Wrote: Dec 28, 2011 5:54 PM

Unless both the letter writer and her future husband were widowed, they've already gotten divorced once before. Mother-of-4, I agree with you that marriage should involve complete trust-- including joint finances. But the future husband has an obligation to protect his children. Without a prenup, he's at risk financially, but there is no corresponding risk for the future stepmother. If they marry and divorce without a prenup, she can take half of his assets. I am married to my college sweetheart. If either of us were widowed, we would NEVER consider remarrying without a prenup to protect the substantial assets we have saved for our kids. As parents, our first obligation is protecting our children.

Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Dec 28, 2011 7:37 PM

If they can't have that level of trust in each other they have no business marrying at all.

If the kids require that much protection from your love interest/object of passion then you should truly put the kids first by abandoning that dangerous love interest/object of passion and seeking out a person whom you actually can trust.

Deb344 Wrote: Dec 29, 2011 12:47 PM

A future spouse who won't sign a prenup isn't trustworthy in my opinion. If you aren't marrying for money, you should have no objections to a prenup. There's a reason why so many fairytales feature an evil stepmother, and the letter-writer demonstrates why. It will be natural for her to do things that may harm his children if it benefits hers (e.g. if there's not enough money for a private college for her children too, she could convince him to make his kids attend a lower-quality school). And, if he doesn't do what she wants, she can divorce him and take 1/2 his assets. He'd be a fool to marry her and a bigger fool to marry her without a prenup since she clearly is interested in his bank account as well as him.

Adrian63 Wrote: Dec 28, 2011 9:21 AM

Settle all money issues before the vows and never marry the runner-up of a Swedish beauty contest. They never get over it and will spend you into the poor house trying to find a comfortable pair of high heels.

The Two Minute Conservative at http://adrianvance.blogspot.com for political analysis, science and humor. Daily on Kindle.

garageman Wrote: Dec 28, 2011 3:10 PM

A question: Why do men marry such women? Sexual desire? Even ancient Greece and Rome were filled with hookers to fulfill their temporary lust. We men invite, and get, trouble from such broads.

karen33 Wrote: Dec 28, 2011 8:34 AM

If they already had this conversation, they the marriage is definately doomed.

NormRx Wrote: Dec 28, 2011 7:40 AM

The man in this situation has to be really stupid to even consider marriage. If he wants to get married he should wait until all of the children are on their own. If he marries this woman I would bet the marriage would be over before her youngest leaves the house, or she might wait until after he pays for her kids college education.

Chries Wrote: Dec 28, 2011 11:04 AM

Norm, let me guess; bad divorce?

Allahpundit	Quotes of the day
Jazz Shaw	Reality Check: People getting worried about this economy
Jazz Shaw	California high speed rail project going pretty much as expected
Ed Morrissey	Milwaukee Journal Sentinel endorses Walker in recall race
Jazz Shaw	Study: State oversight of gas drilling doing just fine
Ed Morrissey	Video: Romney honors Cuban democracy activists on Cuban Independence Day

New Marriage, New Family Finances: What's Fair

Carrie Schwab Pomerantz

Most Recent Articles

Video

New Marriage, New Family Finances: What's Fair

Carrie Schwab Pomerantz

Most Recent Articles

Sign-Up to receive Updates from TH

Video