Fair D'income

I have been devouring every scrap of literature on step-motherhood and dating divorced daddies that I can find in the somewhat vain hope that one of them will contain the magic spell I can whisper to make things better: to stop being the scapegoat for anything that goes wrong with the family, to stop being crapped on from up high by Angelica and occasionally other family members when they need someone to take the blame for misbehaving children and general unhappiness (because, of course, it's always the step-mother's fault eventually, because everything would be better if things went back to the way they were before she came along - but hang on, that's another blog for another day).

Anyway, in the midst of one of the many books I've been pawing through like a teenaged boy on his first date was an article on finances. Now this was something I thought I had sorted. I'm a scientist, I've taught math, I can handle the finances. Yet recently I've realised that I'm beginning to sense potential problems, just around the corner. They haven't made their presence felt yet, but I suspect it might happen sometime when I least expect it.

Let me elaborate. The article was about a woman who moved in with her partner and his two boys - although he was the non-custodial parent, so they weren't there for more than 40% of the time. When it came to the bills and rent, he happily divided things up 50:50 as he thought was equitable and fair. Meanwhile she had other ideas and pulled him up - she wasn't going to pay half of everything when she didn't use half of everything. Does everyone get this? I tried to explain this to my partner a while ago and he didn't get it. Let's put it this way - two people live there all the time. Two littler people live there half the time. So you could say that three people live there all the time. Or something.

Regardless, she didn't use half. So in the end she paid about 40% of the mortgage bills, a third of the utilities and some fraction of the food costs, I forget exactly what, but you get the idea.

I have to say, this is not something I ever thought I could contemplate - it would be so unfair to Jason to have to pay for the majority of everything when I knew his responsibilities to his children before we moved in together.

However, recently, secretly, there has been a tiny grain of dissension burrowing its way past my morals and into that part of my brain that's in charge of self-righteousness. I'm a little ashamed of it actually. I don't want to do this. But I would like for it to be acknowledged that I don't have to do what I do. I don't have to pay half the bills, when I don't use half the utilities; I don't have to pay for half the food when I don't eat half the food; I don't have to pay the phone bill because I rarely use it - it's there so the kids can call mum whenever they want to and get in touch with Jason without paying extortionate mobile bills - I don't have to buy gifts and organise outings that I then pay for - why should I buy birthday and Christmas gifts for every member of his family when he doesn't have to because I don't have any family - it's not fair! It may only be money but it's MY money and I work silly hours to be able to pay for you all! ARGH!

Sorry. Bit of a rant there. I'm calm now, I promise. Well, calmer.

So. Why this now? Why is this becoming an issue for me now, when for so long it hasn't been something I'd have contemplated? Well, partly because other people have been saying things like 'Why are you paying for that?' etc. Which is something that other people do, who haven't been in the situation you're in and couldn't contemplate loving a man enough to take on both his physical (two kids) and fiscal (child support, loan repayments, feeding, housing, clothing and entertaining of two kids) responsibilities. Partly because I read this article and it got me thinking. Mainly, actually, because I realised that Jason, his children and his family expected me to do this. Of course I would - that's part of the package. But I'm also expected to disappear from the house - my house and my only home - when the kids decide that they don't want me around. I'm expected to provide gifts but not be allowed to the parties as they include BM, and certainly not expect anything in return. I'm expected to understand when I'm excluded from events I helped to organise and pay for due to the churlish whims - usually - of a 17yr old (guess who?).

This became an issue because we tried to address Angelica's behaviour towards me. I made the mistake of going down the 'look at all the nice things I've done because I care about you and why do you treat me so badly?' route. I really should have known better than to head down there. Obviously it didn't work. Her response to 'why do you think we did those things for you?' was to turn round (she'd insisted on having her back to me while we were talking) and spit into my face: 'Because he's my father!'

Everything I've ever done for them negated in one phrase. Nothing I do will ever count because it's the least that's owed to them. I owe them because I'm with him, and he's their father. Don't get me wrong - I can see the reasoning - but it made my stomach drop. To my knees. Where it sits today as though I ate a bowling ball. Anyway. Moving on - again, another post for another day.

If I have to leave every time they're here - should I really have to pay half of everything? Doubtlessly, I know I'm not brave (stupid? childish? selfish?) enough to suggest to Jason that he ought to be contributing more - though I know he probably spends more on them when I'm off trying to give them space. Still, what's fair?

Eventually, the pretty-sounding lady in the article concluded that it's simpler (and nicer) in the long run to split everything down the middle. But then she married her guy. And she got to live in the house she was paying for.

Maybe I'm just bitter because I had to wander the streets once too many times this year, waiting for the children (Angelica) to go to bed so that I could go home. I promised myself I wouldn't be bitter.

Must try harder.