this will work out great.Dad and his girl who gets everything vs mom and her children who barely get by. In the same house. No way that will cause tensions between all of them.

ESH - I can't imagine marrying someone who says right up front that my children are an inconvenience. And while he is not legally responsible, how can you morally have these kids growing up in your home, watch them lose their dad and then decide that they can go without, because you did not biologically father them? And on top of that, he's claiming that she doesn't do much for his kids, because his 14yo ~ dresses herself and doesn't need someone to cook for her~ ?!? I would bet good money that if that woman walks out with her kids, his 14yo turns into the unpaid housekeeper until he can find another sucker to marry and take care of him & his house for him...

If you marry someone with children, you're committing to those children. That's it. If he didn't want to do that, he should not have married her. She won't be a single parent in the eyes of the law and therefore not entitled to any support. She's screwed both ways now. If you don't want kids, don't marry someone with kids. It's that simple

OP sounds like a total jerk, why marry someone with children and then make such a point of refusing to be a parent to them?

I would have thought him totally unreasonable, but then I read the bit where the mother is refusing to discuss what income she *does* receive. Makes me suspicious the levels of entitlement she's capable of when I don't see any humility from her even when making a huge request easily in the order of over $100k.

This marriage should not have happened. Good for being clear on boundaries, but those boundaries were always likely, to some degree, to come into conflict. Marriage is supposed to create a family, and OP created a couple with some additional tagalongs. I'm seeing similar play out in my own extended family right now - wife set boundaries for having stepdaughter move in with her/husband from across the country. Her boundaries were reasonable, but complications (known in advance) have prevented them from being met so far. So she's moved out, leaving her husband to choose between her and his daughter. I am a huge advocate for setting boundaries, but sometimes circumstances force you to revisit the boundaries and determine if something needs to change. If OP loves his wife, he will find a middle ground to help the family he took on while still providing as he wishes for his daughter. It will be hard, but no one promised life and marriage were easy :-)

I was a single mum before I met my other half. If he'd outright stated that my kids were to be treated differently to his son from a previous marriage I would never have stayed with him. Both parties suck in this story and they should split now before the kids are damaged by them.

I wonder what he would think if he lost his good job and wifey got a great job or an inheritance and told him, sorry your kid needs to go to public school now but mine will be going to college & BTW we're going to Europe for a month. Sorry you can't afford for you or your daughter to go. I bet he would feel different about finances then.

Won't the kids get at least a little social security, if they live in the US?

“I’ll marry you, but I don’t want your kids. If you do, you can bring ‘em, but I’ll pretend I can’t see ‘em.” “Great! How soon can we marry?” WTAF? There are people who do this? WHY? What do they get out of it?

That woman needs therapy because how in the world do you marry someone like this? This whole thing gave me the ick (and I can't believe I have to describe it like that). Like this was literally repulsive to me. He's shouldn't be married at all.

And those are the people that attack Childfree people for not having any. 9_9

I never expected my ex to be financially responsible for my kids and vice versa. They are MY children, not his. I worked to support them and pay my mortgage, something else that was MINE and he was NOT responsible for.

NTA because he set those conditions, and she agreed to them. If anything, that makes her more of an AH or an idiot unless she has a plan. Each of her 3 children is entitled to Social Security Survivor's benefits. She was married to her Ex for more than 10 years, so she may also be entitled to survivor's benefits. I wonder why she won't discuss those benefits with him? She may want to keep that money to herself. He has been supporting her kids by proving them a free place to live. She earns $60k and also has free housing and utilities. They should divorce, but he should wait until her kids turn 18. Why? Because even though he is not their bio dad, by letting them live with him all this time the courts will very likely see that as taking parental and financial responsibility and order him to pay child support for "her" 3 kids. Depending on what the total amount of S.S. benefits, they may award some alimony as well. That would be the end of his daughter's better lifestyle.

so they are basically roommates. I mean, I can understand that someone doesn´t want to support children that are not his but why marry their mom then? Honestly, this is something you have conversation about befor the wedding and also, why was she assuming he would just do this?? I feel like this is just not great situation for these kids.

Yesterday, by coincidence, I read some statistics. In EU the divorces are about 45% of the marriages. In US are 50-60% for the first marriage and over 65% for the second one. The divorced re-marry and the new pair brings their children in the equation. Sometimes they make more children. And many have difficulties to support them. So we have adults who care only for themselves and give a s**t for their offspring.

No doubt he made a mistake marrying a woman with her own kids without having ironed out beforehand who is responsible for what. The reality is, that this man is not the parent of his wife's children and so bears no parental responsibility for them and that includes financial responsibility. The fact that he married a woman with children doesn't make him a parent to her children either. He is responsible for his child, she is responsible for her children. That doesn't mean they can't all get along or can help each other in different ways: that's something totally different. It does mean that he has no obligation to increase the finances of children he is not related to to the detriment of the child he is the father of. The sheer difference in income between OP and his wife will, more than likely, cause more problems between these two.