So much wrong information here. So, so much. First, the pension: I have the impression that the couple was married when the husband signed on for the pension. He almost certainly made his wife his beneficiary (person who collects if the pensioner dies). Beneficiary trumps everything else, including a will ... so if he never went back and changed it, the ex-wife could potentially be the automatic beneficiary. Also, the couple would have divided the pension along with their other marital assets. This doesn't mean it was split down the middle; sometimes, for example, sometimes a wife gives up rights to future pension benefits so she can have the house ... or sometimes promises that the husband keeps the lion's share of the pension, provided he pays for the kids' college ... or the couple could've agreed that since she stayed home and raised the children -- foregoing her own career -- that she gets the bigger share of his pension. Any of these things, or any number of other possibilities, could be true. Questions that need answering: - Who is the beneficiary? - What is in the divorce agreement? Then Social Security: An ex-wife can draw upon an ex-husband's account ... but one of the requirements is that she cannot have remarried. Any spouse can only draw 50% of the spouse's benefit ... so she'd have to compare this to her own benefit (she cannot draw her own benefit PLUS her spouse or ex-spouse's benefit -- it's an either-or proposition).

This is my whole point. BM's who do these things are all about control and what they think they are "entitled" to in the name of the kids. "Kill them with kindness" is all good and fine for some but I've discovered that taking away their "control" is what really works. No BM should be calling DH b/c of something that happened at her house. It's not your DH's problem anymore. He doesn't live there. At the same time, what happens at DH house is none of BM's business. The parents should be able to call and speak to kids no matter where they are if it's within reason. In our case, it wasn't so we chose to add $10 a month to our cell phone bill and get the kids a cell phone. Believe me it was $10 well spent. We got the 7 yr old a "migo" cell phone which is age appropriate and prevents him from running up a bill. There are always ways to deal with these ex's properly, you just have to put some thought into it sometimes and make it happen. Most of them are not about the DH or the kids but getting to the woman who replaced them. Most of the time it works until it's you squash her like the roach she is. As SMOMS, we are not powerless and even though a lot of people say (and I HATE this), "It's not YOUR problem, don't let it bother you". Well it becomes our problem. Not only b/c we are human and have natural protective instincts, but also b/c it feels like an overstep of boundaries and an invasion of privacy and NO ONE has a right to that. Sometimes you have to ask yourself, "What if this person were a stranger?" Would you allow such behavior? If the answer is "no", do something. It's time for us SMOMS to stop feeling like and being treated like a 3rd wheel in our own lives! There! Sermon over! LOL Sorry if I got a little carried away there. : )

disengaging : I did like your presentation. I wish I can present my case just like that. There are times words won't come under lots stress. People such as yourself open up a door, I see it as wow, that is polite way to put it in... Great that tells me what I try to say it... In that aspect I do appreciate your letter. I really I have friends such as yourself, where I can discuss something of this nature, get a unbiased opinion. I was little bit frustrated with other posters, It is possible I was under stress, I am the one going through the good and bad, these people are not going through I am going through, at the same time trying to trap me, and make me look bad than worse. I understood my fall and my raise. I am trying to get a second opinion, because I do not want to run into the same path which was devastating path which caused me lose the person who loved me so much when we were together, now she is on the other side, it is gone. I am trying to recoup the loss and trying to get my head straight. When a baby trying to walk it falls few times, we try to help them out, rather finding faults that the baby should have held to the chair, if the baby did not, who to blame. That kind of talk is not help at least me. There were times, I try to type fast, lots of typos, irregular sentence formation. I am not a writer to impress everybody here at the same I have to present my case here so that some one is humble who could point out misbehavior and suggest possible solution. That is all I need from people such as you and others. I never thought I would come to a message board to discuss my issues. When things were rocking and rolling, never thought about there is a message board of this sort. Time and place, my action brought me here. I am still proud myself for seeking help, instead become alcoholic or drug addict or living a low life for ever and never get a break. We open up the opportunity, we shut the door. It is always we. What meant is that individual. Thanks for reading, I am not here to pi.ss people off, I learnt a lot from this message board. I would say I added more knowledge coming to this board. I will continue search for help if and when I needed it.

"You are right, but this is about extras, not CS. If SM feels that on top of CS and regular necessities SD requires (during her 50/50) that BM is expecting Dad (and therefore SM) to pay for extras, I can see her problem." The problem is that not only are there bound to be plenty of costs for "extras" that are going to be incurred in raising children (I mean, if we're considering anything beyond food ---but not necessarily FAVORITE food, just food--- and, like, Hanes 3-pack basic white tees as clothing and the cheapest uglist Walmart notebook and Dixon Ticonderoga #2 pencils as "extras")... but that the definition of "extras" is very debatable... "It would feel like BM considers her husband's money as separate and not to be used for her child, but SM's to be part of Dad's available income. Who would be purchasing the sports equipment if there was no SM, and therefore no item to borrow? Assuming Dad's income was the same, and his CS and custody the same, could he afford this item on his own, or would he ask BM to split the cost? (BM could use some of her CS, or ask her husband to help.)If both parents were still single, how would the item be procured?" I just gathered that there happened to be already in existence in the house an item of the kind that was required, which was not being used by anyone else at the time it was going to be needed. In that case, why SHOULDN'T OP's daughter be able to use it? Is it inconceivable that OP's daughter would loan something to her step-sister in a similar situation? Has that never occured before? I mean, yeah, I suppose that for everyone to be perfectly even and everything to be perfectly fair, there should be two of absolutely everything in the house for each of the girls, no matter how easily worked out a sharing plan may be... just so nobody feels like BM is "getting off scot free" or "taking advantage" of the already-purchased hockey stick (or whatever it is). But why spend the extra money (which Dad would be, since he's presumably already paid for half of his step-daughter's item, we can presume he'd be paying half of this item too) or insist or suggest that someone else (BM) spend extra money when there is a perfectly good item right there, which will not be in use, and which the user of (step-sister) has already agreed to lending? It's not costing step-sister or SP anything to lend it, and if it's damaged it won't cost them anything either b/c Dad & BM would pay for a replacement. The only reason would be to (pardon the pun) "stick it" to the person(s) who would be asked to pay for a second one, in one way or the other. Now, obviously, if the item is lost or damaged, or if OP's daughter will be using such an item more frequently in the future, then it's appropriate to purchase another. But to go around and imply that anything shared in the house that's an "extra" has to be purchased separately even for one-time use is just not very family-like. In intact families, no one would dream of proposing a waste of money (on anyone's part) or excessive consumption (and clutter?) of this sort as a general practice... I guess that's what I find so colossally sad in these blended family situations. That, as much as many SP's regard the situation like the SK's are "spoiled" b/c they have two households, it's just as often that they end up getting shafted b/c everything gets nickel-and-dimed and bickered over to death. And I'm not even really thinking about in the *material* sense, but psychologically... How do you think it feels growing up where every little item or expense you require as a kid is argued over, debated, and you're made to feel like you're such a source of financial burden and your parents arguing all the time and the expenses paid for are all conditional on how well you (or your mom) behave? Like someone's sitting there all "ca-ching! ca-ching!" every time you express a cereal preference that costs an extra 80 cents, or scowl ("deduct a dollar for the "extra"-nice notebook b/c of your attitude! I don't HAVE to do anything for you!")... and you may, perhaps, be in the regular presence of a step-sibling who (b/c his/her parents aren't divorced) doesn't face the same kind of nickel-and-diming, or you feel like you have to run a decathalon of requests and requests-for-requests to DARE to borrow the item of its "rightful" owner, whom it WAS procured for, presumably without much hubub... I CERTAINLY can understand the need to budget to the point of splitting hairs (b/c there's no choice) when funds are tight (but in OP's case it didn't sound like that was necessarily the case)... but when the situation is more comfortable, nickel-and-diming is unnecessary and rather depressing. Not to mention an enormous waste of energy and a veritable minefield packed chock-full of potential explosions at every little teensy turn. (Which, btw, ain't so great for the marriage, either...) Come up with a plan, an agreement, based on reality, decency, common sense, and what you think "family" should mean and general principles of what will/won't be split (or set a dollar amount limit, or an age limit, or limit the extracurricualr activities by quantity). Figure out and decide once and for all on the definitions of "extras" you and spouse agree on and everything should fall into place. If this can't be agreed upon between current spouses, it is not the ex-spouse's fault, and they shouldn't be dragged into the mess. If the CS arrangement is unsatisfactory to both current spouses, seek to have it changed instead of whining/nickel-and-diming/b.s. psychological games. If it's satisfactory to one spouse but not SP, or if expenditures just CANNOT be agreed upon no matter what, then maybe consider splitting finances. But acknowledge that it is the CURRENT SPOUSES who cannot agree on expenditures or come up with a workable plan, so it isn't anyone else's fault or burden to bear if you two can't work it out between yourselves.