# New Spouse, kids, and the will



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

I’m curious as to what is considered standard procedure in a will for people who have a new spouse but have kids by an ex.
it seems like it has the potential to create a mess . Let’s say the mom divorced and remarries, and the new husband sells his house and moves in with her. If she passes away, who gets the house and her assets?

Personally, I want all my land, house, and money to go to my kids. It seems if I had a new spouse, it would be awkward trying to do right by both. How do most people handle that?


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

If you want _all_ of your land, house, and money to go to your kids when you die, and none to your spouse, then I hope you and any spouse of yours have kept your assets completely separate, and exactly fair. 

It's pretty hard (emotionally, mentally, and actually) to join lives in marriage with someone knowing you will be completely on your own financially in the event of their death, and that you will be planning nothing financially _together_ for your old age during your marriage--- because your spouse doesn't want to ---and will be leaving everything to their children instead. 

So, are you going to have your heirs sell the house out from under an 85 year old lady? How could you even own property jointly if you want nothing to be provided to to your spouse at all? How could your spouse ever feel at home in the marital home?

If you personally want to leave everything, as your say, to your kids and leave nothing to your spouse, why even get remarried? Just stay boyfriend and girlfriend with no financial entanglement.

I will say I know plenty of remarried adults who thankfully truly care for each other and want to do everything they can to make sure a surviving spouse will be taken care of in the event of their death.


----------



## Affaircare (Jan 11, 2010)

So I know of a couple ways of dealing with this:

1) Remarry, change will to a normal "Spouse is beneficiary" with the hope spouse will do the right thing by all kids. 
2) Remarry, change spouse to beneficiary of ABC assets, with kids as beneficiaries of XYZ assets.
3) Remarry, change spouse to beneficiary and kids as secondary beneficiaries
4) Remarry and change will to say "Spouse gets this and kids get that"

5) Don't remarry, signifcant other keeps their assets, you keep your assets, kids get each parents' assets
6) Don't remarry, each signifcant other keeps their own individual assets, any joint assets go to surviving signifcant other

Personally what EB and I did was that we did remarry, the surviving spouse gets assets and in the will is the understanding that his kids would be beneficiaries of his assets ...and my kids would be beneficiaries of my assets. So no matter who goes first, the other spouse can use the retirement and home, etc. but once the second one of us goes, his kids split up his investments and inheritances and mine split up mine. Also, once he passes, I'll have it in my will lined out that A gets $ and splits it with B...and C gets $ and splits it with D...and vice versa. Honestly, we talk with each other and our kids so that everyone knows what's our wishes are, who's getting what, how it's all organized, etc.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Affaircare said:


> So I know of a couple ways of dealing with this:
> 
> 1) Remarry, change will to a normal "Spouse is beneficiary" with the hope spouse will do the right thing by all kids.
> 2) Remarry, change spouse to beneficiary of ABC assets, with kids as beneficiaries of XYZ assets.
> ...


Yes Affaircare, this is a partnered and caring way to do it!

I can't imagine marrying someone who cared not about providing at all for me as a surviving spouse, and wanted everything immediately to go to his children only!!


----------



## Affaircare (Jan 11, 2010)

@Livvie 

To be fair, I know of a situation kind of like that. My aunt was in her late 70's when my uncle died, and there was a fella in her church whose wife had passed the year before...and he knew her for years and always thought highly of her. Well... each of them has grown children, their own house, their own social security/retirement...and for them to marry would actually mess them up enormously (from a financial point of view). They both care about each other deeply, and if they were younger they might marry, but they were in their 80's by the time they got serious. 

What they decided to do is to each keep their own home, date "forever", and they spend evenings back and forth with each other. So if they want space, they can go to separate houses, but otherwise if he asks her on a date, she might "invite him in" to her house...or he'll take her back to his house "for a nightcap" (it's SOOO cute). Anyway, that way she keeps her social security and retirement, and when she passes the kids just inherit--and likewise for him and his social security and retirement and kids inheriting. All the kids all know each other and are fine with them "dating" like this, and they are both financially secure enough to carry on okay. 

Thus, in their late 80's they have someone in their life whom they love who loves them, and when one passes the other won't need to be provided for cuz they have their own assets. It just kinda works! [/threadjack]


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

Thanks for the replies. Actually, I’m good. I’m selecting what someone listed as #5: I’m never marrying again, so no issue there. I live on a farm that has been in the family 100 years. I can’t imagine that not going to my kids, even though if I had a new spouse, I could see caring for her as well. It just shows another way that remarrying kinda messes with things. 

I was just thinking about my two kids on their mom’s side. Both my kids are in college, and living on campus. I was just thinking if something happened to their mom now. The house I suppose wouldn’t be theirs for many years. I guess they’d have to move out all their stuff, because they don’t give a hoot about the step dad. 

I remember my daughter saying several years ago, “I don’t tell people I have a step- dad. That sounds crazy. Why do I need a step dad? I have you, my real dad.”


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

I totally get that if you are of an older age...!

But to remarry in your 40s or 50s...with a possibility of decades together, and not want to leave _anything_ to that spouse...


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

That is true. I see both sides. It just seems like remarrying screws things up for the kids.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

southbound said:


> I’m curious as to what is considered standard procedure in a will for people who have a new spouse but have kids by an ex.
> it seems like it has the potential to create a mess . Let’s say the mom divorced and remarries, and the new husband sells his house and moves in with her. If she passes away, who gets the house and her assets?
> 
> Personally, I want all my land, house, and money to go to my kids. It seems if I had a new spouse, it would be awkward trying to do right by both. How do most people handle that?


I am in that position and its pretty simple. My will says that if I die first, my husband will be able to stay in the house until he either dies or marries again(or cohabits, which he wouldn't do anyway). Then it will be sold and my children will inherit the money between them.
I was very keen to get that agreed in my will as my father remarried a much younger lady who he had a child with and when dad died she got the home.


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

Diana7 said:


> I am in that position and its pretty simple. My will says that if I die first, my husband will be able to stay in the house until he dies or marries again(or cohabits, which he wouldn't do anyway). Then it will be sold and my children will inherit the money between them.
> I was very keen to get that agreed in my will as my father remarried a much younger lady who he had a child with and when did died she got the home.


That sound like a good way to have the will fixed. Your past situation is an example of something that could happen against the kids. One never knows what a remarriage can bring about.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

southbound said:


> That sound like a good way to have the will fixed. Your past situation is an example of something that could happen against the kids. One never knows what a remarriage can bring about.


I forgot to say that we both had our wills done together and he is 100% in agreement with it. The children know as well.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

If one of us dies first, everything goes to the other. When that spouse dies, 50% to her kids, 50% to mine. It can get a lot more complicated if there is family property or business - then the appropriate children should get that. Talk to an estate lawyer as they surely have experience with these issues and can advise you about what others have done and what may best suit your particular situation. One option is to set up a trust for the surviving spouse so they get income to live on, and then the rest goes to the children when that spouse dies.


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

Thanks for the responses. I guess it depends on what one has and attitude toward it. If one just feels that a house is lumber, I guess it doesn’t matter. If you view what you have as special to the family, it makes a difference. If, for example, you have a 2000 acre ranch that been in the family since the 1800s with a beautiful, older home. It would seem weird that it partially goes to a new spouse and their kids and not all to the blood relations.


----------



## Lostinthought61 (Nov 5, 2013)

I have been involved in a couple scenarios that may help

for couples that remarry but have kids from previous marriage i have seen in pre-nup where in case of death or divorce assets were protected. But what each person did was take out a life insurance to be left to that spouse while other assets left to children or others. Wills can be also be divided based on a scale of their marriage 1-5 years together gives the surviving spouse 25% of assets 5- 10 - 50% as examples) also any new assets created between the new couple then that entire amount could be given to the surviving spouse...

what needs to be ironed out those assets per-marraige and post marriage


----------



## TomNebraska (Jun 14, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> I am in that position and its pretty simple. My will says that if I die first, my husband will be able to stay in the house until he either dies or marries again(or cohabits, which he wouldn't do anyway). Then it will be sold and my children will inherit the money between them.
> I was very keen to get that agreed in my will as my father remarried a much younger lady who he had a child with and when dad died she got the home.


Yeah, that's an easy solution; it's a called a *life estate*. The person who has the life estate can use the property for the remainder of their life, but cannot sell it, and there are usually some restrictions on what else they can and can't do (for example, they have to maintain the house located on the property, and can't tear it down to spite the heirs).

After the person with the life estate dies, the right to inhabit & use the property re-combines with the rest of the rights the heirs have... they can sell it then. or live on it. or redevelop it.

In re-married families, it's probably a good idea to have pre-nups for the same reason. You want some or all of your property maintained for your heirs, and your spouse may have the same wishes; you can arrange that beforehand. You can also account for future potential children with your new spouse in the pre-nup.


----------



## TomNebraska (Jun 14, 2016)

Lostinthought61 said:


> I have been involved in a couple scenarios that may help
> 
> for couples that remarry but have kids from previous marriage i have seen in pre-nup where in case of death or divorce assets were protected. But what each person did was take out a life insurance to be left to that spouse while other assets left to children or others. Wills can be also be divided based on a scale of their marriage 1-5 years together gives the surviving spouse 25% of assets 5- 10 - 50% as examples) also any new assets created between the new couple then that entire amount could be given to the surviving spouse...
> 
> what needs to be ironed out those assets per-marraige and post marriage


this is great advice. and run (RUN!) from any potential spouse that says something like "_I don't want our love to be reduced to a legal agreement_"... that's not what's happening here.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

TomNebraska said:


> Yeah, that's an easy solution; it's a called a *life estate*. The person who has the life estate can use the property for the remainder of their life, but cannot sell it, and there are usually some restrictions on what else they can and can't do (for example, they have to maintain the house located on the property, and can't tear it down to spite the heirs).
> 
> After the person with the life estate dies, the right to inhabit & use the property re-combines with the rest of the rights the heirs have... they can sell it then. or live on it. or redevelop it.
> 
> In re-married families, it's probably a good idea to have pre-nups for the same reason. You want some or all of your property maintained for your heirs, and your spouse may have the same wishes; you can arrange that beforehand. You can also account for future potential children with your new spouse in the pre-nup.


We didn't have a pre-nup, I don't believe in them. In our case when we met I had a small house and his ex had their house, so my house will go to my children and the house his ex now has will go to his, so all benefit.


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

TomNebraska said:


> this is great advice. and run (RUN!) from any potential spouse that says something like "_I don't want our love to be reduced to a legal agreement_"... that's not what's happening here.


I agree. I don’t plan to ever get married again, but if I do, there will be a pre-nup.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

I worked through this when dating my long-term ex-GF; it's more complicated than I first realized. You need to consider:

First (naturally) you have to figure out how you feel philosophically about the issue. How do you want to allocate your finances when you are gone? How do you want to allocate them while you're still alive, for that matter? 

Second, basic practical stuff. How old are you? How are your finances now? What are your future plans / prospects? How is your partner situated? Third, are there any special circumstances you need to take into account?

Personally, I do not want to give away what I've set aside to someone who wasn't around to help me earn it. And I don't want that from anyone. I am willing to combine finances, however. I plan on working another 15 years. Since I won't marry a housewife, she'll be working also. That's plenty of time to invest for the future.

My general plan is my daughter will get my home and savings prior to marriage. My future wife would similarly keep her prior stuff separate. She and I would combine finances with anything accumulated going to the surviving spouse. She'd also get my retirement survivor benefits and any life insurance I have - quite a bit in total. But, I don't owe anyone a certain lifestyle. If she is in her 40s or 50s and has very little saved (which happens) then she might have a lean retirement. That's not ideal, but I'm not here to make up for 25 years of struggling.

The above could change, though. If my kid were to develop a chronic illness, for instance, I'd have to make sure she was cared for (there's no one else to do it). Or, if I married a younger lady who might outlive me by 15 - 20 years, I'd like to leave her a little more than I might otherwise. It all depends, so you have to take the advice given and adjust for your situation.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Livvie said:


> I totally get that if you are of an older age...!
> 
> But to remarry in your 40s or 50s...with a possibility of decades together, and not want to leave _anything_ to that spouse...


Agreed. I'd feel like I should at least leave what we accumulated during that marriage to the surviving spouse.


----------



## TomNebraska (Jun 14, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> We didn't have a pre-nup, I don't believe in them. In our case when we met I had a small house and his ex had their house, so my house will go to my children and the house his ex now has will go to his, so all benefit.


That's great; Inheritance rules are what they are though. Did you have an estates & trust attorney confirm that's how it will work in the area you reside in? What if he outlives you, and your house goes to him?


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

One more piece of advice ...... if anyone ever decides to get a reverse mortgage. Make sure that both you and your spouse have the right to live in the house until death their respective death.

i read somewhere that one of Steve Mnuchin's financial companies sold a reverse mortgage but the contract did not include both parties of the marriage. The widow was kicked out upon the husband's death.

I can imagine it now, the husband probably noticed that missing in the contract but was then convinced "that it would be crazy and cruel to kick your wife out after you die. Don't worry about it."

I've been in those situations as well, ie You worry too much.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

@southbound See a lawyer with expertise in this field. Tell them exactly what you want and tell them to create a will that makes that happen.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

I'll check in later with what we did. Gotta run right now to play with grandkids!


----------



## frusdil (Sep 5, 2013)

.


----------



## frusdil (Sep 5, 2013)

Also, I'm not a "new spouse". We've been married longer than he was married to his first wife.


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

I can see where it would be a major issue if the kids didn’t care for the step parent or any of their kids. Part of the Ponderosa goes to people they don’t care for and have no blood relation.


----------



## Pam (Oct 7, 2010)

My husband and I drew up Revokable Living Trusts, and had everything outlined perfectly. Then he passed away in 2010, the year there were no estate taxes, and that threw the trusts totally out of whack. Then his older son threw it even more out of whack, so my trust bought out everything that stayed in his trust after the fact (if I hadn't done that, they wouldn't have gotten it until my death). It was confusing, but all the kids are satisfied and I could carry forward.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

TomNebraska said:


> That's great; Inheritance rules are what they are though. Did you have an estates & trust attorney confirm that's how it will work in the area you reside in? What if he outlives you, and your house goes to him?


We did the will with a solicitor who specializes in them, so its all legal. We are in the UK. If I die first the house will go into my children's names, and he will be allowed to live in the house till he dies or remarries.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

frusdil said:


> What if he reaches an age that he can't live alone anymore and needs care? Or wants to downsize to a smaller home?
> 
> I think if you're married to someone who dislikes your children, you need to protect them and maybe rethink your marriage to be honest. But if you're married to someone who embraces and truly loves your child, as I do my stepchild, then that changes things.
> 
> In our case, in the event of my husbands death everything comes to me, then when I pass everything goes to our daughter (technically my step daughter, but we raise her together full time). If we had our own children, my half of our estate would go to my children only, my husbands would be split equally between all children. Reason being that my stepdaughter will also inherit from her mother, my bio children with my husband would only have us.


He wont downsize as we already have and our house is small. He gets on very well with my children and they all really like him. They see him as their real dad. They all know what has been agreed. If he needs care the govt will pay as he has no assets. He let his ex have their house.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

If it isn't locked in with a properly executed set of documents, it doesn't exist. Never trust anyone, even someone you trust with your life. Families get cheated out of inheritances every day. It could be a future spouse of your current spouse if you die first, or a caretaker of the elderly survivor who influences them. So it might be they are taken advantage of, not dishonest. Or they might just not honor the agreements you thought you had.

When there are kids from a previous relationship involved it is totally different than a first marriage.

Firstly, you need to have a qualified atty in your state prepare the documents. DIY or generic online self-help legal docs fail a very large % of the time. Figure $2k as a very ballpark cost. Ouch, but well worth it if the assets are important to you.

A pre-nup is an important part of the package. Then a Living Trust, a Will, and the associated powers of atty, medical directives, etc.

Typically each person keeps their assets separate so it cleanly can go to heirs. Joint expenses in the marriage are paid per the pre-nup. Joint assets like a home should be in a trust with instructions how to handle thevsurvivor living there and then the eventual distribution to heirs.

Note that this is all meaningless if you don't have documents that mesh, so you do need a qualified estate planning atty help you. If you don't title the assets into the trust it also fails. So get the Trusts and then follow through with the details.

My family lost out on tens of millions when the assets weren't put into the trust, so the wills controlled it. When the surviving spouse inherited it all, she owned it all. She changed her will to meke her kids sole heirs, cutting out our side from the money our relative earned and had clearly stated he wanted to go eventually to us. He trusted his 2nd wife. She was a great wife and beloved member of the family. Do the pre-nup, trust, and will!


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

We did something slightly unusual but I think it worth showing how a Trust can protect against unscrupulous relatives. Frequently one child or a caretaker or other trusted person manipulates an older person. Or a future spouse grabs the assets.

Our assets are all in a joint Trust. The pre-nup establishes our separate assets like retirement accounts and a home owned prior to marriage. It specifies future inheritances will not be joint assets. The trust provides eventually the assets will go to our kids from our first marriages in a specific proportion. 

So, essentially our kids are protected and will each inherit their fair share. Because it is in the Trust with a pre-nup that meshes, after one of us dies the survivor cannot dis-inherit the other side.

While alive, we control the trust. When one of us dies, the survivor controls the trust. One of my kids and one of hers are co-trustees when the second of us dies. Thus both families are involved and protected.

Here's the slick part. When the first of us dies, half of the assets are split off into a Family Trust. (50% is the max under state law here). My child and her child control that Family Trust as co-trustees. The Trust mandates the assets be used for the surviving spouse if the other half of money is depleted, so the survivor still can use those assets if needed. If the surviving spouse remarries without a pre-nup protecting all of the assets, the Family Trust is immediately dispersed to our heirs.

Thus half our joint net worth is guaranteed to go to our kids in a worst case scenario.

Under expected circumstances, our kids' inheritances are fully protected from shenanigans.

A Will cannot possibly do these things.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Retirement accounts cannot be owned by a Trust while the person is alive. The Trust should be beneficiary if you want you spouse to have the money to live on after you die. Same with life insurance, the Trust should be beneficiary. This ensures your kids get their share eventually.

If you name your spouse as beneficiary of retirement or insurance accounts, it is outside the Trust and your kids may not get any of it. Everything goes into the Trust for it to work protecting your heirs. Your surviving spouse still gets full use to live off of it. Wins for everyone.

Yes there is a tax law change on 401k/IRA but don't get sucked in. A person can defer withdrawals over more years than a Trust can, so it might seem smarter math to make your spouse beneficiary rather than the Trust. Smarter math, yes, but in the long run not a lot. And you lose the protections of the Trust. You could dis-inherit your own kids from your own assets thinking you were using smarter math. Put everything in the Trust!


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

In our case the house is in my name and would get put into my children names if I died first. The proviso is that my husband can live there till he dies or remarries. If he met someone else and wanted to marry her, he would have to live with her in her home. At no point is it legally his although I have always considered it to be his home as well. Apart from that, a man of such integrity that he actually let his wife have their house rather than fight over it in court (as a Christian he felt fighting in court wasn't what God would want, and in fact the Bible says not to), is not one who would cheat anyone out of anything especially when he loves them and our grandchildren so much and they him. Not that he legally could anyway.
Apart from the house we have a small amount of savings which the surviving spouse would get. If there was any money left after both deaths it would go to the children.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

southbound said:


> I’m curious as to what is considered standard procedure in a will for people who have a new spouse but have kids by an ex.
> it seems like it has the potential to create a mess . Let’s say the mom divorced and remarries, and the new husband sells his house and moves in with her. If she passes away, who gets the house and her assets?
> 
> Personally, I want all my land, house, and money to go to my kids. It seems if I had a new spouse, it would be awkward trying to do right by both. How do most people handle that?


Without even looking at any other replies, I can simply say that this falls under Logan's Law #3: There is no one true way. You have to decide what you feel is right. If you have land and a house, would you not want it to go to your surviving wife, even if she is not the mother of your kids? Are there kids by the second wife (from her previous relationships) that you think of in the same manner as yours? I have some.

Also a lot depends upon the state you live in. In some states, the scenario of the man moving into the woman's home, he is now legally an equal owner of the house. That can make for different results than in states that do not have such common property laws.

Quite honestly, this question is so vague as to not be able to provide to much in reliable or maybe more accurately, applicable advice.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

TomNebraska said:


> Yeah, that's an easy solution; it's a called a *life estate*. The person who has the life estate can use the property for the remainder of their life, but cannot sell it, and there are usually some restrictions on what else they can and can't do (for example, they have to maintain the house located on the property, and can't tear it down to spite the heirs).
> 
> After the person with the life estate dies, the right to inhabit & use the property re-combines with the rest of the rights the heirs have... they can sell it then. or live on it. or redevelop it.
> 
> In re-married families, it's probably a good idea to have pre-nups for the same reason. You want some or all of your property maintained for your heirs, and your spouse may have the same wishes; you can arrange that beforehand. You can also account for future potential children with your new spouse in the pre-nup.


IIRC, that might be something that varies from state to state as to the details. I seem to recall where in some states, the original owner(s), in establishing the life estate, can still end up selling to property. Mind you, I may be confusing terms and thinking of something else. But, and to use an example, my parents house is now legally in the name of my brother and I. However, by the way it was set up, we can't sell it (I think there might be an exception of one's share to the other) while our parents are still alive. However, they can still sell it if they wish. Life estates is one way of transferring real estate assets prior to death that avoid the standard probate rules, as I understand it.


----------



## frusdil (Sep 5, 2013)

southbound said:


> I can see where it would be a major issue if the kids didn’t care for the step parent or any of their kids. Part of the Ponderosa goes to people they don’t care for and have no blood relation.


So? It's not their money/assets, it's their parents.

No one is automatically entitled to their parents money/assets because they're their children.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

frusdil said:


> So? It's not their money/assets, it's their parents.
> 
> No one is automatically entitled to their parents money/assets because they're their children.


I agree. To think that a surviving spouse wouldn't get assets just because that spouse isn't the parent of the deceased person's children is really saying that only children should benefit from inheritance, not a spouse---- unless that spouse is the other parent of said children.

It's totally normal for one spouse to leave assets to their surviving spouse--- _unless_ the kids aren't both of theirs? No thanks. 

I can see specifying where things will go AFTER the second spouse is deceased, making sure children from both parents are considered, but it's ******** to think someone isn't going to leave their spouse anything just because they don't have biological children together.


----------



## frusdil (Sep 5, 2013)

Livvie said:


> I agree. To think that a surviving spouse wouldn't get assets just because that spouse isn't the parent of the deceased person's children is really saying that only children should benefit from inheritance, not a spouse---- unless that spouse is the other parent of said children.
> 
> It's totally normal for one spouse to leave assets to their surviving spouse--- _unless_ the kids aren't both of theirs? No thanks.
> 
> I can see specifying where things will go AFTER the second spouse is deceased, making sure children from both parents are considered, but it's ******** to think someone isn't going to leave their spouse anything just because they don't have biological children together.


Yep. Second spouses don't matter apparently - before the marriage, after the marriage or even after death.


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

frusdil said:


> So? It's not their money/assets, it's their parents.
> 
> No one is automatically entitled to their parents money/assets because they're their children.


That is true, but in my mind I feel that my kids are entitled. I guess it just depends one’s mindset. I have a very close relationship with my kids. In the years I’ve been divorced, I’ve never met a woman who seemed equally or more important to me than my kids. As I said, it’s no issue with me because I’m not remarried, but it may be on their mother’s side.


----------



## frusdil (Sep 5, 2013)

southbound said:


> That is true, but in my mind I feel that my kids are entitled. I guess it just depends one’s mindset. I have a very close relationship with my kids. In the years I’ve been divorced, I’ve never met a woman who seemed equally or more important to me than my kids. As I said, it’s no issue with me because I’m not remarried, but it may be on their mother’s side.


Surely you would consider a spouse as equal to your kids though? Even a second spouse. Why get married otherwise?


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

I would consider my first spouse an equal for sure. That’s mom and dad. She’s the mother of my kids, but the second marriage would just seem to screw things up. I guess that’s part of the reason I’m not remarried.


----------

