Ex-Husband Closes ATM Account After Wife and Stepkids Treat Him Like Wallet

A man who married a woman with two teenage children quickly learned that his money was the main attraction. After three years of marriage, he divorced his wife over her constant financial irresponsibility, which included secretly taking cash from his wallet.

Thanks to a solid prenup, he kept his wealth. But now, his ex-wife and her entire family are demanding he continue funding her children’s expensive lifestyle, including an $80,000-per-year dream college, because he was their “stepdad” for three years.

He refused, and now he is being accused of leaving his ex-family in “poverty.”

Now, read the full story:

This is a classic case of financial entitlement meeting a hard, cold prenup. The ex-wife and her family clearly viewed the OP as an inexhaustible resource, and they are furious that the ATM has been shut down.

The OP was generous, covering all of Liza’s bills for three years and funding her children’s private education. Liza’s response was to steal cash and blow her own salary on designer items, proving the divorce was justified.

The real audacity here comes from the ex-wife’s family and, most shockingly, the biological father of the children, who now demand the OP pay $80,000 per year for a college education he never formally promised. The OP is right: he has zero legal or moral obligation to fund the children who treated him like a wallet.

The core of the family’s argument is that being a step-parent is a “lifelong commitment” that requires lifelong financial support, regardless of the marriage’s length or the quality of the relationship. This is a myth often perpetuated by those seeking financial gain.

Legally, the OP is correct. Since he never adopted the children and the marriage was short, his financial obligations ended with the divorce, save for the agreed-upon alimony. As for the college promise, the law is typically on the side of the person who made the informal offer.

However, the psychological dynamic is fascinating. The ex-wife is experiencing a severe case of “lifestyle inflation reversal.” She adapted quickly to the OP’s high income, spending her own salary freely.

When the income stream stopped, she had no financial safety net. A 2023 report by Forbes Advisor found that financial infidelity (like stealing cash or hiding spending) is a major cause of divorce, often leading to massive post-divorce financial crises for the irresponsible spouse.

The family’s attempt to guilt the OP by mentioning “poverty” and “food stamps” is a desperate, manipulative tactic. The OP’s money is irrelevant; he is not responsible for Liza’s inability to manage her finances or the biological father’s refusal to fund his own children’s education.

Check out how the community responded:

The entire community was NTA, praising the OP for his foresight in getting a prenup and cutting off the financial drain.

Redditors were particularly outraged that the children’s biological father was demanding the OP pay for college.

The community agreed that the OP had zero obligation, especially given the short marriage and the children’s lack of respect.

The OP made a smart financial move by getting divorced and sticking to the prenup. He tried to be generous, but his generosity was abused. He owes his ex-wife and her children nothing more than the alimony stipulated in the contract. Their current “poverty” is a direct result of Liza’s poor choices, not the OP’s lack of money.

Do you think the OP should have given the kids a smaller lump sum for college, or was cutting them off completely the only way to establish a firm boundary?