I guess what we are all saying is your man is a loser and a poor role model. "Go on get the money and RUN"

"-or daddy" that brings up a good point bringing us back to the original question.

OP - If daddy made this mistake shouldn't you be preparing yourself that he could do this again and possibly again. Did he tell you about this child or did you just receive the call from the BM. If he can show this disinterest in this child their could be others out there or on the way that will also cut into his check eventually. You need to be more prepared that this will happen again than not.

lets hope she had all kinds of tests. especially mom#1 if they got back together because who knows where mom#2 has been - or daddy. ick.

Op did you have an HPV test? This sounds like my baby daddy.

Trolls?

The chances that both of these thread describe the conception the same. The name of the ex-husband on the birth certificate. The contact to baby mama#1 "harassing". Baby Daddy wants nothing to do with child #2. Yes there is always a chance it is not the same drama but come on . . .

Anonymous wrote:http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/243261.page

The other woman has posted her side of this drama.

How do you know it is the same people? There are lots of people in the midst of drama related to babies.

wow.....

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/243261.page

The other woman has posted her side of this drama.

Mama does sound selfish

Anonymous wrote:Pp, your scenario is 2 different families, this is about a man sharing his resources among his kids that he has an obligation to support, and when the kid is old enough the other mama will not be able to stop visits

I think the OP stated that the father didn't want to visit or have anything to do with the #2 child. Of course that could change, and yes, mama#1 could not
stop visits, but doesn't sound like that is something she is trying to do. I think she is trying to make sure #1 child is not brought around mama#2 or #2 child.
While I can understand her not wanting #1 child around mama#2 (and there's no reason for the child to be), IF the father decides to have a relationship
with #2 child, she can't really stop him from bringing #1 child around #2 child if it's during his visitation time. I could see an agreement stating #1 child
is not to be in the presence of mama#2 at any time, but I don't think she can stop the child being around the other IF the father eventually has a relationship with #2 child.

Op look on the bright side if you were married your earnings would be considered in household income and considered in the other woman's award.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never experienced this personally, but I always thought the deal was that whatever support there is to be had is always shared equally by the children no matter who came first or whether the children both have the same mom. I mean, if you are in an intact family and another baby comes along, the kids share in whatever resources there are. In this case, wouldn't each child get half of whatever support amount the judge decides the father can pay?

ITA that half-siblings or not, the OP does not have to expose herself or her DC to the second family. I would, however, seriously rethink the decision to continue in a relationship with the father.

No. In this area it's based on the calculator and the ladies put their numbers into.
So if baby mama 1 is contributing more to baby 1 and 2 less to 2 I could see where 2 would be entitled to more money from sperminator.

Wow! Seriously? That means one mom could actually be forced to subsidize the other, even though she had nothing to do with the second child coming into the world?? Harsh. It seems to me that both children should have equal claim on the assets they have in common, which are the father's, and that it shouldn't really matter what the mothers are bringing to the table. If one mother has more to offer her child than the other, why should that matter?

It's not harsh when you considering the reasoning
1- the State does not want to pay anything for anybody's kids
2- historically many (NOT all) men shirked fiscal responsibility from flat out refusing to pay to hiding money etc...
To resolve all this and other things many states (MD and Va) included adopted the calculator. For just the fiscal facts. Just the facts ma'am.

Anonymous wrote:
So if momma#1 goes to work everyday and contributes to her child, and momma#2 just likes to not work and sit at home making babies, momma#1's support gets adjusted so that momma#2 gets more?
That doesn't make sense. Each family should be treated differently. Each support case is different. If it wasn't treated as such, there would be one support amount that everyone would pay or get.
I know people who make more money than I do and are able to do more with their children then me with mine, and I also know people who make less than I do and aren't able to do with theirs what I do with mine. Why should this be any different?

momma #1 mad a bad choice in choosing her man
momma #2 made a bad in choosing a man
Man is in trouble and has to find a way to provide for both, and stop breeding.
If man does not stop breeding then momma#1 and momma #2 will pay a high price for their stupidity and have only themselves to blame

Pp, your scenario is 2 different families, this is about a man sharing his resources among his kids that he has an obligation to support, and when the kid is old enough the other mama will not be able to stop visits