Because there was already a court-ordered obligation when he chose to have the other child. There waI ha already a court-ordered obligation when he chose to pay Mom#2 more than guideline support. Why do the first kids do with less based on those choices? Why should earlier kids do with less because Dad had the misfortune of choosing to create another child - who happens to be SN?And then chose to pay more than required?
I did read that, yes. I just think it's bizarre how children from single parent families are treated differently than children from intact families.
I have two children with my husband. I guess I should treat my older child, my daughter, like a princess, while making my younger child, my son, run around in rags and and sleep on the floor. Since you know, as the younger child, he should be punished for my choice to have two kids.
No one expects children from intact families to be treated differently, resource wise, based on their birth order, and their parents' decision to have multiple children, so it should be the same for children without both parents in the home.
And apparently the OP didn't "choose" to have his child be born with special needs.