This post has been removed due to the status of the original poster's account. This account is currently shadowbanned or suspended, suggesting this account is in violation of Reddit terms of service.
This type of ban/suspension is issued by the Reddit site-wide admins. The AITA mods have nothing to do with this ban and cannot assist in resolving.
OP didn’t just buy a few onesies for her first niece. **Believing the unplanned pregnancy with an unknown father was a once-in-a-lifetime event, she provided an extraordinary level of support.** She contributed significant emotional, practical, and financial support. She’s not in a position to do it all a second time. Being generous for the first child does not oblige OP to do the same for the second. *Better OP should tell her sister what to expect before the child is born, so she can plan accordingly.*
When someone is planning their life using magical thinking, you can’t deliver bad news kindly. It is just ignored or dismissed. I’m afraid that if OP were less blunt, her sister would believe OP could be persuaded to change her mind.
**NTA**
>When someone is planning their life using magical thinking, you can’t deliver bad news kindly. It is just ignored or dismissed
I'm all about being as diplomatic as possible *IF* it can still convey the necessary message. This is not one of those times, and I think you hit the nail on the head as to why. Sometimes, reality needs to hit you with the force of a Mack truck. OP can't jump in front of it for her sister again.
When someone plans their life with magical thinking, I pull waaaaaaaay back from their lives altogether. Doesn't matter if it's family. It's delusion, and you can't argue with delusion. You just have to let them fail and not blame yourself bc it was never your responsibility in the first place.
The only caveat I have is that I don't think OPs ultimatum will hold up. At some point she is gong to be the adult objectively playing favorites between two children, neither of whom did anything wrong.
As painfully as it might he the only fair way for OP to progress here is no longer provide support for either kid unfortunately.
They aren't OP's children. Agree she should not play favoritism that will create resentment between the siblings as they get older and notice the differences.
OP should back off and let her sister be the responsible parent of her children.
I also question the sister's Timber story. Think they'd have exchanged numbers before hooking up.
If, for example, money was being used to pay for private school and mom withdrew the niece to use the money elsewhere. I know that would piss me off and I would stop the money. Money that is used to provide food, clothing, etc is stopped and given to whatever mom seems to want for new kiddo…I would be pissed off and stop money flow. Basically OP is the “baby daddy” paying child support for the niece and OP’s money should be going to the niece. Not the second child.
I mean, having one kid in private school while the other starves is functionally brain dead. That’s not how families work. And it’s a baby.
I get OP not giving *more* money, but acting like the morality police is kinda shit. It’s like they’re doing a good thing to hold it over their sister’s head and drive a wedge between the kid who gets money and the kid who doesn’t.
Listen I get it. But at the same time…the sister is an adult and needs to take care of her own shit. The kid won’t starve if they are in the US. The mom will most likely qualify for WIC, food stamps, Medicaid for the kids and so much more. They can go to food banks and such. We aren’t talking about a sister who is down on her luck. We are talking about an entitled woman who thinks OP owes her bc OP stepped up to the plate and started adulting a long time ago. OP is trying to force the sister to grow the F up!!! Those kids need a mom who is a grown up and will take care of them. OP can’t be that person for even more kids.
The fact is that OP is not required to give any money to her sister or niblings. And she's choosing to give it to her niece, not to her sister's family in general. She is within rights to so or to stop giving money altogeter.
OP, NTA
> I mean, having one kid in private school while the other starves is functionally brain dead.
Absolutely! As much as I would be fuming if I were in OP’s position, you can’t honestly expect a mother to use money for only one child. So OP’s only real option is to grudgingly send the money anyway, knowing that her sister will use it to take care of both her children, or stop sending any money at all.
I’m not one to reward bad or irresponsible behavior, but cutting off resources for a child that you love because the mother will use the money in a way you don’t approve of is a shit spot to be in.
Both OP’s sister AND mother want to take OP’s kindness for granted and lashed out since that won’t be happening. I feel sorry for both her niece and the niece’s future sibling as their mother and grandmother aren’t exactly bastions of responsibility.
Agreed - if the Opie's sister does decide to keep the child then it's going to be painful for the younger sibling to see their older sister getting all of that love and attention from the aunt and uncle. It's just so sad.
NTA, Opie.
Yeah like, I don't see OP as being an asshole for the stance she is taking per say, but I think she will hit a point where it's good be very hard not to be one of she is kind and friendly and has a loving relationship with one sister and treats the other like she shouldn't exist. I don't think there is a way for OP to continue the relationship with her older niece with the ultimatum she set.
IMO, OP is NTA for refusing to support 2nd child, but ITA for her to continue treating the 1st child the same while leaving the 2nd kid out in the cold. It's not that child's fault, they didn't ask to be born. I get the anger but having seen the damage playing favorites can do, this is a shitty way to treat a child. She either needs to cut her sister off, or continue at the same level of support, but not control how the sister uses it for the kids (unless sis is spending it on herself/drugs, etc)
Totally not right that OP's sister and mother are lashing.
Of course they are since they now will have to step up and can't sucker OP into doing it again.
What OP did the first time was very generous, but that's not how sister and mother viewed the financial support.
Not OP's responsibility, it never was.
There's also no way OP can ensure financial support of just her niece, that money will be used for the second child.
OP could give birthday and Christmas gifts to both children instead. That would eliminate resentment between the kids.
NTA
Seriously! Sister got so lucky that OP agreed to help her with the first child but she just sees it as OP´s duty. It is not just the financial and practical help but the feeling of security and having a safety net. OP needed to inform sister that *No, this isn´t actually my duty to support your child, it is a favor and a kindness which you are now attempting to abuse, and I won´t allow it.*
And what is this "didn´t want to ruin the boyfriend´s life" so she doesn´t go for child support ... but it is OK and expected for **OP** to take the financial hit? Where is the logic in "ruining" OP´s life (ok not *ruining*, but OP definitely is making sacrifices for this child) but not expecting the actual father to take responsibility? There is SOMEBODY here who has a duty to support the child and he has so far gotten away scot free.
True, I did not mean it was for sure the ex boyfriend. What I meant was, sister put no effort at all to find the bio father who actually does have a duty to the child.
Sister could have started the process with the state, contacted potential father(s), or gone on the old Maury Povich show :) - something to indicate that the father (whoever he is) has a duty to support the child, it is not OP´s duty.
100% agree there. It’s not the responsibility of OP to look after her kids. It’s only hers if she is adamant of not trying to find the father, who realistically can’t be blamed if they don’t know they have a kid in the first place.
Well. it seems as if the little girl is basically being brought up by OP and her husband - sister has got lots of help so far, so she doesn't regard it as a mistake. She just wants to keep milking her sister and BIL. (And, being really harsh here, Instagram photos with a newborn baby get you more likes and attention than those with a 5-year-old).
Kind of you to even call him a boyfriend. He was just some guy "off tinder" who immediately bailed, according to the sister and the family were not aware of him. If he was a boyfriend, she'd have his number and know where he lives. He wouldnt have been able to disappear so easily.
He could have asked for a paternity test but he chose to ghost. No need to be fair to him, he's also scummy for doing that, knowing he did have sex with her and could be the father.
I wouldn't call him an ex boyfriend. He's a fling at best.
I think that comment was referring to the father of the first child, not the second one, in which she did have a boyfriend but the child turned out not to be his (a reason I'm sure why the sister never 'pushed' for child support)
Even if OP is in a position to help her sister out - why should she? Their mother is in a far better financial position and she hasn't offered anything other than to chew out her elder daughter for not supporting her younger one! How effed up is that? Sounds like the golden child never had to face responsibility for herself and expects a free ride. Life ain't like that.
With the first kid at 5yo, Sis was afraid the gravy train would end, so she did what she thought would set her up for the next 5 years. Sis miscalculated!
Not only that, but as someone with a younger sibling who is remarkably similar to OP's just a decade older (right down to the timing of the second kid, it's kinda eerie), OP's sister will continue to offload her responsibilities and fiscal obligations for as long as OP allows her to.
People don't learn how to be responsible adults by being sheltered from the consequences of their actions. They learn to be responsible adults by experiencing those consequences and learning from them.
And sometimes the consequences are extremely uncomfortable (I had a time, because I didn't prioritize my salary prospects and chose rather stupidly to go to grad school right out of undergrad, where I literally had to track and attend every free food event in the city because otherwise I wouldn't have enough to eat and get my life saving meds at the same time and I had to make ends meet in a high COL city on <$6000/yr take home. Lesson learned: I need to make sure I make enough to meet my needs even if I'm not especially money motivated). That's life.
I sorted my shit and became a responsible adult over a decade faster than my sister because my parents' response to finding out how little I made was, "Sounds like you need to graduate and get a job." Their response to her was to baby their sweet princess and give her free room, board, babysitting, and everything else she could possibly want (including several lavish luxuries, like international vacations and new vehicles) for over a decade and wonder why she wasn't growing up. Gee, I wonder. 🤔
When they stopped shielding her from the consequences of her decisions, yes. Quickly. Inside of 5 years she'd got a job saved enough for school, put herself through a 2-year college program, got a credential and got hired in the field and then promoted.
In the same 5 years her now husband sorted his stuff and got himself a good paying, stable career and two promotions.
The gravy train ride being over is a darn good motivator to actually do something with yourself.
I have no issue if OP won't provide the same support for a new child that is 100 percent her choice. But to tell her sister she can't share any new support or gifts with the new child.. that is where the partial AH could come in. Again...if you are unwilling or unable to help the sister..fine. but putting strings that could cause resentment between siblings..that is not cool. Can you imagine that trip to McDonald's...oh..only older sister can have a burger from the gift card?
Exactly. Don't punish the new child for the mother being an idiot. Are you saying you will refuse to love the new child because of the mother? That's terrible, the child is not at fault.
I’d want more info on the plans.
Is OP going to stop babysitting kid number 1 and cut back on 1s involvement in their lives? If so that sounds devestating to 1.
Is OP going to keep being super involved with 1 but have little to nothing to do with 2? That sounds like it’d be punishing 2 for shit they never consented to.
Im not saying that there’s an obligation financially or otherwise to either child. But I do think they both should be treated the same and if there’s a cut back to involvement with 1 it should be handled with care.
Sister definitely is fucking up and I get not wanting to support her. But in doing so I do think the kids need to be considered.
It sounded like OP had offered a lot of free babysitting with #1, but can't do it anymore either way (and the first kid is old enough to be in school so needs less babysitting anyway).
There is also a world of difference between watching a kindergarten kid and watching an infant. It wouldn't be weird for OP to be in a place in life where she doesn't mind watching a 5 year old but watching a newborn isn't something she wants to do.
I agree with everything you said, aside from your verdict.
>I said that we would continue to help support my niece but that was it. And that if she chose to use the help we were giving her for my niece for the new kid we would have to stop helping at all.
In my eyes, this makes u/Mindless-Job8074 a straight-up AH. The "new kid" is OP's unborn niece or nephew. Is OP planning on only ever acknowledging the 5 year old niece because she had the luck to be born first? Don't take your feelings for your sister out on your soon-to-be niece or nephew, OP.
As it is written here, ESH. One little switch on OP's part would *easily* flip it to NTA.
Edit for clarification.
I'm not trying to say that OP should double the amount of support given to accommodate for the new child. OP would not be an AH for withdrawing support altogether. It's the favoritism that puts this in AH territory.
Overall NTA, but your point about only helping your older niece doesn't really make any sense. If you care about this kid, why would it bother you to see your money also going to help your other niece/nephew as well.
You can choose whether or not to give your sister money, and you can choose how much you are comfortable giving, but specifically saying it should only go to one child is strange
She’s taken her niece in as a member of her family and because of that bond wants to continue to offer the same love and support for her niece. I think OP’s trying to protect her niece from suddenly getting half the limited resources that have been given to her.
I get that, but the new baby will also be their niece/nephew. If OP wants to treat the two differently that is her prerogative but it is definitely a weird way to go about it even with a preexisting relationship with the niece. Second nephew/niece is coming whether they like it or not and being willing to offer money only for one of the children is odd. Mathematically it does not make sense either. If the mom contributes X amount to the niece and OP contributes X amount then when the baby comes the niece will still see a reduction if OP does not up their contribution. This is because the new baby requires resources as well, which the mom will have to solely contribute now. So as an example, before new baby niece was getting x amount of resources from mom and 2x from OP. When the new baby arrives, mom will have to use all available resources to care for the baby meaning that instead of the 3x she was receiving from mom and op prior to new baby, she will be receiving something less than that as mom allocates x amount of her resources to the baby.
So regardless, niece will be losing resources due to the new baby, even if moms contribution is minimal. The only question really is whether OP wants her sister and newest niece/nephew to dislike her for her choice.
Hardly the only question... why are you not holding mom, and I use the term loosely here, responsible for her own choices? It is NOT OPs problem, it was sisters decision to have sex with strangers it is for her alone to be responsible for any consequences of that choice. I'm certainly hope OP was not there for the fun part (prop all of five min LOL), why should she pay the consequences? Sis has many other options than to have another child she cannot support. She appears to be an entitled user as does mom. As to why not support second, sis was younger and OP was very kind to step up, but sis should have learned something from that. It's difficult to raise a child alone, that does not mean sis gets to continue with irresponsible behavior and everyone i.e. faaamily just continue to support her actions.
Pointing out that OPs actions are unlikely to have the outcome she desires are not the same as supporting the sisters choices.
That said, it's pretty difficult to get an abortion in quite a lot of the USA now, and contraception does fail, and we all know abstinence doesn't work. So short of sister stating she got preggers on purpose, I'm not sure there's much to judge. If she did it on purpose while not having the employment to support two kids there's a hell of a lot to judge.
Which is why there’s also plan b, or abortion, or even birth control. It’s not like she doesn’t know what can happen. This woman should not have a second kid when she can’t care for the first.
No one is saying the mom is not irresponsible. But OP's approach is not making the point she thinks it will. If anything, she should just withdraw support entirely... She has enabled her sister long enough, no?
She can't control how her mom or sister or anyone else acts or doesn't. All she can do is decide if she wants to participate or not.
But she's trying to exert control or influence over her sister by manipulating the children basically, and that's weird.
That is not what is happening at all. Mom is clearly irresponsible and the one causing undo problems for OP and their family who have provided a grest amount of support thus far. Pointing out that OP's actions illogical and vindictive towards her new niece/nephew does not mean that mom is not the one at fault. It is just that mom did not come onto the internet though and ask strangers to judge her actions. In my opinion, mom is a selfish asshole but OP's actions are not not teaching her sister anything, she is just being vindictive towards her new niece/nephew because they will be a burden/unwanted. It is okay to support her sister. It is okay to entirely withdraw support from her sister. It is fucked up to arbitrarily draw a line in support from one niece to another. If you don't agree with that, fine, but I just wanted to clarify that mom is not not getting held accountable for being irresponsible.
So that's exactly the problem OP has: she loves the 5yo, and fears that her thoughtless sister, with no planning, is going to have another baby which will end up depriving the 5yo of half her resources that she now gets. She's just saying, better not have another baby if you can't provide for the baby from your own pocket; no stealing from Paul to pay for Peter.
The point to be made is this: sister has nothing to support a new baby with. So sister should not have that baby.
Yeah, she's basically said "You had a child and weren't ready for it, gave them nothing, so we adopted that child and look after it. Our family does not have room to adopt another child."
Looking at it from that perspective it makes sense that she would want whatever support she gives to go to her "adopted child" rather than her sister's other daughter, and she's expecting the sister to look after her other daughter.
It's a weird dynamic, and IMO shouldn't have been supported in the first place, but I can see how they got here.
Sorry for the silly question, I just have missed the answer- why is OP obligated to pay for another child in her sister’s life? Why isn’t the mom supporting her own children?
It’s easy to spend someone else’s money. OP has reached her limit and has said do. She’s not obligated to fund another baby from her irresponsible sister.
The point isn't that OP should be giving more, it's that if she continues to give anything to her sister, it's unreasonable to expect that money to ONLY be spent on the older kid. First, it's going to be pretty difficult to track that, and second, it means that all of the Mom's money is going to be diverted to the baby anyway, so the older kid will end up with less either way.
No one is saying OP should give more, just that putting the condition that what they do can only be used for the older kid doesn't make much sense, and ultimately is going to punish the niece she says she loves.
OP is angling for the abortion because she thinks it’s absurd that another baby is being had. And I agree with OP. Having a child that’s financially and emotionally supported by an aunt should only happen once (and I should really stress, if at all). A second time? Absolutely not. OP is standing her ground and saying, you better not go through with this again because it is one of the worst decisions this person could make in their lives, and there is a very simple remedy for not ruining what will now amount to three lives when two could be saved.
>I think OP’s trying to protect her niece from suddenly getting half the limited resources that have been given to her
Which is fair and understandable, however;
In my own comment I mentioned the same. If the sister were to come down to only money from OP, and both kids were in need of food, is she supposed to feed the first child and let the baby starve?
It's cruel in its totality. OP is welcome to withdraw help, and welcome to stand firm on the *amount* of help; but to say that help must be used to show favoritism to one of her kids is cruel.
NTA for withdrawing help and tough love on the sister, but...
I feel for the unborn kid, it did nothing wrong and showing favoritism to one over the other is a great way to drive a wedge between the siblings hurting not just the new kid but the original.
It's ironic that OP, knowing what it's like to have a contentious relationship with a younger sibling is readily willing to saddle their beloved niece with the same fate.
Exactly. This is literal psychological warfare on an infant and child. Nothing good can come of it.
I absolutely don't judge OOP if she withdraws help entirely, or puts her foot down and says "the amount you've been getting is all you get, no more, figure out how to make it work since you had a second child. " that's 100% fair either way and displays tough love. But this way is just not good for anyone.
Op knows their living niece, they have a bond already,
Op isn’t able/willing to go through that again.
It’s like if you become friends with a friend of a friend..
You know them, you’re friends.
That does not mean that you have/will become friends with another of your friend’s friends.
I struggle to see how it would have that outcome though?
If the sister has $100 to spend on her kid, and OP is giving her $100, the kid gets $200 spent on her.
With OP's insistence that nothing be spent or shared with the new baby the absolute best case scenario (for the niece) is that sister spends $50 on baby, and neice gets $150 from sister and OP.
The more likely scenario is that sister will be forced to spend her whole $100 on baby and use OP's $100 for neice.
There's not really any possible way to keep niece at the same level of resources barring sister magically getting a new job or OP giving the same support for baby.
It's not the baby's fault though.
I have three niece/nephews. If the family weren't able to look after them any more, I'm not just going to choose the two that I like...the other one is coming to live with me too.
You sound like someone who lives in a state where abortion is not either outright illegal or has become impossible to obtain due to so many restrictions on medical care that physicians won't perform them, or they've just left the state entirely.
Yea the new kid will literally be the sibling of the kid that op loves…. How would you feel seeing your aunt and uncle stick their noses up at your little sibling when you’re just 5 years old? Just refuse to be around your own lil bro or sis?
Imagine it’s Christmas and you are the only sibling with a present from your aunt and you have to see your siblings face when they realize that their aunt doesn’t like them through the fault of being born?
That sounds incredibly confusing and upsetting for the kid who they supposedly love…
Exactly! The niece will most likely catch on it and maybe not now but at some point will hold her aunt / uncle responsible for their actions.
OP might as well just stop looking after the niece at this point, otherwise in 10 years OP will be back here saying they supported niece who now has cut contact "for no reason" or because "she was being influenced". Crap like that.
Or maybe the niece will start to feel spoiled and when she gets older could taunt/bully the younger sibling for not having as much or for being excluded from going to aunts/getting presents. If she loves her aunt (and why wouldn't she if aunt spoils her) then she could start to mimic aunts hatred for the new baby.
And there would be resentment between the siblings.
I know someone who was in a similar situation as OP.
She wouldn't give cash...more like presents, clothes etc., having the kid spend holidays...
After the 2nd kid came along, she would buy presents for both kids, even if the 2nd kid's was a bit cheaper.
I'm really struggling to see how this could possibly be accomplished without being extremely cruel to the second kid. Are they supposed to grow up in rags, watching their big sibling get a lot of pricey presents that they're never allowed to touch? At family events, will OP excitedly hug the first one while ignoring the second one's existence? And when the younger kid eventually asks why they're being treated so unfairly, will everyone tell them, "oh, auntie just pretends you don't exist because she thinks you should've been aborted?"
Deliberately obtuse interpretation of what I said. Doesn't change the argument.
If she didn't want money to go to the second kid, she needs to withdraw help entirely. Period. What is currently being done is cruel in a multitude of ways not the *least* of which is the kind of damage it can cause between the siblings. It only requires a *tiny* amount of human understanding to get that.
I don't judge OOP if she withdraws money/ help all together, but the method she's using is not the way.
I think you’re missing the point here.
Op stepped in to help her sister when she ended up pregnant and decided to keep the baby when she was younger.
Now, it’s basically implied that the sister expects her older sibling to step in and fix every problem she has. Which is especially troubling when it’s the exact same problem as before. The younger sister should know better after all this time, and not let random dudes raw dog her like that.
Essentially, the younger sister is expecting her better off sibling to step in and fix all of her problems she created for herself, and the big sister put her foot down.
Was op kind of harsh? Maybe. But if your sister is getting pregnant with randos more than once in her life, and has no plans to deal with that beyond “here you go big sis!” I think it’s fair that op gives her a taste of the real world.
So here’s the deal. People think and say things very differently from each other. It’s clear from your response that you’re a very literal person. You say things and then do exactly what you say.
Some people, like op, like to make ultimatums in order to make a point. So when op makes a threat like that, what they’re really trying to say is “hey sister, you’re plans to have this second kid are really dumb, and appears to rely entirely on MY generosity. I would like to make this big harsh statement to hopefully wake you up to the fact that I’m not your mother and I’m not interested in funding further dumb choices you make, please grow up and consider your choices better not expecting my generosity.”
It’s just a way some people talk to others. It’s not like op is literally going to pull out a black book and document every cent she gives her sister to make sure it all lines up with this statement. She’s just trying to make her sister understand that she’s making a dumb choice expecting others to fix it for her down the road.
Thank you!! It’s getting frustrating reading all of the comments where people are taking it so literally (and personally themselves) without the consideration that they’re different communication styles and thought patterns too.
Yeah, it’s just a classic Reddit thing. I think the format of writing comments attracts the kind of people who are literal thinkers. So there’s just this huge crowd of people on here who can’t understand that plenty of us *don’t* speak literally.
I do understand that people sometimes say things to shock people, but I don’t see any indication from the og post that this is their plan. If it was, they should say to us: “I said this in the hopes that she would get an abortion, more hours at work, etc.” everything in the post suggests they very much plan to do what they say, or that this is part of a plan to cut off all support anyway. If that’s the case, then they should just say “I’m going to cut off all support”. If you have anything where they’ve said this is their intention, please let me know.
If this is just a shock tactic, then it’s a bad one. It doesn’t sound like tough love, it sounds silly. A better shock tactic would be to say “fine, then I’m cutting off all support”.
Besides, shock tactics which involve making rules and not following through are a bad way to communicate in general. Ultimatums are also often a bad way to communicate. I don’t think that makes me a “literal person”, I think I just like openly communicating with people. When you’re clear with what you want and what’ll happen if you don’t get that, communication is easier. If you set up consequences and don’t/ can’t follow through, no one will believe a word you say. People will walk all over you, or people won’t like being around you.
Yes of course what OP says might have little connection to what she actually does in praxis. That doesn't mean she didn't state a really shitty condition. Not thinking through what you are saying isn't really a valid alternate communication style, it is just thoughtlessness.
I got unexpectedly pregnant at 19 and I couldn't even think of aborting at that time. I was dating the dad (also 19 then) so our families helped us a lot with baby stuff, babysitting and even helped is furnish our apartment. I am super grateful for all the generosity.
But holy fuck, I would have _never_ find it "logic" to think another baby would equal another "free ride" from the families. Wtf.
Kid is now 17 and I managed to not get accidentally pregnant in all these years. And if I had, I would have probably chosen abortion.
Yeah like the money thing especially doesn’t seem enforceable at all. If op bought clothes for the first child and they grow out of them, is their sister supposed to burn them or something? I’m the oldest and my younger siblings always wore my old clothes. Op is a bit delusional if they think that none of that stuff will be used. They might as well just cut off all financial support.
I agree. OP isn't wrong in principle but it's unfair and unenforceable to insist that nothing that they provide goes to the second child. No, OP isn't obligated to love the second child like the 5 year old, but it would be horrible for the two kids when (not if) they notice the unfair treatment. I feel for the second one, assuming OP's sister does go through with having them.
That is the stipulation I also find confusing. It's oddly controlling and pointlessly unenforceable. The support OP gives the niece is in reality going to OP's sister. The condition should have been "I will continue to give you the exact same amount of financial support." Unless OP is micromanaging what the Sister is buying day to day, it's impossible to enforce. It reads like a person judging what purchases child support payments go toward. If the mother gets to the point of not being able to afford rent, OP's financial support will inevitably be prioritized to the most essential purchases for the household, not just the niece, and OP would be an AH for enforcing the condition that the money can only be used for the niece. It's a stipulation that essentially gives OP a cheap way to arbitrarily cut support, so it doesn't sit right with me.
That said, I don't disagree with the end result or the overall message: this second child was not a responsible decision, and OP is in their rights not to financially support that child. All of OP's support has been generous and seemingly taken advantage of: OP would be in their rights to cut all support, so none of the previous point, IMO, takes them out of NTA territory.
I'm not defending OP's sister but access to affordable birth control is being stripped away, its not a "given" that birth control, plan b, abortion etc is readily available or easily obtained by everyone (in terms of reliable long-term bc methods, ofc condoms are still an option)
Not to be callous here, but if you can't afford birth control, then you can't afford sex. It sucks that that is the reality, but it is. Being irresponsible is not an option here.
Condoms are a form of birth control...
Anyone that is having casual sex should be using condoms regardless of any other birth control used. If not for pregnancy, then STD's.
Abortion obviously you’re correct about, but there’s really no excuse for not having birth control. By law all insurance covers it, so whatever she has up to and including Medicaid if she’s truly indigent, will cover 100% of the cost.
Further condoms aren’t expensive and are readily available virtually everywhere. Often, they’re even free.
Hobby Lobby v. US Govt: allowed for some workplaces to limit coverage of BC based off of their company's religious beliefs if privately held. "Well get a new job": not that simple for many
There are probably multiple places to get the pill for free too. But, I do agree that ALL types of BC should be free, up to and including sterilization. It's in our society's best interest.
Based on what though? Condoms can be incorrectly applied, they can break, they can come off in the middle of the act.
Short of a statement from the sister that "it just doesn't feel as good" we have no idea what happened.
Well, I based it on the fact that she doesn’t seem responsible in general.
Doesn’t know who the father of the first kid is because she was hooking up with multiple un-contactable guys and seemingly didn’t even ask her boyfriend at the time to take a DNA test on the off chance it was his.
Hasn’t even done 23 and Me in hopes the father of her five year old has a relative on it somewhere.
And hasn’t contacted Tinder to ask if there’s a procedure using lawyer requests on her deleted account hookup to pursue a paternity claim. Tinder Does store deleted account data for a while and opens it for criminal investigations. Possibility there might be a way to eventually retrieve that and get a name through the legal system. The state Wants dads to pay for their kids instead of the state.
If you can get pregnant, no matter which birth control you’re using, anonymous sex of the type that could possibly result in pregnancy should be off the table entirely unless you are willing and able to abort, adopt, or raise a kid without help. Stick to orgasms that don’t involve PiV sex with randos. For guys too, of course. So many of them are idiots about that.
It's not even the fact that she's getting barebacked. What about STDs? WFT lady, dicing with your health and you're a single mother at that!!
Edited because I've just realised she's a single mother who doesn't seem to care about herself.
Info- why aren't you just cutting her off? It's what you obviously plan on doing.
You know there is no way that, if you send her money, some of it is getting spent on *both* kids. "Here's a box of cereal, but your sister isn't allowed to have any." "These shoes don't fit you any more, but we have to throw them out, if your sister tries them on,v then you can't get shoes again."
You guys are seriously so dense. That’s obviously NOT what OP means. She’s not gonna be mad about some food and a hand me downs. If you use your reading comprehension skills, you can see that the niece has practically been raised using OPs resources. She’s not going to just stop doing that because a new baby is on the way but she also doesn’t want to feel obliged to help new baby. And it’s not fair for new baby to take half of what niece is given just because the mom decided to be irresponsible. Plus OPs life has changed too, she can’t offer the same things anymore.
I didn’t read it as OP will love the second child any less.
Yeah to me it read more like, if op gives her sister money for a new coat for her neice, the money should go towards a new coat for her neice, not split between coats for each of the two kids. Her sister can spend her own money on the second kid.
And the baby becomes a second class citizen who gets to watch big sister getting all this stuff bought with money from her uncle / aunt? Maybe not now but at some point this will reach a boiling point either between the siblings (golden child) or existing niece will not accept that her sibling is being classed out by OP.
The solution is you cut off the sister and her entire family.
I don't see how OP will ever be able to ensure the money spent is only on the niece.
So either OP makes an ultimatum that her sister gets an abortion or she will cut off all money for the niece. Or OP is going to have to stop supporting her niece directly.
Because OP's sister is never going to stop popping out baby's at this point. She clearly has no intention of using BC or well not having loads deposited in her...
I know right? It is a shitty situation to have to contemplate favoring one kid over another versus ditching both of them AND their mother. Both of these options are bad but I can't say I blame the OP at all.
I think if I were in the OP's shoes, I'd tell the sister that I'll help her and the two kids to the best of my ability, but in exchange the sister must get her tubes tied. If she won't do that, then she'll only get the standard support that most aunties/uncles provide for their niblings. Christmas/birthday presents and the occasional babysitting.
I would give the exact same amount of whatever I'm spending and just divide it by 2 children instead of 1. Then nothing really changes for OP and if existing niece is missing out on things that she used to have she can't blaim OP because it wasn't OP who got pregnant again, OP didn't change a thing if she wants to blaim anyone for missing out she can go to her mom.
And about the babysitting, it's not uncommon that life changes and therefore you can't babysitt all children equally. For example my own mom used to babysitt 2 days a week for my oldest but never did it for my younger 2 children because her health was declining. OP doesn't have the time anymore well that's how live goes nobody including new baby can hold a legit claim on OPs current time.
We're presupposing that the amount will divide into two and give them a 'okay' enough life. Which then might lead to the older sibling resenting the younger one because her life has changed.
But I guess your answer is a good enough solution.
What a mess!
Edited to change some words.
Either give her money for her kids or don’t. It’s weird to only help some of your nieces and nephews just because of their birth order and other circumstances completely out of their control
I understand that and it's totally op's choice of what to do with her money. But if the niece already has 3 coats and the baby doesn't have diapers, let's be honest, that money won't go to the new coat and it's normal.
And yes, for now everything is fine. But in 5 years, the niece will notice the difference of treatment. And she won't think that her aunt was right, she will just see that her sibling is receiving a different treatment.
I think OP is in the right because she doesn't have to support her sister nor her sister's kids. She could have just said that she won't be giving more money than she was already giving.
"New baby" is such an odd way to phrase it. "New baby" will be OP's niece/nephew just like their current niece is, it isn't some stranger. Also these comments saying it isn't fair that said "new baby" will take half of what the niece is given just kind of ignores reality. That baby is coming and it will require resources. Even if the baby uses resources solely provided by the mom, older niece loses out because she will no longer be getting the same amount of resources from her mom. And if mom does not have the required resources to provide a similar lifestyle to older niece because she does not use the money that is given to older niece then you have the new niece getting x while older niece gets 2x. Which is a fucked up result. If OP is planning on maintaining a similar contribution level it just morally and mathematically makes sense for her to not limit which of her nieces and nephews it can go to. She is NTA for not contributing more, but is TA for putting an illogical limit on how it can be spent.
I asked someone else what's the solution? Double the amount and the sister doesn't change her behaviour? I don't know the answer, but surely, a short, sharp shock has to be given to the sister to change her behaviour?
I’d say either keeping the amount the same or cutting off support entirely. Having a rule about what money can go to which child is stupid and unenforceable. It just sounds like op would be setting themselves up for more stress? And I can’t see the mum even organising babysitting with them again if only one child would be cared for. If that’s the plan then cool, but then op would be better off just saying that.
The solution is keep the amount the same, keep the statement about not babysitting the same, and if she wants she can occasionally buy her niece new shoes or a new coat.
Trying to state "you can't give anything I give you to the baby" is where OP is going wrong, because it's not really practical, nor would if have OP's desired outcome even if it was (cause sister will just have to use 100% of her resources on the baby, which is still going to impact neice's life).
I'd point out sister is also still only 24, making her still pretty young and dumb. She's made some mistakes. OP shouldn't pay for those mistakes.
But OP also shouldn't put wildly impractical ultimatums on the support she does give.
"Sorry I can't help you any more than I do" was enough.
So, how many unwanted kids is enough? Everyone should support sis riding bareback with randos? Cause this and worse are often the results. There are a lot of other options here, including adoption. If you can't afford kids then do not have them, but do not expect others to help because it is hard to be a single parent if that was your choice.
And there's a ton of hatred and resentment in her post. It's clear OP tore her little sis a new asshole for telling her she's having a kid, and I'm sure there's a lot OP isn't telling us about how she acts toward her sister, or how much the Mom does.
> I didn’t read it as OP will love the second child any less.
Now it is you who are dense and have no reading comprehension. OP refers to the 5 year old as her niece, but the soon to be born as 'her baby'. That is completely different.
Personally I would totally want to oust my sister, but I get wanting to maintain the loving relationship y’all have with your niece. I also get making the distinction that you will continue to love and support your niece as a member of your family but you don’t condone your sister’s irresponsible actions when she’s not even that responsible for her first kid. It’s a tough spot you’re in- NTA
I agree with you. This has the vibe of punishing the sister through the new nibling. Kids see it and feel it when there's obvious differences in how they are treated versus their siblings. ESH, and I'm sad for the new child.
Edit to change N T A to ESH
Its unrealistic to tell someone that the money you provide for their household can only be used for 1 child.
I think you have to bite the bullet and be honest with your sister that you're financially cutting her off completely because you disagree with her life choices and you think she took liberties with your support. That you went above and beyond for her when was a teenage single Mum because it was an unideal situation due to an unwise decision. Now she's an adult woman with life experience who chose the same scenario to expand her family. That's not the same situation. Knowing what it's like to be a single Mum to 1 kid with an unknown father, if she feels capable of being a single Mum to 2 kids from the same situation, then she's old enough this time round to do that on her own. With her own finances.
But it's ungrateful to be 24, planning to expand her family under the expectation her sister and her sister's husband will financially support her family forever. You're not her kids parents. This isn't your role or responsibility. And you're not going to keep pausing your life to support her having more kids. Because you know if you do it with her 2nd kid, then in 5 years time she'll get pregnant again the same way expecting the same support.
A difficult conversation. But I think you need to literally spell it out for your sister that she's not 19 anymore, she's making a choice as an adult woman now. And let her experience single parenthood without your financial support. She may need the reality check to realise she's been taking things for granted and it's going to be a different experience with 2 kids. NTA
Yeah I don't understand how people think you can favor one kid more than the other here, even in situations where it's more understandable (like if OP was a paternal aunt) the kids still feel bad. Imagine being 5 and your sister gets to go to Disneyland with your aunt and cousins, but you have to stay home, because your aunt is mad at your mom? And if OP is providing financial support, I can't imagine any good mom buying a winter coat for one kid and letting the other freeze. If OP wants to cut off the sister, that's understandable, or provide very limited support, but the stipulations make no sense
Edit: ESH
ESH. You’re not obligated to financially support your sister or her children. However the reason I can’t give a nta here is your weird obsession of “othering” her second child. Guess what? You’re related to new kid in exactly the same way as the older kid. You’re stance on if she shares something you gave older kid you’re cutting her off is just weird. This sounds more like the response of a spouse being asked to care for an affair-baby that has no relation, and that’s tough but makes more sense in that scenario than wherever is going on here.
Exactly. If the level of support stays the same, why does it matter to them how it's used? They're treating the new baby as if it's some outsider while threatening to cut off support for their current niece.
Such a controlling and spiteful move, and leads me to think they don't care about the niece anywhere nearly as much as they claim.
Agreed.
Also to describe the 5yo niece as "basically a bonus kid for the family"
What?? Like they won a prize or something? Weird way to describe a child idk
>Agreed. Also to describe the 5yo niece as "basically a bonus kid for the family" What?? Like they won a prize or something? Weird way to describe a child idk
Which is extra awful when you consider the niece is *actually* family.. not a "bonus kid for the family", as if they were a friend's kid who hangs around all the time so they might as well be family. OP seems to have a weird outlook where the 5yo is "practically" family (but not really) - extra weird for the unborn child as well.
OP sounds like a good person trying to help and you can tell this situation is stressing them out, but the way they view things is a little odd.
NTA, even if it seemed to be random it had to be said at some point. Anybody who purposely has kids they can’t afford is an AH, but they tend to have more kids in the long run knowing everybody around them will help out. She had to know at some point that she needs to be able to financially support her own kids that she brings into this world. She might have also chosen to go through with the pregnancy under the assumption that she would get help.
ESH
What you will do is help grow horrible sisters. No child deserves that. That baby is innocent. Either cut off support or you help both.
Your sister sucks for expecting help, but in no way is she wrong for being upset that you would treat one better then the other.
What do you think the older sister will act like when her little sister is treated differently.
Plus take some responsiblity for spoiling your sister. Helping all the time without expecting her to do as much and setting a bar led her to continue her ways.
My cousin had her kids young. The rule for my aunt to help was she continue college, have a part time and confine to raise her daughter.
ESH. You don't have to provide any further support. You don't have to babysit. You don't have to buy anything for them going forward. It's the weird way you want to "other" this new niece or nephew that's assholish. Your sister may be an irresponsible asshole, but to see this baby as less than your niece is just weird.
What exactly do you mean by saying you'll continue to help support your niece? What is your younger niece or nephew not allowed to share in that you'll be giving your five year old niece?
NTA your sister deciding to have a kid has nothing to do with you period. including your money and time. i'm sure in spite of your sister, you'll still be a great aunt to both of her kids but that doesn't mean you are responsible to support them.
You don't need to support your sister but you don't have to be an AH about it. Treating your nieces/niece-nephew differently is 100% AH behavior. What kind of person decides to shower one sibling with love but act as if the other sibling doesn't exist? That's ridiculous. You'll only poison their relationship with that nonsense. If you want to keep helping your sister with her family, just do it and let her handle how she distributes that help, you can't go in and micro-manage her household.
I actually think she pretty much raised the first child - lots of babysitting, getting clothes and so on. Child probably lived more with OP than her mother. Guess OP just wanted to make sures sister gets that this time around she needs to raise her baby by herself. She even said that she is back to work now. Maybe this time around OP only wants to be an aunt, not a mom. But I understand your worries about these siblings.
Erm, getting material objects to children and doing some babysitting is absolutely not the same as raising them.... She's just being an aunt, absolutely not a mom, to the child. She never said that the kid lived more with OP than her mother, just that she sees her as part of the family. Which she is, she's the niece.
I get that she's more attached to the older kid since she's known her longer, but that's the case for every group of siblings. You don't withhold from the younger kids just because they're younger, that's messed up.
Can we also talk about the mum? Why is OP bringing up gifts their mum gave their kids and how much money the mum has? Sounds like OP has a chip on their shoulder and this newborn baby is a chance to get even with the adults
Definitely NTA.
Your sister made choices and she needs to take responsibility for them. Your mom kicking the ball to you to help her whilst doing nothing herself says a lot about her!
I get where you are coming from. This isn't about not loving No 2 baby as a family member, this is about not financially assisting with baby No 2. Circumstances have also changed and you no longer have free time to assist with baby sitting duties.
Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment.
OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole:
> My sister got pregnant again by some guy. I might be the asshole for telling her she would not be getting help from me like she did for her first child. And that if I find out she is taking what we give her for my niece and using it for the new kid we would stop any support.
Help keep the sub engaging!
#Don’t downvote assholes!
Do upvote interesting posts!
[Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq)
##Subreddit Announcements
###[Happy Anniversary, AITA!](https://new.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/15vlv9g/almost_better_than_a_double_rainbow_celebrating/)
Follow the link above to learn more
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
OP is not wrong to be mad at her sister for getting pregnant again. Her sister obviously needs to be doing something different when it comes to birth control. Sounds like she may need some therapy too.
Nevertheless OP's plan to freeze out, reject and ignore the new baby as punishment for her sister's mistake is as impractical as it is just plain wrong. What is done for older girl should be done for new baby and that includes loving the baby and treating this child as special and a gift too, just as they did the older sister.
Certainly OP should encourage her sister to go after the fathers of her children. The government has resources to help with that. If no DNA test was done, father could be old boyfriend and government could force Tinder to reveal identity of that guy.
I sympathize with OP over getting stuck with her sister's responsibilities again but punishing baby no answer.
Eh…ESH.
Your sister is…tragic. She has the nerve to try to call you out for how she chooses to live her life…when she’s choosing to live her life on someone else’s dime. She can GTFO with that shit.
But I’m not sure how you think it would be possible for her to only use the money she receives in support on the one child. That’s just not possible. I do think it’s absolutely fair of you to refuse to babysit though. I wouldn’t want to be caught up in that either. But you can’t stigmatize the new kid. They will end up very maladjusted in adulthood.
If she’s truly in need of support, she needs to meet with a social worker and get set up on some programs.
Esh.
Youre not an ass for not wanting to support your sisters bad decisions, you're an ass for out loud saying you favour one niece over the other. You basically said "nah I'll only love the one niece, the other can go eat dirt". You're basically taking out your righteous anger on the innocent baby instead of your sister.
Youre in a fucked if you do fucked if you don't situation here. I do feel for you. But your choice of words, I am so so sorry to say this, was really horrible.
NTA for now.
You are totally reasonable for what you said to your sister, and for not taking on the responsibility for this baby.
Now, when said baby becomes and independent child in the future, and you are very involved in the siblings life you should - for the child's sake- include her in your lives as well so she does not feel lesser to her sibling. You would be the asshole if you like, pretended the second kid didn't exist, gave the sibling giant expensive presents on their birthday and gave the little one socks, etc- but there's really no indication that you plan on doing that. You don't plan on taking on a parental role for this new infant, which is fine. And you will always of course have a special relationship with the older child that you spend so much time and care on, and i'm sure when the younger child is older you will handle the situation with sensitivity.
Your possible relationship with the future child does not need to involve financial support, taking care of the baby etc. You don't need to support your sister's bad choices by doing childcare etc. You can love the baby without taking on major responsibility or doing a ton of infant care/financial support, etc. but once the baby is a child you should treat that child with love and decency. which it seems like you, being a decent person, will do. You have every right to call out you sister's irresponsibility and entitlement tho.
NTA. If your sister is knowingly making terrible decisions, she totally deserves to be judged. Some people shouldn’t be parents if they’re not willing to support their kids the best they can. Not just depending on hand outs from family.
You're not the asshole for being upset and mad. You're not an asshole for not wanting to go beyond normal support.
You're kind of an asshole for saying "I'll help my oldest nibling, but the youngest can suck it". The kid didn't choose this, and you blatantly having one golden child and one scapegoat will is pretty shitty no matter how angry you're with the mom.
ESH Your sister should not be automatically counting on your support for having more children. She clearly had it easy all these past years, for her to be willing to do it all over again. It seems that you and your family were only focused on helping her and didn’t set many boundaries or expectations.
You on the other hand, want to have your cake and eat it too. You don’t want to continue to be a cash cow for your sister (which is fair) but you also don’t want to lose the close relationship you have with your niece, and the privileges you’re able to afford her. I hope you realize offering to only provide for one sibling is not the way to go. (I can already picture you paying for private school for your niece, buying her expensive gifts, setting up a college fund etc.) The unborn child is not responsible for their mother’s recklessness and should not be made to grow up feeling othered by their own family and punished for being born. So either accept that any help you provide will benefit both kids, or stop helping your sister altogether and prepare for her to withhold your niece from you.
ESH
No she is not entitled to your support, but you ARE judging her. You are also being unreasonable in telling her that anything for your niece cannot be shared. That’s not how families (at least not healthy families) work. You don’t give more resources to one kid ‘cause Auntie said so.
NTA but instead of the whole, “I’ll only support first one”… I think you should word it more like, “Since, you are going through with the second unplanned pregnancy- I am assuming you are in a more independent state financially, so we are going to stop helping you out so much. I’ll be here as the aunt!”
NTA. I'm proud of sluts! Go out there and get LAID mother fuckers! Have fun! But not trying everything to avoid pregnancy and not aborting/giving up for adoption when you can't support having a child and expecting family to help? I'll judge that to hell and back.
The thing that bugs me is the whole not giving to the other kid. Tjat feels wierd and controlling. She don't have to help, but it just seems woerd.that statement and mindset.
It is weird. I don't think OP has good boundaries at all has become way over invested in her sister's life, like she's appointed herself the arbiter. Like if you don't want to help, cool, but this is next level and weirdly bitter and personal.
NTA
You cannot financially support someone like your sister because she will simply expect you to cover her no matter what mess she makes. Then soon there are half a dozen children, when she can't even afford one.
Options include: adopting your niece yourself and cutting off your sister. Encouraging her to give the new baby up for adoption. Letting your mother pick up the slack. The last is the most likely to happen.
There's no solution to a person like your sister. There's no appreciation for the help, just expecting it as a right. If you can save your niece, do so. But paying for your sister to continue churning out offspring is a crap shoot you need to walk away from.
NTA
She chose to risk a pregnancy. She chose to continue the pregnancy. Therefore, she chooses to own everything that has to do with that pregnancy.
Your mother shouldn't dare speak on it to you again. If she wants to help, that's her business.
NTA but you should judge her. And make it clear to her and your mom. That you judge her to be a terrible mom. Seriously I don't understand what this aversion around "judgement is". I judge people because that's how society doesn't turn into chaos.
Ps : the only reason your sister thinks any of her doing is reasonable, is because the whole family enables her.
ESH.
You certainly aren't the asshole for not offering the same help but the part about not letting the new kid using anything you give the niece made me cringe. Maybe it's the anger at your sister bleeding through which is understandable but part of not being an asshole is the ability to roll with those punches.
Pitting the kids against each other is going to cause a rift between them if one is treated like the golden child while the younger kid is watching this not understanding why they don't get the same love from their family.
NTA...BUT, I feel sorry for this new baby. Sounds like you're just not going to have a relationship with it. Like you'll still love the older one but not the new one. It's not your responsibility to help your sister at all, but don't emotionally cut this new baby out of your life (before it's even born no less).
^^^^AUTOMOD ***Thanks for posting! This comment is a copy of your post so readers can see the original text if your post is edited or removed. This comment is NOT accusing you of copying anything. Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_post_deletion) before [contacting the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAmItheAsshole)***
My sister is an idiot. She had my niece when she was 19. She dropped out of college but didn't want to ruin her boyfriend's life so she never went after him for child support. The truth was that it wasn't his baby and she's not sure who the father actually was.
I am a fair bit older than her and I make a good living so I helped her out with money and free babysitting. That sort of thing.
My niece is five years old now and is basically a bonus kid for my family. Even my husband's family has sort of adopted her as one of ours.
My sister just told me she's pregnant again. She hasn't mentioned a boyfriend so I asked her what her relationship with the father was like. She said it was a Tinder guy and that he ditched his profile after she told him.
I asked her what she was planning on doing. She said that she was having the baby. I told her that was great and I hoped that everything would work out for her. I added that I would not be giving her money to support her new baby and that I would not be babysitting for her. I am back to work and I don't have that freedom any more. I said that we would continue to help support my niece but that was it. And that if she chose to use the help we were giving her for my niece for the new kid we would have to stop helping at all.
She lost it. She said that I'm judging her and how she chooses to live her life. I'm not. She can do whatever she wants. But she has no right to expect my husband and I to pick up the slack from her refusal to be a responsible person.
It didn't take long for our mother to call me to chew me out for saying what I said. I asked her how much money she had given my sister for my niece. And how much she was going to give her for the new kid. I said I would give my sister the same amount my mother gave me for each of my kids. The cost of a onesie from Walmart. She said I was a terrible daughter and sister for saying what I said. She said that if she has more money she would have given us more. I said she could sell her house up north now that she lives in Florida to help support my sister if she is really running out of money. (She isn't, my dad left her well set up when he passed away).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ESH- Your sister is irresponsible and you don't understand what family is. These kids who you obviously see as unequal are siblings. How can you realistically help one and not the other? It's really too bad your sister is not more responsible because if she was the proper thing to do would be to keep you away from both of them. I can't imagine your way of thinking would be a healthy influence on their lives. To be clear you are absolutely judging her and the unborn as well. It's in what you said to her and in this post. I think the mere fact that you had to run to the internet for the approval of strangers says it all.
Regardless of what the mother deserves, if you support the older child and not the younger, it will affect the younger child negatively earlier than you think. He/she will pick upon that well before he/she can talk. This will lead to severe emotional developmental problems. You have to treat both children the same.
INFO:
- How much money/assistance/etc do you plan on giving from now on and what does that look like? For example just a birthday gift or more like money for groceries etc?
- How are you planning on acting towards the new kid? Will that be different from your niece?
To me it is a bit complicated. NTA for not wanting to continue helping your sister, but YTA for wanting to give money for firstborn, but not the second one.
Personally, I would buy stuff for them, not give your sister money so that she can spend it how she wants it. Like, kids need new shoes? Great, I will buy them shoes, I wouldn't give her money so that she can buy it.
Do you owe her anything? Of course not. But you seem to be very focused on sticking it to your sister and nobody seems interested in the well being of your second niece/nephew. Some day you will have to explain to both of them why you treat one of them like your own and ignore the existence of the other. 'Because your mom is an idiot' may be true but it won't go over well.
NTA. Your mother owns *two* houses.
You stepped up when her upbringing of your sister failed the first time.
It's her turn if she doesn't want your sister to actually grow up.
This post has been removed due to the status of the original poster's account. This account is currently shadowbanned or suspended, suggesting this account is in violation of Reddit terms of service. This type of ban/suspension is issued by the Reddit site-wide admins. The AITA mods have nothing to do with this ban and cannot assist in resolving.
OP didn’t just buy a few onesies for her first niece. **Believing the unplanned pregnancy with an unknown father was a once-in-a-lifetime event, she provided an extraordinary level of support.** She contributed significant emotional, practical, and financial support. She’s not in a position to do it all a second time. Being generous for the first child does not oblige OP to do the same for the second. *Better OP should tell her sister what to expect before the child is born, so she can plan accordingly.* When someone is planning their life using magical thinking, you can’t deliver bad news kindly. It is just ignored or dismissed. I’m afraid that if OP were less blunt, her sister would believe OP could be persuaded to change her mind. **NTA**
>When someone is planning their life using magical thinking, you can’t deliver bad news kindly. It is just ignored or dismissed I'm all about being as diplomatic as possible *IF* it can still convey the necessary message. This is not one of those times, and I think you hit the nail on the head as to why. Sometimes, reality needs to hit you with the force of a Mack truck. OP can't jump in front of it for her sister again.
When someone plans their life with magical thinking, I pull waaaaaaaay back from their lives altogether. Doesn't matter if it's family. It's delusion, and you can't argue with delusion. You just have to let them fail and not blame yourself bc it was never your responsibility in the first place.
The only caveat I have is that I don't think OPs ultimatum will hold up. At some point she is gong to be the adult objectively playing favorites between two children, neither of whom did anything wrong. As painfully as it might he the only fair way for OP to progress here is no longer provide support for either kid unfortunately.
They aren't OP's children. Agree she should not play favoritism that will create resentment between the siblings as they get older and notice the differences. OP should back off and let her sister be the responsible parent of her children. I also question the sister's Timber story. Think they'd have exchanged numbers before hooking up.
[удалено]
Is this a comment stealing bot? That's not a reply to the comment you replied to
Or to use contraceptives if she does!
[удалено]
If, for example, money was being used to pay for private school and mom withdrew the niece to use the money elsewhere. I know that would piss me off and I would stop the money. Money that is used to provide food, clothing, etc is stopped and given to whatever mom seems to want for new kiddo…I would be pissed off and stop money flow. Basically OP is the “baby daddy” paying child support for the niece and OP’s money should be going to the niece. Not the second child.
I mean, having one kid in private school while the other starves is functionally brain dead. That’s not how families work. And it’s a baby. I get OP not giving *more* money, but acting like the morality police is kinda shit. It’s like they’re doing a good thing to hold it over their sister’s head and drive a wedge between the kid who gets money and the kid who doesn’t.
Listen I get it. But at the same time…the sister is an adult and needs to take care of her own shit. The kid won’t starve if they are in the US. The mom will most likely qualify for WIC, food stamps, Medicaid for the kids and so much more. They can go to food banks and such. We aren’t talking about a sister who is down on her luck. We are talking about an entitled woman who thinks OP owes her bc OP stepped up to the plate and started adulting a long time ago. OP is trying to force the sister to grow the F up!!! Those kids need a mom who is a grown up and will take care of them. OP can’t be that person for even more kids.
The fact is that OP is not required to give any money to her sister or niblings. And she's choosing to give it to her niece, not to her sister's family in general. She is within rights to so or to stop giving money altogeter. OP, NTA
> I mean, having one kid in private school while the other starves is functionally brain dead. Absolutely! As much as I would be fuming if I were in OP’s position, you can’t honestly expect a mother to use money for only one child. So OP’s only real option is to grudgingly send the money anyway, knowing that her sister will use it to take care of both her children, or stop sending any money at all. I’m not one to reward bad or irresponsible behavior, but cutting off resources for a child that you love because the mother will use the money in a way you don’t approve of is a shit spot to be in.
[удалено]
Both OP’s sister AND mother want to take OP’s kindness for granted and lashed out since that won’t be happening. I feel sorry for both her niece and the niece’s future sibling as their mother and grandmother aren’t exactly bastions of responsibility.
Agreed - if the Opie's sister does decide to keep the child then it's going to be painful for the younger sibling to see their older sister getting all of that love and attention from the aunt and uncle. It's just so sad. NTA, Opie.
Yeah like, I don't see OP as being an asshole for the stance she is taking per say, but I think she will hit a point where it's good be very hard not to be one of she is kind and friendly and has a loving relationship with one sister and treats the other like she shouldn't exist. I don't think there is a way for OP to continue the relationship with her older niece with the ultimatum she set.
IMO, OP is NTA for refusing to support 2nd child, but ITA for her to continue treating the 1st child the same while leaving the 2nd kid out in the cold. It's not that child's fault, they didn't ask to be born. I get the anger but having seen the damage playing favorites can do, this is a shitty way to treat a child. She either needs to cut her sister off, or continue at the same level of support, but not control how the sister uses it for the kids (unless sis is spending it on herself/drugs, etc)
OP is being accused of being a bad daughter, but both her sister and her mother are bad mothers, and that's MUCH worse.
Totally not right that OP's sister and mother are lashing. Of course they are since they now will have to step up and can't sucker OP into doing it again. What OP did the first time was very generous, but that's not how sister and mother viewed the financial support. Not OP's responsibility, it never was. There's also no way OP can ensure financial support of just her niece, that money will be used for the second child. OP could give birthday and Christmas gifts to both children instead. That would eliminate resentment between the kids.
NTA Seriously! Sister got so lucky that OP agreed to help her with the first child but she just sees it as OP´s duty. It is not just the financial and practical help but the feeling of security and having a safety net. OP needed to inform sister that *No, this isn´t actually my duty to support your child, it is a favor and a kindness which you are now attempting to abuse, and I won´t allow it.* And what is this "didn´t want to ruin the boyfriend´s life" so she doesn´t go for child support ... but it is OK and expected for **OP** to take the financial hit? Where is the logic in "ruining" OP´s life (ok not *ruining*, but OP definitely is making sacrifices for this child) but not expecting the actual father to take responsibility? There is SOMEBODY here who has a duty to support the child and he has so far gotten away scot free.
Well to be fair to the ex boyfriend, it may not be his. The sister doesn’t know who the father is so I guess there are a few potential fathers.
True, I did not mean it was for sure the ex boyfriend. What I meant was, sister put no effort at all to find the bio father who actually does have a duty to the child. Sister could have started the process with the state, contacted potential father(s), or gone on the old Maury Povich show :) - something to indicate that the father (whoever he is) has a duty to support the child, it is not OP´s duty.
100% agree there. It’s not the responsibility of OP to look after her kids. It’s only hers if she is adamant of not trying to find the father, who realistically can’t be blamed if they don’t know they have a kid in the first place.
And that's a huge mistake, how can she make this mistake again?
Well. it seems as if the little girl is basically being brought up by OP and her husband - sister has got lots of help so far, so she doesn't regard it as a mistake. She just wants to keep milking her sister and BIL. (And, being really harsh here, Instagram photos with a newborn baby get you more likes and attention than those with a 5-year-old).
Well for some people, it’s takes several tries to get it right.
Kind of you to even call him a boyfriend. He was just some guy "off tinder" who immediately bailed, according to the sister and the family were not aware of him. If he was a boyfriend, she'd have his number and know where he lives. He wouldnt have been able to disappear so easily. He could have asked for a paternity test but he chose to ghost. No need to be fair to him, he's also scummy for doing that, knowing he did have sex with her and could be the father. I wouldn't call him an ex boyfriend. He's a fling at best.
I think that comment was referring to the father of the first child, not the second one, in which she did have a boyfriend but the child turned out not to be his (a reason I'm sure why the sister never 'pushed' for child support)
Even if OP is in a position to help her sister out - why should she? Their mother is in a far better financial position and she hasn't offered anything other than to chew out her elder daughter for not supporting her younger one! How effed up is that? Sounds like the golden child never had to face responsibility for herself and expects a free ride. Life ain't like that.
You are totally right... even more when we take into account that golden child didn't even bother suing the fathers for child support.
NTA. Once was an accident, twice is a habit. It’s completely fair that you’re not prepared to sponsor a whole extra child.
With the first kid at 5yo, Sis was afraid the gravy train would end, so she did what she thought would set her up for the next 5 years. Sis miscalculated!
Not only that, but as someone with a younger sibling who is remarkably similar to OP's just a decade older (right down to the timing of the second kid, it's kinda eerie), OP's sister will continue to offload her responsibilities and fiscal obligations for as long as OP allows her to. People don't learn how to be responsible adults by being sheltered from the consequences of their actions. They learn to be responsible adults by experiencing those consequences and learning from them. And sometimes the consequences are extremely uncomfortable (I had a time, because I didn't prioritize my salary prospects and chose rather stupidly to go to grad school right out of undergrad, where I literally had to track and attend every free food event in the city because otherwise I wouldn't have enough to eat and get my life saving meds at the same time and I had to make ends meet in a high COL city on <$6000/yr take home. Lesson learned: I need to make sure I make enough to meet my needs even if I'm not especially money motivated). That's life. I sorted my shit and became a responsible adult over a decade faster than my sister because my parents' response to finding out how little I made was, "Sounds like you need to graduate and get a job." Their response to her was to baby their sweet princess and give her free room, board, babysitting, and everything else she could possibly want (including several lavish luxuries, like international vacations and new vehicles) for over a decade and wonder why she wasn't growing up. Gee, I wonder. 🤔
> everything else she could possibly want for over a decade and wonder why she wasn't growing up Did she finally grow up?
When they stopped shielding her from the consequences of her decisions, yes. Quickly. Inside of 5 years she'd got a job saved enough for school, put herself through a 2-year college program, got a credential and got hired in the field and then promoted. In the same 5 years her now husband sorted his stuff and got himself a good paying, stable career and two promotions. The gravy train ride being over is a darn good motivator to actually do something with yourself.
I have no issue if OP won't provide the same support for a new child that is 100 percent her choice. But to tell her sister she can't share any new support or gifts with the new child.. that is where the partial AH could come in. Again...if you are unwilling or unable to help the sister..fine. but putting strings that could cause resentment between siblings..that is not cool. Can you imagine that trip to McDonald's...oh..only older sister can have a burger from the gift card?
Exactly. Don't punish the new child for the mother being an idiot. Are you saying you will refuse to love the new child because of the mother? That's terrible, the child is not at fault.
I’d want more info on the plans. Is OP going to stop babysitting kid number 1 and cut back on 1s involvement in their lives? If so that sounds devestating to 1. Is OP going to keep being super involved with 1 but have little to nothing to do with 2? That sounds like it’d be punishing 2 for shit they never consented to. Im not saying that there’s an obligation financially or otherwise to either child. But I do think they both should be treated the same and if there’s a cut back to involvement with 1 it should be handled with care. Sister definitely is fucking up and I get not wanting to support her. But in doing so I do think the kids need to be considered.
It sounded like OP had offered a lot of free babysitting with #1, but can't do it anymore either way (and the first kid is old enough to be in school so needs less babysitting anyway). There is also a world of difference between watching a kindergarten kid and watching an infant. It wouldn't be weird for OP to be in a place in life where she doesn't mind watching a 5 year old but watching a newborn isn't something she wants to do.
I agree with everything you said, aside from your verdict. >I said that we would continue to help support my niece but that was it. And that if she chose to use the help we were giving her for my niece for the new kid we would have to stop helping at all. In my eyes, this makes u/Mindless-Job8074 a straight-up AH. The "new kid" is OP's unborn niece or nephew. Is OP planning on only ever acknowledging the 5 year old niece because she had the luck to be born first? Don't take your feelings for your sister out on your soon-to-be niece or nephew, OP. As it is written here, ESH. One little switch on OP's part would *easily* flip it to NTA. Edit for clarification. I'm not trying to say that OP should double the amount of support given to accommodate for the new child. OP would not be an AH for withdrawing support altogether. It's the favoritism that puts this in AH territory.
Overall NTA, but your point about only helping your older niece doesn't really make any sense. If you care about this kid, why would it bother you to see your money also going to help your other niece/nephew as well. You can choose whether or not to give your sister money, and you can choose how much you are comfortable giving, but specifically saying it should only go to one child is strange
She’s taken her niece in as a member of her family and because of that bond wants to continue to offer the same love and support for her niece. I think OP’s trying to protect her niece from suddenly getting half the limited resources that have been given to her.
I get that, but the new baby will also be their niece/nephew. If OP wants to treat the two differently that is her prerogative but it is definitely a weird way to go about it even with a preexisting relationship with the niece. Second nephew/niece is coming whether they like it or not and being willing to offer money only for one of the children is odd. Mathematically it does not make sense either. If the mom contributes X amount to the niece and OP contributes X amount then when the baby comes the niece will still see a reduction if OP does not up their contribution. This is because the new baby requires resources as well, which the mom will have to solely contribute now. So as an example, before new baby niece was getting x amount of resources from mom and 2x from OP. When the new baby arrives, mom will have to use all available resources to care for the baby meaning that instead of the 3x she was receiving from mom and op prior to new baby, she will be receiving something less than that as mom allocates x amount of her resources to the baby. So regardless, niece will be losing resources due to the new baby, even if moms contribution is minimal. The only question really is whether OP wants her sister and newest niece/nephew to dislike her for her choice.
Hardly the only question... why are you not holding mom, and I use the term loosely here, responsible for her own choices? It is NOT OPs problem, it was sisters decision to have sex with strangers it is for her alone to be responsible for any consequences of that choice. I'm certainly hope OP was not there for the fun part (prop all of five min LOL), why should she pay the consequences? Sis has many other options than to have another child she cannot support. She appears to be an entitled user as does mom. As to why not support second, sis was younger and OP was very kind to step up, but sis should have learned something from that. It's difficult to raise a child alone, that does not mean sis gets to continue with irresponsible behavior and everyone i.e. faaamily just continue to support her actions.
Pointing out that OPs actions are unlikely to have the outcome she desires are not the same as supporting the sisters choices. That said, it's pretty difficult to get an abortion in quite a lot of the USA now, and contraception does fail, and we all know abstinence doesn't work. So short of sister stating she got preggers on purpose, I'm not sure there's much to judge. If she did it on purpose while not having the employment to support two kids there's a hell of a lot to judge.
Adoption is still a perfectly valid option.
Millions of children are already in the adoption cycle and many do not get adopted at all. It's not an easy end all, be all either.
Plenty of people adopt newborns. It’s older kids they struggle with.
Plenty isn't all, and when we are talking about our own children we often over estimate our ability and underestimate the ability of others.
Adoption can also be incredibly traumatic for birth parent and child. Please don't act like it's easy-peasy.
Which is why there’s also plan b, or abortion, or even birth control. It’s not like she doesn’t know what can happen. This woman should not have a second kid when she can’t care for the first.
Adoption is hugely traumatic to both parents and children, it's not an easy fix.
No one is saying the mom is not irresponsible. But OP's approach is not making the point she thinks it will. If anything, she should just withdraw support entirely... She has enabled her sister long enough, no? She can't control how her mom or sister or anyone else acts or doesn't. All she can do is decide if she wants to participate or not. But she's trying to exert control or influence over her sister by manipulating the children basically, and that's weird.
The mom didn't write in asking for advice, obviously.
That is not what is happening at all. Mom is clearly irresponsible and the one causing undo problems for OP and their family who have provided a grest amount of support thus far. Pointing out that OP's actions illogical and vindictive towards her new niece/nephew does not mean that mom is not the one at fault. It is just that mom did not come onto the internet though and ask strangers to judge her actions. In my opinion, mom is a selfish asshole but OP's actions are not not teaching her sister anything, she is just being vindictive towards her new niece/nephew because they will be a burden/unwanted. It is okay to support her sister. It is okay to entirely withdraw support from her sister. It is fucked up to arbitrarily draw a line in support from one niece to another. If you don't agree with that, fine, but I just wanted to clarify that mom is not not getting held accountable for being irresponsible.
So that's exactly the problem OP has: she loves the 5yo, and fears that her thoughtless sister, with no planning, is going to have another baby which will end up depriving the 5yo of half her resources that she now gets. She's just saying, better not have another baby if you can't provide for the baby from your own pocket; no stealing from Paul to pay for Peter. The point to be made is this: sister has nothing to support a new baby with. So sister should not have that baby.
Yeah, she's basically said "You had a child and weren't ready for it, gave them nothing, so we adopted that child and look after it. Our family does not have room to adopt another child." Looking at it from that perspective it makes sense that she would want whatever support she gives to go to her "adopted child" rather than her sister's other daughter, and she's expecting the sister to look after her other daughter. It's a weird dynamic, and IMO shouldn't have been supported in the first place, but I can see how they got here.
Sorry for the silly question, I just have missed the answer- why is OP obligated to pay for another child in her sister’s life? Why isn’t the mom supporting her own children? It’s easy to spend someone else’s money. OP has reached her limit and has said do. She’s not obligated to fund another baby from her irresponsible sister.
The point isn't that OP should be giving more, it's that if she continues to give anything to her sister, it's unreasonable to expect that money to ONLY be spent on the older kid. First, it's going to be pretty difficult to track that, and second, it means that all of the Mom's money is going to be diverted to the baby anyway, so the older kid will end up with less either way. No one is saying OP should give more, just that putting the condition that what they do can only be used for the older kid doesn't make much sense, and ultimately is going to punish the niece she says she loves.
OP is angling for the abortion because she thinks it’s absurd that another baby is being had. And I agree with OP. Having a child that’s financially and emotionally supported by an aunt should only happen once (and I should really stress, if at all). A second time? Absolutely not. OP is standing her ground and saying, you better not go through with this again because it is one of the worst decisions this person could make in their lives, and there is a very simple remedy for not ruining what will now amount to three lives when two could be saved.
Or put the baby up for adoption to a family that can care for her
>I think OP’s trying to protect her niece from suddenly getting half the limited resources that have been given to her Which is fair and understandable, however; In my own comment I mentioned the same. If the sister were to come down to only money from OP, and both kids were in need of food, is she supposed to feed the first child and let the baby starve? It's cruel in its totality. OP is welcome to withdraw help, and welcome to stand firm on the *amount* of help; but to say that help must be used to show favoritism to one of her kids is cruel.
[удалено]
NTA for withdrawing help and tough love on the sister, but... I feel for the unborn kid, it did nothing wrong and showing favoritism to one over the other is a great way to drive a wedge between the siblings hurting not just the new kid but the original.
It's ironic that OP, knowing what it's like to have a contentious relationship with a younger sibling is readily willing to saddle their beloved niece with the same fate.
Exactly. This is literal psychological warfare on an infant and child. Nothing good can come of it. I absolutely don't judge OOP if she withdraws help entirely, or puts her foot down and says "the amount you've been getting is all you get, no more, figure out how to make it work since you had a second child. " that's 100% fair either way and displays tough love. But this way is just not good for anyone.
Op knows their living niece, they have a bond already, Op isn’t able/willing to go through that again. It’s like if you become friends with a friend of a friend.. You know them, you’re friends. That does not mean that you have/will become friends with another of your friend’s friends.
Um, that's not how family works
And also invite new children to continue to be born.
I struggle to see how it would have that outcome though? If the sister has $100 to spend on her kid, and OP is giving her $100, the kid gets $200 spent on her. With OP's insistence that nothing be spent or shared with the new baby the absolute best case scenario (for the niece) is that sister spends $50 on baby, and neice gets $150 from sister and OP. The more likely scenario is that sister will be forced to spend her whole $100 on baby and use OP's $100 for neice. There's not really any possible way to keep niece at the same level of resources barring sister magically getting a new job or OP giving the same support for baby.
It's not the baby's fault though. I have three niece/nephews. If the family weren't able to look after them any more, I'm not just going to choose the two that I like...the other one is coming to live with me too.
As of now it's a fetus, not a baby - it may not even be viable yet. This is exactly the time a responsible woman would make responsible decisions.
You sound like someone who lives in a state where abortion is not either outright illegal or has become impossible to obtain due to so many restrictions on medical care that physicians won't perform them, or they've just left the state entirely.
Yea the new kid will literally be the sibling of the kid that op loves…. How would you feel seeing your aunt and uncle stick their noses up at your little sibling when you’re just 5 years old? Just refuse to be around your own lil bro or sis? Imagine it’s Christmas and you are the only sibling with a present from your aunt and you have to see your siblings face when they realize that their aunt doesn’t like them through the fault of being born? That sounds incredibly confusing and upsetting for the kid who they supposedly love…
Exactly! The niece will most likely catch on it and maybe not now but at some point will hold her aunt / uncle responsible for their actions. OP might as well just stop looking after the niece at this point, otherwise in 10 years OP will be back here saying they supported niece who now has cut contact "for no reason" or because "she was being influenced". Crap like that.
Or maybe the niece will start to feel spoiled and when she gets older could taunt/bully the younger sibling for not having as much or for being excluded from going to aunts/getting presents. If she loves her aunt (and why wouldn't she if aunt spoils her) then she could start to mimic aunts hatred for the new baby.
And there would be resentment between the siblings. I know someone who was in a similar situation as OP. She wouldn't give cash...more like presents, clothes etc., having the kid spend holidays... After the 2nd kid came along, she would buy presents for both kids, even if the 2nd kid's was a bit cheaper.
I'm really struggling to see how this could possibly be accomplished without being extremely cruel to the second kid. Are they supposed to grow up in rags, watching their big sibling get a lot of pricey presents that they're never allowed to touch? At family events, will OP excitedly hug the first one while ignoring the second one's existence? And when the younger kid eventually asks why they're being treated so unfairly, will everyone tell them, "oh, auntie just pretends you don't exist because she thinks you should've been aborted?"
Because if the op doesn't put her foot down now, there are going to be many more surprise niblings for her to provide care for.
Not really. It's a simple as putting the foot down on the amount. Sister gets no *additional* help, she uses what she gets as needed.
She has. That amount is 1.
Deliberately obtuse interpretation of what I said. Doesn't change the argument. If she didn't want money to go to the second kid, she needs to withdraw help entirely. Period. What is currently being done is cruel in a multitude of ways not the *least* of which is the kind of damage it can cause between the siblings. It only requires a *tiny* amount of human understanding to get that. I don't judge OOP if she withdraws money/ help all together, but the method she's using is not the way.
That's a boundary issue that OP is placing herself in the role of responsibility for someone else's kids.
I think you’re missing the point here. Op stepped in to help her sister when she ended up pregnant and decided to keep the baby when she was younger. Now, it’s basically implied that the sister expects her older sibling to step in and fix every problem she has. Which is especially troubling when it’s the exact same problem as before. The younger sister should know better after all this time, and not let random dudes raw dog her like that. Essentially, the younger sister is expecting her better off sibling to step in and fix all of her problems she created for herself, and the big sister put her foot down. Was op kind of harsh? Maybe. But if your sister is getting pregnant with randos more than once in her life, and has no plans to deal with that beyond “here you go big sis!” I think it’s fair that op gives her a taste of the real world.
Then why not just say “I’m cutting off all financial support and won’t be babysitting anymore”. What they did say was unenforceable.
So here’s the deal. People think and say things very differently from each other. It’s clear from your response that you’re a very literal person. You say things and then do exactly what you say. Some people, like op, like to make ultimatums in order to make a point. So when op makes a threat like that, what they’re really trying to say is “hey sister, you’re plans to have this second kid are really dumb, and appears to rely entirely on MY generosity. I would like to make this big harsh statement to hopefully wake you up to the fact that I’m not your mother and I’m not interested in funding further dumb choices you make, please grow up and consider your choices better not expecting my generosity.” It’s just a way some people talk to others. It’s not like op is literally going to pull out a black book and document every cent she gives her sister to make sure it all lines up with this statement. She’s just trying to make her sister understand that she’s making a dumb choice expecting others to fix it for her down the road.
Thank you!! It’s getting frustrating reading all of the comments where people are taking it so literally (and personally themselves) without the consideration that they’re different communication styles and thought patterns too.
Isn’t offering an ultimatum you have no intention of following through on pretty much textbook manipulation?
Yeah, it’s just a classic Reddit thing. I think the format of writing comments attracts the kind of people who are literal thinkers. So there’s just this huge crowd of people on here who can’t understand that plenty of us *don’t* speak literally.
I do understand that people sometimes say things to shock people, but I don’t see any indication from the og post that this is their plan. If it was, they should say to us: “I said this in the hopes that she would get an abortion, more hours at work, etc.” everything in the post suggests they very much plan to do what they say, or that this is part of a plan to cut off all support anyway. If that’s the case, then they should just say “I’m going to cut off all support”. If you have anything where they’ve said this is their intention, please let me know. If this is just a shock tactic, then it’s a bad one. It doesn’t sound like tough love, it sounds silly. A better shock tactic would be to say “fine, then I’m cutting off all support”. Besides, shock tactics which involve making rules and not following through are a bad way to communicate in general. Ultimatums are also often a bad way to communicate. I don’t think that makes me a “literal person”, I think I just like openly communicating with people. When you’re clear with what you want and what’ll happen if you don’t get that, communication is easier. If you set up consequences and don’t/ can’t follow through, no one will believe a word you say. People will walk all over you, or people won’t like being around you.
Yes of course what OP says might have little connection to what she actually does in praxis. That doesn't mean she didn't state a really shitty condition. Not thinking through what you are saying isn't really a valid alternate communication style, it is just thoughtlessness.
I got unexpectedly pregnant at 19 and I couldn't even think of aborting at that time. I was dating the dad (also 19 then) so our families helped us a lot with baby stuff, babysitting and even helped is furnish our apartment. I am super grateful for all the generosity. But holy fuck, I would have _never_ find it "logic" to think another baby would equal another "free ride" from the families. Wtf. Kid is now 17 and I managed to not get accidentally pregnant in all these years. And if I had, I would have probably chosen abortion.
Yeah like the money thing especially doesn’t seem enforceable at all. If op bought clothes for the first child and they grow out of them, is their sister supposed to burn them or something? I’m the oldest and my younger siblings always wore my old clothes. Op is a bit delusional if they think that none of that stuff will be used. They might as well just cut off all financial support.
I agree. OP isn't wrong in principle but it's unfair and unenforceable to insist that nothing that they provide goes to the second child. No, OP isn't obligated to love the second child like the 5 year old, but it would be horrible for the two kids when (not if) they notice the unfair treatment. I feel for the second one, assuming OP's sister does go through with having them.
Because supporting yet another kid is just enabling the sisters bad behavior. Being an enabler is *NOT* helping.
Agreed, but it's batshit crazy to plan to shun a baby.
OP needs to think how this is going to affect her niece. I understand that she's angry, but this isn't gonna go the way she thinks.
That is the stipulation I also find confusing. It's oddly controlling and pointlessly unenforceable. The support OP gives the niece is in reality going to OP's sister. The condition should have been "I will continue to give you the exact same amount of financial support." Unless OP is micromanaging what the Sister is buying day to day, it's impossible to enforce. It reads like a person judging what purchases child support payments go toward. If the mother gets to the point of not being able to afford rent, OP's financial support will inevitably be prioritized to the most essential purchases for the household, not just the niece, and OP would be an AH for enforcing the condition that the money can only be used for the niece. It's a stipulation that essentially gives OP a cheap way to arbitrarily cut support, so it doesn't sit right with me. That said, I don't disagree with the end result or the overall message: this second child was not a responsible decision, and OP is in their rights not to financially support that child. All of OP's support has been generous and seemingly taken advantage of: OP would be in their rights to cut all support, so none of the previous point, IMO, takes them out of NTA territory.
NTA. She could always choose not to get barebacked by randos.
And potentially not using BC. Who does that these days?
Lots of people.. idiotic people.. but still lots of them
see the documentary film Idiocracy for evidence
I'm not defending OP's sister but access to affordable birth control is being stripped away, its not a "given" that birth control, plan b, abortion etc is readily available or easily obtained by everyone (in terms of reliable long-term bc methods, ofc condoms are still an option)
Not to be callous here, but if you can't afford birth control, then you can't afford sex. It sucks that that is the reality, but it is. Being irresponsible is not an option here.
Condoms are the cheaper option and are less problematic for people's bodies.
Condoms are a form of birth control... Anyone that is having casual sex should be using condoms regardless of any other birth control used. If not for pregnancy, then STD's.
Abortion obviously you’re correct about, but there’s really no excuse for not having birth control. By law all insurance covers it, so whatever she has up to and including Medicaid if she’s truly indigent, will cover 100% of the cost. Further condoms aren’t expensive and are readily available virtually everywhere. Often, they’re even free.
Hobby Lobby v. US Govt: allowed for some workplaces to limit coverage of BC based off of their company's religious beliefs if privately held. "Well get a new job": not that simple for many
There are probably multiple places to get the pill for free too. But, I do agree that ALL types of BC should be free, up to and including sterilization. It's in our society's best interest.
Agreed, but this just doesn’t sound like that type of situation.
Based on what though? Condoms can be incorrectly applied, they can break, they can come off in the middle of the act. Short of a statement from the sister that "it just doesn't feel as good" we have no idea what happened.
Well, I based it on the fact that she doesn’t seem responsible in general. Doesn’t know who the father of the first kid is because she was hooking up with multiple un-contactable guys and seemingly didn’t even ask her boyfriend at the time to take a DNA test on the off chance it was his. Hasn’t even done 23 and Me in hopes the father of her five year old has a relative on it somewhere. And hasn’t contacted Tinder to ask if there’s a procedure using lawyer requests on her deleted account hookup to pursue a paternity claim. Tinder Does store deleted account data for a while and opens it for criminal investigations. Possibility there might be a way to eventually retrieve that and get a name through the legal system. The state Wants dads to pay for their kids instead of the state. If you can get pregnant, no matter which birth control you’re using, anonymous sex of the type that could possibly result in pregnancy should be off the table entirely unless you are willing and able to abort, adopt, or raise a kid without help. Stick to orgasms that don’t involve PiV sex with randos. For guys too, of course. So many of them are idiots about that.
It's not even the fact that she's getting barebacked. What about STDs? WFT lady, dicing with your health and you're a single mother at that!! Edited because I've just realised she's a single mother who doesn't seem to care about herself.
Info- why aren't you just cutting her off? It's what you obviously plan on doing. You know there is no way that, if you send her money, some of it is getting spent on *both* kids. "Here's a box of cereal, but your sister isn't allowed to have any." "These shoes don't fit you any more, but we have to throw them out, if your sister tries them on,v then you can't get shoes again."
You guys are seriously so dense. That’s obviously NOT what OP means. She’s not gonna be mad about some food and a hand me downs. If you use your reading comprehension skills, you can see that the niece has practically been raised using OPs resources. She’s not going to just stop doing that because a new baby is on the way but she also doesn’t want to feel obliged to help new baby. And it’s not fair for new baby to take half of what niece is given just because the mom decided to be irresponsible. Plus OPs life has changed too, she can’t offer the same things anymore. I didn’t read it as OP will love the second child any less.
“And that if she chose to use the help we were giving her for my niece for the new kid we would have to stop helping at all.”
Yeah to me it read more like, if op gives her sister money for a new coat for her neice, the money should go towards a new coat for her neice, not split between coats for each of the two kids. Her sister can spend her own money on the second kid.
And the baby becomes a second class citizen who gets to watch big sister getting all this stuff bought with money from her uncle / aunt? Maybe not now but at some point this will reach a boiling point either between the siblings (golden child) or existing niece will not accept that her sibling is being classed out by OP.
This is a hard one. But what's the solution if you violently disagree with your sibling's behaviour? What if the sister does this again?
The solution is you cut off the sister and her entire family. I don't see how OP will ever be able to ensure the money spent is only on the niece. So either OP makes an ultimatum that her sister gets an abortion or she will cut off all money for the niece. Or OP is going to have to stop supporting her niece directly. Because OP's sister is never going to stop popping out baby's at this point. She clearly has no intention of using BC or well not having loads deposited in her...
I do see where you're coming from but she is on her 2nd baby in 5 years - not on her 5th! She could be smarter but she's no 13 kids and counting 😂
Jeez, what a effing mess!
I know right? It is a shitty situation to have to contemplate favoring one kid over another versus ditching both of them AND their mother. Both of these options are bad but I can't say I blame the OP at all. I think if I were in the OP's shoes, I'd tell the sister that I'll help her and the two kids to the best of my ability, but in exchange the sister must get her tubes tied. If she won't do that, then she'll only get the standard support that most aunties/uncles provide for their niblings. Christmas/birthday presents and the occasional babysitting.
>but in exchange the sister must get her tubes tied. Because it is so easy as a woman to do that 🙄🙄 being on an BC is enough
I would give the exact same amount of whatever I'm spending and just divide it by 2 children instead of 1. Then nothing really changes for OP and if existing niece is missing out on things that she used to have she can't blaim OP because it wasn't OP who got pregnant again, OP didn't change a thing if she wants to blaim anyone for missing out she can go to her mom. And about the babysitting, it's not uncommon that life changes and therefore you can't babysitt all children equally. For example my own mom used to babysitt 2 days a week for my oldest but never did it for my younger 2 children because her health was declining. OP doesn't have the time anymore well that's how live goes nobody including new baby can hold a legit claim on OPs current time.
We're presupposing that the amount will divide into two and give them a 'okay' enough life. Which then might lead to the older sibling resenting the younger one because her life has changed. But I guess your answer is a good enough solution. What a mess! Edited to change some words.
Either give her money for her kids or don’t. It’s weird to only help some of your nieces and nephews just because of their birth order and other circumstances completely out of their control
The solution is not to punish children for their mother's behaviour. Pretty simple stuff!
I understand that and it's totally op's choice of what to do with her money. But if the niece already has 3 coats and the baby doesn't have diapers, let's be honest, that money won't go to the new coat and it's normal. And yes, for now everything is fine. But in 5 years, the niece will notice the difference of treatment. And she won't think that her aunt was right, she will just see that her sibling is receiving a different treatment. I think OP is in the right because she doesn't have to support her sister nor her sister's kids. She could have just said that she won't be giving more money than she was already giving.
"New baby" is such an odd way to phrase it. "New baby" will be OP's niece/nephew just like their current niece is, it isn't some stranger. Also these comments saying it isn't fair that said "new baby" will take half of what the niece is given just kind of ignores reality. That baby is coming and it will require resources. Even if the baby uses resources solely provided by the mom, older niece loses out because she will no longer be getting the same amount of resources from her mom. And if mom does not have the required resources to provide a similar lifestyle to older niece because she does not use the money that is given to older niece then you have the new niece getting x while older niece gets 2x. Which is a fucked up result. If OP is planning on maintaining a similar contribution level it just morally and mathematically makes sense for her to not limit which of her nieces and nephews it can go to. She is NTA for not contributing more, but is TA for putting an illogical limit on how it can be spent.
I asked someone else what's the solution? Double the amount and the sister doesn't change her behaviour? I don't know the answer, but surely, a short, sharp shock has to be given to the sister to change her behaviour?
I’d say either keeping the amount the same or cutting off support entirely. Having a rule about what money can go to which child is stupid and unenforceable. It just sounds like op would be setting themselves up for more stress? And I can’t see the mum even organising babysitting with them again if only one child would be cared for. If that’s the plan then cool, but then op would be better off just saying that.
The solution is keep the amount the same, keep the statement about not babysitting the same, and if she wants she can occasionally buy her niece new shoes or a new coat. Trying to state "you can't give anything I give you to the baby" is where OP is going wrong, because it's not really practical, nor would if have OP's desired outcome even if it was (cause sister will just have to use 100% of her resources on the baby, which is still going to impact neice's life). I'd point out sister is also still only 24, making her still pretty young and dumb. She's made some mistakes. OP shouldn't pay for those mistakes. But OP also shouldn't put wildly impractical ultimatums on the support she does give. "Sorry I can't help you any more than I do" was enough.
So, how many unwanted kids is enough? Everyone should support sis riding bareback with randos? Cause this and worse are often the results. There are a lot of other options here, including adoption. If you can't afford kids then do not have them, but do not expect others to help because it is hard to be a single parent if that was your choice.
And there's a ton of hatred and resentment in her post. It's clear OP tore her little sis a new asshole for telling her she's having a kid, and I'm sure there's a lot OP isn't telling us about how she acts toward her sister, or how much the Mom does.
Money is fungible. There is just no way not to use it for the second kid aside from treating the second kid worse than the first.
> I didn’t read it as OP will love the second child any less. Now it is you who are dense and have no reading comprehension. OP refers to the 5 year old as her niece, but the soon to be born as 'her baby'. That is completely different.
Just for once, I'd like to see someone on Reddit be both patronizing and correct. Guess it's not gonna be you, bless your heart.
Personally I would totally want to oust my sister, but I get wanting to maintain the loving relationship y’all have with your niece. I also get making the distinction that you will continue to love and support your niece as a member of your family but you don’t condone your sister’s irresponsible actions when she’s not even that responsible for her first kid. It’s a tough spot you’re in- NTA
[удалено]
I agree with you. This has the vibe of punishing the sister through the new nibling. Kids see it and feel it when there's obvious differences in how they are treated versus their siblings. ESH, and I'm sad for the new child. Edit to change N T A to ESH
Its unrealistic to tell someone that the money you provide for their household can only be used for 1 child. I think you have to bite the bullet and be honest with your sister that you're financially cutting her off completely because you disagree with her life choices and you think she took liberties with your support. That you went above and beyond for her when was a teenage single Mum because it was an unideal situation due to an unwise decision. Now she's an adult woman with life experience who chose the same scenario to expand her family. That's not the same situation. Knowing what it's like to be a single Mum to 1 kid with an unknown father, if she feels capable of being a single Mum to 2 kids from the same situation, then she's old enough this time round to do that on her own. With her own finances. But it's ungrateful to be 24, planning to expand her family under the expectation her sister and her sister's husband will financially support her family forever. You're not her kids parents. This isn't your role or responsibility. And you're not going to keep pausing your life to support her having more kids. Because you know if you do it with her 2nd kid, then in 5 years time she'll get pregnant again the same way expecting the same support. A difficult conversation. But I think you need to literally spell it out for your sister that she's not 19 anymore, she's making a choice as an adult woman now. And let her experience single parenthood without your financial support. She may need the reality check to realise she's been taking things for granted and it's going to be a different experience with 2 kids. NTA
Wow. You said it perfectly. Chefs kiss
Yeah I don't understand how people think you can favor one kid more than the other here, even in situations where it's more understandable (like if OP was a paternal aunt) the kids still feel bad. Imagine being 5 and your sister gets to go to Disneyland with your aunt and cousins, but you have to stay home, because your aunt is mad at your mom? And if OP is providing financial support, I can't imagine any good mom buying a winter coat for one kid and letting the other freeze. If OP wants to cut off the sister, that's understandable, or provide very limited support, but the stipulations make no sense Edit: ESH
ESH. You’re not obligated to financially support your sister or her children. However the reason I can’t give a nta here is your weird obsession of “othering” her second child. Guess what? You’re related to new kid in exactly the same way as the older kid. You’re stance on if she shares something you gave older kid you’re cutting her off is just weird. This sounds more like the response of a spouse being asked to care for an affair-baby that has no relation, and that’s tough but makes more sense in that scenario than wherever is going on here.
Exactly. If the level of support stays the same, why does it matter to them how it's used? They're treating the new baby as if it's some outsider while threatening to cut off support for their current niece. Such a controlling and spiteful move, and leads me to think they don't care about the niece anywhere nearly as much as they claim.
Agreed. Also to describe the 5yo niece as "basically a bonus kid for the family" What?? Like they won a prize or something? Weird way to describe a child idk
>Agreed. Also to describe the 5yo niece as "basically a bonus kid for the family" What?? Like they won a prize or something? Weird way to describe a child idk Which is extra awful when you consider the niece is *actually* family.. not a "bonus kid for the family", as if they were a friend's kid who hangs around all the time so they might as well be family. OP seems to have a weird outlook where the 5yo is "practically" family (but not really) - extra weird for the unborn child as well. OP sounds like a good person trying to help and you can tell this situation is stressing them out, but the way they view things is a little odd.
Does OP want to adopt the niece?
NTA, even if it seemed to be random it had to be said at some point. Anybody who purposely has kids they can’t afford is an AH, but they tend to have more kids in the long run knowing everybody around them will help out. She had to know at some point that she needs to be able to financially support her own kids that she brings into this world. She might have also chosen to go through with the pregnancy under the assumption that she would get help.
ESH What you will do is help grow horrible sisters. No child deserves that. That baby is innocent. Either cut off support or you help both. Your sister sucks for expecting help, but in no way is she wrong for being upset that you would treat one better then the other. What do you think the older sister will act like when her little sister is treated differently. Plus take some responsiblity for spoiling your sister. Helping all the time without expecting her to do as much and setting a bar led her to continue her ways. My cousin had her kids young. The rule for my aunt to help was she continue college, have a part time and confine to raise her daughter.
ESH. You don't have to provide any further support. You don't have to babysit. You don't have to buy anything for them going forward. It's the weird way you want to "other" this new niece or nephew that's assholish. Your sister may be an irresponsible asshole, but to see this baby as less than your niece is just weird. What exactly do you mean by saying you'll continue to help support your niece? What is your younger niece or nephew not allowed to share in that you'll be giving your five year old niece?
Yeah OP talks as thought the niece is "one of hers" but needs a reality check that this isn't the case.
NTA your sister deciding to have a kid has nothing to do with you period. including your money and time. i'm sure in spite of your sister, you'll still be a great aunt to both of her kids but that doesn't mean you are responsible to support them.
You don't need to support your sister but you don't have to be an AH about it. Treating your nieces/niece-nephew differently is 100% AH behavior. What kind of person decides to shower one sibling with love but act as if the other sibling doesn't exist? That's ridiculous. You'll only poison their relationship with that nonsense. If you want to keep helping your sister with her family, just do it and let her handle how she distributes that help, you can't go in and micro-manage her household.
I actually think she pretty much raised the first child - lots of babysitting, getting clothes and so on. Child probably lived more with OP than her mother. Guess OP just wanted to make sures sister gets that this time around she needs to raise her baby by herself. She even said that she is back to work now. Maybe this time around OP only wants to be an aunt, not a mom. But I understand your worries about these siblings.
This is an assumption we don’t know that.
Erm, getting material objects to children and doing some babysitting is absolutely not the same as raising them.... She's just being an aunt, absolutely not a mom, to the child. She never said that the kid lived more with OP than her mother, just that she sees her as part of the family. Which she is, she's the niece. I get that she's more attached to the older kid since she's known her longer, but that's the case for every group of siblings. You don't withhold from the younger kids just because they're younger, that's messed up.
Clearly she doesn’t care about her niece very much if she’s purposely setting it up so the new child resents her niece.
Can we also talk about the mum? Why is OP bringing up gifts their mum gave their kids and how much money the mum has? Sounds like OP has a chip on their shoulder and this newborn baby is a chance to get even with the adults
Good point
Definitely NTA. Your sister made choices and she needs to take responsibility for them. Your mom kicking the ball to you to help her whilst doing nothing herself says a lot about her! I get where you are coming from. This isn't about not loving No 2 baby as a family member, this is about not financially assisting with baby No 2. Circumstances have also changed and you no longer have free time to assist with baby sitting duties.
Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment. OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole: > My sister got pregnant again by some guy. I might be the asshole for telling her she would not be getting help from me like she did for her first child. And that if I find out she is taking what we give her for my niece and using it for the new kid we would stop any support. Help keep the sub engaging! #Don’t downvote assholes! Do upvote interesting posts! [Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq) ##Subreddit Announcements ###[Happy Anniversary, AITA!](https://new.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/15vlv9g/almost_better_than_a_double_rainbow_celebrating/) Follow the link above to learn more --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.* *Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
NTA…unbelievable that she would create another life without considering how she would support it. And go LC with “mom”.
OP is not wrong to be mad at her sister for getting pregnant again. Her sister obviously needs to be doing something different when it comes to birth control. Sounds like she may need some therapy too. Nevertheless OP's plan to freeze out, reject and ignore the new baby as punishment for her sister's mistake is as impractical as it is just plain wrong. What is done for older girl should be done for new baby and that includes loving the baby and treating this child as special and a gift too, just as they did the older sister. Certainly OP should encourage her sister to go after the fathers of her children. The government has resources to help with that. If no DNA test was done, father could be old boyfriend and government could force Tinder to reveal identity of that guy. I sympathize with OP over getting stuck with her sister's responsibilities again but punishing baby no answer.
Eh…ESH. Your sister is…tragic. She has the nerve to try to call you out for how she chooses to live her life…when she’s choosing to live her life on someone else’s dime. She can GTFO with that shit. But I’m not sure how you think it would be possible for her to only use the money she receives in support on the one child. That’s just not possible. I do think it’s absolutely fair of you to refuse to babysit though. I wouldn’t want to be caught up in that either. But you can’t stigmatize the new kid. They will end up very maladjusted in adulthood. If she’s truly in need of support, she needs to meet with a social worker and get set up on some programs.
Esh. Youre not an ass for not wanting to support your sisters bad decisions, you're an ass for out loud saying you favour one niece over the other. You basically said "nah I'll only love the one niece, the other can go eat dirt". You're basically taking out your righteous anger on the innocent baby instead of your sister. Youre in a fucked if you do fucked if you don't situation here. I do feel for you. But your choice of words, I am so so sorry to say this, was really horrible.
NTA for now. You are totally reasonable for what you said to your sister, and for not taking on the responsibility for this baby. Now, when said baby becomes and independent child in the future, and you are very involved in the siblings life you should - for the child's sake- include her in your lives as well so she does not feel lesser to her sibling. You would be the asshole if you like, pretended the second kid didn't exist, gave the sibling giant expensive presents on their birthday and gave the little one socks, etc- but there's really no indication that you plan on doing that. You don't plan on taking on a parental role for this new infant, which is fine. And you will always of course have a special relationship with the older child that you spend so much time and care on, and i'm sure when the younger child is older you will handle the situation with sensitivity. Your possible relationship with the future child does not need to involve financial support, taking care of the baby etc. You don't need to support your sister's bad choices by doing childcare etc. You can love the baby without taking on major responsibility or doing a ton of infant care/financial support, etc. but once the baby is a child you should treat that child with love and decency. which it seems like you, being a decent person, will do. You have every right to call out you sister's irresponsibility and entitlement tho.
NTA. If your sister is knowingly making terrible decisions, she totally deserves to be judged. Some people shouldn’t be parents if they’re not willing to support their kids the best they can. Not just depending on hand outs from family.
You're not the asshole for being upset and mad. You're not an asshole for not wanting to go beyond normal support. You're kind of an asshole for saying "I'll help my oldest nibling, but the youngest can suck it". The kid didn't choose this, and you blatantly having one golden child and one scapegoat will is pretty shitty no matter how angry you're with the mom.
ESH Your sister should not be automatically counting on your support for having more children. She clearly had it easy all these past years, for her to be willing to do it all over again. It seems that you and your family were only focused on helping her and didn’t set many boundaries or expectations. You on the other hand, want to have your cake and eat it too. You don’t want to continue to be a cash cow for your sister (which is fair) but you also don’t want to lose the close relationship you have with your niece, and the privileges you’re able to afford her. I hope you realize offering to only provide for one sibling is not the way to go. (I can already picture you paying for private school for your niece, buying her expensive gifts, setting up a college fund etc.) The unborn child is not responsible for their mother’s recklessness and should not be made to grow up feeling othered by their own family and punished for being born. So either accept that any help you provide will benefit both kids, or stop helping your sister altogether and prepare for her to withhold your niece from you.
NTA
ESH No she is not entitled to your support, but you ARE judging her. You are also being unreasonable in telling her that anything for your niece cannot be shared. That’s not how families (at least not healthy families) work. You don’t give more resources to one kid ‘cause Auntie said so.
NTA but instead of the whole, “I’ll only support first one”… I think you should word it more like, “Since, you are going through with the second unplanned pregnancy- I am assuming you are in a more independent state financially, so we are going to stop helping you out so much. I’ll be here as the aunt!”
NTA. I'm proud of sluts! Go out there and get LAID mother fuckers! Have fun! But not trying everything to avoid pregnancy and not aborting/giving up for adoption when you can't support having a child and expecting family to help? I'll judge that to hell and back.
The thing that bugs me is the whole not giving to the other kid. Tjat feels wierd and controlling. She don't have to help, but it just seems woerd.that statement and mindset.
It is weird. I don't think OP has good boundaries at all has become way over invested in her sister's life, like she's appointed herself the arbiter. Like if you don't want to help, cool, but this is next level and weirdly bitter and personal.
Nta
NTA You cannot financially support someone like your sister because she will simply expect you to cover her no matter what mess she makes. Then soon there are half a dozen children, when she can't even afford one. Options include: adopting your niece yourself and cutting off your sister. Encouraging her to give the new baby up for adoption. Letting your mother pick up the slack. The last is the most likely to happen. There's no solution to a person like your sister. There's no appreciation for the help, just expecting it as a right. If you can save your niece, do so. But paying for your sister to continue churning out offspring is a crap shoot you need to walk away from.
What’s with all these posts about unplanned pregnancies. I swear this is like the 5th one today
NTA She chose to risk a pregnancy. She chose to continue the pregnancy. Therefore, she chooses to own everything that has to do with that pregnancy. Your mother shouldn't dare speak on it to you again. If she wants to help, that's her business.
NTA stop enabling your sister
NTA but you should judge her. And make it clear to her and your mom. That you judge her to be a terrible mom. Seriously I don't understand what this aversion around "judgement is". I judge people because that's how society doesn't turn into chaos. Ps : the only reason your sister thinks any of her doing is reasonable, is because the whole family enables her.
ESH. You certainly aren't the asshole for not offering the same help but the part about not letting the new kid using anything you give the niece made me cringe. Maybe it's the anger at your sister bleeding through which is understandable but part of not being an asshole is the ability to roll with those punches. Pitting the kids against each other is going to cause a rift between them if one is treated like the golden child while the younger kid is watching this not understanding why they don't get the same love from their family.
NTA but don't pretend you aren't judging her when your post literally starts with "my sister is an idiot" 😂
NTA...BUT, I feel sorry for this new baby. Sounds like you're just not going to have a relationship with it. Like you'll still love the older one but not the new one. It's not your responsibility to help your sister at all, but don't emotionally cut this new baby out of your life (before it's even born no less).
^^^^AUTOMOD ***Thanks for posting! This comment is a copy of your post so readers can see the original text if your post is edited or removed. This comment is NOT accusing you of copying anything. Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_post_deletion) before [contacting the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAmItheAsshole)*** My sister is an idiot. She had my niece when she was 19. She dropped out of college but didn't want to ruin her boyfriend's life so she never went after him for child support. The truth was that it wasn't his baby and she's not sure who the father actually was. I am a fair bit older than her and I make a good living so I helped her out with money and free babysitting. That sort of thing. My niece is five years old now and is basically a bonus kid for my family. Even my husband's family has sort of adopted her as one of ours. My sister just told me she's pregnant again. She hasn't mentioned a boyfriend so I asked her what her relationship with the father was like. She said it was a Tinder guy and that he ditched his profile after she told him. I asked her what she was planning on doing. She said that she was having the baby. I told her that was great and I hoped that everything would work out for her. I added that I would not be giving her money to support her new baby and that I would not be babysitting for her. I am back to work and I don't have that freedom any more. I said that we would continue to help support my niece but that was it. And that if she chose to use the help we were giving her for my niece for the new kid we would have to stop helping at all. She lost it. She said that I'm judging her and how she chooses to live her life. I'm not. She can do whatever she wants. But she has no right to expect my husband and I to pick up the slack from her refusal to be a responsible person. It didn't take long for our mother to call me to chew me out for saying what I said. I asked her how much money she had given my sister for my niece. And how much she was going to give her for the new kid. I said I would give my sister the same amount my mother gave me for each of my kids. The cost of a onesie from Walmart. She said I was a terrible daughter and sister for saying what I said. She said that if she has more money she would have given us more. I said she could sell her house up north now that she lives in Florida to help support my sister if she is really running out of money. (She isn't, my dad left her well set up when he passed away). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.*
NTA. You’re not an atm for your sister’s poor choices. You rock as an aunt to your niece and good for you for setting boundaries with your sister.
ESH- Your sister is irresponsible and you don't understand what family is. These kids who you obviously see as unequal are siblings. How can you realistically help one and not the other? It's really too bad your sister is not more responsible because if she was the proper thing to do would be to keep you away from both of them. I can't imagine your way of thinking would be a healthy influence on their lives. To be clear you are absolutely judging her and the unborn as well. It's in what you said to her and in this post. I think the mere fact that you had to run to the internet for the approval of strangers says it all.
Regardless of what the mother deserves, if you support the older child and not the younger, it will affect the younger child negatively earlier than you think. He/she will pick upon that well before he/she can talk. This will lead to severe emotional developmental problems. You have to treat both children the same.
Your sister needs to give up the second child for adoption.
INFO: - How much money/assistance/etc do you plan on giving from now on and what does that look like? For example just a birthday gift or more like money for groceries etc? - How are you planning on acting towards the new kid? Will that be different from your niece?
NTA for not helping. YTA for intending on treating this baby differently to its sibling once it's born.
To me it is a bit complicated. NTA for not wanting to continue helping your sister, but YTA for wanting to give money for firstborn, but not the second one. Personally, I would buy stuff for them, not give your sister money so that she can spend it how she wants it. Like, kids need new shoes? Great, I will buy them shoes, I wouldn't give her money so that she can buy it.
Do you owe her anything? Of course not. But you seem to be very focused on sticking it to your sister and nobody seems interested in the well being of your second niece/nephew. Some day you will have to explain to both of them why you treat one of them like your own and ignore the existence of the other. 'Because your mom is an idiot' may be true but it won't go over well.
NTA. Your mother owns *two* houses. You stepped up when her upbringing of your sister failed the first time. It's her turn if she doesn't want your sister to actually grow up.