Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide, which can point you to expert advice and support.
Previously uninterested father of baby 'wants to talk'(316 Posts)
I had a very casual relationship for a few months at the end of last year. He was sleeping with other women and I didn't want a relationship with him, so I ended it. Shortly after I found out I was pregnant. My immediate decision was that I wanted to keep the baby.
I told him this and his initial instinct was to say that he didn't want another child (he already has a daughter) and to accuse me of planning the pregnancy (I didn't). This didn't bother me as I didn't really expect full support.
However, he then escalated to barraging me with text messages trying to emotionally blackmail me into having an abortion with all sorts of rubbish. I refused to give into the pressure.
He then threatened to move away and change his name so that I could not force him to pay child maintenance. I gave him a chance to reflect and sent him a single message after the 12 week scan asking if he would accept some financial responsibility or if I should involve the CSA. There was no answer.
I accepted that he would not be a part of the baby's life and instead began to sort out my finances and future childcare so that I was prepared for when the baby comes.
He has now messaged me over a month later to ask for a meeting to discuss the baby. I have agreed but do not trust him. In my mind, he would have no contact with the baby and I was fine with that. I have agreed to meet because 1. He IS the father, regardless of whether I like him or not 2. It will be easier to have him willingly support his child than to involve the CSA.
I have been polite to him and answered some questions, but I am confused with some of what he has said. He asked for a picture of the pregnancy, so I sent him a copy of the scan pic. He then texted back to say no, he meant a picture of me pregnant (?!).
I said that I wasn't sure when I would be available to meet as I planned to move next week. He asked where and why, and I told him that I needed more space now that I was having a baby (I currently live in a one bed flat). He wanted to know who with and I told him it would just be me and baby. Next message asks if I have a boyfriend. I ignore this, so he asks again. I ask why it's relevant and he says that it is to him.
Now he is messaging me as if things were like they were back when we dated, asking me what I'm reading, that he has done this... Etc. I am soooo confused as to what on earth he is playing at considering his earlier behaviour. I am also suspicious as to why he has had a change of heart about the baby.
I know this is selfish, but I really was happy at the thought of being a single mum as I meant I wouldn't have to deal with him and would have the baby all to myself. I don't want him in the baby's life (even though he has a right to be involved) as he is a terrible role model- a serial womaniser who casually uses drugs and who publicly holds some very controversial views, not to mention his earlier behaviour.
I guess my question is (and thank you if you have actually read this far!), what do you think his motivations might be (I cannot work them out) and what should I say when I meet him?
'Have some pride and bring up the child you wanted without going through the CSA. You said yourself you can afford it.'
Actually, I completely agree Poppylemons
It's not theft poppylemons. He's an adult who made an active choice not to use contraception and can't have been unaware that there may be consequences. If he didn't want to be a dad he could have insisted on a condom.
Bollocks aboutthe OP's 'pride' - the child needs food, clothing and so on.
It's not like it's a secret that sex leads to babies. If a consenting adult has sex, they have to beware that they could become a parent. If they really don't want that to happen, then they can't have sex.
Even if their partner lies about contraception, they can hardly claim it was a surprise that sex can lead to babies. He had sex, heis a parent to a child and should be 50% responsible for it.
'the child needs food, clothing and so on.'
...which she said she can afford, she has a steady career etc.
She wants to bring up this child on her own, doesn't even like the father, he made it clear from the start he did not want a child with her, she chose to proceed regardless. I am confused as to why she feels she is morally correct in pursuing him through the CSA here.
Okay so the sperm was 'freely given' but I do not agree in this situation that he should necessarily be made to pay for next 18 years for what became of it, something he did not intend or want, but which she does want, and can afford.
If he's as bad as he sounds I would not go through CSA. In fact I'd cut all contact otherwise you'll be dealing with him for years.
One of my friends had a similar situation, she moved away, didnt tell him where (he didnt care) and had had nothing to do with him since, no contact worries, no broken promises, no man debating schools, religion etc. do you want that for both of your future?
Courts may not agree with supervised access without proof, them theres his extended family.. would they want to be involved? id leve well alone. If you can afford it I'd go alone as he's going to cost you much more emotionally than the csa cash.
Poppy - the boundary is there & generally referred to as contraception.
He is liable to pay for 50% of the child's expenses, whether or not the OP can afford it.
Sex leads to babies. Like kickass said above, it's not exactly a secret. If he didn't want to be a father, he should have insisted on a condom. The onus is on both of them, not just the mother.
'if they dont want to be a dad they shouldnt have sex'
Reality check...I really don't think in the heat of the moment (basic biology, we all know how powerful our drive is for sex, particularly men) 99% of men think "hold on, I must banish this erection, this could possibly lead me to becoming financially liable for a child for the next god knows how many years. I'm not in a relationship with her and I'm sure she wouldn't want to continue a pregnancy as a single mum in any event, she might even take the morning after pill. No, best not risk it. Sorry love."
i just think it's totally disproportionate and in THIS particular case the mother has made it clear she is comfortable enough financially to have the luxury of making this decision, to not pursue him for money.
Its quite simple poppy he should have used a condom if he really didn't want a child. But ultimately when people have sex theory know a baby may be the end result and they are responsible for that child end of.
It doesn't matter if she was. HE chose to have sex. HE is becoming a parent. HE has a responsibility as the consequence of HIS actions.
But SHE doesn't want him involved and HE doesn't want to be involved and made that clear from the moment she told him.
If she can afford to raise this child without his financial help then she shouldn't pursue him for money as long as they both mutually maintain they do not want him in this childs life.
A man who really REALLY doesn't want to father a child/any more children should have a vasectomy or at the very least take care of contraception himself. This man didn't, so he's financially liable, end of.
Reality check: Men and women like sex. Both are capable of making stupid decisions in the heat of the moment.
Both are responsible for conceiving this child, both are responsible for its upkeep. It's irrelevant whether the OP is earning enough to cover costs for both, as the child's biological father is also responsible (legally and morally) for 50% of the costs of its upkeep.
Why are you so keen to let him off the hook anyway?
I can see Poppy's view. He made his opinion clear and she chose to go ahead regardless. I genuinely think its unfair to go ahead with a pregnancy a man doesn't want and more so to expect him to pay for your choice for the next 18 years.
Jamtoast are u serious? Unfair to continue with a pregnancy a man does not want? But fair to force a woman who doesnt want to terminate to have one?
If you dont want a kid, dont f**k about without protection. Simple.
His choice not to have a baby ended at the moment he had sex without taking responsibility for his own fertility.
As he didn't, a baby was conceived.
Once that baby is conceived, the WOMAN has the final say, as the baby is IN the woman's body, and she has autonomy to say what is going to happen (or not) to her own body.
His chance to prevent a baby ended the moment he chose to have sex without taking responsibility for his own fertility.
The baby IS going to be here. Therefore he is equally financially responsible for it. To shirk your financial responsibility towards your child simply because you had changed your mind at a point when it was no longer YOUR choice to do so about creating a baby is morally repugnant.
He is equally responsible for this baby's conception, and he is equally responsible for this baby financially.
In future, if he doesn't want any more babies, then he needs to take personal responsibility for his own fertility, and either have a vasectomy, or use a condom.
Surely that is quite simple?
Even my 11yo DS1 can grasp the concept that HE, and nobody else, is responsible for his own fertility, and once a baby is conceived he would have no further control over any decisions that the mother of his child-to-be would make over HER body.
If an 11yo can understand this simple principle, why can't a grown man?!
A man has a choice about creating a pregnancy right up until the moment he has sex.
From that point on, the woman has the choice whether to continue with a pregnancy or not.
Therefore, men that don't want children need to make their choices carefully while they still HAVE a choice.
And you don't find it morally repugnant to pursue a man financially for years and years for something he never wanted and never made any pretence of wanting...especially when you can afford to raise the child that ONLY YOU wanted alone. hmmm
Not that I'm defending someone who sounds like a twat - but do any of yo actually know that he didn'T wear a condom?
I accept that i may have missed this info in op's posts.
No I don't. I find it morally repugnant when a man has sex knowing it can result in a baby and then when it does he fucks off and doesn't support that child financially or as a father.
No info has been given regarding any contraception.
Once a baby has been conceived, the only way to prevent a pregnancy from continuing when the woman wishes it to, is to FORCE her to have a termination against her wishes.
Which takes away her autonomy over her own body. That is not acceptable.
As a man, you have a choice whether to have a vasectomy or not - you don't have an Ex able to FORCE you to have a vasectomy against your wishes, because you have autonomy over your own body.
As a woman, therefore, you have a choice whether to have a termination or not - you don't have an Ex able to force you to have a termination against your wishes, because you have autonomy over your own body.
Nobody can force an Ex partner to go through a medical procedure against their wishes.
Therefore, if a man does not want a baby, that decision needs to be made BEFORE a baby is conceived, not after.
And if he decides NOT to make a decision on that, the consequences might be the conception and birth if a baby that he is equally responsible for.
People need to think of the consequences of their actions in advance of taking them.
The OP did that - she thought through whether to keep the baby, and decided it was right for her.
It's her Ex that didn't think through to the consequences of not taking responsibility for his own fertility.
What couthy said.
There is nothing wrong with getting a man to financially support his OWN child.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.