Having a Baby with My Gay Best Friend – WWYD?

How on earth is that better?

The baby has one home and one primary caregiver. Do you genuinely think a newborn should move between homes and between caregivers 50:50? I'm willing to bet 1 million pounds that's worse for the baby.

There are certain character traits that are observable at a few hours old that persist into adulthood. One is slow approach/fast approach. Some babies don't like transitions, as a persistent trait. You get one of those and you will cause distress at every handover. Then what?

If you're both prioritising hypothetical romantic relationships over the wellbeing of your own child, then please also keep the child hypothetical.

Lots of men don't get that the only way to support their new born baby is to support its Mother. I worry for situations like this because if anyone has a child with a man, gay or straight, who doesn't respect them as a Mother and their respective roles, it can turn to shit. If it's a partner then they love you and that makes them responsive to your needs. Frankly, if it's a man who isn't romantically involved with you, he has no reason to see you as anything other than his baby making machine because he's not getting anything else from you. Men can be very selfish.

I think you will have to live with each other if he wants to spend quality time with the baby because there's not much chance of you wanting to give it away to him on a regular basis. He should understand that though. If he doesn't, then I'd be questioning whether this is the right thing to do. I couldn't imagine anything worse than feeling like someone wants to take my baby from me.

A friend did this (he is married to a male) and had a child with a lesbian couple. A completely fucking nightmare. Spent thousands on legal fees, was accused by the mothers of sexually abusing the child and had to go to court. They did this all without going through a solicitor in the first place. Get legal advice first to avoid any problems on the future

Can you do the Cafcass plan online with him? It is designed for couples with existing children who separate, so it isn't ideal, but might help you think pre-lawyer. It takes you through lots of questions about holiday plans and day to day life that might just clear up the nuts and bolts.

The one bit of my plan with my friend that I did and do think was a keeper, was two homes. We live four minutes apart, and when we were TTC I could see, from how it worked with my existing daughter, that popping between houses could work. One assumes you already do a fair bit of ad hoc 'ooh, do you fancy a pizza and TV, shall I come over?' stuff as friends.

IMO what is hard for a child after a separation is that, often, parents do not make spontaneous plans to see each other/spend time together, and often, a child wants that. But you could. Sure, sometimes it would be 'oh, mummy is working so we can't get her to come watch Frozen,' but other times you'd end up doing things together and being fairly fluid.

Of course there is the worry this might all come unstuck if you had an almighty relationship breakdown, but that is the same for any couple.

Go it alone? Thats a totally different thing. The gay friend has no particular investment and would just be like a nice gruncle. You would be far less well off and the child would have less security. Doable of course but it would be a single parent set up.

How on earth is that better?

If you can afford to go it alone, I think you should use donor sperm, your friend can be fully involved in the babys life, but I agree that 50/50 is very unfair on the child, and lots of practical problems for both parents.

If you were to go ahead, I agree with pps that you should live together, at least up to age 2.

I'm a single parent, had a reasonable relationship with ex, but that all changed when he got married, so I know how difficult co-parenting can be, and how much people can change.

I could imagine buying two adjacent terrace homes, and building a door from each into the child’s room! You’d certainly have to live very near each other to avoid disruptions as the child grew up.

But so much to think about. What if one of you meets someone - a stepparent could change the dynamic totally.

What if one of you got a great job in a city two hours away?

50:50 from birth is too much away from mother. There are studies to back that up. But if you mitigate this and have him live with you for a year then start having toddler at his building up to 50:50 at his but during the build up him spending time with child at yours- then I'd say brilliant idea. Or obviously you could live in with him and build up to 50:50 at yours.

This situation is going o be far better for a child than having parents split and a nasty custody fight and hating each other for life. I myself was desperate to be mum and I think that clouded my judgment when I was with my nasty ex.

I'd go for it OP.

No, I don't think it is at all! It's a really serious point: we think that a child from a 'broken home' is unlucky because we are starting from the perspective that all 'good' relationships begin with parents in a relationship and in one home.

You are assuming that the parents won't ever move with the child - but, surely, they could? They could factor in some time sleeping over, and some time not, and still not feel they needed to buy a house together, which is quite a big commitment.

That’s a false equivalence and you know it!

I don’t think it’s absolutely terrible for a child to move between two homes (although I don’t think it’s ideal either) but it’s not the same as the same family unit moving between locations!

I do agree that they should sit down and hash out the nuts and bolts legally first, and that the OP needs to consider not letting the child reside elsewhere for the first year, minimum.

I think many women underestimate the visceral connection with a newborn. And by extension, their connection to you. Which they can't express BTW.

50:50 from birth is actively cruel as far as I'm concerned. You'd be far better off to use a sperm donor. You won't lose both for child for 50% of the time, and your friendship when it goes wrong.

I think this is coming from a perspective where children having two homes is inherently sad, though.

A child who has two homes from the start is in a different situation.

You surely don't think children whose families own multiple properties are poor, deprived individuals?

I would have really, really struggled to hand mine over as babies (or any age really, but especially in that first year) to someone else for half the week. Obviously this is forced on some parents if a relationship breaks down. But personally, I wouldn’t go into having a child with this being the plan. I think it’ll lead to a lot of resentment.

It’s only a good idea if you live together tbh

I know a few people who have done this. It has worked out well for them. I think quite a few of them lived together for the first year or so. I know one "couple" who are still living together and their son is about 8 now.

I couldn't bring a child into a situation where they would have two separate homes, I think that's a cruel thing to do.

No issue at all if it comes from separation, that's a heartbreak in itself but to do it just so ye can both have a child is very, very selfish.

Why dont you live together as platonic partners, you could have relationships but the child would be bought up by two parents in the same house with the same environment routines, expectations familiarity

Don't underestimate the primal need to have your baby with you for the first year at least. Before I had a child I would have thought in theory I could do 50/50. But in reality, absolutely not. Bear in mind courts don't tend to order babies to do overnights until they're older for good reason.

This, 1000%. The whole 50/50 thing is a nice idea in principle, but you’ve no idea how unbelievably difficult it will feel handing over a tiny baby half the time - and it’s not great for a baby to be passed back and forth like a parcel in order to fit in with two adults’ idealised view of what parenting looks like. It feels like the arrangement is designed to suit you and your friend’s desires, rather than actually centering the needs of the child. Stability and routine are so important for kids.

Plus babies can be tricky - some much more so than others, and doing everything alone will feel like 10 times the stress and work for both of you, whereas sharing night feeds etc means you can both retain a shred of sanity if the going gets tough. You may have visions of lovely calm nurseries in both your houses, with this sweet, easy little bundle of joy who does nothing but enhance your lives, but you also have to imagine walking around for 6 hours straight alone in the middle of the night with a screaming, colicky baby on your shoulder, feeling like you’re going to be sick on your slippers from exhaustion and sleep deprivation.

But in principle it could be great for all three of you, especially as the child grows older. I’d just encourage you to really consider whether some compromises in living arrangements might be possible for the first few years at least.

I think it sounds a good idea. Although the 50/50 might not be in the best interest of a brand new baby and might be hard during mat leave type age, so I’d iron out the logistics a bit

I would add that as a mum I couldn't even bare to be away from my baby for an afternoon - so I think factor that in. I think you'd need to live together at the start

Co-parenting could work. But I agree that it would be difficult with a newborn if you don't live together.

I actually know someone who did this! It's worked out great for them both - and the kid is well loved.

However they decided to live together for the first 2 years (or maybe 18 months?) to share the load while baby was small - then switched to 50/50. Could you do an arrangement like that?

Also I don't think both of them had partners during the house share time (not deliberately, but I think it made it easier!)