Can my ex get 50:50 care from birth after early separation?

[penelopesolivegarden]

Is this a thing? Ex and I split very early, now 22 weeks. I have gone through everything with him from him not wanting to be involved at all to now wanting a 50:50 split from the start. He seems to think this may be granted as we've been separated from early in the pregnancy. I feel physically sick at the idea.

He works 3 'normal' days a week and then is on call outside normal working hours for one day/night a week, so could make 50:50 work as long as the schedule changed around his working pattern which is what's worrying me. Otherwise I'd think he was bluffing.

And that’s what I said in my post too.

But this man and his mum, wants 50/50 contact from birth which will not be approved by any court.

The two things, maintenance and his being on the birth certificate, are not related.

Expressing for 50:50 wouldn’t work as you’d need to pump at double volume at some point for several days to get ahead of having enough frozen to deliver. Some women could do this but it is very very much not a given, even if you breastfeed. You’d also be pumping half the time rather than feeding and the baby would be dying a bottle rather than feeding, which could both affect breastfeeding when you were together. If you are doing it for the benefit of living cells etc in the milk, that is also removed by the freezing/reheating.

Unlikely with a newborn. Possible later on.

It would make it easier though if he was to ever dispute it

I would second all those saying that "just pump" isn't necessarily easy. I found breastfeeding easy, and exclusively breastfed three kids for months each, but could I get anything out by pumping?? I think I managed one or two bottles full across all three kids, and the unappreciative little swine cried and spluttered when DH tried to give it to them.

However.

A dad who IS prepared to take the baby overnight some of the time does mean that you get a chance to catch up on sleep. I wouldn't burn your bridges on that one until you see how it goes.

Or if breastfeeding doesn"t work out or if it was your plan to bottle feed, you can just SAY you're breastfeeding.
They will not check this in court I'm presuming.

I can’t believe what I am reading…

Putting him on the birth certificate gives him the same parental right as the mother.

ERRRH YESSSS! He is the father, he is 50% of that child, just as the mother is.

Why would a child be denied both parents? (Safeguarding an exception)

Some awful views on this thread.

50 may look like 50 but the mother is not identical to the father.

The baby needs its mother after it has just been born. The mother needs to be able to look after the baby without the father causing problems with the uninterrupted attachment between the mother and the baby.

Snatching it away so he and his mother can play baby every other night, or whatever the plan is, is not a good idea.

The father can see the baby, etc very frequently without the certificate and without the ‘right’ to take it off when he wants.

When he has worked out how he can be Responsible ( re Parental Responsibility), how he is going to help, for example, and the baby is ready, that could be different.

50% of the genetic material is from the dad, but let's be real, he contributes 1 cell and the mum grows the baby.
Babies need to be with their mums and no one else during their first few months and it has detrimental effect to separate them.
In case of eg maternal death, well, it can't be helped, but health professionals will tell you that what a baby needs is it's mother.

If the father is a good man, he will realise that the child needs to be with the mum and he will facilitate that and work around it and build the relationship with the mum present. And then when age appropriate, start day trips away from mum and then an overnight and then 50/50 when much older.

If you're still pregnant and not living near your family, I'd move now. You can move where you want whilst pregnant, he can stop you once the baby is born.

Agree that he isn't present for the birth and baby has your surname, possibly his as a 2nd middle name.

OP just fyi I was unable to express milk for some reason, despite having plenty for my babies. It takes AGES and so as a single mum I wouldn’t want to be wasting my time sitting expressing. You are under absolutely no moral or other obligation to do that.

If you aren’t comfortable with the baby being away from you overnight under the age of 1, then there’s no reason that should happen. Baby’s dad can have access a few hours, a few times a week, initially at your place. I’d say by 9 months he could have the baby at his place for half days.

Do you have support yourself from your own family and friends?

No. He just doesn't want to pay you maintenance.

I doubt he'd even get overnights until your baby is a toddler - how would that even work with breastfeeding?

Can you move away? It will be much harder to do so after the baby comes along.

It sounds like it his mother could be pushing this a little because she wants to have the baby. There is no way in hell I’d be handing over a newborn for the night to anyone. I used to find it hard when my family even held my newborns for too long.

If exclusively bf I think at around 6 months it becomes more practical for babies to spend a few hours away from you as feeds stretch out a bit, but my baby is 7 months and still wakes multiple times and needs breast for settling.

regarding birth certificate, you have 6 weeks to do this so it’s not something you need to rush to do and if not married the father will need to attend with you.

I’d find being in your position really stressful having both him and his mother pressuring but I think it would be best to be clear with them both that under no circumstance will the baby be leaving you for at least the first couple of months.

Don’t let him ruin your pregnancy by having endless discussions about this. There is no need for you to be in contact with him until the baby is born. No court will order 50:50 from birth.

FWIW, I disagree with pp who advised not putting his name on birth cert. He can (fairly) easily get this amended through the courts, all it will do is add fuel to the fire. I say this as someone who was in a similar-ish position to you in my first pregnancy. I called his bluff about contact - he got very quickly bored and lost interest. Obviously give baby your surname though - if baby has his surname and he does disappear off the scene, it’ll just be a headache for you trying to get it changed.

I also agree on the birth certificate that he should be on it . Again I just feel it’s mothers weaponising their children. You decided to go through with this pregnancy knowing you were no longer in a relationship. You had all the power in that decision. why should a child then be saddled with a legal document that you have knowingly left incomplete because it suits you. It’s the child’s document not yours

I knew there was a pushy grandma involved!! This is what she wants, not her DS

honestly if you can get him/ her involved from the word go and in an amicable way you’ve got the best help in the world ever. It is hard and lonely raising a kid on your own. Having breaks, times when you can go out or in time go on holiday without a small child are amazing. If you like that freedom of course.

But 50/50 with a newborn - no way

I knew there was a pushy grandma involved!! This is what she wants, not her DS

honestly if you can get him/ her involved from the word go and in an amicable way you’ve got the best help in the world ever. It is hard and lonely raising a kid on your own. Having breaks, times when you can go out or in time go on holiday without a small child are amazing. If you like that freedom of course.

But 50/50 with a newborn - no way

I knew there was a pushy grandma involved!! This is what she wants, not her DS

honestly if you can get him/ her involved from the word go and in an amicable way you’ve got the best help in the world ever. It is hard and lonely raising a kid on your own. Having breaks, times when you can go out or in time go on holiday without a small child are amazing. If you like that freedom of course.

But 50/50 with a newborn - no way

I knew there was a pushy grandma involved!! This is what she wants, not her DS

honestly if you can get him/ her involved from the word go and in an amicable way you’ve got the best help in the world ever. It is hard and lonely raising a kid on your own. Having breaks, times when you can go out or in time go on holiday without a small child are amazing. If you like that freedom of course.

But 50/50 with a newborn - no way

I knew there was a pushy grandma involved!! This is what she wants, not her DS

honestly if you can get him/ her involved from the word go and in an amicable way you’ve got the best help in the world ever. It is hard and lonely raising a kid on your own. Having breaks, times when you can go out or in time go on holiday without a small child are amazing. If you like that freedom of course.

But 50/50 with a newborn - no way

I knew there was a pushy grandma involved!! This is what she wants, not her DS

honestly if you can get him/ her involved from the word go and in an amicable way you’ve got the best help in the world ever. It is hard and lonely raising a kid on your own. Having breaks, times when you can go out or in time go on holiday without a small child are amazing. If you like that freedom of course.

But 50/50 with a newborn - no way

Yes totally agree. A birth certificate doesn't belong to the mother (even if practically speaking they are the ones who can register the baby without the father's presence), it's the child's legal document and denying them the biological and social reality of who their father is (however inadequate) as part of some kind of 'test' of whether the father 'deserves' to be there on the part of the mother feels morally wrong to me. Different of course if the father absents himself or can't be bothered to turn up to register the birth, then it's on him (and also definitely morally wrong on his part).

Legally speaking the court will in all likelihood grant the father his parental responsibilities anyway pretty quickly purely based simply on paternity, and may well feel the mother having blocked this is evidence of her not being able to put the interests of the child above her own feelings/preferences. And again, I'd suggest it's fear mongering to suggest a father with parental responsibilities would be allowed/practically speaking able/likely to 'rip a newborn baby from its mother's arms' or similar overly hyperbolic, emotional language based on very little actual evidence or reality. If the aim is for OP to retain maximum control of the situation / her ex's contact with baby she's far better off agreeing a sensible plan with him (and then she stands a good chance of getting help and support from him and his mother on her terms) than launching a costly and stressful legal battle that will at very best just delay things for a few months (but make them much harder for the years left of co-parenting she has in front of her). If she feels there's a real risk (based on evidence) that the ex or his mother will take the baby away without her consent and not return them, then don't allow unsupervised contact - that's far easier to justify in court than shenanigans with the birth certificate...

In fact he’s even grosser than you’ve realised - he’s only doing it so he doesn’t have to give you money.

Absolutely and disgraceful.
Yet men get called on here for not stepping up, in laws for not helping out.

Do the right thing for the child from the start, including legally having two parents and carefully planning for the child to have regular contact with dad and family.

Respect each other as parents and do not use this child as a weapon. (Courts will come down hard on these behaviours).

This explains it perfectly.

when it comes to these things you need to think of the bigger picture and try really hard not to make knee jerk decisions that could look poorly on you.