To have this opinion of SIL.

[Justme23]

Probably a terrible whiny thread actually but I need a vent.

The back story is that since I have known SIL2 she has wanted to get pregnant.

Her ex left her because she stopped her contraception without telling him (which in my opinion is abhorrent). He was always very vocal that he wasn't ready for a baby and neither was she, because of their age and situation. (SIL being 19 and VERY immature and him being 21 and studying furiously for a law degree, both living at respective maternal homes). He was broken up when he found out she was lying and took it very hard, poor kid.

Anyway she finally conceived after a string of one night stands and an on off thing with her ex. She told another guy that the baby was his for the last six months of her pg but when baby was born it was clear that her ex is the father.

She told him (via text) and he rang her to ask what she wanted from him. She said nothing at all (very dramatic scene, telling him he can't go anywhere near the baby, she is a "strong" woman, blah blah.

And typically after 14 months she's realising it's not as easy as she thought it was, mainly down to her doting mummy refusing to sponsor her anymore after she threw a tantrum and smashed up her room. (over a broken phone no less)

She is the epitome of a Jeremy Kyle brat. Out every weekend, no job, sees less of her child than I do mine and I have a full time 12 hours a day job!

So she rings her ex, who is doing brilliantly at his degree and job, has got a lovely girlfriend and money etc, and demands money from him.

He said no... That if she will allow him some time to meet the baby and get to know her then he will provide for THE CHILD.

And I agree with him..? So does DP.

Is it that unreasonable?

This is from the topic where the man removed the condom:

'Yeah, and using a contraceptive method that has to be used while you are present is taking responsibility.

He tricked her.

Blaming someone for being deceived is just being a dick.'

Why isn't that the same the other way around?

I'm not on about this situation entirely I'm on about it in the grand scheme of things. I don't understand why we fight for feminism but then become all weak and blameless in situations like this.

Anyway I genuinely hope they resolve this for the baby's sake, it's such a shame children are born into situations like this. Hopefully both mother and father will pull their socks up

"But still, a Man's choice on whether to have a baby or not ends the moment he has unprotected sex. Up until that point, he has choices. After that, he has no control over what the woman does to HER body."

This exactly.

And in the OP's case, he had the discussion about using the MAP as the sole contraception before he had sex with a woman who had already proved she could not be trusted where contraception was concerned. It wasn't a heat of the moment shag that happened too quickly and ended in regret. He made a decision to trust her knowing that she had lied before.

He cannot now shout that it is not fair that she didn't take the MAP because he absolutely should not have been relying on her to take it or it to work.

No contraception is 100% safe but the big difference between deciding not to use a condom and deciding not to take the MAP is that condoms are a contraception used before the sex takes place and the man has the control over that, he's the one wearing it and he knows he is using it.

The MAP is an emergency contraception to be taken if you think your other contraception has failed for some reason. It's not there to be used instead of a condom because he doesn't feel like wearing one and has decided to put all the responsibility onto the woman.

In the opposite case, what if a man tricked a woman into thinking he was wearing a condom when he wasn't. Yes, it's wrong, but she then has the option to use the MAP for it's intended purpose. It doesn't matter if they were only using the condom and she wasn't also on the pill, if she goes and gets the MAP in time and takes it properly then she is still using contraception, albeit emergency contraception, properly and so still trying to responsibly prevent a pregnancy she does not want.

If she knows he didn't wear the condom, either by finding out before or after they had sex, but goes ahead with the sex and then doesn't get the MAP, then yes, she is also responsible for any resulting pregnancy.

If a man is tricked (in this case by deciding for himself not to bother to wear a condom) and finds out later he cannot take a pill or put a condom on at that point and hope it cancels things out. He has to wear one before the sex and in choosing not to he makes himself jointly responsible for any resulting pregnancy.

I said this on the thread. It had become relevant here too:

I knew someone would mention the other thread!
The reason it is different: if man decieves a woman he is taking away her rights over her own body, by putting an unwanted child in her he is potentially killing or severely hurting her. Not the same the other way round.
It is awful for a woman to pretend to be on the pill. But condoms protect from stds too. He also actually pretended to put one on! Was this woman miming taking the pill; no, he just presumed.
All that's being said on the other thread is the way the child was conceived does not absolve him of parental rights, the same would be true in this case if a child were conceived and born.

But then, if the agreement breaks down, there is the CSA to go to. A maintenance AGREEMENT is just that, and as soon as the NRP stops paying, the RP surely has the option to put in an application to the CSA?

So how is it controlling? Either they are providing material goods for the child, to the value that CSA maintenance would be, or more, or the RP can go to the CSA for cash maintenance. Who holds the control? The most control the NRP holds is to not pay, in which case he loses the choice of what the maintenance money is spent on as it will go to the RP in cash through the CSA.

After having 13 years NOT getting any maintenance, I can't see that it would have bothered me one fig HOW my ex provided for my DD, as long as he did IYSWIM. Now, though, he does, through the CSA.

Sock, I get what you are saying, but in this case, I think the ex has JUSTIFIABLE reasons for wanting to ensure his payment go on things for the DC, rather than being controlling. Someone can be an idiot about contraception without being a controlling bastard.

IF the mother wanted to go to the CSA, she could. As she hasn't, and is hectoring her ex for CASH ONLY, I can see why he is loath to pay.

What would it matter if someone only paid for formula, nappies, clothes, shoes? Surely they are still essential costs of raising a child? Thus leaving more of the RP's cash for other essential expenses?

Yes, I go through the CSA for my DC's, but that is because most of their fathers would not pay at all (in DD's Father's case and in DS1's dad's case).

OK, in DS2 & DS3's dad's case, it used to go through the CSA and now doesn't as he has grown the fuck up, a bit but now a portion of my maintenance is received as paying for shoes, coats, school uniform and after-school activities.

And I don't care! Because the money is still going on those DC's, and some of it is additional maintenance over and above what a CSA assessment would be (the after-school clubs particularly), being spent on things outside my budget that I just wouldn't afford, and benefit DS2 greatly. Why would I care about that? Yes, I could have an extra £100 a school term to pay my bills with, but then DS2 would have to stop doing an activity he enjoys, and I wouldn't see that money anyway, as his dad only pays that extra to cover the after-school club. If DS2 wasn't going, the extra money would not then be given to me.

The money should be given to the mother. A set amount that can spend how she needs to.

"What would it matter if someone only paid for formula, nappies, clothes, shoes?"

It matters because most of the expense of raising a child is rent and utilities and food. She is 14 months old, she probably isn't on formula anymore and she won't be in nappies very much longer. She will be eating actual food and maybe the person who is doing the cooking would like to be in charge of what food is bought. Its not up to the non resident parent to turn up with a pair of shoes and a few outfits and bag of groceries for the rp to ready steady cook into a meal and the rp shouldn't be put in the position of having to go cap in hand because the child wants/needs something that the nrp hasn't provided.

I understand that if you are in a position where you don't get any maintenance at all then 'stuff' in lieu would be appreciated but it doesn't make it the right thing to do either legally or morally.

But spending your childs maintenance on booze and fags isnt right either.

SIL doesnt pay her own rent or bills so the argument that the childs costs are more than food and clothes doesnt work in this case. I would normally say that she should go through the CSA but in this case I think that father is right to just want to pay for what the child needs rather than handing over a wad of cash that will be pissed up the wall by the mother.

And I say this as someone who has been cut off emotionally and financially by my DD's father.

But he is paying to facilitate her looking after dv as well as dc directly. Obviously.
If a man trusts you with their child! They should bloody well trust you with a bit of money. It's up to her what she spends it on as long as dc is taken care of.

At what point does the nrp get to decide whether the rp is pissing the money up the wall or not?

Is it anything to do with the nrp if the resident parent is financially supported by a third party?

Does the father never buy things for his own enjoyment? Is it only the mother who should never buy booze or fags.

The mother sounds like a total nightmare but as the father isn't prepared to look after the child himself then he isn't really in a position to micromanage the mothers spending.

BUt he is prepared to look after the child himself, the mother wont let him!

It is nothing to do with the nrp how the rp gets money to live on.

There are a few things tgat he needs to understand;

1. it does not matter how much money she gets from anyone else, he has a responsibility to pay for his child.

2. he has legal options open but has so far chosen not to take them

3. dispute suggesting he will put away a set amount for the baby he has not done this yet

4. dispute offering to buy thing he has not done this yet

5. babies are a proven side effect of having sex

Wouldn't she have to pay for rent and utilities if she didnt have a child anyway? So why should the father pay for that?

He should have a say in what is bought. Or, stuff for the kid only.

"Answer me honestly, would any woman who had been lied to about a condom (all that thread does is show it's perfectly possible) get a barrage of "you should have been on the pill"? Or would the man be called all sorts for tricking her? "

Any woman who had been in a relationship with a man who had tried to trick her in that way and who broke up with him because of it and who then slept with him again with NO protection - because that is the thing, knowingly with no protection - would be a bloody stupid fool, just the same as this bloke is.

And there isn't even a 100% comparison because there isn't anything the man can do post sex to ensure no conception! so the woman would still have some control afterwards because she'd be the one to take the pill. Whereas the man has NO control post sex so it is even MORE vital that he takes responsibility during sex if he does not want a child and he's shagging someone who's already tried to trick him. Cos he's got no other option. To truly compare, it would have to be that the woman had no control over what happened next and had to trust the man that he would take something post sex to ensure she didn't get pregnant.

Which, as we know, cannot happen.

So to simply reverse it doesn't give an accurate scenario to compare.

But the upshot would be the same - a baby that two people were equally responsible for.

Any woman who attempted to duck out of her responsibilities and came up with crap about how she wasn't going to pay because the bloke was a feckless man who drank all the time and was on benefits and she didn't need to pay because his dad gave him money, and she hadn't seen the child and she might go to court someday but oh my, isn't this bloke awful, he doesn't deserve to be a father, he's barely even got the child but oh no, she's not actually going to do anything because the welfare of the child isn't the point here - would be a twat of the highest order.

I think it's deeply unfair to say that if it was a woman, she would be supported and that people are only saying it's his responsibility because he's a man.

In this particular situation the bloke is a fool and he clearly had a responsibility and he's now trying to play the victim, when he had a choice and he made it.

Now, for the gazillion and first time - the woman, as reported, sounds vile. But that doesn't reduce his responsibility.

" BUt he is prepared to look after the child himself, the mother wont let him!"

Is he really? I must have missed that. The child is 14 months and he hasn't actually bought anything apart from a birthday card and a piece of jewellery. The OP has studiously ignored all questions about what he has done legally which leads me to think that he has done nothing. Why hasn't he got a solicitor? Why hasn't he gone to court for PR? Why hasn't he gone to court for a DNA test? Why hasn't he arranged to see her via the mothers family who apparently look after the child 24/7 and think he is some sort of hero. Why hasn't he contacted the CSA himself and have them order a DNA test? Its much easier to moan about how badly treated you are and live the young free and single life with your size 6 gf and your great job than it is to actually fight for your child. If my child had lived with someone for 14 months who spent all the food money on vodka and online bingo and dumped my baby with anyone who would have her then I would have a solicitor and social services on the case. He isn't even asking for residency. Not even joint residency. He has asked to 'meet her'. Not really the same thing as actually looking after her, is it?

" Wouldn't she have to pay for rent and utilities if she didnt have a child anyway? So why should the father pay for that?"

Because you use more utilities and need larger accommodation when there are 2 of you. Isn't that obvious? She isn't going to be 14 months forever. There will become a point when sharing mummy's room and bathing in 2 inches of water just won't cut it.

All I seem to get from your post is that you don't like you sil and you're using this situation to vocalise your hatred for her. I mean seriously, you appear to think the sun shines out of her ex's backside whereas she is as good as the devil incarnate. As for the MAP, she didn't have to swallow it, and he didn't have to have unprotected sex with her. Where are you getting your facts from?

Wouldn't she have to pay for rent and utilities if she didnt have a child anyway? So why should the father pay for that?

While she would have to pay these anyway, she wouldn't have to pay childcare while she earned the money to pay for them. If we had DS in full time childcare, it would cost about the same as the mortgage on our 3 bed house. Of course, I still would struggle to work as I can't do both drop off and pick up with the commute.

OP - Nothing you have said suggest this man is actually taking responsiblity for his actions, and is just a bit sulky because someone has suggested he act like a grown up.

Anyone who deliberately has unprotected sex on the basis that they will just take the MAP, or that their partner will just take the MAP, is a total cunt. These two sound as bad as each other. Sadly their fuckwit behaviour has created a human being who has the right to expect things of them both.

If mr saint really wants involvement in the child's life he can get it. Cout order for DNA test, once established paternity he goes to the CSA for calculation of child support, court order for contact.

Or he can piss about getting the op to deliver crappy little lockets with sad puppy eyes. His choice.

He is actually desperate to meet his child. I know he has legal proceedings waiting on her so hopefully that will come through.

And further up the OP said that he wants to look after her once the baby has gotten used to him, I dont think anyone would expect the mother to hand over a 14 month old for the weekend, to a man the baby has never met before.

No one would expect to go from 0 to an entire weekend though. Supervised contact, with family members she's familiar with present, in a familiar environment. Then excursions, ie swings, with familiar family members. Then unsupervised. It doesn't take long for a baby to get to know someone. She will soon forget she ever didn't know him.

If the mother wont let him though, how is he to do that?

If she didn't have a child, she would only need a one bedroomed place, maybe even a bedsit. She also wouldn't spend as much on electric without baby clothes to wash. Food bills would be lower. Would she have the heat on as much if there wasn't a child to keep warm? As the child grows up and starts to use more electric on games and so on, the costs go up and up...

It costs more to keep a roof over the head of a mother and child than it does to keep a roof over the head of a single person and this cost goes on and on and on.

Someone is seriously asking why the father should contribute to that?

Court proceedings.