To wonder if a dormant father is better than one who is active on his terms?

[jessica29054]

Just idly wondering about this.

A father who obviously had to be present during conception but then plays no further part - is that better for children than one who commits to a weekend but only manages one in a couple of months, cancels, flits in and out?

Or is the first scenario more open to the child feeling rejected?

They are both shit.

My dad was the active in his terms parents to me and my brother from his marriage to mam, he had a child with another woman and had zero involvement.

Dad died and we've got in touch and we've tracked down our sister and while it's great getting to know her Dad not being around at all for her has hurt her just as much as him being an inconsistent to us has hurt my brother and I.

We talk about him as she has a lot if questions about him, he's not here to answer so she only has us to ask, and it's hard talking about him as I dint have any nice memories about him, but on some level I think that while I'm hurt by Dad, I knew him, I knew who he was, she doesn't have that and will always wonder why he stayed in our lives, after divorcing mum, why he walked away from her and went on to have another child and bring his stepson up as his own, she's a brilliant young woman whereas I am nervous wreck and I often wonder if I had her life I wouldn't be so fucked up, but she also says she often wonders if she had my life she wouldn't have all these questions and feelings of being not good enough.

She's always known about us, her mum was always honest with her, and while she's chuffed to bits to have a big brother and sister I think it's sometimes hard for her because we remind her of what she didn't have if that makes sense, that he cared enough about us to at least pretend to be involved.

I used to think a dormant one is better, the mum doesn't have to deal with broken hearted dc when they've let them down, they can't be manipulated via child support etc but after meeting my sister I do think both are just as hurtful.

Sorry for bad grammar, I'm on ipad

speaking from experience (as the child with one of those dads who flitted in and out) imo a dormant dad saves a lot of heartache, because you have nothing to 'miss', it's really affected me, I'm just lucky enough to have a wonderful, understanding stepdad as my teenage years were hell for him because that's when my biological father decided to have no further contact with me, so I pushed my stepdad to see how far I could push him before he left me too. (I feel absolutely awful about it now, I really was beyond shitty to him, but he's still there when I'm crying my eyes out or need a dose of reality) If I'd been NC with my biological dad from the start it would've been easier for everyone, because he wouldn't have been able to hurt me in the way he did.

I think the latter is more likely to make the child feel rejected.
For me my child is much better off with out any contact then consistent unreliable contact. I have the opinion that if the other parent can't provide consistent contact then no contact should be had at all as I feel it does more damage than good. That's my opinion based on my own unreliable inconsistent contact had with my own "dad" other probably feel differently.

Should say inconsistent 🙄

For me, a biological father who had no contact left space for the man my mum later married to become my dad in every sense (including legally through adoption). I feel very fortunate.

Imo my daughter is better off without her dad, he was always going months without seeing her, long enough for her to forget who he was. Everytime he came back to see her, she would cry her eyes out and cling onto me. He hasn't seen her since april and she is happy.