to want another baby with my ex ?

[gaelle79]

Hi all, happy New Year!

My New Year resolution is to make up my mind about this and I need your honest (non-judgemental) opinions please.

My ex and I dated for 5 years. We didn’t work out because I was not the one for him.

At the time, I didn’t realize that and kept making up excuses for the fact that he was dragging his feet regarding commitment. After 3 years and because I was pressuring him, he agreed to have a baby. When I brought up marriage (again) he said having a baby was an even bigger commitment and that made sense to me.

During my pregnancy I spent a lot of time reflecting on my life and finally saw things for what they were: He was not in love with me and didn’t want to marry me so I broke up.
It was messy and painful, he went MIA for months and I resented him for that, for failing our daughter.

Now we are back in a good place, co-parenting and getting along.
The thing is I desperately want another baby. I’m 39 going on 40. It’s been 3 years since our breakup and I wanted to meet someone, to build a relationship and maybe have baby #2 but nothing…not even a fling :(

I know I will find that person, eventually but it could be tomorrow or in ten years! If I want another child, I don’t have much more time left so I’m really considering having it with him.

We talked about it and he is totally on board with the idea. Still, there is no chance for us to work out as a couple so we would have the baby and co parent as we currently do but that’s it.

Do you think I’m crazy to even consider this?

This article sums up the research nicely Booboostwo www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240051/

I know that it would be nice if divorce didn't have an impact and parents could just do whatever they wanted without hurting anyone, but that is plainly not what the evidence shows.

I wonder if there are studies comparing children of parents in unhappy, dysfunctional and abusive relationships, versus children of happily separated parents who are able to successfully co-parent.

I think it's pretty obvious what the results would be.

Er yeah these stats totally depend on the circs of the divorce.

I have thought about this too!

I would do it and sometimes wish I had done it.
I always thought I would have more than one, and regret not giving my son a sibling.
I've run out of time to find someone else to have one with now really, unless some miracle happens very soon.
Plus I always hated the idea of having 2 with different fathers if second relationship also didn't work, sending my kids to different houses from each other at the weekends.

I know 2 people that have children with ex partners and it’s worked out really well. If your both in the same page then go for it

I wonder if there are studies comparing children of parents in unhappy, dysfunctional and abusive relationships, versus children of happily separated parents who are able to successfully co-parent.

You can't lump together, unhappy, dysfunctional and abusive.They are very different scenarios.

I know many marriages that are 'unhappy' but the children do fine. Likewise, what exactly is 'dysfunctional? A word bandied about to prove some point? Abusive is different.

There has been some recent research showing children would rather be in almost any kind of parents-together home, given the choice, than have divorced parents.

I have friends whose parents divorced. They all talk about how their lives were disrupted, some in 'small ways' like loss of confidence, not doing quite so well at school as they could have, lacking confidence in their own relationships later on.

Some friends who were subjected to a divorce have 'overcompensated' with their own children and raised them as snowflakes or indulged them financially.

And anyway...you are missing the point. The OP was not married. She had a 5 year relationship (not long really.) After 3 years she realised he wasn't going to marry her so she begged for a baby. he gave her a baby then walked away. For the moment he has come back. She now wants another baby ... so what might happen this time? How would this play out if and when he marries and has other children?

This is not a case like you make out of a couple who split up when married and co-parent. It's a couple who dated but were never really together after 3 years and where they man was practically forced to provide sperm as a trade-off for no commitment.

Read the thread and think about it.

"Read the thread and think about it" - patronising much?!

I've done both already, thanks.

My point was that stigmatising divorce isn't helpful when there are worse things than divorce.

I believe that some children actually do want their parents to split up - i expect they're in a minority, but some do.

I'm not necessarily talking about the OP because the discussion has become a bit more general. Obviously I know that the scenarios we're talking about aren't relevant to the OP.

There is a lot of moral superiority and judgement on this thread and I don't like it.

My family is complicated and it makes me more open-minded and compassionate to people in unconventional situations. Of course parents who are together, in a good relationship, is the ideal, but it that's not possible then there are other scenarios that can still be positive.

There is a lot of moral superiority and judgement on this thread and I don't like it.

Oh yes! Agreed.

And it's not just coming from those of us who think that ideally, a child should be brought up in a loving home with 2 parents.

I'm fed up of the attitudes where anything is acceptable- ' oh children are resilient' - and anyone who thinks differently is castigated.

I don't think divorce is a no-no.
I don't think co-parenting can never work.

I do think this woman is selfish, putting her own wishes first when there is risk to children, perhaps deluded, and has other issues round her ex she is not owning.

Let me be clear. The only people judging are you and others who are calling the OP selfish.

The people like me and others who are disagreeing / challenging that view are not judging.

Ah Newish thanks for that, it gives us the opportunity to see how to evaluate research.

To start off this article is in The Linacre Quarterly, a peer reviewed journal, which is a good point, of the Catholic Medical Association. A religious medical association should ring alarm bells and indeed this is the journal that brought us such gems as "Use of aborted fetal tissue in vaccines and medical research obscures the value of all human life", so all in all a promising start.

Onto the paper itself. It starts off with various worrying statistics on the rise of divorced and unmarried parents which are not really relevant to the conclusion, but should put you in a nice state of dread which is to follow.

It then merely mentions and dismisses one review of the literature that makes the opposite point (Mooney, Olive and Smith 2009), i.e. that there is no difference in long term outcomes for children from intact and non-intact families, in favour of two that support its conclusion.

Now let's stop here and consider the rejected review. What does it actually say? It says that "...high levels of parental conflict, the quality of parenting and of parent-child relationships, poor maternal mental health and financial hardship interact in complex ways before, during and after parental separation, and impact on child outcomes." p.3. A rather nuanced conclusion that suggests more than anything else that there are multiple factors that affect children's wellbeing rather than an intact is fine, non-intact is damaged dialectic. This study is also a meta review of reviews of research in multiple countries.

However this meta review is rejected in favour of the results of Amato and Keith 1991 and who knows which one exactly because the references become muddled. Everything comes from an Amato 2001 reference which is an update of earlier Amato and Booth 1997 and Amato and Keith 1991, so not multiple studies but one updated one. Let's look at the 1991 original. 92 studies in the original plus 67 in the update all from the 1990s.

Alarm bells should be ringing here because the rejected meta-study is larger, more current and includes the Amato studies, but it is still rejected, for no reason, in favour of Amato.

Even if we focus on Amato, his conclusions are that family functioning NOT family structure has a greater influence on the wellbeign of children. So conflict is the problem not married status. This point, made by Amato repeatedly is oddly missed out by the authors.

So what does happen to children of divorced parents according to your study?
Apparently the child may lose time with each parent, but there isn't a single study accounting for this despite the techinical language invented by the authors to describe this worrying phenomenon: apparently divorced parents experience 'a moratorium on parenting' as they lack the emotional strength to deal with their children.

Also the child may lose his/or her religious faith and practice.

OK I admit that here I gave up the will to live.

Booboostwo first time I've ever wanted a thumbs up button for a post. First class takedown.

Booboostwo 👍

It then merely mentions and dismisses one review of the literature that makes the opposite point (Mooney, Olive and Smith 2009), i.e. that there is no difference in long term outcomes for children from intact and non-intact families, in favour of two that support its conclusion.

Well either you're lying because you are hoping nobody will click on the link, or you are unable to read. The Mooney, Oliver and Smith review still shows a negative impact on children, albeit they write it off as small because the "many children [are] not affected, and most children are not adversely affected in the long term."

Even then, it's a pretty low bar if you are just saying that it's a "small" effect merely because at least 51% don't suffer serious long-term consequences. If you actually read Mooney to try and find some information about the numbers affected, there is very little quantitative information. Where there is quantitative information it's given a very positive spin.

And if you are going to be object to the journal where that was published, how about this Swedish study as reported in the Guardian

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jul/31/divorce-psychological-toll-on-kids-children

Oh look even the Guardian admits that divorce has a negative impact on children.

Well let's see what Mooney et al actually say:
"Family breakdown is not a single event, but a process that involves a number of risk and protective factors that interact in complex ways both before and after parental separation or divorce to increase or limit the risk of the adverse outcomes associated with family breakdown. These interelated factors include parental conflict;; the quality of parenting and of parent-child relationships; maternal metnal health; financial hardship; and repeated changes in living arrangements, including family structure." p.2

Let's look at the OP's circumstances as you are so concerned about this potential child: she has a stable co-parenting relationship with no conflict, she and the father are good parents and have a good relationship to with their existing child, she has no mental health issues, she is financially stable, her living and familial arrangements are stable. So already she falls in the 'safe' side of the statistics and none of this applies to her so one wonders why you brought it up.

Let's now imagine a person whose circumstances fall on the other side of the statistics. Now we have the worry about harm, what does this do to the argument? Should anyone who risks having a child who may suffer some hard refrain from procreating? This is a difficult argument to generalize. Imagine a parent who risks passing on a disability, illness or other physical or mental health issue that affects the quality of life of the child, they should not have children either. Or a parent with a disruptive lifestyle, e.g. moving countries for their job, they should not have children. Or parents who are financially unstable, they are out too. Not to mention stupid parents, who pass on both genetic components of stupidity and poor reasoning practices onto their children, they should definitely not procreate.

Clearly this cannot be right, for two reasons:

• Parenting is not an optimisation activity. You do not have to be the best parent, you have to be good enough. Otherwise almost no one would have children.
• And, as I mentioned above but you havent really engaged with this argument, a life with a risk of harm is still worth living. The only way you can say that the child would be better off unborn is if its life risked being so harmful it would better off dead.

If you think I'd find a newspaper article particularly convincing you might be missing out on the value of research skills.

If you think I'd find a newspaper article particularly convincing you might be missing out on the value of research skills.

LOL

It's a RESEARCH paper from Sweden, reported in a newspaper.

Let's look at the OP's circumstances as you are so concerned about this potential child: she has a stable co-parenting relationship with no conflict, she and the father are good parents and have a good relationship to with their existing child,

Oh yes, do let's look.

The OP says- more or less- that she had to end the relationship because he didn't want her. He agreed (goodness knows why) to 'giver her a baby' as a kind of consolation prize, saying it was more of a commitment than marriage.

Tick.

But no forethought it would seem as to how this might impact on his future relationships or children.

But then once this baby arrived, he went AWOL. The OP was mortified. However, somehow he turned up again.

OP is now broody and wants another child. With him. She clearly wants to maintain a very strong bond. She even acknowledges there is a good chance he may not be around until their child is an adult. He has made it crystal clear that he doesn't want her as a partner (and most women would say fine, sling your hook then mate) she wants his sperm.

'A life with a risk is worth living'

Twaddle. This is your opinion only.

Your argument is invalid because you cannot ask an unborn, non-existent human which they would prefer- to be born or not born.

No responsible adult creates a child for their own selfish broodiness when they themselves have already acknowledged the father may disappear.

This is different from a woman using a donor.
This woman has history with the man. THAT is the relevant part.
THAT is why sperm donors are anonymous until the child is old enough to seek them out.
It's also why sperm donation is at an all time low as men realise the potential implications for them in later life.

It's one thing to have to make the best of a bad situation if it's dumped on you and your child. It's another entirely to create a potential train crash because of your own selfish wants.

Let's look at the OP's circumstances as you are so concerned about this potential child: she has a stable co-parenting relationship with no conflict, she and the father are good parents and have a good relationship to with their existing child,

That was supposed to be highlighted.

They are only two years in, (and for part of the child's life the father walked away.)

I think it’s better for siblings to have the same Dad.
I’ve seen many many family’s that have kids with different dads and it’s a complicated mess.

• dads havedifferent level’s if input both physically, emotionally and financially making it seem unfair to the kids
• siblings having to be split up when the mother dies
• siblings having to spend whole school holidays apart
• older siblings resenting the younger one as the mum is still with thier dad and not theirs etc

I’d much rather be apart from the dad but them all have the same dad then have kids with different fathers.

If my sister and BIL died in a car crash, my niece would come to me but my nephew would have to go and live with his dad (who is a good dad so that’s not the problem) but it breaks my heart that they would have to be split up if god forbid the worst happened.

OP I think you still have feelings for this man and want to have another baby as a way to stay close to him. I'm assuming you will conceive this baby the traditional way, so you'll be getting physically intimate. I'm not surprised you haven't found another partner as it seems you haven't emotionally moved on from your ex.

So for that reason this is a bad idea. If you just want a baby you can get a sperm donation.

What happened in the end? Did you go ahead with it?