Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Should men be allowed to "opt out" of parenthood?

999 replies

Jemimapuddleduckpancake · 20/06/2019 09:08

My friend has a child who was ultimately the result of a very casual, friends with benefits type situation. The father was immediately sure that he didn't want a baby and told her from the very beginning. He wasn't around and didn't help out for the first couple of years, but has now decided that he wants to have access to the child and start to build a relationship now he is older.

My friend doesn't trust him, doesn't like him, and is deeply hurt over all the things she has had to go through alone because of his previous lack of involvement and support. But she's worried that she is totally unable to prevent him from ever having access, and feels that he has put her in a horrible and stressful situation.

Which led us to think about this.

When a woman falls pregnant from a one night stand or casual-sex type scenario, she can choose whether to keep the baby, or go through an abortion or out the baby up for adoption. Thus ultimately "opting out" of parenthood.

A man in the same situation has no such right to opt out of parenthood. He has to accept the woman's decision and his life will be impacted by the woman's decision.

My friend believes that she was unrealistic during pregnancy. She firmly believed that the dad would "come round", that he'd see the baby and suddenly fall in love and want to be involved. But of course this didn't happen.

So we started to discuss, what if there was the option for a man to "opt out" of parenthood? It would, of course, have to be done very early on - before the baby was 1 month old, for example. Her idea is that this could be done by signing a legal document stating that he has no desire to be a part of the child's life in any way, will not ever be able to seek any type of access, and will not pay money. This move would have to be irreversible in order to be taken seriously. (Perhaps there could be some terms and conditions like the situation can be reversed but only with the mother's permission).

Now, i know a lot of women on Mumsnet like to say that if a man doesn't want a child then he shouldn't have sex or should use contraception. But I believe in total equality between the sexes and feel that this is unfair. Two people choose to have sex, two people choose whether or not to use contraception, but only one person can decide whether or not they will keep a child if an accident does happen.

I know so many people whose lives are made miserable by constantly battling men for money for their child, or by trying to encourage contact between their child and a man who just isn't interested.

Don't get me wrong - I think this is awful. But wouldn't it save the mother and the child both significant stress and heartache if they can live their lives without these battles? Surely knowing where you stand from the very start will stop all the disappointment and the emotional rollercoaster and stress that so many people experience.

And is it fair for a women to force a child (or the responsibilities that come from having a child, like maintainance) onto a man who knows immediately that he doesn't want a child?

My friend says that with hindsight, she just don't see how this current situation benefits anyone. Men can easily belittle women by claiming that they were "tricked" into having a baby. If there was this "opt out" system, they wouldn't be able to argue this!

The mother also wouldn't have to worry about a deadbeat dad who hasn't done anything for her/her child suddenly popping up deciding they now want to be in the child's life.

My friend says that looking back, although it seems harsh, knowing that this "opt out" system existed would his would actually have helped her. She'd have been much more prepared for single parenthood, much more prepared for being financially responsible for the baby by herself. She'd have been able to prepare better and not have the crushing blows and disappointment and feelings of rejection that come from his behaviour. She'd also not have to now worry about granting a man who is (now) a virtual stranger access to her child.

She thinks that if a man doesn't sign this before baby is month old, then he can't sign it at all, and will be fully responsible for the child in terms is maintainance and anything else, which should then be more strictly implemented (harsher punishments for not paying, for example).

(I thought maybe it would be better if the deadline for opting out was before baby's birth, but she says she still believes that some men will see their child at the birth and fall in love and therefore be given the chance to be involved.)

Of course there would have to be some regulations like if a women can prove that a baby was discussed or planned then the man can't opt out, for example.

What do the rest of you think? I'm really curious about this. On the one hand yes, if you don't want a baby then use contraception. But on the other hand, accidents happen and I can't help but agree with my friend that men should be allowed to opt out just as women can.

At first I thought this was a crazy idea but the more I think about it, the more I think it could help. The UK could issue MUCH stricter punishments to men who don't pay (because if they haven't opted out then they have no right at all, and no excuses, like they make now). It would in many ways protect the mother and child too.

Thoughts, anyone?

(Please don't kill me, I'm just curious to hear ideas from all sides, I'm not fully persuaded! Not that what I think really matters - and it won't happen anyway. But would it be better or worse for people if it did?)

OP posts:
SpacedOutDog · 20/06/2019 09:33

Women get a choice of freely available contraception.
They have a choice.
Drives me insane that there's still a backward opinion of it's all the man's fault.
We're not in 1810. Women have choices, they choose not to take them, then go crying that the man has got her pregnant.

NewAccount270219 · 20/06/2019 09:34

It's not about men's rights Vs women's rights. It's about the right of a child, who has a right to be financially supported by both parents. No one can make a man see or care for his child, but they are legally obliged to pay - because that's in the child's best interest. Abortion, which results in no child, is a total red herring here. And if the current system isn't working well in forcing men to take financial responsibility for their children (and you're clearly right that it isn't) then that's a reason to reform that system and make it more effective, not to just give up and make it completely optional for men to fulfill their responsibilities.

Moralitym1n1 · 20/06/2019 09:34

Women have far too much of the power when it comes to getting pregnant and continuing it to "trap" a man

No-one has to penetrate someone and ejaculate inside them. I love how to absolve men of all responsibility for choosing to have sex.

53rdWay · 20/06/2019 09:34

This is MRA, by the way. Just so we know.

nope, I for one am totally fooled by the girly Beatrix Potter username. Must be a lady!

corythatwas · 20/06/2019 09:34

What about the best interests of the child, who has already been born? Tbh that's the only person who counts in this debate.

THIS!!!

It's a choice for her between 2 difficult, life changing options. She can't just choose to opt out. If she chooses not to continue, she has to go through a medical procedure which can have on going health or emotional consequences.

and THIS. No pregnant woman ever got the choice of just ignoring the pregnancy, move to a different town, pretend it didn't happen and it would all go away. Which is what deadbeat men want to be able to do.

Moralitym1n1 · 20/06/2019 09:34

*how you

CripsSandwiches · 20/06/2019 09:34

You can't "opt out" of parenthood as a man because you can't force a woman to go through a pregnancy or abortion. If she has the baby that baby will exist and need to be supported. (Likewise if a woman didn't want to have an abortion but didn't want to keep the baby she couldn't choose to opt out). You then have to weigh up the needs of the child against the needs of the adult who doesn't want to be a parent. At the moment you can opt out to the extent of not seeing the child but you can't opt out of financially supporting it which I think is right. Whether or not you like it though that child will exist and know you chose not to have a part in it's life.

doxxed · 20/06/2019 09:35

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ for privacy reasons.

Jemimapuddleduckpancake · 20/06/2019 09:35

"why would you prioritise the rights of a reckless man over the actual needs of a baby? It’s impossible for me to see how you feel this is justified."

I'm interested in this viewpoint too - on Mumsnet, a man who fathers an unwanted child is reckless, but a woman is often seen as the victim of a mistake. I wonder if this is the opinion among the general population or if it's because this is Mumsnet (therefore a website primarily populated by mothers). It's really difficult to know how others feel.

I'd be interested to hear from any men on the matter. (Can't ask DH because he's from a different culture where the concept of a single parent family/unmarried parents is totally unheard of and totally socially unacceptable, so he can't really discuss this objectively (it's a country where most marriages are arranged). He's not against it, by any means! But he's never known anyone in this situation so finds it hard to relate.)

OP posts:
TheFreaksShallInheritTheEarth · 20/06/2019 09:36

Yes, that’s what we need: a get out of jail free card for men; a get out clause they can sign to allow them to screw around without worry or consequence. Perhaps there should be 5 or 10 year duration versions that start at age 16, with a laminated, passport type document issued?
One little signature on the line, and off they merrily fuck. Literally.

Sounds reasonable.

Ivestoppedreadingthenews · 20/06/2019 09:36

I see your point but surely it would have to be very early in the pregnancy in order for women to be making a summarily informed choice. Otherwise the DF could say keep the baby, I’ll be here for you both then sign away his responsibilities forever... I think it should only be able to be done with the Mother’s (legally advised) consent.

Bluestitch · 20/06/2019 09:37

But surely men also deserve to have a say in whether they raise a child?

They already do, a father can't be forced to raise a child, or have contact. They should be forced to provide a financial contribution because children deserve that at the very least and what you are suggesting here potentially leaves children in poverty and allows a man to create multiple children without a backwards glance. I honestly cannot understand why anybody would want the right to be a deadbeat dad enshrined in law. Women already take on the majority of the burden when having children, what on earth possessed you to think aww a 3rd of separated fathers pay a small percentage of their wages for a child they made, this is such an injustice and far more worthy of consideration than children living in poverty, benefit cuts to single mothers etc.

BanginChoons · 20/06/2019 09:37

Why should a man be forced into supporting the pregnancy when women have the choice to an abortion?
It’s not fair and if women can choose whether or not to have the baby, men should be able to choose not to be involved if the woman goes ahead with the pregnancy

Because the other option is to force a woman to raise a child alone financially and a child often to be raised in poverty. Two people are affected.

HennyPennyHorror · 20/06/2019 09:37

And I'll tell you what else. The laws around cohabitation and children need changing. If a couple have kids together and live together then they should be treated like a married couple in terms or property. Obviously the length of the relationship should reflect the splitting of assets. This would protect sahp whose partner refuses to marry but is happy to live together and procreate.

53rdWay · 20/06/2019 09:37

A big Mumsnetty welcome to SpacedOutDog as well! Just joined us this morning and already found your bitches-get-too-much-say soulmate Flowers Brew Flowers

Moralitym1n1 · 20/06/2019 09:38

Women get a choice of freely available contraception.
They have a choice.
Drives me insane that there's still a backward opinion of it's all the man's fault.
We're not in 1810. Women have choices, they choose not to take them, then go crying that the man has got her pregnant.

So do men. Noone has to have sex.

Noone has to have sex without barrier methods, which I'd be willing to wager a large amount of money on not being used in most cases of unplanned pregnancy.

mawof3soontobe · 20/06/2019 09:39

Those who say the man's wishes are not priority over the child's right to know and have a father, are you all against adoption then?? When both parents or the mother decides to opt out of that child's life but allow them to live a life and have a chance at happiness? If you think about it, it's basically the same choice without the legalities. Men and women who walk away from a child are regarded as horrible people but those who choose adoption are sympathised with and supported.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 09:39

SerenDippitty

The mother and the father are not equal post-conception.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 09:40

53rdWay

It’s almost like we’re all fucking stupid, isn’t it? Hmm

Jemimapuddleduckpancake · 20/06/2019 09:40

MaximusHeadroom - this is really interesting :

"I think there would be some single parents who would be willing to forego child support in return for the partner to relinquish all rights to the child, particularly in the case of DV or other abuse."

I wonder if this could help anyone? I just feel that when a women has been abandoned (or otherwise poorly treated or even abused by a man) should she have to accept him back into her life whenever he chooses?

I think some posters are getting a bit carried away (and that's fine, it's a heated topic), and maybe not reading the thread or understanding my points? The main reason I thought it was an interesting concept is because it could prevent pain/stress/disappointment for everyone involved. Definitely not just the man! But for the women who have to put up with being picked up and dropped as and when these men decide they want to be parents.

Is giving the deadbeat dad that freedom really what people think is best for the child?

OP posts:
Jemimapuddleduckpancake · 20/06/2019 09:42

HennyPennyHorror - agree with you about cohabiting couples 100%

OP posts:
IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 09:43

If a couple have kids together and live together then they should be treated like a married couple in terms or property.

Of course they shouldn’t. If you want the protections of marriage - get married

This would protect sahp whose partner refuses to marry but is happy to live together and procreate.

The sahp should have thought of that before they made the choice to have children. Marriage first.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 09:43

Is giving the deadbeat dad that freedom really what people think is best for the child?

If that was your agenda, you’d have come on here and said, “Do you think men who refuse to support their child from birth should lose their right to PR?”

But you didn’t, because it isn’t.

PookieDo · 20/06/2019 09:44

This doesn’t work for me
I have an ex partner who wants to be involved he just happens to be terrible at it hence I have ended up doing most of it myself/bitter/resentful

I also see the issue that perhaps younger men would be devastated by a terrible decision they made when they were 20 being irreversible for the rest of their life iyswim

MyOpinionIsValid · 20/06/2019 09:44

I agree with you OP - provided it is done legally, he relenquishes all rights to the child.

This forum will never admit that there is 'sperm theft' , creating the illusion that the woman is on a reliable contraceptive and ultimately deliberately not taking the pill/having the coil removed/piercing condoms with deliberate intention to get a baby and hopefully have a source of income. It happens. This forum will have some faux outrage and come out with the usual tired line of 'wear a condom/dont have sex' but a woman who entraps is as deliberately abusive as a man who keeps woman preganant in a DV relationship. that'll go down well Normally in a sexual relationship, there is trust, if she says she is taking precautions then it should be assumed she is. Accidents happen? Split condom? 'antibiotic sickness' Hmm ? Thats why the MAP was created. For those little moments things might have gone wrong.

An amusing little (American) article - no consent given by the man rollingout.com/2014/02/04/woman-uses-sperm-oral-sex-get-pregnant-force-man-pay-child-support/

Phillips accuses Dr. Sharon Irons of a “calculated, profound personal betrayal” after their affair six years ago, saying she secretly kept semen after they had oral sex, then used it to become pregnant.

He said he didn’t find out about the child for nearly two years, when Irons filed a paternity lawsuit. DNA tests confirmed Phillips was the father, the court papers state.

Phillips was ordered to pay about $800 a month in child support, said Irons’ attorney, Enrico Mirabelli.

‘Trapped in a nightmare’ 
Phillips sued Irons, claiming he has had trouble sleeping and eating and has been haunted by “feelings of being trapped in a nightmare,” court papers state.

Swipe left for the next trending thread