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:
LetsSplashMummy · 20/06/2019 09:44

If this did come in, it simply passes more responsibility onto the women. I don't believe that if a man changed his mind, tried to see his child, and a woman enforced this contract, she would win. There is no real advantage to a woman in this and just more power given to the blokes.

If a man changed his mind, all the discourse would be around the advantages of him having a relationship with the child and the evil mother preventing it. There's no way the court would prevent him having contact because of something he thought when the child was a foetus.

It would come back to "best for the child," and that is what the current system starts with. It's not perfect and there are complicated scenarios, but just because men are very slightly disadvantaged in one area, this doesn't get to dominate over all the other areas woman and children are worse off.

MaximusHeadroom · 20/06/2019 09:44

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 if contraception fails, the women can either have an abortion or stop moaning and be a single parent because that is what she chose?

What if she finds out too late?

Seems like somebody certainly still thinks it is 1810 Hmm

Abortion is not an easy thing emotionally. It is not risk-free. If a man is adamant he doesn't want kids now and will absolutely not be willing to take responsibility then he can freeze his sperm for the lucky lady he may want to impregnate later and get himself sterilized.

Moralitym1n1 · 20/06/2019 09:45

*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?"

Adoption is not always because of an opt out on the mother or parents' behalf. In fact I'd say it's unusual now.

Jemimapuddleduckpancake · 20/06/2019 09:45

herculepoirot2 please re-read my OP, think you have missed some important points. Thanks. Smile

OP posts:
BanginChoons · 20/06/2019 09:45

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.

So it would be legal protection to prevent them seeing their child?
I see how this would be useful in some situations but we have things in place for that. Like social services and restraining orders.

If a dad who is not a danger gets in touch and wants to see the child, the mum is likely to feel a moral obligation towards her child while making the decision, regardless of legal status of the dad. What would it actually change apart from he doesn't have to pay?

CmdrCressidaDuck · 20/06/2019 09:46

Frankly the idea that men "can't opt out of parenthood" is fucking hilarious on the face of it. The world contains literally millions of men who have opted out of practical and financial parenting completely, sometimes while still living with the child in question.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 09:46

Jemimapuddleduckpancake

Doubtful, seeing as you haven’t made any.

53rdWay · 20/06/2019 09:46

Oh no, I think herculepoirot2 has picked up on allllll your ‘important points’.

SpacedOutDog · 20/06/2019 09:46

@53rduser.
Nope, long time user with a name change.
And if my view makes me a bitch, then so be it. I'll live.

Jemimapuddleduckpancake · 20/06/2019 09:47

LetsSplashMummy I suppose you're right - it would be too difficult to implement a fair system. I just feel that this current system is causing SO much pain, to so many people - men, women, and children. Surely there is something that could help?

OP posts:
SittingAround1 · 20/06/2019 09:47

I haven't RTFT but just wanted to say, men already have the opt out option and can and do just leave.
This is not in the best interests of the child.
How awful to grow up knowing your father chose to opt out when you were one month old.
Very sad.
Men need to step up if they have a child for the child's sake.
When you become a parent it's not about you anymore.

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 09:47

So if contraception fails, the women can either have an abortion or stop moaning and be a single parent because that is what she chose?

Because contraception is so unreliable... Hmm

SignedUpJust4This · 20/06/2019 09:47

Great idea. While we're at it we should also give men the option to 'opt in'. That way if they impregnate a woman from a ONS or even sexual assault then they can force her to continue with the pregnancy against her will.

Stupid idea. A woman having an abortion is not simply opting out. She has already been lumbered with a difficult (and possibly dangerous/expensive) decision to make and men are more than happy to take this risk when they have unprotected sex.

MaximusHeadroom · 20/06/2019 09:48

@LetsSplashMummy

Totally agree. The best interests of the child will always trump those of the mother and a relationship with the father is almost always deemed in their best interests. It would just allow men to not contribute for however many years until they they wanted to be a dad.

Jemimapuddleduckpancake · 20/06/2019 09:48

herculepoirot2 Thanks for the interesting conversation but as you seem intent on just having an internet argument rather than calmly discussing something, I won't be engaging with you further. Not here to argue, just to chat! Thanks, goodbye Smile

OP posts:
SpacedOutDog · 20/06/2019 09:49

@53rdWay
Nope, long time user with a name change.
And if my view makes me a bitch, then so be it. I'll live.

BanginChoons · 20/06/2019 09:49

Also, let's consider how many relationships struggle when the parents are sleep deprived with a new born? How would we protect dads from making a bad decision they may regret in future?

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 09:50

Jemimapuddleduckpancake

That’s how we know you’re MRA, Jemima. “Just a chat” until you’re challenged on your bullshit.

53rdWay · 20/06/2019 09:50

I saw you the first time, it’s still bollocks.

mawof3soontobe · 20/06/2019 09:51

If a man is adamant he doesn't want kids now and will absolutely not be willing to take responsibility then he can freeze his sperm for the lucky lady he may want to impregnate later and get himself sterilized.

Bloody hell! Do you not realise how that sounds? Let's try that another way.... If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she can go and freeze her eggs and get her tubes cut. Not OK! Vasectomy and sterilisation is sometimes irreversible and fertility is a fragile thing as well, so who's to say the limited amount of eggs or sperm frozen would end in a successful pregnancy? It's OK to force a man to have to choose such a procedure but it's not OK to allow woman to make the difficult choice between parenthood, adoption or abortion. Speaking as someone who has children, has had a miscarriage, has had an abortion and has suffered secondary infertility I can tell you that abortion is certainly not the most traumatic out of unplanned parenthood or fertility struggles

Jemimapuddleduckpancake · 20/06/2019 09:51

I can see that the vast majority of posters disagree with this idea! Can I ask, what, if any, rights do you think a woman should have re: having been abandoned by a man and raised her own child totally alone and unsupported for many years, when the man suddenly wants contact? Is this something that needs to be changed? Or should all women just accept a man into their children's life (regardless of their fears of the child being hurt by abandonment)?

OP posts:
MaximusHeadroom · 20/06/2019 09:51

@IsabellaLinton
You're right. Because it works for kost people most of the time, screw the people for whom it fails.

When you talk about making changes to law you have to look at how it will work with the outliers, not just the majority.

Someone9 · 20/06/2019 09:52

It's difficult to discuss this on Mumsnet because most people are immediately like NO!

That’s because it’s a really, really terrible idea OP. It’s not that we’re not “understanding” you - we just don’t agree with you. I thought you were a man initially but reading your updates it seems you’ve internalized some of your husband’s misogyny and “conservative” views.

HolyMilkBoobiesBatman · 20/06/2019 09:52

There is no solution to this.
Both parties should be taking responsibility in their contraception, but equally both parties should acknowledge that the only foolproof contraception is abstinence. Every time a couple have sex it could result in a life. That is a fact everyone should acknowledge before having sex. Obviously you take steps with contraception to prevent it as far as you can, but if that fails for whatever reason then the woman has bodily autonomy to say what happens to her next, and a man accepts that he took the risk of being responsible for another human when he chose to have sex.

There is no other solution. Treating a child, a human life like a business transaction as you suggest is not it.

53rdWay · 20/06/2019 09:54

It is about the rights of the child. Not its father, or its mother.

I appreciate you feel like you’re bound to be onto a good thing dressing up men’s rights as women’s rights, but nope. Still about the child.

Swipe left for the next trending thread