...to think having to pay maintenance is unfair?

[thebrollachan]

My friend's daughter, who is in her thirties, got married a little under three years ago, to a man of about the same age. They grew up in the same area, where they still live, and were friends before becoming romantically involved.

They are both well-paid professionals, and when they got married they agreed that neither wanted children and that he would have a vasectomy so that they could stop using contraception.

Some time later, however, she discovered that she was pregnant, and, worse, the time limit for a termination had already passed by the time she realised. He claimed that they must have had sex too soon after the vasectomy, but now I'm wondering whether he ever had it.

Very soon after this, he announced that he had met someone else, and was moving out. They agreed to divorce and to have the child adopted. I don't know what order any of this happened in.

AFAIK the divorce proceedings have gone smoothly, but he has never signed the adoption papers. Before the baby was born he announced that he and his 'new' girlfriend wanted to adopt it, and so it was handed over at birth (more than a year ago now). Adoption by a stepparent can be initiated after six months, yet somehow there's still no sign of it happening.

In the meantime she has received a CMS claim/assessment and is having to pay a substantial amount every month.

All this has been relayed to me gradually over the phone by her mum. They're both surprisingly robust about the whole thing, apart from being on the hook for maintenance. But her mum is annoyed because she's now heard on the bush telegraph that he and the 'new' girlfriend have been together intermittently for years, during which time they were TTC unsuccessfully (she hasn't told daughter yet).

They're not expecting me to help, apart from lending a sympathetic ear, but I'm just amazed at how this has happened. FWIW I don't think he's a Machiavelli - I think he just got into a muddle.

I do think he's a CF to be accepting money from her now though, even though he's legally entitled to it.

IABU not a CF

IANBU is a CF

That's a thing? My friend didn't seem to know that. Why can't all absent parents do that?

Because it costs court fees.

Not a lot of people want to loose PR for their own children

That's a thing? My friend didn't seem to know that. Why can't all absent parents do that?
How do you think any child gets adopted? Their biological parents need to take that step first. Either voluntarily or on the decision of the judge following recommendation.

No offense but if this woman is a professional and so affected by her maintenance payment, I'm sure she'd have gone for a 30mns appt with a solicitor.

I don't think your friend told you the extent of the true story.

This all sounds rather far fetched tbh .

It’s also pretty difficult for a mum to renounce parental rights, the court would need to consider whether it was in the best interests of the child and wanting to relieve the financial burden of paying for your child may not meet that threshold.

Not a lot of people want to loose PR for their own children
Also because a judge has to ascertain it is for the best I treat of the child. A parent requesting it just to stop paying might not be in the judges good books.

If the mother can however show that it was never her intention to become a mum, steps had been taken towards it, that she couldn't get a legal abortion, and it was always the intention for the newborn to be put to adoption, that's very different.

I think I'm getting a very garbled version, that's for sure. But the adoption problem seems to be that both parents must apply. A court can force the father to cooperate in an open adoption, but only in the best interests of the child. Which seems unlikely if the father is looking after the child well.

A child has the right to be supported by both its parents. That’s the legal position. Not wanting a child, taking steps to prevent it from happening and agreeing prior to the birth that it would be adopted, make no difference to the rights of the child who now exists to be supported by both its parents. A parent of either sex doesn’t get to say “I didn’t want a child, we were using contraception, when we found out about the pregnancy we agreed on abortion/adoption, so that means I don’t have to support my child.” It’s no different to a father wanting to avoid paying for his unwanted baby or trying to insist his ex’s new boyfriend should adopt it so he doesn’t have parental responsibility - it’s just much rarer that it’s a mother on that side of the argument.

That's what I assumed, morally if not legally. Trying to force an open adoption through the courts seems like an even worse tactic than applying for 50:50 residency.

Reading between the lines, I think my friend has her doubts about the 'too late for an abortion' story. And thinks possibly daughter decided she wanted it and only changed her mind when husband left.

Of course, there's also dithering and denial as possibilities. I don't know the young people so hard to say.

This sounds like a bad film plot, but if it did happen it sounds like the man planned it. I don't buy the failed vasectomy line, and the incompetent act is a classic way of scammimg people. The GF / step mum has no legal rights without the adoption and will lose access to the baby if the dad dumps her. I wonder if the dad is also using this to control her too? He has no real incentive to speed up the adoption at present.

He wants money to look after the child what’s wrong with that?

Loads of others manage to pay

Friend's description of him makes him sound incredibly passive. I wonder if he didn't just keep giving both girlfriends what they wanted (or pretending to) until it went wrong. I take your point about the GF. Hopefully that means she will force his hand and the situation will be sorted.

Is this one of those magical children that don't cost any money to feed, clothe or otherwise raise?

When my dh adopted my ds, I officially had to give up my rights so we could adopt him together. Had he adopted my son, he would have had tge rights over me.
Birth father has no rights/claim just as ds has no rights over birth fathers estate

This was many yrs ago so not sure how much this has changed