Page 11 | Am I being unreasonable to give birth away from the child’s father because he doesn’t want to get married?

Donesomethingsilly · 2025-02-28T02:30:33+00:00

My partner has two children to a previous relationship, we have been together for a while. We have discussed getting married but he was reluctant as he wants to protect himself financially. I understood that, and took a risk and decided to have a child with him as we had a great relationship. Since getting pregnant it’s been rocky. I’m not a uk citizen, my family is on the other side of the world. I’m with family at the moment as I needed to get away. Am I being unreasonable to stay here and have the child with my support system around me? He can’t move here, or even visit because he has his children. I feel stuck between doing the right thing for all the children involved, or the right thing for myself.

Unexpectedlysinglemum · 28/02/2025 09:16

I think you're doing the right thing op as you have no security in the uk. Once your baby is born in the uk he can get on the birth certificate immediately and block you and the child from moving for 18 years. You need to stay with your support system and make sure your child is born there (unless you need Uk citizenship for your child?! In which case seek advice)

IF he wants to be in a relationship with you and for you to live in he uk then explain that you onky feel secure doing this if you're married, if he just wants to be your boyfriend that's fine he can visit you in your country as much as he likes and fly you and the baby to the uk for visits too

KimberleyClark · 28/02/2025 09:16

CrispieCake · 28/02/2025 06:08

He chose to have a baby too. The OP has been unwise but it was his choice too. You don't have a baby with someone you don't want to commit to.

Show quote history

Neither do you have a baby with someone who has made it clear he does not want to commit to you.

ThePartingOfTheWays · 28/02/2025 09:16

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 28/02/2025 09:13

It's a lot easier for either the mother or the father (depending on who wants it) to get the court to order a DNA test if everyone is living in the UK.

The OP's child is going to be living on the other side of the world from his or her father. When and how is this DNA test going to be done?

Do you think the OP, who has effectively chosen to leave the UK for good and for her child to have no relationship with his or her father, is going to organise a court ordered DNA test to establish the genetic relationship between her child who lives in Australia (or wherever) and the father who lives in the UK? For what purpose? She seems intent on undermining the relationship between them so getting British citizenship for her child is unlikely to be of much importance to her.

What about the father? How does it benefit him? Even if he can somehow get a court in the UK to order a DNA test and a court in Australia (or wherever) to track down the OP and force her to give a sample of her child's DNA to prove that he is the father (and it seems unlikely that he would be able to do this, tbh), how would it benefit him? Even if he is proven to be the child's father he might still not be able to get added to the child's foreign birth certificate (and they won't have a British birth certificate) and be granted parental responsibility. And even if he could somehow be granted parental responsibility for a child born and living on the other side of the world, it won't mean the OP is forced to return his child to the UK. All it will mean is that he might be required to pay maintenance. So it's difficult to see what benefit there would be for him in forcing the issue.

That leaves the child. If the child reaches adulthood, or late teens perhaps, and knows that their father is British and lives in the UK, and knows who their father is, they might be able to track him down and persuade him to do a DNA test to prove that he is their father so that they can have British citizenship. But the chances of them having completely lost contact by that point, or perhaps of the child never even knowing who their father is, seem quite high.

This child will be a British citizen from birth but will most likely never have the paperwork to prove it.

Show quote history

I think what I said, which is that it was incorrect to say he needs to be on the birth certificate in order to transmit his British citizenship. If you're going to talk about legal requirements, it needs to be accurate.

godsmessage · 28/02/2025 09:17

It sounds to me like what happened is that you decided to have a baby while the relationship was good. And because the relationship was good at the time, you felt comfortable getting pregnant because things with your partner felt stable. Maybe you had niggling doubts about not having the security of marriage, but the overall quality of the relationship meant you felt like you could be the exception.

Then, during pregnancy, the relationship went seriously downhill and what had once seemed like a risk worth taking now seems like a dangerous situation for you because you can't see the relationship with the father lasting under any circumstances.

So , if I'm right, your choice is between having your baby in the UK so they can have a relationship with their father, in the relatively certain knowledge that the relationship will fail and you'll be left stranded with no money to set up on your own and unable to go back to your home country to live because your baby's father could prevent you from doing so. Or- have your baby in your home country, denying them the ability to have a relationship with their father, but enabling you to live with your parents so that the end of the relationship doesn't leave you homeless and trapped. In your situation (if I'm correct about what's actually happened here) I would stay in my home country with my family. While in most situations the correct moral thing to do is ensure the baby and father can maintain a close relationship, I don't think it's reasonable to expect you to accept inevitable homelessness and hardship in order to achieve it.

Isn't the marriage thing a red herring here? Surely that ship well and truly sailed when the relationship deteriorated to the point you're at now? If you'd married before the baby, then you'd have some degree of protection and would be weighing these decisions from a completely different standpoint. But as marriage isn't an option (because he doesn't want it and your relationship seems to have irreparably deteriorated) then your choice is between being able to house and support yourself (with help from your family) or your child's relationship with their father.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 28/02/2025 09:18

ThePartingOfTheWays · 28/02/2025 09:16

I think what I said, which is that it was incorrect to say he needs to be on the birth certificate in order to transmit his British citizenship. If you're going to talk about legal requirements, it needs to be accurate.

Show quote history

Who said he needs to be on the birth certificate to pass on his British citizenship?

He doesn't.

It passes automatically.

But if the child can't prove it then it's an entirely moot point and they might as well not have British citizenship.

GoldStar2 · 28/02/2025 09:19

crumblingschools · 28/02/2025 08:23

Your poor child. Neither of you thought this through

Quite.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 28/02/2025 09:19

godsmessage · 28/02/2025 09:17

It sounds to me like what happened is that you decided to have a baby while the relationship was good. And because the relationship was good at the time, you felt comfortable getting pregnant because things with your partner felt stable. Maybe you had niggling doubts about not having the security of marriage, but the overall quality of the relationship meant you felt like you could be the exception.

Then, during pregnancy, the relationship went seriously downhill and what had once seemed like a risk worth taking now seems like a dangerous situation for you because you can't see the relationship with the father lasting under any circumstances.

So , if I'm right, your choice is between having your baby in the UK so they can have a relationship with their father, in the relatively certain knowledge that the relationship will fail and you'll be left stranded with no money to set up on your own and unable to go back to your home country to live because your baby's father could prevent you from doing so. Or- have your baby in your home country, denying them the ability to have a relationship with their father, but enabling you to live with your parents so that the end of the relationship doesn't leave you homeless and trapped. In your situation (if I'm correct about what's actually happened here) I would stay in my home country with my family. While in most situations the correct moral thing to do is ensure the baby and father can maintain a close relationship, I don't think it's reasonable to expect you to accept inevitable homelessness and hardship in order to achieve it.

Isn't the marriage thing a red herring here? Surely that ship well and truly sailed when the relationship deteriorated to the point you're at now? If you'd married before the baby, then you'd have some degree of protection and would be weighing these decisions from a completely different standpoint. But as marriage isn't an option (because he doesn't want it and your relationship seems to have irreparably deteriorated) then your choice is between being able to house and support yourself (with help from your family) or your child's relationship with their father.

Why inevitable homelessness?

I literally don't know anyone who assumes that they will be homeless if a man stops providing them with free housing.

Are some people posting from the 1800s?

ThePartingOfTheWays · 28/02/2025 09:20

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 28/02/2025 09:18

Who said he needs to be on the birth certificate to pass on his British citizenship?

He doesn't.

It passes automatically.

But if the child can't prove it then it's an entirely moot point and they might as well not have British citizenship.

Show quote history

The poster I was replying to. Look at the quoted post on my first post.

@LiquoriceAllsorts2 wrote 'he will need to be on the birth certificate for the child to get British citizenship'.

Which is wrong.

LiquoriceAllsorts2 · 28/02/2025 09:21

Unexpectedlysinglemum · 28/02/2025 09:16

I think you're doing the right thing op as you have no security in the uk. Once your baby is born in the uk he can get on the birth certificate immediately and block you and the child from moving for 18 years. You need to stay with your support system and make sure your child is born there (unless you need Uk citizenship for your child?! In which case seek advice)

IF he wants to be in a relationship with you and for you to live in he uk then explain that you onky feel secure doing this if you're married, if he just wants to be your boyfriend that's fine he can visit you in your country as much as he likes and fly you and the baby to the uk for visits too

He might not necessarily be able to visit much though. We don’t know the country but visas may be required, high costs and time associated with visiting.
why should all the expense of visits in both directions be on him? It should be on the op to facilitate the child having a relationship with their father given that she’s choosing to take them away from him (or at least a joint effort).

SwingTheMonkey · 28/02/2025 09:22

diddl · 28/02/2025 09:14

The man's a cad.

In what way?

He said all along he didn't want to marry.

Op didn't have to have a child with him in the hope that he would then marry her.

Apparently you’re a cad if you make your position abundantly clear and someone still chooses to procreate with you in the hope you’ll change your mind and they can get a house or citizenship from you…

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 28/02/2025 09:22

ThePartingOfTheWays · 28/02/2025 09:20

The poster I was replying to. Look at the quoted post on my first post.

@LiquoriceAllsorts2 wrote 'he will need to be on the birth certificate for the child to get British citizenship'.

Which is wrong.

Show quote history

OK. Perhaps it is technically wrong, but given the difficulties of proving that the child is a British citizen without that, it is to all intents and purposes correct.

WhatNoRaisins · 28/02/2025 09:22

Personally I've got less sympathy for this man because he already has two children and should know that providing a stable upbringing for children costs money. He still went ahead TTC without actually thinking through how he'd support another family.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 28/02/2025 09:24

LiquoriceAllsorts2 · 28/02/2025 09:21

He might not necessarily be able to visit much though. We don’t know the country but visas may be required, high costs and time associated with visiting.
why should all the expense of visits in both directions be on him? It should be on the op to facilitate the child having a relationship with their father given that she’s choosing to take them away from him (or at least a joint effort).

Show quote history

It may simply be unaffordable for him.

And he has two children as well. So unless he can afford to fly his two children out there with him, they aren't going to have a relationship with their siblings, are they?

Auldy · 28/02/2025 09:25

Poor, poor kid. Honestly, the games people play with children's lives is breath taking. You have chosen to bring a whole human being into this shit show of a world because you wanted to trap a man into marrying you and to lay claim to half of his money. You are now denying that child any proper good quality relationship with their dad. It's heartbreaking.

I also don't understand the whole - he gives me half his money or I become homeless schtick.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 28/02/2025 09:25

WhatNoRaisins · 28/02/2025 09:22

Personally I've got less sympathy for this man because he already has two children and should know that providing a stable upbringing for children costs money. He still went ahead TTC without actually thinking through how he'd support another family.

Who says he didn't think about it?

ThePartingOfTheWays · 28/02/2025 09:26

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 28/02/2025 09:22

OK. Perhaps it is technically wrong, but given the difficulties of proving that the child is a British citizen without that, it is to all intents and purposes correct.

Show quote history

No, it's fully and entirely wrong and to no purposes correct. I used to practice nationality law, incidentally.

One can construct scenarios where it's not possible to force DNA evidence, and also where it's not possible to force the father to go on the birth certificate. These are hypothetical given that we don't know the level of his cooperation. This is not the same thing as making an absolute claim that 'he will need to be on the birth certificate for the child to get British citizenship'. He won't. There is no getting round that.

SwingTheMonkey · 28/02/2025 09:26

WhatNoRaisins · 28/02/2025 09:22

Personally I've got less sympathy for this man because he already has two children and should know that providing a stable upbringing for children costs money. He still went ahead TTC without actually thinking through how he'd support another family.

Where has he said he won’t support the baby? He doesn’t want to marry op or give her half of his house. Nowhere does it say he wouldn’t or couldn’t support the new baby.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 28/02/2025 09:26

Auldy · 28/02/2025 09:25

Poor, poor kid. Honestly, the games people play with children's lives is breath taking. You have chosen to bring a whole human being into this shit show of a world because you wanted to trap a man into marrying you and to lay claim to half of his money. You are now denying that child any proper good quality relationship with their dad. It's heartbreaking.

I also don't understand the whole - he gives me half his money or I become homeless schtick.

Exactly this.

What is to stop her getting a job and saving money like a normal person?

aCatCalledFawkes · 28/02/2025 09:28

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 28/02/2025 09:19

Why inevitable homelessness?

I literally don't know anyone who assumes that they will be homeless if a man stops providing them with free housing.

Are some people posting from the 1800s?

Show quote history

Lots of the responses seem to be in the 1800s blaming the woman for getting pregnant and not the man for not using condoms, even saying she's trapped him. He knew she wanted get married and he also knew he didn't want to get married or share finances. Why have another baby that would potentially be a joint finacial commitment with the OP for at least the next 18yrs if you didn't want that commitment?

WhatNoRaisins · 28/02/2025 09:29

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 28/02/2025 09:25

Who says he didn't think about it?

Show quote history

Well it sounds like he didn't see what the OP has done coming.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 28/02/2025 09:29

ThePartingOfTheWays · 28/02/2025 09:26

No, it's fully and entirely wrong and to no purposes correct. I used to practice nationality law, incidentally.

One can construct scenarios where it's not possible to force DNA evidence, and also where it's not possible to force the father to go on the birth certificate. These are hypothetical given that we don't know the level of his cooperation. This is not the same thing as making an absolute claim that 'he will need to be on the birth certificate for the child to get British citizenship'. He won't. There is no getting round that.

Show quote history

OK, so can you talk us through:

How the OP goes about proving that he is the child's father when she and her child are on the other side of the world, if he doesn't cooperate?
How the dad goes about proving that he is the child's father when she and her child are on the other side of the world, if she doesn't cooperate?
How the child goes about proving that he is their father later in life if neither 1 or 2 has happened, assuming that the child actually knows who and where their father is?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 28/02/2025 09:30

WhatNoRaisins · 28/02/2025 09:29

Well it sounds like he didn't see what the OP has done coming.

Show quote history

I don't think most people would see that coming.

And it's worth noting that she could do what she has done even if they were married.

YourHappyJadeEagle · 28/02/2025 09:31

You’re back in your country with family? If so, stay there, have the baby and register in your name only. If your relationship with the dad was rocky during the pregnancy I don’t think it’ll improve.
You’ll have to be prepared to be a single parent, likely with no financial support but if you can do that I’d say stay where you have support.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 28/02/2025 09:31

aCatCalledFawkes · 28/02/2025 09:28

Lots of the responses seem to be in the 1800s blaming the woman for getting pregnant and not the man for not using condoms, even saying she's trapped him. He knew she wanted get married and he also knew he didn't want to get married or share finances. Why have another baby that would potentially be a joint finacial commitment with the OP for at least the next 18yrs if you didn't want that commitment?

Edited

Show quote history

There's no suggestion that he wasn't willing to make a financial commitment to the baby.

Neetra30 · 28/02/2025 09:33

OrangeYaGlad · 28/02/2025 08:41

Incorrect. Her child is a British citizen from birth with a British father, will have full rights to live in the UK, and he cannot control where the child lives if it's born abroad, whether he's on the birth cert or not .

Show quote history

Not if she doesnt put his name on the birth certificate. Which she cant anyway, not without him being present since they are not married