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

[Donesomethingsilly]

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.

Imagine receiving a text telling you that you won’t be getting to meet your newborn baby . Delivering that message by text is very heartless.

She'd be high priority for emergency housing.

I highly doubt he would do that if he wants to be part of his child's life though.

It's so aggravating to see someone taking no responsibility for their own life and just crashing about leaving a trail of destruction behind them with zero fucks given about the consequences for everyone else.

he does have the ability to fix this. He just won’t.

You silly, silly woman. So essentially you thought that getting pregnant would increase your chances of him marrying you. This sounds like blackmail, pure and simple.

OP, an alternative option would be to ask him to pay an upfront sum to cover your reasonable living expenses (rent, food etc) for the rest of your pregnancy and for a few months after you give birth, until you can sensibly start job hunting (assuming you can work in the UK). I think it would also be sensible to get a legally binding commitment from him to pay (or possibly get him to pay upfront if you don't trust him) a sum to cover half of your likely childcare expenses for the first few years.

I don't think you're entitled to marriage/his house, but I don't think that's what you want anyway, as opposed to some degree of financial security in a foreign country away from your family. I would make having reasonable financial security a condition of coming back, if you're prepared to consider it. He shouldn't have the power to make you homeless and destitute when you're at such a vulnerable time.

This is so over dramatic. If it doesn't work out with him, fly home. Would he really kick you and a baby out with no notice to the streets? I know some abusive men can do this but he doesn't sound like that, it sounds like you've jumped the gun and created major drama.

Your manipulating him to give you a share of the house.

She'd be high priority for emergency housing

That's not a risk I would take in the OP's position. I wouldn't leave my dog in a lot of what passes for emergency accommodation in this country, let alone a vulnerable mother and newborn.

Agree. Now her parents get to host her and the baby permanently, his child us in another country, bc she thought she was the "exception" when he told her the truth, and now she's having a massive tantrum.

Op, you are not doing your child any favors by forcing there dad to abandon them. And if something happens to you, they'll be in a poor position.

I think this misses the point.

The reason to return now is because there is no restriction on her doing so. Once she has the baby she is likely to need the father's position to move.

Mention of the house has skewed the normal advice given in these circumstances.

This is a great suggestion.

If you genuinely have your child’s best interests at heart, you will contact him to see if he will consider this arrangement.

The consequences for your child of what you’ve done so far, are just too horrendous not to try everything you can that is in their best interests.

Depriving a person of a proper relationship with their father and siblings and also of their actual citizenship, is a terrible burden.

There is nothing whatsoever in any of the OP’s posts to suggest that the father did not go into this in good faith, just like millions of families all over the UK, where the parents are unmarried.

If the OP tried this with the father and he then said no, I would then think badly of the father. But this option hasn’t been given to him yet.

He sees her as even less than a surrogate. Many women in these situations are chumps. Women need to stop having children with men who won’t guarantee they and their kids will be provided for. Time to recognise the value of childbearing finally or maybe the birth rates should continue to plummet to hell.

I agree that the OP shouldn't have TTC with this man.

You do the right thing for your baby first and foremost and after that, the right thing for you. You baby is going to be no better off having their father present at their birth than not. All they need is you to be able to provide the best care, and you are going to be much better equipped to do that with your support around you than with a man popping in and out when he has the time and inclination. "Babies need their dads" has a massive qualifier attached and should only ever read "Babies need good dads who are supportive of their mums". Otherwise they're better off with their mums, granparents, aunts and uncles.

Can't believe how blase and seemingly ok alot of PP are with the disgusting behaviour OP is exhibiting.Victim blaming the father who was completely honest and upfront about not wanting to get married. OP was still with him after 3 years with his position unwavering, so it's reasonable for him to presume she isn't going to suddenly upsticks, withold his child and use it as a blackmailing pawn.

Alot of PP on here need to hang their head in shame. What chance has this kid got when they'll be denied regular access to the only parent that has been truthful, whilst being raised by a blackmailer with morals of an alley cat.

There is nothing to suggest that he is not a good dad who is supportive of the mum.

In an ideal world he would marry her but it sounds like he is being cautious here, maybe because of past experience or the impression the op has given (being after his house etc). Being supportive doesn’t mean just signing over 50% of your assets.

She says herself that he is a great dad to his existing children and acknowledges that what she has done is not in any of the children's interests.

Did she not say he was not even supportive in her pregnancy?
I hope OP will forgive me for questioning her judgment again but I am always wary when women say a man is a "great" father. Often they wouldn't call a woman a great mum for the same things. Some do not even pay child support or do anything menial for the child and I have heard women call them "great dads". Of course he could be but just of that statement knowing the bar is already in hell... I'm not sure.

He made his choices, the OP needs to put herself and her baby first.
Imagine being stuck in a foreign country with a child and a man who won't commit?

You made the claim that the incorrect statement about needing to be on the BC was 'to all intents and purposes correct'. That's a direct quote from you, and it's wrong.

Whether he was supportive or not is a matter of opinion and depends on op’s expectations. If not being supportive is not attending any appointments, listening to her complaints about not feeling well then fair enough, it does sound like he wasn’t supportive. If it’s that he wouldn’t spend thousands on maternity clothes for her or go out at 3 in the morning to buy chocolate then her expectations were not fair.

He made his choices based on false information. She asked for marriage/house. He said no. She said that's fine, I accept your terms let's have a baby anyway. He said yes. She has panicked and legged it to god knows where taking with her any chance of the child having a relationship with it's dad and siblings. There is absolutely NO WAY you'd be so supportive if a man took a newborn away from a women who refused to marry him or give him half her house.

You can understand that it's a shit situation all round - you don't need to find a way to blame him for Ops behaviour.

She said the relationship was ending

Do you understand what "to all intents and purposes" means?

No she didn't.

No she didn't. She said she would still go back now if he did what she told him to and signed over half his house.

OP has made it impossible for him to help out, 50/50 or otherwise by taking herself away to, in her words "the other side of the world". It's hard to know what she's playing at, to be honest.