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.

Staying with her family? It's not an unusual thing to do. She can hardly pop round the corner and see them, can she?

The relationship is ending because he won’t marry her or give her financial security even though she is having his child. It’s not unreasonable of her to want that. If she stayed and gave birth in the UK and he left her she would have no house and no money even though she has been paying towards the house. It’s not unreasonable for her to want to avoid that.

Marriage and/or giving him half of his house isn't the only way she could have negotiated financial security. And the financial security conversation should have been fully closed off before they decided to try for a baby. He thought it was. She made him think it was but clearly had other plans. She took a gamble with a small child's future happiness. It's pretty unforgivable.

Yep. Can you explain how it applies here, given that the claim that the father needs to be on the birth certificate for the child to get British citizenship isn't true?

The relationship is ending because he won’t marry her or give her financial security even though she is having his child.

There's nothing to say that he wouldn't support her & the child until she could work again & have her own financial security.

Did he 100% want this baby? It doesn't sound like he did.

Im sorry to say this and perhaps its not your intention, but your posts come across like you basically wanted a baby with him as a means to entrap him for half of his house.

The relationship is ending because he won’t marry her or give her financial security even though she is having his child.

This is not wholly true.

Op doesn't just want financial security in the form of income while she has a baby. She wants half of the wealth he accumulated (his house) before her, which he probably wanted to pass not only to her/her child but to his two previous children.

Op, paying towards bills doesn't mean you should get half his house, you've put no equity in.

But he also knew that he had told her he had no plans to marry her. Lots of people have children and don't marry. He had no reason to believe she was going to use the child as a bargaining chip to force marriage.

It applies because if he isn't on the birth certificate, which he won't be, the reality is that it is going to be exceptionally difficult for the OP's child to prove that they are a British citizen. And if they can't prove that they are one, they may as well not be one.

No, it doesn't.

You don't know whether he'll be on the birth certificate, as OP hasn't said that, and also hasn't specified the country so we don't know what the processes are. Additionally, it's also possible that a father might opt not to be on the birth certificate but instead go the DNA route because he finds it easier. The fact that the latter option exists means it's not true to any intent or purpose that the father has to be on the birth certificate in order to pass on citizenship.

The key point is actually the father's level of desire to be involved, not whether he's on the birth certificate.

You can’t deny your child the right to have a loving father in their life that is cruel!

Where to even start with all this?

Firstly, he won't be on the birth certificate because the baby will be born on the other side of the world and he won't be there. The UK is the rule, not the exception, in not letting women name random men as the father on their baby's birth certificate without any proof.

Secondly, the DNA option is not easier if the father and the baby are on opposite sides of the world and not under the jurisdiction of the same court system. The baby's father could get a UK court to order a DNA test to prove paternity, but that will be a fat lot of good if the baby is in Australia and outside the reach of the UK legal system. And vice versa.

Thirdly, in the context of whether the baby can actually prove their British citizenship or not, paperwork is the only thing that matters.

Spot on
You are being selfish and unreasonable to the extreme

Spot on

OP, you are being selfish and unreasonable and are holding this man to ransom?
Your expectations are excessive and you sound incredibly naïve.
The guy has 2 children that he supports already and you expect to be on the deeds of his house. Words escape me.
Wishing all concerned the very best

It would be very very foolish to take this risk.

If it all falls apart with the relationship which sounds likely, she wouldn't be able to move back to her support network because she wouldn't be able to leave the country with the child.

She now needs to remain where she is. The father will have to come to her.

If he isn't on the birth certificate for whatever reason, which we do not know, there does in fact exist another option, as I've said throughout. It can absolutely be easier than registering in some circumstances. When both parties are amenable, there's no need for a court order. They simply arrange the DNA themselves. The Home Office even provide guidance on what to do when voluntarily supplying DNA, to the extent that they have a list of accepted suppliers for this purpose.

DNA evidence is paperwork. This is why the claim that the father needs to be on the birth certificate is not to all intents and purposes right, it's fully wrong.

Kids aren't pay to play

No but she seems to want to treat him as though he’s a donor so you can’t have it both ways. Not saying he won’t pay but I think she needs to be realistic when planning for her future if this is the approach she takes.

it sounds like if he wants to see his child ever it’s going to cost him a lot in travel and hotels. Large maintenance payments might be difficult on top of that.

What on earth were you thinking about buying a rental property with if you just about had enough to cover a flight and one night in a hotel? Was this property going to be in the U.K., or back in your home country? Or was that it, you thought you’d get half the house, ditch him and that would be your nest egg? Because that’s really how it reads. You sound much more interested in his assets than in him.
“He can fix this” presumably by acquiescing to your marriage demand? Well maybe he would but that doesn’t entitle you to half of everything, especially not if it’s a short marriage. Did you need him for a visa because your earnings alone aren’t enough? Was he genuinely, 100% on board with having another child? Given your initial posts and lack of response since, somehow I doubt it.

You know the reason he won't be on the birth certificate. He won't be there when the baby's birth is registered. Not unless the OP comes back and gives birth in the UK and invites him to the appointment, which clearly isn't going to happen. There's no "for whatever reason" about it. He won't be on it. He can't be on it.

Now, I never suggested that DNA evidence isn't a way of proving paternity.

What I asked you was how this gets done in practice, when the father and child are on the opposite side of the world to each other, and both the father and mother have their own reasons for not wanting it to happen?

You are being very unreasonable to demand marriage, you knew his terms before you decided to have a child with him.
You sound like you are either using your unborn child to get citizenship or to control him.

FFS don’t listen to this misogynistic crap.

OP this man is not offering you any kind of security. He’s chosen that.

Absolutely you need to protect yourself and your baby. If you give birth in the UK, you won’t be able to leave without his permission. You need to stay where your family/ support is.

How is it misogyny when he was honest and open from the start and it’s the OP who has changed the rules? And because she hasn’t got what she wanted, she’s flounced off with a he knows how to fix this.

Why do you think he should take security away from his children and give it to the OP, who is an adult and capable of earning and saving money for herself?

I think you should stay where you are with your support system.