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.

100% stay where you can afford to live and where you have support. Don't get stuck in the UK with someone who doesn't prioritise you as you could end up losing your much wanted child to him. If he is half decent he might send maintenance. If he doesn't then you don't want to be around him anyway

Also UK likely to be getting poorer due to geopolitics.

No, actually we don't. Not only has the OP not given that information, but there's at least one country fitting the other side of the world description where it's possible to apply for a court order to be added at a later date. If that were within the first 12 months, it would meet the requirement in UK law. We simply do not know. The OP hasn't said. Certainly one can invent scenarios where it doesn't happen, but those are worth nothing because they're made up. Although that's a separate point to the one I've been making, which is that the claim about needing to be on the birth certificate was wrong.

You stated that the claim that he needed to be on the birth certificate in order to pass citizenship was to all intents and purposes true. As the DNA option means that isn't true at all, I asked you to explain how that could be true. You still haven't. As I asked that before any of the other questions you've since added, you'll need to go first.

If I was having a child with someone I would want that to be someone who prioritises their children above others, it sounds like this is what this man is doing.

Because he decided to have another child with her of course. He owes security to all his children, but if he’s not willing to provide it for his third child, then OP needs to do so , which she can only manage by staying put.

Thats all.

She hasn’t “flounced off”; it’s patently ridiculous to expect OP to put her and her child’s security at risk. Of course she needs to think about what’s best for her and her baby. That’s all.

But she knew what was what before agreeing to get pregnant!

He can provide security for his third child without giving it to the OP.

To provide security for the OP, who is quite obviously a gold digger, he would have to reduce his own security and that of his existing children. He would be an idiot to do that.

Irrelevant.

Absolute bullshit. The baby and its mother are a package deal. It’s not providing the baby security to place its mother in a vulnerable position at risk of homelessness. No mother should be expected to place herself in a situation where her partner could throw her and her baby out without a moments notice, or what if he became abusive? She’s not on the deeds, they are not married, she’d be entitled to nothing . Furthermore the relationship isn’t stable. Of course OP needs to stay in her home country where she has family and do what’s best for her and her child.

Calling her a “gold digger” is just misogynistic vitriol. I doubt OP is listening to this nonsense.

There's nothing to suggest that he isn't willing to provide security for his third child.

If he is to provide for all of his children equally, he cannot give half his house to the OP, because if she decides to leave him and take her half, he will no longer be able to house his other two children. Whereas if he retains ownership of his house he can provide for all three of his children.

Why do you think the OP should be given half a house for free when she has apparently done nothing to secure her own financial future despite apparently being an adult who is capable of working?

I doubt OP ever listens to anyone who tells her anything she doesn't want to hear.

He doesn’t need to provide her half the house there are plenty of different arrangements you can make.

No he is not providing his baby security by placing their mother in a vulnerable position where she is at risk of homelessness. This is just misogynistic bullshit.

She has put her child's security at risk by removing her child from the only parent who actually has any security.

Obviously she shouldn't have got pregnant because she is incapable of providing for her own child, but it's too late to turn the clock back.

Why is it irrelevant? Because it doesn’t suit the OP narrative?

He was honest - she wasn’t. She has played games and now we have another child whose father won’t get a relationship with his child because she played games and lost.
Just because you can carry a child does not mean you get to control and dictate everything.

removing her child from the only parent who actually has any security

Bullshit. It’s his choices that have led to this. If he wants to provide security for his child and have OP return he’s more than able to do so.

Nope, it’s irrelevant because what matters now is that OP needs to make choices in the best interests of herself and her baby. It’s patently ridiculous to expect her to be an immigrant in a country where she has no support and no security, living with a partner in an unstable relationship, who won’t commit to her and could turf her out and make her and baby homeless on a whim.

Looking at the situation any other way is just immature. And just misogyny,

OP shouldn't be sourcing maintenance, she has engineered the situation for her own agenda. Selfish in the extreme

His choice was to marry or hand over half his house. He was honest. She changed the goal posts.
As an adult what has she done to secure her financial future? Or was she always planning on relying on a man?

At the expense of his existing children.

Why should they suffer because the OP has blackmailed their father?

Immature? It was immature and selfish to conceive a child in a situation she knew she wasn’t happy with but he didn’t.

All the children you have are "at the expense of the existing children". Not clear why you think the existing children would suffer if he were to marry the OP.

Not everything is misogyny, Tandora.

The OP played a stupid game and has won a stupid prize, but her poor baby will pay the price.

If the OP fucks off with half their father's house, how is he supposed to provide for them?

It’s got nothing to do with blackmail. he Made the decision to have more children with OP, and of course he can’t expect her to live in a situation where she has no support and he could toss them both out and make them homeless on a whim.
In terms of a cost to his existing children, well you could say that about any parent who decides to have more than one child 🤷🏼‍♀️

I genuinely don’t understand your line of thinking. You believe that a woman gets pregnant and that automatically means that she is owed financial security from the man?

Where is her responsibility to provide for herself and her child? It is not misogyny to suggest that women do not need to be completely dependent on men for their security.

The man in this situation is already doing exactly the same job as a mother in terms of caring and providing for his children so I’m sure he could include his youngest child into that and continue to be a good father. No one is owed half a house just for birthing their own child.