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.

"Just so it can have a relationship with its father"?

Er, yes. This is not a small thing.

The OP is a mother now, she needs to start putting her child first.

Yeah, her plan is still "someone else will house me".

Like it was in the UK.

The OP absolutely is putting her child first. This is what putting her child first looks like.

It absolutely is not, and even she acknowledges that. The gist of her OP is, AIBU to put myself first and my child second?

Good decision. Stay where you are.
Forget about him and put this baby first.
Stay where you and the baby will be supported.
Give the baby your name alone.

Absolutely. Op should have stayed and kept the dialogue open to negotiate what the support could have looked like. But her line in the sand was marriage/half the house... Unless she gets that she refuses to allow her child a relationship with it's dad and siblings.

Op has gone from one place where she had partner support and someone willing to house her and support her. To another place where she has family support and someone willing to house and support her. In both situations it is entirely possible that the support and housing is removed.

Deliberately conceiving a child knowing you have no personal money or job is irresponsible.

This is a harsh judgement but it seems accurate. To deny the father being with the child, by moving abroad, is harsh. Now OP has entered in to this pregnancy, she should stay where she can rely on help and learn to support herself and her child going forward.

And so her child gets no relationship with their father?

Where does she say “half the house” please? Because I don’t see that anywhere.

(Also given he is asking her to live as a foreigner and raise his baby here where she has no family or financial security, marriage isn’t remotely unreasonable. No idea at all why you think it is).

You were unreasonable for deciding to have a child with this man.

You would not be unreasonable to go where the family support is.

OP’s partner is the one who has the power to ensure child sees mother and father. But he’s choosing not to. By refusing to offer OP any kind of commitment or security, if she returns to the UK to give birth she will be vulnerable to being left in a situation where she is 1) homeless, 2) unable to care for her child , and 3) unable to leave the country without abandoning her child. She would be utterly reckless to choose that.

But this was the situation all along. And the op was perfectly happy and willing to convince a child with him, in spite of this being his stance

The father never misled op...he made how he felt about marriage ect clear and they still chose to have a baby together.

Op is unreasonable in that she has now decided this doesnt suit her, so her baby does not get the benefit of having their father in their life since she's stropped off to the other side of the world

By giving the OP half his house?

And then she flounces off again in another year or two only this time he has to sell his house and give her half the proceeds and he no longer has anywhere to house his existing children?

Or how about the OP grows up, takes some responsibility for her own life and the choices she has made, returns to the UK and gets a job so that three children who didn't ask to be born can enjoy a stable life and a relationship with both their parents?

Some posters really do place the most ultimate value on the most useless and selfish of men.

I only hope you all have better standards for yourselves than you preach to other women

I have way more respect for someone who has clear boundaries they are honest and open about than I do for people who don’t accept other people’s boundaries and use their unborn child as a blackmail tool to try and change things.

I'm placing value on an unborn child who deserves to have a relationship with both their parents and not used as collateral by one parent to extort money from the other.

Correct, OP should have stuck to her guns and not have a child with someone who did not share her values. However she has and I do not think she should give into the Sunken Cost Fallacy now. If she is keeping the baby she is better off which the most support she can get.

Her ex partner is the one who shouldn't have had a child with the OP. She's messed up his life and her unborn child's but she'll suffer no consequences and take no responsibility herself.

I wonder when she will stop expecting other adults to support her.

The primary carer needs to have support during and after the birth along with nursery etc etc. Ideally both parties should facilitate this but no woman should have to take on all the risks of pregnancy, birth, motherhood penalty etc etc alone. OP was in a risky position before and now is more stable which is important for the baby. Sharing risk should not be extortion. He should have made an offer for OP to keep her secure. As he was not supportive during her pregnancy and as far as we know offered no counters for security he is as much to blame as OP.

Raising a child is the consequence lol. Even in a relationship statistically she would be shouldering the biggest burden and being primary carer.

*Edit - I think it is reasonable to expect support and plan to be supported if having a baby. You are putting your health and earning ability at risk. It would be very foolish unless you are very rich to not think about your support systems.

She's basically said, "marry me or put me on the deeds to your house or you'll never see your unborn child".

That is an appalling, despicable thing to do to someone.

He has been straight with her from the outset. Maybe they could have made some sort of arrangement to give the OP some protection but she didn't hang around long enough to find out.

She acknowledges in her posts that he is a great dad to his existing children, that he can't move to her country because of his existing children so her choosing to move there means he won't have much if any relationship with his unborn baby, that what she is doing is effectively blackmail, and that she is prioritising her own interests over those of all three children involved.

It sounds to me like he's a much better parent than she is likely to be and that by skipping the country she's depriving her child of a relationship with their only parent who actually understands that when you have children you put their needs before your wants.

I would never TTC in a foreign country with a man from that country unless I was prepared to stay there until my children were grown up.

She should have thought about that before she TTC.

Should have, could have, would have. I deal with what is happening now. That is where my advice comes from.

I don't know how often I repeat it but making sure you are supported is important for your future child. She should not be the one taking all the risk. Also statistically mothers are more likely to be the primary parents. Also standards of great fathers is generally lower than for even the average mother. OP protecting herself financially and with a support system is very important for both her and her child.