Can he stop his baby's mother moving away before the birth?

[Sadgie]

His baby mum to be is 5 months pregnant and has told him she plans to move back to her parents home which is rural and 2.5 hours away by car, he doesn't drive. She presented this as a done deal, has had a transfer of office base for her job etc, wants to raise child where she grew up.
She has lived in the same city as him for the decade he has known her.
He is devastated as can't see how he can be an involved dad as he wanted to be now. He has signed up to driving lessons in quite a defeated way, reluctant to get legal advice as doesn't want to start things off badly.
They were in the same friendship group for a long time, never in a relationship. They got together in the wake of them both breaking up with their long term partners. Son thinks she's embarrassed and doesn't really want him in the picture.
Is there anything he can do to prevent her moving? I appreciate she may want more support in new parenthood but as she's planning permanent relocation it's going to mean they have a dad at long distance for the whole of their childhood.

Your posts are so weirdly over the top and aggressive.

You don’t know anything about this girl for god sake, she has consensual sex with an adult man she was not in a relationship with, lives alone and is choosing to move closer to her family now that she is pregnant.

Shes not “in the wrong” she’s making her own decisions for her own life.

You have utterly misunderstood my point. You're clearly very angry and I'm sorry if you're going through something difficult.

There is no 'poison', just a lot of experience of the family court, sadly (for the father incidentally).

I was answering the very specific questions posted here about the possibility of one parent being able to stop the other moving away.

As I said upthread, it would be foolish for either parent to apply for a PSO to prevent this as suggested by a PP, because it almost certainly wouldn't be granted as it is not what a PSO is for.

For avoidance of doubt, I was not suggesting it would be foolish for either parent to want to be involved in the child's life, and to take court action to enable that if necessary - but that is a separate issue and is not the subject of the thread.

Taking ill advised and pointless court action is not going to help either this man or his child and would only result in a lot of money and time wasted and a lot of heartache.

I hope you find peace with whatever is so difficult at the moment and I'm bowing out now.

Except the mother who has carried it for 9 months inside her body.

It knows her voice, her smell and her heartbeat from before birth.

Minimise that if you must.

He can’t stop her and if he tries to, it will cause so many issues.
She sounds like she’s making a sensible choice. He needs to ask her what her view is of his relationship with the child. What can he do to help.

Yes, and this is exactly why men need to always take responsibility for their own contraception and use condoms. To protect themselves against this sort of thing.

What is too much or too little is very individual. That's something they both need to work out between them. It sounds like they are doing well working out details between them, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. It's going to change over time too. At first, the baby really just needs Mum. His role is to support her. It wouldn't be appropriate for him to be taking baby away. As the child gets older and can be away from Mum more, and as the parents build future relationships, they will no doubt get into a regular rhythm of co-parenting.

None of us can say what is too much or too little. What you suggested earlier (him being there every night after work and doing the fun things and taking the baby way on his non-work days) would be too much for me. It might not be for the baby's mother but they will work that out between them.

@SparklingTurquoiseOcean So bemused by your outraged posts, it’s like you’re reading a different thread to everyone else. I hope that poor bee finds its way out of your bonnet.

but as the single mum needs support from her family to raise the child that would
It's not an absolute need though. It's nice to have support but many new mothers do it alone and cope just fine.

Except the mother who has carried it for 9 months inside her body
And? If anything you could say that there is therefore even more a need for the child to have enough time to bond with their father.

As to say that he can move, indeed, this is the best option since he can't stops her doing so, but it does involve a lot of trust and dependence on her as ultimately, she could decide after a few months that she needs to move again.

Mothers do have much more powers but they are also responsible to give their baby the chance to develop a bond as strong as hers with the father.

Sadly, many new mothers nowadays live a very selfish and self centered existence where only what they want and is best for them rule their children life.

Not if it were much much harder on the mum than moving closer to support, it wouldn’t be better for the child to have a mum who is struggling. Nobody would be taking my baby out for the day - dh wouldn’t take our baby from me for that long until they were 6 months old, I breastfeed and baby needs me regularly. So it’s hard to get a break and support is a game changer.

@Passaggressfedup Sadly, many new mothers nowadays live a very selfish and self centered existence where only what they want and is best for them rule their children life.

You seem to have an absolutely enormous chip on your shoulder.

Not if it were much much harder on the mum than moving closer to support, it wouldn’t be better for the child to have a mum who is struggling
Of course, but why baking the assumption that it will be before the baby is even born?

Nobody would be taking my baby out for the day - dh wouldn’t take our baby from me for that long until they were 6 months old, I breastfeed and baby needs me regularly. So it’s hard to get a break and support is a game changer
Good thing that all was good with the father than because the court would have a very different view.

I recently supported a young father when the mother would not allow him to take their baby away from her. He went to court and was granted the right to take the baby out for a couple of hours from 2 months old and by the time he was three months, he could take him for 3 hours. Breastfeeding wasn't seen as a reason to prevent it.

The mum view on what was right for her was dismissed very quickly and she had no choice but to stick to the order. The child is now 9 months old and stays with dad almost 50% of the time and mum and dad have found peace as co-parents.

You seem to have an absolutely enormous chip on your shoulder
Not all all, just tired of reading and listening to mothers ego think they are the better parent by default just because they carried the baby for 9 months and that gives them the right to do as they decide.

The courts only care about what is best for the child, and that primarily assume that both parents are as important for the well-being of the child.

As said already, too many mothers see the fathers role as just a support to the mother. If they can't provide her that support, they not worthy of being an equal parent. That's not how it works and it is fullish to let anyone believe that it does on internet forums.

You are making up scenarios purely to argue your frankly ridiculous points.
This thread is about a pregnant woman, not in a relationship who wants to relocate 2 hours away closer to her family. She’s legally perfectly entitled to do that.
There’s no suggesting she’s withholding the unborn child, not allowing the father to be a father etc.

The courts only care about what is best for the child, and that primarily assume that both parents are as important for the well-being of the child.
As said already, too many mothers see the fathers role as just a support to the mother. If they can't provide her that support, they not worthy of being an equal parent. That's not how it works and it is fullish to let anyone believe that it does on internet forums.

Well by your own example a court would absolutely not force 50/50 custody if a 9 month old baby because that would not be in most babies best interests. If two parents decide that’s best for their set up that’s their decision but you seem to constantly be claiming tiny babies are regularly forced into these arrangements from a tiny age which is just not the case.

You are making up scenarios purely to argue your frankly ridiculous points
And you are making false assumptions. The case I mention is real and just one example. It might not fit your agenda, but that doesn't make them untrue.

The court DID impose 50/50 on a 9 months old baby because it DID consider it to be in their best interests.

I work with young mothers who are under the illusion that the court would agree they are the most important parent when their baby is young and are then completely shocked when the judge rules differently.

Nowadays, father are by default considered as able to parent a baby well as the mother, unless proven differently.

And yet they had sex…what could be more intimate…

Personally I think that it's in the best interests of a baby to have a mentally healthy mother. The fact that single mothers with no support exist doesn't mean we should have a race to the bottom.

Oh bless your sweet romantic soul!

They had a revenge/sympathy shag when both broken up with other people.

They are not close, do not have a relationship and have no shared history to help them through the exhausting and often traumatic periods of late pregnancy, birth and its aftermath, and early months of parenthood. Those are times that even strong and loving relationships are put to the test.

Unless a man is actively wanting to have a child with the woman he's shagging, he's an utter numpty not to wear a condom every single time.

When he's not bothered to take responsibility for that ("she was on the pill" is absolutely no excuse) he has to accept there may be a pregnancy and she will and must call the shots. Biology isn't concerned with 'fair'.

What do you think is, on balance, most likely to be in the best interests of a newborn baby?

A. For the mum to be to move back to her support system so that when the baby arrives she has plenty of support from people she knows and loves, with the baby’s dad perfectly able to move closer if he wishes to in order to be as active a coparent as possible.

B. For the mum to be to stay where she lives currently be two hours away from her support system purely so she lives closer to the baby’s dad, who she is not in a relationship with, barely knows and may or may not be a fantastic dad longer term - she has no way of knowing if he will be or not.

It sounds like he needs to focus on getting parental rights first, if he wants to be involved in raising the baby long term . He may not be able to be that involved at first but once he has a job and accommodation and the baby is older he can apply for a child arrangement order of they can't settle it between themselves. This may not be 50:50 but should allow enough time for both parents to build and maintain a relationship.

Your support as one of babys grandparents will be vital for him to be able to demonstrate he has a safe place to stay,

I think you are getting a really hard time OP. The girl is doing the right thing by moving closer to fed family for support. However, I can also see how your son is crushed at the thought of not being nearby to help. If he is really serious about being a good father he would move closer to where his child will be.

@SparklingTurquoiseOceanpresents a different point of view. Her arguments are valid. Her posts weren't outrageous—people are just overreacting.

35 years ago my BIL fathered a child with a casual acquaintance. They worked together but did not live together and were not in a committed relationship. Before the baby was born the mother moved two hours away to be close to her parents and did not consider how BIL would feel about that. He also did not drive at that time (he was 21, she was 19).

At the beginning, he had limited contact, always with the mother 'supervising'. He persevered with the little contact he was granted and made sure he could be available to any contact she offered, even if it was a little inconvenient for him and his work responsibilities. It went on like that for a few years. BIL's parents only saw their granddaughter when BIL started to be trusted to take his daughter out for the day without the mother being there.

Eventually, the mother understood that letting BIL take his daughter for the weekend including overnight or days out in the week actually helped her out with having some 'me' time so she became far more amenable to his support and help with raising their daughter separately. While his contact/bonding with his daughter was fractured at the beginning, it all started to become far better as time went on and emotions were not so high. BIL has said it wasn't easy in the beginning, but he persevered and never let the contact lapse, even though at times he nearly felt like giving up.

While the whole experience isn't what most co-parenting people want, it has not had a detrimental effect on BIL's daughter. In her early years, she had two homes, two holidays a year, two family gatherings and when both her mother and father married other people, she eventually became a big sister to several half brothers and sisters. She is now 35 years old and still has a great relationship with both parents and their 'separate' families and, of course, the grandparents did manage to be a big part of her life - sadly some of them no longer alive.

It can work well, but it takes time and consideration for all the parties involved. At the end of the day, it must be in the best interests of the child involved.

You are going to be the nightmare in-law, aren’t you?