@LittleMissB83 I'm sorry if my comments about the paternity test offended you. I'm going off your original post, in which you said that the pregnancy was unplanned, and you were not in a serious relationship with the dad. That's all I have to go off when commenting, and I suspect there would be plenty of people who would want assurance that a child was theirs if conceived outside a committed, serious relationship. Only you and he know what that relationship looks like in practice - I'm just offering you a perspective based on the way you described the relationship, and encouraging you to put yourself in the shoes of the father here. It is clear that you are 100% confident of parentage, but it is also clear that he is not, given his request for a paternity test. The best advice I can give you here is to recognise his need for that reassurance, and that he may be cautious about forming too close a bond or committing large sums of money until he is also 100% certain of parentage. None of which excuses his running away part way through the pregnancy, which is not the act of a decent man.
Your question about why I would assume that the involvement of a Dad is beneficial is an important one. There is a wealth of scientific evidence that children with involved fathers have better life chances. Generally, they:
- are less likely to live in poverty
- perform better in school
- have higher levels of self-confidence, and lower rates of anxiety
- are less likely to offend or spend time in prison
- are less likely to abuse drugs or alcohol
- are less likely to be sexually active as teenagers
If you need convincing, you may want to try googling social research providing scientific evidence of the impact upon children of paternal involvement. There are some really good, scientifically robust studies out there.
Given all of that evidence, the default assumption should always be that having an involved father is in a child's best interests. That's why family courts go to great lengths to ensure that fathers are given the opportunity to be involved, and it is why they take a very strong line with mothers who attempt to cut the father out of the child's life, or who use the child as a financial bargaining chip.
Of course, there can be individual factors that mean some individuals do not have those positive effects on their children, or who can be actively harmful to the child's wellbeing. Abusive fathers buck the rule - it can be in the child's best interests to not have involvement. You describe the father as narcissistic and erratic, but none of us know the specifics. A family court would start from the same basic assumption that I have - that the involvement of a father is a positive thing, unless there is a very compelling reason and evidence as to why he shouldn't be involved.
You say I'm not suggesting something different to you.I would argue that I'm suggesting something very different - a massive shift in the way you look on the father, and therefore the way you engage with him. Everything you said was about you - how you didn't enjoy spending time with him, and how it was inconvenient for you to arrange contact. I'm urging you to set that aside, and focus on the best interests of your child instead. That would change your whole mindset, and the whole tone of your engagement with the father. And I'm saying he needs to put the child's interests first as well - it's about both of you coming at this with the right attitude.
That advice is not about any axe that I have to grind - it comes from a hard-won perspective of always approaching disputes with the mother of my children from the perspective of their best interests. Not hers, and not mine. If you ask for advice on here, you have the benefit of listening to people who have been through that difficult journey and come out the other side. It is up to you whether or not you heed any of that advice.