Previously uninterested father of baby 'wants to talk'

[ArcaneAsylum]

I had a very casual relationship for a few months at the end of last year. He was sleeping with other women and I didn't want a relationship with him, so I ended it. Shortly after I found out I was pregnant. My immediate decision was that I wanted to keep the baby.

I told him this and his initial instinct was to say that he didn't want another child (he already has a daughter) and to accuse me of planning the pregnancy (I didn't). This didn't bother me as I didn't really expect full support.

However, he then escalated to barraging me with text messages trying to emotionally blackmail me into having an abortion with all sorts of rubbish. I refused to give into the pressure.

He then threatened to move away and change his name so that I could not force him to pay child maintenance. I gave him a chance to reflect and sent him a single message after the 12 week scan asking if he would accept some financial responsibility or if I should involve the CSA. There was no answer.

I accepted that he would not be a part of the baby's life and instead began to sort out my finances and future childcare so that I was prepared for when the baby comes.

He has now messaged me over a month later to ask for a meeting to discuss the baby. I have agreed but do not trust him. In my mind, he would have no contact with the baby and I was fine with that. I have agreed to meet because 1. He IS the father, regardless of whether I like him or not 2. It will be easier to have him willingly support his child than to involve the CSA.

I have been polite to him and answered some questions, but I am confused with some of what he has said. He asked for a picture of the pregnancy, so I sent him a copy of the scan pic. He then texted back to say no, he meant a picture of me pregnant (?!).

I said that I wasn't sure when I would be available to meet as I planned to move next week. He asked where and why, and I told him that I needed more space now that I was having a baby (I currently live in a one bed flat). He wanted to know who with and I told him it would just be me and baby. Next message asks if I have a boyfriend. I ignore this, so he asks again. I ask why it's relevant and he says that it is to him.

Now he is messaging me as if things were like they were back when we dated, asking me what I'm reading, that he has done this... Etc. I am soooo confused as to what on earth he is playing at considering his earlier behaviour. I am also suspicious as to why he has had a change of heart about the baby.

I know this is selfish, but I really was happy at the thought of being a single mum as I meant I wouldn't have to deal with him and would have the baby all to myself. I don't want him in the baby's life (even though he has a right to be involved) as he is a terrible role model- a serial womaniser who casually uses drugs and who publicly holds some very controversial views, not to mention his earlier behaviour.

I guess my question is (and thank you if you have actually read this far!), what do you think his motivations might be (I cannot work them out) and what should I say when I meet him?

Oh wow. It's like a stuck record :(

OP I don't think you need to justify yourself as you did above. But I would like you to think about this not as having a baby, but as having a child that will grow into an adult and have children of their own. The child's father will be involved with your child, as will his parents and family.

Your child will be entitled to be supported (and you should be too) but you need to understand that it will come with attachments. You will have to work very hard to ensure that your child's life is stable and that you have a backup in case something happens to you, healthwise, or financially.

I don't think anyone can generalise what this man or his family will or won't do. Seeing everything as a possibility is wise though.
I personally have no contact whatsover with DD's father or any of his family - that is the way he and I want it.

Child support is not for the benefit of the parent with care. As we all know, in most cases it does not even touch the sides. It is to try to help support the child. THE MONEY DOES NOT BELONG TO THE WOMAN. IT BELONGS TO THE CHILD. Why the everliving fuck would any sane and morally decent human being argue against a child, who in all likelihood won't have a loving and engaged father, being at least partially insulated against the financial implications of coming from a single parent household, if only from a financial perspective? The OP said she can manage. She didn't say she was loaded, or that uni fees (for example) were a cinch. Why, pray, should this man be allowed to curtail his own child's life chances, whatever the situation between the parents?

A child is not an adjunct to a parent. They're a person in their own right, with needs and best interests. People who cannot separate the needs of the child from the wishes and interests of the parents scare me. (This is most particularly the case when they are parents themselves.) Some money towards essentials (or saved against future university costs, for example) does not begin to compensate for having a loving and engaged father - which let's face it, this one is most unlikely to become. So you are already in the realms of limiting harm and loss. Yet some women on this thread are actually arguing that the needs and wants of the man should take pre-eminence over those of the child?

Okay then. You keep right on with judging the OP. Believe me, I'm judging you every scrap as vehemently.

I find your view that men can't "get rid of an erection" except by having sex rather worrying and the type of argument people used to use to justify rape.

I think Poppy needs to google "masturbation". It might open a whole new world. Along with the strange, novel concept that men are human beings, and not another species. Crazy thinking, I know, but some of them even have consciences and self-control and everything!

Poppy you are rather unpleasant!
Unexpectedly pregnant single woman coping brilliantly from what I can see & you use her mental health "problems" to beat her with? How kind!

midwife when did i use her mental health problems to beat her with? I didn't even know she had any last time I posted!

chipping
"I find your view that men can't "get rid of an erection" except by having sex rather worrying and the type of argument people used to use to justify rape."
---you have completely twisted my point, even quoting something I never said! I was trying to point out that men, at the point of having sex with a WILLING PERSON (FGS!) are unlikely to use higher brain at that point and take time to really consider all the risks. Biology is a very strong drive. -- then you somehow twist what I am saying into defending rape? my god!

OP, it sounds like you were not that willing...and the fact that he knew you were not on the pill and against termination...I'm going to admit I was wrong in this case.

Also, please note that when I made that point I was referring to a situation where a man believes the woman is on the pill or at least believes she would take morning after pill, not want to continue with a pregnancy if it DID happen as they are not in a relationship etc. In that situation I was trying to say it was unlikely for him to halt sex with a (willing) girl 'just incase' his presumptions were incorrect and. Again, biology/willing sex partner = v powerful.

Am alarmed at some peoples willingness to completely warp what I say and make a serious attack in suggestion I may use this argument to 'defend rape'. Very shady and bad form.

However in this case, OP has since said he always knew she was against termination (and perhaps morning after pill?) and always knew that she was not using any form of contraception, HE chose not to use contraception either on this occasion. So completely reasonable to expect a pregnancy that would NOT BE HALTED by contraception, a termination or morning after pill in this case.

arsenaltilidie

^If a man decides to have unprotected sex he runs the risk of becoming a father.
Equally a woman who decides to keep the baby against his wishes runs the risk of the father not contributing financially.^

This is different to a planned baby in which the father changes his mind. BOTH of you guys agreed to have unprotected sex but you decided to keep the baby at the risk he will not contribute financially.

Let this be the lesson to people to be carefully who they sleep with. Because at the end of the day women carry the most 'burden' of raising a child if the man decides to abscond.

Very good points. I am not a man, but the reason I presumed to come down on the side of the man in this situation is because it seems always the case on here that women see men who have sex, don't wish for the resulting pregnancy to continue, then still don't want any input into the child's life when it arrives, are flamed and demonised and the woman in the situation is always the victim.

The fact is - most often it IS the women who are left 'holding the baby', men CAN walk away from being a father much more easily, and a lot do if they were never 'for' the pregnancy. This is something which most women know and should equally take into consideration when they have sex.

I just get a bit fed up of it always being the man who immediately gets demonised in these situations even when posters don't know full facts, so I want to point out the 'other side' of the argument.

(This is a general point, not aimed at OP's situation which she clarified in her last post)

but arsenaltilidie makes good points, equally for both mothers and fathers.

I personally have no contact whatsover with DD's father or any of his family - that is the way he and I want it.

But is that the way your DD wants it?

Poppy, if your social skills are so lacking that you think a Relationships post on a sensitive and complex issue affecting a real live human being looking for support is the right place to hector, lecture and pontificate in a general and unpleasant manner, then please, carry on. Not like it matters if you upset or hurt anyone with your apparent posting cluelessness, is it?

And again, because you conveniently sidestepped the issue: this is not about the man, or the woman. It's about the rights of the child. If you think the man's rights are more important then IMO you can have nothing of interest to share, really.

What a mess.

Quite why both parties who were at the tail end of a ?very casual relationship? did not use any form of contraception is beyond me. The bloke should have used condoms and not assumed the OP was on the pill, the OP should have made him wear them if she knew she was not on the pill, failing that, as an extreme last resort she should not have let him cum inside her. Both people here have shown appalling lack of judgment, I have little sympathy for either party.

Poppy, I am a bloke and I find the notion that whilst in a state of sexual arousal with a willing partner I am unable to control myself, or as you put it ?unlikely to use higher brain? offensive as it is ridicules. I have had condoms split on me before while close to the point of orgasm and believe me the notion of dealing with an unplanned pregnancy was plenty enough incentive to stop what I was doing, replace the split condom before continuing. Its really not that difficult.

Am alarmed at some peoples willingness to completely warp what I say and make a serious attack in suggestion I may use this argument to 'defend rape'. Very shady and bad form.

Can I suggest that you take some responsibility for your own careless posting? If you don't choose your words carefully enough and come alarmingly close to claiming men are a prey to urges and can't be blamed for their actions when in thrall to those urges, you cannot seriously be clutching your virtual pearls when that stance is questioned? Attacking the person who expresses strong concern at any such standpoint is perhaps - what was the phrase? - oh yes: shady and bad form

Your posting appals me, to be honest. Unkind, judgemental and wholly lacking in concern for the child.

poppyslemons Also, please note that when I made that point I was referring to a situation where a man believes the woman is on the pill or at least believes she would take morning after pill, not want to continue with a pregnancy if it DID happen as they are not in a relationship etc. In that situation I was trying to say it was unlikely for him to halt sex with a (willing) girl 'just incase' his presumptions were incorrect and. Again, biology/willing sex partner = v powerful.

Right, I just want to clear up this point, so the man can act how he wants due to the biological drive to want sex, he can make all the assumptions he wants and take no responsibility at all for his own fertility? That is fine it is the fault of biology lets feel sorry for him and that nasty nasty sperm thief woman. No mention of the woman's biological drive, I know a couple of women who had unplanned pregnancies and found the idea of abortion became abhorrent when the protective instinct kicked in fast. None of us know how we are going to react until we are in that situation. But they're just women so who cares? Men's biological urges are clearly far more important to ours. I seriously hope you aren't raising children with that kind of abhorrent attitude.

In the few cases I have known where there are unplanned pregnancies and the guy is trying to bully the woman into terminating you always here the same thing I thought she was on the pill its never but we used a condom.

Good luck ArcaneAsylum and I wish you well with your pregnancy.

OP, a good friend of mine had a baby last year in similar circumstances - going out with a guy for a couple of months, got pregnant, he told her to have an abortion, denied it was his, then harassed her for months - at 8 1/2 months pregnant she was spending the day in court getting a court order against him.

He is now taking her to court to get parental responsibility. It is a thinly veiled attempt to further harass her and cause her pain. She rues the day she ever told him she was pregnant. If he gets parental responsibility, my friend will be forced to keep him updated about medical issues, the child's education (and he could object to choice of schools), he will have a say in his religious upbringing, and could try to have the baby for overnight visits. He is from another country, so we are really concerned he will try to abduct the baby, just to punish my friend.

My advice would be to move, don't let him know where you are (even to the point of not going on the electoral register etc), and get on with your life with your baby.

Yes, he should be contributing towards the baby, but if he is made to pay, there is every likelihood he will do his damnest to make you pay for that decision. Sorry to sound alarmist, but I wish to goodness my friend wasn't going through this.

Good luck.

I totally agree that there is shared responsibility here, even with contraception their is a risk of pregnancy and most people know this, so the whole 'you trapped me bla bla bla is crap.

However, before when you listed all of his bad traits I couldn't help thinking why did you risk having a baby with such an awful person then? Not being funny just linking to the above argument.

you sound like you will be a good mum though.

Good posts tony men are just as responsible for their fertility and cash choose to use a condom, if they don't they have to accept they are risking s pregnancy and even if they do use one it can fail.

Funny dp and I have been together 15yrs and mainly use condoms as I don't like the pill, he has managed in all this time to control himself! Its really not that hard!

Re risking preg the op mentioned infertility so has been told she couldn't get preg or it was highly unlikely so I can see why you may take a risk tho it still isn't a smart thing to do. She is however taking on the responsibility of her actions which is more than can be said for the man in this situation!

Oh dear. He's acting like an ass but I feel terribly sorry for him. I can only imagine how I would feel in his situation and it wouldn't be good. I think you need to be patient with him. It is his child and the situation is being forced on him. It sounds from his bad behaviour that he does care (rather than just ignoring it all) and I suspect that he will be in your lives either sporadically or otherwise, forever more so I would be careful not to make relations any worse than necessary. Just try to see his perspective and ignore his emotional anger where possible now and hopefully he accepts the situation and behaves better soon.

Flipsake, i'm totally pro-choice, but I think it's vile to expect a woman to have an abortion because the father doesn't want the child. If the father has unprotected sex he can't have a licence to excuse himself from fatherhood on the grounds that 'she should have had an abortion'.

On the one hand I'm rolling my eyes at poppy's concern for men that they could get 'caught out' from having unprotected sex, but she is right in one respect, the script does seem to be that fertility is a woman's issue. it's hers to control. HIS is not the issue and if she conceives it's her fault, and a baby is then her burden because she chose not to have an abortion!!!!!

like i say, i'm pro-choice, but the availability of abortion should not be a get out clause for men. They shouldn't have to wear a condom because abortion exists?!!? please.

and another one from droflove Evidently men do need to be reminded that sex without contraception can lead to a pregnancy.

/reading back this thread, it's clear that the script in society is that women are about 80% responsible for conceiving and men are only about 20% responsible. The single mother in these circumstances will almost certainly give more time, effort, love, money into parenthood but yet people feel sorry for the father who put his sperm into a woman and then called her a sperm thief.

Some of these responses... I don't know, I don't really have the words. Droflove, have you even read the thread? He chose to have unprotected sex (actually he harrassed the OP for it) and now he is being asked to take his share of the financial responsibility for the child he made. How is this any reason to feel "terribly sorry" for him or to excuse his appalling behaviour?

ArcaneAsylum, I hope you can take what's helpful from the thread and ignore the rest.

Arcane, yes, sorry your thread turned into a debate!!!

Sorry Arcane - feel I have to respond to Wondering: I think my DD would not want me to have contact with a man who spent over a year trying to convince me I have mental issues and was being a spoilt brat because he didn't want to pay for his child. I am a happier and better parent without him being in my life, which is better for DD. She has the choice to meet him when she is older and as I said I would never stop him seeing her if he actually wanted to. He doesn't.