Fair for him to oppose paying for dc in this context? (Please be kind)

[biwncs]

before I start I want to say I’ve NC as I am embarrassed by this and I know I do NOT smell of roses here. Please don’t post if it’s just to sling mud at me, i know I haven’t been perfect by a long way.

when I was 37 I panicked about wanting dc and my partner at the time was 40. He had pushed it back a year already but in fairness to him we hadn’t been together long, only two years. He would often make comments about wanting dc and where we would take them, what schools theyd go to etc. I came off the pill and didn’t say and although we also used condoms (we always have, we prefer it), I became pregnant. He was conflicted at the start but after a couple of weeks said it was up to me and he would support me either way. I asked if he wanted a termination a few times and he said no. So we carried on. Half way through the pregnancy I felt I had to tell him I had come off the pill. It was a horrible conversation understandably but we moved past it. A year or so later we broke up, since then my ex has refused to pay a penny and hasn’t spent any time with dc. He has no other kids and as far as I know not with anyone else. He tells me he shouldn’t have to pay as I made him have a dc. I now feel so conflicted about maintenance? I feel he was giving me all the signs he wanted us to have dc and I did openly discuss termination and he said no. But ultimately he’s right I came off the pill and didn’t say. I am so confused/sad as to what to do and what’s right. He doesn’t seem interested in dc either and i feel that’s on me, though I never ever had him down as someone who would abandon his child. I just don’t know what to do and feel he has a point regarding finance.

The circumstances of conception are irrelevant. His child is legally entitled to support from him. Even if you don’t want or need the money, put it aside for your child for when they are older.

She hasn't said.

This is the equivalent scenario with the roles reversed.

My point still stands. No one would be telling the woman tough luck, she should have known no contraception is foolproof, she should just suck it up and get on with it.

They would be telling her that stealthing/tampering with condoms is a crime (in more and more countries) and that he is a horrible controlling abuser. And for good reason.

The double standard is appaling

The man used condoms. A condom failed one way or another. Fault or misuse by him. There is a baby. The baby exists due to a failed condom. The baby needs food and shelter. The apparent ‘mental gymnastics’ on the thread is people ensuing the baby is supported.

No, it isn’t the equivalent scenario because a man purposely getting a woman pregnant without her consent is him choosing what happens inside her body. It’s not the same at all.

But you could also argue that the woman in that situation can abort and opt out of parenthood.

A man doesn't get a choice. The woman gets to decide his entire future. He's stuck with the consequences of her crime.

Which makes it even worse.

The woman can abort because she’s the one who gets to decide what happens to her own body.

The man’s choice is abstinence or potential parenthood.

there is nothing to suggest she tampered with a condom.

instead of making up your own version of what happened, why not stick to what you know? Explain why he is right not to pay money towards feeding, housing and clothing a baby he created after the condom he was using failed. Dont make up random scenarios. No whataboutery. Just why he is right to not financially or parentally support his child. In this situation. Why do you think he is right?

The end result is a pregnancy created against your wish. It is very much the same. Reproductive coercion by definition is both scenarios.

Except the woman can opt out. The man has no say after conception.

Spin it all you want, what OP did is despicable and should be illegal.

What crime?

No it isn’t - a pregnancy against the woman’s wish comes with many other complications for that woman. Either an abortion, or childbirth, plus all of the associated hormones/sickness/body changes.

Its absolutely not the same thing at all.

You were using condoms, he talked about wanting a child one day, the condom failed, you discussed termination, he said no. You had the baby. Yes he should be paying CMS.

You came off the pill without discussing - not great, but did he regularly ask if you were still on it? He was still using condoms so still covered. The pill wreaks havoc
to some women’s bodies. Many women would and do stop taking the pill if their DP was happy to use a condom every time.

You shouldn’t have lied, but he shouldn’t have lied/wound you up about him wanting kids, which schools etc and not followed through, nearly wasting your final fertile years.

Pills can fail too (eg if you have a vomiting bug and don’t keep it down, or go on holiday and forget).

Frankly, you should never have told him
you purposely stopped taking the pill - madness! But that ship has sailed now.

He could just have easily had a one-night-stand, condom failed, and now owe a different woman CMS.

Claim the CMS. It’s for your child.

Because OP used him as an unwilling sperm donor. She should have been prepared to pay for the baby that she decided to bring into existence. It was solely her choice and it is her responsibility to deal with it.

It isn’t though. The law disagrees - he has to pay for his kid.

OP won't say whether the condom simply failed or whether she helped it fail. Which is a real possibility.

Your assumption is just as likely as mine at this point. We just don't know.

So if he was not regularly asking OP if she was still on the pill it's his fault?

There's a defence force for everything it seems.

Regardless of whether what she did is a crime or not, the child is here.
And the father is responsible fir the child too.

Which is why he should pay CM. Or be the RP of the child if the OP is such an abuser (you wouldn’t leave the child with an abuser right?).
Except I doubt the father will ever be the RP so the least he should do FOR THE CHILD is pay CM.

Explain why he is right not to pay money towards feeding, housing and clothing a baby he created after the condom he was using failed.

Because whether or not the condom they were using failed, he was told that his sexual partner was on the pill, he trusted that was the truth as they had an established relationship, so had reasonable cause to believe that his chances of impregnating the OP were miniscule.

Why are you so sure that it was him that handled the condom?

Your comments make no sense in the context of OPs partner wearing condoms every time.

She wanted a child at some point in the near future, so she came off the pill - fine.

He wanted a child supposedly, but not yet, so he continued to wear condoms. Also fine.

It’s not just a woman’s responsibility to use contraceptives. It’s man and woman equally. For most couples one form of contraception is enough.

The condom failed. These things happen. Yes he still owes CMS. No, OP hasn't committed a crime. Stop projecting.

@GrasstrackGirl i know, right?

Soon he'll be to blame that he didn't personally watch OP swallow the pill every day, just to make sure.

The mental gymnastics here are something else 🙄

Minuscule? But not zero?

It is the child not the parent who has the right to child maintenance.

No one has explained what the child (not the mother) has done that should lose them the right to support from their other parent.

Do you not think that's been balanced by the boys and their protectors turning up as usual to give the OP a kicking, call her an abuser, and all the rest of the usual hyperbole they trot out whenever they see a thread where a woman has done wrong?
The OP isn't even excusing herself. She's posting from a place of guilt about her actions and asking whether in light of them she should forego CM. All these dramatics about what a wrong 'un she is are completely irrelevant. She already knows.

He was fine with relying on condoms as long as she was on the pill.

If he had known she no longer took the pill he would have been free to reassess his choices and pick abstinence or vasectomy or whatever. He could have made an informed choice.

OP took this option away from him. So no, he didn't knowingly accept the risk of condom failure. He accepted the risk of the pill and the condom failing at the same time, which is astronomically low.

This is not on him.

Yep.

That all the way.

That’s why the law says he should pay regardless.