Is it her business?

[FruitOnPizzaNoThanks]

Recently lost a pregnancy and have really struggled with feelings of embarrassment and loneliness.

I saw a few posts online about pregnancy loss awareness and how we need to be talking about it so people don't feel it has to be hidden and so with DHs consent I posted on social media that we have been through this and if anyone feels alone, they aren't and that I will be there to listen and talk to them if necessary.

I never put personal things on social media but I just felt like I should offer support because I really could have done with it when it was me.

Anyway, someone has screenshot it to husband's ex who he has a child with and she has messaged him to say we should have told her, she shouldn't have had to find out that way etc...

AIBU to think that actually no, we didn't have to tell her that I'd miscarried?

I'd understand if we announced we were having a baby but are we really obliged to share news of a pregnancy loss? It hasn't affected DC in any way. I went to the hospital with my mother so that DH could still have his contact day etc... I'm always very conscious not to be upset in their presence and other that the odd day where I've been 'poorly in bed' they have been none the wiser.

Both our families and close friends already knew.

And there will plenty of people piling in to agree with you too.

Because "it's none of her business" is too simplistic to be true. If it was a choice between NoHB and yes you should have told her, I'd choose the latter because my answer is closer to that than she doesn't need to know anything.

My answer is that in most cases, she should have already known a baby is on the cards.

Chilled you are confusing something affecting someone with it being their business. It might affect her tangentially but that doesn't mean she has any right to know what is going on with somebody's body. She is not in charge because it affects her - it affects me if someone tall stands in front of me at a concert but that doesn't mean I have any right to order them to move, even if I think they ought to.

You keep saying that the reason she should be told first is because it might cause maintenance or contact to change which would be unfair - which suggests you think her seeing something as unfair means she should get a say.

I'm sure we can all agree that it would be morally ideal if the previous financial agreement wasnt changed but that is up to the father to ensure, since both things are his business. You seem to think that her having the chance to say "no I wouldn't be able to afford M&S food if you did that" would actually make a woman whose reproductive activities she has no right to dictate go "oh right never mind then", because from your POV the exact level of maintenance remaining unchanged being more important is infallible and therefore it doesn't matter if their body autonomy is taken away from them because to you their view is just "wrong".

You considering yourself to have the moral highground in a situation does not automatically give you the right to control other people.

This isn't a question of whether it is morally right for a man to use what is at the end of the day his bodily autonomy to take on a new commitment when he already has one (as others have said this would be a different thread and is very much not appropriate here). This is a question of whether the ex has a God given right to know about their plans before they have even come to fruition and whilst they are still a delicate medical subject and, implied; whether she should have a say in them.

...and that's the problem with social media. Everyone then thinks they have a right to know everything. Lesson learned op.

I don't believe anyone should find things out via social media, I really don't. Whether it's an ex that is still connected or a grandparent, I don't believe social media is the way to find out sad or important news.

I think your DP should have quietly said at a drop off or pick up that you had miscarried.

My moto is if you see a person in real life, call them or message them ever, this is the way to tell them any news. If you don't, they can find out via social media.

If she was a disconnected ex and they had no children, of course she should just find out via social media but she is in the loop, I take it your DP and possibly you have face to face contact at times as well and if she needed to be told via someone else because she isn't on yours or your DP's social media, that is just a slap in the face to say she never needed to know. She possibly didn't need to know but strangers knowing over her, I think it's poor taste. If someone mentioned this to her at the school gate infront of the kids, that would be extremely awkward. Just because the kids are young and don't have social media, it doesn't mean it won't be mentioned to them or infront of them. Then in years to come when they do have social media, they could find out and wonder why strangers and acquaintances knew but their own mum and them never.

I think regarding pregnancy and things like this, being careful about what you post is a must, especially when there's 50/50 custody and other kids involved.

I think it was probably a shock as she had no idea and it was more of a 'you've seen me and never said, I don't get it'. I don't get it either to be honest

I’ve just re read the OP, and I’m really shocked and annoyed in equal measure about the ex thinking she has the right to be told about a miscarriage the op has suffered. As if you’d be straight on the phone to inform your partner’s ex
Close family and friends were told because they care about the op and were a support network for her no doubt. The the ex found out through social media like all other less important people, because nobody thought it was necessary to ring up and inform her. Which is normal and fine.

Chilled you are confusing something affecting someone with it being their business.

Once it affects that person, it becomes their business. What music I listen to is none of my neighbours business until I choose to broadcast it loudly all day.

It might affect her tangentially but that doesn't mean she has any right to know what is going on with somebody's body.

She doesn't have the right to know she miscarried but if money/contact will be affected by a new child, then the ex should have a heads up. Thats the right and grown up thing to do.

She is not in charge because it affects her - it affects me if someone tall stands in front of me at a concert but that doesn't mean I have any right to order them to move, even if I think they ought to.

Totally different. Someone standing on your foot would be more apt.

You keep saying that the reason she should be told first is because it might cause maintenance or contact to change which would be unfair - which suggests you think her seeing something as unfair means she should get a say

A say as in the ability to veto it? No. But if she has concerns about how the children will be supported post the new baby, she should have the opportunity to raise those with her co-parent before any thing that cannot be easily reversed takes place. In some circumstances, it might be best for it to be delayed or reconsidered altogether because the co-parent isn't meeting the needs of the existing children. Even if their new partner is under the belief that they are.

I'm sure we can all agree that it would be morally ideal

Not ideal. Right. That should be the only way forward.

if the previous financial agreement wasnt changed but that is up to the father to ensure, since both things are his business.

No I think the other future co-parent should be aware of the situation. Especially if they've been mislead in terms of their partner's support of their child(ren). It doesn't have to be the NP and the co-parent who tells the ex. The CP can do it themselves but they should definitely be honest about the nature of any concerns with their current partner.

You seem to think that her having the chance to say "no I wouldn't be able to afford M&S food if you did that" would actually make a woman whose reproductive activities she has no right to dictate go "oh right never mind then", because from your POV the exact level of maintenance remaining unchanged being more important is infallible and therefore it doesn't matter if their body autonomy is taken away from them because to you their view is just "wrong".

Yes I do hope that a woman would a) realise that reducing the pittance assigned by CM to have more babies is harmful to other women and b) would rethink a partner as a co-parent (and a partner) if they discover they are slacking as a parent to existing children.

In your pseudo rage, you mentioned M+S food. I wasnt saying I'd have to only shop in M+S, I just meant I'd have to get that type do food that you just stick in the oven as it is already cooked because I wouldn't have time to come home from work, get the kids and do dinner from scratch, bath and bed in a timely fashion alone, most nights.

You considering yourself to have the moral highground in a situation does not automatically give you the right to control other people.

You wanting a baby doesn't give you the right to reduce your support to the ones you made already or to enable another parent to do that.

This isn't a question of whether it is morally right for a man to use what is at the end of the day his bodily autonomy to take on a new commitment when he already has one (as others have said this would be a different thread and is very much not appropriate here).

I think it is pretty much that question actually.

This is a question of whether the ex has a God given right to know about their plans before they have even come to fruition and whilst they are still a delicate medical subject and, implied; whether she should have a say in them.
And the answer to that is yes, a co-parent who will have to pay/do more to make up for her co-parent having a second family does have the right to know in advance. Even though it's about other people's bodies. That's the consequence of having children with someone. Maybe rethink that decision if it grates on you to be restricted in that way. Plenty of fish in the sea without kids. Pick one of those.

Bookmark

Today 09:39minesagin37

...and that's the problem with social media. Everyone then thinks they have a right to know everything. Lesson learned op.

Bookmark

Today 10:51JenniferM1989

I don't believe anyone should find things out via social media, I really don't. Whether it's an ex that is still connected or a grandparent, I don't believe social media is the way to find out sad or important news.

I think your DP should have quietly said at a drop off or pick up that you had miscarried.

My moto is if you see a person in real life, call them or message them ever, this is the way to tell them any news. If you don't, they can find out via social media.

If she was a disconnected ex and they had no children, of course she should just find out via social media but she is in the loop, I take it your DP and possibly you have face to face contact at times as well and if she needed to be told via someone else because she isn't on yours or your DP's social media, that is just a slap in the face to say she never needed to know. She possibly didn't need to know but strangers knowing over her, I think it's poor taste. If someone mentioned this to her at the school gate infront of the kids, that would be extremely awkward. Just because the kids are young and don't have social media, it doesn't mean it won't be mentioned to them or infront of them. Then in years to come when they do have social media, they could find out and wonder why strangers and acquaintances knew but their own mum and them never.

I think regarding pregnancy and things like this, being careful about what you post is a must, especially when there's 50/50 custody and other kids involved.

I think it was probably a shock as she had no idea and it was more of a 'you've seen me and never said, I don't get it'. I don't get it either to be honest

Bookmark

Today 11:11funinthesun19

I’ve just re read the OP, and I’m really shocked and annoyed in equal measure about the ex thinking she has the right to be told about a miscarriage the op has suffered. As if you’d be straight on the phone to inform your partner’s ex hmm
Close family and friends were told because they care about the op and were a support network for her no doubt. The the ex found out through social media like all other less important people, because nobody thought it was necessary to ring up and inform her. Which is normal and fine.

Bookmark

FirstPrev
5
NextLast5
✕
ADVERTISEMENT

ChilledBee

Type your message here

Back to top

Oops.

ChilledBee

That was confusing but I get the gist.

The coparent does get warning - usually 6 or so months after the couple feels ready to announce the pregnancy. There is no need for them to know sooner because at the end of the day they simply have absolutely no right of veto so it makes no difference at all if they know during the planning stages, other than being an invasion of privacy. If the couple is happy to tell them they are TTC, that is fine, but it's not an obligation.

The reason I said it would be morally ideal if nothing changed from the previous set up is because it depends on the set up and on how rigidly you insist things cannot change at all (which I can tell from your post would be absolutely). A parent should always put the safety and security of their child over having another one, but in terms of luxuries that is entirely subjective. This is where "the manner in which they are accustomed" always comes out. Parents do not have to make all life decisions based on whether their kids will get to carry on doing things exactly as they are used to, many will make the decision to have another child knowing they may have to cut down on ballet lessons etc. If you are not together you will make those decisions separately so yes it can be a bitter pill to swallow if you are the other parent but the truth is you do have the choice to cut back on those luxuries if you cannot afford them, they are not essential, and if the other parent chooses to prioritise expanding their family over expensive hobbies for the older child then that is entirely their choice, that is a consequence of splitting. Your line in the sand for how many luxuries are a must may be different to theirs and as long as the child is always safe, that is life.

This is really not the time or place to discuss scenarios where the NRP cannot afford to keep both children in a safe and secure home, that is not the discussed scenario and I do think it's quite disrespectful to hijack a thread about whether an ex needs to be informed of a miscarriage that will never effect them to assume they must have been intending to put the other children on the streets.

The bottom line is they do not have the right to know the other parent is TTC because they do not have any right to control or influence it regardless of what they would choose, they have the right to take the parent to court to ensure their child gets what they are due, but no more. That is the consequence of having a child with somebody whose life choices you have no right to dictate. You cannot expect to prevent their circumstances from changing because you don't want yours to. Your wants are not theirs to live their life by, only the child's need for food and shelter.

I don't think it's very nice to discuss maintenance on a thread like this. The OP miscarried and would have told the ex she was having a baby and the kids had everything been ok.

I don't get the announcement on social media if there was no prior warning to the kids mum incase the kids get wind of it from the post but if there hadn't been a post, I don't think the OP was obligated to say a thing to anyone at all in private. We all assume people are delicate about these things but they're not. People gossip and the kids and/or their mum finding our via gossip just isn't very pleasant in my mind

You wanting a baby doesn't give you the right to reduce your support to the ones you made already

You know this isn't correct, much as you wish it where.

Legal right? Maybe. Moral right? No. Anyone who does this or enables it is a selfish scum bag.

ChilledBee, you say you have two children. I know you will probably say your eldest gets just as much money spent on them as just as much time spent on them as before, but the reality is they won’t. Once you have more than one child your resources will always be split more thinly. So why is that ok for you to do that to your child if you’re so big on existing children not missing out? Your eldest could have had more if you didn’t have a second child.

This is where "the manner in which they are accustomed" always comes out. Parents do not have to make all life decisions based on whether their kids will get to carry on doing things exactly as they are used to, many will make the decision to have another child knowing they may have to cut down on ballet lessons etc. If you are not together you will make those decisions separately so yes it can be a bitter pill to swallow if you are the other parent but the truth is you do have the choice to cut back on those luxuries if you cannot afford them, they are not essential, and if the other parent chooses to prioritise expanding their family over expensive hobbies for the older child then that is entirely their choice, that is a consequence of splitting. Your line in the sand for how many luxuries are a must may be different to theirs and as long as the child is always safe, that is life.*

This exactly.

You wanting a baby doesn't give you the right to reduce your support to the ones you made already

But this is exactly the scenario when any family adds another child to the mix; the money available per head goes down, even within the same home. Parents still try to provide as best as they can for their existing kids.

Just because someone chooses to have another baby doesn't mean they're happy to see their older kids lose out - no one would think that if the parents were together - most parents would still try their hardest to ensure nobody goes without. But as @aSofaNearYou says, there is no entitlement for children to be able to do ballet or other expensive hobbies or holidays or whatever, it's not a necessity and shouldn't stop parents expanding the family. If I were a parent in an intact family, something like that wouldn't stop me from having another child - these things aren't essential for a child to be happy. If we were talking about not being able to feed and clothe them then that's a different story!

But this is exactly the scenario when any family adds another child to the mix; the money available per head goes down, even within the same home. Parents still try to provide as best as they can for their existing kids.

Exactly this!

This isn't the thread for this debate please start a new thread. The op lost a pregnancy and asked a specific question.
This might be upsetting for. Op given the recent events of losing a pregnancy.
Hope your OK op.

I know it’s gone way off on a tangent this thread. Some posts I felt I had to respond to though because they are just beyond ridiculous and down right nasty.

But this is exactly the scenario when any family adds another child to the mix; the money available per head goes down, even within the same home. Parents still try to provide as best as they can for their existing kids.

Yes but that's a decision BOTH parents make together (hopefully) and share the consequences of that decision.

When you have another child so have to move away to a bigger house and reduce contact and/or reduce maintenance etc, it is the ex/co-parent who has to pick up for your decision with someone else. So I decide to have a child with my new boyfriend, Rick, and ex Hubby and RP of my kids, Norman, pays more of our 3 kids costs because my CM contribution is reduced now I've decided to have a second family.

The only way you can morally free yourself from having to inform an ex/RP is if you ensure that they won't be bearing any extra load as a result of your decision.

I don't think things like dancing/sport/music are just hobbies for kids. Some turn it into a career. Others use it to inspire and inform their life choices far beyond Sunday League Football. Hobbies are important to adults for a variety of reasons but in your formative years, extra curricular activities can enhance your outcomes considerably. Taking that away to spread yourself more thinly with more dependents isn't right. Sure, it might have to happen as part of splitting up but if it doesn't until you start investing elsewhere?

No it might just mean you have to shop at Asda instead of M&S. Boo boo.

Boo hoo

And what about when it's the decision of the remaining RP to split? They keep the house, the kids. The now NRP loses their relationship, home, time with their kids, possibly sees another person eventually move in with their kids. But none of that was what they wanted.

You're telling me that still they need to run it past the ex when they finally get another chance at happiness with someone else?

Or the ex might only be able to afford a 1 week holiday instead of a 2 week. Again, boo hoo. Let’s face it, the nrp having a baby isn’t going to mean everyone now eats beans on toast. The ex will just have to rethink luxuries. Nobody is saying hobbies have to stop. But that extra day out or that extra take away might have to stop.

Yes but that's a decision BOTH parents make together (hopefully) and share the consequences of that decision.

Yes but once they split they have to share the consequences of that decision. When a relationship ends both parties must know that they no longer have any say or influence over the other's life.

In the same way, the NRP has no way of influencing how the CM they provide is spent OR guaranteeing that the money is ring-fenced for their own children if the RP goes on to have further children themselves/gains some stepchildren.

No it might just mean you have to shop at Asda instead of M&S. Boo boo.

Buying several sets of quick cook food from anywhere is more expensive than cooking from scratch. M+S are just the kings of it and actually do family size meals which would be most feasible considering there would be 4 of us. Either way, my husband not helping with dinner time would end up more expensive to feed the kids.

You're telling me that still they need to run it past the ex when they finally get another chance at happiness with someone else?

Yes. Relationships break down. The commitment to kids doesn't. So yes, you've agreed to support your kids fully even if your partner dumps you

Or the ex might only be able to afford a 1 week holiday instead of a 2 week. Again, boo hoo. Let’s face it, the nrp having a baby isn’t going to mean everyone now eats beans on toast. The ex will just have to rethink luxuries. Nobody is saying hobbies have to stop. But that extra day out or that extra take away might have to stop.

It depends on exactly the case. Eg DH cousin found out that not only was her ex having a baby, they were going to officially live together which meant he could count her kids as dependents. So it was effectively as if he was having 3 babies at once and a significant amount of the peanuts he was giving.

Relationships break down. The commitment to kids doesn't. So yes, you've agreed to support your kids fully even if your partner dumps you

But why is the RP the one that gets to define 'fully'? It's likely that the NRP still wants to support their child fully even if they do need to drop the amount they pay into the child's other household in order to maintain their own.

Also a lot of the time NRPs aren't even consulted on clubs and hobbies the RP may sign their child up for as obviously the RP is free to use their money however they see fit. That's not to say they're not beneficial to the children, but at the same time I don't see why the NRP should be castigated for having to shift money back into their own home in order to continue paying for 'luxuries' (for want of a better word) that they didn't necessarily agree to in the first place.