DP wants to go on new DC's BC

[Jackieharris]

He has just raised this out of the blue.

He isn't on our eldest DC's bc. That's never caused a problem. Now he's saying he wants that changed too.

I know this is 'normal practice' (hence posting on fwr not aibu/chat/parenting/relationships) but it's made me really anxious.

It came so out of the blue, I didn't have much of a response prepared. I said it hadn't caused any problems so why change. I said I didn't want to give up my exclusive rights. He said why and I gave the hypothetical scenario of him running off with a younger woman then being able to restrict where I live etc after a split.

He knew about my stance on this before we had dc1. He knows I had a very bad relationship experience before him (life threatening violence, stalking and breaking into new house after break up type stuff) so I just won't ever feel 100% safe with any man ever and need to have the security that I could escape if that happened again. From my PoV if he was on bc he could potentially use this power to continue to abuse me even if I left. (So many threads like that on relationships board and I know some irl examples too)

As long as he was never violent I'd always let him have fair access to dcs so I said to him why does he want it unless he doesn't trust me?

I'm now going to be constantly worried he'll bring it up again. Maybe he won't. I'll not mention it if he doesn't.

And also, I don't know anything about the OP's family arrangements other than what she has said on this thread, but as you have multiple incorrect claims about the contents of one post I made, I am not going to trust your account of the OP's comments elsewhere without lengthy, in context quotes of the OP's own words.

I think you finding other info on her and making out she is saying things to deceive posters on this thread is very close to troll hunting.

Not troll hunting at all as I don't believe the OP is a troll so stop trying to use that one to get me deleted.

AS is not against the rules and I have not made reference to specific threads but I do think it is important that the whole picture is seen. I do think it is important that the family set up is known such as the OP being the main wage earner and the DP being the SAHP especially when some posters on this thread were talking oppression by males.

The OP has come across as one of the most controlling and selfish people I have seen on this site. It is fundamentally wrong to keep a non-abusive and responsible parent off the birth certificate.
He has a legal right to be on that certificate, as shown by the fact he can go through the court.
I would advise the OP's DP to LTB and get access through the court. I wouldn't want to stay in a relationship with anyone like this, regardless of their history.

I made four references to the OP's actions potentially being abusive, with a particular focus on finances and childcare, and only one mention of potential
abuse from the partner. You can go back and look for the word abuse and which actions it is connected to - the request and mental health, or the denial of the request.

And I now have to go and finish the thing I actually stayed up tonight to do.

No you made those reference as if the DP was the breadwinner. You can say what you like almond but I have read your post 4 times now and you speak as if the DP is the aggressor and not the OP.

No, I referred to Jackie as you throughout the whole post, including in the discussion of being the breadwinner. I always referred to the partner as he, him or I. I only used you to refer to someone other than Jackie once, when I was talking about partners of pregnant people in general. In the whole paragraph on the breadwinner, I referred to Jackie as you and the partner as he.

What is this, a basic comprehension exercise?

I disagree about a child's identity being tied up with a legal document. The OP's children are perfectly aware of who their father is. Not having his name on the birth cert is irrelevant. In fact there are still many people in the world who do not have any birth certs and a hundred years ago, many people in the UK didn't bother to register their children's births.

OP, as I understand, he wants his name put on the birth certificates. You told him you did not want that because you didn’t want to give up exclusive rights, giving him a hypothetical of his leaving you for another woman, thus restricting your capacity to relocate in the future due to shared custody.

While that is what you relate telling him you then bring up concerns to the thread about future possible violence and manipulation on his part. Why were these not the concerns you talked to him about? He may 'know your past' but that does not tell us to what extent he understands your past or how it affects your present outlook. Perhaps he may not be able to fully relate or underestimates how you feel or perhaps you have tried to insulate him. It seems to me that what you told him in the spur of the moment was more a cover story, not the chief concern you really felt.

Also, I think bringing up possible future infidelity of a partner is like a punch in the guts to them. The more the partner loves and is committed to you, the harder is the blow to them. I think deep inside many people understand this and I think it can be delivered out of either spite (a real punch in the guts) or insecurity (I push you away to see if you come back).

Coyoacan your points are irrelevant-particularly about what would have happened a hundred years ago.

Outself If you don't want to be quoted back then perhaps you should not have chosen to set your own agenda of generalising about all men. In any case one of the reasons OP gave was he might leave her for another woman - nothing to do with fear of violence. OP presumably thinks omitting him from the BC will make it more difficult for him to see his children if they separate.

Not having his name on the birth cert is irrelevant. In fact there are still many people in the world who do not have any birth certs and a hundred years ago, many people in the UK didn't bother to register their children's births.

Did i just read that ??

Jackie, I hope you're doing okay.

Nolim, that was clearly in the context of not being on the birth certificate not meaning, in this case, that the children didn't know who their father was.

Regina, almond clearly used "if" throughout her posts.

This thread has become an unpleasant nitpicking pile on. It's completely outside the ethos of MN and I hope OP has hidden it now. As for huffing about why OP chose to post here not AIBU - (a) people can post where they want and (b) it's hardly protected her from some very robust opinions, has it?

Good point, Blis.

OP, I'm going to hide this now but in case you haven't too, look after yourself and good luck with your pregnancy.

The Op doesnthe want father's name on BBC as she wants exclusive rights to her children, but it is clear that the father can legally get his PR recognised .
Has she considered the alternative scenario ?

If her DP decides to leave, how easy will it be for her to pursue for child support from a man who is not recognised as their father?

This isn't a feminist issue.

The control you believe you have OP is an illusion. You should seek counselling as your behaviour isn't fair or right.

The OP doesn't claim that's she behaving fairly. I suspect that she knows that leaving her DP off the birth certificate only gives the illusion that she has some degree of control. Her issue is that she needs that illusion right now.

Her DP has previously agreed to it and now, when she's pregnant and feeling vulnerable, he's asked to change everything around and for her to sacrifice something (illusion or otherwise) that means something to her.

Given her previous history, it's no wonder that this change in stance, at this particular time, has thrown her off balance and left her wondering what has changed.

I would agree that the sensible thing to do is to talk about it and reach a consensus that both of them are happy with but right now, him foregoing his name on the birth certificate, even if just a temporary measure, would give the OP the assurance she needs. Perhaps a little bit of understanding of her issues and constructive advice would have enabled her to see matters differently.

It really isn't difficult to offer support to someone who is struggling even if you disagree with their actions. Giving an OP space to explore her thoughts and feelings on this issue without being condemned and judged would have been helpful but as always, there are some who simply like to hear their own voices or to point score.

Mrs DV, no one expects for you and your husband to have that relationship, it's not quite the same thing. Heterosexual relationships are the norm.

Women aren't always the most vulnerable person in the relationship, agreed. I don't think I said that and didn't mean to say it. I was trying to speak to a comment that women as a class are at risk from men as a class, hence the reason you'd say that a woman was living with her oppressor, but not a man, in a herosexual, but clearly not mixed ethnicity, background

Lass, I did not say all those things, Regina mixed and matched a number of posts, many of them qualifying or explaining things or ideas challenged or overlooked by a number of posters. I call bad faith.

Nor did I make generalisations about all men. I talked about male power, privilege and violence. They are not generalisations about all men but society level observations about men as a class.

By "norm' I meant that it's what is expected of you, people don't expect you necessarily to take up with someone with a different ethnic background. Sure you can choose not to fulfill the heterosexual norm, just as you can marry someone with a different ethnicity but both of those choices have potential (really unfair and unpleasant) social consequences.

Outs it's true that nobody expects Mrs DV personally to have that relationship but society does very much expect black people to deal closely with, live near or with, and engage with white people- in a system that white people used to oppress them for hundreds of years. I think that's the point Mrs DV was making (correct me if I'm wrong!) - that it is not just women who have to deal closely with the very people who oppressed them.

Oh right, I did focus on the personal relationship there Shaska. In the sense you say, and probably MrsDV means? absolutely, my misunderstanding, sorry both

Good post Blistory.

I just want to restate that I think it's possible to discuss this in a kind and supportive way and all of my posts have been in services to why we might give OP a bit of a break, arguing for why she might see the situation as she does. I have not been saying her decision is right but that it has a context.

"Why is he not allowed to change his mind?"

He is. And she is allowed not to change hers. Does possession of a dick give him the power of veto? Of course not.

He agreed to something. He now changes his mind. She hasn't. If compromise can't be reached someone has to give in and in my mind that should be the person who agreed the deal in the first place.

I think the majority of posters could see why she feels the way she does. She made it quite clear what she had been through. I don't think context needed pointing out. However what posters then did was say she was wrong. Yes they have empathy and sympathy for her situation but they are allowed to say they think she is wrong and why they think that.

The OP stated she wasn't interested in peoples opinions she was dismissive and rude to posters exclaiming that all the feminists were missing from FWR Which implies she came on here hoping to get a different reaction saying it as a feminist issue when it clearly is not. OP only wanted validation she did not want to discuss it or see it from her DP's point of view. All she wanted was for the majority to blindly agree with her under the guise of this being about feminism.

I wonder if the op will ever come back?