pushy father

Justask

LifesgoodwithLG wrote: »

Seriously ? You would be absolutely slating any guy who had sex with a woman and than said ah well it wa her responsibility not to get pregnant, she'll know better the next time. Come on folks a bit of even handiness here.

The OP appears to be doing her best here to be fair to herself, her ex and also the baby. I think that she has to be very strong and stick to her sentiment that no they will get never get back together however without the threat of violence the baby has a right to know both their father and mother. Best of luck OP I am sure that you are going to be a fab Mammy.

I think you are missing the point here.
Poster means if he planed it he didnt plan it very well

LifesgoodwithLG

Your post could be taken in two ways, I accept that you meant he will be more knowledgable next time however are we suggesting that you only have sex with people that you have a legally binding relationship? If we go back to the OPs statement she wants her child to have their father in their life however does not want to be involved with him as more than being the joint parents of their child.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

And I think people are throwing around the word 'rights' without any understanding of what it actually means.

Keep me out of such accusations (if they're directed also at me) - what I wrote specifically stated that I was ignoring the issue of rights.

Also while I mentioned some were suggesting that he be cut out of the child's life, I didn't imply you.

pwurple

sillysmiles wrote: »

But clearly ignoring that he is the child's father and deserves to have a role in the child's life.

I am not bothered whether he deserves anything or not. He could be an axe murderer, or a saint for all I know.

All I'm saying is it is entirely up to the OP. She has all the rights and choice here. The decision is all in her hands. He has no rights until she deems it appropriate to give them to him.

*That's* the position he has gotten himself into... and should have known better about.

I'm not making any ethical judgements about who should have slept with who... it's none of my business, we all have sex for goodness sake. I'm just saying it's the current situation. He has no rights, she has them all.

LifesgoodwithLG

In everything there are legal and moral rights and also responsibilities,

I firmly believe that a baby should have the right to know their mother and father, where there is any threat of violence or aggression then the person may forfeit their rights. You are 100% correct in saying that an 'unmarried father' does not have any legal rights over his child, even with putting their name on their birth cert. Although legally accurate, that does not make it it 'right' or just for anyone especially the child.

It goes without saying OP you have to protect yourself and your family, best of luck with the rest of your pregnancy.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

I'm just saying it's the current situation. He has no rights, she has them all.

Terribly depressing reading if you male.

Makes you want to give up on relationships altogether and just do a Ricky Martin if you want kids; IVF, doner egg, surrogate and papers can all be done for under €70k. I've been to weddings that cost more than that.

Anyhow, now I'll shut up again.

solas111

LifesgoodwithLG wrote: »

You are 100% correct in saying that an 'unmarried father' does not have any legal rights over his child, even with putting their name on their birth cert.

I heard this very subject being discussed by a reputable solicitor on a radio programme this morning and it appears that the ‘unmarried father’ does indeed have some rights. He can apply to a court (can’t recall if it was the District or Circuit Court) to be named as the father on the birth certificate. It is then up to the mother to accept or contest the action. If she contests it will probably go to DNA testing.

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

Terribly depressing reading if you male.

Makes you want to give up on relationships altogether and just do a Ricky Martin if you want kids; IVF, doner egg, surrogate and papers can all be done for under €70k. I've been to weddings that cost more than that.

Anyhow, now I'll shut up again.

Yup, afraid so. Unless you are commited enough to eachother to give marriage a go. Get more rights by default then.

I am all in favour of increasing mens access / rights to their children though. And paternity leave. They get a raw deal all around.

nesf

pwurple wrote: »

But he got someone pregnant without being connected to her legally. If he knew what he was doing and did it deliberately, then he was a fool. If he didn't, it's hard luck. He might know better next time.

Are you serious? Are you actually saying that if my now wife had decided she didn't want me in our son's life that I should just go "hard luck for me, ah well better marry them before having sex next time?" Seriously, please tell me I've completely misinterpreted you and that you don't think an unmarried father's right to access to their children is wholly and completely dependent on the mother's whim.

Sorry, missed your last post.

number66

Sounds like a very distressing situation. You might want to start keeping a diary of any harrassment or incedents incase you have to get the law involved at a later date.

Regards

pwurple

nesf wrote: »

Seriously, please tell me I've completely misinterpreted you and that you don't think an unmarried father's right to access to their children is wholly and completely dependent on the mother's whim.

Can I ask, Why bother writing it with a strikethrough?

Anyway, I don't just think it, I know it to be the way the legal system works. It's the way it is. Some men get a big surprise when the things go sour and the woman takes away the kids. But, they didn't protect their interests from the start and left themselves in a vulnerable position. Hindsight is 20:20 I guess. I can only assume they are blissfully oblivious to the potential consequences, which ruin many unfortunate men's lives.

nesf

pwurple wrote: »

Can I ask, Why bother writing it with a strikethrough?

That was my post, then I saw your posts clarifying your position so I went back and edited it but because it had been live as a post for a bit I struck it through instead of deleting it.

AK333

From what I have read on a few of the OP's posts she is fearful. Afraid of him when with him and he tries to hug her/touch her hand and afraid of what her ex would do if she told him she didn't want any contact with him.

Get out of this situation immediately. Nobody has the right to threaten you, either physically or by implication. If you were my daughter I would face him with you, tell him its over and not to contact you again, under any circumstances.

Space would give you a chance to weigh up your options. Don't feel forced into a situation if its not what you want.

Good luck

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

But, they didn't protect their interests from the start and left themselves in a vulnerable position.

There's not much a man can do to protect their 'interests'.

If married to the woman, the man already has guardianship rights, and there's not much more he can do. If not and in a relationship with the woman, he can apply for guardianship rights, ideally while they're still together and she'll agree to it. If not and not in a relationship (one night stand, casual or short term relationship) then he can still apply for guardianship rights, even if she opposes them, and will more than likely get them, unless he has a criminal record.

And guardianship rights are not much use - better than nothing, I grant you, but ultimately most of the 'rights' they afford are not actually enforced and have little baring on things such as the access.

AK333 wrote: »

Get out of this situation immediately. Nobody has the right to threaten you, either physically or by implication. If you were my daughter I would face him with you, tell him its over and not to contact you again, under any circumstances.

By that logic, a man who's ex is equally and aggressively obsessed with 'making the relationship work' should also cut all contact to both her and his child? Is that what you're suggesting?

DoctorBoo

Several things about your post worry me; you don't feel safe with him, his changes in behaviour depending on the situation or company, his ignoring your desires. These are very worrying characteristics and indicate a manipulative person.

I know you might be dwelling a lot on whether he did it on purpose or not, whether he really is in love with you or not... but I think the most important thing to focus on is how he is trying to control you, your family and the situation. He seems good at it. Ask yourself: would a person who loved and respected you constantly ignore your wishes? Would someone who loved and respected you touch you if he knew it made you uncomfortable? Would someone who loved and respected you put you under such enormous pressure when you are pregnant? I think the answer has to be no. Therefore he either doesn't love you or respect you (or both).

You say you often put others' needs ahead of your own. He knows this and it seems to me he might be trying to take advantage of this trait in you. You need to look after yourself and your baby. You seem like a fair-minded person so I have no doubt that any decision you come to will be considered and responsible. But I think you should trust your instinct on this. If you don't feel safe, i believe there is a genuine and valid reason for it.

Best of luck and be strong.

AK333

The Corinthian wrote: »

By that logic, a man who's ex is equally and aggressively obsessed with 'making the relationship work' should also cut all contact to both her and his child? Is that what you're suggesting?

Don't be ridiculous. The way I read the first post is that the op has asked for help with her situation, not the ins and outs of the legal rights of her ex.

She said she is fearful, she said she is afraid of his reaction if she breaks contact. Nobody should pursue anyone agressively or obsessively and if she's afraid of him, yes she should cut all contact - gives all parties a chance to step back and have a look at the situation.

The child, IMO, doesn't come into it at the moment - she's still pregnant so there is no "cutting all contact to both her and his child" - the child isn't born.

We are not talking hypotheticals here - this young vulnerable (IMO) girl is looking for information and she is afraid - she comes first.

See the above post of Doctorboo - we have to think of the welfare of this young woman first.

The Corinthian

AK333 wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. The way I read the first post is that the op has asked for help with her situation, not the ins and outs of the legal rights of her ex.

What's legal rights got to do with what I wrote. It's pretty clear he has none.

She said she is fearful, she said she is afraid of his reaction if she breaks contact. Nobody should pursue anyone agressively or obsessively and if she's afraid of him, yes she should cut all contact - gives all parties a chance to step back and have a look at the situation.

Not what you wrote though; "tell him its over and not to contact you again, under any circumstances" isn't exactly a chance to step back, is it?

Now, if you meant to temporarily cut all contact, or even use only a third party for future contact, then fair enough, but I was responding to what you wrote.

We are not talking hypotheticals here

To a great degree we are talking hypotheticals, even the OP is uncertain of the full story and while the man in question seems to be harassing her and making her feel extremely uncomfortable, painting him a dangerous enough to warrant such drastic action as permanently cutting him out has simply not been done by her - only by others jumping to hypothetical conclusions.

Indeed, if we want to talk about vulnerable, he's actually far more vulnerable than her; he has no legal rights and could well be deported, from what we've understood. Or the child who would end up growing up without contact with the father, not because he may be a real danger to anyone, but because of his present harassment.

Which brings me back to my question; reverse the genders and would you advise the same drastic measures? If not, then you're just giving chauvinistic advice.

See the above post of Doctorboo - we have to think of the welfare of this young woman first.

Certainly not to the exclusion of the welfare of the other parties involved, and in fairness the OP is far more balanced in this regard. Even Doctorboo didn't go as far as you.

CelticRambler

Listen, the OP has asked for advice on her situation, not a squabble over what is and isn't a legal right. Take that debate off to another thread or any useful suggestions will get lost in the mess.

@OP: It is impressive that you respect your unborn child's feelings enough to want to give him/her a chance to know her father. You need to insist that the father earns that chance. I would say that you should follow the suggestion above to prepare a list of what the baby/toddler is going to need after he/she is born, then arrange to meet with the father formally with someone neutral (not your mother!) and lay it out for him
1. Between now and when the baby is born, he is to leave you alone - no calls, no texts, no e-mails, no surprise visits
2. You'll send him copies of the scans and any relevant news
3. If - and ONLY IF - he follows N°1, you'll tell him of the birth asap and (barring complications) let him visit within 48 hours.
4. If he's cooperated completely up until then, you'll sit down with him and talk about what kind of shared parenting might be possible.

I came to this thread after the father's nationality was edited out, but the simple reference to that and the comment about an expired visa immediately stood out for me. Without knowing the nationality, it's hard to form an opinion, but I would be worried about a future "unlawful retention" situation if the father is sent back to his home country.

The Corinthian

CelticRambler wrote: »

Listen, the OP has asked for advice on her situation, not a squabble over what is and isn't a legal right.

What's legal rights got to do with any 'squabble' here?

misspumpqueen

hi, op here, I dont really know how to start off this post, but here goes. I never meant for this to get into a debate about who has what rights n who doesn't. I posted this because I wanted to see had any else had any experiences of something like this and what they did if they had. So far the posts have been extremely helpful n its great to get so much feedback. First of all, if I'm honest I have very little idea of what rights the father does have n doesn't have. I've read up information on citizens info website n it says that the unmarried father has no guardianship rights unless the mother gives them to him. As far as it goes in this situation, I won't be giving him any guardianship rights until he proves to me he can be a responsible parent without hassling me. You may disagree with this, but as I said in my last post only I know what he is really like. It is very confusing as the baby isn't born yet, hopefully when she is, it will become clearer. Some of the suggestions to get out of the situation are very tempting,but I do want to at least try, for the sake of the baby.
He is still hassling me. Last week he sent me a text saying he loved me n I told him maybe we should stop talking so he can move on, surprisingly he agreed but I knew deep down that wouldn't be it. Yesterday I got a text from him asking can we talk about the baby n demanded we meet up. Maybe its because I am afraid of him controlling but I dont want to do anything he wants. I told him I would see him in a few weeks, but again, he is saying a few weeks is too long, he needs to see me sooner. He is saying he needs to tell me something important thinking I'll meet up wh him faster out of curiosity. I told him if it was so important, he could tell me now. Surprise surprise he refused.
I have an appointment wh the social worker next week n hopefully things will be a lot clearer after that. lastly, I'll repeat what I said before. I WANT this man to be involved in my baby's life, I want her to have a father figure, n I'm doing my best to try make it fair to everyone. But it's extremely hard when my wishes aren't being met on the other side. I don't want to mean or hurtful to anyone, but ultimately if he doesn't stop this, I will have to make a choice as to whether its beneficial to keep him in my life.

The Corinthian

The whole tangent on legal rights is a bit of a red herring, as it's been accepted for a while in this thread that he has none. My objection is that the speculation had reached such silliness that people were paining him as an asylum seeking Hannibal Lecter that you should cut contact with forever - or if not an asylum seeking Hannibal Lecter, that cutting of contact between a father and child for anything less is somehow a wise decision.

However, going back to your situation, he does appear to be playing some sort of game. Given this, this is not unusual in a situation where prospective father and mother can begin to see each other as adversaries, begin behaving and such and ironically make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Bottom line is you do need to be clear, fair and steadfast with him. Agree to meet him but bring someone and let him know you'll be bringing someone along to make sure he does not try anything. When bringing that other party, try to bring someone with authority (that you ex will recognise, not necessarily literally) and who is good at listening and reading in-between the lines objectively. Their role is to do the following:

• To give you honest feedback (even if it goes against you) of what is going on between you and your ex - that it is honest is very important; you don't need someone there who'll just take your side, you want to know what the story is.
• As a chaperone, to tell your ex to back down if he starts to cause problems or overtly manipulate you.
• A witness, which hopefully you won't need in the future, but may, in court.
• Not to be an active participant in the discussion. This is between you and your ex, otherwise you're escalating things if you bring in reinforcements. They should only get involved if your ex 'misbehaves'.

You should meet in a public place and the discussion should be solely on your child. The only talk about the two of you is to underline that there is no two of you. The same goes if he brings up that he's going to have to leave the country or other problems - that's his problem not yours. Neither of you have a responsibility to look out for the other, only for your child.

Do however let him know that you want him in your child's life and are willing to work collaborative with him and are willing to compromise if he will on the specifics. However, a relationship is not open to discussion and neither will you tolerate any further harassment on this without you taking steps to stop it.

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's not much a man can do to protect their 'interests'.

I was thinking only of not getting people deliberately pregnant unless you are married to them and thus legally protected. Or maybe not solely depending on the woman for contraception, that sort of thing. Protecting yourself that way. And when accidents do happen... As they will, maybe consider getting a solicitor and talking, thinking with the pregnant partner about long term, and what you both want to happen, instead of sticking the head in the sand and hoping it all works out. There is usually a bit of notice before a birth, it can be mostly sorted before then.

OP, i wish you luck, and the suggestion of bringing someone with you for this chat with him is a good one. Have you a family member or friend who is in a position that this man would see as authoratitive? A guard, priest, teacher, that kind of thing?

misspumpqueen

pwurple wrote: »

I was thinking only of not getting people deliberately pregnant unless you are married to them and thus legally protected. Or maybe not solely depending on the woman for contraception, that sort of thing. Protecting yourself that way. And when accidents do happen... As they will, maybe consider getting a solicitor and talking, thinking with the pregnant partner about long term, and what you both want to happen, instead of sticking the head in the sand and hoping it all works out. There is usually a bit of notice before a birth, it can be mostly sorted before then.

OP, i wish you luck, and the suggestion of bringing someone with you for this chat with him is a good one. Have you a family member or friend who is in a position that this man would see as authoratitive? A guard, priest, teacher, that kind of thing?

Hey, no unfortunately i don't have any relative in a postition like that, and to be honest, i wouldn't really want to get anyone else from my family involved. What I might do is go to the social worker, and then maybe make an appointment for us both to go, depending on what happens in the first meeting.

The Corinthian

misspumpqueen wrote: »

Hey, no unfortunately i don't have any relative in a postition like that, and to be honest, i wouldn't really want to get anyone else from my family involved. What I might do is go to the social worker, and then maybe make an appointment for us both to go, depending on what happens in the first meeting.

A male friend? I say male as I am speculating that coming from a non-EU country, your ex may be more patriarchal than normal. Be careful about bringing a professional, like a social worker, as you don't want to look as you're drawing up battle lines.

Big Bag of Chips

Until the baby is born you have no need to meet him. There is nothing that needs to be said face to face that can't be said in a text.

For now the only discussions you need to be having is what the baby will need, or what he might provide for when the baby is born.

When are you due, do you mind me asking?

The Corinthian

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Until the baby is born you have no need to meet him. There is nothing that needs to be said face to face that can't be said in a text.

For now the only discussions you need to be having is what the baby will need, or what he might provide for when the baby is born.

Given that the OP wants him in their child's life, that's probably a bad way of going about it.

misspumpqueen

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Until the baby is born you have no need to meet him. There is nothing that needs to be said face to face that can't be said in a text.

For now the only discussions you need to be having is what the baby will need, or what he might provide for when the baby is born.

When are you due, do you mind me asking?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Given that the OP wants him in their child's life, that's probably a bad way of going about it.

This is what I'm trying to decide what to do. He obviously can't take no for an answer, the most recent example being me telling him i will see him in a couple of weeks, then he just continues to ask can we meet today. It's getting beyond ridiculous. I feel now that he feels if he can't control me in a relationship, he's trying other ways. I'll repeat, he can not just take no for an answer.

@Corinthian, i thank you for everything you are saying here, but the bottom line still stands that if he doesn't stop this, he won't have any involvement in her life. Unless he can learn to respect my wishes, then there's no way i am keeping him in my life because he just causes me too much stress. If i am stressed about him, it is going to limit how much i can care for my baby, and that is the most important thing here.

@BBoC, I'm due in July, plenty of time to still talk about things, but he disagrees with me. I feel like there's no need to talk yet before i go to the social worker. I need to get an outside opinion that is not fuelled by emotions and fears. Then I will see what I am going to do.

Big Bag of Chips

The Corinthian wrote: »

Given that the OP wants him in their child's life, that's probably a bad way of going about it.

Why?

Meeting up with him is becoming very uncomfortable. He is not respecting her or her boundaries. He obviously wants to be part of the baby's life. She wants him to be part of the baby's life.. but the baby isn't here yet. So at the moment there is no need for constantly meeting.

I reread the OP, and see that you got pregnant in October. Which means the baby isn't due until July? I cannot see why you need regular meetings with someone you are not interested in a relationship with between now & July.

It is possible to be parents without being in constant contact. It is definitely possible to get through a pregnancy without being in constant contact. It just looks like he is using the pregnancy as a reason to stay in constant contact with you.

You will have a baby together. You are linked forever more to him. I don't see any harm in physically removing yourself from him until the baby arrives. You can be in contact through phone or email in the meantime.

Edit: cross posted with you, OP.

biko

I know some people in similar situations OP, let me know if you're in Galway and want to get in touch with them.

The Corinthian

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Why?

Meeting up with him is becoming very uncomfortable. He is not respecting her or her boundaries. He obviously wants to be part of the baby's life. She wants him to be part of the baby's life.. but the baby isn't here yet. So at the moment there is no need for constantly meeting.

At the moment he is essentially cut out of the picture. He has no legal rights, no influence, no say whatsoever. Not an easy situation for anyone to be in.

Here, on the other hand, we're only speculating on his motivations - even the OP has admitted to this. It could be that he's just trying to scam his way to remaining in Ireland. It could also be that he is trying to regain some semblance of control over the situation and over his child - wanting to be with 'her' may only be his way of securing some paternity rights.

If the former is true, then I suspect that he'll have vanished long before the baby is born, regardless of what she does as ultimately she will not countenance a relationship with him, without which I doubt his visa situation would improve.

If the truth is closer to the latter, then cutting him out of the pregnancy and only speaking with him as far as he is a resource to draw on is going to increase this anxiety; essentially it'll increase the gulf between them and either make him more aggressive or drive him to just walk away and have nothing more with either mother or child.

Involving him and countering some of these anxieties would likely cause him to back off the 'relationship' approach, as he would no longer need this to have some influence - assuming, of course, this is why he's doing this in the first place. Truth is, as I said, we're all just speculating.

So if her aim to to try to keep him involved, then further alienating him will end up doing the opposite. This doesn't mean that they should be seeing each other on a daily or even weekly basis or unsupervised, but telling him to piss off until the baby's born at which point she's only interested in talking to see what she can get out of him, is definitely not going to encourage involvement.

@misspumpqueen: Getting an an outside opinion that is not fuelled by emotions and fears it absolutely what you need to do. But do try to get an informed one; an opinion from someone who's not met or spoken to him is not much use.