New boyfriend, has a child he never sees.

[Anonymous]

Guy perspective here: Mother runs off to another state and takes his child with her. He has no control over this, but he does the right thing and pays child support. Mother establishes new life and child is in stable situation. He doesn't want to interfere with that.

I can see the logic in that, especially from a guy who hasn't raised a child yet. Once you do (as most of us here have), it seems unfathomable, but I totally could understand that logic before I had children. It's difficult for men to bond with a baby in the first year anyway (I know from experience), so he may not have had much opportunity to develop a bond with the baby before his girlfriend moved her away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, he doesn't send 3500. I have two children and a mid-forties "C suite executive" ex husband who doesn't even pay that. A 22 year old wasn't sending 3500. He probably sends exactly nothing because he doesn't know a ballpark CS figure if he's throwing out $3500. I know another woman with 5 children and an ex who makes 500K+ and she receives less than that from her very generous ex spouse.

I'd run far and fast. Nothing, and I mean nothing, demonstrates bad character than an absentee father. Please, please get yourself away from this man.

I'd say it's plausible. Probably she went to court to get CS increased after he started making more money.

I'm a landlord and had a divorced mother with 2 kids present a letter from her ex stating he pays her $6k/month in support. (She needed that to prove income to afford my rental house)

Did she supply documentation of the deposits or just the letter, Landlord?

I could get you a letter that my salary is $10,000,000---on letterhead even!! Doesn't make it true.

She sent a letter but her ex was a lawyer, and I don't think he wants to get disbarred over something like that. She did offer to send bank statements also, but the deal fell through for unrelated reasons so I never got to that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New poster here. I have a husband who is kind of like that.
He divorced when his kid was 6, at first they lived close and he woukd see her every week, then he moved across country and now it's skype maybe once every several months and annual visits, plus of course child support and gifts.
Now, he may not be the best dad to our 6 yo, but he plays with him, can stay with him on a weekend, take him out to a museum and such. He doesn't do pick up or drop off, he doesn't know what to cook for the kid (usually they eat out when they are without me), he doesn't know all those little parenting things like his friends' names or how to pack his lunch, but I am ok with it. I am not a fan of his parenting ideas and it's for the better frankly that he is not taking much part. He provides and babysits, can teach him an occasional skill, I am cool with it.
Now, I do love the fact that I only see my stepD once a year, and that I don't need to deal with all the blended family stuff.

Wow just wow. Pathetic.

[Anonymous]

My husband was a 19-year old college freshman when a hook up led to pregnancy. Mom moved back to a rural area and husband finished college. He worked full time to support baby, so it took 6 years to get his B.A.

Even though his daughter did not live with him, he always maintained a close relationship. She just finished college, and she's an important part of our family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guy perspective here: Mother runs off to another state and takes his child with her. He has no control over this, but he does the right thing and pays child support. Mother establishes new life and child is in stable situation. He doesn't want to interfere with that.

I can see the logic in that, especially from a guy who hasn't raised a child yet. Once you do (as most of us here have), it seems unfathomable, but I totally could understand that logic before I had children. It's difficult for men to bond with a baby in the first year anyway (I know from experience), so he may not have had much opportunity to develop a bond with the baby before his girlfriend moved her away.

Yes, I agree. (And I'm a woman)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guy perspective here: Mother runs off to another state and takes his child with her. He has no control over this, but he does the right thing and pays child support. Mother establishes new life and child is in stable situation. He doesn't want to interfere with that.

I can see the logic in that, especially from a guy who hasn't raised a child yet. Once you do (as most of us here have), it seems unfathomable, but I totally could understand that logic before I had children. It's difficult for men to bond with a baby in the first year anyway (I know from experience), so he may not have had much opportunity to develop a bond with the baby before his girlfriend moved her away.

There are so many things wrong with this narrative that I don't even know where to start.
1) Mother 'ran' off to another state? We know nothing about the circumstances of her decision to move, nor about the discussions or negotiations she had with him prior to moving.
2) 'he has no control over this' - not true, if he had wanted the child to remain in the state he/she was born in, he would have had a good shot at this. Especially if he had been an involved parent exercising custody from the get-go
3) 'he does the right thing and pays child support' - we don't know if he did it willingly or not (and as many have pointed out, it's unlikely he's paying the amount he claims to be paying); also - the right thing is also to be an active and involved father beyond fulfilling his financial obligation
4) 'He doesn't want to interfere with that' - in no way is a father 'interfering' by pursuing an active relationship with his child. This is just BS.

[Anonymous]

If an "established relationship" exists that he doesn't want to "interfere" with its because he created that by not being involved. Yes mom and daughter are probably tight and have a dynamic that doesn't factor him in because it's been clear for years he has no intention of being involved. He doesn't get to facilitate that dynamic and then use it as an excuse to continue to not be involved.
Listen. NO MOM WANTS their child(ren) to have uninvolved, absentee dads. A loving relationship with both parents is every parent's goal and crucial for healthy development. Just because she's made the best of her situation doesn't mean it was her situation by choice, don't get that twisted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My mother married a man who had a 7 yo son he never saw. She thought he was immature and made a mistake that he'd never make again. My father left her 2 months after I was born and went on to have 3 more kids with 3 more women. I'm 38 and have never met my father. It still hurts me everyday.

Is there any way you could ever facilitate this or is your father beyond hope?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster here. I have a husband who is kind of like that.
He divorced when his kid was 6, at first they lived close and he woukd see her every week, then he moved across country and now it's skype maybe once every several months and annual visits, plus of course child support and gifts.
Now, he may not be the best dad to our 6 yo, but he plays with him, can stay with him on a weekend, take him out to a museum and such. He doesn't do pick up or drop off, he doesn't know what to cook for the kid (usually they eat out when they are without me), he doesn't know all those little parenting things like his friends' names or how to pack his lunch, but I am ok with it. I am not a fan of his parenting ideas and it's for the better frankly that he is not taking much part. He provides and babysits, can teach him an occasional skill, I am cool with it.
Now, I do love the fact that I only see my stepD once a year, and that I don't need to deal with all the blended family stuff.

Just because you made a poor choice in a spouse and father doesn't mean OP should do the same.

FYI it's not babysitting when it's your kid.


I feel sorry for both children. At least your step child has a chance if he's mom isn't pathetic as dad. You son however has struck out twice.

Not that I disagree.. but that is kind of harsh. I kind of enjoyed her story because it does illustrate that there is a lid for every pot and that one person's loss is not necessarily another person's win. Or how about when you make your own bed you better be prepared to lie in it.... may not quite as pithy but...When you tie yourself to loser... most often you just lose. If OP takes anything from the story above please take that character is everything. Anyone can put on the charm for a couple of months or even years. Dating is easy. It's what a person demonstrates over time and experience that matters. Character is everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guy perspective here: Mother runs off to another state and takes his child with her. He has no control over this, but he does the right thing and pays child support. Mother establishes new life and child is in stable situation. He doesn't want to interfere with that.

I can see the logic in that, especially from a guy who hasn't raised a child yet. Once you do (as most of us here have), it seems unfathomable, but I totally could understand that logic before I had children. It's difficult for men to bond with a baby in the first year anyway (I know from experience), so he may not have had much opportunity to develop a bond with the baby before his girlfriend moved her away.

There are so many things wrong with this narrative that I don't even know where to start.
1) Mother 'ran' off to another state? We know nothing about the circumstances of her decision to move, nor about the discussions or negotiations she had with him prior to moving.
2) 'he has no control over this' - not true, if he had wanted the child to remain in the state he/she was born in, he would have had a good shot at this. Especially if he had been an involved parent exercising custody from the get-go
3) 'he does the right thing and pays child support' - we don't know if he did it willingly or not (and as many have pointed out, it's unlikely he's paying the amount he claims to be paying); also - the right thing is also to be an active and involved father beyond fulfilling his financial obligation
4) 'He doesn't want to interfere with that' - in no way is a father 'interfering' by pursuing an active relationship with his child. This is just BS.

5) "It's difficult for men to bond with a baby in the first year anyway (I know from experience)"... No. Maybe it was difficult for *you* to bond with your child together during the first year. My husband, and many others I know, totally bonded with babies the first year. My husband loves infants/toddlers in general and adored our child, pretty much instantly, and spent more time as primary caregiver than me, actually (he has a more flexible work schedule). It would've wrecked him if he couldn't see her anymore after two years. I can't imagine most of the first-time dads I know simply ceasing to have a relationship after the first two years because the mom decides to move away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, he doesn't send 3500. I have two children and a mid-forties "C suite executive" ex husband who doesn't even pay that. A 22 year old wasn't sending 3500. He probably sends exactly nothing because he doesn't know a ballpark CS figure if he's throwing out $3500. I know another woman with 5 children and an ex who makes 500K+ and she receives less than that from her very generous ex spouse.

I'd run far and fast. Nothing, and I mean nothing, demonstrates bad character than an absentee father. Please, please get yourself away from this man.

I'd say it's plausible. Probably she went to court to get CS increased after he started making more money.

I'm a landlord and had a divorced mother with 2 kids present a letter from her ex stating he pays her $6k/month in support. (She needed that to prove income to afford my rental house)

Did she supply documentation of the deposits or just the letter, Landlord?

I could get you a letter that my salary is $10,000,000---on letterhead even!! Doesn't make it true.

She sent a letter but her ex was a lawyer, and I don't think he wants to get disbarred over something like that. She did offer to send bank statements also, but the deal fell through for unrelated reasons so I never got to that point.

Unless it was a sworn statement, he wouldn't have been disbarred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guy perspective here: Mother runs off to another state and takes his child with her. He has no control over this, but he does the right thing and pays child support. Mother establishes new life and child is in stable situation. He doesn't want to interfere with that.

I can see the logic in that, especially from a guy who hasn't raised a child yet. Once you do (as most of us here have), it seems unfathomable, but I totally could understand that logic before I had children. It's difficult for men to bond with a baby in the first year anyway (I know from experience), so he may not have had much opportunity to develop a bond with the baby before his girlfriend moved her away.

But once he's in his thirties and the kid is older than an infant, he *knows* he should see her. Even if he still doesn't feel a connection, he knows he has to at leafy work on making a connection with his DD, because she needs it.

[Anonymous]

At least, not at leafy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A OP here. I meant to add this.... And I'm NOT making excuses for him or anyone like him,.. But 21 year old guys are idiots. Still immature, still selfish, still scared. I can see how he immaturity would pave way to allowing that distance to build and build... Then all of a sudden that's the 'norm'. He has had 2 serious girlfriends before me, wondering if they were as concerned as me.

Yes, well, is he STILL 21? He's had plenty of time to step up to the plate.

Bad character. Dump him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guy perspective here: Mother runs off to another state and takes his child with her. He has no control over this, but he does the right thing and pays child support. Mother establishes new life and child is in stable situation. He doesn't want to interfere with that.

I can see the logic in that, especially from a guy who hasn't raised a child yet. Once you do (as most of us here have), it seems unfathomable, but I totally could understand that logic before I had children. It's difficult for men to bond with a baby in the first year anyway (I know from experience), so he may not have had much opportunity to develop a bond with the baby before his girlfriend moved her away.

But once he's in his thirties and the kid is older than an infant, he *knows* he should see her. Even if he still doesn't feel a connection, he knows he has to at leafy work on making a connection with his DD, because she needs it.

You all seem to have some incredibly romantic vision of children, teenagers, young adults reuniting with their biological mothers or fathers miles away, years later.
Sounds like a big PITA to me, for both the kid and the biological contributor.

Most adoptees rue the day they get that email, letter or visitor stating they are their biological parent, make some time for me. Some make it work, most do not. Life is very busy, both sides have to want it, but if you are not wanted somewhere, you make the best of it elsewhere.