New boyfriend, has a child he never sees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I agree, too.

I also agree with the poster who said its unreal how sanctimonious some of you are when every other post on here is about a guy who doesn't step up and do his half of the parenting work. Look in the mirror, people.

I think the second part of this post is interesting, and true. There are TONS of families on DCUM where the father basically does nothing parenting-wise but provide money. I'll bet a bunch of the women chewing this guy out are posting "My DH doesn't do his to-do list!" or "DH can't be alone with the baby!" an hour later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I agree, too.

I also agree with the poster who said its unreal how sanctimonious some of you are when every other post on here is about a guy who doesn't step up and do his half of the parenting work. Look in the mirror, people.

I think the second part of this post is interesting, and true. There are TONS of families on DCUM where the father basically does nothing parenting-wise but provide money. I'll bet a bunch of the women chewing this guy out are posting "My DH doesn't do his to-do list!" or "DH can't be alone with the baby!" an hour later.

I understand clinically what the first guy PP is saying here but its still a BS cop out. People OBJECTIVELY know that when you have a kid you have an obligation to parent. They don't always do it but they know its the right thing to do. It's like seeing a woman with a Chanel bag drop a 100 dollar bill. You could certainly rationalize keeping it for yourself but you do actually KNOW that the right thing to do is to give it back (and there's way less at stake in that analogy obviously).

I actually almost dumped my now husband because his brother had done this and the family seemed to just let him get away with it and I was so disgusted with them all. I found out that my DH had kept tabs on the girl, at least enough to know she was alright, even while his entire family never mentioned her and that made me feel good about him.

Even before I had children, the idea that I could have abandoned a child was repulsive to me. I just couldn't, if I knew they were out there I'd be on a plane. And equating being completely absentee with not doing bedtimes and daycare pickups is insane. A reliable male figure in your life (ESPECIALLY a girl's life) is really important and if Dad is in the house and treating kids with love then regardless of how his DW feels about his contributions, the KIDS are getting a lot out of his presence. One can be annoyed that their DH can't be left alone with the baby and disgusted by a man who walks away entirely and be consistent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I agree, too.

I also agree with the poster who said its unreal how sanctimonious some of you are when every other post on here is about a guy who doesn't step up and do his half of the parenting work. Look in the mirror, people.

I think the second part of this post is interesting, and true. There are TONS of families on DCUM where the father basically does nothing parenting-wise but provide money. I'll bet a bunch of the women chewing this guy out are posting "My DH doesn't do his to-do list!" or "DH can't be alone with the baby!" an hour later.

Are you really saying it's OK to be an uninvolved dad? You're equating not being with baby with not seeing your DD for 11 years, which seems like a ridiculous comparison for starters. And then you're blaming the wives for being "sanctimonious" about both these things.

[Anonymous]

geez. listen to your gut, OP. I also totally get that the world is not black and white and that he was 21 and that there are ways to drift into terrible patterns without being an overtly horrible person. But he made some bad decisions, it sounds like, and never owned up to them, and hasn't figured out how to make it right. I'm not saying he's a monster, but he's not a good dad. Maybe that will dawn on him one day when he becomes a father on purpose, just how much he shortchanged his first daughter. Maybe. But it should have occurred to him by now.

That bit about not wanting to "intrude" on their life also would make me worry that there is some additional level of crazy going on, either with the guy or the mother. Like, she left to get away from him and build a new life. Or he abandoned them for awhile. Or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

No ! Just like every mum wants to preserve the family at any cost and not get divorced. Stick to facts

NP here. Preserving the family at all costs is not the same as acting in the best interests of your DC. Loving moms don't want good days to disappear, but sometimes they are relieved when shitty ones do.

[Anonymous]

Dads not days. Damn autocorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I agree, too.

I also agree with the poster who said its unreal how sanctimonious some of you are when every other post on here is about a guy who doesn't step up and do his half of the parenting work. Look in the mirror, people.

I think the second part of this post is interesting, and true. There are TONS of families on DCUM where the father basically does nothing parenting-wise but provide money. I'll bet a bunch of the women chewing this guy out are posting "My DH doesn't do his to-do list!" or "DH can't be alone with the baby!" an hour later.

Are you really saying it's OK to be an uninvolved dad? You're equating not being with baby with not seeing your DD for 11 years, which seems like a ridiculous comparison for starters. And then you're blaming the wives for being "sanctimonious" about both these things.

Of course I'm not saying it's OK to be an uninvolved dad. I'm just asking people to look at the hypocrisy that they're displaying.

How on earth is it hypocritical to think that uninvolved dads are doing something bad but that a completely absent dad is doing something abhorrent?

Let me try to make it clear since you're still not getting it. Every day there is a post on here about a man that has no interest in his children, that stays late at work intentionally to not come home, that can't do anything involving the kids without a long list of instructions, etc. There was even a post today about a man saying he hates his newborn child.

I am virtually certain that some of the posters on here saying that this guy is so horrible are married to useless douchebags. Then they get all high and mighty about the kind of guy that OP should hold out for. It's very ironic.

I'm the "Are you really saying it's OK?" poster. You're not making sense. If some posters here married useless douchebags, then all the better that they're on this thread telling OP to run not walk. Don't you get that they want OP to be *happier* than they are. They speak from experience. You're arguing that someone who made a mistake (school, product, whatever) can't tell others how to avoid the same mistake.

Good Lord. I'm obviously not talking about self-aware people who are advising the OP based on their own experience. My point is that there are a lot of delusional women on here talking about how terrible this guy is and then turning around and pretending they're happily married when their husband says he's working till 10 again on Friday night. Really not sure how to explain it further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I agree, too.

I also agree with the poster who said its unreal how sanctimonious some of you are when every other post on here is about a guy who doesn't step up and do his half of the parenting work. Look in the mirror, people.

I think the second part of this post is interesting, and true. There are TONS of families on DCUM where the father basically does nothing parenting-wise but provide money. I'll bet a bunch of the women chewing this guy out are posting "My DH doesn't do his to-do list!" or "DH can't be alone with the baby!" an hour later.

Are you really saying it's OK to be an uninvolved dad? You're equating not being with baby with not seeing your DD for 11 years, which seems like a ridiculous comparison for starters. And then you're blaming the wives for being "sanctimonious" about both these things.

Of course I'm not saying it's OK to be an uninvolved dad. I'm just asking people to look at the hypocrisy that they're displaying.

How on earth is it hypocritical to think that uninvolved dads are doing something bad but that a completely absent dad is doing something abhorrent?

Let me try to make it clear since you're still not getting it. Every day there is a post on here about a man that has no interest in his children, that stays late at work intentionally to not come home, that can't do anything involving the kids without a long list of instructions, etc. There was even a post today about a man saying he hates his newborn child.

I am virtually certain that some of the posters on here saying that this guy is so horrible are married to useless douchebags. Then they get all high and mighty about the kind of guy that OP should hold out for. It's very ironic.

I'm the "Are you really saying it's OK?" poster. You're not making sense. If some posters here married useless douchebags, then all the better that they're on this thread telling OP to run not walk. Don't you get that they want OP to be *happier* than they are. They speak from experience. You're arguing that someone who made a mistake (school, product, whatever) can't tell others how to avoid the same mistake.

Good Lord. I'm obviously not talking about self-aware people who are advising the OP based on their own experience. My point is that there are a lot of delusional women on here talking about how terrible this guy is and then turning around and pretending they're happily married when their husband says he's working till 10 again on Friday night. Really not sure how to explain it further.

Don't explain further because you're digging yourself in. Now you're accusing DCUMers of "pretending to be happily married" when just a few minutes ago you were accusing them of saying they were unhappy with their absentee husbands. Get your argument straight.

Anyway, for those who are unhappy because of absentee husbands, you can't compare them all to OP. Rarely are the red flags so obvious as in OP's situation. Often the red flags are subtle or not apparent: it's hard to foresee that what looked like a good work ethic when he was in grad school can turn into an obsession with work at the exorcist of family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I can't believe how many people don't know the meaning of 'deadbeat' dad. If this guy is paying child support, he is not a deadbeat. If his wages are being garnished rather than him voluntarily paying support, you can call him a 'deadbeat'. He is undeniably 'absent'.

I am 100% sure that absent = deadbeat.

You are 100% wrong:

Deadbeat:
one who persistently fails to pay personal debts or expenses
a person who does not pay money that is owed
a person who does not pay money that is owed
A person unable to pay his bills
Someone of low financial standing
a person who tries to evade paying debts
an idle, feckless, or disreputable person

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^

Excuses for another bad dad. My husband did whatever he had to do to see his son after his divorce. He once drove 7 hours there to watch a basketball game and then drove 7 hours home. YOU DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO TO SEE YOUR KIDS. Some of you new wives want to act like it's totally normal and okay to ditch a kid and see them 1-2x a year. No. It isn't. Mom won't drive halfway? Figure out a way to do it yourself then. There is no excuse for absentee parenting, not even your job. Those of us married to men who devoted tons of time and money to keep up that relationship laugh at the fact any of you buy this "just can't be a dad" BS. THEY DID NOT TRY.

So, what do you propose dad do if dad does fly out multiple times, every visit mom refuses to let him see the kids, he goes to court, judge fusses at her, gives him more visitation including immediate while he is in town (she still refuses) and thousands and thousands later, he still doesn't see the child and there are no consequences for mom. You make it sound so simple. So, what do you do if mom does not answer the phone or has your number blocked? What do you do when she tells the school not to talk to you (despite a court order saying otherwise)? Oh wise one, tell us what one should do. Your husband could do that as his ex supported him in seeing their child. Some mom's are crappy and don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I agree, too.

I also agree with the poster who said its unreal how sanctimonious some of you are when every other post on here is about a guy who doesn't step up and do his half of the parenting work. Look in the mirror, people.

I think the second part of this post is interesting, and true. There are TONS of families on DCUM where the father basically does nothing parenting-wise but provide money. I'll bet a bunch of the women chewing this guy out are posting "My DH doesn't do his to-do list!" or "DH can't be alone with the baby!" an hour later.

Are you really saying it's OK to be an uninvolved dad? You're equating not being with baby with not seeing your DD for 11 years, which seems like a ridiculous comparison for starters. And then you're blaming the wives for being "sanctimonious" about both these things.

Of course I'm not saying it's OK to be an uninvolved dad. I'm just asking people to look at the hypocrisy that they're displaying.

How on earth is it hypocritical to think that uninvolved dads are doing something bad but that a completely absent dad is doing something abhorrent?

Let me try to make it clear since you're still not getting it. Every day there is a post on here about a man that has no interest in his children, that stays late at work intentionally to not come home, that can't do anything involving the kids without a long list of instructions, etc. There was even a post today about a man saying he hates his newborn child.

I am virtually certain that some of the posters on here saying that this guy is so horrible are married to useless douchebags. Then they get all high and mighty about the kind of guy that OP should hold out for. It's very ironic.

I'm the "Are you really saying it's OK?" poster. You're not making sense. If some posters here married useless douchebags, then all the better that they're on this thread telling OP to run not walk. Don't you get that they want OP to be *happier* than they are. They speak from experience. You're arguing that someone who made a mistake (school, product, whatever) can't tell others how to avoid the same mistake.

Good Lord. I'm obviously not talking about self-aware people who are advising the OP based on their own experience. My point is that there are a lot of delusional women on here talking about how terrible this guy is and then turning around and pretending they're happily married when their husband says he's working till 10 again on Friday night. Really not sure how to explain it further.

Don't explain further because you're digging yourself in. Now you're accusing DCUMers of "pretending to be happily married" when just a few minutes ago you were accusing them of saying they were unhappy with their absentee husbands. Get your argument straight.

Anyway, for those who are unhappy because of absentee husbands, you can't compare them all to OP. Rarely are the red flags so obvious as in OP's situation. Often the red flags are subtle or not apparent: it's hard to foresee that what looked like a good work ethic when he was in grad school can turn into an obsession with work at the exorcist of family.

Whatever, yes, fine. A woman forced to quit work because her husband works 100 hours/week and never sees his kids is perfectly legit in criticizing OP's situation and saying they'd never settle for that.

[Anonymous]

Id love to see what all these holier than thou posters' husbands would have done at 21.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Don't explain further because you're digging yourself in. Now you're accusing DCUMers of "pretending to be happily married" when just a few minutes ago you were accusing them of saying they were unhappy with their absentee husbands. Get your argument straight.

Anyway, for those who are unhappy because of absentee husbands, you can't compare them all to OP. Rarely are the red flags so obvious as in OP's situation. Often the red flags are subtle or not apparent: it's hard to foresee that what looked like a good work ethic when he was in grad school can turn into an obsession with work at the exorcist of family.

Whatever, yes, fine. A woman forced to quit work because her husband works 100 hours/week and never sees his kids is perfectly legit in criticizing OP's situation and saying they'd never settle for that.

OP asked for advice. She's getting it. From others with personal experience. Why don't you understand this, and why do you find it so offensive?????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Id love to see what all these holier than thou posters' husbands would have done at 21.

What does it matter what our husbands would have done when they were 21? The question is whether we'd get into a relationship with a guy who's done what OP's guy did. The answer for me is no.

[Anonymous]

Skype is free. The guy Skypes with his kid once or twice a YEAR. He is not 21 now, he's 30whatever. I would run away from this guy fast.