Child support may be court ordered and one would assume he has a very high income to support that.

Anonymous wrote:My husband loves and wants to spend time with our child for his own sake, not just because he is married to me. Seeing a loving fatherly relationship, I would accept no less. OP, you don't have to either. You don't know how he would be if you have kids, but you do have one data point that isn't comforting, and you haven't been dating for that long.

I also find it very hard to believe that a man who has only visited his daughter ONCE a) sends $3500 a month and b) can make her believe that he'd be there for her if she needed him when he's not there any other time. But that's beside the point.

The second part here is exactly what I'm thinking. I'm not sure about the $3500 as I have no clue how much child support is. But come on. Skypes twice a year. Never visits. There is NO WAY that kid thinks that he'll be there when she needs. There is no way that this kid feels loved and supported by her father.

He is a bad father. Point blank. I have 2 different friends that are fathers and their exwives moved far away. One is Maine and the other is Hawaii (so much harder to get to than California). Both arranged custody agreements where summers the kid comes out here. Both Skype and Facetime frequently. Both are very much involved in the decisions of the child's life. Those are anecdotal, sure. But it isn't impossible for him to have a relationship with his daughter. He chose not to, and that's the most disturbing thing.

I understand that you are smitten with this guy, but I would end it. I could never respect a man who doesn't try to forge a relationship with his child.

My husband's ex was a witch and would not let him see his kids. She refused to answer the phone when she called. When he'd fly out to visit, she refused visits. When we bought plane tickets she refused to send them. He's a great dad and tried hard.

In your situation, I'd be concerned about having kids with him. If it is on mom, its a bit different if all she wants is support. but if mom actually makes an effort to bring the child to visit every other year, that's a huge red flag.

Is he really to blame for the separation? By your accounts he has a really good job here that allowed him to send a hefty 3.5k support check. The mother decides on her own to relocate to California. Did you really expect to leave his lucrative career because she chose to leave? She is the one that separated this family.

Anonymous wrote:My husband loves and wants to spend time with our child for his own sake, not just because he is married to me. Seeing a loving fatherly relationship, I would accept no less. OP, you don't have to either. You don't know how he would be if you have kids, but you do have one data point that isn't comforting, and you haven't been dating for that long.

I also find it very hard to believe that a man who has only visited his daughter ONCE a) sends $3500 a month and b) can make her believe that he'd be there for her if she needed him when he's not there any other time. But that's beside the point.

Give me a break. Is your husband a scared 21 year old?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to disagree with previous posters. The woman moved away to be near her sister. They were not together. Should have have moved to CA no questions asked? Genuinely curious.

No, he need not have moved to CA. He should have tried very hard to visit (seems like he has money, if the child support is true) and otherwise be in her life. If the mom had tried to prevent, he should have gone to court to seek some visitation. Instead, he was willing to passively let it all pass by.

I agree with this in theory. HOWEVER, I don't think we know all there is to the story. It's possible the woman would have made it difficult and as a 21 year old, he didn't realize the long-term implications of fathering a child and now so much time has gone by that he rightfully doesn't know what he could have done or how to make the time up. He told OP right away, seems to pay his share ... the "he's a horrible human who deserves loneliness forever!" isn't ringing true for me.

I'm surprised posters are being so harsh. And I'm a mom of 2 young kids with a super-involved, "peer marriage" husband, so I don't make many excuses for men who don't pull weight.

My husband loves and wants to spend time with our child for his own sake, not just because he is married to me. Seeing a loving fatherly relationship, I would accept no less. OP, you don't have to either. You don't know how he would be if you have kids, but you do have one data point that isn't comforting, and you haven't been dating for that long.

I also find it very hard to believe that a man who has only visited his daughter ONCE a) sends $3500 a month and b) can make her believe that he'd be there for her if she needed him when he's not there any other time. But that's beside the point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the pp lawyer, if the CP isn't working, then this:

So, if the CP isn't working and the NCP is then the child support obligation for the NCP will be very high since the CP will be paying almost 0% of the daycare costs.

There are no daycare costs if the CP isn't working.

Poor editing on my part. Here it goes again: If the CP isn't working and is in school in some states the NCP has to pay the child care expenses.

Actually, I just re-read what I wrote and it's pretty clear. The daycare expense is for the time the CP is in school (presumably full time).

Anonymous wrote:To the pp lawyer, if the CP isn't working, then this:

So, if the CP isn't working and the NCP is then the child support obligation for the NCP will be very high since the CP will be paying almost 0% of the daycare costs.

There are no daycare costs if the CP isn't working.

Poor editing on my part. Here it goes again: If the CP isn't working and is in school in some states the NCP has to pay the child care expenses.

Anonymous wrote:There's a big difference between messing up and fathering a child with a fling and walking away vs. being married to someone and having a child with them. I wouldn't assume that if you guys get married and have kids that he wouldn't choose to be involved which I assume is your concern here.

+1 NP here. I think the important part is that he is paying and always has paid child support.

If he is being truthful, it sounds like he thought the woman was on birth control. I think it's a tough position for a young guy when there is an oops pregnancy because he has no say in whether or not the woman keeps the baby v. has an abortion.

It also sounds like he was involved up until the time when the mother decided to move to California. Again, he had no say in that.

It sounds like he doesn't want to disrupt her life, but he at least recognizes that he has a financial responsibility. And if he is paying $3,500 a month, then that is very generous child support.

OP the best judge of a person's future behavior is their past behavior.

To the pp lawyer, if the CP isn't working, then this:

So, if the CP isn't working and the NCP is then the child support obligation for the NCP will be very high since the CP will be paying almost 0% of the daycare costs.

There are no daycare costs if the CP isn't working.

Break it off, no question. He is not who he has appeared to be for the time you've known him. You do NOT want this kind of man in your life, even as a boyfriend. No one would, unless they had serious emotional problems...which it does not sound like you have.

I don't think I could respect a man like that. Sorry OP.

If you were 25 or 26 it would be a no brainer to drop him and move on, but at 29 you're running out of time. Might have to accept it and keep him.