What Is The Right Thing To Do

[Sighs]

Just going to throw this story out there...

My ex (no PTSD involved - him or me) had a son. His son's mother had "kidnapped" the boy several times and my ex had spent large amounts of money and even larger amounts of emotion hiring private detectives to find his boy and taking the mother to court to get access to the boy. (Not custody - just access.)

Some years later (and long before he met me) he had a one night stand with his neighbour. She then said she was pregnant to him. He told her he never ever wanted to meet the child or have anything to do with the child and he would not be involved in any way. If she sued him for child support well he'd pay if the DNA test showed the child was his but he would still not ever meet the child. (His reasoning was that if he never met the child he could not bond and therefore could not have his heart ripped out if she took the child away from him as his son had been taken many times.) She never does sue for child support nor does she ask for an DNA test.

Fast forward about 8 years. This woman and her little girl show up unannounced at my ex's parents place. These people are in their late 70s / early 80s. The woman says this is your granddaughter. They invite her in for a cuppa. Apparently the little girl looks a bit like my ex, but mostly like her mother. This is the first they know of the possibility of this child's existence.

When my ex is confronted by his parents it turns into a massive argument. My ex "forbids" them to have any contact with the child. His mother insists that she want's to know her granddaughter. They stop speaking. Both his brothers and his father side with his mother and stop speaking to him. 6 months later his mother dies. He reacts by drinking himself stupid night after night for months. He is not a pleasant drunk. He loses his job. We break up. He has still never met this girl and he refuses to believe she is his daughter because the mother has never pursued a DNA test.

Personally... I assume the child is his. Not sure what pursuing things with the grandparents achieved.

 

[Casey_03]

@Sighs In that story, I'm not sure what it achieved either. That whole situation sounds like a shit show. But that is part of the reason that, if I do decide to tell the grandmother, I'd want to do it either 6 months-a year or so after the child is born ..... or never. Because I don't think it's a good idea to do it later in the child's life -- too much of a disruption for the other family, too much turmoil, too much wasted time, too many questions about why the mother would wait years, when half the child's childhood is already gone. I'd also have to point out one glaring difference with that situation - which is that the baby was the product of a one-night stand, and the baby's grandmother was presumably not aware of any relationship between the father and mother. In my case, the mother is aware of a relationship. But if you're asking what it would achieve in general to inform the grandmother -- I think it potentially could achieve quite a bit, if done the right way. I personally think the way it was done with your ex was pretty terrible. My thinking is that the more loving influences the child has in his life, the better. At this point, he literally only has me. There is no one apart form me who is going to be waiting for him at the hospital during delivery, nobody who is going to rush over to meet him when he's born. That, to me, is deeply sad, and it will leave him with a very stark upbringing. But also, I want him to have important influences in his life to give him different perspectives -- I don't want to be the only source of his worldview. The baby is going to be mixed race, and I feel like the grandmother could at least let him feel more connected to the part of his heritage that I cannot help him with. That said, I am also fully aware the mother might not be a positive influence, though I am inclined to believe it's her son who is the reprehensible person here, not her.

 

[Casey_03]

And just to add @Sighs honestly, in that situation, it sounds like a lot of heartbreak could have been avoided if the mother had just gotten a DNA test. Badly handled on both sides though, I'd say, both your ex and the mother. This is exactly why I am spending so much time considering this option though, I want to know what the best way to handle it is if I do decide to go through with it.

 

[hodge]

Casey, I feel for you in trying to make this decision. I am wondering how well you know his mother. For me, that would be a big factor. And yeah, a lot of times the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, but my mother's parents were great people in my memory and also according to my father and my favorite aunt. They had one son who turned out great, another who turned out to be an abusive alcoholic, and then my mom, a narcissist. I've heard a lot of anecdotal evidence that good people can have kids who turn out bad. Who knows why? Hope that helps.

 

[Casey_03]

@hodge Thanks. I don't know her that well personally, but I know a lot about her from what her son told me throughout the relationship -- that she's actually a lot like me, suffered abuse growing up and overcame it, raised several boys all on her own (father was killed). I think the main reason he doesn't want her to know about the baby is because he knows he has reason to be ashamed, and he knows that she would be disappointed in him for abandoning it. If she really were anywhere near as bad as him, he wouldn't care if she knew about it. There's also the fact that, when we were still on talking terms and before his abuse started, he had repeatedly talked about how he was going to tell her, how she would react, how she would drop everything to help me raise it, how she would be over the moon about having a grandson, etc. So we already had an agreement that he would tell her and she would be involved.

 

[Sideways]

@Sighs - been mulling over the story you related because one issue has been nagging at me. I think probly we can agree the situation could've been handled better from the get-go. And you go into plenty of detail about the fairly catastrophic fallout for everyone...

For everyone except the child.

To me, is it safe for them to meet? If so, what does the child want? And then what is in the child's best interests (so if nanna is a belligerent b!tch, that's relevant). That's the main issue. Children have a recognised right to information about themselves, as well as a right to express and opinion on it. And at some point, kids from broken families usually end up wanting to know where they're from, and who their kin are.

If the child decided at 8 years old that they wanted to meet grandma, perhaps a little more forward planning, sure. But the child got the chance to meet grandma before she died. For a lot of kids, that chance would be really important.

And I really hate to say it, because the example you used was a real disaster, but if daddy and his bros have a fallout with grandma over the issue, he's a big boy, that's his problem. His right not to have his happy childcare-free existence disrupted doesn't outweigh the rights of the child.

If this situation is genuinely safe, and there is a chance for a bond between the child and their grandma, the child's best interests come first.

 

[Casey_03]

I agree, @Ragdoll Circus I think I need to examine my situation in light of what's best for the baby. I don't think there's any rush in making a decision, and I agree with suggestions to wait until the baby is born. I absolutely will. But as things stand, the current situation (the grandmother not knowing) is only good for the father. While I do agree with everyone's safety concerns about the father being emotionally abusive, I'm not entirely sure that informing the father's mother would make things worse. I mean, it definitely would at first, but there's a question of whether or not the backlash from the father would be any more severe than some nasty emails. And on some level, this is exactly what he was trying to achieve with his bullying campaign this whole time - scaring me into silence and essentially gagging me about the baby, sweeping it all under the rug. Ultimately, I think there will be a giant hole in the kid's life if he doesn't get at least some connection to the grandmother, even if it is only correspondence by email/mail or whatever. There is a question of heritage here - she fled Uganda and relocated to England and is generally the last link to a big part of the baby's heritage - the Gujarati. Sure, I can eventually tell him about this myself, but then it will play no part in shaping his worldview growing up, which I think is important. I know that in my own situation, my grandmother was a huge influence on who I grew up to be. She wasn't an ideal grandmother, and she wasn't even around that much, but there was so much cultural influence that if she hadn't been in my life ... I'd have grown up to be a very dull, sheltered person with a pretty narrow worldview. I think it's really important who surrounds the baby throughout his childhood, not just when he's an adolescent and old enough to make a decision himself. And again, as for safety concerns, I think it's highly unlikely that having contact with the grandmother down the line would put the baby in jeopardy, especially if I don't allow her to visit my home or find out where exactly I live. (If I lived in the same city or even same country as her and her son, that'd be one thing, but as I've stressed repeatedly, there is logistically not much chance of her or her son being able to kidnap the kid). Sorry for the novel : /

 

[Sandstone]

I think in your situation, I'd be more concerned about finding good people to fill your babies daily life with. I'm certain you a going to be a great mother. Your love and careful thinking about what this child will need shine out from your posts. I'm concerned though at your comment that no-one will be waiting for the arrival. By the time your baby turns one, I hope there will people who are happy to celebrate with you both.

 

[Sighs]

His right not to have his happy childcare-free existence disrupted doesn't outweigh the rights of the child.

Yeah. I think that's being pretty unfair. I explained his reasoning. It was not as if he didn't want to meet the child because that might interfere with his cocktail hour. I assure you he fought tooth and nail to make sure he was able to provide child care for his son. In fact, when all of this happened his son was living with us full time. So his existence was not childcare-free. Nor was it particularly happy as there were a lot of issues with his son and his son's mother.

Also, I have a problem with "the right of the child" being used to trump the rights of the adults involved. Anti-abortionists use this argument all the time. Apparently, the rights of a clump of cells outweigh the rights of the adult woman who is pregnant. In this case, your argument is that the rights of an 8 year old child who has never met these people trump the rights of a 50 year old man with a problematic relationship with his family. So, the 8 year old got to meet grandma and grandpa (we assume - as there is no DNA test to prove it) once for less than 10 minutes. And the 50 year old has to live with the fact that his mother died after 6 months of not speaking to him and receive a letter in the mail 6 weeks after she died written by her on her death bed about how she went to her grave not forgiving him for not telling her about a child he never met. (Just quietly she was an absolute witch and I went to the viewing before the funeral to make sure she was dead - and she still managed to orchestrate a delayed letter from beyond the grave to twist the knife that little bit further.)

I assure you that ANY chance that child had of ever meeting her father (assuming he is her father) has now been completely destroyed.

If this situation is genuinely safe, and there is a chance for a bond between the child and their grandma, the child's best interests come first.

And who decides that? Mamma? Who has never spoken to the grandparents before turning up unannounced on their doorstep with her 8 year old? Was it really in the child's best interests to be given a cup of tea and a biscuit, stare at a few photos on the walls of her supposed father and then be waved goodbye?

I disagree that the child's rights completely utterly trump the rights of the adults. And even if you accept that a child has the right to a relationship with their biological parent you can't actually force that to occur if the parent does not want it.

Sorry to hijack your thread @Casey_03 - for what its worth I really admire the fact that you are trying to think this through so hard and do what is best for your child.

 

[Sideways]

@Sighs - I'm 100% with you on the abortion argument. The United Nations is not, by any stretch of the imagination, supporting the anti-abortion lobby when it comes to the International Charter, and neither am I. The fact that that particular lobby misapplies that charter for their own interests is quite repugnant to me, but more importantly, completely irrelevant here.

As I said, the example you gave was handled badly. The rights of the child are not, nor intended to be, a free pass for mum to march in if & when she chooses, however she chooses, into the lives of others under the guise of "the child's rights". The example you gave actually sounds deliberately provocative, and should have been handled better for everyone's sake. Yes, we agree. But again, that issue seems irrelevant here, because by all accounts, in this situation, mum is actually going to great lengths to build a connection between grandma and child in a safe, non-confrontational and mutually consensual way.

But do I stand by the statement that the child's rights are numero uno? Absolutely. Dad has a child. Maybe he doesn't like that. Maybe he wishes that hadn't happened. But it did. And that child, like it or not, has rights. While those rights do not extend to wantonly decimating the lives of all others, they do (formally) include a right to information about themself, and a right to express an opinion on that information.

That's not me grand-standing my own ideas about what the rights of the child should be, that's me applying international humanitarian law to the basics.

The example you gave highlighted how NOT to go about this, and that was insightful and helpful. But only to a point, because this situation is different in several key respects (which is a good thing:) )

 

[Sighs]

You seem to confuse a right to information with a right to meet people and have a relationship with them.

Totally different example. I helped a friend of mine find his birth parents. His mother was keen to meet and they now have a friendly relationship. His father spent 45 minutes on the phone to me providing medical and social information but declined to meet. He explained that his mother was elderly and unwell and his relationship with his (other) children was tenuous because he had recently divorced their mother. He did not want to drop this bombshell onto his family. The adoptee was unhappy about this, but recognised that if he forced the issue any chance of his father coming around at some later time would be destroyed.

You were the one arguing that the father's right "to a carefree existence" (offensive assumption - can only think you did not read my post carefully enough as I clearly set out his reasons) was trumped by the child's rights, but you didn't explain until your later post what the child's rights, in fact, were.

While those rights do not extend to wantonly decimating the lives of all others

But according to you, the 8 year old wanting to meet her grandmother trumps the father's wish not to have his family involved in this situation when he has not even been proved to be the father?

Your two posts make inconsistent arguments. The first seems to be your own interpretation of the child's rights - almost all of which are in fact "wants". In the second you say that the child only has two rights - first to information and second to an opinion on that information. In my view neither of those gives the child a right to meet anyone.

I'm going to bow out because clearly I am not a very important international human rights lawyer and I do not wish to hijack this thread anymore than I have. Apologies @Casey_03.

 

[Sideways]

@Sighs - differing opinions is why we're all here, & if there were a "very important international human rights lawyer" present, I'm sure they'd be able to clear up the misunderstandings;)