step mom??

How long have you been seeing him?

I would have questions about why he doesnt see his daughter and how this relates to his character. And then I would have my doubts about seeing him.

He could be a victim or he could be a scumbag who abandoned his child and girlfriend.

I think these are things you need to know but I dont know how you can find out.

The fact that the child's mother is in regular contact with his parents and lets them see and take care of the child every weekend says to me that she is a reasonable person. I'd have second thoughts about seeing a man who refused to talk to the seemingly reasonable mother of his child every now and again and who showed little interest in his child. I wouldn't care how young or immature he was when he had his daughter, he still sounds immature.

Tell him his daughter is a lovely child and that you don't mind and would in fact like to see him spend more time with her. Even suggest outings the he or the two of you could bring her on some saturday/sunday. If he doesn't show signs of being a bit more enthusiastic within the next few months then I'd think seriously about what type of man he is and whether I could see myself with someone that can't be bothered going regularly to his own parents house to spend time with his own daughter.

the14me wrote:

My bf had a daughter when he was only 20 , 4 years ago. He does not see her regularly and does not speak with the mother of the child.

Would that be a poor reflection on his character? Perhaps. But you do have to bare in mind that we get ‘bad’ fathers and not ‘bad’ mothers is generally because women who are not ready for parenthood can choose other options, men cannot.

At 20 it’s quite possible that he was not ready for fatherhood and his then girlfriend (assuming she was even that) was - leaving him in a situation where he was going to become a father regardless. Reverse the rolls and we would not be discussing this, because the child would have long been either terminated or put up for adoption by a mother who didn’t want it.

Another factor is his relationship with the mother. If acrimonious then his position will be difficult at best. His rights to the child will probably be limited which means that she could either leave the country with the child if she wishes or settle down with another man and have him adopt it – either way cutting the father off forever. Most men would be very careful about investing emotionally in any child who could be taken off them this way even if they wanted to be fathers.

My guess is that it was probably the former rather than the latter reason in his case; he was not ready for fatherhood at 20 and she was. She had the child and then pursued him for maintenance. His parents then pushed him towards getting access (maintenance and access are often linked). I don’t think that would make him a bad person, it just means he is not a saint – he was placed in a position not of his choosing and you can hardly damn him for not being magically persuaded by it.

I think the only way to really understand is to ask him to tell you the story behind it, baring in mind you’ll only be getting his own, potentially, sanitized version.

You should just ask him why he isnt interested in his daughter. Its a reasonable question from someone who would be dating him. It may be painful for him to talk about,but its certainly more painful for his daughter, who is passed like a parcel from one resentment to the next.

Poor little thing.

dame wrote:

If she was very unreasonable she wouldn't bother complying with the court ordered access arrangements. Many women don't.

I’m not saying she’s very unreasonable only that you’re jumping to conclusions that she’s reasonable. We know very little of his situation – maybe he’s a complete asshole, maybe he’s a victim but chances are that it’s not so black and white, so making the assumption that she’s the reasonable one in the child’s life and inferring he’s not is simply not valid.

I think it's safe to assume a certain level of reasonableness on her part, given that she seems to have her child's best interests at heart by encouraging and allowing regular contact for her daughter with her daughter's extended family.

I think it’s almost always safe to assume some degree of reasonableness on everyone’s part, but assuming that her actions are purely for the child’s best interests are a bit of a jump. Mothers can be as selfish and as self absorbed as any father and can often project their own interests as being the child’s, thus justifying them.

Not knowing the full and unabridged story we can only assume that there is likely to be both reasonableness and unreasonableness on both sides.

It makes no sense that a man who would spend the effort and expense to go through a custody/access battle would then not treasure the time that he fought so hard for.

It is more likely that he is resentful of this child's existense and is still through his coldness, his freezing her out, trying in someway to kill her off. Four to five years later and he's still there.

It is well documented that in unplanned pregnancies, men often feel resentment and can lead them to extreme behaviors, such as murder: I dont want to say that he is anywhere near this level of monstrosity, but to illustrate in stark terms how out of control these guys feel.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=522184&page=1

They lose control, they lose control of their partners bodies, they lose control of their destinies and see the child as an obstacle to the life they want to lead.

I would tread carefully here OP. If hes this resentful then he will also resent you for pushing him in a direction he doesnt want to go in.

Its called reactance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)

Reactance is an action in direct contradiction to rules and/or regulations that threaten or eliminate specific behavioral freedoms; it can occur when someone is heavily pressured to accept a certain view or attitude. Reactance can cause the person to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude that is contrary to what was intended and also increases resistance to persuasion. A mild example could be a boy being all the more interested in a girl playing "hard to get", or teenagers drinking to excess in an environment of prohibition when they would not do so in a less restrictive culture.

The essence of reactance is rebellion.

He'll feel it when he's old.

dame wrote:

Corinthian, this reluctant-father/bad-mother thing seems to be a recurrent theme for you.

Actually it seemed to me you were pushing a good mother / deadbeat father theme.

Whay can't you just believe the best of people?

Actually I am, I’m suggesting that it may not be a simple case the mother being the reasonable one and the father just being “immature”.

So if you really do think I should believe the best of people, you might start by practicing what you preach.

A debate on reluctant-fatherhood is not called for here.

People were discussing the motivations for his apparent coldness or lack of involvement long before I proffered two, so you can hardly blame me. Just because their ideas sit more comfortably with your worldview is no reason to censor others.

Anyhow, I’ve not actually debated that topic, so I don’t really understand why you’re suggesting I have.

I have played devils advocate in light of people with imperfect knowledge assuming that it could only be the father to blame and even accepted that it could well be. You on the other hand assumed that the mother could not be to blame, with imperfect knowledge, and that the father was – then you accuse me of not believing the best of people?

It seems more like you believe the best of only some people.

OP, obviously you know better than others about this particular mother and child, but I can completely understand why she'd want to have her child at Christmas, but also want the grandparents to have the pleasure of the child after Christmas.

She's in a difficult position - presumably she wouldn't herself be welcome at their Christmas table?

the14me wrote:

the fact is he never fought for access the mother just leaves her at his parents on a fri eve & collects her sun night. to me it is not so the daughter can get to know her father but more so that she can go out at the weekend, thats how it seems to me. even at xmas she would not let them she her xmas day but left her there stephens day up until new years day so it really is not about her being reasonable, more that shes taking advantage of the grand parents

Well that might be a little unfair on the mother. There may well be some selfish motivation involved in that the mother gets to have free babysitters in the shape of the grandparents, but at the same time it would be understandable also that the mother would want the child to have contact with its paternal grandparents too for its own good.

It does appear however that the father did not have any interest in fatherhood to begin with in this particular case, which is unfortunate for the child. I wouldn’t write him off though simply because of this though as it may have been because of his age at the time or simply because the mother was the wrong person for him. At the right age and/or with the right person he could be quite a different type of father – it happens all the time.

On the other hand perhaps he is a lost cause in the fatherhood stakes, but I don’t think anyone could answer that without prejudice here. Myself included.

Kaalgat, I disagree. You know your boyfriend is loving and loyal to his child. An important character reference!

Corinthian, no; circumstances vary. But a man who keeps loving contact with a child after splitting up with the child's mother strikes me as a real jewel.

metrovelvet wrote:

... the divorce rate among stepfamilies is twice that of nuclear.

Really? Is this an Irish figure? Where did you get it, please? Interesting!