# Deciding on whether to have a baby with an ex and remain friends !



## jane12 (25 Aug 2010)

Hello ,

Does anyone have any views on the below or been through this before ?

Jane and Bob are x's. They are about 10 years apart now.
Jane is 36 and looking to start a family at 37.
Bob is 35
Jane mentioned to Bob a year ago that she wants to start a family and will do it on her own if she does not meet the right partner, In the meantime she has asked Bob if he would be intersted in helping her out. 

She has given Bob 2 years to decide if this is right for him.Bob has agreed and feels this is something he would love to do but also like Jane feels that he has not met the right long term partner that he wants to start a family with. 

There is 8 months left before things start happening. 

Baby will NOT be concieved by sexual contact

Jane reckons - to give herself a year to concieve - which would be 38 and then 39 by the time she has it. 

In the meantime if Jane does meet someone - then the idea is put on hold.

Jane has chosen Bob instead of a sperm donor or one night stands because Jane - can talk  to the child about Bob. She can tell the child alot of stories about the daddy. She also knows that Bob wants to be involved in the child's life - so at least the child will have 2 parents around and hopefully on great terms.

Jane would like a legal contract set up so that Bob is not misguided in anyway as to what is expected from both parties - and also to protect Bob as I know women seem to have more rights than men. Do these contracts stand up in court, or are they more for the parents to feel more at ease as to what is expected from them ?

Making a concept into a reality both petrifies and excites Jane. There is alot of questions Jane needs thrown at her so that she can try and get a fuller picture and pose those questions to Bob.


----------



## pinkyBear (25 Aug 2010)

Hi there, 
While I know women choose to go it alone to have children, I feel Jane is making life challenging for heself and the child by doing this. 

The most important person in all of this is the child, so if Jane and Bob were serious about this what sort of parental role is Bob going to have?? Will Bob provide for the child. 

I am not in any way judging the couple, I would be worried that if it were me, the situation could get very messy indeed and I wouldn't do it. 
I know the couple are on good terms and the likelyhood is your friend would have the childs best interest at heart...


----------



## Caveat (25 Aug 2010)

Can't help with the legalities/technicalities etc but as a concept I think this is a little repulsive. It's cold, clinical and selfish IMO.

Not an ideal start or circumstances for a child to be brought into at all.

Whatever happened to the old fashioned way of meeting someone compatible and actually simply deciding, mutually, to start a family?


----------



## truthseeker (25 Aug 2010)

So Jane wants to start a family and will do it on her own if she doesnt meet the right partner.

But as part of 'doing it on her own' she is willing to concieve in a non traditional method using Bobs sperm and he is to be involved in the childs life - does Jane see the contradiction here?

She either does it on her own or she doesnt - involving Bob means that she is not doing it on her own - she is using a known persons sperm rather than an anonymous donation. Which leaves the situation wide open to abuse - there is a reason why sperm bank donation is anonymous. Now she is in a position where she can bring Bob to court for maintenance, Bob is in a position where he can take her to court for access and guardianship - and Bobs legal rights are automatically diminished because he is the father of a child whose mother he is not married to.

If I were Jane I would worry that somewhere down the line Bob could change his mind about this involvement (when he does meet someone he wants to have a family with) and either not meet his financial agreements with Jane or not meet his emotional agreements with little Bob/Jane. At which point Jane is going to be faced with the same old trials and tribulations of any single mother who wants the father involved when the father doesnt want to be involved. 

If I were Bob Id be concerned that Jane may decide to start pumping him for money for extra's in the childs life like suddenly wanting the child to go to private school and if Bob doesnt comply then Jane could make the situation very difficult for him to see little Bob/Jane. Or if Jane meets someone else she might not want Bob in little Bob/Janes life so much because her new partner is playing Daddy now.

But overriding all of the above - Bob and Jane are talking about a person, a life. You cant plan a person around legal documents and whats expected of both parties etc... You also dont know how these things will go, Jane seems to think she can plan how long it will take her to concieve - she has no idea if that will happen at all. She also thinks that if she meets someone else, the idea is put on hold, what if she meets someone else and then that turns bad after 6 months - is Bob expected to be available for donation again after this time? 

Id be too afraid the situation would get messy. 

If Jane wants to have her cake and eat it. If all she wanted was a child she could go to a sperm bank or go for adoption. But she wants a child with a fathers involvement. But without a romance with the father.

Its all a bit selfish and cold tbh.


----------



## liaconn (25 Aug 2010)

Having a child is not a business transaction, which is what Jane appears to be turning it into. This route is bound to lead to all kinds of complications, with the child in the middle like a bone between two dogs. To be honest, Jane sounds too self absorbed and calculating to make a good mother.


----------



## lou2 (25 Aug 2010)

I think Liaconn's post was a little unfair. It may not be the ideal situation but it sounds as though Jane is trying to think through the different  scenarios that may occur. I'm not sure that makes her calculating...in my book it's being sensible. People become pregnant in all sorts of different situations...one night stands, sperm donors, conventional methods....women in ALL of those circumstances can and are good mothers. How or why you became pregnant doesn't necessarily reflect on your ability to be a good and loving mum to your child.


----------



## z104 (25 Aug 2010)

I recommend you go down the sexual intercourse route. At least this way Bob gets something out of it


----------



## pinkyBear (25 Aug 2010)

Hi there, in all seriousness this could turn into a legal nighmare for Jane and Bob, and the child will be in the middle of a mess. 

Personally I think Jane is quiet responsible in thinking about the questions and issues before hand. 

There is one peice of advice I can give on the situation. 
Mr Bear and I decided we would start a family when I was 35, we have good jobs, I am as far in my career that I can go.. blah, blah.. I had given up a child for adoption when I was very young, so I needed to go through some "stuff" before I could contemplate having more children...

As it turns out, we cant have children. Part of me is upset, but really I have learned through life, that I can only be happy when I accept things the way they are. Some times we can get into a flap wanting things we cannot have, this can be material things or emotional things.

Life doesn't always turn out the way we want it to. Jane could lead herself into a nightmare for her, Bob and ultimatly the child. My advise to Jane, be at peace with what you have....


----------



## Locke (25 Aug 2010)

Jane & Bob are not together for a reason. It obviously didn't work out the first time. More than likely will not work out this time.

Locke agrees with Caveat: 



> It's cold, clinical and selfish IMO.


 
Locke thinks Jane & Bob should put this idea in their Potential Disaster Pile and recommends Jane adopts a child that may need the chance of a good home.


----------



## fizzelina (25 Aug 2010)

pinkyBear said:


> Life doesn't always turn out the way we want it to.... My advise to Jane, be at peace with what you have....


 
This is good advice pinkybear. I hope you are at peace. To accept what you have is how to be happy.

To the OP - Jane wants a sperm donor but one who she knows, I agree with the other posters that it's a contradiction. She wants the father figure there so she's not really going it alone at all.


----------



## ney001 (25 Aug 2010)

The problem from the beginning is the "remain friends bit'.  All well and good until they both get new partners and move on with their lives.  Picture 5 years down the road, she want to move to Oz with a new partner whom she has fallen head over heals for, bob doesn't want her to go and all of a sudden they are in a custody battle.  Or Bob gets a new partner and they want to take baby off on holidays for a month - would Jane be happy with that?.  Who knows where bob and jane will be in 5 years time or what they will want to do but one thing is for sure, two ex partners having a baby will only complicate their lives and not in a good way!.  What is the problem with going it alone? Does Jane really think that it would be worth having bob as the father just so that she can tell the child some stories that relate to what happened years ago? .  she should go it alone - go to sperm bank, keep it anonymous.  That way she doesn't have to explain to child that daddy has a new wife and kids etc etc! - daddy will be anonymous.

Alternatively has Jane thought about getting a pet?


----------



## liaconn (25 Aug 2010)

lou2 said:


> I think Liaconn's post was a little unfair. It may not be the ideal situation but it sounds as though Jane is trying to think through the different scenarios that may occur. I'm not sure that makes her calculating...in my book it's being sensible. People become pregnant in all sorts of different situations...one night stands, sperm donors, conventional methods....women in ALL of those circumstances can and are good mothers. How or why you became pregnant doesn't necessarily reflect on your ability to be a good and loving mum to your child.


 
I don't agree. You have said yourself it's not an ideal situation, so why deliberately bring a child into a situation that's not great for them. Jane seems to think she's entitled to have a child no matter how difficult the circumstances. I don't think a child should be _deliberately _conceived in a situation where they could end up at the centre of all kinds of battles and legal wrangles. And I agree with Pinky Bear, if it's not to be, it's sadly not to be. There are other ways she could satisfy her maternal instincts eg adoption, fostering or becoming a hugely important part of her nieces and nephews lives.


----------



## missdaisy (25 Aug 2010)

+1 to truthseeker, ney001 and pinkybear. I appreciate that Jane is giving this consideration and is not making a rash decision but I also think Jane is only seeing the positives from her point of view - I will have a child and I will be able to tell my child what his/her father is like. 

What is going to happen when Bob wants to spend every second weekend with the child, 2 nights mid week, every second Christmas Day, 3 weeks holidays over the summer etc. What hapens when there are arguments over your differing opionions about how best to parent the child, what schools to go to. What happens if Bob meets the love of his life, a woman Jane cannot stand and who will be spending large parts of the year in her child's life, helping her with homework, getting her dinner. 

I think Jane needs to give this a lot more thought.


----------



## truthseeker (25 Aug 2010)

ney001 said:


> The problem from the beginning is the "remain friends bit'. All well and good until they both get new partners and move on with their lives.


 

Ney001 - just to expand on that thought a little - all would possibly still remain well with new partners in both peoples lives.
But (and its a big but) what if Jane actually doesnt like or approve of Bobs new partner or vice versa. In that situation Jane may not want the child to be exposed to this person or Bob may not want this new man he doesnt like raising his child.

Its a minefield that cannot be planned around.


----------



## missdaisy (25 Aug 2010)

truthseeker said:


> But (and its a big but) what if Jane actually doesnt like or approve of Bobs new partner or vice versa. In that situation Jane may not want the child to be exposed to this person or Bob may not want this new man he doesnt like raising his child.
> 
> Its a minefield that cannot be planned around.


 
That's my point aswell truthseeker, and the situation happens quite frequently. No amount of planning or drawing up agreements before the event will solve any problems that may arise.


----------



## argentina (25 Aug 2010)

So Bob is happy to be a father to this child if Jane meets nobody else in the meantime? but won't get the chance if she meets someone over the next few months and they become the Father straight away? sounds a bit volatile to me.  Either he wants to be a Dad or not.  Obviously Jane is conscious of her biological clock - not being pessimistic or anything but the her chances of having a baby with Downs syndrome or other chromosomal issues are way higher at her age.  How would this arrangement work when trying to care for a baby with special needs.  Not all pregnancies result in the 'perfect outcome'.
While I'm sure Jane is going to give this baby a great home is she just trying to satisfy some maternal desire that is not happening at the moment.


----------



## michaelm (25 Aug 2010)

To deliberately engineer a situation which will deny a child a father, or will provide it with a daddy lite scenario, is the height of self-indulgence.





pinkyBear said:


> I am not in any way judging the couple,


If only I could be less judgemental .  Jane is self-centred; Bob is an idiot.


----------



## Sherman (26 Aug 2010)

michaelm said:


> Jane is self-centred; Bob is an idiot.


 
+1.

I don't think I have ever agreed with anything michaelm has ever posted before now - first time for everything


----------



## michaelm (26 Aug 2010)

Sherman said:


> I don't think I have ever agreed with anything michaelm has ever posted before now - first time for everything




Sure even a broken clock is right twice a day .


----------



## liaconn (26 Aug 2010)

missdaisy said:


> That's my point aswell truthseeker, and the situation happens quite frequently. No amount of planning or drawing up agreements before the event will solve any problems that may arise.


 
I think this is the point that Jane needs to consider carefully. Legal documents and written agreements, drawn up before the event, cannot allow for the feelings and emotions that will come into play when the baby is actually born. If Bob is anyway human, he is not going to just file the information at the back of his mind and forget he now has a child and just go along with some document he agreed to sign before the event. Also, does Bob have parents or siblings living? Because if so, they are also likely to become involved and start urging Bob to maintain contact with his baby 'it's your child', 'it's our grandchild'  etc. Jane seems to think that once the baby is born she can go off into a happy little bubble and be left alone to rear it. She doesn't seem to have accounted for the huge emotions and primeval instincts that will come into play once the proposed baby is an actual living, breathing human being. Does she really want her child to be born into a situation where a large part of it's early childhood will be spent at the heart of legal battles, arguments, changing custody agreements etc. I think that would be very unfair and irresponsible.


----------



## csirl (26 Aug 2010)

Two points.

Firstly, the Law will over ride any legal agreements that Bob and Jane make. Bob and Jane will have to adhere to the normal family law rules in terms of access, guardianship, maintenance payments, custody etc etc. The Law will not allow either to opt out of any responsibilities. 

Secondly, you mention that Bob & Jane are x's. So they have a past history of lack of compatibility? If they are such good friends, and so compatible, that they want to have a child together, and keep their lives so intertwined, you would think that their relationship would very effortlessly transform into a loving relationship with marriage, children etc etc following? So why hasnt it?


----------



## Ciaraella (26 Aug 2010)

This just sounds like madness to me.

When couples with children break up they deal with it as best they can but most people would agree it's far from ideal, why on earth would you engineer this situation?

Also i'm curious as to the motive of the post, is this a real life situation or just a topic for discussion? No harm if it's just theoretical discussion, i'd just be amazed that people could think this plan would be a good idea when you could think of the amount of people that could end up hurt by it, and that's not even taking into account the child if they find out the circumstances they were conceived under!


----------



## irishmoss (26 Aug 2010)

Remember Sinead O Connor & John Waters
[broken link removed]


----------



## Firefly (26 Aug 2010)

pinkyBear said:


> ..
> I had given up a child for adoption when I was very young, so I needed to go through some "stuff" before I could contemplate having more children...
> 
> As it turns out, we cant have children. Part of me is upset, but really I have learned through life, that I can only be happy when I accept things the way they are. Some times we can get into a flap wanting things we cannot have, this can be material things or emotional things.


 
Fair play to you and I admire your attitude.


----------



## Betsy Og (26 Aug 2010)

I had to smile at the style of the OP. I thought it was going to finish up with "Discuss this case study under the following headings:


Is Bob a sap or whah?   (10 marks)
Should Jane wait until genetic advances allow her to pick child gender, hair & eye colour etc.? (20 marks)
AAM is getting 'eye opening' lately, I'm out of my depth. Bob ..... if you're out there.....RUN A MILE, THERE'S A BUNNY BOILER AFTER YOU


----------



## Slash (29 Aug 2010)

Why not think ahead and ask the child would it rather be born into a normal family, or be born to two self-obsessed idiots?

What is Jane looking for? A child to visit here when she's in a nursing home? What a pathetic fool Jane is.


----------



## dmos87 (29 Aug 2010)

Slash said:


> Why not think ahead and ask the child would it rather be born into a normal family, or be born to two self-obsessed idiots?
> 
> 
> > The child wouln't exist either way as only Bob and Jane can produce said child...
> ...


----------



## haminka1 (29 Aug 2010)

if Jane thought with her brain instead of her ovaries, this story would be first of all about her consideration for the child she'd like to conceive. how will the child perceive the relationship between her and the father. will it need/miss the father figure in his/her life? there's plenty of questions asked from the child's point of view but it would need two people who are not obsessed with themselves.


----------

