Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually I'll dessent here. I think his surname should be part of her name. Still give your granddaughter your husband's surname though. The reason I say this is that your daughter has to be the bigger person here, which she is doing great at, but this one act smells spiteful and a little petty. I would tell her not to go there. When her daughter is older she will want a relationship with her father and can form her own opinion about him then. He might get his act together, then what will she tell her daughter?
Listen, he didn't flee the scene and he isn't disputing parentage. He's just immature and not fully ready, AT THIS MOMENT to be the kind of father she hoped he'd be. But she decided to get pregnant by him and to keep his child - lifelong decision! Your daughter has, arguably, a better support system and more maturity at present. However, as the mother, I place more responsibility on her to be able to care for the child she is having. It's not fair, but it's reality. She doesn't need to stoop to his level by playing "tit-for-tat."
Giving the child her last name is not playing tit for tat. It's recognizing the potential long term issues if he ends up being the most awful father possible. As a result, the name she gives the baby on the birth certificate shouldn't be taken lightly. She won't be able to change it without his permission later. If she gives his last name, he won't give her permission to change it in the future even if he's not present. If she gives her last name, he'll readily give permission to change it to his name if the decision is made at a later date. Giving her last name allows her the opportunity to wait and see if he will be actively involved in parenting.
She wasn't married when she got pregnant and later divorced. That's the typical way babies have their father's name when raised by a mother. Some unwed mothers give the father's name, but it's not required since she isn't married to him. She got pregnant out of wedlock and she will be raising this baby on her own. It's totally reasonable to give the baby her name. If his surname needs to be part of the baby's name for whatever reason, it can be the middle name. Not hyphenated. Just the middle name.
He might not be absent at this moment, but the odds are incredibly high that he will be absent within just a few years and for most of the child's life. It's better to error on the safe side and give the baby the name that can be easily changed, instead of being stuck with one that has the potential to cause confusion and heartache and can't be changed.
Giving the child her last name is not playing tit for tat. It's recognizing the potential long term issues if he ends up being the most awful father possible. As a result, the name she gives the baby on the birth certificate shouldn't be taken lightly. She won't be able to change it without his permission later. If she gives his last name, he won't give her permission to change it in the future even if he's not present. If she gives her last name, he'll readily give permission to change it to his name if the decision is made at a later date. Giving her last name allows her the opportunity to wait and see if he will be actively involved in parenting.
She wasn't married when she got pregnant and later divorced. That's the typical way babies have their father's name when raised by a mother. Some unwed mothers give the father's name, but it's not required since she isn't married to him. She got pregnant out of wedlock and she will be raising this baby on her own. It's totally reasonable to give the baby her name. If his surname needs to be part of the baby's name for whatever reason, it can be the middle name. Not hyphenated. Just the middle name.
He might not be absent at this moment, but the odds are incredibly high that he will be absent within just a few years and for most of the child's life. It's better to error on the safe side and give the baby the name that can be easily changed, instead of being stuck with one that has the potential to cause confusion and heartache and can't be changed.
The name thing is another one for the lawyer. I know someone personally who was married but dad disappeared when the child was very young, maybe 2 or 3, and when the child was ten mom was able to change child's name to her last name without even notifying the father. It must vary by state.
I have never commented in this thread before, but I have kept up with it since the very beginning. I just wanted to say that I have enjoyed watching this journey.
The name thing is another one for the lawyer. I know someone personally who was married but dad disappeared when the child was very young, maybe 2 or 3, and when the child was ten mom was able to change child's name to her last name without even notifying the father. It must vary by state.
I'm sure it does vary by state. Even if she consults a lawyer in NJ now, she could be living in an entirely different state with different laws when/if she wanted to change the name. Even NJ could changes laws between now and then. Giving the baby her name eliminates the problem entirely either way.
I'm sure it does vary by state. Even if she consults a lawyer in NJ now, she could be living in an entirely different state with different laws when/if she wanted to change the name. Even NJ could changes laws between now and then. Giving the baby her name eliminates the problem entirely either way.
It does make things easier for the mother in some ways, it also makes it easier for the father to disengage even more; I.e. Thinking "kid doesn't even have my name.....". Maybe it comes down to mindset, but I would err on doing everything possible to support the possibility of my child having a relationship with their father, while preparing for the likelihood they would not. Having to remind people in elementary school that I was not Ms. (Ex bfs name) is not nearly as important to me as being able to know I did everything possible to support their relationship, even if it was for naught.
Giving the baby his name will not make him any more or less involved, but getting it changed to her name is a challenge, requiring his permission. Changing it to his name later on is easy. I have seen families where the parents wound up together, and they simply changed the first kid's name to his name.
About the doctor for the baby - it sounds like you have an access issue. If a doctor, any doctor, is too busy, you have trouble getting in. This happens to adults all the time, less common in pediatrics. So if there really is no pediatrician in your area that allows you access, and you DO have access to a FP, then I guess you have to go with the FP. But if there is a pedi who offers access, then it's better to go with the pedi. Pediatricians spend most of their day saying, "It's a virus, it's a virus, it's a virus" of "Your child is growing and developing beautifully - keep up the good work." But the reason you go to them is so that you're going to someone who has the experience and training to be able to pick up the rare time when it's not a cold, but instead pneumonia, or who notices a subtle difference at a well check up in time to make a difference. There's no question that the pedi has far more training and experience in dealing with children.
It does make things easier for the mother in some ways, it also makes it easier for the father to disengage even more; I.e. Thinking "kid doesn't even have my name.....". Maybe it comes down to mindset, but I would err on doing everything possible to support the possibility of my child having a relationship with their father, while preparing for the likelihood they would not. Having to remind people in elementary school that I was not Ms. (Ex bfs name) is not nearly as important to me as being able to know I did everything possible to support their relationship, even if it was for naught.
If the father of the OP's grandchild has the mindset to disengage from a child over a last name, he doesn't deserve consideration. Mothers shouldn't have to jump through hoops to encourage a father to be a father. Immaturity is no excuse. The OP's daughter is the same age, and she doesn't get the luxury to be immature about this. It's sexist to give the father more consideration by giving the excuse he's immature.
There are many men and women gladly and happily raising children who aren't their own. If this kid can't raise his own child without being encouraged and supported, he should step aside so someone else can step in someday to do the job right. Biology creates life, but it doesn't necessarily create parents.
She is taking responsibility even though she's not getting encouragement and support from him. He shouldn't need anything more from her to do the right thing himself.
The OP's daughter made the mistakes of getting pregnant and with this particular person. She has the responsibility to the child sex created, but she has zero responsibility to someone who is refusing to pay child support and is telling her she's going to be a bad mother. Those are big signs that her child's life will be hellish if she encourages his involvement.
He had sex that resulted in a child. Now is his chance to step up to the plate or take his ball and bat and go home.
It does make things easier for the mother in some ways, it also makes it easier for the father to disengage even more; I.e. Thinking "kid doesn't even have my name.....". Maybe it comes down to mindset, but I would err on doing everything possible to support the possibility of my child having a relationship with their father, while preparing for the likelihood they would not. Having to remind people in elementary school that I was not Ms. (Ex bfs name) is not nearly as important to me as being able to know I did everything possible to support their relationship, even if it was for naught.
If he wants to be involved in the child's life, he will. The child having his name will not make him be more involved. If he uses the name thing as an excuse not to be involved, he just doesn't want to participate. If he is fully participating, in the future the child could have a hyphenated name.
I have taught many years and it's hard on the mother when her child has a different last name. If I was in this situation, I would use my last name.
Giving the child her last name is not playing tit for tat. It's recognizing the potential long term issues if he ends up being the most awful father possible. As a result, the name she gives the baby on the birth certificate shouldn't be taken lightly. She won't be able to change it without his permission later. If she gives his last name, he won't give her permission to change it in the future even if he's not present. If she gives her last name, he'll readily give permission to change it to his name if the decision is made at a later date. Giving her last name allows her the opportunity to wait and see if he will be actively involved in parenting.
She wasn't married when she got pregnant and later divorced. That's the typical way babies have their father's name when raised by a mother. Some unwed mothers give the father's name, but it's not required since she isn't married to him. She got pregnant out of wedlock and she will be raising this baby on her own. It's totally reasonable to give the baby her name. If his surname needs to be part of the baby's name for whatever reason, it can be the middle name. Not hyphenated. Just the middle name.
He might not be absent at this moment, but the odds are incredibly high that he will be absent within just a few years and for most of the child's life. It's better to error on the safe side and give the baby the name that can be easily changed, instead of being stuck with one that has the potential to cause confusion and heartache and can't be changed.
I think you are making this a personal matter when it has nothing to do with you. We have no idea what type of father he will be...and your assumption is irresponsible at best. I've stated my opinion to the OP, that's for whom it was intended.
If he wants to be involved in the child's life, he will. The child having his name will not make him be more involved. If he uses the name thing as an excuse not to be involved, he just doesn't want to participate. If he is fully participating, in the future the child could have a hyphenated name.
I have taught many years and it's hard on the mother when her child has a different last name. If I was in this situation, I would use my last name.
I have taught for many years as well, so it completely irrelevant to the conversation.
As for the other post about what the father should do, I agree, in a perfect world everything would be fair, no one would need encouragement to do what is right and so on and so on. But in the real world it is a simple generalization that still tends to be true that women become mothers when they are pregnant and for men, especially young ones, they become fathers at birth of their child at the earliest.
And as the more mature one, mothers should put the child's best interest over her comfort. And it is in the child's best interest to have a relationship with its father.
Choosing whether or not to use the fathers name is one that should be done under the advice of council, not Internet forums an again with what will make the most sense for the child, not for moms comfort.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
