Is He a Good Father If He’s Only Involved With the Child He Wanted?

A woman found herself at the center of a moral firestorm after repeatedly praising her husband as a “wonderful father.”

The problem? Her husband has a 12-year-old biological daughter from a college relationship whom he has never met and never plans to meet. He pays child support but renounced all parental involvement.

His wife is fine with this arrangement, but two of her mom friends, who are close to the first child’s mother, are not. They have taken to publicly shaming the husband and calling the wife “distasteful” for praising a “deadbeat.”

The wife is now questioning whether her words are insensitive, or if her friends are simply overstepping their boundaries.

Now, read the full story:

This situation is a perfect storm of moral judgment, family loyalty, and the messy reality of choice. The husband made his position clear from the start: he did not want to be a father to the first child. He pays child support, fulfilling his legal and financial obligation, which separates him from a true “deadbeat.”

The question is whether a man can be a “good father” to the child he chose to raise while being an “absent parent” to the child he chose not to raise. The friends, who are clearly loyal to the first child’s mother, believe the answer is a resounding no. They are using the OP’s casual comments as an opportunity to publicly punish her husband for his past choice.

The OP is not wrong for praising the wonderful father her husband is to their son, but she is naive to think those words won’t sting the people connected to the child he abandoned.

The husband’s situation touches on the highly debated concept of “paternal choice.” While the mother had the right to choose to carry the baby to term, the father also had the right to choose not to be an active parent. By paying child support and agreeing to the no-visitation terms, he fulfilled the contract they established.

However, the emotional fallout of this choice is undeniable. As Dr. Joshua Coleman, a psychologist specializing in family estrangement, notes: “The narrative of the ‘deadbeat’ is often used to simplify complex emotional situations. While financial support is critical, the emotional impact of abandonment on a child, regardless of the initial agreement, is profound.”  

The 12-year-old daughter will inevitably grow up knowing her father wanted his second child but not her. This knowledge is painful, and the friends are acting as proxies for that pain.

The OP needs to understand that her praise, while sincere, sounds like a celebration of a man who “got away with it” in the eyes of the other mother’s support system. The friends are not attacking the OP personally; they are attacking the narrative that her husband is a good man, based on their loyalty to the child he left behind.

Check out how the community responded:

The judgment was highly split, with many users arguing YTA or ESH, focusing on the pain the absent father causes the first child.

However, a significant portion of the community defended the husband, arguing that he is not a deadbeat since he pays support and the mother agreed to the terms.

Finally, some users advised the OP to simply cut off the judgmental friends and move on.

The husband is a good father to the child he chose to raise, but his choice to abandon his first child means he will never be considered a “good father” by those who know the full story. The OP’s comments, while meant to be innocent praise, are seen as a slap in the face to the first daughter and her mother.

The OP’s best path forward is to cut ties with the judgmental friends, as she planned in her edit, and recognize that her husband’s past will always carry a heavy emotional weight.

Do you think the husband’s friends were right to publicly shame the OP, or were they crossing a major boundary?