The OP was married to his wife, Linda, for ten years before discovering in January that she had been cheating on him. Following this discovery, the OP moved out to his parents’ home and started the divorce process. The situation escalated when Linda informed the OP in March that she was pregnant, leading the OP to immediately cease direct contact and communicate only through legal counsel.
The OP has since discovered through a paternity test that he is the biological father, not the man Linda was sleeping with. Despite this, the OP has requested the minimum child support and formally asked to terminate his parental rights, leading to strong opposition from his ex-wife, who calls him an abandoner. The OP faces pressure from his family, who want him to forgive Linda for the sake of the child, causing him to move across the country to avoid the topic. The core dilemma is whether the OP should accept responsibility as the father or fully sever all ties.
AITAH because I told my ex to take child support and leave me alone otherwise.
Dr. Logan Carter, a specialist in social ethics, often notes, “The ethical boundary between personal justifiable anger and the creation of new, unrelated obligations is one of the most complex areas in relational law and morality.”
The OP’s behavior is a strong reaction to profound betrayal, manifesting as an attempt to erase every trace of the former relationship, including the child resulting from it. While his emotional pain is understandable, the act of relinquishing parental rights introduces a new, innocent party—the child—into the fallout. From a legal and societal standpoint, paternity typically brings responsibility; the OP’s decision to pursue termination suggests a prioritization of emotional closure and boundary setting over the established duty of care. His move across the country to escape family pressure confirms an extreme need to control his environment.
The ex-wife’s position, though fueled by the context of her infidelity, centers on the child’s right to support and potentially a relationship with a known parent, regardless of the relationship’s origin. A path forward would involve maintaining the minimum required child support without seeking to establish a personal relationship, which honors the legal duty while maintaining the necessary emotional distance from Linda. Complete termination of rights is rarely simple and may lead to future legal or emotional complications if the child seeks contact later in life.
THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.
The OP is clearly positioned between fulfilling a biological and legal obligation to a child and honoring his need to protect himself from the emotional fallout of his ex-wife’s betrayal. His actions, including moving away from his family to enforce boundaries regarding his ex-wife, show a deep desire to create complete distance from the past relationship and its complications.
The central conflict remains whether a biological link guarantees a moral obligation to parent, especially when the relationship that created the child was based on infidelity, or if self-preservation and a belief in one’s inability to be a positive influence justify complete legal detachment. Is the OP justified in terminating parental rights to avoid involvement, or is he abandoning an innocent party?
