But why ass say yes

Agreed obviously if it was a deal her father made and he met the lady to end it then the article is not true why did he say it was?! Is he stupid? Urghh lol she keeps going into a coma for a week like bro why so long... I get the first time was because she had a head injury and an operation but the second t8me she just fainted why a week lol

The 2nd time was from the stress of gaining her memories, memory lost can be a delicate thing. Which is why making a decision like marriage should be considered a scam(╯°Д °)╯╧╧

I so agree how the hell did the police or medical professional agree to this

I’m truly not sure, this can on.y be manga logic and need to move on the plot. It would have been better had they taken things slow and we focused on that and that baby rather than the random time shifts （/TДT)/ everything felt rushed and unethical and like u said ml was truly an idiot.

Yes they paced this so wrong

Well... At least he wasn't a total scumbag and sociopath who made a miraculous transformation into a sensitive and loving soul.

Yhea the author did make a good decision to not do that

I agree that marrying her while she had amnesia was not the best idea. However, there’s the baby to consider. And with amnesia, you don’t really know when the person in question IS going to remember; it could be possible that she just never remembered. So sitting around waiting wasn’t going to do either of them very much good (they could have waited a month though)

Now I can get your point she has amnesia and is pregnant so you have to be watchful off her but he could've just stayed to watch her or got people to he didn't need to marry her

True, though having other people watching her could cause problems, because as far as she knows, they’re still together; so there would be no reason (in her mind) for her to be elsewhere. Also, from reading a lot of these Harlequin stories, I get the feeling that there are a lot of legal issues around child rearing. And if the two of them are not in a stable relationship (engaged, married, etc.) then child protective services would either a) take the child or b) declare the ML the legal guardian and that would throw the FL into a panic. So ultimately he was trying to do something right by her, and also getting something he wanted out of the deal (her staying with him). Untimely I don’t think he was trying to be malicious, he was just trying to do what he thought was best.

What you said about them making the ml the legal guardian was right because she would be considered unfit to take care of her child and I also believe the ml wasn't trying to be malice in his actions I also think he married her because she was pregnant but I believe it was more for self interest because he does love her and was hurt she broke it off and was going to take advantage of this situation and get married to her

Most likely (about him marrying her)

I just want to ask something.... Why the hell the child protective service took a baby and gave it to the father if the father was more wealthy than the mother?! Isn't that cruel? Why not ask the father to provide for the child if that's the case? Whatever it is, babies need their mother to take care of them because it was in their nature. That's not include the baby rights to get breastfeed. When reading much harlequin, I always wonder about this....child protective service my foot.

One of the reasons would be that the mc got amnesia and the second would be that the ml can financially provide for the baby more and he most likely got better lawyers so he would be guaranteed to win the case

Ops....sorry, my question is actually not for this particular story but more to in the real world situation.

It’s as Zianna said. In most disputes regarding child rearing, the CS looks at which parent is most capable of being able to care for the child. We’d like to thinking that CS would rule in favor of the mother, but in most cases it’s about who can better provide for the child who wins. And Europe seems to have a thing about ruling in favor of the fathers as opposed to the mothers; especially in England.

That’s weird, are fathers more reliable in Europe?

Well...it meant that they're not perfect in protecting the children then. Because babies nature are to be with their mom...because well, they had been with her for nine months. Unless the mom have issues with alcohol, abuse etc. But in terms of wealth, why not let the father pay for the child well being if he's that wealthy? At least until the child come of age?

Because the fathers want their kid too and don't want to be separated from them

Of course....what I meant to say is, it's not right to tear babies (under the age of 2 years old) from their mothers. Especially if they forcibly took the baby right after he/she was born.
But then, my standing may differ with people around Europe/UK/US because here, mothers have ultimate right because they gave birth to the baby. And because the parental right is closely related to marriage, the father of a child born out of wedlock probably doesn't have any rights whatsoever on custody. Meanwhile, divorced couple might have visitation rights on their children. Depending on who didn't get the custody.