NJ court ruling blocking newborn's dad from delivery room is first in nation

[alp227]

Source: The Star-Ledger

TRENTON — A woman preparing to give birth can bar the father of their child from entering the delivery room, a New Jersey judge has ruled in one of the first cases of its kind nationwide.

The ruling settled a legal dispute that was argued the very day the woman gave birth. Superior Court Judge Sohail Mohammed said all patients — and pregnant women especially — enjoy strong privacy protections that let them decide who can be at their hospital bedside.

Fathers, on the other hand, have no established legal right to be present at the birth of their children, the judge wrote.

"Any interest a father has before the child’s birth is subordinate to the mother’s interests," Mohammed wrote. "Even when there is no doubt that a father has shown deep and proper concern and interest in the growth and development of the fetus, the mother is the one who must carry it to term."

Read more: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/03/mom_can_keep_dad_out_of_the_delivery_room_nj_court_rules.html

[joeglow3]

1. Theoretically, an interesting case

I agree with the decision of the judge, up to the point the baby is born. At that point, I think it can be reasonably argued that the father now has a right to be present in the room with his child who is now a separate patient of the hospital.

[NYC Liberal]

5. That's how I see it too. Before birth there's one patient who has every right

to decide who's allowed in their room. After birth the baby is a patient that the father has a right to see.

[Common Sense Party]

9. If the father is not paying any of the hospital/medical bills, would he still have that right?

I know, it's a crass question, but the almighty dollar does rule in our society.

If Donor Daddy is down on his luck and is not footing at least half the bill for the birth of the child, does he still have the RIGHT to gain access to the child patient?

I would think he does, but I can see a judge ruling otherwise.

[NYC Liberal]

12. Barring some other court order about custody or a restraining order,

I'd say yes. Even if it's just done through normal visiting policy that everyone else has to follow.

[PotatoChip]

13. This is about a patient's privacy, not money. (nt)

[avebury]

174. While I kind of understand the privacy issue, I think that it is

wrong to deny a man the right to see his child born (particularly if he has been emotionally invested in the pregnancy and the pending birth of the child). That sucks to tell a man - No you can't see your child born but please hand over your wallet because you will be paying to help raise this child until it is emancipated (which in NJ appears to be college graduation, getting a job, or getting married). Kicking the father out of the delivery room may instill a lot of resentment even with a married couple. I can see a lot more couples spending a lot more time in family court.

[geek tragedy]

179. it has ALWAYS been the policy that no one goes in that room unless the mother

wants them in there.

He doesn't have the 'right' to be in there with her.

This guy was a world class asshole for trying to sue his way into that room. Talk about disregarding another person's feelings--this guy is the villain, not her

[avebury]

182. Except if you read the article, he DID NOT

demand to be in the delivery room. He was suing to make sure that he would be able to see his child as soon as possible after it was born in order to have his chance to bond with the child.

Both parents had better learn to make peace with one another because like it or not, they are in each others life for a long time to come. They have to get over any animosity they might feel for each other for the sake of the child.

If a man or woman doesn't want to find himself or herself in a situation like this then they should either not be having sex or at least practicing safe sex. It took 2 people to create this child. If I had been his attorney, I would have filed a request with the judge that he issue a ruling requiring a paternity test be completed as soon as the child was born and, if my client was not the biological father, then the mother (and the hospital) would be legally prohibited from putting my client's name down on the birth certificate. IF they are having this much trouble now, it is possible that he might not even be the father. I have seen too many episodes of Maury Pauvich's show on paternity tests. His attorney needs to look out for the interests of his client.

[geek tragedy]

185. His attorney did file a motion to

get him in the delivery room, get his name on the birth certificate, and give the kid his surname. Read the nj law journal link I posted.

You seem to think he's the innocent victim here.

[avebury]

188. I personally think that he was stupid

not to demand a paternity test prior to having his name put on the birth certificate. But if he is the biological father he has just as much right to bond with the child as the mother. If the mother attempts to freeze him out of the child's life, it will back fire down the road when the child regrets not having a relationship with her Dad.

She presents the father has a bad guy but lets all agree that none of us really know what has taken place in that relationship. It is possible that she is just as much a witch as he is a bad guy. Emotions are running very high and if both sides don't get grip on it, things do not bode well for the child being raised in a loving environment. Both of them need to get over themselves and do what is best for the child and that should be having a chance to have two loving parents even if the parents do not live together. This should never be a tug of war nor a game of one-upsmanship.

[geek tragedy]

189. He tried to force his way into her medical procedure.

Not going along his control and bullying games is not freezing him out.

DeLuccia learned she was pregnant in February 2013, Plotnick proposed marriage and DeLuccia accepted, but their engagement ended by September. They each retained counsel, who negotiated over Plotnick's request to be involved in the pregnancy and in the child's life afterward. In November, as the date of delivery neared, Plotnick filed for an order to show cause seeking the right to be notified when DeLuccia went into labor and to be present at delivery, among other relief.

Mohammed, who sits in Passaic County, held a hearing Nov. 19, 2013, in which DeLuccia participated telephonically from the hospital, where she had gone into labor. He denied the relief from the bench. DeLuccia delivered the child later the same day.


...


Plotnick also sought the right to sign the birth certificate on the day of the birth, to have the child bear his surname and to obtain an order granting him parenting time.

Mohammed held the request for parenting time was not ripe for judicial consideration, since the best interests of the child cannot be determined before birth, said. Entering a pre-birth order granting the father's application to be named on the birth certificate on the day of birth or his request for the child to have his surname, would be inappropriate because the mother did not consent to those actions, he said.

[geek tragedy]

200. Your determination to take his side and you calling her

a girl who is being a bitch

is proof that women can be misogynists too.

We're done here.

[avebury]

207. Not an angel either.

What do you call denying a daughter her father's surname and not even having to tell her father that she was born? The court ruled that he had no right to even know when she was born. If he is smart he will set up a trust fund for the child with a trustee and let the mother deal with the trustee on financial issues. That way he can focus on his relationship with his daughter.


There are some families where the Dad is the bad parent, some where the Mother is the bad parents, some where both parents are unfit parents, and some with perfect parents. My issue with the mother would be the surname issue and not even being legally required to let they guy know that the child has been born. If she had wanted to, what would have kept her from going to a state like Utah, and giving the child up for adoption without the father's consent. Absolutely nothing. It has already happened with one guy fighting in court to get the child that he never gave away. If she had not already been in labor, she could have made the decision to disappear.

[geek tragedy]

208. "Deny the daughter her father's surname."

Holy living crap.

Really?

And people say the patriarchy is dead.

[avebury]

215. Since a child is of 2 parents

shouldn't there at least be a discussion regarding surname?

I know a woman who kept her maiden name when she got married and her son was given her name. But this was because she was the last member of her family and there would be no one to carry on her family (and her husband's family was larger and last name was not an issue).

I had a cousin whose husband took her last name.

Even a lot more kids now a day end up with hyphenated names which is a reasonable compromise for both parents.

Last name can sound silly but when added to 1) I don't want you in the delivery room and 2) I don't even have to tell you when I deliver (yes I know the cat was out of the bag when she had the misfortune to be labor during the hearing) the whole thing comes across not even be close to playing well with others. Parenting is give and take. What is wrong with - I really don't want you to be in the delivery room while I give birth but I do want you to have a chance to meet your child afterwards. It is called being reasonable. It comes across as everything appears to have to be done her way and he has absolutely no say in anything. Boy will she learn that life will not stay that was as that child grows. A good friend of mine has 2 kids and let me tell you those kids are the real rulers of that family - LOL!

It is a pretty extreme effort to have to go to court regarding the birth of a child but I would not be surprised if it was because of poor communication on both parts and an unwillingness to compromise. It is too bad that, when things went south in the relationship, they were not forced into mediation to come up with a birthing/post birthing plan that would have given the Mother her privacy and yet both parents bond with the child. If they are fighting this badly at this stage of the game, I see a lot of court dates and lawyer fees in their future.

[geek tragedy]

217. Why do you think she is such an awful human being

for not caving to his unreasonable demands.

It is NOT reasonable for a man to sue for the right to violate a woman's human rights. This is not a difficult thing to understand.

He was clearly in the wrong there.

[Crunchy Frog]

232. When a single woman has a child

the child generally takes her surname. I don't know why this should bend you all out of shape, especially considering that most children of married couples take the father's surname and are "denied" the mother's.

Also, the child will have the legal right to change her surname when she reaches adulthood, should she choose to do so.

[Laffy Kat]

236. Um, I'm married to the father of my kids and they have my surname.

What's the big deal? Why would you care about that? Explain, please.

[Tumbulu]

250. Are you crazy? Have you ever produced a child?

the child is the product of it's mother. This jerk has no right to anything. Did his body produce that child? What the hell did he do to deserve 50% ownership of it? Did he go through the hell of the 9 months and the hell of the labor and delivery?

This idea that men own the baby because they provided some precious sperm is absolutely insane. And comes from the time when females were the property of have males.

You make the baby, it is yours, unless that man is really contributing a whole heck of a lot to the mother and child's welfare, he should shut up and go away.

The child is not the jerk kid dad's property.

[Squinch]

206. Let's review what you just said there:

" there is a lot that we do not know about this couple. We do not know what they have said to each other over the course of the pregnancy"

AND

"what I read in the article is a guy who is making an effort and a girl who is being a bitch."

Though you have no idea what is going on between them, you are comfortable calling the woman an animal because she doesn't want someone she dislikes in the room while she goes through the most difficult hours of her life.

So let's imagine you are in a situation where you are being literally ripped open from the inside. Think that one through. Think about your body ripping from your penis clear through to your anus. Just like some women rip from vagina to anus during delivery. And that's just one of the "discomforts" of labor.

Now tell me you shouldn't be the one who decides who is in the room with you when you go through that. Tell me that you wouldn't mind having someone who you dislike hanging around and watching while you went through it. And if you did mind, tell me that would be proof that you are just being an animal.

Go ahead. Tell me that.

[avebury]

212. My issues with her are as follows:

1. She is denying her daughter her father's surname.
2. She is not even legally required to tell the father when the child is born. He has no legal right to that knowledge.

If she had not been in labor during the hearing she could, if she desired, left town and not let him know where she went. She could have, is she desired, go to a state with loose adoptions laws, like Utah and give the child away without the father's consent. (We know that at least one woman has already done this). Based upon 1) how badly their relationship had deteriorated and 2) how much she wished to be an single parent what would prevent her from running off and giving the baby away in the scenario outlined at the beginning of the paragraph? Absolutely nothing!

It is one thing to decide who is or is not in a birthing room. That may be deemed the decision of the patient. However, once the child is born it becomes a patient in his/her own rights in the hospital. At that point, both parents should have equal, legal right to spend time with their baby in order to bond with the baby which is a crucial time for baby and parents. Under the judge's ruling, who knows when a father might learn about the birth of his child. That was what happened to the guy whose ex gave their baby away. She claimed that she did not know where the guy was despite knowing he was in the military and that he was stationed at a military base in another state. This was a guy who made frequent phone calls to find out how she was and how the pregnancy was going. He had to get another family member to finally find out what happened. It was definitely an illegal adoption but who knows if he will ever get his child.

If:
1. A man makes every effort to be a parent to his child
2. There has never been anything to prove that he is unfit to be a parent
3. It is wrong to deny that parent/child relationship while
4. Expecting him to financially support the child.

Any parent (Mom or Dad) who denigrates the other parent and tries to deny his/her child from having a relationship with the other parent will most likely live to regret it unless the other parent truly is an unfit parent (which the child is better of figuring it out himself/herself). It is never a good idea for one parent to trash another parents because children are usually smart enough to figure things out for themselves.

[Tumbulu]

251. Until you have produced a baby out of your own body

Then your opinion is not really of interest to me.

Clearly you do not know anything about what is involved in what a mother goes through in childbearing and delivery.

To say that somebody she is upset with has the right to go and be with her and the baby at his will, and against hers is abusive.

Until a man produces the baby out of his own body, he better show some respect to the ones who do.

His behavior is heinous.

[laundry_queen]

265. One thousand percent agree

You are never more vulnerably physically and emotionally than during birth. Having someone there that you are upset with can really make a difference in the entire process (stressful situations are known to slow down labor). I agree, this man's behavior is not good.

[Squinch]

296. First of all, I see no reason why we need to assume that the child will have the father's surname.

What is that, some kind of God given right? If the father wants a child to have his surname, he should be really careful about using birth control unless he is married to the mother or has some kind of iron clad agreement with her.

Because there are risks to sleeping with people without using birth control. The risk to the woman is that she will have a child. The risk to the man is that the woman will have a child and not concede to all of the father's wishes with respect to how the child is raised.

This is a news flash for all the men's rights folks out there: birth and delivery are NOT all about the father. It just isn't all about them. Hard as it is for those guys to understand that EVERYTHING is not all about them, birth and delivery are not. Suggesting that the father should be equally considered during birth and delivery makes them look asinine beyond belief.

And if you have a child with someone you are not married to, whether you are a male or a female, you need to accept the probability that the other parent will not behave the way you want them to. Women need to deal with this fact all the time. And now, it seems, so do men. So let's all grow up, shall we?

[Jamastiene]

285. If the father is known, his name should be on that birth certificiate,

imo. My father's name is not on my birth certificate. He was not in my life nor did he support me, but I would like to do my genealogy and cannot on my father's side, because I do not know who he was and my mother will not tell me. I don't want to contact the sorry deadbeat. I just want to find the genealogy. So, I wish I at least knew who my father was just for the genealogy.

As far as who is in the room when a woman is giving birth, it should be her decision who is in that room, and her decision alone. Just because a man threw some "seed" at her 9 months earlier, doesn't give him the "right" to watch her give birth. That should be her body, her choice, who is in the room with her.

[1monster]

222. You've obviously never gone through labor and childbirth. It is physically and emotionally

exhausting. The stress levels are extremely high and the last things a woman in labor needs is someone in the delivery room with whom she is at odds (not in any way laying blame on either party for that state of affairs--don't have enough information).

We (women especially) laugh at this video, but men can take a lesson from it. Remember these guys just went through one hour of it; women typically go through ten up to eighteen hours (and sometimes more) of labor.

[avebury]

227. I am not arguing over the who is present during

delivery issue. But it would have gone a long way towards trying to develop harmony if she has worked it out with him ahead of time that "While I really need to go through my delivery by myself I will have ____________ (fill in the blank with whomever you want to make the call) let you know when the baby is born. I want you to have an opportunity to come up to the hospital to meet your child and hold him/her and we work work on making arrangements for you to have a longer visit once we get out of the hospital."

These are two adults who. like it or not, are now bound together for life because they have a child together. This does not mean that they have to live together or love each other but maybe they could work on respecting each other as a good parent who loves his/her child. It should mean that they should work out, as best as is possible, a harmonious relationship for the sake of their child. As long as they are bot fit parents they need to focus on giving their child a good atmosphere to grow up in and try to keep any animosity out of the picture. They need to think long term harmony and negotiation. It is all about negotiation and picking your battles. Would it have killed her to let him know that he would be told when the baby was born and that he would be welcome to come meet the baby and give him a promise of a longer visit in a few days? Not knowing what her support system was she might have ended up appreciating having someone to rock the baby and let her take a nap once she is home. It is hard for new mothers to get a lot of rest. She has missed the big picture, i.e. take advantage of whatever help you can get.

I remember when my nephew was born. When the time came for my Brother to bring his wife and son home, his wife heard their son do a pretty loud poop while she was in the bathroom. She laughed that she wasn't coming out of the bathroom until Robert got his diaper changed. My brother gave his son his first bath at home. My brother was a very hands on dad (much to all of our pleasant surprise, particularly since he is not good at hospitals and couldn't stay in the delivery room for the birth of either of his children). My best friend and her husband didn't want to use child care when both of their children were born and her husband was the one who stayed at home with both babies (he was able to work out of the house). So I don't belittle the role that fathers can play in their children's lives.

[Tumbulu]

252. Over two days of it for me

Long long labor!

[Crunchy Frog]

226. It sucks for the man, but it's still the woman's choice.

It's not like this is the only time he's ever going to get to see his child.

And recall that just a couple of generations ago, few fathers were ever allowed in delivery rooms by hospital policy. It was a sucky policy because it robbed patients of their choices, but fathers were mostly okay with it.

[avebury]

229. The problem can occur is when the parents have a bad

relationship. If you read the ruling, a father has no legal right to even know when his child is born. When the parents are at odds that puts the father at the mercy of the mother as to how long it will be until he hears the news. And there has been a case where the woman went to another state, lied about knowing where the father was and gave the child up for adoption. The father is now fighting in court to try to get the child that he never relinquished. This was a guy in the military who was transferred to another base and his then wife chose to stay where they were before the transfer. He talked to her frequently to keep with her and the pregnancy and she never told her what she did. He finally called another relative who finally told him that she had had the baby and then he had to begin searching to find out what happened to the child. Normally there are no problems between the parents, but in some instances, it can go very bad for the father.


When you have a couple who split up before the birth of a child, I don't understand why they don't each obtain lawyer to hammer out an agreement regarding the pending child in order to protect both sides and make sure that the child is taken care of. You set your expectations, work out any issues, and everybody is protected.

[eggplant]

14. Paternity and guardianship have nothing to do with who pays the bills.

[Common Sense Party]

19. Yes, but this is a specific situation. The child is newborn--and will only be so once.

The newborn child is a patient in a private hospital which costs a LOT of money. The biological father is not paying any of those bills (in this hypothetical scenario). Would the mother (assuming she IS paying for everything) have the right to say, "no, that guy doesn't get to come in to this hospital room and see the baby, since I'm the one paying $20,000 for this delivery"?

I'm just seeing a possibility where some judge might rule that way and say he has no RIGHT to see the kid in the hospital, especially since he's not paying for the hospital stay.

I hope I'm wrong.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

20. So if the mother is not paying any bills ...

... she has no rights to see the newborn?

Makes sense to me!

[Common Sense Party]

37. Good point.

Unlikely, but no judge is going to rule against her. Against the dad, perhaps.

[eggplant]

113. Nope. Visitation rights have nothing to do with who is paying the bill.

This is one of the key points made about the need to allow gay marriage (aside from the stupidly obvious ones) -- without being an actual "spouse", the hospital can say you don't have any rights to visit.

If the father lost custody and/or guardianship of the kid (due to divorce before the birth, maybe), THEN the mother could say no, since she would be the sole guardian. Money doesn't enter into it at all, though.

This can be taken to a somewhat fucked up extreme, unfortunately. Last year a convicted rapist won in court the right to see the kid produced as a result of the rape. Lovely.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/21/60457.htm

[joeglow3]

23. Exactly. Two completely separate issues in the courts.

Although people always try to comingle the two.

[Deep13]

204. You're right...

...it's a crass question. And the money has nothing to do with it. These are personal rights, not property rights.

[treestar]

223. Visitation and Support are separate questions

The court made them separate, so the parties could not self enforce by denying the other and have to go to court to enforce their rights instead. He might have to get a court order of visitation though. A shame for a child whose parents are that much at odds at birth.

[northoftheborder]

194. agree with post 1 & 5

[geek tragedy]

29. No, he doesn't have the right to invade her

privacy. He can wait until the procedure is over.

[joeglow3]

35. Move the baby to a different room right after birth

My wife has worked in L&D and post-partum for over a decade. In fact, that is standard practice at the number hopsital for deliveries here. SHE is making the choice to demand the care be done in her room and THEN is screaming privacy. That is bullshit. Move the baby. That way, she can have her privacy and she is not infringing on the rights of others.

[geek tragedy]

38. Because his rights trump hers?

Sorry, maybe you forgot you were on a progressive discussion board, not a Men's Rights website.

The hospital is not going to rip the baby out of the mother's arms to satisfy his whims. He can wait an hour. As this guy did.

[joeglow3]

41. It is NOT medically necessary for this to be done in that room

Favoring one gender or parent over another is most definately NOT a progressive value. There is no compelling reason for your position other than you think one gender is more important than another.

[geek tragedy]

44. You're arguing his rights trump hers.

You would have her deliver the child after being in labor for hours, then have the baby carted away from her rather than letting her hold the baby.

Because what matters more than everything is that the man be privileged.

[joeglow3]

46. I am saying both parents have equal rights

But if one party refuses to participate at the same time, then that person is effectively volunteering to go second. You can't say "I won't share the moment with you and I GET TO GO FIRST.

[geek tragedy]

49. Judge disagreed with you.

As do all non-MRA's.

Let him take a paternity test and then he can have an absolute right to hold the child.

[Luminous Animal]

150. Actually, right after birth is the time to introduce breast feeding.

[Warren DeMontague]

158. Exactly.

Spot on.

[pnwmom]

178. Favoring the right of the baby to be breastfed is a progressive value.

The baby's right trumps the father's.

[laundry_queen]

266. Exactly. The father has a lifetime with his child

but the baby generally only gets a few chances to successfully begin the breastfeeding relationship - which had long term health consequences. Seems to me if the dad really cared about his infant, he'd give some space for the first few days. I know the first few days and weeks seem really important for first time parents, but once your kids get older, you realize that you have a lifetime of building your relationship

I say that because I had a C-section with my first under a general anesthetic. I didn't get to see her being born. I didn't hear her first cry. I woke up and saw her for a few moments then they took her away for the night. I didn't see her until the next day. For years I was broken up about it...it still bothers me, but now that I've had 3 more kids (saw them all right from the start and they never left my side) I realize in the end, it didn't make any difference at all in bonding with my children. None at all. This dad needs to put things into perspective.

[MadrasT]

181. When one gender contributes a microscopic sperm,

and the other puts her very life on the line carrying it around for 9 months and turning it into a baby?

You're goddamn right one gender is more important than the other.

[Euphoria]

245. right on! nt

[Tumbulu]

255. One gender, the mother actually produced the child

Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 04:25 PM - Edit history (1)

And that mother while going through birth, gets quite close to death a whole lot of the time. It is not some easy thing to do.

Some idiotic guy has no right to make claims on her or the baby at this most delicate and highly charged time.

When the stupid kid causing all this trouble makes his own baby out of his own body, he can chose to decide who gets to be there when he is ripped open. Otherwise, your points are MRA drivel.

[joeglow3]

280. Something happened to elicit such irrational anger issues

Common sense has been tossed out the window. However, it speaks a lot when you resort to name calling and emotionally charged comments.

[LanternWaste]

295. Much as in saying "That is bullshit"?

"Something happened to elicit such irrational anger issues..."

Much as in saying "That is bullshit"?
(Insert distinction without a difference here to better rationalize holding others to a higher standard than you hold yourself...)

[Squinch]

299. Ah. Of course. Someone is making a perfectly valid point about the rights of the mother

as she goes through the most difficult and dangerous hours of her life, but because they disagree with you, they must be irrational and devoid of common sense, and have anger issues.

Surely you could have come up with more than just three specious accusations to stuff into that sentence!

[joeglow3]

300. "Fuck him" is not a valid reaction to giving birth (however you want to describe it).

[Squinch]

303. Give birth and then talk to me.

[joeglow3]

306. I really hope you see the flaw of that logic

If not, I hope you speak about NOTHING but that which you have personally experienced.

Enter excuse for why THIS is different...

[Squinch]

311. I haven't personally experienced it. But I am smart enough to get my information from those who

have. You on the other hand, seem hell bent on insisting that you know better than all those selfish womens. And insisting that is the logical position to take.

If you got prostate cancer, would you ask a guy who had prostate cancer what it felt like, or would you go to a woman, ask her to make shit up in her head about it, and use that shit as your frame of reference? And then insist on the logic of your position?

So again, I say: give birth, and then I'll give your thoughts on the matter the same weight as I give to those who have actually gone through it.

[joeglow3]

314. I get mine from a wife with 15 years in the profession as a nurse

and a couple friend of ours, both of which possess 20+ years as OB/GYN's. So, my evidence carries just as much weight as yours and invalidates your conclusion. Thanks for playing.

[Squinch]

317. You actually said "thanks for playing," didn't you? Is there a double no-backs on that?

[Tumbulu]

307. You give birth and see how many times you say or think that

Listen up, giving birth is REALLY HARD AND REALLY PAINFUL!!!!!!!

You better believe even the men we love we may not want around during birth. Let alone some spoiled brat DEMANDING he have the RIGHT to his property! A child as property, how progressive!

[joeglow3]

308. The fact that you are now making shit up speaks even more about your confidence

in your position.

[Tumbulu]

301. Yes, I have a had a baby

and no man has any right to demand to be there. It is a life threatening hellish event in which the mother should not have had to be talking to a judge, etc.

A man earns his right to be a father, he does not demand it. Look around at the good fathers out there, they work their tales off (like the good mothers), contributing and helping and being real husbands. They do NOT add a life threatening stress onto an already life threatening event.

You produce a baby out of your own body and then we can talk about how the other person who provided a tad of sperm who is suing you in court, no less, suddenly thinks they have equal rights?

You think these stresses added to the most vulnerable time in a person's life will be good for anyone? This is a selfish brat kid, who dares to think he has rights over another person. He should be put in jail for assault.

[joeglow3]

304. I never argued during the delivery

I said AFTER the delivery, when there is now a second patient (his child). You argument appears to be since delivering a child is not easy, she can dictate for how long after? It appears you think until SHE is out of the hospital (2-4 days).

And yes, you are being EXTREMELY dramatic. However, with your reponses here, it is clear no amount of rational thought will get through. You appear to have damaged by a male at some point in your life and now assume all men are pieces of shit until they prove otherwise. Good luck having a happy life with that type of outlook.

[Tumbulu]

310. Oh now, who appears to be damaged? Hmm

I have been through childbirth and you have not.

You advocated taking the baby away right after she was born to show it to some jerk trying to push himself onto everyone as a father? What real father would do such a thing? He has demonstrated clearly that he is a bully and his behavior is abusive. Real fathers do not behave in this way.

YES, childbirth is not a joke and this clown made it even harder for no reason other than selfishness.

Why did he do this to his baby if he loves it so much?

My argument is that some spoiled brat has no right to demand that the mother giving birth is bothered by him trying to intrude. He failed at getting her to marry him, and so he harasses her in the courts?

I am an older woman and I have seen a lot, so don't try this silly psychoanalyzing bullshit on me. Take a look in the mirror about attitudes.

[joeglow3]

315. I advocated for giving BOTH parents an opportunity to experience THEIR child

If one party chooses to not partake because they cannot stand to share the experience with the other parent, that is THEIR issue. That is NOT advocating taking the baby away. Instead, that is not placating the demands of a petulant child who is using their newly born baby as a tool against the other parent.

It amazes the shit out of me that someone asking to SHARE an experience is selfish and abusive, but the person demanding to share NOTHING is rational. Yeah, I have to wonder what happened to allow someone to rationalize such a fucked up view.

[Tumbulu]

318. You advocated taking the child away from the mother right after giving birth no less

and you also stated that it did not matter if his presence upset her, which could disrupt getting breastfeeding going.

You have now stated that the mother is a "petulant child" using her newborn baby as a tool against the other parent? What????

This young guy used the court system to add stress to an already life threatening experience and all you can feel is sorry for him?

Hmmm, I think I am finished discussing anything more with you. Especially after reading your porn comments in the other threads. Good grief!

[joeglow3]

320. That is NOT what I said

I said he could experience the initial stages of the baby getting checked out right after being born (being weighed, etc.) and then excuse himself when the mother attempted to nurse. This is just ANOTHER example of you making shit up.

I know. The guy should just STFU because if he questions ANYTHING the mother says/wants, then he is disrupting her zen and therefore, everything is his fault.

However, with the line of reasoning you have demonstrated, I would recommend you walk away as well.

[Tumbulu]

322. Read your own posts, brother

Last edited Fri Mar 14, 2014, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Maybe you better go back and edit them. And while you are at it delete the porn talk.

Good grief, do you think that sort of talk gives you any creditability?

Anyone can read all of these posts and form their own opinions.

Your thinking that this brat who has sued the mother and demanded that she report to a judge in the middle of f****** labor can walk into the delivery room and "bond" with the baby without disrupting the mom demonstrates how insane this argument is.

[joeglow3]

323. She probably didn't notify him that his child was about to be born

Too much stress sending a text.

[Tumbulu]

325. Sending texts WHILE IN LABOR???????

please stop with posting while impaired, or whatever is up with you.

It is beyond preposterous!

[joeglow3]

327. My wife was fielding work calls while in labor

That said, how does ANY woman let ANYONE know they are in labor?

[pnwmom]

100. No. The baby should be in the mother's arms after the birth.

Birth is a trauma for the baby and the mother and baby shouldn't be separated until the mother and baby are comfortable and settled.

[Tumbulu]

256. That is right nt

[Crunchy Frog]

238. Wow, that sounds kind of backwards.

The standard recommendation these days is that the baby spend an extended period of time with the mother after birth in order to encourage the establishment of breastfeeding.

Whisking the baby off to another part of the hospital sounds archaic. That being said, I do think it would be reasonable for the father to be given a private space with the baby for a period of time after the first couple of hours.

[Ilsa]

268. Babies room with their mothers unless there is something

Medically wrong with them. They are taken to the nursery only for physicals or if the mother's health condition requires it. Babies and mothers need to be together during this time, and it is certainly more important than some guy's unproven fatherhood claim.

I don't know where your spouse was doing L&D nursing, but separating the mother-baby dyad has been out for a couple of decades in US hospitals.

[elleng]

2. Facts a little bit confused between story + headline, imo.

'Plotnick’s attorney, Laura Nunnink, said he never asked to be in the delivery room, only to be able to see the baby at the hospital as soon as possible after the birth.

"He wanted to be a very involved father from the instant his child was born," Nunnink said. "It was important that he have the right to bond just as the mother would. … It was unfair that he not have that right from the day the child was born."

Brick said that, from the start, DeLuccia "was going to provide him access to the child, as a visitor, through normal hospital procedure."

Plotnick will not appeal Mohammed’s ruling because he was allowed to see the child after the birth, Nunnink said.'

[starroute]

33. "As a visitor" isn't the same as being a parent

At least when my son was born, visitors -- including grandparents -- could only look through the nursery window. They weren't allowed to hold the baby. So which is it?

[elleng]

40. I suspect things have changed over time,

and also among hospitals. Quite right, 'visitor' is not the same as 'parent.'

Recently I as a grandparent, 'authorized' by the mother/my daughter, was permitted to be in the labor/delivery room (until the time the nurses decided everyone but the father out,) and after the birth, grandmothers returned. The father was there the whole time, by agreement.

My other daughter is expecting in July, different hospital/different state, so we'll see! Personally I wouldn't want anyone but MAYBE the father in the room, which was the case for us 30 years ago.

[Crunchy Frog]

244. Wow, when was that?

These days, in most hospitals, anyone that the mother wants can come and visit and hold the baby, unless it is in the NICU.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Health Concern was key

In his ruling, Mohammed said Plotnick’s goal of wanting to be near the child since the first moment was "laudable" but his "unwanted" presence in the delivery room could put stress on DeLuccia and harm the fetus.

In the weeks leading up to the child’s birth, DeLuccia had undergone testing for premature labor and stress, Brick said.

Mohammed wrote that "any mother is under immense physical and psychological pain during labor. … The order the father seeks would invade her sphere of privacy and force the mother to provide details of her medical condition to a person she does not desire to share that information with."

This wasn't the time to throw his weight around. If her body was in that kind of stress the few weeks prior to delivery and based on the non-existent relationship - having him in the delivery room wasn't going to help.

Now the judge did give him regular hospital visitation rights - and that's a good thing.


Discussing in a private thread on Facebook with a few of my girlfriends right now - we can't find anything that says he even went to child birth classes with her. . .

[leftyohiolib]

6. he never asked to be in the delivery room, only to be able to see the baby at the hospital as soon

as possible after the birth. he wouldnt have been there during the birth.
he wasnt "throwing his weight around" to be in the delivery room

[JustAnotherGen]

10. And he got what he wanted

So why did he sue? As soon as possible - as soon as the baby is cleaned up and ready to be visited.

ETA:
The order the father seeks would invade her sphere of privacy and force the mother to provide details of her medical condition to a person she does not desire to share that information with."

[leftyohiolib]

18. that's a good question

[joeglow3]

27. Then, the baby should have been carted away right after birth

That way, the baby can get what it needs, the parent can exercise their right and the mother doesn't have to be inconvenienced. This way,

[geek tragedy]

34. Yes, forget medical procedures and

the mother's right to hold her own baby. What's important is that we cater to the whims of the man.

[joeglow3]

36. What fucking sexist view

What about the fathers right to hold his own baby?

[geek tragedy]

39. He doesn't need to hold the baby in the first minute.

[joeglow3]

42. Why not?

Why does a mother?

[geek tragedy]

45. Ask any woman who's given birth.

Not that you'd listen.

He's entitled to hold the baby after the paternity test if you want to play this game.

[joeglow3]

47. That was never in dispute

However, that shows how you have to grasp at straws to justify something you know is not justifiable.

[geek tragedy]

50. No, most decent people would acknowledge

that ripping a baby away from its mother at childbirth is unacceptable when it would be to provide instant gratification to a man.

[joeglow3]

51. And most decent people would recognize the rights of both people to be there

and not act like petulant, spoiled little children, saying "I refuse to let you be in the same room with me, but I GET TO GO FIRST."

[geek tragedy]

53. She was not obligated to tell him that she was even in labor

Hospitals have well-established policies and procedures for child birth. Those don't get changed because a man has a hissy fit.

Your MRA fantasy is not the rule that is followed, anywhere.

Hilarious, by the way, that you bash the mother for not having people with her she didn't want there as she was undergoing a medical procedure.

[Half-Century Man]

77. MRA?

[geek tragedy]

78. Men's Rights activist. nt

[Half-Century Man]

89. Female or Male rights? It should be phrased otherwise. It should be Human rights.

But in this case we seem to be losing our minds over the timing of when those rights apply.

Going by what few clues there are, I'm speculating that. There was a bad end to the engagement. The father wanted to be involved with the child, and expressed a desire to be at the birth. As there was a civil suit, I suspect this was not well received.
I wonder if there had not been a medical reason for the mother's testimony via phone; if the father would have been notified at all?

[Question 1: Why could none of the mother's people contacted the father about the labor? Is there any reason besides petty anger? There was nothing I saw in the article indicating his desire to impose his rights over hers. He merely wanted to be included in a timely manner.]

Good points have been made about the immediate medical reasons why a child needs to be with the mother. I am a father and grandfather and have never seen those in practice (4 births). The soonest I saw a child placed in the arms of the mother was just over an hour (my grand daughter Christina). My wife didn't hold my daughter Elizabeth until nearly four hours later (disclaimer: difficult pregnancy, C-section, and post Op, and infant care). I can vouch that three of those cases the mothers didn't nurse. I'm glad we now do things differently. However due to my personal past experiences, I can see where the idea that the baby doesn't need immediate contact with the mother comes from.

I do see a lot of personal anger being used as evidence to support an opinion here in this thread. I also suspect there was a lot of anger used to make disicisions about who can be where and when during this little girl's birth.

I do think both parents have rights and responsibilities. Whatever anger they might have between them is subservient to the child's welfare. There is no medical reason for the mother to not inform the father knows about the labor, during the labor. There is no legal reason for the father to be not included in the news of the labor in progress. There is no good legal reason for the child to be whisked to the father until those things benefiting the child are addressed. There is no legal reason for delaying the fathers meeting the child as soon as those needs are met.

[geek tragedy]

90. when the mother is unmarried, she is the only legal parent

until the birth certificate is signed by both people.

there are obviously unhealthy personal dynamics at play here, but the law does not forbid dysfunctional relationships

there are certainly reasons why the mother should inform the alleged father about her medical progress, but they are not legally binding.

there are women's rights for the same reason black people pursued their own civil rights and the same reason GLBTQ people pursue their own rights

[Half-Century Man]

94. Gotta question the legal parent thing.

In example: A father who never signs a birth certificate and admits to probably being the father is still accountable for child support.

I suspect there is more to being a legal parent at play here than has been expressed in the thread. Probably several standards according to whichever state you live in.

[geek tragedy]

95. go ahead and find a state with a different rule.

it's pretty simple--there's no doubt that the baby is hers. her maternity doesn't need to be established. father's paternity does need to be established by some legal mechanism

[Half-Century Man]

97. And wasn't that supplied via testimony?

Mother's and father's? There was no denial of paternity as far as I could glean from the article. Did I miss something in the report?

[geek tragedy]

103. he could certainly argue for that in court, after the birth

but creation of legal parental rights has to follow established channels

[Half-Century Man]

106. Well, I'm guessing that the existence of a civil suit means

he was trying to do that before the birth.

Seems to me, the only winners in these arguments are the lawyers.

[geek tragedy]

108. and he failed for necessary reasons, since he doesn't get custody

of her uterus

[Half-Century Man]

125. Uterus custody?

I read it, as he just wanted to be informed in a timely manner and to meet the child on her birthday. Apparently he got that. He met his daughter on her birthday, at the hospital. I think that was a good thing.

I think it is sad that he felt he had to sue. I am not familiar enough with the father, mother, or specifics of the case to judge personal motive(s). I do wonder about the "just cause" for not wanting to inform the father about going into labor. That tidbit of information was conspicuously absent from the article. Maybe on purpose, to cause talk about the issue and drive up sales of the newspaper which was the source.
The court re-recognized the medical reasons why mothers should have a say in the occupants allowed in the room during time of birth, just as they would reaffirm the medical reasons the doctors get a say as well.

Whether you have a double X or an XY chromosome in your helix; missing out on the birth of a your child is....troublesome.

[geek tragedy]

129. well, if he got what he wanted, why was he suing and how is it that he lost?

he didn't have a right to be in the room while during the childbirth

[tammywammy]

140. This is just the ruling being publicized.

The father doesn't plan on appealing because he did see his child soon after birth. The suit was over seeing the child after birth and to have the mother notify him when she was in labor. The issues have been resolved regarding this suit.

[geek tragedy]

147. just read the NJ law journal, he was asking to be declared father

on day 1, ahead of the birth, judge pointed out for obvious reasons not yet, fella

[Half-Century Man]

149. According to the article

Plotnick sued to get DeLuccia to inform him when she went into labor, and to grant him access to the baby at the hospital upon birth.

The court ruled he could be barred from the delivery room, in part based on the medical evidence presented in her defense. The court further ruled that the mother had no obligation to inform the father of the labor, this I have an question with (just cause).

We here on DU have had a heated discussion on what properly constitutes "access to the baby at the hospital upon birth". I learned a few new things, and now have a better understanding of the totality of immediate care of newborns.

I don't know if he wanted access to the birthing room in the first place or was acting on the advice of his lawyer. I have never met a lawyer who advised "start small".

He did met his daughter and on her birthday, at the hospital.

[Laffy Kat]

241. Sounds to me like he is a controlling prick.

That's why.

[geek tragedy]

242. bingo. this kind of behavior leads to physical abuse in many cases nt

[joeglow3]

195. And gay marriage has been and is illegal all over

Doesn't make it right.

[geek tragedy]

197. Are you trying to be offensive?

When a woman gives birth, the identity of only one biological parent is known. The law sensibly accounts for that.

Comparing the inability of men to force their way into a medical procedure to the detriment of mother and child's health to the historic discrimination faced by GLBT people is obscene.

[joeglow3]

213. Was the mother contesting him as the father?

[geek tragedy]

214. Between contractions? No. nt

[joeglow3]

218. That response proves you know your argument is flawed.

Thanks

[geek tragedy]

224. How so? He didn't have any right to be in that room and he certainly didn't have

the right to separate mother and child at the moment of childbirth, when it is KNOWN to not be in the child's best interest to rip her away from the mother.

But, you went ahead and argued for something that would be detrimental to both mother and child, because you are only concerned with making sure the man wasn't deprived of instant gratification--because he's the only one that matters in MRA land.

[joeglow3]

230. Prove it is detrimental

The studies linked below showed many different results. Some said skin it skin contact was at the peak benefit as long as it was up to FOUR hours after delivery. One said skin to skin contact with the father was just as good. One said it was best immediately after delivery. However, that last one also admitted it was too small of a sample size.

However, it is clear you are not interested in facts before forming a conclusion. You will clearly come to a conclusion first, look for facts that support it, make shit up if needed and then attack someone and call them names.

Like I said, you resorting to these tactics speaks volumes.

[geek tragedy]

233. Your entire argument that he was entitled to have the baby ripped away from the mother a minute

after she gave birth (after carrying the child for nine months through all kinds of pain and suffering) was something you made up, as it is clearly not the law, nor is it one that is morally supportable.

Though, to be fair, that was more of a misogynist fantasy than it was a legal or medical argument.

You will notice no one has your back on this.

In the event you're genuinely concerned about someone's well-being other than the man's, read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014752698#post133

But, I'm sure that's the policy at hospitals because they're run by seething misandrists.

[joeglow3]

237. That is not what I said

I said the father has equal rights to be able to enjoy the presence of his baby right after the baby is born, just as the mother does. Your responses have been

1. It is the law that he can't until he is on the birth certificate. I pointed out that just because a law exists, it does not make it make it morally appropriate. So long as the mother acknowledges it is his baby, it is not morally correct to deny him access to his baby over a perfunctory task.

2. Then you said it was necessary for skin to skin contact with the mother immediately after. However, the links to studies below did not come to that conclusion. One even concluded skin to skin contact with the father is just as good.

3. I said both parties should have a right to access the baby when it is born. If one party refuses, then the party not objecting should get to enjoy the baby and the other party is more than welcome to join in if they CHOSE to.

Finally, you resort to name calling. The last speaks the loudest.

[geek tragedy]

240. here's what you wrote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=752808

Move the baby to a different room right after birth

My wife has worked in L&D and post-partum for over a decade. In fact, that is standard practice at the number hopsital for deliveries here. SHE is making the choice to demand the care be done in her room and THEN is screaming privacy. That is bullshit. Move the baby. That way, she can have her privacy and she is not infringing on the rights of others.

He wasn't denied access to his baby. He saw the baby that day. His rights are not being violated by having to wait a few hours. You are peddling misogynist "women are persecuting us" bullshit.

Yes, it is a misogynist fantasy to suggest that the woman should not be able to hold her own baby after giving birth given the stress, the blood, the general privacy issues because it inconveniences a man.

Given your history of grotesque, hateful and blatantly misogynist comments directed at women here,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=158760
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=329975
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4217562

yeah, you're not fooling anyone

[joeglow3]

243. Like I said, resort to name calling

That is what people do when they cannot argue the technical merits of something.

[geek tragedy]

246. your argument has no merits. your argument is concerned with only one thing,

privileging the male over the woman. acting as if the woman has earned zero consideration, not even an hour's worth, after bearing a child for 9 months and enduring the torture of childbirth for hours.

You even stated that it didn't matter if she felt uncomfortable breast feeding in front of him:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=752853

that's right, if her breastfeeding the baby in front of him makes her uncomfortable, you would say "no breast feeding"--BECAUSE YOU ONLY CARE ABOUT THE MAN.



that doesn't matter to you, because, well, you're the kind of man who writes stuff like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=157767

Just like no guy under the age of 40 wants a hairy bush. ... the majority don't like smelly, nasty hair all over their partner. ..I don't want to get it on with my wife at the end of the day and tell here she either needs to shower before I'll think of dropping or endure a smell (that exists after a few hours, as much as you would like to pretend it is days). ... I assure you that the majority are not as repressed as you. I guarantee if you break this down by ages, you would see old the old repressed women over 40 rocking the pussy 'fro

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=329975

Because, as I have said before, 95% of women care more about money.

Rush is exhibit number 1.

so, stop playing.

[Tumbulu]

316. You posted these outrageous things?

and you have the gaul to argue with any of us here?

Your posted comments are phenomenally sexist and disgusting.

I am disappointed that anyone thinks any of the things that you posted. They show such deep disrespect.

Are you sure you are on the correct forum? This is a Democratic Forum.

[joeglow3]

319. Yeah. Looking for equal rights for both parents is disgusting.

And I see you are now using the defense mechanism of telling someone this is DU and their kind don't belong here. Sorry, but not everyone sees equal rights for all people as a bad thing.

[Tumbulu]

321. Your approach is so far from equal, my goodness!

Until a man can produce a child, there is no chance for the birth experienced to be made equal. You made the wild claim that you have participated in three births and then you posted disgusting porn talk? You think porn talk online somehow shows you as someone promoting equality?

I am afraid you are pretty sorely mistaken.

And yes, I do not come to this site to read idiotic porn talk. There are plenty of places for that sort of talk, but DU in the past was not one of them.

If it is your goal to demean women in this way, then it is my profound hope that you will leave this site.

[joeglow3]

324. Can you say porn talk ten more times?

Maybe then you can more of your lies true.

[Tumbulu]

326. Delete the creepy things that you have dared to post on DU

and then a conversation can be had. Until then it is ignore.

[redqueen]

330. Wow. Those hidden posts, and the ones in this thread...

wow.

[geek tragedy]

331. yep, this one is a Nigel Tunfel when it comes to the MRA scale

at least one of those comments is per se sexual harassment and merited an instant ban, imo

[pnwmom]

176. Most decent fathers would support the mother in establishing breastfeeding

since all doctors agree that is the best option for the baby.

[CTyankee]

86. I was about to say that labor can and often does have the effect of making women in pain

get angry with her husband/partner. I was mad as hell at my husband for a while during labor...the pain can make a women real grumpy...

[StatGirl]

52. Well, for one thing, she may want to breastfeed

Lactation is easiest to get started in an environment where the mother is unstressed and has skin-to-skin contact with the baby during the first hour or so after birth.

[joeglow3]

54. That is not a medical procedure.

She can do that with the father in the room. It is so natural, you should be able to do it in the Olive Garden dining room.

[Sheldon Cooper]

59. The father has no right to observe this.

NO RIGHT AT ALL. And you would be hard-pressed to find any medical person who would claim that immediate breast feeding wasn't EXTREMELY beneficial to the baby.

So really, it's not about bonding with the child or anything else, it's about exerting their perceived rights over those of anyone else. I realize that MRAs cannot bear to be thwarted at anything when it relates to women, but this time I think it's just tough cookies for them.

[joeglow3]

66. Hospitals have to run the vitals of the baby first

and the father has every right to be present during that.

[Sheldon Cooper]

70. No, he doesn't.

Sorry.

I can see that you are absolutely galled at the thought of not being in supreme control at all times. I suggest you brace yourself for the fact that you will not always get your way. Funny how that works, isn't it?

[joeglow3]

82. Wow. What causes such a need for attention?

[geek tragedy]

84. why don't you tell us? nt

[joeglow3]

85. I never attacked anyone personally

I shared a view. I do not view one parent as superior to another. I certainly don't think non-adherence to the view that one parent is superior precludes someone from being progressive.

However, this individual, in faaaaaar from their first time, felt to need to make an unsubstantiated claim that is, not so accidently, an insult to someone. I have to question what happened to create such a need to attract ANY attention, no matter how negative, in this individual.

[geek tragedy]

74. legally, he doesn't unless he's married to the mother.

legally, an unwed mother is the SOLE legal parent until the birth certificate is signed by the father. Even then, she is the custodial parent and calls the shots absent a court order to the contrary.

[Crunchy Frog]

247. No they don't.

They can and do do all those things with the baby on the mother's chest, at least in the more progressive hospitals.

[gollygee]

274. No, they don't

I breastfed both of my babies before anything else was done.

[StatGirl]

81. Now you're just being ridiculous

What part of "unstressed" do you not understand? There is plenty of literature showing that stress slows down labor and interferes with lactation.

Breastfeeding is beneficial to both mother and child -- for the mother in particular, it helps to expel the placenta and shrink the uterus following childbirth. The health benefits to the child are numerous.

And, like birth, it is private. The fact that some mothers don't mind breastfeeding in Olive Garden -- long after lactation has been established, of course -- doesn't mean that other women don't value their privacy, especially in the hours after birth.

Having an ex-lover in the room who is so hostile to the mother that he goes to court over the birth procedure isn't conducive to relaxation.

[Tumbulu]

262. It is quite hard to get going

breast feeding first babies, it takes a lot of help from midwives, nurses or lactation specialists. Stop making insulting comments like this. Giving birth and establishing breast feeding are big deals and if the dad had any true love of his child, which he has clearly demonstrated that he does not, then he would be doing everything to support the mom. Not attacking her at this most traumatic time.

And until you have given birth, or have been close to someone who has, I suggest you stop with these uniformed comments.

[joeglow3]

281. Read the facts of the case

The father is the loving person who is solely interested in his child. The mother is the selfish person who will be one of those people who will fuck over the child if she thinks it scores her points against the father she hates more than she loves her child.

[Tumbulu]

302. You must be imagining a whole heck of a lot

since there was nothing in the article about that dynamic.

[Sheldon Cooper]

57. Yes.

They encourage putting baby to the breast as soon as possible after birth. The mother is under no obligation to allow the purported father in the room for this, nor is the baby.

[kmlisle]

55. If she is a nursing mother she needs to start right away.

That is what I did. Nursing is a huge advantage for the baby and you would not want to interfere with that.

[olddad56]

92. oh yeah, because the mom's milk always comes in immediately

[antigone382]

168. There IS colostrum right away. And latching on needs to be established quickly.

And if the baby doesn't nurse, the milk *won't* come in; so the sooner that process gets started the better.

[kmlisle]

210. If this is about the baby's welfare then

The doctors and nurses need to do whats best for the baby and the mother who is their patient whose life and health can be threatened by child birth. If a man is concerned about his child he will not put his "rights" before the welfare of that child.

[laundry_queen]

267. I suggest

You read up a little about breastfeeding before making a fool of yourself with such a ridiculous comment.

[Tumbulu]

259. The mother MADE the baby

Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Got it? Without the mother there IS no baby! and giving birth is one long hellish life threatening event! which takes time to recover.

[joeglow3]

279. Wow. Guess the right doesn't possess all those who don't understand science.

[Tumbulu]

298. What science do you know think shows that a man produces a baby?

Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 05:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Any woman can go get sperm. Sperm does not make a father, or a baby.

A loving nurturing man (whether he has provided sperm on not) becomes a father- by participating in the gd hard work of it all. By supporting the mother physically and emotionally during the hell of the hard slog of producing a new human out her own flesh and blood. And it hardly ends at the birth!

No, a father earns his way to that title, he does not demand it or sue for it.

This oaf is a first class jerk and your defense of him is illuminating.

[pnwmom]

175. Can the father breastfeed the baby?

Let's talk about it if he can. Breastfeeding isn't like a faucet you can turn on and off. It requires a great deal of skin to skin contact with the mother and baby to get it going.

[Exultant Democracy]

180. This is the new DU, all men are rape culture republicans

think about it a rape culture republican isn't interested in loving his amazing new baby he just wants to either oppress his new daughter or initiate his son into the republican rape culture. Either way he has no right to see the baby until the mother decides.

[geek tragedy]

191. So you think he was justified in trying to sue his way into

her medical procedure and violate her privacy?

[Exultant Democracy]

248. No I agree with the poster who I responded too. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Anything short of that is very fucking sexist. Unfortunately I've been on DU for 11 year and in the last few years DU has become haven for sexism of a certain brand.

[geek tragedy]

249. DU has become home to misogyny, we are in agreement.

At least, I hope we are in agreement, for I am assuming you are not one of those sad sacks who thinks men are being persecuted here and suffering from some kind of reverse-sexism.

[Exultant Democracy]

253. No the reverse sexism here isn't a figment of imagination. Visit the HOF forum sometime,

very enlightening. You can watch a concerted effort not to discuss the history of anything but to conduct a focused campaign on DU to push what would be to the vast majority of feminist a very radical view of feminism. Plenty of women on DU are pissed about this too.

Go back 11 years we were busy talking about Bush and that is when DU had real value. These gender wars here are fucking pathetic and they are all but one sided.

[geek tragedy]

254. look at my profile. HoF do not push anything particularly radical

sorry, I guess I was wrong about you

[gollygee]

275. I don't recall MRA arguments at DU 11 years ago

or we would have had gender wars then too.

Easy way to avoid gender wars: don't post sexist stuff.

[Tumbulu]

258. What right does a man who supplied sperm

Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 05:13 PM - Edit history (1)

and has done nothing but harass a woman about ready to give birth and then sues her got?

He has the right to be pilloried for being a woman hater and should be nowhere near that mother and child.

The judge was awfully kind to the selfish brat.

[pnwmom]

101. A baby needs to be held by his or her mother after birth,

not to be "carted away."

[joeglow3]

105. Not immediately

I have never seen anything that says a baby is detrimentally harmed if the baby is held by the mother 30 minutes after birth.

[Butterbean]

156. It is harmful. Here you go.

http://www.unicef.org.uk/BabyFriendly/News-and-Research/Research/Skin-to-skin-contact/Review-finds-significant-benefits-of-skin-to-skin-contact/

http://evidencebasedbirth.com/the-evidence-for-skin-to-skin-care-after-a-cesarean/ (this is for after a c-section, but if you scroll down, you'll see the skin to skin benefits listed that apply to any birth).

http://apps.who.int/rhl/archives/gpcom/en/index.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12804473

My post is down below if you are interested in my opinion. If not, *shrug*.

[pnwmom]

173. If the mother is going to try to breastfeed, the baby shouldn't be taken away

until the mother and baby are ready.

This is something the father cannot do.

[happyslug]

202. Most new borns do NOT want to feed

The reason I know this is I had a sister who was an exception to this rule, right out of the womb she cried till she had a bottle. My mother joked about it for years afterward. My Mother's other nine children waited 15-60 minutes before they wanted to feed. Birth is traumatic to the child as while as the mother, so some delay in wanting to feed is generally expected.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/breastfeeding-first-days.aspx#close

http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/baby/breastfeeding/pages/Colostrum-Your-Babys-First-Meal.aspx

[kmlisle]

209. Not my experience or the experience of my friends. They started nursing right away.

We were all doing Lamaze with no drugs in the baby's system but that is the practice. See above.

[pnwmom]

231. Mothers need the presence of a baby to stimulate the milk to come in, whether or not

the baby makes much of an attempt to get to the nipple. Just holding the baby gets the hormones going.

I have actually breastfed three babies, and they all were ready to suckle right away. I can't imagine having a baby whisked off to another room at that point. It would be very traumatic for mother and baby.

This man is a control freak. The fact that he filed a lawsuit, even though the mother let him see the baby right away, is very telling.

[Butterbean]

260. In my 16, almost 17 years of being in the delivery room, I disagree with this.

Most babies, when we finally get them off the mother's chest and to the warmer to do the weighing and measuring, etc., are already smacking their lips and shoving their fingers and fists in their mouths and rooting for something to suck on. It's a reflex. It's not necessarily stimulated by hunger (they are saturated with amniotic fluid which helps to keep their blood glucose levels stable), but it is there and the La Leche League and the AAP agree, initiating breastfeeding within an hour after birth is the ideal to shoot for.

Links:


http://www.ibfanasia.org/Article/Initiating_breastfeeding_within_one_hour.pdf

http://apps.who.int/rhl/pregnancy_childbirth/care_after_childbirth/cd001688_JanaAK_com/en/

http://www.unicef.org/media/media_40468.html

https://www.llli.org/nb/nbjulaug05p142.html

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/806325_6

[laundry_queen]

269. Not true at ALL

All of mine rooted right away and cried when they didn't get to nurse (my C-section babies). My oldest was a C-section and I didn't see her for over an hour (I had a general anesthetic) she wasn't interested in nursing because the staff gave her a bottle against my wishes because she was rooting and screaming. Let's just say it took a long, long time to 'fix' that mistake. My second was a vbac, had skin to skin contact right away, nursed nearly instantly. My third was a scheduled C-section and she was MAD she had to wait an hour. It's all on video. When I finally got her, well over an hour later, she latched on like a 3 month old and nursed like she'd been starving for days and didn't let go for an hour, LOL. My fourth, also scheduled c-section, nursed while I was getting sewn back up on the operating table. All of mine were ready to go the second they came out.

[gollygee]

276. Both of mine did

And it's recommended to try to breastfeed them immediately.

[olddad56]

146. My son was born Cesarean, and his mother was too out of it from the anesthetic to hold him.

I was the there to hold him, and to accompany him when they carted him to the room where the nurses clean him up. I held him and he never left my sight until his mom had recovered enough to hold him.

She wanted me to be there. I think my son did too. That might not be the case in the situation that lead to this lawsuit. We had not planned on the Cesarean.

[pnwmom]

234. That's a completely different situation. In this case, the father would have been

taking the baby away from a fully conscious baby who had just given birth to him -- and the two of them needed skin to skin contact to encourage the mother's milk to come in and the baby to suckle.

You had to cope with the after-effects of a Cesarean -- and the mother WANTED you there, so you were reducing her stress, not adding to it.

[Chemisse]

137. It's customary to lay the baby on the mother's stomach for a while.

New mothers often nurse a little at this time. It's good for both of them, giving comfort to the baby while inducing stronger contractions to expel the placenta and curb the bleeding for the mother.

There is no reason that the father can't wait until the baby is an hour old.

[GeorgeGist]

187. :sarcasm:

[Tumbulu]

257. Is this a joke?

Please read your posts, they are not making sense. Have you ever had a baby?

[joeglow3]

283. I have had three

Never once did they wait thirty minutes before checking the vitals of the baby.

[Tumbulu]

305. You have given birth three times?

I find that hard to believe.

[joeglow3]

309. Did I say that, or are you making more shit up?

I DON'T find that hard to believe.

[Ilsa]

270. No. Most mothers are nursing babies right after birth.

First nursings after birth are important for collostrum, helping the mother's body to begin healing, jumpstarting breastfeeding. If you wait too ling, baby enters a sleep phase that can last half a day or longer.

[joeglow3]

282. So, in your experience nursing takes place first?

The let the mother struggle with nursing for 30 minutes (as it almost always is a struggle the first time) and THEN check the baby's vitals? I suggest you run the fuck way from that doctor and hospital.

[Ilsa]

286. You know what the procedure is.

Baby is given exam (no parents) and handed over to mother, usually in 15-20 minutes. It's important to initiate breastfeeding as soon as possible before baby's post partum sleep kicks in.

Yes, I've been there, both as a mother and a nurse.

[joeglow3]

287. I have been there as a parent and my wife is a nurse there

And in every instance, the vitals were done right next to the parents, who could witness it all. Like I said elsewhere, the number 1 hospital for deliveries here made it a practice in the last 5 years to take the baby to a separate room for this process, but will continue to do it "the old way" if the parents ask. This was a very special moment for me, as a father, and I cannot imagine someone denying that opportunity because they hate the father so much. There are millions of women who would die to have an active father in the lives of their kid and this woman is using this as an opportunity to give a big "fuck you" to the father who wants nothing more than to be involved in the child he is equally responsible for. Let the father participate in this process and then excuse themselves when the mother begins the nursing process. Based upon what was presented in the articles posted about this issue, the father would have been more than happy with that outcome.

[Ilsa]

288. It is her birth, her time when she is almost physically

helpless. She gets to say who is present, whether her motives are "sincere" or not. An EX boyfriend is not an ideal presence when you are this vulnerable.

If the assumed daddy wanted the fairy tale birth situation, he should have waited to impregnate her after their relationship was legal. He's not a relative. He has no right to be there if she doesn't want him there.

[joeglow3]

289. So, like I said, move the baby to another room, as even you stated is standard process

That way, the father can experience the joy of HIS RELATIVE without demanding the mother miss it (she is more than welcome to join) and she can get over being helpless (I find that term interesting because my wife literally laughed at that description).

[Ilsa]

290. What, your wife doesn't care for c-section mothers?

Or first time moms? Your wife sounds like a callous nurse needing a change. Additional stress is not needed. It's the mother's call, period, and the staff needs to be on board with it. Get over it.

Daddy can still bond with baby when the mother is discharged. Plenty of fathers do. My BIL missed his daughter's first 18 months. They are a tight pair now.

[joeglow3]

291. There zero reason for the mother to do that other than using the child as a tool

We know, sadly, that there are millions of parents who will use their kids to get back at the other parent. Add this lady to the list.

[Ilsa]

292. Or maybe he's a creep that she's doing her

Best to protect her child from. It could go either way.

She may not be able to keep the child from him forever, but she should be granted the opportunity to recover from childbirth before having to deal with him, even knowing he's in the next room.

[joeglow3]

293. She certainly didn't feel strong enough to document that in the proceedings

[Ilsa]

294. There may have been other reasons she didnt

want to call him an ass in court. Maybe she didn't want that recorded for posterity for the child to read some day.

He legally lost in trying to control her life. Get over it.

[joeglow3]

297. THIS is what is pathetic

A father being excited about the birth of his child and wanting to experience its entry into the world is seen, in your eyes, as "trying to control her life." I know you can't see it, but that says a LOT about you.

[Ilsa]

312. Yeah, make the judge's decision all about ME!

You have been challenged over and over on this topic by more posters than just me, yet you won't give up your "HE MUST PREVAIL!" attitude even when the judge hands down the ruling that the freaking birthing mother's wishes come first.

Congratulations! For the first time in the 11 years I've been here I'm putting someone on ignore.

[joeglow3]

313. And judges have said gay marriage bans are fine

Judges ruled Bush should have been president in 2000. Amazing how you can turn your convictions 180 degrees on a dime when it suits your needs.

[My Good Babushka]

72. Their very first parenting FAIL

They really should have come to an amicable understanding before the end of the last trimester. Looks like that poor kid is in for a real treat. Think of how great the holidays are going to be.

[JustAnotherGen]

88. They will all survive

I ran a blended family/stepmom/biomom community for many many years - a very successful one that is still around today. Just from having seen women come and go and following their journeys for 14 years - the kid will be aok.

Turn the prism - that kid has TWO parents who give a damn. And that's a good thing. They just have to learn to co-parent and love their child more than they hate each other.

[Chemisse]

138. Indeed - every little parenting decision is up for a fight.

It looks like 18 years of misery is ahead for all involved.

[Drale]

4. "Any interest a father has before the child’s birth is subordinate to the mother’s interests,"

Couldn't such a ruling be used to strengthen abortion protections? If a father's interests are subordinate to the mother's interests, then doesn't that mean any man or for that matter persons interests are also subordinate?

[riderinthestorm]

8. Took the words right out of my mouth nt

[eggplant]

15. Could. Should. Will it? Who knows.

[happyslug]

211. That is the legal basis behind Roe vs Wade.

That abortion is a MEDICAL PROCEDURE that involving what a WOMAN wants to do with her body. Thus no one else, in the first trimester, could under Roe Vs Wade, interfere with the right of a woman to give birth. Stronger rules as to getting an abortion applied to the Second Trimester, but it was still the woman's option. In the third Trimester, even under Roe vs Wade, strict restrictions as to her options as to abortion could be applied.

The US Supreme Court adopted the above three trimester rule, for it had been the Common Law Rule till the Medical Community, starting in the 1830s, wanted to make abortion illegal EXCEPT IF DONE BY A DOCTOR. Prior to the 1830s (and for many decades afterward, the change was slow, but steady) midwives not only delivered babies but also did abortions. Before you say the doctors of the time period were better TRAINED, remember prior to the LATE 1800s, most doctors only went one year of Medical School. Yes one year. One female doctor who served in the Civil War, went to and graduated from TWO medical schools, both one year in length.

I bring up the level of training of most doctors in the mid 1800s to show that the Midwives did not have that much less training. In many regards many mid wives had more training then doctor for the midwives had been apprenticed to older midwives for many years before they went on their own.

Anyway, the medical community of the early 1800s wanted to take over birth and thus asked the various state legislators to out law abortions except upon the finding of medically necessary . That later clause would give doctors an exclusive right to do abortions for only the doctors could determine medically necessary.

The Medical Community then turn to the religious community for support for this change, the religious community embraced the change, but wanted to restrict medically necessary much more the the Medical Community wanted (i.e. make the burden on the Doctor that the abortion was medically necessary, not on the state that the abortion was not, i.e. put the burden of proof on the doctor performing the abortion that it was medically necessary not on the state to show it was NOT medically necessary).

Anyway, the US Supreme Court did not address WHY the states moved away from the Common Law rule, but that the common law rule had been the rule in all states in 1787 and thus was a right under the ninth amendment that said the Bill of Rights were NOT an exclusive list of rights, but other rights were also preserved (The main attacks on the Bill of Rights in the 1790s when it was adopted, was that it could NOT list all possible rights, and those rights preserved under the Constitution would be viewed as "abandoned" if they were NOT listed in the Bill of Rights, the ninth and tenth were written to address this argument i.e. the Bill of Rights is NOT an exclusive list of Rights protected under the US Constitution).

Where did the Common law get its rule on Abortion? While from the Catholic Church, for the rules set up in Roe vs Wade were the pre 1869 Catholic Rule for abortion. Yes, the Catholic Church decided that since the Medical Community determined its old rules had no basis in science, it had to adopt the then new scientific evidence as to HOW a fetus developed and its abandoned it older rules (There is some evidence that the change also was affected by the lost of the papal states to the then new nation of Italy, forcing Italy to address the issue of abortion and the people who both supported abortion and opposed abortion).

Thus, the issue of the right of a woman to what she does with her body, including having an abortion, has been the basis for the US Supreme Court ruling on abortion. In later decisions the court moved away from the three trimester system used in Roe vs Wade, but have never abandon the theory that it is based on the right of a woman to do with her body as she sees fit.

Side note: The Catholic pre 1869 rule on abortion can be traced back to St Augustine and then back to the rule in use in Ancient Rome, Greece and Judea. Since what happen in development of the fetus was unknown to these ancient people, the rule was a Fetus had no sole till it "Quicken" i.e. the mother could feel the child kick and move in her womb. This occurs in the third trimester and thus no abortion in the third trimester except under very unusual circumstances (Health and life of Mother for example). Most women learned they were pregnant while before their second trimester, thus some restrictions were put on women, but not much in the second trimester for a fetus could become "quicken" early. The first trimester the woman had an absolute right. Now the Catholic Church still view abortion a sin, but it was NOT a mortal sin. It was NOT a violation of the Ten Commandments except in the third trimester. This changed in 1869 when the Church embraced the medical community findings that Quickening was not some sort of change in the fetus, but the result of slow steady change that had continued since birth. Since the scientific community could NOT set an act in the development of the fetus that was NOT part of the constant development (as Quickening had been prior to 1869) of the fetus, conception became the point where a fetus became a human as opposed to Quickening. Notice this change was driven by the Medical community not the religious community, through the religious community took it further then the Medical community wanted it to go.

[Ilsa]

271. There you go.

Her interests in obtaining safe healthcare for herself and the baby outweigh his right to be there as the baby is born. One is infinitely more important than the other.

[libodem]

7. When the father

Gets his butthole ripped out in the delivery he can have a say. Until then stfu.

[JustAnotherGen]

11. This

Times 100.

[libodem]

17. .

[leftyohiolib]

21. when the mother

can impregnate herself all by herself then she can make all the decisions until then it's our baby our choice.
just so there's no misunderstanding this statement is not about this situation and pertains only to me, what others decide to is their decision

[geek tragedy]

25. "Our baby our choice"

Wrong.

Dead wrong.

Her body, her choice. Period.

After the baby is born, then it becomes "our choice."

[Arkana]

26. My butthole literally clenched up at the thought of this.

[joeglow3]

30. Cry me a river

Delivering a baby does not give someone the right to refuse other people their rights. There have been debates about babies prior to birth and the argument (that I agree with) is that until the baby is born, the mother possesses all rights. NOW, your position is that since labor sucks, the mother gets to extend her views beyond the birth of a child. How far does this extend?

Two freaking bad. If the mother is the one making the choice to not be in the same room with the other parent that possesses equal rights to be with the new life/patient of the hospital, then move the baby to a different room to clean it up. That way, one parent can be there and the other can choose to be a part of that or not.

[geek tragedy]

65. He has no rights at childbirth if they're not

married. When the birth certificate is issued with his name on it, then he has rights that can compete with hers.

[msanthrope]

219. He has no rights until paternity is established, post-birth. nt

[jamzrockz]

48. You do know babies

dont comes out from the butthole.

[Lars39]

80. Ever heard of the need for an episiotomy?

[liberal N proud]

62. That made me spit all over my monitor

butthole ripped out

Sorry but you just made is sound so damn funny, Last time I heard it described in a way that made me lose it was when I was told it was like shitting a watermelon.

I for one am damn glad, I don't have to do the childbirth thing, I would tell them to cut the damn thing out.

As far as being in the delivery room, my wife demanded it, saying that I put it in there and I had better be there to get it out.

[Brigid]

107. "Take your bottom lip . . .

And pull it over your head." -- Carol Burnett describing labor pains, according to Bill Cosby.

[liberal N proud]

110. You are trying to make me fall out of my chair

[Brigid]

120. "My wife stood up in the stirrups . . .

Grabbed my bottom lip . . .
And said "I WANT MORPHINE!!!" -- Bill Cosby

There, did that do it?

[liberal N proud]

160. Cosby is always a riot!

[pnwmom]

177. I would consider it if the father could breastfeed with his own milk. n/t

[Tumbulu]

263. My sentiments exactly! nt

[HockeyMom]

16. You are assuming that the woman and the man are still together

What if they aren't? What if she has a restraining order against him for abuse? That doesn't happen to pregnant women by the father of their child? Separation and divorce doesn't either before a birth? That would be a very difficult labor and delivery for a woman with her EX there. Let the father go see his child AFTER in the nursery in situations like that.

[nomorenomore08]

335. +1

I don't know why people are so quick to assume she's the one in the wrong...

[geek tragedy]

22. Duh. Not a close call legally.

Her medical procedure, her choice. Period.

[joeglow3]

32. No it is not

The discussion was not the birth, which was HER procedure. The issue was regarding being present during the care of the baby. That is the BABY's procedure and both parents have an equal right to be there.

[missingthebigdog]

56. I don't think that both parents do have a legal right

In most states, custody of a child born out of wedlock is automatically vested in the child's mother by statute. Once the child is born, paternity can be either acknowledged or established by a Court, but paternity in and of itself does not automatically confer custodial or visitation rights.

While such a policy may seem unfair, it is the best approach. Truthfully, until the child is born, the father has no way of proving that he is the father. We certainly don't need situations where men show up and demand access to newborns that are not their children.

[joeglow3]

58. The mother never disputed it was his kid

You are making up facts for this case to justify your position

[geek tragedy]

67. Legally, he's the father when he signs the

birth certificate. Not before then.

[missingthebigdog]

71. Exactly.

And even at that point, he doesn't have any custodial or visitation rights. An unwed Mom is custodial parent until a Court establishes otherwise.

[missingthebigdog]

69. I am merely educating you on the law

What fact did I make up?

Your position is that they both have an equal right. The law says otherwise. It does not matter that both parties acknowledge he is the father. Unless and until he is given custodial or visitation rights by a Court of law, SHE is the custodial parent and gets to call the shots.

[arikara]

61. Actually, no.

They don't have equal right to be there. Postpartum is part of the delivery process. If the parents are estranged, the father can meet the baby when its appropriate and ripping a newborn away from its mother is not appropriate or healthy for either baby or mother.

[Sweet Freedom]

76. +1

The postpartum process is personal and exhausting. I certainly wouldn't want an ex around while I was learning to nurse and being stitched up.

[fishwax]

228. yep -- seems pretty clear cut

[Arkana]

24. Very precedent-setting,

because now it would only follow that the woman has the sole right to decide whether or not to carry the child to term.

[geek tragedy]

28. Biological fathers have never had any authority

over that decision--not since 1973 anyways.

[HockeyMom]

31. Two people allowed in Labor and Delivery

at hospital where my daughter is giving birth in May. They do not list WHO they can be. Besides her husband, she asked me to be there. Um, no way, my dear daughter. How many men want their mother-in-laws there when their wives give birth? If he couldn't be there? Yes, then I would go.

I have heard some women want their older children to be there with them. That is their choice. Same as with the fathers.

[Sweet Freedom]

60. I wanted my mom to be with me.

and I'm so glad she did it.

I wouldn't be thrilled with the idea of seeing my daughter go through labor, but I know how comforting it was to have my mom there, not only because she had been through it before, but because she knows me so well, she was immediately able to pick up on that something was wrong with me and the baby. For those reasons, I'd do it if my daughter asked.

Congratulations on the grandbaby!!

[sufrommich]

68. So did I and she was. Maybe it's a family thing,I don't think

I know anyone who didn't have their Mom with them for their first birth experience. I would have been scared to death without mine.

[Sweet Freedom]

73. I was terrified!

It's like no one wants to tell you the truth about delivery. You hear how magical birth is, but you know it's gotta hurt! And then afterwards, they hand you a helpless human being!


Mom!!!!

[sufrommich]

75. Agreed. No matter how much you read up

on labor,it's not what you think it is. Yeah,Mommy!

[HockeyMom]

116. I will think about it

I know my daughter says "things have changed since you gave birth", but some things NEVER change, and haven't for thousands of years. She was born in 1984. Yes, I can see the newborn's vital signs needs to be checked, passages cleared, but if no problems, baby needs to be given right away to mother, bare skin to bare skin, and nursed immediately in the delivery room. That is the most natural, and best, for both. I did that 30 years ago. Do they still do that?

I took weeks of Lamaze, joined LeLeche League decades ago. I know both still exist today. Damn, I even used Lamaze breathing techniques for TOOTH ACHES over the years. Mangement of pain is the same. I just don't want to get in the way with "modern technology". My daughter has only been to one 2 hour class given by the hospital. Sorry, not enough preparation for labor, or breastfeeding. I shut my mouth on that one.

I will think about it.

[VA_Jill]

43. First off

This is the *estranged* father of the child and not married to the mother. Until he acknowledges paternity and takes a DNA test he has NO rights whatsoever, and IMO he should also be paying child support to have any rights. Secondly, she did allow him to see the baby after delivery, so it's not like she barred him totally. All these "father's rights" assholes need to STFU unless they have all the facts. They aren't the ones who drag the kid around for 9 months and then have to lie down and **** a watermelon! (Forgive the vulgarity, but I've done it 4 times, and trust me, that's what it feels like!) If you're not deeply bonded to someone, you do NOT want them in there while you're doing that!!! So I give the judge a hearty "Well done!"

[bongiver]

64. Rights

"IMO he should also be paying child support to have any rights"

You have a very warped idea of what rights are.
Sounds like you would also agree with the supreme court that money = speech.

Please explain why the mother should not be paying child support. Especially, if she makes more than the father.

[geek tragedy]

83. because the custodial parent never pays child support.

oh, and welcome to DU.

[bongiver]

91. Custodial

Kid was just born. How has anyone been declared the custodial parent?

[geek tragedy]

93. an unmarried mother is always the custodial parent, until a court says

otherwise.

she's the ONLY parent until the the birth certificate is signed

If a man wants full custodial rights from the very first minutes of the child's life, he has to marry the mother.

[bongiver]

96. Custodial

So my question still stands.
If he has not been declared the father then why should he pay child support?
And, once he is declared the father why would he not automatically be a joint custodian?

Thanks for the DU welcome BTW.

[geek tragedy]

98. if he signs the birth certificate, he's on the hook for child support

obviously if he tries to pursue his rights he automatically concedes paternity for child support reasons

joint custody is disfavored by most family court systems--custody is normally based on best interest of the child if it is litigated

[bongiver]

99. Custody

How is he on the hook for child support if custody has not been established by the court?

[geek tragedy]

102. the mother has custody until the court says otherwise nt

[bongiver]

112. Custody

So by default it is gender biased?

[geek tragedy]

114. just like pregnancy is and actually it isn't gender-biased

someone who identifies as a man can be pregnant so long as he was born with and retains female reproductive organs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnant_man

[bongiver]

117. Cunfusion

You are confusing nature with law.

Nature can be gender biased.
The law is supposed to be impartial.

[geek tragedy]

118. you're confusing gender and sex, also

the law is impartial. but, the law does not overrule biology.

It is not mandatory for the marines to have requirements that are not biased in favor of men (upper body strength etc) and it is not mandatory for the law to ignore the biological reality of pregnancy and childbirth.

until a man establishes his paternity, there is no way of knowing who the father is with any certainty

[bongiver]

124. Marines

How you brought the Marines into this I'll never know. But, The military does not have to follow an impartial b/c soldiers are not people they are Government issue. Not really pertinent to this discussion though.

Back to this subject;
you seem to fall back on the man establishing paternity.
So, as stated above once that has been done then equal custody rights should apply. Furthermore, to address something you said earlier about courts rarely issue joint custody. That seems to fly in the face of logic all together. Why would the state find it appropriate to declare one parent better than the other automatically?

[geek tragedy]

128. once the man has established paternity then there is a court system to determine

what is in the best interests of the child if there is a controversy.

as to why joint custody isn't more common, I don't know, except to say that these people are not together for a reason-, so there needs to be someone who makes the decisions for school, religious upbringing, etc. otherwise it's nothing but gridlock

[bongiver]

135. Joint

"as to why joint custody isn't more common, I don't know"

I know why. B/c the state's main interest is in the $4 it receives from the federal gummint for every $1 it spends collecting child support.
More joint custody = less child support mandates = less money from the Feds.

The "best interest of the child" BS is just that. BS

[geek tragedy]

141. buh-bye nt

[My Good Babushka]

63. I wish I'd barred some people from the delivery room

I had a whole class of nursing students come in and gawk at me! lol. I couldn't say no, it was for education, a noble cause.

[JudyM]

79. I hope at least it wasn't your first child...

Seems like a person should be able to go through that without gawkers.

[giftedgirl77]

87. Ha, I can top that. My doc stopped rotating my son

around bc he was face up bc the nurse said we should show the residents how to do this procedure. He did not remove his hand while she went to go round them up bc he didn't want my son to slide any further into the birth canal.

This was my second, I had no shame by then.

[HockeyMom]

104. Breach birth, no C-Section, in 1979

I had the entire OB staff of the hospital there. "Let me show you how it's done", my doctor said. Apparently, all the doctors and nurses took him up on that. UGH!!!!

[CTyankee]

111. They didn't ask your permission?

With my 3rd child they asked if a group of nursing students could watch the doctor administer the epidural (relatively new at that time and I was in a teaching hospital in NYC). I gave my permission, but it was helpful that I was facing away from them during the preparation so I wasn't seeing them stare.

[HockeyMom]

127. No

Maybe because it wasn't students but staff? Head of OB department was there too. Apparently, even back in 1979 a breach delivery was a big deal? My husband complained there were so many people there he had to push his way through.

I had far too many things to be concerned about than them and paid no attention to them.

[CTyankee]

134. not me. I was always a badass in labor...pain did that to me...

[Warren DeMontague]

143. I made the mistake of inviting the local DU meetup.

Earl was there, he was playing some sort of accordion. It was unpleasant.

[Chemisse]

144. Nurses from 2 shifts all crowded in to watch my birth.

It was a small hospital, so a birth was an exciting event, and the baby was born during the shift change.

[Blue_Tires]

109. Weaksauce from the mother...

She chose a hell of a time to play her 'grudge' card...

[geek tragedy]

119. yeah, how dare she insist on only having people she wants present while she's in

a medical procedure that's extremely grueling, painful, stressful, and private.

she acts like it's her own damn body or something

[Blue_Tires]

122. I'm just calling it as I see it

If there were already other relatives in the room, what's one more? Have him stand quietly in the back or something...I'd like to think he'd have a moral right to be present, since there wasn't a legal one...

(I'm giving the father the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't drunk/high/belligerent/likely to interfere with medical staff or pull a "Johnny Damon&quot

Unless there's something I'm missing about their time together and he's just a plain evil person to be around, I'll mark her actions as pettiness...

[geek tragedy]

123. "unless there's something I'm missing about their time together"

As it turns out, you're missing all of it, since you know exactly nothing about why they broke the engagement off or what the personal dynamics are

unless there's something about your personal knowledge of the case that I'm missing

[Blue_Tires]

126. which is my point...

I'd hope there was a very, very good reason to keep him out...

"Because we had a bad breakup" doesn't cut it in my book...ymmv

[geek tragedy]

130. if you don't know, probably best not to judge

if my wife told me she didn't want me in a room with her during childbirth, or for any other procedure, I would duck out and respect her decision

[PotatoChip]

136. Well, one commenter from the article addresses that,

and sums up the entire case very well, imho...

(Bolding is mine)

Of course all the negative comments I'm reading are coming from men, who will never, and have never, given birth. The stress and trauma of the event is like nothing you will ever go through, not to mention, if the 2 are not on civil terms, how can that man expect to be involved in something so personal and private. Everything is out there, vulnerability is at its highest, there may be medical issues that the women does not want to disclose to him, about herself. He was given immediate access to the child after birth, she did not try to keep him away from the baby, just away from her at such a private time/event. Imagine someone you do not get along with wanting to be there, in the OR, during your surgery, or at your proctologist examination. Privacy and stress free environment is what a mother wants and what will allow for baby to be stress free. That should be first, not the selfish act of the father.

[arikara]

220. Nobody is entitled to be in the delivery room

that the mother doesn't invite in or want there. Even if they are standing quietly in the back. I can't believe the boneheads in this thread.

[PotatoChip]

121. What grudge card?

Did you read the article?

[CreekDog]

155. "weaksauce"? how many babies have you given birth to?

we should discuss that before you call something a woman did while in labor "weak" anything.

[VA_Jill]

183. Thank you n/t

[gollygee]

277. You've obviously never given birth

It's a vulnerable and painful time, and nobody going through it wants someone she isn't very comfortable with being in the room with her.

[Fearless]

115. Sad that these things are necessary.

Especially during what is supposed to be a happy time.

[My Good Babushka]

131. In my case, I'd have preferred it if the father were present at the childbirth

instead of me.

[geek tragedy]

132. you win the thread nt

[Chemisse]

145. Hahah!

[JimDandy]

154. LOL cause it's so darn true! n/t

[laundry_queen]

272. Bingo! nt

[Jamastiene]

284. This should be a DUzy!

Great post!

[Butterbean]

133. This strikes me as odd.

Been an L&D nurse for 16 years. It has always, always, ALWAYS been the policy at every hospital where I work that the mother controls who comes into the delivery room, period. It doesn't matter if it's the father, it doesn't matter if it's Jesus Christ himself, if the mother says no they can't come in, then they can't come in. All of the L&D units I've worked on, including the current one I work on, are locked and you have to be buzzed in by the nurses. Only 2 visitors are allowed at the bedside at a time, again, this was the policy at every other hospital where I worked. It is the up to the discretion of the mother as to who those two visitors are, and they can trade out visitors and rotate if they want to.

I have personally been involved in several situations with patients who did not wish to have the father at the bedside due to personal conflicts and/or estrangement, and it was never a court issue. They simply said no, and we enacted our special patient protection policy involving a password and a few other protective measures, and that was that.

I guess I just don't understand how this even became an issue. I've never been at a hospital where the mother wasn't solely in charge of who was present for her delivery and who was not.

As for the infant staying with the mother for 1 hour after birth, that is also standard policy at all the hospitals where I've worked, including the one where I currently work. After an uncomplicated vaginal delivery where both mother and infant are medically stable, it is actually recommended that skin to skin contact be established immediately. Skin to skin contact with the newborn and mother helps to keep the infant warm much better than an artificial heater, and it also helps to normalize/regulate breathing and heart rate. Establishing breast feeding within one hour after birth, if possible, is also recommended, as that is when mother and child are most alert and ready to take the breast. So no, it isn't completely nuts that the mother didn't want her child whisked away right after birth, and it actually IS detrimental to the infant to do something like that. Here are some studies to read if you would like further information:

http://www.unicef.org.uk/BabyFriendly/News-and-Research/Research/Skin-to-skin-contact/Review-finds-significant-benefits-of-skin-to-skin-contact/

http://evidencebasedbirth.com/the-evidence-for-skin-to-skin-care-after-a-cesarean/ (this is for after a c-section, but if you scroll down, you'll see the skin to skin benefits listed that apply to any birth).

http://apps.who.int/rhl/archives/gpcom/en/index.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12804473

Anyhoo, it's their business, it's their fight to work out. I just hope whatever their relationship evolves into in the future that it becomes something that is beneficial and healthy for their child and that the child is not used as a pawn in adult battles.

[geek tragedy]

139. it became an issue because some jerk decided to take the mother to court

and because the loathsome misogynists' movement took it up as a cause

thank you very much for your insight--I learned a few things from your post

[Butterbean]

159. Ah, I see. Nasty situation. n/t

[rebecca_herman]

184. seems they worked out custody issues

the court ruling has a footnote that they voluntarily agreed on shared custody and did not have to ask the court to decide, and also he saw the baby at the hospital with the mother's agreement after the baby had been born. I don't think mom wanted to cut dad out and deny access to the child, I think she just wasn't comfortable with him being there during the stress of labor.

here is the court decision:

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/trial_court_opinions/Plotnick-v-DeLuccia.pdf

"The parties entered into a consent agreement on parentin
g time, which the court approved, on their own after the
child was born. "

[Butterbean]

192. Can't blame her there.

I routinely tell my patients when they ask me who can be in the room for delivery, "whomever you WANT here and whomever doesn't stress you out." The last thing I want is my mother stressed out because of a pain in the ass family member/friend/significant other/whatever in the room. People completely lose their minds when somebody has a baby, I swear. I have seen so many people lose their shit over totally mundane things up on L&D. It's amazing. People also seem to think that birth is a spectator sport, which it is not.

[Warren DeMontague]

142. I can't believe this would even go to court.

Of COURSE she has the right to decide who can or can't be in that room. Fuck.

[CTyankee]

148. may I ask you a question?

Do you think the right to privacy argument is the better one for women to use in this type of situation? It gets away from the woman's body vs male fatherhood rights type of argument. Privacy is something that "evens out" the debate, IMO. Men, as well as women, can understand the privacy argument in their own lives...

[Warren DeMontague]

152. I don't know, because to me there isn't even an 'argument' here.

I didn't realize the ability of people in the setting of a medical procedure or event to determine who could be present, was even up for debate.

But yes I think privacy enters into it, certainly.

i guess if one is looking at it from a custody or "parental rights" perspective- which strikes me as asinine, dont get me wrong- i still stand by my statements i think in an earlier breastfeeding thread, that the relationship between mother and newborn infant, generally, vs that of father and newborn infant, is NOT equal, and to pretend they are is to deny basic biology, esp. In terms of something like breastfeeding.

If you're talking about giving birth, then, it's a "duh" out to infinity.

[CTyankee]

157. I just think that "privacy" is a buzzword for some people to mean "sex."

So its use enhances the argument for the mother's position here...like a 2 way street...and it is understandable at a gut level...

[Warren DeMontague]

161. Maybe. I dont know.

Asinine arguments usually defeat themselves, or one would hope.

If a lawyer told this guy he had a case, someone ought to ask for their retainer back.

[CTyankee]

164. I like your response, Warren!

[geek tragedy]

165. some clients prefer a lawyer who's stupidly aggressive

this lawyer certainly played that role, sued not only to have him in the room during childbirth, but also to require that the baby have his, not her, surname

[Warren DeMontague]

166. And some asses are so big they don't even make hats in that size.

I feel bad for the mother, and the baby.

Edited to add: parenting, what it should be, is among other things a daily exercise in self-sacrifice for the needs of others.

"Dad" has already failed the first test spectacularly.

[geek tragedy]

170. +1000. I don't believe in hell, but if it existed I imagine

one of the tortures would be suffering the pain of labor whlie being forced to participate in a legal proceeding.

poor woman, ugh

[LeftyMom]

216. Close the thread. Warren wins. nt

[geek tragedy]

151. the New Jersey Law Journal has different information

http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202646374429/Mother%20Can%20Exclude%20Father%20From%20%20Delivery%20Room%20NJ%20Judge%20Holds?mcode=0&curindex=0&curpage=ALL&slreturn=20140212173018

DeLuccia learned she was pregnant in February 2013, Plotnick proposed marriage and DeLuccia accepted, but their engagement ended by September. They each retained counsel, who negotiated over Plotnick's request to be involved in the pregnancy and in the child's life afterward. In November, as the date of delivery neared, Plotnick filed for an order to show cause seeking the right to be notified when DeLuccia went into labor and to be present at delivery, among other relief.

Mohammed, who sits in Passaic County, held a hearing Nov. 19, 2013, in which DeLuccia participated telephonically from the hospital, where she had gone into labor. He denied the relief from the bench. DeLuccia delivered the child later the same day.


...


Plotnick also sought the right to sign the birth certificate on the day of the birth, to have the child bear his surname and to obtain an order granting him parenting time.

Mohammed held the request for parenting time was not ripe for judicial consideration, since the best interests of the child cannot be determined before birth, said. Entering a pre-birth order granting the father's application to be named on the birth certificate on the day of birth or his request for the child to have his surname, would be inappropriate because the mother did not consent to those actions, he said.

[treestar]

153. Bad rationale

That clearly discriminates, it should be put in terms of her right to medical treatment privacy being absolute. Blatantly claiming the father's interest are subordinate to the mother's just opens up a can of worms.

[geek tragedy]

163. That's what the court said, that her interests in medical privacy

and personal autonomy trump his interests, i.e. his interests are subordinated to her fundamental human rights

'

[Squinch]

162. It's Menz Rights Central around here!

Here is a summary of some of the pearls of wisdom that have been dropped by our persecuted brethren in this very thread:

1.)The mother doesn't get to decide who is in the room with her while she is in freaking labor. People she doesn't want in the room should just be allowed to stand in the back quietly. Against her wishes.

2.)The moment she has the child, the child should be taken from the mother. The hospital must cart the baby around from room to room seconds after it is born, because otherwise a father's almighty rights might not be venerated properly.

3.)If the mother objects to having the child carted from room to room seconds after the birth, she is just "playing a grudge card."

4.)The custodial parent should be paying child support.

5.)The designation of the mother, from whose body the child has just emerged, as the custodial parent is a gender bias persecution of the poor put-upon menz.

6.)The state discourages joint custody because that way it makes tons of cash from the "gummint" (yep, no kidding. They said "gummint." Just like at the tea party rallies.)

The stupid AND the pure nastiness BOTH burn.

[Zenlitened]

186. Right? That those arguments are being made on DU...

...it's mind-boggling. Like right out of a Fox News focus group for the coveted Hostile, Reactionary, Know-Nothing demographic. What in the world has happened to this place?

[geek tragedy]

190. Juries refuse to hide misogynistic comments, ergo misogynists feel welcome

and emboldened.

[Squinch]

199. And they appear to be reproducing...all by themselves...like flukes...

[geek tragedy]

201. I've lost the ability to alert, but:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=753458

Read towards the end.

[Squinch]

197. I don't know what's happening. And you are right: a lot of it is very characteristic of Republican

or Conservative spin monsters. And a LOT of it is pure and simple backlash against women.

[Crunchy Frog]

261. DU is turning into an MRA and gun humper magnet.

[gollygee]

278. No doubt

[LittleBlue]

167. A man actually fought in court to be in the delivery room?

Wow.

If my wife tells me to fuck off when we have ours, I won't think twice. The baby will still be there when I get back. Never saw a reason for husbands to be in the delivery room.

[warrant46]

169. Who is the Baby Daddy ?

In this day and age ??

Watch Maury some time and observe the fun

[geek tragedy]

171. "Senator Edwards, you ARE the father of this child." nt

[warrant46]

172. LOL-- NT

[Niceguy1]

193. later in the day

After all had calmed down seems to be appropriate

[Deep13]

203. Well, yeah, it's a medical procedure.

The soon-to-be mother is the patient. It is up to her.

[Douglas Carpenter]

205. "Any interest a father has before the child’s birth is subordinate to the mother’s interests,"

Mohammed wrote.

There is something about that sentence from this article I find heartwarming.

[Laffy Kat]

239. I know. The ruling is so sensible and brief.

Why can't we apply this to choice? Mother's body, mother's choice. Period.

[LeftyMom]

221. When I was born my dad was in another room and my mom was unconscious.

That's how C-sections worked then. My mother was so loopy that when nursing me after surgery she asked when they were going to take her into the operating room. Repeatedly.

Yet somehow they both managed to bond with me and nobody was irreparably ruined.

FWIW, this isn't even the stupidest case in the history of child custody issues: I swear to god, there was a clause in my parents' custody agreement regarding who (my mother, the non-custodial parent, fwiw) was allowed to change my hairstyle, and who was not (my father, the custodial parent, who is a great guy but not blessed with an excess of taste.) There had been an incident involving a beauty college and a pixie cut, and it was not to be repeated.

[Crunchy Frog]

225. I agree with the ruling.

A woman going through childbirth should have the absolute right to decide who is or is not present in the room with her.

The father can spend time with the baby after it's born, as long as legal paternity is established.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

235. I wouldn't want a man staring at my @#$^)*& or me while I'm popping out a baby nt

[penultimate]

333. heh...but what if you have a male doctor?

CLOSE YOUR EYES, DOC!

(I'm just being dumb. I'm not trying to make any "points" or argue)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

334. I don't want a male gyn or obstetrician. I never understood why a man would want to be a gyn

I mean, how does that mental conversation even begin in a male medical student's mind? "Gee, I REALLY like me those female genitalia! They're SEXY! I think I'll specialize in ob-gyn!" If the male mechanism were as complex as the female, and there were a specialty, "Penology," how many females would want to be a penologist? Not me!

[pnwmom]

264. I'm glad the judge was guided by the baby's best interest,

which was not to be separated from its mother soon after being born.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/806325

Abstract

The manner in which a new baby is welcomed into the world during the first hours after birth may have short- and long-term consequences. There is good evidence that normal, term newborns who are placed skin to skin with their mothers immediately after birth make the transition from fetal to newborn life with greater respiratory, temperature, and glucose stability and significantly less crying indicating decreased stress. Mothers who hold their newborns skin to skin after birth have increased maternal behaviors, show more confidence in caring for their babies and breastfeed for longer durations. Being skin to skin with mother protects the newborn from the well-documented negative effects of separation, supports optimal brain development and facilitates attachment, which promotes the infant's self-regulation over time. Normal babies are born with the instinctive skill and motivation to breastfeed and are able to find the breast and self-attach without assistance when skin-to-skin. When the newborn is placed skin to skin with the mother, nine observable behaviors can be seen that lead to the first breastfeeding, usually within the first hour after birth. Hospital protocols can be modified to support uninterrupted skin-to-skin contact immediately after birth for both vaginal and cesarean births. The first hour of life outside the womb is a special time when a baby meets his or her parents for the first time and a family is formed. This is a once-in-a-lifetime experience and should not be interrupted unless the baby or mother is unstable and requires medical resuscitation. It is a "sacred" time that should be honored, cherished and protected whenever possible.

[Ilsa]

273. None of my ex-boyfriends were invited to be in my

delivery suite when I gave birth. They were EXes. The professional staff didn't include any Exes either. If an Ex had been on staff, I would have requested another nurse or dr or anesthesiologist.

Giving birth is too stressful a time to be with courtroom opponents.

[HockeyMom]

328. No SHIT!!!!

Yes, everything is just coo/coo, sweet nothings in labor. Hell, I was happily married to the father of my children, but I was SCREAMING my brains out at him to SHUT THE F UP, and get away from me. Are these men MAN enough to take that?

Imagine an EX in there? Are these men really serious? Have they ever BEEN in a delivery room with a woman? I think they watch too much "Reality TV".

[HockeyMom]

329. Vaginal breach birth

My first in 1979. My husband was told that although he was allowed in delivery room, he had to be quiet and stay in the background. He couldn't get near if he wanted to. Too many OB staff there to watch this.

Breath, push, STOP. Over and over and over. Not at all like a normal birth which I had with my 2nd. The most critical part was baby's head at the very end. Countless staff there ready for an emergency. How many women get APPLAUSE when baby is delivered? Yeah, the OB staff did that. Aha, poor Daddy. Nobody paid any attention to HIM. Well, hell, he just helped to make her, he didn't have go through any of that.

RANT on, men.

[penultimate]

332. Can't really argue with this at all...

Let the normal birthing procedures play out, and then let the father see the child. No sense in adding undue stress on the mother during the delivery. You'd think that someone who cares about their child would want to do everything possible make sure the delivery goes smoothly. Even if the mother was doing it out of petty spite and was being unreasonable just for the sake of punishing the guy, giving birth and the stuff surrounding birth is still centered around the woman and child. It's her right to make those decisions.