Hellobee Boards

I don't know if this is the case for everyone but in my birth experience at our chosen hospital I needed to fill out and sign a paper that included who i wanted allowed in the birthing suite with me. Once our baby was born we were allowed to have visitors for 2 hours in the birthing suite following delivery. Once i was moved to a private room visitors were during visiting hours only.

I had a hospital ID bracelet with my personal information on it and baby had my information on her ankle - not her own- I would conclude that at that point even though she was delivered, she was still considered an extension of me by the hospital.

At every doctors office i've ever been to I've had to review and sign HIPPA paperwork. In my mind, not even my husband would have the right to be in the room unless i agreed upon it and I would hope that the hospital staff would follow through with my wishes if i was a distressed patient.

@wonderstruck: I agree with you times a million.

I don't know about this one, I don't think it is cut and dry. Like, if I were to tell DH I didn't want him in the room, that would NOT fly and he would do whatever he had to in order to be a part of that. Seeing the birth of your child is a defining moment. But, in the case of abuse or something I could see how the mother wouldn't want the father in the room.

Again, I am not totally sure how I feel about this.

@lawbee11: Agreed.

I'm curious what you guys would think if the woman was a rape victim? Would you still think the father had every right to be in the delivery room no matter how strongly the mother was against it?

@spaniellove: Oh, I think rape is a completely different story. I wasn't even thinking about that. I was thinking of the scenario where this was (at one time or another) a consensual relationship that somehow soured along the road. Totally wasn't thinking the man raped her. If he did, I would certainly hope he would NOT be allowed in the delivery room. He committed a crime. I would hope he was serving time.

@spaniellove: Absolutely not. Abuse or rape is a completely different thing, IMO.

@Chillybear: I get this, but is Dad really considered a "visitor" after the birth of the child? I'm super uncomfortable with that. At that point, he's a guardian in my mind, not a visitor.

@Mae: do you think that the dad has rights, as well? I mean, just because he doesn't carry the baby doesn't mean he has rights with respect to him or her as well? This is what I was getting at with parental rights. Yes, it's a woman's body, but it's just as much the man's child as the woman's. So while I agree with you that while the woman's health takes precedent until the cord is cut, the second that cord is cut, she doesn't get the only say in the matter. I think a (non-abusive, like @pinkcupcake: and @bpcmarj: were talking about) father has a right to be present for the first moments of his child's life. That's all.

FWIW, I recognize that the difficulty comes in because the first moment of a baby's life also corresponds to the middle of a vulnerable medical situation for Mom. I'm sitting here trying to even picture how it would work for someone to give a woman privacy while only seeing the baby, and conceptually, I can't do it. The closest I can come are the adoptions where the birth mother doesn't want to see the child, but instead, baby gets handed to the adoptive parents. It's not a great analogy, especially since Mom isn't giving up her rights to the child. But that's also what's at issue here-when do Dad's rights start? When mom is stitched up? When Mom has had a chance to breastfeed? When baby is already a few hours old? When Mom decides they do? That's the slippery slope I was talking about. Not sure about the others.

In this case, though, it's all a moot point, because Mom was going to give Dad access to baby as soon as the birth was over. So I do think the judge was right. It just would't surprise me if this came up in a court case again, and in a much more complicated way.

@Mae: it isn't some random other guy seeing her naked, it is the father of the child in this case, at the birth of his child.

<< I'm curious about this statement. In which ways do fathers have very limited rights in parenthood? >>

@BlueWolverine: Don't want to hijack this thread... I may post about it in a separate post at a later point though!

I found the article on this topic by a Slate writer very interesting. I really like this line in particular:

"But being a good father when your child is still in utero means thinking about his or her mother's well-being, too."

Here's the whole article, in case anyone is interested:

http://articles.mcall.com/2014-03-13/opinion/mc-father-in-delivery-room-court-case-web-20140313_1_delivery-room-paternal-rights-child

@LovelyPlum: I don't think a father has any (legal) rights at all until the baby is actually born and is a separate/disconnected being from the mother. Of course from a moral/marital/etc standpoint I think fathers have rights. I think my husband has (almost) as much say in how we handle my pregnancy and our LO's birth as I do. But that is because we have a loving relationship and I trust him to have the best interests of our child at heart. I trust him enough to value his opinion and we make decisions together, and he trusts me enough to make sure his opinions matter in the process. But LEGALLY speaking, I have final say until that cord is cut, period. In terms of when, legally, he should have access-- I think assuming no complications the answer could be anywhere from 2-12 hours. Research suggests that the safest/healthiest thing for the baby is to be placed immediately on the mother's chest and stay there for a few hours, and to nurse (if the mom is breastfeeding) immediately. Only she can do that. So until all that is done, I think she deserves whatever privacy she needs to feel comfortable. And also from a fairness standpoint-- WE carry these babies for 9 months. WE take on all the sickness, all the pain, all the health risks, all the financial burden of pregnancy (including missing work etc). I sort of feel like that earns us the right to have first dibs to the baby when it finally arrives. It would seem incredibly cruel to whisk the baby away seconds after birth to take to the father after everything the mother has done to get that kid into the world safely. If the parents are not on good terms, I just don't think asking the father to wait a few hours, or even 12 (or really even 24) is too much to ask. He has a whole lifetime to build a relationship with his kid. Why cause undue stress to the mother at a time like that?

@looch: Stranger or not, if I'm not in an intimate relationship with a guy, I don't want him seeing me naked. That is like saying every guy you EVER had sex with in the past has a right to see you naked. I don't think that's being dramatic at all.

@Mae: I think I agree with you up until the point where we're talking about what the mother needs to give birth comfortably. I don't agree that a mom should be able to make a dad wait 12-24 hours, though, unless there is a really compelling medical reason to do so. To me, that's where this stops being a question of Mom's privacy and starts being a question of Dad's rights.

Annnnyways, this has all been very interesting to think about. Thanks for the discussion

@Mrs. Jump Rope: Same. I get to pick my support person and I pick my husband. But he doesn't have a right, as per the hospital, to be there.

@Mae: I see it differently, having already given birth. We are not talking about any random guy that the woman ever slept with asking about being present in the delivery room. It is the father of the child asking to be present at the birth of his child, not merely asking to see her naked.

They are not the same thing, even though you seem to be trying to make them so.

@looch: But to be fair, this situation does actually come up PRIOR to giving birth. So if I feel like letting a guy I no longer have a relationship with see me naked during delivery violates my privacy… telling me I'll feel differently after giving birth doesn't really help my feelings or stress level leading up to said birth. And the fact that he happened to impregnate her doesn't necessarily make him a better ex-boyfriend than any boyfriend before. Haven't you ever had a bad break-up? I just don't see any reason to risk the mom and baby's health to protect a dad's feelings. Physical needs trump emotional needs IMO.

@Mrs. Jump Rope: What about it? Sorry I just don't understand the question. No I don't think fathers have a right to be in witnessing the c-section either, if it is against the mom's will. (not sure if that answers what you were getting at?)

@blackbird: I want to know this, too!

I can see both sides, but ultimately if a labouring mother doesn't want someone in the delivery room, I think that's her call.

I do think in general we (as a society) are too quick to say that the father of a child has significantly less rights when it comes to this sort of stuff. I get that as women we're biologically the ones actually carrying and delivering these babies, and I do think in many ways the mother should be catered to first, but I also think that fathers, estranged or not, have rights to the children they've created that need to be considered. I don't think a father's rights to his children are automatically so much less important than the mother's just because of the way biology works.

@spaniellove, ah, the hallmark of every stable relationship

Part of me thinks a guy who would put a woman through a court process while she's in labor may not be doing it 100% just to be a good dad. Maybe I'm wrong.

I will be back to this later, Dinnertime.