Hellobee Boards

@Mae: being a grandparent is a PRIVILEGE, not a right . . . and a REVOCABLE one at that! (your ILs sound like mine!) stand your ground . . . you'll be so glad you did!

@pinkcupcake: A rebuttable presumption that a woman has the right to control her own body? What year is this, anyway . . . 1914? There is absolutely no way I would give up any of the rights/bodily autonomy that have been so hard won over the last 30-40 years . . . and keep that in mind . . . not that long ago, things were verrrrry different for women.

For what it's worth, I asked my husband when he got home (without first telling him my opinion, although knowing me I'm sure he could guess it) about this case and asked his thoughts. They were: "What? That guy is ******* crazy. The dad's only job until the baby is born is to keep the mom happy and as stress-free as possible. Why would he even WANT to be there if he knows it will stress her out that much? That isn't even safe for his kid."

^Good dad(to-be).

@Fronkinzankinsbride: ... Okay ... Just gonna say you're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. Don't think I ever said being present for the birth makes you a parent. Also don't think I said ALL fathers should be present AT ALL births, no questions asked.

And with that, I am out of this convo. Have a lovely evening

The thought that anyone has to think about whether its ok to force someone to expose their genitals without consent is just baffling. No other details of this situation matters to me beyond that.

I am a huge proponent of dads, but I think the courts made the right call here... it's not even close, in my opinion. The mom should have the final say on who is allowed in the room.

I'm with the court on this one. The woman is the patient and has authority the entire time she's in the hospital to determine who is allowed in her room.

When dads' rights start is another question, but they can see their children in the nursery, I can think of no reason at all to allow them to force themselves into mothers' rooms. As to the idea that ANY partner you made a child with should be allowed 100% for the delivery and after (no matter the reason for break up, abuse history, etc), I can't even fathom a solid reason for that to be acceptable.

@junebugmama: who determines what qualifies as abuse? Is verbal abuse enough to grant the woman the right to decide who is present, in your opinion? One slap? Two? Maybe it sounds like I'm splitting hairs here, but what it comes down to is when you say "oh, in these circumstances it's okay" you are making decisions for someone else based on your values/morals.

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to accept that a woman's body belongs to her and her alone, and that any effort to intrude on that is awful. We all like to imagine situations in which the woman is somehow manipulatively prohibiting a sincere, caring father from witnessing the birth of his son. Just like we all like to imagine that there are all these women out there manipulating men for child support. Or working the welfare system. It's all part of a larger misogynistic thread in our society. I can't understand why we don't give Women the benefit of the doubt, but are so quick to jump to mens defense.
The court made the right decision. I'm appalled that so many women would say otherwise. I'm glad this father wants to be involved, and hopefully he can see his child shortly after the birth.
And quite frankly, while everyone is freaking out about "what kind of awful woman would prohibit her child's father from seeing the birth" I'm wondering what kind of controlling, intrusive man would SUE his pregnant estranged partner for not allowing him to be in the room during a stressful and deeply personal moment in her life. A truly supportive co-parent would only want what is best for his child, which means first and foremost protecting the relationship with the mother.

@BlueWolverine: I have been involved with family courts on a fathers side for the past 5 years. My husband has two children from a previous relationship and every single time we have had issues, the court has failed us. My husband is a good man, a great father and has done nothing BUT assert himself to be a present parent in his two older boys lives. But when you have a woman who is hell bent on doing anything and everything in her power to make it impossible for the father to have any rights, she will and CAN (sadly), do just that. Their mother stood in front of the judges and cried her eyes out playing a victim that she isn't. Because she is their mother and a woman, she gets her way. Always. The judges didn't ever look over the documents that we provided. I have very rarely seen cases go well for fathers.

I know a lot of good fathers who have children who's mothers make a point of making their lives difficult and can simply because they are the mothers.

Eta: as for the original topic, I think the courts made the right choice. For health reasons mom should decide who is in the room. She is the patient. Once babe is around, then it's up to the both of them to make adult compromises on how the child is raised. Whether they are happy together or not, the point is to care for the child the best way they BOTH can.

@.twist.: The whole situation was sad. Looking back (my dad is pretty objective about it now), I think my mom meant well but just didn't have the means or ability to raise a child on her own - she couldn't support herself, wasn't fluent in English, had no family here. Meanwhile my dad had everything - a good career, family support, stability.

@.twist.: this is off topic but my step father had to fight HARD to get custody of his daughters. Their mom was on drugs and not taking care of them. He had to hire a PI and everything. It took a long time. It's sad really and I'm sure cost my parents a lot of money.

@Silva: agree with you!

@mrskc: @.twist.: This is also sort of one of the problems with the concept of leaving this decision (if mom gets to keep dad out of the delivery room) to the "circumstances" rather than making a bright line rule-- and making it so you have to get a court involved. Litigation is SO EXPENSIVE. And even if you win, you generally never get that money back. You can go bankrupt being right.

Also, for what its worth, my FIL got custody of my husband and his sister when his parents divorced and from my husband's perspective (which I realize could be inaccurate because he was a kid and his parents don't talk about it now)-- the courts really railroaded his mom. He felt(feels) his mom was the much better parent but his dad had money for a lawyer, family support, and a job. My MIL had no job (my FIL didn't want her working, she got "an allowance"), no family, and thus no money. So she lost and my husband had to grow up with his dad, which he still resents decades later. I don't really know what the answer is, but I feel like courts a lot of times just don't do a good job of figuring out what is really going on and who is best equipped to raise kids.

Also... I'm guessing that most of the people hung up on the nakedness aspect haven't actually given birth. When you give birth, tons of people are in and out of the hospital room. They certainly didn't each individually ask me if I was ok with their presence.

I'm still not sure how I feel on the whole about this issue... But there are certain points which seem less valid to me on both sides of the arguement.

@MamaMoose: As I said above, I think the "how long after birth" he HAS to be allowed to see the child is a harder issue than the "during delivery" question. But I guessed somewhere at 2+ hours would be valid for exactly those reasons. Yes mom and dad have equal rights at that point, but the child also has rights. And it is absolutely medically proven that doing skin to skin and breastfeeding immediately after birth for 1-2 hours is what is healthiest for the baby. So, not for the mom--but for the baby-- I think that the baby should have the opportunity to do skin to skin and breastfeed immediately after birth before the dad gets to whisk the baby away.

Also, WANTING to see your baby's birth, and taking a pregnant woman to court WHILE SHE IS IN LABOR are two very different things. It is one thing for a guy to say he really wants to be there and to try to negotiate with the mom to be there. But if she makes it clear it makes her uncomfortable, I think a good dad takes the needs of the baby and mother into account before his own emotional needs and just lets her labor the way that will make her most comfortable. It seems incredibly selfish to me to demand your way into the labor room where you are not welcome or wanted and where your presence can put both mother and baby in physical danger. Lots of dads miss the birth of their child for a wide variety of reasons. Missing the birth doesn't make him any less of a father or have any physical side effects (or emotional ones, unless the dad wants to really hold a grudge).

@.twist.: Right. I mean obviously I meant just if everyone is totally healthy. I guess the basic point was--- whatever is in the best interest of the baby should happen. If any sort of medical intervention is necessary that is the most important thing. But if it was a totally uncomplicated birth, the best thing at that point is skin to skin.

@Mae: I agree with you on all points.

@Sunderling: @Dandelion: I agree...I remember my dad joking with other dads when I was a kid about how they weren't allowed in the delivery room (maybe more so in his case because it was an emergency c-section). It certainly had no bearing on their bond with their children or how wonderful of a father they all became.