Page 81 of 104 FirstFirst ... 3171798081828391 ... LastLast
Results 801 to 810 of 1032

Thread: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room[W:829]

  1. #801
    Sage



    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,295

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Joint custody does not mean that you have free and uninhibited access to your children at absolutely any time you want. You must share time with the other parent.
    And once the baby popped out, he was allowed access. Sounded more than reasonable to me.

    Sounds like it was a slam dunk decision. As it should have been.

  2. #802
    Sage
    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,029

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    Quote Originally Posted by Del Zeppnile View Post
    The laws in your country may be different. But in the USA most parents are granted joint custody of their children unless a court finds reason why one parent may not be suitable for joint custody. In the state I live in 'joint custody' means shared custody and a court issues a schedule for that arrangement. Nobody knows the details of this case, and I'm not certain what the particular laws are in New Jersey. But it may turn out that this woman has to allow this father to have the child with him, in his home, under his care for half the time. It may also turn out that her insistence during the birth ends up with a custody battle situation that may be far less amicable than she anticipated. If it turns out that way, it might be said that she made a bad move. And who knows, it could also turn out with the father being given full custodial care of the child? If there were evidence of the mother using drugs or being unfit, a court could put the child fully with the father. That is how it goes sometimes, and that is why lawyers make a lot of money in these battles.
    I doubt any court would hold it against this woman for wanting some privacy in the delivery room, especially because that is her legal right. Maybe he will have the child for half the time, but as a parent one has to put the needs of the child first, and if that means that the father has more quality time with the child but less quantity time with the child, that could be in the best interest of the child.

    There is no indication that she is unwilling to have joined custody of the child. The whole issue here is that the father wanted to impose his wishes upon her and when she did not give in to him on one issue (not being in the delivery room) the man sued her without having any law or legal justification for his demands behind him. It may also turn out that his lawsuit/demands based on no law or statute will end up having created a custody battle that may be far less amicable to him as he anticipated. He is the bad guy in this whole drama and not the other way around. You are blaming the woman for not wanting him there in the delivery room, a thing that is not only understandable but also totally legal.

    And if it turns out that the custody battle will go into full overdrive, it is obvious for most people and judges that it is HE who made a bad move with his frivolous lawsuit.
    Former military man (and now babysitter of Donald Trump) John Kelly, is a big loud lying empty barrel!

  3. #803
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,010

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    Quote Originally Posted by Del Zeppnile View Post
    I didn't say that it does. But we are back to the "which moments can't be shared" argument again. Although in all joint custody arrangements the courts allow for joint access to children during graduations, religious events like bar mitzvas and first communions because they must be shared, they cannot be divided. The after party may be different, but the other parent has a right to be included in special events with reasonable access.
    Child birth is not a moment that could be shared when they can't agree though since it involves one of the parents being naked. We are not talking about an event that allows "reasonable access" when the mother, who is again naked through this particular time, denies access to the father. This is the child's birth, but it involves the mother a great deal and involves her not being overly stressed. Her rights in this instance exceed both the child's and the father's.
    Last edited by roguenuke; 03-17-14 at 03:29 AM.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #804
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter King View Post
    But AgentJ is right, the right to privacy of ones body has been factually established through law.

    So what? It doesn't answer the question I posed. My question imparts philosophical implications; which is the basis of all law, and rationale. I acknowledged what the judge had ruled, but with the caveat that it was her opinion. That's why they call them rulings based on the courts opinion... get it now?


    And you not minding my point of view puhleeaze? I disagree with peoples opinion and if I disagree with them I try to explain my opinion even if that other person does not agree with that.

    Well of course..


    Usually it is a fact of respecting someones opinion even if you do not have that same opinion, don't minding someone to have an opinion is IMHO one of the few attitudes that does not belong on a forum because it disrespects you fellow debaters.

    Not sure I follow how you get there from here? When I say I do not mind you having an opinion, I thought it very clear that this means that your opinion is shared by many, and for good reason. It's actually a tacit approval of your viewpoint as being well reasoned, and not lacking merit, however in opposition my position may be. I do not respect others opinions UNLESS they have merit. I respect their right to have them, but I do not always respect another opinion unless there's damn good reason too. Minding someone's opinion is a show of respect. You have it backwards.


    AgentJ mentions facts if she believes they are a fact, you can disagree with that and call that into question, but that does not mean that she is stating something is a fact to have a way out of a discussion. If you believe something is not a fact that is even a better discussion point than just disagreeing with someone’s opinion. If you can disprove one of those facts than please do so, discuss the facts or the false facts but your assertion that

    But I did, I did senior.. Sorry little joke there; dude seriously though, are you suggesting I haven't provided an effective opposing argument? So what you're saying is that you do not "respect" my opinion on the matter? Do you mind if I continue to have it?





    is totally nonsense because AgentJ, my own and others pointing to the ruling is because that ruling has all the grounds mentioned in it that most of us have pointed to.

    The is the correct ruling is not just simply because a judge says so, but because the reasons he mentions are valid and relevant. Why does AgentJ have to posts all the reasons the judge mentions that he agrees with?

    I never asked her to? I asked her to answer my questions regarding the facts in the case, and I pointed out her inconsistency with regard to equal rights for all. She particularly does not want equal rights for all humans if she supports the right for a woman to terminate her unborn human.



    I am pretty sure AgentJ has mentioned the right to privacy. I have mentioned the right not to have ones solitude imposed upon by unwanted individuals. I have also mentioned (as has the judge) that there is no pre-birth parental right on the side of the father that would warrant denying the woman her right to privacy during birth.

    The father has no pre-birth rights at all, and that's kind of the point. You argue that the woman is connected to the child physically, but can't the same be said of the father? Can't the same also be said about the preference in law for a physical connection outweighing a psychological one? Are they any less important?

    If you want to know why people say because the judge said so, you should try and read that ruling. I did read it and a lot of points we have mentioned are also in it.
    I did read the ruling…huh?

    1. the man's demand to have parenting time is not ripe for judicial consideration at this time because in accordance with N.J.S.A. 9-2-4 courts have to conduct a best interest analysis. A lot of these things are mentioned there but there is no basis for the father to demand parenting time before a child is born. The law does not mention the right to visit a fetus.
    So then, why not?

    2. the statutes (you can read which ones these are in the judicial ruling, I will post the link to the ruling at the bottom of my post) nowhere expressly defines the legal definition of a "presumed father" as existing before the birth of the child.
    If he’s the father, is he not presumed to be?

    3. the appellate court has decided that even mentioning the name of the father does not constitute a legal finding of parentage.
    Why not?

    see part 2 for more
    Ok..

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  5. #805
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    It should be up to the mother...that should fall under the 'well duh' category.

    The ONLY thing that should matter to the father is the healthy delivery of his child - so whatever makes the mother more comfortable should be ALL that matters to him.

    If she wants him there - fine.

    If she does not - no.


    What kind of a father wants to force the mother of his child to allow him in court to be in the delivery room?

    How on Earth is that going to help her more successfully deliver their child?

    The latter should be his ONLY concern.

    From the judges decision in Agent J's poll thread on this subject:

    'NPR's Jennifer Ludden explains, "The judge ruled that requiring the father's presence would pose 'unwarranted strain' on the mother."
    "It's just safer in general to have people the mother is most comfortable with to be in the room there with her."'


    Exactly.

    Unless the mother can be proven, in court, to be mentally disturbed - whatever she says should go.

  6. #806
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    4. the father in this case, the father/Plaintiff asks the court to rely on the proposition that “certainly the plaintiff-father has a right to be alerted and involved at the birth of his child” and that immediate and irreparable harm will follow if the sought relief is denied. But in his demands he mentions not one statute, case law or controlling authority stating that there is even such a thing at the right to be alerted and involved at the birth of his child.
    Well why should he be denied that right?

    If I go for a judge asking for something through a lawyer, the first thing I would do is point to/quote or present legal arguments that support my point of view. In this case the father presents nothing but his "temper tantrum WANT WANT WANT" reasoning as to why he should be allowed to be present at birth.
    Gays are doing the same thing right now and have been for 40 years.. Your point being? What harm does it cause the mother?

    5. According to the supreme court of the US, it is an "undue burden to require of a woman to give spousal notification before an abortion", so how can this so-called father to be (in this case) think it is not an undue burden to require this pregnant lady to notify him when she is laying in frigging labor. How should she do that? Does she have to call him when the water breaks and she is doubled up in pain from labor pains? Wait doctor before you bring this child into this world because I have to text/call my estranged jerk of an ex-boyfriend so that he can have his non-existent rights as a father of a child that is not even born?
    Why is he a jerk? Can’t he be just a loving father?

    6. The Supreme Court took notice that during the pregnancy “the mother who carries a child to full term is subject to anxieties, to physical constraints, to pain that only she must bear.” Casey, supra, 505 U.S. at 852,112 S. Ct. at 2807, 120 L. Ed. at 2d 699 (opinion of the court).
    But so what? Did she not choose to bare those pains? Why is that relevant?

    While recognizing the state’s interest in child-rearing, the court noted its limits on women who elect to carry a child: her suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist, without more, upon its own vision of the woman's role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and our culture. The destiny of the woman must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.

    Really, I thought you weren’t very philosophical?


    And if a state, with all it's legal standing and legal powers does not have that right, then why should that father?
    Because the state is not the Father.

    and on and on and on are the legal ground why this father has no right to demand what he wants.
    He has every right to demand this. Whether or not he is granted this right is another question, left to the courts. This time they say no… Will it always be that way?


    The mother has only demanded that she has privacy in the delivery room, she (according to the court document) testified that his name would be included in the hospital visitors list. This mother has made nothing more than a reasonable demand.
    I agree.. She is being reasonable, but then so is he?

    The whole issue is that this is a case where someone who has legal rights (the mother) is being unfairly targeted/sued by someone who does not have legal nor moral rights to request being present at birth.
    Again with the legal rights thingy… Dude legal rights are dependent on a single judges opinion, and if sound, the opinion of a higher court. Does it make them right? Now that’s your job to decide.

    There is the legally guaranteed right of privacy but on top of that there is also the fact that patients have laws that grant those patients a right of privacy through the doctor patient privilege but also the licensor-licensee relationship between the woman and the hospital.

    Through this businessrelationship the New Jersey Supreme Court has recognized that by:

    a hospital room is clearly not a public hall which anyone in the building is free to use as needed. Thus, at least for certain purposes, a hospital room is fully under the control of the medical staff; yet for other purposes it is “the patient's room".
    Yes, and Dad should have access to patient because he has vested interest in the health and well-being of that patient.


    Also under federal laws the patient has guaranteed rights to privacy.

    In short the court concludes this:





    Flowing from all these findings, the court further finds that requiring the mother to notify the father that she has gone into labor and or require his physical presence would be an undue burden on her. There can be no question that any mother is under immense physical and psychological pain during labor, and for the State to interfere with her interest in privacy during this critical time would contradict the State’s own interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. 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. Thus the court finds that the mother’s constitutionally protected interests before the child is born far outweigh the State’s and father’s interests during the delivery period. https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/tr...v-DeLuccia.pdf
    Yes, dear Lord we know what the laws say. Surely you understand that I concede what the law says already? This isn’t about what it does say, it is about what it should say regarding a situation like this.

    And I could not have stated it any better.
    Well ok then..

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  7. #807
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    06-24-16 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,073

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Child birth is not a moment that could be shared when they can't agree though since it involves one of the parents being naked. We are not talking about an event that allows "reasonable access" when the mother, who is again naked through this particular time, denies access to the father. This is the child's birth, but it involves the mother a great deal and involves her not being overly stressed. Her rights in this instance exceed both the child's and the father's.
    She was naked when she made the baby, she should be used to it by now. Besides, I've been in three delivery rooms and the last thing a woman is thinking about is her naked butt when she in that much pain.

    My wife could have been on the 50th yardline at the superbowl game giving birth and modesty would have been way down the list of her worries while pushing out a 9.5 lb baby.

  8. #808
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    Quote Originally Posted by Del Zeppnile View Post
    I don't believe any father should take a back seat to his own children under any circumstances.
    A father chooses the back seat and places his children first, always.

  9. #809
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    Quote Originally Posted by Del Zeppnile View Post
    LOL! What a typical response from a liberal....
    You're right a rapist should have the right to be at the delivery room for his rape baby from god right? Remember you said ANY father.

    Now call me a liberal.

    This is one of those topics which cuts across the political spectrum. If the mother wants the birthing private, that's her right. If she wants to share it with her mother/sisters and no other family, that is her right. As a father I would love to have seen that kind of healthy family dynamic. As an estranged husband, there's a lot more than the birth you're going to miss out on. Deal with it. Life goes on.

    *****
    Edit referring to below:
    You see Del Zeppnile, I can still edit this post.
    Last edited by Jerry; 03-17-14 at 04:19 AM.

  10. #810
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    06-24-16 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,073

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    You're right a rapist should have the right to be at the delivery room for his rape baby from god right? Remember you said ANY father.

    Now call me a liberal.
    Well, you still parroted exactly what the liberal said when he/she quoted my comment out of context. I guess you are just a "dittohead" then.

    Btw I noticed that you edited your post with an explanation afterwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    This is one of those topics which cuts across the political spectrum. If the mother wants the birthing private, that's her right. If she wants to share it with her mother/sisters and no other family, that is her right. As a father I would love to have seen that kind of healthy family dynamic. As an estranged husband, there's a lot more than the birth you're going to miss out on. Deal with it. Life goes on.
    And if others have a different view and believe that fathers have rights too. Deal with it. Life goes on.

Page 81 of 104 FirstFirst ... 3171798081828391 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •