• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

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.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

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.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

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:
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

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 :lamo 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-
 
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.
 
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-
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

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.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

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.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

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:
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

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.

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.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

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.
If you would, please, have a look at my post #709, posted before the one I 'dittoed'.

Btw I noticed that you edited your post with an explanation afterwards.
Yes. We have 25 minutes to edit our posts. Please see my above edit. I suggest waiting at least that long before replying. It's not unheard of for a given member to post, go to another thread on a completely unrelated topic, post there, and come back for the first post with an edit of something to add, remove, to word differently. Perhaps your experience with forums differs from mine, but on this site our threads can last for thousands of posts over weeks. I know many forums have a faster pace. Please be aware of this deference.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

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?

Your question is:

The deeper discussion point was when does a persons fundamental right trump another's? In this case both have a fundamental right to privacy. They both have a fundamental right to be a parent, free of interference from anyone less a clear and present material harm to the child. So, you're suggesting that he doesn't have a right to be a parent because you claim he is not necessarily the parent or would need to establish paternity.

Yes, both have a right to privacy but the woman does not want to encroach on the man's fundamental rights on privacy. There is no evidence that the woman has any desire or plans to deny the man the right to claim parentage with all the obligations and rights accordingly.

The woman does not want to trump any of his fundamental rights at all, it is completely the other way around. He will become father no matter what, it does not matter if he is floating in space or downtown when the woman delivers this baby, he has gone from someone with little or no rights to someone with a lot of potential rights. There is no trumping rights in this lawsuit. His rights are non-existent as to being inside the delivery room at the moment of birth. There is no legal right and IMHO no moral right in the case of parents who have split up and who are estranged from one another. In an ideal world I would love for him to be able to support the mother of his child while she delivers the baby and see him come into this world. However, this is not an ideal world for those 2 parents. She does not want him for support and does not need him for support. His presence would be purely as spectator and that is just not a good enough reason for him to be there. It is not a legal requirement to allow her to have him be there as a spectator, there is no legal grounds for him to demands that, in my point of view there is also no moral right for him to demand this.

Now if it was a case in which there was a legal basis for his demand to be present at the moment of birth and I, as a make believe lay judge, would have to choose that the rights of the mother and child far outweigh/trump the hypothetical rights of a father to see his child born. The safety and comfort of mother and child during the birthing process deserve greater consideration than the fathers need to be a spectator at the moment of birth. That at least is my opinion.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

If you would, please, have a look at my post #709, posted before the one I 'dittoed'.

Okay, I went back and read your post #709 but I don't see your point? What does that have to with the other person's quote about a rapist having parental rights in response to my quote which he took out of context and then you parroted, and then added a challenge?

When the other poster made the ridiculous remark about a rapist's parental rights because I used the term "any father" within a context which I was speaking about any father who is not an estranged ex fiance; meaning any father who would normally be in a delivery room; I called that post a typical liberal move; the post was ridiculous. Why you chose to use that same quote was baffling to me, but hey you are the one that did that. If it was your intention to dispute my position on a father's rights, I don't think that comment was in itself very useful. If you wanted me to respond to your position as stated pages back in post #709 was your intention, then you could have raised those points again to me and I would responded to them directly. But that is not what you did is it? The part about "get over it" and "life goes on" was also not exactly a debate point was it?


Yes. We have 25 minutes to edit our posts. Please see my above edit. I suggest waiting at least that long before replying. It's not unheard of for a given member to post, go to another thread on a completely unrelated topic, post there, and come back for the first post with an edit of something to add, remove, to word differently. Perhaps your experience with forums differs from mine, but on this site our threads can last for thousands of posts over weeks. I know many forums have a faster pace. Please be aware of this deference.

Well, I have a difference of opinion on waiting 25 minutes to respond. If something is said and it is taken a certain way, it doesn't take 25 minutes for the perceived intent of a comment to sink in. Usually in my experience the way something comes out the first time is the way the person intended it to be taken. In a debate people usually don't go back and say, "oh, what I said a half hour ago, I want to change" and expect to be taken seriously. Of course if that same person wishes to go back and correct something I suppose they are free to do so at any time.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

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?

Exactly a point I made as well. I find it ironic that many from the same camp who will argue that this is justice because it is based on "what the courts says" seem to disregard the history of wrong decisions by our courts. Dred Scott, Native American re-locations, denial of votes to women, Japanese internment... the list goes on.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room - ABC News

Thoughts?

So the elements in question:
1) Is being a witness to a birth essential to bond with said child?
2) Is the birthing room a matter of the mother's personal privacy?

Of course, this isn't a broad ruling that applies to everyone (every state, etc). Hospitals have their own rules and guidelines they follow - and so forth. States can rule to the contrary. If hospitals they want to change their guidelines they must make an effort to do so. Most err with the side of the mother (which is what led to this case).

I support the ruling and the concept: Being a witness to a birth is not a right. It is a privilege that should be extended to fathers at the decision of the mother per her comfort.

Before my kids were born it was made fairly evident that mother came first. She chose the maner of delivery (drugs or not, bathtub or not etc etc). She chose who was and wasn't in the room. Everything was about her. Even after the kids were born and we were still in the hospital everything was about the mother and baby. I was literally treated like a suspected pedophile. I could not even hold the baby unless my wife said it was ok to the nurse and had to get permission to sleep in a chair in the hospital room with my wife.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

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.

Just as in consent given for sex in prior cases when it comes to rape, prior consent is not an automatic ticket to future consent when it comes to seeing someone naked.

And it doesn't matter whether he would be thinking about her sexually or not. She has every right to maintain her privacy from people that are not necessary in the room, including the baby's father.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Just as in consent given for sex in prior cases when it comes to rape, prior consent is not an automatic ticket to future consent when it comes to seeing someone naked.

And it doesn't matter whether he would be thinking about her sexually or not. She has every right to maintain her privacy from people that are not necessary in the room, including the baby's father.

Not just the naked part, but the whole THING. A woman in labor is very vulnerable, frightened sometimes and in a LOT of pain and agony. I cannot imagine someone trying to "force" themselves upon me at the time. It just stinks! They guy who does this is a real selfish jerk. There is absolutely NO reason at all why he can't come to the hospital and see the baby AFTER it's born. There is no "right" to be in the delivery room unless you are the patient or doctor. Anyone else is an invitee and can be uninvited at ANY time because it is a medical procedure subject to HIPAA laws. The woman/mother is a patient and is most certainly entitled to her privacy.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Exactly a point I made as well. I find it ironic that many from the same camp who will argue that this is justice because it is based on "what the courts says" seem to disregard the history of wrong decisions by our courts. Dred Scott, Native American re-locations, denial of votes to women, Japanese internment... the list goes on.

typical of that camp. If it is a decision or law they agree with, then "it's the law". If they disagree, "it's not fair, the law needs to be changed"
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Before my kids were born it was made fairly evident that mother came first. She chose the maner of delivery (drugs or not, bathtub or not etc etc). She chose who was and wasn't in the room. Everything was about her. Even after the kids were born and we were still in the hospital everything was about the mother and baby. I was literally treated like a suspected pedophile. I could not even hold the baby unless my wife said it was ok to the nurse and had to get permission to sleep in a chair in the hospital room with my wife.

Well I'm sorry the nurses made you feel unwelcomed. But why is it not okay that things about mother and baby? Mother's gone through hell for 9 months and such and such hours. Yes, attention should be on her. She's the one suffering and then in recovery.

But even then: the treatment of a few people toward you doesn't mean everyone has that same experience. If someone was a jerk to you in particular it is your right to complain. (Did you file a complaint? They won't address individual staff issues if you don't voice your opinion when it matters).

Some of this is a matter of the quality of hospital (like bedding concerns). After my experience at a low-rate hospital I did go out of my way to secure L&D in better conditions the next times. And thus, those better hospitals were generally more open to family and so forth.

My husband's recollection of being there was different - he has pleasant memories and hardly felt negated during the process, even though all attention was on me.

However, the OP is not in regard to married couples. If the OP was in regard to married couples I'd have a different opinion. I do believe married fathers have rights that unmarried fathers do not. Hence: being married. They're involved, responsible, and connected to it more. I guess things get blurred if they're married but legally separated for a while.

But the topic in debate covers singles: divorcees and other people who might not even be involved at all beyond sex in the past.

Surely: if she wants to have her ex or boyfriend there, she can.
 
Last edited:
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Well I'm sorry the nurses made you feel unwelcomed. But why is it not okay that things about mother and baby? Mother's gone through hell for 9 months and such and such hours. Yes, attention should be on her. She's the one suffering and then in recovery.

But even then: the treatment of a few people toward you doesn't mean everyone has that same experience. If someone was a jerk to you in particular it is your right to complain. (Did you file a complaint? They won't address individual staff issues if you don't voice your opinion when it matters).

Some of this is a matter of the quality of hospital (like bedding concerns). After my experience at a low-rate hospital I did go out of my way to secure L&D in better conditions the next times. And thus, those better hospitals were generally more open to family and so forth.

My husband's recollection of being there was different - he has pleasant memories and hardly felt negated during the process, even though all attention was on me.

However, the OP is not in regard to married couples. If the OP was in regard to married couples I'd have a different opinion. I do believe married fathers have rights that unmarried fathers do not. Hence: being married. They're involved, responsible, and connected to it more. I guess things get blurred if they're married but legally separated for a while.

But the topic in debate covers singles: divorcees and other people who might not even be involved at all beyond sex in the past.

Surely: if she wants to have her ex or boyfriend there, she can.

I would agree that in the case of a married couple, the father might have more rights than those who are unmarried. I imagine that most of the time the mom would want dad to be there anyways (especially if he really wanted to be there), so this would probably rarely be an issue with married couples.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

typical of that camp. If it is a decision or law they agree with, then "it's the law". If they disagree, "it's not fair, the law needs to be changed"

This is not a wrong a decision. Everyone is entitled to their privacy, especially in regards to medical care. I don't care WHO wants to watch or why.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Not just the naked part, but the whole THING. A woman in labor is very vulnerable, frightened sometimes and in a LOT of pain and agony. I cannot imagine someone trying to "force" themselves upon me at the time. It just stinks! They guy who does this is a real selfish jerk. There is absolutely NO reason at all why he can't come to the hospital and see the baby AFTER it's born. There is no "right" to be in the delivery room unless you are the patient or doctor. Anyone else is an invitee and can be uninvited at ANY time because it is a medical procedure subject to HIPAA laws. The woman/mother is a patient and is most certainly entitled to her privacy.

Exactly!

I would question why he would want to force the woman attempting to give birth to his child into a more stressful situation. HIPPA aside, upping the stress level in an already stressful situation is just a messed up thing to do.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Well I'm sorry the nurses made you feel unwelcomed. But why is it not okay that things about mother and baby? Mother's gone through hell for 9 months and such and such hours. Yes, attention should be on her. She's the one suffering and then in recovery.

But even then: the treatment of a few people toward you doesn't mean everyone has that same experience. If someone was a jerk to you in particular it is your right to complain. (Did you file a complaint? They won't address individual staff issues if you don't voice your opinion when it matters).

Some of this is a matter of the quality of hospital (like bedding concerns). After my experience at a low-rate hospital I did go out of my way to secure L&D in better conditions the next times. And thus, those better hospitals were generally more open to family and so forth.

My husband's recollection of being there was different - he has pleasant memories and hardly felt negated during the process, even though all attention was on me.

However, the OP is not in regard to married couples. If the OP was in regard to married couples I'd have a different opinion. I do believe married fathers have rights that unmarried fathers do not. Hence: being married. They're involved, responsible, and connected to it more. I guess things get blurred if they're married but legally separated for a while.

But the topic in debate covers singles: divorcees and other people who might not even be involved at all beyond sex in the past.

Surely: if she wants to have her ex or boyfriend there, she can.

I'm thinking that you may have misconstrued my relating the experiance as me complaining and perhaps "sticking up" for the guy in the OP. I wasn't. I fully understood why I was treated the way I was and I didn't mind it one bit. They were just trying to protect the baby. There have been cases of dad's kidnapping the babies after birth. Since I knew this I didn't mind. The reason I related my experiance was to show that this kind of thing is not new and frankly should be expected. I was told in no uncertain terms that even though I was married that if my wife didn't want me in the room they would kick me out. Along with anyone else that she didn't want in there. I have no problem with that. And if they are quite willing to kick out the husband who does have certain rights why wouldn't they not allow someone who isn't married in if they weren't even married? Frankly it surprises me that so many are at the very least agitated over what happened with the guy in the OP.

Hell, my father never saw any of his kids (4 of em) born. At that time they didn't even give the option of allowing the fathers in the birthing room. My wife let anyone that was family into the room. It was the first time my dad had been in the room when a child was born. All in all it was a great experiance and I wouldn't trade it for anything in this entire universe.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

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.

And once the baby is born and separated from the mother's body, I agree.

Until then, the welfare of the mother and baby are of utmost importance. Stressed out mother in the throws of labor - becoming more stressed - unreasonable and unhealthy - and in the words of another poster, somewhat sadistic.
 
Back
Top Bottom