• 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

Great point. It might not be that she "dislikes" him, but that perhaps he has a personality type that would not be supportive to her in such a scenario and might even make matters worse and more stressful for her.

Just think of all those movie scenes where the guy passes out, and the doctors and nurses have to go tend to his sorry arse. :lamo

There's an episode of Psych that kept coming to mind typing that where the overbearing head detective, Lassiter, is unwittingly there when the chief goes into labor and his bedside manner is appalling (although, she insisted that he stay with her til her husband got there). When he was told he should help coach her, he started being like an actual coach and giving some speech about "come on, you got push this baby out, now", along with other very sports coach like comments in his less-than-likable manner. Her face and the nurse was like "what the hell is wrong with you". I can just see some fathers being like that.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Disagree.

The child is just as much a part of him than it is her.

It's absolutely a right.

Nope - he's not birthing a baby. He's not in labor. He's not physically connected to that child. He's not putting his life or his soul on the line to bring a being in the world.

Sorry guys: but nature has removed you from these events. I guess that just sucks but there it is.

Being there is a privilege. My husband feels honored that our marriage was strong and I wanted him there. If guys give two bits of a **** then perhaps they'd make a relationship with the mother work. Perhaps they'd be supporting or caring. Whatever led to a fracturing of their relationship: maybe that's not how things should go.

It's an over-dramatized concern that most men don't feel and don't share. And in the end it shows what he really feels about the mother of his baby: nothing.

Besides: let's pretend it is a right. Then what? If Dad passes out can the nurses take him out of the room? (happens - believe me - it happens).
If Dad is being verbally abusive to his wife during delivery then can he be kicked out? (Might sound absurd but I've HEARD of this happening, too).
What if she's incapacitated by an allergic reaction and she can't communicate to others - and then he tries to speak for her even if he's not legally permitted and tries to circumvent things - then what?

- These things would become serious issues *if it's declared a right* - And in the end: the mother has a right to invite people in. The doctors retain the right to KICK EVERYONE OUT if things go wrong.

You cannot lose sight of what's going on: a woman is at her most vulnerable and most private and painful moment in her life to bring another being in the world.

It's not a situation or time for dispute - the equivalent of a 'oh yeah! I'll show you!'
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

At the time of delivery, child support has not started.

Because she has the right to medical privacy.

I have already discussed both of these points in this thread.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

There's an episode of Psych that kept coming to mind typing that where the overbearing head detective, Lassiter, is unwittingly there when the chief goes into labor and his bedside manner is appalling (although, she insisted that he stay with her til her husband got there). When he was told he should help coach her, he started being like an actual coach and giving some speech about "come on, you got push this baby out, now", along with other very sports coach like comments in his less-than-likable manner. Her face and the nurse was like "what the hell is wrong with you". I can just see some fathers being like that.

:lamo That has real comedic value.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Why on earth would the judge have used this as her test for this case?

You may have that opinion but that opinion is based false premise that someone has the right to be present at birth. That right does not exist, not from the father, not from anyone.

Laws are also there to protect the rights of people, the rights of the woman are clear and righteous, she has the right to a safe and carefree delivery with only the people she wants as a support beside her. This man has no relationship to this woman, and even if he did, that does not give him special rights that should usurp her right to privacy.

There is no valid reason, legal or moral to force a mother in labor to be confronted with a selfish ex-partner or anyone else she does not want around her at child birth.


I'll respond to this as this seems like the crux of your argument. One likes to believe that our rights are inalienable given to us by our creator, but lets face it, men wrote these rights and it is men and women who challenge them all the time. I don't mind your point of view, but to suggest that this is the correct ruling simply because a judge saw it that way is an appeal to authority and not a very experienced form of debate. I approached this debate from the unpopular point of view, taking the man's side. I certainly see what your argument is, and what that of the Mother's is, and it does have merit, however my main goal in reaching out to AGENTJ is to help him realize that he can't simply "Factually this and factually that" his way out of an engaging topic of discussion. He appeals to authority ALL THE DAMN TIME. I am a father of four and I was there for everyone of my children's births. The days of men sitting in the waiting room smoking cigars are over in case ya didn't know. Men are encouraged to be with their partners and modern women want them there.

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. To my understanding this point was never contested by the mother, nor was there any allegations of abuse or anything remotely close to that. There are several intriguing legal questions here. One, simply having a right to privacy is not where it ends. We see that everyday, our privacy rights are stripped from us and sometimes we don't even know it. In order to bring a legal challenge to privacy rights one needs to demonstrate that insodoing a greater good is achieved. In the case at hand, the father would need to demonstrate that his right of parenting and being there at the birth of his child, outweighed her right to not have him there - her right to privacy. On its face as was demonstrated in this thread, people were quick to jump on this guy for bringing such a suit in the first place. I can see and I appreciate that point of view as I too share it. If my partner did not want me there I would not be there, and I would respect her wishes. But in this case the father had no relationship with the mother, only the unborn child. Some may try and assume what his motivations are/were, but we're simply not that good. I can envision several scenarios where his intentions were nothing but benign, but since we do not really know, I prefer to not speculate and take him at his word.

So I thought this presented an interesting conundrum for the legal system. AGENTJ claims to support pro human rights, but isn't an unborn human child, human? He contradicts himself in his own tagline since he supports pro choice or the right of a mother to kill her unborn human child. No equal protection for the unborn human, no rights really at all. No rights of the father, only the rights of a mother whom is free to do what she wishes, even if that means killing a child that has no voice, and even if it does have the voice of a father, her rights trump all others. I find that unpalatable frankly, and it needs to change. Back to the subject, I wanted to know that in lacking any evidence of violence, abuse or anything that would otherwise cause this woman any detriment to her health, why would the court not use lack of these contextually significant extenuating circumstances to form an opinion consistent with any other legal precedence when adjudicating conflicting rights, or rights in general? Rights as I said earlier in this thread are predicated in the common law understanding that by not giving them a material harm would come to the person not receiving them. Common laws act in a similar manner, and the principles of justice perform the same function. So, my question which I thought was a legitimate question was, outside of any context showing material harm coming to mother, what harm was there for Dad being there to witness the birth of his child? I am not aware of the reasons and facts surrounding their breakup in the first place but I have known where the birth of a child experienced together can often mend relationship woes, even if only temporarily.

Either way, I respect other's opinions on this, and I generally share them from a personal standpoint, but I think the questions deserved asking, and further to explore the philosophical implications on each party to the suit, including that of the unborn human who has zero rights and no voice.


Tim-
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

What if she's incapacitated by an allergic reaction and she can't communicate to others - and then he tries to speak for her even if he's not legally permitted and tries to circumvent things - then what?

Is that really any worse than the doctor taking unilateral control though? It's not like there aren't some legitimately incompetent and uncaring doctors out there, after all.

i.e.

The kind who might look at that kind of situation and think to themselves "Oh, goodie! Now I don't have to spend the next however many hours waiting on this cow to push. Someone bring me a scalpel, stat!"

In some cases, the woman might not necessarily mind such a decision. In a lot of other cases, however, they might mind it a great deal; especially if they wind up having to suffer through the long term complications of an unnecessary and potentially risky surgical operation that they never wanted, or consented to, in the first place.

There is a case to be made for having someone around to advocate for the mother in the delivery room. That's all I'm saying.

Frankly, it doesn't even have to be the father if he isn't qualified to judge such situations. There are specially trained midwives and birth coaches that can be hired to give "second opinions" in the delivery room these days.
 
Last edited:
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

The mother gets all the rights during her delivery of the baby. After the baby is born, the father starts getting rights. But they are shared, and that is the problem. Most people aren't good at sharing.

its funny that nobody can say what right of the dad is being violated?

and then they claim that only the mom is giving rights.

Nope this is about the right to privacy both physically and medically, the father has these same exact rights. Meaning they are equal.

nothing has changed yet. Rights don't care about feelings and emotions.

The womans rights were protected and the fathers rights remains 100% intact.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

I'll respond to this as this seems like the crux of your argument. One likes to believe that our rights are inalienable given to us by our creator, but lets face it, men wrote these rights and it is men and women who challenge them all the time. I don't mind your point of view, but to suggest that this is the correct ruling simply because a judge saw it that way is an appeal to authority and not a very experienced form of debate. I approached this debate from the unpopular point of view, taking the man's side. I certainly see what your argument is, and what that of the Mother's is, and it does have merit, however my main goal in reaching out to AGENTJ is to help him realize that he can't simply "Factually this and factually that" his way out of an engaging topic of discussion. He appeals to authority ALL THE DAMN TIME. I am a father of four and I was there for everyone of my children's births. The days of men sitting in the waiting room smoking cigars are over in case ya didn't know. Men are encouraged to be with their partners and modern women want them there.

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. To my understanding this point was never contested by the mother, nor was there any allegations of abuse or anything remotely close to that. There are several intriguing legal questions here. One, simply having a right to privacy is not where it ends. We see that everyday, our privacy rights are stripped from us and sometimes we don't even know it. In order to bring a legal challenge to privacy rights one needs to demonstrate that insodoing a greater good is achieved. In the case at hand, the father would need to demonstrate that his right of parenting and being there at the birth of his child, outweighed her right to not have him there - her right to privacy. On its face as was demonstrated in this thread, people were quick to jump on this guy for bringing such a suit in the first place. I can see and I appreciate that point of view as I too share it. If my partner did not want me there I would not be there, and I would respect her wishes. But in this case the father had no relationship with the mother, only the unborn child. Some may try and assume what his motivations are/were, but we're simply not that good. I can envision several scenarios where his intentions were nothing but benign, but since we do not really know, I prefer to not speculate and take him at his word.

So I thought this presented an interesting conundrum for the legal system. AGENTJ claims to support pro human rights, but isn't an unborn human child, human? He contradicts himself in his own tagline since he supports pro choice or the right of a mother to kill her unborn human child. No equal protection for the unborn human, no rights really at all. No rights of the father, only the rights of a mother whom is free to do what she wishes, even if that means killing a child that has no voice, and even if it does have the voice of a father, her rights trump all others. I find that unpalatable frankly, and it needs to change. Back to the subject, I wanted to know that in lacking any evidence of violence, abuse or anything that would otherwise cause this woman any detriment to her health, why would the court not use lack of these contextually significant extenuating circumstances to form an opinion consistent with any other legal precedence when adjudicating conflicting rights, or rights in general? Rights as I said earlier in this thread are predicated in the common law understanding that by not giving them a material harm would come to the person not receiving them. Common laws act in a similar manner, and the principles of justice perform the same function. So, my question which I thought was a legitimate question was, outside of any context showing material harm coming to mother, what harm was there for Dad being there to witness the birth of his child? I am not aware of the reasons and facts surrounding their breakup in the first place but I have known where the birth of a child experienced together can often mend relationship woes, even if only temporarily.

Either way, I respect other's opinions on this, and I generally share them from a personal standpoint, but I think the questions deserved asking, and further to explore the philosophical implications on each party to the suit, including that of the unborn human who has zero rights and no voice.


Tim-

But AgentJ is right, the right to privacy of ones body has been factually established through law.

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. 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.

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 someones opinion. If you can disprove one of those facts than please do so, discuss the facts or the false facts but your assertion that

this is the correct ruling simply because a judge saw it that way is an appeal to authority and not a very experienced form of debate.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

see part 2 for more
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

I think the estranged father has no right to be in the birthing room if the mother did not want him there. But I also believe that the mother should have no right to expect child support from the estranged father either after this point.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

If my wife denied me the chance to see my child born, then I would file for divorce the next day.
 
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.

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.

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?

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).

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.
[Id. at 852, 112 S. Ct. at 2807, 120 L. Ed. 2d at 699 (emphasis added).]

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

and on and on and on are the legal ground why this father has no right to demand what he wants.


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.

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.

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".

[State v. Stott, 171 N.J. 343, (2002) (quoting People v. Brown, 88 Cal. App. 3d 283, 291 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979)).]

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/trial_court_opinions/Plotnick-v-DeLuccia.pdf

And I could not have stated it any better.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

I think the estranged father has no right to be in the birthing room if the mother did not want him there. But I also believe that the mother should have no right to expect child support from the estranged father either after this point.

That is ridiculous. Just because she wants privacy during the birth itself? She has already testified that the presumed father would be on the hospital visitor list. You cannot have parental rights to a fetus, after the child is born the laws and regulations with parental rights come into action, including child support and he will have to pay for his failure to protect himself from making a woman pregnant (aka, using a condom).
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

its funny that nobody can say what right of the dad is being violated?

and then they claim that only the mom is giving rights.

Nope this is about the right to privacy both physically and medically, the father has these same exact rights. Meaning they are equal.

nothing has changed yet. Rights don't care about feelings and emotions.

The womans rights were protected and the fathers rights remains 100% intact.

And any rights of the father come into play only after the moment of birth, not on the fetus.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Is that really any worse than the doctor taking unilateral control though? It's not like there aren't some legitimately incompetent and uncaring doctors out there, after all.

i.e.

The kind who might look at that kind of situation and think to themselves "Oh, goodie! Now I don't have to spend the next however many hours waiting on this cow to push. Someone bring me a scalpel, stat!"

In some cases, the woman might not necessarily mind such a decision. In a lot of other cases, however, they might mind it a great deal; especially if they wind up having to suffer through the long term complications of an unnecessary and potentially risky surgical operation that they never wanted, or consented to, in the first place.

There is a case to be made for having someone around to advocate for the mother in the delivery room. That's all I'm saying.

Frankly, it doesn't even have to be the father if he isn't qualified to judge such situations. There are specially trained midwives and birth coaches that can be hired to give "second opinions" in the delivery room these days.

Yes, I agree and am not debating mother advocacy: it's up to her who she has with her. She is imbuing rights onto another person and they have to be competent to accept that responsibility. When you're pregnant you actually address a lot of this in paperwork that you file ahead of time at your hospital of choice so when you do go into labor you can be admitted quickly and without fuss during labor. If you go into labor early and are admitted elsewhere they'll have that information faxed to them - or fill it out anew under altered 'emergency admittance' type circumstances.

And so we have an extensive 'patient's rights list' and hospital rules, regulations, an avenue for complaints, and legislation aimed at defining who can do what - and what should be done. The doctor and nurses have to answer to a higher authority - and so on. Their jobs are on the line, etc. It's already complicated but for good reason.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

If my wife denied me the chance to see my child born, then I would file for divorce the next day.

They weren't married to begin with.

Now, I do kind of understand this, but hopefully it wouldn't come to that during a relationship. I would hope that most couples who are in a good relationship (and being married normally indicates at the very least a relationship where the two can mostly get along, at least in most marriages, although I understand this isn't the case in all). If your marriage has gotten to the point where your wife isn't going to let you in the delivery room against your wishes and you didn't see it coming, most likely there is a serious lack of communication in that relationship/marriage.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

And any rights of the father come into play only after the moment of birth, not on the fetus.

Any rights of the father come into play when proof or fact has been established - and sometimes that means he's named on the birth certificate or she has declared 'he is the father, yes'. If he's not, then paternity can be challenge via DNA - etc.

Just saying "I'm the dad" doesn't mean they are.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

They weren't married to begin with.

Now, I do kind of understand this, but hopefully it wouldn't come to that during a relationship. I would hope that most couples who are in a good relationship (and being married normally indicates at the very least a relationship where the two can mostly get along, at least in most marriages, although I understand this isn't the case in all). If your marriage has gotten to the point where your wife isn't going to let you in the delivery room against your wishes and you didn't see it coming, most likely there is a serious lack of communication in that relationship/marriage.

I never said they were married. I was talking about myself.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Yes, I agree and am not debating mother advocacy: it's up to her who she has with her. She is imbuing rights onto another person and they have to be competent to accept that responsibility. When you're pregnant you actually address a lot of this in paperwork that you file ahead of time at your hospital of choice so when you do go into labor you can be admitted quickly and without fuss during labor. If you go into labor early and are admitted elsewhere they'll have that information faxed to them - or fill it out anew under altered 'emergency admittance' type circumstances.

And so we have an extensive 'patient's rights list' and hospital rules, regulations, an avenue for complaints, and legislation aimed at defining who can do what - and what should be done. The doctor and nurses have to answer to a higher authority - and so on. Their jobs are on the line, etc. It's already complicated but for good reason.

Of course, but that's not to say that a certain amount of abuse doesn't still happen either way regardless.

I've heard of women (after explicitly requesting to be left alone, no less) being snipped under epidural without even being asked first, and when challenged on it, doctors basically shrugging it off and saying "I hoped she wouldn't notice."

As always, the decision is ultimately up to the woman. However, having someone on stand-by to watch out for that kind of nonsense, and speak up when they see it, is advisable, IMO.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

That is ridiculous. Just because she wants privacy during the birth itself? She has already testified that the presumed father would be on the hospital visitor list. You cannot have parental rights to a fetus, after the child is born the laws and regulations with parental rights come into action, including child support and he will have to pay for his failure to protect himself from making a woman pregnant (aka, using a condom).


Balderdash!!! (look it up)

They made this child together. Unless she is claiming that the father raped her, the baby belongs to both of them, even at the moment the child is born. So if she doesn't want the father to witness the birth of his child, then she shouldn't expect him to be there for any subsequent part of the child's life--- including monetary support. She can't have it both ways.

So which is it: should women have the right to decide everything in regards to their child, or should men have equal say so?
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Of course, but that's not to say that a certain amount of abuse doesn't still happen either way regardless.

I've heard of women (after explicitly requesting to be left alone, no less) being snipped under epidural without even being asked first, and when challenged on it, doctors basically shrugging it off and saying "I hoped she wouldn't notice."

As always, the decision is ultimately up to the woman. However, having someone on stand-by to watch out for that kind of nonsense, and speak up when they see it, is advisable, IMO.

Well yes, of course - but it doesn't pertain to the OP which is why I'm not delving into it too deeply, here.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Any rights of the father come into play when proof or fact has been established - and sometimes that means he's named on the birth certificate or she has declared 'he is the father, yes'. If he's not, then paternity can be challenge via DNA - etc.

Just saying "I'm the dad" doesn't mean they are.

You are right, and this also means that the presumptive/assumed father cannot have any legal standing to challenge this ladies right to privacy in her delivery room. His rights come after the delivery and not before.
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Balderdash!!! (look it up)

They made this child together. Unless she is claiming that the father raped her, the baby belongs to both of them, even at the moment the child is born. So if she doesn't want the father to witness the birth of his child, then she shouldn't expect him to be there for any subsequent part of the child's life--- including monetary support. She can't have it both ways.

So which is it: should women have the right to decide everything in regards to their child, or should men have equal say so?

No, you are proclaiming balderdash yourself:

On the other hand, plaintiff’s application for parenting time is not ripe for judicial consideration at this time.

Pursuant to N.J.S.A 9:2-4, the court must conduct a best interest analysis. The statute lists several factors the court must consider:

the parents' ability to agree, communicate and cooperate in matters relating to the child; the parents' willingness to accept custody and any history of unwillingness to allow parenting time not based on substantiated abuse; the interaction and relationship of the child with its parent s and siblings; the history of domestic violence, if any; the safety of the child and the safety of either parent from physical abuse by the other parent; the preference of the child when of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent decision; the needs of the child; the stability of the home environment offered; the quality and continuity of the child's education; the fitness of the parents; the geographical proximity of the parents' homes; the extent and quality of time spent with the child prior to or subsequent to the separation; the parents' employment responsibilities; and the age and number of the children.

[N.J.S.A 9:2-4.]

The factors listed, by their plain and ordinary meanings, do not contemplate a best interest evaluation before the fetus is born. First, the statute uses the word “child” and not “fetus.” Secondly, the statutory factors cannot be determined at this time as the facts required to make a determination do not exist before a child is born.
For instance, factor number three requires the court to consider “the interaction and relationship of the child with its parents and siblings.” This is not possible in the pre-birth scenario as the child has had no independent interaction with the parents. Since the vast majority of the factors by their plain meaning cannot be determined pre-birth, the court finds that the claim is not fit for judicial review at this time.

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

It says child, not fetus in the statute and all other case laws, written and unwritten all give the woman the right to decide what happens in the delivery room. Until the child is born, the presumed dad has zero rights when it comes to being present at the birth. I think they have almost no rights to begin with before the birth happens anyway.

It is her legal right to privacy at the moment of birth that has any legal standing and her using that right does not vacate the duties of the presumed father as soon as his parentage has been established to pay child support because at that point he has both legal rights and obligations that are equal to that of the mother (for the most part).
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

It says child, not fetus in the statute and all other case laws, written and unwritten all give the woman the right to decide what happens in the delivery room. Until the child is born, the presumed dad has zero rights when it comes to being present at the birth. I think they have almost no rights to begin with before the birth happens anyway.

It is her legal right to privacy at the moment of birth that has any legal standing and her using that right does not vacate the duties of the presumed father as soon as his parentage has been established to pay child support because at that point he has both legal rights and obligations that are equal to that of the mother (for the most part).

When the child is born it is not a fetus anymore. When the child comes out of the vagina is usually the point that it born. If the father has parental rights as soon as the fetus is a child, he should be allowed to be there when HIS CHILD IS BORN.

I believe the judge got this one wrong. No one person's rights can be interpreted to fully eliminate another person's rights. What the court should have said is that the father has no right to be in the room during the labor, but does have a right to be there at the moment of the actual birth if the circumstances permit. The father should be allowed to bond with his child the same way the mother is allowed to bond with the child.

Otherwise it would only be fair to at the moment of birth remove the child immediately to another room where the waiting father is and allow him to bond with the baby before the mother does. Would that be fair? Would you be in favor of a decision like that?
Why not, it is his child too right? That would not be "invading her privacy" to give the father first access to their baby would it?
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Balderdash!!! (look it up)

1.)They made this child together.
2.) Unless she is claiming that the father raped her, the baby belongs to both of them, even at the moment the child is born.
3.) So if she doesn't want the father to witness the birth of his child
4.) then she shouldn't expect him to be there for any subsequent part of the child's life--- including monetary support.
5.) She can't have it both ways.
6.)So which is it: should women have the right to decide everything in regards to their child
7.) or should men have equal say so?

1.) meaningless to her rights
2.) also meaningless, nobody claimed other wise
3.) he has not right too, zero
4.) that would be his choice or the choice of the court if it went that way which is an totally different subject
5.) both ways? that makes no sense she has her rights just like him and in the op topic her rights are being protected
6.) aaaah theres your confusion, nobody claimed this nor is it being claimed
7.) and more of your confusion, this ruling, doesnt take away his say
 
Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

1.)When the child is born it is not a fetus anymore. When the child comes out of the vagina is usually the point that it born. If the father has parental rights as soon as the fetus is a child, he should be allowed to be there when HIS CHILD IS BORN.

2.)I believe the judge got this one wrong. No one person's rights can be interpreted to fully eliminate another person's rights.
3.) hat the court should have said is that the father has no right to be in the room during the labor, but does have a right to be there at the moment of the actual birth if the circumstances permit.
4.) The father should be allowed to bond with his child the same way the mother is allowed to bond with the child.
5.) Otherwise it would only be fair to at the moment of birth remove the child immediately to another room where the waiting father is and allow him to bond with the baby before the mother does. Would that be fair? Would you be in favor of a decision like that?
6.) Why not, it is his child too right?
7.)That would not be "invading her privacy" to give the father first access to their baby would it?

1.) you should reread the OP and thread nobody took his parental rights away. he is allowed to be there, just not in the room when the birth is going on if the patient doesnt want him there
2.) correct and that factually did not happen here
3.)he has not right to witness the birth, ZERO.
4.) he is already
5.) medical standards apply here and privacy rights, the baby wont be moving "immediately" anywhere until theres some checking of him. SOrry you have to use reality here
6.) yes and not seeing the birth wont change this
7.) and why would we do this? why not simply do the easier thing of waiting to the room and patient is ready to let others in or once the baby is determined to be medically sound then move it LOL

this is hilarious.

can you tell me the right that is violated of the dad by not allowing him to violate the right of the mother?
 
Back
Top Bottom