New Jersey Judge: Women Can Block Dads From Delivery Room

[The Straight Story]

New Jersey Judge: Women Can Block Dads From Delivery Room

CAMDEN, N.J. (CBS) – A New Jersey court decision makes it clear, it may take two to tango but not to give birth.

“It’s well established under federal and state law that there is a privacy right when a woman’s in labor.”

Rutgers professor and family law expert Sally Goldfarb says a Passaic County judge made the right call last November in his decision, which was published this week, when he sided with pregnant woman that her ex-fiancee had no legal right to be in the delivery room.

“What this man was seeking to do was really interfere with the woman’s ability to exercise her own choices about giving birth in privacy and that to me falls outside of the rights that a father is legitimately entitled to.”

In the decision, believed to be the first of its kind, the father was also told he didn’t have a right to know when the baby was born.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/03/12/new-jersey-women-can-block-dads-from-delivery-room/

[Lost_Count]

1. Agreed that he can't force himself into the room...

Ethically, women should let a man know if they have a child barring extreme circumstances.

[Warpy]

2. Good, especially when the "dad" is her rapist

Most women want a partner there and a lot of dads want to see the baby as soon as they can, which means being there. That's great.

But that's not all women or all dads.

I agree that an ethical woman would notify the dad soon after the birth (unless he's the rapist). It's tacky as hell to have that notification be papers served over child support.

[geek tragedy]

3. really a no-brainer, since he's not legally the dad until he signs

the birth certificate

no one but who the mother wants has any right to be in that room with her, period, end of story.

he got to see the child later that day, more than good enough

[davidn3600]

7. So if he doesn't sign the birth certificate, he's not the legal father?

Yet the courts would still make him pay child support if he tried to run off from his responsibility as a father, correct?

[geek tragedy]

9. neither party would get to have it both ways--

if she sues for child support, he can seek a determination of paternity and then seek custody

one DNA test would clear it up.

not really a plausible scenario where she would sue for child support but not let him sign the birth certificate by denying custody.

[davidn3600]

11. My point was

...that you are saying the father has no parental rights until he signs a birth certificate.

Yet on the other hand you are saying the courts can force parental rights on him, if he doesn't want it. I'm saying that if HE doesn't want anything to do with that child, the courts will still declare him the legal father whether he signs any birth certificate or not.

That's having it both ways...

So him signing a document is essentially meaningless, correct?

[geek tragedy]

15. No, you have it wrong.

If he wants to have nothing to do with the kid, he doesn't have to. But he doesn't have the right to be a deadbeat re : child support.

He doesn't have to do anything more than sign a check.

[Fawke Em]

45. I hope not, either, since that's not the case in my state.

No one signs a birth certificate in Tennessee. You're issued one.

I'm sure it's different in every state, but no one "signs" a birth certificate here.

Edited to add: "Parents" don't sign one... the doctor does.

[Mariana]

26. I do hope you're not taking posts on a message board

as legal gospel.

[Nevernose]

36. That really depends on the state

This is one of those areas that vary widely. And even then, in most/most states a married man is automatically presumed to be the father, with full custodial rights, even if his wife doesn't put his name on the birth certificate.

In the OP, I think the judge made the right call.

[geek tragedy]

40. Married men are presumed to be the father just about everywhere.

Men who aren't married have more hurdles.

[crazylikafox]

4. Her body her choice.

[patricia92243]

8. Bingo!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. yeah. no shit.

[Niceguy1]

6. later in the day as things have settled down

seems to be entirely appropriate.

[Nye Bevan]

10. Obviously this couple does not have a relationship any more.

So why should she be forced to have him in the room to view her vagina as a baby emerges from it?

[antigone382]

12. I really can't wrap my mind around anyone thinking differently.

It just happens to be one of the most vulnerable, physically arduous, and potentially dangerous experiences a woman will ever have. If there is one time in her life that she should be able to make the rules, it's during the birth of her child. And afterwards, it's in the best interest of the child, for a whole host of medical reasons like the maintenance of body warmth, the regulation of heart rates and breathing, and the start of breastfeeding (which is when the baby takes in colostrum, the incredibly important substance that starts healthy digestion and delivers antibodies for secondary disease resistance), for the baby to stay close to the mother immediately following the birth.

Yes, I get that it isn't "fair" for fathers to be denied those first moments after birth, when their child is in the world. But until we develop the ability for men to carry, deliver, and breastfeed babies, this is one time when biological inevitability supersedes our ideas of fairness. Once the immediate medical needs of mother and child are met, we can work in the emotional needs and rights of the father.

[Tsiyu]

19. +10000 n/t

[PeaceNikki]

22. Amen.

[dsc]

13. I have no problem with keeping him out of the delivery room

but I do have a problem with the notion that he doesn't have a right to know when the child is born. Given that his rights to prevent an adoption expire 30 days after the birth it seems he should get to know when the baby is born.

[geek tragedy]

20. When born, yes. When the mother goes into

labor and is admitted to the hospital, fuck no.

[LiberalAndProud]

14. The bench did good.

[MattBaggins]

16. He is not the patient

EVERY PATIENT has this right.

[AngryAmish]

17. I was present for all my childrens birth.

This is the cant of today, fathers must be there. This is not common among all cultures on earth.

My father managed to get through three labors sitting in a bar doing shots and smoking.

I wonder if we have lost something.

[Liberal_in_LA]

23. but if your relationship with your partner was broken..

And she didn't want you there, you shouldn't be forced on her

[PeaceNikki]

18. good.

[LisaL]

21. Good.

[Wounded Bear]

24. My dad reportedly didn't even get off work for me...

Different times, of course, and I was #6, so there wasn't any "new" left. Back then, the early 50's, fathers typically waited in another room for the doctor to announce.

[avebury]

25. What is sad is that the woman's

animosity did not stop at the birthing room. She also has not agreed to let her daughter had her father's surname. It is patient issues as to who is allowed in the delivery room, anything beyond that would hint to a lot deeper issues between this now non-couple. It is unbelievable that a father does not even have a right to even know when his child is born. Knowledge of when birth occurs is totally different from being physically present for the birth. At birth, that child becomes a separate patient and he should have the same legal rights to see the child as the mother.

A lot of people have been jumping on the guy and calling him a creep. I have to wonder if the woman has a vindictive streak. I think that it is sad that he has had to use a lawyer to try to negotiate how he was to be allowed to have a relationship with his child. I give him credit for trying to make an effort to be there for his child. I wonder what on earth they have been saying to each other throughout the pregnancy. I think that there might have been some fear on his part because going to court is a big decision (as well as an expensive one).

I can't help but think of the couple where the woman lied to the guy about how her pregnancy was going and she then went to Utah where she gave the child up for adoption without his consent or knowledge. He is now fighting in the courts to get his child. If a woman is allowed to hide that facts of her child's birth, what is to keep a woman from running off to a state with loose adoption laws and pulling a similar stunt.

The biggest loser in this story will be the child.

[geek tragedy]

27. In other words, you 're taking his side because

she's being an uppity woman not submitting to his will.

Not all of us subscribe to the Mike Huckabee school of gender relations.

[avebury]

29. No I am for the right for two competent

adults to have equal right to bond with and parent their child. I am for the child to be treated like a separate, patient upon birth , with visitation rights granted equally to both biological parents. I am against a father having no legal right to even know his child has been born. I am in favor of reasonableness. They are adults and need to grow up. This is not about them, this is about a child.

[geek tragedy]

32. You think he was right to sue for the right

to violate her human rights.

That is crazy town.

[avebury]

35. I think that it is sad that so many people

on this board are treating the father as nothing more then a sperm donor with zero rights regarding his child. In a society where relationships are so easily thrown away, divorce is rampant and there are so many men who walk away from their responsibilities regarding their children, that few people place any value on a man who is making an effort to do the right thing by his child.

People tend to forget the concept of self-fulling prophecy. If you make is so difficult, so miserable for a man to have a relationship with his child, it is possible that you can end up driving him away thus denying a child a relationship with his/her father. And then people will cry out - See - we always said that Joe (for example) was a horrible person. Joe might have been a perfectly nice guy or not. Remember, not everyone is perfect, you will find in both sexes people who are fabulous, middle of the road, and horrible. You cannot make blanket assumptions about members of either sex. I have an aunt who to be honest is a saint , you need her and she will always be there. She is fabulous. I have another aunt who is crazy as a loon. When my uncle died, all of her children wanted nothing more to do with her because she abused them when they were children. I have a co-worker whose daughter's father is an unemployed drunk - not good parent material. I have another friend whose husband became a stay at home dad to their to young children when her maternity leave ended. They are both devoted parents but he is better in tuned to their children then she is because he spent a lot more time with them. As I said, there are good people and bad people, good parents and bad parents. I would hope that, in a progressive world, we would encourage any person (mother or father) who wants to be a parent to his/her child.

=======

These are some of the things people are saying about this man on DU (except for 2 editorial comments I did not say any of this):

This guy was a world class asshole for trying to sue his way into that room. Talk about disregarding another person's feelings--this guy is the villain, not her

To say that somebody she is upset with has the right to go and be with her and the baby at his will, and against hers is abusive. Until a man produces the baby out of his own body, he better show some respect to the ones who do. His behavior is heinous.

Sorry, maybe you forgot you were on a progressive discussion board, not a Men's Rights website. The hospital is not going to rip the baby out of the mother's arms to satisfy his whims. He can wait an hour. As this guy did. [Editorial comment - The judge ruled that a father has no legal right to know when his child is born. If she were not already in labor during the hearing we don't know when she would have notified him when the baby was born. In that case no one can make a factual statement as to whether or not the visit would have been allowed to take place.]

When one gender contributes a microscopic sperm, and the other puts her very life on the line carrying it around for 9 months and turning it into a baby? You're goddamn right one gender is more important than the other. [Editorial comment - Without the microscopic sperm, the rest does not matter. There is nothing to fight over.]

Ask any woman who's given birth. Not that you'd listen. He's entitled to hold the baby after the paternity test if you want to play this game.

=========

Progressiveness can never exist when one side of an issue has 100% rights and the other side of an issue as 0% rights. Life is not black and white nor can you always make across the board assumptions.

[MadrasT]

28. Poppycock.

A 5 minute olf child is not going to know if his/her dad was "there for his child".

That is just absurd. Possibly the most absurd thing I have ever seen on DU.

Love your automatic assumption that the woman is "vindictive" because in this most private, intimate of moments, she wants to assert her authority over who she shares the experience with.

What you posted is revolting.

[avebury]

31. The bonding moment is for the parents

to bond with the child. It is easy for a Mother to bond with her baby as she has carried the child from conception. A father has not had the same level of connection with the baby as a mother. Why do you want to deny a father the ability to hold his newborn child?

It is sad that there are people who have no problem with denying a father the legal right to even know that his child has been born.

[bravenak]

30. I do not understand people who are of the mindset that the child should have the fathers name.

I have my mothers name. I came from her. My man asked if i would allow the kids to have his name, and i agreed because i love him. If he and i were not together, i would have given them my name. It makes it easier to prove they are your children if they have your name. The mother decides what to name the child if she is birthing the child alone and paying for the hospital with her insurance. He is owed nothing but what the judge allows him to have.

He will know when the child is born but he cant visit unless he has permission. If they are not going to be together, now is the right time to define the boundaries that they need to live by in the future. She needs time to heal from the birth and bond with the child that just resided inside of her body for the last nine months and then he can start getting visits. He seems to be behaving like children are possessions. They are not. The judge will try to do what is in the best interest of the child, not what makes the father feel less insecure about his position in the child's life.

[avebury]

34. The time to set the boundaries

was a whole lot sooner then when the mother goes into labor. When the relationship went south, they should have come to a legal agreement spelling out custody, finances, the baby's name, etc. This would have protected both sides without ending up in a court hearing while she was in labor. Just like a mother wants to know that she will have some financial assistance in raising the child, a father wants to know that he will have visitation rights. A co-worker has a 12 year old daughter and she and the girl's father have never gone to court to hammer out a legal agreement and it has come back to bite her in the butt big time. Did you know that if 2 single parents, no legal custody agreement and one parent enrolls the child in a school that is can be impossible for the other parent to switch the child to another school (or sign the child out of school for a doctor's appointment for that) without the permission of the parent's whose name is on the school enrollment? When the Dad and his new wife moved out of state without telling anybody the school finally threw their hands up and forked over the girl's records. I kept telling her that she needs to take him to court.

It is the woman's 100% right to decide whether or not to have a baby, who is in the delivery room if she chooses to have the baby, what to name the baby, the Dad's name (if any) is put on the birth certificate, and whether or not she even notifies the Dad that the baby was born. Realistically, a father has no rights to even see his child until the mother decides that she is good and ready to pass along the information. At what point does a Dad actually gain legal rights to his own child? It appears that it is either whenever the Mother decides to grant him access to his child or he takes the Mother to court. Granted it usually is not a problem but you can see how it can become one when 2 adults are not able to get along.

I may be guessing but I would not be surprised if they have not gone to court to work out a custody/financial agreement which makes them both stupid in my book.

[kcr]

42. A judge ruled issues like custody had to wait. Custody agreements happen after the baby is born.

There is no child before a birth to rule on custody agreements, from a legal standpoint.

[LeftyMom]

33. Why should the child have his surname and not hers?

Check your calendar before you answer, because you appear to be unclear about what century this is.

[avebury]

38. Why can't a baby have a hypenated last name

to honor both parents. We hired 2 guys in the last year with hyphenated last names. Also some cultures have a specific way that names are given to a baby. For example, a co-worker who was born in Belgian has 4 names:

first name, first name of godfather, first name of godmother, surname. That is a cultural based decision.

[boston bean]

37. Why must a baby take the fathers last name?

[Puzzledtraveller]

46. They don't have to.

[gollygee]

39. Have you ever seen a woman give birth?

It's a lot to go through and she has to be comfortable. To force someone she doesn't like into the room with her would be awful. He doesn't have a right to witness her medical procedure.

[kcr]

41. A vindictive streak because she gave the baby her own name?

Why can't a baby have the mother's name? I'm with you about the case in Utah if it's the same one I'm thinking about, but this is nothing like that. Because some other woman did something awful, the actions of all women everywhere are suspect? Even when there's nothing suspect about them, like wanting her child to have her own name?

[stevenleser]

43. Absolutely the right decision. Everyone has the right to privacy during medical procedures.

Good ruling.

[NCTraveler]

44. So sad that common sense had to be decided in court. No brainer here.

I will decide who the fuck is in the room when I am having a medical procedure performed. WTF is wrong with some men?