NJ court ruling blocking newborn's dad from delivery room is first in nation

[Half-Century Man]

89. Female or Male rights? It should be phrased otherwise. It should be Human rights.

But in this case we seem to be losing our minds over the timing of when those rights apply.

Going by what few clues there are, I'm speculating that. There was a bad end to the engagement. The father wanted to be involved with the child, and expressed a desire to be at the birth. As there was a civil suit, I suspect this was not well received.
I wonder if there had not been a medical reason for the mother's testimony via phone; if the father would have been notified at all?

[Question 1: Why could none of the mother's people contacted the father about the labor? Is there any reason besides petty anger? There was nothing I saw in the article indicating his desire to impose his rights over hers. He merely wanted to be included in a timely manner.]

Good points have been made about the immediate medical reasons why a child needs to be with the mother. I am a father and grandfather and have never seen those in practice (4 births). The soonest I saw a child placed in the arms of the mother was just over an hour (my grand daughter Christina). My wife didn't hold my daughter Elizabeth until nearly four hours later (disclaimer: difficult pregnancy, C-section, and post Op, and infant care). I can vouch that three of those cases the mothers didn't nurse. I'm glad we now do things differently. However due to my personal past experiences, I can see where the idea that the baby doesn't need immediate contact with the mother comes from.

I do see a lot of personal anger being used as evidence to support an opinion here in this thread. I also suspect there was a lot of anger used to make disicisions about who can be where and when during this little girl's birth.

I do think both parents have rights and responsibilities. Whatever anger they might have between them is subservient to the child's welfare. There is no medical reason for the mother to not inform the father knows about the labor, during the labor. There is no legal reason for the father to be not included in the news of the labor in progress. There is no good legal reason for the child to be whisked to the father until those things benefiting the child are addressed. There is no legal reason for delaying the fathers meeting the child as soon as those needs are met.