- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,857
- Reaction score
- 30,124
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
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
Disagree.
The child is just as much a part of him than it is her.
It's absolutely a right.
At the time of delivery, child support has not started.
Because she has the right to medical privacy.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If my wife denied me the chance to see my child born, then I would file for divorce the next day.
And any rights of the father come into play only after the moment of birth, not on the fetus.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.)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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?