Log In Sign Up

Custody/visitation with a newborn


Forum: Heated Debates

Notices

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Heated Debates LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #21  
April 4th, 2007, 01:01 PM
Pure Innocence
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
If a mother is breastfeeding, I think she should have primary care for the newborn. Jules wouldn't take a bottle once she learned to latch correctly, so pumping was out of the question (unless DH was going to feed her by syringe). Not only that, but babies are suseptible to nipple confusion, and most babies will eventually prefer a bottle over breast simply because it's easier to get the milk out. Introducing a bottle before BF has been established a lot of times is detrimental to the nursing relationship.[/b]
big fat ditto
Reply With Quote
  #22  
April 4th, 2007, 01:03 PM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
If both parents are able-bodied good parents, the mother is still the best option.

I don't agree with societies idea of a mother/womans role, but I can't dispute natures intended role for women.[/b]
Nature intended for two parents. Obviously said child isn't going to receive that. There are other options than assuming the mom is the better choice. Why is it so hard to assume joint custody if both parents are fit?

Quote:
My point is, this is not about what is fair to the father, or what is fair to the mother, it is about what is fair to the baby. The baby needs stability, and if the two parents cannot co-exist for the sake of the child (which it sounds like you would do in this situation), again the next best thing is for the mother to have primary custody with the father having AMPLE visitation. No one is saying that the man should be kept from his child.[/b]
The baby's right to stability was taken away when the couple split up. Where no one is saying a man should be kept from a child, no one is saying he has an equal chance to be a parent.

Quote:
If a mother is breastfeeding, I think she should have primary care for the newborn. Jules wouldn't take a bottle once she learned to latch correctly, so pumping was out of the question (unless DH was going to feed her by syringe). Not only that, but babies are suseptible to nipple confusion, and most babies will eventually prefer a bottle over breast simply because it's easier to get the milk out. Introducing a bottle before BF has been established a lot of times is detrimental to the nursing relationship.[/b]
Well, I would love for breatfeeding to be priority because I feel it's best. However, since said child isn't with both parents, both parents will have to sacrifice. If mom can't/won't use other options than breastfeeding when there are safe alternatives, who really has the child's best interest at heart?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
April 4th, 2007, 01:05 PM
chlodoll
Guest
Posts: n/a
You can have joint custody with the mother being the primary caregiver. Newborn babies nurse upto 18 hours a day. You just cannot let the baby go for the day, its not possible for a successful nursing relationship. In the beginning a baby may need to be with the mother more, but has they get older that will change and you can adjust the visitation schedule as needed.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
April 4th, 2007, 01:06 PM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
You can have joint custody with the mother being the primary caregiver.[/b]
I actually agree with this. I just can't agree with the assumption mom is best.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
April 4th, 2007, 01:07 PM
chlodoll
Guest
Posts: n/a
Unless the mother is seen as an unfit parent then why wouldnt she be best?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
April 4th, 2007, 01:08 PM
Pure Innocence
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
You can have joint custody with the mother being the primary caregiver. Newborn babies nurse upto 18 hours a day. You just cannot let the baby go for the day, its not possible for a successful nursing relationship. In the beginning a baby may need to be with the mother more, but has they get older that will change and you can adjust the visitation schedule as needed.[/b]
Yes, that is what I was saying. I would think if the father has the babies best intentions at heart, he would support his child getting the best nutrition possible. If EBM works that is GREAT! But some babies won't take bottles (mine...I've tried lots lol) and get nipple confusion (mine). Some women can pump, but that can also stop your supply and then no more breastmilk. As the baby gets older, visitation can change...er not visitation, the father obviously should have all rights to visitation, but I think the baby should be with Mom until the baby doesn't nurse quite as frequent.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
April 4th, 2007, 01:14 PM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
The original thread implies usually only moms are the primary caretakers (which I don't believe to be the case or we would have no adoptions and all kids who's mom's who died in childbirth would be dead too.) A few other poster supported it. We assume mom is best but we should see dad as equally important as mom to a child, even an infant.
Quote:
Unless the mother is seen as an unfit parent then why wouldnt she be best?[/b]
Again why can't it be joint? I asked a few questions along these lines..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
April 4th, 2007, 01:17 PM
chlodoll
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think its hard for alot of women to see a father as a primary caregiver when we are most often the primary caregivers. My husband is out of the house 12-14 hours a day. He is barely a caregiver at all and alot of other women experience the same thing.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
April 4th, 2007, 01:22 PM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
I think its hard for alot of women to see a father as a primary caregiver when we are most often the primary caregivers. My husband is out of the house 12-14 hours a day. He is barely a caregiver at all and alot of other women experience the same thing.[/b]
I agree. We have mommies on a mommy board with no *dads!

*sorry to the dad we do have here but aren't around to add the dad voice..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
April 4th, 2007, 01:33 PM
glasscandie's Avatar What I make is what I am
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 15,982
Send a message via AIM to glasscandie Send a message via Yahoo to glasscandie
Quote:
Quote:
If a mother is breastfeeding, I think she should have primary care for the newborn. Jules wouldn't take a bottle once she learned to latch correctly, so pumping was out of the question (unless DH was going to feed her by syringe). Not only that, but babies are suseptible to nipple confusion, and most babies will eventually prefer a bottle over breast simply because it's easier to get the milk out. Introducing a bottle before BF has been established a lot of times is detrimental to the nursing relationship.[/b]
Well, I would love for breatfeeding to be priority because I feel it's best. However, since said child isn't with both parents, both parents will have to sacrifice. If mom can't/won't use other options than breastfeeding when there are safe alternatives, who really has the child's best interest at heart?
[/b]
No, then the child will have to take on the burden of the sacrifice, not the parents, if the child cannot continue breastfeeding. If a mother can't use other options when it comes to breastfeeding (child not taking the bottle, etc), how exactly does she not have the child's best interest at heart?

I'm not implying that a mother is the better parent, though quite honestly I think it would be wrong for the court to split up custody of a child where the mom was the primary caregiver. When breastfeeding is involved, mom is the better person to take care of the child. Breastfeeding isn't only about food - it's about comfort (including comfort-sucking, I don't know too many BF babies who take pacifiers) and needs.
__________________
I predict a riot.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
April 4th, 2007, 01:43 PM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
No, then the child will have to take on the burden of the sacrifice, not the parents, if the child cannot continue breastfeeding. If a mother can't use other options when it comes to breastfeeding (child not taking the bottle, etc), how exactly does she not have the child's best interest at heart? When breastfeeding is involved, mom is the better person to take care of the child. Breastfeeding isn't only about food - it's about comfort (including comfort-sucking, I don't know too many BF babies who take pacifiers) and needs.[/b]
I think this sounds more like a bf/ff debate. I believe in breastmilk but if the mom isn't a willing participate in sharing the child, the child will have to use alternatives. If the mom has the child's best interest at heart, she will figure something that she can do.

Quote:
I'm not implying that a mother is the better parent, though quite honestly I think it would be wrong for the court to split up custody of a child where the mom was the primary caregiver.[/b]
I think we're talking about a child custody, we can't assume we are splitting up the child from the parents. The parents might not be together in a relationship, but that doesn't mean they can't be involved equally as many people are implying, and some out right saying mom should be the primary caregiver.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
April 4th, 2007, 01:47 PM
Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,120
Quote:
My point is, this is not about what is fair to the father, or what is fair to the mother, it is about what is fair to the baby. The baby needs stability, and if the two parents cannot co-exist for the sake of the child (which it sounds like you would do in this situation), again the next best thing is for the mother to have primary custody with the father having AMPLE visitation. No one is saying that the man should be kept from his child.

The baby's right to stability was taken away when the couple split up. Where no one is saying a man should be kept from a child, no one is saying he has an equal chance to be a parent.[/b]
Number one-that is not true. There is absolutely NO reason a baby can't have a stable upbringing just because mom and dad split up. And NO ONE is saying he DOESN'T or SHOULDN'T have an equal opportunity to be a parent!

Since when is overnight visitation the only way to bond with a child?

Forgive me-I have never been married or co-parented-but from what I see on my PR and in real life, MOST fathers aren't even that involved in the late night feedings, MOST fathers work full time to support the family while the mother stays home during the first months of life. So they, at best, see their children for only a few hours a day. Are they not bonded with their children because of this? I think not...There is NO reason that a father can't bond with his child when he has ample visititation. If he doesn't, that is due to a lack of effort on HIS part and nothing more.


Quote:
Well, I would love for breatfeeding to be priority because I feel it's best. However, since said child isn't with both parents, both parents will have to sacrifice. If mom can't/won't use other options than breastfeeding when there are safe alternatives, who really has the child's best interest at heart?[/b]
It is not the parents that are sacrificing by not breastfeeding, it is the child.
__________________
Those who love me know how to reach me...it's been real ladies, peace and love!!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
April 4th, 2007, 01:50 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,780
Quote:
Since when is overnight visitation the only way to bond with a child?

Forgive me-I have never been married or co-parented-but from what I see on my PR and in real life, MOST fathers aren't even that involved in the late night feedings, MOST fathers work full time to support the family while the mother stays home during the first months of life. So they, at best, see their children for only a few hours a day. Are they not bonded with their children because of this? I think not...There is NO reason that a father can't bond with his child when he has ample visititation. If he doesn't, that is due to a lack of effort on HIS part and nothing more.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
Well, I would love for breatfeeding to be priority because I feel it's best. However, since said child isn't with both parents, both parents will have to sacrifice. If mom can't/won't use other options than breastfeeding when there are safe alternatives, who really has the child's best interest at heart?[/b]
It is not the parents that are sacrificing by not breastfeeding, it is the child.
[/b][/quote]

I agree.
__________________



Reply With Quote
  #35  
April 4th, 2007, 01:54 PM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
Well, I would love for breatfeeding to be priority because I feel it's best. However, since said child isn't with both parents, both parents will have to sacrifice. If mom can't/won't use other options than breastfeeding when there are safe alternatives, who really has the child's best interest at heart?[/b]
It is not the parents that are sacrificing by not breastfeeding, it is the child.
[/b][/quote]
The reason why this is becoming a ff/bf debate is because we assuming that choosing not to use breastfeeding 100% is somehow a huge sacrifice considering the alternatives.. It's not considering the latter of not having dad allowed equal access.

Quote:
MOST fathers aren't even that involved in the late night feedings, MOST fathers work full time to support the family while the mother stays home during the first months of life. So they, at best, see their children for only a few hours a day. Are they not bonded with their children because of this? I think not...There is NO reason that a father can't bond with his child when he has ample visititation. If he doesn't, that is due to a lack of effort on HIS part and nothing more.[/b]
That's is what's wrong with many men programmed to be uninvolved. There are men that want to be involved and assuming we just take that right away by giving women primary access doesn't solve the issue.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
April 4th, 2007, 02:03 PM
Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,120
Quote:
The reason why this is becoming a ff/bf debate is because we assuming that choosing not to use breastfeeding 100% is somehow a huge sacrifice considering the alternatives.. It's not considering the latter of not having dad allowed equal access.[/b]
I do assume that....and with good reason. Having experienced breastfeeding firsthand I know more than ever what a huge sacrifice it would be-to me, but mostly to my daughter-not to have experienced it.

Why does the father need EQUAL access in the first few months anyways? Why is that so essential? Is there some magical number of hours he must spend with his child in order to properly bond? How does that trump the importance of stability and breastfeeding? How is that in the best interest of the child?
__________________
Those who love me know how to reach me...it's been real ladies, peace and love!!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
April 4th, 2007, 02:09 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,780
Quote:
Why does the father need EQUAL access in the first few months anyways? Why is that so essential? Is there some magical number of hours he must spend with his child in order to properly bond? How does that trump the importance of stability and breastfeeding? How is that in the best interest of the child?[/b]

I don't think equal access is necessary.
I don't think he should be DENIED visitation. But it should be an hour or two a day. Rather than every other weekend for a whole weekend. That type of schedule will still allow for bfing, and still let baby bond with dad.
__________________



Reply With Quote
  #39  
April 4th, 2007, 02:12 PM
Pure Innocence
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Quote:
No, then the child will have to take on the burden of the sacrifice, not the parents, if the child cannot continue breastfeeding. If a mother can't use other options when it comes to breastfeeding (child not taking the bottle, etc), how exactly does she not have the child's best interest at heart? When breastfeeding is involved, mom is the better person to take care of the child. Breastfeeding isn't only about food - it's about comfort (including comfort-sucking, I don't know too many BF babies who take pacifiers) and needs.[/b]
I think this sounds more like a bf/ff debate. I believe in breastmilk but if the mom isn't a willing participate in sharing the child, the child will have to use alternatives. If the mom has the child's best interest at heart, she will figure something that she can do.

Quote:
I'm not implying that a mother is the better parent, though quite honestly I think it would be wrong for the court to split up custody of a child where the mom was the primary caregiver.[/b]
I think we're talking about a child custody, we can't assume we are splitting up the child from the parents. The parents might not be together in a relationship, but that doesn't mean they can't be involved equally as many people are implying, and some out right saying mom should be the primary caregiver.
[/b]
Why does the mom have to find the alternative to satisfy the fathers needs? No, I don't agree with that at all. The child should not be makinig the sacrafices for the father, the father should be making the sacrifices for the child so his child can have the best nutrition. And sometimes alternatives don't work in a bfing relationship as previously stated.

I believe the mother IS more important for a newborn than the father.

I think the father should be able to come around and spend as much time as he wants with the baby, but the mother needs to be there for feeding. If the father wants to take baby somewhere I think mom should make accomodations to go for the fathers sake.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
April 4th, 2007, 02:12 PM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
The reason why this is becoming a ff/bf debate is because we assuming that choosing not to use breastfeeding 100% is somehow a huge sacrifice considering the alternatives.. It's not considering the latter of not having dad allowed equal access.[/b]
I do assume that....and with good reason. Having experienced breastfeeding firsthand I know more than ever what a huge sacrifice it would be-to me, but mostly to my daughter-not to have experienced it.[/b][/quote]
Exactly.. it's another ff/bf debate.

Quote:
Why does the father need EQUAL access in the first few months anyways? Why is that so essential? Is there some magical number of hours he must spend with his child in order to properly bond? How does that trump the importance of stability and breastfeeding? How is that in the best interest of the child?[/b]
If breastfeeding is a woman's only card not to have equal access, than that exactly shows why there is no reason not to assume the father shouldn't have equal and fair time ~ not other harm. Stability is something that can easily be established, if the parents are working together and not having one assume they are more important that the other. If one party is assume they are somehow more important, than that's clearly not in the child's best interest.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:15 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0