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
  #61  
April 4th, 2007, 06:42 PM
Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,966
Quote:
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..
[/b]

Ditto My dh works long hours. During the week he really does not help out with the kids. Not to much during the weekend either. Even when I was working I was doing the majority of taking care of Jay. I could never see him being the primary caregiver. He is a great dad though.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
April 4th, 2007, 07:22 PM
*Leslie*'s Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,966
Send a message via AIM to *Leslie* Send a message via Yahoo to *Leslie*
"I hope I am not flamed for this but sometimes I think there is a secret belief that still exists in that a mother is the best caretaker for a child."
Sometimes the mother is the best caretaker for the child, sometimes that is the father, if the mother is unfit as well.... I'm glad you guys are thinking that day to day basis is fair for the dad even for only a couple hours. I've thought the same thing, but apparently DD's dad thinks once a week or once every other week is sufficient. I though maybe I was being harsh, but now I see I'm not! I don't think a mother should have to give up breastfeeding for overnight visits or prolonged visits. I HATE my DD's dad more than anything, but I suck it up and give him the 45 minutes a week that he wants... I mostly sit there and do other things while he visits with London... He has even expressed to me that he wouldn't feel comfortable at all taking London overnight even if he was allowed...and makes comments like "look at her she knows who feeds and cares for her" when she glares at me over the table... I am a FF mom, but have the utmost respect for those that BF, so I can se where a mom would have a problem being told to pump instead.
__________________


TTC our Rainbow Baby to complete our family.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
April 5th, 2007, 07:58 AM
Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 6,149
Send a message via Yahoo to AmberL
I'm trying to look at it from a father's point of view. How would you feel as a mother if the roles were reversed? Waht if the father told you that you couldn't have overnight visit or extended visits with your child? Even if you knew that you wanted your child BF...how would you FEEL about it?

Someone else mentioned the role of primary care-giving fathers. What about mothers who die in childbirth? Sure, they're probably not BF, but they could still be getting breastmilk. Are these fathers doing a worse job than a "mother" would?

I think BOTH parents are ESSENTIAL for the health and well-being of children. NEVER would I assume my role as a mother is better, more important or anything of the like. My dh is a very necessary part of my son's life. Quite frankly...I would NEVER limit my husband's access to my son to one or two hours per day! Let me tell you...if anyone ever tried to limit MY access to my son to that short of amount of time...HEADS WOULD ROLL.
__________________
~Amber~

Reply With Quote
  #64  
April 5th, 2007, 08:04 AM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
I'm trying to look at it from a father's point of view. How would you feel as a mother if the roles were reversed? Waht if the father told you that you couldn't have overnight visit or extended visits with your child? Even if you knew that you wanted your child BF...how would you FEEL about it?

Someone else mentioned the role of primary care-giving fathers. What about mothers who die in childbirth? Sure, they're probably not BF, but they could still be getting breastmilk. Are these fathers doing a worse job than a "mother" would?

I think BOTH parents are ESSENTIAL for the health and well-being of children. NEVER would I assume my role as a mother is better, more important or anything of the like. My dh is a very necessary part of my son's life. Quite frankly...I would NEVER limit my husband's access to my son to one or two hours per day! Let me tell you...if anyone ever tried to limit MY access to my son to that short of amount of time...HEADS WOULD ROLL. [/b]
((looking outside ~ it IS pretty cold out here...))

Amber, are you sitting? My gawd girl, but you and I agree!
Reply With Quote
  #65  
April 5th, 2007, 08:10 AM
Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 6,149
Send a message via Yahoo to AmberL
Quote:
Quote:
I'm trying to look at it from a father's point of view. How would you feel as a mother if the roles were reversed? Waht if the father told you that you couldn't have overnight visit or extended visits with your child? Even if you knew that you wanted your child BF...how would you FEEL about it?

Someone else mentioned the role of primary care-giving fathers. What about mothers who die in childbirth? Sure, they're probably not BF, but they could still be getting breastmilk. Are these fathers doing a worse job than a "mother" would?

I think BOTH parents are ESSENTIAL for the health and well-being of children. NEVER would I assume my role as a mother is better, more important or anything of the like. My dh is a very necessary part of my son's life. Quite frankly...I would NEVER limit my husband's access to my son to one or two hours per day! Let me tell you...if anyone ever tried to limit MY access to my son to that short of amount of time...HEADS WOULD ROLL. [/b]
((looking outside ~ it IS pretty cold out here...))

Amber, are you sitting? My gawd girl, but you and I agree!
[/b]
I know!! I have been thinking that reading this whole thread!!! I just couldn't ever imagine limiting Brody's time with his daddy. THe thought makes me sick to my stomach.
__________________
~Amber~

Reply With Quote
  #66  
April 5th, 2007, 08:18 AM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
I know!! I have been thinking that reading this whole thread!!! I just couldn't ever imagine limiting Brody's time with his daddy. THe thought makes me sick to my stomach.[/b]
I think the biggest thing people are forgetting is it's ok to have a schedule that can easily include dad. That is stability and having two places for an infant is not a negative within a set schedule.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
April 5th, 2007, 08:25 AM
Pure Innocence
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think the Dad should be able to spend as much time with baby as he wants.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
April 5th, 2007, 08:42 AM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
I think the Dad should be able to spend as much time with baby as he wants.[/b]

Quote:
If both parents are able-bodied good parents, the mother is still the best option.[/b]
Quote:
I believe the mother IS more important for a newborn than the father.[/b]
You still think mom is the better choice, right?
Reply With Quote
  #69  
April 5th, 2007, 09:02 AM
Pure Innocence
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here, let me make it easier on you and spell it out.

Quote:
A baby thinks he/she is still attatched to his/her mothers body until they are 11 months old.

I don't remember where I read that, but I *think* it was a credible source. Anywhoo.....I think that it's terrible to take a newborn away from it's mother wether she bf or not...but especially if she bfeeds. (Obviously I don't agree with her having the newborn if she is unfit)[/b]


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]


Quote:
Second, no one is disputing the bond between father and baby at all. It's there and it's JUST AS REAL as mom and babies bond IMO. BUT, the baby has a natural stronger bond/need for it's mother than it's father.[/b]

Quote:
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.
[/b]

Quote:
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 This is what I\'ve been saying....

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I dont' think a time limit should be set. A father should be able to spend as much time with his child as he wants if the mom has sole custody because of breastfeeding.[/b]
In theory, I agree. But if the parents can't stand each other for whatever reason, then I think an hour or two away from mom is reasonable. But not 8 hours, or a weekend.
[/b]
I don't think it's theory, I think if the mom is keeping the child (temporarily) due to breastfeeding (as that are her wishes) and the father is being respectful of that, I think the mother should in turn be respectful to the fathers wish of wanting to see the child as much as he wants.
[/b]

Quote:
Quote:
If they are getting divorced, even if it's an amicable divorce, I'm sure mom and dad don't want to spend hours and hours with each other. A few hours, sure, they might be able to suck it up and tolerate each other.[/b]
They need to work out a timetable arrangement that works for them, but I don't agree with saying a father can only see his kid X many hours.
[/b]

Quote:
I think the Dad should be able to spend as much time with baby as he wants.[/b]

So Michelle, please do tell me why you act shocked about my last post, as if I haven't been saying the dad should be able to see the baby for whatever amount of time all along.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
April 5th, 2007, 09:05 AM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
So Michelle, please do tell me why you act shocked about my last post, as if I haven't been saying the dad should be able to see the baby for whatever amount of time all along.[/b]
I have responsed to almost every post you've posted.. The bottom line is, you feel the mom should be the primary caretaker because of the riduclous bf rule.

Quote:
Here, let me make it easier on you and spell it out.[/b]
BTW: If you want to be treated respectfully.. give it out.. otherwise expect conscending answers from me. All I did was ask a simple question: You still think mom is the better choice, right?
Reply With Quote
  #71  
April 5th, 2007, 09:09 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,780
I don't think it's about just the BFing.

Some BFing moms pump, and are fine leaving their baby with someone else for 8 hours every day.

And other BFing moms can't pump, and are not fine leaving their baby for more than an hour or two.

And there are bottlefeeding moms who leave their baby at grandma's all day.

And also bottlefeeding moms that are not fine leaving their baby for more than an hour or two (just like BFing moms). They want to stay with their baby.

It's about the PARENTING style, not just bfing vs. bottlefeeding.
__________________



Reply With Quote
  #72  
April 5th, 2007, 09:10 AM
Pure Innocence
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Quote:
So Michelle, please do tell me why you act shocked about my last post, as if I haven't been saying the dad should be able to see the baby for whatever amount of time all along.[/b]
I have responsed to almost every post you've posted.. The bottom line is, you feel the mom should be the primary caretaker because of the riduclous bf rule.

Quote:
Here, let me make it easier on you and spell it out.[/b]
BTW: If you want to be treated respectfully.. give it out.. otherwise expect conscending answers from me. All I did was ask a simple question: You still think mom is the better choice, right?
[/b]
That is your opinion it is a ridiculous rule, but it isn't. I've stated my opinions, but no parent is more important than the other EXCEPT in cases of a newborn where the baby doesn't UNDERSTAND not being around mommy 24/7. And if pumping etc are feasible, then it's not gonna kill the kid to be 1/2 with mom and 1/2 with dad, but pumping doesn't always work, so in the case of sole breastfeeding the mother should have the baby TEMPORARILY like I've stated ALL ALONG because for this short period of time it DOES make her more important because she is the FOOD SOURCE. But Dad should be able to come around AS MUCH as he wants to.
And I'm sorry if I sounded condescending, but your under my last post made it seem like you were saying I've all along been saying that Dad shouldn't be in the picture because he's not important and that is NOT true.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
April 5th, 2007, 09:11 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,780
Basically, I think that if MOM is not comfortable being away from her baby for long periods of time, then no one should FORCE her to be away from her baby for long periods of time.

Regardless of whether she bf or bottlefeeds.
__________________



Reply With Quote
  #74  
April 5th, 2007, 09:12 AM
Pure Innocence
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Basically, I think that if MOM is not comfortable being away from her baby for long periods of time, then no one should FORCE her to be away from her baby for long periods of time.

Regardless of whether she bf or bottlefeeds.[/b]
I don't think either parent should be forced from being away from their baby for long periods of time if either of them are uncomfortable about it.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
April 5th, 2007, 09:13 AM
Cereal Killer's Avatar I'm climbin' in yo window
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: next to Chuck Norris
Posts: 7,371
Quote:
Basically, I think that if MOM is not comfortable being away from her baby for long periods of time, then no one should FORCE her to be away from her baby for long periods of time.

Regardless of whether she bf or bottlefeeds.[/b]
But if the father is not comfortable being away from his children, he is SOL? Yep, definitely a sexist double standard.
__________________



Reply With Quote
  #76  
April 5th, 2007, 09:15 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hudson, FL
Posts: 1,696
I don't really think that it's completely accurate to say that a newborn thinks it's attached to mom for an additional 11 months.

I think the study may have been flawed, considering the majority of SAH parents are mothers. I can definitely jive with the fact that newborns/infants aren't quite aware yet that they are autonomous beings, but to label it as simply JUST the mom who they are attached to is what I think Michelle and I were kinda arguing with.

I think a newborn/infant believes they are attached, physically, to whomever the primary caregiver may be, male or female.
__________________
<div align="center"></div>
<div align="center"></div>
<div align="center"></div>
Reply With Quote
  #77  
April 5th, 2007, 09:16 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,780
The father is not the one who just gave birth. He doesn't have all those hormones going through his body telling him he has to stay near his baby.

He'd be fine. Call it sexist if you want. It's biology. After a woman gives birth, certain hormones (I think prolactin, and oxytocin) are released that cause her to bond with the baby and want to protect/be near baby.

Dad doesn't have these.
__________________



Reply With Quote
  #78  
April 5th, 2007, 09:19 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hudson, FL
Posts: 1,696
To say that fathers don't experience biologically induced hormone secretions in regards to their offspring after birth is incredibly inaccurate. Sources to follow in next post.
__________________
<div align="center"></div>
<div align="center"></div>
<div align="center"></div>
Reply With Quote
  #79  
April 5th, 2007, 09:23 AM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
That is your opinion it is a ridiculous rule, but it isn't. I've stated my opinions, but no parent is more important than the other EXCEPT in cases of a newborn where the baby doesn't UNDERSTAND not being around mommy 24/7. And if pumping etc are feasible, then it's not gonna kill the kid to be 1/2 with mom and 1/2 with dad, but pumping doesn't always work, so in the case of sole breastfeeding the mother should have the baby TEMPORARILY like I've stated ALL ALONG because for this short period of time it DOES make her more important because she is the FOOD SOURCE. But Dad should be able to come around AS MUCH as he wants to.[/b]
It can't go both ways.. By assuming the bf is a reason to not share a child with a father equally and making mom a primary caregiver, as many ladies have outright said and you agreed with, it takes away rights to the child and the father. In fact, by not figuring out an arrangement that includes scheduling dad, that alone will create the instability so many people are preaching about.

Quote:
And I'm sorry if I sounded condescending, but your under my last post made it seem like you were saying I've all along been saying that Dad shouldn't be in the picture because he's not important and that is NOT true.[/b]
Again, you have said things that seem like the conflict here.. I was asking to clarify.

Quote:
I don't think either parent should be forced from being away from their baby for long periods of time if either of them are uncomfortable about it.[/b]
What exactly is a long period of time?

Quote:
But if the father is not comfortable being away from his children, he is SOL? Yep, definitely a sexist double standard.[/b]
Yep.

Quote:
I think a newborn/infant believes they are attached, physically, to whomever the primary caregiver may be, male or female.[/b]
yep.

Quote:
To say that fathers don't experience biologically induced hormone secretions in regards to their offspring after birth is incredibly inaccurate. Sources to follow in next post.[/b]
YES!!! Dh shows me these studies and terms all the time! He is going through huge hormonal changes too.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
April 5th, 2007, 09:23 AM
Cereal Killer's Avatar I'm climbin' in yo window
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: next to Chuck Norris
Posts: 7,371
Quote:
The father is not the one who just gave birth. He doesn't have all those hormones going through his body telling him he has to stay near his baby.[/b]
You don't believe a father has any drive to bond with and protect his offspring? I better tell my husband that because he would die or kill to protect his children and me.
Quote:
He'd be fine. Call it sexist if you want.[/b]
It is very sexist and very ignorant to say that because a man doesn't give birth that he will be "fine" being seperated from his children. He should just get over it?
Quote:
It's biology.[/b]
You don't seem to know much about biology if you believe that fathers have no parental instincts.
Quote:
After a woman gives birth, certain hormones (I think prolactin, and oxytocin) are released that cause her to bond with the baby and want to protect/be near baby. Dad doesn't have these[/b]
Men don't have any biological attachments to their children though, huh?
You really should go study some more.
__________________



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 02:25 AM.



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