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
  #121  
April 5th, 2007, 12:26 PM
Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 6,149
Send a message via Yahoo to AmberL
<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE(Pure Innocence @ Apr 5 2007, 01:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE(AmberL @ Apr 5 2007, 12:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class=\'quotemain\'>
My dh was the first to hold our son. And he did so several times before I could (c-section). In no way do I feel like at the time of birth I was more bonded with my child. I think those bonds do strengthen, often more-so for moms. Why? Becasue MOM is generally the one who takes the maternity leave. If it was the father that stayed home every day for the first couple months with baby...I would imagine his bond would be stronger. My son had no clue (I\'m sure) that he came from MY body.

I didn\'t know I didn\'t come from my mom\'s. Yet our bond is VERY very strong.[/b][/quote]
I\'m not speaking of a mother or fathers bond with baby. I\'m speaking of a babys bond beings lightly stronger towards mother than father. I feel that babies absolutely know who mommy is when they come out. Birth or adoption doesn\'t determine ones bond with their parents.

<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE(AmberL @ Apr 5 2007, 12:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE(StaceyC @ Apr 5 2007, 12:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class=\'quotemain\'>
<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE(Pure Innocence @ Apr 5 2007, 12:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class=\'quotemain\'>
Heartbeat, scent, voice........[/b][/quote]
Everyone has a heartbeat. I really hope that I smell completely different inside than outside. The voice sounds different from inside than out as well.

An infant does not have the ability, the self awareness, to know that it just came out of you.
[/b][/quote]
Ditto to all of the above. Especially the smell part! AND...babies hear their FATHERS too!!! What makes MY voice so much more special than his? Oh...and they heard all 3 of our dogs barking too...he loves our dogs. But I certainly wouldn\'t call them (dogs) care-givers.
[/b][/quote]

Nothing makes your voice more important than the fathers. The baby hears your voice non-stop and is more familiarized with your voice than the fathers so the baby recognizes you as comfort (due to familiarization) when they are born because you are what they are most used to.
[/b][/quote]

But that's my point. My son would have been just as familiar with my husbands voice as he was mine. We talked constantly! And my point of dh holding Brody first...was the fact that just becuase I'm the mother...my son didn't reject my husband (becuase he's more bonded to me).
__________________
~Amber~

Reply With Quote
  #122  
April 5th, 2007, 12:31 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,925
The baby hears your voice non-stop and is more familiarized with your voice than the fathers so the baby recognizes you as comfort (due to familiarization) when they are born because you are what they are most used to.

But you forgot the most important part. Your voice sounds different to the baby when they are on the inside. The voice they hear when they are born does not sound like the voice they heard when they are inside you.

BTW my SO talked to baby just as much as I did. My boys are around me pretty much all day long,so baby heard their voices constantly,as much as mine anyway. Does it mean they should be just as bonded to them as they are me because they recognize their voices?
__________________
Mum to Ross, Elliot, Jack, Jasmine and Evie
Reply With Quote
  #123  
April 5th, 2007, 12:38 PM
Pure Innocence
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
But that's my point. My son would have been just as familiar with my husbands voice as he was mine. We talked constantly! And my point of dh holding Brody first...was the fact that just becuase I'm the mother...my son didn't reject my husband (becuase he's more bonded to me).[/b]
Constantly doesn't equal constant. He is around your voice more than anyone elses, so he would recognize your voice MORE than your dh's voice. I never said anything about a child rejecting his/her father.


Quote:
But you forgot the most important part. Your voice sounds different to the baby when they are on the inside. The voice they hear when they are born does not sound like the voice they heard when they are inside you.

BTW my SO talked to baby just as much as I did. My boys are around me pretty much all day long,so baby heard their voices constantly,as much as mine anyway. Does it mean they should be just as bonded to them as they are me because they recognize their voices?[/b]
It's different, but they still recognize it. Babies are amazing, they know you through your scent as well. And no one can tell me that scent doesn't play a part. I hear on EVERY board I go to for when babies have trouble sleeping that ppl suggest mommy put a shirt she has worn in the crib/bassinet w/e so that baby can smell mommy and think she is there....so of course scent plays a part as well. And notice I say it plays a part. Hearing your voice isn't the deciding factor...scent etc play a part as well...so just because your baby heard your children's voices...it wasn't as much as your voice and it wasn't coupled with your scent as well.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
April 5th, 2007, 12:44 PM
Cereal Killer's Avatar I'm climbin' in yo window
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: next to Chuck Norris
Posts: 7,373
Scent plays a part AFTER the fact. Your child does not associate the smell of your uterus to you. Hopefully, your outer self smells completely different than the inside of your uterus and vagina. It is an animalistic, basic instinct, when you hold your child they familiarize themselves with your scent, much the same way as animals imprinting. They do not come out and know your scent, they come to know your scent and the familiar feel of you skin.
__________________
Wife, Mother of 4, Homeschooling, and wine drinking.


Reply With Quote
  #125  
April 5th, 2007, 12:45 PM
Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 6,149
Send a message via Yahoo to AmberL
<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE(Pure Innocence @ Apr 5 2007, 01:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE</div><div class=\'quotemain\'>But that\'s my point. My son would have been just as familiar with my husbands voice as he was mine. We talked constantly! And my point of dh holding Brody first...was the fact that just becuase I\'m the mother...my son didn\'t reject my husband (becuase he\'s more bonded to me).[/b][/quote]

Constantly doesn\'t equal constant. He is around your voice more than anyone elses, so he would recognize your voice MORE than your dh\'s voice. I never said anything about a child rejecting his/her father.


<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE</div><div class=\'quotemain\'>But you forgot the most important part. Your voice sounds different to the baby when they are on the inside. The voice they hear when they are born does not sound like the voice they heard when they are inside you.

BTW my SO talked to baby just as much as I did. My boys are around me pretty much all day long,so baby heard their voices constantly,as much as mine anyway. Does it mean they should be just as bonded to them as they are me because they recognize their voices?[/b][/quote]

It\'s different, but they still recognize it. Babies are amazing, they know you through your scent as well. And no one can tell me that scent doesn\'t play a part. I hear on EVERY board I go to for when babies have trouble sleeping that ppl suggest mommy put a shirt she has worn in the crib/bassinet w/e so that baby can smell mommy and think she is there....so of course scent plays a part as well. And notice I say it plays a part. Hearing your voice isn\'t the deciding factor...scent etc play a part as well...so just because your baby heard your children\'s voices...it wasn\'t as much as your voice and it wasn\'t coupled with your scent as well.
[/b][/quote]

I know you didn't say anything about a baby "rejecting" a father...*I* said that it didn't happen. (just to clarify)

And it's true about the scent thing. But it is NOT just mother's scent. I put dh's shirt in the crib with Brody once...worked like a charm.
__________________
~Amber~

Reply With Quote
  #126  
April 5th, 2007, 12:45 PM
Cereal Killer's Avatar I'm climbin' in yo window
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: next to Chuck Norris
Posts: 7,373
Also, what about mother's that are mute? What about babies that are deaf? There is more to bonding than sound and smell.
__________________
Wife, Mother of 4, Homeschooling, and wine drinking.


Reply With Quote
  #127  
April 5th, 2007, 12:47 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hudson, FL
Posts: 1,696
Scent is an imprint, like StaceyC said. And the imprinted scent is not neccessarily the mother's. If the father spent more time post-partum with the newborn than the mother, it is likely that the baby will have imprinted the father's scent first, making that scent the comfort scent rather than the mother's.

For example: DH was a SAHP, and Nellie was clearly more bonded with him for a while than me. To this day, her "comfort scent" is her dad's armpit. When she's overtired or cranky or just needs comfort, she'll wriggle her little face into his armpit and lay there with her nose pressed against his skin. His smell is comforting to her, his voice is comforting to her. She's a total "daddy's girl".
__________________
<div align="center"></div>
<div align="center"></div>
<div align="center"></div>
Reply With Quote
  #128  
April 5th, 2007, 12:49 PM
Pure Innocence
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE(Pure Innocence @ Apr 5 2007, 01:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class=\'quotemain\'>
<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE</div><div class=\'quotemain\'>But that\'s my point. My son would have been just as familiar with my husbands voice as he was mine. We talked constantly! And my point of dh holding Brody first...was the fact that just becuase I\'m the mother...my son didn\'t reject my husband (becuase he\'s more bonded to me).[/b][/quote]

Constantly doesn\'t equal constant. He is around your voice more than anyone elses, so he would recognize your voice MORE than your dh\'s voice. I never said anything about a child rejecting his/her father.


<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE</div><div class=\'quotemain\'>But you forgot the most important part. Your voice sounds different to the baby when they are on the inside. The voice they hear when they are born does not sound like the voice they heard when they are inside you.

BTW my SO talked to baby just as much as I did. My boys are around me pretty much all day long,so baby heard their voices constantly,as much as mine anyway. Does it mean they should be just as bonded to them as they are me because they recognize their voices?[/b][/quote]

It\'s different, but they still recognize it. Babies are amazing, they know you through your scent as well. And no one can tell me that scent doesn\'t play a part. I hear on EVERY board I go to for when babies have trouble sleeping that ppl suggest mommy put a shirt she has worn in the crib/bassinet w/e so that baby can smell mommy and think she is there....so of course scent plays a part as well. And notice I say it plays a part. Hearing your voice isn\'t the deciding factor...scent etc play a part as well...so just because your baby heard your children\'s voices...it wasn\'t as much as your voice and it wasn\'t coupled with your scent as well.
[/b][/quote]

I know you didn't say anything about a baby "rejecting" a father...*I* said that it didn't happen. (just to clarify)

And it's true about the scent thing. But it is NOT just mother's scent. I put dh's shirt in the crib with Brody once...worked like a charm.
[/b][/quote]
Oh ok...Sorry! Hm... well, that has me thinking about scent (what Stacey said about imprinting), I didn't think of it that way.

Quote:
Also, what about mother's that are mute? What about babies that are deaf? There is more to bonding than sound and smell.[/b]
I don't think it's one "sesnse" that determines it, I think they are coupled. And I don't think it's just the scent. I truly believe that a child knows his/her mother after growing inside her after 9 months. I believe that the baby has more of a natural bond towards his/her mother than father (no matter how little that "more" is).
Reply With Quote
  #129  
April 6th, 2007, 09:40 AM
Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,120
Quote:
Quote:
I'm sorry, but I DO know how beautiful and necessary it is...maybe not first hand, unfortunately, but I do not think for one second that a father is not important, that he cannot love a child just as much as a mother does. 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]
But my point is that I disagree with you. I do NOT feel the mother should automatically be assumed to be the best caregiver. That is NOT a given. Nor do I really feel it is ever a given.

And to the pp I meant exactly what I said, Rebecca has not raised a child with that child's father. Once you see that as a wife and mother, your feelings change. Before I met my dh, I believed as many of you do. But now that my dh has not only been involved atleast 50/50 in the parenting of our 2 biological children, also adopted and 50/50 parented my 2 sons from a previous marriage, I know what he is capable of. I know how important he is to all 4 of my children, and I know how important that bond is with Daddy from day 1. My dh is the best parent I know. Even better than me sometimes!

Mr. Robinson.....sounds like you've got a good one too!

E
[/b]
Hmmm...so because I have never experienced something first hand I am not allowed to have an opinion on it? Interesting, especially seeing as there are many women in this thread who agree with me-who are NOT single mothers.

There is ample scientific proof about the role of hormones in the birth process and bonding-there is a reason our bodies are designed the way that they are. We are equipped with uterus, breasts, etc. because natures intended role for us IS the primary caretaker of babies. This is not saying that fathers don't play an equally important part in raising children-but their role is very different.

Here is an interesting article I ran across regarding the hormone oxytocins role in the bonding process:

Quote:
The hormone oxytocin plays a significant role in many animals' instinct to love and form social bonds. In fact, it has been called jokingly, "the cuddle hormone." (1) Oxytocin is a small protein composed of nine amino acids. It is produced in the hypothalamus and is released by the pituitary gland. (2) Oxytocin is also produced in the ovaries of women and the testes of men. However, the hormone's most well known function is specific to females. (3) First, it plays an integral role in the delivery of a baby. When a woman goes into labor, oxytocin levels increase. This stimulates contraction in the smooth muscle of the uterine walls, thereby facilitating delivery. Secondly, oxytocin plays a role in milk letdown in nursing mothers. Milk is initially released into small sacs, called alveoli, which are surrounded by smooth muscle cells. Oxytocin stimulates contractions of this smooth muscle, causing the milk to be released to the mouth of a nursing baby. (3) Lastly, and most importantly, oxytocin causes the formation of maternal behavior. Successful reproduction and survival for many species relies upon a mother's attachment to and caring for her offspring. There is a drastic increase in the levels of oxytocin in the body and brain of a woman who is in labor. This upsurge is the main cause of the establishment of the strong bond of love a mother initially feels for her child. (4)

It is very strange to think that mothers nurture and care for their children mainly due to the release of a hormone at the moment of birth. We tend to believe that the relationship between a mother and a child goes beyond biology - that there is something much deeper than merely instinct or the release of chemicals that causes a mother to love. However, there is very convincing evidence that proves that hormones like oxytocin are largely the cause of maternal behavior. A number of experiments have been done, showing the importance of oxytocin in the formation of the mother-child relationship. In many species (for example sheep and rats), blocking the release of oxytocin caused mothers to abandon their young. Similarly, when virgin female rats were injected with oxytocin, they exhibited mother-like behavior. They cared for and cuddled with the offspring of other females as if they were their own. (1)"[/b]
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neur...eb2/mwhite.html

I think this has gotten out of hand...NO ONE is denying the importance of a father. NO ONE is saying that a father who WANTS to be involved in his childs life should be denied that opportunity...I for one have said that a father should get ample visitation (not just an hour or two a day)

When I think of joint custody I think of what it was like for me as a teenager-shuttling back and forth between two different households every week. Constant upheaval, never feeling secure or like I had a place to call home. I felt like a transient-I never could get comfortable in one place because as soon as I did I would be off to the other parents house. And I was a teenager-one who was fully cognative of what was happening to me. I cannot imagine what that would be like for a newborn who has no idea what is going on. When Mattea was first born we spent the first week at my moms house so that I could get some help and then went to my house. She went from a baby that slept soundly and was always content to crying all the time and unable to sleep overnight. She had gotten used to the environment at my moms and it was a huge shock for her to have a new one like that, it took her over a week to adjust to it. I can't imagine how much harder it would have been if I was also gone and she had a completely different caretaker. You have to remember that babies don't grasp the concept of temporary seperation-they think that once mommy (or daddy) leaves they will never see them again. You can't tell me that this kind of arrangement is in the best interest of the baby-I would venture to say that it could lead to serious emotional problems and trust issues down the line. A baby-a newborn especially-needs stability and familiarity above all else. Just because mom and dad couldn't work things out doesn't mean they should be deprived of this for the sake of fairness. So one household IS ideal. And in most cases, yes I think it should be the mothers household because of the breastfeeding-because again, I feel that breastfeeding is a childs birthright and just because their right to a intact family was taken away doesn't mean that another right should suffer. Dad should absolutely have total access to his child and ample time to bond-but you don't need overnight visits or weeks of undivided attention to bond. To deprive a child of their right to stability and the right to be breastfed for the sake of being "fair" is cruel and selfish.
__________________
Those who love me know how to reach me...it's been real ladies, peace and love!!
Reply With Quote
  #130  
April 6th, 2007, 12:20 PM
Pure Innocence
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm sorry, but I DO know how beautiful and necessary it is...maybe not first hand, unfortunately, but I do not think for one second that a father is not important, that he cannot love a child just as much as a mother does. 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]
But my point is that I disagree with you. I do NOT feel the mother should automatically be assumed to be the best caregiver. That is NOT a given. Nor do I really feel it is ever a given.

And to the pp I meant exactly what I said, Rebecca has not raised a child with that child's father. Once you see that as a wife and mother, your feelings change. Before I met my dh, I believed as many of you do. But now that my dh has not only been involved atleast 50/50 in the parenting of our 2 biological children, also adopted and 50/50 parented my 2 sons from a previous marriage, I know what he is capable of. I know how important he is to all 4 of my children, and I know how important that bond is with Daddy from day 1. My dh is the best parent I know. Even better than me sometimes!

Mr. Robinson.....sounds like you've got a good one too!

E
[/b]
Hmmm...so because I have never experienced something first hand I am not allowed to have an opinion on it? Interesting, especially seeing as there are many women in this thread who agree with me-who are NOT single mothers.

There is ample scientific proof about the role of hormones in the birth process and bonding-there is a reason our bodies are designed the way that they are. We are equipped with uterus, breasts, etc. because natures intended role for us IS the primary caretaker of babies. This is not saying that fathers don't play an equally important part in raising children-but their role is very different.

Here is an interesting article I ran across regarding the hormone oxytocins role in the bonding process:

Quote:
The hormone oxytocin plays a significant role in many animals' instinct to love and form social bonds. In fact, it has been called jokingly, "the cuddle hormone." (1) Oxytocin is a small protein composed of nine amino acids. It is produced in the hypothalamus and is released by the pituitary gland. (2) Oxytocin is also produced in the ovaries of women and the testes of men. However, the hormone's most well known function is specific to females. (3) First, it plays an integral role in the delivery of a baby. When a woman goes into labor, oxytocin levels increase. This stimulates contraction in the smooth muscle of the uterine walls, thereby facilitating delivery. Secondly, oxytocin plays a role in milk letdown in nursing mothers. Milk is initially released into small sacs, called alveoli, which are surrounded by smooth muscle cells. Oxytocin stimulates contractions of this smooth muscle, causing the milk to be released to the mouth of a nursing baby. (3) Lastly, and most importantly, oxytocin causes the formation of maternal behavior. Successful reproduction and survival for many species relies upon a mother's attachment to and caring for her offspring. There is a drastic increase in the levels of oxytocin in the body and brain of a woman who is in labor. This upsurge is the main cause of the establishment of the strong bond of love a mother initially feels for her child. (4)

It is very strange to think that mothers nurture and care for their children mainly due to the release of a hormone at the moment of birth. We tend to believe that the relationship between a mother and a child goes beyond biology - that there is something much deeper than merely instinct or the release of chemicals that causes a mother to love. However, there is very convincing evidence that proves that hormones like oxytocin are largely the cause of maternal behavior. A number of experiments have been done, showing the importance of oxytocin in the formation of the mother-child relationship. In many species (for example sheep and rats), blocking the release of oxytocin caused mothers to abandon their young. Similarly, when virgin female rats were injected with oxytocin, they exhibited mother-like behavior. They cared for and cuddled with the offspring of other females as if they were their own. (1)"[/b]
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neur...eb2/mwhite.html

I think this has gotten out of hand...NO ONE is denying the importance of a father. NO ONE is saying that a father who WANTS to be involved in his childs life should be denied that opportunity...I for one have said that a father should get ample visitation (not just an hour or two a day)

When I think of joint custody I think of what it was like for me as a teenager-shuttling back and forth between two different households every week. Constant upheaval, never feeling secure or like I had a place to call home. I felt like a transient-I never could get comfortable in one place because as soon as I did I would be off to the other parents house. And I was a teenager-one who was fully cognative of what was happening to me. I cannot imagine what that would be like for a newborn who has no idea what is going on. When Mattea was first born we spent the first week at my moms house so that I could get some help and then went to my house. She went from a baby that slept soundly and was always content to crying all the time and unable to sleep overnight. She had gotten used to the environment at my moms and it was a huge shock for her to have a new one like that, it took her over a week to adjust to it. I can't imagine how much harder it would have been if I was also gone and she had a completely different caretaker. You have to remember that babies don't grasp the concept of temporary seperation-they think that once mommy (or daddy) leaves they will never see them again. You can't tell me that this kind of arrangement is in the best interest of the baby-I would venture to say that it could lead to serious emotional problems and trust issues down the line. A baby-a newborn especially-needs stability and familiarity above all else. Just because mom and dad couldn't work things out doesn't mean they should be deprived of this for the sake of fairness. So one household IS ideal. And in most cases, yes I think it should be the mothers household because of the breastfeeding-because again, I feel that breastfeeding is a childs birthright and just because their right to a intact family was taken away doesn't mean that another right should suffer. Dad should absolutely have total access to his child and ample time to bond-but you don't need overnight visits or weeks of undivided attention to bond. To deprive a child of their right to stability and the right to be breastfed for the sake of being "fair" is cruel and selfish.
[/b]
*gasps*
Reply With Quote
  #131  
April 6th, 2007, 12:45 PM
Cereal Killer's Avatar I'm climbin' in yo window
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: next to Chuck Norris
Posts: 7,373
Quote:
The hormone oxytocin plays a significant role in many animals' instinct to love and form social bonds. In fact, it has been called jokingly, "the cuddle hormone." (1) Oxytocin is a small protein composed of nine amino acids. It is produced in the hypothalamus and is released by the pituitary gland. (2) Oxytocin is also produced in the ovaries of women and the testes of men. However, the hormone's most well known function is specific to females. (3) First, it plays an integral role in the delivery of a baby. When a woman goes into labor, oxytocin levels increase. This stimulates contraction in the smooth muscle of the uterine walls, thereby facilitating delivery. Secondly, oxytocin plays a role in milk letdown in nursing mothers. Milk is initially released into small sacs, called alveoli, which are surrounded by smooth muscle cells. Oxytocin stimulates contractions of this smooth muscle, causing the milk to be released to the mouth of a nursing baby. (3) Lastly, and most importantly, oxytocin causes the formation of maternal behavior. Successful reproduction and survival for many species relies upon a mother's attachment to and caring for her offspring. There is a drastic increase in the levels of oxytocin in the body and brain of a woman who is in labor. This upsurge is the main cause of the establishment of the strong bond of love a mother initially feels for her child. (4) [/b]
But, this is referring to only the mother's hormone induced bond with her child, not proving that the child is more bonded to the mother at birth (which is what some are trying to say). And, Redifer already posted links referring to the chemical activities that take place in men becoming fathers.

Quote:
When I think of joint custody I think of what it was like for me as a teenager-shuttling back and forth between two different households every week. Constant upheaval, never feeling secure or like I had a place to call home. I felt like a transient-I never could get comfortable in one place because as soon as I did I would be off to the other parents house. And I was a teenager-one who was fully cognative of what was happening to me.[/b]
I am the product of a divorce too, and I went to my dad's every other weekend and every other holiday. I really don't recall it being anything but routine and normal. I never felt traumatized or emotionally scarred (and my parent's were divorced when I was very young), I was completely adapted to the lifestyle and I don't ever recall it being disruptive to my bond to any member of my family or detrimental to my emotional well being.

Quote:
I cannot imagine what that would be like for a newborn who has no idea what is going on. When Mattea was first born we spent the first week at my moms house so that I could get some help and then went to my house. She went from a baby that slept soundly and was always content to crying all the time and unable to sleep overnight. She had gotten used to the environment at my moms and it was a huge shock for her to have a new one like that, it took her over a week to adjust to it. I can't imagine how much harder it would have been if I was also gone and she had a completely different caretaker.[/b]
Infants are resiliant, they adapt very quickly.
Quote:
You have to remember that babies don't grasp the concept of temporary seperation-they think that once mommy (or daddy) leaves they will never see them again.[/b]
Infants don't have object permenance, out of sight, out of mind.
Quote:
You can't tell me that this kind of arrangement is in the best interest of the baby-I would venture to say that it could lead to serious emotional problems and trust issues down the line.[/b]
How is it detrimental to allow a father and child to foster a healthy and loving bond? How is a child being loved, nurtured and supported not in their best interest?
Quote:
A baby-a newborn especially-needs stability and familiarity above all else.[/b]
And needs both parents.
Quote:
Just because mom and dad couldn't work things out doesn't mean they should be deprived of this for the sake of fairness.[/b]
I don't think the paternal relationship should be sacrificed for that reason either
Quote:
So one household IS ideal. And in most cases, yes I think it should be the mothers household because of the breastfeeding-because again, I feel that breastfeeding is a childs birthright and just because their right to a intact family was taken away doesn't mean that another right should suffer.[/b]
But there are ways to allow even and fair access without disrupting the BFing relationship.
Quote:
Dad should absolutely have total access to his child and ample time to bond-but you don't need overnight visits or weeks of undivided attention to bond.[/b]
You do need more than an hour here and there. So, if one doesn't need the overnights and the full day visits to bond, then why is that an argument for why babies need to be with their mothers? I am seeing some say that babies need to bond with their mothers and now reading that this is not the method of bonding, so I am confused.
Quote:
To deprive a child of their right to stability and the right to be breastfed for the sake of being "fair" is cruel and selfish.[/b]
To deprive a child of a father, who is willing and able to participate in his/her life, is cruel and selfish.
__________________
Wife, Mother of 4, Homeschooling, and wine drinking.


Reply With Quote
  #132  
April 6th, 2007, 12:51 PM
Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,120
Stacy-Please show me where I said that the baby should be deprived of it's father? How many times have I said I think he should have AMPLE time to be with his child-more than an hour or two a day if that is his desire.

The whole point is, going back and forth between two households is disruptive and not in the best interest of the baby. I saw it with my own child-it COMPLETELY freaked her out. Yes, infants are resiliant and they adapt, but why make an already difficult period of adjustment more complicated than it needs to be?
__________________
Those who love me know how to reach me...it's been real ladies, peace and love!!
Reply With Quote
  #133  
April 6th, 2007, 01:00 PM
Pure Innocence
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Stacy-Please show me where I said that the baby should be deprived of it's father? How many times have I said I think he should have AMPLE time to be with his child-more than an hour or two a day if that is his desire.

The whole point is, going back and forth between two households is disruptive and not in the best interest of the baby. I saw it with my own child-it COMPLETELY freaked her out. Yes, infants are resiliant and they adapt, but why make an already difficult period of adjustment more complicated than it needs to be?[/b]
Oh honey keep talking till you are out of breathe, I've been saying the same thing for what...4 pages and ppl still assume I want Daddy out of the picture.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
April 6th, 2007, 01:05 PM
Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,120
Quote:
Quote:
Stacy-Please show me where I said that the baby should be deprived of it's father? How many times have I said I think he should have AMPLE time to be with his child-more than an hour or two a day if that is his desire.

The whole point is, going back and forth between two households is disruptive and not in the best interest of the baby. I saw it with my own child-it COMPLETELY freaked her out. Yes, infants are resiliant and they adapt, but why make an already difficult period of adjustment more complicated than it needs to be?[/b]
Oh honey keep talking till you are out of breathe, I've been saying the same thing for what...4 pages and ppl still assume I want Daddy out of the picture.
[/b]
I guess it's just assumed that I'm a sexist man hater because I'm a single mom It's ok I get that all the time

(I'm kidding....dont getcher panties in a bunch ladies )
__________________
Those who love me know how to reach me...it's been real ladies, peace and love!!
Reply With Quote
  #135  
April 6th, 2007, 01:12 PM
Cereal Killer's Avatar I'm climbin' in yo window
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: next to Chuck Norris
Posts: 7,373
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Stacy-Please show me where I said that the baby should be deprived of it's father? How many times have I said I think he should have AMPLE time to be with his child-more than an hour or two a day if that is his desire.

The whole point is, going back and forth between two households is disruptive and not in the best interest of the baby. I saw it with my own child-it COMPLETELY freaked her out. Yes, infants are resiliant and they adapt, but why make an already difficult period of adjustment more complicated than it needs to be?[/b]
Oh honey keep talking till you are out of breathe, I've been saying the same thing for what...4 pages and ppl still assume I want Daddy out of the picture.
[/b]
I guess it's just assumed that I'm a sexist manhater because I'm a single mom It's ok I get that all the time
[/b]

No one has called you a sexist manhater, we are debating the topic.

I was a single mom too for the first year and a half of DD's life before (now) DH and I got back together and later married. Never once did I dictate when he could or could not see her. Granted, it wasn't too huge of an issue since he was stationed in NM and I was living in TX. He did come down once a month and see her and then in between we would go to him.

As far as your last question, I just see contradictions. You say in one breath that fathers should be granted "ample" access and then in the next you state the conditions. Why does the mother get to set the conditions of the paternal relationship? I just don't understand. How does pregnancy entitle us to this privelage?
__________________
Wife, Mother of 4, Homeschooling, and wine drinking.


Reply With Quote
  #136  
April 6th, 2007, 01:18 PM
Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,120
I was totally kidding with that comment...but I knew that people would take it seriously so I added the edit

I didn't say the mother set the conditions-In this hypothetical situation I have no idea who would, or how the arrangement would come to be. I simply said I feel that is the best possible scenerio for the child
__________________
Those who love me know how to reach me...it's been real ladies, peace and love!!
Reply With Quote
  #138  
April 6th, 2007, 01:25 PM
Cereal Killer's Avatar I'm climbin' in yo window
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: next to Chuck Norris
Posts: 7,373
Quote:
I was totally kidding with that comment...but I knew that people would take it seriously so I added the edit[/b]
I saw the edit after I posted, but I knew you were kidding. I just didn't know if others reading it would know you were kidding. I was saving people the time of skimming through the thread looking for the insult.

Quote:
I didn't say the mother set the conditions-In this hypothetical situation I have no idea who would, or how the arrangement would come to be. I simply said I feel that is the best possible scenerio for the child [/b]
The mother? Why is the mother the best possible situation for the child? I am a huge advocate of BFing, but let's be honest, at the end of the day, that is not the end all-be all of parenting. It is more important for a child to have a healthy upbringing fostered by two loving and supportive parents, that it is for a baby to be BF. There are ways to still give baby BM while allowing the child to develop a relationship and bond with both parents.
__________________
Wife, Mother of 4, Homeschooling, and wine drinking.


Reply With Quote
  #139  
April 6th, 2007, 02:02 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,925
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
But you forgot the most important part. Your voice sounds different to the baby when they are on the inside. The voice they hear when they are born does not sound like the voice they heard when they are inside you.
BTW my SO talked to baby just as much as I did. My boys are around me pretty much all day long,so baby heard their voices constantly,as much as mine anyway. Does it mean they should be just as bonded to them as they are me because they recognize their voices?[/b]
I've ready many studies/articles where it specifically states that the baby recognizes the mother's voice at birth. If you would like, I can post some links/quotes.
[/b][/quote]


No need,I have read them too

If a baby recognizes mums voice then I am sure they would also recognize everyone else who is around mum a lot. The voice does not sound the same to a baby on the inside as it does on the outside. That is a fact.

As someone who has a crap father and forever feel like I have missed out on something wonderful I would make sure he was seeing the children as much as me if he wanted too. Breastfeeding is great for sure,but seeing daddy and spending the night with daddy is more important for ME. I would rather BF and let baby go to daddys house because a relationship with dad from day one is more important to me than breast milk is. I would want my child to get used to sleeping round their dads from day one.
__________________
Mum to Ross, Elliot, Jack, Jasmine and Evie
Reply With Quote
  #140  
April 6th, 2007, 02:08 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,780
-
__________________



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 12:09 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0