JustMommies Message Boards

JustMommies Message Boards (http://www.justmommies.com/forums/)
-   Heated Debates (http://www.justmommies.com/forums/f46-heated-debates/)
-   -   Custody/visitation with a newborn (http://www.justmommies.com/forums/f46-heated-debates/526104-custody-visitation-newborn.html)

Jewellzz April 4th, 2007 10:59 AM

Should parents automatically be given joint custody of a newborn?
Or should whoever has been the primary caregiver (usually the mom) automatically get custody?
Should custody and visitation take into consideration breastfeeding, or should breastfeeding be cut back or stopped to accomodate custody/visitation?

mrobinson April 4th, 2007 11:14 AM

Quote:

Should parents automatically be given joint custody of a newborn?[/b]
Why not? They both have equal rights to the child. Why assume every break up has to be ugly?

Quote:

Or should whoever has been the primary caregiver (usually the mom) automatically get custody?[/b]
Unless there is a reason why the father is unfit, why assume the primary caregiver to be the mom?

Quote:

Should custody and visitation take into consideration breastfeeding, or should breastfeeding be cut back or stopped to accomodate custody/visitation?[/b]
If it's a good breakup, why wouldn't the mom attempt to pump or express to try accomidate any custody/visitation?

Redifer April 4th, 2007 11:18 AM

Quote:

Should parents automatically be given joint custody of a newborn?
Or should whoever has been the primary caregiver (usually the mom) automatically get custody?
Should custody and visitation take into consideration breastfeeding, or should breastfeeding be cut back or stopped to accomodate custody/visitation?[/b]

i think every parent should automatically attempt joint custody, no matter what age of child, unless there is a reason not to otherwise [abuse, neglect, unfit].

no one should 'automatically' get custody, unless that is an arrangement that both parties can agree to.

breastfeeding should be taken into consideration, but there are ways to work around it. even without pumping, it is possible.

butter ball April 4th, 2007 11:21 AM

The father can come to the mothers house or vice versa, but when you have a newborn and you are nursing, any mother can tell you that the baby feeds on demand. Also they cluster feed. So I definitely think that my above idea would be ideal :smile:

Pure Innocence April 4th, 2007 11:28 AM

Quote:

The father can come to the mothers house or vice versa, but when you have a newborn and you are nursing, any mother can tell you that the baby feeds on demand. Also they cluster feed. So I definitely think that my above idea would be ideal :smile:[/b]
ditto

Blondie6836 April 4th, 2007 11:33 AM

I cut and pasted the first part from the other debate:

I happen to believe that in the first months of life, children need their mother more than they need their father. I do believe that down the road fathers play a VERY vital role in a childs life-and of course having an active, involved father from the beginning is very enriching. But there is a different bond between mother and child-one that is forged for 9 months in utero, there is so much hormonal stuff going on during and after birth...taking a child from it's mother in the first weeks of life can be very traumatizing for both mother and baby...And as far as joint custody arrangements-stability is so important for a baby, they are already dealing with being taken from the comfort of the womb, and dealing with a huge, scary new world...they need a sense of comfort, a routine, the ability to anticipate what is going to happen next. A joint custody arrangement is not condusive to that and would do more harm than good. My parents had joint custody when I was a teenager and even then it was difficult for me to deal with the constant upheaval-I can't imagine what that must be like for a newborn. I also think that breastfeeding is a babies birthright-I'm not going to turn this into a BF vs. FF debate but I don't believe ANY mother should be prevented from breastfeeding her child if that is her desire. It is about much more than the milk. As far as pumping and supplementing-that is often the kiss of death to a breastfeeding relationship if it is started too early. Not every woman can pump, and especially in the beginning there are SO many issues that make breastfeeding difficult-throwing a joint custody arrangement in there would make it next to impossible for most women. Not to mention introducing a bottle too early can lead to nipple confusion.

Ideal situation-mom and dad agree to coexist with each other for the sake of the child and live in the same household as co-parents, but not as lovers. But if that is not possible, I believe that in the beginning the mother should get primary custody, and the father be awarded ample visitation and time to bond with his child. Later on down the line, a joint custody arrangement should be worked out, but the child should be eased into it very slowly, taking pains to have the LEAST amount of disruption possible.

Pure Innocence April 4th, 2007 11:35 AM

good post blondie :)

mrobinson April 4th, 2007 11:37 AM

Quote:

good post blondie :)[/b]
Except it assumes that the mother is the best option.

calicocat April 4th, 2007 11:39 AM

Quote:

I cut and pasted the first part from the other debate:

I happen to believe that in the first months of life, children need their mother more than they need their father. I do believe that down the road fathers play a VERY vital role in a childs life-and of course having an active, involved father from the beginning is very enriching. But there is a different bond between mother and child-one that is forged for 9 months in utero, there is so much hormonal stuff going on during and after birth...taking a child from it's mother in the first weeks of life can be very traumatizing for both mother and baby...And as far as joint custody arrangements-stability is so important for a baby, they are already dealing with being taken from the comfort of the womb, and dealing with a huge, scary new world...they need a sense of comfort, a routine, the ability to anticipate what is going to happen next. A joint custody arrangement is not condusive to that and would do more harm than good. My parents had joint custody when I was a teenager and even then it was difficult for me to deal with the constant upheaval-I can't imagine what that must be like for a newborn. I also think that breastfeeding is a babies birthright-I'm not going to turn this into a BF vs. FF debate but I don't believe ANY mother should be prevented from breastfeeding her child if that is her desire. It is about much more than the milk. As far as pumping and supplementing-that is often the kiss of death to a breastfeeding relationship if it is started too early. Not every woman can pump, and especially in the beginning there are SO many issues that make breastfeeding difficult-throwing a joint custody arrangement in there would make it next to impossible for most women. Not to mention introducing a bottle too early can lead to nipple confusion.

Ideal situation-mom and dad agree to coexist with each other for the sake of the child and live in the same household as co-parents, but not as lovers. But if that is not possible, I believe that in the beginning the mother should get primary custody, and the father be awarded ample visitation and time to bond with his child. Later on down the line, a joint custody arrangement should be worked out, but the child should be eased into it very slowly, taking pains to have the LEAST amount of disruption possible.[/b]
:ditto:

Quote:

Quote:

good post blondie :)[/b]
Except it assumes that the mother is the best option.
[/b]
Well, if the baby's food is coming from the mother's breasts, then she probably is.

Blondie6836 April 4th, 2007 11:43 AM

Quote:

Quote:

good post blondie :)[/b]
Except it assumes that the mother is the best option.
[/b]
If the mother is a fit caretaker then yes, I do assume that her having primary custody is the best option in the beginning.

mrobinson April 4th, 2007 11:44 AM

Quote:

Well, if the baby's food is coming from the mother's breasts, then she probably is.[/b]

butter ball April 4th, 2007 12:02 PM

Quote:

Quote:

good post blondie :)[/b]
Except it assumes that the mother is the best option.
[/b]

Why is it only the mother gives birth? Why cant men lactate and feed the baby. There are many reasons why the mother is the best option.

Also, sending a newborn to their dads for the weekend could cause some post pardum issues for the mother, which would not be a good thing.

Jewellzz April 4th, 2007 12:05 PM

I think custody should go to the primary caregiver.

If mom (or dad) has been glued to the baby since birth and done ALL the work, it would be totally unfair for the other parent to come along a few months later demanding overnight visitation or joint custody. Regardless of whether the primary caregiver is breastfeeding or not.

If mom (or dad) has been fine with leaving the baby in daycare or with grandma for hours and hours, then they should be fine leaving the baby with the other parent for the same amount of time.

I think this should basically be decided by whatever parenting style has already been practiced on the baby.

And if the baby is a newborn fresh out of the hospital, well then I think breastfeeding should be encouraged. If that means dad gets shorter visits in order to accomodate that, well then so be it. In this situation I think breastfeeding is more important. The dad will have plenty of time to get to know his child over the years. Overnight visits are for school age kids IMO.

I don't think mom should be forced to pump/supplement in the first few weeks, many women can't pump at all, and supplementing so early could lower her supply or cause confusion and end breastfeeding. I think if she chooses to do this, fine. But no one should force her to.

Fallen2Love April 4th, 2007 12:31 PM

I agree with PP, said about "co-parents". With a newborn, that'd probably be the ideal situation. Stability is so important the first year at least of life, I wouldn't expect "overnight" visits but a few hour or whatnot day-time visits, I can see, or even "family" visits, where the child can spend time with both his/her mother and father. Of course that's ideal. I don't think a mother should be "forced" to pump or suppliment, espcially in the early weeks when milk supply is still stablizing, and nipple confusion is very common.

Pure Innocence April 4th, 2007 12:47 PM

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)

Quote:

Quote:

good post blondie :)[/b]
Except it assumes that the mother is the best option.
[/b]
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.

3boysnagirl April 4th, 2007 12:50 PM

Quote:

I cut and pasted the first part from the other debate:

I happen to believe that in the first months of life, children need their mother more than they need their father. I do believe that down the road fathers play a VERY vital role in a childs life-and of course having an active, involved father from the beginning is very enriching. But there is a different bond between mother and child-one that is forged for 9 months in utero, there is so much hormonal stuff going on during and after birth...taking a child from it's mother in the first weeks of life can be very traumatizing for both mother and baby...And as far as joint custody arrangements-stability is so important for a baby, they are already dealing with being taken from the comfort of the womb, and dealing with a huge, scary new world...they need a sense of comfort, a routine, the ability to anticipate what is going to happen next. A joint custody arrangement is not condusive to that and would do more harm than good. My parents had joint custody when I was a teenager and even then it was difficult for me to deal with the constant upheaval-I can't imagine what that must be like for a newborn. I also think that breastfeeding is a babies birthright-I'm not going to turn this into a BF vs. FF debate but I don't believe ANY mother should be prevented from breastfeeding her child if that is her desire. It is about much more than the milk. As far as pumping and supplementing-that is often the kiss of death to a breastfeeding relationship if it is started too early. Not every woman can pump, and especially in the beginning there are SO many issues that make breastfeeding difficult-throwing a joint custody arrangement in there would make it next to impossible for most women. Not to mention introducing a bottle too early can lead to nipple confusion.

Ideal situation-mom and dad agree to coexist with each other for the sake of the child and live in the same household as co-parents, but not as lovers. But if that is not possible, I believe that in the beginning the mother should get primary custody, and the father be awarded ample visitation and time to bond with his child. Later on down the line, a joint custody arrangement should be worked out, but the child should be eased into it very slowly, taking pains to have the LEAST amount of disruption possible.[/b]
I completely disagree with you! In a respectful, caring way! :P

See, here's the deal. I have a husband who adores our children from the moment the test comes back positive. He forges a bond during our pregnancy by talking to the baby, feeling kicks attending EVERY prenatal appointment with me and being there during the delivery. HE cried at the ultrasound whe the tech said "It's a Girl." He gets up at night with them, he feeds them, he changes them it's all 50/50 from the moment the baby is born. Until you as a mother, see a man as a father be the father for your child, you really don't know how beautiful, wonderful and NECESSARY that is!

I could not imagine keeping my dh from those children he loves so much just because I'm the mother. Oh God, that would break my heart, more than the demise of my marriage. MY dh is every bit as important to my children from the first breath they breathe as I am.

E

Pure Innocence April 4th, 2007 12:55 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I cut and pasted the first part from the other debate:

I happen to believe that in the first months of life, children need their mother more than they need their father. I do believe that down the road fathers play a VERY vital role in a childs life-and of course having an active, involved father from the beginning is very enriching. But there is a different bond between mother and child-one that is forged for 9 months in utero, there is so much hormonal stuff going on during and after birth...taking a child from it's mother in the first weeks of life can be very traumatizing for both mother and baby...And as far as joint custody arrangements-stability is so important for a baby, they are already dealing with being taken from the comfort of the womb, and dealing with a huge, scary new world...they need a sense of comfort, a routine, the ability to anticipate what is going to happen next. A joint custody arrangement is not condusive to that and would do more harm than good. My parents had joint custody when I was a teenager and even then it was difficult for me to deal with the constant upheaval-I can't imagine what that must be like for a newborn. I also think that breastfeeding is a babies birthright-I'm not going to turn this into a BF vs. FF debate but I don't believe ANY mother should be prevented from breastfeeding her child if that is her desire. It is about much more than the milk. As far as pumping and supplementing-that is often the kiss of death to a breastfeeding relationship if it is started too early. Not every woman can pump, and especially in the beginning there are SO many issues that make breastfeeding difficult-throwing a joint custody arrangement in there would make it next to impossible for most women. Not to mention introducing a bottle too early can lead to nipple confusion.

Ideal situation-mom and dad agree to coexist with each other for the sake of the child and live in the same household as co-parents, but not as lovers. But if that is not possible, I believe that in the beginning the mother should get primary custody, and the father be awarded ample visitation and time to bond with his child. Later on down the line, a joint custody arrangement should be worked out, but the child should be eased into it very slowly, taking pains to have the LEAST amount of disruption possible.[/b]
I completely disagree with you! In a respectful, caring way! :P

See, here's the deal. I have a husband who adores our children from the moment the test comes back positive. He forges a bond during our pregnancy by talking to the baby, feeling kicks attending EVERY prenatal appointment with me and being there during the delivery. HE cried at the ultrasound whe the tech said "It's a Girl." He gets up at night with them, he feeds them, he changes them it's all 50/50 from the moment the baby is born. Until you as a mother, see a man as a father be the father for your child, you really don't know how beautiful, wonderful and NECESSARY that is!

I could not imagine keeping my dh from those children he loves so much just because I'm the mother. Oh God, that would break my heart, more than the demise of my marriage. MY dh is every bit as important to my children from the first breath they breathe as I am.

E
[/b]
Wow...first off :o at the bold...that was kind of insensitive unless I read that the wrong way.

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.

Blondie6836 April 4th, 2007 12:56 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I cut and pasted the first part from the other debate:

I happen to believe that in the first months of life, children need their mother more than they need their father. I do believe that down the road fathers play a VERY vital role in a childs life-and of course having an active, involved father from the beginning is very enriching. But there is a different bond between mother and child-one that is forged for 9 months in utero, there is so much hormonal stuff going on during and after birth...taking a child from it's mother in the first weeks of life can be very traumatizing for both mother and baby...And as far as joint custody arrangements-stability is so important for a baby, they are already dealing with being taken from the comfort of the womb, and dealing with a huge, scary new world...they need a sense of comfort, a routine, the ability to anticipate what is going to happen next. A joint custody arrangement is not condusive to that and would do more harm than good. My parents had joint custody when I was a teenager and even then it was difficult for me to deal with the constant upheaval-I can't imagine what that must be like for a newborn. I also think that breastfeeding is a babies birthright-I'm not going to turn this into a BF vs. FF debate but I don't believe ANY mother should be prevented from breastfeeding her child if that is her desire. It is about much more than the milk. As far as pumping and supplementing-that is often the kiss of death to a breastfeeding relationship if it is started too early. Not every woman can pump, and especially in the beginning there are SO many issues that make breastfeeding difficult-throwing a joint custody arrangement in there would make it next to impossible for most women. Not to mention introducing a bottle too early can lead to nipple confusion.

Ideal situation-mom and dad agree to coexist with each other for the sake of the child and live in the same household as co-parents, but not as lovers. But if that is not possible, I believe that in the beginning the mother should get primary custody, and the father be awarded ample visitation and time to bond with his child. Later on down the line, a joint custody arrangement should be worked out, but the child should be eased into it very slowly, taking pains to have the LEAST amount of disruption possible.[/b]
I completely disagree with you! In a respectful, caring way! :P

See, here's the deal. I have a husband who adores our children from the moment the test comes back positive. He forges a bond during our pregnancy by talking to the baby, feeling kicks attending EVERY prenatal appointment with me and being there during the delivery. HE cried at the ultrasound whe the tech said "It's a Girl." He gets up at night with them, he feeds them, he changes them it's all 50/50 from the moment the baby is born. Until you as a mother, see a man as a father be the father for your child, you really don't know how beautiful, wonderful and NECESSARY that is!

I could not imagine keeping my dh from those children he loves so much just because I'm the mother. Oh God, that would break my heart, more than the demise of my marriage. MY dh is every bit as important to my children from the first breath they breathe as I am.

E
[/b]
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.

mrobinson April 4th, 2007 12:57 PM

That's how my DH is right now.. He was so hurt to know that many women feel they have rights over men.. Thank you E.

glasscandie April 4th, 2007 01:00 PM

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.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright © 2003-2012 JustMommies.com, All Rights Reserved.