New Jersey Judge Rules Women Can Keep Fathers Out Of Delivery Room

bradl

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
I'm of two minds on this. I can see it being the women's body and their right to control their body (Roe v. Wade), but this does give a slap in the face to father's rights. I mean, it's a once in a lifetime opportunity to see and witness the birth of your child, and it's heartbreaking to have that taken away, especially if you are the biological father.

I see both sides in this, but don't know of a positive outcome that could benefit both parents. Thoughts, everyone?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/03/12/289619146/new-jersey-judge-rules-women-can-keep-fathers-out-of-delivery-room
New Jersey Judge Rules Women Can Keep Fathers Out Of Delivery Room
by Eyder Peralta
March 12, 2014 6:09 PM

A New Jersey judge likely made history this week, when he released an opinion that found women can keep the biological father of their children out of the delivery room.

NPR's Jennifer Ludden reports the ruling involves a couple who got engaged after the woman became pregnant but later broke up. The man sued for the right to be present at the birth of his child. Jennifer filed this report for our Newscast unit:
"The case was argued by telephone — while the New Jersey woman was in the hospital to give birth.

"The judge ruled that requiring the father's presence would pose "unwarranted strain" on the mother.

"He cited a patient's right to privacy, and a pregnant woman's right to control her body. The ruling says women also are not obligated to inform a father when they're going into labor. Some father's rights groups say the decision is discriminatory. The New Jersey ruling applies only to biological fathers not married to the mother.

"Across the US, more than 40 percent of births are outside marriage."
The Newark Star-Ledger digs deep into the opinion, which was made public Monday. The paper reports that Superior Court Judge Sohail Mohammed writes that this is likely the first opinion of its kind in the United States.

Mohammed, the paper reports, based his opinion on two landmark Supreme Court cases — Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey — related to abortion.

The paper explains:
"The high court established in those rulings that an expectant mother has a stronger right over her body and over her unborn child than the father. A court majority in Casey ruled that women are not even required to tell their spouses about abortions, Mohammed noted.

"The New Jersey Supreme Court has also struck down a law requiring that minors notify their parents before they get abortions, ruling in 2000 that the law infringed on those minors' privacy rights.

"In light of the court rulings, Mohammed wrote, it strains logic to ask a pregnant woman to notify the father when she goes into labor."
BL.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,607
I think it's ultimately the women's decision, but it still makes her a vindictive witch to do so.
 

Shrink

macrumors G3
Feb 26, 2011
8,914
1,596
New England, USA
No information about the father, from whom the mother had broken up.

Possibly there is a reason for her actions, aside from being a "vindictive witch".

Making judgements about the individuals without knowing the whole story might be a bit ill considered.
 

iJohnHenry

macrumors P6
Mar 22, 2008
16,505
15
On tenterhooks
No information about the father, from whom the mother had broken up.

Possibly there is a reason for her actions, aside from being a "vindictive witch".

Making judgements about the individuals without knowing the whole story might be a bit ill considered.
Without doubt.

He could be a controlling bastard, still trying to insinuate himself back into her life.

Frankly, I like this ruling. The best work Mohammad has done in some time.






:p
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Without doubt.

He could be a controlling bastard, still trying to insinuate himself back into her life.

Frankly, I like this ruling. The best work Mohammad has done in some time.

:p
Like I said, completely understandable here, which is why I am of two minds for it.

And I agree, we do not know the entire story here. But I would think that with a baby being brought into this world, they could put aside their issues for the sake of the child and celebrate the child being born. The child deserves at least that much.

BL.
 

NewbieCanada

macrumors 68030
Oct 9, 2007
2,565
34
I think it's ultimately the women's decision, but it still makes her a vindictive witch to do so.
Why? This was not a loving partner. This was a man she didn't like. Would you enjoy having your ex with you for an 18-hour prostate exam?

No one. But no one. Has any right to be present for any other person's medical procedures. The very idea is absurd from a legal point of view.

The vindictive witch here is the man, not the woman.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
Why? This was not a loving partner. This was a man she didn't like. Would you enjoy having your ex with you for an 18-hour prostate exam?

No one. But no one. Has any right to be present for any other person's medical procedures. The very idea is absurd from a legal point of view.

The vindictive witch here is the man, not the woman.
That man, wanting to be there to see his child being born.

Bad example with the prostate, because it's just your prostate. It isn't yours and your ex's.
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
This is a tough call for me. I can definitely see both sides of the issue.

But I wonder (because I don't know): if the woman doesn't want the father present at the birth, or thereafter, does the father still bear responsibility to the woman for child support?

Edit: I can definitely see some sensibility in this particular situation about simply keeping the man in the hallway rather than right in the room when the woman is delivering the baby. He can see the child once it's born. There's nothing special/pressing about witnessing your child emerge from the mother's womb, unless you have a relationship with said woman (my opinion of course). I think that aspect is a special experience for the man and woman to share, not for the father and child.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,607
Why? This was not a loving partner. This was a man she didn't like. Would you enjoy having your ex with you for an 18-hour prostate exam?

No one. But no one. Has any right to be present for any other person's medical procedures. The very idea is absurd from a legal point of view.

The vindictive witch here is the man, not the woman.
Unless the guy was physically or verbally abusive, there is no reason besides being a vindictive witch to disallow the bio father to witness the birth. I believe every right should be given towards her to do so, but it speaks plenty about her character.
 

NewbieCanada

macrumors 68030
Oct 9, 2007
2,565
34
That man, wanting to be there to see his child being born.

Bad example with the prostate, because it's just your prostate. It isn't yours and your ex's.
It's pretty well established law - you do not have rights over other people. If you don't have the right to keep someone who hates you away from your medical procedures you don't have any rights at all.

----------

Unless the guy was physically or verbally abusive, there is no reason besides being a vindictive witch to disallow the bio father to witness the birth. I believe every right should be given towards her to do so, but it speaks plenty about her character.
You know nothing about her character. You know nothing about his character - but you're willing to prejudge hers.

And it's ultimately irrelevant. completely irrelevant. He could be a saint. She could be the worst woman to ever live. And she still has an ABSOLUTE right to keep him out of the delivery room.

I have to say - the attitudes of the men in this thread scare the absolute crap out of me.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
It's pretty well established law - you do not have rights over other people. If you don't have the right to keep someone who hates you away from your medical procedures you don't have any rights at all.

----------



You know nothing about her character. You know nothing about his character - but you're willing to prejudge hers.

And it's ultimately irrelevant. completely irrelevant. He could be a saint. She could be the worst woman to ever live. And she still has an ABSOLUTE right to keep him out of the delivery room.

I have to say - the attitudes of the men in this thread scare the absolute crap out of me.
That's quite the hyperbole.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,607
You know nothing about her character. You know nothing about his character - but you're willing to prejudge hers.

And it's ultimately irrelevant. completely irrelevant. He could be a saint. She could be the worst woman to ever live. And she still has an ABSOLUTE right to keep him out of the delivery room.

I have to say - the attitudes of the men in this thread scare the absolute crap out of me.
Did you even read my post or are you just replying out of blind compassion for the women? Cause I'm pretty sure I stated in both my posts I believe she has the right to do so. I also stated in my last post, if the man wasn't abusive, the decision to disallow him to witness the birth is vindictive.
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
You do realize that they may use forceps, and a scalpel occasionally? :eek:
Nothing a few shots of Cuervo can't fix.

As for the OP, there needs to be more detail. If the dude beat her ass, yeah it's pretty obvious why he shouldn't be there.

If there is no previous grievous issue, and she's just being manipulative, then the judge is out line and the guy should be able to withhold all support in retaliation.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
Pushing an 8 lb. baby out of your vagina ... a process that can take hours, and from what I've heard can be a wee bit painful and stressful, earns you the right to decide who gets to share that moment and who doesn't.

At least IMO.
 

iJohnHenry

macrumors P6
Mar 22, 2008
16,505
15
On tenterhooks
Pushing an 8 lb. baby out of your vagina ... a process that can take hours, and from what I've heard can be a wee bit painful and stressful, earns you the right to decide who gets to share that moment and who doesn't.

At least IMO.
If she wants you there, you sure as Hell better be there for her, otherwise go buy some cigars.
 

unlinked

macrumors 6502a
Jul 12, 2010
695
1,199
Ireland
Sounds like a weird ruling since the father only wanted to know when she went into labour and to have access to the child once it was born. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
 

zioxide

macrumors 603
Dec 11, 2006
5,725
3,711
I agree that the woman should be able to decide who she wants in the room during childbirth and if she wants the father there or not. It's her body and her medical treatment and she has the right to privacy.

But if the woman doesn't want the father present for the birth, the father shouldn't be responsible for child support.
 

Andeavor

macrumors 6502
Aug 19, 2010
294
1
Even if the father is an *******, he still has the right to see his child, anything else is selfish BS.

Besides, what's the best distraction to contractions than seeing the bastard's face and blaming it all on him directly? Much cheaper than drugs.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
But if the woman doesn't want the father present for the birth, the father shouldn't be responsible for child support.
Bizarre take.

What if he's in the waiting room?

What percentage of child support is he responsible for then?
 

ugahairydawgs

macrumors 68030
Jun 10, 2010
2,666
1,279
My rambling, incoherent thoughts on this.....

1.) Someone should have been the bigger person here. A child is being born. If the father had a strong desire to be there to see the birth of his child and hadn't been a massive, massive tool bag in the time leading up to it, she should let him be there. If he had been a massive, massive tool bag.....he should have realized that and waited to see junior in the nursery. The fact that this wasn't handled by adults and instead went to court is just stupid.

2.) Couldn't they have done the delivery in an operating room and let him view from an area, perhaps an observation room, that was out of her sight? He could see the birth of his child while not being in the room. A video camera setup would have also sufficed.

3.) If she is going to deny him access to the birth does that mean he is clear to deny her child support payments going forward?

4.) Not having sex until they were married would have served these people well.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,382
UK
I agree that the woman should be able to decide who she wants in the room during childbirth and if she wants the father there or not. It's her body and her medical treatment and she has the right to privacy.

But if the woman doesn't want the father present for the birth, the father shouldn't be responsible for child support.
Agreed. Child support should be proportional to access.

----------

4.) Not having sex until they were married would have served these people well.
So would using contraceptive ;).