N.J. judge cites women's rights in barring unwed dad from child's birth

[Gingersnap]

N.J. judge cites women's rights in barring unwed dad from child's birth

Patients alone get to decide who is at their bedsides, a New Jersey judge has ruled. Fathers have no court-established right to be in delivery rooms – or even be notified – when their children are born, he said.


By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer / March 12, 2014

A New Jersey judge has put down a new marker in the long history of childbirth, ruling that expectant moms have the right to bar unwed dads from the delivery room.

In a first-of-its-kind case, involving New Jersey resident Rebecca DeLuccia and her estranged fiance, Steven Plotnick, Superior Court Judge Sohail Mohammed ruled that patients alone get to decide who is at their bedsides, while "putative" fathers have no legal right to be in the room – or even be notified – when their children are born.

The case was settled Nov. 19, 2013, when Judge Mohammed decided in favor of Ms. DeLuccia, who followed oral arguments via teleconference from the delivery room, in a dispute over whether she was required to inform Mr. Plotnick when she went into labor or to allow him access to the baby after birth. The written ruling explaining the decision was released Monday.

"Any interest a father has before the child’s birth is subordinate to the mother’s interests," Mohammed wrote. "Even when there is no doubt that a father has shown deep and proper concern and interest in the growth and development of the fetus, the mother is the one who must carry it to term."

Mohammed based his ruling on privacy precedents set in two landmark abortion cases.

The decision reverberates beyond these two New Jersey parents, adding a new wrinkle to the changing mores of parenthood at a time when more babies are being born to unwed mothers and when many American men are seeking stronger bonds with their children (including being present when babies first enter the world).

The thing is, it wasn’t too long ago – think “Mad Men” – that dads were more than content to smoke cigars in the waiting room, and doctors were glad to let them. But that began to change in the late 1940s, as part of a movement to de-institutionalize the birthing process and to ease what women described as a process in which they were “alone among strangers.” One father, writing in a men's journal, urged men to “grab hatchets and chop through the partition.”

In that way, men played a role in the societal push to transform birth from an antiseptic process in white-walled operating rooms to the homey birthing centers that are prevalent today.

Men’s role in the “experience of easing labor … led to its logical conclusion: being present in the delivery room,” Judith Walzer Leavitt, a gender studies expert at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and author of “Make Room For Daddy,” wrote recently in a commentary. “The men were happy to be there.… ‘Not pretty, but beautiful in the sense of a God-given natural beauty,’ [one father wrote about the experience]. Couples shared the event, strengthening their bonds, and men made a meaningful start to fatherhood.”

I think this is right. I'd disagree with the quote that the move to 'birthing rooms' was driven by male presence. I think that was driven by female desires for a less institutional, 'factory' experience. Women generally want a more spa-like experience no matter what is going on: hair styling, yoga, plastic surgery, dentistry, etc.

I also think that it would be wildly abusive to force a woman to give birth in the presence of anyone she disliked or feared. Even women who have great marriages or relationships are not always interested in having the father in the room when delivery is near. It's a consuming, atavistic process. Up until the past 40 years or so no culture had men (other than doctors) in with women giving birth and for really good reasons.

CS Monitor

[phillygirl]

I agree with the decision as well. I once had a father (they were married, but obviously separated) try to demand that he be present at all doctor's appointments, the birth, and have naming rights to the child. I successfully argued against him having any such rights.

As it turns out, this same "swell" guy then denied paternity after the birth (3rd child of the couple). For 18 months we agreed with him on the paternity issue (he was clearly the father, but we let him save the $100 or so a month on child support and he didn't take the baby when he picked the other 2 kids up for visitation). Ultimately everyone capitulated, no paternity test was involved and he acknowledged that he was the father. What a gem he was.

It was an odd situation for me to argue that the fetus was not a child and therefore no custodial rights by way of hospital or doctors' visits were implicated, but it was on the money and the court ruled in my favor.

Personally, if the dad can't be in there during the appendectomy, I don't think he gets the right to be there during the birth. People need to think through those, and other, consequences when they decide they're going to engage in the impregnation act to begin with. It's not always wine and roses.

[Novaheart]

Other than wanting to be able to tell the child that you were present for his birth, I don't see the point of aggravating the woman. Besides, after the kid is born you can use her denial of your paternal experience to demonstrate what a selfish bitch she is and why you should have primary custody.

[Gingersnap]

What kid would care? My Dad never set foot in a delivery room but he was "there" in the sense that he went in and out and lingered nearby. He wasn't less of a Dad because he didn't catch us.

[Adam]

I agree with the decision as well. I once had a father (they were married, but obviously separated) try to demand that he be present at all doctor's appointments, the birth, and have naming rights to the child. I successfully argued against him having any such rights.

As it turns out, this same "swell" guy then denied paternity after the birth (3rd child of the couple). For 18 months we agreed with him on the paternity issue (he was clearly the father, but we let him save the $100 or so a month on child support and he didn't take the baby when he picked the other 2 kids up for visitation). Ultimately everyone capitulated, no paternity test was involved and he acknowledged that he was the father. What a gem he was.

It was an odd situation for me to argue that the fetus was not a child and therefore no custodial rights by way of hospital or doctors' visits were implicated, but it was on the money and the court ruled in my favor.

Personally, if the dad can't be in there during the appendectomy, I don't think he gets the right to be there during the birth. People need to think through those, and other, consequences when they decide they're going to engage in the impregnation act to begin with. It's not always wine and roses.

Mostly agreed. The one thing I worry about is the whole "notification" part of the ruling. That strikes me as a further (unfair, IMO) tilting of the scales towards the woman. The father has no right to notification, but she can come back years later and have his wages garnished for paternity over a child he wasn't even notified was born? How is that fair?

I can agree with a mother deciding not to notify a father of the birth of a child, for a whole variety of reasons (he's an abusive drunk, he's a thug doing a dime in the state pen, etc.), but I think it's only reasonable to say that if a mother refuses to even let the father of a child know that they are, in fact, a father, then she needs to simultaneously give up the right to come after him at some later date for child support and whatnot. In most cases, that will be an easy decision (e.g. the father being in prison). In others, it might be a tough choice. That's a shame, but life is full of tough choices.

[Gingersnap]

I was confused about the "notification" part, too. Surely, the father should be notified that he has a child and where that child was born, and if the child is healthy.

I don't think anyone (related, not related, sexually involved, roommates, parents of the non-pregnant party,) or whatever have any "right" to witness a woman giving birth if she doesn't what it. No more than anyone has a "right" to see her have sex or nurse her child.

But being aware (and certain) that a man's child has been born, that seems perfectly okay to me.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Mostly agreed. The one thing I worry about is the whole "notification" part of the ruling. That strikes me as a further (unfair, IMO) tilting of the scales towards the woman. The father has no right to notification, but she can come back years later and have his wages garnished for paternity over a child he wasn't even notified was born? How is that fair?

I can agree with a mother deciding not to notify a father of the birth of a child, for a whole variety of reasons (he's an abusive drunk, he's a thug doing a dime in the state pen, etc.), but I think it's only reasonable to say that if a mother refuses to even let the father of a child know that they are, in fact, a father, then she needs to simultaneously give up the right to come after him at some later date for child support and whatnot. In most cases, that will be an easy decision (e.g. the father being in prison). In others, it might be a tough choice. That's a shame, but life is full of tough choices.

Philly can address this more expertly, but I believe that in at least some states, if you don't establish paternity within a relatively short time, you can kiss child support bye-bye.

Of course, my observation is that relatively few absent fathers pay support reliably (except for the poor saps who pay on time every time and get jerked around for their trouble by the shrew they made the mistake of marrying). I look at the situations of my divorced straight friends with kids and congratulate myself on having used an anonymous donor. He doesn't contribute anything financially, but neither do the fathers of most of my friends' kids...and at least I don't have to run my schedule around some dad-when-it's-convenient.

[phillygirl]

Philly can address this more expertly, but I believe that in at least some states, if you don't establish paternity within a relatively short time, you can kiss child support bye-bye.

Of course, my observation is that relatively few absent fathers pay support reliably (except for the poor saps who pay on time every time and get jerked around for their trouble by the shrew they made the mistake of marrying). I look at the situations of my divorced straight friends with kids and congratulate myself on having used an anonymous donor. He doesn't contribute anything financially, but neither do the fathers of most of my friends' kids...and at least I don't have to run my schedule around some dad-when-it's-convenient.

Interesting. I don't know the laws in other states. In Pennsylvania there is no time limit and seeking child support. It used to be 6 years, until the late 80's. That was changed and now you have until the child is 18. There is no retroactive support unless you can show that the father actively avoided service of the complaint. so, it swings both ways. If the father was so careless about determining the consequence of his passion, then the loss of his opportunity to be a proper father can be directly attributed to his own actions in any event.

[Adam]

Interesting. I don't know the laws in other states. In Pennsylvania there is no time limit and seeking child support. It used to be 6 years, until the late 80's. That was changed and now you have until the child is 18. There is no retroactive support unless you can show that the father actively avoided service of the complaint. so, it swings both ways. If the father was so careless about determining the consequence of his passion, then the loss of his opportunity to be a proper father can be directly attributed to his own actions in any event.

The problem is, what if she lies?

Romeo and Juliet have a two-month fling and she gets pregnant. She tells him that she's pregnant, and that she's going to get an abortion. They break up over it because he doesn't want her to get an abortion, but of course there's nothing he can legally do to stop her from getting one. They part ways on less than happy terms. Ten years down the road, Romeo is happily married to Portia and has two children, living comfortably with a good career. Little does Romeo know that nine months after they broke up, Juliet gave birth to Lucius and named Romeo as the father on the birth certificate. Juliet comes along and announces that little Lucius is now in the fifth grade and by the way, Romeo owes child support because Juliet is slinging hash at the Waffle House by the interstate, and she wants a third of his salary.

Romeo is just hosed here. He proceeded in his life with the (false) belief that he was not a father. Had he known that he was a father, he would have taken a very different tack in his life, made different choices, and would have been involved in Lucius' life. He's been denied the opportunity to do any of that, to even be a father to that child, but now he's expected to just write checks to Juliet.

How can that possibly be fair to Romeo?

[phillygirl]

The problem is, what if she lies?

Romeo and Juliet have a two-month fling and she gets pregnant. She tells him that she's pregnant, and that she's going to get an abortion. They break up over it because he doesn't want her to get an abortion, but of course there's nothing he can legally do to stop her from getting one. They part ways on less than happy terms. Ten years down the road, Romeo is happily married to Portia and has two children, living comfortably with a good career. Little does Romeo know that nine months after they broke up, Juliet gave birth to Lucius and named Romeo as the father on the birth certificate. Juliet comes along and announces that little Lucius is now in the fifth grade and by the way, Romeo owes child support because Juliet is slinging hash at the Waffle House by the interstate, and she wants a third of his salary.

Romeo is just hosed here. He proceeded in his life with the (false) belief that he was not a father. Had he known that he was a father, he would have taken a very different tack in his life, made different choices, and would have been involved in Lucius' life. He's been denied the opportunity to do any of that, to even be a father to that child, but now he's expected to just write checks to Juliet.

How can that possibly be fair to Romeo?

More importantly, what is fair to little Lucius? Should he not have financial support because Romeo and Juliet are irresponsible? It's unfortunate, but the fairness doctrine needs to be applied to the truly innocent issue here, not to the irresponsible parents.

If you're not ready to be a parent with someone, then you probably should be more careful about engaging in any act with someone that could lead to that result. I know people don't want to necessarily hear that, and believe that they should be free to engage in physical acts without consequence. But that simply isn't reality. Romeo should have known Juliet's views on abortion and thereby have been prepared for the heartbreak before he broke open the Trojan.