Should a Father be allowed in the delivery room for the birth of his child?

…over the mother’s objections?

Judge Rules That a Mother’s Rights Trump the Father’s in the Delivery Room

Rebecca DeLuccia and Steven Plotnick agree that they started a relationship in late 2012 and that DeLuccia learned she was pregnant in February 2013. do-you-really-want-to-litigate-2016Plotnick proposed and they got engaged. By September, they had broken up. Plotnick wanted to be involved with the pregnancy and with the child. Which is good, right? It’s what we want fathers to do. But in this case, for whatever reason, Plotnick lawyered up. In October, Plotnick’s lawyer wrote to DeLuccia, and then she got a lawyer too, and over the next month letters went back and forth about who would sign the birth certificate, who would be at the hospital for the birth, and—as Mohammed delicately puts it—whether there would be “litigation to resolve the matter if it could not be resolved amicably.”

In November, Plotnick sued, saying DeLuccia was refusing to let him sign the birth certificate, tell him when she went into labor, or allow him to be present for the delivery. DeLuccia responded by denying the first two accusations but saying that yes, she “will request her privacy in the delivery room,” as the judge writes. She said she would put Plotnick’s name on the list of visitors for after the delivery, though.Fathers

That sounds like a pretty good compromise to me. Once the baby is born, it’s about the baby. Before that, though, it’s about the mother, too—there is just no way to separate her from the fetus. That’s the basic reality of nature that should allow a mother to decide the circumstances of her labor and delivery.

“It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother’s liberty than on the father’s,”

…the Supreme Court said in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the case that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade and also held that states can’t require women to inform their spouses that they’re having an abortion.

If a women doesn’t want her ex in the room while she gives birth—an ex who she’s not talking to and who after all is suing her—then he can wait in the hallway. He’ll still have plenty of opportunity to bond with his newborn.

The same logic of biology convinced me that a New York judge was wrong last year when she barred Sara McKenna, a former Marine and firefighter, from moving from California to New York, because she wanted to go to Columbia University, when she was seven months pregnant. The father of McKenna’s child was the Olympic skier Bode Miller, and he tried to block her from moving across the country by asserting his paternal rights before his child was born.

An appeals court quickly reversed that order. Again, fathers just cannot have rights over fetuses that interfere with a woman’s freedom of choice and movement in this way. Once the child is born, the law can accord equal rights to fathers and mothers. Before birth, it just cannot.

I recognize the pathos and irony here in turning fathers away. To resolve the dispute between Plotnick and DeLuccia, Mohammed turned to New Jersey’s parentage act, which he pointed out was designed “to help families deal with the problems posed by fathers who seek to avoid paying child support.”

In other words, deadbeat dads. Steven Plotnick has been anything but that, and with any luck his child’s life—and maybe DeLuccia’s, too—will be the better for it. But the impulse to want what’s best for his child could have led Plotnick to give DeLuccia her space rather than (figuratively) pounding on her delivery room door. As Mohammed pointed out, New Jersey and federal law also protect DeLuccia’s privacy rights as a patient. And he rightly notes that dealing with Plotnick’s uninvited presence could “add to an already stressful situation” in a way that “could endanger both the mother and the fetus.”

Surely Plotnick would agree that the baby’s health is paramount here.

Continue reading


Children Safest With BOTH Parents


Proof Family Law is Broken - 2016

211ba-pledgeStudy: children are safest when they live with their two married biological parents

National Survey of Children’s Health, conducted by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, parents of 95,677 children aged 17 and under were asked whether their child was “ever the victim of violence or witnessed any violence in his or her neighborhood.” Among children living with their married biological parents, the overall rate of exposure to neighborhood violence was comparatively low: for every 1,000 children in intact families, 36 had witnessed or experienced neighborhood violence. By contrast, among children living with a never-married mother, the rate of violent crime exposure was nearly three times higher: 102 children per 1,000 had one or more such experiences. Among children living with a separated or divorced mother, the rate of exposure was more than twice as high as for children of married parents: 89 children per 1,000. (See Figure 1.) These comparisons are adjusted for differences across family types in the average age, sex, and race/ethnicity of the child; family income and poverty status; the parent’s education level; neighborhood quality; and frequency of residential moves.

Some might assume that the absence of an adult male to protect the household is key to the higher victimization rates of single-parent families. Yet children living with a biological parent and a stepparent also had an elevated rate of exposure to neighborhood violence: 84 children per 1,000. Even children living with both biological parents who were cohabiting rather than married had a significantly higher victimization rate—60 children per 1,000—though not as high as those in never-married or divorced families.

[…]Why are children living with never-married or separated and divorced mothers more susceptible to neighborhood violence?Violence and Crime linked to fatherlessness - 2015

Beyond the greater likelihood of having to live in unsafe neighborhoods and the more frequent moves that often come with family disruption, there are several other factors that increase vulnerability. First is the stress of conflict between parents and the strain of raising children as a lone parent in reduced financial circumstances. These can lead to a lack of vigilance and the overlooking of simple precautions, such as making sure that doors and windows are locked in houses and vehicles. Second, if they have broken up with their child’s other parent, a single parent will usually begin dating and trying to find a new partner. This process often involves being out of the house at night, sometimes leaving children with no or inadequate supervision. Third, as children become adolescents, the peers they become involved with in their less-than-ideal neighborhoods and schools are often troubled ones, who can lead them into hazardous situations and activities.

Marriage matters! We can allow alternatives to natural marriage, but natural marriage is best for kids.

You can read more about the safety advantages of marriage for women and children in this Heritage Foundation paper. Marriage matters, and we should doing everything we can to shrink secular big government programs that discourage marriage (e.g. – single mother welfare),  and promote programs that encourage people to marry and have children, (e.g. – getting rid of the marriage penalty). It’s a policy problem – we aren’t doing enough to help children when the secular big government is more interested in making it easier for people to not marry (single mother welfare), and breaking up existing marriages (no-fault divorce laws).

Both Parents should have equal time with their child, for the best outcome with all parties involved. The BEST Parent is BOTH Parents - 2015Children, Parents, Grandparents, Siblings, Step Parents, all loose when Parental Alienation occurs. If PAS was punishable by law, and enforced in Family Law it could change our future generations. We could ensure our son’s will NOT be victimized by a narcissistic ex withholding his children. We must empower our youth to realize after separation occurs between 2 parents,

the child will openly get to be loved and parented by both individuals.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

How you can help:

Sign~> Petition to United States Supreme Court to Enact Federal Parenting Plan Legislation.  Please share a reason why others should support this campaign and ask friends and supporters to sign with you.  Read more about the petition.Do not re-elect bad family court judges - 2016

Pledge~> To ask my family and friends to make a commitment to bring public awareness to this American epidemic. Please share a reason why others should support this campaign and ask friends and supporters to pledge with you. Read more about the pledge


Marriage is the safest environment for children Marriage is the safest environment for children

Story from Family Studies.

It says:

Young people are less likely to be victims of crime if they live in two-parent than in single-parent households. That has been a consistent finding of the National Crime Victimization Survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice. But it has been unclear whether the safety advantage stems from married couples living in less dangerous neighborhoods, on average, than unmarried parents, or from other differences in vulnerability between family types. My analysis of recent data from another national survey shows that even when their families live in unsafe neighborhoods, children in married two-parent families are less likely to be exposed to violent crime than children of never-married and divorced parents.

In the 2011-2012 National Survey of Children’s Health, conducted by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, parents of 95,677 children aged 17 and under were…

View original post 518 more words