ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Not having the children overnight.(74 Posts)
I suppose this is another thread that will be largely anonymous.
After reading a few threads on here, why is it ok for a father to not have overnights with his children after separation but the mother couldn't cope with being apart from their children so access must be brought in gradually?
If that makes sense.
I don't think fathers miss their children any less.
You're a dad up doing a night feed?! ;)
Hmm. It's a good question. Does it not all depend on the circumstances? I know if (god forbid) myself and DH split up, I would hate it for baby to be spending overnights with Dad and his new partner! It's an animal thing really - the mother incubated for 9 months as well as bonded after the child is born (I know that doesn't make sense probably but I don't know how to explain it)
Anyway. Sure someone with more intelligent answers will be along soon!
No, NRP's don't miss their children any less than RP's
What age group are you thinking of just babies or older children as well?
From what I can see, it's mainly an issue if its a small baby that is exclusively breastfed, or if the father, as in a lot of the threads that I see, has previously done very little in the way of child care or has previously shown little interest in the child.
There was a thread yesterday where the father had previously refused to change a dirty nappy, and the mother was understandably concerned for the baby's welfare if left overnight with him. I think if the baby will take bottles and the father has an idea of what he is doing then there wouldn't be a problem.
Fgs. The gradual introduction is for the child not the mother.
If the mother is and has been the sole Carer I think they are entitled IMO to reasonably judge when overnights are appropriate. As in if you have a toddler that wakes frequently needing comfort from their mother for example then immediate over nights would be a shock to the system. Not saying they can't be worked toward.
Luckily the law only supports the right of the chd to contact, not the parent.
Can't believe I had to explain why you build up contact over time. Jesus
Not quite sure what Jesus has to do with it.
I read in hear, regularly, a mother can't cope without seeing her children, but it's assumed the father can.
And the gradual introduction is for the child? I don't think so.
Of course it's for the child! I have a baby who wakes at least 3 times still for a breastfeed and try as he might, my xp just would not be able to comfort a distressed baby overnight. He can't exactly lactate
I dont think anyone would separate an exclusively BF baby from its mother. But given UK BF rates and age at which BF is no longer exclusive (or happening at all), that's probably a red herring.
Agree with oldladypillow. Sorry if you don't like the answer. My child feeling secure and stable is paramount to me
I just find it a bit bizarre.
But then again my son has lived with me for the the last seven years.
And my daughter has done 50-50 since she was very little.
It wouldn't bother me.
In our case my OH has a close and hands on relationship with our children.
If we split up I wouldn't have any issues with them going to him for overnights fairly quickly.
If we had split up when one of them was very young it would be different because of the practicalities. He can't breastfeed and he is not physically able to deal with night feeds.
Contact should always be for the benefit of the children. The parent's benefits are sencondary.
Tbh I think in some circs its about possession. Many women will view the kids as theirs. Particularly after a break up. Not convinced money plays a part but perhaps in very very rare cases. Ill get flamed now. But the refrain u do hear is the kids are mine and the bastards not getting them.
Society also views that children generally are better with their mother. Usually I suppose because the man should be providing and content to do so. Therefore most women are destined to believe the child should be with them, this as well as mother bear instincts which do tend to be very strong and showy.
I agree in some circs the F is possibly as good as the M. This is often dependant on F being great and M not so. Some women find it very hard, as do some dads. I don't think u can over ride millions of years of evolution either where the kid always begs for mummy. Daddy appears more learned, according to mine anyway.... Not dh fault, he's a very good dad. Just is what it is.
I'm also not sure if much of society is ready for dads being so present. Lets face it, mothers aren't welcome really at work and are often visibly 2nd class citizens. Fathers doing it are even rarer and just as maligned and unsupported.
Hopefully in my dds time that will alter. I'm resigned to fact it won't in my lifetime. Wish were different, keep plugging away is all we can do.
I went from being the main carer (as well as working from home) to having contact withdrawn when I moved out. My ex said that contact would need to be "built up over time"!
The courts of course didn't quite see it her way.
Oh just seen this, my ex lied to a court official and said he was allowed overnight access, thinking she would never find out, arse and a half! I would never allow him overnight access!
Neither will the court, he will lie about that too, he lies a lot my ex does, I think he may have a problem tbh, he believe his own lies....
I am always astounded at the anti-man vitriol posted in the thread. Men as a species are lambasted based on N=1 opinions. Any father who has a healthy relationship with his child should have over night access. To sit on some moral high horse that insists this is not healthy or needs to be 'gradually' built in is to marginalise the importance of having two parents in childhood, even if those parents are not co-habiting. Any reference to 'ownership' of the child is frankly absurd. Kids will have short term distress when their routine is disrupted, but as long as their new routine continues to have two loving, albeit separate, parents then this short term pain must be accepted. To not do so is to not prioritise the needs of the child - as suggested above - it is to prioritise the needs of which ever parent who refuses to accept the long term benefit of two parents.
It is high time society - and many Mumsnetters (sic) - accepted the importance of fathers and stopped demonising the breed based on the weasels who abandon their children and responsibilities.
Completely agree with northern exile. I am afraid that in some - I completely accept not all - cases, you are dealing with fathers who were not big players in their children's lives pre separation and there are reasonable concerns about how said fathers will cope with extended and overnight care of a child, particularly if that child is very young.
I agree that in some cases and where split has been particularly bitter, some mothers use this as an excuse to frustrate contact.
But aim of contact is to benefit the child not the parent. If father has always been part of child's life, hands on parent etc, can't see any reason why overnights can't start immediately.
But if there are reasonable concerns about how father will cope and how child will react, it has to go at pace suitable to child. This is not vitriolic man hating, rather putting child first.
In the case of my DH, if we broke up... He is very hands on, does nappies, hair, bedtime the whole shebang. However, when DD was very small, I did all the BF night feeds. He had literally never comforted her at night. Why would DD have to get used to a new, no BF routine so that he could have overnight contact? Surely, it would be better to have as little change as possible for the DC.
My and my dds dad split earlier this year from the word go he has seen her once a week for 8hours (that is his choice I have offered him more dad but he doesn't want to) however he does not and will never have her over night ( my decision) my dd has many medical problems and she has to be on a ventilator when she sleeps when we were together he never woke when her alarms were going of. I have been in the beginning stages of resuscitating my daughter and he has been snoring. To allow her to say at his would be neglectful of me in terms of y daughters interests. He doesn't accept her medical problems, not doing many things that make her life easier because "there too weird" I he ever tried to apply for overnight stay via court I would fight him to the end. Dads do miss there children as much as mums but because they are the general breadwinners of the family they have had he ability of separation from the child longer than the mother.
If it was flipped and the father was a stay at home dad and the mother worked I would side with the dad
I think it is as someone above said the baby has been carried in the womb, had 1 to 1 care of the mother (if she is main carer) and maybe been breastfed etc. It would be a bit mean to (in the above cases) take the mother away for long periods when the Dad could have shorter frequent visits. It should be about what is best for baby. Not about equal possession. It seems to be almost taboo these days to say a young baby needs it's mother more but many people still think this is the case.
However with an older child or when Dad has been main carer/shared carer then there would be no reason to wait that long at all. My husband was denied ALL contact with his DF and that was very wrong and spiteful by my MIL. I do have a friend though who had 3 very young children (6 months, 1,2) whose husband cheated and expected her to hand the kids over half the time with him and his new GF playing happy families. They were all breastfed and coslept etc. Why should they have lost their security just as he couldn't keep it in his pants? Just an example that it isn't all cut and dried.
Jellybeans- exactly. But I expect the thought police will be back soon. Sigh
This always brings me back to the question of why women breed with such bell-ends in the first place who won't get up in the night or do nappies. And then have another child.
I do think a lot of women won't concede control of routines either. Their way or no way. I've seen it a lot.
Because I was lonely? Because I was nearly 35 and thought it was my last chance? Because I really wanted to believe he loved me and he would change when our baby was born?
Well I was stupid then and learned the hard way - as has our daughter.
Glad you've lived such a charmed life Gay40. Pity you picked up so little compassion on the way.
Gay40. Because men never choose partners poorly right?
Ds' father did do nappies etc. However, he also became abusive - very common for dv to start once a woman gets pregnant or has a young baby, to do with power dynamics and vulnerability.
He doesn't want ds for overnights. Says he will "when he's older." Through his choice has seen him for one hour today and doesn't want to see him again til next Sunday. This is a man who always wanted to be a father, says ds is the most important thing in the world etc.
Some people don't turn out to be who you thought they were.
I haven't compassion for women who persist in creating children with utter wankers, no.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.