Can my ex get 50:50 care from birth after early separation?

[penelopesolivegarden]

Is this a thing? Ex and I split very early, now 22 weeks. I have gone through everything with him from him not wanting to be involved at all to now wanting a 50:50 split from the start. He seems to think this may be granted as we've been separated from early in the pregnancy. I feel physically sick at the idea.

He works 3 'normal' days a week and then is on call outside normal working hours for one day/night a week, so could make 50:50 work as long as the schedule changed around his working pattern which is what's worrying me. Otherwise I'd think he was bluffing.

Babies need more feeding overnight, especially in the first weeks/months as the prolactin hormone is produced more by your body overnight- this help to establish and continue your milk production. It’s very much a use it or lose function. Pumping during the dat and feeding directly during the night would massively decrease your ability to breastfeed. There are so so many reasons baby should be with its mum. The first 1000 days of a life determine the long term prospects!

His mother can keep out of it !

Because he originally said he wasn't interested. He's clearly found out that he doesn't have to pay if he has the baby 50% of the time, and the pressure from his mum hints to me as well that he's already teed her up to have the baby while he works.

It's actually not recommended (unless medically necessary) to start expressing until after the milk supply has been established (6 weeks). You will risk oversupply and mastitis and I would suggest to him that he actually learns about breastfeeding, rather than dictate to you about something he clearly knows nothing about. Ignore any noise from his mother.

Do NOT be bullied into overnights, it is NOT in the best interests of a baby to be separated overnight from the primary caregiver. Not only this, but prolactin, the hormone that produces breastmilk, is higher at night, and those night feeds are crucial. It's also crucial that baby feeds directly from the breast as much as possible, as their saliva sends signals to your body to produce the right milk for them. Also, by expressing rather than feeding directly, your supply will start to drop. This is why exclusive pumpers don't end up being able to do so long-term.

Unless things have changed, a judge would not normally grant overnights until 2 yrs old...but sadly, some are not putting babies best interests first anymore as more and more fathers are trying their best to stop having to pay CSA by going for 50/50.

The Association of Breastfeeding Mothers is a good organisation for advice with this.

Of course, he has a right to be involved, but a baby who is exclusively breastfed should stay with it's primary caregiver, and if he is a decent man (obviously he's not), then he will agree to spending time with baby alongside you.

Just to follow up on the expressing advice. I did manage to successfully express from day 3-5 as my children were in the NICU and we continued with this for a year for each baby so that we had a back up supply in the freezer and so my DH could do a night feed and give me a few hours to sleep.

However I pumped immediately after breastfeeding and it was a lot of work. I also had a problem using a pump after leaving the hospital as every commercial pump, even the really good ones just don't work very well compared to having the baby feed directly. I was getting maybe 30% as much as from the hospital pump. In the end we hired one of the medical grade pumps but they are quite expensive. Would he cover that cost? I was probably only away from the baby for 4-5 hours max during the first 6-9 months and it was still a lot of work to maintain supply. A whole night away would have tanked it.

Whether you add him to the bc is your choice, pros and cons there, however DO NOT give the baby his name.

If he pulls the 'but it's tradition' bs you can inform him that actually the tradition is that babies have their mothers name actually but in previous times the mother would be married to the father. As you aren't married...

The baby needs to be with its mother as nature intended.

The baby can see plenty of its father in addition.

If he wants 50/50 care of a newborn then you need to live in the same house so it can be provided equally throughout the days and nights to meet the babies needs. Taking the baby away from you in those first weeks and months isn’t good for either of you mentally or physically and the impact separation has on milk supply etc etc

it would be a no from me. Keep him off the birth certificate and he can adjust to provide care to meet both your needs if he actually wants to be involved.

What is so wrong about a man wanting 50:50 custody? What happens to babies whose mothers die in childbirth?

Breastfeeding out of spite isn't exactly a strategy either, especially if you end up finding it more difficult than people let on. Some babies/mothers never take to breastfeeding and you might be one of them. Then what???

The most important thing is finding out why you don't want this man in your baby's life but would somehow only want his money (child support).

The bots posted by Mumsnet to increase engagement are becoming more and more obvious.

What's wrong with it is that it's harmful to the baby. No good dad would suggest separating a newborn from its mum 50% of the time.

I didn’t suggest pumping from word go. I suggested short visits first at her house. Overnights around 3 months or even 6 months however I do think that she needs to be realistic that although you may not want to give formula (it wasn’t my first choice) I also knew that my ex deserves one on one time with his son. Sometimes you have to adjust given the circumstances

Quite, and babies whose mother’s die in childbirth are not a model to emulate!

I just wanted to note that keeping him off the BC probably won't make a difference to custody granted in the family court of the father pursues it (although it might in other respects). The judge can and will grant custody to a father who doesn't have parental responsibility/isn't on the bc, if that person is deemed likely to be the father, and will expect that the father takes the necessary steps to be added in the interim.

Also not to mention the fact that if no safeguarding concerns the child deserves to have their dad stated on their birth certificate…

Equal does not mean the same.

Nor does 50% biology mean 50% identical ways of being a parent. Men are not women who gestated and gave birth to the baby, the two continuing to have a symbiotic biological and mental bond that functions to stimulate the baby’s development.

The child has a right to know both its parents in such a way that is fair to the child’s well-being.

Not If it means the father can cause havoc at a very sensitive time.

He can have his name on the certificate when everything is sorted out properly.

Not If it means the father can cause havoc at a very sensitive time.

He can have his name on the certificate when everything is sorted out properly.

This.

If there is no safeguarding concerns (I.e. no domestic violence) there is zero reason why the father should not be on the birth certificate. It is a legal document that states paternity. If you know who the father is you put his name down. Like it has been said the father a now apply to court to be put on anyway.

this always should be about the best interests of the child. They deserve to know their identity. They also deserve to be able to see their dad.

How is anyone going to know whether she breastfeeds or not? Nobody is going to stand over her and check

Register the baby with your surname.
Do not put his name on the birth certificate.

Send him an extremely detailed list of the duplicate items he will most certainly need to be able to have the dc.. As he hasn't got breasts he can't provide everything but let him crack in with that list. He doesn't get to decide how your baby is fed. Expressing won't be adequate or sustainable for you to provide enough.. And your newborn only actually needs you.

The best interests of the child is not a mantra meaning what suits the father.

The fact that he is demanding 50:50 with a newborn tells you who he is thinking about and it’s neither the baby or the mother.

If he were saying just that he wants to be fully involved in the child’s life and will do everything in his power to help and to support them both, please could they go to mediation to work out a good way, etc etc - it would be different.

The mother does not have to put down the father’s name on the certificate even if the child is perfectly clear the man is his/her father and has always been told he is the father.

@narnia2025 , there is zero reason why the father should not be on the birth certificate There are plenty of reasons.

Putting him on the birth certificate gives him the same parental right as the mother.

The consequence of a father not being named on a birth certificate is that they have no legal rights or duties towards their child. As such, the father cannot make important decisions on behalf of the child regarding their religion, schooling, and medical care.

If a father is not named on a birth certificate, the mother of the child can still give permission for the child to live with their father. The mother can request that the child be returned at any time against the wishes of the father. However, if the father is added to the birth certificate, they then have the legal right to contest custody.

In OP's case, the father will probably use parental right to make life difficult for her and the baby and after a few months or years will lose interest.

If he has 50:50 care of the baby he will dump the baby on a woman without delay, probably his mother or a 'nanny with a fanny.

So for many women it isn't as simple as 'express from the start'. A lot of us can't get enough milk for this to be remotely plausible. Suggest getting legal advice pre birth.