To think men don't have a right to be at the birth of their children?

[Stripylikeatiger]

I'm due to have a baby any day now last week and ds's godfather, the person due to look after him is going away for a couple of days Ds has a close relationship with his god father and we have prepared him for being looked after by him by having him put him to bed, learn about ds's routine and so on.

I'm quite worried about leaving ds as he co-sleeps and we have never left him over night before.

Dp has said that his parents should look after ds if I go into labour on the days where ds's god father is away. Ds doesn't know pil, they live quite a long way away and when they come to visit they spend about an hour with ds, they have no idea about his routines. Pil booked to come and visit (not staying with us) to see the new baby but of course there is no baby yet, so they are able to look after ds. Instead of spending time with him the usual visiting friends and having hair appointments take precedent (which is of course up to them!)

I feel so stressed about the thought of leaving ds with people who are strangers to him, I don't think I could relax in labour knowing my child was possibly distressed or confused. I really don't want ds to associate the baby coming with him being left with random people.

I have said to dp that if I go into labour on one of the days ds's godfather is away I'd prefer dp to stay at home with ds and actually that would be the most supportive thing he could do as it would allow me to focus on giving birth.

Dp is furious and says he has a right to be there at the birth of his child, I tried to point out to him that birth isn't a spectator sport and he should think about supporting me rather than thinking about his rights.

Does a father have the right to be at the birth of his child? I'm tempted to just call a taxi when I go into labour and go in by myself.

well said Starling

Both DH and I were concerned about our older (still very young) DC when DC2 and DC3 were born. That's surely an important co-parenting issue! If we hadn't had the right person available to take care of PFB and PSB, then of course DH would have stayed with them. That's just common sense. Parenting is a lifelong commitment, and sometimes you have to miss things you want to do because your DC need you. And when you have more than one DC, sometimes you have to miss really important life events because another DC needs you.

DC3 had to go back into hospital at 5 days old. I went too (breastfeeding). DH stayed at home with DC1 and DC2. If we'd had only one child, DH would have spent most/all of his time in the hospital with DC3 and I. But we have 3 children, and we have to split ourselves and our attention according to what they need - not what we would like!

Yes, Lying, some men do. And that's shameful and extremely wrong. I don't Rhein, the OP's DP is doing that here, though.

I just think that this is about family isn't it? Everyone in it, if you are really committed. What works for everyone. Parents, child number one and soon to arrive number three.

It's not that the OP doesn't want her husband there though.

She's having a wobble at the thought of leaving her PFB with GPs that he doesn't know all that well.
It's understandable.

Hopefully her husband had a strong reaction because he very badly wants to be at the birth.

I think that quite a few people can't see that much of an issue with a 1yr old being left with presumably loving & capable GPs.

Being present at a woman's labour is not a reward for good behaviour! It is to support the woman and facilitate as stress free a birth as possible. You are there as her support. What matters is not what you have been doing prior to the birth but what the labouring woman wants. Nothing else.

No, not "Nothing else". For the father of child, being present at his child's birth is also about the absolutely unique moment of being there when that child comes into the world, hearing him draw the first breath, maybe being able to cut the cord, being able to hold the baby as soon as possible. That's a very important element which it is totally wrong to ignore.

Soon to arrive number two I mean!

I'm going to ask MNHQ to remove all of my posts; my paging isn't working properly and OP's responses didn't show up. OP... I took your opening post only and didn't see them. I'm sorry for my comments, they don't apply to you at all.

Chunderella, apologies to you also, uncalled for comments from me.

The nonsensical description of what happened in the 70s isn't relevant now, is it? Women are NOT subjected to this so now so why harp on?

It wasn't a nonsensical description. That was really what happened.

Its relevant to this discussion because women (according to some on this thread) are once again having their 'choice' removed. Its becoming a 'given' that partners are in the room with people telling you its unreasonable and cruel to deny your partner his moral right.

And yes having a child is the decision of two people and raising it will be their job together. There is only one person giving birth though.

wanttosqueeze... I took OP's post as a 'post and run' and a bit goady - because I didn't read it fully, didn't pick up the updates. I was wrong, that's why I've asked MNHQ to delete my earlier posts.

I don't mind debating this in abstract but really don't want to upset a woman already concerned about arrangements for the birth.

Starling I would agree with you that the father's wants need to be taken into consideration, however I believe the mother's wants or needs have to come first.

If those wants are at odds, for whatever reason, then it creates a situation where only one person is going to be happy, and you won't be able to please everyone. If the mother does not want the father there and he is, she will be unhappy. If the father wants to be there but can't be, he will be unhappy. How do you reconcile that so that both get what they want?

When one of those people is giving birth, they would be the ones I'd want to keep happy.

That's a very important element which it is totally wrong to ignore.

Yes, and nobody is really denying that (interesting that the baby in your scenario is a 'he', by the way). The overriding element is the wishes of the mother which have to be given priority. But aren't, even by women, which I find shocking. Even in labour, women are expected to do all the heavy emotional and practical lifting to maintain the relationship.

Me neither lying. As ever the thread has moved on and isn't really limited to her OP anymore. She's had lots of good suggestions on here too.

No one has a right to be there.

However your pfb will be fine if/when left and your DH clearly wants this very badly - ( though is expression of this is pretty poor )

We had childcare issues with our third DC - we opted for HB. Did for a time have an anti HB MW who wanted for no medical reason for me to be in hospital.

When we discussed option of going in MW refused to believe that I would be by myself -said they never had that which I found very hard to believe - but she was insistent I had to have someone with me in hospital which wasn't possible and made us feel bad about that.

The one DC we had in hospital we - DH and I were left alone for long periods despite being in active labour and I'd have hated to be by myself. The staff weren't very good at listening to me then either - so it felt good to have someone there for me.

So do what best for you but be aware going by yourself might not be the best option.

I'm glad you are reassured. I think it would be a real shame for dh to miss the birth. He would regret that forever. Ds will be fine.

This isn't a matter of legal rights, it's moral rights and, really, the ordinary give and take of a relationship. If the mother would normally want the father to be there, and the father desperately wants to be there, then that's what should happen unless there is a good reason why that shouldn't be the case. And childcare arrangements don't constitute a good reason if there are perfectly adequate carers available.

When DS1 was around 9 months old, my parents offered to have him overnight. I knew it wouldn't be ideal for him but I was utterly desperate for a night's sleep and he was fine. When I had DS2, I was in hospital for a few days due to high blood pressure, DH couldn't take time off work, his mother nobly stepped into the breech with DS1 who was 6 and DD who was 2. She didn't know the DC as well as my parents, but she's lovely and I knew she'd spoil them rotten. DD was a bit bewildered at my disappearance but, again, she was fine.

So I say - right decision, OP. Your DS will be fine with his grandparents if need be, go ahead and enjoy the birth with your DH.

Fyrefly, if she actively didn't want him present in the room, I'd say her desires trump his. But in this case, she does want him there, but she's worrying about childcare for her DS. If there were no viable childcare options, then I'd say he would have to put his child's needs first, before his desires to witness the birth, but there is alternative childcare, which may not be ideal but would do the job. The OP's DS won't remember being distressed (if he is!) when he's older... He probably won't even remember it a couple of days later. But I think her DP will always feel resentment or sadness or whatever you want to call it, at being told he can't attend. So I think she's being unreasonable to insist he misses the birth to stay with a one-year-old, who will be perfectly well looked after by his father's parents. It's also possible that the DP is unhappy at the suggestion that his parents are so incapable of looking after his son that he has to miss the birth of his second child to do it himself, with no consultation.

Anecdote: when my mum went into labour with me, my gran was waiting to look after my 3-year-old brother. Mum and my father grabbed her bag etc, and made for the door, and my brother ran after them, struggling into his coat and shouting "Wait for me, wait for me!". He was upset when they had to leave him, and it made my mum cry all the way to the hospital. Then my dad ended up missing my birth anyway, because the midwife said I'd be ages yet, so he went home to have his dinner and to supervise the babysitter handover to my auntie. In fact the doctor missed it all too... He went for a quick round of golf! None of them were traumatised at all by this.

The overriding element is the wishes of the mother which have to be given priority. But aren't, even by women, which I find shocking. Even in labour, women are expected to do all the heavy emotional and practical lifting to maintain the relationship.

Sure, the wishes of the mother have priority. But the wish of the father to be present at the unique occasion of the birth of his child is also very important, and if that wish is to be overborne in circumstances where the mother would normally be entirely happy for him to be present, there needs to be a valid reason for it.

It's ironic that you suggest that the woman is expected to do the heavy lifting to maintain the relationship when you're suggesting that, in order to maintain that relationship, the father's wishes have to be ignored.

It does seem that people like to argue to the extremes. I was there at my DCs birth, and it was amazing. Sure, I'd have been upset if my wife didn't want me there, but it wouldn't have been the end of the world.