to think a 4 wk old is too young to stay overnight

[Nowtheres4]

.. at xh's? i had my new dd a couple of weeks ago and xh thinsk that in 2 weeks time when he will be having the older children (12,7 and 3) he has to have dd too?
shes b/f and i have no problem with him having her all day and i cna give expressed milk in a bottle and meet for a feed break but over 48 hours is far too long ?

I really hope you don't end up doing this. I agree with others that tiny babies need their primary carer, whether bf or ff (obviously in an emergency that's maybe not practical but whenever there's a choice). I also think it's likely to be the beginning of the end of bf. I had major supply issues after 24 hours in hospital with 16wo DS- and I did feed him 3 or 4 times in that time when DH came to see me. Obviously I got over them but it wasn't easy, and he was much older. Yes, you might be one of the lucky ones, but I doubt it's an even chance - I imagine most women would have huge supply issues and engorgement in this situation.

Wasn't thinking of you shineon, but there were a few posters who I thought were rather too stridently asserting the rights of the father.

I find that those who are that into the rights of the father are less interested in the rights of the child.
I agree in equality in parenting. I consider myself and my childrens father to be complete equal as parents to our children. But equal doesn't mean interchangeable, and a man can not breastfeed a baby, at that point in a babies life it needs to be with its mother, and I stand by my assertion that any father who did not acknoledge and accomodate that fact is not an equally good parent on that point. Because they are putting their own "rights" ahead of the needs of the child.

Equal rights in parenting are earned, not automatic.

Jointly caring for children doesn't mean anyone is 'taking' the children away from anyone else. Apart from the breast feeding, which the OP says there is the possibility of expressing, what exactly can't a Dad do for a 'vulnerable' newborn?

However, overnight is one thing, but why is the visit over 48 hours? Is it because the other 3 are going for the whole w/end? I can see this might present difficulties, I mean there's only so much milk you can express.

Maybe this isn't a feminist view but I do feel that a 4 week old baby is only 'just' no longer actually physically part of its mother's body, and if the mother doesn't feel able to separate from the baby for even an hour at that age then I feel that is OK. Though of course the father should be there too if that is at all possible.

It is a shame that so much emphasis is put on fathers bonding with their babies when let's be honest, the babies couldn't give a feck at this age but the many, many older children whose fathers have buggered off DO

Just say 'no' to him op. He's being selfish and as others have said, he will never get any court to agree to enforcing his 'rights'. It's a non-starter with a breast fed baby. Don't even entertain being bullied into this.

I don;t think it's a feminist issue. If for some reason DH had done all baby care so far I wouldn't expect to suddenly be able to take over for more than a few hours. I wouldn't expect him to want me to or feel happy about it.

it was a practical issue with the BF.

Now it turns out that this man is not nice. Two adult children from a previous relationship, 4 children from his next relationship, he left for someone else "child free and less complicated". Will he do the same all over again to this new woman?

Eitehr way OP you have my sympathies, you sound so together and amazing that you are trying to be equable about the children seeing their dad, in the circs I think I would be too livid to think straight.

Definitely say no to the 48 hour thing, it just isn;t practical with a BF baby, anyone can see that. Like others say, no court would ever suggest that it was a reasonable request.

Good luck with everything

thank you again. i wish i was as together as i am sounding. i am bitterly upset and at the time was devastated.
have realsied that hes obviously not the man that i married, and i probbaly am not what he ahd bargained for either.
i feel much more able to present my questions tomorrow so thank you all.

re why 48 hours this is because the older children are going from saturday morning through to sunday evening.

i am assured the ow will not be there fwiw.

sorry appling typing as doing so one handed whiel cradling dd2.

Your baby needs you.
Your baby needs you.
Your baby needs you.

Your ex has to understand that your baby needs you.

We will make him understand that your baby needs 24/7

xxx

"It is a shame that so much emphasis is put on fathers bonding with their babies when let's be honest, the babies couldn't give a feck at this age but the many, many older children whose fathers have buggered off DO"

Hmm...could there be a link between the attitude in the first part of the sentence and the outcome at the end?

Nowtheres4 I thought that must be it - he probably hasn't thought past his normal routine. Could you put together a plan for gradual increasing contact to work towards overnights? I find the 'your ex has to understand' type attitudes inflame this kind of situation no end.

A reasonable plan is more likely to be met with a reasonable response than 'you can't have her she needs me'.

So gradually decrease BF maybe by introducing bottles of formula to allow that?

"pooexplosions please stop the puerile insinuations. Do you genuinely believe that it is in the "best interests" of the child to nurture grievances? Who benefits exactly?

Or perhaps, maybe its in the interests of the child to foster a more cordial, civil arrangement.

(by the way Nowtheres4, I'm not for one minute implying that you are not being civil, accommodating etc, on the contrary you seem very composed and rational under the circumstances....the above is only in response to poo's post.) "

Excuse me? What were you reading? What insuations, puerile or otherwise?

I don't see whats so difficult to see, a man who is only thinking of himself and not of his child, seems pretty clear to me.

Keep taking the pills though won't you?

SardineQueen - she doesn't want to stop BF! She has said she wants to BF for a year like with the other DCs. Why should this be compromised? It's what the mother wants to do and it's in the interests of the baby. Why would a good and loving father want to compromise the BF relationship?

This is, and isn't, a feminist issue. I'm absolutely a feminist but I do not believe that at 4 weeks old a mother and father are interchangeable necessarily. There may be situations in which they are, ie both have been present and taken equal responsibility for nights since birth, and the baby is FF. However, that is unusual, even with together couples, and with a father who has never spent the night with the child? That child has no relationship with him tp speak of, the bond needs to be developed over time.

What would people think if it was the MIL wanting to take the baby overnight at 4 weeks? If the non resident father can do exactly what the mother can do, why can't the MIL? Or is it only worth distressing the baby and the mother in the name of paying lip service to equality between a mother who has been with the baby 24/7 and a father who hasn't?

IMO, the ex needs to work out a way that he can come and see the baby pretty much daily for an hour or so. If it has to be after work he can look after her while OP has a bath or some dinner, and build things up that way. Otherwise he can take the baby out for a few hours, in between feeds or with a bottle of EBM if the OP can manage it.

People are absolutely right that he needs to build a bond, and has a right to. But this can't be at the expense of the baby's well-being.

We should remember that he chose to leave a month before his baby was born and so it's up to him to make time to see the baby in a way that suits the baby and mother. He isn't actually an equal parent to this baby as he walked out on it before it was even born.

Yes, but he made a commitment to her when he impregnated her, and to the baby once they decided they were going to keep it. He is reneging on his commitment to support her and co-parent with her (in the way that they planned) and reneging on his commitment to the baby to be the parent he committed to be. I know that circumstances change but personal feelings must sometimes be put on hold while other things are dealt with - for example he could have suppressed his feelings until after the baby was born and he had supported the mother of his child in the difficult first 2-3 months, and built a bond with his child in a real way. 3-4 months is not long to do the right thing and put off leaving.

But yes, this situation is different to others and he is particularly twattish IMO. However I also think your view is coloured by having seemingly a very mature and simple co-parenting relationship that most people simply don't have. Most women take being left when pregnant quite personally and it can majorly affect the trust they have for the father, which impacts on how comfortable they feel leaving their baby with him. And a father has to accept that if he has lost the trust of the mother through his own actions he will have to work to get it back and cannot automatically have the same access to the child as he would if they were together, or under the same conditions.

not sure its important but feeling quite low today, it was his idea to have another baby, i was quite adamant that 3 was plenty. He persuaded me when i discovered i was pregnant to go ahead with the pregnnacy and that he would be here. (i don;t think i could have had an abortion but i was considering all options).

i have spoken to my solicitor this morning who agrees overnight at this stage is not ideal, i am to ask him if he will compromise by having her from lunchtime on the saturday with me dropping her off whereever he is going to be and then me picking her up again at about 7pm.ish, i have managed to express with my medela pump and should have enough by saturday for enough feeds for the afternoon.

i really want my children to have a good relationship with their father and have made sure that i do not speak badly of him around them. unfortunatley several heated discussions between us have taken place wiht them here.

so we will see if he is agreeable to this, when i call him this evening.

Good for you! Yes we can, and you have done well to be so mature
I just feel that it's not particularly feminist to expect the mother to bend over backwards at the expense of her emotional and physical health (and leaving a 4wk NB with someone you don't trust will not make for emotional health, not to mention engorgement and mastitis) to accommodate the father who chose to leave (for whatever reason). It is far saner to facilitate contact which fits into the child's routine and be a grown up about it (teabags notwothstanding). Unless he lives a long way from her he should be able to come over almost daily and it could be a great help to the OP if he took charge for a couple of hours, instead of insisting that a 4wk old baby fits into his routine which is to have all the kids for 48 hours at a time. Suitable for older children, but not newborns!

Poor you Nowtheres4. He really is a prize twat, if it's any consolation, and you are doing your best. TBH he has to agree to what you say, he sees the baby on your agreement and so he doesn't get to set the terms. I know you don't want to be confrontational about it and it's not likely to help but calmly stating your point is all you can do, and holding firm. How far is he from you? Can he come over every day/every other day?