Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: chat

Feminism: sex and gender

Original poster

Man handed a restraining order for his ex-partner, but is allowed to be there when she gives birth

34 replies

FrangipaniDeLaSqueegeeMop · 15/08/2021 19:18

I'm furious and horrified about this.

A man has been handed a Domestic Violence Protection Order against his ex after subjecting her to violence - he can't be within 100 metres of her or contact her...but magistrates have ruled that he can be present at the birth of their child.

So when a woman is vulnerable, in excruciating pain and naked she has to have the man who abused her standing there. That's his legal right.

I'm absolutely fuming and wondering what can be done.

I just hope the midwives refuse to let him be there - that's if the victim has the confidence to speak out against him. We all know how perpetrators yield their power and intimidate their victims, rendering them afraid to speak up.

www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/19513453.carlisle-mans-partner-ban---except-babys-birth/?fbclid=IwAR3M1NKqeVoBaNk9hS0Iksfs0abEJ8MyMqCX7bFb51RRIC0O52ps5HUuWRM

OP posts:
Topofthepopicles · 15/08/2021 19:21

Jesus!! Surely this can’t be true. Horrifying situation. Horrifying precedence. I hope the magistrate is getting some retraining and it’s going to be speedily overturned on appeal.

TooWicked · 15/08/2021 19:21

This is disgusting.

I hope she doesn’t tell him when she goes into labour, and only lets him know after the baby is born.

alphabetllama · 15/08/2021 19:22

This is just horrifying

BrilloPaddy · 15/08/2021 19:23

Jesus wept, that poor woman.

It's all about him, isn't it Sad

BadgertheBodger · 15/08/2021 19:24

The worse bit about this is that it confers some sort of “right” for the father to be present at the birth. It should be entirely down to the mother who she has in the room, and abusive bastards shouldn’t even be given consideration

CharlotteRose90 · 15/08/2021 19:24

Fuck me I hope it’s not true. It’s not his legal right at all and if it was me I’d be moving to a different hospital and not telling him.

WhatwouldLangdo · 15/08/2021 19:26

I am livid for the female sex and heartbroken for this woman. How dare they force her to be anywhere near her abuser let alone during such a difficult and vulnerable time.
THIS is what we mean by women losing their rights to the demands of men.

Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons · 15/08/2021 19:28

WTF!!
Surely she still has to consent to have him there? HCPs shouldn't be forced into this position never mind this poor woman.

Is it possible that she has opposed the DVPO & the judge was adhering to her wishes to have him there? (Clutching at straws)

Theunamedcat · 15/08/2021 19:28

In the birthing suite or in the hospital waiting area? Because in the birthing suite is at the medical professional discretion my then husband was surprised to find from the midwife that she would have him removed should he be deemed obstructive or distracting

Mumteedum · 15/08/2021 19:28

Jesus.... A man does not have a right to be present at a woman's medical appointments or at the birth. How can a court order that? I'm horrified

ShallWeStartTheMeeting · 15/08/2021 19:28

No way can that be true!

Surely any woman is allowed to decide who will or won't be her birth partner????

That is utterly horrendous.

LynetteScavo · 15/08/2021 19:30

The police have applied for the protection order, not the woman. It seems like the woman for some reason is not protecting herself and is happy to have the man at the birth.

Original poster
FrangipaniDeLaSqueegeeMop · 15/08/2021 19:31

@LynetteScavo

The police have applied for the protection order, not the woman. It seems like the woman for some reason is not protecting herself and is happy to have the man at the birth.
Even if this is true, magistrates should accept that DV victims feel the fear to be compliant even when they're no longer with their partner and not allowed it. There should have been no variations to the DVPO
OP posts:
Mumteedum · 15/08/2021 19:31

@LynetteScavo

The police have applied for the protection order, not the woman. It seems like the woman for some reason is not protecting herself and is happy to have the man at the birth.
God...poor woman being controlled more like Sad
NaturalStudy · 15/08/2021 19:32

Hopefully the midwives are aware of the situation and he gets the appropriate treatment at the hospital. If it were me my labour would cause me to forget to inform him until after the birth.

IveGotASongThatllGetOnYNerves · 15/08/2021 19:32

That is disgusting. Forced to prioritise her abuser at her most vulnerable time. What if her understandable distress and fear leads to complications during labour. Not to mention triggering pnd. This is a seriously fucked up order and I hope there's some way she can appeal it or ignore it.

FreakinFrankNFurter · 15/08/2021 19:36

I dont read at all that this gives him a right to be at the birth irrespective of his ex's views, only that the order prevents him from being near her except in certain circumstances which includes the birth of his child.

If the woman doesn't want him there then the hospital staff won't allow it, the same as in any other circumstances

MissBPotter · 15/08/2021 19:48

That’s absolutely disgusting and I can’t see how it can be legal either. Especially since they aren’t married. Also ‘emergency appointments’! Terrible exploitation of a vulnerable woman.

CourgetteGlutTony · 15/08/2021 19:55

She isn’t being “forced” to have him at the birth. She isn’t compelled to tell him she is in labour or that she is going to the hospital. She can tell the midwife to refuse to let him enter.
The order merely permits him to be there if that is what she chooses. We don’t know what she wants and we certainly don’t know that she is being coerced into accepting this.

EarthSight · 16/08/2021 13:26

@CourgetteGlutTony

She isn’t being “forced” to have him at the birth. She isn’t compelled to tell him she is in labour or that she is going to the hospital. She can tell the midwife to refuse to let him enter. The order merely permits him to be there if that is what she chooses. We don’t know what she wants and we certainly don’t know that she is being coerced into accepting this.
@CourgetteGlutTony This.

This story could be click-bait. There's missing information here.

TheLovleyChebbyMcGee · 16/08/2021 13:34

I agree, I sounds more like he can be rather than he must be there. It always comes down to the womans choice.

However, given that PP's have pointed out its the police that have got the order in place, then maybe she hadn't been making good choices for herself and her unborn baby. Hopefully she sees soon enough what a piece of shit he seems to be!!

Original poster
FrangipaniDeLaSqueegeeMop · 16/08/2021 16:11

It's not clickbait, it's a reputable local news site.

The fact that the victim could easily swerve him being at the birth is absolutely not the point. It's that she's protected but not when it comes to being in Labour, she isn't important enough then. He is free then to go to the maternity unit and nothing can be done, unlike every other day the DVPO is in place. The message this sends to victims, including this victim, is terrifying.

No doubt he will fight for custody as a method of fear and control against his victim as abusers with children often do.

OP posts:
Blendabrethin · 16/08/2021 16:18

I think we may all have the wrong wnd of the stick here. The article says he 'can' be at the birth but doesn't say tjat this would happen against the mother's wishes.

I'm guessing the original order wasn't put in place by the pregnant partner and she wants him at the birth? Anything else would be horrific obviously; the coury can't just decide that someone can view another adults medical treatment against their wishes 😐 we all have the right to privacy.

MarieIVanArkleStinks · 16/08/2021 22:01

WTF have I just read?

Attitudes to woman have undergone a horrific about-face since the turn of the so-called progressive 21st century. We are neck-deep in Gilead.

MarieIVanArkleStinks · 16/08/2021 22:03

Oh, I see. It's a temporary exemption from a non-molestation order. A different thing, but I still happen to think it's ill-advised.