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

[FrangipaniDeLaSqueegeeMop]

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

This reads as if the 'right' to be present at the birth of his child is more important than the woman's right not to be contacted by him. Surely his behaviour means that he should forgo the right to be present at the birth?

It isn't true, I work in the NHS and I'd haul him out if she didn't want him there. I've already done two safeguardings this week to protect women from men they didn't want at their appointments and got security to take them out of the hospital when the women involved said they didn't want them there.
Women do have rights, a man cannot be court ordered to be there at the birth unless the woman specifically says she wants him there.

It is not enforcing his "right" to be there. Of course it is up to the woman who she has or hasn't there. It's saying that he won't be breaching the order if he is there.

@nettie434

This reads as if the 'right' to be present at the birth of his child is more important than the woman's right not to be contacted by him. Surely his behaviour means that he should forgo the right to be present at the birth?

No one has a right to be in attendance at a birth. That isn't what it's saying at all.

Thanks for clarifying, Shehasadiamondinthesky KimikosNightmare. You've explained it more clearly than the article.

Sounds as though there is detail missing. How can the court even prove the child is his?
She would still have the right to get distressed about his presence and have the medical staff kick him out, or just not tell him she is in labour

I’m wondering if this is a situation where the restraining order came about without the pregnant partner’s cooperation or under duress (ie social services) and the pregnant woman wants him to be there but he couldn’t under the terms of the court order.

Seen lots of women go back to men who hurt them so could well imagine this.

The idea of having someone unwanted witnessing my labour is horrifying, but quite apart from that, how does it work, that he is going to attend the birth, maybe at the woman's instigation and then what? Does she lose custody of the child because she doesn't stay away from him after the birth?

@Coyoacan

The idea of having someone unwanted witnessing my labour is horrifying, but quite apart from that, how does it work, that he is going to attend the birth, maybe at the woman's instigation and then what? Does she lose custody of the child because she doesn't stay away from him after the birth?

He is only going to be there if she wants him. The point of this is that he was banned from being near there- even if she had wanted him to be there.

So far as losing custody of the child- possibly if she is putting the child in danger by allowing him access.