Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Duncan Fisher: Stop ignoring fathers when babies are born

271 replies

Tom · 14/04/2008 09:53

The Independent. Monday, 14 April 2008

The only time that attention to fathers is really exercised is when a father is violent.

Consider the new mother who has just had a Caesarean. She needs help to pick up and settle the baby, on a ward where the midwives are overstretched. Or consider the new mother who cannot walk and whose baby is on the special care baby unit, two wards away. She needs the baby's father to help her speedily transfer expressed milk to the newborn ? but he has access only during "visiting hours".

In the NHS you are either a "patient" or a "visitor". And 30 years after it became normal for a father to attend baby's birth, there are still no formal NHS-wide standards for what he needs to know. Nor is there any formal guidance on how he can provide extra support to a mother who is sick or incapacitated after the birth.

Perhaps the ultimate expression of the "nanny state" is when a couple have just had a baby and ? at this heightened family experience ? the hospital says "now you have to part company ? dad, go home". Setting aside any opinions about the father's right to stay with his family, regularly excluding fathers from maternity services in this, and many other ways, has a detrimental effect on mothers and babies.

The NHS does not even have a system of formally registering who the father is, let alone formally assessing his own needs ? does he smoke? Does he know how to support breastfeeding? When my two children were born, my partner was asked only one question about me ? does he have any genetic abnormalities in his family? I was not even asked my name. And yet research shows that, when it comes to the health of mother and baby ? smoking, breastfeeding, depression ? I am the biggest influence. I am uniquely able to support her and my baby and I am uniquely able to screw them both up. Despite the enlightened work of countless midwives and birthing units who genuinely see that a birth is a family event that needs as light a touch as possible from professionals, the NHS continues to commission a system designed for the 1950s. Every maternity unit is filled with fathers ? well over 90 per cent are involved at some point before, during or after the birth. And yet, high-level policy debates in the NHS can continue for hours as if men simply did not exist.

The only time that attention to fathers is really exercised is when a father is violent. A focus on violence is absolutely right, but what if as much energy was expended on mobilising the positive support that the vast majority of fathers provide, or could provide, to mother and baby?

Firstly, fathers would be registered into maternity services and formally engaged with. The failure of a father to show up would result in an enquiry ? no compulsion, just an informed conversation with the mother about what she wants and what is best for baby when it comes to making sure the father is informed and positively engaged.

All health information would be routinely communicated to both parents ? breastfeeding, smoking, mental health, vaccinations. Mother-only provision should always be available but as special provision for special needs, not the default. And if the father is a source of problems, it is no good the NHS just walking away from it ? that won't stop him causing problems the moment the baby is back at home. Fathers in this situation should be treated exactly as mothers in the same situation: extra engagement, not less.

At the heart of the problem is still the cultural expectation that babies are mum's business only. As one young black father said to a government group on children's services recently: "It is too easy for young dads to walk away from their responsibilities."

What happens when a father does not engage? Absolutely nothing. The moral panic only sets in later when the same father fails to pay child support ? then suddenly he is reclassified from a "nobody" to a "feckless father". In the US, where they trialled a simple process of midwives talking to young fathers when they visited their partners, child support payments went up.

Things have to change. When a baby is born, fathers are as responsible for the little one as mothers are. At every point in the process, an expectation of his full involvement should be communicated to both parents.

And this new vision needs to extend far beyond maternity services. Employers still expect that only women, and not men, will compromise work for caring responsibilities. The Government has just introduced a system where fathers get two weeks and mothers get 52 weeks ? the biggest difference in leave entitlement of any country in the world. If we keep going backwards: fathers will be excluded more and mothers will pay a heavier price for being left alone on the high throne of motherhood.

The writer is the chief executive of the Fatherhood Institute.

OP posts:
SueBaroo · 15/04/2008 11:28

Thankyou, I'm sure it is

VeniVidiVickiQV · 15/04/2008 13:32

oh it's not for everyone MB, that's for sure.

It's something i'd like though, or certainly have the choice of.

dittany · 15/04/2008 15:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

OrmIrian · 15/04/2008 15:18

"but has to be done in a way that doesn't impose on other women" Well exactly. IME fathers tend to be there most of the time anyway. Great if you've all got private rooms but on a ward it can be intrusive. When my DD was born the woman next to me had her first baby and her DH was there all the time. They used to pull the curtain round the bed which meant that all the natural daylight was cut off from the rest of the ward, and they used to be so lovey-dovey (loudly) it was quite cringe-making.

Maybe I was lucky but I didn't really need DH's help. Good thing really as I rarely saw him second and third time round for more than an hour each day anyway. No provisions for other children is more of a problem IMO.

Tom · 15/04/2008 15:25

Dittany, I understand that you don't like what we do, but it's no excuse to tell fibs about me.

My profile on Dad Info does not say I have custody of my son, it says I raise him. If you absolutely must know, he lives with me 3 days a week and with his mother 4 days a week. That's all I'll say about it.

OP posts:
dittany · 15/04/2008 15:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Tom · 15/04/2008 15:39

They paid for some advertising on our dad cards.

OP posts:
Tom · 15/04/2008 15:42

... but then so did Childrens Mutual and the NSPCC.

OP posts:
dittany · 15/04/2008 15:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dittany · 15/04/2008 15:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TheDevilWearsPrimark · 15/04/2008 16:02

Don't you just hate t when you realise a topic you are really interested in has been hotly debated and you missed it.
And such have nothing more to contribute.

Tom · 15/04/2008 16:05

Your questions:

  1. Government funding is an issue for lots of people (perhaps yourself, even).
  2. No other money as far as I'm aware.
  3. I don't work for them, or do consultancy for them. I used to, but not anymore.
  4. I don't see us setting ourselves up as'grassroots' anywhere - please clarify what gives you this impression? We're an information service - a publisher, like mumsnet, or like FQ magazine. FI doesn't claim to represent dads, it bases it's work on research (their campaign is based on this research document by Adrienne Burgess, I think.
  5. F4J dislike us intently... most of them think we're part of a feminist consipracy.
OP posts:
AitchTwoOh · 15/04/2008 16:24

they've based their campaign on a literature review conducted b a member of the FI staff, it's not research. i've only skimmed it but i can't see anything that would support fathers being allowed to stay overnight on the wards. i did see that it acknowledges the increase in violence in abusive relationships, though, which seems contrary to say the least.

dittany · 15/04/2008 16:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ChairmumMiaow · 15/04/2008 17:25

I haven't read all the replies because they seem to be drifting off a bit, but I was glad for every bit of DH's involvement:

  • during pregnancy he came to as many ante natal appointments as he could. This was great for me as my memory was rubbish. He also knew what was going on at each stage. Also, the first time he heard the heartbeat was the first time he felt a real connection to our baby (after all, DS wasn't growing inside him) - why should he be denied that?
  • we both went to ante natal classes which really helped. Although they were very labour focussed, we were both prepared and he knew what was happening when the midwives talked about the various things they were doing to me. These were NCT ones, I don't know what the NHS provided ones were like.
  • I would have loved DH to be able to stay with me overnight. DS was failing to feed properly and I found it very hard overnight, even with the midwives helping me express and feed him colostrum with a syringe. I got through it but my DH is my partner, my best friend, my support - if he'd been there everything would have been easier!
  • We struggled with breastfeeding and first and if DH hadn't been as determined to keep going as I was, I might have been able to talk myself into thinking that something was actually wrong (i.e. insufficient milk) and started on the slippery slope to giving up. He didn't have any more information than me, but unlike some dads (and we see plenty of evidence of this on the breast and bottle feeding boards) he knew that I could be feeding for a long time and didn't expect anything else of me, even after the first couple of weeks. He was supportive when I started reading everything I could get my hands on about breastfeeding, and listens to me explaining stuff so he knows what's going on.

I am very lucky to have such a supportive DH, but I can't help thinking that more could be like that with more information and opportunity to get involved. I know we're the ones giving birth, and breastfeeding etc, but these babies have two parents, and I do believe that the fathers have a right to stay with their precious newborns rather than being kicked out if they happen to have the bad luck to have their baby born outside visiting hours. DH and I got to spend a good few hours with DS before he had to go - if he hadn't been around I would really have been panicing!

I completely understand the issues about potential domestic violence, and about lack of resources, but I think it can't be too bad to encourage men to be involved in ante natal appointments, so long as there is provision for a private appointment giving those women who don't have such great partners a chance to talk.

I guess while I don't necessarily agree with the tone of the OP, I do agree that men have as much right to be involved as their partners - they can't help it if they are unable to carry their child or breastfeed - I'm sure there are times when my DH would have taken over the burden of being pregnant for me if he could!

Monkeytrousers · 15/04/2008 19:42

There is nothing wrong per se in having an agenda - you'd be daft not to have one.

It certainly doesn't seem to be anything like a f4j endeavour and/so hopefully, a bit of scepticism and hard questioning will be welcome - that's how things improve, isn;t it?

But I don't think we need to let paranoia lead us - scepticism yes, but not paranoia.

I haven't had time to read through the report yet

Countingthegreyhairs · 15/04/2008 20:00

Great post ChairmumMiaow

  • couldn't agree more!
charitygirl · 16/04/2008 12:26

I shouldn't jump in but I have to...receiving government funding does NOT mean that you are NOT a 'grass-roots initiative' or that you a 'front' organisation for the givt..

As you must surely know, dittany, hundreds of charities, for example, receive government funding. In fact, despite the huge amount of money the public donate to charity, the majority of charity funding comes from national or local government. These charities, including the one I work for, and including, for example, the Fatherhood Institute, are still entirely independent of government.

And, on an unrelated note, the Fatherhood Institute is DEFINITELY not 'a fathers' rights (spit!) organisation!

Peachy · 17/04/2008 10:50

agree with chairitygirl- at homestart we got funding from social se5rvices and surestart but were very much independent. its just the funders know that by giving charity x some cash they can significantkly cut their own workload (iirc £8 ss gave us was worth about £80 in saved cost to them)

Pinkjenny · 17/04/2008 15:03

My daughter had dislocated hips at birth and the doctor (wrongly and irresponsibly) informed me that he wasn't sure if she'd be able to walk.

I was told this the morning after she was born, before dh was 'allowed' in. To have had him with me during and whilst I processed the news (albeit not awful, but it felt it at the time) would have made so much difference.

I often wonder how mums who get desperately bad news about their children and have to deal with it alone cope.

BTW - hips are fine now.

cyberseraphim · 18/04/2008 10:18

I think dads should be involved but I don't think that hospitals should ask intrusive personal questions about the father's health or attitudes to baby care - that is a private matter for the family and is no business of the state.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread