Contact for baby

[annie07]

Hello, i've a one month old baby and the father of the baby (who was a one night stand) is wanting contact. I've no problem with this, but i just wanted to know how often people think - once a fortnight? I'm really worried about him being with the baby without me there and I wanted contact to take place at mine - what do others think? also the father is wanting the baby to stay over with him and I've said no to this as I don't think the baby should have an overnight stay with him till much much older - i was thinking not till baby at least 2 years old - what do others think about this? and has anyone been in a similar position? any advice and comments appreciated as very very worried and upset about it all

see your point too UCM. thanks.

The fact I have English law behind me doesn't seem to bother you lot. The child isn't named on the birth certificate. The parents arenm't married. Everyone does a paternity test. Why on earth not. It's bizarre to suggest otherwise. It's a one night stand case for goodness sake. IN 2 years time when this man's on £500k a year it might be fairly material who is the father never mind of just peace of mind for the child.

Also as the other sensible post on this thread said whatever mother thinks unless the father is going to damage the child (very rare) courts bend over backwards to ensure fathers have meaningful relationship with their children and by the way the fact the mother doesn't like the father is irrelevant. Tough. You'll have to learn to live with that over 18 years and beyond. You'll be at school events together and weddings. Need to work out a way of managing that now.

xenia just because the father is not named on the birth certificate and the parents aren't married will not automatically trigger a paternity test.
If there is no issue about paternity then Courts will assume that he is the father. It is only if one raises the issue (and this can happen even when father is on birth certificate or the parents are married) that paternity testing is undertaken in thses sorts of cases.

A baby born in marriage is presumed to be the child of the parents. If it isn't there is no such presumption. However I agree with you that it would in practice only be if the mother said - you can't see him he's not yours or the father said you won't get a penny from me it's not mine then it would then become an issue. Countless men have been hoodwinked for years however on these sorts of issues so it pays to test. Blunkett for example was able to get his married lover's child tested which turned out not to be her husband's but his. (Amusingly he introduced that law which allowed you to force paternity tests on people in those sorts of cases).

given what you have just posted why were you so quick to assume that "he needs a blod test to establish he is the father first" in your earlier post?? i thought perhaps you were ignorant but this is apparently not the case....

Why is the father not on the birth certificate? Is he helping you support the child?

I think if he couldn't be bothered to be supportive through the pregnancy I wouldn't feel too bothered about accommodating his every wish now. I would make efforts for the sake of peace, but I wouldn't get too fussed about his needs and I wouldn't put them before the baby's needs.

I think babies, even if they are bottle fed, are better off if they can bond with mum through the night. And bottle feeding is still a bonding activity.

Hi Annie

I have long since learned on mumsnet that many of the ladies are not interested in giving advice, they are much more interested in having a fight. Unfortunately because you have 'dared' to admit that your lovely baby is the product of a one night stand, you are unlikely to get sympathetic advice on here! A lot of the ladies have a 'holier than thou' attitude which means that they will only ever see you as some kind of brazen hussy who deserves all she gets!

For what it's worth I wouldn't dream of letting the father have the baby to stay overnight at this young age, whatever the circumstances. IF in time he can prove himself to be a good loving and caring father then maybe you would need to reconsider, but that time is a long way off.

Enjoy your baby - you are obviously a caring mummy!

Sandy

Hi Annie07, I can imagine how protective you must feel over your baby and what a dilema this must be for you. I felt nervous about my children staying with their father the first time they went & they were older and we'd been married!
I think that given how little your baby is at the moment, contact with you present is probably the best idea. If you don't want him in your house, do you have a friend or relative who would let you use a room in their house for a few hours. If the father is still keen to maintain contact as your little one gets older then he could extend the periods for days out & then an overnight.
Good luck to you. I hope you can work something out.

"even if he's awful to her that's no reason to deny a parent the right to a meaningful relationship with his child"

Actually, yes it is.

It is very very bad for a child to see his or her mother being abused. Witnessing abuse of your mother, teaches children to be abused and/ or abusive.

I can't see how anyone rational can argue that that teaching a child that abusiveness, manipulation, undermining and hostility is the norm for adult relationships, is in the best interests of a child. Yes I know it's the current fashion, but it's a bloody silly one imo.

Also if you are using your child as a trophy and solely in order to control the mother, I'd argue that that's not a "meaningful" relationship. It's an abusive one.

Don't know if that's the case fully in this instance (as Xenia says we've only got the OP's side of things) but if it is, then the OP is well within her rights to ensure that real boundaries are set down now, at this stage, so that the man involved is not given free rein to pursue a relationship with her child which isn't genuinely in that child's interests.

Have you thought of mediation, annie07? Is that a possiblility with this guy?

Just because adults behave appallingly to each other doesnt make either a bad parent

'Annies' partner may well feel that SHE behaved appallingly through the pregnancy and is now trying to prevent him seeing his child, just as she prevented him from involvement in the pregnancy (just a suposistion here)

My son's father has behaved terribly towards me, but never in the sight or earshot of his son and is a wonderful father. The fact that he doesnt love me does not detract from that and nor should it prevent him having a meaningful and loving relationship with his son. Its not about what I want its about what is best for my DS, and that is having his father around

I disagree. Adults who behave appallingly to each other in front of their children are behaving badly to their children.

Although I take your point that if you do it out of earshot and eyesight of the child, then you can probably just about get away with it. (Although I wouldn't underestimate kids' abilities to pick up vibes, but in the overall scheme of things unless it makes them really really unhappy it probably doesn't outweigh the need to have contact with both parents if possible.)

Why any grown up should actually want to pursue a policy of outright hostility to the parent of their child, however (except in cases where there has been outright abuse and the person pursuing that hostility is determined to protect their child from abuse) is utterly beyond me. After twenty years of the message being banged home that whatever you do, you must put the child's interests first, it's just extraordinary to still be hearing so many tales of grown up people being unable or unwilling to do that.

But maybe it's just mumsnet - I must keep telling myself that it gives a skewed picture of these things, because people who have a happy modus vivendi going re contact, relationships etc., don't need to post about it. Sometimes this place makes you feel that everyone is living in death, plague and destruction.

Yes but we all know in the real world you can achievve contact without contact between the parents. You just leave the child with the grandparent and then the other parent picks up from there etc. You have excatly the same times and dates each week and you have an email twice a year to fix Christmas and holiday times, both rigidly stick to them and then you don't nee parental contact between times. My ex never ever speaks to me and I don't see him when he picks up the boys but that doesn't mean I'd deny my sons a relationship with him. Any sensible mother knows children benefit from a relationship with their father. There;s nothing to argue about here - courts and most people know fathers have a right to see children - the father will get to see the child so it's best if they can agree it between themselves. A small baby who is bottle fed can probably be cared fine by a father particularly if he can ensure his mother or father who has experience is around for the first few times. Loads of men manage their babies whilst their wives do night shifts. It's hardly rocket science.

No Xenia, courts do not believe that fathers have the right to see children.

They believe that children have the right to see fathers. It may sound pedantic, but it's an important difference in emphasis, I think.

You may well have English Law 'behind you', and I very much respect that. I would hope that if I ever needed any advice you would respond to my request on here for it.

However, you seem to forget that this is not a court of law, it is a parenting website where people come for advice and support.

I dont think its much to ask of you to bear that in mind when posting in response to someone who a) has just had a baby and b) is clearly having a difficult time with this man c) is unclear about her rights as a parent d) you dont know the story on either side.

But, please do continue to impart your knowledge of Law - I'm sure it will help a great deal of lurkers as well as posters, for which we are all grateful

Annie, you seem very loving and rational and the fact that you have no problem allowing access to the father despite how he has been with you shows just how much you love your baby and want to put your baby's needs first.

I personally think once a week or once a fortnight, in a place that you feel comfortable with, and supervised, is a great start. Allow him to begin to bond with his baby, see how he is as a father and take it one step as a time. It's true that just because he's been bad to you, doesn't mean he can't be a good father. But at the same time you don't know him well enough and given how he's been so far you can't currently trust him. Take your time and keep going as you are - most of all enjoy your baby, you sound like a lovely mum to me xx

Hi Annie,
I've just read all these messages and felt that as someone who has been in the same situation as you I should respond. My daughter is just over a year old, her father was my ex-partner but we had split up before I found out I was pregnant. He then moved in with his new girlfriend and left me to get on with it. He sees his daughter once a week and every other weekend. He sees her for a few hours and wouldn't even dream of asking to have her overnight. He sees her in my house and I won't let him take her anywhere else. I respect his rights as a father and my daughter's rights to have a father but I am protective and cautious. An absent father who has never been involved with his child on a permanent basis is not the same as a father who has been around during pregnancy and the first few years of a child's life and then splits with the mother. The fathers of our children do not have that bond or experience to look after a baby away from its mother. The security and safety of my child are paramount. My ex-partner also wanted me to abort my baby, that resentment of her existance has never gone away.
You do not know this man well, you do not know the people he associates with, his living arrangements etc and to let your child go anywhere with this person because he is the father could put the child in danger. You are simply being protective and a mother.
I sympathise completely and know how hard it is to be dealing with all this when you are getting used to being a new mother. Follow your gut instinct, do whatever makes you feel happy, after all a happy mother makes a happy child. Your child needs you above anyone else. It will get easier and you will feel stronger with time. Just enjoy your baby, you will be so happy just the two of you.
As far as the law goes, courts etc take a long time to do anything, it costs lots of money and as long as the father is seeing the child you are doing what is required.

Annie - I agree with Clare totally.

I'm new to MN and dont agree with the 'fighting' i have seen on other threads BUT Xenia - what bloody planet are you on?? Any sensible mother knows children benefit from a relationship with their father!! Do you realise how insulting you sound?

Sorry ThisTime, maybe I am reading it differently, but how is that insulting. Any sensible mother DOES know that...

Caligula Agree parents who behave appallingly in front of their children ARE behaving badly to them. Thats why I and his father wont allow that to happen, and live in the same house and share meal times and bath times and every other part of his life with the exception of a marital bed.

Hmm I'd question that "in the real world you can acheive contact without contact with each other". Some people may be able to achieve that (if they live near enough to co-operative relatives / friends etc., and everyone turns up at the time they say they will), but in the RW, Xenia, surely if you are on such bad terms that you can't bear to have contact with each other, that quite often is going to mean that you are on too much of bad terms to co-operate properly to arrange contact at all.

Yes it can be achieved, but I personally would not like to do it because I think it would be teaching my children that it's acceptable and normal to be unable to co-operate with someone to such an extent that I couldn't be in the same space as them for five minutes. (I've had work colleagues I've felt that way about, btw, but not tolerating them wasn't an option.) What's it teaching kids about co-operation, negotiation, etc.? I know that sometimes it's the only option, and perhaps in many cases it's better than contact not happening at all, but it's a pretty sad state of affairs imo. I'm not criticising anyone who feels they have to do it this way, but I don't think we should pretend it's an easy, problem-free solution. Like everything in life, pat solutions are never as problem-free as they sound.

dreamteamgirl - sounds like you've got a truly sorted arrangement.

Cal, you're right about seeing the father being the child's right but in most cases rightly fathers get contact so people are really doing this woman a disservice if they suggest she can easily keep her child and the father from having a meaningful relationship just because she doesn't like him. Almost most studies ever done have shown children do better having a relationship with both parents even IF the parents don't get on so let's kill the suggestion otherwise on thie thread right away and let's help her to realise that she best helps her child by thinking of ways to involve this man and how she can ensure she gets on with him.

"Any sensible mother knows children benefit from a relationship with their father!! Do you realise how insulting you sound?" Mothers aren't Gods. Often they are not good with children, often they are good. The child who has a parent of both sexes in its life generally does better.

On contact my children's father hasn't spoken to me for about 3 years but we still manage to do a handover every weekend. now the boys can walk etc they go out to his car. I don't even need to see his face (it's his choice not to contact me) and that works fine. If you stick to the same routine and don't mess each other around - another thing both parents really need to make sure they take on board at an early stage, then it can be okay even if the parents really dislike each other. They can still love their child to bits of course and this man may really want to make a good go of fatherhood.

LOL at not even needing to see his face.

I don't mind seeing his face but he won't look at me if I have ever been out to the car. Presumably it's just too painful but one thing we have both been in 100% reliable. If we say a time and place we stick to it whatever that takes and many more parents ought to take that obligation much more seriously. There are some legal changes coming out which may help - I think instead of this threat to jail the parent who doesn't provide the children for the visit which is rarely exercised there will be community service orders including on those who don't perform either side of contact orders. That might be better. So that the motehr who repeatedly breaches the contact order could find herself litter picking for 20 hours. That might help make sure she gets little Johnny at the right place at the right time so he can see his father.

I wonder if the fathers who regularly turn up a couple of hours late will be picking up litter too.

Probably not.

I'd love to know if my xp would have to pick up litter because he's never bothered to visit his children. (Mind you, I suppose all he'd have to do is pretend I wouldn't let him and the court would believe him because as everyone knows, all mothers with c&c are twisted bitter harridans. They'd make me pick up the bloody litter. Which begs the question, how on earth are they going to police this? It's one person's word against another.)