Dads rights: naming, circing, etc?

[MyLovely]

Originally Posted by Mom2Connor Personally speaking, I was only wondering about the legal side of it. I think most of society would agree that education on circing should make the decision, and a name that both like should be sought out. I certainly don't mind people talking about the moral side of it.

In that case, I think that legal rights generally go towards the mother. Default may give dad some, but if she puts up a stink, I'm fairly certain his go out the window. For instance, if she says "I don't want him in this hospital", I don't think that the husband can overrule that and just be in there with her anyhow. If she chooses not to list him on the birth certificate, I believe he wouldn't have any legal rights in terms of circumcising, names, etc.

[Docs Wife]

My husband just reminded me that he was the one that filled out and signed the BC for our DD. So at least where DD was born either parent could fill out the BC info.

[Teddyandnick]

My husband filled out all the paperwork for our boys. I had to have an emergency c section with DS1 and he couldn't sign my papers. I think because we were married he automatically had equal rights to the boys. I was mad they let him fill out the birth certificate info though. He has horrible handwriting and his spelling sucks (including his formal name) and DS1 is the 4th, so I was convinced we were going to get a birth certificate with his name horribly misspelled. I don't remember ever getting any circ papers, so DH must have done those.

[ulawolf]

Originally Posted by Teddyandnick My husband filled out all the paperwork for our boys. I had to have an emergency c section with DS1 and he couldn't sign my papers. I think because we were married he automatically had equal rights to the boys. I was mad they let him fill out the birth certificate info though. He has horrible handwriting and his spelling sucks (including his formal name) and DS1 is the 4th, so I was convinced we were going to get a birth certificate with his name horribly misspelled. I don't remember ever getting any circ papers, so DH must have done those.

Totally true. My sons name was supposed to be zechariah and my xdh put zack eriah. Lol. legally speaking in mi even if the mom wanted to kick the dad out from seeing the baby the dad could demand his rights. There is no leaning towards one parent or another. My nephews lawyer was able to argue before baby was born that he get 30 min of time every day that the baby was in hospital. Hee also had visitation set up from day one. She told the court she was nursing and they gave him 1 hour every other day. When he went back to friend of the court two weeks later and told them she was bottle feeding he got two over nights a week. Now at a year, he gets 3 days on and 4 days off.

and that is because they were married and going through a divorce.

[Kiliki]

Pretty sure all the legal stuff is mostly in favor of the mother having the rights for this. (in most states, I would guess)

Sadly, there are now so many babies born without Daddies present in their lives, that it only makes sense from a legal standpoint to give mothers the full rights to these things, unhindered from the father's feelings.

Can you imagine the debacle that would arise in a situation where a mother is pregnant, without the father present, has the baby, then finds the father, and the father wants to change the baby's name, circ the baby, give the baby his last name, etc? It would be a legal catastrophe.

I think for that reason, probably above any other reasons, mothers typically have the greatest (maybe even the ONLY) say-so in most matters revolving around childbirth/newborn stuff.

[PoshPants]

Originally Posted by ulawolf Totally true. My sons name was supposed to be zechariah and my xdh put zack eriah. Lol. legally speaking in mi even if the mom wanted to kick the dad out from seeing the baby the dad could demand his rights. There is no leaning towards one parent or another. My nephews lawyer was able to argue before baby was born that he get 30 min of time every day that the baby was in hospital. Hee also had visitation set up from day one. She told the court she was nursing and they gave him 1 hour every other day. When he went back to friend of the court two weeks later and told them she was bottle feeding he got two over nights a week. Now at a year, he gets 3 days on and 4 days off. and that is because they were married and going through a divorce.

that is so sad for the baby who couldn't possibly have understood why he was remove from his mum all the time

[EmilytheStrange]

Originally Posted by PoshPants that is so sad for the baby who couldn't possibly have understood why he was remove from his mum all the time

I tend to disagree.

I think the situation is sad, yes. Ideally, the parents would be together and the child would not have to spend half time here and half time there.

but, alternatively, the baby also wouldn't have understood why he was removed from his father all the time. If both parents care equally for the child and give the child all the love and attention that the child needs while the child is in their care, then both parents do deserve to be...... parents.

If they were married/together, no one would fault the mom for leaving the baby with daddy for 3 hours a day or whatever. They would say that the mom was giving dad the opportunity to bond with their child. This is court-approved bonding for both parents, but it's essentially the same thing.

assuming not breastfeeding, anyways.

[PoshPants]

Originally Posted by EmilytheStrange I tend to disagree. I think the situation is sad, yes. Ideally, the parents would be together and the child would not have to spend half time here and half time there. but, alternatively, the baby also wouldn't have understood why he was removed from his father all the time. If both parents care equally for the child and give the child all the love and attention that the child needs while the child is in their care, then both parents do deserve to be...... parents. If they were married/together, no one would fault the mom for leaving the baby with daddy for 3 hours a day or whatever. They would say that the mom was giving dad the opportunity to bond with their child. This is court-approved bonding for both parents, but it's essentially the same thing. assuming not breastfeeding, anyways.

3 days off and on between parents for a baby? the baby has no sense of time, and must wonder where mum is, maybe dad too but newborns generally are more attached their mother

[KaleidoscopeEyes]

i agree to come to compromise on a name. if i started dating a man circ would come up very early. if he was adamant on circ i would not continue dating him. IMO the one that doesnt want to perform cosmetic surgery on their children get to win that argument.

all my children have my last name (dd's are from dh and boys are from x) thankfully dh is fine with that. i wanted them all to have the same last name.

[EmilytheStrange]

Originally Posted by PoshPants 3 days off and on between parents for a baby? the baby has no sense of time, and must wonder where mum is, maybe dad too but newborns generally are more attached their mother

I think it's true that newborns are generally more attached to the mother. The mother is generally the primary caregiver.

but that doesn't mean that dad shouldn't have the chance to spend quality alone time with their kid.

It is a sad situation.. it truly is. but IMHO, the child shouldn't be withheld from a parent that truly cares for them. If the parent was just taking the kid to be spiteful, then that's not the same. But, if the father is holding the baby and nurturing the baby the same way the mother is, then well...