Access for a 15 week old

leanonme

Hope some one can help. My friend has a 15 week old baby. She is not with the baby's father, and they are not geting on well at the minuite and arranging access is becoming a battle.

Currently he keeps changing the days, times and is demanding she either brings the child to his house or collects it from his house, and provide the food, napped cloths etc for these visits, as he believes his 50 maintainance is providing half of the child's needs. He is also stating he wants to have over nights, and have the child three days a week and possibly the weekend.

She wants to come up with a more formal agreement but is not sure of how to go about this, and is not sure of what the norm is.

Who should she speak to about creating an agreement between them.

Also how much access is considered the norm.

tinkerbell

She needs to get legal advice. The notion that a 15 week old infant should be separated from their mother for multiple nights every week is feckin ridiculous. No judge would agree to that.

December2012

tinkerbell wrote: »

The notion that a 15 week old infant should be separated from their mother for multiple nights every week is feckin ridiculous. No judge would agree to that.

What's wrong with it? Unless the baby is being exclusively breastfed the father can do all the things the mother can do.

lazygal

December2012 wrote: »

What's wrong with it? Unless the baby is being exclusively breastfed the father can do all the things the mother can do.

It is simple biology. My children settled with me and needed me more than my husband until they started sleeping through the night. Babies don't understand spending nights here and there, they need security and stability, and if the mother is the primary carer that's what baby needs. Court orders and dividing time might suit adults but not 15 week old babies who are still getting used to the world.

rainemac

December2012 wrote: »

What's wrong with it? Unless the baby is being exclusively breastfed the father can do all the things the mother can do.

Hate when ppl say this, there is a instinctual bond between mother and child and they need eachother, a baby so young should not be away from its mother overnight especially for days at a time unless one or the other is medically unable to be there for the other but this does lasting emotional damage to a child.

runawaybishop

rainemac wrote: »

Hate when ppl say this, there is a instinctual bond between mother and child and they need eachother, a baby so young should not be away from its mother overnight especially for days at a time unless one or the other is medically unable to be there for the other but this does lasting emotional damage to a child.

Is there no bond between a father and child then?

lazygal

runawaybishop wrote: »

Is there no bond between a father and child then?

Of course there is. But a 15 week old baby needs to be in a secure consistent environment with his or her mother and bonding should be done around the needs of the child not the wishes of parents. No 15 week old would benefit from spending nights away from hir or her mother, regardless of the wishes of the adults to divide up the time. Bonding can take place without overnight stays away from a mother. No waywould either have mine coped with being away from me for a few days and nights at 15 weeks.

rainemac

runawaybishop wrote: »

Is there no bond between a father and child then?

Obviously there is but I am reading a book called "Primal Wound, Nancy Newton Verrier" which talks about the wound caused to the child by the separation of the child from the biological mother as a baby/young child. It talks in the context of children put up for adoption but also includes babies that spent time in an incubator away from their mother. The theory being that the bond with the mother is 9 months old by the time the mother gives birth. The book discusses the life long consequences the separation can have for the child. So why damage a child when there is no need, day visits with the father until the baby is a bit older perhaps 7/8 months or more even. I think separated should find a way to be in each others company when a baby is that young however I realise this is not always possible.
I did not fully take Nancy's theory on board until I recently read stories about adoptees, who said they had no desire to find their biological father but always felt a connection with their biological mother and had a desire to find her as soon as they were old enough to get the information.

rainemac

runawaybishop wrote: »

Is there no bond between a father and child then?

Obviously there is but I am reading a book called "Primal Wound, Nancy Newton Verrier" which talks about the wound caused to the child by the separation of the child from the biological mother as a baby/young child. It talks in the context of children put up for adoption but also includes babies that spent time in an incubator away from their mother. The theory being that the bond with the mother is 9 months old by the time the mother gives birth. The book discusses the life long consequences the separation can have for the child. So why damage a child when there is no need, day visits with the father until the baby is a bit older perhaps 7/8 months or more even. I think separated parents should find a way to be in each others company when a baby is that young however I realise this is not always possible.
I did not fully take Nancy's theory on board until I recently read stories about adoptees, who said they had no desire to find their biological father but always felt a connection with their biological mother and had a desire to find her as soon as they were old enough to get the information.

rainemac

sorry for the double post!

runawaybishop

lazygal wrote: »

Of course there is. But a 15 week old baby needs to be in a secure consistent environment with his or her mother and bonding should be done around the needs of the child not the wishes of parents. No 15 week old would benefit from spending nights away from hir or her mother, regardless of the wishes of the adults to divide up the time. Bonding can take place without overnight stays away from a mother. No waywould either have mine coped with being away from me for a few days and nights at 15 weeks.

You are completely ignoring the need for the child to bond with his father. If the child can bond with the father as you say without overnight stays then clearly they can bond with the mother in the same circumstances.

runawaybishop

rainemac wrote: »

Obviously there is but I am reading a book called "Primal Wound, Nancy Newton Verrier" which talks about the wound caused to the child by the separation of the child from the biological mother as a baby/young child. It talks in the context of children put up for adoption but also includes babies that spent time in an incubator away from their mother. The theory being that the bond with the mother is 9 months old by the time the mother gives birth. The book discusses the life long consequences the separation can have for the child. So why damage a child when there is no need, day visits with the father until the baby is a bit older perhaps 7/8 months or more even. I think separated should find a way to be in each others company when a baby is that young however I realise this is not always possible.
I did not fully take Nancy's theory on board until I recently read stories about adoptees, who said they had no desire to find their biological father but always felt a connection with their biological mother and had a desire to find her as soon as they were old enough to get the information.

Primal wound is widely debunked. Whether it is or not the father should also be allowed equal time to bond with the child, no?

tinkerbell

runawaybishop wrote: »

You are completely ignoring the need for the child to bond with his father. If the child can bond with the father as you say without overnight stays then clearly they can bond with the mother in the same circumstances.

No. You're completely ignoring the needs of the BABY. At that age, the baby first and foremost needs their mother, their primary care giver, the person that they feel most secure with. It is a completely different relationship between baby and mother vs baby and father. They don't call it the fourth trimester for nothing, you know. The baby OP is referring to is not even 4 months old yet! Wanting to separate a newborn from their mother for overnights and extended periods of time just because he wants to do so is completely selfish. The best thing for baby is that baby gets to know the father regularly but not kept away from mammy for long amounts of time and not overnight when baby is so young - that'll only distress baby. Plenty of time for overnights etc when the child is older.

Anyway, it does sound like the ex is a selfish muppet anyway given that he keeps changing days / times, etc and is making unreasonable demands - he clearly has no consideration for baby, just himself.

sillysmiles

leanonme wrote: »

Currently he keeps changing the days, times and is demanding she either brings the child to his house or collects it from his house, and provide the food, napped cloths etc for these visits, as he believes his 50 maintainance is providing half of the child's needs. He is also stating he wants to have over nights, and have the child three days a week and possibly the weekend.

When he started demanding anything, instead of talking about what worked best for the baby was when he started loosing my sympathy.
I think it must be really tough for separated dads, but surely he should have enough intelligence to realise that he will get more time and access to his child by working with not against the mother.

runawaybishop

tinkerbell wrote: »

No. You're completely ignoring the needs of the BABY. At that age, the baby first and foremost needs their mother, their primary care giver, the person that they feel most secure with. It is a completely different relationship between baby and mother vs baby and father. They don't call it the fourth trimester for nothing, you know. The baby OP is referring to is not even 4 months old yet! Wanting to separate a newborn from their mother for overnights and extended periods of time just because he wants to do so is completely selfish. The best thing for baby is that baby gets to know the father regularly but not kept away from mammy for long amounts of time and not overnight when baby is so young - that'll only distress baby. Plenty of time for overnights etc when the child is older.

Anyway, it does sound like the ex is a selfish muppet anyway given that he keeps changing days / times, etc and is making unreasonable demands - he clearly has no consideration for baby, just himself.

Don't disagree with you about the ex tbh. Does the baby have no need to form a bond with the father in general?

lazygal

runawaybishop wrote: »

You are completely ignoring the need for the child to bond with his father. If the child can bond with the father as you say without overnight stays then clearly they can bond with the mother in the same circumstances.

Have you been around a 15 week old baby? They want their mum. They don't care what access arrangements others want to put in place, they want and need their mum. My babies were under no circumstances ready to spend a night away from me at 15 weeks. The most I got away with was an hour to get my nails done, and more often than not I'd arrive home to a baby screaming for mammy. It's not about what the father wants, it is about what is best for the baby. The needs of the baby for a secure, consistent home environment are the top priority for the baby right now. Access, especially overnight stays several times a week, are far lower down the list, regardless of what others might want.
You are completely ignoring the fact that the baby is still getting used to the world and doesn't give a damn what access his or her father thinks is appropriate. The baby is the most important consideration here, not what the father wants.

runawaybishop

lazygal wrote: »

Have you been around a 15 week old baby? They want their mum. They don't care what access arrangements others want to put in place, they want and need their mum. My babies were under no circumstances ready to spend a night away from me at 15 weeks. The most I got away with was an hour to get my nails done, and more often than not I'd arrive home to a baby screaming for mammy. It's not about what the father wants, it is about what is best for the baby. The needs of the baby for a secure, consistent home environment are the top priority for the baby right now. Access, especially overnight stays several times a week, are far lower down the list, regardless of what others might want.
You are completely ignoring the fact that the baby is still getting used to the world and doesn't give a damn what access his or her father thinks is appropriate. The baby is the most important consideration here, not what the father wants.

I agree that the baby is the important part, i am asking you directly is the bond between a father and baby not as important as the bond between a mother and baby?

lazygal

runawaybishop wrote: »

Don't disagree with you about the ex tbh. Does the baby have no need to form a bond with the father in general?

Of course a baby needs to bond. But there are other ways of doing this besides subjecting a 15 week old to regular overnight stays away from its mother with a man which is, to all intents and purposes, a complete stranger. The father might want the baby overnight, but a 15 week old shouldn't be forced to be separated from his or her mother because of what an adult wants.

eviltwin

15 weeks is coming up to 4 months...I can understand a newborn but 4 months is old enough to spend some time with the father. I wonder how much of this is about control. Its great the father wants to be involved so actively, that should be encouraged imo.

lazygal

runawaybishop wrote: »

I agree that the baby is the important part, i am asking you directly is the bond between a father and baby not as important as the bond between a mother and baby?

I am not saying one is more important than the other. I am saying that, having had two 15 week old babies, they need their mum. It's not about me saying my bond with them is more important than their bond with my husband, it is a fact. They settled quicker for me, at night time they wanted me and they need the closeness and smell of their mother.
Please don't turn this into a suggestion that I or anyone else said fathers' bond isn't important. It is, but it can be accomplished in a different way than forcing a 15 week old to spend large amounts of time away from their mother.

runawaybishop

lazygal wrote: »

Of course a baby needs to bond. But there are other ways of doing this besides subjecting a 15 week old to regular overnight stays away from its mother with a man which is, to all intents and purposes, a complete stranger. The father might want the baby overnight, but a 15 week old shouldn't be forced to be separated from his or her mother because of what an adult wants.

If the father is a stranger is not allowing enough access going to change that somehow? Why shoudl a baby be forced to be separated from the other parent?

eviltwin

lazygal wrote: »

Of course a baby needs to bond. But there are other ways of doing this besides subjecting a 15 week old to regular overnight stays away from its mother with a man which is, to all intents and purposes, a complete stranger. The father might want the baby overnight, but a 15 week old shouldn't be forced to be separated from his or her mother because of what an adult wants.

At what age would you say its okay for a child to start having overnights?

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

15 weeks is coming up to 4 months...I can understand a newborn but 4 months is old enough to spend some time with the father. I wonder how much of this is about control. Its great the father wants to be involved so actively, that should be encouraged imo.

I agree to a point, but my younger child was extremely clingy and it was at least six months before I could leave him with someone when he was awake. Otherwise I waited until he was napping or sleeping at night to go out and get a babysitter. You can't force a baby to leave his or her mother just because an adult wants access.

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

At what age would you say its okay for a child to start having overnights?

Mine are 2.5 and 15 months and I haven't left them overnight with anyone, apart from when I was in hospital having my second. I haven't needed to leave them with anyone though.
It's all very well for adults to arrange access and overnights, but that isn't always in the best interests of the child. For various reasons I had to be left with relatives when I was quite young and I still remember feeling abandoned.

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

Have you been around a 15 week old baby? They want their mum. They don't care what access arrangements others want to put in place, they want and need their mum. My babies were under no circumstances ready to spend a night away from me at 15 weeks. The most I got away with was an hour to get my nails done, and more often than not I'd arrive home to a baby screaming for mammy. It's not about what the father wants, it is about what is best for the baby. The needs of the baby for a secure, consistent home environment are the top priority for the baby right now. Access, especially overnight stays several times a week, are far lower down the list, regardless of what others might want.
You are completely ignoring the fact that the baby is still getting used to the world and doesn't give a damn what access his or her father thinks is appropriate. The baby is the most important consideration here, not what the father wants.

How do you know they "want their mum" - did you ask them? How do you know they don't "want their dad"??

lazygal

runawaybishop wrote: »

If the father is a stranger is not allowing enough access going to change that somehow? Why shoudl a baby be forced to be separated from the other parent?

Access is not always overnight. There could be daytime visits, an hour or so when the dad can bond, or the dad (if possible, I don't know the circumstances) could stay overnight in the mother's house. There's other ways of bonding with a baby than separating from the mother completely.

eviltwin

lazygal wrote: »

I agree to a point, but my younger child was extremely clingy and it was at least six months before I could leave him with someone when he was awake. Otherwise I waited until he was napping or sleeping at night to go out and get a babysitter. You can't force a baby to leave his or her mother just because an adult wants access.

I'd agree it depends on the child. I went back to college when my daughter was a few weeks old and she was cared for by my boyfriend and his mother from early morning until evening three days a week. It didn't cause any issues either long term or short term. I know some kids would be different but then its not going to get any easier keeping the dad and child apart. I would see it as a chance for me to have some time to myself, a night to catch up on sleep, see friends or do my own thing. I've known single mums whose parents did this once a week when their babies were young and it worked out pretty well.

runawaybishop

lazygal wrote: »

I am not saying one is more important than the other. I am saying that, having had two 15 week old babies, they need their mum. It's not about me saying my bond with them is more important than their bond with my husband, it is a fact. They settled quicker for me, at night time they wanted me and they need the closeness and smell of their mother.
Please don't turn this into a suggestion that I or anyone else said fathers' bond isn't important. It is, but it can be accomplished in a different way than forcing a 15 week old to spend large amounts of time away from their mother.

I have also had 2 kids, does that make us equal or could it be that it doesn't matter how many kids either of us have had? Should we both shut up and take the advice of someone with 12 kids? I didn't realise that if someone has less kids than someone else their opinion is lesser.

Anyway, what way would you suggest that doesn't involved the child being forced to spend large amounts of time away from the father?

It very much looks to me that you are suggesting the bond between father and child is far less important than the bond between mother and child. Both are should be equally important for the childs well being.

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

Of course a baby needs to bond. But there are other ways of doing this besides subjecting a 15 week old to regular overnight stays away from its mother with a man which is, to all intents and purposes, a complete stranger. The father might want the baby overnight, but a 15 week old shouldn't be forced to be separated from his or her mother because of what an adult wants.

lazygal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

How do you know they "want their mum" - did you ask them? How do you know they don't "want their dad"??

Because they were struggling out of dad's arms and reaching for me. Because I was breastfeeding and they needed to comfort suck. Because my husband knew they wanted me.
How many 15 week olds have you cared for? Do you know how they react when mum leaves the room? Or when they are in an unfamiliar environment without their mum?

runawaybishop

lazygal wrote: »

Access is not always overnight. There could be daytime visits, an hour or so when the dad can bond, or the dad (if possible, I don't know the circumstances) could stay overnight in the mother's house. There's other ways of bonding with a baby than separating from the mother completely.

So daytime visits are grand for a dad but not enough for a mum? How does that logic work?