Custody Rights of a Separated Couple

[Dogmatique]

I am not discounting the importance of fathers. I am talking about taking a breast fed 11 WEEK old child out of town for three days.

An adopted newborn isn't going to be breastfed at all. Therefore its not an issue...but I still wouldn't drive six hours alone with the child.
An adopted infant is unlikely to have ever been breastfed so again, not an issue...but I still wouldn't drive six hours alone with the child.
Formula fed newborn or infant, again...I wouldn't do a six hour drive alone with one of them for all the money in the world. The baby might sleep the whole way, or the baby might cry the whole way requiring you to stop so often that the six hours turns into 12.

May I remind you that my issue was not overnights...it was driving six hours ALONE with an 11 week old infant, who is also breastfed...and gone for three days. That is a recipe for utter disaster for dad and the child. On top of that if the infant refuses the bottle (even with pumped breast milk) or has the very probable gastro intestinal problems from a sudden switch from breast to formula, mom won't be anywhere near to help rectify the problem.

You are talking to someone who voluntarily, not alone but with her husband chose to travel to Italy with an infant. An infant who was formula fed, who refused to drink the powdered formula mixed with the water in Italy and who refused all types of formula purchased in Italy for over three days...and I can guarantee you that it was the most miserable three days of my and dad's life.

This has nothing to do with overnights, dad's ability to have parenting time or anything related. Its about the utter stupidity, in my humble opinion, of any parent attempting to travel alone, in a car, for six hours, with an 11 week old, who is currently breastfed and without the mother, for a three day period.

Unfortunately it looks like you completely missed the point I was trying to make.

Now you've gone from possible to probable gastro problems?

No, I'm sorry L, but this is one instance where I really do think that no matter what Dad's situation is, he still wouldn't be able to do right for doing wrong and he's being setup for failure before he's even had a chance.

Parents sometimes have to suck it up and do stuff they'd rather not have to do. That's the bottom line and for the drives involved, so what? The baby IS NOT going to be permanently harmed for staying in the car having Dad singing songs to him. Her. And if he can't get the infant to take in any food? He calls Mom, they meet halfway, and they try to figure out something else.

The legalities I addressed in post #2.

[ksmom]

I have to chime in here to say, IMO the whole "I did it, it's not a big deal" argument is about the most ridiculous argument there is. Every parent and every child is different. What worked for you most likely won't work for someone else.

It's pretty much the same as when my big ol' 6'2" boyfriend would hit my little 4'10" self and then tell me, "suck it up and stop being a baby, that didn't hurt."

[EA1070a]

I have to chime in here to say, IMO the whole "I did it, it's not a big deal" argument is about the most ridiculous argument there is. Every parent and every child is different. What worked for you most likely won't work for someone else.

It's pretty much the same as when my big ol' 6'2" boyfriend would hit my little 4'10" self and then tell me, "suck it up and stop being a baby, that didn't hurt."

No. What's ridiculous is thinking dad won't be able to handle a six hour drive and a three day trip with his baby for no reason other than he can't lactate and has a penis instead of a vagina.

[llworking]

No. What's ridiculous is thinking dad won't be able to handle a six hour drive and a three day trip with his baby for no reason other than he can't lactate and has a penis instead of a vagina.

You guys still aren't understanding what I meant about "without mom". I meant without the boob that mom provides from which the baby gets nourishment.

I would NOT do it if I were dad. I think its an utterly foolish thing to attempt at 11 weeks. Whoever it is that wants to see that baby that lives six hours away, should be coming to the baby, not the other way around.

[Dogmatique]

I have to chime in here to say, IMO the whole "I did it, it's not a big deal" argument is about the most ridiculous argument there is. Every parent and every child is different. What worked for you most likely won't work for someone else.

It's pretty much the same as when my big ol' 6'2" boyfriend would hit my little 4'10" self and then tell me, "suck it up and stop being a baby, that didn't hurt."

How you can even loosely associate the two is beyond me. If you truly can't see the difference, then....well, you have bigger problems. And not just because you've made it all about "me me me!".

- - - Updated - - -

You guys still aren't understanding what I meant about "without mom". I meant without the boob that mom provides from which the baby gets nourishment.

I would NOT do it if I were dad. I think its an utterly foolish thing to attempt at 11 weeks. Whoever it is that wants to see that baby that lives six hours away, should be coming to the baby, not the other way around.

We're clearly not in agreement here - so I'm going to agree to disagree. Believe it or not though, I do understand what you're saying - I just don't agree with the premise, y'know?

[llworking]

How you can even loosely associate the two is beyond me. If you truly can't see the difference, then....well, you have bigger problems. And not just because you've made it all about "me me me!".

- - - Updated - - -



We're clearly not in agreement here - so I'm going to agree to disagree. Believe it or not though, I do understand what you're saying - I just don't agree with the premise, y'know?

I know...just as I am sure that you know that I am speaking from a pragmatic standpoint rather than a legal one. I just think its foolish. Even if the parents were happily married and living together I think that with an 11 week old that whoever wants to see the child who is six hours away (I am assuming grandparents) should be traveling to the child rather than the other way around. In an instance where the parents are not together, I think its even more practical.

Unfortunately many grandparents really do think that their newborn grandchildren should come to them.

Then of course, there is the whole concept of "is this an attempt on dad's part to take the child 6 hours away and NOT come back". If dad has a good job that is important to him that probably isn't an issue. If dad doesn't...its maybe an issue.

In any case, if it were me, I wouldn't cooperate with that. I just wouldn't.

[CourtClerk]

An adopted newborn isn't going to be breastfed at all

They're NOT? You should have told my husband and his ex wife. Their newborn was breastfed exclusively until they adopted him. Can you imagine the number of people who aren't doing things they way YOU are? It's got to be thousands... even millions

I'd also like to forget that time I babysat my exclusively breast fed niece while her mother went to Vegas for the weekend. Would she refuse the bottle? Sure, at first. What did my pediatrician say when I asked him what to do? He said

Just wait. When she gets hungry enough, she'll eat no matter where the source is. Would you know that she's on her way to MEDICAL SCHOOL this year? She graduated high school with honors, graduated college with honors and she had a mother who would constantly leave her with people so she can do other stuff. Or made her drink out of a bottle if breast milk wasn't available for whatever reason.

Then again, we don't raise punks and woosie kids in this family.

[EA1070a]

I'm wondering how, based on what OP wrote, it can be extrapolated that this three day trip is to visit grandparents....

Did I miss something?

The reason for the trip really doesn't matter. And yeah - if the child gets hungry enough s/he WILL take the bottle.

[Bubba Jimmy]

NC is a "best interest of the child" state, as most now are. Switching a baby back and forth between breast milk and formula is not in the best interest of the child even if the baby "WILL take the bottle". Adopted babies are not switched back and forth to accommodate the desires of adults. They are on formula. That's not what is to be examined here. Now, whether enough milk could be pumped for a three-day separation might be considered by a court in ruling on this. That would require a lot of milk while still supplying the baby's immediate needs. I don't know how long it would take to get that, and whether it can be kept long enough and so forth. But ultimately a judge would decide what is in the best interest of the baby. The interests and rights of the adults would come secondary to that.

[EA1070a]

IF this goes to court, the judge will have to weigh the mother's desire to breastfeed against the father's right to develop a bond with his child. So, no, the interests and rights aren't "secondary" but are a crucial factor. The goal is to foster a relationship with the child unless it isn't in the best interests of the child (NCP presents a danger to the child, has drug problems, etc.).

I actually read an answer to this question on Just Answer written by a lawyer in NC who stated that the Courts there are less likely to accept the breastfeeding argument when weighed against dad's right to bond with and spend time with his child.

What I'm curious about is this - although OP probably won't answer because it doesn't appear as if she's posted since this whole debate really started - what does the current visitation order state?