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?

eviltwin

lazygal wrote: »

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.

What do you think will be the impact? I'm assuming they know the wider family well so what would be the problem? I've had overnights away from my kids many times both on my own and with my husband for our own sanity. They have always been with grandparents or aunts and uncles and have been fine. Its okay to have time out from your children, it won't scar them.

lazygal

runawaybishop wrote: »

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.

You might think that and I'm obviously not going to change your mind, but I have said, and I repeat it here, that I am not suggesting that the bond with a father is far less important, just than in the circumstances where the baby does not have its father around all the time the methods of bonding are different.

OldNotWIse

runawaybishop wrote: »

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.

Agree with you. Sadly, this kind of "mother is best" mentality is part of the reason why fathers are shunned so much by the legal system as we know it today. It's terribly unfair on separated fathers and grossly insulting to single fathers.

lazygal

runawaybishop wrote: »

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

Biology. Basic common sense.

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

Biology. Basic common sense.

You're going to have to expand on that...

eviltwin

lazygal wrote: »

You might think that and I'm obviously not going to change your mind, but I have said, and I repeat it here, that I am not suggesting that the bond with a father is far less important, just than in the circumstances where the baby does not have its father around all the time the methods of bonding are different.

Most dads aren't around all the time, they are at work. They still manage to form a bond. I don't see any reason for this man to be denied his right to have a relationship with his own child. He's not talking about taking the child for prolonged periods, just overnight.

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

What do you think will be the impact? I'm assuming they know the wider family well so what would be the problem? I've had overnights away from my kids many times both on my own and with my husband for our own sanity. They have always been with grandparents or aunts and uncles and have been fine. Its okay to have time out from your children, it won't scar them.

I have time out, I just don't need to leave them overnight. I also don't want my parents to have to be up early with them and deal with upset children. I'd rather wait until they're older and have more of a concept of time and how long 'overnight' is. What is right for one family isn't for another.

runawaybishop

lazygal wrote: »

Biology. Basic common sense.

Basic common sense indicates the child spends time equally with both parents. Biology won't make that impossible.

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

Most dads aren't around all the time, they are at work. They still manage to form a bond. I don't see any reason for this man to be denied his right to have a relationship with his own child. He's not talking about taking the child for prolonged periods, just overnight.

Overnight is a prolonged period for a 15 week old.

bjork

leanonme wrote: »

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.

3 days a week & the weekends?
is that not the majority of the week?

eviltwin

lazygal wrote: »

Overnight is a prolonged period for a 15 week old.

So its okay for a mum to go back to work and leave her child for the best part of a day but overnight is an issue Don't buy it at all. Personal preference is one thing but implying there is a risk to the psyche of the child is unfair.

Barely There

lazygal wrote: »

It is simple biology. My children settled with me and needed me more than my husband until they started sleeping through the night.

So we should start basing access arrangements for separated fathers around your kids' needs?

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

So its okay for a mum to go back to work and leave her child for the best part of a day but overnight is an issue Don't buy it at all. Personal preference is one thing but implying there is a risk to the psyche of the child is unfair.

I was in a creche at 12 weeks of age. I made different choices for my children. Mainly because I was breastfeeding and couldn't physically be away from them when they were at a very young age. We don't know if that is it the case in this situation, but night time feeding is important for breastfeeding and as my second child simply refused to take bottles at all, until he slept through the night and started solids I had to be there to feed him. And my children were older when I left them to go back to work, no way was I away from them for a full day at 15 weeks old.

lazygal

Barely There wrote: »

So we should start basing access arrangements for separated fathers around your kids' needs?

No, around the needs of the fathers' children.

Big Bag of Chips

lazygal wrote: »

Because they were struggling out of dad's arms and reaching for me.

You must have had very advanced 15 week olds. I've had 4 children and none of them were able to reach for me at 15 weeks! My youngest is now 8 months, and she still doesn't reach her arms out to be taken - she might lean towards whoever is putting their hands out to her, but she is certainly not reaching yet.

a 15 week old needs to be fed, loved and kept warm. They're not really too bothered who does it so long as the person knows what they are doing. I think it is usually around 8, 9 10 months before a baby even starts to "make strange". Your kids might have squirmed because they were hungry and needed to be fed. My daughter will squirm if she has a dirty nappy - even if I'm holding her!

OP, your friend needs to either go to mediation with her ex to try come up with a more definite and regular plan for access, or if that doesn't work out and they can't agree then they go to court and a judge will decide it for them. Even if things are made official - they both need to be a bit flexible with each other. Things will occassionally come up where either of them might need to change an access day, so they need to be accommodating to each other. But if there is too much chopping and changing then they might have to agree to stick rigidly to the agreement.

There is no real reason that a 4 month old baby cannot have overnights with her dad (unless being exclusively breastfed) By the time they get to court/mediation etc the baby could be 5 or 6 months anyway.

tinkerbell

eviltwin wrote: »

Most dads aren't around all the time, they are at work. They still manage to form a bond. I don't see any reason for this man to be denied his right to have a relationship with his own child. He's not talking about taking the child for prolonged periods, just overnight.

Did you not read the OP? He wants the baby 3 days a week, overnights and weekends. How on earth is that not prolonged periods?

This is not an anti-father's rights campaign either - I'm all for fathers being able to see their child, but to me, taking a 15 week old away for prolonged periods / overnight etc at 15 weeks old is absurd unless absolutely necessary - eviltwin, you had to go back to college so you had no choice. This is an entirely different scenario.

Whispered

This is a very interesting conversation! I'm due in the next two weeks and have been having terrible trouble sleeping. I was hoping (probably naively) that within a few weeks of birth I could sneak off to the back room for an unbroken few hours, leaving baby with my husband overnight. Would that also be considered stressful for the baby?

We have also been chatting about going away for a night for our birthdays when the baby is 5 months old. Again, is this too young? Baby would would have their aunt or grandmother stay here with them, both of whom he or she will see on a very regular basis.

(As you can probably tell this will be our first )

lazygal

Whispered wrote: »

This is a very interesting conversation! I'm due in the next two weeks and have been having terrible trouble sleeping. I was hoping (probably naively) that within a few weeks of birth I could sneak off to the back room for an unbroken few hours, leaving baby with my husband overnight. Would that also be considered stressful for the baby?

We have also been chatting about going away for a night for our birthdays when the baby is 5 months old. Again, is this too young? Baby would would have their aunt or grandmother stay here with them, both of whom he or she will see on a very regular basis.

(As you can probably tell this will be our first )

It depends on the baby. My first took a bottle no problem and I breastfeed her too, and it worked out ok, but the most I would have left her for was an hour or so in the afternoon. My second was very clingy, would only settle with me and never took a bottle at all, so I had to be there to feed him (and I tried many different bottles and methods, he was having none of it). Both slept through from about six months old.

ETA night feeding is really important for breastfeeding. I didn't really sleep a full night until my babies decided to and were ready to so do.

eviltwin

tinkerbell wrote: »

Did you not read the OP? He wants the baby 3 days a week, overnights and weekends. How on earth is that not prolonged periods?

This is not an anti-father's rights campaign either - I'm all for fathers being able to see their child, but to me, taking a 15 week old away for prolonged periods / overnight etc at 15 weeks old is absurd unless absolutely necessary - eviltwin, you had to go back to college so you had no choice. This is an entirely different scenario.

I don't agree with most of the week as its unfair but one or two nights a week I don't see a problem with. My child didn't know the reason I wasn't there, I just wasn't there but she was with her dad and granny and got on great, there were no issues at all. I was more upset than she was. It was also a lot easier for us as she got older to go away without her as she was used to it.

tinkerbell

Whispered wrote: »

This is a very interesting conversation! I'm due in the next two weeks and have been having terrible trouble sleeping. I was hoping (probably naively) that within a few weeks of birth I could sneak off to the back room for an unbroken few hours, leaving baby with my husband overnight. Would that also be considered stressful for the baby?

We have also been chatting about going away for a night for our birthdays when the baby is 5 months old. Again, is this too young? Baby would would have their aunt or grandmother stay here with them, both of whom he or she will see on a very regular basis.

(As you can probably tell this will be our first )

That's completely different! Your husband will have been around baby most of the time since birth and baby will be very familiar with him (not the same scenario as OP) and if baby needs you, you're only in the next room and can get up.

As for when baby is 5 months - depends on the child, you'll know yourself when the time comes. Life's very different when a baby arrives, you may not even want to go away overnight for the birthday!!