Mother Can Exclude Father From Delivery Room, N.J. Judge Holds

, New Jersey Law Journal


A putative father has no right to be notified that the expectant mother is in labor nor to be present in the delivery room if the mother objects, a New Jersey judge says in an apparent case of first impression nationwide.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

  • not available

    It‘s time to eliminate child support in its entirety. This way, all of this nonsense and waste of time ends. No more courts to worry about. No more support enforcement bureaucracy wasting $10 BILLION annually, which the monies could be sent to support recipients by e-transfers, no more arguing over the children. Child support is nothing more than a racketeering scheme set up by government, courts and lawyers for the government, courts & lawyers.

    The monies that the Feds give to the states for enforcement, collections and awards, is not used for the children, (42 USC Sect. 658(a)), but is being used to pay down state employee pensions, which includes judicial pensions. This is an unconstitutional conflict of interest, as stated by the SCOTUS case of Tumey v. Ohio (1927). It said that judges who sit on cases they have a pecuniary interest in must disqualify/recuse themselves because they‘re to prone to abuse their contempt powers to extract/extort more monies from unsuspecting litigants/taxpayers/voters. The Supreme Ct. held this is a conflict-of-interest warranting removal of judges from these types of cases, otherwise their orders would be null and void.

  • not available

    I concur with Judge Mohammed‘s ruling. This has nothing to do with subjugating the man‘s rights and has everything to do with respecting the woman‘s right to privacy, particularly because the couple is no longer together and do not have a civil relationship. Further, has paternity been determined? If not then the only correct ruling is what the judge has ruled.

  • not available

    I think the judge is wrong . I think the Biological father should have a participation in this pregnancy even if she don‘t agree . The reality is is not her baby anymore now is both . I think is more anger involved here than love .

  • not available

    This article misses the point. The problem isn‘t that the father can‘t be in the delivery room. It‘s that the judge refused to order that 1) the mother include the father‘s name on the child‘s birth certificate and 2) the child be named in accordance with N.J.A.C. 8:2-1.4, which provides guidelines for naming a child when there is a parental dispute. Neither issue has anything to do with the mother‘s privacy rights - they involve fundamental parental rights that the court should have recognized inhere in both parents immediately upon the child‘s birth.

    Now the father will have to go back into court to change the child‘s birth certificate and name if the mother finalizes it before he even knows the child has been born - an uphill battle that the father should not have to litigate. The judge also should have entered an order concerning custody post-birth. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:2-4, parents have an equal right to custody from the date the child is born.

  • not available

    To one of the commentators below-I don‘t see how excluding the father from being in the delivery room prevents him (or should prevent him) from not paying child support. He still has the right to be there with his child for the next 18 years. I hardly think missing a few hours stops him from being there financially and emotionally for the child.

  • not available

    So I retain the perpetual right to view, totally naked, every person I have ever slept with? Awesome new legal theory Perry Mason!

  • not available

    "...the ruling correctly focuses on the mother‘s privacy, noting that during childbirth, she was "partially naked. Why should she expose herself in the most personal, intimate moment of her life?"

    How stupid is that statement? The mother was TOTALLY naked when she had sex with Plotnick!!!!!!!

  • not available

    If the father is not allowed to see the birth of his child, then he is not obligated to pay child support either. In the NJ case of Monmouth County v. G.D.M., 308 N.J. Super. 83, 88 (1997), parents have the right to beget and raise their children, and therefore they have a CORRESPONDING & RECIPROCAL obligation to support them financially & emotionally.

    If a parent has the duty to support financially, then under the doctrine of reciprocals, they have the right to beget children, and to the care, custody and nurture of their children.

    This decision is once again, reflective of the unconstitutional anti-male discrimination of the NJ Family Courts.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202646374429

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.