I live alone in my own property and want to have a baby. I have a lover who is not a partner, nor in a de facto relationship, but there is an option to put them on the birth certificate as the other parent. Is it unrealistic to expect we could live separately whilst coparenting a newborn?
Can you co-parent a newborn baby with a lover and live separately?
- Thread starter Zsuzsanna
- Start date
In my experience, it is unrealistic to expect you can live separately while co-parenting. Newborns require an incredible amount of time and energy. If you intend to nurse it won't be easy to leave the baby with a different person for a number of months.
Is there some benefit to putting this person on the birth certificate? How much involvement is this person expecting to have with the child?
Is there some benefit to putting this person on the birth certificate? How much involvement is this person expecting to have with the child?
Thanks so much for your thoughts.
Hmm... I am just wondering about being able to maintain independence/solo poly/space, without becoming financially entwined, or codependent, but also being able to share co-parenting joys/responsibilities with someone; sharing the baby without the coupledom, and everything associated with that, I suppose.
Hmm... I am just wondering about being able to maintain independence/solo poly/space, without becoming financially entwined, or codependent, but also being able to share co-parenting joys/responsibilities with someone; sharing the baby without the coupledom, and everything associated with that, I suppose.
LovingRadiance
Active member
Breastfeeding would be damn near impossible at least for the first 3-6 months while coparenting separately, because Baby needs to eat every 2-4 hours. If you are breastfeeding, Baby requires Mom. Period.
But it is absolutely possible to coparent while living separately if you aren't breastfeeding, or after you finish breastfeeding.
Furthermore, there is nothing stopping a lover who lives separately from being there part-time to care for the baby. You're just not likely to be able to manage an equal split if you are breastfeeding, due to the feeding requirements.
Many courts give divorced parents split time. This often happens before the birth of an already-conceived child.
With under school-age kids, it's common for them to do a 3 day/4 day split. Meaning, child lives with one parent 3 days one week, 4 days with the other parent, then the following week, 4 days with the first parent and 3 days with the other. This, in my experience, as we did it by court order with my stepson, sucks, if you don't get along. But if you get along well and live near each other, it wouldn't be so bad.
We lived separately for a year-and-a-half with 4 kids who went back and forth whenever they wanted to. It was no big deal. We were dating, weren't able to functionally share a home at the time, but were definitely wanting to continue coparenting and seeing each other. It was really not a big deal, because we worked together and got along. So, for example, whoever's home the child was sleeping at, the other parent went over to tuck them in at night, as we were only 1/2 a mile apart.
Short answer, yes, it can be done. But it requires you to be very well-connected in working together, and you'll need to be creative.
But it is absolutely possible to coparent while living separately if you aren't breastfeeding, or after you finish breastfeeding.
Furthermore, there is nothing stopping a lover who lives separately from being there part-time to care for the baby. You're just not likely to be able to manage an equal split if you are breastfeeding, due to the feeding requirements.
Many courts give divorced parents split time. This often happens before the birth of an already-conceived child.
With under school-age kids, it's common for them to do a 3 day/4 day split. Meaning, child lives with one parent 3 days one week, 4 days with the other parent, then the following week, 4 days with the first parent and 3 days with the other. This, in my experience, as we did it by court order with my stepson, sucks, if you don't get along. But if you get along well and live near each other, it wouldn't be so bad.
We lived separately for a year-and-a-half with 4 kids who went back and forth whenever they wanted to. It was no big deal. We were dating, weren't able to functionally share a home at the time, but were definitely wanting to continue coparenting and seeing each other. It was really not a big deal, because we worked together and got along. So, for example, whoever's home the child was sleeping at, the other parent went over to tuck them in at night, as we were only 1/2 a mile apart.
Short answer, yes, it can be done. But it requires you to be very well-connected in working together, and you'll need to be creative.
You can absolutely breastfeed and coparent in this way. When you are away from your baby, you express your milk, and someone else can feed that expressed milk to the baby via a bottle or cup. It is advisable to make sure Baby is breastfeeding efficiently before you get bottles involved, but cup-feeding is a good alternative in the meantime. Plenty of babies are both breastfed and bottle fed from Day 1 though, and don't have any issues.
SchrodingersCat
Active member
People raise babies without anyone to help, so it can be done. It just depends how determined you are and how much burden you figure you can cope with.
Also, what do you mean by coparent? As in, split the kid's time? Or one parent has primary care and the other comes over to help out?
My bff's sperm donor for her two youngest is a useless twat. He's actually considered their father, but he really is a useless twat. When he was living with her, it was more like having an extra child to care for. Now she has full custody, he has visitation rights, but his bachelor pad really isn't child-friendly. They've worked out that it's easier for him to just visit at her place, which gives her a chance to get stuff done while someone else watches the kids, without her actually having to leave them in his care out of her sight.
My partner Auto has a complicated-looking arrangement, but it really isn't. Her husband is trans, but they wanted more kids than just her first daughter from a previous relationship. They have a gay friend who also wanted to start a family, but lacked the requisite uterus. So they turkey-basted (literally) two kids. The older lives with Auto and her husband, the younger lives with their bio-dad, but they each take all three kids for one day a week. That way, all the kids get to be together on weekends, and all the parents get one day free from children. Win-win-win. Well, the 15-year old may not think so anymore, because toddlers are totally, like, so annoying...
Gralson also attempted to coparent his daughter, but her mother was ...unpleasant... so he didn't get much time with her, and zero say in what happened in her life. He did, however, get the privilege of monthly support payments. I don't recommend this arrangement. They now have a tenuous relationship. He's convinced that she hates him. I chalk it up to her being 20 and just wanting to explore life on her own.
Also, what do you mean by coparent? As in, split the kid's time? Or one parent has primary care and the other comes over to help out?
My bff's sperm donor for her two youngest is a useless twat. He's actually considered their father, but he really is a useless twat. When he was living with her, it was more like having an extra child to care for. Now she has full custody, he has visitation rights, but his bachelor pad really isn't child-friendly. They've worked out that it's easier for him to just visit at her place, which gives her a chance to get stuff done while someone else watches the kids, without her actually having to leave them in his care out of her sight.
My partner Auto has a complicated-looking arrangement, but it really isn't. Her husband is trans, but they wanted more kids than just her first daughter from a previous relationship. They have a gay friend who also wanted to start a family, but lacked the requisite uterus. So they turkey-basted (literally) two kids. The older lives with Auto and her husband, the younger lives with their bio-dad, but they each take all three kids for one day a week. That way, all the kids get to be together on weekends, and all the parents get one day free from children. Win-win-win. Well, the 15-year old may not think so anymore, because toddlers are totally, like, so annoying...
Gralson also attempted to coparent his daughter, but her mother was ...unpleasant... so he didn't get much time with her, and zero say in what happened in her life. He did, however, get the privilege of monthly support payments. I don't recommend this arrangement. They now have a tenuous relationship. He's convinced that she hates him. I chalk it up to her being 20 and just wanting to explore life on her own.
PolyinPractice
New member
Of course you can. But are you sure you won't resent your partner for not being there for you enough? And are you sure you can care for a newborn alone, without neglecting the child? You have to put the child's needs first.
It really does take a village.
Plan it out.
When are you going back to paid work outside the home?
Who will come and hold the baby every night because she hasn't let you put her down all day and you're still in your nightgown, no shower and have barely eaten? This "don't put me down" need can happen at any age, newborn, teething time, when she has a cold, etc.
Do you have other relatives or friends or paid babysitters or daycare of some kind to fill in when your sperm donor isn't around?
As above, do you plan to breastfeed (at least a year of breastfeeding is every baby's birthright)? Pumping and giving the milk to your co-parent or other caregiver to feed to baby is HARD WORK, but doable. So, if bio-dad wants overnights with the baby before one year, know you are taking on a challenge. And many breastfed babies need/want more than one year of snuggly nighttime breastfeedings.
How involved in parenting does your lover want to be? Would there be an option to live together for a while, or at least do lots of overnights in the early months?
Plan it out.
When are you going back to paid work outside the home?
Who will come and hold the baby every night because she hasn't let you put her down all day and you're still in your nightgown, no shower and have barely eaten? This "don't put me down" need can happen at any age, newborn, teething time, when she has a cold, etc.
Do you have other relatives or friends or paid babysitters or daycare of some kind to fill in when your sperm donor isn't around?
As above, do you plan to breastfeed (at least a year of breastfeeding is every baby's birthright)? Pumping and giving the milk to your co-parent or other caregiver to feed to baby is HARD WORK, but doable. So, if bio-dad wants overnights with the baby before one year, know you are taking on a challenge. And many breastfed babies need/want more than one year of snuggly nighttime breastfeedings.
How involved in parenting does your lover want to be? Would there be an option to live together for a while, or at least do lots of overnights in the early months?
You know, lots of the things people are saying will make this hard are performed by thousands of women who have children in a limited support network. The fact that she will have a co-parent at all would be considered a bonus by the many women who have a partner who is the biological father of the child but doesn't co-parent.
Inyourendo
New member
I imagine if you planned on breastfeeding for the first year, at least the baby would need to live with Mom. Maybe if Mom works, Dad could have an opposite schedule so he could be the caregiver.
Lots of women are single mothers and coparent with their exes, so it's possible. Living apart isn't ideal, but for most its not a choice.
Lots of women are single mothers and coparent with their exes, so it's possible. Living apart isn't ideal, but for most its not a choice.
Inyourendo
New member
As someone who works and breastfeeds, there is no way I'd be willing to allow someone else to take my baby outside of the time I absolutely have to be away from them. Exclusively pumping is rarely ever successful and I would not jeopardize my supply for my baby by being gone any more than absolutely necessary. Just pumping for the time I was at work was hard enough, and required the use of donor milk. Also the more baby is bottle fed, the more likely they are to reject the breast altogether.
As a midwife, I'm saying that many mothers don't view the child's other biological parent as "someone else," for one. They realise that both that parent and the child have as much right to an uncomplicated relationship with each other as the mother does with the child.
Secondly, nobody mentioned exclusive pumping. What I did mention was expressing milk for when you're away from the baby, something that many mothers achieve with ease. I also mentioned that it is advisable to ensure the baby is breastfeeding efficiently before you introduce bottles. Many, many babies are mix-fed from the start though, and don't have the latch problems that research says they will.
Secondly, nobody mentioned exclusive pumping. What I did mention was expressing milk for when you're away from the baby, something that many mothers achieve with ease. I also mentioned that it is advisable to ensure the baby is breastfeeding efficiently before you introduce bottles. Many, many babies are mix-fed from the start though, and don't have the latch problems that research says they will.
LovingRadiance
Active member
Ditto on that.
Currently my daughter is working 2 days a week for a few hours and pumping to fill that gap. It's been a fiasco. It's not just the issue of losing milk, but also with new babies, switching between bottle and breast can be confusing and can definitely cause latch issues.
But the hard part is actually for those of us who are caregivers while she's at work. The baby (who is now 5 months) becomes very emotional and upset when it's feeding time. He can and will take the bottle. But it isn't giving him all of what he needs (which is his Mommy time). So he isn't calmed. A baby who is otherwise happy and fun is miserable until Mommy feeds him. Once he has his breast time, he's back to normal.
But that can be hell on her shifts, as she works 8 hours. It's absolutely hell for him and the caregiver.
Which is noy to say one can't co-parent. It is to say be aware that in prioritizing the baby's needs, you will need to pay attention to the baby's personality.
Our daughter was exclusively breastfed for a year. She couldn't wait to get away from me. As soon as she was done eating, she wanted her daddy and no one else would do. She would scream for hours if he was unavailable. But if he was here, I would feed her, and then he would burp her and she was happy as a lark. I can't imagine trying to get through those nighttime feedings without him! lol! She was just so determined that after she ate it was her time with Daddy.
SchrodingersCat
Active member
Would it be an option to have the other parent live/stay with you for a few months while things got stable, and then move out when the child is old enough to no longer need 60/60/24/7 attention?
Just because there are plenty of single parents out there finding a way to make it work without support, I doubt any of them would recommend it as a first choice, or do it the same way if they had it to do over. And there is no way those kids are getting the best possible care. They're doing their best, but being awake for 72 hours straight with a screaming baby and no relief makes it absolutely impossible for anyone to be at the top of their game.
When you have no choice but to make it work, you make it work. But when you're sitting there contemplating the possibility of single parenthood and you're not even pregnant yet, I doubt many single parents would encourage it. It's nothing against the parents, but one person doing a job that's meant to be done by an entire family is just not what's best for the kids. So why put yourself in that position if it's not necessary?
Just because there are plenty of single parents out there finding a way to make it work without support, I doubt any of them would recommend it as a first choice, or do it the same way if they had it to do over. And there is no way those kids are getting the best possible care. They're doing their best, but being awake for 72 hours straight with a screaming baby and no relief makes it absolutely impossible for anyone to be at the top of their game.
When you have no choice but to make it work, you make it work. But when you're sitting there contemplating the possibility of single parenthood and you're not even pregnant yet, I doubt many single parents would encourage it. It's nothing against the parents, but one person doing a job that's meant to be done by an entire family is just not what's best for the kids. So why put yourself in that position if it's not necessary?
LovingRadiance
Active member
The thing is, Schroedinger, just because you have different homes doesn't mean you can't be a family.
Using the 72-hour thing as an example: if you live within walking distance of each other (let's say 1 mile, a 15-minute walk), and you were both completely devoted to the co-parenting process, the child is up, it's been sick all day, you've taken turns through the day, but it's midnight and been your "turn" since let's say 6pm, and you need a break. There's nothing stopping a phone call to other parent and saying, "Hey, I need a break. Can you come hold our baby for the next few hours so I can get a few zzz's at your place?" A quick walk over, places switched. No need to be up 72 hours.
When Maca and I lived apart it actually ran much smoother, because when we were all in the same house it really didn't matter who was "on duty," because everyone was present, so everyone was on duty, as far as the kids were concerned. It was actually the moment when we realized we would all be happier if we bought property and built three houses maybe 50 yards apart from each other, around a central building with kitchen/socializing space, we would all still be easy access for the kids, but we would also all be able to step away and have some private time to recharge.
But it does require creativity, and both parties (or how ever many parties) to be fully committed. If one parent is not so devoted, the other will get the harder end of the bargain.
Using the 72-hour thing as an example: if you live within walking distance of each other (let's say 1 mile, a 15-minute walk), and you were both completely devoted to the co-parenting process, the child is up, it's been sick all day, you've taken turns through the day, but it's midnight and been your "turn" since let's say 6pm, and you need a break. There's nothing stopping a phone call to other parent and saying, "Hey, I need a break. Can you come hold our baby for the next few hours so I can get a few zzz's at your place?" A quick walk over, places switched. No need to be up 72 hours.
When Maca and I lived apart it actually ran much smoother, because when we were all in the same house it really didn't matter who was "on duty," because everyone was present, so everyone was on duty, as far as the kids were concerned. It was actually the moment when we realized we would all be happier if we bought property and built three houses maybe 50 yards apart from each other, around a central building with kitchen/socializing space, we would all still be easy access for the kids, but we would also all be able to step away and have some private time to recharge.
But it does require creativity, and both parties (or how ever many parties) to be fully committed. If one parent is not so devoted, the other will get the harder end of the bargain.
SchrodingersCat
Active member
Oh, absolutely. Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. My comment was more that a co-parent is much more than a "bonus." Wasn't in regards to anything you or the OP said. I just didn't feel like quoting.
hehe
If you did that here, I would include underground tunnels. Walking outside to get a bite to eat at 40 below is unpleasant.
LovingRadiance
Active member
lol Here too. I don't want to do that here. Too cold. The goal is to move somewhere warm first. 
I totally hear you. Walking to the mailbox on some days is like, "Yeah, um... no. I just don't care enough about what might be out there to go outside in this weather!"
I totally hear you. Walking to the mailbox on some days is like, "Yeah, um... no. I just don't care enough about what might be out there to go outside in this weather!"I'm sorry. Bullshit. "Single parent," for one, does not mean "no support network." I've noticed an ignorance about single parents on here before. What you just said suggests that no single parent is able to give a child the care that a co-parent could. Every single child that comes from a single-parent family has had worse care than their counterparts with parents still together.
Natja
New member
Yes, and yes, I would, and frankly the rest of that is so offensive and hurtful to me I can't even...
I am a single mother by choice, btw. I have never been awake for 72 hours (perhaps I don't have the demon baby gene but neither of my daughters have done that) and I am pretty certain that if you asked my sister who did have the demon baby, she would say the same thing.
Having done both situations, this time around hasn't been greatly different with regards to stress levels. Practically the hardest thing is finding time to have a bath, but half the time she is sleeping and if I can't wait until she is sleeping I just bring her into the bathroom and she is as happy as a clam. She likes to see me.
So, that is where I am going now, to take my inadequate, not at the top of my game, single parent ass to the bath, with my obviously badly cared-for daughter, thanks a bunch.