# Signing a baby out AMA....ILLEGAL????



## alicia9178 (Jun 1, 2004)

My last LO we left the hospital when she was 5 hours old. We went home and cuddled her in our own bed and we got precious time together to bond in her early hours to bond interrupted. I have since moved to CA and I am being told that I can leave the hospital whenever I want after baby is born, but they will not "allow" me to leave with baby until a MD discharges the baby. Essentially we have no right to sign the baby out early. How can this be legal? How could the hospital put such a restriction on a parent? They told us that CPS would be contacted and that they would get a court order to force us to keep the baby in the hospital. I am MORTIFIED!!!! Anyone know anything about the legalities of all of this??? I mean to be honest if I do not "own" the baby before I am discharged with him then I hope they are paying for all of his medical care while he is there....







.


----------



## Irishmommy (Nov 19, 2001)

Do you know any lawyers that could meet you at the hospital when you leave?


----------



## beckyand3littlemonsters (Sep 16, 2006)

that's insane hun, how can they enforce such a ridiculous law


----------



## Juvysen (Apr 25, 2007)

huh? that doesn't make sense. there's always homebirth









Hope you figure this out.


----------



## ~Amy~ (Jun 7, 2009)

Sounds like a big empty threat to me, personally. They may call, but I suspect CPS has bigger problems to deal with than a competent, responsible mother wanting to take a perfectly healthy newborn home a little early.


----------



## 5gifts (Nov 16, 2005)

If I had gone to the hosp, my ob said get a ped lined up & on board with me. I would have called the ped as I went to hosp & kept him updated so he could see baby right away & sign discharge


----------



## jeminijad (Mar 27, 2009)

It isn't illegal.

They may very well call CPS. I highly, highly doubt that they would get a court order the keep a healthy newborn in the hospital. Just scare tactics.

But- so that you don't have to deal with CPS- do try and find a ped that will release a baby early.


----------



## EllyMayMomma (Jul 9, 2010)

Hate to take the other side, but I wouldn't bet that CPS would not get involved - you are talking about a newborn which is an emotional subject and if the doctor is saying no way can baby go, legally, CPS will go with the doctor. And before you just walk out with the baby in your arms - they are not going to physically restrain you - know that they will likely call the police. I agree with PP, best bet is to have that ped on line with you ready to sign baby out or homebirth!.


----------



## Lisoula (Jan 9, 2006)

I'm not in CA, but here you cannot sign your baby out AMA. Social services and CPS will be called, and a case will be opened. Plus, with our security system, you physically wouldn't be able.


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Is there no way you could just ring for an MD an hour before you wanted to leave and get him to sign out the baby? Or do they have a strict policy of making the baby stay in hospital for 48 hours after birth, or something? Could you find a crunchy MD who might be willing to sign the baby out if he/she looked healthy and had good vitals and so on?


----------



## mamatoElias (Aug 2, 2006)

I second finding an MD who will discharge you if baby is doing fine. Our ped is a friend, but she offered to discharge baby over the phone when my son was born so we could leave. That way you don't have to worry about CPS.


----------



## kblackstone444 (Jun 17, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jeminijad* 
It isn't illegal.

They may very well call CPS. I highly, highly doubt that they would get a court order the keep a healthy newborn in the hospital. Just scare tactics.

But- so that you don't have to deal with CPS- do try and find a ped that will release a baby early.

It's a legal technicality- they need to make sure that the baby s 100% healthy and to "prove" it by having a doctor discharge the baby, or if, God forbid, something were to happen to the baby, you could sue the hospital for sending you home with a baby who wasn't ready to be without medical intervention.


----------



## turnquia (May 26, 2008)

In many many states two doctors can legally over-ride a parents decision on anything deemed potentially life threatening. (Ex: Kid needs blood transfusion from car accident and parents are Jahova's witness and refuse... if kid could reasonably die from not recieving the blood transfusion then parents can be over-ridden as well as the whole CPS case initiated)
So this would be one of those where the docs could say its life threatening to the baby not to be observed for complications for at least 24 hours.

(24 hours discharge is normal CDC guidelines for a vaginal born complication free delivery to mom who is either GBS negative OR recieved both doses of antibiotics while in labor and is greater than 38 weeks gestation).

So yes you could attempt to sign out AMA, but technically two docs could force baby to stay and open a CPS case.


----------



## Marissamom (Dec 17, 2009)

pretty much any time a child is signed out of a hospital AMA CPS is called. and CPS can decide that it's child-endangerment. I agree with finding a Ped who will do an early discharge.


----------



## EllyMayMomma (Jul 9, 2010)

The hospital where I used to work now has foot band alarms that have to be taken off with a special devise or they set off a hospital wide alarm, so, yeah, you can't just walk out.


----------



## alicia9178 (Jun 1, 2004)

The problem with finding a Ped is that we are delivering at a hospital that is close to 2 hours away because I want to VBAC. So a local Ped that woul dbe accessible to the hospital is impossible. Also I am ALWAYS GBS positive, my babies are born at 36 weeks (though 100% healthy), and I am a diabetic. I feel like I am fighting a loosing battle. My other babies who were born in OH I just signed them out and that was that. My last one no Ped even laid eyes on her until she was 48 hours old, but I am a RN and I know how to evaluate a baby for complications so they had no problem with my taking the baby. I checked blood sugars, temps, everything. I just feel like I am not even the parent until we are "allowed" to walk out the door which is insane.


----------



## Irishmommy (Nov 19, 2001)

So it's not actually ILLEGAL it's just against hospital policy?


----------



## MoonHasBeams (Nov 1, 2010)

I have a bit of an insider's view on this, having done CPS for 8 years previous to my current gig as a hospital social worker on an LDRP. I'm not in CA, though, and each state has its own code and policies outlining child protection mandates...

In the hospital where I work, it's pretty common that a mom and baby can be discharged after 24hrs after an uneventful vag delivery, pending no other subsequent baby issues (ex, GBS +, phototherapy needs, etc). The OB clears mom for discharge, and the ped clears baby. In our hospital, this ped can be your community-based ped (if he/she has hospital privileges) or one of the hospitalists peds (if your ped does not have privileges). While some OBs will discharge a mama <24hrs, most, if not all, peds will want to wait for the 24hr mark.

There have been instances in which a mom wishes to discharge with her baby <24hrs, and the ped usually consults me to chat with the parents about their desire to leave in this "quick" timeframe (for hospital-based births). It's true, I am mandated by hospital policy to notify the dept of social services where the family lives. Typically this means I speak with a CPS social worker and explain the context of the situation. If there are no other red flags (like a history of abuse with the family or any previous CPS encounters, or concerning behaviors exhibited by the family during their stat, such as being inattentive to baby's needs), usually CPS will want to know who the baby's ped is and when the baby's follow-up is scheduled. Sometimes they will touch base with the family to explore the situation further, but rarely have I seen a circumstance where CPS advises the hospital that a baby cannot go home with parents or must stay. In those circumstances where CPS has formally intervened and prevented a discharge home, there is usually some outlying issue with the family.

I have found that it really is all in how you approach this subject with the family. If the ped or hospital social worker barge into a room and treat a family like they're a bunch of inconsiderate idiots, well, that's just asking for an outraged family. But if you gently explain that this is a mechanism that the hospital must engage to ensure the safety of babies and is in no an indictment of a parent's intent or ability to be a nurturing parent, most parents handle this little hiccup pretty well. I agree with an above poster that it's important to realize that a hospital has an obligation to ensure that a baby is safely discharged to the parents, and there are certain procedures that the hospital must adhere to legally...because there are, sadly, families that are not as thoughtful or as prepared as yours. I've seen some yucky stuff, and it's a shame that other families get lumped in with that.

Having said that, my advice to you is to be a proactive as you possibly can. 1)Touch base with your local dept of social services and discuss your intentions as your EDD rolls nearer. Chances are, if you have already placed this concern on their radar, they may be less likely to be super reactive when/if the hospital touches base with them. 2)Touch base with the hospital, possibly the nurse manager on the postpartum unit and explore this further. Let her/him know you've been in touch with DSS about this concern. Let them see that you're a thoughtful and prepared parent. Inquire if there is anything they might be able to do to proactively smooth out any wrinkles... 3)Find out who is going to be the ped responsible for discharging your baby--a hospital-based ped or your community ped--and discuss this further. Possibly even have this ped draw up a letter that can be placed in your prenatal records that go with you to the LDRP.

The worst possible thing you can do in this circumstance is nothing and waiting until you've delivered to explore the logistics of your early discharge. Hospitals, as you know, run like a factory (sad, but true) and anything out of the ordinary sends folks into a panic, and sometimes a very judgey panic at that. And you don't need that stress on such a big milestone day!

Good luck!


----------



## elisheva (May 30, 2006)

What was it Navelgazing Midwife said a while back? "If you buy the hospital ticket, you go for the hospital ride."

This isn't a battle I personally would fight. If having babe home soon is that important to you, can you look into a homebirth? Otherwise I think you need to make peace with their policies. On CPS' radar is *not* someplace you want to be.


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

alicia, you don't "own" the baby. The government does. They just allow you to care for it, at your own expense, provided you do it in a way that they are ok with. The fact that they can at any time take a baby away or give an order to the parents about the baby's care proves that they are the owners and we are just the caretakers. Parental rights in our country are a ridiculous joke. This stuff always makes me so angry.

The same applies to cars or real estate. You no longer hold the deed to your car. You get a certificate from the state that says that the car is registered in your name, and never see the deed. With real estate, there used to be what is called an allodial title. That was true ownership. If they can tax you for the house/land or take it away under eminent domain, you don't really own it. They are just letting you have exclusive use of it for the time being.


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Moon*
I have found that it really is all in how you approach this subject with the family. If the ped or hospital social worker barge into a room and treat a family like they're a bunch of inconsiderate idiots, well, that's just asking for an outraged family. But if you gently explain that this is a mechanism that the hospital must engage to ensure the safety of babies and is in no an indictment of a parent's intent or ability to be a nurturing parent, most parents handle this little hiccup pretty well. I agree with an above poster that it's important to realize that a hospital has an obligation to ensure that a baby is safely discharged to the parents, and there are certain procedures that the hospital must adhere to legally...because there are, sadly, families that are not as thoughtful or as prepared as yours. I've seen some yucky stuff, and it's a shame that other families get lumped in with that.

No matter how gently it is explained, it is still an insult. Parents should be free to do as they wish UNLESS there are red flags, not restricted until cleared by an authority. As a society that values liberty, it should be horrifying to us that we routinely cast suspicion on innocent families in order to screen for the ones that will neglect or abuse their children.


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

I'm with Lady Lilya. Under this policy, you're considered guilty until proven innocent. Very unAmerican. I'm glad I'm not having any more kids, and that I never had a hospital birth. How screwed up this system is. Hospitals get to kidnap babies. I'd refuse to pay any bills for anything past the point of wanting to leave with my child, and I'd add that to every form I signed ahead of time.


----------



## MoonHasBeams (Nov 1, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lady Lilya* 
No matter how gently it is explained, it is still an insult. Parents should be free to do as they wish UNLESS there are red flags, not restricted until cleared by an authority. As a society that values liberty, it should be horrifying to us that we routinely cast suspicion on innocent families in order to screen for the ones that will neglect or abuse their children.


I couldn't agree with you more, and I find it very frustrating to be in situations where I am called to assist in these kinds of matters. It is an insult and it is horrifying at the core to know that most rules/laws are made because someone else truly screwed things up in the past and may have nothing to do with the current situation.

My only point is that a hospital is confined to the parameter's of a state's law. Just because the hospital is mandated by law to contact the dept of social services DOES NOT mean that it is okay to treat the family like crap in this matter. Because the social work that I practice does not routinely cast suspicion on innocent families. It is a crummy spot to be in, as a parent, and the very least that hospital staff could do is treat the family with respect and understanding while they adhere to their mandate...


----------



## MoonHasBeams (Nov 1, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lotusdebi* 
I'm with Lady Lilya. Under this policy, you're considered guilty until proven innocent. Very unAmerican. I'm glad I'm not having any more kids, and that I never had a hospital birth. How screwed up this system is. Hospitals get to kidnap babies. I'd refuse to pay any bills for anything past the point of wanting to leave with my child, and I'd add that to every form I signed ahead of time.

Eeeeps, I suddenly find myself in a very awkward position of speaking for the hospital here, which is not how I expected to spend my first day posting on these boards.









The hospital is not kidnapping the baby, and that sounds like an inflammatory thought. The hospital is adhering to the state law. CPS and the court system are the entities responsible for determining when a change in custody must occur. The hospital is merely adhering to a state-established mandate. I get that hospitals have some VERY inane rules (as a social worker in one, and as a gal at 32 weeks who has been microscopically creating her own birth plan to counter some of the birthing obstacles a hospital-based birth presents), but in this sort of circumstance, it's not the hospital creating the rule or "kidnapping."

In my experience over the last decade in both roles (CPS and hospital social worker), I have NEVER seen a removal of custody based on this kind of circumstance--healthy, thoughtful, prepared parents without any kind of history. Not once.


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

Moon, I understand perfectly well that you are not a hospital. You just have inside info about how they work, and how they work with government agencies.


----------



## SoCaliMommy (Jun 11, 2004)

Whoever told you that is wrong. I live in CA and checked my son out and myself AMA when he was 6hours old from a hospital *he was born in 2006*. They just try and scare you about needing to do blood work that you can can come back the next day and do it.


----------



## raelize (Jun 17, 2006)

i realize this was 10 years ago, but my aunt was a homebirth transfered to hospital for a c/s in california. she signed herself AND baby out of the hospital 2 hours post op. i know she never got CPS called. and it was TOTALLY AMA.
have you posted this on the tribe boards for cali? someone there may have somemore insight about how true this threat really is.
if it deems to be as serious as you fear, i would either try to find a ped and jsut play the hopital game or look into a homebirth.


----------



## alicia9178 (Jun 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Irishmommy* 
So it's not actually ILLEGAL it's just against hospital policy?

Essentially the hospital and all of the ones in the area that I have spoken to say they will report it to CPS and refuse to "allow" you to leave with the baby.


----------



## alicia9178 (Jun 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *elisheva* 
What was it Navelgazing Midwife said a while back? "If you buy the hospital ticket, you go for the hospital ride."

This isn't a battle I personally would fight. If having babe home soon is that important to you, can you look into a homebirth? Otherwise I think you need to make peace with their policies. On CPS' radar is *not* someplace you want to be.

I would love to have the baby at home but cannot afford it, so I don't have that option. With that being said i do not believe that should limit my "rights".


----------



## caned & able (Dec 8, 2005)

Have the baby at home. There are plenty of good midwives in CA. It is worth the extra $. Do not let the insurance companies decide where you will have your baby.

Somebody along time ago posted that a woman was able to sign herself and her baby out AMA after much back and forth rig-a-moro with the staff of a small hospital when the hospital presented the new mother with a special form; a _Disposal Of Dead Infant Form_ to sign. In the story, the mother signed it and left.

When you are in the hospital, you are on their _turf_; much will depend on what hospital you are at, who your paediatrican is, and who is in charge of the ward at the time.

A hospital is an institution with rules that benefit it, not you.


----------



## Cutie Patootie (Feb 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *elisheva* 
What was it Navelgazing Midwife said a while back? "If you buy the hospital ticket, you go for the hospital ride."










That's awesome!


----------



## elisheva (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alicia9178* 
I would love to have the baby at home but cannot afford it, so I don't have that option. With that being said i do not believe that should limit my "rights".

You're right. It shouldn't, but it does. This is partially what comes from handing our country over to corporations (I'm an American living in Canada but speaking now as an American) - they make rules to benefit their bottom line and avoiding lawsuits is one of their biggest goals.

I don't know about CPS in CA but, honestly, the idea that they could take your baby or start to make trouble for your family would scare the crapola out of *me*. Guess I've been reading too many stories along these lines lately.


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

I was told the same thing. I found, though, that all I had to do was to tell them I WAS leaving at lunch time and I had to get the pedi in there by that time. It may not work for everyone, but I just kept on them and they finally gave in. The pedi gladly signed the discharge when I told him we were leaving. The only hesitation came from the OBs. But they finally gave in and signed me out, but noted that it was against their better judgement.


----------



## MegBoz (Jul 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MoonHasBeams* 
In the hospital where I work, it's pretty common that a mom and baby can be discharged after 24hrs after an uneventful vag delivery, pending no other subsequent baby issues

<snip>

There have been instances in which a mom wishes to discharge with her baby <24hrs, and the ped usually consults me to chat with the parents about their desire to leave in this "quick" timeframe (for hospital-based births). It's true, I am mandated by hospital policy to notify the dept of social services where the family lives.

<snip>
this is a mechanism that the hospital must engage to ensure the safety of babies

Ok, so am I understanding correctly that you do NOT have to have a "chat" with any family who does NOT wish to leave early?

If yes, so, in other words, families who keep their mouths shut & don't request to leave any sooner than normal aren't subjected to this mini "investigation." Right?

That has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

It's like a "net" to catch potentially abusive/neglectful parents, but a net with such massive holes that you'll rarely catch anyone in it - if you're only screening parents who request to go home early! Shoot, if I were abusive or neglectful, I'd do my best to stay _off_ the radar & would be LESS likely to request anything out of the ordinary, like early discharge!









I know such a 'chat' isn't a big deal. And I THINK we had a social worker chat with us too in the hospital as first time parents. But it was a standard thing for everyone and, at least in my perception, it was more to HELP us & answer any Qs we had about resources & assistance we might want/need, than it was to "check up on us" to make sure we wouldn't be abusive. It wasn't "checking us" to see if we were fit parents. BIG DIFFERENCE, IMO.

Just the IDEA that to request something so normal & what should be typical as discharge <24 hrs "requiring" a "check up" ticks me off. I"M NOT A CHILD! This is MY BABY & I shouldn't be "investigated" unless there is good cause. And I sure as







shouldn't have to wait to "pass" - wait for "approval" before leaving with a healthy newborn in <24 hours.

(Sorry, Moon, I know you are just the messenger - I'm expressing outrage at the State's policies, not you personally. I'm sure lots of families are lucky to have your assistance!)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lady Lilya* 
Parents should be free to do as they wish UNLESS there are red flags, not restricted until cleared by an authority.

Exactly! Well said! You expressed how I felt in a much more succinct & eloquent manner. Yeah -> that!

All this being said, I was GBS+ with my DS & didn't have time for antibiotics, so standard is to stay 48 hours. (Which is stupid & not evidence-based since early-onset-GBS infection shows symptoms within 24 hours in 90-some% of cases, whereas LATE-onset-GBS infection can not show up for 3 weeks. So, 24 hours should be the limit, but, ya know, whatever, to heck with science & stats.







)

I decided not to fight it.

It wasn't that bad. Really wasn't. Nurses were awesome, room was HUGE & plenty of seating for my many visitors. They even had the paperwork ready to go so we could walk out the door at 48 hours on the dot. Yeah, the food was bad, but DH brought me stuff. It was nice having help cleaning meconium diapers.







& as a FTM, having someone show me again how to swaddle.

Again, I was in the hospital for 48 hours & it really wasn't that bad.

There were other tiny perks too - like a free massage! Having the birth cert & social security paperwork taken care of is another bonus & chores I'm not looking forward to with my upcoming HB. So, overall, I'd try not to sweat it too much if you're stuck a bit. You got some fantastic ideas from MoonHasBeams on how to make it happen, but if you're still encountering problems or just decide it's not worth the hassle, then really, I don't think being stuck is all THAT bad if it's a decent hospital.


----------



## turnquia (May 26, 2008)

The thing is when your requesting to leave early with so many "risk" factors that could affect baby then it does appear to potentially be abusive or neglectful to hospital staff and social workers.

If your GBS positive and you refuse treatement no Pediatrician will discharge early because they want to watch for a possible GBS infection. 48 hours being CDC guildelines for this, plus labwork. IF a pediatrician were to sign a baby out willingly BEFORE the 48 hours and your baby dies of a GBS infection... it will be aweful for you, but that doc will also face large ramifications from the early discharge. They will face not only a lawsuit from you potentially, as well as potential loss of their license, as well as could face criminal charges for doing something that isn't considered a safe standard of care. So, yes if you sign out AMA you protect hospital and doctor from liability but doesn't mean that it doesn't appear neglectful if your kid could have an issue. Now if it was for JUST GBS and baby was over 37 weeks, and you recieved BOTH doses of antibiotics then you may be able to get a ped to sign an early release. But adding in the GD and your history of prematurity (if baby is born at 36 weeks) I'm not thinking you'd find a ped willing to do an early release and maybe not one before 48 hours if you have ALL of that going on. (Not sure on protocols reguarding GD or prematurity).

Heck we cannot afford a homebirth either but will be making it happen somehow. In my hospital twins are mandated to be delivered in OR, they just automatically will do a breech extraction for 2nd twin, require epidural, etc. Or OB's won't attempt a vaginal delivery. They also mandate ALL twins go to the NICU for observation... even if they are born full term, good weights and doing well. Just because there was two of them. So we're choosing to have a homebirth and toughing out the money situation so we can hopefully have the care that we feel is acceptable reguardless of how many babies are in there.

If you still decide for the hospital birth and stay the 24 hours, enjoy it. You get fully cooked and prepared meals served to you, and cleaned up after. You can refuse any checks on yourself and require any newborn stuff done with you present. I had two hospital births and both the stays after were great. I also made sure my nurse was very strict with visiting hours lol so we didn't get too many people coming to see us at once.







If I felt I could get the best care in our hospital I would most certainly go there, but I refuse to fight like that in labor as well as for my babies who won't need NICU care at full term just because there was two of them in my belly at once.

Good luck in figuring out what your going to do.


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *turnquia* 
If you still decide for the hospital birth and stay the 24 hours, enjoy it. You get fully cooked and prepared meals served to you, and cleaned up after.

I wish this were true. I was in the hospital for three meal times. I only got one, after my mom went looking for it, and only ten minutes from me walking out the door. Not to mention that it was only a wrapped sandwhich.

No wonderfully hot meals for me. Part of why I was so "uncooperative", I was starving! And a lot of why I will never willingly do a hospital birth again.


----------



## turnquia (May 26, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kidzaplenty* 
I wish this were true. I was in the hospital for three meal times. I only got one, after my mom went looking for it, and only ten minutes from me walking out the door. Not to mention that it was only a wrapped sandwhich.

No wonderfully hot meals for me. Part of why I was so "uncooperative", I was starving! And a lot of why I will never willingly do a hospital birth again.

Awww that's so sad! I hope you complained once you were discharged! Our hospital has meal service that you call for your food when ready and can order off a pretty big menu...so it was definately a perk for me having a hospital birth.


----------



## crazyms (Jan 8, 2010)

I think the whole situation sounds ridiculous. A homebirth would be better but if it's not a good option for you maybe you can find ways to make the hospital birth better. I had my first 2 in the hospital and am still debating what to do this time. With DD I had no idea what I was doing and went entirely mainstream. Doc said this test needs to be done OMG okay! Epidural is best. Gotcha! Give here. Give baby bottle. Well are you sure? Umm okay. I hated it. I did my research and learned a little before DS. I planned for a homebirth but with minor pregnancy complications early DH wanted to use docs so we did just in case. I spoke up though and it wasn't as bad. DS was exclusively bf asap after birth no bottles, no pacis, etc. I told nurses what I wanted and they agreed. It wasn't so bad. The room was nice. I was mostly left alone during labor and the 48 hr stay was peaceful. Baby stayed with me and we BF. That was pretty much it.

If I was in your position and felt I had to go the hospital route I'd start talking. Talk to the hospital and see what options are available. Talk to the obs and peds. Find out your options. I'm sure you can find a way to make this more bareable. I wouldn't want to deal with the possibility of dealing with CPS.


----------



## MoonHasBeams (Nov 1, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MegBoz* 
Ok, so am I understanding correctly that you do NOT have to have a "chat" with any family who does NOT wish to leave early?

If yes, so, in other words, families who keep their mouths shut & don't request to leave any sooner than normal aren't subjected to this mini "investigation." Right?

I'm consulted for LOADS of other reasons besides a family wanting to leave in a quicker timeframe. That really falls into the minority of what I do. (Mostly I deal with adoptions, substance-exposed newborns, incarcerated moms, teen moms, NICU micropreemies who need to be connected with community resources, lack of family support system, etc. And these things are much more concerning and involved that a mama who wants to take her baby home!) Just a rough guess, but in my 2 years as a hospital social worker, I have maybe been consulted less than 5 times for something akin to this. (And in those circumstances there was an intermix of issues, not just the early discharge request.) I imagine that there are an abundance of other moms who do leave earlier than typical, but they have had an open dialogue with their care providers and this smooths the way for their individualized birth plan. Everyone communicated appropriately, and there was no need for me to be involved.

If you *think* a social worker spoke with you, my thought is that s/he did it the right way--in a way that respected your new role as a parent, that empowered your ability to meet your baby's needs, and that prepared you in some way for some of the odds and ends for life after discharge.

I get it, I do. At the outset it all does seem ridiculous. I'm just trying to share a view through a slightly different lens. I've fought my own professional battles and I've made diligent efforts to educate the nursing staff about particular social issues. While I may not have the final say in any of these matters, I make sure that I do my job to be an advocate for the patient.

I start to feel a _little_ snarly when I feel like all hospitals (or hospital social workers fulfilling a job duty) are painted with such an inflammatory brush. While I know there are lots like that, I also know that there are lots who aren't.

Bottom line: if you're planning a hospital birth, be diligent and prepared and openly communicative and persistent. I think it's great that the original poster is starting this dialogue here, as I think it can only serve to get her where she wants to be for her birthing.


----------



## Rejoicing (Nov 6, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~Amy~* 
Sounds like a big empty threat to me, personally. They may call, but I suspect CPS has bigger problems to deal with than a competent, responsible mother wanting to take a perfectly healthy newborn home a little early.

NO NO NO!!! They are not "bluffing" They absolutely will, and CPS will jump at the chance to get involved. You wouldn't think it could happen, you would seriously think not in our country, but it is true unfortunately. They can even call cps and take your baby from you if you do not agree to what they want for you during your birth. It has happened.


----------



## Rejoicing (Nov 6, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alicia9178* 
I would love to have the baby at home but cannot afford it, so I don't have that option. With that being said i do not believe that should limit my "rights".

Don't let $ be an issue. If you can't find a mw willing to work with you financially, there's always UC. It is an option, and not so scarey. Not as scarey as having to play someone else game with your and your baby's lives!


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MoonHasBeams* 
CPS and the court system are the entities responsible for determining when a change in custody must occur.

The aspect of this that's insane is that the hospital has custody _at all_. I go in with a baby in my uterus, and then I need their permission to take that baby home? Why do they have custody in the first place? At most, they removed the baby from my body - in many cases, they were simply observers (okay -not many, as simply observing isn't usually their game plan). If someone helps me get my child out of a locked car - or even _gets_ my child out of a locked car (and I'm picturing a child getting into an unlocked car and locking it from the inside, not a parent locking their child in) - they don't have custody of my child! When my neighbour unscrewed a board in the playground, becuase ds2's knee was stuck, he didn't have custody of ds2. Why does a hospital have custody of a baby, just because they _may_ have removed/assisted said baby from the mother's uterus?

Medical establishments have too much power.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MoonHasBeams* 
I'm consulted for LOADS of other reasons besides a family wanting to leave in a quicker timeframe. That really falls into the minority of what I do. (Mostly I deal with adoptions, substance-exposed newborns, incarcerated moms, teen moms, NICU micropreemies who need to be connected with community resources, lack of family support system, etc. And these things are much more concerning and involved that a mama who wants to take her baby home!) Just a rough guess, but in my 2 years as a hospital social worker, I have maybe been consulted less than 5 times for something akin to this. (And in those circumstances there was an intermix of issues, not just the early discharge request.) I imagine that there are an abundance of other moms who do leave earlier than typical, but they have had an open dialogue with their care providers and this smooths the way for their individualized birth plan. Everyone communicated appropriately, and there was no need for me to be involved.

If you *think* a social worker spoke with you, my thought is that s/he did it the right way--in a way that respected your new role as a parent, that empowered your ability to meet your baby's needs, and that prepared you in some way for some of the odds and ends for life after discharge.

I get it, I do. At the outset it all does seem ridiculous. I'm just trying to share a view through a slightly different lens. I've fought my own professional battles and I've made diligent efforts to educate the nursing staff about particular social issues. While I may not have the final say in any of these matters, I make sure that I do my job to be an advocate for the patient.

I start to feel a _little_ snarly when I feel like all hospitals (or hospital social workers fulfilling a job duty) are painted with such an inflammatory brush. While I know there are lots like that, I also know that there are lots who aren't.

Bottom line: if you're planning a hospital birth, be diligent and prepared and openly communicative and persistent. I think it's great that the original poster is starting this dialogue here, as I think it can only serve to get her where she wants to be for her birthing.

FWIW, I saw a hospital social worker once (transfered from a HBA3C attempt, and my son was stillborn). She's one of only three hospital employee I've ever dealt with that I have nothing but positive thoughts about. I still hate hospitals and most medpros, but I have fairly positive mental picture of hospital social workers (so far, at least).


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Quote:

I wish this were true. I was in the hospital for three meal times. I only got one, after my mom went looking for it, and only ten minutes from me walking out the door. Not to mention that it was only a wrapped sandwhich.

No wonderfully hot meals for me. Part of why I was so "uncooperative", I was starving! And a lot of why I will never willingly do a hospital birth again.








Yep. We went in on Sunday morning, stayed alllll day waiting for results (to tell me I had urgent! pre-eclampsia! and my organs! were shutting! down!... but apparently it took them ten hours to get around to a) finding that out and b) informing me). At 6PM, when we were starving, DH went out and got us pizza. Then I was induced at midnight, laboured for 18 hours... during which time the hospital offered me nothing, and DH offered me a few bits of fruit salad from the cafeteria which I didn't want. Then after DD was born, the placenta was extracted (dramatic, long story) and I got cleaned up, I was STARVING and asked for something to eat. Cue much fussing, fluffing around and claims that dinner was already over... well OK, yeah, but during dinnertime I was PUSHING A BABY OUT and now I was hungry! They eventually found me a reheated meal: nasty strained chicken, gluey mashed potatoes and incredibly overcooked peas. You know how they say the first meal after you give birth tastes great, because you're starving? Yeah, no. This tasted revolting.









Luckily I then transferred to the birth centre, where they spent two days plying me with soup and cheesecakes and muffins and things... not terribly healthy, but yummy. But I swear, this time, no matter where I end up birthing, I'm freezing some delicious hearty meal and getting DH to bring it along, so I'll know I can have some decent food when I'm done labouring!


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

My mother gave birth to me in 1980. The day of the birth, she had no appetite. Around 10pm she started feeling contractions. I was born at 10:30. Then she was ravenous. But the hospital kitchen was closed and they wouldn't rustle her up anything. The next morning, they brought her a tiny stack of silver dollar pancakes.

Then when she was expecting my sister in 1984, she packed mostly food in the hospital bag.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

The hospitals I delivered at gave me food pretty much as the babies were crowning







. It was kind of awesome. Actually, it took a couple of hours with my oldest, but he had respiratory distress at birth and there was a huge crowd of people working on him and he eventually went to the NICU - so, more important things were happening than a hungry mom. With DD, I was handed a bag with a huge sandwich, fruit, yogurt, etc right after they cleaned DD up and weighed her and handed her back to me (this was at around 10:30 PM). DS2 was born around 6:30AM, and I got the regular breakfast service even though I wasn't in my own room yet (there were a ridiculous number of babies born the night ds2 was born and I had to hang out in thel&D room while they found a place for us). The whole time I was there with him, they kept coming by and offering me more snacks than I could possibly need (I kept taking them and saved them for my older kids when they came to see the baby







). I just can't believe there are hospitals out there not feeding women! I know most have a no food during labor policy (though my awesome L&D nurse when I had DD basically told me "I'm supposed to tell you not to eat. I'm supposed to let someone know so they can "talk to you" if I see you eating. I hope any eating that goes on happens when I'm not in the room."







- she's the one who gave me the big bag of food after dd was born!).


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lady Lilya* 
My mother gave birth to me in 1980. The day of the birth, she had no appetite. Around 10pm she started feeling contractions. I was born at 10:30. Then she was ravenous. But the hospital kitchen was closed and they wouldn't rustle her up anything. The next morning, they brought her a tiny stack of silver dollar pancakes.

That sounds about right. I will _never_ forget my experience with ds1...went into labour on Thursday night, and brought up everything I'd eaten for dinner. I had no appetite during labour and only got down a handful of grapes and a bit of cereal. I went to the hospital Friday evening (at about 20 hours of labour) and was in OR having a c-section before I knew what was going on. Because it was a c-section, they put me on a liquid diet. I finally got solid food on _Tuesday_, when I lied about having passed gas.

So...last meal (that I actually kept down) was lunchtime Thursday, and I got solid food again on _Tuesday_. That's _five days_ without solid food, while trying to labour, recover from surgery and establish breastfeeding. I was weak as a kitten and couldn't even walk to the bathroom in my room without help.

Their food wasn't delicious, but I didn't care by the time they _fed_ me.

Since then, most of what I eat in the hospital comes with me, or is brought in by my loving dh.


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Storm Bride: Wow. That is cruel and unusual punishment.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Smokering* 
Storm Bride: Wow. That is cruel and unusual punishment.

What really bugged me was the way they kept hassling me to walk. I think they thought I was making too big a deal of the pain. But, in retrospect, it wasn't really the pain - I just had _no_ energy and felt sooooo weak. (Then, after I'd had some food, I walked the ward 4 times in one morning, and the same nurse who had been on my case so much told me I was overdoing it. ARRGH!!)


----------



## Bekka (Nov 20, 2001)

I know the food topic is OT kind of, but this is one reason why so many of us haven't had any babies in hospital for a long, long time. My experience was NOT as extreme as StormBride, but I really didn't get the link between food and energy in labor. I am also very hair trigger when it comes to blood glucose. I ate a "measly" lunch the day they were trying to "get me" to be induced for dd1 because my BP kept going up (not clinically, just slightly elevated, whatever).

I didn't eat dinner and arrived with dh at the hospital at 5 pm for a scheduled induction. Then they said stuff like no food, b/c going ahead with induction, then they didn't come in until 7 or 8 pm to actually DO anything. I was already a mess, 8 or more hours w/o food. Baby was born at almost midnight (and that was fast) and it was WAY interventive but still unmedicated (except induction). So then they were trying to find some kind of food (lame sandwich) at about 1:30 am for me to EAT. Yeah, food was a HUGE reason I switched to hospital-based midwives.

The earliest I could EVER get released was 24 hours, and that was "really flexible" on the part of the ped. Our last 2 were born at home. I was tired of "working with" policies.

Alicia, best wishes with whatever you decide to do.


----------



## NewSolarMomma (Sep 12, 2010)

lady lilya- you are exactly right, the interference is insane. Im all for stopping abuse but it seems like Every year what is considered "acceptable parenting" becomes more limited, and the # of things that are illegal increases. Things we were allowed as kids are no longer acceptable.
BTW, CA is regulation HELL, even though it is a crunchy state overall. ive lived all over, and am from Ohio, and have never seen anything like it (TX was bad but in a different, equally awful way).
The problem with CPS is that it only takes one case worker that doesn't like the way you parent to cause all kinds of problems. whenever you hear of a CPS case where a child was removed, so many people say "oh, they wouldn't just remove a kid if all is well, something had to be going on". And you would think this was true, after all there are plenty of real abuses to keep them busy. But it DOES happen, and over things that are ridiculous, even while kids are being beat to death by parents elsewhere. I'm sure most of the time nothing happens, but when it does youndont want to be the one in trouble.

All the rules are making kids too sheltered and parents fearful of any little thing. I Read the blog Free Range Kids and the stories about parents having to deal with CPS because they let their kid play in the yard alone, or something similar, are all over. I dont know what happened to America the brave, we seem to be promoting cowering weakinglings that need big brother to tell us how to live.

Not being able to take your baby out is BS, I know it's a legal thing but that doesn't make it right!

Right now I live just South of San Diego in Mexico and am seriously considering staying here, where kids can be kids and parents can raise them however they want. Seems to me the only parents who get away with parenting how they see fit if it's at odds with contemporary experts are the religious ones.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alicia9178* 
I would love to have the baby at home but cannot afford it, so I don't have that option. With that being said i do not believe that should limit my "rights".

Have you talked to midwives in your area about insurance, breaking up payments, etc?

The midwife who attended the birth of our fourth let us pay her what we could each month until it was paid off, which we did with our tax return.


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

NewSolar, when we were deciding where in the US we would want to live, we looked for low-regulation places. As nice as it is to have a crunchy community, because of all the awesome things available in stores, it is more important to be able to live life how you want.


----------



## A_Random_Phrase (Mar 27, 2008)

OP - How close are you to another state?


----------



## A-mac (May 18, 2010)

I'm curious if Oregon has the same laws.


----------



## MyFullHouse (Apr 23, 2010)

OP-
I didn't see this question asked, but I may have just missed it.
Will your regular pediatrician be the one "in charge" of the baby's care at the hospital?

To me, that seems like the biggest factor. There's a difference between leaving early and leaving AMA. My peds have been happy to clear one of my babies to leave early, but encouraged me to stay another night with another of my babies (and made it clear that leaving would be AMA... though no threats). I had no problem following their advice to stay with the one, because they explained their reasoning (which had nothing to do with arbitrary rules), and I concurred.
Having a long, trusting relationship with the hcp "in charge" absolutely had an impact on those decisions.

I do worry a bit with this next delivery b/c my peds no longer see patients my hospital. But, based on my previous experiences, I'm more worried about what might trigger an AMA "ruling" than anything else. I wouldn't want to leave early if there were a genuine reason to stay.

My mws report that most moms and babies continue to be discharged early, so that's a good sign. I'd look into getting feedback on the recent trends at your particular hospital before worrying too much. Because, again, early discharge and AMA are too very different things, unless the discharging ped is just a jerk!


----------



## Irishmommy (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A-mac* 
I'm curious if Oregon has the same laws.

I still haven't read that it's actually a LAW as opposed to a hospital policy. If it's a LAW, then a lawyer is needed, and it needs to go to court before the baby is born.


----------



## SubliminalDarkness (Sep 9, 2009)

Do you know your OB? Do you know him/her well? Does he/she agree with your desire to leave quickly?

In my case, I had a hospital birth. I also LOVED my OB and he was very respectful of everything I wanted. I got the impression that he trusted me. I was well informed about things and I told him how I wanted things to be, then asked him how he could help me get there. I will also say, I am not a good person socially. I have anxiety problems that are especially bad when it comes to authority situations. But, this was something where I just felt so strongly, I was able to make it work.

My OB was fully on board with me and the baby leaving ASAP, barring any significant complications. He wasn't even worried about jaundice. When it came up after the fact he said something like, "I'm always telling those doctors that if they're worried, take the baby to natural light and look at it there. Everyone looks sick under hospital lights."

So, he lined up a pediatrician to check baby out ASAP and discharge him. I also lined up with our personal pediatrician(who didn't go to this hospital) an appointment for the following day so all our ducks were in a row. We didn't have any problem. We got a little bit delayed because our nurse was busy and it took her a bit to finish our paperwork. But I wasn't too concerned about an hour or two, no big deal in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## OkiMom (Nov 21, 2007)

Ok I don't know much about signing a baby out AMA. But I have to say after reading this thread I fell very fortunate with the food situation at the hospitals I delievered at. With my first one of the L&D nurses snagged a bag breakfest off the tray going up to the post partum floor and brought it to me like 10 minutes after I delieverd. I ate as soon as I was done being stitched up.. When I got to the L&D floor it was lunch time and they offered more food which I was starving so I gladly ate. They gave me a menu and had me choose what I wanted the rest of the nights and even made a special dinner for DH and I to share.
With my second it wasn't as good but the food was still there. When I missed a meal due to being in the NICU they always kept it and rewarmed it when I got back so I didn't have to eat anything cold.
Both times they had granola bars, crackers, whole fruit, juice, tea and water in the "mother's lounge" along with coffee for the dads and any moms who wanted it and hot cocoa mix/hot water.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OkiMom* 
Ok I don't know much about signing a baby out AMA. But I have to say after reading this thread I fell very fortunate with the food situation at the hospitals I delievered at. With my first one of the L&D nurses snagged a bag breakfest off the tray going up to the post partum floor and brought it to me like 10 minutes after I delieverd. I ate as soon as I was done being stitched up.. When I got to the L&D floor it was lunch time and they offered more food which I was starving so I gladly ate.

I've only had c-sections, and there are different rules. It's not quite as universal as it used to be, and my OB actually did override the standard rules when I had ds2, but the general rule after a c/s is that the patient gets no solid food until they've passed gas (or nursing staff can hear bowel sounds, in some places).


----------

