Hearing force deaf son to wear CI, very sad

I saw that. If I understood, the stepfather took the father's place and it is obvious the deaf man is the father because the child is deaf (assuming the girl is hearing with hearing family). But there's nothing he can do about it. The mother is going to do it no matter what.

Custody issue is an ugly thing. That's why you need to be very careful who you get pregnant with. You'll end up with a lot of heartache that hurt far worst then breakups. If the mother was deaf, it is very easy for a hearing father to sneak behind her back and get their child implanted.

it's not the implant that bother me, it's the fact that when the child is in the father's home, the father has a court order that the child have to wear CI at all time. The father do not need that court order. Maybe he can get a court order that the mother must sign to her child at all time too.

Anyway, it is true that once you hear sounds, your ears ring if you cut off communication. That's why alot of deaf with hearing aids have bad ringing as well.
 
Lighthouse77 said:
Anyway, it is true that once you hear sounds, your ears ring if you cut off communication. That's why alot of deaf with hearing aids have bad ringing as well.
Click to expand...

That was interesting to hear that. I have one hearing aid since I was 9 years old and I never have ringing in my ear for 22 years.
 
My ears ring occur mostly when I take off my implant or hearing aids. When I wear them, I don't always hear ringing. Although, there been time I have heard it while wearing my processor or hearing aid. There have been times that the ringing is very faint that I don't notice unless I pay attention to it.

Most doctor recommend hearing aids to people who have really bad ringing. My husband's grandfather have to keep the radio on all night in order for his ringing to go away.
 
Lighthouse speaks words of wisdom. In this case, the mother must the exclusive right to make all medical decisions. Custody is never an easy thing and it's never over until the kid is an adult.
 
If the surgeon did the implantation (and is not being sued for malpractice) the mother must have custody. The decision is hers.

As for the court order, why would you put a child through surgery and then allow them to not wear the device? It only works if it is worn. In a situation where custody is an issue, the court often lays out exactly what will happen with regard to medical, school, and other issues, especially if there is a disagreement between the parent (which obviously there is!)
 
Beside, the court is so nasty regarding with the custody. That's sad.
It's interesting to see that little girl mentioned that its ringing in her head while she goes to bed. It must be difficult for her. I wonder were it from tinnius or from CI itself. It's hard to tell from between two that is possible to cause it.
At first my hubby didn't want a CI then doctor told him that maybe he can get rid of his tinnius if he gets a CI. He thought it won't hurt to give it a try. He went for it. But tinnius is back, just like before. Its all same but sometimes worse. I think CI won't cure tinnius at all. SO for this little girl, its hard to tell if its from tinnius or ci. =/
 
Frisky Feline said:
Beside, the court is so nasty regarding with the custody. That's sad.
It's interesting to see that little girl mentioned that its ringing in her head while she goes to bed. It must be difficult for her. I wonder were it from tinnius or from CI itself. It's hard to tell from between two that is possible to cause it.
At first my hubby didn't want a CI then doctor told him that maybe he can get rid of his tinnius if he gets a CI. He thought it won't hurt to give it a try. He went for it. But tinnius is back, just like before. Its all same but sometimes worse. I think CI won't cure tinnius at all. SO for this little girl, its hard to tell if its from tinnius or ci. =/
Click to expand...

my opinion is from her hearing out of CI for the first time after all these years of silent. You'll have to ask deaf who never wore hearing aids or CI in their entire life if they experience tinnius.

Unfortunately, tinnitus hardly ever go away. It's here to stay for good.
 
faire_jour said:
As for the court order, why would you put a child through surgery and then allow them to not wear the device? It only works if it is worn. In a situation where custody is an issue, the court often lays out exactly what will happen with regard to medical, school, and other issues, especially if there is a disagreement between the parent (which obviously there is!)
Click to expand...

I don't see the purpose of wearing CI if the father is not going to speak to her. He is a signing father.

you know, some people probably will go though CI surgery if it must be done to get people off their back but don't ever enforce their child to wear it, especially they are signing deaf.
 
Lighthouse77 said:
my opinion is from her hearing out of CI for the first time after all these years of silent. You'll have to ask deaf who never wore hearing aids or CI in their entire life if they experience tinnius.

Unfortunately, tinnitus hardly ever go away. It's here to stay for good.
Click to expand...

I do not have serious tinnitus. I think i get it like one time a year and it was very short like 1 minute or less. i ve been wearing my hearing aid since i was toddler. i dont know anyone who never wear ha or ci for years. But i have met some adult people who don't wear ha or ci at all. they didn't say anything about tinnitus. I should ask them about it.
 
If two partners live together still and disagree on something then the court cannot come in and enforce either party's opinion, so why should they enforce on the father what he can do with his custodial time? If the couple were still together then if he took his child out for a day trip and took off the implant there would be nobody who could say a thing about it. Obviously these are not parents who have been able to resolve differences in the past, hence the separation, but unless one parent is hugely negligent their opinions count for 50-50 and I can't believe that one parent can overrule the other like this!
 
There is a whole bunch of missing information here and the story, if I am understanding correctly, is also questionable.

apparently the mother has remarried and the stepfather and mother are the ones that signed for the CI surgury. What is unkonwn is did the father allow the new stepfather to become legal guardian thus giving up his rights and also the need to pay child support?

And the whole girlfriend thing with her hearing parents not supporting her makes no sense to me. Again, assuming I am understanding the story correctly based on the closed caption.
 
yeah, I wonder if the parents really did threatened not to support her if she decided not the implant her child.

But I can easily see people sign their rights away. This happened to my uncle. He signed his rights away, and now he regret it.
 
What an ass!! He was not even the boyfriend of the mother when the child was born.

If he had stepped up and taken responsibility in the first place and made sure he was part of the child's life and listed as father on the birth certificate, he would have more rights.

I despise him for complaining after the fact when he did nothing to help.
 
That true, but he is part of his life now, and have to follow the court order, but I don't think that court order is needed.
 
I feel bad for the father but I do not see this as a case about the CI. It's a case about who is allowed to make the decision for the child. If it wasn't the CI it could have been something else. So it seems the question is about the mother and step father signing to okay the procedure. Did the step father have legal rights to do so? Most likely he did or this would have been an issue in court.

In short it's about custody.

I also don't see this as a sad story to anyone but the father. In his opinion his daughter has something he does not endorse. I can't say it's sad for the child for I don't really know what the child thinks of it. Him talking about the child not moving and in pain. No one moves after surgery. No one wants to eat and drink a lot after surgery. The child, unless it's reminded of it over and over again, will not even remember the surgery. We all have ear ringing for a month or two after surgery. It does away in most cases. I wouldn't call it sad for the child until the child is older and says she wishes she never had it. He says the child doesn't wear it much around him "Because the child feels free not to". We don't know that is the reason. I'm taking it as his reasoning of it. But it's also possible that the child doesn't wear them around him because he doesn't have them. We, going by this interview, don't know what the child thinks of it. But I do feel for the father having something done to his child that he doesn't like. But, I don't really know if he earned that right in the first place. Making a child doesn't make them a parent. That's something they have to step up to become.
 
I saw a dad who filed a claim denying paternity of a child. Subsequently, the court established paternity with a DNA test. He'd probably jump at the opportunity to sign away his rights. Sad thing is that his child will probably know about it in the future.
 
I don't really see it as being about physical custody, more about cultural beliefs and one being accepted as "right" and the other "wrong". If you are the custodial parent you generally have more rights because you have more responsibilities, but things like a CI take a number of months or more to decide about and arrange so that's quite long enough to take through proper court paperwork rather than something urgent like if he objected to a blood transfusion where a decision is needed on the spot for life or death. We don't know if he went to court to try to block the surgery, particularly the second surgery because he knew they were trying to do this, he could have got it made an offence I'm sure.

But to insist that a child is wearing the processor during the other parent's custody is very controlling. Doesn't respect his opinion or the child's wishes and his response to those wishes. If the kid is at his house and says daddy this thing is really hurting my ear (say she has a fungus under the processor) then he cannot say OK it's reasonable that we take it off - that's daft! The courts are saying you have the right to time to spend with your child but you have to spend that time in a way that her mother dictates. It's almost like not having vistation at all!
 
Back
Top