I surveyed the room - with its modest proportions, hospital-style bed and adjacent crib - and realised it wasn't configured for uninterrupted sleep so I dispatched Kevin to secure a separate room for him and the baby. And soon I was fast asleep. A kind midwife came in at midnight to give me some pain relief and she whispered: "Father and baby are doing well."
At around 8am when the morning shift arrived Kevin and the baby were asked to leave their room and move in with me. "These rooms are for mothers and babies. Not men," a midwife huffed. (For the record, there were many vacant rooms and we paid in full for the extra one.)
It was only Kevin's second day of parenthood yet two separate incidents at two separate facilities had made him feel surplus to requirements. But that didn't deter him from being a fully hands-on father once we were free from the influence of these institutions.
He did about 80 per cent of the night feeds for those first seven weeks and, because I didn't want to witness the injections, he took our daughter for every vaccination. He missed her during the day while he was at the office and when he arrived home he would take over the baby routines. It wasn't something we specifically discussed; we just believe that fathers are as important and as capable as mothers.
And yet, as the Weepu affair has revealed, some outdated notions that babies are women's work persist from generations ago. I read with interest a piece entitled Weepu strays into ideological minefield in which fathers' rights advocate Darrell Carlin asserts that this is a tactical weapon devised by feminists to create a barrier between men and their babies. I'd always thought its source was a patriarchy intent on keeping women out of the boardrooms and positions of power.
My husband is not unique. Hands-on fathers are everywhere, just quietly getting on with raising and loving their children. Somewhat under the radar, they're the unsung heroes of our family units who should be celebrated not spurned.