Haidyn Timothy Yates arrives

Baby boy is the first to be born in Sandusky in 2014.
Jessica Cuffman
Jan 3, 2014
He interrupted his parents’ New Year’s Eve celebration and kept his mother in labor for 18 hours.

But Haidyn Timothy Yates arrived when he was ready at 5:09 p.m., the first baby born in 2014 at Firelands Regional Medical Center in Sandusky Jan. 1.

The first child to his engaged parents, Kirsten Smith and Timothy Yates, of Fremont, the infant, cozy in a green onesie and yellow mittens, slept soundly Thursday evening while mom and dad awaited their supper.

See local babies born in 2013 by clicking HERE

The only baby born in the hospital on New Year’s Day, his arrival excited the young couple, even after the lengthy wait.

“He was being so stubborn,” Smith, 24, said.

“Those are traits he gets from his mother” Yates, 25, said.

He was due to arrive Dec. 30, but a checkup with the doctor showed he wasn’t quite ready yet, and his parents were expecting to induce labor early next week.

After they got ready to go to a New Year’s Eve party Tuesday, the baby boy decided it was time, and they were at Firelands by 11:30 p.m.

Smith endured the wait without an epidural anesthetic and 18 hours later, Haidyn was here.

“It’s like she was meant to do it,” Yates said.

“It didn’t really hit us until after we had him,” the new mom said. “I keep telling him, he looks so much like you from the nose down and everything else is me”

On their arrival home, they’ll be greeted by their German Shephard mix, Rex, whose been great with children. “He’ll be his protector” Smith said.

The couple plans to move back to Arizona soon, where Smith is from, and where they’ll have their wedding on June 25, 2016, a date that’s the anniversary of the start of their relationship. Now, however, they have another special date for their new family. “Everyone will always be celebrating his birthday, right down to the ball dropping” Yates said.

Comments

Good 2 B Me

Ahhh yes. Another unwed couple. I wonder if we paid for this child to be born too.

BabyMomma

Duh.

deertracker

You two take ignorant to a whole new level! Congratulations to the proud parents!

BabyMomma

Duh

andrew43420

if i am not mistaking the father was in the army, protecting idiots like you

Truth2u

Doesn't matter if he was in the Army or not, so were a lot others.
You talk about being an idiot, please explain to me the connection that adultery is ok if someone is in the Army, what exactly does that have to do with morals and something you and deertracker can't even define, its called ABSOLUTES.

nikfrog

Adultery? Perhaps you should check the definition of adultery! Unless one of them is currently married, simply having a baby out of wedlock does not make it adultery! Look it up! Apparently you can't even define adultery and your talking about absolutes? Ha!
Again, all of this falls under NONE OF OUR BUISNESS!!

nikfrog

Just for fun....
ab·so·lute
noun
1. a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.
"good and evil are presented as absolutes"

adul·ter·y
noun
1. voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse.
synonyms: infidelity, unfaithfulness, falseness, disloyalty

And so ends English 101! LOL!

KnuckleDragger

I'm sure what was meant was Fornication: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other.

andrew43420

the point i was trying to make is someone said "i bet we paid for this child to be born" it pisses me off people assume things and who cares if they are married or not it isn't anyone's business

Good 2 B Me

You are trying to make a point based on incorrect information, I said: "I wonder if we paid for this child to be born too." Nowhere in that statement was any assumption or suggesting a "Bet" that we did.

Sandusksquach

There is a misprint in the headline! The correct spelling is "Hayden".

A 4 year engagement? Came to sandusky just to give birth?

DickTracey

Thank you Facebook for making it cool, awesome and fun, to have a baby before you get married.

Thanks to Facebook and unwed women posting daily baby bump photos, sonograms and "my baby at 22 weeks", for all the world to see, it is now the popular thing to do!

Lonely girls scrolling on Facebook want to be like the in crowd, and post baby bump photos, like all their friends, so they go out and get knocked up by the first guy they meet.

Go in the bathroom pull up your shirt and take a selfie of your baby bump, with a nasty filthy toilet in the background! Keep it classy girls!

In my day unwed mothers hid until they gave birth, or had a quick wedding. Nowadays it's Keeping Up With the Kardashians! It's cool to pop out kids and not be married, and it's totally acceptable to brag about it!

The dumbing down of America!

The Bizness

I really don't think that facebook, and pictures of baby bumps make girls want to have children.

nikfrog

^Amen to that^ I feel dumber after reading that comment! ;)

Dr_Jimmy

>These little girls watch this crap like The Kardashians

Pretty sure that 2 of the 3 sisters featured in the show we're married before they had a child.

For being Dick Tracey you're not too keen on facts are you?

DickTracey

I am correct. All three of Kris Kardashian-Jenner's grandchildren were born out of wedlock. Only two sisters have babies, and neither of them are married.

Kim+Kanye=North. They are NOT married!

Kourtney+Scott=Penelope and Mason They are NOT Maried!

Do your homework before you comment.

Dr_Jimmy

.

Commenter

Just because they are unwed doesn't mean they are unemployed or uninsured. Don't be so ignorant.

Commenter

Congratulations on the birth of you baby!

8ballinthesidepocket

Ready! Fire! Aim! Get married for Pete's sake and give the child a dual parent home. If you don't. the statistics are spelling doom. When you made this little guy, I am sure there were all kinds of I love you's, now seal the deal and complete your commitment to each other and to your baby!!!

Dr_Jimmy

you do realize most marriages end in divorce anyway right?
I'm pretty sure they are going home together, so chances are it's a dual parent home.

nikfrog

OMG!!! So many comments, so little facts!! Do you people know them? Their history? Their life? Jumping to so many conclusions with no facts except what the Register has provided us! Just because they're not married yet does NOT automatically mean the tax payers paid for it! So they have a long engagement, so what? Obviously that date has significance. And just because "statistically" it says they won't stay together, does NOT mean they will break up. Seemingly happily married couples get divorced all the time leaving kids in broken homes! Again, so what!!!! Get a life people and quit being so narrow minded and just plain mean! Congrats to the new parents and best of luck on your new journey!!

santown419

+1

SamAdams

Oh, please. If they're smart enough to plan for a wedding (that's still over two years away), they've got to be smart enough to plan for a family!

I realize that accidents happen, even to smart people. So forgo the big wedding and step up! You were planning on marrying anyway...right???

Truth2u

The FACTS are they had a baby out of wedlock, what part of that fact cant you comprehend? And you call others narrow minded .

nikfrog

Sigh, here we go. I completely comprehend the facts, my point was, who cares??!!?? What is narrow minded are the comments being made in regards to when they're getting married, who's paying for the medical bills, etc. People jumping to conclusions is what's narrow minded. Smh.....

KnuckleDragger

These FACTS are why you should care as it is likely the cause of the widespread societal problems we see today:

Children born to unmarried mothers are more likely to grow up in a single‐parent household,
experience instable living arrangements, live in poverty, and have socio‐emotional
problems.1,2,3,4 As these children reach adolescence, they are more likely to have low
educational attainment, engage in sex at a younger age, and have a birth outside of
marriage.5,6,7,8 As young adults, children born outside of marriage are more likely to be idle
(neither in school nor employed), have lower occupational status and income, and have more
troubled marriages and more divorces than those born to married parents.9
Women who give birth outside of marriage tend to be more disadvantaged than their married
counterparts, both before and after the birth. Unmarried mothers generally have lower
incomes, lower education levels, and are more likely to be dependent on welfare assistance
compared with married mothers.10,11,12,13 Women who have a nonmarital birth also tend to fare
worse than childless single women; for example, they have reduced marriage prospects
compared with single women without children.14,15
A majority of unmarried births now occur to cohabiting parents.16 Between 2006 and 2010, 58
percent of unmarried births were to cohabiting parents: in 2002, the proportion was 40
percent.17 Children born to cohabiting parents are more likely to see their parents eventually
marry than are those born to non‐co‐residential parents.18 Nevertheless, children born to
cohabiting parents experience higher levels of socioeconomic disadvantage, and fare worse
across a range of behavioral and emotional outcomes than those born to married parents.

KnuckleDragger

I would have posted the link to the report however it appears that the spam filter won't allow the posting of links.

Dr_Jimmy

Your username reflects your backwards thinking

Pages