Court orders mother to hand over nursing infant to father on weekends

[The Straight Story]

Tamara Bolan is breastfeeding her infant son, but she could be forced to stop on weekends because of a court decision.

Last week, a judge ordered that she hand over her four-month-old son and their two-year-old daughter to the children's father every weekend as part of a custody arrangement. The two parents aren't allowed to have contact with each other.

The mother, from Warman, Sask., was supposed to hand over the children Friday at noon. She didn't do so, and she said she's not going to because she's concerned for the health of her son.

"I'm not handing him over," she told CBC News. "I don't care if I have to go to jail."

She said she has tried giving her son, Luke, a bottle but he's refused. She adds she can't produce enough breast milk to last through the weekend.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/story/2013/07/19/saskatoon-breastfeeding-court.html

[hughee99]

1. If she goes to jail, I don't think they let her bring the baby with her.

It's the same result, isn't it?

[FreakinDJ]

73. She'll keep Breast Feeding the kid for 2 or 3 years to keep him from the father

[hughee99]

74. I suspect this is more about custody than breast feeding, too,

especially since the stand she intends to take (if necessary) could put her in a position where she won't be able to breast feed anyway.

[Warpy]

361. I suspect you're correct.

Formula for two days a week will destroy neither infant nor mother. If the infant does consistently refuse the bottle, then a trip to the ER with a dehydrated baby will likely convince the judge to amend visitation until the kid is starting to be able to take solid food in a few months.

The dad won't know until he's given a chance to try whether or not this arrangement will work out. He needs to be given this chance.

[Mariana]

81. She apparently hates the father more than she loves the child. nt.

[HappyMe]

2. Like it or not, she's going to

have to keep trying with the bottle. I'm sure she can pump during the week for the weekend.

[pnwmom]

16. You're sure she can? I know lots of women who had trouble with pumping,

including me. But breastfeeding was no problem.

[HappyMe]

21. No, I'm not sure.

But I'm also not sure that it won't be a problem. Since the parents aren't supposed to be together in any way, I am assuming that this wasn't an amicable divorce. I think she may be using the baby as a pawn. She won't be able to breast feed in jail, so I think she needs to come up with a plan.

[pnwmom]

38. He's clearly using the baby as a pawn

since any doctor would tell you that this arrangement will not be good the the baby and for breastfeeding.

[HappyMe]

42. If that's what you want to think.

Somehow, I think that if it was the mom demanding her time with the kids on the weekend, people would be howling for the dad to go to jail.

[MADem]

61. I agree with you. There's a lotta hate happening there, I suspect.

It's not about the kids, it's about getting back at mama. If he cared about his infant's nutritional needs, he'd take a briefer interaction while the child was nursing, even if it required meeting at a neutral place and having the kid handed over by a third party for an hour or two visit, and then returned to the mother.

The judge is a moron.

[NickB79]

63. The mom is refusing to hand over the 2-yr old as well

Last week, a judge ordered that she hand over her four-month-old son and their two-year-old daughter to the children's father every weekend as part of a custody arrangement. The two parents aren't allowed to have contact with each other.

The mother, from Warman, Sask., was supposed to hand over the children Friday at noon. She didn't do so, and she said she's not going to because she's concerned for the health of her son.

It appears SHE might be the one using the children as a pawn in all of this.

[roamer65]

100. She's risking contempt of court on the 2 year old.

Not a wise move on her part if he is due court-ordered parenting time. The infant is a different issue and needs to be addressed separately.

[handmade34]

167. no clarity that she refuses to hand over the 2yr old

just a general comment that she didn't hand over the children on Friday... she is concerned for her son

[southernyankeebelle]

68. Well I can tell you am a big breasted woman and I had an extremely hard time

breastfeeding and finally had to stop. I had a neighbor who was small breasted and she kept bottles of breast milk and she couldn't even give it away. She wanted me to have some for my child but I said no thanks. The mother can put her breast milk in a bottle and he will drink it. Then she can send enough with the daddy. She should be happy the daddy wants the children. Usually daddies don't want to take care of babies so young. I think the mother is using excuses.

[NickB79]

69. My wife is also well-endowed

And had a very hard time breast-feeding our daughter. The problem was that the large breasts actually made it harder for our daughter to latch to the nipples.

It's still a very commonly believed myth that breast size determines feeding success. Our OB/GYN and nurse both told us they see larger-chested women struggle far more than ones will less endowment to breastfeed.

[southernyankeebelle]

71. Well go figure, LOL. I wonder why we are cursed that way.

[phylny]

108. Not necessarily.

I nursed our three daughters successfully. Our oldest would take nothing artificial in her mouth. At all. Not a pacifier, no bottle nipple ever. Believe me, I tried everything. I could express what seemed like gallons of milk, sure, but she would scream and wouldn't suck on any type of artificial nipple, and we spent tons of money trying every different kind. With our next daughter, we made sure she got a bottle of breast milk a day from an early age so we didn't have the same problem.

So, while I don't know the ins and outs of what's going on in the case of this busted up family, I can't assume the mom is purposefully keeping the baby from him by "making up" excuses that the baby won't take a bottle. The older child, can't figure that one out.

BTW, no father who loved his kids should knowingly take his baby from the baby's mother if there's a risk of the causing difficulty between a nursing mom and baby. That's my bias showing, to be sure, but as I used to say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink

[southernyankeebelle]

123. And no mother should deprive the father from taking care of his baby either.

My own son is a better mother to their daughter then the mother is. He has alway put her first. My daughter-in-law was screwed up and wasn't doing what mothers do. She had a habit of putting others before her family. She almost caused the kids to have to repeat school because she couldn't get herself out of bed causing them to be late to school. She was acting like she had been on drugs and finally he told her to leave but she couldn't take his daughter. Her mother ended up calling the grandmother of the boy she had with another guy years ago. Her own mother worried about the kids like we did. The boys dad went to court and she lost custody of him. Well she straightened herself out but she only thinks of herself. So I can understand about the breast feeding. But there are ways they can try to solve the problem. I still think she is using an excuse.

[phylny]

130. So sorry for your son's experience.

It still doesn't relate to what I wrote, which is that some babies will simply not take a bottle under any circumstances, and a good father would not knowingly take a baby from a mother in such a precarious nursing state. The article in question didn't seem to indicate the mother in question was anything like the mother of your granddaughter.

[southernyankeebelle]

138. You think the father would put his child in a precarious position? I commend him for

being confident enough to want to have an infant in his care. I guess with my own experiences in my own family I see things different. Fathers are just as equal in taking care of their babies. I use to think different. My father was a great father and always gave my mother a break on the weekends and did things for us. Heck he and my mom even use to make our underwears, LOL. My own husband changed our son's diaper and feed him dressed him and would take him out to let me sleep. My brother-in-law was right there from the beginning with their twins. Even at birth he was there. All the males in my family were there to do what we all do. The only thing they didn't do was give birth but they were there in the delivery room. I realize there are many men who wouldn't even change a diaper or feed a baby. I try to be keenly aware even watching tv commericals when I see daddies with their little kids. My husband tells me he loves to see those commericals because he knows there are dads like him that do the things mothers do with their babies. One good thing is times are a changing.

[phylny]

194. I don't know this father.

Surely some fathers and some mother do put their children in precarious positions, yes. If this father knows the mother is lying and the baby will easily drink from a bottle, and the mother easily pumps enough milk, then, no, he's not. If he knows that this is not the case, then he cares more for himself, and he is selfish and is putting himself first, something no good parent does.

[southernyankeebelle]

275. we don't really know that. all we are getting is her side of the story. believe me I have seen the

other side but none of us really know exactly what is going on.

[Ms. Toad]

400. Really - they breastfed?

The only thing they didn't do was give birth but they were there in the delivery room.

That is really the issue here. There are some children who will refuse to take a bottle. My daughter was that way. It isn't about whether the father wants to be involved, or is competent in every way but breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is just something he is not capable of doing for his child, and a few months of time with a modified shared parenting schedule is a reasonable adjustment given the massive benefits breastfeeding has for children whose mothers are willing to make that commitment.

[pnwmom]

213. Was your daughter-in-law breastfeeding her four month old full time?

I doubt it, from the way you describe her.

Chances are this mother is a lot better mother than your d-i-l. Nursing a baby full time requires a commitment that your son's ex seems to lack.

[Arugula Latte]

233. At this point it's more important that the baby continue to breastfeed.

Babies should be on breastmilk exclusively (assuming a mother is able to nurse) until six months, at least.

The dad can take the toddler but he'll have plenty of time to be with the infant later.

It's not like it's an older baby and she's "stalling" -- it's just a little bit older than a newborn!

[Phentex]

370. Totally agree. One of mine was the mule

that refused the bottle and pacifier. Oh, I could pump all day long but that doesn't mean he'd ever take it from the bottle. The pediatrician said "He won't starve" and suggested I just hold out. Well, he was so stubborn, I thought he might just starve to spite me. Then he got the rotovirus and lost a ton of weight so there was no way I was going to deprive him of food.

This is a tough situation. I think I side with the mother on this one.

[pnwmom]

121. You had trouble breastfeeding, so your comment that "the mother can put her breast milk

in a bottle and he will drink it" is not based on a successful experience of breastfeeding.

Many breastfed babies will reject bottles, and many women have trouble pumping enough milk to fill bottles. For most women, it is much harder getting milk out with a pump than with a baby.

Why should she be happy that the "daddy" wants to interfere with her nursing the baby, and put obstacles their way that will make it harder for them to continue?

I don't think this father has the best interest of the nursing baby in mind.

[southernyankeebelle]

127. Well just remember one thing when it comes to parents. There is her side,

his side and the truth is in between. We don't know the full story do we.

[xmas74]

218. But in this case,

maybe it would be best for short visits instead of full weekends. A visit of a few hours while this young would be time for dad to have a fun time with the kids, get some bonding in and yet still have them home in time for the baby to feed.

As the baby gets older and is weaned then the visitation could be revised.

[southernyankeebelle]

274. I don't buy it. Men can and have raised their infants even when mothers die god forbid.

He should have equal time with his child. Heck in this little rural town I live in I know of 2 girls that left their infants behind and the daddies became both mom and dad. We have to get away from this stereo typing that men aren't able to take care on equal footing. It isn't true. Just like single mothers get help with their extended families so can fathers.

[Ms. Toad]

403. Nothing to do with stereotyping -

It has to do with a particular activity which the dad is incapable of doing, an activity which creates lifelong health benefits. Once the first 6 months are over - or if there is no other alternative (mom abandons the child - or has made different choices), I agree with you. But any mother child pair in which the mother is committed to nursing should be permitted to do so, even if it means a short term adjustment in the shared parenting arrangement.

[defacto7]

221. People can divorce and still have enough civility

to make adjustments for the child's sake. If they can't be civil enough to put the child's needs above their petty divorce, then they have no consideration for the child period. It's all about the divorce and the parents.

Life takes sacrifice sometimes if you are capable of love, and innocents trumps ego in all situations.

[cali]

271. no kidding.

truth.

[southernyankeebelle]

277. I can't argue that point. I agree. On the other hand what if the mother had died? That

baby can't get its breast milk. How will the baby feed then? If it had been me I would put the baby first.

[Arugula Latte]

234. But we can see the best course of action for the baby, and that's to continue to be with the mom now

[southernyankeebelle]

276. there is more to this story then we are getting. I don't believe that. Before I believe it

I want to see myself what is going on. we all don't know the full story.

[Humanist_Activist]

356. Why?

[Arugula Latte]

357. The baby's health.

[Humanist_Activist]

359. While I don't doubt the benefits of breastfeeding in shoring up the immune system of infants...

along with other benefits, is that enough to override the parental rights of the father when alternatives exist?

[Ms. Toad]

404. Alternatives do not always exist

And the child's needs (not the parent's rights) are supposed to trump. Yes, the child needs to spend time with a parent who is willing to make an investment in parenting, but that time doesn't have to be carried out in 2 day, uninterrupted, time while the child is in the first six months of its life and still nursing exclusively.

[pnwmom]

350. It is indisputable that the infant is only four months old.

And that babies that age haven't developed object constancy or a sense of time.

[Humanist_Activist]

354. Uhm, hate to ask the obvious, but if that's true, doesn't that mean...

that pretty much anything that happens, custody wise, won't leave a permanent impression at that age?

[pnwmom]

360. That's the opposite of what orphanage and adoption studies show. Experiences before

retrievable memories are formed do leave permanent impressions.

Memories don't require an understanding of object constancy or time. They can consist simply of feelings -- such as feelings of loss and abandonment, or feelings of caring and love.

Babies can and do deal with small separations every day. But having the primary caregiver drop out of sight for days at a time might be a great enough loss to do damage. I wouldn't take the chance if I were that judge or that father.

[opiate69]

131. " I don't think this father has the best interest of the nursing baby in mind."

Given the information available, what, exactly, brings you to that conclusion?

[womanofthehills]

295. Some breastfed babies will not go to sleep without nursing

When my great grandson spent the night with his father, he had to bring him back in the middle of the night. He would not stop crying - he wanted cheche. Some breastfed babies will not take the bottle.

[southernyankeebelle]

300. yes I understand that. All am saying in this case we don't know everything.

[Maine-ah]

325. I'm small breasted

and had a difficult time with breast feeding and pumping - but I managed to keep it up for 13 months. It has nothing to do with breast size.

[southernyankeebelle]

328. Well I big busted and I couldn't get anything out. But I swear I had a friend who was small

busted and produced so much milk she was trying to give it away. Funny how life is.

[ejpoeta]

366. My kids didn't like bottle. Only wanted to breast feed. It is possible as a problem.

It is also possible as a tactic, especially given the situation with the 2 year old. But I just wanted to put it out there that kids can and do have a preference. Had she known for awhile about this she could have worked on the bottle. But again, I always had a hard time trying to express milk for later use too. Breast feeding isn't as easy as it may seem. Very time consuming. But I digress.

I always am sad to see situations where parents can't put their personal differences aside for their kids. I mean, you seemed to like each other once. Enough to have 2 kids together.

[southernyankeebelle]

369. agree. I had a hard time from the beginning. Every time my son latched on it hurt

terribly. I tried for 2 weeks and that was it for me.

[ejpoeta]

372. It was very painful for sure at times. I got some cream to help. My oldest I dried up

After a few weeks but the younger 2 I breasted until around 14 mos. once they could drink other stuff they drank that in sippy cup or from a straw. It was tough to get them to take a bottle, but we worked on it and would give formula when I went out to get a break. Used our free supply that came in. The bag from the hospital. I do remember the lactation specialist telling me that switching back and forth too early can cause what's called "nipple confusion". Though it is surmountable. There are nipples for bottles that work better than others. More like nipple.

[southernyankeebelle]

424. I think it is neat if you can switch like that.

[Ms. Toad]

405. And you don't think that influences

how important you believe this nursing relationship is?

My mother had the same experience, and she was one of the strongest discouraging influences to my breastfeeding relationship with my daughter. She had never been able to be successful (and it was extremely painful), so she didn't trust that it was either really possible or particularly important.

[southernyankeebelle]

423. Breasting feeding is a personal thing. I never had a daughter but if she said she wanted

to breastfeed the only thing I would tell her is prepare her breasts for the experience. I don't think I prepared myself ahead of time like I should have because it was painful. My mother never told me one way or other about breastfeeding. My mom had her last child at 43 or 44 and I remember her coming home and she couldn't even remember how to make a formula she was pretty upset. Of back then we didn't recognize the blues after giving birth. Here me and my twin sister both were around 13 or 14 would help her. That cured me from wanting children for a very long time (LOL). I think she breast feed my older brother but honestly I don't know if she feed the rest of us. We never talked about it. But if I had a daughter and she wanted to breastfeed I wouldn't discourage her.

[Ms. Toad]

429. My mother would have said she was not discouraging me -

but many of the things you have said in this thread remind me of things she said, or did, which were discouraging - or disrupted (or would have if my daughter had been cooperative) the nursing bond.

It wasn't that she consciously thought that breastfeeding was bad, but her experience was that it didn't work and it came out in a myriad of different ways which were, for the most part, unconscious reflections of the pain, uncertainty, and who knows what else her own attempts to breastfeed left her with.

From simple things - like suggesting it was abnormal for my daughter to nurse so long early on - and then to sleep so long (so I should wake her up to feed her), to more blatant things like insisting on (trying to) give her bottles of water to keep her from dehydrating and pacifiers. Fortunately, my daughter had enough sense to reject the latter two offerings.

[southernyankeebelle]

430. Well maybe I wasn't aware I was doing it.

[Ms. Toad]

399. My daughter refused to take a bottle.

She nursed exclusively until she was close to a year old - I don't know how much I could have expressed, but no matter how much I could have put in a bottle, it wouldn't have worked.

This time period in a child's life is very short and breastfeeding is so important. The shared custody schedule can easily be adjusted to accommodate it for this short period.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

200. Same here.

[xmas74]

217. I couldn't.

Believe me, I tried.

Some can, some can't.

[Maine-ah]

324. pump and freeze, don't dump.

That's what I would do. Build up a supply for when I would be at work and hubby was home with our daughter. It took me a long time though to get any kind of supply going though, I had a difficult time pumping. Each time I couldn't get more than a couple of ounces. Tried everything. If this woman doesn't have issues with pumping this is what she should be doing.

[Nikia]

393. I work 10-12 hours away from my baby and pump 2-3 times during then

A typical amount pumped is 6 oz, 4 oz, and then 2 oz. I pump less at every consecutive pumping session even if I try pumping longer. If I had to pump all weekend when I'd normally feed my baby, I'm sure that I'd be getting barely anything out by the end of the weekend. Pumping while nursing is also difficult. Before my baby started solids, I often had to get a session or two during the weekend to assure that there was enough for him. Not only is it a pain but if you do it too soon afterward, you barely get anything out and risk not having enough for your baby if you drain your breasts too close too when your baby will feed again. When I had to stock up before returning to work after my maternity leave, I couldn't do it more than twice per day and that meant that I was pretty much pumping and nursing nonstop as the next sessions after the pumping had to be much closer together since I didn't have the full amount in my breasts for nursing.

[NickB79]

3. Man, I'm really conflicted on this

Kudos to her for breast-feeding, as it's been shown to have many health benefits for the baby.

However, I can't fault the father for wanting to be a part of his child's life and do his part as a parent. Put in the same situation, I'd do the same thing.

Given that he's been breastfed for 4 months already, he's already gotten most of the benefits he's going to get, so the mom's concern for his health probably isn't warranted.

[pnwmom]

15. It's false that a 4 month old has already gotten most of the benefits. The AAP recommends

breastfeeding at least till the age of one year.

I do fault this father for his decision to interfere with the breastfeeding. He can interact with his baby for shorter periods of time more often, instead of concentrating all his time on the weekend.

[shawn703]

20. Not sure he can

If he's not allowed to have contact with the mother. I'm not sure what that means - does a CPS worker need to transport the baby from one parent to the other so this requirement is met? If that's the case, there might be problems with scheduling more frequent and shorter visits.

[HappyMe]

22. That isn't the custody agreement.

Maybe the only time he has outside of work is on the weekend.

[pnwmom]

35. He's working 24/5?

Right.

[NickB79]

46. Not everyone works 9am-5pm jobs

Some people work crazy numbers of hours at their jobs due to layoffs. Others have to work night shifts that then dictate they sleep during the day.

Since we don't know the parent's work schedules, it's all conjecture on our parts. However, I would think these things would have been given at least some weight during the custody hearings.

[HappyMe]

50. Oh FFS.

Maybe, because it's such a nasty situation between the parents, arrangements for transport of the children and/or social workers are involved.

[NickB79]

26. You are giving misleading information

Yes, the AAP recommends breastfeeding to the age of one, but this doesn't mean you MUST breastfeed at least one year to get many substantial benefits.

Here is a good breakdown of the benefits of breastfeeding based upon duration: http://www.breastfeedingbasics.com/articles/breastfeeding-benefits-how-they-add-up

As you can see, even breastfeeding only 4-5 mo. gives the baby many benefits. Longer is clearly better, but the claim by the mother that her child's health will be harmed by reducing breastfeeding does seem to be a bit of hyperbole.

As for expecting the father to compromise, that might not be realistic As far as we know, the weekend schedule might already be a compromise. The article does say they are not allowed contact with one another (WTH is that about?), so interacting for shorter periods of time doesn't sound like something that could be easily done. Also, I'd guess that their work schedules might make such interactions problematic, necessitating the weekend scheduling.

Both sides have legitimate claims, and it won't be easy to figure this thing out.

[pnwmom]

39. You said MOST of the benefit was by the age of 4 months and that's false.

Breastfeeding for 4 months is substantially better than not breastfeeding at all, but it is much better for the baby to continue to the age of a year.

[NickB79]

53. True, but that still doesn't support the mother's claim to the court

That stopping breastfeeding at 4 mo. will cause certain harm to her child and nullify the custody arrangement, given that formula-feeding seems to be the current standard for raising a child, and is done by millions of parents every year.

Perhaps I should have phrased my earlier comments differently to reflect that the baby, with only 4 mo. of breastfeeding, is still well above average in the health department compared to the normal American baby these days.

[pnwmom]

122. Formula feeding is not the "current standard" for raising a child.

Doctors uniformly strongly recommend breastfeeding over formula.

Some mothers can't or won't breastfeed for various reasons. But this woman is ready, willing, and able, and neither the father or the judge should be depriving the baby of this advantage.

[handmade34]

169. in article...

her doctor Dr. G.R. Daniels is recommending that Luke be breastfed until he's six-months old. "It would be beneficial for Luke's growth, development and bonding with his mother," according to a note from the doctor.

...as a mother of 5 (all breast fed) I must say that the mother here is justified in being concerned... I would fight that court order with everything I had (though the threat to take it to jail is ludicrous, since the baby would surely be taken away for much longer than a weekend)

[Bettie]

208. Not nursing over the weekends could seriously compromise her milk supply too

Pumping doesn't stimulate milk production the same as nursing does.

I'm with mom on this one, though the 2 year old should be able to go to dad.

[ceonupe]

133. Read the story

She also refuses to hand over the 2 year old for visitation.


She is using the kids as pawns. In the end she will lose.

[SheilaT]

4. Ah, the tender understanding of a judge

for what's exactly involved in nursing an infant.

Some women easily produce excess milk. I did. I should have been a wet nurse, but that's another story. Many women don't. In fact, the entire dyad of nursing mother and baby is designed for equilibrium, for her to produce exactly the right amount of milk for the baby. It's quite astonishing how well it can work.

And simply pumping during the week to have enough to send off weekend bottles is far less than ideal. And I'm not knocking the working moms who pump. They're also doing what works for them.

[Hekate]

5. Caused my daughter no end of anguish to have to do that

Her ex sued for 50% custody -- how convenient because he doesn't have to pay child support. Also how convenient because he was living with his own mama at the time.

To quote Charles Dickens: The Law is an ass.

To quote Hekate: Fathers have rights, but one size does not fit all, especially when dealing with an infant under the age of 2 years.

[laundry_queen]

8. Yep.

where I am, an exclusively breastfeeding infant generally does not get overnight visits until they are at least 2 years of age. I have several friends who divorced that did not need to do 50/50 custody, or even overnight visits until the child was at least 2 years old. If the father really cared about the well-being of the infant, he wouldn't be pushing for this, IMO.

[RC]

31. +10

I think daddy is just looking to still stick it to the mother, any way he can. If he really cared about his children, he'd let the mother keep the younger child till he/she was on solid foods. There are other ways he could still see both kids. It does not have to be just over the weekends.

[laundry_queen]

59. Exactly. I had a good friend who had twins

the father took off the minute he heard she was pregnant, but she pursued child support, so he went for custody (forcing her to go through paternity testing b/c he didn't believe the kids were his). The courts decided no overnight visits till they were weaned, as she was breastfeeding both. The father took them 3 evenings/week and every other Saturday, till they were weaned at 20 months. He was very involved despite not having overnight visits. And they started slow with overnight visits - once they were weaned, he took them once a month for a few months, then twice a month...he started to only take them 1-2 evenings/week so he could have more weekends when they were 3. To me, that makes the most sense. When they were 4, he was able to take them for a week in the summer, and when my friend got remarried, he took the boys for the 2 weeks my friend was on her honeymoon. To me, that is cooperative parenting.

I have other friends were the ex fought to get 50/50 despite not having a darn thing to do with the child when they were together, just to avoid paying child support. I think that's dirty. Thankfully my ex is completely disinterested in having the kids for any length of time - he rarely sees them. I still resented having my then-3 year old gone for a week - it was hard on me and on her. She was clingy and whiny for weeks afterwards, as she's not close with him (as I said, he visits them rarely - once a month on average) and a week was too long. But not much I can do, and I don't fight it because I get the kids 95% of the time. I know I'm lucky too, but if my ex would've tried for 50/50 it would've been dirty, as he never helped out with the kids when we were together. My oldest dd has changed more diapers than he has. From what I understand, the courts take into consideration the percentage of care each parent has given and dishes out custody accordingly - usually. Of course sometimes it just comes down to who has more money and the better lawyer - and that often isn't the mother, unfortunately.

[laundry_queen]

134. Explain that rude comment. Please. nt

[Spazito]

296. EarlG has shown the poster the door for misogyny!

His transparency page is, well, yikes!

[Union Scribe]

152. If fathers cared they wouldn't try to see their kids

until they're older. Great argument.

[laundry_queen]

170. That's not what I said

but good attempt at twisting.

There are many ways a father can be involved daily without having to have a baby overnight. My friend (who had twins, her ex left before they were born) and her ex worked out a great plan (with the help of a judge), where the mother was able to breastfeed until the twins were 20 months old before overnight visits. In the mean time, the father, who clearly cared about his kids, came almost nightly, helped get supper for the kids, read them bedtime stories, gave them baths etc. He made the extra effort to be there because he cared more about his kids than his own convenience. And it would've been more convenient to just take them, but in this way, the children had the stability of being in their own bed every night, and having their father involved on an almost daily basis. Certainly more healthy than being shuffled from house to house as infants, IMO.

[avebury]

11. Some exes can be real asses. Unfortunately, there are times when

the shoe is on the other foot.

I know one guy whose ex kept dragging him into court complaining that he did not pay his child support. He would show up with boxes of cancelled checks. The judge finally told her that he didn't want to see her in court again.

A friend of mine has a son show is going through hell with his ex. She is so bad that her lawyer has now ditched her. She is a deadbeat with a deadbeat boyfriend mooching off of her. He documents everything and he has a good chance at getting full custody.

Another friend has a brother whose sons are in their later 20s-30s. Their mother, who is a nut, has dragged my friend's brother through court in several states. She is still trying to get child support even though both sons are self supporting adults. Even when he had legal custody of the boys and they stayed with him, she tried to get child support for those years. I believe the courts have had enough with her.

It sucks that there are some people that cannot put the good of their children above whatever issues they have with their ex. Nobody should be allowed to game the system in order to stick it to their ex. What is best for the child (children) is what should prevail.

I am sorry about what your daughter went through. At least he didn't game the system to get 100% custody where he could have left his mother to actually take care of you grandchildren and then demand child support from your daughter on top of that which would truly have been an insult to injury.

[Humanist_Activist]

304. So basically you are saying fathers have rights, but certainly not equal rights of access...

to their kids.

Gotta love the sexism on display here!

[Hekate]

316. Not what I said at all. Anyone, male or female, who can't distinguish between the needs of ...

... an infant under two years of age and a 4 or 5 year old is an ass. Children's psychological needs are every bit as important as their physical needs, and in some ways more so.

50% custody arrangements generally remind me of zero-tolerance school rules: no intelligence required to enforce them, no heart either. It's all down on paper, isn't it?

Hekate

[Humanist_Activist]

318. What needs do infants under 2 years of age need that can't be fulfilled by a father as easily as...

mother with reasonable accommodation? Bear in mind that many mothers(such as mine) couldn't breastfeed at all.

[Arugula Latte]

321. Well this one can, so she should be allowed to continue.

There really is strong research on the benefits of exclusive breastfeeding for the first part of a baby's life.

[Humanist_Activist]

322. But would two days out of the week of bottle feeding be that traumatic?

That's what I don't understand, bear in mind that we aren't talking about what is ideal, but compromises that don't adversely affect the health or welfare of the infant.

[MrsMatt]

338. Yes - two days would be detrimental

to her maintaining her milk supply.

As someone who struggled to breast-feed my children, even one missed nursing caused my supply to dip.

I had a top of the line pump, and once my children went to day care at 3 months, I had to supplement with formula, as I could not pump enough for their needs, despite every effort.

[Humanist_Activist]

341. I'm talking about detrimental to the infant, not the mother...

I wasn't aware that pumping doesn't stimulate the breasts properly, my sister couldn't breastfeed constantly because she works, so she had to pump, for months on end if I remember correctly, but also switched to formula after 3-4 months.

[Ms. Toad]

406. It doesn't -

and decreasing the milk supply is detrimental to the infant.

The mother's body responds to the infant's demand to provide the amount of milk required - it is actually quite a remarkable relationship. Pumping is not the same - and does interfere with the child receiving the quantity of milk required not only over the two day weekend - but in the days after the infant is returned to mom (only to be interrupted again the next weekend).

It's only a couple of months. The shared parenting arrangement can be adjusted for a couple of months to accommodate at least the period recommended for exclusive breastfeeding (6 months).

[womanofthehills]

409. You don't think it's detrimental to the infant who is being breastfeed to suddenly be removed

from his mom and her breast for a weekend - that's insane. The breast is security for an infant and can't be compared to a bottle.
The father should visit during the day.

[avebury]

6. She is selfish. Has it not occurred to her that she also would need

to pump during the weekend in order to be able to send enough bottled breast milk with her son when he goes to his father. If she can produce enough milk during the weekend to feed the baby, if she pumped it during the weekend then she would have enough for the baby to eat the next weekend. It is all about getting positioned to get through that first weekend and the she should be on tract to pump enough for the baby.

What does she plan on doing for the 48 hours or so that the baby is with Dad? He has just as much right to parent his children as she does. Breast milk is breast milk whether the baby feeds directly from the mother or if it is put in a bottle so that Dad can feed the child. It is not like pumping is something new, millions of women do it and the babies do just fine.

[Hekate]

7. You've tried this arrangement, have you?

Not just the pumping, but the separation?

[avebury]

19. I have not but I have worked with woman

who had to return to work after their FMLA leave was up. Some women just do not have a choice. Not every woman has the ability to be a stay at home mother. A good friend of mine was hoping to be able to breast feed until her second son was 9 months old and she had to give up at 6 months.

In the case in question, if the father has shown no evidence of being a bad father then he should have every right to parent his children. Why should he only get a few hours here and there if there is no evidence that he is a negligent parent? It sounds like she has the children for 5 days so giving the Dad 2 days seems fair.

Why is it not important for a father to bond with his children? You hear lots of women complain that their ex don't spend enough time with their children. If you have a Dad that wants to spend time with his children, bond with them, parent them then that should be encouraged. Children should never be treated as a rope in a tug of war between two parents.

What do you think will happen in the long run if she interferes with the ability of the children to also form a strong bond with their Dad? She may win the skirmish in the short run and lose the war in the long run. The children are young now but may grow up to resent her.

It sounds like there is more to the story if it has come down to I'll go to jail before I let him have my baby for a weekend. There has got to be some real issues between the two parents.

[gollygee]

24. Some women can and some can't

The human body doesn't work the same for everyone. Everyone's breasts react to pumps differently. Many women can't get much milk out with a pump - but a baby is much better at getting milk out than a pump so she might very well not produce much with a pump and produce plenty for the baby without a pump.

A large number of working mothers try pumping but aren't able to produce enough and have to switch to formula.

[Drahthaardogs]

128. There are milk banks that women use.

My wife pumped and had lots extra so she donated regularly. I dropped the bottles off myself.

[Ilsa]

282. And you have to almost empty your 401(k)

to afford it. Think several dollars an ounce.
Besides, banked milk is usually reserved first for hospitalized babies, then sick babies with chronic diseases. And there usually isn't enough to sell to the public.

[pipi_k]

37. It happened

with my middle stepdaughter.

Her FMLA was up and she had to return to work as a nurse.

Which often meant she was mandated to work double shifts.

She pumped and left the milk with dad. Her daughter accepted the bottled breast milk from dad, but wouldn't accept the bottled breast milk from her.

There were weekends when she worked a double shift, went home for 8 hours of sleep, then right back to work again for another double shift.

Things worked out...

[avebury]

45. One of my good friends was lucky that her husband

was able to work from home and they did not have to rely on daycare. He became the primary caretaker during the day and was able to form an extremely strong bond with both of his sons. By having her breastfeed when she was at home and letting her husband feed both boys with bottled breast milk when she was at work, both parents had a chance to bond with their sons. I used to tease her that they experienced role reversal.

To me the best parental situation is when both parents are able to form strong bonds with their children. It is a win win situation to all involved.

[pnwmom]

47. Your good friend "had" to give up breastfeeding earlier than she had planned.

Which proves that outside circumstances can interfere with even the most sincere wish to continue breastfeeding. Limiting the mother to a 5 days on, 2 days off schedule is exactly the kind of situation that would impair nursing. As your good friend. She'll tell you.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

286. I'm going out on a limb here. I understand breast feeding is the best but...

I honestly think the opportunity for the father to bond with his children at this time of their lives trumps anything. Breastfeeding is good, recommended, but it will never replace a lifetime commitment of a child knowing their father, trusting and loving their father during all stages of their lives. I don't think he should have to take a back seat to raising his children for any reason. The child will not starve to death and I do think the mother should attempt to provide milk for the weekends. If she can't, then yes, formula can supplement the feedings for two days. There is story after story of the father heading for the hills after the birth of his children and being a weekend father at best. We don't know all the facts of this particular case, we just have the mother's side, but it appears the father is wanting to be an integral part of their young lives. And I say good for him.

[leftyohiolib]

312. +1 - family dynamics have changed and breast feeding may not be viable - they should goto

plan b - if she loved her baby she'd let her baby bound with her daddy

[pnwmom]

320. In infancy, what the baby needs more than anything else is consistent, daily time with

a primary care-giver -- the bonded relationship that nature provided for with breastfeeding but could be provided by any single, loving, trustworthy adult. That gives her the emotional security and trust in life needed to form other solid relationships. Instead, this baby, who's too young to have an understanding of time and object constancy, will be lost without her primary caregiver for two solid days each week, not knowing when she will return. In her mind, her mother will be inexplicably fading out from her life each weekend.

She would actually have a better chance of forming a solid bond with her father if she had the foundational security of daily care (at least part time) with her mother, and shorter more frequent visits with him (even if overnight visits didn't start till she was two.) Instead, she won't feel entirely secure with either parent -- and this could cause lifelong damage.

What this father could end up with is an adult daughter who loves both her parents -- and hates them, too. Borderline personality disorder is thought to be the result of a broken bond with the primary parent in early childhood. I'd never risk that if I were that father. He'd be much better off to give up the long weekend visits and end up with a daughter that was capable of healthy trust and love.

But courts all too often show a willingness to rule based on the parent's happiness rather than the baby's psychological needs.

[Humanist_Activist]

331. Basically you are saying that working parents are psychologically damaging their children...

Hell, my nephew has had, since birth, been shuffled between a babysitter, both parents(who work odd hours), me and my dad, are you saying he is going to suffer from borderline personality disorder?

[pnwmom]

349. No, I didn't say that. I said that infants need daily care "at least part time"

from a primary caregiver. Two-career couples or a working single parent can provide that, as long as they provide some care on a daily basis.

Hopefully your nephew has had that. But if as an infant, he didn't have at least one caregiver in his life who was reliably present to love him every day -- if his life being "shuffled" among adults was more similar to babies in an orphanage, for example -- than he would be at risk of emotional issues in the future. Hopefully, he's sturdy enough and loved enough not to have suffered from this. But he would be at higher risk.

The difference, too, is that your nephew's parents may not have had a choice. They were doing the best they could. This judge did -- and he was supposed to choose in the best interests of the child.

[Humanist_Activist]

353. OK, sometimes it was his mom, other times his dad...

both work swinging shifts throughout the week, so daily care provider varied between them by time of day and work schedules, so not sure which is the "primary care giver" in this situation. All I know is that he is 2 and almost a half years old now, laughs a lot, and runs to "Popo" his granddad, my dad, calls me "Unca" can't quite get the pronunciation down, and is beginning to talk up a storm, of which I understand about 1 word in 3.

[pnwmom]

358. I think your family sounds like a wonderful example

of a family pulling together for the sake of a child, and hopefully that made everything work.

And it sounds like your nephew experienced some amount of love and care from both of his parents every day -- so he wouldn't have been in the position of the baby in the OP, who would be having his primary caregiver drop out of sight for 2 days in a row out of every 7.

[Humanist_Activist]

367. My mom couldn't take care of me for several months of the first year of my life...

First, her pregnancy with me was VERY rough, I was born at 12 pounds. I obviously have no memories of this, but my parents did tell me that for the first year of my life or so, either my grandma on my dad's side or my grandparents on my mom's side either stayed with my parents, or I stayed with them when needed, my Dad did what he could, but my mom was bedridden during recovery, he was working full time, and so the grandparents stepped up.

My mother was also bipolar, but this was the late 70s, so she couldn't take any medication during the pregnancy, none was safe, and she suffered some post-partum depression for months following my birth, probably exacerbated by her physical condition.

This was during the time I kindly call the dark ages of medical care, she was knocked out for 3 days for a c-section, almost died, and contracted double pneumonia, all while in the hospital giving birth to me.

So, for pretty much the first year of my life, I had no primary care giver, or at least not with any regularity, and outside of being a slightly introverted geek, I seemed to have turned out OK, though my dad sometimes calls me insane.

Oh, and breastfeeding was out, the medicine she was on after giving birth to me would have killed me, apparently.

I don't remember any abandonment issues, when my mom got better, we were inseparable, she took me EVERYWHERE, which lead to some separation anxiety when I first went into Kinder-Care(preschool). But then again, I feel like you may be talking about different things that what I experienced, or what this infant will experience, because you are comparing his situation to adoptions and foster care systems where the infant grows to toddler and older, without a sense of a loving or secure home. Where is your sources for these studies you cite?

[pnwmom]

374. I have some books about borderline personality disorder

because a member of the extended family is suffering from that. So the books are from that perspective. There is a chapter in one devoted to adoption, because there are high rates of BPD among adoptees -- even among those adopted shortly after birth, who never spent any time in an orphanage.

That doesn't AT ALL mean that everyone exposed to these losses as a baby will develop long term emotional issues -- anymore than every cigarette smoker will develop cancer. Some people are more resilient, some are more vulnerable. But the risk is elevated. And I wouldn't think a loving parent or caring judge would want to elevate that risk -- the stakes are too high.

[Dorian Gray]

67. I'm a mother

who breast fed for two years. And I agree with this. Both parents have a right to parent their child. If the father is willing and deemed a good parent by the courts, I think that they should compromise the best that they can to work this out. It's important for the child to bond with both mother and father.

Breast feeding is great. Very important. Very bonding. But, I do believe that the father deserves his time with his children. 100%

[vanlassie]

111. Who says she us trying to interfere with bonding?

If he was a decent man he would do what it takes to be there to bond. It can be done on daily visits of shorter duration which she would no doubt MUCH prefer and would make easy for him. Taking a baby away from his mother before the child is ready is self centered and disrespectful of the primary attachment. Breastfeeding is a birthright and dads wishes don't trump baby's needs.

[laundry_queen]

137. +1 nt

[Mariana]

212. The two parents aren't allowed to have contact with each other.

That's what the story says.

You speak of breastfeeding being a "birthright". Well, the child also has the right to spend time and bond with his father. In this case, the father is prohibited from visiting the child while the child is with the mother. So, what do you think should be done?

[vanlassie]

225. Now why do you think he is prohibited?

There are many divorced parents who manage to maintain visitation that does not deprive infants and children of well being. Including feeding them appropriately. If the father is allowed to take the baby but not visit the home I suspect he has threatened the mother. This is not uncommon unfortunately. Regardless, these things need to be handled by the adults and NOT at the expense of what is best for the child.

Cow formula at four months is not a medically sound choice. It carries health risks.

[Mariana]

352. Maybe he threatened the mother.

And maybe she threatened him. We only know that he can't see the child when the mother is present, and that the reverse is also true - she can't see the child while he's with his father. Whatever the reason is that they're not supposed to have contact with each other, the judge obviously doesn't consider either parent to be dangerous to the children.

Ideally, of course, the child should breastfeed exclusively AND should spend plenty of time with his father. Unfortunately, this particular kid just isn't going to have an ideal childhood.

[vanlassie]

363. Because of innappropriate parental behavior.

He is inappropriately trying to separate the infant from its mother. Wrong. She is trying to follow ALL medical and neurobiological advice to breastfeed exclusively which is not all about the milk. It's about the baby's developing brain. Right.

He can bond without causing harm, if he wants to. Whose interests are being served separating a four month old for two days and nights? It's not justified.

[Mariana]

368. I'd like to know how much visitation time

the child has had with his father up to this point. The article doesn't say.

If the father has been allowed to visit frequently and if he nevertheless demanded full weekend visits (i.e. the judge didn't order it on his or her own), then the father is absolutely in the wrong.

If the mother has been preventing any visitation at all, or has been severely limiting it, then she has been harming the child by depriving him of the benefits of spending time with his father.

If the judge ordered the long visits for no particular reason, then the judge screwed up and the order needs to be modified.

We haven't heard from the father. Maybe he is willing to have shorter visits. We haven't heard from the judge why the order was made that way. We just don't know.

[vanlassie]

384. Agree all the way.

But I have seen this scene played out many times. And it will continue in the family's next generation unless they are educated about the true needs of human infants. The judge too. We should not as a society allow the damaging effects of divorce and non attachment to be enabled this way.

[pnwmom]

12. You know nothing about breastfeeding or pumping. Millions of women do NOT

breastfeed 5 days on and 2 days off. There is an excellent chance that this regimen will interfere with the mother's milk supply and bring a premature end to the baby's nursing.

This is a very selfish act of the father's.

[Small Accumulates]

14. Precisely!! n/t

[avebury]

28. There have been several women at work who

need to pump during the day and have switched back and forth between breastfeeding and using bottled breast milk. None of their children have starved or suffered.

It is interesting that humans are the only species that make a deliberate decision to breast feed their young for what sometimes is a potentially expanded period of time.

The woman's reaction is so extreme that I have to think that there is probably some issues between the two parents. I have not seen anything that proves the father is a bad parent. If she wins this battle she may have won in the short term but her children may lose in the long term if she makes it extremely difficult for them to spend time with their father. As they grow older, the may grow to resent her for interfering in their relationship with their father. A skirmish won today does not guarantee a war won in the long run.

I feel sorry for the kids because this is a situation that could escalate fast to a really negative, hostile environment for them.

[pnwmom]

33. All mammals nurse their young. Human babies don't even get their baby teeth till they're 6 or 7

months old, which corresponds to the length of time they should be exclusively breastfeeding.

Animals of other species are born with "milk teeth." (None of them feeds their babies with formula in bottles.)

Those women you know at work are not going for two solid days without breastfeeding. That would have much more deleterious effects on breast milk supply than pumping a couple times during the day, and would also increase the risk of a breast infection.

I bet your co-workers would be annoyed with you if they knew you were using them as an excuse for your ignorant views.

[laundry_queen]

172. So true

When I was nursing I could hardly go 5 hours without nursing or pumping, let alone 2 days. omg, ouch!

[pnwmom]

177. I know. And pumping by itself is much harder than nursing. n/t

[laundry_queen]

184. I used to get plugged ducts when I pumped. nt

[pnwmom]

215. Me, too. And infections. n/t

[Arugula Latte]

235. Did you not see this part of the story?

She said she has tried giving her son, Luke, a bottle but he's refused. She adds she can't produce enough breast milk to last through the weekend.

[Mariana]

256. I also saw this part of the story.

She said, "I don't care if I have to go to jail."

Since she can't breastfeed in jail, what's going to happen to the child if she does get locked up? How, exactly, is that going to be better than what happens if the child goes to Dad's house for the weekend?

To summarize her attitude about these scenarios:

Can't nurse for a couple of days, so child can spend time with his father: "I'm not handing him over."

Can't nurse indefinitely, and who knows where the kid will land while she's locked up: "I don't care if I have to go to jail."

[Arugula Latte]

319. I saw that more as her trying to convey how strongly she felt about it.

[Humanist_Activist]

333. Felt about what? I'm assuming denying the father his parental rights?

She sounds like an egotistical person who is trying to draw attention to this "injustice" for her own selfish gain.

[Ms. Toad]

431. No.

About the importance of continuing breastfeeding during early infancy.

[pipi_k]

327. Exactly!

this looks like it's less about the fact that she can't breastfeed for a weekend and more about some crappy little head game she and the father have going with each other.

She can't breastfeed for two days?

What happens if she goes to jail and can't breastfeed for who knows how long?

And that possibility doesn't even seem to bother her. Hey...screw the kid...she'll go to jail to make a point, is what she's saying.

[Cronus Protagonist]

9. Separation anxiety

I wonder if there's a drug for that which doesn't come out in breast milk.

[avebury]

52. My best friend's husband was fortunate to be able to work out

the house and be a stay at home Dad when both of their children were babies. Mothers are not the only ones who experience separation anxiety when away from her children. Fathers feel it was well. On the rare occasion in which the father is away from home, it is really tough on both Dad and the boys.

[fglad]

10. Is Lukes father going to breast feed him?

[Small Accumulates]

13. Nursing mothers and infants cannot be compassionately separated

The mother is the child's source of food; it's not a simple matter of custody. The harm this arrangement will do the child is tremendous. I ask myself what is wrong with this father, that he would so completely disregard the best interests of his child. So many judges, we already know, are not humans with common sense or compassion, so this decision of the judge's is not so shocking.

I'm actually astonished to read the misconceptions and ignorance about nursing in this thread. I nursed three children, and I assure you it wouldn't have been possible to express enough milk to feed a baby for an entire weekend. It took me days to collect enough expressed milk for a single bottle. Only someone who's done it would know that babies are efficient suckling machines--milk pumps not so much. And, it is the bond between the mother and baby that encourages the production of milk; a breast pump, no matter how cute, is not going to aid in let-down. I'd like to add that despite my labors to collect a bottle's worth of milk over days, in any case, my children always refused that bottle. I can't imagine sending my child off for a weekend knowing that he wouldn't eat, and the desperation he'd feel about that. I also know from my work that we humans can suffer for our lifetimes when we experience abandonment by our mothers--and this little guy won't know for days that his mother hasn't left him.

Both mother and baby will be suffering on those weekends when baby is under Daddy's custody. I'd wager Daddy is going to suffer as well, as he tries to pour formula into his wailing child. But the damage to this child will be horrendous.

[pnwmom]

17. I bet not a single person pushing pumps in this thread ever did it

himself.

[HappyMe]

23. I'm not a 'him'.

[pnwmom]

41. Have you ever pumped breast milk out of a breast??

[HappyMe]

44. Since I was the single mother of

twins, yes. I went back to work when the boys were 3 months old.


edit to add - I do have breasts, so I guess I qualify. Anything else?

[pnwmom]

49. Did you have to go for two days in a row without nursing them?

Do you think a pump emptied your breasts as thoroughly as a baby? I don't know any other breastfeeder who has felt that way.

[HappyMe]

56. You know, anything I say here

you will have some snide comment about.

I don't give a crap about the breastfeeders you know. Every woman is different. My sons were fine. I probably did go for a couple of days with just pumped milk. They are 27 now, so probably my breastfeeding memory is a bit dim.

[Orrex]

165. They're both 27? Both of them? Really? I find your story suspicious.

Oh, wait a minute...

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Me too, HappyMe...

And I was a single mum as well, though I only had the one, and not twins.

I didn't go back to work till mine was 8 months old, but before that, mine was struggling with feeding and we got sent to a hospital for breast-feeding mums and they helped me with being able to express and suggested that if we continued to struggle, then switching to formula was fine.

Do they have places like this in the US? Because when I read that she not only refused to hand over the baby, but her 2 year old daughter as well, I started to get the sneaking suspicion that she's using the baby as a pawn. If I were the authorities dealing with this case, I'd be calling her on the excuse that she can't express and formula isn't working by getting her into one of those places and monitoring the feeding and seeing if she's telling the truth or not.

[HappyMe]

64. I had trouble at first, but then it got better.

The nurses at the hospital were very nice. They gave me the number of a CNA that could come to my house if needed.

I stopped with the breast milk when the boys were 4 1/2 months old. I have never seen any ill effects of using formula.

I'm sure that they could have a nurse, doctor or a midwife make sure that this woman isn't lying. Everybody is different, but I do think she is using this as an excuse to get back at the father. It seems like it was a nasty divorce and she wants to drag the drama out further. Using children as a bargaining chip or revenge is very sad. Especially for the kids.

Thank you for your kind reply.

[kdmorris]

364. Not to hijack, but you give me hope!!

I'm not a single mom, but my twin boys just turned 1 month old. Some days, it feels like the newborn period will never end! Seeing stories of parents who survived the newborn (and toddler) period with twins gives me perspective...this too shall pass.

We have three older daughters, born one at a time, so I thought we were prepared, but twins are A LOT different than a single baby.

[tammywammy]

18. Due to whatever reasons the parents aren't allowed to have contact.

So should this father give up the right to see his child until the mother has stopped breastfeeding? I assume the child eats every few hours.

[Small Accumulates]

30. Social service agencies deal with this kind of situation routinely

My brother's divorce was one of those in which he was accused of sexually abusing his child. And so the mother, the child and my brother all showed up on the weekend at a social service agency. They visited there under supervision, my brother in one room, the mother in another or out of the building. Not comfortable, but ideal until those charges could be examined and cleared.

And, in any case, the nursing child's need to be with his mother in order to eat exceed the father's interests in seeing his child. The grownups are supposed to be the ones that make the sacrifices here, not the children.

[Hekate]

25. Neither of my nurslings would have anything to do with a bottle...

... whether it had breast milk or formula in it. I weaned them to a cup a by the time they were a bit over a year old and on solids, but bottles never made the grade (damn).

I also know from my work that we humans can suffer for our lifetimes when we experience abandonment by our mothers--and this little guy won't know for days that his mother hasn't left him.

Yes, I know of this from another family member -- it lasts a lifetime. Being separated that long, not just for a day of work and then home again, can do a lot of damage to a preverbal child.

[Small Accumulates]

32. I'd like to hug the inventor of the sippy cup!

I loved watching those little hands master the cup. And they would drink (painstakingly) expressed milk from a cup. I guess it was such a different physical process that they were able to get around their expectations.

I'm also certain that emotions will run high in the handovers of that little one between parents. So the length of the separation paired with the fear will be so troublesome.

[msanthrope]

125. Mine was the same way...no artificial nipples for her!! Never accepted a rubber

nipple, though I tried.

I nursed for 20 months. The entire time, I expressed enough excess milk that I was able to make donations to a local bank. My kid would never take a thing outside of a breast.

[galileoreloaded]

79. contemptable bullshit. nt

[Small Accumulates]

173. Your rebuttal is overwhelming. N/t

[handmade34]

175. hmmm

as a mother of 5 (all breast fed) I can verify that the post you refer to is not "contempt(i)ble bullshit"

[laundry_queen]

198. This mother of 4 (also all breastfed) agrees with you. nt

[Starry Messenger]

207. Which is all you will ever produce.

[SalviaBlue]

85. I agree with you.

[Major Nikon]

117. Horrendous damage?

Somehow I doubt that.

[Small Accumulates]

174. There! You've run rings around me logically!

Inveterate Monty python fan....

[taught_me_patience]

179. Horrendous damage? Oh please...

give the baby some formula... they'll be fine.

[Mira]

185. Your post makes very good sense to me and I'm glad you wrote it.

The opinions expressed by some of the posters (men
are simply coming from emotion and are not very informed. You are. You're addressing the nutritional needs of a baby, not the other stuff that has to do with judgment of a situation we don't have the full details of.

I had one child I breastfed. He would never take a bottle. Ever. Even from me. No matter what was in it, which included painfully extracted pumped breast milk.
I weaned him at 8 months pretty much to solid baby food and milk from a cup, just so I was able to leave him for more than 4 hours at a stretch.

Is it just me, or are the men's opinion's here just not really needed?
If you have not breast fed a baby, and been there to know just what that means, don't chime in and think you know what's best.
Kind of like: If you're against abortion, just don't the hell have one.

[Small Accumulates]

292. Thanks Mira!

My experience was the same, three times: my beauties had no interest in that bottle.

And sadly, neither wisdom nor knowledge seem to hold any value in our culture... Lotsa' argle-bargle at play (which I believe is now a legal term, thanks to Scalia).

[RudynJack]

27. This is one of those impossible situations.

Yes, the baby's welfare is paramount. But that doesn't eliminate the father's rights.

I've been close to many situations where divorce brought out the very worst in people, and there was no compunction about using children to gain an advantage.

Father's often get a very raw deal in these situations. I have no idea what to do in a case like this - which is why I wouldn't wish being a Family Court Judge on anyone. These are cases where there is no one, single, obvious good solution.

[hlthe2b]

34. Novel idea... Do what is BEST for the baby. I'm not saying what that is, but the judge

surely should have heard from health care providers and a number of others with the SPECIFIC issue expertise to look at ALL relevant issues. And, yes, that needed to be a health care provider with expertise in breast feeding--both the physiological issues with both Mom and baby and the psychological. Your random physician may well not have that expertise, given hospitals hire specifically trained nurses to work with women who are having issues and their OB/GYNS gladly refer to them.

Obviously that also includes social service staff who have worked with both parents and any consulting experts they might bring in to address their broader issues between the parents and with each parent's relationship with the baby.

I realize the animus can be intense between couples, but damn... I think the judge owed it to that child to sit them both on their heels and let them know that this is not about being fair to either one of THEM, but what is best for the child-- armed with the real facts vis-a-vis the breast feeding issue, including the very real implications of trying to comply with the suggested weekend schedule.

[RudynJack]

54. Honestly...

what's BEST for the baby in this case is to give it to a couple that doesn't hate each other. But that's not a possibility.

So we're left to deal with the options available, and I can't think of one that doesn't hurt any of the people involved.

[handmade34]

180. wiser words were never spoken...

"what's BEST for the baby in this case is to give it to a couple that doesn't hate each other"



...the best option here is to allow the father shorter visits (a few hours at a time) until the baby is a couple of months older... a loving father would understand the baby's needs

[pnwmom]

43. Baby's rights trump that of either parent.

But in this case, the right of the baby to breastfeed requires the presence of the mother.

[RudynJack]

51. I see this

as similar to the abortion issue.

Some argue that the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the mother. It's a genuine conflict.

On choice, I believe firmly the rights of the woman are paramount. In this case the baby and the father both have legitimate, conflicting rights. Which is why I say I don't know what the answer is.

Some women breastfeed until the child is practically in Junior High. Should that be allowed to keep the father away? How long should it last? Should a court determine how long a baby is breast-fed? All questions I'm very happy not to have to answer.

The best solution is for people who hate each other not to have children.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. I'm intrigued at how much overlap there is between the "rights of the baby"

and the preferences of its mom.

The mom is using the issue to punish the dad (and coincidentally the children) in violation of the divorce decree.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. And did you read the bit in the article where she also refused to let him have the 2 year old?

That's what made me strongly suspect she's using the baby and breastfeeding as an excuse rather than a legitimate thing...

[Mariana]

76. People do seem to forget that the "rights of the baby"

happen to include the right of the baby to spend time with his or her father.

[opiate69]

92. Summed up PERFECTLY in a mere 27 words. Spot-fucking-on.

[mythology]

86. There is no actual need to be breasfed

As an infant I did it exactly once. Apparently I didn't enjoy the experience. And yet somehow I survived and have a close relationship with my mom. It didn't cause me irreparable harm.

There is a lot of overt sexism against fathers in this thread. If this woman was only concerned about the breastfeeding of the younger child, why didn't she at least ensure the older child was able to see the father? The far more likely explanation is the woman is being a spiteful pain in the ass who should get over herself. She may hate the father, but he still has rights to see his kids, whether she likes it or not.

[Mariana]

93. He has rights to see his kids

and the children have the right to spend time with their father.

Visitation orders aren't just for the benefit of the non-custodial parent. Visitation orders are also put in place to protect the children's rights to spend time with both of their parents.

[morningfog]

116. Agreed 100%. This should be a no brainer.

I am astounded at the ignorance on proud display in this thread. The best interest of the child should be the dispositive issue, and the best interest of the baby is to be breastfed.

[Brickbat]

29. I wonder how long the father would be willing to try with a bottle and formula.

He might change his tune after having a hungry, furious baby refuse the bottle for a few hours.

[MissB]

109. My thoughts exactly.

If he makes it through the first night, the baby will be fine.

[Orrex]

162. You're right--fathers are generally less dedicated than mothers

[Brickbat]

281. Heh. Not exactly what I was saying, although I can see how it comes across that way.

[Orrex]

288. LOL. Don't worry--I knew what you meant.

Seemed like a golden opportunity for some playful snark, though!

[WinkyDink]

36. I wonder which parent would agree to a Solomonic decree.

[ConcernedCanuk]

40. I suspect, the judge was a male

.
.
.

Or a female that never had children.

No mother would have made such a ruling.

No decent mother anyways . . .

CC

where's Judge Judy when ya need her!

[TorchTheWitch]

262. Bull. The judge knows FAR more about this family

than anyone here. Just from the article alone we know that the woman is willing to go to jail rather than give her children to her ex-husband on the weekends, and using the baby as an excuse that she can't give him EITHER child is nonsense. If she's willing to go to jail then the baby won't be breastfed at all never mind just over the weekend, and if she isn't willing to give her her two year old then it's not the breastfeeding baby that's at issue. This woman is just using both her kids as a pawn and trying to keep her kids from their father.

Breastfeeding infants are much more effected by the total lack of a father in their life and bonding with them as infants than not getting breast milk straight from the breast two damn days a week. Normal divorced couples manage to work these things out just fine even when there IS problems with breastfeeding. Normal mothers WANT the fathers of their children to have valuable bonding time with the other parent and are willing to compromise even if that means having to pump or get breast milk from a bank or forgo breastfeeding two months earlier than planned. The baby isn't going to be crippled for life just because they weren't breast fed for two months. Babies aren't crippled for life never being breast fed at all. Of course breastfeeding is better for a baby than nothing but formula but it's not a magic elixir, and no mother is harming her baby by not breastfeeding whether intentionally or otherwise.

Fathers are equal parents to mothers whether they're breastfeeding or not. This woman is just being a selfish shit trying to keep BOTH her children from their father depriving BOTH of her children of his love and affection, and she's using the breastfeeding excuse to keep BOTH of her kids from him.

No judge should EVER be depriving a father of his parental rights just because the child is breastfeeding, and no judge who does has any business on the bench. Family court judges are well versed in the issues of parents, divorced parents, parents with kids, divorced parents with kids and FAR more than the average Joe or Jane off the street. They see and have to decide on all and sundry various issues every single day that we never have to deal with.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. Good.

Infancy is a time in which a baby bonds to his or her father as well, and weekends, at risk of understatement, is the bare minimum.

When the baby gets older, this mom would be the first to tell the kids that dad doesn't love them because he never visits.

It's reassuring that the baby has an involved father with whom to stay while mom chooses jail.

Unless the father is the one who holds the no-contact order, then there's a simple solution.

There is much to like about Canada.

[NickB79]

60. It makes one weigh the benefits, that's for sure

The biological benefits of breastfeeding are well-established.

The psychological benefits of a child bonding with it's parents are also well-established.

Both are not easily dismissed, and both subjects illicit strong emotional reactions.

I can see why these kinds of threads run wild in GD.

[morningfog]

113. Very bad. It is bad for the baby. That is what should be the guiding decision here.

[laundry_queen]

201. LOL

No one is saying the father can't see/bond with his baby - overnight visits are not a necessity for a loving, caring father to bond. There are many creative ways the father could come up with and present to the courts that would facilitate his bonding that didn't include overnight visits that would damage the nursing relationship (and yes, breastmilk is much more important than most people believe). Read my posts in this thread about my friend with twins. There's a father who cared about his kids.

By the way - I'm in Canada and this type of ruling is NOT the norm. There must be some information we are not seeing, because almost everyone I know in my divorce support group that had a nursing infant was not required to give up their babies overnight until their kids were around 2 years of age.

[Mariana]

263. It is unusual, and I wonder why such an order was made.

It's possible the father did come up with many creative ways that would facilitate his bonding that didn't include overnight visits that would damage the nursing relationship. It's possible he did present them to the court, and the mother refused to accept any such proposals.

We just don't know.

[Le Taz Hot]

273. I remember an OP I did several years back

in which I questioned why the mother got custody of the child something like 76% of the time (I can't remember the exact number) and challenging that the mother is automatically the best choice 76% of the time. I.GOT.HAMMERED. The phrase dead-beat-dad came up along even though that was not the topic. I got called a misogynist (I'm a lifelong feminist so I'm not sure how that works) and told that I was only posting the thread because I wanted the men on the board to like me. These women EXCORIATED fathers -- it was truly an amazing and sad thing to watch. I see some of it in this thread -- with NO acknowledgement that the MOTHER is JUST AS LIKELY to be the douchebag in the relationship. I've also seen children used as pawn PARTICUARLY by the mothers and, I'm sorry, but this REEKS of that. "I'll go to jail . . .?" THAT is power trip.

Let the piling begin.

[ElboRuum]

308. "I'm a lifelong feminist so I'm not sure how that works"

To some, you aren't a feminist unless you are at least partially contemptuous of men having a fair shake in child rearing. To some, it doesn't matter how much of a douchebag the mother is, the man is, by default, ten times worse.

[pipi_k]

55. And so...

with the country full of absent or uncaring fathers, a dad who shows interest in being in his kid's life gets called "selfish" in this thread.

And all solutions to the problem of how to feed the kid are dismissed without even a thought as to the possibility that one of them might just work.

NO!!! Selfish father!!!

I would even be willing to bet that the parents have such a contentious relationship that the mom would purposely extend the breastfeeding way past the age of one year. Two...three...maybe even four years...just to stick it to the dad.

Well, she had best come up with a solution on her own, or else, like some have pointed out in this thread, she likely won't be doing any breastfeeding at all in jail.

Once again, it's the true innocent in the whole mess who ends up getting the shaft.

[Dorian Gray]

70. Yeah,

that was my reaction. It's a father who wants an active and regular relationship with his child. I don't see the selfishness.

[alarimer]

106. I agree

Not that I know much about this topic, but if the dad is judged to be fit, he is entitled to spend time with his kids. And they need to find a compromise that works for everyone, even if that means the kid is bottle-fed sometimes. Big deal. He will likely be just fine. Of course if his parents are such colossal assholes, maybe he won't.

[Logical]

62. Send her to jail. The dad deserves to see the kid also. n-t

[Mariana]

97. And the kid deserves to see his dad. nt.

[galileoreloaded]

66. About the only thing that Mens' Rights Advocates get right is in aptly naming

this as "Golden Uterus Complex". The illogical assumption that anyone better other than the Mother has the capacity, intelligence, experience, and love to care for a common child. The Family Court grinder reinforces this pablum by relying on some very shaky science that dictates the preference to the Mother in many circumstances, but in reality up until recently, in cases of divorce children went to the father. Many would say for good, well vetted, and logical reasons.

The reality (sure to get me branded a Leche League subversive) is that two days of infant formula a week has far less impact on a child than the irreparable harm that diminished bonding capacity with either parent ever will, and especially with the same sex parent.

Don't believe me, look at the multitudes of youth raised by single parents and the link to crime, drug use, violence, and recidivism.

Our little girls and boys need their daddy's JUST AS MUCH as they need their mommys, and for little boys even more.

[appleannie1]

72. That could cause some real health issues for the mom too. But I would just hand him the baby.

No bottle. No formula, NOTHING but a hungry squawling kid. Something tells me it would not take long for him to take the baby home.

[NickB79]

75. Yeah, because men are completely incapable of dealing with babies

Why, we poor menfolk can barely figure out which end of a child to put a diaper on, much less what to feed a hungry baby. Do they eat french fries? Maybe some beer and chicken wings at Hooters? Well gosh, whatever would a MAN do with a hungry baby?

What sexist drivel

[gollygee]

78. Well, it says in the article that the baby won't accept a bottle

and I had a baby who refused to accept a bottle so I can vouch for that happening. If that's true, then it will be a problem for him. Also, it can be hard on a baby's tummy to just switch his/her sole food source like that. I could see a crying upset baby. But she's claiming nursing as the reason for hte 4-month-old but holding back on the 2-year-old too, so I'm not sure of her whole story.

These issues are complicated and you have to know the specifics IMO. I think 4 months is too young for a whole weekend, but OTOH there's no good reason these two should be barred from being in the same room from each other. They're adults and ought to be able to behave for the baby's sake. I'd like to know what's going on there. The baby does need bonding time with the father, and they ought to be able to grow up and find a way to make that happen without messing up the baby's current sole food source.

[NickB79]

82. I practically raised our daughter the first 6 mo.

My wife suffered severe post-partum depression, to the point she didn't want to get out of bed some days. We also didn't have family in the area, so there were no grandparents nearby to help. I burned up my 3 weeks of paid vacation, then got a couple weeks of unpaid time off, and then had to go back to work.

I would get 3 hr of sleep a day most days, while my wife either stayed in bed or did the bare minimum around the house. I was responsible for feeding, changing, soothing, paying bills, keeping up the household, etc.

At the same time, our daughter had colic and later acid-reflux. Simply put, it was a disaster. I honestly thought I was going to have a nervous breakdown some days. There was much crying in the household, with no small part provided by me.

By the time my wife finally started to improve, I was so sleep-deprived that I was actually hallucinating while driving at times. I fell asleep in a meeting while my boss was talking to me.

Despite all that, we now have a healthy, beautiful, intelligent 3-yr old little girl who is the joy of my life. If I had the choice, I'd still go through it all over again to have her.

My experience is why I take it VERY personally when people imply a father can't raise a child just as well as the mother can.

[gollygee]

83. Fathers and mothers can both be wonderful caregivers

My husband has been a great one as well. But it could be true that changing the baby's sole food source, particularly when the baby has so far rejected a bottle, could cause him trouble. And of course cause the baby trouble, and at 4 months the baby won't understand what's going on.

The baby absolutely needs to be around the father, unless there's information this article isn't giving. I'd like to know why they aren't allowed to even be around each other. I think that would be a useful bit of information that would shed a great deal of light on what's going on here. But her not allowing the 2-year-old to have visitation either makes me wonder quite a bit too. That isn't about a baby who can't eat something else for a weekend or drink something out of a cup.

[Mariana]

84. No, the article doesn't say that.

It says in the article that the mother says the baby won't accept a bottle. She may be lying.

I know it happens, but I wouldn't take what she says as gospel. She's also refusing to allow the older child to visit her father. The older child isn't breastfeeding, so there's obviously more to this story.

[gollygee]

87. I acknowledged that

I clearly said "if that's true" and said that she isn't letting the 2-year-old go either so that makes me question her whole story.

IF IT IS TRUE then it will cause problems.

Also, I said, "It says in the article", not "the article says that" as if it's stated as fact that can't be questioned.

[appleannie1]

91. A lot of breast fed babies refuse bottles.

[appleannie1]

90. I never said men can't take care of babies. The baby will not take a bottle and unless something

has changed that I am not aware of, men don't have breasts with milk in them.

[tammywammy]

96. The mother said the baby won't take a bottle.

And since she also refused to allow the older child her visitation time, I don't think the mom is a reliable source.

[appleannie1]

98. A lot of breast fed babies won't take a bottle. Also, there has to be a reason the parents are

court ordered not to have contact with each other. That usually signals abuse of some sort.

[tammywammy]

101. I'm sure if there was abuse the woman wouldn't have hesistated to mention it

I understand that not taking a bottle isn't unusual. And even if the baby doesn't take a bottle, why didn't she allow the 2-year old daughter to visit her father?

[BainsBane]

95. Funny how the only kind of sexism you acknowledge

Is toward men, and the only kind or racism is toward whites. Are we going to hear next how hard the rich have it in American society?

I don't suppose you could actually explain why you think her comment is sexist?

[mtnester]

377. That poster has FINALLY left the building

courtesy of EarlG

[BainsBane]

378. Praise be to EarlG

Well deserved. In another thread last night, that guy called me a b---h.

[opiate69]

385. One would think...

That someone who has gotten away with behaviors for which other posters have been PPRd would show a little more restraint, and a little less glee in their gravedancing.

[BainsBane]

386. Really?

When did I ever call another member a bitch?

[opiate69]

388. When did I ever suggest you had??

[BainsBane]

389. If I had approached his level of behavior

I would be long gone. The difference is, I wouldn't dream of it. I haven't had a post hidden in close to four months. The entire site knows of my transgressions. Most people seem to have forgiven them and allowed me to move on.

[BainsBane]

387. When did I ever

oppose immigration reform, gun control, or discussion of domestic abuse?

[lumberjack_jeff]

105. So nothing says "motherhood" like guaranteeing a hungry child?

Every grocery store sells formula. He has a 2 year old, so dad knows the drill.

There's a bunch of stuff that is really objectionable about your post.
1) Dads are parents too, and have as much innate skill in that regard as moms.
2) Punishing the child to get back at the dad? That's exactly what the court is accusing her of. If she were taking your advice, jail is exactly where she belongs.
3) If child abuse (denial of food) is a tactic on mom's table, the kids should be with dad 100% of the time.

One hopes you aren't talking from experience.

[opiate69]

114. No shit... spot on..

And yet, there's still a few here who somehow see fucking misogyny in this thread...

[Union Scribe]

156. ^This.

From reading this thread I get this sense that I'm reading posts from aliens whose only understanding of the human male is from television commercials that lead them to believe bumbling fathers only interact with their children if they have to.

[Major Nikon]

118. This isn't 1950

Believe it or not, lots of men do know one end of a baby from another.

[womanofthehills]

411. It took my grandaughters boyfriend about 5 hrs

and he brought him home at midnight because the baby would not stop crying. He was used to going to sleep on his mama's breast.

[Mariana]

80. The children have the right to spend time with their father.

We don't know much about the background here. For all we know, the father has bent over backwards to arrange visitation around the baby's breastfeeding needs, and she has refused to work with him.

[roamer65]

89. The infant belongs with the mother until weaned.

Regular visits from child protective services to make sure that she does that as soon as possible are definitely in order. Once completed, then Dad should receive his weekends plus "make up time" for the lost weekends. Problem would then be solved and the child's nutritional needs are put first.

If I am reading it right, she didn't hand over the 2 yr old daughter. On that one she should be found in contempt of court if Dad is due court-ordered parenting time. The experience Dad will gain from parenting the 2 year old will get him ready for dealing with 2 children at once.

[ZombieHorde]

94. If the baby is the most important factor here, then both the parents are

being selfish. Having a good relationship with both parents is very important to most people. By separating, they are both putting their own needs before the needs of the baby.

[nomorenomore08]

99. +1

Seems to me they're both in the wrong, at least in the sense that neither is putting the child first.

[opiate69]

107. So they should stay together "for the sake of the kids"??

The 50s called. They want their failed relationship advice back.

[ZombieHorde]

115. Is the well being of the baby the most important factor? nt

[opiate69]

119. It most assuredly is.

But, being raised by two parents who cannot function together, yet are together, is decidedly worse than being a child of divorced/separated parents.

[ZombieHorde]

120. If people have free will, then they choose to not fuction together. nt

[opiate69]

126. Spoken like someone who's never seen, much less been in, a relationship.

[ZombieHorde]

146. I've been in a relationship with the same person for 13 years.

People either have free will or they don't.

[opiate69]

149. Ive been in one with the same person for 15+...

Of course, before that, we both had relationships with people we were fundamentally incompatible with. Welcome to the real world.. not every couple can just exercise their "free will" and make a dysfunctional relationship work.

[ZombieHorde]

163. If people can choose how they behave,

and if the child is the most important thing, then they can choose to be professional with each other for the purpose of raising the child.

Personally, I am not so sure people have free will, and/or I don't think most people think the child is the most important thing, otherwise they wouldn't do and say some of the shit they do and say.

[opiate69]

176. Well...

Until the guys & ladies at CERN figure out how to move through the multiverses, we seem to be stuck with this wholly imperfect world, where sometimes the best option for all involved is to separate and make the best of it.

[ZombieHorde]

178. I agree with you, but that is not a child-first perspective. nt

[opiate69]

196. It appears, then, we have reached a detente.

Off to bed now. Have fun.

[ZombieHorde]

206. Sleep well. nt

[BainsBane]

223. No, but I would say they behave like adults

and work out their custody arrangements so the needs of the child are best accommodated. That would not include starving the baby, but the father is going to have to get formula.

[Nine]

102. More misogyny on DU. This place sickens me sometimes.

Breastfeeding is hard. Really hard. Pumping is not as easy as all you men seem to think either. It's ridiculous to send a four-month-old on weekend visits.

[Major Nikon]

124. Then one has to wonder why you stick around

Misogyny is not just what you define it as. The idea that it's perfectly OK to deprive a man from his children certainly could be interpreted as misandry. There are other options other than breast milk on the weekends even if she can't express enough to last. This isn't a valid excuse to use children in some demented power play to get back at an ex-spouse.

[BainsBane]

224. Did it ever occur to you

That it's just an ugly custody dispute?

[Major Nikon]

227. Captain Obvious to the rescue

[BainsBane]

229. You were the one throwing around charges of misandry

[Major Nikon]

230. Says the person who sees misogyny behind every tree

Seems to also be the affliction of the person you are trying so hard to defend.

Very telling that.

[BainsBane]

231. You could actually ask me what my views are

rather than thinking you can divine them. But that would require a bit of curiosity rather than reducing people to straw women.

Yes, we know white men are the most oppressed group in the history of human kind. Some feel compelled to remind us of their horrendous oppression all the time. Fox is in on that kick as well. http://www.democraticunderground.com/125524089

[Major Nikon]

232. I actually tried that once

All I got in return was the worst sort of defamation without a shred of evidence after being called on it and a refusal to withdraw.

Seems a bit disingenuous you would plead for the benefit of the doubt at this point, no?

Until you're willing to retract your false claims, I just don't have that much respect for your views. I don't believe that's unreasonable.

Cheers!

[BainsBane]

236. Oh, about that study from the 1980s

you love to post all the time, without it's date or the context of the broader academic debate? To apologize I'd have to know why you are so fond of that study and where you found it? I've asked several times both you and your defenders what your point is in posting that, but no one ever wants to explain.

In the meantime, you're free to ignore me, but pretending you know what I think when you clearly do not is ridiculous. You couldn't even be bothered to read my posts in this thread. You just trot out some old bizarre internal dialog in your own head. Those are your voices, not mine.

[Major Nikon]

241. No, it was about exactly what I said

It was about you making vile defamatory claims with zero evidence. Nothing else. You didn't even have a clue what the "context" was and were completely ignorant of a post that happened months before you ever arrived (by your own admission). You simply repeated nonsense from someone else and then refused to back down when asked to put up or shut up.

You don't get to defame someone and then claim the high ground when they could give a day old dog shit about your "views".

Since you are determined to go off on a tangent here, I'm quite done. Feel free to have the last word as I'm quite sure such things are vitally important to you.

Cheers!

[BainsBane]

245. I recall saying

You cited it to claim women didn't mean no when they said no. I did in fact look up your previous references and that is what you did. If I made some other comment, I do not recall it. I do recall your pulling this same thing, refusing to explaining what your point was and becoming furious that I drew a conclusion based on your obsession with that very old study.

You don't need to give a "dog shit" about my views, but that doesn't give you a right to claim you know what they are. Additionally, if you don't want people to say you feel the need to prove women don't mean no when they say so, I would suggest you stop citing that ancient, long-outdated study. Concealing the date doesn't reflect well on your motives either, nor does your complete disinterest in the subsequent studies on the subject.

[Liberal_in_LA]

202. +1

[rebecca_herman]

103. Well, some babies do flat out refuse the bottle for a long time

My parents told me they tried to get me to take one for months and months. They could not get me to. My poor mother couldn't leave me for more than a couple of hours at a time until 9 months when I finally gave in. They said up til then I preferred to starve - even if she left me at the house for a few hours she'd come back and I'd be starving. But I imagine if this baby is as stubborn as I was, and the mother isn't lying, the father will get tired of having to deal with a screaming hungry baby soon enough. The dad should get to see his baby but some babies really are *that* stubborn.

[hunter]

104. Bah. Put both parents in jail cells and don't let them out until they can behave like adults.

Bring the baby to mom when he's hungry, the rest of the time let'm share the kids.

Being locked in a prison cell with a two year old on alternate days ought to wear the parents down soon enough.

[Inkfreak]

110. Breeders....amiright??

[Mushroom]

283. youberight

[morningfog]

112. So much offensive bullshit in this thread. This is like a men's rights wet dream.

And much misunderstanding on the importance of breastfeeding and a mother's right to make that decision. It must have been a male judge.

I hope to not read about shit like this in the US. If the baby was weaned, I would say no problem. The baby is four months old.

[Major Nikon]

129. Because you don't like the decision, the judge "must have been a male"

Very telling that.

[morningfog]

132. I would put money on it being a male judge.

Not because I don't like the decision.

[Major Nikon]

135. As if breastfeeding is beyond the scope of reason

Again, very telling.

[morningfog]

139. I am a dude, dude.

I get it. This judge and the father do not. Like I said, I would place money on it.

[Major Nikon]

140. I could care less

You're the one who seems to think gender affects reason.

Just sayin'

[morningfog]

141. In this case, the lack of reason almost assuredly came from a man.

[Major Nikon]

142. Very telling

Just sayin'

[morningfog]

136. I bet this gets reversed on appeal. One idiot judge made a dumbass order.

I suspect the father is a bad player in this, too. If he actually cared about the interest of the baby, he would work around his feeding needs.

[opiate69]

143. I'll ask you the same thing i asked pnw...

What, exactly, given the limited information in the article leads you to believe the father "a bad player"?

[Major Nikon]

144. Because he's a man

Obviously.

[opiate69]

148. (psst.. ixnay on the isandrymay ... we made the concept up, remember?)

[morningfog]

145. He is clearly insisting on preventing his child from the benefits of breastfeeding.

The court isn't ordering him to take the kid sua sponte, he is most likely demanding it.

[opiate69]

147. Yes... damn him for demanding his rights be upheld...

How does one explain her refusal to allow him his time with their second, non-breast feeding child then? The only thing that's obvious from the article is that she is clearly preventing their children from the benefits of spending time with their father.

[morningfog]

151. If he is putting his rights above the baby's interests,

He is not advocating the child's best interest. He is promoting his, they are not the same, unfortunately.

Point taken on the older child. Probably all bad actors here. A no contact order is evidence of that. The baby's interests should still trump, and probably will on appeal.

[opiate69]

154. The childs best interest is not in jeopardy if other solutions for his feeding are available.

And, as a father of three, I can attest there are other options. Even in a worst-case scenario, the child will still be able to breastfeed 80% or so of the time.

[morningfog]

155. Breastfeeding is recommeded as the sole source for at least 6 months, and

the primary source for a year. It is also proven to be most beneficial coming directly from the breast. So no, it is not in the best interests to be able to do it 80% of the time, which is just some arbitrary number out of your ass.

It can also cause the milk to dry up, risking reduced breast feeding and shortened nursing in the future.

"Other options" are not the same as "best" interests. Best is...well, best.

[opiate69]

159. The court order awards him custody for two days per week...

Meaning she has the child for 5 out of 7 days per week.. so, yeah.. closer to, what? About 73% then... rough calculations are not "pulling it out of my ass".

[Major Nikon]

181. His idea of "best interests" also completely negates any benefit the child/father relationship has

Again very telling.

[opiate69]

182. telling, indeed..

[Major Nikon]

150. He is doing no such thing

The mother has the option of expressing milk ahead of time. If she can't or won't (most likely the later), that's not a reasonable excuse to deprive a person from their children given that other perfectly acceptable options exist.

[morningfog]

153. Bullshit. You are ignorant to how breast feeding works.

And on the benefits that exceed just the milk.

[Major Nikon]

157. Egocentrism on your part is another possibility

Just throwing that out there.

[Major Nikon]

161. Please don't throw me into the briar patch

You act as being put on ignore by someone who feels the need to resort to vulgar personal attacks is a net loss.

I can assure you it isn't.

[opiate69]

171. Heh.. guess he doesn't have to go through the trouble of trashing the thread now...

Opiate69 - always seeing the glass as half-full, since 1969.

[Major Nikon]

280. Silver lining

[Violet_Crumble]

160. As a former breast-feeding mum, I'm not ignorant about it...

When my daughter was a baby she survived really well on what ended up being a mix between formula and breast feeding. I, on the other hand, didn't survive so well with the immense pressure I felt was put on me to breast-feed no matter what. It wasn't till a nurse at a unit I got sent to who was an expert on feeding and babies and stuff told me there was no harm to my baby in supplementing her feed with formula that I didn't feel like a total and abject failure for not being able to make sure all she got was breast milk.

When it comes to this case, the fact that the woman refused to hand over her 2 year old for a visit makes me very suspicious of the claims she's making. Which is why the authorities in this case should check it out for themselves and find out whether the baby really won't drink formula or if she can't successfully express...

[Major Nikon]

164. Her story betrays a much more simple explanation

In order to believe her story you have to believe that she can't express milk when most women can. You also have to believe that her son won't take formula when most children will.

Or you can simply believe that a woman is using her children as leverage in what is obviously a bitter divorce case.

It seems more than a bit naive to give preference to the former rather than the latter.

[Violet_Crumble]

168. Yep, explanation 2's looking the far more likely one to me...

But what would I know? After reading a few comments in this thread, I've realised I'm just one of those bad mums who looked after my baby's interests, learnt to ignore the 'breastfeed at all costs' brigade, and started supplementing her feeds with formula because having a hungry and underfed baby wasn't my idea of good parenting

[laundry_queen]

183. I'm one of those women

my first would literally starve to death rather than take a bottle. I once tried to get her to take a bottle for 8 hours. She refused. I let her breastfeed after 8 hours, and decided to try again the next day. Same thing. And the next. After 3 days, I gave up.

My friend's dd took the bottle the first day.

I've had more friends, however, whose babies absolutely refused bottles. They tended to be the same babies that refused pacifiers (all mine did too).

Also, expressing milk was almost impossible for me as well. As a result I never went anywhere. It was a big part of the reason I didn't go back to work when my 6 month mat leave was over. My daughter refused solids and bottles until she was nearly 9 months old - then she suddenly couldn't get enough.

It happens. My other 3 weren't quite like that as babies. The younger 3 all took bottles.

And I will say, if I would've gone through a divorce at the time, I might be a little bit crazy about keeping my babies with me. And I probably wouldn't have been rational about it either. I'm lucky my divorce didn't happen until my youngest was 3. It was still the most difficult thing I've done, handing over my youngest for a week. Especially when you have a dad who suddenly decides to be involved AFTER the marriage falls apart. My ex hardly changed a diaper, never gave baths, never participated in day to day care, never took the kids with him anywhere...and suddenly was interested in having the kids for a whole week at a time. Found out later his new girlfriend became the new babysitter. He still doesn't do anything, his girlfriend takes care of my kids when they're gone. Thankfully, it only happens a few times a year, as he lives far away.

I don't know what the story is in this instance, but I'll wait to see both sides. I still believe that if children are used to a primary caregiver taking care of them the majority of the time and overnight, then that's how it should continue after the divorce. If the dad was an integral part of overnight care, then I might change my stance, but I don't know what went on in their house. Having belonged to a divorce support group, I've seen many women use their children as pawns, and I've seen as many men use their kids to get back at their ex spouses or as a way to avoid child support. Divorce turns people ugly.

[Major Nikon]

191. I've never heard of a child starving to death because they wouldn't take a bottle

I know there are some babies who are reluctant to do it, but if a baby gets hungry enough they are going to eat. If the mother is present, one can expect more difficulty in the baby taking a bottle. After all the baby knows the other option is readily available. Bottle reluctance is nothing new. Professional nannies successfully deal with it all the time.

My wife had problems expressing milk with our first child. We had to go through a series of pumps before we found one that worked for her. Even if the woman in question does have difficulty expressing milk, I seriously doubt she has put that much effort into it as she has a vested interest in not doing so.

Divorce certainly does turn people ugly and it may be true that both parents are trying to use the children as leverage. The task of family court judges is to sort out such messes.

[laundry_queen]

197. I lived in an area where pumps weren't accessible

so that was out for me (this was before internet sales as well. I was in a remote town in Canada, near the NWT border). Now there's really no excuse. All the good pumps are online. With my second I got an Avent and was amazed at how much I could pump.

My first daughter was more than 'reluctant'. Perhaps she wouldn't have starved to death...but I think what we went through was extremely traumatizing and I wouldn't do it again. We tried to get her to take a bottle from 2 wks of age, and a lot of friends and relatives tried to get her to take one too (I left her with various babysitters and family often) she just refused. She would rather cry for 2-6 hours than take a bottle. We tried different formulas, and sometimes I managed to get 2 oz of milk expressed (that was my max, and I could only do it once a week) she refused it all. I wish I could go back in time and dare a 'professional nanny' to try to deal with her. I had midwife and doula friends that were positively flummoxed, LOL, I doubt the nanny would've fared much better.

[Major Nikon]

205. Few things are more unnerving to a parent than a crying baby

As someone else mentioned upthread the trauma would exist primarily for the father. If the baby won't take a bottle for him, I have no doubt he would be returning the child in short order.

[yewberry]

203. Starving to death isn't the issue.

Being hungry for 2 days might be. Have you been hungry for 2 days? Or even 12 hours? There are questions about long-term immune system health, separation anxiety, attachment disorders etc relative to breastfeeding and weaning. Is it responsible to simply dismiss those concerns because one parent will feel cheated for the short term?

I really think that the statement "I seriously doubt she has put that much effort into it as she has a vested interest in not doing so" is pretty uninformed. It's possible, sure, but we can't make that judgment. I know motivated women who desperately tried to make that work but just couldn't make it happen.

Divorce can make things ugly, that's for sure, and in this case, both parents seem to be trying to manipulate the system. But the interest of the child should be paramount in the eyes of the court, and the best interest of the child here depends on whether or not the mother can physically provide what's needed for the child. The court cannot determine that.

[Major Nikon]

209. You're assuming that would actually happen

You're assuming that all of these problems are anything more than a fabrication by the mother. You're also assuming that the baby would actually go hungry that long. It's quite possible the baby will take a bottle from someone other than the mother quite readily (this isn't at all uncommon). You're also assuming the father would be so irresponsible as so allow the baby to go hungry all weekend while listening to it cry constantly without returning him to the mother.

[yewberry]

216. No, I am allowing for worst-case scenarios. Not assuming.

You and the court and the father in this case are assuming best-case scenario.

I am surely not asserting that a father would be irresponsible enough to not return a hungry infant to its mother. However, there is no control that will force that to happen, right? If you were a parent on either side of that decision, wouldn't that seem troublesome to you?

[Major Nikon]

220. Worst case is the child dies of starvation

Not all worst cases need to be considered as reasonable.

[phylny]

323. As a speech-language pathologist and feeding therapist,

I can say with authority that your statement about babies eating when they are hungry is unfortunately inaccurate. Babies in this country don't starve to death; they are put on feeding tubes. Ask any SLP working in pediatrics

In addition, many mothers try their damnedest to pump and cannot.

[Major Nikon]

330. So do you have any statistics on what rate that happens?

If you read my statement more carefully I said I've never heard of a baby that has starved to death. That doesn't mean it can't or doesn't happen. It's somewhat disingenuous to claim that an aberration reflects the general rule, so I'd be interested to see on what you can come up with on this. If babies didn't eat when they are hungry, you'd have a lot more of them starving to death and as it is teenagers who have babies somehow manage to figure out how to do it with surprisingly little difficulty and have for all of human existence. Furthermore I'm quite sure lots of moms try and can't express milk. My wife went through a series of pumps and a lot of failed attempts before she was able to express milk. I have no doubt that this is a common problem. However this doesn't change the fact that there are other options available. Quite a few actually.

[phylny]

394. So yes, I do.

And as I stated, they wouldn't "starve to death" because we have feeding tubes nowadays. That's why you've never heard of a baby starving to death. Doctors routinely tell parents "they'll eat when they're hungry" and I can tell you children with feeding disorders do not.


http://www.livestrong.com/article/556949-feeding-aversions-in-infants/

You can do your own search from here

http://search.asha.org/default.aspx?q=feeding%20disorders%20in%20infants

[Major Nikon]

398. I didn't find anything that shows how many severe cases there are

However, I didn't click on all the links. Problems with tolerating certain foods seems common, as expected, but severe problems that necessitate serious medical intervention seem few and far between, again as expected.

[phylny]

407. Well, there are enough that there are whole specialties devoted to

helping these children. Between premies, children with autism, children with sensory difficulties, and children with disabilities, there are plenty.

Just do a Google search for pediatric feeding disorders & feeding tubes. Plenty of reading. It's not the norm, but again, no one is dying because there is serious medical intervention.

[lumberjack_jeff]

297. The court *acting in the best interests of the child* has decreed weekend visitation.

Mom is the one defying the court's order, for the purpose of denying the child the benefits that the court has awarded.

The article doesn't say who holds the no-contact order, but it is mom, then she could make the milk available throughout the weekend.

[Orrex]

166. Have we determined if The Olive Garden is involved?

[opiate69]

186. Who's got the calendar handy? Aren't we due for a circumcision flamewar soon?

[Warren DeMontague]

188. I need to make a new one.

[opiate69]

189. Ha! August! I wuz right!!!

[Warren DeMontague]

190. You know, since I made that I have searched and searched for the picture of the scientist with the

Warhead, again.

God knows what freakish combination of terms I plugged into google image search originally to find it. Can't remember. As it is, it's gone.

[opiate69]

192. Heh... I have a similar "white whale"...

There used to be a picture of a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back I used to use at an old internet haunt...but last few times I looked for it, Google came up empty.

[Warren DeMontague]

375. Awesome!

I don't know if there was a larger version, but that's great. Thanks!

[BainsBane]

413. August started early this year

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018432256

[opiate69]

414. lol!

[BainsBane]

415. In that same vein

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=438856

BTW, it wasn't I who alerted on your group. I did alert on him in GD when he called me a bitch.

[opiate69]

416. Good gods, they'll have a contest for anything, won't they?

[BainsBane]

417. This is the best part

since then the weather has changed, the days have gotten longer, and we've received more than enough emails from confused readers thinking they should send us photos of their tiny penises. Please stop doing that.

[opiate69]

419. Whoda thought there were so many people willing to share their um....

Shortcomings with complete strangers?


(And, just for clarity, I applaud you alerting on his calling you that... )

[Warren DeMontague]

187. I think, here, the court is wrong.

Custody arrangements should accommodate what is best for an infant and the infant's schedule and health- not the other way around.

Sad situation. Cute little fella, i feel bad for him to be in the middle.

[Major Nikon]

210. Pretty hard to make that determination

The story references comments from the mother, the mother's doctor, and the mother's lawyer. No comments from the father, the father's lawyer, or even any mention of the attempt to solicit comments from either. The very best you can say about it is it's one-sided piss poor reporting.

[Warren DeMontague]

214. Here's the thing: Biologically speaking I know how intensive and restrictive dedicated breastfeeding

can be.

I think in terms of the 4 mo. old infant, the court should defer to the breastfeeding mother. That would not preclude, to my mind, custodial sharing with the Dad for the other child. Also the situation ought to be reassessed in a short amount of time.

That's my take, based upon the breastfeeding angle. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that "oh the kid should be just given a bottle or formula" or whatever. The initial period of breastfeeding can be extremely intense and like I said, time-restrictive.

Also according to the article "The two parents aren't allowed to have contact with each other"- well, that sort of fucks things up additionally, doesn't it. In a situation like this one would hope that all the adults could somehow work things out, again, for the best interest of the baby.

[Major Nikon]

219. Again all you are going on is one side of the story

The fact that the other side of the story isn't being heard should at least cause one to pause for suspicion.

[BainsBane]

228. He's going on his knowledge of human biology and experience with his own children

the mother's story doesn't change the fact she can only pump so much milk at a time. We aren't cows, for God's sake.

[Major Nikon]

237. You have little idea how much milk she can pump

For all you know she could pump enough to open her own dairy and she's claiming otherwise to gain sympathy for a losing case. Without hearing the other side you just don't know that or if any other options were offered and refused.

[BainsBane]

239. Really? If that is a possible hypothesis

You should be able to find plenty of examples of women who have opened their own dairies.

[Major Nikon]

240. Is 2360 enough?

http://www.onlythebreast.com/

[BainsBane]

242. but those women aren't feeding babies at the time

They have continued to produce milk after weaning their babies, which will happen as long as they keep pumping. If fact, a woman doesn't even need to have been pregnant to produce milk. I know from my study of slavery that women who served as wet nurses could not produce enough milk to feed their mistress's baby and their own, so their own child starved.

For your point to hold, you would need evidence that these women were able to nurse their own children AND sell lots of surplus milk.

[Major Nikon]

243. ...

Mother of a 2 month old very healthy and chunky baby, I pump 3 times of what he needs to eat.

http://www.onlythebreast.com/breast-milk-classifieds/show-ad/28103/excess-of-breast-milk-supply/illinois-il/wheeling/usa/0-2-months/

I am a 20 year old mom with a healthy 1 month old son. I have more milk than he can use and an overloaded freezer.

http://www.onlythebreast.com/breast-milk-classifieds/show-ad/28454/healthy-smokealcoholdrug-free-mom-selling-caffeine-free-milk/tennessee/estill-springs/united-states/0-2-months/

I have about 30 oz of milk just pumped in the past two days !!! I eat health and my son is 5 days old and healthy to !!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.onlythebreast.com/breast-milk-classifieds/show-ad/28447/fresh-mommys-milk/or/salem/marion/0-2-months/

I'm A Very Healthy Young Mother With Over 250 Oz Of Frozen BreastMilk. I Pump An Average Of 16 Oz After Feeding My Daughter A Day!

http://www.onlythebreast.com/breast-milk-classifieds/show-ad/28440/fresh-fattening-healthy/nebraska/united-states/0-2-months/

I currently have 450 oz of breast milk in our deep freezer. I have a 7 week old baby and feed him and then pump.

http://www.onlythebreast.com/breast-milk-classifieds/show-ad/28434/blessed-with-the-breast/virginia/virginia-beach/0-2-months/

On and on it goes...

[BainsBane]

246. Okay

I guess you didn't plan to stick to your promise of "being done" with me.

[Major Nikon]

247. Different subject

And do you really think I'd miss the chance to prove you wrong again? I know how much you love that and I'd hate to deny you.

[BainsBane]

248. So all those enslaved women

just let their children die out of spite for some man?

I actually have no problem admitting I'm wrong. I'm wrong quite a bit. One of the chief benefits of acquiring advanced degrees is that one learns how much one doesn't know.
You proved that some women are capable of producing lots of milk, or at least claim they are. That, however, does not prove that this woman or most women can do so.

[Major Nikon]

254. Perhaps

But neither can you prove any of her claims. For all we know she has either been expressing milk or using formula supplements all along. We don't know if she's lying about everything. It's not as if she would be the first person to lie to the press in order to gain public sympathy in a divorce case. Even if she is telling the truth she could be lying by omission by not disclosing what other options were offered. That was my whole point that you simply ignored and started going off about "enslaved women" for some strange reason.

[BainsBane]

257. That strange reason

Is I've spent a great deal of my life studying slavery so when an example of breastfeeding comes up, I think of amas de leite.

Not that you care anyway. You made quite clear you don't give a "dog shit" about what I think.

[Major Nikon]

261. So you felt the need to throw out irrelevant information because you're a self described expert

Then you wonder why I don't give a "dog shit" about your "views".

Brilliant!

[BainsBane]

379. I could have gone with my sister's experience

of not being able to produce enough to feed even one child, but that I'm sure is not the norm. Like you, I myself have never breastfed a child, so I have no personal experience in the matter.

You don't give a dog shit about my views because you're holding on to a grudge from many months ago. That really is your problem. As I said, I don't expect you to care about what I think. I would, however, think that would mean you would simply not read what I have to say. That is my typical response to those whose opinion doesn't interest me, as I'm quite sure it is what most people do.

[BainsBane]

379. I could have gone with my sister's experience

of not being able to produce enough to feed even one child, but that I'm sure is not the norm. Like you, I myself have never breastfed a child, so I have no personal experience in the matter.

You don't give a dog shit about my views because you're holding on to a grudge from many months ago. That really is your problem. As I said, I don't expect you to care about what I think. I would, however, think that would mean you would simply not read what I have to say. That is my typical response to those whose opinion doesn't interest me, as I'm quite sure it is what most people do.

[Warren DeMontague]

250. There is a limited amount of information in the story, period, to be sure.

However, if the data point contained about this being vastly out of character vs. similar custodial court decisions is true, then I have to wonder if it's not a badly reasoned one.

Also, I'm politically sensitive to ANY arguments around forcing people to do things with their bodies against their will. Mandating a woman pump breast milk or pump X quantity of breast milk within a given time span, seems to be a legally dubious thing to do, although I'm not familiar with either Canadian law or (fortunately) the intracacies of these sorts of obviously unpleasant court decisions around the specific details of peoples' family and parental lives.

And BB is right, in that I am going on my own experience with my wife and breastfeeding our kids, some of which involved pumping and ALL of which was a massive and complex and certainly time and situation-sensitive (not to mention child-specific, as in different challenges, patterns or needs for different babies) undertaking.

Maybe there is an inherent gender bias in believing- as I do- that a breastfeeding mother and a non-breastfeeding father (obviously) are NOT equal in terms of the physical relationship with a still-nursing 4 mo. old infant. I plead guilty, there. I don't think it's the same, although I do believe that the best answer in this situation- no matter what additional information may not be in the article- would be for the grown ups to resolve it like grown ups so the best, absolute resolution for the baby could be obtained, at least until he's a little older.

[Major Nikon]

259. The story doesn't give much information regarding what was ordered

All we know is this woman is claiming she is under a court order to release custody of her children on the weekends. We have no idea what feeding arrangements the father is going to provide. For all we know he has a wet nurse on standby fully willing and able to do weekend duty. We don't know if this woman is batshit crazy and is a pathological liar. We don't know if the child has already been taking formula supplements to breast milk. We don't know if the two parents live within walking distance of each other and it's the mother who is insisting on 100% separation for the sole purpose of depriving the father the opportunity of returning for feedings. We don't know if the woman is losing part of her child support due to the shared custody arrangements and if she is doing all of this for financial reasons. We don't know if the husband has been awarded primary custody of both children as soon as the 4 month old is weened.

Even if you take everything she says as the gospel and even if you could make the case that the physical relationship between parents at this stage is not equal, I don't believe you can make the case that one is 100% and the other is 0%.

[Warren DeMontague]

260. Nah, and I don't think I've said that.

My initial reaction stands, but it sure could use more information.

And like I said, that "ordered to stay away from each other by the court" sticks out like a sore thumb. One certainly wonders what the rest of the story is.

[Major Nikon]

264. That was exactly my impression as well

That's why I'm not so quick to side with her over what the judge ordered, especially since we are obviously only hearing her side.

I get professionally involved with all sorts of disputes between people and there is a few things I've learned. Nobody offers information that is unfavorable to them and it always exists. Lying, lying by omission, stretching the truth, and gross exaggerations are quite common. Disputes between people are rarely the fault of just one side.

I learned pretty quickly never to pass judgement simply based on which side of the story I got to hear first. You listen to both sides, weigh relevant facts and the truth is generally somewhere in the middle.

I don't know how family law works in Canada, but in most jurisdictions in the US in regards to child custody, you usually have to go through one, if not a series of court ordered alternate dispute resolution methods before a judge is going to arbitrate a final ruling. I suspect a lot of water has gone under the bridge before they got to that point.

[Warren DeMontague]

265. Well, here's the other thing, speaking of data points that can't be twisted or misrepresented;

the kid is presumably 4 mos. old. That, it would seem, is an undisputable fact. So whether or not special consideration is given vis a vis the breastfeeding needs of a 4 mo. old, that kid isn't going to be 4 mo. old forever.

[Major Nikon]

266. All the more reason for the dad to be involved

The biggest reason why I resigned my commission in the military was because I got separated involuntarily from my first child during the early months. You miss things you don't ever get back.

[Warren DeMontague]

267. I hear you.

No matter how you break it down, this sounds like a sad story. And whatever the details, there seem to be some adults involved who can't work it out for the benefit of the kid. I feel bad for the little guy in the middle.

[Major Nikon]

268. One would hope that it's just a matter of differing thoughts on what's best for him

But given the level of unreasonableness it seems more likely that one or both of them is using him as a pawn for all the wrong reasons.

[Warren DeMontague]

269. Yeah, I'm kind of on that in the other post I'm writing downthread.

I suppose it could be looked at as, at least they presumably care.

[Mariana]

397. You miss things you don't ever get back

and so does the child, when he or she is deprived of a relationship with you during those early months.

My daughter spent her whole childhood with her father in the home. Oh, he'd go off for a week or two for work now and then, but they were never separated for any longer than that. I saw how he and she interacted with each other from the very day she was born. Their relationship was tremendously important and beneficial to her. Depriving a child, even a very young one, of that relationship should be avoided if at all possible. Major, you did the right thing.

[kdmorris]

348. There is a lot missing in this story

so I find it hard to make a judgement on what's going on. Why are they not allowed contact with each other? Can they seriously not put whatever it is aside to come to a mutual agreement on how to best deal with feeding their son for the next two months? Is the mother going to go along with the recommendation that the child be allowed to bond with his father when he's 6 months old? Why is the mother also withholding the 2 year old on the grounds that her son needs to breastfeed? How long have they been separated and someone have foreseen that the father might get visitation with his children (as in - introduce a bottle earlier when the baby might take it)?

My twin sons were born a month ago and we knew from the beginning that I might not produce enough milk for both babies. In addition, we both have to sleep at some point. Our sons both had low blood sugar in the hospital, so they needed to have formula. We've spent the last month both breastfeeding and feeding breast milk from the bottle (and sometimes, we have to give them formula because they are eating like teenage boys, not newborns), so they aren't too picky about breast or bottle. My husband (tkmorris) takes the night shift and feeds them pumped milk or formula while I get some sleep. Then I take the day shift and breastfeed. I still have to get up at night about every 4 hours to pump, but that's how we get milk for the next night.

On the face of it, it would seem that the father has the right to bond with his children, too, whether that child is nursing or not. Stipulating, of course, that there is a LOT of information missing from this story. There are definitely ways of increasing your milk production (feed baby on one breast, pump on the other... or, if you have twins, pump immediately after breastfeeding to signal your brain to produce more milk). Then, she will need to pump every few hours during the weekend, freeze the milk and send it with the baby the next weekend. I assume that the baby will be perfectly willing to take a bottle from his father while he rejects it from his mother.

I think breast milk is the best food for newborns, but I don't think that it should interfere with an infant's bonding with BOTH parents or be so exclusive that your baby goes hungry. If my husband put all the burden on me to feed these boys, I would probably go crazy (OK, a case could be made that I'm already there, but I'd be crazier). When they are hungry and he picks them up, they look for a bottle and when I pick them up, they look for the breast. They already know where the food is likely going to come from. I will return to work in 4 weeks and my husband will be the primary caregiver. At that point, quite a lot of their food will come from pumped breast milk. If I cannot keep up production, it's more important that they get food than that they get breast milk, so they will get the best formula we can find (hard to do, since they are made by the same food production companies that are trying to kill us all).

In a situation like this one would hope that all the adults could somehow work things out, again, for the best interest of the baby.

Right? Seems like the mother and father (again, with the limited info available) are acting like children themselves.

And why can't DU ever discuss these topics without all the snark and put downs that are in this thread - from and about both men and women?

[BainsBane]

226. Oh, Oh

Hmmm. Some here are quite insistent that such a position is misandry.

I actually think it would be far better if the two could work something out so the father can see his child and the baby can still be breast fed. I think it's sad so many custody disputes become so ugly.

[Warren DeMontague]

249. I'd say that assesment of the position -that it's misandry- is wrong, too.

in a case like this, as you mention, the baby's needs have to come way before everything else. And you're right, it is sad.

[BainsBane]

251. Well some in this thead

Have waged charges of misandry to opinions that the woman should retain custody. As is often the case, these threads are less about the story or people in question than long-standing conflicts among members of the site.

[Warren DeMontague]

253. And praise to Jesus, Odin and Thor we don't have meta anymore.

Because honestly, one head is plenty for my neck.

[BainsBane]

255. that reminds me of a lounge thread

but . . . never mind.

[Warren DeMontague]

258. Heh.

[opiate69]

334. Once again, you've put your keen and penetrating mind to the task, Snape,

and come to the wrong conclusion...

...Have waged charges of misandry to opinions that the woman should retain custody.

No. No one has done any such thing. The charges of misandry are leveled directly, and solely, at those who somehow come to the conclusion that the father is a "bad actor" in this situation, despite the fact that the article offers absolutely zero evidence to support this.

I suspect the father is a bad player in this, too.

And, to those who just assumed out-of-hand that the father would be unable to handle taking care of the child:

I wonder how long the father would be willing to try with a bottle and formula.

He might change his tune after having a hungry, furious baby refuse the bottle for a few hours.

That could cause some real health issues for the mom too. But I would just hand him the baby.

No bottle. No formula, NOTHING but a hungry squawling kid. Something tells me it would not take long for him to take the baby home.

And to those who think they can divine the gender of the judge (which again, was not stated in the article) because the judge made a decision which didn't favor the mothers position.

In this case, the lack of reason almost assuredly came from a man.

I suspect, the judge was a male


Or a female that never had children.

No mother would have made such a ruling.

No decent mother anyways . . .

And to those who dismiss all opinions from males in the matter, despite the fact that many of us have children of our own, and have plenty of experience in dealing with the care of breastfeeding babies.

Is it just me, or are the men's opinion's here just not really needed?
If you have not breast fed a baby, and been there to know just what that means, don't chime in and think you know what's best.

[BainsBane]

376. I have no idea what you are going on about

or where these excerpts are from, but really I just don't care. I'm not reading every single response in a 380 post thread. I did read the one where your newly departed friend accused another member of being "sick" and "sexist." I believe you yourself referred to that same post as misandry. I considered the maligned statement an overreaction to the situation and one that did not keep the interests of the child in mind.

[opiate69]

381. They're from this very thread.. but just go ahead and keep your fingers firmly in your ears

If it makes you feel better...

[BainsBane]

383. No thank you

I reedited my post as you were writing, in case you want to keep plugging your ears.

[yewberry]

193. I'd say both parents are acting inappropriately.

Sounds like neither is innocent of manipulation.

However, if this order stands and the situation doesn't go well (as in the mother can't express enough milk to make it workable) the order should not be fully in force until the infant is old enough to be weaned. The court should represent the interest of the child first and if that means infringing on the rights of a parent for 8 or 12 months, so be it. Sorry if that aligns with the desire of the mother, but that's just too damned bad. The interest of the child is the first priority.

Not for nothing, but if that child is weaned early in order to meet the demands of a parent and later develops lupus, Crohn's, CFS, or some other long-term debilitating syndrome, that judge and that father will bear that burden for their entire lives. Would it be worth it to you, if you were that parent?

[DeSwiss]

195. It appears that 'The Patriarchy' all overt the world, is coming totally unhinged.

And as they do, the ''submerged barbarian'' that lives beneath is now surfacing through its pores like a clammy, stinking sweat as their world shrinks into non-existence.

[Warren DeMontague]

270. you got all that from a custody dispute involving a 4 mo. old?

Hell, at the very least we can presumably infer that here we have two parents who, despite being unable to deal with each other, at least want to be a presence in their kid's life.

Hopefully, they both want what's best for him. It's sad that there's a dispute, it's sad they can't resolve it better (based on the limited information) but it's better (presumably, again, from the limited information) than having one or two parents whom either or neither give a shit.

And I don't recall wanting to take care of 4 mo. old babies being a time-honored tradition of troglodyte patriarchy heteronormative he-man phallopressor man-types.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

199. It's unnatural to take a 4 month

old nursing infant from his mother every weekend. It will be traumatic for the baby to say the least.

[Mariana]

222. Then they need to find a way to work out visits

on a more appropriate schedule. The child has the right to spend time with his father, and he shouldn't be deprived of that.

The mother really does not come off, in this article, as a terribly sympathetic figure. She says she'd rather go to jail than allow the weekend visits. "I don't care if I go to jail" were her exact words. That tells you where her priorities lie. Obviously, if she goes to jail, she won't be able to nurse at all, and she surely knows that. So it's clear that her refusal to permit the visitation isnt really about nursing the baby. There's a lot more to it than that.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

332. It doesn't matter how she comes off in a newspaper article

She is a mother first. If someone wanted to take my four month old baby from me every weekend, I'd have said a lot worse than, "I don't care if I go to jail".

The father can see the baby between feedings. Right now the baby belongs with his mother. Maybe the father can have him for four hour stretches.....then he'll find out the baby needs to be with his mum.

Mother and nursing infant is a sacred bond throughout in the animal kingdom and should be respected.

[Humanist_Activist]

337. What do you mean by this?

"The father can see the baby between feedings. Right now the baby belongs with his mother. Maybe the father can have him for four hour stretches.....then he'll find out the baby needs to be with his mum."

Having babysat infants at 1 months through two years and older, my nephew, and my brother-in-law's sisters' kids, what will the father find out that I apparently didn't find out?

And when I say babysat, I mean for 8 hours or more when their mothers and/or fathers had to go to work.

[Mariana]

343. Yeah, really, WFT? I'm a grandmother

and I've had my granddaughter stay with me overnight, when she was even younger than this child, and she was being breastfed exclusively. I don't know why so many people on this thread are acting like it's an impossible thing to do.

It would be good to have some background on this story, because it is an unusual order. Maybe the mother has a history of trying to prevent visitation altogether, or of interrupting the child's visits with his father. Something like that may explain why the judge ordered visitation to be done this way.

[Humanist_Activist]

344. Overnight stays with my nephew were cool, he slept through the night...

hungry as all hell in the morning, you get over the awkwardness of handling your sister's breast milk in a bottle right quick when he's squalling! lol.

[Humanist_Activist]

345. You are right on the last part, it is a somewhat unusual order for a judge to get involved directly.

From what little I know about custody hearings, the courts prefer the parents work it out themselves, and if not, then it becomes mandated by the court, or one violates shared custody provisions, like you suggest.

[Orrex]

340. "Right now the baby belongs with his mother."

You realize that you're arguing that mothers shouldn't have jobs outside the home, right? Certainly they can't work more than a four-hour shift; since that's all you're wiling to cede to the baby's father, then certainly a stranger or other family member can't be trusted to serve in the mother's place.

[Humanist_Activist]

342. She is arguing that, she's also arguing, I think, that men are incapable of taking care of infants.

Which is fucking stupid, I remember taking care of Trenton, my brother-in-laws sister's kid(that's a mouthful), I'll call him nephew-in-law. I took care of him, fed him, changed him, for 10+ hours a day when he wasn't even old enough to support his own head and was shorter than my forearm, because his deadbeat dad didn't want anything to do with him and his mom had to work. Granted, at the time I was unemployed and living with my parents, that gave me the time needed, but I'll tell you a secret, I actually LIKED taking care of that kid, hell, I even did it for free, after all what was family for?

[Sunlei]

204. she will lose custody if the father wants to pursue charges

like it or not they are both parents of the kids.

[Peaceplace80]

211. My son wouldn't take

A bottle at all! I would spend a hour trying to pump and once I had enough in a bottle he wanted nothing to do with it. He would pull away and cry. All babies are different and breast feeding can be very difficult. If this mother goes an entire weekend without nursing she is going to engorged and in some severe pain. I feel that the babies nutrition is more important.

[Ilsa]

284. Mine wouldn't bottlefeed, either. They hated pacifiers,

too. They from the breast to a sippy cup.

And so what that daddy didn't feed them. That's one thing among many. They loved their daddy.

[LittleBlue]

238. The knee-jerking in this thread is unbelievable

Am I in Freeperland? Without even knowing the complete details of the case or either of the parents, DU has determined that the judge is wrong. They've also determined that so long as the baby breast feeds, the father's legally granted custody rights are irrelevant. The judge is presumed to be a man with no rational basis for doing so, only because men obviously cannot understand the concept of breastfeeding, which is clearly the reason for the ruling.

Congratulations on embarrassing yourselves and this website. Hang your heads in shame.

[Major Nikon]

244. Welcome to DU

[davidpdx]

272. +1

The only information provided in the story is about the mother. We know nothing about the father or the terms of the divorce. People are making a lot of bad assumptions based on one story so I tend to agree with you on the knee jerk part.

Divorces are bad enough on kids, but when two parents have such contempt for each other it is toxic. One of the few things I agree with that was said is that the kid will end up resenting one or both parents if it continues.

My own experience with my mother and father divorcing when I was 7 was pretty bad and they didn't get along for years before they finally put it behind them. The result was two fucked up children (I did eventually find my way). While I know the story from both sides now as an adult, there is no way as a child I would have understood.

I'll tell you two quick short stories about them burying the hatchet:

1) About 22 years ago my father had a severe stroke that left him paralyzed on the right side of his body (more on that in a second). When I graduated college my mother, father, then girlfriend, and my girlfriends's mother attended. This was at a NBA basketball stadium because there were so many people. I didn't see this happen, but my (then) girlfriend relayed it to me afterward. As they came down the steps my dad was having a tough time and my mom took his arm and helped him.

2) Unfortunately my father ended up in the hospital a little over two weeks before I graduated with my masters degree. He had another stroke and had been in ICU for a week. It was pretty apparent he was going down hill and was going to die. Right before my graduation my aunt flew in to see him in the hospital and my mother was in town. My mother went and saw him in the hospital and I could see that even despite all they'd been through how sad she was. He died about a week later.

The morale of the story is both of the parents need to start acting like adults.

[B Calm]

252. Is the father a bad person?

[Humanist_Activist]

287. From what I can tell on this thread, to some people, the father has no more right to see his...

children than some random dude on the street. Apparently having a dick is an unforgivable sin to some people.

[ConcernedCanuk]

278. A little more information to ponder

.
.
.

http://www.pregnancyandbaby.com/baby/articles/966845/breastfed-infant-stays-home-when-mom-thwarts-court-order

Moms everywhere are siding with Tamara. “Four months is too young!” said Kimmy, mom of three. “The judge in my older sister's divorce decided she didn't have to send her son on overnights with his father until 15 months because of breastfeeding.”

Christine, mom of one, agreed. “This is garbage,” she told us. “I would do what she did too.”

Attachment issues
There is also the factor of attachment, and how nighttime separation can be detrimental to a baby in the first year of life. The popular breastfeeding advocacy Facebook page Unlatched recently posted about a new study out of the University of Virginia that researched the effects of separation on infants. The study’s lead author, Samantha Tornello, is a Ph.D. candidate in psychology in U.Va.’s Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. She said, “Judges often find themselves making decisions regarding custody without knowing what actually may be in the best interest of the child, based on psychology research. Our study raises the question, ‘Would babies be better off spending their overnights with a single caregiver, or at least less frequently in another home?’”

The research found that infants who spent at least one night a week away from their mothers developed attachment issues when compared to babies who had fewer overnight visits or who saw the other parent during the day. They also found that it became less of an issue when children were toddlers and preschoolers.

What the future holds
Tamara’s lawyer is launching an appeal on the access order, and a lawyer local to Tamara who isn’t involved in the case has expressed shock that the court wasn’t more accommodating, stating the outcome was rare indeed.

http://www.pregnancyandbaby.com/baby/articles/966845/breastfed-infant-stays-home-when-mom-thwarts-court-order

more at link

CC

[The Straight Story]

302. Interesting read

My x breastfed and had the situation been the same there is no way I would have kept our baby girl from that.

It might be a year (my x breastfed longer) but the long term interests of kids outweigh those of the adult.

I am one of those dads that has gotten screwed over. My first X kept the kids from me for years until she died, I over paid child support about 2k and was not much I could do about it (because she lied to child support agency, they eventually did investigate and find out I was right but told me nothing they could do about the over paying).

I have 5 kids overall and never got to live with any full time after breakups, though my one daughter is now living with me full time finally and it is awesome.

Do what is best for the kid, not yourself. It hurts at times, is painful, but the right thing to do.

--other question here is: is he paying support? And if so, that will certainly make him feel more 'used'. Which adds to the emotional issues they both are facing. Would be nice to know more about the situation but bottom line - this isn't forever, let the baby grow and feed the best way for it and deal with it.

[ConcernedCanuk]

307. +1!

.
.
.

Sometimes being a good Dad is letting things be.

"My x breastfed and had the situation been the same there is no way I would have kept our baby girl from that.

It might be a year (my x breastfed longer) but the long term interests of kids outweigh those of the adult. "

Good on you



CC

[ileus]

279. pump it and freeze it...

simple answer....


Going to jail only means the caregiver will feed the baby 7 days a week instead of 2.

[BainsBane]

382. I don't believe it freezes well

I'm quite sure many of the nutrients would be killed. The father will have to use formula for part of the time.

[ejpoeta]

432. you can freeze breastmilk. i am not aware of any negatives to it.

you can freeze regular milk too. no nutrient loss.

from the mayo clinic:
What's the best way to store expressed breast milk?

Using waterproof labels and ink, label each container with the date you expressed the breast milk. If you're storing expressed milk at your baby's child care facility, add your baby's name to the label. Place the containers in the back of the refrigerator or freezer, where the temperature is the coolest. If you don't have access to a refrigerator or freezer, store the milk in a cooler or insulated bag until you can transfer the milk to the refrigerator or freezer.

[ConcernedCanuk]

285. .

.
.
.

This is Luke - the 4 month old at home



And this is Tamara Bolan - his 28 year old mother



sometimes putting faces and names to an issue like this creates more empathy

Hope so.

CC

[Orrex]

289. Curious that you didn't hope to create empathy for the father.

[lumberjack_jeff]

298. Where's the photo of dad?

Empathy? Are you sure that is the word you're looking for?

The only useful bit of information in the article is the court order. It is the family court judge's job to look out for the interests of the kids, and given the evidence, testimony and information available, he or she chose to enforce weekend visitation and a no-contact order.

[ConcernedCanuk]

305. Good question!

.
.
.

Where's the photo of Dad -indeed!

Also where is his name?

Ponder this - the "fight" is over a 4 month old baby.

How old was this baby when they separated?

Was it even born yet?

Who left who - like who initiated the separation?

And why?

and yup - from this forum, and others concerned with this woman's plight,

Empathy is the word - didn't have to look for it.

Any decent mother would be concerned about her baby's welfare,

and certainly be aggrieved to have it taken away from her, even if only temporarily.

Too many in our World cannot relate to other's concerns.

I looked it up anyways now for others,

em·pa·thy [em-puh-thee] Show IPA
noun
1.
the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empathy?s=t

World does not have enough of this

EMPATHY is the word . . .

CC

[Humanist_Activist]

311. What plight? Why use biased words here, we have one side of the story...

as far as we know, she's trying to manipulate public opinion to put pressure on the court to deny the father access to his children, what about HIS plight?

[ConcernedCanuk]

317. "as far as we know" - well let the MAN speak up!

.
.
.

Anyhoo, nice outside here - gonna let y'all alone for a bit while I go outside and chore some.

But I'm gonna keep reminding y'all - It's mostly USAmericans advising/judging Canadians.

Well, that ain't new . . .

CC

[Humanist_Activist]

326. You bring up nationality like it matters in this case, why?

This case and judge's decision could have just as easily happened in Minnesota or practically anywhere in North America.

[Mariana]

418. Those are good questions.

I wonder how much visitation time the child has had with his father up to this point. It's possible that the mother has prevented the child from seeing his father at all.

[Humanist_Activist]

303. Do fathers not exist in your world?

Generally speaking, whatever is in the best interest of the baby medically should be of primary importance, but this obvious misandry shouldn't stand.

[ConcernedCanuk]

310. Unfortunately, my father passed away 6 years ago at the age of 95.

.
.
.

He and my mother almost split up when I was a teen - even at that age, father did not try to get custody of any one of the four of us.

Even at our advanced age, he would never consider taking us away from our mother.

Heck, Luke was inside her for nine months, only been on the "outside" for 4

losing him for even a day has gotta be hell.

Y'all gotta remember something - this thread is about a Canadian woman in Saskatchewan.

We got a different attitude up here . . .

CC

[Humanist_Activist]

313. My mother just recently passed, dad is still alive...

stayed together over 35 years, however, my mother also had bipolar disorder, and my dad, if it ever came to that, would have HAD to have taken us away from her if it was needed, it wasn't thankfully, but he was prepared, and I don't know what you mean by different attitudes, you don't value fathers?

[Nine]

290. A disinterested family law lawyer says this is very out of the ordinary.

Brent Barilla, a family law lawyer in Saskatoon, isn't involved in this case but has dealt with similar ones. In more than 20 years practising law, he said he can't remember an outcome like this.

"I can't even recall a time where the court hasn't sort of gone out of its way to make sure that they respect that decision on the part of the mother and what that means to the child and work around that," he said.

I suggest that any of you posing these "easy" and "simple" solutions go to an actual parenting discussion board and see how many threads say things like, "My baby refuses to take a bottle," "My baby was given a bottle and now refuses to breastfeed," "I can never produce much milk from pumping," and other such things. I guarantee you there will be tons of threads. This is not as easy as you all think. It just isn't. You are speaking from ignorance.

No one is saying this father shouldn't be allowed to see the baby. But the arrangements need to work around the baby's health needs, not the other way around.

[lumberjack_jeff]

299. the fact that she's denying visitation for the 2 year old as well is evidence of bad faith. n/t

[Nine]

329. I don't know all the details.

Since the parents aren't allowed to see each other, I don't know how the children are exchanged from one parent to another. Does a social worker or other third party have to pick up and drop off the children? Do the parents have to bring the children to a neutral location like a child services office? I don't know. Maybe the mother feared that the party taking charge of the 2-year-old would somehow force her to relinquish the 4-month-old as well. Maybe she is staging a general protest of the court's decision. Maybe she figured, "In for a penny, in for a pound," and if she's going to be violating a court order to stand her ground, she'll be in just as much trouble whether she complies with none of it or part of it. Maybe she feared leaving her daughter with the father when she knew the father would be angry at the mother. Or maybe she IS just a jerk using this issue to be vindictive toward the father and she doesn't really care about breastfeeding and doesn't really think that the court-ordered arrangements will be harmful to her child. I don't know. I wonder about why the parents wouldn't be allowed to see each other. If there was a history of domestic abuse, I would expect there to be a restraining order against one party and I would expect that party to be denied visitation of the children, though maybe I'm wrong about that.

None of that changes my basic opinion that the court in this case was wrong to order weekend visits for a still-breastfeeding, 4-month-old infant.

And none of that changes my opinion that the misogyny of many on DU is well on display in this thread. It's misogynistic to ASSUME that the mother's only possible motivation here is to jerk the father around. It's misogynistic to insist that there are simple, easy solutions to this that the mother could employ if only she chose. People who are saying this simply do not know much about breastfeeding. This is why it's a bad thing when legislative decisions that affect women are made by groups composed entirely of male legislators. People often don't even know that they don't know something.

[Orrex]

336. What if the mother should suddenly be unable to produce milk?

Much of the conversation here has been along the lines of "the baby must have its mother's milk because nothing else will suffice." Well, what if the mother is unable to produce enough milk for the baby? What solutions might be tried in that case?

Is there a reason why such solutions are deemed impossible in the current situation?

Must the father's rights of visitation necessarily be subordinate to the mother's choice to breastfeed? Even if we stipulate that this is appropriate, how long should it persist? What if she elects to breastfeed until the child is four years old? Is the father to be denied visitation during that entire time?

[Humanist_Activist]

339. I don't understand it either, and a lot of things can happen to prevent safe breastfeeding...

new prescription drugs, medical conditions, alcohol, etc.

[Nine]

351. You think such situations are always resolved satisfactorily?

What if the mother should suddenly be unable to produce milk?

Much of the conversation here has been along the lines of "the baby must have its mother's milk because nothing else will suffice." Well, what if the mother is unable to produce enough milk for the baby? What solutions might be tried in that case?

Is there a reason why such solutions are deemed impossible in the current situation?

You don't even know what you don't know about nursing. Some babies end up in real danger because of feeding issues. Not every baby can or will take a bottle, just as not every baby can or will take the breast. No one is saying that nothing but breast milk will suffice. But when you have a system that works, when the baby is happy and thriving, you don't throw a wrench in the machine.

Must the father's rights of visitation necessarily be subordinate to the mother's choice to breastfeed? Even if we stipulate that this is appropriate, how long should it persist? What if she elects to breastfeed until the child is four years old? Is the father to be denied visitation during that entire time?

I don't see this as being about the mother's rights versus the father's rights. I see it as being about the infant's welfare. It seems like the mother is asking for the overnight visits to at least wait until the baby is six months old. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. After that, the issue can be revisited. Not being able to keep a baby overnight is not the same as not being able to see your baby at all. And to turn your own question around, what if the father had to go away on business or military service for a couple months? What solutions for making sure the father kept and established his own bond with the baby might be tried in that case? Is there a reason why such solutions are deemed impossible in the current situation?

[Orrex]

362. Spare me your righteousness

You don't even know what you don't know about nursing.

Well, you don't even know what you don't know about me or my experience, so maybe you can hold off on the preaching.

In addition, you are equating the granting of court-ordered paternal visitation rights to "throw(ing) a wrench in the machine."

I don't see this as being about the mother's rights versus the father's rights. I see it as being about the infant's welfare.

Perhaps you should take that up with the presiding judge. However, regardless of how you see it, if the mother is willing to risk contempt of court, then she has clearly declared her view that it's about her rights trumping the father's rights, because she won't likely get to nurse the baby every four hours while she's in jail.

to turn your own question around, what if the father had to go away on business or military service for a couple months? What solutions for making sure the father kept and established his own bond with the baby might be tried in that case? Is there a reason why such solutions are deemed impossible in the current situation?

A fair question, and I will be happy to answer it once you answer mine.

[lumberjack_jeff]

391. I think "rights" as used in this thread kind of misses the point.

The child needs the best practical-available upbringing.

Studies show that breastmilk is better.
Studies show that childhood engagement with both parents is better.

Given the conflict between the two, is it the best situation for the child to get 100% of the breast milk and 0% of the appropriate engagement with dad?

Maybe 71% of the ideal amount of breast milk and 29% of the appropriate paternal engagement is the appropriate balance? The judge thought so.

[Ilsa]

396. This is precisely true.

One tidbit of advice that I offered new moms looking at weaning right before winter was this: pump extra milk, even though baby is transitioning to formula or soft foods, and freeze the milk. Hold on to it for 6-9 months to get your baby through flu season and all of those other horrible viruses. F the baby gets a stomach virus, the saved milk might be the only thing the body can absorb quickly enough tpbefore vomiting. It may save the baby hospitalization and IV therapy for dehydration.

[librechik]

291. she should get brief nursing visits during the weekends until the baby is weaned.

after that, HIS weekends will be un disturbed.

And this is a man rulez kinda thing.

[leeroysphitz]

293. It is good that the child will benefit from time spent with his father. n/t

[davidpdx]

294. Right

A baby can benefit from bonding with his/her father as well. Both parents need to be adult enough to work it out.

[Turbineguy]

301. Because the justice system

really can solve all society's problems!

[dsc]

306. This is my solution

He gets the 2 year old whenever she has the baby and vice versa. I bet all of the sudden, those issues with bottles will clear right up.

[Humanist_Activist]

309. My solution is that if they aren't mature enough to deal with each other...

for the sake of the kids, then they should be denied custody of their kids until they demonstrate maturity. Assign a wet-nurse for the infant, put the 2 year old in foster care. I figure both will find a way to work things out to a reasonable degree really quick, and if not, their kids might be better off without them.

[ConcernedCanuk]

314. Nothing indicates the children are suffering under their mother's care.

.
.
.

"Assign a wet-nurse for the infant, put the 2 year old in foster care"

yup - both mother and children will better off -

good idea . . . . .

CC

[Humanist_Activist]

315. No evidence they will suffer under the father's care as well...

I notice you NEVER mention the father as a parent, again, do they not matter in your world?

[pipi_k]

371. I don't know

if your suggestion is tongue-in-cheek or not, but I actually agree that part of it should be a choice presented to the mom, who seems to be a major roadblock here.

If she really gives a shit about her kids, she will do what's right and let the father be a part of their lives.

If that choice doesn't bother her, then maybe full custody should be given to the father, because there would have to be something seriously wrong with a mom who would allow her kids to be subjected to that sort of thing just because she wants to act like a spoiled little asshole.

[Humanist_Activist]

373. It was partially tongue in cheek, though also just venting some frustration...

at idiots who are being biased towards one or the other, when it seems rather obvious that we have too little information to go on, and, from what we know so far, the mom is willing to use the media for leverage in a private family affair, which makes me question her parental fitness, and the father is, well I don't know his parental fitness, frankly, we have no info on that. I just find it illuminating that so many people are siding with the mother for no better reason than she is a woman.

[pipi_k]

395. Yeah, pretty common

Situation, actually...

A story gets posted without all the details and it sparks outrage


People are so positive they know what happened, like they were flies on the wall watching the whole thing

[theHandpuppet]

335. The child deserves time with his father...

... and the father deserves to bond with his child. Period.

[gulliver]

346. The divorce was worse for the kids than missing breastfeeding.

Because of the divorce, the kids will lose tons of attachment time, and tons of parenting. The difference between a breast and a bottle pales in comparison.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

355. Some of the comments are disgusting here.

Bonding between an infant and a parent is NOT limited to a breast feeding mom. Dads, too, bond with their kids. Watching them grow, changing diapers, laughing and gurgling, watching the first steps - how dare anyone prevent a dad from enjoying all the ups and downs? Shame on that mom, and shame on a bunch of people here.

[CC]

365. She cares so much about her kids well being

she decided dragging them through the newspaper and internet was so much better than keeping it a private family fight? I have a problem with that part of it all.

Unfortunately it sounds like at least one if not both parents are too immature to really put their kids health, safety and emotional welfare first. So a judge had to do it and they are all going to live with the consequences of it even though the children are innocent. The article doesn't have enough information to even have an opinion about the judges actual decision, just whatever we bring from our own lives into it. Not all fathers are monsters, not all mothers are angels and vice versa. I find most are human with both good and bad. What I hope for this couple and especially their kids is that they mature quickly and learn to work together for the good of the kids.

[Nikia]

390. Absent life threatening abuse, I would not separate from my husband for this reason

My baby is almost a year old and we are planning the transition to less breast milk. I am away from home for 10-12 hours per day during the work week, pumping 2-3 times per day which was 4 times per day at 2-4 months. I barely pump enough and usually had to pump a couple of times extra on the weekend before he started solid. Now, he awakes a couple of times per night to breast feed. There would have been no way that I could have pumped enough for two solid days as I seem to pump less at every consecutive feeding. Even now, I would probably end up weaning early and my husband would have a hellish night until the baby adjusted to no night feedings.
Yes, I could have dropped dead, needed life saving surgery that would have left me out of commission for days, or something but otherwise this would have been very upsetting to us all.

[Demo_Chris]

392. Reasonable. Mom can either drop off the kids as ordered or go to jail...

I fail to see the controversy here. Mom's do not hold exclusive rights to their infant children, and since she is apparently also witholding her older child I think it's clear that she is playing games.

She's lucky I wasn't the judge, I would have solved her problems permanently by handing complete custody to dad.

[Spades3351]

401. Lots of ignorance in this thread

Some Reading about shared custody under 2:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130719083611.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/shared-custody-a-mistake-for-the-under2s-say-guidelines-20111214-1ouy6.html

Also, automatic joint custody in every case would not be in the best interest of the child:
http://www.cba.org/cba/submissions/pdf/10-43-eng.pdf

I'm also really tired in the stereotype about women being vindictive and lying in court when men are just as likely to lie. There is a trend of abusers being granted custody because any woman who accuses the father of abuse is seen as "alienating" the children. It results in horrific cases like this one currently before the BC Supreme Court:
http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/Children+ministry+sided+with+sexually+abusive+father/8619201/story.html

Here's some more info on the trend of abusers being granted custody:
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/dv.html

[The Straight Story]

402. Welcome to DU!

Interesting links, thanks.

[Spades3351]

408. Thanks!

I had to get an account just because I was really frustrated with some of the replies here. An infant that young should not be going on overnights away from his primary caregiver. It's not just about breastfeeding, but also psychological health as well. Best practice is for the baby to have visits with the father throughout the week. I believe the judge put the best interests of the father ahead of the child's in this case. Since the case was high conflict and there is a no contact order between the parents, it would be impossible to arrange multiple visits throughout the week with the baby. So, I believe the judge decided to make up the time by ordering weekend visitation with the father. I am sympathetic to the father and it is important for fathers to have a relationship with their children. However, the psychological and physical health needs of the child should outweigh the interests of the parents, and the research indicates that it is best for a child of that age to avoid overnights away from the primary caregiver and to be fed breast milk exclusively.

I should also add that in a case where the father is granted primary custody, a child that young should not spend overnights away from his primary caregiver to ensure that he develops healthy attachments. It would seem unfair to the father that the mother is often granted primary custody to babies unless there is an outstanding circumstance in the case, but women have the breasts and it has been recommended for years by every health authority out there that babies be breastfed. This should not be a male vs female argument. The best interests of the child should always be paramount.

[The Straight Story]

410. Well stick around and jump into some more threads

People can be snarky at times (myself included) so try not to take it personal we don't always comes across well on the web.

[Spades3351]

412. No Problem

I often find that I have to reign myself in so that my points don't get buried in snark.

[Nine]

427. Welcome!

Thanks for jumping in.

[lindisfarne]

420. Choose the father carefully

The message here is choose the father carefully. Divorces get messy, so make sure you don't get divorced, if you don't want to deal with the mess. I know people will disagree, but this is the reality. Dad deserves time with his child.

Lots of women use breast pumps & leave breast milk at the daycare. She can pump milk & send it with dad, & continue pumping through the weekend. There are experts she can consult with if she encounters challenges with pumping.

It is optimal for kids to be breastfed for about a year, but it's also optimal for kids to bond with both parents.

[Spades3351]

422. The child won't be bonding with either parent

if he develops an attachment disorder from being away from his primary caregiver on overnight visits.

[Fumesucker]

421. I've been watching this OP hang at the top of GD for a while now

I figured when I saw the title when it only had a couple of replies that it was going to be a spectacular train wreck of a thread and I'm not at all disappointed.

[Orrex]

425. I think the really important question is "why is there no post 380?"

And why are there two posts 379?

Conspiracy, I say.

[Evergreen Emerald]

426. The dad is considering his own self to the exclusion of all others

They could easily agree to let her feed the baby on the days he has the child. It should be about the child and not about the father.

What a putz.

[tammywammy]

428. Actually we have no idea what led to this court decision

The mother could have been preventing visitation for all we know. I mean we do know that because the 4-month old is breastfeeding that's some how justification in her mind to not allow visitation with their 2-year old daughter.

I would not automatically put blame on the dad being a "putz" since the article only repeats what the mother has said and don't have all the facts.

[Evergreen Emerald]

433. ouchy

thanks for the spanking.

Actually: the argument is whether or not a nursing mother must give up her baby for visitation. The dad is obviously demanding visitation.

Why should it be all-or-nothing? Let mom feed the baby during Dad's visitations. That is all.