Judge orders Woman to Stop breastfeeding

[Tiff]

Article here

I was when I read this. It speaks poorly of the judge, but IMHO of the Dad as well. I find he's being selfish in his own stuff to force his ex to stop breastfeeding so his 10 month old can spend two nights a week with him.

She's only 10 months old!!!!!

No, the formula won't kill her. I FF my daughter after 3 weeks so I'm definitely not an anti-FF'er. But this just seems so wrong to me. Wouldn't it be a case of human rights?

Curious on other opinions about this.

 

[buttonnose82]

I was shocked at it, can't believe a judge would rule it in the slightest.

It is the dad putting his own needs before his child's! The distress it will cause them switching to bottle if it isn't what they want

 

[Tiff]

I think it was you who posted it on FB, wasn't it? I agree, totally awful.

 

[Fergie]

Sorry I may be daft here but why can't the mum express her milk ?.

 

[kit10grl]

Sorry I may be daft here but why can't the mum express her milk ?.

Not everyone responds well to a pump. Babies are much more efficient at getting milk out of the breast than a pump. Also it would mean the mum needing to send a supply of about 40 ounces plus for the two day stay at a time. When I expressed I used to get maybe 3-4 ounces at a time. Some women are lucky to get 1 ounce at a time.

The article also said the baby wouldn't feed from a bottle so even if mum was able to get the milk if baby wont feed from a bottle it would be no use.

I have to say this is absolutely horrible. I'm sure it must breach the babies/mothers right somehow. Shes legally protected to feed in public but not if the baby is in a custody battle. Its ludicrous.

 

[Tiff]

In the article it says that she doesn't do well with expressing milk and her baby refuses to take a bottle. She'd definitely have to pump A LOT to get 2 days worth of milk for her kiddo.

 

[Natsku]

Its disgraceful. Custody issues should always be about the child's needs and whats best for the child and forcing the baby to wean isn't putting the child first.

 

[Pearls18]

That is absolutely disgusting especially at such a young age. Although it does pose an interesting problem, at what point does the legal system put it's foot down and say a father should be allowed the over night stay- 1 year, 2 years? I really feel for the mum no one should tell you when to stop BF especially when the girl is still so young, however, in today's society where there are more single families you can imagine this potentially being used as a weapon to stop the dad getting some form of custody, but even if not used maliciously is it fair a father has to wait until weaning before he can get custody? Perhaps the answer is yes because it was how men and women are made, sorry I'm waffling, I don't really have an opinion either way other than being grateful I'm not in this situation myself but I can see how this can be an issue and perhaps this isn't the first case we will see like that.

Do we think there is an age where the father's custody should come before feeding if the mum doesn't want to/ can't express? Maybe the WHO guidelines of 2 years?

 

[emyandpotato]

Sorry I may be daft here but why can't the mum express her milk ?.

She could maybe express a spare bottle once a day and freeze it to keep it okay, but it's very tough, and some people don't have enough spare milk to simply express even half a bottle. Expressing enough for two days is a big ask! I had to express because of muscle malformation in my son's mouth meaning he couldn't latch (and now can't talk) and it was hell even getting enough for him on a day to day basis, let alone expressing spare!

 

[emyandpotato]

To the original article, I think it's disgraceful and a result of ignorance and a lack of informed compassion on the judges- and to an extent the fathers- part. My heart breaks for the mother. I also think two days when the child is not used to it is much too much.

 

[babycrazy1706]

Absolute madness!!

 

[sue_88]

Absolutely disgusting!!!!!

She has every right to breastfeed her baby for however long she wants.

I think a ruling like this should only happen after 2yrs old alongside the WHO guidelines, if the Mother is still breastfeeding.

The poor stress that the judge and babys Father has put this Mother & innocent child under.

Awful, I hope she appeals and wins. As she said breast is best and she's trying to do the best by her daughter

 

[fantastica]

Surely it would be in breach of the of the european convention of human rights anyway? I really doubt this judgement would hold up if taken elsewhere.

 

[MommyJogger]

I can't feel that badly about the ruling, because I'm confident that it won't hold up during appeal. This judge really needs to be penalized for this kind of stupidity, though. Not for any pro-breast, pro-baby, omg opinion I have. But because this is obviously a human rights issue, and it's obviously not going to hold up. So essentially, because this asshole didn't know the law he's supposed to make rulings on, he's wasted who knows how much time and money from the legal system and caused how much undue stress to this tax-paying citizen (who is saving the medical system money by bf, btw) because they now have to go to appeal with what should really be a no-brainer.

 

[lau86]

Its disgusting. In my opinion it should be about what's best for the little girl. There's no reason the dad needs to have her overnight at that age. She should really be having a few quick feeds then back off to sleep. Hardly quality time is it. He should be content to see her during the day when she is awake and able to enjoy time with him. Then they could work something out where the baby still bfeeds. At 10 months my son was only having morning and night feeds so that's a whole chunk of the day the dad could take her.
Really wrong and to come from a judge too?? What hope is there

 

[JASMAK]

Traumatising! For mom and baby.

 

[lhancock90]

Eeeeek.
I guess i'm going to be the unpopular opinion, because whilst yes i think its awful to force her to give up BF and a complete violation of her rights.

I also think spending proper quality time with the father is important too.

So i guess i'm completely torn and can totally see both sides.

 

[Baby France]

Eeeeek.
I guess i'm going to be the unpopular opinion, because whilst yes i think its awful to force her to give up BF and a complete violation of her rights.

I also think spending proper quality time with the father is important too.

So i guess i'm completely torn and can totally see both sides.

Got to agree with you Lenny!

I think that its disgraceful that she's been forced to give up breastfeeding and that is out of order considering her daughters age.

But at what point does it stop? How long does she plan to breastfeed for and whilst I understand that its completely her prerogative - when does the childs need to see her father come into it?

If at the minute the mum is completely stopping the child from seeing her dad (there is nothing to say is/isn't) then surely that is unfair? I suppose it depends (for me) on how much one and one time he gets with his daughter during the week without 'mum' being there?

 

[emyandpotato]

^^^ At that age she doesn't need and probably won't benefit from extended alone time with her dad. Twice a week seeing her during the day with her mum there would be perfect for the child, as she would get used to being around him, could still be breastfed, and it wouldn't be a frightening transition. I mean, how many would be outraged at the thought of a child (even a FF one) staying two nights at a grandparents' house at that age. Of course I know it's entirely different as he is the child's father, but from the child's perspective it is just as daunting and unsettling. I think the cut off line for BF vs contact should be, at the very earliest, one. At this age she is still a tiny baby and it shouldn't even be contemplated; some children aren't even having real solids yet!

Anyway, he doesn't need the child overnight. It isn't true quality time as she'll be asleep- if he wanted to be around for bed time he could likely make arrangements to take part at the mother's home after dropping the baby off. Even if he had her all day and she missed a midday feed (we could likely be expressed), that would be a much more reasonable solution.

 

[Natsku]

Eeeeek.
I guess i'm going to be the unpopular opinion, because whilst yes i think its awful to force her to give up BF and a complete violation of her rights.

I also think spending proper quality time with the father is important too.

So i guess i'm completely torn and can totally see both sides.

Got to agree with you Lenny!

I think that its disgraceful that she's been forced to give up breastfeeding and that is out of order considering her daughters age.

But at what point does it stop? How long does she plan to breastfeed for and whilst I understand that its completely her prerogative - when does the childs need to see her father come into it?

If at the minute the mum is completely stopping the child from seeing her dad (there is nothing to say is/isn't) then surely that is unfair? I suppose it depends (for me) on how much one and one time he gets with his daughter during the week without 'mum' being there?

Overnights aren't usually recommended at that age anyway so even without the breastfeeding issue the judge is being a bit out of line. The father should see the child during the day, and if the mother is preventing him then that should absolutely be dealt with but not in the way the judge is doing it now.