posted March 16, 2006 03:03 PM         

So proclaimeth Libra the Judge!

*bangs gavel*

(meaning this is not directed at anyone personally)

posted March 17, 2006 02:41 PM         

This is a subject that is near and dear to my breast...

This is the kind of junk that really gets my blood boiling.

Lotus, Maybe you arent aware of this but there are states that still make it illegal for Mama's to breastfeed im public. See Canada is a little more forward thinking and openminded and caring of its citizens. There are states that make it illegal for midwives to practice.

This is just another example of womans rights getting shoved aside. It sounds like the - and I use this term very lightly - father made his choice when he decided to run off with another woman. Now when its convenient he comes back and demands that she just send of the baby for a weekend of bonding? If he really wants to see that child so bad, why couldnt he just come to the house and stay at a hotel or something? No one should be able to force this mother to stop a beneficial and nurturing relationship.

What a pile of dung.

posted March 17, 2006 03:53 PM         

Lots of studies have shown that breastfed children are healthier and stronger than bottlefed on average, and so therefore I would say it's the child's 'right' to be breastfed. That said, she could pump I suppose, but I think the baby's needs outweigh the father's or the mother's.

I heartily agree with goatgirl in terms of bonding and the fact that he chose to leave so he should be the one to make the effort to see the child and not disturb the breastfeeding/bonding process

posted March 17, 2006 04:04 PM         

I said "That said, she could pump I suppose, but I think the baby's needs outweigh the father's or the mother's."

Well on reflection, this poor woman is now a single mother and no doubt has a tremendous amount of stress looking after a baby on her own. She and the baby take presedence in my opinion and I'm afraid the father if he wants to see his child should have to fit himself in around their needs etc.

posted March 17, 2006 04:19 PM         

It had occurred to me, that it's possible that the woman has refused to pump the milk or wean the baby because it gives her a "legitimate" excuse to deny him visitation, thus punishing him for leaving her.

I dunno, just saying that until all the facts of an issue are available, you just never know...

A man does have a right to have fair access to his child - but for a judge to order such a thing, if in fact he did...you would think there was mitigating circumstances that led him issue such an order.

But it doesn't sound right to me, that a judge would order such a thing. He may have ordered that she make the baby available for weekend visitations, and she extrapolated that out to mean "stop breast feeding" cause in her mind she can't see any other alternative to making the baby available on the weekends.

My point is, who knows? Unless we read the court proceedings we have no way of knowing. But I have found that when it comes to two people divorcing, esp. when one is scorned, that it is very difficult to get to the root of what is and is not "truth".

posted March 17, 2006 07:39 PM         

And my thought process went down the same road as Isis's did. The mother may be unwilling to explore any options to comprimise, because she's very resentful towards her ex, and breast feeding has worked for her thusfar in terms of keeping dad away from his baby. Time with Baby (or lack thereof)is being used as a weapon to hurt, as is so often the case in ugly break ups.

We have no idea why the marriage disolved. Sure it looks bad, from what we do know. Question is, what else is there to this that we DON'T know?

posted March 17, 2006 07:58 PM         

Really great article at that link.

Anyway, about the pumping issue ... plenty of women have problems pumping milk. They just don't respond to the pump. It does not mean there is anything wrong with their milk supply or that they're lazy. You can look it up on the website for la leche league international. I tried but the server seems to be down atm. As a breastfeeding momma, I personally do not breast pump. I've tried and it is just not for me. Nor do I think I should ever be obligated to do so for someone else's convenience. Breastfeeding is healthier physically for your child, true, but it's about more than that. If you've never done it, you just can't relate. If you've done it and "failed" or given up, then you don't know what successful breastfeeding is really all about.
If this mom and dad were really interested in the well-being of their child, moreso than any personal vendettas or ill-feelings, they'd be able to come to a compromise that worked out for everybody ... like swallowing their pride and spending time together on the weekends so the baby gets time with his father without being forced to stop breastfeeding (as opposed to just drinking breastmilk). In the long run, is the child's all around health and happiness less important than two squabbling adults holding onto bitterness and anger that can solve none of their problems? I don't think so. But maybethat's just me.
I don't see how it is possible for a judge to order you to stop doing something with your body that is benenficial to your child and to start doing something else with it that, for whatever reason, you are not comfortable doing. That is utter bull. It's my body. It's my baby. It's his health and, in many ways, mine, too. Sorry to point out the obvious but men don't have breasts equipped for breastfeeding. That in itself speaks volumes. If you have a problem with that then take it up with God/Goddess/Nature/Evolution/The Primordial Goo or whatever you believe in.
What you feed your baby should be your choice. I can't comprehend why anyone would choose to not breastfeed but if you do then it should be your choice and no one else's, not even the father's. Many will disagree but that's my opinion and we all still have the right to have our own opinions, at least.
I don't have anything against fathers, trust me, but they just don't know what it's like. And I'd venture to guess that most don't even have a thorough knowledge about it from outside sources like books and articles, etc. My own husband was okay with the idea of ]formula until I provided him with literature on breastfeeding. Now he supports me all the way.
Gotta' run. Baby needs to nurse, lol.

posted March 17, 2006 09:41 PM         

quote:

---

A seven year old breast feeding? Seems very weird to me. When they can say "mom, lift your shirt and gimmee some milk" ....just seems perverse to me. Of course, if there's no food other than that, it's about survival.

---

You have to take into consideration that age is a world average. Including the US where most women get 6 weeks at best. THose are your Cultural Conditioning differences, in what you are told is "normal". Perhaps it's perverse to only breastfeed for 6 weeks...it all depends on your perspective dont you think? If you did have a child breastfeeding later than 2 or 3, it wouldn't be an all the time thing, like someone else said, Pixie I believe. It is an occasional thing, like right before bed.

quote:

---

But, if that were the case, where would mom get the nutrients from to produce the milk?

---

When a mama is breastfeeding, what food she intakes goes into milk production first and foremost, in addition the water intake also comes into play on how much milk is made, since there's a great deal of water in milk.

posted March 18, 2006 12:16 AM         

A mama from that board said she and her family attended the protest of this ruling outside the courthouse and that there were 20-30 other families there. I don't think that this was just the mother misunderstanding what the judge was saying or something to that effect. It sounds like he explicitly ordered her to stop breastfeeding since the baby had been breastfed for a year- apparently the child is 14 months old. This mother BF her other child until age 3.
The media was even there to cover the protest eventhough the poster said she didn't see it air on the news.
The poster from the other board said she heard some additional details during the protest, albeit hearsay.
She heard that the father refuses to feed the child pumped breastmilk,
he's an anesthesiologist who was opposed to his ex-wife's decision to birth naturally,
and his new girlfriend alread has child abuse charges against her.

Basically he sounds like a creep to me. Granted it's only one side of the story and hearsay at that but the fact that there were so many families who were willing to show up to protest this ruling speaks volumes to me.
I wish I knew where to find some information about this from other sources.

It's easy for me to say that I'd never follow the judges orders if I were in her shoes but I'm not in her situation. It seems entirely likely that she's fearful her children could be taken away from her if she doesn't comply with the judges orders.
This is so outrageous to me I can't even put it into words...

posted March 18, 2006 12:35 AM         

And why wouldn't he want to feed the baby expressed breast milk?

And why would a judge agree with him???????

posted March 18, 2006 12:37 AM           

Re: B/fing at 7 years: Yeah, that'd probably make me feel weird, too - but look at what we're moving against:
My Grandma (and many others in her generation) were explicitly told that formula feeding was better for children than breastfeeding.
From what my Grandmother says, they were made to think that there was something downright wrong and almost perverse about the latter.
Now, though, having breastfeed for a while, I can completely see how up at least through toddlerhood it could be a lovely, soothing, bonding practice. Especially as Meg grew and could look into my eyes and play with my hair (before I got it cut) or buttons...it just became even more of an absolute bonding experience, and so totally organic (not as in, "Ohh! Pesticide Free!" but as in something more primal and basely natural in a good way than almost anything that I can think of experiencing in my adult life) that it's mind-blowing.
And did you know that a mother's touch actually provides as much actual, physical relief of pain to a small child as taking an over-the-counter pain medication?
How frikkin' wild is that?
(No, really - there's been studies; don't ask me to supply a link right now, but I promise you that I did read it from an actual, reputable source.)
Imagine the restorative and calming effect that breastfeeding has on a distressed child.

posted March 18, 2006 12:50 AM         

Harpyr, I typed something up yesterday and included some quotes from this board. I will probably add Eleanore's comments and then send it. I simply said that I thought he should be aware of alternate opinions to his own, and then listed a few.
I thought a less passionate approach would be best, but this topic is very upsetting.

posted March 18, 2006 01:04 AM         

It's such a deep down in your soul kind of happy. There's no comparison. It's like being in love times 100. But, in a very calm peaceful way.

Thanks, Prox. I do feel bad that I didn't do it longer (not for 7 years tho), but I got tired of having visible wet spots on my shirt after 4 hours at work, and my engorged boobs bulging out of my bra, also visible through my shirt. If I had my way, I would have stayed at home with her till it was time for kindergarden. (do you guys call it that?)

I think that lady should come to Canada with her baby and live with me. That's one fugitive I would be happy to harbour.

Anyway, I've read that if you breastfeed for at least 6 months, it's sufficient for baby to get all the immunity and bonding benefits that breastfeeding has to offer. Longer is surely better, but 6 months is definately better than not at all.

posted March 18, 2006 01:11 AM           

I always feel like I have to add that - I don't know if they try, but some really do manage to make bottle-feeding Moms feel guilty.

posted March 18, 2006 03:06 AM         

But we're getting a little off topic here.

About this mom in FLA. - I'd like to know why the dad won't feed baby expressed breast milk. Is it because he wants him to be cut off cold turkey from breast milk, so speed up the weening process? (I'm assuming this baby is a boy, based on dad's keen interest)

And the new girlfriend....she already has child abuse charges against her? I didn't want to touch that at first because it's such an overused accusation, but I'd like to know more about that. Why didn't that come into play in court? I know the answer. Because the trial wasn't about her, so it was irrelevant.

posted March 18, 2006 05:32 PM         

I agree with everyone.

The judge is an ass for thinking he has the right to make such a ridiculous order. Shame on him! Unconscionable is an understatement.

The father has rights to see his child. If the mother has been unwilling up to this point to make an effort to express her milk, then the father was doing everything he HAD TO DO as a parent to MAKE her share the child with him.

And... that father is surely going to have his work cut out for him... caring for a baby that wants the one thing he can't give it.

With out knowing any of the details... we can't really say the father is in the wrong.

The mother could be one of those head-case type ex-wives whose only motivation is to cause him grief.

posted March 19, 2006 10:39 AM         

Therefore, passing judgment isn't really right for any of us.

And besides... whether we agree with the mother or the father in this situation... It doesn't change the fact that the father has just as many rights to the baby as the mother. The father has just as much choice in how the baby is brought up as the mother.

The baby is the father's EQUALLY AS MUCH as the baby is the mother's.

Women don't make babies by themselves... Women need to accept the fact that dads are JUST AS IMPORTANT as moms. Period. Mom IS NOT more important!

Babies need their daddies!

Shame on both of the parents for not being mature enough to work this out without the court's help!