Mumsnet Talk

I am really asking this for a friend,she is about to adopt a little girl,and has always wanted to breast feed,is there any way that she can induce lactation?

There's lots of info about it online, better to google; I think you'll find whole websites devoted to the subject.

The only thing I will say is that adoption is a big hormonal roller coaster & so can inducing lactation be, Just saying she shouldn't feel bad if she finds it too much.

There are several ways to induce lactation and entire websites devoted to it

But when you say little girl, how old? It's only worth trying with a very young baby (newborn to a couple of months old at the most). All the information you'll get on adoptive breastfeeding is American, where babies are adopted at less than a week old usually. Once they are past that, you aren't really as likely to succeed - first off, the baby needs more milk, and inducing lactation is not as likely to give a normal supply. There are many women who have to supplement with bottles even newborns. It can be stressful, and believe me, adopting is hugely stressful anyway.

Also, if your friend is in the UK, I really don't think it can happen anyway. Babies tend to be older (5+ months?) and you need to be keeping their routine as close as possible to what it was before. It will be a very stressful time for the baby when everything around them is changing. Moving a child is traumatic, even when they don't always show it. It helps to keep things the same for them. Same brand of formula for instance, and the same washing powder for clothes etc etc. An older child might not be happy about changing what they're eating

And lastly, social services (I can say almost without doubt), would not approve at all. The baby is legally like a foster child when it moves in, so she won't legally be the mum. I highly doubt she would be allowed to breast feed at all, and by the time adoption finalisation happens the baby will be too old. They just wouldn't let her do it, and they have to visit her several times to check how things are going.

Sorry I can't be of more help. If your friend is adopting an American baby/is American or similar, you can have a look at the websites out there - putting 'adoptive breastfeeding' into search engines will get you the best information

I absolutely agree with Lilka's post. If your friend is adopting a newborn, do look into it but there won't be much UK information to help. If the baby is older than newborn, well I am very very pro breastfeeding and I have to say I would be dead against. I watched a documentary once about an American woman who adopted an older baby from China, and she seemed completely obsessed with bf - seeming to think that if she could establish that, it would magically and automatically bestow bonding and wipe out the past they had not had together. They filmed her taking a very confused Chinese child and spending hours trying to force the bf issue - this child had never been bf and it was just one more new and different thing she had to endure, and with a woman who spent half her time in tears because it wasn't going well, rather than focusing on the child's emotional needs.

If this is anything like the situation your friend is in, please ask her to think about this very carefully. If it's any help, I should tell you that I have one birth child who I breastfed for nearly two years, and one adopted child who was not breastfed at all. Breastfeeding was lovely and I'm so glad I did it, but I honestly don't feel it made any difference to my closeness with or love for my second child.

Establishing breastfeeding can be very demanding and difficult. Settling an adopted child into their new home is undoubtedly demanding and difficult. It just feels to me to be adding a whole extra layer of stress, and for possibly no benefit to the child.

Best of luck to your friend, in any case. I hope all goes well for her. As i type I'm thinking that La Leche league would probably be good for advice on this, if she does want to go ahead.

What Lilka and Hester have said.

It is referred to (as far as I remember) on adoption sites in the US where not only is it more common to adopt a newborn, but also to have a fair idea when exactly you are likely to adopt.

For me, I got only a couple of days notice, and both mine had been bottle-fed from birth, so it isn't something that occurred to me to be viable. I had enough on my hands without adding to my stress for what I considered to be very little benefit, long-term (seeing as even had I been able to produce some milk, I would have had to supplement anyway).

Breast-feeding isn't the be-all and end-all - bottle feeding can induce a great feeling of closeness and bonding.

There are several quite seperate isues. One is inducing lactation in the mother. This is much easier if she has ever bf in the past.It involves 2things, herbs or drungs to induce latation and putting the baby to the breast a lot . Usually babies are alos fed supplemental forumal by a thin tube attached to the nipple. This encouraes thme to keep sucking, which is what stimulates the mothers body to make more milk

Another is teaching teh baby how to bf. Obviously if the baby was been bf by the bm and thne goes staright to the adoptive mom, this is straightforward. Or if the baby is a new born. Otherwise its pretty hard to get a baby who is usedto a bottle to adjust to a nipple, as the effort involved and the sucking method are different

From a health point of view, there are clear benefits to the baby who receives some breast milk, even supplemented by formula.

The legal issues is quite separate. If the child is legally fostsred there will be huge problems with SS, who have issues with BF even with bio kids. If the child is legally aDopted when they are placed thne its only a matter for the Aps.

HTH

That's interesting, Kristingle. What do you mean when you say 'SS.. have issues with BF even with bio kids'?

I know of cases where Ss have makes commenst about full term breast feeding as being " more for the mother than the child" or suggesting that it is a form of sexual abuse! So i dont think they would be very sympathetic to somone who is technically a fostre carer bf an infant. Of course this doesnt apply if the child is alreday adopted, its no one esles business.

People are a bit weird about this. It's still common in many places - as it was here, until the mid-Victorian era - for women to wet-nurse babies for friends and employers. Theory is that any woman past puberty (even old ones) can lactate given the baby's stimulus. My midwife pal says it varies from person to person; she reckons professional wet-nurses just had the kind of body that lactates easily. If you friend's lucky, she might be like that.

Other people could be a bit about it, though, she'll need to be prepared for that!

There was a case in the UK a while back, where the baby's aunt (I think) instinctively put the baby to her breast to comfort it. The mother accused her of sexual abuse. The court threw out her complaint, but it does show how strong people's feelings about it can be.

I agree that people have odd attitudes, garlicnutcracker. I have no problems whatsoever with the concept of women breastfeeding children that aren't biologically theirs. That normally occurs where the woman is producing milk, and a breastfed baby is cut off from its usual supply. If both these factors were in place with a new adoption, I can't see any problem with it. My objections are entirely based on the stress and time involved in establishing breastfeeding where neither mother nor child are used to it, at a time which is already emotionally fraught and stressful.

but I thought wet-nurses were generally women who had their own breastfed babies and were paid to breast feed other children (often to the detriment and even death of their own) I don't think it was common for women who aren't already lactating to start just because there's a child around who needs feeding

But apart from that everything Lilka, hester and Kris have said!

It isn't common now, Kew. But I remember my mum telling me about her aunt who nearly died having her first child. Her sister took the child (she had an almost a year old child at the time) and feeding her until the mother was able to.

Which I think is really lovely.

I wouldn't have a problem feeding someone else's child. I don't think I'd mind mine being fed either, in an emergency.

But I know a lot of people who would think it was truly weird.

Try posting on the breast and bottle feeding board as well - there may be people on there who have knowledge but might not see this board.

It is definitely possible and even with a child older than a newborn, but I don't know what the difficulties are or how hard they tend to be if babies are older. I would suggest to her to find some real life support - she could contact her local La Leche League group for advice and contacts, and if finances allow she could try to find an IBCLC who has knowledge on this subject.

Presumably before the Victorian era, perhaps much further back, I would have imagined that cross nursing was extremely common. It's very common now in less developed countries according to a couple of books I've read - aunts, grandmothers and friends of the mother will all step in to feed the baby if she is not available for some reason. Older ladies especially, it is very common if they are at home looking after the baby while the mother works, so not usually one who has just lost a baby or has a child of their own they are neglecting. The thing is that wet nursing in the Victorian era was a fashion thing rather than a necessity thing - babies in poorer families whose mothers worked were often fed on pap - and there was a lot of misinformation around about breastfeeding. Most women can easily adapt to feeding two children, otherwise we wouldn't be able to feed twins. So if any wet nurses were neglecting their own child in favour of the one they were paid to nurse it was misguided

"So if any wet nurses were neglecting their own child in favour of the one they were paid to nurse it was misguided" - yes I'm sure it was however it really wasn't uncommon (though not relevant to this of course) I suspect it was more to do with the amount of time the wet-nurse would have spent at the employees home with relatively little time nursing their own child.

There is a theory that royalty employed wet nurses even in eras when it was uncommon as the contraceptive effects were well known and the high infant mortality rate meant a requirement for as many royal babies as possible.

Sorry to digress!

Yes I know it was common, the time spent away from one's own child sounds like it had a lot to do with it. It's sad

It's ironic as well that nursing the child themselves would likely have reduced the chances of infant mortality though I'm sure they would still have been high.

what a brilliant idea, I hope your friend is succesful in doing this OP,
that would be really wonderful and could help the bond x