Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

To think a judge should not be able to stop a mother from breast feeding?

(374 Posts)
HolidayArmadillo Netherlands Sat 09-Nov-13 22:09:23

m.wfmz.com/Judge-orders-Northampton-Co-mother-to-stop-breastfeeding/-/15946050/22880612/-/1yrm3wz/-/index.html

If this is true I think this judge has been wholly out of order. What about this child's rights? And any father worth their salt would not demand this.

pointyfangs Sat 09-Nov-13 22:13:47

I saw this too and my first thought was to wonder how selfish a father has to be to demand this sort of sole access with his child is still breastfeeding. Sounds as if he wants to get back at his ex and nothing more.

PeppiNephrine Sat 09-Nov-13 22:14:39

in those circs, prob not, but sometimes it might be appropriate.

Wow! That is ridiculous! I actually can't beleive it's legal. It wouldn't be here would it? Could a British judge do that?

bundaberg Sat 09-Nov-13 22:16:07

technically he hasn't ordered her to stop breastfeeding though, has he.

I am hugely pro-breastfeeding. But I can also see it from the other side. I wouldn't want to NEVER be allowed to have my own child by myself. I don't think many people would.

this father wants a relationship with his child, and he should be allowed to have that.

I think there is compromise on BOTH sides. He ought to not insist on overnight stays.
She ought to at least consider letting him see his child during the day. SHe's 10 months, she can go a day without a breastfeed, plenty of babies in childcare do

Monetbyhimself Sat 09-Nov-13 22:16:08

There are plenty of controlling men who would demand exactly that sadly.

When Peppi? Genuine question. I can't think of any circumstances.

Astarael Sat 09-Nov-13 22:16:30

Some really nasty women hating comments underneath though sad

bundaberg Sat 09-Nov-13 22:17:06

and even if the child does end up going away for a couple of nights however often, that doesn't mean the parent has to give up breastfeeding

CoffeeTea103 Sat 09-Nov-13 22:17:17

What bundaberg said.

PeppiNephrine Sat 09-Nov-13 22:18:29

I remember one case where a judge ordered a hiv+ mother to stop breastfeeding, which I did agree with.

WooWooOwl Iran Sat 09-Nov-13 22:19:12

I think it would be a very difficult case to judge, and the Judge's decision may have been dependant on the circumstances surrounding this child's birth.

The substitute for breast milk that we have available is too good and too widely used for it to be as simple as 'the baby still has breast milk so cannot spend a night with her father'.

Gobbolinothewitchscat Italy Sat 09-Nov-13 22:19:19

What about the child's rights to spend time exclusively with her father?

The Judge has to weigh up what is in the best interests of the child - receive some formula at 10 months, spend time with father and build relationship or not spend that exclusive, overnight time with father and continue to be breastfed at 10 months

To be honest, I think the article is highly misleading. Obviously I haven't see the order but I highly doubt that it specifically orders no breast feeding - I don't event think that would be competent. What mother is saying is that it puts in place possible barriers to her breastfeeding on the days that the daughter has over-night contact. That is not the same thing.

Speaking as someone who exclusively expressed for 5.5 months for my 11 month old DS, there is an option to continue to give breast milk during the contact visits as the mothet could give expressed bottles. Even if she diesnt want to do that, she could pump and dump Hilary the daughter is away to keep her supply up

SaucyJack Sat 09-Nov-13 22:19:24

YABU in these circumstances. It is more vital to a child's overall well-being to have a healthy relationship with their father, than it is to receive breast milk fro the breast.

There's nothing to stop the mother expressing.

MidniteScribbler Sat 09-Nov-13 22:19:25

It doesn't soundlike she has been ordered to, just that the judge asked why she couldn't have formula to facilitate overnight visits. I think there's pprobably a lot more to this story.

Cluffyflump Sat 09-Nov-13 22:19:47

shock didn't W.H.O recommend bf for 4yrs (incl 'developed' countries)?

colleysmill Sat 09-Nov-13 22:20:32

When I read the link it wasn't massively clear if this is in the UK or the US. It talks of northampton county rather than northamptonshire so I'm guessing US?

HolidayArmadillo Netherlands Sat 09-Nov-13 22:20:57

I agree a loving father should be able to see their child but ultimately the breast feeding relationship is such a short one yet so beneficial to he child it is incredibly selfish to try and cut it short.

Strumpetron Sat 09-Nov-13 22:21:39

Well the thing is if they want joint custody and she was using breast feeding as an excuse to deny it, what else could they do? The mother has said she can't express.

I'm a MASSIVE breast feeding advocate by the way, but I don't think it should be used as a reason to deny joint access.

bundaberg Sat 09-Nov-13 22:22:26

cluffy... who recommendations are "at least" 2 years iirc

i think there is a strong argument for not jeopardising the breastfeeding relationship.

i think there is also a strong argument for a child having a relationship with her father.,

i think there are ways around this which don't need to involve either stopping breastfeeding or preventing access.

SantanaLopez Sat 09-Nov-13 22:22:48

I am sure there is a bigger backstory than is being reported.

I am on the fence. What if the mother decides to breastfeed until the child is 4?

HolidayArmadillo Netherlands Sat 09-Nov-13 22:24:01

And I know that there isn't anything wrong with formula but whilst breast feeding is working it seems crazy to stop if neither the mother or child wants to.

Mylovelyboy Sat 09-Nov-13 22:24:21

Just read the link. I think the Judge is a complete arsehole to be honest. Its the mothers choice if she wants to breast feed her child, not some jumped up prat that probably does not live in the real world. I am sure the baby could have formula at 10 months. I only breast fed for two weeks. But for someone to dictate to the mother in this way is awful. I do feel the child should be seeing its father, but if its during other times at the moment whilst the child is still feeing from its mother then so be it. The laws/rules i this country are getting out of hand. Really feel for the mother sad

pigletmania Sat 09-Nov-13 22:24:22

Te judge dident order hero stop breastfeeding, I ajar eye baby will take formula eventually. Mum can buy an electric breast pump and pump at various times in the day to keep supply up, and bf when aby is back. Who recommends bf fr 2 years, te father should not have to wait that long before he is allowed to take his child

HolidayArmadillo Netherlands Sat 09-Nov-13 22:25:52

Thing is if that baby has never had a bottle then it may refuse to take one.

MrsMook Sat 09-Nov-13 22:26:46

I notice that it appears to be an American story. A British judge might not make the same rulings.

When DS was 10m he was still dependent on BFing, especially through nightfeeds. I couldn't express a meaningful amount. He flatly refused bottles. Unknown to us for a couple of months longer, he had milk allergies and soya intolerance. Forcing him onto formula would have made him very ill. Sometimes it's not as easy as just giving some bottles of formula.

pigletmania Sat 09-Nov-13 22:27:17

Some women stop bf at 3, 4 years, it would e unfair to expect the father to wait that long until he can take his child for contact

WooWooOwl Iran Sat 09-Nov-13 22:27:49

Breastfeeding is beneficial and I am very pro bfing. But at ten months old, the baby doesn't need breast milk as much as she needs to bond with her secondary carer.

Plenty of babies stop bfing at around 10 months, and are not only fine, they have excellent health. In this country at this time, breast milk is not so important to a child's health and well being that it must be considered above all else.

I think the circumstances the child was born into matter. If the mother has known since her baby was very young that she was likely to have to let her baby go for contact with her father, then she could have prepared for the situation.

bundaberg Sat 09-Nov-13 22:28:07

she doesn't have to stop breastfeeding. and if they were to come to a compromise she also would not have to give formula

the fact that it made it to court suggests that one or both of them were unwilling to make amicable arrangements,

plenty of babies go to nursery and are still breastfed at that age. they just have food and drinks during the day.
It's a shame in this case that the parents couldn't have arranged something like that so it didn't end up going to court and the father being awarded overnight stays.

Gobbolinothewitchscat Italy Sat 09-Nov-13 22:28:22

But the father isn't cutting it short confused

The mother can give expressed milk or at least express to keep her supply up - it will be well established at that stage

The alternative view is that the mother is incredibly selfish to attempt to put in place a barrier to exclude overnight contact with the father when breastfeeding can still be continued for the vast majority of the time and, even during g the contact, by way of expressed formula

Honestly - I do think in 10 years time that the child would rather have hopefully built a close relationship with her father than miss out on a few breastfeeds a few times a week at 10 months

CoffeeTea103 Sat 09-Nov-13 22:28:46

Again, the judge hasn't ordered her to stop breast feeding. But it's also unfair to deny the father this type of relationship with his child.

Gobbolinothewitchscat Italy Sat 09-Nov-13 22:29:24

sorry - not "expressed formula" but "expressed milk"

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 09-Nov-13 22:29:38

It would be quite nice to hear the whole story and not just one side of it.

bundaberg Sat 09-Nov-13 22:29:47

and I do totally get the points about intolerances and bottle refusing. my child has multiple intolerances and wouldn't take a bottle either. so I DO understand concern regarding that

I still think though, that if I were that father, I would be utterly gutted not to be allowed any contact with my own child!

CailinDana Sat 09-Nov-13 22:31:36

Ha if someone tried to have my boob monster bottle refusing 8 mth old dd overnight they would very sorely regret it. One night of a screaming baby who won't sleep will soon change that father's mind.

TreaterAnita Sat 09-Nov-13 22:34:56

That's clearly a US decision from the language used, and I very much suspect that the 'mom' in question has been using the fact of b'feeding to stop her ex having overnight contact. It's a best interests decision by the judge, and I think he's probably right. The 'harm' to a 10 month old of having a few formula feeds is massively outweighed by the harm of her not establishing a close relationship with her dad. Would be different if, eg, she refused bottle feeds or there were allegations of abuse, but since the article seems to have been written purely from the mother's perspective, I can only assume that these are not issues .

Gobbolinothewitchscat Italy Sat 09-Nov-13 22:37:12

Agree this is American

I'm a lawyer. Not a family one and not that it makes me anymore qualified than anyone else to comment. However, this quote from them mother is interesting:,

"I'm very passionate about having that right to breastfeed," she said."

Obviously this is just one quote but it's interesting that the mother is focussing on her rights - not what is in the best interests of her daughter

I have a sneaking suspicion that probably both re mother and the father have turned into the nightmare clients who are too entrenched in what is best for them and what their "rights" are rather than genuinely trying to reach aisle ground of what is best for their daughter

RedHelenB Sat 09-Nov-13 22:38:33

My ds would never take a bottle & breastfed till 14 months BUT he could spend time away from me as he could drink from a sippy cup & was on solids. I don't see why overnights are necessary at such a young age but if there is a distance issue I don't necessarily think the judge was wrong.

Mylovelyboy Sat 09-Nov-13 22:42:02

What's got me is the judge. I dont think a 10 month old baby needs breast milk. Food and formula are fine at that age. At 10 months the baby has received all the goodness from its mother. I think its not necessary. The so called breast feeding statistics and rules etc change every year anyway. I just think for it to have got to court where a judge is telling her to stop is a bit strong.

CoffeeTea103 Sat 09-Nov-13 22:49:38

Mylovelyboys- the judge doesn't say that she should stop, he ruled that the child should spend overnight with the father. It's from that the mother has turned this into the judge ordering her to stop bf.

SaucyJack Sat 09-Nov-13 22:50:50

Ha if someone tried to have my boob monster bottle refusing 8 mth old dd overnight they would very sorely regret it.

This isn't a random "someone" though. This is the baby's father- who has as much right and responsibility to care for his child overnight as the mother does. It is offensive to suggest that he would be in some way less willing or capable to do so because he doesn't have breasts.

CailinDana Sat 09-Nov-13 23:05:34

I'm not saying he'd be less willing, I'm saying that in practical terms caring for a baby overnight when they're used to bfing will be bloody hard. I know my dd just wouldn't sleep a wink.

WooWooOwl Iran Sat 09-Nov-13 23:13:08

If a case like this has been going on for months, then a 10 month old baby shouldn't be so used to breastfeeding that they cannot go one night without being breastfeed.

I remember what my bfed babies were like at 10 months, and I would have been really upset at the thought of how distressed they could get if they didn't get boob when they wanted it.

But I also know that if at 5 months old, I knew I wasn't in a relationship with my baby's father, who was a loving father that wanted to care for his child, then I would have had ample opportunity to prevent my baby being distressed at not having boob on demand when she was with her Dad.

Mylovelyboy Sat 09-Nov-13 23:14:49

Perhaps the mother should start introducing formula now baby 10 months old then eventually the baby can leave the breast. 'does not take long - my ds took a week to come of bf and on to formula only' The child does need to have a proper relationship with father. Perhaps she is using bf as an excuse. I dont bloody know. Baby can come of breast quicker than you think. Its more down to the mother rather than the child.

JustRestingMyEyes Sat 09-Nov-13 23:15:52

The father does not need overnight stays to bond with his child.
Unless he is a masochist who enjoys getting up at 1am 3am 5am to heat up bottles the baby may only want a few sucks of to get back to sleep.
Compromise in terms of giving a bath, reading a story etc in her abode could have been reached between the two had it not evidently become acrimonious.
I am aware none of us know the full story- Maybe even maybe the baby sleeps through beautifully.

But it could be the baby is like mine
- will not take a bottle
- uses the boob as a comforter and still wakes up in night
- cosleeps
- mum finds hard to express or pump and dump/donate
- will take formula in a cup in emergency and only for 5 minutes before screaming the bloody house down

In which case the judge's order is batshit crazy for all involved including the dad.

- it is hard to do mixed feeding if you did not introduce bottle early enough
- it is hard to introduce a dummy if you did not introduce early enough
- either can cosleep but depends on whether baby latches on in night
- not being able to express gives her a window of approx 8 hours between feeds to keep up supply so he would need to work round that and so she would need to do a night feed at his before returning in the morning
- yes during daycare a cup and other fluids is feasible but not when upset cranky tired and wanting a feed

Yes it makes it damned hard for us but my baby is with my dh alone for a maximum of 90 minutes and i am usually within a decent radius if dh needs me back before then (My baby is younger than 10 months obv)
Baby completely bonded with dh even though he works away a lot for weeks at a time and does long working days. He still gets the cooing, the chirupping, the smiles, the lot.

So it really isn't about what the mum wants or what the dad wants or what they feel they need - but what the baby needs and if that is the breast then to do cold turkey at ten months is ludicrous.

JustRestingMyEyes Sat 09-Nov-13 23:27:57

Each baby is different. I have had three.
My current baby is 5 months old and if we could prevent distress at not having boob on demand at night then we would. We have tried as a team and we cannot.

Not all babies come off the boob quicker than you think. Many fight against it and even with a gap of not bf will try and bf again with another sibling if given the chance.

We do not know the baby's routine.
We do not know the parents.
We do not know the motives.

But in the same way that the mum could be using ebf as an excuse not to allow access, equally the dad could be using his equal custody rights as a weapon against his ex to cause her angst/unneccessary work, or the stereotypical cliche of MIL oft seen on mumsnet is in background demanding son get access so she can ff.
We just don't know.

The judge ought to have said the pair, unless abuse is an issue, need to work together at each other's homes to make it bloody work.

CailinDana Sat 09-Nov-13 23:28:18

Woowoo - genuine question - how would you do it? I absolutely cannot get my dd to accept a bottle or to sleep without bfing despite weeks of trying. I have tried to stop bfing but it only led to a tired dd unable to sleep who ended up crying so hard she started to go blue.

pipsqueak Sat 09-Nov-13 23:36:51

Sorry not had chance to read thread but child will be damaged by being denied Opportunity to form relationship with her dad. Maybe judge balanced that up and could see those long term life long benefits outweigh the loss of breast milk - after all at 10 months it is not that as baby will be well on the way with solids

pomdereplay Sat 09-Nov-13 23:39:51

Mylovelyboy you do come out with some strange statements. The benefits of breastfeeding do not magically stop after 6, 10, or even 12 months and far beyond. The 'guidelines' on this have not changed in many, many years so do please do a bit more reading.

I understand a father's need for bonding and contact. I don't necessarily think this needs to extend to overnight stays when the child is still so tiny. My daughter is 20 months and still night feeds; whilst this is less nutritionally vital than when she was 10 months younger, it is still very important to her and being without it would mean for some very sad, disrupted nights. Luckily I trust that my partner, if we were to separate, would keep our DD's best interests at heart and work around that with contact until SHE is ready. No judge can make that call, especially when we really are talking about a very small baby in this case.

NoComet Sat 09-Nov-13 23:44:05

DD2 wouldn't take a bottle, quite literally to save her life.

Mylovelyboy Sat 09-Nov-13 23:45:45

I did it this way to come off the breast after only two weeks of bf. I'd had enough of constant ds crying and bf every half hour. Drove me insane. Which makes me think the longer they are bf the longer it takes to get them off it. Its not necessarily the milk but the comfort factor
Day 1 - introduced one bottle
Day 2 - introduced two bottles (spaced out time wise)
Day 3 - introduced three bottles and so forth.
If the baby is hungry, the baby will take it.....eventually.
I think alot of older babies use the breast as a comforter.
Cailin you say your baby will not sleep without being bf. Sounds like a comforting thing. Just keep trying

neunundneunzigluftballons Sat 09-Nov-13 23:47:40

A friend of ours has had his ds every second weekend and one night midweek since he was born; ff obviously. They adore each other and have a fabulous bond and the whole experience is invaluable to both of them.I bf ds who is 2. I am on the fence. We live in a formula dominated culture so that father is probably not vaguely aware of the enormity of what he is asking, a bf co sleeping child will struggle to be with a relatively unknown person. The father should however be very involved in the child's life that bond is hugely important to the child. A balance should be struck. The judges comments are idiotic though.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sat 09-Nov-13 23:50:41

Mylovelyboy with all due respect but with 2 weeks bf behind you do you honestly feel you are best placed to give bf even weaning advice? I had 2x 2 weeks of bf my first 2 children I knew next to nothing about bf after those experiences.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sat 09-Nov-13 23:51:39

At 10 months the child doesn't need the breast for nutrition as much as they did.

Id argue in favour of the judge and father here and say it's better for the child to have contact over the need for the breast.

Mylovelyboy Sat 09-Nov-13 23:52:22

Pomd I agree with you. I think the judge is wrong, if you look at one of my previous posts. Still night feeds at 20 months confused sorry but that is not normal. She is obviously hungry at night and should not be at 20 months. Bordering on being a toddler. I'd knock that on the head. You must be exhausted.

pomdereplay Sat 09-Nov-13 23:53:28

Mylovelyboy do some reading and do not tell me how to parent. My DD is exceeding all her milestones and is a fantastic, bright, very happy child. How incredibly rude and presumptuous of you.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sat 09-Nov-13 23:54:22

Sorry but surely by 10 months plus then breast feeding is more for the mums benefit - bonding really - over nutrition?

You could argue that if the mum insisted on breast feeding for 2-3 years the child will never get used to overnight visits and by age 3 will find it very difficult to settle at their dads.

basgetti Sat 09-Nov-13 23:57:25

Of course the baby needs a relationship with her Dad but this can be built up with regular daytime contact to start with. Ordering that a ten month old baby should be taken away from her primary carer and being breastfed for 2 nights straight away is prioritizing the father's wants over a baby's needs.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sat 09-Nov-13 23:59:39

The baby doesn't need the breast though.
The mum could express (if she is able) and quietly smirk as he attempts to give the bottle to the baby through the night.

Tbh I'm surprised she's not elated about a night off. Single mum and breast feeding, most people would welcome a full nights sleep!

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:00:52

neunund so because i only bf for two weeks does not mean i cant give bf advice. Why not, I could bf quite well. Just could not take the hungry crying baby. My ds needed thick formula to fill him up. Just because you bf longer does not make you any more of an expert than someone that did if for two weeks. How can you say you had no bf experience after feeding your dc. Of course you did. You bf fed them

PinkPepper Sun 10-Nov-13 00:02:59

At 10 months a baby still needs milk of course it's not for the mothers benefit.

What stupid statements on this thread

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 00:03:11

Breast feeding more for the moms benefit. The formula companies did not have much work to do on you. That is a really stupid comment Normal. Bf always benefits the baby nutritionally where it is always far superior that formula and emotionally. For the record as I said above I agree that somehow the father needs to be accommodated here too but that nonsensical comment cannot go unchallenged.

basgetti Sun 10-Nov-13 00:03:14

Why would she quietly smirk whilst he attempts to give an unwanted bottle to a potentially distressed child? I would imagine she is more concerned about her baby's welfare than one upmanship against her ex. And please don't assume single mothers must be desperate for time away from their babies.

PinkPepper Sun 10-Nov-13 00:04:21

And I definitely agree the baby does need relationship with father, obviously it's a difficult situation

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:04:27

pomd im sure your dd is doing great and you are a wonderful mother. Im not saying you are not at all smile All i am saying is that night feeding a 20 month old is not the norm.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 00:04:31

My lovely baby I completely beg to differ and you posts show you are completely ignorant about bf too.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:05:12

Perhaps it's just me that saw weaning as just that, getting the child onto solid food then.

I've been a single mum of a 10month old and yes I would have absofuckinglutely loved to have had a night 'off'

Caitlin17 Sun 10-Nov-13 00:07:19

I admit I'm biased as I loathed breastfeeding and breastfeeding toddlers is just , well I won't say.

I'm not convinced in the slightest by the need to be fixated on breastfeeding a 10 month old. Weighing up the 2, assuming the father is genuine and is capable of looking after his child the loss of the opportunity to bond with the father
seems , to me, by far the worst of 2 choices. Also, "she's very passionate about the rights to breast feed" No one's telling her she can't. She won't dry up overnight. She should look at this in the round as to what is best for the child, not just what she wants.

BlackeyedSusan England Sun 10-Nov-13 00:07:49

www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/9737/Parenting-Arrangements-for-0-to-4-year-olds-September-2011.pdf this study says that the child does not necessarily benefit from seeing it's other parent overnight and there can be attachment issues if taken away from the primary carer for longish periods.

PinkPepper Sun 10-Nov-13 00:07:55

My child has plenty of solid food. He also has breastmilk? He's not fully weaned no. It's quite definitely the norm for a lot of people

PinkPepper Sun 10-Nov-13 00:08:54

Why is this even a debate about bf toddlers? The baby is 10 months old! Tiny

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:09:10

No. He's not fully weaned at all. You're just drawing the process out.

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:09:15

Pink we are saying that bf a baby of 10 months is for the mothers benefit. At that age the baby can easily have formula. Wont kill it

DoctorRobert Sun 10-Nov-13 00:10:02

mylovelyboy when you say that night feeding a 20 month old isn't normal, do you mean it isn't the norm biologically or culturally?

DoubleLifeIsALifeOfSorts Sun 10-Nov-13 00:10:26

No that's not on - and surely breaches some law somewhere?

Btw she has been ordered to let the child spend two consecutive nights with the father - so no way conducive to bf.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:10:36

10 months is not tiny. A lot are standing and cruising some are even walking.

They're not new babies who need to rely on breast feeding. They're little people who are starting to recognise the key members of their family and forming life bonds with them.

DoctorRobert Sun 10-Nov-13 00:11:34

sorry, a 10 month old

basgetti Sun 10-Nov-13 00:11:49

If someone posted that their DH was insisting on taking their ten month old breastfed baby away for 2 nights she would be advised to tell him where to go, and it isn't in the baby's interests. Why does it become acceptable to take a baby away from it's main carer and have breast feeding abruptly stopped just because the parents are separated?

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:11:53

Also by 10months cows milk is in the diet on cereals and yoghurts.

By 12 months cows milk is 'allowed' by the guidelines to be their sole source of milk.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:12:33

I wouldn't tell them where to go.

That man is the babies father and has as much right to parent it as the mother does

DoctorRobert Sun 10-Nov-13 00:13:53

a lot of ignorance on this thread. humans are biologically designed to feed for around 6 years. average weaning age world wide is 4. think about what age children lose milk teeth and why they're called milk teeth

and this baby is only ten months

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:14:35

How can you say i am ignorant on the bf subject. I did bf. I found my ds easy to feed/latch on etc I just think some mothers just dont want to stop because its all about them. They make a big meal of it, it makes the mother feel needed. I know loads of mums that have bf. When they wanted to stop it was no big issue. Its how you deal with it.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:14:58

Global averages mean jack shit when you're mixing first and third world populations together.

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:16:02

Normal what was that all about - global averages - third world confused

DoctorRobert Sun 10-Nov-13 00:16:13

if you think a baby needing night feeds at that age is abnormal, then you are ignorant on the subject I'm afraid.

basgetti Sun 10-Nov-13 00:16:51

No one is saying the father doesn't have the right to parent his baby. But why does that need to include taking a baby away from it's main carer for 2 nights and enforcing a stop in breast feeding? The only person who should have rights is the baby, and if that means decisions that are more favourable to the mother at this stage in the child's life then so be it.

PinkPepper Sun 10-Nov-13 00:17:03

Petty sure milk made for a human is going to be nutritionally better than milk from a cow, whichever country you're in.

Minifingers Sun 10-Nov-13 00:17:29

Why the insistence that breastfeeding is somehow not normal healthy behaviour for toddlers? It is. It's only in bottle feeding cultures like the US and the UK where children this age (and much younger) are stopped from doing this - not for their benefit but for the convenience of adults.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:17:39

The needs of a child in the first world (ie Western developed nations) differ to those of a child in a third world country.

Our diet and hygiene levels are of a standard whereby extended breast feeding is no longer required to the same levels as in developing nations

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:17:42

Oh ffs who feeds for 6 years and weans at 4. Load of old shit rubbish

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:18:30

He's the child's parent though and also a primary carer.

Just because he has a penis and no breasts does not diminish his parenting role

Caitlin17 Sun 10-Nov-13 00:18:37

Neund, are you one of these people who think everyone can breastfeed if they want to? As for emotional bonding I hated it so much it was affecting my bonding with my son.

basgetti Sun 10-Nov-13 00:18:47

10 months isn't extended breastfeeding.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 00:19:36

Normal can I ask you to forward your research on this matter to the WHO so they can update their advice

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:19:41

Be realistic, would you want a toddler hanging off your breast.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 00:21:11

Caitlin obviously I am not one of those people, who are those people, I wanted to bf my first 2 and couldn't does that have any bearing here though

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:21:19

On a nutritional level it is and by 10months I would expect the child's main nutrition to be from solid food.

This is a bonding issue.

As such both parents have equal rights to bond with that child. No one parent over the other. THAT is in the child's best interests and That is why judges make those sorts of decisions based on impartiality.

If the child were under 6 months the decision may well have been very different

crunchybargalore Sun 10-Nov-13 00:21:28

Wow that is just awful.

The o.oor kid not getting a night feed or a comfort feed.

I never expressed and I'd get really uncomfortable breast and my babies fed through theight for 2 years.

They never took bottles.

Tis was ok during the day but at night they would bf.

I do not think the judge has a clue!

PinkPepper Sun 10-Nov-13 00:21:50

I do believe the father should be involved. I've no idea how it can be equal and be in the best interests of the baby. And it's obviously such a shame it's come to a horrible court case.

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:22:21

Doctor why would a 20 month old need night feeding. Must be because its hungry. Or as I have said before uses the breast for comfort and nothing much else.

crunchybargalore Sun 10-Nov-13 00:22:50

Mylovelyboy - suggest you get educated about bring before you throw around any other comments!

Minifingers Sun 10-Nov-13 00:22:58

I have lovely memories of breastfeeding my toddler.

He didn't 'hang' off my breast. BTW. Using that sort of language is as offensive as describing ff as 'shoving a bottle in a baby's mouth'.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:23:03

Mine stopped night feeds fairly quickly choosing water over milk as they were thirsty not hungry.

Maybe that's why my views are different

CoffeeTea103 Sun 10-Nov-13 00:23:24

The judge has been fair.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 00:23:38

Be realistic, would you want a toddler hanging off your breast. what kind of question is that?

GEM33 Sun 10-Nov-13 00:26:39

I know that at 10 months my child would have been absolutely distraught to spend a night away from me. Breastfeeding was her comfort and she fed all night, maybe the child is still night feeding and needs the comfort. I wouldnt deny the child a relationship with her father but I think overnight stays while still feeding may be unfair to the child.

Minifingers Sun 10-Nov-13 00:27:29

I don't understand why the baby has to do overnight stays?

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:29:13

Probably because he's a hands on dad and wants to parent as equally as he can in the circumstances.

There is nothing wrong with a 10 month old spending a night or two away from its mother to be with its father (or any relative for that matter)

Minifingers Sun 10-Nov-13 00:29:33

I'm just interested in what the 'thick formula' was that mylovelyboys Ds needed 'to fill him up'. blush

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 00:30:37

Mine stopped night feeds fairly quickly choosing water over milk as they were thirsty only one of my older children barely ever fed at night ever even when bf. however that was her not every child born on the earth her sister night fed for a lot longer and her brother a lot longer again. If Mumsnet has taught you anything is it not that all children are different.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:31:03

Hungry baby milk possibly?

Hope to god it's not milk thickened with baby rice or rusk!!

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:31:46

Loving the selective quote

Can you go back and fill in the rest of my post please and not just choose the bits you feel like using

DoctorRobert Sun 10-Nov-13 00:33:30

mylovelyboy my toddler "hung off my breast" until she was two and I was quite happy with that.

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:34:06

I dont know why the baby has to do overnight stays either. I would not be happy with that. As for hanging off the breast. Well one minute its playing on the floor with toys and running around and the next its on your breast. A big giant baby suckling on your boob. Im sorry I think a toddler bf is awful and not necessary. Its not right. I dont think many people do this really to be honest. Its all about the mothers needs.

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:35:03

Doctory I wonder if people were talking about you blush

HeroineChick Sun 10-Nov-13 00:36:36

YANBU. Mother's milk should damn well be the baby's right.

PinkPepper Sun 10-Nov-13 00:37:14

I hope to feed my son till he talks about it himself lovely, that good enough for you?

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 00:37:30

Sorry is that some Mumsnet protocol I am unaware of Normal. I think that quote is a fair reflection of your posts overall.

basgetti Sun 10-Nov-13 00:37:58

It doesn't even matter whether or not other people have breastfed, or how long for. Nor does it matter if others would have been happy for their ten month old baby to have been away for them overnight. In this case, the mother has established successful breastfeeding, and the baby is reliant on it as she won't take a bottle. If the judge has remarked that the baby should be able to have formula now, despite being advised that it can't then he is not judging this case on it's individual circumstances and that is worrying.

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:38:00

Mini it was Aptamil. I was bf ds every half an hour. I dont think my breast milk was enough for him. Hence went onto formula and was like a different baby. Fed every four hours and went through the night at three months old.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:38:30

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

HopALongOn Sun 10-Nov-13 00:38:45

mylovelyboy is it normal for you to talk out of your arse to this extent, or do you need to see a Dr?

basgetti Sun 10-Nov-13 00:40:09

Mylovelyboy apart from the fact that you are talking shit, why are your ignorant opinions of bf toddlers relevant? This baby is ten months old.

5madthings Sun 10-Nov-13 00:40:15

Fucking hell some disgusting comments on here from people who clearly dotn have a clue about bfeeding!

The father could still have a good relationship with his baby with out a overnight contact or prematurely ending their bfeeding relationship with their mother.

There are actually guidliens and laws about this and this judges rulign would be unlawful in many countries amd indeed in many states in America.

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:40:58

pink I certainly hope you dont. Might find a family member or one of your friends phones ss

HopALongOn Sun 10-Nov-13 00:41:13

BF baby feeds every half an hour at two weeks old? That actually is normal. Totally and completely normal.

Side note, I do not really care how you feed your baby, as long as it is fed. I do think this dad has just as much right to spend time with and raise his own child, as the mother. It sounds like the pair of them have been unable to come to a decent arrangement and there is no info on why, so not point speculating. The pair of them are in for a very long road if things are this difficult already.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 00:41:47

Mylovelyboy the WHO recommends that women bf up to aged 2 and over. It is often misconstrued in first world countries that they only mean developing countries but in fact they do not they mean all children. Children's immune systems are immature and bf helps to compensate for their immature system.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:42:30

But he's also the child's parent.

The child has a right to see that parent.

That bond formed with that parent will last a life time. Breast feeding lasts, at most, a couple of years. A fraction of a persons life.

That is probably what the judge was considering when he made that judgement

DoctorRobert Sun 10-Nov-13 00:42:46

you need help mylovelyboy.

Caitlin17 Sun 10-Nov-13 00:43:05

This has no doubt been discussed on here before but this is a quote from a New Zealand study on long term benefits of breast feeding. The study found there was but
"Mothers who elected to breastfeed tended to be older; better educated; from upper socioeconomic status families; were in a two-parent families; did not smoke during pregnancy; and experienced above average income and living standards"

So, how much of the better outcome is down to breastmilk or the whole circumstances ?

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 10-Nov-13 00:43:56

Wow a couple of posters have no idea at all about whats usual or normal about breast feeding,they also have a pretty piss poor attitude towards it.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 00:44:22

And you are being an obtuse arse for the sake of it. obtuse? Where am I being obtuse Normal

basgetti Sun 10-Nov-13 00:45:08

If breast feeding is only a fraction of a child's life, why does it have to be cut short to satisfy the demands of a grown man? The father can see the baby, no one on this thread has disputed that.

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:45:40

Regarding this 10 month old baby.
No overnight unless the baby can take formula as well as bf. Still think baby to young to go over night myself.
Mother should be able to bf it she wants (nothing wrong with trying to introduce formula though)
Should not been the decision of a judge
Father can visit the baby or baby visit him. The baby can be home with its mother at a reasonable time ready for the evening.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:45:56

It's not about a poor attitude to breast feeding it's about having a good and positive attitude towards the rights of a child to have a good relationship with both it's parents in a split family situation.

Sometimes ideal situations have to go out the window when you are not living in one.

5madthings Sun 10-Nov-13 00:47:37

At ten mths old the babies main source of nutrition should be milk, the best milk or rsthter the normal milk it should have is breast milk, human milk for a human baby.

Formula is fine (two of mine have had it) but it I no way compares to breast m, simply doesn't.

Any father who gave a shit would be happy his child's mother was bfeeding and they should have worked out a schedule of daytime co tsct, little and often as the courts would generally recommend in these circumstances, to make sure the baby can bfeed and have a relationship with their father.

Caitlin17 Sun 10-Nov-13 00:47:45

Neund, my son was breastfed for 8 weeks. He's now 23. The last time he saw a doctor was to get his MMR.
I don't think he had a week's illness in total over the whole of his school career.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:47:49

What is so wrong with the child going over night? Really? He gets to have 48 hours uninterrupted time with his daughter to be a fully hands on dad with every aspect of her life like he would if they were still together.

Why is that so wrong?

BillyBanter Sun 10-Nov-13 00:49:30

In instances where a judge/social services takes a child away from its mother at birth, as occasionally happens, is it spoken of in terms of stopping a mother from breast-feeding? In these instances it has been decided that the benefits of removing the child outweigh the benefits of the mother breastfeeding. Lots of people formula feed, or part formula feed, or stop bfing at some point before 10 months for a variety of reasons and it's not seen as the end of the world for that child.

Presumably the judge in this instances has weighed up the pros and cons of the situation as a whole, including information we may not be privy to, and come to the conclusion that on balance this decision is what is best for the child. I've no idea whether the judgement was a good one or not. I don't know enough about the case to opine.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 00:50:35

So Mylovelyboy it is the bf you take umbridge with you do not agree with the ruling per se confused. I have said I think the father needs to be very involved and that may or may not involve overnights depending on how ready the baby is for them but for me suggesting that the woman give up bf is outrageous.

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:50:55

sock what idea about bf is there to have.
Mother feeds the baby that is it. What education does one need on bf a child. You put the child to your breast, it feeds. That is it. Its not hard (for some it is) but in general how can you say you need education about breast feeding. Ridiculous. If the child latches on and feeds what else is there to know.

5madthings Sun 10-Nov-13 00:50:58

Anecdote does not equal data, my two who had formula are also rebust and healthy, but statistically bfed babies are less likely to get many infection ie tummy bugs, ear and chest infections etc.

Most courts will not order over night contact for a baby under 12mths, there is no need to and if they bfeed it can be detrimental to that. Hence why they recommend little and often contact else bit during the day, gradually building up to longer periods and then overnight.

HopALongOn Sun 10-Nov-13 00:50:59

Perhaps she has not been very forthcoming with allowing him to care for the baby, hands-on, during the day time, hence the custody battle? Just cause you breastfeed, you are not automatically a good parent or a nice person. Or maybe he's a total arsehole. Who knows. At some point he could end up with 50:50 custody, at what point in the child's life does the need for a good relationship to their father, overrule their need for breastmilk? I feel like 10 months is very young, personally, but what if she is still breastfeeding at age two? Or even four? When are overnights okay?

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 10-Nov-13 00:51:14

Why does facilitating contact have to mean overnights when there is quite a bit of decent research around that suggests overnights with under 3/4's can be counter productive to the child?

And yes you do have a piss poor attitude,go and reread your posts its more obvious that a neon yellow 8 foot chicken whose just slapped you round the face.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:52:38

I was going to say I wonder if she's using breast feeding as an excuse to withhold contact and be a twat.

These things do happen. We only have her side in the op

PinkPepper Sun 10-Nov-13 00:54:43

mylovelyboy if you think breastfeeding a toddler warrents a social services call - you don't know about breastfeeding.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 00:55:20

Caitlin statistically ff babies and children are sicker than bf which is where the public health drive for bf comes from. Anecdotally my 2 ff babies were very sick with ear infections for their first year and ds has never seen a doctor. That does not mean anything though what matters is what matters to larger pops ruins of bf and ff infants and bf come out way on top in all studies particularly in the early years.

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:55:28

neun I think the father needs to be involved also. I have never once said that you suggested the woman give up bf at all. I dont know where you got that from. I have actually agreed with your posts todate. I think the mother should be able to carry on bf if she so wishes. But there has to be a point whereby the father has more involvement with the child. I do think 10 months might be rather young for overnights. I also think maybe she should start thinking about formula feeding whereby the father can get involved a bit more. I still think the judge is an arsehole

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 10-Nov-13 00:55:37

*sock what idea about bf is there to have.
Mother feeds the baby that is it. What education does one need on bf a child. You put the child to your breast, it feeds. That is it. Its not hard (for some it is) but in general how can you say you need education about breast feeding. Ridiculous. If the child latches on and feeds what else is there to know*

To start with you have no idea about frequency of feeds nor whats fairly normal at different stages nor the benefits to the baby ( or even what constitutes an actual baby) and you fell for the hungry baby milk con.

Along with your quite frankly childish take on the matter.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 00:55:49

Pop ruins = populations

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 00:57:12

Mylovelyboy the judge said the mother should give up bf not you, you are just unsupportive of it.

5madthings Sun 10-Nov-13 00:59:04

In many states they won't order over ifht contact until 2-3 yes old, over igjt contact is def possible with a bfed toddler, I left mine with dp overnight from about 18mths, I could go away for 24hrs ams that was fine. So bfeeding in itself doesn't prevent overnight contact, but at his babies age it woudltn be recmended. Six months down the line ams things will be differnt.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:59:26

The judge is privy to info we aren't.

For instance the woman could have previous for withholding contact on the basis that she breast feeds and been a bitch about it.

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 00:59:51

or even what constitutes a baby. My ds has grown into a very healthy boy. All this about frequency of feeds. Every child is different. I didnt fall for the hungry baby milk con. what was i meant to do, let him go hungry. Aptamil filled him up and he was content. Blimey bet you have a library of baby books. Probably Gina Ford hmm

HopALongOn Sun 10-Nov-13 00:59:58

The judge didn't say that though, he just awarded visitation that will throw up a barrier to their continuing breastfeeding.

There is more to parenting that infant feeding. That applies to people who think a father can't be involved unless he's giving the baby a bottle, and people who think that breastfeeding trumps all other needs/wants/rights in a family. It's all about balance.

HopALongOn Sun 10-Nov-13 01:01:18

Because Gina Ford is the gospel for breastfeeding. Obviously. Seriously, what are you on? Do you actually think about the words before you vomit them on to the keyboard?

5madthings Sun 10-Nov-13 01:01:28

Amd yes she coidl be using bfeding as an excuse to withhold contact which is crap. But why didnt the judge order freque t daytime contact with a plan to build up t over nights, would be Mich more sensible and less distressign for the baby. Its certainly what happens in the UK and in many states in America.

5madthings Sun 10-Nov-13 01:02:39

Ha ha ha at Gina ford having a fucking clue about bfeeding...I think not.

HopALongOn Sun 10-Nov-13 01:03:00

^maybe that was the previous arrangement and she didn't stick to it? Or he's got other commitments? I dunno, 10 months is young, but as others have said, the judge has seen all the evidence, and there is likely stuff that we just don't know.

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 01:03:32

Im not unsupportive of bf. I just think some people think its the be all and end all. And if their child is not bf until its at some ridiculous age then its the end of the world.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 01:04:11

There is nothing wrong with overnight contact though

Many many children stay with grandparents, aunts, friends etc from a much younger age and sometimes for longer than 2 nights

As an ex single parent I've got experience on this one and it is beneficial to start the overnight contact before it becomes a conscious decision for them. It needs to be their normal in order for them to cope with being in a split household situation.

basgetti Sun 10-Nov-13 01:05:03

Mylovelyboy no one has said anything of the sort. The only person who has attacked other people's feeding choices is you.

5madthings Sun 10-Nov-13 01:05:16

Yes maybe there is extenuating circumstances, I bloody hope so but actually I wpudlt be suprised of the judge simply didnt have a clue about bfeeding, they have some weird attitudes to bfeedign in america.

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 01:06:55

5mad exactly.

basgetti Sun 10-Nov-13 01:07:48

The judge apparently said she should be on formula so I think it is likely he doesn't have a clue about breastfeeding.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 01:10:45

Mylovelyboys your posts, intended or otherwise, have quite clearly demonstrated you are unsupportive of bf.

5madthings Sun 10-Nov-13 01:11:38

exactly what * mylovely* ?!! you say that like ibam agteeing with you?!!

baagetti i agree.

BasilBabyEater Sun 10-Nov-13 01:12:49

Oh well it is America.

They are fucking weird about breastfeeding there. I think you are only allowed to do it in public if you're holding a gun at the same time. hmm

[Caveat: that's me being flippant, I don't actually believe that's federal law]

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 01:13:22

It might be in Texas or North Carolina

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 01:13:54

basgetti if you look at sockreturningpixie post then you will see that is exactly what was said. My son thrived on ff. I only bf for two weeks. Its done him no harm whatsoever. He is never ill. If you went and stood outside a primary school, would you be able to tell which child had been bf or ff. NO

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 10-Nov-13 01:14:51

Nope no baby books certainly not that dreadful ford woman grin but I'm pretty sure her view points are far more in line with yours.

You do not have a clue, and your intentionally using goady emotive language it makes you sound a bit silly.

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 01:17:30

Sockreturn. im not goading at all smile

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 10-Nov-13 01:18:31

And I have no issues with ff I certainly did not attack your choice just your lack of knowledge.

basgetti Sun 10-Nov-13 01:18:43

No, posters have said that breastfeeding is best for a baby. That is factually accurate and is not the same as saying it is the be all and end all or it is the end of the world if they can't do it.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 01:20:08

Be realistic, would you want a toddler hanging off your breast. I think goady about covers that.

BasilBabyEater Sun 10-Nov-13 01:20:25

Oh FFS.

It must be at least 5 years since I was on a BF thread, but are people still churning out the "you can't tell which kids are BF and which are FF?"

Statistically, you still can.

I always used to say this on BF threads, so why not wheel it out again: my grandmother smoked until she was 92 years old. She then died at the age of 100.

That means all the research, all the statistics on smoking that were ever done, are blown out of the water and don't need to be taken any notice of, doesn't it? Because anecdata is better than any other type. Er, no, it doesn't. My grandmother's experience is just an individual experience, which doesn't make any difference to population data. Kids at school gates looking healthy or unhealthy, doesn't alter population data. The evidence on breastfeeding is clear, irrespective of anecdata.

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 10-Nov-13 01:21:39
Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 01:23:00

My favourite quote ever

There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 01:23:42

basilbabyeater all the oldies and goodies are out. It is all about the mothers. My Johny was healthy therefore all ff babies are healthier than bf babies. You cannot tell at the school gates you need to look at the GP records for that. Bf bingo here tonight. In vino veritas I am guessing.

Caitlin17 Sun 10-Nov-13 01:24:52

So neun, you just ignore all the other socio-economic , health and lifestyle factors?

HopALongOn Sun 10-Nov-13 01:25:20

^No, but the studies take those into account.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 01:25:30

There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics true that is why every health organisation in the world promotes bf they have all fallen for the lies.

BasilBabyEater Sun 10-Nov-13 01:25:48

So are you suggesting that the World Health Organisation has set up an elaborate conspiracy of lying about statistics on breastfeeding (or smoking) Normalisavariantofcrazy?

Really?

BasilBabyEater Sun 10-Nov-13 01:26:53

OMG you think statisticians are so thick they don't weight the data for other lifestyle factors?

[bewildered]

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 01:27:11

No. I'm simply stating that the answers don't always lay in the numbers.

Figures can be manipulated (god knows I've done enough of it at work!) to say pretty much anything.

Just saying exercise caution

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 01:27:20

So neun, you just ignore all the other socio-economic , health and lifestyle factors?
Caitlin credible studies build in those factors, as per my last post why would all health organisations around the world support bf as a public health issues if it were not for the countless studies showing the same results.

BasilBabyEater Sun 10-Nov-13 01:33:45

Yes, figures can be manipulated to say almost anything.

But what motivation do you think the WHO has, for manipulating figures to pretend that outcomes from breastfeeding across the board, irrespective of country, region, class, socio-economic status, race, education level, etc. - any variable you like - are better than for formula feeding, if they are not?

Who would benefit from such a deception? A massive multi-national conglomerate like Nestle for example? Would they be giving the WHO backhanders? Probably not. Nestle's nearest competitors? Also not that likely. The International Association of Babies? More probable, but I'm not sure they've got either the funding or the organisational skillset to do the amount of bribery and corruption needed, to fiddle these particular figures. confused

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 01:38:07

Of course you cannot tell a bf child to a ff child. Absolute rubbish. Never have to take my ds to the doctors. Never ill 'touch wood'.
My best friend bf her dd for 18months. The child has all sorts wrong with her, allergies, asthmatic, eczema, always got colds, chest infections its ongoing up the doctors for something or other. And all she kept bleating on about was how she was giving her dd the best start in life and that it was more healthier for the child. Load of old rubbish. My sisters 3 kids are always ill, colds, chest infections, ear infections etc. two were bf, one was formula fed. Cant tell the difference between all three.

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 10-Nov-13 01:40:14

Oh bugger it basil, you've found me out.

It was I. I did it in the hope that people using something totally free would one day enable me to get a mahoosive sun seeker.

HopALongOn Sun 10-Nov-13 01:41:29

Nice to see you have spectacularly missed the point, again mylovelyboy

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 10-Nov-13 01:42:06

Oh and for the record I was also the third man on the grassy knoll

Mylovelyboy Sun 10-Nov-13 01:45:58

Sockreturn. Just seen the link you sent re hungry baby con! NHS -formula? I thought it was a link explaining the so called 'con' confused. Wheres the con.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 01:47:47

Mylovelyboy do you or do you not agree that bf babies are generally healthier than ff babies?

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 10-Nov-13 01:57:57

Was it not obvious.

No nutritional benefits over normal formula nor evidence it helps with anything at all added together with concerns over its use with very little babies.

Your baby did not needhungry baby milk it being a product that has no more nutrition in it so no better at sorting out actual hunger or nutritional need,and its only difference being that its harder to digest so takes longer.

That's the con

BasilBabyEater Sun 10-Nov-13 02:00:47

Mylovelyboy - my grandmother lived till she was 100, even though she smoked for 80 years.

So all the statistics on smoking are wrong, aren't they? Because one woman I once knew, did something different from what the data on all the other people in the world, shows generally happens.

Just like with your friend's DD who has eczema and allergies (and we don't know how much worse those conditions would have been if she hadn't breast-fed).

Or do you accept that anecdata is not actually as reliable as real data?

Pixie, I knew that was you on that knoll, I was in the building opposite. <Taps nose>

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 02:03:06

Taken from NHS website on Casein based formula/hungry baby formula. Infant formula that is mostly based on casein is thought to take your baby longer to digest than whey-based formula. It is not recommended for young babies. There is little nutritional difference between this formula and first infant formula. Although it is often described as suitable for ‘hungrier babies’ there is no evidence that babies settle better or sleep longer when fed this type of formula.

Caitlin17 Sun 10-Nov-13 02:09:53

Neun, not I do not agree that bf are generally healthier than ff. The health outcomes for children depend on a wide number of factors. The children at my son's private school will undoubtedly be generally healthier whether they were breast fed or not, than the children in a school in a deprived area.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 02:21:40

Caitlin if you cannot accept the premise that bf is not healthier for babies then your views are completely understandable. I do not share them which is why I would not see your views as being in any way valid in any conversation on bf and I can understand why mine would never be valid to you. If you believe as I do that bf is a huge advantage to the individual child, ie the same child would have better outcomes being bf than ff, then that shapes how you do everything from that point on. My children would share your children's socioeconomic status but my 2 ff ladies did not share your child's health outcomes. As I said before than is insignificant as it is only an anecdote but over a population even for their socioeconomic group the outcomes are still better for bf children.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 02:22:02

Sorry that bf is healthier

SeaSickSal Sun 10-Nov-13 02:29:31

My little boy was a mixture of express breastfed and ff. My nipples are totally flat and he just couldn't latch on and the breast shields kept falling off, he couldn't feed properly with them and without the sucking action my breasts didn't make enough for EBF. I pumped as much as I could for 5 months and topped up with formula.

I really wanted to breastfeed and was upset I couldn't. But the worst thing was the constant haranguing and bullying to breastfeed from health professionals. My little boy actually ended up doing a starvation stool and getting quite ill because the wouldn't listen to me when I said I was producing no milk and didn't offer top ups.

If my experience is anything to go by I think that in a lot of cases the benefits of breastfeeding may be outweighed by the damage the current attitudes to breastfeeding can cause to a new mother's mental health. I really wanted to do it but was bullied, they refused to release me from hospital until he latched on even when I was topping up, but couldn't help me to do it. They put me on a regime where I pumped for an hour and a half, fed for an hour and a half and then only had an hour to sleep. It was like being prisoner of war.

If I have another child I will try and breastfeed but will specify point blank that I do not want to have any contact whatsoever with breastfeeding support workers.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 02:40:12

Seasickgal i had inverted nipples and tongue tie in all of mine and it took 3 children before anyone had a clue what was going on. Even with that there was 1, yes 1, doctor routinely snipping posterior tongue ties in Ireland when we went to get it done. I was torn to shreds all 3 times. Caitlin asked me earlier did I believe all women could bf. my honest answer to that in a society which had been totally dominated by a culture of ff is no. The expertise necessary to help women over the early days of bf was severely compromised by more than one generation of mothers not bf. My mum had inverted nipples and I have tt but she bottle fed cows milk not formula to us all. her mother bf 9 children if her knowledge had not been lost going to my mum who knows she might have been able to help me but as it was that could not happen. You situation was shit and I know how awful it can be but ironically it was finding the right lactation support that helped me. If it were bit for how bad my older 2 were on formula I might never have bothered though so I know exactly where you are coming from.

NotYoMomma Sun 10-Nov-13 02:50:17

I know I would rather have a relationship with my father than ebf - no one can even tell in later life anyway if you were bf or not

I dont think we have enough on this story to judge, she says 'the judge said something like...' - what did the judge actually say?

was she being awkward with contact/ building relationships?

I'm all for bf but come on! a relationship with your parents is surely more important to your development? there is nothing in the article to say he was abusive or she had issues with his care etc, its literally all about bf!

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 10-Nov-13 02:55:51

Sea,

I'm not sure if these items are still available but twenty years ago when I first had children a gadget for dealing with inverted or flat nipples could be brought over the counter in places like boots,they looked like soft thimbles with a suction tube and bulb pump attached if I remember correctly the idea was start using in early pregnancy and they helped in some way to assist with being able to latch on.

Have no idea if they worked but it may be something you might want to look into should the need arise.

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 10-Nov-13 02:59:24

A relationship with your dad is not dependant on overnight contact and not wanting overnights to happen is not the same as refusing contact.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 02:59:59

Sock lansinoh do them I called it a mini Turkey baster but it is a latch assist

www.lansinoh.ie/shop/lansinoh-latch-assist/

Or else a large syringe turned inside out which takes a bit more explaining so I definitely recommend the above product.

SeaSickSal Sun 10-Nov-13 03:00:11

My mother breast fed me but she wasn't with me. You might be right, if she had been there she may well have been able to help.

And I did try and give him as much breast milk as I could. I think I might be able to do it next time because I didn't actually know how you could make yourself lactate with your fingers and things like that which I do now after pumping for 5 months.

Also if your Mum teaches you how to do it she would have more consideration about the mother, if you are tired or need help or things like that. The breast feeding support workers just treated me like some kind of milch cow and kept accusing me of finding breastfeeding disgusting and making excuses not to do it. But the worst thing was being put on a regime of only having an hour out of every 4 to sleep which in practice was about half an hour. It was like some kind of awful sleep deprivation torture. All the mothers around me who had ff or bf without struggle could sleep while their babies weren't feeding but I was made to stay up and pump. I felt like I was being punished for trying.

I was very well supported at home and also had a very easy baby who slept through straight away. But I'm sure many women in the same hospital would have been pushed over the edge to post-natal depression. I'm absolutely convinced that the pressure to breast feed must tip a lot of women into PND, I'm fairly certain it's happened to a few of my friends.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 03:01:06

That should be sea not sock but based on sock recommendation.

SeaSickSal Sun 10-Nov-13 03:02:01

Thanks SockReturningPixie, I will look into that.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 03:04:16

Seasickgal that is truly awful. The one thing I had on number 3 was lots of support, that was not there on 1 and 2, tonnes of irrelevant useless advice but no support, you sound like you went above and beyond. Pumping is my idea of hell I had to do it on all 3 and it is a huge chore.

SeaSickSal Sun 10-Nov-13 03:05:17

Incidentally though this nob should be going to visit the baby in the mother's area. Taking her for a walk or to a coffee shop or the library. That age is far too young to be away from the Mum overnight, let alone two nights.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 03:06:46

PMSL seasickgirl talk about telling it like it is.

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 10-Nov-13 03:07:15

That looks like a modern version of exactly what I'm thinking of,thanks for linking I couldn't as I had no idea of even what it may have been called.

Opalite Sun 10-Nov-13 03:13:29

It says 'Pumping isn't an option. Jessica says she can't pump enough milk for two days, and Jasmine won't take a bottle.'
It sounds like this father is being controlling and selfish to me.

SeaSickSal Sun 10-Nov-13 03:19:02

It is bonkers isn't it Opalite. I am absolutely certain that 90% of fathers who were still with the mother wouldn't dream of taking the baby away for 2 nights at that age. And the other 10% are wankers. Why is it okay just because they've split?

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 03:26:51

Thinking about it I went to a hen night overnight when ds was 10 months. DH was looking after the kids. Ds took a bottle because I was back to work but DH was thrilled to hand over the reigns after what could only have been at most 18 hours of broken sleep and a few bottle feeds through the night. 48 hours would be very long for both DH and Ds even though DH is incredibly hands on.

Anyfuckerisnotguilty Sun 10-Nov-13 03:28:59

That judge needs/-sacking

6cats3gingerkittens Sun 10-Nov-13 05:10:27

Oh for God's sake. Please shut up the lot of you. you are boring and shouty. Go to bed.

I'm a bit meh about this tbh, the judge hasn't asked her to stop bf, he has asked her to look at alternatives while the baby is in the fathers care. Reading between the lines, it takes a fair old while for contact cases to go to court, at least a few weeks, so why hasn't this mother been trying to work out a way for the babies father to have contact. Sounds to me as if she doesn't want the father to have access to the baby, which is wrong (abuse or neglect aside) . I bf dd3 (now 9mo) until 7.5 months. Dd2 was a bottle refuser so I introduced a bottle early this time to try to make sure that didn't happen again. Baby's dad moved out when she was 3.5 months old, and up until 6 months I didn't feel she was ready to have overnight stays, then at 6 months we started doing the odd overnight with him sleeping here, with a view to him having her overnight with the older kids. In other words, I accepted his right to a relationship with his daughter, I accepted her right to a relationship with her father and I did what I could to facilitate that.
Dd2 did eventually take a bottle at about 5.5 months, but it took 2 days of me offering nothing but bottle which was the hardest thing I've ever done

Minifingers Sun 10-Nov-13 07:47:49

Caitlin is right that breastfeeding is just one of a range of healthy behaviours that can make a difference to a child.

However, when we're talking about a baby under six months there really is nothing else (other than not smoking over them and taking the usual care over keeping them at the right temperature and avoiding accidents) that will make more of a difference when it comes to keeping them away from the GP and avoiding hospital admissions.

going back to the OP and the issue about the father having the baby overnight - this is an American story isn't it? I don't believe a judge in the UK would agree that a baby this young should be separated from the primary caregiver for two nights at a time.

Minifingers Sun 10-Nov-13 08:00:19

I think the dogged refusal of so many people to accept that breastfeeding is healthier for the majority of babies than formula feeding is the most interesting thing about these discussions.

People really believe that doctors, midwives, epidemiologists, the senior bods in the NHS, the Royal college of Midwives, the Royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, the Royal college of paediatrics, you name it, that all these people and organisations are together involved in a huge conspiracy to spread false and distorted information about baby feeding.

It's really bizarre.

And the argument rolled out in support of the view that the benefits of breastfeeding are trivial is this: 'well you'd be able to tell by looking at children which ones were breastfed if it REALLY made a difference'. ! As if we should apply different standards of proof for breastfeeding than we apply to every single other bit of health advice.

It's like trying to reason with an angry 12 year old.

Fraggle3112 Sun 10-Nov-13 08:28:22

My 10 month old bf DS stopped as this granny's last night, he has expressed milk from his sippy cup and usually sleeps through because he knows he can't have boob if I'm not there. If he does wake my mum has given him full fat cows milk before as they can have it but not as their main drink. I don't need to express to keep supply up any more, always had a brilliant supply and the odd night here and there doesn't affect it now because it's so well established.

I highly suspect the lady is using the fact she bf's to prevent contact, in which case I agree with the judge, it is possible if she compromises which she needs to do for her daughters best interests.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 08:40:00

I find the dogged refusal of people to accept that a 10 month old baby is old enough for overnight contact bizarre but then we all have our little foibles

Getting overnight contact established early is much more beneficial to the child than delaying it and making it into a big deal at a later date.

I have also noticed that on threads where people don't want their children away from them for even a micro second the OP tends to be someone who breast feeds.

The psychological well being of the child needs addressing too and that includes looking the long term benefits of starting overnight contact early

DoctorRobert Sun 10-Nov-13 08:44:44

nobody really believes there's a conspiracy or that bfing isn't healthier. people are just trying to make themselves feel better about their own choices

lagoonhaze Sun 10-Nov-13 09:01:36

I feel sorry for any future daughter/daughter on law that breastfeeds around mylovelyboy.

So ignorant on the subject.

lagoonhaze Sun 10-Nov-13 09:05:17

And as for the social services comment.

Best give up my job then.

Stupid ignorant woman

HappyMummyOfOne Sun 10-Nov-13 10:05:56

I think the judge was right too and nice to see a sensible fair approach being taken.

I have no issues on how people choose to feed their child as long as they are feeding he/she. Just as there are bad fathers there are bad mothers who purposely deny contact or try and delay it purely for their own reasons or to punish the other person.

The mother can still bf, she just cant use it as an excuse to let the other parent be involved with their child. Both are parents and one is not more important than the other.

uhOhOhDear Sun 10-Nov-13 10:11:18

Yanbu. This is awful, at ten months there's still a lot of benefits to breastfeeding. I know I would never have managed to get dd to bottle feed at that age :-(

HolidayArmadillo Netherlands Sun 10-Nov-13 10:40:17

The thread has moved on since I went to bed last night! Off for a read...

Canthisonebeused Sun 10-Nov-13 10:42:06

Given the circ and age of child I think it's reasonable for the mum and child to be able to cope with an over night of no breast feeding. It's selfish to use bf as an excuse to cause a barrier between a child and absent parent. This comes from a bf single mum who worked and dd spent time with her dad, during which times dd wasn't able to bf and did just fine.

SaucyJack Sun 10-Nov-13 10:43:28

So those of you who say their baby would never take a bottle- what do you imagine would happen if you you'd died in a freak accident? Do you seriously imagine your child would've starved themselves to death?

Canthisonebeused Sun 10-Nov-13 10:51:30

My dd would never have taken at bottle though at 10 months she didn't really NEED a bottle either. And when she was much younger and exclusively bf. she would be able to go a good 5 to 6 hours even longer and be able to wait for a bf. not ideal but it was ok.

cory Sun 10-Nov-13 11:10:15

Surely at 10 months a baby is well competent to drink out of a cup and would have learnt to do that as part of its general training? Not to mention the fact that s/he will be used to feeding himself ordinary foodstuffs with his own hands. And a 10 month old baby doesn't have to be fed milk in the night either. So the whole thing of taking a bottle rather falls to the ground.

I was still bf'ing dd at this age. I absolutely believe in the benefits of breastmilk. But it was a totally different experience from bf'ing a small baby. Dd was still able to spend a day happily with the CM or a weekend with her dad if I had to work away. A lot of her food intake came from ordinary meals eaten sitting at the table with the other mindees. Some was drunk out of cups, some came from my boobs. It wasn't the same constant dependence.

Tailtwister Sun 10-Nov-13 11:27:01

I can only answer this from personal experience of just 2 ebf children, but there's no way either of mine could have been away from me overnight at 10 months. They both co-slept and bf several times during the night at that age. Of course if I had become ill and been admitted to hospital they would have had to manage, but they would have found it very upsetting. Naturally they were taking solids and drinking out of a cup, but their main intake was still breast milk.

When a baby is ebf it's not purely about the benefits of breast milk. It's about attachment, comfort and security too. I can see why the mother is reluctant to allow overnight stays. Surely there must be a way around this situation which wouldn't cause any distress to the child but still allow access for the father?

SaucyJack - of course a child wouldn't starve itself in such extreme circumstances, but it would become very distressed in the process. Of course if it's mother had died there would be no alternative, but in this case the mother hasn't died has she? Forcing a situation on a baby which it would find distressing is thoughtless at best and cruel at worst. The parents should work together to find a workable solution that doesn't involve causing their child distress, but still facilitates access for the father.

FortyDoorsToNowhere Sun 10-Nov-13 11:34:32

Just hope the father sticks to the contact and not going to distress the baby and then fuck off.

ElfontheShelfIsWATCHINGYOUTOO Sun 10-Nov-13 11:40:03

The Judge made murmers about bottle feeding. He is basing his judgement on his own personal and obviously very limited knowledge of babies and breast feeding.

This often happens in any case where the subject matter is harder to discern.

Unless you have experts on both sides being called in, you would not get a true judgement.

If the Judge had sat and listened to a BF expert on the benefits, the co sleeping whilst BF at night, the issues she may have with the bottle ( mine wont take bottle) then how can he know all this?

It sounds very simple to him, get baby on bottle.

This is a problem with grey areas like this. Very selfish of the father indeed.

Retroformica Sun 10-Nov-13 11:49:54

I can't see why the father can't just have the child during the day until baby can go over night without a breast feed

Ihatebonfires Sun 10-Nov-13 11:53:04

I dont think the issue is if ff is best or bf. Its not about the mothers need to bf. The main issue is why a grown man feels the need to have his child two night aweek to form a bond with a 10 month old.

What about people who adope a child at 4 years old, does that mean they will not bond with the child?

What would the child get out of the time spent with dad at 10months old or even 18 months old that could not be gained from short, regular access times?

All resurch clearly shows bm is better tham ff, if the father wanted the best for his child would that not be for his child to form a safe bond with the main carer and have bm and have short and often access then over nights after the child was two years old having built a relationship with the child over these two years and giving her the best start in life?

If the Father did not have two overnight access how would that impacted on the father and his ability to bond with the child?

The mother is bf, if she were to get mistitus from not feeding often so the ruling does have an impact on the mothers health. Bf reduces the risk of breast cancer, if the mother bf is cut short due the this restriction and she later gets cancer could she sue the judge or the father for affecting her health?

Why cant the father wait two years to have overnights?

Thatisall Sun 10-Nov-13 11:53:26

I was still breast feeding at 10 months and know a lot of people who were. My dd only really had a feed before bed at this point as she was on solids. The father can see his child without the mother during the day but maybe not for a full 24 hours? I'd say that was fine under the circumstances.

What right has a judge to comment on when a child should be on formula or if in fact they 'should' be on it ever, some children, my child included, never really have formula milk at all,

Ihatebonfires Sun 10-Nov-13 12:08:40

I think if the baby was ff then I would not have a problem with the 10 month old haveing 2 overnights with the Father and I think if both parents stuck to a routine the child would be fine but if the baby bf then that should be protected untill the child is two years old as its the best for the child, with blocks of three hours access a day for the father.

caroldecker Sun 10-Nov-13 12:14:18

Has anyone mentioned that this probably has nothing to do with BF, and everything to do with the woman preventing the father having contact time

Strumpetron Sun 10-Nov-13 12:14:48

^ I dont think the issue is if ff is best or bf. Its not about the mothers need to bf. The main issue is why a grown man feels the need to have his child two night aweek to form a bond with a 10 month old^

So if it were your baby would you not want to see it overnight? It is his child just as much as the mother's, he has every bloody right to 'feel the need' to see his child and want him/her overnight.

Strumpetron Sun 10-Nov-13 12:15:11

Has anyone mentioned that this probably has nothing to do with BF, and everything to do with the woman preventing the father having contact time

I think this is right.

basgetti Sun 10-Nov-13 12:18:19

So single mothers shouldn't have the right to breastfeed in accordance with WHO guidelines in the same way other mothers can, lest they be accused of deliberately blocking contact?

KingRollo Sun 10-Nov-13 12:23:38

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Canthisonebeused Sun 10-Nov-13 12:25:50

When a baby is ebf it's not purely about the benefits of breast milk. It's about attachment, comfort and security too. I can see why the mother is reluctant to allow overnight stays. Surely there must be a way around this situation which wouldn't cause any distress to the child but still allow access for the father?

The child has the right to experience all of these things with her father too. Over night stays are not just about spending time and sleeping in the parents house it is about attachment, comfort and security also.

AnyoneforTurps Sun 10-Nov-13 12:27:08

a lot of ignorance on this thread. humans are biologically designed to feed for around 6 years. average weaning age world wide is 4

Bollocks; this is an urban myth. Good summary of the actual facts here.

Maybe check your own facts before accusing others of ignorance?

Ihatebonfires Sun 10-Nov-13 12:30:43

I would be willing to wait two years to have my child overnight if I believed it was in my childs best intrests yes.

Clearly the Father feels bf is not that improtant to his child and that is sad for the child.

I have bf both my children and on the few occations I had to be away at night from them they have both cried till they made themselves sick, they both vomited from the distress of not having me there and not feeding to sleep. They did both go to sleep from exsution but the distress they were in was horrendous. My first child also did take a bottle and was mixed feed at this was at 1

basgetti Sun 10-Nov-13 12:32:35

The issue here is that whilst they are both equal parents, it doesn't mean that the parenting itself can be equal all the time. A breastfed baby needs it's mother more, that is just biology. That is not to say that the father cannot see the child regularly and develop a bond and work towards overnights when the baby is less reliant on bf. But any argument about the equal rights of the parents will inevitably be putting the wants of a grown adult ahead of a baby's needs.

Canthisonebeused Sun 10-Nov-13 12:35:41

I think the same could be said for your counter argument though bagsetii. In that the reliance of bf preventing overnights is putting the mothers needs above the child and other adults needs.

Strumpetron Sun 10-Nov-13 12:35:53

The issue here is that whilst they are both equal parents, it doesn't mean that the parenting itself can be equal all the time. A breastfed baby needs it's mother more, that is just biology. That is not to say that the father cannot see the child regularly and develop a bond and work towards overnights when the baby is less reliant on bf. But any argument about the equal rights of the parents will inevitably be putting the wants of a grown adult ahead of a baby's needs

So what age exactly would you have as a cut off point? Some women chose to breast feed for a long time.

SantanaLopez Sun 10-Nov-13 12:41:39

The father isn't wanting equality though, really- one night a week.

I really do think it's impossible to judge on that one article.

KingRollo Sun 10-Nov-13 12:42:19

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SantanaLopez Sun 10-Nov-13 12:45:17

Why shouldn't a father get to put his child to bed, read her a story, give her a bath etc etc?

There could also be a distance involved- day visits might not be practical.

Strumpetron Sun 10-Nov-13 12:46:32

Because he wants to bond with his baby?

Having them overnight, uninterrupted is a bonding experience he'll never be able to get back.

basgetti Sun 10-Nov-13 12:47:07

In terms of when the cut off should be, at the very least it should be until the baby is no longer using breast milk as it's main source of nutrition, which is why I think this case is too young.

Strumpetron Sun 10-Nov-13 12:47:24

Exactly santana. We don't even know how far apart they live, if US is anything to go by it's usually a plane ride for some families, we don't know how often he works and what hours...

Canthisonebeused Sun 10-Nov-13 12:48:00

So what changes between 10 and 18 months then? Other than a further 8 months of missed attachment and bonding hmm. The primary care giver thing is also a red herring a child can form several important bonds and attachments as long as they are all stable.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Sun 10-Nov-13 12:58:00

You can't ask how they feel but they're pretty bloody malleable at that age and adapt to more than you give credit for.

IMO and experience it is better to get them used to overnight contact young so it becomes their normal. A point I've made several times.

Strumpetron Sun 10-Nov-13 12:59:25

IMO and experience it is better to get them used to overnight contact young so it becomes their normal. A point I've made several times

I agree with this too. It's the contact between parent and DC that's important here, the bond they make. I'm sure we've all seen how babies, even tiny ones, react differently to people they know and people they don't. Imagine missing out on the chance to build that bond - it would make the later years more of a struggle as the child is trying to adjust.

Shonajoy Sun 10-Nov-13 13:15:56

My son was breast fed till he was 19 months, he would never take a bottle. We tried every teat, different people feeding him, nothing.

KingRollo Sun 10-Nov-13 13:17:23

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Ihatebonfires Sun 10-Nov-13 13:18:40

If the child was ff from the time he/she was born then 3.5 days a week with each parent would be fine?

So where does this leave the babies right to breastfeed? Only if your parents live together?

Why could the Father not put the child in bed in the mothers house so the mother could then bf the baby to sleep?

Bue Sun 10-Nov-13 13:24:48

Well the judge's comments about formula were idiotic, but a ten month old can go a day without a feed. Just send her with EBM and pump while she's away. The mother is looking for reasons to deny overnight contact, it seems.

5madthings Sun 10-Nov-13 13:41:00

not everybody can pump.

its not just one overnight contact its two consecutive nights. not condusive to maintaining bfeeding and a long time for a baby to be away from its primary carer.

Canthisonebeused Sun 10-Nov-13 13:47:25

It's a 10month old though 5madthings bf is well established by then

SantanaLopez Sun 10-Nov-13 13:50:47

Is maintaining breastfeeding more important than a baby's right to have an involved father, though?

I do agree there's other ways for a father to be involved, but we don't know the practicalities of the parents in this situation.

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 10-Nov-13 13:59:23

Ihatebonfires

"Clearly the Father feels bf is not that improtant to his child and that is sad for the child."

From the article it is very difficult to know what the father thinks or why he has had to resort to court.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 14:16:10

Is maintaining breastfeeding more important than a baby's right to have an involved father

Absolutely not, in no circumstances but I guess the argument is why not both. Overnight contact is not necessary for the fathers bond or if there is to be overnight contact one night is better than 2. People up thread have suggested that the mother might have a history of using bf to withhold contact which is completely unacceptable to me. However it is better for the bf child to spend nights with its mother to reduce the emotional impact on the child. In my opinion the best thing for the child is to spend a fair amount of daytime contact with the father and have at least most nights with mothers. For those suggesting the earlier night time contact starts the better for the child that is not necessarily true. Ds adores staying over at his grandparents now with no major planning from us but I can guarantee it would have been unpleasant all around at 10 months.

NotYoMomma Sun 10-Nov-13 14:40:46

tbh I dont think I would be as bonded with my baby if I didnt get to do bedtimes, tucking in, waking up

I love listening to dd 1 and 2 chatter as they sleep (which they get from me apparently)

I just think imagine of you had your babies and then were denied the right to bring them Home even for 2 days a week.

deny all you want but your relationship with
1) the person denying the contact
2) your baby

would be changed

you would resent the person denying contact when there ARE things they could do to facilitate it

you would have daytime contact only (if even allowed that - probably not if its got to court) and it would be tinged with sadness as you 50% created a loving breathing baby but can only spend snatched hours during the daytime (when you might work)

you might find it easier to detatch mentally from the situation and then be accused of not having as strong of a bond.

well duh

I dont think its as simple as 'you can bond with the baby in the day' because the likelyhood is they won't even get a full day with travel and bedtimes and morning wake ups

this baby will be on solids now anyway!

she should take steps to express and pump if he is a good Dad, or wants the chance to be.

HappyMummyOfOne Sun 10-Nov-13 14:47:30

I very much doubt many women would be happy with no overnights or just a few hours contact a week yet men often get no choice simply because they were born male.

DH loved to bath DS, put him to bed etc just as much as I did. I dont see why i should get extra rights simply because im female. We are both equal parents.

Men get a very rough deal by the courts already, 50/50 should be the starting point in a split rathen than tossing the dad a few hours a week often at the whim of the mother?

Too many mothers try to block contact, you see examples of it all the time on here. Quite happy to sleep with the bloke, have unprotected sex and produce another human being with them and then simplly deem them not suitable to parent. Others being told there will be no overnight access if they can breastfeed. Perhaps the judge saw the father was dedicated and had a right to an involvement in his childs life and not be subject to whatever the mother wanted to do.

Opalite Sun 10-Nov-13 14:52:14

Well actually, this mother has breasts and breastfeeds her child, things aren't equal but that doesn't mean that things aren't fair

zatyaballerina Sun 10-Nov-13 14:53:56

She can pump or give formula for those days. A strong relationship with her father is far more important than getting the boob every day at ten months. Parenting has to be shared, it's not all about mommy.

RhondaJean Brazil Sun 10-Nov-13 14:55:50

There is a great deal of evidence to show that parental involvement by BOTH parents is extremely beneficial to children. I am very staunch advocate of breast feeding and fed both of my own children that way but I do not think it should be used to stop other things which in th long term will also have such a positive effect on the child.

There is constant (correct) criticism of men who refuse to step up to take on their responsibilities too you know.

It's very very hard to judge in this particular case who is doing it but this is definitely a power struggle between two parents and it's impossible to say without much more information which one is doing it.

Opalite Sun 10-Nov-13 14:56:15

It clearly states that the baby will not take a bottle
I assume the father knows this which gives me the impression that he is selfish and controlling, also that he doesn't have the babies best interests in mind in this particular situation.

RhondaJean Brazil Sun 10-Nov-13 15:02:55

I disagree opal.

With dd2 I left her with DH with expressed milk while I went out and did things. She took a bottle because I realised early on he would be alone with her at times so we introduced the bottle once breastfeeding was established. I did this because it was the best thing for her.

With dd1 I wasn't quite so clued up and she would not take a bottle because I didn't try her with it til much later on. When I did have to leave her she had to be cup fed but she was still able to be fed expressed milk.

So not taking a bottle has bigger all to do with it.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 15:15:24

On the equality of parenting comments:

No one ever thinks that the mother should deliver early so the father can be more involved at that stage because we know that it is the biological imperative that the mother carries and delivers the baby. Similarly fathers do not have boobs and if you are part of a world where formula does not stack up as a credible alternative then the same can be said of the bf period. The reality is though that over the more recent generations we have come from a culture where formula has become the norm so the imperative to maintain the bf relationship for the benefit of the baby has been forgotten. I can almost guarantee that a judge who had full term fed her babies until they had weaned would have had a completely different perspective than a judge indoctrinated into the formula feeding culture. Bf is more than food for the baby, it is immunity, emotional well being and nutrition. It is clear that neither the judge not the father appreciate that. In addition this does not continue forever in fact another 6 to 8 months would make a huge difference to the situation.

SantanaLopez Sun 10-Nov-13 15:20:30

So what should the judge do?

A) Baby does not stay with her father until fully weaned, which no one can predict. She loses valuable contact time with him and makes it more difficult to adjust to overnight stays.

B) Judge puts time limit on mother saying you can breastfeed for another 6/7/8 months and then you must give up.

Rock and a hard place.

starlight1234 Sun 10-Nov-13 15:27:22

My DS was breastfed till 2..Did initially take a bottle of expressed milk ...then I got mastitisus( 10 weeks)..stopped expressing to get milk supply right he never took from a bottle again... He did move onto water although I almost despaired trying to find a cup he would drink from this took a good couple of months and never slept through till 4.

My friend has a 7 month old who was going away for the night short term ..Her DH had never put baby to bed, she did night feeds, yet he has bonded with child just how it works in their family.

I don't think you have to have overnight care to bond...When a bay wakes at night you shouldn't be encouraging them to be awake.

Ultimatelty as parents of newborns we are not equal and especially in breastfed babies...

FortyDoorsToNowhere Sun 10-Nov-13 15:44:45

Formula and bottles cost money.

If the baby start refusing the breast I hope he steps up and pays for all this for the mother.

nooka Sun 10-Nov-13 16:09:18

From that very short piece it sounds as if the parents have probably been in dispute about the baby for most of it's life, so I doubt very much that there is an easy option for them now. Which is obviously sad. Of course the parents should together have figured out the best way to manage contact.

I'm not sure you can take what she says about the judge, the father or the baby as the entire truth either. Given that she breastfeeds and thinks that's very important (both of which are commendable) I'm not sure that she would have tried vary hard to get the baby to take a bottle - especially if that facilitates the father looking after his daughter, as that may well be the last thing she wants (for good or bad reasons)

HopALongOn Sun 10-Nov-13 17:42:08

The thing that struck me in her interview was that she talked about her right to breastfeed but never once said 'I've offered day time contact' or any mention of what she has offered as a compromise.

Thatisall Sun 10-Nov-13 17:44:09

Why cant the father see his daughter during the day when she's awake? I doubt at 10 months that she's having many feeds during the day at that age anyway?
Breastfeeding is best for the baby and lets be honest, she wont be breast fed for the rest of her life!

SaucyJack Sun 10-Nov-13 17:47:11

SaucyJack - of course a child wouldn't starve itself in such extreme circumstances, but it would become very distressed in the process. Of course if it's mother had died there would be no alternative, but in this case the mother hasn't died has she?

She isn't dead no, but there isn't an an alternative here either to the ruling as the parents have split up and clearly can't or won't co-parent together under the same roof.

I really, really, really, truly think society needs to move away from the current view that in the event of a separation, fatherhood is something that need only be there when it suits him, or that fathers are only there for the fun Saturday afternoons and it's the mothers job to do the real work of raising and paying for the child. The whole Disneyland dad approach really is so incredibly and painfully damaging to the child.

If the court case was instead about the father saying he didn't want to pay, or to see the baby you'd all be queuing round the block baying for his blood as the baby is obviously just as much his responsibility too. Well, I for one respect the judge for giving the minority of fathers that do want to do the mature thing, the legal right to do so.

Thatisall Sun 10-Nov-13 17:50:00

saucy you're suggesting that the mature thing to do is......the thing that is the least beneficial to the health and well being of the mother and baby?

Really?

Thatisall Sun 10-Nov-13 17:51:21

Also just because someone has a right to insist on over night stays, doesn't mean that it is RIGHT to insist on it.

The ideal would be that Mum continues bfeeding quite happily. baby continues to benefit. Dad collects baby and has quality time during the day offering water and solid foods and returns baby for night feed and bedtime.

How is that detrimental?

Strumpetron Sun 10-Nov-13 17:54:33

Imo being shipped from pillar to post is unnecessary and the father has plenty of opportunity to bond in the daytime. Same with gp's or anyone else
How can you compare him to their grand parents? You wouldn't say this if the baby was 'being passed pillar to post' to its mother would you?

nooka Sun 10-Nov-13 18:01:36

How is spending time with your dad being shipped from pillar to post anyway? Babies don't generally spend all their time in one location - it would probably be very bad for them if that was the case. Having two homes is normal for children with separated parents.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 18:04:34

Saucy jack I could not agree more with you about father's roles not being appreciated by society but also I feel the value of bf to a child is completely underestimated in modern society. It is a question of balance and causing least harm to both the bf baby and the father's relationship, let it be to the detriment of 2 parents who are adults, but not to the detriment of the child.

Canthisonebeused Sun 10-Nov-13 18:32:32

But neu that is bias in the option that not bf for 48 hours at 10 months is more detrimental to bonding and attaching with the father, which simply isn't true.

musicismylife Sun 10-Nov-13 18:33:20

Why can't she express the milk? Sorry,but the mother sounds like the controlling one!

DoctorRobert Sun 10-Nov-13 18:43:12

have you ever expressed, music? perhaps you found it easy - plenty don't. I wouldn't have been able to have expressed enough at 10 months.

but even if she could physically express enough - why should she have to?!

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 10-Nov-13 18:49:26

But neu that is bias in the option that not bf for 48 hours at 10 months is more detrimental to bonding and attaching with the father, which simply isn't true.

48 hours presumably weekly is very damaging to bf at 10 months though. Why not try to accommodate both. Both are important to a 10 month baby.

nooka Sun 10-Nov-13 18:51:33

Because it might be the compromise required in this situation? Split parenting comes with many compromises, it's just how it is. Not saying that expressing is easy, I completely failed at it.

TheCraicDealer Sun 10-Nov-13 18:55:31

Waking up with your mum,your dad collecting you and doing something with you for a few snatched hours, then returning for the night feed (only to do it all again the next day) sounds more disruptive than just cracking on with it. Maybe he wants to bond with his dd, play with her, feed her her dinner, get her bathed and ready for bed and put her to sleep in a cot in the next room, knowing that she'll be there bouncing up and down when he sticks his head back round the door. Fair enough. She'll have to be apart from her mum someday, and if she's practising AP that might be challenging at any time.

The Mother could legitimately use the BF reasoning for years and he and his DD could miss out on all that. When is it ok for someone to intervene and tell her BF is not enough to prevent overnights? 18 months? Two years? Whenever the WHO recommends we wean?

Clearly they've been arguing over the baby for a long time, and it's got to court. The fact that the child may need to be apart from it's mum isn't a surprise to anyone. Perhaps she should have taken that into account (getting into an expressing routine or limited use of formula), or tried to make a compromise agreement before having her arm twisted like this.

Tailtwister Sun 10-Nov-13 19:20:04

To be fair music, even if the mother did express it won't mean the same to the baby, especially since she has been ebf up until now. Bf is about a lot more than simply nutrition and a baby who has been used to gaining comfort and security from it won't be comforted by a bottle, not matter what it contains. Also, why should the formula be forcibly introduced? The mother may not want to give her child formula and I understand that especially if she's invested 10 months in ebf.

It is a shame that both these parents have got to the point where neither of them are able to make the personal sacrifices needed to ensure the comfort of their child comes first. I'm sure if they both worked together they could achieve a balance which doesn't involve distressing their child and it's sad that this doesn't appear to be the case.

ElfontheShelfIsWATCHINGYOUTOO Sun 10-Nov-13 19:26:18

You don't understand it, till you have EBF. I have now for over a year. I was fully prepared to express etc and be off BF by now, but its just carried on.

As others have said its so much more than just a way of feeding, so much more, comfort, reassurance etc etc etc.

After FF first, this has been a revelation to me.

Anyway hopefully she can appeal.

As for the father, he can see baby for more shorter periods.

Lionessnurturingcubs Sun 10-Nov-13 19:30:30

Ludicrous!
What benefit is there to a 10 month old child to sleep overnight with the father? The father could put the child to bed at 7 and then be there the next day at 7 and not lose out one bit!
To stop a mother breast feeding her child is an infringement of human rights - both the babies and the mothers. To ask the father to collect the child at 7 am is NOT an infringement of his rights.

Thatisall Sun 10-Nov-13 19:30:32

craic have you much experience of breast feeding or of co parenting? Expressing was a nightmare for me and dd rejected bottles completely. So I didn't bother, she went from the breast to a cup. I know a lot of mothers like this.

I also know a lot of fathers with fantastic father-child relationships who don't have their children over night or who didn't for a length of time for various reasons,

Ultimately what each parent 'wants' is irrelevant. The baby will want her mothers milk and will be distressed of she doesn't get it.

The recommendation is that bf continues until 2 years if poss, I reckon that's the cut off for this situation

Strumpetron Sun 10-Nov-13 19:30:34

elf there's plenty of people on this thread who have breastfeed and agree with the ruling.

and your last comment about the father is really really dismissive. Almost like the father is the second thought in all this and isn't worth thinking about.

Strumpetron Sun 10-Nov-13 19:31:22

^Ludicrous!
What benefit is there to a 10 month old child to sleep overnight with the father? The father could put the child to bed at 7 and then be there the next day at 7 and not lose out one bit!
To stop a mother breast feeding her child is an infringement of human rights - both the babies and the mothers. To ask the father to collect the child at 7 am is NOT an infringement of his rights.^

You're assuming he doesn't work, what if he has to work during the day?

Thatisall Sun 10-Nov-13 19:31:56

Actually lioness said it better!

SaucyJack Sun 10-Nov-13 19:34:59

Yes Elf, you're the only woman on this parenting website with over a million members that has ever fed a baby past a year.

rolls eyes

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 10-Nov-13 19:35:30

When it comes to parents ending up in court IME there is no clear thing about it,

Some parents will go to court when its not needed out of spite,
Some will do so to use legally sanctioned abuse methods
Some will do it to have things on there terms
Some because they are drama Lamas
Some because they are dishonest
Some because they disagree with the other parent
Some to impress a new partner
Some to try and make a point
Some because the ex has a new partner
Some to protect a child
Some for many other reasons

Ime very few do when there are no other options and it really does not mean they have been arguing for ages and it often does not mean the entire situation is based on long term bad feeling or obstructiveness.

The most frequent situations I come across is one parent offering a reasonable amount of contact but requesting regular or set times and the other parent saying nope I want to come when ever I feel like it or different times just because you are not going to tell me what to do.

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 10-Nov-13 19:39:04

You're assuming he doesn't work, what if he has to work during the day

Then he is going to have problems due to the 2 consecutive days he has obtained

Lionessnurturingcubs Sun 10-Nov-13 19:42:34

Strumpetron
"At a recent custody hearing, a judge ruled 10-month-old Jasmine must stay with her father overnight for two days"

We can only assume the father was NOT working else why would he want the child for two days? Even if he was, he'd have to do what everyone else does - take a day off! Still not an infringement of his human rights.

Strumpetron Sun 10-Nov-13 19:43:44

For some reason I thought she meant weekdays, ignore me.

Canthisonebeused Sun 10-Nov-13 20:27:02

Elf I really stated as single parent who ebf and worked and my dd spent time with her father and refused a bottle that I do understand that at 10 months it's not unreasonable or impossible to spend 48 hours away from mum.

Canthisonebeused Sun 10-Nov-13 20:27:14

Already not really.

SaucyJack Sun 10-Nov-13 20:29:47

You're assuming he doesn't work, what if he has to work during the day

Then he is going to have problems due to the 2 consecutive days he has obtained.
_____________________

Or perhaps he'll just use a childminder like 100s of 1000s of single mothers do all over the world without batting an eyelid........

intitgrand Sun 10-Nov-13 20:32:50

A relationship with their father is more beneficial to a 10m old child than BF

BasilBabyEater Sun 10-Nov-13 20:35:04

"A relationship with their father is more beneficial to a 10m old child than BF"

Depends on the father and depends on the health needs of the child.

I always feel a bit hmm about sweeping statements like that.

ElfontheShelfIsWATCHINGYOUTOO Sun 10-Nov-13 20:40:00

I think the Father is instinsicly selfish if he is happy to disrupt his baby's BF yes.

Its not something my Dh would insist on at all.

So yes, he can fit round them for more but ^ shorter^ periods.

ElfontheShelfIsWATCHINGYOUTOO Sun 10-Nov-13 20:45:46

saucy

I mean't the judge not being able to know unless he educated himself which he clearly hasnt.

Thatisall Sun 10-Nov-13 21:24:03

intitgrand the father isn't being denied a relationship with the father

Pearlsaplenty Sun 10-Nov-13 22:24:29

Yanbu

The father doesn't need to have overnight visitation and shouldn't if it is likely to cause distress to a baby due to change of routine/lack of breastfeeding comfort etc. The baby's needs and comfort should be prioritised.

He should just have a few day time visits a week. Then the baby can have food and water, no need for formula.

Pearlsaplenty Sun 10-Nov-13 22:29:57

I think people saying the mother can express are ignoring the fact that babies and toddler can have an emotional attachment to breastfeeding, just as they can have bond to a teddy or dummy. This attachment can be transferred to another object/toy but to do so would require the mother to make an active choice to transition.

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 10-Nov-13 22:33:01

RE: work

Not everyone works Monday to Friday 9 to 5

ElfontheShelfIsWATCHINGYOUTOO
"I think the Father is instinsicly selfish if he is happy to disrupt his baby's BF yes.

Its not something my Dh would insist on at all."

Again we know nothing of the situation surrounding this case.

Babieseverywhere Sun 10-Nov-13 22:36:52

I thought the recommendation for parental contacts with babies was, 'little but often' ?

I hope the mother and father reach a compromise for their baby's sake. After all it is the baby who will reap the results.

DazzleU Sun 10-Nov-13 23:00:33

I assume its a US judgment.

It sounds like the judge knew little about BF.

I know many people can express - but I never got that much out what ever pump was used and what little I could get out took hours and hours - never great with young DC. I was always assured the babies were getting more by everyone MW, lactation consultant, HV that we came across.

One of my DC wouldn't take a bottle at all - other two did - would scream and refuse and scream more - still bloody stubborn tike.

However it could all be fine depends on baby and mother's supply and ability to pump. It's not ideal - would have expect them to wait few more months when bf would be dropping even more as more food is consumed and night feeding was massively reduced and in mean time have more day time contact.

IneedAsockamnesty Mon 11-Nov-13 01:10:11

Or perhaps he'll just use a childminder like 100s of 1000s of single mothers do all over the world without batting an eyelid

If I felt it was so important to go to court for contact and only saw my child for 2 days a week you can sure as shit bet I would not be working those two days just like 100s of 1000s of nrp's who want contact with their kids do.

gemmal88 Mon 11-Nov-13 07:11:35

If this was just about the nutrition of the child and there weren't any other factors, then why would the mother not just express and give to the father for his two days, knowing that it's important for the child to spend quality time with her father as much as it is having breastmilk?

There's clearly a lot more going on here and IMO it doesn't seem like it's the father who's necessarily doing the controlling.

The media have just picked up on one thing here.

Lionessnurturingcubs Mon 11-Nov-13 10:32:11

"If this was just about the nutrition of the child and there weren't any other factors, then why would the mother not just express and give to the father for his two days, knowing that it's important for the child to spend quality time with her father as much as it is having breastmilk?"

gemma18 How much "quality time" does a baby get with it's father between 7pm-7am?

Lionessnurturingcubs Mon 11-Nov-13 10:33:55

Its not it's. Blurrdy iPhone makes us all appear like we have no grammatical technique.

Minifingers Mon 11-Nov-13 10:44:45

Bottle feeding is primarily a method of getting food into a baby.

Breastfeeding is vastly more than this, and for people who continue with it past the first few weeks it tends to become part of how you parent a baby and small child - because you do it to comfort a child, to still them, to get them to sleep, to reconnect with them when you've been apart, all things you don't really do with bottle-feeding.

My personal feeling is that at 10 months breastfeeding is still for some people an absolutely intrinsic and subtle part of the fabric of the relationship between mother and child. It's a really significant part of how they relate to each other.

I feel very strongly that it's uncaring and un-childcentred to disrupt this aspect of a relationship between a mother and a child unless it's absolutely necessary for reasons of health. Not having a baby of this age to stay overnight is absolutely NOT a barrier to bonding for the father.

Minifingers Mon 11-Nov-13 10:47:48

It really isn't about the milk.

It's about the breastfeeding and the part it plays in the life of the mother and baby.

My 13 month old stopped breastfeeding after only 2 days of separation from me (I went into hospital). I know it happens to other mothers and babies. It's why so many women choose to have little physical contact with their babies while they're trying to wean them from the breast - because they know that putting space between themselves and their baby helps to sever or weaken the bond of the breastfeeding relationship.

WestieMamma Mon 11-Nov-13 10:50:36

I assumed that the '2 consecutive nights' meant that there was some travelling involved.

fifi669 Mon 11-Nov-13 12:51:19

Far more important to have a steady relationship between father and child than to breast feed at 10 months IMO. We all know breast is best, but we also know children aren't harmed by bottle feeding.

I don't think the judge has said you can't breast feed, just that it isn't essential, which it's not. So is no boundary to the dad and child having proper time together.

I think the lady in question doesn't want to spend time apart from her baby full stop, which I can completely understand as they are so young. But it's not just her child. The child deserves to be with both.

Minifingers Mon 11-Nov-13 13:14:41

"Far more important to have a steady relationship between father and child than to breast feed at 10 months IMO.

As far as we know the father CAN have a relationship with the child WITHOUT disrupting the breastfeeding relationship between the mother and baby. There is nothing in the report that we've all seen which suggests otherwise.

'but we also know children aren't harmed by bottlefeeding'.

Not everyone would agree with you on this. NHS Choices (note info on hospital admissions)

Beastofburden Mon 11-Nov-13 14:32:43

I haven't had time to read all 328 messages so perhaps we know this- but is the "two nights" thing to do with distance between the homes? is staying over the only way for the child to see her father?

Strumpetron Mon 11-Nov-13 14:36:50

I too would like to see how far apart they live from one another. With it being the US, it's possible he lives far away and logistically the 2 days is the best way to work it. Like say for example if he has to get a plane every day.

Beastofburden Mon 11-Nov-13 15:15:15

I think BF is wonderful and did it a lot. But I would make a distinction between a baby of two months and a little girl who is nearly a year old.

IIRC I stopped BF DD at 12 months and DS2 at 14 months and it was very different by the end. In both cases I was forced to stop by external factors- getting PG in one case, my father's illness and death in the other- and although I would have carried on and enjoyed it, it wasn't the end of the world- we moved on to other things.

So if it does turn out that it's the only way for the child to see her father- then I think it is proportionate and reasonable for the judge to balance the rights of both parents. The child will have no relationship with her dad, at this age, if she doesn't see him regularly. That is worse than not being able to BF every night. Even if she then stops BF completely- which, at 10 months, I would doubt myself, they are old enough to be a bit flexible- I still think it would be fair to give the dad some access.

fifi669 Mon 11-Nov-13 15:34:00

Bottle feeding doesn't cause harm! It may not have as many positives, but that doesn't make it harmful.

Beastofburden Mon 11-Nov-13 15:35:47

I think a lot of these "bottle feeding causes harm" discussions are appropriate for a small baby, but not a child of nearly a year old.

Minifingers Mon 11-Nov-13 15:55:23

"Bottle feeding doesn't cause harm! It may not have as many positives, but that doesn't make it harmful."

Humans have evolved to need the protective elements in breast milk - they have immature immune systems at birth. If you deprive a baby of the protection that nature intends them to have then they are at additional risk of harm. As evidenced by higher rates of hospital admissions for infections in babies who aren't given their mother's milk.

But yes beast - you are right that when we're talking about infections and hospitalisation, it's a completely different issue for a 10 month old than it would be for a 10 day old. Which is why I said earlier in the thread that for me this story isn't really about the health benefits of breastfeeding, it's about the relationship between the mother and baby which the mother may feel is partially mediated through breastfeeding, and which perhaps is why she's so anxious about bringing this aspect of their life to a premature end.

"then I think it is proportionate and reasonable for the judge to balance the rights of both parents"

Actually the most important thing here is not the rights of the parents, but the rights of the child. The key key question is whether the father can maintain a relationship with his child without disrupting her current situation (of which breastfeeding is one aspect) to her detriment.

Have to say, it's very clear that people's attitudes to this subject on this thread have been very strongly influenced by the fact that they live in a culture where premature weaning and very early cessation of breastfeeding is absolutely the norm. Hence so many people seeing 10 months of breastfeeding as 'long enough'. Well yes, maybe it looks that way when you're bought up in a culture where normal term breastfeeding is as rare as hens' teeth.

Onefewernow Mon 11-Nov-13 16:03:37

Well said Mini

SantanaLopez Mon 11-Nov-13 16:06:58

Well yes, maybe it looks that way when you're bought up in a culture where normal term breastfeeding is as rare as hens' teeth.

Is it not the case that cultures with normal term breastfeeding also have more rigid gender roles and the father would not be expected to be so involved?

fifi669 Mon 11-Nov-13 16:29:53

I don't think the break in breast feeding is to the child's detriment. It's 10 months old, it's need for milk is constantly decreasing, it's relationships with people other than it's mother are increasing.

I breastfed myself. I still find putting breast feeding and the connection of mother and child on a pedestal is silly. There may be less hospital admissions, less GI infections etc, it doesn't make bottle milk harmful, it's just not protective.

Gay male parents manage to bond and raise children without breast feeding. Parents that adopt children too. It's not the be all and end all.

Establishing routine as early as possible and maintaining stability is the most important thing.

Beastofburden Mon 11-Nov-13 16:33:51

well, mini, except I did say, I BF longer than that for 2 of my DC. And by that age, there was more to my relationship with my DC than just the BF, is all.

I do see that the mother is keen to maintain it. But she may also be very reluctant to share access.

CecilyP Mon 11-Nov-13 16:34:45

While I don't think that bottle feeding causes harm,whether a EBF child of 10 months will take a bottle is debatable and, I think, unlikely. Formula will probably be as appealing to her as it would be to you or me eg not appealing at all. Has anyone on here transferred a baby of that sort of age from EBF to bottles of formula?

All these people who say she could just express either found expressing very easy, or simply don't have a clue how hard expressing is. Also if the father has to take all this previously expressed milk on a journey, how is he going to keep it fresh and cool. Not sure how long expressed milk keeps, but doubt if the expressed milk from the 2 nights away with dad would keep to the following 2 nights.

Beastofburden Mon 11-Nov-13 16:37:12

Has anyone on here transferred a baby of that sort of age from EBF to bottles of formula?

A bit older. DS2 was around 14 months. My father was diagnosed with leukaemia and in order to see him (and then stay while he died) I had to leave DS2 behind because everyone there was so immuno-suppressed. DS2 had to go onto a bottle as he was still hard to feed- his disability meant that solid food was hard for him at that age.

Beastofburden Mon 11-Nov-13 16:41:41

Also if the father has to take all this previously expressed milk on a journey, how is he going to keep it fresh and cool.

I think in hospital milk banks they freeze it?

fifi669 Mon 11-Nov-13 16:43:27

Most children are eating food at that age so I doubt the child is exclusively breastfed.

Also you can freeze breast milk.... The mum could express a bit everyday and have plenty to hand over when the time came. I think there is more to this story than breast feeding. I don't think she wants to hand the child over. As I said before, it's understandable, but it's not fair to the father or child.

CecilyP Mon 11-Nov-13 16:46:52

Sorry to hear about your dad, beastofburden. I asked because I tried to give DS a bottle at around a year and he was totally clueless about what to do with it. He was confident about taking water or juice from a sippy cup so guess if I had had to stop bf, he would have just had to have normal cows milk from his cup.

CecilyP Mon 11-Nov-13 16:50:09

No I doubt if the DD is exclusively BF either, fifi, though I think it is generally recommended that baby's main source of nutrition is milk until 12 months, whether it be breast milk or formula.

Also you can freeze breast milk.... The mum could express a bit everyday and have plenty to hand over when the time came.

You have certainly got her organised, fifi!

Beastofburden Mon 11-Nov-13 16:50:53

That's kind cecily but it was a long time ago- DS2 is 17 now!

I have no idea how much trouble it was- I was in the hospital a hundred miles away holding my mother's hand, so poor DH was lumbered with DC aged 1,3 and 5 by himself- I don't suppose that DS2 got very much option...

tiktok Mon 11-Nov-13 17:01:48

It's got zero to do with breastfeeding.

Breastfeeding can continue with a break of two days (mother would have to express for comfort).

It has everything to do with the needs of the baby. If she has had very little contact with her father then 2 days and an overnight away from her mother is very harsh. She should work up to that, over a period of time, starting with short contacts in her own home.

If the mother does not want to support that, then her reasons for not supporting it should be listened to. The breastfeeding thing is irrelevant.

To stop breastfeeding and to be away from your primary caregiver for 2 days and a night is a double whammy on the security and happiness of the baby. So any sensitive court would try to get the parents to be flexible, and to put the needs of the baby at the centre of their discussions.

(And yes - there have been some crazily ill-informed posts on this thread shock)

Tailtwister Mon 11-Nov-13 17:50:53

It's not just about the nutritional aspect of breast milk though. It'a about a baby who has been breastfed all her life, taken comfort and security from the act of feeding (not just the milk) having that removed from her over 2 consecutive nights! It's not something I would choose to do to a baby unless there was no alternative (mother in hospital or worse). There's no way she will take comfort from a bottle, no matter what it has in it. Apart from that, 9/10 months is prime time for separation anxiety.

Great work from the judge I have to say!

Tailtwister Mon 11-Nov-13 17:52:47

The voice of reason as always Tiktok smile

tiktok Mon 11-Nov-13 18:02:53

smile Tailtwister.
Excellent point about the age of the baby - 10 months is not a good age to make a big change in a baby's life.

SantanaLopez Mon 11-Nov-13 18:04:56

But what if the child is 4 or 5 and still feeding for comfort and security? From my friends who have fed their children for a longer time, they usually fed last thing at night. I think it's wrong to potentially keep a child from her father for 4 or 5 years.

There's never a good time to make a big change in a child's life really.

tiktok Mon 11-Nov-13 18:09:56

Santana, a child who is still bf at age 4 or 5 can cope with a night away without stopping the bf. Even at this age, it would all depend on how well she knew her father and the capability of the father to care for her....if she doesn't know her father at all, or is unused to spending the night away from home, , then a night away from home would be something to work up to. She would in time spend the night in her father's care and then go back to her mother and they could continue breastfeeding.

It really has nothing to do with breastfeeding. Beyond the newborn stage, breastfeeding doesn't cease if it's not carried out for a night or two.

neunundneunzigluftballons Mon 11-Nov-13 18:14:39

Santana DS is 2 and bf and has spent a number of nights away from me and now loves visiting his grandparents overnight whereas at 10 mths it would have been much more difficult. These stages don't last forever.

BoneyBackJefferson Mon 11-Nov-13 18:15:17

tiktok

"If the mother does not want to support that, then her reasons for not supporting it should be listened to."

What if the reasons are wrong?

SaucyJack Mon 11-Nov-13 18:15:26

If the mother does not want to support that, then her reasons for not supporting it should be listened to.

Not necessarily. Her reason for trying to block access may be that he shagged her best mate or one of many, many other things that have absolutely nothing to do well his parenting.

The judge was the one who was privy to all of the facts, and he doesn't see a reason to for shared custody not to go ahead.

SantanaLopez Mon 11-Nov-13 18:16:15

I agree, and I am quite sure that there is much more to this story than one article!

But there are a good number of people here who seem to think it's all about breastfeeding.

Tailtwister Mon 11-Nov-13 18:18:43

No Santana a good number of people thing it's about the baby, not about breastfeeding. There is a difference.

Minifingers Mon 11-Nov-13 19:07:42

'Is it not the case that cultures with normal term breastfeeding also have more rigid gender roles and the father would not be expected to be so involved?'

What, countries like Norway? :-)

Minifingers Mon 11-Nov-13 19:11:37

"well, mini, except I did say, I BF longer than that for 2 of my DC. And by that age, there was more to my relationship with my DC than just the BF,"

The false supposition being? That for some women the ONLY ASPECT OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP with their child which is real and meaningful is breastfeeding? hmm

tiktok Mon 11-Nov-13 19:12:51

FFS.

I said that if the mother does not agree to contact, then her reasons should be listened to.

I didn't say 'if the mother does not agree to contact, then her reasons should be agreed to. '

She has a right to be heard. If her only reason is 'I am breastfeeding' then someone needs to tell her (and her lawyers) that she can continue breastfeeding, even if her baby has a night away....without expressing (except for comfort). If her only reason is 'i don't like the colour of his wallpaper' then she can be ignored. If her reason is 'my daughter is not old enough to spend 2 days and a night away from me with someone she does not know well' or 'last time he cared for her he was unable to keep her safe' or whatever....then it's a different story.

It's not about breastfeeding.

SaucyJack Mon 11-Nov-13 19:21:13

But they have listened to her reasons already tiktok during the course of the court case, and the judge has ruled that they aren't valid and that overnight contact should proceed

Minifingers Mon 11-Nov-13 19:39:48

"I breastfed myself. I still find putting breast feeding and the connection of mother and child on a pedestal is silly."

Who is 'putting breastfeeding on a pedestal?' That's just a typical straw man tactic people use in these discussions. Take a comment that breastfeeding is really important to some women, INFLATE it to suggest that they are seeing it as something almost to be worshipped and idealised (put on a pedestal) and then dismissing the notion as silly.

"There may be less hospital admissions, less GI infections etc, it doesn't make bottle milk harmful, it's just not protective."

Logic failure on your part. Breastfeeding doesn't offer 'extra' protection because we don't hold formula as the norm against which we measure it.

"Parents that adopt children too. It's not the be all and end all."

Oh - so those people on this thread who are arguing that breastfeeding is important are apparently saying that it's the ONLY way to bond and the most important aspect of a parents relationship with their child? hmm

Can we stick to discussing the points that people have actually made, rather than things you've invented or exaggerated for the sake of coming up with a nice easy rebuttal?

Minifingers Mon 11-Nov-13 19:42:43

Saucy jack - a judge who
Is likely to understand as much about the reality of the breastfeeding relationship between a mother and child as I understand about about the finer points of test cricket. Ie, nothing.

ElfontheShelfIsWATCHINGYOUTOO Mon 11-Nov-13 19:51:09

* as I understand about about the finer points of test cricket. Ie, nothing*

grin

what worries me is why a judge is making a call on such a personal thing that he cannot possibly judge on.

WoTmania Mon 11-Nov-13 19:51:34

I've not read the whole thread (15 pages!) but I don't that this is reasonable at this age - I would query what the baby is going to gain from two overnights. Surely dad could have days and build a relationship and work up to the nights away? It's more than possible to bond etc without feeding.
Once they are older it doesn't have to mean the end of BF (DD started having the odd overnight away at 3 still BF, DS2 was maybe 3.5) but at this age it could and might well be very distressing for baby, mother and father.

SaucyJack Mon 11-Nov-13 19:59:32

*Saucy jack - a judge who
Is likely to understand as much about the reality of the breastfeeding relationship between a mother and child as I understand about about the finer points of test cricket. Ie, nothing.*

For the zillionth time, the court case and the resulting judgement were about protecting and furthering the father's relationship with his child.

I doubt the judge gives any more of a shite as to how the mother feeds the baby when she's in her care than you do about cricket.

SaucyJack Mon 11-Nov-13 20:04:30

what worries me is why a judge is making a call on such a personal thing that he cannot possibly judge on

Why?! Because he's a family court judge and it's his job to make decisions about the care of children in cases where the parents cannot agree between themselves. It "worries" you that these people exist? Really? Are you one of those people who think the SS should mind their own business as well?

BoneyBackJefferson Mon 11-Nov-13 20:10:13

Who is 'putting breastfeeding on a pedestal?'

then

"a judge who
Is likely to understand as much about the reality of the breastfeeding relationship between a mother and child as I understand about about the finer points of test cricket. Ie, nothing."

Pedestal achieved.

Minifingers Mon 11-Nov-13 20:11:07

what worries me is why a judge is making a call on such a personal thing that he cannot possibly judge on

Have you ever watched Judge Judy? Some of those US judges are fucking nuts! would love a chance to have a go at it if someone would just pass me a gown and a gavel

For the zillionth time, the court case and the resulting judgement were about protecting and furthering the father's relationship with his child

Yes - a relationship which is obviously built on solid emotional ground given that the father appears to be at ease with the prospect of putting the baby through a possibly distressing forced weaning for the convenience of being able to keep the him or her overnight overnight.

Minifingers Mon 11-Nov-13 20:12:44

Boney grin

Beastofburden Mon 11-Nov-13 20:14:29

mini you have misunderstood my reply. You were suggesting that the reason people don't agree with your position is that we are not from a culture that BF for very long. Actually, I did.

What I am saying is that with a child who is almost a year old, it is not a tiny baby. The interest of the child may require her relationship with her father to be protected, as well as her BF. That is at least as importsnt for her as being BF, and those of us who have BF children that age and older, know that by then it is not such a huge trauma for them to miss a night or even two in a week, if the alternative is not to see her dad.

Minifingers Mon 11-Nov-13 20:28:19

know that by then it is not such a huge trauma for them to miss a night or even two in a week

Depends on the child and the mother.

My youngest DS would have found spending 2 nights away from me at that age extremely distressing, given that he was at that point still breastfeeding for comfort about 10 times in a 24 hour period. He has autism, but I didn't know it at the time. All I knew is that he became very distressed if he couldn't be with me and breastfeed, which might have just been his age, or might have been connected to his autism. Who knows. Every mother and baby is unique, and judges have no right to order a mother to 'stop breastfeeding', any more than they have a right to order them to start breastfeeding in the wider interests of the child.

And you are making a false case that the child would not be able to form a relationship with the father if she wasn't allowed to stay overnight with him. There is no evidence from the article that this was the situation. You are pitting the value of breastfeeding against the value of having an involved father, but the article doesn't give you enough detail to make this argument.

ElfontheShelfIsWATCHINGYOUTOO Mon 11-Nov-13 20:38:44

Yes - a relationship which is obviously built on solid emotional ground given that the father appears to be at ease with the prospect of putting the baby through a possibly distressing forced weaning for the convenience of being able to keep the him or her overnight overnight.

^ This.

saucy The Judge sounds woefully ignorant. He is not placing any importance on BF. This is because he doesn't understand it, he made an off the cuff remark about FF as if they are the same.

He needs BF experts in the room to inform him of it. Once he had listened to their side, then he may be able to say - I still think its worth stopping the feeding, (although I would personally not accept this, but if he had heard a rounded argument), I would feel a little better about his....Judging.

Based on my own experiences right now, where my DH watches me BF and at night when she wakes up, or cries, or does anything, there is no way on this earth, if we split up he would want to take our DC over night and for two nights. And he does not think it would affect his bonding as he doesnt do that much bonding over night when he is ...asleep

fifi669 Mon 11-Nov-13 20:54:27

Breast feeding IS put on a pedestal. People who formula feed feel judged, you only have to look on MN threads!

If no one is saying that breast feeding isn't the only or most important way of bonding then what is the issue with the child staying with their father and not feeding those two days?

Children adapt quickly. The sooner the better for all involved I think. Women tend to return to work when the paid maternity ends so that's around the same age. Separation anxiety is dealt with if you need to earn money, it should be dealt with so the child can have a proper father.

Beastofburden Mon 11-Nov-13 21:05:51

mini I agree we don't know.

I am quite happy to agree that if the father just lives round the corner and this is just selfishness, then it would be better for the child to sleep,overnight with her mother. Even then, I would say he deserves a decent slug of access during the day.

W speculated above that it might be about there being a big commute for the father, such that overnight stays are the only way forward. Either the mother or the father may have moved away. If that were true, I'd be more worried about the long weekly commute for a child at this age.

But the thread does seem to be assuming the opposite- that there is no barrier to the fathers access if BF continues. I think that is a big assumption, and not justified by what we know.

Of course, it would be ideal if daddy lived nearby, access could be amicable and BF could continue. But I don't think that is where these parents are. So yes, I think it is highly likely that it is a choice between a relationship with her dad and BF. in which case, I would say that the relationship with the dad has to come first.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now