Shocked by USA court ordering mum to stop BF

[mumyes]

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/breastfeeding-custody-dispute-judge-ruling-child-b2274776.html

Scary.

What an absolute bastard of a 'father'

These cases are usually about the father spending time away from the baby without the mother being there, and often overnight as well.

DD fed every 90 minutes at that age, and she was keen on solids too. I can believe it. It’s also about comfort, not only sustenance, which is part of the horror of this court order – it’s denying a baby a key comfort not only when she’s with her father, but when she’s with her mother too.

Well why doesn’t she move closer to him? It’s unlikely she works at the moment given she’s breastfeeding around the clock apparently? Whereas I’m assuming he does.

Potentially yes she could move closer to him. But of course if she isn't working then how can she pay for that? And what about her family support for when she does go back to her. Whoever is the one who chose to move away is the problem to an extent. And if its cause of his job well he's just going to have to do what every other Dad who works away had to do which is not see their child for extended periods of time. My own Dad worked overseas most of my childhood.

Back to work not her

So what you actually meant to say was that even though the baby can't get breastmilk at dad's and the disruption may mean that the mum can't breast feed any more, you think this is in the babies best interests. You are entitled to that opinion too but its a different argument to what you originally stated and does point to the importance of thinking about the benefits of breast milk when these decisions are made.

None of it is about the baby.

Just wait till he has to do his first night with sod all sleep. Bet he won't be so keen on this after that

No one has ordered the mother to stop breastfeeding. Just to get a schedule which is reasonable as the father should see the child all else being equal.

the baby can still have breast milk and see her dad. The evidence shows no difference anyway.

You’re being silly and dramatic. At 7 months her supply is well established. Babies often drop feeds at this point anyway, as they start solids. Of course it isn’t ‘in the best interests of the baby’ to stop breastfeeding as a stand-alone issue, but when considered alongside the benefit of a relationship with her dad, it is less important in my view. But, don’t let the clear nuance there stand in the way of your drama.

possibly. not necessarily.

Well we don’t know do we? We just have to assume the court investigated all of these suggestions and came to the conclusion they did.

No, you're being silly and naive. Some people really struggle with breastfeeding and disruptions are really problematic. This may have been your experience but it's not everyone's. Why do you feel the need to be childishly insulting in order to make a point? I'm not actually arguing against the dad having contact, I'm arguing against faslehoods being used to justify the decision.

Very true indeed.

Because you don’t know they’re falsehoods. You’re putting across one ‘version’ of events that may or may not be true, I’m pretty much doing the same. The court has seen all the evidence between them and decided this is the best course of action, it isn’t really for some hysterical posters on here to start raving about misogyny and the powers of breastmilk.

Overnights with the father for a baby so young is just wrong, imo overnights shouldn't happen until the baby is 12 months. However denying proper visitation because she must exclusively bf a 7mo once an hour without good medical reason is weaponising. We've all got visions of a scene from THMT, I suspect there is much more to the story than is being reported.

Really not true at all.
Your falsehoods: the mum can express, the baby can still have breast milk at mums.

My comments: this mum says she can't express, BF is easily disrupted for some women.

Stop calling people hysterical. Name calling is not acceptable.

The child was born in July and the court order was set to not come into force until February - it's perfectly normal for a child to need more than just breastmilk at 6 months old and the child will be 7 months now. exclusive breastmilk till 6 months is hard enough, and weaning can start as early as 4 months if a baby is showing signs of being hungry for more. It's not ideal but the court has to balance all the different needs and if the two parents can't negotiate an acceptable solution between them then it's just as perverse for the court to refuse to enforce the child's right to develop a positive relationship with their father. It would be much better if the parents could find a way to allow regular meaningful contact without the courts and certainly an order like this would be very wrong for a younger baby, but at 6/7 months it's not as bad as trying to block all access between dad and baby, assuming the dad isn't abusive.

The truest comment I ever read on Mumsnet 😂

Is anyone actually surprised? The US hates women. The misogynistic capital of the world.

The baby has a right to be breastfed if the mother is willing.

the child isn’t even anywhere close to a natural age for ending breastfeeding. Breast milk is still the primary source of nutrition and will continue to be as the baby is slowly introduced to solid foods.

The judge is only considering the rights of the adults.

The baby’s 7months she should be starting to wean there is no reason baby cannot go more than an hour or have some formula from dad.

Reading between the lines there when it says that dad made space for her to breastfeed it sounds more like this mum is using bf as an excuse to keep dad away and the court will no much much more than this simple news article states.

What’s best for the child is a relationship with both parents. Put two 10 year olds next to each other you won’t tell who was formula or bf and it’s not like the women’s being made to stop either just that the baby needs to basically be available for contact and will be fed during contact either formula or expressed milk if she can.

Children should always come first!
So what if the baby is 7 months old? There is clearly still a need for breastfeeding.... after all isn't it someone like UNESCO suggesting to breastfeed for the first 2 years?

Then the dad needs to move. There is no justification for this whatsoever. Breast milk to better than for formula for a baby. At no other point do we say it's ok to live on a diet exclusively made up of processed food. But we'd do that to the baby so the dad gets his own way, just horrible.

It's so fucked up.. this pp had a good point.

DD fed every 90 minutes at that age, and she was keen on solids too. I can believe it. It’s also about comfort, not only sustenance, which is part of the horror of this court order – it’s denying a baby a key comfort not only when she’s with her father, but when she’s with her mother too.