to be surprised that anyone could believe that

[city1984]

It would be acceptable for a baby to be fed formula just so nrp can have access
Obviously it would be ok if mother wants to formula feed or baby will take expressed milk. Aibu.

without knowing the details i cant really comment tbh.

Breast milk and formula is such a minute fraction of a persons nutritional intake over the course of a lifetime. Access and bonding with both parents lasts well into adulthood.

No brainier to me. Bottles mean both parents can bond with baby in an Nrp situation

It depends on the circumstances really.

Is this a thread about a thread?

YABU, of course it's acceptable

There is a whole thread on this already ffs

No biggie as long as the baby is healthy,happy and fed!!

It's up to the mother initially, unless she has no choice in the matter.
Yabu if it's not really got anything to do with you.

Totally depends on the circumstances and people.

In most cases, if the mother wanted to BF and was able, I'd have thought a decent NRP would prefer to spend this relatively short period of time fitting in his access around feeds in order to give his child the best nutritional start he could.

OTOH, insisting that the mother gives up BFing in order to facilitate access rights, smacks of putting the NRP's needs over both child and mother's.

whats an NRP?

Ponder - but at the same time a person develops at the fastest rate in their lives in the first year - a great deal of the building blocks, neural pathways etc are laid down at this point.

If bf is important to the mother - and to establish bf is hard work - particularly in the first few months - where the baby builds up the supply by cluster feeding for example - then it would be unfair to force the mother to stop just so the nrp can have their share of time.

There are plenty of ways a nrp can bond with the baby - they could offer to come and bath the baby for example.

I think it would be highly worrying if the nrp was allowed to dictate as such to the mother and as bf is known the be highly beneficial to the baby compared to ff (while ff is a suitable substitute) then you would think the nrp would be delighted that the mother was happy to put in the work to provide the best nutrition for their baby and be supportive - anything otherwise is purely selfish on their part and not in the BEST interest of the child.

And a lot of the development is done through close interaction with the parents and the nutrition plays a very small part in that. It's the close 1:1 bonding that aids development and that can be done by any parent, bf or ff.

For me, as someone who has been a single parent, the over riding issue is that the children have a close relationship with both parents and their families and this is something that stays with them way beyond being at the breast or bottle.

It would not be acceptable to try to enforce this against the wishes of the mother, IMO.

Obviously the childs development is down to parenting also but I think you are down playing the importance of nutrition.

I fail to see why BFing prevents the NRP from developing a strong bond with his child.

It might make things a bit more difficult, but if the NRP's reaction to that is to make the child and mother make a sacrifice rather than manage the increased difficulty for what is actually a very short space of time in the grand scheme of things, then I'd seriously question whether that NRP is selfless enough to be a good parent.

DayToDayShit Non resident parent.

At the end of the day it should be what is best for lo. If this means that exclusive bf is best, then so be it. Not all babies like bottles. The nrp should realise and understand that until no longer bf visits might be short, and there wont necessarily be overnight visits. But in the grand scheme of things, this wont be always an issue.
If the parents work together then any bond shouldn't be effected. Just in the same way the bond isn't effected when parents are still together and the decision is made to bf. There are many other ways to establish a bond.