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

[HolidayArmadillo]

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.

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 :-(

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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,

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.