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.

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.

Because he wants to bond with his baby?

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

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.

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...

So what changes between 10 and 18 months then? Other than a further 8 months of missed attachment and bonding . 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.