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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

No Santana a good number of people thing it's about the baby, not about breastfeeding. There is a difference.

'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? :-)

"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?

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.

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

"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?

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?

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.

as I understand about about the finer points of test cricket. Ie, nothing

what worries me is why a judge is making a call on such a personal thing that he cannot possibly judge on.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Boney

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.

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.

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

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.

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.