Am I BU to my daughters dad?

[livelyliv]

This may sound very familiar to some of you as I've posted about my situation before, and have returned yet again for more advice!

I posted last month asking for advice regarding my ex, as he was asking to have our 6 month old baby (who he's never looked after on his own before and has had limited contact with) for a whole day. After a lot of back and forth, I suggested he have her for 3-4 hours. This is because she is a breastfed baby (who doesn't accept bottles) so I would need to come back after that time to feed her. He thought this was unfair and wouldn't agree, so in the end, I didn't end up taking her to his house, as I was not going to allow her to be there all day with no milk. I also wasn't comfortable with her going there as he said he would "make" her drink from a bottle.

Shortly after I asked for advice on here, I received a really lengthy text from him basically saying that since I've shown that I don't need him (his words), he will no longer be involved in DD's life and she can contact him when she's 18 if she wishes. He ended the text with "do not contact me again", so I did just that, didn't contact him and have spent the past month enjoying being able to just be a mum without all the added stress he brings to my life. That is until now, because he has decided to return, apologising for what he said "out of anger" and is demanding to know when I will be bringing DD to see him. I have reluctantly said he can see DD, but it must be at my house until he can actually learn how to be a parent and prove that he's going to stick around (it's not the first time he's done something like this) He has called me controlling and I feel he may take this to court.

I don't feel that I'm being unreasonable and neither do my family, but of course, they're very biased. So just interested to hear what other people thought.

Unless it inconveniences some dude, then she should just do whatever he wants to do apparently.

I just cannot believe how many women here are saying the baby should not be breastfed anymore because the arsehole lazy father who cannot be arsed to parent and who actually has no interest in the child but only wants to annoy the mother might change his mind and see the baby a few times before losing interest again.

you're all on drugs if you think that is the best solution. Barking mad.

look I’m not saying that forcing the child to bottle feed is the right answer here, but I’m just saying it’s a complete myth / not true / propaganda / whatever BS you want to label it as that a child who has stopped breast feeding (at any age) will wither away and die all of a sudden. If anyone can? Find me a single case report, medical journal or hell, even a daily fail article that shows a child who has failed following removal of the breast? it’s just BS stuff that people tell you but has absolutely no evidence behind.
there is any number of reasons why a mother might not want to continue to breast feed, they arnt blackmailed by the child to continue for as long as the child wants or it will die? You just decide when is right for you and that’s that.
To suggest that this just ‘can’t’ happen at any given time you chose, simply doesn’t really make any sense.

But she was happy for him to have access at his house if she could pop in and bf the LO. He didn't think this was fair.
It sounds as if the OP was happy to accommodate him but he wasn't willing to meet her halfway.
If the baby refuses a bottle what else is she supposed to do?

There is a lot of clear blue water between "child will die" and "best interest of the child".

Yes weaning from the breast can be done at the parents initiative and child will eventually learn to deal with it. However most parents will not put their child through something like that if it is not necessary. Weaning is hard not because the child will starve to death; but because mums love their babies and taking something from them that gives them comfort is incredibly tough. They will cry, they will scream, some may refuse alternative foods, some may vomit with distress, some may hold their breath, some may refuse to be held or hugged. This may go on for a long or a short time. And if the parents persist through this awfulness, then yes, ultimately every child will be weaned. But most empathetic parents will find this totally intolerable unless they have a really good reason for weaning, such as the mother's decision, medical necessity etc. Not just because dad has decided he can't be arsed to accommodate breastfeeding.

Sure, I don’t disagree. And I’m not suggesting that they should based on this specific situation. It sounds like, from the back story, he’s not a very nice chap in general.
I’m just phrases like ‘won’t take a bottle’ or ‘can’t wean’ arnt really true. From what you’ve written, it sounds like you agree.
A more sensible/accurate description, I suppose, might be ‘i don’t want them to wean’ or ‘can’t deal with the stress I might put them through’ or ‘don’t think I can cope with the transition’
on a side note, I also don’t think a child’s nutrition is solely a mothers responsibility. Any respectable father should really have an opinion and a discussion about this issue too.

@Wanttotryaplugbutpartnernotkeenwwyd - what about this man says respectable father to you?

The default for feeding human infants is breastfeeding. If the mother wants to do that or not is 100% her decision and the father does not get a say no matter how fucking respectable he is or is not. I will die on this bloody hill. The mere existence of formula milk does not undo this fundamental biological relationship. It's there as a back-up if the mother can't or doesn't want to breastfeed, not as a wedge to drive between mother and child when both are happy with breastfeeding.

Do you think the father should get a say in how the mother delivers the baby too? What if she wants a water birth and he thinks a C-section is 'less risky'? After all, it's his baby too... Jesus H Christ.

there’s quite a big difference between delivering a baby that is inside a mother and how she chooses that to happen and feeding a baby, once it is a fully fledged human living in the world. It’s not really fair that that responsibility rests solely on the mother. Or even solely on the mother who has given birth in a same sex couple. I think it’s completely right that the other partner, who is also every bit as responsible for child, have a reasonable stake in how the child is fed. And yes that means if they think that the baby isn’t getting enough nutrition through breast feeding they have a ‘right’ and dare I say it a duty to speak up and try and come up with a suitable solution. Obviously breastfeeding is a good option for many couples.
it’s no wonder there is so much patriarchal hangover when people insist on adopting archaic, gender defined roles. I’m sure you feel the mother should probably also have sole responsibility for cleaning, schooling and washing the babies clothes also? While the man goes out and hunts down a wild boar to eat in his cave?

@livelyliv

Is this your existing mum by any chance?

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4749665-dil-has-blocked-me?postsby=mrsh4

If the mother doesn't want to breastfeed then she should absolutely decide not to. There's nothing archaic about saying that she is the one who gets to decide if she is going to do that. The freedom to choose not to means absolutely nothing in the absence of the freedom to choose to. It's not about the "responsibility" resting on the mother. It's her RIGHT, her absolute right, to choose to breastfeed the child she has grown in her body with the milk her body has made for the purpose, IF SHE WANTS TO. Obviously if she is not able to that is a different thing - and oddly enough most mothers quite like their babies and won't just let them suffer from malnutrition until Dad nobly steps in to let them know enough is enough.

The fact you are trying to paint a man getting to decide if a mother gets to breastfeed or not as somehow a feminist stance is bloody hilarious.

I don’t know if it’s not coming across? I’m not saying she should be forced to do anything. I’m actually saying the opposite.
It’s completely her right to chose what she does with her her milk and her body has produced. That’s obviously her choice.
but it isn’t her ‘duty’, ‘responsibility’ or even really her ‘right’ to be the only one who is in charge of what goes in the baby.
just cause she’s ‘grown it’.
im sure most mothers do like their their babies and I’m sure lots of family’s have a sensible discussion about how their child’s nutritional needs are best met. But you’re suggesting that being the one who has grown a baby gives you some kind of trump card to make decisions on the child’s future? Does the mother also get to decide what school the child goes to? Or whether the child should be vaccinated? Or whether she child should see its grandparents? these are big decisions and should be discussed within all parents who are responsible for the child not defaulted to the ‘grower’. *rolls eyes. Can you imagine what kind of pressure society would place on mothers if only they were the only one in charge of these things? If that’s the kind of would you live in? Can you appreciate why parents that havnt carried the child (dads and ss couples too) might bugger off and not be involved if they thought ‘actually I didn’t grow this child, better let it’s mother get on with changing them/feeding them/clothing then’. No wonder mothers struggle to get back to work or other socially stimulating activities if you’re forcing them to carry this weight. It’s not pro feminist but it hardly seems conducive to an equal, fair productive society does it?
you’re honestly saying the parent who has not carried the child should have a muted voice in decisions about its future? You don’t think that if you are legally and morally responsible for a child, you should take responsibility? That isn’t always the birth mother. And that means contributing to decisions about the child’s future and present.
And just to be clear, I’m not saying either parent should have more of a say - like the ‘big, clever man’ should be telling you how to feed a baby. I’m saying that both/all parents should have a discussion and come to a solution as a family in the child’s best interests. On all matters concerning the child. Without exception.

No. I'm not saying anything about the child's future, blah blah distraction blah. I'm saying on this one specific thing, which is a biological relationship between two people and a continuation of the process of gestation, it is 100% the mother's decision whether the bay will be breastfed or not, as she's the one who will be breastfeeding (or not).

There is no "is breastfeeding or formula feeding best for our baby" discussion to be had, because breastfeeding is the default for mammals and unless and until the mother finds she can't/does not want to breastfeed, there is literally no reason whatsoever to deviate from that norm. And once the mother has decided she can't/doesn't want to breastfeed, again there is no discussion to be had because it is HER BODY that is involved - hers and the baby's. It is literally no-one else's business.
Î
Dragging in everything but the kitchen sink the way you have is ignoring the simple fact that breastfeeding is a unique reciprocal relationship between two people. No-one else can be involved by the very nature of that relationship. It is absolutely the mother's right to decide if the baby will be breastfed or not. The father has no say. Why would or should he? It is literally nothing to do with him.