daycare worker sued for breastfeeding client's baby

[jasper]

Did anyone else hear this incredible news story ?
It was featured on Radio Scotland's teatime news bulletin tonight (must have been a slow news day)

What do you all think?

Am I wrong in thinking that something like HIV, which can be passed through breastmilk, can take between 6 months and 6 years to show up, if it has actually been transmitted?

Bearing this in mind would it make a difference to you knowing that both the woman and the baby could have been infected, the woman genuinely not know, and it simply take years to show up?

Just playing Devil's Advocate...

Interesting one Pie.... what about CJD? (mad cow disease) I'm not allowed to give blood here (Singapore) or in many other parts of the world (Hong Kong, Australia...) because I lived in the UK during 80s and early 90s for more than 6 months (couldn't avoid it really that's where I'm from!) Have no idea about whether that can be transmitted in milk.

The chances of an ordinary woman who is 32, works in a daycare centre and has her own newborn child having HIV is infinitesimily small. The chances of her catching it in the last six months (in Oklahoma, while pregnant) is staggeringly minute. The chances of an HIV positive woman passing on HIV in one instance of feeding is almost non-existent. It's actually quite hard to pass on HIV via breastfeeding. Anyway, she didn't and she knew she didn't otherwise she wouldn't have been feeding her own child. Disease wasn't an issue here. I agree it was inappropriate and odd, and the mother had every right to complain pretty strongly, but I still maintain it was neither indecent, immoral or a crime.

The chances of an ordinary woman who is 32, works in a daycare centre and has her own newborn child having HIV is infinitesimily small. The chances of her catching it in the last six months (in Oklahoma, while pregnant) is staggeringly minute. The chances of an HIV positive woman passing on HIV in one instance of feeding is almost non-existent. It's actually quite hard to pass on HIV via breastfeeding. Anyway, she didn't and she knew she didn't otherwise she wouldn't have been feeding her own child. Disease wasn't an issue here. I agree it was inappropriate and odd, and the mother had every right to complain pretty strongly, but I still maintain it was neither indecent, immoral or a crime.

If you put in this womans name in the google news search facility every article seems to end with the line 'The International La Leche League promotes breast feeding but says it discourages women from nursing another woman's child because viruses can be transmitted through breast milk.'

Whilst the risk is, I agree, tiny, there is non the less a risk. Disease may not have been the issue in this particular case, but surely it must be an issue as general rule over breastfeeding others, with or without consent. Not every pregnant woman takes the HIV test, its not compulsory, it is possible to carry on as normal, not taking any precautions with your own child or others.

I agree that this woman was probably just daft not to think that it mattered whether or not the mother approved of such action. And I think that the charge itself is ridiculous, but I don't think that the fact that this woman placed a body part into another person and exchanged body fluids with no consent can go without some kind of action. Surely the fact that the baby is ok is a matter of luck, not because the woman felt that everything was ok. As I said not everyone gets tested for HIV, especially in the USA where even having the test can severely effect future medical insurance.

I think that in litigation happy USA its very strange that this woman, a lawyer, decided to take such action...

Not really relevent but it just occurred to me. Not only can infections be passed through milk but also antibodies. Would it improve the immunity of a baby to be nursed by several women? Just wondered.

I don't think she was a lawyer. The original story says she worked at the daycare centre. IF there is a risk from her passing on viruses, surely that applies to every single breastfeeding woman who hasn't been tested for everything. I'm not saying she was right, just that I don't think in this case there was any question of passing on HIV. As for the 'putting a part of your body..' bit, well, the baby was surely consenting big time!! I don't honestly think you could call it an assault, any more than giving a baby a bit of cake or a drink of milk (I know they aren't the same, but none is an assault). It is a disciplinary matter for the nursery, I think, but not a crime.

Here is a link outlining that the woman did NOT work for the day centre, her child also attended, and then she later brought the day centre.

Here is the link saying that she is a lawyer and worked at a law firm.

Makes you wonder where the actual workers were during the time though.

Maybe Denney brought the nursery as she wante to breastfeed all the children

Just to add, Aloha I agree that it wasn't assualt, don't think that I said it was. But I do think that she overstepped a boundrary, though probably not a legal one. But as she didn't work for the nursery at the time, and according to most of the news I read she has never worked as a child carer, but owned, at a later date, the centre in question, I think that it fell to the police to take action as this was requested by the mother of the child.

I have to agree with Pie that if she didn't work there why on earth did the staff at the centre let her go ahead. Now that IS peculiar!

Mammaoffive, I do sympathise with you, but are you not being a bit harsh on the other woman? Why should she suffer? As a first-time mum (was she?) you are often so tired and emotional, all babies probably look the same and you don't think to question. She probably just took it as read that the baby handed to her was hers. I mean, you don't think to check it's fingerprints do you? I appreciate that you suffered, but wanting other people to suffer is not going to ease your pain. It was a mistake. To be perfectly honest, if that had happened to me, I would put it down to one of those things and not dwell on it again. Shocking at the time yes, but not something that should deeply traumatise you.

As for the article, I don't know enough about the circumstances to comment really. But how else would the parents have found out unless the childminder was honest and told them what she had done? And if she b/f their baby, I am presuming she was also b/f her own? If so then she should definitely not be jailed. She probably thought she was doing the right thing at the time, I can't see that there was any malicious intent there. A mountain out of a molehill springs to mind.

Rhubarb, I'm sure it was a mistake(I prefer irresponsible act) on the other womans part. Do I think I am being too harsh? Not a bit. The nurse came in and read the baby's last name as well as the numbers off of the wrist band while she followed along on her wristband and then verbally CONFIRMED it was a match. To top it off, all babies do not look the same to me anyways - especially ones with a blue ribbons on their hat verses a pink ones, as my baby was a boy. My baby was also in a special wood bed, not the normal clear plastic one the other one was in. All this woman had to do was open her eyes and/or listen. Irresponsible is what it was. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. The OUTCOME of someone's "mistake" doesn't change even if it is a "mistake" or irresponsible act.

Mamoffive-i have to agree with Rhubarb. at 3.30 in the morning I don't think I would have noticed if the nurse had given me "my baby" to feed, that it was infact another baby.

I did donate EBM to the local milk bank and although we did have to have hiv test it was mainly so that there could never be any question. The milk is pastureised so even less risk.

With regard to the story, she shouldn't have fed without consent but, if a baby is very distressed wouldn't any mother try to do all in her power to try to ease the distress after hours of screeming?

Mamaoffive- I didn't see your last post.

I have to say I think that this says a lot about our attitude to bf. Is bf generally "outraging public decency and public morals"?

Maybe waht she did was misguided and irresponsible, but not a crime. She was trying to calm a distressed child. The fact that the nursery didn't do something to prevent it is more of an issue, imo.

message withdrawn

I disagree RobinW - we aren?t talking about a woman who gave the baby a cup full of orange squash when the mum usually only gave water, we are talking about this woman feeding another baby with her own living bodily fluid. No consent was gained - fact. She could have been passing on infections or diseases - fact. If the woman who did this was shown to have a serious illness or even HIV positive and she hadn?t previously known it, would you feel differently then? Would it change how you view the act or potential court action? It would certainly make it more complicated.

If you consider it hypothetically, imagine that there are two cases - two identical women having done the same act in two different nurseries. Both for the "right" reasons of wishing to comfort the child and believing they had nothing dangerous to pass on via their breastmilk. What happens if one woman is discovered to be HIV positive and had actually passed this on to the baby? Would you feel differently towards that mother and that act? Would and should the punishment be different? Putting aside the sympathy for all parties and horror at such a terrible unusual situation, there is no denying that it could change things for everyone. If I were the mother of that baby who had been breastfed without permission and had gone on to be HIV positive...well, enough said. Now, I know that is being extreme but I think you have to be when considering these situations because it is proven time and time again that tiny risks mean someone somewhere is going to get unlucky at some time. If I were the mother concerned a "tiny" risk would be a totally unacceptable argument.

Although some women would be happy for another woman to do this, I bet there are very very few that would be ok with this if done without consent or happy that the woman "thinks" she has nothing dangerous to pass on. This behaviour is totally unacceptable and should be taken seriously. It wasn?t an accident - the woman didn?t mistakenly "think" the mother had given permission - she knew exactly what she was doing and took the decision to breastfeed because she thought she knew best. Her argument that she thought she was doing the right thing is irrelevent in the potential outcome and in how the mother must be feeling. Therefore this issue should take second place when considering potential action.
Sorry that is a bit long winded. Not sure what is happening to me over the last few days, going to blame the pregnancy hormones for making me even less lucid than normal.

Stripey, I agree that the outcome of the situation is actually irrelevant as to whether any action, civil or legal, should be taken.

To me saying that 'well the baby was ok, no harm no foul' is the same as saying to someone a fraction over the legal alcohol limit behind the wheel 'go on your way, no one was hurt'. That person thought they would be ok, not hurt anyone and made a judgment call that this time didn't hurt anyone.

You have to draw the line somewhere, either its ok or not, but not because the outcome was favourable as next time it may not be.

Stripey, I agree that the outcome of the situation is actually irrelevant as to whether any action, civil or legal, should be taken.

To me saying that 'well the baby was ok, no harm no foul' is the same as saying to someone a fraction over the legal alcohol limit behind the wheel 'go on your way, no one was hurt'. That person thought they would be ok, not hurt anyone and made a judgment call that this time didn't hurt anyone.

You have to draw the line somewhere, either its ok or not, but not because the outcome was favourable as next time it may not be.

Good analogy with the drink drive thing, and a good point...BUT...did she really break any law? She did this with the best of intentions, and while I certainly agree that her actions were misguided, that doesn't make it a legal issue.

anais, no she didn't break a law, but that simply is because no law exists to cover this kind of action. If there was I would hope it would pertain to consent, then perhaps the woman wouldn't have been charged with something completly inappropriate and, I think, insulting to b/f.

The local authority where this happened:

The state Department of Human Services, which licenses day-care centres, has no policy on breast-feeding someone else's child.

"It's a common sense sort of thing," department spokesman George Johnson said. "It's something that today you don't even think about."

Dare say they will be putting some sort of policy in place now...

message withdrawn

robinw, you are absolutely right when you say that we all have to live with risks. However, the difference between offering a plaster or tap water is far different from offering a baby breastmilk. There was no emergency requiring first aid or immediate response, the baby was not about to starve or collapse from hunger. She could have comforted it with a cuddle and then asked the employed daycare staff what the parents had authorised the baby to drink/comsume. I dont believe that the world has gone mad if people like myself object strongly to this type of act and feel it should be taken seriously. There has to be cut off points and limits that?s all.

As for a civil case, I personally believe that this is far from dealing with it appropriately. It is not about awarding money or dishing out fines - the compensation culture seems totally off the mark. How can a cheque and the knowledge that this woman and family will go without their next holiday/washing machine really achieve anything? How on earth would you put a "price" on that kind of action in the first place? Again, would the outcome affect the amount? (as in if the woman found to have Aids could the babie?s mother sue for more cash? ) if anything seems mad, then the idea that she could get money as a fair means of recompense from this whole awful situation is what is insane.