Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Is this legal? Breastfeeding ban in family court!

102 replies

Aero · 18/04/2008 22:57

Unbelievable!

OP posts:
LittleBella · 19/04/2008 07:51

So what are you saying Zookeeper?

That mothers should be forced to formula feed their babies if fathers want to go to court re contact?

Because if at 11 weeks she is still establishing bf (and some women are) the disruption of being parted for that many hours could well be the difference between successful breastfeeding and having to give up. The reason you've come across many women who say babies need to be at the breast constantly, is because er, they do. That's how breastfeeding works.

I agree with Edam, the fact that the family courts don't know/ don't care about that, says everything we need to know about their attitude to women and children.

ruty · 19/04/2008 08:26

agree with edam. Depressing.

zookeeper · 19/04/2008 08:32

Littlebella, I don't think that by any stretch of the imagination that my post can be best summarised as saying that mothers should be forced to formula feed their babies if fathers want to go to court re contact.

zookeeper · 19/04/2008 08:32

Littlebella, I don't think that by any stretch of the imagination that my post can be best summarised as saying that mothers should be forced to formula feed their babies if fathers want to go to court re contact.

zookeeper · 19/04/2008 08:34

But thanks for the ( blindingly obvious )staement about breastfeeding.

Freckle · 19/04/2008 08:45

I can see both sides of this. However, I do agree that a courtroom is probably not conducive to a baby feeding quietly and unobtrusively. I do think that the court could arrange to accommodate the baby being fed, by having short adjournments throughout the proceedings. IME most people involved in these types of dispute would welcome a short break periodically.

edam · 19/04/2008 09:43

zookeeper, why on earth would the family court object to a child being present? An 11 week old baby is not going to be actively listening to and understanding proceedings, for heaven's sake.

policywonk · 19/04/2008 09:50

I really think this issue is quite simple:

1)bfing is best choice for long-term wellbeing of baby
2)to optimise breastfeeding, mother and still-almost-newborn child need to be in close contact
3)mother needs to be in court to arrange contact or whatever, ergo
4)mother needs baby with her in court.

All the rest is just the usual insidious anti-breast flummery.

theUrbanNixie · 19/04/2008 10:09

if i were that mother i would just put baby in a ring sling, have my breast available to her at all times. no-one would be any the wiser.

zookeepers - do you represent fathers usually, by any chance? your statements really really worry me. i have a bit of experience within this field and totally agree with what edam and LittleBella are saying.

if a father really wanted the best for his child he'd accept that the best thing for the infant is to breastfeed on demand. if that means not seeing the infant for a little while, then so be it. (but then i advocate on behalf of the infant, not the parents, so my view may be skewed in this instance)

Freckle · 19/04/2008 10:18

Family courts deal with serious issues affecting families. That does not mean that they are appropriate places for children who (a) will not understand what is going on, (b) if they do understand, it may not be appropriate for them to hear what is being said and (c) are unlikely to sit quietly for such periods of time.

Whilst I don't actually think that a small breastfeeding baby would necessarily interrupt the business of the court, I also feel that it is possible to accommodate its feeding needs without it having to be present in the court for the whole duration of the proceedings.

milliec · 19/04/2008 10:48

Message withdrawn

StealthPolarBear · 19/04/2008 11:18

I really don't see the problem.
Surely most babies at 11 weeks would feed (or sleep) fairly quietly almost constantly anyway (although she would need someone there to take him/her away for nappy changes).
The mother would be able to concentrate - well if she was slightly distracted it would be nothing compared to the stress she'd be feeling wondering whether her baby was having milk without her/crying for her/milk leaking all over top.

lljkk · 19/04/2008 14:05

What happens if you go to court say the baby is formula fed so breastfeeding not an issue but you have no one to look after the baby for you all the time you're needing to be in court. Is there a creche? Do social workers babysit? Foster care? Genuine question.

Spero · 19/04/2008 14:10

'no it really isn't that distracting tbh. it is family court - children are often present.'

They are not in the bloody court room! and quite right too.

Adjournment is the only way. not fair to anyone to conduct a hearing like this.

VictorianSqualor · 19/04/2008 14:13

How awful!

StarlightMcKenzie · 19/04/2008 14:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Spero · 19/04/2008 14:15

'The family court is meant to act in the best interests of the child. How is this in the best interests of the child? '

Because presumably very serious issues are going to be decided which will determine that child's future life; who he/she has contact with and for how long etc.

It is a court of law. I have had clients with breastfeeding babies and it is very, very difficult. I agree that part of the problem is prejudice and embarrassment from older male judges.

But the other, much more real problem is how on earth can you sensibly conduct a hearing, all hear the evidence, cross examine etc, etc in this situation. I am afraid it is just nonsense, and I speak from bitter experience to say - o but they're great at that age! All they do is sleep.

No they bloody don't. and if you have to break off in mid hearing and lose time, don't get finished etc you can wait MONTHS for a rehearing. And how is that in the interests of anyone?

Adjourn until baby is feeding better/can take a bottle of expressed milk from someone else outside court room

Surfermum · 19/04/2008 14:47

I think it's a really difficult one, and I can see both sides.

My own experience was going to Court once with dh when he was fighting for contact with dsd. Dsd's mum had her weeks old baby there, but the baby stayed with her dad in the waiting room while dh and dsd's mum went in. They were actually in the Court room a very short amount of time. However, I can see how disruptive it would have been had the baby not been bottle fed and had dsd's mum not had someone else there who could have fed her.

But I feel for the dad here too. Like zookeeper says, can you imagine what it must feel like not to be able to see your own child? As much as you can rationalise that it is in the best interests of the child, it really hurts that you have to wait even longer to be given the chance to even argue your case. You are missing out on time that you will never be able to get back.

Although we don't know any detail here - and she could have real concerns about the Dad's involvement - that isn't always the case so I feel for the child too that things are that bad between the parents that they haven't been able to sort out contact before now, and a Court has to have been involved so that a man can see his child.

What dh and I never understood when this happened to him (case adjourned as his x was having problems with her pregnancy) was why the Court didn't adjourn but also order supervised contact. At least it would have meant dh was seeing dsd, albeit in not ideal circumstances. But they didn't, and when the case was eventually heard his x then tried to argue that it had been so long since dh had seen dsd that she wouldn't know him. Of course, one observed contact sorted out that - but it was a horrible, stressful time for dh and completely unfair as he hadn't done anything .

edam · 19/04/2008 17:00

Rubbish to the argument that 'this is a court, can't possibly have any normal human behaviour here'.

Preventing a child from feeding is NOT in the best interests of that child, clearly. Only a mad person would argue it is so. And only a mad system would decide that a family court is allowed to discriminate against babies, FGS.

Courts are full of bloody disruptive people - including lawyers who haven't been briefed/haven't read the brief/haven't sorted out the paperwork at the right time/called the right witness on the right day. An 11 week old baby is fairly harmless in comparison.

theUrbanNixie · 19/04/2008 17:11

edam - only a mad system would hold these courts in secret too as well.

oh, wait...

VictorianSqualor · 19/04/2008 17:12

I can understand saying they can't accomodate the baby, but in that case they should accomodate the mothers need to be with the baby and reschedule the court dates/allow mum to do video link or something else similar that mum is satisfied with and means baby can be fed.

harpsichordcarrier · 19/04/2008 18:15

"Courts are full of bloody disruptive people - including lawyers who haven't been briefed/haven't read the brief/haven't sorted out the paperwork at the right time/called the right witness on the right day. An 11 week old baby is fairly harmless in comparison."
amen to that

FluffyMummy123 · 19/04/2008 18:17

Message withdrawn

edam · 19/04/2008 18:18

That's very sensible, Cod. God alone knows why the family courts are so bizarre.

FluffyMummy123 · 19/04/2008 18:20

Message withdrawn