In child custody dispute, breastfeeding mom is ordered to use bottle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ideal situation, baby would live with and be cared for by both parents and would receive the best nutrition the parents could provide. However, that ship has sailed since the parents split up and now live apart. Now the choice is between baby being exclusively fed breast milk and having little opportunity to bond with dad or baby being fed formula in order to promote bonding with dad. The court should rule based on the best interests of the child, not the parents. Bonding with dad and having a close relationship with him is more important for the baby and life altering than the benefits of breast milk over formula. That part is a no-brainer.

What complicates this particular case is that this baby was born last July, during the height of the national formula shortage, when it was hard to obtain formula. As important as bonding with dad is, food is even more essential to keep baby alive, so I can understand why mom dug her heels in about breastfeeding and didn’t want any separation from the baby to tank her supply. With these particular circumstances, it’s a tougher call.

I think the court did the right thing by granting dad equal custody once the child has reached 6 months of age.

Having said all that, I’m disgusted by the attorney’s referencing woman “weaponizing” breastfeeding. There is so much pressure to breastfeed. Women have been bombarded with the “breast is best” campaign. You can’t blame new moms for wanting to protect their supply, which requires having access to baby.

Mom can pump and provide dad with the breast milk. Baby can have breast milk with dad.

It’s not uncommon for women to produce less milk when pumping than they do when breastfeeding the baby. This could actually derail the mom’s milk production, which is a legitimate concern, but I still think baby bonding with dad outweighs the benefits of breast milk over formula.

This winner will be the first one complaining how expensive formula is.

I’m sure he expects the mom to just pump and provide the milk to him, like that’s a small ask. I had great difficulty with pumping, even with the aid of a lactation consultant, a hospital grade pump, and being in the privacy of my own home. I couldn’t have provided milk for overnight visits.

Obviously this mother has a huge incentive to not be successful with pumping. Why should anyone believe her that she tried and can't do it? If we can question dad's motives then we can question hers as well.

Two extremely common things: women struggling to pump and men trying to screw women over on child support.

Any savings on child support will be offset by formula costs. Yet, he's still fighting for his visitation. Seems like money isn't his issue.

Read the article. He doesn’t think he’s incurring any formula expense he wants to provide pumped milk, which is free,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ideal situation, baby would live with and be cared for by both parents and would receive the best nutrition the parents could provide. However, that ship has sailed since the parents split up and now live apart. Now the choice is between baby being exclusively fed breast milk and having little opportunity to bond with dad or baby being fed formula in order to promote bonding with dad. The court should rule based on the best interests of the child, not the parents. Bonding with dad and having a close relationship with him is more important for the baby and life altering than the benefits of breast milk over formula. That part is a no-brainer.

What complicates this particular case is that this baby was born last July, during the height of the national formula shortage, when it was hard to obtain formula. As important as bonding with dad is, food is even more essential to keep baby alive, so I can understand why mom dug her heels in about breastfeeding and didn’t want any separation from the baby to tank her supply. With these particular circumstances, it’s a tougher call.

I think the court did the right thing by granting dad equal custody once the child has reached 6 months of age.

Having said all that, I’m disgusted by the attorney’s referencing woman “weaponizing” breastfeeding. There is so much pressure to breastfeed. Women have been bombarded with the “breast is best” campaign. You can’t blame new moms for wanting to protect their supply, which requires having access to baby.

Mom can pump and provide dad with the breast milk. Baby can have breast milk with dad.

It’s not uncommon for women to produce less milk when pumping than they do when breastfeeding the baby. This could actually derail the mom’s milk production, which is a legitimate concern, but I still think baby bonding with dad outweighs the benefits of breast milk over formula.

This winner will be the first one complaining how expensive formula is.

I’m sure he expects the mom to just pump and provide the milk to him, like that’s a small ask. I had great difficulty with pumping, even with the aid of a lactation consultant, a hospital grade pump, and being in the privacy of my own home. I couldn’t have provided milk for overnight visits.

Obviously this mother has a huge incentive to not be successful with pumping. Why should anyone believe her that she tried and can't do it? If we can question dad's motives then we can question hers as well.

Two extremely common things: women struggling to pump and men trying to screw women over on child support.

Any savings on child support will be offset by formula costs. Yet, he's still fighting for his visitation. Seems like money isn't his issue.

Read the article. He doesn’t think he’s incurring any formula expense he wants to provide pumped milk, which is free,

Yes but looking ahead, if that's not possible, what will the baby drink? In that case he's not asking her to quit breastfeeding, he's willing to take the pumped milk. But she's refusing to do even that. She's just breastfeed or bust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ideal situation, baby would live with and be cared for by both parents and would receive the best nutrition the parents could provide. However, that ship has sailed since the parents split up and now live apart. Now the choice is between baby being exclusively fed breast milk and having little opportunity to bond with dad or baby being fed formula in order to promote bonding with dad. The court should rule based on the best interests of the child, not the parents. Bonding with dad and having a close relationship with him is more important for the baby and life altering than the benefits of breast milk over formula. That part is a no-brainer.

What complicates this particular case is that this baby was born last July, during the height of the national formula shortage, when it was hard to obtain formula. As important as bonding with dad is, food is even more essential to keep baby alive, so I can understand why mom dug her heels in about breastfeeding and didn’t want any separation from the baby to tank her supply. With these particular circumstances, it’s a tougher call.

I think the court did the right thing by granting dad equal custody once the child has reached 6 months of age.

Having said all that, I’m disgusted by the attorney’s referencing woman “weaponizing” breastfeeding. There is so much pressure to breastfeed. Women have been bombarded with the “breast is best” campaign. You can’t blame new moms for wanting to protect their supply, which requires having access to baby.

Mom can pump and provide dad with the breast milk. Baby can have breast milk with dad.

It’s not uncommon for women to produce less milk when pumping than they do when breastfeeding the baby. This could actually derail the mom’s milk production, which is a legitimate concern, but I still think baby bonding with dad outweighs the benefits of breast milk over formula.

This winner will be the first one complaining how expensive formula is.

I’m sure he expects the mom to just pump and provide the milk to him, like that’s a small ask. I had great difficulty with pumping, even with the aid of a lactation consultant, a hospital grade pump, and being in the privacy of my own home. I couldn’t have provided milk for overnight visits.

Obviously this mother has a huge incentive to not be successful with pumping. Why should anyone believe her that she tried and can't do it? If we can question dad's motives then we can question hers as well.

Two extremely common things: women struggling to pump and men trying to screw women over on child support.

Any savings on child support will be offset by formula costs. Yet, he's still fighting for his visitation. Seems like money isn't his issue.

Read the article. He doesn’t think he’s incurring any formula expense he wants to provide pumped milk, which is free,

Yes but looking ahead, if that's not possible, what will the baby drink? In that case he's not asking her to quit breastfeeding, he's willing to take the pumped milk. But she's refusing to do even that. She's just breastfeed or bust.

He’s “willing” to take for free the food she has to make, uncompensated. Once he has to pay for formula, and bottles, he will likely change his tune about the overnights. Of course he will already have the child support reduced and he won’t want to fix it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ideal situation, baby would live with and be cared for by both parents and would receive the best nutrition the parents could provide. However, that ship has sailed since the parents split up and now live apart. Now the choice is between baby being exclusively fed breast milk and having little opportunity to bond with dad or baby being fed formula in order to promote bonding with dad. The court should rule based on the best interests of the child, not the parents. Bonding with dad and having a close relationship with him is more important for the baby and life altering than the benefits of breast milk over formula. That part is a no-brainer.

What complicates this particular case is that this baby was born last July, during the height of the national formula shortage, when it was hard to obtain formula. As important as bonding with dad is, food is even more essential to keep baby alive, so I can understand why mom dug her heels in about breastfeeding and didn’t want any separation from the baby to tank her supply. With these particular circumstances, it’s a tougher call.

I think the court did the right thing by granting dad equal custody once the child has reached 6 months of age.

Having said all that, I’m disgusted by the attorney’s referencing woman “weaponizing” breastfeeding. There is so much pressure to breastfeed. Women have been bombarded with the “breast is best” campaign. You can’t blame new moms for wanting to protect their supply, which requires having access to baby.

Mom can pump and provide dad with the breast milk. Baby can have breast milk with dad.

It’s not uncommon for women to produce less milk when pumping than they do when breastfeeding the baby. This could actually derail the mom’s milk production, which is a legitimate concern, but I still think baby bonding with dad outweighs the benefits of breast milk over formula.

This winner will be the first one complaining how expensive formula is.

I’m sure he expects the mom to just pump and provide the milk to him, like that’s a small ask. I had great difficulty with pumping, even with the aid of a lactation consultant, a hospital grade pump, and being in the privacy of my own home. I couldn’t have provided milk for overnight visits.

Obviously this mother has a huge incentive to not be successful with pumping. Why should anyone believe her that she tried and can't do it? If we can question dad's motives then we can question hers as well.

Two extremely common things: women struggling to pump and men trying to screw women over on child support.

Any savings on child support will be offset by formula costs. Yet, he's still fighting for his visitation. Seems like money isn't his issue.

Read the article. He doesn’t think he’s incurring any formula expense he wants to provide pumped milk, which is free,

Yes but looking ahead, if that's not possible, what will the baby drink? In that case he's not asking her to quit breastfeeding, he's willing to take the pumped milk. But she's refusing to do even that. She's just breastfeed or bust.

He’s “willing” to take for free the food she has to make, uncompensated. Once he has to pay for formula, and bottles, he will likely change his tune about the overnights. Of course he will already have the child support reduced and he won’t want to fix it.

This is a drop in the bucket over the course of a kid's life, heck even with his lawyer fees. This is not a huge investment, why are you so hung up on the cost of bottles and parts? He's not destitute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ideal situation, baby would live with and be cared for by both parents and would receive the best nutrition the parents could provide. However, that ship has sailed since the parents split up and now live apart. Now the choice is between baby being exclusively fed breast milk and having little opportunity to bond with dad or baby being fed formula in order to promote bonding with dad. The court should rule based on the best interests of the child, not the parents. Bonding with dad and having a close relationship with him is more important for the baby and life altering than the benefits of breast milk over formula. That part is a no-brainer.

What complicates this particular case is that this baby was born last July, during the height of the national formula shortage, when it was hard to obtain formula. As important as bonding with dad is, food is even more essential to keep baby alive, so I can understand why mom dug her heels in about breastfeeding and didn’t want any separation from the baby to tank her supply. With these particular circumstances, it’s a tougher call.

I think the court did the right thing by granting dad equal custody once the child has reached 6 months of age.

Having said all that, I’m disgusted by the attorney’s referencing woman “weaponizing” breastfeeding. There is so much pressure to breastfeed. Women have been bombarded with the “breast is best” campaign. You can’t blame new moms for wanting to protect their supply, which requires having access to baby.

Mom can pump and provide dad with the breast milk. Baby can have breast milk with dad.

It’s not uncommon for women to produce less milk when pumping than they do when breastfeeding the baby. This could actually derail the mom’s milk production, which is a legitimate concern, but I still think baby bonding with dad outweighs the benefits of breast milk over formula.

This winner will be the first one complaining how expensive formula is.

I’m sure he expects the mom to just pump and provide the milk to him, like that’s a small ask. I had great difficulty with pumping, even with the aid of a lactation consultant, a hospital grade pump, and being in the privacy of my own home. I couldn’t have provided milk for overnight visits.

Obviously this mother has a huge incentive to not be successful with pumping. Why should anyone believe her that she tried and can't do it? If we can question dad's motives then we can question hers as well.

Two extremely common things: women struggling to pump and men trying to screw women over on child support.

Any savings on child support will be offset by formula costs. Yet, he's still fighting for his visitation. Seems like money isn't his issue.

Read the article. He doesn’t think he’s incurring any formula expense he wants to provide pumped milk, which is free,

Yes but looking ahead, if that's not possible, what will the baby drink? In that case he's not asking her to quit breastfeeding, he's willing to take the pumped milk. But she's refusing to do even that. She's just breastfeed or bust.

He’s “willing” to take for free the food she has to make, uncompensated. Once he has to pay for formula, and bottles, he will likely change his tune about the overnights. Of course he will already have the child support reduced and he won’t want to fix it.

This is a drop in the bucket over the course of a kid's life, heck even with his lawyer fees. This is not a huge investment, why are you so hung up on the cost of bottles and parts? He's not destitute.

He’s trying to save a few hundred bucks over four months on child support by demanding overnights with an EBF baby he left shortly after she was born. Sure sounds broke to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ideal situation, baby would live with and be cared for by both parents and would receive the best nutrition the parents could provide. However, that ship has sailed since the parents split up and now live apart. Now the choice is between baby being exclusively fed breast milk and having little opportunity to bond with dad or baby being fed formula in order to promote bonding with dad. The court should rule based on the best interests of the child, not the parents. Bonding with dad and having a close relationship with him is more important for the baby and life altering than the benefits of breast milk over formula. That part is a no-brainer.

What complicates this particular case is that this baby was born last July, during the height of the national formula shortage, when it was hard to obtain formula. As important as bonding with dad is, food is even more essential to keep baby alive, so I can understand why mom dug her heels in about breastfeeding and didn’t want any separation from the baby to tank her supply. With these particular circumstances, it’s a tougher call.

I think the court did the right thing by granting dad equal custody once the child has reached 6 months of age.

Having said all that, I’m disgusted by the attorney’s referencing woman “weaponizing” breastfeeding. There is so much pressure to breastfeed. Women have been bombarded with the “breast is best” campaign. You can’t blame new moms for wanting to protect their supply, which requires having access to baby.

Mom can pump and provide dad with the breast milk. Baby can have breast milk with dad.

It’s not uncommon for women to produce less milk when pumping than they do when breastfeeding the baby. This could actually derail the mom’s milk production, which is a legitimate concern, but I still think baby bonding with dad outweighs the benefits of breast milk over formula.

This winner will be the first one complaining how expensive formula is.

I’m sure he expects the mom to just pump and provide the milk to him, like that’s a small ask. I had great difficulty with pumping, even with the aid of a lactation consultant, a hospital grade pump, and being in the privacy of my own home. I couldn’t have provided milk for overnight visits.

Obviously this mother has a huge incentive to not be successful with pumping. Why should anyone believe her that she tried and can't do it? If we can question dad's motives then we can question hers as well.

Two extremely common things: women struggling to pump and men trying to screw women over on child support.

Any savings on child support will be offset by formula costs. Yet, he's still fighting for his visitation. Seems like money isn't his issue.

Read the article. He doesn’t think he’s incurring any formula expense he wants to provide pumped milk, which is free,

Yes but looking ahead, if that's not possible, what will the baby drink? In that case he's not asking her to quit breastfeeding, he's willing to take the pumped milk. But she's refusing to do even that. She's just breastfeed or bust.

He’s “willing” to take for free the food she has to make, uncompensated. Once he has to pay for formula, and bottles, he will likely change his tune about the overnights. Of course he will already have the child support reduced and he won’t want to fix it.

This is a drop in the bucket over the course of a kid's life, heck even with his lawyer fees. This is not a huge investment, why are you so hung up on the cost of bottles and parts? He's not destitute.

He’s trying to save a few hundred bucks over four months on child support by demanding overnights with an EBF baby he left shortly after she was born. Sure sounds broke to me.

I'm sure that's it. He's concocted this whole scheme to "save" a few hundred bucks. That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ideal situation, baby would live with and be cared for by both parents and would receive the best nutrition the parents could provide. However, that ship has sailed since the parents split up and now live apart. Now the choice is between baby being exclusively fed breast milk and having little opportunity to bond with dad or baby being fed formula in order to promote bonding with dad. The court should rule based on the best interests of the child, not the parents. Bonding with dad and having a close relationship with him is more important for the baby and life altering than the benefits of breast milk over formula. That part is a no-brainer.

What complicates this particular case is that this baby was born last July, during the height of the national formula shortage, when it was hard to obtain formula. As important as bonding with dad is, food is even more essential to keep baby alive, so I can understand why mom dug her heels in about breastfeeding and didn’t want any separation from the baby to tank her supply. With these particular circumstances, it’s a tougher call.

I think the court did the right thing by granting dad equal custody once the child has reached 6 months of age.

Having said all that, I’m disgusted by the attorney’s referencing woman “weaponizing” breastfeeding. There is so much pressure to breastfeed. Women have been bombarded with the “breast is best” campaign. You can’t blame new moms for wanting to protect their supply, which requires having access to baby.

Mom can pump and provide dad with the breast milk. Baby can have breast milk with dad.

It’s not uncommon for women to produce less milk when pumping than they do when breastfeeding the baby. This could actually derail the mom’s milk production, which is a legitimate concern, but I still think baby bonding with dad outweighs the benefits of breast milk over formula.

This winner will be the first one complaining how expensive formula is.

I’m sure he expects the mom to just pump and provide the milk to him, like that’s a small ask. I had great difficulty with pumping, even with the aid of a lactation consultant, a hospital grade pump, and being in the privacy of my own home. I couldn’t have provided milk for overnight visits.

Obviously this mother has a huge incentive to not be successful with pumping. Why should anyone believe her that she tried and can't do it? If we can question dad's motives then we can question hers as well.

Two extremely common things: women struggling to pump and men trying to screw women over on child support.

Any savings on child support will be offset by formula costs. Yet, he's still fighting for his visitation. Seems like money isn't his issue.

Read the article. He doesn’t think he’s incurring any formula expense he wants to provide pumped milk, which is free,

Yes but looking ahead, if that's not possible, what will the baby drink? In that case he's not asking her to quit breastfeeding, he's willing to take the pumped milk. But she's refusing to do even that. She's just breastfeed or bust.

He’s “willing” to take for free the food she has to make, uncompensated. Once he has to pay for formula, and bottles, he will likely change his tune about the overnights. Of course he will already have the child support reduced and he won’t want to fix it.

This is a drop in the bucket over the course of a kid's life, heck even with his lawyer fees. This is not a huge investment, why are you so hung up on the cost of bottles and parts? He's not destitute.

He’s trying to save a few hundred bucks over four months on child support by demanding overnights with an EBF baby he left shortly after she was born. Sure sounds broke to me.

I'm sure that's it. He's concocted this whole scheme to "save" a few hundred bucks. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Dude left his newborn baby with no custody order in place. Now we’re supposed to believe he just really wants to be an involved parent.

Or, selfish man child doesn’t want to pay child support.

Simple option is broke dude is— still— thinking about himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ideal situation, baby would live with and be cared for by both parents and would receive the best nutrition the parents could provide. However, that ship has sailed since the parents split up and now live apart. Now the choice is between baby being exclusively fed breast milk and having little opportunity to bond with dad or baby being fed formula in order to promote bonding with dad. The court should rule based on the best interests of the child, not the parents. Bonding with dad and having a close relationship with him is more important for the baby and life altering than the benefits of breast milk over formula. That part is a no-brainer.

What complicates this particular case is that this baby was born last July, during the height of the national formula shortage, when it was hard to obtain formula. As important as bonding with dad is, food is even more essential to keep baby alive, so I can understand why mom dug her heels in about breastfeeding and didn’t want any separation from the baby to tank her supply. With these particular circumstances, it’s a tougher call.

I think the court did the right thing by granting dad equal custody once the child has reached 6 months of age.

Having said all that, I’m disgusted by the attorney’s referencing woman “weaponizing” breastfeeding. There is so much pressure to breastfeed. Women have been bombarded with the “breast is best” campaign. You can’t blame new moms for wanting to protect their supply, which requires having access to baby.

Mom can pump and provide dad with the breast milk. Baby can have breast milk with dad.

It’s not uncommon for women to produce less milk when pumping than they do when breastfeeding the baby. This could actually derail the mom’s milk production, which is a legitimate concern, but I still think baby bonding with dad outweighs the benefits of breast milk over formula.

This winner will be the first one complaining how expensive formula is.

I’m sure he expects the mom to just pump and provide the milk to him, like that’s a small ask. I had great difficulty with pumping, even with the aid of a lactation consultant, a hospital grade pump, and being in the privacy of my own home. I couldn’t have provided milk for overnight visits.

Obviously this mother has a huge incentive to not be successful with pumping. Why should anyone believe her that she tried and can't do it? If we can question dad's motives then we can question hers as well.

Two extremely common things: women struggling to pump and men trying to screw women over on child support.

Any savings on child support will be offset by formula costs. Yet, he's still fighting for his visitation. Seems like money isn't his issue.

Read the article. He doesn’t think he’s incurring any formula expense he wants to provide pumped milk, which is free,

Yes but looking ahead, if that's not possible, what will the baby drink? In that case he's not asking her to quit breastfeeding, he's willing to take the pumped milk. But she's refusing to do even that. She's just breastfeed or bust.

He’s “willing” to take for free the food she has to make, uncompensated. Once he has to pay for formula, and bottles, he will likely change his tune about the overnights. Of course he will already have the child support reduced and he won’t want to fix it.

This is a drop in the bucket over the course of a kid's life, heck even with his lawyer fees. This is not a huge investment, why are you so hung up on the cost of bottles and parts? He's not destitute.

He’s trying to save a few hundred bucks over four months on child support by demanding overnights with an EBF baby he left shortly after she was born. Sure sounds broke to me.

I'm sure that's it. He's concocted this whole scheme to "save" a few hundred bucks. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Dude left his newborn baby with no custody order in place. Now we’re supposed to believe he just really wants to be an involved parent.

Or, selfish man child doesn’t want to pay child support.

Simple option is broke dude is— still— thinking about himself.

Broke, selfish, cheap, bad parent. Nice fan fiction there. Doesn't matter, he'll get his visitation and overnights, regardless of what mom would prefer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ideal situation, baby would live with and be cared for by both parents and would receive the best nutrition the parents could provide. However, that ship has sailed since the parents split up and now live apart. Now the choice is between baby being exclusively fed breast milk and having little opportunity to bond with dad or baby being fed formula in order to promote bonding with dad. The court should rule based on the best interests of the child, not the parents. Bonding with dad and having a close relationship with him is more important for the baby and life altering than the benefits of breast milk over formula. That part is a no-brainer.

What complicates this particular case is that this baby was born last July, during the height of the national formula shortage, when it was hard to obtain formula. As important as bonding with dad is, food is even more essential to keep baby alive, so I can understand why mom dug her heels in about breastfeeding and didn’t want any separation from the baby to tank her supply. With these particular circumstances, it’s a tougher call.

I think the court did the right thing by granting dad equal custody once the child has reached 6 months of age.

Having said all that, I’m disgusted by the attorney’s referencing woman “weaponizing” breastfeeding. There is so much pressure to breastfeed. Women have been bombarded with the “breast is best” campaign. You can’t blame new moms for wanting to protect their supply, which requires having access to baby.

Mom can pump and provide dad with the breast milk. Baby can have breast milk with dad.

It’s not uncommon for women to produce less milk when pumping than they do when breastfeeding the baby. This could actually derail the mom’s milk production, which is a legitimate concern, but I still think baby bonding with dad outweighs the benefits of breast milk over formula.

This winner will be the first one complaining how expensive formula is.

I’m sure he expects the mom to just pump and provide the milk to him, like that’s a small ask. I had great difficulty with pumping, even with the aid of a lactation consultant, a hospital grade pump, and being in the privacy of my own home. I couldn’t have provided milk for overnight visits.

Obviously this mother has a huge incentive to not be successful with pumping. Why should anyone believe her that she tried and can't do it? If we can question dad's motives then we can question hers as well.

Two extremely common things: women struggling to pump and men trying to screw women over on child support.

Any savings on child support will be offset by formula costs. Yet, he's still fighting for his visitation. Seems like money isn't his issue.

Read the article. He doesn’t think he’s incurring any formula expense he wants to provide pumped milk, which is free,

Yes but looking ahead, if that's not possible, what will the baby drink? In that case he's not asking her to quit breastfeeding, he's willing to take the pumped milk. But she's refusing to do even that. She's just breastfeed or bust.

He’s “willing” to take for free the food she has to make, uncompensated. Once he has to pay for formula, and bottles, he will likely change his tune about the overnights. Of course he will already have the child support reduced and he won’t want to fix it.

This is a drop in the bucket over the course of a kid's life, heck even with his lawyer fees. This is not a huge investment, why are you so hung up on the cost of bottles and parts? He's not destitute.

He’s trying to save a few hundred bucks over four months on child support by demanding overnights with an EBF baby he left shortly after she was born. Sure sounds broke to me.

I'm sure that's it. He's concocted this whole scheme to "save" a few hundred bucks. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Dude left his newborn baby with no custody order in place. Now we’re supposed to believe he just really wants to be an involved parent.

Or, selfish man child doesn’t want to pay child support.

Simple option is broke dude is— still— thinking about himself.

Broke, selfish, cheap, bad parent. Nice fan fiction there. Doesn't matter, he'll get his visitation and overnights, regardless of what mom would prefer.

Left a newborn baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ideal situation, baby would live with and be cared for by both parents and would receive the best nutrition the parents could provide. However, that ship has sailed since the parents split up and now live apart. Now the choice is between baby being exclusively fed breast milk and having little opportunity to bond with dad or baby being fed formula in order to promote bonding with dad. The court should rule based on the best interests of the child, not the parents. Bonding with dad and having a close relationship with him is more important for the baby and life altering than the benefits of breast milk over formula. That part is a no-brainer.

What complicates this particular case is that this baby was born last July, during the height of the national formula shortage, when it was hard to obtain formula. As important as bonding with dad is, food is even more essential to keep baby alive, so I can understand why mom dug her heels in about breastfeeding and didn’t want any separation from the baby to tank her supply. With these particular circumstances, it’s a tougher call.

I think the court did the right thing by granting dad equal custody once the child has reached 6 months of age.

Having said all that, I’m disgusted by the attorney’s referencing woman “weaponizing” breastfeeding. There is so much pressure to breastfeed. Women have been bombarded with the “breast is best” campaign. You can’t blame new moms for wanting to protect their supply, which requires having access to baby.

Mom can pump and provide dad with the breast milk. Baby can have breast milk with dad.

It’s not uncommon for women to produce less milk when pumping than they do when breastfeeding the baby. This could actually derail the mom’s milk production, which is a legitimate concern, but I still think baby bonding with dad outweighs the benefits of breast milk over formula.

This winner will be the first one complaining how expensive formula is.

I’m sure he expects the mom to just pump and provide the milk to him, like that’s a small ask. I had great difficulty with pumping, even with the aid of a lactation consultant, a hospital grade pump, and being in the privacy of my own home. I couldn’t have provided milk for overnight visits.

Obviously this mother has a huge incentive to not be successful with pumping. Why should anyone believe her that she tried and can't do it? If we can question dad's motives then we can question hers as well.

Two extremely common things: women struggling to pump and men trying to screw women over on child support.

Any savings on child support will be offset by formula costs. Yet, he's still fighting for his visitation. Seems like money isn't his issue.

Read the article. He doesn’t think he’s incurring any formula expense he wants to provide pumped milk, which is free,

Yes but looking ahead, if that's not possible, what will the baby drink? In that case he's not asking her to quit breastfeeding, he's willing to take the pumped milk. But she's refusing to do even that. She's just breastfeed or bust.

He’s “willing” to take for free the food she has to make, uncompensated. Once he has to pay for formula, and bottles, he will likely change his tune about the overnights. Of course he will already have the child support reduced and he won’t want to fix it.

Stop making non-sense up. He should have child support reduced as he has to provide food, clothing and a room for her at his house. And, mom also has to provide financially. She can work when he has her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ideal situation, baby would live with and be cared for by both parents and would receive the best nutrition the parents could provide. However, that ship has sailed since the parents split up and now live apart. Now the choice is between baby being exclusively fed breast milk and having little opportunity to bond with dad or baby being fed formula in order to promote bonding with dad. The court should rule based on the best interests of the child, not the parents. Bonding with dad and having a close relationship with him is more important for the baby and life altering than the benefits of breast milk over formula. That part is a no-brainer.

What complicates this particular case is that this baby was born last July, during the height of the national formula shortage, when it was hard to obtain formula. As important as bonding with dad is, food is even more essential to keep baby alive, so I can understand why mom dug her heels in about breastfeeding and didn’t want any separation from the baby to tank her supply. With these particular circumstances, it’s a tougher call.

I think the court did the right thing by granting dad equal custody once the child has reached 6 months of age.

Having said all that, I’m disgusted by the attorney’s referencing woman “weaponizing” breastfeeding. There is so much pressure to breastfeed. Women have been bombarded with the “breast is best” campaign. You can’t blame new moms for wanting to protect their supply, which requires having access to baby.

Mom can pump and provide dad with the breast milk. Baby can have breast milk with dad.

It’s not uncommon for women to produce less milk when pumping than they do when breastfeeding the baby. This could actually derail the mom’s milk production, which is a legitimate concern, but I still think baby bonding with dad outweighs the benefits of breast milk over formula.

This winner will be the first one complaining how expensive formula is.

I’m sure he expects the mom to just pump and provide the milk to him, like that’s a small ask. I had great difficulty with pumping, even with the aid of a lactation consultant, a hospital grade pump, and being in the privacy of my own home. I couldn’t have provided milk for overnight visits.

Obviously this mother has a huge incentive to not be successful with pumping. Why should anyone believe her that she tried and can't do it? If we can question dad's motives then we can question hers as well.

Two extremely common things: women struggling to pump and men trying to screw women over on child support.

Any savings on child support will be offset by formula costs. Yet, he's still fighting for his visitation. Seems like money isn't his issue.

Read the article. He doesn’t think he’s incurring any formula expense he wants to provide pumped milk, which is free,

Yes but looking ahead, if that's not possible, what will the baby drink? In that case he's not asking her to quit breastfeeding, he's willing to take the pumped milk. But she's refusing to do even that. She's just breastfeed or bust.

He’s “willing” to take for free the food she has to make, uncompensated. Once he has to pay for formula, and bottles, he will likely change his tune about the overnights. Of course he will already have the child support reduced and he won’t want to fix it.

This is a drop in the bucket over the course of a kid's life, heck even with his lawyer fees. This is not a huge investment, why are you so hung up on the cost of bottles and parts? He's not destitute.

He’s trying to save a few hundred bucks over four months on child support by demanding overnights with an EBF baby he left shortly after she was born. Sure sounds broke to me.

I'm sure that's it. He's concocted this whole scheme to "save" a few hundred bucks. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Dude left his newborn baby with no custody order in place. Now we’re supposed to believe he just really wants to be an involved parent.

Or, selfish man child doesn’t want to pay child support.

Simple option is broke dude is— still— thinking about himself.

This isn't about child support. This is about him having a relationship with his child. Maybe mom refuses the relationship so she can milk him for every dime he has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ideal situation, baby would live with and be cared for by both parents and would receive the best nutrition the parents could provide. However, that ship has sailed since the parents split up and now live apart. Now the choice is between baby being exclusively fed breast milk and having little opportunity to bond with dad or baby being fed formula in order to promote bonding with dad. The court should rule based on the best interests of the child, not the parents. Bonding with dad and having a close relationship with him is more important for the baby and life altering than the benefits of breast milk over formula. That part is a no-brainer.

What complicates this particular case is that this baby was born last July, during the height of the national formula shortage, when it was hard to obtain formula. As important as bonding with dad is, food is even more essential to keep baby alive, so I can understand why mom dug her heels in about breastfeeding and didn’t want any separation from the baby to tank her supply. With these particular circumstances, it’s a tougher call.

I think the court did the right thing by granting dad equal custody once the child has reached 6 months of age.

Having said all that, I’m disgusted by the attorney’s referencing woman “weaponizing” breastfeeding. There is so much pressure to breastfeed. Women have been bombarded with the “breast is best” campaign. You can’t blame new moms for wanting to protect their supply, which requires having access to baby.

Mom can pump and provide dad with the breast milk. Baby can have breast milk with dad.

It’s not uncommon for women to produce less milk when pumping than they do when breastfeeding the baby. This could actually derail the mom’s milk production, which is a legitimate concern, but I still think baby bonding with dad outweighs the benefits of breast milk over formula.

This winner will be the first one complaining how expensive formula is.

I’m sure he expects the mom to just pump and provide the milk to him, like that’s a small ask. I had great difficulty with pumping, even with the aid of a lactation consultant, a hospital grade pump, and being in the privacy of my own home. I couldn’t have provided milk for overnight visits.

Obviously this mother has a huge incentive to not be successful with pumping. Why should anyone believe her that she tried and can't do it? If we can question dad's motives then we can question hers as well.

Two extremely common things: women struggling to pump and men trying to screw women over on child support.

Any savings on child support will be offset by formula costs. Yet, he's still fighting for his visitation. Seems like money isn't his issue.

Read the article. He doesn’t think he’s incurring any formula expense he wants to provide pumped milk, which is free,

The articles I read said he's open to pumped milk or formula, which ever works best. Mom its refusing to pump so his only option is formula. The cost of formula given the amount of custody time he has and given this child should also be on solids is pretty minimal. And, if they are low income, they can go through WIC.

He isn't trying to screw her over with child support. All you care about is a money grab, which is sickening. Both parents have a duty to financially support their children. But, this is about him having a relationship. This man can do no right. He is fighting for a relationship with his child and you are bashing him every which way for no reason. There is no allegations of abuse or neglect OR that he is a bad father. The only argument is that child has to breastfeed at least every hour.

[Anonymous]

All of this just makes me so sad for this baby. Its parents are fighting over nothing instead of enjoy its infancy.

FWIW 2/3 of my kids never once took a bottle. By 6 months though, they'd take small sippy cups of breastmilk during the day (I worked full time). Then they nursed like crazy to make up for it. Exhausting to say the least. Dh was still a very full partner though.

And what is the argument that the child has to breastfeed every hour?! Even a brand new baby only feeds every 2 hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ideal situation, baby would live with and be cared for by both parents and would receive the best nutrition the parents could provide. However, that ship has sailed since the parents split up and now live apart. Now the choice is between baby being exclusively fed breast milk and having little opportunity to bond with dad or baby being fed formula in order to promote bonding with dad. The court should rule based on the best interests of the child, not the parents. Bonding with dad and having a close relationship with him is more important for the baby and life altering than the benefits of breast milk over formula. That part is a no-brainer.

What complicates this particular case is that this baby was born last July, during the height of the national formula shortage, when it was hard to obtain formula. As important as bonding with dad is, food is even more essential to keep baby alive, so I can understand why mom dug her heels in about breastfeeding and didn’t want any separation from the baby to tank her supply. With these particular circumstances, it’s a tougher call.

I think the court did the right thing by granting dad equal custody once the child has reached 6 months of age.

Having said all that, I’m disgusted by the attorney’s referencing woman “weaponizing” breastfeeding. There is so much pressure to breastfeed. Women have been bombarded with the “breast is best” campaign. You can’t blame new moms for wanting to protect their supply, which requires having access to baby.

Mom can pump and provide dad with the breast milk. Baby can have breast milk with dad.

It’s not uncommon for women to produce less milk when pumping than they do when breastfeeding the baby. This could actually derail the mom’s milk production, which is a legitimate concern, but I still think baby bonding with dad outweighs the benefits of breast milk over formula.

This winner will be the first one complaining how expensive formula is.

I’m sure he expects the mom to just pump and provide the milk to him, like that’s a small ask. I had great difficulty with pumping, even with the aid of a lactation consultant, a hospital grade pump, and being in the privacy of my own home. I couldn’t have provided milk for overnight visits.

Obviously this mother has a huge incentive to not be successful with pumping. Why should anyone believe her that she tried and can't do it? If we can question dad's motives then we can question hers as well.

Two extremely common things: women struggling to pump and men trying to screw women over on child support.

Any savings on child support will be offset by formula costs. Yet, he's still fighting for his visitation. Seems like money isn't his issue.

Read the article. He doesn’t think he’s incurring any formula expense he wants to provide pumped milk, which is free,

Yes but looking ahead, if that's not possible, what will the baby drink? In that case he's not asking her to quit breastfeeding, he's willing to take the pumped milk. But she's refusing to do even that. She's just breastfeed or bust.

He’s “willing” to take for free the food she has to make, uncompensated. Once he has to pay for formula, and bottles, he will likely change his tune about the overnights. Of course he will already have the child support reduced and he won’t want to fix it.

This is a drop in the bucket over the course of a kid's life, heck even with his lawyer fees. This is not a huge investment, why are you so hung up on the cost of bottles and parts? He's not destitute.

He’s trying to save a few hundred bucks over four months on child support by demanding overnights with an EBF baby he left shortly after she was born. Sure sounds broke to me.

I'm sure that's it. He's concocted this whole scheme to "save" a few hundred bucks. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Dude left his newborn baby with no custody order in place. Now we’re supposed to believe he just really wants to be an involved parent.

Or, selfish man child doesn’t want to pay child support.

Simple option is broke dude is— still— thinking about himself.

This isn't about child support. This is about him having a relationship with his child. Maybe mom refuses the relationship so she can milk him for every dime he has.

He left a weeks-old baby. No good parent does that. You sleep in different rooms and you don’t speak or whatever you need to do but you don’t abandon a weeks-old baby and then think anyone respects your claim to want a relationship with the child.

What are you going to tell that girl as a teenager? I walked out when you were a few weeks old because my convenience was more important than developing a healthy relationship with you? That will age well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In an ideal situation, baby would live with and be cared for by both parents and would receive the best nutrition the parents could provide. However, that ship has sailed since the parents split up and now live apart. Now the choice is between baby being exclusively fed breast milk and having little opportunity to bond with dad or baby being fed formula in order to promote bonding with dad. The court should rule based on the best interests of the child, not the parents. Bonding with dad and having a close relationship with him is more important for the baby and life altering than the benefits of breast milk over formula. That part is a no-brainer.

What complicates this particular case is that this baby was born last July, during the height of the national formula shortage, when it was hard to obtain formula. As important as bonding with dad is, food is even more essential to keep baby alive, so I can understand why mom dug her heels in about breastfeeding and didn’t want any separation from the baby to tank her supply. With these particular circumstances, it’s a tougher call.

I think the court did the right thing by granting dad equal custody once the child has reached 6 months of age.

Having said all that, I’m disgusted by the attorney’s referencing woman “weaponizing” breastfeeding. There is so much pressure to breastfeed. Women have been bombarded with the “breast is best” campaign. You can’t blame new moms for wanting to protect their supply, which requires having access to baby.

Mom can pump and provide dad with the breast milk. Baby can have breast milk with dad.

It’s not uncommon for women to produce less milk when pumping than they do when breastfeeding the baby. This could actually derail the mom’s milk production, which is a legitimate concern, but I still think baby bonding with dad outweighs the benefits of breast milk over formula.

This winner will be the first one complaining how expensive formula is.

I’m sure he expects the mom to just pump and provide the milk to him, like that’s a small ask. I had great difficulty with pumping, even with the aid of a lactation consultant, a hospital grade pump, and being in the privacy of my own home. I couldn’t have provided milk for overnight visits.

Obviously this mother has a huge incentive to not be successful with pumping. Why should anyone believe her that she tried and can't do it? If we can question dad's motives then we can question hers as well.

Two extremely common things: women struggling to pump and men trying to screw women over on child support.

Any savings on child support will be offset by formula costs. Yet, he's still fighting for his visitation. Seems like money isn't his issue.

Read the article. He doesn’t think he’s incurring any formula expense he wants to provide pumped milk, which is free,

The articles I read said he's open to pumped milk or formula, which ever works best. Mom its refusing to pump so his only option is formula. The cost of formula given the amount of custody time he has and given this child should also be on solids is pretty minimal. And, if they are low income, they can go through WIC.

He isn't trying to screw her over with child support. All you care about is a money grab, which is sickening. Both parents have a duty to financially support their children. But, this is about him having a relationship. This man can do no right. He is fighting for a relationship with his child and you are bashing him every which way for no reason. There is no allegations of abuse or neglect OR that he is a bad father. The only argument is that child has to breastfeed at least every hour.

That is, in fact, opposite to what the WaPo article actually says, so either you’re very poor at reading or you have an agenda.