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

[Anonymous]

If I read this about one of my employees I would fire them.

[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:No seven month old needs to eat every hour. Mom is inventing problems to try to get back with dad.

Yeah, the "every hour" thing is nuts. Babies that age are starting solids - they certainly don't need to nurse every hour. That's probably one reason the judge found that she was "weaponizing breastfeeding."

The baby is probably hungry because mom's breast milk is not filling enough and the baby should be transitioning to solids. Doesn't sound like the breast milk is enough. But mom is one of those wackos who only wants to EBF for a solid year, for her own needs, not what the child needs. Spending more time with dad will probably benefit the baby.

You do not know anything about breastmilk. Kids do not need solid food until 12 months. Solids at 6 months is for fun. Guidance from pediatricians.

This is outdated

No, it is not. I have young kids.

You are still wrong. And you obviously don't have a baby and are not up to date. This is the actual current guidance:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for approximately 6 months after birth. Furthermore, the AAP supports continued breastfeeding, along with appropriate complementary foods introduced at about 6 months"

It does not say exclusively breast feed for 12 months.

Do you know what “complementary” means? A child at that age isn’t getting most of their nutrition from those foods— they are adding to the primary source of nutrition which is breast milk. Messing with moms supply, a court ordering her to feed her child bottles, none of this is in the best interest of the child. The kid can wean at 1, and have all the regular food dad wants to use, but he wants to save 4 months of child support.

Do you know that "fun" isn't a synonym for "complementary"? Take a seat.

…you are the only one referencing that outdated guidance.

Show us your current guidance. I'll wait.

Bro it’s the same guidance. Food after six months is **complementary** meaning **additive**.

The kid needs to get breast milk AND solids at this stage, but cannot get only solids. Dad could slow his roll for four months, have visitation at the baby’s home, and have zero impact on the baby’s mother. He could then give the baby 100% purée. Instead he wants to pay less support.

He’s just a bad dad. I’m sorry you’ve chosen him as the champion of fatherhood.

Oh.... so you're pretending you didn't say "no solid until 12 months". You were wrong and tried to backpedal. That is not current guidance. And don't try to pretend someone els said it.

I am a different PP. two pediatricians literally told me that kids do not need solid food until 12 months old and that breastmilk or formula is fine and that starting feeding solids at six months is fine but it is to supplement breastmilk and formula and it is optional: salads at six months is fun and not required. My kids did not eat solid foods until eight months old because they couldn’t stand eating it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s the reality of divorce. If breastmilk is important mom can pump and give it to dad. I don’t see the outrage about this. Dads time with baby is more important than breastmilk.

Except not all women produce enough with pumping. I could EBF my child on the weekends but could never pump enough so had to supplement several bottles for daycare. I just don't produce for a pump. In addition separation at nights would have likely tanked my supply. Sure give dad extra time to make up for the time mom spends breastfeeding the child during his time. I'm sure there are other solutions to this if dad were willing to be flexible.

[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.

No, he’s not. You just continue to endlessly repost this lie and vomit your anti-father and anti-male bile all over DCUM like a dog worrying a bone, because you need therapy.

[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.

Oh, you just burned hysterical anti-dad PP’s muffins. She’ll deny it, but you did. Well done.

[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:No seven month old needs to eat every hour. Mom is inventing problems to try to get back with dad.

Yeah, the "every hour" thing is nuts. Babies that age are starting solids - they certainly don't need to nurse every hour. That's probably one reason the judge found that she was "weaponizing breastfeeding."

The baby is probably hungry because mom's breast milk is not filling enough and the baby should be transitioning to solids. Doesn't sound like the breast milk is enough. But mom is one of those wackos who only wants to EBF for a solid year, for her own needs, not what the child needs. Spending more time with dad will probably benefit the baby.

You do not know anything about breastmilk. Kids do not need solid food until 12 months. Solids at 6 months is for fun. Guidance from pediatricians.

This is outdated

No, it is not. I have young kids.

You are still wrong. And you obviously don't have a baby and are not up to date. This is the actual current guidance:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for approximately 6 months after birth. Furthermore, the AAP supports continued breastfeeding, along with appropriate complementary foods introduced at about 6 months"

It does not say exclusively breast feed for 12 months.

Do you know what “complementary” means? A child at that age isn’t getting most of their nutrition from those foods— they are adding to the primary source of nutrition which is breast milk. Messing with moms supply, a court ordering her to feed her child bottles, none of this is in the best interest of the child. The kid can wean at 1, and have all the regular food dad wants to use, but he wants to save 4 months of child support.

Do you know that "fun" isn't a synonym for "complementary"? Take a seat.

…you are the only one referencing that outdated guidance.

Show us your current guidance. I'll wait.

Bro it’s the same guidance. Food after six months is **complementary** meaning **additive**.

The kid needs to get breast milk AND solids at this stage, but cannot get only solids. Dad could slow his roll for four months, have visitation at the baby’s home, and have zero impact on the baby’s mother. He could then give the baby 100% purée. Instead he wants to pay less support.

He’s just a bad dad. I’m sorry you’ve chosen him as the champion of fatherhood.

Oh.... so you're pretending you didn't say "no solid until 12 months". You were wrong and tried to backpedal. That is not current guidance. And don't try to pretend someone els said it.

I am a different PP. two pediatricians literally told me that kids do not need solid food until 12 months old and that breastmilk or formula is fine and that starting feeding solids at six months is fine but it is to supplement breastmilk and formula and it is optional: salads at six months is fun and not required. My kids did not eat solid foods until eight months old because they couldn’t stand eating it.

Bizarre as we never heard they don't need to start solids before age one. You should not be giving your child salad at 6 months old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s the reality of divorce. If breastmilk is important mom can pump and give it to dad. I don’t see the outrage about this. Dads time with baby is more important than breastmilk.

Except not all women produce enough with pumping. I could EBF my child on the weekends but could never pump enough so had to supplement several bottles for daycare. I just don't produce for a pump. In addition separation at nights would have likely tanked my supply. Sure give dad extra time to make up for the time mom spends breastfeeding the child during his time. I'm sure there are other solutions to this if dad were willing to be flexible.

So, then if she cannot or will not pump, he can use formula. Mom spends the majority of the visit BF if she is feeding the child every hour. It is not ok to feed a 6 month old every hour. That is not healthy which is why the judge said child needs a schedule. Mom can pump on separated nights and save it for Dad.

[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:

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.

Maybe she told him to leave. Its unclear why he left.

[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:No seven month old needs to eat every hour. Mom is inventing problems to try to get back with dad.

Yeah, the "every hour" thing is nuts. Babies that age are starting solids - they certainly don't need to nurse every hour. That's probably one reason the judge found that she was "weaponizing breastfeeding."

The baby is probably hungry because mom's breast milk is not filling enough and the baby should be transitioning to solids. Doesn't sound like the breast milk is enough. But mom is one of those wackos who only wants to EBF for a solid year, for her own needs, not what the child needs. Spending more time with dad will probably benefit the baby.

You do not know anything about breastmilk. Kids do not need solid food until 12 months. Solids at 6 months is for fun. Guidance from pediatricians.

This is outdated

No, it is not. I have young kids.

You are still wrong. And you obviously don't have a baby and are not up to date. This is the actual current guidance:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for approximately 6 months after birth. Furthermore, the AAP supports continued breastfeeding, along with appropriate complementary foods introduced at about 6 months"

It does not say exclusively breast feed for 12 months.

Do you know what “complementary” means? A child at that age isn’t getting most of their nutrition from those foods— they are adding to the primary source of nutrition which is breast milk. Messing with moms supply, a court ordering her to feed her child bottles, none of this is in the best interest of the child. The kid can wean at 1, and have all the regular food dad wants to use, but he wants to save 4 months of child support.

Do you know that "fun" isn't a synonym for "complementary"? Take a seat.

…you are the only one referencing that outdated guidance.

Show us your current guidance. I'll wait.

Bro it’s the same guidance. Food after six months is **complementary** meaning **additive**.

The kid needs to get breast milk AND solids at this stage, but cannot get only solids. Dad could slow his roll for four months, have visitation at the baby’s home, and have zero impact on the baby’s mother. He could then give the baby 100% purée. Instead he wants to pay less support.

He’s just a bad dad. I’m sorry you’ve chosen him as the champion of fatherhood.

Oh.... so you're pretending you didn't say "no solid until 12 months". You were wrong and tried to backpedal. That is not current guidance. And don't try to pretend someone els said it.

I am a different PP. two pediatricians literally told me that kids do not need solid food until 12 months old and that breastmilk or formula is fine and that starting feeding solids at six months is fine but it is to supplement breastmilk and formula and it is optional: salads at six months is fun and not required. My kids did not eat solid foods until eight months old because they couldn’t stand eating it.

None of that means babies must be "exclusively breast fed for 12 months" which is what this mother is trying to do to avoid visitation . The baby in question is already over 6 months old and you, like most normal parents, fed your baby solids at 8 months, which is the age of this baby. It's cruel to only let a hungry 8 month old baby breastfeed every hour because you deny it any other food and it's clearly hungry.

[Anonymous]

I’m haven’t read this whole thread. But the truth is, the majority of American women mother have to figure out a way for their babies to be fed without nursing directly by the time their child is 6 months old (age of the child in this story) because their baby is away from them for long stretches while they’re working. So whether that means pumping or formula or reverse-cycling with mostly solids during the day or what, this is what most moms have to do for work. I don’t understand how that’s MORE important that allowing the baby time to bond with their father!!

Everyone else had to figure this out when then went back to work. She can figure it out now.

And I’d you’re saying “not me! I chose to stay home for the first year because nursing was so important for my baby” - please recognize that you’re coming from a huge place of privilege.

A full quarter of women are back at work TEN DAYS postpartum. This mom of a six month old needs to adjust.

[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:No seven month old needs to eat every hour. Mom is inventing problems to try to get back with dad.

Yeah, the "every hour" thing is nuts. Babies that age are starting solids - they certainly don't need to nurse every hour. That's probably one reason the judge found that she was "weaponizing breastfeeding."

The baby is probably hungry because mom's breast milk is not filling enough and the baby should be transitioning to solids. Doesn't sound like the breast milk is enough. But mom is one of those wackos who only wants to EBF for a solid year, for her own needs, not what the child needs. Spending more time with dad will probably benefit the baby.

You do not know anything about breastmilk. Kids do not need solid food until 12 months. Solids at 6 months is for fun. Guidance from pediatricians.

This is outdated

No, it is not. I have young kids.

You are still wrong. And you obviously don't have a baby and are not up to date. This is the actual current guidance:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for approximately 6 months after birth. Furthermore, the AAP supports continued breastfeeding, along with appropriate complementary foods introduced at about 6 months"

It does not say exclusively breast feed for 12 months.

Do you know what “complementary” means? A child at that age isn’t getting most of their nutrition from those foods— they are adding to the primary source of nutrition which is breast milk. Messing with moms supply, a court ordering her to feed her child bottles, none of this is in the best interest of the child. The kid can wean at 1, and have all the regular food dad wants to use, but he wants to save 4 months of child support.

Do you know that "fun" isn't a synonym for "complementary"? Take a seat.

…you are the only one referencing that outdated guidance.

Show us your current guidance. I'll wait.

Bro it’s the same guidance. Food after six months is **complementary** meaning **additive**.

The kid needs to get breast milk AND solids at this stage, but cannot get only solids. Dad could slow his roll for four months, have visitation at the baby’s home, and have zero impact on the baby’s mother. He could then give the baby 100% purée. Instead he wants to pay less support.

He’s just a bad dad. I’m sorry you’ve chosen him as the champion of fatherhood.

Oh.... so you're pretending you didn't say "no solid until 12 months". You were wrong and tried to backpedal. That is not current guidance. And don't try to pretend someone els said it.

I am a different PP. two pediatricians literally told me that kids do not need solid food until 12 months old and that breastmilk or formula is fine and that starting feeding solids at six months is fine but it is to supplement breastmilk and formula and it is optional: salads at six months is fun and not required. My kids did not eat solid foods until eight months old because they couldn’t stand eating it.

I think you totally misunderstood. Infants are supposed to start getting an increasing percentage of calories from solids between 6-12 months.

[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,

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.

"In a written statement shared with the Post, Ridgway said he has provided “space to both nurse and to pump milk for me to bottle-feed our daughter while she is in my care,” and will continue to support his daughter being fed breast milk past six months “as much as possible, while also supplementing with formula only when absolutely necessary.”"

https://www.romper.com/life/breastfeeding-mother-use-bottle-divorce-custody-dispute

[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:No seven month old needs to eat every hour. Mom is inventing problems to try to get back with dad.

Yeah, the "every hour" thing is nuts. Babies that age are starting solids - they certainly don't need to nurse every hour. That's probably one reason the judge found that she was "weaponizing breastfeeding."

The baby is probably hungry because mom's breast milk is not filling enough and the baby should be transitioning to solids. Doesn't sound like the breast milk is enough. But mom is one of those wackos who only wants to EBF for a solid year, for her own needs, not what the child needs. Spending more time with dad will probably benefit the baby.

You do not know anything about breastmilk. Kids do not need solid food until 12 months. Solids at 6 months is for fun. Guidance from pediatricians.

This is outdated

No, it is not. I have young kids.

You are still wrong. And you obviously don't have a baby and are not up to date. This is the actual current guidance:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for approximately 6 months after birth. Furthermore, the AAP supports continued breastfeeding, along with appropriate complementary foods introduced at about 6 months"

It does not say exclusively breast feed for 12 months.

Do you know what “complementary” means? A child at that age isn’t getting most of their nutrition from those foods— they are adding to the primary source of nutrition which is breast milk. Messing with moms supply, a court ordering her to feed her child bottles, none of this is in the best interest of the child. The kid can wean at 1, and have all the regular food dad wants to use, but he wants to save 4 months of child support.

Do you know that "fun" isn't a synonym for "complementary"? Take a seat.

…you are the only one referencing that outdated guidance.

Show us your current guidance. I'll wait.

Bro it’s the same guidance. Food after six months is **complementary** meaning **additive**.

The kid needs to get breast milk AND solids at this stage, but cannot get only solids. Dad could slow his roll for four months, have visitation at the baby’s home, and have zero impact on the baby’s mother. He could then give the baby 100% purée. Instead he wants to pay less support.

He’s just a bad dad. I’m sorry you’ve chosen him as the champion of fatherhood.

Oh.... so you're pretending you didn't say "no solid until 12 months". You were wrong and tried to backpedal. That is not current guidance. And don't try to pretend someone els said it.

I am a different PP. two pediatricians literally told me that kids do not need solid food until 12 months old and that breastmilk or formula is fine and that starting feeding solids at six months is fine but it is to supplement breastmilk and formula and it is optional: salads at six months is fun and not required. My kids did not eat solid foods until eight months old because they couldn’t stand eating it.

Bizarre as we never heard they don't need to start solids before age one. You should not be giving your child salad at 6 months old.

It was a typo. “Solid”…two pediatricians told me solid food is fun at 6 months. Necessary at 12 months. I am glad I did not shove a ton of solids in my kid’s mouths just because…too much too soon increases risk of diabetes and obesity. Solids at 6 months is complementary. Most calories should be formula or breastmilk until 12 months. My kids are in elementary…not outdated.

[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:No seven month old needs to eat every hour. Mom is inventing problems to try to get back with dad.

Yeah, the "every hour" thing is nuts. Babies that age are starting solids - they certainly don't need to nurse every hour. That's probably one reason the judge found that she was "weaponizing breastfeeding."

The baby is probably hungry because mom's breast milk is not filling enough and the baby should be transitioning to solids. Doesn't sound like the breast milk is enough. But mom is one of those wackos who only wants to EBF for a solid year, for her own needs, not what the child needs. Spending more time with dad will probably benefit the baby.

You do not know anything about breastmilk. Kids do not need solid food until 12 months. Solids at 6 months is for fun. Guidance from pediatricians.

This is outdated

No, it is not. I have young kids.

You are still wrong. And you obviously don't have a baby and are not up to date. This is the actual current guidance:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for approximately 6 months after birth. Furthermore, the AAP supports continued breastfeeding, along with appropriate complementary foods introduced at about 6 months"

It does not say exclusively breast feed for 12 months.

Do you know what “complementary” means? A child at that age isn’t getting most of their nutrition from those foods— they are adding to the primary source of nutrition which is breast milk. Messing with moms supply, a court ordering her to feed her child bottles, none of this is in the best interest of the child. The kid can wean at 1, and have all the regular food dad wants to use, but he wants to save 4 months of child support.

Do you know that "fun" isn't a synonym for "complementary"? Take a seat.

…you are the only one referencing that outdated guidance.

Show us your current guidance. I'll wait.

Bro it’s the same guidance. Food after six months is **complementary** meaning **additive**.

The kid needs to get breast milk AND solids at this stage, but cannot get only solids. Dad could slow his roll for four months, have visitation at the baby’s home, and have zero impact on the baby’s mother. He could then give the baby 100% purée. Instead he wants to pay less support.

He’s just a bad dad. I’m sorry you’ve chosen him as the champion of fatherhood.

Oh.... so you're pretending you didn't say "no solid until 12 months". You were wrong and tried to backpedal. That is not current guidance. And don't try to pretend someone els said it.

I am a different PP. two pediatricians literally told me that kids do not need solid food until 12 months old and that breastmilk or formula is fine and that starting feeding solids at six months is fine but it is to supplement breastmilk and formula and it is optional: salads at six months is fun and not required. My kids did not eat solid foods until eight months old because they couldn’t stand eating it.

I think you totally misunderstood. Infants are supposed to start getting an increasing percentage of calories from solids between 6-12 months.

No, I did not: they did get increasing amounts but it is still “fun” and supplementary. If kids do not want a ton of solids then, it is fine. You don’t get it.

[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:No seven month old needs to eat every hour. Mom is inventing problems to try to get back with dad.

Yeah, the "every hour" thing is nuts. Babies that age are starting solids - they certainly don't need to nurse every hour. That's probably one reason the judge found that she was "weaponizing breastfeeding."

The baby is probably hungry because mom's breast milk is not filling enough and the baby should be transitioning to solids. Doesn't sound like the breast milk is enough. But mom is one of those wackos who only wants to EBF for a solid year, for her own needs, not what the child needs. Spending more time with dad will probably benefit the baby.

You do not know anything about breastmilk. Kids do not need solid food until 12 months. Solids at 6 months is for fun. Guidance from pediatricians.

This is outdated

No, it is not. I have young kids.

You are still wrong. And you obviously don't have a baby and are not up to date. This is the actual current guidance:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for approximately 6 months after birth. Furthermore, the AAP supports continued breastfeeding, along with appropriate complementary foods introduced at about 6 months"

It does not say exclusively breast feed for 12 months.

Do you know what “complementary” means? A child at that age isn’t getting most of their nutrition from those foods— they are adding to the primary source of nutrition which is breast milk. Messing with moms supply, a court ordering her to feed her child bottles, none of this is in the best interest of the child. The kid can wean at 1, and have all the regular food dad wants to use, but he wants to save 4 months of child support.

Do you know that "fun" isn't a synonym for "complementary"? Take a seat.

…you are the only one referencing that outdated guidance.

Show us your current guidance. I'll wait.

Bro it’s the same guidance. Food after six months is **complementary** meaning **additive**.

The kid needs to get breast milk AND solids at this stage, but cannot get only solids. Dad could slow his roll for four months, have visitation at the baby’s home, and have zero impact on the baby’s mother. He could then give the baby 100% purée. Instead he wants to pay less support.

He’s just a bad dad. I’m sorry you’ve chosen him as the champion of fatherhood.

Oh.... so you're pretending you didn't say "no solid until 12 months". You were wrong and tried to backpedal. That is not current guidance. And don't try to pretend someone els said it.

I am a different PP. two pediatricians literally told me that kids do not need solid food until 12 months old and that breastmilk or formula is fine and that starting feeding solids at six months is fine but it is to supplement breastmilk and formula and it is optional: salads at six months is fun and not required. My kids did not eat solid foods until eight months old because they couldn’t stand eating it.

Bizarre as we never heard they don't need to start solids before age one. You should not be giving your child salad at 6 months old.

It was a typo. “Solid”…two pediatricians told me solid food is fun at 6 months. Necessary at 12 months. I am glad I did not shove a ton of solids in my kid’s mouths just because…too much too soon increases risk of diabetes and obesity. Solids at 6 months is complementary. Most calories should be formula or breastmilk until 12 months. My kids are in elementary…not outdated.

Nothing wrong with baby food at 6 months. Be real.

How would you feel if you were denied having a relationship with your kids?