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:

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This is outdated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…you are the only one referencing that outdated guidance.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?

Are you stupid? You can introduce solid at 6 months press, more milk or formula should remain the primary source of calories in till 12 months in and then it switches and this is documented everywhere.

A dad who left his newborn doesn’t deserve to dictate terms of feeding.

[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,

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

You claim the mother is refusing to pump. From the post article:

“Ramirez tried to pump but, at least at first, could produce little milk that way”

That is not refusing, that is trying and failing and trying again to do something you have never attempted.

[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:

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?

Are you stupid? You can introduce solid at 6 months press, more milk or formula should remain the primary source of calories in till 12 months in and then it switches and this is documented everywhere.

A dad who left his newborn doesn’t deserve to dictate terms of feeding.

Oh well. You don’t get a vote. Hopefully the baby finally gets fed appropriately.

[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:

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.

It literally does not matter what she told him. You cannot compel someone to leave their home without eviction proceedings. He chose to leave his child. No decent parent— man or woman— would do that without a custody order already in place even if that meant the parent had to live in an uncomfortable situation for awhile.

[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,

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

You claim the mother is refusing to pump. From the post article:

“Ramirez tried to pump but, at least at first, could produce little milk that way”

That is not refusing, that is trying and failing and trying again to do something you have never attempted.

Im sure she tried real hard to do something she never wanted to do.

[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:

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.

It literally does not matter what she told him. You cannot compel someone to leave their home without eviction proceedings. He chose to leave his child. No decent parent— man or woman— would do that without a custody order already in place even if that meant the parent had to live in an uncomfortable situation for awhile.

Many parents move out while custody is being figured out. Are you saying that none of them are decent parents?

[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,

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

You claim the mother is refusing to pump. From the post article:

“Ramirez tried to pump but, at least at first, could produce little milk that way”

That is not refusing, that is trying and failing and trying again to do something you have never attempted.

Im sure she tried real hard to do something she never wanted to do.

She put more effort in than the baby’s father.

[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:

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.

It literally does not matter what she told him. You cannot compel someone to leave their home without eviction proceedings. He chose to leave his child. No decent parent— man or woman— would do that without a custody order already in place even if that meant the parent had to live in an uncomfortable situation for awhile.

Many parents move out while custody is being figured out. Are you saying that none of them are decent parents?

Yes I am. Decent parents get a temporary custody order, which can be completed in weeks, before leaving their child. Any family lawyer advises this.

[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:

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.

It literally does not matter what she told him. You cannot compel someone to leave their home without eviction proceedings. He chose to leave his child. No decent parent— man or woman— would do that without a custody order already in place even if that meant the parent had to live in an uncomfortable situation for awhile.

Many parents move out while custody is being figured out. Are you saying that none of them are decent parents?

Yes I am. Decent parents get a temporary custody order, which can be completed in weeks, before leaving their child. Any family lawyer advises this.

His character is irrelevant.

[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,

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

You claim the mother is refusing to pump. From the post article:

“Ramirez tried to pump but, at least at first, could produce little milk that way”

That is not refusing, that is trying and failing and trying again to do something you have never attempted.

Im sure she tried real hard to do something she never wanted to do.

She put more effort in than the baby’s father.

He's going to visit four days a week in her home. He's fighting in court for his rights and visitation. He is DOING everything he can. She needs to do more to support his relationship with their child.

[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:

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.

It literally does not matter what she told him. You cannot compel someone to leave their home without eviction proceedings. He chose to leave his child. No decent parent— man or woman— would do that without a custody order already in place even if that meant the parent had to live in an uncomfortable situation for awhile.

Many parents move out while custody is being figured out. Are you saying that none of them are decent parents?

Yes I am. Decent parents get a temporary custody order, which can be completed in weeks, before leaving their child. Any family lawyer advises this.

Not everyone has the means, understanding or money. Maybe she promised to work with him and then refused. It takes more than a few weeks to get a lawyer and court hearing in place. He is doing everything possible to fight for visitation.

[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:

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.

It literally does not matter what she told him. You cannot compel someone to leave their home without eviction proceedings. He chose to leave his child. No decent parent— man or woman— would do that without a custody order already in place even if that meant the parent had to live in an uncomfortable situation for awhile.

We don't actually know the background as there is very limited information. She can call the police and scream domestic violence and have him thrown out and ruin his life. You cannot just easily or quickly get a custody order. It often takes months. And, then it's like this situation where you have to jump through tons of hoops. He's stuck with supervised visits by mom right now. That's all he got.

[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,

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

You claim the mother is refusing to pump. From the post article:

“Ramirez tried to pump but, at least at first, could produce little milk that way”

That is not refusing, that is trying and failing and trying again to do something you have never attempted.

She needed to continue to pump to make it work. And, that's ok if she doesn't want to pump. She can BF when child is with her and he can bottle/formula feed when she's with him OR she can go to his house and BF her.

[Anonymous]

I am pretty sure it could have been avoided if she just told the father he can pay child support according to the 50/50 schedule… unless he is a cruel man who takes pleasure in separating his own child from their mother, and doesn’t recognize the benefits of breastfeeding (I am not saying bottle is not ok if that’s the mother’s choice but not for the whims of some guy).

[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,

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

You claim the mother is refusing to pump. From the post article:

“Ramirez tried to pump but, at least at first, could produce little milk that way”

That is not refusing, that is trying and failing and trying again to do something you have never attempted.

She needed to continue to pump to make it work. And, that's ok if she doesn't want to pump. She can BF when child is with her and he can bottle/formula feed when she's with him OR she can go to his house and BF her.

I think asking someone to have their ex in their house for 30 minutes of every hour of an overnight visit is not realistic. There is no way a baby is going to bond with Dad in that circumstnace.