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 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 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.
A temporary order of custody takes literally weeks. If being with his baby meant so much to him, everything possible would have been staying in the home with the baby until he had that order. “Everything possible” would
have meant inconveniencing himself to benefit his newborn.
Anonymous wrote: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).
You’re probably 100% right and it’s depressingly common.
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.
A temporary order of custody takes literally weeks. If being with his baby meant so much to him, everything possible would have been staying in the home with the baby until he had that order. “Everything possible” would
have meant inconveniencing himself to benefit his newborn.
Do we even know that he didn't get one? Or are you just making stuff up?
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.
A temporary order of custody takes literally weeks. If being with his baby meant so much to him, everything possible would have been staying in the home with the baby until he had that order. “Everything possible” would
have meant inconveniencing himself to benefit his newborn.
Do we even know that he didn't get one? Or are you just making stuff up?
The baby was born in July and visitation was ordered at the end of November. A temporary order would have been much faster and— again— the guy had already left before visitation was ordered.
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.
A temporary order of custody takes literally weeks. If being with his baby meant so much to him, everything possible would have been staying in the home with the baby until he had that order. “Everything possible” would
have meant inconveniencing himself to benefit his newborn.
Do we even know that he didn't get one? Or are you just making stuff up?
The baby was born in July and visitation was ordered at the end of November. A temporary order would have been much faster and— again— the guy had already left before visitation was ordered.
It takes a few months to get a court hearing. Be real. He did what he could.
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.
A temporary order of custody takes literally weeks. If being with his baby meant so much to him, everything possible would have been staying in the home with the baby until he had that order. “Everything possible” would
have meant inconveniencing himself to benefit his newborn.
Do we even know that he didn't get one? Or are you just making stuff up?
The baby was born in July and visitation was ordered at the end of November. A temporary order would have been much faster and— again— the guy had already left before visitation was ordered.
It takes a few months to get a court hearing. Be real. He did what he could.
Not for a temporary order it doesn’t.
But let’s pretend he had to wait for a final order as he got in November. If he had to live with his newborn for the first four months of her life, would that really have been such a huge ask? It seems to me that is, again, the absolute bare minimum for a parent.
Having a kid means the kids needs are more important than his preferences and if he really cared about secure attachment nothing would have compelled him to miss that time.
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.
A temporary order of custody takes literally weeks. If being with his baby meant so much to him, everything possible would have been staying in the home with the baby until he had that order. “Everything possible” would
have meant inconveniencing himself to benefit his newborn.
Do we even know that he didn't get one? Or are you just making stuff up?
The baby was born in July and visitation was ordered at the end of November. A temporary order would have been much faster and— again— the guy had already left before visitation was ordered.
You have no idea if they had a temporary order. Maybe they had one that specified that he saw the baby at mom's because, in teh first weeks, that's probably what made sense, especially with a formula shortage. Then when either that didn't work, or the baby got to an age where he thoguht it reasonable to ask for more, he went back to court.
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.
A temporary order of custody takes literally weeks. If being with his baby meant so much to him, everything possible would have been staying in the home with the baby until he had that order. “Everything possible” would
have meant inconveniencing himself to benefit his newborn.
Do we even know that he didn't get one? Or are you just making stuff up?
The baby was born in July and visitation was ordered at the end of November. A temporary order would have been much faster and— again— the guy had already left before visitation was ordered.
You have no idea if they had a temporary order. Maybe they had one that specified that he saw the baby at mom's because, in teh first weeks, that's probably what made sense, especially with a formula shortage. Then when either that didn't work, or the baby got to an age where he thoguht it reasonable to ask for more, he went back to court.
Which is reasonable…but not what the article says. The article says he moved out and THEN the custody issues began.
Anonymous wrote:The mom is clearly being very difficult here- claiming her baby needs to BF every hour at this age is absurd. Ditto with “the baby won’t take a bottle”- nearly all babies will have to eventually, and it works out.
That said, I’d give it about a 95% chance that the dad is only demanding overnights because he wants to pay less child support. Furthermore, I’d bet a million dollars that the baby will be primarily cared for by the guy’s mother (or sister, or girlfriend)- not him. Come ON people. You know it’s true. My DH- a fantastic and involved father from day one, would agree. Fathers are as important as mothers- in some aspects they are MORE important- but during infancy? Not really.
These parents need to learn to compromise on what is best for this baby. They (admittedly limited) information provided makes both sound selfish and awful. We have a close friend this happened to (he is the dad, never married the mom). I don’t think his daughter started staying overnight with him until she was around 2ish- however- the mom let him see baby/take baby pretty much whenever he liked. She is in nursing and often worked evening shifts, so he would care for baby and then mom would pick her up on the way home. Of course, he understood that the child was an infant who needed her mother more. Fast forward 14 years and he is VERY close with his daughter, and the daughter-who has the choice- actually spends more time with him than mom. All is well, all around. But both parents put their selfishness aside for the sake of their daughter- which does not appear to be the case here.
Sexist bullshite. This is just not true. It's 2023 and we are still stuck in this same sexist garbage. There are plenty of men who do it all. Ask any of us who had multiples.
DP but of course there are exceptions to every rule. Men and women are not interchangeable. Failure to recognize our innate differences while expecting equal performance from both sexes in ALL areas is unrealistic and ultimately hurts us all.
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.
A temporary order of custody takes literally weeks. If being with his baby meant so much to him, everything possible would have been staying in the home with the baby until he had that order. “Everything possible” would
have meant inconveniencing himself to benefit his newborn.
Do we even know that he didn't get one? Or are you just making stuff up?
The baby was born in July and visitation was ordered at the end of November. A temporary order would have been much faster and— again— the guy had already left before visitation was ordered.
You have no idea if they had a temporary order. Maybe they had one that specified that he saw the baby at mom's because, in teh first weeks, that's probably what made sense, especially with a formula shortage. Then when either that didn't work, or the baby got to an age where he thoguht it reasonable to ask for more, he went back to court.
Which is reasonable…but not what the article says. The article says he moved out and THEN the custody issues began.
What article are you quoting. Certainly not the one linked above. It says
"Ramirez said she and her daughter’s father split shortly after the birth, and the father moved out of their Northern Virginia home. On Nov. 28, a Prince William County judge ordered that the father be permitted to visit the baby four days per week ahead of overnight visits slated to begin in February."
It doesn't say anything about what happened between him moving out and the court order. It doesn't say that it's the first court order.
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.
A temporary order of custody takes literally weeks. If being with his baby meant so much to him, everything possible would have been staying in the home with the baby until he had that order. “Everything possible” would
have meant inconveniencing himself to benefit his newborn.
Do we even know that he didn't get one? Or are you just making stuff up?
The baby was born in July and visitation was ordered at the end of November. A temporary order would have been much faster and— again— the guy had already left before visitation was ordered.
You have no idea if they had a temporary order. Maybe they had one that specified that he saw the baby at mom's because, in teh first weeks, that's probably what made sense, especially with a formula shortage. Then when either that didn't work, or the baby got to an age where he thoguht it reasonable to ask for more, he went back to court.
Which is reasonable…but not what the article says. The article says he moved out and THEN the custody issues began.
What article are you quoting. Certainly not the one linked above. It says
"Ramirez said she and her daughter’s father split shortly after the birth, and the father moved out of their Northern Virginia home. On Nov. 28, a Prince William County judge ordered that the father be permitted to visit the baby four days per week ahead of overnight visits slated to begin in February."
It doesn't say anything about what happened between him moving out and the court order. It doesn't say that it's the first court order.
The article is very misleading as there is no reason that the mom has to stop breastfeeding. It also gives no background information on the relationship, where she/they were living (maybe they were living with her family who wanted him out - who knows the entire situation), is she/he working (maybe he moved to VA for work), what happened or what was the agreement in terms of visitation between father and child when he left - he probably was visiting in the home and she wouldn't allow him much contact but again one can only speculate as there is no information.
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.
A temporary order of custody takes literally weeks. If being with his baby meant so much to him, everything possible would have been staying in the home with the baby until he had that order. “Everything possible” would
have meant inconveniencing himself to benefit his newborn.
Do we even know that he didn't get one? Or are you just making stuff up?
The baby was born in July and visitation was ordered at the end of November. A temporary order would have been much faster and— again— the guy had already left before visitation was ordered.
You have no idea if they had a temporary order. Maybe they had one that specified that he saw the baby at mom's because, in teh first weeks, that's probably what made sense, especially with a formula shortage. Then when either that didn't work, or the baby got to an age where he thoguht it reasonable to ask for more, he went back to court.
Which is reasonable…but not what the article says. The article says he moved out and THEN the custody issues began.
What article are you quoting. Certainly not the one linked above. It says
"Ramirez said she and her daughter’s father split shortly after the birth, and the father moved out of their Northern Virginia home. On Nov. 28, a Prince William County judge ordered that the father be permitted to visit the baby four days per week ahead of overnight visits slated to begin in February."
It doesn't say anything about what happened between him moving out and the court order. It doesn't say that it's the first court order.
If the father had custody, what was the baby eating? The baby wouldn’t now be rejecting bottles if a custody agreement was in place in July.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}