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:Ok, and what is wrong with this. It's not ok to deny parenting time over breastfeeding. Mom can pump, breastfeed and occasionally use a bottle to get baby ready for dad or other caretakers.

One of my kids wouldn’t take a bottle until she was almost 6 months old. We had a lot of motivation and tried 15 bottle types, but she was stubborn. She would have been dangerously dehydrated on this judge’s parenting plan.

According to the article, that's not at all what happened here. Mom is trying to say she can't pump enough, etc. and that ex can visit the baby while she's there to bf. Ex is saying she won't believe the relationship is over and is using bf as an excuse to try to make him spend time with her and not give him alone time with the baby. As another pp mentioned, the baby is old enough for some solids so this all is really a non issue at this point.

Just “some solids” and no liquids for a 48 hour stretch is not healthy for any infant.

Yet millions of babies can do it in the care of others.

^ meaning they can and will learn to accept a bottle, they don’t succumb to dehydration.

And until that happens they are hungry and thirsty and miserable and confused. When we had this at daycare, I had to leave work and go nurse the baby in the daytime. Yes she eventually learned but I wouldn’t leave my child in the care (paid or otherwise) of someone who would leave a baby hungry while they learned to use a bottle rather than calling their mother.

Was your baby 8 months old at the time?

I went back to work at 6M so slightly younger but still too young in both cases to rely on anything but breast milk/formula.

So for 6 months you raced back and forth to the daycare to nurse a baby, until it was 1 year old?

For about three months, yes. That was when they got the right combination of bottle/position/temperature, and honestly some of it was probably physical ability. But I wouldn’t have been willing to leave her in the care of someone who was going to let her go hungry and thirsty until she mastered a particular skill, that’s abusive.

So your case is nothing like this. The judge doesn't care what you feel comfortable with, especially if he think you're using breastfeeding as a weapon to deny visitation. Like this mom is. The vast majority of babies will come around at this age to bottle refusal. The mother is framing it as being "ordered to stop breastfeeding" which it isn't. She's being asked to try her hardest to introduce bottles, or order to facilitate visitation with the baby's father. Instead of trying to do that the mom wants her pediatrician to write notes that say "breast is best" to get around it.

My case is precisely like this. The baby doesn’t take bottles, per the article and the order. A judge has ordered overnights with the father to begin in February— i.e now— so if the father intends to take those overnights it’s on the understanding he’s going to let his infant be hungry and thirsty all to make sure he’s not inconvenienced by carrying out visits in the baby’s home, or pay child support.

Hopefully the mom takes the baby to the pediatrician/ER immediately to document dehydration.

The mom was ordered to try bottles. And the ER? Please. This mom like many others will likely be shocked that the baby will take a bottle from someone else. She can keep pushing though and find out how the court feels about it with the empty threats.

The mom was told to put the child on a schedule as feeding hourly is not healthy. She was also ordered to pump/start baby on a bottle to help with the transition but the article is very one-sided and not providing all information. No reason the mom cannot offer baby a bottle of breastmilk for a few ounces prior to breastfeeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I left my ex with a newborn and we agreed that he would take the older kids out and not take the newborn out until she was six months. He'd bring the older kids back and I'd take them somewhere and he'd spend one on one time with the newborn alone. Maybe two hours? I think we got up to 3.5 before I began pumping and sending her off with a bottle or two . I started pumping then, but he didn't have overnights with her until she was out of diapers.

She's 11 now and fully bonded with him no problem.

You sound horribly controlling. You used breastfeeding to punish him.

Did you miss the part where WE AGREED? And, I'll add there was zero interest from him in taking care of a baby. Even the older kids didn't want to go back to that house or sleep over there for a long time.

There was no we. You probably refused and that was the best you'd give him so he had no other choice but an expensive court battle. You left and probably got the kids to hate dad if they refused to go back to the house or sleep over. They were trying to make you happy as they lived with you.

[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:Ok, and what is wrong with this. It's not ok to deny parenting time over breastfeeding. Mom can pump, breastfeed and occasionally use a bottle to get baby ready for dad or other caretakers.

One of my kids wouldn’t take a bottle until she was almost 6 months old. We had a lot of motivation and tried 15 bottle types, but she was stubborn. She would have been dangerously dehydrated on this judge’s parenting plan.

According to the article, that's not at all what happened here. Mom is trying to say she can't pump enough, etc. and that ex can visit the baby while she's there to bf. Ex is saying she won't believe the relationship is over and is using bf as an excuse to try to make him spend time with her and not give him alone time with the baby. As another pp mentioned, the baby is old enough for some solids so this all is really a non issue at this point.

Just “some solids” and no liquids for a 48 hour stretch is not healthy for any infant.

Yet millions of babies can do it in the care of others.

^ meaning they can and will learn to accept a bottle, they don’t succumb to dehydration.

And until that happens they are hungry and thirsty and miserable and confused. When we had this at daycare, I had to leave work and go nurse the baby in the daytime. Yes she eventually learned but I wouldn’t leave my child in the care (paid or otherwise) of someone who would leave a baby hungry while they learned to use a bottle rather than calling their mother.

Was your baby 8 months old at the time?

I went back to work at 6M so slightly younger but still too young in both cases to rely on anything but breast milk/formula.

So for 6 months you raced back and forth to the daycare to nurse a baby, until it was 1 year old?

For about three months, yes. That was when they got the right combination of bottle/position/temperature, and honestly some of it was probably physical ability. But I wouldn’t have been willing to leave her in the care of someone who was going to let her go hungry and thirsty until she mastered a particular skill, that’s abusive.

So your case is nothing like this. The judge doesn't care what you feel comfortable with, especially if he think you're using breastfeeding as a weapon to deny visitation. Like this mom is. The vast majority of babies will come around at this age to bottle refusal. The mother is framing it as being "ordered to stop breastfeeding" which it isn't. She's being asked to try her hardest to introduce bottles, or order to facilitate visitation with the baby's father. Instead of trying to do that the mom wants her pediatrician to write notes that say "breast is best" to get around it.

My case is precisely like this. The baby doesn’t take bottles, per the article and the order. A judge has ordered overnights with the father to begin in February— i.e now— so if the father intends to take those overnights it’s on the understanding he’s going to let his infant be hungry and thirsty all to make sure he’s not inconvenienced by carrying out visits in the baby’s home, or pay child support.

Hopefully the mom takes the baby to the pediatrician/ER immediately to document dehydration.

At six months baby can get BM or Formula via other sources like in cereal. Baby can have pureed food which is watery. Baby can use a sippy cup, open cup or can use other methods - plenty of different options now.

If the mom was that concerned about the child, she'd do what is best and help transition baby to other options along with breastfeeding. She is using BF as control. No 4-5 month old should be feeding hourly. Every 3 hours at that age.

Maybe someone should look into mom's behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, and what is wrong with this. It's not ok to deny parenting time over breastfeeding. Mom can pump, breastfeed and occasionally use a bottle to get baby ready for dad or other caretakers.

One of my kids wouldn’t take a bottle until she was almost 6 months old. We had a lot of motivation and tried 15 bottle types, but she was stubborn. She would have been dangerously dehydrated on this judge’s parenting plan.

According to the article, that's not at all what happened here. Mom is trying to say she can't pump enough, etc. and that ex can visit the baby while she's there to bf. Ex is saying she won't believe the relationship is over and is using bf as an excuse to try to make him spend time with her and not give him alone time with the baby. As another pp mentioned, the baby is old enough for some solids so this all is really a non issue at this point.

Just “some solids” and no liquids for a 48 hour stretch is not healthy for any infant.

Yet millions of babies can do it in the care of others.

^ meaning they can and will learn to accept a bottle, they don’t succumb to dehydration.

And until that happens they are hungry and thirsty and miserable and confused. When we had this at daycare, I had to leave work and go nurse the baby in the daytime. Yes she eventually learned but I wouldn’t leave my child in the care (paid or otherwise) of someone who would leave a baby hungry while they learned to use a bottle rather than calling their mother.

Was your baby 8 months old at the time?

I went back to work at 6M so slightly younger but still too young in both cases to rely on anything but breast milk/formula.

So for 6 months you raced back and forth to the daycare to nurse a baby, until it was 1 year old?

For about three months, yes. That was when they got the right combination of bottle/position/temperature, and honestly some of it was probably physical ability. But I wouldn’t have been willing to leave her in the care of someone who was going to let her go hungry and thirsty until she mastered a particular skill, that’s abusive.

And, yet, you made it work. This mother cannot be working if she is breastfeeding hourly so she can go to Dad's house 2-3 times a day to BF for 20 minutes each time and Dad can give puree's and cereal with BM or formula in it the other times. Lots of solutions for this situation.

Plenty of babies have this issue and yet, mom's like you who go back to work just figure it out. The difference is you were willing to figure it out and make it work and this mother is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I left my ex with a newborn and we agreed that he would take the older kids out and not take the newborn out until she was six months. He'd bring the older kids back and I'd take them somewhere and he'd spend one on one time with the newborn alone. Maybe two hours? I think we got up to 3.5 before I began pumping and sending her off with a bottle or two . I started pumping then, but he didn't have overnights with her until she was out of diapers.

She's 11 now and fully bonded with him no problem.

You sound horribly controlling. You used breastfeeding to punish him.

Did you miss the part where WE AGREED? And, I'll add there was zero interest from him in taking care of a baby. Even the older kids didn't want to go back to that house or sleep over there for a long time.

There was no we. You probably refused and that was the best you'd give him so he had no other choice but an expensive court battle. You left and probably got the kids to hate dad if they refused to go back to the house or sleep over. They were trying to make you happy as they lived with you.

You couldn't be more wrong. I swore to myself I'd never trash talk my ex to the kids and to this day I never have. They were uncomfortable with him after having seem him get physical with me many times. They were scared to to back to the house with all those memories and wanted to stay in public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I left my ex with a newborn and we agreed that he would take the older kids out and not take the newborn out until she was six months. He'd bring the older kids back and I'd take them somewhere and he'd spend one on one time with the newborn alone. Maybe two hours? I think we got up to 3.5 before I began pumping and sending her off with a bottle or two . I started pumping then, but he didn't have overnights with her until she was out of diapers.

She's 11 now and fully bonded with him no problem.

She isn’t fully blonde seeing her dad a few hours at a time and not actually lstaying with him. He’s like an uncle, not dad. You are terribly abusive and controlling.

She said the kid is 11 now. Do you think kids adopted at 3.5 can’t fully bond with their parents?

That isn't the same situation (parent through adoption). That poster is using BF as a way to restrict time with the kids and it makes no sense that he could see the older kids and not the baby. Not allowing overnights till the kid was out of diapers at 2-3-4 is truly despicable.

He had NO interest in changing diapers or being home and quiet by 7pm so the baby could stay on her sleep schedule. I am not sure he's EVER changed a diaper at all in his life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I left my ex with a newborn and we agreed that he would take the older kids out and not take the newborn out until she was six months. He'd bring the older kids back and I'd take them somewhere and he'd spend one on one time with the newborn alone. Maybe two hours? I think we got up to 3.5 before I began pumping and sending her off with a bottle or two . I started pumping then, but he didn't have overnights with her until she was out of diapers.

She's 11 now and fully bonded with him no problem.

You sound horribly controlling. You used breastfeeding to punish him.

Did you miss the part where WE AGREED? And, I'll add there was zero interest from him in taking care of a baby. Even the older kids didn't want to go back to that house or sleep over there for a long time.

There was no we. You probably refused and that was the best you'd give him so he had no other choice but an expensive court battle. You left and probably got the kids to hate dad if they refused to go back to the house or sleep over. They were trying to make you happy as they lived with you.

Where’s that fan fiction poster again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I left my ex with a newborn and we agreed that he would take the older kids out and not take the newborn out until she was six months. He'd bring the older kids back and I'd take them somewhere and he'd spend one on one time with the newborn alone. Maybe two hours? I think we got up to 3.5 before I began pumping and sending her off with a bottle or two . I started pumping then, but he didn't have overnights with her until she was out of diapers.

She's 11 now and fully bonded with him no problem.

You sound horribly controlling. You used breastfeeding to punish him.

Did you miss the part where WE AGREED? And, I'll add there was zero interest from him in taking care of a baby. Even the older kids didn't want to go back to that house or sleep over there for a long time.

There was no we. You probably refused and that was the best you'd give him so he had no other choice but an expensive court battle. You left and probably got the kids to hate dad if they refused to go back to the house or sleep over. They were trying to make you happy as they lived with you.

This is a great insight into the MRA brain. If a woman doesn’t comply with a man’s wishes he is the victim. A man has “no choice” if he is asked to put forth the same resources toward seeing his children as a woman does— or do you think lawyers for mothers work for free?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I left my ex with a newborn and we agreed that he would take the older kids out and not take the newborn out until she was six months. He'd bring the older kids back and I'd take them somewhere and he'd spend one on one time with the newborn alone. Maybe two hours? I think we got up to 3.5 before I began pumping and sending her off with a bottle or two . I started pumping then, but he didn't have overnights with her until she was out of diapers.

She's 11 now and fully bonded with him no problem.

You sound horribly controlling. You used breastfeeding to punish him.

Did you miss the part where WE AGREED? And, I'll add there was zero interest from him in taking care of a baby. Even the older kids didn't want to go back to that house or sleep over there for a long time.

There was no we. You probably refused and that was the best you'd give him so he had no other choice but an expensive court battle. You left and probably got the kids to hate dad if they refused to go back to the house or sleep over. They were trying to make you happy as they lived with you.

This is a great insight into the MRA brain. If a woman doesn’t comply with a man’s wishes he is the victim. A man has “no choice” if he is asked to put forth the same resources toward seeing his children as a woman does— or do you think lawyers for mothers work for free?

There is an office of child support and it’s free. There is no office of visitation. There are plenty of resources for free lawyers for mom. He is putting the resources to see his kids. He hired an attorney and is fighting for visitation. Isn’t that a good thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I left my ex with a newborn and we agreed that he would take the older kids out and not take the newborn out until she was six months. He'd bring the older kids back and I'd take them somewhere and he'd spend one on one time with the newborn alone. Maybe two hours? I think we got up to 3.5 before I began pumping and sending her off with a bottle or two . I started pumping then, but he didn't have overnights with her until she was out of diapers.

She's 11 now and fully bonded with him no problem.

She isn’t fully blonde seeing her dad a few hours at a time and not actually lstaying with him. He’s like an uncle, not dad. You are terribly abusive and controlling.

She said the kid is 11 now. Do you think kids adopted at 3.5 can’t fully bond with their parents?

That isn't the same situation (parent through adoption). That poster is using BF as a way to restrict time with the kids and it makes no sense that he could see the older kids and not the baby. Not allowing overnights till the kid was out of diapers at 2-3-4 is truly despicable.

He had NO interest in changing diapers or being home and quiet by 7pm so the baby could stay on her sleep schedule. I am not sure he's EVER changed a diaper at all in his life.

So, he does not do it exactly how you demand so he cannot have more than a few hour supervised visit. You are very controlling. My kids were never in bed by 7 pm and were just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I left my ex with a newborn and we agreed that he would take the older kids out and not take the newborn out until she was six months. He'd bring the older kids back and I'd take them somewhere and he'd spend one on one time with the newborn alone. Maybe two hours? I think we got up to 3.5 before I began pumping and sending her off with a bottle or two . I started pumping then, but he didn't have overnights with her until she was out of diapers.

She's 11 now and fully bonded with him no problem.

You sound horribly controlling. You used breastfeeding to punish him.

Did you miss the part where WE AGREED? And, I'll add there was zero interest from him in taking care of a baby. Even the older kids didn't want to go back to that house or sleep over there for a long time.

There was no we. You probably refused and that was the best you'd give him so he had no other choice but an expensive court battle. You left and probably got the kids to hate dad if they refused to go back to the house or sleep over. They were trying to make you happy as they lived with you.

You couldn't be more wrong. I swore to myself I'd never trash talk my ex to the kids and to this day I never have. They were uncomfortable with him after having seem him get physical with me many times. They were scared to to back to the house with all those memories and wanted to stay in public.

Then your situation is different than this one. There are no allegations of abuse or neglect. Your situation is not everyone’s.