Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > General Chat

General Chat This forum is for discussing anything that doesn't fit into another forum, or for discussing things that are off topic, or just for general venting.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2013, 06:57 AM
wretchedotis's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ON
Posts: 2,317
wretchedotis is on a distinguished road
Default Discuss.

Breastfeeding mother defies court order - Saskatoon - CBC News
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2013, 10:31 AM
Janibel's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Way up North
Posts: 1,496
Janibel will become famous soon enough
Default

This is outrageous, forget what the judge ruled - how can a father not want his infant to receive the best possible care?

The article mentions a no contact order between litigants so I am supposing there had to be some kind of DV/cruelty issues going on.

As to the lawyer who went forth with this action ... shameful truly shameful. It boggles the mind that the court would even hear this in the first place. If simple logic prevailed in this case - shared custody could have included an appropriate time when infant could accept formula rather than natural milk?

This ruling creates a dangerous precedent, what's next? prenatal joint custody?
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2013, 11:17 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Posts: 5,241
standing on the sidelines is on a distinguished road
Default

the father has every right to have his child on weekends. If she cannot/will not pump then formula is the way to go. Lots of kids do quite well on formula.

What about father/child bonding etc? This so called mother is trying to use the breastfeeding arguement to cut the father out.

Why hasnt the two year old been seeing the father on the weekends as per the custody arrangement that already is in place??

Janibel are you jumping to conclusions that there maybe DV or whatever against the father? The cause of the no contact order could be because of something the mother did.

The mother should not be standing in the way of the father bonding with his kids and his parenting time.
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2013, 11:49 AM
Janibel's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Way up North
Posts: 1,496
Janibel will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by standing on the sidelines View Post


Janibel are you jumping to conclusions that there maybe DV or whatever against the father? The cause of the no contact order could be because of something the mother did.
I'm sorry, but you are the one jumping to conclusions, I did not say that it was the father who was responsible for the no contact order - I simply stated that it existed between them, making matters more difficult. Please re-read my comments.

I totally agree that a father has the right to 50/50 custody, but surely the rights of the infant come first? Do you think that kiddo will need b/milk for another 10 years? Without getting all technical, some woman cannot use pumps for whatever reasons ... Daddy should think of the baby's health instead of his hurt pride.
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2013, 11:50 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
the father has every right to have his child on weekends. If she cannot/will not pump then formula is the way to go. Lots of kids do quite well on formula.
Excellent observations. In fact, I suspect that formula and cows milk was the liquid of choice that many of the adult posters were fed as a child themselves. The recent and modern lactivist have a poor argument in my opinion as generations of non-breastfed children exist in North America (Canada) and have grown up to be successful and productive adults.

In addition, I agree that pumping would be an excellent alternative and if the breastfeeding is being done in the "best interests" of the child then the mother can simply on the weekend pump the breast milk and freeze it. My recommendation would be to freeze it in ice cube trays as it roughly measures to an ounce. The mother than can provide the frozen breast milk to the father and it should be ample to support the child's needs while on the weekend access visits with the father.

Pumping if done properly can continue on the same feeding cycle and the milk can be frozen.

In the alternative the father can leverage a milk bank in the area to obtain breastmilk. There are a few breast milk banks in Canada where mothers continue to pump and provide breast milk for other children. If the real root of the "need" for the child is breast milk there are many alternatives.

No children starve to death (to the best of my knowledge) if a mother is unable to breastfeed in the country of Canada. So, the argument that only specifically this mother's milk coming from her breast is a poor argument in my opinion. Mother's die unfortunately given birth and are unable to get breast milk... They still are fed, grow up and become adults.

Quote:
Originally Posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
What about father/child bonding etc? This so called mother is trying to use the breastfeeding arguement to cut the father out.
It is a commonly known "truism" to use "breastfeeding" as an argument to establish a status quo. It is quite common before the courts despite what the lawyer in the article is quoted as saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
Janibel are you jumping to conclusions that there maybe DV or whatever against the father? The cause of the no contact order could be because of something the mother did.
My interpretation is that the no-contact order is mutual. Mutual restraining orders are exactly that... Mutual and a mutually shared responsibility to enforce by both parties.

Considering that this matter, which is not even posted to CanLII has become public knowledge through the media is concerning. Clearly the mother, whom is photographed in the article, contacted the media to share the story. My recommendation to the father would be to bring a motion on an urgent basis seeking protection for the children's identities in this matter and that the media be banned from reporting the names of the children and party. It would be quite easy to get this put in place considering the very relevant evidence of this article in the public media. As well as the fact that a public citizen found it and posted it to this very forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
The mother should not be standing in the way of the father bonding with his kids and his parenting time.
The mother should not be using the "court of public opinion" and exposing her children and family to public scrutiny in this manner. It is not in the children's "best interests" for their mother to be doing interviews with the public media in this manner.

Good Luck!
Tayken
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2013, 11:52 AM
blinkandimgone's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lucknow
Posts: 5,226
blinkandimgone has a spectacular aura aboutblinkandimgone has a spectacular aura aboutblinkandimgone has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
"I'm not handing him over," she told CBC News. "I don't care if I have to go to jail."
So send her to jail, problem solved. She's clearly willing to give up breastfeeding and caring for both of her children to be there.

Quote:

On top of that, she said the boy has been doing a lot of cluster feeding and she loves the bonding.
I'll bet that dad would love to be 'allowed' to bond with what is his child, too.

This mom should be ashamed of herself and I hope the judge does do something to enforce his order, especially now that's it's gone public in the news.
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2013, 11:59 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janibel View Post
This is outrageous, forget what the judge ruled - how can a father not want his infant to receive the best possible care?
It is not "outragious". See my response to SOTS on various alternatives to insure the child is fed breast milk while residing with the father.

Why is the child residing with the father and being bottle fed not the "best possible care"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janibel View Post
The article mentions a no contact order between litigants so I am supposing there had to be some kind of DV/cruelty issues going on.
Why wouldn't it be a mutual no-contact order between the parents? The father was ordered every weekend access with the children. Generally this wouldn't happen at all if "domestic violence" was truly an issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janibel View Post
As to the lawyer who went forth with this action ... shameful truly shameful.
Why is the lawyer "shameful"? The father is asking for the courts to assist in insuring that the children have proper access to both parents. The lawyer and the father have absolutely every right to seek an order to this fact.

It would be shameful if lawyers refused to take the father on as a client and against their code of conduct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janibel View Post
It boggles the mind that the court would even hear this in the first place.
It certainly doesn't "boggle" my mind at all. If you have read anything on the elusive "status quo" and what happens when a parent isn't equally involved and expressing their rights to equal access and joint custody of the children, even at this age, it is expected, desired and encouraged to seek the court's assistance.

The tender years doctrine is no longer around. Both parents are equal caregivers and the "best interests" - not the age of children - determine custody and access.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janibel View Post
This ruling creates a dangerous precedent, what's next? prenatal joint custody?
No it doesn't create a "dangerous precedent". It isn't even posted to CanLII that I can find. What the mother may be setting is a "dangerous president" of attempting to use the "court of public opinion" to "win" custody and majority access from a parent who clearly is seeking to be an equal parent.

Good Luck!
Tayken
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2013, 12:05 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blinkandimgone View Post
So send her to jail, problem solved. She's clearly willing to give up breastfeeding and caring for both of her children to be there.
Brilliant observation. If the mother is willing to go to jail, where she certainly unable to breastfeed and would dramatically limit her access to the child and ability to parent is very telling.

In fact, one would have to consider the quote from a justice recently in context to the comments being made by other posters...

Quote:
Ms. Scrivo has argued that Mr. Scrivo needs to make an effort. It is ironic that she does not notice that he brought a trial for access to occur and has had five court attendances to make the access materialize..
Not sure if these posters see the "irony" to the fact they are making comments about lawyers having no-shame for representing the father in bringing forward the matter to court. "Isn't ironic don't you think?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by blinkandimgone View Post
This mom should be ashamed of herself and I hope the judge does do something to enforce his order, especially now that's it's gone public in the news.
And in consideration to this evolving case law known well to this community and forum:

http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...tml#post143013

Good Luck!
Tayken
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2013, 12:21 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,144
SadAndTired is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Excellent observations. In fact, I suspect that formula and cows milk was the liquid of choice that many of the adult posters were fed as a child themselves. The recent and modern lactivist have a poor argument in my opinion as generations of non-breastfed children exist in North America (Canada) and have grown up to be successful and productive adults.
This argument has no merit at all. Many women drank and smoke during pregnancy in the past too. Does that mean it is in the best interest of the child? No.

I am not saying that the dad shouldn't have time. He needs time to bond as well and should have parenting time with his kids.

But to leverage the argument that something is okay because people did it for years and turned out fine, is ridiculous and simplified. I am surprised at you Tayken. Usually your arguments are better thought out.
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2013, 12:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Posts: 5,241
standing on the sidelines is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janibel View Post
I'm sorry, but you are the one jumping to conclusions, I did not say that it was the father who was responsible for the no contact order - I simply stated that it existed between them, making matters more difficult. Please re-read my comments.

I totally agree that a father has the right to 50/50 custody, but surely the rights of the infant come first? Do you think that kiddo will need b/milk for another 10 years? Without getting all technical, some woman cannot use pumps for whatever reasons ... Daddy should think of the baby's health instead of his hurt pride.
I did re-read your comments and it seemed like you were using the reasoning that there was a DV or other issue between the parties. The father (and his kids) are the ones being denied access so I thought your reasoning was that he mustve done something bad. My apologies. You also never mentioned that you thought it made matters more difficult in your orginal post.

The father is thinking of the childs needs of being with their father on a regular basis. Who says his pride is hurt??? He wants to parent his child and if he needed to take her to court to do it then so be it. What she is doing is wrong and doing harm to the father child bonding process.
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
health and dental care... Suzie Parenting Issues 1 04-21-2013 12:05 PM
I think she is unstable... what's next? singledadoftwogirls Divorce & Family Law 35 04-10-2012 10:55 PM
Sample Parenting Plan first timer Parenting Issues 11 11-18-2011 01:54 AM
Co-parenting ----post divorce bearall Parenting Issues 14 05-25-2010 12:14 PM
How to discuss parenting Foredeck Parenting Issues 3 09-14-2009 12:16 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:31 PM.