Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discuss.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Discuss.

    Breastfeeding mother defies court order - Saskatoon - CBC News

  • #2
    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?

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          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.

          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.

          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

          Comment


          • #6
            "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.


            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              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"?

              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.

              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.

              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.

              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

              Comment


              • #8
                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...

                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?"

                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

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SadAndTired View Post
                      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.
                      There is no merit in your argument either.

                      You cannot compare smoking during pregnancy - which is not illegal and does not result in court action - with what would be in essence court-ordered breastfeeding.

                      We do not have the courts or the government impose strict nutritional requirements on 2 year olds, 5 year olds, or 10 year olds. It may be "better" to feed children organic soy milk and brown rice burgers, but we do not legislate that or have case law supporting it. Neither should we have case law or legislation that would essentially require breastfeeding.

                      We do not apprehend bottle-fed babies on the grounds of child endangerment or malnutrition. We should not keep these babies from their fathers just becasue a mother refuses to allow bottle feeding for 2 days a week.

                      The best interest of the child is not a single way of childrearing that is carved in granite. It is a broad spectrum that can include breastmilk, or formula or a combination, just as it can support home-schooling, private tutors, or general public education. It is black and white, and thinking that breastfeeding is the only option that should be supported by the courts is black and white thinking.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Brent Barilla, a family law lawyer in Saskatoon, isn't involved in this case but has dealt with similar ones. In more than 20 years practising law, he said he can't remember an outcome like this.
                        "I can't even recall a time where the court hasn't sort of gone out of its way to make sure that they respect that decision on the part of the mother and what that means to the child and work around that," he said.
                        Possibly Brent Barilla should consider that family has changed over the last 20 years and is starting to consider that mother's decisions are not the only ones that are important.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'm sure the courts also took into consideration what would happen if mom were unavailable due to illness, death or in this case incarceration.

                          If dad was an only parent, the baby would be bottle fed and nobody would take issue with it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mess View Post
                            There is no merit in your argument either.

                            You cannot compare smoking during pregnancy - which is not illegal and does not result in court action - with what would be in essence court-ordered breastfeeding.................It is black and white, and thinking that breastfeeding is the only option that should be supported by the courts is black and white thinking.
                            I never said the court should order breast feeding. I never said the woman in the article is right. I actually did say that I thought the dad deserved parenting time and meant it.

                            What I said was Tayken saying because everyone did it for years and turned out fine is a lame argument without merit. Do you think that the courts should make rulings based on that? Guess the tender years doctrine shouldn't have been overturned? People used it for years.

                            So much for science based medicine....... many people did it and turned out fine. It must be okay!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by blinkandimgone View Post
                              I'm sure the courts also took into consideration what would happen if mom were unavailable due to illness, death or in this case incarceration.

                              If dad was an only parent, the baby would be bottle fed and nobody would take issue with it.
                              It is sad that this has turned into a breastfeeding issue. To me, it is just about control.

                              The mom doesn't want to give the baby to dad. I get it. I would have found it really, really hard too with a baby that small. It takes a lot to be able to put aside your own feelings/emotions/conflict and let your child have a great relationship with the other parent.

                              But unfortunately the mom in the article lost a bit of my respect when she said she was willing to go to jail instead of letting dad see his baby. Really?? How does that help her baby at all?? At that moment, she showed her hand that it is about her controlling the situation instead of about breastfeeding her baby. She certainly can't do that from jail....
                              Last edited by SadAndTired; 07-20-2013, 12:21 PM.

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X