Judge tells mother to wean or pump... - Page 3

[thismama]

Originally Posted by Marsupialmom

It isn't the fact that he paid child support but his willingness to and his moving to be closer to his child that says this dad is trying to be with his child.

Meh, we could equally say that she informed him of the pregnancy and didn't make him prove paternity. So she has gone out of her way also.

I can't swallow hook line and sinker moms view neither his.

I want to know what she has offered as a compromise. She said she gave him plenty of visitation.......but she hasn't given examples how she has done it. Nor has she given examples of how she wants to work a compromise.

Because we don't jump up in a mom's defense doesn't mean we are misogynist. It means we need more information.

As much as I value/d my children's nursing relatioship what compromises has she been willing to make?

Why aren't we willing to say jump up and give it all her way --- she isn't the only parent and the child deserves both parents.

Nobody is suggesting giving it 'all her way' or denying access altogether (which she has not ever said she wanted to do, just to be clear). The opposite of 'access all on his terms' would be 'no access,' not 'access that supports the need of a young child to not be removed for significant periods from the mother.' The latter is called balance.

[ramama]

Originally Posted by Marsupialmom

It isn't the fact that he paid child support but his willingness to and his moving to be closer to his child that says this dad is trying to be with his child.

I can't swallow hook line and sinker moms view neither his.

I want to know what she has offered as a compromise. She said she gave him plenty of visitation.......but she hasn't given examples how she has done it. Nor has she given examples of how she wants to work a compromise.

Because we don't jump up in a mom's defense doesn't mean we are misogynist. It means we need more information.

As much as I value/d my children's nursing relatioship what compromises has she been willing to make?

Why aren't we willing to say jump up and give it all her way --- she isn't the only parent and the child deserves both parents.

I totally agree. I need to know what "plenty of visitation" means. Does it mean he comes over for an hour every week? Does it mean that he actually gets to take the child for 3-4 hours twice a week? My neighbor thinks her ex gets plenty of visitation, only seeing the kids for one week once a year.

I also agree that hesitating to jump into blind defense of a mother simply because she's breastfeeding, and hesitating to crucify the man regardless, is NOT misogynistic.

Originally Posted by thismama

It is unfortunate that fathers (and nonbio mothers in lesbian relationships) get 'set up' to believe parenting can be 50/50 from the beginning. It cannot. Bio mothers are also set up by this lie. I know I was, I had wildly different expectations of how it would be to mother a baby because of it. We would do well to shift that little bit of misinformation. In this situation, the father wouldn't have been waiting/badgering from the beginning, and wouldn't have had unrealistic expectations of his newborn/toddler's capacity. And the mother wouldn't be getting a ginormous guilt trip.

Then why do women want it to be 50/50 financially, sometimes even more (like father carrying health insurance and life insurance)? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[thismama]

Originally Posted by ramama

I totally agree. I need to know what "plenty of visitation" means. Does it mean he comes over for an hour every week? Does it mean that he actually gets to take the child for 3-4 hours twice a week? My neighbor thinks her ex gets plenty of visitation, only seeing the kids for one week once a year.

I also agree that hesitating to jump into blind defense of a mother simply because she's breastfeeding, and hesitating to crucify the man regardless, is NOT misogynistic.

It's called jumping to the blind defense of a mother because she is being crucified in the legal system and the media for breastfeeding. And for not giving overnights with a breastfed newborn. Apparently this is a cardinal sin and you should get primary physical custody removed from you as a result. Which is exactly what seems to have happened as this judgment is clearly punitive. Physical custody is rarely changed unless the parent is unfit, and shared custody is rarely granted unless requested by both parties. Hmm. You decide.

Then why do women want it to be 50/50 financially, sometimes even more (like father carrying health insurance and life insurance)? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Women: a - do the bulk of the actual work of childcare in situations where they have primary physical custody, and b - are much more likely than men to end up in poverty after a divorce, in a little thing called the 'feminization of poverty.' Your information is entirely offbase.

[ramama]

I've only read the articles linked to in this thread, and have not detected any crucifixion of the mother for breastfeeding. She has had the opportunity to speak to the media, and she did. She defended herself and explained herself. The father has not spoken to the media. It's basic human decency to withhold judgment until both parties have spoken.

Regarding custody and financial support, you contradicted yourself. Yes, women who have more than 50/50 custody do most of the childcare. That's basic math. But if the woman isn't allowing the father suitable access to the child, they should not expect financial equality either. So saying that women do most of the work, therefore the men need to pay more, while denying the father equal access to the child, so the mother has to do more work, is nonsensical. Of course she's doing all the work, she won't let the father see the child for reasonable lengths of time!

AGAIN, I am not agreeing with the father here. The mother has spoken her mind in the media, so I think we can more freely discuss her actions and her motives, whereas the father has not. So I think we have to wait for him to address the issues.

[thismama]

- Access and support are not linked. So your argument makes no sense. It is not a 'pay one price play all day' county fair admission we are talking about here. He would have the right to access even if he paid no support. That is the legal reality. And it is not women who expect financial support, it is the right of the child, whether the mother wants it or not. Alimony is support of the woman, child support is (partial) support of the child.

- We have no idea that she wouldn't let the father see the child for reasonable lengths of time. We know the judge made a punitive ruling. In cases where there is dispute about access you go before a judge for resolution. The judge doesn't punish the person who he thinks got it 'wrong' before they went to court. And this ruling is punitive, for reasons I already outlined. If the judge thought the father asked for too much access, we wouldn't expect him to rule for no access at all and say, 'Oh well he made his bed, should have worked it out with her beforehand.' No.

Again: Misogyny.

[Adsullata]

I have to agree with This Mama.

Pardon me for belatedly jumping in, but I noticed a couple things in the articles that seem to quite clearly *punish* the mother in this case.

The custody ruling granted custody to the father Thur thru Sun or Mon of [B]each[B] week. The article stated that the mother works with her mother in a daycare. The mother has no weekends with her young child. This is granting *extra* to the father. Father have rights to their children, and I agree a father's relationship with his child is as important as the mother's. However, those relationships take different forms at different times in the child's life and when a young, breastfed child he/she necessarily needs mother regularly in each 24 hour period and the father's relationship is and will be different than the mothers. Arbitrarily setting up "50/50" time doesn't seem beneficial to the child.

As far as her just pumping and handing over her child. I take personal issue with someone saying, oh just pump and give her a bottle. Not everyone is able to do so. Part of why I ended up being a stay at home mom, was because I was unable to pump milk. Not for lack of trying. I worked with a lactation consultant extensively and tried multiple pumps, hand expression, you name it. The amount of milk I pumped was pathetic (try 2 oz. from a week's worth of effort). My baby can nurse all day long no problem, but I still can't seem to warm up to a pump, no matter what relaxation techniques or anything else that I try. The second article mentions that the mother in this case tried two different pumps and neither worked. I'm inclined to believe her.

I also take issue with the Judge writing in his ruling that the mother's "unwillingness to give a timetable as to when the breastfeeding would end restricted Cavannah's exhaustive efforts to play a larger role in his daughter's life." Unwilling?? So, because she's not willing to forcibly wean her child, she's restricting the father's access? Why should any mother be *required* to give a timetable? Different babies wean at different times. Frankly, the father should be thinking of his daughter here and try to stop seeing it as the mother *interfering*. I don't know of any child that can be forced to nurse. This case seems to clearly be saying that the mother is nursing to keep the father away. That is laughable.

[lil_miss_understood]

Originally Posted by ramama

Then why do women want it to be 50/50 financially, sometimes even more (like father carrying health insurance and life insurance)? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Newsflash: they live in a province where child support is based on the payer's gross income. An example: the amount of support expected to be paid by a person earning $1000 (Gross) per month is $66. Certainly doesn't sound like "50/50 financial responsibility" to me, considering the cost of clothes, food, water, electricity, entertainment....
And we don't know that he's even paying by the Ontario guidelines- just that he's paying *something* without going to court. Whoop de doo. For all we know, it's WAY below guidelines because it's "what he can afford" (since we all know that the child support guidelines *can* get pretty punitive as your income increases, although, imo and ime, Ontario's are pretty fair to the payer).
Honestly, I don't think his "not dragging his family into the media" shows anything besides the fact that he feels perfectly justified and is quite satisfied with how he and the mother are both being portrayed.
Also, as pps have stated, whether the child is nursing or not, I think that expecting a young child to be shuffled constantly from one home to another is terribly traumatizing. Even older children have been shown to have difficulties adjusting to such a schedule, to put it lightly. There's this strange little thing children need called stability and, imo, the judge is completely disregarding that.
Of course, I'm also a cynical ex-single mom. :

[annettemarie]

Mamas, I am really, really sorry to close this thread--there's some great conversation here--but in keeping with MDC Guidelines, I need to:

Members may discuss news items in appropriate parenting forums such as breastfeeding items in lactivism, birth related items in the birth forums or chickenpox outbreaks in Health & Healing. However, keep in mind that threads still need to remain on-topic for the forum and should not be about individuals but about the general topic.

What someone could do is start a thread about custody issues and breastfeeding advocacy (which is, after all, the focus of this forum). Then this case could be used as one example among others. Please keep in mind, however, that it is outside the scope of this forum to judge this mother's motives in wanting to continue to breastfeed her child.

As always, feel free to PM me with any questions or concerns.