Mind how you breast feed

bjork

Woman accused of breastfeeding her daughter in a way that was calculated to ‘frustrate’ contact between the child and her father has the child removed from her custody

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3071048/Gagging-mother-forced-hand-baby-daughter-gay-dad.html#ixzz3ZP3NNbLH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



Well, I'm not an expert on breast feeding but I can't fathom what technique she was using that would do this.


The child was placed with the biological father and his same sex partner. They they had made a seedy surrogacy deal with the woman but she changed her mind, then she used her breast feeding techniques against him.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Misleading title is misleading...

Gatling

bjork wrote: »

Woman accused of breastfeeding her daughter in a way that was calculated to ‘frustrate’ contact between the child and her father has the child removed from her custody

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3071048/Gagging-mother-forced-hand-baby-daughter-gay-dad.html#ixzz3ZP3NNbLH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



Well, I'm not an expert on breast feeding but I can't fathom what technique she was using that would do this.


The child was placed with the biological father and his same sex partner. They they had made a seedy surrogacy deal with the woman but she changed her mind, then she used her breast feeding techniques against him.

This is the case involving 3 Romanians that got some press Monday and then disappeared

After the forced C section against a bi polar tourist and adoption of her child I'm suprised we've got another similar case again

strobe

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa!!! So this 'woman' is a feminist that is not only unmarried, but also loves murdering little sick kiddies?

Top notch journoism as expected.

smash

Come on OP, this wasn't just about breastfeeding. That played a very small part.

bjork

Preston Tight Shellfish wrote: »

Misleading title is misleading...

Not really misleading

#
Mind how you breast feed ; you could be doing it in a manner which frustrates the father? >>What ever that means

or your children will be taken off you and give to a same sex couple


Secret courts can not be questioned

The_Valeyard

strobe wrote: »

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa!!! So this 'woman' is a feminist that is not only unmarried, but also loves murdering little sick kiddies?

Top notch journoism as expected.

Did we just read two completely different articles??

Mr. Incognito

Whaaaat?

Tomato juice purple monkey dishwasher fizz wallop

bjork

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Did we just read two completely different articles??

The judge is the unmarried, cohabitor, feminist


I'm not sure who murdered the babies

Flood

Blame it on the weatherman

silverfeather

Yay more mommy guilting.

ceadaoin.

bjork wrote: »

Not really misleading

#
Mind how you breast feed ; you could be doing it in a manner which frustrates the father? >>What ever that means

or your children will be taken off you and give to a same sex couple


Secret courts can not be questioned

The BBC article sheds some light on the breastfeeding issue. I think the breaks taken to express milk must be what the daily Mail is talking about

A baby girl should be removed from her mother and live with her father and his boyfriend instead, a judge has ruled.
The judgement follows a legal fight over the nature of the parents' agreement when the child was conceived.
The woman said they had agreed for her to be the main parent, but the father, who donated sperm, said she had agreed to be the gay couple's surrogate.
Ms Justice Russell said it was in the "best interests" of the one-year-old girl to live with her father.
The High Court case was heard in London and Birmingham earlier this year, but the decision has just been published.

"The pregnancy was contrived with the aim of a same-sex couple having a child to form a family assisted by a friend, " the judge said.
"Therefore [the girl] living with [the two men] and spending time with [the woman] from time to time fortunately coincides with the reality of her conception and accords with [the girl's] identity and place within her family."
'Offensive language'
Ms Justice Russell said the woman had used "offensive language" including "stereotypical images and descriptions of gay men" and had "insinuated that gay men in same-sex relationships behave in a sexually disinhibited manner" and were "sexually disloyal to each other".
She also said the woman had "disrupted" the men's evidence and said proceedings were "interrupted on numerous occasions" so that the woman could express breast milk.
Interruptions were "noticeably" fewer and shorter when the woman gave evidence, she said.

Joeseph Balls

I love the part of the friend so willing to go to jail for her....
Asking only to be known as 'Tom'.

bjork

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The BBC article sheds some light on the breastfeeding issue. I think the breaks taken to express milk must be what the daily Mail is talking about

This is added by the mirror
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/baby-removed-mother-live-gay-5643126


"S has repeatedly used the emotive image of a child being removed from her mother's breast and refused breast milk as part of her attempts to gain sympathy and opprobrium for the applicants and the court."

She added: "It is not in the interests of any child to use breast-feeding, or co-sleeping , to curtail that child's interaction with another parent or to deny her an opportunity to develop a healthy relationship with that parent.




The judge said: "S has consistently done all she can to minimise the role that H has in the child's life and to control and curtail his contact with his daughter.

She said there were concerns about the mother's "over emotional and highly involved role in the infant's life."




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2635711/Call-Ms-says-judge-Newly-appointed-High-Court-justice-use-title.html

The judge was the first one to use the title Ms. Seems like she has an agenda or two

silverfeather

I was not breastfed I'm grand.

Reading the article it's clear she renegaded on her promise to hand the child over. And she was in full knowledge of this when she made the agreement with the gay fathers.

ceadaoin.

bjork wrote: »

This is added by the mirror
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/baby-removed-mother-live-gay-5643126


"S has repeatedly used the emotive image of a child being removed from her mother's breast and refused breast milk as part of her attempts to gain sympathy and opprobrium for the applicants and the court."

She added: "It is not in the interests of any child to use breast-feeding, or co-sleeping , to curtail that child's interaction with another parent or to deny her an opportunity to develop a healthy relationship with that parent.




The judge said: "S has consistently done all she can to minimise the role that H has in the child's life and to control and curtail his contact with his daughter.

She said there were concerns about the mother's "over emotional and highly involved role in the infant's life."

You can read the court judgement here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2015/36.html

there is a lot more to it than breastfeeding. Here is the quote in full anyway

It cannot be argued that breast feeding brings health benefits to a child however the determined way in which S used it to limit M's contact with H is plain to see. At first in April 2014 S said (in her statement filed with the court) that she wanted to breast feed "for as long as 9 month[sic]"; but by the time she gave evidence before me there was no suggested date or time when breast feeding would come to an end. S has repeated used the emotive image of a child being removed from her mother's breast and refused breast milk as part of her attempts to gain sympathy and opprobrium for the Applicants and the court. It is not in the interests of any child to use breast-feeding, or co-sleeping, to curtail that child's interaction with another parent or to deny her an opportunity to develop a healthy relationship with that parent. I have little doubt that that is what S set out to do, at least in part, and it was an action which was contrary to M's best interests and emotional well-being.

silverfeather

Her other children had been taken away from her too. She was deemed unfit.

bjork

ceadaoin. wrote: »

You can read the court judgement here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2015/36.html

there is a lot more to it than breastfeeding. Here is the quote in full anyway

Thanks

Just wondering before I read it: Can I set myself up as a baby farm?

silverfeather

bjork wrote: »

Thanks

Just wondering before I read it: Can I set myself up as a baby farm?

No Irish law prohibits your profiting from it thankfully.

galljga1

strobe wrote: »

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa!!! So this 'woman' is a feminist that is not only unmarried, but also loves murdering little sick kiddies?

Top notch journoism as expected.

WTF?

Detached Retina

I was surprised just on the premise, say, that she'd changed her mind,wasn't given custody. Only because, not sure about the UK - but in law,here it says the birth mother will always be the legal mother (I'm aware of a case that went on not long ago, I think a womans sister had a baby for her and both were petitioning to amend the birth cert?) In the US, particularly if it's your egg, you can change your mind? I guess it's different in the UK.
The article in the indo was a lot less sensational sounding than this one, but I do wonder,was she reacting violently as she thought she's be playing more of a role than they decided or just changed her mind?

ceadaoin.

Detached Retina wrote: »

I was surprised just on the premise, say, that she'd changed her mind,wasn't given custody. Only because, not sure about the UK - but in law,here it says the birth mother will always be the legal mother (I'm aware of a case that went on not long ago, I think a womans sister had a baby for her and both were petitioning to amend the birth cert?) In the US, particularly if it's your egg, you can change your mind? I guess it's different in the UK.
The article in the indo was a lot less sensational sounding than this one, but I do wonder,was she reacting violently as she thought she's be playing more of a role than they decided or just changed her mind?

She isn't saying she changed her mind though.. She is denying that she ever agreed to be a surrogate to the couple. Instead she claims that that the agreement was between her and the father for him to basically be a sperm donor so she could have another child and she would be the main carer.

There seems to be evidence in emails though that she was agreeing to be a surrogate. She also continually blocked the father having access by taking the child to hospital and GP appointments with made up complaints on the nights that he was supposed to take the child.

She has form for sending her other children to live in Romania so that their father could not see them. And she called the guys family in Romania and told them that he was gay and living with another man. She sounds unhinged tbh and this is probably why the judge reached the decision to grant full custody to the father.

The Backwards Man

We're Not Going To Take It

_Whimsical_

A very sad sounding case overall. Looking through the judgement parts would strike me as quite odd like what's in the below quoted text being so poorly looked upon. I know highly educated professional people who actively court exactly this behaviour as"attachment parenting", who have left good jobs especially to do it fully believing from copious research and keen interest in their child's wellbeing that it is best.
Considering that by the judges admission the child is well cared for by the mother it seems strange to make the below part of a judgement against her. Why would her breast feeding be presumed to be solely to frustrate a legal arrangement if she was also carrying her baby around all day and sleeping with her at night?

The attachment which will develop in an infant who sleeps with her mother, spends all day being carried by her mother and is breastfed on demand through out the day and night raises questions about the long term effect on M. From the point of view of this judgment it further begs the question as to who benefits most from the regime S has chosen to impose without reference to M's father, H. I have little doubt that the breast-feeding was used a device to frustrate contact during the proceedings, a conclusion supported by S claiming at first that she could not express her milk which so reduced the time available for contact; subsequently when it was clear that M could be fed and was able to eat other foods S no longer had difficulty expressing milk. I am forced to conclude that S has shown herself to be unable to put M first and that she is unable to meet M's emotional needs now and in the long term.

The judge seems to be of the opinion that she got into this arrangement because she wanted a baby herself and had no intention of ever handing the baby over. There are easier ways you'd think to achieve if she was so minded.

silverfeather

There were other issues. Her other children had been taken away as she was found to be unfit.

_Whimsical_

silverfeather wrote: »

There were other issues. Her other children had been taken away as she was found to be unfit.

The thing is though that they were not issues considered by the judge in the judgement so they were not relevant to the case, the decision was made as if her older daughters had never existed or as if there had no been no trouble surrounding their care. This judgement would be the same if you or I had acted as she did in this one case with no previous record to bias the judge.

I cannot reach properly any conclusions about the two older girls' relationship with their mother and I do not intend to do so; nor do I rely on any conclusions reached by the guardian in this case about the proceedings or S's conduct in those proceedings apart from those which are based on those admitted and accepted facts referred to above. I do not intend to make any findings or place any reliance on S's relationship with her two elder daughters; I have not heard or read the evidence and therefore cannot do so. I am concerned with M and there is more than sufficient evidence before this court to reach conclusions about S's parenting abilities, her conduct and her credibility in relation to the matters which concern M.

ceadaoin.

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

A very sad sounding case overall. Looking through the judgement parts would strike me as quite odd like what's in the below quoted text being so poorly looked upon. I know highly educated professional people who actively court exactly this behaviour as"attachment parenting", who have left good jobs especially to do it fully believing from copious research and keen interest in their child's wellbeing that it is best.
Considering that by the judges admission the child is well cared for by the mother it seems strange to make the below part of a judgement against her. Why would her breast feeding be presumed to be solely to frustrate a legal arrangement if she was also carrying her baby around all day and sleeping with her at night?



The judge seems to be of the opinion that she got into this arrangement because she wanted a baby herself and had no intention of ever handing the baby over. There are easier ways you'd think to achieve if she was so minded.

Yes I really don't agree with what the judge says here either. Lots of research suggests that attachment parenting is beneficial to the child and has no detrimental effect on their future independence, quite the opposite in fact.

The rest of the judgement though seems sound enough based on the other evidence.

JupiterKid

So many controversial issues rolled into one in the OP. This is certainly an odd and unusual case.

_Whimsical_

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes I really don't agree with what the judge says here either. Lots of research suggests that attachment parenting is beneficial to the child and has no detrimental effect on their future independence, quite the opposite in fact.

The rest of the judgement though seems sound enough based on the other evidence.

I agree with you about the attachment parenting. I had another look at the judgement though and it all seems a bit odd to me now. The just says she's not seeking to enforce any initial agreement between the party. It nearly seems from reading that there wasn't a definite arrangement in place and again the court didn't rely on the arrangement or consider it absolutely binding or seek to enforce it.

125. It is not the function of this court to decide on the nature of the agreement between H, B and S and then either enforce it or put it in place. It is the function of the court to decide what best serves the interests and welfare of this child throughout her childhood.

Yet her biggest issue with the mother seemed to be the attachment parenting which the rest of us hear is a great idea. Who has heard of an independant 15 month old after all and the judgement also mentions a supervisor who oversaw babies and noted the baby to be healthy,happy and smiling.

119. At present S is able to care for M well physically but there are already grounds for concerns about her mother's over emotional and highly involved role in this infant's life. Ultimately the role of a parent is to help the child to become independent. This is a child who at 15 months old is still carried by her mother in a sling on her body. M spends most of her time with her mother who does not set out any timetable for returning to work, as S would have to, to provide for M and for herself. There is a potential for enmeshment and stifling attachment rather than a healthy outward looking approach to the child's life. The question is who benefits most from this chosen regime which points towards an inability to put the child's needs before her mother's need or desire for closeness.