It's difficult to live in TX and not get swept up with the drama surrounding the FLDS women and children. On one hand, 400+ children have just been separated from their mothers and families and placed in foster care. As a mother, this breaks my heart. On the other hand, 400+ children have just been rescued from a potentially harmful situation as stories of underage marriage and abuse circulate. As a mother, I hope the children are safe.
The situtation raises an interesting question about the rights of nursing mothers in FLDS, who at the moment are innocent-until-proven guilty. Do nursing FLDS women have a right to stay with their children? Or, as they are possibliy complicit in the charges of child abuse is it best to separate them from their children? Texas judge Barbara Walther ruled in favor of the latter, using as part of her argument the excuse that "women every day in this country go back to work after six weeks of maternity leave." Thus, she does not see the big deal in separating a nursing infant from his/her mother. However, those of us who have BF understand that this is a very big deal. Furthermore, many women continue to pump well after they return to work, ensuring that their babies benefit from breast milk. Will the FLDS women be allowed the same privlege? Or, will their infants be forced to wean suddenly and be denied the continued benefits of their mother's milk?
Texas judge Barber Walther responded to the FLDS women's plea by saying that women every day in this country go back to work after six weeks of maternity leave; in other words, get over it, it's no big deal to wean. She then placed the decision making in CPS's hands, who will deal with nursing women on a case-by-case basis. Currently, they'll allow teenage nursing mothers to remain with their infants, but not adult women. A blog of BF advocates has sprung out of this mess: http://fldsbreastmilk.blogspot.com/
6 comments:
Hi P-Duck,
Thus, she does not see the big deal in separating a nursing infant from his/her mother. However, those of us who have BF understand that this is a very big deal.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this, as I think bringing breastfeeding into the equation of separating an infant from his or her mother is an essentialist argument. What of those mothers (or fathers) who are the primary caretakers of their infants? What if the child won't take a bottle from anyone else? Is it fair to separate an eating child from a primary caretaker?
I understand that breastfeeding is important to some people, but I think this discounts those women who cannot breastfeed (either for medical reasons or because they adopted their children) or even fathers who are perhaps the primary or only parent taking care of the child. It is traumatic for a parent, regardless of how they feed their child, to be separated from an infant. I don't think a mother should get special dispensation because she breastfeeds. I think the infants should be placed with their primary caretaker, as that would be best for the infants, overall. It is in no way better for the non-breastfeeding children to be remanded to the state, while the breastfeeding children get to stay with their mothers.
Ciao,
Amy
Amy reads - I agree that it is traumatic for any child, BF or otherwise, to be separated from their primary caregiver. This is one of the many issues involved in this case. In fact, there's an example of a former FLDS father who tried to retrieve his sons and was denied. There are no easy answers here. However, I do believe that the forced and premature weaning of an infant is a big deal. The mother runs the risk of losing her supply, unless she is able to pump, which then raises the cost and availability issue of pumps. The baby loses access to what the American Pediatric Association deems the best nutrition for a baby during the first year of its life. Furthermore, what of babies like baby p-duck who refuse to take a bottle? Will foster families have the patience or time to work with the infant?
It is no doubt painful for mothers of non-BF infants to also be separated from their children. Again, no easy answers here; especially in light of the charges against the FLDS.
Amy R., you raise some good points, and I completely agree that removing children(not only infants) from homes they are accustomed to (even from primary caregivers who may be abusive) is incredibly traumatic. That said, I have to disagree that p-duck's post discounts the relationship between infants and caregivers who cannot or do not breastfeed. I think this particular issue and p-duck's resulting post gets to a larger issue in our society: Americans still struggle with accepting breast feeding as the norm.
From a somewhat different perspective (and one that I'm sure I'm going to get lots of response on), you could argue that the infants are the ones least likely to notice the absence of a primary care giver. As long as their immediate needs (and in my mind that includes the need for affection) are met, most infants are content. This is not to suggest that a primary caregiver that has constant contact with the infant isn't the best person to care for the infant. I am, however, pointing out that infants, particularly newborns, are somewhat less aware of their surroundings than older children. This does change very quickly, however. That said, I would argue that in such cases removing an infant who is exclusively breast fed and one who refuses to take bottles (like baby p-duck, SupadiscoT, and Wild Man all did or have done) is, perhaps, more traumatic. Breast feeding is not only a source of nutrition, but for most breastfed babies it is an intense source of comfort. Most fathers of breastfed infants will tell you that they are unable to comfort their babies in the same what that the lactating mother can. I know that Mr. M would attest to this.
For me, this ruling has implications beyond this case as it suggests that breastfeeding mothers don't have the legal right to continue breastfeeding their children. From everything I've read on this case, it does seem as though there is a legal reason to remove the children from the compound, but not to keep the mothers and children separated so long as there is no evidence that the mothers are harming the children. And in this case, it doesn't seem as though they are.
As p-duck said, there are no easy answers to this situation at all.
Hi P-Duck,
The baby loses access to what the American Pediatric Association deems the best nutrition for a baby during the first year of its life. Furthermore, what of babies like baby p-duck who refuse to take a bottle? Will foster families have the patience or time to work with the infant?
Yes, but if those same women were, say, murderers, would they receive the same treatment? Would they be considered "fit" to breastfeed their children? I know there is no easy answer to this, but I think we are forcing an essentialist argument on it, and also, a class argument. These are white middle-class women who are being allowed to stay with their children strictly because they breastfeed. These women exposed their children, all of their children, to sexual abuse and misconduct. How are they more fit mothers than a woman who is arrested for armed robbery?
And yes, I do believe that some foster families would have the patience and time to work with the children, as I believe that some biological mothers would not. There are some foster families that may align with the stereotypes (in it for the money, etc.) but there are foster families who truly want to expand their families, and would do anything to help those children.
Again, I know it's not an easy decision or an easy issue, but I think there is a huge class and essentialist bias happening with the sudden reversal of the decision that might not have happened otherwise.
Ciao,
Amy
Hi M,
That said, I would argue that in such cases removing an infant who is exclusively breast fed and one who refuses to take bottles (like baby p-duck, SupadiscoT, and Wild Man all did or have done) is, perhaps, more traumatic. Breast feeding is not only a source of nutrition, but for most breastfed babies it is an intense source of comfort.
I think removing any child, breastfeeding or not, from a parent is traumatic. There are methods in place to help children whose mothers cannot breastfeed, including elaborate contraptions, that help, say, adoptive mothers "faux" breastfeed children. And the smell of a mother or father is an intense comfort to children, too. It is just as traumatic to remove a child from a parent that doesn't breastfeed than to remove from one that does.
I'm not saying that the women shouldn't have rights. I'm saying that by giving these particular breastfeeding women permission to stay with their children, there is an imbalance happening. What if one of these mothers doesn't breastfeed?
For me, this ruling has implications beyond this case as it suggests that breastfeeding mothers don't have the legal right to continue breastfeeding their children.
No. It's saying that a mother who is considered to be unfit to raise her child is being separated from her child. I haven't followed this case very closely, but from what I understand, there was sexual abuse and misconduct going on. This has larger legal ramifications than breastfeeding.
From everything I've read on this case, it does seem as though there is a legal reason to remove the children from the compound, but not to keep the mothers and children separated so long as there is no evidence that the mothers are harming the children. And in this case, it doesn't seem as though they are.
The state separates parents considered unfit, or considered to be raising their children in an unsafe environment all of the time, and for good reason. How is this situation any different, simply because these women are breastfeeding? So are tens of thousands of mothers across the country who are declared unfit parents.
As I mentioned to P-Duck, there is a class issue happening here that I think we're all avoiding in favor of the breastfeeding situation. I am not arguing against the mothers being allowed to breastfeed their children. I think it is a huge step legally regarding women's bodies. However, I am arguing that it is an essentialist hypocrisy for mothers who cannot breastfeed their children. Why should a child not be allowed to be fed and cared for by his or her mother or father, who is the primary caretaker, simply because he or she is not breastfeeding? We are privileging one kind of parenting over another, and that is where the problem is.
I don't want the children not to be with their breastfeeding mothers. I want all of the children to be with their main caretaker parent.
Ciao,
Amy
In many states, women in prison have the right to BF during visitation periods and can pump and supply milk to their infants. New York even allows infants to stay with their mothers in prison under certain circumstances.
The United States Breastfeeding Committee deemed that: "Inappropriate, abrupt, and
lengthy separations from the breastfeeding mother can result in a child prematurely weaning, becoming ill, and suffering from a variety of psychological
disorders. [...] These difficulties can be avoided if
courts consider breastfeeding when
they make custody and visitation
decisions. There are many court
decisions from around the United
States that clarify the importance of breastfeeding and require courts to consider it as a factor in deciding custody and visitation issues in family law cases.36 Two of these cases rule that it is not discrimination to consider breastfeeding in deciding
these matters.37"
Thus, even convicted criminals are often allowed to continue to provide breast milk to their infants.
Aaah... I have more to say but baby-p-duck just ended up underneath a chair and I must go intervene...
Post a Comment