Judge banned mother from breastfeeding because she got a tattoo

[Read the post]

So… the judge’s argument was that because she got a tattoo and blood test were negative she was endangering her child because those test are not 100% and tattoos are a know way to get HIV or hepatitis?
Does that judge that you can equally get HIV or hepatitis thru sex? Is that judge going to forbide all woman who had sex to breastfeed their children?!


My guess is that the judge was on a power trip and just didn’t like her.

This is what news looks like when people rip the human element out of dumb bureaucratic decisions; confusing, vague, enraging, and unsatisfying.


Otherwise we risk living in a nanny state.


Six months? I admit since we haven’t started our family yet I come from a place of ignorance, but the six families I am very close with that have little ones have always gone slightly past a year. Could it be a regional thing?

(I also just got photos from a good friend of mine of their new addition just an hour ago. Need to send them a prezzie :D)


The WHO recommends exclusive breastfeeding for six months, then breastfeeding for up to two years (or more) with complementary foods. Most women I know hope to breastfeed for a year or so.


You clear know naught about Breastfeeding. The guideline is to breastfeed AT LEAST 6 months exclusively, then you start weaning which depending on mother and child can take days / months / years. Parenting is kind of relationship building and as in most relating the subjects are in charge of the building unless they are irrefutably abusing their power to the detriment of the other. Which is not the case here.

What I would like to know is who brought the case? Is this Judge wondering accross Australia looking for delinquent mothers?


No. The father failed to return the child to the care of the mother. Illegally denying court ordered custodial rights is not petitioning a court.

You know it now because you were told it after mis-stating it. Thankfully you don’t get a vote.

Parents divorce and resolve custodial issues before the courts regularly. It is never ideal but it in no way demands that a good home and upbringing cannot be provided based on the occurrence. It’s a helluva better system than no system.


How nice is that, Australia has idiots too!


For serious, you are talking out of your behind. I can’t believe I’m hearing this.

  1. It is not the recommendation anywhere that I can find to stop breastfeeding at six months. The WHO recommends 2 years. The AAP recommends 1 year. And regardless, it’s the mother’s decision.
  2. There are literally thousands of much more probable ways to get hepatitis and HIV. You are significantly more likely to get Hep from tainted fruit than a tattoo. You are significantly more likely to get HIV from sex than a tattoo. What if the husband decided she couldn’t keep breastfeeding because she ate fruit? What if he decided she couldn’t keep breastfeeding because he himself had an affair? Those confer a higher chance of infection than a tattoo.

The ruling was overturned. Glad not everyone in this situation was insane.


Hate to be that guy but I think you’d best be accurate when pushing an agenda. Teething typically begins at 6 months. Giving birth is also difficult, as is most every aspect of raising a child.

More than a few, which is why the primary recommendations provided encourage introducing foods as early as possible in supplementation of breast feeding, not to it’s exclusion.

Citation needed for speculations that dispute findings that establish the guidelines you were confused about.

She argued in court for her custodial rights which were violated. None of the justifications that the father only then raised were based in fact. According to the findings in the stories cited, tattooing is regulated to the point that the risk is imperceptible. Whoever transported the child by motor vehicle last placed the child in far more danger than the mother did by getting a tattoo. I presume since your only concern is the well-being of the child you will side with whoever did not last drive the child somewhere.


I could offer our personal and our friends’ experiences, with more than a dozen kids, most of whom were weaned later than 8 months and most at about a year, but that’s anecdotal data. A little research on the topic will tell you that, while it is true that 6 months seems to be a sort of magical number in the US, the world-wide picture is much different. This is an enlightening post by Kathy Dettwyler, a prolific breastfeeding researcher, who says that a world-wide average wouldn’t make much sense but that most infants would likely self-wean between two and four years.

Although I might just be feeding the troll here…




Yeah, my wife complains when our 11-month-old bites her. His older sister was breastfed until she was nearly 2. That tapered off on her own.

But now that you mention it, we probably just have been duped by the massive BreastFeeding lobby. They’re certainly pushing an agenda. Or strollers. Boy, do I feel like a boob!


Doesn’t matter – those are reserved for the kid. :::sigh:::


Not necessarily so. My son was on the teat two years, maybe a little more. As soon as those teeth showed up she taught him to not bite. It’s not a complicated lesson. (I was going to include a joke about a rolled-up newspaper, but some people are so literal-minded.)

As for the benefits, nutrition is certainly up there, but also a newborn pretty much drinks his immune system, at first. Even after several months, there are important antibodies getting transfered - so that’s a good thing. Don’t underestimate either one - there’s loads of research available, if you’re interested.


You wouldn’t happen to work for Nestle, would you?

For the record, my kid ate anything he could get his hands on, except deadly, deadly grapes. He’s as healthy as an ox and can beat his dad at grappling. But I still control the car keys.


The higher court, utilizing science, determined the risk to be practically nil.

The judge in question, that you think was correct, was willing to characterize HIV & Hep blood tests as inconclusive in order to support a clearly erroneous decision.

Think about that, a member of the judiciary deciding that these blood tests were inconclusive because… unstated.

Think about the ramifications, what those tests are for, where else do the courts and medical science intersect.

You think he was correct? Not only did science & a higher court chuck his ruling out on it’s ear, it protected the interests of many, many others.

Please enlighten us. To support that decision on the basis it was made, you contend that these tests are inconclusive.

Please demonstrate.

If you can do that, please follow up and utilize statistical analysis to determine the risk of infection in Australia due to tattooing.


Because nice girls don’t get tattoos! (At least not in 1975.) Quod erat demonstrandum and get off my lawn!


Odd the way you still promote use of formula, when at 11 months it is perfectly acceptable and likely preferable to transition altogether to whole foods if breastfeeding is no longer feasible for the mother.