To the Executive Officer, Superior Court I understand that a family court services mediator recently made a recommendation that a lactating woman initiate use of an artificial breastmilk substitute in the event that the mother continued to be unable to physically meet the her ex-partner’s demands for milk expression. This is not the first time I have had a complaint of this nature from my clients who have participated in mediation through Family Services, and so I am responding in writing this time. As a board-certified health care professional, and as [blank county's] Lactation Consultant, I would like to help clarify the medical and legal problems with the mediator’s recommendation. All professional health and medical groups who have a published position on infant feeding recognize breastfeeding as the only physiological source of milk in an infant’s diet, and that any and all artificial substitutes pose a risk to the infant’s short-term and long-term health. Because of the economic and health implications, and the individual’s right to choose the safest method of infant feeding, the State of California has made it clear that breastfeeding--and being breastfed--constitute civil rights under the law. The United States government is signatory to two international documents stating that breastfeeding, and being breastfed, are human rights. A mediator cannot simply set these rights aside; nor should she make a clinical recommendation to substitute non-physiological methods of nutrition. As an infant feeding specialist, I am careful not to recommend use of a breastmilk substitute unless there is a medical emergency, because of the risks to both mother and child. Breastfeeding provides not only nutrition, but protection, and every child deserves that protection. Many women are willing and able to produce and make available extra milk so that others can temporarily take over their role in their absence. Some women are willing, but unable. No one may insist that a woman make herself physically able to do that which she cannot. No one may insist that a woman allow a risky substitute to be given if she herself chooses a safer course for her child. She is breastfeeding successfully; this ensures her child normal health, wellness, and happiness. Anything else is not normal, and thus less than adequate. If the mother has concerns over the father’s ability to meet her and her child’s needs for breastfeeding in a timely and respectful manner, then that is where the mediator’s work begins. As a society, we cannot afford to continue to act in such an uninformed way about the importance of breastfeeding to the physical and emotional health and the economic welfare of women, their children, and our community. A woman who participates in mediation has a right to the reasonable expectation that the court will offer support and protection for breastfeeding, rather than an uneducated dismissal of her needs as having neither importance nor basis in reality. I would like to hear that the mediator has amended her recommendations to reflect this new understanding. I hope this will help Family Court Services implement a policy which promotes, supports and protects breastfeeding. Arly Helm, MS, IBCLC *********************************************** Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html To reach list owners: [log in to unmask] Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask] COMMANDS: 1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail 2. To start it again: set lactnet mail 3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet 4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome