Dear Cathy B and other Lactnetters:
The case you refer to has got to be my client.  She and her husband still
have physical custody of their son, though Services to Children and Families
has had legal custody since very early on.  She has not breastfed since day
one, in the hospital, when she was told that to do so would cause the state
to remove her baby to foster care.  This woman did lots of research, and had
decided to breastfeed, against our recommendation, but in the spirit of
informed choice.
  Their next custody hearing comes up in about 60 days.  Any helpful
information would be most appreciated.  I have read George Kent's thoughtful
paper, HIV/AIDS and the Nutrition Rights of Infants, and my client has a
copy. Please email me privately as well as posting to the list.
thanks much from:
Martha Johnson RN IBCLC


> ----------
> From:         Cathy Bargar[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:         Tuesday, February 02, 1999 12:38 PM
> Subject:      HIV+
>
> I just heard a story on CNN today about a family in (I think) Oregon; mom
> HIV+ (but not sick, I gathered?), 6 wk. old baby removed from the family's
> custody to foster care because the parents "didn't believe" that HIV virus
> causes AIDS or that the virus can be transmitted by breastmilk. The state
> will not allow the baby (HIV+ at this point, naturally) to be fed its
> mother's expressed breast milk, and apparently the main point in this
> custody case has to do with the mother's determination to continue to
> breastfeed the baby. Mom says that breastmilk is more important for the
> baby
> than treatment with AZT (which the parents have not permitted). The
> commentator and a panel of 3 lawyers talked about this for about 10
> minutes - all, of course, agreeing that the state had acted correctly, and
> throwing around some pretty inaccurate info about HIV transmission via
> breastmilk. Although they did say that in countries "like Africa" (sic),
> the
> WHO did encourage BFing over ABM for these babies, all were 100% dead-set
> positive that in the US formula-feeding was the only option.
>
> I hope we'll hear more about this story - except I hope fervently that it
> won't become just another "dangers of BFing" story! The director of our
> local teen pregnancy program and another agency that works with
> "high-risk"
> (not HIV risk, socioeconomic risk) families in our county already feel
> that
> teens (categorically) should not be encouraged to BF because they "might"
> be
> at risk for HIV. They thought we were "always pushing breastfeeding" at
> WIC.
> (No fear of that now, of course, now that there's no longer anyone in
> charge
> of "pushing" breastfeeding at WIC! ........ I say bitterly......
>
> Cathy Bargar RN IBCLC
>