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