State Threatens Mother to Seize Infant For Feeding Homemade Goat Milk Formula

Not sure if it is same doctor but found this

As it turns out, Alorah’s use of fresh goat milk in her son’s infant formula is not the only beef DHHS has with the 17-year-old mother. According to reports, Alorah’s MaineCare doctor, Tasha Hoffman, had also repeatedly pressured Alorah to have Carson vaccinated, to no avail.

http://www.mcmhospital.org/site/inde...=31&Itemid=293

Originally Posted by JColt

vaccinated

Childhood vaccination is pretty important. Back in the old days, children died from pertussis and the other diseases the vaccines protect against. I still remember my father, who was a doctor, describing the terrible sound of whooping cough in children.

I do not think there is anything wrong with goat's milk. On the other hand, vaccinations for childhood disease are important, and it just seems there may be more to this story than what we are seeing.

Could be Lucille. This young lady may be raising flags and the goat milk may just be a tiny part of it.

Flame suit zipped and ready!!!!

As a healthcare provider, I have seen first hand the number of problems using a "homemade recipe" as an infant formula causes. I have also witnessed countless uneducated mothers feed their babies tetra packed (the brick cube shaped) soy or almond milk because they hear or read somewhere that soy is an acceptable substitute if baby is fussy or spitty with whey/lactose. The soy milk problem has been so prevalent, it's my understanding that the boxes now even carry a warning on them that they're not to be used as an infant formula!!

In my experience, it all boils down to education. I've horror stories to tell about teen or first time parents thinking that breastfeeding is too complicated so they go out and put baby on a homogenized whole cow milk diet almost as soon as they're discharged home with baby. We don't see or know about it until baby comes in for its first checkup, which due to lack of education or poverty might be months! Or they do try and replicate a home made recipe they got from the Internet because its cheaper than a can of formula.

So very many problems result from this, sadly even death. Is it worth the risks? As a whole, absolutely no!!!! If anyone can argue that highly probable malnourishment and permanent side effects are worth it, they may very well need intervention. It's not a case of someone telling you that you have to feed your baby something commercial and against your wants... It's about telling a parent they must provide adequate, safe, and proven complete nutrition for their baby.

There are so many formulas out there for whatever you're looking for. Organic? Check. Pre and pro biotic? Check. Pre digested protein? Check. Liquid? Check. Non gmo? Check. Bpa free? Check. Comes from happy cows who have birthday parties? I'll bet you could probably find it. We even have breastmilk banks! So the excuse of breast feeding not going well, and the need to create a homemade version is pathetically weak. It's even weaker if the parent is bent on using raw milk which is such a risk for an immunologically compromised new life.


We have laws to prevent willful neglect of a minor child that cannot protect itself. This is simply one such case.


And for the record, long term breast feeding with no additional food introduced at the age a child needs more complex nutrition can be just as detrimental.

Bottom line in my book? If you cannot feed your baby in the way Mother Nature intended, it's not okay to just whip something up in the Cuisinart.

Regardless of the "good intentions" stuff and all, it just feels like children are being treated as the "property" of the state if the laws dictated by bureaucrats take precedence over a parent's wishes for their own children. Now if those bureaucrats want to actually fund PAYING for what ever they demand, well, then perhaps that would be a different story. Otherwise, what exactly IS a parent's relationship to a child in the eyes of these state agencies? Simply breeders and then free caregivers until they grow up to be tax cattle?

I guess I'm just really fed up with this "nanny state" bullcrap that gets ever more intrusive with nearly every passing day. This philosophy that "We know better than you what is best for you, so we are making laws that force you to comply with what we say you need. Whether you like it or not, agree with us or not."

I'll be the first one to admit I get up in arms concerning the welfare of children, especially babies.


I agree that many feel the need for "big government" to step off their right to parent how they see fit. (Including corporal punishments and age to which a child can be left alone, for example. Those are judgement calls with many factors able to be computed, not needing a flat denominator to abide by.)

However, in such circumstances as this, it's not the government overstepping and inserting themselves where they see an opportunity. It's as simple as feed your kid correctly to the best level possible, or risk being denied the privilege.

I liken it to putting the baby in a carseat. Not everybody likes the idea, but most support the science behind it, and there will always be some who refuse to honor that law and their child dies in the process of them refuting it.

Some child protection cases are flipping absurd and the social workers/practitioners who instigate them should be taken out and smacked with 2x4s. However feeding an infant shouldn't be thought of like that.

The problem with "reasonable" laws, is WHO defines "reasonable"? It also presumes infallibility in the person or persons making that call, especially when the force of law can be enforced to destroy lives and livelihoods. But expecting infallibility out of anyone, based on what I have seen of decisions made at many levels of government, is absolutely foolish to expect.

And once such power is placed in the hands of unreasonable and fallible people, how easy is it to wrest that power from their hands? In such cases, PEOPLE are usually treated invariably as being guilty unless proven otherwise, even when both sides of a disagreement can be nothing more than presumptions and opinions.

Honestly, any attempts of any government agency to forcefully tell parents how to raise and care for their own children pretty much flies in the face of any concept of "freedom". Right or wrong, for better or worse, I don't believe the government's role should be to insert itself into the middle any aspect of "family" when outright malicious harm is not intended. Sure, parents can be wrong, but should being wrong, based on someone else's opinion, be illegal? Parents can be educated, but to threaten them with severe penalties unless they learn and practice the government enforced dogma, is just way outside the scope of a government of *free* people. IMHO, of course.

I will agree with you Rich, on very many of those aspects.

It boils down to line in the sand drawn at "malicious harm not intended". Many of the educated today make case points out of the uneducated as parents and of their poor choices made due to lack of sufficient experience or knowledge.

One's knowledge or experience does not equate to their ability to parent. Nor does one's monetary value spell out quality of home.

I truly believe that in this case, a government agency was not trying to forcefully shove an unwanted can of formula into this baby. It came down to a matter of scientific proven nutrition. As the mother, she had the right to refuse to properly provide her child with nourishment. However, her taking up that right, would have been intentional malignant harm. It becomes intentional when the choice to disregard comes into play. Had she (and it sounds like she did, after the fact) simply consulted on the proper way to provide nutrition to her infant in a way that was as beneficial to the infant as it was her, there would have been no problems.

When a mother (or father) chooses to willfully disregard the health of one of their children, then it becomes an intentional act. Things may become even more so convoluted when the argument can be made whether or not they were disregarding or just thought they knew best and were qualified to make the decision. I think of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. The mother that drank a fifth of jack a week while pregnant who then gives birth to a severely mentally retarded infant loses custody of that baby because its documented many times that the prenatal care recommended her to stop drinking. Is this an infringement of her right as a mother? Does a mother have the right to drink a potentially damning substance that can cause irreparable harm to her growing fetus?

Yes she does. Many women consume a glass of wine a day for the heart benefits, even while trying to conceive and during gestation. There are even practitioners who find no harm in one drink a day. Abusing alcohol, is meaningful intent. I will add full disclosure, that at the time of this posting, there are no hard facts as to how much alcohol is proven to be detrimental to a growing fetus.

I think it does indeed boil down to intentional misconduct or intentional ignorance.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Right or wrong, for better or worse, I don't believe the government's role should be to insert itself into the middle any aspect of "family" when outright malicious harm is not intended.

There are religions which for instance, have issues with seeking various types of medical care. Some refuse transfusions. Some do not seek medical care at all. No malicious harm is intended, but very ill children die just the same if they need medical care and don't receive it because of their parents' beliefs.

Or if the parents do not believe in childhood vaccinations for those few diseases that have historically had significant rates of mortality, the child may contract the disease and die without the protection that the vaccinations give, or with some diseases such as polio have difficulties for their entire life if they survive.

There are groups that for one reason or another really believe that sexual relations with children are OK. Again, no malice, they just see this in a different way than many of us.

The older I get, the more I see that there are no easy answers. Clearly our government has gotten to the point where it is overreaching its role. But in addressing and correcting that issue, in my opinion one must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Are you really saying that you hold your view whether it is right or wrong, or for better or worse? Are you are saying that the above examples of nonmalicious harm do not warrant interference even if they are wrong, in order to protect freedom?