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

[Dennis Hultman]

State Threatens Mother to Seize Infant For Feeding Homemade Goat Milk Formula
http://freepatriot.org/2013/08/15/state-threatens-babys-mother-over-homemade-goat-milk-formula/



A 17-year-old mother in Maine has found herself in a battle against the state over what she feeds her 3 month old son, Carson. Alorah Gellerson had a difficult time breastfeeding her baby and decided to make her own homemade formula with goat milk. ”Oh, he loved it,” Gellerson said. “We put celery juice in it, and he just loves that, and it worked really well with his body, and he grew like a weed.”

However, the young mother made the giant mistake of telling her son’s pediatrician about the goat milk formula and was turned into Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which resulted in an overnight stay in the hospital, home visits, the baby to be placed on “approved” infant formula and threatened with her son being removed from her care and placed in foster care if she did not comply.

WABI, a local news station, has been covering this story and interviewed another local pediatrician who seems just as equally confused by these actions. He said: “I’ve got plenty of kids in my practice that have been given goat’s milk, for example, and they’re growing and developing fine.”

Goat milk has been known to be healthier, more easily digested, and has less allergens than cow’s milk and has been to fed to babies in traditional cultures for thousands of years. The question is why the uproar? Why are there threats to the young mother?

The local media has tried to interview DHHS but there was no one available to take their calls and answer any questions, they did however, refer them to the government website that stated that goat’s milk is not suitable for infants.

Gellerson has complied with all the mandates from DHHS and has even switched to the store-bought formula but, the state is not dropping it. ”I hope this all goes away. It’s been so terrible and hard on us. We’re just trying to live our lives and they keep bothering us. I just want it to be all over,” Gellerson said.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

http://www.wave3.com/story/23089938/babys-mother-in-trouble-with-state-over-goats-milk-formula

BROOKLIN, ME (WABI/WWW/CNN) - Alorah Gellerson loves her three-month-old son.

"He's a really good baby. He's always happy. He likes to eat," she said.

But what baby Carson eats has caused a lot of trouble for this 17-year-old mother.

When the baby didn't take to breastfeeding, Gellerson started feeding him homemade goat milk formula.

"Oh, he loved it," Gellerson said. "We put celery juice in it, and he just loves that, and it worked really well with his body, and he grew like a weed."

But when her doctor reported this to the Department of Health and Human Services, things got messy.

"She came in and threatened to take him away and put him in foster care until I complied to go to the doctor and get him seen."

Gellerson, who receives state benefits, says she has complied with all of the mandates from DHHS, including numerous doctor visits, an overnight hospital stay, and even switched over to store-bought formula to please them. But she says the state is still not dropping it.

"It's so frustrating. My daughter is a great mother. The baby has a great dad, too, and they love this baby very much, and they would never do anything to hurt him. And if we thought the formula was harming him, we would not do that," said Tania Allen, Gellerson's mother.

DHHS said they had no one available to speak, instead directing reporters to websites for procedures they follow, like one from the USDA, which says goat milk is not recommended for infants because of inadequate quantities of certain vitamins.

"I am aware that there is some push back from a lot of community organizations toward parents who take that approach," Jack Forbush, The Osteopathic Center for Family Medicine in Hampden, said. "I don't know what's really driving it other than perhaps some different cultural belief system. I've got plenty of kids in my practice that have been given goat's milk, for example, and they're growing and developing fine."

"I hope this all goes away. It's been so terrible and hard on us. We're just trying to live our lives and they keep bothering us. I just want it to be all over," Gellerson said.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Child Services Threatens To Take Mother’s Baby Over Goat Milk Formula
http://www.secretsofthefed.com/child-services-threatens-to-take-mothers-baby-over-goat-milk-formula/

A mother in Brooklin, Maine was threatened by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) this week after the state learned that she was feeding her three-month-old son goat milk formula.

KSLA News 12 Shreveport, Louisiana News Weather

After 17-year-old Alorah Gellerson’s son Carson began having trouble with breastfeeding, Gellerson decided to try homemade goat milk formula instead and was amazed by the results.

“We put celery juice in it, and he just loves that, and it worked really well with his body, and he grew like a weed,” said Gellerson.

After taking her son to a routine doctor’s appointment, Gellerson, excited at her baby’s improvement, mentioned how well her son was doing since switching over to the new formula. Unfortunately, results were not important to the doctor who immediately reported Gellerson to DHHS, claiming her actions endangered the child.

“She came in and threatened to take him away and put him in foster care until I complied to go to the doctor and get him seen,” explained Gellerson.

Gellerson says she followed all of the mandates given to her by DHHS following the incident which included switching over to commercial formula as well as an overnight hospital stay for monitoring. Even though the baby is perfectly healthy, the state is still threatening to take Gellerson’s son.

“I hope this all goes away. It’s been so terrible and hard on us,” said Gellerson. “We’re just trying to live our lives and they keep bothering us. I just want it to be all over.”

While DHHS insists that goat milk formula is dangerous to infants, many doctors disagree.

“I don’t know what’s really driving it other than perhaps some different cultural belief system. I’ve got plenty of kids in my practice that have been given goat’s milk, for example, and they’re growing and developing fine,” said Jack Forbush of The Osteopathic Center for Family Medicine in Hampden.

Not only do many doctors disagree with the DHHS, almost all of the state’s demands and threats toward Gellerson’s son are proven to be truly dangerous to children.

The state’s decision to force Gellerson’s baby to take only store-bought formula, which contains a measly 12 minerals (dog food contains 40), could likely cause harm to the child that it would have never experienced in its mother’s care.

In addition to several studies showing goat’s milk to be healthier for humans than cow’s milk, tests have discovered that nearly all non-certified organic infant formulas made from cow’s milk contain Monsanto’s synthetic, genetically engineered growth hormone recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). The synthetic hormone has been banned in Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and in the 27 countries of the European Union for it’s links to countless health issues including breast cancer.

Several formulas have also been found to contain cupric sulfate, a known herbicide, fungicide and pesticide. Despite countless complaints from consumers, many formulas also still contain synthetic long-chain fatty acids. The synthetic DHA and ARA were admittedly shown to produce a “significant increase in relative liver weights” when tested on rats.

In 2008, the Associated Press filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and found that Nestle, Mead Johnson and Enfamil infant formulas contained melamine, a toxic industrial chemical linked to kidney damage. Before the startling discovery, the FDA’s own website stated that there was no safe level of melamine contamination in infant formula. After the release of the FOIA request, the FDA suddenly claimed that certain levels of the toxic chemical was exceptable.

In 2009, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 15 brands of powdered infant formula were contaminated with perchlorate, a component found in rocket fuel. Store-bought formulas also contain alarmingly high levels of sugar and high fructose corn syrup, ingredients that have been linked to anxiety and other behavioral disorders. Not only is the corn syrup itself harmful to children, a 2009 study discovered that over 50 percent of high fructose corn syrup is heavily contaminated with mercury.

While the state’s decision to force Gellerson’s son onto conventional baby formula through threats is disturbing enough, the claim of wanting to take the child for its “safety,” is even more frightening. Studies have found that children in state custody are up to 600 percent more likely to be tortured, neglected and murdered and up to 10 times more likely to be abused than a child in the general population.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Goat milk is used all over the world since well FOREVER.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

The Healthy Home Economist
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/state-threatens-to-take-baby-over-homemade-goat-milk-formula/

Warning to all parents who make healthy homemade baby formula for their children instead of feeding them toxic, GMO laced commercial formula.

DON’T tell a conventionally minded doctor about it else your baby might end up in foster care!

This is the nightmare Alorah Gellerson of Brooklin, Maine is experiencing right now because she made the mistake of telling her doctor about the homemade goat milk formula she proudly and carefully makes for her healthy, happy, three-month old son Carson.

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) quickly responded when the doctor reported Alorah and that’s when things got messy.

The state came in and threatened to take Carson away and put him in foster care unless Alorah followed DHHS orders to go and have the baby examined by a doctor. Unbelievably, DHHS also mandated an overnight hospital stay and a switch back to store bought GMO commercial formula.

Despite complying with every single DHHS demand, Gellerson, who receives state benefits, is still being harassed with threats of foster care for her son. ”I hope this all goes away. It’s been so terrible and hard on us. We’re just trying to live our lives and they keep bothering us. I just want it to be all over”, she said.

Tania Allen, Gellerson’s mother added,

“It’s so frustrating. She’s a great mom. The baby has a great dad too and they love this baby very much and they would never do anything to hurt him and if we thought the formula was harming him, we would not do that.”

DHHS refused to comment and instead directed inquiries to its website for the procedures they follow, one of which is from the USDA which states that goat milk is not recommended for infants because of inadequate quantities of certain vitamins.

Jack Forbush, DO, of The Osteopathic Center for Family Medicine in Hampden, Maine disagrees with the state saying,

”I don’t know what’s really driving it other than perhaps some different cultural belief system. I’ve got plenty of kids in my practice that have been given goat’s milk, for example, and they’re growing and developing fine.“

The Weston A. Price Foundation concurs with Dr. Forbush’s assessment. Homemade formula from goat or cow milk is much better for baby than commercial formula as this chart listing the nutrients contained in goat milk formula illustrates.
State Violation of Parental Rights Becoming More Common

This is not the first time a parental judgment call regarding the health of a child has landed a parent in hot water with the State. This type of violation of basic parental rights is becoming more and more common.

Recall the story of Scott and Jodi Ferris whose newborn was taken away in the hospital because Jodi questioned the necessity of the Hepatitis B shot. Then there was the story of Alex and Anna Nikolayev just a few months ago who had their baby forcibly removed from their home (with the entire assault captured on home video) simply because they took their baby to another hospital for a second opinion regarding their child’s heart condition. In both cases, the children were eventually returned to the parents, but not before much grief and stress were endured by the family.

Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist

Sources:

Brooklin Mother Says State Not Happy With Her Formula Choice

Baby’s mother in trouble with state over homemade goat’s milk formula

USDA: Infant Formula Feeding

Recipes for Homemade Baby Formula

 

[Lucille]

I could not find an article that had the name of the doctor who turned that mother in. If anyone comes across it I'd like to know, I would like to send him/her an email saying that this really seems like a misguided decision, not made in my opinion in the best interests of the child. And of course, all that came after with the actions of the Protective Services staff was just beyond belief.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Seems everyone but the child snatching, over stepping their bounds DHHS in Maine and this head up his rear doctor doesn't have a problem with it. Still threatening to send her child to foster care.

Well probably a lot of other state agencies around the country too.

What a load of crap.

I will look for the Doc's name. There are so many stories on this event.

 

[Helenthereef]

Next stage: prosecute mothers for what THEY do or do not eat while breastfeeding....

 

[JColt]

If it's not APPROVED by the FDA then it's poison. Trying to do the same with ecig's. Even though countless doctors say electronic cigs are much less cause for concern than burning tobacco. Anyway I couldnt find original doctor name but did find this

Nearby residents are encouraged to attend a planned protest before Carson’s upcoming appointment with Dr. Lawrence Ricci, whom DHHS uses in cases of alleged child abuse and neglect cases. This protest will take place on September 5, 2013, at 12 p.m. in front of the Weber Medical Building at Eastern Maine Medical Center in Bangor.

 

[JColt]

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.

 

[JColt]

http://www.mcmhospital.org/site/ind...k=sobi2Details&catid=19&sobi2Id=31&Itemid=293

 

[Lucille]

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.

 

[JColt]

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

 

[Magic]

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.

 

[WebSlave]

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."

 

[Magic]

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.

 

[WebSlave]

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.

 

[Magic]

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.

 

[Lucille]

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?