http://blog.sfgate.com/sfmoms/2013/11/14/pennsylvania-judge-orders-woman-to-stop-breastfeeding/#15728101=0 I saw this on the news last night. A judge has ordered a mother of a ten month baby to stop breastfeeding so her estranged partner can have custody for two days a week. She says the baby won't take a bottle so on the two days he is meant to have the baby he can't feed her. She also says she can't express two days worth of milk to keep the child going in her absence. The World Health Organisation have recommended all mothers should at least try breastfeed while formula is a last option. The judge said he will have the baby in care if she does not bottle-feed the baby. I'm surprised this is the first time I have heard of such a case - what do you guys think? Should she express enough to keep the baby going even if it means she visits the baby up to 10 times with fresh milk over the two days in the father's custody? Is she just using this as an excuse the punish the father? Should the baby have been introduced to alternative nutrition sources before now? Is she right and the judge is a douche? (Douche the word being used in the article to describe the judge). What do you think of the father? The article says he should be ashamed but is he just exercising his rights as a dad in a day when fathers all over the world are abusing their responsibilities?