A custody court is telling a Minnesota mom that she must stop breastfeeding her 15-month old toddler because of the medications she takes for migraines, complications from an auto accident, and sleep problems. While the pharmocopeia ingested by nursing mom Christa Burton is certainly an issue, what concerns me more is that her behavior is being examined more closely simply because she's involved in a custody dispute of son Carter, born 6 weeks premature, and that a court is telling a mother what she can and cannot do.
If presumably Christa and her doctor checked out her meds (I was unable to find much on them other than discovering at Kellymom that her sleep medication, Ambien, is considered "generally regarded as safe" by the AAP), then what's the big deal? It seems to me that the medication issue may be being used as an excuse to cover the fact that the court has discomfort with a mother breastfeeding a toddler.
In my own custody court experience, the need to continue nursing my then-two-year-old was questioned, and the trend there seemed to reflect society's discomfort with breastfeeding older children. I wasn't ordered to cease but would have been if he hadn't weaned at about that time anyway. Certainly my son's developmental need to remain connected with me through nursing wasn't considered important. In Christa Burton's case, breastfeeding was recommended because of son Carter's delays due to being born prematurely.
So which is it? The medication issue or the toddler issue?