Mother defends breastfeeding baby while driving (followup on idiot)

WKYC-TV/DT Cleveland ^ | 6.17.03 | Vic Gideon

[mhking]

Mother defends breastfeeding baby while driving

Reported by Vic Gideon
POSTED: Monday, June 16, 2003 5:06:15 PM
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 12:20:52 PM

PORTAGE COUNTY -- A mother traveling from Detroit to Pittsburgh got into trouble in Portage County while trying to drive and breastfeed her baby at the same time.

Twenty-nine-year-old Catherine Donkers had fed the baby before she left Detroit but said her seven-month-old daughter was hungry again.

"I knew I was doing nothing wrong when I was breastfeeding her," Donkers said.

Donkers doesn't consider her actions excessively dangerous.

"I think there are lots of things we do when we put ourselves at risk, just by the very fact that I'm in a car and there's lots of car accidents every single day," she said. "I think it would be reasonable to say even that's a danger."

A truck driver apparently saw it as a danger and called the highway patrol. But Donkers wouldn't pull over for police until she got to a tollbooth.

"I've directed her to, that when she doesn't feel safe, she goes to a public place," said her husband, Brad Barnhill.

At the tollbooth, Donkers didn't give the trooper a driver's license. She instead pulled out an affidavit as identification and got cited for not having a license.

The couple also claims she did nothing wrong, saying Michigan law has an exemption to its child restraint law for nursing mothers.

They claim that since the turnpike is an interstate, drivers can follow the laws of their home state. But the highway patrol says that as long as the stop occurred in Ohio, they have to abide by Ohio laws.

The couple has done extensive research on the law and believes in a strict adherence to them. Donkers is facing child endangering and child seat violations among other charges. Her and her husband say they plan to fight all charges and will file a counter suit.

[RgnadKzin]

You fail to observe that it is one Ohio law trumping another.

[RgnadKzin]

Then let them bring their own charges in a civil venue.
A criminal act has not acrued.

[mhking]

You fail to observe that it is one Ohio law trumping another.

Even if one does trump the other, it is completely unreasonable to demand that a police officer review all of the statute laws in question in a traffic stop situation.

I submit that this is nothing more than a case of parents hiding behind poorly worded statute law as opposed to taking responsibility for their poor decision making and reckless actions.

[RgnadKzin]

Does your belief and not the law make this a criminal act?

Read ORD 4511.81(D) again. Is there any other way to interpret this other than you cannot use the fact that the child was out of restraint in any other criminal or civil action?

They are enforcing Ohio law. They have a duty to know that law. If they enforce something else, then they are enforcing only "color of law," and that is a federal crime; reference 42 USC 1983 &seq.

[petitfour]

I haven't read all of this thread, but I was wondering if Ohio forbids breastfeeding a baby in a moving vehicle. Obviously, Michigan allows it. (though I did not know that and always thought we were breaking the law in the places where such behavior occurred.)

[Howlin]

No, you did NOT answer MY direct question to you:

How did she manage to remove the baby from a five point harness system in a carseat in the back seat of the car.

[Howlin]

Actually, the Ohio statute does NOT specifically allow it; all it says is that an exception is made for nursing a baby -- it does not address the "while driving" claim.

But look at this statement he made:

She takes the trouble to research the law before she acts.

Does that tell you anything? It tells me that these people spend their lives parsing and skirting the laws.

[Capt.YankeeMike]

its scary how imbelciles can reproduce.....

[justshe]

Curiosity question.......were you in the car at the time?

[mhking]

Read ORD 4511.81(D) again.

Subsection D has nothing to do with any danger to others in other vehicles.

I submit (as I did earlier) that your wife's actions endangered other motorists and passengers in other vehicles driving on the Turnpike.

You don't care whether or not your child is injured in an accident potentially caused by this? Fine.

But I'll be damned if you end up hurting any of my friends or loved ones by your wife's negligence.

You want to take the libertarian tact? No problem. But that means you have to be prepared to bear the brunt of the full weight of the law when it comes down after such an event (God forbid it happens - I would not wish such a thing on anyone, but the chances of an accident rise dramatically when you remove your full attention from the road for whatever purpose, be it yammering on a cellphone or feeding a baby).

And again, to demand that officers carry complete case and statute law and be able to review it on demand is not only unreasonable, but both unsafe and not practical.

Add to that your wife's failure to carry a driver's license; your citation of religious grounds is not a logical reason. The laws of all states clearly state that you be granted a license to drive; said license indicates that you have passed appropriate state tests of both your vision and driving knowledge (in some states the latter can be waived, provided you are already in good standing). This license grants you the privledge to drive a motor vehicle. If you choose not to fulfill the requirements of obtaining said license, then you've got no business on the road, period.

This religious affadavit that you mention is no substitute for a license granted you by the state in which you live. If you refuse to obtain any of the appropriate required documents necessary for being awarded a license, then you don't get one, period.

That being the case, you don't get to drive. Sorry.

[Howlin]

Precisely. Driving is not a RIGHT, it's a privilege granted by the individual states.


Just ask the Muslim lady in Florida.

[petitfour]

Babies do not have to be in a five-point harness. And they can be in the front seat in a rear-facing car seat as long as the airbag (if there is one) is disabled. It is quite easy to remove a baby from the one-button kind of carseat that just slips over baby's head. (it's much easier to get 'em out than put 'em in.) Maybe this female stopped and let the baby "latch on" and then drove down the road. It was not smart.

[petitfour]

Have you ever breastfed? It is not particularly distracting unless you are disconcerted by onlookers or if the baby is easily distracted by noise which is not generally the case in a moving car because the sound of the road lulls the baby to sleep. A crying baby is distracting. Children in cars are distracting. Cell phones are distracting. Unwrapping a piece of gum is distracting. Eating M&Ms is distracting. Smoking is distracting. Drinking a squirt-bottle of water is distracting. Etc.

The woman was stupid.

[RgnadKzin]

The direct answer to your direct question was already posted. Please review post 58 of this thread.

Stop at a rest stop. Give her some applesauce. Change her pants. Get back in the car. Put the nursing pillow in your lap, latch the child on, and get going.

To burp: Pull over, pat her back until she burps, put her on the other breast, and get going.

When done: Pull over, burp her (see above), change her pants, give her a kiss and a hug, put her in the seat, and get going.

There has been much said here by all. Please be so kind as to review it before asking further questions.

[Howlin]

Babies do not have to be in a five-point harness.

I have three of them; they ALL have five-point harnesses. It takes an ADULT with two hands to get the baby out.

If you have one that doesn't have a five-point harness, you need to hurry on down to the fire station nearest you and have them give you some information on APPROVED carseats.

And I haven't seen the husband say the airbag was disabled or that the baby was in the front seat; given the wealth of information he's using to defend his wife's senseless actions, I'll have to assume it wasn't disabled or he would have told us already. I'm SURE he knows the laws.

[dighton]

Now it gets interesting.

;-)

[Poohbah]

So we cannot get a driver's license or even photo ID here in Pennsylvania.

I thought you were in Michigan.

[RgnadKzin]

I was at the office. She was on her way to Michigan to a symposium of forensic toxicologists. She needed an expert witness in the case she is pursuing against the last rapist. She had to get there on time, or miss the opportunity.

Is it "karma" that this was only the second time she had nursed while driving? She has only nursed while driving one other time since then.

I was present on the telephone and talked to the cops. It is surprising how courteous they became when they were presented with her calling counsel.

[Howlin]

Well, I saw that in #58 but you preferenced it with "If she stops..." so I just assumed you were using a hypothetical.

So, you are saying she pulled into a rest area, gave her some food, changed her diaper, got in the car, started feeding the baby, started driving, pulled over alongside an interstate to burp, get her feeding again, start driving again, and then pulled over, burp again, change her again, and then drive again?

Doesn't that strike you as a lot of stop and go driving to just feed a baby? Why didn't she just SIT there and finish feeding the baby????

I have two stepdaughters that nurse and in the time your wife did all that stoppping and starting and pulling over, they could have been done.

Where was your wife going in such a hurry that she had to pull on and off the road -- and obviously drive at the speed of light -- to get?

I think there is something mighty fishy about your story.

[Dante3]

Scary that people with such low IQ can obtain a driver's license. This ugly woman should be kept off the street. Poor child to have such a mother.