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.

[Howlin]

I, of course, was speaking ONLY of motorcycles.

And if that law was ever enacted, I have a feeling you'd be one of those standing up screaming about how much taxes you pay and you're entitled to have the government clean up after you.

[mylife]

She wasn't charged with breast feeding a baby while driving. She was arrested for not having a driver's license, a first-degree misdemeanor; failing to use a child restraint device, a minor misdemeanor; and obstructing official business, a second-degree misdemeanor, according to the patrol. She was later charged with child endangerment. Should we pass a law on stupidity? Works for me.

As I understand the situation she did not have a drivers liscence but held an affidavit which is considered LEGALLY justifiable, Failed to use a child restriant system ( she did, and removed the child according to LAW to attend to its needs)
I dont see how she obstructed justice, and the trumped up charge of child endangerment is the crux of this thread!

[ChemistCat]

Statistically, the risk of them being hit by a car while on the sidewalk is rather low...but if you want to think that way, go for it. Someone earlier said there might be a SARS virus in the next breath of air you are going to breath, so maybe you better stop breathing too.

There are necessary risks, low and high, and unnecessary risks, low and high, in life. If you can avoid either sort of risk it is prudent to do so. The risk of having the child go through the windshield after being split and ruptured by the steering wheel at 70 mph is an avoidable risk. That's the whole point to child restraint.

If you want to jump out of airplanes, there is low risk if you have a parachute, incredibly high risk if you do not. You can do it either way. You're free to do either, but hopefully over someone else's county if you choose no 'chute.

[Howlin]

Well, that was my question to him; if she was IN a rest area, why not "top her off" before she got back on the road?

It's obvious these two actively LOOK for laws to break and test.

For all we know, they're travelers.

[mylife]

I, of course, was speaking ONLY of motorcycles. And if that law was ever enacted, I have a feeling you'd be one of those standing up screaming about how much taxes you pay and you're entitled to have the government clean up after you.

Why would you think that?? you seem to be the one that wants the Gov to see after us. LOL

[petitfour]

Though we only take poochie with us when we're really insane, we have never strapped him in. He's 95 lbs, and there's just not anywhere to put him except on the floor. We also let him swim in the ocean without a float. I have never seen anything like it except for polar bears at the zoo. Are Golden Retrievers related to polar bears?

I do not approve of what this woman did in today's society. Thirty years ago, it was ok. One hundred years ago, it was ok for women to feed their infants while riding down a rocky-dirt road even though baby could have fallen out of the wagon or off the horse and hit his/her head. Today, we do not do anything dangerous unless we want to be ridiculed because something bad could happen.

Our carseats are appropriate and have been legal for each of our children. I really like the carseat we bought for our five-year-old. The child can see out the window easily, and is snug and comfortable. We went on a 13-hour (one way) trip recently, and our carseated babies sat without crying/whining almost the entire way. Of course, we stopped many times for food and gas and stretching which made the trip 16 hours, but it was much easier than riding when our oldest was a toddler. She HATED her carseat.

[Howlin]

It depends on your cat; if it loves to ride, it will LOVE looking out the window and you can strap it in.

If not, anchor the carrier with the seatbelt.

[ChemistCat]

When the risks you take are underwritten by the public budget, the public has a right to laws that restrict the risks you may take.

Had this woman caused a serious accident, public employees would have been first on the scene to do cleanup, public property would probably have been damaged, and other people would have been affected without their consent. If you believe this unlicensed guy without a SSN or registered vehicles has real auto insurance for himself and his wife, you're just deluded.

[Howlin]

but held an affidavit which is considered LEGALLY justifiable

No kidding? Then why did they charge her with not having a driver's license?

Failed to use a child restriant system ( she did, and removed the child according to LAW to attend to its needs)

Actually, her very own husband, who stated that HE and HE alone can speak for her, said that she did no such thing: she was IN a rest area and never bothered to put the baby in the car seat; she merely put the baby in her lap and drove off.

[Howlin]

No, dimbulb, I want the government to protect me from the likes of you, you know, the ones who don't want to be responsible for their own actions, no matter who it puts at risk.

[Howlin]

He's 95 lbs

Just so you know that at 35 mph he becomes a projectile.

How could you care so little for your pet?

[mylife]

When the risks you take are underwritten by the public budget

The risks we take SHOULD NOT BE UNDERWRITTEN BY THE PUBLIC BUDGET.
Had this woman ACTUALLY caused harm She should be held liable not the public.

[bvw]

You win. Cars MUST be banned. We all MUST ride on the much safer public transports.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Carseats for infants are required BY LAW to be in the back seat of the car.

So how did she remove a baby from a five point belt in a carseat REQUIRED BY LAW from the backseat into the front seat while she was flying down the interstate?

So, you're saying that this is the law in all 50 states? Fine. Prove it. Show us the laws for all 50 states that specifically state that a child safety seat MUST be carried in the back seat of a motor vehicle.

If the law requires that a carseat be in the back seat of a car, then is it also illegal to carry a child in a pick-up truck with no back seat?

This ought to be good. I eagerly await your response.

[Catspaw]

The risks we take SHOULD NOT BE UNDERWRITTEN BY THE PUBLIC BUDGET.

Um, who pays for the roads she was travelling on? Why, that'd be the taxpayers (which includes me). She doesn't want to use the roads, she can walk.

Had this woman ACTUALLY caused harm She should be held liable not the public.

I'm the public. So are you. I say she complies with the laws concerning having a driver's license, putting her child in a child seat You don't.

[bvw]

I also missed when we created the Department of Pre-Crime.

[mylife]

No, dimbulb, I want the government to protect me from the likes of you, you know, the ones who don't want to be responsible for their own actions, no matter who it puts at risk.

Yo, I take resposibility for myself and cannot take responsibility for the world!! I DONT WANT THE GOV TO BE MY DADDY! Iresponsible! I want to take responsibility for MY own actions!! you want the Gov to do it for ya!! Maybe You belong on DU.

[Howlin]

If you put a carseat in a truck the law, at least in North Carolina, says there has to be no air bag or the air bag has to have been disabled by the employer.

For the rest, see #392.

[Catspaw]

Ya know, at first I thought it was a full moon, but now I'm convinced it's because of the summer solstice.

[mylife]

I also missed when we created the Department of Pre-Crime.

Me Too