CBD LawCBD LawCBD LawCBD Law
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Our Services
    • COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS LAW
    • PERSONAL INJURY & INSURANCE
    • ESTATE & PROBATE
    • FAMILY LAW
    • PROPERTY LAW
    • BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION
    • COURT & DEBT RECOVERY
  • Our Team
    • GILES FINNEY
    • JAMES PARKIN
    • KYE BRUCE
    • MELISSA PEARCE
    • HILLARY MORRIS
    • KATE BRAME
    • BEVERLEY PRITCHATT
    • TRISH JEFFREY
    • REID FINNEY
    • MARGARET FLAHERTY
    • KELLEY LEDSON
    • WHITNEY MORRIS
  • News
    • Commercial
    • Workers Compensation and Workplace
    • Family Law
    • Wills & Estates
    • Building Disputes
    • Court News
    • General Interest
    • Power of Attorney – Enduring Guardianship
    • Property
    • Criminal Law
  • Resources
  • Contact Us

Breastfeeding with a Tattoo?

    Home Family Law Breastfeeding with a Tattoo?

    Breastfeeding with a Tattoo?

    By Hillary Morris | Family Law | 31 March, 2017 | 0

    Ban on Breastfeeding Overturned on Appeal – Family Court

    A Newcastle Federal Circuit Court Judge’s decision to prevent a mother from breastfeeding her 11 month old child has been unanimously overturned on appeal to the Full Bench of the Family Court.

    The trial judge had placed an injunction on the mother preventing her from breastfeeding the child on the basis that the mother had recently had a tattoo and the judge considered after reviewing the Australian Breastfeeding Association website that this placed the child at risk of contracting a blood borne disease from breastfeeding. The mother suffered post-natal depression and required medication to treat it which was a cause of concern for the trial judge. The father had not made any application to restrain the mother from breastfeeding.

    The matter came before the Court as the mother had applied for a recovery order after the father failed to return the child after a visit. The father had previously pleaded guilty to assaulting the mother and was on a good behaviour bond. An apprehended violence order was in place. The trial judge made orders that the child was to spend between 9am and 3pm with the father on alternating days.

    On appeal, the full bench of the Family Court said the arrangements put in place by the trial judge were ‘bizarre’ and it was very rare for it alternating day arrangements to be in the best interests of the child. His Honour Justice Aldridge said in relation to the breastfeeding injunction that the trial judge had failed to grant the injunction on the evidence before him and had misunderstood the level of risk to the child from breastfeeding following a tattoo. His Honour noted that the trial judge had failed to acknowledge the emotional and psychological benefits to the child from breastfeeding and the impact of cessation of breastfeeding when weighing up what was in the best interests of the child as required by the Family Law Act 1975. The Appeals Court said that judges should not ‘mistake their own views for facts or expert evidence’ and noted difficulties of a judge relying on information they obtained by searching the internet.

    His Honour Justice Aldridge was only able to find only one reported case where a mother was restrained from breastfeeding her child. In Re Baby A [1999] NSWSC 787 an injunction was granted to prevent a mother who was HIV positive from breastfeeding. The mother herself had agreed she would not breastfeed and the only issue before the court was whether that agreement should be reinforced by an injunction.

    Jackson & Macek [2015] FamCAFC 114 (19 June 2015)

    No tags.

    BACK TO NEWS

    Recent News

    • Successful Court of Appeal Hearing for our client
    • An Ever Moving Family Law System
    • Cross Vesting, Third Parties and The Interaction Between Courts
    • Commencement of the new Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
    • Recovery Information for Councils impacted by bushfires in NSW
    • Relocation of Children – Interstate Or Internationally
    • Importance Of Finalising Your Will
    • Case Note: Possession Of Commercial Quantity – Yin v R [2019]
    • Appeal Lost For Young Offender Involved In The Shooting Of Mr Cheng
    • Criminal Law Sentencing Note – Simpson v R [2019]

    Gosford Office

    98 Mann St, Gosford NSW 2250
    PO Box 59, Gosford NSW 2250
    Ph: (02) 4322 6666
    Fax: (02) 4322 6966
    Email: reception@cbdlaw.com.au

    Wyong Office

    25-27 Alison Rd, Wyong NSW 2259
    Ph: (02) 4353 1248
    Fax: (02) 4351 2401
    Email: wyong@cbdlaw.com.au
    © CBD Law 2021 - 2025 | Privacy Policy | Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation
    • Home
    • About Us
    • Our Services
      • COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS LAW
      • PERSONAL INJURY & INSURANCE
      • ESTATE & PROBATE
      • FAMILY LAW
      • PROPERTY LAW
      • BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION
      • COURT & DEBT RECOVERY
    • Our Team
      • GILES FINNEY
      • JAMES PARKIN
      • KYE BRUCE
      • MELISSA PEARCE
      • HILLARY MORRIS
      • KATE BRAME
      • BEVERLEY PRITCHATT
      • TRISH JEFFREY
      • REID FINNEY
      • MARGARET FLAHERTY
      • KELLEY LEDSON
      • WHITNEY MORRIS
    • News
      • Commercial
      • Workers Compensation and Workplace
      • Family Law
      • Wills & Estates
      • Building Disputes
      • Court News
      • General Interest
      • Power of Attorney – Enduring Guardianship
      • Property
      • Criminal Law
    • Resources
    • Contact Us
    CBD Law