Judge bans mother from breastfeeding all because she has a tattoo...

(7 ratings)
Woman banned from breastfeeding due to her tattoo
Continued below...

Just when you thought you'd heard every viral news story about breastfeeding ever, along comes another one to shock you all over again.


An Australian mother was banned from breastfeeding by a judge after she had a tattoo.


Ridiculous we know, but actually it seems there is a little more to it than that... 


The mother, known as Ms Jackson, is currently fighting a custody battle in the Australian courts against the child's father. She ordered to stop breastfeeding her 11-month-old son on 5 June 2015, when the judge deemed that there was an unnacceptable risk of harm to the child, after the mum could have contracted HIV or hepatitis when undergoing a tattoo.



In May, Ms Jackson had been tattooed at a reputable tattoo parlour on her hand and foot, and although she had provided negative test results for both HIV and hepatitis, judge Matthew Myers ruled that the tests were not conclusive.


He proceeded to grant an injunction preventing the mum from breastfeeding her child saying: 'Don't breastfeed any more. Seriously don't. It's not in the best interest of the child.'


More: The stupidest things that have ever been said about breastfeeding


It seems the dispute arose after the father flagged the new tattoo during the custody trial. Although it's been said that the judge actually wanted to prevent the mother breastfeeding because she had been diagnosed with postnatal depression and wasn't taking the medication. Not being able to use that as a reason, he went looking for something else.


The decision, which has since been overturned in an appeal heard on Friday 19 June, was described as 'extraordinary', by barrister Claire Cantrall during the hearing. '[Myer] ought to have taken into account the inherent unlikelihood of the mother contracting HIV. The issue of risk does not go over a mere possibility. It is an extraordinary injunction.'


She also added that he failed to properly consider the consequences of depriving the child of the mother's capacity to breastfeed.


Judge Murray Aldridge who overturned the injunction said (and rightly so, we think): 'Judges must not mistake their own views for being either facts not reasonably open to question or as appropriately qualified expert evidence.'


What do you think? Utterly ridiculous or was the judge acting in the child's best interests? Let us know by leaving a comment below.

Your rating

Average rating

  • 5
(7 ratings)

Your comments


Ruby21: Just to clarify a few facts regarding tattoos and infection. Tattoo needles are not hollow so it is extremely unlikely that you would contract HIV or hepatitis, as there is no chance of cross contamination with infected blood. Do not confuse tattoo needles with the needles that drug addicts use - they are very different. If people become seriously ill after having a tattoo I can only assume that the tattoo artist did not properly sterilise the equipment and that the people concerned got some sort of infection or perhaps blood poisoning. This is completely different from HIV or hepatitis infection. The risk of getting this sort of infection from a tattoo is about the same as it would be from getting your ears pierced


I think the judge was right, only about a month ago , a tattoo shop (newport gwent) was closed cause some people were taken seriously ill if you want a tattoo put yourself at risk not your child too!

comments powered by Disqus

FREE Newsletter