August 7, 2009
You be the judge: what sentence should mom get for drunken breastfeeding?
Earlier this summer, I noted here the North Dakota story of a mother who pleaded guilty to child neglect after police found her “extremely intoxicated” while breast-feeding her 6-week-old baby. As detailed in this new piece from the Grand Forks Herald, this mom is scheduled to be sentenced this morning:
The sentencing of a Grand Forks mother who police say was “extremely intoxicated” while breastfeeding her 6-week-old is set for 11 a.m. today. Stacey Anvarinia, 26, pleaded guilty to child neglect, a Class C felony, in state District Court in June.
Grand Forks police responded to a domestic disturbance at Anvarinia’s home in February. Officers reported that she was drunk and breastfeeding. The child was taken to Altru Hospital, and Anvarinia was arrested . The unusual case has stirred debate and grabbed international attention.
Authorities have emphasized that breastfeeding while drunk was not the only reason for Anvarinia’s arrest, saying she was intoxicated to the point of not being able to care for her child. Anvarinia, who is no longer in custody, faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
UPDATE: The Grand Forks Herald has this news update, headlined "Grand Forks mom receives 6 months in breastfeeding case."
August 7, 2009 at 10:37 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference You be the judge: what sentence should mom get for drunken breastfeeding?:
This brings up a question of why the American lawyer loves the criminal so much. The criminal law is for safety. It is not for the amusement, the enrichment, nor the empowerment of lawyers.
Breast feeding is unlawful, violating the Establishment Clause. It comes from the element analysis of mortal sin in the Catholic Church catechism. Here comes the Scalia Bounce. The average person has been indoctrinated in this doctrine, and supports it. From the victim perspective, this is insane, if popularly accepted.
Posted by: Redundancy Clause | Aug 7, 2009 10:42:52 AM
This person's sexual interest is far less harmful than that of male homosexuals, a group now favored by the lawyer in their Lawyer Kill the American Family Agenda. Once excreted, isn't body fluid in the public domain, as trash on the curb might be?
Posted by: Redundancy Clause | Aug 7, 2009 10:53:43 AM
Wow! It sounds like a no-meds-Friday for Redundancy Clause
Posted by: meds | Aug 7, 2009 12:35:25 PM
Posted by: federalist | Aug 7, 2009 12:44:09 PM
Six months? Her crime was not giving proper care to her child ... so her punishment is six months of not giving any care whatsoever to her child. How ironic, at least from the kid's perspective.
I am assuming that CPS did not find her an unfit mother and take the child from her custody. If the child has been removed, it's a somewhat different story. But if mom has not been found to be an unfit mother, what purpose does this punishment serve? Why not probation with conditions of parenting classes and AA meetings? Will the kid really be better off for having mom in jail for six months? Will mom really be rehabilitated into a better mother during her jail term? Sheesh.
Posted by: CN | Aug 7, 2009 1:34:41 PM
Shouldn't a crime have caused a harm, or have increased the chance of a harm? Specifically, what harm came to the child, or what risk of harm increased for this child? For example, she had a higher chance of falling on the child. Should anyone swinging a baby around, increasing the risk of injury be charged?
Drinking is legal. Breastfeeding is legal. Please, cite the statute prohibiting their combination. Will the child accompany her to prison for six months, or get wrenched from her bosom, and placed in foster home? If going to a foster home, how will the advantages of breastfeeding to the baby be duplicated? Shouldn't the prison space she will occupy better be filled by a violent criminal?
The sentence brings opprobrium on the judicial system, and assures this mother of future TV appearances, perhaps on parenting questions.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Aug 7, 2009 1:55:02 PM
Pretty arrogant, Dr. C. You think you do not have to do it, and can move to another, making yourself look good, if it works.
Posted by: Redundancy Clause | Aug 7, 2009 2:12:04 PM
I would want to know if someone else -- a sober individual -- was also home watching the infant. If not, then she should get some jail time...say 30 days and mandatory alcohol treatment. Craft a sentence that will prevent and help her from not doing it again.
Is say this NOT because she breast fed while drunk, but because she was extremely drunk while being the sole caretaker of an infant. Assuming there were no other sober individuals present, that's just irresponsible. And an aggravating fact is that she was presumably picking up this infant and holding it while extremely drunk.
Put another way, it isn't the breast feeding while drunk that should send her to jail; it's the watching/holding an infant while drunk that should do it.
Posted by: DEJ | Aug 7, 2009 2:49:19 PM
DEJ, is this where we want to go?
Posted by: federalist | Aug 7, 2009 3:39:41 PM
We must be swimming in muck. We can keep escalating control until 50% are incarcerated and the other 50% guard them.
Posted by: beth | Aug 7, 2009 6:11:03 PM