|
|
After much speculation on the impact of a new federal law requiring certain employers to give unpaid pump breaks to certain employees (and my advice to Curb Your Enthusiasm), the U.S. Department of Labor has issued a Fact Sheet.
Fact Sheet #73: Break Time for Nursing Mothers under the FLSA restates the requirements of the amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act which went into effect this past March and which requires unpaid breaks for certain employees to pump breast milk and private space in which to pump.
While the text of the Fact Sheet provides little clarification of the new law – the penalty to employers for violating the law is still unclear – and is not an official position statement or regulation, it may indicate the Department of Labor is better prepared to accept complaints than it was in March.
Employees seeking more information should "call [the DOL] toll-free information and helpline, available 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in your time zone, 1-866-4USWAGE (1-866-487-9243)." While there have been no public reports of employees using this new law, I have also seen no reports of the DOL rejecting complaints. Any nursing mother having trouble with employer compliance with the federal workplace pumping law should feel free to write about it here.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Department on Womens Health, is having a contest to choose the cover photo for an update of its Easy Guide to Breastfeeding. I popped over there when I saw the notice on Twitter and thought the choices weren't very interesting. They are generic photos, none of which clearly show a latched baby. I decided not to vote because I didn't like any of the three choices. There was something just plain vanilla about all three.
Elita over at Blacktating has a great post on why I saw vanilla. Mother and child in all three photos are white. Not only do I agree with her on the impropriety of having only white babies to choose from but I find some of the comments to her blogs disturbing. Go over and have a look.
Even if one thinks it is legitimate to chose a representative baby by the skin color of the majority of babies born in the U.S (a questionable criteria, in my opinion), take a look at the U.S. Census Bureau data on the "race" of women who have given birth in the previous twelve months for 2006-08. Add up all the people who identify as non-white in some way and compare that number to the number of those who identify as white. "Average U.S. mom" is not "white."
In the three photo choices, both mother and child are white. I don't have the statistics (I don't find either the U.S. Census or the website for the Census Bureau particularly user-friendly), but I suspect the number of non-white babies born in the U.S. is even higher than the number of non-white mothers. So making both mom and baby white is even more inaccurate if we are using the "average dyad" criteria for choosing the appropriate government document cover photo.
I am not arguing that there is any particular physical characteristic that makes one photo a better choice than another. I don't think the mother or child have to be part of the majority race (if indeed the U.S. still has one). I would vote for the photo I think is more beautiful or most what I associate with breastfeeding. I would chose the photo that seems most realistic or perhaps even most interesting or most compelling. But if the U.S. government is truly asking people to make a choice, we have to be given choices. "White, white or white"? No contest.
The workplace pumping provision of the federal health care bill sounds like great news for women who pump breast milk in the workplace. Who could complain about a federal requirement that all employers give reasonable unpaid breaks to employees who need to pump for their nursing infants? On closer examination of what the law actually does, I think many of you will complain.
On its face, the new law, Section 207 (r) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), requires unpaid break time for employees to pump breast milk for a child under age one. In a country that truly supports breastfeeding mothers and their children, women should be paid for pumps breaks. Children should breastfeed until at least a year so mothers can pump for as long as their children need them to. The new federal law has a hardship exception for employers of fewer than 50 employees. It is still unclear how many employers will evade the new requirements under an as yet undefined hardship exception.
But the problem with the new federal workplace pumping law is much bigger than all that. The problem is that there may be no way for most women to use it at all.
Go back to the FLSA. To be covered by new Section 207 (r) you have to be an employee to whom the FLSA applies in the first place.
Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay for employees employed as bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees. Section 13(a)(1) and Section 13(a)(17) also exempt certain computer employees. To qualify for exemption, employees generally must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $455 per week.
Basically that means that if you get a salary, you are probably not covered by the FLSA and not entitled to whatever new federal workplace pumping benefits there are. Well then, the exempt workers should at least be happy for the nonexempt – the hourly workers, those women covered by Section 207 (r), right? Well, hang on.
The first thing I researched about the new federal workplace pumping law was whether there was a penalty for employers that don't comply. Finding the answer is much harder than it would appear. Go back and read the text of the bill. No, you didn't miss it. There is nothing about enforcement, penalties or remedies.
But you can't stop there because new subsection (r) is an amendment to Section 207 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. (I know this is confusing but ride along with me.) So you need to go to the FLSA and read Section 207. See if Section 207 has some enforcement, penalties or remedies. Hmm. Nope. So then you read the entire FLSA. (Actually, you don't need to unless you want to. I reread it for the first time since law school.)
There are lawyers who do exclusively FLSA work but, fair warning, I am not one of them. You can find the penalties though. Section 216, which is long and convoluted. From what I can tell, penalties are available if the employer's violation resulted in lost wages or unpaid overtime pay. But Section 207 (r) specifies that pump breaks are to be unpaid. So it appears that an employee would have to get fired to have lost wages. And women don't want to get fired over needing to use a breast pump at work.
In the real world, if an employee can't get pump breaks or a pump space, she needs an order, either from a court or a government agency, requiring the employer obey the law. What she needs is an injunction. But for injunctive relief under the FLSA, you need to look at Section 217. Did you read it? No mention of it applying to Section 207.
So what will happen to an employer who refuses to comply with the new federal workplace pumping mandate? So far, I haven't been able to find a labor lawyer who can tell me. And that makes me wonder whether the answer is "nothing at all."
The Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, has the ability to issue "Administrator Interpretations" which clarify what the FLSA means. However it is unknown when any will be issued concerning employer obligations under Section 207 (r). Unless there are complaints filed, Wage and Hour will have no reason to issue any "Interpretations."
Now, some employers are going to provide break time and pump space to all employees who need them. Some employers already do. As I wrote in Pumping 9-5 in Mothering back in 2008, 26% of all U.S. employers provided some sort of lactation support in 2007. But the study from which that figure comes does not specify how much lactation support. It is unlikely that a quarter of all U.S. employers give both unpaid break time and a place to pump that meets the requirements of the new FLSA Section 207 (r): "a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public."
Let's also remember that only thirteen states, plus Puerto Pico and the District of Columbia, have laws that require some employers to give unpaid breaks and a place to pump to their employees. Of those thirteen, only five states (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, and Vermont), as well as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, have laws that penalize employers for failing to abide by workplace pumping laws.
Let's take a look at what large corporate law firms appear to be telling their large corporate clients. Some corporate law firms appear to be advising large companies to comply at least minimally. A few point out that this amendment may contradict existing FLSA regulations which require that employers pay employees for breaks up to 20 minutes.
So what should you do if you are an hourly worker whose employer is not complying with FLSA Section 207 (r)? Contact the U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division at 1-866-487-9243. Look around the Wage and Hour website. Have a confidential conversation at the toll free number. And then, if you would like to share your story with others, e-mail me. I am currently collecting information from workers whose employers refuse to comply with FLSA Section 207 (r). Until we know whether this new federal law can actually help women pump in the workplace, I will be writing the stories of women whose employers fail to comply with it.
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Jennifer and Scott Spiegel are suing the hospital in which Ms. Spiegel gave birth because she was accidentally brought the wrong baby to breastfeed. I haven't found a copy of the legal Complaint seeking damages in excess of $30,000 for the couple, but in every interview with the Spiegels I can find there is no allegation that their baby was harmed in any way.
Switching babies is a serious matter. If babies are not properly identified, they can be given the wrong medication or sent home with the wrong family (lest we forget Kimberly Mays). All the more reason for babies to be born at home whenever possible and to room-in with their mothers when they are born in hospitals. And I believe that Jennifer Spiegel
was exhausted and worried. She wondered, "Was he with someone else? Where is he?"
If someone brought me the wrong baby, I would wonder whether my baby was with someone else. However it appears that baby Logan Spiegel was not harmed in this mix-up. Jennifer Spiegel was brought a baby other than her own son, breastfed him, the error was discovered, and Logan Spiegel (who was never nursed by anyone other than his own mother) spent the rest of the stay in his mother's room.
So where then is the damage?
Jennifer Spiegel says her obstetrician told her there was only a slim chance of the baby or her passing each other a disease or virus.
Let's examine that sentence for a moment. If we remove the part about her passing disease to the baby, would we still be talking about even a "slim chance"? Isn't the "slim chance" of disease transfer from her to the baby and not from the baby to her? And she is the one suing for damages?
But wait for it. The lawsuit needs to state the damage.
Jennifer Spiegel, a first-time mother, didn't sign up to feed another woman's child, the lawsuit says.
I'm trusting the Chicago Sun-Times for the phrasing. I really hope the Complaint doesn't really refer to breastfeeding as something one "signs up for."
What does seem clear from what is publicly available now is that this is a lawsuit about being damaged by nursing another woman's baby. And I find that offensive and implausible.
There was a mistake made here. One that had the potential to be quite harmful but in fact harmed no one. If there is an Illinois lawyer reading this, I would like to know what the state regulatory scheme does to hospitals that make such potentially harmful mistakes. But was Jennifer Spiegel damaged by having breastfed someone else's child? Or was her husband Scott, who appears to be both plaintiff and plaintiff's lawyer in this case (heads-up on that folks, when we lawyers represent ourselves it is usually because we can't find another lawyer willing to do it)?
I'll be watching this one. I'm afraid this will be a sad display of greed and the mischaracterization of breastfeeding another woman's child as traumatic.
A few days after the earthquake in Haiti, my Facebook account was flooded with suggestions to become a "Fan" of an organization I do not trust. I wondered why people who should know which organizations are actually helping breastfeeding women and their children would think I would want to support this particular organization. And fairly soon I knew: this organization had a heart string pulling photo of Haiti on its home page and a claim it was helping get donated breast milk to Haiti. My response? Not a chance.
I was dubious not only because of my distrust of this particular organization but because of the practical realities of transporting and distributing human milk in a country with no electricity, no refrigeration, and no hope of widespread access to either any time soon. I also knew that the first priority in feeding babies in an emergency is to feed from the breast. And I knew that the U.S. has a long and shameful history of harming the people of Haiti.
If you live in the United States, chances are good you know little about Haiti. I am no expert but I have some book recommendations. Look in the left hand sidebar for links (and please click through them to buy books at Powells and support this blog). The Rainy Season: Haiti Since Duvalier by Amy Wilentz is the first book I read about Haiti. I read it the year it was published, 1989, when I was 26 and a year out of law school. It is a beautiful, horrifying, well-researched book about the history of the country grown out of the first successful slave revolution in the western hemisphere. By the time Brother, I'm Dying was published I knew a good bit more about Haiti, in part having read all the previous works of that book's author Edwidge Danticat. Brother, I'm Dying is the true story of the death of Danticat's beloved uncle in the custody of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). If you are wondering why there would be any issue about accepting refugees from Haiti, you need to read Brother, I'm Dying, not only because you need to learn more about how the U.S. treats Haitians regardless of whether there has been an earthquake but all of us in the U.S. need to know the nightmare a U.S. citizen of Haitian descent can go through trying to find the truth about the unnecessary death of a loved one who simply disappears into DHS custody while legally entering the U.S.
What you probably do know about Haiti is that on January 12th it was devastated by an earthquake killing hundreds of thousands of people and nearly two weeks later the death toll is still rising. You may also, particularly if you are an advocate of breastfeeding, think that getting breast milk to babies orphaned by the quake is urgent. Well, yes and no. All international aid organizations know that bringing artificial baby milk (also known as "formula") to an area without clean water is sure to lead to more dead babies. Mixing powdered formula with contaminated water is an obvious danger. So what is the problem with liquid formula? The nipple (teats) and bottles needed to feed babies other than from the breast must be sterilized – impossible without clean water, electricity, refrigeration, and fuel. Well then, donated breast milk becomes all the more important, right? No. Haiti has no milk banks and even if it had them, without uninterrupted electricity and refrigeration – something it will not have for the foreseeable future – there will be no milk banks. Donor milk is also not sustainable. An unknown number of Haitian babies have been orphaned by the earthquake, however they must be fed by Haitian women who can continue to feed them.
Prior to the earthquake Haiti was already the poorest country in the hemisphere. Its infant mortality rate was the highest in the western hemisphere (nearly 60 out of every 1,000 babies died before the age of one compared to 6 out of every 1,000 in the U.S.) Maternal mortality was also the highest in the hemisphere (670 women out of every 100,000 died of pregnancy-related causes as opposed to 11 out of every 100,000 in the U.S.) However, breastfeeding rates in Haiti were far better than the U.S. According to UNICEF, 41% of babies under the age of six months are exclusively breastfed in Haiti compared to 13.6% in the U.S. When considering the availability of breast milk in Haiti, there are some other critical statistics. The rate of non-exclusive breastfeeding of children between 6 and 9 months is 87% and the percentage of children still breastfeeding at 20-23 months is 35%. What these numbers mean is the one thing that Haiti has a lot of is lactating women.
Still a number of breastfeeding advocacy organizations in the U.S. – the Human Milk Banking Association of North America (HMBANA), United States Breastfeeding Committee (USBC), International Lactation Consultant Association/United States Lactation Consultant Association (ILCA/USLCA), and La Leche League International (LLLI) – issued an "Urgent Call for Human Milk Donations for Haiti Infants" on January 25th. The U.S. Navy Ship Comfort, a medical vessel currently anchored off the coast of Haiti, had been shipped frozen donated breast milk and the "Urgent Call" urged lactating women in the U.S. to donate more breast milk to HMBANA milk banks, some of which would go to Haiti. Reading this "Urgent Call," something didn't feel right to me. The donor milk was going to the ship NICU and can not be sent to any facility on land as there is no facility that can maintain and distribute it. So I did some research on the Comfort. It took seconds to discover that the Comfort NICU has two incubators. Yes, two. Any baby born prematurely on the ship will have to be able to breastfeed exclusively before leaving the ship because breast milk from the breast is the only way Haitian babies can survive conditions there.
In short order, it was discovered that there had been no request for donor milk and aid organizations were asking that the milk shipments stop. The Emergency Nutrition Network explains why: the first priority has to be relactating women not currently nursing and making sure Haitian babies are feeding at the breast. That "stressed or malnourished women cannot breastfeed" is listed as one of the "myths that put babies at risk."
One organization that is helping women in Haiti breastfeed is Circle of Health International (COHI). This non-profit – the one that has been getting my donations – has sent midwives, lactation professionals, and birthing supplies to Haiti for the estimated 37,000 women currently pregnant as well as the women and children who survived the quake.
So why did these U.S. breastfeeding organizations send out this "Urgent Call"? Perhaps it was ignorance. Perhaps it was well-intentioned. Perhaps it really did not occur to them that any feeding of babies in Haiti other than from the breast could decrease the total amount of breast milk available in Haiti because it discourages Haitian women from building their own milk supplies by breastfeeding babies (their own or orphaned ones) or relactating. And perhaps some non-profits see exploitation of the Haitian crisis as an acceptable way to raise funds that will be used elsewhere. There may be explanations but there is no excuse. Haitian women and children need our help urgently and we can help by sending money to aid organizations like COHI.
For some months now I have been hearing about a proposed bill heading to the Taiwan Parliament that would impose a large fine (30,000 Taiwan dollars, about 940 US dollars) on "anyone attempting to prevent breastfeeding in public." Breastfeeding advocates the world over have heralded this bill as a model for laws elsewhere. However, I have been unable to find a copy of the proposed Taiwanese law. Before I support penalties, I want to know what conduct is being outlawed. Is the Taiwan bill going to impose this fine on owners and employees of public accommodations or will anyone be subject to it? What constitutes "preventing" breastfeeding? Should a store owner who harasses a breastfeeding customer in any way be fined? In my view, absolutely. Public accommodations enjoy certain benefits from the state and are regulated so that they can be truly public. Should a passerby in the park who makes a rude remark be fined? In my view, no. Regulating speech is dangerous business. If I limit your ability to say things with which I disagree, you may limit my ability to say things with which you disagree. Down that road, I don't get to say much.
But this post isn't really about what conduct should be fined and what conduct should be endured. When I find out what the Taiwan law actually says, then I'll see if it is appropriate to go on about free speech and the need to suffer fools in order to protect our own rights. This post is about what I found in my search for the text of the Taiwan bill.
Back in 2004 the Scottish Parliament was debating the ultimately successful passage of a bill imposing a large fine on stopping a woman from breastfeeding a child under age two in licensed premises (what would be called "public accommodations" in the U.S.). Now this is my kind of law. And this was also my kind of debate. A representative of the National Childbirth Trust said:
We therefore welcome this landmark legislation, which will establish a mothers' right to breastfeed her baby whenever and wherever they are together and convey the message that breastfeeding is a positive choice to be supported by society rather than discouraged.
I admit, the little hairs on the back of my neck go up every time I see breastfeeding described as a choice. After giving birth, one can choose not to breastfeed but lactating happens when you give birth. But otherwise that statement is right on: mothers must be able to breastfeed their babies wherever they are. However, there was a statement in the Scottish Parliament that day I find more interesting and certainly more memorable. Then-Member of the Scottish Parliament Carolyn Leckie said the following; suitable for framing, T-shirt or refrigerator magnet:
There are tits all over the newspapers, tits all over newsagents' shelves, tits all over the telly, tits in the cinema, tits in advertising hoardings and no doubt tits in the parliament.
All right, some U.K. friend is going to have to tell me what "advertising hoardings" are but Leckie makes a great point with a suitable amount of outrage. It isn't breasts people object to – just breasts with children attached to them.
When I was pregnant with my first son, I gave myself permission to eat as much as I wanted. On some level I decided "you're eating for two now" could reasonably be interpreted as "you're eating for twelve now." Having had a long history of binge eating and binge dieting, being pregnant gave me a margin of error I had never allowed myself (if you have ever weighed yourself before getting in the shower because dry hair is lighter than wet hair, you know what I mean). By the time I was ready to give birth, I had justified my way to a 50 pound weight gain. I consoled myself with the prospect of the sudden weight loss giving birth would bring. The average baby weighs about 8 pounds, I figured, and the placenta and assorted fluids had to weigh another 4 or 5 (yes, I looked up the weight of the average placenta) so in just a few hours I would take off at least 12 pounds. Cool. But then I would still be 35 pounds overweight. I panicked. Then I read that breastfeeding burns calories. Yes! I knew I would breastfeed – had never considered not breastfeeding. Now, breastfeeding came with weight loss benefits. Yay and pass the Doritos.
I knew exactly how much I weighed the day I gave birth. I know this because I made a point of weighing myself before leaving the apartment for the hospital. I don't remember the number now – I've had therapy – but even in hard labor, I was thinking about getting thin. I didn't get back on that scale for five days. The birthing center "squat and leave" birth I had planned became a cesarean section, a post-operative infection, and aspiration pneumonia. My new son and I (and my baby daddy who slept on a convertible armchair in my room) were in the hospital for four long days. Even after getting home, my priorities had shifted enough that getting on the scale was not the first thing I thought to do. But I thought of it on the second day home.
I had been through hell. Not only had a baby, placenta and assorted stuff been surgically removed, I had done a great deal of vomiting and no eating. I figured I must have lost a ton of weight. I got on the scale with very high hopes. I got on and off the scale four or five times. I asked baby daddy if something bad had happened to the scale while we were in the hospital. Somehow I weighed four pounds more than I had before giving birth. My weight loss master plan had been foiled by being on an I.V. for four days. I was more than 50 pounds overweight. Oh. My. God.
While I admit I figured out the number of calories I burned each hour I breastfed, I didn't do anything differently in my breastfeeding relationship in order to lose weight. I read lots of stories of women whose weight just fell away. I heard of women who were struggling to keep weight on. I was not one of those women. There was a time I felt betrayed by the breastfeeding weight loss myth. In the end, post-partum, as during every other period of my life, I lost weight through diet and exercise. Okay, truthfully just diet.
There has a been a fresh run of news stories about breastfeeding and weight loss. I don't know why – perhaps yet another tall, thin, actress attributed her rapid return to svelte to her breastfeeding and not her personal trainer. I always wonder why these stories are considered news. Are these stories about breastfeeding and weight loss so popular because it encourages women to breastfeed? Do women really make the decision not to use formula because they think breastfeeding leads to rapid weight loss? Wouldn't that just be sad? Or is there just titillation in reading about Angelina Jolie's breasts?
It makes me angry – no amount of breastfeeding was ever going to turn me into Angelina Jolie. Did I want breastfeeding to help me take off the weight I shouldn't have put on in the first place? Yeah. Would I have made a different infant feeding decision based on whether breastfeeding helped me lose weight? Of course not.
The great Amy Spangler wrote this piece about the scientific evidence concerning breastfeeding and weight loss. It is short and to the point. Breastfeeding can result in an average weight loss of 4.4 pounds. This is a good thing but in the long list of ways in which breastfeeding is superior to formula feeding for both mother and child, it is no big deal. So how about more breastfeeding journalism that matters and less that creates unrealistic expectations for us just plain (chubby) folk.
Back in July of 2007, I gave a session on Breastfeeding and the Law at the La Leche League International Conference in Chicago. Good session, if I do say so myself, which you can buy on CD here. [Disclaimer: I don't make a cent if you buy it.] While at the Conference, I also did a podcast which has just become available for free here.
So why listen to me talking about the state of breastfeeding law over two years ago? Well, sadly, while there have been some new breastfeeding laws passed – both good and bad – breastfeeding law, and the public attitude toward breastfeeding rights in general, really haven't changed much.
Word of warning, the podcast is almost fifty minutes long so grab some knitting or a hungry baby or something else to do while you listen. I think there some amusing things to learn about my parenting life (how many times do I use the word "clueless" to describe myself as a new parent?) and the role La Leche League has played in it (and how I took my job as Group librarian entirely too seriously). Also I talk about the history of breastfeeding law, current laws and attitudes, and my experience working with the Ronald McDonald House moms. The Ronald McDonald House incident had happened recently and, if anyone is unclear about this, neither Ronald McDonald House of Houston nor Ronald McDonald House Charities has ever dealt appropriately with the moms. So you are going to hear a good bit of justified Jake outrage.
Hope you enjoy it and would love to hear impressions. If nothing else, you have to love a podcast that ends because the interviewer's baby needs a diaper change. 
Pop quiz: anyone know more about this painting? It isn't just visually powerful.
Stacey Anvarinia, the North Dakota women who pled guilty to child neglect for allegedly breastfeeding her infant daughter while intoxicated, has been arrested again. According to the Grand Forks Herald, within hours of Anvarinia's sentencing to 18 months imprisonment, all but six months suspended and with an option to serve part of the six months in substance abuse treatment, she was arrested for slashing the tires on a truck parked in the lot of her apartment building. No word on to whom the truck belonged but I do wonder whether perhaps it was to Delbert Harrison, the man Anvarinia said had beaten her when she called the police for help the night of her arrest for child neglect. Regardless, the police found her "hiding in a closet and appearing intoxicated." (Yes, once again it appears police did not feel it necessary to do a blood alcohol test.) She also had cuts on wrists severe enough for police to bring her to the hospital before bringing her to jail. Well, she got a hospital visit this time rather than the "go directly to jail" card dealt by police after she was kneed in the head last February.
Let's review:
-Woman calls police for help because she is being beaten by her boyfriend as she tries to leave her apartment.
-Police arrive, describe her as "extremely intoxicated" but do not question her ability to care for her six week old daughter until she "began breastfeeding her infant in front of us."
-Woman is never given a blood alcohol test.
-Woman is charged with felony child neglect and the man she identifies as having beaten her is never arrested or charged. In fact, the state lists him as a witness in the case against her.
-Woman loses custody of her child for six months, is then sentenced to a minimum of another six months away from her child, leaves the courthouse after sentencing and slashes someone's tires as well as, possibly, her own wrists.
A North Forks Herald article concerning Anvarinia's sentencing hearing last week reported that the officer on the scene in February testified:
Anvarinia’s demeanor, a strong smell of alcohol on her and the alcohol containers throughout the apartment suggested to him that she was intoxicated.
and
he saw Anvarinia shake the baby girl, hold her without supporting her head and, at one point, hold her upside down by one leg
However, none of this is in the original incident report by the same officer. If a six week old infant were being held upside down by one leg and shaken, would you wait until the mother put the child to the breast to arrest her for child neglect? Would the breastfeeding and nothing else be in the arrest report?
If we are to assume that Anvarinia indeed has an alcohol problem, it was some solace that, though she lost custody of her daughter for at least a year and her abuser walked away with no charges, her sentence included substance abuse treatment. Well, not anymore. In today's report:
Stacey Anvarinia, 26, had been allowed to spend at least part of her sentence at a substance abuse treatment facility, but Judge Sonja Clapp of the State District Court rescinded that option today.
The judge has sent a battered mother who allegedly has an alcohol problem straight to jail and, as punishment for allegedly getting drunk again, won't let her go to alcohol treatment.
Mothers can learn a lot of very disturbing lessons from the Anvarinia case. If you are being beaten while trying to escape an abusive boyfriend, calling the police may result in losing custody of your child. And your abuser won't be charged with any crime. If you plead guilty to charges for which the state appears to have very little evidence in exchange for a lighter sentence and substance abuse treatment, you better not abuse substances before you get treatment because the judge will change your sentence to deny you the treatment you need. So the punishment for being abused is losing your child and the punishment for being an alcoholic is not getting alcohol treatment. Please, someone tell me who this protects?
|
|
Recent Comments