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.

[mhking]

"Hold muh beer 'n watch this!" PING....

If you want on or off this list, please let me know!

[Howlin]

Did her "research" also tell her that she didn't have to pull over for a state trooper? Where's THAT law?

This broad is a ditz.

[shaggy eel]

,,, click here.

[Howlin]

Did her "research" also tell her that she didn't have to pull over for a state trooper? Where's THAT law?

This broad is a ditz.

[Howlin]

Did her "research" also tell her that she didn't have to pull over for a state trooper? Where's THAT law?

This broad is a ditz.

[lilylangtree]

Why didn't this idiot pull over at the tollbooth and feed her baby? Not only is she endangering herself and the baby but also the other drivers. She didn't have a drivers license too? Sheesh!

[RedBloodedAmerican]

You have to admit; it takes some skill to breastfeed in a camaro while driving on an interstate. She probably still drove better than half of America.

[TamiPie]

Donkers is bonkers.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I would have said so 3 times, also. I feel your pain. :o)

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I would have said so 3 times, also. I feel your pain. :o)

[Blood of Tyrants]

I knew it! I knew it! I knew it! When I heard it the first time, I KNEW that she would play the victimized breastfeeding mother.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/927397/posts#34

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I would have said so 3 times, also. I feel your pain. :o)

[Howlin]

She was driving without a license, too, did you notice that?

I guess when they were "researching" the laws -- no doubt to see what they could get away with -- they forgot that one..........LOL.

[justshe]

PLEASE don't tell us you are speaking from experience!

[mhking]

,,, click here.

I know - this is a follow-up to the original story.

[Redcloak]

Hold muh (.)(.)

[Howlin]

Does the Michigan law exempt mothers who are breast feeding who are DRIVING on an INTERSTATE at 70 MPH??????

[Arpege92]

This lady is a moron supreme! Pull over at a rest stop or even the side of the road to feed the kid....you put your child's life in danger and not to mention the other drivers on the road!

[skr]

Common sense should be a pre-requisite to having children.

[You Dirty Rats]

She claims Michigan allows an exception for babies who are nursing.

Just a wild guess on my part, nut I would think it's assumed that SOMEONE ELSE is driving besides the nursing mother.

Also, her husband advised her to go to a public place if she feels unsafe? That's an excuse for not pulling over for a cop?

I guess if the legal eagle was from Nevada, she could turn tricks at a rest stop! (Although, to be fair, that part of the 'pike IS close to where the adult places are). And in former Traficant country, no less.

Ah well, what can we expect from somebody from MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEChigan? Plus, she's driving to Pittsburgh. No wonder.

[Robert_Paulson2]

actually an affadaivat of license IS a legal, though temporary license in most states. According to the issuing state, it can be used while the new license is being mailed out. (usually with a new picture).

if that is the kind of affadaivat she had... the state trooper will lose on this.

also, although I think folks SHOULD wear safety belts... and I always have, wihtout exception. I always thought that making it mandatory was a bunch of nany state bs.. just like the helmet laws.

perhaps her state does NOT restrict such activity while driving.
I think the "if you drive here, you must know all our laws" might be a bit of a stretch in such cases. Some states DO allow you to NOT wear a belt for some circumstances. Common sense would dictate that whatever the law is in your state, is probably similar to laws in other states.

and the cop... should have let her off with a warning... IF her state has a common sense law that ohio has not yet enacted. NOw if she were talking on the cell phone... THEN I would say lock her up and throw away the key!

[shaggy eel]

,,, sorry, I jumped the gun.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Also, her husband advised her to go to a public place if she feels unsafe? That's an excuse for not pulling over for a cop?
that is the law in california too.... if you feel unsafe, you may or must pull over in a public place...

It was the result of the knottsberry murder... the chp officer raped and then killed the heir to the knottsberry farm fortune, on a deserted underpass, on highway fifteen, near poway california.

You are not required to pull over till you feel safe... but of course, if you go too far, they call it a high speed chase, call in the choppers and you end up on the evening news...

[Howlin]

I'm trying to imagine HOW she got that 7 month old baby out of one of those 5 point restraint systems driving down an interstate.

She's lying.

Ask me how I know: she's too well versed on the law.........LOL.

[I still care]

Several years ago I was in a van with a mother of 7. (She was driving.) The baby started crying, and the mother asked her older daughter to hand the baby up, and began nursing her while she was driving.

I can't tell you how unsafe it looked. Any accident, and the baby would have been dead, sandwiched between mom and the steering wheel. And no matter how "easy" a mom says it is, it took quite a bit of fooling to get the baby into proper position. If people can get into accidents turning a dial on a radio, this was way out of line. She swerved in her lane several times trying to get clothes out of the way.

I told her she was nuts. She told me she does it all the time, no big deal.

A year later she ran over her daughter by accident in a driveway.

[Howlin]

OMG....how terrible.

[11th Earl of Mar]

Driving while breastfeeding can really get your tit in a ringer.

[Chemist_Geek]

Throw the book at her. If she thinks that interstate highways' rules are Michigan rules, fine. We can handle that.

257.626c Operation of vehicle on highway or public place; conduct as felony; penalty.
Sec. 626c.

A person who operates a vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, carelessly and heedlessly in willful and wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property resulting in a serious impairment of a body function of a person, but does not cause death, is guilty of felonious driving punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

257.677 Interference with view or control of driver or operation; violation as civil infraction.
Sec. 677.

(1) A person shall not drive a vehicle when it is loaded, or when there are in the front seat a number of persons, as to obstruct the view of the driver to the front or sides of the vehicle or as to interfere with the driver's control over the driving mechanism of the vehicle.

(2) A passenger in a vehicle or streetcar shall not ride in a position as to interfere with the driver's or operator's view ahead or to the sides, or to interfere with the driver's or operator's control over the driving mechanism of the vehicle or streetcar.

(3) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.

257.710e Safety belt required; driver or passenger to which section inapplicable; transporting child 4 years of age but less than 16 years of age; enforcement of section; violation as evidence of negligence; reduction of recovery for damages; violation as civil infraction; reports of police harassment; effect of primary enforcement; study; media to promote compliance; report of findings; intent; assessment of points prohibited.
Sec. 710e.

(1) This section does not apply to a driver or passenger of any of the following:

(a) A motor vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1965.

(b) A bus.

(c) A motorcycle.

(d) A moped.

(e) A motor vehicle if the driver or passenger possesses a written verification from a physician that the driver or passenger is unable to wear a safety belt for physical or medical reasons.

(f) A motor vehicle that is not required to be equipped with safety belts under federal law.

(g) A commercial or United States postal service vehicle that makes frequent stops for the purpose of pickup or delivery of goods or services.

(h) A motor vehicle operated by a rural carrier of the United States postal service while serving his or her rural postal route.

(2) This section does not apply to a passenger of a school bus.

(3) Each driver and front seat passenger of a motor vehicle operated on a street or highway in this state shall wear a properly adjusted and fastened safety belt, except that a child less than 4 years of age shall be protected as required in section 710d. If there are more passengers than safety belts available for use, and all safety belts in the motor vehicle are being utilized in compliance with this section, the driver of the motor vehicle is in compliance with this section.

(4) Each driver of a motor vehicle transporting a child 4 years of age or more but less than 16 years of age in a motor vehicle shall secure the child in a properly adjusted and fastened safety belt. If the motor vehicle is transporting more children than there are safety belts available for use, all safety belts available in the motor vehicle are being utilized in compliance with this section, and the driver and all front seat passengers comply with subsection (3), then the driver of a motor vehicle transporting a child 4 years of age or more but less than 16 years of age for which there is not an available safety belt is in compliance with this subsection, if that child is seated in other than the front seat of the motor vehicle. However, if that motor vehicle is a pickup truck without an extended cab or jump seats, and all safety belts in the front seat are being used, the driver may transport such a child in the front seat without a safety belt.

What she quotes as allowing her to do this, is the following. However, the exception for nursing only applies to Michigan's statutory requirement that children younger than 4 years old be secured in child car seat. This exception does not impact, in any way, her legal obligation, outlined above, to drive the car in a safe manner and maintain an interference-free control of the car.

257.710d Child restraint system required; exceptions; violation as civil infraction; points; abstract; exemption by rules; alternate means of protection.
Sec. 710d.

(1) Except as provided in this section, or as otherwise provided by law, a rule promulgated pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, or federal regulation, each driver transporting a child less than 4 years of age in a motor vehicle shall properly secure that child in a child restraint system that meets the standards prescribed in 49 C.F.R. 571.213.

(2) This section does not apply to any child being nursed.

(3) This section does not apply if the motor vehicle being driven is a bus, school bus, taxicab, moped, motorcycle, or other motor vehicle not required to be equipped with safety belts under federal law or regulations.

(4) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.

(5) Points shall not be assessed under section 320a for a violation of this section. An abstract required under section 732 shall not be submitted to the secretary of state regarding a violation of this section.

(6) The secretary of state may exempt by rules promulgated pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, a class of children from the requirements of this section, if the secretary of state determines that the use of the child restraint system required under subsection (1) is impractical because of physical unfitness, a medical problem, or body size. The secretary of state may specify alternate means of protection for children exempted under this subsection.

[honeygrl]

"Does the Michigan law exempt mothers who are breast feeding who are DRIVING on an INTERSTATE at 70 MPH?????? "

I know many states allow you to remove the child from the carseat to "tend to basic needs" like feeding, diaper change, etc. I doubt there is a specific law that says you may not do this while driving. Not that what she did wasn't dangerous, but the only charge I could see as being valid is reckless driving (if she were driving badly while doing it) and not having a liscense to drive. Waiting until you are at a public place to stop is not a bad idea if you are in an isolated area either.

[Howlin]

Right. It's that old adage about "just because you have the RIGHT to do it doesn't make it right."

[Howlin]

(2) This section does not apply to any child being nursed.

I, too, assume that that means the PASSENGER, not the driver.

[honeygrl]

"I, too, assume that that means the PASSENGER, not the driver. "

But since it doesn't specify passenger then can they charge her for violating that?

[nuconvert]

I guess if she'd had an accident and the baby had gone through the windshield or been crushed to death, it would have been everyone's fault but her's.

[Howlin]

They know what it means. And they will throw the book at her.

[Chemist_Geek]

Well, 257.710d(1) requires that the driver of a vehicle secure any children younger than 4 in a car seat, unless the child is nursing per 257.710d(2). So, the woman in question cannot be charged with violating 257.710d, because the child was nursing.

However, the child may be charged (probably in juvenile court) with violating 257.677(2), interfering with a driver's control over the driving mechanism. *wink* In the interest of justice, I suggest that case be dropped.

The mother may be charged with violating 257.677(1), loading the front seat so as to interfere with her operation of the driving controls; and 257.626c, carelessly operating a vehicle.

Of course, those are all Michigan laws. I don't subscribe to their theory that interstate highways operate on the laws of the driver's home state. Ohio law, with which I am not familiar, will govern this prosecution.

FWIW, I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. My posts are not legal advice.

[mylife]

It would have been the fault of whoever caused the accident.
Tit happens!

[Consort]

[drjimmy]

if that is the kind of affadaivat she had... the state trooper will lose on this.
I could be wrong, but this story is starting to smell to me like she's one of those nutbags that uses affidavits because having a driver's license is the "mark of the beast." The fact that she and her husband did "extensive research on the law" about simply having a driver's license and claim that driving on an interstate means only the laws from their "home" state apply to them sends up a red flag to me.

[GovernmentShrinker]

She did pull over for the trooper -- just not until she reached the toll plaza. That is perfectly legal in all states, as far as I know. There are too many cases of fake cops making stops, and of real cops seriously misbehaving when making stops, and all police departments recognize that it's acceptable for a motorist to proceed to a public place, such as a toll plaza or a gas station, before stopping.

[nuconvert]

Or a good way to get out of tickets

[T Minus Four]

tee hee!

[steve8714]

This is why I belong to NO MA'AM

[steve8714]

Not seat belt law, child restraint law...

[FITZ]

Several years ago I was in a van with a mother of 7.

And why was she in such a hurry that she couldn't pull over for a few minutes? Why bother having kids if their lives mean so little to you, you don't have time to provide them a little safety? Selfish morons.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

based on 257.710d of the Michigan Code, she's going to walk, possibly with a cash settlement for the Police actions. Here's the Ohio Code.

§ 4511.81 Child restraint system required; child highway safety fund. -- RC § 4511.81 is affected by Am. Sub. S.B. 123 (149 v --), effective 1-1-2004. See the 2002 Legislative Bulletin No. 4 for the version effective 1-1-2004.

(A) When any child who is in either or both of the following categories is being transported in a motor vehicle, other than a taxicab or public safety vehicle as defined in section 4511.01 of the Revised Code, that is registered in this state and is required by the United States department of transportation to be equipped with seat belts at the time of manufacture or assembly, the operator of the motor vehicle shall have the child properly secured in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions in a child restraint system that meets federal motor vehicle safety standards:

(1) A child who is less than four years of age;
(2) A child who weighs less than forty pounds.

(B) When any child who is in either or both of the following categories is being transported in a motor vehicle, other than a taxicab, that is registered in this state and is owned, leased, or otherwise under the control of a nursery school, kindergarten, or day-care center, the operator of the motor vehicle shall have the child properly secured in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions in a child restraint system that meets federal motor vehicle safety standards:

(1) A child who is less than four years of age;
(2) A child who weighs less than forty pounds.

(C) The director of public safety shall adopt such rules as are necessary to carry out this section.

(D) The failure of an operator of a motor vehicle to secure a child in a child restraint system as required by this section is not negligence imputable to the child, is not admissible as evidence in any civil action involving the rights of the child against any other person allegedly liable for injuries to the child, is not to be used as a basis for a criminal prosecution of the operator of the motor vehicle other than a prosecution for a violation of this section, and is not admissible as evidence in any criminal action involving the operator of the motor vehicle other than a prosecution for a violation of this section.

(E) This section does not apply when an emergency exists that threatens the life of any person operating a motor vehicle and to whom this section otherwise would apply or the life of any child who otherwise would be required to be restrained under this section.

(F) If a person who is not a resident of this state is charged with a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section and does not prove to the court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person's use or nonuse of a child restraint system was in accordance with the law of the state of which the person is a resident, the court shall impose the fine levied by division (H)(2) of section 4511.99 of the Revised Code.

(G) There is hereby created in the state treasury the "child highway safety fund," consisting of fines imposed pursuant to divisions (H)(1) and (2) of section 4511.99 of the Revised Code for violations of divisions (A) and (B) of this section. The money in the fund shall be used by the department of health only to defray the cost of designating hospitals as pediatric trauma centers under section 3727.081 [3727.08.1] of the Revised Code and to establish and administer a child highway safety program. The purpose of the program shall be to educate the public about child restraint systems generally and the importance of their proper use. The program also shall include a process for providing child restraint systems to persons who meet the eligibility criteria established by the department, and a toll-free telephone number the public may utilize to obtain information about child restraint systems and their proper use.

The director of health, in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code, shall adopt any rules necessary to carry out this section, including rules establishing the criteria a person must meet in order to receive a child restraint system under the department's child restraint system program; provided that rules relating to the verification of pediatric trauma centers shall not be adopted under this section.

HISTORY: 139 v H 605 (Eff 3-7-83); 141 v S 54 (Eff 5-6-86); 141 v H 428 (Eff 12-23-86); 142 v S 53 (Eff 10-20-87); 144 v S 98 (Eff 11-12-92); 145 v H 381 (Eff 6-23-94); 148 v H 138 (Eff 11-3-2000); 149 v H 94. Eff 6-6-2001.

The effective date is set by section 206 of HB 94.

[Calvin Locke]

I had a customer that said the strangest thing he ever saw in Harvard Square, was a woman breast feeding while riding a bicycle.

Speaking of vans, I remember some news story about a woman who just bought a caravan with cruise control. Urban Myth Alert?
She engaged it, and went in to the back to take care of the baby.

Her line was "The salesman said it would [practically] drive itself.

[Chemist_Geek]

Hmm. Interesting. I'm not sure with what she is charged; but clearly, a charge of failure to properly restrain a child passenger will not stand up.

A charge under Ohio Code § 4511.202 might stand up.

§ 4511.202 Operating a motor vehicle without reasonable control.

No person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar on any street, highway, or property open to the public for vehicular traffic without being in reasonable control of the vehicle, trolley, or streetcar

I can't seem to find a parallel to MCL 257.677 in the Ohio code, but I haven't looked that hard.

[RgnadKzin]

The question is not: Is she crazy?
The question is: Should she be charged for doing something that is lawful?

What does the LAW say? or should we care?

1st, we take risks every day. Do we live our lives in fear or do we take reasonable risks? Whether or not you feel this is too great a risk is irrelevant. It is what she feels is a reasonable risk. At interstate speeds, it is unlikely that the child would have survived an accident even if the child were in a restraint.

2nd, do we govern our conduct based upon public opinion, or do we base our conduct on the written law?

Here is the Michigan law:
http://michiganlegislature.org/law/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-257-710d&userid=

257.710d Child restraint system required; exceptions; violation as civil infraction; points; abstract; exemption by rules; alternate means of protection.

(1) Except as provided in this section, or as otherwise provided by law, a rule promulgated pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, or federal regulation, each driver transporting a child less than 4 years of age in a motor vehicle shall properly secure that child in a child restraint system that meets the standards prescribed in 49 C.F.R. 571.213.

(2) This section does not apply to any child being nursed.

Pretty unequivocable isn't it?
If you are the driver and I am in your car and the child is not in restraint, who gets the ticket? The driver.
If she is the only adult in the car and she is nursing, she is exempt. The statute above does not say '... by a passenger'

But she's in Ohio, so she should follow Ohio law!!!

Here is the Ohio law:
http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll/PORC/16f81/17778/179c2?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

Subsection (F) says that the troopers must look to the law of the state where she maintains a residence:

(F) If a person who is not a resident of this state is charged with a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section and does not prove to the court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person's use or nonuse of a child restraint system was in accordance with the law of the state of which the person is a resident, the court shall impose the fine levied by division (H)(2) of section 4511.99 of the Revised Code.

Now, I see from some people here that this is supposed to be negligence. Most all of the states have a statute akin to this one:

Subsection (D) The failure of an operator of a motor vehicle to secure a child in a child restraint system as required by this section is not negligence imputable to the child, is not admissible as evidence in any civil action involving the rights of the child against any other person allegedly liable for injuries to the child, is not to be used as a basis for a criminal prosecution of the operator of the motor vehicle other than a prosecution for a violation of this section, and is not admissible as evidence in any criminal action involving the operator of the motor vehicle other than a prosecution for a violation of this section.

Charging her for negligence is therefore improper.

The fact of the matter is that the troopers have a duty to know the law. They failed in that duty and stopped her for something for which she could not be found guilty.

Then they impounder her car and put her in jail.

Then they added two new unfounded charges a month later when she would not cop a plea.

Finally, I know that this woman has been assaulted twice by the police. I know that she has been raped at gunpoint while she attended the US Naval Academy. She does not pull over until she gets to a safe place with witnesses.

Your failure to be informed of the facts and law in this situation does not make her a wacko.

[mhking]

Two words: Child endangerment.

'Nuff said.