Here’s a holiday story to warm the heart. A Michigan mother of three children, the youngest of whom is only six months, is going through a very messy divorce proceeding with a husband who allegedly physically abused her before she moved out. While they share legal custody of the children, the mother has been granted full physical custody.

Now, the man is seeking full legal and physical custody of the children, and one of his arguments is that he is concerned about the children’s “safety” because the mother “gives the children raw milk, the sale of which is illegal in Michigan.” She obtains her milk from a local herdshare.

You’d think the answer would be pretty obvious—we’re talking about milk here, not corn syrup or diet soda or tuna fish, and we know that raw milk (not soft “bathtub” cheese) doesn’t show up on any lists of most-risky foods for foodborne illness. In addition, mothers are favored for physical custody, especially in cases involving a father’s alleged abuse.

One other thing: While Michigan prohibits the retail sale of raw milk, it does allow herdshare arrangements. It has explicitly done so since May 2007, when the case of Richard Hebron, the farmer whose raw milk was confiscated in a sting operation in October 2006, was brought to a close via a compromise legal agreement.  The agreement—signed by the Michigan Department of Agriculture—explicitly provides for distribution of raw milk via herdshares in Michigan.

Unfortunately, the reality may not matter because we may be looking at a case of pure fearmongering around the combustible mix of raw milk and children. This story first showed up on a raw milk listserve, and I’ve since made contact with the mom; she asked me to not use her name, and to disguise her personal details , which I’ve done.

On the listserve, Sally Fallon, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, responded, “Unfortunately, in a divorce court, it won’t matter whether giving raw milk is legal or not.It will be up to the judge, court psychiatrists, etc. It is very hard to win this one in divorce court.”

I think the problem Sally is referring to is that pretty much any “expert” the father calls on—pediatrician, physician, public health official, etc.—could well testify that raw milk is “dangerous” for young children. We’ve seen frequent examples of how the scientific and medical establishments lie and misstate the facts around raw milk research and dangers.

If Sally is correct, then this situation may actually be a better example of the “legal” repercussions around raw milk than the insurance and similar issues anticipated by Regulator following my December 26 posting.

The real possibility that a mother could lose her children to an abusive father is a reminder about the ramifications of the ongoing vilification of raw milk by the medical/agriculture/health establishments.