by New Haven, CT – A Connecticut judge has awarded nearly $32 million to grieving parents after ruling that a major hospital violated their wishes and failed to obtain consent before feeding their premature newborn a cow-based formula, a decision that ultimately led to the infant’s death.
Court Rules Hospital Acted Without Parental Consent
On Thursday, a Connecticut court ruled in favor of Anika Hunte and Dane Peterson, awarding them $31.9 million in damages after determining that Yale New Haven Hospital failed to follow explicit parental instructions regarding their son’s nutrition.
According to court findings reported by WFSB, the hospital provided the infant with dairy-based formula products without informing or receiving permission from the parents—an action the judge found directly contributed to the baby’s fatal medical condition.
Premature Birth and Clear Feeding Instructions
The couple’s son, Aires-Reign Peterson, was born extremely premature at just 27 weeks on January 30, 2018, weighing approximately one pound. Due to his fragile condition, Hunte reportedly made it clear to hospital staff that she wanted her son fed only breast milk, according to the lawsuit filed against the healthcare provider.
Medical experts widely acknowledge that premature infants face heightened health risks and require carefully managed nutrition. For parents of premature babies, feeding decisions are often critical and deeply personal.
Cow-Based Fortifier Introduced Without Disclosure
Court documents revealed that when the newborn began losing weight in February 2018, doctors added a cow-based fortifier to Hunte’s breast milk in an effort to boost calories and weight gain.
However, the parents alleged—and the judge agreed—that they were never told the supplement was derived from cow’s milk, nor were they warned about the potential risks it posed to extremely premature infants. Specifically, they were not informed about the increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a severe and often fatal gastrointestinal disease.
Deadly Condition Develops Within Days
Only days after receiving the milk-based supplement, the newborn developed necrotizing enterocolitis, a life-threatening condition that primarily affects premature infants and can cause intestinal tissue to die.
The court ruled that the formula was the direct cause of the disease. As Aires-Reign’s condition rapidly worsened, he was placed on life support, according to the lawsuit.
Despite extensive medical intervention, the baby died less than two months later, devastating his family.
Judge: Safer Alternatives Were Available
In a critical part of the ruling, the judge found that human milk–based alternatives—which carry a significantly lower risk of NEC—were available on the market at the time. However, Yale New Haven Hospital did not stock them.
The court concluded that doctors should have either obtained the appropriate human milk–based products or transferred the infant to another facility that could safely meet his nutritional needs.
Failing to do either, the judge ruled, constituted negligence and a violation of parental consent.
Breakdown of the $31.9 Million Judgment
The judgment awarded to the parents includes:
- $1.9 million for medical expenses and lost earning capacity
- $30 million for pain and suffering, as well as for the wrongful death of the child
Legal experts say the ruling underscores the importance of informed consent, especially in neonatal intensive care settings where decisions can carry life-or-death consequences.
Case Highlights Broader Medical Consent Concerns
The case has sparked renewed debate around parental rights, hospital transparency, and informed consent in neonatal care. Advocates argue that parents—especially those with premature infants—must be fully informed about all medical interventions and associated risks.
“This ruling sends a strong message that hospitals cannot override parental decisions without full disclosure,” said one healthcare law expert familiar with similar cases.
A Lasting Impact Beyond the Courtroom
While no amount of money can replace the loss of a child, the parents hope the ruling will lead to changes in hospital policies nationwide, ensuring that no other family experiences a similar tragedy.
The case serves as a sobering reminder of the stakes involved in neonatal care and the critical importance of honoring parental consent at every stage.
What Do You Think?
Should hospitals be required to stock safer alternatives for premature infants, even if they are more expensive? Should penalties be harsher when consent is ignored? Share your thoughts in the comments below and join the conversation.
