Each time, Defendant massaged her breasts. The last time Stephanie went to see Defendant, she had just given birth and she was not producing breast milk. Defendant had told Stephanie’s mother that he could help the problem by massaging an area under Stephanie’s arm. When Stephanie came in, Defendant had her undress and remove her bra. Then, without explaining why he was doing so, he proceeded to massage her full breast, pinching her nipples the way a baby would suckle them. This made Stephanie feel very uncomfortable. Defendant then told Stephanie that when his wife was pregnant, he would suckle her breasts to try to bring in her milk. He offered to suck on Stephanie’s breasts for the same reason. Stephanie immediately ended the session. She never returned to 626, 633 (Ct.App.1985) (<HOLDING>). The question of whether a massage therapist
recognizing a district courts continuing jurisdiction over child eustody and child maintenance determinations holding that livein babysitter was in position of au thority over child holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child holding an unborn child is a child for purposes of prosecuting chemical endangerment of a child holding over