Contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission www.cpsc.gov, that will get their attention

Honestly, I don't see what the problem is here. She wrote an informational letter to them, didn't ask for reimbursement or exchange or threaten any lawsuits or anything, and she got back a perfectly acceptable response to that. They apologized for the problem, stated they were glad the child was not hurt, and promised to direct the issue to the appropriate people. What more does she want? "Oh my god! We're totally sorry! Here's a million dollars!" ?

contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CC the company so they know about it.

Consumer Product Safety Commission. If the company wants to act like that, they deserve to get the hammer dropped on them.

@Nighthawke: [www.cpsc.gov]

I agree..I don't really understand the problem. Yes, it would be nice if they posted something on their website about the possibility for a chocking hazard, but what if no one else has complained about this problem? They apologized and hopefully they will really pass along the info.

I'm not sure what a better response would include. It's a little terse, but they clearly read her letter and let her know what they would do about it. Overall, average customer service. Could have been better, but it probably could have been worse.

I guess they're not taking it seriously?

I don't see the issue, what was she wanting as a response? Contacting the consumer product safety commission makes sense, but I'm not outraged by the response. I'm a mom and a consumer but I can't muster up any anger at this company's letter.

@BZMedia: Indeed. I'm not sure what the problem is here.

My main question is - what constitutes a choking hazard that is the fault of the PRODUCT and what constitutes a chocking hazard that is because you need to watch what kids put in their mouths?

I'm not saying she wasn't watching the baby but with a 9-month-old, everything poses a choking hazard. Plus, it's not a product for children, like a toy per se where these kinds of things would have to be taken into account during manufacturing.

Probably very, very legal-related reasons they can't comment further.

Call the US Consumer Products Safety Commission at 1-800-638-2772 or by sending an e-mail to info@cpsc.gov. Gather all info before calling or provide it in the email to report the incident.

In reading the above, all consumerists should regard such attachments to garments with caution. This product was not new and, thru washings, the ribbons will wear or tear off. Such garments should not be near infants who love to stuff things in their mouths at all times.

Hope this helps; it should and the reporting of this will help other moms be more vigilant.

I don't see the problem with the response either. The CEO is going to be informed, as is the marketing department. They're the people who would be directly involved in further decision making about the pajamas, including a recall or some sort of warning to consumers.

I'm not sure what this consumer was expecting by way of a response. What kind of response would have satisfied her?

I agree that a complaint to the CPSC is a good idea.

@Nighthawke: And why do the deserve that? Did they give any indication that they intend to take no action?

They haven't indicated WHAT action they will take, but they indicated the CEO is being informed along with marketing. It is reasonable to assume that a warning may be including in the packaging as a short term solution (marketing) and long term a redesign or product termination (CEO decision).

The company is under no obligation to disclose their future course of action, which probably has not yet been determined anyhow.

@Vanilla5: "Plus, it's not a product for children"

Nursing clothes are DEFINITELY a product for children (you don't wear them for fashion!) and you're talking about a time where baby's putting stuff in his mouth on purpose. Strings and ties are a major hazard around babies, whether they're on the baby's clothes, on mom's, or on the window blinds.

Given this is a company that sells basically nothing but nursing clothes, I'd like to see them take this a little more seriously. If they're selling outfits where things detach and go down my baby's throat, I'm taking my nursing shopping elsewhere.

What is Motherwear going to do? Put "Do not chew" on the front of the pajamas?

Babies can't read. And if they could, I'm pretty sure they'd ignore the instruction. I would.

I see no problem here at all.
She reported it, the company responded with a perfectly valid response.
First, the garment is NOT meant for infents, so she could have the same issue with any clothing she was wearing. It as a maternity set, but those are normally meant for wear WHILE you are pregnant, so thay are still not designed for children.
Another case of a consumer bashing a company for no reason. It seems like the consumerist has been running a lot of these types of stories lately.

@BZMedia: I have to agree with the comment from BZMedia. Pajamas designed for children must meet stringent standards as they are designed for children who may put anything into their mouth. Pajamas for adults are designed for adults who generally don't put everything into their mouth.

I feel the response was appropriate. They passed the message along to those who can make changes, perhaps tacking the ribbons on so they can't be removed.

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): "Given this is a company that sells basically nothing but nursing clothes, I'd like to see them take this a little more seriously. If they're selling outfits where things detach and go down my baby's throat, I'm taking my nursing shopping elsewhere."

Perhaps she should have considered that before purchasing it for her infant then, or at least be inspecting items before dressing the child. When exactly did parenting get absolved of all responsibility for your own child? Their response sounded to me like they are taking it seriously. What more should they have done? Rushed out the response team to her location?

@Nighthawke: Act like what, making adult pajamas that meet current CPSC regulations?

@Smashville: Yup. In addition to not admitting they made a mistake, if they do change the product design in the future, they can't say anything that might give her a "claim" to the idea.

@SkokieGuy: They gave lip service in such a fashion that they were disinterested in listening to her complaints. Twice.

This gives the OP and me the impression that they are not going to give a damn.

So, to inspire them to be more communicative and show that effort is being made to resolve this, some spurs to the rump are in order. Hence the CPSC complaint form.

Count me in with those who don't find the reply problematic.

Also, don't lots of adult clothing have ribbons, buttons and other sorts of adormnent on them that could somehow pop off, be pulled off, or come loose with wear and washing? Should all adult clothing that could potentially be worn by a nursing mom (or clothing that an infant might have access too) be adornment free? His father could have been holding the baby, and the child pulled a button off the shirt and put it in his mouth, but that doesn't mean the shirt is defective and the company should issue a warning or a recall on the product. So why should the CPSC be involved when a ribbon comes off of a pair of pajamas that have (presumably) been worn and washed many times, just because they are "maternity" pajamas?

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): My bad. They were the mother's pj's. So even more so on my last reply. The company's response was appropriate. There's no story here.

Agreed. This is a bad article. The company's response was acceptable to me. She should be paying more attention to her kid.

What does she want? for them to send someone to supervise her future breastfeeding? They claim they forwarded the information on to people that actually are in charge, seems like a fine response to me, even if it is canned.

@Nighthawke: "They gave lip service in such a fashion that they were disinterested in listening to her complaints. Twice."

That is REALLY presumptuous and narcissistic. If she really wrote the letter to "let you know about this, in case you want to warn other customers" as she states in her letter, then the response was completely acceptable. She didn't ask for anything.

@BZMedia: Yeah this is one of those wait and see type of things. I hope they really did forward the complaint up the food chain. I don't think the OP did anything wrong and I hope she is diligent in asking for some sort of update.

@BZMedia: I totally agree. I am cynical about the attitude of companies towards their clients but the response here seems to be concerned, upchanneling the concern, and even a note about their concern over the child. A good, businesslike response in my opinion.

@BZMedia: Agreed. The clothing posed a choking hazard only because the piece detached. Problem noted, sent upstream to the people who might be able to fix it in the future. But I don't think it's such a big situation like the mother perceives it to be. If it was the baby's clothing, I'd be more concerned. But things fall off clothing all the time. Send a letter, make sure they're aware..hope it doesn't happen again.

Yeah, just what does she want to hear? In fact, she says she has no idea what would have happened.

@BZMedia: If there is an infant choking hazard, a recall is necessary...

Which would you rather have...a small but recoverable loss of money or a series of infant deaths? Money is replaceable...infants? Not so much.

@crymson777: "If there is an infant choking hazard, a recall is necessary...

Which would you rather have...a small but recoverable loss of money or a series of infant deaths? Money is replaceable...infants? Not so much."

It's adult clothing. Lot's of things adults wear are choking hazards, to both infants and adults. There is no recall necessary on an item not intended for the infant.

this sounds more like the mother was not paying attention to what she was doing rather than a manufacturing problem.
I have four kids and have watch my wife breast feed every child, There were ribbons to untie the dress and pajamas that closed the dress( my favorite was the red one) she used her brain and moved the ribbons out of the child's way before feeding.......

Wht ds sh wnt thm t d? f sh wntd crtn rslt sh shld hv sd s. r s sh jst pst b/c th rspns sn't drmtc ngh?

@dulcinea47: Let's keep the comments towards the OP constructive and helpful. Ascribing less than noble motives isn't helpful or constructive.

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!):

The problem that I have with this response is that people are presuming that the company is not taking this seriously. For all we know, the department that designed this pair of pajamas, or the one that manufactured them are being...scaled back.

The baby wasn't hurt. And really, the mother's e-mail was pretty rational and unemotional which probably contributed most of all to the rational and unemotional e-mail that she was sent back. Her tone really didn't invite a five paragraph apology and reimbursement, in my opinion. They responded with a course of action that seems appropriate IF they execute it.

Count me in with everyone wondering what the issue is, here. Big props to Consumerist for not hammering everyone for 'blaming the victim' though, -that- little snag got annoying right quick and had me stop commenting altogether--what little I did, at least.

All the same, the response seems fine to me. Like everyone else said. Professional but concerned. It just seems like she's expecting a handout or -something-.

@BZMedia: I completely agree BZMedia. The person who responded to her has no authority to do anything anyway and escalated it to people that should know about the possible choking hazard. Upper management should probably contact her with any type of update.

@ShiningSquirrel: While I agree that I don't think the company was wrong in their response to her (yet), maternity clothes aren't just for when you're pregnant. Just because you push out that watermelon doesn't mean you fit in your regular clothes the next day.

And this appears to NOT be a maternity store but a NURSING store. So as someone else stated above, they should be designed with children in mind. Nursing = babies.

I think it's important to note that these were "maternity" pjs - not "nursing" pjs.

Maternity wear doesn't need to be safe & secure for the baby because the baby isn't coming into contact with the clothing.

@Nighthawke: The CPSC does not police customer service attitudes, they police laws and regulations regarding consumer products. The pajamas for adults meet all of the requirements.

The mother needs to pay attention and not let the kid suck in three feet of ribbon.

The CPSC will be even less responsive if a complaint is sent there. There is nothing for them to do.

@shibainu33: Exactly. Even if its a canned response, those people that will direct the complains/comments have really no authority to push a red button and cease all manufacturing of the clothing line for inspection and/or recall all the models of the PJ's sold out the store.

Now, it would be a story if Rebecca doesn't receive a response in a few days/weeks about it. But for now, its your classic 3 step issue. We are on step 2: Manufacturer receives complaing, currently reviewing.

I think what she wants is to hear what they're going to do about it.

I guess they could have said that someone would let her know what they're going to do about it but the CSRs probably can't make promises on behalf of other departments.

@l951b951: That is a brilliant idea, when she complains to the CPSC as many here have suggested they should report her to the Department of Children and Families for allowing a breast feeding child to suck meter or ribbon into its mouth.

There seems to be a lack of responsibility here.

@MotherFury: I think the company's response is just fine, but I do want to point out that the letter from the mom doesn't say that the clothes are maternity clothes, the Consumerist does. The Consumerist may be getting their words mixed up.

@ShiningSquirrel: I think the company's response is just fine, but I do want to point out that the letter from the mom doesn't say that the clothes are maternity clothes, the Consumerist does. The Consumerist may be getting their words mixed up.

@BZMedia: In most of the country, you're going to be buying nursing clothes online, and it can be difficult to tell online what the outfit looks like.

Whether you wear it once it arrives is a different question.

But nursing items ARE supposed to meet similarly stringent requirements as "just-baby" items.

You're conflating two things here, which is making it hard for me to tell what your complaint is: Whether the company is taking it seriously enough (which it may be, although I'm not sure their three-line reply is good business/PR when dealing with hyperactive mothers); and whether you think she's taking adequate responsibility for her own parenting, which is very "blame the OP" for what seems to be a dangerous product defect. I object to you doing the latter.

@aguacarbonica: What I think is perhaps concerning about their reply -- although we'll see how it continues to be handled -- is that infant choking hazards are typically pulled from the market pretty quickly, or warnings posted, or whatever. Perhaps it has to go through legal and so forth, but when I'm dealing with a company that makes infant stuff, I really want to know that choking and strangling hazards are dealt with IMMEDIATELY (and with extreme prejudice).

Otherwise I'm going to become hesitant to do business with that company; if it takes them six weeks to get around to dealing with a known choking hazard, I'd feel very unsafe buying their products.

Again, we don't know how this company is going to respond, and their response may well be excellent -- but that we don't yet know how they'll respond is part of the problem.