Strollerderby : child abuse

Texas Parents in Legal Limbo For Months to See Boys

Amy Kuras — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:30:00 GMT

Imagine calling the paramedics after your four year old had a seizure – thereby setting a chain of events into motion that causes both your children to be taken from your home for two years.

That’s exactly what happened to Chris and Laura Dobbins of Midlothian, Texas. Two trials later – one civil, one criminal – they were found not guilty of child abuse. The civil jury’s verdict that they should not lose custody of their children, however, was never affirmed by the judge so they have been in legal limbo since December.

Now, the final hurdle of the criminal trial cleared, they are just waiting to hear when their sons, now ages 7 and 6, can be returned to them. The oldest boy is Laura Dobbins’ biological son, the younger, Chris’.

They’ve been in foster care since the younger boy suffered a seizure at home in 2007 and doctors found the boy had bleeding on the brain, a cut on his pancreas, and old fractures on his wrists. Defense attorneys said during the criminal trial that the boy suffers from a rare disease called Henoch-Schönlein purpura, or HSP, which causes blood vessels to become inflamed and could have caused the injuries to the child's brain and pancreas. They also claimed the fractures could have happened when the boy was with his biological mother, with whom Chris Dobbins had recently finished a long drawn out custody battle.

If the juries were right, I am happy for these parents and hopeful for the boys that they can put this awfulness behind them. And in a child protective system where so many monster parents are left unchecked…I really, really hope the juries were right.

Police Discover Girl Raised by Dogs

Madeline Holler — Fri, 29 May 2009 19:01:00 GMT

Russian officials are questioning the mother of a girl, whom officials discovered living in a squalid apartment in Siberia with no heat or running water. The girl had apparently never been outside and does not know how to speak. Rather, she snarls and barks like the dogs and cats who raised her.

According to police, Natasha understands Russian when spoken too, but would only respond with the animal sounds and gestures.

From the BBC:

"When carers leave the room, the girl jumps at the door and barks," the police said.

A police statement said the girl was unwashed, dressed in filthy clothes and had the "clear attributes of an animal".

"For five years, the girl was 'brought up' by several dogs and cats and had never been outside," the statement said.

The police said the girl had managed to master "animal language only", but seemed able to understand Russian.

Natasha has been placed at an orphanage. Though she's five, caregivers there say she looks more like she's two years old.

Natasha isn't the only Russian child to have a dog for a mom. Here's the story of a three-yeary-old found back in February.

They Say: Moms Don't Care if Boys Get Fat

3 Generations, 3 Boys, All Born May 11

Married vs. Single Moms: Who's Got it Easier?

Teacher in Affair with 6th-Grader to Host 'Hot for Teacher' Night

Photo: gnokr.com (story on other feral children)

Mom Arrested for Having 555 Pound Son

Brett Singer — Tue, 26 May 2009 15:30:00 GMT

This story is not to be confused with the one Madeline brought us, about the 550 pound woman who gave birth recently.

14-year-old Alexander Deundray Draper of South Carolina had been on the run with his mother, Jerri Althea Gray. Gray had been told by a family court judge to turn her son over to the state because they determined that he "was of the weight where it was decided by medical authorities that he needed treatment that was not being provided for by his mother."

That weight is 555 pounds.

According to CNN, the mother did not appear in court as ordered, "and has concealed the child."

It's one thing to be a little on the chunky side. But when your child is this heavy, clearly some enabling is going on. Barring some bizarre medical condition I'm unaware of, it doesn't seem possible for someone to reach 555 pounds at any age, much less 14, without a diet of nothing but unhealthy food. Hopefully everyone involved in this case will get the help that they need.

Source: CNN

550-Pound Woman Gives Birth

Baby Asleep On Dad's Head

Hit Her Cat, She'll Hit Your Kid

Morning News - Mike Tyson's Daughter Injured

Dad Charges Daughter With Grand Theft Auto

OctoMom's Kid - Bite Mark And Black Eye

Children with Special Needs Abused by School "Discipline"

Shannon LC Cate — Wed, 20 May 2009 16:35:00 GMT

A recent investigation of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has shown that school children--most often children with special needs--are being subjected to extreme "discipline" techniques that have hurt and even caused the deaths of some. According to NPR:

"In some cases...children have died or been injured when they have been tied, taped, handcuffed or pinned down by adults or locked in secluded rooms, often to be left for hours at a time."

While there is plenty of criticism of the techniques in the first place--some parent groups and disability advocacy groups are calling for an altogether ban of them--others believe there are times when restraint or seclusion are necessary to keep children from harming themselves and others.

But teachers are rarely adequately trained in the proper use of the techniques and 70% of parents cited in the report say they were never informed about the possibility that their children would be restrained, let alone asked for permission to do so. Rather, the GAO found that only five states even have laws requiring that the use of restraint or seclusion be reported at all. Many parents only learned of the techniques when their children were injured or died after their use.

Meanwhile, methods for maintaining a positive classroom environment without the need for restraint are being taught to some teachers and finding great success where applied. "Positive Behavior Support"--or good old-fashioned attention to a child's needs--works to prevent problems before they arise by learning more about the cause of disruptive behavior.

Barb Trader of the grassroots advocacy group, TASH, explains:

"If a student gets hungry at quarter to 12 and they don't have verbal expression, and you don't know what's going on and then they act out because they're hungry, if you feed them at 11:30, then you've removed the cause for the behavior and the behavior doesn't exist. And we know that works because there's been lots and lots of research."

I'm sure plenty of parents out there are mouthing a collective "duh," right?

Teachers need more training in these methods, but more, I personally think they need more support in the form of lower student/teacher classroom ratios. As simple as Positive Behavior Support is, it also requires careful attention to individual children's needs and the group dynamics arising from those needs. Added to the task of instruction in school subjects--especially in a room with kids who have varying special needs and levels of ability--even a simple method is a tall order when teachers are over burdened with too many students.

Our children all deserve better. And children with special needs or disabilities deserve extra care and support for their learning, not less. It's an ugly thing to lock a child in a room rather than finding out what that child needs and providing it. And it's not something any child should have to witness happening to another. Here's yet another area in which we need real reform in the school system and we need it yesterday.

Build A Bear Slapped With Child Labor Violations

JeanneSager — Tue, 19 May 2009 20:34:00 GMT

Child labor is heinous in its own right, but something about a company that makes stuff for kids abusing kids makes for particularly vile subject matter.

And isn't there something ironic about Build-a-Bear, the company that lines our kids up in little factory worker queues to "build" massively expensive toys which we then have to shell out to outfit, getting in trouble for child labor law violations?

The company has been fined by the U.S. Department of Labor for allowing fourteen minors to perform tasks that violate federal laws at sites in four states. A closer look at the charges reveals the company wasn't working kids to the bone for five cents an hour (the kind of sweatshop, third world country images that come to mind when I think of child labor issues). Teens ages sixteen and seventeen were being allowed to operate trash compactors and similar duties. The company has been fined by the Department of Labor, and it has adapted its rules so no one under age eighteen will be hired to work in the factories.

The latter seems unfair, as though the kids are being punished here rather than the company. And I can't say the company's statement, "Importantly, no one suffered any injuries from performing these tasks" sounds like much of a mea culpa.

As a mom who has so far avoided the big Build-a-Bear birthday celebrations, this was just another nail in that coffin. What about you, will you be humping it to build a bear anytime soon?

Image: Build-a-Bear

City's 5th Co-Sleeping Death in 10 Weeks Reported

Madeline Holler — Mon, 18 May 2009 21:29:00 GMT

Milwaukee authorities are blaming the death of yet another baby on co-sleeping. In 10 weeks, five babies have died during the night while sleeping out of a crib.

Meekel McCleave was just two months old when her mother, who had also co-slept with her other children, woke up and found the small newborn face down. Public health officials are once again decrying the practice of co-sleeping, precisely because of outcomes like this.

The death of these five babies is a complete tragedy -- sad, heartbreaking and avoidable. But what gets me, an experienced co-sleeper, is that co-sleeping is taking the blame and getting the headlines in these deaths. But a closer look sheds a little more light.

In Meekel's case, a medical examiner's report indicates the baby was found face-down on an adult-size pillow. That's hardly safe co-sleeping. And face down? The baby was two months old. What two month old can roll over? Just based on the information in the article, there was a lot going wrong in that family bed, though Meekel's mom disputes the pillow situation.

What about the other four cases? Here, read for yourself:

On March 8, 6-day old Ceianna Buchanan died while sleeping on a couch with her mother. The mother admitted to police she got drunk the night before.

On April 5, 3-month old Kymarius Hunt died sleeping on a couch with his grandmother. She later admitted to drinking 8 beers.

On April 19, 2-month old Tyler Winston died sharing a bed with his mother.

On April 25, 6-week old Demetrius Kimble died sleeping in bed with both parents. His mother admitted to drinking prior to falling asleep.

So, drunk, drunk, unknown and drunk.

Was co-sleeping the problem in any or all of these cases? Or was it booze and/or unsafe situations.

For many families, co-sleeping is the one way everybody gets sleep. And done safely, it's safe! But what is safe co-sleeping? For one, no drugs or drinking. For another, no babies on or near pillows. And also, don't sleep with babies on a couch or in chairs. How about an information campaign about that, instead of just saying, "no, don't do it"?

I mean, my motive isn't just to defend the practice of co-sleeping. I don't want to learn of any more kids dying as a result of some stupid form of it.

Should Healthcare Reform Start in the Maternity Ward?

Issues! 'Parenting' Offers Fake Apology

If This Guy's Going Broke, is There Hope for the Rest of Us?

Babble Talk Radio: Kids These Days!

Federal Agent* Seizes Oat-Based Contraband

Photo: Todaystmj4.com

Save Aaliyah Puts Dad on Trial by YouTube Jury

JeanneSager — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:34:00 GMT

It's a blurry night vision video of a two-and-a-half-year-old talking in two-year-old-ese, but it's enough to have prompted thousands of YouTube viewers to start demanding an investigation into possible sexual abuse of a little girl.

But is Save Aaliyah a hoax?

The video was put online by Connie Bedwell, a California mother who lost custody of her daughter to her ex. A nine-minute rambling example of a situation Bedwell says is typical of the times she spends with her daughter, it includes the toddler referring to "Daddy's worm" and notes that she often tells Daddy "don't do that."

Bedwell's site, Save Aaliyah, also sports a lengthy list of examples that she says are evidence of abuse, including bruises on the baby's back, and repeated mentions that daddy hurt her and "owies."

It's all the evidence a lot of parenting bloggers have needed to demand child protective services yank the little girl from her father's home. A host of YouTube posts have cropped up directing you to the Save Aaliyah site and calling for justice, and a petition site sports more than thirteen hundred signatures calling for help for Aaliyah.

But here's the rub. Connie's local newspaper has done interviews with the police and district attorney's office, and they've all cleared Aaliyah's dad of wrongdoing. I'd like to think that child protective services would be in the right here, would have a clearer understanding of the matter at hand than a bunch of YouTube watchers.

So is the Website fair? Should Bedwell be fighting the good fight (if you really believed your child was being sexually abused, wouldn't you?) or is putting these type of details out on the 'net as part of a custody battle just proof that the judge has made the right decision?

Image: SaveAaliyah

Dad Shocks Kids with Electronic Dog Collar

KeriF — Tue, 12 May 2009 14:08:00 GMT

If this is what Oregan father Todd Marcum does to his kids for a laugh, I hate to think what he does to them when he's angry...

Salem Police Lt. Dave Okada reports that Marcum admitted to shocking his four kids, ages 3, 6, 8, and 9, with an electronic dog collar at least once, though police believe Marcum likely shocked his kids on several occasions.

Okada says Marcum did it, "because he thought it was funny."

Marcum was arrested on four charges of first-degree criminal mistreatment and is currently being held in the Marion County Jail.

According to John Seroczynski, the national sales manager for a company that makes electronic dog collars, the kids probably didn't suffer much physical damage. The collars, which run off a 9-volt battery, don't produce enough of a shock to seriously harm someone. "He definitely would not have hurt them to the point that it would have damaged any organs or caused them to be hospitalized," he said.

The psychological damage, however, of being forced to wear a dog collar by your father, then jolted with an electric shock, remains to be seen. The four children are in the custody of their mother. No word on where she was when all this took place.

I could almost understand if Marcum did this to try to control his kids. I couldn't condone it, but I could follow the shaky logic. But the fact that he just did because he thought it was funny? Funny to see his kids run in terror from him as he dangled the collar threateningly, which police report he did? I just can't understand that.

Dad Fined $2,000 for Cursing in Front of Kid

JeanneSager — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:01:00 GMT

Forget the cussing jar. What if every time you dropped an F-bomb in front of your kid you had to pay up to the tune of $2K?

I'm no sailor, but one LEGO in the bare foot later, and my bank account would be wiped.

A father in Pennsylvania is fighting a court-mandated "no cursing zone" put forth by the judge overseeing the custody of his nine-year-old. The judge issued a requirement that the man, "refrain from using any profanity when dealing with mother and mother's husband, and using any type of language around the children that's inappropriate."

On the whole, I'd agree. Divorces are rough enough without dad getting nasty with mom and her new hubby. And parents shouldn't, by and large, curse in front of their kids. It's uncouth.

But doesn't this sound kind of vague? Any inappropriate language, meaning, what? My parents didn't let us use the word "fart." Is that a finable offense? What about the parents who say don't say the word "stupid." Or what about "crap?"

The dad has since used some sort of four-letter word. The story in the Bucks County Courier doesn't say which one (could be crap!), but it earned dad a $2,000 fine. Apparently, the judge thinks he was being a sh---y father (oops, I went and said it).

The man is challenging his fine on the basis of free speech, and I'd tend to agree with him. Cursing At your kids on any sort of consistent basis isn't OK - that's abuse. But cursing in front of them. On occasion? It happens. And we're definitely NOT the only ones who do it. My daughter learned the word "bulls--t" from my mother, I'll have you know (yes, the same woman who wouldn't let me say "fart."). She heard "s--t" in the deli the other day, and "a--hole" in the lobby at the doctor's office.

Maybe His Honor would like to take this show on the road? He could follow my three-year-old and I around town and hand out fines.

Image: Sodahead

Economy Tanks; Child Abuse Rises

Shannon LC Cate — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:30:00 GMT

Child welfare agencies and emergency rooms around the country are seeing a significant increase in child abuse cases this year over last year and they blame the economy.

According to Ann Botash of the Child Abuse Referral and Evaluation Program at SUNY-Syracuse, "there's a lot more stress right now in society. And it comes out on the kids. They are the weakest link."

But Cindy Southworth of the Safety Net Project at the National Network to End Domestic Violence hastens to point out that tough economic times don't necessarily cause violence anymore than good economic times end it. What can happen, however, is a bad economy can increase the opportunities and the occasions for abusers to hurt children:

"If there is already domestic violence in a home, an abuser might have lost his job and is now home all day, as opposed to just evenings. There is more risk time."

Whatever the reason, hospitals are seeing more shaken babies, more abuse-related head injuries and other problems in numbers that are statistically significant. It is another good reason to reach and for some support if your family is struggling these days. It's another good reason to offer support to your family and friends in need, as well.

Baby Shaker: A Fun Form of Pretend Child Abuse!

Madeline Holler — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:27:00 GMT

It appears Apple has pulled an iPhone app that outraged child advocates and, well, makes you kind of queasy to read about.

Called "Baby Shaker," the 99-cent app, developed by Sikalosoft, made iPhones cry incessatnly like a baby while showing a charcoal drawing of a kid. How to comfort/quiet the needy squawker? You shake it. Hard. Ha, ha! So fun ... it's a crying baby and you shake it until the eyes become two red Xs ... that's hilari -- oh, maybe not so much.

What's weird is that Apple didn't reject that app in the first place -- they've rejected other violent ones. Oh, and ones with swear words. But Baby Shaker! Well, Baby Shaker had been available for download since Monday. Only now it's been pulled so you'll have to settle for something else.

Here's what the critics say. From the LA Times and CNET:

"This horrible iPhone app will undoubtedly be downloaded thousands of times by others in that same young male demographic -- the population group that is already statistically the most likely to shake babies," Jennipher Dickens, communications director for the Sarah Jane Brain Foundation, said in the release. " As a result of the child abuse my son endured in the form of shaken-baby syndrome, my son now has irreversible brain damage."

Woman Develops Allergy to Water

Can We Talk About the Word "Panties"?

Alec Baldwin's Love Letter to His Daughter

iPhone Making Parents Everywhere Helpless

Image: Tom Krazit/CNET, via CNET.com.au

Mom, That Cuts! No, Really

JeanneSager — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:26:00 GMT

Here's a way to guarantee your kids will only say I love you from the other side of bulletproof glass: pull a butcher knife on them.

It's what a Florida mom booked on child abuse charges is said to have done.

Natasha Brinkley's kids came home from a friend's house exhausted, and not up to answering her questions. She supposedly threatened to leave, saying no one loved Mommy, and got angry that the kids wouldn't respond that they DID love her. That's when the kids' dad says she started screaming and cursing, and he told the kids to leave the room. He alleges Brinkley threw a small glass table at the kids as they left the room, and when they turned to comfort her, she pulled out the butcher knife.

Clearly this is a problem parent (at least one who needs to steer clear of sharp objects), but have you ever gotten to the point where you felt like your kids were taking you for granted, and all it would take to clear it up was a "hey, Mommy, I love you"? I try to hold firm on punishments for my daughter, but I've got to tell you, I melt at an "I love you."

Image: Amazon

Child Prostitution On the Rise on Craigslist

JeanneSager — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:29:00 GMT

Need another sad and horribly depressing story about kids? Sorry to have to oblige.

Craigslist, home of the great deals on couches and awesome hand-me-down sources for kids clothes, has become the go-to source for people trying to pimp out little kids. And numbers are rising.

The problem is particularly rampant in Atlanta, where A Future. Not A Past, a non-profit that works to fight child prostitution, says as many as one hundred seventy-six ads were posted on the free site in February trying to find a john for little girls.

The group released its findings last week, just as the FBI is working to prosecute two men they say pimped out a seventeen-year-old girl, passing her off as nineteen and using Craigslist to find men to have sex with her in an Atlanta motel. Last month, a Michigan man who called himself the Motor City Mink was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison for pimping kids out via the internet - with many of his ads on Craigslist. The man, Robert Daniels, was the first to be convicted in the nation under the Adam Walsh Law (named for the kidnapped and murdered child of America's Most Wanted host John Walsh), which requires federal penalties for running a child exploitation enterprise.

The fault isn't with Craigslist itself - the company has begun requiring all posters of ads that fall under the "erotic" category, and the company reached an agreement in November with the attorneys general of forty states to add a fee system for the erotic posters, including a valid credit card that could be tracked by law enforcement. Craigslist is also reportedly suing a group of software and Internet companies that allowed posters to circumvent its defenses and post illegal ads.

It's also not always adults doing the deed. Between 2005 and 2008, seventy teens were caught selling themselves on Craigslist.

Why the numbers are back up is anyone's guess, but I wonder how much of this is economic. Craiglist is free, which means people are turning to it more than ever now that the economy is bad. People are desperate, pushing a parent, a family friend, whoever, who might not have acted on an urge to sell a child's ~~soul~~ body for money are no longer held back by traditional mores. It's the same reason adults turn to it in hard times . . . and as a job, it's fairly recession proof.

As the economic picture gets bleaker, I can only wonder how many more horribly sad and depressing stories we're going to hear about things adults are doing to kids. If there is any good news out there it's this: courts are finally getting the picture that teen prostitutes need help not criminalization.

Image: American

Do You Speak Up When You See a Child Hit in Public?

JeanneSager — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:31:00 GMT

Every April, I get that old Edmund Burke quote stuck in my head: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Or something to that effect.

April is Child Abuse Prevention Month, the time when child protection groups across the country start beating that drum again. Speak up, speak up, speak UP when you see something.

Except, I am not that parent. I have a hard time walking up to the mother in the grocery store who has smacked their child across the face and saying, "Hey, lady, knock it off."

I'm more the indignant glare type, the one who will cut you down with my eyes, dark and forbidding from across the dairy aisle, running my cart perilously close to your heels. "I'm watching you," I say with my elbows as I get too close while we're both picking through the tomato pile.

And yet, I am not a proponent of child abuse (is anyone?). I am not even a spanker, preferring to discipline with words and timeouts in part because of my own history of beatings on the butt which left their emotional scars. Nor am I the quiet type. I frankly have a hard time shutting up about most things - hence the blogging job!

So why is it so hard to speak up about child abuse? For one, there's a fine line between outright abuse and a bad day. We've all been horrified by seeing a parent smack a kid, but who knows if that was a heat of the moment, having an awful day, never, ever happened before kind of thing or a normal occurrence in that family's life? We're too afraid of disrupting an otherwise normal family's life with an investigation by child protective services.

There's also a fear that our own closets aren't without their skeletons. Ever been locked out by your toddler? Check. Ever lost your toddler - even for just five seconds - because they wandered off while you were focusing on something else? Again, check. Ever left your child in the car for a second while you ran into the post office? One more time.

So we adopt the "he who is without sin" method of casting stones. We're not perfect, so who are we to judge? Although, we do judge. We glare. We huff. We go home and tell our spouses about the idiot we saw in the grocery store. We are aware that something might not be right, but by and large we are too afraid to do anything.

It's all in degrees, naturally. If I saw a baby sleeping in a backseat on a ninety-degree day with no adult in sight, you know I'd be on my cell phone to 911. If I saw a child battered and bruised with a split lip and a black eye, I'd be calling child protective services. Waiting until it gets to clear child abuse carries with it its risks - we aren't PREVENTING child abuse if we wait that long. We aren't protecting the nearly one million victims of child abuse every year, almost ninety-five percent of whom are abused more than once.

It's where that Burke quote comes into play. We are good parents, but we let bad parents win.

I've done it. You've done it.

Will you be speaking up next time?

Image: ChildAbusePreventionNetwork

Man Slaps Baby -- But There's More To It

Amy Kuras — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:30:00 GMT

We’ve all had the experience of walking in somewhere with our baby and people looking at us as if we’ve brought in a rabid dingo – but this story is something else.

Crystal Shunatona was at Wal-Mart in Witchita, Kansas with her baby and her two older kids when she saw a 30-ish man, Bruce Jones. swearing and throwing things in the aisles. She tried to avoid him – until he ended up in the checkout lane right behind her.

At which time the man smacked her baby on the back of the head. (!!)

Who would do such a thing to a little six month old?

But, of course, there are mitigating factors. Jones has autism, and told the responding police officer he’s done this before because he doesn’t like and is irritated by babies. His mother was shopping with him but had lost track of his whereabouts. She said she saw the baby, and was afraid her son would hurt him.

The baby, according to Shunatona, has some bruising but appears okay, but she’s angry because the police did nothing. While she agreed Jones probably should not have been arrested, she said she thought he should have at least been taken to a hospital.

Bruce’s mom said her son had never gotten much help for his autism, but she’d accept some now. "What am I supposed to do? Lock him up? Shoot him? I would just like society to tell me what to do," she said.

I’d like to hear from parents of kids with autism on this one – on the one hand, I don’t think this guy should have been allowed to smack a baby pretty hard and just walk away. On the other, I know people with autism have sensory issues and a place like Wal-Mart can overstimulate them to the point of major agitation. And I think his mother should have kept a stricter watch on him if she knew he’s been violent before.

What’s the solution?

Dad Abused Kids For Finding His Porn

Kate Tuttle — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:31:00 GMT

In a bizarre, sad case out of Tampa, police say that a father of three kids, aged eight, nine and ten, physically abused them to teach them a lesson for various infractions, including finding his hidden porn stash. (As one of my colleagues points out, isn't finding your father's porn punishment in itself?) In addition to beating his children, Moslim Al-Assadi is accused of holding his daughter's head under water as she struggled to breathe.

Local police have long known about the family, but their ability to respond was hampered by conflicting stories told by the children themselves, who have shown a pattern familiar to psychologists but frustrating for law enforcement: as frightened and scarred as they are by the abuse, the children defend their father.

From the St. Petersburg Times:

Deputies went to Oak Grove Elementary School to interview the children, who again spoke of spankings, slappings and the oldest daughter's submersion.

"She said that she recalls telling someone about this before but told them she was lying because she (did) not want her father taken away," police wrote. "She said she knows what he did was wrong. He told her he loved her no matter what she did."

Such protection by children, even in the face of abuse, isn't uncommon, said one psychologist.

"Children who have experienced abuse have a heightened need for the comfort and security" that parents can provide, said Lauren Fasig, the director of research at the University of Florida's Fredric G. Levin College of Law Center on Children and Families. "This need may outweigh the perceived threat."

It's not surprising that these three children would lie to protect their father -- their mother, Arlene Heintzelman, with whom they have only supervised visits, has also been accused of neglect, including an instance in which two of the kids fell from a second-story window. Left to navigate life without even one stable, caring parent, they are clearly doing the best they can. Let's hope the authorities are able to help them find the peace, security and love they deserve.

More by this author:

Exploited and Discarded? Seeking Protection for Egg Donors

Another Hospital Baby Mix-Up, Now With Added Racism!

Spurred to Action by Natasha Richardson Death, Parents Save Girl

Child Support Suffers in a Recession, Too

Dad Beats the Demon out of His Son

JeanneSager — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:01:00 GMT

We've all thought our kids were little devils, but when you start to feel guilty for thinking bad thoughts kid-ward, take heart you aren't this guy:

A Texas dad told cops he beat his son to a pulp to rid him of a demon that he believed invaded his home . . . and the three-year-old's body.

Neighbors of Jacky Tran told the Houston Chronicle they saw him throwing furniture out of his house because he thought it was "evil," and the little boy unfortunately fared even worse. Tran was reportedly seen swinging the child, who suffered head fractures but is expected to be OK.

Why is it the stories you hear are either this side of crazy or the parent next door who lets their three-year-old run around the library like a banshee? I guess because the rest of us just aren't newsworthy as we trudge along, thinking the occasional "they're driving me crazy" thought about our kids but not acting on them.

Tran, in particular, sounds like he's mentally ill and should face some psychiatric evaluation before a judge decides if he'll serve the five to ninety-nine years he's face if convicted. And as horrible as this sounds, I think a tiny part of a lot of us knows, we're lucky to be absolutely, achingly normal.

Image: About.com

How Do You Get 634 Years in Prison?

JeanneSager — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:32:00 GMT

If there's ever a time when a judge should be justified in throwing the book at a criminal it's when a kid has been hurt.

When a kid has been sexually abused by some sicko? I suspend all of my righteously liberal let's be reasonable here mantras . . . string 'em up. But six hundred thirty four years in prison?

Don't get me wrong, I'm cheering a jury's decision not to pull any punches for a guy who raped a little girl and forced her and her friend to perform sexual acts on one another while he watched. Robert Walter Bonner is a class A scum-sucking maggot.

I was just mystified at how they work out six hundred thirty four years in prison?

Turns out it's based on the number of charges - six counts of aggravated sexual assault, plus four counts of indecency with a child and two counts of sexual performance of a child. A jury decided Bonner deserved ninety-nine years for each aggravated sexual assault count . . . then tacked on an extra twenty years each for the latter six counts.

The judge opted to give Bonner the six ninety-nine-year prison terms and two twenty-year terms, to be served consecutively. Four twenty-years sentences are to be served at the same time as his first ninety-nine year sentence.

Add it all up, you've got six hundred thirty four years for him to rot. Which means Bonner won't be getting out of prison anytime soon, and kids all over Texas are a little safer. It won't give these little girls back their innocence, but you know what? This sentence sounds just right to me.

What do you think?

Image: GabesGuide

Judge to Mom: Spank Your Kid or Pay Up

JeanneSager — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:22:00 GMT

A judge who ordered parents to paddle their children with a wooden board in an open courtroom or face hefty fines has been warned his mode of punishment is not acceptable by a Texas judicial conduct panel.

Well Gawd bless those Texans for some common sense.

Judge Gustavo Garza has told parents of truant children they would have to pay as much as $500 if they didn't take a board, labeled "board of education" and spank their kids. One dad is suing, saying he reluctantly paddled his stepdaughter, only to have Garza tell him he hadn't hit her hard enough.

Since when does a judge get to advocate violence to prove a point? Because even the pro-spanking crowd has to admit that telling a parent to hit their child with a paddle - and to hit "harder" is something intended to inflict pain.

As Hannah pointed out recently, in all fifty states, it is legal for parents to hit, spank, paddle, or whip their children. Legal, but not required. Just like I can't be compelled to raise my child a Catholic or a Jew or force her to eat meat or not, I can't be forced to use spanking as my form of discipline.

One lawyer likened Garza's courtroom to something out the Jerry Springer Show, and I'd tend to agree. The idea of the law sneaking into parents' homes makes me uncomfortable, and I admit a slight hesitancy in supporting the concept of an anti-spanking law - because I've worried how far-reaching it can go. But when the opposite is in affect, when a judge forces a parent to hit their child, using the force of the law, we're right up there with the countries that practice torture.

What happened to Amendment 8 of the Constitution? You know, the one that says judges shall not call for "cruel or unusual punishments" for criminals? Maybe it's time to take Judge Garza over our knee and show him what it's liked to be punished for abusing his power.

Source/Image: MomLogic

Parents Name Their Baby "World Crisis", “Circumcision”

Cole Gamble — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:00:00 GMT

Perhaps trying to be uber-current, a couple in Mexico named their baby daughter Krisis Mundial, which translates to “World Crisis.” But even this is not the most unfortunate name out there.

Anyone want to try naming a kid Circumcision? How about Hitler?

Born in Ecuador during World War II was named Adolfo Hitler Flores de Valgas. I have no idea what nickname he might go by.

In many European countries, parents are required to get the government’s permission on baby names. In Germany Hitler and Osama Bin Laden are definite no-no’s. Up until the 18^th century, the French government only allowed names figuring on a calendar, or names of illustrious Frenchmen/women of the past. In 1993 French parents were finally afforded more freedom to choose their child’s name. Still if the birth registrar thinks that the chosen names (alone or in association with the last name) may be detrimental to the child's interests, or to the right of other families to protect their own family name, the registrar may refer the matter to the local prosecutor, who may choose to refer the matter to the local court. The court may then refuse the chosen names. Such refusals are rare and mostly concern given names that may expose the child to mockery. Nonetheless, French parents must choose baby names from an approved list. The laws are designed to prevent teasing.

Here is a list of some of the most bizarre baby names on record:

Alka Seltzer, Selva Alegre (Happy Jungle), Sostenes (Brassiere), Ángel Cristo (Angel Christ), Poderoso Melchor (Powerful Melchor), Semiencanto (Semi charming), Circuncisión (Circumcision), John Kennedy, Perfecta Heroína (Perfect Heroine), Usmail (as in USA Mail), Usnavy (as in USA Navy).

And of course you’ve probably heard of the American couple who named their boy Adolph. So here’s my question: is giving your child an outrageous name possibly child abuse?

More by this Author:

Things You Should Never Say at a Chuck E Cheese Birthday Party

Musical SpongeBob Rectal Thermometer. Fun for Your Kid’s Butt?

My Wife Says: 10 Reasons to Get Plastic Surgery after the Baby

10 Things They Don’t Tell You about Parenting

The 12 Do’s and Don’ts of Throwing Your Kid’s Birthday Party

When Mom's a Sex Offender

JeanneSager — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:30:00 GMT

Alex Dinkel just wants his mom to watch him graduate from high school. Unfortunately for him, Jeni Lee Dinkel will be arrested if she steps on the high school campus.

She had sex with one of her son's fifteen-year-old classmates in 2007 and is now a registered sex offender.

The boy Jeni Lee had sex with is no longer at the school, but officials are still saying nixing requests for her to attend Alex's graduation. If it sounds cut and dried, it isn't. Although Jeni Lee was convicted and thus is definitely a sex offender, her son is not your typical high school senior.

Alex was diagnosed with Ewing's sarcoma in 2007 (the same year his mother was convicted). He fought the cancer and is in remission, but he's since suffered a heart attack (as a teenager) and now goes everywhere with a defibrillator to keep his heart pumping. When he went into cardiac arrest, it was his parents who brought him back via CPR.

Along with dad Tom, a former NFL player, Alex held a press conference to speak out against the school. He says it's not fair to deny him every kid's dream that their parents will watch them graduate. What's more, he says his Catholic high school is not acting in accordance with church teachings which preach turning the other cheek and forgiveness.

Although I think his mom's a creep, I tend to agree with him. A school staff person can easily keep an eye on Jeni Lee during the two or three hours of a graduation ceremony, and she can be escorted off campus immediately after the ceremony ends (or even just after her son receives his diploma). There never has to be a moment when she is alone with a child. As for whether she's looking "the wrong way" at the kids in the room, let's be realistic - there are sex offenders in grocery stores who might get their jollies by looking at our kids. It's the risk we take by letting our kids out of the bubble.

Do you think the school should give in for just one day? Is this about the parent or the student?

Image: KentuckyEnquirer

When a Trusted Pediatrician Loses His License

JeanneSager — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:54:00 GMT

He's worked at one of the best known children's hospitals in the country and earned acclaim for caring for children. Now pediatrician Dr. Melvin Levine has been barred from practicing medicine anywhere in the country after accusations that he improperly touched five children's genitals.

Levine, who once worked at Children's Hospital in Boston and more recently practiced in Chapel Hill, N.C. where he co-founded a research institute at the University of North Carolina, has been accused of improperly performing examinations on the children's genital regions. The allegations prompted the North Carolina Medical Board to call for Levine's resignation of his medical license. It will keep him away from kids in North Carolina and around the country.

He's just one doctor, but the story highlights the stress any parent feels when it comes time to pick a pediatrician. We want someone we can trust - and not just in terms of their sexual proclivities. We want to know that they're good at their job; a lot of us will take what the health insurance doles out for our own general practitioner, but we want a pediatrician who is on top of his or her game. We want someone we know we can talk to too, someone who will field our calls and answer our dumbest questions when we are nervous about the clogged tear duct or the fact that he's eight months and no teeth are popping through.

My first pediatric choice was simple - the neonatologist whose office my mother (a healthcare practitioner) had shared for years, there was no question. But when he retired on my late last year, I was in a tizzy. How do you replace the man who could look you in the eyes, tell you "everything is just fine, she's developing at a perfect rate," and make you realize you were just plain old neurotic? How do you find another doctor who refuses to pawn off the basics of childcare on his nurse (I've heard horror stories from friends whose pediatrician is in the room for maybe two minutes, leaving all the heavy lifting, including the vaccinations, to an RN)?

We depend on our pediatricians like few other people in our kids' lives. What would you do if your pediatrician were charged with a crime? Line up for his defense or smack yourself for trusting him?

Image: Boston Globe

Another Country Bans Spanking

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:55:00 GMT

The Philippines is on the verge of outlawing all forms of physical punishment against children, with legislators arguing that children have the same right to be free from violence as adults.

The bill’s sponsors have also cited studies that show that physical punishment does not improve children’s behavior in the long term. Violence will stop the misbehavior in the moment, but over time it simply increases a child’s silent distrust of his guardian and therefore his tendency to act out.

Parents who rely on spanking or hitting often argue that it simply keeps their kids in line and does not constitute abuse. (These were the same arguments used to defend "wife hitting" until the 1960s.) But there is no way to tell what long-term effects hitting will have on a child. Children who are the victims of corporal punishment are more likely to disrespect authority, to be unusually aggressive, and to end up in jail. Of course, kids are resilient and many people who were hit as children grow into healthy adults. But there is simply no reason to risk instilling deeply rooted anger, aggression, and emotional distancing in a child.

These are the same commonsense arguments behind many European countries’ ban of corporal punishment in the schools and at home. Tragically, the United States lags far behind other industrialized countries in protecting the rights of children. It is the only U.N. nation other than Somalia that refuses to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In all 50 states, it is legal for parents to hit, spank, paddle, or whip their children. In 23 states, corporal punishment is legal in public schools. And in every single state except for Minnesota, it is legal for parents accused of child abuse to evoke their right to corporal punishment in their defense.

And we wonder why teens believe it was all right for Chris Brown to express his anger at Rihanna by beating her up.

Image: Scoop

Why Teens Are Quick to Blame Rihanna

Half of Kids Surveyed Think Rihanna Had it Coming

JeanneSager — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:21:00 GMT

I've read some awful survey results over the years. But this?

Almost half of the kids surveyed by the Boston Public Health Commission said they thought singer Rihanna was "responsible" for the beat-down she received from boyfriend Chris Brown.

Forty-six percent the domestic violence case was Rihanna's fault, and fifty-two percent said it was both Rihanna and Brown's fault. Fifty-one percent blamed Brown. The numbers are particularly shocking after reading the good news about teen responses to the issue reported by my colleague Shannon last week. Kids in Chicago are speaking out in a "Beyond Chris and Rhianna" project there that clearly needs to be transplanted to Boston.

Forget "violence is not the answer." That's obviously lost on these kids. What about the simple lesson that no one can CAUSE someone else to hurt them? That it's always the choice of the person doing the beating?

The survey of kids twelve through nineteen in the Boston does not distinguish what kinds of homes the respondents come out of - so there's no way to determine what sort of homes these kids are coming from. What do you want to bet a fair share of those blaming Rihanna in some way aren't the nicest of homes? Because where does violence start? You got it. Different studies put the number of kids who get their first taste of domestic violence by watching their parents around three million annually.

According to the National Center for Victims of Crime, "Constant exposure to violence in the home and abusive role models teaches these children that violence is a normal way of life and places them at risk of becoming society's next generation of victims and abusers."

It also makes them more likely to place blame on the abused rather than the abuser, and for kids to become abusers or be abused. Which means the Boston Public Health Commission may well be seeing half its survey subjects in a social services setting.

Chilling, isn't it?

Image: People

Do We All Have a Right to Procreate?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:48:00 GMT

Though we would rarely admit it, most of us, upon hearing about some abusive situation, have muttered about requiring a license to parent or "fixing" the offenders so at least no child will have to go through that again. But when push comes to shove would we really think either was a good idea?

Carter Dillard, writing in the Georgia Law Review, is not exactly recommending either (in fact, he speaks, rightly, of parental licensing schemes as "comical"). But he is, very seriously, arguing that there should be no fundamental right to procreate, that there is a duty on prospective parents to be "fit," and that courts should have the right to issue no-procreation orders in certain limited circumstances.

In the narrowest case that Dillard focuses on, it's hard to argue: If, due to egregious harm to previous children, a no-custody order has already been issued, such that any child born is immediately taken into state custody, wouldn't it be better for all to prevent such a pregnancy in the first place with a "no-procreate" order?

Trouble is, this seems to me almost as rife with problems as parental licensing. Much as Dillard wants to separate out the principle from how it would be implemented, I can't.

Dillard never manages to acknowledge that the state does a pretty awful job in most cases of determining "fitness" now, and often gets it wrong (in both directions). Some of that can't be avoided: We need to be able to take kids out of danger, even if we suck at it. But I heard in Dillard's writing a disturbing willingness to expand the definition of "fitness" tests to include finances (how much money is "enough"? does it matter how you spend it?), "pending neglect cases" (and if they were ruled to be unfounded, as many are?). It just seems like a clear slippery slope to pre-emptive sterilization of people who are different, poor, etc.

But even if we do set aside implementation for a moment, Dillard's argument that his "no-procreate" orders could be good for everyone by shifting resources from helping kids who have already been harmed to prevention rings a bit hollow.

For that to work, the no-procreate orders would actually have to substantially reduce the number of children born into abusive situations. But only a tiny fraction of the worst cases already have no-custody orders. And even then, how to ensure the order works? Foricble abortion? Sterilization? (Long sordid history of that already) Court-ordered Norplant (serious side effects for many people)? Criminalizing sex? Imprisoning people? Sending them to a convent?

The answer, of course, is you don't. You just say it, and if it's violated, it changes to a "no-custody" order and unspecified penalties are applied after the fact. Could that have a deterrant effect? Unlikely. At least for women, if carrying a pregnancy you know you're going to have to give up isn't a deterrant, it's hard to know what would work better. And most men in this situation are unable to pay the child support they already owe and any other penalties may suck for them, but it'll make it even less likely that they end up paying. Pregnancies are not always preventable, and in stressed families like this, are also rarely planned.

Would the orders make a point? Perhaps. But they're not going to make some huge difference in the number of kids who are born to "unfit" parents or who end up abused.

Here's what might work better:

If you want to put resources into prevention—of unwise pregnancies and of abuse—do it. Don't wait for some neat legal principle to make you feel better about it. Fund health care, birth control, abortion, good sex ed, parenting education, respite services, and domestic violence response, etc. and improve access to them. There's plenty of info out there about how to do these things well.
If you want to ensure that babies born to parents with a history of serious enough abuse that they already have a no-custody order in place aren't bounced around from foster home to foster home and maybe-maybe-not back to birth parents sometime (which I agree is not a good plan), make no-custody orders include automatic termination of parental rights for any child conceived after they are issued and allow the kid a permanent adoptive home from day one. It's still subject to errors in judgment, but at least you know it'll have real results. (And, frankly, it might be more of a deterrant than some random legal penalty.) (Note: This suggestion works when both bio parents have the no-custody order. What is the proper response when it's only one of them who is subject to such? I don't know.)

Ick.

Photo by walknboston.

More by this author: