Strollerderby : child safety

Dad Gets 100 Years for Poisoning Campbell's Soup

JeanneSager — Sat, 23 May 2009 15:33:00 GMT

There is nothing Mmm, mmm, good about this Campbell's Soup story. Although, to be fair, it's not the soup company's fault.

A father decided he was so money hungry, he wanted to sue the Campbell's Soup Company. But instead of sticking a worm in his can of chicken noodle and crying foul, William Cunningham figured he'd go for the big kahuna.

He cooked up soup with prescription medicines and lighter fluid and fed it to his kids.

The good news? The children - eighteen months and three-years-old at the time - survived.

The just as good news? Cunningham's butt is headed to prison, NEVER to see the light of day. Convicted on multiple counts of cruelty to children and aggravated assault (he already pled guilty for trying to defraud Campbell's), the Georgia man will spend one hundred years (or at least as long as he lives) in prison. He's also lost his wife (go figure), and he won't be seeing the kids - who are likely to suffer lifelong respiratory problems despite their survival.

We all know people get desperate for cash, but is there ever a time when you'd put your child's life at risk to get it? Obviously, Cunningham went farther than a normal person. I'm not suggesting poison. But let's look at the parents who take their children along for the ride when they're off to sell drugs, rob a store . . . basically, the type of crime that someone slightly more sane (although still on a criminal bent, obviously!) might commit. They're affecting the child, risking the child's life but certainly not feeding their child a mix that could very likely kill them.

Some would even say that the Nadya Sulemans and Jon and Kate Gosselins of the world are doing something fairly similar. Not feeding their kids poison, but risking their emotional health for the sake of the cash.

What is it about these parents that allows them to treat the child as a pawn who they can do with what they please?

Image: Seattle PI

CO Uses Stun Gun on Kids

JeanneSager — Mon, 04 May 2009 12:32:00 GMT

Fueling the fire for critics of Take Your Son and Daughter to Work Day, one bone-headed corrections officer is using the "but their parents said I could" defense for using a stun gun on a group of kids on the job for the day with Mom and Dad.

Sgt. Walter Schmidt claims he wanted to show the kids what mom and dad's jobs are really like at the Franklin Correctional Institute. Uh huh, because most corrections officers we know face daily doses of fifty thousand volts being shot through their bodies.

At least one of the kids shocked had to be taken to the hospital, and Schmidt has been terminated after fourteen years on the job. His post at time of the incident was arsenal sergeant.

"You tased at least two kids to demonstrate the EID, which is in direct violation of procedure and placed the department at risk of litigation," wrote Warden Duffie Harrison in a letter to Schmidt.

The U.S. Department of Justice OKs the use of the EIDs when "used properly, at the correct moment, and when alternatives have been exhausted." Of course, that's for use on criminals - not kids. And still, Schmidt is telling papers that he thought the big "shock" was in getting fired because he didn't meant to be malicious.

Frankly, I think the parents who said "sure" to having their kids shocked with this thing are nuts (stun guns have been known to kill people). They, just like Schmidt, should have known better. And if he lacks the good sense to know not to use this on kids, who knows how judicious he was in using the gun on inmates?

What do you think parents? Bonehead move or is this guy being treated too harshly?

Image: Bollyn

Kid Flies Across Country And No One Notices

JeanneSager — Fri, 01 May 2009 13:25:00 GMT

If it sounds like a Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan flick that's popular on date night, you're not far off. A boy used his father's credit card, hopped a plane and was across the country before anyone had missed him.

Only this kid wasn't looking for a lady love for dad. And he went in the opposite direction (East Coast to West rather than Seattle to New York). Oh yeah, and this wasn't a movie.

The thirteen-year-old was a real live boy who stole Dad's car during the night (while he was sleeping), drove thirty miles to an airport and THEN boarded a plane for parts unknown.

Kenton Weaver flew from Florida, where he lives with his father, to California, where his mother lives. But no one one the flight said a word. It wasn't until Weaver was at a ticket counter in California that the boy (who reportedly falls somewhere on the autism spectrum - making this all the more incredible) was found by some sort of authority.

His mom, Kim Casey, says Kenton is extremely bright but his Asperger's means he lacks common sense and inhibitions that would probably have kept other kids from pulling off this kind of feat. But that's another reason the boy's father, Dale Weaver, is shocked no one noticed a thirteen-year-old on a cross-continental flight. Not only did he not have ID, but Dale said his son can be a handful.

Kenton is OK - that's the best part of this story. And apparently has dreams of being a pilot, so a ride in an airplane was probably the highlight of his day, week, month. . .

But how does this make you feel about so-called airport security? Are they so focused on making us take our shoes off and trashing our tweezers that they're missing the big picture? Like thirteen-year-old kids with no ID getting on planes alone?

Image: eFitness

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

Babysitter Sleeps While Kid Plays Among the Alligators

JeanneSager — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:36:00 GMT

Your babysitter was never this bad - trust me.

A Florida sitter fell asleep on the toilet while her two-year-old charge went out and wandered around in an alligator-infested canal.

According to some reports, the boy was wearing nothing but a shirt and covered in feces when he was spotted and promptly rescued. When police got to the house, they say they found his babysitter on the toilet - passed out - and a bottle of oxycodone. The sitter, Brandy Albright, was woken up by police and placed under arrest for child endangerment, while the boy has been returned to his mom.

Unless you live in Florida or another coastal area of the country, you likely don't have to worry that your kid is going to be out playing with the alligators when you aren't home. But does a sitter really have to be told not to take drugs while they're watching your kid? There's a warning about not operating heavy machinery while taking these drugs on that bottle for a reason.

Just remember this one the next time you want to complain about your sitter. At least he or she remains upright throughout the day. If not, it's time you get yourself a new sitter!

Image: APP

Six-year-old Goes to Traffic Court

JeanneSager — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:34:00 GMT

He wasn't behind the wheel, but a six-year-old New Mexico boy was sentenced by a judge to traffic court. After all, it was his fault his mother ended up with a traffic ticket.

The boy's mom was pulled over and ticketed for not ensuring her elementary schooler was wearing his seatbelt. Rather than pleading guilty, the mom took the case to court - where she explained to the judge that nothing she does seems to get through to her son the importance of keeping the belt on.

"He took off his seat belt, I pulled over again and put it on and he took it off right in front of the cop," the mom told a New Mexico TV station. The judge agreed something had to be done - and he used his position to make it happen. He told her to take him to traffic school.

It doesn't seem to matter how on message you are with the seatbelt talk, some kids just love to rebel. We switched our daughter out of the carseat and into a booster the second she was tall enough - despite all the parents who told me they weren't as safe - because she couldn't be convinced NOT to move the chest plate down onto her belly. Every time she slipped it lower, I worried about the impact that would have on her internal organs if we were to get into an accident. The booster seat ensures she can't move the belt around, and the impact would be spread across more of her body.

Other parents say their problem is once they move into the booster seat, they can't keep their kids from the fascination of clicking the seatbelt button.

Some kids never test the limits, but there will always be that bunch who do. The best you can do is make sure you never take your kids out for a ride without the seatbelt and to always wear one yourself. I also used the cop next door as an excuse - reminding my daughter that he would have to come arrest me if she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. I'm not lying - it's essentially what happened with this New Mexico family!

The mom ended up taking her son to a seatbelt safety class - judge-approved. He's considering making future offenders and their kids take the same class, but it's not a bad idea for parents who are struggling with the problem - to prevent the ticket, and prevent a horrible accident.

Any other tips, Babble readers? What tricks have you used to keep them belted in?

Image: Edmunds

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

Kid Falls 40 Feet Into Hands of Superheroes

JeanneSager — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:01:00 GMT

A little girl hanging from a window forty feet off the ground. Two guys walking by her apartment building - one all the way across the street.

The three meet, and oh . . .my . . . Gawd.

Robert Lemire was talking on his cell phone in front of a pizza joint when he saw a little kid hanging from a third story window across the street. He made a mad dash across the street (no, he didn't stop to look both ways) where he met another guy, Alex Day, just walking out of the building from a Bible study class. Together, the two men put out their arms just in time to catch eighteen-month-old Caliah Clark just before she would have hit the ground.

Can we say totally freakin insanely awesome story here? I know that's not exactly fine English but, wow! They couldn't have planned this one on a movie set with stuntmen.

These are two heroes, and since they reside in Boston, and their superhero capes don't get them much farther, here's a reminder to everyone else to GET WINDOW GUARDS if you have a toddler.

OK, off the soapbox, just going to enjoy the high of such an awesome story on a Monday.

Image: Christian Odyssey (not child in story)

SC Johnson Says Bye Bye to Phthalates

JeanneSager — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:24:00 GMT

It's like a tennis match with all the news breaking about chemicals and kids products lately. No more BPA in bottles. Yay! Carcinogens in bubble bath. Aaack.

We're back with some good news today - one of the biggest makers of household cleaners, SC Johnson (you know, the ones who call themselves "a family company") has promised to remove all phthalates from its scented products over the course of the next two years.

Score one for us!

Used to help make plastics soft and flexible, phthalates are classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a "probable human carcinogen." Relying on its "family company" motto, SC Johnson CEO Fisk Johnson says the company wants to make sure today's families know they're safe when buying household cleaners and air fresheners. They've now got a site dedicated entirely to the make-up of its products (check it out here).

In other words? When your two-year-old gets ahold of the bottle of Glade (an SC Johnson line) air freshener and sprays out the whole bottle before you can make it to the bathroom to stop him, you'll know at least they won't be sucking down cancer-causing eau de cinnamon sticks.

Image: SC Johnson

Liar, Liar - iPod Sets Kid's Pants on Fire

JeanneSager — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:35:00 GMT

Technically, he's not lying - at least not completely. A kid had his pants set on fire when his iPod Touch "popped," melting his nylon/spandex underwear and causing second-degree burns.

But a lawsuit filed against employees at an Apple store that sold the kid the iPod alleges, "He continues to suffer from both physical and mental conditions which will cause him to suffer pain, mental distress, emotional distress, and otherwise for the rest of his life."

Really? For the rest of his life? Because he got a little hot down below? Whatever happened to "kids are resilient" or Gawd, I wish I had the money in this economy to be able to buy my kid an iPod Touch, so he should count his lucky stars he's got a family that's making it work?

According to Ars Technica, the boy's mom is asking for compensatory damages of more than $75,000 plus punitive damages of more than $75,000 and attorney fees. Although I can see asking Apple itself for A. a new iPod B. a full review of the safety concerns of the iPod Touch and C. payment for all medical bills (and maybe the price of a new pair of underwear - cotton preferrably), I am not convinced that ten employees at an Apple store should be forking over $150,000 for one embarrassing moment in a kid's life.

What does this teach a kid, by the way? That everything is fixed with money? Or that he's got a right to never be embarrassed? Right there, in court documents, his mom says he's marked for the rest of his life. Talk about setting your kid up for a life of being a victim.

What would you do? Would you sue?

Image: Amazon

UPDATE: Bye Bye BPA: WHICH Bottles Will Go Bisphenol Free

JeanneSager — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:57:00 GMT

Checking for the BPA-free label when shopping for baby bottles may soon be a thing of the past. The six largest manufacturers of bottles in the United States have voluntarily agreed to go Bisphenol-A free.

We reported on this story over the weekend (see below), but thanks to our friends at SuperEco, we now have a list of who's involved in the manufacturer cave in.

Going toxin free are Gerber, Avent America (which stopped production back in December), Evenflo, Disney's First Years, Dr. Brown and Playtex.

Attorneys general in Connecticut and New Jersey put forward a request to the bottle makers, asking for the hormone-disrupting chemical to be removed from the manufacturing process. The request came on the heels of newer research that shows the affects of BPA are large even at low doses, doses lower than the FDA's current standards. Studies have linked BPA to everything from cancer and obesity to problems with brain function and mood disorders. They've also shown BPA is building up in the bloodstream. In a study of people age six and older, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found detectable levels of BPA in ninety-three percent of two thousand five hundred seventeen urine samples.

Of course, the big companies aren't exactly doing this all out of the goodness of their hearts. Babies R Us and a number of other retailers announced last year that they would phase out all sales of bottles with BPA in them. Canada has outright banned the substance.

But sometimes even the big companies make decisions that are good for parents.

Image: OhMyGov

Does Your Family Follow the Five Second Rule?

JeanneSager — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:22:00 GMT

I am not that parent. The one who starts shrieking when her daughter picks a piece of banana off the floor and shoves it in her mouth.

We are firmly in the five second rule camp, helped along by Amy's recent reassurance that a little dirt never hurt anyone.

Oh hush. While you're screwing up your nose in disgust, I've got news for you - I'm not alone. A survey performed by Kelton Research for Oreck (folks I'm not embarrassed to admit I'm not too familiar with) showed sixty percent of Americans eat right off the floor, following the three-second rule. I would have put that number a lot higher myself.

Maybe it was their terminology - really, have you ever heard of the three-second rule? Me neither. A 2003 survey by a University of Illinois grad student granted an extra two seconds of leeway, and rustled up ten percent more grubby Americans for a whopping seventy percent of us eating off the floor. Yum!

Of course Oreck threw this little thing together to sell more vacuums; the way they see it, if we're going to eat off the floor anyway, it might as well be clean. And did they mention their handy dandy new germ-killing product? This isn't a review - I haven't tested the thing (see above), so I can't tell you how clean it makes your floors.

I can tell you their scary numbers don't really change anything. Bacteria schmacteria. I'm hard-pressed to see how letting my daughter pick her cereal up off the floor and eat it is any worse than her drinking her own bath water (ewww, I know, we're working on that one). I find it even harder to believe that any parent out there is able to watch their kids SO carefully that they NEVER eat anything off of the floor. So go check out their ick factor if you're interested. Or would you prefer to stay in my camp for the next five seconds or so?

Image: OnNetworks

California Daycare Closed; Worker Was Mocking Kids' Genitals

Kate Tuttle — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:30:00 GMT

According to police reports, the owner-operator of a home daycare repeatedly pulled down the pants of the children in her care so that she and other adults could comment on the size and shape of their genitalia. In addition, the owner, Suzanna Best of the badly misnamed Best Family Child Care Home, let one child, a developmentally disabled girl, sit in urine-soaked clothes for several hours; another time, Best washed the child with a garden hose after she had pooped in her pants.

The report can be found by clicking through from the news article. It makes for interesting, if terrifying reading. Beyond the sexual abuse, Best was also violating state law by caring for more children than her license allowed (and had even planned for it by showing the children an "escape route" to follow in case the authorities ever came to inspect), and hired workers without conducting a criminal background check.

California's Departmet of Social Services is now investing the daycare, located in San Bernardino County. But for parents everywhere, this is one of those "worst nightmare" scenarios that can make you question your own daycare situation, wherever it is. Despite all the state licensing and inspections, it's still possible to find out you've put your kids into the daycare from Hell. Asking the right questions when you're choosing a daycare helps -- unannounced visits help even more.

More By This Author:

Bad Science: How The Autism Vaccine Scare Snowballed

Preteen Accused of Shooting Dad's Pregnant Girlfriend

North Dakota Passes Law Establishing "Personhood" at Conception

Kittens Have Their Say (Aided by Nutty Six-Year-Old)

Twenty-Year-Old Kidnapping Solved

When Should the School Call the Parents?

JeanneSager — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:02:00 GMT

Life in a small town is strange sometimes. I didn't hear about the punching incident at my daughter's pre-school from her or even from the teacher.

I heard about it in town, via the long grapevine of small town life. I also heard it was dealt with - appropriately - by the teacher.

It didn't bother me in the least that I hadn't known before - after all, my daughter wasn't involved. But when I mentioned it to another parent, her reponse shocked me. "You didn't get a letter? The teacher didn't say anything?"

Of course she didn't say anything. One little boy punched another little boy, and the teacher stepped in. She talked to the parents of the kids involved. The parents dealt with it. My daughter wasn't involved, and therefore I wasn't involved. I probably would have been more concerned if the teacher was telling the private business of two other children and two other sets of parents - to me.

My friend wasn't giving up. "But there's a bully in your daughter's class. Don't you want to know to protect her? Shouldn't you know what happens in that classroom during the day?"

I can see her point, but when I drop my daughter off in the morning, I put her in the care of her teacher and the teacher's assistant for three hours. I have to trust that those two adults are protecting my daughter, and that they're ensuring what happens in that classroom is safe and appropriate. If it isn't, I'd expect them to tell me.

What do you think? Should parents be notified of every "bad" thing to happen in a classroom? Or should notification be child specific?

Special Ed Kids Left Behind During School Evacuation

Jen Chaney — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:02:00 GMT

School administrators have to make some extremely tough decisions every day. But in the aftermath of countless, violent tragedies that have happened in our nation's high schools, deciding what to do in the wake of a bomb threat should be simple: you evacuate the building until police give the all-clear. End of story.

Well, that's not what happened at a high school in Texas, where the entire student body was required to leave except for the kids in a pair of special ed classrooms. As reported in this story, found via MomLogic, everyone at Hays High School in Buda, Tex., exited the premises about two hours after an anonymous caller phoned the school on Jan. 29 and said four pipe bombs were on campus. The students were required to stay outside for about an hour while police did a sweep. Meanwhile the eight special ed students stayed put in their rooms, based on the principal's assessment that it was too cold for some of the more physically challenged kids to remain outside for an extended period of time.

It's very easy to second guess a decision like this, especially when we don't know what other factors may have influenced the principal's judgment. That said, based on the facts presented here, this seems like a terribly insensitive call. For starters, it was 47 degrees out on the day this happened. Now I realize that in Texas, that might seem chilly, but those are hardly life-threatening conditions. And if some of the special ed students are particularly sensitive to cold, it seems that other precautions -- circulating them in and out of cars with the heat, on or sending them to another location (maybe a local library?) -- could have addressed that issue. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say that kids with physical disabilities, especially those who need extra assistance to leave the school, should have gotten out of there first, to give them a head start.

The bomb threat turned out to be unfounded. But in a situation like this, you have to assume it's real, which is exactly why the parents of those left-behind children are really angry. Other parents also aren't happy because no action was taken until two hours after the threat was made. The local sheriff's office is investigating and some of parents were scheduled to meet yesterday with the principal. I suspect she got an earful.

Image: Upslopes.com

White Firefighter Reunited with Black Baby He Saved Forty Years Ago

JeanneSager — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:31:00 GMT

It was the height of the sixties, when racial tensions were taught in the City of Boston and across the United States. A white fireman was caught by a photographer, his lips pressed to the face of a black baby girl, his face racked with determination to save her life.

This week, more than forty years later, that baby and her grateful godmother finally met the man who saved her.

"November, 1968, a report of children trapped inside the building," William Carroll says into the camera. "Those things you remember like it was yesterday."

The baby was covered in soot, Carroll remembers, unable to breathe with no pulse pumping in her tiny wrist. He'd crawled on his stomach through the thick smoke to find her lyin in a crib in the burning Roxbury Housing Projects, clad only in a diaper. He grabbed Evangeline Harper - now Evangeline Anderson - and rushed from the building. The picture snapped by a photojournalist on scene would shape the future of the city, and he would earn commendations for bravery.

But Caroll wasn't thinking about any of that. He had a child to save.

Forty years later, Anderson met up with a Boston Globe reporter at a community meeting. She saw an opportunity to track down the man who'd saved her - through the newspaper that made famous her picture. Caught on tape by the Globe as a companion piece to their article, the meeting is worth watching (here) for one of those "restores your faith in the good of man" moments.

First delving into it, I thought the race issue would have the bigger pull - making me all weepy to see racial tensions melting away. Instead, all this brought out in me was the mother side, the part that wanted to wrap my arms around a guy who saved a baby. As Anderson tells him - "had it not been for you, I would not be here today."

"We did a good thing that day," Carroll said, "I hope I gave her a shot."

Awww. Maybe every day should be hug a fireman day?

Image: Boston Globe

New Brit Reality Series is Home Alone With Real Kids

JeanneSager — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:38:00 GMT

A British TV show has taken the early nineties hit that made Macauley Culkin (remember him) a star for ten minutes and made a reality version.

Boys and Girls Alone puts ten girls and ten boys alone in a house - or at the very least, as alone as you can be in a house crawling with cameramen and sound guys - for two weeks to see how kids would really cope without their parents.

Ages eight through eleven, the kids apparently bicker throughout the show (I haven't seen it, so I'm taking this out of reports), and split into mini Survivor-like factions. Producers at Channel 4 have defended the show from beginning to end, pointing out a child psychologist is on hand at all times, and with the show staff around, they aren't alone in a life endangering sense.

Critics, on the other hand, have gone beserk, calling the show everything from a ratings prank to "cruel and abusive."

I'm on the fence on this one. Kids, after all, go to sleep-away camp at eight. They spend weeks of their summer with limited adult interaction, surrounded largely by counselors who are only a few years their senior. And if you think they don't split into factions at summer camp, you haven't heard of Color War. And don't get me started on the mini-factions in the cafeterias of your average school. They're called cliques, and there isn't a school I've seen that escapes them.

On the other hand - because there always is that other hand - there ARE adults at summer camp. And at schools. And they make no bones about stepping in when kids need them (at least good, caring staff don't). A cameraman and sound guy who are told to watch but not interact may be ensuring the kids don't mix bleach and ammonia or accidentally burn the house down when they use the stove, but they're not there to mediate the disputes or offer comfort for a kid who is a little down.

Because these are kids we're talking about. Not even teenagers. Little kids. Kids who need Mom and Dad to give them a hug at the end of the day and say, "it's OK, Susie is being mean right now, but that's part of life" or to lean over and tell Susie to "knock it OFF." They're still developing their social skills, and they are not ready to be left alone for days on end. If you or I tried it, we would be brought up on charges of child abuse, and I'd say rightly so. The accusations of "cruel and abusive" have a ring of truth to them after all.

The kids' psyches are what I worry about the most when it comes to any talk of using kids in rituals or experiments. What do you think?

Image: Sky News

Family Sues Over What Kid Found in Hotel Room

JeanneSager — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:40:00 GMT

A Massachusetts family that made a stop-off on their trip home from Florida is wishing they'd just kept on driving north.

Steven and Amy Wolfe and their three kids stayed at the Homewood Suites in Mount Laurel, N.J. for just one night on the trip home to Pittsburgh, Mass. Things went fine until the next morning, when the Wolfes' twenty-two-month-old son picked up something left behind by previous guests and put it in his mouth - something used . . . and made of latex.

You guessed it. Cleaning crews apparently missed a dirty condom left behind by previous occupants of the room, and the Wolfe's youngest child had already swallowed a portion when he started choking and she rushed to his side.

The child is fine - at least choking-wise. But he'll have to undergo further testing to determine if any diseases in the condom might have put him at risk. His parents, meanwhile, are suing the hotel.

From the Philadelphia Daily News: "The suit contends that Homewood Suites and its subsidiaries, Hilton and Blackstone, put the boy at risk by leaving the "life threatening" item in the room and subjecting the boy to an increased risk of contracting a "sexually transmitted disease, including HIV or AIDS, or some other, potentially life threatening, potentially fatal illness."

I already knew hotel rooms were icky. This story highlights why it's so much more difficult to avoid the ick factor when you've got kids. As an adult, I immediately throw off the comforter when I walk into a hotel room, knowing they are often not washed between guests. My three-year-old, however, wants to roll around on the bed just like she does at home. She begs to take a bath in the hotel tub; I refuse.

After reading this, I'm even more inclined to say "Let's drive through the night honey. We can sleep when we get there."

Image: TripAdvisor.com

Child Matador's Killing Bulls, Kicking Up Controversy

JeanneSager — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:02:00 GMT

Remember Michelito Lagravere, the child matador who had people up in arms over his sixty kills last summer?

He's back, and he's upped his numbers. Little Michelito killed six young bulls in a ring in Southeastern Mexico last weekend, a feat his parents have sent on for possible inclusion in the Guinness Book of World Records.

That killing bulls would anger animal rights advocates is obvious - some of Lagravere's fights in his father's native France have been canceled because the boy is bloodthirsty. "He fights in corridas [bullfights] aiming to kill," they say.

But the Lagraveres are getting equal attention from outraged parents for putting their pint-sized son in a dangerous ring with angry bulls. Saturday's fight was initially suspended by Mexican officials based on the pressure of child protection officials and the animal advocates. A judge finally gave the go-ahead based on documentation provided by Michelito's father Michel, a former French bullfighting champion. Michel said his son has been in the ring since he was six years old, and he's never had a serious accident.

I have always found bullfighting to be as abhorrent as dog fighting (I am, after all, a vegetarian), and I'm sickened by the bloodlust exhibited by a child - or an adult for that matter. Still, I can't summon the appropriate outrage over a child being put into a bullfighting ring. Yes, it's dangerous. So is skateboarding. And hockey.

There's also a distinct cultural difference between America and France or Mexico. In the Madeline books, the Spanish ambassador's son, Pepito (the bad hat), showed off his toreador skills to impress the little French girl. My colleague, Cole Gamble, likened child matadors to children armed with a gun and sent into the woods to kill a deer here in America. That too is highly cultural. As appalled as an urban dweller may be at the thought, kids here in the sticks are put through intensive gun safety training courses. They spend countless hours watching an adult prepare for hunting, they do it under the watchful eyes of an adult, and in the end they bring home a deer that the family may well eat off of for a month. Disgusting? Perhaps, but people have to eat.

Which puts this back into the animal rights portion of the argument. Is it necessary for this little boy to be killing his prey? Are these young bulls slaughtered for nothing more than sport? No, and yes.

I don't have a real problem seeing Michelito Lagravere follow in his father's footsteps into a sport that takes cunning and skill - his age be darned. I do, however, have a problem with an eleven-year-old with a bloodlust that is encouraged for nothing more than glory.

Images: Sky News, AP

Adopting Kids: Nothing Like Adopting Puppies

Review: Olivia the Pig Comes to Nickelodeon

Zimbabwe Releases Jailed Toddler

Grandpa Hires Hitman So He Can Visit Granddaughter

JeanneSager — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:45:00 GMT

How can you say no to a Grandpa who just wants to see his little granddaughter? When he's the type of guy who'd hire a hitman to rough you up for it, I'd say you have some pretty good grounds.

David Ward of Pacific, Missouri, has been accused of hiring a hitman to beat up his daughter, providing him with the woman's address and pictures so he could identify her in a crowd.

Ward told police he didn't want his daughter dead. He just wanted to see his granddaughter. Police say Ward was charged four years ago for assaulting the daughter - likely the reason she severed ties between child and Grandpa.

The details out on this story make it pretty clear Ward's daughter made the right move in cutting Dad out of the picture. But most of us have parents who drive us up the wall (and don't hire hitmen) - have you ever considered cutting them out of your child's life?

They're flesh and blood, but they're also not parents, so they don't have the rights that we do. Still, I watch my daughter running around with her grandparents, and she is absolutely idolized. Grandparents usually offer a different kind of love - because they don't have to do the discipline and clean-up later. Grandparents often do a better job with their grandkids than they did with their own kids too, either because they're older and more experienced or simply have the luxury of not worrying about the parenting aspect of it all.

Then again, grandparents spoil kids and send them home. They let them eat lollipops at nine p.m., and three nights later, our kids are throwing a tantrum because we say "no lollipops." They let our kids jump on the bed even though they would have tanned our (metaphorical) hides if we'd even glanced at the bed. They tell us how to parent, and they "tut, tut" when we don't follow up.

Sometimes, our parents aren't the best people for us to have around. Sometimes we just suck it up for our kids (so they can grow up, have kids, and we can be the pains in the ass later).

Image: DailyMail

Family Adopts Eight Siblings Separated by Foster Care

Dad Finds Daughter Abducted During Bosnian War

Mom Shoplifts Parenting Book With Kids in Tow

New Organization Helps Incest Survivors

Shannon LC Cate — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:31:00 GMT

Most parents are aware of the chilling statistics:

1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will report sexual abuse. More will not report it.

That's an epidemic, folks. We all do what we think is best to protect our children from this experience, many of us, while living with the aftermath of our own abuse histories.

There's one more resource out there now, to help on both of these fronts. VOICE Today offers resources to help those recovering from the experience of incest as well as advice for protecting children from it. It has a Christian slant, which may not be appropriate for everyone, but helpful for some.

I hope none of you need these resources, but if you do, or if you know anyone who does, it's good to know they are out there.

Is Going Hard on Handmade Bad for Parents?

JeanneSager — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:36:00 GMT

After a year and a half of ominous warnings that toxins are lurking in our kids' toyboxes, you would think parents would be celebrating the feds' decision to move in and start busting heads.

So what's the problem here?

The over-generalized, blanket "reform" regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) will be putting a lot of parents out of business.

Now who's guilty of making a broad, sweeping statement? Perhaps, but I'm not just talking about moms who make toy food and sell it on etsy. They are the parents who have spent countless hours tweeting updates on Twitter, blogging about the Handmade Toy Alliance fight, and urging us all to write to our Congressman (click here to find out how they voted on the issue, by the way, in the House and in the Senate). And there are a lot of them. I have friends who do the craft circuit for extra cash, and the "children" section on etsy has no less than one thundred fifty thousand items up for sale at the moment - most of them made by a parent. Throw in the kids clothing makers, diaper sewers, and the list goes on - even if it's highly unlikely to have lead to begin with (in organic cotton?), it will have to be tested and tagged - to show parents it doesn't.

Yes, this law will undoubtedly put these parents out of business. But I'm also talking about the parents who like to buy little doodads for their kids - be it on etsy or at the local craft fair - because they're better-crafted and often more intriguing for the little minds, because the clothes are will withstand the test of being crawled and jumped in (where do I get clothes, by the way? The CPSIA calls for anything kids can "reasonably put in their mouths" - for those of us with kids, that's everything but the kitchen sink . . . on second thought, she has tried to suck water from the spigot . . . ).

They're being given one choice now - head to the big box store and stock up on the toys and clothes every kid on the block will have under the Christmas tree. Oh, and because each and everything must be tested by an independent lab to ensure it's lead, phthalate and cootie-free, and those labs like to charge a pretty penny - the price of THOSE toys is going up too. Overall, the big manufacturers will be better able to stomach the costs, but they are sure to pass on any added processing fees to us - the big ol' saps who fall for their kids' wide-eyed, "please, oh pretty please, I want it sooooo bad, I'll be so good."

Should we be making efforts to keep toxins away from our kids? Absolutely. Lead poisioning as one mother said in TV interview I watched, does not discriminate. She said the federal government shouldn't either - at least not in their efforts to keep lead out of kids' systems. Unfortunately, the CPSIA discriminates against parents when it comes down on the side of big business. A lack of research has resulted in blanket legislation in what is supposedly a quick response to a nationwide problem (a year and a half later).

If the government wants to help parents, maybe they should check with a few before the write laws "for us."

Image: Homespuncity (an etsy buy for me - that my daughter has tried sucking on)

Five Easiest - and Cheesiest - Christmas Gifts to Make With the Kids

Your Mother-in-Law Really Is Bad For Your Health

Handmade; Organic; European Toy Producers at Risk

They Say – Most Toys Are Toxic

Teen Has Cancer and Lives in a Car

The Case Against Stricter Sex Offender Laws

Miriam Axel-Lute — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:08:00 GMT

In a passionate post, author Judith Levine takes on Vermont's proposed stiffening of sex offender laws. It's a very hard thing to be against, but Levine makes a strong case. Basically, she makes three points:

Evidence is lacking that any of these measures, which have been tried elsewhere, will do much good. It's not like we're starting with weak laws against this stuff.
The measures will cost a lot at a time where there isn't a lot of money to go around.
There is a very clear correlation with poverty and increased physical and sexual abuse, so the money would be better directed to anti-child-poverty programs that are currently being cut (and which these measures will cause to be cut further).

She writes: "The laws will accomplish only one sure thing: They will shield the Democratic legislature from charges that it is soft on pervs, at least until the next gruesome crime."

But can we the non-poor contain our fear and our lust for revenge enough to demand that our governments do what would actually protect the largest number of kids?

Photo by Oslo in the Summertime.

More by this author:

Related Posts:

10 WORST. BABY. PRODUCTS. EVER! (Part 2)

Cole Gamble — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:00:00 GMT

Baby Tattoos

At some point you might think I’m just being a crank, grousing about stuff that’s purely for novelty, a joke. But I argue that the jokes are dumb. Case in point, baby tattoos. However, if the idea behind the joke is to get your kid shanked in the prison yard, than it’s hilarious.

Man Boobs

Please lord save us from this product. That goes double for the men who feel they need them.

The Daddle

Well we just got done turn your kids into animals, now it’s dad’s turn. What dad hasn’t played horsey with his kids? Thanks to the Daddle, you can take an innocent game and turn it into the degrading exercise it was always meant to be. Once that kid gets the Daddle strapped to ya, you’ll never be anything more than a pack mule to her. And hey, what about the Maddle? Can’t mommy give dad a break?

Fortunately, the Daddle comes with a three-month supply of Vicodin for all your impending back pain.

Baby Perfume by Hello Kitty

The perfect way to say to your child, “You stink.” What exactly does Hello Kitty smell like, anyhow? I’m thinking it smells like unicorn barf.

Super Creepy My Little Pony

Ever since my daughter got one of these I haven’t had a night’s rest. I stay up all night staring at the ceiling and say to myself over and over, “Can’t sleep, baby pony will eat me. Can’t sleep, baby pony will eat me.”

Go to Worst Baby Products Part I

More by this author:

Horrifyingly Cute Animals

Cute Overload: White Tiger Kitten and Monkey are Friends (PICS!)

Men with Baby Heads

10 Things You May Not Know About Pregnancy (and might shock you)

The 26 Most Disturbing Kids Movies Ever

Hunter Shoots Through Trailer Wall, Kills Toddler

JeanneSager — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:01:00 GMT

She was sitting in her grandparents' house, doing what toddlers do. The next second, a bullet tore through the wall in an otherwise quiet rural neighborhood. Charly Skala was gone.The hunter whose high-powered hunting rifle claimed the sixteen-month-old's life is sitting in jail.

Despite my politics and my strictly vegetarian diet, a childhood spent in rural America has made me fairly tolerant of guns. I grew up with people who hunted to survive. End of story. But the story I shared with readers of my local newspaper has been hitting the news across the globe, and the reaction has only highlighted the vast difference between the right to bear arms afforded the average American and the need to tote a high-powered weapon.

It's not fear-mongering to say this could have happened to any family in America. Skala's family was sitting inside their trailer when the bullet burst through the wall. They were gathered to watch a football game. It hardly gets more all American.This hunter - according to officials - was just four hundred feet from the home and pointing straight at it. The .300 magnum could easily shoot more than a mile if nothing got in the way. According to the upstate New York assistant district attorney, hunter Edward Taibi of Queens, brought an "elephant gun" to go deer hunting.

Now a little girl is dead, and a hunter (who police said is extremely remorseful) is awaiting a trial on manslaughter charges. Is this merely a case of a horrible accident to get past? Or is this evidence that some guns just don't belong in the hands of the general public?

Image: Sullivan County Democrat