Strollerderby : divorce

Blogger Defends Kate Gosselin -- and So Do I

Amy Kuras — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:30:00 GMT

I’ll admit to only having watched maybe ten minutes total of “Jon and Kate Plus 8” ever. I have issues with people who abuse fertility treatment (you don’t end up with sextuplets if you and/or your doctor are doing what you’re supposed to) and then parade their kids around and accept a bunch of free goodies. And these two were apparently chasing the gravy train from the minute the doctor said “There’s six in there.” In other words, I have no respect for them and think they are exploiting their kids for their own personal gain.

That said, the vitriol directed toward Kate Gosselin with this latest controversy is quite surprising to me. The general line seems to be “Of course he cheated on her because all she ever does is bitch at him –she’s soooo meeeaaannn.”

I’m sorry, people – have you seen Jon Gosselin and the way he talks to her? He seems like a wussy little passive-aggressive jerk, and I’ll tell you what, if I was married to that guy, I’d be a bitch on wheels too. I mean, he’s all but admitted to cheating on her with some 23-year-old, and one of things he’s said to have done is wander uninvited into a college girl party and hit on 19-year-olds. He’s, what, 40ish? What normal adult male, married or single, thinks that’s remotely appropriate and uncreepy?

Blogger Lisa Daily over on HuffPo said nearly as much on her own take on the show, She also made a good point – Jon hasn’t worked since before the sextuplets were born. He says it’s because his employer didn’t want to pay the insurance premiums for six babies; his former employer says it’s because he spent more time trolling for freebies than actually working. They’ve been pretty much supporting themselves solely on income from the show and the attendant book deals.

Daily writes, “A friend of mine has five children, and she runs a pretty tight ship. I think Kate is probably the way she is because if she doesn't take charge, no one else will.

If my husband seemed incapable, or unwilling to provide for our family, I'd do whatever I needed to do to make that happen. Even if it made me look like a bitch on national TV.”

I hardly think Kate’s a hero – they are both essentially famewhores who are selling out their kids and I hate to think what life in that family is going to be like once the cameras are off and the gravy train has stopped a’comin’. But there’s a nasty little antifeminist undercurrent in the “blame the woman” tone of much of the discussion I have read, and think we need to examine why Kate’s being painted as the monster in all this.

Vote on Jon and Kate's Divorce Goes Too Far

They Say: Staying Together for the Kids? Don't

JeanneSager — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:01:00 GMT

How many times have you heard someone in marital distress say they're just trying to make it through for the kids? Might want to give them a hug next time and tell them they shouldn't worry about it.

A new study has found what plenty of kids of bitter, bickering parents already knew: staying together for the kids doesn't work.

Looking at teens from almost two thousands households and tracking them through to their early thirties, the study out of Cornell University in New York linked "exposure to parental conflict in adolescence . . . with poorer academic achievement, increased substance use and early family formation and dissolution, often in ways indistinguishable from living in a stepfather or single-mother family."

Again, not totally surprised here. But it's an important finding FOR parents who have long sought comfort as they navigate the difficult road of divorce. The dissolution of a relationship is almost never easy, and blame is quite often the name of the game. When kids are involved, the ante is upped as couples have to factor in more than just the two people in the marriage itself.

Studies have already found that divorce does not change the way a person parents. If you're doing a good job before the split, there's no reason to think you'll fall down on the job after the decree becomes final.

Parents should also take a long, hard look at their kids pre-split. Poor behavior that parents have often associated with post-divorce stress has been found to be something parents were overlooking in the midst of their marital discord. It was already there. The good news? Researchers say it doesn't actually get worse.

At the end of the day, I could never tell someone, "hey, yeah, get divorced." That's a very personal decision. But knowing you're worrying about your kids in the process means you're already far ahead of a lot of parents.

Image: OrlandoNest

Best of FameCrawler - Week of May 29th

Whit Honea — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Mike Tyson's 4-Year-Old Daughter Dies

Madonna Dishes on A-Rod and Kate Hudson

Confirmed - Gisele is Pregnant With Tom Brady's Baby!

Nicole Richie, Dad Lionel & Daughter Harlow (PHOTOS)

Sneak Peek! Jon & Kate Plus 8 Season Premiere

Kelly Rutherford, Lies and Videotape

Amy Mickelson's Breast Cancer Battle

Michelle Williams and Daughter Matilda Support Their Local Coffee House

Angelina Jolie: Madonna Adopts For Fame

Jon & Kate - Who Are The Kids Happier With? (Photos)

Slumdog Kids Finally Get A Home!

Brian Grazer's Prenup Still Makes Wife Rich

Vote on Jon and Kate's Divorce Goes Too Far

JeanneSager — Thu, 28 May 2009 16:01:00 GMT

With the reports of Jon and Kate Plus 8 and their potential demise coming fast and furious, I wasn't surprised to find a poll over at Extra's Website about whether or not the Gosselins should just call it quits.

Not surprised, but a little digusted.

Sure, it's just an informal poll. But it seems to fall dangerously close to laying bets. Laying bets on the fate of eight kids.

It's true that Jon and Kate Gosselin have brought this type of frenzy upon themselves. They signed up to do a national TV show. They invited cameras into their living room. They let us see their kids struggle with potty training and sibling rivalry. We're going to speculate. We're going to write about it (I know I have), and we're going to talk about it. As a willing participant in that frenzy, I can't criticize the rest of the group for doing it.

And I wouldn't - they've put themselves in the public domain (hence all that talk about how they are fame whores exploiting their kids!).

This poll, however, asks "Are the Gosselins headed for divorce?" with the choices:

A. Yes, it's better for them to break up

B. No, they will stay together for the kids.

Perhaps it's no different than any other piece that's appeared on the internet. I haven't seen them all; and I'd wager Extra isn't the first to bust out something of this sort. But this isn't talk about what is actually going on in their marriage or even weighing in on WHY we do or do not like Jon and Kate Plus 8.

I just can't get past the ick factor of actually laying wagers (albeit with no financial gain) on someone's marriage. I'd have the same problem with a poll on Brad and Angelina. Or Michelle and Barack. This is not some misguided loyalty toward the Gosselins. There are times where I'd even say it IS better for a couple to get divorced, despite the presence of children.

But where I can criticize the Gosselins for being famewhores, for what's seen on TV, even what's reported by sponsors of Kate at speaking engagements, I wouldn't tell my best friend to divorce her husband. I can't well see telling the parents of eight kids who I've never met to do it. Or laying bets on it.

What do you think Babble readers? Would you feel icky taking that kind of poll? If not - go for it.

Image: Extra

Speaking Engagement Host Tells Kate Gosselin: Be Nice!

Jon & Kate Plus 8 Premiere Snags 9.8 Million Viewers

Jon & Kate Plus 8 Premiere Snags 9.8 Million Viewers

Brett Singer — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:00:00 GMT

So you know this Kate Gosselin we've been hearing so much about? Mother, reality show star, husband may or may not be cheating on her? Lots of backlash against her?

After all the sturm und drang that the Gosselins have generated in recent weeks, you might think that would hurt their ratings. But you would be wrong.

The season premiere of "Jon & Kate Plus 8" was watched by 9.8 million people. That's not only the largest audience for a cable show on Monday. It was the largest audience for ANY show that evening.

People, negativity sells. Big time.

Yes, it was Memorial Day. But "Jon & Kate" isn't even on a network. It's on cable. Which means that not everyone -- most people, but not everyone -- can see the show. To me, this was an astonishing feat.

I have a confession to make. I don't watch "Jon & Kate Plus 8." I don't watch any reality shows regularly, which isn't a judgment on those of you that do. It's just not my thing. (If they could make a reality show with superheroes in it, that I might watch.) But all of the tabloid news has been oddly fascinating to me. I read the People Magazine article. Someone left a copy of US Weekly in my house and I read the "Jon & Kate" article. (Well, I started it. But I'll finish it.) And I have to admit that I might just check out a few minutes of the show.

Did you watch the "JK8" premiere? Did the recent scandals surrounding the couple make you more interested in the show?

Source: Hartford Courant

Morning News - California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8

Kate Gosselin - Mom or Monster?

Gosselins are Good for a Gander (big roundup of stories on Famecrawler)

Mom Arrested for Having 555 Pound Son

Morning News - Mike Tyson's Daughter Injured

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

Jon Gosselin a Cheater, But a Good Dad?

JeanneSager — Thu, 07 May 2009 13:27:00 GMT

Haters of Jon and Kate Plus 8 (and we've found out there are many) got the confirmation they've all been waiting for: Jon Gosselin is a total tool. The hair plugs didn't clue you in?

The brother of the woman he's supposedly shtupping says, well, that he's shtupping his sister. And this isn't Kate Gosselin's bro talking, so it would stand to reason that the star of TLC's reality show is cheating on his wife (allegedly, natch).

But while all that uproar is going on over his extra-marital activities, his friends are rushing out to say, "wait, Jon is a good dad to his eight kids!" Are the two even related?

People who cheat on their spouses are scum buckets. I was raised with the mantra, if you are going to step out on your marriage then WALK out of your marriage. If he's unhappy with the woman many watchers say is a shrew, then, by all means, take a hike buddy. But cheating would make him a bad husband.

Does it make you a bad parent too? Besides the admittedly bad example you're setting for your kids, I'm inclined to say not really. Especially when you have young children. When you have teens who are more aware of what you're doing, then there's even more pressure to act as a "role model." Even then, if your kids DON'T know, I'd tend to say you're still just a bad spouse and rather rotten person.

But unless Jon Gosselin was having sex with a woman other than his wife in front of his kids, I don't see how it affects his parenting skills. In fact, if he's having sex WITH his wife in front of his kids, I'd have a bit of a problem with that (g-ross people). But cheaters still get up and make breakfast in the morning. They still pour sippy cups and read bedtime stories. They are still parents - as long as they keep the mistress (or the other man) away from the kids.

What do you think parents? Does cheating make you a bad parent or just a bad spouse?

Image: Zap2It

Mom Uses Breastfeeding as Weapon in Custody Battle

Confirmation: Jon Gosselin of “Jon and Kate Plus Eight” Cheated

Amy Winehouse Writing a Children's Book

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

They Say: Kids Who Smile Big Will Marry Well

Jen Chaney — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:02:00 GMT

You may want to look at some of your family pictures after this post. Or, for that matter, dig out some childhood photos of your own.

According to a recent study conducted at Indiana's DePauw University, children who smile brightly in photographs are less likely to get divorced later in life. No, I'm not kidding. The researchers looked at the high school photos of several subjects, ages 21 to 87, and found that those with dimmer grins tended to have at least one broken marriage under their belts. They also found similar results using photographs of kids as young as five.

So let's break this down. In essence, this confirms something that, as this piece in the Telegraph points out, is basic, common sense: happy people tend to have happy marriages. That may be because they are more positive and willing to work at their relationships, or (and this is my hypothesis here) because upbeat individuals attract, and are attracted to, other upbeat individuals.

But what this study doesn't address is the issue of faking. Plenty of people can plaster dazzling smiles across their faces when a photo is being snapped. But that doesn't necessarily mean they are happy people. I guess children are less likely to put on a front, especially when they're very young. But I do wonder how clear-cut the relationship is between a smile and reality.

In any event, if this study really is accurate, it tells us something pretty important about appearances: perhaps you can not only judge a book by its cover, but predict its marital satisfaction, too.

Image: Getty Via The Telegraph

When You and Your Ex Disagree Over Your Kids’ Health Care

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:30:00 GMT

When I was a preteen, I was diagnosed with a serious kidney disease. My long divorced parents, who were normally quite cordial with one another, differed sharply in their opinions over my treatment, leading to screaming fights and subtle psychological tug-of-wars. They may have been able to compromise over who paid for violin lessons, but when it came to their daughter’s health, neither of my parents was willing to put their beliefs aside.

A Washington Post writer recently discussed this problem with family therapist Elayne Savage, whose commonsense recommendations echo the solutions that my parents eventually found.

Most importantly, Savage suggests enlisting the help of a counselor or mediator. The shift in my parents’ attitudes to each other changed palbably after they started seeing a mediator. Neither of my parents stopped telling me what they believed would be best, but it was no longer couched in terms of the “better” solution. Rather, they both simply explained to me what they would like me to do for my health (in my dad’s case, acupuncture and energy healers; in my mom’s, the most aggressive mainstream interventions), without pushing me or scaring me.

I learned to speak to my dad about certain health concerns and my mom about others, just as many children of married parents would do. I understood how my parents' approaches differed, but I ultimately felt this meant that I had more options, rather than less.

Savage also points out that doctors themselves can also be instrumental in helping parents reach agreements. When one parent feels strongly that medical intervention is not necessary or could even be harmful, a trustworthy doctor can step in and make recommendations that take nothing but the child’s health into account. I was lucky to have such a doctor, who sat down with both of my parents and me and thoroughly explained each of my options and the probable outcomes. In his presence, the three of us came to an agreement about my treatment, so there was no danger of emotions running too high.

Photo: lilsugar.com

Did Having a Baby Make You Start Thinking About Your Ex?

JeanneSager — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:30:00 GMT

I wasn't thinking about much when my daughter was three months old. My maternity leave was over, and I was back at work - albeit at a reduced thirty-hour schedule. I didn't have time to think about sex, nonetheless an ex.

Turns out some parents have turned the seven-year itch into the three-month itch. Their baby hits three months, and as exhausted and un-sexy as the mothers feel, they start thinking about what their life could have been if they took a different path. Namely, if they picked another partner.

In the New York Times this week, essayist Anna Solomon says she couldn't help romanticizing her exes when her daughter was still a newborn, when she hit that three-month mark everyone told her would be a turning point, when she would start to get her life back:

"I was certain that I’d ruined my life, and I was thinking — with alarming frequency — of men who were not my husband, men who seemed suddenly more attractive than they’d actually been, or kinder, or braver — men who would never have gotten me into this mess."

I always thought it was just in the movies that women turned on their husbands during childbirth, that they started screaming, "I hate you, I can't stand you, get away from me, you did this to me." But here that same feeling is, rearing its ugly head three months on, when the pain of delivery is gone and the reality of being a mother has set in. You aren't you anymore, and as long as you're stuck in this bleary-eyed state with this little person who can reach top volume and turn tomato red in the blink of an eye, it's hard to imagine you ever will be again.

Is it any wonder some women fantasize their way out of it? Even for a few moments? It's not sexual fantasies of exes past, because, frankly, sex is what put you in this predicament. It's emotional escapism, the kind that nourishes the body in what can be a very dark time for a parent, especially a stay-at-home parent or a woman still nursing a baby through the night (and hence getting no sleep). And that's why, for most of us - including Solomon, it's fleeting. Your baby grows, you get some sleep, and you realize you are pretty darn OK where you are - if not completely and wonderously in love with where you are.

Did you ever fantasize about the ex when your child was young, or daydream about going back to the pre-pregnancy days?

Image: DailyMail

Your Kid's Mouth Stinks: Here's Why

Also on Babble:

The New Celibacy

No Sex Please, We're Parents

Child Support Suffers In A Recession, Too

Kate Tuttle — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:02:00 GMT

A bad economy tends to spawn domino effects of harm. As workers lose their jobs, the folks who depend on their paycheck -- whether the bank that owns their mortgage or retail store owners or service employees -- all take a hit as well. Least able to protect themselves, and wholly unable to find another source of support, are the children of laid-off workers. As a recent article in the New York Times suggests, the picture can get especially complicated when the paycheck that's lost was formerly provided by a non-custodial parent in the form of child support.

Since the beginning of this year, New York's family court system has been deluged by requests for reduction in child support orders by parents (mostly fathers) who have lost their jobs and can no longer meet their mandated obligations. In many if not most cases, judges have no choice but to reduce the support order until the father can find a way to pay. Needless to say, this doesn't always sit well with the custodial parents (usually mothers) who have to figure out how to provide food and shelter and clothing on less and less money. It's a bad scene all around.

Some of the stories out of New York are utterly astonishing, like the couple formerly making a combined $400,000 a year who both lost their jobs simultaneously, and are now trying to live on $800 a month in unemployment benefits. But most are not nearly as rich to begin with, like the man making just over $16K a year (how do you live on that in New York?) and required to send 23% of his salary to support his child in Georgia. The mother is angry, the father is angry, both are broke and, of course, it's the child who suffers most of all.

Even those of us not currently factoring child support into our monthly responsibilities are finding ourselves having to make choices in terms of what we can and can't afford for our kids these days. I know I'm not alone in weighing the yoga classes, summer camp, and new bike ideas more seriously than ever. I want this economic nightmare to end for all kinds of reasons, but most of all so that our kids don't have to worry about money -- or, in the very worst cases, about food and shelter.

More by this author:

Late-Term Abortion Provider on Trial in Kansas

Boomer Grandmothers: Out Of Control?

Move Over, Booties! Here Come Knitted Boobies

Think Your Baby's Car Seat Is Safe? Think Again

How Much--and How--Do You Argue in Front of Your Kids?

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 21:00:00 GMT

Recently, I came across these results from the latest Gordon Poll Youth Survey about teens and divorce. It is really interesting reading for all kinds of reasons, but what struck me most--as a parent of much younger children and a parent not contemplating divorce--were the responses kids gave about their parents and arguing.

When asked to define "arguing" a majority of kids identified the least intense option: "disagreeing about things" as arguing, (versus things like yelling, throwing things, hitting, etc.) and then, in a subsequent question, 50% of kids (another majority) said parents' arguing was "terrible"--the most negative option given.

Since the kids surveyed were not all children with divorced parents (the sample was randomly taken from the general population, though it was self-selecting), it seems possible that kids without divorced parents--perhaps without parents anywhere near divorce--are terribly bothered by parents who "disagree about things."

Now I don't know about you, but I think disagreeing about things in front of the kids is a healthy way to model realistic relationships. My partner and I even go out of our way (when we are disagreeing anyway) to sort of stagily perform good tactics for arguing fairly and resolving a conflict. For example: "well I don't like the way you did xyz but I guess it's fair for you to have your way and me to have mine. I'm sorry I got so grouchy about it."

I certainly hope my kids don't experience this kind of thing as "terrible." But maybe they do. What do you think?

image: gordonpoll.com

Judge: Home-Schooled Kids Must Go to Public School

JeanneSager — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:01:00 GMT

In a decision that will no doubt have home-schooling parents everywhere spitting mad, a judge in North Carolina has ordered three children in the midst of a divorce proceeding be sent back to public school.

But don't pull out the pitchforks yet moms and dads - this comes down to religion . . . or quasi-religion anyway.

Judge Ned Mangum has granted Thomas Mills and his now ex-wife, Venessa, joint custody of their three kids, ages ten, eleven and twelve. But he's over-ruled Venessa's request that she be able to continue their home-schooled curriculum, which includes swimming lessons, piano and instruction via Web Cam from Sound Doctrine, a Washington-based church group described by some as a cult.

It's the Sound Doctrine work that concerns Thomas Mills, who has said in court affidavits that after getting involved in the church (online), his wife withdrew and became a different person from the woman he married. While his wife called on evidence that their kids have tested at least two grades above grade level in the program, he countered with witnesses who testified to the "church's" leader making lascivious and inappropriate statements about young girls and called on Venessa's mother to speak out against her daughter's practices as a parent.

Check out the church site for yourself (or this scathing look at its philosophies) - see if you agree with kids being taught to "keep yourself in the fear of God and do not seek too much freedom. Restrain all your passions under discipline and do not give yourself to foolish mirth." OK sheep-le, no laughing, no showing passion for anything and for God's sake, you are NOT free. You are oppressed, kids, and that is good.

Their other site, by the way, is down not because it's under construction but "at the Lord's direction."

Still, Venessa Mills is earning a band of supporters - home-schooling parents who say the judge's decision puts their decisions to home-school at risk, even though they have no personal affiliations with Sound Doctrine. Says the parent who created Home School Liberty, "I suddenly realized that if I do not stand up and take action I might lose my parental right to teach my children according to my own beliefs and convictions."

I have several home-schooling friends who are doing a fine job - and know plenty of home-schooled kids who can attest to its success, so I'd agree that protecting parents' rights to home-school is important. But this case may well be a litmus test of where states should - or at least can - draw the line on what a home-school curriculum entails.

Is this an invasion of a parent's right to choose a lifestyle for their kids? Or is this appropriate use of the state's power?

Image: HSLDA

Parents May Be Required to Undergo Counseling Before Divorcing

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:00:00 GMT

A Republican Congressman from Texas is hoping to reduce his state’s 50 percent divorce rate by making it mandatory for parents to undergo a marriage counseling course before filing for divorce. The 10-hour course in “conflict management, communication skills, and forgiveness skills" would cost $150 and could, according to Rep. Warren Chisum, spare “kids the anxiety and emotional stress that come with a divorce by their parents.”

Apparently, Mr. Chisum has never met a battered woman. As (almost) everyone knows, it takes a lot of courage and planning for the victims of domestic violence to file divorce papers. Requiring them to first take an expensive course in forgiveness could easily have disastrous consequences for both these women and their children.

Even for well-off, nonviolent couples, this legislation would be ineffective at best and harmful at worst. The fact is, it’s impossible to make a blanket judgment on whether divorce is right or wrong for every family. Research on the subject offers conflicting answers, with some psychologists finding kids always fare better with married parents and others finding that children are more balanced if their unhappily married parents divorce.

As the child of divorce, I am the first to see the validity in encouraging parents to commit to working through hard times. But I am also the first to see that a 10-hour forgiveness course is hardly enough of a remedy to keep couples together.

Interestingly, this same Congressman also recently sponsored a measure that supposedly encouraged marriages to last—by doubling marriage license fees while offering a discount to couples who took a counseling course. Apparently, Rep. Chisum believes that money is the only sure path to a happy union….

Photo: irishhealth.net

What If the State Kept Your Kid's Blood for "Research"?

Texas Wants Women to Listen to Fetal Heartbeart Before Abortion

These Seven Kids Have Had Twenty Stepfathers

JeanneSager — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:23:00 GMT

There's been plenty of talk about Linda Wolfe lately - the Indiana woman who holds the dubious record of twenty-three marriages, the most by a single woman (or rather a very non-single woman, get it? yeah, I crack myself up).

Here's the thing that hasn't been widely reported. Wolfe gave birth to seven kids over the course of her first three marriages - including her first, at sixteen, to a Baptist minister. Then she kept on getting married (and divorced). Which means those seven kids have had, at a minimum, twenty stepdads.

Yes, twenty.

And she wonders why they don't visit very often?

To be fair - one stepdad made a repeat performance. Wolfe married Jack Gourley three different times. So maybe there were just eighteen stepdads for the kids born of the third marriage? I'm not sure if that's any better - the kids had to get immune to it at some point.

I'm all for parents finding happiness after divorce, and I know plenty of stepfamilies who are much happier than they would have been if Mom and Dad had stayed husband and wife. In general, parents who are happy are better parents - even if that means breaking up the nuclear family.

But when does it become too much? When should your happiness be set aside in favor of the kids? Would it be so bad to just remain single until they're out of the house?

Image: Indianapolis Star

Little Girls Really Do Marry Their Daddies

They Say: Kids Might Not Doom a Marriage

Would you Cheat FOR the Kids?

School Helps Child Escape Dad for the Big City

JeanneSager — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:34:00 GMT

A teenage boy's allegations that his father abused him may have won him enough sympathy that school officials kidnapped him.

The fifteen-year-old didn't come home from his South Carolina high school one day, but when his desperate father went to police, he soon learned the boy had taken off for his mother's home in New York.

Keith Jenkins has legal custody of his son, but he alleges the boy's principal and a school janitor ignored that when they helped the teen catch a Greyhound bus headed northward. The school staff has told police the boy claimed he was being abused - allegations, by the way, that the police say have been investigated and were unfounded.

Even if a child were being abused, how does a school principal decide the best option is to put a teenager on a bus for a ten- to twelve-hour trip, with no idea what is going to happen next? New York City isn't the scary, scary place that some people make it out to be, but for a kid, alone, especially a kid unfamiliar with the city, pulling up in the Port Authority is not exactly a safe alternative. Did they know what he was going to do once he got there? That he wasn't headed up to the city to meet a stranger he'd been chatting with online or to try to seek his fame and fortune as a fifteen-year-old rock star (come on, teenagers watch a LOT of TV)? That his mother was any better parent than his father?

A court had already given his father legal custody - apparently for a reason. So why did school officials think they were smarter than a judge?

School officials have no business mediating divorce and custody disputes. That's why there are family courts, judges, social workers. . . The same goes for child abuse allegations. The school is mandated to report them - and that's where it should end. Their business is in being there for kids, which puts them much too close to the issue to look at it objectively. Child abuse allegations are serious - but sometimes, they're just allegations. Kids lie sometimes (often for attention), and anything less than a thorough investigation doesn't help anyone.

How would you feel if your school district was stepping in to your divorce?

Image: NYCSubway.org

Some Good News in Cross-Continental Custody Battle

JeanneSager — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:32:00 GMT

Remember David Goldman, the Jersey dad whose wife up and moved to Brazil, cutting him off without a chance to see their four-year-old son? The story got us all ferklempt, not to mention righteously indignant on Dad's behalf when it came to light on the Today Show last fall.

Put down your pitchforks parents! Four years after his wife took off, divorced him, remarried and died, Goldman finally got to see his son this week.

It's a two tissue box tale if there ever was one. Goldman bid son Sean and wife Bruna goodbye at Newark International Airport in June 2004. He thought they were simply going to visit Bruna's family in her native Brazil, and they'd be home in due time.

Then he got word from Bruna that she wasn't coming back. Oh, and by the way, she wanted a divorce. Court battles ensued, but Goldman couldn't get past the Brazilian roadblocks, and his wife had remarried a "well-connected" Brazilian attorney who was helping her every step of the way. Then came word that Bruna had died during childbirth in August 2008. David Goldman thought he finally had a chance at his son; only to hear that the attorney was filing for a name change to take Goldman's off of Sean's birth certificate.

When the story became public, politicians from the U.S. stepped in to help. New Jersey Congressman U.S. Rep. Christopher Smith, traveled to Brazil this week with Goldman, securing visitation for father and son while he put pressure on the Brazilian government, warning them that they are violating the Hague Convention, an international adoption treaty.

It's not over yet, but can you imagine having been the fly on the wall for that meeting between father and son? We'd be talking a three-tissue-box story then.

Now Goldman's supporters are looking for letters to be sent to Congressmen who will help co-sponsor a bill - along with Smith - to call for Brazil to conform under the Hague Convention rules and send Sean (and American citizen) home with his father to the states. Get a look at the bill and a list of congressmen here.

Image: Bring Sean Home.org

UPDATE: A-Roid Admits It

Brett Singer — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:00:00 GMT

UPDATE: A-Rod (A-Roid, A-Fraud - I still like The Rod, but it's not sticking yet) has admitted to ESPN's Peter Gammons that, you know, he did it. Children everywhere are... actually, I don't think children care about this at all.

When I was a young Yankee fan, my guy was Reggie Jackson. All I cared about was how he played. Granted, it was a different time, but despite all of the posturing from commentators I don't think kids care much about whether or not The Rod was juicing. Maybe I'm wrong.

Original post follows:

*-*-*

SI.com is reporting that Alex Rodriguez, whom I usually refer to as "The Rod", tested positive for two different anabolic steroids, Primobolan and testosterone, back in 2003. (Make up your own joke about Alex taking testosterone.)

What does this have to do with parenting? Well, somewhat like the Plaxico Burress gun incident ("Safety? What's a safety?"), kids who are into sports, and even those that aren't, will hear this news. What do you tell them? If you go with the "tut-tut" sanctimony of Major League Baseball and the seemingly endless parade of columnists and talk show hosts, then you have to tell them that The Rod is a big fat cheater. That's the word that has been assigned to steroid users. Cheaters. At least it’s a word that even little kids understand. You know, because it's childish.

If you want to go with a calmer explanation, you could say that The Rod made a mistake and we don't have all the facts yet. (Probably better to call him A-Rod, since I'm the only one that calls him The Rod.) Columnist Chris Ballard says that "All of A-Rod's achievements, past and future, will be tainted." First of all, what if the report was wrong? I'm not saying it was, but sometimes reporters, sources or no, make mistakes. Also, we're slamming the guy for doing something that may not even be against the law because he "tainted" the "purity" of baseball. That seems like a pretty bad message to send to kids, frankly.

Ultimately, baseball is a game. Professional baseball, like all professional sports, is a business. In recent years it has become a huge business, one that allows someone like The Rod to earn almost $30 million in one year. That's just his salary, by the way. He probably made a lot more in endorsements, autograph signings, and other things. Sports figures are no longer on the same playing field as the rest of us, if they ever were. (Pun unintended.) Kids should be allowed to enjoy the game without the braying sanctimony of adults who appear desperate to believe that baseball is more important than it is. Sports can bring great enjoyment to fans young and old. When you try to pretend that these people are something more than human, any fall from grace will be a huge disappointment.

For the record, I am a lifelong Yankee fan and I never liked The Rod. (Give me Scott Brosius any day of the week.) I also don't much care about steroids. I think Major League Baseball helped create this problem by preferring profits to players' health; there were multiple times when guys were obviously juiced up and no one said anything about it, sanctimonious commentators included. And I never thought I'd say this, but I'm a little bit glad that my son isn't a big baseball fan. Explaining Plaxico's gun was easier than this will be.

Image/Source: SI.com

Do Your Kids Watch The Super Bowl?

VIDEO: O'Reilly Upset About Two Year Old Bashing Bush

Pittsburgh Schools Open Late Day After Super Bowl

Is The Peanut Allergy Scare Overblown?

Octuplet Mom Wants TV Career

Kinder Language, Kinder Divorce?

Amy Kuras — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:08:00 GMT

I’m not divorced, but I have plenty of friends who are, and it is no picnic. Seeing what you once thought would be forever blow apart can bring out the worst in anybody – and it’s that much more horrible when there are kids involved.

Kids who, no matter what a rat bastard psychozoid your soon-to-be-ex spouse may be, love both their parents, and who need to not feel bad about that.

A court in Grand Rapids has become the first one in my fair state of Michigan to change the language used in court proceedings to, hopefully, change the whole tone and make the process easier on children. The change is called “non-adversarial language.” For example, instead of calling each party “defendant” or “plaintiff” they are referred to as “mother” and “father.”

Parents also need to take a questionnaire to help them write out their ideal parenting plan, which details parenting time and how disputes will be resolved after the divorce is finalized.

Apparently studies have shown that using non-adversarial language actually reduces the parents’ emotional need to litigate everything.

Court officials acknowledge that this sort of a divorce proceeding won’t work in cases of abuse, for example, but for the majority of divorce cases it can make the dissolution of a a marriage a little less difficult for everyone involved.

As someone who dealt with separated parents as an adult, I can say that feeling like you’re stuck in the middle can be one of the worst parts of the whole mess. Anything that heps keep that from happening is all to the good, I think.

Report Finds Individualistic Culture Harms Kids—Because It Leads to Working Moms

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:00:00 GMT

A three-year study by a British charity called the Children’s Group has uncovered some unsurprising problems with individualistic culture. The report, called A Good Childhood, found that children are suffering from “a belief among adults that the prime duty of the individual is to make the most of their [sic] own life, rather than contribute to the good of others."

Thanks to a me-first culture, the study contends, people are more accepting of excessive materialism and widespread economic inequality that leaves millions of children in poverty; are unfazed by harmful advertising aimed at children; and see school as a place to compete rather than make friends and have fun.

This all makes sense to me. What boggles my mind is the solution proposed by the study’s authors: keep women in the home. According to the report, “excessive individualism” has lead women to get all uppity, believing they should take on paid jobs other than child-rearing and housecleaning. This is bad for children because clearly all working moms neglect their kids. Plus, women now have the freedom to break up families with their selfish desire to end unhappy marriages.

The study’s authors write: “Women's new economic independence…has made women much less dependent on their male partners, as has the advent of the welfare state.” Hold on a second here. I thought this report signaled the need to have compassion for others, which would mean supporting welfare for needy families and other government programs that help the less fortunate succeed.

Then, of course, there’s the little problem with the assumption (which I thought died circa 1950) that women should be dependent on men for all their basic needs. This way, even if men are physically abusive or alcoholic or can’t hold down a job, women would not be able to divorce them since they would have no means of caring for themselves. This would be good for kids, because divorce is an evil that must be smote out.

Oh, did I mention that the study’s authors have ties to the Church of England?

Image: phawker.com

Would you Cheat FOR the Kids?

JeanneSager — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:26:00 GMT

Think you've heard all the lame excuses someone will give for cheating on their spouse? Here's another:

"I'm doing it for my kids."

Say what?

This came from the lips of a friend (and by friend I really mean a chick I know, kinda sorta). Her reasoning for stepping out on her marriage is simple - he's a jerk. But they've got kids. And as far as she's concerned, kids need two parents.

So she's lining up a new Daddy before she kicks the old one to the curb. I'm not even going to touch on the self-esteem issues here (that's for a woman's issues blog, not the parenting blog).

But what does this teach your kids? That it's OK to lie? That your daughters need to have a man around at all times. . . and at all costs? The idea that a woman needs to have a man is as outdated as that old quote about fish and bicycles. So too is the idea that a single parent can't provide for a child what a couple can - or that, say, two lesbians can't provide for a child what a heterosexual couple can.

There are also lessons for kids in divorce. It's OK that things fail sometimes. You have to be honest with other people. You have to be honest with yourself. But cheating on a spouse is a big no no, and somehow I can't see how the kids won't find out when they realize their new "Dad" was in Mom's life long before the divorce became finalized.

I suppose there's merit to the fact that kids fare better with two parents . . . I suppose. I am not bashing single parents or their offspring (President Obama, hello?). But for mom it's certainly easier when there's a second set of hands around. Still, with Dad the jerk around, she's obviously not having an easy go of it. Couldn't that mean single parenting might be easier?

Is single parenting that scary? As a happily - and luckily - married woman, I don't know. But I wonder what the single parents who read Babble think. You were scared right, but this scared?

Image: Everyday Citizen

"Dads" Want DNA Testing in Kansas

JeanneSager — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:28:00 GMT

Christopher Sprowson's ex-wife had an affair that resulted in a baby. Now the State of Kansas wants him to pay for a child genetic testing proves isn't his because he's the "presumed father."

A bit presumptuous, aren't they?

Sprowson and his first wife divorced when the child, now thirteen, was just a baby. He's never had a relationship with the child, nor has the mother called for one. Why should she? He isn't the boy's father.

Kansas officials stepped in when the ex-wife filed for welfare.The state automatically seeks child support for any parent receiving public assistance to reduce the state's burden. Unable to provide a name for a father of her boy, the state put the blame on Sprowson. When DNA proved otherwise, a judge said it didn't matter – as her husband at the time of the baby's birth, he had to pay some $10,000.

But Sprowson and wife Karey have three kids of their own to support, and they have made a bid to the state legislature to change the laws, allowing men to use DNA evidence to prove once and for all that they aren't responsible for kids with whom they share no blood relation.

Critics have said this will pave the way for stepfathers everywhere to shirk their responsiblities to their stepkids. The way I see it, stepkids are just that - "step" kids. Short of a marriage to the child's biological parent, they aren't that child's parent. So why should they be responsible for their care outside of the marriage? Their argument is the old standby - it takes more than biology to make a parent, and I agree with them. But that's a saying used to describe the non-biological parents who nurture children, not one that can be supplied to defend thrusting someone else's responsibilities on men like Christopher Sprowson. He never nurtured the child because he had no reason to - he wasn't the boy's father in any sense of the word, biological or emotional.

I don't fault the state for trying to reduce a burden on taxpayers by requiring non-custodial parents to step in to care for a child rather than the state. But you can't legislate family ties into existence anymore than you can force an angry spouse to accept their cheating partner's love child into their heart.

Give the guys their DNA test, Kansas. And let the real fathers stand up.

Image: NIH

Florida Mulls "Deadbeat Dad" T-Shirts

JeanneSager — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:37:00 GMT

Just in case they're not shamed enough to be out doing community service, a Florida legislator thinks deadbeat parents should have to do it wearing clothes that tell the world they don't support their kids.

The bill introduced by Democratic State Sen. Mike Fasano would require deadbeat parents to spend a week on a work detail, sporting a shirt or pair of overalls that shares their crime with the whole world.

Although its still only in the "bill" phase (it's only just now being introduced in the state Senate), the goal is to have the punishment kick in after a deadbeat father's third appearance in court for his failure to pay. A Florida newspaper reporting on the story was unable to obtain comment from Fasano on how the law would affect deadbeat mothers.

Parents who don't support their kids are easy pickins', but I'm not sure shame is going to work with these people. They can look their kids in the eye in a courtroom and still ignore the court order; they're not exactly the emotional type.

There's also the question of what this does to the kids. It's bad enough knowing mom or dad doesn't bother sending money to pay for your food and clothing, but kids with a deadbeat parent generally don't like to have that news spread around. In smaller towns, all it takes is one kid from school seeing your Dad out picking litter with an orange t-shirt for the news to be spread all around school.

It's a good idea in theory - nail these crappy parents to the wall. But in reality, I don't see it doing much.

Image: myspace

Should Out-of-Work Parents Get Off Child Support Hook?

Having a Kid Alone? Don't Tell Me Why I Have it Better

Dad Finds Daughter Abducted During Bosnian War

Protect Children: Prohibit Divorce

JeanneSager — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:54:00 GMT

Since Californians who voted for Prop 8 late last year to strike down the rights of gays to marry said they were doing it for the children, there's a new movement afoot to keep kids safe:

Prohibit divorces. All of them. Keep heterosexual couples from breaking the bonds of holy matrimony.

After all - the sanctity of marriage and the children were at the heart of Prop 8, right?

A petition over at the Petition Site already has seven thousand some signatures, folks who signed their names to a letter proposing that divorce be stricken from the books to "keep the interests of children and families intact."

The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time and it promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and a father in a family held together by the legal, communal, and spiritual bonds of marriage. As a society we should put the best interests of children first, and those interests lie in traditional marriage. Permitting divorce destroys marriage as we know it and causes a profound harm to society. We should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

Starting to sound familiar? Take out the word "divorce" and slip in "gay marriage."

Yup, they stole the whole thing from the Prop 8 folks over at ProtectMarriage.com; you know, the folks who warned Californians that "schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners." (sic)

I'd love to say they won't be able to weasel out of their own words, but as the masters of twisting things to send people running scared of "the gay," I'm betting the evangelicals will have a field day with this one too. Only this time, the joke truly is on them.

Image: ThePetitionSite