Strollerderby : laws

Parents Fight to Name Baby Q

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:14:00 GMT

Swedish parents are fighting the government for the right to name their baby one letter. The government claims that their child, who has been called simply Q since birth, has an illegal name since Swedish law prohibits names that consist of only one letter.

But the couple has argued before court that their son answers to the name Q, and besides, they say, “There are stranger names in the valley."

Q is an elegant letter with more a well-rounded sound than, say, a vowel, but it’s still not a name I would wish to see bestowed on any children dear to me. That said, should this really be a crime? Is it truly child endangerment to name your baby an unusual name?

If so, celebrities from Gwyneth Paltrow (mother of Apple) to David Duchovny (father of Kyd) are no less guilty than the parents of Q.

To appease authorities, the couple has suggested changing the spelling of their baby’s name to Q:u. I say that if Sweden’s naming laws make it necessary to put a form of punctuation into the middle of a name, perhaps those laws are not exactly serving the interests of the children.

Image: Parent Dish

Babysitter Jailed for Removing Clothes In Front of Child

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:30:00 GMT

A Florida mother is paying a very high price for a serious babysitting faux pas. Sarah Slicker, known by the unfortunate nickname “Naked Nanny” in the Tampa Bay area where she’s from, recently served one year of jail time and two years of house arrest for taking off her clothes in front of the four-year-old boy she was babysitting for. She’s now petitioning the courts to reduce her ten-year probation—which prohibits her from having contact with kids besides her own children—so that her son can have a normal childhood.

At first glance, I was unequivcally outraged by the excessiveness of Slicker’s punishment. But the full story makes the case far less clear cut. Slicker had long been known as a stellar childcare provider in her area. But one day while babysitting for a four-year-old boy, she put on a James Bond movie (WTF numero uno). After a love scene, the boy asked her to take off her clothes. She complied (WTF numero dos). The boy’s mother walked in on the “naked nanny,” and was quite understandably none too pleased.

Slicker later explained that she simply hadn’t wanted to argue with the boy because she was “physically and emotionally exhausted.” I think we can all understand that level of childcare-related exhaustion—but how about Dora the Explorer instead of James Bond? Or a cookie instead of full frontal nudity?

Clearly, this woman exercised disturbingly terrible judgment and she should have been fired from all of her childcare jobs, at the very least. But I can’t help thinking there’s a hypocritical sexual prudishness at work in her punishment. It’s perfectly legal for parents in the U.S. to whip their kids, but a nanny who never inappropriately laid hands on a child loses her freedom for 13 years?

Slicker, who is now married and employed, was denied her request for a reduction in her probation. Do you think the punishment fits the crime?

Photo: sptimes.com

Dad Accused of Selling Daughter For Beer and Meat

Brett Singer — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:00:00 GMT

So here's one you haven't heard before. At least I hope not. Because it's a bummer.

California resident Marcelino de Jesus Martinez was charged with selling his 14-year-old daughter in for, and I quote, "$16,000, beer and meat." He first pled not guilty, but that plea was switched to no contest, meaning that he will be sentenced on May 7. The penalty is deportation and up to a year in jail. Had he been found guilty of the initial charges, he could have spent ten years in jail.

Martinez reportedly "sold" his daughter to the family of Margarito de Jesus Galindo, and she lived with them for a week. The plan was marriage, the cash, beer and meat were the dowry. When Martinez didn't get his cash (it's not clear if he ever got the beer or the meat), he called the cops, who presumably were somewhat less than sympathetic.

The last part creates an interesting question explored at this USA Today blog entry. Apparently this practice is not uncommon in indigenous Mexican communities. For this reason, police dropped an initial charge of human trafficking. The Californian quotes Honorary Mexican Consul Blanca Zarazua as saying that "This whole case is a convergence of multiple layers of misunderstandings."

So I think I'll take back my opening paragraph. For some people, the only weird part of the story is the involvement of the police.

In general I'm pro-cultural sensitivity, but in this case, it's trickier. On the one hand, selling your daughter into marriage is something we clearly frown upon in this country. On the other hand, the father clearly had no idea that what he was doing was illegal, as shown by the fact that he went to the police in order to get paid.

What do you think? Should people who live in the United States be bound by our laws? Or can we make exceptions?

Source: AP via Google

Image: The Californian

Finish Line - April Fools And More

Family Awarded Millions For Circumcision Mistake

Spiderman Rescues Autistic Boy

Responsible Parenting Law is Unconstitutional

JeanneSager — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:01:00 GMT

Can I hear an Amen from every writer of "Bad Parent" here on Babble?

Oh wait, I'm part of that contingent - so AAAAAMEN!

A law passed by Davenport, Iowa that would have made it illegal to be an "irresponsible parent" (close enough) was taken to the courts by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa, and has now been deemed unconstitutional because it was "is overbroad and denies due process rights."

You think?

The law would have required parents to be sent a strict letter of admonishment the first time their child was caught committing a crime or even breaking the town curfew. The worse their kids got, the harder the penalties levied against the parents would be, including fines and mandatory parenting classes.

I was an all around pretty good kid with parents who did some pretty heavy supervision. But on occasion (very rare, of course!), I screwed up royally. Would you blame my parents? No - blame me, I was the idiot. It's no wonder kids take little responsibility for their actions - first their parents hire lawyers to fight the big mean teacher that gave them a B and now the government is willing to pass the buck on to mom and dad.

I'm glad to see this one knocked down, but Lisa Belkin of the Motherlode pointed out in a recent column that there are a fair amount of attempts still in the works to bully parents into being good at their "jobs" with legal threats. North Dakota parents face fines if their kids skip school, Minnesota parents can't smoke in cars with kids.

Do you think the laws can ever really change bad parents into good ones? Or will more laws simply mean more bad parents sitting in jails?

Image: Zazzle

Lead Law Forcing Kids Back to Pedal Power

JeanneSager — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:08:00 GMT

In some parts of the country (mine for example), kids get their own dirt bike or ATV well before the age of twelve (crazy to you urban dwellers, but what can I say?). The problem?

Most of these machines are run on lead-based batteries, and the new lead law is forcing manufacturers to pull them out of stores. Because you never know what kid under twelve might wrench open the battery compartment and start licking a little lead.

Seriously. The newest bit of whacky news to come out of the debacle that is the CPSIA (Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act), it's putting a hurting on a multi-million dollar industry in an economy that's already hit hard on the recreation market.

From Section 101 of the CPSIA: "beginning on February 10, 2009, any children’s product that contains more than 600 parts per million (ppm) of lead in any part that is accessible will be treated as a banned hazardous substance."

Batteries are, I guess, accessible - if you think a child is going to take the time to dig them out of the compartment and play with them. But how many kids old enough to get on a dirt bike or four-wheeler are really going to PLAY with the batteries that run them? Is this a misapplication of the law, or another place where the folks who wrote the CPSIA failed in over-generalizing its language?

Image: ATVAccessoriesBlog

Should Smoking Be Banned In Cars With Kids?

Brett Singer — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:00:00 GMT

So. We have third-hand smoke. It's bad. And so on. More fuel for anti-smoking activists. And when someone says, "We're protecting helpless children!" that makes it harder to argue that they are intruding into our personal lives. Right?

A town in Washington State (can't ban smoking in D.C. – Obama's a smoker!) is considering a bill that would ban smoking in cars with children.
From the AP: "A member of the Tobacco Advisory Board of Pierce County, Leonard Sanderson, told The Olympian the proposal would make it a secondary offense, meaning smoking drivers could be ticketed if they were pulled over for another offense, such as speeding."

I was surprised to learn that California, Arkansas, Louisiana and Maine have all made smoking in cars that have kids in them against the law.

Here's the problem. There's no doubt that smoking around children is bad for their health. I get it. But unless you make smoking illegal (not gonna happen), how is this not a privacy violation? You can't drink and drive, but that's all the time, not just around children. Talking on a cell phone while driving has been deemed dangerous, so most states have laws that say you have to wear a headset. Driving without a seatbelt is dangerous, so if you don't wear a seatbelt, you get a ticket. And so on. None of those laws, however, are specific to children.

Does the law apply to your own children? What about other people's kids? Can you smoke in the car when there are no kids there? Now that we know about third-hand smoke, won't the little tykes be at risk anyway if they ride in a car that was, at one time or another, smoked in? And at what age is it safe to be exposed to second-hand smoke?

And how about bacon, or other smoked meats? Those aren't good for children, right? I mean, come on.

(In case you were wondering, most of that was me going off the deep end for comic effect. Thank you. Tip your waitresses.)

I think it would be great if nobody smoked. It's unhealthy, creates enormous costs for health insurers as those smokers age, and there's the second-hand, third-hand, and fourth-hand (just wait, it'll happen) smoke to contend with. It's a bad habit. But it's still legal. Until it isn't, this seems like an unreasonable law, like the one about smokers not being allowed foster children (which, considering that some kids are writing letters to woo potential foster parents, seems like an unfair restriction).

What do you think? Is this too much of an invasion of privacy? Or does it not matter if it's to "protect our children"?

Source: AP via nwsource.com

Image: Church Times

On Jett Travolta, Howard Stern Gets It Right

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

They Say -- Kids Who Skip Breakfast and Hate Mom Have Sex Sooner

They Say -- Vaccines Work

Newbery Winners Decrease in Diversity in Recent Years

Kid Woos Prospective Foster Parents With Letters

Things You Should Never Say To A Nursing Mother

Brett Singer — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:30:00 GMT

For most of these, we'll assume that you are speaking to your significant other, unless otherwise indicated.

- “Can I get a squirt of that?” The answer is no. If you're desperately curious about the taste of breast milk, try some that the mother of your children has expressed into a bottle.
- Two words that should never go together: “Tittie milk.” Not funny. Trust me.
- “How far can you squirt that stuff? Can you hit this cup on the shelf? How about if I move it closer? Honey? What are you doing with that hammer? OW!”
- “You and the baby are being really loud. Can you do that someplace else? I'm watching TV.”

And here are a few things not to say to a woman you don't know if you see nursing in a public place:

- “Ew! Gross!”
- “Niiice.”
- "Hey baby. Get it? Hey... baby...?" (It's not funny. I know you think its funny. But it's not.)
- A blank stare.
- A lascivious stare.
- Any sort of stare at all.

Anything to add? Remember – it takes a village.

image: Flickr

Unusual toddler gifts

Mom blackmails daughters ex with nude photos

Woman leaves toddler in car while she goes to a bar

Santa Claus says: Smoke More

Is a happy ending massage cheating?

Woman changes her name to Cutout Dissection.com

Have you ever told your kids to shut up?

Babies R Us tells breastfeeding mother to get out

Brett Singer — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:30:00 GMT

A reader sent us a link to this post on Consumerist. Basically, a woman shopping at a California Babies 'R' Us tried to use a nursing chair, "for its intended purpose, she was told that she was not allowed to breastfeed on the sales floor." Apparently, this is illegal under California law. Something similar happened in New York at the Times Square Toys 'R' Us; that time, the ACLU got involved, since the New York law is similar to the one in California – breast-feeding anywhere, anytime.

I admit to being a little torn on this one. While I agree that all companies should follow the law, and that it's not unreasonable for a woman to breastfeed in public, I've also seen situations where I felt like it was a bit inappropriate. I can't imagine anyone wanting to nurse a baby at the Toys 'R' Us in Times Square, for example. (I also can't imagine anyone wanting to spend any time there at all, so maybe I'm the wrong person to ask about this.)

The comments on the site are similarly divided. The first one was 'disemvoweled', but I think it used to say something like, "So, they provide a room and that still isn't good enough?" along with something about "self-righteous parents." ('Disemvoweling' means the vowels were removed; this is the preferred fate for potentially offensive comments on many sites. If you don't know what that means, consider yourself lucky that you have better things to worry about; if you want to know, click here.) Not very nice, but does he/she/it have a point?

A more measured approach is shown in this comment: "Personally, I would use the room. I don't see the point of breastfeeding in public when a private room is available. It's not that breastfeeding is 'dirty' or 'wrong'…[but] it's not something I'd like to share with other people who could gawk because of their own insecurities."

And the award for the best comment on that post goes to: "First rule of Fight Club is: Don't get the La Leche League on your ass."

Now, obviously the employee was, at best, a jerk, and at worst was violating the woman's civil rights. (I'm not a lawyer so forgive me if I've used that term incorrectly.) But is the woman in the article going a little too far as well? What do you think?

source: Consumerist, via a reader (thanks!)

image: msnbc (not related to this story, its from a "nurse-in" in 2006)

Kid Rock says kids should steal everything

Mom leaves kids in a Jersey parking lot

Airline removes life vests

Creepiest spam message ever: "we have hijacked your baby"

Anything to Conceive

Teen and Tween Legally Abandoned Under New Law

5 Reasons Breast Feeding Isn’t That Great (and 5 Reasons Why It Is) Part 1

Michael Phelps to endorse Frosted Flakes

For a good marriage, women need to stay home

33 year old mom wins silver medal, saves son from leukemia

Should It Be Legal to Abandon Babies in Safe Places?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:30:00 GMT

The story of a newborn baby who was found on a Newton, Massachusetts doorstep piqued my curiosity about laws concerning abandoned babies. In this particular case, police wished that the woman or parents who abandoned the baby had known about the Massachusetts law that makes it legal to surrender babies at a “safe haven” (hospitals and police or fire stations) in the first seven days of an infant’s life.

This got me to wondering about the pros and cons of legalizing baby abandonment. The overarching concern is clearly the baby’s survival, which is more likely if the child is left in a safe place. But does legalizing baby abandonment mean that desperate mothers will be more likely to leave their newborns, rather than seeking medical attention and going through the process of legal adoption?

Nancy Larraine Hoffman, the legislator who authored New York’s uniquely forgiving abandoned baby laws, recently addressed these issues in an op-ed. Here are the stats she presents about baby abandonment:

Most cases involve a teenager who may be a victim of rape—almost certainly of statutory rape. She may have been in denial about the pregnancy herself, and probably told no one if she did suspect she was pregnant. She is overwhelmed with fear. The best chance to save the baby's life is to show compassion for the mother, regardless of how irresponsibly she acted. Threats to find and punish her will only push other girls away from help and raise the risk that babies will not be found.

This is the thinking behind New York’s Abandoned Infant Protection Act, which makes it legal for a mother to leave a baby in “any safe place.” Hoffman argues that any mother in the position of abandoning her child is likely terrified of authority figures, and will not go to one of the “safe havens” that figure into many state’s abandoned baby laws. But if a woman is assured that she will not be punished, she is likely to place the infant in a safe, populated place.

Hoffman argues that letting these young women off the hook in exchange for saving a baby’s life is a “pretty good trade-off.”

What do you think? Does this law encourage child abandonment or save lives?

Photo: BBC

Elderly Man Rescues Abandoned Baby

Czech Law Forces Pregnant Teens Out of School

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:34:00 GMT

The legal system is no friend to pregnant teens in the Czech Republic, according to the Prague Daily Monitor. Because Czech law only permits gifted or handicapped students to follow individualized study plans, pregnant teens must either take a full high school course load throughout their pregnancies or discontinue their studies until they are able to do so—which, with a newborn at home, may not happen for a long time, if at all.

Czech police also aggressively investigate cases of underage intercourse, whether or not it’s consensual. The case of one 13-year-old girl will be under investigation as soon as she gives birth, with her 17-year-old partner facing up to four years of prison.

Considering the unfortunate situations these young parents-to-be find themselves in, Czech sexologists recommended increasing sex ed. in schools and in families, saying that better informed girls are more likely to use birth control and to have fewer sexual partners.

Looking on the bright side, the Prague Daily Monitor reminds its readers that teen pregnancy rates in the Czech Republic remain very low—unlike in "other countries like the United States."

Photo: supernannyrules.com

Put your clothes on and step away from the porcupine

Brett Singer — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:34:00 GMT

Admittedly, I have no confirmation that these laws are actually on the books. And a commenter at snopes points out that the "Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal in Florida" law probably just addresses beastiality in general, rather than prohibiting spiny-backed sex objects. Regardless of veracity, it's a funny list, and they certainly sound plausible. For example:

- Sexual intercourse between unmarried couples is illegal in Georgia.

- Oral sex is illegal in 18 states, including Arizona.

- In Connorsville, Wisconsin, it is illegal for a man to shoot off a gun when his female partner is having an orgasm.

- It is illegal in Utah to marry your first cousin before the age of 65.

That last one is my favorite. I mean, other than cheaper movie tickets, who wants to marry your cousin when they get that old?

(source)

image: Brittanica.com

Attack of the Strippers

Personal Training for Vaginas

Watermelon the same as Viagra – maybe

Pregcellent: Vacant Womb For Rent

Kelly Mills — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:33:00 GMT

First off, I'd like to say that anyone who goes into being a surrogate strictly for the money has chosen a very challenging way to make a buck, because being pregnant is no picnic. But as this Newsweek article on the lives of surrogates points out, many women are also motivated by a desire to help others and to contribute something meaningful to the lives of couples who want kids. And the stereotype of the rich woman who wants a baby but not the stretch marks and thus hires a surrogate is strange also, since I can't imagine what would be more challenging than entrusting another person with your offspring before they are even born. So I doubt that one is founded much in reality either.

The article, which chronicles the stories of a number of women who became surrogates, touches on the controversies surrounding the practice, and there are many. There's the issue of maternal rights, and the fact that most surrogacy contracts aren't binding in many ways. There's the issues that come with one person in essence renting out their body, and the questions around what makes someone a parent, DNA or gestation or actual childrearing. Surrogacy is banned in much of Europe, and stereotypes about surrogates abound. Interestingly, many surrogates are military wives with husbands overseas. The article is worth checking out, if only because it makes you think hard about what it means to be a mother.

State Pretends Moment of Silence Mandate Not About Prayer

Madeline Holler — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:36:00 GMT

Last week, Illinois lawmakers mandated that all public schools start the day with a moment of silence. Pushing for the law were religious leaders in the state, so we all know where this is going – morning prayer.

I am at once appalled and indifferent.

I bristle at the idea of forced group prayer in a public settings – schools, offices, etc. But a moment of silence – which I know is supposed to soften the whole thing for people like me – I can live with. Because I do live with it.

My daughter, who attends a public charter school, begins every morning singing about caterpillars and elephants and sailors and dolphins with the entire K-2 classes. Once singing is finished and before they take off to the classroom, the kids are asked to close their eyes and think about their day and how they would like it to be. A little meditation.

I’ve sat in on this and can tell you it lasts less than a moment and is hardly silent. We’re talking about 5- to 8-year-olds hopped up on cereal and a good night’s sleep.

Do I think what silence there is has an impact on their days? I kind of doubt it. Is it religious in nature – not at all and at this school there's just no way it ever will be. Do kids who might want to pray have the opportunity to take part in prayer for a long silent moment? Yes, they do: at home, or they can make do with the short, not so quiet pause at the end of chorus. So I’m fine with the whole thing at my kid's school.

But one Illinois teacher is not fond of his state’s new silence mandate, even though he has always started the first class of the day with 30 minutes of quiet (which, incidentally, was already a legal choice he had as a teacher). His colleagues, though, are all for the mandate, saying the students need prayer (yes, they cut through the crap and said “prayer.”).

The teacher in opposition sees it differently: Instead of addressing the social conditions, funding shortfalls and inadequate schools that have caused the tragic state of education in America’s low-income communities, our legislators are instead promoting disguised prayer as their priority.

I’m going to take a quiet moment to think about that.

California to Drivers: No Smoking Around Kids

Madeline Holler — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:47:00 GMT

Nothing takes me back to childhood more than the smell of a freshly lit cigarette.

I spent countless hours of the first 16 years of my life sealed inside a Buick with my father, who would puff away on pack after pack of Winston Lights. Ashes settled like snowflakes in my hair, fiery airborne cherries burned holes in my shirts, the turbid, smoky air burrowed deep into the fibers of my winter coats, creating memories like Proustian cookies.

By then, everyone had figured out the dangers of tobacco, but harm from second-hand smoke was just rumor. Car wrecks attributed to dropped cigarettes or lighter mishaps had yet to be calculated. Americans and their black-lunged offspring were left in peace with their nicotine addictions.

A new law has halted the formation of these special memories for California families. There, it will soon be illegal to smoke inside a car where children are passengers. What next? Canceling Christmas?

Motorists caught smoking around passengers 18 years old or younger will be fined $100 starting next year. California will be the third state to come down on exposing children to second-hand smoke in the airless confines of an automobile. The other two states, Arkansas and Louisiana, set the ages at 6 and 13 respectively.

Smoking drivers won’t be pulled over just for having a kid gasping for fresh air in the backseat. Much like safety belt laws, puffing drivers will have to commit another offense before cops can ticket them for smoking-while-carpooling-to-school.

Image: Charles Harbutt, Laurence Miller Gallery

Best Boring Lecture Ever!

Madeline Holler — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:25:00 GMT

High school students not sleeping through a state legislator’s guest lecture on Tuesday were treated to the projected image of a topless woman instead of dry flow charts and detailed outlines which were supposed to have accompanied the talk.

How a bill becomes a law, indeed!

Ohio State Rep. Matthew Barrett had just plugged a memory stick into his computer to retrieve a graphics presentation when the image appeared. Snickering ensued and Barrett immediately pulled it out, the memory stick, of course. He finished the session with printouts (and probably his own nervous laughter).

After class, he went straight to the principal’s office, where, along with the technology staff, the stick was “examined.” Ahem. They found an entire directory of nudie pics(!).

"I have no idea where these came from," the Democrat said, according to the article.

Apparently, the memory stick was a gift from a liaison … a legislative liaison. Police later seized Barrett's stick so they could examine it too.

No word on counselors for the 20 kids affected by this tragic event. Others said they'd never skip school again.

Britain's Tough Rules Around Making Babies

Kelly Mills — Tue, 22 May 2007 12:02:00 GMT

When the title of an article is "Making Babies, the Hard Way", I get all intrigued. Turns out they were referring to IVF, not some ambitious position your spouse saw in a movie. Now that IVF has become fairly standard, Britain's Department of Health has published a draft of a Human Tissues and Embryos bill. The legislation aims to address issues surrounding the use of, you guessed it, human tissues and embryos.

There's a couple of cases that get responses in the draft. In one, a woman froze some embryos when she underwent fertility-destroying cancer treatment, but once she and her boyfriend broke up, he withdrew his consent to use them. This makes the post-breakup division of the record collection seem much simpler, doesn't it? The proposed law would still require two-party consent, but would allow for saving the embryos for a year, in case of a change of heart. I'm guessing the authors of the legislation have never experienced the durability of a really pissed off ex.

However, British regulations around IVF will probably remain very cumbersome, with long waiting periods for treatments and tons of paperwork required for each IVF cycle. The procedures will soon be overseen by the same department that oversees disposal and transplantation of body parts, and doctors fear they will be held to standards that shouldn't apply to IVF, such as requirements for highly antiseptic environments. As one person quoted said, "sperm isn't exactly donated in a sterile environment in nature." That might just qualify for the understatement of the year.

Lay Midwives Win Right To Practice In Wisconsin

Patti — Thu, 03 May 2007 16:27:00 GMT

Wisconsin has just become the 25th state in the US to legalize the practice of lay midwives. The first license has already been issued by the state, and in addition, the new law allows midwives to practice without being involved in a formal health care practice.

Lay midwives are often as experienced as their degree-holding counterparts, but they have had to fight for recognition and the right to practice their vocation openly. Nurse midwives are praising the legislature's decision as a validation of the midwifery model of care for women's health. Approximately 1100 babies were born outside of hospitals in Wisconsin last year, and those numbers are expected to rise with the new regulations.

25 states down, 25 to go!

Toledo Mayor Believes Parents Should Pay for Kids' Crimes

JasonAvant — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:33:00 GMT

In the wake of the murder of a Toledo police officer by a 15-year-old boy, the city's mayor has reintroduced a controversial ordinance. Mayor Carty Finkbeiner is proposing that parents and legal guardians be held accountable if their kids break the law. According to the article, this legislation was introduced about a year ago, as part of an effort to curb youth and gang-related crime. If the ordinance is passed, police would issue a written warning to parents whose children have had run-ins with the law. If the children continue to be a problem, parents and guardians would be charged with a misdemeanor, potentially facing 30 days in jail and a $250 fine.

Needless to say, this has caused a bit of debate. Proponents argue that parents should be made aware of who their kids are running around with and what kind of trouble those kids are getting into; the goal, according to police chief Mike Navarre, is not to bust good parents, or even bad parents - it's to remind them of their responsibilities. As he puts it in the article, give them "a wake-up call". Those opposed say that it's unfair to blame parents for the actions of their kids; lower-income parents may lack the resources to help their kids and keep them on the straight-and-narrow.

As much as I'm opposed to giving law enforcement any more power, I gotta say that I'm leaning towards Mayor Carty Finkbeiner on this, and it's not because he has a name that sounds like that of a Dr. Seuss character. I'm not in favor of tossing parents in jail over something that their children did, but I'm a bit tired of hearing the same stories from parents of juvenile offenders. "We had no idea..." (I'm talking to you, Ma and Pa Klebold and Mr. and Mrs. Harris.) Clearly there can be some sort of middle ground, with parents, law enforcement, schools, and social workers addressing these kids before they end up ruining their lives and the lives of others.

Oregon May Ban Kids from Riding in the Front Seat

JasonAvant — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:34:00 GMT

If your kid likes riding shotgun, you may not want to move to Oregon. The Oregon House Judiciary Committee is reviewing a bill that would revise some of the state’s rules on where and how kids can ride in the car. Among other changes, children under 13 would be required to ride in the backseat. Not a bad idea, in my opinion. Proponents of the bill argue that the chances of grievous injury and death increase dramatically when young kids are in the front seat. One study cited indicates that kids riding in the back are 37% less likely to suffer fatal injuries if an accident occurs. The bill would also tighten up height/weight requirements for booster seats, and would require infants under 12 months to ride in a rear-facing safety seat. (Hate to kick you when you’re down, Britney, but INSERT OBLIGATORY BRITNEY-AVOID-PORTLAND JOKE HERE)

While the bill met with no opposition from committee members, there were two who had some concerns. Rep. Jeff Barker was worried that his 89-year-old mother often rode in the back because, per the article, she was “smaller and more fragile” than a young kid might be. (To which I say, she’s 89; that’s a nice amount of time to have spent on this earth, so enjoy the view from the front, grandma.) Rep. Wayne Krieger was concerned that kids like his son, who weighed more than 200 pounds when he was twelve, might not fit in the back seat. (To which I say, um, a 200+ pound 12-year-old? Uncomfortable silence ensues.)

MySpace Sex Suit: "Where Were the Parents?"

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:32:00 GMT

The "where were the parents?" club is in fine form, following a judge's decision to throw out a $30 million lawsuit against MySpace.com by the family of a 13-year-old girl who was sexually assaulted by a man she met on the social networking site.

The girl, known in the case as Julie Doe, befriended a 19-year-old, who lied about his age to gain her confidence and then assaulted her. The girl's parents argued MySpace should have better restrictions on age. Says the judge: "If anyone had a duty to protect Julie Doe, it was her parents, not MySpace."

I agree with that sentiment. I'm a full-fledged member of the "where were the parents?" club. I mean, it's not as if MySpace is a known hotbed for sexual predators, right? In today's Internet age, parents should be just as curious and responsible about where their teens are going online as where they're going with their friends at night.

All that said, I was one bad kid. I lied like crazy. I covered my tracks. I manipulated. I concealed. I stole. I was one hard-to-track teenage drunkard on a quest for danger and rebellion. So I feel sorry for any parent in the crosshairs of the "where were they?" posse, because even though my mom did the best she could -- she was there -- I still managed to get myself into all manner of trouble, saved from real danger only by dumb luck.

So even though I agree with the idea, I always feel like a hypocrite when I demand "Where were the parents!?!" because I know even the most concerned ones can sometimes have no idea.

Texas Proposes Fines for Absent Parents

JasonAvant — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 15:17:00 GMT

Everything's bigger in Texas, including, apparently, the government. A Texas lawmaker has filed a bill that would punish parents who skip out on parent-teacher conferences. Representative Wayne Smith's proposal, if passed, would result in fines and a criminal record for parents who miss a scheduled meeting with their child's teacher. Schools would send the parents a written notice with three proposed dates, and parents who ignore the notice or fail to show up with a reasonable excuse ("my dog ate it" or "I got a note from Epstein's mother", for example) would run the risk of being charged.

Irony of ironies - Smith is a Republican; yeah, the same guys who claim to believe in minimal government and being fiscally conservative. What better way to put forth the principles of the party of Lincoln than to enact yet another law that expands the state's authority, adds more expeditures to the state's budget, and puts an additional burden on the state's legal system. While I do think parents need to make their children's education a priority, passing punitive laws is not the way to go.

The bill seems like a long shot to pass, as opponents are raising questions about how effective it will be, and how it will be enforced. Suggestion: how about making it easier for working parents to take time out of their day for such meetings? Offer tax incentives to companies who give their employees time off to attend school-related functions. Yeah, crazy talk, I know. Hopefully Texas voters and lawmakers will use a little common sense and shoot this one down

Anti-Spanking Law Gets Smackdown

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:23:00 GMT

In fantastic news for baby beaters everywhere, a proposal to outlaw spanking in California is off to a rocky start, if this poll and the pro vs. con correspondence flooding state Assemblywoman Sally Lieber's office is any indication.

As you may recall, Lieber proposed a ban on spanking kids -- with punishment for parents of up to a year in jail and $1,000 in fines. (Of course they'd call the ACLU if you spanked them.) In the past week, her office has received a deluge of pro-spanking responses -- a veritable smackdown, if you will, against the proposed law. At first, 95 percent of people rejected the idea (gee, wonder if spankers are prone to ~~anger management issues~~ knee-jerk reactions). Since then, the pro-spanking lobby has "mellowed" to about 85 percent. Try getting this one out of committee.

So spankers will likely live on to spank another day, and the same arguments that were foisted upon the child-bearing populace will be repeated ad naseum for who-knows-how-long: I was spanked, and I turned out fine. Paddling is fine if it's done in a "reasonable" manner. Tradition. Yada yada yada. There's a reason domestic violence laws spread across the nation like wildfire -- because striking other people, for whatever reason, is illegal. Or should be. Unless you're a UFC figher -- then have at it.

As far as I can remember, I was only spanked once when I was a kid. Of course, I don't even remember the crime, but I can recall everything about the punishment. I'm not sure that's a lesson I want to pass along to my daughter.

Frat Brothers Sent To Prison For Hazing

JasonAvant — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:09:00 GMT

I'll admit it - I was a frat guy. I spent my nights partying like a rock star at the house, and spent my days strolling ("staggering" might be the better verb) around campus in my letters. At the time, San Diego State was the epicenter of west coast collegiate fun; school was a nice thing to do between parties, we liked to say. My old stomping grounds have consistantly made Playboy's lists of Top Party Schools, thanks to the efforts of ~~drunken jackasses~~ fine, upstanding young men like my former self. These days, the fact that I was one of Them amuses me to no end; I was more the Bluto type, as were the guys I hung out with. Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, of course, and I'm pleased to report that I'm no longer fat.

Unfortunately, the Greek system still churns out its share of Niedermeyers. Case in point: Kappa Alpha Psi members Michael Morton and Jason Harris. The two apparently hazed (for those of you unfamiliar with Greek life, Google the phrase "Abu Ghraib" for some examples) a pledge to the point that he required hospitalization. Under Florida law, hazing that results in injury is a felony, and the two were found guilty. Character witnesses, including a former Florida A & M president urged leniency, but the judge sentenced them to two years in prison.

Rightfully so, says I. The victim's father is right; the crime was tantamount to torture, and defense attorney Chuck Hobbs' attempt to cast the victim as a willing participant is odious. These two sadists got exactly what they deserved, and are they in for a treat when they get to jail. "Thank you sir, may I have another?!" is gonna take on a whole new meaning for them.

New Website Reports On Advertising And Marketing To Kids

Patti — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 03:13:00 GMT

In a panel discussion at the US Association of National Advertisers' Advertising Law & Business Affairs Conference last week, attorney John Feldman, a partner at Reed Smith, announced the launch of KidAdLaw.com, a website dedicated to keeping the public informed about the laws and practices that govern advertising and marketing to children around the world. With news and feature stories ranging from new junk-food regulations to APA policy statement releases, KidAdLaw is designed to provide an indepth and varied look at how marketing targets children, and at the people who are trying to change that.

Marketing to children was a key issue discussed at the conference, as advertisers have been heavily under fire for the way products are represented to children and parents and as obesity and other health issues have been pushed into the limelight.

Via Gamine Expedition

California Considers A Ban on Spanking

JasonAvant — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:23:00 GMT

I don't agree with spanking. Sugar coat it all you want, it's still hitting a child with the intent of using both pain and the fear of pain as a means of punishment. Spanking is one of the few parenting choices that I'll pass judgment on. It's pretty simple - you hit a kid, that makes you the worst kind of coward.

So you'd think I'd be happy over a recent bit of news, that California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber is planning on introducing a bill that would make it a crime for parents to spank their child, provided the child is 3 or younger. Those caught in the act would face up to a year in jail, along with fines. The bill would extend the state's corporal punishment laws, which make it illegal for anyone but parents to spank a child - wow, are there still schools that allow "swats"? I got paddled by the principal when I was in the fourth grade, and it truly sucked; hurt like a bitch and very humiliating. Ah well, the principal was about 60 then, so there's a good chance that these days, she's enjoying her retirement...in the fires of Hell.

Back to the proposed law. No, I don't like spanking. But to pass a law against it solves nothing. How would it be enforced? (Yeah, I know, the Bush administration has already placed wiretaps and hidden cameras in most of our houses anyway, so it just becomes a matter of who to send the tapes to.) How much of a burden would this place on an already overtaxed court and prison system? Even though I think people who hit their kids are pussies (and, in the case of the folks who run this particular website, delusional psychotics), I don't think throwing them in jail for a year is the answer. Perhaps our tax dollars and resources should be used to help parents who are looking for ways to discipline their kids that don't involve violence; I'd rather see my state do more to help educate parents on alternative means of correcting their kids' behavior.