Strollerderby : lawsuit

Judge’s Ruling: Parents Fearing Swine Flu Can’t Keep Kids Home

SunnyChanel — Mon, 04 May 2009 22:49:00 GMT

So you’re sitting at home totally freaking out about the Swine flu. One of the first things you want to do is protect your family, right? One way would be to keep your children out of the Petri dish that’s called school. But if you live in Montgomery Alabama, you’re out of luck. Even though you’re freaked out about the odds of one of your kids becoming victim of a pandemic, you still have to send them to school.

A mom and dad of two boys pleaded with a court judge to let them keep up with there school work from home rather than going to school each day, all because of the swine flu scare. The parents had asked that their 7 and 8 year-old son be excused until the end of the school year, which is May 21st. What was the judges verdict? He said no.

An attorney for the school said that allowing this would "create chaos…if the Blevins were allowed to do this, then why not let every parent take their children out of school?" The judge did give the family a couple of options like home schooling or enrolling them in private school, but otherwise they could face charges of violating truancy laws.

In a situation like this, where there is fear of a scary illness, do you think parents should have the option to keep their kids out of school?

Source

Does New York City’s Foster System Inadequately Protect Children?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:00:00 GMT

A tragic case of child abuse has gotten the City of New York in hot water over its allegedly inadequate protections for foster children.

The suit centers around Judith Leekin, a 64-year-old who is now thankfully behind bars for exploiting the city’s foster system to get rich. After learning how much the city would pay her to adopt children with physical and mental disabilities, Leekin adopted 11 children under four different aliases, and then moved to Florida with them.

The approximately $800 to $1,300 per month per child that the city paid Leekin is hardly a windfall for any responsible parent caring for a child who is need of special education. But Leekin spent hardly a dime on the children, keeping them locked—and, in some cases, tied up—in her home, with no access to education, adequate food, or health care. By the time her evil scheme was discovered in 2007, Leekin had collected $1.68 million in government money.

Her former foster children (one of whom is pictured), are now in their teens and twenties and are in foster care and group homes in Florida.

The federal lawsuit contends that the city failed to adequately background check Leekin or to monitor the children under her care. But the Administration for Children’s Services argues that Leekin was masterful at defrauding numerous agencies and professionals, and points out that the city did everything in its power to prosecute Leekin and offer the foster children care and resources after the abuse came to light.

While there must be government accountability for this unthinkably terrible crime, I don’t think that a lawsuit is the answer. Taking money away from New York’s child welfare system, which is already facing severe budget cuts, is hardly the way to improve it. The best way to serve New York’s foster children would be public disclosure of how Leekin managed to get away with such severe child abuse, and a full accounting of the concrete measures the city has taken to prevent such a situation from ever happening again.

Photo: New York Times

Parents Sue Daycare for Inappropriate Touching Between Students

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:31:00 GMT

I remember one day in daycare when I was about four and a boy in my class kept poking me in the butt during naptime. It made me feel uncomfortable so I told my mother about it when she picked me up. She told me that I should tell the boy to stop touching me if anything similar happened again, and if he didn’t listen, I should tell my teacher right away. Problem solved.

A couple of Florida parents have a different idea about how to resolve inappropriate touching between preschoolers: a lawsuit to the tune of $5 million. They allege that their four-year-old daughter experienced emotional trauma at the Starchild Academy daycare center, after she was “molested and otherwise touched in a sexually inappropriate manner” by another little boy. They are suing the daycare for negligence.

This story is clearly reported with a bias to the daycare, so it’s hard to know whether there is any merit to the offended parents’ case. Assuming that it’s true that their daughter was deeply disturbed by inappropriate contact from another student, this little girl needs to be cared for, not used as a pawn in a lawsuit.

The daycare administrators got it right when they said that the goal in a case like this should be to look out for the welfare of both students. According to a teacher at Starchild, "Our agency would not consider a child, at that young of age, a perpetrator. Therefore, our role is to insure that the child is not a victim of child abuse themselves."

Photo: Kincaid Construction

Playmobil Sues Priest For Playing With Toys

JeanneSager — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:32:00 GMT

The idea of buying kids toys is to play with them, right? Even if you're an adult who happens to like playing with kids toys in order to amuse little kids?

Not according to Playmobil.

The toymakers known for their bizarre sense of what kids like to play with (the airport security checkpoint still blows my mind) are now suing a German priest who was using Playmobil's little people to recreate scenes from the Bible for little kids.

Father Markus Bomhard, from the Protestant Community of Eschborn, created the "Playmo-Bibel" (spelling is correct - this is Germany, after all) says on his site that he got the idea from his own daughters - who wanted to know why there was no "Playmo" minister toy. They used their own Playmobil toys to recreate everyday life, he said, so why not the Bible?

Broken down into the Old Testament and the New, his site is mostly pictures taken of his little scenes, from Adam and Eve to the last supper, plus scenes from church life, including a wedding.

But according to the Daily Telegraph, lawyers for Playmobil have told Bomhard he didn't get their permission for the project, so he must stop photographing the toys and using the name Playmobil. OK, the latter part I get - it's trademarked after all.

Here's the crazy part: the Telegraph reports, "the German firm is understood to be horrified that the scenes could offend people of other religion." This from the company that sells a Playmobil nativity set and an advent calendar set?

Their biggest gripe is apparently that Bomhard dared dress the characters up. As a Playmobil rep told the Telegraph, "We've got no problem with using the figures as they are in their original costumes. What we are on about is redesigning them and changing their appearance."

Isn't that what you make toys for? For people to play with, reimagine, redecorate and redesign? Because if we're not supposed to redesign toys, I imagine Fisher-Price will be coming for my daughter any day now . . . something about cutting all the hair off of Big Sister Dora.

Image: Telegraph - from Father Bomhard's Playmo-Bibel

Four Creepiest Animals Turned Adorable Kids Characters

Children's Laughter Bugs Pre-School's Neighbors

Babies Switched In NYC Hospital

JeanneSager — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:52:00 GMT

Let me just say that part of this story is absolutely awful - that a maternity ward's security practices could fail so miserably that two newborn babies are mixed up for several hours is criminal.

HOWEVER, every time I hear a re-telling of the story of Shatiesha Brown's baby being given to the wrong mom in the New York City hospital's maternity ward, I am more mystified by her misplaced anger.

Brown told a NYC news station that she was outraged that her little girl, Aniya Victoria, was breastfed by another woman at Brookside Hospital.

OK, so what? I'd be flipping a lid over the fact that my newborn child was given to someone else to begin with. That she was breastfed by that woman. . . eh. . . as long as the woman had no communicable diseases, who cares?

The thing is, Shatiesha Brown was told by her doctors that her dangerously high blood pressure had to be monitored. For twenty-four hours, they said, she would have to be separated from her newborn. It's during that period when hospital staff apparently took little Aniya Victoria to the room of another new mom, whose last name was also Brown and whose first initial was also S. The other new mom breastfed the baby and posed for pictures before the mistake was discovered.

Now Shatiesha is claiming that her daughter suffered nipple confusion and that the hospital ruined all her plans to breastfeed the little girl with the mistake. "The bond that you have when you breastfeed your child, that's everything," she told ABC 7.

Except that's not how nipple confusion works. Moving from breast to breast isn't an issue - if it was, babies would have trouble moving from the right side to the left on a mom who has different shaped or sized nipples (which is actually most of the population). Nipple confusion comes into play when a newborn baby feeds from an artificial nipple - which Aniya Victoria would have done ANYWAY if mom and baby were to be separated for twenty-four hours. Even then, babies can still make the switch, albeit with some difficulty, and many women report successful breastfeeding of a year or more after their baby received an artificial nipple during the very early days of life.

The mother I feel for is the one who breastfed Aniya Victoria . . . while her own baby lay in the nursery, missing out on the colostrum that's chock full of nutrients and antibodies.

Shatiesha is suing, of course (doesn't everyone?). I agree she has grounds to demand the hospital be held accountable for the mix-up itself, but I'm smelling a cock and bull story here.

Would you be more upset over the mix-up or the fact that your child fed at someone else's breast?

Image: ABC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would you do? Would you sue?

Image: Amazon

Update: Girl Loses Legs to Meningitis; Mom Blames Doc for Refusing Housecall

KeriF — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:00:00 GMT

After I posted this story, a woman claiming to be Jodie Cross, mother to young Lydia pictured here, commented to explain more about this tragic case. Apparently Jodie brought Lydia to the emergency room--twice--and both times was turned away. This information was not included in the newspaper accounts I read. My apologies to Jodie. You can read her comments below.

This story is truly heartbreaking: Two-year-old Lydia Cross had to have both legs amputated after doctors continually misdiagnosed her condition. By the time Lydia was brought to the hospital and diagnosed with meningitis, blood poisoning had destroyed the soft tissue in her legs, and both had to be amputated below the knee.

But what really gets me up in arms in the fact that Lydia's mom, Jodie, blames the doctors. Not for misdiagnosing young Lydia, but for refusing to make a housecall.

After a weekend of illness that included repeated vomiting and hallucinations, as well as numerous calls to a doctor who diagnosed Lydia with a virus over the phone, Jodie called another doctor on Monday to request a housecall. The doctor replied, "That's not our policy."

So Jodie waited until later that afternoon for an emergency appointment. A nurse apparently took one look at Lydia and sent her straight to the hospital.

Okay, if my daughter was vomiting all weekend and hallucinating, you better believe I'm going to take her straight to the hospital. Especially if my other child had just spent two weeks in the hospital with septicaemia and suspected meningitis. Oh yes, Lydia's 7-month-old sister Millie had just been released from the hospital.

What is wrong with this woman?

I understand her frustration with the doctors who seemingly refused to take her seriously. But come on lady, if the doctors won't listen JUST TAKE HER TO THE FRIGGIN' HOSPITAL!!

Lydia's family sued the doctor and received a six-figure settlement. The court ruled that if the doctor had seen Lydia and sent her to the hospital just an hour and a half earlier, her legs could have been saved.

Or presumably, if her parents had taken her to the hospital.

Photo and Story from The Daily Mail

Salmonella Might Be In Second Peanut Plant

Brett Singer — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 04:26:00 GMT

The AP is reporting that samples from a second Texas plant owned by The Peanut Corp. of America have a "presumptive positive" result. What'd they find? Salmonella.

This just keeps getting worse.

The news is currently being reported as a "maybe," and the AP story says that no products from the plant were shipped to consumers. Personally I have a hard time believing that. Not that I have any knowledge of the situation beyond what I've read. I'm just suspicious.

This line made me furious: the plant in Plainview, Texas "had operated unlicensed and uninspected for nearly four years." How exactly does something like that happen?

Are you still giving your kids peanut butter and jelly? Or have you switched to cream cheese or some other sandwich spread?

Source: AP via Yahoo! News

What Will Tainted Peanut Butter Really Do To Our Kids?

Morning News - Obama, Limbaugh, Cheese

Whew! Girl Scout Cookies Safe From Peanut Butter Scare

Web Index of Recalled Peanut Butter Products Available

Recall after Five People Die; Tainted Peanut Butter Blamed

School Counselor Forces 12-Year-Old to Take Pregnancy Test

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:25:00 GMT

Parents have filed suit against the Nevada City School District after their twelve-year-old daughter was called out of class by her school counselor and asked to take a pregnancy test.

The counselor, Steve Davis, had heard through the middle school grapevine—a very reliable source of information, as we all know—that the girl was pregnant, and he wanted to see if this was true. The girl (who is naturally remaining anonymous) explained that she was only the butt of a nasty rumor, but took a urine test supplied by the school nurse at Davis’ insistence. Lo and behold, the test came back negative.

My sense, from the limited information we have about the story, is that Davis was genuinely concerned about the girl—he just acted on that concern in the most misguided possible manner. If the rumors about the girl’s pregnancy were so widespread that he felt he had to act on them, he should have found a way to speak with the girl privately and then he should have spoken with the classmate she identified as having started the rumor.

Instead, he behaved in a way that humiliated a 12-year-old and enraged her parents—which is why they’re suing the school district for emotional distress and violation of the right to privacy.

Clearly, no parents would want a school counselor to intervene in their child’s life in such a thoughtless manner as Davis did. But would you want your child’s school counselor to gently and skillfully approach her without your permission if she seemed to be struggling in some way?

Photo: Westridge School (unrelated to this story)

Family Sues Over What Kid Found in Hotel Room

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image: TripAdvisor.com

What Will Tainted Peanut Butter Really Do To Our Kids?

JeanneSager — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:29:00 GMT

The first - and I doubt the last - lawsuit has been filed in the tainted peanut butter scandal.

A mother from Vermont says her seven-year-old son had to be hospitalized from salmonella poisoning after eating Keebler's sandwich crackers, which were filled with a peanut butter spread. Seven weeks later, she says the boy is still recovering.

The makers of the Keelber crackers, Kellogg's, have voluntarily recalled products containing peanut butter that may or may not be tainted, but based on the dates in Gabrielle Meunier's affidavit, young Christopher ate his snacks several weeks before news broke on the possible outbreak and recall.

Like the spinach and tomato scare of 2008, this one has hit home - these are foods my family eats on a relatively regular basis (more so the veggies than the crackers, but peanut butter is a staple in our house). I went rifling through our cabinets when I heard the news and came up with nothing, but who knows what she already powered through (like Amy's kids and those Clif bars).

So what should parents be watching out for? According to the CDC, "most persons infected with Salmonella develop diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps 12 to 72 hours after infection. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days, and most persons recover without treatment."

Lest you think this is a simple few days of noxious diarrhea, Christopher Meunier is recovering, but not every kid is so lucky.

Kids are actually the most likely candidates for salmonellosis (salmonella poisoning). The rate of infections in kids under five is five times higher than the rate of infection in any other age group, and children, the elderly and immunocompromised are the most likely to have severe reactions. The CDC estimates that approximately 400 persons die each year with acute salmonellosis.

So, now that I gave you your mega scare for the day, how about a jelly and cream cheese sandwich?

Image: Costco

Old Bat Who Kept Kid's Football Sues His Family

JeanneSager — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:05:00 GMT

Remember the eighty-nine-year-old woman who proved every neighbor kid's worst fears about the cranky lady down the street? You know, Edna Jester, the octogenarian who actually kept the kid's football?

She got out of the charges of petty theft, jail time and the fines the cops threatened back in October. But since the satisfaction of keeping the pigskin didn't do enough for her, she's now suing the family of seven who called the cops over the missing ball.

She claims "emotional distress" because balls keep ending up in her yard. I know Amy put up a good argument for ol' Edna back in October, citing the parents' need to get their kids under control. Yes, kids should be taught to respect the neighbors.

But I know this type of woman (do I dare say I'm related to her?), and I know what it's like to live with neighbors on top of you. Balls flying into the neighbors' yard is one of those facts of living in close proximity to one another. My husband, daughter and I love to kick the soccer ball around our back yard - and I can't begin to count the number of times it's sailed out of the yard (I never said I was particularly GOOD at kicking the ball around).

If the balls were going through her windows, if the kids were trampling her begonias, if Edna had called the parents first - instead of keeping the dang football - she would be so in the right it isn't even funny. She'd probably even be able to get money in court for said broken window or begonias. Instead she's tying up the courts over balls and playthings flying into her yard.

I've got a few suggestions for you Edna - how about you build a really tall fence or pack up your fanny and move? Maybe a nice family will move into Blue Ash, Ohio so a pick-up football game can take place across TWO yards.

Image: GovGab

Dad Jailed for Head-Butting Tot

Why They Shouldn't Eat the Snow

Teen Has Cancer and Lives in a Car

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

Brett Singer — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:00:00 GMT

A Chinese court has officially refused to hear the lawsuit filed by 57 parents whose children were killed in the earthquake earlier this year, according to the AP.

The New York Times had confirmed this morning that the lawsuit had in fact been filed. 127 students in the town of Deyang lost their lives on May 12; some, but not all, of their parents are involved in the suit. Many parents blamed shoddy construction at the school buildings they were in when the quake occurred; in total, 88,000 people were killed, 10,000 were schoolchildren. The Chinese government has said that they plan to investigate the disaster and promised to punish anyone found guilty of not making the school buildings as safe as they could be; so far nothing has been done, despite an admission by a Chinese official that, "a rush to build schools in recent years likely led to construction flaws causing so many of them to collapse," according to the AP report. The Chinese government has actively tried to stop anyone from talking about the earthquake, offering grieving parents "the equivalent of $8,800 in cash and several thousand more dollars in post-retirement pension payments if they agreed to drop the issue of the collapsed schools," according to the New York Times.

Now the parents and the lawyer who agreed to represent them may be in danger of being charged with treason. Despite this, more parents are expected to join the lawsuit. So this isn't over yet.

In other news, a Chinese court did allow someone to sue KFC – yes, Kentucky Fried Chicken – because she ate potato chips that had "black and silk-like things" in them. Priorities, people, priorities. Sheesh.

Sources: chinacsr.com

AP via Google News

New York Times (also image)

Boy Saves Brother's Life With Bone Marrow

Infant Twins Safe After Newark Carjacking

New Zealand Girl Treated Successfully With Cord Blood

Family Sues Over Free Playboy TV Access

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:34:00 GMT

Morons.

Free Playboy TV? What's the problem again?

Yes, yes, I'm a fifth-grader, but honestly, there is a far, far easier solution to this "dilemma" than a lawsuit. According to the Bourne family of Prudeville Pennsylvania, unauthorized access to the Playboy Channel is tantamount to "trespassing" on their property.

The suit claims "that Verizon failed to maintain “reasonable and proper control over its equipment” and unreasonably intruded on the plaintiffs' “right to physical solitude or seclusion.”

This is nothing but a money grab by this family, plain and simple -- because the easiest solution to this problem is to simply not turn on the Playboy Channel. (And use parental controls so your kids don't.)

Parents Sue School for Checking for Sex Offenders

JeanneSager — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:06:00 GMT

And the short-sighted parent of the year award goes to . . . two Texas parents who are suing their child's school because they're required to show their driver's license before being allowed access to a building full of children. The horrors, I know.

Yvonne and Larry Meadows say their rights are being violated by a program that compares would-be school visitors' driver's licenses to a database of registered sex offenders.

Yvonne says she's been told she'll be denied entrance to Bee Cave Elementary School unless she hands over her license. That, she said, puts her private information at risk. Besides, the Meadows' told the Austin American-Statesman they are guaranteed the freedom to associate with their children at school.

I'm kind of perplexed here. The school is a government agency, as is the department of motor vehicles - which provides the driver's license. Any information being picked up in the scans should already be in the system, which makes it hard to see how parents are suffering identity theft. Granted the school has contracted with a private company to do the checks, but several states contract with private companies to issue driver's licenses.

The license, by the way, isn't a guaranteed right. It's a privilege - which can be revoked. As is the so-called "right" to visit a school. At my daughter's pre-school, no one is allowed entrance unless they are recognized as a parent of one of the students or show some ID and a clear reason for being present. Even my in-laws had to present the teacher with identification to pick up their granddaughter. Hers is a private pre-school, but I'd like to think a public school would have a similar policy.

Public schools are the places where we send our children during the day, expecting them to return to us in the same shape in which they left. We put our trust in them to keep our kids safe, and protection from pedophiles ranks high on that list. I would think the Meadowses would prefer a little hassle at the door to having their child touched by a kiddie rapist (not a threat, merely an awful, disgusting fact of life). In the post-Columbine era, most schools have locked all but one entrance and placed someone there to monitor ingress and egress anyway. They reserve the right to turn anyone away. As a reporter, I quickly learned to bring both my press pass and driver's license with me to the doorway lest I be sent back to my car and end up late to my interview. At times, my ID has been taken for me to claim on the way out - the school's way of ensuring people check in before they leave, so they can tell who is in the building and when.

Is this any different? Would you feel violated if you were asked to provide ID or feel like your kids were a little safer?

Image: WRAL

A Genetic Test That Predicts Kids' Athletic Futures

Santa Claus Can Call Them For You

HIV Positive Teen Sues School for Harassment

Kid Arrested for Farting

HIV Positive Teen Sues School for Harassment

JeanneSager — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:57:00 GMT

When news started spreading around Westlane Middle School that a fourteen-year-old student had HIV, the harassment began. There were notes slapped on her locker warning her "No AIDS at Westlane." The coach of her soccer team joked that they could use her disease to their advantage - because the other team would be scared. The girl suffered daily name calling, teasing and constant bullying.

Now the girl's been pulled out of school by her parents, who are suing the Indiana institution for doing nothing to save their daughter from her tormentors. More than two decades after Ryan White, do kids still have to hide their HIV status?

There's a marked difference in the knowledge out there about HIV from the instant fear and massive homophobia of my eighties childhood. Ours was perhaps the first generation to be raised to have safe sex not to ward off unwanted pregnancy but to protect you from disease. We grew up in the time of Ryan White . . . and of Magic Johnson and Arthur Ashe. We were taught to be cautious - perhaps taught too much. I remember the health teachers giving us a blow by blow on what HIV and then AIDS could to do the body. Then they gave us the rundown of every single way we could possibly contract the virus. They terrified us - to the point where a bunch of overactive teenage imaginations were envisioning catching HIV by brushing up against someone walking down the street.

Too much of the information thrown at us to keep us safe was off base and overblown. Now the generation raised to shake in their boots at the thought of AIDS is charged with raising their own kids. What are they telling them? Because it sounds like the kids in Westlane Middle School are scared. It sounds like they don't understand that a teenage classmate with AIDS does not mean a death sentence for them. In this day and age it doesn't even mean a death sentence for her (thankfully).

Source: Salon

Are Elementary School Thanksgivings Racist Or Just Outdated?

BREAKING NEWS: Judge Overrules Ban on Gays Adopting in Florida

Juno Goes to Washington? Congress' First Unwed Mom

Kindergartners Vote An Autistic Classmate Out of the Class

Journalist Suing for Sperm-Donor Dad's Identity

JeanneSager — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:51:00 GMT

Oliva Pratten knows her dad was stocky. He had brown hair like her and blue eyes. She even knows his blood type. What she doesn't know is who his or how he came to deposit a cup of sperm at a bank in her native Canada. Now she's suing to find out.

Pratten, a twenty-six-year-old journalist who now lives and works in New York, is suing on behalf of the spawn of all sperm donors in British Columbia, hoping to protect sperm bank records from a shredding of Arthur Anderson proportions. The goal, she says, is to end the practice of destroying medical records after six years practiced by many fertility doctors. The suit has already ensured a temporary injunction against destroying the paperwork in British Columbia, laid down by chief justice of the BC Supreme Court.

Currently adoption records in a number of Canadian provinces, including British Columbia, are protected. Pratten says that protection should apply to the children conceived by gamete donation because they too have a biological parent mystery to be solved. The fertility doctor who helped her mom get pregnant respectfully disagrees. He says he'd be violating the man's confidentiality, and without a signed release he'll give her no more than the basic medical facts.

I'm a big proponent of open adoptions, and I'd say that would extend to gamete donations. Kids should get the full story if everyone agrees to share it. But that's a very personal if. If a guy walks into a medical office today with the full knowledge he might have a kid knocking on his door in 18 years, that's one thing. It's why I think all donors today should be subject to having their identity shared with their "kids" down the road. For the kids' sake.

But for the medical student who yanked off into a cup to help pay his tuition twenty-six years ago, thinking he was doing so under a shroud of anonymity? Is anything more than disseminating medical information to the products of his donation a violation of his privacy? Or should a guy going through med school have been capable of seeing this coming?

Image: Vancouver Sun

Australian Woman No Longer Dad's Girlfriend, Now She Lives With Him and New Fiance

Mom Ready to Deliver Baby After First Ever Ovary Transplant

Dad Wants Daughter Back Despite Negative DNA Test

Pregnant Illegal Immigrant Wrongly Jailed

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:00:00 GMT

A woman who was forced to give birth while in custody should have been released before she went into labor, according to federal policy. Juana Villegas, an illegal immigrant with no criminal record, was arrested for a traffic violation days before her due date. She went into labor while in custody, and was returned to jail immediately after the birth; she was separated from her infant son for two days and was not allowed to bring a breast pump back to jail with her.

Villegas’ treatment has raised concerns about the ways local law enforcement work with federal immigration officials to apprehend illegal immigrants. Federal immigration policy mandates that people who are arrested on non-criminal immigration violations who are pregnant, are sole caregivers, or have other humanitarian concerns be recommended for immediate release. But Immigration and Customs Enforcement placed a hold on Villegas the day she was arrested, which means that she was ordered held past any local sentence. She claims that she informed officers that her baby was due in a matter of days.

Although Villegas does have a lawyer, it remains to be seen whether or not this new understanding of Villegas’ treatment will lead to a lawsuit.

Photo: BBC

Best of FameCrawler: Week of August 1st

Whit Honea — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Christina Aguilera On A Bed Of Roses

More Beautiful Jolie-Pitt Family Photos!

Tom Cruise Named In Scientology Lawsuit

Federline is SHOCKED at Britney!

Miley Cyrus: Saying Goodbye To Hannah Montana?

What Actor Was Not Nice in Nice?

Formal McCarthyism

Who's Pregnant But Not Admitting It?

Britney's Bikini Photos Leaked!

Sarah Jessica and Matthew Broderick: EX In The City?

Top Five Celebrity Pregnancy Denials

Kate Hudson and Eric Lindros, Already

Crocs: Ugly AND Dangerous?

Jen Chaney — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:02:00 GMT

At least, that's what a lawsuit filed by one Kentucky mom suggests. Okay, not the ugly part, but really, don't we all already agree on that?

Alison Cox Pregliasco of Louisville has filed a lawsuit against Crocs that holds the company responsible for injuries sustained by her three-year-old daughter. The girl was wearing a pair of Crocs while riding an escalator at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport when one of her shoes got caught in the gears. The shoe got shredded, the skin on the girl's big toe was torn off and two of her toes got broken. Pregliasco is seeking $4 million in damages and accusing Crocs of marketing the shoes to kids even though they are aware of the dangers posed by the rubbery, holey clogs.

This isn't the first time Crocs have been deemed hazardous. Numerous similar incidents have been reported during the past couple of years, prompting the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue a warning in May against wearning soft shoes on escalators. Consumer Reports also notes that Japan's Trade Ministry asked Crocs to redesign their shoes after complaints about -- Woah! Deja vu! -- children getting their feet caught in escalators. So this problem isn't unique to Pregliasco's daughter, which may add creedence to the suit.

Ultimately, though, it seems like this will come down to a question of who is really at fault. If Crocs are widely known for causing problems on escalators, who bears the responsibility for the girl getting hurt: The company who made them or the parent who lets her kids hop on to the moving stairway while wearing them? Guess a judge will have to decide.

Let's hope he also finally rules that adults should never, ever be seen in public while wearing Crocs because it violates all standards of aesthetic decency.

Walgreens Sued Over Infant Death Caused by Cold Medicine

Jen Chaney — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:03:00 GMT

Natural News.com reports that an Illinois woman has filed a lawsuit against both Walgreens and McNeil PPC Inc., parent company of Tylenol, because her son died after consuming cold medicines made by both companies.

Devon Mehlberg-Alvarez died Oct. 8 -- three days before various infant and children's cold medications were pulled from store shelves -- due to dextromethorphan intoxication. The boy had taken both Infant Tylenol Cold and Decongestant Plus and Walgreen Pediatric Drops-Cough Plus Cold in the days preceding his death. His mother, Dimitria Alvarez, insists she never gave him the medications simultaneously and believes the two companies are responsible for selling a product without adequately warning of its risks.

Alvarez's attorney claims this may be the first suit of its kind. Which, if true, could open the flood gates for even more lawsuits.

It's unclear whether this case has legs since the FDA began to suggest that such medications could be hazardous to infants in August of last year, and the -- in January of last year. No matter what happens, the loss of Alvarez's son is certainly a sad reminder that all of us should read those product labels carefully and check with our pediatricians -- no matter how stupid we might feel for making the call -- if we have any doubt about which remedies are right for our kids.

In the Courtroom: Barbie v. Bratz

Jen Chaney — Thu, 29 May 2008 12:32:00 GMT

The trial of the century -- okay, maybe the No. 2 Trial of the Century, just after R. Kelly -- is underway. It's Barbie v. Bratz in a civil suit destined to rock this nation to the very core of its being. As the court proceedings get underway, here is a brief primer on what's at stake in this battle of the less-than-progressive-toys for little girls.

The Barbie Side

Who is involved in the suit: Mattel Inc., the company behind one of the most enduring dolls in toy history.

Their argument: One of their designers, Carter Bryant, crafted the Bratz dolls while he was working at Mattel. Therefore, Mattel deserves a share of the profits from the Bratz franchise.

Their argument, in easier-to-digest form: "Those slutty dolls with the oversized heads and collagened lips were totally our idea!"

What's at stake: The reputation of the less slutty, though not necessarily liberated, Barbie, as well as potential revenue for Mattel, which has not been strong of late.

The Bratz Side

Who is involved in the suit: MGA Entertainment Inc., the company behind the lucrative Bratz franchise.

Their argument: Bryant came up with the concept for Bratz while on hiatus from Mattel, and therefore Mattel is not entitled to any Bratz profits.

Their argument, in easier-to-digest form: "Those slutty dolls with the oversized heads and collagened lips were created by someone who used to work at Mattel, but didn't when he created these dolls. So suck it."

What's at stake: If they lose the lawsuit? Potentially precious profits from the multi-billion-dollar Bratz line.

Who Will Testify:

A number of Mattel designers and possibly Bryant himself, who apparently settled a separate set of claims this month for an undisclosed amount.

Who Would Testify if This Trial Took Place in My Barbie Dreamcourthouse:

Skipper (Don't think for a second that she doesn't know about some serious, lowdown s@!%.)

Jon Voight, who starred in the "Bratz" movie.

Da Brat. Granted, she has nothing to do with this. But maybe she could bust out a little "Fundafied."

Members of the group Aqua, who sang "Barbie Girl," a track that, on more than one occasion, made me question my reasons for continuing to exist on this planet.

Updates regarding the trial will be posted here at Strollerderby as warranted.

Photo: theage.com.au

Identical Twin Discovered in a Spanish Clothing Store

Madeline Holler — Wed, 28 May 2008 20:34:00 GMT

An identical twin who was raised as a singleton by the wrong family is suing the diapers off the maternity hospital and city where she was born more than 30 years ago. Her biological sister, and the girl raised in her place, are doing the same.

It's sad that switched-at-birth stories aren't all that uncommon. Here's the kicker in this story: it was only by accident that they all found out about the mix-up.

The actual twins, who were born in Spain, reunited in 2001, after the one raised by non-biological parents was mistaken for her unknown identical twin at a clothing shop. A shop clerk was friends with the other twin and was dumbfounded when the unknown twin didn't recognize her. The twin came in a second time and that time the shopkeeper arranged for the two to meet. The rest unraveled from there.

All three of the girls are devastated by the discovery, the twin raised by another family the most, according to her lawyer. She's suing for $4.7 million. The others are also filing suits.

The hospital says the switch is the result of too many babies and too few nurses. From Reuters:

"In 1973 there were two assistants and one supervisor for 60 babies," Densi Calero, who worked in the maternity unit of the clinic at the time, told local radio. "It's not impossible to imagine something like this could happen."

Photo: ABCNews.com

Johnson & Johnson Sued for False Adveritising

Jen Chaney — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:03:00 GMT

A mother in Spokane, Wash., has filed a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson. Why? She says their recent series of commercials, featuring the slogan "Having a baby changes everything," amount to false advertising. She is seeking $2.5 million in damages for what she calls pain, suffering and "a whole medicine cabinet full of Soothing Naturals Baby Wash I don't want to use."

"Look, giving birth to my son Nathan changed a few things," said Sheila RosenRosen, 36, during a phone interview. "I never sleep, the house is messier and I learned what a nipple shield is. But pretty much everything else stayed the same. My husband still refuses to get the water heater fixed. The women in my stupid book club still think Nicholas Sparks is an awesome author. And that show 'Two and a Half Men' still isn't funny. So that's not everything, okay?"

At this point, RosenRosen suddenly began to weep.

"And that no tears promise is a whole bunch of b.s., too," she added through her sobs. "I've been crying ever since that damn kid got here."

When a reporter pointed out that "no tears" refers to the effect that Johnson & Johnson products have on the baby, she said, "Oh, he cries all the freakin' time. So that's a bunch of crap, too."

A spokesperson for Johnson & Johnson said the company would vigorously fight the lawsuit, which he called "without merit and without any regard for the extraordinary healing powers of Soothing Naturals Baby Wash."

This is not the first time Mrs. RosenRosen has filed such a suit. Her court case last year against Taco Bell, in which she accused the company of fraud for its inability to make her think outside the bun, was dismissed by a judge. However, RosenRosen noted that he was eating a gordita at the time.

Image: Businessweek.com

Wal-Mart Going After Disabled Woman's Insurance Settlement

Amy S.F. Lutz — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:33:00 GMT

Almost eight years ago, 52-year-old Debbie Shank was involved in an accident that left her severely brain-damaged, with little short-term memory. She lives in a nursing home, confined to a wheel chair, unable to care for herself.

She was, however, awarded $700,000 in a lawsuit against the trucking company that caused the accident. Once legal fees were deducted, the remaining $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie's long-term care (an example of bloodsucking attorneys that could be a post in its own right).

But Wal-Mart, Debbie's former employer, claims that money belongs to them, and filed a suit against the family. And they won.

See, Debbie was enrolled in Wal-Mart's health plan at the time of the accident, which stipulates (in fine print, natch) "the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit." Which, I suppose, makes sense in most cases, where it wouldn't be fair for the patient to be compensated twice for the same injury.

But the Shank family isn't looking to retire to Palm Springs. They're so strapped for cash that Debbie's husband, Jim, divorced her so she could get more help from Medicaid. He himself is a prostate cancer survivor who is working two jobs and is still concerned he won't be able to afford college for his youngest son.

Oh, and did I mention that another son was killed in Iraq last year? And that Debbie's short-term memory loss is so profound that every time she hears about her son's death she grieves as if hearing it for the first time? Could this story get any more tragic?

Wal-Mart admits that Debbie's circumstances are "clearly extraordinary," and wishes they could be "more flexible," but claims they are obligated to follow their own rules "out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the [health] plan."

I don't know. I think employees would be happier with some reassurance that Wal-Mart wasn't ever going to bankrupt their own families.

cnn photo