And are Chicken Nuggets really healthier than a turkey sandwich? Read the original here.
Preschooler's homemade lunch replaced with nuggets
Published February 14, 2012 FoxNews.com
A Hoke County preschooler was fed chicken nuggets for lunch because a state worker felt that her homemade lunch did not have enough nutritional value, according to a report by the Carolina Journal.
The West Hoke Elementary School student was in her More at Four classroom when a state agent who was inspecting lunch boxes decided that her packed lunch — which consisted of a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips — “did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines,” the Journal reports.
The decision was made under consideration of a regulation put in place by the the Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services, which requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs to meet USDA guidelines.
“When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones,” the Journal reports.
The student’s mother told the Journal she received a note from the school about the incident and was charged $1.25 for the cafeteria tray, from which her daughter only ate three chicken nuggets.
The note explained how students who did not bring “healthy lunches” would be offered the missing portions and that parents could be charged for the cost of the cafeteria food, the Journal reports.
The mother, who was not identified in the report, expressed concern about school officials telling her daughter that she wasn’t “packing her lunch box properly.”
MyFox8 contributed to this story.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/14/preschoolers-homemade-lunch-replaced-with-nuggets/#ixzz1mSvJG0Cq
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Monday, September 19, 2011
Couple wins Wrongful Birth Lawsuit
What is a wrongful birth? Is this malpractice, or overly litigious parents. Read the original here....
Jury Awards West Palm Beach Parents Of Child Born With No Arms, One Leg $4.5 Million
By Jane Musgrave
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Updated: 1:06 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 10, 2011
Posted: 12:28 p.m. Friday, Sept. 9, 2011
WEST PALM BEACH — After nearly nine hours of deliberation over two days, a Palm Beach County jury today awarded a West Palm Beach couple $4.5 million to care for their son who was born with no arms and one leg.
With the heartbreaking image of the small boy etched into their minds, jurors found Palm Beach Gardens obstetrician Dr. Marie Morel, OB/GYN Specialists of the Palm Beaches and Perinatal Specialists of the Palm Beaches responsible for not detecting the boy's horrific disabilities before he was born. The amount they awarded is half of the $9 million Ana Mejia and Rodolfo Santana were seeking for their son, Bryan.
The teary-eyed couple said they were overjoyed by the verdict. "I have no words," Mejia said in her native Spanish. Both agreed the award will make a huge difference in their son's life.
The jury of four men and two women found Morel 85 percent and an ultrasound technician 15 percent negligent for failing to properly read sonograms that would have alerted the couple of their son's disabilities before he was born in October 2008.
Attorney Mark Rosen, who represents Morel and the clinics, said they would appeal.
During a roughly two-week-long trial that ended Wednesday, Mejia and Santana claimed they would have never have brought Bryan into the world had they known about his horrific disabilities. Had Morel and technicians at OB/GYN Specialists of the Palm Beaches and Perinatal Specialists of the Palm Beaches properly administered two ultrasounds and seen he was missing three limbs, the West Palm Beach couple said they would have terminated the pregnancy.
Instead, they went to the hospital in October 2008, believing they would have a healthy son.
"They went from the heights of joyous expectations to the depths of despair," their attorney Robert Bergin told the jury during closing arguments Wednesday.
While the jury is being asked to award the couple money for their pain, he said they don't want any money for their suffering.
"Ana and Rodolfo Santana know their mental anguish and their emotions are not important," Bergin said. "The only thing that will help make up for their mental anguish is to know Bryan's life plan is fully funded."
The plan, that would cost $9 million, will cover prostheses, wheelchairs, operations, attendants and other needs he will have during his estimated 70-year life, Bergin said. "It will give piece of mind to these people that no matter what happens to them, their son will be all right," said Jason Weisser, who also represents the couple.
Without discounting Bryan's enormous needs, attorneys representing Morel and the ultrasound clinics insisted their clients weren't negligent.
"There is nothing Dr. Morel wants more than for Bryan Santana to have a happy, healthy life," said attorney Mark Rosen. "That doesn't mean they're responsible. Is it fair to blame physicians for acts of nature?"
He argued that the couple rejected amniocentesis, which might have revealed the abnormalities. The couple rejected it because they were told that there was a 1 in 500 chance that removing amniotic fluid for testing would cause a miscarriage.
Mejia testified that a genetic counselor she saw after an ultrasound detected a possibility Bryan would be born with Down's Syndrome told her there was a 99.9 percent chance he wouldn't have the form of mental retardation. Rather than needlessly risk losing the child, she and her husband decided not to have amniocentesis.
In doing so, Rosen said, the couple decided that they would rather give birth to a child that might have a physical or mental disability rather than risk losing it. That, he said, is contrary to their claims that they would have aborted their unborn son.
"No one is happy about what happened to Bryan Santana but Ana Mejia made the decision in 2008," he said.
Weisser countered that the couple was told the risk of Down's Syndrome was slight. While other abnormalities might have been detected by amniocentesis, the prospect of having a child who was missing three limbs was never discussed with the couple.
"There's not one shred of evidence that they were ever told there was an issue with one of his limbs, let along three," he said.
In fact, according to the second ultrasound, all four limbs were intact. "That, ladies and gentleman is impossible," Weisser said. "It didn't happen."
Jury Awards West Palm Beach Parents Of Child Born With No Arms, One Leg $4.5 Million
By Jane Musgrave
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Updated: 1:06 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 10, 2011
Posted: 12:28 p.m. Friday, Sept. 9, 2011
WEST PALM BEACH — After nearly nine hours of deliberation over two days, a Palm Beach County jury today awarded a West Palm Beach couple $4.5 million to care for their son who was born with no arms and one leg.
With the heartbreaking image of the small boy etched into their minds, jurors found Palm Beach Gardens obstetrician Dr. Marie Morel, OB/GYN Specialists of the Palm Beaches and Perinatal Specialists of the Palm Beaches responsible for not detecting the boy's horrific disabilities before he was born. The amount they awarded is half of the $9 million Ana Mejia and Rodolfo Santana were seeking for their son, Bryan.
The teary-eyed couple said they were overjoyed by the verdict. "I have no words," Mejia said in her native Spanish. Both agreed the award will make a huge difference in their son's life.
The jury of four men and two women found Morel 85 percent and an ultrasound technician 15 percent negligent for failing to properly read sonograms that would have alerted the couple of their son's disabilities before he was born in October 2008.
Attorney Mark Rosen, who represents Morel and the clinics, said they would appeal.
During a roughly two-week-long trial that ended Wednesday, Mejia and Santana claimed they would have never have brought Bryan into the world had they known about his horrific disabilities. Had Morel and technicians at OB/GYN Specialists of the Palm Beaches and Perinatal Specialists of the Palm Beaches properly administered two ultrasounds and seen he was missing three limbs, the West Palm Beach couple said they would have terminated the pregnancy.
Instead, they went to the hospital in October 2008, believing they would have a healthy son.
"They went from the heights of joyous expectations to the depths of despair," their attorney Robert Bergin told the jury during closing arguments Wednesday.
While the jury is being asked to award the couple money for their pain, he said they don't want any money for their suffering.
"Ana and Rodolfo Santana know their mental anguish and their emotions are not important," Bergin said. "The only thing that will help make up for their mental anguish is to know Bryan's life plan is fully funded."
The plan, that would cost $9 million, will cover prostheses, wheelchairs, operations, attendants and other needs he will have during his estimated 70-year life, Bergin said. "It will give piece of mind to these people that no matter what happens to them, their son will be all right," said Jason Weisser, who also represents the couple.
Without discounting Bryan's enormous needs, attorneys representing Morel and the ultrasound clinics insisted their clients weren't negligent.
"There is nothing Dr. Morel wants more than for Bryan Santana to have a happy, healthy life," said attorney Mark Rosen. "That doesn't mean they're responsible. Is it fair to blame physicians for acts of nature?"
He argued that the couple rejected amniocentesis, which might have revealed the abnormalities. The couple rejected it because they were told that there was a 1 in 500 chance that removing amniotic fluid for testing would cause a miscarriage.
Mejia testified that a genetic counselor she saw after an ultrasound detected a possibility Bryan would be born with Down's Syndrome told her there was a 99.9 percent chance he wouldn't have the form of mental retardation. Rather than needlessly risk losing the child, she and her husband decided not to have amniocentesis.
In doing so, Rosen said, the couple decided that they would rather give birth to a child that might have a physical or mental disability rather than risk losing it. That, he said, is contrary to their claims that they would have aborted their unborn son.
"No one is happy about what happened to Bryan Santana but Ana Mejia made the decision in 2008," he said.
Weisser countered that the couple was told the risk of Down's Syndrome was slight. While other abnormalities might have been detected by amniocentesis, the prospect of having a child who was missing three limbs was never discussed with the couple.
"There's not one shred of evidence that they were ever told there was an issue with one of his limbs, let along three," he said.
In fact, according to the second ultrasound, all four limbs were intact. "That, ladies and gentleman is impossible," Weisser said. "It didn't happen."
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
In the UK, the government will confiscate your...
...children? I'm not one for letting your kids be unhealthy, but if social workers are monitoring you at mealtimes, does that constitute the right of the government to take away your children with no visitation? Read the original here.
Parents of seven told: Your children are too fat, so you will never see them again
By JANE SIMPSONLast updated at 9:14 AM on 5th September 2011
Four obese children are on the brink of being permanently removed from their family by social workers after their parents failed to bring their weight under control.
In the first case of its kind, their mother and father now face what they call the ‘unbearable’ likelihood of never seeing them again.
Their three daughters, aged 11, seven and one, and five-year-old son, will either be ‘fostered without contact’ or adopted.
Either way, the family’s only hope of being reunited will be if the children attempt to track down their parents when they become adults.
The couple, who have been married for nearly 20 years and are not being named to protect their children’s identities, were given a ‘draconian’ ultimatum three years ago – as reported at the time by The Mail on Sunday.
Warned that the children must slim or be placed in care, the family spent two years living in a council-funded ‘Big Brother’ house in which they were constantly supervised and the food they ate monitored.
But despite subjecting them to intense scrutiny, social workers did not impose rules on what food the children should eat, and there was apparently little or no improvement.
News of the decision to remove them was broken to the couple, from Dundee, on Tuesday. Critics called it a disgraceful breach of human rights and a chilling example of the power of the State to meddle in family life.
In an emotional interview, the 42-year-old mother said: ‘We might not be the perfect parents, but we love our children with all our hearts. To face a future where we will never see them again is unbearable.
‘They picked on us because of our size to start with and they just haven’t let go, despite the fact we’ve done everything to lose weight and meet their demands. We’re going to fight this to the bitter end. It feels like even prisoners have more human rights than we do.’
The couple have not committed any crime and are not accused of deliberate cruelty or abuse. Their solicitor, Joe Myles, said there was ‘nothing sinister lurking in the background’ and accused social workers of failing to act in the family’s best interests.
‘Dundee social services department appear to have locked horns with this couple and won’t let go,’ he said, adding that the monitoring project caused more problems than it solved. ‘The parents were constantly being accused of bad parenting and made to live under a microscope.
'We have tried very hard to do everything that was asked of us. My wife has cooked healthy foods like home-made spaghetti bolognese and mince and potatoes; but nothing we’ve done has ever been enough'
The couple have three older children who are all distraught and angry at the ruling.
Speaking through tears, their 15-year-old daughter said: ‘The social workers should hang their heads in shame. A person’s weight is their own business and only we can do anything about it, not them. My parents are good people and they love us all. The four little ones don’t know what is about to happen to them.’
Social workers became aware of the family in early 2008 after one of the sons accused his father of hitting him on the forehead. In truth, he had fallen and hit his head on a radiator – a fact he later admitted. However, the allegation opened the door to the obesity investigation.
While the couple admit experiencing what their lawyer calls ‘low grade’ parenting problems, which would have merited support, they were aghast when the issue of weight was seized on as a major concern.
A council report at the time said: ‘With the exception of [one of the names], the children are all overweight. Advice has been given regarding diet but there has been no improvement. Appointments with the dietician have been missed.’
At that point their then 12-year-old son weighed 16 stone; his 11-year-old sister weighed 12 stone; and his three-year-old sister weighed four stone. It is not known how much the four younger children weigh now.
The couple were ordered to send their children to dance and football lessons and were given a three-month deadline to bring down their weight. When that failed, the children were placed in foster homes but were allowed to visit their parents.
After the couple objected to this arrangement, the council agreed to move them into a two-bedroom flat in a supported unit run by the Dundee Families Project. They insisted on the couple living with only three of their children at a time.
At meal times, a social worker stood in the room taking notes. Doctors raised concerns that the children put on weight whenever they spent time with their parents, a claim they vehemently denied.
The couple and their children also had to adhere to a strict 11pm curfew. This involved ‘clocking’ in and out by filling in a sheet held by an employee who lived on site.
Although the children’s weight was the major concern, other allegations were included in a report. It showed that social workers were worried when the youngest child was found crawling unsupervised. The parents point out they were never far away and the flat had no stairs.
They also found her ‘attempting to put dangerous objects’ in her mouth. The family say this is natural in toddlers and she was never successful.
To have a social worker stand and watch you eat is intolerable. I want other families to know what can happen once social workers become involved. We will fight them to the end to get our beloved children back.
Social workers were further worried when she crawled through the contents of an upturned ashtray – an ‘unfortunate one-off incident’, claim the parents. All the concerns were dismissed by the family’s legal team as ‘low grade’ problems.
It is understood the father crumbled under the strain of being so closely monitored in January this year and moved into a council flat elsewhere in the city.
In the next few months, the mother breached the lunch and dinner meal observations, by her own admission, on ‘several’ occasions while taking the children to see their father.
She personally never broke the 11pm curfew but once allowed her seven-year-old daughter to remain at her father’s flat after she fell asleep. She did not want to disturb her and argued the child had ‘two parents, not one’ and was in ‘good hands’.
These breaches led staff to declare the trial a failure and the mother was asked to leave the unit in April this year. She moved in to her husband’s flat but the children were then handed over to foster parents.
Her solicitor said he planned to use independent experts to prove that the children want to live with their parents and have been damaged by the social workers’ intervention. He added: ‘We may ultimately look towards human rights laws.’
The father, aged 56, said: ‘We have tried very hard to do everything that was asked of us. My wife has cooked healthy foods like home-made spaghetti bolognese and mince and potatoes; we’ve cut out snacks and only ever allowed the kids sweets on a Saturday. But nothing we’ve done has ever been enough.
‘The pressure of living in the family unit would have broken anyone. We were being treated like children and cut off from the outside world. To have a social worker stand and watch you eat is intolerable. I want other families to know what can happen once social workers become involved. We will fight them to the end to get our beloved children back.’
It is estimated 26 million British adults will be obese by 2030, with obesity levels running at an all-time high among children. Official statistics show those who are overweight spend 50 per cent more time in hospital, placing extra strain on the NHS.
Tam Fry, honorary chairman of the Child Growth Foundation, said: ‘This is a disgrace. These parents have clearly attempted to comply. They have, if you like, played Dundee City Council’s game and yet they are still losing their children.’
Dundee City Council said: ‘The council always acts in the best interests of children, with their welfare and safety in mind.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033486/Your-children-fat-again.html#ixzz1XH2OwQIX
Parents of seven told: Your children are too fat, so you will never see them again
By JANE SIMPSONLast updated at 9:14 AM on 5th September 2011
Four obese children are on the brink of being permanently removed from their family by social workers after their parents failed to bring their weight under control.
In the first case of its kind, their mother and father now face what they call the ‘unbearable’ likelihood of never seeing them again.
Their three daughters, aged 11, seven and one, and five-year-old son, will either be ‘fostered without contact’ or adopted.
Either way, the family’s only hope of being reunited will be if the children attempt to track down their parents when they become adults.
The couple, who have been married for nearly 20 years and are not being named to protect their children’s identities, were given a ‘draconian’ ultimatum three years ago – as reported at the time by The Mail on Sunday.
Warned that the children must slim or be placed in care, the family spent two years living in a council-funded ‘Big Brother’ house in which they were constantly supervised and the food they ate monitored.
But despite subjecting them to intense scrutiny, social workers did not impose rules on what food the children should eat, and there was apparently little or no improvement.
News of the decision to remove them was broken to the couple, from Dundee, on Tuesday. Critics called it a disgraceful breach of human rights and a chilling example of the power of the State to meddle in family life.
In an emotional interview, the 42-year-old mother said: ‘We might not be the perfect parents, but we love our children with all our hearts. To face a future where we will never see them again is unbearable.
‘They picked on us because of our size to start with and they just haven’t let go, despite the fact we’ve done everything to lose weight and meet their demands. We’re going to fight this to the bitter end. It feels like even prisoners have more human rights than we do.’
The couple have not committed any crime and are not accused of deliberate cruelty or abuse. Their solicitor, Joe Myles, said there was ‘nothing sinister lurking in the background’ and accused social workers of failing to act in the family’s best interests.
‘Dundee social services department appear to have locked horns with this couple and won’t let go,’ he said, adding that the monitoring project caused more problems than it solved. ‘The parents were constantly being accused of bad parenting and made to live under a microscope.
'We have tried very hard to do everything that was asked of us. My wife has cooked healthy foods like home-made spaghetti bolognese and mince and potatoes; but nothing we’ve done has ever been enough'
The couple have three older children who are all distraught and angry at the ruling.
Speaking through tears, their 15-year-old daughter said: ‘The social workers should hang their heads in shame. A person’s weight is their own business and only we can do anything about it, not them. My parents are good people and they love us all. The four little ones don’t know what is about to happen to them.’
Social workers became aware of the family in early 2008 after one of the sons accused his father of hitting him on the forehead. In truth, he had fallen and hit his head on a radiator – a fact he later admitted. However, the allegation opened the door to the obesity investigation.
While the couple admit experiencing what their lawyer calls ‘low grade’ parenting problems, which would have merited support, they were aghast when the issue of weight was seized on as a major concern.
A council report at the time said: ‘With the exception of [one of the names], the children are all overweight. Advice has been given regarding diet but there has been no improvement. Appointments with the dietician have been missed.’
At that point their then 12-year-old son weighed 16 stone; his 11-year-old sister weighed 12 stone; and his three-year-old sister weighed four stone. It is not known how much the four younger children weigh now.
The couple were ordered to send their children to dance and football lessons and were given a three-month deadline to bring down their weight. When that failed, the children were placed in foster homes but were allowed to visit their parents.
After the couple objected to this arrangement, the council agreed to move them into a two-bedroom flat in a supported unit run by the Dundee Families Project. They insisted on the couple living with only three of their children at a time.
At meal times, a social worker stood in the room taking notes. Doctors raised concerns that the children put on weight whenever they spent time with their parents, a claim they vehemently denied.
The couple and their children also had to adhere to a strict 11pm curfew. This involved ‘clocking’ in and out by filling in a sheet held by an employee who lived on site.
Although the children’s weight was the major concern, other allegations were included in a report. It showed that social workers were worried when the youngest child was found crawling unsupervised. The parents point out they were never far away and the flat had no stairs.
They also found her ‘attempting to put dangerous objects’ in her mouth. The family say this is natural in toddlers and she was never successful.
To have a social worker stand and watch you eat is intolerable. I want other families to know what can happen once social workers become involved. We will fight them to the end to get our beloved children back.
Social workers were further worried when she crawled through the contents of an upturned ashtray – an ‘unfortunate one-off incident’, claim the parents. All the concerns were dismissed by the family’s legal team as ‘low grade’ problems.
It is understood the father crumbled under the strain of being so closely monitored in January this year and moved into a council flat elsewhere in the city.
In the next few months, the mother breached the lunch and dinner meal observations, by her own admission, on ‘several’ occasions while taking the children to see their father.
She personally never broke the 11pm curfew but once allowed her seven-year-old daughter to remain at her father’s flat after she fell asleep. She did not want to disturb her and argued the child had ‘two parents, not one’ and was in ‘good hands’.
These breaches led staff to declare the trial a failure and the mother was asked to leave the unit in April this year. She moved in to her husband’s flat but the children were then handed over to foster parents.
Her solicitor said he planned to use independent experts to prove that the children want to live with their parents and have been damaged by the social workers’ intervention. He added: ‘We may ultimately look towards human rights laws.’
The father, aged 56, said: ‘We have tried very hard to do everything that was asked of us. My wife has cooked healthy foods like home-made spaghetti bolognese and mince and potatoes; we’ve cut out snacks and only ever allowed the kids sweets on a Saturday. But nothing we’ve done has ever been enough.
‘The pressure of living in the family unit would have broken anyone. We were being treated like children and cut off from the outside world. To have a social worker stand and watch you eat is intolerable. I want other families to know what can happen once social workers become involved. We will fight them to the end to get our beloved children back.’
It is estimated 26 million British adults will be obese by 2030, with obesity levels running at an all-time high among children. Official statistics show those who are overweight spend 50 per cent more time in hospital, placing extra strain on the NHS.
Tam Fry, honorary chairman of the Child Growth Foundation, said: ‘This is a disgrace. These parents have clearly attempted to comply. They have, if you like, played Dundee City Council’s game and yet they are still losing their children.’
Dundee City Council said: ‘The council always acts in the best interests of children, with their welfare and safety in mind.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033486/Your-children-fat-again.html#ixzz1XH2OwQIX
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Who wins: TSA or a Mom?
Read the original here. Money parts:
1. “(She) told me in a very stearn voice with quite a bit of attitude that they were not going through that X-ray,” Sabrina Birge, an airport security officer, told police. (TSA officers can't handle a person with a stern voice? I'm so glad that they're so well equipped to handle confrontation)
2. At one point, Abbott tried unsuccessfully to take a video with her cellphone. (I wonder why it was unsuccessful...)
Police charge mother in Nashville airport altercation
Woman refused to let officers screen daughter
5:42 AM, Jul. 13, 2011
1. “(She) told me in a very stearn voice with quite a bit of attitude that they were not going through that X-ray,” Sabrina Birge, an airport security officer, told police. (TSA officers can't handle a person with a stern voice? I'm so glad that they're so well equipped to handle confrontation)
2. At one point, Abbott tried unsuccessfully to take a video with her cellphone. (I wonder why it was unsuccessful...)
Police charge mother in Nashville airport altercation
Woman refused to let officers screen daughter
5:42 AM, Jul. 13, 2011
A 41-year-old Clarksville woman was arrested after Nashville airport authorities say she was belligerent and verbally abusive to security officers, refusing for her daughter to be patted down at a security checkpoint.
Andrea Fornella Abbott yelled and swore at Transportation Security Administration agents Saturday afternoon at Nashville International Airport, saying she did not want her daughter to be “touched inappropriately or have her “crotch grabbed,” a police report states.
After the woman refused to calm down, airport police said, she was charged with disorderly conduct and taken to jail. She has been released on bond.
Attempts to reach Abbott on Tuesday were unsuccessful. The report does not list her daughter’s age. The mother and daughter were traveling from Nashville to Baltimore on Southwest Airlines.
“(She) told me in a very stearn voice with quite a bit of attitude that they were not going through that X-ray,” Sabrina Birge, an airport security officer, told police.
“No, it’s not an X-ray,” she told Abbott. “It is 10,000 times safer than your cell phone and uses the same type of radio waves as a sonogram.”
“I still don’t want someone to see our bodies naked,” Abbott said, according to the police report.
At one point, Abbott tried unsuccessfully to take a video with her cellphone.
Andrea Fornella Abbott yelled and swore at Transportation Security Administration agents Saturday afternoon at Nashville International Airport, saying she did not want her daughter to be “touched inappropriately or have her “crotch grabbed,” a police report states.
After the woman refused to calm down, airport police said, she was charged with disorderly conduct and taken to jail. She has been released on bond.
Attempts to reach Abbott on Tuesday were unsuccessful. The report does not list her daughter’s age. The mother and daughter were traveling from Nashville to Baltimore on Southwest Airlines.
“(She) told me in a very stearn voice with quite a bit of attitude that they were not going through that X-ray,” Sabrina Birge, an airport security officer, told police.
“No, it’s not an X-ray,” she told Abbott. “It is 10,000 times safer than your cell phone and uses the same type of radio waves as a sonogram.”
“I still don’t want someone to see our bodies naked,” Abbott said, according to the police report.
At one point, Abbott tried unsuccessfully to take a video with her cellphone.
TSA policy revised
The arrest comes on the heels of public outrage over a video showing a pat-down of a 6-year-old girl at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport. The April video prompted a new policy that took effect last month in which airport security screeners must try to avoid invasive pat-down searches of children.
TSA says it will instruct screeners how to make repeated attempts to screen young children without invasive pat-downs. The instructions should reduce the number of pat-downs on children, TSA says.
Contact Erin Quinn at 726-5986 or equinn@tennessean.com.
The arrest comes on the heels of public outrage over a video showing a pat-down of a 6-year-old girl at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport. The April video prompted a new policy that took effect last month in which airport security screeners must try to avoid invasive pat-down searches of children.
TSA says it will instruct screeners how to make repeated attempts to screen young children without invasive pat-downs. The instructions should reduce the number of pat-downs on children, TSA says.
Contact Erin Quinn at 726-5986 or equinn@tennessean.com.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Spanking: Discipline or Child Abuse?
Read the original here.
Texas Mother Punished For Spanking Daughter
CORPUS CHRISTI, TX - Sentenced for spanking -- a mother from Corpus Christi, Texas, gets 5 years probation and a fine. In December, police arrested Rosalina Gonzales for spanking her daughter. The child was almost two years old. Her daughter's grandmother noticed red marks on the child's rear end and took her to the hospital to be checked out.
Gonzales was in court Wednesday to plead guilty to the charge after reaching an agreement with prosecutors.
She'll be on probation for five years and will have to take parenting classes, follow all CPS guidelines, and make a one-time $50 payment to the Children's Advocacy Center.
"You don't spank children today. In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don't spank children. You understand?" the judge told Gonzales.
Gonzales does not have custody of the child or her other two children.
She is working with CPS to get them back, but until the state feels that she is ready, the kids will remain with their paternal grandmother.
Is spanking abuse? We want to know what you think! Do you agree with the judge's decision? Leave us a comment below!
Read more: http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpps/news/texas/texas-mother-spanking-6-17-2011_13735817#ixzz1PvRUs9iu
Texas Mother Punished For Spanking Daughter
CORPUS CHRISTI, TX - Sentenced for spanking -- a mother from Corpus Christi, Texas, gets 5 years probation and a fine. In December, police arrested Rosalina Gonzales for spanking her daughter. The child was almost two years old. Her daughter's grandmother noticed red marks on the child's rear end and took her to the hospital to be checked out.
Gonzales was in court Wednesday to plead guilty to the charge after reaching an agreement with prosecutors.
She'll be on probation for five years and will have to take parenting classes, follow all CPS guidelines, and make a one-time $50 payment to the Children's Advocacy Center.
"You don't spank children today. In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don't spank children. You understand?" the judge told Gonzales.
Gonzales does not have custody of the child or her other two children.
She is working with CPS to get them back, but until the state feels that she is ready, the kids will remain with their paternal grandmother.
Is spanking abuse? We want to know what you think! Do you agree with the judge's decision? Leave us a comment below!
Read more: http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpps/news/texas/texas-mother-spanking-6-17-2011_13735817#ixzz1PvRUs9iu
Thursday, June 2, 2011
UK boys not allowed to play pretend soldiers
What do you think? Overreaching political correctness or effective anti-threatening measures. I wonder what they would have said about me, when I was making swords and nunchaku as a kid. Read the original here.
Boys, 7, Told Army Game ‘Threatens’
The lads were spotted making gun shapes with their hands.
Staff also told the pupils' parents to reprimand them. The dad of one of the boys said: "This is ridiculous. How can you tell a seven-year-old boy he can't play guns and armies with his friends.
"We were told to tell our son he cannot play 'guns' anymore.
"The teacher said the boys should be reprimanded for threatening behaviour, which would not be tolerated at the school." The boys attend Nathaniel Newton Infants in Nuneaton, Warwicks.
Local Tory MP Marcus Jones said: "It is quite apparent the boys would be playing an innocent game.
"This is political correctness gone mad. When I was that age that type of game was commonplace and I don't remember anyone coming to any harm from it." The school defended its actions. It said the boys indulged in "unacceptable behaviour" by making gun gestures to members of staff.
A spokesman said: "Far from stopping children from playing we actively encourage it.
"However a judgment call has to be made if playing turns into unacceptable behaviour."
References
^ j.coles@the-sun.co.uk (www.thesun.co.uk)
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3609208/Boys-7-told-army-game-threatens.html#ixzz1O92HxUSt
Boys, 7, Told Army Game ‘Threatens’
The lads were spotted making gun shapes with their hands.
Staff also told the pupils' parents to reprimand them. The dad of one of the boys said: "This is ridiculous. How can you tell a seven-year-old boy he can't play guns and armies with his friends.
"We were told to tell our son he cannot play 'guns' anymore.
"The teacher said the boys should be reprimanded for threatening behaviour, which would not be tolerated at the school." The boys attend Nathaniel Newton Infants in Nuneaton, Warwicks.
Local Tory MP Marcus Jones said: "It is quite apparent the boys would be playing an innocent game.
"This is political correctness gone mad. When I was that age that type of game was commonplace and I don't remember anyone coming to any harm from it." The school defended its actions. It said the boys indulged in "unacceptable behaviour" by making gun gestures to members of staff.
A spokesman said: "Far from stopping children from playing we actively encourage it.
"However a judgment call has to be made if playing turns into unacceptable behaviour."
References
^ j.coles@the-sun.co.uk (www.thesun.co.uk)
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3609208/Boys-7-told-army-game-threatens.html#ixzz1O92HxUSt
Monday, May 23, 2011
I have no words....
Read the original here....because I can't make this up.
Parents Keep Child's Gender Secret
JAYME POISSON/TORONTO STAR
STAFF REPORTER
“So it’s a boy, right?” a neighbour calls out as Kathy Witterick walks by, her four month old baby, Storm, strapped to her chest in a carrier.
See more family photos. [2]
Each week the woman asks the same question about the baby with the squishy cheeks and feathery blond hair.
Witterick smiles, opens her arms wide, comments on the sunny spring day, and keeps walking.
She’s used to it. The neighbours know Witterick and her husband, David Stocker, are raising a genderless baby. But they don’t pretend to understand it.
While there’s nothing ambiguous about Storm’s genitalia, they aren’t telling anyone whether their third child is a boy or a girl.
The only people who know are Storm’s brothers, Jazz, 5, and Kio, 2, a close family friend and the two midwives who helped deliver the baby in a birthing pool at their Toronto home on New Year’s Day.
“When the baby comes out, even the people who love you the most and know you so intimately, the first question they ask is, ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’” says Witterick, bouncing Storm, dressed in a red-fleece jumper, on her lap at the kitchen table.
“If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs,” says Stocker.
When Storm was born, the couple sent an email to friends and family: “We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...).”
Their announcement was met with stony silence. Then the deluge of criticisms began. Not just about Storm, but about how they were parenting their other two children.
The grandparents were supportive, but resented explaining the gender-free baby to friends and co-workers. They worried the children would be ridiculed. Friends said they were imposing their political and ideological values on a newborn. Most of all, people said they were setting their kids up for a life of bullying in a world that can be cruel to outsiders.
Witterick and Stocker believe they are giving their children the freedom to choose who they want to be, unconstrained by social norms about males and females. Some say their choice is alienating.
In an age where helicopter parents hover nervously over their kids micromanaging their lives, and tiger moms ferociously push their progeny to get into Harvard, Stocker, 39, and Witterick, 38, believe kids can make meaningful decisions for themselves from a very early age.
“What we noticed is that parents make so many choices for their children. It’s obnoxious,” says Stocker.
Jazz and Kio have picked out their own clothes in the boys and girls sections of stores since they were 18 months old. Just this week, Jazz unearthed a pink dress at Value Village, which he loves because it “really poofs out at the bottom. It feels so nice.” The boys decide whether to cut their hair or let it grow.
Like all mothers and fathers, Witterick and Stocker struggle with parenting decisions. The boys are encouraged to challenge how they’re expected to look and act based on their sex.
“We thought that if we delayed sharing that information, in this case hopefully, we might knock off a couple million of those messages by the time that Storm decides Storm would like to share,” says Witterick.
They don’t want to isolate their kids from the world, but, when it’s meaningful, talk about gender.
This past winter, the family took a vacation to Cuba with Witterick’s parents. Since they weren’t fluent in Spanish, they flipped a coin at the airport to decide what to tell people. It landed on heads, so for the next week, everyone who asked was told Storm was a boy. The language changed immediately. “What a big, strong boy,” people said.
The moment a child’s sex is announced, so begins the parade of pink and barrage of blue. Tutus and toy trucks aren’t far behind. The couple says it only intensifies with age.
“In fact, in not telling the gender of my precious baby, I am saying to the world, ‘Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what s (he) wants to be?!.” Witterick writes in an email.
Stocker teaches at City View Alternative, a tiny school west of Dufferin Grove Park, with four teachers and about 60 Grade 7 and 8 students whose lessons are framed by social-justice issues around class, race and gender.
When Kio was a baby, the family travelled through the mountains of Mexico, speaking with the Zapatistas, a revolutionary group who shun mainstream politics as corrupt and demand greater indigenous rights. In 1994, about 150 people died in violent clashes with the Mexican military, but the leftist movement has been largely peaceful since.
Last year, they spent two weeks in Cuba, living with local families and learning about the revolution. Witterick has worked in violence prevention, giving workshops to teachers. These days, she volunteers, offering breastfeeding support. At the moment, she is a full-time mom.
Both come from liberal families. Stocker grew up listening to Free to Be ... You and Me, a 1972 record with a central message of gender neutrality. Witterick remembers her brother mucking around with gender as a teen in the ’80s, wearing lipstick and carrying handbags like David Bowie and Mick Jagger.
The family lives in a cream-coloured two-storey brick home in the city’s Junction Triangle neighbourhood. Their front porch is crammed with bicycles, including Kio’s pink and purple tricycle. Inside, it’s organized clutter. The children's arts and crafts projects are stacked in the bookcases, maps hang on the walls and furniture is well-used and of a certain vintage.
Upstairs they co-sleep curled up on two mattresses pushed together on the floor of the master bedroom, under a heap of mismatched pillows and blankets. During the day, the kids build forts with the pillows and pretend to walk a tightrope between the mattresses.
On a recent Tuesday, the boys finish making paper animal puppets and a handmade sign to celebrate their dad’s birthday. “I love to do laundry with dad,” reads one message. They nuzzle Storm, splayed out on the floor. The baby squeals with delight.
Witterick practices unschooling, an offshoot of home-schooling centred on the belief that learning should be driven by a child’s curiosity. There are no report cards, no textbooks and no tests. For unschoolers, learning is about exploring and asking questions, “not something that happens by rote from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. weekdays in a building with a group of same-age people, planned, implemented and assessed by someone else,” says Witterick. The fringe movement is growing. An unschooling conference in Toronto drew dozens of families last fall.
The kids have a lot of say in how their day unfolds. They decide if they want to squish through the mud, chase garter snakes in the park or bake cupcakes.
Jazz — soft-spoken, with a slight frame and curious brown eyes — keeps his hair long, preferring to wear it in three braids, two in the front and one in the back, even though both his parents have close-cropped hair. His favourite colour is pink, although his parents don’t own a piece of pink clothing between them. He loves to paint his fingernails and wears a sparkly pink stud in one ear, despite the fact his parents wear no nail polish or jewelry.
Kio keeps his curly blond hair just below his chin. The 2-year-old loves purple, although he’s happiest in any kind of pyjama pants.
“As a result, Jazz and now Kio are almost exclusively assumed to be girls,” says Stocker, adding he and Witterick don’t out them. It’s the boys’ choice whether they want to offer a correction.
On a recent trip to High Park, Jazz, wearing pink shorts, patterned pink socks and brightly coloured elastics on his braids, runs and skips across the street.
“That’s a princess!” says a smiling crossing guard, ushering the little boy along. “And that’s a princess, too,” she says again, pointing at Kio with her big red sign.
Jazz doesn’t mind. One of his favourite books is 10,000 Dresses, the story of a boy who loves to dress up. But he doesn’t like being called a girl. Recently, he asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he’s a boy.
Jazz was old enough for school last September, but chose to stay home. “When we would go and visit programs, people — children and adults — would immediately react with Jazz over his gender,” says Witterick, adding the conversation would gravitate to his choice of pink or his hairstyle.
That’s mostly why he doesn’t want to go to school. When asked if it upsets him, he nods, but doesn’t say more.
Instead he grabs a handmade portfolio filled with his drawings and poems. In its pages is a booklet written under his pseudonym, the “Gender Explorer.” In purple and pink lettering, adorned with butterflies, it reads: “Help girls do boy things. Help boys do girl things. Let your kid be whoever they are!”
Storm was named after whipped winds and dark rain clouds, because they are beautiful and transformative.
“When I was pregnant, it was really this intense time around Jazz having experiences with gender and I was feeling like I needed some good parenting skills to support him through that,” says Witterick.
It began as a offhand remark. “Hey, what if we just didn’t tell?” And then Stocker found a book in his school library called X: A Fabulous Child’s Story by Lois Gould. The book, published in 1978, is about raising not a boy or a girl, but X. There’s a happy ending here. Little X — who loved to play football and weave baskets — faces the taunting head on, proving that X is the most well-adjusted child ever examined by “an impartial team of Xperts.”
“It became so compelling it was almost like, How could we not?” says Witterick.
There are days when their decisions are tiring, shackling even. “We spend more time than we should providing explanations for why we do things this way,” says Witterick. “I regret that (Jazz) has to discuss his gender before people ask him meaningful questions about what he does and sees in this world, but I don't think I am responsible for that — the culture that narrowly defines what he should do, wear and look like is.”
Longtime friend Ayal Dinner, 35, a father two young boys, was surprised to hear the couple’s announcement when Storm was born, but is supportive.
“I think it’s amazing that they’re willing to take on challenging people in this way,” says Dinner. “While they are political and ideological about these things, they’re also really thinking about what it means and struggling with it as they go along.”
Dinner understands why people may find it extreme. “Although I can see the criticism of ‘This is going to be hard on my kid,’ it’s great to say, ‘I love my kid for whoever they are.’”
On a recent trip to Hamilton, Jazz was out of earshot when family friend Denise Hansen overheard two little girls at the park say they didn’t want to play with a “girl-boy.” Then, there was the time a saleswoman at a second-hand shop refused to sell him a pink feather boa. “Surely you won't buy it for him — he's a boy!” said the woman. Shocked, and not wanting to upset Jazz, Witterick left the store.
Parents talk about the moment they realize they would throw themselves in front of a speeding truck to save their child from harm, yet battle the instinct to overprotect. They want to encourage independence. They hope people won’t be mean. They pray they aren’t bullied. No parent would ever wish that for their child.
On a night after she watched her husband of 11 years and the boys play with sparklers after dark, Witterick, in a reflective mood, writes to say we are all mocked at some point for the way we look, the way we dress and the way we think.
“When faced with inevitable judgment by others, which child stands tall (and sticks up for others) — the one facing teasing despite desperately trying to fit in, or the one with a strong sense of self and at least two 'go-to' adults who love them unconditionally? Well, I guess you know which one we choose.”
Diane Ehrensaft is a California-based psychologist and mother of Jesse, a “girlyboy” who turned his trucks into cradles and preferred porcelain dolls over soldiers when he was a child. Her newly published book, Gender Born, Gender Made, is a guide for parents of nonconforming kids.
She believes parents should support gender-creative children, which includes the transgendered, who feel born in the wrong bodies, and gender hybrids, who feel they are part girl and part boy. Then there are gender “smoothies,” who have a blended sense of gender that is purely “them.”
Ehrensaft believes there is something innate about gender, and points to the ’70s, when parents experimented by giving dolls to boys and trucks to girls.
“It only worked up to a certain extent. Some girls never played with the trucks, some boys weren’t interested in ballet ... It was a humbling experiment for us because we learned we don’t have the control that we thought we did.”
But she worries by not divulging Storm’s sex, the parents are denying the child a way to position himself or herself in a world where you are either male, female or in between. In effect they have created another category: Other than other. And that could marginalize the child.
“I believe that it puts restrictions on this particular baby so that in this culture this baby will be a singular person who is not being given an opportunity to find their true gender self, based on also what’s inside them.”
Ehrensaft gets the “What the heck?!” reaction people may have when they hear about Storm. “I think it probably makes people feel played with to have that information withheld from them.”
While she accepts and supports Jazz’s freedom “to be who he is,” she’s concerned about asking two small boys to keep a secret about the baby of the family. “For very young children, just in their brains, they’re not ready to do the kind of sophisticated discernment we do about when a secret is necessary.”
Jazz says it’s not difficult. He usually just calls the baby Storm.
Dr. Ken Zucker, considered a world expert on gender identity and head of the gender identity service for children at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, calls this a “social experiment of nurture.” The broader question, he says, is how much influence parents have on their kids. If Ehrensaft leans toward nature, Zucker puts more emphasis on nurture. Even when parents don’t make a choice, that’s still a choice, and one that can impact the children.
When asked what psychological harm, if any, could come from keeping the sex of a child secret, Zucker said: “One will find out.”
The couple plan to keep Storm’s sex a secret as long as Storm, Kio and Jazz are comfortable with it. In the meantime, philosophy and reality continue to collide.
Out with the kids all day, Witterick doesn’t have the time or the will to hide in a closet every time she changes Storm’s diaper. “If (people) want to peek, that’s their journey,” she says.
There are questions about which bathroom Storm will use, but that is a couple of years off. Then there is the “tyranny of pronouns,” as they call it. They considered referring to Storm as “Z”. Witterick now calls the baby she, imagining the “s” in brackets.
For the moment, it feels right.
“Everyone keeps asking us, ‘When will this end?’” says Witterick. “And we always turn the question back. Yeah, when will this end? When will we live in a world where people can make choices to be whoever they are?”
jpoisson@thestar.ca[3]
References
^ Comments on this story (www.parentcentral.ca)
^ See more family photos. (photogallery.thestar.com)
^ jpoisson@thestar.ca (www.parentcentral.ca)
Parents Keep Child's Gender Secret
JAYME POISSON/TORONTO STAR
STAFF REPORTER
“So it’s a boy, right?” a neighbour calls out as Kathy Witterick walks by, her four month old baby, Storm, strapped to her chest in a carrier.
See more family photos. [2]
Each week the woman asks the same question about the baby with the squishy cheeks and feathery blond hair.
Witterick smiles, opens her arms wide, comments on the sunny spring day, and keeps walking.
She’s used to it. The neighbours know Witterick and her husband, David Stocker, are raising a genderless baby. But they don’t pretend to understand it.
While there’s nothing ambiguous about Storm’s genitalia, they aren’t telling anyone whether their third child is a boy or a girl.
The only people who know are Storm’s brothers, Jazz, 5, and Kio, 2, a close family friend and the two midwives who helped deliver the baby in a birthing pool at their Toronto home on New Year’s Day.
“When the baby comes out, even the people who love you the most and know you so intimately, the first question they ask is, ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’” says Witterick, bouncing Storm, dressed in a red-fleece jumper, on her lap at the kitchen table.
“If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs,” says Stocker.
When Storm was born, the couple sent an email to friends and family: “We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...).”
Their announcement was met with stony silence. Then the deluge of criticisms began. Not just about Storm, but about how they were parenting their other two children.
The grandparents were supportive, but resented explaining the gender-free baby to friends and co-workers. They worried the children would be ridiculed. Friends said they were imposing their political and ideological values on a newborn. Most of all, people said they were setting their kids up for a life of bullying in a world that can be cruel to outsiders.
Witterick and Stocker believe they are giving their children the freedom to choose who they want to be, unconstrained by social norms about males and females. Some say their choice is alienating.
In an age where helicopter parents hover nervously over their kids micromanaging their lives, and tiger moms ferociously push their progeny to get into Harvard, Stocker, 39, and Witterick, 38, believe kids can make meaningful decisions for themselves from a very early age.
“What we noticed is that parents make so many choices for their children. It’s obnoxious,” says Stocker.
Jazz and Kio have picked out their own clothes in the boys and girls sections of stores since they were 18 months old. Just this week, Jazz unearthed a pink dress at Value Village, which he loves because it “really poofs out at the bottom. It feels so nice.” The boys decide whether to cut their hair or let it grow.
Like all mothers and fathers, Witterick and Stocker struggle with parenting decisions. The boys are encouraged to challenge how they’re expected to look and act based on their sex.
“We thought that if we delayed sharing that information, in this case hopefully, we might knock off a couple million of those messages by the time that Storm decides Storm would like to share,” says Witterick.
They don’t want to isolate their kids from the world, but, when it’s meaningful, talk about gender.
This past winter, the family took a vacation to Cuba with Witterick’s parents. Since they weren’t fluent in Spanish, they flipped a coin at the airport to decide what to tell people. It landed on heads, so for the next week, everyone who asked was told Storm was a boy. The language changed immediately. “What a big, strong boy,” people said.
The moment a child’s sex is announced, so begins the parade of pink and barrage of blue. Tutus and toy trucks aren’t far behind. The couple says it only intensifies with age.
“In fact, in not telling the gender of my precious baby, I am saying to the world, ‘Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what s (he) wants to be?!.” Witterick writes in an email.
Stocker teaches at City View Alternative, a tiny school west of Dufferin Grove Park, with four teachers and about 60 Grade 7 and 8 students whose lessons are framed by social-justice issues around class, race and gender.
When Kio was a baby, the family travelled through the mountains of Mexico, speaking with the Zapatistas, a revolutionary group who shun mainstream politics as corrupt and demand greater indigenous rights. In 1994, about 150 people died in violent clashes with the Mexican military, but the leftist movement has been largely peaceful since.
Last year, they spent two weeks in Cuba, living with local families and learning about the revolution. Witterick has worked in violence prevention, giving workshops to teachers. These days, she volunteers, offering breastfeeding support. At the moment, she is a full-time mom.
Both come from liberal families. Stocker grew up listening to Free to Be ... You and Me, a 1972 record with a central message of gender neutrality. Witterick remembers her brother mucking around with gender as a teen in the ’80s, wearing lipstick and carrying handbags like David Bowie and Mick Jagger.
The family lives in a cream-coloured two-storey brick home in the city’s Junction Triangle neighbourhood. Their front porch is crammed with bicycles, including Kio’s pink and purple tricycle. Inside, it’s organized clutter. The children's arts and crafts projects are stacked in the bookcases, maps hang on the walls and furniture is well-used and of a certain vintage.
Upstairs they co-sleep curled up on two mattresses pushed together on the floor of the master bedroom, under a heap of mismatched pillows and blankets. During the day, the kids build forts with the pillows and pretend to walk a tightrope between the mattresses.
On a recent Tuesday, the boys finish making paper animal puppets and a handmade sign to celebrate their dad’s birthday. “I love to do laundry with dad,” reads one message. They nuzzle Storm, splayed out on the floor. The baby squeals with delight.
Witterick practices unschooling, an offshoot of home-schooling centred on the belief that learning should be driven by a child’s curiosity. There are no report cards, no textbooks and no tests. For unschoolers, learning is about exploring and asking questions, “not something that happens by rote from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. weekdays in a building with a group of same-age people, planned, implemented and assessed by someone else,” says Witterick. The fringe movement is growing. An unschooling conference in Toronto drew dozens of families last fall.
The kids have a lot of say in how their day unfolds. They decide if they want to squish through the mud, chase garter snakes in the park or bake cupcakes.
Jazz — soft-spoken, with a slight frame and curious brown eyes — keeps his hair long, preferring to wear it in three braids, two in the front and one in the back, even though both his parents have close-cropped hair. His favourite colour is pink, although his parents don’t own a piece of pink clothing between them. He loves to paint his fingernails and wears a sparkly pink stud in one ear, despite the fact his parents wear no nail polish or jewelry.
Kio keeps his curly blond hair just below his chin. The 2-year-old loves purple, although he’s happiest in any kind of pyjama pants.
“As a result, Jazz and now Kio are almost exclusively assumed to be girls,” says Stocker, adding he and Witterick don’t out them. It’s the boys’ choice whether they want to offer a correction.
On a recent trip to High Park, Jazz, wearing pink shorts, patterned pink socks and brightly coloured elastics on his braids, runs and skips across the street.
“That’s a princess!” says a smiling crossing guard, ushering the little boy along. “And that’s a princess, too,” she says again, pointing at Kio with her big red sign.
Jazz doesn’t mind. One of his favourite books is 10,000 Dresses, the story of a boy who loves to dress up. But he doesn’t like being called a girl. Recently, he asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he’s a boy.
Jazz was old enough for school last September, but chose to stay home. “When we would go and visit programs, people — children and adults — would immediately react with Jazz over his gender,” says Witterick, adding the conversation would gravitate to his choice of pink or his hairstyle.
That’s mostly why he doesn’t want to go to school. When asked if it upsets him, he nods, but doesn’t say more.
Instead he grabs a handmade portfolio filled with his drawings and poems. In its pages is a booklet written under his pseudonym, the “Gender Explorer.” In purple and pink lettering, adorned with butterflies, it reads: “Help girls do boy things. Help boys do girl things. Let your kid be whoever they are!”
Storm was named after whipped winds and dark rain clouds, because they are beautiful and transformative.
“When I was pregnant, it was really this intense time around Jazz having experiences with gender and I was feeling like I needed some good parenting skills to support him through that,” says Witterick.
It began as a offhand remark. “Hey, what if we just didn’t tell?” And then Stocker found a book in his school library called X: A Fabulous Child’s Story by Lois Gould. The book, published in 1978, is about raising not a boy or a girl, but X. There’s a happy ending here. Little X — who loved to play football and weave baskets — faces the taunting head on, proving that X is the most well-adjusted child ever examined by “an impartial team of Xperts.”
“It became so compelling it was almost like, How could we not?” says Witterick.
There are days when their decisions are tiring, shackling even. “We spend more time than we should providing explanations for why we do things this way,” says Witterick. “I regret that (Jazz) has to discuss his gender before people ask him meaningful questions about what he does and sees in this world, but I don't think I am responsible for that — the culture that narrowly defines what he should do, wear and look like is.”
Longtime friend Ayal Dinner, 35, a father two young boys, was surprised to hear the couple’s announcement when Storm was born, but is supportive.
“I think it’s amazing that they’re willing to take on challenging people in this way,” says Dinner. “While they are political and ideological about these things, they’re also really thinking about what it means and struggling with it as they go along.”
Dinner understands why people may find it extreme. “Although I can see the criticism of ‘This is going to be hard on my kid,’ it’s great to say, ‘I love my kid for whoever they are.’”
On a recent trip to Hamilton, Jazz was out of earshot when family friend Denise Hansen overheard two little girls at the park say they didn’t want to play with a “girl-boy.” Then, there was the time a saleswoman at a second-hand shop refused to sell him a pink feather boa. “Surely you won't buy it for him — he's a boy!” said the woman. Shocked, and not wanting to upset Jazz, Witterick left the store.
Parents talk about the moment they realize they would throw themselves in front of a speeding truck to save their child from harm, yet battle the instinct to overprotect. They want to encourage independence. They hope people won’t be mean. They pray they aren’t bullied. No parent would ever wish that for their child.
On a night after she watched her husband of 11 years and the boys play with sparklers after dark, Witterick, in a reflective mood, writes to say we are all mocked at some point for the way we look, the way we dress and the way we think.
“When faced with inevitable judgment by others, which child stands tall (and sticks up for others) — the one facing teasing despite desperately trying to fit in, or the one with a strong sense of self and at least two 'go-to' adults who love them unconditionally? Well, I guess you know which one we choose.”
Diane Ehrensaft is a California-based psychologist and mother of Jesse, a “girlyboy” who turned his trucks into cradles and preferred porcelain dolls over soldiers when he was a child. Her newly published book, Gender Born, Gender Made, is a guide for parents of nonconforming kids.
She believes parents should support gender-creative children, which includes the transgendered, who feel born in the wrong bodies, and gender hybrids, who feel they are part girl and part boy. Then there are gender “smoothies,” who have a blended sense of gender that is purely “them.”
Ehrensaft believes there is something innate about gender, and points to the ’70s, when parents experimented by giving dolls to boys and trucks to girls.
“It only worked up to a certain extent. Some girls never played with the trucks, some boys weren’t interested in ballet ... It was a humbling experiment for us because we learned we don’t have the control that we thought we did.”
But she worries by not divulging Storm’s sex, the parents are denying the child a way to position himself or herself in a world where you are either male, female or in between. In effect they have created another category: Other than other. And that could marginalize the child.
“I believe that it puts restrictions on this particular baby so that in this culture this baby will be a singular person who is not being given an opportunity to find their true gender self, based on also what’s inside them.”
Ehrensaft gets the “What the heck?!” reaction people may have when they hear about Storm. “I think it probably makes people feel played with to have that information withheld from them.”
While she accepts and supports Jazz’s freedom “to be who he is,” she’s concerned about asking two small boys to keep a secret about the baby of the family. “For very young children, just in their brains, they’re not ready to do the kind of sophisticated discernment we do about when a secret is necessary.”
Jazz says it’s not difficult. He usually just calls the baby Storm.
Dr. Ken Zucker, considered a world expert on gender identity and head of the gender identity service for children at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, calls this a “social experiment of nurture.” The broader question, he says, is how much influence parents have on their kids. If Ehrensaft leans toward nature, Zucker puts more emphasis on nurture. Even when parents don’t make a choice, that’s still a choice, and one that can impact the children.
When asked what psychological harm, if any, could come from keeping the sex of a child secret, Zucker said: “One will find out.”
The couple plan to keep Storm’s sex a secret as long as Storm, Kio and Jazz are comfortable with it. In the meantime, philosophy and reality continue to collide.
Out with the kids all day, Witterick doesn’t have the time or the will to hide in a closet every time she changes Storm’s diaper. “If (people) want to peek, that’s their journey,” she says.
There are questions about which bathroom Storm will use, but that is a couple of years off. Then there is the “tyranny of pronouns,” as they call it. They considered referring to Storm as “Z”. Witterick now calls the baby she, imagining the “s” in brackets.
For the moment, it feels right.
“Everyone keeps asking us, ‘When will this end?’” says Witterick. “And we always turn the question back. Yeah, when will this end? When will we live in a world where people can make choices to be whoever they are?”
jpoisson@thestar.ca[3]
References
^ Comments on this story (www.parentcentral.ca)
^ See more family photos. (photogallery.thestar.com)
^ jpoisson@thestar.ca (www.parentcentral.ca)
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
At least they changed their minds...
Read the original here.
NY Backs Off Rules On Kickball, Tag At Day Camps
ALBANY, N.Y. – New York state health officials have yanked a set of proposed guidelines for what were initially deemed risky day camp games like tag, Red Rover and kickball.
Health department spokeswoman Claudia Hutton says the rules and lists of games and activities were sent out to municipalities and other camp operators under the previous administration.
She says that after a review spurred by a lawmaker's questions Friday and subsequent news reports, they've been judged too detailed and amount to micromanagement.
Hutton said Tuesday that the department will continue gathering information during a comment period that ends May 16 and will formulate new safety regulations that are broader.
The regulations are required under a 2009 rule meant to close a loophole in the law that allowed indoor day camps to operate without the same state oversight applied to outdoor day camps.
NY Backs Off Rules On Kickball, Tag At Day Camps
ALBANY, N.Y. – New York state health officials have yanked a set of proposed guidelines for what were initially deemed risky day camp games like tag, Red Rover and kickball.
Health department spokeswoman Claudia Hutton says the rules and lists of games and activities were sent out to municipalities and other camp operators under the previous administration.
She says that after a review spurred by a lawmaker's questions Friday and subsequent news reports, they've been judged too detailed and amount to micromanagement.
Hutton said Tuesday that the department will continue gathering information during a comment period that ends May 16 and will formulate new safety regulations that are broader.
The regulations are required under a 2009 rule meant to close a loophole in the law that allowed indoor day camps to operate without the same state oversight applied to outdoor day camps.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Those pointy teeth you grow? Yeah, they're called canines, guess what they're for...
Read the original here.
French Vegans In Dock Over Baby's Death
Two vegans who fed their 11-month-old daughter only mother's milk[1] went on trial in northern France[2]on Tuesday charged with neglect after their baby died suffering from vitamin deficiency.[3]
Sergine and Joel Le Moaligou,[4] whose vegan diet forbids consuming any animal product including eggs and cow's milk, called the emergency services[5] in March 2008 after becoming worried about their baby Louise's listlessness.
When the ambulance arrived at their home in Saint-Maulvis,[6] a small village 150 kilometres (90 miles) north of Paris,[7] the baby was already dead.
The ambulance workers called the police because the child was pale and thin, weighing 5.7 kilos (12.5 pounds) compared to an average eight kilos for her age.
The baby had only been fed on the milk of her mother, who was aged 37 at the time.
An autopsy showed that Louise was suffering from a vitamin A and B12 deficiency which experts say increases a child's sensitivity to infection and can be due to an unbalanced diet.
"The problem of vitamin B12 deficiency could be linked to the mother's diet," said Anne-Laure Sandretto,[8] deputy prosecutor in the city of Amiens[9] where the trial is taking place.
The couple has been charged with "neglect or food deprivation followed by death" and face up to 30 years in prison if convicted.
Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium
References
^ mother's milk (topics.breitbart.com)
^ France (topics.breitbart.com)
^ vitamin deficiency. (topics.breitbart.com)
^ Joel Le Moaligou, (topics.breitbart.com)
^ emergency services (topics.breitbart.com)
^ Saint-Maulvis, (topics.breitbart.com)
^ Paris, (topics.breitbart.com)
^ Anne-Laure Sandretto, (topics.breitbart.com)
^ Amiens (topics.breitbart.com)
French Vegans In Dock Over Baby's Death
Two vegans who fed their 11-month-old daughter only mother's milk[1] went on trial in northern France[2]on Tuesday charged with neglect after their baby died suffering from vitamin deficiency.[3]
Sergine and Joel Le Moaligou,[4] whose vegan diet forbids consuming any animal product including eggs and cow's milk, called the emergency services[5] in March 2008 after becoming worried about their baby Louise's listlessness.
When the ambulance arrived at their home in Saint-Maulvis,[6] a small village 150 kilometres (90 miles) north of Paris,[7] the baby was already dead.
The ambulance workers called the police because the child was pale and thin, weighing 5.7 kilos (12.5 pounds) compared to an average eight kilos for her age.
The baby had only been fed on the milk of her mother, who was aged 37 at the time.
An autopsy showed that Louise was suffering from a vitamin A and B12 deficiency which experts say increases a child's sensitivity to infection and can be due to an unbalanced diet.
"The problem of vitamin B12 deficiency could be linked to the mother's diet," said Anne-Laure Sandretto,[8] deputy prosecutor in the city of Amiens[9] where the trial is taking place.
The couple has been charged with "neglect or food deprivation followed by death" and face up to 30 years in prison if convicted.
Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium
References
^ mother's milk (topics.breitbart.com)
^ France (topics.breitbart.com)
^ vitamin deficiency. (topics.breitbart.com)
^ Joel Le Moaligou, (topics.breitbart.com)
^ emergency services (topics.breitbart.com)
^ Saint-Maulvis, (topics.breitbart.com)
^ Paris, (topics.breitbart.com)
^ Anne-Laure Sandretto, (topics.breitbart.com)
^ Amiens (topics.breitbart.com)
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Bullying to become a federal crime?
Department of Education would have jurisdiction? Why not just let this happen? Read the original article here.
If taxpayers wonder why federal budgets have ballooned over the last few decades, look no further[3]. Riding the coattails of one of the few issues on which Barack Obama has willingly engaged, a House Democrat has proposed making school bullies a federal jurisdiction:
Of course, that’s ridiculous. Everyone knows that public-employee unions back Democrats.
Seriously, though, what part of this transaction has any federal jurisdiction at all? Not the schools, which operate through local school boards, buried under federal mandates as they are. Not the disabled, whose citizenship does not transcend local communities and states in the manner that military personnel and federal workers might in a legal sense. The bullies are certainly not federally funded. Assaults and batteries are crimes that don’t require federal intervention in other contexts. So why would anyone in Congress propose creating an entirely new federal bureaucracy to tally and track bullies in schools who pick on the disabled, among other kids?
If public schools aren’t competent to deal with these situations, then that is a problem for the school boards, parents, and the community … and a great argument for school vouchers. Meanwhile, Speier’s caucus couldn’t even pass a budget with a 77-seat majority last year in what was their primary jurisdiction. Why should we trust them to take on entirely new jurisdictions? And shouldn’t Congress be focused on budgets before looking for new vistas to expand federal powers anyway?
While the Department of Education continues its crackdown[4] on mean-spirited taunting on Facebook, some members of Congress are joining the fight in Washington’s War on Bullying with a new bill aimed directly at kids who target students with disabilities.Speier’s part of the minority and will have a tough time getting her bill to a floor vote, unless of course Republicans decide to join in on expanding federal authority. And why not? If they do, they get to say that they’re trying to protect the defenseless against victimization. If they don’t, then Speier and her allies in Congress and the media will paint the GOP as heartless, and perhaps secretly indebted to the all-powerfulbullying lobby.
Rep. Jackie Speier, California Democrat, will introduce a bill that would require schools to report incidents of bullying against children diagnosed with conditions like Down syndrome and Aspergers to the federal government. It would also mandate that any federal dollars that promote anti-bullying programs focus partially on that group.
“There is [currently] no requirement that as part of the anti-bullying curriculum, that there be made specific reference to children with special needs. That’s particularly dumb,” Speier said during a briefing on school bullying on Capitol Hill Wednesday. “What I want to do is create an environment where there is zero tolerance. I think that starts first with education and awareness. Then, when behavior is egregious, then people have to be called out on that.”
Of course, that’s ridiculous. Everyone knows that public-employee unions back Democrats.
Seriously, though, what part of this transaction has any federal jurisdiction at all? Not the schools, which operate through local school boards, buried under federal mandates as they are. Not the disabled, whose citizenship does not transcend local communities and states in the manner that military personnel and federal workers might in a legal sense. The bullies are certainly not federally funded. Assaults and batteries are crimes that don’t require federal intervention in other contexts. So why would anyone in Congress propose creating an entirely new federal bureaucracy to tally and track bullies in schools who pick on the disabled, among other kids?
If public schools aren’t competent to deal with these situations, then that is a problem for the school boards, parents, and the community … and a great argument for school vouchers. Meanwhile, Speier’s caucus couldn’t even pass a budget with a 77-seat majority last year in what was their primary jurisdiction. Why should we trust them to take on entirely new jurisdictions? And shouldn’t Congress be focused on budgets before looking for new vistas to expand federal powers anyway?
References
- ^ look no further (news.yahoo.com)
- ^ continues its crackdown (us.rd.yahoo.com)
- ^ look no further (news.yahoo.com)
- ^ continues its crackdown (us.rd.yahoo.com)
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
15 Lessons for Fathers from a Founding Father
Read the original post here.
I first learned of George Washington's "Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior" when one of my favorite journalists, AJ Jacobs, set about trying to live by them. Jacobs went on to live a year according to every rule in the Bible. He read every word of the Encyclopedia Britannica and has done pretty much every stunt one can imagine in the name of immersion journalism. He is, in short, a hero of mine.
So when I was cruising around Amazon.com while on paternity leave and came across President Washington's book, I decided it was worth ordering. It's interesting to see how much attention President Washington put into every aspect of life. From how to place your legs while sitting at a table to several interesting thoughts about how to behave while eating, the rules make clear that George took manners and behavior very seriously. What I was surprised to see was how many of his rules apply to fathers.Here is a smattering:
1. "If you cough, sneeze, sigh or yawn, do it not loud, but privately; and speak not in your yawning, but put your handkerchief or hand before your face and turn aside."
Great advice and a lesson worth teaching our children, especially during cold and flu season.
2. "Put not off your clothes in the presence of others, not go out of your chamber half-dressed."
I can't tell you how many times I've had to tell my three-year-old not to run around naked. And now that I have a daughter, this reminds me of that old Chris Rock bit about a father's job involving keeping his daughter off the pole.
3. "Do not express joy before one sick or in pain, for that contrary passion will aggravate his misery."
I run into this one from time to time, especially when my six-year-old is crying. He's a good kid, but sensitive. And some times he gets upset about something that I find silly, or will look so adorable when he's crying that I have to fight the urge to smile.
4. "When a man does all he can though it succeeds not well blame not him that did it."
It's tough, particularly when you measure yourself against other dads. What did Billy's dad do that made him the star of the basketball team? How is it that Joe's son is potty trained and my kid just peed on the wall? It does no good to compare. Stick with what you can control. Leave the blame for someone else to worry about.
5. "Being to advise or reprehend anyone, consider whether it ought to be in public or private, presently or at some other time, in what terms to do it; and in reproving show no sign of choler, but do it with all sweetness and mildness."
This is the old Walmart-Mom rule. Have you ever been walking around Walmart and come across a parent either physically or verbally reprimanding a child? I hate it when I see that. Every time I see a parent loudly or abusively punish a child in public, I get the cringes. Some things are better done in private. And, in the case of abuse, not at all.
6. "Wherein you reprove another be unblameable [sic] yourself, for example is more prevalent than precepts."
Do as I do - man that's deeper than it seems. As parents, we are constantly teaching. Not just by our words, but by our actions. I have a hard time punishing my kids for something they see me do. It should drive us to be better parents, better people... at least while the kids are around.
7. "Be not hasty to believe flying reports to the disparagement of any."
What's worse - your son breaking a lamp or your daughter being a tattle tale? Truth is, there are problems with both. I have to catch myself before I outrightly believe what one of my kids is saying about another. A dad has to be fair and investigate things like Sherlock Holmes.
8. "Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company."
In other words, watch the company your children keep. Better to be the bad guy then to let others take them down the wrong path.
9. "Speak not of doleful things in a time of mirth or at the table; speak not of melancholy things as death and wounds, and if others mention them change if you can the discourse. Tell not your dreams but to your intimate friend."
I really struggle with this one. I want my kids to grow up happy. I want them to have good memories of their childhood. I don't want them to remember that their dad was stressed about work or money or that mom and dad fought all the time. We have to remember that we are forming our children's personalities. And I, for one, want my kids to believe there is good in the world.
10. "Reprehend not the imperfections of others, for that belongs to parents, masters and superiors."
Don't discipline other people's kids, even if they did just set your Christmas tree on fire. Manage the situation and let their parents deal with it. Then consider if you want that kid coming around anymore. It's just not cool.
11. "Think before you speak, pronounce not imperfectly nor bring out your words too hastily, but orderly and distinctly."
It goes without saying that we shouldn't fly off the handle with our kids. But sometimes the hardest thing to do is to walk away for a minute - even though it may be the most important thing we do. Sometimes perspective helps us focus our thoughts and turn a moment of anger into a teaching moment.
12. "Undertake not what you cannot perform but be careful to keep your promise."
There is no heartbreak in the world like that of a child who has been let down by their dad. Don't tell your kid you'll do something you know you can't do and, likewise, if you promise, follow through. It's about integrity. It's about honor. It's about doing the right thing.
13. "Be not angry at table whatever happens and if you have reason to be so, show it not but on a cheerful countenance, especially if there be strangers, for good humor makes one dish of meat a feast."
My wife and I, like many parents, have decided that eating together as a family is important. In fact, with so much going on, dinner is about the only time we're all in the same room for the same reason. I try to be cognizant of the fact that my kids will remember those moments around the table when they are my age. I try to make it about family and leave everything else behind for a while. Of course, I don't always succeed - who does? - but family meal time means so much more if everyone is excited to be there.
14. "If others talk at table be attentive, but talk not with meat in your mouth."
This is a great lesson to teach the kids, but also a great one to learn ourselves. We need to listen as much as we talk, learn as much as we teach when it comes to our kids. That and nobody wants to see semi-masticated meatloaf.
15. "Every action done in company ought to be done with some sign of respect to those that are present."
That means anyone. The kids, your wife, the mother-in-law. As dads, we need to be an example in how people should be treated, because our kids are watching and they will do what we do.
So there you have it, some advice and insight for George Washington. Funny, I didn't see anything in there about a cherry tree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
