Category Archives: Children

Another alarmist, unnecessary toy recall

From my most recent post for the Independent Women’s Forum:

Another toy has been recalled after the Consumer Product Safety Commission said it was too dangerous for kids. Only trouble is that as the government watchdog admits, no one was actually hurt by playing with the Go Gaga Squeeze & Teethe CoCo Monkey teething toy. This is the point of silliness to which we’ve arrived in alarmist America……

It is also useful to consider the language used by the CPSC. This toy is a potential hazard. Last night at dinner my six-month old gagged on a spoon. Should we stop using spoons in my house? In fact, it might just be good for him to gag once in a while so he learns not to shove things too far into his mouth. That’s what we call learning and aren’t we supposed to be encouraging that in our children?

Read the rest here

Baby’s fine, mom’s a criminal

A mother in NJ was prosecuted and found criminally abusive for leaving her 19-month-old alone in the car for the 5-10 minutes it took her to shop at a store. Nothing happened to the child and yet the parent has been prosecuted and found guilty.

We have come to the point where potential harm is equivalent to actual harm. This is a serious problem.

From Scott H. Greenfield’s blog Simple Justice:

This isn’t a matter of parenting “best practices,” but whether the failure to adhere to a bubble-wrapped vision of child-rearing forms the basis for criminal prosecution, for inclusion on the child-abuse registry, for loss of civil rights, perhaps career, home and even the right to remain parent to a child.

 

 

Lose the rules, free the kids

“The great paradox of cotton-woolling children is it’s more dangerous in the long-run.”

Let me translate this wisdom for my North American audience: Bubble-wrapping our kids hurts them more than it helps.

And where’s the proof for this seemingly counter-intuitive observation? An elementary (primary) school in New Zealand where the principal agreed to remove the playground rules and discovered that there was less bullying, less destruction, less trouble than before.

A university researcher wanted to study the effects on children of removing all the anti-bullying, overly-regulated recess rules. It turned out that liberation has made the kids much happier, more creative and  reduced playground injuries.

“When you look at our playground it looks chaotic. From an adult’s perspective, it looks like kids might get hurt, but they don’t,” says school principal Bruce McLachlan.

“The kids were motivated, busy and engaged. In my experience, the time children get into trouble is when they are not busy, motivated and engaged. It’s during that time they bully other kids, graffiti or wreck things around the school.”

And parents were happy because lo-and-behold their kids were happier.

It is also so important to use this case as evidence of the harm done to kids (especially boys) when schools reduce recess, put kids in straight-jackets of zero-tolerance policies and even eliminate certain games and recess altogether.

As “The War on Boys” author Christina Hoff Sommers explains, “as early as pre-school and kindergarten, boys can be punished for behaving like boys. The characteristic play of young males is “rough-and-tumble” play. ”

This is exactly the type of play that has been eliminated from school playgrounds all over America. And it is exactly the type of play, along with imaginative play that girls and boys need to keep them focused when they go back into the classroom.

Research also shows that these types of child-generated games are an important part of kids’ social development.

Three cheers for the Swanson School in Aukland and here’s hoping that schools here in the US start getting the message and freeing their students to climb trees, skateboard and just have fun.

Big thanks to my husband Ben for bringing this great news story to my attention.

 

 

More daycare, less $$$$ regulation

From my latest column at the Independent Women’s Forum where I am now a senior fellow:

Lynette Fraga executive director of Child Care Aware explains that when parents can’t afford the cost of licensed daycare they choose a cheaper, non-regulated option. “The big question mark is: ‘Are children safe in unregulated care?’” Fraga said. But when regulated daycare includes brushing teeth it is obvious that affordability is being sacrificed at the altar of “high-quality”.

No doubt, state licensing of daycare is a useful yardstick to impose basic standards of safety, hygiene and quality. We’re way past that already, however and have moved into high-cost for high-quality regulations. Before more taxpayers funds get earmarked to give access to licensed daycare to more economically disadvantaged mothers, it would be useful to revisit the basic criteria for daycare facilities and in many cases, create a lower, more affordable standard.

– See more at: http://www.iwf.org/blog/2792992/More-Daycare,-Less-Regulation#sthash.rx6WUEZS.dpuf

New Captain Mommy! Welcome Alina Adams

How do you drive overprotective parents crazy? Just ask Alina Adams, who recently penned a blog post for Kveller.com about how she lets her 6-year-old daughter stay home alone:

“It’s a big year at our house. This September, for the first time, my 14-year-old began taking the subway to school by himself, my 10-year-old began taking the city bus to school by himself, and I began leaving my 6-year-old at home alone for short stretches.

“As with many of our previous milestones, all came about due to necessity.”

But to look at many of the comments in response to Adams’ post, lots of her readers ignored the word necessity. Adams got people who accused her of breaking the law, who “admired” her for something they themselves would never do, along with some who just thought it was downright reckless of her to admit to leaving an innocent child unattended, where any Tom, Dick or Harry Predator could snatch her away. Adams finds that last one just plain silly. When I interviewed her she dismissed the notion that anyone could find her daughter from the few details she provided in her essay. “How is anyone going to find my daughter from my having written that we live in an apartment in New York? Is someone going to use the internet and come through the computer screen into our apartment?”

Adams didn’t like the criticism but she understands it. As she declares there’s a “definite culture of fear” among parents. Even though crime has gone down and even though many adults remember being left alone themselves as children, somehow it is all different now.

What makes Adams a newly minted Captain Mommy though is the fact that writing about the subject of leaving her daughter at home alone meant that she had to find out if those who accused of breaking the law might have had a point. As Adams writes, “I was pretty surprised to learn that The National SAFEKIDS Campaign recommends that no child under the age of 12 be left at home alone. And that some states even have specific guidelines on the books, as low as 8 years old in many places, and as high as 14(!) in Illinois. (My 14-year-old doesn’t just stay home alone in New York State, he watches his siblings, too!)”

Adams made sure that New York State, where she lives with her family, didn’t have a statute proscribing a particular age when kids could be left home alone, and was happy to discover that she was not in jeopardy of being hauled off to jail. (It is worth noting, that New York does have a law against kids left in cars alone below the age of 8, however.)

Why is Adams so against such laws? As she explained it to me, “I’m not a fan of arbitrary guidelines. I’m against mandatory minimums for kindergarten or retirement. [I’m] against government making that decision because it is an arbitrary rule without seeing what’s going on.”

Adams believes that every child is different making each situation different as well. But that’s not good enough for nanny-statists who are convinced they are “saving the kids” by pushing for these laws. The one-size-fits-all solution is the only one government can handle and so we get rules and regulations that interfere with parents’ choices rather than supporting them.