Strollerderby : Shannon LC Cate

Ontario Opens Original Birth Certificates for Adopted Adults

Shannon LC Cate — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:30:00 GMT

Monday (1 June) was a day that many thousands of people in Ontario will remember for the rest of their lives. It was the first day people adopted in Ontario (since 1921) could apply to the government for their original birth records.

A new law, similar to one already in place in other Canadian provinces, one in the UK and a handful of U.S. states, allows adopted persons over 18 years old to apply for their original birth certificates--containing their original names and the name or names of their original mother and perhaps father.

Detractors worried that people desiring privacy from contact by biological family members would be harassed if the law was passed. But experience in places where such laws already exist has shown very few problems. All the same, a provision was added to the new law allowing persons desiring so to "veto" the other party's right to the information. But although over 250,000 adoptions have been record in the province since 1921, less than 4,000 people have submitted "veto" requests or contact restrictions (such as asking that any contact be made via a work address rather than home, for example).

It is important to note, however that while some people seeking this information will use it to try and contact biological family members, the information itself includes no right to contact, no addresses or phone numbers, but merely names. There's certainly no guarantee that the parties will decide to build or maintain a relationship if they do meet.

But what's important about this law--in spite of the veto measure, which is less than satisfactory to many activists--is that is makes way for a flood of people hitherto denied a basic civil right to finally become first-class citizens. We don't tolerate secret arrests, secret evidence in trials, secret wiretapping of citizens. How silly is it to uphold enforced secrecy from a citizen of a thing as personal--and uninteresting to anyone but the individual in question--as a birth certificate?

Congratulations Ontario. And Happy Birth Certificate Day to adopted Ontarians!

Economy Down; Adoptions Up

Nature/Nurture: 50/50?

Adoption Tide Turns in Florida?

image: adoptionblogs.com

Five-Year Old Saves Toddler from Drowning

Shannon LC Cate — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:00:00 GMT

Five-year old Riley Braden has been swimming since she was two. A few weeks ago, her skills paid off in a big way. When Riley was swimming with some friends in a hotel pool, she noticed an 18-month old child in distress. As Riley describes it:

"She didn't have her floaties on and her parents weren't watching. I saved her. I dashed and I pushed off the wall with my feet and went down and got her."

A witness said Riley appeared on the surface with the child in her arms, declaring "I've got the baby!" She returned the child to her parents who were visiting from out of town.

Riley, who will be six next week, isn't sure what she wants for her birthday. But if I was that toddler's mother, I'd buy her a pony. Or two!

See Also:

Dad Saves Son in Shark Attack

Babble Talk: The Cult of the Bad Mother

Shannon LC Cate — Sat, 30 May 2009 14:30:00 GMT

In her controversial Dispatch this week, Katie Allison Granju wonders if it may be time to re-stigmatize certain parenting behavior. She wonders, "if everyone is a "Bad Parent," then where is the line between reasonable and unreasonable maternal imperfection?"

Most interestingly, she challenges the bad parent confessional on class lines: "The mostly-white, mostly-college-educated mothers (like me) who pen "momoirs" about things like letting their third grader navigate public transportation sans adult supervision get appearances on talk shows. However, a poor, minority or immigrant mother who made the same parenting choice would more likely get a visit from Child Protective Services."

Of course, the concern (expressed by some commenters) that shame was not ever a good thing and should not be revived is reasonable too. Even the worst parent any of us knows may well be fighting uphill battles we don't know. A little discernment and offers of support would probably go further to help a "bad parent's" children in 99% of cases than a heavy dose of shame.

But like Katie, I sometimes wonder if the "Bad Parent" phenomenon has led us to such a relativist state that when we do admirable things for our children, we have to hide them, for fear we're not "bad" enough. And the assumption that doing these admirable things is somehow a judgement against those who don't do them is one of the main ways this problem shows itself.

Every mother who decides to breast feed for a year (or three) is not, per se, a "nipple nazi" judging mothers who use formula. (People who throw the term "nazi" around so lightly? Definitely deserve judgement.) A mother who makes her own baby food is not, per se,"smugly" judging mothers who feed out of jars. (Can we call a moratorium on the word "smug" for six months?) A mother who forbids television is not, per se, a "sanctimommy" judging families that spend snuggle time on the couch watching their favorite shows. (Whoever invented that fake word, is hardly mother-friendly.)

But lately, if you make any of the former choices, like as not you'll feel the need to hide them, lest you be seen as having made your decisions over and against those of your fellow moms. Better you should just go ahead and get the new flatscreen to make sure no one accuses you of being judgemental.

Feed your kid McDonald's all you want. The stuff will never pass my children's lips under my watch (doubtless it will when my back is turned). But you cloth diaper and I'll poison the planet (and possibly my children) with disposables. I can't stand the thought of yet more laundry. I let videos "babysit" my kids for up to two hours a day, some days. But my kids eat less than a teaspoon of refined sugar per month.

The fact is, we all weigh what we value most, what we can let slide, what we can afford, what we need and what we enjoy -- or at least don't mind -- doing and what we loathe doing. And we make our judgements--about how to live our own lives--accordingly.

My kids just do not react well to sugar. It literally changes my older daughter's personality within minutes for very much the worse. In fact, I suspect if she ate a fairly normal amount of it (the amount that doesn't harm most kids) she'd be eligible for an ADHD diagnosis. My younger child doesn't share her extreme reaction, but she doesn't get sugar either, because that wouldn't be fair. If I bring my own snacks to a play date at your house, it doesn't mean I think you're evil for giving your kid cinnamon grahams. It means sugar doesn't work for us.

I made all the baby food for both my kids. I found it easy--even fun--and my kids loved, loved, loved it. The savings helped us spend our money on other things--some "good" like organic groceries, some "bad" like cable television. And it was my call, having absolutely nothing to do with someone else's desire not to spend an extra split second in the kitchen if she doesn't have to. Just like my losing battle with laundry keeps me from cloth diapering.

In a way, I guess I agree with Katie here. When everyone's a bad mother, no one is. Mostly though, I think that's a good thing. There really are very few parents so bad that they deserve to lose their children. But I also agree with Katie that the whole "Bad Parent" thing may be overplayed. Especially when the good things we choose to do for our kids end up making us feel bad--or not bad enough, as the case may be.

Small Paycut Can Equal Big Sacrifice in Tough Times

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:00:00 GMT

Today's online edition of The New York Times features a touching slideshow portrait of a family of six in California who are struggling to get by after a seemingly small--ten percent--paycut. Mom says friends told her it was be easy if she "trimmed the fat" from her budget. But as I'm sure many readers can relate, there isn't much fat in the budget of a family with four young children trying to live on one adult salary. Now the full-time (and then some) job of the stay-at-home parent includes monthly meal planning down to the last detail of how to get the most from the leftovers. The family has also cut piano lessons for their set of twins, vaccinations for their pets, haircuts, and new work clothes for dad.

To watch the short slideshow narrated by mom, visit NYTimes.com.

Things Fall Apart: Backyard Play Equipment Recalled

Shannon LC Cate — Thu, 28 May 2009 16:33:00 GMT

The Consumer Products Safety Commission has recalled 4,300 backyard play sets and 60,000 trampolines. The play sets were sold at Toys R Us and the trampolines were sold in various specialty stores as well as online.

The play set, the Step2 Play Up Gym, has faulty hangers attaching the swings to the bar. The hangers have broken, causing falls, though no injuries have been reported. You can learn more about the recall and/or order replacement hangers and a repair kit by calling (800) 347-8372.

The 13-square foot trampoline is made by Skywalker Holdings of Utah. It's safety nets can break, allowing a child to fall through and off of the trampoline. Consumers can call the company at (866) 603-5867 for a free repair kit.

Until the equipment is repaired, the Consumer Products Safety Commission is advising consumers to stop using it immediately.

Unwed Motherhood on the Rise; Paternalists on the Warpath

Shannon LC Cate — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:00:00 GMT

Since the new statistics arrived suggesting that the numbers of unmarried women having children are rising--and that these women are sometimes having children alone by choice--the tsk-tskers have been having a field day.

Latest among them is unmarried, not-mother, Cathy Young of the Boston Globe, who decries the lack of social opprobrium against single women as "unfeminist" seeing as it presumes child rearing to be women's work (if it does indeed, which I'd argue, it does not).

I do find her questions about where the unmarried (at least to these mothers) fathers of unmarried women's children are, both in reality and in the discourse about the issue, to be refreshing. I think it is indeed decidedly unfeminist to go on and on about women and children these days with nary a reference to the men who, let's face it, make single motherhood possible in the first place.

But her conclusion that because children with two parents continue to fare better in research than children with only one, society should get back to "encouraging" marriage between people who've procreated is simplistic, short-sighted and posits a red herring in place of the real issue.

The research shows that children with two parents fare better than those with one, not that children with parents who are married to each other fare best. Marriage per se does not provide a child with a functional parent and lack of a marriage certificate does not deprive a child of one. Rather, even in this recent research, it was found that a sizeable percentage of "unmarried" mothers are not, in fact single mothers, but mothers who co-parent with their children's fathers either in the same home without benefit of marriage or in separate homes.

As for mothers who choose to to go it alone via unknown or at least uninvolved "fathers" whether sperm donors, ex-boyfriends or one-night stands, those children need not be deprived of the benefits of a multiple-parent home just because their mothers are not married. There are many ways to raise children these days including living in various forms of community or cooperation with others, including extended family arrangements.

I also have to wonder what percentage of these births to "unwed" mothers might have been to lesbian couples, whom most states do not allow to appear together on a child's original birth certificate. (Birth certificates were used as the basis for the study.) Again, these are not really single mothers. (And am I the only one whose irony censor is bleeping away about the fact the on the one hand, we are told to encourage marriage among "unwed" mothers and on the other we are told that lesbians with a mad, raging desire to marry and support one another's children can't be allowed to do so?)

Whatever the reasons for the growing number of children born to women not married to their genetic fathers, such children should not be discriminated against and neither should their mothers. Rather than pulling out the rather musty notion that paternalism, and/or downright patriarchy is what these women and their children need, why not directly open our society's resources to benefit these families? How? Universal healthcare access, generous family leave benefits to workers, better quality free schooling, and family law that recognizes families as they are rather than wishing for what they never were. Because regardless of how much society encourages marriage among parents, women will continue to get pregnant and bear children outside of marriage, just as they have from time immemorial. All the encouragement in the world will not make it go away.

A mother and her child is not a defective family unit. It's just a family unit. Period. Recognizing that is the first step in making the road smoother for such families and most importantly, the many, many children growing up within them.

Paper Girl Delivers Food and Shelter to Haitian Family

Shannon LC Cate — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:07:00 GMT

Taphatna Duncan is a normal sixth-grader with a paper route. But she does something extraordinary with her $100/month in earnings. She supports her family.

Taphatna was adopted at age seven from the "orphanage" where her biological father had taken her when he and his family could no longer afford to care for her. Her Canadian adoptive mother, Deborah Duncan, has four children, three of whom are adopted, and is an adopted person herself. She met Taphatna at age five, while on a trip to help deliver food for a relief agency. After volunteering in Haiti for years, she had decided to adopt a Haitian child in need of a home.

Last year, she received an email with the news that Taphatna's father had died, bankrupting her mother and younger brother with funeral expenses. They had been living on the street until someone was able to contact Deborah. The Duncans quickly sent money for food and the funeral and solicited help to find them housing. But rent in Haiti must be paid a year in advance, so the Duncans also borrowed $600 to rent a home for Taphatna's family. Now Taphatna is working to pay back that loan and earn next year's rent as well.

Mom, Deborah, helps Taphatna deliver the papers twice weekly and has organized a walkathon to raise money to help Haitians in poverty. To join in or otherwise help, visit To Hope For Haiti.

Babble Talk Radio - Friday May 22 - Listen Here

Brett Singer — Fri, 22 May 2009 23:30:00 GMT

UPDATE: Listen to Babble Talk Radio right here! See below for the player. Original post follows.

*-*-*-*-*

Once again, we're going live and you're invited!

Friday, May 22 at 12:30pm Eastern / 9:30am Pacific, I'm back hosting Babble Talk Radio. Today I'm joined by Shannon LC Cate.

Shannon and I will discuss adoption, and maybe some other things as well. It's LIVE -- you never know what will come up.

To listen, just go to the show page on BlogTalkRadio.com and click play. If you can't listen live, the show will be available for on-demand streaming later in the day.

Hope to see you there! Well, we hope you listen. We can't see you. Don't worry.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW HERE:

Hey Look! Mom Is On The Net!

SNL Mother's Day Skits

Classic Mother Songs For Mother's Day

They Say: You're More Likely to Smoke if Your Mother Did While Pregnant

Shannon LC Cate — Thu, 21 May 2009 20:00:00 GMT

In case we needed yet another reason not to smoke--and to harass people who do--here's a new study that shows a four-fold increase in the likelihood of being a smoker at age 22 if your mother smoked during pregnancy and/or your early childhood.

Researchers are suggesting that exposure to cigarettes in utero may lead to changes in the brain that put the baby at risk for future nicotine dependence. But the study was not careful enough to rule out social factors, like an increased likelihood that a smoking mother perhaps will have smoking friends, will accept smoking in her home, will be less alarmed if her teen takes up smoking, etc.

Then again, we are already pretty conclusively sure that smoking is nothing but bad for a developing fetus, leading to premature birth and low birth weights among other things. Whether it's nature, nurture or a combination that leads the children of smokers to smoke, it's fair to say quit.

I'm not one to pounce on pregnant women for what they eat or drink, and I wouldn't pounce on anyone individually for this either. Smoking is a dreadful addiction, very difficult to quit as we all know. But it's helpful to have clear evidence about something for a change, rather than murky warnings about soft cheese, or inconsistent recommendations about how much--if any--alcohol is okay while pregnant.

The take away here is: If you can at all manage it, don't smoke when you're pregnant. Do everything you can to quit. And for those of us who aren't pregnant, the message is: don't smoke around pregnant women and be supportive and helpful to pregnant women you may know who are trying to quit.

Some Baby Food Less Healthy than a Cheeseburger

Nature/Nurture 50/50?

image: mcphee.com

Children with Special Needs Abused by School "Discipline"

Shannon LC Cate — Wed, 20 May 2009 16:35:00 GMT

A recent investigation of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has shown that school children--most often children with special needs--are being subjected to extreme "discipline" techniques that have hurt and even caused the deaths of some. According to NPR:

"In some cases...children have died or been injured when they have been tied, taped, handcuffed or pinned down by adults or locked in secluded rooms, often to be left for hours at a time."

While there is plenty of criticism of the techniques in the first place--some parent groups and disability advocacy groups are calling for an altogether ban of them--others believe there are times when restraint or seclusion are necessary to keep children from harming themselves and others.

But teachers are rarely adequately trained in the proper use of the techniques and 70% of parents cited in the report say they were never informed about the possibility that their children would be restrained, let alone asked for permission to do so. Rather, the GAO found that only five states even have laws requiring that the use of restraint or seclusion be reported at all. Many parents only learned of the techniques when their children were injured or died after their use.

Meanwhile, methods for maintaining a positive classroom environment without the need for restraint are being taught to some teachers and finding great success where applied. "Positive Behavior Support"--or good old-fashioned attention to a child's needs--works to prevent problems before they arise by learning more about the cause of disruptive behavior.

Barb Trader of the grassroots advocacy group, TASH, explains:

"If a student gets hungry at quarter to 12 and they don't have verbal expression, and you don't know what's going on and then they act out because they're hungry, if you feed them at 11:30, then you've removed the cause for the behavior and the behavior doesn't exist. And we know that works because there's been lots and lots of research."

I'm sure plenty of parents out there are mouthing a collective "duh," right?

Teachers need more training in these methods, but more, I personally think they need more support in the form of lower student/teacher classroom ratios. As simple as Positive Behavior Support is, it also requires careful attention to individual children's needs and the group dynamics arising from those needs. Added to the task of instruction in school subjects--especially in a room with kids who have varying special needs and levels of ability--even a simple method is a tall order when teachers are over burdened with too many students.

Our children all deserve better. And children with special needs or disabilities deserve extra care and support for their learning, not less. It's an ugly thing to lock a child in a room rather than finding out what that child needs and providing it. And it's not something any child should have to witness happening to another. Here's yet another area in which we need real reform in the school system and we need it yesterday.

See Also:

Outdoor Preschools

image: Garret Peck, an autistic boy who was locked in an isolation cubile for over 2 hours, CNN.com

Economy Down, Adoptions Up

Shannon LC Cate — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:30:00 GMT

Adoption agencies around the country are reporting a rise of between 10 and 30% in pregnant women and new mothers inquiring about placing their infants with new families, since the recession began.

The story of one such woman, a single mother to three teens who found herself unexpectedly pregnant again with no support from her baby's father, is outlined in a report at USATODAY.com.

As an adoptive mother, I understand the joy of adoptive parents. As an advocate of reproductive choice, I believe strongly in ethical adoption as an option for women who need it and choose it freely from other options. But I am saddened by this rise in adoptions due to economic crisis.

When adoptions happen strictly because a mother can't afford--financially--to raise her baby, society has failed both mother and child. When the cost of food, shelter, clothing, healthcare and education can only be met by some, all families are devalued. The only solution to a mother's financial desperation should not be sending her child to live with wealthier parents. When that is the case, it suggests that only people with a certain income deserve or are capable of raising children.

I can already hear the protests that people without the means to support their children shouldn't have children in the first place. But even if I believed that (which I don't), pregnancy is not 100% preventable by any means at all. I include abstinence, because sex is not always a woman's choice.

But I simply don't believe that the care and raising of children ought to be an exclusively private enterprise. In fact, neither do those involved in adoption. Adoption is all about the communal care of children. It is about people outside a family working with that family--becoming additional family--for the support of children who need more than just their birth parents' support.

But adoption has enormous consequences for all parties involved--adopted people, first parents, adoptive parents--and should be a last resort option when other alternatives are exhausted. Mere inability to pay a hospital bill should not lead to adoption.

If I thought my children were with me just because their first mothers were too poor to raise them, I couldn't sleep at night. I've been poor in the past, myself. Poverty does not make a person unfit to be a parent. And circumstances change. My family could find itself in financial trouble in the future. I would hope that under those circumstances, I wouldn't be told my only option were giving my children to others.

Before we celebrate a rise in adoptions, we need to rethink what society could be doing to help original families stay together. Universal healthcare, quality public education, fair housing costs and other supports are a few modest proposals to get us started.

Nature/Nurture: 50/50?

Shannon LC Cate — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:59:00 GMT

I often tell my friends who are interested in adoption, that to be an adoptive parent you have to have to be a believer in nurture. It's also important for adoptive parents to realize that nurture isn't everything to a person, and that children's genetic heritages will always be a part their make up, but it's also important not to get overly fearful of the genes of strangers.

But these days, "genes" seem to have taken on mythic proportions in popular culture. People seem to think everything about a person is coded somewhere in the DNA. But that's not really how genetics work, as anyone with actual knowledge of the subject will tell you. Some aspects of our identity are more hard-wired than others. Some genes may indicate a tendency towards an effect, but remain inactive until triggered by outside factors.

Until recently, "intelligence" was thought to be largely a genetic matter. Twin studies (research on genetically identical people raised in different environments) for example, indicated that siblings raised apart had very close IQ scores. But new research by Richard E. Nisbitt, author of Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count, has shown that in fact, environment makes for at least 50% of intelligence as measured by IQ testing.

According to Nisbitt: "If you were to average the contribution of genetics to IQ over different social classes, you would probably find 50 percent to be the maximum contribution of genetics."

And although Nesbitt finds that "Raising someone in an upper-middle-class environment versus a lower-class environment is worth 12 to 18 points of IQ," it is not the money that gains those points but the tendency of middle-class parents to read to, speak to and "encourage" their children more than other parents. And while expensive does not equate to high quality in education, Nisbitt finds that small class size, low teacher/student ratios, experienced, skilled teachers and up-to-date instructional technology lead to better results for children from any family background. Those things are of course, more likely to be found in more expensive schools.

The upshot of Nesbitt's research is that public schools need to improve in the areas that have proven to make a true difference. Rather than writing off the children of the poor and working classes or, even more insidiously, using genetic "inferiority" as an excuse to ignore their needs, public policy should focus on improving the environmental factors that matter just as much as genes.

Nesbitt explains the twin studies by explaining that even when raised in different adoptive homes, twins adopted at birth at the time of the studies were likely to go to fairly similar families, in terms of social class and access to quality education. Those similarities were enough to give children with identical genetic packages similar outcomes on IQ tests.

IQ tests are, of course, questionable to begin with. They have long been understood by many to be slanted towards people with greater "cultural capital" like basic economic class, social status and education access in the first place. Such a bias, is of course, another reason children from higher socio-economic classes will score better on the tests, leaving another big question hanging in the air.

As an adoptive mother of two bright children from two very underprivileged biological family backgrounds, I find Nesbitt's work intriguing. I only hope that such research will lead to better opportunities for all children and a society in which something as drastic as adoption isn't necessary for poor children to access a decent education.

Is Your Employer "Adoption Friendly?"

Shannon LC Cate — Sat, 16 May 2009 19:51:00 GMT

The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption has announced its top 100 most adoption-friendly employers of 2009. At the top of course, is Wendy's International, Inc., the late Thomas's own company, which offers up to $24,300 and six weeks of fully paid leave to employees who adopt children.

The rankings are based first on the adoption cash benefit and then on the amount of paid or partially paid leave given to employees who adopt. Some companies offer considerably more than six weeks, like #7, Bowen Engineering which offers up to 13. Those lengthy paid leaves can be very helpful to parents adopting older children or others with special attachment challenges. In those cases, it's critical for parents to spend virtually all their time for quite a long time, just being with and providing for their new children's needs.

Adoption benefits are important because unlike the biological route (without complication) to parenthood, health insurance doesn't cover the adoption process. The cheapest public adoptions are usually covered by the federal tax credit for adoption, but most other adoptions will cost something--sometime quite a lot--out of pocket to adoptive parents. Every little bit helps, but most employers offer little to nothing in the way of adoption benefits.

On the other hand, often employees don't realize their company does offer adoption benefits. If you are considering or planning adoption, be sure to check with your employer about this. There might be something available to help.

Meanwhile, check out the top 100. Maybe you're lucky enough to work for one of these!

Adoption Tide Turns in Florida?

Shannon LC Cate — Thu, 14 May 2009 20:54:00 GMT

Another chink has developed in Florida's ban on gay adoption. A state appeals court ruled Wednesday that the state must recognize adoptions to gay and lesbian parents that occurred outside the state, under the U.S. Constitution's full faith and credit clause.

The decision was reached in the case of a lesbian couple who had children together in Washington State, moved to Florida and broke up, agreeing to coparent. When one mom became engaged to a man she cut off visitation for the other mom, saying the relationship between them was unhealthy. The second mom sued for custody. A lower court ruled against her, saying the Washington adoption was invalid in Florida where all adoption by gays and lesbians is banned. But the appeals court disagreed.

The opposition plans to appeal the case to Florida's Supreme Court, which has already been asked to consider a circuit court judge's decision to grant an adoption to gay foster parents, against the gay adoption ban. If the Court accepts this case, that will make two gay adoption cases on its docket. Is the tide turning in favor of Florida children?

My fingers are crossed, how about yours?

See Also:

The Literal Cost of Homophobia

Second Parent Adoption in Michigan

image: gayrights.change.org

Minors Trafficked through UK Children's Home

Shannon LC Cate — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:01:00 GMT

A home for children near Heathrow airport in London has been leaking kids since 2006. Now an investigation has revealed that at least 77 children have gone missing from the home, most of whom were likely to have been trafficked into sex and drug work throughout the UK.

The home is a place where unaccompanied minors, arriving at Heathrow from abroad are often sent to stay while their fates are determined by social service agencies. Workers at the home are apparently not involved in any child trafficking themselves, but are apparently ill-equipped to protect the children in their care from it. According to the Guardian:

"In two thirds of cases, [the children] disappear quickly – most within a week and many within 24 hours. Many flee during fire drills and 10 have jumped out of windows. Others simply walk out of the front door into waiting cars."

It seems the home is a point of transfer for these children, who are put planes by procurers in their home countries and sent to receivers in the UK. All the missing children are Chinese and most are female. Only four of them have been found. Two were rescued from brothels, one pregnant, the other fitted with a surgical contraceptive device. Two were made to sell counterfeit goods on the street. It is believed that many others work on cannabis farms.

Since the findings have been reported, officials have tried to crack down on human trafficking through Heathrow. The numbers of Chinese children lost have consequently dropped, but fears remain that other area airports are picking up the slack and traffickers are simply spreading their work around.

For information on how you can join efforts to end child trafficking, visit ECPAT (End Child Prostitution and Trafficking).

Pregnancy, Birth and HIV: The Good News

image: ecpat.org.uk

Second Parent Adoption Legislation Moving in Michigan

Shannon LC Cate — Tue, 12 May 2009 16:32:00 GMT

Families in Michigan are hopeful that legislation to legalize second-parent adoption will make it to law before the session ends this year. (Last year, similar proposed legislation died.) Michigan, like most states, does not have an explicit law allowing the adoption of a child by a parent's unmarried partner (same or different sex) and while some judges will agree to such adoptions, many will not. A law would protect the rights of a single parent to choose a second parent for her child, whether or not that second parent was her legal spouse.

Same-sex parents in de facto nuclear families are obvious beneficiaries of such law, but are not the only ones. Unmarried heterosexual couples would be able to protect and provide for each other's children this way as well. Depending on how the law is written, it could allow a person who is not in a romantic relationship with the parent to adopt too.

This is the kind of law we need to see nation-wide. Right now, most often, families depend on the whims or prejudices of individual judges to rule on whether or not a second-parent adoption will be allowed. A law protecting people from discrimination in second-parent adoption based on marital status is the best way to, in turn, protect their children and allow them to have the stability of two parents responsible for their support and protection.

It is high time family law in the United States recognized the many situations in which children grow up these days, and strengthened those situations for the benefit of the children, rather than prescribing one family style and punishing children who don't happen to have it.

Good luck to those parents and children in Michigan who could benefit immeasurably from this law.

See also:

Lose the Guilt and Shame, Lose the Pain: Open Adoption Records

Iowa Mulling Same-Sex Birth Certificates

The Orphan Trade and International Adoption

image: nontraditionalfamilylaw.com

Crayons for Kids, from Kids

Shannon LC Cate — Tue, 12 May 2009 00:03:00 GMT

One weekend, 5-year old Matt and 6-year old Emily Leinwand spent a day doing rounds at the hospital with their pediatric surgeon father. The children were dismayed that the kids in the hospital seemed so sad and bored and decided to try and do something to add a little cheer to the situation.

The brother and sister team asked friends and family to donate crayons and coloring books to take to the kids in the hospital. Since then, their project has grown into an organization that serves hospitalized children in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Los Angeles, Boston and Philadelphia. Matt and Emily are now 10 and 11 and have become the CEOs of Crayons 4 Kids, recently interviewed on CNN:

Embedded video from CNN Video

The project collects not just crayons but games, puzzles, books and other toys good for a hospital environment. You can learn more about Matt and Emily and contribute to the project by visiting their website Crayons4Kids.org.

Dad Saves Son in Shark Attack

Shannon LC Cate — Sat, 09 May 2009 15:00:00 GMT

Father-son surfers Charles and Andrew Lindop were out to enjoy the waves at a beach in Sidney in February, when an 8-foot shark came to the beach looking for breakfast. Dad, Charles, heard his 15-year old son screaming, and when he looked up, saw about the worst thing any parent could imagine: a shark dragging his son off the board, and blood in the water.

Rare as they are, it was the beach's third shark attack in as many weeks.

Luckily for Andrew, Charles is trained in surf rescue and was able to bring his son to shore (shark or no shark), create a field tourniquet from a surfboard tether and keep his son stable until ambulances arrived. The bite was a fraction of an inch from a major artery, but several weeks into his recovery, Andrew is almost entirely healed--albeit scarred by the outline of a shark's massive jaw. Now the boy can't wait to rejoin dad in the surf.

We talk a lot as parents about how we'd throw ourselves in front of a bus, or fight off a lion for our children. Well, here's a dad who did. I know this is Mother's Day weekend, but for a little preview of fatherly greatness, go see Charles Lindop tell the story (and see Andrew's impressive scar) at the BBC.

image: nzherald.co.nz

Some "Baby Food" Less Healthy Than a Cheeseburger

Shannon LC Cate — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:30:00 GMT

The Children's Food Campaign has released a new report analyzing the nutritional value of some of Britain's most popular baby and toddler foods, finding them worse for health than the average cheeseburger or chocolate cookie, claims the Guardian.

Of the foods surveyed, only half were found to be low in sugar, sodium and saturated fat--some even contained the dreaded transfat. But the worst culprit for unhealthy baby food was the Heinz company, of whose surveyed products, only one quarter were deemed to have sufficiently low amounts of sugar, sodium and fat.

Two Heinz products were singled out for headliner status. Farley's Husks, were higher in sugar than chocolate digestives, while mini cheese biscuits were found to have more fat than a McDonald's quarter pounder with cheese. Both are foods aimed at beginning eaters and toddlers.

Okay, so these foods are unhealthy. Do they claim to be healthy? Do parents merely assume anything for a baby or toddler is healthy? I feel that while it would be nice to see the food industry regulated better in certain areas, determining what is a good diet for myself and my young children is my responsibility. In the line of this duty, I take nothing for granted. I read labels, determine what's in the processed food I give my children, then mete out such foods sparingly, focusing instead on whole foods in a nice variety.

Contrary to some opinion, this actually doesn't take a great deal of extra time or energy on my part. Washing and/or peeling and/or slicing a piece of fruit really isn't that much harder than opening a box of crackers and shaking a pile of them into a bowl. And even when the fruit is organic, it's usually cheaper. And it doesn't take a master's degree in nutrition to know it's healthier than the crackers.

So sure, shame on Heinz for marketing unhealthy food to parents. Shame on them for basically trying to get us to train our kids to expect food to taste sugary, salty, and fatty, so they'll have lifelong junk food customers. But ultimately? Shame on us for not taking the four extra seconds to read the back of a box before we throw it in the grocery cart. Really, it ain't that tough.

image: junkfoodnews.net

First Grandma Likes D.C. After All

Shannon LC Cate — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:30:00 GMT

In spite of her initial reluctance to move from her life-long home in Chicago, Marian Robinson, Michelle Obama's mother, has been living the good life in the capital. Though she still does quite a bit of heavy lifting when it comes to caring for the Obama girls--shuttling them to and from school most days, supervising homework, accompanying them to play dates--she has also been seen frequently in the president's box at the Kennedy Center, enjoying shows and meeting performers.

Mrs. Robinson likes to eat out around town, attend Michelle's luncheons, dinners and concerts, and sometimes hosts her old friends from Chicago. For the first time in her life, Mrs. Robinson doesn't have to cook or clean--unless she wants to. That seems only fair for a 71-year old devoted, hard-working grandmother who functions more as a third parent to her grandchildren than as the one who gets to do the spoiling.

She still hasn't decided how long she will stay in Washington, having originally agreed to come temporarily and help the Obama girls settle into their new life. But it may be hard to return to the old normal in Chicago. Right now, she doesn't get too much public attention when she's out and about in D.C., but given how much she looks like Michelle, and given how small Washington really is, she is bound to become known by the general public before too long. She may want out of the limelight. But there's also the chance that she'll decide she like being Grandma in Chief, and stays.

I'm rooting for her to stay. From what I can tell, she's an integral part of the Obama family and they'd be lost without her. And if the Obama family is lost, whither the Free World? Stay in the White House, Marian! Your country needs you.

Telling Pregnant Women to Abstain from Alcohol "Unethical?"

Shannon LC Cate — Tue, 05 May 2009 21:07:00 GMT

A new article in the Journal of Medical Ethics suggests that given the lack of conclusive evidence that light to moderate alcohol consumption during pregnancy poses any harm to a fetus, telling expectant women to completely abstain from drinking is unethical behavior on the part of doctors.

I thought the label of "unethical" was intriguing. The brief summary of the article I read didn't say in great detail why, but that such advice to women is "paternalistic." I suppose it could well be, especially if women are not given the full information about drinking during pregnancy and what it does and doesn't do to a fetus.

I've been skeptical for a long time about the not-a-single-drop-while-pregnant alcohol policy our culture seems to take for granted. I had heard about the skewed studies that discovered fetal alcohol syndrome, and how huge amounts of alcohol, consumed in addictive binges, were studied, and their effects universalized to include any alcohol consumption at all. I had known women who drank lightly during pregnancy whose babies were just fine.

But calling the advice downright unethical? I think most doctors, in the absence of better information, are most probably just advising women to avoid drinking to stay on the safe side of the mystery. I doubt many of them genuinely think their patients are incapable of finding the line between light-to-moderate drinking and alcoholic bingeing on moonshine. (Those early FAS studies were done on poor women in Appalachia.)

But I've never been pregnant, on the receiving end of the doctor's advice. What do you think? Did your OB/Gyn mention drinking during pregnancy? If so what did s/he tell you and how did you feel about it? Was it any more a problem than any of the other advice you were given? Does it seem unethical?

image: adrants.com

Outdoor Preschools: The New Montessori?

Shannon LC Cate — Mon, 04 May 2009 15:32:00 GMT

A new trend in preschool education has several UK parents enthralled. In these schools, the children spend almost the entire day outdoors. Rain or shine or snow, the children romp unfettered in outdoor spaces, playing with natural and found materials, learning from experience as they encounter challenges like bugs and thorn bushes.

Enthusiasts claim that nearly exclusive outdoor education (one school in Scotland doesn't even have a building, but only tents and tarps) is better for all kinds of development--not merely physical but mental. Sue Palmer, director of the Farley Outdoor Learning Nursery in Wiltshire, claims:

“The children are the healthiest you could wish to meet, we have no allergies, very little illness, their speech and language is far more advanced than others of their age because they’re outside doing things and learning to be independent. It is truly amazing.”

Amazing, indeed. With not much but gut instinct and a popular book, The Last Child in the Woods by Richard Louv, to guide them, outdoor preschool advocates make some broad claims. My instinct tells me they are probably right that kids in industrialized cultures don't get enough time outdoors, are asked to sit still under artificial lighting for too many hours in schools and their minds and bodies suffer for it. But my instinct also leans towards the notion that balance is a good idea too, and that a nursery school that takes place exclusively outdoors--even in foul weather--may be overcorrecting for the problem. Besides, in Wiltshire, snow may be a lovely treat in 35 (F) degree weather, but in Chicago, I'd just as soon let the kids learn to build a fire in the fireplace during a January ice storm in sub-zero temperatures.

What do you think? Would you camp out to get your kid into a school without a building?

image: timesonline.co.uk

Pregnancy, Birth and HIV: The Good News

Shannon LC Cate — Sun, 03 May 2009 15:02:00 GMT

I have two kids adopted as healthy newborns. But shortly after my children came home, the agency that handled my adoptions began a new program for the placement of HIV+ babies and children. When I have casually mentioned this program to friends and family I have encountered a surprising amount of confusion about HIV and children born with it. It seems that much of the good news about HIV are in fact, little known facts. After reading a nice feature in a Scottish newspaper about two women living through HIV+ pregnancies (both have negative children), I was inspired to share these facts with Strollerderby readers who might not have heard some of them.

Little Known Fact #1:

Few HIV+ women transmit the virus to their babies.

Our adoption agency identifies orphaned or relinquished babies and young children born HIV+ and matches them with adoptive families. Most of these children are born abroad. Why? Because transmission of HIV between a positive woman and her baby is almost completely preventable with the right drug regimen and has almost vanished in countries with access to those drugs.

Little Known Fact #2:

Babies born "positive" often serio-convert to negative by the time they are a year old. Even without the proper drugs, the odds of transmission between a woman and her baby are less than 50/50. In the early days of HIV, doctors tested such babies and found them positive, as they were carrying their mothers' antibodies. But over 70% of these children "outgrew" their positive status, testing negative six or nine months (sometimes longer) after birth. Families who adopt HIV+ babies may find that their children are negative after all, with later testing.

Little Known Fact #3:

HIV is no longer an automatic death sentence. Even children who are truly HIV+ can be expected to live long, happy lives, even potentially having and raising biological (HIV-) children of their own. Don't get me wrong: HIV is not a simple thing to deal with. It requires adherence to a drug regimen and regular doctor visits and testing to make sure that drug regimen is still the best one. Depending on the overall health of the positive child, she may suffer more than her share of childhood illnesses and they may hit her harder than the average child. But they may not. Some people living with HIV have virtually indistinguishable basic health from those who are negative.

Little Known Fact #4:

HIV doesn't live well (or for very long) outside the human body. Once blood is dried, the risk of transmission is statistically zero. In fact, researchers have had a difficult time keeping HIV alive outside carefully controlled conditions. While wet blood spills need to be treated with care (generally, rubber glove and bleach are advised), a scab or some dried blood on a surface carry virtually no risk for transmission. And people on a good drug regimen are able to keep what's called their "viral load" so low that even wet blood has a small infection risk. (For more details, see the CDC website.)

With these things is mind, I urge you to support efforts to get antiretroviral drugs to those in countries with high rates of HIV but little drug access. It is criminal that a single child should be born HIV+ when the drugs to prevent this are ready and available.

In the meantime, I'd humbly suggest that if you are considering adoption, to consider an HIV+ child. One thing is certain when you adopt such a child: there is no long waiting list of parents available. Many HIV+ children are what the UN calls "true orphans" with deceased parents and little social support in their home communities. You are unlikely to run into a Madonna situation when you adopt an HIV+ child. Instead, you can know that the child you bring home truly needs a new family. I have met a number of families with a mix of positive and negative children, all thriving and growing happily.

There are also ways to support AIDS orphans who will never be adopted, or whose biological relatives are still in their lives but need help providing health care and other basics for these children.

HIV does not have to be a death sentence. Children with HIV can have normal childhoods and long, healthy lives. The more people understand this good news, the better off these children will be.

image: child awaiting adoption; adoption-link.org

Celebrate Mayday: Dance with Snowball!

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 01 May 2009 16:00:00 GMT

Gather the kids around the computer for this one folks. They're going to want to see this. Snowball, a rescued cockatoo living at Birdlovers Only in Indiana, loves to dance. When the video of a bird rocking out to the Backstreet Boys went viral last year, animal researchers took a mild interest, assuming that it was just another stupid pet trick (Snowball has also been a guest on the Late Show).

But further research challenging Snowball to learn new rhythyms and moves eventually convinced animal behaviorists that Snowball was really dancing, the way people do, to music he enjoyed. Now evolutionary biologists are following up with their own investigations into why it is that some parrots and some elephants seem to truly be able to dance. No other animals besides humans are believed to have this ability.

But whether why or how interests you, you will love to watch Snowball's action (and perhaps dance along). And so will the kiddos. Happy May Day!

So without further ado:

Talking to Children about the Swine Flu

Shannon LC Cate — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:30:00 GMT

Our local elementary school is closed with one confirmed and a few more probable swine flu cases. I'd like to say I didn't panic, but I did cancel my plans to hop on the el and go to a meeting downtown yesterday. Then I forbad the babysitter who showed up anyway, from taking the children to the park. Fortunately, it's cloudy and chilly this week, so no one minded staying in.

My kids are little and they don't go to school, so no explanations were necessary. But if they were regular preschool attenders and I was a full-time worker who had to either suddenly stay home or arrange different child care, they'd need to know something about why. This morning's USA Today had a bit of advice for those of you in a position to need to explain to your kids why their school is suddenly closed.

Principal number one is open honesty. According to experts in child psychology, it's best to tell them some facts about the situation, or they will often fabricate something much worse and more frightening than the truth. Therefor, even if young children don't explicitly ask what's going on, it's a good idea to initiate the conversation.

Principal number two is--you guessed it--keep it simple and age-appropriate. One suggestion is: "Some people have gotten sick with a flu you get from contact with someone who has it. Mom and Dad are going to make sure you're safe. We'll take care of you."

Principal number three? Teenagers will act cavalier but may be afraid anyway. Don't hesitate to share "basic facts and concerns" with them. I am guessing that means tell them to wash their hands and stop kissing strangers for a while.

Even though I panicked, I am hoping I made a silly error in doing so and this situation turns out to be a tempest in a teapot. But with children, it never hurts to err on the side of caution. Here's wishing you health and safety in coming weeks!

image: AP

Strollerderby : Shannon LC Cate

Ontario Opens Original Birth Certificates for Adopted Adults

Five-Year Old Saves Toddler from Drowning

Babble Talk: The Cult of the Bad Mother

Small Paycut Can Equal Big Sacrifice in Tough Times

Things Fall Apart: Backyard Play Equipment Recalled

Unwed Motherhood on the Rise; Paternalists on the Warpath

Paper Girl Delivers Food and Shelter to Haitian Family

Babble Talk Radio - Friday May 22 - Listen Here

Last Week's Episode, with Madeline Holler

Hey Look! Mom Is On The Net!

SNL Mother's Day Skits

Classic Mother Songs For Mother's Day

They Say: You're More Likely to Smoke if Your Mother Did While Pregnant

Children with Special Needs Abused by School "Discipline"

Economy Down, Adoptions Up

Nature/Nurture: 50/50?

Is Your Employer "Adoption Friendly?"

Adoption Tide Turns in Florida?

Minors Trafficked through UK Children's Home

Second Parent Adoption Legislation Moving in Michigan

Crayons for Kids, from Kids

Dad Saves Son in Shark Attack

Some "Baby Food" Less Healthy Than a Cheeseburger

First Grandma Likes D.C. After All

Telling Pregnant Women to Abstain from Alcohol "Unethical?"

Outdoor Preschools: The New Montessori?

Pregnancy, Birth and HIV: The Good News

Celebrate Mayday: Dance with Snowball!

Talking to Children about the Swine Flu