Strollerderby : childcare

They Say: Moms, It's Still Your Fault. Well, Yours and Daycare

Madeline Holler — Wed, 20 May 2009 21:04:00 GMT

Worried that putting your kid in childcare will make her sick, dumb and mean? Add this to the pile of negatives: a new study claims to show early years spent in center-based daycare leads to stressed out life in the early teens.

Wait, wait. You pay extra for the high-quality, extra-certified, Italian-named, fun, fun, loving and fun daycare? Too bad. Doesn't matter. You farmed out the kid. She pays the price as a teen.

So is this good news for moms who stay home? Not exactly.

Because if you're insensitive -- mind you, insensitivity did not get defined -- you've also managed to stress out your kid whether or not he was in center-based daycare.

A brief write-up of the study from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development says researchers observed 1,000 children, ages one-month to mid-adolescence, in and out of their homes. They tested the awakening cortisol levels of the teens, which, when normal, are high in the morning and lower as the day goes on.

The kids who were in daycare and/or had crappy moms awoke with lower levels of cortisol and, therefore, were determined to be stressed.

My poor kids and their future stressed-out teens! They have not only been in various forms of center-based childcare (sometimes called "preschool"!), but their mother has been known to show an insensitive side when stressed, a condition that is clearly the result of her own childhood spent in center-based daycares. The cycle!

How Fertile Couples Outsmarted Wall Street

Top 10 Pregnancy and Birth World Records

Should Healthcare Reform Start in the Maternity Ward?

City's 5th Co-Sleeping Death in 10 Weeks Reported

550-Pound Woman Gives Birth

Issues! 'Parenting' Offers Fake Apology

Photo: truthdig.org

5-Minute Time Out: Dr. Penelope Leach

editors — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:45:00 GMT

Today on Babble:

5-Minute Time Out: Dr. Penelope Leach

by Ada Calhoun.

Working parents are in an "impossible situation," confirms childcare expert Penelope Leach.

Read it here.

Two Parents Passing in the Night: Staggered Parenting

JeanneSager — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:31:00 GMT

It's a concern that's become even bigger than ever, but the stories of parents getting creative to avoid daycare costs are only getting wilder.

Take the parents who work opposite shifts, rarely getting to spend real quality time together in their marriage, because it enables at least one parent to be home with their two kids almost every moment of the day.

Lisa Belkin of the Motherlode took a look at Megan and Tim Garrett this past week, a couple who surmises in a good week they're able to limit the use of actual (paid for) daycare to six to nine hours. How do they do it? "Staggered parenting," Belkin calls it. One works nine to five, the other in swing shifts. Just not at the same time (if they can help it).

It's something like what I talked about in my own Bad Parent essay last week in honor of Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day. Daycare is so cost-prohibitive, that I worked out a deal with my boss - I go into an office twice a week while she goes to an actual (again, paid for) daycare. The rest of the time, I take my daughter to work. Some say I've got it easy because I can do this, and I will certainly say I am lucky to have this time with my daughter.

But neither I nor the Garretts have it easy. And unless you're one of those lucky ducks still swimming in the big bucks in this economy, I dare say you don't either.

It's why we're all thinking outside that proverbial box to get the daycare bills paid - or better yet, to avoid them at all. I'm a proponent of paying people what they're worth, so it's hard to come up with a solution for the high costs of daycare. We can't very well expect these people to watch our children for free.

But what of the mom who works nights, the dad who works days, so one can be home with their son at all times? Should they simply be expected to accept the strain that puts on their marriage and their family because, well, "they are doing what should be done when we decide to have children" as one commenter over on the Motherlode said? What about the Garretts, who are ensuring their kids get to spend almost all of their time with mom and dad, but who get almost no time alone to just be adults? Not to mention virtually no "family time." This isn't a knock on single parents, but when there ARE two parents in the situation, it's hardly optimal for the kids to never see them interact.

Daycare is expensive. Daycare is often inflexible. And daycare is not created equal. My friend pays $30 a day for her son to go to a small registered daycare with a nursery school curriculum and both breakfast and lunch provided. That's $150 a week - not too bad, but not available to too many families. She's popular, and fills up fast. In the same town, another friend pays $490 a week for the same service. The disparity is hard to fathom.

For parents who work part-time, the problem isn't just expense but finding a program that will accept their child. We need the money, but few daycares want to take on a child who will not be bringing in steady income for them (can you blame them?) to the tune of five business days, and many are loathe to take on a child at the tail-end of toddlerhood because they know the money will soon dry up once the child is enrolled in "real" school. Infants are tough to place too - in many places they take the place of two older children. In other words, the provider can charge the parent of an infant one fee, or they could take in two toddlers and get two fees - but not both. Again, you can't fault the provider (I'd prefer a limit in kids, wouldn't you?) but it certainly doesn't make life any easier for parents.

So what do you do? Many of us go unregistered, which carries with it its own problems - when I recently wrote about setting up a quid pro quo system with an unemployed friend (cash in exchange for their babysitting time), a commenter pointed out that flies in the face of attempts to professionalize the industry. Again, I agree that daycare workers shouldn't be treated like scut labor, but "non-professional" daycare providers can provide top notch care too.

So what's the fix? Employer-sponsored daycare (um, yes)? Government intervention? For one, I'd like to see the childcare tax write-off system change so we can write off ALL daycare expenses (rather than the "up to $6,000 for families with two children under age thirteen"). Not to mention paid paternity leaves, lengthier paid maternity leaves, and . . .

For all those, of course, there are the arguments from the same people who popped up on the Motherlode citing the rest of the country shouldn't have to pay for our kids. But let me ask: would they rather provide universal programs for parents to keep us in the job market or pay for us all to sit at home with our kids all day being unproductive and FEELING unproductive? Might I point out, those kids are American citizens and future taxpayers too. So how about a little help?

Image: No Time For Laundry

Also on Babble:

Bad Parent: Me and My Shadow

What They're Babbling About: It's All Relative

JeanneSager — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:26:00 GMT

One of the best things about blogging are the varied looks at similar subjects in the news every week - just adding more to the conversation. Take a look at how we're related to everyone else in the blogosphere this week - and how we're not - in this week's What They're Babbling About.

After reading Hannah's post this week about the black girls showing preference for white baby dolls, a review of the new book "I'm Chocolate, You're Vanilla" is apropos. The book on raising black and multiracial children gets the full treatment at The Anti-Racist Parent.

Always bragging about your family tree that goes back to someone great? The joke was on you this week with Familylink.com's April Fool's e-mail claiming addressees had been confirmed as relatives of President Obama. - Salt Lake Tribune

Madeline's look at the names that aren't coming back went hand-in-hand with the April Fool's Name post by The Name Lady this week. Can you spot the fake? - ParentDish

I shared the secrets to the childcare tax credit . . . and Lil Sugar's got a question for you - do you pay your nanny taxes? - Lil Sugar

Shannon helped us hop into spring with her Peep show - now find out what it's like to pull a Mythbusters on Peeps. - CafeMom

Image: PeepResearch

Want Free Childcare? We Can Help

JeanneSager — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:05:00 GMT

So the economy is getting worse, and you have to work more hours . . . but you can't afford to add extra daycare for the kids? We might have the answer for you.

Host and Care was set up to link students in need of accomodations with people they can help - primarily parents who have a guest room in their house and could use eight to sixteen hours a week of someone extra watching their kids.

The free site doesn't run background checks on care seekers or care providors, nor does it determine the terms of a care/accomodations deal. It's simply a conduit - and one that's gaining attention in an economy where every little bit helps.

Daycares have been announcing enrollment drops since the economy took a turn for the worse, in part because there are more laid off parents at home to watch their kids. But the bigger reason? Parents just don't have the cash - and while some babysitters have taken paycuts to keep their jobs, most daycare costs are contractual. There's no break for parents, leaving them with options that range from bad to worse. Like reports that an increasing number of parents are simply leaving their kids home - alone.

So instead facing of a mountain of bills to pay, they'll be facing a pile of child neglect charges . . . or worse - their kids could seriously hurt themselves.

Host and Care could be an option for parents with guest rooms, rooms they already pay the mortgage on and heat, rooms that won't be filling with guests any time soon considering friends and family are hurting financially too. It's akin to having a live-in nanny - without the cost - while the students get a leg up on paying their way through school with the burden of rent off of their shoulders.

Is there a college near you where there might be students looking for a room? Check out the site - they also connect families for house swaps, a great way for bigger families to save on accomodations on the road.

Image: MilitaryMoves

Talking Taxes: How the Childcare Credit Works

JeanneSager — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:36:00 GMT

Do you send your kids to daycare? Have an in-home sitter?

As long as you work - and pay the nanny/manny/babysitter on the books - families with two kids can claim up to $6,000 in tax credits this year. So how does it work?

Your kids have to be under age thirteen. You may be worried about leaving the fourteen-year-old alone in a house with a well-stocked liquor cabinet, but the IRS doesn't care.
You must be making an income. Ya know, that's why they call it a credit on your INCOME taxes.
If your employer gives you money toward childcare, that must be deducted from the amount you're claiming. If your employer is that type, please give me his number. I want to work there.
You can't write off what you pay to one of your other kids to watch their siblings (sigh) or what you pay your spouse to watch your kids. If you're paying your spouse to watch their own child, you might want to find a new spouse (sorry, just saying).
If you're paying someone to come to your house rather than paying someone who has their own daycare or a sitter who has her own business, you may owe the government more because you're an official employer. This gets a lot of big important big wigs in trouble just as they're about to be confirmed as something even bigger and more important, so check this one closely. It might do to even hire an accountant. Just don't pick this guy.
The kid being babysat must have lived with you for at least half of 2008. If he hasn't, why did you need a babysitter?
Your filing status must be single, married filing jointly, head of household or qualifying widow(er) with a dependent child. In other words? You have to file . . . AND have a kid. Imagine that.
If you didn't pay out $3,000 for childcare for your one child, you don't get a $3,000 credit. If you didn't pay out $6,000 for two kids or more, you don't get a $6,000 credit. Those are simply the top end (try telling that to your daycare provider).

There are more tips over at the IRS Website, but these are the biggies. Are you going to be filing for a tax credit for childcare this year? Is it worth it?

Image: No Time For Laundry

When Grandma Says No Thanks to Baby Care

Shannon LC Cate — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:00:00 GMT

We've probably all got the image in our mind of what happens when one woman's "baby" has a baby of her own: A glowing new grandmother rushes to her daughter's home and settles in for a week at least--cooking, cleaning, changing diapers, coaching the new mother on breastfeeding, swaddling and bathing her new bundle of joy. Later, grandma cheerfully offers to babysit, goading "you two go out and have fun! Don't worry about a thing! You deserve it!"

I'm not sure where this little fairy tale comes from, but it's a far cry from the reality for many new parents.

The New York Times reports that plenty of grandmothers are not interested in hands-on care of their grandchildren and some new parents resent it.

Now I take every "trend" reported by the New York Times with a big grain of salt. But just for the sake of argument, let's say they're spot-on this time. Let's say new grandmas don't change diapers and their daughters and daughters-in-law are resentful and disappointed about that.

I can't say I blame grandma. Would I love free, loving childcare for my kids? Sure, who wouldn't? But I also appreciate that my own parents are still in the workforce and my in-laws are too old and infirm for the care of young children. But even if all the grandparents were retired and spry, haven't they earned their time to relax and be free of the day-to-day work of young children's care? I know I am looking forward to having some of that freedom myself someday, having put in my own time as the go-to mama of babes. I consider any help from friends and relatives in the care of children to be gravy. Sure it takes a village to raise a child, but every villager doesn't need to be put on the diapering rota. Each member of a family or extended group of friends has something to offer. It need not be grunt labor.

So let's take the pulse here on Babble and talk back to the Times. What's our trend? Do your parents and in-laws pitch in a little or a lot with your children? How does the level of help line up with your expectations or hopes?

In Praise of the "Manny"

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:00:00 GMT

After Amy Kuras posted this piece about Boy Scouts getting training to be baby sitters, I was surprised to see some of the comments assuming that male caregivers are de facto abuse risks to children. Not only do I think this is a woefully discriminatory way of viewing half the human population, I think there might even be some benefits to male caregivers that female caregivers don't offer. I propose that it can even be dangerous to exclude boys and men as boys and men from childcare and that using them as caregivers can even help prevent abuse.

First let me address the discrimination aspect. I am sure that many Strollerderby readers have fathers, husbands, brothers and perhaps old-enough-to-baby-sit sons who aren't abusers and could never be abusers. Of course they do. So I have to scratch my head at the knee-jerk fear some women express about the idea of a male baby sitter. To categorically dismiss all boys and men as potential abusers doesn't make sense. Yes, statistically, most abusers are "heterosexual" men, but statistically, most abusers are also related to the children they abuse. In fact, some statistics show that one third of sexual molestation is perpetrated by a parent. But I bet most moms don't refuse to allow their children's fathers to be alone with their children because of the statistical probability that they will be abusers. It would be ridiculous to use statistics that way, right? Relying on statistical percentages rather than actual knowledge of an individual baby sitter applicant would be similarly foolish.

I think categorically mistrusting male caregivers and categorically trusting female ones is in itself dangerous. Why? Because a false sense of security about a caregiver not being a molester because she's female could cause a parent to let down her guard about other possible dangers. First of all, there is that 1-10% of sexual abuse (depending on the study you look at) perpetrated by girls and women. Then there are the other dangers to children besides sexual abuse that are more evenly split between male and female caregivers. A frustrated caregiver of either gender might well shake a colicky baby, for example. It's important to consider many factors in selecting childcare. Assuming a man is an unsafe choice is a blunt selection method and doesn't seem to indicate the kind of thought that really needs to go into the decision.

I have used two men to provide a significant amount of care for my children. And their legal guardians in the case of their parents' deaths are their godfathers. One of my caregivers worked half-time on a regular schedule for my family for two years during one of which, he lived with us. He could not have done a better job. The single father of a grown daughter he had raised since his ex-wife left them both when the baby was under two, "Uncle" David was my older daughter's third parent from the moment she arrived in our home at three days old.

We currently employ a young man to care for our now four-year old and 18-month old daughters slightly less than half-time. He too is beloved by both of my children and plans to work for us throughout the next year or two while he attends a local community college. I am trying to encourage him to go into early childhood education. He would be a gifted preschool or elementary teacher. My only concern for him is the discrimination against men in that field.

My daughters have lesbian moms. They also each have a birth mother, as they are both adopted. Neither of them have men in their lives that meet our family's definition (or their birth mothers' definitions) of "father." Given the statistics, my girls are likely to grow up to be heterosexual women. When they go looking for men with whom to partner, I want them to have a clear sense that men not only can, but should be nurturing, loving and caring. I want them to have a strong expectation of nothing less. And if they happen across men who offer them less, I want them to recognize that quickly and move on. Giving them male caregivers during their tender years is the best way I can think of to imprint these expectations in their psyches.

But it isn't just faraway romantic benefits I hope male caregivers give my daughters. It's also prevention of abuse in the present. With a concrete example of the proper boundaries of a loving male baby sitter (or uncle, or grandfather, or godfather--which my daughters also have), my girls might better be able to recognize a breach of those boundaries by a would-be abuser encountered in some other area of their lives. In these early years, I am almost always able to have intimate knowledge of the people into whose care I place my children. As they grow older and go into situations in which I have less opportunity to know the adults in their orbit, I want them to have their own strong sense of what is appropriate and what isn't. Male caregivers help them develop that sense.

I can understand that parents with their own abuse histories by boys or men might very well decide they simply can't handle placing their own children in male care. But for those without any immediate knowledge of abuse, I don't think having heard a story or having had an acquaintance or having read something about a male caregiver abusing a child is a good reason to exclude male caregivers from their children's lives. To do so is to possibly deny your children a wonderful relationship with a beloved sitter. It's also to deny boys and men the opportunity to get hands-on experience caring for young children before they become fathers themselves. And isn't more hands-on fathering what so many moms wish for?

Mommy's Little Tax Deduction, And How To Get It

Kate Tuttle — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:33:00 GMT

You know how everyone always gives you lots of unsolicited advice before you have a baby? Like, "your life is gonna change forever!" or "sleep when the baby sleeps"? One thing people rarely tell you, but should, is this: daycare is hella expensive. Luckily, there are a few ways you can defray these costs -- either through the federal Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit or through a Flexible Spending Account through your work.

It's too late to sign up for an FSA for 2008, but for those trying to figure out what will work best for 2009, here's a handy calculator.

For those without an FSA but looking to claim the daycare credit (which is left unclaimed by thousands of parents who are eligible), the National Women's Law Center has assembled this useful resource. Thanks, women!

More by this author:

Six Steps to a Parent-Friendly Wedding

Miriam Axel-Lute — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:00:00 GMT

Kids and weddings—depending who you ask it’s a match made in heaven or a disaster in the offing. There are plenty of people out there who will happily give you tips about a "kid-friendly" wedding, making them feel special and valued with their own, less-stuffy invitations and special roles to play.

But what about their parents? As cute as they are, it’s not so much the babies that form the core of your invite list, right? It’s your own nearest and dearest, your siblings and cousins and family of choice, the people who remember you in your prom dress, take the late-night phone calls, and made sure you didn’t make the mistake of your life and marry that other guy/gal.

They want to come to your wedding, even if they’ve recently spawned and become that alien creature known as a “parent.” Here’s how to make them feel welcome:

(1)   Make it clear if the kids are invited—and to how much. Wedding invitation etiquette is complicated and subtle. Don’t assume that your parent friends have the brain to retain it all, or that they remember that they don’t now form a completely inseparable family unit with their kids. Spell it out: Either put the kids’ names on the invite or say “children welcome.” Or, if any part of your event is adults only, spell that out too. Whatever you do, don’t make anyone ask. Bonus points: Give a heads-up about “adult only” ceremonies and/or receptions at the save-the-date stage, especially for out-of-town invitees.

(2)   Offer child care—but make it optional. One of the major reasons the debate about children at weddings is eternal is that kids (and parents) are (news flash!) different. Some kids will be excited to see the ceremony, sit quietly watching or nursing or coloring, and generally be a better guest than your half-deaf uncle who provides audible running commentary about your weird religion from the fourth row. On the other hand, some will be miserable, cranky, and noisy. By offering the option of child care, you can give some parents the precious ability to be present at your ceremony without distractions without making others feel like they have to say no to their kid who’s all excited to see the pageantry or blow bubbles at you as you leave.

(3)   Know thyself. Kids in a wedding can be a great thing. But if you’re going to go to pieces if everything isn’t just so, don’t give young kids roles in your ceremony. Just don’t. Also seat parents of the under-5 crowd on the edge of the reception hall, near the exit. (This isn’t rude. No parent loves walking the gauntlet with a meltdown in progress.) If you want a parent to play a central role in your day, talk to him or her beforehand about naptimes, child care, etc. In other words, if you expect your maid of honor’s undivided attention for two hours before the organ starts to play or your brother to give a toast at a late-night reception, make sure they know it, and find out how realistic it is.

(4)   Look for a location with a playground or other child attraction. Face it: weddings, when you count the reception in, are long. Even the best-behaved child needs to let off a little steam in there. Luckily, this doesn’t require you to hold your wedding in a kiddie fun park. If you’re renting a house of worship, talk about having access to the nursery or RE room and/or the outdoor play area. If you’re doing a weekend wedding, look for resorts or camps that have a playground (though copious outdoors is generally enough). Hotels are more tricky, but many larger ones will have something available if you ask. If not, you can rent an extra conference room for child care and stock it with toys old, new, borrowed, and blue. Or just take my cousin’s approach, and put board games out at the reception itself.

(5)   Accommodate the stuff. For weekend-long weddings especially, but even for the shorter kind, parents tend to pack for weddings as for a vacation. Far from fitting everything they need into a clutch purse and a tuxedo pocket, they arrive laden with diaper bags, sippy cups, tote bags of favorite stories and stuffed animals, and insulated lunch bags filled with bottles/allergen-free foods/the only three foods the two-year-old will eat. An easily accessible coat rack, coat check, or other corner where it’s acceptable for them to lay down their load is a huge relief. Bonus: For weekends, especially, see if you can arrange refrigerator access.

(6)   Keep bedtime in mind. No, no, no. I don’t mean you can’t party nice and late. But remember: if you are having an evening wedding and guests are relying on you for dinner afterwards, allowing serving time to creep to 9 pm and later means many parents are going to have to choose between overtired tantrums (not something you want either) or not getting to eat. Or at least not getting to eat cake. And it sucks to miss the cake, you know?

Wedding planning is a balancing act worthy of the Karamazov brothers. But throwing parents’ needs into the mix early will earn you gratitude from your friends and family—and probably a wedding populated by happier kids too, a blessing worth a little planning.

Photo by anthrovik.

More by this author:

Childcare Relationships and Bickering Parents Affect Kids' Stress Hormones

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:30:00 GMT

It seems self-evident that kids with poor childcare relationships or parents who frequently fight are more stressed than other kids. But now two new studies have established this common sense theory from a biological standpoint, by monitoring the levels of cortisol (the human stress hormone) in preschoolers and 6-year-olds. As parents across the country struggle to afford high quality childcare and to maintain a stable home environment, these studies are unfortunately quite applicable to these trying economic times.

In most people, cortisol levels decrease throughout the day. But for many children in full-time daycare, the stress hormone increases as the day progresses. Researchers found that class size clearly affected children’s moods, with preschoolers in classes of 10 or fewer children producing less cortisol than those in classrooms with closer to 20 other kids.

Children with poor relationships with their daycare providers became more stressed after one-on-one interactions with the teacher, while clingier kids had higher overall cortisol increases throughout the day.

Similarly, a study of 6-year-olds with bickering parents found that those who were very involved in and distressed about the fights produced more cortisol than other 6-year-olds. Since high levels of cortisol have been linked to health and psychological problems, this finding offers a biological understanding of why kids who get very upset by their parents’ arguments are more likely to have psychological problems later. (Whether higher levels of cortisol are a cause or an effect of psychological disorders is not clear.)

The study’s authors hope that understanding the biological basis of stress in young children will change the way kids in these common problematic situations are treated. For instance, monitoring kids’ levels of cortisol could help indicate whether a given intervention is working to relieve stress or not.

Day Care Enrollments Plummet as Families Struggle to Pay the Bills

Is Cutting Your Sitter's Pay the Best Way to Save Money?

Photo: pregnancy-depression-help.com

Day Care Enrollments Plummet as Families Struggle to Pay the Bills

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:13:00 GMT

New Horizons daycare center just outside of Chicago has seen its enrollment cut by 50 percent in the last three months. And a San Gabriel, California daycare saw its enrollment go from 51 kids last year to 15 this year.

As the economy goes from scary to terrifying, parents around the country are being forced to cut back on childcare or pull their kids out of daycare altogether, relying instead on extended family or drastic changes to their own work lives.

"It is not about people making choices to drive a second car," said Diane Stout, who is the executive director of New Horizons. "For many low income people it is making a choice for food." And, with yearly day care costs averaging between $3,380 and $10,787 for childcare for one preschooler, even middle income families are being faced with the need to cut back on childcare.

Providers say they are seeing increased disciplinary problems amongst kids who are stressed by their families’ financial problems and by the loss of many of their friends in daycare.

And many fear that kids will be placed in dangerous situations as their parents’ desperation increases. Even families who qualify for aid often don’t bother applying since the waiting list is so long, being forced instead to put their children in questionable situations while they work to pay the rent and put food on the table. One woman, was instance, was leaving her four-year-old daughter in her car while she worked at a shoe store, checking on her every hour.

As the executive director of Child Care Solutions, a New York referral agency put it, "We are driving people into an unregulated system."

Photo: AP

Is Cutting Your Sitter's Pay the Best Way to Save Money?

How Many Nannies Do the Angelina Jolie & Brat Pitt Family Have?

SunnyChanel — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:00:00 GMT

You know, I’d be happy with just one Nanny. Scratch that, I’d be happy with just half a nanny. The Angelina/Pitt family, how many nannies do you think they have to keep the jet-setting family sane? According to Life & Style Magazine, the magic number is Six. Six nannies. One for each child. But when you’re jetting all over the world, having enough able bodies to handle the chaos is, I’m sure, a necessity.

On their recent trip in New Orleans, the crew tried to make do with just four nannies but had to fly two in as an emergency measure. And to transport the brood, they have to employ a convey of autos. In Germany, for example, they have twenty cars at their disposal.

But although they do employ more than enough help, family pal Wyclef Jean, of the Fugees fame, says “They make plenty of time for the kids, they’re great parents.”

Do you think six nannies is too many?

Via: MSNBC.com

Is Cutting the Sitter's Pay the Best Way to Save Money?

JeanneSager — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:34:00 GMT

So we're headed into a recession, and you're going to have to put some extra hours in at work to make up for a reduction in staff and earn that much-needed overtime. Is now really the best time to give the babysitter the shaft?

A list of childcare saving options in a recent Wall Street Journal piece quotes a SitterCity poll that puts 36 percent of babysitters taking pay cuts. Providing a list of way to break the news, they admit it's not easy to scrimp when it comes to the person who is going to care for your child.

So I wonder, should you? Really? Let's revisit that sentence: the person who is going to care for your child. This isn't skipping the morning latte in favor of a travel mug full of home-brewed joe. It's telling the person you pay to be there with your kids when you're not around that they're just not worth as much this year as they were the last. In a tough economy, chances are they'll swallow that excuse. But aren't they more valuable this year than ever before?

Studies have shown a mother's ability to work is dependent on the ability of childcare. The less flexible the job, the more flexibility needed on the childcare front. And the only thing flexible about jobs these days is whether they're going to be there tomorrow. So think twice about how much you're going to spend on their Christmas or Hannukah gift this year (downgrade that spa package to a single massage to make up for putting up with your brat), but you might want to keep the love flowing their way right now.

Image: Bracamontes

Do You Leave Your Kids in "Car Care?"

Do Your Kids Go to Camp Grandma As Much as You Did?

Part II: Why Parents of Boys Have It Better (And Why They Don't)

Day Care Enrollments Plummet as Families Struggle to Pay the Bills

Saggy Mom Boobs Get a Lift! Carry It Off with the Cleavage Caddy

Furniture Industry Won't Suffer as Long As We Keep Making Babies

Despite Recession, Kids Stuff is the Last to Go

Economy? Down. Halloween Sales? Up!

Feeding the Kids at a Soup Kitchen

Madeline Holler — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:29:00 GMT

Terrible Mother blogger Heather Ryan has a moving essay, a part of Salon's "Pinched" series, about taking her kids to a soup kitchen last summer. The fully employed, fully insured, single mother of three wasn't there to give her privileged kids a gritty life lesson on how the other half lives. They were the other half. Or, at least a growing number of the other half.

Even though Ryan had loaded up earlier that week at the food bank, she knew if they didn't take advantage of a free dinner for families with children in her city, they wouldn't have anything to eat by the end of the month. She sucked up her pride, packed up the kids and went.

Ryan's oldest daughter's reaction to the meal is understandable. And sad. And Ryan's new insight into "the system" and how it can shape attitudes is eye-opening.

But what's got me feeling rage is the big ticket item that put her in financial jeopardy that summer in the first place: childcare! For three kids, she had to pay $1,800 per month. And her kids are older -- not babies, who command an even higher rate.

I always find it surprising how limited our discussions of childcare are in this country, usually starting and stopping with: should you or shouldn't you. What about when you have to?

There's so little help with it and, as is likely the case with Ryan, she probably makes too much to qualify for the help anyway. Even though she -- and gobs of lower-middle to middle-class families like hers -- need it. Especially now. Especially this summer!

So is this recession kicking your family's ass? Have you ever had to go to a food bank or a soup kitchen?

Photo: Salon

Google -- Just Another Crappy Company for Workers With Kids

Madeline Holler — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:06:00 GMT

I'm so naive. I always think if large companies could just provide quality, subsidized, on-site childcare, workers would have no reason to "opt out" or ever even really complain about work.

Then I read about the woes of Google -- yes, "voted top company to work for" Google -- and how they have totally botched the whole on-site childcare thing, once again leaving mid- to low-level employees with figuring out how the hell to reconcile work with raising young kids and pissing off many employees in the meantime.

The NYTimes has a nice little tell-all piece. In a nutshell, the saga goes something like this:

As Google really takes off, they set up an on-site daycare which focuses on children learning through play. It costs $1,475 monthly for infant care, less as the kid gets older. Everybody who isn't on a waiting list is more than satisfied.

The woman who initially set up this first daycare after she returned from maternity leave -- the sister-in-law of one of the founders and high-level Google employee with, the story implies, a probably not terribly crucial job to the mega-search engine company -- learns about Reggio Emilia, THE preschool philosophy of the moment (and if you're a good parent you've tried hard to get your kid into some kind of Reggio program). She sets up second childcare center on the Google campus that is Reggio.

Problem: Reggio is fucking expensive -- salaries, equipment, imported all-natural toys, incessant documentation of junior's achievements via high-quality photography. Moreover, Google decided to raise the salaries of the workers at the other center to match those at the Reggio center.

Then! Google stock drops. Google realizes it is subsidizing each child enrolled in its daycare centers about $37,000 annually. Google decides to pass costs along to employees. Subsidies decrease.

Now, tuition for babies is $2,500 per month, slightly less for toddlers and preschoolers -- even for people who didn't opt for the Reggio program.

Employees cry.

Then Google decides to change the original center into Reggio one.

Interestingly, the waiting list gets smaller, something the company wanted since it doesn't look so great to have a long waiting list for one of your touted benefits.

In a show of dedication and seriousness as an employee and a parent, the sister-in-law/Google employee/founder of these daycare centers (Wojcicki) tells a group of disgruntled employees that, despite the high cost, she intends to keep her kids at the facility. Sidenote: she's a multimillionaire.

Employees really cry.

This is where I really get pissy with not just Google's childcare follies, but childcare/preschools in general in the U.S. They're just so segregated. Kids of the wealthy go to preschool with kids of the wealthy. Poor kids attend school with poor kids. Middle-class, same thing. There's never any economic diversity and of course this carries over to grade school, etc. Am I the only one who thinks it would be nice to mix it up a little?

I mean, many Google employees can no doubt afford this school and good for them. But the kids of those families look and live just like the other kids at that school. But what about the secretary? The single-mom/dad? The janitor's kids? Or just the mid-level Project Manager whose salary is good -- no, excellent! -- but can't quite stretch it to cover the $2,500 in monthly childcare AND housing AND transporation costs in Silicon Valley. Lord knows what families with twins or more than one young kid do. The article mentions a sliding scale, but in my experience, such schemes are never really to scale and never really slide. Is it fair that Wojcicki the multi-millionaire gets any subsidy at all?

Doesn't Wojcicki feel there's a great value to education in making on-site daycare available to commoners -- even more than "project-based learning" and organic teething biscuits and one sensory table for every three kids?

Photo: webisland.com

You Might Like Wall-E But Don't Trust Him With Your Kids

Kelly Mills — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:58:00 GMT

Robots have kind of a mixed rep. From loveable, cuddly characters to cold killing machines, it's clear we have some ambivalence about what it means to have this kind of technology in our lives and on the horizon. While I personally have a strange affection for robots, I can see how others are raising the alarms. So parents, would you let a robot watch your children?

You may have to make this decision sooner rather than later, because robots are being developed for use in schools, and will potentially be here to babysit your brood in the not-so-distant future. So what do you think? I mean, if you read the Derby, you probably believe our current system of having humans care for their own offspring and the offspring of others is not without flaws. But should it concern us that robots may be responsible for teaching our kids? (Gasp! You mean a machine might sometimes act as a babysitter? Say it ain't so!) What will that do for their emotional development? Our society? Are the robot wars inevitable? Do tell.

Moron Parents Abandon Children...

How Much Should You Pay Your Babysitter?

Pediatrician Poll: Nanny vs. Daycare

editors — Fri, 16 May 2008 16:00:00 GMT

Q: Which is better for kids (if economics aren't a factor) — nanny or daycare?

Nanny: 35%
Daycare: 12%
Depends on the child's age and circumstances: 53%

"Nanny before age two. Daycare is better after that, because children are social little beings and love to be around other kids." — Kim Gush MD, FAAP. Chapel Hill, NC

"There are pros and cons for both. With a nanny, you have the convenience of being at home, more flexibility with hours, less exposure to illness; with daycare there's more opportunity for social interaction with other children and more adults around monitoring each other, but also more exposure to infection." — Julie Luttinger, MD, FAAP. NY, NY.

"That is so individual; it really depends on family circumstances." — Lawrence Rosen, MD, FAAP. Old Tappan, NJ.

To obtain these results, Babble randomly called 300 AAP-approved pediatricians in 50 states, then tallied the answers of the 20 who called back. Pediatrician Poll appears in Strollerderby every Friday.

Office plus Baby = No Work?

Brett Singer — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:30:00 GMT

As an experiment, three Guardian staffers brought their rugrats to the office and blogged about the experience. The result? Not much work got done. Zoe Williams, who brought 6 month old Thurston (love those British names) to the Guardian offices, points out that letting babies hang out at the workplace "irks non-parents," acknowledges that "parents are annoying," and quotes something called the Parenting in the Workplace institute, which is so enthusiastic about parents bringing babies to work they sound like a group funded by companies that don't want to pay for extended maternity leave (note: I don't know if I'm right about that, that's just a guess.) Bottom line: none of the three people in this particular group dug the experience, at least in terms of productivity. Williams puts it best when she says that Thurston is, "a nuisance. A lovely nuisance, but nevertheless..."

As someone who brought Thing 1 to my place of business a few times when he was very young, I can say that there is a way to get stuff done and also have the kid there. One is the Baby Bjorn. I developed a knack for answering email while Thing 1 napped away peacefully (I have long arms). I could even take phone calls using a headset, which prompted a colleague down the hall to joke, "The kid's first words are going to be 'can you hold, please?'" (For what it's worth, they weren't.)

Admittedly, I was in a small office, and I was the boss, so everyone just had to deal. But the fact is that no one minded; if anything, they seemed to enjoy it. Of course, Thing 1 was THE GREATEST BABY EVER. But he still pooped, required bottles of expressed milk (which I stored in the office fridge), and all that good stuff. I didn't do it every day, just sometimes, when it was realistic. But any loss in productivity was offset by the fact that I was able to spend more time with my son and also give my wife a much-needed break while she was on maternity leave.

One idea that never seems to get enough attention is onsite daycare. There was an episode of 'Desperate Housewives' where Lynette's employer adds a facility for employees, and I think it worked out OK (although, if memory serves, she and her husband are now running a pizza place, so maybe it was a nightmare. I don't watch that show anymore.) Some companies will pay for offsite day care at a facility such as Bright Horizons; sometimes you can even visit your little one for lunch if you are so inclined. In this case, I'm talking about Manhattan, which doesn't have affordable childcare; your choices are a nanny, a pricey pre-school or an almost-as-pricey day care. The little amount of telecommuting I've seen first-hand is basically paying people to stay home with the kids, since very little work actually gets done. (Of course, your experience may be different.)

Anyone had any experience with kids at the office -- yours or other people's? And does anyone's company offer onsite daycare?

image: guardian.co.uk

Political Nanny: Extra Cookies for the Loving Woman Who Defies Michelle O.

Madeline Holler — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:03:00 GMT

If Barack Obama isn't a family man, he's hidden it well. He likened the duration of his campaign so far -- 15 months -- to the growth and development of a newborn who would now be a capable walking, talking toddler. He mentions his children frequently. He holds babies like a champ. He's got kids on the brain.

He's also got the youngest kids on the campaign trail -- Malia, 9, and Sasha, 6. So how does he do it? How does Michelle do it. She's campaigning just has hard as her husband is. So what about the girls?

That's where Obama's mother-in-law comes in. Marion Robinson, a 70-year-old retiree, makes sure the kids are bathed, fed, off to school and again picked up -- and also mildly spoiled, certainly by their reputedly strict mother's standards.

The Boston Globe has a feature on her. The Obama campaign should have a gold medal for her. (Interesting sidenote: she'll move to the White House right along with the family, if all this campaigning works out the way they hope.)

Political Nanny, always in awe of selfless caregivers like Mrs. Robinson, wants to reward Obama's mother-in-law. For helping Daddy achieve his dreams without making Mommy sacrifice the kids (and for ignoring the ban on fried chicken, candy and TV), Political Nanny is giving Marion Robinson two extra cookies at snacktime. No, make that six extra -- Mrs. Robinson no doubt wants the girls to have a sweet treat, too.

Political Nanny definitely approves.

Disabled Parking Privileges for Pregnant Women: Necessary?

Madeline Holler — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:34:00 GMT

Look, I'm the first one to bitch about lack of societal assistance for parents and families. And I don't want to push back any -- ANY! -- attempts to try to get the village behind raising the next generation of little monsters.

But I think giving pregnant women parking passes is totally misplaced generosity that distracts us from the real needs of pregnant women and families and also likely to cause a bit of backlash towards breeders.

A California legislator has proposed granting "temporarily disabled" parking placards to pregnant women in their last trimester and for the first two months after birth. Chuck Devore, a Republican, said there are physical challenges while pregnant and he wants to help.

From the Sacramento Bee:

The Irvine Republican said it makes little sense to force a pregnant woman who has trouble getting out of her car, and might have a toddler in tow, to park in the outer reaches of a parking lot.

"It certainly makes you realize that for that very short period of time in their pregnancy, they are certainly by any practical definition (impaired)," he said.

Of course, his proposal is being met with some resistance. Opponents are arguing that pregnant women should be exercising as much as possible. They also say this might make even fewer spaces available for motorists with more serious disabilities. Totally agree with the latter argument. But the first part? Ew. Seriously, I just don't want the legislature in on my exercise regimen, 'mkay?

They also argue that women with complicated pregancies can already qualify for one of the placards -- which is great.

Discussion of the issue includes a lot of back and forth about what women do naturally, etc. But I'd like to invite Devore to spend his time as an assemblyman -- one who is clearly concerned about pregnant women and their young children -- getting lawmakers behind some fabulous (read: normal for other wealthy nations) PAID maternity leave benefits that last longer than the time it takes for a uterus to return to its pre-pregnancy size. And how about state subsidized childcare, loads of it, staffed by qualified and well-paid workers? Oh, I know, I have another one: those cuts the governor made to education in California? Rally your Republican buddies behind getting those reversed -- and what the hell, top it off with a little something extra.

Trust me, pregnant women won't mind waddling from far reaches of the Target parking lot if they could be assured that the pregnancy was the hard part.

Thanks for the tip daddyinastrangeland!

Dads Aren't Slacking, Are Getting Some

Kelly Mills — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:29:00 GMT

There has been a glut of "guys do housework, get laid" stories out lately, and some of them frankly sound like a bid to get laundry help. You know, men who do housework are hot, if women aren't tired they feel more in the mood, and so on. If it doesn't make you feel like a low-paid call girl, I suppose you could even work out some sort of direct exchange of chores for hummada hummada, but I doubt either party really wants to feel like there's an ulterior motive behind the acts of cleanliness and love.

No matter how you look at it though, a new report says guys are pitching in on housework and childcare more, and possibly getting laid for it. They cite that men's contributions to housework have doubled since the 60's, and pitching in on childcare has tripled since 1965. Great. Maybe now people will stop asking dads with kids in tow, "Oh, are you babysitting?" And if there's a happy ending (in every sense) to this more equitable division of labor, then three cheers for parents today.

Too Much Childcare? It Happens.

Madeline Holler — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:04:00 GMT

Our babysitter went and got a job. A real job. How could she? What about our needs?

Sure, we hardly ever used her. And only on evenings, usually on the weekends. Do you think she had better stuff to do besides hanging out at our unexciting, tiny house?

What about when the opposite happens, particularly with your full-time nannies or household help? Do you just kick her to the curb when all the kids go to school? Cut back the hours? Turn her into a full-time housekeeper?

It's a problem I'll never have -- what to do with too much childcare. But it's one they tackled over at the Wall Street Journal's "The Juggle." A blogger wanted to know what arrangements the readers had with their beloved babysitter/nannies who they no longer need full time.

The writer said:

Fortunately, our sitter already does some light housework (doing the kids’ laundry, emptying the dishwasher and so on), and we’ll probably expand her into more of a household-manager kind of role when both kids are out of the house more often.

I'll refrain from poking fun (in a jealous rage) of outsourcing household management, because I think it's great they guy is showing loyalty to a person who had been obviously loyal and caring and helpful to his family.

A lot of the commenters started "sharing" the nanny, or changed their responsibilities from changing diapers to cleaning the house. Others, seeing the financial windfall of no longer have to pay for so much help, found the women new families to care for.

What do you plan to do?

Kids Ruin Everything: The Iowa Edition

Madeline Holler — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:03:00 GMT

From the Heartland, on the eve of the much ballyhooed Iowa caucuses (they're here? They're finally here?!), I bring you a new twist on that old parenting classic: who is going to watch the children.

Like when you want to go to a grown-ups only party, or, say, out on New Year's Eve. Or maybe just spend some alone time with your partner without having to take out a loan to pay a babysitter. Those damn kids sure get in the way of your freedom!

If you're an Iowan, the kids get in the way of your civic duties too! I mean, who is going to watch the children when you head out on a dark winter's night Thursday to go caucus?

In fact, it's not just parents who have to jump some serious hurdles to get this 2008 election rolling with the nation's first caucuses. Plenty of Iowans are inadvertantly disenfranchised by the caucus process due to a late shift for work or the inability to get away from home for several hours. Or, what should give every person in the state pause: members of the Iowa National Guard who are serving overseas! Yikes!

No wonder only 5 percent of the state actually show up to caucus. Which now makes me wonder, why the hell is Iowa so important in the first place?

Order in the Court: State Courts Offer Childcare

Amy Kuras — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:16:00 GMT

I'm sure all our Strollerderby readers are fine upstanding citizens who have never seen the inside of a criminal courtroom, and if you are divorced or had other business in family court, it all went amicably as could be. Right?

But for those of us who live in the real world, having to show up for court can be incredibly complicated. No one wants to drag their kids into the middle of a custody battle, or worse, but oftentimes court proceedings happen when they need to happen and a parent's usual childcare arrangements aren’t available.

That's why this article about New York State's establishing childcare centers inside courtroom buildings sounded like such a good idea I don’t know why all states aren't doing it. Prior to this, kids would be in the courtroom hearing everything, sometimes even sitting on the judge's lap while he or she heard cases.

Many of the children who come through the court childcare centers are poor, and workers there help families get hooked up with services such as Head Start or food stamps that they are entitled to but may not be receiving.
And the caregivers take their role as comforters of kids going through a rough time very seriously. Mercedes Robles, the director of the White Plains Center, even holds drives for school supplies and winter coats for children who may not have them.

"The children who come here, their families are going through crisis,” she said. “They don’t need to hear what’s going on between Mommy and Daddy in the courtroom environment. This is a happy place.”

Photo: New York Times