Should overweight kids be removed from their parents?

A couple of doctors have written a piece in the Medical Journal of Australia saying that obese kids would benefit from being taken into care.

Yup–removed from their parents and placed in treatment.

(By the way, this news is a little old because I started this draft post and then left it. But I suspect it will happen again.)

I keep thinking: what would I do if it were me? There isn’t a downright skinny person living in this household (with the exception of the Bunster who clocks in at a featherweight 2 1/2 pounds), and the mere thought of someone showing up to escort my child forcibly into treatment makes me puke.  

At what cost?

Admittedly, they are referring to cases that are quite serious (one of the patients in question was 110 cm (3 1/2 feet) and weighed 40 kilos (88 pounds) and parents who seem resistant to making changes.

It isn’t the first time someone has recommended this loopy idea. In the UK, a member of the National Obesity Forum said that kids who are very fat should be treated like abuse victims and removed from their families.

Hasn’t anyone told these folks what it does to kids to be removed from their parents? These experts should sit down with some foster kids for a few hours and come up with a better solution.

By the way, has anyone seen the research pointing out the higher risk of obesity in kids of single parents? Interesting theories but none of this stuff is inevitable. But oooooohhh, isn’t it just the way.

Filed under: cats, kids, life , abuse victims, overweight kids, parents, removal, treatment

Teens making porn for teens?

Imagine it. Your teen or pre-teen–for whatever reason that moves this age group to do the stupid, wacky things they occasionally do–decides to photograph a naked body part and beam it over to BFF, GF, or BF via the miracle of cell phone technology.    

 

The very same cell phone you gave her for Christmas that made you get all misty when she opened up the package and squealed thank you thank-you-thank-you-mommy-I-love-it. “Where’s my baby?” you thought. . .growing up too fast.

 

Indeed, but how fast? Depending on where you live, and depending on what the image depicts, your child could be charged with making child porn and be placed on a sex offender registry for many years.

 

Just a few weeks ago, it happened to two girls in Pennsylvania. Just fourteen and fifteen in 2008 when they took cell phone shots of themselves nude and sent them to other minors, they’ve since been arrested and charged with trafficking in kiddie porn.

 

I got an update about this issue from Childlaw, a great blog by James Marsh on issues pertaining kids and the law (which I follow because of its coverage of adoption issues) but you can find other stories about this issue here and here.

 

 

So what do you think? Should these kids be charged with making and distributing kiddie porn? What if they get more entrepreneurial and make a homemade movie and sell it? It’s not so far-fetched. According to the ArsTechnica article cited above, 20 percent of all teens have sent nude photos of themselves to another person, and not just to friends.

 

Every parent has to talk to their kids about this issue and what the law says even if the law has yet to catch up with technology. Child pornography laws are about protecting children from adults who victimize them. They cannot be applied to minors who unwittingly produce pornography by being minors. Where is the intent to exploit? This is a huge mistake these kids are making but it’s an even bigger one to label them sex offenders. Yet in a recent Florida case a judge argued that these penalties are necessary to protect minors from their own lack of judgment. If you sort that logic out, let me know.

 

 

Honestly, I’m not saying this is all fine and dandy and I want to discover any child I know doing this stuff. But branding for life seems cruel and disproportionate. 

Filed under: Uncategorized

Tagged: The weirdest things about me

Oooh, I’ve been tagged. Thank you, Kori.

So here goes. Seven random weird things about moi.

1. I rub all letters off all keyboards eventually. If I think to put clear nail polish on the keys when the keyboard is new, it will delay the process by a few weeks. Thank god I was schooled in touch-typing by the nuns.

2. If going out in the late afternoon for some last-minute groceries, I have to brush my teeth and wash my face.

3. I LOATHE Everybody Loves Raymond, especially Marie. Why doesn’t Debra just up and leave these morons? The college fund is hers if she gets on a bus today.

4. Smoked salmon would be my fave meal for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Just another single-mother wasteful habit.

5. The Latin root of any English word, along with its original definition, is guaranteed to make me weak-kneed. Example: deviate, meaning away (de) from the path (via). Now that is a much nicer definition of deviate than “pervie”.

6. My package-wrapping is magnificent, especially my corners.

7. I leave coffee cups around the house that turn into science experiments. If you leave them long enough, the icky stuff turns into dust and isn’t at all gross. (Ditto hairballs.)

Okay, how about Erin? And Jodi? You’re tagged.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Time-with-kids-study surprised researchers

Well, this is interesting. I know we were a little down on the folks who concluded that single moms spend less time with their kids (“Captain Obvious” was how one of our intrepid readers put it). . .but today I happened on a longer article about this study from the December issue of Journal of Marriage and Family.

Single moms in this study actually came close to time spent with kids as marrieds did, a fact that surprised the researchers. From Huliq News:

Based on data from time use diaries, the study finds that single mothers who may lack a large support network still manage to provide 83 to 90 percent of child-rearing time as their married counterparts. While the difference is statistically significant, the researchers expected a greater gap.

When controlling for available resources, defined as “type and hours of employment, education, maternal age [and] age of children,” the difference disappeared altogether.

And what did the researchers conclude from this?

The researchers conclude public policy focuses too heavily on the mother’s marital status.

Oh, yeah. Unbelievable. They’re actually getting it! The article goes on to talk about how the researchers were surprised by how well we pull it off. They acknowledged that the motivation to mother well and the opportunity to do so are where policy should be focused on right now, not marital status. Maggie Gallagher, please take note. (Note: I’m assuming this applies equally to single dads who are primary care givers.)

I was so excited about this because it’s the start of a new term for the Democrats and I’d love to see someone bend the President-elect’s ear about some of these issues (as well as Michelle’s). Let’s put the money redirected to marriage promotion during the last four years to promotion of education and job opportunities. Throw in health care. Imagine it: living in a society where a medical bill wouldn’t torpedo your family’s security.

I really have high hopes for the US in the coming years. It just can’t start soon enough.

Filed under: Uncategorized , education, employment, Maggie Gallagher, marital status, marriage, president-elect, single mothers, time with kids

Single parents: it’s so too bad about the death of the 0 down mortgage

About a year ago, we moved from the 16th to the 18th floor of our building.

When I get bored in the bathroom I read packing paper. Yeah, there are still a few moving boxes stacked inside my bathroom. A few weeks ago, I pulled out something from the Toronto Star Business section, all about the flexibility of mortgages for the self-employed, the single, the not-your-average buyers. Ah, 2007. . .what a different picture. Sure the articles were advising me to be careful, but the ads from the major banks were telling me that zero down is just fine and they can do, do, do for me.

Fast forward to today: what a diff. As of Oct. 15, the Canadian government won’t back 40-year mortgages (the limit will be 35 years); zero-down payments are gone; and the self-employed will face a tougher time getting financing (just when we thought that nonsense was over).

Needless to say, the credit-challenged will be more challenged than ever.

Word on the street is that it’s all because of the US sub-prime meltdown, and you can understand the panic. But do we really need to be restricting loans this way? Wasn’t the Canadian way of getting real estate into the hands of unconventional buyers actually working? From Canada’s Realty Times:

Mike Averbach, founder of Averbach Mortgages in Vancouver, says Canada is not in danger of a housing crisis like that in the U.S., and his clients are asking for proof that the policy changes are necessary. “There are definitely groups that will be affected by the change,” says Averback. “The 40-year amortization mortgage is a terrific benefit, especially for the self-employed who need the flexibility of minimum monthly payments.” He predicts that a large number of homeowners will turn to private mortgage insurers “to take advantage of more flexible features because it’s a better lifestyle fit.”

I’d like to get back in the house porn (oops) market one day, but the equity from our home in the ‘burbs won’t cut cut it here in downtown Toronto. It’s quite possible that I’ll be wanting the “insured” mortgage again–the one where the down payment is less than 20 per cent of the purchase price of the home and they start scrutinizing you. Single and self-employed? Yeah, that’s me. I make good money; I pay good rent–on time, every month. But my money goes for a bunch of other things. . .like, uh. . .raising a family.

But I’m a pretty good risk.

Someone has to take a chance on me.

Filed under: Uncategorized , 40-year amortization, Canada, Canadian government, Realty Times, self-employed, single, sub-prime mortgages, zero down

What would you do with another Casey Anthony?

It’s too late now for Anthony, trapped in her own lies about 3-year-old Caylee.

She was indicted on Oct. 14 and pleaded not guilty.

It’s probably too late for Caylee too. Offically missing, possibly dead. Anthony’s only hope now is that the guy spotted flying to St. Louis with a child who looked like Caylee on October 8 (reported in People) is someone she knows. Someone who agreed to take her daughter off her hands for good.

Something I notice about Anthony: she’s obsessed with image. In almost every photo, she looks picture-perfect, right down to the perfect little knot tied on her T-shirt on page 52 of People. I also notice that her daughter looks perfect. Perfect bangs, perfect clothes, perfect car seat. Perfectionism: it’s hard for many young women to shake. It can affect everything from their work life to their love life.

Anthony once sent a text message that said, “Spending the day with Caylee is 10 times more exhausting then working a 12-hour event.”

Hello? What does that say to you? It says to me that Anthony is so caught up in someone’s idea of what she should be doing for Caylee that she can’t figure out what kids really need. Kids do not need

• to look perfect or to live in a perfect bedroom
• for you to look perfect (Stacy and Clinton, take note)
• for you to be perfect

It’s really just so sad. How did we get this way? We’re completely screwed up as a society and we never take any responsibility for it. I’m not saying we create psychos but I get the feeling they like living here.

Filed under: kids, life, solo life , Casey Anthony, Caylee Anthony, image, indictment, People, perfectionism, Stacy and Clinton

Singlemindedwomen Blog Talk Radio

 

 

 

For a totally different kind of “View,” join some fierce single-parent bloggers on Monday, October 13. Details above. It’s such an honour to be a part of this group. I hope we get together often.

Filed under: Uncategorized , Alaina Sheer, Blog Talk Radio, Jessica Ahsley, Jessica Pegis, Matt Logelin, Single Minded Women

If you’re poor, you have nowhere to go but down

Today I buy Macleans for the half-hour commute to my brother’s upper-GI specialist. I’ll be blogging more about my brother in the future. At 62 and on the autism spectrum, he’s a pretty interesting guy. Today’s visit is typical, though. He remembers the stats; I remember the story. Between us, this doctor is lucky.

Back to the ride out there.

Hunkered down in a nice quiet subway car, I soon find myself immersed in a Barbara Amiel column. For the first few minutes I can’t figure out why the Hermès and Manolo-loving Babs is rubbing shoulders with a bunch of women in a prison waiting room, and then it hits me.

Duh.

She’s visiting Conrad.

The waiting room conversation is about money and the recent economic bailout. While Babs still has her $37-million Palm Beach mansion, most of the women aren’t doing so well. One has cancer; another works for a place where they can’t make payroll; a third has an adjustable-rate mortgage that just left the stratosphere.

But they all have one thing in common: they’re on their own while the guy does his time.

Mostly, Babs is very sympathetic even if she and Conrad are apologists for greed and the Chicago School of economics. She wishes Suze Orman could convince all women to take off the blinders and take care of themselves. She knows that carping about the declining value of a 401K is a luxury.

Here’s the thing, though. In this crisis, some people have a lot to lose; some people have something to lose; and some people just have nothing. How much do you wanna bet that the majority of women are in the nothing-to-lose category? (Women comprise 56% of Americans over 18 who live in poverty.) I know Babs is trying to be sympathetic. But she’s just too rich to know better.

I hope you’ll tune into my budget column on Single Minded Moms. It’s called Single Mom Meets Budget and we don’t assume anything about you, except that you’d like to save money every day. Personally, I can wrap my head around that one faster than I can figure out what all the pewter-haired devils are saying on TV.

Filed under: Uncategorized , 401K, autism, autism spectrum, Barbara Amiel, Conrad Black, economic bailout, poverty, prison, retirement plan, Suze Orman, women