Walk Your Way To A Smarter Baby
Mothers who exercise during pregnancy can help to boost their child’s IQ. The Australian

Swine Flu Virus Peaks In Mexico And US But May Return Who Warns
Swine flu infections in Mexico and the US have peaked but could return with a vengeance in the autumn, senior health officials said yesterday. Times Online

Nuisance Parents Banned For Trespass
Principles are banning troublesome parents from their schools using a law designed to stop trespassing. SMH

Teens Charged Over Rock Attack
Two teenagers have been charged after allegedly throwing rocks at vehicles on the NSW south coast – in the second incidnet in 24 hours.A seven-year-old boy was among those arrested after cars travelling on the Princes Highway near Hillcrest Avenue, South Nowra, were targeted by a group of five youths about 2.45pm on Sunday. Daily Telegraph

Court Lets Girl, 17, Remove Breasts
The Family Court has allowed a 17-year-old girl to have her breasts removed so she can be more like a boy. SMH

‘Feeding Up’ Of Babies To Be Curbed
Thousands of obese and overweight [British] babies, fattened by mothers on medical advice, are to be identified by National Health Service charts. Times Online

Where Did I Really Come From? Kids’ Book Outrage
A book which teaches children about lesbian mums getting pregnant using sperm donors is being pitched at kids as young as two. Daily Telegraph

More Sugar In Rusks Than A Chocolate Digestive
Some baby foods contain “staggering” amounts of sugar and fat that make them worse than junk food, according to a survey published today. Independent

A couple of Florida parents have a different idea about how to resolve inappropriate touching between preschoolers: a lawsuit to the tune of $US5 million.

They allege that their four-year-old daughter experienced emotional trauma at the Starchild Academy daycare center, after she was “molested and otherwise touched in a sexually inappropriate manner” by another little boy. They are suing the daycare for negligence.

This story is clearly reported with a bias to the daycare, so it’s hard to know whether there is any merit to the offended parents’ case. Assuming that it’s true that their daughter was deeply disturbed by inappropriate contact from another student, this little girl needs to be cared for, not used as a pawn in a lawsuit.

The daycare administrators got it right when they said that the goal in a case like this should be to look out for the welfare of both students. According to a teacher at Starchild, “Our agency would not consider a child, at that young of age, a perpetrator. Therefore, our role is to insure that the child is not a victim of child abuse themselves.”

Photo: Kincaid Construction

Carter Dillard, writing in the Georgia Law Review, is not exactly recommending either (in fact, he speaks, rightly, of parental licensing schemes as “comical”). But he is, very seriously, arguing that there should be no fundamental right to procreate, that there is a duty on prospective parents to be “fit,” and that courts should have the right to issue no-procreation orders in certain limited circumstances.

In the narrowest case that Dillard focuses on, it’s hard to argue: If, due to egregious harm to previous children, a no-custody order has already been issued, such that any child born is immediately taken into state custody, wouldn’t it be better for all to prevent such a pregnancy in the first place with a “no-procreate” order?

Trouble is, this seems to me almost as rife with problems as parental licensing. Much as Dillard wants to separate out the principle from how it would be implemented, I can’t.

Dillard never manages to acknowledge that the state does a pretty awful job in most cases of determining “fitness” now, and often gets it wrong (in both directions). Some of that can’t be avoided: We need to be able to take kids out of danger, even if we suck at it. But I heard in Dillard’s writing a disturbing willingness to expand the definition of “fitness” tests to include finances (how much money is “enough”? does it matter how you spend it?), “pending neglect cases” (and if they were ruled to be unfounded, as many are?). It just seems like a clear slippery slope to pre-emptive sterilization of people who are different, poor, etc.

But even if we do set aside implementation for a moment, Dillard’s argument that his “no-procreate” orders could be good for everyone by shifting resources from helping kids who have already been harmed to prevention rings a bit hollow.

For that to work, the no-procreate orders would actually have to substantially reduce the number of children born into abusive situations. But only a tiny fraction of the worst cases already have no-custody orders. And even then, how to ensure the order works? Forcible abortion? Sterilisation? (Long sordid history of that already) Court-ordered Norplant (serious side effects for many people)? Criminalizing sex? Imprisoning people? Sending them to a convent?

The answer, of course, is you don’t. You just say it, and if it’s violated, it changes to a “no-custody” order and unspecified penalties are applied after the fact. Could that have a deterrant effect? Unlikely. At least for women, if carrying a pregnancy you know you’re going to have to give up isn’t a deterrant, it’s hard to know what would work better. And most men in this situation are unable to pay the child support they already owe and any other penalties may suck for them, but it’ll make it even less likely that they end up paying. Pregnancies are not always preventable, and in stressed families like this, are also rarely planned.

Would the orders make a point? Perhaps. But they’re not going to make some huge difference in the number of kids who are born to “unfit” parents or who end up abused.

Here’s what might work better:

If you want to put resources into prevention—of unwise pregnancies and of abuse—do it. Don’t wait for some neat legal principle to make you feel better about it. Fund health care, birth control, abortion, good sex ed, parenting education, respite services, and domestic violence response, etc. and improve access to them. There’s plenty of info out there about how to do these things well. If you want to ensure that babies born to parents with a history of serious enough abuse that they already have a no-custody order in place aren’t bounced around from foster home to foster home and maybe-maybe-not back to birth parents sometime (which I agree is not a good plan), make no-custody orders include automatic termination of parental rights for any child conceived after they are issued and allow the kid a permanent adoptive home from day one. It’s still subject to errors in judgment, but at least you know it’ll have real results. (And, frankly, it might be more of a deterrent than some random legal penalty.) (Note: This suggestion works when both bio parents have the no-custody
order. What is the proper response when it’s only one of them who is
subject to such? I don’t know.) Ick.

Photo by walknboston.

Her ex-husband, meanwhile, has remarried and his wife sleeps over – well, lives – with him every night. 

Angel Chandler and Joseph Barker have been divorced for ten years, and shared custody of their two kids (now thirteen and fifteen) that whole time. They've both entered new relationships too, Barker remarrying five years ago while Chandler has maintained a monogamous relationship with a woman since 1999. But when they went to court late last year to modify the custody arrangements, the State of Tennessee sent both parents and both kids for psychological work-ups. 

The evaluation determined Chandler's partner was a positive influence on her two kids. The court ignored it. A "paramour" restriction was added to the custody arrangements earlier this year, restricting Chandler's partner from being in their home on the nights when the kids were with Mum. Because after nine years, suddenly a set of teenagers are going to be shocked to find out Mom's a lesbian? 

The women are now living in a duplex, side by side, so they can abide by court rules and still be together – sort of. The ACLU has stepped into the fray, filing a brief this week that urges the court to remove the paramour restriction, calling it unconstitutional for interfering with Chandler's abilities to raise her children as she sees fit. 

If the court really wants to do what's best for the kids, how about allowing two sets of parents to get on with their lives in loving relationships and letting those kids see examples on both sides of happy, committed, successful couples? 

Image: Amazon

Source: ACLU

Today the inquest heard that Armani had taken no formal swimming lessons. A note had been sent home asking parents to circle whether they were able to swim or not, but it is disputed whether the correct choice had been circled on Armani’s note. Questions have been raised about whether Armani’s parents, who are Lebanese, correctly understood the note. The school no longer sent notes to parents in foreign languages due to a decrease in non-English speaking students.

The court heard that 15 teachers and four teachers’ aides had been supervising the excursion, however, three of the four lifeguards on duty had allegedly been working in the canteen at the time of the incident.

The inquest continues tomorrow. It certainly makes you wonder how safe our kids really are when on school excursions, and is a sober reminder of the importance of swimming lessons for all children.

[Source/Image; Source]

Under this plan, the police would return the impounded bikes and skateboards after 15 days, and officers say they would only exercise this option after kids ignored repeated warnings.  So little Suzie riding around her block on her new Barbie bike with training wheels won't be traumatised for life.  

But I think this is a good idea – and maybe, if temporarily impounding the bikes doesn't help, the police might want to consider taking them away for good.  Last month, in Holliston, an 8-year-old boy was hit by a car while riding a bike.  He was thrown 30 feet, but survived because he was wearing a helmet.  If we want our kids to understand how important helmets are, it makes sense to impose important consequences for not wearing them.