In the past few weeks, there have been several cases in which families who follow free range parenting (a philosophy that believes in allowing children the freedom to explore and develop autonomy) have found themselves in potential legal trouble for giving their children some leeway to explore. In one case, a South Carolina mom was arrested for allowing her 9-year-old to play alone at the park. In Maryland, a couple was reported for allowing their children to freely roam the neighborhood. And just recently another mother found herself dealing with a police officer when she let her kids out alone. “All we did was let our kids go to the park,” she says, adding that CPS threatened her by saying that if she didn’t sign a parenting plan agreeing to keep the kids under direct supervision at all times, “we’re going to take the kids.”
Life is full of relative risk, and absolute safety is an illusion. While an unsupervised child is certainly more vulnerable to being picked up by a predator should one be lurking nearby, these type of high profile abductions are also extremely rare. Too put things in perspective, the choice to put your child inside a car is is hundreds or even thousands of times more likely to lead to their demise. So should CPS also investigate parents and threaten to snatch their children away when they drive their kids to school?
Risk from life cannot be eliminated. Everything in life has potential benefits and potential risks, but if you try to eliminate risk by constraining a child, you also forgo it’s benefits. And many people don’t realize that these days just as many young children are dying from obesity related medical complications as are meeting their doom in the type of nightmarish incident parents dread, and the obesity epidemic is at least partially related to parents promoting lifestyles that keep kids restricted and immobile.
Research tends to support the idea of free range parenting. Kids get more exorcise, they play more creatively, and they develop more competence and better social skills. The literature on overprotective parenting is not so supportive. Overprotected children exhibit higher rates of stress, anxiety, depression, and frustration. They tend to struggle a lot more with adversity in life. They aren’t as happy and develop more psychological disorders. So the fact that the CPS bureaucracy is now aiming their weapons at families who are arguably doing everything right is more than a little concerning.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Is Your Password Doing It's Job?
Lately there have been many news reports of stolen data, usually stolen from a large store, or even a bank. So you may need to change your passwords more frequently than you would like. But despite all the warnings about the importance of passwords, and all the security breaches that have happened, research by SplashData reveals that “123456” was the most common password in 2014. This was followed by “password.” “12345” was in third place, with “12345678” and “qwerty” rounded up the top spots. Also on the list of common passwords were “baseball,” “dragon,” and “football.” The data for this analysis was compiled from more than 3.3 million that were leaked on the internet last year.
If you’re password is one of these, or of a similar nature, let us reassure you that the time it takes to fix a potential mess of stolen information will vastly outweigh the time needed to memorize a secure password. So tisk, tisk, if you have a password that even a preschooler could crack.
Did you know that any idiot with a couple hundred bucks on their hands can purchase software that hacks passwords by repeatedly trying different combinations of common phrases, numbers, phone numbers, and words from the dictionary. For maximum security, your password should have both letters and numbers, and any actual words or names should be misspelled or have numbers substituting for letters. So get busy and keep yourself as safe as you can. Make your password do it's job.
If you’re password is one of these, or of a similar nature, let us reassure you that the time it takes to fix a potential mess of stolen information will vastly outweigh the time needed to memorize a secure password. So tisk, tisk, if you have a password that even a preschooler could crack.
Did you know that any idiot with a couple hundred bucks on their hands can purchase software that hacks passwords by repeatedly trying different combinations of common phrases, numbers, phone numbers, and words from the dictionary. For maximum security, your password should have both letters and numbers, and any actual words or names should be misspelled or have numbers substituting for letters. So get busy and keep yourself as safe as you can. Make your password do it's job.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Kids Left In Car While Dad Keeps Court Date
A 38-year-old-man is facing child endangerment charges in Newton, Massachusetts, after police say he left his 3 children inside a car on a cold January afternoon for more than an hour while he was in court. The children were ages five, three, and 9 months.(USA Today 1/16/2015, p. 9A) According to the police, witnesses called in the report around 4pm.
While this was certainly a poor decision on the man's part, it’s also a perfect example of how society can create it’s own messes and can set people up to fail. Low income parents are often faced with the prospect of getting arrested for not going to court and have no access to a child sitter or perhaps funds to pay one. This causes them to do drastic things. It’s unfortunate that we’ll now spend thousands more of time and money condemning this man than it would have taken to offer him assistance.
While this was certainly a poor decision on the man's part, it’s also a perfect example of how society can create it’s own messes and can set people up to fail. Low income parents are often faced with the prospect of getting arrested for not going to court and have no access to a child sitter or perhaps funds to pay one. This causes them to do drastic things. It’s unfortunate that we’ll now spend thousands more of time and money condemning this man than it would have taken to offer him assistance.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Nannies: Why it May Matter Who Your Friends Are
Posted on November 18, 2012 by Rachael | in Nannies
In many jobs, who you have as friends isn’t something that’s really important to your boss. But like with government and high profile jobs, many nanny employers do care about what you do and who you associate with. While it may seem unfair that an employer judges you by your associations, for many parents, knowing as much about a caregiver as possible helps to them to make informed and educated hiring and managing decisions.
When it comes to evaluating a nanny’s character and judgment,(which is unquestionably important in evaluating nannies), the type of people a nanny spends her time with can provide insight into those both of those qualities. Nanny employers typically care about four main things when it comes to who their nanny keeps company with: they care if there is a safety risk to their children, a security risk to their children, a security risk to their property, and a risk of their children being influenced negatively.
A safety risk to their children.
It’s only natural and necessary for parents to be concerned about their children’s safety. A nanny who hangs around with individuals who have poor judgment, are unstable, or who have a history of criminal problems can be concerning to a parent. This is especially true if a nanny is in an abusive domestic relationship. Parents may be concerned that the nanny’s abusive partner may show up at the home, either uninvited or not, or that the nanny may be persuaded to assist a friend in trouble during her on duty hours, taking her focus off of the children.
A security risk to their children.
Nanny employers may also be concerned about the security of their children, especially if the family is wealthy or is a high profile family. Parents may feel that the more people who know the nanny cares for their children, the greater their children’s security risk is. A parent may be paranoid that if the nanny has shady friends, they may have less than genuine motives for getting to know the family, the children’s schedule and classified family information.
A security risk to their property.
For live-in nannies especially, the prospect of having visitors is appealing. However, if the parents aren’t confident that the nanny’s pals are people of integrity, she may be concerned with them coming to the home. Fears of thievery, snooping or property destruction may cause some concern.
A risk of their children being influenced negatively.
Most parents, whether nanny employers or not, want to shelter their young children from drugs, violence and swearing. If a nanny has friends who engage in drugs or violent behavior, or who curse like a trucker, the parents likely won’t want those friends coming around. Since individuals with common interests and hobbies tend to stick together, a nanny employer may discern that the nanny has similar character traits as those she spends her time with.
While the majority of nannies are straightedge individuals who are responsible, competent and caring, these same qualities that make them great child caregivers can make them susceptible to caring for other individuals who need help. Some nannies feel that who they spend their time with off the clock has no bearing on how they do their job, but nanny employers may feel differently. Nannies are hired to serve as role models to the children in their care and to provide their charges with high quality, attentive childcare. During their workday, nannies are forced to make judgment calls on everything from what playground slide is appropriate to go down to what size a toddler’s grapes should be cut into.
For many parents, knowing that a nanny consistently makes good judgment calls is vital to developing a trusting relationship. While a nanny may be put-off that an employer cares about or questions her associations, nannies must respect that the well-being of the children is a priority and anything that could jeopardize that priority is best discovered by the parents.
We are not promoting this site, but we found it helpful. http://www.4nannies.com
In many jobs, who you have as friends isn’t something that’s really important to your boss. But like with government and high profile jobs, many nanny employers do care about what you do and who you associate with. While it may seem unfair that an employer judges you by your associations, for many parents, knowing as much about a caregiver as possible helps to them to make informed and educated hiring and managing decisions.
When it comes to evaluating a nanny’s character and judgment,(which is unquestionably important in evaluating nannies), the type of people a nanny spends her time with can provide insight into those both of those qualities. Nanny employers typically care about four main things when it comes to who their nanny keeps company with: they care if there is a safety risk to their children, a security risk to their children, a security risk to their property, and a risk of their children being influenced negatively.
A safety risk to their children.
It’s only natural and necessary for parents to be concerned about their children’s safety. A nanny who hangs around with individuals who have poor judgment, are unstable, or who have a history of criminal problems can be concerning to a parent. This is especially true if a nanny is in an abusive domestic relationship. Parents may be concerned that the nanny’s abusive partner may show up at the home, either uninvited or not, or that the nanny may be persuaded to assist a friend in trouble during her on duty hours, taking her focus off of the children.
A security risk to their children.
Nanny employers may also be concerned about the security of their children, especially if the family is wealthy or is a high profile family. Parents may feel that the more people who know the nanny cares for their children, the greater their children’s security risk is. A parent may be paranoid that if the nanny has shady friends, they may have less than genuine motives for getting to know the family, the children’s schedule and classified family information.
A security risk to their property.
For live-in nannies especially, the prospect of having visitors is appealing. However, if the parents aren’t confident that the nanny’s pals are people of integrity, she may be concerned with them coming to the home. Fears of thievery, snooping or property destruction may cause some concern.
A risk of their children being influenced negatively.
Most parents, whether nanny employers or not, want to shelter their young children from drugs, violence and swearing. If a nanny has friends who engage in drugs or violent behavior, or who curse like a trucker, the parents likely won’t want those friends coming around. Since individuals with common interests and hobbies tend to stick together, a nanny employer may discern that the nanny has similar character traits as those she spends her time with.
While the majority of nannies are straightedge individuals who are responsible, competent and caring, these same qualities that make them great child caregivers can make them susceptible to caring for other individuals who need help. Some nannies feel that who they spend their time with off the clock has no bearing on how they do their job, but nanny employers may feel differently. Nannies are hired to serve as role models to the children in their care and to provide their charges with high quality, attentive childcare. During their workday, nannies are forced to make judgment calls on everything from what playground slide is appropriate to go down to what size a toddler’s grapes should be cut into.
For many parents, knowing that a nanny consistently makes good judgment calls is vital to developing a trusting relationship. While a nanny may be put-off that an employer cares about or questions her associations, nannies must respect that the well-being of the children is a priority and anything that could jeopardize that priority is best discovered by the parents.
We are not promoting this site, but we found it helpful. http://www.4nannies.com
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Child Killing Cop To Face Third Trial
In Detroit, Michigan, Joseph Weekley may face a third trial in March for killing a young girl during a 2010 police raid after two previous trials ended with deadlocked juries.
Seven year old Aiyana Stanley-Jones was essentially murdered as police executed a search warrant for a murder suspect. Weekley entered the home and immediately fired 1 shot directly at the child who was sleeping on the couch, striking her in the neck and killing her. The police department then lied and tried to make up a story about the grandmother charging at the officer, but because the raid was being followed by a camera crew for the television show The First 48, in this instance, their deceit was exposed. The producer said the film footage blatantly contradicted the story that the Detroit police tried to make up.
The fact that they are having to try this case a third time is yet another example of the preferential treatment police receive from the US 'injustice' system whenever they do something wrong. It's also telling that none of the dozens of officers initially involved and trying to cover up this murder has faced any serious repercussions.
Click here to learn more about child safety incidents.
Seven year old Aiyana Stanley-Jones was essentially murdered as police executed a search warrant for a murder suspect. Weekley entered the home and immediately fired 1 shot directly at the child who was sleeping on the couch, striking her in the neck and killing her. The police department then lied and tried to make up a story about the grandmother charging at the officer, but because the raid was being followed by a camera crew for the television show The First 48, in this instance, their deceit was exposed. The producer said the film footage blatantly contradicted the story that the Detroit police tried to make up.
The fact that they are having to try this case a third time is yet another example of the preferential treatment police receive from the US 'injustice' system whenever they do something wrong. It's also telling that none of the dozens of officers initially involved and trying to cover up this murder has faced any serious repercussions.
Click here to learn more about child safety incidents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)