When Fathers Kill Their Children

My brother, who's a lawyer in New York City, says that infanticide is a lot more common than parricide, especially if a man's children are living apart from him with an estranged spouse. There have certainly been some disturbing cases recently of fathers who murder their children, or are accused of murdering their children.

Fifty-nine-year-old William Parente is one of these dads. This tax and estate planning lawyer murdered his wife and his two daughters (ages 11 and 19) in a Sheraton hotel room in Maryland before taking his own life last month. Apparently he cut himself and bled to death in the bathroom. A cleaning lady found the four bodies. The New York Daily News reported that the deaths did not happen quickly.

No one is sure why he did this but an investigation has made it clear that Parente's finances were in ruins. I can only think he killed his family with the mistaken idea that he would be saving them from the shame of bankruptcy? He was obviously mentally deranged at the time but the story is so sad and so bizarre.

Still, ascribing some kind of charitable motive to this father who murdered his family makes little sense given that Parente, who was apparently a deeply religious Catholic, beat the shit out of his wife and daughters before strangling them to death.

Another absolutely mortifying story of a father turning on his family is the Chris Coleman case, which has been reported on Fox News.

Thirty-two-year-old Coleman is accused of strangling his wife and two sons, Gavin and Garret, in their home in Columbia, Illinois. He has pleaded not guilty. I can't help thinking that if he isn't guilty (what motive could he possibly have for killing his family?) the fact that he's been arrested while grieving for the loss of his family and branded as a murderer is even more devastating to an already shattered life.

When Parenting published an article about moms being mad at their spouses by Martha Brockenbrough, it was so widely read that the New York Times blogged about it. But the recent news suggests the opposite: that dads are so mad at their wives, and their families, that they are sometimes willing to commit murder.

We Heart Cloth Diapers

There's a recent AP article exploring how some frugal parents (they say moms but we say moms and dads) are turning to cloth diapers to save money in this difficult economy.

We all need ways to save money, an excellent reason to use cloth diapers.

There are lots of other reasons too, some of which are mentioned in the article but some which you won't hear about in the mainstream press.

#1 Here's one of the most interesting: some scientists theorize that the rise in male infertility among European men is partially connected with the widespread use of disposable diapers. Here's why--the male genitalia is on the outside of the body to stay cooler in temperature. Parents tend not to change disposable diapers as often as cloth diapers, because you can't tell when they are wet, thereby unnaturally raising the temperature of their child's genitalia.

Moral of the story: whatever diaper type you use, give your son as much air time (fanny exposure) as possible.

#2 Babies in cloth potty train earlier: This makes parenting a lot easier. Babies in cloth diapers learn to associate peeing with wetness more readily than babies in disposable diapers. The new cloth diapers are so state-of-the-art and amazingly dry that maybe this isn't as true as it used to be but it still seems to be the general case.

#3 Cloth diapers are cutier: Absolutely adorable. Your kid won't only be an ecobaby, he'll have the cutest derriere on the block.

#4 Cloth diapers aren't big business: A lot of people making cloth diapers are stay-at-home parents and small business owners. We heart them and we want to support them.

#5 Cloth diapers are easy to clean: Especially if your newborn is breastfeeding, you'll be so surprised how easy the cloth diaper washing thing is. First of all, you don't need bleach or ANYTHING like it. Second of all, you can get away with washing pee pee diapers on cold (we swear -- just put a little vinegar in the rinse water) and poopy diapers on warm. Honest.

U.S. ranks 27th, Niger ranks last

This is so sad, though Save the Children's annual Mother's Day Report Card isn't telling us anything we don't already know.

Basically that it is very difficult to be a mother in the United States, which ranks 27th among the 158 countries surveyed. Niger -- where James, Jennifer, and their three children lived for a year -- ranks dead last.

The United States is among the richest countries in the world, and the most powerful. Yet we have arcane policies about motherhood, fatherhood, and early childhood.

The highest scoring countries (Ireland, Denmark, France, and Norway are among them) have child-friendly policies, good health for mothers and children, and high economic and educational status for mums.

Sweden ranks first.

In the United States, an alarming number of children are at great risk of failure in school because they are not getting the care and support they need in their early years. New Mexico, Nevada, Mississippi, Arizona and Alabama are the bottom five states where young children face the greatest obstacles to success in school. These states scored low on indicators of parental involvement, quality of home life and preschool participation. Parents in these states are clearly struggling to give their young children a good start in life – and as a result 71 to 81 percent of fourth graders in the public schools in these states are not reading at grade level. Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine are the top five states where, generally speaking, parents and communities are doing a better job of preparing children to succeed in school. (p.5)

You can access the PDF of the executive summary of the report here.

Children (and Babies and Grown-ups Need to Eat Food)

Here's a novel suggestion -- feed your baby, your older kids, and yourself food.

Food.

Humans need to eat food.

But we don't.

We eat processed crap that is nutritionally devoid and then "enriched" with everything the processing of the food took out of it.

News flash: cereal (even Cheerios and Special K, despite what you see on the TV ads) is not food. Poptarts aren't food (you already knew that). Granola bars aren't food. Anything wrapped in plastic with unreadable and unpronounceable ingredients does not count as food.

Don't make your baby's food out of a box or a jar or a plastic bag.

Instead, buy a yam, steam it, and mush it up. Feed that to your baby. And have some yourself.

We see moms and dads putting Coke in baby bottles. Or orange juice. Skip the juice altogether and let your baby drink water and breast milk. Formula, folks, also isn't food. It's nasty manufactured crap that companies are making a lot of money selling, so much so that they can afford to give it away for free in the hospital. These companies even get away with brainwashing new parents that their babies aren't getting enough breast milk.

Some studies are finding that processed baby food is even worse than junk food. Click here to read an article about this.

Rant over. Go buy some apples, oranges, green beans, arugula, spinach, artichokes, chicken, grass-fed organic beef, celery, broccoli, cherries, cheese, edamame, peanuts, walnuts, beans, brown rice, grapes, pears ... and feed that to your family and yourself.

There's an epidemic of obesity among preschoolers in America. If we all start eating REAL FOOD, we could stop it.

Dr Jay Gordon on How Unvaccinated Kids Do Not Put Others at Risk

Commentary by Dr. Jay Gordon, MD Associate Professor of Pediatrics, UCLA Medical School

The article in the Los Angeles Times this morning has generated a lot of discussion and I was asked to respond.

Unvaccinated children do not pose a threat to vaccinated children or their families. We all have a responsibility to keep each other's children safe. Choosing to not vaccinate or choosing an alternative vaccine schedule could be considered a rift in that contract. Medically, scientifically and statistically speaking, it is not. Honest people might disagree.

I have been a pediatrician for thirty years and have watched children receive all scheduled vaccines, some of the vaccines or receive no vaccines at all. I have seen every one of the illnesses against which we vaccinate. The last time I saw bacterial meningitis in a child was 1982 but the extreme rarity of this terrible disease means that it makes the news whenever a case occurs. Denying that childhood meningitis exists is dishonest. Equally dishonest is implying that it is a large threat to any of our children. I see kids with pertussis every year. I see children misdiagnosed with whooping cough far more often. Two years ago, the New York Times took note of this phenomenon:

New York Times article

2009 marks the thirty year anniversary of the last case of "wild polio" in the United States. Subsequent cases were caused by the oral polio vaccine which is no longer used in this country.

WHO/CDC supported site

Rubella is no longer an "American" disease.

CDC Press Conference

I recently read an article, written in 2009 which chastised non-vaccinating parents because there had been 131 cases of measles in the U.S. in the first half of 2008 alone. And how many cases were there in the whole year? 134. The usual number? 62. Disingenuous reporting. An extra 72 cases of measles among 300,000,000 Americans made the papers every day or two for months and the LA Times writers dredge up the child who caught measles on a Swiss vacation one more time.

Yes, as mentioned, measles and other viruses can cause encephalitis. It's very, very rare. Implying otherwise could scare parents.

And, no, the law does not allow us to know which children have not received vaccines any more than it allows other invasions of privacy.

I have received hundreds of emails from people all over the country and the world reaching out to me and asking me to listen to them about vaccine issues and injuries because it seems that no one else will. I have permission from a mother to forward email she sent to me-with a picture-of her four month old daughter who received four vaccines and died shortly thereafter. I have dozens and dozens of similar emails and dozens of face-to-face encounters in my office with parents coming to me after what they considered to be vaccine damage to their children. I will not forward that email. It creates a different kind of fear that also doesn't serve the dialogue well.

I think that these possibly injured children and families represent one end of the bell shaped curve and that scary stories about meningitis in Minnesota (the first there in 18 years) represent the other end. (I do feel that the former end of the curve is far fuller than the latter but no proof exists. None.)

The LA Times stories were "fear-based" just as my forwarding these emails would have been.

The University of Michigan Law Review recently invited me to write a journal article about vaccines and tort law and you can read it here.

I sum up my law review presentation to parents every winter by telling them that the only way to avoid childhood illnesses is "reverse isolation" of your illness-free child. If you go to a two-year-old' s birthday party during the winter months . . . You will probably get sick.

Peripherally, let's all remember that it took fifty years or more, thousands of court cases and a lot of money to finally prove the connection between cigarettes and cancer. The three court cases showing no connection between vaccines and autism should make no headlines and should be an impetus to honest investigative journalism.

We have increased the number of vaccines and the combinations of vaccines given to babies and children. Adequate testing has not been done. I have seen a huge rise in the number of children with autism. Neither I nor any other doctors are hundreds of percent better at diagnosing this spectrum of developmental delay than ten or twenty years ago. The dramatic rise in the number of cases of autism spectrum disorders is attributable to something other than "reclassification" or better diagnosis.

While waiting for scientific proof, we have to tolerate families' completely legal and scientific desire to have or not have their children given vaccines according to the current schedule.

Best,

Dr. Jay Gordon

TriangleMommies Blogs About "Toddler"

There's a review over at TriangleMommies.com of "Toddler: Real-Life Stories of Those Fickle, Irrational, Urgent, Tiny People We Love." I love the review as Andrea is just the kind of person the book is designed to reach -- someone running around after toddlers who has no time to read but is eager, nonetheless, to find out how other parents are coping with their 1, 2, and 3-year-old terrors. Here's an excerpt from what Andrea has to say about the book:

Hi, everyone! Right now I am reading the absolute best book possible. My daughter turned two last week, and although I've been skimming through this book for a while, I find that it seems to be hitting home a bit more these days. BIG TIME!

I am reading Toddler: Real-life Stories of Those Fickle, Irrational, Urgent, Tiny People We Love, Edited by Jennifer Margulis. And I LOVE IT! It's a compilation of short stories written by mothers and fathers of toddlers. They share their trials and tribulations, stories of protecting their young ones, playing with them, viewing things from the eye-level of the toddler, and much more!

The stories are short and sweet, totally to the point, and easy to sneak a read in while hiding in the bathroom. Come on now, I know I'm not the only one who does that. One dad even used it as the topic of his story, reminding me that we're all in this together.

We didn't pay her to write that. Honest! We don't even know her. But it's very nice to hear that the book is making a parent feel like she is not alone, which is exactly what I hoped it would do. You can read the whole review here.

Babies are bad for marriage

I just got this press release from the Council on Contemporary Families:

Old News: Having a Baby Will Save Your Marriage

New News: No, After Having a Baby, Satisfaction With Marriage Goes Down for Most Couples

New New News: Having a Baby Won't Improve a Poor Marriage, but Couples Who Plan the Conception Jointly Are Much Less Likely to Experience a Serious Marital Decline

And Really Good News: Couples Who Establish a Collaborative Parenting Relationship After the Child Is Born not Only Have Happier Marriages but Better-Adjusted Children

In the mid-20th century, marital counselors often advised couples that parenthood would increase their marital satisfaction and adjustment, and polls showed that most Americans believed that true marital happiness depended on having a child. But over the past three decades, a series of studies, including two by Philip and Carolyn Cowan and another 25 studies in 10 industrialized countries, have discovered the opposite. On average, satisfaction with marriage for men and women goes down after the birth of a first child and continues to fall over the next 15 years.

Today, conventional wisdom seems to have swung the other way -- holding that babies bring trouble to their parents' marriage. A recent New York Times article by Tara Parker-Pope (Jan 20, 2009), quoting from the most recent studies, points to the time bind facing new parents and the burden on women resulting from increased household work as factors in reducing marital bliss. She holds out hope to her readers by reporting the finding from a 50-year longitudinal study of Mills College women that couples are likely to re-connect once their children leave home.

For parents of young children, that's a very long time to wait. And it's not good news for the children either, because children are more likely to have social, emotional, and academic problems when their parents' marriage is in distress.

But many of these findings on marital distress in the early childrearing years are based on the uncritical use of averages. More in-depth examination reveals that the averages hide considerable variation. The Cowans' detailed interviews with 96 couples, followed for 6 years after their first babies were born, revealed four different pathways that couples take in deciding to become pregnant and carry the pregnancy to term. First are couples who agree about when to begin trying to become pregnant (about half of their sample). Then there are the couples who "find themselves pregnant" and decide to "accept fate" and go ahead (about 15%). Another set of couples (about 20% of the sample) are still ambivalent when they reach the 7th month of pregnancy. Finally, for some couples who are at serious loggerheads about the decision, one spouse agrees to become a parent only because the other threatens to go it alone (about 10%).

The Cowans found that the average decline in marital satisfaction was almost completely accounted for by couples who (1) slid into having a baby without planning; (2) were still ambivalent about becoming parents in late pregnancy, or (3) disagreed about having a baby but went ahead and conceived without resolving their difference. About half the planners showed increased marital satisfaction or maintenance of their initially positive level in measurements taken when their babies were about 18 months old. ALL the couples where one partner had given in (usually the man) were either separated or divorced by the time their first child entered kindergarten.

Other studies conducted by the Cowans in the 1980s, 1990s, and the first decade of the 21st century, involving 1000 families, identified another important contributor to dissatisfaction with the couple relationship after childbirth, even when both partners equally wanted the child. After the birth of a child, most couples become much more traditional in their approach to housework and childcare. No matter how much they think the tasks will be shared, most women wind up doing more housework work than they did before the birth, and more of the childcare than they expected. The discrepancy between what the couples hoped for and the reality of wives having to take on a "second shift" at home leads to feelings of tension, depression, and sometimes anger in both partners.

To alleviate this source of dissatisfaction, the Cowans have been working with couples in groups, allowing parents with children around the same stage of life (making the transition to parenthood, sending a first child off to school) to share the fact that all are struggling to balance the complex demands of being parents, partners, and workers in today's society, and to get past blaming each other for their stresses. Follow-up assessments show that the couples who meet in the professionally led groups are more likely to maintain a positive view of their relationships, to work together more effectively to resolve disagreements, and to be warm while also setting limits with their children than couples without this resource. Not surprisingly, their children are also faring better in both the preschool, elementary school, and high school years, according to their teachers.

Given these findings and the challenge of having a baby, the Cowans say, it isn't wise for an eager spouse or would-be grandparents to pressure couples to become parents before both partners are ready. In light of the long-term consequences of the transition from being partners to becoming parents on the quality of both adult and parent-child relationships, the decision to start a family should not be rushed. Partners need to start by having a discussion or a series of discussions -- not by making a decision. If both partners can express both sides of their feelings, it is less likely that one partner will carry all the ambivalence for the couple.

When both partners feel they are part of this major family decision, they are more likely to be able to meet the challenges of balancing the needs of both partners in terms of work and family. All this bodes well for their developing relationship with each other and with their child -- and ultimately for their child's sense of security and well-being.

The bottom line? When men and women work together to plan when to have children and then establish a collaborative approach to parenthood when children are young, it's a win-win situation for the couple and for the children.