Protesters took to the streets of Glasgow last week to push back against the “rape clause” in the UK welfare system. After reforms of the welfare system took effect in April, the tax credits a family can receive for having children are now capped at two children–except in the case of mothers who have a third child as a result of rape. However, those mothers have to provide evidence that the child was in fact conceived from rape–a provision decried as inhumane.

Rape survivors have to fill out an eight-page form detailing the attack and a third party (such as a healthcare provider or a social worker) must provide additional testimony. The woman can only receive tax benefits if she is not living with the perpetrator and if she has not received financial compensation following a conviction of the perpetrator. But psychologists across the UK have expressed concern that this rape clause will harm survivors. In a letter to The Guardian, a set of psychologists write that forced reliving of the attack may cause “flashbacks, renewed shame and emotional turmoil, and consequently affect how mothers bond with their children.”

The clause was an amendment to an existing law, so it was not debated or voted on in parliament. First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP has decried the clause and has fought against it. SNP MP Alison Thewliss led the Scrap the Rape Clause campaign, presenting a petition with 10,000 signatures asking for the clause to be struck from the tax reforms. Members of the Scottish Parliament have filed a motion to debate the clause, which could push the UK Parliament to also debate it. The SNP is not alone in its discontent: the rape clause may particularly harm women in Northern Ireland, where reporting serious crimes, including rape, is mandatory. If women apply for a tax credit for a third child conceived through rape, they may be drawn into a criminal investigation against their will.

Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson has argued that the Scottish government could set up new benefits to aid families with more than two children, outside of the UK government’s reforms. Davidson accused Sturgeon of simply writing the rape clause off as part of her list of complaints against the UK government instead of actively considering how Scotland could adapt the tax credit system.

Whether or not the rape clause is upheld, families across the UK will find themselves in a new financial bracket thanks to the tax reforms. Historically there has not been a limit to how many children a parent can claim–so large families that have previously benefited from tax credits may now find themselves slipping out of financial stability. The tax reforms disproportionately affect low-income families and will push them deeper into poverty. The rape clause was established in an odd effort to be “compassionate” but the misguided attempt to soften the blow of the tax reforms has only exacerbated ideological divides both within Scotland and the UK as a whole.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Scotland’s Battle Against the UK Welfare “Rape Clause” appeared first on Law Street.

The Associated Press has reviewed 12 years of United Nations aid missions and found that peacekeepers have repeatedly sexually abused children, in some cases as young as 12 years old. While allegations to this effect have been known for a while, new reports show the issue is significantly more prevalent than previously believed. AP found almost 2,000 cases of alleged sexual abuse by peacekeepers and other UN personnel around the world. And even though more than 300 cases involve children, it’s difficult to prosecute these crimes.

Legally, the UN can’t do anything, as it doesn’t have jurisdiction over individual peacekeepers. It’s up to each country to punish its own troops, and it seems no one has an interest in doing that. AP reached out to 23 countries whose nationals are accused of sexual abuse, and few answered. The names of the accused were also classified, making it impossible to find out whether there was any punishment. A review of UN reports also showed a number of inconsistencies.

In Haiti, 134 peacekeepers from Sri Lanka sexually abused at least nine children between 2004 and 2007 in exchange for food, juice, or small amounts of money. Some of them were forced to have sex with the men several times a day for years. Eventually, 114 of the peacekeepers were sent home, but not one of them was arrested. UN workers are protected by diplomatic immunity and besides, their home countries often don’t want to make their bad behavior public.

.@AP finds U.N. peacekeepers ran child sex ring in Haiti. https://t.co/vauMSkYKv4 pic.twitter.com/poLAvSTutC

— The Associated Press (@AP) April 12, 2017

Antonio Guterres, who took over as UN Secretary General in January, announced in March the organization’s new guidelines for dealing with sexual abuse. “Certainly no person serving with the United Nations in any capacity should be associated with such vile and vicious crimes,” he said. He noted that gender equality is fundamental to tackling sexual crimes and said that promoting equality for all UN workers can help fight abuse of women. But for many, these promises are just hollow words. Similar efforts have been rolled out before to no avail.

As it’s difficult to punish the men guilty of these crimes, many have wondered whether the UN is doing more harm than good. When Nepalese aid workers brought cholera to Haiti, around 10,000 people died. Haitian lawyer Mario Joseph tried to get compensation for the victims from the UN and is now trying to get child support for the women that were left pregnant by UN workers and are living in poverty. “Imagine if the U.N. was going to the United States and raping children and bringing cholera. Human rights aren’t just for rich white people,” he said.

.@AP Despite this the UN is unable to punish those peacekeepers – it must leave that to “the countries that contribute the troops”. Unbelievable

— Peter Yeung (@ptr_yeung) April 12, 2017

A Haitian woman said she was 16 when she was raped at gunpoint by a Brazilian peacekeeper three years ago. In 2011, four Uruguayan peacekeepers filmed their gang rape of a teenager–the only response Uruguayan officials gave at the time was that it was a prank and not rape. In 2012, three Pakistani peacekeepers raped a mentally disabled 13-year-old boy and later abducted him to prevent him from talking to UN investigators. The list of victims goes on and on.

As long as there is no accountability for the member states of the United Nations and no international consensus on how to deal with these issues, it’s tough to imagine a solution. But Guterres is correct in pointing out that education about gender equality is vital. Many of the alleged abusers came from countries that are notorious for gender inequality. The most recent abusers came from Bangladesh, Brazil, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Uruguay, and Sri Lanka, according to UN data.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UN Peacekeepers Allegedly Sexually Abused Children, Never Saw Consequences appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump’s new budget proposal includes huge cuts to many agencies and organizations that do great things, such as the EPA, the UN, and the World Bank. But the budget would also make significant cuts to social welfare programs, including Meals on Wheels, which delivers food to senior citizens who are unable to shop or cook themselves. Cuts would also apply to after-school programs that feed poor children.

In a press conference on Thursday, budget chief Mick Mulvaney defended the budget outline. He said that Meals on Wheels “sounds great” but that it’s unfair to taxpayers to use their money for something that doesn’t have a proven effect. He even called the decision to cut Meals on Wheels “one of the most compassionate things we can do.”

Trying to explain his viewpoint, Mulvaney told reporters that they are focusing only on the recipients of the money, while they should be focusing on the poor people that give their hard earned money. “And I think it’s fairly compassionate to go to them and say, ‘Look, we’re not going to ask you for your hard-earned money anymore… unless we can guarantee to you that that money is actually going to be used in a proper function,” he said. Per the budget draft those “proper functions” mostly involve national security.

Mulvaney’s comments led to some angry comments on social media.

@ParaComedian09 People living is the god damn result

— Erin M Barlow (@ErinMBarlow) March 16, 2017

Mick Mulvaney says Meals on Wheels “not showing any results.” Actual peer-reviewed research says otherwise. https://t.co/B6ZRxtWIAf pic.twitter.com/YI6jiAgMBk

— Christopher Ingraham (@_cingraham) March 16, 2017

The Mick Mulvaney presser right now has made it clear that Republicans have become the party of cruelty. Sad for America.

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) March 16, 2017

Mulvaney also implied that he doesn’t see any proof that a well-fed child does better in school than a hungry one. The new budget would cut after-school programs, which often provide food for poor kids so that they can perform better in school. “They’re supposed to help kids who don’t get fed at home get fed so they do better in school. Guess what? There’s no demonstrable evidence they’re actually doing that,” he said.

That Mulvaney wants to deprive children who might not get enough food at home from a meal at school was just too much for some.

OMB Director Mick Mulvaney is shameless: “No evidence free meals to kids improves performance” https://t.co/yzDerB7tb0

— Aaron Vallely (@Vallmeister) March 17, 2017

you, a hungry child: “please sir, can i have breakfast”

me, a mick mulvaney: “that’s not efficient”

— Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie) March 16, 2017

If Mulvaney needs some proof for why Meals on Wheels is a good idea, the nonprofit group itself can provide it. The group’s workers provide food for more than 2.4 million seniors every year. A 2013 study showed that the home-delivered meals “significantly improve diet quality, increase nutrient intakes, and reduce food insecurity and nutritional risk among participants. Other beneficial outcomes include increased socialization opportunities, improvement in dietary adherence, and higher quality of life.” Also, by making sure these citizens get fed, Meals on Wheels makes sure that they don’t need to move into a nursing home just yet. That’s a pretty good way to save money on healthcare.

And it comes to those after-school programs, it’s important to note that as many as 21 percent of kids in the U.S. live in poverty, according to the National Center for Children in Poverty. Many kids even get the majority of their meals at school. “Recent studies have demonstrated that nutrition affects students’ thinking skills, behavior, and health, all factors that impact academic performance,” a 2014 study from Wilder Research stated, which makes sense to anyone who has ever tried to work on an empty stomach.

These kids are the people that will make up the workforce in a couple of years. Insufficient nutrition will definitely not help them excel academically, or physically for that matter. If this kind of thinking doesn’t change soon, the future of this country doesn’t look very bright.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mick Mulvaney: No Evidence After-School Meals or Meals on Wheels Work appeared first on Law Street.

For many people, high school is neither easy nor pleasurable. In some cases, the situation can get so bad it ends in tragedy. Seventeen-year-old Kenneth Suttner was so severely bullied both in school and at work that he took his own life on December 21. But in an unusual development, his former boss at Dairy Queen where he worked after school has now been charged with involuntary manslaughter for his death.

Friends and family members testified in court that Suttner had fought all his life to shield himself from verbal and physical bullying. He went to Glasgow High School in Missouri where he was a frequent target of bullying for his weight and speech impediment. Other parents said that the school consistently failed to deal with the problem of bullying. One of them, Barbara Smith, said she had to move her son to another school district because the situation was so bad.

In Kenneth Suttner’s case, it didn’t even end when he went home from school. At his after-school job, his 21-year-old female manager Harley Branham kept the harassment going, according to testimony from Sutter’s former coworkers. Dairy Queen employees said Branham regularly harassed Suttner, she would make Suttner lie on his stomach to clean the floor by hand and once threw a cheeseburger at him for not doing a good job. After years of bullying in school and three months of working at the Dairy Queen, Suttner wrote suicide notes to his family and shot himself in the head.

Horribly bullied teen committed suicide; Dairy Queen manager charged https://t.co/XfnaP8nFV9 pic.twitter.com/BjPdM9g3Kf

— Canoe (@Canoe) February 2, 2017

On Tuesday the county coroner, Frank Flaspohler, held an official inquest, which is a process that is similar to a grand jury investigation but open to the public. This can be sought if it is believed that an occurred death was caused by a safety or health hazard that could continue to harm people. After the six-person jury listened to six hours of testimony from almost 20 witnesses, they reached the conclusion that Branham was “was the principal in the cause of death,” that Dairy Queen had failed to properly train their employees about how to prevent bullying, and that the same went for the high school.

Branham was among the witnesses that testified and admitted she had called him names but didn’t understand how that could have caused his suicide. She claimed that everything had been in a joking manner. The special prosecutor in the case, April Wilson, said, “We wanted to be very cautious and responsible. Both sides of the issue are extremely important. A young man is dead. But we also want to acknowledge that it’s not easy being in public education.” On Wednesday, she filed a second-degree involuntary manslaughter charge against Branham.

Dairy Queen released a statement saying that it was gathering more information about the case and that the restaurant is run by an independently owned franchise. County coroner Flaspohler hopes his decision to hold the inquest will lead to some change in how schools deal with bullied children. “Hopefully this makes the school pay attention to what’s going on. And it’s not just in that school. We all need to wake up and say this exists and we need to take care of it,” he said. Kenneth Suttner’s family also hoped the school would take action, saying, “If this can help one child at least Kenneth’s death wasn’t in vain.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dairy Queen Manager Charged With Manslaughter in Bullied Teenager’s Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

A judge in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, recently ruled that dogs can’t be treated like children, as part of a divorce case. And while I’m as big a fan of puppies as the next person, Justice Richard Danyliuk’s argument makes a lot of sense.

Here’s the backstory: a divorcing couple–married 16 years–were dealing with a “custody” case involving their two dogs, Kenya and Willow (a.k.a. Willy). The wife wanted the dogs, with only visitation rights for the husband, and vice-versa. They argued that this should be treated like a “traditional” custody argument, one that would usually include human children.

This whole dispute ended up in front of Danyliuk, who seemed pretty annoyed that this landed in his courtroom, saying: “To consume scarce judicial resources with this matter is wasteful. In my view such applications should be discouraged.” Danyliuk also expressed frustration that the legal filings by the couple included a lot of extraneous information, including the wife’s claim that her husband had not been very attentive to their cats earlier in their relationship.

But Danyliuk also made a few different compelling arguments why dogs simply aren’t children:

In Canada, we tend not to purchase our children from breeders.

We tend not to breed our children with other humans to ensure good bloodlines, nor do we charge for such services.

When our children are seriously ill, we generally do not engage in an economic cost/benefit analysis to see whether the children are to receive medical treatment, receive nothing or even have their lives ended to prevent suffering.

When our children act improperly, even seriously and violently so, we generally do not muzzle them or even put them to death for repeated transgressions.

Danyliuk pointed out that pets aren’t legally treated exactly the same as traditional property, as there are laws that protect them from abuse and harm, but at the end of the day they are, for all intents and purposes, property.

So, despite how  much you might love your furry friend, they aren’t going to be treated like children in the courtroom–at least in front of this one Canadian judge.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canadian Judge Rules That Dogs Aren’t Children appeared first on Law Street.

Many people see shopping as a hobby or something to look forward to, but for people with autism, it is a hard task that often becomes overwhelming because of the crowds and noises. That is why some stores in the U.S. are now organizing days of “silent shopping” specifically for people on the autism spectrum and just in time for the holidays. Patti Erickson from the Greater Philadelphia Autism Society started the initiative and got her local Toys R Us store to catch on. On Saturday, the store hosted an event that attracted more than 30 families.

For silent shopping, the music normally playing in the store is turned off. “They’re processing it differently, and it could maybe even sound like nails scratching on a chalkboard to them,” said Erickson, who has a 26-year-old daughter with autism. Sensory stations with toys and kinetic sand were set up in the store to offer a distraction that the kids could focus all their attention on if they needed a break. “Different sensory things help them get acclimated to the store and grounds their body so they can really stay focused and can almost ignore anything else around them that would bother them,” according to Erickson.

For families of those on the autism spectrum, shopping can be difficult. Some stores are now offering quiet shopping https://t.co/ck8xndClAM pic.twitter.com/V7o2wXg4aj

— CNN (@CNN) December 9, 2016

Autism is defined by difficulties in social interaction and communication, and engaging in repetitive behaviors. Though some people on the autism spectrum excel at specific skills–like music, art, and mathematics–some cannot function on their own. People with autism often have trouble communicating verbally what they want or how they feel–about a third are nonverbal, but communicate through body or sign language instead. This makes it extra hard for parents who are holiday shopping and trying to determine what their kids want while avoiding situations that can be stressful for their children and people nearby.

We’ve teamed up with @ToysRUs in #Miami for #autism friendly quiet shopping hours on 12/10/2016. Learn more –> https://t.co/6o0CBX7AAx pic.twitter.com/8hegz72VWz

— American Autism Assn (@MyAutism) November 28, 2016

“When you have those parents who mutter under their breath and stare, you know, it hurts. A smile versus a stare makes such a difference,” Linda Moser, mother of 10-year-old Adam who was at the Pennsylvania store, told CNN. But at the same time, it can be good to practice difficult situations both for parents and children. “If we’re avoiding those situations, we’re not able to teach them how to navigate them,” said Candice Colón-Kwedor from the May Institute School for Autism and Developmental Disabilities. The ultimate goal for family members of children with autism is that they can go into stores or public places and enjoy it.

After the silent shopping success, more stores are following the lead this Saturday, like the Target in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and the Toys R Us in Miami. If more businesses join the cause, it could lead to a meaningful lesson in diversity. When more individuals with autism were seen out and about, the general public’s knowledge and acceptance of autism might increase. “When you have something like this, it makes it easier on everyone, and that can mean so much to a family,” Erickson said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stores Organize Silent Holiday Shopping for Kids with Autism appeared first on Law Street.

It may sound like a spy movie, but several consumer groups are claiming that some dolls from Genesis Toys are secretly listening in on your kids. Specifically, it is the “My Friend Cayla” dolls and the “i-Que” robots that are equipped with recording technology.

The toys record what children say to them and upload the sound files to Nuance Communications, a voice tech company often employed by the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies. In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) together with three consumer groups claim that Genesis unfairly collects and uses audio files of children without getting parental consent.

“Cayla can understand and respond to you in real-time about almost anything… She is not just a doll… she’s a real friend!” Genesis Toys says in its marketing material. But the dolls may be a little more real than most parents are comfortable with. These intelligent toys are connected to the internet via an app and Bluetooth technology. When children ask them a question, their speech is recorded, converted to text, uploaded online, and can be searched on Google or Wikipedia. At the same time, the audio is uploaded to Nuance.

Now, the question is, why would playing children be interesting for an agency employed by the military and similar agencies? Well, the consumer groups believe that the recordings are used to improve products that Nuance sells. One of their services is called Nuance Identifier, which can recognize criminals by their voices, among millions of recordings.

Great Today Show piece on why Internet connected dolls aren’t safe for children featuring @EPICprivacy #ToyFail https://t.co/6ZbLu8H4Vc

— CCFC (@commercialfree) December 9, 2016

The lawsuit also brings what the groups allege is hidden product placement embedded in the toys. The Cayla doll allegedly says a lot of phrases connected to Disney–that her favorite movie is “The Little Mermaid” and her favorite song is “Let it Go” from “Frozen.” For children, it’s not clear that this embedded information is advertising. The Cayla doll also has a function that asks for the kids’ personal information, like their name, their parents’ names, where they live, and where they go to school–information that a lot of parents would not want in the wrong hands.

But a representative from Nuance said that the company does not sell or use the data it collects for marketing or advertising. In a statement, Richard Mack wrote:

Upon learning of the consumer advocacy groups’ concerns through media, we validated that we have adhered to our policy with respect to the voice data collected through the toys referred to in the complaint; and Nuance does not share voice data collected from or on behalf of any of our customers with any of our other customers.

The toymaker Genesis has not responded to request for comment from several media organizations. Even if the company doesn’t mean any harm to children, parents have a right to worry in a technological age when all digital information is at risk for computer hackers. Just be mindful of what you say in front of any dolls.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Consumer Group Says Talking Dolls are Spying on Your Kids appeared first on Law Street.

When actress Sofia Vergara and businessman Nick Loeb were engaged, they created and froze embryos, planning to use a surrogate to have a child. But they split up in 2014, and since then, a legal battle has ensued over the frozen embryos. Loeb wants to use one of those embryos to have a baby despite Vergara’s opposition. And allegedly the reason why they split up was because he wanted kids and she didn’t. A legal contract they signed when they were still together made it clear that the embryos could only be used if both parties consented. But it didn’t specify what would happen if they split up, which is why in May of 2015 Loeb sued Vergara for the right to have his own baby.

Now, Loeb is using a different tactic. He filed a lawsuit on “behalf” of the frozen embryos, which are named Emma and Isabella (yes, they already have names). Loeb wants full custody and the chance to implant them in a surrogate. He contends that they have the right to live and to benefit from a trust fund that Loeb set up for them to fund their future education and health care costs. This sounds like a very bizarre case, and like Vergara says, it’s not ideal to bring their mutual embryos to life considering the couple is separated and she is now married to actor Joe Manganiello. But considering the suit was filed in Louisiana, a very pro-life state, it’s not unfathomable that Loeb gets his way.

STRONG CONTENDER FOR THE STRANGEST HEADLINE YOU’LL SEE TODAY: “Sofía Vergara sued by her own embryos” https://t.co/M83TIVe4gj

— Jon Manuel (@JonManuel) December 7, 2016

If that happens, he would get full custody and Vergara would have no parental rights. Loeb has also previously argued that it’s unfair that women can bring children into the world even if the man objects. “Shouldn’t a man who is willing to take on all parental responsibilities be similarly entitled to bring his embryos to term even if the woman objects?” he wrote in an op-ed in 2015. Quoting religious beliefs about the sanctity of life, he claimed that the embryos should be seen as lives rather than property. He wrote that he has dreamt of being a parent his whole life, but that during their relationship it became apparent that it was not a priority for Vergara, who already has a 22-year-old son from an earlier relationship.

According to her lawyer, Vergara wants the embryos to stay frozen, as she is Catholic and could not let them be destroyed. She claims that Loeb just wants to take advantage of her celebrity status to promote himself. Loeb’s claims that he truly wants children and that he believes that keeping their embryos “frozen forever is tantamount to killing them.” No matter who is right, the case is unusual, and it could be precedent-setting.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sofia Vergara Sued by Her Own Frozen Embryos appeared first on Law Street.

The tragic school bus accident in Tennessee that killed five children and injured many others has cast a dark shadow prior to the Thanksgiving holiday. Now one of the mothers, who lost one child in the accident but had two others who survived, says that the driver allegedly asked the kids if they were ready to die right before the crash. “My daughter said right before the bus flipped that he was speeding around the curve and asked them ‘Are y’all ready to die,” said Jasmine Mateen to CBS. Twenty-four-year-old Johntony Walker had been driving the school bus since August and has no previous criminal record.

Walker was arrested on charges of vehicular homicide, reckless driving, and reckless endangerment, with a bond set at $107,500, according to the Chattanooga police. In total, 35 children, from kindergarten up to fifth grade, were on the bus at the time of the accident.

While the accident shocked the community, some parents reported that Walker’s reckless behavior while driving had been an issue in the past. “There has been times where I’ve seen him going a little faster than he probably should be going,” father of two Craig Harris said. Mateen also said that she complained to the school about Walker in the past for slamming his brakes on purpose to make the kids hit their heads. After the school talked to him about his behavior, he allegedly responded, “So, I’d do it again.”

Johnthony Walker, 24, charged w/ 5 counts vehicular homicide, reckless endangerment & reckless driving in Talley Rd school bus crash. pic.twitter.com/9ZTIpXUZNl

— Chattanooga Police (@ChattanoogaPD) November 22, 2016

According to Walker’s own mother, he called her right after the accident, saying that he tried to help the children out from the vehicle and that he hoped it wasn’t his fault, which contradicts the notion that he could have crashed the bus on purpose. But according to authorities, he was driving way faster than the speed limit of 30 mph when he somehow slammed the bus into a telephone pole. His mother told reporters that Walker is a sober, dedicated father to a three-year-old and well liked as a school bus driver. She also said that the accident was God’s will.

We will be shooting for our 1st press briefing @ corner of Howard & Talley Rd @ 5:00 pm. #ChattFire pic.twitter.com/1bpnabsHmJ

— Chattanooga FireDept (@ChattFireDept) November 21, 2016

This wasn’t Walker’s first collision while driving the bus: in September, he crossed the centerline and swiped a car coming in the opposite direction, resulting in material damages. The driver in the other car, Belinda Hamilton, said that she saw him race past a stop sign before he scraped her car. “Luckily, no one got killed. What’s going to happen the next time?” she remembered thinking at the time. Walker also had his license suspended for some time, due to lack of proof of vehicle insurance.

Walker was employed through a bus contractor, Durham School Services, of Illinois. Amy Kutcher, a Hamilton County Schools spokeswoman, did not say whether there were any complaints against him. She said: “Legally, there is no way that we could discipline someone who is not our employee. We’ve got 192 Durham bus drivers. Obviously, this is a bad one.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mom Says Driver in School Bus Accident Asked Kids if They Were Ready to Die appeared first on Law Street.

The World Health Organization just published a report regarding online junk food advertisements targeted at children, and called for immediate action by policy makers.

The report analyzed the frequency of marketing products targeting children through digital media–finding that children are exposed to these advertisements not only through social media but also on advertisement-based games. Most parents are unaware of the fact that their children are exposed every day to junk food advertisements, which take their toll on kids’ minds, WHO reported.

Researchers pegged food advertisements as a consistent influencer on children’s food choices. Dr. Emma Boyland of the University of Liverpool said,

The food, marketing and digital industries have access to an enormous amount of information regarding young people’s exposure to HFSS (high fat salt or sugar) food marketing online and its influence on children’s behaviour, yet external researchers are excluded from these privately held insights, which increases the power imbalances between industry and public health.

The report attacked the way some video bloggers get paid by junk food retailers to promote their food. According to a U.S. analysis, vloggers are now more influential at promoting brands than films or TV shows because of perceived authenticity.

Some countries such as the United Kingdom have introduced rules to protect children from junk food advertising such as bans during children’s television shows, however, the report said regulation had “failed to keep up with the pace and scope of change in the media.”

UK child obesity hits record high – The number of young children who are classed as obese has risen to a record… https://t.co/my9GPed7jc

— Davalyn Corporation (@DavalynCorp) November 4, 2016

To address these challenges, the report suggested a number of recommendations. WHO recommended states acknowledge their duty to protect children from HFSS digital marketing with statutory regulation and extend existing offline protections online.

The organization is currently reviewing what foods and drinks can be advertised to children in order to compel private internet platforms to remove marketing of HFSS foods.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post World Health Organization Calls For an End to Junk Food Ads in Kids’ Digital Media appeared first on Law Street.

Melania Trump gave a rare speech in Pennsylvania on Thursday, in which she expressed her concerns about people being mean on the internet, causing many to ask: does she even know her husband?

Melania Trump has generally kept quiet in the campaign since it was revealed that she plagiarized parts of Michelle Obama’s speech from 2008 during the Republican National Convention in July. But on Thursday evening, Pennsylvania women got to hear what her plans would be if she were to become the First Lady.

Trump said she worries about “all of our children” and that people are being mean on the internet. “Our culture has gotten too mean and too rough, especially to children and teenagers,” she said. She went on to say that kids are “hurt when they are made fun of, or made to feel less in looks or intelligence. This makes their life hard. It can force them to hide and retreat.”

The irony in Melania Trump’s words–as her husband has become known for cyberbullying, insulting people based on their looks, and for the recent news that he may have sexually assaulted as many as 17 women–is almost too much. During the campaign, Donald Trump has insulted and verbally harassed anyone who is the least bit critical of him or doesn’t live up to his standards of appearance. The New York Times compiled a list of 282 people, places, and things that Trump has insulted since declaring his candidacy last June. The list includes, among many others, the TV show Saturday Night Live (“unfunny show”), actor Alec Baldwin (“portrayal stinks”), Megyn Kelly (“crazy” and “sick”), Alicia Machado (“disgusting”), and the United States (“weak”).

Melania Trump can’t be serious with being an advocate for cyberbullying when Donald Trump is a cyberbullying predator on & off social media! pic.twitter.com/lRAbw3b3Ba

— Mr. Weeks (@MrDane1982) November 4, 2016

Melania may not have realized that she used one of Hillary Clinton’s foremost arguments against Donald–also put forth by Michelle Obama–to challenge his fitness for the presidency. Clinton and Obama both talk about how important it is to be a role model for children and to protect them from language that is disrespectful and mean. On Thursday, Melania Trump spoke of the exact same problems. She said:

It is never OK when a 12-year-old girl or boy is mocked, bullied or attacked. It is terrible when that happens on the playground and it is unacceptable when it’s done by someone with no name hiding on the Internet.

The internet reacted right away.

.@MELANIATRUMP I’m so glad you lectured America on the evils of cyber bullying. Please also discuss it with this man.->

“Melania Trump” pic.twitter.com/lPL4V1j8Ma

— Cornelia (@PaladinCornelia) November 4, 2016

She also said that children are often picked on for their “looks and intelligence,” which she says isn’t cool. Trump also said that she will work for women’s rights. Maybe she forgot that her husband called Rosie O’Donnell “fat” and “ugly,” Bette Midler “extremely unattractive,” and Debbie Wasserman Schultz “highly neurotic.”

Donald Trump’s rhetoric has already had a notable effect on kids, a development that has actually been named the “Trump Effect.” His language may be increasing bullying in schools, especially for kids of a nationality, race, or religion that Trump has mocked.

Now Melania Trump says she would like to focus on the same groups and issues that the Democrats are using to criticize her husband. But the question is, will she be able to disregard everything that her husband has said and done, and how long will that last?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Melania Trump Wants to Fight Cyberbullying, but Forgot Who She Married appeared first on Law Street.

What can cause miscarriages, early delivery, diseases that account for 10 percent of deaths in children under five, and harm children’s brain development?

The answer: air pollution.

And it’s getting worse. According to a new report by UNICEF, 300 million children live in areas where the air they breathe is “extremely toxic.” And this causes almost 600,000 children to die from different diseases that are either caused or aggravated by the polluted air. On top of that, millions of kids suffer from respiratory illnesses that not only affect their breathing and physical conditions but also their mental health.

Through use of satellite images, UNICEF found how the air these 300 million children breathe exceeds international guidelines for acceptable outdoor air pollution by at least six times. Another two billion children live in areas where the levels exceed the guidelines by a lesser amount.

With 300million #children breathing toxic air; ‘No society can afford to ignore #airpollution‘ – @UNICEF chief. https://t.co/Zrx5isWid1

— UN News Centre (@UN_News_Centre) October 31, 2016

Indoor pollution is worse in rural areas, where the burning of solid fuels like coal, or the use of wood for cooking and heating is common. Mold, bacteria, cleaning chemicals, and hazardous building materials are also problematic in these areas, while outdoor pollution is more common in urban areas due to exhaust fumes, the use of fossil fuels, and big industries. Needless to say, both kinds of pollution are worse in developing countries and poor communities, where the means or knowledge to use environmentally friendly options are limited.

Children are generally more susceptible to air pollution since their lungs are still developing. They breathe faster than grown ups, and take in more air relative to body weight. Since they are developing and growing, their brains and overall immune systems are also more vulnerable. The worst conditions are in South Asia, with 620 million children exposed to toxic air, closely followed by Africa with 520 million.

UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake said in a statement:

Air pollution is a major contributing factor in the deaths of around 600,000 children under five every year – and it threatens the lives and futures of millions more every day. Pollutants don’t only harm children’s developing lungs – they can actually cross the blood-brain barrier and permanently damage their developing brains – and, thus, their futures. No society can afford to ignore air pollution.

UNICEF is now urging all countries and world leaders to make an effort to meet the World Health Organization’s guidelines for air quality by investing in renewable energy sources and cutting back on harmful fossil fuel. It is also important to make sure kids have access to healthcare and that they are not exposed to other sources of pollution such as factories. To enhance air is to protect children. And both are equally important to our future.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UNICEF: 300 Million Children Live In Areas With “Extremely Toxic” Air appeared first on Law Street.

Even if Donald Trump is not successful in November, his legacy of questionable rhetoric will live on in the lives of young American children.

Educators around the country have been sharing their experiences with students participating in a wide range of discriminatory actions, even students as young as third graders. These actions range anywhere from students telling others that they will be deported to quoting Trump’s infamous “Build the wall!” phrase to predominantly Hispanic groups of kids.

The Southern Poverty Law Center came out with a comprehensive report in April detailing what it calls the “Trump Effect.”

The report found:

It’s producing an alarming level of fear and anxiety among children of color and inflaming racial and ethnic tensions in the classroom. Many students worry about being deported

Other students have been emboldened by the divisive, often juvenile rhetoric in the campaign. Teachers have noted an increase in bullying, harassment and intimidation of students whose races, religions or nationalities have been the verbal targets of candidates on the campaign trail.

In a statement, the National Education Association said, “Since Trump entered the race for president last year, educators have witnessed a steady increase in bullying and harassing behavior that mirrors his words and actions on the campaign trail.”

In Fairfax County, Virginia, a mom took to Facebook to talk about her third grade child’s experience at school.

Evelyn Momplaisir wrote on Facebook:

I just got a call from my son’s teacher giving me a heads up that two of his classmates decided to point out the ‘immigrants’ in the class who would be sent ‘home’ when Trump becomes president. They singled him out and were pointing and laughing at him as one who would have to leave because of the color of his skin. In 3rd grade . . . in Fairfax County . . . in 2016!

Her claim was confirmed by Fairfax County school officials, according to the Washington Post, and they are working to address the situation.

In Indiana, students from predominantly white Andrean High School shouted “Build the wall!” at students from heavily Hispanic Bishop Noll Institute during a basketball game. Students from Andrean HS also waved a picture of Trump.

This newfound freedom to express pent up bigotry has been shown by adults at Trump rallies screaming at peaceful protesters and minorities. It is also shown by Trump himself, who can often be heard shouting “Get ’em out!” or singling out minorities in the audience at his events. And now it is bleeding into schools. The SPLC identified many cases of hateful speech directed at students, like a teacher’s report of a fifth-grader saying “that he was supporting Donald Trump because he was going to kill all of the Muslims if he became president!” Additionally, a Latino kindergarten student reportedly asked his teacher if the wall has been built yet because his classmates have told him that he will be deported and trapped behind it.

These instances have prompted the NEA to launch an ad campaign against Trump, particularly focusing on his role in the discrimination and bullying of students in schools around the country.

While kids may not be watching all of the debates, or even closely following the campaigns, this has shown that Trump’s rhetoric is having an impact on the way America’s kids treat one another.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The “Trump Effect” is Impacting Kids appeared first on Law Street.

We all know airlines might put your luggage on the wrong flight, but in August, JetBlue sent a child to the wrong destination, causing huge distress for his waiting mother. Now New Yorker Maribel Martinez has filed a lawsuit against JetBlue for mixing up two kids and sending her 5-year-old son Andy to the wrong city. Andy flew by himself from the Dominican Republic and was supposed to arrive at JFK, but ended up in Boston instead. The boy the staff believed was Martinez’s son was also 215 miles away from his destination.

Martinez quoted “emotional distress, extreme fear, horror, mental shock, mental anguish and psychological trauma” as reasons for the lawsuit, and said that she thought her son had been kidnapped and that she never would see him again. It took JetBlue staff three hours to find out what happened and where Andy was, and to let him speak to his mother on the phone. In the meantime, airline staff at the Boston airport had presented Andy to a woman he had never seen before, telling him it was his mother. As icing on the cake the boys even had each other’s passports on them.

Woman files lawsuit against JetBlue Airways for flying her son, 5, to the wrong city. https://t.co/5z4R4PkeEc

— Global News Toronto (@globalnewsto) September 30, 2016

Martinez’s lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. She has already rejected an offer of a $10,000 gift from JetBlue, and the company did also refund her $475 for the plane ticket. The airline has not responded to any media inquiries, but according to New York Daily News officials are conducting an internal investigation. They will then forward the information to the U.S. Department of Transportation before any legal actions can proceed. Martinez’s attorney Sanford Rubenstein said:

Any parent can understand the terrifying fear a mother goes through knowing that her child is missing. This never should have happened and the JetBlue employees should be ashamed of themselves.

According to previous statements from JetBlue, both children were always under the surveillance of airline staff. But it’s easy to understand this is the worst nightmare for any parent, and why Martinez is moving forward with the suit.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Sues JetBlue For Mixing Up Kids appeared first on Law Street.

Washington, D.C. has the highest infant mortality risk of all the world’s high-income capitals–7.9 deaths for every 1,000 births. But the infant mortality rate in Finland is much lower, and one of the reasons for this is the simple but effective Finnish baby box. All new parents in Finland are eligible to receive a box from the government to help them through the early stages of their child’s birth. Inside the box, there are essential items for raising an infant such as clothes and, because it is Finland, a snowsuit. The box itself doubles as a crib, reducing the risk of accidental death during sleep.

Countries all over the world are now emulating Finland’s baby box idea, which has been around for decades. One such imitation, the “Barakat Bundle,” hopes to encourage women to make prenatal visits while providing them with the essentials to raise a healthy infant, thereby reducing both maternal deaths and infant mortality. The Barakat Bundle, although inspired by the Finnish baby box, is geared more to the needs of mothers and infants in Southeast Asia. For example, it includes medical supplies, such as a clean delivery kit for children born at home.

Today this practice is so culturally engrained in Finland that it continues largely without comment. Parents there overwhelmingly opt in favor of the baby-box, even well-off parents, and it has become a shared part of the Finnish identity. But when this idea is discussed in the United States it seems controversial; the ultimate symbol of the dreaded “nanny state.” Is the baby box an adorably autocratic threat to personal liberty?

Unboxing the Box

The first step to answering that question is to look at how the baby box actually works. This tradition dates back to 1938 when Finland was much poorer than it is now and had an infant mortality rate of 65 out of 1,000 births. The rate now is 2.52 out of every 1,000 births, an improvement that is certainly not entirely due to the baby box. But the rate is half that of infant mortality in the United States, so the baby box may be a significant factor. From the start of the program until 1949, the box was only available to low-income families. But starting in 1949 the box became available to everyone. This may help account for the program’s success, much like the way the inclusion of everyone in Social Security–not as a hand-out but as something you pay into and therefore “deserve” to benefit from–helped to sell the idea to the American people.

There have been other changes over the years as well, some of which are designed to encourage certain parenting behaviors. For example, formula and bottles are deliberately not included any longer, which promotes breastfeeding. Boxes also contain cloth diapers, rather than disposable ones, for environmental reasons. There are also condoms in the box, which would probably disconcert a more conservative American audience. The clothes in the box are gender neutral, designs change yearly, and as you would expect, are extremely adorable. And practical. So much so that 95 percent of Finnish mothers choose the box–including mothers who already have children–even though you can opt for a cash payout instead. In fact, those who don’t live in Finland can purchase a version of the box from several companies, such as Finnish Baby Box. You can watch parents opening the box on YouTube if you are curious about the contents.

This brief video does a good job of summarizing some of the key elements to the baby box.

There’s also a requirement that women have to have at least one prenatal visit, before they are four months pregnant, to be eligible to receive one. The Barakat Bundle requires a pre-natal visit as well, which they anticipate will reduce maternal deaths.

The simple genius of the baby box is not just that the contents of the box are useful tools for parents, but the box itself. In fact, this simple cardboard box may be the main reason why the program has reduced infant mortality. The box comes with a mattress and is specifically designed to provide the optimum sleeping environment for an infant to avoid SIDS or cot death. The U.K. has taken heed and is launching a pilot program to give out baby boxes to mothers in hopes of reducing its relatively high infant mortality rate. A similar program is happening in Texas, sponsored by a local Rotary Club, which will give out 100 boxes to new mothers.

This video explains some of the benefits of the baby box to help babies sleep safely.

And this one shows how some of the new mothers and babies react to the baby box.

Who knew that the safest place to put a baby was in a cardboard box?

State Sponsored Shower

In the videos and examples above, hospitals and altruistic private organizations take it upon themselves to invest in these boxes and distribute them to new mothers. Why doesn’t the state government step in to do this too, if baby boxes are so effective?

Finns don’t quite see it this way but many Americans view the baby box, and other similar handouts, as antithetical to the values of freedom. It does seem a bit odd, if you think about it, that all the babies born in the same year receive the same outfits. And that parents are steered toward certain behaviors, such as breastfeeding, by a “benevolent” government entity when they might want to make other choices. Americans have a deep-seated wariness of large government, as well as a love for it, that pushes them away from embracing these kinds of policies. Finland gives away 40,000 of these boxes every year…but that’s just in a country the size of Finland. The level of bureaucracy that it would take to accomplish the same task of giving every mother a baby box in the United States would be staggering, and to many, terrifying. And to be perfectly blunt about it, expensive.

The American Approach

Americans have an alternative approach, which is the tradition of the baby shower. Rather than have the state or federal government welcome your baby into the world with a box of essentials, American parents often received personalized and eclectic gifts from friends and loved ones. This seems more in keeping with our love of diversity and our individual uniqueness. Baby showers are in fact a great way to ensure that you have the tools you need to survive the first months of parenthood.

It is the families who do not get the shower experience, however, that should be the concern. If you don’t need a baby box because you have a network of family support and the financial means to collect those items yourself, the baby box idea is still helpful but it provides more of a convenience and a sense of community rather than a financial benefit. Even the wealthy Finnish mothers typically choose the baby box in part because it isn’t about the box. It is what the box represents, that you and your new child are part of a community that cares about you and investing in your child’s future. Getting the box is part of being Finnish. For a family who needs the baby box, it is also about being part of a community that cares about you, but also also about the very practical reality that unless you get the box your baby will not have access to many of the items inside it.

The baby box, therefore, shows the fault-lines in our political thought. Giving away a baby box to every family, ensuring that all children start out with as equal a chance as we can give them, speaks powerfully to our egalitarian values. After all, one of the things Americans are most proud of about our society is our belief that the United States is the most egalitarian society on earth. Everyone has a chance to succeed. Our greatest political turmoil often results from the perception that we are losing that egalitarian character in our society.

It’s the giving away portion that gives us pause. Americans are wary of government overreach. We like our charity to be a private affair, run by altruistic individuals and faith communities, not the government. And our individualism resists anything that seems like a state uniform–no matter how adorable.

Support for the baby box, therefore, turns on whether you see it as a giveaway from the nanny state to parents who should be taking responsibility themselves or whether you characterize it as an investment by society into these newborns. It all comes down to responsibility and who should have it. In Finland, they have answered that question. Finns feel that society as a whole ultimately shares responsibility for, and therefore investment in, its children. In the United States, our paradoxical character makes the answer more mixed.

Conclusion

The baby shower doesn’t do anything to help the family that needs the baby box. If you had the kind of family support that baby showers represent you wouldn’t need the box. Placing the responsibility to provide these kinds of tools solely on the baby shower emphasizes for new parents who don’t have the same blessings that they are on their own. Sharing that responsibility across society with the baby box does the opposite. It provides tangible benefits but it also sends a clear message that this baby is part of our community. Part of our future. And that we all, together, share in the investment into that future. The parents are the MVPs, but everyone is on the team.

Resources

The Washington Post: Why Babies Should Sleep in Cardboard Boxes

Barakat Bundle: About

BBC: Why Finnish Babies Sleep in Cardboard Boxes

The New York Times: Why Finland’s Babies Sleep in Cardboard Cribs

Daily Mail UK: New Mothers Given Finnish Style Baby Boxes

Today: Thinking Outside The Box: Finnish Baby Kits Could Save Infant Lives

Goodreads: The Nordic Theory of Everything

The Atlantic.com: Finland’s Baby Box: Gift From Santa or Socialist Hell? 

Goodreads: Liberty and Coercion 

Goodreads: The Politicians And The Egalitarians

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Thinking Inside the Box: How Finland Makes Parents and Babies Happy and Healthy appeared first on Law Street.

A new study shows a link between recreational marijuana legalization in Colorado and the incidence of children who need medical treatment for ingesting the drug. The study, released Monday by pediatricians at Children’s Hospital Colorado (CHC) in Aurora, retroactively reviewed 163 cases involving marijuana treatment in toddlers ages zero to nine. The cases spanned between 2009 and 2015. Recreational marijuana was legalized in Colorado in 2014.

In 2009, the CHC’s emergency room admitted one child seeking treatment for marijuana ingestion. In 2015, a year after Colorado legalized marijuana entirely: 16 children were treated for a marijuana-related emergency. Forty-eight percent of the 163 cases during that period involved children who ingested marijuana in its edible form: candies, baked goods, and other sweet treats that contain THC, the psychedelic component of marijuana.

The rate of children visiting the hospital for marijuana ingestion increased after weed became legal in Colorado. During the two years prior to the legalization, 1.2 in 100,000 children visited the children’s hospital for marijuana-related issues. That figure increased to 2.3 per 100,000 children during the two years post-legalization. Additionally, the regional poison center in Aurora received nine calls in 2009 regarding children who had ingested marijuana, compared to 47 calls in 2014.

Dr. George Sam Wong, the study’s lead author, said his team’s findings help shed light on the impact state-wide legalization can have on children, and hopes it will lead to smarter regulations. In a video on the JAMA Pediatrics journal website, where his study was published, Wong said:

As more states decide to legalize both medical and/or retail recreational marijuana, we need to be cognizant about the public health impacts in all ages, but also in the young children, and think about proper regulations and rules to help prevent some of these exposures and ingestions.

Current requirements in Colorado require edible manufacturers to use packaging that is difficult for children to get into. Colorado, the first state to legalize recreational marijuana, also introduced new dosing regulations in 2015. Dr. Wong said the next step will be to analyze how other states change as they legalize marijuana. He also said the impacts of regulations that are already in place should be evaluated.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Since Legalizing Marijuana, More Colorado Children Are Ingesting Edibles appeared first on Law Street.

This holiday season is bringing much more than gifts and cheer for children as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), a graduated, more sophisticated, and polished version of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), was passed by the House of Representatives. The much-needed update was passed by a 359-64 majority in the House and will be voted on by the Senate in the coming week. The overwhelming bipartisan support for the bill reinforces the likelihood that it will ultimately be signed into law by President Barack Obama.

The overhaul and revision of NCLB, which resulted in the creation of ESSA, comes as a welcomed and advocated-for change to remove the federal grip over the requirements and implementation of public education and move it toward a state-based ideology that narrows the focus and tailors implementation to resources and needs within a specified state. Additionally, ESSA seeks to evolve past the sole focus on standardized testing and opens up consideration for other factors such as student/teacher engagements, success in advanced coursework, and career readiness. The main goal is a holistic approach to standardize primary education through a variety of measurable and functional factors through a more tailored, state-focused lens.  Read on to learn more about the evolution of measurable standards within primary education, what ESSA holds for future generations, and the potential impact of the pending legislation.

The Evolution of Standardized Primary Education

Education is a cornerstone in a progressive, self-sustaining society. It provides for the social and economic advancement, as well as the stability of people that allows for growth, development, creativity, and forward movement and innovation. Education is the bedrock of a society and its importance has been highlighted throughout the history of the United States in a variety of ways as evidenced by its evolution in law and implementation.

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson sought to mend the “achievement gap” in the United States by implementing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). ESEA allocated a substantial amount of federal funding into bridging the gap in the educational disparity based on race and poverty–a disparity highlighting that minorities, low-income students, immigrant students, and those from rural/neglected areas were not receiving the same level of quality education and therefore were not achieving at the same levels or percentage rates as students outside of those statistical and categorical confines. While ESEA shifted focus onto a federally controlled education policy and allowed the government involvement in implementation through funding, it also provided “Title I” designation to schools with over 40 percent of students designated low-income through federal standards. Such a designation provided schools, mainly elementary schools, with federal-based funding to make education more accessible to low-income families and to increase resources available to schools. The Act gave young students a pathway out of institutionalized poverty through encouraged and standardized academic advancement, which was monitored through testing benchmarks and requirements.

ESEA underwent several reauthorizations, none more prominent and controversial than the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002. NCLB was authored and instituted out of concern that the United States was losing academic advantage on an international scale and applied testing standards and progress tracking to all students, not just the low-income students identified by ESEA. While NCLB sought to bring academic progress and responsibility as applied to all students, it carved out specific standards and a focus on students with special needs, those learning English as a second language, and those below the poverty line, as well as minorities, as these groups of children in primary schools tended to test lower than their classmates. The law provided required benchmarks for academic achievement, testing students from the third grade through high school. It also marked the 2013-2014 school year as the goal year to have all schools testing at a “proficient level,” marked by results and scores defined by each individual state. It is important to note that by the end of the 2015 school year, no school had gotten all 100 percent of its students above the required proficient level. Additionally, teachers were required to have certain qualifications and schools were required to reach specific testing goals and provide yearly progress reports that would subject them to serious sanctions if the goals set were not met.

While NCLB was a positive step and evolution from the outdated versions of ESEA, it was laced with great controversy and consequently, great criticism. One of the major criticisms of NCLB was the heavy focus on standardized testing in math and reading, which ultimately resulted in less investment on subjects such as social studies that were not empirically tested and measured, as well as an increase in cheating in order to meet required results. The desire to increase educational standards ironically did the opposite in order to meet them. The focus on test scores also created an “educational marketplace” out of federal funding, forcing schools to compete in a survival-of-the-fittest atmosphere, rather than a collegiate and collective one. Another criticism of the law was that remedies for the low performing students–free tutoring and the opportunity to transfer to a better performing school–were completely underutilized by the students and facilities they were available to. When given the free choice and the transportation to get a better education, families opted to keep their children in what was familiar, even if what was familiar was not performing at an acceptable level. Finally, NCLB was criticized as being underfunded. Although annual funding for Title I was supposed to rise to $25 billion, it had only reached $14.5 billion by 2015 highlighting the fact that federal funding never reached the lofty goals it had set for the law as well.

In 2011, in recognizing the failure of NCLB, President Obama instituted waivers that allowed states struggling to meet the standards outlined by the law to set their own standards in an effort to adequately prepare students for higher education and the workforce. The need for reform in education policy was crystal clear. It was up to Congress to take action.

Every Student Succeeds Act: What is in Store

Last week, the House of Representatives got the ball rolling in Congress on education policy and the support for the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was overwhelming. While the Senate will be voting on the bill within the week, the support strongly suggests that it will be signed into law following the vote.

ESSA aims to address the concerns, criticisms, failures, and restrictions highlighted by NCLB by primarily honing in on a state-centered emphasis, which would allow for more flexibility in the implementation and assessment of academic achievement. Rather than just analyzing test scores and graduation rates, ESSA will take a more holistic approach to assess educational success by looking at additional factors such as “student and teacher engagements, success in advanced coursework, and school climate and safety,” as well as performance on college prep and Advanced Placement (AP) courses, career readiness, and specialized certificates.

However, the shift back to a more state-based system of control and implementation will not be without federal regulation. States will still have to test students and report findings in order to be held accountable for the way the programs are being instituted, absorbed, and utilized, still tracking positive academic achievement benchmarks. ESSA still provides safeguards by integrating the availability of waivers for schools performing below desired levels and grant programs that will offer schools more resources to meet goals if they qualify. The bill initiates additional programs that focus on over-testing research, the importance of effective and quality early childhood education practices, and the equal distribution of funding within districts.

While ESSA is certainly a more polished and advanced version of its predecessor, it is subject to its own criticisms. The main critique this early in its life is the fact that it is silent in terms of upgrading, updating, and elevating the status quo for the profession of teaching. Although authors of the bill did not utilize this opportunity to address the modernization of teaching, qualification requirements, and experience of the individuals working within its confines–teachers, the bill successfully sets out to update a largely outdated system that has failed the children and teachers in the United States.

Conclusion: A Welcomed Change That’s Long Overdue

No Child Left Behind had officially expired in 2007. It is now December 2015. Surprisingly, despite its eight-year expiration, NCLB had maintained its grip on implementation control as no alternative methods and bills had been proposed and implemented with success in Congress. In an effort to circumvent the failing aspects of NCLB and loosen the regulatory grip over state implementation, most states were working under waivers granted by President Obama, providing them with the necessary flexibility to implement more successful educational policy options for their specific circumstances. States have had temporary and remote control over educational policy following NCLB’s expiration.

And while critics are emphatic that ESSA’s authors dropped the ball in addressing a refocused lens on increasing and updating teaching standards as well as standardized education, the bill did take big steps in initiating additional programs to reform education policy, elevated expectations and implementation of a revitalized policy, and works to ensure fair and equally distributed system of federal funding. Additionally, the bill provides the opportunity for volunteer partnerships, but prohibits any state to be influenced, provided incentives, or coerced into accepting and adopting Common Core principles. While criticisms will exist on both political sides, particularly within the idea that the federal government is simply punting the education problem to the states to fix, the overwhelming bipartisan support for the Every Student Succeeds Act shows the importance of quality education in this country for all students alike.

The steps taken to eliminate NCLB and reinvent the bill in a new form is a commendable and welcomed progression in education policy.

Resources

Primary

House of Representatives: Every Student Succeeds Act

107th Congress: No Child Left Behind

Additional

 U.S. News: Leaving Behind No Child Left Behind

LAWS: Elementary and Secondary Education Act

 Education Week: No Child Left Behind: An Overview

National Public Radio (NPR): Former ‘No Child Left Behind’ Advocate Turns Critic

 CBS DFW: A Major Overhaul of No Child Left Behind is in the Works

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Graduating From “No Child Left Behind” appeared first on Law Street.

Every year we hear stories about parents getting in trouble for leaving their children in places unsupervised, whether it’s at home, in a store, or in a car. In most incidents the parents were nowhere near where they had left their children, but for a recent story coming out of Houston, Texas, that was simply not the case.

Single Mom Laura Browder Arrested After Leaving Kids at Food Court While Interviewing for… http://t.co/ez0DkFUboy pic.twitter.com/NUNj4FYFm4

— Hinterland Gazette (@hinterlandg) July 19, 2015

Laura Browder, single mother of a 6-year-old girl and 2-year-old boy, was arrested and charged with “abandoning” her children who were no more than 30 yards away from her. She went to Houston’s Memorial City Mall for a job interview but because it was last minute, Browder did not have enough time to find a babysitter. She brought her kids in the mall with her and sat them down in the food court near a McDonalds then went to her interview. According to Browder the interview was not for a job in the mall, but the food court was a meeting ground for the company’s employer and herself. Shortly after being offered the job and returning to her children, she was handcuffed. Browder claims the children were always in her line of sight, but the police officer on the scene arrested her. She is unsure of how this arrest will affect the new position.

Browder stated,

This was very unfortunate this happened. I had a interview with a very great company with lots of career growth. I am a college student and mother of two. I would never put my name, background or children in harms way intentionally. I have a promising future ahead of me regardless of what the media tries to portray me as. A judge released my children to me knowing that I was a good mother who just made a not so smart decision. My children weren’t even 30 yards away from me, I fed them and sat there with them until it was time to meet with my interviewer. This too will pass and I am not concerned with outsiders have to say or what they think.

Child Protective Services officials say they are still in the early stages of the investigation, but have stated that they can offer services to help Browder find suitable childcare. It’s hard to understand the argument for charging her. Although she purposely left her kids there, she was unaware that it would be considered abandonment even with them in her sight, and she appeared to have been doing the best she could.

This is bullshit ! I guess it would’ve been better had she left them in the hot car like most scum bag parents smh http://t.co/QHZ4bA9ZQl

— Marnica (@TeammakeMoney) July 19, 2015

Many people have commented via Twitter or other forms of social media that she should not be punished because the children were in her eyesight and not in a car or somewhere that she could not easily get to them. Browder is trying to do the best that she can with her circumstances. She is a single mother and her kids need her in the picture. Accepting the childcare help that child protective services can offer could make things a lot easier for her. But most pressingly, it’s important to make sure laws are applied in common sense ways to best help mothers who are struggling to seek care for their children.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Mother Charged with “Abandoning” Her Kids Who Were 30 Yards Away appeared first on Law Street.

One increasingly important tool used by law enforcement and various organizations is forensic imaging software. This technique can be used to create images of victims whose bodies are unidentifiable, photos that display how a missing person is projected to look in present day, or to bring to life skeletal remains in the hope of finding someone who recognizes the deceased. A recent Massachusetts case involving an unidentified young girl nicknamed “Baby Doe” has once again validated the importance of investing in investigative technology.

One group pioneering this technology is the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), a nonprofit organization that works with law enforcement agencies and families to aid in cases of missing and exploited children. The NCMEC utilizes a variety of functions to fulfill its mission of helping to find, aid, and protect children. The agency has had great success in the past through its initiatives, as it has assisted in the recovery of more than 208,000 children.

Computer generated imagery is a relatively new technology, although it has been used heavily in recent years in cases of missing or unidentified children and has proven to be vital in investigations. This unit was first instituted by the NCMEC in 1990, and has been used so far in 6,000 age progressions, 1,300 of them leading to children being found or identified through the pictures. CNN reports, “forensic imaging and age progression are often fairly accurate and can help find the missing or unidentified children.” When comparing images created by forensic artists to real life photographs, it is evident that they are very close to the real thing, and are an integral tool in most cases.

For example, a recent case in Massachusetts has renewed focus on the benefits of forensic imaging technology. The remains of an unidentified young girl, who is believed to have only been about four years old and has been dubbed “Baby Doe,” were found in a trash bag on a Boston Harbor beach about three weeks ago. Even though the following computer-generated image of her has been seen by millions of people, authorities have had little to no luck in their efforts to identify her. This tragic case has mystified law enforcement and captivated the hearts of Americans nationwide, as people continue to search for any clues that could lead to the identification of this girl.

Christi Andrews of our forensic imaging unit answers questions about her #BabyDoe computer generated image on @AC360 pic.twitter.com/REcBzAsxWR

— NCMEC (@MissingKids) July 14, 2015

"How can nobody miss her?" The plight of a "Baby Doe" found in a trash bag has moved millions: http://t.co/pucotZhcuI pic.twitter.com/fqE8fJbau8

— CNN (@CNN) July 9, 2015

Authorities are working furiously to find any possible lead that could help them to identify the girl, perplexed as to how no one has recognized her yet. It is not clear whether her death was accidental or intentional, and investigators are desperate for any information at all that could lead to her identity or the cause of her death. Law enforcement in Massachusetts has teamed up with the NCMEC since this agency is well trained in these types of situations and offers many useful resources, including its expertise in forensic imaging.

The image of Baby Doe was created by Christi Andrews, a forensic artist who works with the NCMEC and who tried to make the face of the girl look as realistic as possible using Adobe Photoshop. In order for Andrews to join the Forensic Imaging Team and become a specialist, a job she has had for twelve years now, she had to first receive extensive training in order to master the software. She constructed the image by studying the precise details and photos from the autopsy. The picture has been shared hundreds of thousands of times on multiple different social media platforms and seen by over fifty million people, but unfortunately, no valuable tips have arisen.

This type of software is instrumental in many cases because it assists investigators in their efforts to identify deceased victims, create realistic, up-to-date photos of missing people that can be used when searching for them, and can garner useful information from the public once released. In the case of Baby Doe, Andrews was limited to pictures and information given from the coroner, although when creating age progression images, artists can often utilize pictures of family members to analyze similarities and use this to generate life-like images. Our culture’s obsession with taking photos has actually proven to be useful when it comes to creating these age progression images because it gives the specialists more to study and compare to.

After these images are produced, they are distributed to the masses via a variety of platforms, such as social media, billboards, flyers, through news stations, or other sources. The goal is to have as many people view it as possible so that the likelihood of someone recognizing the subject and contacting the police increases. This tool is especially helpful in cases of children who have been missing for many years, because the age progression feature gives investigators a glimpse of what the children might look like currently. This is crucial because not only does it increase the chances of other people recognizing this person, but also the missing person themself might see it. There might be children out there who were abducted at too young of an age to remember and are raised in a new family, so if they were to see these images displaying missing children that resemble them, this might cause them to recover old memories or even come forward if they suspect that they could be the child. Forensic imaging software is a critical tool for a multitude of reasons, although most importantly, it can be used to solve cases that seemingly have come to a screeching halt.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Forensic Imaging Software: A Tool to Break Cold Cases? appeared first on Law Street.

Multiple public and private agencies make up the child welfare systems across the country. Although the primary responsibility falls on the shoulders of state governments, the federal government supports the states through funding, program development, and legislative initiatives. Both state and federal governments are essential to the process. The child welfare system’s mission is to create safe and permanent environments for children and to strengthen family units. It is an immense and complex project. So immense and complex, however, that important aspects of child safety fall through the cracks. Oversights are often devastating. Read on to learn more about the challenges that abate the U.S. Child Welfare Systems’ mission.

Overview of Child Welfare Systems

Child welfare systems generally do the following:

Receive and investigate reports of possible child abuse and neglect, provide services to families that need assistance in the protection and care of their children, arrange for children to live with kin or with foster families when they are not safe at home, and arrange for reunification, adoption, or other permanent family connections for children leaving foster care.

Public and private agencies also work to provide services such as “in-home family preservation services, foster care, residential treatment, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, parenting skills classes, domestic violence services, employment assistance, and financial or housing assistance.”

The Children’s Bureau, part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is the primary federal institution working with state and local agencies to implement federal child and family legislation. Collaboratively, they create programs that prevent child abuse and neglect. Such efforts are authorized by the Child Abuse and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974. CAPTA provides “federal funding to states in support of prevention, assessment, investigation, prosecution, and treatment activities” and awards “grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations for demonstration programs and projects.”

The Process

First, a concerned person reports suspected child abuse or neglect. More often than not, this person is a “mandatory reporter,” a person required by law to submit a report if he or she suspects child abuse or neglect. Mandatory reporters include individuals who have regular contact with children such as social workers, school personnel, healthcare workers, mental health professionals, child care providers, medical examiners or coroners, and law enforcement officers. Approximately 48 states and other territories have mandatory reporter laws. In many states, every person, regardless of occupation, is legally required to make such a report.

After a report is submitted, it is either “screened in” or “screened out” depending on the amount of information and sufficiency of evidence. If a report is screened in, a Child Protective Services Caseworker will come in and assess the situation. He or she will talk to the child and relatives. If a child is suspected of being in immediate danger, then the child will be brought to a shelter, foster home, or relative’s house while the investigation plays out. At the end of the investigation, the case worker will typically either find the case unsubstantiated or substantiated depending on the evidence. The agency can then initiate a court action if it feels the authority of juvenile court is required during the trial in order to remove the child from the home. In substantiated cases where there has been child abuse or neglect, the threat is labeled as low, moderate, or high. Depending on the severity of the case, the caseworker may recommend community-based resources and service systems, or recommend complete removal of the child from the home. Low-risk parents are often provided support or treatment services, while high-risk parents may be indicted on criminal charges.

Child Welfare System Challenges

Many of the most severe challenges in the Child Welfare System lie in the Foster Care System. Nearly 400,000 children in the United States are living in the foster care system without permanent families.

Over-Institutionalization of Children

You don’t need to be a licensed therapist to know that a positive family dynamic is essential to a child’s well being and mental health. Today, a disturbing amount of children in the child welfare system are placed in institutions rather than homes. Approximately 57, 000 children are living in group placements. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, a children’s advocacy group, recently published a report on this serious issue, advocating that “secure attachments provided by nurturing caregivers are vital to a child’s healthy physical, social, emotional and psychological development throughout his life.”

Children in group placements are at greater risk of abuse and arrest. One in seven children in the child welfare system lives in group placements and 40 percent of those children do not have “documented behavioral or medical need that would warrant placement in such a restrictive setting.” Young people stay in group placements for an average of eight months, although research recommends a stay of three-to-six months for those who require residential treatment. Kids in group placements also suffer from an inappropriate mixing of ages. According to the Society of Research in Child Development, young adults are more susceptible to peer influence. Younger children can suffer from being placed with older kids with behavioral health problems.

Insufficient Background Checks

A major source of controversy in the child welfare system is adequate background checks performed by case workers. There is an overload of cases of foster parents with a criminal background taking in children. For example, Oklahoma is currently under investigation for child abuse and neglect in its foster care system. A recent report, conducted after the death of a 20-month-old boy in foster care, showed that less than 5 percent of the 125 cases investigated for abuse in Oklahoma contained criminal background checks for foster parents.

Caseloads

Caseworkers across all child welfare systems consistently have extensive caseloads. The more cases, the less time and effort a caseworker can devote to each individual child. It also minimizes the ability for a child and caseworker to develop a meaningful relationship, and caseworkers are sometimes blamed for child abuse or neglect in foster homes under their supervision. For example, Catherine Davis, a family services agency caseworker in New Jersey, was suspended after seven-year-old Faheem Williams was found starved to death in his home. His two brothers were also malnourished and burned. Davis had somewhere between 99 and 107 cases. The Child Welfare League of America recommends that “workers carrying ongoing in-home protective services cases…carry no more than 15-17 families.”

Aging Out

When foster children turn 18, they age out of the child welfare system. Many of these children move forward with very little or no support at all. In 2012, 23, 396 foster children aged out of the system. Almost 40 percent were homeless or couch surfing, and 48 percent were unemployed. Fifty percent experienced issues with substance abuse, while 60 percent of the young men had been criminally charged. Nearly a quarter of those aging out did not obtain a high school diploma or GED, and only six percent had graduated with a two or four-year degree.

Case Study: Active Class-Action Suit MD. vs Perry

On behalf of the children in the Texas child welfare system, the Children’s Rights Law Firm of New York, along with co-counsel Haynes & Boone, Yetter Coleman and Canales & Simonson, filed suit against the state of Texas  for “violations of plaintiff children’s constitutional rights, including their right not to be harmed while in state custody and their right to familial association.”

M.D. is one representative of the plaintiff children. She entered foster care at the age of eight. Although initially sent to live with relatives, she returned to state custody after sexual abuse occurred in the home. She moved to multiple placements, including group institutions, where her mental health suffered. When the original complaint was filed, M.D. “lived in a restrictive short-term therapeutic placement with no visitors or basic privileges.”

The main focus of Children’s Rights in this suit is to give children in the Texas welfare care system permanency, whether obtained from reunification with relatives or adoption. Children’s Rights primarily looked at cases where the child had been in foster care for a minimum of 12-18 months, as after a year to a year and a half, foster children’s success rates plummet. Chances for emotional and psychological distress increase and they often act out and exhibit unruly behavior, severely ruining their chances for adoption/permanency. Children without a permanent home age-out without any kind of safety net.

The suit was filed March 29, 2011 and is currently in progress. Children’s Rights is currently in litigation with eight other states as well.

Conclusion

Child welfare systems are broken and reform is inevitable. Travesties occur way too often and are not publicized enough. We need to give foster children a fighting chance to survive on their own after 18. That starts with creating a safe and permanent environment for them while in the welfare system. Turning 18, after a lifetime of struggle and little support, does not make an adult. Fortunately, there are multiple advocacy groups across the country on a mission for reform.

Sources

Primary

Child Welfare Information Gateway: How the Child Welfare System Works

Additional

AFSCME: Caseloads

Annie E. Casey Foundation: Too Many Kids in U.S. Child Welfare Systems Not Living in Families

CCAI: Facts and Statistics

Children’s Rights: In Oklahoma, Asking a Few Questions Might Have Prevented a Boy’s Tragic Death

Child Welfare Information Gateway: Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect

The New York Times: Caseworkers Say Overload Makes it Risky For Children

Society of Research in Child Development: The Detrimental Effects of Group Placements/Services For Youth With Behavioral Health Problems

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Child Welfare System: Kids Falling Through the Cracks appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

According to UNICEF, 140 million children around the globe have lost one or both parents. These children are classified as “orphans.” While there are many reasons that children can become orphans, it is a global problem that affects a wide range of nations. Read on for a spotlight on some of the particular nations and regions that have the most orphans, and what is being done to help those children in need.

Sub-Saharan Africa

Sub-Saharan Africa is home to many orphans. Although sub-Saharan Africa is a large region, its nations share some of the same problems. The onset of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa began in the 1970s, and continued at high levels in the 1980s. In addition to HIV/AIDS, other diseases such as malaria and TB, and war and conflict in some states have left some 52 million of sub-Saharan Africa’s children without one or both parents.

In 2015 in sub-Saharan Africa, it was estimated by UNICEF that about 11 percent of children under 18 were orphans. Many of those children became orphans as a result of the HIV/AIDS crisis in the region. According to Nancy E. Lindborg, assistant administrator for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance at USAID, 15 million children in sub-Saharan Africa have lost their parents specifically to the disease in 2014. However, as frequent as it is that children are orphaned because their parents die of HIV/AIDS, there are also other factors that leave them in non-parental care. For instance, high poverty rates can lead to the abandonment of children, particularly in rural areas or if the parents are migrant workers and unable to take their children to different locations with ease. Other diseases, such as malaria, can also play a role. While sub-Saharan Africa is a huge region and not all the issues faced by one country would be faced by another, these are common threads that many sub-Saharan nations experience.

Spotlight: Ethiopia 

Ethiopia, located in the horn of Africa, has a population of more than 90 million people. According to UNICEF, over four million of that population is made up of orphaned children. Just under one million are children who have been orphaned as a result of HIV/AIDS.

Addressing those health concerns is paramount to stopping the rising orphan levels in Ethiopia. Health care should be provided to ill parents to prevent mother to child transmission and to ensure that they can care for their children as long as possible. Children should benefit from access to quality health care, especially if they are HIV positive themselves.

A focus on community and capacity building ensures that healthcare facilities will be functioning institutions now and in the future. Healthcare professionals need to be trained within the country, and healthcare centers need to be available in villages and local communities. Recently, there has been a focus on a cycle of health care that can sustain itself. As Worldwide Orphans, the first group to bring HIV/AIDS drugs to orphans in Ethiopia, explained about its process:

Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals needed to be trained and mentored by experts in the treatment and ongoing care of children with HIV/AIDS. And so, WWO recruited an extraordinary team of pediatric AIDS specialists from Columbia University to work side by side with in-country professionals, examine and test each child, decide upon treatment, and consult on follow-up care. Seminars were held, with all materials translated into the country’s language. As a result, more than 400 healthcare professionals have been trained and taken their learning back to villages, towns, and cities across their countries.

This kind of community building can also be applied to education and development activities.

Eastern Europe

Eastern Europe’s experience at the end of the twentieth century was characterized by war, turmoil, and poverty. Even Eastern European nations that had rather advanced and progressive social services practices–such as the former Yugoslavia–were devastated by the infighting after the breakup of the Soviet Union and forced to revert back to a reliance on orphanages. As those institutions were often underfunded, overcrowded, and lacking appropriate resources, they didn’t help children to grow and thrive. While many Eastern European countries are moving toward shutting down these institutions, there is still much work to be done to ensure that children in these nations receive adequate support.

Spotlight: Bulgaria 

Bulgaria’s orphan population is high, at an estimated 94,000 in 2009. While the vast majority of these children are “social orphans,” meaning their parents are alive but unable to care for them or have abandoned them, they still require the same support and resources as children who have lost one or both parents.

For a long time, Bulgaria’s many orphans were kept in orphanages, which by their nature often are only able to provide a few staff members to care for large groups of children. For young children, this can be particularly damaging, as they don’t get the attention and nurture that they need. Studies show that for every three months in institutionalized care, infants and toddlers lose about one month of developmental growth. As a result of these concerns about orphanages, Bulgaria announced in 2010 that it would be moving toward de-institutionalization. The country hopes to close all orphanages by 2025. The Bulgarian government is looking to implement a model similar to what we see in the United States, where the focus is on placing children in foster families, kinship care, or small group homes. Dr. Jane Aronson, founder of Worldwide Orphans, described this process in 2011:

They have already done the first level of developmental screening of the most complex children and now they will go deeper into the psycho-social and family issues of these children. Their goals are reuniting the children with their families, closing large institutions, group home assignments and foster care.

This strategic plan will then be used for the orphanages for healthy children.

Many orphans in Bulgaria, and other parts of Eastern Europe, are Roma. Traditionally the Roma, or Romani people, have been oppressed and discriminated against throughout Europe. Due to that cycle, many Roma children become “social orphans” and are left in institutions. Recent estimates indicate that approximately 60-80 percent of children in orphanages are from the Roma minority who represent only four percent of the Bulgarian population. In addition, a 2011 study by the Helsinki Committee found that up to 50 percent of Bulgaria’s orphans are of Roma descent. Empowering this community and providing educational resources to these vulnerable children will help break the cycle of poverty and abandonment.

Latin America and the Caribbean

The country facing a large-scale orphan crisis in the Caribbean and Latin America is Haiti, particularly in light of the devastating earthquake that happened in January 2010. Nevertheless, there are a significant number of orphans in the region. While UNICEF reports 340,000 orphans in Haiti alone, there are many others in the region who have their own unique obstacles to overcome. UNICEF in 2013 put the number in the region at just over 8.4 million.

Spotlight: Haiti

Most estimates prior to the 2010 earthquake, including those from Worldwide Orphans, put the number of orphans in Haiti at over 400,000. While those numbers are now around 340,000, Haiti sees many of the issues similar to those in Ethiopia and Bulgaria, including intergenerational poverty and HIV/AIDS infection. UNICEF estimates the number of children orphaned in Haiti due specifically to HIV/AIDS at 100,000.

Due to the 2010 earthquake and the subsequent destruction of significant portions of the infrastructure, addressing the orphan issue effectively and efficiently in Haiti has been very challenging. Furthermore, even before the disaster, educational opportunities and jobs were hard to come by. Providing orphaned young people with skills and opportunity will help them to be resilient, by extension improve their communities, and hopefully break the intergenerational cycle of poverty. As Worldwide Orphans explains about its “Haitians Helping Haitians” program,

The youth training model has been replicated in a hospital in Port-au-Prince, where young adults are trained to work with babies and infants who have been abandoned at the hospital. This model provides them with much needed income, job skills and a chance to build self-esteem and positively contribute to their own community. Whether playing with infants and toddlers in the WWO Toy Library, or serving up arts and crafts, nature, performing arts, life skills, education, teambuilding activities at camp and in after-school programming, WWO’s youth corps of trainees are not only providing valuable enrichment to children suffering from chronic disease and the emotional scars of abandonment, they are building their own skills in child development which will serve them in future employment and in their own journeys into parenthood.

By providing children with resources to help themselves and their communities, Haiti will be better positioned to rebuild a nation that is still feeling the effects of such a devastating natural disaster.

Conclusion

Currently there are 140 million orphans worldwide. Most orphans are “social orphans” and likely have identifiable families–if there is the social infrastructure to find them. Unfortunately, in developing nations, there are so many orphans and very limited financial resources to reintegrate and reunite families.  Nations like Ethiopia, Bulgaria, and Haiti each demonstrate how issues of poverty, disease and conflict impact children in different cultures. However, it is important to remember that these problems are not necessarily unique. Virtually all across the world, children lose parents to disease (HIV, Malaria, etc) conflict and war, poverty, natural disasters and experience trauma that impacts their development. There’s no such thing as a one-size-fits-all approach to preventing orphaning. Instead, a combination of approaches, including early intervention, community capacity building, de-institutionalization, establishment of group homes and foster care, and other critical psychosocial support programming, like the work that Worldwide Orphans undertakes, needs to be implemented to ensure that every child grows up safe, independent, and healthy.

Resources

Primary

UNICEF: Ethiopia

UNICEF: Bulgaria

UNICEF: Haiti

UNICEF: State of the World’s Children 2015

Additional

Food, Nutrition and Agriculture: Orphans and the Impact of HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa 

Borgen Magazine: House Subcommittee Discusses African Orphans

Worldwide Orphans: Ethiopia

Worldwide Orphans: Capacity/Community Building

Medwire: Bulgaria Special Report: Children Continue to be Neglected Due to ‘False Reforms’

NIH: Neurodevelopmental Effects of Early Deprivation in Post-Institutionalized Children

Worldwide Orphans: Bulgaria 

Huffington Post: Bulgaria: Changing Orphans’ Lives

EU Business: Abandoned Roma Children Fill Europe’s Orphanages

Children and Youth in History: UNICEF Data on Orphans by Region

Worldwide Orphans: Haiti

SOS Children’s Villages: Children’s Statistics

Worldwide Orphans

Worldwide Orphans is dedicated to transforming the lives of orphaned children to help them become healthy, independent, productive members of their communities and the world, by addressing their physical and mental health, education, and ability to achieve. WWO was founded in 1997 by Dr. Jane Aronson, who has dedicated her life to working with children. Worldwide Orphans is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

http://www.wwo.org

The post State of the World’s Orphans appeared first on Law Street.

Spring is in the air. While the daffodils and tulips are emerging, for some, so are the baby bumps. New parents have many responsibilities and choices to make once their little bundles of joy are out in the world. Working mothers in the United States must make one especially weighty decision: to go on maternity leave, or to go straight back to work? The choice is not as cut-and-dry as some may think—both financial and emotional factors must be considered. A family must also consider whether or not they will pay for the services of a babysitter or nanny, care for the child themselves, or enlist family and friends to help care for the child. But are policies in the U.S. to this effect changing?

In America, the concept of maternity leave is quite common, but what about paternity leave? New mothers are afforded “bonding” time, but what about fathers? As it turns out, new parent–both moms and dads–are allowed up to 12 weeks of unpaid family leave after the birth or adoption of a child, according to The Family and Medical Leave Act.

There are many caveats to this act, however, and not all employees may be qualified to receive its benefits. Even if an employee qualifies, he or she may not choose to take off from work if it could cause a financial hardship, given that the leave is unpaid. There may be a solution here–perhaps the United States should adopt the policies of other countries that allow parents to go on paid parental leave. Norway allows parents to take a leave of 36 weeks and receive 100 percent of their wages; Australia allows each parent 12 months of leave, of which 18 weeks are paid.

While the U.S. may need to update its parental leave policies, one major American city has recently revised its childcare options. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has announced the city’s implementation plan for free, full-day, universal pre-kindergarten.

Mayor Bill de Blasio. Image courtesy of Kevin Case via Flickr

Many New Yorkers have speculated as to the need of such a program, but it seems the numbers speak for themselves. In the first three weeks of enrollment, 51,000 New York City families signed up for the mayor’s pre-K program. More families will undoubtedly sign up before the enrollment deadline for the program on April 24, 2015.

The funds needed for the program were raised by tax increases. But what if the funds had been put toward implementing paid parental leave instead of universal pre-K? Going forward, what if people were given a choice between paid parental leave OR universal pre-K? Allowing New Yorkers to reject or accept alternate parental systems may be an innovative way to test out options that could be afforded to the rest of the country.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paid Parental Leave: Are There Alternatives for U.S. Parents? appeared first on Law Street.

In most cases, the law grants people autonomy over their own bodies, including a constitutional right to consent to or refuse medical treatment; however, for teenagers, that right is curbed by their parents, who have the right to control medical procedures in most cases until that child turns eighteen. There has been a lot of news lately where teens are fighting back against their parents over medical treatments, procedures, and even appointments. Read on to learn more about this issue, including mental health, substance abuse, and physical problems.

Parent – Child Medical Care

Traditionally when a teenager, child, or infant goes for medical treatment, including routine check-ups, parents are welcome in the room. Many doctors’ offices allow the parent in, while some do so only if the child says the parent can come in. This is especially true in more sensitive appointments. In most cases, a child’s parents or guardians are the ones who know the most about the child.

According to the University of Washington School of Medicine:

Parents have the responsibility and authority to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. This includes the right to refuse or discontinue treatments, even those that may be life-sustaining. However, parental decision-making should be guided by the best interests of the child. Decisions that are clearly not in a child’s best interest can and should be challenged.

The concern that a parent could make a decision that isn’t in their child’s best interest has led to some cases where children and teenagers start to fight back against their parents when it comes to medical care.

What are age of consent laws?

Doctors of all kinds, from dentists to ophthalmologists, have grappled for years with age of consent when it comes to mature adolescents. In a 2013 Pediatrics article, the authors stated:

It is well understood in the medical community that adolescents’ aptitude to make rational, responsible decisions changes over time and that older teenagers and young adults have substantially similar cognitive capacities.

According to Doctor Will See You Now, this question of maturity, and the automatic assumption of parent’s rights, endures as the general background rule that will apply in the majority of court cases regarding treatment of teens. The site points out that most frequently, parents are “free to sort among alternatives and elect the course of treatment based on his or her assessment of the child’s best interests.” This rule applies to any patient below the age of majority, 18 in most states, although in a small number of states, such as Delaware (19), Mississippi (21), and Nebraska (19),  it is higher. In Arkansas, Nevada, Ohio, Utah, and Wisconsin the age of majority varies due to high school graduation dates. Some health insurance plans also have rules associated with their policies.

Those who are evaluated to have a maturity over their physical age, however, have been deemed “mature minors” in some court cases. That concept, as psychologically valid as it is, is cloudier when it comes to state laws, which vary widely in their “mature minor” stances, including the ages at which one becomes a “mature minor.” SeverFew U.S. courts have already defined the term, and a few more will be tasked to evaluate it in coming months. Seventeen states do have some form of concession to the standard parental consent requirement, ranging from written exceptions from psychologists to emancipation rights. Most often, the exceptions are requested by minors seeking an abortion without parental consent or knowledge.

These rules have become increasingly open to exceptions aiming to protect minors’ privacy and bodily integrity, safeguard the public health, and respect older minors’ adult-like autonomy and decision making ability.

Sensitive Categories of Treatment: Exceptions to the Rule

All states have some exceptions to parental consent when it comes to medical care for minors. It can become public health issue if young people are scared to get medical treatment because they have to tell their parents about them. These include procedures like testing for STDs–something that all 50 states and D.C. allow minors to do without having parental permission.

In many states, but not all, minors can also give their personal consent without their parents’ input regarding reproductive health services, with regard to contraceptive services and prenatal care, as well as drug and alcohol abuse treatment and outpatient mental health services. However, there usually is a minimum age for this kind of care without parental consent–usually early teens. These laws also don’t preclude parents from being able to require them to submit to treatment.

Abortion

One specific area of concern when it comes to minor medical care is abortion. Most states require parental consent for a minor to receive an abortion, although Supreme Court precedent allows a pregnant minor to receive an abortion under certain circumstances, such as “if she is sufficiently mature or if it would be in her best interests mentally and physically.” “Tests of maturity can include questions about good grades or extracurricular activities, as well as other less-defined queries that would allow judges to see a young person’s thinking process and understanding of the procedure,” said Doriane Coleman, a law professor at Duke University. The law is pretty inconsistent state-by-state, however, in some states, another relative could be allowed to be present at the abortion, in others a young woman could go to court to fight for her right to have the medical procedure.

Substance Abuse

When it comes to substance abuse, some states allow minors to consent to treatment. However, the laws usually also require that minors have to receive treatment if their parents consent to it on their behalf. Allowing minors the option to consent is is an attempt to make sure the treatment sticks–after all, a person who consents to treatment or requests treatment is more likely to follow through and at least stay in the program until the end.

According to the Doctor Will See You Now:

For doctors, the issue is that even if a minor is empowered by state law to give consent, they still need to ensure that the minor is intellectually and emotionally capable of giving informed consent. Thus, even if there is no age limit under state law or the age limit is very low, at times doctors may find it is inappropriate to allow a minor to consent to his own care if he is too immature or otherwise incapable of understanding the procedure’s risks, benefits and alternatives.

Payment, Confidentiality, and HIPAA

Additionally, the Doctor Will See you Now points out:

The fact that some minors can consent to their own health care and treatments in certain areas does not always mean that they actually have a right to confidentiality with respect to that care. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), practitioners are basically required to follow state law regarding confidentiality for minors, and they are given discretion over parental notification when state law is silent on the issue. Most parents will find out eventually, whether it is from HIPAA or the patient’s own volition.

Particular federally funded programs also have certain confidentiality laws. For example, services subsidized by Title X, the federal family planning funding program, have to be provided confidentially, per federal law.

Case Study: Cassandra C.

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled recently that the state was well within its rights to require a young woman named Cassandra C. to continue undergoing chemotherapy treatments even though it wasn’t what she wanted. Her mother wanted her to do whatever she thought was best.

Because of the nature of the case, and concerns about Cassandra’s wellbeing, the case has been featured in the national news. Unfortunately, Cassandra spent every day in isolation from other patients and was under constant supervision. “She hasn’t been convicted of a crime, but it’s kind of like she’s in jail,” said Joshua Michtom, an assistant public defender and Cassandra’s lawyer. “It’s an especially lousy way to go through chemo.”

Court Orders

There are very rare situations in which the court becomes involved, because parents aren’t acting in the best interests of their children. In addition, there are cases like those outlined in the novel My Sister’s Keeper, where parents seek to have a minor child donate an organ to a sibling, or to undergo any other significantly invasive medical procedure for the benefit of another child.

Conclusion

Medical decision making by and on behalf of children and teens is a subject that is ethically, mentally, physically, and legally complex. State laws vary considerably, and they often have vague standards and language. Children should generally be involved in medical decision making to the extent of their abilities. It is not only a teaching moment, but it is also a way to create autonomy. In the case of a conflict between a minor’s wishes and a parent’s wishes, however, everyone needs to proceed with caution, especially in life or death cases. As such, it is usually wise for them to seek the advice of legal counsel and, in some cases, to proceed to court for a judicial order authorizing the proposed course of treatment.

Resources

Primary

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District: DEPT. OF HEALTH v. STRAIGHT, INC.

Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania: Parents United for Better Schools v School District of Philadelphia

Additional

The Doctor Will See You Now: Doctor-Patient Confidentiality: How Do We Define It and When Should We Waive It?

Journal of Health Care Law and Policies: Medical Decision Making by and on Behalf of Adolescents

Journal of Pediatric Psychology: Involving Children and Adolescents in Medical Decision Making: Developmental and Clinical Considerations

Guttmacher Institute: Minors and the Right to Consent to Health Care

Philly: Should Teens Get to Say “No” to Life-Saving Medical Treatment?

Pediatrics: The Legal Authority of Mature Minors to Consent to General Medical Treatment

Editor’s Note: This article has been edited to credit select information to the Doctor Will See you Now, and some portions have been edited for clarity. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Medical Care for Minors: Who Calls the Shots? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome, readers, to a new series focused solely on sharing the most ridiculous laws that actually exist in our country. From banning women from parachuting on Sundays to making swearing loudly unlawful, the 50 United States are chock full of laws that really make you wonder how they ever came to be.

To kick start this series I will focus on one of the largest states, which has no shortage of bizarre laws on the books.

As you all know, California is home to Hollywood and major film and television production companies. If you are a parent wishing to take advantage of this to live vicariously through your child’s film career, beware. In the Golden State, film producers must have permission from a pediatrician before filming a child younger than one month.

Also, if you wish to include a scene with a dog pursuing a bear or bobcat in your film, you will have to change the plot. In California, it is unlawful to allow a dog to pursue either of the two aforementioned animals at any time.

Speaking of animals, while it is illegal to shoot at them from a moving vehicle, there is an exception for anyone wishing to play out a Moby Dick scenario: shooting at a whale from a moving vehicle is completely fine. So go ahead and release your inner Ishmael!

I’m sure you are all aware that some cities nationwide charge customers for plastic bags. San Jose and Sunnyvale, California take this to the next level, however; in those two cities, it is illegal for grocery stores to provide plastic bags at all.

Horny animals better control their natural instincts in Cali. Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship. This law in particular is a major head-scratcher for me. How is it enforced? Who would be arrested in such a case? Would two dogs getting it on next to a church be sent to the pound? Oh, the confusion of it all… I have so many hilarious visuals playing out in my mind of cops leading handcuffed dogs to the holding cell.

The final law worth mentioning is one specific to the city of Fresno, where it is illegal to sell permanent markers within city limits.

Thus concludes this week’s edition in the series “The Dumbest Laws in the United States.” Tune in next week when we will explore the illogical laws throughout the rest of the West Coast.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: California Edition appeared first on Law Street.

Recently a video has been making the rounds on my Facebook feed, posted both by people cheering it on and by people questioning the sanity of its producers. The now-viral video features little girls dressed up as princesses and talking about women’s rights. It doesn’t sound so harmless, right? What is so controversial?

The video boasts the title: “Potty-Mouthed Princesses Drop F-Bombs for Feminism.”

Aha.

The video is produced by FCKH8.com, a for-profit clothing company that features t-shirts with mottos like “This is what a #feminist looks like” and “Some kids are gay, that’s okay.” Since its inception in 2010, it has donated more than a quarter-million dollars to foundations fighting for equality, and boast celebrity customers like Ellen DeGeneres, Portia de Rossi, Dan Savage, and Zac Efron. Now, it can add “viral video production” to its list of accolades. It has nearly 100,000 “likes” and more than 400,000 shares on Facebook, and nearly one million views on YouTube.

Watch the video below, and if you are at work or around sensitive ears, I suggest the use of headphones:

Obviously, the first time you watch these little girls swearing like a middle-age man with road rage, it is pretty shocking. We’re not accustomed to hearing proper young ladies use such language!

Here’s the thing: it is meant to shock you. It is meant to grab your attention, and it succeeds. Through all the f-bombs and a-bombs (and I don’t mean atomic), their message is loud and clear: sexism still exists, and it needs to stop.

Or, in the words of one princess, “F*** that sexist sh**!”

Many of the complaints lodged against the video are about the children using curse words. Clearly, though, their parents gave them permission to be in the video, and their message is more important than their foul language. The point is that the rampant sexism and hate in society today is more shocking than girls and boys saying “f***.” Don’t focus on the swearing, focus on the statistics and the facts they are sharing.

Others agree with the message, but dislike the use of children to communicate it. One Facebook commenter said “using children to push a political agenda is one of the quickest ways to lose my respect.” While I agree that young kids should not be forced to share the political opinions of their parents, or stand on street corners holding signs supporting one politician over another, I think these kids do understand — at least fundamentally — what they are saying. They are all old enough to have experienced sexism already, like being told to play with Barbies instead of Tonka trucks or to dress up as princesses instead of superheroes. As the boy featured at the end said, “When you tell a boy not to act like a girl, it means you think it’s bad to be a girl.” Gender roles and sexism are ingrained in us early, and these children are meant to represent that.

One of the big points the girls make is that women are still paid less than men for the same work. Some viewers of the video had a real issue with that, one male Facebook user even posting this ill-informed meme:

The response to this is simple. Companies cannot hire all women for the same reason they cannot hire all men or all people of one race: equal opportunity. Yet, even with this supposed “equal opportunity,” women will be offered lower salaries. The pay gap is real, and by all accounts will not close anytime soon.

“F*** that sexist sh**!”

Along with pointing out the pay gap, they bring attention to the fact that one in five women will be sexually assaulted, using themselves as examples, and saying “Instead of telling girls how to dress, start teaching boys not to f***ing rape!”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

So, go back and watch the video again, share it, discuss it, and look past the swearing. They have to put quarters in a swear jar at the end anyway!

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Children “Drop F-Bombs For Feminism,” Are You Listening? appeared first on Law Street.

Right on the heels of  the Ray Rice domestic violence incident, NFL star Adrian Peterson was charged with negligent injury to a child. Known for being the best running back for the Minnesota Vikings, Peterson allegedly punished his 4-year-old son by whipping him with a tree branch, leaving cuts and bruises on the boy’s legs, backs, buttocks, hand and scrotum.

This subject is something I am really passionate about, and I was in absolute shock when Peterson gave a statement to the police following the incident claiming he felt confident in his actions, and is thankful for what spanking has done to him in his life. Each parent is responsible for choosing the way he or she disciplines his or her child, but if we start to say spanking is acceptable, how will we ever be able to set boundaries and limits? In typical NFL handling of these cases, Peterson was suspended from a game and no further action is being taken until the official police investigation is complete.

Last week I referenced the punishment for the father of a child who died as a result of being left in a hot car. That father was charged with murder. In the case of Adrian Peterson, I ask you what would happen if Peterson gave one more hit as opposed to the 10-15 lashes his poor child received, and that final hit resulted in the child’s death? Would he be let off because he didn’t intend to hurt the child? Would it be accepted like it is now, because that’s the way he grew up and spanking does “good”? I find it appalling that excuses are being made to justify what allows parents to discipline their children in this way.

Legislation is proposed all the time to stop acts of abuse toward children, and yet this incident has the potential to make parents think it’s OK to discipline their children in this way. I do not doubt that Peterson is telling the truth when he claims his intentions were harmless, but I do doubt that he feels any kind of remorse or is aware that his actions were wrong. In 2013, Peterson’s other two-year-old son was killed by his ex-girlfriend’s partner. Although Peterson had only found out about the child three months prior to his tragic death, one would have thought it would make him change his own actions.

All it takes is one hit in the wrong area, or with a certain amount of force, to cause serious harm and fall under the realm of child abuse. NFL players have the responsibility not only to be great athletes but also to be good role models. With the influx of recent incidents involving NFL players and their mistreatment of the law, I worry what effect this will have on the general public. Yes people make mistakes, yes people can change, but we should not be encouraging this behavior by making excuses. Each article I read about Rice and Peterson is drenched in excuse after excuse, each justifying the simple fact that these acts are wrong. In my opinion, if these acts of abuse were done by anyone else not in the public eye, I can guarantee the punishment would be a lot different.

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post There Is No Excuse for Child Abuse, Not Even for Adrian Peterson appeared first on Law Street.

On August 20, 5 million people tuned in to watch a summer baseball game, a pretty impressive figure considering MLB playoffs don’t begin until October. Now consider that those numbers aren’t for major league baseball or even college, but for little league baseball. Last Wednesday, 13-year-old Mo’ne Davis and her Philadelphia team battled and lost admirably to their Las Vegas counterpart, the latest event in a string of brushes with early fame. Sports fans and parents alike seem to endorse little league baseball, but one has to wonder: in an age when amateurism is being redefined at the collegiate level, will the public ever find little league baseball to be exploitative?

Like college football, little league baseball has seen a relatively quick surge in revenue. In 2012, even before Mo’ne Davis took America by storm, Little League Inc. had assets of nearly $85 million. Also like college football, the players are not the ones collecting the revenue. A majority of the revenue generated is used to maintain the Little League headquarters in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, as well as the domestic regional offices and the international facilities in Canada, Hong Kong, and Poland.

As the NCAA can attest, if organizational revenue increases from television contracts while players remain unpaid, some may declare the league exploitative. But Little League, Inc. can rest assured knowing its players won’t be seeking the same redress as current or former college athletes. For starters, Little League, Inc. hasn’t sold its athletes’ rights to merchandisers. The NCAA did, and that was generally what the recently decided O’Bannon v. NCAA was all about.

Secondly, the best college athletes not only earn their organizations money, they do so in lieu of their own earnings. Star athletes in basketball, football, hockey, and baseball often choose between college or receiving compensation from a domestic or foreign league. In 2008, NBA point guard Brandon Jennings chose to play professional basketball in Italy rather than play college basketball in the U.S. Mo’ne Davis et al., as entertaining as they may be, do not have similar opportunities considering minors lack the traditional capacity to contract in the United States, and child labor, even in Europe, is frowned upon.

Although it shouldn’t worry about being sued by its players, Little League Inc. might have to worry about its volunteers. Behind the play of child stars stands 1.25 million non-paid volunteers who ensure little league games are run effectively. Think it’s unlikely they would sue after volunteering to work for no money? So too, most likely, did Major League Baseball. So too, most likely, did several media giants in NYC.

Can all volunteers now sue their “employer,” even if it’s a non-profit? Is anything keeping Americorps and Salvation Army volunteers from suing those establishments? Not exactly. The Southern District of New York held fairly recently in a suit brought by Fox Searchlight Studio interns that the unpaid’s legal status generally depends on the motivation of the organization using them. Fox was found to be using interns in lieu of employees, and it was mainly to benefit them financially rather than offer experience to the interns. If Little League, Inc. keeps expanding its volunteer base in order to continue generating revenue, then it too may be thrown a curve ball.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Edwin Martinez via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post Little League is Big Business appeared first on Law Street.

Last Friday, July 25, 2014, three Central American leaders  — Presidents Juan Olando Hernádez of Honduras, Otto Pérez Molina of Guatemala, and Salvador Sánchez Cerén of El Salvador — convened at the White House to discuss with President Obama the recent wave of Central American immigrants, specifically unaccompanied minors, to the United States.

“Washington must understand that if you have a Central America with violence because of the drug traffic crime, a Central America without opportunities, without growth in the economy, it is going to always be a problem for the United States,” said President Hernández of Honduras. The root causes, Hernández went on, are not America’s lax border polices, but rather the demand for illegal drugs in North America, which fuels violence in Central America, causing migrants to flee their homes. In a joint statement on Friday, President Obama and the three Central American leaders pledged to address the “underlying causes of immigration by reducing criminal activity and promoting greater social and economic opportunity.”

What this estimation overlooks, though, are the perspectives of the immigrants themselves. What causes them to submit to a perilous exodus, vulnerable to a harsh desert climate, drug violence, and personal injury crossing rivers and fences, all at the likelihood of being detained by U.S. border security, and possibly being sent back? Drug violence may very well be a cause for the flight of immigrants, but I am skeptical to hear this from leaders of governments who have vested interests in the economic exploitation, and repression of their citizens. Rather, we should listen to the people.

In Central America, graffiti is a voice for a voiceless people: the agrarian peasants and the urban poor. Graffiti is an alternative medium of communication that broadcasts messages that corporate media outlets such as radio and television fail to incorporate. It is an open forum of dissent, writ large on the side of a government building, or across a freight car, traveling throughout the region. More importantly, graffiti is a vantage point from which we can discern the perspective of Central American immigrants, and the pressures behind their flight.

Ciudad de Juárez, the capital of Oaxaca, Mexico, six hundred miles from the Guatemalan border, is home to the Assembly of Revolutionary Artists of Oaxaca (ASARO). Comprised of multiple graffiti crews and independent artists, ASARO was forged in the summer 2006 following the violent state-oppression of teachers demanding better pay and working conditions. Forty-five hundred federal police forcibly removed the teachers from the streets, injuring 92 protesters and killing 17, including an American news correspondent. The brutal government crackdown on protests mobilized disparate activist groups against the government, which they saw as a common cause of their plights, and ASARO emerged as a visual amplification of their dissent through the streets of Ciudad de Juárez.

“Arte Del Pueblo y Para el Pueblo” (Art of the People for the People) courtesy of ian m via Flickr

What is more interesting, though, in regard to immigration to the United States, is the political motive and content of the ASARO graffiti. In their images and slogans, we find the root cause of strife afflicting the people in Mexico and Central America, and ultimately the systemic causes for the massive waves of immigration to the U.S. over the last five years.

“The assembly of revolutionary artists arises from the need to reject and transcend authoritarian forms of governance and institutional, cultural, and societal structures, which have been characterized as discriminatory for seeking to impose a single version of reality and morality[.]” – ASARO Manifesto

In Oaxaca, where 80.3 percent of the population lack sanitation services, street lighting, piped water, and paved roads, ASARO illuminated institutional prejudices against ethnicity, class, and sex, keeping eight out ten people in extreme poverty. Their graffiti critiqued the violence of the Mexican government in the 2006 uprising, but also demanded  equal rights for disenfranchised groups like farm workers, indigenous people, and women, as well as exposing the hypocrisies and corruption of the ruling elite. Slogans such as “Todo el Poder al Pueblo. Colonos en Pie de Lucha” (All the Power to the People. Neighbors on our feet to fight!) incited reflection and fiery debates on issues ranging from the privatization of public goods, to gender equality, democratic participate, and Indigenous rights. Moreover, images of the Oaxacan governor labeled “Cynic, Thief, Autocrat, Repressor, Murders,” and “End Fascism in Mexico!” rallied protesters against the government.

Courtesy of natarén via Flickr

“Todo el poder al pueblo. Colonos en lucha” (All Power to the people. Neighbors, on their feet for the fight). Courtesy of nataren via Flickr.

In addition to social struggles in Mexico, ASARO’s political graffiti illustrate issues that affect Central America broadly, such as the economic exploitation of natural resources and labor by transnational corporations, as well as documenting the physical and emotional trauma of immigration. ASARO’s political graffiti critiqued the extraction of oil and minerals from Oaxacan land, which is exported by the Mexican government at an exorbitant profit, without benefit to the Oaxacan people. One ASARO poster featuring a barefoot peasant tilling the land read, “La Tierra es de queen la Trabaja” (The earth belongs to those who work it); a wood-cut block print depicted Uncle Sam under an eagle drinking from an oil can, kicking miniature figures with guns, who represent the Mexican people.

These critiques of foreign exploitation not only speak to conditions in Mexico and Central America, but suggest a system of global colonization by transnational corporations. A block print called Body Parts on Railroad (2010) documents the perils of immigration. Body parts litter train tracks leading to the U.S.: a leg labeled “Salvador,” a finger labeled “Mexico,” a hand “Honduras,” and a head “Guatemala.” Similarly, another block print depicts small animals standing at the opening of a sewer drain like those used by some immigrants to enter the U.S., that runs under a border fence replete with police and an American flag.

In all, the political graffiti of Oaxaca, Mexico demonstrates that there is much more to the immigration debate than just the quips of politicians. In order to understand the root cause of the recent wave of unaccompanied child immigrants, and in order to address this crisis adequately, discussions must include the perspectives of the immigrants themselves. Drug violence is not the only cause for immigration from Central America; but rather a host of systemic issues force immigrants to travel to the U.S. Government corruption and economic exploitation are, perhaps, the most intolerable conditions for the people, as evidenced by the ASARO graffiti. Only from the oppressed can we fully understand their oppression; graffiti is the voice of the subaltern.

 —
Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

 Featured image courtesy of [Fabricator77 via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Graffiti Describes the Struggle of Immigrants and Undocumented Minors appeared first on Law Street.

Since I love baseball and it’s All Star week in the MLB, I decided that this week’s post would be about America’s favorite pastime. I could have gone the route of talking about Andrew Robert Rector, who is suing just about everybody in the baseball world for $10 million because he says announcers trash-talked him when he fell asleep at a Yankees-Red Sox game. Funny as that story is, however, everybody is talking about it. I like to be unique, and I knew there had to be a whole lot of other baseball stories out there. Lucky for you, I found some weird ones.

Just a Little Outside

If you’ve ever watched or gone to a baseball game, you know that there are a lot of balls flying around, as well as broken bat pieces and whole bats soaring through the air. And let’s not forget that a player might fall into the first few rows as he reaches over to make a spectacular catch.

If you are lucky enough to get a good seat at a major league game, you better be on guard. Even the seats warn you: watch out or you just might get hit. The bleachers at little league fields, though, usually don’t come with this warning. Elizabeth Lloyd, a New Jersey resident, probably wishes they did.

A few years ago, she was sitting at a table near a fenced bullpen when the catcher, warming up a pitcher, made an errant throw. The ball left the playing area and hit Lloyd in the face. She reacted in a totally rational manner and decided to sue the 11-year-old boy (13 by the time the suit was filed). I assume she was only trying to teach him the valuable life lesson that some people are horrible and like to do ridiculous, awful things like sue kids. I doubt he has the good sense to appreciate her help, though.

Lloyd is suing for $150,000 for her medical costs alone. Add onto this all of the money she “deserves” for her pain and suffering and what her husband expects for loss of consortium, and I really hope this kid has an extremely good allowance.

The suit claims that the boy’s throw was intentional, Lloyd was “assaulted and battered,” the throw was negligent and careless, and — I’m not making this up — the injury was caused by “inappropriate physical and/or sporting activity.” And I always thought that throwing a ball on a ball field or its practice areas was where you were supposed to play.

On top of all this, Lloyd is demanding a jury trial. I think that’s really ballsy. I certainly wouldn’t want to try to convince a whole group of people that the cute kid who was playing an innocent sport instead of being out causing mayhem in the community should be punished.

I’ve seen enough major league baseball games to know that those million dollar salaries don’t always mean perfect aim and control. I’ve seen errors that would shock even the most sports illiterate. And when these stupid errors occur, I hear announcers make the same type comment over and over.

“It’s like watching a little league game.”

“I haven’t seen that bad an error since little league.”

“He’s the best at his position in the league, but that play was straight out of little league.”

Courtesy of DEADSPIN.

That’s right, people. Little leaguers aren’t yet at that major league level of almost-but-not-quite perfect. They make a lot of errors, such as throwing a ball to a place or toward a person that they didn’t mean to throw it.

There is this thing called the “baseball rule,” which basically says you cannot sue for injuries caused by events that happen on the field because, since you know there is good risk you’ll get injured, you assume the risk when you attend. Shouldn’t this rule apply all the way down to those players who have less talent and skill than the big leaguers? I hope for the sake of this player and his family that this court thinks so.

There’s No Crying in Baseball

The problem with little league sports is that there is a lot of whining and temper tantrums involved. But since it’s a bunch of young kids playing, that is to be expected.

One such temper tantrum took place recently in California. A 14-year-old boy scored the game-winning run and, for some child-like, immature reason, he had the nerve to get excited. In his ridiculous happiness, he threw off his helmet to celebrate with his teammates and rudely threw it in the air — something every no professional player would ever do — admittedly after being told not to.

Courtesy of GIPHY.

As the helmet landed, it hit Alan Beck in the ankle, sending him into a major hissy fit. To be fair, the helmet allegedly tore his Achilles tendon, so I’d probably be a little upset, too; however, I most likely would not sue. I’m not a 14-year-old boy, though. Then again, this suer wasn’t either. He was a little bit older than the rest of the players, which is why he was coaching the team instead of playing on it.

Yep, the coach sued the player for $500,000. According to his lawyer, the coach has a case because “a guy who volunteers his time to coach should not be subjected to someone who throws a helmet in the manner that he did.” What? So what I’m hearing is that a baseball coach shouldn’t be subjected to normal baseball celebrations.

According to CBS Sports, the suit will likely be dropped for the above mentioned baseball rule, but even better, the coach said that he would simply drop the case – if the boy apologized.

The boy did what I would do in the same situation. He said no way! I wouldn’t apologize to a cry baby, either. I do hope, though, that the case is dropped before the family has to dish out any more money defending itself.

If you want to do a little research, there are a lot of these “sue little leaguers for not being perfect” cases out there. I never thought I’d have to say this, but can we all stop suing kids for ridiculous things? And happy second half of the baseball season: may your team win so long as your team is my team!

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Edwin Martinez via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post For the Love of the Game: Lawsuits and Little League appeared first on Law Street.

Congress and President Barack Obama have to quickly respond to a recent influx of thousands of Central American child immigrants spilling over the border into Texas. Read on to learn about why they are coming here and why finding a place for them will be a challenge.

How many people are coming over the border?

There has been a recent surge of Central American children illegally immigrating into the United States over the Texas border. 47,000 unaccompanied minors have been detained at the border in the past eight months. This is a 92 percent increase from the eight month period prior to that.

Why now?

Evidence points to two different factors.

First, living conditions in Central America have gotten significantly worse in recent years. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 48 percent of the detained minors had experienced abuse from an organized criminal group before fleeing to America. This should not be too surprising. Honduras, the country where the plurality of children are coming from, boasts the highest murder rate in the world. In 2012, there were more than 90 murders per 100,000 people. The next country on the list, Venezuela, only has 53.7 homicides per 100,000 people. It should be no surprise that children want to leave Central America.

Check out this story from The New York Times to learn more about the gang violence that Honduran children are escaping.

You can also watch this report on gang violence in Honduras, but it is graphic:

So it makes sense that children would want to leave this environment, but why are they coming to America? Why do they choose this specific country? Critics of President Barack Obama argue that his immigration policies have convinced illegal immigrants that they will have an easy time entering the country, and there is some evidence to support that. There is a belief among Central Americans that the United States has recently started treating children easier than they treat adults. This is because of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). The law requires the United States to ensure the safety of any children repatriated back to their homes. This means that the United States cannot just simply turn away or deport children. Border officials have an obligation to make sure that the environment the children are being deported to is safe. President Obama signed this bill into law March 7, 2013; however, a key part of the law allowing these children to gain legal counsel and appeal to stay in the country was signed by President George W. Bush in 2008.

Republicans also assert that Obama’s enforcement of the DREAM act through executive order is an incentive for children to come to America, but there is less concrete evidence to support this.

What is happening to these children when they come here?

These children would be quickly brought back home if they were coming from Mexico or Canada; however, they have to go through a formal deportation process because they are coming from far-away countries. Thanks to the TVPRA, this process involves month-long hearings where the children can appeal to stay in the country. Currently, there’s a massive 360,000-case backlog preventing many of these children from having their cases heard. Since so many are coming at once, it is likely that they will be stuck in detention for some time until a solution is found.

What is the Obama administration trying to do about it?

Obama has requested $3.7 billion from Congress to deal with the border crisis. The administration is telling Congress that the money will go toward building detention facilities to help ease overcrowding, the hiring of judges to hear the backlog of immigration cases, and border security to prevent more children from illegally entering the country. The plan would also allocate $300 million to the State Department to assist Central American countries in repatriating their citizens.

Watch President Obama present this plan to the press:

How are Republicans reacting?

Not well. Republicans are calling the plan a “blank check” without any accountability. Republicans in Congress are also not happy that Obama is not planning on amending the TVPRA to make it easier to deport illegal immigrants.

Conservatives have been crying foul about this crisis for the last week. Texas Governor Rick Perry even called this situation “Obama’s Katrina.” Most notably, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has called for Obama’s impeachment. Palin argues that Obama is deliberately opening the borders and allowing illegal immigrants into the country.

Is Obama going to be impeached? Absolutely not. A President can only be impeached if he has committed high crimes. Obama has not violated any laws. In fact, the current immigration laws are part of the reason this crisis is happening in the first place. Still, Palin’s call for Obama’s impeachment shows that Republicans are angry about this issue.

Watch Boehner blame Obama’s actions for the current problem and criticize the President’s plan to solve the humanitarian crisis:

Law Street’s Allison Dawson lives in the affected area of Texas and has expressed anger at the fact that the children will be housed in abandoned Texas schools that could be used for other purposes.

Across the board, it looks like this has become the newest reason for Republicans to criticize the President.

What does this mean for immigration reform?

Not much. Immigration reform is almost guaranteed not to happen in 2014. Both Speaker John Boehner and President Obama agree that the reform effort is dead.

This is unfortunate because a comprehensive immigration bill could fix many of the problems posed by this spike in illegal immigration, including solving the backlog of cases, sealing the border, and providing a path to citizenship for those who go through the proper channels.

Resources

Primary

US Congress: The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act

Additional

Washington Post: Central American Immigrants Overwhelm Texas Border

Migration Policy Institute: Surge in Unaccompanied Kids Has Deep Roots

CNN: Honduras Has the Highest Murder Rate

The New York Times: Fleeing Gangs, Children Head to U.S. Border

Appleseed Network: Report: Children at the Border

Washington Post: White House Request $3.7 Billion for Border Crisis

MSNBC: Rick Perry: This is Obama’s Katrina

Breitbart: Sarah Palin: It’s Time to Impeach President Obama

Washington Post: Obama is Accused of ‘Lawlessness’ for Following Law

Slate: Immigration Reform is Dead

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crisis at the Border: Influx of Child Immigrants Causes Major Problems appeared first on Law Street.

Despite some positive results of Colorado’s marijuana legalization, like additional revenue and a decrease in crime, there are issues that require further legislative attention. The main point of dispute is the regulation, or rather lack thereof, of marijuana edibles. THC, the mind-altering ingredient in marijuana, can be converted into a cooking oil and used to make treats including truffles, lollipops, cookies, and basically anything else you can eat.

It is easy to see the appeal after just a glance at the menu in a dispensary, often including selections like macadamia nut cookies and candy bars alongside the more traditional brownies. This appeal, however, does not only apply to legal users over age 21, but to children who unknowingly find these THC-laced goodies lying around.

Why Regulate?

Critics claim edibles are far too alluring to children. The cardinal concern here is that kids will be tempted by marijuana candy and guzzle it down without knowing what they are eating. According to the New York Times, “so far this year, nine children have ended up at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora after consuming marijuana, six of whom got critically sick. In all of 2013, the hospital treated only eight such cases.” In a recent incident, a seven-year-old girl in Colorado was hospitalized after ingesting a THC edible. While it does appear that the trend of the hospitalization of children who consumed pot has increased, the evidence is not yet conclusive.

What is the key to preventing future events from occurring? Law enforcement officers and manufacturers of marijuana edibles stress time and time again the importance of the role of parents in keeping their kids away from potentially tempting pot candies. “There is a level of discretion and education and, frankly, tenacity on the behalf of parents that has to occur. If you leave pot lying around, kids are going to find it,” said Joe Hodas, a spokesman for the Denver-based Dixie Elixirs edibles.

Another issue noted with marijuana edibles is the difficulty with dosing them properly. To deal with these issues, lawmakers are considering new packaging with more obvious warnings or limiting each package to contain just a single dose. Recreational dispensaries are also implementing safety measures by listing precautions for edible users.

Edible marijuana information sheet via anonymous

Last time I ate a brownie I bought it legally from a recreational marijuana dispensary. The brownie was 90 MG, so I used caution in the portion I ate because I knew that my tolerance was nonexistent. I started feeling the sensation creeping on about 20 or 30 minutes after eating it. My girlfriend, who has had much less experience using marijuana than myself, was trying to argue that it wasn’t working and that we should eat more, but I urged her to be patient because I knew that even the small amount we ate would get us high. We both ate a little more because I figured she could learn firsthand about the appropriate dosage for her. The peak of my high wasn’t attained until two to three hours after consumption. The experience is equally in the mind as well as the entire body, so I recommend not going out or driving and just letting the drug take effect.

-Anonymous Colorado marijuana user

Advocates of further regulation often cite recent incidents in which two individuals died, allegedly due to the over-consumption of THC edibles; however, the roll of edible marijuana in these deaths remains in question. The only instances on record include a man who jumped off a balcony to his death after consuming a cookie laced with the amount of THC in six joints. In the other instance, a man hallucinated and stabbed his wife, but other drugs were more likely the contributing factor leading to his actions.

Whether the marijuana edibles were the true culprit or not, these events and others have led lawmakers to begin tightening the regulatory noose on their THC content, sale, and marketing. Many express concern over the appearance of the labels on edibles as they appear strikingly similar to their non-THC counterparts.

How are Edibles Different?

In short, when THC is digested, the body absorbs it more slowly than when it is smoked, and therefore can cause the user to feel the need to consume far too much. In spite of this, edibles do not cause damage to lungs in the way that smoking can.

According to an anonymous Colorado marijuana user, the experience consuming pot edibles is a juxtaposition of emotion. “There is a simultaneous balance of being completely relaxed and being on the verge of a panic attack, for me.”

Like many other recreational pot users, he generally prefers pot edibles. “Edible marijuana makes me feel like I need to go to sleep right away but my heart rate is also increased because THC is a stimulating drug. The mind altering properties of weed are especially apparent because it takes feelings that I experience and makes me see them from a different perspective, making me physically uncomfortable yet more accepting to new ideas.”

Even supporters of legalization such as Brian Vicente, one of the authors of the amendment that legalized marijuana, say that Colorado needs to pass stricter rules about edible marijuana. He said that the state was racing up a sharp learning curve. “Marijuana was illegal for 80 years. Now it’s legal, and everyone’s just trying to figure out how to approach these new issues.”

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Janet Hudson via wikipedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Have Your Pot and Eat it Too: Regulating Edible Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

President Obama will be coming to Texas today. Yippee! Thankfully he doesn’t plan to come to Houston so I don’t have to worry about the traffic jam disasters he tends to create. We Houstonians have to deal with horrible traffic day in and day out so having that additional stress just makes us less friendly.

Let’s get to the more important stuff: President Obama, Governor Rick Perry, and immigration. So much has come out about these three in the last couple of days that it is making me mad.

But first I want to address the petty topic that Governor Perry has declined shaking President Obama’s hand when he hits the mean Texas tarmac. When I first read this headline I thought, “Oh great, something else for Democrats to grab on to and slander Texas and Republicans with,” but once I read the blurb that went along with that headline it actually makes sense. I love Governor Perry and although I don’t agree with him on everything, I do agree with him on not wanting to simply shake Obama’s hand and take a few pictures. Despite our differences you should always show respect to our Commander in Chief (until Texas secedes from the Union — though we all know that isn’t legal or likely). But if our good ol’ President is going to come to Texas he should probably squeeze in a little time to talk to the Governor and see what’s going on at the border instead of hitting up Democratic party circuit. Squeeze in reality for a few hours sir, you might look like you care about what’s happening down here.

Moving on to something a bit closer to home and a little more important: a Houston Independent School District (HISD) middle school is being considered as housing for immigrant children. I am the product of a HISD education — a craptastic one at that — and my intelligence and creativity come from hard work and influences outside of the HISD realm, but I still feel it is necessary to share that tiny bit of information. HISD is the largest school district in Texas, seventh largest in the United States, and it has 282 schools. Yes nearly three hundred schools, but how many of those are actually in use?

HISD was so kind as to give Homeland Security officials a nice little tour of an abandoned middle school in the Houston area. Why would Homeland Security want to come visit an abandoned school, you ask? Well it’s because this building is being considered for housing for undocumented children who have crossed the Texas-Mexico border in recent months. Most of these kids crossed the border illegally and alone, which has now turned into another issue that the U.S. is being forced to handle. Typically Border Patrol is required to transfer all unaccompanied children over to the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement within 72 hours, but because so many children — 52,000 since October 2013 — have crossed the border it is taking more time and resources to house all of these illegal children. Surprisingly by law, all illegal alien children who are not from Mexico cannot be immediately deported without an additional investigation to ensure that these children are not victims of sex trafficking.

It was news to me to find out that Terrell Middle School, the site of the tour, had been closed since 2001 and is now simply a storage unit for the district. So instead of taking the hard-earned tax dollars of Houston locals and putting them into keeping Terrell as a school, people like Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and the higher ups within HISD feel it is okay to turn it into a housing facility for children. I have never been a fan of Congresswoman Lee and certainly have very little respect for anyone at HISD, but this is getting a little bit ridiculous. Allowing an abandoned school to go unused is infuriating, but then to turn it into federal housing is even worse. Yes, these children need a place to stay but it is not the responsibility of a school district to house children and the federal government should probably get its act together and do what needs to be done. Terrell could be reopened had HISD used a little bit of a $1.9 BILLION bond to update it instead of just letting it sit there while they tear down and rebuild schools that really don’t need to be renovated or rebuilt altogether.

What else could the abandoned middle school be used for instead of just housing for immigrant children and storage for HISD? Well, the school could be torn down and the property sold to a private investor to create more housing or a shopping center for the area. Or even use the land as a sports arena. At the end of my neighborhood is a parcel of HISD property that is all baseball fields rented out to a local little league association for $1 a year. HISD doesn’t even care to profit from what it already owns. The building could be turned into a public library, police station, or even a community center. Allowing the 14.5 acres to be used in a way that is beneficial to the city of Houston is much more ideal than allowing it to be turned into storage or federal housing for undocumented children.

Everyone knows that getting anything done by the government is like watching paint dry. Slow and painful. And can I ask why President Obama declared back in June that we have an “urgent humanitarian situation” at our border? This is not something new; this has been going on for decades. Sometimes I wonder where the President has been all of these years. I’ve seen the statistics: there have been a larger number of border crossings in the last year but there is a reason for that. I partially blame how bad it is getting south of the border, but I also blame how relaxed we have become about our borders without even realizing it.

I may come across a bit heartless, but I don’t believe in a handout and I don’t believe that just because you cross the border into the United States that you are automatically allowed to live here, even if you are a child. There are laws and regulations that need to be upheld. The first step to becoming an American is to respect the United States.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Debi Fitzsimmons via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama, Perry, and the Crisis at the Texas Border appeared first on Law Street.

One of the greatest fears of parents today is that their child or teen will be the victim of cyberbullying. Increasing numbers of young people today are engaging in malicious bullying acts online targeting their peers, which has emerged from the growing amount of social media platforms that enable them to hide. While there are factors that contribute to the likelihood of an individual being subject to this kind of bullying, the income of the family of targets seems to play a minor role if any. According to new data released by researchers at Michigan State University, cyberbullying affects young people in poor and rich households alike.

While traditional bullying rates still trump those of cyberbullying, the online version of cruelty among young people is increasing yearly. An academic study published in 2012 defined cyberbullying as “sending mean, vulgar or threatening messages or images, posting sensitive or private information online, pretending to be someone else online in order to make a person look bad or intentionally exclude a person from an online group.” From 2009 to 2011 alone, the number of those affected by cyber bullying increased from 1.5 to 2.2 million. Unfortunately, information released in 2011 is the most recent available data.

It was previously assumed that cyberbullying was predominantly the activity of young people in affluent areas. The reasoning behind this was the assumption that those living in impoverished conditions would have less access to the kinds of resources needed to participate in cyberbullying. This presumed difference in access to digital devices is referred to as the ‘digital divide,’ and according to Thomas J Holt, an MSU Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, does not exist based on their findings from researching cyberbullying.

Another contributing factor to these balanced levels of cyberbullying is the fact that significantly more young people have access to technological devices that can be used for this purpose. According to findings on cyberbullying.us, an October, 2013 survey found that of 400 middle school students interviewed, 97.5 percent had been online in the 30 days preceding, showing that the vast majority of youths have access to the Internet.

The MSU study seems to be one of the first of its kind, as it is only every few years that organizations release findings regarding rates of bullying. The team spearheading the research surveyed 2,000 students in rich and poor middle and high schools. The results revealed that living in poor, crime-infested neighborhoods was a significant predictor of physical, verbal and online bullying.

What can be Done to Eliminate Cyberbullying?

Teachers and parents of all socioeconomic levels need to increase their involvement and more closely monitor the online activity of their students and children. Holt emphasizes the importance of teachers and administrators to learn to combat bullying in both real and online settings.

Such a message is vital to ensure all forms of bullying are given equal emphasis

-Thomas J Holt

According to endcyberbullying.org, parents communicating with their children and setting guidelines for the use of technical devices can drastically lower the chance that they will engage in bullying activity in the long run. It goes both ways, however; youths are encouraged to speak with a parent or other trusted adult if he or she becomes the target of bullying.

[MSU Study]

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [PublicEpicness via Pixabay]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cyberbullying Knows No Socioeconomic Bounds appeared first on Law Street.

It goes without saying that bullying is a condemnable practice and that it remains a crucial problem to solve in this country. But can we really punish children for bullying with the law?

A bill, which ultimately failed during a final vote held on May 20, would have made bullying a criminal offense in Carson, California. Jim Dear, the mayor of Carson, wanted to designate his city as a bully-free zone. Dear and the city council supported a bill that would have made bullying a misdemeanor for culprits that are 25 and under. The ordinance imposed a fine on those convicted of the misdemeanor. Mayor Dear felt that this measure would help to prevent bullying.

Two reasons why the bill failed:

1. The language used was extremely vague, making the bill hard to interpret. The bill did not define bullying, and it’s lack of specifications as to what actions constitute bullying was worrisome to many. The ambiguous language could have allowed law enforcement officers to determine that bullying had occurred at their own discretion.

2. Many members of the Carson community expressed concerns over the measure’s application to young children, noting that elementary school children are still beginning to develop and cannot fully comprehend the consequences of their actions.

But while the measure failed, the fact that it was close to passing puts great importance on the matter of whether ordinances against bullying should be enacted into law. Moreover, although the Carson bill did not pass, a similar measure in Florida will soon be put to a vote.

Controversy: should bullying be considered a criminal offense?

Susan Porter, author of Bully Nation, thinks not. Porter, a seasoned educator and counselor, debated the issue with Mayor Dear on a public radio station in California. In her book, Ms. Porter expressed that through her experience in schools, she found that increasingly harsh anti-bullying policies in schools did not decrease the amount of bullying in schools but made the situation worse. She claimed that school policies labeled children as bullies or victims, and that these children continued to adhere to those roles in the future.

Many anti-bullying policies treat the situations as black and white, attempting to solve the problem by shielding victims rather than working with both children to resolve their conflict in a less harmful way. By focusing on the punishment rather than the problem, the issue of bullying in American schools has yes to be resolved. Given this view on bullying, Ms. Porter argued against Carson’s proposed law, viewing the measure as another method of focusing on the punishment rather than taking steps to prevent children from bullying in the first place.

For more insight into Susan Porter’s argument against anti-bullying laws, check out this interview with her from Reason TV:

Despite Susan Porter’s reasoned argument, many municipalities and cities are still considering anti-bullying laws on the books. In fact, several cities already have, including Milton, Wisconsin. But while Carson’s potential anti-bullying law was met with a great deal of criticism and media attention, Milton’s law, which has been in place for four years, has not had any issues in its enforcement.

What, then, can cities like Carson learn from Milton’s law in shaping anti-bullying policy?

For one thing, Milton’s policy allows for schools to internally handle the first instances of bullying rather than immediately resorting to law enforcement. This can allow schools a chance to work with students to teach them why bullying is wrong rather than simply stating that it is wrong through formal punishment. While schools still need to improve the ways that they handle bullying, allowing the schools to handle offenses first gives them the opportunity to guide children in the error of their ways before they are convicted of bullying. This practice, if coupled with successful school counseling, could lessen the number of bullies that would be formally charged by the law.

Additionally, the policy gives a clearer definition on the kind of practices that constitute severe bullying. Jim Martin, the Milton school policer officer, noted that he “only engages the most severe cases, and draws a sharp distinction between the kind of behavior that requires intervention and the usual push and pull of the schoolyard.” Ensuring that only serious cases of bullying could be brought to court gives a clearer sense of what actions would violate the law and does not put children who name call and those who beat up others into the same category. 

With a clearer definition of what actions make bullying a crime and allowing schools to work with children to teach them about the harm bullying causes rather than immediately punishing them, the Milton law remains a good example of an anti-bullying policy. If cities feel that enacting an ordinance against bullying will help curb the problem in their schools and communities, careful wording must be put into the law to allow for the proper handling of these situations.

[NPR] [SCPR] [Susan Porter] [Desert News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post New Anti-Bullying Bill: 2 Reasons Why it Failed appeared first on Law Street.

I have sort of hazy memories of taking the Connecticut Mastery Tests when I was in middle school. They sucked. They were boring, and annoying, and I always got mad that my name never fit into that part where you have to bubble in the letters. So if anyone ever needs to see my 6th grade test scores, or whatever, they’re under “Annelie” Mahoney.

But what I remember most vividly is that we all were required to take those tests. They were normal, they happened every couple of years, and then we got over them. I never once heard the phrase ‘opt-out,’ even though I’m sure there were a handful of kids who didn’t take them. This isn’t a tirade about things “back in my day” because I took the CMTs about ten years ago, but I do feel like an old grump wondering how so many things have changed in just that short decade.

A constant debate in education over the past couple years revolves around something called “Common Core,” which does add some more tests to the curriculum. The intent of Common Core is to standardize education a bit more, so that students around the country have some of the same requirements. The goal is to make sure that a student in Mississippi learns the same basic tenants of history, English, and critical thinking as a student in Rhode Island or Hawaii. So far, 44 states have adopted the standards, which were often supported by state governors and legislatures. But a lot of parents are pushing back, demanding that their children not be required to take state testing.

And there are a lot of voices in the debate, but they seem to come mostly from a few different categories of people — parents, teachers, and politicians. I’ve yet to see a piece by someone who actually remembers being in middle school, or taking those tests. So as someone who actually took high school state tests as little as six years ago, here are the things that have stuck out to me in this debate.

3. I don’t think Common Core is a conspiracy. 

There are a lot of conspiracy theories about Common Core, which I will arrange in descending levels of hilarity.

• The Common Core standards were created by President Obama. This is false. The standards have been worked on for years. In fact, the development started during President Bush’s presidency.

Common Core will indoctrinate children to be mindless-leftist-socialist-gay-Muslim-atheist-robots. No joke guys. That’s what some opposition is saying, like perennial crazy man Glen Beck, or Tea Party darling Elois Zeanah.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELqEGx46IiwBest part of that video is definitely when she makes a reference to the novel “1994.” It’s actually called 1984. And that, Ms. Zeanah, is why some of us want the young people of this country to have a better education.

• But hands down, my favorite conspiracy theory is this one: Common Core will make your child pee their pants. No, this is not my attempt at a lame post-April Fools joke. That’s a legit Daily Caller headline. The article claims that an elementary school in Chicago is making teachers implement new draconian policies that involve bringing their classes to the bathroom at the same time at the end of a period. Ok guys, have you EVER set foot in a public school? When I was in high school, you had to sign out to use the bathroom in most of my classes. That’s right, as a 17-year-old, with a license, and a job, and some modicum of personal responsibility, I had to alert the school when I used the restroom. Public schools have always been weird about bathroom breaks. This is not a conspiracy. This is not new. As a former public school student, I didn’t even bat an eyelash.

2. Parents who are opting their children out of the tests are treating the symptoms rather than the problems. 

One of the biggest arguments against Common Core is that it means that teachers teach too much to the test, as opposed to actually teaching substantive material. Which is a fair complaint, but opting your children out of the test does literally nothing to solve that problem. Common Core standards were put into place because the United States is failing at education. Compared to other developed countries, we spend more money on education, but consistently lag in scores. Common Core is an attempt to ameliorate that. Does that mean that the new standards are good or perfect or don’t deserve a whole ton of revision? No. But they’re a step toward trying to solve a pressing problem. We quite obviously don’t know how to get the United States back on track education-wise. That’s why we work toward a solution using analysis and critical thinking. And why we measure our progress through testing.

I truly hope that all these parents who are opting their kids out are attempting to be involved in the reform process. They should run for office, or lobby their politicians, or whatever, but they shouldn’t just opt their kids out and then stand idly by. Because that’s treating the symptom of the problem instead of dealing with the fact that our schools are failing our students.

1. Crappy, stressful situations are a part of life. 

There are some very legitimate reasons, such as medical issues, that parents are opting their children out of the tests. But one of the other major reasons is that they cause undue stress for students.

I have a problem with this. Tests are unpleasant, yes. They are stressful, ok. They are unfair, sure. But you know what can also be unpleasant, stressful, and unfair? Pretty much everything in life. I have a problem with parents opting their children out because their kids are stressed, because that’s a bad lesson to learn. We don’t get to choose not to do things because they’re stressful.

You know what stresses me out to no end? Parking. I’m a fine driver, but I’m a spectacularly horrible parker.

My deepest fear.

But just because parking gives me anxiety doesn’t mean I can just leave my car willy-nilly in the middle of the parking lot. I can’t opt out of parking.

Now I’m not suggesting that we allow children to walk around stressed out of their minds. That’s cruel and ridiculous. But I do think that there is merit in teaching children how to manage the stress, as opposed to getting rid of the stressful situation altogether. There are thousands of techniques out there to help people deal with stress. I think there’s more merit in teaching a child how to deal with stress than teaching that if something stresses them out, they can make it go away. Because unfortunately, that will make for a cruel awakening when they grow up. I think that the way that the exams are presented could also help mitigate stress — if parents and teachers stopped making such a big deal out of them, maybe the kids would too.

I don’t think there’s any sort of easy fix to the education problems in our country. Common Core might be a step in the right direction, or it might not be. But if we keep harping on conspiracy issues, treating symptoms instead of problems, and not getting to the root of the issue, it won’t matter if Common Core is better. We need to work together to make sure that our children are as well prepared as possible for every part of life, and until we accept that, we’re going to have those education problems in the US.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Brittney Bush Bollay via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Everyone Calm Down About Common Core? appeared first on Law Street.

Twenty-something women of the world, are you married yet? Because according to Susan Patton, a.k.a. The Princeton Mom, you should be.

In her new book, Marry Smart: Advice for Finding THE ONE, Patton urges young, college attending women to spend their undergrad years husband hunting. According to her, finding a mate before graduation is imperative, because otherwise, your eggs will dry up in your ovaries and you’ll die alone with your seven cats. Or something like that.

Princeton Mom is all kinds of fascinating, and not just because she’s depressingly anti-feminist. Let’s run down the top five reasons why Susan Patton should be your new conservaturd celebrity obsession, mmkay?

1.) Lady is a tiger.

As a Princeton graduate, and a mother of two more, Patton is completely obsessed with orange and black. Her Upper East Side apartment is dripping with it — she’s got tiger tails hanging on the walls, orange and black craft projects strewn about, and she’s currently dreaming of a second wedding on the Princeton campus complete with orange roses.

If she wasn’t busy having New York Magazine features written about her and making appearances on the Today Show, I’d say Patton peaked during her college years. But maybe this tiger is just finding her stripes?

2.) Patton is recently divorced, which is totally a bummer.

She prefers not to talk about her former husband, although he “went to a college of almost no name recognition.” Ouch. Anyway, as it turns out, she frittered away her undergrad years at Princeton, you know, actually getting an education, and then wound up marrying whoever she happened to be dating at 31 in a race against the fertility clock.

I feel like it’s not a coincidence that that didn’t work out, no? Husband hunters, keep that in mind while you’re tracking down marriageable sperm donors. Marrying for the sake of your fertility timeline does not guarantee wedded bliss.

3.) The Princeton Mom is not COMPLETELY anti-feminist.

As a young woman, she eschewed immediate marriage and motherhood in favor of getting a top-notch education and developing her career. She even went so far as to legally emancipate herself from her “women don’t need to be educated” parents so she could attend Princeton.

Points, Princeton Mom. Feminist points.

4.) But don’t get too excited. She’s still pretty anti-feminist.

She doesn’t think date rape is a thing, and she thinks it’s a woman’s responsibility to keep herself out of situations where she might be violated. After all, we can’t expect men to act responsibly! Penises have a mind of their own, clearly. She totally freaked out Savannah Guthrie with this one.

Oh Mama Patton, I was rooting for you for a minute there.

5.) The Princeton Mom might be a tiger, but she’s also a cougar.

Embracing her newly found singledom, she’s dating multiple men at once, at least two of them Princeton grads. Free of the pressure of biology, she’s dating men who are fun and sexy — not potential sperm donors — and she’s having an awesome time doing it.

She just doesn’t really think YOU should be doing that, because, tick tock ladies. Those eggs of yours WILL NOT last forever.

So what do we make of the Princeton mom? Well, she’s a beacon of anti-feminist nonsense, the kind of self-help guru who sets women back a few generations.

She’s also kind of a badass. She’s unapologetic in her opinions, she’s going after it with all she’s got, and she’s feeling awesome about it.

So you do you, Princeton Mom! You be your fierce, tiger self.

The rest of you, don’t listen to her craze-tastic advice unless you’re inventing some kind of drinking game out of her TV appearances. In that case, please share.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Andrew_Writer via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Reasons Why Princeton Mom Is Your New Anti-Feminist She-ro appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Thursday, folks! You’re almost there. Breathe with me. Friday’s coming.

In the meantime, let’s get to our biweekly session of bitching about the GOP, shall we? Today, we’re talking about school lunches. And poor kids. And how Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia is a gigantic asshole.

Here’s what happened. Across the nation, kids from families whose income levels are below 130 percent of the poverty line can receive free school lunches. Kids from families with income levels between 130 and 185 percent of the federal poverty line are eligible for reduced lunch prices. This is news to no one.

Trust me on this. My awesome wife teaches in Newark, one of the poorest cities in New Jersey. Literally all of the kids at her school get free lunch. Free lunch for low income kids is nothing new.

Said no one.

Anyway! Rep. Kingston decided to make news out of something that’s not new — a common talent for many GOP rainmakers. This week, he went on the record saying that poor kids should NOT get free lunch — oh no! The blasphemy!

Instead, he made the following suggestions:

“Why don’t we have the kids pay a dime, pay a nickel to instill in them that there is, in fact, no such thing as a free lunch? Or maybe sweep the floor of the cafeteria — and yes, I understand that that would be an administrative problem, and I understand that it would probably lose you money. But think what we would gain as a society in getting people — getting the myth out of their head that there is such a thing as a free lunch.”

Oh my gosh I CAN’T. I cannot. What are you doing, Rep. Kingston? Really.

Friends is on my level today.

Let’s start with the first and most obvious issue with your solution to a non-problem: children are not possessors of money. They don’t work. That’s what being a child means. So, really, they all get free lunches. Every single one of them. Even the richest of rich kids are getting a free lunch. Because it’s not their money that paid for it. It’s their parents’ money.

Take me for example. I was a solidly middle-class child. My parents, being the health nuts that they are, were not big fans of the idea of me eating mystery meat in my elementary school cafeteria. So, every day, they dutifully packed me a brown bag lunch. I got a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on whole wheat bread and a handful of cookies, virtually every single day. For me, that lunch was free.

I didn’t pay for it. I didn’t even know that food cost money. Or that when my parents went to work, they were paid in money. I kind of just thought working was a thing that grownups had to do — the same way kids had to go to school — and all of the other stuff like food and housing was just magically bestowed upon people who followed the rules.

Baby me did not understand how much this leather jacket probably cost my big sister.

Clearly, I was a naïve child.

But! There was a kernel of truth in my naivety. For me, food really didn’t cost money. It just appeared in my brown bag every day, as if by magic. Nowadays, as a precariously middle-class adult who has to purchase food before it lands in my brown bag (I’m still packing a whole wheat PB&J for work, I’ll admit it), I’m fully aware that food was free when I was a kid.

I’m even more aware of it when my now gray-haired parents take me out for lunch.

My reaction whenever my parents invite me out to dinner.

Anyway! All children get free lunch. They aren’t working the night-shift to pay for their sandwiches. So, your argument is already inherently flawed, Rep. Kingston.

Moving right along. What is this obsession with punishing poor people for being poor? Seriously. The GOP is fixated on it. When you suggest forcing children to sweep the floors in order to earn their lunch, you’re talking about child labor. That’s bad enough, but when you’re only suggesting the poor kids participate, you’re talking about a caste system.

You’re talking about a world where rich kids learn early on that only certain people sweep floors. Namely, not them. You’re teaching them that someone else will always clean up after them. Someone else will always have to beg for their scraps.

Then, you wind up with kids like this boy, who killed 4 people because of pathological rich kid syndrome.

And, you’re teaching the poor kids that they’re the ones who need to beg for those scraps. Because of the social standing of their family — which they have zero control over — poor kids will understand themselves to be inherently less than. That’s a traumatic and debilitating lesson to learn at such a formative age.

Finally, there’s the looming issue at hand — the solution that Rep. Kingston is obviously hinting at, but isn’t explicitly articulating.

He’s saying that it would be better if these kids didn’t get a free school lunch at all. If we HAVE to give it to them, at least make them work for it, he’s saying. But really, his best case scenario is equally expensive lunches for all.

Folks, this is a classic case of a Republican who lacks empathy. It’s an alarmingly common quality among headline-making GOP’ers.

Where my wife teaches, all of the students qualify for free lunch. Every single one of them. These kids are poor. They don’t have the luxury to grow up naïve like I did. They know food costs money because they don’t have any of it. As in, neither food nor money.

For many of her kids, lunch is the only meal they eat. They hardly eat at all on weekends. Why? Because they’re poor. They can’t afford food. And the little food they do have at home, they give to their baby brothers and sisters.

My wife’s students are good kids. They’re smart and loving and talented, and hysterically funny. And they deserve to fucking eat.

So, Rep. Kingston? Shut the fuck up.

Stop talking about child labor, and a (not really) new caste system, and the idea that poor kids shouldn’t be fed lunch on the school’s dime. Stop talking out of your ass, and start feeding some children.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Philippe Put via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP to Hungry Kids: You Don’t Work Hard Enough appeared first on Law Street.

A custody battle between a famous skier and his former girlfriend has opened up a national discussion on respective paternal and maternal rights. In 2012, the Olympic skier Bode Miller, 36, had a brief relationship with a 27-year-old former Marine and firefighter, Sara McKenna. They dated for just a few months after they had met through an online dating service, when McKenna discovered that she was pregnant with Miller’s child. When she informed him she was going to an ultrasound appointment in June, Miller claimed that he didn’t want to be involved, and that she had made the decision to keep the baby against his wishes. She was living in California at the time of conception, but was considering a move to New York to attend Columbia University on GI Bill benefits, a possibility of which she informed Miller in October.

McKenna went ahead and moved to New York City when 7 months pregnant. In the meantime, Miller had gotten married, to a beach volleyball player named Morgan Beck, in October. In November, Miller began to seek custody proceedings. So, after the baby was born this February, McKenna went to a New York Family Court to seek custody of her child, Samuel Nathaniel Bode Miller-McKenna. (I will refer to the child as Sam, as that is the first name recorded on the birth certificate, despite the fact that Miller calls his son Nate) The Family Court determined that, despite the child being born in New York, which would normally establish that Court’s jurisdiction, the case should be dealt with in California.

The New York court claimed that McKenna’s choice to move from California to New York while pregnant was  “unjustifiable conduct,” that she committed “appropriation of the child while in utero” and that it was “reprehensible.” Then, the California court gave full custody to Miller.

So, this November, McKenna brought the case back to New York, where an appeals judge ruled that McKenna’s rights were violated. They stated, “putative fathers have neither the right nor the ability to restrict a pregnant woman from her constitutionally protected liberty.” And on Monday, she received temporary custody of her son again, at least until the next hearing takes place on December 9th.

There are so many things wrong here, I barely know where to begin. Let’s start with the clear blurred lines that New York Family Court created in the distinction between fetus and child. It is illegal to bring a child across state lines if it violates a custody agreement or something of that nature. But she didn’t do that, she, as an autonomous adult who also happened to be pregnant, moved. These blurred lines are concerning in a time where the rights of a mother versus her unborn baby can be tricky at best. A University of Florida law professor, Lee-Ford Tritt, noted, “I’ve never heard of a restriction on a pregnant woman telling her that she can’t move to another state.”

This case is also upsetting in regards to what it could mean for the child. At this point, a child under the age of one has already been bounced from his mother to his father back to his mother again. It is entirely possible that there will be more moving between the two as the hearings progress. For the good of Sam, (or Nate), this case needs to be solved soon.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Voyager via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Famous Skier’s Custody Battle Goes National appeared first on Law Street.