Crime & Punishment

Much has been said lately about the so-called Barefoot Bandit -- a previously elusive, and sometimes shoe-less thief who was caught recently in the Bahamas after amassing a huge Facebook Following and managing to outstep police for some time. While I'm in no way condoning what he stands accused of (stealing, among other things, planes, cars, boats, etc.), reading more about his background gave me pause and begs the question: Do parents who mistreat, neglect and abuse their offspring bear some responsibility and legal culpability when those children grow up and turn to a life of crime?

If you aren't familiar with this latest caper, the basic details are as follows: The Barefoot Bandit (ne: Colton Harris-Moore) is 19 years old and it appears he started out small, breaking into homes of neighbors, ostensibly to steal food since his mother spent her days drinking, made no attempt to hold down a job or stock food in their own home and seemingly forced him to forage for himself at a young age. With no father in the picture, records show that Child Protective Services was called to his home more than a dozen times by the time he was 15. His mother was repeatedly investigated for mistreatment of her son (once after she was seen harshly beating him in the head when he was only 4) but yet, was never prosecuted. 

The family lived in a dilapidated trailer in a rural area of Washington state, protected by a homemade sign that read, "if you go past this sign, you will be shot." Neighbors reported hearing loud arguments at all hours and eventually, the young boy (some say by age 7) began living in the wild on his own. Surviving by stealing food and finding shelter in abandoned homes, his teen years brought several arrests, but nothing more than short stays in juvenile detention centers. It seems he somehow taught himself how to fly an airplane and this spring, took off on a cross-country chase, stealing cars and making his way by private plane (not his) to the Bahamas where he was caught. He now awaits trial on multiple charges at a federal detention center back in Washington. 

His own attorney surmises that if he'd had proper direction, he probably wouldn't have done what he stands accused of doing. So, while he is clearly at fault and deserves to be punished for these crimes, is his abuser (aka: his mother) also somewhat responsible and should she also bear some of the legal burden as well? As a mother, did her negligent behavior predispose and in effect, drive her son to a life of crime as a matter of survival? 

Part of this scares me. As a mom myself, I don't want to be held responsible for the behavior of my adult children (unless they end up as President or Supreme Court Justice). But, if my actions somehow directly related to their behavior, would it be fair to say that I should also be found at fault? Isn't it sort of like being accessory to a crime? Or is it an impossible standard to uphold since you can't prove a parent actually knows their child would commit such crimes as a result of your poor parenting skills. 

It's not that I think that my son will eventually start robbing convenience stores because he'll recall that I gave his sister a bigger dessert than he got one night when he was two. This story obviously goes much deeper. The shameful behavior on the part of the mother involved is significant enough that I think a reasonable parent would know that they were setting a horribly wrong example for their child that would lead to no good. But, I'm assuming that unless she somehow knew or suspected that he was committing crimes, she will not be held responsible for the actions of her son, regardless of her role in creating a hostile atmosphere that potentially paved the path to these crimes. 

Much has yet to come out, both regarding the crimes of the Barefoot Bandit and the role his mother may have played in creating an living hell for her child. Regardless, I'd like to know why a social worker who interiewed Mrs. Harris-Moore when her son was first arrested at age 12, wrote the following in her report: “Colton wants Mom to stop drinking and smoking, get a job and have food in the house. Mom refuses.”

Isn't that a crime in and of itself?

Getting my panties in a wad

I'm not sure when I became such a prude, but evidently, it happened when I became the mom of curious Kindergartner.

You see, lately, whenever we go to the mall, we happen to pass nearly life-sized ads for Victoria's Secret, featuring scantily clad models in their skivvies, posing oh so provocatively. And my daughter, being the inquisitive person she is, always asks me why there are photos of ladies in their underwear and what they are doing in the mall. Now, pre-kids, I would have never given such advertisements a second thought. But now that I'm a mommy, it dawns on me that it is a bit confounding that I would get arrested for indecent exposure if I showed up at my local shopping center in a bra and panties, but yet it is perfectly acceptable for massive pictures of other women in their unmentionables to be plastered all over the place.

When did I become this person who is bothered by things like this? I mean, I even worked part-time at Victoria's Secret when I was in college! I remember when people raised a red flag about tv shows they deemed were inappropriate for kids being aired before bedtime hours and I thought, "Well, if they don't like it, they can change the channel." And in the 1980's when Tipper Gore waged her campaign against obscene lyrics in music, I recall thinking that she didn't have to listen to it if it bothered her so much and that most parents would be smart enough not to tune into those songs with kids around.

Ah, to be young and naive again!

The problem is, when I walk through the mall with my kids, I can't really avoid, or even know ahead of time, where these ads are located. And the idea of avoiding the mall entirely with kids in tow is just not realistic. Plus, I doubt kid-friendly venues like Gymboree and The Gap would be very happy if moms like me were dissuaded from giving them business if we could only shop sans children. But unlike a radio or television, I can't change the channel, so to speak, or rather, prevent my kids from seeing such inappropriate images when we are doing something as innocuous as shopping.

I'm not out to have my daughter be ashamed of her body or feel self-conscious about it in any way. At home, she knows that it's ok to ask for privacy, but it's also ok for mommy or daddy to be with you while you are changing or in the bathroom. She's showered with me on many occasions and I never feel self-conscious around her in the comfort of our own home. It's just hard to explain to her that it's not socially acceptable for her to walk around in her panties or bathing suit while we are out shopping for new school clothes, yet there's a photo of a scantily clad woman right as we walk in the door to the mall.

Is this the price I pay for freedom of expression these days? I know there have been controversies with advertisements in the past (ie: Abercrombie & Fitch and their risque ad campaigns) but as a mom, I'm extra-sensitive to images that are just "out there" rather than hidden away in a magazine for me to censor appropriately.

I'm curious to hear what other moms think. Am I in danger of joining the conservative party or is my paranoia in this case somewhat justified?

Crib Crap

As much as I hate being awakened in the night by miniature people who want things like sippy cup refills, help ridding their closets of monsters or evil witches, or assistance wiping their little tushies, I thank my lucky stars that my family is almost out of the crib stage. Having one child still in a baby bed can really be a pain, especially when it comes to travel. As if airline tickets and baggage fees aren't enough to make my head spin, we still have the added burden of trying to figure out sleeping arrangements, crib rental, etc.

Part of me dreads the initial, "wow, I can get up in the night and walk into mommy and daddy's room" thing that will inevitably occur. My daughter is still notorious for her 2 a.m. visits to let me know that she's done sleeping and is ready to start the day. But still, anything is better than the small fortune I've spend hunting down safe, reliable cribs in various hotels, condos or even relatives homes over the past five years.

Oddly enough, safety has become such a hot button issue when it comes to cribs. You'd think you could take for granted that something as ubiquitous as a bed in a baby's nursery is nothing to worry about. Remember when your biggest concern was whether or not the paint on your kid's crib was safe in case they decided to teethe on the bars in the night? Did you ever measure the distance between the bars with a soda can to make sure they weren't far enough apart for an errant limb to get caught in? Or, were you the type of parent who didn't really care that much about those things but spent hours online trying to find the perfect bedding ensemble, complete with matching drapes, hamper and diaper basket.

Either way,  if you still have a child in a crib, you might be interested to note that as of today, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) voted to ban the U.S. sale, manufacturing or resale of cribs with drop-down sides. Yes, that would likely include the crib you own and the ones all your friends and family own too. No doubt you've read the recent stories of children that were caught between the mattresses and the sides of these cribs, either due to faulty construction or a manufacturing defect.

So far, this is just a vote and no actual action has taken place. Even if the vote becomes reality, it likely won't become law for another year. Regardless, many crib manufacturers and stores have begun phasing out these controversial beds, 9 million of which have been recalled in the past few years, including today's recall by Pottery Barn Kids of ALL of their drop-side cribs.

So, what does this mean for those of us who have drop-side cribs? Do we pitch them and run out to get the latest and greatest in baby bedding? I may be paranoid, but I'm not stupid. So, while I will not be ditching my son's current baby bed, I will re-double my efforts to make sure we put it together safely and check it more often to make sure that all the nuts, bolts and screws are secure and properly installed. You can often purchase hardware that will render your drop-side crib immobile by preventing the sides from moving. We have less than a year left in this bed and it's served both my kids well. I have enough to worry about keeping my kids safe when they are awake, I really hate to worry about them while they are asleep. Perhaps it's naive, but after nearly six years of problem-free use, I do feel relatively good about our crib's record. And I know that kids are far more likely to encounter serious risks in other everyday areas of life like driving dangers, sun exposure and various environmental hazards lurking just around the corner.

However, if I had a hand-me-down crib that had seen better days, I think I'd consider investing in something I knew was a better bet. After all, I don't skimp on their food, sunscreen, car seats, or anything else that is going to effect their overall well-being and health, why should a bed be any different?

Hot Child in the City

If you live anywhere on the east coast, chances are you would have actually been cooler in your gym's sauna today than you were outside. "HotLanta" truly lived up to it's name with a heat index temp of 104. Record-breaking heat is scorching many other cities like New York, DC, Charlotte and Philadelphia. I am so jealous of those of you who live in San Francisco where the high today was 70 (as I write this, it's 91 degrees at nearly 9pm in Atlanta and 55 degrees at 6 pm there -- damn you Northern California!).  I honestly have a hard time spending more than a few minutes outdoors on days like this (especially considering it was a "code orange" smog day here, which means the air was as unhealthy as it was hot.). 


Since I can't completely escape the sun, there are a few key things I try to keep in mind as I sweat through these next few months waiting for those first few snowflakes to blow through (yes, I know I'm weird, but I would take winter over summer any day!)


First of all, I don't waste money on clothing that is labeled SPF (unless is is on the clearance rack). It's not that I don't care about my kids' skin....it's just that I can spend a whole lot less and protect their entire wardrobe with my own washing machine. For years I've sworn by something called SunGuard made by RIT (the dye people), that actually infuses loads of laundry with an SPF of 30. The coverage lasts for 20 washes so once I get the whole family's stuff treated, it covers us for nearly the entire summer. The product can be tough to find as many grocery stores no longer carry it, but it can easily be ordered online. 


Second, I make sure each of us is slathered in a physical sunblock that uses zinc oxide or titanium dioxide. More prevalent chemical sunscreens tout ingredients which can sink beneath the skin and have been linked to hormone disruption. One chemical in particular -- oxybenzone -- should be avoided entirely as scientists have found it penetrates the skin more readily and is especially dangerous for children. Unfortunately, the stuff can be tough to avoid as it is currently found in 60 percent of all sunscreens in the U.S. today. Sadly, it seems American parents need a molecular biology degree to decipher the best method of sun protection for their kids (yes, sunscreens are much safer in Europe -- yet another reason to lobby for that Parisian getaway). 


A list of the "safest sunscreen" options available in the States can be found at http://www.ewg.org/2010sunscreen/best-beach-sport-sunscreens/. Some of our family favorites include California Baby, Badger, Burt's Bees and Episencial. And please don't forget to reapply as most people stay in the sun far too long for the protection to remain effective (and most don't apply enough in the first place.) I'll admit, it's confusing because, by the FDA's own admission, the jury is still out on whether or not sunscreen works at all -- hence the excerpt from their latest report in 2007 -- “sunscreens should not be the first choice for skin cancer prevention and should not be used as the sole agent for protection against the sun." 


Say what?


So, I guess staying in the shade is still your best bet, but failing that, sunscreen can't hurt. Or can it? 


Some studies have actually shown that a form of vitamin A -- retinyl palmitate --  found in nearly 50 percent of sunscreens, can actually speed skin damage and raise the risk of cancer. This form of vitamin A is an antioxidant that is a seemingly safe additive to night creams and lotions worn out of sunlight but actually alters the DNA when exposed to the sun. So, it's best to avoid retinols outdoors in high heat. 


Apart from direct sun, the heat itself can be dangerous, responsible from everything from heat stroke, cramps, rashes and dehydration. It goes without saying that you and your kids should drink more water than usual when spending extended periods outdoors.The thing about extreme heat is that you often don't realize its effects until it's too late. I'll never forget one Spring Break in Florida when a group of us went to a water park in Orlando to have some fun and work on our tans (in my pre-paranoid mama days). After an hour or so, I felt a bit dizzy so I went to the bathroom to splash some cool water on my face. The next thing I know, I'm lying on a mildewy floor with a paramedic standing over me asking me how many fingers he's holding up. I have no recollection of fainting and before we were gently escorted out, I was kindly sent to an air-conditioned room and given about a gallon of Gatorade. 


I cannot count the sunburns I endured as a child or the times I stupidly basted myself in oil and laid on what was a virtual blanket of aluminum foil in order to catch some rays. I am making up for my careless behavior these days, but the damage is already done. Most skin cancers are caused by exposure prior to your 18th birthday. I've been lucky so far, but my kids are clean slates and I intend to do everything I can to make sure their perfect little bodies stay that way as long as possible. 

In the name of good karma

I promise you, I am not a paid spokesperson for this brand.....but I had to write to tell you about a new nail polish remover I just ordered and it is absolutely fabulous. I don't usually get excited about things this mundane, but you must understand that I had pretty much stopped getting manicures and pedicures because the remover literally makes me gag and cough, not to mention, riles up my asthma.
(Here comes the pitch), Karma Organics Nail Polish Remover worked just as well as any other I'd tried, but what really separates it from the pack is the fact that it is completely non-toxic and infused with soybean oil that really seems to condition the nails rather than strip them. The version I ordered is scented with lavender and it is truly hard to believe it's remover and not just aromatherapy oil. Honestly, if someone entered your bathroom and you told them you'd just given yourself a manicure, they'd never believe you because the smell is so spa-like. Gone are the icky fumes of yore and the myth that a remover must have a strong, noxious odor in order to be effective.
I have yet to try any of Karma's accompanying nail polishes, but judging from the site, the colors are rich and radiant and similar to any I'd find in a regular marketplace (again, minus the yucky stuff). The only major difference, other than a lack of chemicals, is the price tag. Cheap, it ain't. But hey, it's still easier on the wallet than having your nails professionally done. At $12 for a 4 oz bottle of the remover, I'll use it sparingly. Here's a link to their site if you'd like to check it out for yourself. (if I were a savvy about this blog-thing, I'd insert a photo here, but alas, I still have much to learn).

http://store.karmaorganicspa.com/nail-polish.html