Hanging By a Thread

The Power of Impact

To start with, I've had a bad cold. I got it from my boys over the weekend while traveling. Of course, it means nothing when mom gets a cold. Life goes on. So, I have been tired and cranky and generally feeling cruddy all week. Thursday was no exception, but then my mood got worse. And on Friday, I woke with a tremendously heavy sadness on my heart and mind. Here's why.

On, Thursday, the boys and I spent the day with my computer or phone on a live feed of the Senate Judiciary Committee, watching both Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh testify before the nation.

I knew only her story and very little else about Dr. Ford before her testimony. I thought I believed her story, but was anxious to hear her and see her tell her side of things to determine her credibility in my own mind…not that my opinion of her matters in the least.

I was struck by her calm, yet genuine and terrified-beneath-the-surface demeanor. I understood how she felt sitting there sharing her most devastating details of shame and guilt and confusion and sadness and aloneness that she has been carrying with her for 36 years. My heart went out to her.

We listened to her words and watched her face and heard her tone and completely believed her. She gains nothing and has lost much in coming forward to speak. My heart broke for her.

Listening to her speak about her 15 year old self and this bewildering, traumatizing experience took me back to my teenage years. I recalled two distinct times that I allowed myself to get into a vulnerable position, during high school, about 28 years ago. Now, I say that I allowed myself to get into a vulnerable situation because time and time again we see that it is the woman's responsibility to steer clear of such situations and it's her fault if she does not.

Now, in my case, nothing happened to me in either of these instances, but I am now and was then well aware that it could have. Just knowing I was in a situation that made me feel trapped and vulnerable, I can clearly recall all kinds of details about the space I was in, the smells, the sounds, some (but not all) of the people there or nearby, how I felt and what I was thinking, but I could not give you a date and I could not name each person there. I'm not even sure of the exact year. This does not mean it didn't happen.

I imagine that if you asked the other people who were there with me during those two instances they would not recall these things in such detail. In fact, I would bet they would not have any recollection of these instances at all. This does not mean it didn't happen.

I NEVER told anyone about these instances…not my best friend, not my mother, not my husband. No one. This is the first time I have ever shared anything about these two instances outside of my own mind. I did not tell anyone because I felt shame for allowing myself to get into such situations. This does not mean it didn't happen.

The reason it stands out in my memory so vividly and has stayed with me all of these years is that it had a significant impact on me. After the second instance, I promised myself then, in high school, I would not allow myself to get into such a vulnerable situation again. These two instances scared me and cautioned me and trained me and shaped me.

I can imagine that the other people involved in these two instances didn't recall it happening a year after it occurred, let alone 5 or 10 or 22 years later. This is simply because it did not have an impact on them. It did not scare them or worry them or warrant a change in how they approached certain people or situations.

Now, going back to Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, one of them is not telling the truth, or at least not remembering what happened correctly. One of them was not impacted by this experience. My money is on Judge Kavanaugh as being the one who is not telling the whole truth and/or not remembering the instance correctly and thoroughly.

Judge Kavanaugh's demeanor and attitude also made me think of instances, both in working in the courts and general life experiences, of privileged men who are used to getting what they want when they want it, and then get caught being bad and are at risk of not getting what they want.

He yelled and deflected blame and repeated the same answers over and over and made accusations. He was evasive and sometimes responded with silence. He talked back and whined and cried. He was all kinds of emotional and belligerent and haughty. I have seen this behavior. I know this kind of behavior. I have seen this behavior from grown men, but any parent will recognize this kind of adolescent, rebellious, defensive fit throwing, as well.

This spoiled, whining, privileged man child having a huge meltdown temper tantrum was watched by thousands and thousands of people, and I believe it will have an impact.

The impact will not be on the male Republican Senators who rebuked the Democrats for causing such pain and suffering for this upstanding man and his family…at least not directly…and who will vote to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The impact will not be on Kavanaugh who will most likely still get his way and be appointed for life to the United States Supreme Court. His family is not ruined. They will move on from this. But let me say, I am sad for his wife and daughters who are having to go through all of this because of their husband and father.

And yet, I do think there will be an impact. I think there already is a wave of change that has been gathering momentum and speed and depth and integrity and raw, composed rage. It's coming….just you wait.

For now, I will keep explaining and teaching and showing my boys what is right and wrong; what justice looks like; what respect looks like; what mercy looks like; what integrity looks like; and how Jesus instructs Christians to act.

From a different perspective, as a student of the law with a deep respect for the highest court in our land and for (most) of the justices who sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, I am greatly distressed, disappointed and frustrated. Putting aside whether he has repeatedly, on several topics, lied before Congress and whether he sexually assaulted one or more women, the person who has emerged under pressure in these hearings is NOT the kind of impartial, rational, discerning person the United States Senate should be placing on the Court. Our highest court of the land deserves better than this. We, the people of this democracy, deserve better than this.

My heart breaks and my blood boils for all people everywhere who have been hurt, broken, taken advantage of, assaulted, raped and have told their stories only to be threatened, ridiculed and worst of all, ignored.

I hear you. I believe you. You matter. You have made an impact. You are not alone. Everyone does eventually get his day in court; before his maker, that is.

Over and out…

Anna

Be Kind and Do the Right Thing {It’s Really That Simple, Isn’t it?}

What if we made decisions based on reason and good sense and because it was in the best interest for all or at least most? What then?

What would our world look like? What would we think of our leaders then? How would we feel about mankind? How would we feel about ourselves?

There are a few things that have really bothered me over the last few weeks; items from news headlines and articles. Here they are {in brief} and my thoughts on them {in brief…as brief as I can be}:

All Parents have Challenges

Gwyneth says moms with "regular" jobs working 9 to 5 have it easier than "movie stars" working 14 hours on location.

My Take: Don't compare yourself to others and their situations. You have no idea the challenges, burdens and sacrifices that another has faced or is facing. Simply be kind to others and live your own life. And if you don't like your life, take steps to change that – this goes for "movie stars" too.

I have no doubt it is challenging to be a celebrity and a mom, but it is also challenging to be "regular" mom working 9 to 5 in an office or working from home or working shifts or whatever a mom's situation is. Can we just agree it's challenging to be a mom?

Government could Save $400 Million with One Simple Change

Fourteen year-old boy comes up with a simple (& proven) way to save the federal and state governments $400 million dollars each year by changing the font in which they use for printing purposes; Times New Roman uses more ink than Garamond. By printing in Garamond, the governments would save this astronomical (to me) amount in ink costs.

My Take: This is remarkable. And yet, will the branches of government even consider such a change; a change that could mean closing the gap in other areas of their budgets or that this money could go towards more important things than ink? I doubt it. It seems that the government (federal and state) and the politicians running them are rarely interested in ways to truly be economical or do what is safer, healthier or smarter with our money. It is almost always about spending money in their districts or with their constituents or something that will benefit them personally, I am sorry to say.

But wouldn't it be great to see the government truly working with this 14 year-old and implementing this simple change?

If the government was run like a household budget, the government would most certainly try this money-saving plan.

Watch YourSELF! Don't be a Bully!

Self Magazine published a photo of two women running in a marathon wearing superhero-inspired tutus…and featured it in their BS Meter, Legit or Lame segment, calling it lame and making fun of them for wearing the tutus…one of the runners in the photo has cancer, ran while doing chemo and makes and sells the tutus to help fund a youth development program for girls…

My Take: This whole thing really smells to high heaven. They asked permission to use this photo and then proceeded to make fun of her and her friend… that's bad enough. But then, they find out she has cancer and was going through chemotherapy during the time she ran and she does good with the money she makes in selling these tutus….wow!

So, editors at Self, clearly you failed miserably on this photo, but I think you have failed overall with this whole segment. Who are you to poke fun at anyone? Even if she and her friend were simply runners, no cancer or nonprofits involved, it's not OK to make rude comments about someone. That is bullying behavior. I say ditch your BS Meter altogether.

I applaud the self-expression, and you can call me lame if you like, but anything superhero-inspired is cool in our household. And seriously, these two women were RUNNING A MARATHON! They ROCK…period!

Privacy Issues in School Bathrooms

There was a recent incident in a St. Paul school when a janitor was inappropriate in a boys bathroom.

My Take: As a mom to boys, I have often thought this is a bad idea for the men on staff to share a bathroom with the boys in the school, considering there are urinals and not just stalls. I think both boys and the male teachers/staff should have privacy in a bathroom at school. And having separate bathrooms for students and personnel affords protection from such instances, for both the adults and students. Of course, the same can be said for the girls bathrooms too, but there are at least stalls and doors, giving more privacy. And really, I'm not sure urinals without enclosures have a place in schools.

Suing Your Parents is NOT a Good Idea…EVER

A high school student sued her parents, trying to force them to pay for her college expenses. The suit was dropped and the girl moved home, fortunately.

My Take: Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Clearly, this girl had lost her way somewhere and has hopefully found her path again now. There was little basis to her lawsuit. There was no evidence of abuse or neglect. Instead, it appeared to be a case of a girl not wanting to follow her parents' rules (which by reports from her parents were not terribly restricting) and leaving home on her own accord to live with a friend's family once she turned 18, but wanting her parents to continue to fund her life.

This friend's father was an attorney. It sounds like he talked her into suing her parents for her Catholic high school tuition payment and college living expenses for the next year. This is very unfortunate, it not only put attorneys in a bad light yet again, it also makes the girl look like a spoiled rotten, greedy brat (which may not have been the case at all) and these shenanigans cost all involved a great deal of expense and energy and heartache….all for nothing.

Usually simply talking out a problem is a good and cheap solution to most familial issues.

These are the headlines that have been knocking around in my head lately. And now you know my take on them. Over and out…

Anna

 

 

 

Related articles

Superheroes {Believe}

News Flash: Cancer is Killing Us {but we can Fight back}

When to Call in the Big Guns {Seeking Professional Advice from a Lawyer}

Getting Past the Stereotype

"If you or a family member have been injured in a crash or as a result of using a defective product...."

When I hear these words I think sleazy personal injury attorney preying on people in tight spots. I know I'm not alone in this. In fact, you can probably recite these words and the words that follow them along with the name of a personal injury attorney who often advertises on the TV channels you watch.

Of all the types of lawyers, personal injury attorneys probably have the worst reputation. While there are some slimy attorneys (just as there are slimy people in every profession), and some of them do indeed practice personal injury law, there are also a good number of honorable attorneys.

These attorneys are there to help their clients recover money to live their lives and/or support their families after being severely injured or when a family member has been killed because of someone else's negligence.

Case by Case

The problem for many is knowing when to sue and when not to sue or even when to seek advice from an attorney. And often these questions involve a personal injury issue, but the uncertainty regarding seeking legal action may also involve family law issues, civil wrongs or even criminal charges.

I recently read an article about a woman who sued a former college professor because of the low grade he gave her in class. She claimed that grade was given based on a dispute between the two and had ruined her chances at getting higher paying jobs down the road and asserted that this one grade would cost her a million or more in lost future wages.

So....this is a not a good reason to sue {in my opinion}.

A few months ago, a friend told me about a co-worker who had just gotten a new car and then was involved in a car accident through no fault of her own. The co-worker was having neck pain and was having trouble getting the person's insurance to respond to her, but she felt bad about seeking out legal advice about what to do. She didn't want to be THAT person.

So....this is a good example of when legal action may be necessary.

Often, those who have a legitimate cause of action fail to seek legal advice because they don't want to cause trouble or feel like they would look like the aggressor or bad guy. However, many times it may require only a phone call or letter from an attorney to get an insurance company moving or stop certain behavior or modify an agreement, etc.

Our society does tend to be quite litigious; sometimes that's a good thing that leads to changes in laws or reduces future injuries or deaths through changes to industry standards or sheds light on bad practices or get the needed money and/or care that a person injured in an accident deserves or increases or decreases child support payments, etc. Other times it's a waste of money and court resources that leads to nothing more than a few headlines outlining the preposterous allegations.

Seeking Professional Advice

So, if you and/or your loved one have been injured in an accident or property has been damaged or a loved one has been killed or you have information regarding poor or dangerous industry standards or you have another legal quandary, should you talk to an attorney?

Well, to give you a lawyer's answer...that all depends... but here are a few tips for when it's a good idea to get an attorney:

1. You've been injured on the job, on the property of another (a private residence or commercial business), in a car accident, etc and the injury was caused by another's negligence or mostly by another's negligence or your property has been damaged and you aren't getting anywhere regarding a settlement of costs/damages;
2. A loved one has been injured or killed by another's negligence and there is a family to support or medical bills to pay or funeral expenses to cover;
3. The person or business that caused the injury (directly or indirectly) or their insurance company or attorney is giving you the runaround;
4. There will be long term effects from the injury that require much care at a great cost;
5. The same thing that happened to you could happen to other due to a poor industry standard or on-going negligence, etc.
6. Or another circumstance in which you are not receiving damages for a wrong done to you or loved one; or
7. You need to modify a family law order or need help with divorce proceedings or getting a will or other estate planning document prepared.

The Scoop

There are many reasons to seek out the advice of an attorney; some of them may lead to court. However, a lawsuit can be expensive, take a lot of time and cause much emotional and physical stress. It should not be entered into lightly. And yet, there are many situations that do require going to court in order to be resolved fairly.

Don't be fearful of the law or an attorney or the court. Over and out...

Anna

On Fried Chicken and Casting Stones

Framing the Issue

This has NOTHING to do with fried chicken.

I have been mulling this over in my mind for a long time trying to find the right words to address this topic.

When we go to the polls in November, the voters in my state will be asked to make a number of important decisions. One of those questions regards an amendment to our state constitution concerning the definition of marriage within MN.

This topic has gripped our nation in recent months based on various ballot questions, the presidential election and the prospect of court rulings from the highest courts in the country in the coming year or two.

What am I talking about? Well, if you haven't figured it out yet, I'm referring to same-sex marriage. For the record, I am a heterosexual female and I'm married to a heterosexual male, but this debate coursing through our country has me steaming. So, why do I care?

For me, there are multiple layers to this issue.

Fueled by Fear

I don't generally argue about religious issues here on Motherly Law, but for me this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with religion. For me, this is a legal issue, just like other laws that regulate who can and cannot marry, when, where and why.

However, for some people this is a religious issue. What I can't figure out is where in the world these people got the idea that God would want them to use His name in this hateful, fear-based argument against other human beings.

What is clear to me is that this is exactly that: a hateful rant born out of fear and misunderstanding.

I ask you, do you know any same-sex couples? Well, I do, and you know what? They are exactly like "opposite-sex" couples. That's right. They casually chat with each other over a quiet dinner; they argue over whose turn it is to do the dishes or take out the trash or get up with the crying baby; they share inside jokes; they take their kids to the park; they buy groceries; they go to church on Sunday; they live their lives just like any other family in the neighborhood.

Fear of "these people" corrupting our kids and our "family values" is misplaced.

And for the record, I have known a number of "opposite-sex" couples who should have never been allowed to get married; who made a mess of their marriage; who destroyed their families; who certainly stained our idea of "family values"; some of these people are church-going, God-fearing people...for the record.

Historical Instances of Suppressing Rights

From a historical and legal review, I would ask you to think about all the laws that have sought to restrict the rights of other groups of people and have eventually been rectified and those laws amended or overturned in court. Two groups that certainly come to my mind are women and black people.

For far too many years a woman's rights to vote, to hold certain positions, get paid an equal amount for the same work, own property and make decisions concerning her own body were held in check by laws; laws made by white men. And for the record, women's suffrage was considered a religious issue in that fight too; it would ruin "family values" and all...for the record.

Our country felt so strongly about whether white men had the right to control, nay...own other human beings and treat them as property, as the laws referred to slaves, simply because their skin was darker than the men who made the laws, that our divided nation went to war to resolve this issue.

It may have taken hundreds of years, but we have finally reconciled these wrongs. We have finally recognized the rights of all human beings...oh wait. That's right. We are now fighting hard not to allow two adults who love each other the right to get married and raise a family as a married couple with all the rights a married couple has.

From a different legal perspective, many of the laws we have on our books are there to protect people from physical or mental harm, protect their property and be sure that basic human rights are not quashed. Laws are not intended to harm a particular group of people who believe something different than the majority or single out people of a certain creed simple because some of the people in the country don't understand or agree with their beliefs or lifestyle choices.

A legal union between two consenting adults of full mental capacity, regardless of gender, national origin, religion, etc. is a basic right that harms no one, at least in my book. How would you feel if your right to marry your spouse was suddenly in question?

The Scoop

You know, as I ponder this hateful rhetoric, I think that perhaps the real fear is that same-sex couples do act like "traditional" couples. I think the real fear is that "they" raise families like the rest of "us"; "they" are just like "us" when it comes to spousal duties, in-laws, career aspirations, planning the summer vacation, etc. And if "they" are like "us" then what? I think this elicits fear of the unknown for some people.

I would liken this fear to the uncomfortable, uneasy feelings that predominated white families as minority families began moving into "their" neighborhoods years ago. While most neighborhoods and communities are quite multi-cultural now and that fear has greatly subsided, the original prejudice was based on ignorance and misunderstanding of each other's cultures and values.

If we could all be loving, peaceful and kind to one another, as the Bible teaches us, then we would get along, learn from each other and live happily ever after. While that is clearly not possible, at least not yet, I suggest that we all follow the advice of Jesus found in John 8:7 when Jesus said,

If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone...

This was in reference to a woman who had been caught committing adultery; a crime punishable by stoning. And in case you don't know the rest of the story, not one of the men present cast a stone at her or condemned her, especially not Jesus.

The point is, we have all sinned in various ways, and it's not for us to judge each other's actions and decisions and determine what's a sin and what's not and how each sin ranks on a scale 1-10.

This has NOTHING to do with fried chicken. We're talking about people, just like you and me.

And for the record, this is my opinon; a view I have a right to express thanks to our Constitution. What's your opinion? Over and out...

Anna

For more about this topic from me, please read: There's a Storm a Brewin' in Minnesota: NOH8MN

Less Than Perfect Behavior: Temporary Orders

While we were visiting Texas, we celebrated Darling 1's birthday. My sister-in-law had gotten a gift for Darling 2, as well, since his birthday is in a few months and it would be easier on her to give it to him now in-person and easier on him to receive it now while his brother was getting lots of gifts; it's hard to understand these kinds of things when you're still a little guy.

Well, Darling 2 knew about this gift, and he wanted to open it right away because he's 3 and impatient with a single-focus when there are presents to be had.

Darling 2 didn't care about the schedule of the evening or the reasoning behind waiting. All he knew is that he wanted that gift. Darling 2 felt angry and distraught and powerless in his situation; and he couldn't think of anything else.

As the evening advanced, he became more and more difficult and more and more upset knowing there was something he wanted in that bag, but wasn't able to have it until someone in charge gave the OK.

Eventually, he got to open that present and was ecstatic to find a Transformer. He quickly forgot the agony he had been in having to wait to get what he wanted once he had.

Well, adults can behave this way too.

Often, when a marriage has come to an end, but no formal divorce proceedings have begun, the once couple, now two separate beings have a single-focus of getting out of the marriage and holding on to whatever dear is left whether it's the kids, the house, pets, grandma's china, the big screen TV or a big bank account. And often, both spouses feel angry, sad and powerless in their situations.

That's not a good place to be. It's a confusing time and sometimes the result is a whole lot of...inaction. Perhaps, each person is waiting on the other to make a move; or worried that the other will act faster and more aggressively than the other; or just plain stuck, not knowing where to go next.

Many times once a couple has decided that marriage is no longer an option for them, the concern turns to custody and finances. There are questions about who will pay the mortgage, the insurance, the bills, etc. And if there are children involved the biggest tension point is most often who will the kids live with and who will pay child support and how much, etc.

The easiest and best way to answer all these questions is to get a Temporary Order in place once one party has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage.

A Temporary Order is a court order that establishes temporary custody of children and visitation schedules, amounts of spousal support and/or child support; ensures that valuable assets won't be sold; allows for who will be living in the home, paying the bills, etc. This order can remain in force until it is amended at a subsequent hearing or until the Divorce Decree is filed and takes the place of the Temporary Order.

Once the petition for dissolution is filed and one spouse is moving out, the two spouses can decide these issues on their own and then present it to the court for approval or if the two are unable to come to an agreement about these key issues, the court will decide these matters, at least on a temporary basis.

So, if you find yourself feeling powerless and confused as you face divorce and are concerned about what will happen when your spouse moves out or whether your spouse will drop you from the insurance policy or who will be responsible for making house or car or credit card payments and most importantly how will the children be taken care of, by whom and where, then you should promptly contact an attorney about filing a petition for dissolution and getting a temporary order in place.

The Temporary Order involves filing a few documents, answering some questions, working out a few things with your soon to be ex-spouse or leaving it all up to a judge and agreeing to abide by this court order until further notice. *Exact details vary by jurisdiction. Over and out...

Anna

Life is Fragile: An Instant of Distraction {Distracted Driving}

Gone in an Instant

Life is fragile. It's not just a matter of life and death, but also freedom and imprisonment. The life we have can be changed in an instant; in an instant of misjudgment; in an instant of distraction; in an instant of tragedy.

Over the past two years I have discussed distracted driving. I take a hard line stance on the matter; it's no secret. I am more passionate about this issue the more I read, research and write on the subject.

It's difficult not to feel this way when so many lives have been lost, broken and forever changed by another's careless decision. I have mostly focused on distraction by cell phone, but a person can be distracted by passengers in the car, food or drink being consumed, multitasking, an illness, medication taken, etc.

There are two specific cases that have been on my mind most recently. While the accidents occurred in the the last year, the cases have finally made their way to the courtroom.

Youth

When you are young, you live in the here and now. Your life is spread out before you. You have plans right now. You don't dwell on the what ifs and the might have beens. You simply live each moment; and now with technology at our fingertips wherever you go, it's easy to stay connected...always.

Tragic Circumstances

Last fall, sixteen year-old, Rachel Gannon, was driving her car in Platte City, MO, when she swerved into the path of an oncoming car driven by Loretta Larimer. Ms. Larimer had to be cut from her vehicle and later died at the hospital. There was also a 10 year-old girl in the backseat of Loretta's vehicle who was injured in the crash.

Police reports say that Rachel had been looking at her phone and texting when she drove off the road. She then overcorrected, which caused her to swerve into Ms. Larimer's path.

Rachel has been charged with manslaughter and assault and texting while driving. While a date has not been set for trial yet, Rachel will stand trial as an adult. If found guilty of these charges, Rachel could be sentenced up to four years in prison.

While this tragic accident has been very difficult on Ms. Larimer's family, two of her sons have said they don't want to see Rachel go to prison. "Enough lives have been ruined and shattered. We certainly don't want to ruin any young person's life," said John Larimer in an article on KMBC.com

The family would rather see Rachel sentenced to community service; have her out speaking to people about the senseless death of Ms. Larimer and the dangers caused by those who use their phones while driving.

This is a merciful and insightful approach for Ms. Larimer's family to take. I'm not sure if the court will see it their way, but with Ms. Larimer's sons' endorsement, Rachel just might stay out of prison and begin a new life; a life with a new purpose and an important message.

Too Many Stories

One of the tragedies of this story is that there are far too many of them just like this one. The facts may vary a bit; perhaps a whole family was killed; perhaps the distracted texter was the one killed; or maybe all escaped major injury or death, but time after time I see the headlines detailing an accident caused by a texting teen.

While some drivers of all ages do text while driving, statistics show that the age group most likely to text while driving are our youngest, most inexperienced drivers. This is not just a problem for teens and their parents though. This is a problem for all of us.

Those of us with small children must begin teaching them by example now by not using our phones {at all} while we drive. Parents of tweens and teens must be ever vigilant in their plight against distracted driving whether it's caused by too many giggling, rambunctious teens in the vehicle, texting and driving or other distraction for the most inexperienced drivers. And the rest of the community must be supportive of the message that using the cell phone while driving is dangerous and does kill.

The Scoop

This is not just a question of laws; whether there are any and what the law prohibits, but a community response to a real and growing issue among our young drivers. What action are you going take?

The other case involving a driver's misjudgment and apparent distraction is completely different from this one. And I'll tell you about that one tomorrow. Over and out...

Anna

A Pinterest{ing} Question: Is it Safe to Pin?

Failing to See the Forest for the Trees

A few weeks ago, we tried one of those do-it-yourself yogurt bars where you choose from 16 some odd flavors of yogurt and then pile on the toppings. You can go crazy or keep it modest. I let the boys choose their flavors and toppings with minimal help from me, allowing them to create their own unique treat. They actually kept it pretty respectable with a balance of fruit and candy.

On the way out the door, Darling 1 dropped his cup, spilling some of the kiwi fruit, gummy bears and brownie chunks out on the sidewalk. He panicked and began to go into hysterics, but I scooped it up and assured him that I had saved most of his delicious concoction. Once seated and chowing down on his frozen yogurt treat, he forgot about those lost gummy bears; and despite this small hiccup and near meltdown, he enjoyed his very distinctive "fro-yo" creation.

Sometimes we lack vision and can't see past a small stone in the path that we mistaken for a giant boulder. When that happens it takes insight from others to realize it's not really such a big deal.

Jumping the Gun

About a month ago, a woman wrote a post explaining her tearful decision to close her Pinterest account over fear of lawsuits regarding the photo links she "pinned" on this social media platform. After reading the Pinterest Terms of Use and considering copyright laws she basically panicked, pulled her boards down and spread her paranoid post across the blogosphere. I've been ruminating on this issue since reading the article. And finally, I have a chance to write about it.

For those who don't know, Pinterest is a relatively new social media platform where users can create virtual bulletin boards with different themes. Each time a user places a photo link on a board, it's called "a pin." Many websites have added buttons titled "Pin This" or other similar statements to encourage readers to post the link with a photo to their Pinterest boards.

I do have a Pinterest account, but I admit that I have barely used it and I'm certainly no expert on Pinterest, but my opinion is that this woman made a mountain out of a molehill. There are two issues to address: 1) Terms of Use; and 2) copyright laws. Neither of these issues are unique to Pinterest.

Terms of Use

The woman who sadly left Pinterest was apparently shocked to find that Pinterest claimed indemnity when it came to copyright issues, including attorney fees. Well, let me tell you that all online platforms who have covered all their bases, dotted every i and crossed every t is going to place all the blame squarely on your shoulders and leave your mess in your lap should you violate someone's copyright. And why shouldn't they?

After all, it's not Typepad's {my blog host} responsibility to make sure that I don't infringe on anyone's copyright, etc. They are merely the paid host of thousands of blogs. They are not the regulators of content, nor the owners of any of the content contained within each blog. Just as it is not Pinterest's obligation to ensure that everyone being pinned is alright with this. So, any legal actions, including any costs incurred, are the user's liability not the platform's problem.

This should not have been a shock to this woman. This is standard language in a Terms of Use policy. I would be shocked if the Terms of Use didn't contain these provisions. There's no reason to quit Pinterest because of this standard and fair language.

Copyrighted Material

As with any social media platform, all users should have at the very least a vague understanding of copyright laws in order to protect their own works and protect themselves from getting in trouble if using someone else's original work. I think, in general, misunderstandings about what constitutes copyrighted material and what is an infringement of such copyright abound in the world of social media.

It's actually quite easy to infringe on someone's copyrighted material if you're pinning content on Pinterest, posting photos that you didn't take or writing articles with liberal use of other's written words without permission from the copyright owner.

Here are a few of the basic concepts:

• What type of material is protected by copyright? {the short answer}
  • Copyright protects original works of authorship including literary, musicals. Dramatic and artistic works.
  • Copyright does not include ideas, systems, facts or methods of operation.
• What constitutes copyright infringement?
  • In general terms, a copyright is infringed when a person makes a derivative work, reproduces, performs, publicly displays or distributes copyrighted material without the permission from the copyright owner.
• What is fair use?
  • Fair use is a doctrine that allows for limited use of copyrighted materials without first acquiring permission from the copyright owner.
  • Under fair use, copyrighted material may be used for news reporting, criticism, commentary, educational uses, research and the like.
  • In determining whether fair use applies, a court will look at 4 factors;
    • Purpose and character of the use;
    • Nature of the original; material made for commercial use is less protected;
    • Amount and substance of original used; and
    • Effect that the use has had on the market of the original material.

Pinning without Permission

While "pinning" a photo that acts as a link to the original source, may or may not be considered copyright infringement {the courts haven't considered this specific issue yet}, most website owners are not going to be upset by this link. The pinning to a board in Pinterest will likely cause increased traffic to the original source's site, which for most will be considered a positive effect.

One exception might be photographers who are showcasing photos of clients or selling their art on their sites. These sites are often protected by passwords and/or have water marks on photos and provide language about the use of their photos.

However, should your "pin" not link the material to the original source, a problem could arise. And yet, most likely the first course of action will not be to file a lawsuit. Most of these issues can easily be corrected by contacting the person who is infringing on another's copyright and demand that the offending person take down copyrighted material immediately.

If that doesn't do the trick, a formal cease and desist letter would follow. And then, if there is still infringement or if there is a gross infringement or habitual infringement, a petition would most likely be filed in federal court.

The Scoop

Few with a heavy online presence haven't had to send a demand to take down a page or post or photo. It happens often, whether on purpose or in ignorance. I don't mean to say it isn't a big deal; it is. But it's usually something that can easily be dealt with without filing a lawsuit.

So, should you close up shop at Facebook, Twitter, your blog, Pinterest, et al? I don't think so. But I do think you should know what the Terms of Use that you have agreed to say and understand the basics of copyright law. When in doubt about whether what you're "taking" from another constitutes copyright infringement be sure to look it up; you can find anything online. Oh, and I'm fine with you "pinning" this on Pinterest, sharing it on Facebook or Retweeting it on Twitter Over and out....

Anna

Restraining Facebook Comments: Two Courts & Two Outcomes

A Change of Status

About a month ago, my Dear Husband Will was closing one Facebook account and attempting to migrate all his friends, connections, information, traffic, etc. over to a different Facebook account. In so doing, before shutting down the one account he changed his relationship status from "married" to "single" as he added me as his wife on his other account.

One would not have thought this would cause such a stir, but it did. On his original account, Will immediately got messages and comments from concerned and well-meaning friends when his status showed up as "Single" in his friends' streams. Will wasn't sure why everyone was so concerned until he realized what he had done.

He quickly assured everyone we were indeed still {happily} married and quickly updated his relationship on his newer account. All of this was unbeknownst to me until I noticed that my Timeline had been updated to reflect that I had just married Will on that day in January 2012.

Again, well-meaning friends who knew better than to believe that update posted messages of congratulations under that relationship update. I had seen a notification to confirm I was married to Will and had done so, but didn't think much of it until he relayed this whole story to me.

Conversations Streams

We use Facebook to share lots of information whether good, bad, game changing, mundane, of interest to all, of interest to only a few. Some people are more laid back about their security levels and who they allow to see the information they post and how much of this information is available to people they haven't approved and granted "friend" status to yet.

People use their Facebook accounts for different reasons. Some use it as a networking tool for business. Others view it as an extension of hanging out with friends at a bar or coffee shop; friends sharing information and opinions. Some people are guarded about what type and how much information they share on this platform, even among friends. Others share just about every thought that crosses their minds; or so it seems.

Regardless of how each of us chooses to use his or her social media outlets, we are all tuned in and we listen to what our "friends" are saying. We react, respond and form opinions based on this information, as illustrated in the above example.

Harassment on Facebook

Courts are still trying to figure out how social media fits with the law. There were recently two cases involving Facebook posts; one from Minnesota and one from Ohio. These cases involve different circumstances and have different outcomes.

Olson v. LaBrie

In this case, Olson found that his uncle had posted old family photos and made mean and disrespectful comments regarding those photos. Olson emailed his uncle requesting the photos and comments be removed or altered to remove Olson; LaBrie refused to do so. Olson eventually filed an application for a Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) against LaBrie.

The district court found that LaBrie's actions did not constitute harassment and did not grant the HRO. Olson appealed and the appellate court agreed with the district court's ruling.

The Court of Appeals of Minnesota held that, "To constitute harassment, words must have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another. Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 1(a)(1). Comments that are mean and disrespectful, coupled with innocuous family photos, do not affect a person's safety, security, or privacy—and certainly not substantially so."

So, in the end Facebook was not a component in this case. Regardless of where the photos and rude comments were, they simply didn't constitute harassment under the MN statute.

Byron v. Byron

In this Ohio dissolution case, the Facebook statement made by the husband against the wife who already had a temporary protection order in place due to an incident of domestic violence from June of 2011, was considered to be in violation of the TPO.

In November of 2011, Mr. Byron posted to his Facebook account the following statement: "If you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husband's life and take your son's father away from him completely -- all you need to do is say that you're scared of your husband or domestic partner and they'll take him away!"

Mrs. Byron became aware of this statement even though she is blocked from his account and filed a motion stating he was in violation of the TPO. The TPO restricted Mr. Byron "from causing plaintiff or the child of the parties to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance or bodily injury."

The magistrate ruled that Byron had violated the TPO and sentenced him to 60 days in jail and $500 fine or in lieu of this sentence he could pay back child support and post an apology on his Facebook page for 30 days beginning February 13, 2012. The magistrate wrote the apology into the order and required Byron keep his Facebook page active during that time.

Byron complained about free speech issues, but the magistrate reminded him that while we do have the right of free speech, there are limitations; we can't just say anything.

The Byron case is not over. This case will return to court on March 19^th. Once the case is concluded, Byron may choose to appeal the court's ruling on this and/or other grounds. This is certainly one to keep an eye on.

The Scoop

As I said, both of these involve statements made on Facebook. Both have very different outcomes. So, which one is right? Well, both could be. Each state can have different standards and different language regarding various areas of the law.

However, regardless of what the law says in your state, the rule of thumb when it comes to social media is kind of like the old adage, measure twice, cut once. That is to say, think twice before posting what's on your mind; asking yourself will this harm, offend, harass, frighten, disrespect anyone?; and then hit enter once.

We certainly do have the right to say many things and post those things on Facebook if we wish, but if it's harmful, offensive, disrespectful, etc. expect that some may block you, tell the person you are making remarks about, unfriend you on Facebook and maybe in real life too and perhaps even take the matter to court. This open forum does not give you an unfettered right to say ANYTHING that comes to mind. Over and out...

Anna

Child Obesity: What’s in the Child’s Best Interest?

Truly a Growing Problem?

I came across an interesting article earlier this week, and I'm not even sure what my opinion is regarding this matter. It has to do with weight. Weight is a touchy issue; very few of us, have never struggled with a weight issue, whether the issue was to lose weight or gain weight. At various times of my life I have been on both sides of this issue.

Let me also preface this subject by saying that I have tall, muscular, broad kids (both built like their daddy) who both tip the scales at the top of their age ranges; they also rank in the top of height percentiles, as well. In fact, at the last well-check of each Darling Boy the pediatrician explained that based on their weights alone, he was forced to check them off as "obese" for insurance purposes. This reporting is done anonymously in a large pool of all kids who have well-checks, based on specific ages.

My children are not obese for any other purpose (check out those sweet, skinny boys above & don't let the 3 year-old's pudgy cheeks fool you; he's the skinniest). I, of course, spoke up and argued this point. While my sons' pediatrician agreed with me, he told me that his hands were tied because this "mandatory" reporting is linked to insurance companies paying the doctors for their services to patients. He went on to tell me that every big, strong high school athlete he had recently seen for school physicals were also labeled as "obese" for the insurance reports.

Now, this makes me think twice when I see the reports of the high percentages of obese kids; and all of the reports, studies, groups and grants concerning this issue. At the same time, I know there are kids who are obese and who need to learn how to eat a nutritional, balanced diet and exercise on a daily basis. There are also kids who have a genetic predisposition to weight gain. And now for the story I read. Then, you can decide where you stand on this topic.

200 Pound Third Grader

This subtitle reads like a tabloid article, and you can just picture the photo running with the headline in the newsprint placed next to the bubble gum at the checkout counter, but this is sadly true. A boy in third grade weighing 200 pounds was removed from his mother's custody and placed with a foster family due to his weight related health issues. The mother had taken her son to a hospital last year when he started to have breathing problems; clearly, a concerned parent. It was determined that he has sleep apnea. At that time, the hospital enrolled him in program aimed at reducing his weight. Through that program, he was being monitored by social workers and had been losing some weight, but had recently begun to gain weight again.

When he started putting pounds on, the social workers asked a juvenile court to remove the boy from his mother's custody based on his obesity as a medical neglect issue. The boy's mother claimed that she was following the dietary guidelines provided by the hospital program and was doing her best to help her child.

Obesity as Neglect

This may seem extreme, but remember the court's duty is to do what is in a child's best interest. So, is this in the child's best interest? What if the child was severely underweight instead of grossly overweight? How would you feel about this issue then? If the child appeared to be starving, the court would remove the child in this instance too. The court must do its best to ensure that any child that comes to its attention has a clean, safe and healthy environment with adequate nutrition and direction in which to live and grow.

Clearly, this is an extreme case, but it has happened before. The article I read from ABC News cited a 90 pound 3 year old girl who was removed from her parents' home for two months due to her large size and inability to lose weight in her parent's care. She was returned to her parents when it was determined that she had a genetic predisposition and she did not lose any weight while in foster care despite following strict guidelines.

The Scoop

Are we going overboard on the subject of obese kids? Is obesity a legitimate cause for concern and reason to lose custody of your child, even temporarily? For me, this is hard question. How do you feel about this issue? No matter which way you view this story and others like it, it's very sad for the child and the parents involved. Over and out...

Anna

Losing It: Mental Illnesses and Child Custody Issues {A Post from the Past}

Some Days

There are some days; days that I feel that I am one step away from completely losing my marbles. The chaos, the lack of sleep, the stress, the ups and downs of life, it can be overwhelming. But I keep it together...for the most part. I know that these days are just that; one day ever so often in a life full of many days. I don't have a mental illness, and I have a spouse who can take the helm for a bit while I sort through my feelings, get some rest and move past the funk.

Mental Illnesses

And yet, there are parents out there who do struggle with mental illnesses. For some of these parents just making it through each day is a challenge; every day. For other parents with mental illnesses, medication can alleviate the symptoms and bring balance back to that parent's life; and the family's lives, for that matter.

Some of these parents have to find a way to cope with their illnesses and handle divorce and/or custody issues too. And other parents struggling with mental diseases are single parents dealing with everything on their own; work, finances, illness, parenting, medications. Many questions arise in these situations.

Custody Issues

For parents with severe mental illnesses the rate of losing custody is between 70 – 80%. Some states have laws that list mental illness of a parent as a condition for losing custody. The severity of the illness, combined with the symptoms of the particular mental illness, side effects from medications and the absence of another parent in the home are among the determinants for removing a child from the house of a mentally ill parent.

While all parents have a right to raise their children without government interference, the courts must weigh what's in the best interest of a child with a parent's mental disabilities and the impact on the family. If it's clear to the court that a child will be endangered by the parent's incapacity to care for his or her child, the court must remove the child from that parent's home and award custody to the other parent {in a divorce situation}, a grandparent or another competent adult.

In order for a court to determine what's in the best interest of a child, extensive mental health evaluations are ordered for the parent. The mere presence of a mental illness does not determine whether that parent will completely lose custody rights. In some cases, the court will find that based on all the evidence presented, a parent with a mental illness is still capable of caring for his or her children, at least some of the time.

A court's concern is that a child living with a mentally ill parent may suffer from neglect or abuse, be subjected to unsafe conditions or situations or be forced to take care of the parent instead of the other way around. Courts take these situations very seriously.

Due to these concerns of the courts and the high chance of losing custody, some parents in this situation may attempt to hide the illness or minimize the effects of the disease or the medications. Parents may even avoid needed treatment for mental diseases for fear of losing custody. While this is understandable considering how painful it would be to lose custody of a child, the parent must keep his or her focus on the child's safety and general well-being.

It's important to be forthright with any investigation, whether you are the parent being assessed; or the parent being evaluated is your spouse or soon-to-be ex-spouse, a friend or a family member. Again, the focal point must always be the best interest of the child.

The Scoop

No matter the determination or outcome of any case involving a parent and/or child with a mental illness, it's a heartbreaking situation; and not one taken lightly by the courts. Termination of parental rights is final, but a custody situation is changeable, depending on circumstances. For instance, if a parent seeks treatment, becomes stable on medication, etc. the parties could revisit the custody arrangements, if so desired.

No matter how you look at it, a case involving a parent suffering from a mental illness is never easy for anyone involved. Over and out....

Anna

Mississippi Underestimated: Answering the Question of Personhood

Free Choice

I recently saw a quote from a conservative governor stating that he had vetoed a particular bill because he didn't want to micromanage the actions of adults. This quote struck me as odd for a number of reasons. To name one, it's conservatives who typically are trying to take away the choice of abortions for all women. Isn't this also micromanaging adult women's actions?

Let me be clear. I am not a proponent of abortions. I don't know a single soul who is. I am a proponent of free choice. Abortion is not something that I would choose, as far as I know. But then again, I've never been in a position to have to make this decision; so I can't say for certain. I am certain that I cannot make that decision for anyone else though; it's not for me to say what others do with their bodies.

I think that a woman or a man should have the choice of making decisions regarding her or his body without the state interfering with this choice because someone else living in that state may disagree with the choice that person makes. The decision to have an abortion for any reason is one of the most personal choices I can think of.

An Argument for Conservatives

I liken my argument to that of gun rights. I, personally, don't think that people should own guns for personal safety or hunting. I, personally, think that people with guns make our society less safe. However, not everyone agrees with me. There are those who think it's vitally important to have firearms in the home in order to protect the family. There are others who enjoy the sport of hunting.

I will leave them to their sport and their sense of security. I will not tell them they can't own guns, even if they are safe with them and follow all the laws regarding firearm ownership and don't threaten others or commit crimes with their firearms. That is their right.

MS 26

Well, it's also a woman's right to decide what happens to her body. Yesterday, the people of Mississippi went to the polls to vote on a number of items, one of which was Initiative 26. "MS 26" as it was termed may have been on the MS ballot, but it was an issue that could have affected all women across this country. I spent my evening watching my Twitter stream with the hashtag #MS26 {I met some lovely ladies from MS too.} and monitoring MS election results.

If MS 26 had succeeded it could have opened the flood gates rushing toward the eventual overturn of Roe v. Wade. Well, it didn't. The people of Mississippi came through in the name of women's rights.

The exact wording of MS 26 is this:

Should the term 'person' be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the equivalent thereof?

57% of the voters in MS answered this question with a resounding, "NO" despite the time and money spent by Personhood USA in hopes of a "yes" vote.

Personhood USA

Personhood USA is a Colorado based "Christian" nonprofit organization that "serves the pro-life community by assisting local groups to initiate citizen, legislative, and political action focusing on the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement: personhood rights for all innocent humans."

What this means is that a grassroots team showed up in MS and planted the idea of putting this question to the vote of the people in hopes of stirring the pot into a frenzy that could lead other ultra conservative states to do the same. The Personhood Mississippi website says if the vote was yes, a legal challenge would be set up to challenge Roe v. Wade. Of course, the website also says that the most important reason to vote yes is that it will honor God and show love to their neighbors in the law system. Clearly, Personhood USA was appealing to the conservative Christian voters of that state.

Strong Southern Women

Mississippians responded with their own grassroots fight, explaining to would-be voters that MS 26 could have more far reaching effects, such as infertility treatments, access to contraception and women's health, in general. Personhood USA thought it could appeal to the deeply conservative, Christian, low-income and uneducated citizens of MS. They were wrong. Mississippians are smarting than that.

The idea of the personhood question evolved from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's observation during Roe v. Wade oral arguments when he said, "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, you would have an impossible case here." Now Personhood USA is trying to do just that. 

The Scoop

There are a number of laws in place that regulate the how, when and where abortions are performed, by whom and upon whom. It's not a spur of the moment, lightly taken, frivolous decision....ever. And the laws in place protect those who for whatever reason have come to a clinic for an abortion. Without these laws, providing this right, abortions would still take place, but behind the scenes, without safeguards, without regulating the who or what or when or where.

In the past I wrote about laws with unintended results. If the voters' answer to MS 26 had been yes, this would have been one of those laws. This issue is not about choosing abortion; this issue is about choosing for one's self. The people of Mississippi have chosen for themselves. Over and out...

Anna

 

Budget Cuts Hit Home: Topeka’s Prosecutorial Blunder {On a Soapbox}

No Experience

I usually fight with words. Fortunately, I don't have personal experience with domestic violence. While searching my brain for a personal story to tell involving domestic violence, there is only one that comes to mind, and even it was not necessarily domestic violence, but the potential for it. And it's not my story to tell. It (almost) happened to a friend. And I'm happy to say that she did not marry him in the end.

When I wrote about domestic violence last December, many of my regular readers did not read those posts. Hopefully, this means that domestic violence is not something you have any experience with.

Finding Strength to Report

For those who do live with violence or even the threat of violence from a supposed loved one it's degrading, devastating, depressing and dangerous. For many living with this secret, one of the hardest things they will ever have to do is pick up the phone and call the police on a spouse or significant other.

And yet, many will find the strength to call and report an assault. Some of those will later recant their stories and refuse to testify against their abusers, but some will keep that ire burning, still feeling the sting from the smack dealt to them from some who's supposed to be a protector and supporter. Those people will be willing to testify against their spouses/partners/significant others and aid the prosecution as best they can. Then, hopefully, those people can move on with their lives.

No Aid Available

Well, what if no one could afford to prosecute such cases? What if the city decided to repeal the law making domestic violence a crime? What if the county refused to prosecute these misdemeanors? What would be the point of calling the police? Who would help those in need?

Well, that's exactly what Topeka, Kansas, did. In an attempt to cut budgetary costs, the city government repealed a municipal law making domestic violence a misdemeanor. Back in September the Shawnee County District Attorney stopped prosecuting domestic violence cases due to budget cuts. The city says this is an attempt to get the district attorney to begin prosecuting these cases again. And it worked too.

Reckless Abandon

The way I see it, this is an awfully reckless move on the part of the county and city. If the county and city refused to prosecute misdemeanor domestic violence cases, then it would have been open season for abusers in Topeka. Thankfully, the Shawnee County DA, Chad Taylor, reluctantly agreed to begin prosecuting the domestic violence cases even though they have very few resources and are lacking in staff.

Of course, the dropped cases would have applied only to misdemeanor charges, not felonies. If a domestic violence case had escalated to a felony, let's say murder, then that case would have been prosecuted by the district attorney. Unchecked, unstopped, unprosecuted domestic violence could very well lead to murder, of either the abused or the abuser. And the authorities sure as hell will prosecute an abused spouse/significant other who kills her/his abuser. This is not a situation to take lightly.

Threatening the safety of its citizens to force the hand of the county district attorney's office is heartless and treacherous. I understand that everyone {individuals, small businesses, municipal, county, state and federal government agencies} is struggling to make ends meet, with the exception of the elite top 1% of our country, but taking it out on domestic violence victims is not OK.

The Scoop

Topeka, figure it out. While the Shawnee County DA has taken on these cases once again, there remains a budget issue. This could be a nightmare, both figuratively and literally, for citizens, the city and the county. Cut from an area of the budget that will not affect such a vulnerable, usually mute, segment of the community; perhaps a cut to your own salaries is in order, City of Topeka officials. Priorities must be set; the safety of people must be placed over other city projects. Over and out...

Anna

A Case of Misidentification: Ultrasound Mistake Leads to Court

A Sneak Peek

Some of the best parts of my pregnancies with Darling 1 and Darling 2 were the ultrasounds. I vividly recall each of them; a sneak peek at my tiny baby. I had two ultrasounds with each son. We were anxious to get a look at them, but mostly we wanted to know if everything was developing correctly and working properly.

At Darling 1's first ultrasound we thought everything was perfect. He was active, had all his limbs and organs and his heart and kidneys were functioning well. Then, the obstetrician told me that the there was one "soft marker" for chromosomal defects, a Calcium buildup in his heart. We were referred to a perinatal specialist obstetrician for a more detailed, second ultrasound.

At the second ultrasound, the doctor assured us all was well. She had seen at least 5 others with the same issue just that day. She said our doctor was just erring on the safe side. She explained that this phenomenon was relatively new and it was thought that perhaps these Calcium blips have always been there are now showing up due to our advanced technology. It causes no problems and often is absorbed later.

A Shattering Thought

We were so incredibly relieved to know our unborn baby was healthy, and grateful to have another look at our mover and shaker. However, the first night after the first ultrasound with the possibility that something was wrong with my baby hanging over my head was excruciating. It was so painful that I tried to forget about it; I tried to ignore the constant nagging in my brain; I tried to talk the worry away with Dear Husband; I tried to fill my mind with positive research information concerning this tiny bit of Calcium.

To no avail; I cracked in the middle of the night that night. All of my fears and concerns came rushing out, flooding the room with sadness, as if a dam had broken in the dark of night without any warning to the town below the dam. After letting all my terrors escape out of my brain, I was able to wait the two weeks until the second ultrasound that set us free. And 4.5 months later, my baby was born and was perfectly formed.

What Would You Do?

There are many opinions about what one should/would do if met with a severe disability, abnormality, medical condition or other conundrum during an ultrasound or subsequent amniocentesis. If you could or would have known something would you have decided to end the pregnancy? Would you ever choose to end a pregnancy?

I know some who felt certain about terminating a pregnancy should a disability be detected. I know others who would have never terminated a pregnancy, regardless of the prognosis or issue found. Thankfully, I never had to make this decision or even think about it. No matter which way you view it, there are no easy answers.

Large Award for Defects

I just read about a case out of Florida that awarded 4.5 million to Ana Mejia and Rodolfo Santana, the parents of a child born with severe defects, back in September. This child was born with no arms and only one leg. The couple had two ultrasounds performed during the pregnancy and were told everything was fine with the baby. They were told there was an extremely minor chance of a chromosomal disorder; the same remote chance that most people have.

When their son was born so severely disabled they were shocked and terribly upset that this information that escaped the ultrasound technician and obstetrician. They were saddened for their son who faced a life of hardship. They sued the two obstetricians they felt were responsible for this oversight and negligent in failing to provide such important information.

The couple claims they would have terminated the pregnancy had they had this information in hand after the ultrasounds. The couple sued in order to provide the care and medical procedure and prosthetics for their young son, now 3 years old.

They asked for 9 million, but the jury came back with a 4.5 million dollar award that will provide for his needs for the rest of his estimated 70 years of life, even if something happens to his parents.

A Case of Negligence

Now, perhaps you fall in the same camp as Mejia and Santana; or maybe you'd accept the fate of your child and the cost of caring for this severely disabled child and not blame the doctors for dropping the ball and neglecting to detect these very obvious defects. Whether you would have sued or not, it's clear {to me and the jury, at least} that these doctors were negligent.

As illustrated from my experience with Darling 1 and the tiny Calcium buildup in his heart, ultrasound technology is quite advanced these days, and my ultrasounds were 5.5 years and 3.5 years ago. It should be quite clear to a trained ultrasound technician whether a child is missing limbs. And even if a technician missed it, then an obstetrician reading the films should for sure catch such a grave defect.

However, this case is not for you or for me to decide. It was for the jury. And the jury found the obstetricians at fault and decided this award of damages was in order, based on the testimony heard, evidence presented and instructions provided by the court.

A Call for Humanity

I happen to find the lawsuit, the jury finding and the award in order. What surprised me were the 159 comments {OK, I didn't read all 159, but I read a number of them}. The majority of the comments were hateful, rude and disrespectful. The comments were overwhelmingly against these parents. Some comments remarked that the parents should have been aborted. Other comments made the parents out to be gold diggers, trying to win big money for themselves. And on and on, the comments attack these parents.

I was surprised and shocked by these comments. I know, I shouldn't have been, but I'm a bit Pollyanna-ish when it comes to humanity. I always expect people to treat others with more respect and kindness than they do. But it seems that the anonymity of leaving a comment online seems to bring out the worst in people.

If we could put ourselves in other's shoes and understand that we don't know what's it's like to live someone's life until we walk a mile in someone else's shoes. If you have not seen your idea of having a perfectly formed child dashed against the rocks, watched your horribly disfigured child, knowing he will never experience life like other children and realized that for the rest of your life you will be caring for this child, then you have not walked a mile in their shoes. I know I have not.

The Scoop

There are many overly-litigious lawsuits out there. I'll be the first to admit it. But a lawsuit such as this is not one of them. A lawsuit such as this will help ensure these doctors and hopefully others don't make this kind of mistake again. Over and out....

Anna

Falsely Accused & Wrongly Convicted {On a Soapbox}

The Wrong Person

Have you ever been falsely accused of something? Something you DID NOT do. I don't mean something that was a misunderstanding; I'm not talking about a miscommunication. I mean something you simply had nothing to do with; a case of mistaken identity. Well, I have; and it's terrible.

I was not accused of a crime or civil wrong; it was a more personal wrong. Someone very close to me accused me of something that I did not do. It was frustrating; it was baffling; it made me very sad. There was nothing I could do to convince this person otherwise. It was mind-boggling to me that I had to stand in judgment for something that I never did in the first place and would not have done.

Found Guilty

Now imagine that you have been wrongly accused of a grisly murder. You're put under arrest; you're brought to trial; damning evidence is presented against you and the jury believes you committed this horrible act; you're found guilty; you're sentenced to life in prison, or worse, you're sentenced to death.

You maintain your innocence throughout the ordeal never wavering from your claim of misidentification, but to no avail. Your days are numbered. You appeal and appeal and appeal. And then your last appeal is denied; your day to die is set. You've spent years in prison and now you're about to take your last breath and all the while you've been innocent.

If you think this rarely happens, you're wrong. How many times have innocent people been put to death? Well, your guess is as good as mine. But the real question is how many is too many? How many innocent people put to death are we as a society willing to allow before we feel like it's a problem?

We feel safer knowing that someone has been caught and punished for the gruesome crime. Does that give us the right to sacrifice a few innocent people along the way?

Capital Punishment

I'm a native daughter of the "King of the Death Penalty" aka Texas. I went to law school in Oklahoma, a state with capital punishment, just a few years after Timothy McVeigh destroyed downtown Oklahoma City which also destroyed America's naiveté of domestic terrorism. And then I moved to a state without it and worked in the judicial system. And now live in another state where there is no death penalty. So, where do I stand on this issue now?

Honestly, I don't know if I'm pro or con on the issue of capital punishment. The turning point of questioning the value of the death penalty came during law school when I took a course on Capital Punishment which was taught by two people who were strongly against the death penalty. That class drastically changed my views of capital punishment. And yet, I was not completely opposed to it; just more exposed to the issues surrounding capital punishment.

Too Late

As science and technology have progressed and we have been able to identify DNA through analysis the playing field has shifted. More people have been exonerated of their crimes. For those working their way through the criminal justice system now, this is great news. For others whose supposed crimes were committed years ago, this evidence has come too late; too late for them to see their children grow to adulthood; too late for them to have careers and provide for their families; too late for them to see their parents again; too late for them to live their lives in peace. For a few, this evidence has come too late for life at all.

And this is where I have a bone to pick. Recently, I have read a number of articles and seen a number of headlines about prisoners, with many years of incarceration under their belts, some of them on death row, having their convictions thrown out due to DNA evidence. These are heartbreaking stories.

While the falsely accused shed tears of joy and smile and make statements of "thanks be to God' on the day of release, surely those good feelings turn to bitterness and anger after a few weeks of freedom. Surely, after the realization of what has been taken from them sinks in, there are tears of sadness and rage toward the system that allowed this cruel injustice to occur.

Freed At Last

Much has been in the news about Troy Davis and Amanda Knox in the last few weeks. One case that stood out to me this week was the Texas case of Michael Morton. Mr. Morton was accused of bludgeoning his wife to death in 1986, in Austin, Texas. Despite evidence to the contrary, Morton was convicted on circumstantial evidence of this horrible crime. Morton has spent the last 25 years behind bars.

The Innocence Project run by Barry Sheck took on Morton's case and eventually found key evidence that the prosecution had never shared with the defense team, including an eyewitness account of the murder from Morton's 3 year-old son and information that Morton's wife's credit card was used 2 days after the murder. The Innocence Project also won the battle to have a bloody bandana found near the Morton's house tested for DNA, a technique that was not available in 1986. The DNA analysis identified Morton's dead wife and another man who had since been convicted in multiple states.

This Tuesday Morton was freed; after 25 years of declaring his innocence; after missing 25 years of his son's life; after 25 years of his life was wasted behind bars he's free. Now authorities are investigating a similar murder of a woman in Austin from 1988 in light of his new DNA evidence from the Morton case.

The Scoop

Now put yourself in Morton's shoes and think about how you would feel about walking out of those prison gates at the age of 57, after 25 years of incarceration. What can be done to stop this from happening? Well, in this case the prosecution could have played by the rules. And with DNA analysis available this kind of mistake should not be happening in courts today.

I'm a proponent of our justice system; that is, if everyone abides by the rules of procedure and professional responsibility. However, sometimes that system fails us. So, we must all be ever vigilant to never make assumptions based on biases or media; and never forget or dismiss those who adamantly claim their innocence, even to the dying breath, as Troy Davis did. Over and out...

Anna

Animal House: Legal Issues and the Family Pet Part I

For the Love of Animals

On most days it's a regular zoo around here. My two Darlings Boys are loud and boisterous alright and sometimes pretend to be monkeys named George or lions or dinosaurs or even Clifford the Big Red Dog and his friends, but we also have two real giant dogs and 3 aging cats. The cats came first starting back in college, then the dogs and finally the kids. Each new addition has been an adjustment for the beings already residing in our household, and each has done beautifully.

I have always been an animal lover. There are very few animals I don't have some kind of affinity for. I talk to all animals, no matter the genus, breed or size as if they are 10 pound floppy, warm, cuddly, sweet, yellow lab puppies. I have never been able to read Call of the Wild or Black Beauty. I hate animal cruelty and cannot take it. I will step in to stop abuse to an animal if I see it happening.

DH loves our animals and has grown to be an animal lover after 17 years with me. His family members are pets belong outside and never in the house and absolutely not on your bed and pets are pets and nothing more kind of people. It's more of a farming community view and is quite a common view of pets.

My family is crazy about animals. In my entire life there have been only two years that I lived without an animal: my freshmen and sophomore years of college. My brother and his wife have 3 dogs and 2 cats. We are animal people. My Darlings seem to be following suit.

Our House

My kids are constantly monitored by our Leonberger who greets them with a lick to their heads upon each return home, as if mentally checking off that the boys are once again safe and sound and under her guard. She adores us all, but she is particularly protective of the boys. It drives her mad if the boys are in the front yard without her, especially if Darling 2, her baby, is darting about and in her opinion too close to the street. She watches from the front window her head going back and forth as they traverse the yard playing soccer or tag or baseball; and she eventually talks me into letting her outside on her leash so that she can be near them.

My boys learned to pull-up and cruise on our Saint Bernard. I am convinced there has never been and will never be a sweeter, more gentle animal on this earth. He is quite large and in his prime weighed 160 pounds. When the boys were babies, he would patiently lay in the living room while the baby grasped two handfuls of his thick coat and held on, laughing and babbling all along. He carefully sidestepped toys, baby gear and the boys themselves. He ignored their crying, loud singing and crashing and bashing of cars and other toys.

Now the cats, being cats, pretty much avoid the boys as much as possible, especially the older they get and the more rambunctious they become. And yet, they have completely accepted the boys (and the dogs). The oldest of all is the most social with them. After all, he's had to adjust to a lot in his 16 years.

Recent Headlines

With that said, I also hate to see tragic headlines about a dog attacking a baby or a pet tiger attacking its owner or a visitor or a monkey getting away from its owner or a python escaping and killing a child.

    Exotic Pets

It seems that exotic pet incidences have been on the rise, which could be indicative of the increase of exotic pet ownership. One such horrible story recently had its final day in court when a young mom, Jaren Hare and her boyfriend were sentenced to 12 years of prison each, after Hare's two year-old daughter, Shaiunna, was strangled to death in her crib by the family's pet python in the summer of 2009.

The snake, Gypsy, an 8.5 foot albino Burmese python, was poorly housed in a makeshift cage in the family's living room. Gypsy had escaped several times. In fact, on the night of the little girl's death, the snake had been found in the hallway of the home. The next morning they found the snake wound around Shaiunna's head in her crib.

The snake had not been fed in over a month and was severely underweight. Apparently, Gypsy had slithered past two other children sleeping in the living room and down the hall to the toddler's room.

The couple were found guilty of manslaughter. The snake had escaped the poorly constructed cage 1o times in the previous two months. The aquarium was covered by a quilt and fastened to the sides with safety pins.

    Domestic Pets

Just last week I saw a gut-wrenching headline about the family dog mauling a tw0-week old infant to death. The baby was sitting in his infant seat in a room in the family home. The mom was keeping an eye on her baby through a window while she was outside. The family dog, a 100 pound Labrador mix, was in another room separated by double French-style doors.

Apparently, the dog pushed its way through the doors into the room where the baby was. The dog began sniffing the infant and then lunged at the helpless baby mauling him before anyone could pull him back. The baby died about 5 hours later after being airlifted to a hospital.

The dog was quarantined by animal control. There was no history of violence from this dog. Animal control has not decided what will happen to the dog. The incident is under investigation to see if there was any negligence on the part of the parents or purely a tragic accident.

The Scoop

The problem is that you don't know how a particular animal might react to a baby, a child or any stranger, regardless of size or age. I know I have been surprised a few times by my animals by the way they have reacted to a particular situation, not necessarily in a negative way and not necessarily involving kids, but nonetheless surprised.

We certainly weren't going to get rid of our pets when he had kids, but we did follow a few guidelines. When I returned home from the hospital after giving birth I greeted the animals alone. Prior to coming home with our baby, DH had brought home and offered for sniffing a blanket and piece of clothing that was used by the baby. Then, we slowly introduced the animals to the baby with one of us holding the baby and the other holding onto the pet. We never left the animals alone with kids when they were babies and we always closed the baby's room door. We had no issues at all.

This is not to say that all results would be the same if another person with other pets took all of these precautions. I think you do have to think about it in advance, prepare for having kids and pets and then be cautious and never just assume your gentle loving pet is OK with kids. I'll be back with more on pets and the law tomorrow. Over and out...

Anna

 

 

On A Soapbox: Suing Mom?

Worst Mommy in the World

I am not the most patient mom in the world. I'll admit it. I have been known to lose my temper. It's true. I have, at times, been called "the worst mommy in the WORLD!" by my hot-headed, tantrum-throwing offspring. I've been judged and sentenced to time out or prison, whatever that is to a 5 year-old. I have sometimes agreed with the sentences pronounced upon me...sometimes.

But my children are still young, impetuous and unschooled in life, and I expect that in time they'll grow and mature and understand that life isn't fair; they don't get everything they want whether they deserve it or not; and that they won't always deserve, or need, the things they may think they simply cannot live without.

Extreme and Outrageous Behavior

I pray that my kids will understand these things and love me regardless of how much {or how little} I spend on them. I sincerely hope my kids don't ever sue me because I wasn't the "world's best mommy" in their view every day.

You think it's absurd that I would hope such a thing? Because seriously, what kind of values am I teaching my kids, right? What kind of brat would sue a parent over such trivial and unimportant issues? Who, indeed? Well, I'll tell you precisely who: Stephen A. Miner II and Kathryn Miner, now 23 and 20, respectively, of Barrington Hills, a wealthy Chicago suburb.

These spoiled, rotten brats {in my opinion}...ahem...siblings sued their mother. What did they claim she did to them as children? Were there allegations of locking them in the closet; leaving them in the car until 2 a.m. while she sat in a bar drinking; physically, sexually or mentally abusing them, withholding food or shelter from them? No, these two claimed emotional distress and sought damages for her alleged "extreme and outrageous" behavior. Here are some of the specific instances that lead to these claims by said Plaintiffs: The Respondent, a.k.a. Mom, allegedly:

• Told Steven when he was 7 that she would call police if he didn't buckle his seat belt.
• Failed to send college care packages and birthday cards for many years, and when she sent cards, failed to include cash.
• Changed her last name, causing distress at school events.
• Sent Steven a birthday card showing a bunch of tomatoes, one with googly eyes, with the caption: "Son I got you this birthday card because it's just like you … different from all the rest!"
• Haggled over the amount spent on Kathryn Miner's party dresses.
• Called Kathryn Miner at midnight while she was at homecoming and told her to come home.
• Played favorites with the kids.

~Source: ABA Journal, August 29, 2011

Family Dynamics

So, where was the father of these shallow kids when they were contemplating suing dear ol' mom? Where, indeed? Why he was one of the attorneys who helped to bring this suit to court. Their father represented them in this lawsuit. Ah, this is starting to make more sense, isn't it?

When little Steven and Kathryn were and 7 and 4, their parents divorced. Steven Miner, Sr., their father, was awarded full custody of young Steven and the two parents shared custody of their young daughter. Clearly, there are still some issues that should probably be resolved in therapy or during long, open-hearted, emotional conversations with each other.

This week, an Illinois appellate court dismissed this case finding that the mother's alleged conduct was neither extreme nor outrageous. The Court further stated that a ruling in favor of the children "could potentially open the floodgate to subject family child rearing to ...excessive judicial scrutiny and interference" as quoted in the ABA Journal, August 29, 2011.

The Scoop

This frivolous, petty, overly litigious claim not only wasted the time and money for all involved, but as nj.com points out it also lessens the very real and tragic stories of kids who are truly abused and mistreated by their parents.

The mother, Kimberly Garrity, other than perhaps having her heart broken by her malcontent offspring, also could have gone broke fighting this lawsuit. From several articles I read, it looks like Ms. Garrity will not recoup her attorney fees in this matter. And yet, the Plaintiffs, who supposedly lost this battle, won't have to pay much, if anything, considering Daddy was their attorney. So, who really won?

Hmmmm, something stinks here. Clearly, there was some abuse here. The Miners, all three of them, abused the judicial system in trying to settle a personal and very petty score. Over and out...

Anna

The List: 11 Ways Moms are Like Criminal Defense Attorneys

1. Moms know how to ask the right questions to get the evidence they need;
2. Moms can think on their feet with lightning speed without giving away too much information;
3. Moms know how to sweet talk someone in authority and get what they want;
4. Moms can quickly and easily hide disappointment when they don't get what they want;
5. Moms can read between the lines when hearing "testimony" from one of their "witnesses" on the "stand."
6. Moms know when to call for a recess;
7. Moms always have an agenda for the day;
8. Moms put in lots of "billable" hours; they just don't get paid much for their work;
9. Moms know when to cut their losses and move on to Plan B when Plan A goes awry;
10. Moms always have to have extra clothes on hand in case their little charges get dirty or aren't projecting the right image; and
11. Moms will work like hell to protect their kids and make sure no untruth is pinned on them.

     

Everyone loves to hate an attorney; and who doesn't know a lawyer joke {besides me}, but when it comes down to it, moms are a lot like attorneys. And let's face it, most of us need our moms and most will need an attorney at some point.

I think moms are especially like criminal defense attorneys. Criminal defense attorneys get a bad rap for defending those charged with a crime, but that is their job. They feel that everyone deserves to be tried in a court of law with evidence presented against them, have the chance to counter that evidence, question that evidence and in some cases, tell their side of the story. It wasn't until law school that I truly understood how or why someone would choose to go that route in the field of law.

Moms get picked on, judged and blamed if their kids are acting up, look sloppy, aren't polite, etc. Moms have a lot on their plates and we must each do the best we can with what we've got; just as a criminal defense attorney does. And the long and short of it is, if you, your spouse or your kids were charged with a crime you or they didn't commit, you'd want that criminal defense attorney working on your case with the dedication of a mom. Over and out....

Anna

Coffee with Anna Vlog Edition #3: Python Kills Toddler; Teacher Fired for Pumping Breast Milk, Failure to Report Child Missing a Felony & a Giveaway

  

Good Morning! On the agenda today:

• In the vlog I discuss several articles and I've got links for you in case you want to read more:
  • Python Kills Toddler; Mother Convicted of Manslaughter
  • Teacher Fired for Pumping Breast Milk
  • Proposed Legislation for Felony Charge for Failing to Report Child Missing
• If you haven't read this week's posts on bouncy house safety and liability, go read them. It's important! It could save your child's life and your savings account; or both.
• By the way, I'm giving something away tomorrow at 10 a.m. Listen to the whole vlog to find out what it is and how to enter. 
• It's much easier to write than to vlog. So, I'm going to do 1 more and then evaluate whether to continue with this format. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

Have a great weekend! Over and out...

Anna

Your Liability: Inflatable Bounce Houses

Torts

Negligence is defined as "the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm. Source: Black's Law Dictionary, 9^th Ed.

Now this takes me back to my 1^st semester of law school; Torts class with Professor Peter B Kutner. No, I don't mean the pastry kind of tortes. A tort is quite simply a civil wrong; a breach of duty owed to another. Torts are a big part of the first year of law school; one of the basic building blocks of law. Negligence is a tort.

When one is negligent in action {or inaction, as the case may be} and causes an injury to a person or property, one is liable to the one sustaining such injury. This is all simply put, and of course, each case is unique in circumstances, etc., but in general, it's that simple.

What determines whether someone was negligent in a situation is the illusory reasonable person. The reasonable person is a hypothetical person used as a legal standard to determine whether someone acted in a negligent manner. The reasonable person acts sensibly, does things without serious delay and takes proper but not excessive precautions. Source: Black's Law Dictionary.

In my 1L {First Year of Law School} section we playfully imagined the prudent "Reasonable Person" as a super hero of sorts with a cape and a giant R on his chest running around doing sensible things. But in truth, the reasonable person is not mightier, smarter or better than everyone else, just always alert, always aware and always doing the "reasonable" thing in any given situation.

Liability Issues

When it comes to bounce house injuries and liability there is no sure answer as to whether someone would be liable if a person was injured in conjunction with the bounce house activity while attending a party at your home; or if a person was injured by you or your child while jumping in a bounce house elsewhere; or if you or a family member was injured at a bounce house business or at a private party, etc. Each case is unique and if a lawsuit was filed following an injury that case would be decided in a court of law based on the particular facts as applied to the law.

With that said, here are a few tips when it comes to negligence and liability and bounce houses:

• If you sign a waiver, you are accepting the risk associated with the activity itself, but you are NOT accepting the risk associated with a negligent act on the part of the business or someone associated with that business. You can still file a lawsuit if you are injured due to negligent maintenance, set up or management, etc. of the bounce houses, regardless of whether you signed a waiver;
• If a risk of danger or injury is obvious or should be obvious to a person using the premises and an injury occurs, that is generally not considered negligence;
• If an injury occurs in or around a bounce house, liability may lie with the operator of the bounce house, owner of the structure and/or business where it's located, the manufacturer and/or other jumpers or invitees, depending on the particular circumstances;
• If you rent a bounce house for your home, business or event do be sure to follow all rules provided to you and use reasonable caution in operating and monitoring the bounce house. If you follow all rules and closely monitor the usage of it while on your property and under your care, you will decrease the chance of injury and the chance that you are liable for any injuries;
• You should check to see if the operator or owner of the bounce house has insurance covering injuries. Also, if you are inviting people to your house to use a rented bounce house, check with your own insurance company covering your property. An umbrella policy could be useful in this circumstance, as well. Read more about umbrella insurance policies here in a past post;
• As a parent, it's your duty to protect your child. If you see something that seems dangerous feel that the structure is in ill repair or the operator is being unsafe or not monitoring the use of the structure, use reasonable judgment and remove your child from the bounce house; avoid injury, if possible; and
• Remember accidents do happen; not every injury is due to someone else's negligence.

The Scoop

So, in the end it's up to you to decide when it's safe and when it's not safe for your child to play in and around a bounce house. Many people have left comments here, on Twitter or on Facebook this week saying that they were just at a bounce house or are attending a party this week at a bounce structure business, etc. It's would be hard to avoid them altogether. They are at schools, at churches, almost all children's events have them and many birthday parties, large family gatherings and business activities for employees and families rent them.

Bounce structures are everywhere. The number of injuries sustained involving bounce houses continues to grow with their popularity. Is it simply a trend? Will bounce houses begin to go away, especially after the negative news stories of late involving injuries and catastrophe? We'll see, but for now, follow the rules, watch for unsafe conditions and monitor the situation while your kids are in the bounce structure. Over and out...

Anna

 You might also like:

*The photo is of a bounce structure I just happened on as I was driving yesterday. It's looks to be part bounce house/part slip and slide. Either way, you can see from the photo that it was not anchored to the ground, but merely sitting there.

** The information in this post is not in any way to be considered legal advice. Nothing in this article creates an attorney-client relationship.

 

Learning from Home: Homeschool Laws Part I

Desire to Homeschool

When I was in elementary school I hated going to school. My brother and I attended a private, Christian school with a rigid and isolating teaching format. My mother was a teacher, and I would beg her to take us out of that school and homeschool us. I think she considered it a few times, but she never agreed to do it. Instead, we moved from south Texas to the Texas panhandle and changed schools.

In retrospect, I'm not sure if homeschooling would have been the right answer, but it sure seemed like it to me at the time. While homeschooling has certainly been a viable option for many, many years, in the last several years, the idea seems to have become more mainstream. There are a number of reasons for this shift. And I think that each family has their own, personal reasons for choosing this route.

I have come across quite a few homeschooling mamas blogging about their experiences and sharing ideas and philosophies on Twitter and Facebook, making the practice more noticed and more accepted. I have even run into homeschool curriculum companies at blogging conferences. Homeschooling is becoming a popular choice.

Several friends, who don't blog, who don't know each other and live in different states, have decided to homeschool their children. Both have told me the plan is to start with the first born child, give it a year and see how it goes, with the caveat that they can always choose to send the kids to school if things don't go as planned. I say, "More power to you."

If homeschooling is something you're interested in, you must start by doing some research to ensure that you're following your state's laws when it comes to homeschooling your child(ren).

Legality, in General

Here's what you need to know about what the laws regulates and where you can find it:

The legality of homeschooling, in general, has been the subject of debate since compulsory education began in Massachusetts in 1852. The argument has since shifted to topics involving funding, resources, curricula and standardized testing, beginning in the late 1980s.

Homeschooling is legal in all 50 states. The Supreme Court has ruled that states do have the power to regulate educational requirements, but states cannot require students to attend public schools. Homeschools fall under private school law in some states, church school law in other states and a few have homeschool statutes {also referred to as other means of education or alternative education}. Some states require homeschool groups or associations, qualifying them as private or church schools. For each state's requirements, check the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA).

Parent/Teacher Requirements

Another consideration is the education of the parent who will be teaching the children at home. Surprisingly, 41 states do not require the homeschooling parent to meet any educational qualifications as a teacher. The District of Columbia and 9 states require at least a high school diploma or GED. TN requires no qualification for grades K-8 and North Dakota has no educational requirements for the parent, so long as the parent instructor is monitored by a certified teacher for two years.

RI and MA are the only two states that require approval from the local school district, school board or state commissioner prior to homeschooling. Other states simply require a notice of intent to homeschool be filed with local school officials.

Curricula

Homeschool curriculum requirements range from fairly strict to very loose. Some states require parents to provide information about their curriculum, including lesson plans; other states merely require certain subjects be covered, but don't require any documentation; and still others categorize homeschools as private schools, allowing them the freedom to choose which subjects will be covered based on what the instructor deems appropriate for the child(ren).

Standardized Testing

Standardized Testing is a hot issue whether talking about homeschools or public schools right now. There are 24 states with standardized test or evaluation requirements. Out of those states, 13 require alternatives to testing and 11 states require standardized testing only.

Compulsory Attendance

There are a number of state court decisions on the subject of compulsory attendance. VA and VT allow for a religious exemption from compulsory attendance. Five states require the time spent on educational instruction must be the equivalent to public school instruction. A few states require merely "regular and thorough" educational instruction. ND, NY and PA actually impose high school graduation requirements for homeschooled students. However, courts in 6 states, including MN, have struck down compulsory attendance statutes with regards to homeschools, finding the statutes unconstitutional based on vagueness.

The Scoop

There is much to research, learn and organize before deciding to whether to homeschool your child(ren). This may seem like a daunting task, but there are many resources at hand.

In Homeschooling Laws Part II, I will present information about resources, access to extracurricular activities, religious rights, parental rights, etc. I will discuss motivations for deciding to homeschool and homeschool statistics in other posts this week, as well. Additionally, I will have a guest post from a mom and teacher by profession who has decided to homeschool her children. Over and out...

Anna