Archive for the ‘Safety and Prevention’ Category
Suicide Pact Forensic Case, Dr Saul and Dr Garbarino Testify
THIS ARTICLE was written by BY JESSICA STEPHEN
Issues of social immaturity and isolation, combined with romantic images from vampire novels, allegedly led a then-16-year-old boy to attempt suicide with a classmate, doctors testified Monday.
And, doctors concluded, the juvenile court system should be the venue to deal with the teen, who is facing an attempted murder charge in adult court for the alleged suicide pact.
“This is not a conventional crime,” said Dr. James Garbarino, a Loyola University professor who has written nearly two dozen books about child development, trauma and youth violence. Garbarino met with the teen in February, weeks before his 17th birthday.
“This is a mental health crisis that almost coincidentally involved criminal behavior,” Garbarino said. “Two troubled kids formed a suicide pact and were intent on implementing the plan, which was not directed at attacking people outside that little delusional system.”
Suicide pact
The boy was charged in December after reportedly telling police he and a 16-year-old girl made a mutual suicide pact. The boy led his father to the Hooker Lake boat launch, where the father found the girl bleeding Nov. 17 and called police.
“She said all I had to do was guide her hand,” the boy said, allegedly adding that he “took the knife and cut across her wrist. I then took the knife and cut my left wrist.” Both teens survived.
Under Wisconsin law, anyone over age 10 accused of a homicide-related offense can be charged automatically as an adult. But, as part of the reverse waiver process, the boy’s attorneys have the right to ask the court to consider hearing the case in juvenile court.
Juvenile court recommended
As part of a reverse waiver hearing that will continue in July, Garbarino testified Thursday that prosecuting the boy in adult court would not likely deter others and would not be in the boy’s best interests.
“This seems like such a, to use the term, no-brainer,” said Garbarino, who advocated for prosecuting the case in juvenile court. “It would be a travesty to do anything else.”
Dr. Jenna Saul, a child and adolescent psychiatrist from Wisconsin Rapids, echoed Garbarino’s conclusions. She also met with the boy in February.
In their testimony for the defense, both doctors described the boy as socially naive, young for his age and drawn in by the opportunity to love and be loved.
‘Utter infatuation’
Garbarino talked about the boy’s “utter infatuation” with the girl, as well as how taken the boy was with romantic vampire literature.
Saul said the boy spent his life trying to please others, even at the expense of disregarding himself, particularly after the girl said she could no longer bear the pain of living.
“He’s willing to do anything for other people,” Saul said. “So, he’s particularly vulnerable to being willing to be this self-sacrificing. … He wanted to help. He wanted to, in some way, take away the hurt for her. She came up with a solution: I need to die,” Saul said. “And he did not want her to have to die alone.”
Did not seek help
His pattern of not seeking help — from dealing with feelings about his parents’ separation to not asking for help after his special education services were withdrawn and his grades declined — also played a role.
Saul came to that conclusion after she asked the boy what he might have done differently, if he faced this situation again.
“His answer was he would have made sure he had met (the girl) when it was years before. … So, they could have been together, and she wouldn’t have had to suffer,” Saul said.
“It was astounding. He wasn’t asking for help. That wasn’t part of his repertoire, even after going through this.”
That indicated a need for mental health treatment, not incarceration, the doctors said.
The teen is out of jail on bond, under supervision from his parents.
© Copyright Kenosha News.
Ashley Judd: Misogynistic Judgments of Women’s Appearances
Ashley Judd Slaps Media in the Face for Speculation Over Her ‘Puffy’ Appearance
THIS EDITORIAL first appeared at The Daily Beast at http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/09/ashley-judd-slaps-media-in-the-face-for-speculation-over-her-puffy-appearance.html
Ashley Judd’s ‘puffy’ appearance sparked a viral media frenzy. But, the actress writes, the conversation is really a misogynistic assault on all women.
The Conversation about women’s bodies exists largely outside of us, while it is also directed at (and marketed to) us, and used to define and control us. The Conversation about women happens everywhere, publicly and privately. We are described and detailed, our faces and bodies analyzed and picked apart, our worth ascertained and ascribed based on the reduction of personhood to simple physical objectification. Our voices, our personhood, our potential, and our accomplishments are regularly minimized and muted.
As an actor and woman who, at times, avails herself of the media, I am painfully aware of the conversation about women’s bodies, and it frequently migrates to my own body. I know this, even though my personal practice is to ignore what is written about me. I do not, for example, read interviews I do with news outlets. I hold that it is none of my business what people think of me. I arrived at this belief after first, when I began working as an actor 18 years ago, reading everything. I evolved into selecting only the “good” pieces to read. Over time, I matured into the understanding that good and bad are equally fanciful interpretations. I do not want to give my power, my self-esteem, or my autonomy, to any person, place, or thing outside myself. I thus abstain from all media about myself. The only thing that matters is how I feel about myself, my personal integrity, and my relationship with my Creator. Of course, it’s wonderful to be held in esteem and fond regard by family, friends, and community, but a central part of my spiritual practice is letting go of otheration. And casting one’s lot with the public is dangerous and self-destructive, and I value myself too much to do that.
However, the recent speculation and accusations in March feel different, and my colleagues and friends encouraged me to know what was being said. Consequently, I choose to address it because the conversation was pointedly nasty, gendered, and misogynistic and embodies what all girls and women in our culture, to a greater or lesser degree, endure every day, in ways both outrageous and subtle. The assault on our body image, the hypersexualization of girls and women and subsequent degradation of our sexuality as we walk through the decades, and the general incessant objectification is what this conversation allegedly about my face is really about.
A brief analysis demonstrates that the following “conclusions” were all made on the exact same day, March 20, about the exact same woman (me), looking the exact same way, based on the exact same television appearance. The following examples are real, and come from a variety of (so-called!) legitimate news outlets (such as HuffPo, MSNBC, etc.), tabloid press, and social media:
One: When I am sick for more than a month and on medication (multiple rounds of steroids), the accusation is that because my face looks puffy, I have “clearly had work done,” with otherwise credible reporters with great bravo “identifying” precisely the procedures I allegedly have had done.
Two: When my skin is nearly flawless, and at age 43, I do not yet have visible wrinkles that can be seen on television, I have had “work done,” with media outlets bolstered by consulting with plastic surgeons I have never met who “conclude” what procedures I have “clearly” had. (Notice that this is a “back-handed compliment,” too—I look so good! It simply cannot possibly be real!)
Three: When my 2012 face looks different than it did when I filmed Double Jeopardy in 1998, I am accused of having “messed up” my face (polite language here, the F word is being used more often), with a passionate lament that “Ashley has lost her familiar beauty audiences loved her for.”
Four: When I have gained weight, going from my usual size two/four to a six/eight after a lazy six months of not exercising, and that weight gain shows in my face and arms, I am a “cow” and a “pig” and I “better watch out” because my husband “is looking for his second wife.” (Did you catch how this one engenders competition and fear between women? How it also suggests that my husband values me based only on my physical appearance? Classic sexism. We won’t even address how extraordinary it is that a size eight would be heckled as “fat.”)
Ashley Judd on her new show “Missing”
Five: In perhaps the coup de grace, when I am acting in a dramatic scene in Missing—the plot stating I am emotionally distressed and have been awake and on the run for days—viewers remarks ranged from “What the f–k did she do to her face?” to cautionary gloating, “Ladies, look at the work!” Footage from “Missing” obviously dates prior to March, and the remarks about how I look while playing a character powerfully illustrate the contagious and vicious nature of the conversation. The accusations and lies, introduced to the public, now apply to me as a woman across space and time; to me as any woman and to me as every woman.
That women are joining in the ongoing disassembling of my appearance is salient. Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate. It privileges, inter alia, the interests of boys and men over the bodily integrity, autonomy, and dignity of girls and women. It is subtle, insidious, and never more dangerous than when women passionately deny that they themselves are engaging in it. This abnormal obsession with women’s faces and bodies has become so normal that we (I include myself at times—I absolutely fall for it still) have internalized patriarchy almost seamlessly. We are unable at times to identify ourselves as our own denigrating abusers, or as abusing other girls and women.
A case in point is that this conversation was initially promulgated largely by women; a sad and disturbing fact. (That they are professional friends of mine, and know my character and values, is an additional betrayal.)
That the conversation about my face was initially promulgated largely by women is a sad and disturbing fact.
News outlets with whom I do serious work, such as publishing op-eds about preventing HIV, empowering poor youth worldwide, and conflict mineral mining in Democratic Republic of Congo, all ran this “story” without checking with my office first for verification, or offering me the dignity of the opportunity to comment. It’s an indictment of them that they would even consider the content printable, and that they, too, without using time-honored journalistic standards, would perpetuate with un-edifying delight such blatantly gendered, ageist, and mean-spirited content.
Ashley Judd responds to her critics on ‘Nightly News.’
I hope the sharing of my thoughts can generate a new conversation: Why was a puffy face cause for such a conversation in the first place? How, and why, did people participate? If not in the conversation about me, in parallel ones about women in your sphere? What is the gloating about? What is the condemnation about? What is the self-righteous alleged “all knowing” stance of the media about? How does this symbolize constraints on girls and women, and encroach on our right to be simply as we are, at any given moment? How can we as individuals in our private lives make adjustments that support us in shedding unconscious actions, internalized beliefs, and fears about our worthiness, that perpetuate such meanness? What can we do as families, as groups of friends? Is what girls and women can do different from what boys and men can do? What does this have to do with how women are treated in the workplace?
I ask especially how we can leverage strong female-to-female alliances to confront and change that there is no winning here as women. It doesn’t actually matter if we are aging naturally, or resorting to surgical assistance. We experience brutal criticism. The dialogue is constructed so that our bodies are a source of speculation, ridicule, and invalidation, as if they belong to others—and in my case, to the actual public. (I am also aware that inevitably some will comment that because I am a creative person, I have abdicated my right to a distinction between my public and private selves, an additional, albeit related, track of highly distorted thinking that will have to be addressed at another time).
If this conversation about me is going to be had, I will do my part to insist that it is a feminist one, because it has been misogynistic from the start. Who makes the fantastic leap from being sick, or gaining some weight over the winter, to a conclusion of plastic surgery? Our culture, that’s who. The insanity has to stop, because as focused on me as it appears to have been, it is about all girls and women. In fact, it’s about boys and men, too, who are equally objectified and ridiculed, according to heteronormative definitions of masculinity that deny the full and dynamic range of their personhood. It affects each and every one of us, in multiple and nefarious ways: our self-image, how we show up in our relationships and at work, our sense of our worth, value, and potential as human beings. Join in—and help change—the Conversation.
- Ashley Judd is a prolific actress, who will next be seen in ABC’s new midseason show, Missing. Judd most recently appeared in Dolphin Tale alongside Morgan Freeman, Harry Connick Jr. and Kris Kristofferson.
- Judd is also on the board of directors for PSI (Population Services International), which she joined in 2004 after serving as Global Ambassador for PSI’s HIV education and prevention program, YouthAIDS since 2002. Judd has visited PSI programs in Thailand, Cambodia, Madagascar, Kenya, South Africa, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, India, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In her work, she witnesses the lives of the exploited and poor to help educated the world about the reality of global poverty and bring solutions to the devastating effects of social injustice and gender inequality.
- Judd was the subject of three award-winning documentaries aired in more than 150 countries worldwide on VH1, The Discovery Channel and The National Geographic Channel. In her role as PSI board member, Judd has graced the covers of countless magazines and been the subject of newspaper and television interviews bringing vital awareness to issues closest to her heart, gender inequality and poverty alleviation.
- Judd has visited legislators on Capitol Hill, addressed the General Assembly of the UN on the scourge human trafficking, spoke at the National Press Club, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the protection of vulnerable women from violence, sexual abuse and HIV and, most recently served as an expert panelist at Clinton Global Initiative to discuss the issue of safe water and the empowerment of girls in the developing world.
- Recently, Judd has come on board as a spokesperson for organizations Defenders for Wildlife and The Sierra Club providing her time and voice to advocate against practices of aerial wolf hunting (Defenders for Wildlife) and mountaintop removal coal mining (The Sierra Club).
- She resides in Tennessee and Scotland with her husband, the international racing star Dario Franchitti. They have 8 beloved pets and enjoy a quiet, rural life.
School Health Education Can Trigger Eating Disorders
Often, when nutrition is taught in school, there is a heavy focus on “good foods vs. bad foods.”
- Youth are often taught how to read food labels and count calories. The “destructive nature” of unhealthy foods is frequently discussed.
- Some nutrition classes also use tactics such as demonstrations of globs of fat to scare children into healthy eating.
- Often an implicit message that being thin equates with health, while being overweight equates with being unhealthy is conveyed.
- There are also often messages that a person who chooses to eat these “bad foods” is somehow failing to demonstrate willpower.
Nutrition education that uses scare-tactics, or shaming, or that make strong generalizations about health and nutrition, or that focus on body images and stereotypes all pile pressure on kids to approach food and nutrition in unhealthy ways.
While it is important to teach children about nutrition, it should be taught alongside body-image awareness.
- It is possible to teach nutrition in a body-positive way
- Nutritional education is a large part of eating disorders treatment.
It is possible to discuss nutrition in ways that reduce the risk of pressuring kids into making unhealthy choices by:
Avoiding scare tactics –
Help children learn mindfulness in their eating. This is a skill that can be utilized so that a person can comfortably listen to their body–and feed it so that it is satisfied, and never too hungry, or too full. As they learn about choosing a variety of foods, eating various foods in moderation, and making smart choices, they can learn to enjoy eating instead of fearing it. It is also appropriate to promote a healthy lifestyle following the nutritional guidelines and age appropriate exercise.
Teaching parents as well–
Parents are in charge of grocery shopping, meal planning, and cooking, and ultimately responsible for a child’s nutritional experience; they need to be on the same page as their children when it comes to nutrition.
Avoiding sweeping generalizations – Be mindful of your word choices and developmental level of your students. In early elementary school children, a brief sound bite on television or radio that talks about the relationship between eating red meat and heart attacks – can be interpreted very concretely, so that they fear this food completely, for themselves and their family members.
Remain body positive –
Avoid comments about body weight, shape, and size when describing nutrition. Proper nutrition is not just about weight, shape and size. The goal should be to focus on overall wellness–healthy at any weight.
In a recent study of patients at the inpatient eating disorders treatment program for children and adolescents at Rogers Memorial Hospital, 15 % traced triggers for their eating disorders to school programming.
As our nation becomes increasingly concerned with obesity, the desire to improve children’s nutritional habits is understandable. While attempting to help our youth avoid obesity, we must remain mindful that how we present this information can trigger disordered eating in children and adolescents.
Posted in Eating Disorders, Safety and Prevention, School and Education | 
Tags: anorexia, bulimarexia, bulimia, Eating Disorders, nutrition | 
No Comments »
Eating Disorders Advocate Responds to Dr. Oz and Pro-Ana Movement
This article first appeared in the Bradenton Herald
Lisa S. Kantor: An Open Letter to Dr. Oz
By Lisa S. Kantor
Posted: 7:53pm on Mar 19, 2012; Modified: 7:58pm on Mar 19, 2012
LOS ANGELES, March 19, 2012 — /PRNewswire/ — Along with countless professionals and families dealing with the physical, emotional and financial consequences of eating disorders, I am deeply disturbed by the way your recent program, “Dying to Be Thin: Meet the Skinniest Women in America,” had the unintended effect of glamorizing the deadliest of all mental illnesses. Rather than documenting the tragedy associated with eating disorders and providing encouragement to sufferers to seek help, you perpetuated myths about the disease and provided harmful information to millions. I believe this show did more harm than good. As a physician, you have a responsibility to improve your coverage of eating disorders in future shows.
“Dying to Be Thin,” while tantalizing, serves to perpetuate one of the deadliest misconceptions about eating disorders. People with eating disorders are not necessarily “skinny” or “thin,” and certainly not everyone who dies from an eating disorder is underweight. In fact, many people die at a very normal weight, especially if they have bulimia. You mentioned on your show that the “more acute cases” were the “thinner” women. That myth is also dangerous to disseminate. Those who weigh less than others are not necessarily “more acute” than others at a “healthy weight.” That misconception has long created stigmas associated with eating disorder sufferers and has often led to under-treatment by physicians who think that because a woman is not thin, she is not as acute. Your focus on thinness did a grave disservice by failing to educate your audience scientifically about what eating disorders really look like.
In giving air time to the Pro-Ana movement, you referred to it as “a dangerous new trend that helps women be skinny at any cost.” The Pro-Ana movement is not new. Pro-Ana (and Pro-Mia) sites have been around since the dawn of the Internet. Far from being “trendy,” they are a very dangerous facet of an eating disorder underground that preys on the mentally ill. Had you consulted an eating disorders expert, you would never have offered your audience direct access to the websites and their images. Studies show that doing so causes harm. One study, on college-aged women (none of whom had eating disorders), discovered that after viewing pro-eating disorders websites, 84% reduced their calorie intake by more than 2,000 calories per week. Only 56% of the women realized they were eating less. Results of the study also indicated that the women exposed to the pro-eating disorders website had decreases in self-esteem and perceived attractiveness.
My days are spent in and out of federal courts battling insurance companies that deny benefits for seriously ill women and men who seek adequate treatment for their diseases – even though a federal law and many state laws mandate that insurers provide similar levels of treatment for mental illnesses as they provide for physical illnesses. Shows such as the one you aired trivialize this disease and undermine the progress well-respected groups such as the International Association for Eating Disorders Professionals, the Eating Disorders Coalition, the National Eating Disorders Association, and the Binge Eating Disorder Association have achieved. Still, getting the national media to take eating disorders seriously without parading dangerously thin women across the television screen is about as difficult as getting an insurance company to pay for a therapeutic length of stay at a residential treatment facility.
It is hard for me to believe that either you or your staff did any legitimate research about eating disorders before planning the programs. Were you aware that professionals in the eating disorder field were in touch with producers at your show in recent months offering the benefits of their expertise free of charge should you plan to air segments about eating disorders? Those calls and e-mails appear to have been ignored.
You owe it to your many viewers to correct the harm your recent program caused. First, please remove all material from your website and blog that mentions the Pro-Ana movement. Second, work with some of the many excellent professionals at reputable facilities around the country to plan follow up segments to properly educate your audience about how people can recover from eating disorders and lead productive and fulfilled lives not centered on food. You have an opportunity to teach millions across the country, including other physicians who might watch your show, the real skinny about eating disorders. I hope you will do the right thing.
About Lisa S. Kantor
Lisa S. Kantor, a Los Angeles lawyer and member of the Board of Directors of the Eating Disorders Coalition, is the country’s premier legal advocate for patients with eating disorders who have been denied health insurance benefits for treatment. In 2011, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for her client in Harlick v. Blue Shield, creating one of the most influential decisions ever in mental health parity litigation and paving the way to making treatment and recovery for severe mental illnesses more attainable. For more information, go to www.kantorlaw.net.
SOURCE Lisa S. Kantor
Posted in Advocacy/legislation, Eating Disorders, Safety and Prevention, Womens Mental Health |
Tags: anorexia, bulimarexia, bulimia, eating disorder |
No Comments »
How to report suicidal content/threats on Facebook
How to report suicidal content/threats on Facebook
Facebook Help: How do I help someone who has posted suicidal content on the site?
If you have encountered a direct threat of suicide on Facebook, please immediately contact law enforcement.
You can submit reports of suicidal content to Facebook by clicking:
http://www.facebook.com/help/?search=suicidal#!/help/contact.php?show_form=suicidal_content
For reports in the United States, we also recommend that you contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, a 24/7 hotline, at 1.800.273.TALK (8255). If possible, please encourage the user who posted the content to contact the Lifeline as well. You can view a list of suicide prevention hotlines in other countries by visiting http://www.befrienders.org and choosing from the dropdown menu at the top of the page.
We encourage you to learn about how to identify and respond to warning signs of suicidal behavior online at the following address: http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org/GetHelp/WhatifSomeoneIKnowNeedsHelp.aspx
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline:
- Lifeline wants people to report to Facebook first, as Facebook has the ability to provide identifying information and the process is faster if they can report all info to the Lifeline at that time.
- Facebook works with the Lifeline once the content is reported.
- (If it is international, then Facebook works with the appropriate international organization.)
- Facebook receives the notification, then provides the Lifeline with all information about the user. Unfortunately, Lifeline cannot comment on the process from Facebook’s end but believes that given Facebook’s sensitivity to suicide risk and knowing that their safety team works on the weekends, the Lifeline believes that the process is pretty quick and that it is the most efficient and quickest method for a user to receive help.
How to Talk to Your Younger Child About Sex
This article by Laura Scholes, in which she interviews Dr. Jenna, appeared first on http://www.greatschools.org
Just when the tantrums have subsided and you think it’s safe to take your child on an extended shopping trip again, don’t be surprised if you encounter another land mine in the checkout line.
“Mommy, how did the baby get into that lady’s tummy?” your five-year-old asks in a loud voice, pointing at the very pregnant woman in front of you.
As unnerving as such questions often are for parents, they’re completely normal. “In preschool, kids start noticing and asking questions about how mom and dad have different body parts,” says Jenna Saul, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in Auburndale, WI. “Then, by the time they turn five, the curiosity about body parts turns into a preoccupation with where babies come from.”
At my own house, the conversation began even earlier. At two, my daughter spotted a scar on my stomach, and I fumbled my way through a TMI explanation of a C-section: my first sex talk fail.
That first (uncomfortable) sex question
Whether the first sex question happens in private or very much in public, it catches almost every parent off guard.
Katrina Alcorn, an Oakland, CA, blogger, says she never worried about the “sex talk.”
“I didn’t think it would be a big deal,” says Alcorn, who has three children. “I’m progressive. I’m body positive. I’ll make sure my kids know what they need to know.”
Then, in the car one day, Alcorn’s second grade daughter announced that she wanted to marry a girl because she didn’t want to die in childbirth.
“I was just floored,” Alcorn says. “But I tried to gather my thoughts and address her concerns one by one. I said, first of all, it’s really rare that people die in childbirth, and I don’t think that would happen to you. Second of all, it’s fine if you want to marry a girl, and you don’t have to decide now. Finally, you can adopt a baby whether you’re with a boy or a girl.”
Alcorn was proud of herself for dealing with her daughter’s questions with such aplomb — but in the end her child got the last word. “She said, ‘I still want to marry a girl because I think kissing boys is gross and anyway, I don’t want to have sex.’ I couldn’t believe the sex talk snuck up on me without me being prepared for it!”
Why you should talk sooner rather than later
Although teenagers today are waiting longer to have sex, research shows that 13 percent have had sex by age 15, and by their 19th birthday, seven in 10 teens have had intercourse. And because young adults are not marrying until their mid-20s, on average, this means they’re at increased risk for unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.
So even though talking to your young child — preschool to fifth grade — about sex may seem premature, it’s actually the ideal time to do it. As your child enters her tweens and teens and becomes self-conscious about her body and about personal matters in general, it will become increasingly difficult to raise the issue. Take advantage of this window of opportunity to create a foundation of openness and honesty with your child.
“This stuff is very hard and complicated to talk about, but for me it is a health issue,” says Robie H. Harris, a former teacher and now celebrated author of a series of children’s books about sex and the body, including It’s Perfectly Normal, and Who Has What. “I write these books because I feel that this is part of life, and it’s okay to wonder about it. It’s important not just to kids’ physical health, but also to their emotional health.”
Not one talk, but many
Most experts agree that “the talk” really isn’t a talk anymore, but an ongoing conversation, one that starts much earlier than it did even a few decades ago.
“Limiting your child’s education about sex to a single talk produces an atmosphere of shame,” says Wendla A. Schwartz, M.D., a child and adolescent psychiatrist and medical director of Solutions Psychiatric Associates in Los Gatos, CA. “Children will definitely ask, and if a parent has in his mind that a five-year-old isn’t ready for ‘the talk,’ then he gets flustered and says, ‘Go ask your mother,’ and then the mother gets flustered. Kids are great at detecting discomfort, so by the time ‘the talk’ comes around at puberty, they’ve got the idea that sex is shameful and bad, and that’s going to stick with them forever.”
Instead, make it an ongoing, low-key dialogue between you and your child that begins when they are very young and goes on throughout their tween and teenage years.
What to say, how to say it
When it comes to sex, the best strategy is to let your child lead the discussion, rather than giving her a full-blown, lengthy presentation.
“In the very early ages, parents need to focus their efforts on really listening to their children and answering their questions truthfully,” says Saul. “At first, using the child’s own language to describe body parts is a good way to make kids comfortable; then you can teach them the actual names — penis, vagina, womb — as it becomes appropriate.”
Schwartz agrees that parents should let kids take the lead. “The best approach with all kids is to only answer the question they ask,” she says. “One of the really beautiful things about young children is that they’re incredibly inquisitive. They have such a tremendous level of curiosity that you really don’t have to worry that they’re going to forget to ask. As they’re ready for the information, they will probe for it.”
So when the questions start coming, give as brief and as honest an answer as you can and know that when they’ve learned enough, they’ll tune out — and that’s fine. Be prepared by having some age-appropriate books on hand before your child starts asking questions. Robie Harris recommends reading through the books by yourself first, to make sure you agree with the information and the way it’s presented. Books can help neutralize a charged topic; they also give your child the opportunity to do additional research on her own.
Kids are resilient
Don’t worry if you flub the sex conversation the first time — or even the second.
“We all make mistakes,” says Schwartz, who has stumbled on the topic of sex with her own kids. “Don’t freak out if you don’t get things right. Remember: over the years you’ll get plenty of chances to ‘practice’ giving good information. Besides, lucky for us, kids are amazingly resilient.”
To see the article where it originally appeared, go to:
http://www.greatschools.org/parenting/sex-education/5288-how-talk-younger-child-sex.gs?page=all
Posted in Development, Safety and Prevention, School and Education, Sexuality and Gender |
Tags: child development, parenting, sex, sexuality |
No Comments »
Verbal Abuse: How to Be Sure What You Say Doesn’t Hurt Your Child
What you say to your child is important.
Here are some tips to assure that what you say won’t damage your child
Sticks and stones will break my bones,
But names will never hurt me.
Many of us who are now parents understand that this children’s rhyme does not provide true comfort, and that the words of playmates DID hurt us.
Words can hurt children, and the damage inflicted on a child by the thoughtless remarks of a parent or other adult can torment a child–for their lifetime.
In fact, emotional abuse, though it is often ignored, can be far more devastating than the physical abuse that so often captures media headlines.
The emotional abuse of harsh words, spoken thoughtlessly, can lead a child feeling berated, belittled, demoralized. The impact this has on a child’s emotional development is insidious. A child’s spirit can be destroyed, and they may lose any positive sense of self. Emotional abuse destroy’s a child’s ability to feel loveable, to love himself or herself, and has a negative effect on a child’s ability to care for and get along with others. Emotional abuse increases self-destructive and antisocial behavior. Emotional abuse has been linked to eating disorders, promiscuity and suicide.
None of us is perfect, and many of us can recall a time when we’ve lost our self-control, and said something hurtful and demoralizing to our children, over something minor. We might say things like: “You clumsy idiot! You can’t do anything right!”
When words like these are repeated often enough, the child’s sense of self-esteem plummets and he or she begins to agree with his parents’ assessment of him: he or she really is dumb, a jerk, an idiot, a moron. The child begins to learn that love is not without conditions. And since it seems impossible to meet his or her parent’s expectations, the child becomes satisfied with settling for the “loser” role.
In too many homes today, the lights are on but no one is there. People are home but not home. Inattentive and verbally abusive parents are producing children who seem normal but are not what they should be, what they could have been.
There are studies that demonstrate that this abusive, humiliating and demeaning parenting behavior is transmitted from generation to generation, meaning that adults who had abusive parents tend to parent their own children the same way. This pattern will continue until a parent is willing to change their behaviors, change the dynamics, and find a way to interact differently with their own children. They must be willing to see and acknowledge that they are saying and doing to their children.
To change this pattern, treatment often requires treating the parent and the child, helping the parent feel respected and empowered, and allowing them to change the ways they respond to their child.
The problem of verbal abuse is REAL, and COMMON, but difficult to document, and, therefore, difficult to intervene to prevent. Certain stressors can increase the problem of verbal abuse, job loss, marital problems, financial concerns. Often, adults attempt to cope with these stressors using alcohol and other drugs, but this tends to make matters worse. Parents then lose their inhibitions, and may say terrible things to their children that they later regret.
How can you be sure your words build up rather than destroy your children?
† Guard your vocabulary. There are some words that people in a family should never say to each other. Words like stupid, dummy, jerk, idiot, worthless and freak have no place between parents and their children.
† Avoid absolute statements such as “You never . . . ” Or “You always . . . ” Have a sense of good manners with your family. This doesn’t mean that you must avoid all conflict or that you can’t set limits.
† Separate the child’s actions from the child. Instead of responding to a tantrum with a barrage of abusive language, let him know that you love him — but not his actions, which are unacceptable.
† When things happen that can set off an explosion, take time out. Wait. And then wait some more. When you hold your tongue until the heat of the moment has passed, it’s a lot easier to respond with love rather than anger.
† Be available. Be willing to stop and peek in on your child’s world. He or she will feel more valuable because of it. Don’t start interrogating the minute the child walks in the door.
Wait until you’re relaxed and instead of probing about his day, why not share your day? Instead of accusing, compliment. Instead of insisting, be silent.
† Active listening refers to a kind of listening and a response that does not judge, ridicule or order. And the more we listen without judging, the more we help our children to accept their feelings, we improve their problem-solving ability and increase their willingness to listen to us.
† Teach by example. Let your kids hear you acknowledge your mistakes. Risk being humble. Dare to say, “I’m sorry” to your children when appropriate. Apologizing reveals that the truth is larger than your ego and their feelings are more important than your pride.
If you can accept yourself in spite of your limitations, all the while working to be the best you can be, you’ve gone a long way to help your kids value themselves.
Based on the work of Jean Guarino, free-lance writer.
Posted in Development, Family Law, Safety and Prevention, Trauma/Abuse/Violence, juvenile justice |
Tags: Development, domestic violence, Family Law, forensics, parenting, prevention, trauma |
No Comments »
Attorney General: Access to Legal Defense for Juveniles, Indigent Needs Improvement
Attorney General Eric Holder Spoke at the National Association of Counties Legislative Conference in Washington, D.C. ~ Monday, March 7, 2011
He noted that the Association of Counties, and the Department of Justice have common goals, of doing more and more to serve our citizens while resources diminish. He identified two specific priorities for the Justice Department:
“how we can improve the effectiveness of our juvenile justice system, and how we’re going to ensure that every American can access the legal services they need and deserve.”
He noted that “one of the most important lessons I learned as a federal prosecutor, as a judge, as a United States Attorney, as Deputy Attorney General, as Attorney General – and, above all, as a father of three children: that the work of protecting, assisting, and empowering our young people could not be more urgent. “
He noted that:
- The nation’s juvenile justice system is in need of change, that it doesn’t spend resources as wisely as it should, and does not improve as many lives as it could.
- Although African-American youth make up 16 percent of the overall youth population, they make up more than half of the juvenile population arrested for committing a violent crime.
- Abused and neglected children are 11 times more likely than their non-abused and non-neglected peers to be arrested for criminal behavior.
- That so many of those who enter our juvenile justice system either can’t afford – or do not know to ask for – access to legal guidance.
- Some youth even plead guilty to criminal offenses without the advice of a lawyer.
- Even though many of those who are incarcerated enter the juvenile justice system for non-violent offences, they often emerge violent – or, at the very least – traumatized.
- A scientific review of nine “Scared Straight” programs around the country showed that children ordered into these programs are nearly 30 percent more likely to offend than youths who are not.
- In another study, 12 percent of the adjudicated youth in state-operated and large locally or privately operated juvenile facilities reported experiencing at least one incident of sexual victimization while incarcerated.
“A recent Utah Youth Suicide Study reported that young victims of suicide had nearly a seven in ten chance of an association with the juvenile justice system, calling us to question whether the current system is improving lives – or devastating them.”
TRANSITIONING OUT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
- Each year, 100,000 young people exit formal custody. And some of them have nowhere to go. Too many of these young people return to unstable homes – or end up in shelters, on the streets, or in other potentially dangerous, or violent, situations. And many are not welcomed back to their community school and struggle to find educational opportunities.
- Within a year of reentry, one study found that only 30 percent of previously incarcerated youth are involved in either school or work. The unfortunate fact is that many end up in our jails and prisons.
Robert Kennedy believed that the link between justice and children could never be broken without compromising our founding ideals – and our most sacred principles. He was right.
Mr. Holder noted that justice in the juvenile system is a moral issue that makes good fiscal sense:
- “How we treat our children answers the question of who we are as a nation.”
- “Better serving our young people makes good economic sense by keeping them out of over-stressed and under-funded corrections facilities and saving precious law enforcement resources.”
Mr. Holder advised that we
- Broaden our approach to juvenile justice and ensure that sound research and respected analysis are a part of our decision-making process”.
- Transition from a prosecution-and-punishment model to a prevention-and-intervention paradigm. Adopt a comprehensive plan of action that engages law-enforcement partners, medical professionals, social services providers, lawyers, parents, teachers, coaches, mentors, and community leaders.
Mr. Holder talked about the success of the Safe Start Program, and the launch of the Defending Childhood Initiative – the federal government’s most comprehensive effort ever to address and overcome the crisis of childhood exposure to violence, that President Obama pledged $25 million to this initiative in his budget proposal.
Mr. Holder talked about alternatives to juvenile justice involvement for youths involved in minor offenses.
- He mentioned specifically, the Civil Citations program in Miami-Dade County where youth who commit minor misdemeanors are referred to targeted interventions aimed at reducing delinquent behavior and providing positive social outlets instead of arresting them and placing them in the juvenile justice system. This program has reduced recidivism to 3 percent and arrests by 30 percent for youth that participate in the program.
In addition to his emphasis on intervention and prevention over punishment, Mr. Holder also addressed the failure of our justice system to provide juveniles (as well as adults) with access to legal services.
According to The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Survey of Youth in Residential Placement :
- Only one half of young people in detention facilities have a lawyer.
- In many jurisdictions, youth are encouraged – whether explicitly or implicitly – to waive their right to counsel.
- When juveniles assert their right to have a lawyer, court-appointed lawyers often enter the picture too late.
- Across the country, too many public defender officers are underfunded and understaffed
Mr. Holder discussed his Department’s new Access to Justice Initiative:
- An office established in an effort to ensure that quality legal representation is available, affordable, and accessible to all Americans.
- Includes an agenda to help counties face the “impossible choice between funding critical health and human services or upholding core Constitutional rights.”
The Office of Justice Programs is also working to implement solutions for indigent defense and juvenile justice reform by:
- Establishing the Indigent Defense Hiring Project
- Working with the National Juvenile Defender Center to establish a National Fellowship Program for law school graduates to become public defenders for three years.
Zero Tolerance in Schools: Dr. Jenna Saul Speaks on NPR’s Tell Me More
Moms Debate ‘Zero Tolerance’ Rules In High Schools
The recent suicide of a student in suburban Washington, D.C., after being suspended from school has sparked a fierce debate on disciplinary policies.
Angry parents say “zero tolerance” rules are too harsh on kids. And a recent report by a Philadelphia youth advocacy group says “zero tolerance” policies are particularly harmful to minority students.
But administrators and teachers argue that strict rules are necessary to keep students safe.
In Tell Me More’s weekly parenting conversation, host Michel Martin discusses the issue with regular moms contributor Dani Tucker, Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak and Wisconsin child psychiatrist Dr. Jenna Saul.
Posted in Advocacy/legislation, Development, Media in children and adolescents, media reviews, Safety and Prevention, School and Education, juvenile justice |
Tags: adolescent development, advocacy, education, juvenile justice |
Comments Closed
Juvenile Detention: wasteful and ineffective
New York State will spend $170 million this year on 21 juvenile facilities, employing more than 2,000 employees to oversee fewer than 700 children.
The facilities are disastrously mismanaged, and as many as 80 percent of the young men who serve time end up committing more crimes within a few years of their release.
Low-risk youths — those found guilty of crimes like shoplifting, trespassing and petty theft — should be sent to community-based programs that do a much better job of rehabilitation and are only $15, 000 per youth per year, instead of $220,000 per year in the state juvenile facilities. For youth whose families can follow through on recommendations, multisystemic therapy is a less expensive and more efficient intervention. Multisystemic therapy keeps children in their family’s homes, in their communities.
Decades of research show that keeping young offenders locked up far from their families is a sure way of turning them into career criminals. Preliminary data collected by the New York City juvenile justice system suggests that recidivism for children handled through the city’s largest community-based program, Juvenile Justice Initiative, could be lower than 20 percent. This program provides intensive counseling and services to the family, to help parents better manage the child’s behavior.
The Juvenile Justice initiative, and similar nonprofit programs have helped the city cut the number of youths it sends upstate by more than 60 percent since 2002. These programs have reduced the number of children in state facilities from more than 2,300 in 2000 to about 680 today.
Gladys Carrión, the commissioner of the state’s Office of Children and Family Services, has closed several unneeded facilities in the last three years, with a struggle. The politically powerful unions that represent juvenile facility workers are fighting to keep facilities open no matter what the cost to children or the state.
The unions succeeded in passing a law in 2006 that requires the state to give one year’s notice to workers before closing any juvenile facility. In January the state ordered the closure of the Tryon boys’ facility in upstate Fulton County. The facility — which gained national notoriety after a mentally ill 15-year-old boy died there in 2006 — has been empty of children since June. It still has a staff of 80 people working there and will only officially shut down in January 2012.