Crying at a daycare

On Sat, 20 May 2006 13:41:00 +1000, Chookie wrote:

In article . com,
"New Mommy" wrote:

Our 15 month kid just started at daycare. She is screaming when we
leave her and also off and on during the few hours she stays(we haves
tarted with few hours a day). We hear that this is the way(crying)
toddlers adjust to a new environment because of separation anxiety but
this is very difficult to see our kid crying. Is it ok for her to go
through this? Will it have any bad effect because of the crying?
How do we help her adjust at the daycare better?

Say goodbye in the same way every time: eg settle her into an actiity, or
hand her to a carer, give a hug and kiss, say, "Have a good day! I will be
picking you up after lunch", and walk out with a smile. NEVER sneak out.
It's deceitful, and frightening for the child, who doesn't know when you'll
next just disappear.

If the staff haven't told you this, and if they don't appear to be coping with
a child's perfectly normal reaction to being left with relative strangers, you
might want to change centres. There should be a carer welcoming her with a
smile and inviting her to join in an activity.

This is exactly what happens at ds's nursery. Most days he has been fine,
but one morning he had a little wibble. I gave him an extra kiss and a
head stoke, waved goodbye and 2 seconds later he was playing happily with
a toy on the knee of a member of staff. We always have a kiss and say
goodbye and see you later. All the staff say hello to him and goodbye. He
is always happy to see us on return but isn't desperate to leave either.
He always has a big smile for his key worker, but is happy to be with all
the staff. On the one occasion he has started to cry when we come back he
stoped as soon as he was in my arms and was immediatley looking back at
the other kids to see what he is missing. In contrast to recent articles I
have read on nurseries, William is having a great time. He is eating much
better as he sits with all the other babies and is interested in what they
are having. He loves the attention from the staff, but is also doing very
with independent time too. We reconnect at the end of the day with a
comfort nurse at home, which is nice for both of us. The nursery follow
his own routine, there is no queue for feeding and changing, each baby is
attended to according to it's need. He is starting to move into their
routine for feeding, but that is because he sees some of the older
ones eating and wants to as well. It was his initiave, not theirs. He gets
put to sleep when he needs to sleep and mostly gets as much as he needs. I
do miss him terribly but we are totally happy with our decision and have
confidence in his carers.

Jeni

Frequently, it's a choice between a
residence in a neighborhood without driveby shootings and drugs on the
corner vs. mom staying home.

Do you USers have a serious problem with police corruption? We just don't
have that sort of neighbourhood *anywhere*. That's not to say we have no
social problems, but we don't have it so much in public as you people seem
to.

It also screams snobbery, by saying that you are somehow saying you a better
than the people who do live in those areas, whether by choice or necessity,
however they choose to parent their children.

UK people will have heard of a government scheme called "Sure Start", it's a
scheme focussing on families with children under 5 and giving them a good
start in life. It only exists in the most deprived areas, the areas the OP
seems to be saying you should have 2 parents working than live in.

Well, I live in such an area, it's not the worst, by far, but I could
tolerate living in a worse area. The residents of my street are a mix of
council tenants, private tenants and home owners (originally bought through
the right to buy scheme though some have now changed hands many times).
Should I be working, so that we don't have to live in the area? Let's work
this out, if I worked, where would my money go, hmm, paying for childcare,
we'd probably have a little more residual income, but a fraction, certainly
not enough to move us out of the area. So then, should I not have had
children? Sounds like some people would think so.

Anne

Anne Rogers wrote:
Frequently, it's a choice between a
residence in a neighborhood without driveby shootings and drugs on the
corner vs. mom staying home.

Do you USers have a serious problem with police corruption? We just don't
have that sort of neighbourhood *anywhere*. That's not to say we have no
social problems, but we don't have it so much in public as you people seem
to.

It also screams snobbery, by saying that you are somehow saying you a better
than the people who do live in those areas, whether by choice or necessity,
however they choose to parent their children.

I'm not clear on why this is snobbery. It sounds to me like TFlynn
would make different choices than some people. So?

UK people will have heard of a government scheme called "Sure Start", it's a
scheme focussing on families with children under 5 and giving them a good
start in life. It only exists in the most deprived areas, the areas the OP
seems to be saying you should have 2 parents working than live in.

It's also true that some people -- whether by choice or by necessity --
have foregone health insurance for their kids and themselves in order
to stay home. Doesn't make them bad people --- their trade-off is that
they'd take staying home over insurance. I know some people (like, HMO
admins) who view this as a very risky bargain, and other people who
view this as a rational choice.

Well, I live in such an area, it's not the worst, by far, but I could
tolerate living in a worse area. The residents of my street are a mix of
council tenants, private tenants and home owners (originally bought through
the right to buy scheme though some have now changed hands many times).
Should I be working, so that we don't have to live in the area? Let's work
this out, if I worked, where would my money go, hmm, paying for childcare,
we'd probably have a little more residual income, but a fraction, certainly
not enough to move us out of the area. So then, should I not have had
children? Sounds like some people would think so.

I think you're taking this to a highly personalized extreme. I grew up
in a poor area, both of my parents worked, and, um, I'm not sure what
the point is. Was TFlynn saying that I shouldn't have been born? I
*really* don't read it as such. Some people are shocked that I kept our
house at a comfy 59 this winter (with a low of 55 at night) -- they'd
make different trade-offs than I would. Is TFlynn saying that I
shouldn't have had children? Again, I'm not quite seeing the leap here
--

Caledonia

In article .com,
"Caledonia" wrote:

I'm not sure how police corruption ties into drive-by
shootings...without knowing (much), I'd say that police corruption is
no more or less present here than in other countries.

Er, open selling of drugs, and firefights in broad daylight as mentioned in
Donna's post.

I think -- again,
with little background -- that the US's gun control is less stringent
(and in many cases, I applaud this, esp. w/r/t warrantless searches)
than in Australia. Dunno.

AFAIK we can't be searched without a warrant either; is that what you mean?
The restrictions here are on the *types* of guns that can be owned. Handguns
have always been very strictly regulated (for historical reasons stemming from
penal colony days) and most other weapons are now restricted. I think
semiautomatic guns are now limited to professional pig shooters (feral pigs
are very nasty) and police.

I also know that there are neighborhoods
where there's a lack of police presence (and a lack of jobs, and
younameit, coupled with more violence) -- but aren't there camps in
Australia with the same issues?

Yes, but these are not places you end up in simply by not having two incomes.
Those Aboriginal camps are remote, riddled with alcoholism and
petrol-sniffing, and the violence is very personal and endemic -- it's rape,
sexual assault of children, even infants, assault of wives, and
stabbings/bashings when the men get into fights. Part of it does seem to be
an absence of police, but then there's an absence of most services in those
areas.

Whereas if I am to take the earlier post seriously, *you* can end up amid open
warfare and blatant drug-selling simply by moving to a poorer part of town.
We just don't have that. Our drug lords tend to shoot each other, not
passers-by. We have had a spate of underworld killings in Melbourne -- 28
murders in seven years, in a city of 3.6 million. That's what we'd call
rampant gangland violence. And while our drug problem is sizeable, you won't
see deals going on in the street in daylight.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

"Chookie" wrote and I snipped:

I'm not sure how police corruption ties into drive-by
shootings...without knowing (much), I'd say that police corruption is
no more or less present here than in other countries.

Er, open selling of drugs, and firefights in broad daylight as mentioned
in
Donna's post.

Lawlessness does not go hand-in-hand with police corruption. Is that the
only situation in which you can imagine criminals activity? In the case of
police corruption? Like they're taking bribes from criminals?

Here, there are indeed areas where drug deals go on in the daylight and
innocent people, including children, are caught in the crossfire of drive-by
shootings and the like. I suspect the local police force is underfunded and
stretched thin. They also may not get community help, such as in witnesses
not coming forth for fear of retaliation. I don't assume the police are
corrupt.

Way OT, I know.

-Patty, mom of 1+2

On Sun, 21 May 2006, Anne Rogers wrote:

Frequently, it's a choice between a
residence in a neighborhood without driveby shootings and drugs on the
corner vs. mom staying home.

It also screams snobbery, by saying that you are somehow saying you a better
than the people who do live in those areas, whether by choice or necessity,
however they choose to parent their children.

UK people will have heard of a government scheme called "Sure Start", it's a
scheme focussing on families with children under 5 and giving them a good
start in life. It only exists in the most deprived areas, the areas the OP
seems to be saying you should have 2 parents working than live in.

Well, I live in such an area, it's not the worst, by far, but I could
tolerate living in a worse area. The residents of my street are a mix of
council tenants, private tenants and home owners (originally bought through
the right to buy scheme though some have now changed hands many times).
Should I be working, so that we don't have to live in the area? Let's work
this out, if I worked, where would my money go, hmm, paying for childcare,
we'd probably have a little more residual income, but a fraction, certainly
not enough to move us out of the area. So then, should I not have had
children? Sounds like some people would think so.


Okay, I can't pretend to know exactly what happens in other countries, but
I do know here in the US that there is a strong correlation between lots
of crime and violence and very low income tenancies. In fact, about 10-15
years ago, our Federal housing projects were reorganized and many were
torn down because segregating large concentrations of people who either
have been exposed to this violence and/or who are low income and may
choose crime for whatever reason and/or unfortunately the less-patrolled
low-income neighborhoods can cause a huge chance of lawlessness. Check
out Cabrini Green, swaths of St. Louis, Milwaukee, the Bronx, etc. Drive
by shootings refer to gange/drug affiliated youths shooting each other.
Every year my city has a number of innocent bystanders killed and maimed
because of wayward bullets. Throughout our history, low income districts
appear to have been more violent.

We made a choice to pay enough toward our mortgage/rent to keep us out of
those neighborhoods. My mother didn't have the choice, and I don't want
my daughter to have that experience. I want to emphasize that this is not
a reflection on racially mixed neighborhoods -- because at least in my
town I know there are a few exciting, stimulating neighborhoods where
people of diverse backgrounds work together to keep their neighborhood
safe -- and it's also not a judgement against any and all poor people
everywhere because I *know* the majority of low-income people are
law-abiding and wonderful. Unfortunately, if you do a tract-by-tract
comparison of income levels compared to shootings, or muggings, or rapes,
or whatever, you will see an obvious correlation in many areas.

This isn't to justify mcmansions or being just consumerist in housing,
this is simple safety.

I acknowledge that we as a community must work to make all areas safer,
but until some huge strides are made in that respect, I don't think living
in a non-high-crime neighborhood is a frivolous reason for both parents to
work out of the house.

On 20 May 2006, Caledonia wrote:
I think you're taking this to a highly personalized extreme. I grew up
in a poor area, both of my parents worked, and, um, I'm not sure what
the point is. Was TFlynn saying that I shouldn't have been born? I
*really* don't read it as such. Some people are shocked that I kept our
house at a comfy 59 this winter (with a low of 55 at night) -- they'd
make different trade-offs than I would. Is TFlynn saying that I
shouldn't have had children? Again, I'm not quite seeing the leap here

I want to reiterate that I'm not coming out against low income people, and
I'm not even hinting that people should have X in savings etc to have
kids. Thats absurd and classist. I am wishing and hoping and praying that
all kids have a safe home and neighborhood. That's it. Childhood is
stressful enough without worrying about muggings on the way to school or
bullets through walls, and unfortunately, that's what happens in many of
the low-rent areas in many cities.

(Yeah, I think we were at 55 most of the time this winter too. Snuggly
blankeys RULE.)

On Mon, 22 May 2006, Chookie wrote:

Whereas if I am to take the earlier post seriously, *you* can end up amid open
warfare and blatant drug-selling simply by moving to a poorer part of town.
We just don't have that. Our drug lords tend to shoot each other, not
passers-by. We have had a spate of underworld killings in Melbourne -- 28
murders in seven years, in a city of 3.6 million. That's what we'd call
rampant gangland violence. And while our drug problem is sizeable, you won't
see deals going on in the street in daylight.

Yeah, here in the US, in my city, we usually have about 100-150 murders
per year with most of them probably by gun violence. I'm sure much of
that is gang-on-gang or directly drug related, but some of it is
relatiation or collateral -- a month ago someone arsoned a house after
killing a woman and she TRAPPED HER SONS IN A BEDROOM TO DIE. We
frequently have at least, I'd say, five deaths per year with totally
innocent bystanders getting shot, either on their porch or even in their
house, through walls. And my whole metro area might be 1 million. Within
the city limits it might be around 500,000.

On Mon, 22 May 2006, T Flynn wrote:

I acknowledge that we as a community must work to make all areas safer,
but until some huge strides are made in that respect, I don't think living
in a non-high-crime neighborhood is a frivolous reason for both parents to
work out of the house.

One other consideration: Housing costs as a percent of income has risen
dramatically in the past decade or so. The traditional ratio was 25% of
income to housing, but people now regularly spend over 50% in some areas,
due to the combination of increasing rents (due to higher property taxes
and landlord gouging) and a stagnant income level.

Again, I'm not quite seeing the leap here

that's because it was a leap, but then so was the statement that having 2
parents working could be the difference between living in an undesirable
area or a desirable one

Anne