I'm a licensed psychotherapist (MFT), and I'd like to offer the following to help you parents deal with your children when so much that is scary to them is happening locally and internationally.It is impossible for your children to not notice things like fires burning homes down, or hearing about gang violence, murders of children, store robberies and the like.' It is natural for parents to want to protect their children from ugly realities and have them immersed in their innocence as long as possible; it's just a bad idea not to answer their questions, even when the subject matter brings a sense of horror to your own heart.I've gotten a number of emails inquiring about how to answer questions like: "Why would God let all those homes burn down?" As children develop their notions of the Divine from whatever house of worship you attend, they tend, with their yet immature perspectives, to equate God with one of the characters in a Disney feature film with a magic wand, carpet or genii."Honey, God didn't burn down anybody's home; God created all the wonderful trees and flowers, and left it up to us to keep them trimmed, make our homes as fire-safe as possible, and not be careless with fire...as were those college students at the Tea Garden in California."An answer such as this places responsibilities on humans to take care of all their blessings, lest unfortunate, sad, and desperate things happen. "Dad," your child may have asked after Black Friday, "Why did those people crush the man in Wal-Mart? " "Sweetie," sometimes people get so focused on what they want or what they think they need - you know, they get greedy-that they don't even notice they are hurting other people's feelings or bodies." "Mommy, why are those terrorist people blowing other people up all over the world?" "My love, there are people who wish to believe that they and their way of living and believing about God is the only way.' When people are unable or unwilling to share the world with others' beliefs (as long as those beliefs do no harm to others), this is the sort of ugly thing that they do." "Mom, will they come here to get us too?" "Well, sweetie, it is possible and that is why we have so many police all over the world getting information and doing things to stop them.' Since 9/11, we've been saved by our government staying alert.' And God forbid, should something more happen here, we will have the courage to stand against it.I realize I sound like I'm politicizing some of these issues, and I don't really mean to.' I'm simply pointing out how I believe you, as parents, should handle the questions your children ask.' Don't hide from the questions; don't lie for the sake of a false sense of security.' Children need to know - age appropriately - the realities of life within the context of something they can hold on to to feel safe or at the very least, prepared.Some of the situations you'll have to contend with are far more personal.' For example, "Why is Mom/Dad leaving us?"' "Grandpa died when he was asleep.' Could I die when I go to sleep?"' "Cousin Andrea is having a baby and she's only 15 years old.' Can I have a baby, too?"' "Why did Uncle George kill himself?' What made him so sad?' I get sad too sometimes." In each situation, you must fill the vacuum of the child's lack of understanding with something that makes sense - or they will fill it with ideas that are far more destructive than the truth.' Always be reassuring that they are loved, will be taken care of, and that because something happens to someone they love, it doesn't mean it will happen to them.And always try to leave a moral message.' For instance, "As for Cousin Andrea, don't you think it is better for a baby to have a grown-up, married Mom and Dad like you have?"' This answer takes it from the "romantic" and brings it home. More >>

This letter is from a listener who wishes to remain anonymous: Dr. Laura:I totally agree with you about how bad day care is, and how damaging it is for children.' Recently, I saw a mother who had just picked up her 18-month-old daughter from day care at 6 o'clock!' That's basically what time my kids go to bed!'' The baby was crying, grabbing at the mother's skirt, and refusing to let go.' The mother was getting annoyed, and kept saying, "Why are you acting like this?' What's wrong?" I felt so upset.' What a dumb question!' You neglected your baby for the entire day, she missed you, and is exhausted and stressed, and you're surprised that she's acting that way? I would think that a mother who has her child in day care the entire day would be the one crying and showering love and attention on her baby instead of getting mad at her.' The baby should be mad at the parent, not the other way around. And then, because parents don't see their baby all day, they put them to bed too late, which makes them more stressed and makes it even harder for them to cope with their emotions in day care.' When we, as parents, are tired, it's hard not to be fussy.' Well, imagine what it's like for a baby!' It's MUCH harder for them to handle being tired.' Parents need to do what's best for their children, not what's best for themselves, and if they don't want to, or if they think their children shouldn't stand in the way of their doing what they want, then don't have them! Why bring children into the world to give them to others to raise? Why bring children into the world if you are giving them the message that your job and your life are more important than them?' For those that say "Well, I'm just not the type to be home with my kids," or "I can't handle being with kids," then don't have them! I know of far too many babies that get attached to their nannies, and spend more time with them than with their own parents.' These babies wonder why their "parent" (that is, the nanny) is leaving them for the night.' Not only do they not have their real parents during most of the day, but then they don't have their "nanny parent" either. Sometimes, people say "I want my kids to have the best - the best car, the best house, the best toys."' Believe me, things are not what makes a baby happy.' Love and attention and kindness are what makes them happy. How sad. And then people wonder why children are so troubled, and why they "act out,"and why they would do anything for attention.' If a mother MUST work to feed her family, I understand, but the attitude shouldn't be that day care is the first choice .' The attitude needs to be "how sad that she cannot care for her baby." I think it's nuts that people think it's sad that my baby is home with me.' She is definitely happier than all the crying babies in the playground, but all the working mothers will' never know that their babies are crying, falling, or are just plain exhausted. More >>

If I were any more disgusted with modern parenting my head would explode.' I just about screamed so loudly that they could hear me in Dallas, where the Dallas Morning News published a piece with the headline:' "Social Networking Sites Cater to Moms and Babies."' What?' What?' What?' Internet social networking for babies?' What the heck does that even mean?I'll tell you what it means: it's another self-centered, insensitive, lazy, neglectful way for most mothers to pretend they actually care about their children and are making the sacrifices and efforts to give kids what the kids NEED.Here's a great comment from the article: "The messages, of course, are from parents, usually moms, who say sites such as TotSpot provide them with TIME-SAVING ALTERNATIVES to PLAY DATES and FACE-TO-FACE RELATIONSHIPS..." [Note:' The capitalization is mine].So let me understand this...these so-called mothers spend time on the computer posting pictures and descriptions of their kids to virtual strangers (which we now call virtual "friends") and get texted back with the saying, "You've been tickled," and they assume that this in any way serves any need for any baby or toddler?Other equally ridiculous mothers (and all these women actually gave their real names...is there no shame?) are quoted as saying that they don't have time (what happened to MAKING time) for actual play dates...this way they can connect with moms and kids without leaving the house or the office.Since when were play-dates only about the moms?' I always thought play-dates were about introducing children - FACE TO FACE - to other children, adults, environments, pets, experiences, and so forth.' I didn't realize play-dates were just "jabber jabber" time for busy busy women who seem to wish to live in a virtual world rather than the concrete one their children will have to deal with eventually.' These are probably the kind of women who get crazed when their husbands choose to do the same with naked women on the internet.Aside from the oh so obvious problems with parents putting information about children on the internet (a pedophile's play land), it directs children (from the time they're infants and toddlers) toward a life on the computer instead of in the park, the back yard, the street, a friend's home, etc.Many of the parents spoke about being "proud" of their babies and wanted to show them off and have them - even before they can burp on their own - have their very own social web page.' This is so utterly pathetic.This is all about three things:1. FEELING, versus' BEING connected.2. FAKING being a parent who nurtures, protects, teaches, and loves by a web page''''3. SHOWING off your child and text-gossipingLet me go back to that one most damning statement in the Dallas Morning News piece: "The messages, of course, are from parents, usually moms, who say sites such as TotSpot provide them with time-saving alternatives to play dates and face-to-face relationships, while helping them connect with parents and children in nontraditional ways." We've come a long way, baby...we've become women...mothers...who are too busy to introduce our kids to life.' Great. More >>

"Disney Accused by Catholic Cleric of Corrupting Children's Minds," was headline from The UK Telegraph that obviously caught my eye and curiosity.' I grew up with all the Disney cartoon movies...and save for Snow White shacking up with a lot of dwarfs with funny names - but no funny business - I can't think of anything corrupting about that Disney era.In fact, moral stories were always at the center: good guys and gals were ultimately saved and rewarded; and bad guys got their comeuppance in spades. What possible problem could Christopher Jamison, the Abbot of Worth in West Sussex, England have with Disney?He argues that the Disney Corporation pretends to provide stories with a moral message, but has actually helped to create a more materialistic culture which is in danger of losing its soul because of growing consumerism and the decline of religion.'Whoooo.' He's got something there.' These movies are wolves in grandma's clothing?' They present a dichotomy of good and bad and then market the heck out of it and make oodles of money seducing kids into buying all kinds of junk in the image of the cute - or nasty - images on the screen.Father Jamison targets the behavior of Disney in particular, which he says is "a classic example" of how consumerism is being sold as an alternative to finding happiness in traditional morality.' While he acknowledges that Disney stories carry messages showing good triumphing over evil (i.e., moral battles) he argues that this is part of a ploy to persuade people that they should buy Disney products in order to be a good and happy family and make them greedy for the merchandise that goes with them.While Father Jamison makes an obviously good point...it is a matter of the free market.' I don't begrudge Disney trying to make a buck selling stuffed animals and t-shirts based upon their story characters.' I do begrudge the weakness of parents saying, "Yes, dear," each time their child yells and demands something.' How 'bout instead of giving in so readily, you tell them to save up their money from putting out the trash or collecting leaves so they can buy their heart's desire for "101 Dalmatians" plastic or stuffed dogs?' The children will learn patience, and the art of saving toward a goal - actually gaining pride in earning what they desire.' In fact, after they work that hard and that long, that toy may not look as nearly as interesting a use of their hard-earned change.' This way, your children learn self-discipline, self-control and a real appreciation for the value of "junk," so they can make an informed decision as to how important it really is to them. More >>

I'm just sickened to hear the news that Lori Drew was only convicted on three misdemeanor counts of unauthorized access to computers after she, her then 18 - year-old assistant, and her teen daughter plotted to humiliate a neighbor 13-year-old...who ended up killing herself because of the emotional pain she endured at their fingertips on the computer keys.You've probably heard the story: the young girl committed suicide in October of 2006 after the end of her online relationship with a fictitious 16-year-old-boy created on a fake MySpace account.' According to various news reports, the trio used the account to contact and befriend Megan.' Within a few days, Lori Drew encouraged her daughter and her assistant to on-line flirt with Megan; they planned to lure Megan to a mall to confront her with the hoax and taunt her.As things go and grow, another neighborhood girl got involved in the whole thing and sent Megan a message - as if she were the fictitious boy - that he didn't want to be friends anymore.' Lori Drew's assistant then, according to the District Attorney, wrote, "the world would be a better place without you in it."Twenty minutes later, Megan's mother found her hanging from her belt in her bedroom closet.I'm not a lawyer and I don't really understand all the legal machinations about what criminal behavior this planned cruelty constitutes, but it's clear that there's no real punishment for people who misrepresent themselves on an internet chat site with the INTENT to do emotional harm to a child known to have several psychiatric disorders.' Federal and state laws appear to be mute on this issue, and while companies like MySpace have "Terms Of Agreement" (which is kinda what "caught" Lori Drew, because she didn't abide by those terms), they don't have much in the way of "teeth" - often the most they can do is terminate the service of the offender.Imagine: one mother decided to drive another mother's child to devastating emotional pain as entertainment; she includes her own young teen daughter and a young adult employee....and they all have a great time of it.' No one charged the assistant or the daughter, even though they were all complicit in the intent to do emotional harm.'I hope there is a civil court for something like wrongful death so that these people pay some price for their evil cruelty.Now - add to that the parental responsibility of more supervision of this vulnerable, fragile, emotionally compromised child...her parents had reversed the lock on her bedroom for her "safety," as they were aware that she had problems.' Children without psychiatric issues ought not have unsupervised access to the internet or text messaging or any form of communication without parental oversight.' Children with psychiatric issues are at more risk.'Recently, another teenager, this one 19, overdosed with several medications to kill himself while his computer stayed on so that everyone on the net could watch him die.' There was a huge rageful response to folks waiting 12 hours before reporting this situation to the net site or the police...who came too late.It seems that he'd done this before, so many folks thought he was playing "wolf," others just didn't care, some showed concern, and others just "egged" him on....the same way folks on the ground often "egg on" a person threatening to jump from a tall building.' There are always creeps about.What was curious to me is that the reports of this event include that the boy died in his father's room and on his bed; that he used a combination of prescription and illegal medications.' Again we have a pathetically ill young man without proper supervision by those who could understand and help him.' It sounds like he needed hospitalization.The Internet gives young folks the attention and pseudo-importance they naturally crave.' It is also a conduit for evil...the same way electricity is neutral...unless you try to electrocute somebody with it.Parents have to be less casual about the evil that comes through all these technological marvels of communication. More >>

More >>

A listener labeled his email to me:'"The Newest Movie "Trash" Banned in Utah! Go Utah!" I read recently that some parts of Utah had banned the release of the new film "Zack and Miri Make a Porno". The film is about a guy and girl who have nothing better in their dull lives to do but to produce a pornographic film together just for the fun of it. I, for one, am sick and tired of films that exploit women AND men!!! Whatever happened to going to the cinema and watching a good movie? Thank God that Utah, a state that won't forfeit its values and morals, stands up to films such as these, and won't let them play in theaters there. I am a high school teacher, and believe me, Dr. Laura, our kids are craving to be taught values and morals. They want direction. They need direction. Films like these are teaching them that sex is just something that can be played with. I teach a student who has been sexually abused by his own stepfather, and I'm trying to guide him and show him a bit of comfort that he has never received....It breaks my heart to know what he has suffered, and it also breaks my heart to see students being exposed to trashy sex and stupid behavior on film. This kind of sick mess makes our jobs much more difficult in the teaching arena.... it's time that we did something about this trash that's being shown to our children. " This email coincided with a US News and World Report study that sounds like "yes/no yes/no" silliness. The new research suggests that teens who spend the most time watching sexually charged television shows are twice as likely to become pregnant or impregnate someone else.No kidding.' My generation grew up on The Flying Nun and Leave it to Beaver .' I never knew anyone who knew anyone who got pregnant in high-school.'Here's where the back-and-forth nonsense begins.' First, the report says that these findings don't prove that sexy programming causes pregnancy - well, of course it doesn't " cause " pregnancy.' But it is clear that a permissive media has a huge influence on impressionable teens, opening them up to behaviors which are not in their best interests, emotionally or medically.'Interestingly, the researchers refused to "name names" with respect to which television shows they considered "sexually charged."' I guess they don't want to be open to lawsuits for suggesting that there are specific programs on the air that hurt children by opening them up to behaviors which could lead to unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, or the psychological trauma of sexual abuse.Dr. Dimitri A. Christakis, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington who studies kids and television says that these findings "add to the growing body of evidence that what children see on screen affects their behavior in real life." I've always gotten a laugh from much of what psychological research - a soft science at best - finds.' They state the obvious like it was a revelation and they get grant money to do it.'Let's see, if we didn't think that media impacted how people behave in real life, how long would the advertising business last?' Oh please, they pay millions for product placement movies...to influence you,'' They pay millions for seconds of promotion on SuperBowl Sunday...to influence you.' It must work.' So to be "surprised" at the impact of images and behavior the media immerses our children in has got to be some kind of joke.Back to the beginning... hooray for Utah.' Parents who want to expose their children to "trash" can always buy it on the Internet. More >>

The great state of Nebraska was the last state of the union to sign what became the most comprehensive child safe haven law in America.' In most states, the law specifies that an infant can be left at a "safe-haven" - usually meaning a hospital or a fire department...somewhere the child will get immediate attention - without the parent having to suffer any legal ramifications.' Since the law took effect in July, some twenty-three children have been brought to safe-havens...some across state lines.Obviously, this idea came about as a means of saving lives.' The thought was that now people who might toss their babies into dumpsters or abuse them would have the opportunity to save their lives by putting them in the care of responsible people.' From here, appropriate child care would be found through adoptions or the care of appropriate and willing relatives.' I always thought this was a great idea.I had fits hearing criticism that this is abandonment or passing on responsibility.' Children in the hands of parents addicted to drugs or alcohol, suffering from various mental illnesses and overwhelmed, barely functional and generally desperate, or simply unwilling are at great risk - and if even one of them has the compassion and good sense to make use of a safe-haven...then we have saved a life...not only from death...but from abuse and a childhood leading only to troubles and problems.Society is always better off when unwanted children have opportunities with adoptive families, quality foster-families, or placement with relatives who might not even have known there was a problem.' These children will have a better chance to grow up more adjusted, and that will obviously minimize bad "acting out" (sexual or criminal variety)' or substance abuse to quell emotional pain.Unfortunately, because of criticism aimed at parents who take advantage of protecting their children rather than harming them, the Governor of Nebraska, Dave Heinemen, is calling a special session of the legislature to change the state's unique safe-haven law - amending it so that it applies only to infants up to 3 days old.' I believe this is a HUGE mistake.The communications office of the Governor prepared a statement for all Nebraskans explaining his point of view. "Children from eight families have been left at hospitals under the safe haven law.' None of the children involved were infants and one was in immediate danger.' Courts are likely to require parents and guardians to participate in parenting classes, family therapy, conflict resolution or other services in an effort to reunite youth with their families." I'm delighted that the Governor points out that there are services that MIGHT...only might...eliminate the necessity for the safe-haven - but very often, parental termination might be in the best interest of children of any age.The Governor points out that safe haven laws were not designed to allow families having difficulty with older youth and teenagers to "abandon their children or responsibilities as parents." Well, some parents just can't or won't be responsible...and abandonment would be to throw them out of the house...not deliver them to people who can help.The Governor further suggests that parents considering safe-haven might turn to local health and human services offices...well, sometimes those are not as available or supportive or empowered to remedy a desperately difficult situation.While I support his concern about protecting infants in danger...they are not the only children who need such protection.I hope Nebraska keeps its child safe haven law and doesn't dilute it down to 3-day newborns. More >>

Jeremy, one of my listeners, wrote an impassioned email, shocked that a child psychologist is looking for someone to take care of her not yet born baby due in January. "I found it stunning that someone has already given up the chance to take care of their baby before it's even born.' You would think a child psychologist would know better, but even they want to put career before kid.' I wonder how important the kid would feel if he read his mother's ad 10 years from now - seeing his 'mother' in a hurry to find someone to take care of him as soon as he/she was born?" Well, that got my attention, and I clicked onto the job posting site, and leaving out the name and city of the woman in question, here's what she posted: "I am a child psychologist looking for a nanny for my baby who will be born in January. I am looking for a very special person who has experience with childcare- including caring for newborns. This person should have education in a field related to childcare/ psychology etc. and have had CPR training (or will get it). This person should be at least 25 years of age and responsible. This person should be exceptionally loving, patient, and sensitive... someone who I can trust with my new baby. I would like for this person to begin in February, providing approx 15 hours per week and then starting in April, approx 35 hours per week (7 hours per day, M-F). I am willing to pay the right person $11 per hour. If you think you are this person, please send resume to _________' and include your contact info. Thanks!" I don't even know where to start.' She wants someone with her education, CPR training, at least 25 years old, responsible, patient, loving and sensitive - someone who can be trusted with her newborn....ahh....isn't that the description of a mommy and not a nanny?''''You should also know that this therapist lives and works in a wealthy community.''''I couldn't resist...so, I answered the ad...kind of: "Dear 'Child Psychologist' Parent-to-be: Your posting asking for childcare for a yet to be born child has stirred up quite a bit of negative commentary...especially since you are someone trained in the emotional and psychological needs of children.' Would you be willing to offer a statement of explanation as to how your training led you to the conclusion that your hands- and heart-on parenting was not necessary for your child's healthy and happy development?" Sincerely, Dr. Laura Schlessinger''''The answer...well, an answer...came rather quickly: "I am shocked by this insensitive and judgmental email from you.' I wish I could stay home with my baby but I cannot afford to do this.' But this is none of your business.' You don't know me or anything about my life.' You are not a doctor of psychology.' You should keep your unsolicited opinions to yourself." I responded: "I am a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist.' I merely gave you the information that has come to me and gave you the opportunity to explain your position in response to the emails I received.' There is nothing insensitive about concern for the well-being of a child and respect for the mother-child bond." Now - sidebar - as far as "not affording" to take care of her own baby, she was prepared to pay $1500/month and she lives in an extraordinarily wealthy part of the United States, and with a psychology license, she can always work evenings.'''''She responded: "You are very off base, insensitive, and downright incorrect to think or say that there should be any concern for the well-being of a child or a mother-child bond just because the mother must work.' Research shows (here it comes!) that it is the quality of the mother-child relationship that defines secure attachment, not whether the mother works.' I believe it is optimal for moms to stay with their babies as much as possible, but unfortunately, not everyone can afford to stay home everyday with their baby.' I hope that you show more sensitivity in the future." I'm confused...if she believes it is optimal for moms to stay with their babies, why does she cite research that says the opposite?' Also, why is a traditional viewpoint insensitive and judgmental while an "alternative" viewpoint is simply fact?''''My final communication ended with, "Frankly, I am concerned that you're not going to be there for your new infant.' You could always work at night after your baby starts sleeping through the night.' Until then, you could do what I assume you had in mind when you determined to be pregnant: be a mommy, your baby needs that from you and you will be wonderfully transformed by the experience.''''"Don't you understand why I am writing you?' I am trying to give you back the gift you're giving someone else for $11/hour.' Surely your studies have shown you how important the first three years of bonding to mother are?' It seems you've only taken in the feminista nonsense that mothering is all about the mother.''''"You see me as judgmental (there is a right and wrong) and insensitive - no way, I am trying to be sensitive to what you are giving up and what the child will miss in you." Warmly, drl More >>

Everybody wants to know what I think about Madonna's public comments during her' very public and rancorous divorce.' I think they pretty much match her general public image, demeanor, and behavior.' I have always found her incredibly objectionable, offensive and intentionally vulgar - all under the rubric of free-speech and free-spirit.To start, I'm not convinced that most current celebrity marriages are indeed commitments of mind, body, and soul as they are intended to be (think Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward).' For the most part, very 'out there' performers are exceedingly centered on themselves and want someone to adore them, serve them, be a reflection of their perceived wonderfulness or importance, fulfill a fantasy or simply put...the sex was great and the public relations aspect boosts their visibility.When the so-called object of their affections becomes tiresome, more or less important or successful, demanding, and no longer reflects a narcissistic boost...they are dispensed with.When a divorcing spouse makes public vulgar, insulting, and humiliating comments about the other spouse, children are devastated and tend to either compulsively go towards the attacked party to protect and defend them, or compulsively go towards the attacking parent so they won't also be victimized by that parent.' Either way, children become emotionally fragmented, confused, and distrustful - and that will likely be an issue for their whole lives, especially when they are ready to establish relationships.Celebrities with the usual chaos in their personal lives are the fodder of media sales and ratings.' Celebrities with quality relationships are ignored (Tom Selleck, for example).These celebrity musical chair relationships are obviously not a great image for our impressionable youth.' Quite frankly, most divorces don't need to happen at all.' Weathering lousy times is a sign of character and commitment.' Most of the time when folks call me all angry and convinced they need to divorce, they are simplifying the situation because they haven't taken the responsibility needed to help maintain a quality comradeship.' I tell them short of abuse, addictions, and repetitive affairs, they should treat the one they want so much to leave as though they loved them with their last breath - for a month - and then watch and feel what happens.If one parent decides to leave for selfish or foolish reasons, the truth of the situation can be spoken to the children without the nasty parts.' For example, "Your mother, sadly, has decided to leave to be with a man she met on the internet.' I'm hoping that she will find that she misses us all so much that she wants her life with us back.' Until then, let's pray and stay as positive as possible."This approach states the truth, which I believe children in this situation need, but opens the possibility for hope.' Children will over time form their own conclusions when mama never calls, visits, or comes home.' That parent will have destroyed the relationship with their children all by themselves.I try to remind folks considering leaving for less than important reasons to stick around and create the kind of homelife that will best send their children into their adulthood with optimism and an open heart.' I tell them that this is their moral obligation...to put themselves second. More >>