Recently in parenting Category

We consider dogs man's best friends--and kids love those furry creatures, too. But sometimes, the feeling is just not mutual. According to the Center for Disease Control, 800,000 Americans seek medical attention for dog bites each year, and the rate of dog bite-related injuries is highest for children. So it's not surprising that iVillager shesgonecountry1952 sounded worried when she asked the Hot Debates board: "Would you be concerned if your son and daughter-in-law plan to keep a Pit Bull after finding out they are expecting twins?"

Some iVillagers, such as tlflag1620, feel that dogs--specifically, Pit Bulls--get a bad rap because of scary news headlines. "[I would not be concerned] if the dog was well-trained, properly socialized, and had no history of aggressive behavior. My concerns would be the same regardless of breed. I think it is a horrible shame that Pit Bulls are given such a bad rap.... all because some nasty humans train them improperly/abuse them."

But others, such as member iluvzander, feel they would be "worried about any animal large enough to inflict serious harm on a baby." She adds: "Dogs are not to be trusted. That is a statement from my dogs' trainer ... Personally, I would not have the dog and baby at the same time." Member the_big_c think having a Pit Bull around a baby is, simply put, "a bad idea."

Member jezibelle, a registered veterinary nurse, also have mixed feelings about keeping a dog in a home with a baby: "Any dog can be dangerous around children, regardless of breed. Children have been known to have been killed by the family Pomeranian. Cocker Spaniels are notorious for biting kids."

A member of the May 2007 Playgroup, lyndseyandkevin, recently discovered how a beloved family dog can unexpectedly inflict harm when her Goldendoodle (a golden retriever-poodle mix) bit her baby: "I am so sad. This dog was my baby and has never shown any signs of aggression. I just don't know what to do at this point. Try to keep them apart or try to find [the dog] a new home?" She asked fellow iVillagers: "What would you do?"

Member toiny offers a piece of advice: "I would definitely look for a home for the dog. It's just not worth the risk of it happening again and those things can happen in the blink of an eye." Member charrah agrees: "I understand how people feel like their dogs are part of their family, but there is no pet that will ever be as important to me as my chldren. If I saw any bit of aggression, the animal would be gone immediately. Unfortunately, animals are just that, animals, and they can act out at any moment, for no reason and with no warning."

Share your thoughts and leave your comments here. If you have young children, do you keep a family dog? What precautions do you take to make sure your child is out of harm's way?

Over the last few weeks the iVillage community has been buzzing quite a bit about teen pregnancy and it's not too surprising that this topic is on the minds of iVillagers, as teen pregnancy rates are on the rise. News of teen star Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy is also sparking fears that there will only be more teens following in her footsteps, as is the film Juno, which some fear portrays the idea of a pregnant teen as cool.

In several of our message board communities moms are talking about a recent move in Denver high schools that would allow up to four weeks of maternity leave for new teen moms. This coming after many teen mothers were forced to return to school immediately after being discharged from the hospital or face truancy violations. Moms and medical professionals alike agree that new mom aftercare is critical to not only the health of the mother and child, but key in forming the relationship of the new family -- in whatever form that emerges. Shouldn't we give the same consideration to teen moms or is this only condoning teen pregnancy altogether?

On the Feminism Today board, deutche_mama recently posted "I can't see anything negative with schools helping out young mothers.  By securing their education these girls are making huge advances for their future.  How can that be bad???

By allowing these girls time off to heal, mentally and physically from birth, is a step in the right direction.  They can then return to school and truly concentrate on their studies." 

However, ginnyinnc countered with her opinion: "The fact is teenage mothers consciously make the decision to become parents. I believe we need to show them that it's not the BEST idea for them or for the child. We should not encourage it or pat them on the head when it happens. It's a bad idea that will forever alter their lives."

In a discussion on the Parents of Ten- to Fourteen-Year Olds message board janetis40 isn't on board with this plan just yet, either: "The cold hard facts are ... schools are not put into place to work around teenage Mothers ... they are there to educate children." There does seem to be some fear that giving teen moms more opportunity to settle in to their new roles may make teen pregnancy less off-putting. Others would argue that not helping these young moms adjust only increases their likelihood of dropping out of school. 

Member bradleyteach offers her thoughts: "I believe that these young women should be able to have a doctors note excusing them for an appropriate period of time postpartum.  Or, they can be excused from school the rest of the school year and re=enroll for the next school year but treating them as truancy cases is inappropriate.  They've got enough going against them to be a teenager and have a baby, but to make it so that they must choose between abandoning their baby to the care of someone else before their milk even comes in and then come home to HS level homework - it is the baby who will suffer - and dropping out so that their chances of making a decent living for themselves and their babies is just not in anyone's best interest."

tamtamm agrees, saying, "Childbirth is a major medical event. I can't imagine anyone going back to work/school 2 days after giving birth. I agree that a doctor's note should be sufficient in excusing the child from school for a period of time."

A school's involvement in what happens well before teens give birth is also stirring up controversy. A Howard County Maryland school board has approved a written policy that requires staff to inform parents of their pregnant daughter's status. This news has fueled a discussion over privacy, parental rights and more.  thefeministbreeder says, "I don't think a teenager has any right to privacy in this way.  I'm glad they make cell phones with GPS in them now so when my kids are teenagers, I'll be able to track their every movement.  Kids have poor judgment, and do stupid things.  Even kids raised in the best environments."

iblondie2004 doesn't see this as a completely black and white topic: "I'm torn on this issue. The right thing to do wars with my personal beliefs. Unfortunately, I just don't think its practical to require that parents will be notified. It will deter teenagers from receiving the services they so desperately need. Although I do have a HUGE problem with minors receiving medical services of any kind without parents approval and knowledge."

While everyone seems to feel it would be best if more parents had better relationships with their teens that would result in them coming forward on their own or help to avoid the situation altogether, many fear that this policy will only result in more teens in trouble not getting any help or support at all. Looking at this debate from the perspective of a mom, you can't help but feel anything that would connect the parent to what is really happening would only help, but as acacia_verain points out, no matter how difficult it might be, we have to also look at this from the view of the teen: "I think there are many instances where it is better for the parent not to know.  If I had become pregnant when I was a minor, I would have done anything to keep that from my parents to the point of risking or sacrificing my own life.  Teenagers filled with desperation and recklessness are capable of many terrible things.  I remember what that felt like....having no freedom....that feelings of helplessness. You couldn't pay me to go through that again.  This is part of the reason I feel it is vitally important for a teenager to have access the confidential medical treatment."

What do you think about these issues? Should teens have access to a school-approved maternity leave? Are schools obligated to notify a parent about a teen's pregnancy? Share your thoughts on these stories and let us know how you feel. 

Kids grow so fast, and for parents of two or more children, hand-me-down clothes are great time- and money-savers. But is it a good idea for parents to let their younger kids use their siblings' outgrown underwear? This question recently sparked animated discussions on the iVillage message boards, and one buzz-worthy debate.

Some iVillagers were quick to describe hand-me-down underwear as “eww, a thousand times eww”, “nasty” and just plain “gross.” They, like member crunchy_ananas, think parents shouldn’t have to scrimp when it comes to personal necessities such as underpants: "Underwear is cheap, seriously. There's no reason to hand them down." Member tsarina_andais agrees: “I am an only child with only one son but I think hand-me-down underwear is gross. Underwear is seriously not that expensive. I think I would have issues if I couldn't even have new underwear. I asked my mom about it, who is the youngest of six, and she was horrified. She says all she wore were hand-me-downs, but she always had new underwear and socks. [Hand-me-down underwear] gets a definite ‘No’ vote from this camp.”

iVillagers also pointed out the “ick factor” associated with hand-me-down underwear. Member ashmama says: "Microbiologists in studies have found fecal matter on clean underwear, so I wouldn't do it … I don't think everything has to be perfectly sterile--a certain amount of germs can be good for your immune system--but there is something a little bit nasty about wearing undies with other people's poo on them, know what I mean?”

But some members, such as lois15354, point out that siblings already share germs anyway, so hand-me-down underwear is completely harmless: “ We hand down underwear. I can't see any reason why not… My husband and I are not exactly living in penury, but there are days when one of the kids will holler out that he's out of underpants, and I tell him to go get a pair out of his brother's drawer. Heck, they share a toilet, which I am dead sure is not exactly super hygienic all of the time … They pull toilet paper off the same roll. I'm quite clear on the fact that they are exposed to each other's fecal germs on a semi-regular basis.”

Are the grossed-out parents being too squeamish, too fearful of germs? Member anotherheater thinks so: “ If you sit on the same toilet seat as other people (even your own family members) then you are in contact with lots of germs right there on your hiney. Do you have a separate toilet seat for every member of your family? A separate washing machine? A separate hermetically-sealed spot for toothbruses? Are we truly so germaphobic that we can't be reasonable?”

Some iVillagers also point out one advantage of hand-me-down underwear: it’s good for the environment. Says member jennagreen: “I don't see anything wrong with [hand-me-down undies] as long as they are washed in hot water, bleached, and unstained. Hand-me-downs save money and are better for the environment. We are such a throwaway society!”

Parents, have your say. Do you let your younger kids use their siblings’ outgrown underwear? Do you think hand-me-down undies are a great way to re-use and recycle, or are they just plain unsanitary? Share your thoughts below.

It's the big question parents face at some point of every child’s life. And it’s at the core of the Great Santa Debate that has the iVillage boards buzzing. Should parents encourage children to believe in Santa? How do you know when it's time to let your children in on the big secret, and how should you do it?

Member twinjunebugs2000 recently shared her dilemma on the Ten-to-Fourteen-Year-Olds board: "[My son had not once] mentioned Santa this year. This has had me very curious about what is going on in his head, so I asked. He's having trouble believing that there really is a Santa. He says he's trying to keep that thought but he's having trouble grasping it (his exact words). I want to tell him so bad. Would I burst his bubble if I told him?"

Other members were also having the same "to tell or not to tell?" and "Santa or no Santa?" dilemmas, and the message boards show passionate and mixed views on the topic. Some members say perpetuating the Santa myth is dishonest, while others believe Santa is a big part of the magic of Christmas.

iVillage member woodbabe decided to tell his son the truth after he started questioning the existence of Santa: “I took him for a walk in the neighborhood so we wouldn't be overheard and I explained how [Santa] used to be a real man who left fruit and nuts in poor children's shoes. I explained how it was such a wonderful concept that others adopted it as a tradition … I then explained to him that now that he's old enough to know the truth, then he's old enough to be trusted to help keep the magic alive for the younger kids!”

Other members, such as mom_jen2003 from the April 2007 Playgroup, also believe in keeping the magic alive: “I see no harm in believing [in Santa]. Childhood is when magic is real. What a marvelous world this would be if we could all just believe in some magic. I just really hate spoilsports … I wasn't hurt by the realization that Santa’s gifts were from my parents. My dad explained that we all can be Santa--by leaving gifts for the toy drive, the nursing home, or homeless shelter, without asking for anything in exchange."

Many pro-Santa iVillagers point out, however, that it's important to let kids know that the jolly guy from the North Pole is not just what Christmas is about. Says member rathgr1th from the July 2008 Expecting Club: “I want my children to believe in magic and wonder for as long as they possibly can …[but] I don't want Santa to be the main focus of Christmas for my kids. I believe in the deeper story of Christmas. I don't plan on spoiling them with a heap of presents--trust me, the grandparents will see to that--but we set out cookies and milk for Santa, and maybe he'll bring them one present each, or fill their stockings--something small and fun."

But instead of downplaying Santa, is it better to just tell the children the truth from the beginning? Member julper thinks so: “I don't remember ever being really delighted about anything that Santa allegedly did, but I do remember being incredibly disillusioned when I found out he isn't real. Why is there this parental conspiracy to lie to children about Santa Claus? Who is it really benefiting? Wouldn't it be better if we were just up front and honest about Santa from the get-go?”

Member tasjay also remembers her disappointment upon learning of the truth about Santa: “ When I found out that Santa was not real, I was devastated. I started doubting EVERYTHING my parents had told me, INCLUDING my belief in JESUS. I was very relieved to hear that Jesus is real... but it was a blow to my trust in my parents' word. It healed later, but I promised myself that I would not do that to my children." She adds another reason to debunk the Santa myth: “We parents work our butts off during the year to ‘spoil’ the kids on Christmas (and an AWESOME spoiling it is) so why tell the kids someone they don't know from Adam brought them any kind of gift, when it was the parents who had to work at it to make it happen?”

Though the Santa debate will likely rage on for many more Christmases, parents all agree that telling the truth about Santa is not an easy task. Says member jaml66: “I was going to flat-out tell my oldest that there is no Santa, but I overheard him and his friends say how they liked the tingly feeling in their stomachs on Christmas Eve...”

iVillager merimom96 shares some thoughtful advice on broaching the subject: "When the child is trying to open up the conversation, the best thing is to be honest ... If it feels weird to do it right before Christmas, then do it in January. I think it helps if all the fun doesn't go away as soon as they know the truth. Create some special privileges for those old enough to be "in the know", [get him] to help fill siblings' stockings. Then share the real history, how generations of people have passed this down as something special for their children, and now he has the special privilege of being able to be a part of 'Santa's crew of helpers'."

Do you encourage your kids to believe in Santa Claus? At what age did you tell your kids the truth abut Santa, and how did you do it? Share your thoughts below.

Disciplining one's own children is tricky enough, but when the unruly child is not your own, the situation can get downright thorny. Whether it's the neighbor's kid in the playground, or a daughter's visiting schoolmate, should you step in when a child is out of control? This question had a few iVillage boards buzzing and sparked a serious, and sometimes heated, debate.

Many iVillagers, such as momof2fourgrls, feel parents don't have the right to intervene with other people's kids, no matter how incorrigible they may get: "It simply isn't my responsibility to parent other people's children. It is up to parents to deal with their children as they see fit. I may not agree, but I have no right to take that on myself. Imagine how it would feel if someone didn't approve of your discipline techniques and took over for you. Plus, disciplining one time isn't going to magically correct all the problems and turn the kid into a sweet compliant child."

Others, however, have no problem with intervening, especially when the child becomes physically aggressive. Member ashmama says stepping in can be necessary: "When a kid is pounding yours on the playground, and you have to go pull him off? That's not discipline, that's rescue, and I have no problem doing that. And I don't care what the parents think. Usually, they're grateful because they missed what their kid was doing. And if they saw it and did nothing, then their opinion of me is worthless anyway."

cl-elisedf also has no problems intervening, especially in certain situations: "if a) I consider the behavior to be dangerous to the child or others; b) the behavior is affecting my child in a negative way; c) the children are in my home. I'm kind, diplomatic and, I believe, appropriate when I do respond to any of those situations."

There are others who will intervene (albeit with a certain level of discomfort) when friends' or family members' children are involved but will back off when it comes to children they don't know. Is reprimanding a stranger's kid a social taboo?

Member cvanzile weighs in: "I will definitely step in if my friends' kids are totally out of control, hurting each other, or being dangerous and mean, and I expect my friends to do the same with mine when they get older. We see each other as one big family and it's completely normal for "aunts" to have to help out with correcting the kids while we are out. But as far as a stranger even talking to my kids while I am there, I can tell right now that I will not like it, and I will let it be known should it happen. Nope, do NOT approach my children, period, let alone correct their behavior."

But there are others, such as nisupulla, who still believe in the "it takes a village to raise a child" philosophy (even when some would rather the village keep quiet) and have encountered no conflicts when reprimanding a stranger's child: "I am more liberal than most about disciplining other people's children. Of course, I use my best parenting skills, friendly demeanor, matter-of-fact tone, and only in the most conventional situations ... I've questioned children "walking up the slide", throwing sand, calling names, and climbing in what I perceive as dangerous situations, and other relatively straightforward situations. With very rare exceptions, it has gone off without a hitch."

But member ka032006 think many problems may still arise from the situation: "The problem with disciplining someone else's child is that your judgment can be clouded. When we discipline our own child, our anger or frustration is tempered by the love and protective instinct we have for them. When you discipline another child, you don't have that same balance and it's a lot easier to get it wrong ... And when the discipline arises from a dispute between your child and another child, your judgment can be even worse."

The best thing to do in this heated, emotionally draining situation? Member noeinstein offers some friendly advice: "Do what we tell our children day in and day out... Keep your hands to yourself. Use your words. Stay calm."

Share your thoughts. Would you discipline someone else's child? Do you think permitting another child to behave in a way you do not approve sends a mixed message to your own children?

There's always been controversy surrounding vaccines for children—just ask members of iVillage’s Vaccination Debate board—but when a small but growing number of parents, who are claiming religious exemptions to avoid vaccinating their children, recently made the news, the debate took a new turn.

Some iVillage members think that the parents’ decision to claim religious exemptions to avoid vaccinations, when the real reason may be skepticism of the shots or concern they can cause other illnesses, puts other children at risk of contracting dangerous diseases. Members, such as genuinecanadianangel, think those parents are actually committing fraud: “Saying you have a religious exemption when you don't is clearly LYING, no matter how you look at it. It boggles my mind that the people who are crying foul at the doctors who apparently 'misled' them [about vaccines], are the same ones who have absolutely no trouble misleading school boards with blatant lies.”

Should anti-vaccine parents with no genuine religious objections be allowed to use a religious exemption? Some iVillagers, such as member kellyrn, don't think so: “It makes me really angry that people are so quick to lie about their convictions. They should be honest about their reasons. If this means that their child will have trouble getting into school, then too bad. There is a reason vaccines are required. If a parent doesn't agree with the reasons, then maybe public school isn't the best idea for their family.” Member jjhnn8600 agrees: "I personally don't think people should be able to opt out of vaccines and still be able to go to public school. Some people may have very legitimate religious reasons for not getting the vaccine. But, and I know this sounds harsh, that isn't my problem. If you don't want to vaccinate, then send your kids to a school where other parents are OK with their children being exposed to kids who don't receive vaccines."

But what about parents who feel that the risk of the vaccine is worse than the risk of the actual disease? Anti-vaccine iVillagers, such as member a_mothers_love, say claiming religious exemption is their only option for getting their kids into school: “With states only allowing religious exemptions, how else are parents supposed to protect their children from the dangers of vaccines? Yes, lying is wrong, but when it comes to our children, we will do whatever it takes to keep them safe.”

Some parents say vaccination is a personal choice, and until exemptions for “philosophical” or “moral” reasons are allowed, they should be free to claim religious objections. Says cl-suschi on the Non-Vaccine Support board: "So they don't like parents who use a religious belief when that is the ONLY OPTION to avoid any shots for their child? Well, that's the behavior they drive when they tell you that you must vaccinate your child even if you think the next round of shots may KILL THEM. If they don't like parents using a bogus exemption, then change the laws and really give the parent a CHOICE!" Member jhjkk is just as passionate about the issue of parental freedom: "I am one of those parents that don't vaccinate my kids... If the government would let US be the parents of our own kids and do what WE want and NOT them, then we wouldn't have to chose the religious exemption if we were not of a religion that is against vaccines."

Indeed, emotions run high when it comes to immunization, an important health decision for parents. Those against vaccinations are frustrated with the difficulties they face trying to avoid what they consider a harmful practice, and those in favor of vaccinations worry that their kids are at risk among non-vaccinated children.

Member catchzik76 sums up the difficulty of making what some consider a life-or-death decision for their kids: " I can honestly say that I personally feel like there are just risks not matter WHAT you choose. It's all pretty darn scary stuff. It's just up to the parents to decide what is best for their children and to weigh the risks themselves. I really hate this part of parenting."

Do you think parents should claim religious exemptions to avoid vaccines? Share your thoughts on the vaccine debate.