There Are Rare Circumstances in Which Using Daycare Is The Best Choice

People shouldn't have children unless they are prepared to raise them. Raising them means having them with a parent until they go to Kindergarten at age five or six, then having with a parent before and after school. School doesn't end at 6pm. Dumping a kid in daycare is almost always a result of choices.

A good daycare is, of course, better than being with an abusive parent, but even then, it would be better for the kid to be with grandparents or aunts and uncles.

Let's consider the other rare circumstances in which daycare is the best choice.

 

A) The other parent killed themselves, or abandoned the family (and there were no signs either of those was a likely possibility before making the children) and they're not paying enough support to allow the other parent to be with the kids; B) and there wasn't enough in funds or other assets and no way/time to work to avoid having to leave the children for work; C) and there's nobody else, like good, reliable grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc., to care for the child while the remaining parent is at work.

For 99 percent of the kids dumped in daycare, the circumstances weren't anything like that.

Unfortunately, there's no way to be certain the other parent is going to be around, present, and either able to care for the children well or provide enough income, for the duration of raising the children. People can try to set things up that way. They can try to choose wisely, treat kindly, and all of that, and have things like life insurance. They can try to only make children with someone who is already wealthy and set things up so the children will always be taken care of regardless of whether there is a death or the relationship ends. But most people aren't that wealthy, certainly not when they are 40 or younger, and there's no fail-safe way of ensuring things will work out. It's always somewhat of a gamble to have children, even for someone who tries to make the odds be in their favor as much as possible.

You can have a great life insurance policy on your income-earning spouse, and if they commit suicide you're SOL. Maybe there was no sign they'd do that when you had kids with them, but they suffered a trauma after you had the kids and eventually they did themselves in. Or maybe the trauma leads to them abandoning the family to live on the streets, jobless.

So, there can be circumstances in which daycare is unavoidable.

But "We want to live here, in this house, with these investments" or "I deserve my career" aren't those circumstances.

If you don't have children yet, think about these things very carefully.

Daycare is Almost Always Voluntary and is Generally a Bad Choice

One of the most repeated sentiments in parenting conversations these days is parents claiming that they "had no choice" but to put their kid(s) into daycare or that it is a GOOD thing for the kids.

In almost every case, this is a big, stinking pile of dung.


Putting a child in daycare comes at the end of a series of CHOICES that the parent(s) made. By the way, day care is anything before the kid is 5, whatever it is called... nursery school, pre-K, transitional K, pre-school... it's all daycare.

If you aren't "able" to raise your own child, don't have one!

When Dr. Laura Tells Moms to Announce Their Switch to SAHM

Children being raised with attention, affection, a sense of security, and morality is one of Dr. Laura's top goals, which is why she condemns the use of day care and insists parents should raise their own children right up until Kindergarten, which is entered into at age 5 or 6 (boys should especially be started later, according to her). She's also big on homeschooling, but any form of daycare (including "preschool") from ages 0-4 is a no-no.

While she doesn't rule out "stay at home fathers", she says mothers are preferable from ages 0-3, and she notes that the "psychobiology" is that women prefer a man be a provider and they tend to lose respect for their husband if they earn more than him or he's home with the kids earning no income at all. Men also tend to like to provide.

So, she gets calls from employed women who are pregnant or have just given birth (again) or even have infants or toddlers who want to switch to being SAHMs, but have husbands who are opposed to that change or are at least reluctant to agree.

This is when Dr. Laura, who usually says big decisions, even getting a dog, have to have mutual agreement and if either spouse is a "no" then the change doesn't happen, leaves that principle aside. It is overruled by the importance of a mother's love. She tells the women to quit their jobs, come up with a one-income budget, to announce to their husband they will be staying home, and tell him that it will mean home-cooked meals, lots of great sex, and a more pleasant home.

That's all good, but only if the caller follows through. And only if the husband accepts the announcement. Will it be better if the family splits up than if they stay together with both parents working outside the home? Dr. Laura says men who aren't eager to be sole support for a wife and kids aren't real men, but would her opinion stop one man who is thinking along these lines from engaging in what he sees as self defense?

Your Child, Your Choice, Your Responsibility

The mommy wars never end. Michael Medved, as I type, has Erica Komisar on his show, who has a book out about the importance of mothers being with their children from birth to age three. Of course there are women calling up complaining about the fact that children benefit from actually being with their mother. They'd rather not hear the truth, apparently. And others are complaining that their employer doesn't facilitate this.

There are thee issues here.

1) It is YOUR responsibility to plan things so that if you have children, they will have their mother* with them. Your choice, remember? With choice comes responsibility. Daycare is almost always voluntary and a bad choice. If you're not cut out to be a mother, don't become one. If you don't have a marriage that allows for you to mother your own children, don't have them.

2) It is not a legitimate role of government to compel employers to provide daycare or maternity leave or any other of these accommodations parents want.

3) Employers should be free to run their businesses as they want. If they want to give mothers paid time off to raise their children, fine, but expecting all employers to offer it is an attitude of entitlement.

Avoidance and Being Caught

My wife, who has told me before that although she tries not to show it, claims she is really flattered and encouraged when I make a big deal about her appearing nude before me. Yet she seems to have no interest in basking in my mesmerized stare of awe.

I want to be desired, admired, appreciated for my physical appearance. It seems like she should couldn't care less about being the focus of such passion.

I'm very sensitive to not being wanted, and I've told her so. I told her I'm more perceptive than she might think when it comes to that.

Recently, my tentative indications of interest in making love were met with her asking to defer to our regular weekly session.

Okay, fine. As long as she will allow me my privacy, I will tend to my health myself.

But then the appointed date came, and she deferred again to the next day.

Self-Inflicted Wounds Can Be the Most Painful

On our very first date, the woman who later became my wife asked me for my thoughts on how children should be raised. I told her that strangers would not be raising my children.

If that sounds like strange first date banter, that's because our fist date happened a few months after I was introduced to her and after we'd since communicated some important things about ourselves to each other, including that we were looking for an eventual spouse.

After I told her that strangers would be raising my children, I told her I was flexible about how that would be accomplished. I was open to being the one to stay with the kids, for example. She quickly said she'd be the one to stay with the kids. As it turns out, her three main goals in life were to work in the profession she did, to marry, and to be a mother, and by be a mother she wanted to mother, not hire other people to babysit/raise her kids five days a week.

The other day there was a call to Dr. Laura from a woman who wanted to put her four year-old into a weekday program at their church that took preschoolers several hours a day three days per week. Dr. Laura quickly identified it as daycare, insisted that children do not like such programs, and pointed out that nobody cares about a child as much as that child's mother.

I agree, at least with the last phrase. However, I do think some children may actually prefer these programs over being with mom if being with mom means being stuck at home, without friends at that.

The problem is, when Dr. Laura is making these comments, she's thinking of only one child being involved (she only had one) and she's envisioning a mother taking their one child on bicycle rides and walks, to the park, etc. That also what I thought I was getting - a wife who'd be that kind of mother to our children. After all, she had a full-time job working with children and knew about child development and the needs of children, and she wanted to be a stay-with-kids mother.


Our daughter is in grade school. My wife is homeschooling her. We also have a son. My wife wants to stick our son into pretty much the same program the caller described, only for two days a week instead of three. She says it is just too difficult to teach our daughter when our son delights in interfering, especially when it is to torment his sister (at which he excels). And she says it is just for this school year, since he'll have his own schoolwork to do next year.

I can hear Dr. Laura's first solution in my head: do the schoolwork at a park where the boy can play nearby.

But my wife doesn't feel she can do that safely - not with two children.

Then how about letting grandma take the boy twice a week?

My wife's mother is a drunk and forbidden by my wife (with my full support) to look after our children. My own mother lives an hour away and has other responsibilities.

Why not move closer to my mother?

This is the house my wife wanted.

Why not move closer to her now?

Our excellent credit has been tarnished due to decisions by my wife. We're not moving anywhere.

Why not stick the daughter in school?

Public schools suck in our neighborhood and our state has turned public schools into madhouses in general.

Why not stick the daughter in private school?

I don't have the money. In part because of all the money I pay to fund the unusable public schools.

Why not become a stay-with-kids dad and have the wife go to work?

She is done working. She's not going to go back full-time, and we can't disrupt my work situation because we need the insurance due to my wife's medical situations.


Why did you pick her to be the mother of your children if she is incapable?

She seemed capable. She had no children yet, so how could I be sure? There's much she and her family did not reveal to me until after we were married and had children.

Why did you have two children instead of one?

My wife insisted that she didn't want our daughter being an only child, and I had no idea that having two children instead of one would be such a problem for her.

Tell her to bite the bullet and be a mother to her son.

Well, yeah, except she has the trump card.

I expressed my opinion, even though it resulted in exactly what I figured it would - she's feeling hurt and upset, and nothing's going to change for the better. Everyone in my family has always urged us to stick the kids into "pre-school". It is clear they think she's a crappy mother, or at least unable to be a good mother. Yet my sisters also urge me to discuss my concerns with my wife - whether with this or anything else. But it is pointless. The only thing it changes is that it diminishes her happiness/satisfaction, and I take no pleasure in that. Why make both of us less happy?

As unromantic or selfish or otherwise wrong that it seems or may be, I married because I wanted (one of us) to raise my own children in the best circumstances and because I like sex and I wanted an enthusiastic lovemaking partner who would enjoy how I loved her and would enjoy loving me, and I wanted to live by what I'm convinced is the the truth: sex is for marriage. How many Christian men are in the same boat? Don't give me "You're supposed to marry someone because you can't live without them." Please. Most marriages in the Bible and in history were not about that. And clearly, considering how well I was doing and how long I had lived on my own, I could live just fine without any woman as my wife.

Both of those reasons I married are dead. The kids will grow up, and if they turn out badly, they'll be society's problem, not mine. I don't count on the situation with the sex getting any better. Ever. It's not important to her, and what I want isn't as important to her as her own preferences, and again, talking about it will not change that, it will only make her feel bad.

Here's where things get a little more adult. You are warned.

Is This Outrageous or About Right?

Richard Winton at LATimes.com reports that a guy in his 30s caught molesting his 13-year-old goddaughter (police think it started when she was 12) has been sentenced to just three years in state prison after pleading no context to two felony counts (two other counts were dismissed). And if you know anything about the current situation with prisons in California, he's probably gonna get out plenty early, after spending the most of the time in county jail.

Wait...

Let me check that again...

Oh!

I knew something had to be wrong with that. I didn't think a guy would get only a three year sentence for something like that. It wasn't a guy with his goddaughter – it was a woman with her godson. This is an update on a story I noted on here before:

The operator of a South Los Angeles day-care center convicted of molesting her 13-year-old godson was sentenced Tuesday to three years in state prison.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Terry Bork sentenced Chelsea McClelland, 35, to state prison and ordered her to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life for the assaults that occurred in December 2010.

So much for "thirteen will get you twenty".

Update on Chelsea Nichole McClelland Case

Andrew Blankstein at LATimes.com updates the case of a day orphanage operator who was, according to police, doing things she shouldn't have been with her 13-year-old godson.

Chelsea Nichole McClelland, 34, was arrested in December near Apple Street and Alsace Avenue, just north of the Santa Monica Freeway near La Brea Avenue. Charges were not immediately filed and she was released.

But she was charged Tuesday with four felony counts of lewd acts on a child under 14. The alleged acts occurred between Dec. 1 and Dec. 17, according to Jane Robison, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney's office.

The report says that the police think it started when the kid was 12. It's not just the males who prey on the young. As always, people are legally innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Daycare Operator Arrested For Impersonation

Allegedly, 34-year-old Chelsea Nichole McClelland was doing bad things with someone else who was entrusted to her care – kind of like an impersonation of Mary Kay Letourneau. Andrew Blankstein reports at LATimes.com.

A South Los Angeles day-care center operator has been arrested on suspicion of lewd acts with her godson after she was allegedly caught having sex with the 13-year-old in a van, Los Angeles police said Monday.

What does she charge for daycare, though?

McClelland, who was arrested on suspicion of multiple instances of lewd acts with a child, is being held in lieu of $400,000 bail at the Van Nuys jail. McClelland could not be reached for comment, and there was no answer at the number listed for the day-care center.

What, none of the other highly qualified staff will answer the phone?

Last week, Mid-City residents reported seeing a white van repeatedly parked in the neighorhood. Police responded Friday and discovered the boy inside the vehicle. The boy initially told them he was 18, but after being interviewed by LAPD sex crimes detectives, he acknowledged that he was 13.

Yeah, good try.

Police said they believe some of the illegal contact took place when the victim was 12.

But maybe he looked 13. "You don't understand, officer! He's so mature. He's really good at the Wii."

McClelland has three biological children and is the legal guardian of a fourth. At the time of her arrest, she was caring for eight children at her day-care center.

Hey, maybe they can make a TV movie about her, too, and there can be all those news magazine television shows that interview them when she gets out of prison and they reunite and marry.

Now, to be fair, there are some great people out there who operate day orphanages. But even the best ones can't replace a parent.

Do you think she'll lose her godmother status?

UPDATED

Stay At Home Doesn't Mean Do Nothing

The Orange County Register has a feature called "Ask the Teacher". This edition was of interest to me. The "question" this time is really a statement:

I'll have you know my child loves going to preschool, and I send her from 8 to 530 all summer long, even though I am home.

This first sentence alone brings several things to mind.

Children like all sorts of things that we either keep them from, or limit.

There is a possibility that the child knows that her mother wants to hear her say she likes it.

Maybe the child just wants to get out of the house and play with other kids. But she can do so with her mother. There's nothing positive going on at this day orphanage that can't be provided by the mother.

Why bother having and retaining custody of kids if you're going to have other people raise them?
Would she be happy if she was able to say, "My husband loves paying to hang out with the guys nine and a half hours a day when he could be spending that time with me."?

I think she will benefit from it, and I do enjoy the time to myself. I still think my child is a 'gift' and I do not think I am escaping my responsibilities by finding somewhere for her to go that she likes.

This can all be distilled down to "I enjoy the time to myself." The rest is fluff, meant to bury any feelings of guilt. This woman is not sending her girl to be in someone else's care for what is likely more than half of that girl's waking hours because she "has to".

Which brings me to the fact that it must be nice for her husband to go out and earn the income and take on an enormous financial risk - the risk that she will divorce him, and he will be obligated to pay her more because she didn't work – while she has every day to herself. When a husband agrees to be the breadwinner, it generally isn't so his wife and indulge herself day in and day out. It is so that she can take care of things like… raising the children. Imagine if the sexes were reversed and she was going out to work all day while her husband dumped the kid on others every day so he could have ten hours to himself?

Looks like the columnist, Carol Veravanich, wasn't happy with the woman's actions, but didn't want to be too strong about it.

I would not send a child to preschool all day every day for this long if I were home, although if I were working then I would work to find somewhere my child enjoyed to spend his time.
...
But, if you are home and not watching your child, then I think that is sad. The program you found may be best since they will welcome her in each day. You will not get this time back, however, and just because there is somewhere for her to go, that does not mean she should leave.

Poor kid.

Another Day Orphanage Horror Story

I haven't been getting around to Dear Margo enough lately, because there are more important things to do than publish my opinions on advice column content in this obscure online outlet. But here I am.

Disgusted in Ohio wrote:

My first cousin, "Lily," is a living, breathing waste of space. This girl had her first child at 15, her second at 17.

That's not a waste! I need someone to do the hard labor that I don't want to do, or ring up my purchases, and do it for cheap. Statistically, she and her children will be more likely than others to end up with jobs in those categories.

Subsequently, she's had two more.

Great. Another example of one of the reasons guys who are just looking for sex and don't want to be fathers should avoid single mothers.

When her first child was 4 months old, Lily’s mother died, and she came to live with our family, along with the baby.

Where was her father? Looks like she is repeating the cycle.

My mom did everything she could to help them, even quitting her job to watch Lily's child while Lily went to high school full time.

That was a mistake on your mother's part.

Lily never cared for her child.

She didn't have to. She had an enabler. And this is why she had more. And more than one guy thought it was a good idea to knock her up.

She stole checks from her roommate and ended up in jail.

Not surprising.

Fast-forward: Her oldest child was adopted by my parents and is now my 12-year-old brother.

Lucky boy.

Her second child was adopted by other family members. The third child, which she had while incarcerated, was adopted by a couple in my hometown, and the fourth child's paternal grandparents took custody because she was such a poor mother.

All of those children are probably better off. And at least she didn't have her kids slaughtered.

The reason I'm writing is, after all of this, I've learned that Lily is providing a DAY CARE service in her home.

Is that really so surprising? How many criminals end up doing paid or voluntary work related to their past criminal behavior – for ill or for good? How many people who have been involved in some sort of dysfunction or immorality have made a career based on talking about it or doing some work related to it? The thing is, she knows how some of her customers feel. They want someone else to take care of their kids, which is just how she felt.

She's gallivanting around, making people think she's a wonderful person and a caring "mother" to her boyfriend's children, even though her criminal record would make it impossible for her to obtain licensure in the state of Ohio.

Her boyfriend's children. Yup... more chaos. This guy, who apparently knocked up a woman more than once when it wasn't the right person or conditions, now leaves his children in the care of this woman. It's bad enough that he thinks having sex with her is a good idea (especially after she had four children), but to leave his own kids in her care?

I really think the parents of the children she "cares for" deserve to know who is watching their children.

They're free to ask to see her daycare license.

I'm requesting two things of you: First, I'm wondering whether there are any agencies I can contact about putting a stop to this. Second, please remind your readers to be very careful about with whom they leave their children.

Things are pretty bad when people need Dear Margo to remind them of that. If the children are being neglected or otherwise abused, call your local child protective services agency.

Leaving children in the care of strangers should be an absolute last resort. Most of the people who "need" to leave their children in day care have decided poorly about many things up to that point. People who make good decisions about education, career and if, who, and when to marry, and if and when to have children almost never “need” day care.

Daycare of the Year Award

Breaking news from the Associated Press...

In Lake Elsinore (Riverside County, in southern California's "Inland Empire"), there was a little mishap at a home that had recently been used as a state-licensed daycare center.

It appears that 23-year-old Benjamin Kuzelka blew his own hands off making high end explosives.

The good news, though, is that the explosives authorities found at the place should take some attention from it also being a pot farm.

Fortunately, no children were there at the time of the explosion.

OMG!!! Dr. Laura Read My Letter On-Air

Just a few moments ago, Dr. Laura read my e-mailed letter on-air to open her show. If she places it on her website, I will link to it. Otherwise, I will past the text here later.

That was quite a rush.

I have had something I wrote read on a top-rated national radio program before, but this time, I was actually listening. Better yet, my wife was listening (the letter was largely about her) and she called me to express her excitement.