Strong-willed Child**

I may, perhaps, probably not have written here for a while (again), but hey, I'm back (at least for the moment) so ... whatever. It's my blog and I will post when I want to (said somewhat guiltily). But

moving on.

The Kit Kat is in her fourth year of university. The first three years she lived in the dorm, but this year she is sharing an apartment with a friend. And I have a few thoughts about that.

First, I thought she moved out on her own the first year of university. For her birthday prior to the first year, I bought a big (and I mean BIG) wicker laundry basket and filled it up with all the everyday stuff she would need to live on her own.Thought that was that - give them a good start and send them on their way, right? Maybe. But ... the first year she not only lived in the dorm, she also had a meal plan. So nothing to worry about as far as being fed or housed.

The next two years in the dorm, we skipped the meal plan (not worth the money) and for the first time in her life, she had to worry about actually feeding herself.

Fast forward to this year.

Now she not only needs to feed herself, but also to pay all those mundane every day month expenses like rent, power, tenants' insurance, etc.

I found myself shopping again before she moved into the new apartment. I mean, the place needed to be furnished, right? A nice lamp for the living room, some stuff for the kitchen. Wait a minute, I thought I had already been there, done that. After all, hadn't she moved out three years ago??

Yes. And no. In at least two different ways.

First, I think (hope, perhaps naively) that she is now officially adulting (as she likes to call it). Incidentally, there are some hilarious memes on FB about this process. Funny, how it didn't seem to be that big a deal for my generation (just something you went and did), but for these guys ... seriously?

There are at least two popular songs on the radio that attempt to document how terrible and disconcerting the process of growing us is. Which, they're pretty funny and I rather enjoy them, I must admit. My favourite FB meme goes something like this:

"That moment when something bad happens and you run to find an adult. Only to realize that you are an adult. But you need an adultier adult".

Heh.

But for the second aspect of this growing up and becoming an adult thing, I seem to be the one who has a problem. Okay, maybe not a problem but came to a rather jolting revelation the other day.

Her university is a little over an hour away. The first three years, I saw her at least every three weeks at a minimum. It wasn't planned that way - it was just that between the times she came home (Reading week, Thanksgiving, Christmas, another Reading week, summer, etc) and the fact that I am in Halifax a fair bit for work and appointments, we saw each other fairly regularly. Never thought too much about it; it just was.

And I was amazed to find that (quick, cover your ears) I didn't really *miss* her when she was away. Heresy, I know. Don't get me wrong, I loved having her home and really enjoyed that time with her  but when she wasn't home, well, I was busy living my life. And, yes, stalking her occasionally on FB as a means to check in and make sure everything was okay. As if I could actually tell how things were doing by what she posted.

This year? This year is different.

Not only did she work in Halifax for the past two summers, but she's working part-time now during the school year. And suddenly ... she's not coming home as much. Not over Thanksgiving because of her work and class schedule. Not during Reading week next month because she wants to pick up extra shifts at work. As if that wasn't bad enough, I seem to be in Halifax less over the past few months so not seeing her then so much either.

And it was bothering me. And her Dad. Yes, it was. The part about her not wanting to come home when she could. Until the other day, when  it finally hit me.

When I went to University, I moved clear across the country. From Saskatchewan to Nova Scotia; 4,379.4 km, for those that are counting. That's 2,721.2 miles, for those that are metrically challenged (which I must admit, I still am somewhat myself).

I called my mother mostly late at night (or was that very early in the morning?) after I had been out partying, had too much to drink and suddenly had a truck-load of perceived dilemmas that only my mom could help with. Other than that, she wrote once every few months (yes, Virginia, there actually was a time when we survived without email) and I sent a humorous greeting card every so often - used the card technique because there was only so much space to write in, unlike a letter, where the amount written would have looked pathetic (compared to what she wrote) on a full sheet.

The Kit Kat, you ask?

Yeah, I realize now that she is just acting/doing as she is meant to. Growing up, becoming an adult, leading her own (gasp) life. How dare she?! And I realized that, although I would still really like to see her more often, I'm okay with the fact that I don't.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about her father. He is constantly calling her (and getting annoyed when, the majority of the time, she doesn't answer her phone). I tried pointing out to him today what I had recently realized and even asked him how often he had called his parents when he moved out West for a few years at age 16. Not so sure I got through to him, though.

So, in addition to pointing out that the Kit Kat is now starting to lead her own adult life, I commented on the difference between her and the Blue Jay (the Kit Kat's older sister). Due to her disability, the Blue Jay, even though three years older, still needs us, needs to talk to us daily and needs to see us at least once a week. I pointed out that if the Kit Kat acted like her sister does at the moment, then we would have a real problem.





** For anybody wondering about the "strong-willed child" reference, let's just say ... she was.

Differences Don't Matter

The following poem was written by Jessica Mercola many years ago as part of a diversity contest at her middle school. I found in in an issue of Exceptional Parent magazine back in 2002.

While she wrote about a "she", the sibling in her poem is actually a "he", her younger brother, who is 6 years old, has hypotonic cerebral palsy and profound developmental delay, is non-verbal and non-ambulatory and has the most gorgeous smile and eyes of anyone! [according to Mom and who are we to argue?]

I have brown hair.
She has blond hair. 

I have long hair.
She has short hair.

I am chubby and short.
She is skinny and tall.

I have braces and glasses.
She has freckles and cerebral palsy. 

I can draw, ride a bike and read.
She can't do any of these. 

I can walk and sit.
She has a wheelchair,
and tries to talk
but out comes noises,
silly ones. 

I like to chew.
She likes to go for long walks. 

I am stubborn and loud.
She is sensitive and caring. 

I am outgoing and fun.
She is different and interesting. 

I go to dance.
She goes to therapy. 

I drink from a cup and eat regular food.
She drinks from a bottle and eats pureed food. 

I like to play outside.
She likes to play with noisy toys. 

She doesn't make any choices.
We make them all for her.

I think I have a good life.
Hers could be better. 

Every day I watch her grow,
in sorrow, laughter and snow. 

I hope no one takes her away.
I would be lonely and miss her every day. 

I start every day with the positive
attitude that one day she'll be
just like me! 

I don't care what we are.
I love her anyway. 

I don't care what other people say.
We'll always be sisters and
the best of friends.
That's the way it's going to stay.

Cross-posted at A Primer on Special Needs and the Law

'Ask and You Shall Receive'

I've always suspected it. And now I have proof! All Some good things do come to those who wait.

Remember way back in the way back, some of those *fun* conversations we had at Lex"s? The ones about Canada's human rights system and how evil it was worked? About whether or not the so called "hate speech" provisions belonged in the federal Human Rights Act?

Well, they said they were going to do it. And, lo and behold, they actually did something right.

I must admit, I never thought I would find myself in agreement with these words.

“Way to go, Harper. I know we can’t get everything we want, but I stand a little taller today as a Canuck,” wrote “OneMan.”

Especially not with this Conservative government in power.

But be that as it may, I've repeatedly said that I don't think sec. 13 ever should have been added to the Human Rights Act. In my opinion, such matters are better dealt with in court - as either "hate speech" (inciting someone to violence) under the Criminal Code or, civilly, as a defamation claim for damages, if necessary.

Apparently, however, the Canadian Bar Association, who was in favour of the inclusion of s. 13 in the first place, disagrees. In a January 2010 report, it argued for the retention of the section, albeit without the penalty provisions that were attached. Their argument appearing to be that while the general "compensatory" damages provided for elsewhere in the Act are fine, the "punitive" sanctions attached to s. 13 are not.

Which, makes for an interesting argument/result, considering that, in general, the Act provides a much wider array of powers to a panel that has found discrimination in cases outside of sec. 13, both monetarily and otherwise, than it does for a violation of sec 13. But, hey, at least no one would be forced to pay a "penalty" (even if it is in a smaller amount than what can be ordered as damages for compensation for pain and suffering) as was allowed under sec. 54(3)(c). [Yeah, right, makes perfect sense to me, too.]

I am however in agreement with the CBA with it's concern that the debate surrounding sec. 13 was the start of a campaign to weaken Canada’s human rights laws.

Tell me, please, does any of this sound familiar?

Of greater concern to the CBA is the fact that the debate surrounding the expediency of section 13 has become the proxy for an open assault on the very existence of an administrative framework to protect human rights in this country. Critics have decried human rights proceedings as "kangaroo courts" which provide only "drive through justice" and advocated that human rights tribunals and commissions should no longer be permitted to operate. We reject attacks of this kind and reiterate forcefully our support for the continued importance of the work undertaken by these human rights bodies to foster human rights in Canada. Legal protections for human rights have existed in Canada since 1947 when Saskatchewan enacted the first bill of human rights in North America.

Uh huh. Could that have been taken out of some of those comment threads at Lex's or what?

Of course, now that the deed's been done, we have those who fear "free speech boost will rally neo-Nazi cyberhate". Personally, that doesn't concern me too much - although we will, no doubt, always have such idiot groups in our midst, considering that Canadian police forces reported a 42 per cent rise of in hate-based incidents in 2009, as compared to 2008, and a 35 per cent jump the year year before that, it doesn't seem to me that sec. 13 was having much of the desired effect anyway.

So, boys and girls, I am happy to report that it looks like the system can (and indeed has) work as advertised, at least in this case.

I knew it could. I knew it could. I knew it could ...

For The Wisdom of Solomon

I read an interesting opinion piece in our provincial newspaper a couple of weeks ago. 

Entitled "Racist Parents, innocent children: What to do?", it referenced a Court of Appeal decision in New Jersey where three young siblings, with given names of Adolph Hitler, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation and Honsztynn Hinler Jeannie (apparently "Honszlynn Hitler" is meant to honour Heinrich Himmler, the Recihsfuhrer of the SS) were removed from their parents, with custody being transferred to the state. 

Is anyone out there actually wondering what got Children's Aid involved in the first place?

Although a family court had previously found insufficient evidence that the parents had abused or neglected their children, the three appeal court judges ruled that the parents had “recklessly created a risk of serious injury to their children by failing to protect the children from harm and failing to acknowledge and treat their disabilities". 

The children's names were not mentioned in the appeal decision and the court relied on other grounds to find the children were in need of protection (the ones noted in the news accounts being that both parents were unemployed and suffered from unspecified physical and psychological disabilities).

And I must say that although we don't have much detail as to the extent of the parents' "disabilities", it does seem rather strange that the state would be granted permanent guardianship solely on those enumerated grounds.  Or, at least not until after extensive services had been put in place in an effort to help the parents remedy their deficits.

The  New Jersey case mirrors a Canadian one where a young child in Manitoba went to school with a massive swastika on her arm and other slogans on her legs, including references to Adolf Hitler and the slogan, “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

Photos of the markings were shown in court.

“The meaning of that is that black people don’t belong,” the girl later explained to the social worker.

The woman told court Monday she was stunned by what transpired during an hour-long interview with the girl, who frequently used the N-word to describe blacks and said she believes strongly in what her parents taught her.
The girl also gave a graphic description of how to kill a black person, telling the social worker about using a spiked ball attached to a chain and then “whipping them until they die.”

The worker asked the girl if those ideas “scared her.”

“No, black people just need to die. That’s not scary. This is a white man’s world,” she replied.

Although the case was argued as having "nothing to do with infringing on free speech or expression" but rather “longstanding family dysfunction” (including drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, neglect, and criminal activity and associations), some, at least, have read the court's finding that the child and her younger brother were at risk of harm from their Nazi-sympathizing parents as proposing that the risk that the child would acquire racist attitudes was also grounds for removing them from their parents.

And the point has been rightfully made that these children were not originally removed from the home the reasons enumerated above; in fact, they were removed from their parents long before these details came out.  No, there's really no other way to spin it other than that they were taken because the children's aid workers didn't appreciate the racist beliefs of the parents.