NYT article about baby who died first day of daycare

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. This is a tragic story, and as the mother of an infant, I feel incredible sorrow for this woman's situation. Having said that, I know that people go on about how other countries have paid maternity leave and how can the US be so far behind...well, the fact of the matter is that if you pay for women to have babies, they'll have more babies. If women are more expensive to employ, people will employ fewer women. Wages for women (All women, not just those with babies) will be driven downward because of discrimination. If you owned a business, would you be more likely to hire someone who gets paid benefits and leaves the office for a YEAR? Or someone statistically less likely to do so?

Look at the countries with the most generous maternity benefits. Those are the countries with the largest wage gap between men and women.

Not true. Europe generally has very generous maternity leave policies but more working moms and fewer children on average per woman.

We're talking about other things being equal so the cross country comparison in this case isn't particularly useful. There may be other reasons that Europeans have fewer children. The poster here supposes that some women in the United States choose to delay / not have children because it is not attractive to do so. Make it more attractive for women to have children and those at the margin will assuredly pop out some kiddos.

[Anonymous]

http://gawker.com/new-york-artists-baby-dies-in-first-day-of-unlicensed-s-1717823163

What bothers me is that the facilitator of the daycare, Maryellen Strautmanis, had a NYT article written about the daycare, her family and their loft (presumably the same loft that this happened in) in 2005. The daycare had apparently been up and running and unlicensed since 2001. How did no one ever catch that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/realestate/cheaper-by-the-half-dozen-they-should-know.html

Very sad story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a horrible thing that happened. That being said, she made the choice, no one forced her. If she wanted a year off, take the year off and all of the sacrifices and consequences that come with it. She chose not to, you can't blame "the system" because you are not willing to do whatever it takes. Yes, she kept her job for the insurance, but only because the other parent did freelance work. One of the solutions would be have that parent get a job with insurance, etc.

Victim blaming much? How many women do you really think can take a whole year off work (which, BTW, most women would be fired for -- you only get 12 weeks protected leave WITHOUT PAY with FMLA -- so it would effectively be leaving their job permanently)?

You sound like you're trying to blame the mom so you don't have to face the possibility this could happen to any mom, even one who really, REALLY loved her baby and made a ton of sacrifices.

You can't claim she made a choice when it's not a choice for most people. It's a necessity for most Americans to have two working parents. Get off your privileged high horse and GTFO.[/.

It is a choice. Having a child is a choice. If you want a year off when you have a child, it's your responsibility (not the government's) to make that work. If you want to stay home, but can't afford to, then don't have a baby. Don't expect the government to fund your dream for you.

Right. But this results in fewer educated and successful women having children. the ultra wealthy and those living off the government carry on as normal.

You also are speaking about having a child as though it's the same as buying a new car. Having a child is very similar to growing old. It's a part of life. If you don't support maternity leave it makes no sense to support retirement. After all, others are paying for your retirement (401k match isn't a result of employee performance, social security, Medicare, etc).

it is in no way accurate to compare breeding to aging. Many people are now opting out. 40% of the population won't have kids for different reasons. They shouldn't have to pay for your poor choices and lack of planning.

If there isn't any breeding you won't be retiring! And the policies you support are only encouraging women who can't take care of children to "breed" as you disrespectfully call it.

My husband and I have planned well for having a child. I'm a case in point as to how our policies and lack of maternity leave are hurting our country and economy. I probably would have had a child a few years ago but I have been saving up for maternity leave. I also didn't want to have a child until i felt comfortable living on one salary. So instead of having three children, we will probably end up with two. Which is fine, but we are high earners and both highly educated. In other words, we statistically will most likely raise children who become productive members of society and pay into the tax base so you can retire.

I also find it interesting that you equate poor planning to having a child. I guess your own mother didn't have any career ambitions or didn't have any desire to have the ability to support herself? Don't you have any empathy - at least towards your own mother or yourself since you were a baby once?

[Anonymous]

That picture in the article is heartbreaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PSA Canada does not pay 100% of your income for the year that you're off. I think it's like 60%. So it's still a sacrifice. Not everyone does it.

60% of your income for a year is still much more supportive of allowing parents more time home with children than the US which ONLY requires employers over a certain threshold to NOT FIRE YOU for three months ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a horrible thing that happened. That being said, she made the choice, no one forced her. If she wanted a year off, take the year off and all of the sacrifices and consequences that come with it. She chose not to, you can't blame "the system" because you are not willing to do whatever it takes. Yes, she kept her job for the insurance, but only because the other parent did freelance work. One of the solutions would be have that parent get a job with insurance, etc.

Victim blaming much? How many women do you really think can take a whole year off work (which, BTW, most women would be fired for -- you only get 12 weeks protected leave WITHOUT PAY with FMLA -- so it would effectively be leaving their job permanently)?

You sound like you're trying to blame the mom so you don't have to face the possibility this could happen to any mom, even one who really, REALLY loved her baby and made a ton of sacrifices.

You can't claim she made a choice when it's not a choice for most people. It's a necessity for most Americans to have two working parents. Get off your privileged high horse and GTFO.

It is a choice. Having a child is a choice. If you want a year off when you have a child, it's your responsibility (not the government's) to make that work. If you want to stay home, but can't afford to, then don't have a baby. Don't expect the government to fund your dream for you.

So just to follow this thought to its logical conclusion, pretty much no one who can't afford to take off whatever unpaid time they need to recover from childbirth and take care of their child should have a baby? Sure having a kid is a choice but it's a choice that is good for all of us. If no one but the very wealthy had children, who would pay taxes? Fund social security and Medicare? Be the doctors and nurses you'll need to take care of you in your old age? Do things like, I dunno, work and keep our society and country running?

[Anonymous]

She had a few months off, she wanted more. She's angry at the wrong thing. The system did not fail her, the daycare did.

[Anonymous]

This sounds a lot like an article I read not very long ago in the NYT about a different baby that died in daycare, not on the first day but within the first week or something. It was also an unlicensed daycare.

I totally agree that women need more options for long-term leave, and this is a really tragic story. But I agree with the PP who said these seem like really separate things. I don't necessarily see an immediate link between her having to go back to work and her baby dying. I see an immediate link between the care she chose and her baby dying -- and I would make the case for the need to police unlicensed daycares better and make parents more aware of the risks, and improve the training for daycare providers who might put babies on their sides like this. But tragic as it is and horrible as it is that it happened on the first day, I don't see the connection as an argument for longer maternity leaves (even though I do support them).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/a-baby-dies-at-day-care-and-a-mother-asks-why-she-had-to-leave-him-so-soon/

Pretty gut-wrenching.

I think all mothers should get a minimum of one year at home with their infant, if they so choose.

This choice is currently available to mothers. What are you talking about?

The choice is availabke. Most women want the paycheck and wont give it up.

NP here...The bolded should read 'need'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PSA Canada does not pay 100% of your income for the year that you're off. I think it's like 60%. So it's still a sacrifice. Not everyone does it.

60% of your income for a year is still much more supportive of allowing parents more time home with children than the US which ONLY requires employers over a certain threshold to NOT FIRE YOU for three months ...

+1. Totally pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This sounds a lot like an article I read not very long ago in the NYT about a different baby that died in daycare, not on the first day but within the first week or something. It was also an unlicensed daycare.

I totally agree that women need more options for long-term leave, and this is a really tragic story. But I agree with the PP who said these seem like really separate things. I don't necessarily see an immediate link between her having to go back to work and her baby dying. I see an immediate link between the care she chose and her baby dying -- and I would make the case for the need to police unlicensed daycares better and make parents more aware of the risks, and improve the training for daycare providers who might put babies on their sides like this. But tragic as it is and horrible as it is that it happened on the first day, I don't see the connection as an argument for longer maternity leaves (even though I do support them).

The link is that 12 weeks is peak SIDS risk time, and if a daycare does not put the baby to sleep properly then death can result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She had a few months off, she wanted more. She's angry at the wrong thing. The system did not fail her, the daycare did.

In this case, the system includes forcing women to rely in unlicensed daycares because the government doesn't subsidize childcare in the way that most other developed countries do.

[Anonymous]

Our OT worked at a local Bright Horizons center while getting her degree and she specifically told me she ended up quitting because her coworkers kept putting babies down on their stomachs and the management turned a blind eye. Apparently they sleep better/longer on their stomachs, which makes it easier to take care of them and allows less workers in the infant room.

So I don't think whether the daycare is licensed or not matters.

[Anonymous]

I think some very important details have been left out of this essay. Babies do not die just because they are separated from their moms for 2.5 hours.

[Anonymous]

For those of you who are interested in a funded 12 month maternity leave you also have to be comfortable with federal taxes for "everyone" in excess of 50%. Throw in state taxes and more than 50% of your salary will be going to the gov't. Considering I will be working for 25 years or so and maternity leave will only be a year or two that isn't a cost benefit that makes sense over my career.

Also, although anti-discrimination laws exists, it will be much more difficult for women of childbearing age to get hired in the first place.