I was sent a link to an article in the Daily Mail this morning, on new research claiming that babies should sleep in the mother’s bed until they are at least three years old.  I must warn you about two things: I co-sleep and advocate for it, and secondly, I love this kind of ‘research’ because the debate around it is usually heated, and full of ‘study of one’ anecdotes, with everyone using their own child as their empirical research sample.

This study, conducted by Dr Nils Bergman of the University of Cape Town, South Africa, says that ‘for optimal development, healthy newborns should sleep on their mother’s chest for the first few weeks’, and …”they should stay in the mother’s bed until they are three or even four years old.”

The reasoning behind it is that the sixteen babies monitored in the study showed three times the stress on their hearts when they slept alone as compared to sleeping next to their mothers. Being in a cot also apparently disrupted the babies’ sleep, and their brains were less likely to transition between active and quiet sleep.  In the cots, only six of the 16 babies had ‘quiet’ sleep and the quality of the sleep was worse than when they were in their mother’s beds.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry about a new bit of information to have crossed my path this week: the cost of starting a family is now as much as £10,500 and shows no signs of slowing.

Wow. My poor neglected child. If we spent £1000 on her from conception to first birthday, it's a lot. And if people like me are bringing the average down, then what must the actual spend for other families be?

Gemma Campbell, data analyst at mumsmall.com who conducted the survey says: "The figure of £10,500 for a first child's first year will come as a shock to many who are contemplating parenthood, especially when they hear that around half the figure – even for budget-conscious parents – is what they’ll have to find near the beginning, to start baby off."

They put the numbers, in brief, down to this:

The AAP (American Academy of Paediatrics) once again issued a statement urging parents to limit the time children under the age of two spend in front of screens.

Back in 1999 when they first called on parents of young children to pretty much ban television and to fill out a 'media history' at their doctor's visits, the suggestion was a lot more stringent than it is today.

It seems that the AAP have taken a different approach to the issue this time, stating “Video screen time provides no educational benefits for children under age 2 and leaves less room for activities that do, like interacting with other people and playing.”

While this is all well and good, I have questions and I'm sure I'm not the only parent that does. The AAP are very firm that a child shouldn't watch TV when they're under two. So what happens to the child's brain between two years and two years and two days? Or is it not about a physical reaction that stops or starts at a certain age?

Or what if you've spent all morning at toddler group, have come home, had a nap, been for a walk to the park and now pop your tot in front of In The Night Garden while you get dinner started? Are you actively damaging brain cells by doing so? And is the effect the same if you let them watch home videos?

I've been mulling over an amusing bit of research for the last few days. According to a study conducted by SanDisk, 66% of Brits would not destroy their photo albums, even for £1m but 1/3^rd of us would destroy them for £250k or less.

At first I thought that was madness - no one could ever pay me enough to burn my albums, but then I started thinking about it and realised that since everything I have is now backed up on the computer anyway, I figured actually for a million... well, maybe? I mean, apart from the pictures, there are things that I wouldn't be able to replace – like ticket stubs, notes from friends, grains of sand from the beach, or party confetti. The photo album is more of a recollection of an experience than a book of pictures – which having them on the computer is.

The study also showed that 46% of men were more likely to destroy the photo albums, compared to only 22% of women, which doesn't come as a surprise, really. Strangely, though, 14% of men would keep pictures of the day they met their spouse as compared to 13% of women.

Apparently it’s Childhood Obesity Week this week, so it only follows that there’ll be a trickle of headlines about obesity, parenting, television and junk food in the media this week.  In time for all that, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a Policy Statement last week titled “Children, Adolescents, Obesity and the Media”.

The statement says pretty much everything you imagine it would say:

Junk food and fast food ads increase a child's desire to eat those types of foods, studies show that watching TV increases snacking and children who stay up late at night watching TV or playing video games are raising their risk of obesity due to their lack of sleep.

While I’m inclined to mock the need for a study that in my view equates to common sense, they did come up with some very interesting findings:

• Children and teens who watch more TV tend to consume more calories or eat higher-fat diets, drink more sodas, and eat fewer fruits and vegetables.
• Some researchers feel that eating while watching TV suppresses cues of satiety, which leads to overeating. (We already know that TV watching by children under 2 isn’t good for brain development, so it make sense that it will cause different reactions elsewhere).
• Others believe that viewers are ‘primed’ to choose unhealthy foods as a consequence of watching advertising for foods high in fat, salt, sugar and low in nutritional content.
• More than 80% of all advertisements (in America. We don’t watch children’s channels with advertising, so I don’t know what it’s like in the UK, but I suspect it’s not as bad!) in children’s programming are for fast foods or snacks and for every hour that children watch TV they see an estimated 11 food advertisements.

According to the AAP parents can help curb their child’s weight by discussing food advertising and monitoring TV viewing, limiting a child’s time in front of a TV and avoiding TV and internet in a child’s room.

Taking away a child’s viewing privileges is really seen more as a punishment than a good thing, however, so you could, of course, cook a nutritious dinner, eat it at a table, do fun and active family activities and make it seems like something a family does rather than a chore. All the studies in the world won’t help though, unless we act like responsible adults and parents and use common sense, but I’m no scientist or researcher, so don’t quote me on that.

Image Source: Getty

“Mummy wars” is a name I’d never heard before becoming a mother myself, at which point I realised that  the differences in parenting styles come with an arsenal of weaponry for mudslinging and name-calling.

It’s amazing, then, to see how mothers across the globe have rallied in support of a breastfeeding mother,  Habiba (an assumed name). A 22-year-old Moroccan woman who, according to reports fled an abusive spouse, and went to Spain with her 15-month old daughter, Habiba turned to a shelter for mothers and children for support, but the shelter removed her daughter from her with no warning, giving her no opportunity to say goodbye and without following any legal procedures. They then told her to leave the shelter as it was a home for single mothers and she couldn’t stay there as she no longer had a child.

Initially the shelter, the IMMF, stated that the removal was due to her refusal to force her daughter to wean from breast feeding –something the IMMF forces to make adoptions easier, should they become necessary. The IMMF also stated chaotic feeding patterns, co-sleeping and refusal to feed purees, but rather feeding her from her plate (what we call Baby Led Weaning). As international pressure has mounted with protests all over the US, Canada, Hungary, Spain and (on Tuesday) England, letters written and faxes sent to the IMMF, and the human rights group Fundación Raíces  getting behind Habiba and Alma, the IMMF have increasingly changed or “broadened”  their story to include violence and aggressive behaviour, with releases such as that in the Guardian yesterday – which aren’t substantiated by the experts and professionals that have been working with the little family.

Mothers around the world have rallied together, sending letters to their local Spanish embassies and consulates, to UN representatives, demonstrating, attending protests and singing lullabies outside official buildings.

Throughout this entire ordeal, mothers in Madrid have gathered outside the institution where Alma was kept each evening to sing her lullabies, and today, 23 days after being taken, Alma and Habiba were reunited.

I think this is an amazing story. Over 9,600 mothers have joined the English Facebook page in three weeks, and support has been tremendous with over 20,000 signing various petitions in different languages.

While all those who have watched this situation unfold from the start are still hoping to see changes in the IMMF’s policies, and stricter controls over what they can do to vulnerable mothers and children in their care, seeing what mums can do when they stand together is incredible.

Mothers – regardless of how they feed their children – have stood behind Habiba and Alma, and changed the future for this mother and daughter.

Logo Credit: Louma Sader Bujana at Little Dude Designs

Bounty recently conducted a survey of British mothers that shows that the average new mother wastes around £200 on items that they never use.

While I don’t believe this comes as a huge surprise to anyone, I must admit I felt a little bit of justification for our minimalist approach to infancy. It wasn’t always easy to not buy the cute, sweet or perceived-to-be-essential goodies we saw during those nine long months of preparation, and sometimes I felt positively guilty. But we had decided not to spend the average £4k new parents spend on their first child, in an attempt to prolong the time till I had to go back to work.

According to the survey, “ The majority of mums (86%) started to stock up on baby products long before they even had the child - but 43% say they totally over-bought on what they needed. The average new mother admitted to spending nearly £700 in total on baby products and 14% of women got into trouble with their partner for over-spending on things they didn’t strictly need for the baby.”

Something I found quite interesting in the survey was that British mums considered a cot, highchair, nursery furniture and Moses basket essentials. It doesn’t say what non-British mums considered to be essentials, but considering nurseries are a predominantly Western custom, I guess non British mothers save a lot on expensive cupboards and dressers.

Tamsin wrote a feature a while ago with her list of 8 Things Your Newborn Does Not Need, and it sparked a fair bit of conversation, as everyone had different ideas of what was right or wrong. And I think this list from Bounty will do the same. Which really just goes to show that every parent, every baby and every mother and child team are different.

Here’s Bounty’s list of 20 least useful baby buys:

1. Air purifier – agreed, for a healthy baby.
2. Video monitor – agreed. We had one. It was boring to watch.
3. Baby DVD – not even sure what that is.
4. Room humidifier – agreed.
5. Designer pram / pushchair – totally agree. I don’t think you should even buy a pushchair till your baby is six months old!
6. Changing bin – we found ours useful for keeping dirty cloth nappies for the day, but not essential.
7. Room thermometer – agreed.
8. Feeding pillow – I found this useful for the first few weeks, till I was comfortable nursing.
9. Sound and movement monitor – agreed, at least on the movement thing.
10. Baby bath stand – agreed. The bath worked just  fine for us.
11. Top and tail bowl – ditto.
12. Baby shoes – although they are sooooo cute.
13. Bath thermometer – agreed.
14. Round rubber baby chair – what? Do they mean a Bumbo? Loved ours, instead of having a highchair.
15. Car seat cover – again, what?
16. Brand name nappies – I loathe one particular brand for making my newborn’s bum bleed.
17. Bath seat – again, the bath worked fine with just a bit of water in it. She loved kicking her way up and down it too.
18. Baby swing – depends what you mean. We went through a few!
19. Baby walker – agreed.
20. Soft cuddly toys – agreed. They’ve never been played with.

While many of the items on this list might be useful or might make life a little easier, they are certainly not essentials.

I had an email on Freecycle recently from a woman saying “I’m six months pregnant and desperately need a nappy stacker.” I had to giggle at the ‘desperately’.  I hope she gets one of the new guides Bounty are putting together to show mums to be what the real essentials are and I hope this guide will help mums save a little if it helps them spend a little more time with their babies too.

What do you think of Bounty's list? Did any of those items make it on to your essentials list?

Image credit: No credits available.

The thought of avoiding cats never crossed my mind when I was pregnant, but according to a February 2011 survey by Cats Protection and Netmums, almost seven out of ten women admitted they were worried they could catch something from their pet while pregnant and 60% were concerned that their cat could pass on an illness to their new baby.  The survey also revealed that that over 35% of pregnant women were being given the wrong advice about cats and pregnancy.

Cats Protection, the UK’s leading cat welfare charity, are trying to raise awareness of Toxoplasmosis in order to reassure mums-to-be and highlight the low risk factor of catching it from cats whilst pregnant.

The charity decided to conduct the study and launch the results because hundreds of pregnant women phone the charity’s national helpline each year to ask about giving up their cat – something that Cats Protection says is unnecessary and is only adding to the UK’s unwanted cat problem.

Maggie Roberts, Cats Protection’s Director of Veterinary Services, said: “Our research shows that women are worrying about diseases such as toxoplasmosis but they aren’t being presented with accurate information. Studies show that cat owners are statistically no more likely to get toxoplasmosis than non-cat owners. The chance of contracting the disease from your cat is very small indeed – in fact you are more likely to get it from handling raw meat. Of course all cat owners should practise good hygiene routines, especially hand washing after dealing with a litter tray and before handling food, but that’s just common sense”.

While common sense when dealing with cat litter – such as washing your hands after changing the litter box – is required, and you might want to get someone else to do it while you’re pregnant, that’s no different to basic hygiene, really.

It does seem a bit sad to give up a beloved family pet based on misinformation. So watch the video (linked above) and rest assured while you snuggle up to your feline friends.

Did you give up your cat? Would you? What do you think?

Photo Credit: SpilltoJill at Flickr

I’ve often wondered why the generations who’ve come before us have done things the way that they have, and then these things started falling by the wayside a little, and now they’ve started making a bit of a resurgence… like for instance nursery rhymes.

I remember a few years back when Beverley Hughes tried to start up a ‘parenting workforce’ to find and support new parents – or force new parents, as some reported it -  in teaching children nursery rhymes.

At the time, Mrs Hughes said that “those who fail to read stories or sing to their youngsters threaten their children’s futures, and the state must put them right.”

While I can’t say I’m in favour of the concept of Nursery Rhyme Police barging in and interrogating my daughter about how many blind mice there were or what the mouse ran up or what the cat frightened under the queen’s chair – what is it with mice in nursery rhymes, anyway? – I much prefer the way they did do it in the end…. With Rhyme Time and Book start sessions at the libraries.

I know that when I started attending these sessions with my daughter, I was shocked to discover how many nursery rhymes I’d simply forgotten.

I’ve been mulling over all this for the last couple of days, since reading in the Gaurdian about a new book by Sally Goddard Blythe, a consultant in neuro-developmental education education and director of the Institute for Neuro-Physiological Psychology, and author of the book “The Genius of Natural Childhood.”

According to claims in the book, ‘signature’ melodies and inflections of traditional rhymes prepare children’s brains for language.

"Song is a special type of speech. Lullabies, songs and rhymes of every culture carry the 'signature' melodies and inflections of a mother tongue, preparing a child's ear, voice and brain for language."

According to the article, growing numbers of children enter nursery and school with inadequate language and communication skills often because their parents have not helped them develop communication skills.

So, just sticking on a CD of nursery rhymes will improve your child’s chances of success in life? Well, no. According to Blythe, "Babies are particularly responsive when the music comes directly from the parent. Singing along with a parent is (I'm sure there's a word missing here) for the development of reciprocal communication."

In fact, former minister Hughes was quoted as saying that singing nursery rhymes with young children will get them off to a flying start. And while I’m sure there’s more to it than that – such as that singing with children implies spending time with them – a few songs a day can’t be that hard, can it?  After all, before modern science and child experts and psycho-babble and all that, our forefathers were doing it, so they must have known something that we're only just realising.
Image Credit: Beetlebugs.net

I know. It hardly sounds like a headline, does it? But researchers have pooled data from 17 studies and found that children who ate with their families regularly were 24% more likely to eat healthy foods than kids who rarely ate with their families.

Apparently they were also less likely to suffer from eating disorders.

The study was conducted by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and they obtained relevant studies of 183,000 children and teens ranging from 3 to 17 years old. The study looked specifically at the eating habits, weight, and whether the children did anything harmful to control weight.

According to the study, those who ate three or more meals a week with their families were 12% less likely to be overweight than those who ate less, and 20% less likely to eat sweets, fried foods and so on.

There’s a plethora of statistics out of this study, including the fact that such children would be 35% less likely to engage in negative behaviours aimed at losing weight, such as binging, purging, diet pills or smoking.

I remember reading a book by Sue Palmer when my daughter was still an infant and I had time for reading. One of the things she talks about is families eating together and how each of the children in a specific honours program at a school she was involved with were polled and without exception, it was found that they ate regular family meals together.

It's only recently that we decided to clear the dining table of the mountain of paperwork and other odds and ends covering it, switch off the telly, and actually make dinner time family too – with no laptop and no Blackberry to distract us from talking about our day – all the while laying the foundations for an honours student with no eating disorders. Or that’s the hope. But even if not, it's just nice catching up with each other at the end of the day.

Image Credit: Lori de Lozier

I am utterly intrigued by the concept of giving children a vote.

The new Hungarian government is considering giving mothers with small children an extra vote in elections, so that they can vote on behalf of their children.  I’m not sure how ‘up to date’ you are with your Hungarian politics, (yeah, me neither), but in short, the conservative Fidesz party have come up with various controversial policies since coming into power, and this proposal is its most controversial yet.

József Szájer, a senior Fidesz official and MEP, said that 20% of Hungarian  society consists of children.

"This is quite a considerable group that is left out of representation. The interests of these future generations are not represented in decision-making."

He added: "We know at first it seems an unusual idea, but in the 50s it was unusual to give votes to black people; 100 years ago, it was unusual to give votes to women."

Well, technically, he’s right, isn’t he? It’s the votes we take and the decisions we make today that influence our children.

Looking at the 2001 census data for England, the children under voting age made up just over 20% of the population – similar to Hungary’s stats – which, as Szájer said, is a pretty big chunk of the pie.

I have to wonder, if children were given a voice, would it make any difference? Would they vote to shut or reduce SureStart centres? Would they vote to close libraries? Or 1 o’clock clubs? Or community services such as breastfeeding cafes?

Of course, I know that  children don’t really understand the value of money, and won’t get that the government is trying to claw us out of a financial hole, but since it’s them that will have to pay pensions and medical and so on for a bunch of old people down the line I do like the thought of them having some say in the matter – perhaps not infants and toddlers, but young people are able to contribute or detract from society so much more from a much younger age now, so maybe it’s time they start having a say in it too?  Children stop being children so much earlier than they used to, so rather than repress them, frustrating and prohibiting them, maybe they should be given more responsibility.

If you’re old enough to take responsibility for your actions, shouldn’t you also be given the opportunity to take responsibility for your future?

Image credit: Ian Britton

There are some things that just aren't socially acceptable, I'm sure you agree. While I personally think removing the Golliwog from Noddy was more insulting than just, say, changing his name, and I just can't call Christmas anything but, I can understand how someone with no affinity or link to Christ might simply prefer 'happy holidays'.

I do think, however, that the Seattle school that chose to rename Easter Eggs as Spring Spheres in an attempt to appease parents who were trying to keep their children's lives as religion-free as possible, has gone a little bit too far.

As Sunny Channel at Strollerderby says: “One big thing about the name 'Spring Sphere'… an egg is not sphere shaped. Oval yes. Sphere no. The school may be trying to teach the children to be non-offensive but in doing so shouldn’t they use an accurate moniker? Couldn’t they call it a “Spring Egg,” or “Eggers,” or “Pastel Plastic Ovals Filled with Candy.”

But incorrect name aside, surely, if the school wanted to teach the children to be non-offensive, the better way of doing so would be explaining that Easter is a Christian celebration (based on the Jewish Passover), eggs are a pagan symbol of fruitfulness and really, most of the world just likes chocolate?

I see no difference between an Easter-egg-shaped-Spring-Sphere and hiring a prostitute and calling her your “special friend”. It's the same thing, changing the name doesn't change what it is. As far as I can see, it's not teaching the children anything other than how to kid yourself and justify your actions till they fit your desires. But maybe that's just me.

If we want to remove anything of any religious or traditional value for everyone across the board, I think it's time Halloween became known as Fancy Dress night, Guy Fawkes became Fireworks Night, and bank holidays became Sale Days, and we can all drift further from our roots, our history, our traditions, and become one global society with absolutely no understanding of, or need for tolerance, difference or respect.

It's not every day that you'll get something for nothing, but it seems as if Asda is breaking that rule with their Sporting Chance sports activities for children this Easter.

For the Easter Holidays, Asda are offering free sports and activity sessions across the UK, with no purchase necessary. You simply pop into your local Asda and pick up a voucher – although should you decide to buy your milk and bread while you're there, I'm sure they wont mind.

Fiona Campbell-Reilly, Asda head of community, said: “"Easter holidays are upon us and evenings are getting lighter, so it's a great time for children to get involved with a local sporting activity. We all love a good Easter egg, however it's important to balance this out by encouraging children to keep active and healthy and take advantage of the Sporting Chance free sessions."

The scheme has been running for three years – this will be the fourth – and over 89,000 families took part in the free sessions last year. There are over 100,000 free sports and activity sessions planned throughout this Easter holiday and each session is designed to keep children entertained and active.

You can find out what's going on in your area by visiting the Asda Sporting Chance website, and if you want more information on eating better and tips on moving more you can visit Change4Life which Asda supports.

I did an activity search in an area I know to be relatively deprived – they even closed the leisure centre a few years ago – for a child aged two and under, honestly not thinking anything would come up. Surprisingly, there were two options – football and dance – within one mile of the postcode.

Then I searched for a 10 year old, and found three types of martial arts and two ball sports within five miles.

I must say I am pretty impressed with the variety on offer.

While we're munching away on Easter eggs and the evenings are getting longer, why not take advantage of these beautifully sunny days and get the kids involved in free sporting activities. You know what Asda will say, after all? That's right. Every little helps.

Image: Olympian Alistair Brownlee with children & free sports vouchers

As of today, fathers are entitled to longer paternity leave – up to six months, in fact, if the mother has gone back to work. I love the timing of this, like a gift to families on Mothering Sunday.

A while ago I wrote about fathers getting a raw deal when it comes to paternity leave, and just a month later the proposal for the extended paternity leave was floated (I do wish that had something to do with my article, but I doubt it!). Today it came into effect, and basically means that mums can now 'transfer' the second half of their 12-month entitlement to the father, up to a maximum of six months.

While I found having my husband around for the first two weeks exceptionally helpful – I was breastfeeding and barely moved off the sofa – I don't personally feel that two weeks is long enough for him to really bond, nor that those first two weeks are the most essential time, so these new laws seem really good to me!

For the first few months, it's really only mum that matters to babies, but from around six months, babies are so much more interactive that it's a good time for dad to get to know the baby, and bond with a real little person – or so I think, at least.

While it may be harder for small businesses, and some may even be exempted, I do think that this is a step in the right direction. Sadly, however, I'm not sure how feasible it's going to be for most families:

Statutory pay is still only just over £120 per week, and with a new member to the family and mum having taken a pay cut for a while already, there aren't too many families that can afford to live off statutory income.

So, while I'm not sure that it's going to make a big difference to families in reality, I do think having the option is good for parents. And if nothing else, it removes an obstacle to women of childbearing age when it comes to job interviews - whether that discrimination is supposed to be there or not.

Images:
1970s Swedish Paternity Leave ad featuring weightlifter Hoa-Hoa Dahlgren – OnBeing @ Flickr
Paternity Leave – The US Army @ Flickr
Marco + Masi – Nico Cavallotto @ Flickr

I was as big a fan as the next person when it came to Back To The Future as a kid. In fact, I might even admit to a little twinge of regret when the clock struck 00:00 at the 1999/2000 new year's party and I realised there were still no hover boards on the horizon.

So I couldn't help but feel a little excited on the inside when I caught the tail end of a news story today: Kidijet took its first real flight this morning over Tooting Common, South West London, piloted by Eloise Hamilton, aged five.

“It was the best thing ever!” said Eloise. “I want to spend all day with my jetpack. Flying to school will be amazing!”

The Jetpack, controlled by a simple start/stop switch, plus a forward accelerator and break, can hover and fly forwards, moving left or right according to the distribution of the wearer’s weight.

“Kidijet is powered by oxygen, a turbine and un-leaded petrol,” explained professor Anna Nonymous, a scientist involved with the project. “The components are environmentally responsible, family friendly and in no way harmful to children.”

Dan Rubel, director of family fun at Woolworths.co.uk, says “It’s taken us a good year to perfect Kidijet and we’re proud to be the first to market with this incredible invention. We wanted to make it safe, affordable and fun for the family and through producing an initial run of 3 million, we have been able to ensure that each Kidijet costs no more than £4.99 per unit. It won’t be long until every family can send their children off to school wearing their Kidijet.”

‘Kidijet’ allows children to hover up to 4ft in the air and ‘fly’ for up to 10 minutes at a time. It is available at www.woolworths.co.uk/kidijet for £4.99 in red or white.

While it all may seem a little more like The Jetson's than Marty McFly, it is certainly a great ol' step closer to that hover board!

Oh, and by the way, Happy April Fool's Day!

So, the right to request flexible working hours is to be scrapped, as I'm sure you've all heard? According to this article in the Gaurdian, it's part of the governments plan to 'cut red tape', a plan in which 21,000 regulations will be 'audited'.

Vince Cable, who before the elections championed the cause of single mothers, says the regulations to be cut include such archaic rules as “rules about trading with the enemy – Siam, apparently - to the Code of Practice on Noise from Ice Cream Van Chimes (1982) which states it's an offence to sound chimes 'so as to cause annoyance'."

It's nice to know that a regulation that affects tons of parents, single or not, around the country is lobbed into the same category as noise from ice cream vans.

In a follow up article on the same day, Lisa Ansell states, “For many single parents, this will be the difference between working and not; but make no mistake this affects all of us.”

While I'd like to think that someone sat in an office somewhere calculating the number of working single parents in the country, multiplied by the assistance they are now going to need since they will no longer be able to work – or the cost of poverty on a society, since childcare doesn't come cheap, or worse, the cost of children left to roam around on their own, raising themselves - I wonder whether they've even considered couples in their numbers.

It's certainly not just single parents who are going to suffer with this! I know plenty of couples where one parent works flexible hours so as to be able to manage child care, family life and income. If they have to choose between losing their jobs or having their children looked after it will have a massive impact on the family unit. Are we being forced to return to the “latch-key” way of raising children?

As Ms. Ansell says, it was never a right to flexible hours, but it was a right to a fair consideration of your request. And as she continues, “In the short term, the removal of this right is yet another coalition policy that will force mothers out of the workplace and into dependence on their partners - assuming they have them - and a receding state. In the long term this is a policy that halts a slow progress towards equality and was having untold benefits for British businesses and families.”

I wonder what the numbers are of mothers and fathers who will no longer be able to work at all? And then I wonder how many of the people involved in the scrapping of this regulations won't either?

I haven't written about Japan or the horror that is unfolding there yet, because, honestly – it's just too disturbing. At times like these, I can't help but hold my little girl a little tighter and try to erase those frightening thoughts that fill my mind. I can't imagine the horror of not only loss, but the limbo of not knowing at all what the future holds.

The term “Disaster fatigue” has been doing the rounds since 2008, if not before, but according to Conrad Walters from the Sydney Morning Herald, “A string of natural disasters - from Haiti and Pakistan to Queensland and Victoria - has not dampened the willingness to give, say charities helping victims of the Christchurch earthquake.”

While most of us can't give up our jobs, take leave long enough to make a difference, or actually go to a disaster ravaged area to provide hands on help, there are other things we can do:

• British Red Cross

On the British Red Cross site, you can donate £18, £25 or £50, or your own amount.

• Disaster Relief

Join this Facebook page for news of what's being done and by whom.

• Save the Children

Save the children have people on the ground and an emergency response team is heading to Sendai, the closest city to the earthquake epicentre, and other affected areas. They will use the £1 million they are hoping to raise to set up child friendly spaces to provide a protective environment where children can spend time with other children and trained teachers. This service will allow parents much needed time that they can dedicate to investigating food sources, work, accommodation and locating other friends and family.

• Shelterbox

Shelterbox responds instantly to disasters all around the world delivering aid as quickly as possible to the people who need it most. Shelterboxes contain a disaster relief tent for a family of up to 10 people, a children's pack containing drawing books, crayons and pens, survival equipment including thermal blankets and insulated ground sheets, mosquito nets, water purification system, a basic tool kit, a wood burning or multi-fuel stove and a lightweight waterproof box. And you can track your box and where it's gone too.

• International Medical Corps

International Medical Corps is sending relief teams, as well as supplies to bring critical medical care to those affected.

• Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Relief Fund

This project will dispurse funds to organizations providing relief and emergency services to victims of the earthquake and tsunami. GlobalGiving is working with International Medical Corps, Save the Children, and other organizations on the ground.

Many charity organisations have not even set up disaster funds for Japan yet, but more information should come forward in due course.

Does anyone know of any other ways to donate to Japan? Or do you feel that as a wealthy country, they don't really need our help?

A friend of mine recently split from her partner of a few years. They have a little boy together, and in his departure, the father said she could have sole custody, and he wasn't interested in being part of his son's life anymore.

While we don't know what goes on behind closed doors, I struggle to imagine what could be so bad in a relationship that you could walk out on your child too. I wondered today whether by casting men as 'breadwinners' and women as 'caregivers' we are not fostering an environment whereby men have little opportunity to bond with their children as fully as mothers (usually) do, resulting in the breakdown of a relationship also signalling the breakdown of the father/child relationship.

This reminded me of a Guardian article I read a few weeks ago, about a UN report which stated that the term 'social fatherhood' describes modern fatherhood.

The report, titled Men in Families and Family Policy in a Changing World, “highlights that men, like women, are an asset to family life and that their absence is detrimental to child development.”

The crucial point of the report is that men should not be measured against a 'maternal template' because instead of being straightforward fathers, men are taking on this 'social fatherhood': in otherwords, they are more likely to live separately from their children, or father children outside of marriage, or experience fatherhood as a “series of relationships with children, some biologically theirs and some the children of spouses and partners” (says professor Margaret O'Brien, co-author of the report.)

According to the Office for National Statistics, printed in the Guardian article, just 11% of parents share the care of their children equally after a separation or divorce, 86% of stepfamilies include children from the woman's previous relationships, 8% of families cared for the man's children and 7% have children from both partners.

Becky Jarvis, director of policy at Families Need Fathers is anxious about recasting fatherhood “as a series of temporary relationships.” She says that we need to put an end to “defining motherhood and fatherhood against each other as carer and breadwinner.”

I do agree with her. It was the basis of my Sunday afternoon musings today. By making fathers be 'just' breadwinners, aren't we robbing both fathers and children of a caring, nurturing and hopefully lasting relationship? In a world of budget cuts, recessions, two-week paternity leave and rising cost of living, what can dads do to bond with their offspring, and keep their time together quality?

Images: Happy Fatherhood - Kate Dreyer @ Flickr

Fatherhood - Tom A. @ Flickr

Fatherhood - See Wah @ Flickr

A large US study released this week states that nearly 10,000 babies and toddlers are seriously injured in cribs, bassinets and playpens per year. The study took 19 years to complete and the researchers found that cribs accounted for 83 percent of the injuries and that falls were responsible for two-thirds of the incidents.

I totally get this. My daughter was in a bassinet part time until at about five months she started standing, then we moved her into a travel cot. She started holding on to the bars, and climbing her feet up till they met her hands and hanging there, which to me looked like an easy way to obtain an injury. We tried to move her into a 'big bed' but that didn't work and she ended up in bed with us, and we've been co-sleeping full time ever since.

This study makes me really relieved that we made that decision. Here are some stats from the study:

• One in five injuries is a head injury such as a concussion that did not break the skin.
• 26 children go to the emergency room in the US every day due to cot injuries
• 110 deaths occur in cots every year – only (a still tragic) 5.5% of which happened because a child was stuck between the crib bars.

Additionally, according to a New York Times article on cot safety (as well as other regulations on baby sleep items – it's actually a good article, worth a read), more than 10 million cots have been recalled since 2007. And the FDA have recently recommended that parents stop using sleep positioners due to suffocation risk too.

Personally, I'm glad we made the choices we did, but the bottom line is that as parents we need to be aware and alert. There's a reason 'they' recommend that babies sleep in their parent's room for the first six months – so we can keep an eye on them personally (some baby monitors have also had a warning attached).

I've tried to find details on a similar study in the UK, but either there hasn't been one, or there isn't public research. Either way it might be time to let consumers know the stats here too – and hopefully the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act of 2008 will impact our children's safety too.

Ah! Another study has come out telling us, this time, that junk food may possibly make our children dumb.

According to the study, if you didn't already know, of 4000 children born in the early 90's and tested at 8 years of age (I have to wonder why the results took up to 12 years to compile!) there is a link between the early consumption of processed foods, sodas, sugary snacks and fast foods and lower IQ at that age.

Problems with the test include that they did not test the IQ of the parents of these children, and the mothers of the children filled out forms to indicate what kinds of foods the children ate. Unfortunately, most of this type of testing is known to be unreliable as people may not want to reveal answers they think might negatively reflect on them.

Once again I'm annoyed by this kind of study. What does it tell us that we don't already know? That a diet full of vitamins and nutrients is better than one full of junk food? Well who would have guessed? That's not to say the occasional junk food is going to lower IQ, but one full of it may!

Michael Hanlon from the Mail Online writes “... it is hard to think of a scientific claim more guaranteed to arouse supersized dollops of guilt, anger and resentment among mums and dads trying desperately to do the right thing by their offspring, only to be confronted by a child who refuses to eat anything except chips.”

I think this is the problem, really. Why won't children eat? Has it always been this way? Proponents of Baby Led Weaning don't think so. Stories of toddlers who've never had a puree in their lives, who have broad pallets and eat balanced, healthy meals without the fuss, without fighting over eating and without the 'parental stress' around feeding time that Hanlon (and a million others) talk about.

Another issue raised in the Mail Online article and the study was the education level of the parents, with education used as a measure of their IQ, but in this day and age where 73% of UK households have Internet access, and every pregnant mother has access to free prenatal care, midwives, health visitors and other medical professionals, with SureStart Centres and new parent groups and vouchers for milk and so on, I find lack of education to be a poor excuse for “not knowing”.

It's great that we have a study to confirm that good food helps the growing brain of a toddler … well... grow. But we pretty much already knew that.

As for us, I watched my sixteen month old devour a plate of sashimi tonight, rich in Omega 3, healthy, a light supper and since she's not capable of preparing her own supper, I intend on keeping them that way.