The murder of a child

I usually finish every book I start. Some weird compulsion thing I have. Tonight, after getting half way through a book, I skipped to the end, and then did not go back to read the rest. Why? In part, because the book was not what I was expecting, but more because it was an account of pure evil. 

After several disturbing scenes involving abuse of various types, when I reached the scene in which a child had been murdered, I found I could not go on. The child's murder was not detailed, but the murderer then kills his mother. What got me was that just as the murderer starts in on her, she sees part of her child's body, and realises the child has been killed. I couldn't read any further. 

I know it's just a story, but I also know that this kind of evil exists in our world. I know it happens, but I can't understand the kind of evil that would murder a child in revenge, nor can I understand the author who can conjure up and give life to this kind of evil. 

Of course, I assume that it was easy for the author to write this story. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe the author really struggled, maybe it was written in the midst of constant tears. 

But as I pit the book down, having satisfied myself that at least the story sees some justice in the end (even if I know that that's a Hollywood ending, and that in real life, most times there is no justice on this side of heaven), I felt almost physically sick at the way my one felt violated. 

I couldn't go to sleep with that junk knocking around in my brain, as otherwise I would have nightmares. I've recently been having a bit of insomnia coupled with middle of the night paranoia (we have a mouse or rat or squirrel or something that seems to have taken up residence in the ceiling again), so I don't need to add nightmares to that mix.

So, I turned to my Lent Bible reading devotions. All of today's readings were on holiness. What is holiness? Who is holy? What does holiness look like in this day and age? I know it's Lent, and that holiness is a major theme, but I don't believe that it's coincidence that it was the theme being explore today. 

I was reminded of Phillipians 4:8 Finally  brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworthy - think on such things.

Let's hope that as I fall asleep tonight, my thoughts will be drawn to holiness, not to thinking about the murder of a child.

Adult bed time story (warning: PG 18L)

I know I've blogged about this before, but it needs saying again.

This evening, while trying to get our kids to sleep so that the adults could get on with playing their games, I was reminded of the adult bed time story 'Go the fuck to sleep'. You can read the text on http://poetry.rapgenius.com/adam-mansbach-go-the-fuck-to-sleep-lyrics.

Every time I read the lyrics I can so clearly recall the hours and hours I have spent feeling exactly those sentiments with at least #1 (not so much with #2) who, in her younger years, simply would not. I wept with laughter when reading it again this evening. 

Yes, it uses the swear words and so, theoretically, is not very Christian, but I'm afraid that sometimes you can't express the gut emotion without using swear words. I confess that there are times when i think swearing is funny. This is one of them. If that offends you, then I'm sorry. If that makes you think less of me, then I'm sorry. In that case, can we just agree to disagree?

I love the sense of the rising ire, the exhausted defeat, then elated triumph, then despairing defeat. That roller-coaster is so true to life, to my own experiences when I was a new parent battling to work out how to get my kid to JUST. GO. TO. SLEEP.

So, if you have kids, and have battled at one point or another to get them to sleep, go and read this. Bookmark it, and return to it every now and then when you need the reminder that:

you are not alone 

this is a common problem

Gina Ford/ Dr. Spock / whoever the latest guru is does not have all the answers

the Pinterest/ yummy mummies with the perfect kids aren't the only valid experience of parenting

it is better to laugh at yourself than weep at your predicament

life goes on

and, that this too shall pass.

You owe it to yourself to get real.

Have we cracked the nod?

I've just had such an exciting phone-call. Many of you who have been reading this blog for a few years will know that G and I run a support group for parents who have lost a child through miscarriage, stillbirth or neonatal death, based in Cape Town, but for all South Africans. For a long time, we pushed on doors at various maternity hospitals and wards, to publicise our work, to no avail. We had several positive meetings with various people, but since then, we've heard nothing at all.

In retrospect, it was probably a good thing, as I doubt we could have coped with much more than we were doing at the time. On average though, we get about 4 or 5 contacts a month, several of whom take it no further - just needing to know that there is someone there if they need it. However, we've been having about one meeting a month of late, so things are slowly picking up.

Which leads me to the phone call I've just had. I don't usually answer my phone for numbers I don't recognise, but for some reason tonight I decided to answer. On the phone was a trauma counsellor who works for Discovery, wanting to know whether he could refer someone to us!! I'll skip the bit about the woman involved, and jump straight to the bit I found exciting. I asked him how he got our number, and he said he's not sure. He didn't know of anyone offering a support group for stillbirth, so he contacted a friend at Cape Town municipality, who then contacted someone else, who then contacted someone else, who just 'happened' to have our number (not even our website url or email!).

Now I ask you - if that isn't Providence, then what is?

So - it seems that news of our small support group and the work we do is slowly starting to filter around the city. This thrills me beyond words! Not because I want to be famous for anything, but because it means that the men and women who are in deep distress can be reached, and comforted, and given hope. I'm not expecting much to change in the immediate future, really, because our experience is that Saffa's don't like to talk about death, or about losing a child.

Yet, just knowing that the right people out there are becoming aware of us, and can refer others to us, means that I know that our work of bringing hope and support and comfort to these very broken people will increase, and that excites me intensely.

What would you do?

A Twitter friend of mine (I won't mention who for ethical reasons) recently tweeted about the content she found on her son's phone while browsing his inbox. Apparently some of her son's girl-friends (as opposed to 'girlfriends') have been sending him photos of their boobs and bums... He's 15 and they must be 14 or so.

I have no problems with her browsing her son's inbox. In fact, I applaud it. Parents need to be hands on with their kids. They need to know their kids' friends and families. They need to know what their kids are watching on TV, playing online, and saying on Mxit and their phones. They have a responsibility to ensure their kids are safe and that their kids learn how to conduct themselves out there in the ether.

What I want to know is - what would you do if you found inappropriate (particularly sexual) content on your kid's phone?

Or, from the other side, what would you do if you found out your kid was SENDING inappropriate (particularly sexual) content to another kid?

As a child, I once (very nearly) sent a very inappropriate letter to my boyfriend. The night after I wrote it I had left it in my room, intending to post it the next afternoon. When I got home from school, it was gone. I asked my mom about it, and she mentioned that she had read it, and then destroyed it because there was no way she would allow me to send that sort of letter to anyone.

I was LIVID. How DARE she read my mail! How DARE she read something that was private!

I was also highly embarrassed. I knew, inherently, that what I'd written was inappropriate. I knew, in my heart, that I had pushed beyond the boundaries, and I was furious that I'd been caught out.

As the years passed though, and having kids of my own, I realised my mother's actions were wise. She'd saved me from myself, and from harming myself. (Of course, I went and harmed myself in other ways later... I seemed rather hell bent on doing that... but that's another story for another day, another post.)

When I read my friend's tweet, my instant reaction was that I wouldn't just talk to my son, I would contact the other parents and tell them what their kids were sending out. Why? Because if I were the mother of those girls, I would want to know. I would want to know that my daughter was putting herself at risk.

Because, let's face it, if you're 14 and sending that kind of photo around, the boys are going to think you're easy, or a slut, and they're going to try and get in your pants. Let's face it, if boys think you're easy, and decide to try and get in your pants, you could be in a LOT of trouble. You could be raped, or worse - you could wind up dead.

What would you do though? Would you just leave it? Would you talk to your son? Would you confiscate his phone, or restrict his usage of it? Would you talk to the girls? Would you talk to their parents? Would you show their parents what the girls sent?

Whirlwind

So much to say... as it's nearly midnight, I won't say it all. Suffice to say this week has been incredibly exhausting. With Nellie sick at home (worried about swine flu so didn't send her to nursery as I might normally have done) and Nate not comfortable, and Priscilla off work today, and G working Tues, Wed AND Thurs evenings, I'm a bit frazzled. Thus, we got takeaways for supper, and a movie. (In the midst of all this, today I saw the gynae again and got an IUD.... feeling a bit emotional about that... Definitely no more kids for us then.... Feeling very emotional about that, actually....)

We watched 'The Pursuit of Happyness" with Will Smith & Junior (who has a very long string of names). It's a movie I've been wanting to see since it came out (we hardly ever get to go to the movies - babysitting is expensive; don't want to overuse the freebies of family babysitters; movies are expensive; often too tired to go out). I'm glad I got to see it tonight, but I wish I hadn't. If that makes sense....

It's the story of one man's struggle to provide for his family. He makes one bad business decision and that ultimately results in him losing everything except the clothes on his back, and his son. One night, he and his son sleep on the floor of a public men's room. Being a Hollywood story, it has a happy ending. Along the way though, he sometimes turns into a horrible, nasty parent. Stress will do that to one. When being on time means the difference between sleeping on the street or getting a bed in a shelter, the fact that your son's favourite toy gets dropped and left behind is just tough.

I wept through a lot of the story. I was amazed at his ability to refuse to turn into a victim. Despite his circumstances he ensured that he and his kid had clean clothes to wear and food to eat. He had a goal in mind (becoming a stock broker in order to ensure that his family were taken care of) and he refused to be deviated from it, no matter what the personal sacrifices. He believed in himself with such quiet authority that the happy ending was entirely plausible.

Possibly the best, and worst, moments of the movie for me were when he and his son were in a hall in a shelter, with about 100 others. The lights were out and his son was about to go to sleep. Then he reached up, touched his father's face and said, "You're a good Papa." What higher praise could there be? And yet how tragic that this little child, only 5, could recognise that his father was giving up everything in order to ensure his little boy was ok, but that he (the father) really needed someone to love him in return and bolster his own spirit a little against the horrors of a life on the edge of society. Children can be so astute, yet they should never have to be.

Throughout the movie I found myself praying that G and I would never find ourselves in a situation like that. Fortunately, we have a lot of family in this city who, I'm sure, would help us out if we got into a tight spot. We also have options this man didn't: we own a property that could be rented out or sold if needs be. We are also both holding down jobs in a sector that is relatively stable despite the economy. I never want to have to look my kids in the eyes and tell them we have to move because we're broke. It could happen in an instant - if either G or I died in the near future, in the time between the death and the estate being sorted out, with the bank account frozen, I could easily see the remaining partner being financially crippled. And so I prayed.

This movie also reminded me that a lot of the homeless people around us are people like us, who simply got into financial trouble. It's not that they are necessarily bad people, or that they necessarily chose this lifestyle. It reminded me how hard it is, once you find yourself in that position, to get out of it. Society is currently set up in such a way that it keeps those already at the bottom of the pile from rising up the pile. If someone turns up to interview in anything other than a suit, they can forget being hired. If they turn up unwashed, forget it. If they turn up late, forget it. Yet, each of these things could simply be the result of their current circumstances, and this job could easily be the thing that helps get them off the street and into a flat where they will be able to wash their clothes and person, or whatever.

It reminded me, most importantly, about the power of grace. Society tells us that if you are down and out, poor, unskilled, uneducated, etc, then you are not worthy of mercy, or a second chance. (Your rent is late, I'll evict you rather than give you another month.) Yet, if we were to cut these folk some slack, demonstrate a bit of compassion and mercy, it might just change our world completely. These folk might then be able to get a foot on the ladder.

Oprah did a show recently (in SA we're about 4 months behind the US) about local heroes. One local hero was a couple who own a motel. Although they run the motel as a business, they also offer free rooms to those who need them - families who have lost their homes because of the current economic crisis. In addition, they have an all-day kitchen facility providing free 'breakfast' to anyone (limited, I think, to those living or working at the motel) who wants one. Can you even imagine the difference their compassion is having on families who would otherwise be on the streets? Good, decent people who have lost their jobs and so have nowhere to sleep at least now have a roof over their heads. So what that an entire family is sleeping in one room. One room is better than none.

I want to make a difference like that, but I don't want to sacrifice. My kids each have their own room. We have a massive bedroom. All 4 of us could easily sleep in our bedroom (although where we'd put all the kids' clothes and toys is a bit beyond me). That would leave two rooms free and available for others to use. But I don't want to do that. It's not just that I don't want to share my house or have others in my space. Community living is hard, no doubt about it. I just don't want to feel I'm constantly playing host. However, I know that if one of my family or a friend needed help, I'd pack Nathan's stuff into boxes and move him out of his room without a second thought.

A news item recently said that orphanages and other child care places (like Child Line) are really struggling at the moment. The rate at which babies are being abandoned has increased as the recession has hit families harder and harder. The rate at which babies are being adopted has decreased as the recession has hit families harder. They are not able to cope with the increase in babies, and they are worried that these kids will not be placed, and so will remain institutionalised for the rest of their childhood. They showed visuals of these babies all just lying on the carpet: no toys, no stimulation, no-one to love them, talk to them or cuddle them. Watching the video clip my heart broke. I came close to picking up the phone and saying we'd take a child.

Having kids changes your perspective on them forever. You begin to realise how precious they are, what a gift they are. Losing a child takes that realisation to a whole new dimension. I can only imagine how wretched the parents of the abandoned babies must be feeling - to be able to abandon your child because you have too many to care for already; to abandon your child in the hopes that someone else might be able to provide for it in a way you know you never will.... I can only imagine the pain of walking away. I don't know whether these kids were left by the side of the road or taken to institutions. I can only hope it was the latter. Either way, my heart bleeds for both the children and their parents.

I therefore admired Will Smith's character for his determination to provide for his child; not to give his son up to state care; to insist on keeping his son with him. In the face of overwhelming odds, it can often seem to be in the best interests of the child to have him fostered, or placed in an orphanage. A friend working in Mozambique sees this every day - she works at an orphanage where many of the kids actually have at least one living parent who (for a variety of reasons) is unable to care for their child. Heartbreaking stuff.

The righteous shall live by faith. Ever since I saw the news slot on the SA orphanages, I've been thinking about adopting. We don't have the money to raise another child. Right now I don't know that I could cope with another baby in the house.

And yet.

Where is the mercy for these kids? Where is the grace? Those who live by faith for their finances often report that God comes through for them at the 11th hour, that a box of food appears, or some money is mysteriously deposited in their accounts, or whatever. Maybe we should stop worrying about the money, and start worrying about the kids. Maybe we should just go ahead and adopt these kids and let God take care of providing for them. Maybe. Maybe that's too big a leap of faith for us right now.

And yet.

Anyone looking at the family who runs the motel would tell them they're taking a HUGE risk letting people have rooms for free. They're losing out on income from the rooms taken. It doesn't make financial sense for the owners, especially given the current economic crisis in the US. And yet they've gone ahead. For them, the blessing of caring for these folk far outweighs the sacrifices they have to make. Couldn't it be that way for us too? Even though adopting a child would be a huge financial and physical sacrifice for us, couldn't it be that the blessings of doing so far outweighed the sacrifices?

I don't know. I honestly don't know what the right thing to do is. If we are able to help, but fail to... well, I don't like the look of that millstone. Yet, how does one measure the ability to help? It's surely not just about money? Often the poorest of the poor are the ones who help others the most, who start up community projects, who give their "widow's mite". If we don't take a child in, aren't we saying that money is more important to us than saving a life?

And yet, don't we have a responsibility to care for the 2 gorgeous kids God's already given us?

And yet, what about Mr Shine (another Oprah episode) who has 9 kids (of which only 1 is biological) and is a SINGLE PARENT? If he can do it, why can't we adopt just one more?

Well, right now I'm too tired to reason this out any further. But all of this is bubbling away at the back of my mind all the time. I need an answer to it. I need a resolution. So I'm going to go sleep on the problem. Maybe God will give me inspiration.

Child safety

When I was little, kids travelled in cars without restraints. We sat in the back, most often, but because cars did not have seat belts in the back, we just sat on the seat, or lay in a carry-cot on the seat. However, as safety standards have risen, so the laws regarding child safety in cars has also changed.

The law about no under-12s in the front is still in place. It is now more dangerous than ever for kids to sit in the front of vehicles that have the highest safety systems ever - deployed airbags can kill them. Similarly, since it is now compulsory for cars to have rear seat belts, it is now compulsory for kids to be buckled in. As most people know, seat belts are designed for adults, not children. Children who use adult seat belts risk being killed in an accident. Thus, kids should only be strapped into age and weight appropriate car seats or booster seats.

However, it would seem that for many Saffas, that message still has to hit home. Driving around, I regularly see kids in the front of the car, not strapped in, standing and playing with toys on the dashboard; or worse, standing between the two front seats. It horrifies me. Don't those parents care? Don't they love their children? OK, so most of the offenders I see are clearly from poor families, so no doubt cannot afford car seats, but at least the kids should be sitting down in the back.

Why has this issue raised its head for me again? Because I'm rediscovering how inconvenient it is to have a small baby that needs regular feeding, but is not yet in a routine. On the way home from G's brother's wedding in Rawsonville, the little man decided it was time for a feed. We had decided to take the R101 back to Cape Town, rather than the tunnel. This was a fortunate choice as it meant we could stop at a viewpoint and, while he fed, we could appreciate the beauty of the Paarl and Wellington valleys. It would have been more convenient though for G to drive and for me to sit in the front or the back feeding Nate. We were all exhausted and the sooner we could get home, the better. (As it was, I fell asleep behind the wheel a few hundred metres from our home! Fortunately, only for a millisecond, and fortunately, no damage was done - but it was VERY scary!)

I am often tempted to ignore the car safety rules. I am often tempted to just go the 'short' distance to the shops, or wherever, without properly strapping the kids in. It's a schlep to strap them in properly. It takes several minutes to strap them in, and get them unstrapped. If all I want to do is pop to Spar for bread, do I really want to increase the trip length by 10 mins to strap the kids in at both ends of the trip?

BUT - statistics show that most serious accidents occur within a very short distance of the car's occupants' homes. Take my little failure - if I had fallen asleep a moment later, or for a moment longer, I would have hit the curb as the road curved. I wasn't travelling too fast, but it might have caused serious damage to the car. That, in turn, might have put us in a dangerous situation and put the kids at risk. Imagine if there'd been another car on the road at the time. It could have been really awful. If something had happened, and the kids had not been properly strapped in, and something had happened to them, could I ever forgive myself? It's one thing to lose a child 'naturally'; it's quite another to lose a child through a car 'accident'. Car 'accidents' are seldom accidents. Someone is usually at fault for not following the rules of the road.

Yet, knowing all this, there are times when I fail to strap Nellie in. The only time I go against my better judgement is if we've been out for dinner and Nellie has fallen asleep at our host's place. Then, G will sit in the back with her in his arms and I will drive. Usually, it is a very short trip (less than 10km) and usually, I take all the back roads to avoid other vehicles. The fact remains though, that it is always night time, and that in the dark accidents are more likely to occur. So why do we do it? Because, like everyone else, we believe ourselves to be invulnerable, immortal, and otherwise not at risk. Stupid, isn't it?

So while I rage at those who take risks with their kids, I have to confess that I am guilty too. It's easy to rationalise my actions: We don't want Nellie to wake up; if she were to wake up it would be a hassle to get her back to sleep; it's quicker and easier not to have to strap her in; it's such a short trip - nothing will happen; etc, etc.

And yet.... I know that I am at least aware of the risks. I don't know that the others I see driving around with their kids in very dangerous positions do. I feel so protective towards those kids I want to stop the driver and ask if he/ she really loves the child. I don't, because I imagine that most people would get very upset with me, and in Cape Town my fear is that he (interestingly, most often, it is a guy... I've just realised that. I wonder why? Are women instinctively more protective of their kids, or are fewer mothers drivers?) will pull a gun on me, or otherwise threaten me with violence. I don't want to put myself at risk, because I would hate for my kids to grow up without their mother.

So yet again, I feel guilty. By failing to intervene and by failing to seek to protect the kids, doesn't that make me an accomplice to the crime in the same way that someone who witnesses a murder and fails to report it is an accomplice? What a big mess!

Turn a blind eye?

I love reading. I love nothing more than to pick up a book in the morning, preferably staying in bed, and immerse myself in it until (at some ungodly hour later that day) I finish it. (Yes, I read pretty quickly.) I love Sci-Fi, fantasy, murder mysteries, and chick lit. I'll read a good biography or autobiography if it's been recommended to me. I will also read a good science related book - like 'Short History of Nearly Everything'. (WHAT a great book that is!!) I love reading Time mag, and local newspapers because I love knowing what is going on in my world - it's the infernal gossip in me.

I don't like horror or psychological thrillers much. I used to. I used to LOVE reading Dean Koontz. But there's only so much a girl can take after being unable to go to sleep at 3am after being scared witless by a book. My imagination is FAR too productive.

Since losing Zoe, there are other books I simply will not read: those that involve any story about children being harmed in any way - from the impact of divorce to child abuse. I find them just too painful to read. I can't understand how ANYONE would harm a child, especially since I would give my right arm to have my daughter back and these characters seem to treat their kids with such blatant disregard. I usually screen my books quite carefully now, to make sure there's nothing of that sort.

Last week, I was in a rush. I dashed into the library to grab some books before dashing home to feed Nathan. I didn't really look too closely. I picked up a Ruth Rendell - usually love her stories as there's enough predictability mixed with some really unexpected twists - called 'Not in the flesh'. On balance, it's a great story. However, there is a sub-plot that even now makes me shudder.

Female genital mutilation.

In Africa, especially northern Africa, the practice is quite widespread. Essentially, while a girl is still a small child she will be held down, with no anaesthetic, while some woman in the tribe uses either a knife or sharpened stone to cut off her labia and clitoris. She will then stitch the wound closed in such a way that the girl will never be able to urinate or have sex without extreme pain. She will then bind the girl's legs together for a period of time (usually a week or so), during which time, infection often sets in because the wound is not being properly cleaned.

In the story, Wexford (the main character, a police detective) is faced with a dilemma. He knows that a Somalian family are going to 'cut' their 5yr old daughter in the very near future. What should he do? The practice is illegal in the UK, where the story is set, but until the act is actually committed, there is no crime. He cannot arrest the parents. Child welfare can do nothing, because no crime has been committed. He warns the parents of the jail term they will face if they do, but there's not much else he can do.

Eventually, he & some other important characters manage to burst in as the mutilation is about to take place. The end result is that the 5yr old is removed into care, while her older brother and sister remain with the parents.

Reading the story has left me unsettled. What would I do? Is it worse for the child to be taken away from her parents forever, or to suffer mutilation? Is there no compromise? As with circumcision in SA, many young boys lose their lives because of infections from their time in the bush. A compromise is to allow a registered doctor to perform the circumcision, so that at least one knows the wound has less chance of becoming infected. While I COMPLETELY disagree with female mutilation, is there no way to reach a compromise? Is there no way to respect their culture while not harming their daughters?

Just the thought of what those girls go through is enough to make me mad and howl with the injustice of it all. On the one hand, I bet they simply don't know any better. On the other, how can a woman who has gone through that inflict it on her daughter? Surely there must be some inner plumb line that tells her it's just wrong? or is the imperative to uphold tradition stronger than that internal voice of conscience?

I know that there are different parenting strategies out there. I know that some people would be HORRIFIED to learn that I smack my child on her bum (once, open hand, only as a last resort) when she is being completely atrocious. I believe that I'm doing the right thing. But there is a world of difference, surely, between that and what these mothers and aunts and sisters are doing to these girls.

There's not much I can do sitting at the tip of Africa, as I don't have money or time to give to the cause, and I'm living in a part of the world where (I imagine) it doesn't happen very much. Besides, there are lots of other more urgent problems facing the people immediately around me - like substance abuse leading to fetal alcohol syndrome, or babies on crack, or (the latest trend) newborn babies being abandoned by the side of the road because of financial (and other) constraints.

Does that mean I can ignore it? I don't know. One only has so much energy and time to spread between the different problems facing one. Yet, I feel like I'd be letting these girls down if I did just shrug my shoulders and say 'There's nothing I can do about it'. It's kind of a rock and hard place scenario.

Damn! I should have checked the book more carefully before I took it out!

Child Protection Week

This week is National Child Protection Week, with the theme this year being 'Caring communities protect children'. Therefore, today is specifically dedicated to the missing children of South Africa.

Many of you are probably aware of Madeleine McCann, the little British girl who went missing on 3 May 2007 in Portugal, while her parents had dinner about 50m away. She's still missing. What continues to astound me is the amount of publicity this little girl & her disappearance get. There are between 1500-1700 children who go missing every year in SA, whom we seldom hear about, and who certainly never get the same amount of publicity. Something doesn't sit right with me about that picture.

While I don't wish to detract from the publicity Madeleine gets, why is it that she gets it? Why is it that I don't know about the missing children from Cape Town? Why is Madeleine news, but not the children in my own city? Is she somehow more important than them? Is it because her parents are probably more wealthy than the average parents in Cape Town? Is it because life in SA is held in such low regard?

I have to say that I get this gut reaction every time I see something referring to Madeleine, something ugly that rises up inside me. The fact that Madeleine continues to get publicity and these children don't feels like something from the Apartheid era, where one group of people benefited at the expense of others. I wonder how many other missing children have had resources diverted from their search in order to focus on Madeleine's? I'm not saying it has been, just that I wonder whether it has. There is no doubt that high publicity cases get more resources than low publicity ones. Of course, everyone agrees that's wrong.

Every case should receive the same amount of resourcing, but we can all see how a foreigner's missing child would attract unwelcome publicity; thus, we can all see how such a case would receive more funding, more staffing, more resourcing in every respect. I just find it disgusting that it happens. If Janel were to go missing, I wouldn't have the money to publicise her disappearance the way that Maddy's parents have. I wish I could. I don't fault them for doing so - if I had the money I would also try to raise awareness in every country I could around the world. I just think it's disgusting that the 1500 missing kids in SA don't get the same level of publicity. Aren't they just as important to their parents as Maddy is to hers?

On a tangent, I read a news story over the weekend about a woman in East London (a small city in SA) who murdered her 8 & 10 year old daughters last week. She strangled them with rope. Some time before she did though, she rang a friend to tell her what she was going to do. The friend alerted the police, but they were unable to find her. What I found horrifying though was that, as the mother strangled the younger one, the older one phoned her mother's best friend to tell her what was going on, and to ask for help. Neither the friend nor the police were able to get to them in time. Can you imagine that? You get a phone call from your best friend's kid screaming that her mother is trying to kill her, and although you do everything in your power, that child still dies. Can you imagine that child's terror? I felt physically ill after reading that story. The mother tried to commit suicide after killing her kids, but the police got to her in time. She's in hospital now. No-one knows why she did it.

There's another high profile case in the news at the moment about an SA cop who shot both his kids and is now pleading temporary insanity as a result from work-related stress.

To kill your own kids.... I don't know. Something has to be seriously wrong (with you as a person and as a parent) for you to do that.

I guess the good thing about having a Child Protection Week is that it raises awareness about the issue. For example, I learnt today that, in SA, if your child is missing, the police would rather you report it to them immediately, before you conduct your own investigation. There is no 24hr waiting period here as there is in other countries. Police are aware that if the average parental search for a missing child takes 4-6 hrs, the child may already have been taken out of the country by the time they are alerted. They would rather launch an immediate investigation and have the benefit of those 4 hours than risk losing the child forever. I don't often say this of government organisations, but how eminently sensible!

The other thing I heard on the radio today is the plea for South Africans to take much more of an ubuntu approach to children. If you see children wandering around (especially during school hours), whether they are your child's friends or not, whether you know them or not, take an interest. Treat every child as if it was your own. Stick your nose in. Get involved. It may just save a life.