HomeSearch for 'they' (Page 2)

they - Baby-sitting & Childcare

Are there any negative effects on babies or small children if they wear socks specially inside foot?

Posted in Toddlers on 18th February 2014

Are there any negative effects on babies or small children if they wear socks specially foot inside?
I heard a rumer that wearing socks for a long time affects the feet and the brain, too. How true is this Best Answer (s):

FallinHard answer
I do not know about the brain, heard that you need to haventjedoch the feet to breathe, so do not wear them 24/7

Reply ASA
rumors are stupid.

response from Ski Owl
not true.

Reply punchy333
you can slip on hardwood floors …… that’s the only thing I can.

Reply zarney think
never Socks causes the brain gehört.Abgesehen of the fact that they can slip them on, I do not see a problem with them personally, if they not too tight, which can cause problems with their feet.

Reply Heartbreaker
is a total lie! nothing bad will happen

Answer by Emmanuel M
No there is no trace of truth in that, it is only a speculation that

Answer by yorkie
make, only that the sock fits well. if it will fall wrinkles. if it is too small, it might be little toes beschädigen.Auch if it does not cut off circulation by too tight at the ankle.

Answer by My Girl , well they slip and fall
. barefoot better handles. Maybe if they wear socks slip and fall and hit her head, so as to affect the brain? lol … you know now say that shoes are bad because they do not allow the feet to develop the foot muscles as the shoes do the support. That’s why this leather moccasins are “in” for the babies. But socks …. that’s just stupid that no other lighter than slipping.

Answer by Stephanie K I
do not know about the brain, cause not believe that right. but incorrectly fitted shoes and tight socks effect a child bone, because it grows and forms are not ready yet, if they can just go in the house bear feet when the ground is safe. I also avoid baby grows for babies at night and tend to stick with pjamas, best known as a mother know you anyway with instincs. x

“TV commercial feed the children why they are still dying is sent after money?

Posted in Child Support on 10th September 2013

“tv commercial feed the children, why are they still die is sent after money?
I’ve seen ads on TV “Feed the Children” for years and I wonder after all the money that us big-hearted people in this foundation for so many years, why so many children die of hunger and disease. why havent humanity helped these children. Therefore, they may slip breez like a forgotten summers in the night. these children are out futhure. We can put a man on the moon but can not feed our children here on earth. NOT MUCH IN HUNANITY is that it? would you let your child die of hunger?? its a slow and painful death for a child in this long process surcome is not really a sin, and in their self-perception. Hope it’s out there, “someone has an answer Best Answer (s):.

Reply Pirate_Wench
should stop advertising, and use the money that will be used to make the advertising was to put these women on birth control. If the people who make the commercials were really cared, they would also help them.

Reply GreatNeck it
some healthy looking children.

because there are other children born everyday and PLUS, they do not have enough money and food for them, IF all join in and it is illegal, so they come MOVE TO AMERICA SO OF COURSE YOU OVER HERE Cant to more things I feel so sorry for them!!

answer by Olivia
Sorry to say, but some of this money that supposedly “goes to the children” really going on in government funding. Sick, huh? Most of the money, but is sent with the children in poor countries. I agree, we should focus our energy and money on the problems on earth before you try to fix it on the moon. But when a child is taken care of, there is another to take their place. It’s a never-ending sequence of events. I mean, there are thousands of children are dying of hunger. We feed a few more to come. Then, we are fed hungry again sooner. The thing is, we never have enough to keep up with everything. It is good to donate, because no matter how little or how much it is, you can make a difference to the child. Would not you be grateful for a good meal? Perhaps a person can not change the world, but you can another person.

help Reply charles_e_love
food is political. Some governments may not want a particular segment of the population to receive the aid, or if there is a civil war in this country, it can be given no safe and practical way for food or any help to the needy. Some rebels or government soldiers in these impoverished nations like the food for themselves. While the non-combatants (civilians) starve to death or are forced to another region or nation caused more chaos, tension and conflict to migrate. Look what hapened in N.Ö., ie. Hurricane Katrina. Thousands of people were left to themselves because of the sheer incompetence. And this is the most powerful nation on earth! Scary. The Red Cross had a few thousand volunteers ready and willing to go and help there, but the RC is not the infrastructure or a basic SOP for getting there, accommodations, etc. I do not knock anyone for support “starving” nations, etc ., but most people do not know that it takes more than money to improve the human condition.

Reply by jim d
WAKE UP! It should be rich animal feed. Do you honestly believe the children are getting any relief from your donations? Some organizations are reputable, but the bulk of the money goes to ads to get more money, administrative costs, and believe it or not, profits. Not all organizations are non-profit.

If a guy finds out a child is not his own, they should pay for it “child support”?

Posted in Child Support on 2nd August 2013

If a guy finds out a child is not his own, they should pay for it “child support”?
For starters, do not think the emotional attachment to this Q. … Let’s say Jack finds out that his 8-year-old girl was fathered by someone else. He decides to divorce his wife, Jill. As Jill obviously sex with at least one other man besides her husband, she is “guilty” of fraud by not admitting him, the child may not be his. So, after the divorce, @ Riitz should not the courts, to make Jill “child support” payments to Jack for 8 years to get it for the cost of raising the child, which does not compensate for his: But would not it already a ” be implied trust “that a married couple, the children would be their own? Thus, a DNA test at birth is not required Best Answer (s):.

Reply Bill_the_Dog

response of integration 20
I like it. It might help to deter paternity fraud.

reply by Anthony
Its only fair, I’m sure every woman who has done this know who the real father was with her so-called intuition. So yes, they should pay him back money he spent on the child, not his.

reply by Beth
I do not like Jack was not to pay by a court to alimony in the first place, if it has just paid his way for himself and his family that’s his decision whether or not the child was his. Unless he was ordered to ever see support for whatever reason, he was married to pay, he is not guilty in the eyes of the law.

Reply RiitzC No
. It would be the argument that he would have done a DNA test earlier not much to stand sein.Theres for the case when he could not make a valid point and held each input and evidence of what wurde.Menschen spent on child money . It should werden.Edit expected: Sure, but no where does it firmly under marriage law by law, that the persons to be monogamous. It is a part of the agreement, the pairs are kept in the hope würde.Ich’m not saying that’s right for women to make it easy to do that there’s not much you can do to change the past.

Reply crǝǝpy Cupcake ♥
I find stories like this so sad. The only problem would be the woman may not be the cost to support the child if they had to pay off debts and the child is the most important person in the whole situation. But no, a man should never be a child who does not have and if anything I think that the family courts should help to compensate him. You have enough money as it ist.Ich think that men made to pay the child routine DNA testing should be offered. I find it pretty disgusting that women only say that a child is a human being, if the child might not.

be answer by Cutiepie is!
If the child looks just like his mother or the woman intentionally took a guy who noticed just like the dad-to-hut with on the side, how could not the father that the child be? looked like? He should have to pay for his clueless. If I was a man and my wife popped out a baby who looked nothing like me, I would be immediately suspicious.

response from Apple ♫ ♪ ☻ ♥
No, it would not make sense if the child lived with the mother anyway cause they already support the child and bring it up.

response of rowdy McFarlane
paternity fraud should major pay-back to the victim (the man and the child), as well as possible prison time.