Of Death Do We Speak? Helping children cope with death of a loved one.

My paternal grandfather died when I was eight years old. I cried as I watched my parents and two older siblings drive away to attend the funeral.  I was not allowed to go to the funeral. I guess my parents felt I was too young and it would be too hard on me. Or maybe they were just so steeped in their own grief to think of my need for closure. I loved grandpa. I did not want to be left out of anything that involved him. And I knew I would never see him again.

Grandpa's death was never talked about in my presence. Maybe no one talked about it. I think in those days, people, at least in our family, hid their grief. If anyone cried, they did it privately. Death, like sex, was a subject children should never hear or speak of. So what did I do with my grief at age eight? I guess I stuffed it somewhere deep down and out of sight, adding death to the many mysterious evils that I was to fear, but not to question. 

I think—hope—it is generally different today. Children who experience the death of a peer,  a parent, or anyone close to them are often taken to a therapist for grief counseling. And therapists often use books or stories to help children better understand the feelings they are experiencing. When children read of a character with whom they relate and see that character experience the same feelings they suffer, they can better accept that they are not alone, and that their feelings and reactions are not wrong. 

Because death is natural, inevitable, and universal, it has found it's way into many of the children's novels I have written. It is my belief that children who have suffered or will suffer the death of a beloved person or pet will be better prepared for sorrow that threatens to overwhelm them by reading about a character who is going through the same grief. 

Janet Burroway, in her book, Writing Fiction, wrote, "Literature offers feelings for which we don't have to pay." Kids will find it easier to articulate their own feelings when they can relate them to those of a character in a book. 

Characters in my books who, each in his or her way, have each dealt with loss of a loved one through death are Danny in Danny's Dragon whose father is a casualty of the Iraq war, Kyleah in Kyleah's Tree whose mother died, and her father, and brother, with whom she is separated. Miranda, who lives with her grandparents in Miranda and Starlight, knows nothing of her father until she gets a letter from him and an explanation of the accident that resulted in his missing at sea and presumed death in Starlight's Courage. In Starlight Comes Home Miranda loses a mentor who is like a grandfather to her. Kids and adults alike like these books for the emotions, happy and sad, that they experience when reading them.

For other books, both fiction and non-fiction, written to help kids deal with death, I Googled "books to help children cope with death." One site that gives a nice list of books, most of which I confess I have not read, is:  http://www.leeanne.com/grief/

Although I still encounter parents, librarians, and teachers who would "protect" children from "sad" topics in books, I also find that kids like to have their emotions touched, and their favorite books are the ones in which the characters feel deeply about life's problems that they may also face.

Looking at the little picture can result in wrongful judgments.

I promised to expound on my comment about looking at the big picture, when I talked about playing God. I had an e-mail from a friend commenting on a recent blog post. She said, "Your new note on your own divinity, or lack of it, delighted me. Just think what a different world this would be--and what an entirely more positive, productive situation we'd be in--if each of us understood, and operated as though, we are not God!"

That pretty well sums up what I meant in my comments about playing God; about the big versus the little picture. In our humanity, it is not possible to see the "Big Picture" or to know and understand the extent of the far reaching consequences of our words, our actions, or lack thereof, or the words, deeds, and misdeeds of others. The best we can do is to stop thinking we know, behaving as if we understand, and making laws and judgment based on our narrow views and what we as individuals and a society feel sure is right.

Every morning as I start the day, I decode a cryptogram, as my thought for the day. The one this morning is fitting for this discussion, I think. "Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called." (John Stuart Mill 1806-1873) Yet our society, and many other societies in the world are set up to crush individuality. Every faction, religion, institution, and government seem to believe conformity is preferable to individuality, and rules are made for all to follow. People are persecuted, and innocent victims destroyed in the name of righteousness and protection from perceived evil.

"The perfect society" in my limited way of thinking, would be a transparent one where everyone knew what everyone else was doing, communication was open and inclusive of all, and no one tried to control anyone else. Of course this is not a perfect society and some regulations are needed. I realize that. But let me expound on one small example, out of a myriad, where I think that our obsession to regulate has gone too far. Injustice to some is bound to occur when laws rise out of fear and generalizations.

The generalized belief, stemming from the proven reality of a few, has resulted in severely limiting freedom for a lifetime of those who've served time for their crime. I am speaking of convicted sex offenders. "All sex offenders are incurable," is a widely held belief, even though statistics disprove it. You must be wondering why I should care. Let me assure you that the safety of children against sexual predators is of utmost importance to me. Anyone who knows me well will attest that I will do everything in my power to make sure children are never left alone with anyone who has the slightest chance of being a molester. Years ago, when I felt an alleged (never tried nor convicted) perpetrator of sexual abuse was trying to gain unsupervised access to my grandchildren, I did everything in my power to keep it from happening, although it wasn't easy to do. If there is the slightest suspicion that a person poses a danger to a child, the child's safety comes first.

On the flip side, however, I've seen how the present laws inequitably affect those who have been convicted and have served time for sex offenses. Here's why.

1. Sex offenders, which make up from 3% to 11% of the prison population, are the only felons who have to register their physical address within three days of moving. They are the only ones who, in many states, face restrictions on where they can live based on the proximity of children. They cannot go to the beach, a park,  or anywhere children could be present. Not even convicted killers or drug pushers have similar requirements that I've been able to find.

2. Many who've been convicted of sex crimes were not guilty. I have a friend who was falsely accused of molesting an ex-girlfriend's daughter merely because the girlfriend wanted to get even with him for ending the relationship. He served his time and moved to another state, being careful to register his new address when he moved. But it's never over for him, or any other person with a record for a sex-related crime. He was never notified of a change in the law from requiring change of address registration within 3 days rather than the former 10 days. So, when he moved again from one rented house to another, he thought he still had time to register. He was arrested, jailed, and now faces more prison time for this infraction.

I know of two cases in which the alleged child molester ended his life, after being accused and on trial. One shot himself, one stepped in front of a train. In one case the accusers admitted that the man had never touched them. They only said he did because they were mad at him for not allowing them to go out one night.

I read of a school teacher in his early twenties who had a brief consensual affair with a 16-year-old student. He served prison time for statutory rape. He is remorseful about his mistake, but is now happily married and the father of two young children. But the laws do not allow him to take his children to a park, won't allow him to visit their schools or day care in the future. Is this really protecting anyone?

3. Many studies have been done to examine the recidivism of convicted sex offenders. Results of the several I've read range from 3.3% to 10%. Does that sound like "once a sex offender, always a sex offender?

4. Most sex crimes, especially those against children are never reported, so there are far more child molesters walking free than there are known offenders who must have their place of residence publicly reported.

5. These laws, as they are designed, do not protect a child from the most prevalent type of sex offender, which is someone a child knows and trusts, most commonly a relative, close friend or a socially respected adult.

6. Though there are sex-offenders who may never be cured, most are remorseful for their crime. I, who puts children's rights for a safe and healthy environment above all else, will do all I can to see that my grandchildren are never left alone with a person who has been either alleged or convicted of a sex crime. (I have both a friend and a relative in this category. I trust them both.) I take this precaution for two reasons. One is to protect the child. The other is to protect the registered sex-offender from danger of false accusations and suspicions. They walk a very fine line, living in fear that if they make one misstep or omission of a requirement, they'll be back in prison.

Much more could be done in our prison systems to educate and counsel the inmates, thereby decreasing repeat offenses. Such programs would go much farther in making our world a safer place. 

Well, I guess I went off on a tangent and gave more than I promised to discuss, but it all relates to our tendency to make critical judgments based on generalizations,  fear, and narrow views derived from partial facts, i.e. from looking at the little picture.