Police Replace Teddy Bears With Books

by Amy Hatch (Subscribe to Amy Hatch's posts) Oct 26th 2009 10:00AM

Categories: Health & Safety, In The News, Extreme Childhood

A new federal law has police departments re-thinking the toys they hand out to kids. Credit: Jek In The Box, Flickr

A law designed to protect kids from harmful chemicals means that some police officers are no longer handing out cuddly creatures to comfort children in times of distress.

The Middleton, Wisc., Police Department often finds children present when officers respond to emergencies -- domestic abuse, car accidents or health emergencies -- and they used to give the kids a teddy bear to make them feel safer in the midst of the chaos. Now, thanks to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, they hand out backpacks of books, according to Madison news station WISC-TV.

The Federal law requires that all toys and children's goods be inspected to ensure that they don't contain harmful chemicals, like lead. The bears that the police department used to hand out where often donated, and the officers couldn't confirm whether or not they met the new standards of the CPSIA. The law is also retroactive, so departments like Middleton could be held liable if the toys don't meet the standards.

Middleton police Sgt. Don Mueller told WISC that the books can help kids escape using their imaginations.

"If you can get them to open it up and start reading, it can take their mind off whatever the problem is we're passing them out for in the first place," Mueller said.

The backpacks full of books are donated by a program called With Wings and a Halo Reach a Child, and offer stories for a wide age range. Officers said that the books do help.

Related: Boy Suspended for Carrying Camping Tool to School

Source

Comments (70)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)

LS 10-26-2009 @ 3:32PM

Oh, this is a GREAT idea!!! Until some poor, unsuspecting child gets LEAD POISONING from all that lead in the book pages that CPSIA is sure is there. And what about the psyche of those kids who can't read, that they hand these books to? Honestly, talk about adding insult to injury.

Seriously... I'm so SICK and tired of these stupid rules designed to protect us from ourselves. If a kid is traumatized, he's much more likely to be comforted by a teddy bear than by a book. It's just common sense.

Oh yeah, that's right. Common Sense has no place in today's society.

bkg 10-28-2009 @ 3:23PM

I agree . we have become so paranoid ....lordy, give the police some teddy bears and books - lots of kids and adults would rather have something to hug more than a book. Especially in areas where kids speak several different languages.

We all probably had muxch better immune systems when we weren't so protected and constantly washed by anti bacterail products

Myra T. 10-27-2009 @ 6:36PM

Where are the hell are these people coming from. At a small age most of the children can't read and a teddy bear is very reasuring and makes them feel safer. Books don't mean anything if they can't read or someone to read to them. Tell them to get into the real world.

susan 10-27-2009 @ 11:17PM

what about kids to young to read - kids also might be to upset to sit down and read a book - they just want something to hold onto - to hug. COmmon sense here - dont take donations of actual teddy bears - take donations of gift certificates to major toy stores - so they can monitor where the stuffed animals come from . Once again to much government interference...

CLM 10-26-2009 @ 3:48PM

LS and I agree on very little. Here, however, the nail has been hit on the head. I am highly doubtful that hanging onto a stuffed animal for a little while is going to damage these kids' brains any more than the freaking TRAUMA they have just gone through.

Just as an aside, I can't speak for others, but when I donate toys, I only donate the same quality as what I would welcome in my own house. I doubt people are donating crap. Further, how many stuffed animals have lead paint? As LS pointed out, books are MORE likely to contain lead because of the ink.

Heidi 10-26-2009 @ 5:28PM

I think it's really sad that now you have to be afraid that comforting a traumatized child can be dangerous. As for dangerous toys - anything that comes from China should be checked against recall lists. As for people donating crap - I recently participated in a Food Drive for a local food pantry and had to throw away a bunch of stuff that had expiration dates of 1998. For some people, the first things to go when they are asked to donate any type of goods to a charity, is the crap they won't use.

Heidi 10-26-2009 @ 5:39PM

I think it's really sad that anyone should have to be afraid that comforting a traumatized child could be dangerous. However, dangerous toys abound - just check recall lists for the stuff that comes from China. As for people not donating crap, well, I just participated in a Food Drive for a local food pantry. I had to throw away a bunch of stuff with expiration dates as far back as 1998. Some people only donate stuff they would never consider using.

Heidi 10-26-2009 @ 5:40PM

sorry for the duplication. I didn't think it went through the first time

SKL 10-27-2009 @ 12:42AM

I have never heard of a child dying or being seriously endangered by a donated teddy bear. I want to see some statistics.

LS is right, there could be more lead in books than in teddy bears. The children's libraries were afraid they might have to shut down after that recent law was passed. (Not sure if they finally got an exemption).

If the point is to comfort after a trauma, give the child a teddy bear. If the point is to help start the kid off on a better life, as when he transitions out of a homeless shelter etc., then give him books. Show some concern for where the child's mind is, first and foremost. Or just don't give anything at all. (I'm trying to remember what philosophy teaches that a gift given in the wrong spirit is more damaging than giving nothing at all.)

Dorothy 10-27-2009 @ 6:11PM

If we would just quit buying stuff that we don't absolutely NEED from foreign countries this wouldn't be an issue.

Besides, if this child has just survived some kind of disaster or trauma, it's more important to protect their mental well being than some CHANCE that there might be a milligram of lead paint that they might not even be exposed to.

God, take away our Teddy Bears who comfort us when we lose our big screen TVs.

Inger 10-27-2009 @ 1:17PM

I agree with the above commentors! A teddy bear is not going to harm a kid and is a lot more comforting to a child in shock than someone giving them books. And cuddly furry creatures don't need to be any specfic language or age level.

So sick of being nannied by the government!

Inger

cobral1 10-28-2009 @ 10:17AM

I also agree with the above. It sound to me that this is a law passed mostly by Liberals.

Mars Feeney 10-27-2009 @ 1:31PM

The CPSIA came from Lala land and lifelong Democrats (such as myself) are becoming Republicans because we no longer have faith that our Democratic Congress has any common sense whatsoever. (if the CPSIA makes sense to them, how on Earth am I going to trust them with health care!)

Parents have little time to research laws passed by our Congress. They have to assume these laws are generally sensible. In the case of the CPSIA that assumption is utterly false - this law hurts children more than it helps them.

The CPSIA can be likened to dredging the entire Pacific Ocean to remove glass shards from the beach. You may get the glass but in the process you destroy the beach, the ocean, and everything in it. The CPSIA is impoverishing the creative and educational environments of children, stealing important resources from low income families, destroying businesses, negatively impacting our already weak economy, and providing little (if any) safety in return.

The list of TOTALLY SAFE products in the process of being made illegal or unmanufacterable by this law exposes it for what it really is - an excercise in phobia: bicycles, tricycles, books, rocks, telescopes, microscopes, teddy bears, potato clocks, most musical instruments, most anything with brass in it, clothing with zippers or snaps or buttons, most hand-made items (testing is too expensive for small quantities), rhinestones, and the this list goes on, and on, and on...focus on unsafe products is completely lost by the mountain of perfectly safe products being hyper-regulated by the CPSIA.

Historically only a tiny fraction of lead poisoning cases in children have come from childrens products. If the money being wasted by the CPSIA were focused on lead in house paint and soil and the few childrens products that really are a problem, safety would be increased by orders of magnitude over that being provided by the CPSIA. Instead, the complete loss of focus and the immense amount of money wasted on safe products, I believe, will ultimately result in less safety for children, not more. I have a six year old daughter and I believe she deserves better than an ineffective, money wasting, phobia based law!

I applaud Senator Jim DeMint’s effort to ammend the CPSIA but I believe it is not enough. Our children deserve better. This law needs to be repealed and replaced with a law that focuses on real dangers to children.

lindee 10-27-2009 @ 4:18PM

AS a First Responder for disasters and emergency situations, I know how much comfort the teddy bears provide. Hugging a book just isn't going to have the same calming effect.

jeanne 10-27-2009 @ 5:15PM

Lindee, I agree with u completely.... In fact being in the EMS business for almost 11 years I know that this is true. In fact my daughter, now 12 still has the teddy bear given to her when she was 16 monthes old. She had swallowed a quarter and was given the little bear to comfort her. She still has a very vivid recollection of what occured and the ambulance ride to go with it.

Sally G 10-27-2009 @ 10:17PM

This is just absurd! I'm still lost in the 20th century, and I think I'll stay there. I'm pleased to be "over the hill", as things seem to be getting crazier every day, and I am tired of the crap. With all the real problems we have, this is an issue? Whatever happened to a sense of priority?

charlotte 10-27-2009 @ 4:29PM

I personally think that the people who make these laws are the ones who ate lead as a child. A lot of lead. They have to be brain-damaged. It's bad enough that people are afraid to hug a child, now they are afraid to give them a bear to hug because of some idiot lawmaker that probably had someone else hug their child because they are too busy making stupid laws to do it themselves.

Cathy 10-27-2009 @ 4:32PM

I don't know about anyone else, but when I am experience high stress moments there is NO WAY I can pick up a book and concentrate on the letters and put them into words and sentences that make sense.

Stupid stupid laws. You know, some kid might accidentally get a paper cut trying to read these books, then where would we all be?

Trish 10-27-2009 @ 4:40PM

What kid is going to want to cuddle with a bookbag full of books. As a child when your world seemed to be falling apart what did you reach for...a book or your favorite stuffed animal???

igoh900 10-27-2009 @ 4:53PM

i remember when i was 3, when I was afraid or lonely, I would grab a book and cuddle it and squeeze it. The book made me feel secure. yeah... ok.
Teddy's have friendly faces to smile back at a child. books do not.
Second, who's to say all the kids in those situations can read?
yes, officers can read to them, but not all children may feel comfortable being read to by the very same person who is taking away their mom or dad.
Precautions are always wise, but knowing what being a student is like, I can't say I recall being handed a backpack of books was comforting. However, Tommy, (my teddy bear) always got me through.

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments

How To Submit Photos:
If you'd like your children (any age will do!) featured on ParentDish, upload photos into the ParentDish Flickr Pool. Be sure to read our main Flickr page for more information.