Safe Haven laws have been passed in all 50 states since 1999, as a way "for mothers in crisis to relinquish their babies to designated locations and keep them protected and provided with medical care until a permanent home is found."

37-year-old Gary Staton abandoned his nine children in September 2008, relinquishing them to the custody of his home state of Nebraska -- protected as a parent by the state's Safe Haven law. Now Staton, is expecting twins with his new girlfriend, Gail.

Staton abruptly became a single parent to his nine kids when his wife, RebelJane, died of a brain aneurysm in February 2007, not long after the last child's birth. The children, who ranged in age from 1 to 17 years of age, were dropped off at a hospital in Omaha when Staton determined that he could no longer care for them. The law has since been amended to only include children up to 30 days old.

Staton's two oldest children now live in Omaha, where they are finishing high school. The remaining seven kids live with RebelJane's aunt, who is in the process of adopting them.

Should the government pay those on welfare to stay home and care for their kids?

That's the question Los Angeles officials are asking as the number of unemployed rises and California deals with a budget crises that threatens to land the state in bankruptcy. Governor Schwarzenegger wants to eliminate Cal Works, the state's welfare to work program. LA County Supervisors prefer to make deep cuts and save the program. Their goal: Target the most expensive people.

Currently, California "Welfare to Work" recipients are required to find a job or participate in government funded training or school. While fulfilling the program requirements, the government also covers childcare costs of about $500 per child per month.

The only exception to the work and training requirement are welfare recipients with a child under the age of one. One of the easiest ways to save money is to expand the exemption to include those with a baby under two years of age and those with two or more children under age six. In other words, pay more people to stay home with their kids.

Seems like a good idea -- but how do other parents feel?

These days, moms have it all; we can work or stay home or do both. In theory, we should be much happier than our mothers and grandmothers, who had far fewer choices. But that doesn't seem to be the case. In a recent "New York Times" article titled "Liberated And Unhappy," op-ed columnist Ross Douthat attempts to make sense of a new study titled "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness." According to Douthat:

"...all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness. In the 1960s, when Betty Friedan diagnosed her fellow wives and daughters as the victims of "the problem with no name," American women reported themselves happier, on average, than did men. Today, that gender gap has reversed. Male happiness has inched up, and female happiness has dropped. In postfeminist America, men are happier than women."

The online comments and reaction to both the study and Douthat's analysis is entertaining and thought-provoking reading for anyone interested in the state of women and families in post-feminist America. Several "New York Times" readers attributed the rise in male happiness to their increased involvement in the lives of their children. And while most agreed that the rise in single motherhood and the working moms' "famous second-shift" are indeed major contributors to the decline of female happiness, others make the case that the study is flawed because1950s moms were less inclined to answer questions of happiness honestly.

The subject of female happiness is an issue close to my heart. In fact, I have written a book on the subject ("Stay Home, Stay Happy: 10 Secrets to Loving At-Home Motherhood," due out in September). For the record, I do not believe that a return to the 1950s model is the solution; my education and the freedom I have had to chart my course in life is fundamental to my personal happiness. I feel good about being an at-home mom in large part to the choice I have had in the matter.

In my estimation, stress is central to diagnosing female unhappiness. Whether you are a working mom, a single mom, or an at-home mom, it is hard to feel "happy" when you feel overwhelmed and too many women these days are overwhelmed. Many women work because their families depend on it. Others accept the burden of the second shift as the price of professional fulfillment. Still others are home, struggling to find themselves between the diapers and endless laundry. What all women share is a desire for more balance and meaning in their lives, though we may not know or agree on how to achieve it.

I came to at-home motherhood, and to loving it, rather unexpectedly. I love what I do and over time, I came to understand that my happiness was intimately tied to the happiness of my family. With five kids under the age of ten, it's not hard to understand why we are all much happier and less stressed out with me at home. Technology (especially the internet) and a supportive, helpful and grateful husband have all contributed to making my at-home experience (mostly) joyful. I've been doing it for more than ten years now, and I can honestly say that as an at-home mom I feel both liberated and happy. I wonder what Betty Friedan would think of that?

Christine Coppa is having a normal mom day. Before she sits down for this interview, she has been out on a walk with her 20-month-old son, Jack, who has stopped to hug every tree on the block. "He slows me down," she says with a laugh, and it is clear that this is a good thing.

Coppa, 28, is a freelance writer living in Wayne, New Jersey. She has been writing about her life as a single mom at Glamour.com for nearly two years, in a blog called "Storked!" and she's written a book about her experience, "Rattled!" Her journey to parenting is not a traditional story, and that's what makes Coppa so engaging. "I was excited," she says about her pregnancy. "People want me to tell them that I was scared and it was horrible and I curled up into a ball. That's not the story."

This is the story: Coppa was 26 when she got pregnant. She and her boyfriend had been dating for about three months; they were seeing only each other and were, she says, fairly serious. "One night we didn't use a condom and I got pregnant," she says matter-of-factly. "It was irresponsible." Faced with a pregnancy she hadn't planned on, Coppa says, "I decided to be responsible."

She is quick to qualify this, though: "I'm pro choice -- having the baby isn't the only responsible version of my story." For Coppa, responsibility means being prepared to take care of a child, not becoming a single parent; she sees adoption and abortion as equally responsible choices. "I don't want to be the directions on how to deal with finding yourself pregnant." Her story, she says, is just one version of what can happen.

Dating is hard enough when you're a parent -- what about introducing your date to the kids? Or having sex???

It is human nature to desire a partner in life. Almost all of us want someone with whom to share our existence -- to soar with on the ups and lean on during the downs. That strong urge to pair up is what makes the misery of dating worthwhile. If we are lucky, one of those awkward evenings spent getting to know a stranger will lead to a lifetime of companionship and, for many of us, a brand new family.

But when you consider the fact that the divorce rate in the United States is somewhere around 50%, it is clear that many of us get it wrong the first time around. And all those divorces lead to a situation that can be even more awkward than dating: Dating with kids.

It isn't just moms trying to navigate the tricky waters of single parent dating -- dads do it, too. And while plenty of single mothers will simply forgo their own wants and needs in the name of good parenting, Bruce Sallan at Mom Logic thinks that is a mistake:

Many moms choose to be the martyr, denying their kids the possibility of a good male role model in the home and subjugating their own needs. I don't think a parade of dates is cool, but neither is delaying the rest of your life.

Remember Angie Everhart? The smoking hot supermodel turned actress turned Sly Stallone arm candy? Well, she's back and she would very much like to have your attention.

Word on the street (and by street, I mean Perez Hilton) is that the 39-year-old redhead is pregnant with her first child and the father is not Joe Pesci. That Everhart even has to deny Pesci's paternity may sound odd, but she and the funnyman were actually a couple for several years before breaking up this past April.

So, who is the dad? Everhart isn't saying, but something tells me that her secrecy is a calculated move designed to boost interest in a reality show she's shopping. The show is called Angie Baby and it will follow her through her pregnancy as a single woman going it alone. I predict a very special episode in which the father of the child is revealed.

Angie says her desire to turn her pregnancy into a reality show isn't about money or attention. It's about showing the world how great it is to be pregnant and single. "I decided to do a show about me being a single, strong, healthy and good-spirited woman who is having a baby on her own. I want to show the positive aspects of women who do it on their own," she said.

Of course, single women get pregnant and have babies all the time and it isn't the end of the world. In fact, some women may genuinely prefer it that way. But there are ups and downs and good days and bad days and in the end, you work it out the best you can. Single motherhood is not a walk in the park and a reality show that depicts only the positive aspects of going it alone isn't exactly depicting reality.

Do you think celebrities who flaunt their unwed pregnancies do a disservice to young women by glamorizing single motherhood? Or are dads truly optional these days?

Lucky viewers who tuned into CNN's Larry King Live last night got to witness little Dannielynn Smith, Anna Nicole Smith and Larry Birkhead's two-year-old daughter, surprise the judge who ruled on custody of her mother's remains during a taping of the show.

"She's a beautiful little girl and I'm glad everything is working out," Larry Seidlin, the Broward County, Florida, Circuit Court judge said of Dannielynn. "Larry [Birkhead] is a great father." The judge had not previously met the blond toddler, who was sporting a pink bow over her left ear. By all appearances, Seidlin was thrilled to meet Dannielynn, who nestled in her daddy's lap and seemed to make a point of playing with all King's desk accessories within reach.

Let's call it "Three Larrys (King, Birkhead and Seidlin) and a Baby."

And the whole affair really did appear to be straight out of the movies. Remember how Seidlin teared up as he ruled that the former Playboy Playmate's remains should be buried next to her son Daniel in the Bahamas, and resigned from the bench after the six-day trial? "I want you to understand that I reviewed absolutely everything," he gushed. "I have struggled with this. I have shed tears. Justice is not perfect, it's what is reasonable."

Smith died of an accidental overdose of prescription drugs in February 2007, following the death of her 21-year-old son Daniel, who also OD'd, leaving 5-month-old Dannielynn at the center of a custody battle between Birkhead and Smith's current boyfriend, attorney Howard K. Stern. At the time of her death, Smith was involved in a legal battle over the will of 89-year-old billionaire oil tycoon Howard Marshall, whom she married when she was just 26.

Although the dispute has not been resolved, if Smith's estate wins, Dannielynn will one day inherit the Marshall fortune. In 2007, Birkhead fought (and won) a legal battle to prove his paternity of the toddler and to receive custody rights.

Although Birkhead appears to have honorable intentions with his desire to father Dannielynn, what's up with making the talk show rounds? Isn't it time to leave the media circus behind and give her a "normal" life? I wonder how all this will impact her once she's old enough to understand what's happened. What do you think?

Back before I was married with children ("MWC") there was this rumor floating around that you could make money on your taxes by getting divorced. The idea was to get divorced at the end of the year and then remarry at the start of the next year, divorcing at the end of that year, too, in order to collect on some sort of tax credit. I don't know if that's true or not -- or if it ever was -- but I would assume that in many states the cost of the divorce would more than consume any money made or saved on taxes.

In the UK, however, it looks like single parents or those who split up are rewarded for doing so. According to an article in the Daily Mail, parents get more benefits if they separate. These benefits include tax credits in the neighborhood of £5,000 or roughly $7,500 for a single mom with a child. Numbers from a study done on the matter point to a lot of fraud. People are saying they are separated or divorced or are actually going through with it in order to get the additional money. And, hey, why not -- times are tough and families are willing to do whatever it takes in order to make ends meet.

Our own system in the United States isn't always that much better than the tax credit system in the UK. I can think of many examples where it behooves a mother to remain unwed from the father of her children in order to get tax credits and tax breaks. I've seen where it benefits a mom to not take a better paying job because she'll lose her eligibility for affordable housing (yet still not make enough money to afford a decent place of her own). What is the answer? I can't say. I don't know enough about the social system or the politics it takes to get the right decisions made. Still, it seems counter-intuitive to not provide benefits to parents who stay married, too.

What do you think? Should single parents be given extra help from the government? That's a touchy, touchy question! What about giving so much help to those single parents that it makes it a much sweeter deal than staying married?

Certainly, Phillip Smith's two sons, five-year-old Jake and three-year-old Aiden need to be supervised when in a swimming pool. How much supervision they require depends upon a number of factors: their familiarity with and abilities in the water, the type and depth of the pool, and the aquatic abilities of those doing the supervising. Given that Smith is a firefighter and that the pool in question features a pirate ship with slides and what appears to be fairly shallow water, I would say that Smith could probably take care of both kids by himself.

He thought so too, but Hillsborough Leisure Centre in Sheffield, UK, disagreed and turned him away. "As a fireman, I'm highly trained and expected to be able to provide first aid at emergencies," said Smith. "To say I cannot cope with looking after my two sons at a swimming pool is just mad." The center maintains a strict one-to-one policy for children under the age of eight and refused to admit them. "I discussed the situation at length with the duty manager," fumed Smith, adding that "the manager refused to do anything but hide behind policy."

Now I understand the center's desire for safety, but it seems to me that their policy might just be a little over the top. If they are having to turn away parents who feel there is no need for such concern, there might just be something wrong with the way they are doing things. One obvious (albeit expensive) solution would be to add more staff. Another is to allow parents to take responsibility for their own children's safety.

Contrary to what may seem logical, a new study has found that gay teens are more likely to get pregnant or father a child than their heterosexual peers.

The findings, culled from adolescent health surveys conducted in British Columbia schools in 1992, 1998 and 2003, were the result of 30,000 anonymous interviews of 7th through 12th graders. The researchers can't say definitively why homosexual teens are up to seven times more likely to get pregnant, but they do have some theories.

In the report, published in the Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, researchers deduce that the surprising findings might be due in part to closeted gay, lesbian and bisexual teens doing their level best to prove that they are straight. "For some gay, lesbian and bisexual teens it's camouflage," said Elizabeth Saewyc, lead author of the study, "because it's still pretty stigmatized and they still face a lot of harassment at school."

Researchers further speculate that some of these pregnancies may be the unintended consequences of sexual experimentation by confused teens. But what's most disturbing is the suggestion that some of these girls might be getting pregnant on purpose.

"Some people will reach for an identity that has more respect, more positive value. And in our society, what's more valued than fatherhood or motherhood? We have holidays for them," Saewyc said. "So even though teen parenthood isn't very valued and it's not all that respected, per se, it is a more positive identity in some places than being gay, lesbian or bisexual."

Soon to be divorcee Guy Ritchie has some non-Kabbalah plans for his children this holiday season. According to sources, the Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels director plans on celebrating Christmas with kids Lourdes, Rocco and David this year. What's so unusual about that? Well, if reports are to be believed, former wife Madonna has banned the holiday from the household as Kabbalah followers don't celebrate it. Far from bashing the religion, Guy has allegedly abided by Madonna's beliefs but wants to put some fun back into the holidays.

According to the source, the past year's celebration was anything but festive when a famous artist showed up and everyone ate steamed fish. Woohoo--that's right up there with stockings, milk and cookies for Santa Claus and stringing popcorn around the old Christmas tree. Ritchie has stated that by giving up the present aspect of Christmas his family was actually able to enjoy the holiday--a sentiment I can totally get behind, especially in this terrible economy--but I can also see his point that the kids are perhaps missing out on something fun and traditional too.

It seems like Guy wants to compromise, and, rather than go against Madge's religious wishes wants to add some tradition of his own into the celebrations. I think that's fair--after all, there are more than plenty mixed-religion households out there where the kids celebrate both sets of holidays. Some of my pals growing up, for example, celebrated both Christmas and Hanukkah. It's pretty much the wave of the future, so hopefully Madge will go along with it. Let's just hope Guy isn't pulling this for some sort of publicity stunt. I'd better not see Lourdes, Rocco and David dressed up like the three wise men on the cover of some tabloid!

A new study of 15,000 British families indicates that delaying parenthood to pursue higher education and a career may decrease the chances of having children with health and learning issues, while the offspring of young, poverty-stricken moms are more likely to suffer from problems of all kinds.

Children of uneducated parents have poor vocabularies, and by the age of five, boys who live in poverty are about two months behind their female classmates, a gap which apparently increases with each school year.

However, kids of well-educated, working parents over the age of 30 display higher cognitive abilities, and many have fewer behavior problems, according to the Millennium Cohort Study.

No kidding. I would never have figured that one out on my own.

Poor kids -- and in the UK, three out of every 10 kids reach the age of 5 living in poverty -- also have more general health problems, including obesity, but are less likely to suffer from bed-wetting.

The study, a snapshot of modern families in the 21st century, also reveals that mothers under the age of 30 are more likely to yell at their child, and that 50 percent of that same group have suffered from depression.

Hmm, let's see -- I'm under 30, living in poverty with no father figure in the household, and I have overweight kids with behavioral issues. Gee, I wonder why I might be depressed?

Oh, wait! They don't wet the bed! What am I so upset about?

This study, while fascinating in many ways (for instance, 69 percent of fathers say they are good dads, as opposed to 60 percent of moms who are equally confident in their abilities), shows mostly sad and familiar facts. Poor kids don't get read to as often, watch too much TV and get hit a lot.

The data may be specific to the UK, but my guess is that you'd find similar results if you sampled American families, especially now, as the economy continues to tank and more and more families face serious financial pressures.

I should be a statistic -- my parents married under the age of 20, and my mom never went to college. My dad got an engineering degree on full scholarship, graduating when I was two years old. They were married for 34 years. My widowed mom, while not formally educated, is a well-read, curious and sophisticated woman who would be a match for any man with a string of letters after his name.

And my two siblings and I all have college degrees.

I wish I was the rule, not the exception. What about you? Did you pull yourself up by your bootstraps or did you have a proverbial silver spoon?

After more than twenty-five years in the business, the shine is definitely off the industry in which I've toiled for so long. And yet, I go to work every morning and trudge through the day, not taking off for Botswana to bum around in an old Land Rover. Why? Because of the kids. I couldn't imagine not being around them, hugging them, hearing Jared say he loves me and watching Sara climb things. I didn't set out to be a parent but, like someone who expects lengua to taste terrible but tries it anyway and loves it, I am now, first and foremost, a father.

But what if I weren't able to see the kids every day? What if I weren't around all the time to take them to school and cook them dinner and hug them in the middle of the night when the monsters come calling? That must be what it's like to be a single parent. Such is the tale of William Leith who shares custody of his three-year-old son with his ex-wife; Leith sees his son for half a week at a time.

Leith has written a very touching and sadly informative piece about what being a part-time dad means for him. "...even after three and a half years. My son! I don't usually go more than three days without seeing him. But sometimes it feels like a long time not to see your son." I could imagine going three days without seeing the kids -- perhaps on a business trip or something -- but it would certainly be a rarity. I don't think I've gone more than a day without seeing them since they were born. That would be like walking around without an arm -- or a heart.

Check out Leith's article; I know it made me think about life without the kids and strengthened my resolve not to miss out on their lives. I joke that I would never get a divorce because my wife would stick me with the kids but, in reality, the exact opposite is true. I don't want to have to visit my kids.

Given the spate of media bs floating around the Internet these days part of me finds it hard to believe a rumor that anyone would want to botox their kid's feet. Then, part of me realizes the drama is surrounding Sharon Stone and thinks there could be a kernel of truth to the rumor. After all, the actress and one-time sexpot has basically gone off the wall in recent years, making crazy statements and acting crazy in general--and it no longer seems like a publicity stunt to draw attention and viewers to Basic Instinct 2.

Stone is mom to eight-year-old Roan, and her custody of him is currently under question. Allegedly she has lost custody of her son after overreacting to his foot odor by thinking he should get botox in his feet. According to reports (rumors!) the judge agreed that Stone was overreacting and causing pain to her child, and has granted primary custody to the actress' ex, Phil Bronstein. Sharon will get to see him one weekend a month.

That seems so terrible for a mother to lose custody of her child and to only be able to see him on a monthly basis. I would be crushed if that happened to me. Of course, as crazy and hormonal as I am in the last stages of pregnancy, I still wouldn't think it was a good idea to botox my son's feet. Poor Sharon--she really must be suffering from some sort of emotional disorder or complications from her brain surgery to make those sorts of decision (if they're true, and they appear to be).