Did Caylee Have Any Playmates?

[Tichad3]

I think she didn't have any playmates because other mothers were not willing to lock their children in KC's trunk to play with Caylee.:furious:

 

[JoAnn_W]

I think this is important because it appears that this little girl, with the exception of what the grandparents provided for her in their home, never really inhabited a normal, childlike world. Why?

I respectfully disagree with your definition of "normal." She was only 2 years old. Many nursery schools require the child to be age 3 and potty trained. If she had lived, she probably would have started nursery school or pre-school. Even so, it's not really abnormal for a 2 year old to be in an adult world. Casey was young- so she may not have had friends her age who had children. Her brother had no children, so there were no cousins.
Cindy and George seem to welcome people in there home- so friends with children and grandchildren or extended family may have brought children over. She probably met other children at the beach and parks.

JoAnn_W

 

[icherish]

But that time was spent alone without other children her own age. I am a total advocate of preschool. If you can afford it. Casey didn't work, so could not afford a very expensive "baby sitter", so she created Zanny.

My grand daughter is three and better on the computer than my husband. LOL. For her third birthday (one week after Caylee's), she had 15 children and about 20 adults. All the kids were from her pre-school plus some cousins, new borns, etc.

Sounds like your granddaughter is very bright!

I have to say though that I am not totally for children less than 3 years old attending preschool.

I don't say I'm against either...I just don't advocate it over having them in a home setting with parents or other loving caregivers. (btw, I am a mom of 4 kids who all attended a non-structured "playschool", starting at age 4.) Particularly and especially if parents work or are otherwise unable to care for their children at home... and as long as the setting is age-appropriate.

The following is MOO:
What is most appropriate for babies and toddlers isn't so much having lots of playmates around, but being in a "care-centered" setting with competent, loving caregiver(s) with the primary focus on attending to, loving and nurturing children- including, (but not limited to) encouraging and allowing them plenty of exploration and free play in and out of doors. Both can be well provided either in home OR in an appropriate "playcare" center. (I think "preschool" is an overstated term for this age group. JMO )

 

[GoneWithTheWind]

As far as childern's birthday parties go . . . the rule of thumb i used was ... invite the number of children for each year. For example, for her 2 year birthday party, she should have had 2 little friends. for her 3 year old party, 3 children. byt he time they are 16, 16 teens could be invited. just a good rule of thumb . . .

 

[FightTheOstrich]

I disagree. Most of us have seen photos and videos of Caylee drawing, coloring, dancing, playing her sandbox, her playhouse, playing dress up, the list goes on. These activities were very much a part of Caylee's short life, and that is a good thing.

maybe, but coloring in a coloring book doesn't count. coloring books actually aren't very good for children (they teach children not to use their imagination and to color what someone else says a dog should look like etc...) especially a child as young as Caylee. yes, she needs to learn to color in the lines and follow directions but those are pre-school lessons. i don't recall ever seeing her w/ scissors, tape, glue, paints, etc... (a coloring book and crayons are not true art supplies) judging by how well her dress-up outfits were put together, someone else did the picking out so that doesn't count either. all show no go. doesn't count in my book.

 

[GoneWithTheWind]

One more thing, the number of presents should be limited to 3 or 4, or a small child will be way over stimulated. if children, come their presents need to take center stage.

 

[icherish]

As far as childern's birthday parties go . . . the rule of thumb i used was ... invite the number of children for each year. For example, for her 2 year birthday party, she should have had 2 little friends. for her 3 year old party, 3 children. byt he time they are 16, 16 teens could be invited. just a good rule of thumb . . .

I agree that the younger they are, less is more.

I gotta say though, as a mom with 2 teens... sixteen 16 year olds? Holy moly!! :nerves::crazy::wink:

 

[Pattymarie]

I think this is important because it appears that this little girl, with the exception of what the grandparents provided for her in their home, never really inhabited a normal, childlike world. Why?

I respectfully disagree with your definition of "normal." She was only 2 years old. Many nursery schools require the child to be age 3 and potty trained. If she had lived, she probably would have started nursery school or pre-school. Even so, it's not really abnormal for a 2 year old to be in an adult world. Casey was young- so she may not have had friends her age who had children. Her brother had no children, so there were no cousins.
Cindy and George seem to welcome people in there home- so friends with children and grandchildren or extended family may have brought children over. She probably met other children at the beach and parks.

JoAnn_W

(Bolded by me) This is my point, you say "seem to" and "probably," but that is not evidence if she really did have any "normal" childhood activities outside of what her grandparents provided for her in their home. (I also have not seen any evidence of the A's having people over to their homes or even having any friends. )

And the point of this thread was to determine/sleuth if Casey ever tried to provide a day-to-day proper environment for an almost 3 yr. old child. It can go towards proving neglect, even motive for her murdering her. Thus far, I have not seen or read one piece of evidence that shows what Caylee did each day while in the care of her mother. (I suspect that Casey viewed Caylee as being in the way.)

 

[LinasK]

Same with my now 11 year old. At age two she didn't have any young friends because I didn't know anyone with young children ( I was 22 when she was 2.) Daycare was very expensive.

I now have a 4 month old and am older and wiser and know he needs to eventually socialize. I go to story time with him and that will probably be it until he is in free pre-school (VPK age 4.) I've looked into part-time day care for next year so I can take some classes and it's outrageously expensive (400/mo at least.) My husband makes a decent living and we still would have a hard time swinging that.

So no, I do not think it's unusual considering KC's age that she wasn't running out joining mom and me groups or putting CA in daycare because of the cost.

She could still have made the effort to seek out free storytimes at the local library, take her to the zoo, meet other kids at the park, play places, play with neighbor kids...

Storytimes at Borders and Barnes& Noble are free too, and they provide a small snack for the kids.

 

[Pondering Mind]

She could still have made the effort to seek out free storytimes at the local library, take her to the zoo, meet other kids at the park, play places, play with neighbor kids...

ITA LinasK! There are 'mothers mornings out' at many churches that are quite inexpensive (and are pay-as-you-go with no long term commitment) It's just another thing that makes me very sad when I look at all the pics of Caylee, but never playing with another child. I was a very young mom too, (and broke :crazy but you make a way for the things that are important for your children, but we ARE talking about KC here..and the only person she 'made a way' for (or considered important IMO) was herself.

 

[icherish]

maybe, but coloring in a coloring book doesn't count. coloring books actually aren't very good for children (they teach children not to use their imagination and to color what someone else says a dog should look like etc...) especially a child as young as Caylee. yes, she needs to learn to color in the lines and follow directions but those are pre-school lessons. i don't recall ever seeing her w/ scissors, tape, glue, paints, etc... (a coloring book and crayons are not true art supplies) judging by how well her dress-up outfits were put together, someone else did the picking out so that doesn't count either. all show no go. doesn't count in my book.

Color in the lines? Scissors? :waitasec: A two year old typically hasn't developed the fine motor skills to do those things independently. Same with getting into dress up outfits or any outfit...they usually need help.
Coloring books and crayons are good because they can encourage the development of fine motor skills. "True art", or whether they color in the lines or color the dog brown or purple is a non-issue or at least unimportant at this age. That they are encouraged and provided with ways to be busy with their little hands, bodies and minds, is. It's obvious to me Caylee had that available to her.

 

[Chilly Willy]

maybe, but coloring in a coloring book doesn't count. coloring books actually aren't very good for children (they teach children not to use their imagination and to color what someone else says a dog should look like etc...) especially a child as young as Caylee. yes, she needs to learn to color in the lines and follow directions but those are pre-school lessons. i don't recall ever seeing her w/ scissors, tape, glue, paints, etc... (a coloring book and crayons are not true art supplies) judging by how well her dress-up outfits were put together, someone else did the picking out so that doesn't count either. all show no go. doesn't count in my book.

LOL...my kids definitely used their imaginations at that age when coloring in coloring books, and they weren't concerned at all about staying in the lines. Scissors, tape, and glue are too advanced for a 2 year old.

 

[Dani_md]

Caylee is playing with another child in some of these photo's not neccessarily the same age group, but shows she did interact with other children.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1694915/Casey-Anthony-BBQ-Party-Photos-January-2008

I could have swore I saw a couple other photo's somewhere but don't recall where

 

[OneLostGrl]

Some women are their own worst enemies.

Now, ain't that the truth!!

 

[Pattymarie]

Caylee is playing with another child in some of these photo's not neccessarily the same age group, but shows she did interact with other children.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1694915/Casey-Anthony-BBQ-Party-Photos-January-2008

I could have swore I saw a couple other photo's somewhere but don't recall where

Looks like a young adult drinking party to me.

 

[icherish]

(Bolded by me) This is my point, you say "seem to" and "probably," but that is not evidence if she really did have any "normal" childhood activities outside of what her grandparents provided for her in their home. (I also have not seen any evidence of the A's having people over to their homes or even having any friends. )

And the point of this thread was to determine/sleuth if Casey ever tried to provide a day-to-day proper environment for an almost 3 yr. old child. It can go towards proving neglect, even motive for her murdering her. Thus far, I have not seen or read one piece of evidence that shows what Caylee did each day while in the care of her mother. (I suspect that Casey viewed Caylee as being in the way.)

"Seem to" or "probably" is really all we can say, because we don't know the A's and have not actually seen it ourselves.

I will say, just one look at pictures around that house would suggest to anyone it was a more than suitable physical environment for a 2 year old. Casey has been described by most every one who was privy as a "good mother" who was concerned about the interests of her child up until Caylee went missing. Which ironically, is bonus points for the defense as far as proving any sort of prior neglect.
However, I'm sure more details of how Caylee spent her days with her mother will come out in court. It surely won't come from Casey herself though...

 

[FightTheOstrich]

LOL...my kids definitely used their imaginations at that age when coloring in coloring books, and they weren't concerned at all about staying in the lines. Scissors, tape, and glue are too advanced for a 2 year old.

my daughter was using scissors @ 2 and Caylee was closer to 3. i don't think it's too young @ all. if a 2 year old can use scissors they definitely can play w/ tape, glue, pastels, etc... my mother taught kindergarten and always encouraged me to let my daughter explore. my friends all laugh b/c this is the one area i'm a pretty free spirit and i let go of my ocd side. my daughter now 4 has turned her playroom into an art room. she probably spends 5 hours a day "creating". is it a mess? yes. but, i wouldn't have it any other way. kids today don't used their imaginations like they used to, most experts are worried about this. i would much rather provide her with the materials to work on crafts then purchase toys that are only what they are. what happened to the days of lincoln logs, legos etc...??? watching her create dresses out of tissue paper and all sort of other stuff is fantastic. my guess is that CA was a little to uptight for this.

 

[FightTheOstrich]

Color in the lines? Scissors? :waitasec: A two year old typically hasn't developed the fine motor skills to do those things independently. Same with getting into dress up outfits or any outfit...they usually need help.
Coloring books and crayons are good because they can encourage the development of fine motor skills. "True art", or whether they color in the lines or color the dog brown or purple is a non-issue or at least unimportant at this age. That they are encouraged and provided with ways to be busy with their little hands, bodies and minds, is. It's obvious to me Caylee had that available to her.

right, i think you misinterpreted what i said. since Caylee wouldn't have had the fine motor skills to color in the lines, she should not have been given coloring books. at least this is what i learned when i studied early childhood development in relation to art. when i see parents of young children purchasing coloring books for their toddlers, i just want to smack them out of their hands. the other thing that drives me nuts, when children make turkeys out of their hands. let them draw a turkey, let them use their imagination. who cares if it looks like a turkey.
of course she would have needed help getting dressed but what two year old doesn't want to pick out what she is going to wear????

 

[TxRose]

right, i think you misinterpreted what i said. since Caylee wouldn't have had the fine motor skills to color in the lines, she should not have been given coloring books. at least this is what i learned when i studied early childhood development in relation to art. when i see parents of young children purchasing coloring books for their toddlers, i just want to smack them out of their hands. the other thing that drives me nuts, when children make turkeys out of their hands. let them draw a turkey, let them use their imagination. who cares if it looks like a turkey.
of course she would have needed help getting dressed but what two year old doesn't want to pick out what she is going to wear????

So are you saying you shouldn't give coloring books to a child that can't color inside the lines? Yet you are a proponent of allowing them to use their "imagination" when creating art? That sounds contradictory to me. Who cares if they color inside the lines? Who cares if they color a tree that is purple? As long as they are enjoying themselves it shouldn't matter. My daughter wanted coloring books at that age - and I bought them. She couldn't really color them well, but she liked the pictures of the characters she recognized. She would scribble on them. Gradually, she improved at her motor skills and would "color inside the lines". But honestly - the ones where she didn't are the cutest and most cherished by me.

By the way - I also bought her books to look at even though she couldn't read. Oops. :crazy: Guess that's why she is in the gifted program in middle school now....hmmmm.

 

[icherish]

right, i think you misinterpreted what i said. since Caylee wouldn't have had the fine motor skills to color in the lines, she should not have been given coloring books. at least this is what i learned when i studied early childhood development in relation to art. when i see parents of young children purchasing coloring books for their toddlers, i just want to smack them out of their hands. the other thing that drives me nuts, when children make turkeys out of their hands. let them draw a turkey, let them use their imagination. who cares if it looks like a turkey.
of course she would have needed help getting dressed but what two year old doesn't want to pick out what she is going to wear????

(I bolded to respond)
With all due respect, I have never in my life heard such a thing, and I find the idea that coloring books are a hinderance to creativity in young children or harmful in any way patently ridiculous. moo

How do you know Caylee didn't pick out her dress up stuff? My daughter was digging through the dress up box by herself by age 2- I have no reason to assume Caylee had not done so also.