How do your kids get to school? How did you get to school when you were a kid? Taking the yellow school bus, walking or riding a bike may all seem like normal methods of getting to school. In the modern world, we drive and carpool as well. But what about in urban environments where a lot of parents don't drive or even own a car? They take the subway.

And they do it ALONE. That's right--I've seen it myself. Kids popping onto and off of the subway without a parent in sight. How do they manage it? And why, you might wonder, do their parents let them do it? Well, necessity is the mother of invention and a lot of other things, it turns out. Kids are going in one direction, their parents in another (to school versus work), and the main way to get around town in New York, for example, is underground.

Turns out, it's probably safer too. Driving in this city is a disaster on a good day. You're a LOT less likely to get into an accident on the subway than you are in your car. Plus, the kids tend to travel in packs on the subway. I never see a kid get onto an empty car at an odd (non-rush hour) time. They pick which car to meet up on and collect as the train makes its stops toward their final destination. I know because I can hear them screeching above my iPod.

Plus, and I know this goes against everything you've heard about New Yorkers, but the people on the subway look out for kids--even when they're not their own. If a kid gets onto a car by herself, I've noted people taking notice and making sure she gets a seat, etc. They care. And they're aware. Basically, it would seem that most of New York is actually watching out for your children.

This doesn't mean that just any kid at any age is ok to ride the subway. The kid has to be old enough to know to follow the rules. And, she needs to be trustworthy. Kids who tend to get into a lot of trouble don't seem to have the same amount of independence their counterparts who can keep it together are afforded. They leave the house at a certain time and are expected back at the house by a certain time in the afternoon, no bones about it. We also have cell phones and other technology to help us stay in touch with our kids more easily than ever. That makes it a lot easier to let a child take public transportation knowing they can--and hopefully do--check in with us.

I never see--ok, well, I rarely see--kids getting into fights or making trouble for other passengers when they're riding the subway to school. Mostly they talk (screech) amongst themselves, they read or they do their homework. The train is actually a MUCH more conducive place to get some work in for adults and children. There's none of that carsick business going on!

The other transportation option in the Big City is usually the bus. Buses are slow but they do the trick just as well. They cost the same amount as the subway but they are above ground and therefore more prone to being part of an accident. You do have to consider the carsickness issue on the bus but some parents really prefer to keep their kids above ground for whatever reason.

While I used to get nervous seeing kids alone on the subway, especially now that I am a parent, I can certainly see the advantages--it's less expensive and safer than driving, takes less time, is better for the environment, gives the kids a chance to hang out together and socialize in the morning and get their work completed, and gives them a sense of direction and independence they might not otherwise have access to. That all sounds great. We'll see how I react when my kid is old enough!

And just how old is that? I've seen kids between the ages of eight and ten, but mostly it's middle school children I see on the subway. What do you think--what age is best for kids to start taking urban transportation ALONE?

Haute mamas to be watch out: Christian Siriano is launching a line of maternity wear! The Project Runway winner is set to unveil the line for mamas to be in Spring 2009. Pity I won't be pregnant anymore (I hope) although it may be reason enough to get knocked up if you've been considering it. Chances are, if you are pregnant and you buy Siriano's stuff, you'll look glam.

Siriano and two of his fashion buddies, Marta Abrams and Elise Rosemarin, collaborated on the line. Abrams and Rosemarin head up Moody Mama maternity wear. The collection, much like Mr. Siriano, is being called Fierce (for Moody Mama).

Funny enough, a rep for Moody Mama says Siriano joined up because he thought it would be good if a gay man and two women who'd never had children designed maternity wear together. What do you think--is it important for the designer of preggo-wear to have been preggo herself, or does it matter? I doubt Bill Blass spent a lot of time in evening gowns, but what they hey do I know. I'm sure the line from Siriano will be stunning to say the least--in looks, anyway (no word on the price).

Felicity Huffman is frazzled, ya'll. And she has every right to be. Not only is Huffman star of the big and little screens, she's also wife to actor William H. Macy and a mom. In fact, Huffman says her motherhood is probably what landed her the star's most famous role, as Lynette on television's Desperate Housewives.

Huffman left two of her three kids in the bathtub and plodded through the rain to make it to the Housewives audition. She thought she'd managed to pull it together but says those who auditioned her liked the fact that she was "a mess" and "frazzled." Also, and this is my favorite, part, her pants were dirty. Sounds like motherhood to me!

Felicity admitted to the agents that she was going crazy with the kids. According to her, the women in the room looked at her like she was crazy; but then, you know, she got the role. I don't watch the show, but from Huffman's comments it sounds like the frazzledness is just right for her character. And, let's be honest--does this woman EVER look frazzled? No. But, as a mom myself I am sure there are times when, indeed, she is.

Being overweight is tough for a kid. There are many options toward weight loss, but some are more (or less) appealing than others. For many, over the years, the weight-loss camp has been a dream. But, while "fat camp" is almost as American as apple pie, it's now going the way of many other American dreams--it's too darned expensive to attend. Like any other camp, weight-loss camp costs money to run and maintain. With more than nine million children who are considered obese in this country, such camp can seem like a knight in shining armor for families struggling to get their kids' weight under control. The weight-loss camps, while they can be affective, are far from free. Few to none accept insurance.

The government generally offers no more assistance than insurance companies. Instead the children rely on their essay writing skills and other means to win scholarships to attend. Yes, even weight loss camp is something only possible for the rich. Corporate sponsorship is one way to help get kids who can't afford the often more than $1,000-a-week pricetag what they need. Advocacy groups are being formed, such as the Childhood Obesity Treatment in Action. Some tax deductions are coming into play, and some insurance is starting to cover a portion of the cost--mostly in the cognitive behavior area.

But is it enough? Rarely. And financial cost is to say nothing of the emotional cost to the children, who are often left with either feeling exploited by their situation--their essays and their experiences become the property of the camp, who share that information freely with the media in hopes of growing the industry--and/or have to deal with life after camp, which can be even harder than before they found their salvation. While most children lose some portion of their body weight at the camps, few manage to keep it off after returning to the real world.

Pic by skampy.

I was at least twelve years old before I was allowed to cross the street by myself. It was several years after that I was allowed to stay home alone during the summer while my parents were at work instead of going to summer camp. I always felt like I could have stayed home earlier; now that I'm a parent I know how my parents felt: it was NEVER time to leave me home alone!

So at what age is it appropriate to start leaving your little ones home alone--without a babysitter? A recent New York Times article tackles that very question. There are few laws or guidelines to help us make such decisions. Pediatricians don't have much to offer. Ultimately, it becomes a decision between the parents and the child. Both have to feel ready to allow such a thing to occur. And, generally, it starts with an experiment. Leave the kid at home alone while you visit a neighbor for a cup of sugar (do people still do that?). Next time leave her home alone while you pick up the dry cleaning, and so on.

Many states see the tender age of 12 as the start of this new way of life. Twelve is different for each child. How the kid reacts makes all the difference in the world too, as does the general personality of the child. Is your child independent and can get things done on his own? Does your child fear being alone or throw temper tantrums? Do you find your child is in trouble all the time, even when you're around? All these things are taken into consideration when deciding to leave a kid at home. Many parents also have no choice but to leave their children alone--scary but true--even when they're not yet twelve. Luckily things like cell phones and other modern technologies have made it easier for us to keep in touch with our children.

I'm terrified to even think of letting my child stay at home alone or go anywhere alone in New York City, but I know it's a future I face. What about you? When did you let your children start staying at home alone? Was it earlier or later than when you stayed home alone as a kid?

Ever have one of those nights? You really need to get out of the house, perhaps spend some time with your spouse, significant other or just yourself, but you can't get a sitter. Or, maybe you had a sitter and he/she bailed on you at the last minute. What do you do?

Many parents these days enlist a whole cadre of people to take care of their children when they want to go out. Some use parents and in-laws to get out of the house. Others enlist friends and even colleagues. Still others have nannies or daycare providers who can work evenings to cover them. Some turn to services they source online or through the yellow pages.

And some parents take their kids with them. Depending on what it is you planned on doing, you might just be able to get away with taking your kids with you. Dinner may not be as romantic, but you can generally add a high chair to your two-top. Tickets to a concert or a Broadway show are another thing all together. You certainly cannot take your child to those kinds of events, and the tickets for those kinds of things are too expensive to give up. Werll, actually, you can give those things up. Chances are you've done it, or will--and just stayed home.

What do you do when you can't find a sitter? Have you tried any of the services? If so, were they any good, and would you recommend? Or do you count on your mom and dad to cover?

• Charlie Sheen: $825,000 per episode of "Two and a Half Men"
• Mariska Hargitay: $400,000 per episode for playing Det. Olivia Benson on "Law & Order: SVU"
• Heidi Klum: "Project Runway" earns her $2.5 million a year
• Katie Couric: $15 million yearly for anchoring CBS News
• Matt Laurer: $12 mil -- no matter where he is in the world -- for NBC's "Today" show
• Tiki Barber: $2 million annually for working as an NFL analyst and "Today" show correspondent
• David Letterman: $32 million a year for yukking it up on late night TV
  
• John Stewart: $14 million a year for his work on "The Daily Show"

Actress and break-out movie sensation Katherine Heigl is too busy for children. The Grey's Anatomy star, whose recent silver screen hits include 27 Dresses and Knocked Up, says she is far too busy to consider having kids.

The newlywed's husband, musician Josh Kelley, basically couldn't agree more. According to him he's even taken some time off touring to focus more on music. Once you're married, though, inevitably comes all the questions about when you'll be starting a family.

Like many, many women before her, famous and not, Heigl is spurring on the trend of having a baby later in life (if indeed she wants kids at all). With a career as full and successful as Katherine's, I can certainly understand putting off motherhood for a while. Or, maybe the experiences she had while playing a pregnant woman in Knocked Up scared her!!!

Yes, hard to believe but also true. Well, perhaps not that hard to believe after all. I mean, hey, women are in the workforce now--even and especially while pregnant--and being a prostitute is a profession, so it's expected that somewhere down the line you're going to come across a pregnant prostitute, right?

The Kansas City police recently came across several pregnant prostitutes. They recently busted a prostitution operation at a Camden County hotel and arrested four women, three of whom were pregnant. According to police, they were acting on a tip that pregnant women were advertising the prostitution on the Internet.

The three ladies with child were six months, eight months and three months pregnant. Now, it was not clear to me if the gals were trying to sell sex with a pregnant woman or if they were just trying to sell sex and happened to be pregnant. Not that it matters. In Canada another, similar sting went down wherein twelve prostitutes were apprehended, two of whom were pregnant.

Actor Mark Wahlberg has vowed not to sell the baby pictures of his new child-to-be. Marky Mark is putting a stop to any offers from magazines before they even get started, insisting he will not be selling his baby photos like so many other celebrity parents have of late.

The actor is expecting his third child with girlfriend (and perhaps soon to be wife) Rhea Durham, who is due in September. He is already father to two other children with Durham, Ella, who is four and Michael, who is two. I don't recall Mark pimping out pictures of either of them to the tabloids either!

Wahlberg wants to keep the birth and his family private, which is a welcome refreshment to the baby picture overload we've been experiencing lately, our fascination with which is borderline disgusting! Rumor also had it that new mom Nicole Kidman and her husband Keith Urban would not be selling pictures of their new daughter, Sunday Rose. Perhaps there is a new celebrity parenting trend afoot?

Marky Mark is finally ready to settle down. The former pop star and current mega-hottie actor, fresh off the lukewarm if challenging film The Happening, is preparing to marry his girlfriend after all these years. According to People, Wahlberg and Rhea Durham are ready to make it official and have baby number three on the way! Why? Well, the former head of the Funky Bunch wants his family to be as successful as his movie career. With hits like Oscar-winning The Departed to his credit, Wahlberg may have to put in some daddy overtime!

Wahlberg, 37, says he is finally ready to give up life in the fast lane and work on the things that matter in life, like getting eight hours of sleep at night. Good, luck, Mark! Clearly this man has no idea that parenting entails giving up your sleep preferences until your kid goes to college.

My question is this: Does it take a marriage to make a family? The Jolie-Pitts would say no way, no day (although who knows, they may already secretly be married if rumors are true). Many other celebrity parents have admitted they have no plans or need to marry. What do you think? Is there ever a right time to "settle down" and marry whether or not you already have a family?

View Poll