Michigan is Dumb

[Subby]

Michigan to Mom: Shun Daughter's Schoolmates - ABC News

Mom Who Watches Neighborhood Kids Before Bus Run Is Running Illegal Day Care

By TAHMAN BRADLEY

DETROIT, Sept. 30, 2009—

Lisa Snyder, a stay-at-home mom in rural Michigan, says she was doing her neighbors a favor by watching their kids for about 20 to 30 minutes each morning before the school bus arrived.

One by one each morning a different group of kids would arrive at her Middleville, Mich., house to wait with her 7-year-old daughter for the bus' arrival. Snyder, 35, couldn't have envisioned that her act of charity could possibly land her in jail.

But earlier this month, just days after the start of the school year, Snyder received a letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services warning that if she continued to watch neighbor's kids at her home, she would be engaging in illegal child care and face penalties, possibly even jail time.

"I was freaked out," Snyder told ABC News. "I called my husband and all the other parents. I've never done anything wrong in my entire life."

Under Michigan law, no one may provide care and supervision for unrelated children in their homes for more than four weeks a year unless they obtain a day-care providers license. Operating an illegal daycare is punishable up to $1,000 in fines and 90 days in jail. It didn't matter that Synder wasn't charging the parents or that the so-called day care was only for a few minutes a day.

Snyder said DHS confirmed to her that a neighbor, apparently unhappy over the kids trooping to her door each morning, had called the department to report what she was doing.

Snyder says she was surprised at the complaint. The parents of children who were coming to her house were okay with what was going on, she said.

"I was always raised in a close-knit neighborhood. This is what neighbors do," said Snyder. "I feel that as a mom that used to work this was my way of helping (out the other parents)."

The controversy over the Snyder case has touched off a debate about whether Michigan should change its daycare provider laws. The issue even caught the attention of the governor, who supports changing the law.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm personally called the director of the state's Human Services Department to ask that the law be amended.

"We want to protect kids, but we want to be reasonable," said Megan Brown, the governor's spokeswoman. "We feel that the law got in the way of common sense. The governor's reaction was instinctive as a mother and a parent but also as the chief executive officer of the state."

Brown said it doesn't appear that there was anything unusual going on in the Snyder case but that Human Services was just doing its job. The director of Michigan's Department of Human Services issued a statement saying he was directed by Granholm to work with the state legislature to change the law.

"Being a good neighbor means helping your neighbors who are in need. This could be as simple as providing a cup of sugar, monitoring their house while they're on vacation or making sure their children are safe while they wait for the school bus," director Ismael Ahmed said.

Snyder said she was relieved to learn the state was moving to change the law. "I'm glad that the governor finally stepped up. I'm kinda sad that it too her so long to get involved."

Even as the state moves to change the rules, Snyder hopes the law will cover kids seeing each other regularly under the supervision of a parent.

"Whenever a kid comes over, I have to ask each parent? That's retarded," she complained. "It seems like you're stopping kids from having friends."

Though Snyder did not lobby Gov. Granholm to change the law, she did reach out to her local state representative. Michigan Rep. Brian Calley is drafting legislation that would exempt people who are not engaged in official business activities from the daycare rule.

In an appearance early this week on NBC's "Today," Calley expressed surprise over the state's position. "It takes a village, but I guess in Michigan, it takes a licensed village."

[Passacaglia]

The UK is dumb, too.

BBC NEWS | UK | Review of babysitting ban ordered

England's Children's Minister wants a review of the case of two police officers told they were breaking the law, caring for each other's children.
Ofsted said the arrangement contravened the Childcare Act because it lasted for longer than two hours a day, and constituted receiving "a reward".
It said the women would have to be registered as childminders.
Minister Vernon Coaker said his department was talking to Ofsted about this particular case.
The two detective constables, Leanne Shepherd, from Milton Keynes, and Lucy Jarrett, from Buckingham, told the BBC how Ofsted insisted they end their arrangement.
'Shocked'
Ms Shepherd, who serves with Thames Valley Police, recalled: "A lady came to the front door and she identified herself as being from Ofsted. She said a complaint had been made that I was illegally childminding.
"I was just shocked - I thought they were a bit confused about the arrangement between us.
"So I invited her in and told her situation - the arrangement between Lucy and I - and I was shocked when she told me I was breaking the law."

Reward is not just a case of money changing hands. The supply of services or goods and, in some circumstances, reciprocal arrangements can also constitute reward
Ofsted spokesman
Babysitter or childminder?

Ms Jarrett added: "Our children were never in any harm, they were never in any danger.
"To think that they would waste their time and effort on innocent people who are trying to provide for their families by returning to the workplace... Surely their time and effort would be better placed elsewhere."
Thames Valley Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, said the pair had its "full support".
Secretary Andy Viney said: "Both of them are experienced professional officers.
"They just want to return to work after having children and have found that the system is working totally against them.
"They've been threatened with prosecution by Ofsted if they continue doing this."
An Ofsted spokesman said it applied regulations found in the Childcare Act 2006, but was currently discussing the interpretation of the word "reward" with the department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF).
"Reward is not just a case of money changing hands. The supply of services or goods and, in some circumstances, reciprocal arrangements can also constitute reward.


"Generally, mothers who look after each other's children are not providing childminding for which registration is required, as exemptions apply to them, for example because the care is for less than two hours or it takes place on less than 14 days in a year.
"Where such arrangements are regular and for longer periods, then registration is usually required."
Close relatives of children, such as grandparents, siblings, aunts or uncles, were exempt from the rules, he added.
Ofsted only operates in England, so this interpretation of the law on child care for "reward" applies to England rather than elsewhere in the UK.
Michelle Elliott, director of the children's charity Kidscape, told the BBC's Breakfast programme that the decision defied common sense and would impose extra childcare costs on families.
She added: "These children were looked after in a secure environment with people that they knew.
"There must be thousands of people out there who are doing the same thing who are now going to think: 'Do I have to spend £300 a week or whatever it is?'"

Minister for Children, Schools and Families Vernon Coaker insisted the Childcare Act 2006 was in place "to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all children" but the government needed to make sure it did not "penalise hard-working families".
"My department is speaking to Ofsted about the interpretation of the word 'reward' in this particular case," he said.
A petition to scrap the rules governing reciprocal child care on the Number 10 website had gathered more than 5,300 signatures by 0530 BST on Monday.
Anyone required to register to become a childminder would also have to undergo a criminal records check.

[RomaGoth]

Actually, I would imagine this would be the case in most states (no information at the moment to back that up).

As a parent of young children, I can see the need for some control over how many, how often, etc..., you never know what people could do to/with your kids that may appear innocent from the outside.

On the other hand, I can also see this as a big-brother situation too, where the government is yet again involved in something that is seemingly insignificant.

I don't really have a problem with this either way. Change the law or don't. I do believe, however, that the days of a village raising the child theory are gone. Too much outrage and PC these days over everything.

[JonInMiddleGA]

An odd choice of words in the lead makes me wonder about this story a little bit

One by one each morning a different group of kids would arrive at her Middleville, Mich., house

Notice that it doesn't say "different kids arrive", it says "a different group of kids". Now maybe that's just awkward phrasing or downright piss poor writing but it does kind of sound as though we aren't talking about somebody watching 2-3 kids for a neighbor but rather quite a bit more than that for multiple neighbors, as though the groups were arriving one by one, not a few individual children one by one. And at some point, I can imagine that might turn into a helluva nuisance if you suddenly find yourself living next door to it.

{edited to repair my own typo & to clarify}

[stevew]

Oh, yeah, my wife was telling me about this yesterday.

Absolutely retarded.

Do you have to have a license for a slumber party now?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by stevew

Oh, yeah, my wife was telling me about this yesterday.

Absolutely retarded.

Do you have to have a license for a slumber party now?

Depends how old the girls are.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

Do you have to have a license for a slumber party now?

I imagine that depends on how many kids there are & how often you have them.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Depends how old the girls are.

Yeah, i totally saw that coming a mile away.

[Autumn]

It seems like unless the "childcare provider" is looking for some benefits through the government, accreditation, tax status, etc., there should be no need to be licensed with the government. Certainly if it's for free, and private.

[Passacaglia]

We need to get Schmidty in here. Isn't he from Caledonia?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Autumn

It seems like unless the "childcare provider" is looking for some benefits through the government, accreditation, tax status, etc., there should be no need to be licensed with the government. Certainly if it's for free, and private.

It isn't this simple though. You have to take into account stuff like child abuse, drugs in the home, dogs, etc...Me and my wife always look at a childcare place very carefully before even considering it, as these are the people that have your kids all day. Especially when it involves young children who can't speak for themselves and tell you what is going on.

Also, you are supposed to report any earnings made from childcare, the government considers you self-employed for tax purposes.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

It isn't this simple though. You have to take into account stuff like child abuse, drugs in the home, dogs, etc...Me and my wife always look at a childcare place very carefully before even considering it, as these are the people that have your kids all day. Especially when it involves young children who can't speak for themselves and tell you what is going on.

Also, you are supposed to report any earnings made from childcare, the government considers you self-employed for tax purposes.

Who has to take into account that stuff? It sounds like you were the one to do the research on places -- or was there some sort of government-provided report done for you?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

or was there some sort of government-provided report done for you?

I know that in Georgia the state conducts regular inspections (well, ostensibly regular, the system ain't perfect by any means) of licensed facilities & does take action when health or safety violations are persistent. The results of those inspections are available to the public as far as I'm aware.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Who has to take into account that stuff? It sounds like you were the one to do the research on places -- or was there some sort of government-provided report done for you?

There are websites you can check to see if someone is licensed (in Idaho, we used one and I can't remember the name of it). Essentially, you have to look at the places yourself and make a determination if it feels right or not. As a parent, I get a sense immediately as to whether a place fits my kids' needs or not. If I see any signs of a dog, I am done there. Don't get me wrong, I like dogs. Just not other people's dogs around my child, especially when me and/or the wife aren't around. I also am very adamant about a non-smoking environment. Most of this stuff you won't really know until you do the research yourself, which often means going to the places in person.

I probably know more about this kind of stuff than most guys should have a right to know. Me and my wife both have early childhood degrees (well, I still need math to finish mine, but all the other courses are done - I have 117/120 credits), and my wife did childcare for almost 3 years from our home. She had to get a license, in addition to first aid/CPR (which I also have).

Regretting the degree choice, but that is for another thread.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I know that in Georgia the state conducts regular inspections (well, ostensibly regular, the system ain't perfect by any means) of licensed facilities & does take action when health or safety violations are persistent. The results of those inspections are available to the public as far as I'm aware.

Same thing in Idaho. Health and Welfare inspects the childcare place, I think it is once per year or every six months, can't remember exactly which.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

There are websites you can check to see if someone is licensed (in Idaho, we used one and I can't remember the name of it). Essentially, you have to look at the places yourself and make a determination if it feels right or not. As a parent, I get a sense immediately as to whether a place fits my kids' needs or not. If I see any signs of a dog, I am done there. Don't get me wrong, I like dogs. Just not other people's dogs around my child, especially when me and/or the wife aren't around. I also am very adamant about a non-smoking environment. Most of this stuff you won't really know until you do the research yourself, which often means going to the places in person.

I probably know more about this kind of stuff than most guys should have a right to know. Me and my wife both have early childhood degrees (well, I still need math to finish mine, but all the other courses are done - I have 117/120 credits), and my wife did childcare for almost 3 years from our home. She had to get a license, in addition to first aid/CPR (which I also have).

Regretting the degree choice, but that is for another thread.

If you're having to go to these places in person to find out about dogs and smoking, the government licensing isn't really doing anything for anyone. Autumn mentioned accreditation -- that seems to be all the government is doing for you, and in this case, since accreditation is not desired, there's no reason for licensing.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

It isn't this simple though. You have to take into account stuff like child abuse, drugs in the home, dogs, etc...Me and my wife always look at a childcare place very carefully before even considering it, as these are the people that have your kids all day. Especially when it involves young children who can't speak for themselves and tell you what is going on.

Also, you are supposed to report any earnings made from childcare, the government considers you self-employed for tax purposes.

I can see claiming it as income, and I'm not disputing the law (which I believe is the same in most states), but why exactly is there a requirement to be licensed?

I'm not talking about the benefits of being licensed or having a licensing system. Two separate topics in my mind.

I'm speaking to the "Why can I not pay somebody else for daycare services for my child if I am comfortable with their qualifications?"

[SportsDino]

Cops and other law enforcement employed individuals, please go find some real crooks, mmkay? We have too much minor nuisance police work and not enough of the kind that may help with the rotting of this country.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I can see claiming it as income, and I'm not disputing the law (which I believe is the same in most states), but why exactly is there a requirement to be licensed?

I'm not talking about the benefits of being licensed or having a licensing system. Two separate topics in my mind.

I'm speaking to the "Why can I not pay somebody else for daycare services for my child if I am comfortable with their qualifications?"

Exactly what I meant, there's lots of reasons we might want licensed daycares and childcare providers. But there's no reason someone couldn't exist outside of the system as long as they're not being fraudulent, especially if they're not making any money.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Autumn

But there's no reason someone couldn't exist outside of the system as long as they're not being fraudulent, especially if they're not making any money.

Except for the health & safety risk they pose to the community, as well as the zoning implications.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

If you're having to go to these places in person to find out about dogs and smoking, the government licensing isn't really doing anything for anyone. Autumn mentioned accreditation -- that seems to be all the government is doing for you, and in this case, since accreditation is not desired, there's no reason for licensing.

You may be correct about the licensing not doing anything for anyone, but it is much better in my mind than just dropping my kids off at a random place and letting strangers take care of them. Health and Welfare only checks once or twice a year, they don't look at every daycare each day, that would be impossible. So who is to say that someone just puts the cigarettes away when H&W shows up? Sorry, but I won't just put my kids in some random daycare without checking it out first.

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I can see claiming it as income, and I'm not disputing the law (which I believe is the same in most states), but why exactly is there a requirement to be licensed?

I'm not talking about the benefits of being licensed or having a licensing system. Two separate topics in my mind.

I'm speaking to the "Why can I not pay somebody else for daycare services for my child if I am comfortable with their qualifications?"

If you are comfortable with them, then by all means go for it. I would never leave my children in a "daycare" without them being licensed and first aid/cpr certified. I want to know if my kid is choking or gets hurt, that this person or people know what the hell to do about it. By being licensed and certified, these people at least have a fundamental understanding of how to take care of children and have taken the time to learn enough by becoming certified in first aid/cpr (which is a requirement for licensing most of the time).

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Except for the health & safety risk they pose to the community, as well as the zoning implications.

This.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Cops and other law enforcement employed individuals, please go find some real crooks, mmkay? We have too much minor nuisance police work and not enough of the kind that may help with the rotting of this country.

Glad you think that the well being and safety of children is minor nuisance police work (which by the way is investigated by social services/health and welfare instead of or alongside of police).

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

You may be correct about the licensing not doing anything for anyone, but it is much better in my mind than just dropping my kids off at a random place and letting strangers take care of them. Health and Welfare only checks once or twice a year, they don't look at every daycare each day, that would be impossible. So who is to say that someone just puts the cigarettes away when H&W shows up? Sorry, but I won't just put my kids in some random daycare without checking it out first.

No one's making you. But some people might want to. And, who's to say that these people haven't checked this person out on their own?

So place need to be zoned for babysitting now? Give me a break. If there's a disturbance, then the problem needs to be handled as a disturbance. While I can understand neighbors possibly being annoyed, they didn't serve themselves well by trying to get cute with the law.

[Abe Sargent]

Michigan is dumb.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

So place need to be zoned for babysitting now?

Beyond occasional and/or low quantity use, absolutely.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

If you are comfortable with them, then by all means go for it. I would never leave my children in a "daycare" without them being licensed and first aid/cpr certified. I want to know if my kid is choking or gets hurt, that this person or people know what the hell to do about it. By being licensed and certified, these people at least have a fundamental understanding of how to take care of children and have taken the time to learn enough by becoming certified in first aid/cpr (which is a requirement for licensing most of the time).

Do you not think there's a significant difference between a daycare and some kids hanging out waiting for a bus?

And in addition, you seem to be arguing past us, I think. No one is saying it's not a good idea to have licensed daycare. The question is whether it should be illegal for there to be such a thing as unlicensed daycare or childcare. Should you be able to watch your neighbor's kids without being licensed?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Should you be able to watch your neighbor's kids without being licensed?

How many? How often? In what sort of location?

All of those seem extremely relevant to any eventual concrete answer as there's a pretty big difference with some soccer mom watching her neighbor's kid two days a month for an hour at a house with a private drive on 5 acres versus packing 12 kids into a one bedroom walk up apartment for 3 hours a day five days a week.

[Autumn]

Well, given that a mom can give birth to 12 kids in her one bedroom walkup, for 24 hours a day, I'm not sure it matters.

Anyway, the places I've lived have had reasonable limits. Childcare of a certain number of kids, a certain amount of time, depending on their relation to you had to be regulated. Apparently Michigan needs to catch up with the times.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

We need to get Schmidty in here. Isn't he from Caledonia?

No, I was born in Kalamazoo (Schoolcraft), and grew up there for most of my youth. After that, I lived just about everywhere, including Kentwood near GR for quite a few years.

Don't fuck with Michigan Subby, you little bitch. Insult me, my wife, my kid, my grandma, Jesus, but don't EVER besmirch my state.

[stevew]

Michigan State is dumb too, Schmidty

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

No, I was born in Kalamazoo (Schoolcraft), and grew up there for most of my youth. After that, I lived just about everywhere, including Kentwood near GR for quite a few years.

I grew up in GR. Also familiar with Kentwood and Kalamazoo.

Don't fuck with Michigan

Is this the new state motto?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Do you not think there's a significant difference between a daycare and some kids hanging out waiting for a bus?

And in addition, you seem to be arguing past us, I think. No one is saying it's not a good idea to have licensed daycare. The question is whether it should be illegal for there to be such a thing as unlicensed daycare or childcare. Should you be able to watch your neighbor's kids without being licensed?

Of course there is a difference. The problem is, where do you draw the line? When has it become childcare, rather than just people watching a kid or two? Watching your neighbor's kids is different than being paid to watch kids (usually anyway).

One thing I should point out that I forgot to mention: In Idaho anyway, a childcare is licensed when six or more children are being cared for. This means that if someone is watching 1-5 children, regardless of how often, they are not required to obtain a childcare license.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

If you are comfortable with them, then by all means go for it. I would never leave my children in a "daycare" without them being licensed and first aid/cpr certified. I want to know if my kid is choking or gets hurt, that this person or people know what the hell to do about it. By being licensed and certified, these people at least have a fundamental understanding of how to take care of children and have taken the time to learn enough by becoming certified in first aid/cpr (which is a requirement for licensing most of the time).

I wouldn't hire an unlicensed electrician, buy a house through an unlicensed realtor, or bring my car to be worked by an unlicensed mechanic either...but I can, legally. In most cases, the reasons are impractical to NOT have a license to perform such work/services. But it isn't necessarily illegal, in and of itself.

My point is that if neighbors are being bothered by "noise", then there are laws against noise disturbances. If this is a townhouse/apartment type of place, there are covenenants or at the least "an owner" who can be notified of this activity on their premise and the applicable rental/community agreements can be enforced. If it is a question of taxes, then there are laws that cover that as well.

I just don't see, philosophically, why we need a law like this on the books. It isn't like this is some stupid legacy law leftover from the 1800's (which I'd argue should have been removed if it is, in fact, stupid and n/a today).

[flere-imsaho]

When I was growing up our front yard was the only stop the school bus made for about a half mile, and the only one for our street, which was just off a main road. So each morning there'd be 10-15 kids out in the front yard waiting for the school bus. And a 250 pound Newfoundland, but that's another story....

Maybe not entirely the same situation, but I'm not really seeing the issue beyond one neighbor being of the "Get off my lawn!" disposition.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I wouldn't hire an unlicensed electrician, buy a house through an unlicensed realtor, or bring my car to be worked by an unlicensed mechanic either...but I can, legally. In most cases, the reasons are impractical to NOT have a license to perform such work/services. But it isn't necessarily illegal, in and of itself.

My point is that if neighbors are being bothered by "noise", then there are laws against noise disturbances. If this is a townhouse/apartment type of place, there are covenenants or at the least "an owner" who can be notified of this activity on their premise and the applicable rental/community agreements can be enforced. If it is a question of taxes, then there are laws that cover that as well.

I just don't see, philosophically, why we need a law like this on the books. It isn't like this is some stupid legacy law leftover from the 1800's (which I'd argue should have been removed if it is, in fact, stupid and n/a today).

I don't know what this particular neighbor's problem was, it could be noise, or whatever. The point of my argument, however, is that the licensing is an attempt to protect children from crazy, psycho, pedaphile, and just strange people who may not treat them the same way normal people would.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

When I was growing up our front yard was the only stop the school bus made for about a half mile, and the only one for our street, which was just off a main road. So each morning there'd be 10-15 kids out in the front yard waiting for the school bus. And a 250 pound Newfoundland, but that's another story....

Maybe not entirely the same situation, but I'm not really seeing the issue beyond one neighbor being of the "Get off my lawn!" disposition.

There is a big difference between kids waiting at a bus stop that is in front of someone's house, and kids actually going into a person's house, being fed (possibly) by them, using their bathroom, watching their television, and being under their control, relatively speaking.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I don't know what this particular neighbor's problem was, it could be noise, or whatever. The point of my argument, however, is that the licensing is an attempt to protect children from crazy, psycho, pedaphile, and just strange people who may not treat them the same way normal people would.

But this is a benefit of a licensing system to parents...not a reason to say that somebody cannot operate without it, IMO. Children aren't being whisked away to houses and held for daily ransoms without this law...they are dropped off willingly by the parents.

By contrast, if we are that concerned with who is watching other people's children to the degree that we mandate the licensing...then why do we not insist on licensing of youth sports coaches? Is it only because they don't get paid...so therefore they would have no motivation to abuse or neglect children? Well, I'd point out that neither is this woman.

There is a big difference between kids waiting at a bus stop that is in front of someone's house, and kids actually going into a person's house, being fed (possibly) by them, using their bathroom, watching their television, and being under their control, relatively speaking.

To me, this is the slippery slope argument. Where do these kids have to be in order to be condsidered providing daycare? So, this lady could have the kids stand on her lawn so long as she doesn't invite them inside to get out of the cold or use the bathroom? Where is the line? And if you can define that line...why don't other laws protect against the repercussions of this? I'd argue they do.

[SportsDino]

I think this is a foolish application of the law, and that amending the law so it more accurately reflects the intent makes sense.

In this particular case I would wish the legal system would show some compassion and common sense and throw it out, rather than putting a person in jail (or fine them) for trying to help out, presumably with the permission and consent of everyone but a neighbor trying to start a ruckus. [edit] Never mind this, she was sent a sternly worded letter is all [/edit]

If there was any more disturbance than there already would be from a horde of kids waiting for many minutes outside your house for a bus, then go ahead and make the case based on that (fine/warn the lady about noise/disturbance). But I don't think this is the case, it is probably more likely a meddling neighbor, if you have not had the misfortune of living near one count yourself lucky.

So I return to my original statement, with white collar and violent crime at high levels I'd much rather that cop is driving through my mother's neighborhood scaring away the drug dealers, then responding to bullshit out in the burbs. Granted, this is probably hickville michigan where they have nothing else to fill their day.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

By contrast, if we are that concerned with who is watching other people's children to the degree that we mandate the licensing...then why do we not insist on licensing of youth sports coaches? Is it only because they don't get paid...so therefore they would have no motivation to abuse or neglect children? Well, I'd point out that neither is this woman.

As a previous youth sports coach (volunteer), I was required to get a background check and was given an identity badge that was required to be visible whenever I was with the kids at practice/games.

To me, this is the slippery slope argument. Where do these kids have to be in order to be condsidered providing daycare? So, this lady could have the kids stand on her lawn so long as she doesn't invite them inside to get out of the cold or use the bathroom? Where is the line? And if you can define that line...why don't other laws protect against the repercussions of this? I'd argue they do.

How is this slippery slope? Waiting for a bus on the curb is public property, while being inside someone's house is private property. At the very least, everyone can see what is going on at a bus stop, in a house - not so much.

[Ben E Lou]

Just going back to the original story here, wow. (to JIMGA's point, this sounds like a poorly worded article.)

Growing up, we lived on a corner. The school bus stop was in our front driveway. When it was raining, or there was the rare particularly cold morning in Columbus, GA, Mama let everyone at the bus stop (10-15 kids, I'm guessing) pile into the front room of our house from the time they arrived until the time the bus got there. That's just what neighbors do. My gut tells me that this is a horrid application of a well-meaning law.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Just going back to the original story here, wow. (to JIMGA's point, this sounds like a poorly worded article.)

Growing up, we lived on a corner. The school bus stop was in our front driveway. When it was raining, or there was the rare particularly cold morning in Columbus, GA, Mama let everyone at the bus stop (10-15 kids, I'm guessing) pile into the front room of our house from the time they arrived until the time the bus got there. That's just what neighbors do. My gut tells me that this is a horrid application of a well-meaning law.

Would you argue that times are different now compared to then? I am just wondering, because it seems much worse now than when I was growing up. I remember walking to the bus stop when I was only in elementary school, no adult supervision. Now, I can't imagine doing that. I wonder how much of it is the media portraying these dangers versus the reality?

I would also agree with your gut on this one. As much as I agree with the need for laws like this under most circumstances, this particular instance still seems more like a big-brother type situation.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

As a previous youth sports coach (volunteer), I was required to get a background check and was given an identity badge that was required to be visible whenever I was with the kids at practice/games.

Yes, but that isn't the same as a daycare licensing system.

How is this slippery slope? Waiting for a bus on the curb is public property, while being inside someone's house is private property. At the very least, everyone can see what is going on at a bus stop, in a house - not so much.

The slippery slope is if the kids decide to hangout out on the property next to the bus stop, and the owner of the home (whether home or not) does not report this as loitering, do you determine this to be the property owner's liability? No? One step further...the owner IS home and does not report the kids for loitering on their property. No? One more variable...the owner happens to have drinks/snacks outside for the kids that they did not report for loitering. No? The owner allows the occassional kid to use their restroom if needed.

At what point does this become a violation of the law? Apparently, it isn't money-driven.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I wonder how much of it is the media portraying these dangers versus the reality?

All of it. The reason it seems worse now is because when it happens the news is widely available and you're more likely to hear about it.

Statistically speaking, there's still a greater chance of your child being hit by lightening than kidnapped, ect. Also, the fear of this happening is typically of an unknown person doing something to your child when the reality is the vast majority of crimes of this nature are committed by close friends or relatives.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Atocep

All of it. The reason it seems worse now is because when it happens the news is widely available and you're more likely to hear about it.

Statistically speaking, there's still a greater chance of your child being hit by lightening than kidnapped, ect. Also, the fear of this happening is typically of an unknown person doing something to your child when the reality is the vast majority of crimes of this nature are committed by close friends or relatives.

I try to avoid the news as much as possible these days. This isn't because of a need for dumbing myself down, or because I don't care. It is really just a way to avoid the doom and gloom that has become the news, which is seemingly on all the damn time now.

Also, as a parent I am protective of my kids, even knowing the odds are greater for lightning hitting them than a kidnapping. The fact that a kidnapping COULD happen is enough for me to worry about it in the first place.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Yes, but that isn't the same as a daycare licensing system.

Depends on the area and the requirements by the city/state/township, and in addition, a daycare being licensed has to be inspected first by Health & Welfare in addition to a criminal background check. Probably the biggest difference here, however, is that as a coach, you are in a neutral place (field, stadium, arena, etc.), while as a daycare provider you are in your own home.

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

The slippery slope is if the kids decide to hangout out on the property next to the bus stop, and the owner of the home (whether home or not) does not report this as loitering, do you determine this to be the property owner's liability? No? One step further...the owner IS home and does not report the kids for loitering on their property. No? One more variable...the owner happens to have drinks/snacks outside for the kids that they did not report for loitering. No? The owner allows the occassional kid to use their restroom if needed.

At what point does this become a violation of the law? Apparently, it isn't money-driven.

These all appear to be very specific situations and I can't answer them for you. I can say one thing though. Regardless of whether a homeowner reports people being on his property, he is responsible for anything that happens to them. That is why we have a liability section on our insurance policy, right? (I am no lawyer, so anyone who really knows the answer to this please feel free to respond). I do know that as a home daycare provider (in Idaho, an amount of children of 6 or more), you are required to have liability insurance.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I try to avoid the news as much as possible these days. This isn't because of a need for dumbing myself down, or because I don't care. It is really just a way to avoid the doom and gloom that has become the news, which is seemingly on all the damn time now.

Also, as a parent I am protective of my kids, even knowing the odds are greater for lightning hitting them than a kidnapping. The fact that a kidnapping COULD happen is enough for me to worry about it in the first place.

Right, but do you worry about your kid going to a house where there's a pool? Becuase your kid is much more likely to die from drowning in a pool than being shot or hit by lightning or getting kidnapped. Certain fears get publicized more than others, certain fears hit our primal brain more than others, but that doesn't change reality.

[RainMaker]

When I was a kid, there was a Mom on the block who would pick up donut holes from Dunkin Donuts once in awhile. We'd all go in and eat and drink milk/OJ. This happened primarily in the winter when it was cold or raining. I'd say about 5-10 kids in there every morning.

It's to me a case of pushing a law too far and not taking the human element into account. It's like a guy crossing the street to save a dog and having the cop write a jaywalking citation.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Right, but do you worry about your kid going to a house where there's a pool? Becuase your kid is much more likely to die from drowning in a pool than being shot or hit by lightning or getting kidnapped. Certain fears get publicized more than others, certain fears hit our primal brain more than others, but that doesn't change reality.

Actually, yes. Both my wife and myself have some basic guidelines as to what is acceptable at our kids' friends houses. Do they have a pool? If so, is it gated with a latch? Is someone there that is watching at all times if the kids are outside near the pool? Also, are there guns in the house? If so, are they locked up? I am by no means anti-gun, but I don't want my kid to be a statistic because his friend wants to show him his dad's new 12-gauge.

The pool thing is important to us. My wife's dad is a retired fire batalion chief, and he often would have stories of pulling dead children out of pools, or trying to save them but not getting there in time. He had to deal with this a lot, living in Arizona.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Would you argue that times are different now compared to then? I am just wondering, because it seems much worse now than when I was growing up. I remember walking to the bus stop when I was only in elementary school, no adult supervision. Now, I can't imagine doing that. I wonder how much of it is the media portraying these dangers versus the reality?

I think it also depends on where you live. I'm sure I'm tilted in one direction because I live in a neighborhood where I'm fairly sure I know the name and parents of every kid under 8 or so on my street (maybe 80 houses), and they all know my family as well. We have block parties in the cul-de-sac; on holidays like July 4th and Memorial Day, we don't usually even leave our street because someone is hosting a street cookout. When my wife was pregnant, our next-door neighbors held just-our-street baby shower. So, yeah, if it's raining at the end of the street when my kid is taking the bus to school, I would just naturally assume that the couple living on the corner would have the kids in the house. But that's where the times aren't much different from my neighborhood growing up: we know that couple by name, know where they work, patronize the husband's business, and also happen to go to the same church. (I think seven families from our street go the same church, actually...) I would assume that's not the norm these days. My issue is that if such a thing happened on my street, it would be completely silly for the government to intervene. And granted, it's not the norm, but I also seriously doubt that my neighborhood is *that* unique, either.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

That is why we have a liability section on our insurance policy, right?

I guess that is really my only point is that there are other laws, rules, policies, etc. that can address the ancillary complaints/problems associated with this type of a scenario...even if you took an extra step and said the kids were hanging out inside the house.

I guess I'm just making a nuanced gripe about the annoyance factor of the government removing my freedom to choose. Similar to outlawing 10lb burgers...for crying out loud nobody should eat it...but if they really, really, want to...who am I to say otherwise?

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I think it also depends on where you live. I'm sure I'm tilted in one direction because I live in a neighborhood where I'm fairly sure I know the name and parents of every kid under 8 or so on my street (maybe 80 houses), and they all know my family as well. We have block parties in the cul-de-sac; on holidays like July 4th and Memorial Day, we don't usually even leave our street because someone is hosting a street cookout. When my wife was pregnant, our next-door neighbors held just-our-street baby shower. So, yeah, if it's raining at the end of the street when my kid is taking the bus to school, I would just naturally assume that the couple living on the corner would have the kids in the house. But that's where the times aren't much different from my neighborhood growing up: we know that couple by name, know where they work, patronize the husband's business, and also happen to go to the same church. (I think seven families from our street go the same church, actually...) I would assume that's not the norm these days. My issue is that if such a thing happened on my street, it would be completely silly for the government to intervene. And granted, it's not the norm, but I also seriously doubt that my neighborhood is *that* unique, either.

Yup, totally agree This post read like a lot of places still in WV.