State to mom: Stop baby-sitting neighbors' kids

[azurnoir]

Each day before the school bus comes to pick up the neighborhood's children, Lisa Snyder did a favor for three of her fellow moms, welcoming their children into her home for about an hour before they left for school.

Regulators who oversee child care, however, don't see it as charity. Days after the start of the new school year, Snyder received a letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services warning her that if she continued, she'd be violating a law aimed at the operators of unlicensed day care centers.

"I was freaked out. I was blown away," she said. "I got on the phone immediately, called my husband, then I called all the girls" — that is, the mothers whose kids she watches — "every one of them."

Snyder's predicament has led to a debate in Michigan about whether a law that says no one may care for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are licensed day-care providers needs to be changed. It also has irked parents who say they depend on such friendly offers to help them balance work and family.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5intayNnUex0u2p2aPfl95SZitE9QD9B1880G0

many working parents would be grateful to have such a neighbor it could be a life saver, the state should butt out

[harry_pothead]

1. What a whole lot of bullshit

This sounds like a backdoor way for the religious right to use the state to hit working mothers.

[davidpdx]

2. Glad you posted this because I was just looking to see if someone had

I actually posted this on my Facebook page earlier in the day. I'd like to see the neighbor outted for doing this. The suggestion I made on my Facebook page was, "How about Michigan initiate a nosy neighbor law? The penalty could be hitting someone over the head with a telephone book. Sounds fair to me for wasting everyone's time."

[pipoman]

3. The distinction should be if the person is paid.

otherwise slumber parties are a violation...idiocy

[KittyWampus]

19. slumber parties don't last for over 4 weeks, the period that the law declares illegal

But I agree the law should reflect more real-world realities and not getting paid means it's none of the state's business.

[pipoman]

22. I stand corrected on the slumber party

I thought about this today at work. It occurred to me that GB* after 9-11 advised the American people that the way to serve the country is to serve our communities and neighborhoods. I can't think of a better service to our neighbors than helping with their children, elping financially stressed neighbors avoid unnecessary day care cost, and provide a more caring care giver than any hired hand could provide....it takes a village, and all that..again I say, idiocy.

[JeanGrey]

4. Actually the complainer was more than likely a day care

operator or knows one. Many people pay full time prices to day care operators even though their kids are only there before and after school. They view this as usurping their business, I'm sure.

[TexasObserver]

11. I agree. Some day care operator is behind this.

And they're using the state to try to elimininate some competition.

It's not uncommon for there to be shady relations between the regulated day care centers and those who regulate them. Find out who was watching these kids for PAY last year, and you'll likely have the person behind this action against the friendly neighbor. Classic case of misusing government regulation to obtain economic advantage.

[ejpoeta]

15. my sister has to pay daycare a whole lot of money for the kids to be there for like two hours a day.

and they don't even get breakfast!! i find this whole thing ridiculous!! better that the kids just be left home alone to get on the bus by themselves, i suppose. what are parents to do!! i mean, these are all school aged children who are just waiting for the bus. instead of threatening the woman, she should be applauded for trying to help out her neighbors. that's how it used to be, isn't it?? how we keep trying to portray ourselves... this great country where we all help each other out. until someone tries to do just that. then they get threatened by the town. What this woman is doing, just keeping the kids safe til they get on the bus should be encouraged. Community.... togetherness....

[glowing]

5. Another issue that could be remedied if daycare was a provision similar to schools.

Why are we again one of the only nations that doesn't take care of our young and working families. Its odious. Even that disastorous nation of Cuba we so fear has daycare provisions.

[azurnoir]

6. My son's elementary school had such a program

but it was $160 a week which is quite a chunk for a lot of people and they had to be there at 6:30 am we only needed like 15 minutes to a half hour time before the bus likely I was working in a pediatric clinic and they were understanding, he's in jr high now so its would not be so much of an issue

[Zywiec]

7. Dropping elementary kids off at 6:30 am

and picking them up when?

Factoring in the time to get ready and get to the school, that sure makes for a long day.

[Obamanaut]

8. This is state silliness. K&R n/t

[lostnfound]

9. Goes to show how monetizing everything has become second nature

to our culture. The fact that boneheads at the DHS would interpret it this way is absurd to any person with common sense, but our culture has gotten to where it is ASSUMED that all transactions, all human interactions involve money.

[Kaleva]

13. DHS was following the law. They are working to help change the law.

[lostnfound]

14. I'm glad to hear they are going to change the law

Whether someone is "related" or not is a ridiculous criteria to have to use. What does blood relationship have to do with anything??

[seemunkee]

10. Same thing happening in England

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/28/parent_vbs_revelations/

Ofsted has blown a hole in Home Office claims that deciding who needs to be vetted is a simple matter, after the education quango tarred parents who share childcare arrangements as "illegal childminders" and potential criminals
The issue came to light at the weekend, when the Daily Mail reported that Ofsted had made a surprise visit to the homes of two Milton Keynes police officers - Detective Constable Leanne Shepherd and DC Lucy Jarrett – to investigate their child-minding arrangements.

What may have seemed a simple matter for these two mothers, of taking it in turns to look after one another’s children, turns out to be a potentially criminal matter according to the Childcare Act 2006.

This stipulates that where care is provided for any form of "reward", then the individuals concerned should be registered as childminders.

According to an Ofsted spokesperson: "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."

[Vinca]

12. That's completely nuts.

[pschoeb]

16. A solution for the mothers, would be for the one mother to watch the children

at one of the other mother's houses, then no one would be caring for the kids in their own home, and they would no longer be violating this ill conceived and silly law. Fortunately it was written so as not to hurt babysitters, otherwise all the people of Michigan would have revolted, so the silly law has a workaround.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. Smart solution.

:thumbsup:

[Hepburn]

21. Very good....

....I wonder if there is some way to get this idea to the mother who was cited?

:hi:

[Odin2005]

18. WTF?

:wtf:

[KittyWampus]

20. Rather than just butt out, states need to refine the law. Unlicensed day care isn't desirable

either.

[SoCalDem]

23. This is the core of the issue

"Back in the day", child care was very casual, between friends & neighbors who all knew each other. Things are not like that anymore. Most Moms don't have that 4 hours a day, 2 or 3 days a week job anymore. Moms work long hard hours, and these often clash with school time.and since there are few stay-home Moms these days, and if there are a few in a neighborhood, most probably don;t know their fellow Moms on the block.

Stay-home Moms saw a way for them to make money by being paid for child care, and this is their income. By licensing, it levels the playing field for everyone. Moms who leave their kids, know that the person has been checked out, fingerprinted, her home has been inspected, and that rules and lws are followed, so of course there is a cost to pay. The casual " watch him/her for a few hours, as a favor" thing is not very common.

The article (and the Moms) says that "no money" was involved, but there are other ways to pay for favors. It's called bartering. If you watch my kid for 5-6 hours a week while he's waiting for the bus or after school, I AM going to compensate you,, friend or no friend..Maybe it's a few gallons of milk and some groceries, or some service I can provide for you on the weekend..maybe my kid mows your lawn or washes your cars..there are many ways to compensate someone for a "persistent" favor they do for you every day.

For the neighborhood person who did fill out all those papers, did go to the police department to get printed, did have her grown family members checked out, did have the intrusive home visits, and does pay taxes on what she earns, it's a thumb in the eye to see a neighbor "poaching" and not being subject to the same regulations.

If they change the law, fine, but until they do I can understand why they are getting involved in this issue.

There is liability involved too. Daycare providers have to carry insurance. What if one of the kids gets hurt before or after school. This friend could find herself in a world of hurt.

Back when kids walked to school, we always congregated at one kid's house before we all set out on our hike to school, and sometimes even all ate breakfast there, but those were different times, and every Mom was a "day-care-er" to everyone else's kids.

[triple point]

26. The problem with bartering is that it's not easily taxed...and that is why it's discouraged

by whoever is in power. But you're on target with the liability issue...nowadays it's virtually impossible to do a favor (except for some narrowly defined 'good samaritan' laws) for anyone without exposing oneself to the threat of a lawsuit.
bah humbug

[Xicano]

24. "Land of the Free!!!!!"

Or Nazi twilight zone? When you can't live as a free human being who is not harming anyone else, you have just entered the Nazi twilight zone.

:(

[triple point]

25. We probably should remember that most of these kinds of laws come from our own party.

I don't know about this particular one but it's exactly the kind of silliness we Democrats push for and often get enacted because we don't trust parents to be parents. I wish we would get unstupid with stuff like this.

editing...it just occurred to me, somebody will probably accuse me of being a republican for saying that. I am Not.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

27. Aww. Will you be disappointed if someone doesn't call you a Republican? (n/t)

[triple point]

29. Not disappointed. Surprised, yes...but holee shit, you just did, sort of.

:eyes:

You think my comment was wrong? Feel free to debate it, the ad hominem isn't very persuasive.

[ima_sinnic]

28. "we Democrats" "push for silliness" &"don't trust parents to be parents"? I did not know that

I don't know why you keep saying "we" . . . :eyes:

[triple point]

30. Well, being a cynic, you wouldn't, would you?

:D