Michigan mom ordered to stop watching neighbors' kids.

[michchick98]

"IRVING TOWNSHIP, Mich. – 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."

Full article here.

===

Are they serious? You'd think with all the missing and abducted children cases in this country, they'd welcome someone who was willing to keep kids safe.

The article does state that the governor has intervened to get the law changed, but geez, why should she have to in an instance such as this.

Seriously, how many people across the country take turns watching each others' kids? Even here where I live, there are two families who do that. One week, the kids stay with one neighbor for a few hours after school, the next week it's the other neighbors' turn.

Who the hell would complain about something like this?

 

[vrosej10]

"IRVING TOWNSHIP, Mich. – 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."

Full article here.

===

Are they serious? You'd think with all the missing and abducted children cases in this country, they'd welcome someone who was willing to keep kids safe.

The article does state that the governor has intervened to get the law changed, but geez, why should she have to in an instance such as this.

Seriously, how many people across the country take turns watching each others' kids? Even here where I live, there are two families who do that. One week, the kids stay with one neighbor for a few hours after school, the next week it's the other neighbors' turn.

Who the hell would complain about something like this?

This is fucking ridiculous. Bureaucracy gone mad. It is actively discouraging a sense of community. The idiot who issued this letter should be ashamed.

 

[sutherngent985]

This is fucking ridiculous. Bureaucracy gone mad. It is actively discouraging a sense of community. The idiot who issued this letter should be ashamed.

Welcome to 1984...Big Brother run amok.

 

[vrosej10]

Welcome to 1984...Big Brother run amok.

True that!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Childcare is big business now.

But all people do is whine and cuss about the loss of freedom, and drag out the checkbooks to pay.

 

[michchick98]

JBJ, there's a difference between paying for daily childcare, be it a day care center or babysitter or whatever and a neighbor helping out another neighbor.

If the law stated in the article were truly enforced here in Michigan, there would probably be hundreds of families stuck without someone to watch their kids and keep them safe. Which would in turn cause people to have to miss work, eventually leading to termination of employment due to excessive absenteeism, and yes, with Michigan having the highest unemployment rate in the country, do we really need more of the bureaucrats telling us we can't save a few bucks, save our jobs, and save our sanity, by enlisting the help of friends and neighbors? Especially when it comes to the safety and welfare of children.

It's ridiculous and while I'm not a fan of Governor Granholm, I think she did the right thing in getting in contact with the proper people to get this law changed.

 

[Handley_Page]

"IRVING TOWNSHIP, Mich. – 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."

Full article here.

===

Are they serious? You'd think with all the missing and abducted children cases in this country, they'd welcome someone who was willing to keep kids safe.

The article does state that the governor has intervened to get the law changed, but geez, why should she have to in an instance such as this.

Seriously, how many people across the country take turns watching each others' kids? Even here where I live, there are two families who do that. One week, the kids stay with one neighbor for a few hours after school, the next week it's the other neighbors' turn.

Who the hell would complain about something like this?

Just a few, but. . . .
Here in the UK, she'd be asked to have a Criminal Record check and a couple of other checks first. Then she'd be allowed to do it.

Barking, the lot of it

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JBJ, there's a difference between paying for daily childcare, be it a day care center or babysitter or whatever and a neighbor helping out another neighbor.

If the law stated in the article were truly enforced here in Michigan, there would probably be hundreds of families stuck without someone to watch their kids and keep them safe. Which would in turn cause people to have to miss work, eventually leading to termination of employment due to excessive absenteeism, and yes, with Michigan having the highest unemployment rate in the country, do we really need more of the bureaucrats telling us we can't save a few bucks, save our jobs, and save our sanity, by enlisting the help of friends and neighbors? Especially when it comes to the safety and welfare of children.

It's ridiculous and while I'm not a fan of Governor Granholm, I think she did the right thing in getting in contact with the proper people to get this law changed.

I understand all of what you say. We have similar laws here in Florida. The Old Hens roost together, dream up solutions to problems, and fail to consider the unintended consequences of the new laws. Like inadequate supervision.

The hens wanted parents to be home at night with the kiddies, and what the bureaucrats did was harass parents whose kids walk to school. Kids arent supervised when they walk to school.

 

[lance gt]

Not sure what happens in all the States, but here in Canada, we have a thing called neighbourhood watch. Kids can see the sticker in the window and know it's safe to use that house for safety and protection. In my area, there are eight stickers that I see posted. I can't see how the State can determine an instance of daycare violation, when a parent has the solemn right to protect their children. No monies are exchanged and the time frame doesn't constitute actual services rendered. Looks to me like a Daycare owner felt his/her pocket was getting rifled by it and was more concerned for the dollars than the kids. Sad state of affairs when the priorities are like that.

 

[Daniellekitten]

I had a friend who's daughter was a bit of a trouble maker, nothing terrible or destructive. But she had child welfare called in on her because her daughter was bringing unsuitable items to school. Now this woman was a single mother working a retail job because she was trained for nothing else. She worked first shift so that she could be at home with her kids at night.

The cop that came to her door gave her a really bad time. He actually told her, and I had to ask her to repeat this, that she should stay at home and not work because she needed to supervise her children in the morning.

Okay, so she does that, then who pays her bills? The cops? As if that would ever happen. If I'd have lived closer, I'd have watched the two of them for her in the morning. It's ridiculous that they give her ultimatums but no way to make either decision happen.

 

[driphoney]

Next thing you know, we'll need permits and training for playdates!

Good grief. And I hope that's wrong that in the UK, parents working in cooperation with each other--not as a business for monetary exchange--need background checks. Wow.

This all floats under the guise of 'well, it's silly, but if it just keeps one child safe . . ." But what it really does is the opposite.

There used to be this thing my grandma often mentioned: common sense.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DK

What you report is common.

Many people who take jobs with law enforcement (cops, social workers, lawyers) are rigid, self-righteous, and have no experience raising kids. They want excuses to abuse you. I worked with such people for more than 20 years. I trained plenty of these people, and their minds were made up from the first day: PARENTS ARE EVIL.

I used to counsel them IF YOU DONT SEE ANY BLOOD, IF YOU DONT SEE ANY BROKEN BONES OR BLACK EYES, IF THE HOUSE ISNT A TOXIC WASTE DUMP...CUT THE PARENT SOME SLACK. Because so much of the work is subjective opinion by law enforcement and falls on its ass in court.

I witnessed outrage after outrage perpetrated by gung-ho young cops and social workers.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Next thing you know, we'll need permits and training for playdates!

Good grief. And I hope that's wrong that in the UK, parents working in cooperation with each other--not as a business for monetary exchange--need background checks. Wow.

This all floats under the guise of 'well, it's silly, but if it just keeps one child safe . . ." But what it really does is the opposite.

There used to be this thing my grandma often mentioned: common sense.

If you only knew how unsafe daycare is!

 

[driphoney]

If you only knew how unsafe daycare is!

I want to be clear that I think background checks are appropriate for those working with children. My post might have suggested otherwise.

 

[lance gt]

If you only knew how unsafe daycare is!

On that point, I agree whole-heartedly James. I've read too many news items where a daycare worker has been charged with child abuse. We have background checks done and a university or college approved course in early child development. It still doesn't assure 100% safety, but it cuts the risk factor down considerably. Children are the innocents of the world and too many are subjected to things that cause irrepairable damage to them. It's a sad world when we attack those trying to make things safer and better for kids.

 

[michchick98]

I want to be clear that I think background checks are appropriate for those working with children. My post might have suggested otherwise.

I agree. Daycare workers and those working with children should have background checks. But neighbors helping neighbors, in MOST cases, shouldn't have to withstand anything more than a few questions from their neighbors if an agreement is reached about taking care of each others' children.

In small towns like the one described in the article, I'd bet "everyone knows everyone" so there are no worries about what might happen. Yeah, there's always that "she was so nice" or "he was a quiet guy" but most of the time, the sick assholes who hurt kids don't even know the kids.

I think the state should've looked into the issue before jumping the guns in this case. Clearly, no wrong was being done.

 

[TE999]

There was an epidemic of day care operators being convicted of child molestations in the 80's (The McMartin case comes to mind) that sent several innocent people to prison. It turns out the children that had given sworn testimony to the 'abuses' they suffered at the hands of the day care staffs had been coached and manipulated by social workers and child psychologists.

Prosecutorial hysteria in the name of children's 'rights' does vastly more harm than good.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

On that point, I agree whole-heartedly James. I've read too many news items where a daycare worker has been charged with child abuse. We have background checks done and a university or college approved course in early child development. It still doesn't assure 100% safety, but it cuts the risk factor down considerably. Children are the innocents of the world and too many are subjected to things that cause irrepairable damage to them. It's a sad world when we attack those trying to make things safer and better for kids.

The problem with daycare is how they coverup abuse & neglect.

When a worker breaks a baby's arm or leg the director immediately calls CHILD ABUSE and reports that mom did it. When they neglect to change diapers all day, and the kid gets a rash, they call CHILD ABUSE and report mom. If the kid is out on the playground and gets in a nest of ants they call CHILD ABUSE and report mom. If the kid climbs up a bookcase, falls, and busts her ass they call CHILD ABUSE and report mom.

And plenty of the workers have kids in fostercare or placed with relatives because of neglect.

 

[lance gt]

The problem with daycare is how they coverup abuse & neglect.

When a worker breaks a baby's arm or leg the director immediately calls CHILD ABUSE and reports that mom did it. When they neglect to change diapers all day, and the kid gets a rash, they call CHILD ABUSE and report mom. If the kid is out on the playground and gets in a nest of ants they call CHILD ABUSE and report mom. If the kid climbs up a bookcase, falls, and busts her ass they call CHILD ABUSE and report mom.

And plenty of the workers have kids in fostercare or placed with relatives because of neglect.

Thank God, we have CCTV in all Daycares up here. No one can abuse a child and get away with it. It caused an uproar when it was first decided to use them, but there have been no more false claims by workers, and several mistreatment cases were proven because of them. If you can't work under CCTV in that environment, you must be hiding something. Not a big fan of BIg Brother watching, but sometimes it's a necessity.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

"IRVING TOWNSHIP, Mich. – 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."

Full article here.

===

Are they serious? You'd think with all the missing and abducted children cases in this country, they'd welcome someone who was willing to keep kids safe.

The article does state that the governor has intervened to get the law changed, but geez, why should she have to in an instance such as this.

Seriously, how many people across the country take turns watching each others' kids? Even here where I live, there are two families who do that. One week, the kids stay with one neighbor for a few hours after school, the next week it's the other neighbors' turn.

Who the hell would complain about something like this?

That's the government at work...wasting your tax dollars to justify their jobs...poking their nose in where it don't belong...your business.

Expect more and more of this intrusion into your life...as someone said...welcome to 1984 - a camera in every home watching to make sure you don't do anything against some regulation that was instituted to protect you from yourself.

The complaint most likely stemmed from a neighbor who she wouldn't help and had to pay for daycare. Just speculation.

 

[3113]

Welcome to 1984...Big Brother run amok.

No. It's not. This was one of three things. Either the child care regulators were trying to cover their asses (worried that one of those three moms would complain when her kid got hurt and their oversight would make them culpable) and/or a nasty neighbor called them in to take revenge on this one woman watching over the three kids, and/or the regulators are trying to squeeze more money out of people and were hoping the moms would pay the woman and the woman would put money into the state.

I think it's probably like cops having a certain amount of traffic violations they must give out to keep the city afloat. It's stupid and ridiculous, but it's noting nefarious. It's just people trying to make sure that they don't get into trouble and/or make their quota. If you don't think so, then cast your mind back to some news article or other about some kid who had a horrific accident or was abused while in a neighbor's care. "Why didn't someone make sure this woman was watching over the kids properly?" We scream. "Why didn't they know that she wasn't to be trusted running this almost day care every afternoon?"

So someone in state government--or maybe even with a ballot vote--gets a law passed. Then this happens and suddenly you're "shocked! Shocked!" to see what the world has come to! Yet this is the logical result of being over vigilant on such things. It's not 1984...it's parental paranoia combined with the fierce way we come down on people when anything bad happens to a child. Of course regulators are going to go overboard in following the law rather than use their own common sense. It's their ass on the line if they don't follow the law, and as it involves kids, that means their ass in a sling if they don't follow it to the letter.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No. It's not. This was one of three things. Either the child care regulators were trying to cover their asses (worried that one of those three moms would complain when her kid got hurt and their oversight would make them culpable) and/or a nasty neighbor called them in to take revenge on this one woman watching over the three kids, and/or the regulators are trying to squeeze more money out of people and were hoping the moms would pay the woman and the woman would put money into the state.

I think it's probably like cops having a certain amount of traffic violations they must give out to keep the city afloat. It's stupid and ridiculous, but it's noting nefarious. It's just people trying to make sure that they don't get into trouble and/or make their quota. If you don't think so, then cast your mind back to some news article or other about some kid who had a horrific accident or was abused while in a neighbor's care. "Why didn't someone make sure this woman was watching over the kids properly?" We scream. "Why didn't they know that she wasn't to be trusted running this almost day care every afternoon?"

So someone in state government--or maybe even with a ballot vote--gets a law passed. Then this happens and suddenly you're "shocked! Shocked!" to see what the world has come to! Yet this is the logical result of being over vigilant on such things. It's not 1984...it's parental paranoia combined with the fierce way we come down on people when anything bad happens to a child. Of course regulators are going to go overboard in following the law rather than use their own common sense. It's their ass on the line if they don't follow the law, and as it involves kids, that means their ass in a sling if they don't follow it to the letter.

It's a real career killer to advocate for the parent.

My license-certification case involved a young mom with 3 little kids. A most prominent MD and child abuse-neglect expert made a report to CHILD ABUSE of medical neglect-intent to murder against the mom. The MD claimed that mom was trying to kill her infant with unnecessary medical services...Munchausens by Proxy.

I got the case.

I put the woman thru hell. We interrogated her, made her get a psychiatric eval, made her take a battery of psychological tests, and scrutinized her asshole for dingleberries. And when all the reports came back everyone agreed that she had some mild anxiety but wasnt a killer or even dangerous. She had no history of child abuse or criminal activity.

So I assembled a panel of MDs to review the babys medical records. They concluded that every treatment was bonafide and necessary.

To make a long story short, what I discovered was mom and the doc were sexually involved with the same guy. The doc lost her prestigious position, the hospital was sued by mom, and I caught hell for the outcome.

 

[lance gt]

In a move of complete openess about myself, I am currently battling the courts and agencies to get custody of my son. I know my son isn't an angel, what 15 yr. old is, but his mother has lost any sense of control over him and declared him to the agencies and doctors as ADHD, OCD, ODD and every damn D she could think of. He lost a year of school because she put him in a system run class for young offenders and had him on more pills than he needed. After a diagnosis by an independant doctor, one she didn't choose, He was cleared of all the mental inflictions she said he had and taken off the meds. Now that she has involved 3 agencies in the case, he can't go back to regular school until he has been assessed again to determine any threat value to himself or others. He wanted to come and live with me back in July, but she declared him mentally incapable of making a proper decision and having learning disabilities. I have proved him capable and no learning problems, but the system is involved and I've had to involve a Child Lawyer and Social worker on his behalf to defend his interests in court. It's been since 2006 that this has been going on. If his mother had shown him the respect and disciplined him on how to behave while she was custodial parent, he wouldn't be in this position in the first place. I have gone through hell with the agencies attacking me because of her accusations of child endangerment, but have come away squeaky clean each time. I am winning the battle and expect to have him with me before the end of the year. That's just the beginning for me. I have to undo all the damage she has caused him, to give him the best chance in life I can help him with. I find it all comes down to one thing only, LOVE. My love for him is endless and boundless. I will gladly give up my life the way it is and devote it to him, because he's my responsibility. I wish she woulkd have thought of him that way, but that's a totally different story.

 

[matriarch]

This story was a big item for UK newspapers yesterday:

Mothers breaking law for looking after each other's child

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[argh654]

Who the hell would complain about something like this?

It's the same way everything always goes. There was one mother who did this, one of the kids got hurt and therefore it became outlawed... Nobody ever looks at how much good something does. Nobody ever looks at how few problematic incidents there are. All people are interested in is making new rules, new laws that prevent that minor, isolated incident from happening again.
Unfortunately the general masses no longer reject useless rules and are willing to give up any right for no matter how small a gain in safety.

Remember, the price for 100% safety is death - only if you're already dead, a government can guarantee that your life is not in danger.

Peter.