I had a discussion with a day care provider. She was telling me that she wanted Yankton to make all day cares be licensed. I'm not against that. My wife has been a licensed day care provider for many years. What bothers me is the next part of the argument.
She said that no one should be able to care for another child unless they are city certified.
The City Council is trying to make that a reality. That means if Grandma wants to watch the kids she would have to be certified by the city before doing it. I guess I have problems with that.
The argument is that parents don't care enough about their children to make an informed choice about who will watch the child. Thus the government needs to do it. I don't see how the government can continually get bigger and take over what the parents are suppose to be doing. Thoughts?
Do you think parents should be able to pick who they want to watch their kids without government intervention? - OR - Do you think the government should be able to say who watches kids?
True 
Comments (22)
I am 99% sure there is a nuance to this that is being overlooked.
I think the parents should be able to pick. Unless they have been found unfit (in which case they shouldn't have custody of the children either), then they should be able to make the decision for their children. The government should just stay out of it unless they are children in government care.
Babysitting and care providing are two different categories, if I am not mistaken. If you want to be a care provider, then yes you should have licensure. Something that says you are qualified and trained. I don't know about your particular city, but there is probably some legal language in there about who this requirement would pertain to - and it might have to do with the number of children or hours/days a week care is provided.
It should be up to the parents. I have no problem with the law saying a non-relative who watches more than X amount of children must be licensed. It gives parents the option to use who they want and also includes options where they can choose a saferish daycare.
@TiredSoVeryTired@xanga - I have a problem with the non-relative part, because currently I am the girlfriend of one little boy in particular's uncle. The boy also stays with his mommy's boyfriend's family frequently and his mommy's best friend's house, frequently.
We had a story in the news, a while back, about this. One mom had some neighborhood kids dropped off at her house, so she could wait with them for the bus stop. Someone complained to DHS, and she was told that she could no longer do that.
This is a quote from the article,
"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."
(This was from 2009, don't know if things changed or not).
Anyway, in my opinion, it should be up to the parents. NOT the government/state.
@mybodyx@xanga - Does he stay with non-relatives who are watching a bunch of other kids? I mean as in a non-relative in business as a day care then IMO there should be set regulations after a certain amount of children in the day care. I don't mean if someone's neighbor/girlfriend/family friend watches your two kids. But if they run a business and have no real personal relationship with the kids/families.
@Brilliant_Innocence@xanga - I think it should also depend on the number of kids and the hours then. If five kids are dropped off at her house and each stays in the morning for less than two hours, I think it is silly to make her get a license. But if twenty kids are dropped off... maybe...
I think California's rules take number of kids and relationships into account.
@TiredSoVeryTired@xanga - Yeah, I see your point. In that story, they were at her house for like 20-30 minutes. So, I do think that's ridiculous. I also don't know how many kids. The article didn't state how many kids, just a "group". So, who knows. I think it would make sense to take into account the number of kids watched. I could definitely agree with that.
Here in Colorado you can nanny or watch for ONE family. Amount of kids do NOT matter. But if you watch two kids, each from different families....you have to have a license. And if you have a license you can only watch 5 kids...your own children included. So I have one child myself, so I could only watch 4 other kids.
Our rules are way off IMHO.
I'm fairly certain the law would make exception for family members. in new york they have a rule about that but it only applies to people caring for a certain number of children at a time, I think 8, meaning it's not just babysitting, it's actually being run as a day care. Makes sense to me, that if someone claims the ability to care for all these kids at once they should have some basic training, as it ups the chances that some sort of emergency will crop up.
So if it's anything like NY: grandma can still watch the kids. in fact, anyone can still watch the kids unless you have like 10 of them. If you want to send them to an actual day care where there are many children there at once, your options will be slightly restricted to the best people for the job. Doesn't seem like that big a deal to me.
The way I see it, it's not about restricting choice, it's about the gov ensuring you don't get duped by someone who has no idea what they're doing. Any random person is not qualified to care for a large group of kids at once. If it looks nice enough it can look legit, but that doesn't mean the person knows CPR or how to handle food allergies, etc. I see it as a little protection from the gov, a little piece of mind. Then I can know the person I hand my kid to is safe.
They're not choosing for you, they're just slightly limiting your options in a very specific scenario to only the best.
Social justice cannot be accomplished through the government. All that results is oppression.
Consequently, we don't want the government anywhere near our family and children.
Nobody certifies parents before they have babies. wtf
A certification is basically a piece of paper saying you're not a known child molester, felon, violent criminal, mental patient etc. It is tantamount to a mandatory background check for anyone who wants to professionally tend to children which is an extremely good idea given that child predators swarm to such jobs and would do so much more without such protections.
This "who knows better, you or the government" folksie sarah palin joe-sixpack conservative talking point BS not withstanding, the government DOES know better than you who is a criminal and who isn't.
lol If they think the government has better judgement, they should spend a few days in a foster home. Any foster home. But what would I know, I'm just a foster kid myself.
To me, the idea that you can't leave your kids with someone just because they aren't licensed is both creepy (way too much government control) and inconvenient (anyone who has ever tried to find a babysitter last minute can attest to that...it's hard enough without them having to be licensed!) I can understand a daycare needing to be licensed, since parents are leaving the kids there 8+ hours a day and there's lots of little kids running around and you probably don't know these people beyond the casual acquaintance level. But sending one family of kids to Grandma's for the day is a different matter. Grandma supposedly already raised a few kids, hopefully you know her quite a bit better than the daycare provider, and she will be looking after your kids and maybe a few cousins, not 30 kids.
I'm basically for small government but... not when it comes to children. I think the government has a responsibility to protect children. Personally, I think parents should have to take a good parenting exam too. Too many kids are being abused.
I don't see how they could enforce that... they cant just go around busting down grandma's door and asking to see her certification hahaha
I doubt the certification would be for relatives. All the certification would say is that the adult looking after the child isn't a convicted child molester, ect. & if the adult is looking after enough children to qualify as an at home child care provider - they NEED certification to make sure the state child care rules are followed. I don't know why anyone would want to argue with that.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace@xanga - Social justice cannot be accomplished through the government. All that results is oppression.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended racial discrimination at palces of public accomodation.
The day that the government starts evaluating and certifying child care will bethe start of the decline of the general care you will see available to most people. I would not have faith in a system like that. I should hope that would never be approved.