Neighbor Helps Neighbor, Until a Busybody Alerts the Nanny State.

[Elizabeth Conley]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090930/ap_on_re_us/us_baby_sitter_backlash_mich

[springmama]

I'm so frustrated to be living in a country where there are so many laws and regulations one must take into consideration before doing a favor for a friend. Can we just go back a few hundred years and start from scratch?

[LauraGB]

I read this yesterday and all I could think was "Don't they have anything better to spend tax-payer dollars to investigate??!!"

[creekland]

It's good to read that they are planning on changing the law - not expecting the people doing this to change.

[Elizabeth Conley]

I agree with you creekland. After all, let's not forget that this "problem" was reported by the lady's neighbor.

 

What a charming person this neighbor must be. It's not even as if the good Samaritan lives in an apartment. It's a single family dwelling, so the kids waiting for the bus are less trouble to the neighbors when they're inside than when they're outside.

 

We're always going to have people like the busybody who reported this act of charity to the authorities. We're always going to have authorities who would rather humor the busybody than stand for what is right. The laws have to be changed, or taken off the books. It's the only real protection we have against these civil rights violations.

[katilac]

on the upside, the follow-up response was sensible, and they are working on avoiding a repeat in the future. the law is really meant to apply to actual day care, and the new version is intended to make that clear.

 

stupid of the someone to complain, but this is really more of an example of a poorly worded law and a busybody neighbor, not regulations meant to interfere in people's personal lives.

[MarthaT]

What a state we are living in today

 

[KidsHappen]

Yes, I read this yesterday as well and I am wondering where in the H*LL common sense went in our country. I do have to say that I am please with the way they appear to be handling it.

 

I have to wonder if perhaps the neighbor declined to watch Ms. Busybody's child because the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

[Dayle in Guatemala]

I read this yesterday too and my thoughts are, "What!!!!!!!!!!" Seriously, DHS has no truly abused kids to follow up on? No neglected kids? No delinquents? Things are so quiet in this town that they have to pick on a lady who is helping out a neighbor?

 

Honestly, what is this world coming to? It's just beyond sad.

[i.love.lucy]

Yeah, I bet they know exactly which *lovely* neighbor reported it. Cranky old man? Jealous mom left out of the loop? Someone with a grudge, no doubt.

[Janet in WA]

My bet would be that the neighbor is older and doesn't have children at home.

[BikeBookBread]

This story, along with a story about a Saratoga Springs forbidding children from walking or riding bikes to school, made for a fine pair.

[HRAAB]

Yes, I read this yesterday as well and I am wondering where in the H*LL common sense went in our country. I do have to say that I am please with the way they appear to be handling it.

 

I have to wonder if perhaps the neighbor declined to watch Ms. Busybody's child because the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

 

I wonder this all the time (bolded part). I guess our city has similar laws, however, the spokesperson for the city said they wouldn't pursue something of this nature. At least they are looking into changing the law.

 

Janet

[radiobrain]

I wonder if the neighbor would have complained if it was an afterschool playdate. It amounts to the same thing... unless the parents were paying her to watch the kids for an hour. Even so... who freaking cares!

 

If it were a 3rd shift worker, maybe it could make some sense.

 

But, it is ridiculous.

[brehon]

Yes, I read this yesterday as well and I am wondering where in the H*LL common sense went in our country.QUOTE]

 

If common sense were common, I wouldn't have a job.....:leaving:

[Desert Rat]

Ugh. Boo to busybodies! I'm glad they local government is being sensible.

[Jeannie in NJ]

I just posted on the afterschooling board about one of my lovely neighbors (just wish I knew which one) called the police because yesterday morning my dd's bus driver picked her up in front of our house (he drives past our house to get to the bus stop) , he picked her up because she is wearing a knee brace and I have been driving her to and from the bus stop. Anyway, the police actually called the bus company who put the driver on "warning" because he picked a child up at a place that is not the official bus stop. He told me that now he cannot even drop kids off at their houses during pouring rain or snow storms, they all have to be dropped off at the bus stop and I guess just walk in the rain or snow. He even threw his hands up at the stupidity of it all. So he tries to be a nice bus driver and now has to fear about losing his job.

[PineFarmMom]

That's the problem with too much govt. They make ridiculous laws then have to make new laws to cover the flaws in the first set of ridiculous laws that shouldn't even have been made in the first place. :glare:

[Tiff in TX]

What is wrong with these neighbors... how do they even know these absurd laws?

 

They should have to wear tattle "tails" around town for a week so everyone can see who they are.

[Janet in WA]

 

I wonder if the neighbor would have complained if it was an afterschool playdate. It amounts to the same thing... unless the parents were paying her to watch the kids for an hour.

I'm assuming the neighbor would have viewed it the same way -- as afterschool (rather than before school) care that violated the law. And it's interesting to note that this care did actually violate the letter of the law, if not the spirit.

[Dayle in Guatemala]

I saw the neighbor in question interviewed last night on Fox News. She said when she called DHS, she said, "So if it's freezing cold or pouring rain, I can't let the kids in my house to wait for their mom? That would be against the law?"

 

The social worker actually said "Yes. It would be against the law, you can't do that."

 

:001_huh:

 

So then the parents of these children gets dragged to court for neglect for not getting home in time to let her kids in the house when it's raining or cold? Crazy.

[elegantlion]

My mom would have been in so much trouble when we were kids if one of neighbors had been that insane. My mom made hot chocolate, let us all hang out in the house, and even kept most of the kids a few days when the bus never showed because of the winter weather.

[Audrey]

Neighbour sounds like a complete jerk.

 

I have to wonder why it would apply to her, though? It didn't say she was charging the moms for watching those kids. It said it was a favour, which to me implies she was doing it for free. So, she's not providing day-care (licenced or not), she's just letting some kids play at her house.

 

Now, if THAT'S against the law, well... insert expletive here.

[Cammie]

The law actually applied to someone who watched over non-relative children for more than four weeks out of the year. The law did not require that payment be exchanged in order for the law to apply. So no, letting the kids inside when the weather was bad would not be a violation - unless you did it every day for four weeks.

 

It is an example of poorly drafted legislation - no one said the politicians who write this stuff had any brains!:tongue_smilie:

[unsinkable]

Three words:

 

IN. FRICKIN'. SANE.

[Laura Corin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8279274.stm

 

Laura

[hsmom3tn]

Is this a total of four weeks, or 28 consecutive days?

 

I'm wondering if we need to worry about breaking the law by my kids having too many sleepovers????

 

Speaking of nosy neighbors and stupid laws, though...

We're only allowed to have 2 garage sales per year here. I was made aware of that by being given a warning during my 3rd garage sale a few years ago. A neighbor had called and complained. :confused:

[fivetails]

This story, along with a story about a Saratoga Springs forbidding children from walking or riding bikes to school, made for a fine pair.

 

How in the world can they actually enforce THAT?? The roads don't belong to the school. Schools have no say in what a child does until they're actually *there* (or on the bus/bust stop, being school property/vehicles) ...they can't say the child isn't allowed to ride his bike with his mom on public roads!

[katilac]

How in the world can they actually enforce THAT?? The roads don't belong to the school. Schools have no say in what a child does until they're actually *there* (or on the bus/bust stop, being school property/vehicles) ...they can't say the child isn't allowed to ride his bike with his mom on public roads!

 

Very interesting subject - - how far does the school's authority extend? The bus stop is very rarely school property, yet it is generally accepted that the school's authority extends to it (students can get detention, etc for breaking rules at the bus stop).

 

Like any entity with power, schools are always ready to take on more. It's very common for school systems to have very specific rules for what can and cannot occur ON THE WAY TO OR FROM SCHOOL, even though, as you say, they are public roads, not school property.

 

One that I remember from my day is a school rule forbidding students to stop at convenience stores on the way to school (possibly on the way home, can't remember). This was addressed at one store in particular - - right across the street from the high school, it was a hangout area for various activities, kids would stop there and then be late, etc. The rule covered any store, but it's not like it was enforceable anywhere else.

 

I think that school rules should begin at the school gate.

[fivetails]

How in the world can they actually enforce THAT?? The roads don't belong to the school. Schools have no say in what a child does until they're actually *there* (or on the bus/bust stop, being school property/vehicles) ...they can't say the child isn't allowed to ride his bike with his mom on public roads!

 

Very interesting subject - - how far does the school's authority extend? The bus stop is very rarely school property, yet it is generally accepted that the school's authority extends to it (students can get detention, etc for breaking rules at the bus stop).

 

Like any entity with power, schools are always ready to take on more. It's very common for school systems to have very specific rules for what can and cannot occur ON THE WAY TO OR FROM SCHOOL, even though, as you say, they are public roads, not school property.

 

One that I remember from my day is a school rule forbidding students to stop at convenience stores on the way to school (possibly on the way home, can't remember). This was addressed at one store in particular - - right across the street from the high school, it was a hangout area for various activities, kids would stop there and then be late, etc. The rule covered any store, but it's not like it was enforceable anywhere else.

 

I think that school rules should begin at the school gate.

 

See now, I'd fight the bike thing and I'd fight the store thing - I'd be the parent biking to school with my kids and giving them *my* permission to stop at a store on the way to or from school, because I would REFUSE to acknowledge the school as having *any* authority over my child outside of their property. If I want my child to pick up a loaf of bread or a litre of milk on their way home, the school had best keep their nose out of that.

 

{A specific problem with too many kids 'hanging out' at a store before/after school needs to be addressed by the store - if they're loitering, causing a disturbance, etc, then the store has the right to address that from a store-security standpoint.}

[Impish]

I disagree about the school rules only inside the gate. Too many bullying situations occur before and after school, on the way too and from.

 

And police don't like to be called about bullying, unless the child is at least 12 yrs old, and/or you've exhausted all options with the school to sort it out.

[BigMamaBird]

I'm not at all a fan of Governor Granholm, but I'm glad to see that she came out so quickly and forcefully about this. Hopefully the right cages get rattled and this poor family is left alone!

[Cindyg]

We had a story in our local paper a couple of weeks ago about the police running off kids who were playing soccer on an other-wised unused soccer field in a public park. Turns out they had to have a permit from the Parks Department. And no they could not have a permit now because it had to be in writing and issued several days before they planned to play on the field -- thus making impromptu play, at a public park, impossible.

[Word Nerd]

My guess is that Busybody is a licensed daycare provider in the area.

[phathui5]

My guess is that Busybody is a licensed daycare provider in the area.

 

That could be it. I always see licensed daycare people posting on craigslist here about how horrible it is that stay-home moms babysit.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

While the school is at it, why don't they also stipulate the school kids can't argue with their siblings in the morning, must floss their teeth after breakfast, may not leave dirty dishes on the table and won't talk back to their moms on the way to school.

 

You know I watched October Sky last night with the kids. The amount of mobility, freedom and responsibility that the kids in the movie had was incredible compared to what kids today have. It seems like we have collected up quite a bundle of fears and concerns without any of the attendant responsibility and opportunity.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I can agree with you that bullying is not right. But I don't think that it follows that the school gets to regulate time that ought to remain outside their authority. Where would you draw the line? A half hour after school? An hour? Two hours if they are still within a mile of the school building?

 

FWIW, I walked to school my last couple years of elementary school, because I didn't like the behavior at bus stops. I would have hated it if I hadn't had that opportunity to be by myself on the way to and from school.

[stripe]

There are many things that point to the fact that people don't like kids, and this whole "family" focus thing is mis-named. It's about morality (really only promiscuity/adultery, homosexuality and abortion) not about actually making things easy for families.

[texascamps]

We had a story in our local paper a couple of weeks ago about the police running off kids who were playing soccer on an other-wised unused soccer field in a public park. Turns out they had to have a permit from the Parks Department. And no they could not have a permit now because it had to be in writing and issued several days before they planned to play on the field -- thus making impromptu play, at a public park, impossible.

 

 

No!No!No! What is this world coming to? I'm sure that will be coming soon to a park near me, as well.

[OH Kim]

I just posted on the afterschooling board about one of my lovely neighbors (just wish I knew which one) called the police because yesterday morning my dd's bus driver picked her up in front of our house (he drives past our house to get to the bus stop) , he picked her up because she is wearing a knee brace and I have been driving her to and from the bus stop. Anyway, the police actually called the bus company who put the driver on "warning" because he picked a child up at a place that is not the official bus stop. He told me that now he cannot even drop kids off at their houses during pouring rain or snow storms, they all have to be dropped off at the bus stop and I guess just walk in the rain or snow. He even threw his hands up at the stupidity of it all. So he tries to be a nice bus driver and now has to fear about losing his job.

 

I appreciate the need for your child to have this accommodation, but bus drivers stopping at every house - which our local school system buses do for the high school student is supremely annoying to me. Children will not melt in rain nor freeze in snow - make them walk.

 

But it was nice of him to stop at your house.

[Janet in WA]

 

I have to wonder why it would apply to her, though? It didn't say she was charging the moms for watching those kids.

The law didn't say anything about payment. The wording did actually make what this mother was doing illegal. That's being corrected now, apparently.