Question re: civil law and childcare

  • Thread starter Thread starter PursuitofJoy3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PursuitofJoy3

Guest
Hi all,
I am a stay at home mom. A woman has asked me to care for her soon to be born infant child while she is at work - approximately 9.5-10 hours a day, Monday through Friday.
Most states do not require an in-home caregiver to obtain a business license if they are caring for less than 2, 4, or 6 unrelated children - depending on the state (in the U.S.). My state is saying that I must obtain a license to babysit for even ONE child who is not related to me, who is in my care in my home for more than 4 hours per day - whether or not I am being paid.
It would be one thing if the licensing process were simple - however it is complex, filled with forms and inspections, medical testing for each member of my family which will cost us at least $70 or so in copays, not to mention the TB test, two $50 fingerprinting/ background checks for both me and my husband (because they require a substitute), required 24 hours in required childcare coursework (which would cost me $2-300, and purchasing a fence for a portion of our backyard. We are talking several hundred dollars, plus the cost of the fence which could be several hundred to over $1500 depending on the type of fence, not to mention the CPR/ first aid certification required for both me and my husband (which I think I should take anyways). - All this red tape for me to take care of someone’s infant while she works for $100/ week so that she does not have to put him in a standard day care. She is not concerned about the licensing, and from what I have learned, there are home daycares all over our area which are not licensed, each caring for several children.

I do not want to offend God or disobey the government but this just seems completely burdensome and unjust for them to 1) tell this mother who she can or cannot leave her child with and 2) to prohibit her leaving the child with me even if I was not being paid. Even still - if we have a private agreement with notarized forms stating that I am not liable, the county office told me that I would still be breaking the law because the child is with me more than 4 hours a day.

I recognize that caring for children has its risks, I do not take the responsibility lightly, and I know we are to obey civil authorities - but could this be a situation where the law is unjust and unnecessarily burdensome?
 
WE CAN NOT GIVE YOU LEGAL ADVISE

You have not provided any information as to which city/state you are in so there is no way to look up the laws related to your situation. However, this is an overview:
Licensing Threshold for Family Child Care Homes (PDF - Click Thru) and there are many states that require licensing for paid, in-home, childcare.

If I were you, I’d contact a local business lawyer, explain the situation, and go from there. Many lawyers will do the the initial review for free or very minimal cost and may be able to help you file the paperwork if needed.

and yes, from what you describe, there does seem to be some disconnect in the situation, and yet, we have the “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…” situation; thus, just because the law is burdensome doesn’t mean we’re allowed to break it.

I note your comment about the 4/hr per day threshold… there could be a loop hole here if Mom can line up two or three friends. Then there could be a rotation thru the “babysitters” homes which would break the continuous care provision. Once again, you need to check with a lawyer

IF you were to consider this as a second income, then you might contact the small business administration as there are often some funds available for small start-ups. Your friend might also be able to receive assistance for child care from one of the government programs, or thru Catholic Charities.
 
Thanks, the link was helpful. I live in Alabama. It doesn’t vary by county.
I am not so much worried about the legal aspect as the moral aspect of the situation. For me it boils down to - do I help someone or deny help because the government makes it financially impossible and practically difficult?
 
I don’t think any of us can recommend you skirt the law and leave yourself open to lawsuits, fines, jail time or other civil or criminal penalties. You never know what might happen on your watch, so I wouldn’t recommend in-home care without proper insurance, licenses, and training.

If she were going to a day care, she would be paying more. I understand all the reasons she would want private, one-on-one care for her child. But that comes at a premium, not a discount.

I see the choices as:
  1. Tell her you are sorry but that you cannot afford to get licensed and therefore cannot accommodate her request
  2. Tell her you would love to watch her child, but will have to charge her the same as a daycare because you will have all of these start-up costs involved in licensing
  3. Tell her you would love to watch her child, but she will need to pay for the out-of-pocket costs you are incurring and then the lower $100/month after you are established.
There is no moral problem with telling her no.
 
1ke said:
I see the choices as:
  1. Tell her you are sorry but that you cannot afford to get licensed and therefore cannot accommodate her request
  2. Tell her you would love to watch her child, but will have to charge her the same as a daycare because you will have all of these start-up costs involved in licensing
  3. Tell her you would love to watch her child, but she will need to pay for the out-of-pocket costs you are incurring and then the lower $100/month after you are established.
There is no moral problem with telling her no.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut & suggestions.
 
PursuitofJoy3 said:
Thanks, the link was helpful. I live in Alabama. It doesn’t vary by county.
I am not so much worried about the legal aspect as the moral aspect of the situation. For me it boils down to - do I help someone or deny help because the government makes it financially impossible and practically difficult?
Click to expand...
:nope:Doesn’t matter, so long as the law doesn’t go against Church teachings (IE the issue with the Affordable Health Care Act) we must, “give unto Cesar what is Cesar’s…” Even if the law does go against Church teaching, then you must be in a position to suffer the penalties (and I would advise a long conversation with your pastor about the situation). Are you in a position to be crucified?
I understand, it sucks. :sad_yes:
OK< I haven’t found the actual wording of the law for your state, just a summary of provisions:
For purposes of these regulations, a license is required for persons:
• Providing care for one or more children who are not related to the provider;
• With or without compensation;
• Away from the child’s home;
• For more than four (4) hours in a 24 hour period.
If I read this correctly, then all four conditions must be met in order to trip the requirement; thus, third bullet point, “away from the child’s home,” could be the opening you are looking for in this situation. You might consider caring for the child at their home. Once again only a lawyer will be able to tell you if this would be legal.
Click to expand...
 
Ask the new mom to share the expenses with you 50 -50. You can pay her back when she no longer needs your services or offer her free care.
 
I found the same information as z_0101, but from a different source. If you can do child care at her home, then it easily would seem to fall within the carved-out exception for Alabama.

Also, you could do four hours of babysitting (within a given 24-hour period) in your own home before the statute/rule would take effect. So you could go back and forth if that would offer some convenience.

You should consult with a lawyer to confirm, but you could also probably contact the Department of Human Resources.

In light of these two exceptions, let us know if we still need to do the moral analysis for you.
 
Thank you again to all that have responded.

“For purposes of these regulations, a license is required for persons:
• Providing care for one or more children who are not related to the provider;
• With or without compensation;
• Away from the child’s home;
• For more than four (4) hours in a 24 hour period.”

This is what gets me - I could provide care for a friend’s child one time in my home, receiving $0 in pay, for more than 4 hours and be violating the law. My daughter has had friends spend the night and I have cared for other children all day to help their parents out, without compensation, and now I realize that technically that would fall under these stipulations. That is why I find this regulation to be so ridiculous. It cannot possibly be followed or enforced in a normal society. If this were truly followed, many many homes would have to be licensed by the state. Perhaps that’s what they want, I don’t know. There is no stipulation for the frequency or regularity of care being offered.
I have researched and learned that there are home daycares/ home babysitters all over our county (we live in a rural area), none of which are licensed, and who use independent contracts between themselves & the parents, which free the caregiver from liability. There are potential consequences if something horrible were to happen and DHR became involved - they would have the option (not required) of giving me up to 60 days to get licensed, and then turning it over to the DA for prosecution of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine from $100-1000 and up to one year in jail. Definitely not a type of “crucifixion” I would want to open myself up to.
I guess at this point I know that it’s probably not worth the risk, but I cannot help feel that the state is way overstepping their bounds on this one. Thanks again for the thoughts.
 
PursuitofJoy3 said:
I cannot help feel that the state is way overstepping their bounds on this one. Thanks again for the thoughts.
Click to expand...
That is what your state legislators are for-- call or write to them. Seek an appointment with your local representative to work towards a more realistic and equitable law.

I doubt anyone set out to make a ridiculous law. But with committees, conferences, and editing, who knows what changes were made that resulted in the current wording.
 
1ke,
I don’t know, I can’t see any angle where this law is not ridiculous, arbitrary, and unjustly intrusive. Besides, it is simply not followed. I have looked into the legal ramifications and my husband is not worried at all. He isn’t even worried about it from a moral standpoint - however, personally, that is really my only concern.
If this child’s mother trusts me and wants me to care for him, why is it any of the state’s business? I want to be able to have a private agreement with someone to care for her child, with a private notarized statement of release of liability. In EVERY single neighboring state, me caring for one child in my home during the day, would not require me to complete a ridiculous litany of paperwork and approvals and red tape. It is a private agreement between two families with mutual trust. I cannot, for the life of me, see how this is a just law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top