Jealous busybody gets Mom in trouble.
 

THAT'S what the title of this article SHOULD be.


Rest of the article here

Who the heck is going to complain? Perhaps a neighbor who isn't included in this convenient arrangement? Sheesh.

We don't know why the neighbor complained. We can only guess.

Maybe the kids were playing outside for that hour, and would go over to the neighbor's house, get his extension ladder out, climb on his roof, and drop russet potatoes down the vent pipes in his roof, clogging his pipes.

What? It could happen.

The STATE needs to butt the fu*k out

We're having similar problems over here. New rulings on adults 'working' with kids. So if you and another parent have a reciprocal arrangement whereby you take turns taking the little-uns for an hour after school (for instance) that's considered a 'reward' based arrangement and falls under guidelines that mean by law you should have a CRB (criminal records bureaux) check.

Ludicrous.

It's a designated school bus stop. Does the state have a rule about how long before the bus arrives, kids are allowed to show up?

You sound like you're speaking from experience. 'Fess up... was it you? Or your offspring?

I tend to agree, but I'd also like to hear more about the neighbor's justification for complaining.

For that matter, where is "the bus stop?" Is it a specific street sign? the intersection? Etc.? How far away from it may the kids be while still considered to be "at the bus stop?" What does it mean to "care for" children? There has to be some difference between that and a visit.. unless the law really intended to cover every time one kid visits another kid's house without a parent in tow.

I don't think it really matters why the neighbor was complaining. There is no "day care" ... So stop this crap and go do something productive. Sheesh - It's l;ike they have nothing better to do.

In this case the agency did recognize that they were in the wrong and are working to change the regulation to allow for exceptions.

The case in the news recently concerns two part time policewomen in Bucks. Mum worked with them both. The children (girls) are within montha of eachother and as close as sisters - the arrangemtn has been going on since both Mums returned to work. They are both far more understanding of eachother's hours and potential over-running than any non-police staff would be. And of course it's reciprocal ie does not qualify for any state benefit.

Both girls are now in govt subsidised care, with strangers, and the mothers are looking at taking desk jobs.

I'm not usually anti govt involvement, at least not at a knee-jerk level, because I've read too many lies in the right wing press. But this case defies belief. By all means protect children. But common sense has to kick in at some point. Again, it was a neighbour who informed that a uniformed officer was running an illegal creche. Who you gonna call when you get a knife to your throat honey?

I loved the reply by the Gov"t when the woman called and told them the kids would simply be in her house to stay out of the rain - "Tell her to buy her kids an umbrella" WTH

What if she wasn't 'watching' them -- they simply came over to play with their friend. So now (by their definition) if any kid comes over to play with your kid, you're running a daycare.

Really? :headshake

I think it was because it was a daily event, but thats purty much how I took it as well.

Where did you read that?

I saw it on Morning Joe on MSN this am.