Mom threatened by state for babysitting neighbors kids.

[BroomJockey]

Where's all the people who are usually spouting "rules are rules"? I mean, really when you think about it, the law is pretty clear. You cannot care for a non-relatives child for more than 4 weeks.

A law so vague is useless. Define "care," how long a break is required between the 4 weeks, does it have to be consecutive? What if it's one day a week? Is it 4 weeks, or 28 days? If 28 days, then it could take about half a year to reach that point. I'll stand up for rules that actually have a point, and seem enforcible intelligently.

[DrFaroohk]

I was wondering the same thing. Perhaps we've reached a point in which the "rules" are too stupid to be justified.

We were at that point a long time ago, and I'm in full support of this woman watching her neighbors kids. I'm sure there IS a reason for this rule, and I'd be pissed off if I ran a daycare agency that I bought all these licenses and different permits for and then my business was being sniped by someone who did it for free, who didn't have to buy the licenses and make their home "legal" for kids, but this isn't one of those cases. So I totally agree that this is bullcrap.

But there's lots of bullcrap things that happen where a flock of people on here come running with the "RULES ARE RULES AND MUST BE OBEYED WITHOUT QUESTION!" bullcrap, and I'm wondering where they all ran off to. This isn't the first time a law has been completely idiotic and they've all supported it anyway.

[DesignFox]

A law so vague is useless. Define "care," how long a break is required between the 4 weeks, does it have to be consecutive? What if it's one day a week? Is it 4 weeks, or 28 days? If 28 days, then it could take about half a year to reach that point. I'll stand up for rules that actually have a point, and seem enforcible intelligently.

BroomJockey puts it best in this instance.

Yes, rules are rules. But when the rule is not specific or practically enforcable, it needs to be re-examined, re-written or thrown out.

There's a big difference between telling a person they cannot have bare feet in your restaurant, or they cannot use their cell phone during working hours, and nailing people to the wall because the neighbors agree to bring their kid to the bus-stop in the morning.

[BroomJockey]

This isn't the first time a law has been completely idiotic and they've all supported it anyway.

Just because a law inconveniences you doesn't make it idiotic. Sorry.

[DrFaroohk]

*checks*

*checks again*

*checks a third time*

Where the fuck did you get that ridiculous idea? I have never said, nor implied, anything even remotely close to it.

[Rageaholic]

We were at that point a long time ago, and I'm in full support of this woman watching her neighbors kids. I'm sure there IS a reason for this rule, and I'd be pissed off if I ran a daycare agency that I bought all these licenses and different permits for and then my business was being sniped by someone who did it for free, who didn't have to buy the licenses and make their home "legal" for kids, but this isn't one of those cases. So I totally agree that this is bullcrap.

But there's lots of bullcrap things that happen where a flock of people on here come running with the "RULES ARE RULES AND MUST BE OBEYED WITHOUT QUESTION!" bullcrap, and I'm wondering where they all ran off to. This isn't the first time a law has been completely idiotic and they've all supported it anyway.

I hate that mindset more than anything. I see it on yahoo answers all the time with regards to school rules. No matter how arbitrary the rules are, there's always these jackasses who will say "BUT IT'S TEH RULZ!". Well maybe the rules need some changing.

[Flyndaran]

I hate that mindset more than anything. I see it on yahoo answers all the time with regards to school rules. No matter how arbitrary the rules are, there's always these jackasses who will say "BUT IT'S TEH RULZ!". Well maybe the rules need some changing.

Hence comes the necessary concept to liberty, "Civil disobedience."
Absolutely wrong rules MUST be broken... though don't expect to avoid trouble. Fighting for freedoms and sensibility is often rough.

[Savannah]

I hate to see what they'd do to a teenager who babysits their neighbors/friends kids for several hours at a time.

I thought that at first too, but it looks like it's only for people caring for kids in their (the adult's) home. The teenager would be fine as long as they went to the child's home. Of course, this further proves that the law is stupid...

Or how about techers?

But teachers already go through background checks, etc.

I can see not wanting unlicensed daycares to be charging money because it's not fair to the licensed ones.
I can see not wanting a stranger who hasn't gone through background checks to be caring for a bunch of kids.
I can't begin to see how there is anything wrong with a mother watching her neighbors' kids for free.

[Aethian]

Okay parents had to be at work early, parents did not want to take the chance of their children being abducted, parents talked to chidren's friend's Mom who either is a home Mom or works later in the day....Children don't have to wait in the elements for the bus, don't have to worry about getting snatched while walking to the bus and the parents know their kids are safe. And this is a bad thing?

I want to know who the original complainer is.