So now you need a license to babysit?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah... you gotta get a license from the Red Cross.
 
I say BS to the licens its not DAY CARE its just doing a favor and keep a eye on the kids so that they get to school
 
Serenity said:
I say BS to the licens its not DAY CARE its just doing a favor and keep a eye on the kids so that they get to school
Click to expand...

But what's the difference aside from getting paid? Either way, you're taking responsibility for someone else's kids, and you should be able to prove that you're able to take on that responsibility.
 
That's for someone else (eg, the kid's parent) to determine. Not the State. If they trust neighbor X to watch over their kid until the bus picks him up, that's their business, not the state, until and unless a criminal activity occurs.

We're not talking about people entrusting their kids to strangers. We're talking about people entrusting their kids to the next-door neighbor. We're also talking about a law that already make exceptions for one type of acquaintances - relatives.

In my opinion, neighbors - people who live every day of the week next to one another - should benefit from an exemption similar to the relatives one.
 
It's the parents business only, as Evil said, it's no business of the State. I've watched people's kids at home after the bus came, they didn't die. >.<
 
althoug I see it as uneccesary, I can see why they would do it.
I mean, when it comes down to it, who would you rather have baby sitting your kid?
A licensed babysitter or some neighbors kid?
 
I think it's pretty sad that the state would just be like "Sorry. You can't give these kids a snack and make sure they don't injure themselves for an hour, you have to have a license to do that."

WTC
 
I'm still babysitting anyway. If someone is willing to trust you with their kids, then they know your a responsible person already. This is just stupid. I get the feeling that a lot of people who are supporting this rule dont babysit :\
 
remember just because you have a little paper from the state saying your safe to leave children with, doesn't really mean a thing. I mean, they say it's safe to leave your kids with priests too...
 
silvenquesti said:
remember just because you have a little paper from the state saying your safe to leave children with, doesn't really mean a thing. I mean, they say it's safe to leave your kids with priests too...
Click to expand...

Wow. That's not generalizing at all. Because priests are the only people to be pedophile.
You know, can't leave your children with teachers either. Some of them out of the majority are pedophiles, therefore you should cast a sweeping judgement on all of them.
Nah, it just makes you look stupid.
State certified > Neighborhood kid.
Hell, you could end up with me babysitting your kids if you go uncertified.
The horror.
 
So you need a license to be a babysitter but not to be a parent, which requires you to raise the child for 18 years, as opposed to four hours.
 
DCM said:
althoug I see it as uneccesary, I can see why they would do it.
I mean, when it comes down to it, who would you rather have baby sitting your kid?
A licensed babysitter or some neighbors kid?
Click to expand...

Well, by that logic, you should require licenses for all people who come into contact with kids.

I mean, if the parents can't judge for themselves who can and can't watch their kids, what does that show about the parents? There are bad parents out there, by their logic, they should require parents to have a license to prove that they can handle their kids.
 
Zeta said:
So you need a license to be a babysitter but not to be a parent, which requires you to raise the child for 18 years, as opposed to four hours.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And there are some children that would be better of with unexperienced baby sitters than some of the people that call themselves "parents" these days. (Josef Fritsel)
 
Agh, these kinds of things drive me nuts. Who in the world would look at this situation and go "Oh, whoops, wrong"? Good thing people fought against it.

And how exactly did the Department of Human Services even become aware of this? Did one of the kids mention to a teacher that their neighbor's mom takes care of them in the mornings and the teacher promptly went to call freakin' human services? What's going on there?
 
Mooites said:
I'm still babysitting anyway. If someone is willing to trust you with their kids, then they know your a responsible person already. This is just stupid. I get the feeling that a lot of people who are supporting this rule dont babysit :\
Click to expand...
I think you should actually read the article.

Zeta said:
So you need a license to be a babysitter but not to be a parent, which requires you to raise the child for 18 years, as opposed to four hours.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way.

Lil Brother said:
And how exactly did the Department of Human Services even become aware of this? Did one of the kids mention to a teacher that their neighbor's mom takes care of them in the mornings and the teacher promptly went to call freakin' human services? What's going on there?
Click to expand...
This was the first thing I thought of. I wondered if maybe a grumpy neighbor complained to the authorities about it. My second thought was that if she was only watching the kids for 1 hour per day, how long would she be able to do it so that it'd total 4 weeks?

7 days * 4 weeks = 28 days
28 days * 24 hours = 672 hours
672 hours / 1 hr per day = 672 days

So technically she's watching the kids for less than 2 weeks per year. If you really wanted to be a hairsplitter about it. :p
 
It was a neighbor who reported it, and they are working to change the rule.
 
So when're they coming out with parenting licenses, and forcing the sterilization of those who can't pass the test?

Or would those licenses be for any moron to walk in and get, considering that's what driver's licenses go to.
 
You'd need a license to breathe soon. Where is this, the US?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom