Originally Posted by Willow:
To those that think that sort of response is perfectly acceptable, do you always require payment if parents choose not to expose their kids to something communicable literally right there in your daycares?
If a kid comes in with rotovirus you send them home right? Why? Because they can infect others.
If they're vomiting you send them home right? Why? Because they can infect others.
Influenza?
TB?
Ringworm?
Coxsackie?
Chicken Pox?
If the child in question cannot be quarantined from the rest of the group because it's literally the providers child and the affliction inside the home what else is a parent to do?
Do you seriously say tough beans? Bring your kid or pay up anyway even though you have to pay someone else for alternative care to keep your own child disease/illness/parasite free?
To me this isn't about money, or policy, it's purely about ethics. It would be RIDICULOUSLY unethical to stick parents in that position.
DaisyMamma - you'd put in an option to terminate THEM?? I cannot tell you how floored I was to read that....just...straight unbelievably shocked and literally horrified. As a parent ***I*** would absolutely terminate contract if that was the rock and a hard place a provider presented and attitude they had.
Seriously. Just wow....
The difference here is the things you listed place a health risk to people that get it and lice does not. Which is why as per the santa clara county health department guidlines the schools here do not send children home for this they simply inform then at the end of the day.