Originally Posted by MarinaVanessa:
I agree that the child should have never been on that slide but must agree with Crystal that I'm not sure that she would get shut down because if this. If she is in fact the child's "childcare provider" and is registered or licensed then for sure she would get a citation and licensing will be up her rear for a good long time. She may have to take some extra training or re-take the prventative safety class (if she is required to do it in the first place).
Of course regulations vary from state to state so some states may be more strict than others. For example, in our county a few years back we had a provider who had a crock-pot on and a toddler pulled on the cord and dumped some of it on herself and was also burned badly on her arm, hand and a leg I think. Maybe her side also if I remember correctly. She did get a violation (I can't remember what degree) and had to take some classes and Licensing was at her daycare at least 1-2 times a month (usually it's about 1 every year or two). She didn't get shut down but I know that the violation she received is serious enough that she was required to tell all of the other parents about it and any new clients she may sign up need to be notified. She now has to explain what happened to any potential clients of the incident and if she doesn't then it's a class A violation.
If the woman watching the little girl was just a person watching the child for the day or just a "babysitter", or not required to register or become licensed then unfortunately I doubt that anything serious would be done to her. Her parents may wise up and sue her civilly, because I agree that if you are taking care of a child she is your responsibility no matter what, but CPS involvement seems unlikely in this case. If it were the mother of the child that had been at the park instead I doubt that even then CPS would rush to her and interrogate her. The claim that is pending now on the park system sounds to me like the parent wants to sue the city and seems highly unlikely that she'll win but the city may just settle to keep their own costs down. It's sad how the system works.
As far as I can tell the "provider" who spoke on the tape is not registered. She may be but it's not on the DHS website yet or she may be unregistered. That is currently legal in my State. In 2013 it will be required to be registered.
The regulations for unregistered are IDENTICAL to registered with the exception of two major things: You can't have more than 5 kids including your own under five years old and no more than a total of three can be under two. You also do not have a signed consent that you will allow inspections. If an unregistered provider does anything wrong it usually IS child protective services that does the initial investigation because they do not need a court order to get into your house. They can EASILY get that if you refuse to be interviewed.
If she is unregistered this will most likely be investigated by child protective. They are the first line of defense for an unregistered provider where the DHS is the first for a registered. If anything, being unregistered will skip her past a regular inspection and put her in the seat next to the child protective.
I do feel this will be investigated and a founded case of neglect will be issued. I think she will be forbiden to do child care for ten years. I think she will be cited for not carefully supervising the child and putting her in harms way because of the equipment she had her on. She will also be cited for not checking the hot slide but being ON the equipment without proximal adult supervision will be the first and foremost charge.
Because the Mom is begining the legal process with the City this highly increases the providers chance of having intervention from the DHS and child protective. When they go to court for this they will have a founded case of child abuse on the provider alongside of a court order that she cease chld care for X number of years. This will be highly in their favor when they are looking at any type of percentage of damages.