Daycare.com Forum Daycare Management Software

Go Back   Daycare.com Forum > Main Category > Daycare Center and Family Home Forum

Daycare Center and Family Home Forum Daycare Center and Family Home owners, Directors, Operators and Assistants should post and ask questions here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-31-2015, 04:32 AM
DBug DBug is offline
Daycare Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 934
Default Daycare Operator Sued For Reporting Suspected Abuse

What do you ladies (and gents) think of this one?

http://welcometothezoo.ca/when-your-...a-childs-life/

I'd love to hear your take on it. I've heard a ton of flack saying that the daycare provider should have discussed things with the parents first. But as a daycare provider, I would NOT have talked with the parents before reporting it. If they really were abusers, it could have made the abuse worse!

I don't know, I think it sets a really questionable precedent!
__________________
www.WelcomeToTheZoo.ca
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-31-2015, 06:14 AM
Blackcat31's Avatar
Blackcat31 Blackcat31 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 19,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBug View Post
What do you ladies (and gents) think of this one?

http://welcometothezoo.ca/when-your-...a-childs-life/

I'd love to hear your take on it. I've heard a ton of flack saying that the daycare provider should have discussed things with the parents first. But as a daycare provider, I would NOT have talked with the parents before reporting it. If they really were abusers, it could have made the abuse worse!

I don't know, I think it sets a really questionable precedent!
Here is another thread about this.

The provider herself gave input in the thread.

http://daycare.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76114
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-31-2015, 08:09 AM
debbiedoeszip's Avatar
debbiedoeszip debbiedoeszip is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 412
Default

I think that there is more to the story than we can read about. AFAIK, the CAS will investigate every allegation of neglect/abuse. They don't need to find cause to investigate, as the link suggests. The investigation might be short-lived, if there is nothing going on, but it will happen. And there is no way for the other "side" to give their accounting of the situation due to privacy, etc, so who knows what the real story might be.

That being said, the moral of the story might be that if we as providers were to suspect neglect/abuse towards one of our dcks, it might be better to just term the family and hope for the best (for the child).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-31-2015, 10:43 AM
Sugar Magnolia's Avatar
Sugar Magnolia Sugar Magnolia is offline
Blossoms Blooming
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Where the wind goes.....
Posts: 2,379
Default

Uh, what??? Just term instead of REPORTING suspected abuse? Hope for the best? I don't see that as the "moral" to this story at all. The moral should be that providers who report suspected abuse in good faith, should be afforded protection from lawsuits.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-31-2015, 10:53 AM
daycarediva's Avatar
daycarediva daycarediva is online now
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 11,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugar Magnolia View Post
Uh, what??? Just term instead of REPORTING suspected abuse? Hope for the best? I don't see that as the "moral" to this story at all. The moral should be that providers who report suspected abuse in good faith, should be afforded protection from lawsuits.
Agreed.

I recently (March) reported a child- who is now removed from the home. The parents have started a smear campaign against me, including reporting me to CPS and licensing (cleared by both already) and the mother is suing me civilly. I have had to hire an attorney. The stress of the last few weeks alone of this is ridiculous, I KNOW I did the right thing, and I would do it again, even if it meant facing these consequences again.

We SHOULD be protected against making these calls. I don't think any of us take that responsibility lightly.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-31-2015, 11:02 AM
Blackcat31's Avatar
Blackcat31 Blackcat31 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 19,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daycarediva View Post
Agreed.

I recently (March) reported a child- who is now removed from the home. The parents have started a smear campaign against me, including reporting me to CPS and licensing (cleared by both already) and the mother is suing me civilly. I have had to hire an attorney. The stress of the last few weeks alone of this is ridiculous, I KNOW I did the right thing, and I would do it again, even if it meant facing these consequences again.

We SHOULD be protected against making these calls. I don't think any of us take that responsibility lightly.
Will your liability insurance assist with the costs of this?

I am soo sorry you are going through this.

I followed what you have posted about the family and I can tell you that you definitely did the right thing (I know you know but sometimes it's nice to hear the reinforcement ) and I've been in a similar situation and would also do it again if I had too.

Hang in there and if there is ANYTHING I can do to help, even just offering an ear, let me know!!

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-31-2015, 12:02 PM
jenboo's Avatar
jenboo jenboo is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by debbiedoeszip View Post
I think that there is more to the story than we can read about. AFAIK, the CAS will investigate every allegation of neglect/abuse. They don't need to find cause to investigate, as the link suggests. The investigation might be short-lived, if there is nothing going on, but it will happen. And there is no way for the other "side" to give their accounting of the situation due to privacy, etc, so who knows what the real story might be.

That being said, the moral of the story might be that if we as providers were to suspect neglect/abuse towards one of our dcks, it might be better to just term the family and hope for the best (for the child).
I think this is what's going to start happening if providers are not protected.
People are going to be worried that they will be sued so they are just going to term the family and hope for the best. Sad but true.

I had no idea that families could sue you for reporting things to CPS. We are required by law to do this, so why can we get in "trouble" for doing it??
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-31-2015, 12:04 PM
Blackcat31's Avatar
Blackcat31 Blackcat31 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 19,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jenboo View Post
I think this is what's going to start happening if providers are not protected.
People are going to be worried that they all be sued so they are just going to term the family and hope for the best. Sad but true.

I had no idea that families could sue you for reporting things to CPS. We are required by law to do this, so why can we get in "trouble" for doing it??
The story happened in Canada.

I have faith that our judicial sustem is better than what happened to the prover in this story.

According to her, she lost because of how the case was handled in the courts.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-31-2015, 04:09 PM
debbiedoeszip's Avatar
debbiedoeszip debbiedoeszip is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugar Magnolia View Post
Uh, what??? Just term instead of REPORTING suspected abuse? Hope for the best? I don't see that as the "moral" to this story at all. The moral should be that providers who report suspected abuse in good faith, should be afforded protection from lawsuits.
In an ideal world, I'd totally agree. However we live in a far less than ideal world. CYA is how you survive.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-31-2015, 04:16 PM
Rockgirl's Avatar
Rockgirl Rockgirl is online now
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by debbiedoeszip View Post
In an ideal world, I'd totally agree. However we live in a far less than ideal world. CYA is how you survive.
What about the child?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-31-2015, 04:25 PM
Heidi's Avatar
Heidi Heidi is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 6,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by debbiedoeszip View Post
In an ideal world, I'd totally agree. However we live in a far less than ideal world. CYA is how you survive.
Problem is, Debbie, that your not CYA here. If abuse is found another way, and then someone can prove you new about it, you're even more likely to have trouble. Mandated reporter means you have no choice.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-31-2015, 05:07 PM
Daycare Insurance's Avatar
Daycare Insurance Daycare Insurance is offline
Daycare.com Media Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Encino, California
Posts: 89
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackcat31 View Post
Will your liability insurance assist with the costs of this?

I am soo sorry you are going through this.

I followed what you have posted about the family and I can tell you that you definitely did the right thing (I know you know but sometimes it's nice to hear the reinforcement ) and I've been in a similar situation and would also do it again if I had too.

Hang in there and if there is ANYTHING I can do to help, even just offering an ear, let me know!!

This is a very good question. In most cases Child Care Liability insurance does include coverage for Libel and Slander. However each situation is different and subject to review. Its best to submit it to your insurance carrier and let them do their diligence to see if it is a covered claim.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-31-2015, 08:18 PM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

court transcripts:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/260057386/Cui-and-Larabie
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-31-2015, 08:43 PM
NoMoreJuice!'s Avatar
NoMoreJuice! NoMoreJuice! is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: KS
Posts: 715
Default

Does it have anything to do with her status as an unlicensed daycare? Was she legally unlicensed?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-31-2015, 08:50 PM
jenboo's Avatar
jenboo jenboo is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackcat31 View Post
The story happened in Canada.

I have faith that our judicial sustem is better than what happened to the prover in this story.

According to her, she lost because of how the case was handled in the courts.
Ah, I didn't notice she was in Canada
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-01-2015, 08:44 AM
Blackcat31's Avatar
Blackcat31 Blackcat31 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 19,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post


Well, based on what I read, the family had every right to counter sue the provider. I can totally see why the provider lost. She didn't report to protect the child at all.

Not at all what I have "heard" the story was.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-01-2015, 11:04 AM
Sugar Magnolia's Avatar
Sugar Magnolia Sugar Magnolia is offline
Blossoms Blooming
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Where the wind goes.....
Posts: 2,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackcat31 View Post
Well, based on what I read, the family had every right to counter sue the provider. I can totally see why the provider lost. She didn't report to protect the child at all.

Not at all what I have "heard" the story was.
I can't open this link on my phone. Why did she report then? Curious. Was it some sort of retaliation against the parents??
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-01-2015, 11:18 AM
Blackcat31's Avatar
Blackcat31 Blackcat31 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 19,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugar Magnolia View Post
I can't open this link on my phone. Why did she report then? Curious. Was it some sort of retaliation against the parents??
Copied and pasted from the transcripts:

The trial of this action, together with closing arguments was heard on October 21st, 2014 and December 12, 2014, and I reserved judgment until today. The plaintiff has been represented by Mr. Jacquesson, a licensed paralegal. The defendant has been represented by Mr. Brown, a lawyer. The plaintiff, Tammy Larabie runs an unlicensed daycare from her residence situated at 11 Pony Avenue, North York, Ontario. The defendants, Christopher Cui and Iris Lee are husband and wife and are the parents of Ziven. The parties entered into a written contract dated March 19, 2013, wherein Ziven was to attend the daycare from 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday to Friday. Ziven was in the plaintiff’s home for approximately four months from March 19, 2013 until approximately July 16, 2013. Ziven was born May 23, 2012. Therefore he was just under one when he commenced daycare and just over one when he terminated.

The terms of payment were $40 per day until Ziven was one and $35 per day thereafter. The terms of the contract required the defendants, Christopher and Iris, to provide two weeks written notice in the event that they were to remove Ziven from the daycare. The defendants paid a $200 deposit. It is agreed by all parties that the defendants removed Ziven from the daycare on or about July 16, 2013, without prior notice. It is also agreed that the plaintiff lodged a complaint with the Children’s Aid Society on or about July 11th without prior notice to the defendants.

It was alleged by the plaintiff to the Children’s Aid that Ziven’s physical care was in danger as a result of neglect by his parents. It is also agreed that the defendants stopped payment on their last cheque in the amount of $200, which was dated July 12, 2013. As the plaintiff still had a security deposit, it is agreed that other than the $10 differential, the plaintiff was paid for all of the time that Ziven was in daycare. The plaintiff, however, sues for two weeks of services due to the fact that there was no written notice, in the amount of $380, together with late fees, interest and penalties, for a total of approximately $735 owing at the time of the trial, together with her costs of this litigation. While the defendants admit removing Ziven without notice, their position is that they were justified in doing so on two grounds. One, the terms of the contract stated that, “No smoking is allowed on the premises.” It is their position that this condition was breached.

Number two, it is also the defendants’ position that without proper cause and without notice to the defendants, while Ziven was still in the plaintiff's care, the plaintiff reported the defendants to the Children’s Aid alleging parental neglect and stating that Ziven was in danger under the defendants’ care. It is their position that there were no reasonable grounds for these allegations and as such the plaintiff’s conduct amounted to a fundamental breach of contract which justified the defendants’ removing Ziven without being required to give the two weeks written notice. The issue of reporting the defendant to the Children’s Aid also constitutes the basis for the defendants’ claim in which the defendants request $10,000 for emotional pain and suffering as a result of being investigated by the Children’s Aid. Counsel requests $2,000 for Christopher and $8,000 for Iris.

By way of further background, the plaintiff started her unlicensed daycare in June of 2011. She admits that she has no degrees or certificates in daycare. She candidly admits that her function is more of that of a babysitter. I have no evidence to suggest that Ms. Larabie has any training or expertise in diet or in medicine. I now deal with the smoking issue. The wording in the contract is, “No smoking is allowed on the premises.” It is acknowledged that the plaintiff’s husband was a very heavy smoker who smoked approximately one and a half packages per day but quit smoking in June of 2013. The evidence of the plaintiff and her husband was that he only smoked outside in the backyard and never in the presence of the children.

Counsel for the defendant relies on the Smoke Free Ontario Act and the Day Nurseries Act which would suggest that smoking outside the house but on the premises would still be barred. It is the plaintiff’s position that she is not bound by the legislation as she does not run a licensed daycare and it is her interpretation of the contract between herself and the defendants that only smoking within the house is disallowed. It is not disputed that second hand smoke would still be in the house. I accept the evidence of the defendants that Ziven often had the odour of second-hand smoke on his clothing. The defendants acknowledged candidly, however, that they never confronted the plaintiff with the smoking issue as they wanted to keep harmony between them.

They stated they were actively seeking an alternative licensed daycare but could not find one and therefore elected to keep Ziven with the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s husband testified that he quit smoking in June and I have heard no evidence to dispute this. While I have very deep concerns with Ziven’s exposure to second-hand smoke at his tender age, and I question why the plaintiff would allow this if she was so concerned with the well-being of the children as she would have me believe, the conduct of the defendants clearly condoned any issues relating to smoking and this defense was raised after the fact. I am therefore not prepared to allow this defense to prevail.

I now deal with the issue relating to the Children’s Aid Society. The duty to report neglect is governed by the Child and Family Services Act

The health, safety and welfare of children must be protected as much as possible. The law is designed to bring forward to the attention of the proper authorities all reasonable grounds for suspicious conduct and concern with respect to the welfare of children. The Act sets out a list of situations wherein a person who performs professional or official duties with respect to children and has reasonable suspicions, must report to the Society forthwith.

The plaintiff’s evidence is that her reporting is based on Section 7.2(1) and (2) of the Act, which reads as follows, “If there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child or a pattern of neglect in caring for or providing for, supervising, or protecting the child.” However one must also consider this section in conjunction with Section 7(e), which I quote, “No action for making the report shall be made against the person who acts in accordance with this Section unless the person acts maliciously or without reasonable grounds for the suspicion." By inference, therefore, it is obvious that the conduct of reporting is actionable if the report is made with malice or without reasonable grounds.” It now becomes necessary to review the nature of the complaints to determine if there are reasonable grounds or if there has been malice. I have very carefully reviewed the many and constant texts between the plaintiff and Iris.

Until the time of the report to the Children’s Aid Society, I found nothing to suggest that Ziven was in any danger, nor was it ever suggested by the plaintiff. Ziven, in my view had normal every day ailments that most, if not all infants endure. He had fever in May. Counsel agrees that this alone does not constitute parental neglect. He once had an ear infection and had several bouts of diarrhea. No serious concerns were ever raised. How did the parents deal with these issues? Iris was in constant contact with the plaintiff to monitor his progress. She, on several occasions, kept him out of daycare and stayed home with him, taking a day off work when he was sick. She regularly took him to his pediatrician and followed the doctor’s advice. She even made special meals for him instead of having him eat the plaintiff’s food. The doctor advised that the plaintiff’s menu contained too much salt. As a result, Iris provided a special diet of rice, fruit, vegetables and meat as recommended by the doctor.

I find nothing in Ziven’s health history, either individually or in totality to suggest that he was in any physical danger. I find no evidence relating to the parental care which would suggest that they were not totally and properly attentive to his physical needs. It was only after the reporting to the Children’s Aid Society and after Ziven was removed from the plaintiff’s daycare that the plaintiff wrote letters to the defendants expressing concern. The plaintiff vigorously raises the issue that Ziven lost one percentile in weight. The plaintiff had no notion that he lost weight until told by the defendants, who took him to the doctor who advised of same and the defendants openly shared this information with the plaintiff. It is common knowledge that doctors have a legal and professional duty to report neglect. This was not done in this case. The plaintiff, Ms. Larabie, had all contact information of the doctor but took no steps in attempting to contact the doctor herself or speak to the defendants at any time.

The plaintiff does not have any professional skills or background to question or criticize the recommendations of the doctor. She went on Google and formed her own medical opinion which has not been substantiated and makes no sense. She, after the fact, expressed concerns that Ziven slept too much in the afternoon and more than the other children. It is to be noted that Ziven was eight months younger than the next oldest child and obviously required more sleep. I have heard no evidence to suggest that the amount of sleep was abnormal or presented any signs of danger.

She criticized the defendants’ diet saying it did not provide enough nutrition, yet knowing through a number of conversations with Iris, that it was suggested by the pediatrician. The plaintiff has no expertise in diet or nutrition. I find that the July letters of the plaintiff, all after the termination, to be self-serving, only to protect the plaintiff’s position. They raise concerns that were never before raised. They go so far as to suggest that the defendant should seriously question the wisdom of their doctor’s recommendations advising that doctors can make mistakes. In matters of credibility, I much prefer the evidence of the defendants in matters where the evidence is in conflict. It is most important in this litigation to note that on or about July 8, 2013, approximately three days before reporting the defendants to the Children’s Aid Society, a child died in an unlicensed daycare.

It is also important to note that at the time, the competency of unlicensed daycare operators receive considerable media coverage and scrutiny. The plaintiff admitted that in reporting the defendant to the Children’s Aid Society, she was trying to protect herself and also trying to protect Ziven. I do not accept this explanation. I find that her reporting the defendants to the Children’s Aid was a reaction, if not an over-reaction to the current public pressure on unlicensed daycares.

I am satisfied on the evidence and demeanour of the plaintiff that she panicked and over-reacted when reporting the defendants to the Children’s Aid. It is not reasonable to conclude on the evidence before me that the child was in any danger or that there was any parental neglect. I am also satisfied that the plaintiff had no such realistic concerns, particularly as they were all expressed only after the termination of her services. While her actions may not meet the test of malice, I am satisfied that the report was not at all for the purposes of protecting Ziven, but for the purposes of protecting the plaintiff and that there were no reasonable grounds for the complaint. A report from the Children’s Aid Society dated August 8th concluded after an investigation that the plaintiff’s claims were not substantiated. A letter from the child’s pediatrician dated August 15th, confirmed that the child was always in good health and received excellent care from his parents.

In the contractual relationship between the parties, the plaintiff had a duty of care to the parents not to make boundless complaints. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that good faith is an integral part of contract law which I find was not present in this case. I find that the unfounded complaint to the Children’s Aid Society created emotional distress to the defendants and that the consequences of her actions were foreseeable. She ought to have known that this type of complaint would have the impact on the defendants which it did. The plaintiff’s actions caused great distress to the parents.

I find therefore, that the reporting to the Children’s Aid was not a reasonable action and created such an air of hostility and lack of good faith, that it constitutes a fundamental breach of contract by the plaintiff. It cannot possibly be expected under the circumstances to expect the defendants to keep Ziven at the plaintiff’s daycare. I find therefore, that the defendants were justified in removing Ziven without notice, not on the grounds of smoking but on the grounds of the report to the Children’s Aid Society.

The plaintiff’s claim is therefore dismissed.

For the same reasons I allow the defendant’s claim and now deal with the assessment of damages. The defendants are a young couple in their early 30’s who now have their second child. Christopher is a business analyst. Iris is a manager of operations for a financial firm. I believe that Christopher was deeply hurt and crushed from the investigation. At the trial, he was so choked with emotion that he could barely express himself. He was very frank and honest when he stated that his pain did not remotely compare to that of his wife who was totally overwhelmed. Iris described her shock at receiving a voice mail from the Children’s Aid Society without prior notice that they were investigating a claim of parental negligence, a claim that their child did not receive proper care and was underdeveloped. A social worker attended at their home a few days later with a registered nurse.

The conclusion was that Ziven looked healthy and chubby and they were totally satisfied that the parents were properly following the doctor’s orders with respect to feeding patterns. It is well known, however, that these complaints and investigations remain on record permanently. Iris felt inadequate as a mother. At the time she was pregnant with her second child. She was
totally shocked and taken by surprise. She felt guilty, tense and stressed. She was a most credible witness, speaking about very sensitive and painful issues. She stated that the plaintiff told her to have Ziven eat the plaintiff’s food.

Iris told her repeatedly that there was too much salt content and she was following doctor’s orders. The plaintiff often provided Kraft Dinner which was high in sodium. Iris had in the past suffered from depression. She saw a psychiatrist as a result of this episode. She was put on anti-depressants, 25 milligrams of Zoloft. It was later doubled to 50 milligrams. She is still on medication and is affected by the incident. I find the defendants to be competent, caring and capable parents who properly looked after the best interests of their son. I find that there was no basis whatsoever to report them to the Children’s Aid. I find that the plaintiff acted selfishly and to protect her own interest, not for the benefit of the child. I find that the defendants who are fine young parents went through an ordeal that they ought not to have endured and suffered emotionally as a result.


Counsel for the defendants; suggest damages in the amount of $10,000 would be appropriate, 2,000 for the husband and 8,000 for the wife. I agree totally. I find this request to be totally reasonable in the circumstances and I so order damages. The defendants are a young couple in their early 30’s who now have their second child. Christopher is a business analyst. Iris is a manager of operations for a financial firm. I believe that Christopher was deeply hurt and crushed from the investigation. At the trial, he was so choked with emotion that he could barely express himself. He was very frank and honest when he stated that his pain did not remotely compare to that of his wife who was totally overwhelmed. Iris described her shock at receiving a voice mail from the Children’s Aid Society without prior notice that they were investigating a claim of parental negligence, a claim that their child did not receive proper care and was underdeveloped. A social worker attended at their home a few days later with a registered nurse.

The conclusion was that Ziven looked healthy and chubby and they were totally satisfied that the parents were properly following the doctor’s orders with respect to feeding patterns. It is well known, however, that these complaints and investigations remain on record permanently.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-01-2015, 11:36 AM
daycarediva's Avatar
daycarediva daycarediva is online now
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 11,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackcat31 View Post
Will your liability insurance assist with the costs of this?

I am soo sorry you are going through this.

I followed what you have posted about the family and I can tell you that you definitely did the right thing (I know you know but sometimes it's nice to hear the reinforcement ) and I've been in a similar situation and would also do it again if I had too.

Hang in there and if there is ANYTHING I can do to help, even just offering an ear, let me know!!

thank you BC. I don't think she has a leg to stand on, and my attorney is taking it with only a percentage of the countersuit and a retainer.

no, it was not included in my policy, but my attorney said I have a strong contract, and we are counter suing for slander, the attorneys fees, loss of income (court date) and pain and suffering. Since my call was VERY valid, and the child is still not returned to the parent, it is obviously not a retaliatory call, as the parent claims. (there was nothing to retaliate for.....)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-01-2015, 11:36 AM
sharlan's Avatar
sharlan sharlan is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chino, California
Posts: 6,040
Default

There's always two sides to every story, and then, the truth that lies in between.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-01-2015, 12:17 PM
NoMoreJuice!'s Avatar
NoMoreJuice! NoMoreJuice! is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: KS
Posts: 715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackcat31 View Post
Well, based on what I read, the family had every right to counter sue the provider. I can totally see why the provider lost. She didn't report to protect the child at all.

Not at all what I have "heard" the story was.

I have to respectfully disagree here. I can see why the provider didn't get awarded the $700+ she was asking for, but I can't see why the parents were awarded money for damages. We are taught over and over that we need to call based on a SUSPICION...not PROOF. It is not our responsibility to provide proof that a child is neglected.

I truly believe the provider had the child's best interests at heart. When a baby is dropping weight, there is always cause for concern, and therefore suspicion.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-01-2015, 12:18 PM
NoMoreJuice!'s Avatar
NoMoreJuice! NoMoreJuice! is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: KS
Posts: 715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharlan View Post
There's always two sides to every story, and then, the truth that lies in between.
Agreed!

Some stories become more believable (or less believable) depending on a well trained lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-01-2015, 12:26 PM
Blackcat31's Avatar
Blackcat31 Blackcat31 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 19,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreJuice! View Post
I have to respectfully disagree here. I can see why the provider didn't get awarded the $700+ she was asking for, but I can't see why the parents were awarded money for damages. We are taught over and over that we need to call based on a SUSPICION...not PROOF. It is not our responsibility to provide proof that a child is neglected.

I truly believe the provider had the child's best interests at heart. When a baby is dropping weight, there is always cause for concern, and therefore suspicion.
The provider had no valid documented concers until AFTER the family pulled their child from her care.

Also the provider only knew about the weight loss because the parents told her on the advice of tne Dr because of the providers menu but yet the provider said the Dr was not correct in his other findings and suggested the family find another Dr...

Also the provider broke her own contract by allowing someone (DH) to smoke on her property somif she was truly concerned about the child why would she allow that?

Also the rules of mandated reporting and protection of reporters differs in the US than in Canada.

I agree the provider had someones best interests at heart but i do not belive it was the childs.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-01-2015, 12:42 PM
NoMoreJuice!'s Avatar
NoMoreJuice! NoMoreJuice! is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: KS
Posts: 715
Default

It was unfortunate that she didn't have any documented proof in regards to her concern, but she did contend that she spoke to the parents many times regarding the child's lethargy and lack of a healthy appearance.

I guess I just imagine myself in her shoes, and I would've called DCF if a baby seemed that tired and unhealthy in my care.

Totally no excuse for the smoke. Seriously, this is 2015, who still smokes? I would bury my husband in the backyard he smoked in.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-01-2015, 12:53 PM
Heidi's Avatar
Heidi Heidi is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 6,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackcat31 View Post
Copied and pasted from the transcripts:

Ziven was in the plaintiff’s home for approximately four months from March 19, 2013 until approximately July 16, 2013. Ziven was born May 23, 2012. Therefore he was just under one when he commenced daycare and just over one when he terminated.


I find nothing in Ziven’s health history, either individually or in totality to suggest that he was in any physical danger. I find no evidence relating to the parental care which would suggest that they were not totally and properly attentive to his physical needs. It was only after the reporting to the Children’s Aid Society and after Ziven was removed from the plaintiff’s daycare that the plaintiff wrote letters to the defendants expressing concern. The plaintiff vigorously raises the issue that Ziven lost one percentile in weight. The plaintiff had no notion that he lost weight until told by the defendants, who took him to the doctor who advised of same and the defendants openly shared this information with the plaintiff. It is common knowledge that doctors have a legal and professional duty to report neglect. This was not done in this case. The plaintiff, Ms. Larabie, had all contact information of the doctor but took no steps in attempting to contact the doctor herself or speak to the defendants at any time.

He lost ONE percentile? If he learned to walk during this time, wouldn't that be reasonable? It's not like he when from being in the 100th to being in the 50th. He dropped ONE percentile in 4 months.

Last edited by Blackcat31; 04-01-2015 at 12:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-01-2015, 12:56 PM
Blackcat31's Avatar
Blackcat31 Blackcat31 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 19,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreJuice! View Post
It was unfortunate that she didn't have any documented proof in regards to her concern, but she did contend that she spoke to the parents many times regarding the child's lethargy and lack of a healthy appearance.
The transcripts of the multiple text messages between parent and provider were presented in court. No where in those texts did the provider express concern according to the judge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreJuice! View Post
I guess I just imagine myself in her shoes, and I would've called DCF if a baby seemed that tired and unhealthy in my care.
The judge also talks about that. It said there was no evidence that the child slept more than average.

Also what does "unhealthy" mean when the provider herself serves a high sodium diet and has a spouse the she allows to smoke on the property?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreJuice! View Post
Totally no excuse for the smoke. Seriously, this is 2015, who still smokes? I would bury my husband in the backyard he smoked in.
That was my first thought as well. He has supposedly quit now though.



At first I did side with the provider and I was like this case will forever change the daycare world in regards to reporting suspected abuse and then I read the transcripts and there is no reasons to believe the parents or the provider. The proof was right there.

The provider has NO cause for concern until she lost out on the last 2 weeks of payment (for no notice given) and tried to collect on that.

What she should have done was call it a wash and just let the family be. If she was that concerned about the child, why did she wait to document any of it or discuss it with the family (in the letters she sent) until AFTER?

Whether she is or isn't telling the truth or whole truth, doesn't matter to me....she lost credibility in my eyes just based on her own evidence presented.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-01-2015, 12:57 PM
Blackcat31's Avatar
Blackcat31 Blackcat31 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 19,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heidi View Post
He lost ONE percentile? If he learned to walk during this time, wouldn't that be reasonable? It's not like he when from being in the 100th to being in the 50th. He dropped ONE percentile in 4 months.
Exactly!

Plus the provider only knew that because the parents told her (on the advice of the Dr) which the provider said made a mistake and that the parents should seek a new pediatrician.

So how can she use his facts but then basically call him a quack?

That reaks of self-serving behavior.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-01-2015, 12:59 PM
NeedaVaca's Avatar
NeedaVaca NeedaVaca is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: The Middle
Posts: 2,248
Default

From what I understand the provider called CAS first and then when the parents found out they pulled. Then she sued for money owed and then they counter sued. The parents were retaliating. Also, from what I remember in the transcripts the smoking was brought up by the family in court but never before that and the judged basically said since it wasn't an issue while they were in care and they continued to bring him he wasn't taking it into consideration. I honestly think there are still unanswered questions and the provider should have had better representation. With a real lawyer this whole thing could have played out differently.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-01-2015, 01:13 PM
Blackcat31's Avatar
Blackcat31 Blackcat31 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 19,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedaVaca View Post
From what I understand the provider called CAS first and then when the parents found out they pulled. Then she sued for money owed and then they counter sued. The parents were retaliating. Also, from what I remember in the transcripts the smoking was brought up by the family in court but never before that and the judged basically said since it wasn't an issue while they were in care and they continued to bring him he wasn't taking it into consideration. I honestly think there are still unanswered questions and the provider should have had better representation. With a real lawyer this whole thing could have played out differently.
I agree that the smoking was brought up after but the judge commented on it and said they dismissed it as evidence but I still think it lent to the providers credibility. kwim?

"I find nothing in Ziven’s health history, either individually or in totality to suggest that he was in any physical danger. I find no evidence relating to the parental care which would suggest that they were not totally and properly attentive to his physical needs. It was only after the reporting to the Children’s Aid Society and after Ziven was removed from the plaintiff’s daycare that the plaintiff wrote letters to the defendants expressing concern"


The bolded part was the kicker for me.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-01-2015, 01:46 PM
NoMoreJuice!'s Avatar
NoMoreJuice! NoMoreJuice! is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: KS
Posts: 715
Default

I think the letters were her way of trying to rationalize to the parents her reasoning for calling CAS after they left care. Just because the baby lost a percentile doesn't mean he started at a healthy weight. Maybe he was already in the 20th and dropped to the 19th? Who knows? That attorney really skewed things in the parents' favor.

I think we can all agree that we'll never have the whole story, or all the facts. I just strongly hope that none of us has to face what this provider is facing.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-01-2015, 01:50 PM
Sugar Magnolia's Avatar
Sugar Magnolia Sugar Magnolia is offline
Blossoms Blooming
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Where the wind goes.....
Posts: 2,379
Default

So....just to express a random thought here....There should be STIFF penalties for making unfounded or retaliatory abuse reports. Mad at your daycare provider? Find a new provider. Don't make a falae report! Got stiffed by a parent? File a claim. Don't make a false report!

As far aa the "in an ideal world" and "CYA to survive" arguement, I hope this is a minority view. We are mandated reporters, and these are human beings we're talking about.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-01-2015, 01:56 PM
AmyLeigh's Avatar
AmyLeigh AmyLeigh is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Central California
Posts: 875
Default

Okay. I agree that the provider didn't need to report this child. Obviously, there was some other motivation going on there.
But what I don't get is the award to the parents. They got a voice mail and one visit by CAS and a nurse. The child wasn't removed from their care. CAS noted the allegation as unsubstantiated and closed the case. Why does this warrant a $10,000 award to the parents for the 'suffering'?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-01-2015, 01:56 PM
Leigh's Avatar
Leigh Leigh is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,820
Default

OK-I am understanding that the provider reported on 7/11 and the family pulled the child from care on 7/16 in RESPONSE to the report. Is this correct? That would show concern before termination.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-01-2015, 01:59 PM
Blackcat31's Avatar
Blackcat31 Blackcat31 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 19,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreJuice! View Post
I think the letters were her way of trying to rationalize to the parents her reasoning for calling CAS after they left care. Just because the baby lost a percentile doesn't mean he started at a healthy weight. Maybe he was already in the 20th and dropped to the 19th? Who knows? That attorney really skewed things in the parents' favor.

I think we can all agree that we'll never have the whole story, or all the facts. I just strongly hope that none of us has to face what this provider is facing.
The letters were her way of covering her own butt.

If he was at a low weight or in poor health prior to any of this, why wouldn't his Dr have reported that? The family's Dr submitted evidence that the child was in good health and had been seen regularly. Drs in Canada are also mandated reporters. If there was concern, why wouldn't he/she have reported?

The CAS worker who investigated the family said the child was in good health and actually used the word "chubby" to describe him.

I don't think the lawyer skewed things in the parent favor so much as I think the provider was her won worst enemy. From my interpretation of the transcripts, she did herself in.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-01-2015, 02:06 PM
Blackcat31's Avatar
Blackcat31 Blackcat31 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 19,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leigh View Post
OK-I am understanding that the provider reported on 7/11 and the family pulled the child from care on 7/16 in RESPONSE to the report. Is this correct? That would show concern before termination.

I think that after a ton of back and forth (via texting etc) about things they (provider and family) had been discussing (mainly diet) and not seeing eye to eye on, that the provider made a final "hail Mary" type report/call.

I have been in her shoes and had to report a family. More than once actually and the ONE thing that saved my butt was documentation on my part. I had dated documentation from day one that clearly outlined my concerns and actions.

I also think the family pulled the child as soon as they found out it was her that called CAS...which is usually the case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AmyLeigh View Post
Okay. I agree that the provider didn't need to report this child. Obviously, there was some other motivation going on there.
But what I don't get is the award to the parents. They got a voice mail and one visit by CAS and a nurse. The child wasn't removed from their care. CAS noted the allegation as unsubstantiated and closed the case. Why does this warrant a $10,000 award to the parents for the 'suffering'?
The bottom of the transcripts "explain" why the ruling for monetary damages was given.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-01-2015, 02:21 PM
AmyLeigh's Avatar
AmyLeigh AmyLeigh is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Central California
Posts: 875
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackcat31 View Post

The bottom of the transcripts "explain" why the ruling for monetary damages was given.
I saw that. Dad cried, mom went back on Zoloft and felt like a bad mother. Sorry. I don't buy that it's worth 10K.
A great majority of reports are unsubstantiated. It happens. All. The. Time. I would be more concerned about the mental stability of the parents if one call and one interview sent them over the edge.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-01-2015, 02:25 PM
Thriftylady's Avatar
Thriftylady Thriftylady is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 5,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmyLeigh View Post
I saw that. Dad cried, mom went back on Zoloft and felt like a bad mother. Sorry. I don't buy that it's worth 10K.
A great majority of reports are unsubstantiated. It happens. All. The. Time. I would be more concerned about the mental stability of the parents if one call and one interview sent them over the edge.
I kind of agree. I don't see how a report that was unsubstantiated is a big deal. If someone really thinks my child is somehow in danger, I say call. When I was in my abusive marriage and someone had called (because I see now in hindsight my kids were being mistreated by being in the situation), I wish someone had called. I am sure I would have been out much sooner. Possibly I wouldn't have been there long enough to have my daughter (and that would suck!!!), but I needed set straight at that point in my life.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-01-2015, 02:34 PM
Blackcat31's Avatar
Blackcat31 Blackcat31 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 19,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmyLeigh View Post
I saw that. Dad cried, mom went back on Zoloft and felt like a bad mother. Sorry. I don't buy that it's worth 10K.
A great majority of reports are unsubstantiated. It happens. All. The. Time. I would be more concerned about the mental stability of the parents if one call and one interview sent them over the edge.
I can't disagree there...

Ive never understood monetary awards for emotional distress.

Unless the money goes directly towards a psychiatrists or counseling invoice.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-01-2015, 02:40 PM
Thriftylady's Avatar
Thriftylady Thriftylady is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 5,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackcat31 View Post
I can't disagree there...

Ive never understood monetary awards for emotional distress.

Unless the money goes directly towards a psychiatrists or counseling invoice.
I agree it wouldn't take long to spend 10K there, but I bet you money not a dime of it will go there.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-01-2015, 03:06 PM
mommyneedsadayoff's Avatar
mommyneedsadayoff mommyneedsadayoff is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,751
Default

The only part I have issue with is the monetary damages awarded to the parents. The provider did not do herself any favors by not documenting and having an attorney present, but the parents were complacent with her care and stopped payment on a check. Only after reporting, did they remove their child, as most parents would, but I do not see 10k in emotional damages. My sister had an experience here int he states with CPS. My nephew (3 at the time) hit his head on a tractor loader and it was a deep cut, so they took him to the ER and he didn't end up needing stitches, but he got a tetanus shot I think, because of the rust ont he tractor. Three weeks later, he feel off a chair and cut his leg open on the calf and they took him back, this time getting 10 stitches. A week later, my sister gets a call from cps saying she is being investigated and it turned out that the ER doc saw two recent visits and reported her. They came and visited and found everything to be just fine, but my sister was pissed and emotionally hurt from this. If the ER doc had done his research, he would have conferred with my nephews pedi and recognized that with the exception of these to visits, he was seen regularly by his pedi and has had no issues or any reason to suspect abuse. Being a mandated reporter means you can sometimes over think things and (to save your own hide) report things that are not worthy of being reported. However, it is the job of CPS to investigate, so there has to be protections in place for providers. If not, then it is sort of damned if you do and damned if you don't. Makes it very scary to watch other people's children.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 04-05-2015, 01:52 PM
DBug DBug is offline
Daycare Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 934
Default

Yeah, this case worries me a great deal for that reason -- mandated reporters are screwed. Whether Tammy Larabie should have claimed her two week's pay (which was in her contract) is beside the point. Whether or not she sent letters or texts to the parents is also beside the point.

What it all comes down to is the precedent of someone being penalized for making a report to the CAS. I really think the judge should have just called it even on both sides - no money to Larabie (since they figured she voided her own contract with the whole smoking thing), and no money to the parents.

It doesn't bode well for future cases, that's for sure!
__________________
www.WelcomeToTheZoo.ca
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-05-2015, 04:37 PM
Blackcat31's Avatar
Blackcat31 Blackcat31 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 19,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBug View Post
Yeah, this case worries me a great deal for that reason -- mandated reporters are screwed. Whether Tammy Larabie should have claimed her two week's pay (which was in her contract) is beside the point. Whether or not she sent letters or texts to the parents is also beside the point.

What it all comes down to is the precedent of someone being penalized for making a report to the CAS. I really think the judge should have just called it even on both sides - no money to Larabie (since they figured she voided her own contract with the whole smoking thing), and no money to the parents.

It doesn't bode well for future cases, that's for sure!

I belong to several other child care forums (2 of them predominantly Canadian) and have learned a lot about the differences between CAS in Canada and CPS in the US but I also learned that a majority of providers in not only her area but all over Canada do not support her and feel her actions are a terrible injustice to LEGALLY unlicensed child cares.

I disagree that she was penalized for reporting.

I believe she was penalized for how she handled the entire situation beforehand.

I believe that she did not see eye to eye with the parents and may have been "worried" about the child but not to the point that she should have called CAS.
I do NOT think her concern was that dire or genuine.


I think that the provider and the family were not a good fit and the provider and parents had issue with each others behavior(s).

I think the provider called CAS to protect herself not because she was truly concerned about the child.

I believe that is why she lost and why the family was awarded monetary damages.

Had she called because she was truly and genuinely concerned about the child, I do not believe she would have lost.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DBug View Post
Whether or not she sent letters or texts to the parents is also beside the point.
I think that was the catalyst in the decision making process.

The letters she sent AFTER the parents withdrew from care are her ONLY proof that she was concerned about the child.

The text messages between the mother and the provider told the story. How many times have you been concerned about a kid, and continually pushed the parent to do something about it or you mentioned it every single time you talked to the parent?

Why would ALL the text messages between them be void of ANY concern?
Don't you find that odd?
If the provider was TRULY concerned or concerned enough to call CAS, why isn't there a single mention of any concern in the day to day back and forth texting?
No e-mails presented, no memos? letters? daily behavior sheets? WHERE was the providers concern?

I find that disturbing.
I've called CPS on a couple families before. Some of them turned out good and some not so good but every.single. one of the families I called about had files with TONS of notes, memos, little post-its and pictures of all the reasons I called.
There was SO much documentation before I called that I find it impossible to believe this provider didn't have a single piece of proof that she was concerned. (hence the letters)



FWIW~ I'm not trying to argue with you or anyone else about this, I just feel passionately about being a mandated reporter and what that means.

and....I love these kinds of debates...law was my first love.
Before I found myself submerged in curriculums, handbooks, schedules and oh yeah, and all the kids.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-09-2015, 01:41 PM
DBug DBug is offline
Daycare Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 934
Default

I think you have some good points, BlackCat, and I don't totally disagree with you (btw, I LOVE debating stuff like this too ).

I think my main concern lies in the public perception of the whole case -- how it's boiled down in the media. My experiences with child protection over the past year (which I can't detail, although I wish I could!), have really brought this whole issue home.

I'm convinced that the outcome of this whole thing will be less reporting for fear of fines, and therefore, more families will go without the intervention they need .
__________________
www.WelcomeToTheZoo.ca
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-09-2015, 05:36 PM
Ariana's Avatar
Ariana Ariana is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,960
Default

Wow this is pretty crazy! Thanks for posting this! I took her on her word about what happened and fully sided with her. I don't hold any ill will towards her but she acted very unprofessionaly. Some of her concerns wouldn't have been concerned had she been educated. Agree with BlackCat here. I think mandated reporters should be educated in what that means. As an ECE in a centre we had our annual training on abuse etc.

Things in Canada are much different than the US. We are allowed to run unlicensed with zero education. It is changing though but homecare providers are all up in arms about that too. As an ECE I am flabbergasted at the state of childcare in Canada. It is 100% why I stayed home with my kids. I mean you need training and education to be a mechanic...is a car more important?

I agree DBug the media attention has been pretty one sided but I think SHE is the one putting it out there with crowd funding and such. Most people I talk to have never heard this story before unless they are involved in childcare.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-09-2015, 05:43 PM
NoMoreJuice!'s Avatar
NoMoreJuice! NoMoreJuice! is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: KS
Posts: 715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBug View Post
I'm convinced that the outcome of this whole thing will be less reporting for fear of fines, and therefore, more families will go without the intervention they need.
Precisely.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-09-2015, 05:57 PM
NeedaVaca's Avatar
NeedaVaca NeedaVaca is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: The Middle
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariana View Post
Wow this is pretty crazy! Thanks for posting this! I took her on her word about what happened and fully sided with her. I don't hold any ill will towards her but she acted very unprofessionaly. Some of her concerns wouldn't have been concerned had she been educated. Agree with BlackCat here. I think mandated reporters should be educated in what that means. As an ECE in a centre we had our annual training on abuse etc.

Things in Canada are much different than the US. We are allowed to run unlicensed with zero education. It is changing though but homecare providers are all up in arms about that too. As an ECE I am flabbergasted at the state of childcare in Canada. It is 100% why I stayed home with my kids. I mean you need training and education to be a mechanic...is a car more important?

I agree DBug the media attention has been pretty one sided but I think SHE is the one putting it out there with crowd funding and such. Most people I talk to have never heard this story before unless they are involved in childcare.
Except the rules for reporting don't say you need to have trained background in all possible areas of abuse. I see a lot of people discussing her education, most saying she isn't very smart or educated but what do we really know about her background? We really don't know if she has taken trainings, has a degree etc..Quoted:
The Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies said the ruling is concerning because it could potentially inhibit someone’s ability to phone in reports.

“We would urge people to make those calls (to CAS),” director of communications Caroline Newton said. “We rely absolutely on the public to be the eyes and ears the welfare of children.”

The Child and Family Services Act has clear guidelines for reporting suspected abuse. It states that the “public, including professionals who work with children, must promptly report any suspicions that a child is, or may be in need of protection, to a Children’s Aid Society.”

It also says it is not necessary for a person to be certain a child is or may be in need of protection to make a report to a CAS.

“‘Reasonable grounds’ refers to the information that an average person, using normal and honest judgment, would need in order to decide to report,” the Act says.


I will say her daycare looks professional, it looks like she has put time and effort into it. I have seen a lot of daycares that look MUCH worse.

http://www.tammyshomechildcare.net/gallery.html
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abuse, courts, fine for reporting abuse, sued

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Open Daycare Center - Sell a Daycare - Rent a Daycare - Buy a Daycare Unregistered Open Daycare Center - Sell a Daycare - Rent a Daycare - Buy a Daycare 381 Yesterday 05:35 PM
Operating an Unlicensed Daycare Stephan Parents and Guardians Forum 317 07-20-2019 01:28 PM
Daycare Director Does Nothing Unregistered Parents and Guardians Forum 12 04-24-2010 12:22 AM
Family Daycare, Daycare Center, or what? SDMom Daycare Center and Family Home Forum 1 08-05-2008 11:13 AM
Concerns About Daycare Owner just concerned Parents and Guardians Forum 10 05-13-2008 01:31 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:25 PM.



Daycare.com         Find A Daycare         List Your Daycare         Toys & Products                 About Us

Daycare.com
Please read our Disclaimer before continuing.

Topics pertain mainly to the following States:

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming