Daycare Undercover Investigation On Today Show In A Few Min!

[cheerfuldom]

very good point Nan (about the drop in). It gives a false sense of security when a parent drops in early every now and then. That should not take the place of personal research, background checks, questions, etc. The show also acted like it was suspicious when the providers kicked the crews of the premises. I have nothing to hide and still would never allow cameras in here filming without parental knowledge. The discussion needs to be had but not in an accusatory, sensationalized way. As the one situation with the lady having probation, the parents talked to her about it, knew the facts, and remained in her daycare! She was within regulations to my knowledge and the parents did not have an issue with her past so all the filming did was try and stir up trouble when there was apparently, none to be had.

[MarinaVanessa]

Nan makes some really good points. What I didn't like was that they were lumping all child care providers with criminal backgrounds together and implying that if you have ANY sort of criminal background (no matter how long ago) that you were a bad provider. That's the message that I was getting anyway.

They make a point of naming crimes like robbery, grand theft, DUI's, drugs, domestic violence, assault, battery etc. In CA these are taken into account on a case by case bases and people with crimes like these in their backgrounds may still be given a license depending on their individual circumstances and how long ago the crime occured. For example if a woman received a DUI 10 years ago she can still get a license if she doesn't show a pattern of criminal acts. I suppose that my stance is that if a person makes a mistake in their younger days and pays for their crime then why should that person not be allowed to work in child care after paying their debt to society? Should we continue to punish a person for that crime? Or what about someone that gets into a fight at a bar in their early 20's and then gets convicted of assault. Should that person not be allowed to do child care?

I know that it's just common sense to look at a person's entire background and look for patterns of criminal history and if there is a pattern then of course a person should not be allowed to work with children but I think that sending the message that all people with criminal history are dangerous to kids is wrong. If that were the case then technically I should not have a license because I had a restraining order put on me when I was 18, an attempted burglary charge (which was dropped) and harrassment after a fallout with my father. He was so angry at me for moving out that he called the police on me for "trying to break in", I used my key. It's still there on my record but in CA that's not a serious enough crime to deny me unlike drug charges (which you can still have and get a license but you have to disclose it to your clients), felonies or crimes against children. I'm dissapointed in the way that they portrayed their message.

[Sunchimes]

I had never even thought about a parental back ground check. I know that 4 of mine are ok, because they are law enforcement or from well-known families. It's hard to keep a secret around here when everyone knows your parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles. ;-)

The 3rd mom is OK, but this made me think about her boyfriend. He picks up quite often, and it always makes me nervous-one of the reasons I've kept her so late in the evenings. The dck loves him, so I haven't said anything. But, after reading this, I went and checked the sex offenders list. :confused: Not there.

I like the idea of everyone being checked every year. We have to have a background check every 2 years.

My first dcg's mom called at 9 pm on a Sunday night wanting care on Monday. I told her I didn't have any experience with a baby that young (6 months) and no crib. She said I'd do fine and she would loan me a pnp. I was desperate to get some money coming in, so I agreed. I told her to get here early enough to sign an emergency treatment form and to bring me the baby's schedule. So, at 5:30 am, she brought her infant daughter to me and left her for 13 hours. (She was working out of town for training.) I learned on the job and it's been a year now, and she survived just fine!

But, she had never met me, seen my house, and she asked no questions at all. I could have been raising giraffes in the dining room and she never would have known.

[countrymom]

nan, your right. I don't allow anyone thru my doors. I've had alot of people come to the door and ask for an interview but I always tell them to call me back, the majority of them never do.

[countrymom]

ok, so I watched it. First, some of those daycare providers are frickin scary looking, I can't believe people leave their children with them.

second, the one where the daycare boy died while he was in the vehicle, I don't agree with them making the owner close down her daycares. She had nothing to do with it, like the state said, anyone could get a job and its easy to hide a record.

third, the last lady. The dcm even said, "isn't it the states duty to check them out" and she's right, funny how the states lady starting blaming the parents and that they need to do back ground checks.

also, if something happened over 15 yrs ago, why is it being brought up now. Like the guy who ran the daycare (ok near the end what he did was wrong, flashing his fingers) he even said that he has changed, went to anger management classes, has recommendations, taken classes.

I have never been asked about my back ground or for a criminal check (I have a police clearance thats clean)

[DCBlessings27]

Wow

second, the one where the daycare boy died while he was in the vehicle, I don't agree with them making the owner close down her daycares. She had nothing to do with it, like the state said, anyone could get a job and its easy to hide a record.

They didn't say that the FL lady had to shut down her centers after the death because licensing said. I wonder if the parents of the dead child sued and made her go bankrupt? Or it could have been like the other lady who falsified the records and no one would enroll, so they had to close.

This show did NOT portray FL in a positive light. I think I'd be calling the DFS office in FL if I lived there. Kentucky approved murderers for daycare? Wow!

I think Chris Hansen is wrong though in telling parents that providers who won't let you be around the kids are hiding something. I don't do interviews when my dcks are at my house. I meet with the child and parents in the evening and spend time interacting with the child. I don't even open the door to salesmen while children are in my care because I don't know their backgrounds. I have to protect the children in my care.

I have a degree in education, so I know that my fingerprints and background have been run.

[Heidi]

Nan makes some really good points. What I didn't like was that they were lumping all child care providers with criminal backgrounds together and implying that if you have ANY sort of criminal background (no matter how long ago) that you were a bad provider. That's the message that I was getting anyway.

They make a point of naming crimes like robbery, grand theft, DUI's, drugs, domestic violence, assault, battery etc. In CA these are taken into account on a case by case bases and people with crimes like these in their backgrounds may still be given a license depending on their individual circumstances and how long ago the crime occured. For example if a woman received a DUI 10 years ago she can still get a license if she doesn't show a pattern of criminal acts. I suppose that my stance is that if a person makes a mistake in their younger days and pays for their crime then why should that person not be allowed to work in child care after paying their debt to society? Should we continue to punish a person for that crime? Or what about someone that gets into a fight at a bar in their early 20's and then gets convicted of assault. Should that person not be allowed to do child care?

I know that it's just common sense to look at a person's entire background and look for patterns of criminal history and if there is a pattern then of course a person should not be allowed to work with children but I think that sending the message that all people with criminal history are dangerous to kids is wrong. If that were the case then technically I should not have a license because I had a restraining order put on me when I was 18, an attempted burglary charge (which was dropped) and harrassment after a fallout with my father. He was so angry at me for moving out that he called the police on me for "trying to break in", I used my key. It's still there on my record but in CA that's not a serious enough crime to deny me unlike drug charges (which you can still have and get a license but you have to disclose it to your clients), felonies or crimes against children. I'm dissapointed in the way that they portrayed their message.

SInce WI changed it policies over the past few years, several providers have had their licenses yanked after many years of good records because of something relatively "minor" (disordly conduct, for instance) in their distant past or in their SPOUSES distant past. So your 40 yo husband was a dumb-a** at 19, had a fight in a bar, and now you loose your dc license? :confused: They make NO exceptions here, which is a bit extremist, I would say.

Fortunately, I've always been a goodie-2-shoes, and my dh never got caught during his "young buck" period!::

[Hunni Bee]

ok, so I watched it. First, some of those daycare providers are frickin scary looking, I can't believe people leave their children with them.

second, the one where the daycare boy died while he was in the vehicle, I don't agree with them making the owner close down her daycares. She had nothing to do with it, like the state said, anyone could get a job and its easy to hide a record.

third, the last lady. The dcm even said, "isn't it the states duty to check them out" and she's right, funny how the states lady starting blaming the parents and that they need to do back ground checks.

also, if something happened over 15 yrs ago, why is it being brought up now. Like the guy who ran the daycare (ok near the end what he did was wrong, flashing his fingers) he even said that he has changed, went to anger management classes, has recommendations, taken classes.

I have never been asked about my back ground or for a criminal check (I have a police clearance thats clean)

I don't think that having a criminal record makes you an unfit provider, but I do think its wrong not to disclose that information to prospective parents without being asked. Parents should be afforded the right to make an informed decision. Deciding who will be their child's daycare provider is one of the most important decisions a parent will make.

The woman at the end asked the "prospective parents" to leave her home when her criminal background was brought up. Why? Does she think that potential parents have no right to question her about her criminal background? I didn't get it.

If I was a parent and the provider I was considering said, You know, I have a such-and-such crime on my record, it was ten years ago, I've had a spotless record since then but I'm being up front with you. I wouldn't see that as a red flag because everyone makes mistakes.

However, if I go home after the interview, do my own background check (which I would totally do and wish parents would do) and find surprises, I would rule out that provider not because of the crimes but because she was not up front about herself. If she would hide that, what else might she hide from me down the road?