-
-
Nah she's not being rational about it. She's already contacted the city and has made a legal "claim". She just doens't GET that the provider is at fault yet. She will as soon as the City and the DHS let her know.
This is a really good learning experience for providers. Never believe that just because the parent isn't upset at you when something first happens that your libility ends with the parents take on an accident. The parent doesn't have a thing to say about what the DHS will do or the County Attorney will do as far as filing charges. If anything, legal action against the City will force the hands of the City to at least disperse accountability financially. The Provider will be first in line.Comment
-
Comment
-
In reading that article I'm not sure that the daycare provider was HER daycare provider.
"I ran over there and she was on there for less than a minute and I went over and by the time I got over to her she actually lost it and went down and that's how she got the burn on her stomach," said Kerry Welch, a day-care provider who helped Madyson."
A daycare provider, not necessarily HER daycare provider. The article goes on to say:
"Her baby sitter took her to the hospital, where Madyson was met by her mom"
Her babysitter may be a 16 year old for all we know...Comment
-
Yeah see they changed that around a few times from the teaser they did on the newscast... to the newscast.. to the six o'clock version of the newscast... to the online video of it.... to the online news report of it. It IS impossible to tell. The first promo they did a few hours before the news stated that "hear what Madyson's Mom and babysitter" had to say.
I wrote a post about that in their comments section.
Considering their ONLY angle was the slide and the slides hotness it would make sense that they only discussed what the provider did in reference to the hottness. Who knows though.
Your theory might be right too.. if the provider was a minor they wouldn't have brought up the name.
They were evasive about a lot of it or they just have crappy reporting. They just said she was playing at the park.. didn't say she was at the park with her day care provider. The only hint she was with the day care provider was them saying the day care provider helped and and her day care provider took her to the hospital.Comment
-
Here's another article on on the same story. I think it makes it more clear that the woman interviewed is the babysitter. I still don't think that the burns themselves make this provider irresponsible. I usually check equipment for temperature but I can understand why not everyone would think about diong this. There is an expectation that equipment built specifically for children would be safe for children to play on. I am concerned, however, that a child this young was on equipment this high without a spotter.Proverbs 12:1
A reminder to myself when I resist learning something new.Comment
-
This article states the babysitter Welch took child to the hospital.Comment
-
This is why this is a good topic. Providers can't assume something is safe. A good rule of thumb in caring for kids is to check first. When you are feeding a bottle.. check the temp.. When you are serving milk... check the milk by smelling and tasting it.. when you are serving hot food.. stir it and then TASTE it. When you are walking the kids down the sidewalk.. check ahead to make sure there is nothing that blocking the sidewalk that they can trip on. And on and on...
We have to do these thngs to keep the kids safe. It's our job to question any surface they come into contact with whether they are touching it, walking over it, ingesting it.. whatever.Comment
-
I just meant that, legally speaking, while I can definately see allowing a young child to play on equipment inappropriate for her age would fall into the definition of denial of critical care that I posted, I'm not sure that not thinking about checking temperature would fit into that definition - yet.
Honestly, I think child care providers are going to be a lot more likely to check temperature of playground equipment than parents because child care providers, in general, have more experience dealing with these types of issues. I think that parents and new child care providers sometimes find these things out the hard way, which is why I'm glad that KCCI reported on this event, even if they did drop the ball in some aspects.Proverbs 12:1
A reminder to myself when I resist learning something new.Comment
-
Common Sense/Accidents happen
An 18 month old should not have been sliding & let alone on her stomach on equipment that high or hot (equipment openly sitting underneath the baking sun medal or not) unsupervised. I still, would've never guessed 163 degrees though. Poor baby
sigpic(H)ave (O)nly (P)ositive (E)xpectations --H O P E!Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
Honestly, I think it's a pretty weasel-ly thing all around for all parties.
The mom wants to blame the city, everyone wants the lady who was watching the kid tarred and feathered, the city is running around with their heads cut off looking for anyone to blame but themselves, etc etc.
How about this one.....bad stuff happens sometimes?
Honestly, how many here knew that a plastic slide could reach 160+ degrees before this? How easily could this have been any one of us?
You want to know what REALLY is going to come out of this? The park being torn down. The entire play structure, slides, walkways, swings, EVERYTHING is going to be torn down.
Why? Because everyone wants someone to pay, and the city is going to say "fine, we're going to have to limit our liability.....tear the park down".
As for charges on the provider, they could never get abuse to stick, they could get negligence, but never abuse.Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Comment
-
In my State child abuse comes under abuse, neglect, and endangerment. My guess is she will have a founded case of neglect for leaving the child unattended and a founded case of endangerment for leaving her unattended on a piece of equipment where the fall zone was about seven/eight foot. The burn is the end result of the neglect and endangerment. I don't think it will be the primary reason she will have a founded case. It's the result of the neglect and endangerment.
Although the second degree burns are serious and painful, I don't believe the outcome of this case will hinge upon them. In fact, I would think that they would be a contributing factor but not anywhere nearly as important as the endangerment from allowing the child on a surface that far off the ground without "spotting" her and physically having control over her body. She could have EASILY fallen off of that equpment and broken her neck, skull, spine, legs, arms etc. THIS was the most serious offense IMHO. It is WAY more serious than the liability for not checking the surface temp of the equipment. That was an error but will most likely not be THE error that sinks this provider.
We may never know the outcome of this because unless criminal charges are filed, the child protective services does not make public founded cases of abuse, neglect, or endangerment. With the City being involved I do think the liklihood that criminal prosecution is higher.
My take away from this is twofold:
We all need to be aware of any surface our kids are coming into contact with and check the safety of the surface BEFORE the child comes into contact with it. This is a basic fundamental principal of caring for kids. Never assume a surface is safe, especially if it is not a surface you are intimately familiar with.
Second: Never allow a child to have their bodies high off the ground without having you in between them and the ground. When you are calculating the safety remember to include the child's height into your assessment and add that to the height of what they are standing on or climbing on. That's what gives you the fall zone. Remember to that children are very heavy headed and gravity will do a number on them because of it. They are much more likely to fall because they are so top heavy.
This is basic fundamental child care safety.
As far as the suing goes.. I don't think the City will have much liability. They may need to put "caution when hot" signs around the playground equipment or embedded in their future equipment. That would not be a bad idea anyway.
I think the City's position will be that children must be supervised when playing on equipment and that children should not be playing on equipment that is not age appropriate for them.
The provider on the other hand.. I wouldn't want to be her when the bills start rolling in on this one. I wouldn't want to be her when the parent gets a clue that she is the one liable. Emergency burn care is crazy expensive. Skin grafting.. pain and suffering... it aint gonna be good. I would be scared $hitless if I were her.Comment
Tweet
Comment