What Do You Do When Your Own Kid Is Sick?

[EchoMom]

Home daycare providers who work alone, what do you do when your own child is sick?

I have 6 kids and I feel SO guilty whenever they pass around some bug. I feel like I should be doing more to prevent it, but I don't know what. They want to interact and play together and the infants mouth everything and the toddlers **** their thumbs and how can you possibly stop every germ and sneeze?

Last week my baby had a fever and now 2 of my dckids have fevers and had to get picked up. I feel guilty that they have to pay for daycare but then can't come because their child is sick when they got it from my own child, or even if it wasn't my child I'd still feel bad like I should have been able to stop sickness from passing between dckids.

Now today my baby has been vomiting all day long and diahrea but I still have to take care of him tomorrow while also taking care of my other kids. But I feel so bad if they then end up vomiting too next week.

What do you do when your own child is sick?
How do you prevent viruses from spreading?
When one of your kids get sick does everyone pretty much get it too?

[jojosmommy]

Wait until the dck bring all their germs into your home and infect your kids.

Germ sharing is just part of dc I figure.

I close only if I feel my kids needs can not be met with dck here. Only closed 1x but my own kids are never sick really.

[littlemissmuffet]

The general rule of thumb in my area when your own child is sick - inform the parents of the illness (symtoms and diagnoses if known) and give them a choice to bring their child or not. Let them know if they don't come they still need to pay, and if they do choose to come they will be excluded if they catch the illness. Some people might think that doesn't seem fair but that's part of choosing an in-home family childcare.

[AnneCordelia]

The general rule of thumb in my area when your own child is sick - inform the parents of the illness (symtoms and diagnoses if known) and give them a choice to bring their child or not. Let them know if they don't come they still need to pay, and if they do choose to come they will be excluded if they catch the illness. Some people might think that doesn't seem fair but that's part of choosing an in-home family childcare.

This is what I do with my younger two children.

My older two are old enough to mostly care for themselves so they stay out of my separate daycare area and I give no notifications unless its something big like chicken pox.

[Willow]

The basic laws of epidemiology have determined that pretty much across the board by the time a daycare kiddo shows symptoms of an illness you and your children have already been exposed. In the same respect by the time you or your daycare children show symptoms of an illness all of your daycare kiddos have already been exposed.

Illness isn't contracted the minute a child starts a fever, or gets a rash, or throws up. It's in the body well beforehand and is able to be spread long before anyone is ever able to know someone is actually sick.

Thankfully all of my parents understand that.

If one of my kids is sick I let parents know and semi-quarantine my kiddo in my bedroom. I wash hands going in and out, but I do continue to care for everyone. If parents want to keep their child(ren) home until symptoms pass that's fine by me. I don't charge them for that. On the flipside if it's a daycare kiddo who pops up sick as long as symptoms aren't extreme they're also allowed to continue attending.

There is usually zero point in excluding a child who's already symptomatic with the premise that it will stop the further spread of infection, because it won't usually (some dermatological afflictions that are only spread via direct contact with the infected being about the only exclusion, although not always).

[Blackcat31]

The basic laws of epidemiology have determined that pretty much across the board by the time a daycare kiddo shows symptoms of an illness you and your children have already been exposed. In the same respect by the time you or your daycare children show symptoms of an illness all of your daycare kiddos have already been exposed.

Illness isn't contracted the minute a child starts a fever, or gets a rash, or throws up. It's in the body well beforehand and is able to be spread long before anyone is ever able to know someone is actually sick.

Thankfully all of my parents understand that.

If one of my kids is sick I let parents know and semi-quarantine my kiddo in my bedroom. I wash hands going in and out, but I do continue to care for everyone. If parents want to keep their child(ren) home until symptoms pass that's fine by me. I don't charge them for that. On the flipside if it's a daycare kiddo who pops up sick as long as symptoms aren't extreme they're also allowed to continue attending.

There is usually zero point in excluding a child who's already symptomatic with the premise that it will stop the further spread of infection, because it won't usually (some dermatological afflictions that are only spread via direct contact with the infected being about the only exclusion, although not always).

I absolutely disagree with this.

People are sometimes contagious before they show symptoms, although that may not be when they're most contagious.

Depending on the virus causing the illness, you may be contagious before you even know you're sick – a day before coming down with symptoms, for example. In other cases, you'll be well aware of your illness before you have the opportunity to pass it along.

With some viruses, you're contagious for as long as you have symptoms or even beyond. With others, you continue to have symptoms after you’re no longer contagious.

Why risk continuing exposure just because you are SOMETIMES contagious before being symptomatic? I just don't see the logic there. I also don't think being contagious BEFORE being symptomatic is the case with ALL illnesses.

The info I posted is from my DH's doctor when we asked about his exposure to children/illnesses at daycare because he has a compromised immune system. The point of exclusion is to prevent continuous exposure which leads to a higher possibilty of contracting the illness/virus. So when a DCK gets a fever (say from strep) the quicker I exclude him, the less likely the others will also get it.

[Willow]

A kiddo with a compromised immune system is a whole other ball field.

I would possibly consider this topic quite a bit differently if I had a child like that in my care.


My own kids' pediatrician has his opinions. Most docs do. But I tend to error on the side of broad recommendations made by the vast majority of medical professionals.

They in general agree that exclusion is typically unnecessary and is usually ineffective against preventing further spread of most mild/moderate illnesses.

Some of the American Academy of Pediatric's thoughts:

http://www.healthychildcare.org/inclusionexclusion.html

Here is another:

http://blog.healia.com/00457/do-you-really-need-keep-your-child-home-daycare

[littlemissmuffet]

I absolutely disagree with this.

People are sometimes contagious before they show symptoms, although that may not be when they're most contagious.

Depending on the virus causing the illness, you may be contagious before you even know you're sick – a day before coming down with symptoms, for example. In other cases, you'll be well aware of your illness before you have the opportunity to pass it along.

With some viruses, you're contagious for as long as you have symptoms or even beyond. With others, you continue to have symptoms after you’re no longer contagious.

Why risk continuing exposure just because you are SOMETIMES contagious before being symptomatic? I just don't see the logic there. I also don't think being contagious BEFORE being symptomatic is the case with ALL illnesses.

The info I posted is from my DH's doctor when we asked about his exposure to children/illnesses at daycare because he has a compromised immune system. The point of exclusion is to prevent continuous exposure which leads to a higher possibilty of contracting the illness/virus. So when a DCK gets a fever (say from strep) the quicker I exclude him, the less likely the others will also get it.

Both of my doctors and my aunt who is a public health nurse have said the same thing. It's ALWAYS better to exclude.

[Blackcat31]

A kiddo with a compromised immune system is a whole other ball field.
I would possibly consider this topic quite a bit differently if I had a child like that in my care.


My own kids' pediatrician has his opinions. Most docs do. But I tend to error on the side of broad recommendations made by the vast majority of medical professionals.

They in general agree that exclusion is typically unnecessary and is usually ineffective against preventing further spread of most mild/moderate illnesses.

Some of the American Academy of Pediatric's thoughts:

http://www.healthychildcare.org/inclusionexclusion.html

Here is another:
http://blog.healia.com/00457/do-you-...d-home-daycare

But aren't ALL children considered to have a compromised (probably not the right word) immune system since they are little and haven't had time to really work on those immunities...hence the reason for children in daycare settings to be 50% more likely to be sick during their first 5 years compared to kids who are never exposed to group situations?

My DH has a compromised immune system due to diabetes but with kids, they haven't had the opportunity to be exposed to things that most of us fight off easily so I would think that ALL young children have immature immune systems.

[Willow]

But aren't ALL children considered to have a compromised (probably not the right word) immune system since they are little and haven't had time to really work on those immunities...hence the reason for children in daycare settings to be 50% more likely to be sick during their first 5 years compared to kids who are never exposed to group situations?

My DH has a compromised immune system due to diabetes but with kids, they haven't had the opportunity to be exposed to things that most of us fight off easily so I would think that ALL young children have immature immune systems.

The point the AAP and CDC drives home is exclusion doesn't ever build a stronger immune system. Whether a kiddo is exposed as an infant, a toddler in daycare, an elementary school student at school or an adult...the only way to build immunities is to be exposed. If it doesn't happen in infancy it'll happen in toddlerhood/pre-k days. If it doesn't happen in toddlerhood/pre-k days it'll happen when a kiddo enters school. If it doesn't happen in school a human can get nailed in adulthood. Unfortunately if one doesn't build up their immune system by that point the illnesses they contract can have MUCH more dangerous implications. Chicken Pox is probably the best example of that.

A healthy newborn is born equipped to handle all of the typical things any other human would come into contact with. It's exactly why (the vast majority of) pediatricians don't recommend going home with one and then holing up in the house for an indefinite amount of time any more. Want to go on a walk your first day home, go for it. Want to go to the grocery store, fine. Age doesn't determine the strength of an immune system, exposure does.

An adult that's lived in a bubble is no more equipped to handle a regular germ load than a newborn is. The physical age of the body has nothing to do with a persons ability to fight something off, only exposure does.


I respect that other people might feel differently. In one's own daycare they can feel however they want for whatever reasons they want and respond to illness any way they want.


I base my decisions on the topic based on the recommendations of the major country/world health organizations. They all say there's no reason to exclude an otherwise healthy child for minor illness and actually it's beneficial to their overall health as the exposure only builds their immune systems stronger.

Long term most children who's parents and providers choose inclusion will be LESS ill and their bodies much better equipped to handle what they'll be exposed to in school and then later on in life as adults.

[Blackcat31]

In the links you provided the only info I can find that supports exclusion as being unnecessary is when dealing with a cold, I can find nothing that says this same theory applies to other illneses such as diarrhea, vomiting, and/or strep or similar things.

I don't exclude for the common cold unless the care the child requires is more than I can manage or compromises the environment as far as cleanliness.

Being exposed to a contagious illness for several days is almost a guarantee the other kids will get sick as well but being exposed to a contagious illness only once eliminates the likelihood of continued spread.

I prefer to look out for the group, as a whole, compared to one individual. I choose exclusion based on those thoughts and ideas than what the AAP or CDC says I should do.
I will consider their input when they are willing to pay me for the loss of fees/pay for when kids ARE too sick to attend care as well as contribute to the time it takes to clean and sterilize my environment.

[DaycareProvider]

Well I just went through this last week, and I stayed open. I think it just depends on how severe the virus is. If it was to the point where I think my child needed my full attention and was vomiting and such, than I would've closed. But she slept on the couch the entire day in the other room so I was able to still care for the other children with no problems at all.

I have a parent who strongly disagreed, and doesn't want to pay me because of it. I"m going throught that right now actually...

I just told another mom today that if her child is sick she is not to bring him. And mom responded with "well I cant afford to miss work, especially since you want me to pay you so much, so theres nothing I can do about it"
In fact I responded with what blackcat said. The part where she needs to worry about the group as a whole not just an individual or something to that effect.

[littlemissmuffet]

Well I just went through this last week, and I stayed open. I think it just depends on how severe the virus is. If it was to the point where I think my child needed my full attention and was vomiting and such, than I would've closed. But she slept on the couch the entire day in the other room so I was able to still care for the other children with no problems at all.

I have a parent who strongly disagreed, and doesn't want to pay me because of it. I"m going throught that right now actually...

I just told another mom today that if her child is sick she is not to bring him. And mom responded with "well I cant afford to miss work, especially since you want me to pay you so much, so theres nothing I can do about it"
In fact I responded with what blackcat said. The part where she needs to worry about the group as a whole not just an individual or something to that effect.

I just love how parents snot you off saying they can't afford to miss work... but expect us to take a hit financially?? Whatever. I always tell parents in interviews that they WILL miss work due to their child's illness - it's inevitable. I sometimes hear "Oh no, we have great immune systems - s/he will too!" which usually the kids who ends up being the sickest the most often.

[Rachel]

I just love how parents snot you off saying they can't afford to miss work... but expect us to take a hit financially?? Whatever. I always tell parents in interviews that they WILL miss work due to their child's illness - it's inevitable. I sometimes hear "Oh no, we have great immune systems - s/he will too!" which usually the kids who ends up being the sickest the most often.

But don't providers do the same thing when they choose to stay open with their own sick kids? I"m guessing most do it because they don't want to lose the pay of the day, or "waste" one of their vacation or sick days.

I know the whole "my business my rules" thing, but it seems really unfair to stay opened and say to the parents "tough luck" when your kid is sick enough for exclusion. If my child is sick enough for exclusion, I am closed or there is another adult in the house taking care of the sick child (we have 2 floors, so no cross contamination). It does cost me money to close and send the kids out to subs (standard here), but such is life.

[Blackcat31]

But don't providers do the same thing when they choose to stay open with their own sick kids? I"m guessing most do it because they don't want to lose the pay of the day, or "waste" one of their vacation or sick days.

I know the whole "my business my rules" thing, but it seems really unfair to stay opened and say to the parents "tough luck" when your kid is sick enough for exclusion. If my child is sick enough for exclusion, I am closed or there is another adult in the house taking care of the sick child (we have 2 floors, so no cross contamination). It does cost me money to close and send the kids out to subs (standard here), but such is life.

I am lucky in this aspect as I don't do child care in my home so when my own children were sick they simply stayed home with their dad who worked from home. (They are grown and gone now).

When my children did attend childcare (before I opened) my child care provider sent her own children to their grandparents house if they were sick so they didn't expose the DCK's she had in care.

Totally see your point though. I guess it is a darned if you do and darned if you don't situation. I do think though that if a provider's own child is sick, they should either send the child elsewhere if possible or close so the illness isn't spread. JMHO.

I know most providers say that their child is quarantined but I wonder how well that really works. Especially for providers who say if one family member is sick then both kids HAVE to stay home.... kind of two different sets of rules in a way. Hmm, definitely food for thought...