Judge Judy?

[Michelle]

Oh my gosh! this was a really good one!
I Love Judge Judy but I won't ruin it for anyone...definitely watch this, there are a lot of California "untruths" in there too! grrrrrr

[mema]

Anyone know where to watch it online? I can't watch when it is on and I don't have a dvr. I tried you tube, but there are only old ones on there.

[melilley]

Please tell us the title of the episode. I have Judge Judy free on demand so if I know which one it is I can see it.

It wasn't Kim's case. I'm not sure of the title, my husband is in love with Judge Judy and he had it on when I came into the room...

[Lianne]

The daycare case aired yesterday (in my area at least) was about a provider calling CAS on a family for suspected child abuse. The children have a condition called Mongolian Spots which look like bruises but the provider wasn't informed. The mom claimed she mentioned them on the phone but the judge didn't believe her. Anyways, the parents were suing the provider for filing false charges but they lost. Judge Judy said the provider did the right thing because the spots do look like serious bruises.

[daycare]

I saw this show yesterday.......

the only thing that I was confused about was why the judge lady said that it was wrong for the DCP to call and question the parent about the markings. she should not have called the parents, she should have just called CPS?????




OT:
My son also has some on his bum and side upper thigh.....common in asian children...

[Blackcat31]

I saw this show yesterday.......

the only thing that I was confused about was why the judge lady said that it was wrong for the DCP to call and question the parent about the markings. she should not have called the parents, she should have just called CPS?????

Because as a mandated reporter we are to call CPS immediately if we suspect abuse. We are not to discuss the issue with parents first.

If a situation is bad enough that we feel justified in calling CPS, we aren't suppose to give parents the opportunity to cover it up or make an excuse. It isn't our place to decide only report.

HTH

[countrymom]

see I would have asked mom first because we all know that kids have strange bumps and bruises all the time. I do think the provider did jump the gun a bit, where I think if she would have asked her face to face the provider would have gotten the answer.

also, I take it that there was no contract or a form you fill out on a child. I have a form that a parent fills out about their children so I have an idea if their child has an issue.

[lovemykidstoo]

see I would have asked mom first because we all know that kids have strange bumps and bruises all the time. I do think the provider did jump the gun a bit, where I think if she would have asked her face to face the provider would have gotten the answer.

also, I take it that there was no contract or a form you fill out on a child. I have a form that a parent fills out about their children so I have an idea if their child has an issue.

She did have a form with a spot on it asking for any medical issues and the woman left it blank.

I can see the point where if you really think there is abuse to call DHS immediately without calling the parent first. If it is really bad abuse, the parents could come quickly and pick up the child and hurt the child further or go on the run and hide.

[Crystal]

wow....I am surprised on that one. Mongolian spots do not look like bruises, to me at least. I have seen many children with them over the years,and even the first time I saw it I did not think it looked like bruising. Kind of ridiculous for a provdier to call CPS about that without talking to the parent about it, and I would be pissed as the parent too. ****s for the parents that they had to go through that.

NOW..............where is Kim's case????????????????

[Crystal]

She did have a form with a spot on it asking for any medical issues and the woman left it blank.

I can see the point where if you really think there is abuse to call DHS immediately without calling the parent first. If it is really bad abuse, the parents could come quickly and pick up the child and hurt the child further or go on the run and hide.

I would have left it blank too. Mongolian spots are not a medical issue and the parent probably didn't think twice about it because it is just a part of who her child is.

Bruising is always a reason to talk to the parent first. Bruises happen all the time, so it is really unfair to call CPS about a bruise without asking what might have caused it.

[MarinaVanessa]

I saw this show yesterday.......

the only thing that I was confused about was why the judge lady said that it was wrong for the DCP to call and question the parent about the markings. she should not have called the parents, she should have just called CPS?????




OT:
My son also has some on his bum and side upper thigh.....common in asian children...

Yes, like BC said as mandated reporters we should not question the parent ever. Simply call CPS to make a report and let them handle it. Judge Judy mentioned a good reason why they do not do this ... so that the parents don't immediately go to the daycare and pick their child up. In many cases when a child is being abused and the parent gets a whiff that the provider knows they'll take the child and send him/her "on vacation" or they sometimes even move. You should never give your clients the heads up.

As far as the mongolian spots thing ... I never thought it was even considered a "condition". It's not uncommon in hispanic children either and not something that children "suffer" from. It's simply a darkened spot on the rear or lower back of a child. I had it as a child (I'm hispanic), my sister had it, both of my kids had it and I can pretty much guarantee that my new baby will have it too. It really does look like a bruise. It just happens in children of certain races. It's funny that I never knew it even had a name .

[daycare]

wow....I am surprised on that one. Mongolian spots do not look like bruises, to me at least. I have seen many children with them over the years,and even the first time I saw it I did not think it looked like bruising. Kind of ridiculous for a provdier to call CPS about that without talking to the parent about it, and I would be pissed as the parent too. ****s for the parents that they had to go through that.

NOW..............where is Kim's case????????????????

my son has them and they look like brusises. I have also has other kids with them as well and they too look like bruises.

I think the thing that shocked me the most was that the DCprovider told the judge that in Monterrey city you don't have to have a license for daycare if you have less than 8 children. she also never showed her facility license, only the application with her "facility number" In CA if you have to have a license to care for more than one child not related to you. I wonder if this dc provider got into trouble after the airing of the show.

I disagree.... I would also give the parents the opportunity to explain and I would have asked face to face....Of course I would still have taken pics of them for my files and if the parents story did not add up, then I would have called..

In my eyes, this all could have been avoided if there was better communication on BOTH the provider and the parents ends...

[MarinaVanessa]

I think the thing that shocked me the most was that the DCprovider told the judge that in Monterrey city you don't have to have a license for daycare if you have less than 8 children. she also never showed her facility license, only the application with her "facility number" In CA if you have to have a license to care for more than one child not related to you. I wonder if this dc provider got into trouble after the airing of the show.

Yeah I didn't like the part where she says that she was licensed and showed her application with the facility number. I'm in CA and what happens is that once you send in your application they give you a facility number to put in your paperwork but that does not mean that you have a license. It's just your facility number, that number will remain your facility number once you get your official license. I think that's BS that she claims that it was her license.

More than likely what happened was that she was in the process of receiving her license and before she had her inspection she began advertising. Actually in CA you can care for as many children related to you as you want and not need a license just as you can care for as many children from one family not related to you and still not need a license. A license-exempt provider can care for one child of one family unrelated to them or all 8 children of one family unrelated to them. It's when you mix two families together that you then need to obtain a license for child care.

I still think she told the family that she had a license when she in fact didn't but who knows. I know that after getting my facility number in CA I advertised for a client but I clearly stated that I was in the process of becoming licensed. I had my first client before I got my license and about a week later I had my inspection and once I passed my analist printed out my license right then and there. At that point that very same day I was then able to advertise for more clients. The provider on the show probably told her client that she already had her license. I wonder what happened with the licensing case? If the provider had more than one family in her daycare before getting her license she would have been cited.

[daycare]

Yeah I didn't like the part where she says that she was licensed and showed her application with the facility number. I'm in CA and what happens is that once you send in your application they give you a facility number to put in your paperwork but that does not mean that you have a license. It's just your facility number, that number will remain your facility number once you get your official license. I think that's BS that she claims that it was her license.

More than likely what happened was that she was in the process of receiving her license and before she had her inspection she began advertising. Actually in CA you can care for as many children related to you as you want and not need a license just as you can care for as many children from one family not related to you and still not need a license. A license-exempt provider can care for one child of one family unrelated to them or all 8 children of one family unrelated to them. It's when you mix two families together that you then need to obtain a license for child care.

I still think she told the family that she had a license when she in fact didn't but who knows. I know that after getting my facility number in CA I advertised for a client but I clearly stated that I was in the process of becoming licensed. I had my first client before I got my license and about a week later I had my inspection and once I passed my analist printed out my license right then and there. At that point that very same day I was then able to advertise for more clients. The provider on the show probably told her client that she already had her license. I wonder what happened with the licensing case? If the provider had more than one family in her daycare before getting her license she would have been cited.

i am thinking that you are right about she was in the process and was not yet licensed.
by the time the time they went to court, she would of had her license to show the judge, but I am thinking that she didn't bring the license (if she did have one) because it will show on it when your license became effective....

Oh and very good point about caring for several children from the same family...

[melilley]

Yes, like BC said as mandated reporters we should not question the parent ever. Simply call CPS to make a report and let them handle it. Judge Judy mentioned a good reason why they do not do this ... so that the parents don't immediately go to the daycare and pick their child up. In many cases when a child is being abused and the parent gets a whiff that the provider knows they'll take the child and send him/her "on vacation" or they sometimes even move. You should never give your clients the heads up.

As far as the mongolian spots thing ... I never thought it was even considered a "condition". It's not uncommon in hispanic children either and not something that children "suffer" from. It's simply a darkened spot on the rear or lower back of a child. I had it as a child (I'm hispanic), my sister had it, both of my kids had it and I can pretty much guarantee that my new baby will have it too. It really does look like a bruise. It just happens in children of certain races. It's funny that I never knew it even had a name .

I only knew that there was a name because a center that I worked at was really culturally diverse and we did a training on child abuse and being a mandated reporter and how many caregivers do not know that some children of certain ethnicity's are born with mongolian spots. I guess people confusing the spots with bruises from being abused is more common than you would think. But I guess if you do not know about it then it could easily be confused. I don't know why it's considered a condition, in that case, a birth mark should be a condition!