Would You Term???

[williams2008]

I had a 3 year old yesterday who had an accident in his clothes. Well when the grandmother picked him up, I told her that he had an accident and it was like diarrhea. Grandmother informed me that she got a call from the dck's mother at 1:00 am saying dkb had been up throwing up with diarrhea.

Long story short it is in my policy that they can not attend if such symptoms have been present within last 24 hours.

He wasn't throwing up and he only had one accident. I think what pissed me off is that she didn't bother to mention it because she knew that I would have sent him back home with her. He hadn't came yet, but I have my term letter already typed up and ready to give to her

Would you'll term???

[Willow]

Absolutely.

I would not give someone who jeopardized my health, the health of all the others enrolled and my income, a second chance.


If you haven't already I'd add something in your handbook about that being an immediate terminable offense.

[countrymom]

no, just because he threw up doesn't mean he's sick. We all know kids can throw up if they eat junk, or something doesn't sit right in thier bellies.

[crazydaycarelady]

I don't think I would term over it but I would print out a copy of my health policy, tell her what the grandmother told you, and reiterate what your contract says about illness.

[Mom&Provider]

Yes, I would term. especially if it's already clear in your contract.

It's not as though this child was only sick from eating something, to have both and at the same time, would indicate to me something was up. Sorry, but it's not right or fair of DCM to not keep her child home for a day. Even if it was just from eating something, which I doubt, it's not fair to you or the other children in your care that the child be sent even with the possibility he is ill with something like that. :confused:

[williams2008]

Absolutely.

I would not give someone who jeopardized my health, the health of all the others enrolled and my income, a second chance.


If you haven't already I'd add something in your handbook about that being an immediate terminable offense.

The only thing I have in my handbook is that they cannot attend unless their symptoms are cleared for 24 hours. I think I will go back and revamp my illness section.

[williams2008]

no, just because he threw up doesn't mean he's sick. We all know kids can throw up if they eat junk, or something doesn't sit right in thier bellies.

That's the thing. He didn't throw up at all here yesterday and he only had that one accident the entire day, but when she said he was up throwing up with diarrhea I immediately thought he may have gotten a virus that has been going around.

[williams2008]

I don't think I would term over it but I would print out a copy of my health policy, tell her what the grandmother told you, and reiterate what your contract says about illness.

When I typed up my just in case I decide to term letter,I also printed out another copy of my illness policy because obviously the dcm didn't read the copy I gave her.

[Willow]

no, just because he threw up doesn't mean he's sick. We all know kids can throw up if they eat junk, or something doesn't sit right in thier bellies.

*OR* he could be really seriously ill with something highly contagious. You have no way of knowing that, and neither does a parent when their child first gets sick, hence the across the board exclusion.

I would never leave it up to a parent who is not any sort of medically trained professional decide if their own child was contagious or not.

That isn't the point at all though.

Her policies exclude children who have thrown up or had diarrhea for 24 hours. Mom decided to completely ignore the rules. Deliberately ignoring or defying any policy is grounds for termination in my book, especially ones as serious as those regarding illness.

[Willow]

When I typed up my just in case I decide to term letter,I also printed out another copy of my illness policy because obviously the dcm didn't read the copy I gave her.

Or she did, and just didn't give a rip. Which unfortunately can be the case with many many parents trying to avoid an exclusion or with those who just plain don't care about anyone but themselves - which is totally what I would assume is the case with this mom. Think about it, your son is vomiting and has diarrhea at 1 in the morning. If you actually cared about him at all wouldn't you tell the person he was being left with just a handful of hours later to be sure he was more closely monitored than usual?

She was hiding it for a reason. She knew full well what would happen if she asked someone to keep a closer eye on him.

[Blackcat31]

*OR* he could be really seriously ill with something highly contagious. You have no way of knowing that, and neither does a parent when their child first gets sick, hence the across the board exclusion.

I would never leave it up to a parent who is not any sort of medically trained professional decide if their own child was contagious or not.

That isn't the point at all though.

Her policies exclude children who have thrown up or had diarrhea for 24 hours. Mom decided to completely ignore the rules. Deliberately ignoring or defying any policy is grounds for termination in my book, especially ones as serious as those regarding illness.

I need to do what is best for the group of children I care for as a whole. I cannot make exceptions to my illness policy for ONE child who may or may not be sick...especially at the expense of others.

I also have a family member of my own as well as several children in care who face some serious consequences when ill with something that is only minor to others.

I would not have taken the chance with even ONE episode of vomiting and/or diarrhea.

ALL children stay home until they are symptom free for a FULL 24 hours.

This mother choose to ignore a policy she signed off on. NOT cool!

[Blackcat31]

Grandmother informed me that she got a call from the dck's mother at 1:00 am saying dkb had been up throwing up with diarrhea.

This kept sticking with me......


This tells me the child was sick enough that it warranted a call to grandma in the middle of the night but the mom didn't feel the need to tell the daycare provider ?????? :confused:

Something isn't right here.

[williams2008]

Yes, I would term. especially if it's already clear in your contract.

It's not as though this child was only sick from eating something, to have both and at the same time, would indicate to me something was up. Sorry, but it's not right or fair of DCM to not keep her child home for a day. Even if it was just from eating something, which I doubt, it's not fair to you or the other children in your care that the child be sent even with the possibility he is ill with something like that. :confused:

I agree it is not fair to the other children as well as myself. I think for her to bring him without giving me a heads up was totally disrespectful.

[williams2008]

This kept sticking with me......


This tells me the child was sick enough that it warranted a call to grandma in the middle of the night but the mom didn't feel the need to tell the daycare provider ?????? :confused:

Something isn't right here.

YESSSSSSSSS!!!!!! Same thing i thought!!

[daycarediva]

I would have probably given her a warning and then reiterated the illness policy. I would have her sign a statement agreeing to abide by the illness policy rules and include that any further violations OF ANY POLICY are grounds for immediate termination, no refunds.

If it were to ever happen again, or with any other blatant disregard of policy, I would term effective immediately.

Sometimes you really need to SAY IT and have a backbone and then things can/will run smoothly when dcp's know you mean business. If this is a working relationship that you think is salvageable, I would give her another chance, but NEVER let it happen again!