Logged Out Because I Can't Stand Myself

[lovemykidstoo]

Oh, this thread has grown in so many ways.

@CozyHome

I'm not sure where I went wrong with you. I don't remember mentioning money or charging for anything. Maybe you were on my Whisky.com forum and got confused?

Members have the ability to edit their thread within a certain amount of time. I don't see where the OP was reduced or changed in any way. I sometimes correct grammar but never change the context or content of anything. I do have some members that over time ask me to delete threads, which I will not do. I DO take out personal or private information that the OP wants me to remove(within reason).

Thanks to all of you who appreciate this forum. I like coming here everyday.

Michael, I appreciate you and your board is fantastic!!! Thank you!

[mamac]

Michael- I think I may have been the one at whiskey.com. After reading Cozy's post I went back to the OP to check and somehow missed where it mentioned the thirty minutes. :confused: That's the pertinent information I was talking about. I apologize if it sounded like I was accusing you of altering the OP. Like I said before, all this stuff is very new to me. This is the first forum I've ever belonged to and I think it's a great source of valuable information for all of us and I definitely appreciate it and all the help I've received so far. I'm sorry if I was out of line.

[Michael]

I looked again at the OP and it does look a lot less of the story it originally was. It was posted on 1/18/13 and I edited it for grammar on the same date as you can see. I know the original post was there for several days. If the OP asked an moderator to change it, they needed to ask me first. I am not opposed to it being edited for personal reasons but in this case it was a member that wrote up the thread after logging out. A moderator must have edited for the member. I certainly did not. I will also check the logs.

[blandino]

Well this became a super long thread so I read half of it and skimmed the rest. I don't understand why so many people "look down" or are scared of licensing. If you are nice and honest with your licensors.....they are not out to get you. LOL.

My licensor is super nice and I've contacted her a few times over my first year of business and she is nice in general when she does her pop in inspections. I have been told I have a "tougher" licensor but that just means she goes above and beyond just like me! I know I go above and beyond for everything, but I do my best.

Licensing wants you to call and ask for advice. If you act like you can handle everything of course they are put in a position where they are not as nice. I would still call and get it off my mind. No need to make parents sign forms, they already know of the incident. You shouldn't walk away from the business either, it is your passion.

Just call your licensor and let them know that you need to chat with them. They might already know, but if they don't they will be happy to know even when you are scared to death because of the need to report it, they will be happier to have heard it from you now. It will show a lot of you as a person. I hope you have a better weekend! HUGS

I would have to disagree with our views on licensing. Obviously licensing varies state-to-state, and while I am very happy that you feel that way about your licensing staff, I definitely think that is not the case for all daycare providers. I have had licensing specialist who have cited us for issues that aren't even a violation of licensing regulations. And who are very much looking to find you at fault when push comes to shove. We Have had some great licensing specialists and some horrible ones. But I completely understand some posters fear about calling licensing.

[Blackcat31]

I would have to disagree with our views on licensing. Obviously licensing varies state-to-state, and while I am very happy that you feel that way about your licensing staff, I definitely think that is not the case for all daycare providers. I have had licensing specialist who have cited us for issues that aren't even a violation of licensing regulations. And who are very much looking to find you at fault when push comes to shove. We Have had some great licensing specialists and some horrible ones. But I completely understand some posters fear about calling licensing.

I am sorry that you have a licensor that is not on your side. I have one like Abigail. I am very grateful for that.

However, it really doesn't matter what kind of licensor you have. You can NOT sweep something that is reportable under the rug. Whether parents tell you to or not. You can't do that just because you are afraid of or worried about your licensor.

Forgetting a child in a vehicle for that long is absolutely frightening and something that needs some SERIOUS addressing. State laws say this MUST be reported and whether or not the licensor is supportive or mean, the law is the law.

This entire scenario is scary as several things went wrong and continue to go wrong...atleast until OP updates us and let's us know what happened after she reported it.

Again, I am sorry not all providers have licensors that are on the same team and are supportive of them, but that still doesn't change the fact that we all individually take on a certain level of repsonsibility and accountibility when we begin caring for someone else's child. We can't run from it, hide it or deny that we do.

[blandino]

I am sorry that you have a licensor that is not on your side. I have one like Abigail. I am very grateful for that.

However, it really doesn't matter what kind of licensor you have. You can NOT sweep something that is reportable under the rug. Whether parents tell you to or not. You can't do that just because you are afraid of or worried about your licensor.

Forgetting a child in a vehicle for that long is absolutely frightening and something that needs some SERIOUS addressing. State laws say this MUST be reported and whether or not the licensor is supportive or mean, the law is the law.

This entire scenario is scary as several things went wrong and continue to go wrong...atleast until OP updates us and let's us know what happened after she reported it.

Again, I am sorry not all providers have licensors that are on the same team and are supportive of them, but that still doesn't change the fact that we all individually take on a certain level of repsonsibility and accountibility when we begin caring for someone else's child. We can't run from it, hide it or deny that we do.

I am sorry that you have a licensor that is not on your side. I have one like Abigail. I am very grateful for that.

However, it really doesn't matter what kind of licensor you have. You can NOT sweep something that is reportable under the rug. Whether parents tell you to or not. You can't do that just because you are afraid of or worried about your licensor.

Forgetting a child in a vehicle for that long is absolutely frightening and something that needs some SERIOUS addressing. State laws say this MUST be reported and whether or not the licensor is supportive or mean, the law is the law.

This entire scenario is scary as several things went wrong and continue to go wrong...atleast until OP updates us and let's us know what happened after she reported it.

Again, I am sorry not all providers have licensors that are on the same team and are supportive of them, but that still doesn't change the fact that we all individually take on a certain level of repsonsibility and accountibility when we begin caring for someone else's child. We can't run from it, hide it or deny that we do.

Oh definitely, I would absolutley agree that she should self-report, regardless of her licensor. But I can emphathize with wanting to keep her licensor as uninvolved in her life as humanly possible. I have even stopped myself from calling with questions, because it seemed like a past licensing monitor could find something I was doing wrong just by asking the question. I just wanted to represent the side who doesn't feel that comfortable with their licensor, and might hesitate and would NOT have someone on their side in the situation - and how that is a very real problem some of us face.

[Country Kids]

I looked again at the OP and it does look a lot less of the story it originally was. It was posted on 1/18/13 and I edited it for grammar on the same date as you can see. I know the original post was there for several days. If the OP asked an moderator to change it, they needed to ask me first. I am not opposed to it being edited for personal reasons but in this case it was a member that wrote up the thread after logging out. A moderator must have edited for the member. I certainly did not. I will also check the logs.

It does seem like alot of that post is missing. I seem to remember it being alot longer then what it is showing now. Do the logs show it as longer?

[Michael]

It does seem like alot of that post is missing. I seem to remember it being alot longer then what it is showing now. Do the logs show it as longer?

There are two schools to how the original post was. I wish the OP would give us some guidance. Logs show just me editing the post a couple hours after it went up. Usually someone quotes the OP and it shows up in several other posts but not this one. So I have no clue.

Nothing nefarious here. Move along.

[Lianne]

It does seem like alot of that post is missing. I seem to remember it being alot longer then what it is showing now. Do the logs show it as longer?

There was definitely more content in the original post. The original post stated that she didn't usually have this child on that day of the week, that the child needed the extra day of care. I also remember there being more detail about removing the other children from the vehicle and the search for the missing child. There were other pieces of info in the original post that are missing but I can't remember what exactly.

[countrymom]

wow the original post really did shrink. Acually it sounds like someone rewrote the post. Could the op be one of the moderators thats why the post is so short.

[Michelle]

wow the original post really did shrink. Acually it sounds like someone rewrote the post. Could the op be one of the moderators thats why the post is so short.

I also remember that she said all the kids can unbuckle themselves...
that's why she thought they were all out.. ( I think that's what it said)

[Blackcat31]

wow the original post really did shrink. Acually it sounds like someone rewrote the post. Could the op be one of the moderators thats why the post is so short.

The OP is not a moderator.

I also remember that she said all the kids can unbuckle themselves...
that's why she thought they were all out.. ( I think that's what it said)

I also recall the OP stating all the kids can unbuckle themselves but I believe that information was in another post she made in response to someone else. (I just checked and the inof about the kids unbuckling themselves in in post #38 in response to another poster.)


Honestly, I don't really see how any of the missing info matters as the pertinent information is still there.

The post still clearly identifies what happened, the number of kids she had in care that day, how long the child was missing, how long she looked and how she felt about the situation.

Unless the OP returns to give us an update, anything we continue to post is purely speculation.

[countrymom]

The OP is not a moderator.



I also recall the OP stating all the kids can unbuckle themselves but I believe that information was in another post she made in response to someone else. (I just checked and the inof about the kids unbuckling themselves in in post #38 in response to another poster.)


Honestly, I don't really see how any of the missing info matters as the pertinent information is still there.

The post still clearly identifies what happened, the number of kids she had in care that day, how long the child was missing, how long she looked and how she felt about the situation.

Unless the OP returns to give us an update, anything we continue to post is purely speculation.

the tone of the post has changed. The first post was someone clearly in distress, and upset. Now the post seems black and white, very rigid. kwim.

[mom2many]

There was definitely more content in the original post. The original post stated that she didn't usually have this child on that day of the week, that the child needed the extra day of care. I also remember there being more detail about removing the other children from the vehicle and the search for the missing child. There were other pieces of info in the original post that are missing but I can't remember what exactly.

I do remember this part about the missing child not usually being with her on this day of the week. When pps mentioned the original post had changed, I totally missed that. It still says that she had more kids than usual, but as Countrymom stated, the tone is different now.

I watch many p/t families and this particular point had resonated with me, because I am constantly having to remember who is coming what day and this would be my absolute worst night mare!

When reading the pps last night, I had thought maybe the OP was a moderator too, so this is very strange indeed.

[Blackcat31]

the tone of the post has changed. The first post was someone clearly in distress, and upset. Now the post seems black and white, very rigid. kwim.

I do remember this part about the missing child not usually being with her on this day of the week. When pps mentioned the original post had changed, I totally missed that. It still says that she had more kids than usual, but as Countrymom stated, the tone is different now.

I watch many p/t families and this particular point hit had resonated with me, because I am constantly having to remember who is coming what day and this would be my absolute worst night mare!

When reading the pps last night, I had thought maybe the OP was a moderator too, so this is very strange indeed.

I never read what is supposedly the original post. What is there now, is all I ever read.

I also think tone comes more from our own interpretation. I viewed her "tone" in her other responses as quick to anger (her reply to MamaG).

Her "tone" in my opinion, in regards to the parents all being ok with it was almost like she was all happy go lucky and not at all worried about the situation.

I don't know as that is MY perception of her tone. I think we all interpret the written word differently and we all apply what we read to what we ourselves know and feel so the "tone" of someone's post/words is completely open to the reader. kwim?

Also on a side note, her tone has nothing to do with the chain of events and the resulting actions she took or didn't take.

If she was really distressed and upset based on her tone in the original post, was it due to what she thought could possibly happen to her or was it distress and worry for the child?

She could have been upset and stressed about what would happen to HER if someone found out about this or she could have been worried about what the parents would think of HER if they were told about this. She could have been worried about the families pulling their children out of HER program because this had happened.

She could also have been worried about the child and how this effected the child.....emotionally, mentally and/or physically but since she NEVER mentioned the condition or mental state of the child in all of this....I highly doubt her concern was for anyone but herself.

That is MY perception of her tone and/or state of mine.