Non Vaccinated Children

[Meeko]

Check your state regs. It is 100% up to me (in Utah) if I take children who are not vaccinated. I just tell people on the phone before I even interview that I do not take un-vaccinated children.

[sharlan]

I tell parents up front that I do not take unvaccinated children as well.

[hwichlaz]

I tell parents up front that I do not take unvaccinated children as well.

If they have a medical reason that they can't get them...like cancer or an allergic reaction...that can get you in trouble with ADA.

[sharlan]

If they have a medical reason that they can't get them...like cancer or an allergic reaction...that can get you in trouble with ADA.

That's ok with me. I am not qualified to properly care for a child that cannot have vaccinations due to medical issues. It would be in the child and parents best interest to find more appropriate care.

We spend too much time on the go to properly care for a child with a compromised immune system, etc.

I have nothing against children who have special needs, my grandson has a whole alphabet of disorders - ASD, ADD, and DCD along with tree nut, coconut, and shellfish allergies. I just know what I can and cannot handle.

[Cat Herder]

I would teach her that she could not try to threaten me into taking, and keeping, her kids. I heard that she thinks she has a golden ticket, I don't take those. Would she try to use it during any conflict in care?

[midaycare]

I don't take unvax kids. I just turned one away. I have several autoimmune diseases and conditions. I don't know the full details of the entire argument, but I can't take a health risk of that magnitude.

Schools have to takr unvax kids, but not daycares (here in MI).

[Snowmom]

If they have a medical reason that they can't get them...like cancer or an allergic reaction...that can get you in trouble with ADA.

Is this something specific to CA?
In MN, my licensor says it is 100% up to me to decide if I will take an unvaccinated child. Medical exemption or not.
The only thing I cannot do is make exceptions to this after stating it. I need to be consistent with it. No exceptions.

OP, I wouldn't be ok with the fact that she was threatening in the way DCM presented it. I would not be ok with working with someone who was not upfront and honest with me from the beginning- and that is why I would not take this family. Communication and a respectful, open and honest relationship is key to a healthy relationship.

[hwichlaz]

Is this something specific to CA?
In MN, my licensor says it is 100% up to me to decide if I will take an unvaccinated child. Medical exemption or not.
The only thing I cannot do is make exceptions to this after stating it. I need to be consistent with it. No exceptions.

OP, I wouldn't be ok with the fact that she was threatening in the way DCM presented it. I would not be ok with working with someone who was not upfront and honest with me from the beginning- and that is why I would not take this family. Communication and a respectful, open and honest relationship is key to a healthy relationship.

ADA if federal. If the reason they can't be vaccinated is medical....then you're discriminating. Unless there is a reason you can't care for them...like it's outside your ability (since you are the only caregiver). My own oldest is allergic to an ingredient in the DTaP. She has all of the rest of her immunizations, and can get the Td (without the pertusis component) but not the DTaP. There is no valid reason not to accept her into a program because she's not a risk to anyone. The DTaP vaccine doesn't prevent transfer of illness since it doesn't prevent illenss. It prevents the body from reacting to the toxins produced by the illness. That's why those three immunizations are grouped together. They are all bacterial illnesses that produce a toxin that make you sick. It's less an immunization and more of an anti-toxin.

If you have an auto-immune disorder that precludes you from being exposed to non-vaccinated populations, then it's not safe for you to work with children. Because no child is fully immunized until school aged...and they are walking petri dishes.

edited to add: I'm very strict about my IZ policy because I have a preemie in care as well as a child with Cerebral Palsy. I'm not anti-vaccine in any way. BUT I think it's important to be smart about it and know more about the vaccines themselves before just refusing to take a child that has a medical reason for being unable to receive one or more vaccines.

[Blackcat31]

Is this something specific to CA?
In MN, my licensor says it is 100% up to me to decide if I will take an unvaccinated child. Medical exemption or not.

I e-mailed Tom Copeland about this issue (specifically in regards to MN) and here is his reply:

"I received your email a while ago and did some research on the topic. Here’s what I found:
*
I contacted the Child Care Law Center in California. They said that whether or not a child care provider can refuse care to a child who is not immunized is a state law issue. In California, it is not illegal for a provider to refuse care.
*
I contacted the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. They said that non-immunization is not a protected class under the state’s human rights laws. In other words, it’s not illegal (under human rights laws) for a provider to refuse to provide care to a non-immunized child.
*
I contacted the Minnesota Department of Health. They said this issue was not addressed in the Minnesota immunization laws. In other words, there is nothing in the law that prevents a provider from refusing care to a non-immunized child. They said they cannot give legal advice on this issue. They also said that DHS has not addressed this issue.
*
Therefore, I believe family child care providers and child care centers are on safe ground if they refuse to provide care to children who are not immunized. It’s possible that a parent may sue a child care program and we can’t say for sure what a judge might rule. However, there is no specific language in the law preventing a child care program from refusing to provide care."

A follow up e-mail:


"I just got a notice from DHS (dated June 19th) saying that there is nothing in the licensing rule “that specifically allows or prohibits a license holder from adopting a policy to exclude children who are not up-t0-date on immunizations, even if the parent/guardian has claimed an exemption as allowed under Minnesota law.” Tom

[hwichlaz]

Where it gets tricky is when the reason for them being unimmunized is an ADA protected status.

So if they can't get live virus vaccines because they are undergoing chemo therapy...then it could be said that you're refusing a child because they have cancer. Does that make sense? Or yours refusing to care for a child because they have an allergy (my daughter's allergy to the pertussis vaccine)...and in reality..there is no accommodation needed for a child that is allergic to a vaccine component so it'd be hard to find a reason that you are unable to care for them. They don't require care any different than any other child.


And state laws don't supersede federal laws.

This was what I got from an attorney with a special needs child of her own. I picked her brain because of my own child.

She said that we have to be VERY careful following only state laws when federal laws also come into play.

[Snowmom]

Thanks BC.

[LysesKids]

Where it gets tricky is when the reason for them being unimmunized is an ADA protected status.

So if they can't get live virus vaccines because they are undergoing chemo therapy...then it could be said that you're refusing a child because they have cancer. Does that make sense? Or yours refusing to care for a child because they have an allergy (my daughter's allergy to the pertussis vaccine)...and in reality..there is no accommodation needed for a child that is allergic to a vaccine component so it'd be hard to find a reason that you are unable to care for them. They don't require care any different than any other child.


And state laws don't supersede federal laws.

This was what I got from an attorney with a special needs child of her own. I picked her brain because of my own child.

She said that we have to be VERY careful following only state laws when federal laws also come into play.

Most people also don't understand that a medical waiver will not be for all vaccinations, but only some with very few exceptions and even then some have time limits set for each vax that was waived. There has to be an actual reason...

I totally understand your DD's issue, because it was the same for all 3 of mine; the youngest had a seizure and she went comatose after the first round - they totally nixed Dtap for her for life after that. And my kids were waived for live virus inc MMR due to my cancer, then for my dad's because I was his caregiver; this was back when Polio vax was still Oral & not the dead shot

[Blackcat31]

If I choose to exclude because a child isn't immunized or up to date I can.

I would not be excluding for the medical condition.

I would be excluding because of the immunization condition.

I think there is a difference.

[Meeko]

Some parents don't understand the difference between a center and a home provider either.

Centers must have wheelchair access etc. Not so for home providers. Home providers get to choose who comes and goes at THEIR home.

[daycare]

If you're interested in California immunization laws check out SB-277.

We are one of two states who require immunizations by law.