Brief background…
My friend pays a woman to watch her three year old son in the woman’s home each day. She has two other children and two of her own as well.
Last week she was told the three year old broke a lamp and was handed a bill for eighty dollars to pay for it.
It seems to me that if the woman is supposed to be looking out for the child, it would be her fault the lamp got broken and my friend shouldn’t pay.
What say you?
If she does pay she should get a receipt.
If the child was 14, then pay up. At 3, not so much.
That assumes I’ve got the story straight. It’s a little hard to follow.
A has the 3-year-old, who is being watched by B in B’s home? B’s lamp gets broken, and hands the bill to A?
Yes, she should pay. I wouldn’t say the woman watching the child is ‘‘at fault.’’ Kids break things, as a general rule. I think that when they break things, the parent should cover the damage, whether it’s at a baby sitter’s house or in a department store. This is assuming, of course, the baby sitter didn’t give the kid a sledgehammer and tell him to go wild.
If the woman is running a daycare business in her home, clearly it is her responsibility to keep the kids away from breakable things and vice-versa. In that case, the parents shouldn’t pay. If it’s an occasional, friend helping a friend thing, then yes, I think the parents should pay.
ETA: On re-reading the OP, If she’s doing it daily, and has 2 other kids who aren’t hers daily as well, I’d say (and the state would likely agree) that it’s a business, and it’s the owner’s responsibility.
I think it depends on how badly she wants to continue having this woman care for her child. It might be worth paying for it if the alternative is the child loses his care situation.
StG
That is exactly what my friend says. She feels comfortable that her child is safe so she will probably pay even though it is a lot of money to her as a single mom.
I am just curious as whether it is right or wrong to ask. Yes, this is a ‘business’ although not a legal one. Just a private babysitter operating out of her home that takes in three children in addition to her own.
Toddlers break things - it’s one of those inevitable things in the universe, along with the fact that you will inevitably get a run in your pantyhose before a big meeting. If your business involves toddlers, you should budget for the occasional breakage (as does any other business under the sun - in retail, we routinely had to write off clothing due to coffee spills, rips/tears, makeup stains, etc).
However, given how hard it can be to find a decent daycare, your friends might still have to suck it up and pay the bill - or, even better, offer to split the difference and pay for half, as they weren’t present at time of the incident and that some of the blame should fall on the person who was supervising the child.
What StGemain said. This really isn’t a formal business, so expectations re a professional day care model are not really practical in this case if she wants the relationship to continue.
Out of curiosity, what kind of lamp was it? Glass? Because if it was, and the child had access to it, I’d question the assumption that the child is “safe”. My kids all did/do daycare in a private home, and the woman who runs that, knowing she can’t keep an eye on all kids at all times, keeps the children in a designated area child-safe area, where’s there’s nothing that isn’t kid-friendly.
How much does she currently pay for childcare? Is it much less than she would pay at a professional establishment? Is the woman who cares for her child licensed to watch children professionally or is it simply two people doing one another a favor - one needs affordable child care and the other needs to be able to earn money at home?
If she is paying a small amount in comparison to what she would pay elsewhere but she feels like it is a safe, comfortable environment for her child she should pay for the lamp, no questions asked. If it is about the same cost as enrolling the child in daycare and she is leaving her child with someone who is unlicensed she might want to tell her to pay for her own lamp and send her child to a more professional environment during the day.
As a person who runs an in-home daycare, I think the childcare provider was way out of line. If I’m not watching, it’s my own damn fault. I don’t let the kids play where they can hurt my stuff or get hurt by it, generally. I did once have my favorite coaster-holder broken (it’s made of resin, and I was able to glue it back together) because I let the kid play with it thinking it was neigh-on indestructible. Nope. It never would have occurred to me to charge the parent for it. I’d be too afraid of pissing off the parent and losing the client.
If you’re my friend and you come over to hang out with your kid and your kid breaks something, that’s another story. I still wouldn’t *ask *you to pay for it ('cause I’m a wimp), but I’d be rather miffed if you didn’t offer to. But that’s because it’s your job to watch him while you’re here, even if I generally watch him when you’re not.
But, at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who’s right. What matters is who’s more attached to this childcare arrangement: if it’s important to the mom to give the kid continuity of care in a small group environment with someone she trusts, she’d better pay it. It’s obvious that the $80 is more important to the provider than keeping her client.
I am not quite sure what she pays. It is a neighbor of her father’s but no one has a personal relationship. My friend has used organized day care centers and didn’t like them as much as the “personal attention” she felt she was getting with this woman. I question such personal attention when it appears the children aren’t watched or have access to breakable items.
You are right of course but it seems like extortion to me.
Kids can break stuff in a nanosecond even when watched very carefully.
She runs a daycare and she had an $80 lamp in a place accessible by a 3-year-old? :dubious:
I don’t run a daycare, but I do have a 3-year-old, and except for heavy, difficult-to-relocate items such as the television set, I don’t keep expensive stuff around where she can potentially destroy it. I kind of thought this was a no-brainer.
Right. That’s why people childproof their homes when small children are around.
This situation describes what Dave Ramsey calls stupid tax. B was assessed the tax by needing to buy a new lamp. B attempted to pass the tax onto A.
Isn’t your friend insured for this sort of thing? In the Netherlands, everyone is obliged to have a personal “legal responsability”-insurance. Costs everyone about 40 dollars a month, and it would pay for exactly this kind of damage.
And doesn’t the day-care mom have an home-insurance?
In Spain there would be neither a “legal responsibility” insurance that paid for this, not a home insurance that would cover a broken lamp. Mentioning it because in general the Netherlands and Spain are more likely to have similar legislation than either and the USA.
What StG and WhyNot said, otherwise. I’m 6 and 8 years older than my brothers, the house was as childproof as we could think of making it, and we still got the occasional bruise or broken item. You get kids, shit happens, so long as there’s no blood it’s no big deal. And if you are taking care of kids in your house (your kids or somebody else’s), keeping fragile things and kids out of each other’s reach is* your* responsibility.
If the kid had gotten into the medicine cabinet, would the carer have the gall to try and charge the mom for the pills?
Overseeing 5 kids in the home? I’d ask the friend which she thought more expensive, the lamp or a visit from the licensing division of health and human services.
Of course, I wouldn’t keep my kid there any longer after posing the question.