FW: Childminding meeting Monday (Sept. 10)

[Guest guest]

Re: Childminding meeting Monday (Sept. 10)

Re: http://www.limerickpost.ie/dailynews.elive?id=1639 & category=Daily-Mon

Dear Editor:

As one with happy Irish heritage and nearly two decades watching

America's " protection " of children in home day care, may I suggest caution

in

embracing regulation ideas which sound and feel good but prove to be

counterproductive to necessary childminding.

For starters, our nation's shortage of " available and affordable " child

care can be traced to what I call day scare throughout the 1980s and beyond:

baseless but frightening claims of mass molestations in day care. While

competent and caring group and home day care providers were reviled on

speculative suspicion, put out of business, some wrongly imprisoned,

liability insurance costs for the industry soared.

In the USA today I doubt there is any homeower's insurance policy which

does not very specifically exclude coverage for home day care.

Not only did child day care become almost instantly unaffordable as

high profile cases were exploited by media, not only did experienced and

loving childminders become targets of underserved scorn and worse, but never

harmed children grew up believing what they were told about their " day

scare "

experiences resulting in sadly warped " memories. " Expect some of them to

testify for tightened rules which, unless an inspector remains on site every

hour to ensure every child's wellbeing every second, relate almost always to

physical conditions of the childminding home.

Many of the best former childminders, those who were not investigated

and prosecuted in a rash of " protection " efforts, read the handwriting on

the

wall and abandoned their avocations and cottage careers in favor of,

frankly,

self-preservation.

Among three I knew personally were the following:

--Highly motivated and loving stay-at-home mother who accepted and

encouraged

handicapped children was unwilling to " agree " to " regulation " by agents of

the state she had watched dismantle both innocent families and never abusive

childminders because of mistaken and malicious allegations. Her

considerable

talents now are confined to paralegal employment in an attorney's office.

--Having a large home and educational enrichment equipment and toys for her

own children, another college-educated mother provided childminding for a

few

neighborhood children. Learning that her stair rails were a couple of

inches

too far apart to qualify her home as an approved site was her " last straw. "

--After years providing morning educational childminding for youngsters in a

small town, two bright mothers also looked at the physical requirements for

their preschool conducted in a church facility. Dealing with children and

parents was one thing. Having to satisfy contract inspectors of state

licensing and spending money they could never have expected to regain from

tuitions marked the end of an era in that town.

--Hosts of others, watching not so subtle advertising about " licensed "

childminders, also seeing home care invaded by third party contract license

inspectors with sometimes disastrous results, elected not to subject

everyone

who resided in their homes to criminal and child protection screenings

(tripled in cost in a decade) as well as increasingly expensive fire and

health inspections. Others bailed out when the price of accepting " free "

food for children of working welfare mothers translated to constructive

state

control of their residences (as also places of business).

Did the children cared for by bright, competent, and compassionate

friends and neighbors win or lose with expanded scrutiny and regulation?

Well, again, the kind of day care many parents want to choose

freely--in home care with only a couple of other children, but also very

large and well equipped child day care centers--is " unaffordable and

unavailable. "

Everyone wants children safe, healthy, and protected. Given that,

consider how much money goes to regulation which, in the end, will not

protect children from being children (occasional bumps and bruises) but may

prevent their creative maturing in the company of splendid " unregulated "

childminders.

Watching innocent childminders in America on trial (some wrongly

incarcerated) for mysterious deaths of babies--ones who have recently been

vaccinated or given medications not approved for use with children

(Propulsid/cisapride), as well as usual ignoring of genetic defects

presenting as " suffocation " or " poisoning " but these likelihoods rarely

examined--I cannot fathom childminding of any sort, including my still

imaginary grandchildren.

May I suggest for consideration of childminding registration and

regulation: look carefully and reasonably at proposals, particularly at who

and which groups stand to gain from implementing more and expensive

" regulation. "

In America for the most part it was larger profit-making franchise

and group day care providers (or their corporations) who " legally " squeezed

out the little guys by ensuring they could not afford--economically or

emotionally--to be " approved. "

Barbara

Barbara , NCADRC, Communications Director

National Child Abuse Defense & Resource Center

P.O. Box 8323, Roanoke, Virginia, USA 24014

540/345-1952; Fax 504/345-1899; BH@...

National Office: NCADRC, P.O. Box 638, Holland, Ohio, 43528 USA

( Hart, exec. dir.; Todd , volunteer office manager)

419/865-0513; Fax 419/865-0526; www.falseallegation.org

10th International Conference: Oct. 17-19, 2001 Reno, NV, USA

" Child Abuse Allegations in Court: Science & Reason vs. Myth & Emotion "