DHS threatens mom with jail, fines, for watching neighbors' kids
This is one of those stories that sparks instant outrage. A mom in Middleville, Mich., helps out two other neighborhood moms by watching their kids for a little while in the mornings before school. The bus stop is at her house, and she lets the kids inside to wait so that their parents can get to work on time. She's not being compensated.
All was well, until the Department of Human Services stepped in.
[O]n Sept. 11, Snyder got a letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS) telling her that someone — presumably another neighbor — had complained that she was running an illegal day care center. Snyder was told that she had to either get a license to run such a service, or face fines and up to 90 days in jail.The law, which dates back to 1973, says that anyone who watches an unrelated person’s child for a period of 28 days a year is running a day care center and has to have a license. It doesn’t matter if the child is being watched for five minutes a day or five hours.
According to the story, Snyder called the DHS to get further clarification, asking questions like "What if it's raining or snowing? Can't I let the kids wait for the bus in my house?"
A DHS employee told her the other parents should "buy an umbrella."
This is an abdication of common sense. Yes, the law is supposed to protect children from unlicensed day cares. But it's not meant for situations like this.
Thankfully, state Rep. Brian Calley, R-Portland, is working to change the law. Providing a refreshing bit of sanity to the article, Calley told Today:
“I understand the idea of regulating a business in that way, but when friends are helping friends, I think parents are in much better position to determine what’s safe for their kids than the Department of Human Services,” Calley replied. “There’s no amount of testing or interviews or applications that somebody could fill out and send them to the Department of Human Services that would make them more capable of determining a safe environment for kids than the parents themselves.”
Jen Eyer is on the Community Team at AnnArbor.com. She can be reached at 734-623-2577 or jeneyer@annarbor.com, or you can visit her at 301 East Liberty.
Comments
amlive
Tue, Sep 29, 2009 : 10:34 p.m.
"Who says that DHS employess (unlike police officers) are not permitted to use any discretion or let common sense get in the way of strict rule-following? Where is the 'no discretion for the DHS' rule written?" This is dictated simply by the fact that they are not lawmakers or judges. Their obligation is to enforce the rules, and penalize those who break them. They don't have to go seek out every violation, but if one is reported to them it would amount to an intentional act of protest, or dereliction of duty if you will, to refuse to investigate and apply the law as it is written. This may be an honorable thing to do, but could certainly put the person who chose to do so in hot water should the rotten bitter neighbor who originally reported it find out. Or if by some remote chance something bad happened to one of the kids there, and the DHS had known there was a legal violation and neglected to do anything about it, the State could be held liable. The parent of the injured child could very well go on a frivolous money-grab lawsuit of the State, and possibly win. I know, it's a one in a billion chance that any legal action would come to the state, but they would still rather just follow the law than risk it. It's the same reason a building inspector, even if they know a business's emergency lights make the place bright as day, if they read low in a corner, and someone was ever injured in a blackout there, and it was on record that they ignored it, they would be in deep doo-doo. It's silly, yes, but the law gets that way sometimes. The correct thing to do of course is to reword the law to more clearly apply only to child care businesses, it which point the State has no stake in the matter, and all is well. The DHS simply has a job to do, and does not have the ability to arbitrarily pick and choose how and where the laws are applied. While allowing this may certainly help avoid situations like this, it also opens a great many more doors for corruption, unequal justice, and perhaps most importantly, inconsistent control and regulation of child care facilities. That's their job though. They apply the law as it is written, and if it's written in a way that inadvertently crosses to regulate cases it was not intended for (as is the case here), then it's up to our judges to interpret the intent the law, or the legislators to change it. The DHS just reads the rules and applies them. I'm happy to see that this is exactly what seems to be happening here, and Calley's move to expedite the change actually makes me a bit proud that our government is fixing the problem now that it came up.
mw
Tue, Sep 29, 2009 : 4:33 p.m.
Still, I assume that the people of DHS feel as though their hands are tied. When they receive a complaint (however bitter and erroneous it may be), and it technically meets the criteria of violating the law (however poorly the law is written), they have little choice other than to follow up and enforce the law. Who says that DHS employess (unlike police officers) are not permitted to use any discretion or let common sense get in the way of strict rule-following? Where is the 'no discretion for the DHS' rule written?
halflight
Tue, Sep 29, 2009 : 4 p.m.
In defense of the DHS, its role is to enforce the law, not make it. In order to regulate childcare businesses (absolutely necessary, given the security concerns), the state has to define what constitutes regulated childcare. No definition is perfect, and this statutory definition of "childcare" is overbroad and (perhaps erroneously) includes children waiting at a neighbor's house for the school bus. The DHS must enforce the law as it is written, even if the individual social worker thinks the law is stupid. A DHS worker isn't free to ignore the law, and arguing with him or her about it is pointless.. Don't blame the DHS and harass someone for doing a rather thankless job. Ask your legislator to amend the law with a better definition of daycare.
amlive
Tue, Sep 29, 2009 : 3:17 p.m.
Hopefully the comments here will stay a bit more civilized than they have in the Mlive/Grand Rapids Press articles. Obviously this is a law that was not intended to be used for situations like this, but more for the absolutely necessary regulation and monitoring of day care facilities in order to protect our children from dangers and neglect. Obviously the law was not written very well however, as proven by it's unintended application in cases like this. Still, I assume that the people of DHS feel as though their hands are tied. When they receive a complaint (however bitter and erroneous it may be), and it technically meets the criteria of violating the law (however poorly the law is written), they have little choice other than to follow up and enforce the law. It may seem common sense to allow them to use a bit more discrimination, but if they were allowed to pick and choose this could open the doors for all sorts of other problems. So yes, this is a very unfair and unfortunate situation, and seeing as how it's not come up often before it seems clear that the lawmakers did not intend nor foresee it's application in this manner. To look on the bright side though, the fact that Rep. Calley has taken the initiative to make sure the law is corrected to be more reasonable to it's intentions, is a rare case that shows the government working the way it should. To think that all laws could be written perfectly is of course a pipe dream, but I would say it's encouraging and positive to see legislators taking quick action to correct these problems as they become apparent. Rep. Calley, Bravo! I still probably wouldn't vote for you if I were in your district, but actions like this deserve to be commended none the less. As to the DHS representative quoted in the article, I'd say they should be the one going to buy an umbrella, for those rainy days in the unemployment line. If the State is having to make cutbacks, this person should be at the top of the list. P.S. - I'm in violation of the law right now, or at least my daughter's friend's parents are. I'd better go pick her up until this mess gets straightened out.
Sue Talbert
Tue, Sep 29, 2009 : 12:08 p.m.
I'm appalled to think that by swapping kid-watching with other mom-friends that I've been violating the law! What sort of backwards world is this when we can't do favours for each other as parents? At what point did DHS abdicate common sense? And what sort of employee thinks telling someone to "buy an umbrella" is appropriate? To me, this is an clear-cut example of following the letter of the law (without compassion) vs. following the spirit of the law. I sincerely hope Rep. Calley gets the law amended to exclude parents doing favours for each other.