Tragedy at a home daycare in Vaughan, ON

the article appeared on yahoo. I responded, I got tired of being called cheap. And many that responded had no idea what unlicensed daycare means.
Now this incident happened at 530pm, I have a feeling this was a daycare that also operated around the clock too, I wonder if she was charging hst too (anything that provided 24 hour care you must charge tax)
also if she was busted for 7 children then why would she have 27 children. I think there was something else there too.
and how can 27 parents be so nieve that they didn't realize so many kids, unless and I mean unless she was claiming herself as a daycamp---I wonder if there are other laws with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by playfelt

At the same time quality care means lots of different things to different people. A nice old lady who cuddles and plays with your child and charges just enough money to pay for the child's food and a treat for herself can still be quality care. It is all about the parents taking the time to find the right person. Paying more doesn't mean getting better care.

---

I agree with you, playfelt. Quality care is not necessarily dependent on being highest cost. But it's the job of the parents to seek out the type of care that they wish to have for their child, and monitor it that it remains safe and suitable to them, and also to pay for it. It's the notion that the Government (which is paid for by the rest of us, taxpayers) should subsidize child care that I disagree with. In certain low-income/single parent situations, a short term period of subsidy to re-train for adequate employment is warranted. But it's not the Government/taxpayers responsibility to pay the cost of having children. It's the child's parents' responsibility, and if that means re-prioritizing the budget to live within our means so as to be able to pay for child care, then that's what we do.

Jammies,

Here's the thing, a sensible gov't WILL subsidize quality child care because it is their responsibility to all of us. Eventually those kids grow up and I know that I want the person wiping my rear in the nursing home to have had quality education and caring from a very young age. The more the gov't puts in, the more we all get out. Statistics show this time and again.

And while yes, some people are just looking for the best 'deal' on childcare, as a rule parents want the best for their kids. For some that will mean keeping more money in the family account. I think education on the difference quality care can make is the way to go, not punishing parents.

I am wondering what those of you who think that you shouldn't procreate if you're poor expect people to do. I am going to, for a moment, disregard that you are being elitist for a moment, and focus on what someone should do, then.

It is not about expensive phones and fancy clothing coming before daycare, it's about paying for food and shelter and electricity. Do the math. You absolutely NEED a six figure income or two fairly decent incomes in order to afford child care. It is completely unrealistic to think that every family in Toronto is in that economical position.

And yeah, it kinda IS the government's responsibility to provide social programs for families. It's part of the reason we pay taxes. We are a society. We share certain mutual responsibilities, and part of that is ensuring that, as Twinklefae said, we take good care of the generation that will be in charge of caring for all of us in our old age.

Well I don't believe that I pay taxes so someone one welfare can walk around the town in their pajamma pants all days. Why should I bust my ass just to pay for someone else's kids? Really?? Not my responsibility ! my responsibility is to take care if the children I brought into this world. I don't think that's was what was meant when they say "it's takes a whole community to raise a child." But this is JMO and I know may others don't agree but our country is in a huge deficit and they need to cut back on the social assistance program and force these people out to work ..... i see help wanted signs and now hiring signs every where in my city. I believe if the social assistance program was not as lucrative as it is then people (teenagers/young adults) would think twice about bring a child into the world that they are clearly not prepared for.

Everyone plays their part in society so if everyone had the attitude of "not my responsibility" then the problem would only get worse. In order to prevent these types of problems in society we ALL have to play a part. Just the bad attitude towards people on welfare and shunning of these people makes the situation worse. Plus, don't begin to think you know what it is like to walk in someone's shoes just because you( not meaning anyone in particular) may have had your fair share of struggles and were fortunate enough to beat the odds. That person walking down the street in pj's labelled as a "bum" living off social welfare, taxpayers money, may have a degree, have owned a home and at one point experienced a traumatic event which made them lose control of their life resulting in mental health issues etc etc. This is the case so often. The young people " having children without thinking" may not be educated enough to make these decisions for themselves, have grown up in the same circumstances and were not able to break that cycle. To them it is the norm, and struggle is actually an easier concept for them to grasp as a lot of the times they don't think that things are any different. Their role models may be the adults who have done nothing else but live off social and have baby after baby. Each person plays a role and while the people making the mistakes must be accountable for their actions, just because you know something is not okay, doesn't mean you are either equipped with the knowledge to inflict change in your life, or are even able to make the change. Anyone with background in behavioural and developmental psychology knows that it is easier said than done. It's a process and without the resources readily and constantly available to people when needed, change will struggle to occur.

Don't kick a dog when it's down, don't do everything for a person so they are unable to care for themselves, teach them and they will learn to rely on themselves.....the problem is psychosocial development in the earliest stages of life are what build a strong productive human being or a rocky foundation which churns out people into early adulthood and beyond, ill equipped to make the correct choices for themselves and their children and who are not mentally capable of choosing a productive path to take.

I read somewhere once, " It's easier to build up a child than it is to repair an adult. Chose your words wisely." So true....criticism is not productive and is actually a big part of the problem. Positive reinforcement is what tends to incur change in societies not negative reinforcement. Everyone knows that if you tell someone they are a bum for long enough they will eventually believe themselves at which point, damage is done and there really is no incentive for change.

I am not saying that what happened is okay by any means, or that people should not be held accountable or pay for their crimes. What I am saying that wagging our finger at certain people does not help the situation in the slightest, it makes it worse.

I agree with you, Crayola. I believe in short-term safety net type of programs for people to re-train for the workforce and/or acquire a better paying job to support themselves and their families, but it's not my responsibility nor the rest of the taxpayers, to subsidize anyone else's choice to have a family.

I believe that if you cannot afford to have a child and pay for their care and upbringing easily, then either don't have any, or in the case of unplanned children, then the solution is to pare your budget down to basics, move from an area if the cost of living is more suited to people with incomes higher than yours, etc... NOT to expect the Gov't to support you. The belief that taxpayers owe everyone a living, and endless social programs to make everyone's standard of living "equal", is called socialism. And yes, some believe strongly in that model of society, but many others do not. We believe in personal responsibility. Dr. Phil uses a quote that sums it up somewhat crudely but effectively: "Ya eat what ya kill".

In my opinion, the more important "mutual responsibility" we share as a society is to educate and encourage people to support themselves and their families, and to discourage reliance on "everyone else" to subsidize their lives and their choices. Having children is a responsibility. And no, having children if you're poor and unable to care for them is not "responsible", nor is it a "right". If one finds themselves in that position, with an unplanned child and insufficient income, the responsible thing to do is use short-term assistance if necessary to upgrade yourself and your options, not whine to the taxpayer to permanently fill in where you're deficient.

Also, just to be clear: I am NOT saying people who aren't well-off shouldn't have children. My parents and many of their friends, relatives, etc were not well-off when they had their children, but they did the best they could with what they had... they didn't rely on the Gov't and taxpayers to fill in those gaps.

Children can be raised very well on limited means... it's all in what you prioritize.