This is so sad. I feel so bad for the poor child that died. I would like to know more about what happened, even though the story doesn't give too many details.
http://m.thestar.com/#!/news/toddler...f6308ee2c2fb25
Printable View
This is so sad. I feel so bad for the poor child that died. I would like to know more about what happened, even though the story doesn't give too many details.
http://m.thestar.com/#!/news/toddler...f6308ee2c2fb25
27 children at the home? That's excessive for a birthday party... I really hope they weren't all dcks.
So sad.
Did you read some of this story? There were 27 children in the home at 5:25 in the evening?????? How does anyone drop their child off to a home where there was 27 children??????
I ask myself the same question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace of Angels
Poor sweet baby. :( I really want to know what happened. They are saying that they shut it down because of health and safety/food related issues? It says that they are awaiting the results of a pathogen test? Hm. So much strange in this story without any details.
I hate when stories like this hit the news. It paints all of us with a wide brush. Most of us do things the right way, but as soon as Average Joe hears unlicensed, this kind of story is brought up. I get it, but I wish it were different.
I was wondering if the child was eating something they were allergic to that no one knew about as that is what it sounded like in the sense of there seemed to be more emphasis on the food handling - think cross contamination than on the number of kids in the home.
I couldn't pull up the article. What happened?
I think the only good thing (if there can be any good at all) is that it doesn't seem that there was foul play here. One would assume that since foul play usually has outward signs that are pretty obvious that it was a horrific tragedy that just happened.
Poor kid.
But I do have to wonder.....can parents not COUNT? How loud is it with 27 kids in one house? I mean, I guess I find it hard to believe that the parents didn't know there were too many kids. At what point are the parents also responsible?
What a terrible story!!! That poor baby! I don't even know what to say about this. The family must be just be devastated.
Judy does raise a valid point, which I'm sure we're all thinking. 27 kids and the parents said nothing? And not that my home is a palace, but come on.....that house looks like it's poorly maintained just from outward appearances. It's the kind of place I'd bypass completely if I was looking for daycare. If they're that haphazard with first impressions, then what are they like when no-one's looking? I have to wonder how she got a daycare filled at all. What were the parents thinking?
Unfortunately, it's just one more incident to put a chink in our credibility as professionals. :( I so wish we could get licensing that is reasonable and will still allow us to earn a proper living. Then people like this provider would be out of the daycare pool completely.
Unfortunately, with the waitllists as they are in the city for both daycare and subsidy, not everyone can afford to bypass such types of daycares. It's sad, but sometimes, it's reality.
I think the main message is that if you can't afford quality care then having children is not an option. Think and plan for this before having kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandbox Sally
I was wondering about the house too, kinda looks abandoned. And look at all those garbage bags. And where would you put 27 kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by cfred
somthing doesn't sound right. It says the food inspectors where there before for another issue. Why would they go to the house unless something happened before. Maybe they were under a companie like wee watch but claimed unliscensed???
Were they actually operating a daycare centre as in several adult "teachers" and different kids in different rooms. That would account for the 27 kids and what parent is going to question if it is "licensed" when they walk in they just assume stuff like that potentially.
also the area looks like a subdivision, wouldn't the neighbours be annoyed by all the comings and going of 27 kids, the vehicles and where to park. I know my back up provider got called on when she started having lots of kids and the neighbours started to get annoyed with all the vehicles, she had 11 kids in her basement not including her own (they were at school)
I completely agree! Where were all the other parents? How can you NOT know that there are that many kids? A couple over I can see not knowing but how can you not have clued in?
I just saw the news this morning and apparently this SAME provider was busted back in Nov 2012 for being caught with a total of 7 kids.
I think this theory makes the most sense. Neighbours wouldn't bat an eyelid if they just assumed it was a centre operated out of a residential home. With so little information available all one can do is speculate but it doesn't really get us any closer to the truth. I think Playfelt has probably hit the nail on the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by playfelt
It also explains the food inspectors going in. momofnerds wrote...In a daycare centre, Health inspectors regularly go in and it has nothing to do with a "possible" situation, but just the standard annual inspection that is required. If an inspector goes in and other flags are raised, they would likely report it to their supervisor who would let the necessary department know. If they had been in previously and things were not legal, it would already have been shut down. Again really makes me think that this place was operating as a centre. It may have even been licensed and the reporting newspaper labelled it as unlicensed simply due to lack of information. We all know how the media likes to fill in the blanks any way they like.Quote:
It says the food inspectors where there before for another issue. Why would they go to the house unless something happened before.
I'd be interested in finding out the "true story" of what has gone down here. Aside from everything and regardless of the circumstances, it is a truly sad day for the child's family and my thoughts are with them.
And that was late into the day. There were most likely more kids that left before then. 50 arrivals and departures a day! Think about that. You would have to hire a full time receiver and get em out the door guy. My neighbors would flip with that kind of trafficQuote:
Originally Posted by momofnerds
"Unlicensed" to the media who does not understand the true meaning of the terms could simply have been used for a place that did not meet the requirements of licensing - ie not able to be licensed which we all know is not the same thing as those of us that are private unlicensed providers.
But it also says that she was busted last year for having 7 kids which makes me think its a home daycare and not a centre..... I would pull my hair out with 27 kids lol.....
I am not defending the provider in this situation, nor am I defending the parents. I am saying that not everyone has access to quality affordable child care. Not only do some not realize how much daycare can cost, many do not realize that in some geographical areas, you have to search for daycare a year before you plan on using it.Quote:
Originally Posted by daycarewhisperer
I hope you are kidding about not having children unless you are well off. In Toronto, home daycares charge $50 to $80 dollars a day. What does that mean for a mother who finds herself single? What if she has more than one child? Are you saying that only middle class and above should have children? I am an intelligent woman whose first child was unplanned. It's not ideal, but it happens. I could not afford daycare, and were it not for the generosity and kindness of family, I don't know how we would have made it that first year. On my current salary and only having one child, I would be paying more than half my earnings to daycare. Without subsidy, how would I feed myself and my child? How would I pay my electricity and rent? As it happens, I have three children, not one. It's really not as simple as, "if you can't afford quality child care, don't have kids". Really.
The reports are saying that this was an unlicenced daycare, so I don't think it was set up for inspections. As Judy said, at this point, it sounds like it might be a food cross-contamination/allergy situation.
I did read in one article that they've been investigated by the government in the past, but I think it stemmed from a complaint?
Did you seriously just say that? I'm well aware that this is my first post, but this board came up when I was googling for more news about this tragedy.Quote:
Originally Posted by daycarewhisperer
So really? What are the people who DIDN'T plan to get pregnant supposed to do? Starve to death trying to pay for care they can't afford. Subsidy lists are long and jobs can be scarce. Have you worked in this field long, because I pity the poor parents who come in contact with someone as judgmental as you. Do you make them sign paperwork that their children were planned before they can start with you? Because I am absolutely gobsmacked that you could even think that, let alone have the balls to post it on a message board.
Do you have any idea how many people you are offending? Do you even HAVE children? Or are you one of those people who knows that you'll be the perfect parent when you have children, even though you have NO IDEA what it's like to be there 24/7 for a little person.
I was kind of hoping that I'd found somewhere to hang around online when I found this board, but if people are going to let offensive, bigoted, prejudiced comments like this go without comment then this is obviously NOT the place for me.
You know (daycarewhisperer) I usually agree with you, but in this instance I don't. My child was not planned in the least...In fact I was on bc pills. When I got pregnant I had only been seeing my now husband for 3 months, I know you have at least one child because I have seen you post about him on Facebook. So I cannot believe you typed those words.
And guess what? We didn't have everything when he was born, but we tried our best...He went to a SAHM who charged $25.00/day, but she treated him kindly and he was happy there.
And even though we make over 100 K a year, would I be able to afford daycare now, no..sadly... (If I had to I would do something though I am sure---). And I have medical needs...Not because I don't love my kid, but because my husband is drowning in student debt that he had to accrue because his family didn't plan...yet they are very kind for the most part...
Would I change anything, not for the world, dealing with ds has made me more aware of the gaping holes in the system and the lack of support that exists when you are parenting and have a disability...(And I do not mean monetary)
Does the lack of "cash" make me a bad parent. no. Absolutely no.
I am shocked.
I think our governments are to blame because the amount of money people get on social assistance is astronomical .... And the more kids they have the more money they get... And if they work well that gets deducted from their cheque so why even work and if you do decide to work well they pay for daycare as well and prescriptions and rent, utilities, .... the lust goes on and on ....so on .... I know some people who are raising third generation welfare kids and then they kick out the boyfriend because they realize that as a single mom they get even more money and free babysitting every other weekend so they can go out and party .... There seriously needs to be something done about our social assistance program ... Like maybe you only get a fee ride for a year then pay for the life you created.
You have no idea how much I agree and can relate to this Crayola.... long before I had ds, I drew assistance for a bit, and they paid me more to stay home and do nothing, my rent was paid, my meds, my bus pass, my utility bills, my phone, and food and I got $1000.00 with that because I was a person who was disabled....
The social worker was surprised that I even wanted a job, but I pounded the pavement and worked as hard as I could, even if it meant 2 jobs, long hours and eating kd forever.... The social worker just couldn't fathom why I'd give "the comfort of the system up."
But here's the kicker I wanted to work....I hated the idea of someone paying for me...
Well, I have to agree with daycarewhisperer. It is not our Governments' job to subsidize the raising of our children, unplanned or planned.
Also, affording the cost of quality child care comes down to priorities, plain and simple. We all need to determine where the cost and quality of our child care ranks in our list of budget priorities. If it ranks lower than nice cars, iphones, designer clothes, vacations, etc... then it's not that you "can't afford" quality child care. It's that you choose not to, because you've prioritized other things above it.
Now excuse me while I go put on my armour and protective gear, because I realize I am likely about to get battered about by some of you, lol. It's ok, I can take it. :cool:
I agree with you to a point Jammies, not not all of us that had "oops babies" were driving a Lexus, playing with our i pads, and expecting help from the system..Heck when I was pregnant I shopped at sally ann, had a black and white tv, and took the bus.. And I didn't start demanding help from the system either.....We did the best with what we had...
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by playfelt
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.