If demand is not high in your area, I can understand holding the spot. I would still be advertising the spot and filling it with another child for the year prior to them starting keeping mind that they would need to turn 2 by the time your sibling starts so they can move up into the over two age group and keep your ratios in check. The other child, my understanding it was either 3 days or nothing resulting in having low enrollment, I am assuming this is why you went for that agreement rather than what you did with the other family.

My advice to you is to not feel too guilty and take this as a learning experience. It is easier to stick to a strict policy when you are full or in high demand, but when enrollment is low, inquiries are slow and money is down, I can see why some people would make exceptions. That is my interpretation of what has happened here.

Am I also correct in thinking that the families are actually not paying anything for the actual spot, simply agreeing to a minimum enrollment/attendance for the older child while the mum is on maternity leave? I have a requirement that the family pays a non-refundable deposit for the new baby and their current child stays enrolled full time. Given the amount of notice I have when finding out a parent is pregnant and when they require care, I have a discussion with the parents asap and get a signed contract for the new baby to start at the 12-month mark. I fill this spot with a child who will turn two if there is a two-year-old spot open for them to move into at that time. It is tricky to make work, but the issue isn't the under 2 spot for me as I can always fill them. what my issue is, is that I don't want to lose the over two children. Those spots are really hard to fill I find unless it is a pair of siblings returning from maternity leave, which obviously requires an under 2 spot too, or a child already in my care turning 2.

I have just been through it but with baby number 3. If I didn't hold a spot, she would have pulled both her kids over the age of 2 from my care while on maternity leave. The eldest child just started kindergarten so, in reality, she didn't need to hold the spot for him, but I made it mandatory for her to keep both kids in full-time care if she wanted me to guarantee a spot for number 3 in May. I am now at 4 kids by my choice even though I have an under 2 spot open so that in May I am able to take number 3. She didn't pay for that spot, but she did pay full-time daycare fees for two siblings for 4 months. $3600 of unnecessary cost to her, and spots I would have struggled to fill.

You have these agreements in place now so I wouldn't reduce the other one for the parent paying full time. They are getting the service they are paying for and a guaranteed spot held for a year. Not many people would do that.