child care provider chores (starting new thread...)

I am starting a new thread since this has gone afield of the original. I
think some inferences were made on context by what folks may have meant so I
am going to clarify my position (I hope).

I don't have any issue with any parent who does not want their care provider
to drive their children.

My response was specifically around the posts in which I saw a sentiment
that if a person pays a provider to care for their child they should be
watching the child. Perhaps the strictness of the sentence was hyperbole in
response to the previous notition that one *must* drive while caring for a
child as with "carting my child around all day."

As a provider, it would have been a significant burden not to spend some of
the almost 11 1/2 hours a day the kids were in my care not addressing chores
related to the maintenance of the house that said care was happening in.
Even on those days later in my stint when I had only one child in my care,
it would not have made sense to spend every minute of those 10 hours
playing, reading, painting. We both would have gone bug eyed!

None of my clients ever objected if the small percent of time I spent
managing the house included something like laundry as opposed to meal
planning, or cooking the family dinner (lord knows it better not be more
complicated than mac n cheese) as many of the child care related chores
could not be done until the children had left. All this talk of driving,
even if I had had a car big enough for everyone, I would not have chosen to
take 8 to 10 children to the grocery store or hardware store or whatever! It
rather all works out in the end with no need to micromanage a provider's
time if you trust that your end goal and hers (most often) are the same;
excellent care, nurturing, activities, nutricion, environment for the
children in her care.

I figure I would clarify my meaning since I think there were many
assumptions of context and meaning that what we all really meant was getting
lost.

Cheers.

Stephanie

In article , Stephanie says...

I am starting a new thread since this has gone afield of the original.

I have an aesthetic problem with that.

You just broke up the nice, symmetrical, and neat " Driving in the car with
Grandma" headers in my newsreader! ):-(

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Stephanie
says...

I am starting a new thread since this has gone afield of the
original.

I have an aesthetic problem with that.

You just broke up the nice, symmetrical, and neat " Driving in the
car with Grandma" headers in my newsreader! ):-(

Banty

Oh man, you can't win. Many people LIKE it. Geez.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:20:56 -0400, "Stephanie"
wrote:

I am starting a new thread since this has gone afield of the original. I
think some inferences were made on context by what folks may have meant so I
am going to clarify my position (I hope).

I don't have any issue with any parent who does not want their care provider
to drive their children.

My response was specifically around the posts in which I saw a sentiment
that if a person pays a provider to care for their child they should be
watching the child. Perhaps the strictness of the sentence was hyperbole in
response to the previous notition that one *must* drive while caring for a
child as with "carting my child around all day."

No, it wasn't hyperbole. I never said a dcp must be glued to my child
every single minute, you simply took it to mean that. MY meaning is
that I'm not paying a dcp to run around town and do their personal
errands, I'm paying them to care for my child. In their home. I'm
not so narrow-sighted that I don't understand a dcp can't be glued to
my child, nor would I want them to be.

Nan

Nan wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:20:56 -0400, "Stephanie"
wrote:

I am starting a new thread since this has gone afield of the
original. I think some inferences were made on context by what folks
may have meant so I am going to clarify my position (I hope).

I don't have any issue with any parent who does not want their care
provider to drive their children.

My response was specifically around the posts in which I saw a
sentiment that if a person pays a provider to care for their child
they should be watching the child. Perhaps the strictness of the
sentence was hyperbole in response to the previous notition that one
*must* drive while caring for a child as with "carting my child
around all day."

No, it wasn't hyperbole. I never said a dcp must be glued to my child
every single minute, you simply took it to mean that.

Hmm. Maybe there is a difference in what you percieve those words to mean!

MY meaning is
that I'm not paying a dcp to run around town and do their personal
errands, I'm paying them to care for my child. In their home. I'm
not so narrow-sighted that I don't understand a dcp can't be glued to
my child, nor would I want them to be.

Nan

That is why I posted the clarification. Because I suspected we all agreed.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:03:49 -0400, "Stephanie"
wrote:

Nan wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:20:56 -0400, "Stephanie"
wrote:

I am starting a new thread since this has gone afield of the
original. I think some inferences were made on context by what folks
may have meant so I am going to clarify my position (I hope).

I don't have any issue with any parent who does not want their care
provider to drive their children.

My response was specifically around the posts in which I saw a
sentiment that if a person pays a provider to care for their child
they should be watching the child. Perhaps the strictness of the
sentence was hyperbole in response to the previous notition that one
*must* drive while caring for a child as with "carting my child
around all day."

No, it wasn't hyperbole. I never said a dcp must be glued to my child
every single minute, you simply took it to mean that.

Hmm. Maybe there is a difference in what you percieve those words to mean!

Perhaps. I tend not to assign too literal a definition. I know
what's in my head when I write it, but I know others can't possibly
know that.

Nan

In article , Stephanie says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Stephanie
says...

I am starting a new thread since this has gone afield of the
original.

I have an aesthetic problem with that.

You just broke up the nice, symmetrical, and neat " Driving in the
car with Grandma" headers in my newsreader! ):-(

Banty

Oh man, you can't win. Many people LIKE it. Geez.



kidding.
kidding.

:-) --- smiley

I woulda done a smiley but it would have gotten in the way of my evul frown

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Stephanie
says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Stephanie
says...

I am starting a new thread since this has gone afield of the
original.

I have an aesthetic problem with that.

You just broke up the nice, symmetrical, and neat " Driving in
the car with Grandma" headers in my newsreader! ):-(

Banty

Oh man, you can't win. Many people LIKE it. Geez.



kidding.
kidding.

:-) --- smiley

I woulda done a smiley but it would have gotten in the way of my evul
frown

Banty


I was joking around.

Nan wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:03:49 -0400, "Stephanie"
wrote:

Nan wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:20:56 -0400, "Stephanie"
wrote:

I am starting a new thread since this has gone afield of the
original. I think some inferences were made on context by what
folks may have meant so I am going to clarify my position (I hope).

I don't have any issue with any parent who does not want their care
provider to drive their children.

My response was specifically around the posts in which I saw a
sentiment that if a person pays a provider to care for their child
they should be watching the child. Perhaps the strictness of the
sentence was hyperbole in response to the previous notition that
one *must* drive while caring for a child as with "carting my child
around all day."

No, it wasn't hyperbole. I never said a dcp must be glued to my
child every single minute, you simply took it to mean that.

Hmm. Maybe there is a difference in what you percieve those words to
mean!

Perhaps. I tend not to assign too literal a definition. I know
what's in my head when I write it, but I know others can't possibly
know that.

Nan


I don that all the time. And then I think, they got THAT??!?

Stephanie wrote:
all works out in the end with no need to micromanage a provider's
time if you trust that your end goal and hers (most often) are the same;
excellent care, nurturing, activities, nutricion, environment for the
children in her care.

Stephanie



This is what I was after when I looked for care. I had a neighbor
provide care for my first two children. They, along with her own, were
the only two kids she watched - unless the other neighbor/her friend
came over to visit. I was happy that my children were in a 'typical'
environment during the day and I did not attempt to micromanage her
time. She also took them on errands.

If I had a relative watch my kids (not an option for me but
hypothetically) I would expect them to go on about their lives while
watching my kids. Much as I do when I am home with them. If I had to
spend 8hrs a day glued to my kid, not able to do a single chore, not
able to go anywhere, we'd all be crazy. I'm not sure why we would
expect others to do that.

If I was using a typical home daycare in my state (which has up to 12
kids w/one provider) I'd expect a little more 'nothing but watch the
child'. I wasn't really comfortable with those and never used them.
For the daycare center I used - I expected it to be staffed so that
someone was always watching the kids. I did not expect them to have
constant interaction though. They did go on trips but we signed waivers
and they were trips for the kids (not errands).

The only time I expect someone to pay 100% attention to my kids is if I
hire a teen babysitter for a few hours (I wish). In that circumstance I
don't trust them to multi-task and 3-4hrs of playtime once every couple
of weeks isn't crazy making.

I have anxiety regarding my babies just like any mother. I try to be
level headed. If I can clearly identify real dangers or reasons for
concern I act on them. If it is just some nebulous anxiety not based on
any real thing - I really try to make appropriate decisions based on
what meets everyone's needs.

--

Nikki, mama to 4 boys.