Gov't nuttiness in the news, along with its self-correction...
IRVING TOWNSHIP, Mich. – Each day before the school bus comes to pick up the neighborhood's children, Lisa Snyder did a favor for three of her fellow moms, welcoming their children into her home for about an hour before they left for school.
Regulators who oversee child care, however, don't see it as charity. Days after the start of the new school year, Snyder received a letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services warning her that if she continued, she'd be violating a law aimed at the operators of unlicensed day care centers...
Snyder's predicament has led to a debate in Michigan about whether a law that says no one may care for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are licensed day-care providers needs to be changed. It also has irked parents who say they depend on such friendly offers to help them balance work and family...
On Tuesday, agency Director Ismael Ahmed said good neighbors should be allowed to help each other ensure their children are safe. Gov. Jennifer Granholm instructed Ahmed to work with the state Legislature to change the law, he said.
story
Of course, this is an example of gov't over-reach and I would not be surprised to hear about it on conservative blogs here soon. The thing is, I would imagine nearly everyone agrees that it's too much gov't intervention and it is a result of a well-intentioned but poorly-written law. It sounds that law is even now being rewritten.
That is, the problem has corrected itself. As it should. Our republic has, once again, worked itself out, as it does tend to do, given time. So, no need to start stocking up on more bullets and guns - we're not going commie just yet...
13 comments:
"Our republic has, once again, worked itself out, as it does tend to do, given time. So, no need to start stocking up on more bullets and guns - we're not going commie just yet..."
You're assuming those people can think rationally. All the available evidence says they cannot.
Hey, if I think that terrorists can be reasoned with, I have no problem assuming that conservatives can be...
Yes, lots of convervative and libertarian blogs are talking about this issue.
It's noteworthy that state officials think that the law shouldn't apply here, but they say that they have an obligation to enforce the law regardless. In the past decade, the idea that mens rea -- criminal intent -- is necessary in order to be prosecuted, has greatly eroded. This case is a good example.
From the story cited:
Snyder learned that the agency was responding to a neighbor's complaint.
Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said the agency was following standard procedure in its response. "But we feel this (law) really gets in the way of common sense," Boyd said.
"We want to protect kids, but the law needs to be reasonable," she said. "When the governor learned of this, she acted quickly and called the director personally to ask him to intervene."
It also mentioned that the lady stopped watching the children after getting the letter and calling to try to explain.
If it were me, I'd continue and let them try to prosecute.
I'd predict:
1. They would not be fined or prosecuted.
2. If they were, it would not stand.
First, I think Dan is right, in general. This is an instance of a poorly-worded and poorly interpreted law being enforced without a consideration of all the facts at hand. That the state should clarify the issue goes without saying, as it seems to be doing.
Second, I also agree with Dan that the woman should allow herself to be prosecuted, challenging the specifics of the law as the state attempted to apply them in her case. Such judicial clarification is necessary in untested laws. It's all part of the process.
Finally, I do question the judgment of someone allowing children not his or her own in to his or her home, without specific consent of the parents. I would not allow my children to do so without my permission, and without meeting the person in question. While the folks here in our cul-de-sac are without blemish, who can really say for sure, right?
"Snyder learned that the agency was responding to a neighbor's complaint."
I wondered how the authorities even knew about this is the first place. Now I know. Some busybody.
Why in the world would anyone complain about this?
That's one of the things I was wondering, too. Okay, so it's early in the morning and you notice your neighbor has a bunch of kids at their house waiting for the school bus. What would cause you to call it in?
I mean, presumably the neighbor did not call in to say, "My neighbor is running an unauthorized daycare," did she?
I wonder if there's part of the story missing here?
Unless the neighbor is bothered by the wonderful sounds of children playing.
I don't know. I'd find comfort in the fact that someone was watching my neighborhood kids while waiting for the bus.
Yeah, I'd like to know why the neighbor called to complain.
Never underestimate the deep need many people have to be a busybody, fusspot, tattletale and scold.
But to tattle on what? You know what I'm saying? So, here's this neighbor and she sees these kids next door waiting for a bus and she does, what?
Call the police? Call the Health department, CPS, who?
And for what? That's what I'm not getting - what would possess her to call someone and who would she possibly call? I mean, I'm fairly informed about kid stuff and I've known the people responsible for monitoring Day care services, in the past, but right now, right off the top of my head, I couldn't name that agency.
(Of course, that is probably more about the sad state of my memory than anything else...)
I am neither a busybody, a fusspot, a nosy-nellie, nor any of these other things. Before I picked up the phone, I would, however, visit this woman's house, check out what was happening, and decide for myself as a parent whether or not anything fishy is going on. It's a sad commentary, but also realistic, that even the most wonderful and neighborly neighbor could be a child predator, and use something like this as an "in".
Never underestimate the deep need many people have to be a busybody, fusspot, tattletale and scold.
Truer words were never typed.
"That's what I'm not getting - what would possess her to call someone..."
That's it. There is no "why". It's the nature of the busybody to BE a busybody, just like it's the nature of a scorpion to sting. There's no reason to it.
You've been visiting the blogs of the wing-nut-o-sphere long enough, Dan, you haven't figured that out by now? :)
Post a Comment