cjra wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2:41 pm, "Stephanie" <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> cjra wrote:
>
>>
>>> I think it's clear that the provider and the client need to discuss
>>> expectations in advance, and stick with them. If one is not happy
>>> with the options, one looks elsewhere.
>>
>> You know what winds up troublesome is the cases in which the
>> provider has the same goal as you describe, money. Without the other
>> goal, they may be motivate to twist the truth. That is where I feel
>> the interview process and a good gut instinct for truth stretching
>> goes a long way. I did not have that at first, and the kids suffered.
>
> Just for the record - I know the DCP needs to earn and income, and I
> am willing to pay what they request. I know they have to work hard -
> it's not a job I would choose. Income is always part of the end goal
> for just about everyone. The problem comes when it's the *only* goal.
Yes that is also what I meant.
> I understand a young mom's desire to stay home with her kids, but I do
> think a lot of SAHMs go into being DCPs thinking it's the perfect
> thing : stay home with kids, make money, without recognizing the
> demands of the position.
>
Amen.
> This particular DCP was really nice, had provided daycare for a few
> years already, and generally we felt good about the situation. It was
> only after some time when the issue of going on errands started coming
> up that I started having concerns. over time it got worse, as her
> focus ****fted to her home/personal requirements and not to her job. I
> am sure there are plenty of SAHM DCPs who recognize the professional
> aspect of the position they've created, but I've known a few like this
> one.
>
> That is why, when someone says they want to take my kid to the bank,
> grocery shopping, etc, I will bristle. That's *not* what I'm paying
> them to do. No, they don't have to be glued to my kid all day. They do
> have to recognize that caring for a child requires their continued
> attention, however, and personal errands have to be put on hold.
>
That is what I meant by our getting carried away with our hyperbole! I
kind
of thought we did not actually disagree.
> I'm not opposed to caring for a child on an occasional basis, with
> prior agreement about what that would involve. And I'd happily let
> certain people care for DD on an occasional basis, but that's
> different from a DCP, which family or not, I would consider a
> professional relation****p.
|
