A baby died in daycare. "Culture demanded" mum go back to work.

[mustachepungoeshere]

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/a-baby-dies-at-day-care-and-a-mother-asks-why-she-had-to-leave-him-so-soon/

This is a tragedy.

There are still a lot of questions around what happened, and I hope this doesn't prompt criticism of the daycare centre itself or this mum's financial decisions.

But it is a heartbreaking look at employment, parental leave, health insurance, and our priorities as a society.

What this article is about is that my infant died in the care of a stranger, when he should have been with me. Our culture demanded it.

[obstinate]

This is so terribly sad. SIDS is a scary thing.

I'm comfortable with our decision to send my son to daycare, though. All the women who work there are first-aid trained and have much more experience with infants than we do. Babies die at home, too, and if he were napping at home, likely no one would have even seen him kicking (one does not tend to enter a room where a baby is sleeping). Also, our daycare is licensed and doesn't exceed the state ratios, but it doesn't seem terribly likely that that was a causal factor in this case.

Life is risk. We do our best to manage the risks, but sometimes, shit happens.

[arebelspy]

..and now I'm paranoid this will happen to my infant.

How terrible.

Totally agree with the article, our maternity leave in the U.S. is shameful.   We need to take our cue from Germany and other EU countries that give 12 mo. paid leave (or thereabouts).

[justajane]

So so tragic.

After each of my kids' birth I went down the rabbit hole of researching SIDS, and while extremely rare, the likelihood of your child dying from SIDS is higher at daycare. And usually when it happens it happens in the first week or so after the baby enters the facility. The likely reason for this is a change in sleep positioning. In the NY Times case, it appears that the baby was placed on the side.

In 2008, I remember overhearing the workers at our part-time facility talking about a recent class they were supposed to attend. One remarked about how "did you know you're supposed to place babies only on their backs now?" The Back to Sleep Campaign started in 1992! I think we just assume, especially as newbie parents, that those professionals who we pay to care for our kids know more than us. They likely do about how to soothe a baby, but especially if they are older grandmother types like the ones that are in our facility, they aren't abreast of the most recent recommendations.

We had an extremely tragic case here in my town in which a very well respected licensed daycare used a weighted blanket on a baby under one year old. The baby was placed on his stomach, which wasn't the problem, since the baby had been sleeping that way his whole life. But the weighted blanket placed over the lower half of his body in combination with his being on his stomach likely led to his death. But because of the way SIDS works, it was never conclusive. The facility was not shut down or affected by the case.

I'm sure there are parents on here who successfully have their babies sleep on their tummies. I'm not saying that is the problem (although I could never do it). The problem is when your child is used to sleeping one way and is placed by a caregiver in an entirely different way.

[driftwood]

Totally agree with the article, our maternity leave in the U.S. is shameful.   We need to take our cue from Germany and other EU countries that give 12 mo. paid leave (or thereabouts).

Wouldn't it be better to live in a way where you didn't have to work if you wanted to stay home with your children?  Isn't that the point of MMM?

If you were to start a business today, how many employees are you willing to hire and pay for a year, and them be allowed to not come to work?  I could see a large corporation being able to afford it for a small percentage of employees, but a small business?  What if I'm self employed?  Who pays me to not work for 12 months after having a child?  The government?(= taxes money = someone else paying for it)  The only reason we think we need that much paid maternity leave is because we've developed a system that leads to both parents working full-time. 

Let's work towards situations where we have the freedom in life to be able to not work when important life events come up.

[arebelspy]

Totally agree with the article, our maternity leave in the U.S. is shameful.   We need to take our cue from Germany and other EU countries that give 12 mo. paid leave (or thereabouts).

Wouldn't it be better to live in a way where you didn't have to work if you wanted to stay home with your children?  Isn't that the point of MMM?

I don't think that's realistic for the majority of the population, yet (and it may be a LONG time, with structural changes to society, before it is), but in the meantime, yes, we should have respect for women and mothers (and fathers).

If you were to start a business today, how many employees are you willing to hire and pay for a year, and them be allowed to not come to work?  I could see a large corporation being able to afford it for a small percentage of employees, but a small business?  What if I'm self employed?  Who pays me to not work for 12 months after having a child?  The government?(= taxes money = someone else paying for it)  The only reason we think we need that much paid maternity leave is because we've developed a system that leads to both parents working full-time. 

Yes, the government via taxes, not the business owner.  Someone else isn't paying for it, we all are, as part of a society.

[driftwood]

Yes, the government via taxes, not the business owner.  Someone else isn't paying for it, we all are, as part of a society.

I'm only willing to pay for one person to not work for a year (or however long she chooses) after having kids... my wife.  I think we already pay for a ton of benefits for others that shouldn't be paid, and that are part of a hugely abused welfare system.

[arebelspy]

I clearly disagree, but I won't post about it anymore--this is not the thread.

[elaine amj]

In Canada, if you have paid into Employment Insurance (http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/types/maternity_parental.shtml), you can apply for EI and receive up to 55% of your average insurable income while on leave. Part of the criteria is that you have to have accumulated at least 600 hours of insurable employment during the qualifying period. So you've paid for the "insurance".

The business owner's responsibility is to maintain an employee's benefits, seniority, etc and keep the same/comparable job for the employee for up to a year. These leaves are unpaid (although employers also pay into EI for each employee).

I like the system.

I should add that I started having babies very early on in our married lives. I didn't meet EI eligibility requirements (no job) so I was never able to qualify for EI or get any of the benefits, DH worked in the US so no EI benefits there either. We did it the old-fashioned American way - DH earned enough to support our family. We lived frugally and I was able to stay home.

[hunniebun]

While the Canadian system isn't perfect, it is pretty darn good compared to our neighbours to the south. It should be noted that it is 55% of your income up to a maximum that works out to about 1000$ every two weeks.  Many employers also top up this amount for some or part of the year as well. As a public servant I received 97% of my income for an an entire year. It was dreamy. I was also able to take an additional 6 months after each child without pay and keep my position.  This story is heart wrenching and I am heartbroken for the parents.   I think it is fair to ask the questions she is asking.  I think it is also depressing that the only real item 'forcing' her hand back to work was health insurance, which appears to be another shortcoming of the American system.

[MandalayVA]

At least the writer acknowledges that twelve weeks of paid maternity leave is considered more than generous in the corporate world.  At Ginormocorp all women get is the FMLA leave unless they pay for short-term disability insurance, which few do.  I've seen women come back two weeks after giving birth because they couldn't afford to take any more time off. 

[justajane]

I was intrigued by several of the comments from Europeans or Americans living in Europe. While the system there is preferable, that doesn't mean it isn't without its problems. For instance, several female commentors talked about how hard it was for them to get good employment in Germany in large part because they were women of child-bearing age and companies wanted to avoid having to provide the legally mandated time off. And apparently they were asked forthright questions about their family plans, which would be illegal here. And just because they offer three years of leave doesn't mean that women feel like they are able career-wise to take that long.

Still it would be nice to have the choice.

[partgypsy]

I also agree that the US is strange among civilized countries to see it as "the mom's" problem. I agree with arebelspy, making sure babies are cared for, especially the first critical 6-12 months is a societal responsibility, and a primary parent is the best person that first year. Taxes could be structured in the US that there is more family or maternal leave; maybe not a year but say instead of 12 weeks unpaid, 4 months paid? When I had my first child it was made known by my boss taking 12 weeks was a risky proposition. I proposed 8 weeks. They lost the records of my annual leave (I had taken very little) so even taking 8 weeks would not be covered by my sick and annual leave so I had to take it as part-time.  My decision to have a child was ultimately the end of my job and nascent career, not of my choice. My example may be extreme but I feel many women in career type positions experience similar discrimination to a lesser or greater degree.
Oh and Justajane just because it is illegal doesn't mean employers don't ask about your plans or try to find out. My former boss repeatedly asked me. My stock answer was "not at this time" (which I interpreted, not at this exact moment) but then would get regaled by stories how her daughter hates working with women who get pregnant because everyone around them has to carry their load for them and how it is unfair to everyone else. I found out from another coworker the boss asked him if he knew what my plans were (we were friends).   

[arebelspy]

making sure babies are cared for, especially the first critical 6-12 months is a societal responsibility, and a primary parent is the best person that first year.

That's a good way to put it.

[golden1]

This is truly heartbreaking.  I do agree that our current culture surrounding child rearing and nurturing is very broken. 

Throughout history, extended families have lived together and provided for each other and through alloparenting have spread out the financial and emotional difficulties and stresses of raising children to the extended family or local community.  The nuclear two parent working family has broken all of those societal and financial backstops and supports that we are supposed to have to raise children and now each individual two parent family (or often one parent) has the entire burden of caring for their children.  It isn't the way it is supposed to be and it just feels wrong to many parents to hand over their babies to strangers to care for.  (I know not all parents feel this way, but many do.)

I was fortunate to be in a position to be able to stay home with my children while they were young.  I did sacrifice a lot to do it, but I don't regret it.  I had a spouse with good insurance plus some inheritance money that allowed me to stay home while getting an education so that I could return to work after a long gap.

I really feel like by modelling the ideal career around 40 years of straight work without a break we are really doing society a disservice.  Are we really getting the best work out of people when we know they are torn up by not being able to be there for their child?  Even for men, does it make sense for men to work continuously without a break for years and years and expect maximum productivity? 

[daverobev]

I was intrigued by several of the comments from Europeans or Americans living in Europe. While the system there is preferable, that doesn't mean it isn't without its problems. For instance, several female commentors talked about how hard it was for them to get good employment in Germany in large part because they were women of child-bearing age and companies wanted to avoid having to provide the legally mandated time off. And apparently they were asked forthright questions about their family plans, which would be illegal here. And just because they offer three years of leave doesn't mean that women feel like they are able career-wise to take that long.

Still it would be nice to have the choice.

In the UK at least, a prospective employer is not allowed to ask questions regarding family and so on. And while I do have sympathy, especially with small companies, that have key employees take time off to have children... the fact is that procreation caused you. Most organisations get this. Anyone asking questions like you mentioned should be reported. I assume the law is similar in DE.

As to the American system... as with so many things, this is one of those where the rest of the world looks on and goes... WTF, America? 2 weeks vacation is bad enough, two weeks maternity is a fucking disgrace.

[Tjat]

Well, as the father of a 4 month old, this article was effectively terrifying...

[obstinate]

Your kid could die in his sleep for no reason. It's just one of the many terrors of raising a little one. The odds of this happening to you are tiny. Don't stress about it too much. Far more likely that the whole family dies in a car accident. So drive less and try not to worry too much about SIDS.

[coppertop]

This is a terrible story and I feel horrible for the author and her husband. 

However, please know that doctors' advice about how to care for babies changes frequently.  My kids are now in their 30s.  We were taught to put our babies on their tummies because if they vomited, they might aspirate the material into their lungs if they were on their backs.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the advice change again in ten years or so. 

We were also told to put baby oil on our babies' heads to prevent cradle cap and to use baby powder on their bottoms when changing their diapers.  Virtually no one does either thing now.  Times change.  Practices change.  My mother was taught to feed us Karo syrup and water in between feedings and to mash egg yolk in Similac and feed it to us from a spoon at a few months old.  Mothers of my generation were told never to do either. 

Most babies do fine no matter what.  Chances are that baby Karl had something wrong with him and that it had nothing to do with his sleep position.  It's quite sad and my heart aches for them.

Culturally, our country has gotten to the point where young couples want to start out with the same amenities their parents had, despite student loans and other financial pressures, so the mothers have to work for financial reasons.  My daughter cried all day the first day of work after her daughter was born.  It isn't natural for mothers to be separated from their infants at such an early stage.  There are hormones at play here.

[golden1]

Yeah, I remember having some pains (that turned out to be nothing) during my first pregnancy and talking to my OB about how I couldn't stand the worry and stress.  She looked me in the the eye and said, "It gets a whole lot worse.  Wait until the kid is outside your body." 

I hate to break it to you new parents but the anxiety never ends folks, the stressors just change from year to year.

[justajane]

Chances are that baby Karl had something wrong with him and that it had nothing to do with his sleep position. 

Then why is the rate of SIDS death disproportionately higher in daycare settings, especially in the first few days or the first week of a child's attendance at daycare? It's most likely because they are placed in a sleep position that the parents haven't previously used. Also, the number of cases of SIDS has gone down dramatically since the Back to Sleep campaign started. Correlation or causation? I'm guessing it is likely the latter.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10920154

I agree that we shouldn't overly stress about these things, but it's important to be informed and to search for answers in order to reduce the number of families that have to live through the agony that Karl's parents are experiencing. And parents should speak with the daycare about safe sleep practices and be sure what their protocols are.

[coppertop]

The back position may be safer and preferred, and I have no argument with it, but I do not personally believe that healthy infants die of SIDS.  There is some underlying problem with the child's health that science has not yet discovered.  Millions upon millions of infants have survived for centuries despite being placed on their stomachs to sleep.  There is something yet to be learned that we just don't know.  It's tragic.

[justajane]

The back position may be safer and preferred, and I have no argument with it, but I do not personally believe that healthy infants die of SIDS.  There is some underlying problem with the child's health that science has not yet discovered.  Millions upon millions of infants have survived for centuries despite being placed on their stomachs to sleep.  There is something yet to be learned that we just don't know.  It's tragic.

I agree. I think you can believe both at the same time. In other words, tummy sleeping is fine for 99% of babies, but 1% have some sort of unknown abnormality that means that being placed on their tummies puts them more at risk. There are lots of theories having to do with brain issues like low melatonin (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2335331) or other things. But the gist is that some babies have undiagnosed abnormalities. Some of these will die, but hopefully some won't if they are placed on the backs instead of their stomachs.

Shame on her for cheapening the death of her baby with her politics.

I don't agree with this. I tend to not judge how grieving parents grieve. If it helps them to rally around a cause they believe in, who am I to judge? It's pretty harsh to say they are cheapening the death of their dead baby.

[cats]

While the Canadian system isn't perfect, it is pretty darn good compared to our neighbours to the south. It should be noted that it is 55% of your income up to a maximum that works out to about 1000$ every two weeks.  Many employers also top up this amount for some or part of the year as well. As a public servant I received 97% of my income for an an entire year. It was dreamy. I was also able to take an additional 6 months after each child without pay and keep my position.  This story is heart wrenching and I am heartbroken for the parents.   I think it is fair to ask the questions she is asking.  I think it is also depressing that the only real item 'forcing' her hand back to work was health insurance, which appears to be another shortcoming of the American system.

That was the part that really depressed me also.

Some of the comments on the piece were pretty head scratching though.  I recall one where a woman had decided to become the SAHP, but it sounded like her husband had the "lesser" or worse job in terms of both pay and benefits.  I did wonder why the heck the husband wasn't the one staying home in a case like that--I would have thought it was a no-brainer, unless the husband thought it was not necessary to have a SAHP and the wife thought it was vital and decided to just quit her job unilaterally (in which case I have to wonder about the state of their marriage).

Also, it's not mentioned in this article, but in other news coverage it is mentioned that the daycare was not licensed. Not sure what the staff:child ratios or training were like but the lack of licensing is (to me) a pretty big red flag.  It does sound like the parents may not have been aware and I guess if it's your first child and friends recommend a place you may not know to ask that question.  I'll admit until I read this article it did not even occur to me that an intelligent, middle class couple would even be considering an unlicensed daycare--we are expecting our first child and have been looking for daycares and getting recommendations from a local parenting resource center, which only provides information on licensed daycares.  I wouldn't even know how to go about finding one without a license!

[TVRodriguez]

Your kid could die in his sleep for no reason. It's just one of the many terrors of raising a little one. The odds of this happening to you are tiny. Don't stress about it too much. Far more likely that the whole family dies in a car accident. So drive less and try not to worry too much about SIDS.

This. 

Also, for anyone interested in protecting their infants from SIDS: put a fan in the room.  Keeping air moving can reduce "rebreathing" in infants (where their exhaled breath gets "caught" and they breathe in their own exhaled CO2), and air movement (ie, a fan) has been shown to reduce the incidence of SIDS by some ridiculous number (something like 70%, I don't remember, just google it).  Plus, white noise is good (not for SIDS, but for sleep).

[justajane]

@cats - Do you live in a HCOL area, though? I don't, but my understanding is that it is more likely in those areas to seek out unlicensed facilities due to cost and availability.

[daverobev]

Some of the comments on the piece were pretty head scratching though.  I recall one where a woman had decided to become the SAHP, but it sounded like her husband had the "lesser" or worse job in terms of both pay and benefits.  I did wonder why the heck the husband wasn't the one staying home in a case like that--I would have thought it was a no-brainer, unless the husband thought it was not necessary to have a SAHP and the wife thought it was vital and decided to just quit her job unilaterally (in which case I have to wonder about the state of their marriage).

Because perhaps they realised the man was less capable than the woman at caring for the child. I know I *feel* my wife is much better at many things with out child than I - and we have a fairly odd setup to begin with, meaning that for a while I was looking after the baby for 3+ days a week. I can't deal well with more than a couple of days of me being primary care, honestly - I've done it but man is it draining. Yes, I know, no good reason for me not to be able to do it full time, and I can at a push, but a week at the office vs a week of daddy daycare? No contest as to which is harder - daycare (for me).

[cats]

@cats - Do you live in a HCOL area, though? I don't, but my understanding is that it is more likely in those areas to seek out unlicensed facilities due to cost and availability.

I do live in a HCOL area (SF bay area).  However, there is a WIDE range of prices in licensed daycares alone.  We've been looking and you can pay anywhere from $1k to $2.5k/month, most of our friends have wound up paying in the $1200-1800 range, I expect we'll be looking at something similar.  Like I said, I haven't looked at any unlicensed daycares so I don't know how much of a savings they might offer, but if I seriously could not afford a licensed daycare in my area I would also consider moving to a less expensive area. 

Like I said, I don't want to criticize the couple too much but I do wonder how much they thought about the economics of all this before they had the baby.  NOT saying that you have to be rich to have a kid.  I am saying that a kid is an event that you have 9 months to prepare for, and it might be worth running some numbers and thinking about how your life might need to change to provide acceptable care for your child.  I realize that there are word limits on articles and all, but I did wonder if they had given any serious thought to "how might we afford a SAHP or a licensed daycare?" in the months leading up to the birth.  Did they consider moving to a less expensive area?  Did the father have a go at finding a job with health insurance instead of working as a freelancer?

[cats]

Some of the comments on the piece were pretty head scratching though.  I recall one where a woman had decided to become the SAHP, but it sounded like her husband had the "lesser" or worse job in terms of both pay and benefits.  I did wonder why the heck the husband wasn't the one staying home in a case like that--I would have thought it was a no-brainer, unless the husband thought it was not necessary to have a SAHP and the wife thought it was vital and decided to just quit her job unilaterally (in which case I have to wonder about the state of their marriage).

Because perhaps they realised the man was less capable than the woman at caring for the child. I know I *feel* my wife is much better at many things with out child than I - and we have a fairly odd setup to begin with, meaning that for a while I was looking after the baby for 3+ days a week. I can't deal well with more than a couple of days of me being primary care, honestly - I've done it but man is it draining. Yes, I know, no good reason for me not to be able to do it full time, and I can at a push, but a week at the office vs a week of daddy daycare? No contest as to which is harder - daycare (for me).

Personally, I'd say women are only "better" at child care because it's expected of them, and because they usually get more practice initially (because it does biologically make more sense for the mother to be the primary caregiver initially due to needing to recover from birth/pregnancy, figure out nursing, etc).  I could see also choosing the "better" but higher earning parent to stay home if there was only a slight difference in incomes, but in cases where there is a BIG difference (wife not only earns more, but also has the better benefits, and the better opportunities for career growth), seems like it might make more sense for dad to work on his daycare skills.

[AZDude]

Lets also not forget that a majority of babies are now born out of wedlock. So there is no option to be a stay at home mom while your partner works. For those where it is an option, the modern view of an independent woman makes giving up several years mid-career and being dependent on your husband for income impossible for psychological reasons.

Society has created this problem by (mostly) solving a much worse problem(lack of women's rights).

That being said, I don't think daycare is a bad thing once your child is out of the infant stage.

[daverobev]

Lets also not forget that a majority of babies are now born out of wedlock. So there is no option to be a stay at home mom while your partner works. For those where it is an option, the modern view of an independent woman makes giving up several years mid-career and being dependent on your husband for income impossible for psychological reasons.

Society has created this problem by (mostly) solving a much worse problem(lack of women's rights).

That being said, I don't think daycare is a bad thing once your child is out of the infant stage.

Most born out of wedlock - do you have stats for that, and do you mean outside wedlock (ie not married), or as single parent? Because obviously marriage is optional, but you can still have mum & dad in a family. Common law and all that.

Also, there is a ginormous difference between childcare for a 1 year old and 2 month old. Or even 2 *week* old. In the countries I know, taking 6-12 months off is perfectly normal and reasonable while your job is kept open (and probably even a legal requirement unless the landscape shifts/positions cut etc).

[jj20051]

Culture didn't demand that she hire an unlicensed daycare, but she did.

[arebelspy]

Culture didn't demand that she hire an unlicensed daycare, but she did.

Well one of the worst cases of blaming the victim I've seen.

Do you have any shred of evidence this daycare was bad, or that it wouldn't have happened at a different one?

[serpentstooth]

Totally agree with the article, our maternity leave in the U.S. is shameful.   We need to take our cue from Germany and other EU countries that give 12 mo. paid leave (or thereabouts).

Wouldn't it be better to live in a way where you didn't have to work if you wanted to stay home with your children?  Isn't that the point of MMM?

If you were to start a business today, how many employees are you willing to hire and pay for a year, and them be allowed to not come to work?  I could see a large corporation being able to afford it for a small percentage of employees, but a small business?  What if I'm self employed?  Who pays me to not work for 12 months after having a child?  The government?(= taxes money = someone else paying for it)  The only reason we think we need that much paid maternity leave is because we've developed a system that leads to both parents working full-time. 

Let's work towards situations where we have the freedom in life to be able to not work when important life events come up.

Women have a limited number of fertile years in which to have a child. Barring widespread adoption of women marrying men substantially older than them (and thus with far more accumulation years under their belts), I'm not sure it's realistic to say every woman should be FIREd by forty if she wants to have kids.

[serpentstooth]

Lets also not forget that a majority of babies are now born out of wedlock. So there is no option to be a stay at home mom while your partner works. For those where it is an option, the modern view of an independent woman makes giving up several years mid-career and being dependent on your husband for income impossible for psychological reasons.

Society has created this problem by (mostly) solving a much worse problem(lack of women's rights).

That being said, I don't think daycare is a bad thing once your child is out of the infant stage.

Most born out of wedlock - do you have stats for that, and do you mean outside wedlock (ie not married), or as single parent? Because obviously marriage is optional, but you can still have mum & dad in a family. Common law and all that.

Also, there is a ginormous difference between childcare for a 1 year old 2 month old. Or even 2 *week* old. In the countries I know, taking 6-12 months off is perfectly normal and reasonable while your job is kept open (and probably even a legal requirement unless the landscape shifts/positions cut etc).

The CDC says 40.6%, but your own experience of the phenomenon will be based on your social cohort. Only 19% of births in Utah are to unwed mothers. Over half of all births to women under thirty are to unmarried women. 68% of college educated women have all their kids within wedlock.

As you alluded some number of these unmarried women having children are living with their father and in a long term relationship. This paper I found is very interesting and interviews unwed mothers and fathers in the hospital after the birth.
About half are living together in the paper I linked below and another 32% were in a non-cohabiting relationship with the father. But over 2/3 of the unwed mothers already had a kid with another guy. Five years out, only 15% of these couples were married and only 36% total were in a romantic relationship with the child's father at all. If you limit the set to just cohabiting couples 26% are married and 26% were living together 5 years out. This is not a good picture, on the whole.

http://crcw.princeton.edu/workingpapers/WP09-16-FF.pdf

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/06/for_millennials_out_of_wedlock_childbirth_is_the_norm_now_what.html
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_01.pdf

[jj20051]

Culture didn't demand that she hire an unlicensed daycare, but she did.

Well one of the worst cases of blaming the victim I've seen.

Do you have any shred of evidence this daycare was bad, or that it wouldn't have happened at a different one?

I'm probably going to get hit with a ton of criticism for this, but: Yeah I'll blame the victim. Why? Because she chose to have a kid she obviously couldn't afford and then chose to hire an unlicensed day care to care for her child.

[arebelspy]

I have nothing to say to you, other than a simple: No. You're wrong.

Have a nice day. :)

[Goldielocks]

While the Canadian system isn't perfect, it is pretty darn good compared to our neighbours to the south. It should be noted that it is 55% of your income up to a maximum that works out to about 1000$ every two weeks.  Many employers also top up this amount for some or part of the year as well. As a public servant I received 97% of my income for an an entire year. It was dreamy.

Yeah, I have never worked for an employer that tops up except for short term disability in the first 12 wks to 66%.  $23k or so a year max in EI is not really a lot.  I have worked for several large, private employers, too.  More of a public sector perk, or top paid software company....

[charis]

Culture didn't demand that she hire an unlicensed daycare, but she did.

Well one of the worst cases of blaming the victim I've seen.

Do you have any shred of evidence this daycare was bad, or that it wouldn't have happened at a different one?

I'm probably going to get hit with a ton of criticism for this, but: Yeah I'll blame the victim. Why? Because she chose to have a kid she obviously couldn't afford and then chose to hire an unlicensed day care to care for her child.

In your mind, the husband has no similar culpability (since you refer to the mother only)?  Anyway, if you mean "afford" as in strictly money, then obviously she could afford it since she was paying for the baby to be in child care.  If you mean "afford" in a broader sense, then maybe you are right, maybe she couldn't afford to leave her job to stay home with the baby or afford the best daycare center.  Are only the child of the wealthy deemed appropriate for surviving daycare?

What if a baby dies at home for similar reasons (SIDS, poor sleep position? do we even know?) and it turns out the mother or father at home was somewhat neglectful for whatever reason (depression, sleep deprivation)?  Do we again blame the victim for failing to see his or her limitations as a caregiver and not choosing daycare?

I personally find this article repugnant and sensationalistic.  Yes, the US has a deplorable parental leave policy, but this is a tragic death, in my opinion.

[justajane]

People seem to be stuck on the thought that this place was an unlicensed daycare, but like I said above, this also happened at a licensed daycare in my city. And the death was far more egregious because it was not due to sleep position but due to the use of a weighted blanket.

Just because a facility is licensed doesn't mean it is automatically superior. Blaming the parents for putting the child in an unlicensed place is not only blaming the victim and pretty cruel IMO; it overlooks the diversity of unlicensed facilities and the reasons why there are unlicensed facilities and what that actually means. First off, unlicensed does not necessarily equal illegal. Some states recognize the status of being unlicensed but still regulated (https://www.dss.virginia.gov/family/cc/index.cgi). And many unlicensed facilities do follow safety procedures and have the proper ratios. The facility my toddler attends isn't fully licensed, but the Health Department still checks in once a year and makes safety recommendations, and the facility abides by all state ratios, as well as almost all other safety requirements.

The key is to do your own research about a facility and ask lots and lots of questions. Stop in unannounced. I know some larger places have installed cameras and allowed the parents online access to observe their kid whenever they want. I think this is a good idea and not the expensive to implement.

[mm1970]

Culture didn't demand that she hire an unlicensed daycare, but she did.

Well one of the worst cases of blaming the victim I've seen.

Do you have any shred of evidence this daycare was bad, or that it wouldn't have happened at a different one?

I'm probably going to get hit with a ton of criticism for this, but: Yeah I'll blame the victim. Why? Because she chose to have a kid she obviously couldn't afford and then chose to hire an unlicensed day care to care for her child.

I don't understand this reasoning.  She seemed to be able to afford child care and food and a roof, without being on public assistance.  Isn't that the definition of "being able to afford?"  No?  I didn't realize that there was an alternate definition that required a parent to stay at home.

And secondly, I'm not a licensed childcare provider, would it be okay for me to stay at home?  I mean, by that reasoning, my daycare provider (a home daycare, the owner has four children, and she's licensed) is one of the few people who are trusted to care for children.  Because she's licensed.  Except I guess technically she cannot afford her children because she does work.

Technically, in fact, my childcare provider was unlicensed for about the first 10 months that she cared for my child.  Because she was between licenses.  (Had moved back to the area and decided to wait a year to get licensed again.  At the time, she was caring only for her children and my one.)

[cats]

Culture didn't demand that she hire an unlicensed daycare, but she did.

Well one of the worst cases of blaming the victim I've seen.

Do you have any shred of evidence this daycare was bad, or that it wouldn't have happened at a different one?

I'm probably going to get hit with a ton of criticism for this, but: Yeah I'll blame the victim. Why? Because she chose to have a kid she obviously couldn't afford and then chose to hire an unlicensed day care to care for her child.

I don't understand this reasoning.  She seemed to be able to afford child care and food and a roof, without being on public assistance.  Isn't that the definition of "being able to afford?"  No?  I didn't realize that there was an alternate definition that required a parent to stay at home.

And secondly, I'm not a licensed childcare provider, would it be okay for me to stay at home?  I mean, by that reasoning, my daycare provider (a home daycare, the owner has four children, and she's licensed) is one of the few people who are trusted to care for children.  Because she's licensed.  Except I guess technically she cannot afford her children because she does work.

Technically, in fact, my childcare provider was unlicensed for about the first 10 months that she cared for my child.  Because she was between licenses.  (Had moved back to the area and decided to wait a year to get licensed again.  At the time, she was caring only for her children and my one.)

I think what was being said was that as the couple in the article could not afford a licensed daycare, the poster was comfortable judging them.  I may be reading too much into that, but I didn't read it as "if you can't afford to stay home, you can't afford kids".

It did sound to me like the couple made decisions prior to having a child that put them in the uncomfortable situation of having to choose health insurance over staying home (or paying for a licensed daycare, perhaps, though from the article it was not clear to me if the daycare was chosen primarily for cost or for its convenient location).  Namely, they chose to live in one of the most expensive parts of the country, but apparently neither of them made most-expensive-parts-of-the-country level salaries.  I have no idea if this couple actually planned to have children, or if this baby was an unplanned pregnancy that they decided to follow through on, but if kids were part of their longterm plan, I do wonder why the heck they did not consider trying to move somewhere cheaper so as to have more options with regards to staying home or working part time or...something. Whether the daycare was licensed or unlicensed, it sounds like they barely made enough money to get by without a kid in the mix, but that they weren't stupid or lacking in qualifications/work experience--I can't imagine they couldn't have improved their financial situation a lot by moving somewhere cheaper.  Moving probably would have been a smart thing to explore regardless.  And it's a decision a LOT of couples make in order to make children "affordable". 

[domo]

And this is why I won't have kids until we retire. I'm not the only one making this choice. If you keep pushing women to the breaking point, we'll stop having kids. Human beings were never intended to be raised by just one person. You need at least two adults all the time. It is a 24/7 job.

[TVRodriguez]

And this is why I won't have kids until we retire. I'm not the only one making this choice. If you keep pushing women to the breaking point, we'll stop having kids. Human beings were never intended to be raised by just one person. You need at least two adults all the time. It is a 24/7 job.

Hahahahaha! That's funny. Thanks for the laugh. I assumed that you were being facetious, as "we" are not a single unit making decisions as a whole. I'm pretty sure women will keep having children regardless of your personal decision.

[domo]

Not "we" as in all women, but a group of women - of which I am one. Birthrates are falling for lots of reasons, but the one most often cited is money.

[Jupiter]

I'm going to be honest here and state my true opinion of this incident. As an EX-Daycare worker myself this really has saddened me. I used to work in a top of the range, ridiculously expensive Childcare centre in Australia costing over $170 per day (obviously however as a qualified Childcare educator I got less paid than that...)

As GREAT as Childcare can be for children and as many fun and educational activities I set up for the children based on their interests and developmental needs, documented and guided them through ect I still believe that Childcare centres should not exist in society. There are many positives but also a lot of negatives as well and for those reasons I quit and moved onto something I felt was more morally right.

I believe that unless a family can survive on one income parents should not have a child until they are financially prepared for it. I'm not saying don't have a child, I'm saying wait until one parent is available 24/7 for the child. Cut back your expenses, save and invest money and once you have paid off the mortgage or have a stable passive income THEN have a child.

Interaction with other children can occur on play dates, visits to the park and professionally set up play sessions providing children with Childcare-like resources and activities. Childcare centres should not be a reality! Its up to parents to have children only when they can afford it and support the family comfortably on a single income. If it's going to be a problem wait till your 30's to have a child. 

I know I'm going to annoy a lot of people when I say this but I'm also against maternity leave. If you aren't working then really you shouldn't be paid.. If you NEED the income then you shouldn't have had a child so early! Having a child before you have the passive income to actually support the child is like taking out a loan for a 100K car with a yearly wage of 30K. You don't need the 100K car now, get a 20K car and WAIT until you can afford the 100K with pure cash. I'm also against holiday pay (save up for your own holidays) and when it comes to sick pay I'm 50-50 as this can be out of people's control.

I'm not saying this JUST because of this incident, infants die at home as well... I'm saying this for a variety of reasons which I won't list here based on my experiences working in the Childcare industry full time  for over 3 years.

As for who's fault this was... I'm blaming it DIRECTLY on the Childcare centre that her child was taken to. In the service I used to work in caretakers had to go into the cot room EVERY 10 MINUTES and tip toe to each child to ensure each one was still breathing normally. This was marked off with each educators initials on a chart to ensure it was actually done. This obviously wasn't the case here! Staff should also have known the correct first aid procedure and safe sleeping rules. These are a part of the qualification in Australia REQUIRED for all daycare workers. You can not work in a Childcare centre unless you are qualified and have passed the course in Australia.

[obstinate]

Jupiter, your view is hopelessly naive. Suggesting that people only take part in what is arguably the core experience of the human existence if they meet your adjudged financial bar is not only pointless, but cruel.

[Jupiter]

I'm not saying, "don't have kids". I'm simply saying wait until you are truly ready. Do you want to be a parent that never spends a second with your child because you are constantly at work struggling to keep the family going or do you want to wait 5 years and spend more quality time with your child?

Mr MMM himself WAITED to have his child and look at what a great father he is now who has time to spend quality time with his son without worrying about a full time job that he relys on to pay the bills.

I've been through a life without seeing much of my parents and without quality time for this very reason. It was wrong of my mother to get pregnant with me while she was still a teenager, struggling with work ECT. Not only does working take a mother away from her child it causes toxic stress that negatively effects the mood of the mother in the little time she does spend with her child (it also flows into the child causing many problems later in life). I was taken away from my mother by child services when I was very little due to her stress that almost lead to my death. Sure, after she was interviewed and closely watched with me I was reunited with her but all that could have been avoided it she had WAITED!

Is having a child when you aren't ready financially really worth it? Unless the mother is closely approaching the age of 40 I say hold back, it's best for both the mother and the child.

[arebelspy]

I'm not saying, "don't have kids". I'm simply saying wait until you are truly ready. Do you want to be a parent that never spends a second with your child because you are constantly at work struggling to keep the family going or do you want to wait 5 years and spend more quality time with your child?

What makes you think that--for the average person--anything will change in 5 years?

[Jupiter]

Are you telling me the average family generally makes NO progress towards increasing their assets in a 5 year period? If so I'm lost for words...