Daycare / Childcare

[Drea]

Again, money is not the issue -- subsidies already exist -- space is the issue. In some of the larger cities it's virtually impossible to get into any daycare at all.

Maybe someone can explain this because I'm not getting it. When I was looking for daycare, I had no problem finding available daycare spaces. Mind you, they didn't come cheap. What cities have a lack of daycare and what is the obstacle in creating more? Surely if parents were willing to pay the price for purely profit reasons, more spots would open up. Why is this different than other demand which needs to be filled?

As I live in a small city, I too had no trouble finding a day/night care spot for my son. I believe the woman waiting 3 years for the daycare spot was in Vancouver, but I'm not certain.

It's not easy operating a daycare. I know that I'm certainly not cut out for looking after children all day long. Home daycares are allowed three children over and above the children that already live in the home. Friend of mine operates a home daycare in Surrey. She makes $1200 per month ($400 per kid). This is NOT enough to live on. Her husband left her and she was uneducated so she did the only thing she had experience at -- raise children. She wanted to move out here in the Valley (cheaper housing, etc) but the father lives and works in the city and she didn't want the kids to be far from him. So there she is, earning $1200 a month, paying $1000 a month rent for her home (she NEEDS a detached home with a yard so that the children have somewhere to play, you can't keep 'em locked inside a 10th floor condo!).

The lack of daycare is because there is no decent living wage in looking after children.

[Renegade]

Not that I entirely agree with Mimas BUT taxpayers do pay for old age pension. Currently (depending on your age of course) that is you and me. Our children will be the taxpayers and foot the bill for our gov't pension cheques. (If there is a gov't pension available). I have no faith that there will be so I save and invest as much as possible today for old age.

And where does the money to pay geriatric (sp) nurses come from? Taxpayers.

Mimas, you make some good points but no one wants to respond to someone who is using the type of language you are now. Tone it down and you will see there are people who agree with you.

Drea, yes your points are valid. Both CPP and healtcare are structured as huge Ponzi schemes where the future generations are forced to fund the expenses of the current. This depends upon ever increasing population bases. In my view this is financial madness. At some point it will collapse as our healthcare system seems to be doing now.

What we should be focused on is changing these Ponzi schemes, not using them as justification to promote further inequities. It would much more viable if instead of the crazy healthcare schemes, we instead had something like mandatory RRSP for healthcare, where you forced to overcontribute when you are young and minimaly use the systems, and those overcontributions are drawn-down as you age and make more intensive use of the system. CPP as is today should be replaced with mandatory RRSP contributions.

[Renegade]

As I live in a small city, I too had no trouble finding a day/night care spot for my son. I believe the woman waiting 3 years for the daycare spot was in Vancouver, but I'm not certain.

It's not easy operating a daycare. I know that I'm certainly not cut out for looking after children all day long. Home daycares are allowed three children over and above the children that already live in the home. Friend of mine operates a home daycare in Surrey. She makes $1200 per month ($400 per kid). This is NOT enough to live on. Her husband left her and she was uneducated so she did the only thing she had experience at -- raise children. She wanted to move out here in the Valley (cheaper housing, etc) but the father lives and works in the city and she didn't want the kids to be far from him. So there she is, earning $1200 a month, paying $1000 a month rent for her home (she NEEDS a detached home with a yard so that the children have somewhere to play, you can't keep 'em locked inside a 10th floor condo!).

The lack of daycare is because there is no decent living wage in looking after children.

Drea, thanks for the explaination. What I don't understand in the scenario above, if as you state there is a demand from parent for spaces, whay didn't the friend of yours charge more? Surely if parents are on 3 year waitlists they are willing to pay much more than $400 per child. This in turn would incent others to run home daycare, opening more spaces. For comparison when my daughter was in Daycare I paid about $750 per month.

[Drea]

$750 is wayyy to much IMO.

When the gov't paid my daycare subsidy I upped it by $10 a day to $35/day. The govt only paid up to $25/day for 20 days a month -- even though some months have 22 working days!

Daycares should not be able to charge whatever they want because of demand. That's pure robbery.

Now, I used daycare a number of years back, so of course, it probably costs more than $400 but it certainly shouldn't be $750 per child! That's insane.

[Renegade]

$750 is wayyy to much IMO.

Well apparently myself and other parents are willing to pay it because the income generated by putting a child in daycare is outweighed by income generated by the parent who is now able to work. (Looking it from a purely financial perspective for a moment)

Daycares should not be able to charge whatever they want because of demand. That's pure robbery.

Now, I used daycare a number of years back, so of course, it probably costs more than $400 but it certainly shouldn't be $750 per child! That's insane.

Well there you go!! It IS about price isn't it? Earlier you bemoned (quite rightly) the meagre income the daycare provider was making, yet at the same time you seem unwilling to allow rates to be charged which would open up spaces and provide childcare providers with additional income. You can't have it both ways.

[geoffrey]

Seeing that it is the working people who will be paying the $1200, I don't see why their taxes cannot pay for daycare too. Seeing that you are 17, have no kids, and pay no taxes, you should shut up, mind your own business, and don't even imagine that you have the right to tell parents how to raise their children!

Your off by a bit on my age there, sorry nice try. I pay quite a bit of taxes as a full-time self-employed person on top of going to university full time. I'm one of those people that doesn't sit on their ass through university expecting the government to pull me through. Thats what I'm saying about parents too, they can make some sacrifices to get through raising their kids if they want to have them.

I don't have any right to tell parents how to raise their kids. I have every right to tell them to not use my tax dollars to do it.

It's not easy operating a daycare. I know that I'm certainly not cut out for looking after children all day long. Home daycares are allowed three children over and above the children that already live in the home. Friend of mine operates a home daycare in Surrey. She makes $1200 per month ($400 per kid). This is NOT enough to live on. Her husband left her and she was uneducated so she did the only thing she had experience at -- raise children. She wanted to move out here in the Valley (cheaper housing, etc) but the father lives and works in the city and she didn't want the kids to be far from him. So there she is, earning $1200 a month, paying $1000 a month rent for her home (she NEEDS a detached home with a yard so that the children have somewhere to play, you can't keep 'em locked inside a 10th floor condo!).

Take them to a park? I grew up in an apartment, not even a condo, for the first few years of my life, and my mother took me to the parks all the time to get outside.

You don't need a detached home. Thats just a ridiculous statement.

The husband should be paying child support anyways...

$750 is wayyy to much IMO.

When the gov't paid my daycare subsidy I upped it by $10 a day to $35/day. The govt only paid up to $25/day for 20 days a month -- even though some months have 22 working days!

Daycares should not be able to charge whatever they want because of demand. That's pure robbery.

Now, I used daycare a number of years back, so of course, it probably costs more than $400 but it certainly shouldn't be $750 per child! That's insane.

Price controls sure have worked in the past. If you want to see all those spots disappear, you can advocate that kind of approach to childcare.

Maybe if they raised their prices more people would stay at home with their kids?

[Renegade]

Drea,

For you reference:

Depending on where you live, daycare costs can vary from $ 200 per month to more than $ 800 per month.

Monthly daycare in the Chatham, Ontario, area averages $ 826 while similar daycare in Winnipeg, Manitoba, is only $ 395.

Cheapest surveyed city for Daycare is Montreal with an average cost of $ 205

Average monthly cost in some Canadian Cities: Montreal $205.00 Winnipeg $395.00, Regina $ 415.00, Fredericton $ 420.00, Saint John $ 430.00, Yellowknife $ 605.00, London $ 640.00, Kitchener $ 650.00, Toronto $ 720.00, Ottawa $ 750.00

Fees are based on full-time daycare (5 days per week, 8 hours per day) for a four-year-old child in a for-profit daycare center.

Source: CANADIAN RELOCATION SYSTEMS DAY CARE & CHILD CARE

[Drea]

Take them to a park? I grew up in an apartment, not even a condo, for the first few years of my life, and my mother took me to the parks all the time to get outside.

The daycare I mentioned takes care of children from infant to kindergarten. She has three children of her own, age 8, 4, and 2. She tends a 6 month old, a 1 year old and a 4 year old. I can't imagine packing all these little ones into a van and going to the park everyday. Outside of her home she has a nice large yard with playground equipment and outdoor toys. As the babies probably nap at different times and the toddlers get cranky all at the same time... it is much much easier for her and the children to simply go outside.

You don't need a detached home. Thats just a ridiculous statement.

I need a detached home for peace of mind. I grew up on a ranch where the nearest neighbour was 3 miles away and town 25 miles. So, yes, I need at least a tiny bit of outside of my very own.

The husband should be paying child support anyways...

I believe he does; and also takes the kids every second weekend.

Well there you go!! It IS about price isn't it? Earlier you bemoned (quite rightly) the meagre income the daycare provider was making, yet at the same time you seem unwilling to allow rates to be charged which would open up spaces and provide childcare providers with additional income. You can't have it both ways.

Since I've required fulltime daycare (7 years) obviously the price has risen. $750 may seem insane to me only because it's a fair bit more than I paid.

Of course I want it both ways. Daycare costs should be fair to parents -- Daycare income should be fair to providers. There needs to be balance. The cost of daycare can't just rise unchecked until people are forced out of the workforce.

[Renegade]

Since I've required fulltime daycare (7 years) obviously the price has risen. $750 may seem insane to me only because it's a fair bit more than I paid.

Of course I want it both ways. Daycare costs should be fair to parents -- Daycare income should be fair to providers. There needs to be balance. The cost of daycare can't just rise unchecked until people are forced out of the workforce.

Well daycare costs have been high in GTA as long back as I can remember. By your own admission $400 per child is too low to provide a decent income for the provider. What exactly does it mean to be fair to the parents? In my view paying the market cost of childcare IS fair to parents, just as it is fair to chldcare providers.

Your statement that you "want it both ways" illustrates the problem. Parents want to have quality childcare with trained providers, but then don't want to pay the cost, further, they have an expectation that everyone else foots the bill.

When parents complain there are no available daycare spaces, this is code for "We don't want to pay what the daycare actually cost"

The argument you propose can be extended to every facet of life. If it is too expensive, why shouldn't I expect that the rest of taxpayers subsidize my house, my food, my car, and my vacations?

[Drea]

The cost of daycare can't just rise unchecked until people are forced out of the workforce as suggested earlier. That would simply be ridiculous.

The price needs to be fair. Fair for the payee, fair for the earner. What is the problem with this?

I would imagine (I haven't lived in Surrey for 10 years) that the home daycare provider I spoke of charges more than $400 today. Perhaps I'm completely off base and she is earning enough to take a vacation in Disneyland!

The point is that price is not the issue -- as you said "In my view paying the market cost of childcare IS fair to parents, just as it is fair to chldcare providers."

Finding space is the issue. Not all women are nuturers who want to open daycares. I would not want to see people opening daycares just for the love of money, instead of the love of children.

I do my job for the love of money, btw

[betsy]

Again, money is not the issue -- subsidies already exist -- space is the issue. In some of the larger cities it's virtually impossible to get into any daycare at all.

Maybe someone can explain this because I'm not getting it. When I was looking for daycare, I had no problem finding available daycare spaces. Mind you, they didn't come cheap. What cities have a lack of daycare and what is the obstacle in creating more? Surely if parents were willing to pay the price for purely profit reasons, more spots would open up. Why is this different than other demand which needs to be filled?

As I live in a small city, I too had no trouble finding a day/night care spot for my son. I believe the woman waiting 3 years for the daycare spot was in Vancouver, but I'm not certain.

It's not easy operating a daycare. I know that I'm certainly not cut out for looking after children all day long. Home daycares are allowed three children over and above the children that already live in the home. Friend of mine operates a home daycare in Surrey. She makes $1200 per month ($400 per kid). This is NOT enough to live on. Her husband left her and she was uneducated so she did the only thing she had experience at -- raise children. She wanted to move out here in the Valley (cheaper housing, etc) but the father lives and works in the city and she didn't want the kids to be far from him. So there she is, earning $1200 a month, paying $1000 a month rent for her home (she NEEDS a detached home with a yard so that the children have somewhere to play, you can't keep 'em locked inside a 10th floor condo!).

The lack of daycare is because there is no decent living wage in looking after children.

In Ontario you're allowed 5 children over and above that live in the home (depending on their ages).

There should be a uniform sets of regulations.

[betsy]

Take them to a park? I grew up in an apartment, not even a condo, for the first few years of my life, and my mother took me to the parks all the time to get outside.

The daycare I mentioned takes care of children from infant to kindergarten. She has three children of her own, age 8, 4, and 2. She tends a 6 month old, a 1 year old and a 4 year old. I can't imagine packing all these little ones into a van and going to the park everyday. Outside of her home she has a nice large yard with playground equipment and outdoor toys. As the babies probably nap at different times and the toddlers get cranky all at the same time... it is much much easier for her and the children to simply go outside.

You don't need a detached home. Thats just a ridiculous statement.

I need a detached home for peace of mind. I grew up on a ranch where the nearest neighbour was 3 miles away and town 25 miles. So, yes, I need at least a tiny bit of outside of my very own.

The husband should be paying child support anyways...

I believe he does; and also takes the kids every second weekend.

Well there you go!! It IS about price isn't it? Earlier you bemoned (quite rightly) the meagre income the daycare provider was making, yet at the same time you seem unwilling to allow rates to be charged which would open up spaces and provide childcare providers with additional income. You can't have it both ways.

Since I've required fulltime daycare (7 years) obviously the price has risen. $750 may seem insane to me only because it's a fair bit more than I paid.

Of course I want it both ways. Daycare costs should be fair to parents -- Daycare income should be fair to providers. There needs to be balance. The cost of daycare can't just rise unchecked until people are forced out of the workforce.

A full-time daycare usually consists of ten hours. And that usually includes two snacks and a lunch. Quality daycares provide nutritious lunch and snacks. Overhead expenses also include various toys that meet various needs (age appropriate) and purpose (developmental aids), supplies for arts and craft,

cleaning supplies (including laundering blankets) and maintenance of the premises that accomodate all these children and insurance. Some daycares transport children thereby that means car expenses.

PARENTS should get over the absurd notion that people operating daycares SHOULD NOT MAKE ANY PROFIT from doing childcare. I once saw an ad from a mom looking fo a daycare that specified, "must not be in it for the money."

Actually the cost of daycares from where I operate had gone down due to competition. Even the government-funded agency that operates home daycares had to lower their price because they're not getting any children.

[Renegade]

The cost of daycare can't just rise unchecked until people are forced out of the workforce as suggested earlier. That would simply be ridiculous.

Ridiculous, Why? People will simply need to make a personal evaluation on whether it makes economic sense for them to work or to have one parent stay home in the role of caregiver. If I have 4 kids and it cost $800 in childcare for each one in order to work so I decide that both from an economic standpoint and inorder for me to be with my kids, I decide to stay home as caregiver, why is that ridiculous? Is that not simply my choice as parent?

The price needs to be fair. Fair for the payee, fair for the earner. What is the problem with this?

There is no problem with this, however you have not defined what you mean by "fair". What you may consider fair, I may not, so please define what you mean by fair and we can discuss further.

I would imagine (I haven't lived in Surrey for 10 years) that the home daycare provider I spoke of charges more than $400 today. Perhaps I'm completely off base and she is earning enough to take a vacation in Disneyland!

The point is that price is not the issue -- as you said "In my view paying the market cost of childcare IS fair to parents, just as it is fair to chldcare providers."

Finding space is the issue. Not all women are nuturers who want to open daycares. I would not want to see people opening daycares just for the love of money, instead of the love of children.

I do my job for the love of money, btw

Well I appreciate that it is preferable that daycare providers love children, but that is a criteria for parents to determine when they place their children. You can't make it a criteria for daycare providers, any more than you can make it a critieia for parents to love children, or teachers to love children, or doctors, and nurses to love people. People have different motivations for taking on roles, some do it for the money, some for the lack of other choices, others because they love the job. In the end all that really matters is that they perform in the job regardless of thir individual motivations.

BTW, I have yet to find one person who has first hand experience of not being able to find daycare space IF they were willing to pay the cost. Sure I hear stories, such as third hand accounts or one off newspaper accounts, however I'm drawing the conslusion that either these are isolated cases or its more a question of the parents being unwilling to pay the true costs.

[Drea]

Back when I needed care -- $400 was fair IMO.

Perhaps $750 IS fair.

Of course the only reason to open any business is to make money. But not all people are cut out to be care providers. I'm not.

If you've got 4 children under school age -- stay home! But why should I pay you $100 per child to do so? Is it not your choice to stay home? If the person with 4 kids decides to work, their provincial govt will more than likely pay at least a portion of your care.

I had one child, daycare expense was not a big deal.

Of course it's ridiculous to simply price people out of the market! I make $40,000+ per year, Now if it costed me $40,000 per year to put my child in care, I would not be able to work (if I had a little child -- which I don't).

If daycares made $40,000 per year per kid I would quit my job and open a daycare and tend 2 kids and make $80,000 a year even though I really hate babysitting -- I'd do it for the money.

[Renegade]

Back when I needed care -- $400 was fair IMO.

Perhaps $750 IS fair.

Perhaps $750 is fair, but perhaps $1000 is fair, how do we decide. In my view fair is whatever is the market price for that service.

If you've got 4 children under school age -- stay home! But why should I pay you $100 per child to do so? Is it not your choice to stay home?

We're 100% in agreement here, and that is precisely my point. I don't think you should pay me $100/per child, not even $10/per child. If I decided to have 4 kids, I should pay the full cost of the daycare or suffer the loss of income by staying home to look after those kids. Whatever I decide to do, it should be my issue to deal with.

Of course it's ridiculous to simply price people out of the market! I make $40,000+ per year, Now if it costed me $40,000 per year to put my child in care, I would not be able to work (if I had a little child -- which I don't).

If daycares made $40,000 per year per kid I would quit my job and open a daycare and tend 2 kids and make $80,000 a year even though I really hate babysitting -- I'd do it for the money.

You keep saying it is ridiculous to price people out of the market. Do you not see that the market is self-balancing? As you state, if you had a child and it cost $40000 to put your child in daycare, you would quit your job and open a daycare and take on additional kids and make pretty good money. Well you wouldn't be alone. Thousands of others would do the same, and pretty soon the market woudl be flooded with daycare providers driving down prices to sustainable levels. The other benefit is that based on market prices people determine the number of kids they can afford. If it cost $10000/year in daycare for each kid, it somewhat induces me to control the number of offspring I've have to levels I can afford to sustain.

[Renegade]

[rant on]

Some have brought up that not all pregnancies are planned, and as such the parents didn't "choose" to have kids, so they shouldn't be responsible for the costs (or complete costs) of the kids.

In my view, a parent may get pregnant unintentionally, but they CHOOSE to keep the kid. In doing so they ACCEPT the responsibility (emotional, financial, and otherwise) of being the parent. To my dismay, many couples do more financial planning when they purchase a house then they ever do before they have a child. The consequences of improper financial planning with a house mean they lose the house and possibly impact their credit rating. The consequences of improper financial planning for a child are much more disasterous.

[/rant off]

[Drea]

The only way this is going to happen, Renegade, is if we invent some kind of temporary sterilization techniqe that is removed once a family "makes enough money".

What is "enough" money to raise a child? Who determines what is "enough"?

As I'm not in the market for daycare anymore -- no I do not know what is fair in today's market.

Do you not see that the market is self-balancing?

Yes, I agree it is. And daycare costs have risen since I needed it. So I only said the price was insane because 9 years ago $750 would've been insane. I'm sorry for looking at it from a past point of view -- I know realize $750 is fair. (If the gov't kicks in some for low income earners).

It's in the best interest of the government to obtain as much income tax as possible. In order to raise the same level of revenue as 2 income families, the govt would have to raise income tax. A family making $80,000 a year pays more in tax than a family making $40. The family that has extra disposable income buys more products, which in turn employs more people at all levels; realestate, retail, manufacturing, advertising, etc.

[Renegade]

The only way this is going to happen, Renegade, is if we invent some kind of temporary sterilization techniqe that is removed once a family "makes enough money".

What is "enough" money to raise a child? Who determines what is "enough"?

Interesting thought, however I don't think the criteria would simply be "makes enough money". Assumiing we had the ability to control who was a parent, just as important is the emotional, physical, and psychological prepardness for the task.

Assuming there was some way to temporarily sterilize people until they are deemed ready, I for one would NEVER want that used. Why? Because to do so would deny people freedom to choose. People should be free to choose to be a parent or not be a parent without government or societal intervention. However that freedom must come at a price. That price is responsibility. If you are free to choose to be a parent, you must accept TOTAL responsibility for the care, feeding, and cost of the offspring you create.

[Drea]

Women and girls will continue to get pregnant "out of wedlock".

Men will continue to abandon women with the children.

Women will continue to leave abusive relationships.

A world where women and children are not abused, where everyone stays together for life in wedded bliss is not reality -- would be wonderful, but, alas, we cannot live in a wishful thinking dream world.

We need real solutions for the real world.

I was a single mom, I chose to leave the man who got me pregnant, I chose to raise the child on my own. Does this make me an evil, lazy, feminist?

Of course, I could've had an abortion -- but then I wouldn't have the wonderful son I have today.

When I first left, I needed (and got) welfare. Then I got a lowpaying job and the gov't paid for my daycare. Now, if the gov't hadn't paid for my daycare back then, I would probably be still sitting on welfare sponging off the taxpayer instead of being a taxpayer myself. Today I pay almost the equivelant in taxes that I used to get on welfare.

Govt programs that help low income people get on their feet is extremely valuable IMO. Including paying for daycare while a family gets on it's feet.

[Renegade]

Women and girls will continue to get pregnant "out of wedlock".

Men will continue to abandon women with the children.

Women will continue to leave abusive relationships.

A world where women and children are not abused, where everyone stays together for life in wedded bliss is not reality -- would be wonderful, but, alas, we cannot live in a wishful thinking dream world.

You are quite right, the situations above will occur. I'm not at all suggesting we should be coercive and preventing them from occuring, but people should be made to take responsibility when they do occur. Women and girls are free to bear kids "out of wedlock" as long as they don't expect society to support them. Men who abandon women with their children should be forced to pay their share of the child rearing costs. We already have systems in place to collect everything from loan defaults to parking fines, so it is hard for me to believe we can't enforce parents stepping up to their responsibilites. Whether a women is abused or not she may choose to leave a relationship. That choice frees neither parent from their parental support obligations.

I was a single mom, I chose to leave the man who got me pregnant, I chose to raise the child on my own. Does this make me an evil, lazy, feminist?

Of course, I could've had an abortion -- but then I wouldn't have the wonderful son I have today.

When I first left, I needed (and got) welfare. Then I got a lowpaying job and the gov't paid for my daycare. Now, if the gov't hadn't paid for my daycare back then, I would probably be still sitting on welfare sponging off the taxpayer instead of being a taxpayer myself. Today I pay almost the equivelant in taxes that I used to get on welfare.

Govt programs that help low income people get on their feet is extremely valuable IMO. Including paying for daycare while a family gets on it's feet.

You an evil, lazy, feminist? Not at all. The decision you took required courage and perseverence, but still, it was YOUR decision. By your own words you chose not to terminate the pregnancy, you chose to leave the biological father, you chose to keep the baby. I commend you for stepping up to your parental responsibilites. I don't have an issue with welfare being used as a temporary income support mechanism, nor do I object to subsidized daycare being used to allow welfare parents to support themselves while they pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

What I object to is the lack of controls. There is no timelimit on welfare. It can be just as frequently used as a permanant or semi-permanant source of income. There is no measure of responsibility on the part of the recipient. All too frequently mothers on welfare will get themselves pregnant AGAIN!! How does this show they are responsible and getting themselves on their feet? Other measures of control should be no drugs or illegal activity while on welfare. For those not bettering themselves through schooling, Work for Welfare programs should be mandatory. Some may consider this harsh, but to me it is just common sense. If you want me to support you with my tax dollars, you need to do it on my terms.

Back to the topic at hand, neither the Liberal daycare plan not the Conservative one is about providing subsidized spaces to welfare mothers. It a direct or indirect subsidy of parents by the taxpaying public. The story above does not lend support to either plan.

BTW, thank-you for sharing your story. It is always great to hear of people who have picked themselves through the hardest times and bettered their lives and those of others. Best wishes to you and your family.

[fryingpan]

Women and girls will continue to get pregnant "out of wedlock".

Men will continue to abandon women with the children.

Women will continue to leave abusive relationships.

A world where women and children are not abused, where everyone stays together for life in wedded bliss is not reality -- would be wonderful, but, alas, we cannot live in a wishful thinking dream world.

You are quite right, the situations above will occur. I'm not at all suggesting we should be coercive and preventing them from occuring, but people should be made to take responsibility when they do occur. Women and girls are free to bear kids "out of wedlock" as long as they don't expect society to support them. Men who abandon women with their children should be forced to pay their share of the child rearing costs. We already have systems in place to collect everything from loan defaults to parking fines, so it is hard for me to believe we can't enforce parents stepping up to their responsibilites. Whether a women is abused or not she may choose to leave a relationship. That choice frees neither parent from their parental support obligations.

I'm pretty sure that men who abandon their children have to pay child support. I think they actually deduct it off the father's income along with his taxes and then give it to the mother. This way, the only way he can stop paying child support is if he stops working.

[cybercoma]

If a mother takes off on a father and leaves him with the kids, does she have to pay child support?

[Renegade]

If a mother takes off on a father and leaves him with the kids, does she have to pay child support?

yes she does. The law only specifies that the non-costodial parent has to pay.

[betsy]

(she NEEDS a detached home with a yard so that the children have somewhere to play, you can't keep 'em locked inside a 10th floor condo!).

Licensing agencies have no problems about home providers living in highrise buildings. As long as the careprovider takes them out...usually to a park or a long walk.

Why does it have to be a DETACHED house btw??? Rowhouses or semi-detached homes have their own yards, right? I know careproviders with government agencies operating from such types of houses, so it can't be a regulation.

[cybercoma]

If a mother takes off on a father and leaves him with the kids, does she have to pay child support?

yes she does. The law only specifies that the non-costodial parent has to pay.

I wonder if women are less likely to pay then men? Maybe men are less likely to file for child support if that's the case? questions....questions...questions...