Deaf, Dumb, and Daycare
by Lee
Yesterday I wrote a post about a blind couple who have been granted the right to open a day care center, the justification being that denying them a permit violates the Americans With Disabilities Act. Over at Right Wing News, John Hawkins expresses a sentiment shared by a lot of commenters here.
Now, let’s get a few things straight right off the bat. Blindness is an ENORMOUS handicap when you’re taking care of kids. In fact, it’s so much of a handicap that I would never consider hiring a blind person to do day care. If you can’t watch a kid to see what he’s doing, there is just no way you can properly supervise him. Kids hit each other, they get hurt, they do stupid things like deliberately knocking down wasp nests, they wander off, they throw things, etc., etc., etc.. If you can’t see them, you can’t necessarily tell when they’re doing something wrong or maybe even dangerous.
Yet and still, the Hutchinsons should be able to open a day care if they so desire.
Why so?
Well, while being blind puts a person at a tremendous disadvantage in taking care of children, there are obviously some people who can pull it off. After all, there are blind parents raising kids in this country.
Furthermore, while the rates the Hutchinsons charge aren’t listed, if the cost is low enough and they have taken enough precautions to satisfy parents that their kids are safe, there might be some people willing to take advantage of their services. If that’s the case, why should the government arbitrarily intrude, “especially when the Hutchinsons have shown competence in caring for children?”
Sure, there might be more risk involved in having a blind person running a day care. But ultimately, parents, not the government, should be the ones deciding whether the Hutchinsons can adequately take care of their kids.
In the larger sense I agree with him, especially his point about blind parents raising children. Personally I still believe granting this couple this license is not a smart idea, but I think reasonable people can disagree on the merits of the situation. However, my larger point was about the Americans With Disabilities Act being the reason they got the license. What this ruling states is that the state does not have the power to deny a license to someone because of a handicap. So, what if next week someone who is blind and deaf goes to apply for a license. This ruling will severely hamper the state’s right to grant a license to them. What about someone who is a quadriplegic? Normally I don’t go for slippery slope arguments, but this is exactly what this could become.
Whether or not these people can run a daycare center is one issue. Whether the state should be in the day care licensing business at all is another entirely. My main problem is that the state has now been denied the ability to use disability as a consideration during the licensing process because of the ADA, an absolutely awful piece of legislation.
Comments
Lee,
Dead on about the ADA.
“the justification being that denying them a permit violates the Americans With Disabilities Act.”
Possibly [according to the judge].
It does,however, unquestionably violate the liberty our Forbears bled to give and keep for us.
That is for sure.
Mike
I can’t possibly imagine parents stupid enough to leave their kids at a daycare run by the blind.
let em open the day care, then let the market decide on how successful they will be.
Hopefully, they will hire some hot young thing with great tits, my sons day care teachers is sooo hot, i get hard just thinking about her…
Simply because they have a license, does that mean they will be the only staff members in the place? I doubt it.
Can a blind person be denied from obtaining a concealed carry permit simply because they are blind?
Can a blind person be denied from obtaining a concealed carry permit simply because they are blind?
Best quote from the above article:
“I don’t think everybody under the sun should be able to just walk in and get a weapon,” the Fargo man said. “You’ve got to have standards.”
I think the ADA is flawed, not terrible. Congress needs to look at it and make some changes. The daycare case should be exhibit A
But hey...at least they meant well, and that’s what really counts, right?
Feelings are all that matter. “
Feelings, nothing more than feelings.”
Pow!
Here’s some scenarios:
1. If I’m a parent that fits Hawkins’ scenario of wanting inexpensive care and I’m satisfied that the necessary precautions are met etc, then something happens to my child which is a direct result of the care takers being blind - does that fall back on the state (or whoever grants the license) at all in terms of liability? Like say I sue the state because they granted the blind folks license and lulled me into a sense of false security, even though the state “KNEW” that the blind care takers were inheritantly dangerous.
2. Sean’s comment:
Simply because they have a license, does that mean they will be the only staff members in the place?
What if when I signup the blind folks go “oh we don’t watch the kids, its our compentent staff, oh hohoho, PLEASE”. Then later on the staff quits and all that’s left are the blind folks, and we’re back to my question posed in my (1)?
3. This is almost a “let the market decide” type of issue - who’s gonna want blind people “watching” their kids?
i think the courts ought to tell the blind couple that they’re being given the license, and then give them a piece of paper that says Parents! These people are blind! Don’t let them take care of your kids!
they’re blind, so they’d never know! ha! i’m a genius. sneaky_pete/Rice ‘08.
yes, freakin genius sneaky_pete. heeeeheee
Lawyers for ADA:
YUM!!! I can smell the ADA lawsuits! Are we gonna collect alot of money!
Ambulance chasing lawyers:
YUM!!! Wait till the kids start getting hurt and killed at blind operator daycare programs! Are WE gonna collect lots of money from the insurance companies!
Consumers and taxpayers:
Shat! Are WE gonna take it up the . . . .
R.W. Donn:
Lawyers win.
OH, and for those of you who think parents won’t be “dumb” enought to leave kids at the blind operators’ daycare center:
So, do you think the facility is going to be named
ADA Aprroved BLIND OWNERS Daycare Program! Come one, Come All!
No, don’t think so. And, there is probably no legal basis for “full disclosure” that blind people own/operate the facility.
So, do you think the facility is going to be named
ADA Aprroved BLIND OWNERS Daycare Program! Come one, Come All!
No, I don’t think that. But I think parents are going to go meet the people who will be watching their kids. It should become self-evident at that point.
I mean, can you imagine the phone call when you first talk to the place:
“Hi, I’m calling to inquire about daycare for my child. I’d like to come over and see your facility.”
“No, I’m sorry, since we don’t have full-disclosure laws, we do not allow parents to actually meet the people who will be taking care of your child.”
“Oh, OK. Well, I’ll just drop my child off in the parking lot then, and you can come out and get him after I drive away.”
I mean...come on. Do you really think this is something they could hide even if they wanted to?
This ordeal reminds me of the SNL sketch parodying Blind Justice with “Deaf Judge” and “Idiot Doctor.”
Sure there are parents dumb enough to have blind babysitters, Just look at how many parents thought it was ok for their kids to sleep with Michael Jackson...and then tell the world they thought is was ok.
Next entry: Eating Kraft Makes You Queer
Previous entry: Venido Adentro
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 8588
Total Logged in members: 1
Total guests: 57
Total anonymous users: 0
Hal_10000,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
A National Tantrum
(16 total, Last @ 12:39)
AlexinCT: It so happens I was informed last week that my employer’s insurace rates were increased by 16%. Mine is only going up by 12%. I am not counting the extra taxes. And my doctor told me he is retiring early and moving to New Zealand, because he isn't ready to…
A National Tantrum
(16 total, Last @ 12:38)
AlexinCT: Truly, have dumber words been posted here? By muirgeo1? He is constantly trying to up the ante and set a new record for stupid. Once you understand his superiority complex comes from the mistaken belief that he is a better person than all of us, because he thinks he has…
Paper and Fire
(5 total, Last @ 10:37)
Seattle Outcast: Yeah, he has the freedom to do it. But why did he want to be such an asshole? Same reason as always - because they can. Ditto for the "Ground Zero Mosque" - it's a big, fat FU to NYC...
Vancouver--The Detroit of Canada!
(1 total, Last @ 10:34)
Seattle Outcast: Historically, hosting the Olympics has always been a massive money loser. Seattle even went so far as to pass a law banning the city from doing so, and I know other places have done similar things to prevent the city council from engaging in such foolish thinking.
Paper and Fire
(5 total, Last @ 07:06)
Orpheus: Interestingly enough, he got a lot of death threats from that.
Last 30 Comments
Tangentially on topic...a couple of years ago, talk-show host Larry Elder was quoting a study that the unemployment rate among people with disabilities covered under the ADA has actually increased since the ADA was passed. The conclusion was that businesses were simply not hiring disabled people in the first place due to the added cost and potential liability. Yet another example of government activisim having the exact opposite effect of its intention.
But hey...at least they meant well, and that’s what really counts, right?