Anonymous wrote:As a home daycare what I notice is that they are trying to make home care more like center care with the regulations. Because every home is different with different layouts it is not possible to do that. What I think is happening is Maryland is trying to phase out home daycares. People should be worried about this because that means those cover an infant spots would become even more rare. With the push for pre-K starting at age 3, that means daycares would only have two infants and two-year-olds which is not a good business model and many would have to close because they don’t have enough children to make a living.

We also have to deal with the wishy-washiness and individual interpretation from each licensing specialist on what is compliant or not compliant. I will give you an example. A friend of mine who also owns an in-home daycare was cited for having a laundry in her living room. Another person was cited for having shampoo bottles in her own bathroom. Obviously, these items would not be in a center but are present in any family home. I could list many more things and even a couple years ago there was talk of requiring us to have college degrees in early childhood education, I believe that was taken out of consideration.

Since I am licensed I obviously want to be right with the state and want to do my best for these children so I think that there is a place for commonsense regulations, and I follow all of the regulations that are in place . There are the regulations I feel are put in place for regulations’ sake and like I said to make us in line with centers, which we are not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The proposed regulation was taken off the books. They wanted all children to sleep in the same level and be in the same room as the provider and baby monitors would not have been sufficient. If they would have passed this law many providers would not have been compliant and worst case, would have had to close.

In Howard (?) county the Fire Marshall wanted to reduce the number of infants a current 4 infant home could watch to 3. This was also overturned. They claimed it was a misunderstanding. Meanwhile providers were already cited and given letters that they were not compliant.

Who sponsored this regulation? And why was it removed?

It was removed from consideration because they had a major pushback from both providers and parents who did not want their daycare’s to have to close or become noncompliant. As far as who sponsored the regulation I don’t know but, but they like to throw in new regulations all the time to make our lives more difficult.

Some legislator (s) were responsible for bringing it up, and some for rejecting. I'd be curious as to who. Also curious as to other regulations that made it or didn't make it.

Never mind, I found all the info. Some seems reasonable, especially to maintain federal funds, ore service training for providers and subs and background checks for subs! Of course, yes! The room thing, with babies on the same floor, no, not necessary.

On the same level and same room (with multiple exists) helps when evacuation is needed, and for doing direct visual checks routinely throughout nap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The proposed regulation was taken off the books. They wanted all children to sleep in the same level and be in the same room as the provider and baby monitors would not have been sufficient. If they would have passed this law many providers would not have been compliant and worst case, would have had to close.

In Howard (?) county the Fire Marshall wanted to reduce the number of infants a current 4 infant home could watch to 3. This was also overturned. They claimed it was a misunderstanding. Meanwhile providers were already cited and given letters that they were not compliant.

Who sponsored this regulation? And why was it removed?

It was removed from consideration because they had a major pushback from both providers and parents who did not want their daycare’s to have to close or become noncompliant. As far as who sponsored the regulation I don’t know but, but they like to throw in new regulations all the time to make our lives more difficult.

Some legislator (s) were responsible for bringing it up, and some for rejecting. I'd be curious as to who. Also curious as to other regulations that made it or didn't make it.

Never mind, I found all the info. Some seems reasonable, especially to maintain federal funds, ore service training for providers and subs and background checks for subs! Of course, yes! The room thing, with babies on the same floor, no, not necessary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The proposed regulation was taken off the books. They wanted all children to sleep in the same level and be in the same room as the provider and baby monitors would not have been sufficient. If they would have passed this law many providers would not have been compliant and worst case, would have had to close.

In Howard (?) county the Fire Marshall wanted to reduce the number of infants a current 4 infant home could watch to 3. This was also overturned. They claimed it was a misunderstanding. Meanwhile providers were already cited and given letters that they were not compliant.

Who sponsored this regulation? And why was it removed?

It was removed from consideration because they had a major pushback from both providers and parents who did not want their daycare’s to have to close or become noncompliant. As far as who sponsored the regulation I don’t know but, but they like to throw in new regulations all the time to make our lives more difficult.

Some legislator (s) were responsible for bringing it up, and some for rejecting. I'd be curious as to who. Also curious as to other regulations that made it or didn't make it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The proposed regulation was taken off the books. They wanted all children to sleep in the same level and be in the same room as the provider and baby monitors would not have been sufficient. If they would have passed this law many providers would not have been compliant and worst case, would have had to close.

In Howard (?) county the Fire Marshall wanted to reduce the number of infants a current 4 infant home could watch to 3. This was also overturned. They claimed it was a misunderstanding. Meanwhile providers were already cited and given letters that they were not compliant.

Who sponsored this regulation? And why was it removed?

It was removed from consideration because they had a major pushback from both providers and parents who did not want their daycare’s to have to close or become noncompliant. As far as who sponsored the regulation I don’t know but, but they like to throw in new regulations all the time to make our lives more difficult.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The proposed regulation was taken off the books. They wanted all children to sleep in the same level and be in the same room as the provider and baby monitors would not have been sufficient. If they would have passed this law many providers would not have been compliant and worst case, would have had to close.

In Howard (?) county the Fire Marshall wanted to reduce the number of infants a current 4 infant home could watch to 3. This was also overturned. They claimed it was a misunderstanding. Meanwhile providers were already cited and given letters that they were not compliant.

Who sponsored this regulation? And why was it removed?

Anonymous wrote:The proposed regulation was taken off the books. They wanted all children to sleep in the same level and be in the same room as the provider and baby monitors would not have been sufficient. If they would have passed this law many providers would not have been compliant and worst case, would have had to close.

In Howard (?) county the Fire Marshall wanted to reduce the number of infants a current 4 infant home could watch to 3. This was also overturned. They claimed it was a misunderstanding. Meanwhile providers were already cited and given letters that they were not compliant.