Anonymous wrote:Playdates were kids of both families are playing together while being overlooked by their respective caregiver: okay.

Playdates were people drop off their kids to be looked after by the AP: Not Okay.

If I asked my LCC if the kids can have a playdate she would say “of course!” , if I asked her if it would be okay for me to let neighbors and friends drop off their kids and for my AP to watch them for free. She would say “absolutely not.”

“Playdates” is a normal thing kids have so of course if you ask an AP or a LCC whether or not playdates are allowed and they would be okay taking kids to playdates, they would say yes. When I organize playdates it’s 99% me meeting parents at a park where they look after their own kids and I look after mine and the kids play together, very rarely is playdate “drop off your kids at mine and come pick them up in a couple hours when you are done enjoying your kid-free time/running errands.” , if it was (and I understand it might be the case for tweens) I would feel it’s the responsibility of the host parents to be there to overlook it and if not, at the very least, for the other parents of the kids that are dropped off to offer and pay the Au Pair for what is actually and essentially babysitting.

How people can think “playdates” were the AP is left alone with other people kids for a couple hours isn’t babysitting and would be okay is nuts.

And I am sure parents who pretend they write it on their profiles aren’t actually saying “ oh and on Wednesdays and Fridays you will be looking after Johnny and Allison, the Neighbors for 3 hours, for free.” But probably write. “ the kids have playdates twice a week with the neighbors that we hope the perfect AP will help maintain and coordinate as our kids love playing together, they are only a 5 minutes walk away!.”

So yes of course, wording B probably wouldn’t get flagged while wording A totally would.

Carpooling 5 minutes from point A to B is different but for all the reasons previously mentioned also not acceptable.

Can’t believe the amount of people who are willingly trying to find loopholes to abuse the system and have their AP do free work for extra risks and very little reward.

Anonymous wrote:Playdates were kids of both families are playing together while being overlooked by their respective caregiver: okay.

Playdates were people drop off their kids to be looked after by the AP: Not Okay.

If I asked my LCC if the kids can have a playdate she would say “of course!” , if I asked her if it would be okay for me to let neighbors and friends drop off their kids and for my AP to watch them for free. She would say “absolutely not.”

“Playdates” is a normal thing kids have so of course if you ask an AP or a LCC whether or not playdates are allowed and they would be okay taking kids to playdates, they would say yes. When I organize playdates it’s 99% me meeting parents at a park where they look after their own kids and I look after mine and the kids play together, very rarely is playdate “drop off your kids at mine and come pick them up in a couple hours when you are done enjoying your kid-free time/running errands.” , if it was (and I understand it might be the case for tweens) I would feel it’s the responsibility of the host parents to be there to overlook it and if not, at the very least, for the other parents of the kids that are dropped off to offer and pay the Au Pair for what is actually and essentially babysitting.

How people can think “playdates” were the AP is left alone with other people kids for a couple hours isn’t babysitting and would be okay is nuts.

And I am sure parents who pretend they write it on their profiles aren’t actually saying “ oh and on Wednesdays and Fridays you will be looking after Johnny and Allison, the Neighbors for 3 hours, for free.” But probably write. “ the kids have playdates twice a week with the neighbors that we hope the perfect AP will help maintain and coordinate as our kids love playing together, they are only a 5 minutes walk away!.”

So yes of course, wording B probably wouldn’t get flagged while wording A totally would.

Carpooling 5 minutes from point A to B is different but for all the reasons previously mentioned also not acceptable.

Can’t believe the amount of people who are willingly trying to find loopholes to abuse the system and have their AP do free work for extra risks and very little reward.

Anonymous wrote:Playdates were kids of both families are playing together while being overlooked by their respective caregiver: okay.

Playdates were people drop off their kids to be looked after by the AP: Not Okay.

If I asked my LCC if the kids can have a playdate she would say “of course!” , if I asked her if it would be okay for me to let neighbors and friends drop off their kids and for my AP to watch them for free. She would say “absolutely not.”

“Playdates” is a normal thing kids have so of course if you ask an AP or a LCC whether or not playdates are allowed and they would be okay taking kids to playdates, they would say yes. When I organize playdates it’s 99% me meeting parents at a park where they look after their own kids and I look after mine and the kids play together, very rarely is playdate “drop off your kids at mine and come pick them up in a couple hours when you are done enjoying your kid-free time/running errands.” , if it was (and I understand it might be the case for tweens) I would feel it’s the responsibility of the host parents to be there to overlook it and if not, at the very least, for the other parents of the kids that are dropped off to offer and pay the Au Pair for what is actually and essentially babysitting.

How people can think “playdates” were the AP is left alone with other people kids for a couple hours isn’t babysitting and would be okay is nuts.

And I am sure parents who pretend they write it on their profiles aren’t actually saying “ oh and on Wednesdays and Fridays you will be looking after Johnny and Allison, the Neighbors for 3 hours, for free.” But probably write. “ the kids have playdates twice a week with the neighbors that we hope the perfect AP will help maintain and coordinate as our kids love playing together, they are only a 5 minutes walk away!.”

So yes of course, wording B probably wouldn’t get flagged while wording A totally would.

Carpooling 5 minutes from point A to B is different but for all the reasons previously mentioned also not acceptable.

Can’t believe the amount of people who are willingly trying to find loopholes to abuse the system and have their AP do free work for extra risks and very little reward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree. The LCC knows it would kill the program
To take that position.

I disagree that driving an older child (over 5) to practice and dropping him/her off and any other carpool is “babysitting.” Or caring for another child.

So this premise is totally wrong.

And as someone said, au pairs are covered by your driving insurance. So god forbid anything happens, you and her are covered. As is the other child.

By Felicia.

If the AP is the only adult in the car - yes, babysitting.
If the AP is not the only adult in the car, not babysitting.

It’s not that deep...

I love how people think they can just interpret rules and if they happen to "disagree" means it's okay.

Oh god you are fatuous. Have ever used your mailbox or someone else's mailbox for something not delivered by the USPS? Have you ever removed a tag that says "do not remove"? Have you ever made a mix tape or copied something you didn't own IP for? Have you ever sung Happy Birthday in public without first obtaining copyright permission? (Seriously!) If you have connected to an unsecured wifi network without reading and understanding the fine print you may well have violated CFAA act. Have you ever touched your cell phone while driving? Did you update the DMV within 5 days of your move to DC? Does your dog have a license? Have you jaywalked?

Whether people do this or not still doesn't mean it's okay to do.

I am not the PP you are answering to but it was exactly her point, I think.

Your argument is: everyone break the law sometimes therefore I should be able to break the law too, whenever I see fit.

It's the same logic my 3yo uses when arguing why the baby can do stuff she doesn't get to get away with.

It's not because a lot of people do something bad that it becomes okay to do it. The fact that you gauge a rule is less important and is okay to break doesn't make it true nor factual, nor okay.

But I hope host parents who are okay with breaking their AP's visa regulations, show the same understanding to APs who break their family rules.

I find it quite mind-blowing that adults still need to be taught that ''it's not because people do bad things that they should jump on the bandwagon and do them too'' You would think most people would have learned that during their childhood or teenage years. Guess not.

I don't think you've read the thread closely or really thought about this situation. It's not clear that allowing a host child to have playdates does violate the rule. Multiple posters state that they have shared their family's practices in this regard in their matching profiles/with their agencies, and the agencies have not found them to be in violation of the rule. The rule is presumably NOT designed to prevent playdates but to prevent people from doing dumb stuff like trying to do au pair shares with friends and neighbors. Furthermore the au pairs have matched with these families knowing that this is their policy.

Seems like this is really not your problem, but a question for the families, the agencies, and the au pairs. So I'd say MYOB and let's move on.

You seem to be the one who didn’t read the thread nor the title of the thread.

The thread isn’t about playdates, nobody has said playdates (assuming playdates are supervised properly and within the rules) are illegal we are talking about carpooling here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree. The LCC knows it would kill the program
To take that position.

I disagree that driving an older child (over 5) to practice and dropping him/her off and any other carpool is “babysitting.” Or caring for another child.

So this premise is totally wrong.

And as someone said, au pairs are covered by your driving insurance. So god forbid anything happens, you and her are covered. As is the other child.

By Felicia.

If the AP is the only adult in the car - yes, babysitting.
If the AP is not the only adult in the car, not babysitting.

It’s not that deep...

I love how people think they can just interpret rules and if they happen to "disagree" means it's okay.

Oh god you are fatuous. Have ever used your mailbox or someone else's mailbox for something not delivered by the USPS? Have you ever removed a tag that says "do not remove"? Have you ever made a mix tape or copied something you didn't own IP for? Have you ever sung Happy Birthday in public without first obtaining copyright permission? (Seriously!) If you have connected to an unsecured wifi network without reading and understanding the fine print you may well have violated CFAA act. Have you ever touched your cell phone while driving? Did you update the DMV within 5 days of your move to DC? Does your dog have a license? Have you jaywalked?

Whether people do this or not still doesn't mean it's okay to do.

I am not the PP you are answering to but it was exactly her point, I think.

Your argument is: everyone break the law sometimes therefore I should be able to break the law too, whenever I see fit.

It's the same logic my 3yo uses when arguing why the baby can do stuff she doesn't get to get away with.

It's not because a lot of people do something bad that it becomes okay to do it. The fact that you gauge a rule is less important and is okay to break doesn't make it true nor factual, nor okay.

But I hope host parents who are okay with breaking their AP's visa regulations, show the same understanding to APs who break their family rules.

I find it quite mind-blowing that adults still need to be taught that ''it's not because people do bad things that they should jump on the bandwagon and do them too'' You would think most people would have learned that during their childhood or teenage years. Guess not.

I don't think you've read the thread closely or really thought about this situation. It's not clear that allowing a host child to have playdates does violate the rule. Multiple posters state that they have shared their family's practices in this regard in their matching profiles/with their agencies, and the agencies have not found them to be in violation of the rule. The rule is presumably NOT designed to prevent playdates but to prevent people from doing dumb stuff like trying to do au pair shares with friends and neighbors. Furthermore the au pairs have matched with these families knowing that this is their policy.

Seems like this is really not your problem, but a question for the families, the agencies, and the au pairs. So I'd say MYOB and let's move on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree. The LCC knows it would kill the program
To take that position.

I disagree that driving an older child (over 5) to practice and dropping him/her off and any other carpool is “babysitting.” Or caring for another child.

So this premise is totally wrong.

And as someone said, au pairs are covered by your driving insurance. So god forbid anything happens, you and her are covered. As is the other child.

By Felicia.

If the AP is the only adult in the car - yes, babysitting.
If the AP is not the only adult in the car, not babysitting.

It’s not that deep...

I love how people think they can just interpret rules and if they happen to "disagree" means it's okay.

Oh god you are fatuous. Have ever used your mailbox or someone else's mailbox for something not delivered by the USPS? Have you ever removed a tag that says "do not remove"? Have you ever made a mix tape or copied something you didn't own IP for? Have you ever sung Happy Birthday in public without first obtaining copyright permission? (Seriously!) If you have connected to an unsecured wifi network without reading and understanding the fine print you may well have violated CFAA act. Have you ever touched your cell phone while driving? Did you update the DMV within 5 days of your move to DC? Does your dog have a license? Have you jaywalked?

Whether people do this or not still doesn't mean it's okay to do.

I am not the PP you are answering to but it was exactly her point, I think.

Your argument is: everyone break the law sometimes therefore I should be able to break the law too, whenever I see fit.

It's the same logic my 3yo uses when arguing why the baby can do stuff she doesn't get to get away with.

It's not because a lot of people do something bad that it becomes okay to do it. The fact that you gauge a rule is less important and is okay to break doesn't make it true nor factual, nor okay.

But I hope host parents who are okay with breaking their AP's visa regulations, show the same understanding to APs who break their family rules.

I find it quite mind-blowing that adults still need to be taught that ''it's not because people do bad things that they should jump on the bandwagon and do them too'' You would think most people would have learned that during their childhood or teenage years. Guess not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree. The LCC knows it would kill the program
To take that position.

I disagree that driving an older child (over 5) to practice and dropping him/her off and any other carpool is “babysitting.” Or caring for another child.

So this premise is totally wrong.

And as someone said, au pairs are covered by your driving insurance. So god forbid anything happens, you and her are covered. As is the other child.

By Felicia.

If the AP is the only adult in the car - yes, babysitting.
If the AP is not the only adult in the car, not babysitting.

It’s not that deep...

I love how people think they can just interpret rules and if they happen to "disagree" means it's okay.

Oh god you are fatuous. Have ever used your mailbox or someone else's mailbox for something not delivered by the USPS? Have you ever removed a tag that says "do not remove"? Have you ever made a mix tape or copied something you didn't own IP for? Have you ever sung Happy Birthday in public without first obtaining copyright permission? (Seriously!) If you have connected to an unsecured wifi network without reading and understanding the fine print you may well have violated CFAA act. Have you ever touched your cell phone while driving? Did you update the DMV within 5 days of your move to DC? Does your dog have a license? Have you jaywalked?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree. The LCC knows it would kill the program
To take that position.

I disagree that driving an older child (over 5) to practice and dropping him/her off and any other carpool is “babysitting.” Or caring for another child.

So this premise is totally wrong.

And as someone said, au pairs are covered by your driving insurance. So god forbid anything happens, you and her are covered. As is the other child.

By Felicia.

Yes because insurance is going to cover the emotional burden of having killed a child that should have never been in your care to start with.

Bye* Felicia indeed!

Now you are getting ridiculous.

She kills your child -- OK and not an emotional problem.
Kills someone else kid -- somehow she will be more upset because the child "shouldn't have been in the car."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree. The LCC knows it would kill the program
To take that position.

I disagree that driving an older child (over 5) to practice and dropping him/her off and any other carpool is “babysitting.” Or caring for another child.

So this premise is totally wrong.

And as someone said, au pairs are covered by your driving insurance. So god forbid anything happens, you and her are covered. As is the other child.

By Felicia.

If the AP is the only adult in the car - yes, babysitting.
If the AP is not the only adult in the car, not babysitting.

It’s not that deep...

I love how people think they can just interpret rules and if they happen to "disagree" means it's okay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree. The LCC knows it would kill the program
To take that position.

I disagree that driving an older child (over 5) to practice and dropping him/her off and any other carpool is “babysitting.” Or caring for another child.

So this premise is totally wrong.

And as someone said, au pairs are covered by your driving insurance. So god forbid anything happens, you and her are covered. As is the other child.

By Felicia.

Yes because insurance is going to cover the emotional burden of having killed a child that should have never been in your care to start with.

Bye* Felicia indeed!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree. The LCC knows it would kill the program
To take that position.

I disagree that driving an older child (over 5) to practice and dropping him/her off and any other carpool is “babysitting.” Or caring for another child.

So this premise is totally wrong.

And as someone said, au pairs are covered by your driving insurance. So god forbid anything happens, you and her are covered. As is the other child.

By Felicia.

If the AP is the only adult in the car - yes, babysitting.
If the AP is not the only adult in the car, not babysitting.

It’s not that deep...

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree. The LCC knows it would kill the program
To take that position.

I disagree that driving an older child (over 5) to practice and dropping him/her off and any other carpool is “babysitting.” Or caring for another child.

So this premise is totally wrong.

And as someone said, au pairs are covered by your driving insurance. So god forbid anything happens, you and her are covered. As is the other child.

By Felicia.

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree. The LCC knows it would kill the program
To take that position.

I disagree that driving an older child (over 5) to practice and dropping him/her off and any other carpool is “babysitting.” Or caring for another child.

So this premise is totally wrong.

And as someone said, au pairs are covered by your driving insurance. So god forbid anything happens, you and her are covered. As is the other child.

By Felicia.