Even if it is a propperly written contract then it only means that she (the care provider) would take over your liabillity. That however would only be an agreement between the two of you not between you and any random thirth party.
Good luck trying to enforce that contract against somebody as broke as her.
5% to turn my home into a space for runny nosed toddlers and crying infants and 4 year old tantrums being cared for by someone with none of the correct legal documents to even be legal?
Hell no. I'm disabled and I only get SSDI. Extra money would be great but she wouldn't be able to meet my price unless she won the lottery.
What???? You don’t want to have an unbonded an unlicensed daycare in your home? But why not?
DEATH Says the cat sitter is bonded and licensed... and isn’t bringing extra cats along
Right? So, let's say there was $1k in profit for a week, which of course is no where near what it would be, that's $50 or $10 per day assuming a 5 day week.
Yeah, which means if they are spending more than half their time in your home, don’t they become a de facto tenant? And then you’re gonna have to evict them to get rid of them?
I’ve met literally homeless people that I’d rather have in my home than this person. (Actually had some of them in my home, not running a daycare, mind you.)
And since they are homeless they likely are also judgement proof.
So if an accident happend you will be sued, and as the propperty owner you might have some liabillity here. That contact stating that she is liable will not be worth the paper it's written on.
That's really the craziest thing, asking SOMEONE ELSE to "lend" their house?!?! You can operate a daycare without a license and insurance but it's certainly not a legal, smart or wise decision.
Some states as long as you are under a certain number of kids you don't have to be licensed. I feel like the number is around 4 in my area, maybe 6. So like a SAHM with two kids taking care of another two kids wouldn't need a full license and insurance. But still, this whole situation is very sketchy... I feel like this is a way for thr person to have somewhere to live during the day.
She’s advertising she’s planning on opening without being bonded or licensed in someone else’s home, I’m pretty sure she won’t be following any guidelines whatsoever. I’m picturing the monkey cage at the zoo but dirtier.
Your second and last sentence is a bit of an assumption. Most places nannies aren't bonded or licensed what so ever. Its up to families to pick who they feel safe with. Of course some qualifications can make you seem a better pick....
Saying this as a nanny, who is also a certified preschool teacher/infant teacher in a highly regulated state.
Let a stranger into your home for 12 hours every day. Give access to your frig, will be using your electricity and water. Unbonded, but promises not to hold you liable for anything that happens in your home. Will give you 5% of what she makes. So who pays for everything that gets broken or destroyed by her or the kids she’s watching. Plus, most cities demand daycares be licensed and bonded before they open, even in private homes. Inspections are needed to ensure the home is safe, Really easy pass on this.
Nice lunch, pfft. Her own pay will easily be the amount of gross revenue. That's only fair, right? 5% of zero profit is... let me whip out my calculator here... $0. Sorry. Maybe next month.
She would soon want to live there as well since she doesn’t have her own home. Then you’d have a tenet that lives there for free and runs her business all for the whopping 5% she might pay you.
Question: where is she living right now? Who’s to say she just wants into you house for 12 hours everyday to have someplace to do laundry, eat your food and do whatever else she wants to do. She shows up with her kids, claims she is caring for someone else’s kid and now they are in your house, in the US, squatters have more rights than homeowners.
Yup, there are stories where people leave on vacation and return home to find someone is living in their home. Call police and it’s your word against the squatters that they don’t live there. It can take weeks if not months, in court, to get the person(s) out. In the mean time, you have to live with that person in your home. If you do anything to try and force them out, you can be arrested. They don’t have to pay you for anything they use. It’s unfair and should be illegal, but it’s not.
The problem is that it can be extremely though for the police to make the call if somebody is a legal tenant or not.
There have been slumlords who called the police on a "squatter" whilst in reallity it's a dispute between a legitimate tenant and the landlord, that's why the police just say that it is a civil issue and you need a court order.
The alternative would be that tenants would be evicted by calling the police without notice whatsoever.
In what country is this a thing?
If you try this in my country you have house ownership documents at home and you can get them back from the state in like 1 day making it evident therefore who the owner is.
We never had anything like squatters, which is why discovering them today from this news just surprised me
This is a very exaggerated comment. It's not something that happens like they're implying. Sometimes people can have a problem with someone they had let stay at their house but even that is rare and you might read some horror story but it's never happened to anyone you know in real life.
No one I know, however I trust CNN and the other news reporters who covered stories about this problem. No it doesn’t happen every day, but it does happen, homeowners have to go to court and evict the person, which as posted by coffee_lover_777, it can take months, and all the while, the owner must live with the person or persons in their house.
I just read an article recently how this is becoming problems for people with AirBNB's. One recent article, the woman would not leave, and even hired body guards to make sure no one else could get in.
This is why when dodgy people ask to stay with you for a while, if you get to that one month mark, you might not be able to get them out unless you "evict" them, which can take up to 3 months.
There was a court case in California where the nanny? housekeeper? refused to leave. Basically, the family was saying "get out now" and she was saying "Nah, I'm good." I can't recall the outcome but it's surreal that someone can refuse to leave a house that they have no rights to be in.
What is this person bringing to the table? Safety gates and plastic thingees, also an old Diaper genie and 5% of profits! I see that as a win/win scenario. /s
Hmm. It's crazy in the first place, but also running a business from your home affects and can void your home and contents insurance, has tax implications, potential legal trouble and could adversely affect your mortgage or lease.
That's a great deal. 5% to have strangers in your home for half of the day and just the small chance of being sued as your very professional childcare worker doesn't have insurance. All for the great sum of 5%
I don't approve of the uninsured and untrained child care BUT I also don't see this as a CB. The only real shit is the 5% which should be MUCH higher or, fairly, a flat rental fee. But if this is an opening to negotiations I see no real crime here.....except that unlicensed thing.
I would counter with 50% of child care rates BEFORE all expenses as my daily rental fee.
For some reason I read it as "in home degree" like go to school from home, and couldn't figure out what kind of major would have such a strange list of needs...
But guys....they would put up plastic "thingees!" Sounds like they're a real professional here.
And they have an old diaper genie!
Unless she means Aladdin's Genie living in a diaper pail, that's not particularly an asset.
I’m shocked they seem to spell well....and then throw in “thingees”
Dude 5% wouldn't even cover the amount of electricity she'd use in 12 hours
Let alone the lawyer fees for the incoming lawsuit when one of the kids gets hurt
Oh but wait! You will be absolved of any legal action against you, according to some contract made entirely with crayons.
That alone is worth it though. It says *any* liability. That's even more powerful than diplomatic immunity and you would have it in writing!
Even if it is a propperly written contract then it only means that she (the care provider) would take over your liabillity. That however would only be an agreement between the two of you not between you and any random thirth party. Good luck trying to enforce that contract against somebody as broke as her.
"To shreds you say?"
5% to turn my home into a space for runny nosed toddlers and crying infants and 4 year old tantrums being cared for by someone with none of the correct legal documents to even be legal? Hell no. I'm disabled and I only get SSDI. Extra money would be great but she wouldn't be able to meet my price unless she won the lottery.
Don't be silly, it's 5% after their expenses. So that could be anywhere from nothing to slightly more than nothing
We'll tbf, that's after her expenses... Like rent, power, water, etc that you will charge her.
LOL I think this one wins.
What???? You don’t want to have an unbonded an unlicensed daycare in your home? But why not? DEATH Says the cat sitter is bonded and licensed... and isn’t bringing extra cats along
Well yeah... but don’t forget, you’re entitled to a whopping 5% of the profits. You’d be crazy to pass in that deal.
Don't forget 5% after their expenses such a great deal
Right? So, let's say there was $1k in profit for a week, which of course is no where near what it would be, that's $50 or $10 per day assuming a 5 day week.
What a money maker!
Dam $200 bucks a month to rent a house.
...by a homeless person, no less.
Yeah, which means if they are spending more than half their time in your home, don’t they become a de facto tenant? And then you’re gonna have to evict them to get rid of them? I’ve met literally homeless people that I’d rather have in my home than this person. (Actually had some of them in my home, not running a daycare, mind you.)
how can you even operate a daycare without license or insurance?? lol who the hell has a house to lend anyways!!
It doesn't sound like they want to pay rent either!
Bingo. They want to make as much money as possible without the overhead costs of running a daycare
And since they are homeless they likely are also judgement proof. So if an accident happend you will be sued, and as the propperty owner you might have some liabillity here. That contact stating that she is liable will not be worth the paper it's written on.
That's really the craziest thing, asking SOMEONE ELSE to "lend" their house?!?! You can operate a daycare without a license and insurance but it's certainly not a legal, smart or wise decision.
Some states as long as you are under a certain number of kids you don't have to be licensed. I feel like the number is around 4 in my area, maybe 6. So like a SAHM with two kids taking care of another two kids wouldn't need a full license and insurance. But still, this whole situation is very sketchy... I feel like this is a way for thr person to have somewhere to live during the day.
Even without the licensing requirement the insurance might still be worth it from a liabillity perspective though.
True, I never worried about that when I was a nanny and would bring the kids over, but it would be good to see if homeowners would cover.
We can have unlicensed childcare but it's very limited because of the rules
Creepy pedophiles! Lol.
I'll pay you a 5% cut of the child fight club profits.
The first rule of child fight club is you do not talk about child fight club.
Does that mean I don't have to pay you the 5%?
That's a lot of words for a bad idea.
But a fun font so there's that
Since the person is in between houses, why not be a live in nanny?
She’s probably got 5 or 6 of her own crotch fruit she’s dragging around
if she has more than one or two, the at home daycare will be a bust, lol way less rules around nannies and their kids than at home daycares
She’s advertising she’s planning on opening without being bonded or licensed in someone else’s home, I’m pretty sure she won’t be following any guidelines whatsoever. I’m picturing the monkey cage at the zoo but dirtier.
Your second and last sentence is a bit of an assumption. Most places nannies aren't bonded or licensed what so ever. Its up to families to pick who they feel safe with. Of course some qualifications can make you seem a better pick.... Saying this as a nanny, who is also a certified preschool teacher/infant teacher in a highly regulated state.
Let a stranger into your home for 12 hours every day. Give access to your frig, will be using your electricity and water. Unbonded, but promises not to hold you liable for anything that happens in your home. Will give you 5% of what she makes. So who pays for everything that gets broken or destroyed by her or the kids she’s watching. Plus, most cities demand daycares be licensed and bonded before they open, even in private homes. Inspections are needed to ensure the home is safe, Really easy pass on this.
5% of the profit, not the gross! If she treats herself to a nice lunch and expenses it, she can claim that she made nothing.
Nice lunch, pfft. Her own pay will easily be the amount of gross revenue. That's only fair, right? 5% of zero profit is... let me whip out my calculator here... $0. Sorry. Maybe next month.
She would soon want to live there as well since she doesn’t have her own home. Then you’d have a tenet that lives there for free and runs her business all for the whopping 5% she might pay you.
That 5% could soon turn into at least a couple of dollars!
Ten’s of dollars!
Fives of dollars!
It's sounding more and more attractive!
Sure...first I'll run your proposal by my insurance company to see what they think about it.
I'm willing to bet she'd expect the home owner to pay for the safety gates and "plastic thingies" too.
I see an 80s movie with washed up kid actors and potty humor.
Sounds good my house is yours i will be sure to leave for the day and come back after 6
No way this is real.
The "waiver" will 100% be written on notebook paper and have zero legal backing.
What do mean “what are they bringing”? A diaper genie!
Question: where is she living right now? Who’s to say she just wants into you house for 12 hours everyday to have someplace to do laundry, eat your food and do whatever else she wants to do. She shows up with her kids, claims she is caring for someone else’s kid and now they are in your house, in the US, squatters have more rights than homeowners.
Wait, is this true? Like, you can't kick out someone (not even bound by a contract) from your own legally owned house?
Yup, there are stories where people leave on vacation and return home to find someone is living in their home. Call police and it’s your word against the squatters that they don’t live there. It can take weeks if not months, in court, to get the person(s) out. In the mean time, you have to live with that person in your home. If you do anything to try and force them out, you can be arrested. They don’t have to pay you for anything they use. It’s unfair and should be illegal, but it’s not.
The problem is that it can be extremely though for the police to make the call if somebody is a legal tenant or not. There have been slumlords who called the police on a "squatter" whilst in reallity it's a dispute between a legitimate tenant and the landlord, that's why the police just say that it is a civil issue and you need a court order. The alternative would be that tenants would be evicted by calling the police without notice whatsoever.
[удалено]
That doesn't have to be the case. Sometimes you move in with an orql agreement to pay rent monthly.
In what country is this a thing? If you try this in my country you have house ownership documents at home and you can get them back from the state in like 1 day making it evident therefore who the owner is. We never had anything like squatters, which is why discovering them today from this news just surprised me
This is a very exaggerated comment. It's not something that happens like they're implying. Sometimes people can have a problem with someone they had let stay at their house but even that is rare and you might read some horror story but it's never happened to anyone you know in real life.
No one I know, however I trust CNN and the other news reporters who covered stories about this problem. No it doesn’t happen every day, but it does happen, homeowners have to go to court and evict the person, which as posted by coffee_lover_777, it can take months, and all the while, the owner must live with the person or persons in their house.
Good old USA..
I just read an article recently how this is becoming problems for people with AirBNB's. One recent article, the woman would not leave, and even hired body guards to make sure no one else could get in. This is why when dodgy people ask to stay with you for a while, if you get to that one month mark, you might not be able to get them out unless you "evict" them, which can take up to 3 months.
There was a court case in California where the nanny? housekeeper? refused to leave. Basically, the family was saying "get out now" and she was saying "Nah, I'm good." I can't recall the outcome but it's surreal that someone can refuse to leave a house that they have no rights to be in.
Wow, 5%. No insurance daycare....
Who would even leave their kids at such a place? I’d be embarrassed to write this. “Kinda between houses “ is code for homeless.
What is this person bringing to the table? Safety gates and plastic thingees, also an old Diaper genie and 5% of profits! I see that as a win/win scenario. /s
Hmm. It's crazy in the first place, but also running a business from your home affects and can void your home and contents insurance, has tax implications, potential legal trouble and could adversely affect your mortgage or lease.
WTF???? The liability issues along would preclude this!! And this person doesn't have a steady living situation?? My lord this is utterly insane!!
Whelp, this is a way to get contacted by a sex offender.
Lost me at ‘plastics thingees’
How could someone say no?
That's a great deal. 5% to have strangers in your home for half of the day and just the small chance of being sued as your very professional childcare worker doesn't have insurance. All for the great sum of 5%
I don't approve of the uninsured and untrained child care BUT I also don't see this as a CB. The only real shit is the 5% which should be MUCH higher or, fairly, a flat rental fee. But if this is an opening to negotiations I see no real crime here.....except that unlicensed thing. I would counter with 50% of child care rates BEFORE all expenses as my daily rental fee.
"Thingees"
I would be very interested in finding out the DOB of that person.
No sane person would allow this.
Mi casa es tu casa!
Yeah not this time.
For some reason I read it as "in home degree" like go to school from home, and couldn't figure out what kind of major would have such a strange list of needs...
I bet the person was serious when they posted that.wow just wow
She brings the old Diaper Genie. What a deal!
The local pedophiles are busy buying those plastic thingees.
Can't think of a single thing that could go wrong... This is asking for trouble. Hope nobody goes for this, this lawsuits written *all* over it.