What's the Difference Between 3.5 and 5 Years?

This is hard. I do in-home daycare. My age set is 4 and under.

When the kids have ruined something of mine, I usually eat it. The only times that has ever happened has been while I've been out of the room.
I can hardly blame the children in that case. And, I can't really hold the parents financially responsible. I do inform the parents of the behavior and
ask them to work on it and I work on it myself with the children. If the behavior is a problem- then the parents and I talk more serious solutions and I give the parents a heads up that the behavior must stop or we may have to part ways.

I had to go back and read the previous post to "get" the full picture of what you were asking...
No, I don't think at 3.5 yrs old the child has any way to fully understand the potential consequences of what he did (destroying property in the manner he did). At 5 years old, they SHOULD. How much and how fully they understand (that doing so is wrong) is in large part determined by their upbringing (i.e., parenting). But at 3.5, most kids are still working out some cause and effect things. Yeah... they know it could break something. Do they understand the cost/expense and fragility of a flat screen TV? No. It's probably all the same to them if it were a paper poster on the wall. Or if it was a piece of canvas art, whether it was painted by a fellow 3 yr old or Picasso himself. They just can't grasp the VALUE of things fully at that age, generally speaking. So they probably don't see hitting it with a plastic hammer as wrong. The plastic hammer is for hitting. That is what THEY "get".
But, a 5 year old is another matter. By that age, they definitely should have a far deeper grasp on what is appropriate to hit with a toy hammer and what is not. Like they would know that tossing a nerf ball against a glass sliding door won't do anything, but tossing a BASEball, WOULD. And that it could be BAD (as in dangerous or get them into trouble) and also wrong.

I'm totally on Jo's side with this one. No, the child did not intentionally break the t.v. (ergo, it was an accident), but the child DID intentionally throw the toy that broke the t.v.

If you 'accidentally' hit a person with your car, you're still responsible for bodily harm, if not more.

If the child had been properly supervised, it wouldn't have happened. No, she could not have taken the child with her into the bathroom, but there were other ways of handling this situation, and I absolutely believe she, and she alone, is responsible for repairing/buying herself a new t.v.

If one of my kids hauled off and broke a window in our house, which we rent, I'm not going to call my landlord. I'm going to fix the damn thing myself, because by default, it's MY fault, MY responsibility.

ETA: If my kid threw something through a $2,000 window, I'd be IMPRESSED ;) Seriously though, THAT is understood that insurance would cover it. WHY ANYONE would have something SO expensive, in their own home daycare, around other people's children, WITHOUT some kind of insurance or contract stating the parent's are responsible, is completely, 100% beyond me.

I, personally think there is a HUGE difference between a 3, 4 and 5 year old. 3 year olds are still learning impulse control. Most 5 year olds have the concept down, and know better. There is no comparison between a 3 & 5 year old, in my book.

To answer your question in a general way, I think that the person who is supposed to be managing & caring for child AT THAT TIME should hold the most responsibility. You don't want your bed jumped on? Kid proof your bedroom door, so no kids can get in there, or put a gate at the bottom of your stairs. I think that broken items in a home daycare situation is the cost of doing business. If you want parents held responsible, then say so in your contract. Regarding this issue, I think there is a huge grey area that no law can cover.

I don't see that people were being nasty. They were answering the question asked. I asked about insurance because that is exactly what insurance is for - so the insurance company will be out the money - not the home or business owner. Don't see how that is mean.

The fact that childhood is a very new idea seems a positive to me. I would be strongly opposed to sending my 12 year old off to work in the factory. Or to the poorhouse if he broke a tv and couldn't pay for it.

If I was at a store or a person's house for a party or other social or business reason and my child or I broke something, of course I would expect to pay for it. When my son is at daycare, I AM already paying - I am paying for them to keep him safe, provide an opportunity for play and learning. I chose a daycare center because there, a responsible adult is always watching. When a teacher goes to the bathroom, another adult remains with the children. I would be more concerned that my son might have been injured by flying glass from a large dangerous object overhead than the monetary damages. Breakage is a potential cost of doing business.

I think there is a HUGE difference between 3 and 5. My five year old is way more responsible, has vastly better impulse control, reads and writes, plans ahead and is way more empathetic than he was at three. I find it really interesting that most people on this site seem to feel pushing a 3 year old to potty train is awful but punishing him for lack of impulse control is admirable. Just my take.

When comparing my own child at ages 3.5 and 5, there was a big difference in maturity level, obviously. Not only knowing that something is wrong, but then controlling her impulses and not acting on it. I do feel for that poster, that is a big expense to have to eat.

Unless the parent(s) sign a contract agreeing to be held responsible, I think never. You run a business, you choose to run that business from your home. I think all childcare givers know kids can be destructive. It is the care givers responsibility to ensure their valubles are secure, not mine.

There are a mess of different laws that come into play with children. Really the case you speak of probably would turn out different with the current set of laws. Taking out the day care angle which relieves us of a mess of laws there is still a matter of intent. That the child aimed for the TV is not sufficient to prove he intended to break the TV. Most likely he wouldn't know that hitting that TV could break it. Heck even as an adult we don't know that hitting a TV with a toy hammer can break it. There are so many variables that come into play, if adults cannot fathom every variable how can a child. That is why younger kids are not held responsible the same way adults and older children are.

So to answer the title the difference between a three and a half year old and a five year old is the opportunity for knowledge and self control. It is no different than you wouldn't expect a baby who just learned to walk to stay away from stairs. They do not know about gravity, motion, or any other laws a physics that would cause them to fall. You protect them from the fall by supervision or a gate. As they get older they figure out that gravity works so it would be reasonable not to have a gate for a three year old.

Unless you are in a paid environment like a day care. Then a whole mess of laws kick in that compels the provider to a higher level of care. Although it is still an accident you are paid to control the environment so you are responsible for accidents. That is why I would imagine anyone caring for children carries insurance for such things.

Anyway, no I do not know about the case, I only concerned myself with tax law in school. I did text my brother who is an attorney. He told me to get a life and no he never heard of it either. Must have been outside his scope too.

Not sure why you find this funny. If I pay a teenager to babysit it is done under the table. No taxes are taken out, no protection of the law is provided for either party. Plus even exposing the transaction to the law the babysitter is considered a contractor and you the employer so the safety of the premises and insurance falls on the owner. It would be akin to you hiring someone to help you and you ran an errand and she went potty. You own the business you are responsible.

Surely you are not implying that children be held to the same behavioral standards as adults? That a 3.5 year old understands the consequences of what he has done as well as a 5, 10 year old or adult?

A lot of this depends on this child's personality. It could have been a simple accident. I doubt it was a premeditated TV bashing spree.

I think if this was MY child who had broken a TV, I would offer to replace it!
I can't imagine not offering.

Now, I am not a child care provider but I sure have my share of kids at my house from day to day. If I see that they are messing with valuable items in a more "not kid proofed" room...I shoo them out. I remove an item, etc.
Maybe the real issue here is definition of child space vs. family space.
Seriously, if you have so many nice things that a kid can't swing his arms around--probably not the right choice of profession!'

BTW, here's the case you are referring to (It's about INTENT):

GARRATT V. DAILEY (1955) Aug 18

Case Brief:

Cause of action: Liability of an infant (aged 5 years, 9 months) for battery. Battery is the intentional infliction of a harmful bodily contact upon another.

Parties: Brian Dailey (the kid) and Ruth Garratt (related to sister Naomi whose house Brian was visiting)

Facts: July 16, 1951...Brian Dailey (5 years, 9 months old) was visiting with Naomi. Ruth was another guest. Ruth (plaintiff) said she came out to the yard to talk with Naomi, and when she went to sit down, Brian pulled the chair from underneath her, causing her to fall, and sustain a fracture of her hip, and other injuries and damages. Naomi Garratt was the only O. present who testified. Ruth alleges Brian intentionally pulled the chair from underneath her.

Brian alleges he was moving the chair in order to first sit himself, but when he realized Ruth in fact wanted to sit there, he tried to aid Ruth in sitting down. He claims his small size and lack of dexterity combined to make his reaction to the events too slow to move the chair in time for Ruth to sit.

Issue: Did Brian, age five, commit some wrongful act (battery) which made him responsible for plaintiff's injuries? Is it possible a five year old would know what he was doing?

Holding: Find for the defendant until at such time more certainty can be determined whether Brian knew what he was doing when he pulled the chair from under Ruth.

Procedural History: Trial court initially ruled Brian did not intentionally try to harm Ruth when he pulled the chair out, and the case was dismissed. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Washington remanded for clarification. On remand, trial judge concluded it was necessary for him to more carefully consider the time sequence involved when Ruth sat in the chair. It was later determined young Brian knew exactly what he was doing based on Ruth's arthritic condition and her very slow ability to complete the process of sitting in a chair. In this event, Ruth was awarded $11K, which was affirmed upon appeal.

Rule: Intent is the key to violation of a tort (like battery). Age is not an issue, but knowledge of the overall circumstances involved in the situation is (character of actor's intention).

Court's Rationale: With no case of consent or privilege, the court looked to consider intent and its place in the law of battery. Did Brian know what he was doing when he pulled the chair from underneath Ruth?

The court said "an act must be done for the purpose or with the intent of causing the plaintiff (Ruth) bodily contact with the ground"; only then would she have a rightful claim for damages.

The trial court said initially Brian proved he did not pull the chair out when Ruth was in the act of sitting in it. It would have to be proven Brian knew with "substantial certainty" that the contact would result in injury.

But the Supreme Court of Washington decided there needed to be more clarification as to whether Brian's knowledge was substantive enough to determine whether he knew he would indeed cause harm to Ruth. Only then could the court rule for either damages or for a new trial.

I will apologize up front that I am hyper focusing on your bed frame example rather than the question at hand. I don't know why but I just can't get past that example.

When a child jumps on a bed you would not expect the bed frame to break. (I suppose you would not expect a TV to break from a toy hammer but case in point it did.) A bed frame should be structurally sound enough that it can take some jostling otherwise I would deem it defective. Being that the bed frame is nothing more than a metal structure I do not see why one from a thrift store would be gross/deficient. (Mattress/upholstery definite yuck!)

If you think about it most items depreciate and so IMO they owe you a comparable item to what was broken essentially to make you whole,not to make you better off than you were.

I'm in no way trying to add insult to anyone's injury but I just felt the need to add that 2 cents.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I don't think a 3.5 year old gets it. But on one hand you're saying you would never ask the parents to pay for the TV. On the other hand you're saying parents shoudl be held responsible. I have the utmost respect for childcare providers. I hate how people nickle and dime them etc. But same time, if I drop my child off at a daycare center, I would assume they've childproofed the house and everything is at their risk. Not saying I wouldn't pay if we could afford it but I don't think it's my responsibility. The daycare provider took that responsibility. It's much different than if I'm out with my child or we're at a friend's house who is not a professional. I compared an inhome daycare to an institutional type one. No one would even think of paying for something broken at an institutional daycare most likely. It's part of their cost of doing business. Sucks of course for an individual but ultimately it's the same set-up so same expectations from the parents.

EDIT: I like how Dana put it. People ALREADY are paying... They're paying for a service. Would a daycare provider serve lunch on expensive china plates and leave crystal vases everywhere? No. It's asking for trouble. So in hindsight it could be viewed that having an expensive flat screen TV in a daycare center is taking a risk. I'm not trying to criticize that mom. But as you said, look at the whole picture. Parents are already paying to send their child to a daycare where the children will be safe and can play. I think I would pay for the TV too and hope that my child at 3 wouldn't do something like that but again - at 3 kids do stupid things. It's the adult's responsibility to child proof when that adult is a paid caregiver. 3 year olds need to be supervised or thngs happen. I know people have to go to the bathroom and I left my kids alone for a few minutes at 3 in the house too but it was a risk I took. Our neighbor's child broke our expensive digital camera. They didn't pay for it bc I shouldn't have been letting my older child walk around with it... Should their daughter (6) not have grabbed at it like she did? Sure. So was I annoyed? Yes. But ultimately it was my responsibility for having the camera out... And asking for money would not necessarily be an exercise in futility btw. From the sound of your clientele, it probably would be but some of us would feel it was the right thing. Doesn't mean it's an unequivocal obligation though and we're bad parents bc our 3 year old played too rough w/ a hammer the daycare provider let him have...

3.5 has no common sense - they'll run out into the middle of the road.
5 has some common sense - they'll look both ways before crossing a road but not all the time.
7 should have a fair amount of common sense - they're not babies anymore, but there are exceptions.
Talk with your home owners insurance and the parents and see if they will split 50/50 on getting the tv replaced.
If these kids are on the wild side, I'd consider firing them.
This is your business (and home) and you can decide what you will and won't put up with.
There are calmer kids that need sitters, and the wild kids can go on to ransack someone else s home.

I read the TV post and replied. I think parents should be responsible for their children’s actions. I take responsibility for my daughter, if she breaks something I will do my best to replace it of fix it no matter what age she is and whether or not it was intentional. (Until 18 then she is responsible) Not all kids are the same between the ages of 3 and 5 and some of it depends on the parenting. I am not saying all parents are bad some just don't have respect for others or their belongings.
I used to waitress in my 20's and I would see parents who let their children climb on everything, write on the walls with crayons, etc. The parents would just sit and not reprimand their children for anything. One child fell off a chair with wheels and the parents blamed me and complained to the manager.
When I was a child parents were responsible for their kids and their actions, I have no idea when all of this changed and people feel like “it’s not my problem”.

there is a HUGE difference, in maturity, impulse control, language, motor skills.

HUGE difference in that age range.

I admit that I'm not going to bother to research the law case about the 5 year old. I will say that I would not consider it to be relevant because it is from a different time period in our history. What I would rather see is a current precedent setting case.

Because the case you cite is over a hundred years old, I really don't think it has a thing in the world to do with what happened to this lady, I have to admit.

Dawn

If I understand the question right, you are asking who's responsible for damages done by children? In my opinion (SAHM mom and ex elem teacher), I think the person in charge/responsible for the child at the time the damage is done is most responsible. But, if the child is older (school-aged) and or has special needs (autism, ADHD), I think that each situation should be looked at carefully. For example
In a daycare situation where the child is 0-5 years old, the daycare provider is responsible.
At a toddler playdate where the parent is present, the parent is responsible.
When a teenage babysitter is watching your under 5 child, the babysitter is responsible.
Always, I feel that the child should know about what they did and why it wasn't okay and the person in charge of them should follow with a consequence that is appropriate. Also, if a legal guardian wasn't there when it occurred, they should be told of the incident of course.
The older-aged and special needs child should be looked at slightly differently. Kids with the ability to truly understand rules and consequences, right and wrong, should take full responsibility for their actions. In a first grade classroom, if a child rips pages out of a classroom textbook because they are bored, I do not think it should fall 100 percent on the teacher or the child. I think the child should get a consequence. Perhaps repairing the book and a call home so parent(s) can know what happened. But, it is also up to the teacher to figure out why the child is bored/destructive. If he or she cannot figure this out on her/his own, a teacher needs to start documenting and intervening.
So, to summarize, if a child is equipped with the ability to understand right and wrong and how actions can affect others, they should be held responsible in some way for their actions. The immediate caregiver of the child at the time of the incident should be held responsible in a joint way.
If the child is very young or has a disability and cannot understand their actions, they should know what they did was wrong, but the immediate caregiver is held soley responsible for damages.