I'm reading this as "I agreed to pay her even over breaks with E wouldn't be there." So it is part of the agreement that you're paying for school breaks, even when you won't be using her. Otherwise, what's the benefit to her? She keeps your spot without paying for the summer, and you pay her for school breaks when E doesn't go. I think you not using her during school breaks, although paying her, was the anticipated result of the agreement. Am I misreading?
I can see how she may be thinking this way. Because I asked her if I would still need to pay for her care during my breaks- and that technically means I wouldn't be bringing E in. Otherwise I would have never asked that question. Right?
Of course. Because what's the alternative to that - getting free care on your days off? What? LOL
No one would ask that question unless they had the intention NOT to send their kid.
I think you're being selfish. Try and find another sitter, or keep your fingers crossed that she'll have space on one or more of the days you want to send him.
She's keeping your spot open all summer. That's pretty uncommon, and an amazing benefit. Don't let this ruin a good thing. She's flexible for you over the course of the summer. Let her earn a little extra money during breaks, unless you work out another arrangement if you truly need her during those breaks.
Post by jennistarr1 on Dec 19, 2014 14:34:33 GMT -5
So this is kind of how I read it: as far as the orginal agreement, you agreed to pay for every week of school year regardless of school breaks...I think she assumed that meant that you would be keeping E home and still paying for the week and that is the tradeoff for holding the spot over the summer
I say this is bullshit. Depending on available care, I may make a stink about this. It almost feels like she is wanting to make more money by having your arrangement but also taking more kids in who will pay more than she normally makes.
She's making extra money during school breaks to make up for not having reliable income in the summer months.
Sure she may actually break even through the summer, but from what I hear, it's common for parents to use send kids to backup care for X days a week, grandma another, and parents alternating a few themselves. So she's likely not taking on all full time kids for the summer months, to make up for her lack of an income from the teacher's families.
Think of it this way: you're paying for 3 weeks of care (breaks during the school year) to hold your spot for 10 weeks during the summer.
Under that arrangement, it doesn't make sense to expect care during the breaks. You aren't really paying for daycare during breaks; you're paying a fee to hold your spot for the summer.
Post by EmilieMadison on Dec 19, 2014 15:05:43 GMT -5
With the follow up, it's clear that there was confusion on both ends about what the agreement meant. I would find out if next year, you could pay a slightly higher rate during the school year, have access to care anytime you need it during the school year- including breaks if you choose- and then have your spot held in the summer. That way she gets something a fair incentive to hold the spot (basically a deposit) and you still get full time care in the school year if you want it or need it.
I am guessing when you orginally discussed that you would pay her while on the breaks, you didn't discuss if you would be bringing him in?
I can see both sides of this. She is holding your spot in the summer for the price of you paying during the other breaks? (So about 3 weeks a year?) When you look at it like that, the arrangement is pretty good for you.
I also see your side, that when you are paying you should be able to bring him, but I don't know that I would push the issue too much, if you are otherwise pleased with care. I am here with this too. Did you discuss the terms? I assume she offered you this "deal" with the assumption that he wouldn't be coming on holiday weeks/days. I think it should have been discussed at the time. But I do think it's not fair for you to pay either and not have access to services. All in all it should have been discussed when the arrangement was agreed upon.
I am guessing when you orginally discussed that you would pay her while on the breaks, you didn't discuss if you would be bringing him in?
I can see both sides of this. She is holding your spot in the summer for the price of you paying during the other breaks? (So about 3 weeks a year?) When you look at it like that, the arrangement is pretty good for you.
I also see your side, that when you are paying you should be able to bring him, but I don't know that I would push the issue too much, if you are otherwise pleased with care.
I would take the agreement as this. Paying over the breaks when DS is not there, but not having to pay the spot for the summer. Might be frustrating, but imagining having to pay the 8 - 10 weeks that you will not need over the summer. I vote, don't rock the boat.