Illinois ‘Child Safety’ Law Targets Single Moms: Pay For Daycare For Teens Or Face Jail

Republicans pass laws for several reasons: To give handouts to the wealthy, destroy the environment, and shame the poor. A new law out of Illinois hits another favorite target of the GOP: Single moms and the working poor.

In what might be the most ridiculous and restrictive law of all time, Illinois has decided that parents who leave children under 14 home alone can be charged with neglect. The police can enter your home without a warrant on a mere report, take your children, and arrest you.

Most states have a similar law, but most states don’t specify an age. Three states set the bar at 12 years old, three at 8, and Kansas says 6, but more than 30 don’t have a sweeping generalization on a particular age, as circumstances can be different from household to household.

Illinois has the shortest school day in the nation. Working single moms in particular may be in the situation where their 13-year-old, which is an acceptable age for a babysitter in most states, is responsible for the care of younger siblings until a parent comes home from work.

What this basically amounts to is yet another attack on working families, who would be forced to pay for child care for perfectly capable teenagers. The law states that children under 14 can’t be left home for “an unreasonable period of time without regard for the mental or physical health, safety, or welfare of that minor,” but doesn’t specify how long that time is, leaving a wide area of discretion for state social workers and police to determine who is a criminal and who is not.

It’s possible that people in more affluent areas would fall under intense scrutiny as well, but yeah…probably not. This incredibly biased law can be filed under “what the hell were you thinking?”


Featured Image: Today’s Parent

 

Send to Kindle
  • Avatar

    Oh good riddance!

  • Wicken

    I bet that law will change when the first single mom that makes over 100k a year gets arrested for this.

    • Chewbacka Grizelda

      Well, yeah, probably, but… If she’s single and making over 100k/year, a) she probably doesn’t exist (or is excruciatingly rare) and b) why isn’t she paying for childcare? You’d think 100k/year would be enough to be able to pay for that, at least for a few hours in the late afternoons on work days.

  • AlwaysSumthin

    I would ask these lawmakers how many of them were in daycare at 13 and does that mean their mothers were criminally negligent.

    • Chewbacka Grizelda

      Exactly.

    • Laura Sunday Tobin

      Aw, but you forget, these were REPUBLICAN kids of REPUBLICAN parents - they had nannies and private schools!

  • Chewbacka Grizelda

    I’m not at all into “free range parenting” as I find that to be careless, reckless, and irresponsible… And even IIIII can see what’s wrong with this law! It’s ridiculous. The last time I needed babysitting, I was 6! This law is ridiculous and it’s also quite insulting to the child. I was watching my brother from the age of 8 on, and we got along just fine, because he wasn’t an infant - he was 4 years old! I watched him for hours per day, while our parents were either gone for short spaces of time (grocery shopping, etc), or while they were outside and he and I were inside, where no one could hear anything right away if something “went wrong” or whatever. The point is, he was left in my sole care often, and that turned out just fine, and guess what, people? He has SEVERE CLASSIC AUTISM!!! So yeah, if I could do it with a 4 year old who had that problem, then so can other kids whose siblings don’t even have that kind of trouble. He and I are both middle-aged now, so obviously he survived as did I… This law is insane, because it doesn’t account for shorter-term “hey, watch your little brother for an hour or two, I’ll be back as soon as possible” normal human interaction between a parent and their capable pre-teen or teenager. What’s next? Age 16 is too young to drive???

  • Thomas K

    Doesn’t this kind of sum up everything that’s wrong with the New Right parties today? 1) There’s a problem that is easy to solve (in this case, by creating jobs, lifting wages above poverty levels, and tackling daycare which even middle-class parents struggle to afford). 2) Rather than solve the problem, (a) don’t even acknowledge the problem, and then (b) criminalize and punish those who are struggling with the problem.

  • divalicias

    It would be one thing if the state was prepared to pay the cost child care for all these children — but that’s not on the table. Even children as old as 14 would do well with a quality teen program where they can have fun with adult supervision — especially in the summer months when parents are at work for most of the day. I used to run a teen camp for middle school and high school kids who were too young to work and too old for child care. Spending 10-12 hours a day at home alone it not healthy or fun. That said, if moms need teens to help with child care because no other options are available, there are many teens who can do this. My teen-aged sister watched me and my brother whenever my mother needed child care. My husband’s family had 6 kids and the older ones in their teens watched the younger ones when their parents traveled out of the country. They had a housekeeper who would come during the day, but at night the kids were on their own. The oldest was 17.

  • Angela Monger

    Trying to drum up more money for the daycare industry?

  • wwdovew

    This is stupid! At age 12, I babysat stranger’s children. Evidently I was capable at that age and I believe today’s children are even more capable at that age than I was!!