Everybody saying JJ was wrong not to reimburse the plaintiff on days the children were not brought despite a contract need to pay closer attention to the case. Due to some incidents that aren’t really gotten into, the plaintiff asked the defendant not to bring the children in on days when the child’s father would be picking them up. The plaintiff then tries to turn around and say “hey we signed a contract that says I get paid whether the kids are brought in or not.” By refusing to allow the father to pick up the children in accordance with the mother’s wishes(regardless of why) the contract becomes void and can no longer be enforced
I mostly agree, except they mentioned that the police had to be called. Without further details as to what that involved, we can't really know whether or not she was within her rights to deny him access to her property. If she was, I'm confused as to why that would void the contract. I could be wrong, though. In addition to what you said, I think a large factor was that, as far as JJ was concerned, the plaintiff was a glorified babysitter and didn't really have the right to have a contract.
@@jenem9618 the defendant can deny whoever she wants from her property for any reason, and she likely had good reasons to do so. It doesn’t matter, it voids the contract because the defendant is now unable to send her children there. It would be like a landlord locking a tenant out and still charging rent
@@thomaswitte2971 Couldn't it be argued that the onus would be on the defendant to find alternative transportation for the kids, since it (theoretically) wasn't the plaintiff's fault that their dad disqualified himself from being a viable option?
@@jenem9618 she could. But if she doesn’t and uses another daycare instead then she doesn’t have to pay. And she certainly doesn’t need a to give a 2 week notice to get out of the contract
My daughter was out of daycare for 3 days when she was sick. I still had to pay for the full week because she is enrolled. You literally pay for the slot and not attendance.
It’s not ridiculous. She didn’t want to deal the children’s father. So the mother couldn’t bring the children in on days the father needed to pick them up. By imposing such a condition she (very likely) violated the contract and so she certainly won’t be paid for days the children aren’t there
Judge Judy needs to understand that with Childcare, you're not paying for your child to be there. You're paying for their spot. This is with any daycare. You turn down potential service because someone signs a contract for childcare and doesn't show up that you lose income She may be considered a listed provider through the state where she can care for no more than 3 children. If she decides to expand and care for more, she'll have to become a licensed provider, which offers you a chance to care for more children. She did say she was in the process, but a listed provider can have her own contact
JJ acts like she's special, like her elevator doesn't go all the way to the top. I watch sometimes just for entertainment but I would never agree to voluntarily go before her as a judge.
did you listen? She is not a daycare. She is not licensed, so she shouldn't be taking care of children in any official capacity, which would not entitle her to hold clients up to certain contractual obligations. Her business is babysitting as far as judge judgy is concerned.
judge judy always being so obsessed with contracts but if there is one she doesnt like she just ignores it. contract is contract if you sign it, you will pay, even if you do not attend, you pay it makes sense that she wants to stick to the contract. she saved two spots for these children, but when they didn’t show up, she couldn’t give the spots to anyone else. this means she lost money she would have made. that's why the contract is there: to stop her from losing money if people cancel. bad decision
And then you take a pen and move it around the paper and say it's four corners and everything inside those four corners is a contract. But suddenly it isn't worth a hill of beans.
Most important idea to your comment is that a contract cannot supersede the local/ county/ state laws. For example, if your lease contract states that you agree to a 7 day notice to quit and your relevant laws state that you are entitled to 30 days notice, the landlord still needs to provide 30 days notice no matter what you signed. These cases are researched before they're filmed. JJ already scanned the laws specific to the location that the plaintiff/defendant are from. Law is really fascinating, you should get a better grasp. I say that not to disparage you, but to encourage. You should know your rights.
5 หลายเดือนก่อน +12
100% on this comment. Why is a contract not a contract in this case? Seems like JJ arbitrarily decides when to enforce. And I agree that the daycare provider reserved those two spots, and thus lost money by not being able to offer to two other kids.
@@m.g.7475 JJ has stated many times she doesn't care what the local state laws are. This is an arbitration show, so she still has the power of her discretion to make the decision and they have signed an agreement to that effect. It they wanted to stay within the boundaries of their state law they could have remained in state but also they would have pay their judgements, if any, out of pocket themselves. This show is a gamble for plaintiffs. JJ said "in her America no daycare should run without a license," so that was her judgement which she based her decision on.
Not really. If she signed a contact she, is obligated to fulfill the contact-which said that she’d give 2 weeks notice-she didn’t so she is liable for the associated fees. That’s just like someone saying a landlord should be satisfied that a bad tenant is out-if they signed a lease agreement and left prior without any notice they should still be liable to whatever the lease stipulated.
@@lazkid220 she could not project her income to meet her expenses. She was there and had agreed to care for her children at specific times -The why if the contract. She could have given the spot to someone else and not lose the income but it was last minute so she lost income. Think like a business person.
You can work as an in home care provider without being licensed. You are restricted to just five children perhaps, and then when you get your license you can go up to 12. I have done this. It is legal. Parents sign contracts and should pay, if their child is there or not.
I thought JJ was all about the contract? I have seen JJ rule in favour for daycare owners who didn't have licences or even just babysitters who wanted to be paid. This woman was just waiting on the background check and was only taking care of two kids and had a contract.
The contract was with the state, who was paying for the daycare, not for them when they were not there. The plaintiff made the decision to contract with the state, whom she should have been suing instead of the mother.
@@trekgirl65 She made the contract with the defendant, the State is the payee. If the state does not pay for days missed then it's up to the one who signed the contract if it's outlined in there.
It is common practice for daycares to have a contract that requires parents to pay even if their child is absent. The reason is because daycare is providing a service, just like your cable tv company is a service. We pay for cable service even on the days we may not watch it. No one is going to call the cable company and say they shouldn't have to pay for the days they didn't watch tv.
Pay attention and watch it again. The Plaintiff stated the contract was void due to the father. You did not care wither that the contract was voided by the father.
@@docthemedic Yeah and JJ doesn't think people without one should have contracts, which is a valid way to feel. It's obvious that some folks without them are valid, but JJ naturally has experienced enough poor ones to where it is acceptable to draw the line there.
Actually I think it's unfair. She keeps the spot for the two children. It's not that she can spontaneously bring in new kids. So the business has to run on a subscription type scheme and if you chose not to bring your kids, even though there is space you oughta pay.
@@elizabethloth6961 There is two different time periods at issue. I do not believe that she should be entitled to compensation for the time after she said they shouldn't come. I still maintain that she should be compensated for the times that defendant chose not to send the child bc you pay for the place held not the work provided (think of a plane ticket you have to pay for or a hotel room that can't get resold in time, gym membership etc.). Additionally the determination by the state agency to pay shouldn't guide the decision here. The state in its fiscal responsibility only pays when the child goes with the express intend that children go to daycare rather than stay home - so that parent can work and longterm reduce the burden on the system. That means if a parent choses not to send the child in on a particular day the will have to pick up the tab.
I’m the director of a childcare facility. We charge for the spot, not for the days they attend. We also require a 2 weeks notice before someone pulls their child. They don’t have to bring them for those 2 weeks, but they still have to pay it.
JJ is simply bias. As soon as the plaintiff stated that she wasn’t a licensed daycare provider, she automatically is dismissed by JJ. Any evidence given certainly doesn’t count, even a contact. Obviously justice isn’t blind, not with human beings being the judge.
Yes, we should all go out and protest the systemic bias against... people who don't get the proper licenses to engage in specific activities for which the state requires one?
People like the plaintiff rub me the wrong way. She's not licensed, she clearly didn't want the defendant or her children as customers but then still wants to be paid for work that she didn't do. Get a life lady, I'd never leave my kids with you.
It doesn't make sense for her to be paid when she didn't do the work. No one said she expected the children to be there and they didn't show up. She asked the parents to find another place, not the other way around.
Nope. I had a babysitter that the county paid. She wasn't a legitimate anything. Had she gotten a family member to watch them, that person would've gotten paid as well by doing the exact same paperwork. Has nothing to do with a legitimate anything. Plus, she needs a license if she expects to have more than x amount of children In her home at once. (number of children varies by state) @@MM-sz6ku
She was just waiting for the license to come through. She had a right to earn a living in the mean time. If there is no legal requirement to have the license, why not get a jump start?
@@sandrawilson8737 If the mom signs a contract saying she will pay even if the children don't attend . It's a legal contract . If you wanna have a place to take your children you should pay if not they can give your spot away to someone who will pay . If the provider takes good care of your children be happy and pay . If not someone else will be happy and take your spot and pay . Respect , moral and she signed a contract.
@@kristinegodfrey877That depends on the contract. There have been times where a person said that the contract said this and it actually says something else they interpreted as to saying what they wanted. Also, if the contract says that the plaintiff is a licensed daycare, it's void because she was committing fraud. It all depends on exactly what the contract says. Plus the plaintiff screwed herself a bit by telling the defendant to leave.
it was inconsistent for the judge to ignore her signed contract. if people needed to be licensed to enforce contracts, half of the cases on this show would be dismissed.
@@Callidus7SSM my comment had absolutely nothing to do with interpreting law. it's an observation of a person's behavior and reasoning. also, i actually did take law and contracts in undergrad, which was taught by an attorney. it's a course judge judy has told litigants they should take.
JJ clearly saw the plantiff more as a babysitter than a daycare provider since she doesn't have a license. In a daycare you pay even if your kids arent there! Otherwise the daycare loses money because they can't keep other children.
Did you know that in England UK apparently the children's daycare in Doris was discovered that a three year old baby toddler girl was badly bitten and scratched! It became discovered that one child had been rolling up a magazine and hit it against the glass to kill a wasp , the manager of the daycare was found guilty on having a kitten infected with a serious infestation of ticks which infected that little girl with Lyme disease! Absolutely horrendous because the manager only received a $480 fine and the centre is still running! Blessings ❤
Why doesn't daycare have a set daily, weekly, and/ or monthly rate? You then have the parents pay in advance. You can have a two-week notice for the monthly rate. The hourly thing seems like an over-complication.
PLANTIFF IS WRONG. Tortious interference with contract Tortious interference with contract rights can occur when one party persuades another to breach its contract with a third party (e.g., using blackmail, threats, influence, etc.) or where someone knowingly interferes with a contractor's ability to perform his contractual obligations, preventing the client from receiving ...
Usually, a contract is a contract. She can legally provide care, she's just not licensed yet. There is a cap on how many kids she can care for. If those 2 are booked, she can't book anyone else. Sorry, I disagree with the Queen on this one
I actually know a few daycare providers like this. I paid 200 a week for my children to go the only other child there was the provider's child. She wanted me to pay 100 for me to "hold their spots" for the week I took them on vacation. I asked her, "for who?" She couldn't give an answer so I said, "I'll just pay you when they come back."
i dont agree with JJ saying 'you should be happy' - yes, she's happy she no longer has to deal with this man but she is NOT happy she had to lose business.
Most of the licensed daycares in my area charge you 5 days a week, whether the child is there or not. Doesn't matter if the child is sick, on vacation, or you're not working that day, or if they only stay part of the day, you pay the whole fee.
I don't agree with this one. As a client based business owner, I have a lengthy wait list, so you're paying for the spot, not if you attend. So not only is she out that income, but the income from another family who would have paid for the spot. Does she have a wait list? Who knows, but this is standard practice. She should have invoiced her ahead of the service, when i was younger, I would have rich people dine and dash on a service.
The Plaintiff violated the contract FIRST because she didn't allow the defendants children's father to pick them up. Thats why she couldnt get paid. This is similar to the difference between kicking someone out of an apartment vs them leaving due to their own reason mid contract. The former won't allow you to collect rent for the rest of the period because you lock them out.
Daycare is full time enrollment and if they aren’t there you still pay. Ours used to let our kids run around outside when it was 115 F and then call us because they had a temperature. I would have to leave work to get them. We still had to pay. We ended up hiring a nanny who just watched our three at home.
My mom ran a home daycare 20 years. You do NOT get paid if the kids aren’t there. Taking up a spot or not. The parent should notify ahead of time so she could take another child those days. But she can’t collect on days the kid wasn’t there.
The issue is that a daycare provider cannot take more than a certain number of children, so if she scheduled her kids to be there, but then didn't bring them, the provider could not fill their spots with someone else. That's why most daycares would require payment in advance.
Suddenly the whole thing with the pen going around a piece of paper and emphasizing how it's four corners and that everything inside those four corners is called a "contract" is meaningless. It was Judge Judy Realize Savings Day.
All Judge Judy heard was she wasn't license and right at that moment the case was dismissed. I do understand you have to be license in order to do certain jobs especially dealing with children but I'm pretty sure it's a lot of businesses who don't have a license and still working making money.
JJ doesn't understand daycare contracts. It doesn't matter if the kids were there, she should get paid anyways because she loses money if kids all of sudden dont show up..cant manage your finances like that if you don't really know what your going to earn..so almost all day care contracts state the parents pay regardless if they bring the child
So I'm confused as to whether contracts are obligated or not to be obided and it's terms? JJ usually sides based on writted contractual obligations regardless...🤷🏽♂️
Nobody commenting "JJ was wrong she should have been paid" followed followed this. The plaintiff called the cops and broke her own contract with the defendant but still wanted to be paid for the freed up spots. Listen to JJ explain this at 1:00
Thankfully, I never had to put any of my 3 boys in day care. But who agrees to pay for time the kids are not in the daycare? Who has the gall to charge for time they are not watching the kids? WTF???
She’s wrong about this one. As a former child minder they are supposed to pay for non-attendance, it’s a place that we can’t give to another child that we can’t otherwise get paid for, and it will have been in the contract that she should have paid. The judge should have looked at the contract.
Judge Judy is wrong here. I was a former licensed day care provider, the parents sign a contract that even on the days that they do NOT bring their child to the daycare, they will still owe. Because it's NOT FAIR to the daycare provider that she loses money on those days just because the parents chose different options for that day! I had the same problem with a dad that signed a contract with me, and some days his son wanted to go to his grammas. So when I told him at the end of the week, that he still owed me the FULL week, he yelled at me and said that I was selfish! I cried when he stormed out, knowing that the money I depended on, didn't matter to him. Being a daycare provider is a very stressful job, and some parents do not appreciate you. I hope that one day Judge Judy realizes this and that she was wrong in this case
The logic used by jj in this case isn't fair. Even if the kids didn't show up, the daycare still needs to do everything to keep it open and receive the children. It is a monthly contract, not a daily one. As per this ligic, if a renter vacates the house in the middle of the month, he/she doesn't owe the rent for the whole month. 😮
Even in Toronto, we pay the daycare whether the child attends or not even when you pick them up early you pay a full day worth so it makes sense her asking to be paid.
wrong, for the plaintiff signed a contract with the state that says the state does not pay for when the children are not in the day care center. Listen to the video again. Contract with the state who was paying the daycare, but not on the days the children were not there. Legally binding contract.
@@trekgirl65 no hate here, I care about the kids these people dump off to strangers where they are not loved all day, so that sounds like hate? To me you dont care about children
disagree with JJ on this one a contract is a contract and the defendant signed it willingly so she has to abide by the terms..I dont get JJ rationale here
![Judge Judy [Episode 9979] Best Amazing Cases Season 2O25 Full Episodes HD](/img/n.gif)
They did that girl dirty in the thumbnail... 🤣🤣🤣
-oops ... !-
Dirty work😂😂😂
😂😂 lol they had to specifically pick it out, why?😂
@erickanew That's cold-blooded... lol
My next meme 😂
Plaintiff’s face on the thumbnail..😂😂
🥴🥴
😂😂
-ikr ... !-
How unfortunate!
I would sue… 😂😂😂
I laughed out loud when I saw that😂
Everybody saying JJ was wrong not to reimburse the plaintiff on days the children were not brought despite a contract need to pay closer attention to the case. Due to some incidents that aren’t really gotten into, the plaintiff asked the defendant not to bring the children in on days when the child’s father would be picking them up. The plaintiff then tries to turn around and say “hey we signed a contract that says I get paid whether the kids are brought in or not.” By refusing to allow the father to pick up the children in accordance with the mother’s wishes(regardless of why) the contract becomes void and can no longer be enforced
Can't have it both ways, I got it!
I mostly agree, except they mentioned that the police had to be called. Without further details as to what that involved, we can't really know whether or not she was within her rights to deny him access to her property. If she was, I'm confused as to why that would void the contract. I could be wrong, though.
In addition to what you said, I think a large factor was that, as far as JJ was concerned, the plaintiff was a glorified babysitter and didn't really have the right to have a contract.
@@jenem9618 the defendant can deny whoever she wants from her property for any reason, and she likely had good reasons to do so. It doesn’t matter, it voids the contract because the defendant is now unable to send her children there. It would be like a landlord locking a tenant out and still charging rent
@@thomaswitte2971 Couldn't it be argued that the onus would be on the defendant to find alternative transportation for the kids, since it (theoretically) wasn't the plaintiff's fault that their dad disqualified himself from being a viable option?
@@jenem9618 she could. But if she doesn’t and uses another daycare instead then she doesn’t have to pay. And she certainly doesn’t need a to give a 2 week notice to get out of the contract
My daughter was out of daycare for 3 days when she was sick. I still had to pay for the full week because she is enrolled. You literally pay for the slot and not attendance.
That’s wild! But I guess it makes sense.
She is not a daycare provider just someone who babysits 😊
Judge Judy is wrong here. The daycare provider should have been paid. Ridiculous
It’s not ridiculous. She didn’t want to deal the children’s father. So the mother couldn’t bring the children in on days the father needed to pick them up. By imposing such a condition she (very likely) violated the contract and so she certainly won’t be paid for days the children aren’t there
@@thomaswitte2971 yes, maybe you are right. However, that is not why JJ ruled the way she did but, you are probably right.
Judge Judy needs to understand that with Childcare, you're not paying for your child to be there. You're paying for their spot. This is with any daycare. You turn down potential service because someone signs a contract for childcare and doesn't show up that you lose income
She may be considered a listed provider through the state where she can care for no more than 3 children. If she decides to expand and care for more, she'll have to become a licensed provider, which offers you a chance to care for more children. She did say she was in the process, but a listed provider can have her own contact
I think she was mostly miffed that the P isn’t licensed. Our caregiver wasn’t licensed … but she was my wife’s sister and it worked out marvelously!
I also think she didn't give it to her because she was paid from a different company and not straight from the parents, on top of not being licensed
No, you're paying for your child to be there. She isn't a day care, she's a baby sitter.
JJ acts like she's special, like her elevator doesn't go all the way to the top. I watch sometimes just for entertainment but I would never agree to voluntarily go before her as a judge.
did you listen? She is not a daycare. She is not licensed, so she shouldn't be taking care of children in any official capacity, which would not entitle her to hold clients up to certain contractual obligations. Her business is babysitting as far as judge judgy is concerned.
judge judy always being so obsessed with contracts but if there is one she doesnt like she just ignores it.
contract is contract
if you sign it, you will pay, even if you do not attend, you pay
it makes sense that she wants to stick to the contract. she saved two spots for these children, but when they didn’t show up, she couldn’t give the spots to anyone else. this means she lost money she would have made. that's why the contract is there: to stop her from losing money if people cancel.
bad decision
And then you take a pen and move it around the paper and say it's four corners and everything inside those four corners is a contract. But suddenly it isn't worth a hill of beans.
Most important idea to your comment is that a contract cannot supersede the local/ county/ state laws. For example, if your lease contract states that you agree to a 7 day notice to quit and your relevant laws state that you are entitled to 30 days notice, the landlord still needs to provide 30 days notice no matter what you signed. These cases are researched before they're filmed. JJ already scanned the laws specific to the location that the plaintiff/defendant are from. Law is really fascinating, you should get a better grasp. I say that not to disparage you, but to encourage. You should know your rights.
100% on this comment. Why is a contract not a contract in this case? Seems like JJ arbitrarily decides when to enforce. And I agree that the daycare provider reserved those two spots, and thus lost money by not being able to offer to two other kids.
She can’t forbid the child’s father from picking up the children and then demand to still get payed when the children don’t come.
@@m.g.7475 JJ has stated many times she doesn't care what the local state laws are. This is an arbitration show, so she still has the power of her discretion to make the decision and they have signed an agreement to that effect. It they wanted to stay within the boundaries of their state law they could have remained in state but also they would have pay their judgements, if any, out of pocket themselves.
This show is a gamble for plaintiffs. JJ said "in her America no daycare should run without a license," so that was her judgement which she based her decision on.
She didn't have enough notice to fill those spots in the daycare. She should absolutely still get paid.
ding dong your opinion is wrong. That's entitlement not law.
@@idellekell Clearly the Judge doesn’t practice contracts law.
@@interwebspirate that’s not an opinion it’s contracts law.
No because she wanted her out
Not really. If she signed a contact she, is obligated to fulfill the contact-which said that she’d give 2 weeks notice-she didn’t so she is liable for the associated fees. That’s just like someone saying a landlord should be satisfied that a bad tenant is out-if they signed a lease agreement and left prior without any notice they should still be liable to whatever the lease stipulated.
JJ got it wrong. If your kids are in daycare you still pay the fee even if your kids aren’t there. It’s common practice.
ok judge Chapman 😂
I guess it was because she was an unlicensed daycare provider- and we know how judge feels about folks without licenses 😂
Exactly. S
True
Doesn't make it right. Jj got it ✅️ CORRECT.
It’s common with a daycare contract for parents to pay even if their child isn’t there.
Do employees get paid on their days off? 🤨 exactly no, so why should she get paid for taking care of kids that aren’t there?
@@UnrulyChanell this is not pay per service, you hire staff, buy food and supplies based on your count.
The staff does not get the day off. There are probably other children that came to the daycare who needed to cared for,
@@UnrulyChanell - Because it’s in the contract they signed.
@@UnrulyChanellBecause it’s in the contract. Don’t like it? Find another day care.
This is her livelihood! She deserves to be paid! Small businesses rely on consistent income to pay for their costs! Their time is valuable!
she got paid for all the time she worked though...
@@lazkid220 she could not project her income to meet her expenses. She was there and had agreed to care for her children at specific times -The why if the contract. She could have given the spot to someone else and not lose the income but it was last minute so she lost income. Think like a business person.
You get paid for what you work not what you think she deserves.
Yes but she was not licensed. That’s the law.
You can work as an in home care provider without being licensed. You are restricted to just five children perhaps, and then when you get your license you can go up to 12. I have done this. It is legal. Parents sign contracts and should pay, if their child is there or not.
I thought JJ was all about the contract? I have seen JJ rule in favour for daycare owners who didn't have licences or even just babysitters who wanted to be paid. This woman was just waiting on the background check and was only taking care of two kids and had a contract.
She’s anti-daycare providers.
The license isn’t really relevant. It’s the fact that she didn’t want the father coming to pick up the children
The contract was with the state, who was paying for the daycare, not for them when they were not there. The plaintiff made the decision to contract with the state, whom she should have been suing instead of the mother.
@@trekgirl65 She made the contract with the defendant, the State is the payee. If the state does not pay for days missed then it's up to the one who signed the contract if it's outlined in there.
I think that as far as JJ was concerned, the plaintiff was a glorified babysitter.
you pay for the placement, not the time. You can fill in a placement if you're full. JJ missed a beat on this one 🤦
She sure did
-ikr ... !-
No she wanted her gone out the daycare so the lady left. Lol, was she supposed to leave & pay
The reason why Judge Judy didn't enforce the full contract is because the plaintiff was not a licensed day care provider
maybe if she was certified, then Judge Judy would have considered this. Otherwise, she's just a babysitter
It is common practice for daycares to have a contract that requires parents to pay even if their child is absent. The reason is because daycare is providing a service, just like your cable tv company is a service. We pay for cable service even on the days we may not watch it. No one is going to call the cable company and say they shouldn't have to pay for the days they didn't watch tv.
I guess since she’s not license JJ doesn’t care about the contract
Pay attention and watch it again. The Plaintiff stated the contract was void due to the father. You did not care wither that the contract was voided by the father.
@@trekgirl65 you pay attention she doesn’t have a license period
@@Nia62899 You pay attention, she doesn't need one where she operates
@@docthemedic Yeah and JJ doesn't think people without one should have contracts, which is a valid way to feel. It's obvious that some folks without them are valid, but JJ naturally has experienced enough poor ones to where it is acceptable to draw the line there.
@@Gloomistic If you live in a state where licensing isn't a requirement, there likely isn't a licensing body to grant them at all.
Paying even when the kids aren’t there is very common. It holds there spot. Daycares can only have a certain amount of children at a time……
Definitely not.
Daycares???
She should have got paid because those spots were held open for that lady's kids
just as a deposit for a rental.
Her not being licensed unfortunately counteracted that argument
Judge Judy only cares about contracts when it suits her.
She should have to pay because the spot is held open so the daycare provider couldn’t put someone in her place.
Actually I think it's unfair. She keeps the spot for the two children. It's not that she can spontaneously bring in new kids. So the business has to run on a subscription type scheme and if you chose not to bring your kids, even though there is space you oughta pay.
But she wants them out and we all know JJ doesn't entertain unlicensed people.
@@elizabethloth6961 There is two different time periods at issue. I do not believe that she should be entitled to compensation for the time after she said they shouldn't come. I still maintain that she should be compensated for the times that defendant chose not to send the child bc you pay for the place held not the work provided (think of a plane ticket you have to pay for or a hotel room that can't get resold in time, gym membership etc.). Additionally the determination by the state agency to pay shouldn't guide the decision here. The state in its fiscal responsibility only pays when the child goes with the express intend that children go to daycare rather than stay home - so that parent can work and longterm reduce the burden on the system. That means if a parent choses not to send the child in on a particular day the will have to pick up the tab.
I’m the director of a childcare facility. We charge for the spot, not for the days they attend. We also require a 2 weeks notice before someone pulls their child. They don’t have to bring them for those 2 weeks, but they still have to pay it.
She told the dad he couldn’t pick them up. She can’t tell them dad can’t pick them up BUT still want them to pay for days they weren’t there.
JJ is simply bias. As soon as the plaintiff stated that she wasn’t a licensed daycare provider, she automatically is dismissed by JJ. Any evidence given certainly doesn’t count, even a contact. Obviously justice isn’t blind, not with human beings being the judge.
Yes, we should all go out and protest the systemic bias against... people who don't get the proper licenses to engage in specific activities for which the state requires one?
Yeah JJ doesn’t believe that black people can make money legitimately. She is very biased.
@@ceilism Then you obviously haven't watched enough of her cases with black people lol that is so not true.
People like the plaintiff rub me the wrong way. She's not licensed, she clearly didn't want the defendant or her children as customers but then still wants to be paid for work that she didn't do. Get a life lady, I'd never leave my kids with you.
It doesn't make sense for her to be paid when she didn't do the work. No one said she expected the children to be there and they didn't show up. She asked the parents to find another place, not the other way around.
Why didn't she get the proper licenses before she started doing work?
Because people are stupid and just think they know everything
She's a legitimate business otherwise she wouldn't receive payment from the government for childcare.
Nope. I had a babysitter that the county paid. She wasn't a legitimate anything. Had she gotten a family member to watch them, that person would've gotten paid as well by doing the exact same paperwork. Has nothing to do with a legitimate anything. Plus, she needs a license if she expects to have more than x amount of children In her home at once. (number of children varies by state) @@MM-sz6ku
She was just waiting for the license to come through. She had a right to earn a living in the mean time. If there is no legal requirement to have the license, why not get a jump start?
@@MM-sz6ku exactly. There is no way the government would have been paying her if she wasn't licensed
She should have been paid
What happened to "A CONTRACT IS A CONTRACT"? The defendant should have to pay even if the kids weren't there ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT.
She signed a contract . She should have got paid . Sorry Judge Judy I don't agree with you .
She's right your wrong
@@sandrawilson8737 If the mom signs a contract saying she will pay even if the children don't attend . It's a legal contract . If you wanna have a place to take your children you should pay if not they can give your spot away to someone who will pay . If the provider takes good care of your children be happy and pay . If not someone else will be happy and take your spot and pay . Respect , moral and she signed a contract.
@@kristinegodfrey877That depends on the contract. There have been times where a person said that the contract said this and it actually says something else they interpreted as to saying what they wanted. Also, if the contract says that the plaintiff is a licensed daycare, it's void because she was committing fraud. It all depends on exactly what the contract says. Plus the plaintiff screwed herself a bit by telling the defendant to leave.
it was inconsistent for the judge to ignore her signed contract. if people needed to be licensed to enforce contracts, half of the cases on this show would be dismissed.
I think it was because technically the plaintiff breached the contract by asking the defendant to find another daycare.
Did you go to law school? No, you didn’t. Maybe try going to law school and passing the bar before you try to throw shade.
@@Callidus7SSM my comment had absolutely nothing to do with interpreting law. it's an observation of a person's behavior and reasoning. also, i actually did take law and contracts in undergrad, which was taught by an attorney. it's a course judge judy has told litigants they should take.
@@Callidus7SSMdid you? I did. Let’s talk about it. What’s your take on this?
@@Callidus7SSM people like you are so annoying. You did not read to understand that comment
And people who are not real judges anymore, shouldn’t be making any judgment calls in any court in the land.
Quite a shapely lady is the plaintiff. ❤
The one child was very very young to be in daycare. 4 months old. WOW.
FMLA only allows 12 weeks off without pay. So if mom doesn’t want to lose her job the baby goes to care
If she has no choice but to put her baby in child care. Darned if you do and darned if you don't
JJ clearly saw the plantiff more as a babysitter than a daycare provider since she doesn't have a license. In a daycare you pay even if your kids arent there! Otherwise the daycare loses money because they can't keep other children.
“They didn’t pay me from 11 till 5..”
JJ “ They didn’t pay you for 11 till 5 because You Didn’t Do Anything…”🤨
JJ logic bomb…💣
🤣🤣🤣
Is she was licensed, JJ would have paid her for the placement.
A teenage babysitter doesn't have to be licensed to babysit.
@carolr7823 a teenage babysitter, gets paid for when they work, not for holding placement.
@@joedurt2220lol right. That was a terrible comparison lol
No she probably wouldn’t
If* she was licensed, she admitted it was pending at the time this was filmed a few years ago.
Did you know that in England UK apparently the children's daycare in Doris was discovered that a three year old baby toddler girl was badly bitten and scratched! It became discovered that one child had been rolling up a magazine and hit it against the glass to kill a wasp , the manager of the daycare was found guilty on having a kitten infected with a serious infestation of ticks which infected that little girl with Lyme disease! Absolutely horrendous because the manager only received a $480 fine and the centre is still running! Blessings ❤
Why doesn't daycare have a set daily, weekly, and/ or monthly rate? You then have the parents pay in advance. You can have a two-week notice for the monthly rate. The hourly thing seems like an over-complication.
The four corners of the contract judge Judy! You missed this one !
exactly my thoughts
You missed it, the contract was with the state, that was paying for the daycare if the children were there.
Too wrong for this thumbnail 😂
PLANTIFF IS WRONG.
Tortious interference with contract
Tortious interference with contract rights can occur when one party persuades another to breach its contract with a third party (e.g., using blackmail, threats, influence, etc.) or where someone knowingly interferes with a contractor's ability to perform his contractual obligations, preventing the client from receiving ...
Usually, a contract is a contract. She can legally provide care, she's just not licensed yet. There is a cap on how many kids she can care for. If those 2 are booked, she can't book anyone else. Sorry, I disagree with the Queen on this one
Literally thank God all the time im finally done with daycare. Its been a LONG 5 years those who dont need it/ have support you are truly blessed.
4:46 She isnt licensed she doesnt get paid for doing nothing!! REDICULOUS she thought she would !!
It broke my heart when she responded that the father was not a husband.
So nice to finally see someone didn't "AXE" a question... lol
Where i live, even if my daughter misses daycare i still have to pay 🤷♀️🥴
You should be taking care of your own kids
@@Frank00 what ?
Itis common practice that parents owe, per contract, for all scheduled care hours even if the children are not brought for care.
I actually know a few daycare providers like this. I paid 200 a week for my children to go the only other child there was the provider's child. She wanted me to pay 100 for me to "hold their spots" for the week I took them on vacation. I asked her, "for who?" She couldn't give an answer so I said, "I'll just pay you when they come back."
JJ said “I don’t care about your contract” sounds like Dr. Phil!
Thanks cameraman
i dont agree with JJ saying 'you should be happy' - yes, she's happy she no longer has to deal with this man but she is NOT happy she had to lose business.
Well her choice was deal with the man or lose business. She can’t get it both ways
@@thomaswitte2971 yes but i don't think she 'should be happy' about it.
Most of the licensed daycares in my area charge you 5 days a week, whether the child is there or not. Doesn't matter if the child is sick, on vacation, or you're not working that day, or if they only stay part of the day, you pay the whole fee.
Judge Judy rules!
1:58 thumbnail lol
I don't agree with this one. As a client based business owner, I have a lengthy wait list, so you're paying for the spot, not if you attend. So not only is she out that income, but the income from another family who would have paid for the spot. Does she have a wait list? Who knows, but this is standard practice. She should have invoiced her ahead of the service, when i was younger, I would have rich people dine and dash on a service.
She told the defendant not to bring the children in
That face the plaintiff makes is cause for concern 😂
Crazy Eyes...😮
...... What's the relevancy of whether or not there married? JJ so stupid sometimes. I said what I said.
In JJ's America, child care providers are lesser-than, apparently; even the ones with contracts. I can't stand her affluent attitude many times.
The Plaintiff violated the contract FIRST because she didn't allow the defendants children's father to pick them up. Thats why she couldnt get paid. This is similar to the difference between kicking someone out of an apartment vs them leaving due to their own reason mid contract. The former won't allow you to collect rent for the rest of the period because you lock them out.
I had to pay a fulltime rate for both of my children's daycare stay REGARDLESS if they attended or not
“In my best America”? Ok Judge Judy😏
Daycare is full time enrollment and if they aren’t there you still pay. Ours used to let our kids run around outside when it was 115 F and then call us because they had a temperature. I would have to leave work to get them. We still had to pay. We ended up hiring a nanny who just watched our three at home.
The plaintiff is extra crispy 😮
Judge Judy has definitely been out of the childcare game.. You have to pay to keep your spot
If she has a signed contract then why is JJ ignoring it?
My mom ran a home daycare 20 years. You do NOT get paid if the kids aren’t there. Taking up a spot or not. The parent should notify ahead of time so she could take another child those days. But she can’t collect on days the kid wasn’t there.
The issue is that a daycare provider cannot take more than a certain number of children, so if she scheduled her kids to be there, but then didn't bring them, the provider could not fill their spots with someone else. That's why most daycares would require payment in advance.
The defendant seems drainedddd
I love the defendant
Judge judy said "period't" before city girls 😂😮
Suddenly the whole thing with the pen going around a piece of paper and emphasizing how it's four corners and that everything inside those four corners is called a "contract" is meaningless. It was Judge Judy Realize Savings Day.
And that the plaintiff made the agreement with the state, who was paying for the daycare.
Ahhh that thumbnail face was well deserved😂
All Judge Judy heard was she wasn't license and right at that moment the case was dismissed. I do understand you have to be license in order to do certain jobs especially dealing with children but I'm pretty sure it's a lot of businesses who don't have a license and still working making money.
JJ doesn't understand daycare contracts. It doesn't matter if the kids were there, she should get paid anyways because she loses money if kids all of sudden dont show up..cant manage your finances like that if you don't really know what your going to earn..so almost all day care contracts state the parents pay regardless if they bring the child
The kids didn’t all of the sudden not show up. The plaintiff stated she didn’t want the kids if the father was picking them up
So I'm confused as to whether contracts are obligated or not to be obided and it's terms? JJ usually sides based on writted contractual obligations regardless...🤷🏽♂️
This is why daycare centers require that families pay monthly and some don’t use the local municipality’s subsidy program. You’re paying for a spot.
Nobody commenting "JJ was wrong she should have been paid" followed followed this. The plaintiff called the cops and broke her own contract with the defendant but still wanted to be paid for the freed up spots. Listen to JJ explain this at 1:00
Crystal Stares 🔮👁️👄👁️
JJ always stress the importance of a contract. Why didn’t she review the contract in this case and make her ruling based on that?
JJ is right. She was not licensed...if she had been licensed, she can charge.
Thankfully, I never had to put any of my 3 boys in day care. But who agrees to pay for time the kids are not in the daycare? Who has the gall to charge for time they are not watching the kids? WTF???
JJ is punishing her for not being licenced but what she's doing isn't illegal. It's clear that she needs to rip that contract up and send mum packing.
She’s wrong about this one. As a former child minder they are supposed to pay for non-attendance, it’s a place that we can’t give to another child that we can’t otherwise get paid for, and it will have been in the contract that she should have paid. The judge should have looked at the contract.
She had a contract. She signed it she has to pay for it. They make us pay for days my kids don’t attend at a regular daycare facility.
Someone needs to clue JJ in as to how daycare works as far as contracts & saving a child's spot etc.
Judge Judy is wrong here. I was a former licensed day care provider, the parents sign a contract that even on the days that they do NOT bring their child to the daycare, they will still owe. Because it's NOT FAIR to the daycare provider that she loses money on those days just because the parents chose different options for that day! I had the same problem with a dad that signed a contract with me, and some days his son wanted to go to his grammas. So when I told him at the end of the week, that he still owed me the FULL week, he yelled at me and said that I was selfish! I cried when he stormed out, knowing that the money I depended on, didn't matter to him. Being a daycare provider is a very stressful job, and some parents do not appreciate you. I hope that one day Judge Judy realizes this and that she was wrong in this case
The logic used by jj in this case isn't fair. Even if the kids didn't show up, the daycare still needs to do everything to keep it open and receive the children. It is a monthly contract, not a daily one. As per this ligic, if a renter vacates the house in the middle of the month, he/she doesn't owe the rent for the whole month. 😮
Whether she was licensed or not they still had a signed contract she should have still been paid
Even in Toronto, we pay the daycare whether the child attends or not even when you pick them up early you pay a full day worth so it makes sense her asking to be paid.
You should be taking care of your own kids
wrong, for the plaintiff signed a contract with the state that says the state does not pay for when the children are not in the day care center. Listen to the video again. Contract with the state who was paying the daycare, but not on the days the children were not there. Legally binding contract.
@@Frank00 Single mothers cannot always stay home, they do have to work. And they deserve assistance. Hate will get you nowhere, Frank00.
@@trekgirl65 no hate here, I care about the kids these people dump off to strangers where they are not loved all day, so that sounds like hate? To me you dont care about children
Why would Judy not honor the fact that they had a contract saying she had to pay even if the children weren’t present? Shouldn’t she?
Not licensed unenforceable
JJ made it clear that unlicensed daycare providers should not be taking care of infants. Period. That determined her judgment
I cannot believe that she sued Rihanna 😭
I’m surprised judge Judy didn’t accept that contract she usually is very on point with that usually… strange
what years are these episodes from
I heard about this crystal stairs thing in either this case or another one
Zacharies disease prevails on Mowgli
disagree with JJ on this one a contract is a contract and the defendant signed it willingly so she has to abide by the terms..I dont get JJ rationale here
JJ is WRONG on this one!!!
Isn’t JJ all about contracts…all of sudden they don’t matter???
lunch crew: sound off 🌯
Goodbye!!! 😂😂 ❤Judge Judy