Will be asked to come back to work - wife cannot due to children Due to COVID-19 all schools were closed (At least here in MI - I am certain everywhere). My wife's work is starting to ask when she will return. Unfortunately she has to become our 3 daughter's teacher - at least until the end of June. Our schools are participating in Remote School (Schoology) and the student's pass or fail depends on their attendance. We have a small pre-k and kindergartner as well as a ten year old, we aren't talking about self sufficient teens here - these kids are young. In any event I know if an employee refuses to go back to work they can be terminated and lose unemployment benefits. However, I have also read that parents who have kids are entitled to unemployment during these rough times due to COVID-19 and remote school. If my wife comes into contact with someone who has these symptoms she could easily bring it home - not ideal. How can we maintain unemployment benefits at least until the end of June without having the fear of losing both employment at her job and unemployment benefits?
According to the Michigan Dept. of Labor &amp; Economic Opportunity, there are expanded eligibility criteria for unemployment insurance during the COVID-19 crisis. This expansion of unemployment benefits was part of the Federal CARES Act passed in late March. These expanded criteria may cover your wife: Individuals are eligible for PUA [Pandemic Unemployment Assistance] if they do not qualify for regular UI benefits (including self-employed workers and independent contractors) and cannot work because they: Are diagnosed COVID-19 or have COVID-19 symptoms and are seeking diagnosis; Have a member of the household who is diagnosed with COVID-19; Are providing care for a family or household member diagnosed with COVID-19; Are the primary caregiver for a child whose school or care facility closed, due to COVID-19; Are unable to reach their place of employment due to an imposed quarantine, or because advised by medical provider to self-quarantine, due to COVID-19; Were scheduled to start new employment and cannot reach the workplace as direct result of COVID-19; Became the major breadwinner because the head of household died from COVID-19; Quit their job as a direct result of COVID-19; Had their place of employment closed as a direct result of COVID-19; or Meet any additional criteria specified by U.S. Secretary of Labor. Individuals are not eligible for PUA if they can telework or are receiving paid sick leave or other paid leave benefits (regardless of meeting a category listed above). According to this fact sheet, you can apply for PUA if you are denied regular benefits: When and How to File for PUA New claimants or claimants who have been denied regular state unemployment benefits (as of January 27, 2020) may apply online using the PUA application available in the Michigan Web Account Manager (MiWAM) at michigan.gov/uia.
34 CFR Subpart D covers this topic ("Under what conditions is prior consent not required to disclose information?"). This includes The disclosure is to other school officials, including teachers, within the agency or institution whom the agency or institution has determined to have legitimate educational interests so that raises the question of whether there is a legitimate educational interest. Additionally, the question is raised as to the status of an SRO (they are not teachers). Disclosure is allowed to A contractor, consultant, volunteer, or other party to whom an agency or institution has outsourced institutional services or functions may be considered a school official under this paragraph provided... the conditions being that the person Performs an institutional service or function for which the agency or institution would otherwise use employees; Is under the direct control of the agency or institution with respect to the use and maintenance of education records; and Is subject to the requirements of §99.33(a) governing the use and redisclosure of personally identifiable information from education records I would take this model memorandum as the most likely agreement, though your district may have a totally different memo where SROs are purely security guards. An SRO is to advance the program objective which include "Education of children regarding the role of laws, courts, and Police in society", which is the hook into "legitimate educational interest". This nothwitstanding the part that says that they "are police officers and not school teachers, school administrators, nor school counselors. The officers will assist teachers with classroom presentations on relative topics when requested and able" (there is no principle that only teachers, administrators, or counselors can have a legitimate educational interest). This model memo does not say anything that indicates that the conditions "Is under the direct control" and "Is subject to the requirements of §99.33(a)" are true, but those conditions could be satisfied external to the MOU. There are some additional exceptions of the "if required by law" type, such as a state law "adopted before November 19, 1974, if the allowed reporting or disclosure concerns the juvenile justice system and the system's ability to effectively serve the student whose records are released"; or, after that date, is "subject to the requirements of §99.38" which refers you to §99.31(a)(5)(i)(B). If that is confusing, here are the two self-referring sections: §99.38(a) If reporting or disclosure allowed by State statute concerns the juvenile justice system and the system's ability to effectively serve, prior to adjudication, the student whose records are released, an educational agency or institution may disclose education records under §99.31(a)(5)(i)(B). §99.31(a)(5)(i)(B). The disclosure is to State and local officials or authorities to whom this information is specifically...Allowed to be reported or disclosed pursuant to State statute adopted after November 19, 1974, subject to the requirements of §99.38. So state law is one possibility; "legitimate educational interest" is a remote possiblity. Massachussetts law does include governmental third party disclosures: 603 CMR 23.07(4)(c) A school may release information regarding a student upon receipt of a request from the Department of Social Services, a probation officer, a justice of any court, or the Department of Youth Services under the provisions of M.G.L. c. 119, sections 51B, 57, 69 and 69A respectively. That does not directly apply to local police, but it is possible that a police officer is operating as a probation officer or an agent of the Department of Youth Services. Under paragraph (e), A school may disclose information regarding a student to appropriate parties in connection with a health or safety emergency if knowledge of the information is necessary to protect the health or safety of the student or other individuals. This includes, but is not limited to, disclosures to the local police department Mass. law allows the possibility of treating a police officer as "authorized school personnel" if they are "providing services to the student under an agreement between the school committee and a service provider, and who are working directly with the student in an administrative, teaching counseling, and/or diagnostic capacity" – which is not completely out of the question but is a bit of a stretch (especially in the context of a blanket statement "we share records", not "we may share yours, if you get special counseling"). Tne law also says "Any such personnel who are not employed directly by the school committee shall have access only to the student record information that is required for them to perform their duties", so sharing of all records would not be allowed.
Are the reasons (mom can't stay because of covid-19 and the son is too young to live by himself) legally justifiable reasons? Unfortunately, not in this case. The landlord can prevail by arguing that the mom, insofar as a holder of a non-immigrant visa, knew or should have known of the risks of being denied entry in the US. In terms of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts at § 154 (a) &amp; (b), the mom is the &quot;Party [who] Bears the Risk of a Mistake&quot;. Since the risks of which the mom was aware include even arbitrary ones such as the USCIS officer's discretion, an allegation of &quot;supervening circumstances&quot; as per the coronavirus crisis is very unlikely to add any merit to the mom's legal position. Is the 8 months compensate reasonable? Although this is admittedly subjective, at first glance it appears reasonable or perhaps even generous (the landlord is proposing the midpoint: half of the remaining 16 months) considering that the landlord is entitled to the completion of the lease. The &quot;8 months as compensation&quot; is essentially the landlord's proposal to settle his otherwise viable claim of breach of contract. You as lease holders can always attempt to negotiate and make alternative proposals, which is what you are doing already. Here, the landlord seeks to obviate court proceedings that can be a drag for both him and especially for the mom because she would be unable even to present her arguments in court and/or quasi-judicial proceedings. A settlement would benefit the landlord also from the standpoint that he would no longer be required to prove mitigation of damages (if that is a requirement in his jurisdiction). And, unless the settlement provides otherwise, the landlord would be free to immediately re-rent the unit without having to reimburse the mom (or the person(s) whose name is in the lease). That being said, it is important for the lease holder(s) to secure in writing (specifically in the settlement document) a statement from the landlord in the sense that, by virtue of the agreed compensation, the landlord waives any and all claims related to the early termination of the lease. It is always smart to be cautious and preclude the landlord from eventually bringing a claim alleging that the agreed compensation was for something else or that it did not fully settle the controversy(-ies).
germany Ah, okay, there isn't any easy answer/number/table for this. In general, the &quot;Aufsichtspflicht&quot; results from Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) § 1631 Inhalt und Grenzen der Personensorge. There are not clear cut lines or given ages. This is mainly because it does not make a lot of sense. A very independent and mature 6 year old can do things a less developed or even disabled person might not be able to do, even at the age of 18+. Generally speaking, the parents have the duty to care for the child, anything else can be handled by contracts. For example a contract with a kindergarten. Or School. Or private/public pool. From personal experience I can say this: Germany is very safe. Kids go to school on foot, on bike or longer distances by normal public transport among all the other adults. We do not have &quot;school busses&quot;. Between 07:00 and 08:00 public transport is packed with kids of all ages going to school. Schools do not normally have their own stops. Kids get off at the nearest stop and walk the rest of the way. Around the school you will see streams of children coming from all directions on bike or foot. It is rare to see adults accompanying them, unless it's the first weeks of elementary school or the last day before school holidays where parents pick up their kids to do something fun after school. When I was a kid, I walked to school every day, almost from day one of elementary school. The first few weeks an adult would accompany us (one of the parents, they had a rotation going), then we walked on our own, as a group of 3-4 kids in the same class from the same neighborhood block. Google maps says it's a 10 minute walk of 800 meters. If any teacher had stopped me from leaving the school building on my own when school was finished, I am sure people would have wondered why. That only happened for mentally handicapped kids. Even kids who needed transport for one reason or another would just know to wait in front of the school. No teacher or other adult would be there. At 5th grade, I know half my class came by bike and in the winter or on rainy days by public transport, because they did not live in walking distance to the school. Neither did I, but I lived close enough to not get the public transport ticket subsidized, so the kids from our street got there by bike, or on foot when the parents deemed riding a bike to unsafe in snow and ice in winter. Who is responsible for the child now that the class has ended? The parents. Unless the contract says otherwise, or circumstances are exceptionally dangerous. There is no exact written guideline for this, because it would not make sense. The adult has to know what is exceptionally dangerous and what is not. It can be perfectly safe for a 10 year old to walk home through the woods. If that is what the parents deem okay, then it is okay. Yet as the adult in charge, you have the duty to keep them back, if you know the woods are on fire today, or a criminal escaped into the woods or something similar that would make it significantly more dangerous then the parents had in mind when they made their general decision. If a 10-year-old child says that their parents &quot;said they could go home alone&quot;, can I reasonably stop them? If you have a contract that says they cannot go home alone, sure. If there is a special situation that implies the conditions have changed from what your contract said (lets say the radio broadcasts a storm warning and you see that the weather is horrible and branches flying around could injure a smaller kid) you can (maybe even have to), even if you do not have a contract. Otherwise... why would you? It’s their parents decision. If they had wanted you to keep an eye on their kids when the time is up, they would have made a contract that says so.
Could the Federal government say that if you are not vaccinated against Covid then you lose your welfare benefits? Would it be constitutional? What I am asking is, would a federal law (passed by congress) requiring people on welfare to be vaccinated be constitutional? For the most part yes. Arguably, a religious exemption might be required. But the federal government absent other countervailing considerations, generally has the power to mandate vaccination and other responses to a contiguous disease in cases where the vaccination would affect interstate commerce. All manner of things can be established as conditions to federal spending and federal programs. In cases where the program is purely federal, that discretion is almost unlimited (except for individual liberty considerations like freedom of religion). In cases where state cooperation is required, as noted in the answer by user6726, this discretion isn't absolutely unbounded if the state objects.
In the US, your recourse is the school board that governs your high school. Talk to them and find out how to bring the situation to their attention. There will be some sort of complaint or grievance process you can participate in. The school board is bound by state (and federal law), but makes many decisions for the school, among them employee policies and standards for teacher qualifications. Yes, there are possible legal actions you could take, but the first step is the school board. The school board will be obligated to tell you the hiring process and how qualifications play a role. But be aware that they have the option to hire temporary teachers who are not fully certified in order to fill vacancies; it's a common practice when the demand for teachers is much higher than their availability. There is little that is illegal about it, unless the board broke their own rules or state or federal law.
Parents have a legal obligation to care for their minor children: it is illegal to harm a child through action or inaction. State law and associated welfare programs are complex: you can start here. If surgery is medically necessary, her insurance should cover it. If her parent do not have medical insurance, they still have the obligation of care; though various governmental programs may alleviate the problem, such as the state medical assistance program. The parents may therefore be in violation of the law, and anyone may report this to DSHS (specifically through Child Protective Services). This obligation terminates when the child turns 18 (assuming that someone does not petition for adult guardianship). Legislation is not crystal clear as far as what constitutes "injury of a child ...under circumstances which cause harm to the child's health". CPS has no authority to compel parents to pay for a medical treatment, but they can go to the courts on behalf of the child. At that point, it's hard to say what the court would order. For example, if the parents are capable of providing medical insurance and just willfully chose to not cover their child, the court could order them to get insurance. It is virtually guaranteed that the courts would not order the immediate amputation of the child's feet, and there would be no legal basis for ordering the parents to pay for the procedure in a decade, after the child is an adult. However, if you are suggesting that there is an immediate treatment (which the parents have opted to not provide, hence the prospects of later amputation), then it is reasonably likely that the courts would order the parents to provide for the treatment (if it would be possible for them; otherwise, the state may intervene and provide for the treatment).
Imputed income is a legitimate concept, but it is hard to prove, particularly when there is an earning history to back up the claim that there is no malingering. Ultimately, the question is what that particular individual could earn and whether that particular individual was intentionally being lazy in order to influence child support. At a minimum an earnings history and testimony from Mary would be strong evidence disproving the claim, and it would probably take expert testimony to make any kind of credible claim that more income should be imputed that would still be unlikely to succeed. If more money were at stake, a battle of the experts with experts on each side with one testifying that Mary could earn more and the other debunking that expert's testimony, would be appropriate. But, for $300 a month at issue, it probably doesn't make economic sense for either party to hire any kind of expert. And, a judge is usually going to take some random statistical study much less seriously than a history of earnings and testimony from the franchise owner about why it earned more or less than average.