Kentucky Woman Arrested for Eavesdropping on a Caregiver for her Daughter

a reply to: Daughter2

I wish the article was a bit more in depth to get a real sense of the screaming and other accused actions. What I'm having a problem with though, is that there's no indication of an investigation against the alleged abuse, but they're hell bent on prosecuting her for eavesdropping.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Perhaps they listened to the tapes and found their is no case for abuse?

Don't you think the mother would mention the worse case? The article only mentioned her "yelling" (the mother's term) for the daughter to put dirty toilet paper in the garbage.

If your child had dirty toilet paper, couldn't you see the average person raising their voice?

You don't seem to understand violating someone's privacy IS ABUSE. Like rape, it may not leave physical scars but it's emotionally abusive and can affect a person for their entire lives.

It is possible it is a state appointed or licensed caregiver.

Some special needs children get state funding for child care. But, you have to take who you get.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Two questions..

Why send the child back in, to be around the maniac?

Also, why is a baby sitter required? The arrested party does not need a recording device, or a new sitter. She does need a job which gives her the time to be there for her child though, instead of employing some stranger to do the job.

a reply to: EternalSolace

It would appear from that snippet that 'eavesdropping' is illegal if ANY of the recorded parties are unaware.

Could that be what the law is saying?

Not that it's legal as long as one party is aware, but ILLEGAL if even ONE is unaware.

a reply to: EternalSolace

I know it's non admissible in court, if the other party is not informed of an audio recording device.
However, what is the difference between an audio recorder VS. a hidden "Nanny Cam"?

www.brickhousesecurity.com...
😕

Note... Nanny Cams are legal, and are used all the time. The cams catch abusive baby sitters. And results in arrest and used in court.

a reply to: TrueBrit

If it's a special needs child, I can understand being somewhat skeptical as to whether the child is throwing a tantrum about being away from the parent, or throwing a tantrum because they're being abused by someone. Hence needing to verify and gather proof.

I also don't find it unreasonable to need help to some degree depending on the needs of the child.

a reply to: Urantia1111

What you've described is two-party or all-party consent. Ky only requires one person to be aware. So in essence, if I'm recording you and another person, only you or them need to know. Not both. Or if you're recording a conversation between you and I, only you need to be aware.

The difference is, a nanny cam is in your own home....

a reply to: FlyingFox

Good point👍

originally posted by: quercusrex
a reply to: EternalSolace

Her daughter is 11 years old and not legally allowed to consent to anything.

Then she consented for her, as her legal guardian.

a reply to: FlyingFox

Which would give you the ability to record with 0 party consent.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm finding lots of precident in regard to a parent being able to consent for their child. I've been doing a lot of reading up on the matter. It would seem that in nearly all 50 states, a parent can provide consent for a child. From going on a field trip, to having a medical exam, to whatever else imaginable. A parent can give consent for a child'.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Of course they can. In fact that is their role. Children can not consent, the parent must on their behalf. So there was a 1 party consent, the parent consented on behalf of their child.

This would only be tricky if the child did not know, with the child knowing, I don't see how this is even an issue.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I don't even believe it would've been tricky even if the child didn't know. Being as how a parent can consent for the child, it doesn't matter if the child wanted it or not.

a reply to: EternalSolace

I don't think it SHOULD be tricky, but regardless, both the parent and the child consented, there is a 1 party consent. This is just crazy.

originally posted by: quercusrex
a reply to: EternalSolace

Her daughter is 11 years old and not legally allowed to consent to anything.

Since her daughter is a minor, the mother can consent for her, on her behalf. You know this, it is how she can see a doctor.

The one party is that one of the participants knows of the recording. IE: you record your conversation. It makes it illegal for a third party to record two other people's conversation.

a reply to: roadgravel

The child is the party and her right to consent is with her mother. That's the law. I answered and defended my 17 year old in court as if I were him. This is the right of the parent. Get the aunt or granny to take your child to the doctor and see what happens. They will not see him.