The job of a babysitter seems simple enough on paper. You feed them, keep them from drawing on the walls, and make sure everyone has the correct number of limbs at the end of the night. It’s a straightforward contract based on trust. The parents trust you to keep their kids safe, and you trust them to be honest about the job.
Usually, there shouldn’t be any major, last-minute surprises or unmentioned duties. But one 19-year-old babysitter recently walked into her new job and discovered her employer had omitted one very significant, wheelchair-using detail from the original agreement.
More info: Reddit
When a new job seems too good to be true, there’s usually a major catch, so sometimes it’s good to be prepared for the worst
Image credits: Curated Lifestyle / Unsplash (not the actual photo)
A 19-year-old babysitter thought she was taking a straightforward job watching two young children
Image credits: freepik / Freepik (not the actual photo)
But on her first day, she discovered a third, severely disabled child who the mom had conveniently forgotten to mention
Image credits: user25451090 / Freepik (not the actual photo)
When she refused the massive, unagreed-upon responsibility, the mom called her unreliable
Image credits: Wallswalls11
The drama continued at home when her own mother called her ‘cowardly and selfish’ for quitting
A 19-year-old babysitter, a seasoned pro at the summer gig, took on a new client: a single mom who was desperately looking for help. This was already a red flag, but the house was close and the money was good, so she went for it. She did her due diligence, met the mom and her two kids, and agreed on all the rules. Everything seemed perfectly normal, a standard babysitting job.
But on her first day, she walked into a bait-and-switch of epic proportions. There, in the house, was a third child, an 11-year-old boy in a wheelchair, who the mom casually introduced as her “severely disabled son.” The mom then tried to pretend he was “part of the deal,” and even handed over a list of duties that included changing and feeding him.
The babysitter, understandably, freaked out. She immediately drew a firm line, explaining that she was a babysitter, not a trained carer, and was not qualified for this immense responsibility. The mom tried to downplay it, saying it was just like “caring for an infant,” but the babysitter wasn’t buying it. She refused the job and made for the door, even as the mom pivoted from deception to guilt-tripping.
The drama didn’t end there. When she got home and explained why she’d quit, her own mother sided with the single mom. Her mom called her “cowardly and selfish” for putting the woman in a “rough place,” completely ignoring the massive lie that had caused the entire situation. Now, the babysitter is left questioning herself, caught between a clear case of deception and a tag-team of maternal guilt-tripping.
Image credits: Wavebreak Media / Freepik (not the actual photo)
The mother’s attempt to downplay the situation by comparing it to “caring for an infant” ignores a fundamental truth: caring for a child with severe disabilities is a specialized field, not an extension of regular babysitting. Experts at SOSgarde emphasize that caregivers for children with special needs often require specific qualifications, such as first aid training, experience with mobility aids, and condition-specific knowledge.
The most significant issue here is the mother’s deliberate deception, which created a dangerous situation for everyone involved. As emphasized by Autism Parenting Magazine, the first and most crucial step in finding a caregiver is for the parent to be completely honest about their child’s needs. This put both the child and the babysitter in a potentially unsafe position by not allowing her to give informed consent.
Mary Poppins Services explains that trained professionals provide a level of care far beyond basic supervision, often including medication management, physical assistance with transfers, and supporting therapy goals. The babysitter’s decision to leave was not “cowardly” or “selfish”; it was the most responsible and ethical choice she could make, protecting herself from a liability she wasn’t prepared for.
The babysitter’s fear of the “huge responsibility legally” was a spot-on assessment of a potentially catastrophic risk. Experts from the Special Needs Alliance say that personal injury actions involving individuals with disabilities are incredibly complex. An accident could have entangled her in a legal nightmare involving specialized litigation and potentially the management of long-term care funds, far beyond a typical liability claim.
Do you also think her refusal was a rational decision to avoid a situation where a simple mistake could have life-altering legal and financial consequences? Let us know in the comments below!
The internet, however, unanimously agreed that the mother’s lie was dangerous and the babysitter was right to walk away
Follow Us
