Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

First of all, it is your home so you can make the rules without having to justify your decisions. You are being very nice to them to give them a rent free home and they are trying to take more advantage of you. All of the reasons you have given are reasonable; your first obligation is to you minior chilldren who are stlil living at home. If you married son is old enough to get married and have a child, he is old enough to work to support his family.

As to legal liability, of course you will be sued if any child being baby sat should get injured. They are not going to sue your son and daughter in law because they have no assets. That she will not be able to pay full attention to the children she baby sits because of having to pay some attention to her own baby makes it more likely that she could be found negligent. You might be somewhat negligent because you let her act in a negligent fashion. All that needs to be done is to show that you are even just one percent at fault; judgements are joint and several so if she is 99% at fault and you are 1% at fault, the plaintiff can collect the entire judgment against you with you then having the right to sue her for contribution, but she has no assets and your son will never speak to you if you did that.

If a child is hurt falling from a chair or a outdoor swing, it is your furniture and chair. Eo you think your daughter-in-law will take all the blame or say that you were partly at fault. If you home owners insurance company finds out what the hosue is being used for your rates go up or they toss you out.

Stand firm. It is "no big deal" to others because they are not taking on any responsibility or liability.

One question do you have insurance? If so then if you have a prudent amount them it should not be an issue. If you don�t have insurance there are a lot more things you should be worrying about.

That is the practical answer without going into all the ways that someone even a child could hurt themselves at your home.

If you want tell your "children" it is fine as long as they have insurance for babysitting. Then you can let it be the insurance company's fault.

Oh by the way even though I respect George�s opinions he is wrong about the 1% at fault thing. You see the insurance companies 20 years ago convinced the voters to change the law in their favor and essentially eliminate what we call joint and several liability or what the insurance companies called the deep pocket law. Joint and several liability only applies to special damages such as medical bills and not general damages or pain and suffering which are usually far in excess of the medical bills.

So for the last 20 years or so you can�t be 1% at fault and be responsible for the entire judgment. While people don�t like the idea of deep pockets it was developed to help the victim as society used to feel it was better to compensate the victim rather than reward the tortfeasor aka the negligent party. Why do I know this? Because I was there during this fight on behalf of the victims, but we lost and the insurance companies won another one.

Hope this helps and good luck.

Yes, you would face potential legal liability from a business run in your home. It already exists even with the informal neighborhood sitting. The risks could be minimized by having sufficient insurance, and by adherence to proper policies and supervision of operations. This would have to be set up as a legitimate business, with all the attendant legal compliance's, filings, licenses, bonds, training, accounting, payroll, taxes, etc. The call is yours as the owner.

Mr. Belli was right to raise the subject of insurance. But before you rely on your existing insurance to protect you from liability you should review your policy. It might not cover liability that stems from a home-based business.

You are 100% right. It is your house and your rules. If you son and daughter-in-law are old enough to be married and have a child, they are old enough to be able to support themselves. If they want to live under your roof, the have to live by your rules. As you guessed, you would be liable for any harm that came to any child in your daughter-in-law's proposed day care business. Your homeowners insurance would not cover that loss as it is in connection with a business. If there was a lawsuit you would have to defend yourself and pay any damages, which could be substantial. I am assuming, of course, that your son and daughter-in-law have nothing and are, as they say, judgment proof. Finally, day care centers are required to be licensed. Was your daughter-in-law simply going to ignore that requirement as well? Doing so would expose you to even further liability.

As hard as it may be to do, you may have to tell them that they should move out. It is probably in your best interests (as well as their long term best interest) to do so.