FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THIS POST
THIS EXCUSE DID NOT GO WELL IN COURT!
A Daycare Arrangement Goes Sideways
Imagine a deal that seems to benefit everyone.
A family needs daycare.
A provider needs a car.
This case starts with just such an arrangement.
The Plaintiffs Seek Damages for Car Repairs and Ruined Credit
Mr. and Mrs. Bean are the plaintiffs.
They enrolled their child in Valerie Clark's daycare.
Valerie Clark is the defendant.
The Beans had a car they wanted to get rid of.
They made an arrangement with Ms. Clark.
The monthly daycare cost was $460.
Their car note was $390.
The Beans would pay the difference to Ms. Clark.
They would also pay the car note to the bank.
Ms. Clark would use the car.
Mr. Bean stated he felt pressured into signing a contract for the car's purchase.
He said Ms. Clark made it clear that people do not "mess with her."
In October, the Beans removed their child from the daycare.
In November, they were notified the car payment was past due.
The Beans are suing for money owed for car repairs.
They also seek punitive damages for ruined credit.
The Car's Condition and a Child's Art Project
Judge Judy asked about physical damage to the car.
Mr. Bean said a tire was blown out.
He also mentioned spray paint on the car.
Judge Judy asked how the spray paint got there.
Mr. Bean explained his four-year-old son got hold of a can of spray paint.
This happened when Mr. Bean was doing an art project.
His son put a little paint on the front bumper.
Mr. Bean tried to get it off.
He was afraid to cause further damage.
He provided an estimate for redoing the bumper.
The bumper repair alone was $336.24.
Concerns About the Daycare
Mrs. Bean explained why they took their child out of the daycare.
She said there were multiple times her newborn child was very cold.
She brought this up to Valerie Clark.
Mrs. Bean claimed her child didn't have clothes on.
She said the AC was blasting.
The TV was blasting.
She felt her child wasn't being watched.
She also claimed her child was taken to other unregistered daycares.
This was allegedly done without her permission.
Judge Judy Questions the "Outrage"
Judge Judy asked if the Beans saw their baby taken to other unlicensed places.
Mr. Bean said he had to pick her up from other places.
Judge Judy pressed for the first time this happened.
Mr. Bean said it happened in August.
He showed up and his child was not there.
He called his wife.
His wife located the baby for him.
Mr. Bean went to pick up his child from another home.
He saw a woman he had never seen before.
The defendant was not there.
Mrs. Bean explained that Ms. Clark said the ratios were off.
This meant too many children for the license requirements.
So, Ms. Clark took the child to another house.
Mrs. Bean understood what this meant.
Judge Judy pointed out that the Beans were not concerned enough to pull their child out immediately.
They left her there for at least another two months.
Mr. Bean said he picked up his child from other places multiple times.
He estimated more than ten times.
The defendant was rarely there.
Different people handed him his daughter.
He said there were three or four different people at the other house.
Judge Judy noted that both Beans were aware of these multiple facilities.
This was true for August and September.
Judge Judy then addressed Mr. Bean directly.