>Seems like pawning her kids off on unwilling people who have no responsibility for them.

No, it seems like someone (read: you) making a lot of assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

Edit: Oh man, the absolute irony of you telling someone to "think" further down in this thread...

I guess we need to change the phrase “like a kid in a candy store” to “like a kid in a candy store, with a parent or guardian, and a legal waiver, and a lawyer present”

>> literally to the candy shop where she knows the owner,

Read.

It's a small town. The local business owners know each other fairly well.

Just because you know someone doesn't mean they've agreed to wbabysit your kids or have the business licenses to do so.

Maybe think along with reading

This is a sad way to frame the world. Not all relationships are transactional in nature.

What we need is an app that mints tokens on the blockchain for anyone who happens to be near your kid. They can claim their tokens by scanning the or code on his/her shirt.

Did your grandma have a business license when she was babysitting you?

If their grandma owns the candy store sure.

From the guidelines: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

There's a difference between good faith and inventing things the person hasn't said. They said they knew the store owner. They did not say the store owner agreed to care for their child who was too young to be out on their own, legally. Good faith does not require me to make up facts that haven't been said to make their argument stronger. If they had a child care agreement with a store owner, that would be a whole different kettle of fish. But you and I both know that was never the case - they just sent their child who is too young to be out on their own to be someone else's problem, because that person owns a store, and 'they know them'.

False, the kid will be more responsible than one raised by a helicopter.