Legal definition of a 'child'

[sarah707]

This is an interesting bit of information - the NSPCC clarifies the legal definition of a child as 'anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday' -
Legal definition of a child | NSPCC (http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/questions/definition_of_a_child_wda59396.html)

I say 'interesting' because the EYFS states in requirement 3.28 -
'Only those aged 17 or over may be included in ratios (and staff under 17 should be supervised at all times). Students on long term placements and volunteers (aged 17 or over) may be included if the provider is satisfied that they are competent and responsible.'

Whereas the Childcare Register states in requirement CR1.10 -
'Childminders and home childcarers must be aged 18 or
over and childminders must ensure that any person aged
under 18 caring for children is supervised at all times by a
person who has attained the age of 18.'

There are some useful links to child protection information for England, Wales and Scotland on the NSPCC link as well :D

[Bumble Beez]

Thanks Sarah, that's a great little link!
Love the NSPCC and truly rate what they do...
But if you're still a child until 18th birthday...surely you can't count a 17 year old student, apprentice etc as an adult when looking at ratios? Or have I just read something wrong?!

Sarah x

[sarah707]

Thanks Sarah, that's a great little link!
Love the NSPCC and truly rate what they do...
But if you're still a child until 18th birthday...surely you can't count a 17 year old student, apprentice etc as an adult when looking at ratios? Or have I just read something wrong?!

Sarah x

You spotted it! Yes... my question too :panic:

So an assistant in the EYFS - still classed as a child by the NSPCC - can be left with children for up to 2 hours on their own as long as they have first aid, permission from Ofsted etc...

But you have to be 18 for older children on Childcare Register... AND you can't do it until you are an adult at 18.

Strikes me as something very wrong somewhere...

[Bumble Beez]

Hmmm...yeah they need to re-look at this. Needs to be consistent!
I think they just make some of I up as they go along :laughing:

Sarah x

[bindy]

I had a 17 year old last summer ( she was doing her level 3 at the time and wanted experience) helping me with the children. You could say she was my assistant. I was told by Ofsted she was not allowed to be left alone with the children and was to be supervised at all times.

[WibbleWobble]

What about soldiers? Ok under 18s don't see active service but they are privy to some really grown up stuff.

The west rant on about boy soldiers in eastern and African states when we are not much better.

Wibble the " what on earth am I doing thinking about this stuff on a Sunday morning" x

[Stapleton83]

That is a huge anomaly in the information they are giving out and could well lead to a number of childminders being caught out!

Sam x

[pinklady756]

I spoke to Ofsted about this a couple of weeks ago, I'm taking on an apprentice who is 17 and they confirmed exactly this, she could be left with EYFS age range, but not the older children.

She will count in my ratio's but I'm not planning on having full numbers or leaving her alone - we'll have 4 under 5 twice a week and 5 on a Friday morning.

[bindy]

I spoke to Ofsted about this a couple of weeks ago, I'm taking on an apprentice who is 17 and they confirmed exactly this, she could be left with EYFS age range, but not the older children.

She will count in my ratio's but I'm not planning on having full numbers or leaving her alone - we'll have 4 under 5 twice a week and 5 on a Friday morning.

That figures with what they told me. I had school children, during summer holidays. I guess the legal age to babysit is 16, is it?

[Bumble Beez]

Seems odd to me that they're happy with the under 18's to be counted in ratios with the EY group...surely it needs to be the same on both registers...
Either 17 or 18...one or the other!
Confused at why it would be different :)

Sarah x