PDA

View Full Version : Looking after children for friends



sarah707
12-10-2009, 11:10 AM
A can of worms has just been opened and given a good stir me thinks! :rolleyes: :D

By Charlotte Goddard - Children & Young People Now - 9 October 2009

The Prime Minister's Office has told petitioners that friends looking after children informally should not have to register with Ofsted.

A petition, signed by 19,890 people, expressed support for policewomen Leanne Shepherd and Lucy Jarrett, who were prevented from looking after each other's children while one of them was working because this was defined as "childcare for reward". They would have to register as childminders under the Childcare Act 2006.

Responding to the petition today, the Prime Minister's Office said: "The Childcare Act 2006 requires anyone providing ‘childcare for reward' to register with Ofsted, with the aim of ensuring every child in a commercial childcare service is safe and well cared for. Parents would expect no less.

"However, our intention has always been that friends and families caring for children through informal arrangements should be exempt from having to register and we believed that was what always happened.

"In the light of this recent case, we are talking to Ofsted about how we can make sure there's a shared understanding with Ofsted, and with parents, of what the law means and how it should interpreted. "

Pipsqueak
12-10-2009, 11:20 AM
and so they should redefine 'reward'. Its outrageous that informal arrangements between friends and close family is 'nannied' by the government. Technically my neighbour and myself have probably been in breach of regulations on many occasions - she has cared for my children informally over the years - but never asked for nor expected a 'reward' but I have occasionally given her flowers, choccie, offered lifts etc

katickles
12-10-2009, 11:43 AM
I often have my god daughter here to stay & theres no way I won't continue to do so.

It will be interesting to see what they finally decide:rolleyes:

Hebs
12-10-2009, 11:44 AM
isn't this asking for trouble???

helenlc
12-10-2009, 12:03 PM
It's one of those situations that is wide open to individual interpretation.

That statement from the Prime Ministers Office reads as they are saying it's ok for friends and family to provide one another's child care.

So where does that leave us?

LisaMcNally09
12-10-2009, 12:05 PM
It's one of those situations that is wide open to individual interpretation.

That statement from the Prime Ministers Office reads as they are saying it's ok for friends and family to provide one another's child care.

So where does that leave us?


Completely agree!!

Its gives the unregistered childminders out there a great big loop hole!!!

This is a very big can of worms thats been opened:panic:

Pipsqueak
12-10-2009, 12:07 PM
They desparately need to clarify - 'reward'.
For monetary gain would be illegal still - this is going to be really hard and still leave room for the loop holes.

ORKSIE
12-10-2009, 12:11 PM
Completely agree!!

Its gives the unregistered childminders out there a great big loop hole!!!

This is a very big can of worms thats been opened:panic:

Lisa I could not agree more. They need to get the wording exactly right, but I bet they dont:panic:

Daftbat
12-10-2009, 12:37 PM
Perhaps one way they could re word it would be to limit the numbers of children involved - e.g. caring for children from one family only. Its an absolute minefield:eek:

The reward definition would make it clear about what was acceptable - perhaps even a maximum monetary value to cover expenses with the children. That could perhaps deter unregistered childminders who are just out to earn the money.

The Juggler
12-10-2009, 05:14 PM
what about babysitting!? you pay the babysitter, often for 5 hours plus. if this was weekly and you didn't get in until after midnight would your babysitter need to register then as well!?

I think the government have made the right decision. I agree that people who are not registered and advertising as minders to people who are complete strangers should be dealt with but if I could job share with a close friend who I trusted (I have friends I love dearly but wouldn't trust to have full daycare of my kids) then I would have made the same arrangement as these PC's.

TheBTeam
12-10-2009, 05:19 PM
I have been put in the position by a friend who wants me to walk her child home and hand her to nan with around 30 minutes of the school finish time, i want to just do this without the hassle of the paperwork, it is only likely to be for 3 months or so until mum passes her driving test, the girl will be 8 in January, and is in my dd's class, but i have said to mum that even if i don't charge i really need to have paperwork and stuff signed because of the risk of people reporting me, i will be in my numbers but worry that even though i know that this would be the only child i did it for, you would struggle to prove it, so annoying as it is even as my dd's friend we are going to waste another tree for this!

miffy
12-10-2009, 05:23 PM
That's put the cat among the pidgeons then :rolleyes:

Miffy xx

balloon
12-10-2009, 05:37 PM
Hmm, I wonder how many childminders will resign then and just look after 'friends' children for a week's shopping, a holiday or their council tax paid...

The thought of no more inspections, no more paperwork and no tax sounds fab!

Winnie
12-10-2009, 06:19 PM
now we have an unenforceable, un-policeable nonsense which says you must register if you look after a child for more than 2 hours a day & get paid unless its an informal reciprocal arrangement, but do not forget to get your CRB done if you offer lifts to your childs football club- but mr brown isn’t worried about that vulnerable baby you have for 8 hours a day..... The way I see it is it will be nigh on impossible to prove that a neighbour/friend isn’t getting paid. There will be money exchanging hands- what kind of friend would expect a friend to look after their child without giving their friend something?? even if it is still reciprocal childcare there has to be some exchange of money along the line when the childcare becomes unequal iykwim. Who is going to decide when it oversteps the mark? and who is going to know? can of worms. I really think someone did a good job finding these two police officers because this isn’t the first time that Ofsted have knocked on doors & told friends they need to register, but suddenly its news & changes the law (rather ironic) because they are police officers!
Its a very political decision.

Lou
12-10-2009, 07:17 PM
Completely agree!!

Its gives the unregistered childminders out there a great big loop hole!!!

This is a very big can of worms thats been opened:panic:

Not at all. At last they are talking sense. It will still be illegal to care for someone elses child for payment if you are unregistered. They are simply saying it is ok to do favours for friends....which is how it should be.

Lady Haha
12-10-2009, 07:30 PM
I agree that at last they are talking sense. I think it should be up to the parent who looks after their child and if they have a friend that can help out then great.

And I know this won't go down well, but yes, if they want to use Mrs Fiddle down the road whose also got 20 other kids crammed into her house for a pound an hour, then they should be able to do that too if they want (and risk being prosecuted for it). The same as some people might get their odd job mate to fit their shower for them even though he's not a real plumber, but most people would prefer to pay a bit extra and make sure they don't come home to a flooded house!

There will always be more parents than not who are prepared to pay extra for registered QUALITY childcare. Besides, I would say there is a huge number of parents who can ONLY use registered childcare in order to get the tax credits to pay for most of it.

wendywu
12-10-2009, 11:07 PM
I cannot see what the problem was in the first place.

It was a pure swap a good old fashioned barter. It was an equal trade off. No one was making anything out of it.

Now myself i would rather had paid a CM to look after my child while i was working and kept my free time exactly that FREE.:laughing:

peanuts
13-10-2009, 06:58 AM
where does it leave registered childminders, bet we loose some buisness now. whats the point of continuing to be registered.

LisaMcNally09
13-10-2009, 07:05 AM
Not at all. At last they are talking sense. It will still be illegal to care for someone elses child for payment if you are unregistered. They are simply saying it is ok to do favours for friends....which is how it should be.

I understand that but what i meant was it gives unregistered childminders something to say if they get caught

ie: 'i am looking after my friends kids'

Just heard the childrens minister speak on gmtv and her words were:

"we shouldnt be punishing informal arangements"

To me that is horrendous wording and is open to interpretation in so many ways!!

wendywu
13-10-2009, 07:27 AM
where does it leave registered childminders, bet we loose some buisness now. whats the point of continuing to be registered.

I for one would not work for a bag of oranges, or my ironing done. If cash changes hands then you have to be registered. This is only if you are swapping care with a friend. :)

balloon
13-10-2009, 07:44 AM
I for one would not work for a bag of oranges, or my ironing done. If cash changes hands then you have to be registered. This is only if you are swapping care with a friend. :)

I think the point is that Lisa is trying to make is that unregistered minders will just say they're minding for friends and they're not getting paid, if its in cash and agreed between the two parties how the heck are ofsted or anybody else going to prove otherwise?

I used to mind my friends child (in his own home) before I was registered but could easily have taken him to my house and how on earth would anybody have proved I was getting paid? My friend certainly would have never told, she was getting good quality childcare for a fraction of the price of a nursery or reg'd childminder... (its no good saying it wasn't good quality cos I did then what I do now, and more, minus the paperwork!)

.................................................. ..........



I agree it's a can of worms and I honestly do not see the point in remaining registered if this goes ahead as 'aunties' will pop up all over the place...

When the next child is abused by somebody's friend's boyfriend it will all be changed again and there will be an uproar that it was allowed to be changed in the first place.

sweets
13-10-2009, 07:49 AM
i think it should be allowed really, but there should be some sort of registration so ofsted know about it. there should be a rule where parents can only look after the children of ONE family and the care should be equal, this should stop the underground CM taking advantage of the rule as most will work for more than one family if you know what i mean.(not v good at explaining!).

mabel
13-10-2009, 08:21 AM
Oh dear so the police officers had to use either a nursery or childminder like thousands of others who go out to work.

This will open a big can of worms, childminder have to abide to so many rules
there are many doing a bit of unregistered childminding and it is not fair on us
that stick to the rules.

It was harsh what Ofsted said but I do agree with them, ministers should not have been involved, Ofsted won't want to prosecute now, so anyone will get
away with it.

Osted are there to maintain childcare standards.

Lady Haha
13-10-2009, 08:23 AM
where does it leave registered childminders, bet we loose some buisness now. whats the point of continuing to be registered.

The point would be that you will get all the parents that need to use registered childcare in order to get tax credits for a start! I would assume that it would be mainly low income families that would be tempted to use cheaper childcare, but these are the very families that wouldn't be able to because if the childcare wasn't registered, they wouldnt get help with the cost.

For example they would have a choice between paying someone 4.00 an hour and getting 3.00 of that paid in tax credits or paying an unregistered childcarer 2.00 an hour. Straight away, you can see that the registered cm is the cheaper option in that situation! A family who is financially better off would probably prefer to pay a bit extra and use childcare that comes with insurance, qualifications etc

Obviously, there is going to be the odd well off parent who would still rather save a few quid and go for the dodgy cheap one. They are probably the parents who try to get out of paying when they are on holiday or sick etc. Would you want to work with that parent anyway?

Dodgy unregistered childcare and penny pinching well off parents are welcome to each other!

And as for the two policewomen, I see absolutely nothing wrong in what they were doing.

LeeAnn
13-10-2009, 09:59 AM
does anyone know if all of this will affect Scotland too?

inspiron
13-10-2009, 11:25 AM
i do think that as a parent you should be able to decide what you do with your own children BUT what the parents of these children did was not a favour for a friend but a regular childcare arrangement . also what happens when all these children go to school and have been to these friends but have not done any of the eyfs that we have to do .i think there will be many friends looking after children and how will we know if they are unregistered childminders or not

also all they had to do was look after the child in it own home and call themselves a nanny no problems at all.