Hypothetically would this be ok?

[Rick]

Whilst I understand the concerns about ages the way I read the EYFS you could have all 4 children at once

You currently have 2 x 2.5 year old mindees and then you will have your own baby which makes three and then a sibling of a mindee comes along to make 4. This is continuity of care for the current parents and not new business the way I am reading it.

Also if you DH is your assistant then you can increase your numbers anyway

But the new child, although being a sibling, is over 1 year old so doesn't comply with 3.40 of EYFS

[Becci26]

With regards my DH as an assistant then yes I could have increased numbers BUT he is setting up his own business so everything is up in the air with when he will be around, although initially he would give me a hand long term I do not want to be reliant on him being home to help out.

[Bear23]

Gosh what a dilema!! i'm due in 5 weeks and haven't yet thought what i'm gonna do regarding numbers. best getting thinking about it haha, not even totally sure when i plan on finishing yet either..... hmmmmm not very organised

[tashaleee]

But the new child, although being a sibling, is over 1 year old so doesn't comply with 3.40 of EYFS

ok Ive read 3.40 - where does it say a sibling baby MUST be aged under 1???

I cant see it defined that a 'sibling baby' = under 1 anywhere (but maybe thats just me )

[Mouse]

ok Ive read 3.40 - where does it say a sibling baby MUST be aged under 1???

I cant see it defined that a 'sibling baby' = under 1 anywhere (but maybe thats just me )

It doesn't define "sibling baby" anywhere.

[sarah707]

Whilst I understand the concerns about ages the way I read the EYFS you could have all 4 children at once

You currently have 2 x 2.5 year old mindees and then you will have your own baby which makes three and then a sibling of a mindee comes along to make 4. This is continuity of care for the current parents and not new business the way I am reading it.

Also if you DH is your assistant then you can increase your numbers anyway

Continuity of care, in my understanding, relates to the child - not the parents. The child must be with you already for their care to be classed as continuity.

Everything I have read from Ofsted and conversations I have had confirm this understanding.

Do you have it clarified in writing anywhere?

Depending on what they decide to do with ratios from Sept this might be a moot point anyway.........

and yes, of course, with an assistant you would be able to be flexible! Becci didn't mention that one - I was answering the original question.

[sarah707]

Sorry t be no help and go off on a tangent , but I was wondering if you need a new CBR for dh t be an assistant or will the one he gets when you register be enough ?! Thanks in advance x

You should ring Ofsted and check - they will make the final decision

[sarah707]

ok Ive read 3.40 - where does it say a sibling baby MUST be aged under 1???

I cant see it defined that a 'sibling baby' = under 1 anywhere (but maybe thats just me )

I discussed this one at length with Ofsted when the rules were first changed.

3.40 replaces the wording on certificates that some childminders used to have, giving them the blanket permission to look after 2 babies under the age of 1.

Instead of the wording - 'you can have 2 under 1' - they put requirement 3.40 into the Eyfs. This allowed all of us to be flexible under the right circumstances.

Sibling babies relates, again according to Ofsted, to either twins or baby siblings of children already in your care.

The definition of a baby is written in the Childcare Act - sorry I'm on hols without all the documentation and a very slow internet connection and I can't be bothered looking for it just now - but in this context it is meant to relate to under 1s - as I say to allow flexibility for taking on twin babies - or welcoming back a currently cared for baby if you have one of your own.

I hope that clarifies where I am coming from

[JCrakers]

I would say yes. A sibling baby obviously means a sibling who has been born and the parents want it to be together with the older sibling. Surely it can start with you at any age, it doesn't say does it?

Parents take different maternity times. Some a couple of weeks, others months.

I've not read anywhere where it says the baby must be under 1?

[JCrakers]

Ok, sign the "baby" up a day before it turns 1 then....lol

[tashaleee]

I discussed this one at length with Ofsted when the rules were first changed.

3.40 replaces the wording on certificates that some childminders used to have, giving them the blanket permission to look after 2 babies under the age of 1.

Instead of the wording - 'you can have 2 under 1' - they put requirement 3.40 into the Eyfs. This allowed all of us to be flexible under the right circumstances.

Sibling babies relates, again according to Ofsted, to either twins or baby siblings of children already in your care.

The definition of a baby is written in the Childcare Act - sorry I'm on hols without all the documentation and a very slow internet connection and I can't be bothered looking for it just now - but in this context it is meant to relate to under 1s - as I say to allow flexibility for taking on twin babies - or welcoming back a currently cared for baby if you have one of your own.

I hope that clarifies where I am coming from

Totally understand what you are saying Sarah (and why are you on here if you are on hols ) BUT to me a sibling baby means just that - the younger sibling of a child that is already with you who would be the 'baby' of that family ....

Ofsted should clarify what a 'baby' is if it doesnt mean that - unless they are totally trying to pull us up on things on purpose due to their lack of direction

For example say you had a child with you and had your 3 x under 5s and parent had a baby... then they went back to work when 'baby' was 13 months old - we would all assume thats fine because it is continuity of care for the family - the fact that the 'baby' is 13 months old rather than 11 months old seems irrelevant....

[Bear23]

Totally understand what you are saying Sarah (and why are you on here if you are on hols ) BUT to me a sibling baby means just that - the younger sibling of a child that is already with you who would be the 'baby' of that family ....

Ofsted should clarify what a 'baby' is if it doesnt mean that - unless they are totally trying to pull us up on things on purpose due to their lack of direction

For example say you had a child with you and had your 3 x under 5s and parent had a baby... then they went back to work when 'baby' was 13 months old - we would all assume thats fine because it is continuity of care for the family - the fact that the 'baby' is 13 months old rather than 11 months old seems irrelevant....

me is very confused now, would my new bAby as in my child not be classed as a sibling as its my baby? or would i have to get rid of a child i have had for over a year to make room for my baby ?? or am i missing the point entirely???

[tashaleee]

me is very confused now, would my new bAby as in my child not be classed as a sibling as its my baby? or would i have to get rid of a child i have had for over a year to make room for my baby ?? or am i missing the point entirely???

No that would be fine... the OP was talking about taking on a sibling of a current mindee when she comes back after maternity leave (I think... )

[Bear23]

No that would be fine... the OP was talking about taking on a sibling of a current mindee when she comes back after maternity leave (I think... )

but isn't that the same thing? depending on the lenght of maternity? its still a sibling?

[bunyip]

This is a copy/paste of a post I put on another thread recently. Apologies to anyone whom I've already bored with it.

In short, EYFS fails to define crucial terms (such as "baby") and never even mentions terms we rely on and assume what they mean (such as "variation", "continuity of care", etc.) This leaves it entirely open for Ofsted and inspectors to interpret as they jolly well please.

The principle of 'exceptional circumstances' is contained in EYFS Statutory Framework 3.29 which falls within the part of the document specific to group settings (i.e. nurseries). Since we don't apply nursery ratios to CMs, why should we be relying so heavily on that particular part of the regulations? So I don't think an inspector would have any problem in arguing they could interpret this as not applying to CMs - or, indeed, if Ofsted wished to change their own interpretation at a later date.

The only 'exceptions' clause in any part of the document specific to CMs comes within 3.40 and specifically mentions "...when childminders are caring for sibling babies, or when caring for their own baby." (my emphases.) It also mentions the 'rising 5' situation thus: "If children aged four and five only attend the childminding setting before and/or after a normal school day, and/or during school holidays, they may be cared for at the same time as three other young children."

We all forget that nowhere does the EYFS document even mention the phrase "continuity of care". It does not define what it means by "exceptional circumstances" or a "normal school day" or (as has already been pointed out a "baby".) It does not say whether a CM can mind 4, 5 or even 6 under-5's in whatever "exceptional circumstances" exist. Ofsted's own 'clarification' guidelines document seems only to clarify the very specific examples contained therein. EYFS does actually state that exceptions should only apply to "babies" (again, without defining what it means by "babies") unless you dip into the section of the document which otherwise applies only to group settings.

This leads me to believe the whole thing is being handled in such an arbitrary way that I'm not at all surprised if Ofsted are vague, inconsistent and allow inspectors to use their own personal interpretations when making judgements. I can only liken it to Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty, who firmly believes that:-

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

[lubeam]

You should ring Ofsted and check - they will make the final decision

Thanks Sarah

[hectors house]

I am sooooooo confused - I have a sibling baby starting with me in Oct/Nov - he will be 10 or 11 months old - on one day a week I will have the new baby (10 months) and his older brother (4 years) , a 2 year old and a 3 year old. Am I ok to take this baby on and if the mum decided to not go back to work until after Xmas when baby then in Ofsted's eyes becomes a "child" not a "baby" would I not be allowed to take him on?

[JCrakers]

I really don't think it makes a difference to siblings age....it sounds ludicrous to me. It doesn't matter if baby is 11m or 13m does it really?

Also, I thought we could take siblings on? If they are any age........

So if I have a 6yr old who has a 24m old brother who is attending a nursery but mum wants him to be with his sibling is this a no?

[~Grasshopper~]

You need to be careful with your insurance. Legally your not allowed to drive for 6 weeks after a c-section therefore if you were to be in an accident your insurance would not pay out. You will also have to read your insurance policy with regards to childminding to incase there is a clause. ( I say all this having returned to work with a 4 week old baby after an emergency c-section 8 years ago lol). Just be careful and check your policies. No one knows your body like you so listen to it. x

thats not true, i spoke to my insurance and they said if my dr agreed i was fit to drive. (which she did then i was covered). my dp is also my assistant so i can work.

i only work mon-thu mornings anyway and cant afford any more time off, esp as id loose my families.
x