Have you ever reported a 'childminder' who is not registered?

I mean you don't seem to read/understand the posts.

Like for example I'll post 'I'm not a childminder' and then you'll tell me to 'deal with the free market competition' , which obviously makes no sense given I'm not a childminder.

I would have thought it was obvious from the thread that we are talking about unregistered childminders who should be registered, not those caring for over 8's, but you don't seem to understand/process that information.

I don't use one either. Do explain what you mean by my 'processing problems'?

Er,no, they do not. Unregistered childminders fall into 2 discrete categories:

1. those who care only for over-8s and therefore are not required to be registered; and

1. those who care for under-8s and therefore should be registered.

You really shouldn't tar both groups with the same brush. The first group may impinge upon the commercial interests of childminders who look after under-8s as well as over-8s, but that is called free market competition. Deal with it.

Tbh I think the issue of it being illegal and the issue of it being safe are separate.

I don't think we need the levels of regulation we have to keep children safe. I would welcome a change in the law.

However, until that law changes I think people should abide it. It is not fair that some childminders are spending time/effort/stress on running their business legally/gaining approriate qualifications etc and other people are just not bothering because they think the law doesn't apply to them.

I also think there is a huge difference between someone who is not registered looking after a child under a law that allows that and someone who is of the opinion that the law doesn't apply to them. At the moment unregistered childminders fall into the latter category.

There was that lady in Scotland who called herself a childminder and when she was reported, she was found to have 15 babies strapped into car seats around her living room walls! I'm glad someone reported her.

And there are evidently plenty of registered childminders not doing a proper job anyway. I read a thread on this board only this week about mum whose baby had been left in the sun by his childminder and had developed serious burns that required medical attention. The CM apparently insisted the baby had only been in the sun a few minutes.

Regulation is obviously not a mark of quality assurance as it is.

It's a very Daily Mail view of the world to suggest that because you hear the occasional child abuse story, all unregistered childminders must be in that bracket.

Fairly regularly you see stories about parents abusing their children too. Should parenthood be regulated? Maybe we should all be licensed?

No mendi, you don't hear about prosecutions for unregistered childminders, instead you get prosecutions for child abuse, mis-treatment, no long ago plastered on the front of a trashy magazine was "childminder killed my baby" in fact it wasn't a registered childminder at all, and the person involved got sent to prison, many minders complained about the headline as it was very mis-leading.

Like others have said, I don't have any problems with family and friends, but the majority aren't. The woman who illegally minds down the road from me isn't related or in any particular friendships with parents. She LIES to get her business. She had so many kids she was complaining very loudly how stupidly one ran into the road and nearly got herself killed! Stupid child eh.....

The problem is that it's difficult to prove, unless a parent complains or it can be proved money changes hands.

If we all have the same attitude, deregister, no more OFSTED, parents would soon be screaming for better regulation, to protect them and their children. You can't have one rule for one and one for another just because it suits you.

Looking after someone else's child on a regular basis for money is not the same as play dates, or babysitting.

'The objectors on this thread are all obviously registered childminders'

I'm not a registered childminder nor do I use one. What was that you were saying about supposition and fact...?

I'm not a traffic warden either, but it gets on my nerves when people park across drives, directly outside the school etc.

It's a funny view of the world you have that you can only be bothered to care about things that you're directly involved with. I think people should obey the law. Why does that me a childminder?

Just checked, fallenninja and it's actually top 15. It's one of the ones between 8 and 15.

I remain of the view that all of the complaint on this thread is based on supposition rather than fact (no one knows other people's tax arrangements, whatever they may assume), and is largely self-serving. The objectors on this thread are all obviously registered childminders, a service for which demand outstrips supply in my experience and from my wider reading of other parents' experience on Mumsnet so I don't know what the problem is. Live and let live.

I have no problem with friends helping each other out, or people picking up from school for a couple of hours (neither of which is illegal). If an unregistered CM started up in my area, it probably wouldn't affect my income, because there's lots of work here at the moment.

If there was not much work and people were charging half as much as me, to take 20 toddlers into their home, then I would have a problem and I hope other people would do too.

I do have a problem with people breaking the law. I also have a problem with people advertising themselves as something they are not.

The last case I know of (that was high profile) was the two police officers helping each other out. They were quite rightly questioned and the law was quite rightly changed to allow this type of childcare.

People should also remember that giving people (even if they seem lovely) access to children, without supervision and checks can be very dangerous.

A top 20 law firm? Number 1 or number 20?

Just a thought but childminders only watching over 8s don't have to be registered and they must declare their income under self emplyed childminder even though their not registered. So unregistered childminder would be able to declare income in this same way

oops meant to put I do want to declare my earnings. also mendi sorry I spelt your name wrong x

I would love to be unregistered and free from paperwork. However I do to declare my earnings. mendhi, these unregistered childminders who do declare their earning - how do they say they earn the money? you cannot take payment for caring for a child in your own home without being registered. what do they say their job is? what accounts do they provide? etc etc.

you might want to re-read the thread.

I thank you very much.

I'm sure no sarcasm was intended. Sarcasm being the lowest form of wit, and all.

@ Mendi.

Outstanding!

That's right Outraged. I'm a solicitor at a top 20 City law firm. Are you aware of any case law on an 'unregistered childminder' being prosecuted? I'm not. That's not to say there aren't any, just that if there are I bet there aren't many. And the reason for that is lack of resources, the reason for the lack of resources being lack of funding. So unless you want to pay a lot more for the enforcement of the dominance of the childminding market by registered childminders, you probably need to get a little perspective and leave other people to their own lives and their own decisions.

I think you should mind your own business. I don't feel it's anyone's business who looks after people's children as long as both parties are happy with the arrangement.

I'm lucky I can afford to be a SAHM, but most women have to work, not all of them are lucky enough to have family round the corner.

In any case how is it better to leave your DC with 70 yearold granny in a totally boring child free house on the main road, than with a friend with toys, fire guards and a secure garden.

This is an area that the law should have stayed out of.

You're a solicitor?

Good Lord!

God you lot are weird. Do you actually think that HMRC and OFSTED are linked in some way so as to mean it wouldn't be possible to declare tax for childminding without someone knocking on your door if you weren't registered? Christ alive. I'm a solicitor. I see tax evasion regularly. It takes a far more joined up system than you seem to think exists to follow people's activities in the way you might like.

More to the point, and someone else did raise this up thread, just because someone is looking after someone else's kids doesn't mean they are either taking payment for it or advertising themselves as a childminder. So maybe you should mind your own business and let other people mind theirs.

Given the immense difficulty people who do want good registered childminders have in finding one with a space available, I really can't see why you're all so lynch-mob minded about the mere idea - and that's what it seems to be, as you don't actually KNOW about the basis of other people's childcare or tax arrangements - that there might be some notional 'competition' out there when there is already such huge demand.

As you were.

It's the tax evasion that winds me up from it . It's just wrong .
Why on earth would anybody use a childminder that isn't registered?
They can basically do what they bloody like if they are not registered ... Smoke around the kids, not know any first aid , etc etc

If it was me I would report it - I would think twice.
They HAVE to be registered.