Please or to access all these features

Paid childcare

Discuss everything related to paid childcare here, including childminders, nannies, nurseries and au pairs.

People still not aware of the childminding rules?

64 replies

Ripeberry · 11/07/2008 14:46

Hi, just been on the AIBU thread and its amazing how many people still don't realise that if they look after a friend's child for more than 2hrs a day then they are breaking the law.
It seems quite common for friends to have each others kids for the whole day and return the favour and not think anymore about it.
Why are we busting a gut, trying to become registered?
Just really annoys me as we have to do SO MUCH now this EYFS is coming in and potential customers are just doing everyting ad-hoc.

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
zippitippitoes · 11/07/2008 16:35

most parents dont have insurance to cover their children or first aid qualifications

wannaBe · 11/07/2008 16:34

who would the mother have sued if the child had fallen while she was in her care?

She sued because she could. Because society seems to think that accidents are no longer possible and that someone must always be to blame, and pay.

PeaMcLean · 11/07/2008 16:33

They sued a friend? Some friend, eh?

LittleMyDancing · 11/07/2008 16:33

And I think the really tragic thing about that is not just the child being injured, but that the parents sued a friend that they weren't paying to look after their child. Like that bouncy castle case recently.

Life is risky. That child might have fallen when in its parents' care - who would they sue then? God?

If they were paying the friend, then that's illegal and I agree. But if it's a favour, then it's a favour.

TheFallenMadonna · 11/07/2008 16:31

Which could of course happen with family as well.

zippitippitoes · 11/07/2008 16:31

accidents happen tho

tragic but true

Shoshe · 11/07/2008 16:30

Nothing wrong with close Family looking after your DS it is totally legal.

Zippi, it is not always the case.

Family here used a Friend instead of a CM, the child fell from the top of a climbing frame and was seriously injured. The Friend who had no first Aid picked the child up, causing further injury.

The mother had to leave work to be with child in hospital for a long time.

They sued the Friend for lack of care.

The Friend had no Insurance.

TheFallenMadonna · 11/07/2008 16:29

You're busting a gut to become registered because you want to earn money from it. As opposed to doing a favour.

LittleMyDancing · 11/07/2008 16:28

sorry - your child is likely to be safe.

no checks can be 100%, just as you can't predict accidents, whether you're looking after your child or your friend is.

zippitippitoes · 11/07/2008 16:27

exactly wannabe

LittleMyDancing · 11/07/2008 16:27

besides, isn't the difference that when you ask a friend to look after your child, you know them and trust them.

When you first start with a CM, you have no way of knowing what they're like, so the registration and checks etc are to make sure that you know your child is safe.

wannaBe · 11/07/2008 16:26

"The reason, it is illegal to regularly look after children without being registered is because it is not safe!". In what way exactly? Imo it doesn't actually matter whether the cm has insurance or not does it? if something were to happen to the child it will be tragic regardless of insurance, no? Insurance is only really relevant in the event someone wishes to sue, and if a child is seriously injured the last thing on most peoples' minds would be compensation, surely?

The reason people have insurance is because of a potential lawsuit. Insurance doesn't prevent things happening to the child, it is there to protect the childminder.

zippitippitoes · 11/07/2008 16:25

i think that some of the child minding rules are just over interference from the state to be honest

and more to do with stopping non taxed work

but im sure no one thinks twice about having friends children to play all day in the holidays

it would really odd if all social interaction took place in registered premises with crb checked people

apart from the fact that crb checks are not infallible anyway

LittleMyDancing · 11/07/2008 16:25

Um, last time I looked mothers don't have insurance, first aid, child protection etc etc....and yet we're allowed to look after our own children all day

asking a friend to have your child for a morning while you have a haircut/go swimming/go to hospital is a far cry from using a regular paid childminder.

they're two completely different markets, iyswim.

jimjamshaslefttheyurt · 11/07/2008 16:24

"The reason, it is illegal to regularly look after children without being registered is because it is not safe!"

Bollocks. We're talking one off last minute type favours here - I don;t need a contract if I ring my friend at 8am because - on that day- my childminder's BIL had died so she wasn't available. I don't have first Aid and have been looking after my children for 9 years.

MrsMattie · 11/07/2008 16:22

What a strange thread.

My mum has my son regularly. As does my sister. They do it for free, out of love for my son and for me. Is there something wrong with that?

zippitippitoes · 11/07/2008 16:20

most people accept the degree of risk involved though as no greater than the child being looked after by themselves

zippitippitoes · 11/07/2008 16:18

actually it probably also voers you for injury to burglars in the same circumstances

Shoshe · 11/07/2008 16:18

Minding for any reward is illegal, so in theory exchanging children, would be reward.

The reason, it is illegal to regularly look after children without being registered is because it is not safe!

Does your Friend have Insurance, first Aid, child protection, do you have a contract, so that you know that she will definitely have your child when she says she will, not change her mind at 7.30 in the morning when you have to be at work for 8, all these things do and have happened with unregistered Childcare.

zippitippitoes · 11/07/2008 16:17

and as far as insurance goes if you have house insurance then you have thrid part liability so that covers an accident to a third part on the premises provided it is social

ie they walk through your patio doors and are injured

MindingMum · 11/07/2008 16:03

Ripeberry - you do realise that anyone can mind anyone else's children as long as they are not getting paid (or otherwise reimbursed) to do so?

So minding in exchange for minding is ok, agreed you wouldn't have insurance but it's some peoples only option.

Also, childminding between the hours of 6pm and 2am is unregistered so again anyone can do it.

IndigoMoon · 11/07/2008 15:10

well then frankly if that is the case then the law is stupid! when my friends dad was dying in hospital then i looked after her baby a fair bit and i was happy to do it.

zippitippitoes · 11/07/2008 15:10

actually i am shocked that people would believe it was compulsory to use a childminder

zippitippitoes · 11/07/2008 15:08

well how ridiculous would it be if you had to register as a childminder

i looked after dd2s ds for nearly two years

whatever happened to the idea of family friends and community

childminders excelletn but plenty of room for normal informal swap[ing and favours

otherwise it would be ridiculous

jimjamshaslefttheyurt · 11/07/2008 15:07

Apparently it's not allowed. But I gave my friend a bottle of wine when she looked after my son at short notice for a day, and had anyone objected I would have suggested they went ahead and sued me (how bloody ridiculous).

I'm not quite sure how they'd prove that the bottle of wine was in exchange for babysitting my son, rather than being a general good brick of a friend, or for someone's birthday.

Think we have enough red tape in the country tbh.