legal reasons why you cannot leave a child with non relative regularly

2 issues - protecting the child - accidents/ins etc & child protection - forms of abuse

If it were about child protection, it would insist on registration for carers in the child's home as well surely?

Insurance, which pays out after the event, isn't really child protection.

What grates about this is the idea that 'relatives' are always better than 'friends'. DOn't forget that most abuse, both violent and sexual, happens within the family...

I've met him...he really exists

I think Nick is on his jollies this week. I know he's got no day time charges anyway, I think he had a few evening jobs lined up. Gosh, don't I know a lot about a complete stranger!

Absolutely. Do it at hers and the problem is solved. Everything could work wonderfully, but if god forbid, there was a nasty accident at your house, however good friends you are, things could get very difficult and I'm sure you wouldn't want to put a friendship at risk. That's what the rules are for.

(Where is Nick when you need him lol)

Look, I think we both know it's unlikely that you'll get caught tbh. Just be aware and be careful who you talk to about your arrangement! I'm not giving you my blessing, but why would you give a damn what I think! (don't tell the CM's I told you that, they'll strike me off their christmas card list!)

Purpleflower - that is a question only NannyNick can answer - there are diferent 'types' of relative apparently

So I could swap childcare with my cousin as she is a blood relative?

Justforaterm - can you do it at her house? That would be legal & you could be paid for it

At your house if could cause you to have a criminal record - or if an accident happened for your house to be sold and any profits given to the other mum - or prevented for working with children or vulnerable adults ever

Is it worth the risk?

Aye up! The cavelry's arrived! Over to you, lovely CM friends!

JustforaTerm, yes it is illegal. Whatever she gives you, be it money, money for just food, a bottle of wine or a box of chocs - its illegal to look after someone elses child, on a regular basis, for more than 2 hours a day. Sorry.

I can't tell you whether you should do it or not, but just be very careful if you do do it. If there's a childminder at the school and she gets wind of it, who knows...

I was going to butt out of this one, wasn't I? I'm not getting shirty with anyone btw, just enjoying a heated debate!

NannyNick can explain this better then I can, I will have a look and see if I can find one of his threads about this subject.

Also, just because something is an accident it doesn't mean it wasn't preventable. It is an accident to fall off a high tower. However, a sturdy wall of a suitable height could prevent that accident.
A baby plumetting down the stairs is an accident. It is more likely to happen if the childcarer is ignoring the child for long periods of time. Stairs are more dangerous if the carpet is worn away etc etc etc

Also, just because something is an accident it doesn't mean it wasn't preventable. It is an accident to fall off a high tower. However, a sturdy wall of a suitable height could prevent that accident.
A baby plumetting down the stairs is an accident. It is more likely to happen if the childcarer is ignoring the child for long periods of time. Stairs are more dangerous if the carpet is worn away etc etc etc

OK

If your child has an accident in your home - you can (sometimes) claim on your HH ins

If our child has an accident in your car - you can (sometimes) claim on your car ins

If you friend is looking after you child for reward & our child has an accident you cannot claim

Childminders have insurance

Back in the 60's children were farmed - tied in highchairs in filthy nappies - 12-15 per carer - this had to stop

Registration was the way that was chosen. It may not have been right - but it stopped such awful occurance

However in my local town some families can only get night work - so both parents worked nights. The children were put together in one house (up to 20-25 of them) and looked after by 2 or 3 grandparents - obviously unregistered care, significantly dangerous - this wasn't stopped because of the money but because (god forbid) there was a fire

This was not during the 60's - this was in 2005

'Actually, this stuff about 'protecting' the child is a crock.' How can you say that!

So, if a child is injured to the point that they need medical care for any length of time and the parent has to give up work to care for them, that parent would not expect the un-registered carer to cover any of their costs? I don't think so. Registered childminders have insurance to protect against things like this.

How about if a child in your care, breaks something in your house that is of great value. Would you expect the parent of that child to stump up the excess on your house insurance to pay for it? No. Again childminders insurance protects the childminder for this.

I'm not a childminder anymore, so this is none of my business anymore. I'll leave it up to the professionals!

I do believe it is for child protection. There are plenty of nasty people who would like the idea of 'looking after' kids for money who don't actually give a f**k for the welfare of the children, and plenty of desperate or uncaring parents who would use them. There are even worse people out there - abusive, criminal - who should not be caring for children. How do you protect kids from these people otherwise? It's hard enough to protect kids from their parents half the time!

It's super-fuckall to do with safety of children. If it was, parent helpers in schools would be banned, au pairs would be banned, and every child would have cctv in their bedroom ready to to catch any first signs of WrongThink

It's all about the money.