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

Actually, this stuff about 'protecting' the child is a crock. A child is just at much at risk of accident in your own care, in your mum's care or in registered child care as when he/she is in the care of an unregistered child carer. You see, that's what accidents are: unexpected things that couldn't be prevented.
I appreciate that registered childminders would resent people setting up as unregistered childminders, but if someone wants to use a friend (rather than a blood relative) to look after one extra child now and again, surely that's no big deal. Some people's relatives are toxic or barking mad or not physically capable of either looking after DC or mixing with civilised society: why shouldn't such people be allowed to turn to friends instead?

People do get caught. More often than not, people that are looking after more than just their friends children, but they get caught nevertheless. I phoned Ofsted about someone I knew was childminding illegally a few years ago and she has since stopped.

I do understand that many people feel they have no choice financially, but to have their children minded like this, but from the registered CM's POV, its just making a mockery of all the hard work and regulations that they have to work for and by.

I don't know the answer and I'm sure there are hundreds of unregistered carers working everyday, but there are lots of very good reasons and safeguards put in place with registered minders for the safety of everyone.

But what would happen if the child was injured while in your care?
You regularly look after them for more than 2 hours each week and you receive, say, £10, or a token gift, or whatever.
Surely in this instance if the child's parents decided to sue you for negligence you would be in deep sh*t.
I hear what you are all saying about 'It is mu best friend's child' etc., but if you thought they had been negligent in looking after your child then I am sure you would want compensation if your child had been permantently injured in any way.
It is about protecting the child and yourself, surely?

I agree with MaureenMLove, there is a lady who I think is illegally childminding round the corner from me , she regularly has 3+kids in her care. It irks me because as a childminder I work very hard, go to many courses in my own time, make sure my house is safe and now comply to the early years foundtion stage, which is a lot of extra work for me. To have someone doing the same job down the road without having to do all the extra stuff required (and not paying tax) frankly just pisses me off!! I am planning on reporting her. That may sound harsh, BUT imagine is she is not first aid trained and one of the kids she cares for starts to choke at lunch time. Imagine if one of the kids she cares for is being abused in some way and she fails to take the right action because she doesnt know what that is (or because shes afraid of being found out for illegally childminding). Its like others say, these rules, as annoying as they may seem, are there to protect the kids.

But if anyone shopped you, you could just say: "I don't pay her to look after my child."

And it would be very hard for anyone to prove otherwise if all parties stuck to the same story, wouldn't it?

Even if the FBI watched the supposed culprits 24 hours a day, would be very hard to prove that any money was changing hands.

MaureenMLove - that is dreadful isn't it? Reciporal arrangements have been in place for years and years between parents. Maybe it is time for common sense to be applied in some situations.

The reciprocal bit can be very different though. As I said, a regular playdate between school friends is ok apparently. So it is difficult to know where the boundary is.

myjobismum - I know what you mean. I ensure I accept nothing as a direct result of looking after my godson.

If there's a registered childminder who finds out someone is caring for children illegally, trust me, they will do everything than can to catch them out and shop them.

probably, puppymonkey

wouldn't surprise me in the least

am very about how it protects children but au pairs is ok, in your own home is ok, babysitters are ok etc. it's only if money changes hands that it becomes 'bad'. really just a tax rule tarted up as child protection? or general 'nanny state' interference (boom boom)

How can anyone PROVE you have paid them though... do they have social services and police waiting in cars to take clandestine photos of money changing hands in brown envelopes? It all sounds a bit to me...

"reward" can also mean a reciprocal arrangement not just financial or tangible. Casual, irregular arrangements such as overnight stays or evening baby sitting are excluded

It only applies to children under eight though.

IIRR nighttime is different. Think after 6pm ok, and regular playdate between child friend is ok.

So long as there is no reward - i.e. payment - it is ok. I checked it all out formally before I started looking after my godspn once a week.

The rules are, QuestionPlease, anyone who looks after some elses child, for more than 2 hours a day, on a regular basis, for reward,is breaking the law. Like someone mentioned, the rules are there to safe guard both children and carers.

HTH

CPS might not but social services have put children on the at risk register when parents knowingly using unregistered care - usually with situations they were already unhappy about obviously

Plus multiple prosecutions can prevent you from working with children in the future

It's not about having a friends child for a playdate, it's about regular 'can't go to work unless it happens' rewarded whether by money/wine/chocolate/favours

Overnight care is excluded as well

Have there ever actually been any prosecutions of people who have swapped childcare rather than receiving payment? I personally think it's extremely unlikely that the CPS would actually bring a prosecution of this sort.

Regularly?

Occassionally is fine I think.

Surely? Or else that would be daft.

Can I just clarify something, as I have never heard of this before...

If my dds' Godparents were to have them for us overnight in their home, and we gave them a bottle of wine or a voucher as a way of thanks, we'd be breaking some sort of rule??

So only if it's in their own home?

My cm watches my children in our house. She's not registered (old family friend).

I had heard this. Does it mean that you could look after someone elses child with no reward at all. Just totally for free

As who ever said, a child can not be looked after in someone elses home for more than two hours a day for any sort of reward (even if it is childcare in return)

The fines are very heavy if you get prosocuted (sp?) and run into thousands!

The law is in place to protect children being looked after by unregulated people, who are not CRB checked, insured etc

Care in child's own home is different to being in the caregiver's home. There are issues such as insurance, CRB, as well as potential quality of such provision on a regular basis.

Message withdrawn