Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Claiming funding for looking after my son

288 replies

RandomAccessMemory · 11/10/2017 08:08

I'm a Childminder in Essex and as well as looking after other parent's children I also look after my own son, my son turned three a week ago and I was looking forward to being able to claim free entitlement funding for him from the spring term.

However I have just discovered that because I'm looking after my own son the local authority will not allow me to claim the funding for him, they say that there is a blanket ban on childminders claiming funding for children whom they are related to.

I don't want to send him to another childminder so should I kick up a fuss? I don't see why I should miss out just because I happen to be looking after him.

OP posts:
Musereader · 11/10/2017 11:32

My mum is a childminder and has been for almost 30 years, she chose to be a childminder to be able to stay at home for her 5 children, she has never been paid for her own children.

My mum now looks after my 1 year old dd - we have a contract and i claim tax credits on that basis, however when it comes to the 15 free hours for a 2 year old or 30 for 3 year olds, i will have to find another arrangement as the rules state she would not be able to claim the funding for her own grandchild.

Presumably you already claim tax credits? Both working and child? So you are being paid for your own child

cornerstoned · 11/10/2017 11:33

your DS is not in childcare - he is at home with you - his mum.

of course you should not be able to claim.

Cutesbabasmummy · 11/10/2017 11:40

I am quite shocked that someone thinks they can get paid for looking after their own child!

Glumglowworm · 11/10/2017 11:50

YABU and ridiculous

You have presumably chosen your career partly because you want to be home with your son. The benefit is you get to look after your own son and he doesn't have to go to alternative childcare. The downside is he takes up a space that could be used for a paying or funding mindee.

You could choose to put him in alternative childcare for the funded 15 hours. Then you could take another child for those 15 hours and be paid for that. You don't want to because you want to have him with you. That's fine.

What you can't do is be paid to look after your own child. "Kicking off" at the LA is going to accomplish nothing.

LonginesPrime · 11/10/2017 11:51

I get it OP. You have a limited number of paying child positions available and if your own child is filling one of them, you cannot then fill that position with another paying child. So you are losing money.

Hang on though, OP isn't losing money - she's just not able to take on as many mindees as she would if she were childless herself.

OP, I understand that you see this as government funding for parents (and ultimately for their children's benefit), but the person charging for the childcare you're providing is you so you would basically be charging your own child to look after him (albeit that the bill is paid by the government on his behalf).

JonSnowsWife · 11/10/2017 11:56

Sorry, you want to be able to claim the funding for looking after your own child because you're a childminder? Confused

Of course that isn't allowed.

For glaringly obvious reasons.

hibbledobble · 11/10/2017 12:10

All I have taken out of this thread is that I'm surprised anyone would expect government funding to look after their own child, whether they work as a childminder or not, and I'm suprised that it was ever the case that it was allowed.

I'm glad the loophole has been closed.

Op has the same option as any other parent: keep her child at home and not get paid to look after her own child, or send her child for free to a provider who offers the free entitlement.

Ps op, if you are a childminder, who is looking after your mindees while you are busy posting?

liverbird10 · 11/10/2017 12:26

This is a wind up, no?

BendingSpoons · 11/10/2017 12:38

I think some of the responses here are quite harsh. I get why the rules are in place, but I can see the OPs frustration that she would be better off financially to send her son to another childminder in order to have another space. If the OP worked in a nursery, her DS could attend and get funding.

At the end of the day OP, they won't change their rules. You have to decide whether to send him to nursery/another childminder to give him an experience of being without you and potentially allow you to take another child.

LonginesPrime · 11/10/2017 12:47

I can see the OPs frustration that she would be better off financially to send her son to another childminder in order to have another space.

Yes, because the funding is there to enable parents to work.

If OP wants to use the space her son is taking up to earn money instead, she needs to take advantage of the funding in place which enables parents to work and send her child to another childminder so she can use that last child space to work (as a childminder for another mindee).

At the moment, she's not using her last child space to work as she's using it to look after her own child instead.

letsmargaritatime · 11/10/2017 12:51

It's part of a culture of undervaluing childminders and early years education

This absolutely. Attitudes on this thread are so ignorant

LonginesPrime · 11/10/2017 12:52

Also, lots of parents of young children would be better off financially by taking advantage of government funding and putting them in childcare. That's why the funding exists.

The only difference here is that OP's work is very similar to that of looking after her own child, which seems to be what's confusing the issue.

Lots of parents would love to have their children with them all day every day but can't, because they have to work to earn money. The OP has the same choices as the rest of us.

SilverySurfer · 11/10/2017 12:54

Really, why is anyone surprised? Yet another example of the over entitlement of some women as soon as they have a child. If they continue to keep demanding more and more concessions from employers the result will be that employers will refuse to employ women of child bearing age and then they will have something to cry about. I have seen it happen and honestly couldn't blame the company. They got sick of take take take without any give.

OP you are being totally absurd.

letsmargaritatime · 11/10/2017 12:57

because the funding is there to enable parents to work

Wrong longines

It's nothing to do with working parents, it's to provide early years education for 3 and 4 year olds. How can so many people still not understand this after nearly two decades of this funding being in place? Confused

User843022 · 11/10/2017 13:05

'I get it OP. You have a limited number of paying child positions available and if your own child is filling one of them, you cannot then fill that position with another paying child. So you are losing money.'

That's just such a non argument though, it's like saying those that work part time if they have dc are losing money so the government should top them up to full time pay. You have DC, you plan your work/life thing accordingly.

MinervaSaidThar · 11/10/2017 13:08

Send your son to a childminder and and fill your vacancy with another child, you grasping profiteer.

poddige · 11/10/2017 13:08

Luckily for you, you have chosen a career that enables you to look after your own child every day and not have to pay the cost (financially or emotionally) of sending them to childcare out of the home.

The benefit you have is that you are saving on childcare whilst still working and earning a living.

A great scenario by all accounts.

However to expect to state to fund this is unbelievable.

peppapigearworm · 11/10/2017 13:15

It's nothing to do with working parents, it's to provide early years education for 3 and 4 year olds. How can so many people still not understand this after nearly two decades of this funding being in place?

Because what they say and the reality are two different things. Childminders are what they are called...minders of children, for working parents. They are not really educators. You might send a child to a preschool if you don't work, you don;t send them to a childminder.

LonginesPrime · 11/10/2017 13:20

letsmargaritatime, are you suggesting that the government funds childminder places at this age because it doesn't trust parents to be able to educate their 3-4 years adequately themselves?

Kidsathome · 11/10/2017 13:27

Actually, childminders provide both care and education, working to the same guidelines as pre-schools. Whilst op does not have to physically pay out for childcare, her income will be reduced by the equivalent of a full time paying child. I think it's very unfair to label her a "grasping profiteer", she just hoped to gain from the funded hours as other working parents do.

peppapigearworm · 11/10/2017 13:30

No she hoped to gain in a way other parents do not, which is why she is a grasping profiteer.

Aridane · 11/10/2017 13:32

Is this a wind up?

And, if not, surely this comment is - I would find another compliant childminder friend and arrange to look agfter each others children and claim the funding, whether any children actually swapped hands is a private matter

RolyRocks · 11/10/2017 13:33

OP, feel free to pay the £1350 per month I pay for my eldest, in order to claim the 15 hours funding back.

I think you need to remember why the funding was brought in, in the first place.

YABVU

Havingahorridtime · 11/10/2017 13:34

She can benefit from the funded hours - by sending her son to a Childminder other than herself.
She cannot claim money for looking after him and educating him at home herself. Same as sahps and home educators cannot claim for looking after or educating their own children.
She needs to do what other working parents do who want to maximise their income by working more hours -send their children to a childcare provider.
If she was talking about claiming childcare tax credits to pay herself for looking after her son in her own home does anybody think that this would be reasonable?

Looneytune253 · 11/10/2017 13:35

*@peppapigearworm *
Because what they say and the reality are two different things. Childminders are what they are called...minders of children, for working parents. They are not really educators. You might send a child to a preschool if you don't work, you don;t send them to a childminder

That is simply not true. Childminders are set up now to deliver the funding. Whether you believe it or not parents send their children for the 15 hours early education also found in pre schools. Childminders can also be more flexible with the funding and offer it over 2 full days or whatever. We use the same curriculum as nurseries. It’s down to parents personal preference. I have looked after a few (non working) and also the 2 year funding (predominantly non working families)

Swipe left for the next trending thread