Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Paid childcare

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

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

SIL using unregistered childminder - what would you do?

57 replies

FrozenNorth · 19/07/2010 19:02

MIL dropped into conversation over the weekend that SIL has my niece placed with an unregistered childminder (cash in hand) for several days per week. MIL didn't seem too bothered (mainly, I assume, because in the days that MIL used to be a childminder herself Ofsted most definitely didn't exist).

I was a bit alarmed to hear this - as far as I can tell, this would mean that the childminder didn't have to have insurance, first aid training or a CRB. I don't get on with SIL too well so I'm not sure if I'm being unreasonably condemnatory because of this. I thought I'd run the situation past the folks here to get a clearer idea of what this means and if I can or should do anything further.

Thanks for any advice and sorry if I'm overreacting!

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

brazenhussy · 19/07/2010 21:51

Please can you explain to me chabbychic how Ofsted can govern unregistered childcare?

Not being awkward, just don't see how it is possible and what they can do about it?

elphiethropp · 19/07/2010 21:56

OFSTED can prosecute unregistered childminders (and they do - they did so locally it was an asful case where an unregistered childminder had completely unsuitable premises and way to many children cared for at a time.)

wannaBe · 19/07/2010 22:02

If someone knowingly uses an unregistered childminder that is their business and nobody else's.

Insurance is all very well but isn't actually going to prevent anything from happening to the child; parents don't know about milestone developments and there are certainly plenty of registered childminders who hate all the eyfs stuff anyway; crb checks are only valid on the day they're issued and are IMO not worth the paper they're written on.

I don't imagine this woman is earning enough from op's sil for tax to be an issue anyway so that is an equally invalid argument..

As long as she's not advertising herself as registered childcare then whatever arrangement individuals come to between them is their business and I personally wouldn't get involved.

brazenhussy · 19/07/2010 22:04

It must be painstaking stuff trying to prove that the people are actually minding for reward though.

One Ofsted inspector told me that the only way they ever get to know anything is if someone tells them as them are so overstretched.

Thanks for that elhiethropp, I had no idea Ofsted took an interest in unregistered childcare, I bet there will be a few people panicing locally to me if I were to let them know.

Haliborange · 19/07/2010 22:06

The CM might have first aid training and a CRB. Not being registered does not mean she doesn't.
She might also be someone your SIL knows well and trusts. Tbh I think the Ofsted thing has gone too far - if parents want to require Ofsted registration then fine, but what if you had a lovely neighbour you'd known for years who volunteered to look after your kids at a price you could afford? What if you and a colleague agreed to cover each other's childcare? Seriously, what is wrong with that (other than the fact that Ofsted doesn't like it)?

StarExpat · 19/07/2010 22:12

If it's an unfit premises with loads of children and a cheap price and no first aid knowledge ... Etc then that would be worrisome. But if it's a friend or someone she knows and trusts and it's just her dd - what's the problem? As long as she keeps it quiet that she pays her, ofsted can keep their fat intrusive nose out of it.

brazenhussy · 19/07/2010 22:14

I agree wholeheartedly haliborange, there are many unregistered childminders locally many who are far better at providing safe, fun and stimulating enviroments than some other registered providers who do the job purely because it's convenient while their own children are little.

Ofsted wouldn't like a lot of things that go on in registered childminders houses if they knew about them but they virtually never get to know anyway.

Al1son · 19/07/2010 22:16

I would have to question why she isn't registered. It isn't that onerous so is it because there is a reason Ofsted would refuse registration like a someone with a relevant conviction living in the house for example. A quick phone call to Ofsted should ensure she gets a visit and they will probably support her in becoming registered rather than prosecute her.

StarExpat · 19/07/2010 22:19

This really works me up because when ds was a little baby, I had to go back to work very early. My best friend looked after him (an "unregistered cm" shock horror) because she could bring him to me or I went to her often so I could continue to breastfeed - she lived across the street from my school (I'm a teacher). I completely trust her. It was ideal and exactly what we needed. He now goes to a registered cm (has since 16 months). And I adore her and feel very safe. But no more safe than I did with my friend. I see absolutely nothin wrong with what I did. She had kids of her own in school so our hours matched exactly, I was able to bf for 13 months, ds was happy and had 1:1 care (I could NOT afford a nanny) .... I have no regrets.

nannynick · 19/07/2010 22:24

Love it how there are assumptions being made that FrozenNorths' SIL is in England. They could well be somewhere else - Scotland for example, or indeed any other country.

Before talking about things like Ofsted it is useful to find out the unregistered childminders location... as there may be a different regulator and different regulations.

StarExpat · 19/07/2010 22:24

In my case she wasn't registered because we didn't see any reason for it and didn't need anything formal. Pactically family.

And I agree about ofsted. Same with schools. they see what? A week? A day for cms? And paperwork. Anyone can make themselves look lazing for a day and then do a horrible job the rest of he time.
Not saying his is the case for a majority of cms. All I know are extremely professional and provide excellent care. I just think ofsted is a load of crap - just from what I know from teaching and having inspections at schools. It's not something people should rely upon for information about a school or carer.

StarExpat · 19/07/2010 22:26

But nannynick it doesn't matter what he regulating body is.... If it's a friend that she trusts, it's her business.

wannaBe · 19/07/2010 22:27

Al1son I can think of plenty of reasons why someone would choose not to be registered. the eyfs stuff cm's have to do now would IMO be reason enough.

StarExpat · 19/07/2010 22:28

Gah nothinG not nothin. and please excuse other typos. On iPhone

Haliborange · 19/07/2010 22:29

Quite, Starexpat.

Look, ultimately it is the mother of the child who has to live with the consequences of her decision (and the Dad too, obviously). The OP hasn't described her SIL as a neglectful loon so it is reasonable to assume she has taken some care over where to leave her child. The fact that the CM is not Ofsted registered does not mean there is anything wrong, just as if she was it would not mean that the child was 100% safe from harm.

Don't report the cm. Speak to your SIL and ask her if she is happy with her decision. If she is, leave it at that.

stripeyknickersspottysocks · 19/07/2010 22:41

I used to have a really good childminder who was registered, then she left her hubby and moved to a different house and then wasn't registered. I carried on using her, someone reported her to Ofsted and she nearly had to stop. If she had been forced to stop I'd have had to give up work. I was seriously pissed off that someone had reported her. Anyway Ofsted let her carry on but then she had to stop for other reasons later on.

So I did eventually find a new, registered childminder who was useless. Not as good as the old one. I'd have trusted the unregisterd one more for stuff like gernal commo nsense and first aid ability.

As a kid I was looked after my a number of different women in the village, none of who were registered (noone was), no qualifications, no first aid certificates, etc. My mum would just find a stay at home mum who was responsible enough to look after her own kids and hand me over. Worked fine.

Your SIL is happy with the arrangement, I would keep out.

MoonUnitAlpha · 19/07/2010 22:45

If you think your SIL has considered all relevant issues then it's fair enough to raise them with her. Otherwise, who she leaves her child with is no one's business but her own imo.

Saggyoldclothcatpuss · 19/07/2010 22:54

If the mother is happy, and this person is sensible, what does it matter? Obviously there is a tax issue, but other than that?..There are no regulations for people looking after a child in their own home, whats the difference? If I left my daughter with a friend for the day, she would probably not have a first aid certificate, or a CRB check, and she wouldnt be 'up to date with the latest childcare developments.' She would however be someone I trusted and most probably a mother. If it was for several hours, I would probably insist she accepted some kind of financial reward.
I looked into childminding, and a friend took it up. She stopped because the paperwork and regulations were horrendous! I never bothered.
Everything we do nowadays is governed by rules and regulations. Its pathetic!

pippin26 · 19/07/2010 23:00

Just adding my humble opinion into the mix, I cannot abide unregistered 'childminding' - although i will clarify an unreg'd 'minder' is no such thing, they are providing illegal childcare.

They will have no insurance
no home checks or regulating (ofsted or local) checks
no safeguarding knowledge
potentially no up to date first aid training
potentially no up to date developmental and workforce knowledge
bascially they aren't working to regulations - as those who are registered do.
REGISTERED childminders go through hoops to become registered and it will then beg the question - why is that person not registered.
Carrying on - the parents will not be able to access tax credits or vouchers
the 'minder' is working illegally - defrauding the system - not paying tax, NI, declaring income - which I as a tax payer think stinks. My hubby and I work bloody hard and honestly.

Yes, people will argue that just because a minder is registered, trained, qualified blah blah that doesn't make them a good minder - well i will argue that there are a darned sight more excellent childminders out there than there are crap ones - childminders who put their heart and soul into what they do, they are professionals through and through and its sickening to think that there are people out there who get away with this. I'd love to compare my working week and knowledge with an unreg'd 'minder' and then have someone tell me that the unreg'd minder is better! Maybe they are better financially - charging a low low price, packing their house full and not providing half of what I and many of my colleagues do - but if parents prefer to place their finances higher up the chain than the safety and welfare of precious children then.....

sorry - will step of my soapbox now. its a subject i am passionate about.
I am all for reciprocal care and family care - thats fine by me

StarExpat · 19/07/2010 23:11

I agree with you, pippin on a lot of points. But... When ds was looked after by my friend he was the only one - no other kids, and financially worse for me because I couldn't use vouchers. I just trusted her, a mother, my best friend to look after my baby more than anyone else. Yes I shouldn't have paid her legally speaking, but basic etiquette prevented me from having her provide free childcare.
Sometimes it's just the best option. Would I do it long term? No. But in the short term while I was bfing and I just wanted him to be held all day... It was perfect. It's not always bad.

nannynick · 19/07/2010 23:23

"Everything we do nowadays is governed by rules and regulations." - the rules you refer to in this case have been around since 1948. See the 1948 Act

WWI and WWII changed things, as women went to work in factories whilst the men went to fight. At the end of WWII, while some women were happy to go back to being a SAHM, others were not.
The result is what we have today... mothers are able to go to work, whereas in the past many mothers would have stayed at home to raise their children.

Reciporcal and Family care are different to Childminding (where money changes hands).

nannynick · 19/07/2010 23:26

Mind you, Au-Pairs, Nannies and Babysitters are still not regulated (nannies can optionally choose to register). So Government is fine about it being care in the child's own home.

Saggyoldclothcatpuss · 19/07/2010 23:45

Actually 'everything' didnt just refer to childminding. I was including everything we do in life! its getting to the point where you have to have a risk asessment to wipe your bum!
As for childminders, surely its a little unfair to single them out for beauracracy when as NN says, Au pairs, nannies and babysitters are unregulated?!

Strix · 20/07/2010 12:34

au pairs, nannies, and babysitters have nothing to do with this situation. They all work for one person, where the job is specified by that person (or people). A childminder serves the public and defines his/her own service. So is more akin to nurseries or pre schools.

Registration and regulation has no place in my home, where I decide who can look after my children and how.

StarExpat · 20/07/2010 12:51

But strix what about in the case like I did and I know many others who do... It's not in their home but it's just one person's child(ren). It's an arrangement they've made that they are comfortable with and out of decency, they pay them to do it. In my case I chose my friends house because it was next door to my job... In other cases they have other reasons.

Flip

1 2 3