So when does it become illegal childminding?

[Grabaspoon]

A friend of mine (A) was telling me that when she returns to work a friend of hers (B) will have the children at B's house.

Is this ok? Or does the friend need to be registered?

No, friend needs to be reg'd to have the children in her home. (I assume it's over two hours?)

If it is in the friend's house for more than 2 hours a day FOR REWARD she will need to be registered. There are very specific guidelines as to what constitutes reward (including money obviously)on the Ofsted website. It used to be very clear - any payment, even payment in kind such as a reciprocal arrangement counted as reward but since a high profile case last year involving 2 police woman the Govt changed the law and it is more confusing. I would advise your friend to contact ofsted for clarification

Maybe she is minding her as a favour. If there is money involved thats different but if a favour its nobody elses business

Is it more than 2 hours a day?

Is it in the friend B's house?

Is there a reward for looking after the child? The reward may be money but may be other things too such as wine, reciprocal babysitting, etc.

I disagree with a number of things you say there ChildrenAtHeart, but mainly you should be saying "If it is in the friend's house for more than 2 hours a day FOR REWARDPAYMENT"

Here is the relevant law The Childcare (Exemptions from Registration) (Amendment) Order 2010

"[the requirement to register does not apply where a person makes the provision...]

(d)for?

(i)i)a child or children in the course of a friendship with the parents of that child or children; and

(ii)the provision is not made in exchange for payment.

(3) In this Article "payment" means a payment of money or money?s worth, but does not include the provision of goods or services."

Crossposted with Hulababy - again, a reward of wine, reciprocal babysitting is specifically allowed in this context ("payment ... does not include the provision of goods or services").

Note that this is only the case because the arrangement is between friends, otherwise the 'normal' interpretation of reward, which includes the right to receive goods or services applies.

Thanks everyone - I am a nanny and so obviously I work in another persons home so when my friend mentioned this I wasn't sure whether this was ok or not.

I remember the case of the 2 policewomen but couldn't remember what had been said afterwards.

Will mention this to my friend so that she is aware of all the legislation - although may just say it might be easier for her friend to come to her house so that the children are cared for in their own home.

Apologies MrAnchovy - I used the old term that used to be part of the legal definition of childminding, old habits die hard - what else did I get wrong by the way?
Here is the link to the Ofsted factsheet I referred to that explains how Ofsted define payment, money & moneysworth. www.ofsted.gov.uk/content/download/11114/131661/file/Childminding%20between%20friends.doc

The key thing is your definition of friend & it is the area childminders were most concerned about when the law changed as anyone can lie & say they are friends. If I told all my clients they could go to Tesco & buy my shopping for me each week & then told Ofsted they were friends I wouldn't need to register, have public liability insurance, be police checked, have a first aid cert, food safety cert, child protection training etc etc & even more importantly i wouldn't be required to monitor children's progress & check a ridiculous number of written records!!!! (can you tell I have concerns about the exemption arrangements lol)

No mention of money crossing was mentioned. So if its paid its wrong in anyway but if its free its her business. If they best mates it could well be a favour

I didn't say you got anything wrong, I said I disagreed with what you said.

"a reciprocal arrangement counted as reward" - only Ofsted believed that, almost the whole of the rest of society from private individuals to the Minister for Children, Schools and Families believed that private arrangements between friends were none of Ofsted's business. If the case had gone to court, I believe the court would have agreed too - the essential point that turns something from a private arrangement to something that can be the subject of regulation is not that a reward is given, the point is that a thing is done FOR reward, in other words that a (contractual) right to receive a reward is part of the bargain.

a high profile case last year - it was actually in September 2009

it is more confusing - it is less confusing: Ofsted are no longer confused that they have a duty to regulate private arrangements between friends

Sorry if I am come over a bit on this subject, the fact is I was and still am absolutley furious that taxpayers money was wasted in this case, as it is in many others that do not hit the headlines, by self-important barrack room lawyers in Ofsted that have absolutely no regard for the wishes of society in general and little more by way of knowledge of the legal framework with which they profess to regulate. But my fury must be exceeded by that of the individuals concerned in this case and of so many others who feel forced to back down from the iron fist of Ofsted and make other arrangements at a cost to themselves.

Grabaspoon I think you can rely on the fact that Ofsted will not be interfering in any marginal cases again.

But I don't do politics

''But I don't do politics' LOL
Don't worry, I hate being wrong & I know I was :)
I actually agree with you about the reciprocal arrangement bit. I think it was always totally wrong that friends couldn't share childcare & buy each other the odd box of chocs, wine or flowers as a thank you. None of Govt business really & the only reason the case I referred to got publicity was because it was 2 policewomen (2009- ok so I'm not yet used to 2011 so 2009 feels like last year...). What I don't like is the 'moneysworth' bit as I believe it is open to abuse as in the scenario I described & that you cannot define a 'friend'.
I feel it is more confusing as before it was very black & white - reward=register. Now its are you friends, do you pay or buy groceries or mend a car or do other services or contribute to bills etc & depending on your combination of replies you prob don't have to register but you might.
jmho

Thanks, as it happens I also agree with you that the amendment to the legislation probably went a bit too far, as I said here on Mumsnet when it was made last year. If Ofsted hadn't tried to apply the original legislation so perversely then we would arguably have been left with something more satisfactory.

So now what we do have is everything hinging on whether there is in fact a relationship of friendship. If there is doubt in a particular case, this can be tested in a court of law, where it will be subject to the rights of appeal: deciding on the truth and relevance of facts is what courts do. Not civil servants in closed meeting rooms in Kingsway.

Just marking my place. But while I'm here, does anyone know why Ofsted is giving itself jurisdiction over people's private childcare arrangements? Does it think most parents to be too dim/ incompetent/ careless to arrange excellent-quality childcare with reliable people, without OFSTED's intervention?

the reciprocal childcare agreement issue got rubbished didn't it, when those two policewomen got told they couldn't arrange childcare amongst themselves?

I had a similar arrangement with a friend at the same time. We jobshared and we childcare shared.

Didn't Gordon Brown deem it completely OTT and nobody's business if someone in that situation wanted to arrange mutual childcare agreements
(sorry if garbled, it's late)

Are you bloody stalking me tonight, Jareth? Watch out or I'll fling some NHS macaroni potato cheese atcha!

Me? Never

(I think it's just that there are only 5 people posting anything on MN tonight that isn't bloody cat related)

OFSTED have a right and a duty to regulate certain types of childcare. This isn't historically unprecedented but you'd have to search nannynick's excellent post on the subject because it's a long story! As to why they're doing it the short answer is it's the law.

Basically OFSTED automatically get the right to intervene when there are children of more than 3 families involved simultaneously, otherwise unscrupulous people could fill their houses with children and provide substandard care. They also get to intervene when money changes hands for a service outside the child's home (except in the case of nanny shares where child A is cared for in child B's home by a third party). OFSTED do not regulate who you have in your home looking after their child (unless the nanny registers with OFSTED voluntarily), nor do they now regulate unpaid arrangements involving child A being cared for 'in child B's home by child B's parent.

IMO a court would test sever things - a pre-existing personal acquaintance with each other, lack of a formal contract etc. It shouldn't be difficult to prove although I suspect OFSTED will poke their noses in where they aren't needed every so often, but better that IMO than they put children at risk by not investigating a potentilly illegal and unsafe arrangement.

Thaks for carification. It is a couple of years since I was in a similar situation, looking after my godson for no payment or reward - unless you count the joy of getting to know my godson better as reward.

I hadn't realised the law had changed.

Ive been an unregistered childminder for a few years now the important thing is its no more than 2 hours a day for children aged under 8.So im fully insured with morton and michel and i mind before and after school 8 and over are more than 2 hours and any child under 8 maximum of 2 hours.Its frustrating but for me was a better option than contiuing as a registered childminder and living with the stress of ofsted possibly visiting any more.I am self employed in another job as well during the day and at least able to carry on some minding of children within the set limits and free of ofsted which is fantastic

Marney it may be just how you are writing things but the way you have written it, sounds to me as though you are saying the 2 hour rule applies Per Child. Which is not the case, it applies for the Location. For example, someone can't care for 1 child (under age 8) for 1.5 hours, then a different child (under age 8) for 1.5 hours after that first child had gone home - as that would give a total of 3 hours at the location.

I'm sure you know that but it isn't what I feel someone without in-depth knowledge of childcare legislation would read "and any child under 8 maximum of 2 hours" to mean.