is the system of registering child-minders necessary to protect children and/or help parents or inefficient govt meddling?

[hatwoman]

dh and I were discussing this the other day. what exactly is the registration system for? (I know I'm coming over all David Cameron. ahem) I trust nothing/nobody but myself to decide whether someone's up to looking after my kids. Am I naive to trust myself? Do I need a govt agency to guide me in that choice? Do other people feel they need registration/inspection to inform their choice? or is it not intended to meet the needs of such people, but rather to protect the children of those who are not particulary capable of making good choices? such children obviously do need protecting but does this system really help? Or am I missing the point? I am undecided. I can see that voluntary registration is a good way of enabling people to trust their kids with strangers but should it be compulsory? in all cases?a little bit of me does resent that I cannot offer to pay a life-long trusted family friend to look after my children whilst I work, unless they register (that's hypothetical btw).

well i think it's to stop baby farms and protect children who can't protect themselves as not everyone has children's interests at heart

and not everyone is capable of assessing a good environment for child welfare

also there are issues of insurance and negligence

It's definately about protecting the children. There are some people out there who don't care about the welfare of the children. I definately think it should be compulsory,but I also think there should be something put in place to enable family friends/aunts/cousins etc to be able to look after children of said friend, neice etc and get paid for it without getting registered.

On a slightly different note, I personally think that OFSTED and the Care Commission are trying to turn childminders in to nurseries, or perhaps they are trying to scre us all out of doing the job. there have to be regulations in place for children's welfare, but some of the things we are asked to do are fine in a nursery enviornment, but seem a bit OTT when implementd in a CM's home. After all the people who use a CM do so because they want their child cared for in a home environment.

I thought I might get a bit more debate than this!

I guess I see that it goes hand in hand with a system where you have tax credits etc which pay towards childcare. Once the provision is partly state funded then it should also be regulated - otherwise the system would be rife with fraud.

But agree that if you are not being funded for chlldcare then you should be able to use "unapproved" cms.

Does approval really protect children that much? As cms are wanred about inspections then surely they ensure that everything is OK when the inspector calls?

Us childminders are too busy doing Important Paperwork to get involved in late night debates!!!

IMHO it's for the protection of children.
OK, if you're asking a life-long friend to look after your child, then yes, you can assess his/her ability to do so.
BUT, most people who have contacted me as a childminder have found my details on the Childcare Information Service website. (Which also raises the point that if you want to childmind to earn a living, you register in order to be listed on such sites). They don't know me from adam. If you are looking for childcare and don't happen to have a handy friend / relative to look after your children, then you need to have some guarantees that your childminder is as sensible as she first appears to be. A basic registration, backgound check, references, first aid course and some child protection training can go a long way to reassuring a parent that they are leaving their child with someone sensible. You may think that someone has the best possible manner with children, and seems "such a lovely person" but if they can't even organise themselves to get registered then how can they possibly cope - in a paid capacity - with several children at once?
Also, registration as a childminder entails a background check on everyone who lives at the address - you'd want to know if your cm's 19 year old daughter was actually a mad axe murderer, now wouldn't you?
Sorry to have rambled, but in my view, yes, if you get paid for a job, you should be expected to do it to a given standard, and to be able to stand a little scrutiny.
Oh, and another thing. It's actually for the cm's protection too. I may look after my best friend's child, but if that child has a horrible accident in my care, perhaps resulting in long term injuries, then I don't expect her to be my best friend any more, I expect her to be an anger-filled mother who feels let down, and who may even want to sue my ass. I'm registered - I have insurance.
OK, this may have become a bit of a rant - please be assured there was no offence meant to the OP. But there are a number of unregistered "cm's" in my area, who do not appear to offer a high standard of care, and by using the term "childminder" to describe themselves, bring my profession into disrepute.

Or to put it another way - would you prefer your new house to be built by a cowboy, or a builder registered with the appropriate trade association?

My Important Paperwork is obviously finished and up-to-date

I'm not sure that that is a fair comparison though - I would never attempt to build my own house for example. The fact is that you just have to have a functioning reproductive system to become a parent - there are no minimum standards, no paperwork, no training courses, no regulation. The vast majority of children are cared for people totally unqualified and unregulated to do so.

I can see the insurance point. And I can see that for parents using childminders who operate a business, then possibly the qualifications and regulation provide some additional form of security. That said I think that the security is quite limited - as I understand it prospective parents cannot find out about complaints made against the cm previously?

So I think that regisatration and regulation have some value, but imo the current regulations go too far in forcing all cms to be registered/regulated. It should be comparable with nannies. It is up to you whether you use a registered or unregistered nanny, but you can't use vouchers/tax credits with an unregistered one.

Can all us childminders point out that Granny Murray also gives childminders a bad name

on another note i was on a course last night and we were discussing the voluntery registration for all childcarers who look after the over 8's which will come into force in sept 08
if you are a childminder and look after children over 7 you can registar to be ofsteded for these children for a fee of £100 (not sure if this is a one off fee or a yearly fee) you will then on your cerficate be quoted on being registared for x many children over the age of 7

this is voluntary and does not need to be done

if you dont your registration certifcate will stay the same as it is now with no menion of how many children over 7/8 you can have, but you are still able to care for children over 7

the only draw back is parents who claim tax credits to pay for childcare would be unable to claim from a childminder who has not taken up the voluntary registration if there child is over 7 yrs old

Just skipped through this thread so dont know if its already been said, but if said aunt/grandma etc was to care for yoiur child in your own home this is ok as that is like a nanny, correct me if I am am wrong but am sure this is the case. I understand what you mean, but i think the fact that childminders have to adhere to lots of rules and regs and have to meet certain standards shows a commitment to their job rather than someone who is in it for the money so to speak. I am a CM btw.