Unregistered Childcare

[searchingforananswer]

I do not currently use unregistered childcare as I don't have the support of close friends and family around me. However I am in the process of trying to sell my house so I will be closer to friends and family. When my son was in full time daycare I was happy with the system but now he has started school and I need before and after school care I would be happier having friends and family to avail of.

However after reading many a heated discussion I have discovered that if I were to pay friends and family, which naturally I would want to, I would be breaking a law. I do not understand why this law is in place and I have researched all over the net and cannot find one satisfactory answer.

A lot have argued that using unregistered childcare is wrong as having a first aid qualification and insurance is a necessity. Certainly when running a childminding business this would be the case as you are dealing with the general public.

However I can't see that this is a valid reason for this law being in place as registration is not necessary if the child is over 8. Do over 8's not need this protection? If the care is less than 2 hours or between the hours of 6pm and 2am no need to register, so again for these periods and accident couldn't possibly happen? And it would be perfectly legal for me to leave my child with anyone 24/7 if I wasn't paying them at all, so really all this says to me is its a money issue and nothing to do with the childs safety.

Am I missing something or can someone explain why it is illegal to get an unregistered person to mind your child. I would never consider using a random person off the street, I am talking about a friend I have know almost 20 years and family. How is it down to the law of the land to decide what is "best" for our families? If a parent chooses to use an informal arrangement with a close friend or family member why should it be restricted and why is it anyone elses business? I have contacted OFSTED on this matter and am still awaiting a response, in the meantime I thought someone here could come up with a satisfactory explanation.

Hmmm - as a cm I am going to wait to see other responses to this before I post my own. . Know what I want to say, but holding back for now............

Totally agree with your fourth paragraph. It is a money issue.

Firstly because of tax but secondly and more importantly because of the potential for unscrupulous people to put profit from a child care business above child safety and wellbeing.

Should the requirement for registration and inspection be lifted there would no doubt be many perfectly grand friends and families who would make fantastic child carers.

I believe however that there would also be many more vulnerable and neglected babies and young children abused purely as a money making resource by those who would now regard child care as any easy and unregulated way to make a profit.

Therefore for the protection of most children I do think regulation/registration, even with it's current inconsistencies, is necessary.

One issue is that if there is no regulation, then some people would care for huge numbers of children at the same time.

Regulation in my view is also a way of establishing a minimum level of Quality, thus giving parents more confidence in letting someone else care for their child.

The History of Childminding is quite interesting. Regulation has been around since 1948.

if it friends or family looking after your child couldnt u repay them with offering to look after there children then no money changes hand and surley family wouldnt want want paying i mean i looked after my nieces for an hour a day but my sister is a hair dresser so she cut my kids hair for me for free as id looked after her dds was not a cm then .

A relative of the child being looked after doen't need to be registered.

there is also the issue of insurance, of course. if something happened to your child and he or she needed extensive medical care or permanent nursing, the insurance that the registered childminder had would / should cover that.

as for minding children over the age of 8 - it is still recommended that those carers register and of course it would be extremely foolish to undertake such work without insurance and it would be extremely short sighted of the parent to put their child in childcare where no insurance is in place.

The thing is how would you differentiate in law between a friend and a childminding business? An unregisterd childminder could have half a dozen friends each with children under 8 and look after them all. Is that then a business which reqires regulation and checks on numbers etc.

Relations do not need to register as others have pointed out.

I am not a childminder, just a parent but I 100% agree that there has to be regulation. There was a case in our local paper not so long ago of an unregsieterd childminder looking after excessive numbers of children in unsuitable circumstances. She was rightly prosecuted. She could have claimed that she was only a friend.

The two hours per week bit is probably designed to try and not be too strict for parents needing the odd bit of babysitting or to cover a friend with a child at the same school picking them up and taking them home. This is the leeway,any more and it would open a huge can of works and lead to the potential for children to be unsafe.

Your friend could look after him in your home. Then she wouldn't need to register.

Just to add that being 'paid' isn't just 'money' - unfortunately it also means payment in kind therefore favours in return also make it illegal.

I'm a childminder and totally agree about regulation etc. HOWEVER, as a parent too, I do wonder what the harm is in a friend I trust and choose to use looking after my children. But as others have said, it's not as simple as this.

It's a bit like the smacking thing I suppose. We're no longer allowed to do this, however, people argue that a short sharp smack when absolutely necessary isn't harmful to the child. Well, I got a slipper (with a hard plastic bottom to it) as a child but I wasn't beaten and now see it just as discipline. I would never use it myself but.....anyway, my point is that it's hard to know where to draw the line and so restrictions are put in place to protect those children where it could become a problem. Does that make sense?

I understand what you are all saying about if it were entirely unregulated it could get out of hand and the regulations must be there if people are running it with the intention of making a living out of it, ie actively seeking charges. To be honest I wouldn't consider using friends or family who did this unless they were registered as I do believe if you are considering it your livlihood you should follow the correct process and do it a professional manner.

I am talking about in an informal way and an allowance should be made for parents who want to this as there are many out there who are doing it, knowingly or unknowingly. The people I am thinking about are my friend who currently works a few evenings in a local restaurant, she has two children of her own so it wouldn't be convenient for her to come to my house. My mother in law and sister in law, neither of whom work. I am sure they would all offer to do it for nothing but I would not be happy with that. My son has been in daycare since he was 7 months old, I have a budget for it and I would't feel right going to work and earning having these people looking after my kid for nothing and my disposable income going up. I would want to pay them for their time and that should be my perogative.

I can appreciate that some of you may say that over time casual arrangements like this could get out of hand and someone at the school may approach one of them and say "can you pick up my child too". I would find it a very strange thing for another parent to do, why would you want an unregistered person looking after your child that is just a passing acquaintance when we have a good system in place to find registered care? But I appreciate it could happen.

This law as it stands has so many holes in it, it needs reviewing. It would make more sense that a friend could look after a child without being registered but the would still have to make OFSTED aware of what they were doing so they were on some sort of register and the condition was they were only allowed to have a child or siblings from one family.

Somebody mentioned that family can look after your children without being registered, does this mean that it is ok to pay them? If so what are the tax implications, what is the correct way to declare what you pay them? Somebody also mentioned swapping childcare, I am the only one that works full time, leaving the house a little before 8am and not getting home until around 7pm so am never really going to be in a position to help them out very often. Besides I read doing this was also regarded as payment and not allowed.

Again a few people have mentioned the insurance issue. Whilst I can see that in the event of a terrible accident insurance is a real benefit, the reality is life is just not like this. For you that keep bringing up about insurance, do you not let your children go on playdates or anywhere without you? If you do, have you actually taken personal insurance out on them to cover them if something awful were to happen whilst they were out of your sight? Or if you had someone caring for your child in your own home and there was a terrible accident you wouldn't need this insurance? Nobody is worried about the child having any insurance if you are not paying the the person looking after your child so it just makes a mockery of the whole thing.

Laws should make sense and for the most part be straightforward so people understand them. When people understand things they are more likely to abide by what they have been told. And more to the point laws should be common knowledge, a surprisingly large % of people know nothing about this law. Many people have children and already have a big support network around them and have no need to seek formal childcare and would never for a minute dream they were breaking a law by using a friend they would trust with their own life to look after their baby.

If somebody tried to pass a bill through parliament saying the 30mph hour speed limit on our local roads was only appliable between the hours of 7am and 11pm and outside of these hours you could do up to 50mph I am sure it would never go through. It causes confusion and where there is confusion the law can be twisted so people get off on "technicalities" This law on childcare is exactly the same, there are too many exceptions which cause confusion and basically do not point towards it being for the childs safety at all. So what is it about? If the intention is as someone said to stop baby farms, yes I see the point, but it needs looking at as it is not effective in fulfilling that goal.

Maybe the government needs to back off a litte and let people be responsible for their own families. Yes there are awful, irresponsible, selfish parents out there and I hope I am right in sayng they are in a minority. The majority of us want the best for our children and would never dream of putting them in danger or giving them anything less that what we consider to be the best. The government need to find a way to monitor the minority without penalising the and punishing the majority. And lets remember that even with all the rules and strategies they put in place, they don't get things right even when it is under their noses - Baby P as an example- so I resent them taking away my basic right as a parent to decide the best place for my child to be.

What I don't understand is why you are hell-bent on using unregistered childcare when you have a budget for it and have used nurseries in the past. You say you were happy with the system when your son was in daycare.

If you're prepared to pay someone to care for your child, why can't you use a childminder or out-of-school care?

Why should a law designed to protect children be disregarded just because it no longer suits you?

Allowances are made already within the existing legislation. Care can be provided all day for up to 14 days in any one year period - subject to Ofsted being notified 14 days in advance. This along with the 2-hour per day rule I feel enables parents to use friends for ad-hoc care, but not for full-time childcare.
Actual legal wording is:
"on particular premises for 14 days or fewer in a year commencing with the relevant day, and the person making the provision has notified the Chief Inspector in writing at least 14 days before the relevant day."
In my view that is designed for temporary creche type situations, but I feel that it means that the regulator is unlikely to take any action until childcare has been provided on more than 14 days. That is however just my view... what Ofsted do in reality could be different.

Legal documents:
The Childcare (Exemptions from Registration) Order 2008
Explanatory Notes for The Childcare (Exemptions from Registration) Order 2008

Ofsted do not tend to go in heavy handed when they do find out about unregistered childminders. Instead they educate the unregistered childcare provider and try to get them to comply with registration. It is after repeated violations and/or serious over-minding type situations that they persue prosecution. You can read many of the prosecution cases on the Care Standards Tribunal website.

The people I am thinking about are my friend who currently works a few evenings in a local restaurant, she has two children of her own so it wouldn't be convenient for her to come to my house.

It is currently legal for someone to provide childcare at the child's own home... so that would be the work around in this situation.
The person could optionally register (as a nanny) if payment was to be done partly via Childcare Vouchers or Tax Credits.

What I think needs to be established is why the legislation in 1948 was done in the first place. Does anyone know anyone who was a childcare provided back in the 1940's? Can you ask them what they can remember with regard to the introduction of childcare legislation. The people who may be able to explain why the legislation was introduced are likely to be in their 80's now, so not sure what luck we will get there.
Has anyone done any studying on social issues from pre-WW2 and immediately post WW2 - perhaps this may have been covered on an OU course?
I feel that something must have trigged the introduction of that legislation. I expect it was WW2 itself, in that women went to work during WW2 and once the war finished, they didn't all return to being housewifes, thus the use of childcare increased.

As was mentioned above relatives don't need to register to care for your child. The Childcare Act 2006 specifically states that care provided by relatives is not registerable "childcare". For their purposes relative means "a grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother or sister, whether of the full blood or half blood or by marriage or civil partnership." That means you can pay them and Ofsted certainly won't care; the tax office and declarations are a different matter I don't know much about. I do know you wouldn't be able to use childcare tax credits to help pay the relative as they won't be a registered childcare provider - even with nannies you can only use the credits if the nanny is registered with Ofsted.

My two cents: I believe restricting compulsory registration to those who care for under 8's is a bizarre way to do things. I realise they are the most vulnerable, but I believe that anyone who professionally cares for children (under 16s in my book) should undergo at the least basic checks. The generalised "net" of >2 hours a day, money changes hands, under the age of 8 is not a perfect system and misses some people and catches others. A close friend who has your child for one afternoon a week effectively for pin money has to register, while the person who has half a dozen children under 5 with her all day, every day, but says she is only ever doing it as a "favour for a friend" and gets nothing in return doesn't have to. Or gets away without having to, anyway.

If you have an idea of a better system, let the DCSF know (they're the department who write the legislation - Ofsted only enforce it).

How does this law protect children? If its there to protect children why does nobody care about the children who are in the care of someone not receiving payment, they are not covered by this law? Why is the age 8 such a milestone that it is reasonable not to protect them by this law? My argument is that if this is the purpose of this law, it isn't doing what it is suppose to do so there must be another reason for it and it amazes me that nobody knows what the answer is.

I was more than happy with the nursery he was in before he started school and could not fault the facility in anyway. I did use a childminder when my son first started school for 3 months as I was convinced that I would like him in a home setting after school. The reasons as to why I removed him are a very long story but quite frankly the responses I got from other childminders when I sought advice and the attitude I have picked up from childminders on other threads of a similar nature have put me off ever using one again -it would be a last resort for me. That is my personal feeling, I do not wish to undermine childminders or show any disrespect for the job you do, I know that there are plenty of parents out there who are very happy with their childminders and think they are worth their weight in gold. I just do not wish to enter into a contract with someone who has the attitude that I have witnessed on these threads, knowing my temprament the relationship would not last and I don't wish to keep uprooting my son. I know someone will attack me for this and say I should go and talk to childminders first hand and meet them but I am just not convinced.

I currently use an after school club and holiday club, this does work and my son prefers it to the childminders - where he tells me he was bored. However I would still rather that after a day at school he went back to a homely environment and if this can be provided by people who know and love him all the better. I don't think any childminder can compete with that. I would never consider using unregistered childcare where I live currently as I do not have anyone nearby who I consider a good enough friend to trust to that level.

Tax credits are no incentive to me, I'm not entitled to anything apart from the basic child allowance. I pay for every penny of my childcare so again I should be allowed to make an informed decision about what I believe is best for my family without interference. I am not worried about using childcare vouchers, the knowledge that someone I trust has my son far outweighs that saving.

So the above says I am free to pay family members and will not be breaking the law, I just need to look into the tax implications. And the day after my son's 8th birthday I would be at liberty to use my friend and pay her and it would be perfectly above board and legal - that doesn't make a lot of sense really does it? Lucky for me I will probably be able to get by with using family if I manage to move house, but for people out there who do want to use ther friends it is nonsensical. Well that sorts things out for me - thanks for everyones help and advice. Maybe some of us should look for the law to be readdressed though.

Its interesting what you said nannynick though about OFSTED going in with the gentle approach. It suggests they are only interested in the people running illegal childminding business' and are turning a blind eye to those who are honestly just helping out a mate.

Does anyone know if in laws or step relatives count as relatives?

Nappyaddict I posted a bit from the Childcare Act 2006 further up - relative means "a grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother or sister, whether of the full blood or half blood or by marriage or civil partnership." Grandparents by marriage would be your in-laws, as would step versions of all those relatives.

Searchingforananswer Ofsted's gentle approach might also be because it's nigh on impossible to prove that someone is childminding if all parties claim it's "favours for a friend" and no money is changing hands. Prosecutions only seem to work when someone blatantly disgregards the law and flaunts it, or was originally claiming to be registered and the parents aren't too happy when they find out they've been lied to.