8.10 on GMTV unregisered CM THingy!

[fairimum]

as

BBC Breakfast covering it just after 8am.

But why the sudden interest. It is been illegal since 1989, possibly since 1948 and I'm even finding some references to control of childcare dating back to 1871.

CHAT thread about this topic

If childcare is to be regulated, then a line needs to be drawn as to what is considered childcare that falls under regulation and childcare which does not. The 2006 Act draws the line at 2 hours a day on more than 14 days a year.

If that is the wrong place to draw the line, then were is the right place? When should caring for friends children become registered childminding?

The 2006 Act draws the line at 2 hours a day on more than 14 days a year.

So does this cover babysitting to?

No, 6pm to 2am is exempt. Also babysitting happens in the child's own home.

You need to remember it is about the duration that childcare is provided, plus the location at which that childcare is provided.

I need to understand this, does this include family? What about Grandparents that have their grandchildren on a regular basis?

If they stop this aswell, the tax bill for this Country will rocket. Mums who cannot afford childcare will stop going back to work and will claim benefits and those who can afford it, will start to claim more tax credits.

Also, just a question... On the forms that you complete to claim tax credits, it says that you only need to disclose childcare that is provided by someone who is Ofsted registered, which leads us to understand that they are aware of childcare being provided by individuals who are NOT registered, but obviously the parents won't receive tax credits...

Meaning of Childcare - Childcare Act 2006

(4)?Childcare? does not include care provided for a child by?
(a)a parent or step-parent of the child;
(b)a person with parental responsibility for the child;
(c)a relative of the child;
(d)a person who is a local authority foster parent in relation to the child;
(e)a person who is a foster parent with whom the child has been placed by a voluntary organisation;
(f)a person who fosters the child privately

Relative is defined elsewhere - for example in The Childcare (Voluntary Registration) Regulations 2007 No. 730
?relative?, in relation to a child, means a grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother or sister (whether of the full blood or half-blood or by marriage or civil partnership) or a step-parent.

Yes, Tax Credits can only be used to pay for Registered care. Can't be used to pay family.

Would a cousin be classed as a 'relative'?

Who is your cousin in relation to your child?
I get confused - your cousin is your Mums/Dads sisters or brothers child... is that right?

if it's family I was under the impression that it was ok. Didn't they want to introduce some bizzare tax credit for grandparents just a couple of months ago?

That's right

I think increased interest is due to a few things

• now the EYFS has taken hold childminders are working to it meaning increased hours and pressure
• registered cm numbers are falling
• becausee of the above unregistered care is increasing
• due to credit crunch many families and friends are helping each other out to save cash where they can (did you see the news story about the police officers helping each other with childcare?)

Did anyone watch the GMTV thing? I have only just seen this and would be interested in what was said.

I think that the issue isn't over whether childcare should be regulated as an industry, but more that people are surprised that unpaid childcare would be regulated. Did parliament really consider these reciprocal arrangements when they introduced the law, or did they simply think that be trying to regulate childcare done for "reward" that they were only including childcare done for some degree of profit whether cash, vouchers or cocaine?

The fact that childcare by a relative is specifically excluded, whether paid or unpaid, indicates that parliament was not trying to regulate all informal forms of childcare. Had the 2 police officers been sisters or cousins then their arrangement would have been fine. Did parliament really intend to interfere in this sort of arrangement or has the law been badly worded and should be rectified?

I think this is disgusting, the government are properly interfering here. It is hard enough to get a job as a woman of child bearing age if you don't have sprogs yet but to get one after you have had children is damn near impossible.

Just venting on behalf of working mothers. I am a SAHM so really have no right to comment but I still feel disgusted on behalf of these poor 2 women, their children and others who are in this situation.

I don't have a problem with regulated paid childcare ut private agreements should not be included IMO.

" but private arrangements should not be included"

Why?

Surely then no one would register as a cm and we would all just have private arrangements with the parents??? Wink wink nudge nudge pay me cash in hand and babysit for me ocassionally and lets say its a reciprocal arrangement!

It can't be one rule for one and one for the other surely? Where would you draw the line? There would no longer be a way to 'police' the system and lots of people would take advantage of the loophole.

We work damn hard as cms to provide an excellent standard of care and to ensure that children are safeguarded and nurtured. People offering reciprocal arrangements have none of these procedures in place (not even crbs in many cases) and in the wrong circumstances (I appreciate not all) this places children in danger.

juuule, I still can't answer your question - as it is the relationship of the carer to the child that is important. So would it be your child's cousin providing the care? If so what is that child in relation to that person - as I can't work it out.

Your child - You - Your sister or brother - their child. Think that's it... your child's cousin is your sisters or brothers child.

I don't think it's covered. They aren't an aunt or uncle.

"Surely then no one would register as a cm and we would all just have private arrangements with the parents"

I think that's unlikely to happen littlestars. These women were on shift work and so their arrangment was doable and reciprocal. I can't see that there would be many working mums who could find a friend willing to take on childcare for no financial reward. Presumably a 'normal' working mum doing normal shifts would have to look to a SAHM Friend if she wanted free childcare and I doubt if many SAHMs would want to look after someone elses child for free.

if that makes sense.

this is stupid

my friend and i had kind of agreed that whent he dd's start school (she is a SAHM and I work 3 days a week term time only) she would take both dd's to school in the morning and collect the day days i worked, and i would have her dd to play a couple of days a week in all the holidays to give her some me time.

so we can't do this can we? Seems so silly as it would be so mutually beneficial and we trust each other, what's it got to do with the government? Do they really think that by bringing in this law they can stop things like baby p happening?

This Government didn't bring in this law. It dates back to 1948. So started under Attlee's Labour government. Next bit of major legislation (in my view) concerning this, was in 1989 under the Thatcher Conservative government. Then 2000 and 2006 were both Labour governments.
So various governments have had a go at sorting this one out. Clearly it still needs some work.

The point with this arrangement is that each mother would only ever be minding the child of the other mother so they weren't operating a childminding business.

If Ed Balls wants to save massive amounts of money from the education budget without affecting the front line, I think the answer should, by now, be staring him in the face. Ofsted have already expanded out of schools into pre-school and they now have their sights set on universities, but did you know they are also in negotiations to start inspecting the training given by the army, navy and RAF? I think the phrase 'empire building' describes the situation quite succinctly.

Are you sure nannynick? Ie recipricol not-for-cash childcare arrangements requiring registration? Ofsted wasn't around in those days...

In 1948 they used the phrase:
"of persons in their area who for reward receive into their homes children under the age of five to be looked after"
Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act, 1948

So even back then it was using the term 'reward' and I can't see where it defines reward, so it could have had the same interpretation.

Though there is something of interest in Hansard from 1948, in the introduction to the bill. In the introduction it says for profit not for reward. So perhaps the intention was not for the law to cover situations where the person providing the care didn't obtain monetary profit - of could profit mean other things as well as money?

I thought that the idea that reciprocal childcare equated to reward was a fairly recent notion. Hasn't the whole issue only been raised due to childcare vouchers/tax credits (where there was concern that the vouchers could be abused by friends). Until this Government I don't think that reciprocal arrangements were ever viewed as being "for reward". Indeed many Hansard references in the decades before 1997 refer to childcare being provided by relatives or neighbours as not falling under regulation.

"We have tried here to limit registration and supervision to people who go in for the minding of children as a business. We do not want in any way to interfere with the kindly relative or friend who looks after one or two children while the mother is away.
The neighbour who looks after children will not be interfered with so long as the children come from one household or, if they come from more than one household, they do not number more than two."

So back in 1948 that Bill intended that situations like the two police women would not fall under the regulations.

The 1948 Act was repelled (is that the right term) by the Children Act 1989, Part XA was added by Care Standards Act 2000 and was was subsequently repelled (in England) by the Childcare Act 2006.

All these Acts refer to "for reward" but don't seem to define that.

Before 1997? Does that mean you have found some change that occurred in 1997 - was something asked in parliament / lords about reciprocal arrangements?

I was more thinking that that was the last change of Government!

Oh! I was hopeful that you had found something useful.

The Children Act 1989 came about due to the Cleveland Child Abuse cases. The Bill was a result of the 1987 White Paper 'The Law on Childcare and Family Services'. Can't find anywhere to download that White Paper.