Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Paid childcare

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

Legality of me and SIL swapping childcare?

11 replies

wastingaway · 27/02/2010 12:26

SIL seemed to think it would be illegal for me and her to look after each others children, even if there was no payment involved?

That can't be right, surely?

OP posts:
LisaD1 · 27/02/2010 12:39

Nope, it's not right. As you are related to the children it is fine.

Bumnoise · 27/02/2010 12:40

You are closely related so not an issue.

WednesdayAddams · 27/02/2010 12:55

so if two women who worked half the week clubbed together to mind each others children when they weren't working, that would be illegal??

Missus84 · 27/02/2010 14:11

There was a case recently Wednesday involving to policewomen who did just that. It's illegal to childmind unregistered "for reward" - and Ofsted interpreted this in the strictest sense that getting free childcare in return was a "reward". However since this case in was reviewed and now swapping childcare is fine so long as no money exchanges hands.

Tanith · 27/02/2010 16:24

Nothing has changed and it is still illegal to do reciprocal care regardless of whether or not cash has changed hands.

The fact that the other person is giving you childcare in exchange for you looking after her child is regarded as a reward.

The OP wouldn't have a problem because she and her sister in law are related. However, your sister in law may prefer to use registered care and may not want to rely on relatives.

wastingaway · 27/02/2010 16:34

We're neither of us working at the minute, so no incentive to pay someone when the LOs could be playing with their cousin.

Thank you all.

Where would I look for this all 'in writing', Directgov?

OP posts:
irishbird · 27/02/2010 16:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Missus84 · 27/02/2010 16:50

Tanith - the interpretation of reward has changed recently.

wastingaway · 27/02/2010 16:56

Wow, I hadn't heard anything about that clarification. Doesn't make for catchy headlines I guess.

Fantastic, thanks for the link irishbird.

OP posts:
nannynick · 27/02/2010 17:32

Missus84 - has 'for reward' actually been defined anywhere? A link to a document would be appreciated.

wastingaway - appropriate legislation includes The Childcare Act 2006 see:
18(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;

18(8)(c)'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.

Also see Ofsted Factsheet: Registration Not Required
See section titled: You do not have to register with us in the following
cases.
Where it says:
"If you only care for a child or children aged under eight who you are related to. A
relative means a grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother or sister of a child (or half-brother
or sister) or someone you are related to through marriage or civil partnership."

nannynick · 27/02/2010 17:47

Letter to Ed Balls from Sir Roger Singleton
Letter to Christine Gilbert from Ed Balls

New posts on this thread. Refresh page