Petition to No.10 regarding Childcare arrangements!

Susan_Frost

So - if the policewomen had looked after their friend's child in the child's home, instead of their own - does that mean it would have been ok ??? Or is that being too simplistic ?

JimmyTheWig

Susan_Frost wrote: »

Bye the way, you do know the next thing will be that even though it is a mutual agreement, and no money changing hands, that they will probably still be taxed as receiving payment in kind. The Taxman will obviously want his share, hence, they want you to go to a registered childminder, declared earnings and all that.

You know, I think it is taxable.
I know it doesn't quite seem right, but I don't think that there are any sensible rules that could be made that put this scenario outside of Ofsted and income tax rules.
Because, actually, both women are working as childminders. They are receiving payment-in-kind.

Consider the scenario where one of the women leaves her job because she wants to spend more time with her child. Would that woman still look after the other woman's child for hours each day for no reward or payment? I'm assuming the answer is no.

That's where it is different to doing people a favour, etc. I'm more than happy to look after a neighbours child for a while. I don't expect them to look after mine in return. The fact that they might look after mine another time is incidental to the arrangement.
With the two women in question here, it is central to the arrangement that they look after each other's children.

If people who get paid to look after other people's children should be registered (as is currently the case) then these women should be registered.

Susan_Frost

They should just call it play dating.

Or will the simple rule be that if your child is being looked after by someone else, you can do anything you like - clubbing, hobbies, volunteering, visit t'awld mother - as long as it is not go to work to earn an honest crust.

JimmyTheWig

Susan_Frost wrote: »

Or will the simple rule be that if your child is being looked after by someone else, you can do anything you like - clubbing, hobbies, volunteering, visit t'awld mother - as long as it is not go to work to earn an honest crust.

No, if one mum went clubbing (*) on a regular basis and another mum looked after her child on the basis that the first mum looked after the second mum's child when she went to "visit t'awld mother" then that would be payment in kind and so would be covered by ofsted.

(*) Though I do believe the rules are different for evenings...

JimmyTheWig

Here's a thought...

Do we have any idea of the household income of each of these families? Because it could turn out that they could get tax credits towards the cost of this childcare and be better off if they registered!

Susan_Frost

And why should it be different in the evenings. After all, we are talking child protection arn't we. Or dont kids get abused after dark.

The cost and all the rest are not the point, so neither are their earnings.

The point seems to be that as a parent you are not allowed to chose someone you trust to look after your child, however well you and your children know them.

I dont know why it is assumed family members would be better than a friend. I would not trust my kids with a very close member of my family, she is not fit to look after anything or anyone.

FairyElephant_2

I agree with the majority - this is quite ridiculous! DH & I were discussing it last night, with his 18yo son, who also could not believe his ears!

According to Ofsted 'family members are exempt' - so if the 2 women were sisters or cousins and had the same arrangement, it would be OK...that just makes it even more ridiculous!
My best mate and I are only-children, and we consider each other more as sisters than as friends....but if we wanted to have an arrangement like this we would not be allowed....so is Ofsted guilty of discriminating against only-children or those with very small families? - or orphans, or those brought up in care....how far more ridiculous this could be!?!

one of my mates is a registered childminder, and a very good one, and he thinks this is completely ridiculous too!

JimmyTheWig

But there is no way to legislate for those who "consider each other more like family". Anyone could say that if that's what it took to get around the rules.
So you either say that childminders don't have to be registered or you are stuck.

bumpoowee

This is typical of the hysterical attitude this country has developed with regards to children. I really do wonder sometimes how the people who make these idiotic rules think children managed to cope a century ago.

JimmyTheWig

bumpoowee wrote: »

This is typical of the hysterical attitude this country has developed with regards to children.

Are you, and many others on here, saying that people who look after children in their own home as their job (i.e. childminders) shouldn't be registered?
I am really shocked at the way this is coming out as an idea. I don't personally think it is such a shocking idea, but the image you get from the media is that there isn't enough we can do to protect our children and keep them away from pead-ophiles.
Can you imagine the outcry from the newspapers if the government announced that childminders no longer had to be registered? Can you imagine the even bigger outcry in the media the first time something happened to a child in the care of a legally unregistered childminder?

Or is it just the case that people on here have more sense than the average Daily Mail reader?