UK: Govt. says mothers may not look after each other's children

I've been following this story in the news over the last few days and it seems it all stems from a super strict interpretation of "reward." Apparently having your child looked after in your own home is not a reward but having them looked after in another person's home is a reward. [not sure why the mothers can't just swap houses to get around this problem?] Also it appears it may have been a neighbour who reported them. Nice. What exactly do people have against mothers trying to earn a living?!

Ofsted has been asked to review the whole thing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8277378.stm

Apparently having your child looked after in your own home is not a reward but having them looked after in another person's home is a reward.

According to the Ofsted inspector (just why is this anything to do with Ofsted anyway?), it wasn't being in the other's home but the reciprocal minding which he counted as "reward."

More on the story here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216370/Leanne-Shepherd-policewoman-branded-illegal-childminder--looking-colleagues-toddler.html

Rules state that friends cannot gain a ‘reward’ by looking after a child for more than two hours outside the child’s home unless they register with Ofsted and follow the same regulations as normal childminders.

Under the rules, reward is defined as ‘the supply of service or goods’ or ‘reciprocal arrangement’. The mothers were told their ‘reward’ was free care for their daughters.

So according to that definition, if you look after somebody's child for over two hours and get nothing for it, it's acceptable, but if the child's mother gives you a box of chocolates as a thank-you gift, it's a "supply of service or goods" and illegal. 

[not sure why the mothers can't just swap houses to get around this problem?]

Maybe it isn't convenient?  Possibly doing their own housework while minding the other's child?   But why should they have to swap to satisfy some bureaucrat who is clearly suffering from a complete lack of common sense?

Also it appears it may have been a neighbour who reported them. Nice.

And another "nice" thing:

But the mothers, both 32, have now been told by Ofsted that surveillance teams will spy on their homes to make sure they are not continuing to care for each other’s daughter.

Moral of the story:  If you're going to watch your friend's child while they are at work, make sure the neighbors never find out.

Where does the line begin/end on this?  Is it considered "watching" the child if they come to spend the night for a sleepover?  What if it just so happens that the other mother is working on the same night the kids have a sleepover?  What determines the difference between a play date/sleepover and babysitting? 

In case people are inclined to use this as evidence of a U.K. 'nanny state,' and something that wouldn't happen in the U.S., keep in mind that something very similar just happened in Michigan.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/michigan-mom-shun-daughters-schoolmates/story?id=8712305

A Michigan mom let working neighbors drop their kids off in the mornings to wait for the school bus.  Kids were there for an average of half an hour at a time.  No mention of her charging for it, or any reciprocal arrangement or any other form of 'reward.'  But the state sent her a letter warning her she was breaking the law by running an unlicensed day care. 

Yeah, but the state has acknowledged that this high on the list of dumbest things they've done and is actively pushing through a language fix that would eliminate further insanity.  I'm going to guess that the government body in question in the UK is probably drawing the same conclusion.  I would hope so at least.

According to the Ofsted inspector (just why is this anything to do with Ofsted anyway?), it wasn't being in the other's home but the reciprocal minding which he counted as "reward."

More on the story here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216370/Leanne-Shepherd-policewoman-branded-illegal-childminder--looking-colleagues-toddler.html

No.

From the article you linked to (emphasis added):

Rules state that friends cannot gain a ‘reward’ by looking after a child for more than two hours outside the child’s home unless they register with Ofsted and follow the same regulations as normal childminders.


So, swapping homes for the purpose of looking after the kids would solve the issue temporarily while this mess gets sorted out. One of these women was on the news the other day practically in tears saying she considered giving up work and go on benefits but instead has put her kid into daycare.   I would think looking after the kids in the other house would be better than that. Not convenient or ideal by any means but better than any of the alternatives at the moment. I am wondering if they considered that and Ofsted put the kybosh on that idea too.

In case people are inclined to use this as evidence of a U.K. 'nanny state,' and something that wouldn't happen in the U.S., keep in mind that something very similar just happened in Michigan.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/michigan-mom-shun-daughters-schoolmates/story?id=8712305

A Michigan mom let working neighbors drop their kids off in the mornings to wait for the school bus.  Kids were there for an average of half an hour at a time.  No mention of her charging for it, or any reciprocal arrangement or any other form of 'reward.'  But the state sent her a letter warning her she was breaking the law by running an unlicensed day care. 

For that story, it never mentioned exactly how many kids she was watching.  Every state has different laws on this but in my state, you are allowed to watch a certain amount of kids (I think it's around 4) and even be paid for this, before you need to have to get a license to operate as a daycare (which includes inspections, background checks, etc).  If this woman was only watching a few kids, then yeah I could see it being ridiculous.  But on the other hand, the article says "One by one each morning a different group of kids would arrive..."  How many different groups?  How many children does that include?  What are the ages of the children?  If she was watching 10-15 kids of certain ages (5-6 year olds, even if it was only for 30 min) then I would have to agree that this could possibly be putting the children in an unsafe environment.

No.

From the article you linked to (emphasis added):

Rules state that friends cannot gain a ‘reward’ by looking after a child for more than two hours outside the child’s home unless they register with Ofsted and follow the same regulations as normal childminders.

What I meant was that simply being in the other parent's house wasn't the supposed problem per se.  It was the combination of that plus the weird determination by the Ofsted official that the reciprocal arrangement constituted "reward."   If the reward aspect wasn't in the picture, then being in the other house wouldn't be an issue.

So, swapping homes for the purpose of looking after the kids would solve the issue temporarily while this mess gets sorted out.

Maybe it would, but why should they have to?   If it were me, I'd have told the Ofsted inspector to mind his own business and carried on.   Can you really see a conviction being obtained if the official tried to take this to court?

Edited to add:  Come to think of it, if it was magistrates I probably could see it happening with the bizarre things they seem to do these days.  Demand a jury trial.  Or is this something that the government has deemed ineligible for a jury trial now? 

[quote author=Paul_1966 link=topic=57477.msg815472#msg815472 date=1254431108

Maybe it would, but why should they have to?   If it were me, I'd have told the Ofsted inspector to mind his own business and carried on.   Can you really see a conviction being obtained if the official tried to take this to court?
[/quote]

But the two women concerned are police officers.  They would probably have been suspended from their jobs if there had been a criminal prosecution, regardless of whether they were actually convicted.

But the two women concerned are police officers.  They would probably have been suspended from their jobs if there had been a criminal prosecution, regardless of whether they were actually convicted.

Sometimes you need to stand by your principles.  Besides, aren't cops usually suspended with pay while an investigation is underway?

With or without pay, they were probably worried it wouldn't look too good to their superiors. I can understand with young children to support why someone wouldn't want to take that risk.

There's a petition about it that people can sign:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/reciprocalcc/

Sometimes you need to stand by your principles.  

That's bold talk for a man who isn't in danger of losing his career for his principled stand on government intrusion into our everyday lives.  My father would call that "letting your mouth write a check someone else's a$$ has to cash."  

That's bold talk for a man who isn't in danger of losing his career for his principled stand on government intrusion into our everyday lives.  My father would call that "letting your mouth write a check someone else's a$$ has to cash."  

 

With or without pay, they were probably worried it wouldn't look too good to their superiors. I can understand with young children to support why someone wouldn't want to take that risk.

I would have to ask myself whether I would want to continue working for a police force in which my superiors might consider that this doesn't "look good," when in full possession of the facts.  We're talking about a ridiculous interpretation of a law by some bureaucrat in Ofsted which - we would hope - would be laughed out of court if it ever got there.  It's not as if they're suspected of a real crime.

There's a petition about it that people can sign:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/reciprocalcc/

Already signed, for what use it's likely to do.  I haven't seen a single petition yet on the No. 10 site to which the response hasn't been a load of self-serving, self-excusing garbage defending the thing being protested about.   It seems to be just another of this government's schemes to make it appear that they might listen to the people.

I would have to ask myself whether I would want to continue working for a police force in which my superiors might consider that this doesn't "look good," when in full possession of the facts.  We're talking about a ridiculous interpretation of a law by some bureaucrat in Ofsted which - we would hope - would be laughed out of court if it ever got there.  It's not as if they're suspected of a real crime.

And if you lost your job, then what?  Go find a job with a different police force?  Retrain into something else?  Ok, but what are you going to use to pay for groceries?  I don't think Sainsbury's will accept strongly held beliefs in lieu of money.

It's easy to say what someone else should do, especially when you yourself are at no risk at all.