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

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.

Yes but you're only looking at the principle of the thing, not the practicalities for these working mothers who quite likely can't afford to quit their jobs and potentially ruin their careers because of their principles.  Besides, being police officers they're not likely to argue with the face of the law are they? They're trained to uphold the law not say "oh well it's not a real crime." 

I don't disagree with you that the Ofsted assertion is ridiculous and unreasonable but I can also understand why these 2 women were/are reulctant to potentially martyr themselves. After all, if they made a stand and it backfired, are YOU going to help look after their kids or pay their bills? 

The article did say they had the "full support" of the police department they were working for.  Interpret that how you want.  But remember that (in the US anyway), most people who work at police departments are closer than family (much like the military).  Since we don't know all the details of what "full support" means in this case, we can't really debate about whether or not they would even be fired to begin with.  I'm not an expert on the rules of empolyment for this particular police department, but it is possible that the "prosecution" (whatever that may be...I don't remember reading anywhere what the punishment for this crime would be) would not affect their jobs.  Yes, police officers need to uphold the law to avoid hypocrisy...but I personally know police officers in the US who have some entries on their criminal records...and it didn't effect their jobs.

Does anyone know what hoops you have to jump through in order to become registered so Ofsted would get off their butts?  The only thing I saw mentioned in the article was that it included a criminal background check.  I'm sure they have to inspect the houses and those type of things.  Is there a large fee involved?  Is it really that complicated?  Yes, I still agree the law is ridiculous and they shouldn't have to go through the inconvenience, but if it's fairly simple to register, why not just do that?  Or as *Liz* mentioned earlier, why not just watch the kids at the other person's house?  Again, I acknowledge it's an inconvenience, but it is an option they have.  It's their decision to "pay huge amounts of money to ship their kids off to strangers" (what the women implied in the article)...there are other alternatives.  Why not just adjust to the inconveniences for now and in the meantime try to fight and/or clarify the law?

I haven't been on the board in a while, but I read about this in the paper and I'm not surprised to see it discussed here on UK Yankee.

What struck me the most is that the law is breaking down the essential backbone of parenting and community. Women have been exchanging childcare since the dawn of time! If that "privilege" is taken away from us, civilization has gone too far.

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

But Paul can lead by example and take a principled stand against the government policy by...say..not paying his council tax or tv license.

But Paul can lead by example and take a principled stand against the government policy by...say..not paying his council tax or tv license.

That's the spirit!!   

What struck me the most is that the law is breaking down the essential backbone of parenting and community. Women have been exchanging childcare since the dawn of time! If that "privilege" is taken away from us, civilization has gone too far.

I agree. I find this very disturbing.

The only thing I saw mentioned in the article was that it included a criminal background check.  I'm sure they have to inspect the houses and those type of things.

Seriously? You don't consider just those two requirements sufficiently complex for the situation described? "...those type of things" seem pretty labor-intensive to me if you're just babysitting a friend's child.

Seriously? You don't consider just those two requirements sufficiently complex for the situation described? "...those type of things" seem pretty labor-intensive to me if you're just babysitting a friend's child.

I never said that wasn't complex...if you read everything I wrote, you would have noticed:

Yes, I still agree the law is ridiculous and they shouldn't have to go through the inconvenience, but if it's fairly simple to register, why not just do that? 

Key words there being:  BUT IF IT'S FAIRLY SIMPLE. 

The fact that they are police officers should make the criminal background fairly quick...my criminal background was obtained in less than 24 hours.  And as far as social services in the US, when they come to inspect your house, you set up an appointment and they walk around for about 15 minutes looking at stuff to make sure the house is "child proof."  Yeah, that actually is pretty simple.  An inconvenience, but simple.

My whole point was that the women do have other options.  They are not being forced to pay huge amounts of money for child care with strangers.  They made that choice.  No matter what they decided to do, it was going to be inconvenient for them...they decided putting the children in child care was the lesser of the evils.  I personally probably would not have made that decision; I would have chosen one of the other options presented...but that's just me.

I read your entire post, TarnLover. I consider both things you outlined not only complicated and unneeded, but a pretty big intrusion. I wouldn't want to either invite the police, nor child care services to "inspect" my life and my house when a friend's judgement is sufficient.

Both of these measures seem imminently reasonable if you're running a daycare, and very unreasonable if you're babysitting for a friend.

I read your entire post, TarnLover. I consider both things you outlined not only complicated and unneeded, but a pretty big intrusion. I wouldn't want to either invite the police, nor child care services to "inspect" my life and my house when a friend's judgement is sufficient.

Both of these measures seem imminently reasonable if you're running a daycare, and very unreasonable if you're babysitting for a friend.

I agree completely, which is why I stated they can comply with the requirements while trying to fight and/or change the law.  Just pointing out that there are other options besides paying for the child care (which to me would be a bigger inconvenience than the other options).  I guess it all depends on your unique financial situation and if you are able to afford the daycare option, nd are comfortable with strangers watching your child (in the words of the two women in question, not me personally).

Besides, being police officers they're not likely to argue with the face of the law are they? They're trained to uphold the law not say "oh well it's not a real crime." 

But it's not clear that they definitely have broken any law or would be doing so if they continued.   It's just the ridiculous interpretation of an Ofsted official about "reward."   

After all, if they made a stand and it backfired, are YOU going to help look after their kids or pay their bills? 

Actually, if they lost their jobs and had to claim social security benefits, yes.

What struck me the most is that the law is breaking down the essential backbone of parenting and community. Women have been exchanging childcare since the dawn of time! If that "privilege" is taken away from us, civilization has gone too far.

Definitely.  Keep going at this rate and before you know it some little bureaucrat in Ofsted will be trying to say you need to jump through all the hoops and be a registered childminder to have your own grandchildren stay for a weekend, or even for parents to look after their own children in their own home.

I read your entire post, TarnLover. I consider both things you outlined not only complicated and unneeded, but a pretty big intrusion. I wouldn't want to either invite the police, nor child care services to "inspect" my life and my house when a friend's judgement is sufficient.

Not often you and I are in agreement, but I'm with you completely on this.  Even if it was "just" a case of getting the criminal records clearance and having some Ofsted inspector visit, why should you have to go through that?   

Besides, it really doesn't appear to be that simple:   

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/content/download/6851/70430/file/Requirements%20for%20the%20Childcare%20Register%20childminders%20and%20home%20childcarers.pdf

Definitely.  Keep going at this rate and before you know it some little bureaucrat in Ofsted will be trying to say you need to jump through all the hoops and be a registered childminder to have your own grandchildren stay for a weekend, or even for parents to look after their own children in their own home.

 license to have kids....mmm what a concept...

For what it's worth, the response from the No. 10 petition has just come back:

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20902

This part sounds like the usual wishy-washy nonsense:

However, our intention has always been that friends and families caring for children through informal arrangements should be exempt from having to register and we believed that was what always happened. In the light of this recent case we are talking to Ofsted about how we can make sure there’s a shared understanding with Ofsted, and with parents, of what the law means and how it should interpreted.

If the intent was that informal arrangements between family and friends were not to be covered, and the legal departments say that's what the law says, then what exactly is there to talk to Ofsted about regarding a "shared understanding" of what the law means?

Ofsted just needs to be told that they're trying to do something the law does not allow and to cut it out.

I can't find a link to it on the internet, but GMTV just reported that the case against the two mothers has been dropped, and the law about requirements for child care providers will not apply to informal arrangements like the one that's started all this.

Ofsted just needs to be told that they're trying to do something the law does not allow and to cut it out.

And now they have.  Democracy in action.   

I can't find a link to it on the internet, but GMTV just reported that the case against the two mothers has been dropped, and the law about requirements for child care providers will not apply to informal arrangements like the one that's started all this.

Awesome...I'm glad they clarified that up!