Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

1929crash

Two Mums Banned From Looking After Each Others' Kids

Recommended Posts

Two working mothers have been banned from looking after each other's toddlers because they are not registered childminders.

The close friends' private arrangement had let them both return to part-time jobs at the same company.

However, a whistleblower reported them to the education watchdog Ofsted and it found their informal deal broke the law.

This was because little-known rules say friends cannot gain a 'reward' by looking after a child for more than two hours outside the child's home without agreeing to a number of checks including one from the Criminal Records Bureau.

Although the mothers never paid each other, their job-sharing deal was judged to be a 'reward'. Campaigners fear thousands of working families could be innocently breaking the rules by relying on close friends for informal childcare.

A Downing Street petition in protest at the treatment of the two mothers has already received 1,600 signatures.

Educational campaigner Dr Richard House labelled the case as 'absolutely scandalous'.

He said: 'There is no conceivable rationale behind it. It's like making the assumption that all parents are paedophiles and they have to prove that they aren't. As soon as we create a society like that then family life ceases. Parents have to have the confidence to make their own choices about their own children. This is absolutely extraordinary.'

The women, who have not been identified, had given birth at similar times. When their daughters passed their first birthday, they decided to return to work part-time at the same firm.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...o#ixzz0SEKOl2U7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was only a matter of time.

I remember reading a thread a few years ago on a parenting forum I used to frequent. It all got very messy when someone said they had arrangements with a family member. At the time it was suggested that they shouldn't be doing it. They were told it was wrong to pay a friend or member of your family to look after your child without the proper child minder qualifications.

Utter madness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was only a matter of time.

I remember reading a thread a few years ago on a parenting forum I used to frequent. It all got very messy when someone said they had arrangements with a family member. At the time it was suggested that they shouldn't be doing it. They were told it was wrong to pay a friend or member of your family to look after your child without the proper child minder qualifications.

Utter madness.

if this is all true (and I am being careful because the daily mail is involved) then this is simply evil - it is a law AGAINST some basically good decent things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What were the terms of their job share agreement and childcare costs, the article is very unclear.

Are they breaking the law by looking after each others children?, it doesn't make any sense.

"Although the mothers never paid each other"

Does that mean they were claiming benefits for each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An Ofsted spokesman confirmed it had been called in after a complaint.

Children's Minister Vernon Coaker said: 'The legislation is in place to ensure the safety and well-being of all children. But we need to be sure it does not penalise hard-working families. My department is discussing with Ofsted the interpretation of the word "reward".'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...oo#ixzz0SEcsNtO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest theboltonfury

To be fair, the mothers were Kerry Katona and Katie Price.

An example of suitable interventionism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good old Daily Mail.

The squeam and shwout and stamp their feet whenever anything happens.

Then our idiot government gets scared.

And then they squeam and shwout about the laws their prior yelling has given rise to.

A pathetic cycle of imbecility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if this is all true (and I am being careful because the daily mail is involved) then this is simply evil - it is a law AGAINST some basically good decent things

Evil it is. if its true.

And If it was me doing the sitter sharing, and the Stazi came round, I d tell them to ****** off and get a warrant, while I rang the nationals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will probably come a day when parents will need to have Criminal Records Bureau checks before giving birth, incase one of them is paedo. And if you havent had the check the parents arrested and the kid will be taken away at birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There will probably come a day when parents will need to have Criminal Records Bureau checks before giving birth, incase one of them is paedo. And if you havent had the check the parents arrested and the kid will be taken away at birth.

Indeed, having sex will be proof of parental unsuitability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd want to know a lot more of the specifics of the circumstances before commenting too much on a Daily Wail article.

Two parents looking after each others kids so they can both free-up time to work hardly seems to meet the criteria of "reward" (payment, basically), to my mind. If they are each paying the other, however, than maybe it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An Ofsted spokesman confirmed it had been called in after a complaint.

Children's Minister Vernon Coaker said: 'The legislation is in place to ensure the safety and well-being of all children. But we need to be sure it does not penalise hard-working families. My department is discussing with Ofsted the interpretation of the word "reward".'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...oo#ixzz0SEcsNtO

If this is what he has aid then he is a fvckin idiot. The legislation is there to protect children. He is saying, therefor, that the legislation is okay as long as it doesn't penalise certain elements. In short, "hard working families" are allowed to be paedophiles as far as this guy is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There will probably come a day when parents will need to have Criminal Records Bureau checks before giving birth, incase one of them is paedo. And if you havent had the check the parents arrested and the kid will be taken away at birth.

I have to say that given the amount of undeserving scum there are having kids this may not be entirely a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Under Section 1 (3) of the Harriet Harman Act 2010. :o

Only applies to having sex with Harriet Harmon though. Indeed, the Harriet Harmon Act wouldn't even apply as there mere fact of actually having sex with Harriet Harmon would cause you to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed, having sex with men will be proof of parental unsuitability
Under Section 1 (3) of the Harriet Harman Act 2010. :o

Minor correction required to bring it in line with the Harman act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest P-Diddly
Jesus H.! :o The lunatics have REALLY taken over the asylum. :unsure:

Yes Aunty, if this nutty culture doesn't change soon in the UK I suggest you all pack up and head towards Heathrow T3 (goes most places).

Last time I was in the UK, we had a small oil leak into an estuary (I mean small leak too). Nothing to do with us, but we cleaned it up, stopped it from flowing etc. I called the ports people to see if they had any extra oil booms handy just in case and . . . they arrested me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is what he has aid then he is a fvckin idiot. The legislation is there to protect children. He is saying, therefor, that the legislation is okay as long as it doesn't penalise certain elements. In short, "hard working families" are allowed to be paedophiles as far as this guy is concerned.

I'll aim to engage you in sensible debate - can I get this straight, parents are no longer allowed to pay a friend (either in money or in some kind) to babysit for them unless this friend has gone through a set of criminal checks?

My worry is not merely the story in question, but the implication that informal babysitting appears to be illegal.??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll aim to engage you in sensible debate - can I get this straight, parents are no longer allowed to pay a friend (either in money or in some kind) to babysit for them unless this friend has gone through a set of criminal checks?

My worry is not merely the story in question, but the implication that informal babysitting appears to be illegal.??

My comments were referring to what the minister said. The legislation is there to protect children from unsuitable people and he said that the legislation shouldn't affect "hard working" parents. Now, either you want legislation that prevents all unsuitable people from having access to children or you want legislation that prevents everyone who is unsuitable except the hard working ones having access to children, which is what he said.

On your specific points. I don't think the law applies to parents who occasionally bung a few quid to someone to look after their kids from time to time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll aim to engage you in sensible debate - can I get this straight, parents are no longer allowed to pay a friend (either in money or in some kind) to babysit for them unless this friend has gone through a set of criminal checks?

My worry is not merely the story in question, but the implication that informal babysitting appears to be illegal.??

I read something that says, if child goes to another house on a regular basis, even if that house is home of friend/relation, it counts as childminding, not babysitting.

Once again, the "computer says no" society removes any application of common sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   291 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.