Reciprocal Child Care

[OldBlueLady]

Don't know how many saw the story over the weekend about two police women who regularly looked after each other's child when one or the other was working, and how Ofsted have told them they have to register as Child Minders, and all that involves?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090927/tuk-parents-warned-over-childminding-6323e80.html

Anyway, it's something that's been done for years and years and years, centuries even. I fail to see what the problem is, if they are not being paid for this and it works both ways, enabling both women to work then surely people have the right to choose to do this.

Petition here, if anyone else cares enough to want to sign it:

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

 

[Ron Manager]

Ridiculous over regulation. I take it there are different rules if it's a family member looking after the kids? If not then there would be thousands of grandparents up and down the country needing to register as child minders as they look after their grandkids whilst the parents go to work.

As with most policies there is no doubt some well meaning leglislation at the heart of this. However there needs to be a common sense check put in place - that doesn't seem to happen too often (regardless of which party is in power).

 

[Mad Cyril]

If something had gone wrong ond one of these children had come to serious harm would the same people still be complaining about 'bureaucracy gone mad'?

My guess is that they would be muttering 'the police should know better' and calling for a lengthy prison term whilst gathered around a shrine hastily constructed from cheap soft toys.

 

[A Century United]

If something had gone wrong ond one of these children had come to serious harm would the same people still be complaining about 'bureaucracy gone mad'?

My guess is that they would be muttering 'the police should know better' and calling for a lengthy prison term whilst gathered around a shrine hastily constructed from cheap soft toys.

:net:

Edited...

Signed that petition yesterday.

 

[loz]

this will be reversed swiftly, I'd imagine- looks like a drafting messup rather than anything sinister.

 

[Firestorm]

Its the 2006 Childcare Act and has been in place for 3 years.
legilslation brought in after the Leeming report on the death of Victoria Climbie
The aim of this part of the legislation is to protect children by ensuring that those who have regular contact with Children do not provide a known threat to the child thus they need to be checked out and the simplest way seems to be to incorporate it into the regulatory framework already in place for Childminders.

What concerns me about this is that we have two, experienced Police officers who are not up to speed with correct Child Protection legislation (or perhaps they are and they feel that they are above the law)

It would be a completely different story if a child got hurt in one of these arrangements and they would be an outcry as to why checks were not carried out (Ian Huntly anyone ? (and he was not even working with the kids just at the school)

 

[A Century United]

Its the 2006 Childcare Act and has been in place for 3 years.
legilslation brought in after the Leeming report on the death of Victoria Climbie
The aim of this part of the legislation is to protect children by ensuring that those who have regular contact with Children do not provide a known threat to the child thus they need to be checked out and the simplest way seems to be to incorporate it into the regulatory framework already in place for Childminders.

What concerns me about this is that we have two, experienced Police officers who are not up to speed with correct Child Protection legislation (or perhaps they are and they feel that they are above the law)

It would be a completely different story if a child got hurt in one of these arrangements and they would be an outcry as to why checks were not carried out (Ian Huntly anyone ? (and he was not even working with the kids just at the school)

Huntly was checked and approved - this would have done nothing to stop him. Also, he has no kids so a reciprocal agreement wouldn't be possible. The key here is the reciprocal nature of the deal. In these cases the parents are coming to a mutual agreement with other parents to share childcaring. I think the risks involved with this are pretty low, and there has to be a point where parents can take responsible decisions for themselves.

Also, the vast majority of child abuse takes place within the (extended) family - and family memebers are excluded from this legislation.

 

[Napster]

(or perhaps they are and they feel that they are above the law)

More likely

 

[Firestorm]

Also, the vast majority of child abuse takes place within the (extended) family - and family memebers are excluded from this legislation.

Because family members form part of a seperate section of the legislation.

 

[A Century United]

Because family members form part of a seperate section of the legislation.

But they don't need to be vetted in any way, so my point stands. More Grandads turn out to be Kiddy Fiddlers than most other categories, and where does the legislation require any vetting of them if they regularly* babysit/childmind?


*ie more than 2 hours/14 days?

 

[Firestorm]

But they don't need to be vetted in any way, so my point stands. More Grandads turn out to be Kiddy Fiddlers than most other categories, and where does the legislation require any vetting of them if they regularly babysit/childmind?

Vetting will only pick up people who have a previous mark against them.

As you said , "more Grandads TURN OUT to be" , Thats hindsight and no manner of vetting will pick out those without convictions.

Children born into families of known offenders are usually highlighted very early on without the need for vetting.

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

It would be a completely different story if a child got hurt in one of these arrangements and they would be an outcry as to why checks were not carried out (Ian Huntly anyone ? (and he was not even working with the kids just at the school)

So when you say hurt do you mean, falling over grazing a knee, or walking into a door, or simply both children having a good old scrap?

To even draw comparison between the Soham case and this, is typical scaremongering of the highest order.

I do not recall abduction being used between these two police women?

I feel that parents should be able to decide who they trust to look after their children.

If people believe that a report or a piece of paper would stop any determined person to harm children then they are seriously misguided, yes it probably helps by giving confidence to the general public but no system is infallible.

 

[DTS]

Personally think its a load of bollocks.

I as a parent choose who looks after my kids (Which in fairness is only mother or sister in law). I wouldnt dream of leaving her with a random and hence its not really an issue.

To the same point when my parents divorced as a six year old etc I used to go to a girls house in my class who's parents was friends with Dad and he would pick me up about six. Perfect arrangement and I had the time of my life playing with friends etc.

If your charging for it day in day out then fair enough but reciprical agreements amongst friends etc are fair game.

 

[Firestorm]

So when you say hurt do you mean, falling over grazing a knee, or walking into a door, or simply both children having a good old scrap?

To even draw comparison between the Soham case and this, is typical scaremongering of the highest order.

I do not recall abduction being used between these two police women?

I feel that parents should be able to decide who they trust to look after their children.

If people believe that a report or a piece of paper would stop any determined person to harm children then they are seriously misguided, yes it probably helps by giving confidence to the general public but no system is infallible.

I did not intend to scaremonger.

this is legislation which has been in place for 3 years , brought about by the tragic death of Victoria Climbie, where were the objections to this legislation when it was brought out ?

There was uproar when Baby P died , yet legislation which trys to prevent similar cases and other future child deaths is slated when it doesn't suit peoples needs.

Baby P's mother "choose who looks after her kids" and look what happened there.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Don't know how many saw the story over the weekend about two police women who regularly looked after each other's child when one or the other was working, and how Ofsted have told them they have to register as Child Minders, and all that involves?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090927/tuk-parents-warned-over-childminding-6323e80.html

Anyway, it's something that's been done for years and years and years, centuries even. I fail to see what the problem is, if they are not being paid for this and it works both ways, enabling both women to work then surely people have the right to choose to do this.

Petition here, if anyone else cares enough to want to sign it:

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

It is already being reviewed.

 

[Mad Cyril]

There was uproar when Baby P died , yet legislation which trys to prevent similar cases and other future child deaths is slated when it doesn't suit peoples needs.

Exactly.....

 

[Davros]

where does it end though?

How long until we arent allowed to buy a set of steak knives from Ikea without a police check on our mental health, incase we are to use them to go home and stab up the family?

At the end of the day, people who want to do wrong in the world will do wrong, and paperwork WILL NOT succeed in stopping that. Proper policing, on the street, up in the face of people is needed. Im not saying it will work 100%, nothing will, there will always be sick people in the world, but why should the good majority be treated like the sick minority more and more?

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

There was uproar when Baby P died , yet legislation which trys to prevent similar cases and other future child deaths is slated when it doesn't suit peoples needs.

Baby P's mother "choose who looks after her kids" and look what happened there.

Another extreme case to back up your argument.

You are correct that the mother had chosen in the Baby P case but had these two police women been visited at least twice by the police due to reports of bruising appearing on their children on separate occasions?

Too many times legislation is not thought out thoroughly enough and is rushed through to appease or gain political advantage.

Of course there is going to be incidents like the Baby P, but I would rather spend money on ensuring people can spot situations occurring and dealing with them, rather than spend loads of money on legislation, which no matter what you say will never stop a child somewhere being harmed

In fact did not the incident at the Little Ted's Nursery prove this point, as I am sure they are all qualified child minders?

 

[A Century United]

I did not intend to scaremonger.

this is legislation which has been in place for 3 years , brought about by the tragic death of Victoria Climbie, where were the objections to this legislation when it was brought out ?

There was uproar when Baby P died , yet legislation which trys to prevent similar cases and other future child deaths is slated when it doesn't suit peoples needs.

Baby P's mother "choose who looks after her kids" and look what happened there.

But that's not a fair example Gary. In her case it was her boyfriend, not a "reciprocal childcare agreement." I am very much on the side of Social Services when it comes to the minefield of Child Protection, but what is the evidence that these Reciprocal Arrangements have resulted in child abuse? In my view it is just a distraction and a diversion of scarce resources, whilst providing yet more opportunity for the chattering classes to knock our already beleaguered Social Workers.

 

[South Bucks Shrimper]

What about the large number of 14-16 year old school children who earn pocket money by baby-sitting? Do they have to register as child minders?