A story featured in many of today's papers concerns two people - both police officers in fact - who have been prevented from looking after each other's children because the state didn't know about it.
The Guardian summarises the case thus:
The women, both 32, have taken turns looking after each other's daughters twice a week for the last two and a half years while they worked a ten-hour shift at Aylesbury police station in Buckinghamshire.
However, the pair were reported to Ofsted by someone – thought to be a neighbour – and an investigation was launched. New legislation means that people who baby-sit for more than two hours at a time or on more than 14 days a year should be registered and follow childminder rules, including undertaking first aid training and following the so-called "nappy curriculum" for under-fives.
According to the education watchdog, the rules apply in cases where parents receive a "reward" for the child care – which can include money or simply free baby-sitting in return.
I suspect most ConHome readers will share my incredulity at the story. The responsible minister at the DCSF is, of course, quick to cite the "safety and wellbeing" of children to justify the law.
But is it not just another example of the Government branding hard-working people trying to do the right thing by their families as potential criminals until such a time as the state gives them an all-clear?
12.30pm update:
“The Government’s rules stopping two policewomen from looking after each other’s children defy common sense. The Government’s review is all very well, but these are rules that Labour ministers made law just three years ago.
“There is no better illustration of the overly bureaucratic nature of this Government’s regime for childcare, which is driving childminders away from the profession and now stopping parents and friends sharing childcare duties. After the recent ISA rules governing adults dropping off children to play in football teams, this latest case demonstrates yet another intrusion into the lives of ordinary people caring for children.”
He has also written the following letter to Ed Balls:
Dear Ed,
You will have been concerned as I was to hear the story of how DCs Leanne Shepherd and Lucy Jarrett from Buckingham have been told by Ofsted to terminate their mutual childcare arrangement because it extends for more than two hours and takes place on more than 14 days a year.
Whilst I welcome the comments by Vernon Coaker that the detail of the regulations that have obliged the two mothers in this case to cease their arrangement will be reviewed, clearly there are likely to be many other similar cases where parents will be fearful that they are, unintentionally breaking the law.
So as to avoid any unnecessary anxiety for parents and to prevent the termination of arrangements which have been working well for children and which by any common-sense measure should not be covered by these regulations, can I suggest that you immediately issue a statement announcing that anyone with similar arrangements should continue with them prior to the outcome of your department’s review.
I look forward to your response on this pressing issue.
Yours ever,
Tim Loughton MP
Shadow Minister for Children and Young People
