Further to my recent post on reciprocal childcare arrangements, I have received a response from the Government regarding the No10 petition I signed. Please read my previous post here.

It would appear that OFSTED have misinterpreted the rules, and they should never have banned the two friends from babysitting each other’s daughters. Here is a snippet from the official Government response:

 “The Childcare Act 2006 requires anyone providing ‘childcare for reward’ to register with Ofsted, with the aim of ensuring every child in a commercial childcare service is safe and well cared for. Parents would expect no less. 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.”

This is great news for not only the women involved in this particular case, but also the thousands of other women, who rely on friends to help out with their childcare.

However, it is scandalous that an official government body could misinterpret the rules so much, and the heavy-handed way in which they dealt with the case was outrageous. I sincerely hope that the women involved take this further with OFSTED and put in claims for compensation for the childcare expenses incurred since OFSTED banned them from their reciprocal childcare arrangements.

[Don’t miss this week’s giveaway! Read the details here: http://www.mammakerr.com/2009/10/giveaway-no-3-an-annual-account-for-send-out-cards/]