Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Nanny State News

Just keep taking responsibility from parents and putting it into the hands of the state, and pretty soon you end up with . . .

From UK's Daily Mail:

Mothers are banned from looking after each other's children
By Sarah Harris

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 [Office of Standards in Education] 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'.


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.

The colleagues agreed to look after each other's children as part of the job share. They are said to be 'very good friends' and the girls were so close they had grown up 'like sisters'.


The women have now put their girls into official childcare 'meaning they can't work as they wished due to the elevated costs', friends say.

It's a wonder these mothers were allowed to have their children without a license.

I suppose parenting licenses are coming next. With exemptions for illegal aliens who want anchor babies, of course.


1 comment:

  1. Both were "reported" by a "whistleblower."


    I hope the whistleblower got a nice present from the police-- maybe a pair of blue jeans or something.

    Seriously, this is over-regulation gone amok. What's interesting is the reaction of the Brits in the article. I mean everyone seems to want to change the rules by simply making exceptions rather than redefining the policy itself. *sigh*