Opinion: Editor's view - Our news story has brought a complex issue into the spotlight

We though the story would be well-read, both in the magazine and online, but didn't imagine it would be taken up so widely by the national media. Now the definition of what constitutes childcare for 'reward' is being re-examined (see News, page 4).

For those of us in the early years sector, it can be tricky to decide what stance to take on this issue. On the one hand, regulation, registration and safeguarding children are all sound principles on which to base childcare. On the other, it seems madness that an arrangement such as these two policewomen had should be deemed unlawful, leading to disruption for their daughters, as well as inconvenience and expense. In today's society, friends are often closer than the relatives the law allows.

You have to believe that Ofsted would never actually have wanted to get involved in this case, but once it had been drawn to their attention, there was no alternative. Indeed, the two women, being policewomen, well understand that sometimes you have to uphold a law in ridiculous circumstances.

This case also highlights the inconsistency in the system where nannies are concerned - the women could have gone to each other's houses to look after their children legally, as they would have been acting as nannies. Why is registration for nannies still viewed by the Government as unnecessary?

The best outcome would be for this sort of reciprocal childcare to be redefined so that it is not counted as 'for reward'.