Jessica

Traumatic experience

Despite being threatened with legal action people need to know the truth. More than once I saw Jessica Richardson leave children in her care on their own while she chased her escaped cat around on the front driveway. Once I witnessed her scrambling around under her car for 5 mins trying to get it back in the house. To reiterate, this is while the very young children in her care are left unattended in the house or garden. Jessica’s contract states she will share all her holiday dates in January with a minimum of 4 weeks notice. For one of her holidays we were given 1 week’s notice & for the second (within a few weeks of the first) the notice was again less than 4 weeks. Jessica also does admin & invoicing while the children in her care are at the setting. I know this because I received invoices & emails while children were in her care. At our initial meeting Jessica told us that she takes children out of the setting but never once did my baby get taken out, even for a walk. One day there was a woman at the setting who isn’t a member of the house. I know this because she was peering around the door at me at drop off and pick up. When challenged on this, Jessica said that visitors to her house don’t need to be declared nor DBS checked as long as they aren’t in regular contact with the children, assisting with care, or left alone with children. Even so, Jessica didn’t have the courtesy to forewarn me. One Fri my baby broke out in a rash, which was diagnosed as hand, foot & mouth. By the next Wed, the rash had all but gone & my baby was well in herself, with a normal temp. Following NHS guidance that my baby was no longer contagious (given that HFM was not mentioned in Jessica’s policies) I took my baby to Little Hoppers as normal, but did mentioned it to Jessica. She said she didn’t know her own policy on this & took my baby. Within 15 mins of me getting to work Jessica phoned me to collect my baby now stating that her policy didn’t allow my baby to return until all spots had scabbed over as it had to be treated as chickenpox. My partner left work straight away to collect her. The next week after, my baby was cleared by Jessica to return. That day, Jessica sent me a lengthy message about how grumpy my baby was & that she had had a loose poo & that if it happened again that day she would have to treat it as diarrhoea. She had checked my baby’s temp, which was normal and also acknowledged in her message that the bowel movements of breastfed babies can vary. I told her that my baby was teething and that it was not unusual for her to have looser poos than normal when teething and in the heat. My baby did not have another bowel movement that day. Nothing further was mentioned at collection. I turned up for drop off the next morning & told Jessica that my baby had already had a poo that morning. She asked if it was diarrhoea and I said it was loose. It was not watery, like diarrhoea. Jessica told me there is no link between teething and loose poo (she didn’t mention the heat) & flat out refused entry. I fought back the tears & tried to talk to Jessica about this. Jessica refused to talk and shut the door on me & in less than an hour sent me a termination email. She had children at the setting that day, which proves my earlier point about carrying out administrative tasks when there are young children in her care at the setting. Jessica has kept the money we had already paid in advance, claiming we had breached her sickness policy twice & broken her trust. This is despite her policy not mentioning HFM & my daughter being collected immediately on that occasion, & that my daughter was not poorly the second time around. She herself has broken her own policy regarding holiday notice twice, has chosen to terminate our contract without discussion, but still feels it fair to keep more than £500 of our money. Jessica’s confrontational demeanour & unprofessionalism has left me incredibly upset and the refusal to refund money to us is shocking. This was my awful experience at this setting.

• Overall

by Megan on 29/06/2025

Response by Jessica on 29/06/2025:

I’m extremely disappointed by the false and misleading claims made in this review and must respond to protect both my professional reputation and the trust of current and prospective families.
The accusation that I left children unsupervised to chase a cat is completely false. At no time have I ever left children in my care unattended.I take safeguarding with the utmost seriousness and always adhere to EYFS and Ofsted regulations. I reported myself to LADO and Ofsted in light of this allegation, which I am compelled to do under my registration and both LADO and Ofsted are satisfied that there is nothing to investigate and no concerns.

This allegation is fabricated, and I am now seeking legal advice with the intention to issue a cease and desist notice to prevent the continued spread of defamatory claims.
At the time this child attended, we were still in the settling-in period. It is standard practice to remain within the setting during this phase, particularly for young babies, to establish trust and familiarity. My home is resource-rich, both indoors and outdoors, with ample opportunities for learning, play, and exploration. This includes a well-equipped garden and an extensive range of EYFS-compliant resources designed to stimulate and support early development.
Invoices are typically prepared in the evenings and may be sent during the day when children are napping or safely engaged in supervised play. This is entirely acceptable and expected in a home-based childcare setting. At no point has administrative work compromised the safety or supervision of children.
All members of my household hold valid DBS checks, as required by Ofsted. On one occasion, my 78-year-old mother visited briefly — this was a non-contracted day for the child in question, she was in attendance as I kindly helped the family with care when their work commitments demanded a change of shifts. This was also done as a gesture of goodwill due to the original holiday date being under 4 weeks notice, for which the parents were not charged. I did what I could to help.
My mother was not involved in care and never left alone with children. Ofsted does not require notification for visitors of this nature. While I accept that advance notice could have been appreciated, no concerns or questions were raised at the time, this issue was only brought up in this review.
My illness policy clearly outlines exclusion for symptoms such as loose stools, unexplained rashes, and suspected contagious conditions. While Hand, Foot & Mouth is not named explicitly, it is covered under general infectious illness. After the child returned while still symptomatic, I acted in line with NHS and safeguarding guidance and requested collection which was promptly arranged.

On a later date, the child arrived and the parent confirmed a loose bowel movement that morning. In line with policy, I refused entry. At that point, the parent became argumentative, made slanderous comments about my entitlement to annual leave (stating I should not close and must remain open all year), and suggested they would look for a new childminder.

Due to the fact escalating hostility and the presence of other children in my care, I ended the conversation by closing the door calmly and appropriately. The parent's behaviour was unacceptable and demonstrated a clear breakdown in the professional relationship.

Shortly afterwards, I issued a termination notice in line with the contract, due to repeated challenges to my policies, undermining of my professional judgment, and a loss of trust that made it impossible to continue caring for their child safely and positively.
The contract clearly states that fees paid in advance are non-refundable if the contract is terminated due to a breach or loss of trust. I acted fully within the terms agreed and have retained only what was contractually due. It is important to note that this parent explicitly threatened to damage the reputation of my setting across all social platforms unless I refunded fees paid in lieu of notice, despite this clause being clearly outlined in the signed contract and applied in accordance with its terms. I will not be coerced into breaching legally binding agreements under the threat of slander. These types of intimidation tactics are deeply inappropriate and have been documented
While I regret the situation, the review contains serious factual inaccuracies and misleading statements. I maintain that I have acted professionally, with integrity, and in full compliance with EYFS and Ofsted expectations throughout.

I take my duty of care extremely seriously and am proud of the high standard of childcare I continue to offer as reflected by the many positive relationships I have built with other families.

Due to the defamatory nature of this review and the previous one posted, I am seeking legal advice and will act to protect my business and personal reputation.

Kind regards,
Jessica Richardson
Little Hoppers Childminding

Terrible experience

We were very disappointed with the following:
- On two occasions during our daughter's 3 months at the setting we were provided with insufficient notice of holidays, leaving us to find alternative provision. The Fees and Admissions Policy we were provided with by Jessica stated that all her holiday dates would be shared in January. The contract we signed stated that 4 weeks' notice would be provided. Neither condition was met.
- In addition to the above, there were several other major administration errors during our short time at the setting. These included: being charged for a higher hourly rate than stated on our contract, being over charged for a late payment, being charged for dates during the school holidays for which we were not contracted, being incorrectly invoiced again after Jessica's initial errors.
- On one occasion my partner dropped our daughter off at the setting and saw a lady peering around one of the internal doors. Jessica later confirmed that this was her mother staying with them for a short visit, but it would have been nice to have been forewarned about the presence of an adult that would not normally be at the setting. Jessica pointed out that under Ofsted regulations there was no need for the presence of the adult visitor to be declared, but some communication to this end would have been appreciated.
- There are several pets at the setting (not a problem in itself) including a cat that I have seen escape from the front door. Jessica left the setting to pursue the cat, leaving the children in her care unattended at the open front door, which is the length of the driveway away from a busy estate road. Facebook posts suggest that the cat has escaped on at least one other occasion.
- We are currently seeking legal advice to pursue fees that we paid in advance after Jessica terminated our contract after a disagreement about whether our daughter was fit for the setting. She is refusing to refund the money paid for services she is no longer willing to provide. The detailed email from Jessica informing us of her decision to terminate our contract was received within an hour of my partner leaving the setting with our daughter. There were other young children in Jessica's care present at the setting that day. Jessica has since reported to me that the exchange with my partner left her in a state of 'emotional distress'. My partner was also left in a state of emotional distress after the exchange with Jessica.

• Overall

by Martin on 25/06/2025

Response by Jessica on 26/06/2025:

Thank you for your feedback. While I am sorry that you felt disappointed with your experience, I would like to clarify the following for balance:

I fully acknowledge that one holiday notice was sent with less than four weeks' notice due to your start date being after my original yearly notification. You were not charged for that time, and this was openly discussed.

I take great care in my invoicing and administration. An input error was identified by me, communicated to you, and refunded promptly. Additional queries raised were responded to and adjusted as appropriate.

I am registered with Ofsted and follow all safeguarding requirements. Visitors to my home are never left unsupervised with children, and as confirmed, the person referred to was my 78 year old mother, visiting briefly. There is no regulatory requirement to declare one-off visitors who are not involved in care.

With regard to my pets, the children in my care are never left unattended, and safety is always my first priority. The suggestion that children were left at an open front door is not accurate.

The decision to terminate our agreement was made following repeated breaches of my illness policy and a serious breakdown in the professional relationship, including an inappropriate exchange at my door in front of children. As per the contract you signed, four weeks' payment in lieu of notice is applicable and no refund is due. Ofsted have been notified and confirmed no concerns.

I continue to work with families in accordance with my policies, safeguarding responsibilities, and contractual obligations.

Kind regards,
Jessica
Little Hoppers Childminding