Initially we were happy with the provision provided at Little Kittens. The setting was clean and tidy, and Catherine presented herself as reliable, professional and caring. Unfortunately, as time went on, we found ourselves questioning the latter. Please find the summary of our experience below. It is supported by medical and other records.



- The service was not as reliable as we expected, with a number of “closures”. Catherine’s explanations for the closures were not consistent with the situations as we understood them. On one occasion she stated that a young member of her household was unwell and she had to close for 48 hours. Just half an hour after receiving that message, I saw an adult member of her household on the school run. He told me that he knew nothing about the particular young member of the household being unwell. On another occasion Catherine informed me verbally on the Friday that she would be closed on the following Monday, her reason being that she was having a new outhouse built. I was disappointed to subsequently learn that this wasn’t the case - no such work was being carried out that day which was her birthday. She subsequently charged us at a rate of 50% fees (which we paid) for these “closures”.


- Catherine acknowledged that she administered medication to our son. This was however without any prior consent, with no forms being signed, with no medication provided by ourselves and with no prior phone call to gain permission. I was told on each occasion (there were at least three) when collecting our son that he was “grumpy”. This resulted in us sending Catherine a message asking her not to administer medication to our child, to which we received a response of “so what should I give him instead?” Catherine also applied a topical cream (that apparently belonged to a young member of her household) to our son’s eczema without consent. It worsened the condition and led to us taking him to the GP who prescribed a steroid cream. When we subsequently asked Catherine via a SAR to provide medication forms for these instances, she denied all knowledge of this happening, suggesting that we were being malicious.



- We were disappointed that Catherine didn’t appear to provide any outdoor stimulation for our son. For the 4.5 months that our son was in her care (for 24 hours per week), we were not aware of him going to anything outdoors, despite having multiple provisions available within our village. To the best of our knowledge, all care was carried out in her living room and the only time we think that they occasionally left the house was to do the school run (a 2 minute walk) when nobody else was available to do it.



- After 4.5 months in her care, we removed our son with immediate effect. I was called whilst at work and was asked to collect him early. I was told that he had been sick and had diarrhoea despite him being perfectly well with normal nappies both before and after being in Catherine’s care that day. Upon collection he presented with injuries (a number of adult fingernail marks to his face, lip, wrist, ear and back of throat along with bruising) that were not consistent at all with the explanation provided to us by Catherine. Time stamped photos were immediately taken and our GP referred him to the Paediatric Team at the John Radcliffe Hospital given concerns about significant harm. There was an onward referral to the Safeguarding Team. Catherine had accounted for the injuries by saying that our son had fallen on a toy. The professionals at the John Radcliffe Hospital, like ourselves, found that this explanation was not consistent with our son’s injuries.
 
The Consultant at the John Radcliffe Hospital called Catherine to ask for her version of events and my understanding is that she said that our son had choked during lunch, that she had removed the food manually with her false finger nails and that she acknowledged that this may have caused the injuries to his throat. I have no reason to doubt Catherine’s explanation (or at least my understanding of it); it seemed more plausible than the previous one of falling on a toy. I am however concerned that no incident of choking, nor Catherine’s first aid attempt, were ever reported to us directly by Catherine herself. We would have expected to have been told this when I collected our son from Catherine on the day in question. 



- ⁠Despite paying Catherine for the time our son spent in her care (including the day of our son’s injuries) and despite what appears to us to be a breach of contract on Catherine’s part, Catherine (and subsequently an adult member of her household who was not party to the contract) were determined to charge us for the 6 week notice period. As I write this review today, we await a Small Claims Court Hearing on this matter with the third party, not Catherine herself, as the claimant.



- We have been informed by a number of people, some of whom have confirmed the situation in writing, that Catherine has broken confidentiality by discussing details of our son with other parents of children in her care, other parents in the village and her friends.



- We eventually had to make a report to the police for what we perceived as harassment by an adult member of Catherine’s household. This followed the removal of our son from Catherine’s care and our decision not to pay Catherine for the 6 week notice period (i.e. for care not received).

It gives us no pleasure in writing this review. The information that has been set out is however fully supported by the information which we hold on record including email and text correspondence with Catherine, medication records, GP and Hospital reports, 3rd party statements and a police reference number.

• Overall
• Setting
• Cleanliness
• Food
• Communication