Neighbor offered her nanny to me in a way I don't want (bus stop "supervision")

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is telling her boss that most of her efforts go to watching and settling down little Johnny more than her charge Larlo. Mom says “well that’s not right they should be paying you! I’ll touch base with his mom and we’ll get this sorted” you said no and they decided to just cut him out of being supervised by not letting Larlo play with Johnny since he hypes everyone up. It is a pain when a kid with no supervision comes around and riles up the others so you are stuck with another child to control. That said they sound like a mafia extorting your money for “protection” the way you put it.

This is it exactly. OP can see her kid walk to the bus stop but not what he’s actually doing at the bus stop. She’s saying that he needs supervision and the nanny is the one stuck doing it. You’re welcome to decline the offer but then expect that limits will be put on your child’s behavior so that it’s not a burden to the adults at the bus stop.

NP +1

It’s different if the kids are sitting quietly and calmly waiting for the bus. But OP said they’re usually running around the trees, which surely requires adult supervision. Even if just to handle trips and falls and disagreements. I’m pretty sure OP would be expecting nanny to step in and help out in any sort of emergency as well. I mean, OP isn’t watching every second of every minute until he’s on the bus, and even if she was then she’s not able to get the toddler and baby bundled up and out the door to be there in seconds even if she saw something. I have a 5 year old, preschooler and baby myself and it just doesn’t work that way.

The nanny is babysitting her kid, whether OP wants to believe it or not. People pay babysitters to mind their kids even when 99% of the time there are no emergencies.

Anyway, nanny is right to control her charges and not let them run around and play with the boy.

This is it. Mom with a newborn might be called away from the window. You need to be at the bus stop a few min before. Nanny is indeed doing more. Someone calculated that of nanny rate is $25/hr, Mom would have to pay $2 a day. It’s so little that it’s almost inconsequential. But Mom is in denial to think having Nanny is more reassuring to her (peace of mind) and that Nanny does have to do more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our nanny is generous and kind and it would never even occur to her to ask a neighbor to pay her to keep an eye on another kid at the bus stop. Good grief. OP, just ignore. Remember, "no" is a complete sentence, and you've already said it, twice.

+1 OP is watching her kid out the window. If nanny wants to take it upon herself to "supervise" OP's kid, that's the nanny's decision.

[Anonymous]

Last sentence above is confusing. I meant to say Mom can’t deny that it is indeed more reassuring to Mom to have Nanny there. I’m not saying Mom should pay. Nanny behavior going to Boss seems a bit petty. But I bet Mom finds Nanny’s presence there reassuring.

So what would Mom do if her 7 year old started playing dangerously, like on the street? Or if he got bullied by older kids passing by and Nanny did nothing to stop it? I bet Mom's reaction would be resentment if Nanny did nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last sentence above is confusing. I meant to say Mom can’t deny that it is indeed more reassuring to Mom to have Nanny there. I’m not saying Mom should pay. Nanny behavior going to Boss seems a bit petty. But I bet Mom finds Nanny’s presence there reassuring.

So what would Mom do if her 7 year old started playing dangerously, like on the street? Or if he got bullied by older kids passing by and Nanny did nothing to stop it? I bet Mom's reaction would be resentment if Nanny did nothing.

Seems to me that nanny’s presence is irrelevant. Mom can see the kid and decided that he is old enough to stand by himself for a few minutes, in her line of sight. She knows the kid and whether he would be likely to “play dangerously.” Nanny and her boss decided to needlessly complicate things with an attempted shakedown of OP for money. If I were OP I would find nanny’s presence uncomfortable at this point rather than reassuring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last sentence above is confusing. I meant to say Mom can’t deny that it is indeed more reassuring to Mom to have Nanny there. I’m not saying Mom should pay. Nanny behavior going to Boss seems a bit petty. But I bet Mom finds Nanny’s presence there reassuring.

So what would Mom do if her 7 year old started playing dangerously, like on the street? Or if he got bullied by older kids passing by and Nanny did nothing to stop it? I bet Mom's reaction would be resentment if Nanny did nothing.

Seems to me that nanny’s presence is irrelevant. Mom can see the kid and decided that he is old enough to stand by himself for a few minutes, in her line of sight. She knows the kid and whether he would be likely to “play dangerously.” Nanny and her boss decided to needlessly complicate things with an attempted shakedown of OP for money. If I were OP I would find nanny’s presence uncomfortable at this point rather than reassuring.

Agreed. Every 7 year old is different. Most of the 7 year olds I know can be trusted to stand at the bus stop for 5 minutes, particularly with mom watching (albeit from afar). Nanny and nanny boss are cheap. Every parent standing at the bus stop keeps an eye on other kids, it's just part of what we do as adults when kids are around.

[Anonymous]

Agree with the posters who say to ignore. Probably the nanny is trying to make a few extra bucks and asked her employer to make the offer. Our former nanny used to ask me to post babysitting services on the listserv pretty regularly; nannying gigs turn over pretty quickly and they're always keeping their eyes open for opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous. My children walked home five blocks from school
When they were 7. They certainly could stand at a bus stop.

I actually think walking isn’t a big deal. And good kids can definitely stand at a bus stop. But OP is complaining that the only adult at the bus stop isn’t allowing the other children to run wild anymore. Seems like she expects the nanny to allow the kids to run around and play with and amuse her kid. Unpaid.

OP doesn’t have to pay but she can’t complsin that the nanny isn’t providing a free play date every morning anymore. So she’ll just have to explain to her child that he’ll have to be calmly waiting for the bus in future.

Newsflash, normal kids like to run around and play with each other. Nannies don't provide playdates, children do!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous. My children walked home five blocks from school
When they were 7. They certainly could stand at a bus stop.

I actually think walking isn’t a big deal. And good kids can definitely stand at a bus stop. But OP is complaining that the only adult at the bus stop isn’t allowing the other children to run wild anymore. Seems like she expects the nanny to allow the kids to run around and play with and amuse her kid. Unpaid.

OP doesn’t have to pay but she can’t complsin that the nanny isn’t providing a free play date every morning anymore. So she’ll just have to explain to her child that he’ll have to be calmly waiting for the bus in future.

Newsflash, normal kids like to run around and play with each other. Nannies don't provide playdates, children do!

Newsflash, normal parents don’t let 7 year old kids run around on others’ property right next to a road with other kids... at least not unless there’s a responsible adult there just on the off chance that they are actually needed on that particular day. Oh, wait, OP isn’t doing that either. She just doesn’t want to admit it. I’d bet money that she wouldn’t do what she’s doing if the nanny was not there. OP knows that too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP you sound lazy. Why did you have another kid and then expect to cut corners with the older one? Gross.

What?!?! watching a kid from a window is perfectly reasonable!

[Anonymous]

Don't pay nanny, and ignore future requests from neighbor regarding this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't pay nanny, and ignore future requests from neighbor regarding this situation.

That's not good enough for the OP.

It's not just that she refuses to pay and give nanny authority over her child at the bus stop - it's that she ALSO thinks the nanny should still let her charges run around and play with OP's child every morning. The nanny put a stop to her charges running around or engaging OP's child in active play, and OP is pouting because she thinks her son is entitled to it and it's being taken away unfairly.

[Anonymous]

Since it is only 3 houses away keep DS on your lawn till the bus is there...then he can speed over to the bus. The is very temporary as by the end of the school year the bus stop will be a great breath of fresh air for mom and baby.

[Anonymous]

I'd just respond "Thanks, Larla. I'm afraid I misled your Nanny. When she saw that I have my hands full with the new baby she said she'd be happy to watch Jorimy at the bus stop and I said that was so nice. I didn't realize she thought it was a paid gig! We don't need a nanny for 5 minutes at the bus stop - I watch him from the window and I'll soon be making it over myself here and there. Sorry if she is disappointed. Hope you're well."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't pay nanny, and ignore future requests from neighbor regarding this situation.

That's not good enough for the OP.

It's not just that she refuses to pay and give nanny authority over her child at the bus stop - it's that she ALSO thinks the nanny should still let her charges run around and play with OP's child every morning. The nanny put a stop to her charges running around or engaging OP's child in active play, and OP is pouting because she thinks her son is entitled to it and it's being taken away unfairly.

Children want to play and run around with other children. That's normal behavior. This has nothing to do with the nanny, they'd want to play with other kids whether nanny is there or not. Normal 7-year olds do not need adults to engineer their play for the whole of five minutes while waiting for the bus. What do you think the nanny has them do, stand at attention until the bus comes? Children engage with other children. That's normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous. My children walked home five blocks from school
When they were 7. They certainly could stand at a bus stop.

I actually think walking isn’t a big deal. And good kids can definitely stand at a bus stop. But OP is complaining that the only adult at the bus stop isn’t allowing the other children to run wild anymore. Seems like she expects the nanny to allow the kids to run around and play with and amuse her kid. Unpaid.

OP doesn’t have to pay but she can’t complsin that the nanny isn’t providing a free play date every morning anymore. So she’ll just have to explain to her child that he’ll have to be calmly waiting for the bus in future.

Newsflash, normal kids like to run around and play with each other. Nannies don't provide playdates, children do!

Newsflash, normal parents don’t let 7 year old kids run around on others’ property right next to a road with other kids... at least not unless there’s a responsible adult there just on the off chance that they are actually needed on that particular day. Oh, wait, OP isn’t doing that either. She just doesn’t want to admit it. I’d bet money that she wouldn’t do what she’s doing if the nanny was not there. OP knows that too.

You have no idea what they do at the bus stop and whose property it is. You have weird ideas about how 7-year olds behave. They don't stand there like statues, they make up games and play with whatever and whoever they have.