Would you be mad at the nanny....

[Anonymous]

I think the OP's reasons for sending the nanny an email are very sound and also useful from the point of view of documenting her concerns. I think it's helpful to remember that the nanny is a paid employee whose job is to supervise the children. While I agree that she need not watch the girls every minute, it is her job to be close enough to stay within earshot so she can investigate when it's "suspiciously quiet" or something seems to be going on. The nanny blew it, obviously, and it's rather unfair to the OP to suggest otherwise.

[Anonymous]

FIRE THE NANNY! That is just not acceptable

[Anonymous]

I am a bit astonished that anyone would think the nanny's behavior was acceptable. If the nanny can't see or hear the children she's supposed to be watching, what on earth is she being paid to do? And to not 'fess up and explain what happened just adds insult to injury. And, even if the nanny hadn't requested communicating in writing, email strikes me as a totally appropriate way to address the issue. Good luck, OP!

[Anonymous]

This is clear for me--I would fire her and I would do it in person and not on email.

[Anonymous]

Okay, clearly opinions differ as to whether this was a fireable offense, and none of us should presume to have all the facts, and OP needs to do what's right for her family, and it seems like this just isn't a good fit on many levels. I do sense the OP talking out of both sides of her mouth though -- last night it was (some paraphrasing) I wrote her a "sternly worded letter" and I'll talk to her in the morning "IF" dun dun dun!! "she shows up!" After a few others suggested this maybe wasn't the world's best problem-solving tactic, OP revised to say she wrote "in a very calm voice" and delayed her response out of respect for her young nanny's exam schedule.

Here is what I think, acknowledging I've not got all the facts. The nanny is immature. The mom is kinda a tough nut. Probably cultural and language differences are not helping. Bad match.

[Anonymous]

I'm the PP that suggested a 6 year old should be able to play out of the sight of the nanny. I agree with much of what others have said and would probably fire this nanny for not reporting the incident and perhaps for general lack of engagement with the children. My original post was in response to the Mom's announcement of a new house rule to keep the kids in eye sight and earshot at all times. I don't think this is realistic or necessarily a good thing. I suspect that the OP came up with this rule because she doesn't trust the nanny's judgment. That lack of trust alone suggests it's time to find a new nanny.

[Anonymous]

I think it is patently unreasonable to expect a nanny (or a mom) to keep both a 6 year old, and a 2 year old, "in-sight" every minute. Is that what you do when you're home?

I have a 3 year old and an 18 month old. My house is pretty well child-proof, but that doesn't mean they couldn't hurt themselves if they really tried. When I am making dinner, I try to keep an ear out, and I certainly check on them if they get too quiet... but I absolutely do not (nor could I) keep them in sight every minute. What if the 6 year old wants to play in her room while the 2 year old wants to play downstairs? Do you forbid the 6 year old from leaving the room?

I think you are right to be upset about the fact that she didn't tell you. If in fact this nanny is "emotionally checked out" then maybe you need another one. But I can tell you, if some mother wrote me an email saying there will be no play dates, and I had to keep 2 kids within eye-sight every minute, I'd probably quit.

[Anonymous]

Completely agree with PP and suspect the unreasonableness of the new "house rules" may be why OP got the blank stares from the Nanny.