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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Don't pay nanny, and ignore future requests from neighbor regarding this situation.
Anonymous wrote:OP you sound lazy. Why did you have another kid and then expect to cut corners with the older one? Gross.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.