Anonymous wrote:

Ummm, if Op's kid is rambunctious and Op is busy watching from a window but not hearing the nanny asking the children to please settle down and Op is not there to step in when her son is being particularly wild then perhaps the nanny is right. Op's son would benefit from having some up close and direct supervision.

It sounds as though Op's kid is a being a bit of a nuisance, Op isn't hearing/seeing everything that is happening and the nanny would like to have the authority to supervise Op's son.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - it sounds like after the first interaction, the nanny told her boss that you were willing to pay for her to watch her child. Just call the neighbor and tell her there was a misunderstanding - you thought the nanny was just offering to keep an eye on your kid, but you don't need paid supervision since you can see him out the window.

It's ridiculous that someone would expect to be paid for 10 minutes at a bus stop. Also please talk to your child and explain new rules for the bus stop - he is to stand and wait quietly, no more playing is allowed.

What's wrong with running around the trees? OP can see her kid, so evidently she is fine with whatever he does at the bus stop. Personally, I think burning off some energy is great before school.

New poster here

"The trees" might be on someone else's private property. I know a neighbor of mine would get really upset because the bus stop was in front of her house and parents used to let their kids run her yard, trampling flowers and other damage, while waiting for the bus. This neighbor didn't even have school age children.

You're all forgetting that the neighbor's kids used to run around the trees WITH OP's son until she said no to the nanny. So clearly it's not about that.

I'm exhausted (insomnia last night) so I might have missed something, but the part about the trees that I saw was "Now DC has mentioned that the kids at the stop (all of Nanny's charges) are being quite around him and they aren't allowed to run around the trees anymore. "
Maybe the property owner spoke to the nanny/other parents and said they don't want kids running around on their property. Since OP hasn't been to the bus stop for a few weeks, the property owner wasn't able to speak to her.

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone agrees the request was ridiculous. The issue here is explaining the change of attitude after your refusal. The nanny doesn’t want to deal with another squirrelly 7 year old and asked her kids to not engage with him because it had become more work for her (in her mind). Nobody is saying what she asked was right but some of us do realize it’s consistently more work and explaining why he is being left out now.

Anonymous wrote:Is your son walking to/from the bus stop with the nanny? Like he sees her on the way with her charges and he joins them? Is he waiting until they are walking past to leave your house?

If so, she might feel obligated to watch him, too, and doesn't feel right providing a service to you for free that she charges her employer money for.

If your kid is walking to/from the bus stop by himself, then the nanny is being sort of pushy.

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.