I did and it worked great, but my nanny's DC was 3 years old when my first DC was an infant. I was happy because I wanted my DC to have another child there. When my DC 2 was born, I think my DC 1 was 18 months and my nanny's DC was 5 and my nanny's child started kindergarten. Although it worked great, I do think it would be hard with three under three.

Anonymous wrote:So I actually do do this. I have 3 kids: 1,2, and 4 and she has a 3 year old. We’ve done it a year so far and it’s worked out great. They are all boys and play well together, of course she loves her own child the most but she takes great care of all of them and is a responsible caregiver. It’s not as though she is snatching toys out of my kids’ hands and giving them to her son.

Others have brought this up, though, the kids really just hang out at the house and at nearby parks. Our oldest attends preschool part of the day but they don’t ever use the car.

This is really close to my situation. We already have 3 young kids so our house essentially functions as a very small daycare. It’s actually cheaper than daycare would be and the kids get more individual attention.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally fine

+1. I’m a sahm and I have 3 kids. It’s busy but I’m not sure why people are acting like this is some impossible task to care for all of them.

Are all of your kids under 3 years old?

A baby and two toddlers is a tough combination. Most moms if 3 kids have a baby and older kids spaced 2 to 3 years apart. The difficult part is you have no idea if her 2 year old and yours will actually get along. It’s possible that they bring out the worst in each other.

Now, if the nanny had a 5 year old who would be there after school, I could see it working. But bringing another 2 year old? No way. That just adds problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally fine

+1. I’m a sahm and I have 3 kids. It’s busy but I’m not sure why people are acting like this is some impossible task to care for all of them.

Are all of your kids under 3 years old?

Anonymous wrote:How would it work? If your children are in activities, do you have to pay for hers? What about driving and car seats? What about salary? I'd expect to pay 1/3 less if there are three kid. (I wouldn't care so much about food but all the other logistics when you have two kids seems a bit much).

OP did say the kids are 3 and under, I’m not sure how many activities the kids are doing during the weekday. It’s standard to pay the nanny less in this scenario.

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the interview, if that even happened, is not last minute or sneaking it in. Usually potential employer asks their questions and then asks potential employee if they have any questions. This is an appropriate time for the applicant to ask if bringing their kid is possible. Last minute or sliding it in would be bringing it up after an offer has been extended.

I agree. My nanny (who brings her child) asked before we even did our interview but if she had brought it up in the first interview, while we were interviewing other candidates and had not yet extended a job offer, I would think that was fine. It sounds like OP is deciding who to hire now which gives the impression she has not hired anyone and the the candidate has provided this information so that OP can use it in making her decision. Very different from hiring someone and, after the fact, finding out they need to bring their child.

At the end of the interview, if that even happened, is not last minute or sneaking it in. Usually potential employer asks their questions and then asks potential employee if they have any questions. This is an appropriate time for the applicant to ask if bringing their kid is possible. Last minute or sliding it in would be bringing it up after an offer has been extended.

I would be fine with this but I would offer slightly less in pay than I would if she wasn’t bringing her child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally fine

+1. I’m a sahm and I have 3 kids. It’s busy but I’m not sure why people are acting like this is some impossible task to care for all of them.

I’m also a sahm to 3 kids and it’s fine for me too. It’s not an “impossible task” at all. The thing that bothers me would be paying for a full time nanny while getting a nanny share. Adding one more child for free is a big ask and asking at the end of the interview is sneaky and manipulative. Pretending that this is on the level of “oh by the way I might need to leave early on Thursday” is disingenuous. That’s why most people are having a negative reaction.

Where did OP say she snuck it in at the end of the interview? In the post she just says they like the nanny and the nanny will be bringing her child. For all we know, the nanny could have been entirely upfront about it.

Also, how do we know OP won’t be paying her less? OP didn’t mention rates.

The idea that the nanny is trying to pull one over OP keeps coming up. Why are posters getting the impression the nanny snuck this information in at the last minute?

We have a nanny with a kid who sometimes comes, but he is older than our kids by about 3 years. This works well given they are all elementary and he only now come occasionally and mostly entertains himself and sometimes also helps out. My nanny is also very professional about it and she brought it up first thing before we did the interview.

I think the “sneaking” it in is a bad sign if that is what happened. If the child is the same age as yours the pay should be what a nanny share would be because it *is* a nanny share. If a nanny can’t agree to those things not ok. In our case, nanny’s child comes only occasionally so we don’t worry about it and we told her up front that children needed to go to activities ; she has backup care for when he isn’t with her (her mom) which is the usual.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally fine

+1. I’m a sahm and I have 3 kids. It’s busy but I’m not sure why people are acting like this is some impossible task to care for all of them.

I’m also a sahm to 3 kids and it’s fine for me too. It’s not an “impossible task” at all. The thing that bothers me would be paying for a full time nanny while getting a nanny share. Adding one more child for free is a big ask and asking at the end of the interview is sneaky and manipulative. Pretending that this is on the level of “oh by the way I might need to leave early on Thursday” is disingenuous. That’s why most people are having a negative reaction.

Where did OP say she snuck it in at the end of the interview? In the post she just says they like the nanny and the nanny will be bringing her child. For all we know, the nanny could have been entirely upfront about it.

Also, how do we know OP won’t be paying her less? OP didn’t mention rates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally fine

+1. I’m a sahm and I have 3 kids. It’s busy but I’m not sure why people are acting like this is some impossible task to care for all of them.

I’m also a sahm to 3 kids and it’s fine for me too. It’s not an “impossible task” at all. The thing that bothers me would be paying for a full time nanny while getting a nanny share. Adding one more child for free is a big ask and asking at the end of the interview is sneaky and manipulative. Pretending that this is on the level of “oh by the way I might need to leave early on Thursday” is disingenuous. That’s why most people are having a negative reaction.

We pay about $5/hr less for our nanny than we would if she didn’t bring her child. If OP likes her, she should negotiate the pay. It’s pretty standard to pay less if the nanny is bringing her child to work.

Next!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally fine

+1. I’m a sahm and I have 3 kids. It’s busy but I’m not sure why people are acting like this is some impossible task to care for all of them.

I’m also a sahm to 3 kids and it’s fine for me too. It’s not an “impossible task” at all. The thing that bothers me would be paying for a full time nanny while getting a nanny share. Adding one more child for free is a big ask and asking at the end of the interview is sneaky and manipulative. Pretending that this is on the level of “oh by the way I might need to leave early on Thursday” is disingenuous. That’s why most people are having a negative reaction.

It’s funny everyone focusing on the pay when OP hadn’t even stated that an an issue. Maybe the Nanny is taking less because of this arrangement. OP assuming she thinks she can handle all 3 of them I think it’s fine.