Being forgotten as the most important figure in a babies life. How to deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Op here- That is my worst fear-- being forgotten. I still think I am the most important right now because I spend about 45 hours a week with the baby. Much more then the parents. I do not want to be forgotten; I am hoping to keep a long term relationship with the child. I am trying to find new hobbies and I plan on seeing my doctor on Monday morning for depression. It hurts to get up in the morning and I go through the motions on my off hours counting down the hours until I see them again. I guess it is not normal to be this sad but I can't help it. I love my little jelly bean very much. I know I am not the mother or father but I do sometimes feel as if I am his second mom due to our bond and the amount of time we spend together. Hopefully the meds will make me feel lighter and happier. Thanks for the good advice guys!

OP, don't take this the wrong way, but you have a problem. Instead of being at peace with your role of a valued caretaker, you seem to be locked in a weird competition with parents, which you can never win. No, you're not the most important person to this baby, not right now, not ever. I'm as grateful as could be to nannies we've had, but if any one of them would continue to insist that no! she's the most important person!, we'd break ties pretty quickly.

The fact that you "go through the motions of your off hours" and "count the hours until you see them again" suggests to me that nothing very much is going on in your off-duty life. That's a problem. You may want to think about filling them with meaningful things. If you work there 45 hrs a week, that means the parents work a very normal 9 to 5 life where they have every opportunity to be with their children. You will move on from this family eventually, and you'll find other children to care about. You've very young and there will be lots of other things you will get to care about. I hope the meds will help you.
But even more, I hope you will be able to find things to fill your non-working life.

Do you really believe that severed caregiver relationships are so great for your child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A woman who is with the child 60+ ("daytime") hours every week for the first years of life, is called what?

Where is the 60 hrs coming from?

It's the number of hours she was with the child. What would you call her?

I thought OP said 40 hrs, didn't she? Where is the 60-hr number coming from?

Why won't you simply answer the question? People doing only 40 hrs aren't with parents who have FT office jobs. I don't think the question is that complicated, is it?

The OP is working 45 hrs a week - that means parents have a sane 9-5 schedule.

So who was it that spends 60+ hrs with the child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Do you really believe that severed caregiver relationships are so great for your child?

It's not the long-term-ness of the caregiver that matters; it's how well the caregiver meets the current needs of the family. His nanny did a fab job for a year that she cared for him. Then he needed something else. Change is a fact of life. Caretakers come and go as the child's needs evolve. No one person can meet our every need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A woman who is with the child 60+ ("daytime") hours every week for the first years of life, is called what?

Where is the 60 hrs coming from?

It's the number of hours she was with the child. What would you call her?

I thought OP said 40 hrs, didn't she? Where is the 60-hr number coming from?

Why won't you simply answer the question? People doing only 40 hrs aren't with parents who have FT office jobs. I don't think the question is that complicated, is it?

The OP is working 45 hrs a week - that means parents have a sane 9-5 schedule.

So who was it that spends 60+ hrs with the child?

Some nannies do work 60+ hours a week. Why can't you answer the question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A woman who is with the child 60+ ("daytime") hours every week for the first years of life, is called what?

Where is the 60 hrs coming from?

It's the number of hours she was with the child. What would you call her?

I thought OP said 40 hrs, didn't she? Where is the 60-hr number coming from?

Why won't you simply answer the question? People doing only 40 hrs aren't with parents who have FT office jobs. I don't think the question is that complicated, is it?

The OP is working 45 hrs a week - that means parents have a sane 9-5 schedule.

So who was it that spends 60+ hrs with the child?

Some nannies do work 60+ hours a week. Why can't you answer the question?

When these nannies start their own thread, I'll be happy to weigh in. I'd like to keep it focused on OP's situation, since we are in her thread and all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you really believe that severed caregiver relationships are so great for your child?

It's not the long-term-ness of the caregiver that matters; it's how well the caregiver meets the current needs of the family. His nanny did a fab job for a year that she cared for him. Then he needed something else. Change is a fact of life. Caretakers come and go as the child's needs evolve. No one person can meet our every need.

High turnover is precisely why so many parents avoid daycare. In fact, it's one of the major problems with daycare. No parent (that I know) believes that turnover of caregivers is good for their child during the first three years of life.

It's true that some mothers are so threatened by another caregiver, that they actually believe what you seem to believe. It's good if their child can't establish (and maintain!) long-term attatchments. Do you have a clue how ridiculous this is? It's the epitome of selfishness, at the expense of your child's healthy and secure development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you really believe that severed caregiver relationships are so great for your child?

It's not the long-term-ness of the caregiver that matters; it's how well the caregiver meets the current needs of the family. His nanny did a fab job for a year that she cared for him. Then he needed something else. Change is a fact of life. Caretakers come and go as the child's needs evolve. No one person can meet our every need.

High turnover is precisely why so many parents avoid daycare. In fact, it's one of the major problems with daycare. No parent (that I know) believes that turnover of caregivers is good for their child during the first three years of life.

It's true that some mothers are so threatened by another caregiver, that they actually believe what you seem to believe. It's good if their child can't establish (and maintain!) long-term attatchments. Do you have a clue how ridiculous this is? It's the epitome of selfishness, at the expense of your child's healthy and secure development.

No mother is threatened by her hired caregiver. My child has a very close and secure relationship with me, with his father, his grandmother, and his preschool teachers. And when he's done with preschool, he'll say goodbye to them and begin forming a close and secure relationship with his kindergarten teacher. I would no more keep him with a caregiver who no longer is a good fit for his needs than I would force him to wear shoes he has outgrown.

The downfall of your argument is that you believe that nannies are the sole source of stability, attachment and love in a child's life. They aren't. They are but one brick in the foundation of the child's life. When that brick is gone, there are still many others holding him or her up. The change of one element in a child's life doesn't mean that the rest of his life is in shambles. There's life beyond nannies, you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you really believe that severed caregiver relationships are so great for your child?

It's not the long-term-ness of the caregiver that matters; it's how well the caregiver meets the current needs of the family. His nanny did a fab job for a year that she cared for him. Then he needed something else. Change is a fact of life. Caretakers come and go as the child's needs evolve. No one person can meet our every need.

High turnover is precisely why so many parents avoid daycare. In fact, it's one of the major problems with daycare. No parent (that I know) believes that turnover of caregivers is good for their child during the first three years of life.

It's true that some mothers are so threatened by another caregiver, that they actually believe what you seem to believe. It's good if their child can't establish (and maintain!) long-term attatchments. Do you have a clue how ridiculous this is? It's the epitome of selfishness, at the expense of your child's healthy and secure development.

No mother is threatened by her hired caregiver. My child has a very close and secure relationship with me, with his father, his grandmother, and his preschool teachers. And when he's done with preschool, he'll say goodbye to them and begin forming a close and secure relationship with his kindergarten teacher. I would no more keep him with a caregiver who no longer is a good fit for his needs than I would force him to wear shoes he has outgrown.

The downfall of your argument is that you believe that nannies are the sole source of stability, attachment and love in a child's life. They aren't. They are but one brick in the foundation of the child's life. When that brick is gone, there are still many others holding him or her up. The change of one element in a child's life do
esn't mean that the rest of his life is in shambles. There's life beyond nannies, you know.

Do you understand the difference between a 20-40 hour a week caregiver vs. a 60+ hour a week caregiver?

Mind you, I'm talking about WAKING hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Do you understand the difference between a 20-40 hour a week caregiver vs. a 60+ hour a week caregiver?

Mind you, I'm talking about WAKING hours.

Where did the 60-hr number come from? Are you asking a question that has no bearing on the present discussion? Do you just want to know my opinion on 60-hr caregivers as a matter of policy? I am just curious how you came up with that number?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you understand the difference between a 20-40 hour a week caregiver vs. a 60+ hour a week caregiver?

Mind you, I'm talking about WAKING hours.

Where did the 60-hr number come from? Are you asking a question that has no bearing on the present discussion? Do you just want to know my opinion on 60-hr caregivers as a matter of policy? I am just curious how you came up with that number?

I already told you, SOME nannies work 60+ hours a week.

I'm actually starting to tire of your stupidity, so I'm going to tell you:

SOME nannies ARE the primary caregivers.

If you still need help, here's what you do:
1. You count up the child's waking hours.
2. You count the nanny's working hours.
3. Whoever is providing the MAJORITY of care,
IS the PRIMARY caregiver.

That's what "primary" means.
You can figure it out for yourself.


Now we know why you adamently refused to identify a person who provides care for 60+ hours a week.

You are fooling no one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you understand the difference between a 20-40 hour a week caregiver vs. a 60+ hour a week caregiver?

Mind you, I'm talking about WAKING hours.

Where did the 60-hr number come from? Are you asking a question that has no bearing on the present discussion? Do you just want to know my opinion on 60-hr caregivers as a matter of policy? I am just curious how you came up with that number?

I already told you, SOME nannies work 60+ hours a week.

I'm actually starting to tire of your stupidity, so I'm going to tell you:

SOME nannies ARE the primary caregivers.

If you still need help, here's what you do:
1. You count up the child's waking hours.
2. You count the nanny's working hours.
3. Whoever is providing the MAJORITY of care,
IS the PRIMARY caregiver.

That's what "primary" means.
You can figure it out for yourself.


Now we know why you adamently refused to identify a person who provides care for 60+ hours a week.

You are fooling no one.

If you are going to tell people what things mean and act as a dictionary, of sorts, you may want to brush up on the spelling thing.

I note that I've been perfectly polite to you; you're the one calling names.

And no, you don't get to "tell" anyone anything.

Counting the hours in the manner you proposed gets awfully tricky. Is that per day? Per 24-hr period? Per week? Per month? What if the child is a prolific napper, is there a deduction for this? What about newborns who would sleep most of the day, do we deduct that time in favor of mom? What about children who wake up at night? If the child had a particularly troubled night, does the mom get to be the primary caregiver for that day, and nanny will take over the next day? What about the nanny's vacation? Does she stop being a primary caregiver during that week? Do you just want to make a master key called "primary caregiver" so that mom and nanny can trade it back and forth? So you see how convoluted this gets.

Here's the real meaning of primary caregiver to me: the permanent presence that makes decisions that affect the life of this child. Nannies come and go. Parents stay. What parents say goes. You can take it from there. No crying in bed over weekends necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you understand the difference between a 20-40 hour a week caregiver vs. a 60+ hour a week caregiver?

Mind you, I'm talking about WAKING hours.

Where did the 60-hr number come from? Are you asking a question that has no bearing on the present discussion? Do you just want to know my opinion on 60-hr caregivers as a matter of policy? I am just curious how you came up with that number?

I already told you, SOME nannies work 60+ hours a week.

I'm actually starting to tire of your stupidity, so I'm going to tell you:

SOME nannies ARE the primary caregivers.

If you still need help, here's what you do:
1. You count up the child's waking hours.
2. You count the nanny's working hours.
3. Whoever is providing the MAJORITY of care,
IS the PRIMARY caregiver.

That's what "primary" means.
You can figure it out for yourself.


Now we know why you adamently refused to identify a person who provides care for 60+ hours a week.

You are fooling no one.

If you are going to tell people what things mean and act as a dictionary, of sorts, you may want to brush up on the spelling thing.

I note that I've been perfectly polite to you; you're the one calling names.

And no, you don't get to "tell" anyone anything.

Counting the hours in the manner you proposed gets awfully tricky. Is that per day? Per 24-hr period? Per week? Per month? What if the child is a prolific napper, is there a deduction for this? What about newborns who would sleep most of the day, do we deduct that time in favor of mom? What about children who wake up at night? If the child had a particularly troubled night, does the mom get to be the primary caregiver for that day, and nanny will take over the next day? What about the nanny's vacation? Does she stop being a primary caregiver during that week? Do you just want to make a master key called "primary caregiver" so that mom and nanny can trade it back and forth? So you see how convoluted this gets.

Here's the real meaning of primary caregiver to me: the permanent presence that makes decisions that affect the life of this child. Nannies come and go. Parents stay. What parents say goes. You can take it from there. No crying in bed over weekends necessary.

The extent of your delusion is quite impressive.

You may believe anything you want.

God forbid you study early childhood development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The extent of your delusion is quite impressive.

You may believe anything you want.

God forbid you study early childhood development.

Lots of things about me are impressive. I don't need your permission to believe anything I want. Early child development isn't exactly rocket science; plenty of people studied it and believe differently from you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The extent of your delusion is quite impressive.

You may believe anything you want.

God forbid you study early childhood development.

Lots of things about me are impressive. I don't need your permission to believe anything I want. Early child development isn't exactly rocket science; plenty of people studied it and believe differently from you.

And they all have nannies!

[Anonymous]

Primary doesn't mean what you think it means, 22:16.

The very patient MB at 22:26 explained it quite well in her last paragraph.

It's time you let this go.