Stay at home mom and nanny?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
How many parents can honestly say that having a second child was a detriment to the first child?

It's laughable to even consider such nonsense.

There are obviously pros of having a sibling (someone else to play with), but there are also obvious cons. Most parents would tell you that the second or subsequent child got less attention than the first (because the parent is also paying attention to the first child). First children are also able to nap/eat/play on their own schedule. Subsequent children don't dictate the schedule as much and frequently nap in the car or something while first child is being driven to activities or whatever. There are definite detriments to having more than one child.

Now if there are even detriments when we're talking about your OWN children, imagine that one of the children isn't your own. If both children are crying at the same time or one child darts one way on the playground and one child another, or one child is still napping twice in a day and the other child wants to go to the playground - which is the caretaker going to prioritize?

Parents who want nannies typically do so because they want their child to have individualized attention. So some of these parents are going to see these detriments that come with having a second child around and feel that it's a disadvantage that they should either be compensated for or that they're not interested in at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How many parents can honestly say that having a second child was a detriment to the first child?

It's laughable to even consider such nonsense.

There are obviously pros of having a sibling (someone else to play with), but there are also obvious cons. Most parents would tell you that the second or subsequent child got less attention than the first (because the parent is also paying attention to the first child). First children are also able to nap/eat/play on their own schedule. Subsequent children don't dictate the schedule as much and frequently nap in the car or something while first child is being driven to activities or whatever. There are definite detriments to having more than one child.

Now if there are even detriments when we're talking about your OWN children, imagine that one of the children isn't your own. If both children are crying at the same time or one child darts one way on the playground and one child another, or one child is still napping twice in a day and the other child wants to go to the playground - which is the caretaker going to prioritize?

Parents who want nannies typically do so because they want their child to have individualized attention. So some of these parents are going to see these detriments that come with having a second child around an
d feel that it's a disadvantage that they should either be compensated for or that they're not interested in at all.

What you are really talking about is EXCLUSIVE attention, not individualized attention. A good first grade teacher gives individualized
attention, not exclusive attention. Most of us desire the best for children to become healthy adults, rather than spoiled, entitled elitists.

[Anonymous]

Hello,
I am looking for part- time childcare for my newborn
and toddler 2 days/week from 9ish-4ish.
I'd be open to chatting!
[e-mail]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How many parents can honestly say that having a second child was a detriment to the first child?

It's laughable to even consider such nonsense.

There are obviously pros of having a sibling (someone else to play with), but there are also obvious cons. Most parents would tell you that the second or subsequent child got less attention than the first (because the parent is also paying attention to the first child). First children are also able to nap/eat/play on their own schedule. Subsequent children don't dictate the schedule as much and frequently nap in the car or something while first child is being driven to activities or whatever. There are definite detriments to having more than one child.

Now if there are even detriments when we're talking about your OWN children, imagine that one of the children isn't your own. If both children are crying at the same time or one child darts one way on the playground and one child another, or one child is still napping twice in a day and the other child wants to go to the playground - which is the caretaker going to prioritize?

Parents who want nannies typically do so because they want their child to have individualized attention. So some of these parents are going to see these detriments that come with having a second child around an
d feel that it's a disadvantage that they should either be compensated for or that they're not interested in at all.

What you are really talking about is EXCLUSIVE attention, not individualized attention. A good first grade teacher gives individualized
attention, not exclusive attention. Most of us desire the best for children to become healthy adults, rather than spoiled, entitled elitists.

PP, you sound incredibly ignorant. Are you really suggesting that there is no difference in need for attention between an infant or toddler and a first grader? I would be totally comfortable with a share for school-age kids, but much less so with infants or toddlers. That would be especially true if I had a toddler and the nanny wanted to bring an infant.

I realize that most of the dumber-sounding posts on here originate with one or two nannies who talk like they know it all but have such poor self-esteem and social skills that they must resort to insulting the parenting skills and/or "cheapness" or all MBs and DBs who differ with the nanny's worldview. It must be tough to go through life feeling so angry, PP. You annoy me, but mostly I just pity you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up with a full time sitter who had been my mother's teaching colleague prior to leaving the field in order to stay home with her kids. She took care of her own children, one of whom was in school all day, along with my brother and I at her home. She was fabulous, largely because she had so much teaching experience that she did it instinctively and constantly, through a zillion little seemingly unimportant moments. You will be very marketable, OP.

Funny how you refer to this teacher as a "full-time sitter."

Even more funny how most of you don't know what a nanny is.

The only difference between a full time sitter and a nanny is semantic. Nannies love to think that they are somehow in a class above sitters, but there is absolutely no rational basis for that delusion. In this particular case, the care provider called herself a sitter and so did we, despite her possession of a master's in education and many years of teaching and child-raising experience. Why? It may have been a function of the times. It may have been a function of locality. It may be that she equated the term nanny with baby care and she was a professional, licensed educator whose charges were all in preschool and older. Bottom line is that her title had absolutely nothing to do with the quality of care she provided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How many parents can honestly say that having a second child was a detriment to the first child?

It's laughable to even consider such nonsense.

There are obviously pros of having a sibling (someone else to play with), but there are also obvious cons. Most parents would tell you that the second or subsequent child got less attention than the first (because the parent is also paying attention to the first child). First children are also able to nap/eat/play on their own schedule. Subsequent children don't dictate the schedule as much and frequently nap in the car or something while first child is being driven to activities or whatever. There are definite detriments to having more than one child.

Now if there are even detriments when we're talking about your OWN children, imagine that one of the children isn't your own. If both children are crying at the same time or one child darts one way on the playground and one child another, or one child is still napping twice in a day and the other child wants to go to the playground - which is the caretaker going to prioritize?

Parents who want nannies typically do so because they want their child to have individualized attention. So some of these parents are going to see these detriments that come with having a second child around an
d feel that it's a disadvantage that they should either be compensated for or that they're not interested in at all.

What you are really talking about is EXCLUSIVE attention, not individualized attention. A good first grade teacher gives individualized
attention, not exclusive attention. Most of us desire the best for children to become healthy adults, rather than spoiled, entitled elitists.

PP, you sound incredibly ignorant. Are you really suggesting that there is no difference in need for attention between an infant or toddler and a first grader? I would be totally comfortable with a share for school-age kids, but much less so with infants or toddlers. That would be especially true if I had a toddler and the nanny wanted to bring an infant.

I realize that most of the dumber-sounding posts on here originate with one or two nannies who talk like they know it all but have such poor self-esteem and social skills that they must resort to insulting the parenting skills and/or "cheapness" or all MBs and DBs who differ with the nanny's worldview. It must be tough to go through life feeling so angry, PP. You annoy me, but mostly I just pity you.

Do you also pity the pediatric psychiatrist MB and her physician husband who hired the nanny with child in tow? As you may recall, it was certainly no bargain. They simply wanted the best for their child, and could afford it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How many parents can honestly say that having a second child was a detriment to the first child?

It's laughable to even consider such nonsense.

There are obviously pros of having a sibling (someone else to play with), but there are also obvious cons. Most parents would tell you that the second or subsequent child got less attention than the first (because the parent is also paying attention to the first child). First children are also able to nap/eat/play on their own schedule. Subsequent children don't dictate the schedule as much and frequently nap in the car or something while first child is being driven to activities or whatever. There are definite detriments to having more than one child.

Now if there are even detriments when we're talking about your OWN children, imagine that one of the children isn't your own. If both children are crying at the same time or one child darts one way on the playground and one child another, or one child is still napping twice in a day and the other child wants to go to the playground - which is the caretaker going to prioritize?

Parents who want nannies typically do so because they want their child to have individualized attention. So some of these parents are going to see these detriments that come with having a second child around an
d feel that it's a disadvantage that they should either be compensated for or that they're not interested in at all.

What you are really talking about is EXCLUSIVE attention, not individualized attention. A good first grade teacher gives individualized
attention, not exclusive attention. Most of us desire the best for children to become healthy adults, rather than spoiled, entitled elitists.

PP, you sound incredibly ignorant. Are you really suggesting that there is no difference in need for attention between an infant or toddler and a first grader? I would be totally comfortable with a share for school-age kids, but much less so with infants or toddlers. That would be especially true if I had a toddler and the nanny wanted to bring an infant.

I realize that most of the dumber-sounding posts on here originate with one or two nannies who talk like they know it all but have such poor self-esteem and social skills that they must resort to insulting the parenting skills and/or "cheapness" or all MBs and DBs who differ with the nanny's worldview. It must be tough to go through life feeling so angry, PP. You annoy me, but mostly I just pity you.

Do you also pity the pediatric psychiatrist MB and her physician husband who hired the nanny with child in tow? As you may recall, it was certainly no bargain. They simply wanted the best for their child, and could afford it.

Not a bit, because the physician parents are not on DCUM spewing angry nonsense. They made a choice that worked for them at the time, and that's great. I pity you, PP, because no well-adjusted person behaves like you. You've clearly been wronged by the world in some very deep way, and that is sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How many parents can honestly say that having a second child was a detriment to the first child?

It's laughable to even consider such nonsense.

There are obviously pros of having a sibling (someone else to play with), but there are also obvious cons. Most parents would tell you that the second or subsequent child got less attention than the first (because the parent is also paying attention to the first child). First children are also able to nap/eat/play on their own schedule. Subsequent children don't dictate the schedule as much and frequently nap in the car or something while first child is being driven to activities or whatever. There are definite detriments to having more than one child.

Now if there are even detriments when we're talking about your OWN children, imagine that one of the children isn't your own. If both children are crying at the same time or one child darts one way on the playground and one child another, or one child is still napping twice in a day and the other child wants to go to the playground - which is the caretaker going to prioritize?

Parents who want nannies typically do so because they want their child to have individualized attention. So some of these parents are going to see these detriments that come with having a second child around an
d feel that it's a disadvantage that they should either be compensated for or that they're not interested in at all.

What you are really talking about is EXCLUSIVE attention, not individualized attention. A good first grade teacher gives individualized
attention, not exclusive attention. Most of us desire the best for children to become healthy adults, rather than spoiled, entitled elitists.

PP, you sound incredibly ignorant. Are you really suggesting that there is no difference in need for attention between an infant or toddler and a first grader? I would be totally comfortable with a share for school-age kids, but much less so with infants or toddlers. That would be especially true if I had a toddler and the nanny wanted to bring an infant.

I realize that most of the dumber-sounding posts on here originate with one or two nannies who talk like they know it all but have such poor self-esteem and social skills that they must resort to insulting the parenting skills and/or "cheapness" or all MBs and DBs who differ with the nanny's worldview. It must be tough to go through life feeling so angry, PP. You annoy me, but mostly I just pity you.

Do you also pity the pediatric psychiatrist MB and her physician husband who hired the nanny with child in tow? As you may recall, it was certainly no bargain. They simply wanted the best for their child, and could afford it.

Not a bit, because the physician parents are not
on DCUM spewing angry nonsense. They made a choice that worked for them at the time, and that's great. I pity you, PP, because no well-adjusted person behaves like you. You've clearly been wronged by the world in some very deep way, and that is sad.

If you had any intelligent thoughts to contribute to the discussion, you would have no need to resort to constant personal attacks. If you have the ability to do so, please argue the issue, rather than continue to attack the people with whom you disagree. It's a cheap shot and you know it. Nice try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had a pediatric psychiatrist hire me when my child was little. She was smart enough to understand that a second child was a huge plus for her singleton child. There was no decrease in my high rates.



Stop. It's way more of a negative than a plus or a nanny to bring her kid to work. That's a fact.


Apparently, what you consider to be a "fact" is only your own personal opinion, which you are welcome to. Even if your girlfriends agree with you, your opinion does not translate into a fact. Nice try.



No, it's true. The benefits to the employer are very little compared to the benefits to the employee.

+1. There are no benefits, except a reduction in rates (since you are seeking a nanny share) for any employer. There are also liability issues for the employer.

However, there is a substantial benefit to the employee.

Your questions are not well directed if you're asking nannies for help. They are notoriously unrealistic, especially on DCUM. Also, you need to be careful. The alleged nanny of the alleged pediatric psychiatrist's children loves to sock puppet every thread about how superior she is and how much money she makes and how her employers would never ever think of not allowing her to bring her child or paying her less. Most of us don't believe a word she says.

You could probably find a position that matches your needs, but it will take awhile because you have three things working against you.

1. You want to bring your child to work. There are liability issues, as I mentioned, and all the other issues in a nanny share. You will make yourself more attractive as a candidate if you present this as a share, with you paying your fair share, and with a contract that spells out all the conditions and issues.

2. You are looking for a part time position where you can bring your kid. You have to make a case that you are worth all the trouble considering you won't be a full time, significant person in the employer's child life.

3. Your qualifications are good, but they aren't exceptional. Most of the candidates I see have your experience. If you want your qualifications to balance out the downside to your bringing your child to work, you will need to highlight experiences you have that are extraordinary or you need to seek or highlight additional certifications.

You might be able to find the right situation, depending on your location and the market. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a pediatric psychiatrist hire me when my child was little. She was smart enough to understand that a second child was a huge plus for her singleton child. There was no decrease in my high rates.



Stop. It's way more of a negative than a plus or a nanny to bring her kid to work. That's a fact.


Apparently, what you consider to be a "fact" is only your own personal opinion, which you are welcome to. Even if your girlfriends agree with you, your opinion does not translate into a fact. Nice try.



No, it's true. The benefits to the employer are very little compared to the benefits to the employee.

+1. There are no benefits, except a reduction in rates (since you are seeking a nanny share) for any employer. There are also liability issues for the employer.

However, there is a substantial benefit to the employee.

Your questions are not well directed if you're asking nannies for help. They are notoriously unrealistic, especially on DCUM. Also, you need to be careful. The alleged nanny of the alleged pediatric psychiatrist's children loves to sock puppet every thread about how superior she is and how much money she makes and how her employers would never ever think of not allowing her to bring her child or paying her less. Most of us don't believe a word she says.

You could probably find a position that matches your needs, but it will take awhile because you have three things working against you.

1. You want to bring your child to work. There are liability issues, as I mentioned, and all the other issues in a nanny share. You will make yourself more attractive as a candidate if you present this as a share, with you paying your fair share, and with a contract that spells out all the conditions and issues.

2. You are looking for a part time position where you can bring your kid. You have to make a case that you are worth all the trouble considering you won't be a full time, significant person in the employer's child life.

3. Your qualifications are good, but they aren't exceptional. Most of the candidates I see have your experience. If you want your qualifications to balance out the downside to your bringing your child to work, you will need to highlight experiences you have that are extraordinary or you need to seek or highlight additional certifications.


You might be able to find the right situation, depending on your location and the market. Good luck.

Are you new here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Do you also pity the pediatric psychiatrist MB and her physician husband who hired the nanny with child in tow? As you may recall, it was certainly no bargain. They simply wanted the best for their child, and could afford it.

However excellent that nanny is, she would be better without her child in tow. If the couple wanted their child to have a sibling, they would have had one. If she was able to find a position that worked for her, great, but it doesn't mean she is a better nanny BECAUSE she brings her child. Parents who want company for their singleton have a variety of options of getting it. They don't need to effectively hire one who happens to be their nanny's child.

[Anonymous]

P.S. A pediatric psychiatrist who sees mentally ill children isn't necessarily qualified in raising neurologically normal children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:P.S. A pediatric psychiatrist who sees mentally ill children isn't necessarily qualified in raising neurologically normal children.

+ 1

[Anonymous]

I do nanny share, I have 5 months baby I bring my baby, it works very well, the baby who I take care and my baby are very firends, they play together, you can look for nanny share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How many parents can honestly say that having a second child was a detriment to the first child?

It's laughable to even consider such nonsense.

There are obviously pros of having a sibling (someone else to play with), but there are also obvious cons. Most parents would tell you that the second or subsequent child got less attention than the first (because the parent is also paying attention to the first child). First children are also able to nap/eat/play on their own schedule. Subsequent children don't dictate the schedule as much and frequently nap in the car or something while first child is being driven to activities or whatever. There are definite detriments to having more than one child.

Now if there are even detriments when we're talking about your OWN children, imagine that one of the children isn't your own. If both children are crying at the same time or one child darts one way on the playground and one child another, or one child is still napping twice in a day and the other child wants to go to the playground - which is the caretaker going to prioritize?

Parents who want nannies typically do so because they want their child to have individualized attention. So some of these parents are going to see these detriments that come with having a second child around an
d feel that it's a disadvantage that they should either be compensated for or that they're not interested in at all.

What you are really talking about is EXCLUSIVE attention, not individualized attention. A good first grade teacher gives individualized
attention, not exclusive attention. Most of us desire the best for children to become healthy adults, rather than spoiled, entitled elitists.

PP, you sound incredibly ignorant. Are you really suggesting that there is no difference in need for attention between an infant or toddler and a first grader? I would be totally comfortable with a share for school-age kids, but much less so with infants or toddlers. That would be especially true if I had a toddler and the nanny wanted to bring an infant.

I realize that most of the dumber-sounding posts on here originate with one or two nannies who talk like they know it all but have such poor self-esteem and social skills that they must resort to insulting the parenting skills and/or "cheapness" or all MBs and DBs who differ with the nanny's worldview. It must be tough to go through life feeling so angry, PP. You annoy me, but mostly I just pity you.

Do you also pity the pediatric psychiatrist MB and her physician husband who hired the nanny with child in tow? As you may recall, it was certainly no bargain. They simply wanted the best for their child, and could afford it.

Not a bit, because the physician parents are not
on DCUM spewing angry nonsense. They made a choice that worked for them at the time, and that's great. I pity you, PP, because no well-adjusted person behaves like you. You've clearly been wronged by the world in some very deep way, and that is sad.

If you had any intelligent thoughts to contribute to the discussion, you would have no need to resort to constant personal attacks. If you have the ability to do so, please argue the issue, rather than continue to attack the people with whom you disagree. It's a cheap shot and you know it. Nice try.

I agree. It is a cheap shot indeed to accuse every parent who disagrees with a nanny of being cheap, lazy, absent from his or her child's life, too disengaged or clueless to form a sound opinion about what is best for his or her child, too selfish to care what is best for his or her child, or unwittingly engaged in raising "spoiled, entitled elitists."