"Anyone else here counting down the days until..." your childcare gig is done?

[Anonymous]

Funny how the crazy poster disappeared...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[quoteIt's unfortunate, 23:12, that you find the unintended consequences of poor parenting, to be "offensive". Your personal feelings, however, don't change reality.

No, the reality is that you don't know what you're talking about when you bring up attachment disorders. What is offensive is your ignorance.

Talking about attachment issues is offensive to some parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The frequent change of primary caregivers (during a child's first three years, for example) can't result in attatchment disorder?

The issue of your being "offended" is certainly worthy of discussion, in my opinion.

No, the simple change, even frequent change, of nannies during a child's first three years doesn't not result in attachment disorder in the absence of extreme trauma.

The issue of my being offended is pretty simple. My clinical work involves work in attachment disorders. I see the effects every day. To denigrate the challenges faced by families with a member with this diagnosis is insulting. Your ignorance is appalling.

What effects do you see of unstable care in the first two or three years, or do you not ask families about continuance of caregivers?

[Anonymous]

When you say "unstable care," what specifically do you mean? Are you referring to any situation where a day-time care provider is changed in the first two or three years? So you're saying that any child who is not exclusively cared for by a single provider for the entire first two or three years is at risk for an attachment disorder?

If that's not what you're saying, then please specify the level at which your concern would be raised. The following are some childcare provider situations in the first two years. Which of these do you think constitutes an unacceptable risk for an attachment disorder? I am assuming in the examples below that the child is well cared for by his/her mother and/or father in the mornings, evenings, overnight, and weekend. From your posts, it sounds like you would be concerned about ALL of these scenarios.

1. Child is with the same nanny/au pair during the day for two years.

2. Child is with a nanny/au pair during the day for the first year, and with a different nanny/au pair during the day for the second year and both are very loving, excellent care providers.

3. Child is with a different nanny/au pair every 6 months during the day for two years (4 total care providers), but all are loving and treat the child well.

4. Child is with a different nanny/au pair every 6 months during the day for two years (4 total care providers), but 2 of them ignore the child and 2 of them treat the child well.

5. Child is in daycare all day with the same three childcare providers rotating duties during the day for two years.

6. Child is in a daycare that has bad retention and new providers come in the infant room every few months.

[Anonymous]

Omg Comma Lady (aka OP) you are a poor excuse of a nanny and a embarrassment. PLEASEEEEE GO AWAY!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Omg Comma Lady (aka OP) you are a poor excuse of a nanny and a embarrassment. PLEASEEEEE GO AWAY!

Everyone you hate is comma lady or a troll, crazy woman. Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seeing as nannies are not most children's primary caregivers (even the 40/50 hour week ones) they are not really even a factor here. These disorders are seen in cases of extreme abuse and neglect and in children who have spent their earliest years in orphanages. Attachment disorders are severe and require major cognitive, emotional, and behavioral therapy. It is appalling that one poster keeps using this term to try to bolster the grossly inflated opinion she has of her significance in a child's life.

Really? For an infant that has a nanny 50 hours a week, the baby maybe sees his parents 2-3 hours a day not including weekends. That definitely makes the nanny the primary caregiver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seeing as nannies are not most children's primary caregivers (even the 40/50 hour week ones) they are not really even a factor here. These disorders are seen in cases of extreme abuse and neglect and in children who have spent their earliest years in orphanages. Attachment disorders are severe and require major cognitive, emotional, and behavioral therapy. It is appalling that one poster keeps using this term to try to bolster the grossly inflated opinion she has of her significance in a child's life.

Really? For an infant that has a nanny 50 hours a week, the baby maybe sees his parents 2-3 hours a day not including weekends. That definitely makes the nanny the primary caregiver.

How do you figure that? Even if the nanny is 40- 50 hrs a week, there are 168 hours in a week. So the parents are with the baby more than three times the amount of time the nanny is there. Even if the baby is sleeping 8- 10 hours at night (and napping 2 hours a day with the nanny) the time is still significantly in the parent's favor. Not to mention "time" is not the only thing that qualifies one as the primary caregiver.

[Anonymous]

With my last FT nanny job, I had the baby 60+ hrs a week. I cared for her from waking to bedtime. The parents saw her on the weekends.

Who was the primary caregiver, PP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seeing as nannies are not most children's primary caregivers (even the 40/50 hour week ones) they are not really even a factor here. These disorders are seen in cases of extreme abuse and neglect and in children who have spent their earliest years in orphanages. Attachment disorders are severe and require major cognitive, emotional, and behavioral therapy. It is appalling that one poster keeps using this term to try to bolster the grossly inflated opinion she has of her significance in a child's life.

Really? For an infant that has a nanny 50 hours a week, the baby maybe sees his parents 2-3 hours a day not including weekends. That definitely makes the nanny the primary caregiver.

How do you figure that? Even if the nanny is 40- 50 hrs a week, there are 168 hours in a week. So the parents are with the baby more than three times the amount of time the nanny is there. Even if the baby is sleeping 8- 10 hours at night (and napping 2 hours a day with the nanny) the time is still significantly in the parent's favor. Not to mention "time" is not the only thing that qualifies one as the primary caregiver.

The truth of the matter is, when you hire someone to care for your child 50 hours a week, that person is the primary caregiver. I've seen MBs and DBs get extremely upset when their baby chooses to cling to nanny instead of them, but what do they expect when that nanny is spending he majority of baby's waking time with the nanny? Calculating sleeping hours doesn't change the fact that baby is predominantly cared for by someone who isn't you.

[Anonymous]

You really don't understand the meaning of primary caregiver, PP.

The primary caregiver is responsible for every decision affecting the child's physical and emotional life. These include decisions about legal custody, medical decisions, and educational decisions. Nannies are not primary caregivers, no matter how important they think they are. They are relatively temporary in a child's life, and although they are important caregivers, they are in no way primary caregivers.