Dear Grandparents...

[Anonymous]

I work for a wonderful family (1 and 2yo kids, been with them since oldest got home from hospital) with a truly nice, kind, involved local grandma, who has wonderful intentions but nevertheless drives me batty. Here is what I wish she could understand:

1) There is no point in competing with me. Right now I am with them 70% of their waking hours every single week. You see them regularly and they like and love tou, but I am their primary attachment figure for now and they, being toddlers, often want what is familiar. BUT you are their family. Long after I am just "that lady who used to babysit us," you will still be an important part of their lives and of their family. We can both be important in our own sphere.

2) Because I am the primary attachment figure, they will need to check in with me. That means that, even if they love you and are having fun, they will sometimes want to come sit with me instead. In these moments, I do my best to be reassuring but boring so that they will quickly decide to go back to playing with you. But if you refuse to let them come to me when they want, you are teaching them that they can't trust you to listen to them and they will avoid going to you at all. You cannot force them to feel comfortable with you, but you can show that you will listen to their needs.

[Anonymous]

PS, I am sure some parents will come on to say that I am not the primary attachment figure, I am just the help. I believe that if parents and nanny spend a roughly similar amount of time with the kids, then that is true. But at some point the scale tips. We are way past that point. I am with them about 70% of waking hours, including weekend time. I take my two weeks of vacation each year, but that parents travel 4-6 weeks a year for work. They are loving, involved parents but with their work schedules they are definitely the secondary attachment figures at this point.

[Anonymous]

Well said, OP. You speak for many of us. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well said, OP. You speak for many of us. Thank you.

+ 1. My charge fell down with grandma and came running to me. The grandmother got huffy and said if my charge didn't want to be with her then she would go home. I said, "okay - thank you for stopping by" and brought my crying charge in the house.

The grandmother is in constant competition with me. It is tiresome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PS, I am sure some parents will come on to say that I am not the primary attachment figure, I am just the help. I believe that if parents and nanny spend a roughly similar amount of time with the kids, then that is true. But at some point the scale tips. We are way past that point. I am with them about 70% of waking hours, including weekend time. I take my two weeks of vacation each year, but that parents travel 4-6 weeks a year for work. They are loving, involved parents but with their work schedules they are definitely the secondary attachment figures at this point.

Hate to tell you this but a parent is alway a parent. You are overthinking the kids attachment to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PS, I am sure some parents will come on to say that I am not the primary attachment figure, I am just the help. I believe that if parents and nanny spend a roughly similar amount of time with the kids, then that is true. But at some point the scale tips. We are way past that point. I am with them about 70% of waking hours, including weekend time. I take my two weeks of vacation each year, but that parents travel 4-6 weeks a year for work. They are loving, involved parents but with their work schedules they are definitely the secondary attachment figures at this point.

Hate to tell you this but a parent is alway a parent. You are overthinking the kids attachment to you.

:shrug:
I would love to see your research on this. What I have read and experienced shows that in circumstances like ours, the primary attachment figure is the one who is there consistently. For young children, there is no quality time, only quantity. In a few years that will shift and I will be the secondary attachment figure and eventually fade into the background completely. But I've seen no evidence that I am overstating my importance to the kids during this (admittedly brief) stage of life. My employers know that they cannot work these jobs and be a stable figure for their young children, which is why they choose to have so much childcare from one consistent person rather than daycare and part-time nanny or something similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PS, I am sure some parents will come on to say that I am not the primary attachment figure, I am just the help. I believe that if parents and nanny spend a roughly similar amount of time with the kids, then that is true. But at some point the scale tips. We are way past that point. I am with them about 70% of waking hours, including weekend time. I take my two weeks of vacation each year, but that parents travel 4-6 weeks a year for work. They are loving, involved parents but with their work schedules they are definitely the secondary attachment figures at this point.

Hate to tell you this but a parent is alway a parent. You are overthinking the kids attachment to you.

You really need to educate yourself about attachment. Seriously. You sound like a defensive fool. -Not OP

[Anonymous]

I had to "deal" with grandparents before, and they were adorable!!!
Now, my sister had mentioned that she doesn't really enjoy when the gradients of the kids that she takes care of are present. No for the same reasons as you, but because they criticize everything, they want their way as they were thought, or simply because they don't want the kids to take the usual nap, just to get to spend more time together, while the baby/toddler gets cranky because of that. Not a pleasant situation, for sure!

[Anonymous]

when the grandparents*** (typo)

[Anonymous]

:shrug:
I would love to see your research on this. What I have read and experienced shows that in circumstances like ours, the primary attachment figure is the one who is there consistently. For young children, there is no quality time, only quantity. In a few years that will shift and I will be the secondary attachment figure and eventually fade into the background completely. But I've seen no evidence that I am overstating my importance to the kids during this (admittedly brief) stage of life. My employers know that they cannot work these jobs and be a stable figure for their young children, which is why they choose to have so much childcare from one consistent person rather than daycare and part-time nanny or something similar.


You are using the wrong definition of stable to try to make your point. But, it's incredibly arrogant of you to suggest that because parents work, they can't provide a "stable" environment for their kids. I was a nanny for over 10 years and regardless of how many hours the parents worked, the kids always chose their parents over me. There were a few times when the child would need something (they got hurt, needed help with a toy, etc.) and they would come to me, but that was only b/c I was the closer (proximity) to them. If I steered them back towards their parents, they would always run to them.

Parents can work and still provide a loving and safe environment for their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
:shrug:
I would love to see your research on this. What I have read and experienced shows that in circumstances like ours, the primary attachment figure is the one who is there consistently. For young children, there is no quality time, only quantity. In a few years that will shift and I will be the secondary attachment figure and eventually fade into the background completely. But I've seen no evidence that I am overstating my importance to the kids during this (admittedly brief) stage of life. My employers know that they cannot work these jobs and be a stable figure for their young children, which is why they choose to have so much childcare from one consistent person rather than daycare and part-time nanny or something similar.

You are using the wrong definition of stable to try to make your point. But, it's incredibly arrogant of you to suggest that because parents work, they can't provide a "stable" environment for their kids. I was a nanny for over 10 years and regardless of how many hours the parents worked, the kids always chose their parents over me. There were a few times when the child would need something (they got hurt, needed help with a toy, etc.) and they would come to me, but that was only b/c I was the closer (proximity) to them. If I steered them back towards their parents, they would always run to them.

Parents can work and still provide a loving and safe environment for their kids.

Lots of parents work and are the primary caregivers as well. I am with these kids from the time they wake until the time they go to sleep 5 days per week. On weekends they see more of their parents but there is also a weekend nanny who comes from nap-bedtime because these parents work a LOT. They are also out of town for about a month and a half total each year. Given that grueling schedule, they specifically wanted a stable (meaning consistently present) caregiver to provide a foundation of consistency, routine and familiarity for their kids during the early years. There is a big difference between this type of schedule and a 50- or 60-hr-per-week nanny where the parents tuck the kids in at night and get family time on the weekends. These kids do NOT prefer even their parents to me consistently (we are about 50/50 in terms of who they go to when hurt, sick, etc.), so they definitely are not going to prefer grandparents to me at this age. As they grow old enough to understand what family means that will change.

[Anonymous]

The attachment ridiculousness aside, it is the parents' job to manage the grandparents. If you are having an issue with Grandma then you need to talk to your employers and ask them to handle it.