"Nanny as Parent" phenomenon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:22:58, I am describing the unintended potential consequences of babies and very young children having too many primary caregivers during the first years of life.

What "final conclusion" do you disagree with? Please be specific with your opposing opinion and please explain why you feel that way.

Your final conclusion was: We often wonder why some children become "loners". They have simply "shut down" after endless failed attempts to form and maintain healthy relationships with consistant and stable primary caregivers.

I don't believe that is a sound (meaning verified/honest/true) conclusion and would love to see some studies that back up your claim.

[Anonymous]

I am sharing my opinion. What is your opinion? Are there no possible risks to infants and very young children who have been deprived of consistant and stable caregivers during the first foundational years of life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
"Build and use a supportive network of friends and family."

To the 14:00 poster, is this what you're referring to, from
"Brain Rules for Baby"? It appears the essential key here, is "friends and family". One expects, that when one is, your "friend or family", they remain so, over the course of many, many years. I whole heartedly agree.

The problem with the barrage of hired nannies, as so vividly described on this forum, is that they are really neither "friend", nor "family", much to the chagrin of thousands upon thousands of nannies.

Whenever we hear of the rare circumstance of a family continuing an active ongoing friendship with a departed nanny, there is cause for much celebration. For indeed, it is a rare gift to the child, to be allowed by the parents, to maintain communication with his/her former primary caregiver.

The more nannies you hire and fire, the less practical it becomes to maintain an ongoing active relationship with each one of them. At some point, the child becomes utterly bewildered with so many caregivers. Eventually, his ability to form healthy bonds, is shattered, when too many primary caregivers have come and gone.

We often wonder why some children become "loners". They have simply "shut down" after endless failed attempts to form and maintain healthy relationships with consistant and stable primary caregivers.

This is what I said.

[Anonymous]

Ohhhhh-kay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ohhhhh-kay.

Anything of substance to contribute?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ohhhhh-kay.

Anything of substance to contribute?

lol.

Not until you can back up your baseless claim about where "loners" come from. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Oh stop trying to put words in my mouth. I already told you that I am sharing my opinions. You may agree or disagree.
Have you made any effort to study the early childhoods of the rich white boy mass killers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh stop trying to put words in my mouth. I already told you that I am sharing my opinions. You may agree or disagree.
Have you made any effort to study the early childhoods of the rich white boy mass killers?

So now we are equating loners with mass killers? Awesome. In which case I guess you should be able to tell me how many of those mass killers had FT nannies as children. Any idea?

[Anonymous]

Which rich white boy killer wasn't a "loner"? Take your head out of your sandbox, and open your eyes.
Nothing about this is "awesome" or funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which rich white boy killer wasn't a "loner"? Take your head out of your sandbox, and open your eyes.
Nothing about this is "awesome" or funny.

Well, if you watched the NOVA special on "The Mind of the Rampage Killer" you'd have heard that, in fact, none of the kids they examined were loners. Instead, it turns out they extremely social kids who tried and failed repeatedly to join various social groups with loving parents who thought they knew them well. Guess you missed that special.

[Anonymous]

*turns out they were

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am sharing my opinion. What is your opinion? Are there no possible risks to infants and very young children who have been deprived of consistant and stable caregivers during the first foundational years of life?

My opinion is that there is a wide range of what qualifies as "consistent and stable" caregiving.

My DS had roughly one caregiver every year. From birth to three months, he was with me. From three months to one year, with nanny 1. From age 1 to age almost 2, with nanny 2. From age 2, in daycare. He's thriving. He's the most social, affectionate, non-aggressive and outright happy kid you will see.

My humble opinion is that children distinguish very well between their temporary and constant caregivers. My son was always attached to me very much, regardless of who took care of him during the day. He always knew when mommy came home and nanny was done. So I am satisfied that my presence in his life fulfills the need of "constant, qualified" caregiving.

[Anonymous]

Well the 24hr nannies day is never done. Even those who work 10-12hr days. The nanny is the only one the kid sees. And the high hour nannies get burnout faster, and quit more often. I think this is what OP was saying.

Having a nanny PT or 40hrs a week allows for some parenting time. But, when your nanny is there from when child wakes up, and is the one putting her to sleep, up during the night while child is sick... That is taking over from parent.

[Anonymous]

Agreed. My last nanny job was 12 hour days.

[Anonymous]

What percentage of nannies are 24 hour nannies? I bet a tiny number. What percentage are live-ins? Again, a small no.

The OP tries to criticize and undermine parents based on what? Crazy nonsense speculation about "white mass killers"?

It's sad.