Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[b]Anonymous wrote:I had three overlapping nannies for my four children when my husband was deployed (normally we have two, with the morning PT nanny doing more housekeeping than nannying).
So, We had coverage 7-7. Morning nanny 7-12; FT nanny 8:30-5; afternoon nanny 3- 7. In those days, my kids were generally in bed asleep by 7, and up around 5/5:30.
It was more coverage than we needed, but we had no close-by relatives and very few friends since we had only recently moved. Our youngest was 6 months old and still breastfeeding overnight. This coverage meant that if I had a series of nights with sick kids + the baby I could get some rest, I didn't have to quit my job just because DH was gone in order to cover carpools, activities, emergencies, etc., and the two times a child had to go to the emergency room after hours, one of the three nannies was available to come back and stay with the other kids until I got home.
In a lot of ways, it was a total luxury. But, normally we have two, and it makes it easy for us when someone needs time off or gets sick or goes on vacation, and they both like having someone else to talk to, too.
And when exactly did you care for your own children? Why bother having 4??
Go away, no one likes you.
I like her. She brings up a good point. Children need time with their parents. If you need 2 nanny's that work 'round the clock. Why did you have them? The first child might have been unplanned but the other 3 kids?
Luxury yes. You should just sign guardianship over to the nannies and send them child support checks.
They will taken care of and you can work as long as you like, go on vacation, and stay out late.
You will then stop curing the day you decided to have kids.
So, if you have a demanding career you shouldn’t have children? That’s ridiculous. What about presidents?
Yes if you are dedicated to your work or scale back on your job to raise your kids. Children are not accessories to be had and pawned away to nannies.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[b]Anonymous wrote:I had three overlapping nannies for my four children when my husband was deployed (normally we have two, with the morning PT nanny doing more housekeeping than nannying).
So, We had coverage 7-7. Morning nanny 7-12; FT nanny 8:30-5; afternoon nanny 3- 7. In those days, my kids were generally in bed asleep by 7, and up around 5/5:30.
It was more coverage than we needed, but we had no close-by relatives and very few friends since we had only recently moved. Our youngest was 6 months old and still breastfeeding overnight. This coverage meant that if I had a series of nights with sick kids + the baby I could get some rest, I didn't have to quit my job just because DH was gone in order to cover carpools, activities, emergencies, etc., and the two times a child had to go to the emergency room after hours, one of the three nannies was available to come back and stay with the other kids until I got home.
In a lot of ways, it was a total luxury. But, normally we have two, and it makes it easy for us when someone needs time off or gets sick or goes on vacation, and they both like having someone else to talk to, too.
And when exactly did you care for your own children? Why bother having 4??
Go away, no one likes you.
I like her. She brings up a good point. Children need time with their parents. If you need 2 nanny's that work 'round the clock. Why did you have them? The first child might have been unplanned but the other 3 kids?
Luxury yes. You should just sign guardianship over to the nannies and send them child support checks.
They will taken care of and you can work as long as you like, go on vacation, and stay out late.
You will then stop curing the day you decided to have kids.
So, if you have a demanding career you shouldn’t have children? That’s ridiculous. What about presidents?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[b]Anonymous wrote:I had three overlapping nannies for my four children when my husband was deployed (normally we have two, with the morning PT nanny doing more housekeeping than nannying).
So, We had coverage 7-7. Morning nanny 7-12; FT nanny 8:30-5; afternoon nanny 3- 7. In those days, my kids were generally in bed asleep by 7, and up around 5/5:30.
It was more coverage than we needed, but we had no close-by relatives and very few friends since we had only recently moved. Our youngest was 6 months old and still breastfeeding overnight. This coverage meant that if I had a series of nights with sick kids + the baby I could get some rest, I didn't have to quit my job just because DH was gone in order to cover carpools, activities, emergencies, etc., and the two times a child had to go to the emergency room after hours, one of the three nannies was available to come back and stay with the other kids until I got home.
In a lot of ways, it was a total luxury. But, normally we have two, and it makes it easy for us when someone needs time off or gets sick or goes on vacation, and they both like having someone else to talk to, too.
And when exactly did you care for your own children? Why bother having 4??
Go away, no one likes you.
I like her. She brings up a good point. Children need time with their parents. If you need 2 nanny's that work 'round the clock. Why did you have them? The first child might have been unplanned but the other 3 kids?
Luxury yes. You should just sign guardianship over to the nannies and send them child support checks.
They will taken care of and you can work as long as you like, go on vacation, and stay out late.
You will then stop curing the day you decided to have kids.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[b]Anonymous wrote:I had three overlapping nannies for my four children when my husband was deployed (normally we have two, with the morning PT nanny doing more housekeeping than nannying).
So, We had coverage 7-7. Morning nanny 7-12; FT nanny 8:30-5; afternoon nanny 3- 7. In those days, my kids were generally in bed asleep by 7, and up around 5/5:30.
It was more coverage than we needed, but we had no close-by relatives and very few friends since we had only recently moved. Our youngest was 6 months old and still breastfeeding overnight. This coverage meant that if I had a series of nights with sick kids + the baby I could get some rest, I didn't have to quit my job just because DH was gone in order to cover carpools, activities, emergencies, etc., and the two times a child had to go to the emergency room after hours, one of the three nannies was available to come back and stay with the other kids until I got home.
In a lot of ways, it was a total luxury. But, normally we have two, and it makes it easy for us when someone needs time off or gets sick or goes on vacation, and they both like having someone else to talk to, too.
And when exactly did you care for your own children? Why bother having 4??
Go away, no one likes you.
I like her. She brings up a good point. Children need time with their parents. If you need 2 nanny's that work 'round the clock. Why did you have them? The first child might have been unplanned but the other 3 kids?
Luxury yes. You should just sign guardianship over to the nannies and send them child support checks.
They will taken care of and you can work as long as you like, go on vacation, and stay out late.
You will then stop curing the day you decided to have kids.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[b]Anonymous wrote:I had three overlapping nannies for my four children when my husband was deployed (normally we have two, with the morning PT nanny doing more housekeeping than nannying).
So, We had coverage 7-7. Morning nanny 7-12; FT nanny 8:30-5; afternoon nanny 3- 7. In those days, my kids were generally in bed asleep by 7, and up around 5/5:30.
It was more coverage than we needed, but we had no close-by relatives and very few friends since we had only recently moved. Our youngest was 6 months old and still breastfeeding overnight. This coverage meant that if I had a series of nights with sick kids + the baby I could get some rest, I didn't have to quit my job just because DH was gone in order to cover carpools, activities, emergencies, etc., and the two times a child had to go to the emergency room after hours, one of the three nannies was available to come back and stay with the other kids until I got home.
In a lot of ways, it was a total luxury. But, normally we have two, and it makes it easy for us when someone needs time off or gets sick or goes on vacation, and they both like having someone else to talk to, too.
And when exactly did you care for your own children? Why bother having 4??
Go away, no one likes you.
Anonymous wrote:[b]Anonymous wrote:I had three overlapping nannies for my four children when my husband was deployed (normally we have two, with the morning PT nanny doing more housekeeping than nannying).
So, We had coverage 7-7. Morning nanny 7-12; FT nanny 8:30-5; afternoon nanny 3- 7. In those days, my kids were generally in bed asleep by 7, and up around 5/5:30.
It was more coverage than we needed, but we had no close-by relatives and very few friends since we had only recently moved. Our youngest was 6 months old and still breastfeeding overnight. This coverage meant that if I had a series of nights with sick kids + the baby I could get some rest, I didn't have to quit my job just because DH was gone in order to cover carpools, activities, emergencies, etc., and the two times a child had to go to the emergency room after hours, one of the three nannies was available to come back and stay with the other kids until I got home.
In a lot of ways, it was a total luxury. But, normally we have two, and it makes it easy for us when someone needs time off or gets sick or goes on vacation, and they both like having someone else to talk to, too.
And when exactly did you care for your own children? Why bother having 4??
[b]Anonymous wrote:I had three overlapping nannies for my four children when my husband was deployed (normally we have two, with the morning PT nanny doing more housekeeping than nannying).
So, We had coverage 7-7. Morning nanny 7-12; FT nanny 8:30-5; afternoon nanny 3- 7. In those days, my kids were generally in bed asleep by 7, and up around 5/5:30.
It was more coverage than we needed, but we had no close-by relatives and very few friends since we had only recently moved. Our youngest was 6 months old and still breastfeeding overnight. This coverage meant that if I had a series of nights with sick kids + the baby I could get some rest, I didn't have to quit my job just because DH was gone in order to cover carpools, activities, emergencies, etc., and the two times a child had to go to the emergency room after hours, one of the three nannies was available to come back and stay with the other kids until I got home.
In a lot of ways, it was a total luxury. But, normally we have two, and it makes it easy for us when someone needs time off or gets sick or goes on vacation, and they both like having someone else to talk to, too.
Anonymous wrote:I had three overlapping nannies for my four children when my husband was deployed (normally we have two, with the morning PT nanny doing more housekeeping than nannying).
So, We had coverage 7-7. Morning nanny 7-12; FT nanny 8:30-5; afternoon nanny 3- 7. In those days, my kids were generally in bed asleep by 7, and up around 5/5:30.
It was more coverage than we needed, but we had no close-by relatives and very few friends since we had only recently moved. Our youngest was 6 months old and still breastfeeding overnight. This coverage meant that if I had a series of nights with sick kids + the baby I could get some rest, I didn't have to quit my job just because DH was gone in order to cover carpools, activities, emergencies, etc., and the two times a child had to go to the emergency room after hours, one of the three nannies was available to come back and stay with the other kids until I got home.
In a lot of ways, it was a total luxury. But, normally we have two, and it makes it easy for us when someone needs time off or gets sick or goes on vacation, and they both like having someone else to talk to, too.