Anonymous wrote:OP, as a nanny I would love to ask you about a lot of your statements here. As a nanny for a preschooler and an infant, I would love to give you examples of how a decent Nanny can cope with 2 kids of different ages.

But I will just ask you this: what sort of relationship do you have with your nanny? Based on your posts, I am imagining a very strictly business "relationship", that is coldly professional at best on your end.

Oh, and have you ever promised this Nanny that a major household shift would not affect her at all, and then not adjusted her wages when she did wind up with additional work? As an example, did you get a pet, swear nanny would never have to do more than greet the pet in the morning, and ignore the fact that she wound up with the majority of pet care duties?

To answer your question OP, your nanny doesn't believe your statements that she will have no responsibilities toward your preschooler. Why?

1) You burned her in the past with no raise after job creep.

2) Previous employers lied to her about an increase in responsibilities after a major household change.

3) Your choice to put a 4-year-old in full time daycare/preschool/institutional care is so out-of-the-box she has never heard of a parent making that decision.

Hope that helps you understand where yournannymaybe coming from.

To answer your question, we have a cordial but professional relationship. I don't believe in becoming best buddies at work; when things are kept professional, both people feel free to bring up their concerns without feeling awkward or constrained by what they think is a personal friendship. I want the nanny to feel free to express how she feels, and I want to feel similarly free without the awkwardness you would feel in a personal context. I keep my end of the professionalism deal by never being late in person or with payment, giving advance notice of any travel etc.

We had no major household shifts since she started, other than the fact that my son used to be a baby, and then became a toddler and than a preschooler. So the kind of care he needs changed, but that can't be helped. We don't have pets.

To the other poster, twins come home on a bus and let themselves in, do homework, have a snack, practice and play around. They have activities at school a couple of days a week, and on those days we pick them up. They don't need minding so much.

OP, what do your twins do after school?

OP, I am not a nanny, I work FT with kids in elementary school. I think that you should not be paying your nanny more if she keeps caring for only one child. However, I can understand why your nanny may think differently. She likely believes that even if you say now that she will be caring for only one child and do nothing for the other child, then there will be "emergency" here and there where she will end up caring for two, or she will be asked to cook more food "because you are already doing it and just cook a little more is no big deal" or add the older child's clothes to the laundry. I am not saying that you would do it, I am just saying that plenty of people would (just read this forum and you will see) and your nanny may have already been burned before. As other posters have noted, your arrangement is quite unique (this is not a judgment, I simply note that of all the people I know, some had nannies and some used daycares for their kids, and don't know anybody who used a full time nanny and a full time preschool) and the nanny may be concerned that she may become the default help without compensation. I think this is more likely that simply thinking she is greedy and unreasonable (you would have found out already). I believe the poster who suggested a frank talk with the nanny and a clear agreement where the nanny would be compensated any time she would have to care for the older child gave you a very good advice. You could use the nanny when you need it and the nanny would not feel exploited.

Anonymous wrote:OP, as a nanny I would love to ask you about a lot of your statements here. As a nanny for a preschooler and an infant, I would love to give you examples of how a decent Nanny can cope with 2 kids of different ages.

But I will just ask you this: what sort of relationship do you have with your nanny? Based on your posts, I am imagining a very strictly business "relationship", that is coldly professional at best on your end.

Oh, and have you ever promised this Nanny that a major household shift would not affect her at all, and then not adjusted her wages when she did wind up with additional work? As an example, did you get a pet, swear nanny would never have to do more than greet the pet in the morning, and ignore the fact that she wound up with the majority of pet care duties?

To answer your question OP, your nanny doesn't believe your statements that she will have no responsibilities toward your preschooler. Why?

1) You burned her in the past with no raise after job creep.

2) Previous employers lied to her about an increase in responsibilities after a major household change.

3) Your choice to put a 4-year-old in full time daycare/preschool/institutional care is so out-of-the-box she has never heard of a parent making that decision.

Hope that helps you understand where yournannymaybe coming from.

Well said.

OP, as a nanny I would love to ask you about a lot of your statements here. As a nanny for a preschooler and an infant, I would love to give you examples of how a decent Nanny can cope with 2 kids of different ages.

But I will just ask you this: what sort of relationship do you have with your nanny? Based on your posts, I am imagining a very strictly business "relationship", that is coldly professional at best on your end.

Oh, and have you ever promised this Nanny that a major household shift would not affect her at all, and then not adjusted her wages when she did wind up with additional work? As an example, did you get a pet, swear nanny would never have to do more than greet the pet in the morning, and ignore the fact that she wound up with the majority of pet care duties?

To answer your question OP, your nanny doesn't believe your statements that she will have no responsibilities toward your preschooler. Why?

1) You burned her in the past with no raise after job creep.

2) Previous employers lied to her about an increase in responsibilities after a major household change.

3) Your choice to put a 4-year-old in full time daycare/preschool/institutional care is so out-of-the-box she has never heard of a parent making that decision.

Hope that helps you understand where yournannymaybe coming from.

Anonymous wrote:I know it's a compromise, these are actually children #3 and 4, we have older twins who are in middle school. Believe me, it's a huge balancing act..

I know the newborn doesn't care. She won't stay a newborn forever, though. And I'm not going by how much she cares, I'm going for what's best for her. You can't possibly tell me that waking up a baby when you don't have to is a good idea.

I'm not raising them separately. They are all pretty bonded, actually.

Ok you're not a rookie then Well, no, waking up a napping baby is a pain. And they usually nap right around pick up. But if I have to chose between waking up my baby or leaving my 5 year old in aftercare I'd much rather wake up the baby. He is in a 8.30 - 3 pm school and is completely exhausted by 3 pm. He needs to come home and wind down and just have some quiet time. If you don't want nanny to wake up baby for pick up, have you considered other options to bring him home? Kidlyft? Anyway, yes this thread got completely sidetracked by your childcare choices. If your nanny only cares for the baby - no raise.

Anonymous wrote:Yo people, stop arguing with the OP. She only posted here to have people tell her she was right, but then 1) accused one nanny of posting all the replies 2) won't listen to anything from other moms 3) continues to be flabbergasted.

She posted that her Mom was 75, which would make the OP a very old mom herself, clearly stuck in her ways and not open to opinions. I'm actually starting to think she's a troll because she literally knows zip about child development.

No, I've actually learned a fair bit about why the nanny's expectations are where they are. I am much more prepared for a conversation with her now.

As for the childcare choices, I never asked for feedback on this so it wasn't really my intention to take it.

I'm your average Washington area mom age - if you think that's old, you must not live in DC.

Yo people, stop arguing with the OP. She only posted here to have people tell her she was right, but then 1) accused one nanny of posting all the replies 2) won't listen to anything from other moms 3) continues to be flabbergasted.

She posted that her Mom was 75, which would make the OP a very old mom herself, clearly stuck in her ways and not open to opinions. I'm actually starting to think she's a troll because she literally knows zip about child development.

I know it's a compromise, these are actually children #3 and 4, we have older twins who are in middle school. Believe me, it's a huge balancing act..

I know the newborn doesn't care. She won't stay a newborn forever, though. And I'm not going by how much she cares, I'm going for what's best for her. You can't possibly tell me that waking up a baby when you don't have to is a good idea.

I'm not raising them separately. They are all pretty bonded, actually.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There may very well be more than one. But all of them follow the same script:

- "well your nanny MUST be doing something for the older one, why don't you give her a raise!"

- "oh she won't be? nothing at all? then you are a bad person for making it so. She SHOULD be doing it for him. She deserves a raise. You are a bad person for removing a child from her care."

So predictable. And so...nothing to do with the original question. Again, I note that the nannies who have SO much concern for the 4-year old appear unconcerned about an infant carted about for no good reason. Self-interest at its best.

[b]

See that's the thing. You think of your kids like a burden to be carted around. Normal people think: "Wow that sucks for a child to be at 'school' 10+ hours a day, shipped off because he's now a burden". Not only is your son being sent away, he now doesn't get to spend time bonding with his sibling. Please post back in 2 years and let us know how their relationship is going, you know with them spending so much time bonding together in the early years.

That's your perception. Normal people may also think, "wow, it sucks for the baby to be dragged from her nap and crib, dressed up and put in a carseat, driven around, walked to and fro preschool, then driven back and undressed, for no good reason, when she could be enjoying calm days, uninterrupted naps, strolls in the park, and 100% focus of her caregiver, just like her brother had when he was her age."

You are also ridiculous to think that no bonding happens after 6 pm or on weekends, or that their lifelong relationship has anything to do with how much time they spent together when one of them was an infant.

I see your concern and understand that you mean well. But I'm not sure its beneficial to your children. Your oldest will have to deal with a number of major changes all at the same time. Also, he will be very tired from his long days. Your newborn couldn't care less if going to pick up or to the park. Come on....you know this, right? And at some point you'll need to let go of the idea of raising them "separately" and thinking that your second child rightfully should have what your first had. Doesn't work like that. It's a compromise with more than one child. It always will be. Signed - mom of 4.

Anonymous wrote:We are saying that when people have the choice MOST people choose to not put their under school age kids in full day daycare. People who don't, can't choose.

We are also saying that siblings gain something from spending time together every day doing little kid nonsense, and that 3 hours a day is a significant chunk of their awake time (though most people would opt for an even shorter school day).

I never realized conformism was such a value in arranging childcare! Doing what most people do.

Anonymous wrote:
Again, you do you, but stop acting so flabbergasted that so many of us find this choice odd. It isn't what most people do, and is why everyone thought it was also odd that you were so shocked that your nanny expected a new baby raise.

I'm not really flabbergasted because I never asked for feedback on this choice, so I don't take it particularly seriously. (This thread isn't titled "Should I put my four-year old in full-time care", is it.) I do think it's odd the nanny expects a new baby raise solely on the strength of "what most people do" even when presented with crystal-clear information that her workload will be limited to one child. She isn't saying he shouldn't be in full-time care, you know. She says she should get a raise regardless. I wouldn't be shocked if she expected a raise for taking care of two kids. I'm sorta shocked she expects a raise even when told she'll take care of only one.

Anonymous wrote:
And your 4 year old thinks nannies are for babies because that's apparently what you do in your family. I've never heard a child say that.

Of course he does. Isn't that what all four-year olds do? Think things based on what their family does? Doesn't yours? Thank god four-year olds don't seem to have the same reverence for "what most people do."

Anonymous wrote:We are saying that when people have the choice MOST people choose to not put their under school age kids in full day daycare. People who don't, can't choose.

We are also saying that siblings gain something from spending time together every day doing little kid nonsense, and that 3 hours a day is a significant chunk of their awake time (though most people would opt for an even shorter school day).

No one said you were wealthy; that was an example of a family who kept each child's needs separate.

Again, you do you, but stop acting so flabbergasted that so many of us find this choice odd. It isn't what most people do, and is why everyone thought it was also odd that you were so shocked that your nanny expected a new baby raise.

And your 4 year old thinks nannies are for babies because that's apparently what you do in your family. I've never heard a child say that.

A 4 year old is far better off in a child care setting where they are getting the structure and routine of school. It makes no sense to keep a 4 year old home for bonding with an infant when the 4 year old will be bored with all the things needed for baby. If you justify it as bonding, it really is about the nanny's need and wanting more money. It is best for a 4 year old to have some schooling.

We are saying that when people have the choice MOST people choose to not put their under school age kids in full day daycare. People who don't, can't choose.

We are also saying that siblings gain something from spending time together every day doing little kid nonsense, and that 3 hours a day is a significant chunk of their awake time (though most people would opt for an even shorter school day).

No one said you were wealthy; that was an example of a family who kept each child's needs separate.

Again, you do you, but stop acting so flabbergasted that so many of us find this choice odd. It isn't what most people do, and is why everyone thought it was also odd that you were so shocked that your nanny expected a new baby raise.

And your 4 year old thinks nannies are for babies because that's apparently what you do in your family. I've never heard a child say that.

We are hardly wealthy - I wish we were!

I think both of you are making impressive leaps from "goes to full time preschool" to "headed to boarding school at a young age." Just extend it all the way to foster care, why don't you? There's literally thousands of children in Washington's preschools and daycares on a full-time basis. Do you think their parents aren't close to them? Like, all of them?

I also find it a bit odd that you think sibling bonding happens exclusively between the hours of 3 and 6 pm, and simply stops after 6 pm or on weekends. They have plenty of time together, and will have more later.

The bond between DS1 and the nanny won't be severed completely. She'll see him in the morning, she can tell him good morning and have a nice day at school, or ask him if he had a great day when we all come home. He is very eager to go and do "what big kids do." He already thinks nannies are for babies.

PP, I envy you that your mom is taking care of your baby. That is the best thing of all. My mom really wanted to come but my dad fell very sick so she had to stay and take care of him instead. I hope you know what a great gift you're giving to both of them. There is something very special about three generations under the same roof.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Dude OP chill. I'm one of the posters asking questions, and I am a parent with a two year old in full time preschool and a 3 month old my mom takes care of (we pay for this). So I probably have the closest setup to what you are proposing .. Though obviously very different dynamics. This is temporary and my mom is living with us, and we are paying her a stipend but not a market rate.

What perplexes me is two things: 1, some creep does seem inevitable. Like, unless you really go out of your way to avoid the nanny helping with the older child it will probably happen way more than you anticipate. This has definitely been our experience, though again we don't have a reason to avoid it.

2, when my mom decided to stay with us we immediately decided to figure out if it was reasonable to reduce my daughter's preschool schedule. Full time preschool is something you do because you have to, generally, not because you want to. I'm still not sure if we will do it just bc my mom is older and not sure she can really handle them both every day, but that would definitely be my first choice. So I just can't relate to why you are doing things the way you are. Not that you're wrong, I just can't relate and that's why I was exploring your reasoning.

OK. I understand where you are coming from. Here are the differences in our situation:

a. You have a two-year old, not a four-year old. I agree with you that two-year olds do not belong in full-time preschools, and if I had a two-year old, I would definitely go part-time. If you have older children, you probably know this, but if not, two years from now you will marvel at how your two-year old has evolved, and how her brain is hungry for more.

b. You have a grandparent taking care of them, not a nanny. I can relate to this because my mom took care of DS1 when he was a baby. Look, time with a grandparent is a gift, all too precious because the grandparents' time with us is limited. My mom is also older (75) and every day the kids can have with her is a gift. So I would make all kinds of concessions and impose on the kids' routine without a second thought if a tradeoff is more time with the beloved grandparent. I won't do it for more time with nanny, who is great in all kinds of ways but not like a grandparent would be.

Believe me my two year old needs stimulation and lots of it... I just don't know of any preschools that have stimulating programming between 3 and 6 pm. Even if they did, the core is usually 9-3 at most. I have just literally never met anyone who wants their kid to be at it all day long, every weekday. 4 years, 6 years, anything. It really doesn't sound odd to you to say the sentence, "my kid really needs to be in school from 8-6 Monday to Friday."? Like, no matter the age?

Anyway I posted my situation not really to compare too much bc there are such obvious differences, but to explain its not just nannies who find this paradigm a bit odd. thats all. But frankly if I did not care value the bond between my son and nanny such that I wanted to completely and abruptly separate him once the sibling came along, I might suggest you don't like your nanny that much and should think about that. It just doesn't seem like this is a great transition plan for new siblings, it's abrupt and doesn't give him any time with the sibling either. Not judging at all, every family is different.

I'm the PP above with the three children in full time school, part time school, and nanny care. This is what I was trying to say. Not that you need to do things like I do, OP, but that you are not at all the norm, and that is why you are getting all of these comments asking you why you'd want to do this.

And of course children socialize during the first two years! You seem to think of each person in your family as an individual with totally separate needs to be met. OK, but most people think more in terms of balancing those individual needs with creating a family unit.

Your way is not unheard of; I get that. I have friends who grew up wealthy. Each had his/her own nanny, and then went to boarding school from a young age. They saw their parents frequently, but weren't really "parented" by them so much as had their schedules managed by them. They are perfectly fine human beings, but, no, they are not particularly close to their siblings or parents.