Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:00 again. Sorry, hit send accidentally.

What I'm trying to say (and I'm hopeful that you are open to learning) is that there is a great difference between attachment disorders and the value of nanny stability. You can argue, and I encourage you to do so, all day long about nanny stability and I will likely cheer you. But once you make it about attachment disorders, something you clearly know nothing about, I can't let it go.

If there are no "attatchment" concerns, why worry about stability?

Why not answer the question? Got it, you got tangled in your own web of lies.

Sorry, 20:16, but you are a terrible disappointment and I'm not interested in trying any further to discuss this issue with you. You are worse than ignorant. You are obstinate about your ignorance, which is both sad and not worth my time.

Others can take up this discussion. Hopefully, there are no nannies or families who took your nonsense seriously. Attachment disorders are a real issue and your persistence in minimizing it is awful.

Anonymous wrote:19:00 again. Sorry, hit send accidentally.

What I'm trying to say (and I'm hopeful that you are open to learning) is that there is a great difference between attachment disorders and the value of nanny stability. You can argue, and I encourage you to do so, all day long about nanny stability and I will likely cheer you. But once you make it about attachment disorders, something you clearly know nothing about, I can't let it go.

If there are no "attatchment" concerns, why worry about stability?

19:00 again. Sorry, hit send accidentally.

What I'm trying to say (and I'm hopeful that you are open to learning) is that there is a great difference between attachment disorders and the value of nanny stability. You can argue, and I encourage you to do so, all day long about nanny stability and I will likely cheer you. But once you make it about attachment disorders, something you clearly know nothing about, I can't let it go.

14:36 here. I have not posted since then, so, to be clear, you are talking to more than one person who feels you are misinformed or ignorant.

The point is not whether or not I believe in stability is a good thing. I do, in fact, value stability, but not at the expense of a substandard or unprofessional nanny. That said, we have had the same nanny for all of my DD's life. When problems arise we work it out for many reasons, including the fact that she has been a stable presence in our DD's life.

But this isn't the point. What matters to me is insignificant once you introduce the issue of attachment disorders. By definition, these disorders are characterized by extreme abuse or neglect. That is the criteria of diagnosis.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

After how many primary caregivers, during the first three years, would you be concerned?

It wouldn't matter to you, as long as there isn't a case of "extreme abuse or neglect"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

After how many primary caregivers, during the first three years, would you be concerned?

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.

+1000000000000000000

Anonymous wrote:

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.

After how many primary caregivers, during the first three years, would you be concerned?

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.

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.

After how many primary caregivers, during the first three years, would you be concerned?

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.

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.