Anonymous wrote:PP, yes but once she did point out that her daughter has a brain injury (which any intelligent person could figure out meant she has some special needs) you continued to badger her about how she's not setting her kids up for life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OPs initial post said nothing about special needs. She said she was looking for a sitter for two teens. People reacted the way you'd expect. When will you all learn that this is a discussion forum? People will disagree with you. That doesn't make them a bad person. No response here was really that bad, OP and yourself just didnt like them. Its the truth. No decent nanny wants to work part time, drive around two teenagers, and do their chores. Even with mild special needs (memory issues?) her daughter should have some basic life skills at 17, including including grocery shopping, household chores, preparing a meal for herself, and if she will never drive she will need to learn to navigate public transportation.

Yes, OP asked a simple question about rates. She didn't specify special needs. When the first poster questioned her parenting approach in needing care she explained. When a later poster spoke in a critical tone about what OP's children "should be able" to do, repeatedly, I think that crossed the line.

The level of need of OPs family is not our business. Her choices in parenting are not our business. Answering her question is appropriate, criticizing her is not.

Yes, this is what DCUM is notorious for in tone and attitude, but that doesn't mean it has to be accepted. I feel for OP and her family and I don't need to know the specifics to be empathetic. I also don't assume that she is failing to prepare her children for life if she is seeking a caregiver. I take issue with the judgmental assumptions being made by a couple of the posters and I don't expect that all people will react that way. Quite the opposite, I presume most people are compassionate and a few nasty souls with time on their hands routinely poison these threads.

Okay, whatever. The answer to OPs question is that she will be advertising an unattractive job, for the reasons already listed, and apparently that is offensive. Because the job is unattractive, OP should be prepared to pay a higher rate than usual in order to attract qualified candidates. In my opinion, she's looking at $18-$20/hour depending on the severity of the needs, and the demands of her family. It would be cheaper, and likely better for her kids in the long run if she were to actually prepare them for life.

You are obnoxious. Do you know anything about TBIs? Depending on the severity, her 17 year old may NEVER be able to live alone because she's unable to perform daily tasks safely. Sure, she may be able to cook, but can she do it safely? No one is saying the fact that she's advertising a difficult job is offensive. What is offensive is the implication that she's doing nothing to help them prepare for life.

No I don't. That's the point. Most people will have a wtf reaction to OP's job, unless she makes clear that her daughter has special needs, which she didn't initially. And then, anyone still interested and qualified is going to be more expensive.