find someone new aand let her go

Anonymous wrote:Correct. Which is why a 20 minute show you watch together is not a big deal in the context of 10 hours.

That's 20 minutes of non-interactive time. Unless you are watching a show that gets the child up and moving, you are talking about it, or the child is doing some critical thinking about it, there's no benefit.

Correct. Which is why a 20 minute show you watch together is not a big deal in the context of 10 hours.

This is quite simple, seeing that she does not need the job cut her unprofessional, poor excuse for childcare provider, disrespectful butt off NOW!! You will regret in the long run if you don't. Find you a nanny that respects boundaries and can work together with both you and your husband as a team. This crazy person you've hired for some reason feels entitled and she seems to be running the show. Please for your own peace of mind let her go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly you need a new nanny. Her job involves following the rules you have for your household and your children. If she thinks they're unreasonable she needs to work for a family she's more compatible with.

BUT. All this pearl clutching is ridiculous. Even the AAP acknowledges that television is just another means of transferring information - and one you can filter for your child and yourself (yes, you can block caillou). If nanny works a 10 hour day I really can't see the harm in 20 minutes of Daniel Tiger or Lost Ocean. I wonder if parents worried about their kids listening to too much radio... Probably.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2015/09/30/the-american-academy-of-pediatrics-just-changed-their-guidelines-on-kids-and-screen-time/#75cab3e9137c

What a bunch of crap. The bozo who wrote that gets paid by a TV station. That's like asking a big pharma rep if they think aspirin is ok. Give me a break, pp.

I'm sorry, did you see that this is the new official guidelines from the AAP? Whoever wrote about it is irrelevant, the AAP says studies show that limited screen time does zero damage to young children. They are a part of our daily lives.

Um, no. That is not what they said at all. They did not change their recommendation about no screen time for children under two -- that is still the "gold standard." They also said that sedentary tv watching is still a problem, though not if kept to a minimum. They just acknowledged that there is not a lot of evidence about interactive, educational screen time. When I heard the head of the AAP interviewed about this, he said the major problem is PASSIVE SCREEN ENTERTAINMENT (like tv shows), but the AAP wanted to acknowledge reality and also say that if you and your child are playing a game on a tablet together, that's probably not harmful.

If you want to read their report it is here: http://www.aappublications.org/content/36/10/54?variant=full-text&sso=1&sso_redirect_count=1&nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly you need a new nanny. Her job involves following the rules you have for your household and your children. If she thinks they're unreasonable she needs to work for a family she's more compatible with.

BUT. All this pearl clutching is ridiculous. Even the AAP acknowledges that television is just another means of transferring information - and one you can filter for your child and yourself (yes, you can block caillou). If nanny works a 10 hour day I really can't see the harm in 20 minutes of Daniel Tiger or Lost Ocean. I wonder if parents worried about their kids listening to too much radio... Probably.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2015/09/30/the-american-academy-of-pediatrics-just-changed-their-guidelines-on-kids-and-screen-time/#75cab3e9137c

What a bunch of crap. The bozo who wrote that gets paid by a TV station. That's like asking a big pharma rep if they think aspirin is ok. Give me a break, pp.

I'm sorry, did you see that this is the new official guidelines from the AAP? Whoever wrote about it is irrelevant, the AAP says studies show that limited screen time does zero damage to young children. They are a part of our daily lives.

I am a nanny! OP, you should let her go. A nanny should make suggestions, use her good judgement (when needed) and FOLLOW her employer's RULES. I don't even know how you can deal with such a person. She works in YOUR house.

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. Your regular daytime sitter saw your nanny @ playground, and your kids didn't respond. If my kids see their sitter out and about its usually followed by a big hello/hug.

I'm not understanding how your part time sitter was able to talk to your full time nanny- and no one knew the relationships.

hmmm I agree with you. i don't think this makes any sense what so ever. The other poster said the kids were off playing. so she just tells a complete stranger i work for so and so and their kids names are so and so and yada yada yada I do what I want blah blah blah.... meanwhile the stranger(date night sitter) just listens? the kids were close enough to point them out, but not close enough for them to notice their sitter in a long conversation with their nanny? calling bs

Anonymous wrote:Clearly you need a new nanny. Her job involves following the rules you have for your household and your children. If she thinks they're unreasonable she needs to work for a family she's more compatible with.

BUT. All this pearl clutching is ridiculous. Even the AAP acknowledges that television is just another means of transferring information - and one you can filter for your child and yourself (yes, you can block caillou). If nanny works a 10 hour day I really can't see the harm in 20 minutes of Daniel Tiger or Lost Ocean. I wonder if parents worried about their kids listening to too much radio... Probably.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2015/09/30/the-american-academy-of-pediatrics-just-changed-their-guidelines-on-kids-and-screen-time/#75cab3e9137c

What a bunch of crap. The bozo who wrote that gets paid by a TV station. That's like asking a big pharma rep if they think aspirin is ok. Give me a break, pp.

I am a nanny who believes in following all instructions given to me by my employer.
If someone doesn't agree with ones parenting philosophy one should find another family to work for.

Regarding the T.V. instructions I think she should follow your specific rules about limited screen time. But if everything else she does is on point, I wouldn't fire her based on that one issue. A better idea would be to have an in depth talk with her, stressing how important it is to you that your children do not watch too much T.V. during her stay.

However try to be consistent regarding your own rules.
Meaning don't let her see you allowing your kids watch a lot of television when they are in your company because that could convey to her that you do not consider it that big of a deal.

Clearly you need a new nanny. Her job involves following the rules you have for your household and your children. If she thinks they're unreasonable she needs to work for a family she's more compatible with.

BUT. All this pearl clutching is ridiculous. Even the AAP acknowledges that television is just another means of transferring information - and one you can filter for your child and yourself (yes, you can block caillou). If nanny works a 10 hour day I really can't see the harm in 20 minutes of Daniel Tiger or Lost Ocean. I wonder if parents worried about their kids listening to too much radio... Probably.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2015/09/30/the-american-academy-of-pediatrics-just-changed-their-guidelines-on-kids-and-screen-time/#75cab3e9137c