Anonymous wrote:
Most parents do indeed, love their children.

But love is an ACTION word, not just a feeling you have while you're sitting in your downtown office shuffling stacks of papers. The fact that your absentee parenting provides your child with a grandiose lifestyle, does not make up for it.

The more you're away from your child, the less you know "your" child.

The more tired and stressed you are when you DO see your child, the LESS capable you are to be the parent that your child desperately needs, and deserves.

Why do you think more and more rich kids are growing up RAGING, full of anger and resentment?

"But we gave our child everything." Sure, everything money could buy. Everything, except stable and consistant care during the first three to five years of life. Why do you think they're called "the foundation years"?

Usually, (not always) when the early years go poorly (yes, rich kids often have very sad childhoods), you can have a lifetime of trying to "fix" it. Lifelong therapy and "medication". And hope that does the trick, and there won't be any REALLY serious consequences.

You can give this, any kind of pretty label you want. But whatever you call it, it magically, is NEVER correlated to early childhood care/parenting, or lack of.

This is not about a "blame game".
It's about putting some thought into our values and priorities, and asking,

Is this really the best we can do?

bump

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since I've been in the world for so many years, I'd have to say, that most nannies are sadly disappointed with how little most parents know their children. Hence, so very much resentment.

It's hard to ignore what you know is plain wrong.

As a nanny this has not been my experience. My current MB and FB both work from home. My NF all eat breakfast together, often one of the or voth come doen for lunch, and then they let me go at 5pm. I do not fill a role of the parent.

I've never worked for a family where both parents were out of thr house more than 10hrs a day and mote typical i worked for families where the parents schedule was staggered and i was only working a 40hr week.

Nanny here ad wrll. Lots of wild nanny stories about neglected kids. Not my experience either.

Are tou married? Or relatively young? If you are a single adult trying to nanny as a career in DC then you will quickly see that the most lucrative jobs are with families who pay a lot of overtime. Once you move into that niche you will be amazed at how many there are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since I've been in the world for so many years, I'd have to say, that most nannies are sadly disappointed with how little most parents know their children. Hence, so very much resentment.

It's hard to ignore what you know is plain wrong.

As a nanny this has not been my experience. My current MB and FB both work from home. My NF all eat breakfast together, often one of the or voth come doen for lunch, and then they let me go at 5pm. I do not fill a role of the parent.

I've never worked for a family where both parents were out of thr house more than 10hrs a day and mote typical i worked for families where the parents schedule was staggered and i was only working a 40hr week.

Nanny here ad wrll. Lots of wild nanny stories about neglected kids. Not my experience either.

Nanny here. My last families:

Two preschoolers. Mom gone M-F 8-5. Dad worked from home but barely saw the kids. The extent to which he spent time with them during the day was that he would come in and watch the news in the living room and get mad when I took them to the playroom to play since he was "there to spend time with them" but was often watching grisly or upsetting content. Evenings the family would eat dinner together from 5-6 while dad got increasingly wasted then mom put them to bed.

Next family: Dad worked from before kids got up M-F until after they were in bed, with maybe one exception per week. He often worked or napped on weekends. Mom was a SAHM and I only worked part time. I would arrive about an hour after the kids (two toddlers) were awake and mom had changed their diapers and they were naked and eating breakfast. I would clean up breakfast, unload dishwasher, take the kids upstairs to clean their rooms and get them dressed for the day, then I would pack their snack and take them out until lunchtime, we would return and I would feed them lunch and put them down for nap. Somewhere in all of that I also got a load of laundry completely washed dried folded and put away each day and I would make dinner for the family most evenings. After I got them down for nap, I would walk the dogs. Mom was in charge of them from 4 PM to 8 PM.

My next family was again, two preschoolers. Dad never wanted kids so even though he worked at home, he rarely spend more than a few minutes with them during the day. He helped with the bedtime routine by sitting with one of them and watching a children's show while mom did the other ones bath and got The other kids ready, then they would switch kids. Mom did all other childcare when I was off duty. I worked from 8 AM until 6 PM Monday Wednesday and Friday, and 8 AM until 9 PM Tuesday and Thursday. I didn't work weekends but they had a separate mother's helper and mom would drop her off at the park with the kids after breakfast and pick them up in time for a nap Saturdays.

My current family, dad leaves for work before the kids get up for days a week and arrives after they are in bed three days a week. It is extremely rare for him to spend more than 30 minutes total with them on a weekday. He also works most Saturday afternoons and Sunday mornings. Mom sees the kids for about half an hour in the morning and 15 minutes before bed, and spends the weekend mornings with them, but has a sitter for the afternoons. Mom also travels for work about one week out of six and does not see them at all that week.

The idea that anyone hiring a nanny is choosing between basic necessities like food and shelter and childcare is pretty silly. Nannies are the most expensive form of child care, and the people who hire us are doing so because they need the flexibility to work ridiculous hours or to have ridiculous amounts of downtime. I won't comment on how it impacts children are long term, but the idea that it is rare for a nanny family is to actually spend only a tiny amount of time with their children is just not reflective of what I have seen over my career.

Anonymous wrote:Since I've been in the world for so many years, I'd have to say, that most nannies are sadly disappointed with how little most parents know their children. Hence, so very much resentment.

It's hard to ignore what you know is plain wrong.

As a nanny this has not been my experience. My current MB and FB both work from home. My NF all eat breakfast together, often one of the or voth come doen for lunch, and then they let me go at 5pm. I do not fill a role of the parent.

I've never worked for a family where both parents were out of thr house more than 10hrs a day and mote typical i worked for families where the parents schedule was staggered and i was only working a 40hr week.

The parent, or whoever is doing the childcare, should be competent. That means understanding what the child needs, and responding accordingly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think that mentality was more prevalent in the past than it is now.

I think parents are more involved now, even if they do have a nanny.

I agree.

It used to be standard for parents to spend virtually no time playing with their kids. Standard. Not the realm of the rich and disinterested, but common across all socioeconomic lines. Today, parents know how important it is for their kids to build relationships with them through play time, and even busy working parents make an effort to get that bonding time in before bed or on weekends.

While some don't, like the ones mentioned upthread, I don't believe this is typical anymore, nor nearly as common as it was even 30 years ago.

agree. historically, we're at an all time high of time spent "parenting" even comparing working moms now to SAHMs 60 years ago.
and studies have shown additional time spent with children does not better their outcomes, sometimes the opposite.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/it-doesnt-matter-how-much-time-parents-spend-their-kids-180954799/
https://www.livescience.com/29521-5-ways-motherhood-has-changed.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women who live their children make the sacrifice and stsy home and take care of theur children--no exceptions. Single women who have children are selfish and having a child is their personal ego trips. This generation of childten will be the most acrewed up ever.

Yes, but at least they'll be better spellers than you.

Get a life, troll.

In a sense the above poster is true. While I do not think its a malicious intent at all, I know from years working as a nanny that you cannot have it all. There is no way to divide yourself into two people. So when you choose to have a career and children one usually falls through the cracks. Unfortunately it is usually the kids, because as an employee you are held accountable for a job poorly done, or chastised when you skip important steps.

The moments that you miss in your children's lives are so many that in no way can you make up for them in the few evening and weekend hours that you get. Can you still have a successful relationship with your child(en)? Yes of course, but there is a sense of not really knowing how to tend to everyday moments that is a sad fact for working parents.

It's an outsourcing of one job in order to preform another. A sad fact of life and a decision that women have to make. For me I am just glad there is a choice! But I am not deluding myself into thinking that I can have it all either, and neither should you.

The key is to have a care provider who is devoted and really loves your child. Hard to find.

Anonymous wrote:Check out the "I love my charge" thread, where the parents almost never see their child, literally. Sometimes 15 minutes a day, some days, not at all. On Saturday and Sunday, there's the weekend shift nanny. The parents pay the bills, but make no time to see who their child is. Almost too outrageous to believe. Except that I to, have seen similar cases.

Bump

Anonymous wrote:Check out the "I love my charge" thread, where the parents almost never see their child, literally. Sometimes 15 minutes a day, some days, not at all. On Saturday and Sunday, there's the weekend shift nanny. The parents pay the bills, but make no time to see who their child is. Almost too outrageous to believe. Except that I to, have seen similar cases.

It's not only a matter of hours that parent sees or doesn't see their child. It's also how they behave with their child. Are they competent enough to be the responsible adult, or do they instead want to be 'best friends' with their little child? And let the nanny function as the responsible adult?

So many rich neglected children out there.

Anonymous wrote:I am a 24hr nanny, and they have 24hr weekend nanny. They have a choice to spend time with their child or not. They choose not. I try not to form a huge bond with him, because I'm "just the nanny", but it worries me that if I'm not giving him THAT love, who is? It's not his parents. Last Christmas his parents had him for 4 hours alone for the first time because the baby nurse went for a quick break home to open gifts with her kids. The parents freaked! It was too much for them! 4hrs! They since have never been without 24hr care.
It makes me sad that they are planning on having another child. But whatever works for them. It's employment!

this is my point my dear no one can hear my voice now we are on the topic thank you all !

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the 24hr nannies day is never done. Even those who work 10-12hr days. The nanny is the only one the kid sees. And the high hour nannies get burnout faster, and quit more often. I think this is what OP was saying.

Having a nanny PT or 40hrs a week allows for some parenting time. But, when your nanny is there from when child wakes up, and is the one putting her to sleep, up during the night while child is sick... That is taking over from parent.

Well said.

Exactly.

I'm a live-in nanny and I've worked 24/7 in the past. For me, it's less stressful if I work 24/7, because I'm not trying to find a way to get out of the house without the kids in tow. I'm less likely to burnout when I work 24/7 because the parent knows that I need to be able to make most decisions without talking to them first, so we make sure that we agree about all of the big issues, so I don't second-guess my decisions. Yes, in a 24/7 position it's taking on a parental role, but that's for stability for the kids.

I worked somewhere where the parents where like this. They had a live in nanny all week and live in nanny for the weekend. They paid $100 per day meaning weekday nanny gets 500 and weekend nanny gets 200 (I was weekends).

The parents loved to sleep in. On weekends they wake up at 2pm have lunch and go out….come back shower and go out again. On sundays before I leave I assist the kids with bath, dinner even help them brush teeth put pj on before I leave which is half an hour before their bedtime. Also the weekday live in nanny does this as well for five days. MB just leave instruction to us and cleaning lady and off to bed or out. She works for international organization and the husband has his own business so pretty regular work but they always act so tired and selfish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the 24hr nannies day is never done. Even those who work 10-12hr days. The nanny is the only one the kid sees. And the high hour nannies get burnout faster, and quit more often. I think this is what OP was saying.

Having a nanny PT or 40hrs a week allows for some parenting time. But, when your nanny is there from when child wakes up, and is the one putting her to sleep, up during the night while child is sick... That is taking over from parent.

Well said.

Exactly.