Anonymous wrote:OP, look for a nanny share, don't do a nanny with own kid arrangement. It's never in your favor no matter how cheap it is.

This might work if someone is looking for a home daycare rate

OP, look for a nanny share, don't do a nanny with own kid arrangement. It's never in your favor no matter how cheap it is.

Anonymous wrote:

It's every day the nanny works, which may be 6-7 days a week. Yes, it is temporary... as are a share, daycare, preschool and school... Yet nobody says that because they are temporary they don't provide only children with an alternative to the bond/learning that happens with siblings.

Daycare friends are not alternative to siblings. No one can be an "alternative" to family. Plus daycare/school friends are typically the same age while siblings are not. So the learning bit is just not there.

I've been turned down for positions in which they told me that they decided to choose someone who who had a similar aged child. Given that I don't have a child (and don't want one), there's nothing I can do about changing it, and I understand the rationale.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I brought my child, my NF never asked me for a discount rate. They said in my reference letter that they could not have found better care for their baby.

Both parents were physicians. I provided care for two years, when they moved to Europe.

Of course they could have; you without your child would have been better. You with your child is second best compared to you without the child.

Not in their opinion. See how narrow minded you are? Not all intelligent parents think that being the only child is a plus.

Yes, pretty much all intelligent parents think their child would be better off cared for by a woman whose first priority is her own child. This is not a only child vs. child with sibling situation. This is a situation of having a woman always put your child second to her own. A terrible situation for the poor little thing.

You haven't clue which child I put first.
Again, not everyone is as selfish as you sound.
Get a grip.

You have a biological imperative to put your own child first, PP, unless you are a very bad mother. So I have more than a "clue" that you would put your child first - I have hundred of centuries of evolution to prove it.

Please stop embarrassing yourself. You had a great gig with people who accepted this less than ideal situation ONCE. Stop posting the same story every time this topic comes up.

You can't even begin to fathom the fact that this arrangement can (and DID) work out beautifully in a stable, competent and loving way for two very happy families, but most of all for BOTH children.

Too bad if that just KILLS you and your narrow-minded self.

NP here and please stop, PP. You are embarrassing yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I brought my child, my NF never asked me for a discount rate. They said in my reference letter that they could not have found better care for their baby.

Both parents were physicians. I provided care for two years, when they moved to Europe.

Of course they could have; you without your child would have been better. You with your child is second best compared to you without the child.

Not in their opinion. See how narrow minded you are? Not all intelligent parents think that being the only child is a plus.

If they wanted a second child, they would have birthed one. Besides, it's easy to find child company without the hassle of nanny with child. It's not like small children are in short supply.

There's a huge difference between going to a playdate or activity versus growing and learning every day with the same child.

Of course there is - a playdate ends after an hour. If the employer's child and a nanny's child don't get along, then what?

Besides, it's not "every day", now is it? Nanny jobs end. That child's presence is temporary.

It's every day the nanny works, which may be 6-7 days a week. Yes, it is temporary... as are a share, daycare, preschool and school... Yet nobody says that because they are temporary they don't provide only children with an alternative to the bond/learning that happens with siblings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I brought my child, my NF never asked me for a discount rate. They said in my reference letter that they could not have found better care for their baby.

Both parents were physicians. I provided care for two years, when they moved to Europe.

Of course they could have; you without your child would have been better. You with your child is second best compared to you without the child.

Not in their opinion. See how narrow minded you are? Not all intelligent parents think that being the only child is a plus.

If they wanted a second child, they would have birthed one. Besides, it's easy to find child company without the hassle of nanny with child. It's not like small children are in short supply.

There's a huge difference between going to a playdate or activity versus growing and learning every day with the same child.

Of course there is - a playdate ends after an hour. If the employer's child and a nanny's child don't get along, then what?

Besides, it's not "every day", now is it? Nanny jobs end. That child's presence is temporary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I brought my child, my NF never asked me for a discount rate. They said in my reference letter that they could not have found better care for their baby.

Both parents were physicians. I provided care for two years, when they moved to Europe.

Of course they could have; you without your child would have been better. You with your child is second best compared to you without the child.

Not in their opinion. See how narrow minded you are? Not all intelligent parents think that being the only child is a plus.

If they wanted a second child, they would have birthed one. Besides, it's easy to find child company without the hassle of nanny with child. It's not like small children are in short supply.

There's a huge difference between going to a playdate or activity versus growing and learning every day with the same child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have seen a number of nannies advertise for this type of situation who are open to hosting, in which case their home gets the wear and tear.

But then you lose the convenience of having a care giver come to your home. You have to pack up your kid (and his snacks, diapers, change of clothes, etc etc) every single morning and get him out of the house, just like you would with daycare (much cheaper) or a true share (in which pay would likely be slightly less AND there is no maternal instinct factor). At this point, isn't this scenario just the equivalent of someone running an illegal/unmonitored daycare out of her home?

1. I know parents who don't feeling hosting is such a convenience,
and would prefer to take their child elsewhere.

2. Share care costs are often equal,
considering the pros and cons for *each* family.

3. The best nannies often have some maternal instinct factor.

1. Completely ridiculous. The most expensive form of childcare is a nanny because it is convenient for families to have their child cared for in their own home. Also, at their own home, the nanny can help with cleaning, dishes, laundry, etc. The nanny cannot do that if she is not at their home. This is on top of the other issues mentioned above (the inconvenience of having to transport child and all his things daily).

2. Yes, in a true share the costs are equal, but in the scenario of nanny bringing her own child it is not a true share.

3. So...your argument is that nannies will have maternal feelings towards their charge? Well, that sot of makes sense on some level, but NOT IF THE NANNIES OWN CHILD IS PRESENT. If her own child is there her true maternal instinct will ALWAYS BE 100% skewed in favor of her own offspring. This is scientific fact.

Clearly, you are one of those "nannies" who brings her child with her to work (or perhaps, a nanny who si pregnant and planning to do this?). I've seen this with my own eyes too many times. "Nannies" who bring their own child always favor him/her to the detriment of their charge. Even if they don't fully realize they are doing it, they are.

NP, single child-less nanny, not that it matters.

1. There are many parents who live in tiny apartments and choose to do shares with the other family hosting because they don't have room but they want someone to care for their child who is solely focused on the 2-3 children in their care, not on the 10 or more that are in daycares.

2. No, it's not a normal share. In a normal share, parents have to agree about what is done, and it doesn't work if the can't agree about basics (napping, feeding on demand vs. schedule, outings). With nanny and her child taking the place of the other family, NF gets a child to grow with theirs while being able to set the schedule without negotiations. The family dictates all activities, all schedules, and nanny and her child go along with it.

3. Yes, I've felt maternal feelings towards every child in my care. Yes, I know that there is a difference between the relationship between her own child and her charge. On the other hand, every rational adult is willing to admit that they will have favorites, so no adult should ever be with more than one child? And just because a child isn't my favorite atm that means that I won't care as well for them? How many nannies have you seen caring for two children, and how do you know that a) they are nannies, b) neither child is theirs and c) they are caring for their child better than their charge?

It worked for me, although I didn't bring my child every day. I was already on the low end of the pay scale so there was no change in my salary. I started bringing my own child when NF child was approaching one...my child was 3 months older. NF wouldn't have allowed it in the beginning because they had concerns about their child being neglected but once they saw how I interacted with their child, they realized I would never do that. To be honest, I always tended to her needs before my one child and those two were best buddies. It's not ideal for me because I feel like I constantly have to make sure he's not breaking anything or accidentally hurting the other child (he was much bigger and falling on her would have been disastrous). They both were in a music class, she paid for her child and I paid for mine. I'm not sure why anyone would think the nanny would expect the family to pay for her child. That job is over now and it worked out great so it can be done, but honestly I prefer not to bring my child just because I'm at work and being a toddler he doesn't see it that way and he's just rambunctious as all get out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I brought my child, my NF never asked me for a discount rate. They said in my reference letter that they could not have found better care for their baby.

Both parents were physicians. I provided care for two years, when they moved to Europe.

Of course they could have; you without your child would have been better. You with your child is second best compared to you without the child.

Not in their opinion. See how narrow minded you are? Not all intelligent parents think that being the only child is a plus.

Yes, pretty much all intelligent parents think their child would be better off cared for by a woman whose first priority is her own child. This is not a only child vs. child with sibling situation. This is a situation of having a woman always put your child second to her own. A terrible situation for the poor little thing.

You haven't clue which child I put first.
Again, not everyone is as selfish as you sound.
Get a grip.

You have a biological imperative to put your own child first, PP, unless you are a very bad mother. So I have more than a "clue" that you would put your child first - I have hundred of centuries of evolution to prove it.

Please stop embarrassing yourself. You had a great gig with people who accepted this less than ideal situation ONCE. Stop posting the same story every time this topic comes up.

You can't even begin to fathom the fact that this arrangement can (and DID) work out beautifully in a stable, competent and loving way for two very happy families, but most of all for BOTH children.

Too bad if that just KILLS you and your narrow-minded self.

There are no advantages to a NF to allow a nanny to bring a child to work except for the lower share rate they would pay. This kind of arrangement only benefits a nanny and puts the NF at a disadvantage.

I addition to all the boundary issues and who pays for food and kid classes, the NF will have to examine their homeowner's insurance to be sure they will be covered if nanny's kid is hurt in their home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I brought my child, my NF never asked me for a discount rate. They said in my reference letter that they could not have found better care for their baby.

Both parents were physicians. I provided care for two years, when they moved to Europe.

Of course they could have; you without your child would have been better. You with your child is second best compared to you without the child.

Not in their opinion. See how narrow minded you are? Not all intelligent parents think that being the only child is a plus.

Yes, pretty much all intelligent parents think their child would be better off cared for by a woman whose first priority is her own child. This is not a only child vs. child with sibling situation. This is a situation of having a woman always put your child second to her own. A terrible situation for the poor little thing.

You haven't clue which child I put first.
Again, not everyone is as selfish as you sound.
Get a grip.

You have a biological imperative to put your own child first, PP, unless you are a very bad mother. So I have more than a "clue" that you would put your child first - I have hundred of centuries of evolution to prove it.

Please stop embarrassing yourself. You had a great gig with people who accepted this less than ideal situation ONCE. Stop posting the same story every time this topic comes up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I brought my child, my NF never asked me for a discount rate. They said in my reference letter that they could not have found better care for their baby.

Both parents were physicians. I provided care for two years, when they moved to Europe.

Of course they could have; you without your child would have been better. You with your child is second best compared to you without the child.

Not in their opinion. See how narrow minded you are? Not all intelligent parents think that being the only child is a plus.

If they wanted a second child, they would have birthed one. Besides, it's easy to find child company without the hassle of nanny with child. It's not like small children are in short supply.