Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AnyMB who hires a nanny with a child could have the pants sued off them if the child gets hurt in their house/car. Doesn't matter how well family and nanny get along now. A family's risk tolerance would have to be pretty high to overlook losing their home, their savings and their time given that there are no tangible benefits to the family at all of adding an extra child (other than cost savings)

On the topic of salary-Families do nanny shares because you pay a lot less when more kids are present (ie-10 per hour per family vs 15-20 for a single family)

If a nanny brings her kid, her rate goes down by as much as 30-40%. That is the only thing that makes the situation remotely attractive given the potential risk....

Is your fear tactic of the nanny bringing her own child based on any actual fact? No.

On the contrary, the share scenario poses the real law suit potential for the hosting family. You aren't too bright, my friend. Furthermore, you should really mention which town you speak of, as the laws are not uniform in the greater DC area.

This is not true. A share child is an "invited guest" of the homeowner who would be covered by homeowners insurance whereas an employee bringing another client (here her own child) is not. At least, that was how the law was explained to me when I looked into this.

What "law" explained it to you like that? Link? What town?
Never mind, I'll just say it:
You are astoundingly stupid. Sorry.

Actually, PP is mostly correct. Where she might be incorrect is whether a share child would be considered an invited guest by her insurance company.

No insurance company would consider a share child to be an invited guest. Why would they?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AnyMB who hires a nanny with a child could have the pants sued off them if the child gets hurt in their house/car. Doesn't matter how well family and nanny get along now. A family's risk tolerance would have to be pretty high to overlook losing their home, their savings and their time given that there are no tangible benefits to the family at all of adding an extra child (other than cost savings)

On the topic of salary-Families do nanny shares because you pay a lot less when more kids are present (ie-10 per hour per family vs 15-20 for a single family)

If a nanny brings her kid, her rate goes down by as much as 30-40%. That is the only thing that makes the situation remotely attractive given the potential risk....

Is your fear tactic of the nanny bringing her own child based on any actual fact? No.

On the contrary, the share scenario poses the real law suit potential for the hosting family. You aren't too bright, my friend. Furthermore, you should really mention which town you speak of, as the laws are not uniform in the greater DC area.

This is not true. A share child is an "invited guest" of the homeowner who would be covered by homeowners insurance whereas an employee bringing another client (here her own child) is not. At least, that was how the law was explained to me when I looked into this.

What "law" explained it to you like that? Link? What town?
Never mind, I'll just say it:
You are astoundingly stupid. Sorry.

Actually, PP is mostly correct. Where she might be incorrect is whether a share child would be considered an invited guest by her insurance company.