Strollerderby : nannies

UPDATE: Octomom Fires Angels in Waiting - The Drama Continues

SunnyChanel — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:30:00 GMT

Octomom did it again. She did something really crazy. What did she do this time? She fired the team of free nannies that she had partnered with. This week, Nadya Suleman canned the Angels in Waiting that were be attending to her brood free of charge. Her plan now is to hire her own nannies to care for the kids. I guess the whole being a media sensation is really paying off and she can now afford to pay for that kind of care.

The drama started when one of Suleman’s personally hired nannies called 911 to have Gloria Allred, the legal powerhouse who arranged the Angels in Waiting deal, to be removed from the house. Then next thing you know, the whole gang is out of Octoland. Suleman had “several confrontations with the nurses” and she felt they were spying on her and in turn reporting what they found to child welfare officials. Jeff Czech, her attorney said that “Nadya felt that she was being judged wrongfully, and she didn't need it."

"Yes, it's true. I released AIW," Suleman said in a statement to Us Weekly. "It was really bad. That's all I can say. I can't confirm, why, in particular. I will be releasing the details soon." And Gloria Allred told US Magazine that "We have no comment at this time. We will respond tomorrow afternoon with the true facts." When she says “tomorrow afternoon” she is referring to the taping of yet another Dr. Phil episode on Octomom being taped where Suleman, Allred and the Angels in Waiting will get into the ring for some on-air sparring.

If you were in her shoes would you say no to all that free and well-trained help?

UPDATE:

Suleman told Dr. Phil about firing the Angels in Waiting, "The primary issue was that myself and my nannies felt extremely uncomfortable. I personally felt like a stranger in my own home. The goal was to empower me as a mother, help me, train me. I'm open to that, I want that, I want to do the very best for these...premature babies. I wanted [Angels] to use their training and knowledge to help guide me. I felt that was never accomplished. I felt as though every time I tried to hold the babies, feed the babies, they would be observing and they were waiting for me to make a mistake."

Perhaps that’s what drove Nadya, according to Gloria Allred, upstairs away from the babies? Allred told the Today Show, “How can she succeed if she is subjecting her babies to potential risks of harm? If she doesn’t even come into the nursery to feed her own babies, to hold them, to bathe them, to change them, to love them, to bond with them, except when the cameras are rolling?” She continued to say, “There’s only a few hours beyond the time when the cameras were rolling that she actually came into the nursery when she was there to care for her babies, and that’s wrong.”

Suleman’s assumptions that Angels in Waiting were observing and reporting on her to the authorities was not unfounded. Allred confirmed that Angels in Waiting has filed three separate complaints with child welfare officials. Suleman was also made uneasy by the head of Angels in Waiting, Linda Conforti, warning Suleman of child abduction and that Suleman felt “nauseous” after Conforti saying that one of the babies would fit into her purse and could be taken away.

Allred and Angels in Waiting all agree that more security needs to arranged for the home and that it’s a “dangerous situation.” Allred said on the Today show that “Look, we need security here for these babies. Yet, instead of providing security, she puts in her own Jacuzzi instead of hiring security guards,”

I’m personally getting tired of all this drama. Aren’t you?

Source and Source

In Praise of the "Manny"

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:00:00 GMT

After Amy Kuras posted this piece about Boy Scouts getting training to be baby sitters, I was surprised to see some of the comments assuming that male caregivers are de facto abuse risks to children. Not only do I think this is a woefully discriminatory way of viewing half the human population, I think there might even be some benefits to male caregivers that female caregivers don't offer. I propose that it can even be dangerous to exclude boys and men as boys and men from childcare and that using them as caregivers can even help prevent abuse.

First let me address the discrimination aspect. I am sure that many Strollerderby readers have fathers, husbands, brothers and perhaps old-enough-to-baby-sit sons who aren't abusers and could never be abusers. Of course they do. So I have to scratch my head at the knee-jerk fear some women express about the idea of a male baby sitter. To categorically dismiss all boys and men as potential abusers doesn't make sense. Yes, statistically, most abusers are "heterosexual" men, but statistically, most abusers are also related to the children they abuse. In fact, some statistics show that one third of sexual molestation is perpetrated by a parent. But I bet most moms don't refuse to allow their children's fathers to be alone with their children because of the statistical probability that they will be abusers. It would be ridiculous to use statistics that way, right? Relying on statistical percentages rather than actual knowledge of an individual baby sitter applicant would be similarly foolish.

I think categorically mistrusting male caregivers and categorically trusting female ones is in itself dangerous. Why? Because a false sense of security about a caregiver not being a molester because she's female could cause a parent to let down her guard about other possible dangers. First of all, there is that 1-10% of sexual abuse (depending on the study you look at) perpetrated by girls and women. Then there are the other dangers to children besides sexual abuse that are more evenly split between male and female caregivers. A frustrated caregiver of either gender might well shake a colicky baby, for example. It's important to consider many factors in selecting childcare. Assuming a man is an unsafe choice is a blunt selection method and doesn't seem to indicate the kind of thought that really needs to go into the decision.

I have used two men to provide a significant amount of care for my children. And their legal guardians in the case of their parents' deaths are their godfathers. One of my caregivers worked half-time on a regular schedule for my family for two years during one of which, he lived with us. He could not have done a better job. The single father of a grown daughter he had raised since his ex-wife left them both when the baby was under two, "Uncle" David was my older daughter's third parent from the moment she arrived in our home at three days old.

We currently employ a young man to care for our now four-year old and 18-month old daughters slightly less than half-time. He too is beloved by both of my children and plans to work for us throughout the next year or two while he attends a local community college. I am trying to encourage him to go into early childhood education. He would be a gifted preschool or elementary teacher. My only concern for him is the discrimination against men in that field.

My daughters have lesbian moms. They also each have a birth mother, as they are both adopted. Neither of them have men in their lives that meet our family's definition (or their birth mothers' definitions) of "father." Given the statistics, my girls are likely to grow up to be heterosexual women. When they go looking for men with whom to partner, I want them to have a clear sense that men not only can, but should be nurturing, loving and caring. I want them to have a strong expectation of nothing less. And if they happen across men who offer them less, I want them to recognize that quickly and move on. Giving them male caregivers during their tender years is the best way I can think of to imprint these expectations in their psyches.

But it isn't just faraway romantic benefits I hope male caregivers give my daughters. It's also prevention of abuse in the present. With a concrete example of the proper boundaries of a loving male baby sitter (or uncle, or grandfather, or godfather--which my daughters also have), my girls might better be able to recognize a breach of those boundaries by a would-be abuser encountered in some other area of their lives. In these early years, I am almost always able to have intimate knowledge of the people into whose care I place my children. As they grow older and go into situations in which I have less opportunity to know the adults in their orbit, I want them to have their own strong sense of what is appropriate and what isn't. Male caregivers help them develop that sense.

I can understand that parents with their own abuse histories by boys or men might very well decide they simply can't handle placing their own children in male care. But for those without any immediate knowledge of abuse, I don't think having heard a story or having had an acquaintance or having read something about a male caregiver abusing a child is a good reason to exclude male caregivers from their children's lives. To do so is to possibly deny your children a wonderful relationship with a beloved sitter. It's also to deny boys and men the opportunity to get hands-on experience caring for young children before they become fathers themselves. And isn't more hands-on fathering what so many moms wish for?

How Many Nannies Do the Angelina Jolie & Brat Pitt Family Have?

SunnyChanel — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:00:00 GMT

You know, I’d be happy with just one Nanny. Scratch that, I’d be happy with just half a nanny. The Angelina/Pitt family, how many nannies do you think they have to keep the jet-setting family sane? According to Life & Style Magazine, the magic number is Six. Six nannies. One for each child. But when you’re jetting all over the world, having enough able bodies to handle the chaos is, I’m sure, a necessity.

On their recent trip in New Orleans, the crew tried to make do with just four nannies but had to fly two in as an emergency measure. And to transport the brood, they have to employ a convey of autos. In Germany, for example, they have twenty cars at their disposal.

But although they do employ more than enough help, family pal Wyclef Jean, of the Fugees fame, says “They make plenty of time for the kids, they’re great parents.”

Do you think six nannies is too many?

Via: MSNBC.com

Pediatrician Poll: Nanny vs. Daycare

editors — Fri, 16 May 2008 16:00:00 GMT

Q: Which is better for kids (if economics aren't a factor) — nanny or daycare?

Nanny: 35%
Daycare: 12%
Depends on the child's age and circumstances: 53%

"Nanny before age two. Daycare is better after that, because children are social little beings and love to be around other kids." — Kim Gush MD, FAAP. Chapel Hill, NC

"There are pros and cons for both. With a nanny, you have the convenience of being at home, more flexibility with hours, less exposure to illness; with daycare there's more opportunity for social interaction with other children and more adults around monitoring each other, but also more exposure to infection." — Julie Luttinger, MD, FAAP. NY, NY.

"That is so individual; it really depends on family circumstances." — Lawrence Rosen, MD, FAAP. Old Tappan, NJ.

To obtain these results, Babble randomly called 300 AAP-approved pediatricians in 50 states, then tallied the answers of the 20 who called back. Pediatrician Poll appears in Strollerderby every Friday.

Judgment Day: Thy Neighbor's Children

Karen Murphy — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:30:00 GMT

Would you tattle on a neighbor's nanny? In today's increasingly isolationist society, we're less and less It Takes a Village and more and more Turn a Blind Eye. Or are we? WSJ's The Juggle examines this very question this week, and most commenting parents agreed that they tend to watch out for their neighbor's kids as well as their own. But when does "keeping an eye out" become "butting in"? In other words, where's the fine line between being the village and being an asshat who doles out unwanted, unwarranted advice?

It's a delicate matter to report something you think is untoward that's happening to a neighbor's kid or to a classmate of your own kid. Many families are private by nature and don't welcome unsolicited advice. Other families are aware on some level of the problem but choose in their own way to ignore it, as often that's easier than admitting there's a problem in the first place.

But where do you draw the line? What if you suspect abuse, for example? Maybe not bruises-and-black-eyes abuse, but something more difficult to detect. Do you say something? And to whom? Does it depend on the situation?

It would be wonderful if we all lived in tight communities where everyone looked out for everyone else, where you knew your kids were protected because they were surrounded by people you knew and trusted. But we don't all have that, not today. I hate the idea of anonymous tattle sites where you could report something you suspected, but without those tight communities, what alternatives are there?

What about you? Do you feel you have some sort of community you can turn to, rely upon, and contribute to? And if not, how would you handle The Juggle's bad-nanny situation?

Photo: www.sciencemuseum.org.uk

Too Much Childcare? It Happens.

Madeline Holler — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:04:00 GMT

Our babysitter went and got a job. A real job. How could she? What about our needs?

Sure, we hardly ever used her. And only on evenings, usually on the weekends. Do you think she had better stuff to do besides hanging out at our unexciting, tiny house?

What about when the opposite happens, particularly with your full-time nannies or household help? Do you just kick her to the curb when all the kids go to school? Cut back the hours? Turn her into a full-time housekeeper?

It's a problem I'll never have -- what to do with too much childcare. But it's one they tackled over at the Wall Street Journal's "The Juggle." A blogger wanted to know what arrangements the readers had with their beloved babysitter/nannies who they no longer need full time.

The writer said:

Fortunately, our sitter already does some light housework (doing the kids’ laundry, emptying the dishwasher and so on), and we’ll probably expand her into more of a household-manager kind of role when both kids are out of the house more often.

I'll refrain from poking fun (in a jealous rage) of outsourcing household management, because I think it's great they guy is showing loyalty to a person who had been obviously loyal and caring and helpful to his family.

A lot of the commenters started "sharing" the nanny, or changed their responsibilities from changing diapers to cleaning the house. Others, seeing the financial windfall of no longer have to pay for so much help, found the women new families to care for.

What do you plan to do?

Mom: Laws Turn Mary Poppins Into Marxist Robot

Madeline Holler — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:49:00 GMT

It’s just fun, fun, fun reading about bad nannies, and this little piece from the U.K. certainly delights!

A mother illustrates how rules imposed by the EU have changed the quality of service one gets from nannies these days. Back when she was a kid, it was all hard work and dedication, warm kisses and fun. Now, it’s about accommodating wretched French girls with nary an interest in the host- country’s culture.

Au pairs in Europe are protected by European Union rules, which limit the number of hours nannies may be expected to work, how late, the type of work employers can expect them to do and the minimum amount nannies should earn in pay. The rules also stipulate he number of paid holidays and which ones.

This particular family’s au pair stopped working promptly at 7 p.m. (as is her right), checked her email at will, talked with her boyfriend in Canada on the family’s phone, complained about the local cheddar cheese and laughed at the family’s favorite rugby team. The nerve!

Sure, she played with the kids, but she refused to “clean bottoms” and turned away in disgust when the little ones refused to use forks and threw food on the floor.
This particular nanny lasted only a few weeks (long enough to go on vacation with them -- work it, girl!), just long enough for this woman to claim her home had been turned into a Marxist state. Those bread lines must have been a bitch.

Nanny: Rich People Unfit To Have Kids

Madeline Holler — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:26:00 GMT

Man, I love a bold sweeping generalization, especially one backed up by salacious insider anecdotes that make me feel tons better about myself as a mother. Indeed, this English nanny’s proclamation is quite satisfying.

She says: rich people shouldn’t have kids.

Do tell. And she does!

She lists a dozen or so jobs with wealthy British families, none of whom actually raise their own children, nor do any of them really care to. For example, she was sent overseas with one super-rich family's kids for two months to Disneyland. In another family, she tolerated a child smearing excrement on the tub walls -- her employer insisted it was creative expression. She still gets calls at bedtime to come read her former charge a story, the dulcet tones of the ex-nanny’s voice being the only thing that will get the poor little rich girl to sleep.

Why come forward? Why now? Is she going public with all this to save the poor children? Who knows, but it times nicely with the premiere of “The Nanny Diaries,” in the U.K. (jeez, that release took awhile).

No matter how well-intended this woman's advice may be, I’m sure rich people will go on having kids. But you have to wonder, why, oh, why, they continue to employ loose-lipped nannies.

Delusional Park Slope Parent Seeks Nanny/Saint

Madeline Holler — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:34:00 GMT

I’ve never had to hire a nanny. I stash my kids in the cheapest kiddie farm that minimally passes health inspections. So maybe I don’t really understand what it’s like to open my home and life to a stranger, who will spend a seemingly endless amount of time with my kids, doing the bulk of the drudgery so I don’t have to.

Still, I feel comfortable in saying that the requirements laid out in this ad for a Park Slope nanny will be met only by liars or those with hands bearing scars from stigmata.

Let’s unpack the ad:

Busy young couple … active, energetic nanny … three-month-old. Got it. Fluent in English … 1-2 year commitment … experience with family from newborn to elementary school a plus. They’re dreaming, but fine. They outline a four-day week, 12-hour days plus one weekend night per month. Next come the delusions/cries for help.

Experience with and/or support of exclusive breastfeeding and pumping is a requirement. I am imagining, here, a nanny being non-“supportive.” Pointing and laughing while she nurses? Making mom pump in the bathroom? Then: Interest in learning EC (elimination communication/ infant potty training) is a requirement. Experience with EC is a significant plus. Riiiight. No mention of combat pay, which is surely a requirement for holding a bowl under someone else’s naked three-month-old while he blasts one out.

Now, as if a diaper-less kid pissing all over the floor isn’t enough, there’s also the duty of preparing his meals, cleaning up after him, handling his laundry … AND … just maintaining the home's existing neatness and running occasional household errands ... But if the parents can’t do it (they can’t, right?), how should the nanny be able to?

Finally … must be willing to travel with the child … by public transportation … Is that with our without diapers? With or without the dry-cleaning? With or without maintaining the train’s existing neatness?

All that and more, plus you’re not even allowed to smoke! (But the ad says nothing about drinking on the job.)

Nannies and Mommies: What's Real and What's Just Hollywood?

Jessica Ashley (Sassafrass) — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:57:00 GMT

The Nanny Diaries opened at the end of last week. While this might seem like a late and lame attempt to be timely, when you consider that I, like gazillions of other parents, won't see it until it is moved from the New Releases section of Netflix into its appropriate category banishment, I am really quite ahead of schedule. And although I didn't quite get around to reading the book it is based on either, I am curious to see if there is any magic reality written into the relationship of mother and nanny.

I admit, I have a vested interest since I have been a nanny -- not for a family of ridiculously wealthy self-obsessed hidden-cameraing and couture shopping folks but rather, for one of those Pacific Northwest types with the organic garden and bagel store in town. They were good parents and good people with no idea how to treat someone who was doing more than spreading cream cheese for them. My pay was mediocre, my hours were long and I regularly arrived at 7 a.m. on my bike to find that there were no diapers or milk for the day. I kept coming back because I loved the child deeply and I still wonder if the parents got that. The job ended in an unfortunate tax dispute and I dreamed about the baby for over a year.

The nanny and mommy relationship, at least as portrayed in Hollywood from Mary Poppins to The Hand That Rocks the Cradle to Uncle Buck and now to The Nanny Diaries, is dissected in a great read by The Boston Globe's Joanna Weiss. She has many thoughtful observations on the roles written to extricate this delicate relationship between caregiver by blood and caregiver by hire, including the conveniently dead mother, the over-sexualized nanny, the desexualized and thus non-threatening nanny, and (gasp) the working mother. In the end, she says (and I paraphrase), no matter how fabulous and spoonful of sugaring the nanny is, it always comes back to the kid needing her mommy. This is good and right, of course. But for the nanny, it is hard and heartbreaking. Today, I understand it a bit from both sides.

I have no idea if this movie is worth your twenty dollars in tickets and forty dollars in popcorn, sodas and sugary goodness you wouldn't dare let your kids eat in the theater, or if it will be worth the four bucks it costs to rent and the eight dollars in overdue fees I will inevitably fork over. But I do know that it is good to see and imagine and write and discuss the relationship between mother and nanny more and not leave it to silver screen stereotypes to define.

The Real-Life Mannies

Kelly Mills — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:02:00 GMT

Behind every latest cultural phenomenon there's a much more humdrum reality, usually involving hard work, dedication, and a fascination with poop. Apparently this is the case with mannies, according to a great article by our very own badass SAHD Mike. Mannies, (aka male nannies) for the most part don't spend their days servicing busy moms and playing savior to precocious children. They do, well, what nannies do: care for the kids, change diapers, take trips to the park, and probably use naptime to watch some bad television.

All the mannies in the piece clearly love kids, and they may be able to offer a slightly different childcare experience than their female counterparts. "Mannies say they try to care for their charges differently - providing trips to the auto shop or impromptu rock concerts - and some admit they've been hit on, but for most it's really about finding a job they love, not finding love on the job." So, you know, don't hire a manny thinking you are gonna get a little action on the side. I believe that's what paid escorts are for.

Big Dilemma: My Nanny is Hot

Kelly Mills — Fri, 18 May 2007 12:20:00 GMT

Here's what we like to call a "luxury problem": what's a red-blooded parent to do when the nanny is super-fine? As you can imagine, CrankMama had some ideas I will not delve into here, but it certainly brought on some funny soul searching for A.J. Jacobs, who was brought to our attention by Dadcentric. (I let my subscription to Esquire lapse.) This story didn't go in quite the Penthouse-y direction I thought it might. Instead, Jacobs made the situation even thornier by doing a Cyrano act on behalf of the nanny. He helps her write a profile internet dating, and takes it upon himself to screen potential suitors.

The story is great on a number of levels: a guy finding out how pathetic and sleazy guys are; the slightly conflicted feeling that comes from setting your crush up with someone else; and the real empathy for less, um, confident men that Jacobs starts to feel. But I think the best part is that Jacobs gets drunk on his power as a hot woman, but most hot women never really get to fully wield that power themselves because they don't realize how hot they are. So yes, it's quite a bit more than a "oooh, I wish I could get with that" story, and the whole thing is highly entertaining. And I particularly love that his wife gave him permission to sleep with the nanny--knowing it's never gonna happen. Ha!

Bad Mary Poppins

Kelly Mills — Thu, 17 May 2007 12:32:00 GMT

Mary Poppins scared me as a kid. Not the movie, the book. Julie Andrews plus Disney made her much more "spoonful of sugar" than the original P.L. Travers creation, and to be honest, even though I looove me some Dick Van Dyke, I missed mean old Mary. In case you missed it, here's a trailer that finally does her evil reputation some justice. Make sure you check that nanny's references carefully, now...