To be cross with my nanny?

[Maria101]

I have my own internet business and work from home. I have a part time nanny who comes three days a week to look after my 1-year-old. She's generally great, however, at the start of the summer holidays she mentioned (didn't really ask) she might have to bring her 6-year-old son along some days. Tbh I didn't mind this, as she made it sound like an occasional thing, and my daughter likes him and likes having other children around.

However, she started bringing him every single time. During my baby's nap times instead of cleaning the bottles/high chair, making meals etc, like she did before, she would sit and read to him on my sofa while I was working in the next room. Also, all their activities would involve going to the park etc, instead of going to playgroups (presumably because he would get bored). Other things bothered me, such as once my daughter messed her nappy just as the nanny arrived with her son, who wanted toast. She said to me, 'You deal with that (the nappy), while I make him (her son) some toast'. Stupidly I did, even though she had technically started work.

Last week I told her not to bring her son anymore because it's too distracting having him here in the house while I try to work. She was OK about it, and didn't bring him, but today I got a text at 8.30 (she's due here at 9) asking if she could bring him because her sister couldn't have him. She suggested picking my daughter up and taking her to her house. But surely this is childminding? Plus, I had purposefully left some jobs for her to do in nap time (make a shepherds pie). I said not to worry so now I don't have any childcare today.

I'm fuming. My main problems are: a) I don't want her son in my house when I'm trying to work, but equally I don't want my daughter out every single day (her initial solution to my finding her son too distracting). b) I want her to work during my daughter's nap times, and not play with her son or do her own housework (which she'd probably do if my daughter went to her house). c) she treats our arrangement like a casual agreement between friends, when I'm paying her to do a job. For example, there was no apology this morning for letting me down and making me work tonight after my daughter has gone to bed (if I don't work during the day it has to get done at some point).

Should I a) just cancel our contract and look for another childminder/nanny? Tackle it head on Monday morning and then have the awkwardness that would follow?

Sorry for the rant, but I'm furious! PS, I know part of this is my fault for being too laid back with her in the first place but for the most part she's a good nanny but she seems to be getting worse and taking the pi**.

Sorry, I disagree. It's important for babies and little children to learn how to socialise with others - not just adults. And please stop shouting.

X-posted, Blueberties

No, it's not at all. Family are enough. The obsessionis very modern.

"important for babies"? NOt really.

I have no idea where my glasses are at all ..sorry everyone

I wouldn't say it was an obsession - I think babies and children enjoy meeting other babies and children, personally. It's a long time since I had a baby, but I wouldn't have forced them to go to mother and toddler groups if they didn't like it. Because I fucking hated it

On your head, Blueberties? That's quite often where mine are

But the way that babies socialise with other children at that age is by snatching and hitting. There's no point in them doing things like that as a learning experience if when they are told 'no' they have no idea what you are on about.

I can honestly say I have never experienced mine snatching or hitting at that age. Later on, maybe, say 3/4 - but not before then. Shame they're not quite as sociable as teenagers

DD never hit to be fair but at 1 yo if she saw a toy she wanted she couldn't go and politely ask if she could have a go - I thought that was just normal. So obviously said toy would then have to be prised out of her hands and handed back and she had no idea why so was obviously upset. All the while the other child is also upset because they don't understand why they have had their toy taken. After about 2 you can explain a bit but not before I don't think.

I think the best one can say about socialising up to the age of two and a half is that it moslty doesn't do any active harm

And dd is nearly 4 now and would never snatch a toy so maybe she is just strange.

Now I really want some Shepherd's Pie. Bastards.

At 18 months DD2 would snatch toys and hit/bite other kids. I remember before she was 2 I was worried about DD1 starting nursery school and biting other children as she would bite me sometimes. Both of them fortunately stopped this before they were two. I don't think DD1 was ever naughty at nursery school (or not that I was ever told about it) and hoping DD2 will be the same.

Oh and re friendships not forming until the kids are 2.5 unless the parents are friends. Well that's what I thought, until DD2 started with the childminder at 8 months old and there was a litte girl there who was 16 months. They were immediately taken with one another and inseperable, so cute :)

They may well enjoy meeting other babies and toddlers, but since they seem to spend an inordinate amount of time poking each other in the eyes when they get together I can only surmise that they don't actually recognise what it is that they are meeting and are definitely not appreciating other people on the levels that older children or adults do.

Any meeting of babies or toddlers is certainly not a meeting of two individuals capable of anything other than curiosity about seeing something with moving parts that comes dressed in colourful clothing. If they were at home with the cat they would learn much more, much faster, about keeping their hands to themselves and respecting the bodily privacy of other living things.

They get to the point where they share with others, chat, play pretend and get along if they have been exposed to politeness and consideration and encouraged to empathise this can be done by a parent at home or in the course of normal daily life (sans playgroup). Children all reach an age where they start to value the friendship of others and modify their behaviour to some extent in order to secure this pleasant outcome. Takes some longer than others but they mostly all get there. By about 4 most are not going to snatch a toy if they have been brought up to be polite and considerate not a bit strange imo.

Well all I can say is my one year old enjoys playgroups - not to "socialise" but because he likes a change of scene, new toys, lots of children to watch. And as both a parent and a nanny I like getting out of the house and chatting to other adults too.

I totally one hundred per cent agree with you mathanxiety. It is actually great to see it written down.

All this monkey music baby yoga bxxxs. It's for the mum. Nothing to do with the baby.

Absolutely. A very young child doesn't understand 'I wouldn't like it if someone took a toy off me' or 'X won't want to play with me if I behave like that'

Math, start a thread. The wider world needs to know this secret. Half of mums will heave the most enormous sigh of relief when they find out it doesn't matter if you don't go to Tumbletots and instead stay at home having a snuggle.

The appropriateness of the playgroup is irrelevant, what is relevant is that that is what the OP as the nanny's employer wants her to do with the baby.

Do none of you who said shepherd's pie was a family meal and if made for a baby would spoil and have to be thrown away have freezers?

I have frozen mashed potatoes, and have also refrigerated them but imo they need a lot of help flavourwise when reheated, or transformation into soup or some other meal.

If the OP sends the nanny off to the playgroup (as has been suggested here) as some sort of favour to the nanny or mental health lifesaver then she should think again. There is nothing more guaranteed to drive someone nuts than a playgroup under certain circumstances. Otoh, having a guaranteed meaningful break somewhere in the five hours of babycare (and not something conditional upon having random assigned tasks completed during the nap) it might be of real benefit to the nanny. If she is sending her DD off to the playgroup because she thinks the DD will benefit then she could also do a rethink.

I used to regularly make fish pie or shepherd's pie topped with mash and freeze it in portion sizes for the whole family,baby sized for the baby, it tasted fine.

I'm sure a break for the nanny would be nice, but legally she is not entitled to one if she only works 5 hours.

Speaking as someone who had 5 DCs and regularly took a breather from constant care of them, a little break is a very necessary and helpful thing. Small children are incessantly demanding and the thought of not being able to take a regular break in a five hour stretch is truly appalling, as posters who suggested (not that I agreed with them) that going to the playgroup might be a nice sanity preserver for the nanny have hinted. The legal entitlement was probably formulated without regard for the real nature of childcare.

I love my DCs and really miss the days when they were small, but getting away from it all with a book or magazine (not much on the net back in those days) for a short while every day was 100% necessary for me. I usually took a break during DD1's nap and after she grew out of that I did it when she had her 'quiet time' in the afternoon, when DS was napping. The thought of doing five hours straight of baby or toddler care, and cooking or housework, with no break or a scant 20 minutes is horrible. I managed to cook and do the housework while they were awake, following me around with dusters or 'helping' me in the kitchen with bowls and spare wooden spoons.

If you couldn't manage 5 hours with a one year old without finding it appalling then you probably wouldn't be cut out for nannying Or indeed any kind of professional childcare - I work 5 hours without a break without any issue.

I have a break with my own child at home, not at work - just like in any other job.

In my worst job ever, I got three breaks, one of which was a 40 minute lunch and the other two were a morning break of 10 minutes and an afternoon break of 10 minutes. That was in a nine hour workday in a major hotel where I was dealing with guests non-stop, many years ago. I never had to work more than four and a half hours straight if covering for someone else, without a guaranteed break at my allotted lunchtime or the end of the day. This was in the US, the land where the customer is always right.

I had one week of vacation and six personal/sick days allowed every year with that job -- I can attest to the preciousness of those vacation and sick days for all the lowly employees, and we weren't even dealing with too many small children most of the time . The reason for having the breaks was that employees who are constantly dealing with other people tend to get worn out and a bit ratty with guests if they do not have a little break to look forward to, be it ever so humble, not altruism on the part of the high end hotel chain. The employers of nannies are taking the piss if they expect nannies to go 6 hours without a break, legal entitlement or not. Either that or they are greatly overestimating the charm and delightfulness of their children.

My DCs usually wore themselves out after about 4 or 5 hours of non-stop action and interaction with me -- it wasn't that I found the childcare part of the days appalling. It was the idea that I should immediately jump and get the housework done the moment they hit the pillow without even the possibility of a little break that was horrible.