To expect my nanny NOT to feed my two year old a McDonalds Happy Meal?

[coolbeans]

I know it's not the end of the world and he is nearly three but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect her to ASK me, at least, before takes him out and stuffs him full of chicken nuggets and chips for lunch.

I'm not against McD's as such, but he's still really little and there's no need to take him there yet - it's not a bloody treat - as she seems to think.

I think that's what has annoyed me most. It's just food, I don't want him associating it with being a "treat" outing.

I'm not a nanny but if I was I would be so P**sed off by some of these comments. There is NOTHING nutritionally bad about having the odd treat food. So skill sets don't come into it. Common sense doesn't even come into it.

The only thing imho that is a strong argument for not having the nanny give the occasional "treat food" is that the parents don't want it. That is fair enough. But then they need to make that clear up front. - No choc/McD/sweeties for little Johnny. End of.

Fabio - yes, in a nutshell.

But then we got into who was in the right.

If a parent would never allow their child to do something, then they need to TELL THEIR CHILDCARER.

Nannies are trained professional, when you get one you should employ one with similar views to yours. You should point out a few things that are very important to you but you can't expect to control every single moment of her day.

lol wrapstar

Oh and in my job I quite often work with proper, qualified, expert nutritionists and professors of nutrition, and they all say very clearly that it's the whole diet that matters, not individual foods. That eating, say, Mcdonalds once in a while is absolutely fine, in the context of a good diet. And with babies and children that diet must be looked at over a week or month, not day by day as their intake is quite small. So if a nutritionist thinks the odd Mcdonalds Happy Meal is OK, then maybe it might not be an indication of (insert Anna-style management-jargon crap-English bollocks here) on the part of a nanny to think it would be OK

I did an activity recently with a science teacher who runs practical "explorer" classes with 6-12 yos. Numbers are limited and she really encourages the kids to get hands on with all manner of things. Parents are NOT allowed to stay.

The reason, she says is that they tend to interfere. Little Johnny shouldn't be touching that hot wax, little Phoebe isn't doing it properly, let Daddy give you a hand etc etc

The kids are allowed, and in fact actively encouraged to do things they couldn't/wouldn't be allowed to do at home. She has a huge waiting list.

Honestly, we wrap our fecking kids in cotton wool then wonder why they are so pathetic when they grow up. I'm just as guilty - i get nervous if dd swings too high at the park, then pay good money for her to Little Gym where she walks across a high beam, and swings on bars etc. And then I am so proud of her for learning a new skill and being independant.

its not micromanaging to say 'oh, we're veggie' or 'Tarquin isn't allowed chips' or whatever. Otherwise how will a nanny know?
I have a whole raft of different respite carers for dd and I tell them what she cant have or what shouldn't be done with her. They are all proffessionals but what one family need 'child can't go on tummy cos of trach tube' another family wont need.
I wouldn't approve of chcolate for breakfast though. Sudden sugar high leaves you hungry quickly.

I think people have the most peculiar ideas about nutrition and children!

Anna, my first memory of you on mumsnet is when you told us how you'd taken your 3yr old dd to see Atonement and how much she'd enjoyed it

If my nanny took the dcs to see Atonement (with dead bodies of children etc, horses being shot, not to mention crimes against acting by Keira Knightley) I would think that a FAR more serious crime than a trip to Mcds and would seriously question her judgement.

And I think chocolate for breakfast is vile. I assume you'd tell a nanny it was fine.

Therefore, your views on childrearing are different to mine. What is a nanny to do when every employer is so different? Every nanny and ap thread on this board spells out how useful it is to have a nanny book (I actually don't but should) which spells out certain ground rules and expectations and how you have to spend at least a week introducing a nanny to your peculiar household quirks. There (thank God) is no centralised nanny programme. And although any good nanny would recognise Maccdys every day is wrong, one who considers it a rare excursion is simply in line with many parents on this board.

But I've often noticed how hypocritical parents are with nannies, so many won't let them ever feed their children sweets or watch TV. As soon as they take over at the weekends, CBeebies is switched on and the Fruitshoots come out.

lol at crimes against actingg

Good point about every employer being different I think.

i distinctly remember a proud mummy moment when my DS was 11 months old, no teeth and sucked and chewed a whole happy meal.

He is 12 now with no severe afgter effects.

We love a Maccy D

I realized my ds was a proper neglected second child when I took an imaginary step back from myself at a motorway service station and realized that I was feeding him home made organic pasta while he had one of his big sister's Mc Donald's chips in each hand! Nothing like a balanved diet, that's what I say!

Not quite sure why the OP (i.e. me) is needed back on this thread? To give my opinion?

Well, OK then.

To sum up, it is absolutely reasonable for my nanny to take my toddler to McDonalds and it is entirely unreasonable for me to object as taking one's charges to McD's is a perfectly normal practice and the chain provides a range of balanced and nutritional meals that anyone would be proud to feed their growing child. Especially on an occasional "treat" basis. No worries about salt levels here.

Moreover, as I did not expressly spell out to my nanny that fast food is not an acceptable lunch option for a toddler, I really have no one to blame but myself. Moreover, my objections prove that I am a neurotic and over-protective and should really stay at home and bring my son up myself, at which point I will probably sit him in front of CBeebies all day, force feeding him Fruit Shoots and pain au chocolat.

Is that a fair summation? I can't really add anything more constructive to my previous posts on the subject, but thanks for your considered feedback.

Whether or not you want your children to eat MD's or not, I would have assumed that a nanny would have thought that it would be (seen as) unhealthy and would check before giving it to a toddler. Just as I would have expected a nanny or other person in charge of a child other than their own to check something which I consider not the norm. I don't consider giving a 2-year old MD's the norm (and yes, I do realise it won't kill them).

I'm obviously wrong then too.

coolbeans - I don't think anyone is saying that, most people have been disagreeing with Anna's stance.

Of course you can object to your nanny taking your child to McD's - she's your employee and you can tell her to take your child anywhere you want. But you can't really blame the nanny if you've never told her you object to McDs.

So basically, she wasn't BU in taking your child for a McDs treat, and you're not BU for asking her not to do it again

Juju - bang on.

100% agree with what tankie wrote

coolbeans we are not arguing your views, but with annas views of childcare/nannies

atonement for a child? OMG

yanbu coolbeans - I also don't want my kids to asociate junk food as being a treat. At least you now know what your nanny thinks is ok and can lay down some dos & don'ts for her.

lol coolbeans

you should've made it clear to the nanny ithingk but lo l at "proud to feed their growing child"

jujumaman, great examples of how different perfectly reasonable parents can be. I pity nannies who have to negotiate that minefield without guidance from the parent as to where they stand.

lol coolbeans.

interesting thread - i would never have thought that taking a 2 year old to mcd's was standard.

until reading this thread i'd assumed that a nanny would always check this out first. i see i was wrong!

agree that mcd's is not poison - but it's not a treat either.

{apols for 1 handed typing}

Before I go to bed, I'm with Juju.

Though i still must admit that there are so many terrible things going on in the world that we are justified in worrying about, and should protect our precious little ones from as much as we can. In the scheme of things, I honestly don't believe occasional McD's Happy Meals are one of them.

Food in a brightly coloured box with a suprise toy is always a treat for a small child. Obviously it's not a treat for an adult. Just like champagne is a treat for me, but not so much for my kids.