If someone hires a full time nanny, who ends up having played a significant part in having raised their child, would it be fair to call them a negligent parent? If you have any kids, have you ever had a nanny for them, and if not, would you hire one?

I can't stand the thought of wealthy moms who don't work outside the home, having a nanny that does a majority of the "mom" duties, like feeding the kids or getting up at night with a baby. But for whatever reason, that is what works for them so I would not go as far as calling it neglect.

Some homes have two very busy working parents, and in those cases where they have more than one kid, a nanny is ideal. Kids really need a lot of transportation, help with school things...that sort of thing. If I worked the kind of hours that my guy does, between us, we wouldn't have the proper time for our one child, let alone if we had more than one. So, a nanny would work for us. But I couldn't hire one so I do what I do so that I am available and we don't need any help.

I don't like the idea of nannies, period, of course I've been that way ever since I saw that Bette Davis movie where she's a nanny who goes crazy, kills the child she's looking after, and blames the other child for the death, and then tries to kill off the rest of the family to keep the truth from coming out.

That said, I can understand having a nanny, but I agree it shouldn't be a full time one where they're spending more time raising your own kids than you are.

I think it's absolutely negligent of parents to have full-time nannies who practically take over the parental responsibilities. I get so annoyed when I hear celebrities who have nannies. Don't have somebody else raise your kid. Don't have a kid if you're not going to take care of them. Give yourself to them wholly, heart and soul, or forget about it.

That is so true, didn't they say that Madonna has 6 nannies or something? And people want to say she's a good, loving mother, must be loving when she can't possibly be spending any time with them.

I wouldn't be surprised if that were true about Madonna. That's what I heard about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, that they have several nannies. What good are parents if you never see them? I just don't understand that.

Exactly. Now one thing I keep going back to, in the first episode of The Addams Family, when the truant officer comes around and asks Gomez why the children have never been in school, he says 'why have children just to get rid of them?' for the 60s that must've been a pretty radical idea to put that line in, and today people especially think about this idea. And that seems to be all a lot of parents do, they have kids and then enroll them in every thing imagineable so they don't spend any time together and just to make sure they don't accidentally get a little bonding in, they hire a nanny so their responsibilities as parents, save the financial part, are passed off onto someone else.

I grew up here in Manhattan and although I have never had a nanny, but I have friends that have had them and they are absolutely fine and have great relationships with their parents. I don't think it's neglect from my own observation. There are career people that want it all and they need help along the way.

RedBedroom wrote:

I can't stand the thought of wealthy moms who don't work outside the home, having a nanny that does a majority of the "mom" duties, like feeding the kids or getting up at night with a baby. But for whatever reason, that is what works for them so I would not go as far as calling it neglect.

Some homes have two very busy working parents, and in those cases where they have more than one kid, a nanny is ideal. Kids really need a lot of transportation, help with school things...that sort of thing. If I worked the kind of hours that my guy does, between us, we wouldn't have the proper time for our one child, let alone if we had more than one. So, a nanny would work for us. But I couldn't hire one so I do what I do so that I am available and we don't need any help.

If your nanny becomes more than a slightly upgraded babysitter, then I think that is just parental laziness. Those rich housewives with nanny's IMO seem like they had kids for the sake of trophies. Designer babies to show off, while someone else does the actual mothering.

I have nothing against parents seeking additional assistance but additional assistance is all it should be. Your child shouldn't be bonding more with their nanny than they are with you.

Chris wrote:

If someone hires a full time nanny, who ends up having played a significant part in having raised their child, would it be fair to call them a negligent parent? If you have any kids, have you ever had a nanny for them, and if not, would you hire one?

According to the definition of negligent, the answer is probably yes of many "parents". But there are exceptions to just about everything. What about single parents? In one of my favotite movies and books of all time, To Kill A Mockingbird, Jem and Scout are under the direct supervision of their housekeeper Calpurnia for much of the day but I wouldn't call Atticus Finch a negligent parent.

A housekeeper and a nanny are two different things however. A nanny's first priority of the job is the children, a housekeeper tends to the household in general.

Nannies don't always live with the children either and they can have housekeeping duties as well. I still say there are exceptions to a parent being negligent.

RedBedroom wrote:

Some homes have two very busy working parents, and in those cases where they have more than one kid, a nanny is ideal. Kids really need a lot of transportation, help with school things...that sort of thing. If I worked the kind of hours that my guy does, between us, we wouldn't have the proper time for our one child, let alone if we had more than one. So, a nanny would work for us. But I couldn't hire one so I do what I do so that I am available and we don't need any help.

ITA with this. If you have more than two children, nannies are a lot more affordable than daycare. A nanny can be a wonderful addition to the family but should not be the one who is more bonded with the children.

I have seen some ads that I consider abusive to the Nanny - families paying minimum wage and wanting a life in nanny (paid 40 hours a week) who does everything from child care to balancing the chequebooks to laundry, cleaning, and shopping. In other words, some of these families are looking for a full time nanny, cook, housekeeper AND accountant, and only paying minimum wage.

In one of my sociology classes, I was the only one in the group of 5 who had not had a nanny. Most of the girls had several nannies who were more like babysitters over the years - women who babysat and helped around the house. I wouldn't say just having a nanny makes a parent neglectful, but when the child is more bonded to the nanny than to the parent, then that would seem neglectful.

CatEyes10736 wrote:

RedBedroom wrote:

I can't stand the thought of wealthy moms who don't work outside the home, having a nanny that does a majority of the "mom" duties, like feeding the kids or getting up at night with a baby. But for whatever reason, that is what works for them so I would not go as far as calling it neglect.

Some homes have two very busy working parents, and in those cases where they have more than one kid, a nanny is ideal. Kids really need a lot of transportation, help with school things...that sort of thing. If I worked the kind of hours that my guy does, between us, we wouldn't have the proper time for our one child, let alone if we had more than one. So, a nanny would work for us. But I couldn't hire one so I do what I do so that I am available and we don't need any help.

If your nanny becomes more than a slightly upgraded babysitter, then I think that is just parental laziness. Those rich housewives with nanny's IMO seem like they had kids for the sake of trophies. Designer babies to show off, while someone else does the actual mothering.

Somebody's gotta actually raise those designer babies in between People Magazine shoots.

LOL - true, true Marc.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Not necessarily. It's only neglect if you actually neglected them. There is nothing wrong with being raised in some shape, form or fashion from someone other that your parents. A lot of people were co-raised by their grandparent, godparent, aunt, uncle, etc. If I had the money and I really needed the help, I might consider getting a nanny. But I would never do it for the sake of just putting my kid off on somebody else.

I'd sooner call in the grandparents for help. I'm a firm believer that it takes a village to raise a child, why hire the rest of the village?

I don't think they're negligent. Most parents who hire live-in nannies are obviously able to provide financially, so the children's needs are well take care of. Thing is, many times the children grow more attached to their nannies as a result (I know a couple of people who have done this for a living), and this is sad.

I do, however, have mucho trouble with the concept of hiring nannies when the mother does not work. Isn't a hired housekeeper and/or cook enough? And what's funny is to realize how much of this was practiced in early-America. With slaves also came nannies who often did more for the child than the parent; difference is, they slept in their own quarters.

I wouldn't immediately say so. When my brother and I were kids, my mother used to hire maids to watch over us because she worked during the day and afternoon and wanted to make sure someone was there when we came home from school. To me the real neglect would have been being left to our own devices with no adult around.

Depends on how seminal they are in the kids life vs. their parents. Nannies should only be there to assist and help dot the "i's", they shouldn't be doing the actual parenting.