Anyone a SAHM with nanny?

[williams44]

I have a 13 month old, and I work part-time. My boss, however, just decided that he needed a full-time person and so I'm out of a job.

I know I'm not supposed to say this, but I really can't be a full-time stay at home mom. It would drive me crazy. I know that sounds bad, but I've found that I'm just not cut out for it. Maybe when she gets older, I'll feel differently, but for now, I know I can't stay home full-time. It's just not for me.

I'm fortunate that I don't actually have to work if I don't want to. My husband makes enough to support us (he's a radiologist). So, now I'm faced with a decision. Do I look for another part-time job? That's very hard in my field (I'm a lawyer), and especially in this economy. I don't want to work full-time because I feel that I couldn't justify being away that much from my child, knowing that I don't actually have to work. Plus, I don't like being a lawyer all that much.

My other option is to stay at home with a part-time nanny. We already have one on the days that I currently work. My husband thinks we should keep her because good nannies are hard to come by and our daughter is already used to her. Here's my issue. I feel guilty if I were to stay home and have a nanny. It's funny because I don't think guys feel that way as much. But I feel guilt if I'm away from my daughter unnecessarily. That's probably not healthy. If I were not working, I feel like I should be with my child, instead of hiring someone else to be with her.

And there's also the public perception, which I know I shouldn't care about, but it still bothers me. I'm at home and I have a nanny. I feel like there would be a lot of judgment and eye-rolling. This shouldn't matter, but I guess I would feel bad.

Don't get me wrong - it sounds awesome. Finally some time to get stuff done and some time for myself, etc. But I worry that I would feel guilt all the time and that I would feel spoiled or something to that effect.

Are any of you guys in this situation and how do you feel about it? Please don't take any of the above to be somehow a judgment against you if you are in this position - it's just my concerns and worries.

Also, if you're not in this situation would you look down upon someone who was in this situation? Be honest - I really want to know!

Thanks.

[1964pandora]

I am a SAHM and I have absolutely NO problem with the scenario you presented. I think it would be great if any SAHM who wanted a part-time nanny could have one. Honestly, I think I would be a much better SAHM if I had a part-time nanny and you probably will be too! No one I know would think poorly of you for being a SAHM and having a part-time nanny!

ETA: I should add that I also homeschool, so I am with my kids 24/7. If my kids were in school all day, I wouldn't want a part-time nanny.

[hillview]

I say go for it. Do some pro bono work. Organize something. Sleep. A neighbor does it. I don't look down on her. Also I would not be a great SAHM.

It's your life. Don't let what other people think rule your world. Do what makes you happy and makes sense for your family.
/hillary

[ehf]

Explain to me how it's different from being a SAHM with kids in elementary school.

I definitely think you'll get your fair share of eye rolling, but it's as judgmental and unnecessary as snide comments about any other kind of mom.

I say, if it works for your family, great.

[stinkyfeet]

If you can afford it, i think that it is a great option for you. It might make staying home full time more appealing. Also, if you decide to have baby #2 anytime soon, it would be great for your DD to have someone around who she already likes.

[justlearning]

My friend is a full-time SAHM and hires a full-time nanny every summer (to watch her 4 and 7 year olds). Her reasons are because she has a son who's on the autism spectrum, which makes things more stressful in her home.

I never look down on her but do feel jealous of her when she's off playing tennis, bike riding, etc. all summer and I'm at home with my sons 24/7 and they're driving me crazy!

If I were in your shoes, already had a part-time nanny that you love, and can afford to keep her, I would do so in a heartbeat.

[kerridean]

Honestly, and I sure I will be flamed, I think it is a little odd. I mean, as a SAHM I look at it as my job to run the household and provide care to the children. I am just not sure what I would do all day with a nanny taking care of the kids. I guess I could volunteer or something, but in that case I would just get a job if I was going to be out of the house.

I have NO help and a husband who is never home (military/doctor) and I still manage to keep my house clean, cook dinners most nights, exercise 4 times a week, volunteer at school a little, and I still feel like I have alot of down time. Now, my kids are older 7 and 5 (still in preschool so home by 11), so maybe if they were smaller I would feel differently. But then they took naps and I had all that time to get things done around the house.

Just my opinion. I know it will not likely be the popular one. I do plan to have a house cleaner once a week...when I go back to work full time.

[Corie]

If you want my complete honesty, I truly don't understand having
a nanny while you are a SAHM. I can't imagine paying someone
to do the job that I am staying home to do.

And, I know for a fact that my husband would never allow that scenario.

Again, this is my honest opinion. I don't mean to make you feel bad.

[poppy]

I'm a SAHM and I have a nanny 36 hours a week and I love it! I have 2 boys very close in age and I find her invaluable. It's worth the money to stay sane and make sure my kids needs are met. For me, I can't focus on both at the same time b/c my infant is EBF. It's hard to do w/o help. Don't feel bad because you need to take care of yourself first if you want to take care of your kids. A happy mom = happy kids.

For P/T work as an attorney, have you tried contacting different agencies that specialize in contract work? Sometimes you can find an employer that is flexible and willing to work with you. In the past, I've even had assignments that I was able to do from home and just go in for meetings.

[smilequeen]

I don't have a nanny but I have a Grandma who takes care of my kids a lot. I've been back and forth on working part time and being a SAHM. I do enjoy the SAHM thing more with my kids being older though. Having time to volunteer at preschool/gradeschool and take them to their activities is great. Part time was a better compromise when they were little (after the first 6 months at least).

Anyway, SAHMs deserve downtime too. You might hire a babysitter, you might have family, you might have a MDO, you might have preschool. So...you have a nanny that your daughter already loves. Keep her. Especially if you think you might end up finding another p/t job.

There is no prize for saying you can do EVERYTHING yourself and you don't need any help. YOU are already doing the job that you are staying home to do. There is nothing wrong with getting some help doing it and getting a break sometimes. There are always going to be moms who pass those judgments and I'm sure they pass the same judgments on you for working instead of staying home. Those people will always be passing judgments. Ignore them.

[Pennylane]

If you want my complete honesty, I truly don't understand having
a nanny while you are a SAHM. I can't imagine paying someone
to do the job that I am staying home to do.

And, I know for a fact that my husband would never allow that scenario.

Again, this is my honest opinion. I don't mean to make you feel bad.

This was my first thought too, but it is really no different than having your child in preschool for a few hours a day . If you can afford it, then why not? Especially if you know you are going to be unhappy being a full time mom.


Ann

[Cam&Clay]

If we could afford for me to be a SAHM, I would definitely go nuts and need time for myself. I would want a part-time nanny or take DS2 to a sitter a few days a week at least.

As a matter of fact, if DH has to deploy this summer while I am off work, I will definitely keep DS2 at the sitter's part-time to keep me sane.

I say you are fine and if anyone says otherwise, oh well...

[WatchingThemGrow]

A lot of SAHMs have regular babysitters. How many hours distinguish a babysitter from a nanny?

[lilycat88]

I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[KrisM]

Nanny, babysitter, mother's helper. Really, what is the difference if it's a few hours a week. I would love someone to watch kids for a while in teh summer so I could shop, etc with out them. Awesome.

[daisymommy]

I think it's all in the connotation, that most people hear nanny and think doing everything to take care of the children, every day (or most days) and all day long--or many hours.
But with the term babysitter, it's more of a few hours here and there kind of idea.

I think it's healthy and fine for SAHM to have a babysitter you trust and your child loves, to do things with them so you can get a break once or twice a week for a half day or so.
But if you're talking about 4-5 days a week, for a more than half a day, then no, I don't personally agree with that. I feel the same way Corie does in that situation. I don't hire people to be my child's mother. That is my job.

[niccig]

A lot of SAHMs have regular babysitters. How many hours distinguish a babysitter from a nanny?

I had a babysitter 6 hours a week on one day. I used that day to do errands, then I started some volunteer work that I really wanted to do. Once DS got to preschool and just mornings, I kept the sitter for one afternoon and she would pick DS up at 11.30am on that day. DS went to preschool 3 longer days and our wonderful sitter graduated from college at the same time. That as 2 years ago - we still miss her.

[pinkmomagain]

For me, having someone come help out, say, 4 hours a day 3 times week so that you could get out to run errands, make appointments, meet a friend for lunch, seems reasonable. I'd call that person a sitter, though, not so much a nanny. Semantics aside, it sounds like you have someone who you trust and like.

That said, I tried to do something like this when I had my 3rd and I personally just felt weird and uncomfortable and did not continue it for very long.

[KpbS]

When I read the title of your post, I have to admit that my first reaction was definitely a negative one. That said, everyone needs a break whether they get one or not. I am an attorney as well (SAHM now) and I understand the lack of pt work. It is out there just very hard to find--esp. if you are specialized in your work. Will you be looking for a ft/pt position? If so, finding childcare for interviews is most important.

Are you thinking of a nanny for 5-10 hrs. a week or more like 20-30 hrs? 5-10 hrs. a week to me is not very different than preschool or a sitter but any more than that I would raise my eyebrows if there is only 1 child in the family and no special circumstances (special needs, chronic illness, etc.)

[jgenie]

If you have someone you trust that your child likes KEEP HER!!! I would love to have someone come in from 4:00 - 7:00 some nights to keep DS1 occupied so I could make dinner and then have them clean up while I do baths and bedtime. Lots of people use the tv while they're making dinner I would much prefer that DC are engaged instead. Of course, my preference would be that DH would come home early enough that we could manage it all together but that isn't an option for us.

[ncat]

If you are looking for another part time job, it will be hard to conduct your job search (or start a new job) without childcare in place. That would be reason enough for me to keep the nanny.

I had a really difficult job search when DD was a toddler - I couldn't do many informational interviews and I had to schedule phone interviews for nap time and hope that DD napped. Then, when I finally got a job, I couldn't give a firm start date until I had arranged daycare.

[peanut520]

there is no way i could do it and that is why i didnt stay home even thought dh wanted me to and we can afford it. you shouldnt worry about what others think. i have a girlfriend that is a SAHM with 2 nannies (kiddos are 13, 6, and 1 mo) along with a housekeeper.

[Raidra]

Well, you should be able to do whatever you want regardless of people's opinions. I would never presume to tell you that you can't have a nanny and stay at home.

However, if you want my honest opinion, I would think it was weird if someone had a nanny if they stayed home and just had one kiddo. I would never say anything or treat that person differently, but I would wonder why they were staying at home and not out working. If you don't want to be a lawyer, what about going to school so you can change careers? Or if you really don't need the money, do pro bono work or do something else to give back.

It's one thing to be a SAHM and have a mother's helper around for 5-6 hours a week and another to have a nanny for 20+ hours. I just can't imagine what I would do with my time if I had just one kid and someone besides me there to take care of him/her.

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

Being a SAHM with a nanny is my dream scenario! Go for it!

[smilequeen]

Or if you really don't need the money, do pro bono work or do something else to give back.

This is a great idea if you want to keep working too. This is pretty similar to what I decided to do. I haven't needed to work for any kind of income, so I agreed to work pediatric Medicaid for the last few years. I did make SOME money off of it, but it was mostly to feel like I was doing something that really meant something. I found it really rewarding. I kind of got fed up for the 9 months I worked in a high end practice when DS1 was little...like "I"m leaving him for THIS? When I don't need the money? Pointless!"

[niccig]

If you don't want to be a lawyer, what about going to school so you can change careers? Or if you really don't need the money, do pro bono work or do something else to give back.
.

This is what I did for the 5 years I was SAHM. I no longer wanted to do the job I had, but SAHM was tough for me. DH came home one night when DS was 18 months and I told him that when I had the babysitter, I would be doing volunteer research work for an academic AND I was starting a night class and dropping DS off at a friend's until DH finished work to pick DS up.

I needed to be doing something for *me* that didn't involve DS or DH or the house. I used that time to explore different options, took a number of classes etc. I've now worked out what I want to do, and I'll need to study full-time for a few years - it would have been nice if I had worked that out 3 years ago, but I didn't. DS is in school now, so that's the plan for next few years.

You could use this time to do some exploration/self-reflection on what you want to do. I would have difficulty having a regular nanny and not doing something and for me it needs to be something that is not related to house/family, and while I could fill the time with more leisure activities, I would get bored with only that.

[[email protected]]

I have a 13 month old, and I work part-time. My boss, however, just decided that he needed a full-time person and so I'm out of a job.

I know I'm not supposed to say this, but I really can't be a full-time stay at home mom. It would drive me crazy. I know that sounds bad, but I've found that I'm just not cut out for it. Maybe when she gets older, I'll feel differently, but for now, I know I can't stay home full-time. It's just not for me.

I'm fortunate that I don't actually have to work if I don't want to. My husband makes enough to support us (he's a radiologist). So, now I'm faced with a decision. Do I look for another part-time job? That's very hard in my field (I'm a lawyer), and especially in this economy. I don't want to work full-time because I feel that I couldn't justify being away that much from my child, knowing that I don't actually have to work. Plus, I don't like being a lawyer all that much.

My other option is to stay at home with a part-time nanny. We already have one on the days that I currently work. My husband thinks we should keep her because good nannies are hard to come by and our daughter is already used to her. Here's my issue. I feel guilty if I were to stay home and have a nanny. It's funny because I don't think guys feel that way as much. But I feel guilt if I'm away from my daughter unnecessarily. That's probably not healthy. If I were not working, I feel like I should be with my child, instead of hiring someone else to be with her.

And there's also the public perception, which I know I shouldn't care about, but it still bothers me. I'm at home and I have a nanny. I feel like there would be a lot of judgment and eye-rolling. This shouldn't matter, but I guess I would feel bad.

Don't get me wrong - it sounds awesome. Finally some time to get stuff done and some time for myself, etc. But I worry that I would feel guilt all the time and that I would feel spoiled or something to that effect.

Are any of you guys in this situation and how do you feel about it? Please don't take any of the above to be somehow a judgment against you if you are in this position - it's just my concerns and worries.

Also, if you're not in this situation would you look down upon someone who was in this situation? Be honest - I really want to know!

Thanks.

I live in a very affluent area and what you describe isn't that uncommon. Usually the parent has more than one kid but I wouldn't let that stop you. I had a mothers helper for one afternoon a week but she found a real job and I'm looking to replace her. I'm going nuts. My car is a disaster, I desperately need a hair cut, and just for once I'd like to go to the doctor's office alone.

If you feel guilty maybe work out a nanny share so that you keep the nanny you love and trust but only use her one or two days a week. Lots of moms in my area do this. We can't afford it right now or I'd do it in a heart beat.

[WolfpackMom]

For me, having someone come help out, say, 4 hours a day 3 times week so that you could get out to run errands, make appointments, meet a friend for lunch, seems reasonable. I'd call that person a sitter, though, not so much a nanny. Semantics aside, it sounds like you have someone who you trust and like.

:yeahthat: To be honest, a full time nanny would seem a bit much unless you were working, but I can definitely see how some partime help would be beneficial to you and its great that you already have someone you like and trust. If your nanny is looking for full time hours or more than 8-10 hrs of work I week then I would look into a nanny share or something.

[maestramommy]

:hug: Can you do pro bono work once in a while? I totally understand about wanting to hang on to a good nanny. I don't have one, but I do have a sitter that comes now around 9-12 hours a week. I do errands, participate in a handbell choir, and just decompress.

[ett]

I think it's all in the connotation, that most people hear nanny and think doing everything to take care of the children, every day (or most days) and all day long--or many hours.
But with the term babysitter, it's more of a few hours here and there kind of idea.

I think it's healthy and fine for SAHM to have a babysitter you trust and your child loves, to do things with them so you can get a break once or twice a week for a half day or so.
But if you're talking about 4-5 days a week, for a more than half a day, then no, I don't personally agree with that. I feel the same way Corie does in that situation. I don't hire people to be my child's mother. That is my job.

:yeahthat: This is pretty much how I feel too.

[♥ms.pacman♥]

i am a SAHM and for the past 2-3 months we've had a nanny who comes watch DS two afternoons a week (4 hours each time, so 8 hours total per week). sometimes (when my DH is out of town for the week) she comes over more frequently (like 12 hours a week). it is the BEST money i have ever spent. when she comes over, i either shower, clean up around the house, go grocery shopping, make dinner or take a nap (with the pregnancy i have many days i don't sleep well at night). I don't feel guilty about getting help AT ALL. with this pregnancy i was (still am) struggling with morning sickness and fatigue and so having some help was invaluable. Even if i wasn't pg, it would still be great to have time to myself. We don't have any family at all in the area, so hiring a sitter was our only option. Just time to get a break from my makes a world of difference. I notice that with this help I enjoy being with my son more. I am happier in general. That's PRICELESS, if you ask me.

And, as some PP said, I honestly don't see how getting a nanny is different from a SAHM having kids in preschool, or having grandma babysit the kids a few hours a week. So I see no basis for people's negative judgment on this issue. Heck, even if a mom decides to get a FT nanny while being a SAHM, how is that different from being a SAHM when your kids are in school all day? I don't get it. And why does it matter if the mom has one kid or ten. If you can afford it, why not. I honestly think that most people who give negative judgment on this kind of thing are simply jealous, because it's something that the vast majority cannot afford.





There is no prize for saying you can do EVERYTHING yourself and you don't need any help. YOU are already doing the job that you are staying home to do. There is nothing wrong with getting some help doing it and getting a break sometimes. There are always going to be moms who pass those judgments and I'm sure they pass the same judgments on you for working instead of staying home. Those people will always be passing judgments. Ignore them.
:yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat:

so true!!

[sste]

True story: our weekend babysitter was hired to be the THIRD nanny for a SAHM - - meaning all three women nannied to the SAHMs two children concurrently. And our babysitter was nannying for 40 hours per week during the day and then there were night/weekend nannies.

I have struggled with this a little bit because I have a nanny three days per week while I am on maternity leave and recovering from delivery. At first I felt very guilty but now I feel like this is the life!! I love it. I enjoy my baby more. And the reality is that a baby generates so much laundry, mess, etc. that often the nanny is doing household stuff and I am getting to enjoy the baby cuddles.

My DH had to convince me that the nanny help was important and his argument - - which was a good one - - is that many, many people get that kind of help as a matter of course in the form of family help. We don't have any family support at all. So, why shouldn't we essentially buy that help if it will make our family life less stressful, help me recover, and also give me some time for my writing projects . . .

[nmosur]

I had a nanny for half day, three days a week until DD was 15 months and started preschool. Thats when I did took a long bath, went shopping (with nanny and DD) and did all the stuff that needed to be done. Unfortunately I didn't know how to use the nanny - weird but true. I wanted to take care of DD myself so she ended up being more of a helper than a nanny.

[Raidra]

True story: our weekend babysitter was hired to be the THIRD nanny for a SAHM - - meaning all three women nannied to the SAHMs two children concurrently. And our babysitter was nannying for 40 hours per week during the day and then there were night/weekend nannies.


That's just mind boggling. I mean, why have children if you don't want to take care of them? Not talking about the OP here *at all* - just the woman who has two kids and three nannies. I mean.. wow.

[Raidra]

I honestly think that most people who give negative judgment on this kind of thing are simply jealous, because it's something that the vast majority cannot afford.


I don't think it's jealousy. If I had the money to spare, I still wouldn't hire a nanny. A housekeeper, sure, but not a nanny.

I think it has more to do with the feeling that people should be productive in some way.. working, taking care of the kids, going to school, doing serious volunteer work, whatever. Everyone deserves a break, sure. It really just depends on the amount of time the nanny is there, to be honest.

And the reason why it matters if a person has one kid or a gaggle of kids is that if you have two adults and five kids, both adults can easily stay busy taking care of the kids or the house. If you have two adults and one kid, there's going to be a lot of downtime for one of the adults.

[ett]

That's just mind boggling. I mean, why have children if you don't want to take care of them? Not talking about the OP here *at all* - just the woman who has two kids and three nannies. I mean.. wow.

I know. I was reading this and thinking why don't the nanny just take the kids home with them.

[sste]

That's just mind boggling. I mean, why have children if you don't want to take care of them? Not talking about the OP here *at all* - just the woman who has two kids and three nannies. I mean.. wow.

You know, I don't know the story but my babysitter said the mom in question with the three nannies - - nothing to do with you OP! - - was odd. I wondered if it might be mental illness of some sort and the family was not upfront about that to my babysitter. I know my doula said one of her jobs one fall was to work with a severely bipolar mom and essentially just to be part of a team providing 24 hour coverage to ensure that she didn't harm the kids or herself. Anyway, in the three nanny family case (not you OP), it is either mental illness or a lifestyle choice that is somewhat mind-boggling!

[SnuggleBuggles]

I don't really get it. I understand that being a SAHM isn't for everyone but have you really given it a chance? As the little one gets older you'll meet more people, do more things out of the house, you can do preschool for a bit of downtime, your little ones will just plain become more fun. Given a chance you could really have a good time together sharing these early years. I love preschool and sent ds2 2 mornings/ week when he was 21m. It was great for our family. But it was really all I needed. I was a SAHM because I wanted to do the mom stuff. I do see benefit to a part time nanny but I would probably roll my eyes at you with one kid and a full time nanny if I am being honest. I'd want to know what you really do all day. Pretty much all the judgments you seem to know would come your way would come towards me. I'm not proud to be judgmental but I am being honest. I think that you should find your parenting comfort zone and know that the world is really about to open a bunch more in the coming months and it can be a lot of fun.

Beth

[crl]

I'm a SAHM and my oldest goes to after school care 3-4 days per week. I could give you all the reasoning, but what it boils down to is every member of our family is better off this way. So screw anyone who thinks I shouldn't have him there. And it sure sounds to me like every member of your family is better off if you keep your great part time nanny. So screw anyone who wants to judge you for it.

Catherine

[stefani]

If you can afford it, and DH is OK with it, don't worry about other people's opinions.

I grew up in a country where middle class people can be a SAHM and have full-time live-in nannies. Now, I WOHM, no nannies, only housecleaners every 2 weeks...

Personally, I think having a day or two each week to do my things makes me a better mother and wife. When I was laid-off and looking for work, DS went to after-school care 2 days / 3 days a week (he was in K then).

Good luck in making your decision!

[LexyLou]

I would totally have a part time nanny if I could. In a heart beat.


Does anyone watch The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills? Camille Grammer has two kids (which she used a surrogate for since she didn't want to mess up her body) and has 4, 4!!! nannies. Basically each child has their own 24 hours a day! Now that's crazy.

A part time nanny is not crazy.

[shilo]

i'd keep her. quality childcare you are confident in is a gem.

i allow myself to be human and have time to myself. my husband and i decided together a long time ago that i am the best SAHM i can be when i have some help and relief. we have a sitter 4 afternoons a week for 2.5 hours for me to get to the gym, grocery shop, down time, etc. my mom also takes my youngest for me every thursday morning so that i can volunteer in my oldest DS's classroom and then stay thru the lunch hour to volunteer for other school jobs. and then she also takes them for about 4 hours on sundays so DH and i can go for a ride or to spinning class and have a few hours to get things done without the boys underfoot. all told, i probably have about 13-14 hours/week of regular help. if i had another 5-7 hours a week to make it a truly pt "nanny" type situation, i'd probably then make that time for increasing my volunteer hours at school and get back into more pro-bono work with the seniors fall risk reduction program in my county.

[JamiMac]

I don't think it's jealousy. If I had the money to spare, I still wouldn't hire a nanny. A housekeeper, sure, but not a nanny.

I think it has more to do with the feeling that people should be productive in some way.. working, taking care of the kids, going to school, doing serious volunteer work, whatever. Everyone deserves a break, sure. It really just depends on the amount of time the nanny is there, to be honest.

And the reason why it matters if a person has one kid or a gaggle of kids is that if you have two adults and five kids, both adults can easily stay busy taking care of the kids or the house. If you have two adults and one kid, there's going to be a lot of downtime for one of the adults.

:yeahthat:
I don't think it's jealousy either. We could do a nanny if we wanted to financially but I just would not do it. I can understand if you have would want to have someone come help out every once in a while but would not be the least bit jealous if a friend had a nanny, because that is not why I'm at home.

[lchang25000]

I have a PART-TIME nanny/babysitter or whatever people want to call her. She comes 2-3 times a week (usually just twice a week) for 4 hours each time..so 8-12 hours a week. DH is totally supportive of this and he was the one who found her for me in the first place. I was extremely reluctant at first, but finally gave in which I do not regret. I know being a SAHM is a full-time job and I enjoy it, but it's so nice for me to get a break here and there, run errands without having to bring DS, be able to make it to my doctor's appt without worrying who would watch DS last minute, have lunch with friends, etc. We've had 3 nannies since DS was born...our first started when DS was only 6 weeks old and she was a TREMENDOUS help since I was exhausted and my body was still healing. I would never get a full-time nanny considering I'm a SAHM and not working, so I think it's very diff. if you just want someone to come help out a couple times a week for a few hours each time.

I say the heck with what people think and just go with what you think will work for you and your family, esp. since you can afford it.

[tiapam]

I'm fascinated that in many threads here, posters urge others to ask for or get help! Here, some seem to think that it is not okay in the OP's situation. I don't get it. I don't have a problem with nannies, sitters, whatever. Many have posted here that a sitter saves their sanity. That sounds like a good enough reason to have help to me. And I don't think the number of children really matters. One kid is still one kid you have to bring to the doctor, the store, etc. Why can't a mom arrange her life so it's easy, or daresay pleasant, without people getting judgmental?

[Ceepa]

Maybe find something like pro bono work as pp said or somewhere to volunteer. I understand needing a mental and physical break, and 8-12 hours a week of nanny time could make a huge difference if you don't enjoy being a SAHM, but if we're talking full days multiple times a week of filling time with lunches and such, I don't understand that honestly.


Why can't a mom arrange her life so it's easy, or daresay pleasant, without people getting judgmental?

In fairness, OP asked everyone for honest answers. That's what I'm seeing here, not really judgment, though I can see how another person might interpret some posts that way.

[kijip]

Being a SAHM with a nanny is my dream scenario! Go for it!
:yeahthat: It is not my dream (because my dream is my job) but seriously, it sounds great. and the only thing that would make SAH work for me. Go for it. It is part time. Call her a babysitter if it makes you feel better. Join the board of a legal nonprofit or something for the work connection you seem to crave. If I needed to SAH I would likely insist on at least 12-15 hours a week childcare. And if anyone thought that was weird, screw em. It's not their life. My reality as a SAH parent would be much different than whatever somebody who judged it was. I am a dyed in the wool WOH sort. So I get it.

[LexyLou]

I'm fascinated that in many threads here, posters urge others to ask for or get help! Here, some seem to think that it is not okay in the OP's situation. I don't get it. I don't have a problem with nannies, sitters, whatever. Many have posted here that a sitter saves their sanity. That sounds like a good enough reason to have help to me. And I don't think the number of children really matters. One kid is still one kid you have to bring to the doctor, the store, etc. Why can't a mom arrange her life so it's easy, or daresay pleasant, without people getting judgmental?

:yeahthat:

[HannaAddict]

I am a SAHM with a nanny. I am also an attorney and pay my bar dues and serve as an arbitrator or sometimes pro tem, but did not go back to my practice. I would have rolled my eyes at myself pre-kids or even with two kids when I was parenting without assistance, but am lucky and thrilled to be able to have our nanny. We ended up getting a nanny, after much reluctance on my part, last fall when I had some unexpected complications related to my pregnancy (no issue with baby thank goodness) and I ended up in and out of the hospital for a week or more at a time, constant doctor visits, a catheter and other fun. We got incredibly lucky and found a wonderful nanny that worked for another family two to three days a week too. Her other family, from our neighborhood, was moving and so she had an opening. She was a lifesaver and we have kept her on after the baby arrived and my health problems were resolved post-pregnancy. Since I almost always have the baby with me (EBF), and I almost always do school drop off and pick up. But she is an extra set of hands, helps with pick up and drop off from preschool and first grade, and just general backstop when my husband travels, etc. She does not do laundry, etc. I felt a bit guilty about it at first, but it is pretty common for our neighborhood for SAHM to have nannies or be part of a nanny share. We are very lucky to be able to afford this and I totally appreciate it. She made an amazing photo album/scrap book of the last year with pictures of the kids and what they did last fall/winter when I was really a wreck.

If you can afford it, I would say don't worry about what other people think and do what works for you. Most of the negative reactions come down to pure jealousy/envy, whether the person knows it consciously or not. There is one mom at my child's preschool who continually makes snarky comments and I just chalk it up to that. It is her problem, not mine. I was raised by a single parent, paid for every dime of my schooling and own way and now have a nanny and stay home. Deal with it. My husband thinks it is great, it reduces his load and he works hard and travels. Your husband has a pretty busy practice too I bet. Our life is less chaotic and I am still very much the hands on parent, I am not off eating bon bons or having facials (not that there is anything wrong with that!). I do the heavy lifting of the household and the parenting, but have time to run to the grocery store or grab a latte on occasion. It was quite a change from being the parent with NO babysitting and a big improvement.

If you have any other questions, pm me.

[melonpan]

i would NOT look down upon someone who was in this situation.

go for it! im jealous!

[Jo..]

I think it's a great idea. You will be a happier, more present Mom if you have me time.

[Sillygirl]

OP, no way I could be a SAHM either. Don't feel bad about it. Also, I used to feel the same guilt when I came home early from work and the nanny was still there - I mean I would feel guilty if I didn't send her home right away. But I realized that keeping the boys on a consistent schedule was best, and used the time to cook dinner or to recharge myself a little.

Also, I think it's interesting to reflect on how this dilemma is so bound to our current culture of parenting. If you were a middle class mother in Victorian England, it would never occur to you to even ask the question. You wouldn't be working outside the home, but it would be a given that you would have full-time child care, and your neighbors and peers would think you were distinctly odd or even damaging to do anything different. Humans are far more flexible than we realize in the aggregate - we think a certain way is "normal" because the people we see around us are doing something. In a different cultural context, it would be completely different and we wouldn't be able to comprehend what we now think of as normal. So there is nothing inherent to our nature that says that your only two choices are renumerative work outside the home, or focusing your attention on the day to day work of child rearing.

And to the poster that referred to hiring a nanny as "hiring somone to be my child's mother," please know that your snippy little judgemental phrase didn't bother me in the least, because I love my life and how my family works. So there.

[Corie]

I don't think it's jealousy either. We could do a nanny if we wanted to financially but I just would not do it. I can understand if you have would want to have someone come help out every once in a while but would not be the least bit jealous if a friend had a nanny, because that is not why I'm at home.


You worded this much better than I could. Thank you.

[nfowife]

I haven't read everyone's comments but I have my younger DS in moms day out 3 days a week for 5 hours each day. He started 1-2 days a week when he was about 15 months. I don't see how that is much different than any other form of childcare situation, and I am a SAHM. We have no family here so it would be this or a regular babysitter/nanny and my kid prefers group settings with other kids, and I prefer him to be out of the house. OP I think you should do what feels right for your family. Plus if you find another job soon you will already have childcare in place.

[daisymommy]

That's just mind boggling. I mean, why have children if you don't want to take care of them? Not talking about the OP here *at all* - just the woman who has two kids and three nannies. I mean.. wow.

THANK-YOU!
The difference between having your kids in school and having a nanny is--when you send your kids to school, there is a very definitive purpose for why they are away from--so that they can get an education. It's something that HAS TO happen--an education that it is. It's not fluff time where you pawn off your kids so you can run around town getting your nails done and going shopping. In that case your kids are just killing time until they can get back to the person they love and need most in their young lives--their mother.

It kills me how there are people out there (such as the SAHM with 3 nannies) who think kids are cute and all, and they want to be able to say they have a family because it sounds nice--like a trophy family, but they don't want to put in the time and work to be a mother. They want to pay someone else to be them. I believe it is a very sad thing that mothers have bought the lie that they are replaceable, and that anyone can do their job.

One day their kids will be all grown up, and moved away, and they will have missed it.

[Puddy73]

If it works for your family, go for it! Some people may think that it is odd, but they don't know what works best for YOU. Some kiddos are just more time consuming than others.

On the job front, I totally feel your pain. I was let go from my part time attorney position last year and quickly discovered that the legal job market is abysmal. I took a break for a while, then I taught a class at a local college and now I'm doing contract work writing motions and briefs for a litigation attorney. The variety has been wonderful, something that I really missed when I was doing commercial finance work exclusively. As others have suggested, non-profits may offer an opportunity to do a bit of legal "work." When you find something that interests you, you'll be able to take advantage of it with a nanny already in place.

[mamicka]

Well, you should be able to do whatever you want regardless of people's opinions. I would never presume to tell you that you can't have a nanny and stay at home.

However, if you want my honest opinion, I would think it was weird if someone had a nanny if they stayed home and just had one kiddo. I would never say anything or treat that person differently, but I would wonder why they were staying at home and not out working. If you don't want to be a lawyer, what about going to school so you can change careers? Or if you really don't need the money, do pro bono work or do something else to give back.

It's one thing to be a SAHM and have a mother's helper around for 5-6 hours a week and another to have a nanny for 20+ hours. I just can't imagine what I would do with my time if I had just one kid and someone besides me there to take care of him/her.

:yeahthat: Obviously many people wouldn't bat an eye at your scenario. I think it's weird. I definitely don't get it & it isn't because I'm jealous. I like being with my kids. If we had the money, I'd hire a laundry-doer & paper-handler.

[♥ms.pacman♥]

I'm fascinated that in many threads here, posters urge others to ask for or get help! Here, some seem to think that it is not okay in the OP's situation. I don't get it. I don't have a problem with nannies, sitters, whatever. Many have posted here that a sitter saves their sanity. That sounds like a good enough reason to have help to me. And I don't think the number of children really matters. One kid is still one kid you have to bring to the doctor, the store, etc. Why can't a mom arrange her life so it's easy, or daresay pleasant, without people getting judgmental?

:yeahthat:

exactly! i don't understand it either. it's almost as if in order to be considered a good mom, we have to prove we're suffering somehow. god forbid we take a break or do something that makes our lives easier, and people start assuming we don't want to raise our kids or are hiring someone else to be their mom. i wonder if people realize how ridiculous and judgmental this sounds.

i get that many moms here wouldn't hire a FT sitter as a SAHM. i wouldn't either. i personally enjoy spending all day with my son, which is why i'm not working now. my son is a pretty easy baby and my DH does not work tons of hours. it still does get exhausting though which is why i hired PT help. But if someone wants to get FT help, who am I to judge? I don't know their situation. Maybe the working parent works 80+ hrs a week and/or travels frequently, there's no family around, baby or mom has some medical condition that requires extra care, maybe mom can't work for $$ bc of visa/immigration or other issues, maybe mom is active in volunteer organizations...there could be a multitude of reasons. i wouldn't automatically assume it's bc mom wants to spend the day shopping and getting her hair done instead of playing with her kids.

i find it funny how there are so many posts on the BBB complaining how others (family members, friends etc) negatively judge their lifestyle and/or question their parenting ability because they either SAH or WOH ... yet then we turn around and make judgments/negative assumptions about others for the same kind of thing. this is why i say, like an other poster did, screw what others think and just do what you need to do to make yourself and your family happy, bc there's ALWAYS going to be someone looking down on you and your parenting choices no matter what.

[Corie]

yet then we turn around and make judgments/negative assumptions about others for the same kind of thing.


Kind of like your earlier post...

"I honestly think that most people who give negative judgment on this kind of thing are simply jealous, because it's something that the vast majority cannot afford."

[fortato]

I'm of the camp that if you choose to be a stay at home parent, then that's what you should do. Take care of your kids, and do the gazillions of other things around the house that you're supposed to do in addition to watching the kids....

NOW- if you need help with that, so be it. And it's no one's business if you get that help. I would love the help.... a part time nanny would be AWESOME. I could get so much more done, and be a better mommy to my kids- because I wouldn't be so tired and overextended.

And- don't worry about what other people think. It's your life. You do what you think is best for you and your family. To hell with the haters. They're just jealous.

[Raidra]

I'm fascinated that in many threads here, posters urge others to ask for or get help! Here, some seem to think that it is not okay in the OP's situation. I don't get it. I don't have a problem with nannies, sitters, whatever. Many have posted here that a sitter saves their sanity. That sounds like a good enough reason to have help to me. And I don't think the number of children really matters. One kid is still one kid you have to bring to the doctor, the store, etc. Why can't a mom arrange her life so it's easy, or daresay pleasant, without people getting judgmental?

I've read through every post and there isn't a single person who said that moms don't deserve a break. Nobody said that they have a problem with part-time help - the vast majority said that having some help is a good thing. The only thing people have said they thought was weird was being a SAHM and having a full-time nanny.

Those who denounce others for judging, then make sweeping statements about how everyone must be jealous, are making judgements themselves. Love the hypocrisy.

[bubbaray]

These threads never go well....

FWIW, I know a woman IRL who d/n work and has 3 FT nannies for 2 kids. To each their own.

[Mommy_Again]

think of it this way:

If you were a regular FT employee without kids, you'd have (at a minimum) lunch hours, nights, and weekends to yourself. To get stuff done, enjoy time with friends, whatever. So why, just because we have the label of SAHM, should we not be entitled to time off too? Yes, it's our "job" to take care of our kids and house, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a few hours every day/week to run to the store, go to a doctor's appointment, cook dinner, get a pedicure, or whatever you darn well please.

Please do it, and do not for one second let a single person on this board or in real life make you feel guilty about it.

I'm at SAHM but I do have an at-home job that takes 15-20 hours a week and is very flexible. I love it and do not want to give it up. I am about to begin my search for some sort of extra help so I can not only continue with my work, but also do all the other things I listed above. I can do them now with my one-year-old in tow, but it's not always easy. When DD#2 arrives in a few months, I cannot fathom lugging two babies under 18 months around town on errands. And when my son gets home from school, I want to be able to focus some undivided attention on him. So yeah, I need some help to be the best mother, wife, homemaker, and caregiver that I can be. Does that make me less of any of those things just because I can't accomplish it all to perfection 100% on my own? No frigging way!

[MelissaTC]

I know plenty of people who have nannies that are SAHMs. Some are going to school, others are heavy into volunteering. And there are at least 2 that have husbands that travel 5-6 days a week and are alone. They need the help. There is nothing wrong with using help when you need it. To each their own. People need to do what is best for their family.

[♥ms.pacman♥]

Kind of like your earlier post...

"I honestly think that most people who give negative judgment on this kind of thing are simply jealous, because it's something that the vast majority cannot afford."

first of, when i said "vast majority" i wasn't specifically talking about people in this thread, i was talking about in general, when moms make negative comments about another mom's personal life. a poster mentioned another preschool mom repeatedly making snarky comments to her bc she was a SAHM and had a nanny. this is the kind of thing i was talking about. why else would another mom make comments like this if she wasn't envious in some way.

and if it's not jealousy/envy, then i must wonder...why would it bother someone so much if another mom was a SAHM and had a nanny? And why does it matter how many hours a week the nanny works? Apparently 5 hrs /week is ok, but 20hrs or more is too much..interesting that we all know each other's lives so well we are qualified to make this kind of judgment! And if it's about how much time a mom spends with her children...how is this so different from a mom who decides to WOH 50+hrs a week at a paid job?

[kijip]

The only thing people have said they thought was weird was being a SAHM and having a full-time nanny.

But the OP was not asking about a FT nanny, she was asking about a PT nanny and people have said that yes, it is weird. It's like the word nanny is a loaded term.

As for "why have kids if you don't want to raise them"- isn't that exactly what people often say about WOHM? When I was a PT nanny in college, I was not raising those kids, their parents were. Being a nanny is not being a parent.

[blondflava]

Might be a little late jumping in.. but to be honest, I'm jealous.. a little. Just a little bit as I'm a SAHM to my 18 month old daughter who is high needs and very clingy. On days when she naps only a little, I barely have time to take shower and do laundry, forget cleaning and cooking.. Thankfully, DH works 8-4 and is home in evenings and plays with DD when I can get out and get a breather or wash dishes without a toddler pulling on me whining, or getting in trouble. If we could afford it, I wouldn't mind a nanny half day once a week, I thought of daycare for a few hours one day but DD has low immunity and feeding issues so I don't want her getting sick.
I used to be a full time live in nanny to one family in my early 20's.. But that was not a normal situation, the mom would give me baby at 7 am and I also had two school age kids to feed, get to school, organize activities etc, and sometimes my work day lasted till 9 PM. Mom went for lunches, played tennis, shopped. During the weekend Dad helped, or grandparents. But that's different...

[daisymommy]

The reason some people (such as me) pass judgment is they see it as an injustice to the children. I do not believe it is fair or kind to the children to be away from their mother so much, when the only thing keeping the children from their mother is the mom wants a whopping amount of "me" time.

Something else that makes me mad is I think it sends a message to full-time moms that they are so undervalued, so unimportant in a child's life, so replaceable, that anyone can do it, as long as you have the money. Children need so much more than safe "child care"--they need a parent. There's a big difference.

But if you really believe in your heart that mothers are raising up the future generations of this world, and who adults turn out to be mainly hinges on how those children are raised--and I guarantee you that part time care givers do not invest the amount of "heart time" and emotional input that a child needs to turn out truly great later on in life--then why would you willingly hand over the great privileged of raising up your children to someone else? It's all in seeing how important you are to your children. Children have rights to...it's not just about the luxuries we can afford as moms.

Again, I am NOT talking about getting a babysitter so you can go grocery shopping alone, or to the doctor's, or to have a few hours here and there throughout the week to recharge and get a break. I'm talking about free-time every day, for several hours. No one needs that much "focus on me time." Suck it up and do something productive.

[kijip]

The reason some people (such as me) pass judgment is they see it as an injustice to the children. I do not believe it is fair or kind to the children to be away from their mother so much, when the only thing keeping the children from their mother is the mom wants a whopping amount of "me" time.

Something else that makes me mad is I think it sends a message to full-time moms that they are so undervalued, so unimportant in a child's life, so replaceable, that anyone can do it, as long as you have the money. Children need so much more than safe "child care"--they need a parent. There's a big difference.

But if you really believe in your heart that mothers are raising up the future generations of this world, and who adults turn out to be mainly hinges on how those children are raised--and I guarantee you that part time care givers do not invest the amount of "heart time" and emotional input that a child needs to turn out truly great later on in life--then why would you willingly hand over the great privileged of raising up your children to someone else? It's all in seeing how important you are to your children. Children have rights to...it's not just about the luxuries we can afford as moms.

Again, I am NOT talking about getting a babysitter so you can go grocery shopping alone, or to the doctor's, or to have a few hours here and there throughout the week to recharge and get a break. I'm talking about free-time every day, for several hours. No one needs that much "focus on me time." Suck it up and do something productive.

So a replacement caregiver is ok to you only if the mom is doing something productive? Who decides what is productive? For me, working out 1-2 hours a day is productive (2nd hour usually WITH kids, though perhaps not if I was not working 30-50 hours a week). For some it is selfish and excessive. For me, volunteering is productive. Some jobs are arguably a waste of time. We could say nearly anything is an injustice to kids and thus ok to judge.

I just can't reckon how it is that people claim to know what is best for someone else. I know what works for me, not for you and not for the OP. What she does needs to work for her and her family alone. As a child I had a SAHM who should have been working instead- she would have been way happier. Trust me, it was not a great expereince. I would have preferred less of her time if it was time she was happy and excited in. Some people are not cut out to be SAHPs. If a pt nanny is what someone needs to make SAH work for their family, then I would say that the kids will be happier with that then staying home with a not very happy parent.

[Raidra]

But the OP was not asking about a FT nanny, she was asking about a PT nanny and people have said that yes, it is weird. It's like the word nanny is a loaded term.

As for "why have kids if you don't want to raise them"- isn't that exactly what people often say about WOHM? When I was a PT nanny in college, I was not raising those kids, their parents were. Being a nanny is not being a parent.

I think the difference in choosing not to be with your children in your spare time. Working full time and having child care, in my opinion, doesn't fall into the 'why have kids if you don't want to raise them" category. If a working mom chooses to spend all of her non-working time doing things other than childcare, then she's giving up a lot of her 'child-raising' responsibilities. I imagine that most working moms come home to take care of their kids, be present in their kids lives, etc, etc. Of course they're raising their children.


a poster mentioned another preschool mom repeatedly making snarky comments to her bc she was a SAHM and had a nanny. this is the kind of thing i was talking about. why else would another mom make comments like this if she wasn't envious in some way.

interesting that we all know each other's lives so well we are qualified to make this kind of judgment! And if it's about how much time a mom spends with her children...how is this so different from a mom who decides to WOH 50+hrs a week at a paid job?

You do realize that you're assuming you know enough about another person's life to determine that they must be jealous, right? Seriously.. don't give other people crap for making judgements when you're doing the same for yourself. *Everyone* makes judgements, it's in our nature.

Most people will say that spending 50+ hours at a job is more productive than having excessive amounts of leisure time. Working a job brings benefits to the family, and often, to society in general. Yes, a mom having some me-time also brings benefits to the family, but there's a point at which more me-time doesn't equal more benefits.

[Nicsmom]

Many have posted here that a sitter saves their sanity. That sounds like a good enough reason to have help to me. And I don't think the number of children really matters. One kid is still one kid you have to bring to the doctor, the store, etc. Why can't a mom arrange her life so it's easy, or daresay pleasant, without people getting judgmental?

Totally agree! Keep your nanny and enjoy it, do not feel guilty because you are taking care of yourself and your family. And you are helping the economy by giving someone a job ;)

[Ceepa]

There is a point when some parents just doesn't enjoy spending all day with their child and that's OK. But then I think a person should get a job or volunteer some of their time. Hanging around the house or creating "me-centric" activities while a nanny is around all day is odd to me.

As pp said, if I were to hire someone I would have someone tackle the cleaning or run errands, but that's me.

[melrose7]

As for "why have kids if you don't want to raise them"- isn't that exactly what people often say about WOHM? When I was a PT nanny in college, I was not raising those kids, their parents were. Being a nanny is not being a parent.

This was said about the family I nannied for all the time. I was a nanny in college and after I graduated as well. the family had 1 kid when I started and another one a couple years later. I worked around 45-50 hrs while in school, and 65-70 once I graduated. The mom, also a lawyer, but not practicing, she taught instead work some of the time but even when she wasn't working I was there. then they would even have 1-2 other sitters when I wasn't there some nights. For many years I feel like I did raise those kids. I took them to doctor appointments, open houses at school, hair cuts, taught them to read, etc. So when I hear nanny that is more of what I think of.
If OP wants a few hours a week for a break to get some things done that's her choice and she she do what she wants. I am choosing to stay home and to me that means that I am with my kids until they go off to school. Yes, days are hard, especially with one child on the autism spectrum, but they won't always be little and then I will have time to go out to lunch or organize my photos or do what I want with my time.

[maestramommy]

Can we please stick to the OP's situation? She already has a PART-TIME nanny, and would like to keep her, but needs suggestions on what to do with some or all of the time.

I'm a SAHM, and I really don't understand why some posters are taking her situation so personally. Just because someone is a SAHM and decides to have a nanny does not make them a bad mom, or even a slightly neglectful mom. We have no idea how many hours her nanny works per week, what kind of child her DD is, etc. We do know that there is a reason she wasn't a SAHM from the beginning, which is the reason she knows she can't be a SAHM now.

And talking about the wellbeing of children being away from their mother is just cruel and unnecessary. I have to wonder what everyone's opinions would be if the OP were in the lower socioeconomic strata and not working full-time, at any kind of job, were literally not an option. Would people be so quick to pass judgement in a situation where the child would be in someone else's care for 12 hours a day or more? I doubt it. Why then, is it not okay for a woman, who DOES have options, to continue to make use of a perfectly good caregiver for a fraction of that time? If her DD wasn't suffering from the setup before, what makes things different now, from the child's point of view? I seriously doubt OP is going to have the nanny over, and then hang around most of the time ignoring the child. My sense is that she wants to get out of the house and DO SOMETHING, which is one of the reasons for her post.

And one more thing, as a fulltime SAHM, even before I had a regular sitter, I never thought what I did was somehow lessened or made unimportant because another SAHM had a nanny, part or full-time. What does someone else and their situation have to do with me and mine? Absolutely nothing.

Okay, I realize OP was asking for everyone's honest opinion, so I won't fault some pp because their opinions differs from mine. I just think mothering is hard enough. Do we have to make it harder by insisting on a specific gold standard?

[poppy]

Hmmm... I'm surprised to think that a SAHM with help would be judged.
I would have hoped there would be more support for each other as moms, but I've found that other women are now our glass ceiling in the work force and at home. I know the OP wanted the truth but the truth saddens me that more moms aren't supportive of each other's choices. Being a mom is so hard...

For the OP, she is using P/T help, it does not sound like she is not going to take care of her child. So comments to that effect are really not relevant here.

I personally would prefer to hire help than sit my kids in front of the boob tube, which is what often happens. I understand that, which is why I got help. I would be BFing my infant and my toddler would be running around and I'd turn on the TV. I parent my own kids but I get help so I can BF, sleep, and be a more happy and productive mother. Sometimes I spend time with my infant and other times, my nanny watches my infant and I spend quality time with my toddler. I enjoy the time I spend with each of them and I appreciate the help. She also doesn't just watch them---she interacts and plays with them indoor and out, on art projects, reading, etc.

I really don't think it matters what other ppl think b/c you can never please everyone. Just do what is right for you and your family. I think ppl think it's a sacrifice to be a mom (and it is) but it's also most important to keep yourself healthy and happy so you can be the best mom to your kids. I know plenty of SAHMs who are so harried that they lose their temper with their kids, don't always enjoy time with them, yell at them in public, etc. I'd rather have a mom that is truely present in mind and body than one that is just physically present. Take care of yourself...parenting is hard...much more so than practicing law or any other job yet so much more rewarding.

Good luck! :)

[♥ms.pacman♥]

So a replacement caregiver is ok to you only if the mom is doing something productive? Who decides what is productive? For me, working out 1-2 hours a day is productive (2nd hour usually WITH kids, though perhaps not if I was not working 30-50 hours a week). For some it is selfish and excessive. For me, volunteering is productive. Some jobs are arguably a waste of time. We could say nearly anything is an injustice to kids and thus ok to judge.

I just can't reckon how it is that people claim to know what is best for someone else. I know what works for me, not for you and not for the OP. What she does needs to work for her and her family alone. As a child I had a SAHM who should have been working instead- she would have been way happier. Trust me, it was not a great expereince. I would have preferred less of her time if it was time she was happy and excited in. Some people are not cut out to be SAHPs. If a pt nanny is what someone needs to make SAH work for their family, then I would say that the kids will be happier with that then staying home with a not very happy parent.
:yeahthat:

i agree with everything, especially the bolded. who are we to say paid job = productive, benefit to society, but volunteering or other activities is not. i have a family member (who has 3 kids) who even admits he spends half his time at his job slacking off and playing video games. but i guess since he has a paid job then that's considered productive and that's a good reason for him to be away from his kids all day.

i too can't understand how we can decide for other moms how much outside help is enough, or how we can assume that nanny help = automatic leisure time for mom. in the past ~3 months that we've had help from our nanny, i'd gone out shopping with a friend ONCE. i've never used the nanny time to go workout or get my hair done. most of the time i use the time our nanny is here to shower, eat lunch, clean up around the house, grocery shop or try to cook a quick meal without having to attend to a baby. its usually only 8 hours a week, but honestly that time flies by quicker that anything else! i could easily see that i would need to get 20hrs a week for me to feel like i could even BEGIN to regularly spend time doing "fun" things for myself. even still, i'd probably use the time to do things for my kids anyway (cooking better/healthier meals, making DS baby scrapbook, updating nursery, etc).

[daisymommy]

The is the last thing I am going to say...I promise ;) I think it also sends a message to your children when they know that you are making the choice for long periods of time to spend away from them, doing other things, because you find those activities more enjoyable than spending time with them. Kids aren't dumb. They are aware of choices that people make. What does that do to their self esteem? I know several people who came from wealthy families, and had SAHM's, and the nanny brought them up. One of them is my step-dad. I can tell you how he feels now about what his worth was to his parents. And it's sad. I think it is different than the working mom who is going to work to help people, make the world a better place, help support your family financially, doing something productive. You can explain the use of your time, and why mommy is away. Even then there needs to be a balance. But if the number of hours your children are being taken care of by someone else vastly out number the amount of hours they are in your care, how can a parent honestly say they are raising them? Raising them doesn't mean who loves them more, it means who is doing the majority of the raising--care giving--bring up in life. People need to think about that answer and be comfortable enough to live with it.

[Globetrotter]

OP, you will be judged no matter what you do. Unfortunately, that is just how it is - we moms are unnecessarily hard on each other. If you can afford a PT nanny, why not?

I have a friend who quit her job because of burnout but is simply not cut out to be a SAHM. She volunteers a lot on a large scale, but she spends a lot of time doing her stuff, going to her many appointments, etc..

She has always had child care, from live-in nanny when her kid was young to after school care now (though I think she doesn't always use it now).

I think, for her, it would be really hard to SAH with her kid, so why should she be forced to do it? I think she is wise to recognize her limitations and make it work, as long as she can afford to do so.

However, I also think she looks down on my lifestyle as a SAHM (now FT at home), which has caused some friction between us, but that's another story.

[ha98ed14]

I personally would prefer to hire help than sit my kids in front of the boob tube, which is what often happens. I understand that, which is why I got help. I would be BFing my infant and my toddler would be running around and I'd turn on the TV. I parent my own kids but I get help so I can BF, sleep, and be a more happy and productive mother. Sometimes I spend time with my infant and other times, my nanny watches my infant and I spend quality time with my toddler. .... snip

I really don't think it matters what other ppl think b/c you can never please everyone. Just do what is right for you and your family. I think ppl think it's a sacrifice to be a mom (and it is) but it's also most important to keep yourself healthy and happy so you can be the best mom to your kids. I know plenty of SAHMs who are so harried that they lose their temper with their kids, don't always enjoy time with them, yell at them in public, etc. I'd rather have a mom that is truely present in mind and body than one that is just physically present. Take care of yourself...parenting is hard...much more so than practicing law or any other job yet so much more rewarding.



For some reason, this thread reminds me of the "buying a used mattress" thread from so long ago. For those who can afford it, why wouldn't you? And for those who can't, well, it's harder not to be that harried parent described above, so yes, it can/does incite jealousy.

I think it is part of the ever widening gap between the haves and the don'ts. Its the same reason, although a much less extreme example, why in general, people in higher income brackets have lower rates of obesity: More leisure time to exercise, more access to healthy foods both through access to full service groceries in their neighborhood and money for fresh fruit & veggies in the off seasons. You don't have to have a gym membership, but you do need to have time to exercise, and you don't have to have a car, but if traveling hours by bus to a neighborhood with a full service grocery is the only way to access it, many people are not going to do it.

Anyway. I think if I had the extra money for a nanny/ regularly scheduled sitter, I'd do it too. Not to carry over from the other thread, but this is another reason I feel like I can only handle one: with more, my harried-ness would be so high and I would not like the parent or person I would be. (I also deal with mental health issues that shorten my rope.) With the family dynamics we have right now, I can get a real break and DD gets individual attention and DH is not overwhelmed. Now I just need to get DH to offer more.

[ehf]

THANK-YOU!
The difference between having your kids in school and having a nanny is--when you send your kids to school, there is a very definitive purpose for why they are away from--so that they can get an education. It's something that HAS TO happen--an education that it is. It's not fluff time where you pawn off your kids so you can run around town getting your nails done and going shopping. In that case your kids are just killing time until they can get back to the person they love and need most in their young lives--their mother.

It kills me how there are people out there (such as the SAHM with 3 nannies) who think kids are cute and all, and they want to be able to say they have a family because it sounds nice--like a trophy family, but they don't want to put in the time and work to be a mother. They want to pay someone else to be them. I believe it is a very sad thing that mothers have bought the lie that they are replaceable, and that anyone can do their job.

One day their kids will be all grown up, and moved away, and they will have missed it.

Yes, but in the meantime, your kids are out of the house. And you aren't. So what are you doing all morning while your kids are in school? Whatever it is, it isn't any different from what a SAHM would do with a nanny.

OP, I'd sit down and make a list of what you think a mom really needs to do to raise a child, not just manage one. How will you support and develop your DC's character? Bring out DC's personality? Show DC how to form friendships, play nicely, explore interests, etc. Whatever you think is part of raising a child. If you want to leave some of the chores and a few hours of interaction with another adult to another adult, do your thing.

I think it'll help you face the judgment if you are clear in what you are doing and why from your child's perspective, not just from yours. "DC is happier because I am happier" sounds good but might not be enough. What, really, are you giving up, or not? I think you'll be more settled that way. I'd be interested to hear what you come up with.

[Melanie]

I am a SAHM and I have absolutely NO problem with the scenario you presented. I think it would be great if any SAHM who wanted a part-time nanny could have one. Honestly, I think I would be a much better SAHM if I had a part-time nanny and you probably will be too! No one I know would think poorly of you for being a SAHM and having a part-time nanny!

ETA: I should add that I also homeschool, so I am with my kids 24/7. If my kids were in school all day, I wouldn't want a part-time nanny.

Yeah that. I don't know what "part-time" is to you, but to me if I had had 2-3 half-days to myself when home with a little one at that age, it would have been really nice. Or even just for a Nanny to take the little one out to a park so I could have done some home projects I couldn't otherwise. Or gasp, GROCERY SHOPPING ALONE when you're not already zonked out after dinner?! LOL. Or how about a regular evening away with your husband?

I don't think it's altogether different than people who have aunt/uncle/grandparents who regularly take the kids for an afternoon. Some of us just don't have that luxury.

You might get some eye-rolling, but everyone does for something.

And FWIW, I practically NEVER left my first child...for YEARS. I'd probably have been a lot more sane if I could have. LOL.

[hillview]

Annoyed by all the judging in this thread. :hug:
/hillary

[Kindra178]

Title above says it all. I used to work full time and we had a full time nanny. The same week my twins were born we moved to a new house in a new town. We kept our nanny so our 26 month old would have some normalcy. In the am, she primarily hung out with him, but for the rest of day, she just lent an extra hand. It also allowed me to take my oldest to music class, go to the grocery store, etc. I also knew I was going to go back to work, so we wanted to keep her.

When the twins were five months old, we switched to four days a week. We also had night help. Looking back, it still wasn't enough help. I could have used more help, especially because my husband works crazy hours and is rarely home for bedtime. I would have liked more help on the weekends too. Flame away.

To the OP, keep your nanny so you can keep your contacts at your old firm (goto lunch, goto meetings, etc). It's much easier to go back somewhere when you remain on your old bosses' minds.

Many sahm moms in my area have a nanny one or two full days a week. They use this time for doctor appts, errands, hair cuts as well as to spend some time with one child alone.

Sometimes people have to pay for help that sahm moms from different generations got for free. It takes a village, people . . .

[ChristinaLucia]

Don't feel guilty at all! I think you should SAHM and keep your Nanny and use that time for whatever you want. Happy Mom = Happy child!!!

[Kindra178]

The is the last thing I am going to say...I promise ;) I think it also sends a message to your children when they know that you are making the choice for long periods of time to spend away from them, doing other things, because you find those activities more enjoyable than spending time with them. Kids aren't dumb. They are aware of choices that people make. What does that do to their self esteem? I know several people who came from wealthy families, and had SAHM's, and the nanny brought them up. One of them is my step-dad. I can tell you how he feels now about what his worth was to his parents. And it's sad. I think it is different than the working mom who is going to work to help people, make the world a better place, help support your family financially, doing something productive. You can explain the use of your time, and why mommy is away. Even then there needs to be a balance. But if the number of hours your children are being taken care of by someone else vastly out number the amount of hours they are in your care, how can a parent honestly say they are raising them? Raising them doesn't mean who loves them more, it means who is doing the majority of the raising--care giving--bring up in life. People need to think about that answer and be comfortable enough to live with it.

I find this attitude a little frustrating. I work outsede the home but I don't HAVE to work; my children would be fed, housed and clothed even if I didn't work outside the home. Will my children feel that I don't love them because I have a job/career that I studied for and for the most part enjoy? I am not really helping people, making the world a better place, supporting my family financially or doing anything that productive. Should I quit?

If I were a sahm, I would certainly have a nanny one full day a week.

[AnnieW625]

If you can afford it why not; I know that I would. Friends of mine have done it and it saved their sanity. I like my job and have seniority and a pension but honestly if someone gave my husband a job that paid him what we both make combined and I got the option to work part time doing something I truly loved, or decided to be a SAHM and volunteer in my child's class, and have DD2 with a nanny or send her same daycare a couple of days a week vs. working full time outside the home I would jump on it in a heart beat.

I haven't read all 9 pages of posts so I can't really add much more, but as long as you involve yourself with your children's lives then I am sure that you will have a great relationship with your children.

[inmypjs]

I also think you should do it if it feels right for and works for your family. I don't think it's cool to judge people for how they decide to handle their work, childcare, life balance, etc. So try not to let what other people might think and/or say bother you. In the end, it's your life.

[dogmom]

The reason some people (such as me) pass judgment is they see it as an injustice to the children. I do not believe it is fair or kind to the children to be away from their mother so much, when the only thing keeping the children from their mother is the mom wants a whopping amount of "me" time.

Something else that makes me mad is I think it sends a message to full-time moms that they are so undervalued, so unimportant in a child's life, so replaceable, that anyone can do it, as long as you have the money. Children need so much more than safe "child care"--they need a parent. There's a big difference.

But if you really believe in your heart that mothers are raising up the future generations of this world, and who adults turn out to be mainly hinges on how those children are raised--and I guarantee you that part time care givers do not invest the amount of "heart time" and emotional input that a child needs to turn out truly great later on in life--then why would you willingly hand over the great privileged of raising up your children to someone else? It's all in seeing how important you are to your children. Children have rights to...it's not just about the luxuries we can afford as moms.

Again, I am NOT talking about getting a babysitter so you can go grocery shopping alone, or to the doctor's, or to have a few hours here and there throughout the week to recharge and get a break. I'm talking about free-time every day, for several hours. No one needs that much "focus on me time." Suck it up and do something productive.

Well, some mothers aren't all in love with that little kid phase and aren't very good at it. (I have no idea if that is the case with the OP.) So, having a good Nanny who's sole purpose it to play and care with the child as a job, knowing she gets to go home at the end of the day might actually be better that a bored mother that just can't get into dancing with the Wiggles for the 54th time. People are different. I love me kids growing up and really prefer them as they get older. When I share this a lot of mother are, "Well enjoy it now, it just isn't the same when they get older and I wish they could stay young forever." I sort of feel bad for their teenagers. And I don't think pre-requisite for having children should be, "Yes! I want to dance with the Wiggles 54 times!" any more than I think you should have to love volunteering at school, or staying up with them late, or whatever. People make do.

If the poster had a parent with dementia would you be saying the same thing if they had someone to help care for that person in the house? The "heart" does not always do what is best for the loved one. I've seen demented people stay in a home situation that really isn't the best for them because their caregiver is convinced no one else can do that job. I know it would be a lot easier for me to let go of things with my children if they weren't my children. Sure, my kids always want me, even if I'm tired and grumpy and wind up losing patience with them. But I don't think that is always good for them, well enough me.

You can think whatever you want about these situations. But I certainly don't feel "undervalued" because someone chooses to do something different than the way I chose too. I don't think people's negative comments are necessarily out of jealousy, but because it is dealing with some basic feelings about the "right and wrong" way to raise children. I've lived too long and see too much stuff to make opinions about this. I mean, she isn't planning to sell her kid into sexual slavery.

I also see that no one mentions the freaking father, because apparently how much he is around, or not around, seems not to matter. I know someone that had a Nanny as a SAHM with 4 kids close together. He husband had a high pressured job, worked late, traveled a lot, and in helped the whole family dynamic.

[NancyJ_redo]

Annoyed by all the judging in this thread. :hug:
/hillary

:yeahthat: And frankly, I'm surprised and disappointed. I haven't read all the responses, but am surprised how black and white some people see it.

OP, move to my neighborhood because you'd be in the minority if you *didn't* have a nanny as a SAHM. I'm recently a SAHM (I'm a lawyer as well) and don't have a nanny or any help, and honestly I think my whole family would be better off, esp the kids, if I had at least some help.

As someone else said, it takes a village, and generations before us had parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. to help. I have zero help from family and would welcome the opportunity to have a part-time nanny.

[ha98ed14]

I am not really helping people, making the world a better place, supporting my family financially or doing anything that productive. Should I quit?


If I were you, then yes, I would have to quit/ not be working in that job because MY motivation to work AT ANYTHING comes from one of things you mentioned above:

I am helping someone (and your own children absolutely count!)

I am making the world a better place. (For me this would mean I was contributing to the environment, social services, teaching or anything that contributes to the planet, society, individuals, making a good and useful product, providing a service people or companies need, promoting or upholding ethical business practices, etc.)

I am helping support my family (and I would count both necessities like food, clothes, housing AS WELL AS extras like ballet and private school).

I am being productive (to me, this means providing value added to one of the above).

If I cannot say that I am doing any from the above list, then why am I doing it? The only answer I can think of is Because It Feels Good. For me, that is not enough of a reason.

ETA: But WRT the OP's question. If having a nanny helps you be a better mom (SAH or WAH or WOTH), then do it. I would if I needed it and had the money to pay for it.

[scriptkitten]

I'm mostly sahm but I had a part time nanny until my kids were 23m

I think it's important for my children to see their mother have outside talents and endeavors. I used the time to take dance classes which support my semi pro dance career and to do freelance web programming.

I could not cope if I didn't have my "extracurricular" activities.

Now that my kids are 2 I send them to a drop off enrichment program 1 morning a week so that I can work on my projects. Soon, I'll increase that to 2 days a week since it's going really well

[kijip]

Ok, I see what you are saying and I am not someone that people can consider selfish, seriously BUT why isn't helping yourself helping someone? Charity starts at home. I can't take care of anyone if I don't take care of my mental and physical and emotional needs. I don't see why anyone is judgmental about "me" time. How much time do people post on bbb? watch tv programs? Read a book? I bet that for most people such activities easy add up to a few hours per day. Just because you don't need a nanny for it doesn't mean it isn't personal time. Ftr I don't think the ha98ed14 is judgmental about me time, but clearly other posters have been. What's the fuss? If you think it is depriving your kids, don't do it. But it does not make someone else's kids deprived if their parents choose to spend time that is not strictly needed away from them. I am going to be thinking about this post on Monday as I go to workout. Yeah, I am sure my son would love it if I stayed home and read him Olivia 42 more times. And I will read him Olivia a bunch that day but I am leaving him and it's only benefiting me so I guess I am crossing some mom line.



If I were you, then yes, I would have to quit/ not be working in that job because MY motivation to work AT ANYTHING comes from one of things you mentioned above:

I am helping someone (and your own children absolutely count!)

I am making the world a better place. (For me this would mean I was contributing to the environment, social services, teaching or anything that contributes to the planet, society, individuals, making a good and useful product, providing a service people or companies need, promoting or upholding ethical business practices, etc.)

I am helping support my family (and I would count both necessities like food, clothes, housing AS WELL AS extras like ballet and private school).

I am being productive (to me, this means providing value added to one of the above).

If I cannot say that I am doing any from the above list, then why am I doing it? The only answer I can think of is Because It Feels Good. For me, that is not enough of a reason.

ETA: But WRT the OP's question. If having a nanny helps you be a better mom (SAH or WAH or WOTH), then do it. I would if I needed it and had the money to pay for it.

[sste]

OP and other posters, on a peacemaking note (!) I wonder if some posters that object might be imagining what 2-3 days of help would be like with their own spouse, schedule, lifestyle, support network.

I know radiology is a lifestyle job but that is *for medicine.* I know very, very few male doctors who work an 8 hour day or 9 hour day. It is entirely possible that the OP is looking at being the sole caregiver for 10-13 hours per day 5 plus days per week.

I am of the opinion that quality of care - - be it from a parent or a paid caregiver - - starts to really suffer after the 8 or 9 hour mark. And regardless of number of hours, quality of care suffers if parent is frazzled or stressed.

So, I would bear in mind that 20 hours per week of help is not that much if your spouse works 55-70 hours per week.

[ha98ed14]

Ok, I see what you are saying and I am not someone that people can consider selfish, seriously BUT why isn't helping yourself helping someone? Charity starts at home. I can't take care of anyone if I don't take care of my mental and physical and emotional needs. I don't see why anyone is judgmental about "me" time. How much time do people post on bbb? watch tv programs? Read a book? I bet that for most people such activities easy add up to a few hours per day. Just because you don't need a nanny for it doesn't mean it isn't personal time. Ftr I don't think the ha98ed14 is judgmental about me time, but clearly other posters have been. What's the fuss? If you think it is depriving your kids, don't do it. But it does not make someone else's kids deprived if their parents choose to spend time that is not strictly needed away from them. I am going to be thinking about this post on Monday as I go to workout. Yeah, I am sure my son would love it if I stayed home and read him Olivia 42 more times. And I will read him Olivia a bunch that day but I am leaving him and it's only benefiting me so I guess I am crossing some mom line.

Totally. I should have included helping yourself in the "Helping someone" category. But for me, personally, I feel the need to contribute to someone else outside myself. But if I am going to contribute to DD, then I do need some me time. It kind of becomes circular, I guess.

Oh and I just had to point out that you didn't think I was judging anyone lest I be flamed later, because it does matter to me what other people think... even if I say it doesn't. ;)

[HannaAddict]

The incredibly judgmental attitude of a some posters and moms IRL, are why I avoid the term nanny and say my "sitter" for the most part. Sheesh. I guess my "nanny" is actually a glorified, over qualified mother's helper. To quote another poster with a nanny, "I would be BFing my infant and my toddler would be running around and I'd turn on the TV. I parent my own kids but I get help so I can BF, sleep, and be a more happy and productive mother. Sometimes I spend time with my infant and other times, my nanny watches my infant and I spend quality time with my toddler. I enjoy the time I spend with each of them and I appreciate the help. She also doesn't just watch them---she interacts and plays with them indoor and out, on art projects, reading, etc. "

Having someone to come in and help with my older children, has let them not spending all morning warehoused while exclusively breast feeding my new baby. It has let my baby sleep and not spend the day schlepped around in a bucket to pick up the other kids. I personally don't know any moms except on a "real housewives show" (that we don't watch) that laze about letting fleets of nannies raise their children. Maybe that fantasy or extreme scenario of a few IRL people is what is fueling the green eyed judgmental monster of others? My job is currently lactating (it is hard work) and caring for my kids, but I am so glad I have help, even if it makes others judge. To the OP, just be prepared for mommy drive bys and do what works for your family! :)

[maestramommy]

I know radiology is a lifestyle job but that is *for medicine.* I know very, very few male doctors who work an 8 hour day or 9 hour day. It is entirely possible that the OP is looking at being the sole caregiver for 10-13 hours per day 5 plus days per week.

I am of the opinion that quality of care - - be it from a parent or a paid caregiver - - starts to really suffer after the 8 or 9 hour mark. And regardless of number of hours, quality of care suffers if parent is frazzled or stressed.

So, I would bear in mind that 20 hours per week of help is not that much if your spouse works 55-70 hours per week.

Yeah, I was gonna say it's rather an obvious point if one of the spouses is an MD. I know one radiologist. Now admittedly he is in a specialized field (neuro) at a university hospital, but crikey! his hours are insane, and they have actually really messed up his health.

The other thing I think about when considering being a SAHM is that it's not really the actual work that is such a challenge. It's the dramatic shrinking of one's world, the isolation, the pressure of multitasking for such long periods and having to be "on" every minute your child is awake, the mental drain that comes from repeated episodes of your 3yo losing one of their Silly Bandz and wanting you to find it NOW:p

A lot of posters were talking about when your kids are in school. Well the OP's child is 13 months. To me that is in the middle of when one's child is most demanding. They are so needy still, on every level. To be alone with them all day is just really hard, even if you get out of the house. You're still ON.

[♥ms.pacman♥]

Yes, but in the meantime, your kids are out of the house. And you aren't. So what are you doing all morning while your kids are in school? Whatever it is, it isn't any different from what a SAHM would do with a nanny.



:yeahthat: exactly. my mom was a SAHM until i was in high school. so for several years my brother & i were at school all day and she stayed home. so yes, i guess from some ppl's perspective, it would look like she had 8 hours a day to herself as "free time." yet in no way was she living the "charmed life" and spending the days at a spa or whatever. like any other SAH moms with school age kids, she would spend the day doing errands, grocery shopping, preparing meals, doing volunteer work at our school/church, taking some classes at community college, working sewing projects (mostly clothes/costumes for us), etc. We had no family in the area so she never got extra help, and I remember her getting stressed out pretty often. After we got home from school she spent all her time driving us to activities (soccer, piano, whatever), serving dinner, helping with homework (my dad worked pretty late). So yeah, i can easily see that just because you are not with your kids 8 hours a day, does it automatically mean you have all the free time in the world.


OP and other posters, on a peacemaking note (!) I wonder if some posters that object might be imagining what 2-3 days of help would be like with their own spouse, schedule, lifestyle, support network.

I know radiology is a lifestyle job but that is *for medicine.* I know very, very few male doctors who work an 8 hour day or 9 hour day. It is entirely possible that the OP is looking at being the sole caregiver for 10-13 hours per day 5 plus days per week.

I am of the opinion that quality of care - - be it from a parent or a paid caregiver - - starts to really suffer after the 8 or 9 hour mark. And regardless of number of hours, quality of care suffers if parent is frazzled or stressed.

So, I would bear in mind that 20 hours per week of help is not that much if your spouse works 55-70 hours per week.

i agree. i think it's really hard to say what's too much help without even knowing someone's family situation. sure, in my case if i had 25 hrs of help per week i'd be wondering what to do with my time, but of course that's my situation. my DH only works 40hrs a week, and these days my son sleeps 12 hrs a night straight. if DH worked closer to 70hrs, and/or if i had a baby that was waking up multiple times a night every night (or had other issues), i'd definitely would have to get more help. i know that the weeks my husband is gone i ask the sitter to come by a few extra hours. i used to be able to manage it all on my own even with DH gone, but then DS got very active and i got pg, so it all got harder really quickly.

[AnnieW625]

:yeahthat: exactly. my mom was a SAHM until i was in high school. so for several years my brother & i were at school all day and she stayed home. so yes, i guess from some ppl's perspective, it would look like she had 8 hours a day to herself as "free time." yet in no way was she living the "charmed life" and spending the days at a spa or whatever. like any other SAH moms with school age kids, she would spend the day doing errands, grocery shopping, preparing meals, doing volunteer work at our school/church, taking some classes at community college, working sewing projects (mostly clothes/costumes for us), etc. We had no family in the area so she never got extra help, and I remember her getting stressed out pretty often. After we got home from school she spent all her time driving us to activities (soccer, piano, whatever), serving dinner, helping with homework (my dad worked pretty late). So yeah, i can easily see that just because you are not with your kids 8 hours a day, does it automatically mean you have all the free time in the world.

:yeahthat: This is what my mom did too for the most part until I was 10, then she had a infant baby and did stuff with her for the next five years until she started kindergarten. She had plenty to keep her busy. My mom did volunteer at the elementary school a lot. I could see myself doing a lot of the same things if I was a SAHM except I would probably add one luxury, a gym membership, and gym daycare for an hour a couple of times a week.

[longtallsally05]

Also, if you're not in this situation would you look down upon someone who was in this situation? Be honest - I really want to know!

Thanks.

Honestly, my first thought was, "Can I be you?"

Serious envy here...I'd LOVE to have a part time nanny, so I could do stuff like take a shower, clean my house, get the oil changed in my car, go to the gym, have a hair cut, gyn appointment, go grocery shopping or even do fun stuff like learn to sew or to crochet with the charity knitting/crocheting group @ my church without having to simultaneously deal with my young children. IMO, a lot of the eye rolling will originate in envy. Be prepared for eye rolling, but don't let that stop you. If your finances will allow it, go for it!

[longtallsally05]

I suppose it ought to have occurred to me to say I'd use some of the time to volunteer to do stuff for other people, like be a home room mother for my DD's preK class, but as a military wife & SAHM of 2 kids under the age of 5, I ALREADY spend 90% of my time doing things for other people! Yep, I'm talking about my husband and kids!

[ThreeofUs]

We have always had babysitters for ~20 hours/week. I can speak categorically for both DH and myself: we can't get anything done unless we have help. If we had family around, I'm sure we'd be leaning on them. But we don't.

Now, our kids are incredibly active and interactive, we don't do much TV, I have a small business of my own that I need covered, and DH has about 80 hours of work per day, and we live in an historic home that requires a LOT of work. So when we tried the experiment of having just a few hours of babysitting help, NOTHING got done.

Our health went south b/c we couldn't get time to exercise, we were never together b/c one of us was trying to get some housework done while the other played with the kids, and our house was in a constant state of disorder. We were constantly overwhelmed and starting to snap - an untenable situation.

I ramped up the babysitting to 15 hours/week, and suddenly things are back to healthy for our family, and for DH and I. I now have a little time each day to exercise, so I can get myself back in order. I can get house, yard, garden and car work done. I am even looking forward to getting my own business restarted, though that's going to probably take more time that I have right now.

So, yes, I think staying home with a PT nanny is a great idea. You sound like you have a lot going on; why not keep a great caregiver to help you out?

[fivi2]

Honestly, I think a lot of people are reacting to the term "nanny". I bet the responses would have been WAY different if you had said you were going to look for a mother's helper to come in a couple times a week.

Don't worry about what people think - just do what works for your family!

[swissair81]

My situation is a little complicated. My had mothers helper for my 3 kids in the summer because I was 8-9 months pregnant & I could no longer run after them. After the baby was born, my girls started school & I sent my son to daycare- just so I could get used to having a newborn. My ultimate plan was to have him home in the mornings & then send him to daycare in the afternoon so he could be social. Then my dd who comes home at 1:30 could have my undivided attention for a bit. It didn't work out that way though. I started cutting back & he started crying his daycare lady's name in the morning. So I send him because he enjoys it. I might as well keep him there if he's happy, because I'm going back to school for winter semester. I have my eye on a Masters in Nursing- with a concentration in midwifery. I'm also having a bit of a physical problem at the moment- I'm pegging away at PT twice a week for the next forseeable future. So maybe it's better this way.

[mommy111]

:yeahthat: It is not my dream (because my dream is my job) but seriously, it sounds great. and the only thing that would make SAH work for me. Go for it. It is part time. Call her a babysitter if it makes you feel better. Join the board of a legal nonprofit or something for the work connection you seem to crave. If I needed to SAH I would likely insist on at least 12-15 hours a week childcare. And if anyone thought that was weird, screw em. It's not their life. My reality as a SAH parent would be much different than whatever somebody who judged it was. I am a dyed in the wool WOH sort. So I get it.
:yeahthat: I totally would need a nanny to hold on to my sanity if I were to stay at home. Actually, I totally agree with Susan, this would be my dream situation. Go for it!!!

[williams44]

Wow - I didn't expect so many responses. Must have hit a nerve! ;)

First, I want to say I appreciate and value every response. Really, thanks for being honest and for making the effort to respond. It's made me think a lot and helped me figure out what I want to do.

I guess the word "nanny" hit some people the wrong way. I never know what word to use. When I say babysitter, people correct me and say I have a nanny. When I say nanny, some people say, you mean your babysitter. So I've given up on figuring out what the right terminology is and just use babysitter and nanny interchangeably. Here, I used nanny because it was quicker to type. So sorry if that threw people off. I'll use caregiver in this post.

Just to tell you a bit more about my situation. I work 3 full days a week now, so we have a caregiver for those days. That adds up to 27 hours a week. My husband is gone on average 12 hours a day (work plus commute) and on the weeks he's on call (1 week out of every 5), he's gone on average 8 hours on Sat and 8 hours on Sun and usually doesn't get home before DD goes to bed on the weekdays. My DD is 13 months, and she's super active. I have to watch her like a hawk. I found that there is nothing that is absolutely babyproofed. Even if she were in a completely empty, closed room, there are always the walls and the floor. :) DD is very good about sleeping during the night, but her naps are very inconsistent. On good days, she sleeps an hour and a half and on average days about 30 minutes. Of course, she doesn't go to school yet, so there's no break that way. Because of her birth date and the date cutoff around here for preschools, it will be almost 2 years before she will enter preschool. So anyway, it's hard for me to get anything done when I'm home with her. I'm also EXHAUSTED on the days that I'm home alone with her. Because I work 3 days and am home alone with her 2 days, I don't get much of a break.

As a lot of you guys said, I know that there will always be judgment by other people no matter what I do. Someone will always find fault, etc. I shouldn't care, but I think it's human nature to care about what other people think to some extent. And of course, there's always self-imposed guilt. :)

I found a lot of the posts really interesting. Some people made a distinction about the number of hours. Apparently, 8-10 is acceptable, and possibly up to 15, but anything beyond that may be unreasonable. Also, people really seemed to care how I used those hours. If it was to work, that was fine. If I volunteered or did some other community work, that was also okay. As was doing errands, cooking, basically things for the household. Working out may be okay because it's related to your health. But things like going out with friends, going to the spa, going to the salon, etc were too frivolous and would be frowned upon.

I find that really interesting. I have a male friend who has been unemployed for a year and a half. He and his wife (who works) have 2 young children. He takes his kids to daycare every day, and he spends most of his time playing videogames and playing golf. He is loving life and doesn't feel guilty at all. If a mother were to do something comparable, she would be lambasted. Even DH said that if he were at home full time with DD, he would want at least 2 days to go do things like play golf. I found it interesting when he said that. I don't think mothers would say something like that. I feel they would be more likely to say, I would want at least 2 days to do errands, go to the grocery store, cook, basically things for our family and household. I feel like we feel the need to justify our time more than fathers do. And I believe that the guilt threshold for fathers is much higher. Sorry for the tangent, but I just find it interesting. By the way, a PP said that her husband wouldn't like my scenario. DH has no problem with it and thinks it's a no-brainer. Go figure! I'm the one who's feeling guilt.

This is what I've tentatively decided. I will be working until the end of the year, so of course, we will keep our caregiver during that time. I don't expect to find a job during the holidays, so I will likely give myself a bit more time after the holidays. Maybe a month, and during that time, we will continue to keep her because I may need to go to interviews, and if I find a job, obviously, I will need her. Of course, it doesn't take all day to look for a job, so I will likely use that time to work on projects that I've been meaning to get to, like those professional pictures of DD that we took in June that still haven't been framed or the bedding from our guest bedroom that we dismantled when we made it into a nursery that I still haven't found a place for. That list of things to do is probably a mile long. :)

If I don't find a job within that time, then my decision gets more difficult. I'm going to have to play it by ear. I'm going to have to figure out what the magic number is for me. It may be 8-10, 15 or even 27. I don't know. I know that we will lose our caregiver if we cut her hours. This is the bare minimum that she can make. If we were to keep her for the 27 hours, I would definitely work pro bono or volunteer. Or I would use that time to figure out if there is some field that I'm interested in and take classes or pursue that field. If I find myself feeling uncomfortable with the number of hours, I will talk to our caregiver and try to shift those hours. Maybe give DH and I a date night every week after DD has gone to bed. Or bank some of those hours for when DH is on call and have our caregiver come over and give me a hand. Or have her do some work around the house, while I'm hanging out with DD. Or I may have to find someone else. Honestly, I don't know how it will play out. I'm sure that answer won't please everyone here, but so be it.

A lot of people say happy mom=happy baby. I agree to some extent, but I think there are other factors. If I thought DD was suffering because of my absence, I would try and do things differently. But so far, she's very happy. I have an unusual arrangement. I take DD to my parents' house - they live around the corner. Our caregiver takes care of DD there. So DD sees my parents before they leave for the day. My sister and 6 year old niece also live there, so DD sees them in the afternoons. My parents also have a dog that DD loves. I find it works out well. Our caregiver has watched her here at my home as well and has commented that DD is happier at my parents' house. I think she likes all of the activity over there. So I don't feel that she's suffering in any way.

Sorry for such a long post. There were so many interesting comments by PPs that I wanted to respond to. And some that made me laugh out loud, like the sexual slavery comment. Yeah, I'm definitely not doing that! Once again, thanks.

[Naranjadia]

A lot of people say happy mom=happy baby. I agree to some extent, but I think there are other factors. If I thought DD was suffering because of my absence, I would try and do things differently. But so far, she's very happy. I have an unusual arrangement. I take DD to my parents' house - they live around the corner. Our caregiver takes care of DD there. So DD sees my parents before they leave for the day. My sister and 6 year old niece also live there, so DD sees them in the afternoons. My parents also have a dog that DD loves. I find it works out well. Our caregiver has watched her here at my home as well and has commented that DD is happier at my parents' house. I think she likes all of the activity over there. So I don't feel that she's suffering in any way.

Now, see, that is what I would love to have for my own kids - more contact with their relatives, who are all at least 10 hours away by car. Yours sounds like a great situation.

[dogmom]

To the OP:
Thanks for taking the time to write up such a long and well thought out response to the posts! (I'm sure you are a very good lawyer ;) )

[♥ms.pacman♥]

To the OP:
Thanks for taking the time to write up such a long and well thought out response to the posts! (I'm sure you are a very good lawyer ;) )

:yeahthat: i agree!

also, OP i know what you mean about not being able to get anything done while baby is awake. i have a 10month old that is super active (and not a big napper) who i pretty much have to watch *constantly*,so it's next to impossible to get ANYTHING done while he is awake. i totally get that!!

Also, i feel exactly the same way as you about the double standard between moms and dads in terms of free time, etc. mothers are always scrutinized re: how much time they spend with their kids, vs how much leisure time they have..but with fathers, this is rarely an issue.

and i agree that it's pretty cool that your DD gets to spend time at your parents house and gets to see your parents, sister and niece pretty often. your arrangement sounds pretty ideal to me!! :)

[mamicka]

I have a male friend who has been unemployed for a year and a half. He and his wife (who works) have 2 young children. He takes his kids to daycare every day, and he spends most of his time playing videogames and playing golf. He is loving life and doesn't feel guilty at all. If a mother were to do something comparable, she would be lambasted. Even DH said that if he were at home full time with DD, he would want at least 2 days to go do things like play golf. I found it interesting when he said that. I don't think mothers would say something like that. I feel they would be more likely to say, I would want at least 2 days to do errands, go to the grocery store, cook, basically things for our family and household. I feel like we feel the need to justify our time more than fathers do. And I believe that the guilt threshold for fathers is much higher. Sorry for the tangent, but I just find it interesting. By the way, a PP said that her husband wouldn't like my scenario. DH has no problem with it and thinks it's a no-brainer. Go figure! I'm the one who's feeling guilt.

I don't know anyone IRL who would think this guy was doing the right thing. Yes, I'm being judgemental. What a douche-bag. I pity those children.

[Ceepa]

I don't know anyone IRL who would think this guy was doing the right thing. Yes, I'm being judgemental. What a douche-bag. I pity those children.

Yeah, I don't know anyone, even other men, who would give this guy the thumbs up. It's one thing to fantasize about this stuff and another to actually drive your kids to daycare everyday so you can go home and play videogames.

ETA: OP, you've obviously given this a lot of thought. Good luck with your decision.

[Lolabee]

A lot of people say happy mom=happy baby. I agree to some extent, but I think there are other factors. If I thought DD was suffering because of my absence, I would try and do things differently. But so far, she's very happy. I have an unusual arrangement. I take DD to my parents' house - they live around the corner. Our caregiver takes care of DD there. So DD sees my parents before they leave for the day. My sister and 6 year old niece also live there, so DD sees them in the afternoons. My parents also have a dog that DD loves. I find it works out well. Our caregiver has watched her here at my home as well and has commented that DD is happier at my parents' house. I think she likes all of the activity over there. So I don't feel that she's suffering in any way.

I would totally keep your caregiver once you're done working if I were you. It sounds like the arrangement you already have does work really well for you, and if you're daughter has gotten used to that routine I think it may actually benefit her more to continue it once you stop working. In fact, I think it would probably be detrimental to your daughter to eliminate the babysitter/nanny/whatever you want to call her after she has gotten so used to having her as a regular part of her life and has become emotionally attached to her.

Before I had kids I have to admit I would sometimes shake my head in judgement at SAHMs who also had nannies/caregivers. When I was pregnant I always shook off others' insistence that I would need help and that I couldn't do it on my own. Then I had twins, and I realized that I could no longer be superwoman and that I was unfairly judgmental of those who did have help. I'm an attorney by training as well, I'm used to being a workaholic and multi-tasking myself into exhaustion but parenting has just taken it to a whole new level I never would have anticipated. If we could have afforded to pay someone to come and help out we would have, instead we were fortunate enough to have my mom come 2 days a week to help out until the kids started preschool. I don't know how I would have survived without that help, and now that I have a new baby again I long for the days when I had that extra pair of hands around to help out (unfortunately both my parents and I moved further away from each other in opposite directions so it's no longer practical for Mom to come twice a week anymore.)

So I would definitely encourage you to keep the sitter. Good help is hard to find, and there is nothing wrong with needing the extra help.

[almostmom]

If I were you, I would totally keep the nanny/babysitter. I often joke, but feel seriously, that I would love to not work once my kids are in school! I would not have been a good SAHM - I would have been in a terrible mood when DH got home! But I work 32 hours, and love seeing my kids at the end of the day, and having my own life too. But my ideal? To leave the stresses of work, have time to keep my house clean and organized, time to work out, and time to cook a nice dinner most nights. So if I could afford it, I'd do your situation in a heartbeat.

That said...I do have trouble not internally judging people in this situation! I'm not proud of it, it's not fair, and I'm sure it is partly out of jealousy. But as someone who lives comfortably enough, but really just makes enough to make ends meet, it's hard for me to comprehend having that kind of money! And because of all the things I juggle to keep our lives organized, I do stereotype that I wouldn't have much in common with someone who doesn't work AND has a nanny. Again, totally not fair, but I do think you may run into others who don't give you as much of a chance since their lives are so different.

I think there is often a line between working parents and SAH parents, and sometimes it can be bridged, and sometimes not. I wasn't prepared for that, but I find it to be true. They are both challenging jobs, and I do recognize that, but they are also different.

Just being honest.

[longtallsally05]

I just want to add to my previous post that keeping a part time nanny so parents can get stuff done is no different (except perhaps from a financial standpoint) than using day care on parents' days off so parents can get stuff done. My dear friend, a full-time RN, would take her young children to their DCP on her days off (which varied) so she could get stuff done to keep her household together. At the time I thought it was odd, but now that I have little kids, I understand completely. I think we can all agree it is faster and more efficient to do errands without little kids than with them, and that little kids would rather not be dragged around in their car seats while parents run errands.

[smiles33]

OP: I read through the entire 12 pages and am glad to see your update. I identify with your situation (though I continue to WOT 40+ hours/week as a law school administrator, so much better work/life balance than as a litigator) and completely agree that your instincts (and your DH's) to keep the p/t caregiver makes sense. Put aside the guilt, if you can, and focus on what will work best for your family. Personally, I have never subscribed to the notion of always putting your children's needs first. Yes, it's important that your DD feels happy and safe, but I say it's important to think about FAMILY first, that is the well-being of the entire unit, not just of one or two of the individuals within the family. In OP's case, it sounds like everyone benefits from some additional p/t caregiving support.

Best wishes to you as you transition to a new situation (whether it's a new job or becoming a nearly f/t SAHM).

[gatorsmom]

Just saw this thread as I've been packing for the last um, lifetime. I have a part time nanny now and just hired a full time nanny for the city we will be moving to.

I have to say, that for such a liberal-leaning board, with a tendancy for supporting each other and repeating the phrase, "you gotta do what's best for you and your family," WHERE IS THE SUPPORT FOR THIS WOMAN CHOOSING WHAT SHE FEELS IS BEST?

Haviing a second set of hands around is great for children, in my opinion. The twins are often with our nanny, here at home, not being dragged around to all their brothers' activities, and able to be on a regular, predictable schedule. It makes their lives more enjoyable, it makes my life easier, and it works great for us. And we are giviing someone a job! We are supporting the economy!

There are some people who are just not cut out to be SAHPs. My DH is one of them. After a couple of days of being with the kids, he is ornery, short-tempered and very impatient with them. Some people are not good with kids all.the.time. He's definitely one of them. Our last nanny, on the other hand, was FABULOUS. She had no problem playing Candyland and Hullabaloo 3 times per day if the kids wanted to. She was happy doing that stuff, which affected the happiness of our twins and made us happy. I can't see how that has any negatives to it.

And frankly, the OP sounds like a very responsible, reasonable person who recognizes her own personal abilities and needs. I worry less about the kids with a full time nanny than the kids with a mom who shouldn't be at home 24/7. And I really respect any mom who can admit what she needs and seeks it out.

To the OP, I have people ask me all the time why I need a nanny when I'm a SAHM. It used to bother me and I'd spend my time giving explaining why I need one. Not anymore. Now I give those judgmental people the same pat response, "because it's best for our family." And then I walk away. They aren't worth my time.

[L'sMommy]

I haven't read all the responses, but go for it!!! I'm like you and cannot stay home full time. Don't worry about other peoples' perceptions. What matters is that you find time for yourself, becasue when you are happy your family will be happy. This is coming from someone who works PT and doesn't have to work. I think if you don't feel you are cut out to stay home FT, then having a nanny is the way to go.

[JMS]

Just saw this thread as I've been packing for the last um, lifetime. I have a part time nanny now and just hired a full time nanny for the city we will be moving to.

I have to say, that for such a liberal-leaning board, with a tendancy for supporting each other and repeating the phrase, "you gotta do what's best for you and your family," WHERE IS THE SUPPORT FOR THIS WOMAN CHOOSING WHAT SHE FEELS IS BEST?

Haviing a second set of hands around is great for children, in my opinion. The twins are often with our nanny, here at home, not being dragged around to all their brothers' activities, and able to be on a regular, predictable schedule. It makes their lives more enjoyable, it makes my life easier, and it works great for us. And we are giviing someone a job! We are supporting the economy!

There are some people who are just not cut out to be SAHPs. My DH is one of them. After a couple of days of being with the kids, he is ornery, short-tempered and very impatient with them. Some people are not good with kids all.the.time. He's definitely one of them. Our last nanny, on the other hand, was FABULOUS. She had no problem playing Candyland and Hullabaloo 3 times per day if the kids wanted to. She was happy doing that stuff, which affected the happiness of our twins and made us happy. I can't see how that has any negatives to it.

And frankly, the OP sounds like a very responsible, reasonable person who recognizes her own personal abilities and needs. I worry less about the kids with a full time nanny than the kids with a mom who shouldn't be at home 24/7. And I really respect any mom who can admit what she needs and seeks it out.

To the OP, I have people ask me all the time why I need a nanny when I'm a SAHM. It used to bother me and I'd spend my time giving explaining why I need one. Not anymore. Now I give those judgmental people the same pat response, "because it's best for our family." And then I walk away. They aren't worth my time.

I had to add a DITTO response because I can't remember ever agreeing more with someone on this board than I do with Lisa right now :)

[Nicsmom]

Another DITTO here. Totally and completely agree.

[hillview]

Just saw this thread as I've been packing for the last um, lifetime. I have a part time nanny now and just hired a full time nanny for the city we will be moving to.

I have to say, that for such a liberal-leaning board, with a tendancy for supporting each other and repeating the phrase, "you gotta do what's best for you and your family," WHERE IS THE SUPPORT FOR THIS WOMAN CHOOSING WHAT SHE FEELS IS BEST?

Haviing a second set of hands around is great for children, in my opinion. The twins are often with our nanny, here at home, not being dragged around to all their brothers' activities, and able to be on a regular, predictable schedule. It makes their lives more enjoyable, it makes my life easier, and it works great for us. And we are giviing someone a job! We are supporting the economy!

There are some people who are just not cut out to be SAHPs. My DH is one of them. After a couple of days of being with the kids, he is ornery, short-tempered and very impatient with them. Some people are not good with kids all.the.time. He's definitely one of them. Our last nanny, on the other hand, was FABULOUS. She had no problem playing Candyland and Hullabaloo 3 times per day if the kids wanted to. She was happy doing that stuff, which affected the happiness of our twins and made us happy. I can't see how that has any negatives to it.

And frankly, the OP sounds like a very responsible, reasonable person who recognizes her own personal abilities and needs. I worry less about the kids with a full time nanny than the kids with a mom who shouldn't be at home 24/7. And I really respect any mom who can admit what she needs and seeks it out.

To the OP, I have people ask me all the time why I need a nanny when I'm a SAHM. It used to bother me and I'd spend my time giving explaining why I need one. Not anymore. Now I give those judgmental people the same pat response, "because it's best for our family." And then I walk away. They aren't worth my time.
Well put Lisa
/hillary

[BabyMine]

To each their own. I would love it becasue I would have another adult to talk to.

[C99]

I find this attitude a little frustrating. I work outsede the home but I don't HAVE to work; my children would be fed, housed and clothed even if I didn't work outside the home. Will my children feel that I don't love them because I have a job/career that I studied for and for the most part enjoy? I am not really helping people, making the world a better place, supporting my family financially or doing anything that productive. Should I quit?

I went back to work a little over a year ago and I struggle with this issue as well. I don't necessarily "have to" work. When I started, it was mostly for me. But I've noticed that for my children, sometimes they do feel that they are second-fiddle to my job. And it definitely makes me think... question what I am doing, etc.... After 5 1/2 years as SAHM who only worked nights/weekends some of the time (and never had regular one-on-one paid childcare), I developed friendships primarily with SAHMs. 90% of my friends are SAHMs. And while a few of them stay home because they want to and really enjoy their children, many of them stay home for other reasons and/or find 24/7 mothering to be really boring on an intellectual/mental level. Over time, I became one of these latter mothers ... part of the reason I went back to work.

That said, it wasn't until my youngest was 2 that I seriously considered hiring part-time one-on-one childcare (a nanny/sitter) so I could catch a little downtime during the week. Mostly to do the intense volunteering that I started when my oldest entered elementary school and/or help in my children's classrooms.

I find SAHMs or working parents with round-the-clock nannies a bit perplexing, but hopefully I won't be paying for those kids' future therapy bills, so whatever.

[Kindra178]

Just saw this thread as I've been packing for the last um, lifetime. I have a part time nanny now and just hired a full time nanny for the city we will be moving to.

I have to say, that for such a liberal-leaning board, with a tendancy for supporting each other and repeating the phrase, "you gotta do what's best for you and your family," WHERE IS THE SUPPORT FOR THIS WOMAN CHOOSING WHAT SHE FEELS IS BEST?

Haviing a second set of hands around is great for children, in my opinion. The twins are often with our nanny, here at home, not being dragged around to all their brothers' activities, and able to be on a regular, predictable schedule. It makes their lives more enjoyable, it makes my life easier, and it works great for us. And we are giviing someone a job! We are supporting the economy!

There are some people who are just not cut out to be SAHPs. My DH is one of them. After a couple of days of being with the kids, he is ornery, short-tempered and very impatient with them. Some people are not good with kids all.the.time. He's definitely one of them. Our last nanny, on the other hand, was FABULOUS. She had no problem playing Candyland and Hullabaloo 3 times per day if the kids wanted to. She was happy doing that stuff, which affected the happiness of our twins and made us happy. I can't see how that has any negatives to it.

And frankly, the OP sounds like a very responsible, reasonable person who recognizes her own personal abilities and needs. I worry less about the kids with a full time nanny than the kids with a mom who shouldn't be at home 24/7. And I really respect any mom who can admit what she needs and seeks it out.

To the OP, I have people ask me all the time why I need a nanny when I'm a SAHM. It used to bother me and I'd spend my time giving explaining why I need one. Not anymore. Now I give those judgmental people the same pat response, "because it's best for our family." And then I walk away. They aren't worth my time.

Once again, the voice of reason. Twins and older kid(s) really require some sort of help!

[cuca_]

Just saw this thread as I've been packing for the last um, lifetime. I have a part time nanny now and just hired a full time nanny for the city we will be moving to.

I have to say, that for such a liberal-leaning board, with a tendancy for supporting each other and repeating the phrase, "you gotta do what's best for you and your family," WHERE IS THE SUPPORT FOR THIS WOMAN CHOOSING WHAT SHE FEELS IS BEST?

Haviing a second set of hands around is great for children, in my opinion. The twins are often with our nanny, here at home, not being dragged around to all their brothers' activities, and able to be on a regular, predictable schedule. It makes their lives more enjoyable, it makes my life easier, and it works great for us. And we are giviing someone a job! We are supporting the economy!

There are some people who are just not cut out to be SAHPs. My DH is one of them. After a couple of days of being with the kids, he is ornery, short-tempered and very impatient with them. Some people are not good with kids all.the.time. He's definitely one of them. Our last nanny, on the other hand, was FABULOUS. She had no problem playing Candyland and Hullabaloo 3 times per day if the kids wanted to. She was happy doing that stuff, which affected the happiness of our twins and made us happy. I can't see how that has any negatives to it.

And frankly, the OP sounds like a very responsible, reasonable person who recognizes her own personal abilities and needs. I worry less about the kids with a full time nanny than the kids with a mom who shouldn't be at home 24/7. And I really respect any mom who can admit what she needs and seeks it out.

To the OP, I have people ask me all the time why I need a nanny when I'm a SAHM. It used to bother me and I'd spend my time giving explaining why I need one. Not anymore. Now I give those judgmental people the same pat response, "because it's best for our family." And then I walk away. They aren't worth my time.

Another one who totally agrees with what Lisa says. I have a babysitter/housekeeper who comes to my home every day. I am a full time SAHM, and I am usually around doing things with my kids. However, my youngest two are able to have a predictable schedule because I can have leave them at home while I run around dropping-off and picking-up the older too.



I find SAHMs or working parents with round-the-clock nannies a bit perplexing, but hopefully I won't be paying for those kids' future therapy bills, so whatever.

I don't understand how having a nanny translates to future therapy bills. My mom was a SAHM and we had a full-time nanny and I have a fantastic relationship with my parents. No need for therapy so far, and I just turned 40.

[mamicka]

Just saw this thread as I've been packing for the last um, lifetime. I have a part time nanny now and just hired a full time nanny for the city we will be moving to.

I have to say, that for such a liberal-leaning board, with a tendancy for supporting each other and repeating the phrase, "you gotta do what's best for you and your family," WHERE IS THE SUPPORT FOR THIS WOMAN CHOOSING WHAT SHE FEELS IS BEST?

Haviing a second set of hands around is great for children, in my opinion. The twins are often with our nanny, here at home, not being dragged around to all their brothers' activities, and able to be on a regular, predictable schedule. It makes their lives more enjoyable, it makes my life easier, and it works great for us. And we are giviing someone a job! We are supporting the economy!

There are some people who are just not cut out to be SAHPs. My DH is one of them. After a couple of days of being with the kids, he is ornery, short-tempered and very impatient with them. Some people are not good with kids all.the.time. He's definitely one of them. Our last nanny, on the other hand, was FABULOUS. She had no problem playing Candyland and Hullabaloo 3 times per day if the kids wanted to. She was happy doing that stuff, which affected the happiness of our twins and made us happy. I can't see how that has any negatives to it.

And frankly, the OP sounds like a very responsible, reasonable person who recognizes her own personal abilities and needs. I worry less about the kids with a full time nanny than the kids with a mom who shouldn't be at home 24/7. And I really respect any mom who can admit what she needs and seeks it out.

To the OP, I have people ask me all the time why I need a nanny when I'm a SAHM. It used to bother me and I'd spend my time giving explaining why I need one. Not anymore. Now I give those judgmental people the same pat response, "because it's best for our family." And then I walk away. They aren't worth my time.

Lisa, I agree with what you posted except for what I bolded. The OP gave no details about her situation until later & people were commenting generally about SAHM's with full-time nannies & even more nannies than children they have. There were a few posts that seemed anti- SAHMs with any nanny regardless of situation, but that isn't what the most of us were saying. To come in with your situation as if it were fitting what most of us were discussing doesn't seem fair.

[kozachka]

I find this attitude a little frustrating. I work outsede the home but I don't HAVE to work; my children would be fed, housed and clothed even if I didn't work outside the home. Will my children feel that I don't love them because I have a job/career that I studied for and for the most part enjoy? I am not really helping people, making the world a better place, supporting my family financially or doing anything that productive. Should I quit?

If I were a sahm, I would certainly have a nanny one full day a week.

I have to agree with Kindra, this also rubbed me the wrong way. I could afford to SAH (albeit it would effect our lifestyle and opportunity to save) and did while DS was little (under 2.5 years old) but for variety of reasons, not the least one of which is mental and social stimulation, I choose not to. DS is picked up by a sitter 2x per week from aftershool program, and I do not feel guilty about it in the least. It is cheaper since we don't have to pay $2 per minute every time I get late, and by the time I get to the house an hour later DS is fed and at home. Does he prefer for me to pick him up? Of course, yes. Does it make a difference at the end of the day? Not in the least.

Interestingly, DS does not feel bad about me working. There was no school and I could afford to get to the office late since it was a slow day so I was taking my time getting out of the house. DS was asking me to leave for his childcare sooner so that he could play more. At drop off I asked DS if he is sad that I am going to work, and he said "Why should I be sad?" And he is right - there is no reason for him to be sad about me working, and using childcare.

[Purple18]

IMO, everyone has a different set of talents and you should use yours to the fullest. If a PT nanny allows you to do that whether you are working, volunteering, running errands alone so you are a better mom when you are home, taking a couple of hours for yourself for the good of your family or all of the above, go for it. Its you and your family that have to be OK with things at the end of the day. I know sometimes others' judgements can affect you, but try not to let it get to you - if you know that what you are doing is best for your family and that comes from an honest place, there's nothing for you to worry about. And....nothing's permanent. You can always change the program if things need adjusting or if you can afford it, keep the nanny on the payroll and use her when you need/want her.

[trales]

Can we please stick to the OP's situation? She already has a PART-TIME nanny, and would like to keep her, but needs suggestions on what to do with some or all of the time.

I'm a SAHM, and I really don't understand why some posters are taking her situation so personally. Just because someone is a SAHM and decides to have a nanny does not make them a bad mom, or even a slightly neglectful mom. We have no idea how many hours her nanny works per week, what kind of child her DD is, etc. We do know that there is a reason she wasn't a SAHM from the beginning, which is the reason she knows she can't be a SAHM now.

And talking about the wellbeing of children being away from their mother is just cruel and unnecessary. I have to wonder what everyone's opinions would be if the OP were in the lower socioeconomic strata and not working full-time, at any kind of job, were literally not an option. Would people be so quick to pass judgement in a situation where the child would be in someone else's care for 12 hours a day or more? I doubt it. Why then, is it not okay for a woman, who DOES have options, to continue to make use of a perfectly good caregiver for a fraction of that time? If her DD wasn't suffering from the setup before, what makes things different now, from the child's point of view? I seriously doubt OP is going to have the nanny over, and then hang around most of the time ignoring the child. My sense is that she wants to get out of the house and DO SOMETHING, which is one of the reasons for her post.

And one more thing, as a fulltime SAHM, even before I had a regular sitter, I never thought what I did was somehow lessened or made unimportant because another SAHM had a nanny, part or full-time. What does someone else and their situation have to do with me and mine? Absolutely nothing.

Okay, I realize OP was asking for everyone's honest opinion, so I won't fault some pp because their opinions differs from mine. I just think mothering is hard enough. Do we have to make it harder by insisting on a specific gold standard?
:yeahthat: