Monday

Barnes & Noble on 86th Street and 2nd Avenue in NYC

Received Monday, May 14, 2007
This is a bad nanny sighting regarding the nanny for "Lucy". Lucy is a toddler with brown hair, bangs and slight freckles on her face. Lucy is between 3-4 yrs old and was wearing a light weight purple hoody with a cartoon cat on it. Lucy was running around with greeting cards that she was fanning and bending. She had a stack of about 20. After seeing Lucy in every area of the store, at times with the greeting cards, other times spinning a bookmark rack, other times in the children's section opening the hard backed books all the way until she bent the cover back and waved the pages like an accordion. Finally, I hear a woman with a Caribbean accent saying "Looooosey, Looooosey". At this point "Lucy" was trying to unwrap a candy in a red wrapper. I pointed my finger in Lucy's general direction and the nanny trotted over to her. The nanny asked Lucy if she was ready to go. Lucy said that she was not and the nanny bribed her by suggesting they would leave and get "some taffys". I don't know where Lucy's nanny was at all other times. Lucy's nanny is a thin woman between 40-60, with a very short cut, natural hair style. She was wearing a white shirt that said Rocca on it in shiny letter. This was Sat 5/12.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Lucy sounds a bit precarious. Where did the candy come from?
That is scary! WATCH YOUR CHILDREN!

Anonymous said...

I believe there have been a few posts coming from this same area about a child named Lucy...I hope the parents find out soon so their daughter does not keep wandering around on her own.

Anonymous said...

dont you have any thing better to do

Anonymous said...

perhaps if lucy had a loving and supportive caregiver by her side, she wouldn't be so destructive.

Anonymous said...

Your a frekin stalker. You act like the kid was setting the place on fire. Get over it. She was having fun. After reading what she did I doubt she was in any danger. Find a new hobby.

Anonymous said...

a 4 yr old little girl should not be unsupervised in a big bookstore in New York City. Are you out of your freaking minds? And what is it you think Lucy's mom is paying this nanny to do????

Anonymous said...

3:00 - what about the danger of someone kidnapping this unsupervised child? What about the fact that this child is destroying/damaging the store's mechandise?

Perhaps 12:47 and 3:00 are Lucy's nanny? If not, they are certainly other negligent, ignorant and irresponsible nannies.

I am not one to wish bad upon anyone, but I would love to hear what the nanny will tell the parents when the child ends up missing.

Anonymous said...

i think the negative comments were written by one ignorent person "frekin" andboth suggesting that the person posted simply since they had nothing better to do.

Anyone who is the least bit savy with regard to the safety of children realized that there are in fact predators in our midst. And what are they looking for? A well supervised child? Or a child who is off on her own with no one supervising her?

I am guessing OP remarks of all that Lucy destroyed had to do more with chronicling a period of time she was left unsupervised and to her own devices.

Even in Mayberry, in 2007- this just can't be.

Anonymous said...

3:10, funny how you can call someone IGNORANT but can't spell it. Wow, public school really did you well. Your whole rant made no sense. Maybe you should PROOFREAD your statements. Read a book!

Anonymous said...

Seriously! You don't have a life. A child misbehaving in a store.... SO WHAT!

Anonymous said...

the woman also joined the words andboth together. so she didn't proof read. any one who thinks a 4 year old in a HUGE store in the biggest CITY in the US running around on her OWN is OKAY is CRAZY.

Kooky.
Krazy.
Or posisbly a predator herself who wants to encourage children to run free and unsupervised, just so she can snare them in her trap.

Anonymous said...

4:37:

You seem to be a little slow in the processing department, so let me break it down for you. It is not good to leave a young child unsupervised. Got it?

Lauren said...

Anyone with an iq of 70 or better knows that children need to be supervised in public-even in their own front yards.

Who is this lunatic commenting on this post? Lucy's nanny?

A psychotherapist, Michael Comte, points out that we need to teach children self protection skills. Be careful of who you trust. And most importantly, we need to provide careful supervision to our children and any children entrusted in our care.

You can reduce the risk

"Adults nearby-supervision"
is the #1 deterrent to child abductions. Obviously! This nanny was getting paid an hourly rate to watch this child. Where was she?

Anonymous said...

Absolutely, children should be supervised all the time, no exception. But some posters here tattle on nannies or parents for the most ridiculous reasons. Every time I go to the supermarket, I see some mother letter her toddler roam the aisles by himself, pulling things off the shelves and opening candy. If I tattled on everyone doing that, I'd be in this blog 24/7....

Anonymous said...

when i see unsupervised children, whether they are pulling things off the shelves or just sitting still- but too young to be unsupervised, I find the person in charge of the child or the manager of the store and say "THIS CHILD NEEDS TO BE SUPERVISED". And If I cannot get anyone to help me, I will say "THIS CHILD NEED SUPERVISION" to no one in particular until usually an ashamed mother scurries to my side and retreats holding her child's hand.

Watch the discover channel. Learn a thing or two from giraffes or Black Bears. They don't leave their young unsupervised until they are old enough to defend themselves against PREDATORS of other species and ADULTS of their own species.

And "we" are supposed to be evolved?

Anonymous said...

oh, please, everyone knows that pedophiles and predators can't read! that's what makes places like books stores and the internet so safe!

...no, seriously. I won't even let my brothers walk the the far end of an aisle when we're shopping. And yes, child predators are extremely scary. That aside, how disrespectful are you if you let your charge run around the store throwing about and opening the merchandise? I'm a retail veteran and a nanny and this just makes me crazy.

Anonymous said...

Okay 4:44 YOU seem a little slow. I did not say anything in my response about leaving a child alone anywhere. Apparently some people on this blog can't read.....

Anonymous said...

1009-
you remarked that there was no problem with a child running loose in the store. running loose = unsupervised = very scary for any parent to learn of.

Lucy is my #1 choice for dd (3 more weeks!)

rachel said...

precarious? is that the word you meant? A child that roams a store on her own doesn't sound at all insecure. i dont think it is wise, i do think this is just what a predator is hoping for. and given the rules in effect on ny playgrounds (such as no people without children allowed) where do you think pedophiles are hanging out??? be very aware!

and lastly, if lucy had the kind of caregiver that read her books- she probably wouldn't be the sort of child that damages books. she would respect and love books. my children all did by that age.

Anonymous said...

10:09:
okay stupid, again...you know forget it I don't have the energy to deal with stupid people...and you my friend are stupid.....

Anonymous said...

I was trying to pick the most stupid comment about this sighting and 10:09 is winner! However 300 and 437 gave 1009 a run for the money!

Anonymous said...

Can I say what no one else is saying? Rather than blame the negligent nanny, let's face facts. Lucy's parents are to blame. They hired this nanny. And they obviously cannot read the signs that their precious Lucy is not being properly stimulated during the day! I bet that nanny was sleeping somewhere.

Anonymous said...

what is dd?

Anonymous said...

darling daughter.

ds
darling son

dc
darling children

dh
darling husband

yeah, i don't get it either.

Anonymous said...

thanks, i'm 22 and feel like i know all the lingo usually, but this site sure has some new and strange ones...

fg said...

some of the abbreviations come from the posting team of the non-working and the working mom.

Anonymous said...

fg,
again you are wrong. you were wrong about alec baldwin and you are wrong about the abbreviations. they have been around for a long time and certainly the working mom, stay at home mom and al sharpton team didn't create them. Nor did this site. DC, DH, DD- that is old school parenting boards. Here's one of my fav's:
GAC= gasp and cackle

fg said...

I said only that 'some' of the abbreviations have come from the working and non working mom team of posters, much to the dismay of some other posters here, and have no idea who originated them, nor do I care. I find them annoying and feel that it wouldn't take much more effort to spell out the actual words or phrases. But that's just me.

Oh, and as for Alec Baldwin, he's a big, hairy jerk and rageaholic, and I am not wrong about him. I wish I was, though, for the sake of his daughter.

Anonymous said...

oh yeah 921
r u the one who posted about his supple coral member? Or was that a poisonous desert snake you were referring to?

Anonymous said...

Barnes and Noble is not a playground. I've argued this point with a dad not too long ago on this blog. A child this young should be brought to the park if they cannot control themselves around mercendice others may want to purchase. The nanny is not doing her job. My son is three, and he knows he needs to behave in stores, or we leave.

Anonymous said...

I've been in that Barnes and Noble and once followed an older man (unaccompanied by a child) up and down the aisles in the children's section, staring at him until he left, because he was jiggling his hand in his "pocket" and staring and children and nannies. I then reported him to security (who were not in the area at the immediate time) Books and greeting cards can be replaced, children can't. I'm a nanny and I work for my money, it drives me crazy to see other nannies not only putting children in danger, but not doing the jobs they're being paid for.