Wednesday

97th St/Central Park West Playground in NYC

Received Wednesday, June 6, 2007
This case of neglect occured this afternoon (6/6) at around 3-4 pm. Caucasian boy, short brown hair, wearing striped shirt and gray (?) soft/jog pants, pacifier in his mouth. Walked pretty well, younger than 2 for sure and perhaps closer to 18 months. Nanny is black, 20s-30s, pretty slim, shoulder length wavy hair, wearing black leggings with lace at the ankle, a large white Tshirt and white sneakers with black laces. Stroller was black double Urban Mountain Buggy.
The child was playing in the water fountain and nearby puddle for 30-40 minutes, near the exit of the playground, without any interaction with the nanny, who was seated on a bench under the shade trees about 20 yards away. He was completely soaked. He kept looking around for someone but we could not connect him with anyone. After a while, those of us in the playground noticed that this really young kid seemed to be completely unattended. We began to exchange wondering glances and then to ask whether anyone knew who this kid was with. He was close to the entrance gate, which was open. To be blunt, any one of us could have taken him, or he could simply have wandered out. He could have fallen off the concrete step without the help of total strangers. She did not help him or pay any attention to him during this half hour. I took pictures of him, including a closeup, and she didn't notice. We were deciding what to do when eventually she came over from the far corner of the playground, changed his clothes and put him in the stroller before just sitting in the shade for another hour or so.

If you believe this to be your child, I have a photograph of him and a photograph of his nanny. If you think this might be your kid, send Jane Doe an email and she will forward it on to me. I have provided my email address to her.

48 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am nanny that was in the playground today. I was upset that the child was alone.

Anonymous said...

Crappy nanny. Parents need to fire her.

UWS Mom said...

I have e-mailed the same post. I don't think the nanny was black, I would guess hispanic.

Anonymous said...

oooooooh! I wish wish wish WE could see the picture!

Anonymous said...

The lazy, negligent nannies need to go back wherever they came from. I'm not sure it's a foreign country. I think they rose up from Hell.

Your Supervisor said...

I am pissed that some degenerate is preventing all of us from seeing the pics. Why are we protecting these scumbag nannies? After cops got dashboard cameras in their cars, they stopped beating the crap out of every third African American and getting cheap thrills from milfs. We must oppose the person who complained in the other post about pictures. We must insist that the picture of the nanny be published. Her conduct was in public. Now she needs to stand and be held accountable.

Anonymous said...

1126, I don't agree with you. Your post is crude. MILFS? Please! Find a hobby.

And no, I am not a nanny. I'm a SAHM.

maggie said...

I started a group on Flick for Bad Nanny Sightings.
http://flickr.com/groups/356934@N24/

Kelly said...

To "Your Supervisor":
Just in case you are talking about me, I complained about people taking photos of OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS. People nowadays are using pictures of children in ways that many of us never thought possible.

I DID NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT PEOPLE TAKING PICTURES OF RECKLESS NANNIES. There is a very big difference there, so if you are talking about me, rewind and double check before you try to crucify me.

Anonymous said...

np here=
are we refering to the pic of the girl in a pink dress? The one with a giant black circle on her shoulders? You couldn't see a wisp of hair, an ear, a fleck of face. I don't understand what you think someone would do with that picture. Please educate me. Perhaps there is a risk out there I am failing to appreciate.

Anonymous said...

How would you feel, 1212, if a stranger took a picture of your child. You have no idea what they plan to do with that picture. Why would you allow it? And it is not a good idea to have any photo of a child publishe without the parents permission. I wanted to submit a great shot of my son with his buddy to a magazine contest, but the rules stated that you need parental consent for any child not your own. Libal, people.

vk said...

libal?
sweet jesus what is libal?

Anonymous said...

It's not libal, you fool, nor even libel. What if you and your family are at a park and a riot ensues and a photographer takes a picture of the melee' and lo and behold, you spot yourself and your children in the newspaper along with the rest of the crowd. What are you going to do about it?

1217 said...

1217 here,
1216 is busy googling libal so she can come back and dazzle is with some facts.

kelly said...

To 12:12AM:
Re: is a risk out there I am failing to appreciate

Yes, my dear. There is a risk. I am not a computer geek, but I can tell you that once you take a digital picture of someone, save it on your computer, email a copy to someone, and that someone saves it on their computer, then voila, you have electronic copies everywhere.

The part where you block the child's face comes later. I am not an expert on cameras, but the dozen or so that I have used my entire life did not come with a conveniently placed censorship circle smack in the middle of the lens.

I may sound paranoid, but own experiences and my nanny years taught me to be vigilant about children's safety. As I said before, I was nearly snatched at age 12yrs, then repeatedly stalked at age 17yrs. I had to leave town for good, and unannounced.

I wouldn't want that to happen to anyone's children all because someone out there had the urge to take a picture and display it for millions of people to see (whether or not face it blocked). The kid in the picture clearly did not have a bodyguard, so to display her image to the world puts her in danger.

I am so happy that JD pulled the image.

Anonymous said...

I totally disagree. I dont think you should ever take a picture of a child san parental permission. But once the picture was at hand, there was no way in hell to identify that child! It wasnt even crystal clear!

jmt said...

Kelly, that's awful. I'm so sorry that happened to you. I can see why you advocate for privacy AND care about kids so much.
Cheers.

Anonymous said...

I have the sudden urge to swill mass amounts of vodka. Damnit, what just happened?

I'm with Fred said...

suggestion,
why dont you all leave this blog and immediately report to Fred Thompson's political website?

Draft Fred Thompson.

Anonymous said...

I would like to see the picture.

Anonymous said...

Nothing intelligent has happened here for a spell. I cannot believe that a picture of a child with his or her head totally blacked out is going to cause a stalker to go after the child, and if it did entice such a stalker, how would they recognize the target child even if they were face to face with the child? Dumbasses.

Former Hamptons Nanny said...

1:18AM, & 1:18AM, you sound like perverts. Go to jail or something.

Anonymous said...

I posted that I would like to see the picture. But I meant to post to the post two up. Where the mom has a picture of the nanny and is holding it. I say POST IT.

Anonymous said...

well, I can see why you're a FORMER nanny, 1:29. Way too much drama was made over a picture in which NO ONE could tell who the child was unless it was perhaps the parents or someone who knew her well or the nanny herself.

Anonymous said...

Hello 'I am With Fred'. Thanks for the invitation. You have a great site. Rock On! I will go back and forth between your site and this blog :)

Anonymous said...

Wait, I am on the right post.
Damn JMT for saying CHEERS. I have been pounding potato vodka shots for an hour now.

I am on the right post and I want to see the photo.

No, I demand to see the photo.

I mean there seems to be a question of whether she is AA or Hispanic. Let me see the pic.

Thanks,

Former Hamptons Nanny said...

1:31AM: Sorry. Please accept my apology.

1:32AM: Are you allowed to blog from jail? Aren't you supposed to be scrubbing the toilets? I am a former nanny because I did such a great job and made lots of money, and now I have my own business, and wonderful staff.

anonymous73 said...

what do you do now Former Hamptons nanny?

jmt said...

mmmmmmm... potatoes.....

damn it's late...

Former Hamptons Nanny said...

1:41AM:
I have a nice Childcare facility, and all my staff have regular background checks. Go to sleep, it's late. Gotta go, I've got to get up in five hours.

Anonymous said...

1217, i think thy meant liability.

118, are you for real? They were talking about the "original" photo getting out there, where the face is not blocked out. Now who's the dumbass?

the rest of you? Gah! I just give up.

Anonymous said...

forget the it's ok, it's not ok thing for a minute..isn't it illegal to take a picture of a child without parental permission and publish it anywhere??

Anonymous said...

Why, 2:17, you are STILL the dumbass! The photo was blocked from the getgo.

Anonymous said...

OK back to the actual post....OP you did a great job stepping in and I hope the parents are informed about this post and get in contact with Jane Doe, good work.

Anonymous said...

1017, the PERSON who took the photo has the unblocked version. Even a close up. Reread Kelly's post at 104. Learn something. There are now photos of someones child out there without a parent's permission. Granted, the OP took them out of concern. But a random possible pedophile taking a child's photo may not just delete the picture. They may display it. Not ok with the parents, I am sure. You really throw around the word dumbass a lot. Take a good look in the mirror.

Anonymous said...

you sound crazy.
I wouldn't want ANYONE snapping a picture of my children or ME!
but the way you are carrying on is crazy. are you suggesting since the child pics were not posted here that OP is going to take her pics around town and post them in sordid places?
You are a NUT.

Anonymous said...

3:14 you are STILL the dumbass with your crazy theories that make no sense. Read the above, too! I agree you are also a NUT!

Anonymous said...

3:14 is completely unhinged!

Anonymous said...

There are some children who are abused as children who become abusers themselves. They think and act like abusers due to their very real and traumatic experiences. I specifically said "some" but I think there is one lurking here amongst the posters.

Anonymous said...

Gah! For the last time, the poster had good intentions! I'm talking about random people taking pictures! Would any of you allow a random person to walk up to your child and take a picture?

My son and I were at the library for an activity, and a person with a camara came up and asked for my sons name. Her story was that she works for the local paper, and wanted to publish a picture of my son. I said no, but asked her name in case I changed my mind. When I called the paper, they had no idea who she was. I allerted the library, and come to find out, she was a little skitzo. Scary situation. Although the pictures were innocent, I didn't like the idea of her having a picture of my child. I still get creeped out when there are strangers around with cameras.

The OP is a concerned parent with no bad intentions, OK? Sheesh.

And who, 409, are you directing that at? Sorry, but I'm not getting that vibe.

Anonymous said...

You people have no focus. We are not talking about photos of children, but about bad caregivers. If the caregiver was with the child we wouldn't have had to take pics of either one

Anonymous said...

You really think with all these helicopter neurotic eagle-eyed moms around someone is going to "snatch" that kid?!! Don't you people realize 98% of kidnappings are custody related? Kids these days are RARELY allowed to wander off...nobody will allow them to.

Anonymous said...

I am cracking up here, and I dont even drink so hahahahahahahahahahah

you people aare hilarious

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter if the poster had good intentions or not: it was wrong to take the child's picture, and to publish it. Even in schools now, when the newspaper comes to take pics for a spelling bee or whatever, all the kids need a permission slip signed.
You know, I googled my old summer camp awhile back, (of course there was no internet when I was 9) and there were all these pictures of the girls and their cabins. I was pretty surprised. The website had a map of the camp and everything and I didn't think that was safe. I would not give permission for the camp to post pics on the website of my kid. And I don't care how many people think I'm being crazy, I wouldn't do it. I don't care what people think. I have a myspace and alot of my friends post pics of their kids but I don't. It's just a dumb thing to do. Why invite predators to view your child? It's just so dumb.

Anonymous said...

Okay, cowgirl crazy, could you get off your crazy horse and calm down?

I send my children to three different camps. All three of the camps have their pictures on the camp websites. That is how I am able to keep up with the activities that are going on. The school I send my children to also posts picutres online on their website, for example- the Halloween Part, Spring Recital, etc.

You were are a loose nut.
You are after all talking about a picture of a child where on the top of her shoulders began a giant black circle. You couldn't see her neck, her ears, a shred of her face or a scrap of her hair.

You have issues. I am sorry for the trauma you experienced in your life, but you need to calm down.

Klonopin.

Anonymous said...

1156, since you think you are so sharp, let me tell you, you're not. There is more than one person arguing againt you. Expose your children. That's between you and your husband if something bad does happen.

Anonymous said...

You are being drammatic and crazy. Sorry.
The child on this blog could never have been id'd. No way in hell.

Please get help.

Klonopin.

vagi said...

No random person is going to show up on a camp. That's crazy. Unless you send your child to some back alley camp in Ossining, NY.