Saturday

Windom Park in Minneapolis, MN

Received Saturday, August 11, 2007
Bad Nanny Sighting
I see this girl at Windom Park in Northeast Minneapolis regularly. She spends her whole time sending text messages, talking on her mobile phone and/or listening to music. It's rare for her to glance up at the kids in her charge. When one approaches her for any reason, she is rude, dismissive and demeaning. Sorry for the low quality image, but after watching her for weeks, I decided to snap a photo with my mobile phone which has a pretty low quality camera.

47 comments:

fg said...

this is one of those 'it's just a paycheck to me' nannies that some other readers on here don't think exist. Neglect. It's called neglect because that's what she is doing when totally ignoring her charge or charges for her own personal interests.

rachel said...

Short and Sweet. This nanny will be easy to identify by her employer. I wish more people would take cell phone pics. Excellent job, op!

Anonymous said...

Delicious.
My nanny sits on the bench with the children for a break. If I would have wanted a bench warmer, I would have hired the very kind 62 year old woman who I interviewed.

b said...

I don't think she has any legs. So it's kind of mean to judge her for sitting there. What else is she going to do?

Anonymous said...

no legs! funny!

DOMESTIC DIVA said...

that is just sad that she thinks that taking care of children's lives is just another paycheck. May the kids parents find out what she is doing.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, where are her legs????

Anonymous said...

I'm waiting to hear about the mom who gets their phone broken right before they get knocked over the head for snapping pics of people! LOL Make sure you post about that!

Anonymous said...

2:02 we know those kinds of nannies exist, but whats annoying is when ignorant moms want to act like ALL nannies are the same. It would be the same as if we saw an abusive mom on the news and said "see that's why I'm a nanny to save kids from their moms!" How would you all feel then? Oh wait why am I even asking that? I forgot talking to most moms here is like talking to a brick wall. An out of touch with reality (and their kids) brick wall.

Anonymous said...

1156,
The only moms who want to pretend that all nannies are the same are the moms that are too poor to have a nanny and are stuck at home. They are angry and bitter and feel trapped and cheated. So that they can sleep at night, they have to tell themselves that all nannies are evil. In my experience, I have met a handful of nannies that could outmommy the mother- in every single way that one is a mother. Giving birth doesn't make you a mother...

cali mom said...

That's a pretty harsh generalization. I see a lot of very good nannying going on whenever I'm out with my child (I'm a SAHM) but what I find sad is that I NEVER see most of the parents of these children, and I see them with their nannies everywhere all the time. weekends included. I for one wouldn't give up for the WORLD spending this time with my little guy. He's only going to be this young for a short time, then he'll be a teenager and will spend a few years probably never even wanting to talk to me. My husband is most definitely the World's Best Daddy though, and makes sure I get alone time in the evenings and weekends, when they do special stuff together, but I know many moms don't get that much support and are probably stressed out and at their wit's end by having to mommy 24/7. To their kids AND spouses!

dot said...

Umm...how do we KNOW that the "nanny" in the OP is not actually a mother? Was their an inquiry to make sure? Just wondering, because I see parents sitting around ignoring their kids every day.
If the OP is a nanny, fire her.
If it's a mother...hmmm, well that poses an interesting question. What DO we do about lazy, detached PARENTS?

dot said...

for the spelling police: I meant to write "there" rather than "their".

Anonymous said...

to jane doe,
I would strongly suggest that you remove this photo. I am actually thinking of contacting someone to report it as web abuse.
How is it possible to publish pictures of people without their knowledge and then go on to slander them on a national blog site? Does anyone besides me see how wrong this is? If it is not illegal, it is certainly unethical.
Jane Doe, I ask you to remove this picture on your own, or as I said, I will contact the authorities and report it. This is not a threat, it's a fact.

Anonymous said...

who is the jane doe hater? if you don't like it, leave the blog!

tanya said...

If a pedophile can take picture of little girls and post them on the internet with sexual comments and information on how to meet them and be protected by his rights, I'm guessing some 2 inch blurry shot of a neglectful nanny I wouldn't be able to recognize in a line up is pretty damn okay.

Anonymous said...

Actually it's not "damn okay." It is illegal. Jane Doe could be in alot of trouble. I see lawsuits in her future, or at the least up to her ears in subpoenas. Just because a predator may do the same thing doesn't make it right. If that were true you could justify anything by saying, "well he's a pedophile!" You're ignorant.
I will laugh my ass off the day I see the news headlines when this blog gets canned.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said...

Pipe down, nanny.
It is legal.
I think that was the problem the people in Seattle and california faced. The guy hadn't done anything wrong- legally.

I suggest you take your angst ridden nanny body over to dirtyscoop.blogspot.com where you can peruse the likes of similiar blogs.

Or better yet, visit flicker. They have a ton of "stalker on the street" type sites.

t.r. said...

1022-No need to double post. If you despise the blog, that is your right. Go away. Ignorant? You are spouting off about subpoenas and lawsuits.

And what authorities do you intend to contact? The FBI? The National Alliance of Nannies?

annie said...

Not to play devil's advocate, but...
Although it is true that it isn't illegal to take someone's picture in a public place, you do run the risk of a lawsuit if you portray that person in a hurtful or damaging light: i.e. it's not illegal to print this photo on this blog, but it is risky to publish it alongside slanderous descriptions assuming that she is not doing her job. For all we know, she is talking to the child's mother on the phone, or her doctor, etc. A person could rightfully sue if their picture were on this blog as a recognizable image and it had assumptions with it that were not proven.
Not a nanny or a lawyer, just a curious mom who did some googling!

tanya said...

Someone had a can of crazy for breakfast. "Justify anything by saying, well he's a pedophile"
Whaaaaaaaaaa???????

Anonymous said...

to 7:12 a.m..... you are so full of crap, yeah.... YOU. We are on camera just about everywhere we go. Jane Doe made no accusations about this nanny. She simply prints an accounting of this nannie's behavior, past and present, along with a photo with which to identify her. I suppose you think all photos should be removed from the newspapers as well?

Anonymous said...

Her face wasn't covered before was it? I don't know I would be annoyed if someone took a picture of me with my son while out. And if it was posted online.

Anonymous said...

I have very short fingernails and her face is the size of the white growth on my pinky fingernail. Quityer bitching about taking photos. It would be one thing if someone posted a large, high resolution photo of you on the net. That could be embarassing. But as one of the previous posters has said, get used to it. This is one of about 2000 Big Brother esque sites. Not too mention that you are on camera in every store you go to, on every road, in every bank, now at schools, in many offices. Your purchases are recorded with your stop and shop and cvs card. We know what library books you are checking out. We can search your criminal records online. We can look at arial shots of your house online. We can find out how much you paid for your house online. We can find out who you give political donations to and how much... Do I need to go on?
Did you tip that waiter last night well? If not, he may have written a scathing account of your frugalness. Are you fat and eating in public? Flicker has a site for that. Do you park in handicapped spots? I think I saw your picture online... Someone stop me..

Anonymous said...

If you get 7 on your side, those reporters go charging up to the accused with huge cameras and microphones. I think that is what we need. A 7 on our Side attack on one of the Problem Areas. Oh and you don't get to say, "Don't show my face".

Anonymous said...

Photo's or no Photo's really doesnt concern me...But I think they should be not allowed, If you had your picture snapped anytime of the day I am sure there's way's to put a bad or a good spin on the shot. All I know is that by removing the picture the spotter would have to interact with the "nanny" and pay attention enough to get details. If you described my children well wnough and my nanny...I would know your talking about them and not need a picture. And it would mean you really spent time paying attention to them and not snapping a quick pic and making a snap judgement..Thats all I'm saying. Oh and by the way my nanny is 43 she's been with us for 4 years my children have never been hurt in her care, and if she walked to the park and sat while they played I would have no problems with that..she's interacts many times a day with them, whats wrong with playing with your buddies every once and awhile?? And last time I checked no one has a fill in nanny that comes for a half hour a day and gives your nanny a lunch break ..so if she gives herself 15 mins on a bench...so be it

Anonymous said...

Yes, so be it...
that is,
if we were just talking about a mere fifteen minutes here, but we're not, now are we?

Anonymous said...

Her face was blurred first. Her face that is about 1/2 the size of my cursor. lol.

sb said...

To the OP who took this photo,
You have inspired me.
More to follow. :)

Anonymous said...

Busted!!!

debby said...

12:30,
Just because other sites do it does not make it right. I tend to agree with the mom who wrote in about nannies not getting regular breaks. I was once a nanny and am now a mother myself and I can tell you that I used to have to take my "break", eat my lunch, call my doctor, call the plumber etc. all during work hours.
I see nothing wrong with the nanny in this picture, and the comments made by the OP are complete and utter heresay.

Anonymous said...

Hearsay. Everything is hearsay. I was a witness in a mugging once. We all witness thinks. We all talk. Listen. What is it? Hearsay. It's hearsay. And texting and listening to music? Booooooo!

JD I dont think you even had to blur her face. It's so teeny.

sandy hook, nj said...

Well if you are the parent of the chidlren this nanny is taking care of, wouldn't your next step be to er ummmm... maybe drop by unexpedly and see for yourself? or send a friend or relative she doesn't know? I mean why people don't do that anyway I DO NOT KNOW. They are more worried about where they park their cars than who is taking care of their children.

Anonymous said...

When a reporter writes an account of something he sees, do you call it "hearsay"? If so, every news show is just "hearsay" and while that may be true, it is also true that these people are basically filing reports i.e., first person accounts of what they saw. They had time to study the person, the situation, the surroundings, etc. It's the old "Who-what-where-when-and why or how of journalism. I think we can pretty much surmise what went on in these sightings. Nitpicking does little to change the most important aspect of the sightings and that is, that some child or children are not being well cared for, and more than likely, in ways that their parents are clueless about.

Anonymous said...

This photo bothers me. I am not against photographing a bad nanny per se, but from day one this photo just looks strange. Staged or something. I hope it is not, but it looks very un-natural.

Anonymous said...

The nanny's face was blurred to protect her identity. Are you thinking it is staged because no nanny would don headphones, text openly and face the child yonder?

Anonymous said...

No...had nothing to do with the blurring and I am sure a nanny would do this type of thing. I don't doubt that one would.

I can't put finger on what seems weird about this pic. I am not saying it is definitely staged. There is just something about it that didn't "feel" quite right from the first time I was it the day it was posted.

I could be completely wrong and I was not trying to start a fight or anything. It was just bugging me and after several days, I just thought I would throw it out there and see if anyone has any ideas or felt something odd about it as well.

Anonymous said...

I think part of it is that the OP apologizes for the poor picture clarity as it was taken with a phone, but it looks extremely clear to me, not like it was taken with a phone.

Anonymous said...

That picture is so not clear. I didn't even realiZe here face was blurred until i squinted. take a look at the other pictures that came in. they were all bigger.

either you know something about this pic as in you staged it yourself or you are just looking for something to pick a part here. And because the nanny is not AA or black, you don't have that angle to rub in the ground.

Anonymous said...

7:59:

No...I am not trying to pick it apart and the comment explaining about not being able to put my finger on what bothered about it was mine (7:41)...the one about it being clear was NOT MINE (7:43).

Although it does look pretty clear to me too albeit very small.

There was just something about it that seemed off. As I explained in my last comment, I was not trying to start anything, just wondered if anyone else had a similar reaction, so don't you try to start something please, 7:59.

Why would you even bring up race? This was not mentioned AT ALL! Weird. Surely you aren't trying to say that I, a person whom you have NO IDEA about...race or otherwise, was insinuating a white nanny would not so this type of thing. Nothing even remotely close to this was said. Race was not mentioned until you brought it up.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing wrong with posting this picture with an explanation of what the nanny is doing.

It is only "slanderous" if it's untrue, which this poster is stating it is not.

You're all good, you will not be sued.

Don't you people watch Judge Judy?

Anonymous said...

great picture..glad you got her NOT doing her job...enough is enough...
who needs a nannie like that....
she is not interacting with child facing away..come on fire her ass

Anonymous said...

thanks to whoever pointed out about the headphones. I mistakenly thought she had some dodge sideburns.

Anonymous said...

i wanted to know..were is the child?
headphones and sidekicking at the same time = fire her ass
get a nannie the cares for your children....

Anonymous said...

big sister.

stupis asses.

Anonymous said...

12:38,

Huh?

Anonymous said...

Um are some of you kidding me? This is completely legal. Have you ever heard of paparazzi? Their job is to do exactly this, except they don't have children's well-being at heart but rather money. If you can take a picture of Britney Spears's privates and make millions, I guarantee you can take pictures of random people and post them on the internet.