Received Friday, February 1, 2008
Time: 4 PM
Where: Barnes And Noble Rte 17 South Paramus NJ
Nanny: Tall thin African American woman with short hair. Wearing jeans and lime green baby phat jacket.
Child: About 4-5 years old. Blonde pig tails with heavy, Irish knit, beige sweater and pink collar sticking out (nanny appeared to be carrying child's coat) Black pants with pink hearts on them and pink sneakers.
Incident: Nanny was NOT holding your child's hand in the very busy parking lot with Rte 17 just yards away. Nanny approached her vehicle (green older model Dodge caravan with a bumper sticker that said Bazookers) with your daughter steps behind her. Nanny clicked the remote to open the door and the little girl slid the side door open with some trouble and climbed in, I assume pulling the door closed behind her. Van was NOT the kind with automatic sliding doors! Nanny got in Driver's seat at the same time and pulled out directly. NJ law also requires a child of that size and age to be in a booster seat. I can't say if there was one in the van or not. I'm also not sure if the child had the time or abilty to belt herself in, I hope she did. I know my charges at that age did not. I know this is not horrible but as a nanny, I think it's worth mentioning.
30 comments:
I think it's well worth mentioning!
The child was walking in a busy lot BEHIND the nanny? Kids can bolt so fast, and people are always driving and not paying attention as they yak on the cell. I know that B&N and that lot is always busy in the afternoon.
We had a discussion several weeks back about the best way to walk through a parking lot with kids. Some of the Nannies/Parents came up with some great suggestions for Safety.
I would hold my sons hand until I got him into the car.
One poster (with multiple kids/charges), had them 'hold onto the car with one hand' so they wouldn't be hurt while they were trying to pile in/out of the car.
These are all excellent suggestions .... why someone would even take a chance allowing a kid to walk through a parking lot without assistance is beyond me.
Mary: I used ideas similar to that when I worked in daycare. I had 10 3 year olds, and field trip days were awesome, since we did a mock "field trip", loading and unloading the van how to sit on the van, don't move until the van moves, and we stay with the group, and then we also practiced van safety. If possible, I had my class go into 2's to the van, while another teacher loaded. I also had 10 carseats in the van, which is a Wisconsin requirement. My class knew how to snap and unsnap their car seats, and I didn't encourage them to do it to avoid injury.
There are many things wrong here-
1. The nanny not knowing where the child was.
2. The nanny having the child open the door-hello, possible injury!
3. The nanny not even checking to see if the child was safely strapped in the carseat before pulling off.
If something would've happened, I wonder what her excuse would've been?
Big deal
you're over reacting
Umm as a nanny and Ambulance volunteer The OP is definitely NOT over-reacting. For the excellent reasons MissDee stated above this is a bad situation. I have seen children's fingers crushed and partially amputated in car doors, I have responded to children hit by cars in parking lots of malls, supermarkets and indoor play centers and I have dealt with children in accidents because they were not properly buckled in or not buckled in at all. I have found that the vast majority of parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and caregivers are beside themselves with grief, misery and regret while we work furiously to stabilize the child and get them to the hospital. I have, however, NEVER responded to an accident scene where the person in charge of a child's safety said "Damn it! I wish I had not bothered to strap them in!"
Now, I will go off topic just a bit to get a message out about child safety....
This is also true in regard to children wearing helmets when biking, skateboarding or riding heelies.
The heelies are especially dangerous because in order to ride them, the child must shift their weight back. When they fall, they almost always fall backwards, the most dangerous type of fall for head and back injuries. I often point this out to parents and most are surprised the hear about the danger in riding these things without a helmet and the severe and permanent injuries to the brain and spine a fall can cause.
Sorry to go off topic. Great post OP!
Really? Then I guess we'll be seeing YOUR kids in the news tonite after getting hit by a big 'ol truck.
What a dumbass remark.
12:35 is just trying to get the ball rolling ... stirring up trouble. Again.
no me gusta lazy nannies.
and esta nanny- muy lazy.
What did we all do back in the day when there WERE no helmets, automatic closing minivan doors, and NONE of us wore seatbelts? And amazingly we're all ok aren't we?
What did we all do back in the day when there WERE no helmets, automatic closing minivan doors, and NONE of us wore seatbelts? And amazingly we're all ok aren't we?
2;26
Yes WE are all here and safe today.
That may seem at first glance to prove your point...but a recent, and very extensive, study (was it UCLA...I can't quite seem to recall) has recently established conclusive proof that those children who are killed early in life in stupid, pointless accidents due to the negligence of the caregivers who were responsible for their safety almost NEVER post on internet blogs afterwards.
Therefore, it must naturally follow that we are hearing only one side of the argument...and that you are thinking like a dufus.
Just because 20 yrs. ago seatbelts weren't used ... it doesn't mean that kids didn't die.
Some Facts:
(Study provided by JMU)
* Approximately 35,000 people die in motor vehicle crashes each year. About 50 percent (17,000) of these people could be saved if they wore their safety belts.
* Motorists are 25 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured when they are "thrown clear" than when remain inside their vehicle.
* A common cause of death and injury to children in motor vehicles is being crushed by adults who are not wearing safety belts. One out of four serious injuries to passengers is caused by occupants being thrown into each other.
* About 80 percent of all injuries to children in car crashes are injuries to the head, causing brain damage, permanent disfigurement, epilepsy or death.
* Of every 100 children who die in motor vehicle crashes at least 80 would survive if they were properly secured in an approved child safety seat or safety belts.
The assumption it was a nanny is based on the following:
Nanny: Tall thin African American woman with short hair.
Child: About 4-5 years old. Blonde pig tails...
And yes, I know it's racist and bigoted and wrong and mean to assume an AA woman is the nanny for a child with Blonde hair.
Of course, it could be an adoption or foster care situation, an Aunt/cousin/grandmother/step-monther/older half sister/whatever caring for the child, BUT
The possibilities of any of the above being the case seem slight to me, leading to the perfectly reasonable assumption that this was a nanny and child sighting.
And regardless of how the adult and child were connected, it's still a legitimate sighting, based on parking lot and car safety issues.
2:26
There were more child fatalities in accidents before car seats. There were more head injuries before helmets. But there are still some irresponsible adults who don't get this.
Just because "we" are alright, doesn't mean that other children/adults weren't injured and/or killed before these helmet/seat belt laws went into affect. Go to YOUTUBE and search for car seat videos. There are a few about kids who died in booster seats, when they should have /could have still been in 5-point restraints. Those parents are pushing for MORE stringent car seat regulations....and I don't blame them. Just because my son survived, obviously doesn't mean that those kids did....because they didn't. That's like the parent who said I survived getting beaten....so will my kid. Or, the veteran who said, I survived WWII, so will my grandkid in Iraq. Who knows?
Good post OP. Food for thought for every reader.
We as the human race also survived polio, measles, chicken pox and a host of other diseases. We gave our kids aspirin when they had a fever with no thought of devastating or fatal side-effects.
At one point, we did not have penacillian and other antibiotics, yet millions survied flu and pnuemonia. We did not have statin blockers, yet people lived to ripe old ages with high colesterol. While none of these things are cure-alls for everything that ills the world. Isn't it nice to know we can, if we so choose, protect our children and if need be treat them with all of these as well as with our greatest weapon of all, our ever increasing knowlege.
Chick: the assumption that this was the nanny was not an assumption at all. I had been chatting with her in the store, nanny to nanny, and she told me who she was. I just didn't think that was a vital point to mention as it had nothing to do with incident. So I am neither racist nor bigoted nor wrong. I'm also glad to see that most others agree that this was definitely worth mentioning.
OP
I don't think Chick was calling you racist or bigoted. Although no one had claimed you were, maybe she was just 'nipping in the bud' any claims that you might have been?
I don't know why she opened it up for discussion, but try not to be insulted as I don't think she meant any harm.
It is a good post.
MPP, I wasn't sure either, it just seemed so weird that it was mentioned. In any event I didn't take offense, I just realized how touchy some people are on these matters so I just wanted to make it clear that I did, in fact, know this was the nanny. Thanks :D
OP, my appologies - I could swear I saw someone posting one of those "How do you know it was the nanny blahdeblahs..." on this thread, and was trying to point out exactly why you were correct in assuming it was the nanny!
Apparently, I either badly mixed up threads here, or I am somewhat delusional!
And OP, often when someone starts the "How did you know it was the nanny..." song and dance, they follow that up with an accusation of racism/bigotry. I was trying to cut that off at the pass, lol!
I apparently couldn't post coherently at all yesterday. Again, my appologies.
Chick
I totally feel you ... I was out of sorts in my postings yesterday, too. (Must've been something in the air, lol).
I made a couple of errors bad enough that JD had to come to my rescue.
But you had your thoughts (even the mixed up ones ☺) in the right place, because you meant well.
That's what I figured which was why I responded to let everyone know it was not a racist assumption but that I knew she was a nanny for a fact.
:D
GO GIANTS!!!!
This is the stupidist post I've seen yet on this board and I've read alot of really stupid posts. Perhaps the nanny should have carried the 5-6 year old child across the parking lot and placed her into a safety seat, buckled it herself, gotten the child a drink-a snack-a toy and a pat on the head before driving away.
Exactly 8:20 - why the heck would anyone expect a nanny for a 5 yo to spend time making sure the kid is safe or cared for. Crickey, it's not like a kid that age can't take care of herself!
Geez, 5 is almost grown-up! In just 11 years this kid will be driving her own car, and then there won't be anyone to make sure she crosses the parking lot safe...
Oh. Well. I guess if she gets run over, ejected from the nannymobile during a crash because she wasn't buckled in, or kidnapped because she was being ignored in a busy parking lot, the whole drivers license thing is a moot point, isn't it?
Yes, this was sarcasm. I am fairly sure you are too dim to recognize it, so I'll help you out.
Chick
You rock!
Ditto to that, Chick and MPP. 8:20 sounds a bit confused by the definition of nanny vs. DMV employee.
lol. Too flippin' funny.
8:20-when people are so brazenly confident in their stupidity, that they post it for the world to see-as you have-it scares me.
7:14
Yeah. And her only saving grace was that she posted 'anonymously'.
Post a Comment