Saturday

Saturday, May 3, 2008

Nanny Saves Child from Coyote Attack
A coyote bit a 14-month-old girl in the buttocks as she played in a San Bernardino County park Friday, authorities said.The little girl was with her nanny at Altura Park in Chino Hills when the caretaker heard the child scream around 10:30 a.m., sheriff's spokeswoman Arden Wiltshire said.The nanny saw the coyote with the child in its mouth, grabbed the child and was able to pull her away, Wiltshire said.The coyote then ran off.

150 comments:

Anonymous said...

"The dingo stole my baby!!!" Remember that movie? Sheeesh! I commend the nanny who stole 'em back! Way to protect and defend your charge, nanny!

Anonymous said...

So how's the child?

Anonymous said...

I'm wondering how the nanny let a coyote get that close to this small child. Scary..

Anonymous said...

Wow wonder what she was doing that she didn't see that thing going for her 14 month old charge? The caretaker of the place heard the screams, so where was Nanny?
I hope the thing wasn't rabid or did they even catch it in order to test it? That poor little baby.

nannies aren't evil said...

I was wondering when someone would jump in and blame the nanny for a wild animal attack, and BOOM (6:06 and 6:48!) it happened.
Come on now, isn't it possible the nanny was taken by surprise (predators like coyotes are known for sneaking up on their prey) and just as terrified by the whole thing as her charge was?
Are nannies now required to be trained in animal-attack rescue? Isn't it possible she tried to save the child and needed help to do it? If the child had been with a parent, nobody would have jumped to the conclusion that the parent was being negligent without first knowing all the facts.
Sorry, but I seriously doubt this was the nanny's fault.
It was a horrible accident and fortunately both child AND nanny are safe and alive.

Anonymous said...

If I read the OP's post correctly, the NANNY "grabbed the child" and was able to save her from being injured further.

Give this nanny a pat on the back and a RAISE!

nanny is a hero! said...

Nanny did not stand there frozen with fear, screaming and crying.
Nanny did not call 911 on her cell and beg them to come.
Nanny did not enlist anyone else's help.
She reached in, grabbed her little charge and pulled it from the jaws of a coyote!
She risked a lot. She risked the possibility of losing her grip and losing the child while the coyote dashed with it up into the woods.
She risked the possibility of the animal dropping the child and turning on the nanny, attacking her instead.
She risked a lot, all because of her dedication to the child she cared for.
If this had been my nanny, I'd spend the rest of my life thanking her.

Anonymous said...

Yo dummy-6:48 the caretaker IS the nanny. Not the caretaker of the place, learn to read before you blame someone else.

Anonymous said...

where is the parent when the nanny comes back to work after the weekend and the child has a gashed lip or forehead, a cut above the eye, a horrible cold because said child ran around all weekend without adequate covering. people please stop always assuming that all nannies are horrible. they are not. can we then assume that the parents are horrible parents too, because accidents do happen

Anonymous said...

I'm really hoping the nanny who saved the child comes to this site and tells us what happened after the attack.
Did her employers thank her for saving their baby or did they blame her for what happened?

Anonymous said...

I live in Chino close to the park where the baby was attacked yesterday. It was all over the news. They said the coyote snuck into the park area, and no one saw it, until after the coyote was attacking the baby. The nanny was right there, and quickly reached in to grab the baby. Coyotes are a common thing around here, my cat was eaten by them last year when she snuck out of the house. This nanny did the right thing, and all the news stations wer applauding her and saying it was nice to hear a good story about a nanny for a change.

Sprak said...

is the date wrong on this sighting?

mom said...

Really people, wild critters tend to be very stealthy. Otherwise they would never get to eat. If it had been roaming aimlessly around the playground leisurely sniffing the children to see which one smelled the most delicious, don't you think it would have started a commotion long before the child was bitten? From time to time adults are even attacked by mountain lions on well traveled trails in California. Not every single thing is somebody else's fault.
Bravo to nanny for thinking quickly and bravely battling a wild animal in order to save the child. Unless the animal is captured they will likely both have to endure painful rabies vaccines.

marypoppin'pills said...

The Nanny had to have been pretty close to her charge to save her life.

Coyotes are very quick and strong. The average weight of a healthy 20 m.o. girl is approximately 24 lbs.

That's nothing to a hungry Coyote.

cali mom said...

It says the nanny "heard the child scream" which implies that the child was out of her sight, then "saw the coyote with the child in its mouth" which indicates she was not watching the child until after she heard a scream. With a 14 month old, that is absolutely negligent. And I certainly WOULD say the same thing if the child had been with a parent.

Anonymous said...

You disappoint us all AGAIN calimom!
Didn't someone just post that it was all over the news (see 10:50pm)? That nobody saw the coyote until the last minute? That the nanny was RIGHT THERE and "quickly reached in to grab the baby"? That coyotes are stealthy predators?
I guess all these facts are just not enough for someone with a nanny-hating agenda. And you claim you'd say the same thing if it had been a parent? HA! Liar, liar, liar.
Enjoy your Ivory Tower. From now on I'm going to ignore all your posts.

Sheesh said...

Hey Cali-Mom, what's your damage? Do you think the nanny took the baby to the park hoping it would be mauled or killed by some random coyote?
Check your brain. It needs recharging.

marypoppin'pills said...

My apologies, I don't know why I thought it was a 20 m.o. girl, she's only 14 mo. old.

Either way, it only means she weighed less than I thought.

marypoppin'pills said...

Oh, good grief.
I can't get anything right! LOL


Jane,
The video says the little girl was 22 m.o., not 14 m.o.

cali mom said...

OK, so why did she hear it before she saw it? Light travels faster than sound if I am not mistaken so obviously she was NOT LOOKING when the baby was grabbed.

Whatever moron called me a nanny hater, um...pay attention. Try reading with your fingers out of your nose and maybe you will be able to follow along better. Or do you just have to skim everything while looking over your shoulder to make sure your employer doesn't catch you surfing the net on her computer when you are on the clock?

Anonymous said...

Yep, Cali-Mom has lost it. Somebody get her to a shrink.

Anonymous said...

here we go again

all nanny's fault said...

I think cali-mommy is right. I think the nanny is responsible for the whole attack. I think the nanny should have had E.S.P. so she would know she couldn't turn her head away from her charge for two seconds since a coyote was coming to try and drag the baby away. Stupid, bad idiot nanny should have known this and shame on dumb dumb nanny for...oh, wait a minute...the nanny SAVED the baby's life!
Nevermind.

cali mom said...

Oh nno, she's pulling into the driveway! Quick, escape! Clear history! Delete cookies! Bye bye!

Anonymous said...

1:49 and 1:52 = written by same idiot.

"Cali-Mom, cali-mommy??"

The HYPHEN gives you away!

Dumbass!

LMFAO!!!

Anonymous said...

To the jerk insulting Cali mom

You are nothing but a one trick pony. Get a life!

all nanny's fault said...

I appreciate the compliment but I hyphenated cali-mommy's name because 1:49 did. I wish I could take credit for what 1:49 said. It was right on the mark!

cali mom said...

1:55, right you are!

Anonymous said...

so Cali mom is allowed to judge an innocent nanny who did something brave but we're not allowed to tell her how we feel about it?

um, okay, whatever

Anonymous said...

2:02
Are you kidding me?!
An opinion is one thing, but the post started out with calling her a liar, and ended with asking her to check her brain.

Last time I checked ... that was an insult!

Anonymous said...

Didn't you know? This site is run by nanny-haters. That's the point.

cali mom said...

Who says you're not "allowed"? You're not banned from posting here, are you? You are welcome to make yourself look like as much of a stupid ass as you want. It's kind of entertaining to watch you, in a pathetic sort of way.

Anonymous said...

WRONG.
Many nannies are supported on this site, are you illiterate?

i know said...

I won't say how I know but "cali mom" and "anonymous" are often the same person posting.

cali mom said...

2:07, hasn't she already made the answer obvious?

Anonymous said...

"I don't agree with Cali mom".

See how easy that was? There was no need to get so ugly.

cali mom said...

LOL, that's because you DON'T know, Miss Cleo.

Anonymous said...

Dear Genius at 2:08
I guess the fact that Cali mom and I BOTH posted AT THE SAME TIME just blew your idiotic theory out of the water, didn't it?

Anonymous said...

LOL!!! So hilarious!

Anonymous said...

I don't agree with Cali mom.
I don't agree with Cali mom.
I don't agree with Cali mom.
I don't agree with Cali mom.
I don't agree with Cali mom, or any of the rest of you who rushed to her defense.

By the way, in my OPINION, what the nanny did was amazing and should be applauded!

Anonymous said...

2:09 = different people.
Get it?

i know said...

2:12

Nope. Totally possible for two posts to happen within the same minute. All you have to be is a fast typist.

I still know.

Anonymous said...

2:13
Gee. Why don't you agree with me? I said not all nannies were maligned on this site. I give credit where credit is due.

Does that mean you are a nanny-hater?

Anonymous said...

2:15
Trust me. Cali mom will take credit for her own posts.
She is not afraid of you.

Neither am I.

you know me said...

How ya holding up, Cali?

Sprak said...

Well, goodnight, all... just about to turn my computer off and happened to notice the idiocy going on this evening. Just remember, it is ok to have differences of opinion. Could it be that the nanny isn't 'quite' the hero everyone thinks she is? Maybe there is more to the story? For now, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. After all, a baby's life was saved.

Anonymous said...

LOL, Sprak = Peacemaker!
Love it!

cali mom said...

Thank you 2:18, exactly.

As much fun as it might be to sit up until the rooster crows and reply to silly anonymous insults from some illiterate stranger on a message board, I think it might be even more fun to go get in bed now with my dear hubby. He's got it all warmed up for me :)

Anonymous said...

LOL, yummy!
Go get it, girl!

cali mom said...

2:20, fine, thanks :) Night all!

Anonymous said...

nighty-night!

cali mom said...

2:24, hehehe :) I just meant the bed, but ya never know!

Anonymous said...

Bravo to this hero nanny!

Anonymous said...

awww, give the man a break! He got it all nice & toasty for ya! LOL

Anonymous said...

For the rest of her life the nanny will know she saved a life. I think that's really wonderful.

Anonymous said...

Yes. Let's hope she's rewarded for it.

Anonymous said...

sprak I'm curious. How is the nanny not quite a hero? What more could she have done or what more could anyone have done in such a scary situation?
Why are some here so unwilling to imagine the nanny might have done a noble thing and done her best?
I understand when a nanny does something wrong she should be called on it. But this approach to this nanny I really don't understand.

Anonymous said...

Most nannies tell their bosses what they did each day. Stuff like going to the library or doing art projects with the children or reading to them.
The nanny in the OP was able to tell her boss she saved their baby from possible death.
I think that qualifies her as a great nanny and a hero.

TX Nanny said...

I usually agree with Cali Mom's post but am very dissapointed with her on this one, oh well. I think saving the little girl from the coyote was a good thing and in no way negligent. It reminds me of the mom who saved her little boy's friend from the rabid raccoon after it bit and attacked him she choked it to death.

Anonymous said...

Cali-mom is clueless, probably lives in the mid-wilshire district.

Most of us have dealt with wildlife. My own work family had a trapper get rid of coyotes who attacked their dog. Another neighbor lost their hunting dog in the DAYLIGHT in this neighborhood.

I've encountered tons of coyotes, rattlesnakes, and scorpions in the Southern CA area. Unless you're physically carrying a child around at all times you can't protect them from the animals in all situations. Coyotes are quiet.

chick said...

All this blather about where nanny was is pointless. Cali mom has her own interpretation. However, I think she's off the mark by a long way here.

I would use the same terminology ("saw" and "heard") to describe an event, whether I was 10 feet away, 5 feet away, or right next to the action.

Coyotes are fast and sneaky. I would guess if nanny had been out of arm's reach of her charge, the baby would have been snatched and eaten, and the police would be hoping to recover what was left of her body.

Since that isn't what happened, let's all consider assuming nanny was right there and did what she is credited with doing - saving her charge from severe injury or death.

An adult at any sort of distance from the child who was attacked would have to have super speed powers to manage to grab the child after "seeing" and "hearing" the event from much more than 10 feet away. The coyote didn't likely hang around and consider whether to eat lunch at the playground vs. in the woods, you know?

YAY! to this nanny.

Hellcat said...

Yeah, the nanny saved the baby- but who wouldn't? Who here would not have done the same thing in that situation? It's a moral obligation.
Good for her, she succeeded. It's awesome.. but really, she should have been close enough and paying enough attention to see it coming. Even if no one else saw it coming. They didn't see it because they were minding their own children. Children the coyote was not targeting.
If she heard the scream first, then she wasn't watching. It's true, no one expects this, but nobody expects children to be abducted either. You have to watch!

That said, this does not mean she is a bad nanny or that this is her fault. Who's to say that she couldn't have prevented it even if she was watching? What if she had seen the coyote coming but wasn't quick enough?

Everyone involved is so lucky.

Anonymous said...

Coyotes are very sneaky and quiet. That's why none of the people heard it before it attacked. You could have a baby in your lap, be looking right at the baby and a coyote could sneak up behind you and grab the baby's back from under your arm or around your shoulder. It's also true that they're really strong and I'm kind of amazed this nanny was able to pull the baby back from the jaws of the animal. Anyone who thinks the nanny did something wrong I think there's something wrong with you.
Nanny of the year!

Anonymous said...

I also think the nanny was not watching the child closely enough (20/20 hindsight). This can happen to the best parent or nanny, it really takes less than a minute of mind-wandering, but still it does not make the adult look good. Now, if she really hadn't been watching the way a lot of "nannies" reported here seem to be doing it, I do not think she would have been able to save the child's life. And she could have been scared, or got into a panic. But she did save the child's life. So hero sounds good to me.

Janet E. said...

i need some money!!!

cool nanny said...

I think of the horror of some poor child being ripped apart alive by a wild coyote and eaten bit by bit.
Then I think of this nanny who overcame her own fear and shock and acted quickly enough to prevent such a thing from happening.
This is a no-brainer.
Nanny is the COOLEST!

Anonymous said...

Hi Janet

As soon as I win the lottery, I'll mail you some cash!

:)

JerseyXJacqui said...

Unbelievable.

She was with a 22 month old not an infant. You don't have to be standing ON TOP of a child that age.
Coyotes stalk their prey.
I think it's been made VERY clear that they are quiet and stealthy hunters.
That is how they survive.
There is nothing in this story implying that the nanny was far away and/or not paying attention.In fact, the woman who witnessed it said the coyote grabbed the little girl and the nanny immediately grabbed her RIGHT back. "The coyote came down, grabbed the baby by the butt and the nanny reached it at the same time screaming..." Did any of you even watch the video?
When I bring my charge to a park , I let her have a little freedom...I always stay within a couple of feet but I'm not at her heels and holding her hand as she plays and runs around.

This was a FREAK accident. I doubt it could have been avoided.
I almost feel personally insulted that some of you would find a way to turn this story around and blame the nanny. That's bizarre and needless to say, incredibly irrational.

sharky said...

If I'm ever attacked by a shark I'll make sure I blame the Coast Guard for not getting there quick enough and I'll blame the beach lifeguard for not seeing the shark before I did. I'll blame the hero who pulls me alive from the water for not doing it faster.
I'll blame everyone around me and I'll refuse to accept the fact that the world is an imperfect place.

Anonymous said...

4:01

Right on!

You just said it all!

*applause*

superior nanny said...

If you want your nanny to be a superhero with the ability to fly, X-ray vision and the ability to predict the future, you'll need to pay her at least $100,000 per year so she can afford to dry-clean her cape!

the facts said...

According to the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, the child who was nearly 2 (a year and 10 months-old) was playing in the sandbox when the coyote attacked. The nanny IMMEDIATELY pulled the child away from the animal.
The child was taken to the hospital with "two small puncture wounds" on her buttocks.
She is expected to make a full recovery.
Now you all have the FACTS.

the facts said...

^^^correction

Child was 1 year and a half (18 months-old).

A toddler, not an infant.
And alive thanks to the nanny.

Janet E. said...

3:51 I'm holding you to that!

mpp said...

So many conflicting reports on this child's age, not that it really matters.

The video attached to this post says she is 22 m.o., while the post itself says she's 14 m.o.

Either way, I agree with Chick, and that the Nanny had to have been close enough to grab the child right back, or the Coyote would've taken off with the child.

Great post, Chick!

AnyasNew said...

Thanks "the facts", and I agree with most of you, the nanny truly is a hero in this case.

Some of you apparently do not live around coyotes or at least lack applied knowledge of them. I grew up (and still live) in a very heavily coyote populated area, and to say they are 'sneaky' is honestly an understatement. I remember being as young as 2 years old and having my mother scream bloody murder because yet another coyote was on our property. By the age of 4 I knew to scream and clap my hands if I saw one, (they do tend to scare easily) and to this day do not allow my dog outside by himself for fear of a coyote attack. They are very quiet, and exceptionally quick, to the point that you typicallly do not see them until it's too late and they already have the "prey" they were seeking. Because of this it is extremely hard to always be prepared for them, you basically have to always be on guard when you are with someone (animal or child) very small. My mom was an exceptional mother, and even we had a few occasions where something could have happened, animals are very unpredictable, and it's impossible and even unhealthy to constantly guard a child and not give them room to move and play.

I commend the nanny for being brave enough to go up against a wild animal. It's extremely easy to say that ALL people would have done this, but the truth of the matter is most of us have not been met with this situation, and so we can not say for sure all people would have done this. I will however say, that statistically speaking and using the knowledge I have regarding the common persons reaction to fear and danger, some people regardless of how kind they are would not have had the courage. Often times people "freeze up" in danger situations, or even grow to scared to interfere, some people would have simply dialed 911, others might have screamed for someone else to help etc. Please remember this wasn't the child's mother so she wasn't going on the same kind of adrenaline (maternal bond) a mother would have, which to me only adds more reason to praise this woman! I say bravo, lets give praise and credit when it is due just as freely as we reprehend and scold when wrong is done.

JerseyXJacqui said...

anyasnew, great post.
You hit the nail on the head on ALL points.

I honestly can't say what I would have done in this situation, and you're right when point out that this wasn't the mother, but the nanny and therefore not pumped up on the same "maternal bond adrenaline," as you put it.

I HOPE I would do exactly as this nanny did, but I have never been in a situation even remotely similar to this one, so I can't say for sure.

I definitely think she earned the title HERO. I still can't believe she was demonized by a couple commenters on here.

Anonymous said...

6:25
You really put a different kind of spin on this, and made a lot of sense. I really like your post!

Janet
Why would you come on here exclaiming that you need money? That's a little bizarre.

Anonymous said...

The reality is, there are some people who post on this site who cannot accept the fact that there are good nannies, and will go to great lengths to find something to discredit a good sighting. . If a nanny lost her life saving a child they would bash her for dying and leaving the parents to scramble for childcare. All we can do is be grateful we don't work for them when we read their biased posts.

How anyone who reads the facts, including the description of how coyotes hunt, and still questions whether the nanny should be commended is beyond my comprehension.

Anonymous said...

6:51pm

Wow! That took guts to say what you said, but I'm afraid it's true.
Thanks for your honesty.

Anonymous said...

posting anonymous takes guts?
anyone can do that --

See?

you're so immature said...

7:46pm

What are you--- 5 years-old?

Anonymous said...

I am still trying to figure out why it would take guts even if it wasn't anonymous.

Anonymous said...

yeppers!

Anonymous said...

It was probably someone congratulating themselves, 7:54. That would be the only reason to explain it, lol.

Anonymous said...

How many of you here are over the age of 18?

Anonymous said...

You first, 7:56!!

Anonymous said...

7:56pm here. I'm 44.

Now enough with this juvenile pissing contest and congratulations to the brave nanny.

anonymous or not said...

It takes guts for anyone to post "there are some people who post on this site who cannot accept the fact that there are good nannies, and will go to great lengths to find something to will discredit a good sighting", knowing so many of you will get your dander up and fly your freak-flags high.
"Anonymous" or not, it took balls.

JerseyXJacqui said...

Anonymous Or Not, people make that point all the time on here.

It was a good point and I agree, but it wasn't really BALLSY.

Anyway. Who cares :-)
I'm not sure why I am even commenting on this subject, haha.

roadrunner said...

Right you are jerseyxjacqui !

This is a story about a hero nanny, a hungry coyote and a sandbox-loving child with two little bite-marks on it's butt.

Now that's entertainment!

:)

Anonymous said...

Nope. It took no balls.
Balls is putting on the uniform and fighting on foreign soil for a country you love and are willing to do for all for a war you're unsure of.

Pop shot himself one said...

Me gusta coyotes.

Anna said...

Sheesh, the babies are waiting for their mom to come home. Look at all of those ugly, ugly, ugly houses built up in the Arizona and California deserts. 6 or 8 to one acre. No yards. All pavement. And did I say ugly. Where in the hell do you think the animals should go?
Like it or not, the world is supposed to be the survival of the fittest. In this case, the child one because of the nanny. (But sorry if a Coyote had plucked up my 2o month old, I would fire the nanny). I just would.

Stop building. Start living green.
The world is going to end soon if we don't STOP destroying our earth and all of God's creatures.

Anonymous said...

The child was reported as:
Coyote bites toddler - DailyBulletin.com
CHINO HILLS -- An 18-month-old girl was hospitalized after a coyote bit her as she played in a park Friday morning. The toddler was in the sandbox when her ..

1) 22 months old
2) 24 months old (and 2 years old)
3) 14 months old
4) 18 months old

I kid you not. Google it.

must be on mars said...

11:46PM I knew it. I knew someone would come right out with it and say they'd fire their nanny if she'd pulled their child from an attacking coyote.
Unf*ckingbelievable.

Anonymous said...

I'd fire the nanny if she had to "hear" my child scream and run to her. I don't want my child THAT far from my 2 year old child. And you damn bet you, I would fire her. I would also fire a nanny for spilling hot coffee on my child. What would you do? Commend the nanny for running her burnt arm under cold water?

Give me a break.

There is such a thing as going too damn far being PC.

All the reports say the nanny HEARD. Why? Who is this nanny? I would bet that more comes out about this and the nanny isn't the hero the media wants her to be.

fire 'em all! said...

I say fire all nannies at the drop of a hat.
If they make any mistakes at all, fire 'em!
If they don't hold their charges in their arms during each and every hour of their workday, fire 'em!
If they have a human emotion or flaw, fire 'em!
Just fire 'em all for the hell of it!
Better yet, let's get some robot-nannies and just recycle them when anything goes wrong.

By the way, 11:59, your "hot coffee" analogy is inappropriate and just doesn't apply.
I'm sure you're a micromanaging obsessive-compulsive nightmare to work for and I pity anyone who has to suffer under you as your employee.

Anonymous said...

11:59 is a troll.
Please don't feed the troll.

Anonymous said...

Your damn certain I am going to have a say in every single thing that has to do with how my child is cared for. Now, I know that crimps the style of lazy nannies and ignorant nannies and the bulk of nannies (82 percent, I heard someone say) who are oppositional defiant personalities and cannot take orders or be told what to do.

When I hired my gardener, I told him what I wanted planted and when, I told him what lights to install in the garden, what bushes to plant, what shape to trim the hedges in and how often, when to sod, when to turf, when to treat for tics when to do anual tree management and guess what? My lawn doesn't rate next to my CHILD.

Anonymous said...

Dontcha think if the nanny had been so far away from the child that she had to "run to her" the coyote would've had plenty of time to carry the child away?
I've seen a coyote grab a small dog in about a half second flat and they were gone in the next second.
I'm surprised the nanny was able to save the child at all. It's a miracle.

serenity now said...

Lord, grant me the serenity and good fortune never to have to work for with or around anyone as bitter and angry and deluded as the lady who gets off on bossing her nannies and gardeners around like they're lower life-forms.

Anonymous said...

12:10 you maniac!
Where is this mysterious "Bad Nanny" book of statistics that proves 82 % of all nannies are defiant and cannot take orders or be told what to do?
Maybe if you stop barking orders and try using your manners (decent folk politely give instruction and ASK their employees to perform tasks) your life might be a less miserable cesspool of bitching and moaning.

Anonymous said...

Oops, I fed the troll. Sorry, won't happen again.

Anonymous said...

Yep, you sound oppositional defiant.
Guess what little nanny? In the real world, you get a job and you get a BOSS. You get a job and you get a SUPERVISOR. You get a job and you get a JOB DESCRIPTION or a MANUAL.

Just who the hell do you think you are to go off willy nillie with someone's child as if you don't have to answer to anyone?

You are deluded and you have a huge chip on your shoulder. Never fear, when 30 percent of nannies are on the streets and out of works because we are in the throws of a real depression, you will learn to value what a job is.

Of course, then it will be too late.

Anonymous said...

I love the way someone called her a "micromanaging obsessive-compulsive nightmare" and then the lady just went on to prove how much of a nightmare she really is.

Rolf. Kewl.

Anonymous said...

Little 12:25

First of all, I'm not a nanny.

I'm an attorney who employs a nanny for my children.
I also happen to have a gardener, a stylist, a personal chef, a driver and a personal trainer...all of whom are valued employees who have earned my respect over the years.
I have no idea what "going off willy nillie with someone's child" is in reference to. What exactly do you mean?
I suggest you see a therapist. Soon.

Anonymous said...

12:25

i don't think the previous poster is saying that they shouldn't answer to a parent. i think she/he was stating that all employees deserve respect. Having a nanny requires some management skills. Barking order does not equate to good management skills. Communicating expectations does.


i would never work for someone like you. even in the midst of a depression. i don't think anyone would tolerate such a condescending attitude. not a gardner, nanny, personal assistant or a co-worker. so unless you can take the kids to work with you, i would reevaluate the attitude;

I'm the wife said...

I'm married to a wealthy man and if we have children I'll be hiring a nanny.
I'm wondering how I can avoid becoming a mean, controlling boss when I have a nanny.
It seems like so many wives treat their sitters and nannies badly. Is this some sort of tradition? I really am wondering.
I hope I'm never like that.

mpp said...

Well 1:05
Just the thought that you "hope" you're not like one of them, will put you in a different catagory.

One who's Employees will value and respect, and WANT to work for.

wedded bliss said...

I can just see it now.
The child grows up and has to explain the tiny dots on her behind to her husband on their wedding night. She says, "I was attacked by a coyote when I was little and my nanny saved me from being eaten alive."

"Really?" replies her new husband, "Your nanny saved your life. Did your parents give her a raise or something?"

"No, darling," she answers. "They fired her."

Hubby shakes his head and considers his future with in-laws who are ungrateful, spiteful a**holes. Hubby is glad he asked his wife to sign a pre-nup.

Anonymous said...

Lemme guess. Are you a man?
I love that there have been so many on board lately. That shakes it up a little!
Haha!

the truth said...

According to news reports and video, the child was a 2 year-old and the nanny was also taking care of an infant in a stroller while at the park.
Witnesses reported the nanny pulled the child from the coyote at the SAME TIME as it bit her.
Not a single witness or authority reported any negligence on the nanny's part.
Source says there have been at least two other recent coyote attacks in the general area.

wedded bliss said...

To 2:39


You flirting with me?

Behave. I'm married.

Anonymous said...

Darn.

dr. lamar lamont said...

Nanny Oppositional defiant disorder (NODD) is defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), as a nanny with recurring pattern of negative, hostile, disobedient, and defiant behavior lasting for at least six weeks without serious violation of the basic rights of others. The incidence of NODD in the American nanny population varies somewhat according to the sample studied; DSM-IV gives the rate as between 82-86% while the Association for the Advancement of Nannies (AAN) gives a figure of 5%-15%.

Nannies with this disorder show their negative and defiant behaviors by being persistently stubborn and resisting directions. They may be unwilling to compromise, give in, or negotiate with adults. Nannies may deliberately or persistently test limits, ignore orders, argue, and fail to accept blame for misdeeds. Hostility is directed at employers or supervisors and is shown by verbal aggression or deliberately annoying others.

Nanny oppositional defiant disorder is more common in nannies than mannies. The disorder typically reveals itself by week three of employment. Although the specific causes of the disorder are unknown, employers who are overly concerned with power and control may cause an eruption to occur.

Symptoms include a pattern of negative, hostile, and defiant behavior lasting at least six weeks. During this time four or more specific behaviors must be present. These behaviors include the nanny who:

-often loses his/her temper

-often argues with employers or supervisors

-often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults' requests or rules

-often deliberately annoys people

-often blames others for his/her mistakes or misbehavior

-is often touchy or easily annoyed by others

-is often angry and resentful

-is often spiteful or vindictive

-misbehaves

-swears or uses obscene language

-has a low opinion of him/herself

Treatment:
Employer management training focuses on teaching the parents specific and more effective techniques for handling the nanny's opposition and defiance. Research has shown that parent management training is more effective than shock therapy. One variation of parent management training known as Parent-Nanny Interaction Therapy (PNIT) appears to be helpful over the long term; a group of Australian researchers reported in 2004 that families who were given a course of PCIT retained their nannies two years after the program ended.

marypoppin'pills said...

Don't forget:

- shoves dirty diapers into corners of house

- scrubs Parents toilet with their toothbrush

Are you for real? I would imagine it would be too dangerous to keep a Nanny like that around ... let alone long enough to "re-train".

mom said...

C'mom guys. The nanny would probably have had to stand over the child at all times, body hunched over forward and arms held protectively in a circle around the child as she played to prevent the coyote attack. Either that or shrieking and continuously ringing a cowbell...or I suppose holding a lighted torch right next to the child's body the entire time they were at the park. None of the other witnesses who saw nanny pull the child from the coyotes mouth saw it approach either. It probably ran in quickly and made the grab before anybody had a real chance to see what was happening. Coyotes are good hunters. They wait and watch and go in when the time is right.

I was a very protective (OK, overprotective...but hey, they're all alive and well) mother to my small kids, but I did not keep my two year olds at arms length at all time at the park. I often let them play with other kids whle I watched. And as long as they were nearby and safe I did not feel the need to hover over them. As hypervigilant as I was, a coyote could have probably swooped in and bitten my kids any number of times. It just wasn't a danger I ever even considered. It's a fairly rare occurence...hence the news coverage. If there was a strange unleashed dog in the area you can bet I had them in hand...but even dogs don't hunt like coyotes.
Nanny pulled the child from the mouth of a wild animal who had its meal in its mouth. The whole incident had to be terrifying on many levels.
Be nice to nanny. She did a good thing.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Lamar Lamont (love the name, btw)
Where did you pull your research?

CallMeDoctorChick said...

PODD, or Parental Oppositional Defiance Disorder is defined by the DSM-IV as a parent who consistently shows negative, hostile, overly demanding and dictatorially defiant behavior that has lasted for at least 6 weeks and has caused the nanny employed by the parent to seriously consider quitting. The ANN says that approximately 99% of nannies have experienced PODD, and 33% of nannies currently work for a parent with PODD. When the APA asked parentsd who employed nannies to self-report any of the defining PODD behaviors, 1% of respondents did self-identify, although she indicated the behavior was actually nanny's fault. The APA places the rate of PODD at approximately 21 - 27%.

PODD seems to be more prevalent among female employers than among male employers. Further study may show a number of reasons for this disparity, but the main theory at the moment is that maternal jealousy and insecurity play a large role in PODD onset.

Generally, PODD emerges 2 - 3 months after nanny is hired. The belief is that within that timeframe Nanny has made her positive mark on the household, and the PODD sufferer feels the need to demonize and demoralize Nanny.

Parents with PODD exhibit many of the folowing behaviors. For a diagnosis of PODD, at least 4 of the following behaviors must be present for at least 6 weeks:

- persistent stubborn refusal to consider Nanny a professional

- refusal to acknowledge consistent personal lateness

- unwillingness to compromise or negotiate with nanny

- failure to accept responsibility for any of their parenting decisions

- verbal aggression or hostility

- passive-aggressive responses to requests from Nanny

- tactitly encouraging children who are rude or disrespectful toward Nanny

-often loses his/her temper

_generally disruptive and annoying actions when home with Nanny and child(ren)

-often deliberately annoys people

-often blames others for his/her mistakes or misbehavior

-is often touchy or easily annoyed by others

-is often angry and resentful

-is often spiteful or vindictive

-swears or uses obscene language

-has a markedly high opinion of him/herself

Treatment:

While electroconvulsive therapy is occasionally useful (and deeply gratifying to a nanny suffering through PODD), talk therapies, behavior modification, and exposure to more positive and productive nanny emoployer relationships are all reported to have some effectiveness.

The most effective therapy is not reccomended for use when children are around. Forcing a PODD afflicted parent to hire a "slug nanny" or "bench potato nanny" produces amazing results, but can be detrimental to the child(ren) involved.

For that reason, it is suggested that "flooding" therapy for PODD parents would be best
performed by having them observe the actions of OTHER people's nannies who demonstrate a lack of care or concern for their charges.

mpp said...

Dr. Chick,
Great post!

Anonymous said...

The nanny was also caring for an infant in a stroller. Micro Managing Mama, how do YOU manage two children in the playground, and never be more than inches from either one? I'd love to here details.

gloria said...

I just have to say here, Sprak sounds like one of the smartest people on this blog, so all those who protest so much against her, why don't you go read a book on phonics and wit and then come back and try and keep up with her?

Anonymous said...

I like your posts, gloria. especially the one about the caring nanny.

FNG said...

Mom and others, meaning no disrespect here, feral dogs, are a huge problem in the entire North East wooded areas, a far bigger problem than coyotes. As are feral cats. We have coyotes here in NJ, but we have a much bigger problem with the black bear, one of which actually killed a child in the not too distant past. A few weeks ago, a black bear had a Paramus High School under lock down. All the same, I don't believe in putting out bounties on animals who are trying to live and share space we keep taking from them. We humans are supposed to be a more intellectual species, so you think we would be able to figure out a way to expand our living space without the problems of wildlife in our own backyards. The undesired behaviors of wildlife is further encouraged by people who think it's cute to feed wildlife in their yard, do not secure their trash in the proper containers where wildlife is an issue, and don't teach their children proper behavior around wild animals from an early age. I cannot tell you how wrong it is to allow young children to believe a baby bear is cute and harmless, a coyote (or wolf) is just like a doggie, or a baby deer is Bambi. These are all things I have heard parents say to their children on trips to the zoos and National parks. When viewing the wild ponies of Assateague , I was appalled at how many parents ignored the rangers's warnings and allowed their children to offer the horses apples and other treats. Sure enough, before our weekend visit was done we witnessed a nasty kick sending a child away in an ambulance.

Miserly Bastard said...

How did the coyote get that close to a 14-month old without the nanny being there? A child that young needs to be supervised within arms' reach, because at this age, they're picking up everything and putting it in their mouth. Negligent nanny, not hero.

Manhattan Mamma said...

In the area I live in, we have a horrible problem with Pit Bulls. it seems every one has them now and no one really knows how to train them around here. People get them a status symbol of their toughness.

Pit Bulls are actually terriers and as such they tend to be very stubborn. But they are also normally very sweet and loving animals. However, like any terrier breed strict training is an absolute must!

Another thing many people don't consider is dogs discipline their pups with a nip on the snout or nose. As a part of the pack, a dog might decide to discipline the new baby (pup) in much the same way it would it's own pup, with terrible results. They will also go for a diaper soiled with #2 attracted to the smell, which is yummy to them. (ewww)

Lastly, a nip on the rear end is almost never an attack, but is more likely a canines way of initiating play. A good thing to remember and teach kids is, if a dog is coming at you, make eye contact and try to stay calm as possible. At the same time, turn to your side and present your arm bent as if you were holding a shield. An attacking canine will tend to latch onto what it can grab first and the arm is more desirable for a bite than the torso or legs.

Anonymous said...

Miserly Bastard
Were you not reading the entire thread. Your question was answered numerous times, about how a Coyote got close enough to bite the child.

Do you not think that as quick, strong and stealth as these animals are, that if the nanny HADN'T been near the child, the Coyote most definately WOULD have TAKEN OFF with the child?

Nanny was quick on her feet that day, and SAVED that Baby.

Anonymous said...

I guess some people need to watch wild kingdom. These animals are fast, They vitually crawl on all fours under brush and shrub very quietly and stalk their prey.
They move like lightening. If she could snatch that child away from that thing before it took off she couldn't have been too far away. She had to be within reach. Now I am sure the cretaker heard a scream probably from the child anad the nanny, but she had to be close because you are NOT going to run one of these animlas down once they take off. By the time you sneeze a coyote can have you child,dog,cat and be gone. I would thin the answer to this problem would be to clear out the brush in this park or surrounding area. Especially since they KNOW that they come there to hunt. Blaming the Nanny for this is like blaming her for getting rear ended at a stop sign.

JerseyXJacqui said...

Anyone who is questioning the nanny did not watch the video and only read the opening couple of lines to the article.

By the way, the CARETAKER...that's the nanny.

Read through the comments people. Watch the video. Stop making snap judgements. Quite a few people, including myself, stated very clearly what THE FACTS are.

Be thorough in collecting all the information before you climb up on your high horses and judge just for the sake of judging and a quick hit of self righteousness.

Anonymous said...

Speaking about the problem with Pitt BUlls. I had this beautiful cottage I was lving in ,all fenced around. This creep that lived a few blocks away open the gate and turned his Pitts loose on my Cat. They killed it. When I called the police they asked me if I had a weapon. They said to shoot those dogs. We have had 9 children killed or mauled by these animals in the past year and not to mention
a woman trying to get ito her own apartment attacked and shredded by the Canary Pitts while the owner tried to control them. (owner was convicted of manslaughter)
When the neighbor across the street had theirs out in the front yard with no leash and I was puting the toddler in the car,this dog took off growling across the street for me. I got the child in the car and slammed the door and kicked that dog in the mug. I called the police too. These people were livid with me. Gee I'm sorry. I think you could give me a coyote any day of the week rather than one of these dogs. If you encounter those dogs often I would suggest you carry pepper spray or mace . I do not like hurting an animal, But there are some that you really need to watch out for and Pitts are one of them.

Anonymous said...

What a nasty bunch of wenches around here.

Anonymous said...

And you are??

Anonymous said...

2:54 is a man.
A female wouldn't use that word to insult another when there are far too many other ripe ones.

Miserly bastard, are you mad?

Anonymous said...

2:54 has no reason to say such a thing unless they are upset by someone posting an opinion opposite theirs.

Please don't be mad and call names.

Anonymous said...

Gloria dear, I have encountered many people like Sprak on blogs. They obsess on wording things just right so that they 'seem' intelligent. However meeting them in real life is almost certain to disappoint.

You see, the outspoken, witty persona they portray on the net is all an act. In real life, they tend to be unattractive people, and I'm not speaking of physical appearance here. They are usually lonely and were picked on in school and are unpopular in life. They craft the character they would like to be on the web, and they find a place where they are welcomed, also finding a small group of 'fans'. They park themselves there, striking down all who dare scratch at their vitual armor, lest they be exposed for what they really are.

I've no doubt Sprak and her/his supporters, both real and imagined, will rush to defend her/him, and call me all sorts of names and I am fine with that. You see, what a bunch of faceless people on a blog say about or to me has little meaning when it's negative. A truly intelligent person says what they have to say and leaves the pointless bickering over it to others. I save my energy for much more important debates.

Just remember, you never really know who is typing on the other end. A friend of mine was almost kidnapped because she trusted a blog friend a few years back. She really felt she knew this person even talked to 'her' on the phone. She felt she had found her new best friend. Against her friends advice, she agreed to meet this person. Turns out 'she' was a pervert who was able to disguise his voice. Thankfully, my friend's brother had the good sense to follow her and call the police and they caught the guy trying to drag my friend in the car. Again, my friend was an educated woman, having served 10 years in the Air Force. The net is a scary place.

For the record, this person that my friend met up with was a regular on a blog like this and later in a chatroom my friend brought him to. He was always witty, and wrote with arrogant intelligence. If people called him out on thing, he would slap them down with insults, justification and his greatest weapon, support from his fans (half of which turned out to be him using different ID's) No one dared speak againt 'stannak' which was the name "she" went by, because she was such a favorite. I won't bore you all with the details of the entirely false persona she created. But these things do happen, so never be so sure of anyone on the net.

Anonymous said...

Sprak invited me to coffee when she came to NY and ...gasp... she got the bill.

mom said...

6:24...looks like you chose your words very carefully and are well spoken on the internet too. Kidnapped or killed anybody lately?
If Sprak were the fake you claim she is, she could never compose such well written posts in the first place.
You're right, you don't know who any of us are or what we might be like. So you shouldn't claim to know who Sprak is either.

undercover regular said...

Dear anonymous/6:24

You save your energy for much more important debates, but you just spent a good amount of time writing that post deposing Sprak.

All that time wasted. And you'll never get it back.
Was it worth it?

Now remember, I'm not flinging insults. I'm doing as you say and giving my opinion of your post an in intelligent manner, and will leave the bickering to others.

There. Now that I've said my peace ... are you going to accuse me of pretending to be Sprak? Or one of her "fans" coming to her defense and supporting her?

No, I don't think you will. I don't think you want to be a hypocrite. Because that would start some bickering back and forth between you and I while we waste our time defending ourselves, until one of us gives up.

So, with all that said ... why do you even care about Sprak and her posts? If they bother you so much, skip over them.
It will just be another 67 seconds of your time not wasted.

Ciao!

Sprak said...

I have fans?????? Hee hee hee.
Such a surprise. No, no faking here but certainly some curiosity as to why someone would write such a sinister post about me. Sounds like a very dark personality and somewhat scary at that. I'm not scary, although I may be a bitch sometimes. However, the hinting that I might be some sort of kidnapper or pervert trying to prey on someone here really does not sit well with me and I doubt that JD relishes the idea of these kinds of posts presenting on her blog. Cheers to all and especially to my fans that I didn't know I had!

undercover regular said...

Now, now Sprak ...
don't be so modest!

And I agree. I seriously doubt that Jane will appreciate 6:24 slandering a loyal and longtime poster such as yourself by insinuating you are a perv.

What I'd really like to know is ...
what type of person are THEY to keep writing such drivel?

Sprak said...

The main question I must ask is "why?" Yes, I've dismissed some posts as idiotic and some anonymous posters as nitwits but I can't recall having been much harsher than that and I wouldn't have a clue as to which anonymous was which. I did suspect manhattanmama when she first appeared as not being a manhattan mama and after she explained that she lived on Manhattan Square, I accepted that explanation. No big deal, to me at least. I've been called my share of names but so what? This post, however, creeped me out.

Jane Doe said...

6:24,
What a positively odd post.
"ugly and picked on in school", "false personnas" and a he/she pervert?

Are you seriously warning people that she who posts as Sprak might possibly abduct someone from this blog?

The net is a dangerous place?
Your mind sounds like a dangerous place.

Be well.

Anonymous said...

2:04, you are referring to the case in San Francisco w/the Presa Canarios which are NO relation to pit bulls. As I recall, BOTH owners were convicted, (though only 1 was present at the time of the attack,) one of 2nd degree murder, which I think was later redued to manslaughter. They were both attorneys, and it was discovered in trial that not only were they both having intimate relations with some 30 something yr old prison inmate who was legally their "adopted son" (ew!), but...get ready for it...they were all 3 getting it on with the DOGS, too.

Sprak makes a lot of sense, so you people should lay off her.

cali mom said...

Hmm, that was me above.

Anonymous said...

8:39 I followed that trial closely and I heard nothing about those 3 people having sex with the dogs.
I was told that they were relatives of Pitts and you are right they are not. Although they can be dangerous as pitts and maybe more so as they can weigh in as much as 120 pounds.

lorenza said...

Just have to say something here. Never have I read any post by sprak that would warrant such a post being written about her as the one above. Thanks, Jane Doe, for calling out this sicko.

With regard to this coyote story, my son was attacked by a dog when he was two. He had to have plastic surgery as a result. Our entire family and some relatives were all together outside when I happened to look for my son and saw him in the jaws of a Rodesian Ridgeback, a family pet (not ours) who'd suddenly turned vicious. The dog had him by the throat and it all happened so fast, no one ever saw what precipitated the attack. The nanny did good.

not a perv said...

Sprak can be a pain in the ass, but then again, so can I.
When someone says something really boneheaded, I call them on it and Sprak does the same so I admire her for that.
If Sprak were an internet perv or psycho, she'd probably be masquerading on dating sites or Myspace as a man or a teenager or something.
ISYN is a valuable outlet for nanny/employer issues, but hardly the place to troll for anonymous sex or hot dates.

marypoppin'pills said...

Good point, 12:14

All those that have met another poster from ISYN, raise your hand!

Anyone? .... anyone?

Um, I think we're safe ....
for now.

anonymous1 said...

when i read the crazy post above maligning sprak_- - i couldn't help but think of that occasionnal babysitter rant someone recently posted. that's the very same troublemaking kind of person who tries to make someone look bad by using lies or whatnot and tries to make themselves look good even tho they are mental. a great example!