Friday

Border's Books in Mt. Kisco, NY

Received Friday, February 27, 2009
nanny sighting logo Report of abusive nanny. Nanny was Hispanic with thick hair, brown and red, eyebrows drawn on at circular arch, lots of eye liner, lined lips, milky white skin. Nanny was wearing tight black jeans that accentuated her fuller figure, tight red shirt that accented her thin waist and carrying a small zipper bag with a cheetah print on it. The nanny was in charge of a boy that was named or had a name that sounded like "Tobin" when she called him. The boy was under 3, blond with brown eyes, wide set, spikey hair, wearing boy jeans with elastic waist and dark colored long sleeve shirt underneath khaki colored short sleeve shirt with a print of a monster truck on it. The nanny was leading the child by the arm and pinching him. He cried out. At one point, she lifted him up by one arm and in her arms kind of flipped him over so she was carrying him like a suitcase. She set him down really hard and told him to sit there and not move and also told him not to look at her or anyone. All of this happened just this morning at the Border's Books in Mt. Kisco. The boy did not listen to her and she returned and got in his face and squeezed his face real hard so that when she pulled her hand away there were red marks on his face and he started to cry, real quietly. I walked over and asked her if this was necessary and she told me, "He's not yours and not your business". I said, "I just think there's a better way" and she said, "for your kids. Where are they. Go mind them". I noticed when she spoke that she may be missing some teeth. If this is your nanny or you have a nanny, find a way to observe your nanny when she doesn't know she is being observed. See how your children are really being treated when you aren't around.

55 comments:

etereia said...

Now, this nanny is clearly out of her mind. Kids' elbow and shoulder joints are somewhat weak and pulling hard on their arms easily dislocates these joints. I have seen it happen and it was horrible. Not to mention the getting in his face and pinching it part. Hope the parents see the marks and sue her.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
this nanny is a biatch said...

Nanny is a real Biatch!
And it's so true what you say about kids arm sockets. Many loving parents inadvertantly dislocate their kids arms just by picking them up by the arm.

the eternal question said...

As there are blond Hispanics and many blond kids have their hair turn brown when they get older...

How are we sure that this was a nanny as opposed to a mother or aunt?

Good sighting aside from this detail.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Swiss Nanny said...

For goodness sakes, let's not have the nanny vs. someone else debate. This type of behavior is unacceptable for ANYONE! Thank you, OP, for taking the time to submit this!

the eternal question said...

Swiss Nanny,

I don't mean to interject the thought to provoke some grand debate. And I did say the sighting was otherwise good.

However, the assumption seems to always be "nanny" and it is a dangerous one for us nannies to simply allow. As I said, I see no reason to believe this wasn't the mother or an aunt.

I'm surprised you don't want the uncertainty pointed out. It's a good question to at least remember.

etereia said...

Yea, it does not really matter if it was the mom or the nanny in this case. If it is a common practice for this woman to pull hard on the kid's arm, she will end up really hurting him. Because I can tell you, I broke my elbow playing basketball and elbow injuries hurt like mother ...

Swiss Nanny said...

Eternal, I did not mean to offend you, if I did. I am just merely tired, as an observer on this blog, of people nitpicking the OP's sightings. I shouldn't have said it so abruptly, and I apologize! :)

Jacqui said...

I can almost guarantee this wasn't the nanny. I agree with the eternal question.
Whoever this woman was though, needs to relax before she does some major damage to her child.
Nannies can be fired. Unfortunately abusive mommies can't.

And no, it really doesn't matter if it was the nanny or not...but it's a blog and a blog provokes discussion. As long as no one starts berating the OP, I don't see anything wrong with discussion.

the eternal question said...

etereia,

No, it doesn't matter to the event itself, the harm to the child is the same. However, it does matter on a different level whether if it was a mom or nanny, simply for the impression that people are building of nannies in general as a result of the assumption. My merely commenting, anyone commenting, shows that it matters. :)

Swiss Nanny,

I am not nitpicking. It is a serious concern and yes, something that offends me. I wish all sightings were required to state why they believed the person in the sighting was a nanny, or a mom, or a grandfather, or whatever.

What was the clue, the thing they overheard, etc. that said "nanny" as opposed to "worst aunt ever"?

To me, that's just common sense.

Nanny Taxi said...

Nanny or not you should have known you were going to get this type of response from them.

I've seen kids get "greenstick fractures" from being handled in such a manner.

the eternal question said...

Jacqui,

Oh, hi. I think we all rush to say "it doesn't matter" too quickly. Respectfully, it does matter, just not in the same way. :)

And, thank you. :)

the eternal question said...

Nanny Taxi,

What is a greenstick fracture?

the eternal question said...

Swiss Nanny,

Oops, sorry. Apology accepted. :D

etereia said...

Eternal Question, I totally agree with you that commenting is good. I was not trying to contradict you or anything. Very often people disagree with each other and that sparks excellent discussions. I should know after the battle I had with WTF? and a couple of other people on a different post last week.

the eternal question said...

etereia,

Hi, yeah commenting is good, but that's not what I said or intended to say. I was trying to say that someone commenting on something was indicative of it mattering to them, therefore saying something doesn't matter after is somewhat inaccurate.

It was Jacqui's point that discussion was good.

My point is that yes, all bad sightings should be reported, but we should be careful of the assumption "nanny" when OP has given no reason for us to believe it was a nanny. Jacqui for one is almost sure it wasn't.

I would like future reports to give some idea as to why they think the person they're reporting is the nanny, the mom, etc. as opposed to etc. :)

the eternal question said...

etereia,

Hi again. "WTF?", don't you mean Katie Nanna?

etereia said...

I don't know Katie Nanna. This lady calls herself WTF? and calls other people (namely me) ignorant, revolting and so on, when we dare disagree with her, and then she says this is not name-calling, but using adjectives :-) It is all good, though.

the eternal question said...

etereia,

I'm joking. At the start of Mary Poppins there is a nanny who leaves having lost the children and thinking all too highly of herself. Katie Nanna.

Now isn't that a perfect description for "WTF?"?

:)

etereia said...

Yea, I have read Mary Poppins. I thought somebody had used Katie Nanna as a moniker here and you referred to this particular blogger.

ohwhynot said...

It sounds to me almost certain that she WAS a nanny becaus of her response. A mother or aunt would have said "this is my child. raise yours as you see fit" or something similar, if she was going to be snotty. I think an aunt would have made some similar 'claim' to the child, as if that somehow mitigages the behavior. A defensive nanny, though, would say something like "butt out" without mentioning any special "claim" to the child or relationship to him.

So Jacqui, what makes you so sure?

the eternal question said...

ohwhynot,

Two things:

1. I disagree with your reasoning, I've known plenty of mothers who would attack out of offense without making a claim to their children. Even if you were right, I see "for your kids" as an implied claim.

2. It really doesn't matter if this was a nanny, sitter, friend or coworker of one of the parents, mother, a buggy childcare robot (why not), etc.

My point is we don't know because OP didn't give us enough information for us to know.

I think if OP is certain, they should say why they're certain and if OP isn't certain, they should say why they believe still. I'm all for sightings like these, this person sounds awful, but let's not build a miserable impression of nannies through assumption thanks to the worst aunt evers of the world. :)

Jacqui said...

Just a gut feeling I have based on the response she gave, ohwhynot.
It doesn't make sense that a nanny would specifically tell the OP to take care of her own kid and accuse her of not MINDING her own kid, if not for comparative purposes. Kind of like, "you take care of yours, I'll take care of mine." A nanny, on the other hand, if on the defensive, would seem more likely to simply ignore her or tell her to mind her own business, not her own children.

If that makes any sense. If anyone understands my reasoning here, please try to explain it more clearly for me, haha :-)

etereia said...

You guys really started me thinking about this nanny vs. mommy thing. I have never been in a situation like this before. I think anybody will get defensive, if confronted in public. I guess, the best thing to do is to outright ask: "Are you the mom of this kid?"

the eternal question said...

etereia,

I wouldn't call it anyone versus anyone. It's just for the sake of identification.

Asking outright, "Are you the mom of this kid?" would be wonderfully ideal, but not necessary.

Hearing a nanny/sitter say on a phone, "I don't like Timmy's parents." and then yell at Timmy, would be reason enough to me to think nanny/sitter.

I just want that tidbit, that little clue that says one over the other. Or if that tidbit isn't there, for the assumption to not be "nanny". :)

the eternal question said...

Jacqui, don't worry, it does make some sense. Although, I wouldn't preclude a bad nanny telling a mother to mind their own, if it were clear to the nanny that the children were present. "Where are they" on the other hand seems to suggest this wouldn't be such a case.

But we don't know, and that's my point. :)

all eyes said...

There we have it! The single advantage of the male nanny. Everyone just assumes I'm the father, even with stark racial differences.

all eyes said...

* Example: white guy me and India-born 3 year old.

needernanny said...

The age old question?
How many women who wear lip liner and draw on eyebrows afford nannies?

I mean come on.

Good nannies get mistaken as mothers. Bad nannies reveal themselves. As again and I will kick your ass. I don't care what rare combination you have spawned. I have 4 foster children of four different colors and everyone knows I am the mother.

PS eternal question,
your ignorance reveals your identity.

jose jiminez said...

"I would like future reports to give some idea as to why they think the person they're reporting is the nanny, the mom, etc. as opposed to etc. :) "

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU?

I would like people to continue to rely on their own insight into the situation as they witness it. But that's just me, I don't have a chip on my shoulder or an axe to grind.

the eternal question said...

needernanny,

"How many women who wear lip liner and draw on eyebrows afford nannies?"

How does this bear any relevance? Seriously, you can go either way on it. You can say she's a mom who couldn't afford a nanny, or a nanny who hasn't any idea how to use makeup.

"Good nannies get mistaken as mothers. Bad nannies reveal themselves."

And bad mothers? No. You don't know, period. Face it.

"As again and I will kick your ass. I don't care what rare combination you have spawned. I have 4 foster children of four different colors and everyone knows I am the mother."

That makes zero sense.

"PS eternal question,
your ignorance reveals your identity."

Thanks for the personal attack. And what identity do you suppose that is?

Who the heck do you think you're attacking?

jose jiminez,

I'm all for someone's insight, I'm just saying they should include the reason for that insight. Over hearing something that says "nanny" as opposed to "worse aunt ever".

It's not about chips on my shoulder or an axe to grind. It's about practicing the highest level of objectivity possible. To say, "I believe she was the nanny and here is why..." instead of always assuming.

Because from the information given, no, you cannot tell that this is a nanny. Period.

jose jiminez said...

the eternal jerk:
"Because from the information given, no, you cannot tell that this is a nanny. Period."

Well I can. When I am there. No one is asking you to decipher from the content of the post if this is a nanny or not. The OP says it was. and if it isn't, it's a shitty Mom and someone is going to recognize her. What's your deal? Are you just psychotic or what?

cali mom said...

Well, I would like to have future reports that do NOT indicate what made them think it was a nanny and not a relative of any kind, just deal with the obvious question of "what made you believe this was a nanny and not the mom/dad/aunt/uncle etc?" Of course they are not required to specify why they thought that, but blogs being blogs, they will then have to expect the question to be asked, and to whine about the question being asked is just dumb. It's like those people who post something on a public forum and then want people to "mind their own business" when they receive responses that they don't like.

Nanny Taxi said...

A greenstick fracture happens to children whose bones are still
flexible. Part of the bone in the arm breaks, the rest bends like a fresh green twig from a tree.

the eternal question said...

jose jiminez,

From this sighting, you can't and it's senseless to argue otherwise. There is no conclusive evidence given in the post that says nanny versus anything else.

What do you think of Jacqui's insights? Are you going to call her psychotic? She holds a strong opinion to the opposite of yours? Aren't you willing to consider that, that this sighting can be seen so strongly in two separate extremes as evidence that it isn't clear enough?

Don't tell me you don't have an axe to grind.

When we're there, when we're OP, we can do plenty to figure it out. But we're not there and every sighting must be written remembering that we're not all there. This is otherwise a good sighting.

Now I challenge you to address the content of what I am saying directly instead of hiding behind silly personal attacks. That is, why would you be opposed to having future reports give some idea as to why they think the person they're reporting is a nanny, mother, etc. as opposed to any other?

Answer that.

the eternal question said...

cali mom,

Hi, hope you're doing well today.

Forgive me:
a. "I would like to have future reports that do NOT indicate what made them think it was a nanny and not a relative of any kind."

seems to contradict

b. "what made you believe this was a nanny and not the mom/dad/aunt/uncle etc"

Were you saying that you'd like the question answered about why the poster believes the individual in the sighting was a nanny (b), but you don't want someone to bother much with the question of whether they were a mom, aunt, etc. after determining that they weren't a nanny (a)?

If I have this wrong, please clarify. Thanks. :)

Here's an idea. said...

Whyyyy don't we just change the name of the blog to "I Saw Your ...?" and then the OP can specify his or her opinion as to who the offender was. Or maybe, a much better idea, let's call it "I Saw Your Child..." That way the OP can give a description of the child and the person the child was being cared for (or in many of these cases NOT cared for) by without having to specify his or her perception of the caregiver's relationship to the child. Either way, is this argument really something worth delving into this deeply, especially considering the nature of maltreatment in this post?

Of course it matters whether or not it was the Nanny considering this is specifically a blog entitled "I Saw Your Nanny" but, in reality, that's the only reason this debate exists. This blog is for bad Nanny sightings, not bad parent/aunt/uncle/grandparent sightings.

People, let's ignore the part of the post that is merely determined as a result of the title of the blog and focus on the fact that a WOMAN was mistreating a CHILD. If it's a bad Nanny, let's hope the parents read this. If it's a bad parent or relative caregiver, let's hope someone who is close to the family reads this and decides it's behavior that is as inappropriate as most of us seem to think. Either way, I'm pretty sure this blog was set-up first and foremost to protect mistreated children, not simply to expose bad Nannies. Even though the title of the blog seems to state it's a Bad Nanny blog I'm pretty sure Jane Doe and MaryPoppin'Pills know that not ALL the posts would simply include those bad Nannies out there, considering the argument that it's NOT always clear what the relationship is between caregiver and child. As evidenced by this blog itself, not all people who treat kids poorly are Nannies. Some ARE parents, some ARE Aunts or relatives of the child. Hell, some Aunts ARE the Nanny.

I love reading this blog and the debates these posts often stir up, but I just find some of these comments (while often valid and intelligent points) to be a bit tedious and unnecessary when one considers the whole point of this blog.

Just my .02. Please don't bash me, I'm just (in my opinion) stating the facts. It's not about HER, it's about the child and how he's being treated. That's all I'm saying.

OP said...

If I as the OP want to expand on how I know it is the nanny, am I not just opening up another can of worms and detracting from the fact that this nanny was negligent to the charge in her care?

The fact is the people that look, act, dress and speak like her do not have nannies, they are the nannies-in Mount Kisco at least. That sounds like such an ugly thing to say, but it is a reality in Mt. Kisco where I have lived for 13 years.

cali mom said...

Eternal Question, I'me afraid I have no idea what you meant.

What *I* meant was simply that, if a OP is not going to clarify how they knew (or why they believed) the caregiver they are blogging about was a nanny, they need to expect the question to be asked and not get huffy when someone asks it.

That's it.

WTF? said...

It's a great description of me aside from the fact that I am not, nor ever have been a nanny.

What idiotic name dropping and rabble rousing though. Congrats.

WTF? said...

Uh oh. Someone else used the adjective "revolting." LOLOLOL.

etereia said...

Oh, no, but it is not name dropping; it is called using Proper name - same as using adjectives :-)

Hmmm... said...

after reading this carefully, i would say the nanny was rough but not abusive. you didn't describe the boy's behavior much, but imagine dealing with someone else's child when they don't receive any discipline at home. if this nanny is raising the child, shouldn't she also be the one to discipline him? and isn't it possible that the boy does need physical discipline? i know no one wants anyone to touch kids ever anymore, but does that mean they don't ever need it?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
One-sided said...

oh dear what a negative and one sided opinion we seem to have against nannies? hmmm i wonder why more people aren't posting. should it not just be "bad nannies" but also bad parents...

mercy said...

The name of the blog is I Saw Your Nanny.

And to you, hmmmm- stop making excuses for these miserable nannies, you sick freak. How you dare go in to assuming that the child receives no discipline at home and so the nanny is doing him a favor.

Go spank yourself.

Philly Nanny said...

Whoever made that suggestion about turning comments off for sightings (a few weeks ago) was a GENIUS. Seriously.

Nanny Taxi said...

Why turn off the comments? Look at all the stuff we get to read!

DowntoEarth said...

I ahve a suggestion too. If all of those that seem to want to run this site should go open their own site.
Called "it wasn't the nanny" or a site that only lets people post after they have done a total DNA test or have a degree in Forensics because this is what these trouble makers seem to want. They are nannies that spend an awful lot of time in here and want to whine everytime someone reports a bad nanny.
I can tell the difference between a nanny 99 percent of the time.
They are not of the same race as the child, they are also paying no attention to the kids and are talking to other nannies. They have skin tight clothing on and are on the cell phones instead of watching the kids. Most have accents and the kids do not. Also they are usually complaining they are underpaid, slicing and dicing their employers. The kids call them by thier given names.
In San Francisco I see many nannies all day long by where I work. There is a great park there and many wear uniforms and for some reason the ones in uniforms are the ones that pay the most attention to their charges. You rarely see them on the cell phone and if they are they are on a for a very very short time. They always have money for snacks for the kids or have great lunches and seem to be well prepared for anything that happens. I know this because our nanny tells us all about their day at the park. She gets very upset with some of the nannies and how they ignore their charges. I also go to the park with the kids and see all of this going on. Parents need to check on their nannies.
It also is the neighborhood that you live in that you can tell a nanny from the Mom. Granted there are many races in SF and many beautiful children of mixed races but it is not that hard in most of the affluent neighborhoods to be able to tell a mom from the nanny.
I dont know many nannies that shop at Sax's or "needless markup" stores.
Personally I dont care who it is that is abusing a child, whomever it is, nanny,mom,grandma, they need to be put in check and have the cops called on them. I dont care if the parents think it is OK to treat the kids this way, if they agree it is ok they need CPS called on them too.
It shouldnt matter if the OP thinks it is a nanny or mom or 3rd cousin doing this ,just as long as it gets reported.
Nitpicking about "is it a nanny or mom" is just nitpicking and being silly and taking away from the OP.
Let us just be honest and admit there are abusive people out there,some we are paying to take care of our children and some that have given birth or adopted those kids. The point of these post is to put a stop to this abuse,is it not? Then stop the damn nitpicking just because you are a nanny and you do not want to admit there are abusive nannies out there
you want to start the same battle that has been going on since this site opened. I think the owner of this site can "allow" what she wants.

the eternal question said...

Here's an idea,

"...focus on the fact that a WOMAN was mistreating a CHILD."

I don't disagree. Time and time again in my comments above I've made the effort to make that clear. Regardless of who the caregiver was, the harm to the child is the same and the sighting is therefore valid regardless of who the caregiver is.

However, who she is *DOES* matter.

It matters because of the immediate assumption here, without any evidence given originally by the OP that the individual in question was a nanny. That assumption is a dangerous one as it stereotypes an entire group, my group!

And I don't think it unreasonable to ask for an effort to be made to in the description of the sighting to include information why the OP believes the person is who they say the person is so we can all make up our own minds.

We don't need a name change.

OP,

We should try not to be ugly here, but believe it or not I accept the look, act, dress and speak foundation as a valid one. Not that I agree with a 100% presumption that the individual was a nanny because however remote the possibility exists she wasn't, but on your word with that foundation I'm more than willing to concede that it is more likely than not that this person was the nanny.

I just want to be trusted to decide that myself and I think we all here on ISYN should be trusted to the same. And no, it wouldn't distract all that much. The can of worms you're opening without it is the one we should all be worried about, the stereotyping all bad caregivers as nannies.

cali mom,

I agree.

mercy,

The name of some popular software is "iTunes", but I just watched a movie? Like iTunes, ISYN can evolve and should. We need to report bad caregivers of every stripe and get the word out. :)

DowntoEarth,

Ah, a classic straw man argument. Take it to the extreme and knock it down.

Well, no. I'm not asking for a Forensics expert. If you had read the above, you'd know all I'm asking for is the description of a sighting to include the "tip off", the clue that said "nanny".

I'm asking for the things you listed so we in our heads can go down the list:
a. "They are not of the same race as the child."
b. If I read this in a sighting as the basis for the nanny label, although not concrete with mixed couples and adoption, I'd be more apt to think nanny.

a. "They have skin tight clothing on and are on the cell phones instead of watching the kids."
b. I'd be very skeptical if I read this as the basis for the nanny label. In fact, I'd be angry. Plenty of mothers wear skin tight clothing, ignore their children and chat on their cells. It's not pretty, but it's out there.

a. "Most have accents and the kids do not."
b. On this, I'd be more apt to think nanny and scold accordingly. However, having worked with immigrants whose children seem accent less, I'd keep the door open on the possibility of not.

a. "Also they are usually complaining they are underpaid, slicing and dicing their employers."
b. Sounds like 90% of America. I assume you mean on the phone, or to others. Yeah, if I read this in a sighting that the person had said something like "Timmy's parents don't pay me enough", I'd think 100% nanny.

a. "The kids call them by their given names."
b. I have a twelve year old aunt who refers to her father by his first name. I wouldn't be as sure as you on this one, although would still be willing to concede on the more likely than not question.

a. "It also is the neighborhood that you live in that you can tell a nanny from the Mom."
b. I don't live in the Bay Area anymore, but I used to live in Paly. This sounds classist and I don't think this comment is entirely accurate, with respect of course. For one thing plenty of nannies are college kids and you toss a youthful adult and a toddler together, assuming all else is equal, there is no telling on first glance.

a. "...it is not that hard in most of the affluent neighborhoods to be able to tell a mom from the nanny."
b. Refer to the above.

a. Identifying themselves as the nanny, uniform, t-shirt, big letters painted on the forehead "Nanny".
b. Bingo.

Quote: "Parents need to check on their nannies."
I agree 100%.

Quote: "Personally I dont care who it is that is abusing a child, whomever it is, nanny,mom,grandma, they need to be put in check and have the cops called on them."
Yes, yes, yes!!!!

Quote: "I dont care if the parents think it is OK to treat the kids this way, if they agree it is ok they need CPS called on them too."
You're preaching to the choir.

Quote: "It shouldnt matter if the OP thinks it is a nanny or mom or 3rd cousin doing this ,just as long as it gets reported."
I'm not saying otherwise. I'm just saying that if you're going to say who you think it is, please provide the foundation for it.

Quote: "Nitpicking about "is it a nanny or mom" is just nitpicking and being silly and taking away from the OP."
No, it is not nitpicking to defend one's profession from the terrible default assumption that every bad caregiver is the nanny as it would too often seem in these sightings. More principally, it is not nitpicking to ask someone what their foundation for any fact they care to repeat is.

Nitpicking would be to attack the sighting for spelling errors or not reporting the exact shade of the clothing. Combating stereotypes and assumptions, and upholding the integrity of ISYN is as far from nitpicking as one could be.

It matters to me that this information be included, as it matters to many on here and if people want this to go away, including the information is the easiest way to go.

Quote: "I think the owner of this site can allow what she wants."
Perhaps it hasn't occurred to Jane before that asking sightings to include the reason behind the label would be relatively harmless while relaying the fears of some about assumptions?

We're just people here, Jane too. We're learning from one another. This has been going on for awhile and she's allowing me to say these things, did you consider that? Jane is a very open minded individual who changes policy to take into account the ecosystem here. And I bet she's watching.

In the past few weeks she's expanded the date stamp at the request of another poster and changed the sightings comment policy.

Double quote:
1. "I know this because our nanny tells us all about their day at the park. She gets very upset with some of the nannies and how they ignore their charges."
2. "Then stop the damn nitpicking just because you are a nanny and you do not want to admit there are abusive nannies out there..."

How did you go from our nanny is upset with bad nannies to stop nitpicking because you're a nanny and don't want to admit to there being bad nannies?

It doesn't make sense. Like yours, I'm upset with bad nannies. I want abusive nannies outed just as much as I want every abusive caregiver, of any size, shape, et cetera outed.

But, I want it done right.

"I knew this was the mother because I heard Timmy say..."
"I knew this was the aunt because she told me..."
"I knew this was the nanny because another mom said..."
"I knew this was the nanny because she punched me in the face and screamed, "I'm a nutty nanny who should never be around children!""

It's really simple. Let me ask you what I asked Jose, "Why would you be opposed to having future reports give some idea as to why they think the person they're reporting is a nanny?"

You see, there's no reasonable response except "I wouldn't."

All else is nonsense. With respect of course. :)

grammar oops correcting inc said...

"while relaying the"
"while relieving the"

10lb sausage in a 5 lb skin said...

This "Person" caring for this child was rough.
And PLease..I am surrounded by ebrows penciled in,lips lined with two shades darker lipstick than the actual LS used on the lips,jeans too tight,shirts to small,gold teeth showing nannies and mommies with nannies who walk out the door at the store and climb into their brand new Escalade after using food stamps to pay for $200.00 worth of groceries..so give me a break.. yes..women such as the one described are nannies and mommies alike!I have lost a few jobs to nannies who look like this beacuse they are willing to work for peanuts . I also have mommies like this living in my neighborhood..sorry to say but a lot of men dig this look around here..talk about great role-models for the young women in the area!

cha cha said...

Women with class do not drive escalades, nor do they use lip liner darker than their lips or draw on their eyebrows. This is so obviously a nanny in Mt. Kisco. All of my friends are mothers, some SAHM, some WOHM. Everyone knows the Mom outfit out here. Cashmere sweater, designer jeans, loafers or merrils.

Jacqui said...

The moms in Mt. Kisco sound like terrible bores.