Whole Foods Parking Lot in West Orange, NJ

Wednesday, October 13, 2010
nanny sighting 7Who: Young (25-35 years old), Hispanic nanny and her female charge (3-4 years old). Child was wearing coordinated purple outfit with white tights and black patent leather shoes. Her hair was chin length and held back with a purple bow.
Where: Whole Foods parking lot, West Orange, NJ
What happened: I was waiting in my car for a friend to arrive for lunch when the nanny pulled up in a red GMC Envoy. Your nanny caught my attention because she was talking on a cell phone with walkie talkie capabilities. She stood by the trunk of your car for 5 minutes or so, chatting with the person on the other end. My window was open so I could hear the beep of her cell phone as well as the person on the other line. It caught my attention because I haven't seen a cell phone of this style in a long time. After approximately 5 minutes, she walked around the side of the car, removed your daughter from her car seat and walked through the parking lot (not holding hands) while continuing her conversation. This lot is extremely busy and your daughter was skipping, twirling, barely keeping up with her nanny who would occasionally glance back and bark at your daughter to keep up. I should have written the license plate number down but got caught up with my own little one.


oh wow said...

written the license plate down because the nanny was not holding the pre-schooler's hand? Yes, she should have been holding the child's hand no doubt but are you mental or just really really bored with your life?

cold nanny said...

Good sighting, OP. "Oh, wow" - you are the mental case!

I see 2 problems here. 5 minutes alone in the car while the nanny chatted outside by the trunk? Was it hot where you were, OP? 5 minutes is way too long for any kid in a hot car! And not holding the child's hand is the other, so thank you for posting, OP.

bostonnanny said...

It's in the 50's low 60's in NJ this time of year, hardly hot. If I was a small child I'd be happy I wasn't waiting outside for 5 minutes.

I don't think the left in the car is a issue, she was right outside and the car wasn't on. How many parents, leave their child asleep in the car parked in the garage because they didn't want to wake them. Its actually really common.

I'd be more concerned about not holding her hand in a busy parking lot.

Phoenix said...

you were fascinated by the beeps of a phone? primates show that very same behavior.

She should have held her hand but the kid may be a good walker and not one prone to dart away. She knows the child you don't. It doesn't warrant writing down a the plate number.

Observer said...

"the nanny pulled up in a red GMC Envoy... She stood by the trunk of your car"

Am I the only one bothered by this?

You can get a used Envoy that will look as new as any other to the untrained eye for well under $20k.

Married especially, unmarried quite possibly, at 25-35 this nanny could have owned the car she was driving.

Shoot I don't have an Envoy, but my car new was cost about the same.

What led OP to the conclusion that it wasn't the nanny's car and is that relevant to the sighting?

My point of view is, it isn't relevant. Not holding a 4-year-old's hand, that is relevant and I respectfully disagree with Phoenix, even a good child's hand should be held.

But this car bit, there's something wrong there that makes me question the entire story.

Observer said...

"was cost"


Phoenix said...

"respectfully disagree" :)

I like respect. LOL

Rocket Scientist said...

I think OP mentioned the car just for identification purposes. I didn't see anything wrong with that.

Leaving the child in the car in nice weather is not a danger issue, although talking on the phone to a friend instead of watching the child is not great nannying. My 4yo charge would get bored and squirmy if left alone strapped in the car seat for five minutes.

The main problem is that she was not holding the child's hand in an "extremely busy" parking lot, and even worse is letting the little girl drag behind out of sight. There is too much that can go wrong in a split second in that kind of situation.

:) said...

LMFAO @ phoenix!!!! :) awesome!

cold nanny said...

I thought nothing about OP's mention of the vehicle except for identification purposes - just as anyone sending in a sighting would describe the nanny, the children, the stroller, etc.

Observer said...

Rocket Scientist + cold nanny,

Had OP only mentioned that she was driving a red GMC Envoy, that would have been for identification purposes, but she did more than that.

"the nanny pulled up in a red GMC Envoy... She stood by the trunk of your car"

Not her car or the car, *your car*?

All OP could know is that the car was driven by the nanny. The ownership of the vehicle could not possibly be known to OP unless the nanny was skipping along singing aloud, "I'm driving someone else's car, someone else's car…" or something along those lines.

Whose car it is has no direct relevancy to the sighting. That the nanny wasn't holding the child's hand does and if the child is 3, then it is a good sighting. However, how OP looks at the nanny sure as heck has relevancy in weighing the credibility of OP.

That OP immediately assumed the car did not belong to the nanny makes me wonder what caused her to think that. I hope this is clearer.

Rocket Scientist said...

Observer, I hadn't noticed that wording before, thanks for clarifying. It possible the nanny called it "Mommy's car" to her charge. But you may be right. It could be prejudice peeking through. I sure hope it's not.

Rocket Scientist said...

"It *is* possible"...oops!

Anonymous, don't be obnoxious. Observer made a point. I acknowledged that said point could be correct, but also provided an alternative point of view on the issue. I also expressed my hope that no one would act in such a way.

Frankly, the only person here with a juvenile attitude is you.

WestOrangemommy said...

Just another bored Mom no douht probably from SUMMIT with nothing better to do than comment on a mom/nanny who was having a random conversation while her child sat in the car right outside of her in NJ 50 degree weather.

Although, yes, I do agree, she should have at least held hand as that particular parking lot can get very busy at times.

MissMannah said...

It does show bias on the part of the OP that she said "your car." But that is really irrelevant because this is a good post. The nanny wasn't doing her job, which is ensuring the child's safety. The parents should be made aware.

Manhattan Nanny said...

Gee folks, give the OP a break. As a nanny, I would assume the car belonged to the parents, because I expect employers to provide a car when the nanny is responsible for transporting the children.

The nanny was negligent in not holding the 3 yo's hand in the parking lot. Good sighting!

Observer said...

Rocket Scientist,

Prejudice, yes, that's my fear and although I didn't see the comment, thank you for the defense. I was trying to tip toe around the issue.


It doesn't matter one bit who the car actually belongs to when it comes to the safety of the child, but how the event was perceived by OP matters when considering whether it really happened as OP says it did. If OP shows a negative bias towards the nanny in question from the get-go, could she have seen the child as younger than she really was, could the parking lot have seemed busier than it was, could the distance between the nanny and child seem greater than it was, could the nanny's requests to the child to keep up seem harsher than they were?

I say "parking lot" and my charges know I want their hands. So I'm not excusing this nanny not holding hands through a parking lot. On the other hand, if the parking lot wasn't *extremely* busy, if the nanny was a little closer to the child, the child a little older, if they were using the walkways provided at most Whole Foods even just a third of the time and so on, perhaps this sighting isn't as egregious as OP's writing would suggest?

OP says she was in her car this entire time, with her window open and she says she was waiting for a friend. I'm curious about this, why not wait for the friend in the store or wherever they're going to eat? What was the little one behind OP doing this whole time? I don't dare suggest that a few minutes in the car, so long as the caregiver is there, is going to hurt a child. But how much did OP want to make a post here?

Why is the nanny the devil for waiting five minutes outside the car she was driving, well in sight of her charge, while OP is not for having her child sit for those same five minutes? If I were writing this sighting, except on hot summer days, this would be a unnecessary detail to me; the nanny was right there. For all I know, the nanny could be talking to the mother.

To me the big deal in the sighting is the hand holding. If the child was 3, well behind the nanny and hands weren't held, burn the nanny at the stake I say and let me buy the kindling. But how can I trust that's the way of it if OP felt the need to add to her story?

Manhattan Nanny,

Not everywhere is Manhattan. I bet you if ISYN's next poll was whether a family provided a car or if a nanny used her own, you'd find the latter winning overwhelmingly. Whose car it is unnecessary information. The concern is that OP seemed to feel a need to tell herself it wasn't the nanny's car.


I mean no offense. I would hope that you, like me, would want someone to consider not just the accusation, but how the accusation was made, against you, even if you never knew of the accusation or were affected by it.

MissMannah said...

Observer, I do agree with you. To a certain degree. I have posted on here many times that sightings need to be restricted to the bare bones facts. Conjecture: A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork. Which is what we get a lot here, and it is completely unnecessary and like you said, makes the sighting less trustworthy.

And yes, Manhattan Nanny, there is a big country outside of NYC and many of us own cars. I would never want to drive my employer's vehicle because I don't want to hold that responsibility, especially if they forget to add me to their insurance.

Observer said...


I'm with you there - that's exactly what I want, just the facts. Had this been an objective sighting, it would have been about the hand holding only. We would have had a description of the nanny, description of the child, estimate of the distance between the car and the store, and an estimate of the distance between the nanny and the child. Nothing more. I'm curious what you mean by to a certain degree, what's the exception you see?

OP/a Montclair (not Summit) mama said...

Observer - I appreciate your posting. It is definitely possible that the car belonged to the nanny but the back of the car had those decals (which terrify me, after last season's Dexter) indicating multiple children - and a pet. It is certainly possible that the petite, young nanny was the mother but not probable. I know a number of parents in our area offer their nanny use of a car during the day and it was an assumption. I hope this fact does not detract from the posting.

I feel the purpose of this website is to observe behavior of potential caregivers and report it so employers can determine their comfort level. I see mediocre nannies on a daily basis but this pushed it for me. The caregiver was standing outside the car having a personal conversation instead of tending to her charge. he then let the young girl walk through a busy parking lot without directly tending to her. For me, that would be a deal breaker and it was what prompted my posting.

If this was my nanny, I would appreciate the heads up... hence, the posting.

Rocket Scientist said...

Yay for open, level-headed discussions! No problem, Observer. I have no patience for rude, baseless, juvenile attacks. Thanks for replying, OP. I'm glad to see that your heart is in the right place :) I hope the parents see your post.

la bomba said...

the handholding is the only problem here.

but I have a statement about this site, I have known about it for two years and read and comment every now and then, but I have to wonder, how many parents actually know about this site?

I kind of feel like this is a great mess of gossip going on, its for the better sure, no one wants a bad nanny. But wouldn't it be better to do random 'drop ins' from time to time instead of refering to some site our of pure chance and paranoia that your nanny appears here.

I say it sounds like gossip because a lot of time I feel like poeple want to find trouble. Sure, this girl was on her phone...for only five minutes. NO BIG DEAL. if it wasn't a hot day, not a big deal that a kid has to sit still for five more need to learn patience too.

I think its neglect to not hold a child's hand in a parking lot. any parking lot. That was the part of this that was a great sighting, awful that it happened though.

Observer said...


Thank you for the clarifications. Although let me offer a one of my own, I never suggested it was the mother. In the future however I'd suggest staying away from whose car it is or isn't. The stickers make for a great argument that it isn't her car and I'm inclined now to agree with your assumption. On the other hand, one, whose car it is doesn't matter one bit and two, you never know. Just because some parents might let their nanny use their car doesn't mean there aren't plenty of nannies in your area that are using their own. I sold a car awhile back and I've spotted it since, still with the same bumper stickers I had put on it - and there's no way those old stickers are relevant to the new owner. It confuses me too, because this kid had to do some pretty major repairs to get the old girl running again, so you'd think removing a sticker wouldn't be a big deal?

Also, the phone thing, how do you know it was a personal conversation? I'm not sure why you feel a need to return to the five minutes. As others have said here, some have a pretty good relationship with their employers. I'll joke with mine while receiving instructions for later, and yes, I've stood outside of my car with my charges inside for at least three minutes while talking to my employers. The phone thing could be anything, it does not make the sighting. I mean, unless she was out there for a long time and I hope we can agree five minutes doesn't make for a long time except in really hot weather, the five minutes by the car seems irrelevant.

Now as it pertains to the hand holding issue, that's a whole other matter. The hand holding is everything and don't doubt yourself, it alone makes a wonderful sighting.

She was on the phone, practically ignoring her young charge while crossing a parking lot and not holding hands. I mean, wow. That's a pretty bad infraction.

Can you recall the distance between the nanny and the child, and the store and their car? That's what I would beef this sighting up with.

Rocket Scientist,

"Yay for open, level-headed discussions!"

I second that.

Anonymous said...

How can you conduct a reverse license plate number look up? I have to know whether there is any good way you can type in a license plate number online and see the details of the person if it is associated to or perhaps the address of that person. Can anybody help me to solve this? It's an Illinois plate with S in the end of it. Please email me if you can perform a search or post if you know the way to do a free one. Thanks very much.