Sand Box park in Penn South Housing

bad nanny sighting
WHEN/WHERE: On June 21 at 4:30 PM and at Sand Box park in Penn South Housing (8th and 26th behind gristedes store)
WHO: light haired very curly haired girl, about two
nanny?? -an older woman was probably 50s or early 60s. (see pic below)
WHAT: I am not sure who the adult is in relation to this child. The little girls stood crying LOUDLY next to the swing for several minutes and many of us nannies and moms looked around for her caregiver. Turned
out she was sitting on bench about 10 feet away. She didn't attend to child until I asked if she was with the little girl. I wasn't sure if it was a 2 year old tantrum and planned to give her the benefit of the doubt but the way she managed/dragged the little girl was definitely cold and rough. At that point, i didn;t feel the need to post this.

Later the little girl was fighting some older girls (i think they took something from her) and another girl came to her rescue (7?). The older woman with her didn't do anything, she sat on bench nearby. I asked the girl if she was her big sister, but she said no, the little girl was a daughter of her mom's co-worker, so it wasn't clear if she was a nanny.

SOOOO i do not know if this is a nanny sighting, BUT if this was a nanny, i would be a very upset parent (of course, that's no better if she is her grandmother, aunt etc...)


Mrs. Billy Lamar said...

Eeery...this lady is looking straight at the camera. She even looks mean...or perhaps she is just angry she is being photographed.

Anyway, this poor little girl. Hope we find out who this woman is.

Insulted said...

Why were star of Davids used to cover the faces?

Mrs. Billy Lamar said...

@Insulted: I think because the children are minors. I thought they were just yellow stars and had no religious meaning....

Tales from the (Nanny)Hood said...

Insulted, I am positive that the stars were chosen simply as something to use to hide the childrens identities. No hidden meanings. MPP and Jane have also used circles in the past.

rolling in it said...

I've said this before and I'll say it again: I would sue the pants off anyone who posted my pic on this site.

Marypoppin'pills said...

The stars have no meaning whatsoever... as Tales said, they were only used to cover the children's faces.

NJnannyC said...

Agree agree agree with "Rolling in it"....!

Just sayin'... said...

Only, it's not illegal to photograph someone without their permission in a PUBLIC place.

Will you be suing your grocery store as well? After all, they're "photographing" you. What about the parking lot you parked in with "surveillance"?

Let's face it, in our society it's pretty common to be "watched". We're voyeuristic...just look at Hollywood (or should I say, the average persons' obsession with stalking celebrities via "candid" shots).

If you don't like being photographed or recorded without your consent, fight against the "big guys" who invade your privacy every day, not some innocent "Joe Shmoe" who is attempting to help a family by taking photos of a child they feel is being ill treated.

USD Law Student...Studying for the Bar in August.... said...

I think it should be illegal if someone photographed someone in public, then posted their picture online and said something negative about that person. Why? Because by doing this, you can basically ruin someone else's life. Based on one person's opinion...another can lose their job and respect in their community. I don't have the heart to photograph and post anyone unless I actually see them abusing a child. But abuse to one person may not be abuse to another. It can be a gray area and I think collectively us ISYN readers should always remember what this great country allows it's citizens.."Innocent UNLESS proven guilty."

By posting someone's photo and describing in detail that she is being mean to a child on a public forum is not allowing her that right. It looks like the book has already been thrown at her...what chance does she have to redeem herself after this??

Just sayin'... said...

Innocent until proven guilty is a good point, and I'm GLAD we have that law.

But to play "Devils Advocate", it's not a crime to "offend" someone or hurt their career chances, friendships, etc by making observations about them on the internet. We get into a VERY slippery slope of having our freedoms (freedom of Speech in particular) stripped away when we start CENSORING others' thoughts and OPINIONS to that degree. In the end, this posting is simply one person's OPINION . . . not fact, and that should ruin no one's life.

Just sayin'... said...

^ Oops, "until" = "unless" . . .

Tales from the (Nanny)Hood said...

Oh for...

It is not a crime to take a photo of someone who is IN PUBLIC and then do anything you want with said picture.

There is NO expectation of privacy when you are IN PUBLIC.

And no one has named the woman in the picture. I don't even know if MPP and Jane would allow that to happen. I am not aware of any search engine someone could use to "find photos of angry looking middle aged woman with curly dark hair who is grabbing a child roughly"

P.S. Law Student, where exactly are you getting your degree? You might want to ask one of your professors about this and get their response.

UmassSlytherin said...

Nanny Hood,

I saw a news program the other night about this issue (posting information that may or may not be true coupled with pictures on the internet) and it is actually a very controversial issue.

While you are correct that this is not against the law, people can bring forth a law suit regarding defaming. Sarah Jones who is a professional cheerleader and also a teacher sued for posting pics of her and slander.

She won 11 million dollars.

I know it may seem a stretch for a a nanny to do the same, but it could be done. If the nanny is recognizable to her local community (as she certainly would be in this pic) she could sue. And she may win.

Stranger things have happened.

Brenda K. Starr said...


I have heard about similar things where people have posted negative comments about someone on certain websites and then they have gotten sued for defamation of character. Or slander.

On a personal level, I wouldn't take the chance. Depending on which precedence is set, I would just err on the side of caution and stay out of it.

Remember the golden rule: Do unto others....etc....

Surprised Poster said...

It is rather callous to say that the stars are meaningless because they hold no meaning for you.

These stars do bear a striking resemblance to the Judenstern and it does not help that the children they cover have features that could resemble the more common features of the Jewish people.

The Nazis required identified Jews to wear the Judenstern, a yellow badge in the shape of the star of David, in public to set them apart from everyone else.

Read here:

I would encourage, I would beg Jane to revisit the photo and change to simple, ordinary, inoffensive boxes to avoid this extraordinary misunderstanding.