Conference moira::parenting

    
    I saw this on Oprah a couple of weeks ago (No... I don't watch 
    Oprah... just happened to be home with the TV on and it caught my
    eye).  I only watched a couple of minutes of it and found it too
    upsetting to continue watching.  I just couldn't watch child abuse
    taking place!  The clip I saw was a woman whose nanny, on the first
    day, hit the child repeatedly (15 month old girl) and finally shut
    her in the bathroom where you could hear the child crying for her
    mommy.  Another nanny was caught masturbating while watching 
    pornographic films.. I don't believe the children were in the room
    however.
    
    Anyhow, that was enough for me!
    
    I do believe that it is an invasion of privacy but if you don't
    trust your nanny, it is perhaps necessary.  However, I believe
    that if you cannot find someone you trust completely with your
    child, your child is probably better off in a daycare center.
    I don't know how anyone could consider hiring an au-pair!  Do they
    even meet the girl first?  
    
    Karen

    Saw it, thought it was very scarey.  
    
    I agreed with the woman they interviewed when she said her first
    reaction was to kill the sitter (irrational, I know).  I would
    certainly report any sitter that did that to my children to the police,
    dss, office for children, and anyone else I could think of, to do what
    I could to prevent them from sitting again.
    
    IMO, I don't think it's an invasion of privacy, it's YOUR home, 
    YOUR child.  I would even consider it if I knew the sitter, for 
    piece of mind.
    
    I had my son with a sitter who I tought I knew well for the first 
    few months (3-6) and changed him to a center when he was six months 
    old because she left him in the car when she ran in to drop her son 
    off at gymnastics.  Car running, nonetheless.
    

My wife and I had a long discussion on this:

We wondered how these babysitters were hired - none of the couples on camera 
said anything like "and we went to such a reputable agency...." though this 
is no guarantee, either.

One couple did sound like they did the most checking on the person that you
can - though if the previous employer(s) didn't know about possible abuse,
you can't rely on the references. 

Often times folks get what they pay for....my Mother-in-law is a nanny and 
my wife has done in-home daycare, we are all constantly amazed at the 
concern placed on wages versus quality of care.

As to the invasion of privacy, I sit on the fence. On one hand, I think that 
in such a situation, in my home, taking care of my child, clearly stated 
and agreed upon job requirements - it's not an invasion.

On the other hand, it is an invasion - I guess then I would say that you 
should state up front that this type of job performance-checking is going to
be used at some time and the person has the option to decline the job. 

I do want to repeat what the show also said - that there are many good 
sitters out there and they showed one clip of a sitter that made the couple 
very pleased and meet all their expectations.

It was a *very* uncomfortable show to watch. The one situation with an
11-month old that the sitter repeatedly slapped her on the head - because
(apparently) she didn't like the child exploring/standing up in her playpen!
At one point she hit the child's head with a portable phoneset. 

What really burned me up was after hours of lounging on the couch and 
ignoring/abusing the child - when Mom came home for a short visit - all was 
wonderful. The sitter had the child out of the playpen and was interacting
with her, took her to the window to wave goodbye to mommy - and then she
turned and plunked the child back into the playpen and resumed sitting on
the couch. 

I was heartbroken listing to the little boy asking why the sitter hit 
him....

I went into my sons room and gave him an extra hug and kiss late last 
night.

JR
                                                                           

    
    I saw the show and agree it was VERY upsetting to watch.  I came into
    in when a sitter was pounding on a kid for pulling her pile of clothes
    down.  
    
    The "program" is called BabyWatch, and for ?$200.00? they'll come into
    your home, determine the room that the sitter and your child are most
    likely to interact in, install a hidden camera, and can tape up to 5
    hrs at a time, 3 days in a row.  Clearly the sitters had no IDEA they
    were being taped.  
    
    One thing the show convinced me of, is that this is an important reason
    I think you're safer in a center - it's less likely to happen with
    other adults around - though the "neglect" piece could be potentially
    worse with the more kids around.
    
    One woman (of those interviewed in the playground) brought up a good
    point - if you mistrust your provider enough to consider taping her, then
    there's probably enough problems to justify getting rid of her anyway.
    
    INcidentally, the case where the woman hit the baby with the phone ...
    they had done extensive checks on her.  They had investigated her
    references, did a criminal check on her, an immigration? check (she was
    from the Carribean, I believe), and what I thought was about all you
    COULD check.  The only reason the couple used babywatch, was because
    they were fully expecting to see her having a great time with their
    child and love her all the more.  They really expected to see
    **NOTHING** at all bad in those tapes, and were horrified.
    
    They interviewed the caregiver, and let her view the tapes, and she
    stated that she didn't do anything there that she wouldn't do to her
    own children.  And that it didn't hurt the baby (she was 10 mos old)
    when she slapped her head with her hand or with the phone.  In one shot
    the baby wouldn't lay down, and the woman was sitting on the couch
    watching TV and yells to the baby "Lay down!" the baby doesn't, and she
    raised the remote (as if she may hit her) and the baby laid right down.
    It also appeared that, while she was feeding the baby, she had tied her
    arms behind her head.  The mother said that whenever she feeds the
    little girl, her hands are in her food constantly.  In the tapes, the
    little girls' arm is always bent up, with her hand behind her head
    (it's a side shot, so you really can't tell for sure, but it sure
    looked like her arms were tied behind her head.
    
    AND the sitter ate more of the food herself, than she fed the kid.
    
    The whole thing was pretty awful to watch.  And I'm sorry - but if this
    is what you want your privacy for - so you can abuse and neglect our
    children - than you don't deserve any privacy.
    
    Of the other nannies/caregivers they asked, most of them said they
    wouldn't mind being taped.  Might make them more self conscious, but
    they had nothing to hide...
    
    You decide - do you trust a "stranger" alone, in your home, with your
    baby (who, let's face it, make US nuts occassionally!), all day long??
    Why do you expect THEM to be so much more tolerant than US?! 
    
    ...and that was a big point of the story - don't take anything for
    granted, in spite of what you might think or like to think.
    
    Good luck to everyone!!
    Patty

    I didn't see the show however I heard about it from my parents this
    morning when they came over to watch my daughter.  They told me some of
    the same detail that is in these note replies.  I think if I had
    watched the show it would have made me sick.  
    I hope it makes parents think long and hard about who they leave their
    children with.
    Nancy

I didn't see the show.

I have a nanny.

I do feel that a hidden camera is an invasion of privacy
unless the employment agreement stated that this kind of 
surveillance might take place.  (How would you feel if
you discovered that Digital secretly videotaped you while 
you were on the job??)

If I ever felt so distrustful of the nanny that I toyed
with the idea of using such a service, then I would
start interviewing for a new nanny.  

- Deb B.

I too saw the show and I do have a Nanny.  I was VERY upset after the show 
and completely trust Melissa (our Nanny) - however, the people in the show 
completely trusted their Nanny also.  The first thing Melissa said when she 
came in this morning is "did you see that show last night?  I would have 
killed that Nanny if I were those parents".  I'm glad she thinks like I do!  

I do have a home office so I know what goes on around here except for the 
times I'm out of town.  I never had any doubts until I saw that show.  
Unfortunately it made everyone think twice about all Nannies and there are a 
LOT of really GOOD ones and I think I have an exceptional one.

I do completely trust her or I never would have hired her.  You can only do 
so much, however, in hiring anyone - check references, background checks, HRS 
checks, etc.  I do not think it would be an invasion of privacy - I hired her 
and I have a right to know she's doing the job I hired her for.  I personally 
feel the same if Digital decided to videotape me - they are paying me good 
money (O.K. - maybe not "good") to do a job and they have a right to expect 
me to do that job.  Melissa also felt it was NOT an invasion of privacy for 
the same reason.  Made me feel much better - not that I have any doubts about 
her caregiving.  Dylan (8 mos) is REALLY happy when she's around but then 
again, the little 11 month old on the show showed no outward signs of abuse 
either.

I'm just very glad these people one the show found out about the abuse before 
any permanent damage was done.  I do completely trust her and would not use 
the service but if ANYTHING ever gave me any reason to doubt, I would 
videotape in a second. 

Just my HO!

Cindy

    
    .6 ... I don't know where you think you work, but the fact of the
    matter is that Digital is constantly installing "hidden cameras".  You
    can check with security if you don't believe me.
    
    Typically they're installed to try to "catch a thief" in the area in
    question, but have been installed for other reasons as well.  The
    entire tape is monitored.  They also monitor length of phone calls,
    times place, and to what numbers.
    
    You have the PRIVILEGE of working here.  They have the RIGHT to protect
    the company's and other employees' interests.  
    
    Hey - you're taped at the convenience store, at the bank, at the
    jewelry store - why is your child less important than a piece of gold?
    
    I DO like the idea of mentioning at the initial interview, that the
    caregiver made be watched randomly, without their knowlege.  Give them
    the option, upfront to decline the position.
    
    

>>came in this morning is "did you see that show last night?  I would have 
>>killed that Nanny if I were those parents".  I'm glad she thinks like I do!  

And what would you expect her to say?  Maybe she's doing the same thing.  I saw
the Opra show and the parents had complete trust in the one's that they hired
also.  I'm a trusting person - but who really knows unless you pull the old
hidden camera trick.

Invasion of privacy?  I don't think so - but a court might think otherwise so
unless you were going to take things to court I wouldn't worry about it.  

Leave that to the Harvard Law grads but my house, someone I hired, I forgot I
left the camcorder in record mode etc.

bjm

I think you'd have to be very careful about video taping, because if you
videotaped someone and they weren't doing anything wrong AND they found
out, you would be open to a lawsuit.  

Yes, Digital does have video cameras at the loading docks, and different
secuity places, maybe they even have hidden ones.

However.... there is a big hotel chain in NYC going through a major lawsuit
at this time that they are probably going to lose.  They were caught taping
their employees in their changing area.  So it shows the employees with their
underwear on or off getting into their hotel uniforms.  The hotel defended
the taping saying they were preventing theft, BUT no one in all the hours
of taping demonstrated any illegal activity.  So now they are suing for
invasion of privacy because they didn't know they were going to be taped
while undressing.

If you had a tape at your home with someone abusing your child, I doubt
very much that they would take you to court because you could take them
to court on worse charges.  But if you taped someone at home and they found
out, and they hadn't done anything wrong.... well, you could have quite
a bit of trouble for yourself going on.

This whole issue of survelliance is becoming a big legal issue since 
survelliance stuff is becoming a lot smaller and can be hidden.

If you notice, when you go to the bank or a jewelry store or something, the
cameras are *out in the open* and some store have a notice that you are being
taped.  That's the difference.

US News or Newsweek had this whole issue of taping your employees.  It's
in the last 2 months.

How would you feel if you found out that someone taped you, secretly?

Re:  a couple ago about Digital tracking your calls,e tc.  Yes, they do, 
but that is public information that they are doing it.  It is illegal to 
listen in on an employees conversation without them knowing it can happen.
Employees, by law, must be informed that a supervisor will spot check 
their conversations.

Hmmm....  possibly I could have been clearer in .6

I am aware that Digital has hidden cameras for security reasons.
But, in my mind, there's a difference between Digital security
installing a hidden camera focused on an item likely to be
stolen or focused on an area where a robbery is anticipated
and Digital installing a hidden camera around my cube in order
to better judge my work performance.  To the best of my knowledge,
management at Digital does not use cameras to help in performance
evaluations.  

In my "book", this kind of surveillance is morally wrong.  I should 
add that I acknowledge and recognize that others may not consider this 
morally wrong -- that's fine! This is just something that I would not do.

There is goodness in programming like this in that it makes
everyone more conscious of the responsibilities of parenting.  
Presumably this makes all parents grateful for the good childcare that
their kids have received, more aware of how precious our
little ones are, and more careful in whom they hire to care
for their kids.  

But there is badness too if it means that people become more 
distrustful of those who are trustworthy.  

- Deb B.

    
    I normally am a read only noter, but this topic hit a nerve.
    
    My opinion....
    Six months ago, I progressed to a new job in Digital. In my previous
    position, our department/area was under 24 x 7 cameras.  I worked
    with cameras on and MONITORED for 6-1/2 years.  No big deal...
    I agree completely with the previous reply about being taped every
    where you go, even the supermarket.  Supermarkets, where I live,
    have their cameras hidden.  Just about any place that has *alot*
    of public traffic has hidden/in-view cameras. **my opinion**
    I don't understand why anyone would be against being taped or
    monitored (phones) etc, if they are not abusing some privilege.
    We work for a large, fairly lenient company.  For every Digital 
    employee I know, you are allowed personal calls. If it is abused, 
    it is a performance appraisal issue.   
    
    So far, God has blessed us because we have never hired an outside
    babysitter.  Either my family or my husbands family have "sat" for
    us.  It is a real relief to have this option and I know it is real
    unusual.  I just don't know what I would do in the case of the persons
    on this show.  Children are so innocent and precious.  
    
    vent over....