General discussion - Mom and Dad Esq.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by baltassoc
While it's undergoing renovations that will undoubtably make it much less cheap and much less cool (but definitely more chic), I think the Gramercy Park Hotel (www.gramercyparkhotel.com)is a great choice with kids. The rooms are huge, relatively speaking, and access to the park is nice for the kids. It's not "kid friendly" in the sense of having a pool or Disney characters or whatever. It's just in a great location. Downside is that it's needed a renovation for about 30 years. It's about a block and a half from the subway.

Try to get a king size suite overlooking the park on the back side elevators.

Cheap is, of course, relative. You can probably get a suite there for about $250 a night (maybe a little more around Christmas), but that gets you a living room with a fold out couch and a seperate bedroom. Anyplace in midtown is going to run that for a 100 sq.ft. single.

Sounds like a good choice; thanks. By "kid friendly," I really just mean someplace where we won't feel terribly out of place with kids.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Sounds like a good choice; thanks. By "kid friendly," I really just mean someplace where we won't feel terribly out of place with kids.

I'm unaware of any hotels in Manhattan that really fit that criteria, but the Gramercy is probably the best of the bunch in that regard.

Just realize that it's a bit rough aroung the edges. Perfectly acceptable, in my opinion. It's just no Hudson Hotel, but then again the same suite at the Hudson would be $1000 a night.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Trepidation_Mom
Is it customary to pay her for a certain number of sick-days a year? If so, how many? Is paid vacation even heard of? (Is $12 per hour exhorbinant for a CPR trained nanny with experience?)

I'm really OK with giving her 2 weeks paid vacation and 2 weeks worth of sick days per year (maybe only because I don't want to be a nasty, rich cheapskate extorting the labor of the lower classes, or whatever) but she already makes more than my husband brings home after taxes, so ....

I'd guess it depends on the market,what end of the market you're at, and what you're asking the nanny to do.

I know that the top of the line for nannies in the D.C. area is in the ballpark of $35K - $45K per year salary, plus some benefits (health care, etc.). That seems to involve a roughly 45-50 hour work week. A friend of mine in the business gets that plus, IIRC, two weks of paid vacation and ceratin holidays off.

That said, I know a couple who are paying just over $40K per year plus benefits, for a _live-in_ nanny. But that nanny works about 60 hours per week, and cares for twin toddlers, one of whom has significant medical needs.

S_A_M

[dtb]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'd guess it depends on the market,what end of the market you're at, and what you're asking the nanny to do.

I know that the top of the line for nannies in the D.C. area is in the ballpark of $35K - $45K per year salary, plus some benefits (health care, etc.). That seems to involve a roughly 45-50 hour work week. A friend of mine in the business gets that plus, IIRC, two weks of paid vacation and ceratin holidays off.

That said, I know a couple who are paying just over $40K per year plus benefits, for a _live-in_ nanny. But that nanny works about 60 hours per week, and cares for twin toddlers, one of whom has significant medical needs.

S_A_M

Live-ins generally get paid less than live-outs.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by dtb
Live-ins generally get paid less than live-outs.

Yes. That is why, in my "live-in" example, I added the details about the longer work week and responsibilties involved to explain why the compensation is so comparatively high.

S_A_M

[Trepidation_Mom]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'd guess it depends on the market,what end of the market you're at, and what you're asking the nanny to do.

I know that the top of the line for nannies in the D.C. area is in the ballpark of $35K - $45K per year salary, plus some benefits (health care, etc.). That seems to involve a roughly 45-50 hour work week. A friend of mine in the business gets that plus, IIRC, two weks of paid vacation and ceratin holidays off.

That said, I know a couple who are paying just over $40K per year plus benefits, for a _live-in_ nanny. But that nanny works about 60 hours per week, and cares for twin toddlers, one of whom has significant medical needs.

S_A_M

We're only asking her to look after the munchkin - no light housework, no cooking, no shopping, no plumbing (or whatever else people ask nannies to do), just babysitting duties. And apparently the baby is not much trouble. He has no med. or other difficulties and has a consistently pleasant disposition (I'm not sure how long that will last, but we're enjoying it while we can).

We're going with 2 weeks paid vacation to be scheduled at a time of mutual convenience (i.e.: when we have time off) and no set number of paid sick (or emergency, etc.) days, with the understanding that if it gets to be a lot we'll need to talk, and that she'll need to be somewhat flexibile, too, in terms of our getting home 15-30 minutes late on occasion.

eta: Thanks, everyone, for the input, it was very helpful. We really are pretty clueless, and we don't have many friends in the area who have kids and two working parents and no local family.

[viet_mom]

It's always interesting to see how super-mainstream media conveys international adoption. Click here for the new Cheerios commercial. http://www.cheerios.com/stories/default.aspx

No way is this scene representative of how the adoption occurs. The parents in the commercial are relaxed, well-dressed and very very reserved (they don't even hug the kids). The reality is that at the moment of adoption, parents are jet-lagged, harried, frazzled, being driven around in a crowded van with other parents. And even the most reserved person when they see the little person that has ended up as their child, practically clobbers the child in a sea of hugs and tears (and relief, the process having been long and emotional). Jeeze. The Mom doesn't even hug the kids in the commercial. Nor do the parents go into the orphanage. IRL, parents are all over the orphanage, bringing gifts and taking pictures.

I wonder why Cheerios wanted such a sterile scene. I look back on the video of my Mom and me entering into a dirty, crowded orphanage in the middle of nowhere, our hair matted and crazy, and collapsing in tears of happiness on a wooden bed with a bunch of caretakers and of course Vietbabe and other babies and I wonder why Cheerios thinks that type of stuff is not cool to show. Since China is still number one they might have also gone with a China adoption.

But that's just my opinion.

Originally posted by viet_mom
It's always interesting to see how super-mainstream media conveys international adoption. Click here for the new Cheerios commercial.

There was a commercial in baby mags last year - I cannot remember the product, Mastercard perhaps? Anyway, it was a mom (and dad?) and foreign baby returning from whatever country on a plane. It made me cry every single time I saw it, damnit.

I would think that the sight of an orphanage with bedraggled new adoptive parent(s) might be less appealing and not make me want to eat Cheerios, however, you would think that some hugging would be in order!

I saw a foreign adoption on A Baby Story (yes, I watched it my whole pregnancy!) - I think the babies were brought here by baby couriers - the babies were all in Baby Bjorn-like carriers and in (fancy) native dress clothing. It also made me cry!

[viet_mom]

Originally posted by TexLex
There was a commercial in baby mags last year - I cannot remember the product, Mastercard perhaps? Anyway, it was a mom (and dad?) and foreign baby returning from whatever country on a plane. It made me cry every single time I saw it, damnit.

I will check that one out. All these stories make me cry, including the one I criticized.

I would think that the sight of an orphanage with bedraggled new adoptive parent(s) might be less appealing and not make me want to eat Cheerios, however, you would think that some hugging would be in order!

Oh, no way would the ad ever show the full reality...I'd never expect that. But at least show the orphanage, even if they display it as "shabby chic" and the parents could be "fake bedraggled." In other words, in my case I'd be portrayed not as a gaunt, exhausted from stomach ailments, wearing ill fitting dirty Vietnamese men's 2nd hand clothing from the army/navy store next to the hospital I'd been in, but instead with Western clothing with a "funky travel" edge to them, and freshly blown-dry hair that's been tossed about to make me look "frazzled." The parents in the Cheerios ad aren't even sitting next to eachother in the car. The ad misses the whole flurry of excitement.

I saw a foreign adoption on A Baby Story (yes, I watched it my whole pregnancy!) - I think the babies were brought here by baby couriers - the babies were all in Baby Bjorn-like carriers and in (fancy) native dress clothing. It also made me cry!

Some countries like Korea and Guatemala still allow for "couriers" to bring the children to the U.S. This is very convenient if you already have children and you really can't take off to go oversees. I think it's also good b/c it allows you to rest and be prepared for receiving the child, rather than jetlagged and possibly ill. But I hope these parents eventually go to their child's home country.

I am starting to think that 18 months is perfect baby spacing. Well, since about 12:00 today.

-TexLex :knockedup:

Congrats!

(and I'm sure a cottage in HPISD is starting to look better than private school...)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by TexLex
I am starting to think that 18 months is perfect baby spacing. Well, since about 12:00 today.

-TexLex :knockedup:

Well, here's the old fashioned kind: :-)-O


:bounce:

Congratulations!

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by TexLex
I am starting to think that 18 months is perfect baby spacing. Well, since about 12:00 today.

-TexLex :knockedup:

Oh my god, you're insane.

But congratulations. And good luck.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by TexLex
I am starting to think that 18 months is perfect baby spacing. Well, since about 12:00 today.

-TexLex :knockedup:

Congrats and good luck. We had thought maybe 3 years. But it took a little longer.

Siddette is due in February.

[bill killer]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Congrats and good luck. We had thought maybe 3 years. But it took a little longer.

Siddette is due in February.

Must be going around: I'm due around tax-time. First-tri exhaustion and the toll of buying a house in SF have kept me post-free of late. Congrats to the Lexes and Finches!

edited to fix atrocious punctuation.