Letter: Nanny in the family

Meredith Oakes
Saturday 10 January 1998 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Charlotte Roberts had a live-in nanny looking after her children from 7am to 7.30pm each day, plus two nights a week babysitting ("Nanny on the bottle, parents in the soup", 8 January). Effectively, she was employing the nanny to raise the children on her behalf, with the tremendous emotional commitment this was bound to involve.

After three years, the nanny became an alcoholic. I sympathise with Charlotte Roberts's difficulties in deciding to get rid of her. What I can't sympathise with is her puzzlement over the nanny's desire to keep in touch with the children. Roberts behaves as if the nanny gave nothing, and was expected to give nothing. She probably never regarded the nanny for a moment as someone she would wish to know for the rest of her life, yet she demanded her devotion to the children. Now that this devotion is of no further use, she pretends not to have demanded it.

In the old days, the true contract of the live-in nanny was at least properly understood: the nanny gave up the best of herself to the family she served, and in return remained part of that family, permanently. I'm not suggesting Charlotte Roberts tries this with her dismissed nanny: it's too late, the best she can do is recognise herself as unfit to employ a live-in nanny. As for girls who want to be live-in nannies, there's only one thing to be said to them: don't risk it.

MEREDITH OAKES

London SW16

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in