Bryn Mawr;924476 wrote: If she is still directly responsible for the child whilst it is in the hands of the nanny then she has no option but to micro manage.
Either she has handed over responsibility to the duly checked and trusted nanny or she keeps the child with her. She cannot hand over the child and leave taking the responsibility with her. The nanny, accepting the custody of the child, is in loco parentis and therefore responsible.
Consider the case of a child in school. As soon as the child passes through the school gates it is the school's responsibility to take all reasonable care and, in the event of an accident, it is the schools responsibility and not the parents.
To me, new facts to the contrary excepted, the nanny appears to be at fault. She was told she was to have all the children and yet, when she found she had not she assumed a change of plan without checking.
If the story as told is true then the mother had no reason to believe anything other than that the child was with the nanny as arranged.
I find it hard to blame the mother on the facts provided.
I'm not talking legality. I'll leave that to the legalists. It's parents' responsibility to raise the child as they see fit. It's their responsibility to duly check the nanny and determine trustworthyness. The simple passing of the child from hand to hand doesn't relieve the responsibility. The parents have a responsibility to the child to put them in safe situations, regardless of legal jargon, finger-pointing, or anything else. The parents are ultimately responsible.
Their responsibility doesn't end when the child enters school, either. If it did I'd have a few extra hours free that I now spend on the phone or in conference.
They are responsible to see that the gov't does it's job while the child is in their care. The parents are ultimately responsible.
I don't "blame" the mother either. She did all she felt was necessary. Stuff happens. But I don't believe for one second that she sleeps easily at night thinking that she wasn't responsible.
