Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello

I'm due back to work in June after maternity leave, and am looking for some advice re childcare options.


I'm contracted to work 10 hour days with varying shifts (incl. v early starts and v late finishes). It means I will be out of the house for 12 hours a day, and my husband also can't leave work before 6pm.


Can anyone suggest what my best option might be- nanny/ childminder/ nursery? Ie is it realistic to ask a nanny to work 8am- 7pm, say 3 or 4 days a week? Or do I need to look at nursery, then get help with pick up (given most nurseries close at 6pm).


Or does anyone know of any nurseries with longer hours? (Although I'd probably have to join a 2 year waiting list!)


I really want to go back to work, even if it's just for 3 days a week, but the way things stand I can't see how I am going to make it work! Any advice greatly appreciated if you are in the same boat. Or if you have a nanny who works longer hours and fancy a nanny share, that'd also be wonderful!


Thanks in advance for your help or advice.....

I also work shifts. Options we've gone over:

a) Nanny - more chance of finding a flexible option than nursery but more expensive

b) Nursery with longer hours - Asquiths in Peckham did 7.30 drop-off and 6.30 pick up if pre-arranged.

c) Normal nursery hours with either i) husband reluctantly arriving at work late/leaving work early on the days I couldn't pick the kids up, ii) au pair as well which we considered and interviewed for but couldn't find anyone, or iii) what we do now, which is have a local medical student who does 6 hours a week with us: 7-8am and 5.30-6.30pm the 3 days a week that I work, i.e. she gets the kids out of the house to nursery, then picks them up and brings them home - no feeding/no greater expectations, just the nursery run basically, so husband can do a full days work too. On days when neither of us can get back then if she can she stays on for a nights babysitting. Found her on this here forum, and it works really well.

Hi,


I also do odd hours including nights. We have found that our only viable option is a nanny who starts at 6.30/ 7 and is flexible about finish time. In laws and parents cover the nights the nanny cannot. It's tough financially but somehow we muddle through...

K

WoD - I thought that AuPair agencies wouldn't let their Au Pairs go to family where they were expected to have sole charge of under 2's? Or is that an urban myth?


OP I think if you can afford it that a Nanny might be your best option. YOu should easily be able to find one that will work 12 hour days 3x a week. You might look at http://www.simplychildcare.com for starters.

Sole charge of under 2s not recommended for au pairs (they are untrained youn girls, not childcare professionals). Also they are only meant to work 25/30 hours a week, so long days not feasible. Agencies won't place them with you althoguh you could possibly get one via the net.


I think you need a nanny - much better for a very young child to be in a home environment for long days as they can e.g. be put to bed if you are back late, and not have to get up in the morning before they are ready. Nanny will take them to playgroups etc for socialising, and you will also get the benefit of extra jobs round the house e.g. tidying up, making meals. Long days not a problem, but they are expensive and you will be their formal employer, so you will need to pay their tax/NI etc.


Shout if you have any questions!

Thanks everyone for your responses.


I'd sort of reached the conclusion that a nanny was our only realistic option, but thought others' experiences would be useful. I will also look into nursery and drop off/ pick up.


My main concern is the longer hours we will need, but you have put my mind at rest! Now I just need to establish how soon I should start looking for a mid June start.....


Thanks again everyone.

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Samantha

Just wondered if you might be interested in a nanny share? We have a slightly unusual arragement in that we have 2 older children ( aged 8 and 10) and for the last few years have shared with families with babies or young children. essentially we only need the childcare after school, holidays and the odd sick day, but we've had the same nanny since my oldest was 6 months old, and she's so great we just don't want to lose her. It means that baby we share with has a sole chareg nanny most of the time, and gets to meet with their "big friends" later in the afternoon, and both sides save some money. Drop me a line if you might be interested.

Best wishes

Nicky

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The fundamental problem at present is that the government has been given to belief that if they took it into public ownership, they'd have to pay all its billions of debts. This, oddly, is not a problem that's dogged any of its previous owners, and a very simple solution would be to fine it, say, £40bn for being useless and then pick it up for free. So that's possible. However one of the compelling arguments that got it privatised in the first place was that government-run operations aren't often very well run. They might promise 40 new reservoirs to get them through an election, but that's the last you'll hear of it till the water-rates bill arrives, and there's precious little in the way of economic "growth" to be had out of processing sewage. There are advantages, perhaps, to having an accountable hand on the tiller, but governments, and their agencies, tend not to very accountable. Last December, for example, the Office for Environmental Protection released a report detailing how DEFRA, the Environment Agency and Ofwat had all failed in their legal duties, but as the OEP's powers extend only to writing reports, that's as far as it went. An alternative might be to have it run as an autonomous business, with the government holding the only share. But that's what they did with the Post Office where any benefits of privatisation have become only a boondoggle for lawyers. Not that lawyers don't deserve the compulsory generosity of taxpayers, but their needs must surely be secondary to the Post Office's vital core missions of re-selling stamps, not handing out pensions and cooking the digital books. Which leaves us, I think, in need of a Third Way. That might seem a little too Blairite for some, but I think there's a way to add a Corbynish gloss by setting it up as a co-operative, owned not by the state but by its customers, who would have an interest in striking a balance between increasing bills, maintaining supplies and preserving their own environment, and who'd be able to hold the management to account without having to go through a web of five regulators by way of the office of a part-time representative with an eye on a job in the Cabinet. There are risks with that, of course, in that the shoutiest can exert the most influence, and the shoutiest are not often the most wise, but with everyone having an equal stake, the shoutiest usually get shouted down, which is why co-operatives tend to last longer than businesses steered by cliques of shareholders or political advisers. In other words, the optimum and correct path to take is tried and tested and sitting right there and I'll eat my hat if it happens.  
    • At least the situation with rail travel  is being addressed.
    • It would cost so much  now.  But pay off for us in the long run. Thatcher and her privatisation of public services.  It is a total disaster 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...