Met a mom last week with 3 kids under 3
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 03-25-2006 - 9:59am |
A 2 year old and 17 month old twins. First she accomplished *that* through two surrogates! Wonderful what modern medicine can do.
Anyway, she doesnt work full time, she consults to several companies so is out of the home one full day then a few hours a day on other days. Sometimes for work, sometimes to go to the gym, etc.
She has a full time live in nanny, and two part time nannies. Essentially they always have someone with them and the kids. She feels she needs two to properly care for her three.
I immediately thought of all the comments her lifestyle would elicit from this board.
The day she and I met she had just come from a 2 hour session at the gym, and was then heading off to go do some shopping.
BTW, she's a complete rock star in industry, having 'retired' a year ago after a 30 year career that took her right up to the top of corporate America so she's definetly *earned* her right to do whatever the heck she wants.
But anyway, she feels she is a super hands on mom. I was curious what others would think?
MM

Pages
I can see the trapped situation in this case, however. They can't sell the house because nobody wants to buy it. They could drastically lower the price to make it saleable, but they may be financially unable to take that kind of hit. If they don't have money to spare, a formidable financial hit ("forget the house" or sell the house at deep discount) would leave them with only the resources to move into a neighborhood just as bad as the one they're in now.
I have a friend whose mom was in this position back when this friend was in highschool. (Now in her 30's.) The (widowed) mom's novel solution was to send her dd to live with family in another country and attend highschool in that foreign school system (and it was a good one). This approach got her out of the can't-afford-anything-but-another-bad-neighborhood trap but it meant she saw her highschool-aged dd infrequently. Even less frequently than kids at boarding school because a single mom who can't afford a better neighborhood can't afford too many international plane fares either. But it all worked out and proved to be the right decision. But I can understand the dilemma of having sunk $$$ into nearly worthless property (because of location) and then being trapped there because of not having the money for anything but another equally bad neighborhood. It would be easier to pull up stakes if you rent rather than own. But owning means you have to keep paying the property tax for as long as the property is in your name- and the mortgage. Which will be on top of whatever you pay in a new place if you are unable to unload the old place and can't get decent rent for it.
<< It comes down to whether a person is or is not intelligent,>>
So first, if a kid makes a bad decision, it must be because of dysfunctionality at home and now only dumb kids make bad decisions.
Gotcha.
"Why would the house, land, amenities and recreational opportunities each be more important to your large family than the quality of the local school system?"
That puzzles me too...
<>
That's a huge illogical leap. I know a few parents that homeschool that would love to have the socialization of traditional school. But they are willing to give up that want, in order to meet their child's educational needs, which traditional school cannot.
Defeatist? How?
I could see your point if I had said "All kids are gonna be bad anyway, so why try to teach them anything?"
However, my point was, even with parents that tried hard, were involved, did their best, were supportive ... some kids will still make bad decisions or be overly influenced by peers.
Pages