Nanny cam - Good Parenting or Snooping??

Cecilia - posted on 01/09/2013

I have worked at places where guess what, they have cameras.. not just for watching customers.. Why is such an issue? If someone worked at a day care that had a camera, would they complain then?
no they wouldn't!

Many securities system also have cameras installed throughout the house, that you can log into through your cell phone.

I believe most schools have gps on the buses. They also have cameras!! oh no now we've gone too far, right?? I know many drivers for different types of companies do it. Why? so they can locate their workers. A nanny is an employee and should be expected their employer to do such things.

It would also protect them if anything were ever to happen. Let's say the kid actually fell and smacked his head and the nanny calls the mom and tells her she's taking child to the doctor. The mother does not need to question what actually happened if she can see it.

As far as the website, okay that might be a little far. If the activity of the nanny is that bad then why post it on a website for someone who might never see it. Call child protective services right away if you see anyone putting a child in danger- nanny or not. If they were talking on the cell while the kid ran around the park.. eh that's excusable.

Cher - posted on 01/09/2013

Nanny-cams are not usually covert (ie. secret or hidden) unless some form of evidence is required to substantiate suspected criminal activity or inappropriate behaviour by the carer or any other person. Such placement of Covert Surveillance cameras (while a grey area in residential homes) comes under the NSW Workplace Surveillance Act 1988, which deals with the use of covert surveillance cameras in the workplace. An application to a local Court should be made and a ‘Covert Surveillance Authority’ needs to be secured before covert cameras can be installed. Even when a successful application is issued by a Court, the employer is generally required to tell the employee/s that they would be under video surveillance in the workplace.

While the home is a private residence the owner is the employer of the carer and therefore required to comply with the Workplace Video Surveillance Act 1998 (NSW). The use of a Nanny-cam in a private residence requires the employee to be made aware, prior to commencement of employment, that surveillance of the workplace is being conducted and that his or her activities will be monitored by surveillance cameras.

The basic rule in a private residence is to forewarn the carer who is employed there that surveillance cameras have been installed within the house. The carer should be advised that it is part of the employment agreement between the carer and the employer/owner of the residence. The employee must be willing to work under these conditions knowing that he or she may be under surveillance via the Nanny-cam and informed that it has been installed so that the employer may monitor the child/children’s activities from a remote location.

Cher - posted on 01/09/2013

Ive been a Nanny for over 8 yrs now. I think if a nanny doesn't have anything to hind, they wouldn't mind being filmed, in fact sometimes i wish I was being filmed so I could show the parents how well i treat their kids and so they can see memories of their children. I don't have any problem with nanny cams as long as they told me, i am being filmed. If it was a film without my consent, that would defiantly be an invasion of my privacy along with the fact i would quit becasue i wouldn't nanny for a family that didn't trust me. Do parents tell their nanny about the cameras or is that the definition of a "nanny cam" to film to spy?

Teresa - posted on 05/31/2012

Hi, I have worked in childcare and as a nannie for over 30 years, caring for many children of all ages and stages, from new born to early teens. I have also worked in schools, day care centres, hospitals.
I fully understand parents fears and apprehensions of having complete strangers in their home to care for their children. Sadly we live in a world, where trust levels have been tested to the max, and I have become aware of horendous situations parents have found in their own homes, believing they have left thier little ones in the hands of someone they can trust and rely on, to be the loving care giver in the absence. Understandable parents have been pushed into making choices about how they can be totaly sure their children are receiving the care and attention they should be given, parents can no longer rely on good refrences, background checks, and qualifications to secure they have made the right choice, no one can be 100% sure how indivduals will react in difficult and stressful situations. Having said that I am very postive that there are excellent nannies, and childcare workers who do a wonderful and caring job with the children and families they work with, and few who do not.
I will always say, do your homework before employing a nannie, always listen to you intuition,do the interview rehersal, prepare your questions well, and make a list of your expectations. Do I agree with a nannie cam? I have to say yes, because I would use one myself if I had to employ a nannie, as much for my own safety and security to make sure the parents were happy, and the children are happy and healthy this is a nannies priority, it would not concern me even if I did not know about the cam, mainly for the same reason, if the children are well cared for loved and respected, then so are the parents, and its important the parents can see this as well as feel it.

Kelly - posted on 02/12/2012

No Laura, it doesn't matter what kind of surveillance it is--ANY surveillance in a place where a person has reasonable expectation of privacy is inadmissible. That goes for audio, video, still images, and even eaves dropping by a potential witness. The surveillance in question in the Katz case was indeed audio, but the law applies for any surveillance, search or seizure without warrant. At the time the 4th amendment was written, we didn't even have video or audio surveillance--the question at hand is not what form the evidence of surveillance takes on, but whether or not the person being watched had a reasonable expectation of privacy.



The same amendment and ruling have often been used to protect teens who have been prosecuted for having prohibited items in lockers, officials who gave evidence to illegal activities in private emails, and in a wide assortment of other issues--especially those concerning divorcees. My friends use this amendment all the time to have evidence thrown out of court for their clients.

Stifler's - posted on 02/12/2012

I take my kids in the bathroom and close the door so the heater warms the room up in winter

Laura Zoey - posted on 02/12/2012

Kelly, that's because it's audio.

If your cameras are just video then Katz vs us shouldn't hold water. But yeah if it's audio too they could use that case to argue you.

My husban wrote a paper on Katz vs US so he's explained it to me :) I agree the best thing to protect yourself is to inform the nanny, but if its just video then this case shouldn't be able to benefit them.

Kelly - posted on 02/12/2012

The Supreme Court whittled away at the Olmstead holding for the next forty years, finally overruling it in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967). In Katz, the police attached a listening device to the outside of a public telephone booth where the defendant was later recorded making inculpatory statements. The Court declared this type of warrantless surveillance unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that the Fourth Amendment protects persons, not places, and held that the amendment's protections extend to any place where an individual maintains a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court determined that in Katz, the defendant maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy in both the particular conversation he had and the public telephone booth where it took place. Katz made government electronic surveillance, and legislation authorizing it, subject to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment.



That is a Federal law. There have been many smaller cases where defendants have had video and audio surveillance thrown out of court by convincing the judge that they defendant had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the area in which the crime took place, such as a private residence. By informing the nanny of the cameras, and posting a sign outside your home, you eliminate the possibility of the person who hurt your child pulling out Katz vs. US and getting your surveillance thrown out and thus, getting off with a lesser charge, or worse, having the charges dropped completely.

Rebecca - posted on 02/12/2012

The way I look at it, when I was a bit younger and worked retail or at bars (or at a video/book store) I would often find out after the fact that there were cameras. I never minded it, I understood it, they are just protecting their investment. I see no difference with a nanny cam.



If someone in my employ has a problem with it, they don't have to work for me. Why are they any better than I am at my jobs?



Now, I have a babysitter, who also nannies during the day for friends of mine. If I had an inkling that she was abusive (I tend to be paranoid, so I well aware that an inkling may not actually be a reality) and the money for those kind of cameras, I would, for sure, put them on. If there was nothing out of sorts going on, I'd say nothing. If she was just being lazy or doing something sketchy that didn't involve my kid (going through my personal stuff, smearing buggers under the couch) - I'd address it in a way that didn't involve saying I had a camera...like, "I found some buggers on the cushion of the couch and I had just cleaned it before I left. Could you not do that?"

Sherri - posted on 02/12/2012

That is not true everywhere Kelly. You can video in your home and you do not have to tell anyone and yes it is very much admissible in court, well in my state anyways.



If I video tape someone stealing something outside my house or vandalizing something on my property, I don't even have to let them know and I can show it in court with no problem.



Sorry but I have to bring the twins in the bathroom that I watch all the time as they can't wipe yet. So I guess it would depend on age of the child whether you take them in the bathroom and close the door. I also give them baths on occasion and close the door so they don't get cold.

Hope - posted on 02/12/2012

I am all for it. In my experience no one can be trusted. I put my trust in a friend when my eldest was 3.5 years old, turned out she was abusive. I am just fortunate that my child was able to speak up.

My advise, if your child says an adult is naughty, no mater what the childs age, listen to them, talk to your child and find out how that person has been naughty. Have an open line of communication with your child at all times, even at a young age. So yeah nanny cams are great but communication is great also.

Kelly - posted on 02/12/2012

We have cameras in all rooms except for the bathrooms, but there is no reason for a nanny to take a child into the bathroom and close the door. If she did that, she'd be fired.

If the door to the bathroom is open, the camera will see into it at least a little ways. L shaped bathrooms would be difficult though.



You can see their true colors even if they know the cameras are there--it is very obvious when someone is being "good" just because they know they may be watched. I would rather have someone fake "nice" than risk having my child experience something harmful.



Plus, if the person does not know they are being filmed, and they hurt your kid, that evidence is NOT admissible in court--they could get off if that is your only solid evidence. That is why we have to have the sign on our lawn that informs potential buglers that they are under video surveillance--Yes, even though they are trespassing and breaking the law, if they are not "notified" and the only evidence we have is the video, they would probably win the case because the video would be thrown out. I wouldn't risk it with my kid.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 02/12/2012

LOL no not at all Laura!



I will admit I've had some bad experiances with babysitters both as a child and as an adult. When I was going into grade 6 my parents hired a lady who had a baby of her own, half way through the summer she just stopped coming without giving notice! So I was 11 watching my 7 year old brother until my dad got home at 2:30 in the afternoon. And when my older daughter was almost a year I had a woman just refuse to answer the door and cancel on me when I was already running late to work. I also had a woman drop me completely because my ex was messing with my child support.



However I also had some very good babysitters (for my daughters not for myself- my brother and I had a few crazy babysitters and our mom's parents then ourselves when we were kids) I had one woman for my older daughter who watched her from the time she was just over a year until she was 5 who would arrange for her mom or sister to watch my daughter when she was out of town so I didn't need to worry about finding a sitter. She would also allow me to drop my daughter off early if I had a 6am shift instead of 7am as long as I picked her up an hour early. I also had a lady who watched both of my girls and charged me hourly instead of the full day pay because they were only part time and was also flexible with her hours. The second woman lived down the street from my parents.

Laura Zoey - posted on 02/12/2012

The paranoid mom in me would say she would also take the baby into the bathroom to smack it or scream at it.

Can you tell I've never left my kids with a babysitter? Lol

Jodi - posted on 02/10/2012

If it were me, I would put cameras in all the places I thought the nanny and my kids would spend a lot of time. Basically every room except my bedroom and the bathrooms! I would let her know there are cameras in everyone except the bathrooms, if she got spewwed on, she can change there.

Sherri - posted on 02/10/2012

Usually all common areas of your home.

Stifler's - posted on 02/10/2012

I can see Sherri's point about people showing their true colours when they think no one is watching and being someone else when they know they're being watched. I would also not want someone to be filming me without my consent. What if they get undressed and changed in the room with the camera because they get spewed on or something. How does nanny cam work anyway do you have a camera in every single room? Because if I had a nanny she'd be in every room of this house bar our room.

Kelina - posted on 02/10/2012

really glad this is a moot point considering I'm a SAHM but i think if I ever did have to have someone watching them, I'd probably use one and let them know it's there so I can check up on the kids during the day because I've never been away fromt hem before. And that's mostly what it would be. But for the most part the only person I'd have watching my kids would be my MIL so i wouldn't have to worry about her hurting the kids. She's called before when she's getting too stressed to handle them. Sucks that we had to end our date early but I know my kids can be a handful and I'd rather she did than go insane.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 02/10/2012

If I had an in home care giver of any type, I'd get a camera. I've been in home care myself and I honestly wouldn't mind being on survaliance (I know I spelled that wrong) It probably would've helped me a few times because I had some woman complain that I hadn't done something for her mom when I knew I did and she'd seen me do it.



People who have someone come into their home have enough to worry about just by inviting a stranger into their house. background checks and a police screening only tell the agency the person works for so much.



Honestly I believe that they should put some security cameras in some residents' rooms at nursing homes as well. They didn't do that in NY and they don't do it in BC either, but it could help nursing home residents who can't help themselves either.

Rebecca - posted on 02/10/2012

I'm all for using them but also for letting the nanny know. I wouldn't tell them where the cameras are, though. Frankly, there is no sense losing a good caregiver who finds out later and is offended and someone who isn't a good caregiver isn't going to want to work in a house full of cameras.

Sherri - posted on 02/09/2012

No I wouldn't want them to hurt my child but I also want to be able to see there true colors. I want to see what they are doing when they don't think others are watching. Such as not interacting with my child, being on the phone the whole time, being on computer, bringing people in my home, feeding them them things I wouldn't allow them to have and yes even being to rough etc.

Kelly - posted on 02/09/2012

Sherri, I don't understand that. You would rather see them hurt your kid?

You can tell if someone is just being good for the camera, it is in their body language, and they wouldn't last long anyway because the "act" would get too tiresome. I would much rather have someone know the cameras are in place to deter them from hurting my kid (emotionally or otherwise). If they are going to "snap" it is going to happen whether they know the camera is there or not, but if they are just stressed out, the camera can be a great deterrent, whereas if they don't know it is there, they might just go ahead and act on that stressed impulse.



I hope that made sense--I took cold medicine...sorry

Sherri - posted on 02/09/2012

I wouldn't tell a nanny or sitter that I was using one either. I don't need them pretending they are good if they really aren't.

Laura Zoey - posted on 02/09/2012

I would definetly use one :)

Ashley=) - posted on 02/09/2012

I saw a talk show were a single dad put a camera in full view with a sign saying it was a CCTV camera.He had a minder for his daughter, a disabled child and the minder was abusing her.Picking her up and throwing her on her bed.



The clip was to much, it boiled my blood.I can't believe the dad handled it so well.I would of killed her, i felt so angry just watching the clip.Imagine if i were in that fathers shoes..:-( Id be locked up and more upsetting was the dad told the chat show host, the minder got a job again in another state.



His daughter cannot speak etc and he did it to protect her.He was sick to this tummy when he watched the camera.Shame on that minder and even knowing the camera was there.Just shows some people are deep rooted with evil, they forget whos watching when there in the moment of wanting to hurt another.

:-(

I agree with them.

Elfrieda - posted on 02/09/2012

I asked my husband what he thought of this, and he's totally for it. We're talking about finding a teenager to babysit for us on a weekly basis (so far it's always been a favour from our friends, siblings, or parents but it would be nice to say "I'm paying you, so we'll do it my way. You stay at OUR house and then we can stay out late but our son can still go to sleep in his own bed.") and it's kind of scary.

Kelly - posted on 02/09/2012

We have always had cameras in our home as part of our security system.



When J was little, I had to hire a live-in nanny from an agency as we did not know anyone who was able to give the level of commitment we needed. She passed a back ground test, had several good references, had been in the field for over 7 years, had a college education in early childhood development, and was certified in CPR and first aid, but she was still someone other than me. She was aware of our cameras and the fact that they were on 24/7 in all rooms except the bathrooms.



Luckily, we were able to have her with us for several weeks before I had to leave J alone with her, and by that time I fully trusted her. Our security company offers a service where you can access your feed from any computer or phone at any time, now it is standard, but at the time it was an additional feature and we felt that we could trust her enough not to use it. We did, however, look at the tapes when we got home.



We knew she was not harming him, but we wanted to look for signs that she might be getting stressed out, which can lead to caregivers "snapping". They don't usually just "snap" or intentionally do anything wrong to the children, but they get stressed out and little things accumulate. They don't want to tell you because they are afraid of loosing their jobs, and sometimes they just don't realize how stressed they are actually getting. We also wanted to make sure she was not sticking him in a swing or play pen and watching TV all day, that he was doing all of the activities we required, and that she was interacting with him on a level we deemed adequate.



We never had a problem with our nanny, she is still a close friend of our family and sits for us on occasion. She fully understood why we used our cameras, and had no problem with them.



I do think it is unethical to video someone without their knowledge. That is just wrong. Besides, if they do not know the camera is there, how would it prevent them from doing something wrong? The camera acts as sort of a deterrent. Of course we don't want someone who is only being good because they are being watched, but someone like that would likely not keep the job long anyway.

Starfish - posted on 02/09/2012

If we used nannies or babysitters, I wouldn't mind having them. But I'd be upfront about it. I'd tell them I had cameras, and that I would be watching.



Yes, it's a bit much, and in theory, I don't like the concept, but at the same time, these are my children. There's not a lot of lines I wouldn't cross to be sure they're alright.

Tracey - posted on 02/09/2012

My family used one of these for an elderly relative and found her carer was stealing from her.

Denikka - posted on 02/09/2012

I fully intend for most of house to be under surveillance anyways, so yes, I support nanny cams. And I would use one whether I hired a baby sitter off the street, through an agency or if it was a family member. If anything happened, even if it wasn't abuse, I would want to know HOW it happened. Partially to reassure myself, and partially to make sure that it only EVER happened ONCE and never again. Even something as simple as a kid slipping on a rug because the rug isn't anti slip. Steps can be taken to ensure that a worse accident doesn't happen because of something stupid like that.



I would absolutely make the nanny aware that there were cameras, although I probably wouldn't point them out.

And beyond the safety issues, I always thought it was nice of day cares to let the parent check in every now and again just to see their kids. For those parents who work, it's hard being away and having no contact with your child for such a large portion of the day. This helps to connect parent and child, even just a little bit :)

Johnny - posted on 02/08/2012

I would use one. I would let the nanny know that I had them though. I would have more than one. My daycare has one. I just like to see what she's up to, not so much check in on the teachers. It's always so lovely to peek in and see how much fun she has. And frankly I get a bit jealous because she's playing trains and I'm stuck on a length spreadsheet.

Stifler's - posted on 02/08/2012

I would use one if I had a nanny in my home. If you have nothing to hide there's no problem.

Jodi - posted on 02/08/2012

I would get one if I had to leave my kids alone all day with someone. I would let the person know that my house is under serveillance straight up and let them decide if they were comfortable with it.



Elfrieda, if I suspected something, I would probably fire first, ask questions later if at all. I don't those kind of chances with my kids. Hence, my support of a camera, it will not only ward off those who have something to hide, but if I suspect something, I check the camera, not get a camera and wait until next time.



As for hiring someone you trust, the most likely people to abuse your child, sexually or otherwise, is someone you know and probably trust a lot. Abusers of all kinds are great at getting people to trust them, at seeming like the "great" person, all people like them, blah blah blah...but behind closed doors they're someone else entirely.



Full support of the nanny cam for those who want them. Full support for those that don't. I don't believe they're neccessary, but I think they're a great idea if you're into it. Being a SAHM, I don't need one lol, but if I had to have someone watch my kids all day...I would think about it.

Elfrieda - posted on 02/08/2012

I don't like that idea. I would have hated that as a teenager when I was sitting different kids. Not that I was hurting them, actually I prided myself on being somewhat of a favourite babysitter due to my bag-o-crafts and fine bedtime stories of ponies and candy, but I might have picked a wedgie or something and that would have been SO embarrassing. Also I would have been insulted.



As a parent I can see the appeal, especially for younger children who can't communicate if they are being hurt or ignored, but I think you should rather hire someone you trust than hire anyone and hope you catch them on camera if they do something you don't like. If you suspect something, then get one as the first step to firing that person.



Cameras in a daycare are different, IMO. They're not sneaky, and it's nice to see what your child is up to during the day. It's more watching your child than watching the caregiver.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 02/08/2012

crap something happened to the post. Reposted, with less comment but same lines of the previous post.

Sherri - posted on 02/08/2012

I think they are great and would definitely invest in one if I had to leave my children daily with a nanny.