You’re calling a nanny candidate’s references, checking off this final step before making an offer. The previous employer says nice things. Nothing sounds terrible. You hang up feeling satisfied that you’ve done your due diligence. Three months later, you’re dealing with problems you never saw coming and wondering how you missed the warning signs.
After twenty years and tens of thousands of reference checks for families hiring nannies across Seattle and nationwide, we’ve learned that what references don’t say matters as much as what they do say. More importantly, we’ve identified specific patterns in reference conversations that predict future problems with remarkable accuracy. These aren’t subtle hints that require interpretation. These are clear, unmistakable red flags that should stop your hiring process immediately, no matter how much you like the candidate or how desperate you are to fill the position.
Red Flag One: Hesitation Before Answering Basic Questions
When you ask a reference straightforward questions like “Would you rehire this nanny?” or “How would you describe their reliability?” the answer should come immediately and enthusiastically. When there’s a pause, when you hear “Well…” or “That’s a good question…” before the response, something is wrong.
Good references don’t need time to formulate careful answers about basic competence and character. If someone was an excellent nanny who left on good terms, previous employers will tell you that quickly and clearly. Hesitation means they’re trying to figure out how to answer honestly without saying something actionable or overtly negative.
A Seattle family once hired a nanny after conducting their own reference checks. Within three months, they needed a replacement. The nanny was consistently late, called out frequently, and wasn’t reliable about following instructions. When asked about the reference checks, the mother admitted there had been some pauses during the conversation, but the previous employer eventually said positive things so they moved forward anyway.
Those pauses were the previous employer trying to avoid saying “She was chronically late and we were relieved when she quit” while also not wanting to lie outright. The family heard what they wanted to hear instead of recognizing the warning sign right in front of them.
Hesitation before answering basic questions about reliability, trustworthiness, or whether they’d rehire the candidate means you should stop the process and dig deeper. Ask more direct questions. Probe specifically about the areas where you noticed hesitation. If you still don’t get clear, enthusiastic answers, move on to other candidates.
Red Flag Two: Overemphasis on Personal Qualities with Vague Professional Details
References who spend most of the conversation talking about how nice, sweet, or well-meaning the nanny was, but can’t provide specific examples of professional competence or achievements, are telling you something important. They’re focusing on personality because there isn’t much positive to say about actual job performance.
A strong reference will naturally include examples of professional excellence. They’ll tell you about how the nanny handled a challenging situation with the children, implemented a successful routine, or demonstrated exceptional judgment. They’ll describe specific instances that showcase skills and capabilities.
When references keep circling back to “She was really nice to work with” or “The kids seemed to like her” without providing concrete professional examples, it usually means the nanny was pleasant enough but didn’t excel at the actual work. Being likable doesn’t make someone a good nanny, and families who can only talk about personality rather than performance are signaling they weren’t impressed by the candidate’s professional abilities.
One family ignored this pattern because they were so focused on finding someone their children would like. The reference emphasized repeatedly how warm and friendly the nanny was, how she always had a smile, how easy she was to have around the house. But when asked about specific childcare approaches or how she handled discipline or what activities she planned, the answers were vague and noncommittal.
Six months into the placement, the family realized their children weren’t learning anything, weren’t on any kind of routine, and spent most of their time on screens because the nanny, while very nice, didn’t actually know how to structure a day or engage children meaningfully. Personality is important, but it can’t substitute for professional competence.
When conducting reference checks, pay attention to the ratio of personal compliments to professional examples. If you’re hearing mostly the former and very little of the latter, that’s a significant warning sign.
Red Flag Three: Qualified Praise or Backhanded Compliments
Listen carefully for qualifiers in how references describe the nanny’s work. Phrases like “She was good with the kids, considering…” or “She did fine once she understood what we wanted…” or “She worked out okay for our situation…” are not neutral statements. They’re carefully worded ways of expressing reservations without being overtly negative.
Genuine enthusiasm doesn’t require qualifiers. When someone was truly excellent at their job, previous employers say things like “She was outstanding” or “We were so lucky to have her” or “She exceeded our expectations in every way.” They don’t add conditions, explanations, or context that diminishes the compliment.
Families often dismiss qualified praise as references just being cautious or not overly effusive by nature. But after two decades of reference checks, people who were genuinely satisfied with their nanny’s performance don’t use language that requires parsing or interpretation. They’re enthusiastic because they have legitimate reasons to be.
One particularly memorable situation involved a family hiring a nanny despite a reference that included the phrase “She did well with our kids given that they were pretty easy.” That qualifier, “given that they were pretty easy,” was the reference’s way of saying the nanny couldn’t handle challenging behavior or more demanding children without explicitly stating it.
The hiring family had two high-energy, strong-willed children. Within weeks, it became clear the nanny was completely overwhelmed and had no effective strategies for managing behavior or maintaining any structure. The previous family had been trying to warn them with that qualifier, but they didn’t recognize it as the red flag it was.
Pay attention to any praise that comes with explanations, conditions, or context that limits its scope. Real endorsements don’t need qualifiers.
Red Flag Four: Inability to Provide Specific Examples
When you ask references for examples of the nanny’s strengths or how they handled specific situations, they should be able to provide concrete instances without much thought. Someone who worked closely with your candidate for months or years will remember specific moments that demonstrated their capabilities or character.
References who respond to requests for examples with generalizations like “Oh, she was always good with that sort of thing” or “I’m sure she handled it fine” or “She seemed to do okay with whatever came up” are avoiding giving you real information. Either they didn’t pay enough attention to the nanny’s work to remember specifics, which raises its own concerns, or they’re trying to avoid describing situations that wouldn’t reflect well on the candidate.
Strong references naturally include examples because they remember the nanny’s impact on their family. They’ll tell you about the time the nanny handled a medical emergency calmly, or how she helped their child overcome separation anxiety, or specific ways she went above and beyond expectations. These stories come readily because the experiences were meaningful and memorable.
One family asked a reference how the nanny handled conflicts between siblings. The reference said “Fine, I think. She dealt with those kinds of things.” When pressed for an example, the reference couldn’t provide one and quickly changed the subject. That vagueness was covering for the fact that the nanny generally avoided intervening in conflicts and let the children sort things out themselves, even when intervention was clearly needed.
The hiring family learned this the hard way when their children’s fighting escalated significantly under the new nanny’s care because she used the same hands-off approach. The previous employer’s inability to provide examples during the reference check was their way of not saying directly that conflict management wasn’t the nanny’s strength.
If you’re asking reasonable questions about relevant situations and getting vague, general responses instead of specific examples, that’s a clear signal to dig deeper or move on to other candidates.
Red Flag Five: Overexplaining Why the Relationship Ended
References who spend significant time explaining why the employment relationship ended, especially if the explanation seems overly detailed or defensive, are often signaling that the ending wasn’t as clean or mutual as the candidate claimed.
When nannies leave jobs on genuinely good terms for legitimate reasons like family relocation, schedule incompatibility, or career changes, previous employers explain this briefly and matter-of-factly before moving on to discuss the nanny’s work. They don’t dwell on it, justify it, or provide elaborate context.
But when references spend substantial time explaining the circumstances of the nanny’s departure, describing it in careful detail, or emphasizing that it wasn’t the nanny’s fault, they’re usually trying to explain away a termination or problematic ending without directly contradicting whatever story the candidate told you.
Variations of this appear constantly. The reference says things like “Well, we had to make some changes to our household structure” or “Our needs evolved in ways that didn’t match her skillset” or “We decided to go in a different direction with childcare.” These are all ways of saying they let the nanny go without explicitly saying it.
One Seattle family hired a nanny whose reference spent nearly five minutes explaining that they’d decided to put their children in preschool full-time and didn’t need as many hours, so the nanny needed to find a full-time position elsewhere. It sounded reasonable until the family later discovered through mutual connections that the real story was the nanny had been late consistently and the previous family had asked her to leave.
The elaborate explanation about preschool and changing needs was the reference’s way of avoiding saying directly that they’d terminated employment due to performance issues. The family missed the red flag because they accepted the detailed story at face value instead of recognizing that good endings don’t require that much explanation.
When references volunteer extensive detail about why the employment ended before you even ask, or when you ask about the ending and get a long, complicated explanation, be skeptical. Good departures are straightforward and don’t require elaborate justification.
What These Red Flags Actually Tell You
These patterns don’t necessarily mean the candidate is dishonest or terrible at their job. What they consistently indicate is that the previous employment relationship wasn’t as positive as the candidate portrayed it, and there are concerns the reference either can’t or won’t articulate directly.
Some references worry about legal liability for providing negative information. Others just don’t want to feel responsible for preventing someone from getting work. Many try to split the difference by being technically positive while including signals that careful listeners will recognize as warnings.
Your job during reference checks isn’t just to confirm the candidate worked where they said they worked and wasn’t openly terrible. It’s to listen for what’s not being said, recognize patterns that indicate concerns, and probe areas where you sense hesitation or vagueness.
These five red flags appear consistently across thousands of reference checks, and they predict future problems with remarkable reliability. Families who ignore them because they like the candidate, need to hire quickly, or don’t want to start the search over almost always regret that decision within weeks or months.
Conducting Reference Checks That Actually Reveal Truth
Understanding these red flags is only useful if you’re conducting thorough reference checks in the first place. This means speaking directly with previous employers on the phone, not relying on written references or text-based communication where tone and hesitation aren’t detectable.
It means asking specific questions about reliability, judgment, communication style, how the nanny handled challenges, and why the employment ended. It means listening for enthusiasm and specificity rather than just accepting technically positive statements as endorsements.
Most importantly, it means being willing to walk away from candidates whose references raise these red flags, even if you’re under time pressure or really like the person. The discomfort of extending your search is nothing compared to the disruption and stress of hiring someone whose previous employers tried to warn you about.
The Seaside Nannies Perspective
At Seaside Nannies, we’ve conducted tens of thousands of reference checks over twenty years. We know exactly what these red flags sound like, and we don’t move forward with candidates whose references exhibit these patterns, regardless of how impressive they are on paper or in interviews.
We tailor-fit every placement, which includes thorough vetting that goes beyond surface-level reference checks. Never automated, never one-size-fits-all. We probe until we understand the real story, and we turn away 95% of applicants when their references reveal concerns that predict future problems.
The truth is usually there in reference conversations if you know how to listen for it. Hesitation, vagueness, qualifiers, lack of examples, and overexplanation about endings are all clear signals that something isn’t right. Trust those signals and keep looking. The right candidate will have references who are enthusiastically straightforward about their excellence, not carefully diplomatic about their adequacy.
