殷红艳
1.6
雇主评价3
殷红艳
1.6
基本信息
服务地区
美国
雇主评价
1.6
最近2年3条雇主评价
2周前·LOS ANGELES, CA
月嫂 / 导乐避雷｜殷红艳（英文名 Sophie Yin）
后悔没早看到下述之前宝妈的评价，与我们的体验有相似之处。
提前解约后，至今欠款共计 1098 美金（包含：未退还未服务预付款 + 为其代购产品的垫付款）
殷红艳（Sophie Yin）面试时表现很好，但实际入户服务 17 天后，我们因多项服务与职业规范问题决定提前终止合作。我们曾在合理沟通下提出：给予 1–2 天离职/交接的带薪缓冲，并按未服务部分+产品代购垫付款退还预付款；对方拒绝配合，并在沟通中提及“报警/找律师”等说法。我们于2025年12月15日提出退款方案，截至目前仍未退还款项 1098 美金（有转账记录与代购凭证）。
以下为我们在其上工 17 天内的主要事实记录（供其他家庭参考）：
1）新生儿吐奶/胀气护理与判断与期待不符
• 在其护理期间宝宝吐奶量大且频繁，对方反复称“非常正常”。在其护理期间胀气很严重。
• 我们接手后按更细致的喂养与拍嗝方式执行，吐奶频次与吐奶量明显下降（约减少 3/4）；胀气症状也明显缓解，频次显著下降。
• 我们认为其在护理细节与观察判断上与我们对专业判断/护理标准的期待不符，对我们的反馈未给出有效调整。
2）月子餐与物资管理差：浪费 + 多日存放
• 面试称“很会规划、基本不浪费”，但实际出现采购/计划/沟通多次不到位，我们按采购记录估算优质食材浪费超过 100 美金（羊肉、牛肉等）。
• 多次把饭菜一次做很多、存放多天（例如：炒饭/松茸饭存放 3 天、土豆牛肉 4 天、粥 3 天、蔬菜 3 天等），影响新鲜度，也造成浪费与不适。
3）工作态度问题：玩手机多、工作敷衍、沟通后未见改进
• 我们明确反馈餐食与浪费问题后，并未立刻辞退，而是尝试调整其工作内容为护理教学；但其仍出现频繁玩手机、教学不上心等情况。
• 沟通中接受度低，习惯性把问题推回给雇主，存在明显态度问题。
4）边界感不足、对家庭条件与规则抱怨/不配合
• 曾对家庭条件（如厕所小、楼下施工噪音等）进行抱怨与对比。用其他雇主家庭条件进行对比并表达不满。
• 对我们明确交代的家规与设备使用方式多次不按要求执行（含洗碗机不可未排水前不当打开洗碗机门等），在多次提醒仍不改正操作后设备出现异常，我们不得额外处理/联系排查机器故障，造成额外时间消耗。
5）表述和执行不一致，工作懒散，习惯性撇开责任
• 实操中出现在已有母乳储备时，仍多次图省事不温奶等情况，影响体验与信任。
• 沟通中多次将问题归因于宝宝/家属，否认护理环节需要调整，缺少具体改进措施。
• 对奶量的判断和自己的宣传前后不一致。
6）基础卫生与职业规范红线
• 出现过个人衣物与宝宝衣物混洗的情况。新生儿家庭对此非常敏感，我们认为属于基本规范未遵守。
我们认为专业月嫂 / 导乐应满足的底线（本次未达到）
• 面试承诺与实际执行一致
• 严格遵守新生儿护理与卫生规范
• 态度主动认真、不敷衍
• 服务意识、边界感与沟通方式职业化
• 财务结算清晰、按约退款
结论：服务不符合基本标准，不推荐。
本记录为我们家庭真实经历存档，希望帮助宝妈宝爸避坑+鼓励月嫂/导乐行业优胜劣汰。
Confinement Nanny / Doula Warning | Yin Hongyan (English name: Sophie Yin)
I regret not seeing earlier reviews from other moms; our experience was similar in many ways.
After we ended the arrangement early, an outstanding balance of USD 1,098 remains unpaid (including: the unrefunded portion of prepaid fees for services not rendered + out-of-pocket reimbursement for items we purchased on her behalf).
Yin Hongyan (Sophie Yin) performed well during the interview, but after 17 days of in-home service, we decided to terminate early due to multiple service-quality and professional-conduct issues. We proposed a reasonable solution: 1–2 paid days for transition/handover, and a refund for the unused service period plus reimbursement for the purchase advances. She refused to cooperate and mentioned “calling the police” and “hiring a lawyer” during discussions. We presented a refund/settlement plan on December 15, 2025. As of now, USD 1,098 has still not been refunded/paid (we have bank transfer records and purchase receipts).
Below is a factual summary of what occurred during the 17 days she worked with our family (for other families’ reference):
1) Newborn spit-up / gas care and assessment did not meet expectations
• During her care, the baby had frequent and large-volume spit-ups, which she repeatedly described as “completely normal.” The baby also had severe gas during that period.
• After we took over and implemented more careful feeding and burping practices, the frequency and volume of spit-up decreased significantly (by roughly 3/4); gas symptoms also improved substantially, with a clear drop in frequency.
• In our view, her attention to care details and observational judgment did not align with our expectations for professional newborn care, and she did not make effective adjustments after receiving feedback.
2) Postpartum meals and supplies management: waste + storing food for multiple days
• In the interview, she claimed she was “good at planning and wastes almost nothing,” but in practice, purchasing/planning/communication issues occurred repeatedly. Based on our purchase records, we estimate over USD 100 of high-quality ingredients were wasted (e.g., lamb, beef).
• She often cooked large batches and stored meals for multiple days (e.g., fried rice/matsutake rice kept 3 days, potato beef 4 days, porridge 3 days, vegetables 3 days, etc.), affecting freshness and leading to waste and discomfort.
3) Work attitude issues: frequent phone use, perfunctory work, no improvement after communication
• After we clearly communicated concerns about meals and waste, we did not terminate immediately and instead tried shifting her responsibilities to newborn-care teaching; however, she still frequently used her phone and was not attentive in teaching.
• She was not receptive during communication and tended to shift issues back to the employer, showing an obvious attitude problem.
4) Weak boundaries; complaints about household conditions and noncompliance with rules/instructions
• She complained about and compared our household conditions (e.g., small bathroom, construction noise downstairs), expressing dissatisfaction by comparing us with other employers’ homes.
• She repeatedly did not follow our clearly stated household rules and equipment-use instructions (including not opening the dishwasher door before it has drained). After multiple reminders with no correction, the appliance showed abnormal behavior, and we had to spend extra time troubleshooting/arranging checks, resulting in additional time costs.
5) Inconsistent statements vs. actions; lax work style; tendency to deflect responsibility
• Even when we had stored breast milk available, she repeatedly chose not to warm it for convenience, affecting our experience and trust.
• During discussions, she often attributed issues to the baby/family members, denied the need to adjust care practices, and lacked concrete improvement measures.
• Her assessment of milk supply and her own promotional claims were inconsistent over time.
6) Basic hygiene and professional red lines
• She washed her personal clothing together with the baby’s clothing. For a newborn household, this is a serious hygiene concern, and we consider it a failure to follow basic standards.
Our baseline expectations for a professional postpartum nanny / doula (not met in this case)
• Consistency between what is promised in the interview and what is delivered
• Strict adherence to newborn-care and hygiene standards
• Proactive, conscientious attitude (not perfunctory)
• Professional service mindset, boundaries, and communication
• Clear financial settlement and refunds according to agreement
Conclusion: This service did not meet basic standards. We do not recommend.
This record is a factual archive of our family’s experience, intended to help other parents avoid pitfalls and to encourage higher standards in the postpartum nanny/doula industry.
2个月前·MONTEREY PARK, CA
看到这个评论，我们很诧异，殷阿姨是我朋友介绍给我的月嫂，和善亲和，做事条理清晰，月子里把我和宝宝都照顾得特别好。我们全家对她都很满意的[强]这她从9月1—10月下旬一直都在为我们家带刚出生的宝宝。直到她下一家雇主的新生儿出生才离开。因为太想念，在她离开后，我还带着孩子去她户上看望过她，我们有雇佣合同和给殷阿姨的付款凭证，还有她在我家工作期间抱孩子的照片为证。希望nanny网认真核实一下，还给当事人一个清白
4个月前·SAN JOSE, CA
宝妈避雷｜请面试时的“完美”阿姨上门，我却度过了地狱一周
原本以为面试时沟通顺畅、态度亲和的Sophie，能帮我分担带娃压力，没成想上门后完全是“两幅面孔”，这一周的经历让我至今想起来都很糟心。
她每天抱着手机不停刷，很少主动关注孩子的状态，好几次孩子哭闹都要我提醒才起身安抚。更让我无奈的是，她总说自己“能看见特别的东西”，频繁讲些让人摸不着头脑的话，我实在无法理解也难以接受。
相处中，她还会以各种理由暗示要小费，比如“之前雇主都会额外给奖励”，甚至频繁抱怨前雇主的不是，传递的负面情绪让人很压抑。最让我心寒的是，她竟然说我孩子“有病、不好带”，用这种话否定孩子、打击我，那种被PUA的感觉真的太难受了。
作为宝妈，我特别理解大家找阿姨时的焦虑和期待，也不想让更多人经历这种糟心事儿。把这次的真实经历分享出来，希望各位宝妈找阿姨时能多些警惕，多核实、多观察，千万别像我一样踩了坑
