Jump to content

Menu

WWYD? Family's live-in nanny refuses to leave.


Kathryn
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Obviously she has to be evicted according to the landlord-tenant laws (probably more than 30 days)and probably also fired according to employment regulations (probably not for illness).

 

This is why you don't hire people informally, or 'rent' informally. There are laws and standards. That's why there are contracts about these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that earlier and thought it was crazy! I wonder if they could somehow trick her into leaving for bit and then pack her stuff and lock her out.

 

I think I would probably send the kids off to grandma's house or something as well because I would be scared having someone like that sharing space with my children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is near me!!! I knew it was CA when I saw the headline LOL

Yep, 30 days and they are "protected" by tenant laws. That is why most leases I had said any visitor over 2 weeks needed to be added to the lease (so they could approve or deny the request).

Seems she did her job the first period of time to establish residency then quit.

And seriously, no background check???? or maybe they only did a basic one. More extensive ones would check court filings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Background checks are a good thing. Using an agency, also a good thing.

 

I'd be tempted to change the locks, empty the house of food, and send the rest of the family on "vacation" until she leaves the home.

 

More likely, the family should (and probably already has) contacted a lawyer to begin eviction proceedings. I wish them good luck; from what I've heard, California's laws can be a bear to navigate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with bolt. Contracts help.

 

Of course, their arrangement is likely not legal anyway, unless they were expecting very little from the nanny in exchange for room and board. I doubt this agreement follows labor laws, and this family needs the law on their side right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Bracamonte soon realized that this was not Stretton’s first time with legal matters. Stretton reportedly has been involved in 36 lawsuits, landing herself on California’s Vexatious Litigant Lists for repeatedly abusing the legal system.

 

“Anyone who looks at her crooked, she sues,†said Bracamonte.

 

She claims that Stretton is now threatening to sue for wrongful firing and elder abuse.

 

Stretton is still living in the family's home, eating the family's food and Bracamonte said Stretton told her she wanted the family out of the house from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m."

 

I say... she sounds like a winner!  Note to self (and anyone else), always do a background check on people like this BEFORE inviting them into your house - or rental - or anything.

 

I feel for this family...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be illegal for them to change the locks on someone who lives in the house and they would be in a lot of trouble if they did so. However, they should be able to sue her for the food she is stealing and maybe rent depending on the contract they have and the states laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Send in the bedbugs...

 

Bedbugs would be even tougher to get rid of.  I wonder how she feels about snakes... that would get me to leave a place quickly.  Later I'd have to make sure the count out = the count in though.  Youngest would be more than willing to oblige in the task.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if a criminal background check would turn up civil court issues. Nor a CPS check. Anyone know?

 

I'd be locking up every scrap of food. I don't see how, even if she's been granted 'tenants rights' that she is entitled to food.

 

And her demanding they vacate their OWN HOME for 12 hrs a day? IN. Sane.

 

I wouldn't vacate the property though. God only knows the damage she would do, left there unattended, including moving other ppl in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I googled her name and the first link that came up apart from this story is this

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/D062276.PDF

A lawsuit related to her father's estate and it mentions very early on (I only read a couple of pages) that she was declared a vexatious litigant or whatever the term was based in part on her numerous suits related to her parents estates. So, perhaps he could have played that off if they'd found that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, the nanny needs to go.

 

But the family is stupid too. You don't get a professional full time nanny and housekeeper in exchange for room and board and zero wages. This is not Alice and the Bradys people. This sounds to me like a big fat case of "you get what you pay for." They didn't do their due diligence and it sounds like they probably weren't following employment law at all. It sounds like a really loose situation fraught with things that could go wrong.

 

I would so not be having my kids stay there while this is resolved. Hopefully this is a wake up call to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, the nanny needs to go.

 

But the family is stupid too. You don't get a professional full time nanny and housekeeper in exchange for room and board and zero wages. This is not Alice and the Brady's people. This sounds to me like a big fat case of "you get what you pay for." They didn't do their due diligence and it sounds like they probably weren't following employment law at all. It sounds like a really loose situation fraught with things that could go wrong.

 

I would so not be having my kids stay there while this is resolved. Hopefully this is a wake up call to them.

 

the article I read said they found her on Craigslist.  :huh:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if a criminal background check would turn up civil court issues. Nor a CPS check. Anyone know?

 

I'd be locking up every scrap of food. I don't see how, even if she's been granted 'tenants rights' that she is entitled to food.

 

And her demanding they vacate their OWN HOME for 12 hrs a day? IN. Sane.

 

I wouldn't vacate the property though. God only knows the damage she would do, left there unattended, including moving other ppl in.

 

There are types of background checks that will pull any legal matters that the person has been involved(named) in, but the basic one would not (only arrests/convictions).

 

I am pretty sure they could (and I would be) locking up all food and other rooms (besides her bedroom and 1 bathroom). Also wifi/internet/cable would be gone. (Pretty sure they cannot turn of electricity/gas, etc.)

 

They REALLY need an experienced lawyer and hopefully they had a written contract  :huh: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd starve her out.  Turn off the electricity to the house, wipe out the groceries, and eat out for a month.  Camp in a tent in the back yard, and once she left to do food shopping, change the locks and put her crap on the sidewalk.  Let *her* fight to get back in, if she's so litigious.  Probably not legal in crazy California, but I'd do it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would invite friends over and party outside her bedroom, no groceries would be kept in the house ever, and I'd be tempted to get myself a new Rottweiler or Doberman to keep in the house to bark at her every time she moves. It's their home. She cannot stop them from getting a dog. If at all possible, I would make her as miserable as humanly possible while living legally in my home, and possibly I'd decide that my house needed to be treated for mice, or some sort of bug and invite the exterminators to come. She would have to leave, but most certainly they are under no obligation to provide her with a hotel for the duration.

 

More than anything they need the kind of attorney that makes a rabid dog seem friendly because what they've done is incredibly stupid and now they have a rather bad person living in their home with their children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would make it a living hell to live there, doing anything I possibly could within the law.

 

You know there's something wrong with "the law" when a family can't legally just oust someone like this by taking her stuff to the curb and changing the locks - without having to go through legal channels.  They have tried with letters and 30 day periods, etc.  It's not like they just kicked her out without warning on a whim of theirs.

 

They ought to countersue, but I suspect she doesn't have anything of actual value I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously the woman has a screw loose, but I can't bring myself to feel too sorry for the family, either.  (Well, the adults, anyway.)  They wanted to get a nanny and housekeeper under the table and pay her what amounts to less than minimum wage.  Hello, karma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, here you have to pay a live-in nanny. You can arrange to deduct a certain amount for room and board, but you can't just not pay someone for working.

 

It actually kind of bothers me that they say they've done this several times. I'm not sure that's legal. It's not here. She's a loon, but it's unpleasant to think that other people have been working under illegal conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd starve her out. Turn off the electricity to the house, wipe out the groceries, and eat out for a month. Camp in a tent in the back yard, and once she left to do food shopping, change the locks and put her crap on the sidewalk. Let *her* fight to get back in, if she's so litigious. Probably not legal in crazy California, but I'd do it anyway.

I bet this woman knows the system better than most lawyers. She is probably hoping they do what you suggest so she can sue the pants off of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My oldest had a job as a nanny last summer for $100 a week. She did the cooking, cleaning and watched the kids and they fed her, gave her a very small room, and paid her $100 a week. We bought our restaurant and offered her a job waiting tables that would have paid way more than $100 a day during fishing season, that would start when her nanny job was over. Guess what? The $100 a week people begged her not to leave at the time she had planned to leave. They begged her to stay four more weeks. They never gave her any more money, but they guilt-ed her into staying because they needed her so much. Yuck. I am sure these people are similar. If you cannot afford to pay minimum wage for an employee, you do not need the employee. They got caught in a bad scenario, but trying to get something for nothing is a very bad idea. We let one of our best employees leave who wanted to work under the table to get more disability. We decided not to take part in that. You have to own the choices you make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously she has to be evicted according to the landlord-tenant laws (probably more than 30 days)and probably also fired according to employment regulations (probably not for illness).

 

This is why you don't hire people informally, or 'rent' informally. There are laws and standards. That's why there are contracts about these things.

Indeed. They aren't too bright themselves. What person in their right mind would have someone they have no background check and contract or anything on move in and take care of their kids?! That's crazy.

 

That family is in for an expensive and long nightmarish roller last ride down crazy street before this will be resolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is surprisingly hard to get a person who has been living in your home to leave. Even calling the police and them not being on the lease won't do it.

 

I will from now on remember that when I am inclined to be critical of parents of young adults who seem to fail to enforce boundaries with their acting out young adults.

 

I didn't know until I knew; and I hate the way I learned this tidbit of info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would never have hired a live-in nanny off Craigslist and without a significant background check to begin with. But if I were in their position, I would try out some of the many ways to be an obnoxious neighbor, hostess, or landlord that I've learned about on this forum. I would make it as unpleasant a place to live as possible while still being legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

California, right? Turn off the central air:)

Suddenly decide that the family will be Freegans for awhile...family can eat in town.

Adopt or borrow an annoying pet. A large snake that is allowed free roming, or a dog trained to bark at her.

Begin playing loud, incessant music at random times.

Sign the kids up for trumpet and violin lessons. Preferably one of each. Or don't, but purchase the instruments and let them have at it. Bribe them to play if necessary.

Decide major house renovations are in order. Anything that involves banging and sawing.

Restrict parking. Charge for it. Borrow a friends RV if necessary to park in the driveway.

Password protect all Internet, wireless, cable, etc., access. That way family can still use it but nobody else.

Have daily summer playdates with lots of kids and their parents at the house to maximize chaos.

Print thousands of PSA flyers with her picture...nothing libelous or slanderous, just the facts.

And so forth. And change the attitude...this woman is obviously hoping to be paid to leave. Don't feed into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lived in three different places in California and never had AC in my apartments or homes, so I don't think that would work.

 

In Upland? It would work.

 

I mean, I'm sure it's survivable with fans. We've survived 100+ temps with fans. But it isn't pleasant after a certain point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would definitely lockdown all food and would eliminate any access to wireless services (phone, internet, television), even if it meant I had to go without it myself.

 

Since it's summer, I'd see if the kids could stay elsewhere for a while.

 

Aside from that, I'd do my best to make sure all other actions were legally sound. The laws are crazy sometimes; I wouldn't want to take a chance on making the situation worse.

 

Any of you remember that movie, Pacific Heights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does the nanny get off saying she wants the family out of the house between 8am and 8pm? That's so weird... I would definitely not bend to that.

 

Gotta agree with what others have said already - they made a poor hiring decision to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, who would've thought that acquiring slave labor would backfire in some way?

It's not necessarily slave labor.

Say the going rate to let the room w/utilities, cable, and internet is $500/mo, plus meals $300/mo, that's $200/week, so it would be reasonable to expect at $10/hr, 20 hours of work a week.

 

With non crazy person, maybe one on disability or social security so has modest other income and can't do strenuous standard job stuff, a reasonable deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...