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

[trulycrabby]

The nanny apparently left the house without her belongings yesterday morning and has not returned yet.

Change the locks! I know they can't, but it's fun to think about. :o

[creekland]

The nanny apparently left the house without her belongings yesterday morning and has not returned yet.

 

I wonder if she's realized she has issues of some sort - and if so - if she's getting help.  I doubt it, to be honest.

 

It's good that she's out (perhaps temporarily), but with all the publicity she wasn't expecting, I'd be wondering just where she went and if she's safe, esp with the thought that there are issues she's likely dealing with.

 

[Lanny]

I'm not sure how you made this jump based on the linked article.  Just because it was a bartering situation does not necessarily mean that there was tax evasion.  They may have been filing all the appropriate forms.  

 

I believe what happened violated a number of Federal and State Laws. Wage and Hours. Unemployment Compensation. Workman's Compensation. Federal and State Income Tax. Social Security, etc.  I believe that if one enters into an arrangement with a Nanny, one must comply with all Federal and State laws that are applicable.  I know someone  (she is a Chemical Engineering graduate)  who worked as a Nanny in the USA. I'm believe the agency she worked with complied with those laws.

[Lanny]

How do you know that it involves tax evasion?

 

I believe what happened violated a number of Federal and State Laws. Wage and Hours. Unemployment Compensation. Workman's Compensation. Federal and State Income Tax. Social Security, Disability coverage, etc.  I believe that if one enters into an arrangement with a Nanny, one must comply with all Federal and State laws that are applicable.  I do not believe the services the family thought they would receive, in exchange for Room and Board, would be considered legal, by the appropriate Federal and State agencies.

[Miss Peregrine]

The husband and wife have public FB pages. They have more info there.

[momacacia]

She's gone! Gotta love the power of smattering someone's face all over the internet! Lol. I wonder what really got her to go and whether they can dump her stuff and keep her out. How long she legal has to be gone to keep her out, etc.

[Word Nerd]

I wonder if she's realized she has issues of some sort - and if so - if she's getting help. I doubt it, to be honest.

 

She's trying to get help all right but not for her own issues. A news team spotted her outside a police station.

[creekland]

She's trying to get help all right but not for her own issues. A news team spotted her outside a police station.

 

Why am I not surprised by this? (sigh)  Poor police officers...

 

[Kathryn]

The husband and wife have public FB pages. They have more info there.

One of the wife's posts says the lawsuits don't show up on a background check, so maybe they did do one.

[Murphy101]

There's nothing illegal about trading room and board for services if both parties agree with it. There's no legal requirement to have a contract or a certain wage agreed to. And usually people treat each other ethically about it. It's just really really stupid to not do it because it opens a whole mess of potential legal issues for both parties. Especially between strangers.

[Amira]

The agreement of both parties doesn't necessarily make anything legal.  If I'm a landlord and write in provisions into the lease that aren't legal, it doesn't matter of the tenant accepts those provisions or not- they're illegal, no matter what.  It doesn't matter if both sides here agreed to trade room and board; the law requires that nannies are paid minimum wage and CA requires overtime, if applicable.

 

Maybe the room and board covered that, but that would have meant the nanny wasn't required to work much, and I doubt that was possible with two little children plus a school-age child. 

[Aelwydd]

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

LOL. Maybe they thought they were getting a unicorn. (Ewwwwwww.) Instead, they got a mule. They probably deserve each other.

 

I pity the children.

[Laurie4b]

I read that what the family did was to invite their friends to camp out in the house as guests. That might have been what drove her out for the time being. I doubt if the fact that she has physically vacated leaving her stuff there changes her legal status. But having friends over seems like a nice, legal solution.

 

I do wonder, as another pp, if the family will end up in tax trouble. The situation sounds like one that could easily have been set up under the table, though it may not have been. But bartering is the same as income unless you are close friends. (ie close friends could swap babysitting for sewing slipcovers. Others would have to show as income the value they got from the bartering.) And the nanny thing is one in which the family is clearly the employer, which probably means they should have been paying SS taxes. With all this publicity, they probably will be checked out by the respective agencies.

[ocelotmom]

The agreement of both parties doesn't necessarily make anything legal.  If I'm a landlord and write in provisions into the lease that aren't legal, it doesn't matter of the tenant accepts those provisions or not- they're illegal, no matter what.  It doesn't matter if both sides here agreed to trade room and board; the law requires that nannies are paid minimum wage and CA requires overtime, if applicable.

 

Maybe the room and board covered that, but that would have meant the nanny wasn't required to work much, and I doubt that was possible with two little children plus a school-age child. 

 

I think I read that the mom is a SAHM, so it's plausible that the nanny wasn't really working that much. 

 

If she was really taking care of 2-3 kids much of the day, 5 days a week, then room and board wouldn't enough. If we assume room and board is worth about $700 a month, that would be approximately 80 hours per month at minimum wage.

[JustEm]

That family better be very smart about how they handle this. They need to put her stuff in storage for a few months in case she comes back looking for it because landlords can't just chuck tenants things if they leave it behind. They need to figure out how to officially evict her before changing locks or figure out how long she needs to be gone before the law determines she's no longer a resident of the house. If they don't do things properly she has grounds to sue them.

[SoCalLynn]

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.

 

I live in Upland, which is inland from the ocean about 40 miles. It is HOT. It's 90 degrees this week. I think turning of the AC is a good idea. ;-)

[Guest]

Just read this:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2673173/Nanny-stayed-familys-home-unwanted-squatter-disappears-couple-fear-legal-woes-continue.html

 

Very interesting, and it does mention that they cannot cut off any services (power, water, etc).

[kiana]

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.

Bagpipes!

[ChristyB in TN]

 I would pay her to leave. Since they didn't hire her and do appropriate contracts, they need to bite the bullet and pay her to leave. Sometimes it has to be done and you mark it up as an education expense since you "got schooled." They could actually hire a lawyer to help them do it so there would be a mediator. She would be more likely to be reasonable if an outsider got involved.

 

[kitten18]

Just read this:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2673173/Nanny-stayed-familys-home-unwanted-squatter-disappears-couple-fear-legal-woes-continue.html

 

Very interesting, and it does mention that they cannot cut off any services (power, water, etc).

Wow, That was by far the most detailed article I've read.

Crazy, just crazy.

[gardenmom5]

Bagpipes!

 

or drums.  electric guitar? with lots of bass?

 

I've read she's disappeared.  has she come back yet or is she still gone?

[Miss Peregrine]

According to the mom's FB page they are homeschoolers.

[poppy]

This story just got a lot sadder: Homeless woman tricks family into hiring her with fake references.

That on top of "family thinks it's OK to hire someone for room and board like a servant" just makes this whole thing unpleasant on all levels.

 

[Pink and Green Mom]

I see from mom's facebook that ABC news now has exclusive access to the family's story.

 

$$$$$$$$$ 

 

I am surprised that I am so surprised.

[Impish]

This story just got a lot sadder: Homeless woman tricks family into hiring her with fake references.

That on top of "family thinks it's OK to hire someone for room and board like a servant" just makes this whole thing unpleasant on all levels.

See, I would think that her blatant deception should absolutely declare any standing null and void.

 

So, the family did due dilligence. They did a background check. They checked references. I worked for head of HR in a non profit, which provided group homes for folks w/special needs.

 

HR didn't do any more checking than these folks did.

 

So, I think they did what they thought was standard. They weren't prepared for someone ready to lie their butt off, and have others back her up.

[poppy]

See, I would think that her blatant deception should absolutely declare any standing null and void.

 

So, the family did due dilligence. They did a background check. They checked references. I worked for head of HR in a non profit, which provided group homes for folks w/special needs.

 

HR didn't do any more checking than these folks did.

 

So, I think they did what they thought was standard. They weren't prepared for someone ready to lie their butt off, and have others back her up.

I agree with that, she conned them.

Them hiring someone for no wages is still pretty gross.

[bolt.]

I'm not seeing the "con" -- does being homeless automatically disqualify you from applying for a job that provides housing? Do homeless people never make reasonable employees? Is that a bit of common knowledge that I'm missing?

 

If I knew a homeless person that I thought would be good at a job (and the job would be a good opportunity) would it be lying for me to provide a reference to that effect?

 

True, she did prove too unstable, or ill (or whatever) to hold the job for long -- but I think it's only a "con" if that was the known intent all along. Which, I suppose it might have been, but if it was, it doesn't sound like the friend knew it. It sounds like the friend thought she would make a good nanny, and get off the street, and back on her feet by taking this job -- and doing it.

[Xuzi]

I see from mom's facebook that ABC news now has exclusive access to the family's story.

 

$$$$$$$$$ 

 

I am surprised that I am so surprised

Considering the legal fees they're likely to rack up cleaning up this mess, I don't blame them for taking the money. It's not like they MADE their story explode in the media the way it did. The majority of local news stories stay local (i.e. don't become cash cows)

[Amira]

I do feel sorry for the family.  They're in a tough situation, and even if they'd done everything right, they still could have gotten into this situation.

 

But I am tired of nannies, babysitters, and other caretakers not being paid legal wages, and that's part of this story too.  Unless the nanny was only expected to be on-call and available for a few hours a day, she was not being paid fairly.  I can't imagine hiring someone as a live-in nanny and only expecting her to be available for 3 hours a day.  I see women getting exploited this way all over the world and I cannot sit quietly when it happens in the US.  

 

 

It's not like they MADE their story explode in the media the way it did. The majority of local news stories stay local (i.e. don't become cash cows)

 

According to the CNN story, the family tried hard to push the story via social media:

 

 

 

While their case moves through the courts, the family has turned to the media for help. "Don't worry -- I will ruin her publicly! But she will NOT take a dime from us!" Marcella Bracamonte wrote on her Facebook page.

 

[Impish]

I'm not seeing the "con" -- does being homeless automatically disqualify you from applying for a job that provides housing? Do homeless people never make reasonable employees? Is that a bit of common knowledge that I'm missing?

 

If I knew a homeless person that I thought would be good at a job (and the job would be a good opportunity) would it be lying for me to provide a reference to that effect?

 

True, she did prove too unstable, or ill (or whatever) to hold the job for long -- but I think it's only a "con" if that was the known intent all along. Which, I suppose it might have been, but if it was, it doesn't sound like the friend knew it. It sounds like the friend thought she would make a good nanny, and get off the street, and back on her feets by taking this job -- and doing it.

I don't see how you can truthfully say that someone that bounces around in their vehicle, hasn't been able to retain either employment or housing, is a stable, dependable employment candidate.

 

Maybe that's unreasonable of me, but that's my thinking on it. And, the references deliberately concealed that issue.

 

How can you possibly give an employment reference for someone when you've never known them to hold any sort of employment? That baffles me.

[bolt.]

I think homeless people can recover, particularly if they gain a good job and housing at the same time.

 

If homeless people are all completely unsuitable to ever get a job, simply because they have been homeless and unable to keep a previous job... How is that supposed to work? Should homeless shelters become permanent housing facilities, since there is no hope of any homeless prtson ever successfully entering the workforce or regaining independence?

 

Most personal references will deliberately present a candidate in a good light, choosing not to reveal unflattering information unless they are asked directly. These weren't employment references: since they obviously weren't her prior employers.

[Impish]

I think homeless people can recover, particularly if they gain a good job and housing at the same time.

 

If homeless people are all completely unsuitable to ever get a job, simply because they have been homeless and unable to keep a previous job... How is that supposed to work? Should homeless shelters become permanent housing facilities, since there is no hope of any homeless prtson ever successfully entering the workforce or regaining independence?

 

Most personal references will deliberately present a candidate in a good light, choosing not to reveal unflattering information unless they are asked directly. These weren't employment references: since they obviously weren't her prior employers.

Like I said, maybe I'm being completely unreasonable, but for someone to work w/a vulnerable population, I would *absolutely* need to see a demonstration of stability and responsibility, and I, personally, would not feel that someone that has both no consistent housing, nor employment, to fit that criteria.

 

It's very job specific, imo. Children. Vulnerable ppl. To me, that has, and should have, a higher standard to meet, b/c of the inherent risks to the ppl being cared for.

 

And if that makes me an unreasonable jerk, to have as a basic hiring requirment a track record of responsibility, consistency, and dependability, then I guess I am.

[ocelotmom]

I do feel sorry for the family.  They're in a tough situation, and even if they'd done everything right, they still could have gotten into this situation.

 

But I am tired of nannies, babysitters, and other caretakers not being paid legal wages, and that's part of this story too.  Unless the nanny was only expected to be on-call and available for a few hours a day, she was not being paid fairly.  I can't imagine hiring someone as a live-in nanny and only expecting her to be available for 3 hours a day.  I see women getting exploited this way all over the world and I cannot sit quietly when it happens in the US.  

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have a friend in a VERY similar situation. Hiring someone as a live-in nanny and only expecting her to be available for 3ish hours a day (and only on weekdays) was exactly what they did. They needed someone to get the kids off to school and watch them for a few hours in the afternoon until one of the parents got home. That was all. They had an extra room, but not a lot of extra money to either pay someone to come in and do this or send the kids to daycare. They did pay above and beyond the room and board for housework, and the nanny had employment outside the house as well.

 

In the media case, the mom is a stay at home parent. It's entirely possible she only needs help a few hours a week so she can go to shopping or get her ME time or whatever. It's possible that, for the amount of work that's being expected of her, room and board is the equivalent of much more than minimum wage, and she has enough time to go find a second job if desired. Or it's possible that they expect her to work a 40 hour week and be effectively on-call at all times and be grateful for it because they're giving her an OPPORTUNITY (With no way to buy essentials or build up savings)! We don't know - the family isn't going to purposefully paint themselves in a negative light, and the nanny isn't talking.

 

I think homeless people can recover, particularly if they gain a good job and housing at the same time.

 

If homeless people are all completely unsuitable to ever get a job, simply because they have been homeless and unable to keep a previous job... How is that supposed to work? Should homeless shelters become permanent housing facilities, since there is no hope of any homeless prtson ever successfully entering the workforce or regaining independence?

 

Most personal references will deliberately present a candidate in a good light, choosing not to reveal unflattering information unless they are asked directly. These weren't employment references: since they obviously weren't her prior employers.

 

Yeah. I've been homeless. It would really suck for my family if I wasn't able to ever be employed because of that, since I'm the primary income!

 

It's certainly not something I'd ever bring up at an interview, even (especially!) if I was homeless at the time.

 

In any case, I think it can be assumed that someone who wants to be a live-in nanny is probably someone who does not have secure permanent housing. 

[Anne in CA]

I once worked with a woman whose place I was taking as she was leaving to be a housekeeper for a wealthy person. She considered the room and board she was getting to be a big part of her salary. Plus, she was going to get to drive his fancy car when he was out of the country, which added up to half the year. With wages she considered that room, board, use of his car made being a housekeeper a forty k job. I am good with that, but I agree with the posters who don't want to see women exploited.

 

A woman I knew from Nepal is doing elderly care in Israel. She is getting $1,600 a month, plus room and board, so she is supporting her family back in Nepal really well, but she sometimes goes three months without a day off. To be fair, the woman she is caring for sleeps more than half the day, but to not leave the house at all for months at a time seems like being exploited too. 

[Um_2_4]

Well out of curiosity I checked about hiring household help in CA (a girl can dream right LOL) anyways... Room and board can be part of the comp. package, but up to about $1600/mo max(based on the calc I found). And min wage here is about $9/hr. My understanding was she was hired kind of as a mother's helper (wouldn't be alone with the kids) etc for a few hours a day.. (We have talked often on here about those). So if she worked full time: 40 hours per week (let's say spread out over the 7 days and she was free to go and come the rest of the time as she pleased) at $9/hour that is $360/week or 1440/mo. About what room and board there would cost (and CA allows them to "charge" for it.) Now probably they needed to file other forms etc f or the tax board.