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

[KungFuPanda]

I'm not getting the leap to 'slavery'. She was helping a SAHM. Room and board in exchange for helping w/the kids and some housework. It doesn't say she was paid, but doesn't say she *wasn't* either.

I'm sorry. I thought that the room and board WAS her pay. It just did t feel right to me.

[Seasider]

I'm sorry. I thought that the room and board WAS her pay. It just did t feel right to me.

I understood you as leaning facetiously, but making a good point. The homeowners made a bad hiring decision, it's no surprise there are consequences. Just bizarre ones. At least she hasn't harmed the kids.

[Impish]

I'm sorry. I thought that the room and board WAS her pay. It just did t feel right to me.

The article doesn't say one way or another, if it was only room and board, or she was also paid.

 

But, as someone else pointed out, it would also depend on what the 'room and board' were valued at (market pricing) and how many hrs she was actually 'working'.

 

The article is vague on many points.

 

Regardless, the idea that a homeowner is at the mercy of a former employee who refuses to leave their home is simply disgusting and shocking to me.

[Impish]

I understood you as leaning facetiously, but making a good point. The homeowners made a bad hiring decision, it's no surprise there are consequences. Just bizarre ones. At least she hasn't harmed the kids.

Yet.

She doesn't seem the most stable puppy in the litter.

[Seasider]

Yet.

She doesn't seem the most stable puppy in the litter.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned in an earlier post that if it were my family, I'd get the kids elsewhere.

 

One of our older family members had a friend who'd come "to stay a while." This friend gave off the vibe that she was putting down roots (homesteading, my brother called it). If the older person were to pass away and this friend had established a form of residency, the estate could have gotten messy. All is well now, another family member stepped in and let the friend know he saw what was happening. She moved on pretty quickly. I could almost imagine her doing something like the nanny in the article.

[Grover]

On the not paid thing - as kids we had a lady live with us.  Instead of paying my parents board she got her room and food for free and helped out with housework/cooking and looking after us (my sister and I).  She picked us up from school a couple of times a week and I think looked after us one or two afternoons a week + helped out with us when my mum (a dressmaker) was working at home.  Looking back, I think she was getting out of a marriage and needed a place to get back on her feet, but at the time she was just Mrs X who was in charge when mum wasn't.  I think she was with us for a year or maybe a little less.  As far as I'm aware it was a mutually agreeable arrangement. 

[readinmom]

Wow...this is just one city over from us.  Stupid people...a verbal agreement.  California's laws are wacky about this sort of thing.  It will probably be dragged out. 

 

Time to start loud music lessons, outrageous noisy nightly ceremonies, padlock the fridge, invite every relative you know to come and live with you...

[Mrs Mungo]

Yeah, that's why I mentioned in an earlier post that if it were my family, I'd get the kids elsewhere.

One of our older family members had a friend who'd come "to stay a while."

My sister recently had an old friend call her because he needed a place to stay. He had already been formally evicted from someone else's house (maybe his grandparents?), so she said absolutely not. People need to realize that it can be hard to get someone out of your house once they are staying there.

[Tap]

She is really cunning!  Claiming elder abuse it really quite brilliant.  It prevents them from doing anything to make her uncomfortable or affecting her basic needs.  Turning off AC could be fatal.  Taking away food...fatal.  Barking dog....heart attack from stress....fatal.  Pretty much anything they could do to her, is abusive if spun the right way.

 

I know a lot of people hire live in help for short and long term needs, and room/board is often included for a significant portion of the pay, so it isn't necessarily an unequal partnership. 

 

I think I would look into if they could turn the tables and accuse her of child abuse since she didn't provide the basic needs for the children when she was responsible for them.  

[Reefgazer]

I'm not sure of this, but I bet this law was originally intended to prevent a man who has only his name on the deed of his house from tossing out a wife he decided he wants to discard.

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.

 

[Kathryn]

Although did they give her time to move out? I mean you can't just fire her and expect that she has a place to go TODAY or even TOMORROW.

I think the article said they talked to her multiple times trying to get her to do the job again and when she refused, tried to give her 30 days notice to move out which she also refused.

[Pink and Green Mom]

While I think this "nanny" is nuts, I am curious to hear the other side of the story as well.  I just have this feeling that the hiring family is not completely on the up and up.

[Amira]

Room and board certainly can be part of the pay for a live-in nanny, but it likely won't meet minimum wage requirements even if the agreement is mutual. It doesn't mean that anytime someone sets up a mutual agreement like this that it's always wrong, but it won't have any legal backing if something doesn't work out. And sometimes you really need some legal backing.

[Laurie4b]

Send in the bedbugs...

 

That's funny! Only realistically, they are landlords and would have to take care of it.

[Laurie4b]

While I think this "nanny" is nuts, I am curious to hear the other side of the story as well.  I just have this feeling that the hiring family is not completely on the up and up.

 

Normally, yes, but when I read she's filed 36 lawsuits, no. Some things are, in reality, one-sided.

[Impish]

That's true.  We have not really heard her side of the story.

Considering her habit of filing lawsuits, I don't think there's anything she has to add that would have any reasonable validity.

 

I mean, I don't see how anyone could justify this one.

 

"Yeah, they tried to fire me. And gave me 30 days notice. *shrug* I didn't wanna move."

 

There's really no reason I can think of that would make me go, "Oh, ok, yeah, I see why now..."

[Word Nerd]

Normally, yes, but when I read she's filed 36 lawsuits, no. Some things are, in reality, one-sided.

 

I agree. I don't think the side of a woman on her state's Vexatious Litigant List is some great mystery, and I don't think it's unreasonable to assume her motives here are also suspect. I also don't think the parents have painted themselves in a glowing light while sharing their story. 

[shawthorne44]

Room and board certainly can be part of the pay for a live-in nanny, but it likely won't meet minimum wage requirements even if the agreement is mutual. It doesn't mean that anytime someone sets up a mutual agreement like this that it's always wrong, but it won't have any legal backing if something doesn't work out. And sometimes you really need some legal backing.

 

It could if they weren't expecting much.  The mom was a SAHM and it sounded like she wanted more of a helper than a Nanny.  Generally, a Live-in Nanny works full-time+ because both parents work.  But, that wasn't the case here.  

[Amira]

Obviously we don't know all the details, but I think it's rather unfair even in this circumstance to not give her any money above and beyond room and board.  People have expenses outside of that and if she is expected to be there most of the time she doesn't even have the opportunity to earn income otherwise.

 

Yes.  Even if a live-in nanny isn't actually working a lot of hours, she still can be highly restricted with what she's able to do.  Live-in nannies should be paid for any time that they're expected to be home and on-call, even if they're not actually doing anything for the family during all those hours.  

[bolt.]

Considering her habit of filing lawsuits, I don't think there's anything she has to add that would have any reasonable validity.

 

I mean, I don't see how anyone could justify this one.

 

"Yeah, they tried to fire me. And gave me 30 days notice. *shrug* I didn't wanna move."

 

There's really no reason I can think of that would make me go, "Oh, ok, yeah, I see why now..."

How about,

 

"I'm a sweet elderly lady, and I moved in with a family. They needed help with the kids, and I love them so much. I had a flare up of my chronic health condition, and so I couldn't be as helpful as I wanted to be. They complained and complained, but I can't fix my lungs. They heal best when I just rest for a short time. So, because I got sick, now they want to fire me and evict me.

 

As my employers, they can't fire me just for being sick: the law grants me sick leave before they have any recourse to actually dismiss me.

 

As my landlords, I am entitled to 60 (possibly even 90) days before I can be legally evicted. I need to find a new place! Why do they want me to be homeless? I know I can't do my work, but the law protects me from the workhouse-like measures my employers are trying to intimidate me into accepting. I don't deserve to be tossed out into the street (on illegally short notice) just for getting sick on the job."

[vonfirmath]

As my landlords, I am entitled to 60 (possibly even 90) days before I can be legally evicted. I need to find a new place! Why do they want me to be homeless? I know I can't do my work, but the law protects me from the workhouse-like measures my employers are trying to intimidate me into accepting. I don't deserve to be tossed out into the street (on illegally short notice) just for getting sick on the job."

 

At the federal level, you don't get long term job protection when you are sick until you've been on the job for 1 whole year.  Is it different in California.

 

From what I am reading, in California, if you have lived in the house less than 1 year, 30 days is sufficient. they need 60 days notice once a person has lived there more than 1 year.

[bolt.]

At the federal level, you don't get long term job protection when you are sick until you've been on the job for 1 whole year. Is it different in California.

 

From what I am reading, in California, if you have lived in the house less than 1 year, 30 days is sufficient. they need 60 days notice once a person has lived there more than 1 year.

Good to know the specifics. I just wanted to kind of cast the narrative that could be felt by "sick old nanny, homeless in 30 days, so sad!" -- If the story had been told another way, many of us would have more readily identified with someone loosing both job and home in such a way.

[Tammyla]

The family tried to give her a formal 30 day notice twice, but she refused to sign...  Wow, it feels wrong to have a unrelated/unwanted adult living free at your expense. 

 

As another poster mentioned, I now have a better understanding (shock :confused1: ) of how some parents or relatives have moochers living off them and literally can't do anything about it.   (I get the path of taking them to court, but wow...I've always thought your home was your castle etc.)

 

The family needs to get an attorney asap.  I don't think with the elder care liability claim, that they can with hold food, scare or turn off utilities etc... 

[FriedClams]

I wouldn't find a nanny on Craigslist and then ask them to move into my home. Wow. The nanny is a nut but it seems like the parents weren't too serious about the vetting process.

[Impish]

How about,

 

"I'm a sweet elderly lady, and I moved in with a family. They needed help with the kids, and I love them so much. I had a flare up of my chronic health condition, and so I couldn't be as helpful as I wanted to be. They complained and complained, but I can't fix my lungs. They heal best when I just rest for a short time. So, because I got sick, now they want to fire me and evict me.

 

As my employers, they can't fire me just for being sick: the law grants me sick leave before they have any recourse to actually dismiss me.

 

As my landlords, I am entitled to 60 (possibly even 90) days before I can be legally evicted. I need to find a new place! Why do they want me to be homeless? I know I can't do my work, but the law protects me from the workhouse-like measures my employers are trying to intimidate me into accepting. I don't deserve to be tossed out into the street (on illegally short notice) just for getting sick on the job."

Well, see, that would beg several questions:

How long were you employed? Oh. A month. FAIL. That immediately calls the 'I love them so much' as a lie. Also, someone that is employed for that short a period of time is not entitled to any sort of job protection here, excluding a work place injury.

 

Second, did the family know about your chronic health condition, and that it could render you incapable of performing the duties for which you were hired? FAIL. I understand not discriminating on the basis of disability, but if you can't do the job you're hired for, you can't do the job. That's not discrimination, that's fact.

 

Third: They attempted to serve you proper legal notice. FAIL

 

Fourth: You've been involved w/HOW many lawsuits? FAIL. That makes everything she say suspect, imo.

[vonfirmath]

I wouldn't find a nanny on Craigslist and then ask them to move into my home. Wow. The nanny is a nut but it seems like the parents weren't too serious about the vetting process.

 

You can find childcare on Craigslist and still be serious about the vetting process.  ITs what you do after making first contact that makes a difference.

 

Checking references, etc.

[Word Nerd]

Good to know the specifics. I just wanted to kind of cast the narrative that could be felt by "sick old nanny, homeless in 30 days, so sad!" -- If the story had been told another way, many of us would have more readily identified with someone loosing both job and home in such a way.

 

I'm sure someone with a personality disorder could recast the narrative to make herself look like a victim—and I wouldn't at all be surprised if this squatter has one. In any case, as yet she has not agreed to be interviewed, though many media outlets have indicated that they attempted to talk to her.

[JustEm]

We were going to do something very similar with a friend of mine.her expensive lease was up in may and she wanted to find a cheaper place so she could start seriously saving money because her car is on its last leg. We came up with an agreement that she could live with us if she either paid X amount of dollars in rent a month or did the equivalent amount of babysitting/housework. She could pick and choose month by month if she'd pay or work. It was a sweet deal for both of us. In the end it never happened because the commute to work from my house would run the car down too quickly so she moved in with her boyfriend and they commute together.

 

If I had another friend or family member I trusted and knew would stick to the agreement and needed a place to stay I would do it. But never a stranger.

[Um_2_4]

I'm sure someone with a personality disorder could recast the narrative to make herself look like a victim—and I wouldn't at all be surprised if this squatter has one. In any case, as yet she has not agreed to be interviewed, though many media outlets have indicated that they attempted to talk to her.

 

With all her "legal experience" :glare:  I'm sure someone told her not to do any media interviews. Plus that might require she step out of the house.

 

Remember this is individuals hiring another individual for household help (or actually bartering, which still should have been written out), not a corporation. While they should have done extensive background checks/check references, etc., I don't think the same employment regulations hold (even here in CA). As I recall even companies with less than 10 employees have different standards for employment (holding jobs,sick leave, etc, etc.)

 

A room to rent (no food) in that area runs $500-1000 just fyi (and in their area I think it would be closer to $1000.)

 

Where the pickle comes in is that she is basically a tenant. She is not "paying" her rent (providing services in lieu of hard cash), so they can evict her, just takes a while.

[Seasider]

The homeowners apparently have attempted to personally present her with paperwork which she's refused to sign for/accept. They need a lawyer who will arrange for an official process server to handle this.

 

As far as the nanny's medical claims, if she expects that claim to hold water, she needs to be able to produce verifiable medical records.

[FriedClams]

I can't believe they didn't consult a lawyer first an have her served. Obviously things went south very fast and they should have known better. At the very least send her the paperwork rerun receipt - or more reasonably would be to have a lawyer serve her the papers. Being "nice" to people without boundaries is a waste of nice.

[katilac]

How about,

 

"I'm a sweet elderly lady, and I moved in with a family. They needed help with the kids, and I love them so much. I had a flare up of my chronic health condition, and so I couldn't be as helpful as I wanted to be. They complained and complained, but I can't fix my lungs. They heal best when I just rest for a short time. So, because I got sick, now they want to fire me and evict me.

 

As my employers, they can't fire me just for being sick: the law grants me sick leave before they have any recourse to actually dismiss me.

 

As my landlords, I am entitled to 60 (possibly even 90) days before I can be legally evicted. I need to find a new place! Why do they want me to be homeless? I know I can't do my work, but the law protects me from the workhouse-like measures my employers are trying to intimidate me into accepting. I don't deserve to be tossed out into the street (on illegally short notice) just for getting sick on the job."

 

Nope. Sorry, lots and lots of jobs don't provide sick days, and 30 days of free rent is more than reasonable. 

 

I think the family was dumb for not vetting her further than they did, but nowhere in the article did I get the impression that she was expected to be there all the time, or do an unreasonable amount of work, or that they lied to her about what was expected. 

[Impish]

The homeowners apparently have attempted to personally present her with paperwork which she's refused to sign for/accept. They need a lawyer who will arrange for an official process server to handle this.

 

As far as the Nancy's medical claims, if she expects that claim to hold water, she needs to be able to produce verifiable medical records.

Maybe I'm missing a step (entirely plausible) but I don't see what her health issues would have to do w/the situation. If anything, I'd think it would strengthen their right to dismiss her, as she's obviously unfit for the duties of the job, AND took the job under fraudulent circumstances (they didn't know her health issues).

[Cinder]

Wow. Just wow. Just crazy wow.

[La Texican]

There has to be something like social services they can contact and say, "there's this old lady. She can't take care of herself." Have her put in an old folks home. Then it's not elder abuse. The elderly who can not take care of themselves become a dependant of somebody legally, right?

[Seasider]

Maybe I'm missing a step (entirely plausible) but I don't see what her health issues would have to do w/the situation. If anything, I'd think it would strengthen their right to dismiss her, as she's obviously unfit for the duties of the job, AND took the job under fraudulent circumstances (they didn't know her health issues).

Again, I'm with you - my point being that she likely doesn't have any paperwork to substantiate the medical claims and is just adding it to the "woe is me" position that bolt suggested above.

 

Aaaaaand, we're back to...terrible hiring decision.

[Impish]

Again, I'm with you - my point being that she likely doesn't have any paperwork to substantiate the medical claims and is just adding it to the "woe is me" position that bolt suggested above.

 

Aaaaaand, we're back to...terrible hiring decision.

Unfortunately, loads of folks are dishonest during the hiring process.

 

I even had vocational counsellors encourage me to hide my disability from prospective employers. I asked how that would work, since as soon as they go to shake hands, it would be obvious there was an issue...they had no answer.

[Seasider]

Unfortunately, loads of folks are dishonest during the hiring process.

 

I even had vocational counsellors encourage me to hide my disability from prospective employers. I asked how that would work, since as soon as they go to shake hands, it would be obvious there was an issue...they had no answer.

I'm pretty sure a good hiring process in this case would have turned up 36 prior lawsuits (probably rendering the medical issue moot).

[trulycrabby]

What a mess! If one good things comes out of this, it's that her face and name will likely be recognizable and she won't be able to easily move onto the next victim.

[Impish]

I'm pretty sure a good hiring process in this case would have turned up 36 prior lawsuits (probably rendering the medical issue moot).

I don't know.

 

When I had a licenced dayhome, I had a criminal check done, and a CPS/vulnerable persons check as well (it was repeated to work in a long term care facility)

 

I don't think either would've uncovered civil matters.

[Lanny]

I believe the family will be able, eventually, to have her move(d) from their house. I also believe this is going to cost the family  plenty of money, because this involves Tax Evasion. They will need to pay back taxes and penalties, to the I.R.S., D.O.L. etc. and also to the appropriate State of California agencies. If the family had kept a low profile, they would probably have a better outcome than they have at this time. They need a highly experienced Tax Attorney to represent them.

[poppy]

I wouldn't judge to harshly. They're not the first family to fall for  a con artist.

[TranquilMind]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-stumped-fired-live-nanny-leave/story?id=24316229

 

This is preposterous! I think I'd have to get creative on how to get this woman out of my home.

I read it.

 

They are going to have to evict her through the court system.  It is going to get ugly.

 

They should have screened her well.  NO ONE gets housed before criminal history, employment, credit, and landlord checks are completed and acceptable. 

[TranquilMind]

I'm pretty sure a good hiring process in this case would have turned up 36 prior lawsuits (probably rendering the medical issue moot).

Yep.

[Leav97]

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.

 

That would violate tennet law and you would end up owing her a ton of money.  Might as well hand over the keys and title to the house.

[Tenaj]

I believe the family will be able, eventually, to have her move(d) from their house. I also believe this is going to cost the family  plenty of money, because this involves Tax Evasion. They will need to pay back taxes and penalties, to the I.R.S., D.O.L. etc. and also to the appropriate State of California agencies. If the family had kept a low profile, they would probably have a better outcome than they have at this time. They need a highly experienced Tax Attorney to represent them.

 

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.  

[Word Nerd]

I believe the family will be able, eventually, to have her move(d) from their house. I also believe this is going to cost the family plenty of money, because this involves Tax Evasion. They will need to pay back taxes and penalties, to the I.R.S., D.O.L. etc. and also to the appropriate State of California agencies. If the family had kept a low profile, they would probably have a better outcome than they have at this time. They need a highly experienced Tax Attorney to represent them.

How do you know that it involves tax evasion?

[Trish]

That's funny! Only realistically, they are landlords and would have to take care of it.

 

Actually I thought bedbugs aren't technically a health issue.

 

Along with lice.

 

Send those in next!

[JonesinIndiana]

The home owners could have their house tented for termites. :D She can't stay during tenting because they pump poisonous gas killing all the bugs. I'm not sure if California has issues with termites but it would be worth a shot. I've got a few wings for proof if they need it. ;)

[Word Nerd]

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