Looking for CC host parents that have accepted a rematched au pair

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is pretty deplorable.

So you got a bum au pair that you didn't screen carefully enough (perhaps she wrecked your car? Threw a party in your house?), and your solution is to sue someone...because, there is no way in hell it was your fault for making a bad selection. Right?

I get it.

I hope you spend thousands of dollars on attorneys fees to your personal injury attorneys, and lose.

Responsible people call this a "learning opportunity".

I'm not the OP, but I will say that I personally saw a video of an AP physically abusing children (taken on a nannycam) and know for sure that the agency tried to rematch her. The only reason they did not was because the HF filed charges against her. This is the kind of thing I suspect the OP is trying to fight against.

Really? Which au pair and which agency and when?

I don't doubt that there are occasionally really awful (and true) stories about au pairs doing terrible things. But where is the accountability as the parent? I simply don't believe that a video of physical abuse was shown to an agency and they rematched her anyway. Please prove it. Otherwise, its just another urban legend.

I'm a hostmom. Not an agency. But I think everyone has to understand that the LCCs/Agencies frequently get two very different version of events from the AP and the HF... and its not always the AP who is lying. They really don't know what happens, and they are trying to be fair to both parties. For the HF (and the AP) this is very much a buyer beware process.

I'm the poster who posted that story. I watched the whole thing unfold on a secret FB page for HMs. The HM was freaking out and posted the video for the thousands of us on it to see. It was sickening. I was literally gasping out loud -- the AP kicked one child multiple times, dragged the other across the room, allowed the baby to fall multiple times, etc. It was unbearable to watch. I can't imagine having been the HM in this situation. Anyone on the site then all followed as the agency tried to rematch the AP, and we read the AP's transition document (which is public with this agency). The HM was unsure about whether she would file a police report until she learned that the agency would only remove the AP from rematch if she did. So she filed it.

Another HM caught her AP speeding at 80mph in a residential zone, using a tracker, and told the agency. That AP was also rematched, and there was no warning about her as an insane driver, just that she had received one moving violation.

Anytime a HF mentions to the agency in question that they will not recommend their AP for future placement, the agency then notes that the family has either left the program or is unavailable to be contacted. This is NOT what the families are saying, mind you -- they are simply saying that they will be honest with any family who calls them. But the agency does not want to risk an AP getting a bad recommendation, so they simply say the HF is not available for comment.

There were several months when one of the major agencies had a glitch in its system, and it was very easy (and publicly available) to access the "back notes" about APs. Several HMs - many of us, in fact, made it our practice to compare on our secret FB page the difference between the agency's shared stories about APs and what was in the backnotes. I have been hosting a very long time and continue to host, but after reading what I now know to be true, I do believe the agencies are purposely hiding information from families that would otherwise disqualify APs from placement with children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is pretty deplorable.

So you got a bum au pair that you didn't screen carefully enough (perhaps she wrecked your car? Threw a party in your house?), and your solution is to sue someone...because, there is no way in hell it was your fault for making a bad selection. Right?

I get it.

I hope you spend thousands of dollars on attorneys fees to your personal injury attorneys, and lose.

Responsible people call this a "learning opportunity".

I'm not the OP, but I will say that I personally saw a video of an AP physically abusing children (taken on a nannycam) and know for sure that the agency tried to rematch her. The only reason they did not was because the HF filed charges against her. This is the kind of thing I suspect the OP is trying to fight against.

Really? Which au pair and which agency and when?

I don't doubt that there are occasionally really awful (and true) stories about au pairs doing terrible things. But where is the accountability as the parent? I simply don't believe that a video of physical abuse was shown to an agency and they rematched her anyway. Please prove it. Otherwise, its just another urban legend.

I'm a hostmom. Not an agency. But I think everyone has to understand that the LCCs/Agencies frequently get two very different version of events from the AP and the HF... and its not always the AP who is lying. They really don't know what happens, and they are trying to be fair to both parties. For the HF (and the AP) this is very much a buyer beware process.

I'm the poster who posted that story. I watched the whole thing unfold on a secret FB page for HMs. The HM was freaking out and posted the video for the thousands of us on it to see. It was sickening. I was literally gasping out loud -- the AP kicked one child multiple times, dragged the other across the room, allowed the baby to fall multiple times, etc. It was unbearable to watch. I can't imagine having been the HM in this situation. Anyone on the site then all followed as the agency tried to rematch the AP, and we read the AP's transition document (which is public with this agency). The HM was unsure about whether she would file a police report until she learned that the agency would only remove the AP from rematch if she did. So she filed it.

Another HM caught her AP speeding at 80mph in a residential zone, using a tracker, and told the agency. That AP was also rematched, and there was no warning about her as an insane driver, just that she had received one moving violation.

Anytime a HF mentions to the agency in question that they will not recommend their AP for future placement, the agency then notes that the family has either left the program or is unavailable to be contacted. This is NOT what the families are saying, mind you -- they are simply saying that they will be honest with any family who calls them. But the agency does not want to risk an AP getting a bad recommendation, so they simply say the HF is not available for comment.

There were several months when one of the major agencies had a glitch in its system, and it was very easy (and publicly available) to access the "back notes" about APs. Several HMs - many of us, in fact, made it our practice to compare on our secret FB page the difference between the agency's shared stories about APs and what was in the backnotes. I have been hosting a very long time and continue to host, but after reading what I now know to be true, I do believe the agencies are purposely hiding information from families that would otherwise disqualify APs from placement with children.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have been listening and documenting these stories over the past two weeks. This is systematic and has absolutely nothing to do with the host family. Many of these host families are brand new and not aware of some of these issues. They are very trusting of the agency and thinks they have their best interest at heart. If the agency tells them not to contact the HF, they take them at their word. If the agency explains their version of events, they believe them. Why would an agency lie who's business model is cultural exchange through caring for children right? Wrong! I am ALL about personal responsibility and given all the facts, having transparency, not having information hidden, I will deal with the decision I made all day long. When you lie, manipulate, cheat, and I call you on it and your response is to kick the HF out of the program because the contract says "their sole discretion" we are going to have some push back. I am pretty sure the critic of this would be singing a different tune if their child was injured, the ap drank and drove, the ap suffered a mental condition while at the previous home, the ap showed the HF a ticket where they drove 93 mph in a 55 zone, an ap let a 17 year old take the child from school and lost them for 8 hours...... The list goes on. We are only talking about transparency and that is NOT happening in many of the rematches. FYI, I have two LCC's talking with me and sent proof of what is being claimed in this thread. Their own employees are screaming from the mountaintops this isn't right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have talked with A LOT of host families during this process and the fear of water/non swimmer is now a new one. Crazy!!! Was this a rematch or OOCAP?

In country. But in our situation our LCC was on top of it - and literally removed any holds that we had on crazy rematch candidates. Sorry, cannot help your case - we were a success. Hope to never go through rematch again; for various reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:an ap let a 17 year old take the child from school and lost them for 8 hours......

Now that's a story I want to hear. Especially where a 17 year old, who supposedly owns a cell phone, can get lost for eight hours after school (so until midnight or later).

Whenever I read stories like that I am just so thankful for the kids I ap'd for. Where the oldest, at 13 (!), was quite able to keep his younger siblings safe for an hour or so in the evenings or on weekends (as the official babysitter in charge, not because the AP ran off). Heck, my oldest girl (8 when I was their AP) had a baby at 16 (whole other story), how can a 17 year old not be trusted with a sibling (?). They might have made stupid choices but at least when it came to watching out for each other they could be trusted.

[Anonymous]

Op- Are the families you are representing with specific agencies? Rematch process is different between agencies. Some will allow calling the previous family, some won't. Some will have rematch papers, some won't. I also get the impression that certain agencies have a reputation (and incentive) for being more leneant with keeping au pairs in the country.

[Anonymous]

If the AP was negligent or abusive, then you might have a case OP, but otherwise, I doubt the case will get far.

And to families that suspect child abuse, the answer is not to call the agency and rematch. The answer is to call the police. That's always the answer with suspected child abuse. Don't set up a meeting with the school, the church, the camp director, the placement agency or whatever institution oversees the abuser's role. They are not equipped or empowered to conduct an investigation. The police are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op- Are the families you are representing with specific agencies? Rematch process is different between agencies. Some will allow calling the previous family, some won't. Some will have rematch papers, some won't. I also get the impression that certain agencies have a reputation (and incentive) for being more leneant with keeping au pairs in the country.

We are currently concentrating on CC because that is who I was with. Also, I want to be clear that I don't represent anyone and this is a grassroots campaign. We are concentrating on the fraud by omission portion pertaining to the Mass. consumer protection statute. Breach of contract is in this a little as well and we know they have a pretty rock solid one sided contract. These stories are all the same and everyone had a feeling something was wrong, it just took time for enough families to compare notes and figure out what they are doing. I am actually shocked at the defenders of this practice. They seem to think they know the system better than all the rest of us. BTW, I was with CC for 6 years and hosted exchange students 3 years before that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the AP was negligent or abusive, then you might have a case OP, but otherwise, I doubt the case will get far.

And to families that suspect child abuse, the answer is not to call the agency and rematch. The answer is to call the police. That's always the answer with suspected child abuse. Don't set up a meeting with the school, the church, the camp director, the placement agency or whatever institution oversees the abuser's role. They are not equipped or empowered to conduct an investigation. The police are.

You are 100% correct. If a crime was committed, the police should be contacted immediately.

If the HF had no issues with the AP, we wouldn't be talking. If all the matches were successful, even rematches, we wouldn't be talking. This is not the case. Our claim is CC purposely hides information during the rematch process to match AP's faster and easier for financial gain. It is as simple as that and they seem to be using the same tactics i.e. hiding host family contact information, only allowing contact with LCC, having generic terms in the transition doc's like difference in expectations.

I think one of the best ways to describe this is a cake analogy. We feel CC is telling about the icing on the cake in the transition doc's but not telling you about the cake. The final icing was what led to the decision to finally rematch but the cake is everything that happened to get to that point. Most HF's try to work through these issues and it comes to a point where they have to throw in the towel.

[Anonymous]

And it goes both ways. Agencies don't tell APs about crappy HFs

[Anonymous]

I can also verify the video of the AP abusing the child by dragging. And the AP that was repeatedly rematched after wrecking a HF's car and the wreck was not disclosed to the next HF. Just backing up the other poster who mentioned this- the disturbing video is most definitely not an urban legend. And the HF were good parents who immediately took action to protect their kids (raced home).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can also verify the video of the AP abusing the child by dragging. And the AP that was repeatedly rematched after wrecking a HF's car and the wreck was not disclosed to the next HF. Just backing up the other poster who mentioned this- the disturbing video is most definitely not an urban legend. And the HF were good parents who immediately took action to protect their kids (raced home).

I don't doubt that this video exists. But you say the HF were "good parents' who immediatley took action to protect their kids... do you really know that? The original poster said they only considered whether or not to file a police report after it appeared the AP might be rematched. That, honestly, doesn't sound like responsible behavior in my view.

I don't doubt that there are very real issues with APs. And I don't doubt there are some very real issues with HFs. What I question, is how on earth the agencies are supposed to really know what is going on? It seems it is always a he-said/she-said scenario. There are certainly instances where an AP might get into a bad car accident (and "wreck" a HF's car), and it may legitimately not be her fault. Or the other way around.

I think there is rarely "proof" of wrongdoing. I wonder whether the video that was posted to thousands of HFs was expeditiously sent to the agency? Before they made a decision to rematch the au pair? That -- I am doubtful of. Even if the agencies are basically protecting their own pocketbook -- they're not completely stupid. I seriously doubt any agency would rematch an au pair if presented with a video of her kicking a child. And... I'm not taking the hostmom's version of what she said she did as "proof".

[Anonymous]

The video was posted to a secret FB group, don't know if it was sent to the agency. When it was posted, while it was disturbing, there was not complete agreement from the viewing parents that it was child abuse. The AP seemed to be negligent, but it looked more like the AP bumped into the child and didn't pay attention, etc... The parents who did not feel it was abuse (they agreed that they would have gotten rid of the AP, but didn't feel it was a criminal matter) were then all dropped from the FB group.