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

[Anonymous]

Hello host families,

We are looking for any Cultural Care families that have accepted an in country au pair that was in rematch and information about the rematch was not disclosed. We have multiple families and a law firm that has accepted our case. We want to make sure we don't leave anyone out they may have a claim. Specifically, we would like families that were placed in this situation within the past 3 years. You can contact me at [e-mail] for more detail and I would be happy to discuss what has happened to date and what will be happening.

Kind regards,

Eric Svedberg

[Anonymous]

There are a lot of HMs with this story - but how do we know you are real? What law firm have you retained?

[Anonymous]

I will be glad to answer any question and explain any detail of my and the other families involved. I don't want to put my cell phone number out in public but will certainly respond to any email with it. The law firm that has accepted our case is www.hbmhlaw.com I am trying to think of the details that I don't mind sharing publicly that won't give away too much information to CC. We have 6 families involved, a previous employee of CC with inside information and documentation, and plenty of evidence to back up everything the host families have claimed. Anyone willing to have a 5 minute phone call will understand the allegations. We are specifically looking for host families that accepted an au pair from rematch to only find out CC kept important details of what happened from the previous family secret. Some of their techniques are to say the previous host family is out of the program; the previous host family wants their privacy; sharing only the LCC's information so CC can control what is said; Using generic descriptions in the documents saying a difference in expectations, AP feels host family is too controlling, AP wants less children to watch, Anything about their driving, etc.

Hope this helps to clear up any thoughts that we aren't extremely serious with this case.
[e-mail]

[Anonymous]

suggest a post on aupairmom.com too.

good luck with the case!

[Anonymous]

Every agency does this

[Anonymous]

And this is why lawyers exist and insurance is expensive...

Totally just went through this CCAP. Sucks; but we have some accountability that our rematch "can swim" = rematch reality "has a fear of water and will not enter a pool" but in the end we should have picked on that up. She did state that that swimming was not her favorite in our interview. We are hiring swimming enabled high schoolers for the summer for our lack of screening; not suing.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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".

[Anonymous]

It's not a "learning opportunity" when agencies sometimes are deliberate in rematching bad APs that should be sent home. Do you really think that the AP won't lie or conveniently forget to mention certain facts when rematching in situations like this in order to stay??

I think the OP is merely trying to hold agencies accountable in this situation. Not just whining that the rematch went badly.

[Anonymous]

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".

You obviously do not know what you are talking about. You might want to talk to a few more families to see what happened before making assumptions like you have. This has nothing to do with getting a "bum" au pair.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Exactly what we are trying to expose.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Rematch reports are written in vague terms to give the agency wiggle room to rematch an AP and not actually say what the rematch reason really is. I recently sent an AP into rematch. The rematch report described the situation in such a benign way and omitted the key causes for the rematch. It is hard to prove intent to deceive through omission. What surprised me was that the report said we were not interested in speaking with future HF. We never said that and would have been very willing to speak with any HF. Was there an intention to deceive or just a clerical error - who knows? The responsibility rests with the new HF to insist on speaking with the previous HF and perform as much due diligence as possible when considering a rematch. Surprisingly, many HF do not. I even had a HF who was considering my extension AP (not a rematch) and never contacted us. We were also in the same city. Conversely, we have had agency discourage us from speaking with ex-HF because they will just say nasty untrue things about the AP but we called the ex-HF anyway. We rather judge for ourselves than trust them. Agencies have their own self-interests.

As HF, we need to bear some responsibility to dig into the story and speak with all the parties involved, the AP, the ex-HF, the LCC, the PD etc. At least if one or more is unwilling to speak, then this should raise more concern leading to more digging.

[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.

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.

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.