agencies and rematch

[Anonymous]

Serious question here: what does an au pair have to do to not be recommended for rematch by the agency? Our au pair had some serious safety concerns, and just learned today that she has been approved. I'm floored.

[Anonymous]

I don't honestly know the answer to this question... but I will offer what I think is an explanation.

We hear, all the time, on this board about the terrible things that various APs have (supposedly) done. I've heard allegations from HFs about APs "lying" "stealing food" "leaving a 2 year old unattended" "leaving a 12 year old unattended" "wrecking cars" etc. etc. etc.

I have no doubt that some of those things are true -- I also have no doubt that some of those things are really not true -- or alternatively ignore the role that the HF played in the mishap by not communicating well. Since the vast majority of these things are undocumented... and the Agency frequently gets a different story from the AP ("I didn't lie, I misunderstood my hostmom's question because my English is not so good," "Yes, I left the 2 year old in front of the TV for 30 seconds while I went to the bathroom" "I didn't leave the 12 year old "unattended" -- but he's 12, and he didn't seem to want me hovering over him so I went a read a book in the living room while he did his homework." "I didn't "wreck" the car, some idiot ran a red light and plowed into me.")

What's fair in that situation? Some host parents here seem to think that the agency should take their statement as the Gospel truth, and I just don't agree with that. If you have a video showing your au pair kicking your 3 year old, then SHOW IT TO THE AGENCY. But in most cases, the Agency will take what the HF says with a handful of salt-- as they should. Some people are crazy when it comes to their kids. I had a mother accuse me at a playground of purposefully tripping her child... What???... Your kid ran behind me and tripped over my leg, I never even saw her coming. I don't think its unreasonable for the Agencies to get both sides of the story and -- lacking strong evidence to the contrary -- give someone a second chance.

I rematched from two au pairs who were arguably "dangerous". The first was a clueless but nice young woman who had her head in the clouds and/or on her iPhone. She was not watching my extremely active 3 year old with the care that he needed. We talked about it, but I just wasn't convinced that she "got" it. We sent her into rematch. Was she really dangerous or incapable of being a decent au pair for another family? No. I have 3 kids. I recommended to our LCC that she might do OK with a single child, especially a slightly older child who wasn't going to get into so much trouble. She rematched with another family with a single 7 year old girl. I think it worked out just fine and she had a successful year.

The second was a horrendous driver. Lovely girl, but frightening behind the wheel. On day 2, I flagged this for the LCC, and we got her some driving lessons, and continued to drive with her all the time. By day 6 I had had enough and we triggered rematch, and told her she could not drive the kids anywhere. (On day 8, she scraped a jersey wall with our "au pair car" with no one else in the car, and I told her she could not drive our cars at all). Through all of this, the AP (respectfully) maintained that she could drive -- that in fact, she was a good driver. It may indeed be possible that she had been driving without an accident in her home country for a year. I talked at length with the LCC about this -- trying to be fair to her, recognizing that everyone's driving standards are a bit different, and also not wanting to put her or her new HF at risk. After much discussion, the LCC (who has known me for 7 years) listed her as a "non-driver" for rematch. She didn't find a family after 6 weeks, and was sent home.

I say all of this to provide some perspective. APs frequently pay a lot of money to do this program. The Agency owes a duty of fairness to the AP as well. These are young people. Sometimes they make a really terrible mistake with HF#1 -- because they simply don't know any better -- and once they learn the hard lesson, they actually do just fine.

If you simply can't tolerate the uncertainty of having young women with limited childcare experience and a minimal screening process come care for your kids, you're probably in the wrong program.

For me, I've always regarded the AP program as "buyer beware". It's worked for me. We've had some great au pairs, and I'm not sure I'd have any better success rate with nannys. The nice thing about nannys is, when you get a good one, you keep her for years. With APs, you can't.

[Anonymous]

If you simply can't tolerate the uncertainty of having young women with limited childcare experience and a minimal screening process come care for your kids, you're probably in the wrong program.

I have no advice for the OP (sorry) but I totally agree with this perspective.

[Anonymous]

I wish I knew the answer to that question. I had to go into rematch with an Au Pair who definitely should not have been around kids. The agency chalked it up to "personality differences". It's a business. Agencies need to CYA.

[Anonymous]

I had an AP who was sent home for safety concerns. She completed her 1st year successfully with 1 HF, then moved on to another HF in her extension year and went into rematch. We were her 3rd HF and 1st rematch. We had a series of emails back and forth with her over several different incidents over several weeks. The documentation helped, especially emails where she admitted to doing the wrong things that we said she did. She also wrote that she knew it was wrong but did it with the previous HF and nothing bad happened and she can show us how she did what we told her not to do, as if we would change our minds about it being unsafe if we understood how she did it. The LCC and Director also spoke to her several times and they told us that she insisted what she did was not unsafe. She basically did not want to acknowledge her wrong actions and was not open to adjust her actions. The Director also said she yelled at her over the phone. We had young children and told the agency that maybe she would be more suitable with older children in another rematch. The agency told us that after her 2nd HF (1st rematch), they concluded that she should not care for older children. Since we had younger children and it didn't work out, they decided to send her home because if she couldn't match with older or younger children, then there are no appropriate age group left for her to care for.

I don't know what the agency's true reason was (there was so much not disclosed to us and some history that we learned from a loose mouth LCC afterwards) but there was the explanation I got.

Bottom line, she said she said will land her in rematch, even for safety situations because as PP said, there are 2 sides and you want to give the AP or the HF a benefit of doubt. Substantiated documentation in writing where AP acknowledged what HF alleged is true and where AP expressed no desire to correct because AP insisted that what she did was okay - could get her sent home.

[Anonymous]

Above PP,

Just a clarification, our AP acknowledged in emails and to LCC and Director that her actions as we described indeed happened. She did not agree with was that the actions were unsafe. The agency based on knowing that the events actually did happened agreed with us that what she did was unsafe. Since she refused to believe that her actions were unsafe, the agency also did not to risk her repeating these actions with another HF. I think if the AP expressed regret and agreed to learn to do better next time, the story might have had a different ending.

[Anonymous]

I think at all depends on a number of things. However, I would hope that if the HF did everything "right" such as send a handbook in advance of au pair's arrival, go over the rules, try to talk to the Au Pair multiple times and look for improvement, etc., and then initiate rematch, that the agency would try to discern suitable versus unsuitable candidates for being Au Pairs. Some host families don't explain the rules, but we did. However, the rematch document stated "mismatch of childcare expectations". Our rules were clear. We ended up leaving the program. It was not worth our stress level---we have enough of that at work.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, OP. While I don't have the answer to your original question, I will say that hopefully other host families will stay away from any candidates who have had any type of safety issue--assuming that it was a clear safety hazard that was documented.

[Anonymous]

The answer to the question of when an AP will be sent home is easy. Does the LCC like her or not. Has she pissed the LCC off or not. Simple.

The LCCs get a good sense of who they like at the cluster meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think at all depends on a number of things. However, I would hope that if the HF did everything "right" such as send a handbook in advance of au pair's arrival, go over the rules, try to talk to the Au Pair multiple times and look for improvement, etc., and then initiate rematch, that the agency would try to discern suitable versus unsuitable candidates for being Au Pairs. Some host families don't explain the rules, but we did. However, the rematch document stated "mismatch of childcare expectations". Our rules were clear. We ended up leaving the program. It was not worth our stress level---we have enough of that at work.

Just wondering. Would you mind sharing what your AP did that she did not agree was unsafe (and perhaps the prevrious famiky-since she did with them and they did not rematch- or did they not know...)? Do you think in this case, it was a cultural issue about the perception of what is safe? I.e.- that our expectations are higher here in the USA than in most of our APs home countries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think at all depends on a number of things. However, I would hope that if the HF did everything "right" such as send a handbook in advance of au pair's arrival, go over the rules, try to talk to the Au Pair multiple times and look for improvement, etc., and then initiate rematch, that the agency would try to discern suitable versus unsuitable candidates for being Au Pairs. Some host families don't explain the rules, but we did. However, the rematch document stated "mismatch of childcare expectations". Our rules were clear. We ended up leaving the program. It was not worth our stress level---we have enough of that at work.

Just wondering. Would you mind sharing what your AP did that she did not agree was unsafe (and perhaps the prevrious famiky-since she did with them and they did not rematch- or did they not know...)? Do you think in this case, it was a cultural issue about the perception of what is safe? I.e.- that our expectations are higher here in the USA than in most of our APs home countries?

^sorry, this is meant for above pp, if she reads this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think at all depends on a number of things. However, I would hope that if the HF did everything "right" such as send a handbook in advance of au pair's arrival, go over the rules, try to talk to the Au Pair multiple times and look for improvement, etc., and then initiate rematch, that the agency would try to discern suitable versus unsuitable candidates for being Au Pairs. Some host families don't explain the rules, but we did. However, the rematch document stated "mismatch of childcare expectations". Our rules were clear. We ended up leaving the program. It was not worth our stress level---we have enough of that at work.

Just wondering. Would you mind sharing what your AP did that she did not agree was unsafe (and perhaps the prevrious famiky-since she did with them and they did not rematch- or did they not know...)? Do you think in this case, it was a cultural issue about the perception of what is safe? I.e.- that our expectations are higher here in the USA than in most of our APs home countries?

^sorry, this is meant for above pp, if she reads this.

Maybe you were asking me ...

We had a baby about 4-5 months old at the time. We instructed her not to sleep with our baby. AP was told to put the baby in the crib on her back for naps. The AP loved to cuddle my baby like a doll. She repeatedly slept with my baby on the sofa. She would lie down on the edge of the sofa. Baby was between her and the sofa back and cushions. We told her that the baby can suffocate, especially if AP fell asleep herself. This action is unsafe for a 4-5 months old. The agency also told her it is considered unsafe and to stop doing this. AP insisted that nothing bad ever happened when she did the same thing before. I told the AP that she was lucky that the previous HK didn't suffocate and die on her watch. I know for a fact that the 1st HK was also an infant, from the extension report. I found the AP doing it again after the agency and I told her to stop.

Regardless whether it is a general practice or not in the AP home country, when the HP (and the agency) tells an AP not to do something because of a safety concern, it does not matter what the AP's opinion or previous experience has been, the AP should follow the instructions and stop doing it. There was no misunderstanding or misinterpretation when the agency and I both told her to stop this action.

The last straw was finding my baby on the AP bed (AP was not allowed to bring the baby into AP room in the first place) with a pillow on top of my baby (my baby was face up lying on her back) while the AP was on the other side of the room sorting things on the floor and not paying attention to the baby on the bed. At 4-5 months old, the pillow was bigger than my baby. I documented with an email stating what I saw (after I immediately removed my baby from the room of course) and she replied that she was sorry for what she did (thereby acknowledging and agreeing that what I described did happen).

By the way, after this AP left, I found out from the LCC that the 1st HF did try to go into rematch but withdrew the request after the AP begged them not to send her to rematch. When this happened with us, the AP begged us too to keep her but we said no. I think that this AP was hoping we were like the 1st HF and take back the rematch request, too. We don't know why the 1st HF tried to rematch, if it was over this type of issue or something else. I do not know if the 1st HF knew this AP was sleeping with their baby like this. There were no official notes of 1st HF requesting and then withdrawing the rematch request in the extension or rematch file. If the LCC was tighter lipped, we would never have known.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think at all depends on a number of things. However, I would hope that if the HF did everything "right" such as send a handbook in advance of au pair's arrival, go over the rules, try to talk to the Au Pair multiple times and look for improvement, etc., and then initiate rematch, that the agency would try to discern suitable versus unsuitable candidates for being Au Pairs. Some host families don't explain the rules, but we did. However, the rematch document stated "mismatch of childcare expectations". Our rules were clear. We ended up leaving the program. It was not worth our stress level---we have enough of that at work.

Just wondering. Would you mind sharing what your AP did that she did not agree was unsafe (and perhaps the prevrious famiky-since she did with them and they did not rematch- or did they not know...)? Do you think in this case, it was a cultural issue about the perception of what is safe? I.e.- that our expectations are higher here in the USA than in most of our APs home countries?

^sorry, this is meant for above pp, if she reads this.

Maybe you were asking me ...

We had a baby about 4-5 months old at the time. We instructed her not to sleep with our baby. AP was told to put the baby in the crib on her back for naps. The AP loved to cuddle my baby like a doll. She repeatedly slept with my baby on the sofa. She would lie down on the edge of the sofa. Baby was between her and the sofa back and cushions. We told her that the baby can suffocate, especially if AP fell asleep herself. This action is unsafe for a 4-5 months old. The agency also told her it is considered unsafe and to stop doing this. AP insisted that nothing bad ever happened when she did the same thing before. I told the AP that she was lucky that the previous HK didn't suffocate and die on her watch. I know for a fact that the 1st HK was also an infant, from the extension report. I found the AP doing it again after the agency and I told her to stop.

Regardless whether it is a general practice or not in the AP home country, when the HP (and the agency) tells an AP not to do something because of a safety concern, it does not matter what the AP's opinion or previous experience has been, the AP should follow the instructions and stop doing it. There was no misunderstanding or misinterpretation when the agency and I both told her to stop this action.

The last straw was finding my baby on the AP bed (AP was not allowed to bring the baby into AP room in the first place) with a pillow on top of my baby (my baby was face up lying on her back) while the AP was on the other side of the room sorting things on the floor and not paying attention to the baby on the bed. At 4-5 months old, the pillow was bigger than my baby. I documented with an email stating what I saw (after I immediately removed my baby from the room of course) and she replied that she was sorry for what she did (thereby acknowledging and agreeing that what I described did happen).

By the way, after this AP left, I found out from the LCC that the 1st HF did try to go into rematch but withdrew the request after the AP begged them not to send her to rematch. When this happened with us, the AP begged us too to keep her but we said no. I think that this AP was hoping we were like the 1st HF and take back the rematch request, too. We don't know why the 1st HF tried to rematch, if it was over this type of issue or something else. I do not know if the 1st HF knew this AP was sleeping with their baby like this. There were no official notes of 1st HF requesting and then withdrawing the rematch request in the extension or rematch file. If the LCC was tighter lipped, we would never have known.

Which agency?

[Anonymous]

APIA didn't recommend our AP for rematch. She said that she would only match with a family if they had no rules, gave her a 4th week of vacation, no weekends, and allowed her to smoke and drink (she was 19). I don't want to list all of her faults but suffice it to say that she once did something to my son that resulted in an ambulance being called to the scene by a stranger. Oh and she left a bong in my garage and I found it molding. She got mad when I asked her to take care of it. She was a real gem.