Live-in nanny refuses to leave after being fired

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really can not believe that you DCUM biddies are blaming the MB here. This "nanny" is 120% con artist.

Please. I doubt she'd even know what MB meant. She's a classic bimbo in her 5" platforms. No one told her, "You get what you pay for."

Good thing DCUM MB's are so much smarter, and will hopefully never be fooled by such a con artist. Who'd take in a street woman calling herself a nanny? "Essential Proceedutes" are an important element, not to be overlooked by any responsible adult.

To be honest, if I had a big enough house with an extra room and a live-in wouldn't bother me, I would trade the room to someone that wants to vacuum and wipe down the kitchen and babysit the kids once a week. I don't see how that requires any extra compensation.

The woman in this story wasn't looking for a live-in to benefit herself, she is a SAHM and only needed a little bit of assistance, the nanny woman needed a place to stay. Yes, she went into this with the intention to scam this family I am sure, but still this situation could have easily been beneficial for both sides.

What makes you think the babysitting was limited to once a week?

My point is it doesn't say for sure in the article. All the people on here calling out the MB for keeping someone as a "slave" are really assuming that she is working 40 hours a week doing childcare, then also doing laundry, deep cleaning, and grocery shopping all in exchange for a room. I am pointing out that there are many ways in which a non-paid, room exchange situation could work well for both parties.

You should really read more than just one article about it, if you want a better understanding.

Then post another article

[Anonymous]

Google is your friend.

[Anonymous]

I saw this family on T.V. and they admitted when they hired her off of Craigslist, they only checked her references, they didn't do a background check.

How stupid is that??

I have no sympathy for stupid families.

Esp. those who put their own children in danger just to save a buck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw this family on T.V. and they admitted when they hired her off of Craigslist, they only checked her references, they didn't do a background check.

How stupid is that??

I have no sympathy for stupid families.

Esp. those who put their own children in danger just to save a buck.

I doubt they checked any refs. No one is speaking out to say the woman was ever a decent sitter.

I think they were all a bunch of first class liars who deserved each other.
Except of course, those poor children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really can not believe that you DCUM biddies are blaming the MB here. This "nanny" is 120% con artist.

Please. I doubt she'd even know what MB meant. She's a classic bimbo in her 5" platforms. No one told her, "You get what you pay for."

Good thing DCUM MB's are so much smarter, and will hopefully never be fooled by such a con artist. Who'd take in a street woman calling herself a nanny? "Essential Proceedutes" are an important element, not to be overlooked by any responsible adult.

To be honest, if I had a big enough house with an extra room and a live-in wouldn't bother me, I would trade the room to someone that wants to vacuum and wipe down the kitchen and babysit the kids once a week. I don't see how that requires any extra compensation.

The woman in this story wasn't looking for a live-in to benefit herself, she is a SAHM and only needed a little bit of assistance, the nanny woman needed a place to stay. Yes, she went into this with the intention to scam this family I am sure, but still this situation could have easily been beneficial for both sides.

Even so, would you hire this person on CL and fail to run a background check? You are being a bit generous with your empathy, don't you think?

[Anonymous]

I don't believe they called a single reference on this woman. Greed eventually bites you in the ass. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

She's being interviewed tonight (right now) on 20/20, as is the family. I'm recording it and will watch it tomorrow.

From the little bit I did see, she had zero childcare experience beyond being a stay at home mom, and (if I heard correctly) they didn't check her references. When I flipped it on, the mom was dodging the question about how many hours the "nanny" was required to work.

[Anonymous]

"You get what you pay for."
The parents got what they deserved.

Some people must learn things the hard way.
Don't you be one of those.

I am 100% sure that no victim family of babysitter abuse,
did their due- dilegence, before hiring.

I am EQUALLY sure, that they didn't offer any references for themselves, either.