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.
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.
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.
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".
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".