It's a double standard, the au pairs want to be apart of the family when it's convenient for them but not when it's their turn to give. I see nothing wrong with what was done, it was a quick errand related to the family for an older child, just needed an adult body in the house in case of a big emergency.


Also second the"bad friend" thing, our au pair was very very easily influenced by her friend and resulted in a rematch.

With COVID, its not a good idea to be taking kids to stores. But, then again, nor is going over to others homes.

Anonymous wrote:INSTACART

Instacart is a lot more money.

I wouldn't say that it's the biggest offense either, but personally I think it's still a violation. The family better be very giving and generous.

Anonymous wrote:A family member has no time off!

A mom or dad might have no time off, although if you have an au pair you probably do, but when they say an au pair is like a family member, they don't mean they're like the kids' mom or dad. They're like a big sister or brother, or an aunt or uncle, or some other relative who might pitch in sometimes but is not the primary caregiver.

In my mind, the au pair doesn't do anything where they are responsible for the kid unless they specifically offer. We don't have an au pair, but we have a young adult relative who lives with us and babysits our kids. If the relative is choosing to play video games with my kid and offers to let him stay while I run to the store, I don't pay for that. But I don't ask.

Anonymous wrote:INSTACART

That is true....delivery can be done. We do it all the time. It is a violation, especially if AP was with her friend. I don't think the LCC will exactly act on it though. It's pretty minor (you know, like when the AP "forgets" that she needs to actually put her dishes in the dishwasher and clean up her crumbs--and maybe check on her produce as they rot in the fridge, or actually read the handbook that we spent the time writing

Former AP here. I would have happily kept an eye on the child as "part of the family". As long as the family is respectful.

Maybe this AP was mad because it wasn't the first time she was being asked something and that she felt taken advantage of though ?

Absolutely a violation of the program - as a single parent, I have done it 1-4 times in the two years our AP has been here for emergencies (left debit card at a restaurant; pick up antibiotics for sick kids). I then deducted that time from AP's work schedule for the week. It's something that should be reserved for emergencies that results in a subtraction of work schedule, IMO.

INSTACART

Anonymous wrote:Would I do this as a HM? Nope. Are there more egregious violations that APs should be worried about? yes. Let the AP report---see if she can find a better family. I dare her

Yeah I probably wouldn't do it either BUT you know that Sunday night feeling when your partner is out of town and you realize you have no food for the week? And taking the 6 year old with you to the store is likely to be the straw that breaks the camel's back....

OP, if your AP is this swayed and gets caught up in other AP drama, all I have to say is watch out. The AP friends can take the sweetest AP and turn her into someone who slyly accuses you of being a slaveowner (watch the harry potter references they use). We had the AP friend from hell who turned our AP against us and convinced her to return home. Now this friend is MIA.

I agree with PP in general but disagree with OP's "part of the family" argument - this is not part of the contract so I think it best to err on the side of respecting the time off requirements... A family member has no time off!

Would I do this as a HM? Nope. Are there more egregious violations that APs should be worried about? yes. Let the AP report---see if she can find a better family. I dare her

I agree any drama the APs are striring up here seems silly.
That said, I think this is well within bounds IF you have a good relationship between you. If you are counting minutes with AP and making her pay for her own toilet paper, for example, I think its more likely that AP would object and I would understand why. If you are generally fair and generous with your AP and give a little/take a little is part of your normal way, than I bet this would never be an issue.

Maybe the host mom could have said "Hey, I know its your day off so if you guys have plans to go out, please tell me, I can always bring little suzy with me..."

Our AP was at an AP friend's house on Sunday watching movies. Host dad was out of town, older host kids (2 14 year old boys) weren't home, just 6 year old host kid and host mom. Host mom comes downstairs and tells AP that she needs to pop out for some groceries and that 6 year old is using the iPad but will AP be home to keep an eye on her? AP says yes but is very upset about this and our AP is all whipped up about it too. They want to report the family to the agency for making her work on her day off.

I guess HM was gone about 40 minutes and came back with all of the groceries for the week for the family. Host kid stayed on iPad the whole time and they just checked on her once. I think they are being ridiculous to think this is a violation of the program. I told our AP I thought it was a "part of the family" kind of task....someone needed to shop and it was easier and faster without a 6 year old in tow so she gave her the iPad and just wanted a warm body in the house to make sure she didn't get hurt or anything. Our AP kind of sees what I'm saying but is young and I think prone to drama.

What do you all think? I mean...it's not like she's an infant or toddler who needed entertainment and close supervision or that mom was gone for a super long time or for a personal errand. Isn't keeping an eye on a younger sibling a part of the family task? If her older brothers had been home that's what they would have done. I guess mom could have taken her to the store but if she's like my kid it doubles the shopping time to take her along. It's only slightly different from supervising kids while a host parent cooks dinner or cleans up the kitchen afterwards.