Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Attorney here. The only group to benefit from a class action are the attorneys.

I am confident that there is a greedy law firm involved to shake down agencies.

I can't imagine you will get class action status.

If OP was the victim of fraud, then sue the agency.

And if you were stupid enough not to call the former family of a rematch or avoid her if you were told you couldn't talk to the family, that is your problem.

That's like saying that if you want daycare centers to be regulated then you're anti daycare. The regulations only require initial screening of the au pair. It doesn't require them to be honest with you about whether the au Pair has been with 4 other families before (which is why they only refer to the immediate past family). Doesn't require them to tell you that in 2 of their past 4 families they totaled the car. Or that they kept the host child tied up to their bed posts using leggings. (All actual examples.) I'm in favor of this program but I'm NOT in favor of families being lied to with no oversight. Since this stuff isn't covered by the CFR the only recourse families have is to 1) involve the police or 2) sue. Agencies aren't even mandatory reporters of abuse. The regulations and the agencies only protect the au pair. This is wrong. (Not the OP and not involved in the lawsuit).

If my au pair tied my child to the bed, I would not start researching a class action lawsuit. I would call the police.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Attorney here. The only group to benefit from a class action are the attorneys.

I am confident that there is a greedy law firm involved to shake down agencies.

I can't imagine you will get class action status.

If OP was the victim of fraud, then sue the agency.

And if you were stupid enough not to call the former family of a rematch or avoid her if you were told you couldn't talk to the family, that is your problem.

That's like saying that if you want daycare centers to be regulated then you're anti daycare. The regulations only require initial screening of the au pair. It doesn't require them to be honest with you about whether the au Pair has been with 4 other families before (which is why they only refer to the immediate past family). Doesn't require them to tell you that in 2 of their past 4 families they totaled the car. Or that they kept the host child tied up to their bed posts using leggings. (All actual examples.) I'm in favor of this program but I'm NOT in favor of families being lied to with no oversight. Since this stuff isn't covered by the CFR the only recourse families have is to 1) involve the police or 2) sue. Agencies aren't even mandatory reporters of abuse. The regulations and the agencies only protect the au pair. This is wrong. (Not the OP and not involved in the lawsuit).

Anonymous wrote:Why should OP and the other families currently involved take on the financial burden of a lawsuit that they are bringing, when they appear to be doing it on principle rather than seeking money? You keep saying, only attorneys make money on class action suits. You're missing the point- they don't appear to care about the money but do appear to want to reform the system. What's wrong with that? And, if you're in an agency that has good business practices (as I was when i was recently a host mom) it can be hard to understand the extent of exactly how horrible and soulless one of the agencies is. If you're in a childcare business and you repeatedly offer unsafe people to families, you need to be taken to task and a class action lawsuit is the way to go.