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.

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.

I don't think anyone here thinks that particular parent was offering anything fair. How closely have you followed the story?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:She's ridiculous. She has had multiple frivolous lawsuits. She sounds like a conartist.

Anonymous wrote:As soon as they moved her in to live with them she became a roommate. Not a nanny. Nannies get paid for their work. Roomies may exchange work for room and board.

This family dug themselves a nice deep hole, and now all the money they "saved" by taking this woman in will go to legal fees to get her out.