The Nanny Who Won’t Move Out: Who’s Lying?
If you watched ABC 20/20 this weekend, you got to see the story of a nanny, a homeless woman, who took a job for free room and board in exchange for cooking and cleaning for a family with two boys. The agreement posted on Craiglist was clearly vague.
So who is telling the truth here?
I personally don’t believe either party and I believe both wanted something for free, and they each got more than they bargained for.
On 20/20, the reporter says the nanny claimed the original agreement was 20 hours a week. The homeowner, Marcella says back, “Ummmm….no.” To which the reporter shoots back, so what was it? Marcella says, “I would say…she probably a week ten hours.”
First off, Marcella doesn’t answer the question and jumbles her answer all up. And second, who would bring a woman into your home for 10 hours a week of work, feeds her and let her share your home? No one — that’s who. It would be much cheaper to hire someone to come in on an hourly basis and it wouldn’t invade your privacy. This is nonsense.
Ralph Bracamonte said, “It was help out with the kids when needed, to pick up little things and to maybe prep up a little bit of dinner if [Marcella] was running a little bit late.” Do you see how he minimized everything? Ralph also said the nanny was like “family” yet within two weeks things started to sour? This is inconsistent.
And on behalf of the nanny, she said this job would allow her to ” …get my legs up and take care of my heart condition.” This is flat out inconsistent. I suspect she knew the laws and thought she’d find a free home for a while and she did. She was identified on 20/20 as being “… listed on the state of California’s Vexatious Litigant List.” What does that mean? She is known to sue people without just cause. How does that translate? People use the threat of lawsuits frequently to get people to cave in or buckle to their demands.
I think they both say all we need to know to see the truth. What do you think?
Sounds to me like the nanny is a classic Personality Disorder, she would have been doing a lot less than what she specified. To cause so much trouble that this has ended up on tv, and her previous record of complaints shows she has very different expectations than the norm, shoes that she probably is more of a burden than help.
She is not lying she truly believes she is in the right because of her personality, so neither party is lying.
Sounds to me like the nanny is a classic Personality Disorder, she would have been doing a lot less than what she specified. To cause so much trouble that this has ended up on tv, and her previous record of complaints shows she has very different expectations than the norm, shoes that she probably is more of a burden than help.
She is not lying she truly believes she is in the right because of her personality, so neither party is lying.