Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Telly addicts

Louise Woodward The Killer Nanny. did she do it?

790 replies

HeckinMiffed · 09/01/2022 21:08

This was such a huge case when I was younger. Anyone else watching?
I always thought she didnt deliberately kill the baby.

OP posts:
Sparklingbrook · 11/01/2022 22:12

They very probably assumed that she had several years’ of experience of babysitting behind her and was responsible

V dangerous assumption from two intelligent health care professionals, surely? Assuming someone's experience of childcare.

2anddone · 11/01/2022 22:17

@Sparklingbrook

They very probably assumed that she had several years’ of experience of babysitting behind her and was responsible

V dangerous assumption from two intelligent health care professionals, surely? Assuming someone's experience of childcare.

Like I said in a previous post I was in the USA with the same agency as Louise. We had to fill in on our application form any experience of childcare we had and also 2 references. My references and application was never checked, the girl who lived in my village who was also with the same agency admitted to me that she lied on her application form as the only experience she had was watching her brother for half hour once a week and he was 12...she was 18 so not really 'childcare'
Sparklingbrook · 11/01/2022 22:20

So there were failures all round then. Oh dear. As the agency are still doing this you can only hope they have tightened up their process and references are now checked.

Although obviously we don't know what LW put on the application. I wonder if the Eappens were given a choice of Au Pairs and had to choose? One had already left by the sound of it.

Kanaloa · 11/01/2022 22:26

@Sparklingbrook

I’m not sure if they have improved things now - one would certainly hope they’ve tightened up their security. However I’m pretty sure this specific agency had another case of an aupair setting a house on fire and possibly killing a child. I might be wrong but I’m sure I read of a similar case and I could swear it was the same agency, called EF/education first agency.

x2boys · 11/01/2022 22:26

That doesn't surprise me @2anddone the friend I stayed with in Boston who was au paring a year after LW didn't have much child care experience either ,she was a bit older though she was 22:and the children she was looking after were 7 and 10 so were not Babies plus she was just doing school drop offs and pick ups and looking after them untill the parents got home from work etc ,they were lovely children and not hard work at all

Kanaloa · 11/01/2022 22:30

Just looked it up and the baby was named Kristie Fischer, and it was the same agency. So they’ve obviously had very very bad luck. Or possibly very poor safeguarding/family matching but to be honest how poor does safeguarding need to be before things like this happen?

x2boys · 11/01/2022 22:32

I appreciate it was different times ,but it's very different essentially hiring a baby sitter for a year,for your older fairly independent children who just need a bit of guidance ,to hiring someone expected to look after very young children who need your full attention.

Sparklingbrook · 11/01/2022 22:35

@x2boys

I appreciate it was different times ,but it's very different essentially hiring a baby sitter for a year,for your older fairly independent children who just need a bit of guidance ,to hiring someone expected to look after very young children who need your full attention.
I agree. It's one thing to get 8 and 9 year old their breakfast, drive them to school then fetch them back and give them dinner later. But sole charge of baby and preschooler all day is something else altogether.
2anddone · 11/01/2022 22:36

@x2boys

That doesn't surprise me *@2anddone* the friend I stayed with in Boston who was au paring a year after LW didn't have much child care experience either ,she was a bit older though she was 22:and the children she was looking after were 7 and 10 so were not Babies plus she was just doing school drop offs and pick ups and looking after them untill the parents got home from work etc ,they were lovely children and not hard work at all
Sounds like she got lucky. My host family had a 2 year old and a 5 year old. The mum worked from home so was in the office daily 9-4 but would be able to leave the house for school runs. I had to work 8-4.30 5 days a week it was bloody hard work especially as the 2 year old used to spend the first 3 weeks hitting and kicking me as he didn't want me looking after him!

For those of you who have mentioned the limited time on phone calls that was really common among aupair families. My family let me have $40 a month on phone calls but there was no way of keeping note of how much you had spent and calls back to UK were expensive!! My first month in the house I was really badly homesick it was 1995 internet wasn't really a thing and definitely not quick so my first phone bill was $550 I had to pay back the $510 I had gone over from the $40 allowance! The family were lovely though quite strict I am still in touch with the 5 year old...who is now 31 and went back to stay a few times after I left.

Sparklingbrook · 11/01/2022 22:38

Was it ever explained who LW was on the phone to for 2 hours at a time? Somebody she had met in Boston-a social call, or phoning home as she was unhappy or something?

2anddone · 11/01/2022 22:41

@Sparklingbrook the family I aupaired for were given a choice of about 5 different au pairs they could choose from. The au pairs were given no choice at all but could specify things like ages, interests etc to 'help' with matching. We were not allowed to request states to stay in...or everyone would have chosen NYC, California etc!

x2boys · 11/01/2022 22:42

Sounds awful I remember phoning my friend so she didn't have to phone me ,it was 97/98 mobile phone,s were not really common place as i recall and there was no such thing as social media etc .

x2boys · 11/01/2022 22:47

@Sparklingbrook

Was it ever explained who LW was on the phone to for 2 hours at a time? Somebody she had met in Boston-a social call, or phoning home as she was unhappy or something?
I don't think it was but if she was phoning home(and I can understand that as a homesick teenager) it must have cost a fortune two hours at a time , with social media and face time etc it must be a lot easier these days.
Sollie64 · 11/01/2022 22:48

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Sparklingbrook · 11/01/2022 22:51

That's what i was thinking-a 2 hour call back to the UK would have been ££££s, maybe more likely it was social call to someone in Boston.

It's things like that I would have thought would have come out as part of the trial. If it was long calls home wouldn't they question the people she was talking to, establish her mood and state of mind etc What was said. Or maybe they did but we didn't see it.

Cameleongirl · 11/01/2022 22:51

@Kanaloa. I agree, you’ve expressed it much better than I did.

Sparklingbrook · 11/01/2022 22:53

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ as it quotes a deleted post. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

UserBot989 · 11/01/2022 23:20

I just watched all three. Wow. What a mess. I think the three of them, Louise Woodward, Deborah Eappen and Sunnil Eappen should have shared a manslaughter charge. I don't know if I can believe she is 100% uninvolved, but the way the baby's parents take NO responsibility (seemingly) is not right either.

x2boys · 11/01/2022 23:24

@UserBot989

I just watched all three. Wow. What a mess. I think the three of them, Louise Woodward, Deborah Eappen and Sunnil Eappen should have shared a manslaughter charge. I don't know if I can believe she is 100% uninvolved, but the way the baby's parents take NO responsibility (seemingly) is not right either.
And the way Elaine whitworth -Sharpe turned out?? I agree it's a mess !
x2boys · 11/01/2022 23:26

Whitfield*

mathanxiety · 12/01/2022 05:44

The au pairs my neighbours hired were with the family from when their children were babies. The young women were used to snow in their home country and took the little ones out to play for long stretches every single day regardless of the weather, so we all got to know them a bit. They had au pairs for about 12 years, one a year until the oldest was 12 and the younger one was 11.

mathanxiety · 12/01/2022 05:52

I get that they were young doctors, in a tough spot with childcare. But the answer really isn’t to hire and exploit an aupair. I would expect someone who needed a round the clock on call childcare provider (which is what you’d need to cover those bunking in the hospital 4am issues you mention) to hire a very well paid nanny with experience of baby care and used to/expecting odd hours.

It really annoys me that people think they can get a proxy parent/full time nanny for aupair money. It is just very unfair and exploitative. Nannies generally are well paid and will have an employment contract, aupairs are ‘helpers’ who are paid pocket money.

@Kanaloa
It's not so in the US.

Au pairs are a cultural exchange programme. You get students hoping to learn English, perhaps as part of degree requirements. They do some childcare, some housework, some cooking, depending on their preference and the needs of their host family.

Nannies are basically people who are doing a stint in childcare before something else turns up. I know one exception, a woman with a BA from a very respected university, in her early 40s now, who earns what a teacher with about five years experience would make. She lives with a family, goes with them on vacations, has her own suite in their mansion. No marriage, no kids of her own. It is a very, very odd career choice.

There simply are not Norland standard nannies going a begging with experience, willingness to live in, etc in the US. Not for the sort of money young doctors make. You might find them in Hollywood or some parts of NYC.

mathanxiety · 12/01/2022 05:55

V dangerous assumption from two intelligent health care professionals, surely? Assuming someone's experience of childcare.

Assuming an au pair has been vetted by an agency isn't that much of a stretch. That's the whole point of getting an au pair sent by an agency.

mathanxiety · 12/01/2022 06:10

I know what you’re saying, but that’s why people amortize student loans and mortgages over decades so they can pay for what they need now-surely childcare should be a priority?

DH and I will be 60 before we’re free of student loan debt-I’m not joking, that’s how old we’ll be when it’s paid off! But you can do that and pay for what your children need.
@Cameleongirl
Yes, loans and mortgages are amortized in the US. And of course childcare is a priority.

My DS is currently in med school and by the time he graduates he will owe almost $400k. By the time he pays all of that off it will amount to over $1m. He will also have a mortgage and most likely a car loan, and will have malpractice insurance premiums and loan insurance payments to make. Plus life insurance. And whatever he will have to pay his accountant. The US is an expensive place in which to try to afford to practice medicine.

If DS ever has children he will probably not see much of them. If as is likely he marries a fellow doctor, she will rarely see the children either.

The Eappens were doing their utmost to get good quality care, as they perceived it, and paying the going rate.

Childcare is undervalued and underpaid because women's work is undervalued. It is more then likely that Deborah Eappen was paid less than her male colleagues at that time and perhaps even now.

It is simply not the Eappens' fault that Louise Woodward was phoning it in. The malice toward them based on hiring this person who was not interested in doing her job is not fair.

Kanaloa · 12/01/2022 06:44

@mathanxiety

I get that they were young doctors, in a tough spot with childcare. But the answer really isn’t to hire and exploit an aupair. I would expect someone who needed a round the clock on call childcare provider (which is what you’d need to cover those bunking in the hospital 4am issues you mention) to hire a very well paid nanny with experience of baby care and used to/expecting odd hours.

It really annoys me that people think they can get a proxy parent/full time nanny for aupair money. It is just very unfair and exploitative. Nannies generally are well paid and will have an employment contract, aupairs are ‘helpers’ who are paid pocket money.

@Kanaloa
It's not so in the US.

Au pairs are a cultural exchange programme. You get students hoping to learn English, perhaps as part of degree requirements. They do some childcare, some housework, some cooking, depending on their preference and the needs of their host family.

Nannies are basically people who are doing a stint in childcare before something else turns up. I know one exception, a woman with a BA from a very respected university, in her early 40s now, who earns what a teacher with about five years experience would make. She lives with a family, goes with them on vacations, has her own suite in their mansion. No marriage, no kids of her own. It is a very, very odd career choice.

There simply are not Norland standard nannies going a begging with experience, willingness to live in, etc in the US. Not for the sort of money young doctors make. You might find them in Hollywood or some parts of NYC.

Just because something is a cultural norm doesn’t mean it isn’t unfair or exploitative. I also really disagree with service staff depending on tips as I feel it’s just big businesses exploiting their staff and forcing customers to make a living wage. It is a cultural norm in the US but that doesn’t mean it’s acceptable.

Same with this. Hiring a person and paying them tiny amounts of money for full time sole care of a toddler and a baby might be the norm in America but that doesn’t make it acceptable just because it’s the done thing.