Louise Woodward The Killer Nanny. did she do it?

[HeckinMiffed]

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

Also you seem to be skating over the issue I have with the system (very very low pay which doesn’t match up to the expectations of the job) in favour of relentlessly banging on about how American teens babysit from age 13, which really isn’t relevant to this specific case in which a non American was expected to care for two small babies as a full time solution, not occasional casual babysitting, with wages that did not reflect the expectations of the job. That’s my issue with aupairs. People pay for an aupair and expect a nanny. Regardless of whether they’ve been babysitting since 13 or have never held a baby in their life.

The Eappens had voiced their unhappiness to LW about her poor performance and had already got rid of a few other au pairs who didn't work out. There is no reason to believe they wouldn't have got rid of her and found someone else.

This says a lot about the Eappens. If LW resented them I don’t blame her.

What does it say about the Eappens?

Should they have greeted her with a pink slip one morning, with no warning?

Should they have said nothing and continued to be patient with her until something terrible happened?

Oh wait...

The point being that we are talking about a barely out of teenage years person expected to take care of 2 children and responsibilities in lieu of the proper parents.

Shame on anyone who expects that of an au pair.

Being an au pair is NOT the same same as a qualified childminder

Also you seem to be skating over the issue I have with the system (very very low pay which doesn’t match up to the expectations of the job) in favour of relentlessly banging on about how American teens babysit from age 13, which really isn’t relevant to this specific case in which a non American was expected to care for two small babies as a full time solution, not occasional casual babysitting, with wages that did not reflect the expectations of the job. That’s my issue with aupairs. People pay for an aupair and expect a nanny. Regardless of whether they’ve been babysitting since 13 or have never held a baby in their life.

@Kanaloa
I am not skating over it. I don't agree with your idea that there is a systemic problem here, and I have addressed that several times here.

Hundreds of thousands of young women do au pairing in the US every year. How many babies end up dead as a result? How many of the women end up begging to go home?

The young women come to the US to learn English, to experience ordinary life in an American family - an immersion in the culture is the draw, and it is understood that being an au pair enhances their CVs, not just for childcare purposes.

The specific agency at the time was clearly not able to weed out someone who was completely unsuitable to work three full days a week taking care of a baby and young child, someone who had clearly misrepresented herself to the agency that sent her to the Eappens.

Right well we’ll simply never agree on that point I’m afraid. I think it’s a damaged system - I don’t necessarily think it’s to blame for this tragic incident but I don’t agree with it as a childcare solution on the cheap. You obviously do agree with it as a ils are solution on the cheap. For those reasons we can’t agree.

I’m sure what we can agree on is that this is a horrific tragedy for everyone and it’s a shame it happened.

The point being that we are talking about a barely out of teenage years person expected to take care of 2 children and responsibilities in lieu of the proper parents.

Shame on anyone who expects that of an au pair.

Being an au pair is NOT the same same as a qualified childminder

@IsThosAMistake
Again, perhaps for the twentieth time on this thread, why do you think the US has 'qualified childminders'?

The US is not part of the UK, and things work differently here.

Anyone going to the US for the au pair experience can be asked to work up to 45 hours per week.

99.99% of the time, the arrangement works out really well.

Anyone going to the US for the au pair experience can be asked to work up to 45 hours per week.

99.99% of the time, the arrangement works out really well.

Well that makes it ok then

@mathanxiety

The point being that we are talking about a barely out of teenage years person expected to take care of 2 children and responsibilities in lieu of the proper parents.

Shame on anyone who expects that of an au pair.

Being an au pair is NOT the same same as a qualified childminder

@IsThosAMistake
Again, perhaps for the twentieth time on this thread, why do you think the US has 'qualified childminders'?

The US is not part of the UK, and things work differently here.

Anyone going to the US for the au pair experience can be asked to work up to 45 hours per week.

99.99% of the time, the arrangement works out really well.

If early childhood qualifications aren't available in the US, then perhaps they should be?

Experience is good, but so is formal training, whether you're going to be a doctor, an accountant, an electrician or a nanny.

School leavers in the UK and Europe also go away to university, have part-time jobs and enter the workforce. Au pairing is intended as a cultural work and travel experience, not full time sole care of 2 young children. That's the only reason British teenagers are "available" to live in. It's a year out, not a career choice.

If the Eappens had already gone through a few au pairs then it might suggest that their expectations were not aligned with what a typical au pair was able to offer.

I do think it's problematic that the only option for a nanny is presumed to be an unqualified British teenager or a non-English speaking immigrant woman. This does suggest a problem.

Early childhood care and education is an extremely demanding and important job. If paid and respected accordingly it would be possible to recruit adult American women to do this work.

(Or men!)

@mathanxiety

Personally, I think it would be poor parenting to allow your 13-year-old to babysit babies and children of all ages several nights a week. It's far too much responsibility for a child of that age, because their charges are too vulnerable and often non-verbal. My DD (16) hasn't babysat a child under three yet and I don't want her to, it's a huge responsibility to ask of a child.

Well there's the difference between UK and American culture. Americans tend to believe that teenagers develop maturity, a sense of responsibility, and a solid sense of self esteem through work. I personally think that British teens are babied to a large degree, or treated as pond scum if they come from poorer backgrounds.

With responsibility come privileges, like driving at sixteen.

@mathanxiety. My DD is American!

You obviously do agree with it as a ils are solution on the cheap. For those reasons we can’t agree.

I see all sorts of pluses for the au pairs, and thousands of au pairs see the same advantages. This isn't a case of gullible young women being sold a lie, tricked into working in conditions akin to indentured servitude.

@Cameleongirl, my DCs are all American, and their experience and the experience of most teens in the area I am in is different from that of your DD.

[quote mathanxiety]@Cameleongirl, my DCs are all American, and their experience and the experience of most teens in the area I am in is different from that of your DD.[/quote]
I know and I’ve always found the babysitting laws here abit shocking, tbh. I don’t think young teens should look after very young children without adult supervision, it’s too risky. But, it’s a cultural norm and legal so there we are.

Again.

Babysitting is NOT the same as the hours and expectations LW was under

I haven't said it was.

She was working as an au pair, which involves baby and child care.

Her problem was that she expected her stay in the US to be basically a paid holiday.

There's no doubt Louise Woodward was ill-equipped for the role she was expected to fulfil, no matter how the child was injured.

I would expect a person who has invested the time and money and effort to complete a qualification would be better prepared, more committed to the role and more professional. That's one of the many benefits of requiring qualifications. I don't know why you are so against it.

She was an inexperienced teenager on a working holiday. She should not have been put in the position she was in.

@coraka

There's no doubt Louise Woodward was ill-equipped for the role she was expected to fulfil, no matter how the child was injured.

I would expect a person who has invested the time and money and effort to complete a qualification would be better prepared, more committed to the role and more professional. That's one of the many benefits of requiring qualifications. I don't know why you are so against it.

She was an inexperienced teenager on a working holiday. She should not have been put in the position she was in.

Absolutely

Yes but some 8 month olds are very mobile ,before he could crawl or walk my oldest used to roll across the floor from one side of the room to another
DS crawled and was pulling to stand at 7m, the mobility of an 8 month old is massively variable.

I don’t see how LW was expecting a ‘paid holiday’. She knew there was going to be childcare involved as she applied for that.
But maybe she wasn’t expecting the full on role she got?

The Eappens had voiced their unhappiness to LW about her poor performance and had already got rid of au pairs who didn’t work out. There is no reason to believe they wouldn’t have got rid of her and found someone else.

Instead of ‘getting rid of’ yet another young and vulnerable au pair, why didn’t occur to the Eappens that their expectations were too high? They were the locals, the parents and mature adults.

This comment is truly vile and an insight into how the Eappens viewed the au pairs in their care. Expendable. And I say in their care quite deliberately. Au pairs as has been mentioned many times are definitively not nannys and to be treated as a member of the family and older sibling. Yet there is a continued insistence in your posting that long days of sole childcare of a young baby is the norm rather than exploitation.

As I said previously LW was paid a pittance. Today an au pair in the US can be expected to be paid around $4.35 an hour. A google on job ads would suggest full time live in nannys are expected to be paid more than $10 an hour ($2077 a month for full time work was the lowest figure I found) and experienced nannys $30-35.

But that would be because the Eappens were victims of circumstance and couldn’t afford more, right? No. Just no. Both the children and the au pairs were vulnerable. Not the Eappens. They had the power. They were independent l living in their own home, their home town and held respectable jobs. Both LW and the children were dependent on them. Not the other way around.

How do you know that LW just expected to have a holiday and do no work? Pure hyperbole. And we see through it.

Well said @Mummyoflittledragon

Just how many au pairs did the Eappens try before LW came along? I they had already rejected au pairs I wonder what EF made of that? You would have thought they would want to get the match just right, and I wonder if LW knew that she was one in a line of au pairs?

I worked on London as a nanny (trained) many moons ago and as a result was in contact with lots of au pairs who arrived all fresh faced and bushy tailed and left worn out and miserable. The system was awful 20 years ago, cheap childcare and young girls with little experience who struggled. I was aware of one who was older and it worked out well as they were employed as an older sister type role/extra pair of hands but in the main they couldn't wait to get back home. Shame for them and shame for the kids.