The new occupy movement: one yuppie household at a time

[fizzyland]

On the surface, this looked like a story about a vulnerable family being held hostage by a terrible person, a "vexatious litigant" with mental issues. But then the details began coming out:

The "Nanny From Hell" Is an American Hero
So it goes for the Bracamonte family of Upland, California. The Bracamontes decided they needed a live-in servant to

Comments

[yes_justice]

"The Bracamontes say they are concerned that if they allow Stretton back to get her belongings, she won't leave. Marcella Bracamonte says that would start another fight to kick her out.

"I always told myself that I would fight if anyone ever tried to victimize me. And this lady has tried to victimize not just me, but my whole family. And I will fight. And you're not going to take us down," she said."

And:

""She gave the kids three cans of dog food and told them to put it outside my room for my food,” Stretton told KTLA."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/vilified-nanny-employer-feed-dog-food/story?id=24397284

[yes_justice]

Indentured servitude family versus occupy babysit. Hmm. Rent a family is ugly.

[fizzyland]

Also, stay at home mom. Is it really that hard to take care of your own kids, lady?

[paft]

Gee. You think you've found the right person to exploit...

Life just isn't fair.

[dreadfulpenny81]

Actually, Stretton is the one trying to take advantage of the Bracamontes. She answered their ad (which they were dumb enough to put on Craigslist - that's just a neon sign to criminals) and she's notorious for filing lawsuits against anyone and everyone. She's a scam artist, plain and simple.

[fizzyland]

They deserve each other - the family is dumb and entitled and they let a scammer with a visible bad history into their home.

[anfalicious]

Just like slavery but without the job security.

[wuvvumsoc]

Is it me or has the title of the journal changed 3 times? :O

[fizzyland]

Maybe.

[mahnmut]

It's still called LiveJournal. :-P

[404]

What rights does she have when she 1) willingly took room and board in payment for her services, 2) decide she can't or won't fulfill those obligations and then 3) essentially became a squatter when asked to leave since she refused to perform her duties?

[fizzyland]

You can't just make an agreement with someone to work under illegal conditions - you might get them to agree to pick fruit for 5 cents an hour but then when they or someone else realizes the law is being violated, the whole thing falls apart.

In this case, she was working under illegal conditions (the value of room and board is capped under minimum wage) and also, she had established tenancy, which comes with its own rules. The only way she had to recover wages she hadn't been paid was by staying.

It's not a squatting situation until the family has made good on what they owe Ms. Stretton. By locking her out of the house with her possessions still inside, they are the ones who broke laws.

[404]

It is squatting because she is reneging on her duties which allow her to live there. Think of it like this, you are propositioned to work for a business in which you know would be unfairly paying you, do you: a) agree to work for the lower wages or b) negotiate for a higher wage or do not work for said business? Further, the woman in question is essentially stealing from the family because she is living and being fed while not paying, either in kind or in money. The correct way to go about this is to move out, take the family to small claims and to hash it out that way, not to squat, but the woman has made a habit out of suing and California will make it harder for her to do so.

Sucks to be her.

You could not demand your business to keep paying you while you decided not to work because you did not like the agreement.

[fizzyland]

Sucks to be her

A delightfully American sentiment but one cannot be bound to illegal work terms, even if agreed to. Locking her out of the house is a violation of tenancy, which had been established.