A Nanny's Code of Ethics

In my research to find stories about people's experiences with nannies, I am coming across an alarming amount of horror stories. More specifically, parents being completely f'ed over by their nanny. The worst thing a parent could find out about their nanny is that she is mistreating their child. I'm finding more and more stories of families having nannies divulge personal family info (see my last post) and in this frightening case, reporting on things that may or may not have occurred in a home. I've drastically cut down this article from it's original form at cnn.com. Read on, it's so creepy:

Child abuse or nanny nightmare?

By Steve Irsay
Court TV

(Court TV) -- Danica Cordell-Reeh thought she was getting a nanny with an impressive professional history to care for her 5-year-old twins. Michelle Padilla had many years of child care experience, had written a book about finding a nanny, was an online consultant, and had been placed by the respected London-based agency, Nannies of St. James.

What Cordell-Reeh actually got, according to a $20 million suit against the nanny and the agency filed last month in Manhattan state Supreme Court, was very different.

In just 48 hours Cordell-Reeh went from having joint custody of her twins -- a boy and a girl -- to losing all parental rights and being investigated for child abuse.

According to court papers, on October 24, 2001, a little more than two weeks after Padilla started, Cordell-Reeh intended to fire her because, she said, the nanny refused to do any housework. It is unclear whether Padilla knew of her impending dismissal, but that same day the nanny abruptly moved out of the family's Central Park West apartment without notice. She was hardly out of Cordell-Reeh's life, however.

The next day Padilla allegedly went to Cordell-Reeh's estranged husband, investment banker Henry Owsley III, claiming that Cordell-Reeh had been sexually abusing one of the children and wasn't feeding them properly. The nanny's sworn testimony led to an immediate suspension of Cordell-Reeh's custody rights. Padilla made similar allegations to the Administration for Child Services, which prompted a formal child abuse investigation, and to the children's teachers and Cordell-Reeh's therapist, the suit says.

To some, Padilla's actions appeared to be the work of a dedicated, conscientious nanny seeking to protect the children.

"Michelle has always demonstrated good character and there has never been a complaint against her from any of my clients," said Janet Cook, president of New York nanny agency My Child's Best Friend, which has employed Padilla as a temporary caregiver over the last year and a half. "If anything, people were saying she was too committed to her job and put the needs of the family before her own needs."

Padilla also claims to have experience in the area of detecting child abuse. One chapter in her book, "The Official Guide to Finding a Great Nanny and Keeping Her," is titled "Safety & Child Abuse (And how to spot an abusive caregiver)."

It was Padilla's sworn affidavit alleging abuse and neglect that was the main evidence at the emergency hearing in which Cordell-Reeh lost her custody rights. The mental health professional assigned to the review the case said Padilla was a "reliable reporter" and was "reporting in good faith," according to Cordell-Reeh's lawyer Bernard Clair.

Any references?

Cordell-Reeh, however, denies any abuse and says Padilla was merely getting revenge for her firing, according to the suit. The lawsuit describes Padilla as a disturbed woman with a checkered personal and professional past, referring to her as "a time bomb ready to go off" with a "prior history of lies, deceit and mental illness."

That history, according to court papers, includes psychiatric treatment at New Hope Counseling Center in Queens, New York, in 1994. Padilla allegedly told therapists that she was a former prostitute who was sexually abused and raped by a family member and had suffered from anorexia. In 1997 Padilla brought a suit against the center claiming that it had illegally released her medical records to her abusive family member, but the suit was quickly dropped.

This history alone might cause concern, but not necessarily disqualify Padilla. "I personally don't know anyone who has not been in counseling," said Cook, who claims Padilla disclosed her therapy when she applied to My Child's Best Friend. "Plus, taking care of other people's children can be very stressful."

But the suit also attacks the validity of Padilla's references, in particular one from a man identified as Christopher R. of Westbury, New York. Clair, Cordell-Reeh's lawyer, claims that when he contacted Christopher R. about a letter of reference written for Padilla the man was stunned, saying the signature was not his and that he would never have recommended her.

Christopher R. fired Padilla in 1995, and shortly afterward, she allegedly contacted his therapist, claiming that the man had sexually abused and neglected his children. The therapist was suspicious of Padilla and never reported the claims, the suit says.

(MY NOTE: Doesn't this clear up the question of the validity of Padilla's claims?)

"The terrible irony of this case is that the system did what it was supposed to do," Clair said. "It was faced with heinous allegations and took the children away based on those allegations."

It is unclear whether Padilla's claims of child abuse in the Cordell-Reeh's home are true, but the mother's suit claims that, had the agency performed adequate personal, professional and legal background checks on Padilla, they would have uncovered, at the least, a shaky past.

"This case is about the obligation the agency has to do a background check on someone with access to your home and access to the most cherished possession in the home, namely children," said Clair. "In a society that does background checks on bus drivers and teachers, the nanny industry seems to have slipped behind some dark corner."

Different states, different rules

The suit could hinge on how much the agency was required to know. In an industry that is regulated loosely in some states and not at all in others, the type and scope of checking performed by nanny agencies can vary drastically.

In New York, where Nannies of St. James was operating in this case, only some agencies are licensed by the Department of Consumer Affairs and the guidelines on background checks only stipulate what cannot be asked of applicants, not what must be asked.

"The questions I ask I am not really supposed to ask," said Cook, whose application includes questions about physical conditions and psychological counseling. "But I would rather be fined for asking too much rather than too little and then have something happen to someone's child."

California has the strictest regulations, requiring all childcare givers to be registered on a database called TrustLine that uses state and federal criminal records and other personal information to screen applicants.

In most states, a background check typically involves a criminal history check and Social Security trace to determine the prospective nanny's listed addresses, according to Kathleen Webb, managing partner of nannynetwork.com, a Virginia-based resource and networking site for parents and nannies.

Such a search on Padilla would not have yielded any red flags, however, because there were never any criminal charges filed against her and her residence history was consistent. Even a plaintiff search, to identify court cases involving the applicant, would have been clean because most agencies do not check civil cases, like the one Padilla filed against New Hope Counseling Center.

Reference checks, however, are a separate process. Typically, a nanny is required to give a list of past employers and personal references for a certain number of years to be verified by the agency. But these checks may not often been done, or done thoroughly enough.

"It is human nature for people to seek to sanitize their references," said Webb. "It is not specific to nannies. However, if parents engage an agency then an agency should be able to find those inconsistencies in the background."

Cordell-Reeh declined to comment on the case. Padilla was unable to be reached by Court TV and at press time she had not yet been served with court papers, but she told the Sunday Times of London, "None of the allegations against me is true. I am a credentialed nanny with excellent references and the agency carried out background checks on me. If I am so crazy, why did the mother hire me?"

And on her Web site, Padilla wrote, "I've heard a lot [of] Nanny horror stories and I'm sure you have too."

A court will begin to decide July 8 when Cordell-Reeh's custody trial is set to begin.

That story was from 2002;
Here is some follow-up information from New York Magazine's Alex Williams:

(I highly reccommend reading Mr. William's complete article; I have included only snippets from the original four page story.)

Nanny Nightmare

Accused of mistreating her kids -- and suddenly at risk of losing them -- she was too shocked to panic. The charges could have come from only one person: the ex-nanny.

• By Alex Williams

Indeed, from the moment those papers ( "Her husband of nineteen years, with whom sheshared custody, had filed an emergency motion with New York Supreme Court, seeking immediate sole custody of the twins until further order of the court.") were served, something was terribly wrong in Cordell-Reeh's home, as even the mother would agree. For the first six weeks, instead of sleeping there five nights a week -- Owsley [Cordell-Reeh's estranged husband] had weekends -- the children were allowed to spend only five hours a day, three afternoons a week, with their mother, always with someone else present. Eventually, the restrictions loosened, but only slightly. For the next several months, the children were allowed only two or three nights a week in their mother's home, and only under the watchful eye of a court-app ointed supervisor, who slept on the living-room sofa. At times, the court allowed a friend of Cordell-Reeh's to serve in this role. At other times, it required a credentialed social worker...

On Friday morning -- the day she was served the emergency custody papers -- Cordell-Reeh hired a lawyer, but it wasn't easy to find someone who would champion her case. With her husband's lawyer assembling a broad assault on her skills as a mother, prompted by Padilla's devastating abuse allegations, she needed to reverse momentum, turn the fight back against Padilla. Her first lawyer, with whom she worked for three months, was gravely skeptical about her chances. His ultimate analysis, she said, came down to a single sentence: "I hope you've got a rabbit to pull out of a hat."

... a report by a court-appointed mental-health expert, [who] found no evidence of sexual abuse in the Cordell-Reeh case but also concluded that Padilla's judgment appeared to be sound and that she had acted in good faith by reporting the allegations.

... immediately took aim at Padilla's credibility, reasoning that the entire edifice of Owsley's case would crumble if he could knock out that supporting pillar. There was, in fact, already some progress on that front. A private investigator had uncovered documentation from an unrelated case in which, according to Clair, a therapist's notes indicated that Padilla said she had worked as a prostitute.

On June 11 -- before the trial had even begun -- Cordell-Reeh filed a $20 million lawsuit, demandin g $10 million from Nannies of St. James, alleging the agency had failed "to take reasonable investigatory steps regarding Padilla," and another $10 million from Padilla herself, charging that she had intentionally inflicted emotional distress by making false statements "premised on the worst kind of malice and extreme vindictiveness." Initial motions will be heard in Manhattan Supreme Court by the end of the month.

Meanwhile, Padilla has fired back with a $10 million countersuit of her own, arguing that she "has been injured in her reputation and good standing in her community and has been held up to ridicule and contempt by her friends, acquaintances, neighbors, and the public in general."

As it turns out, Cordell-Reeh and her ex-husband have joint custody of their two children today.
I apologize for the long post. This story fascinated me. I tried to imagine what it must have been like for Ms. Cordell-Reeh to have someone accuse her of heinous acts against her children (the accusations of the specific acts of sexual abuse are particularly disturbing).

I posted this story because it is one more reminder of how difficult it is as a parent to find the right nanny, and how us nannies (who are supremely confident in our abilities) truly have the upper hand. As nannies, we are looking for a job. Parents on the other hand are looking for someone to nurture and care for the most important thing in their lives, their children. I hope stories like this can help nannies realize the delicate nature of our jobs. Parent have no way of knowing what goes on every moment we are with their children. And as was mentioned in a previous article I posted, some nannies come with baggage that doesn't manifest itself until something bad happens. That is why I am a huge proponent of fostering open dialogues with parents. Keeping communication lines open is one of the most crucial aspects of a successful nanny/mother relationship. It's a tricky situation. I do not mean to suggest that parents need coddling; only that it makes sense from a professional and moral standpoint to assure parents that you have their child's best interest at heart, always.