Au pair trial yields public scorn for working parents

The needling comments about parenthood come at a time when child care is a hot button issue in a society which employs more than 3 million child care providers, mostly because of working parents. Hillary Clinton, herself a working mother in her days as the wife of a governor, hosted a White House conference on the subject only last week. So acute is the lack of child care providers that the US government officially initiated the au pair program in the booming 80s.

It was not so much to ease the nanny shortage but to provide a cultural exchange programme for students. The French term au pair means as an equal, and an au pair, often treated as a family member, provides the services of a professional nanny while experiencing life in the United States. Under the 1986 US Information Agency-funded programme, more than 12,000 au pairs come to America each year offering a popular nanny option for middle and upper-income families at a low price. Under current rules, au pairs must be between 18 and 26 years of age and are required to meet specified safety standards. They must be adept at English and should have completed secondary school. They also receive 24 hours of instruction in child development and eight hours of safety training before they come on duty. They can work no more than 10 hours a day and 45 hours a week and must be paid $ 139 a week. They also receive an education stipend and room and board.

Louise met all the conditions. But the prosecution painted her as a reckless teenager, more interested in Boston’s night-life than in caring for the Eappen boys. She apparently had run-ins with the Eappens over her late nights and telephone usage. The prosecution argued successfully that on the afternoon of February 4, she took out her frustration on baby Matthew, slamming his head on a hard surface. The child died five days later with a skull fracture.

Although the death of a child at the hands of an au pair is rare, this is not the first such case. Some years ago, a Dutch baby-sitter was accused of shaking an eight-week-old child to death but was acquitted. The government then began to propose even tougher standards for the programme but backed down after 3500 American families sent letters opposing the new rules. What added to the drama was the high social profile of the Eappens, who as doctors are the envy of workaday Americans. Typically, a doctor couple could be earning $ 500,000 a year. Although Deborah worked only part time to be able to care for her children, few paused to consider her sacrifice in a frenzy of finger pointing. Feelings about the case was also exacerbated by the telecast of the proceedings — relayed live by Court TV and picked up in the latter stages by television in the United Kingdom.

Many social commentators said the telecast contributed to grand standing by the prosecution and the defence and led to a soap opera situation, like in the case of the OJ Simpson trial. Following the verdict, the British media has been acidly commenting on the fact that while OJ was acquitted on murder charges despite a stronger case, the English girl was convicted on much less evidence. One British commentator went as far as claiming that Boston is a very anti-English town and has been ever since the Boston Tea Party.