Update: A jury in the case against the English Nanny and Governess school found for the plaintiffs this week, awarding $392,750 plus attorneys’ fees for Christina Cruz and Heidi Kaiser ($150,000 compensatory and $168,750 punitive for Cruz, and $20,000 compensatory and $54,000 punitive for Kaiser). The ENGS is owned and operated by Sheilagh Roth and Bradford Gaylord.
The details of the case are grisly (the school retaliating against Cruz, who was a student, and Kaiser, who was an employee, for bringing to the attention of the school’s owners a case of sexual abuse involving a client and his daughter. (More on that in the original story below.)
“The jury’s verdict affirms the importance of the strict standard for reporting child abuse,” said the plaintiffs’ attorney Peter Pattakos. “If you see something, say something. This case shows why we are called to such a high standard. As we’ve seen here, and in other high-profile cases across the country, it can be all too easy to look the other way when a child’s safety is at risk.”
***
(Original story, 3/31/2015): A Chagrin Falls “nanny school” that trains nannies before placing them with rich families is in court this week, three and a half years after a former student and former employee filed a lawsuit, saying the school’s owners retaliated after the student reported she saw a wealthy client sexually abuse his daughter in 2011.
The English Nanny and Governess School and its unsurprisingly-named owners Bradford Gaylord and Sheilagh Roth are accused of trying to suppress a report made by Christina Cruz, an ENGS student, who said she witnessed a wealthy Philadelphia-area businessman sexually abuse his 9-year-old daughter while she was on a three-day “extended interview” with the family following her completion of the school’s three-month program. Gaylord and Roth urged Cruz not to say anything — emphasizing that reporting child abuse “can ruin lives” and that her “her career prospects would suffer if she made the report, including by communicating that her access to job opportunities through their placement service would be contingent on whether she made the report or not,” Cruz’s lawyers say. They were worried about losing business of “high-caliber clientele” and the public image of the school if she went through with it.
“What is this mess?” Roth is accused of saying to Cruz. “You’re not going to be reporting anybody, you’re not a professional, you’re not going to report our client.”
After Cruz made the report, which she was likely to have been required to make by state law and the school’s own teachings and policy, Gaylord and Roth are accused of engaging in a smear campaign to discredit her and limit her job prospects by saying that she was mentally “unstable” because she previously saw a therapist and her parents had divorced and remarried.
“Mrs. Roth said that Christina’s parents had several marriages and of course that creates an unstable person,” a then-employee recorded in the following weeks. They stopped responding to Cruz’s inquiries and stopped attempting to place her with other clients, which they are contractually required to do for its students, the suit states.
The other plaintiff in the case is former ENGS placement director Heidi Kaiser, who was fired after she “refused to participate” in Gaylord and Roth’s “attempt to suppress Cruz’s report.” Just weeks before the incident Roth wrote to an acquaintance how glad she was to have her at the school (“I hired her immediately and she is a wonderful asset to [ENGS].”) When Kaiser didn’t play ball with them following the incident — and refused to place other nannies with the client whom Cruz said abused his daughter — the owners are accused of saying she had an alcohol problem and didn’t do a menial task as pretext to fire her.
A Chester County (PA) detective — a witness for the plaintiffs — wrote an affidavit saying he did not find anything in his investigation that was “inconsistent” with what Cruz reported. He also stated there was a previous complaint of child abuse against the man based on a cell phone video taken by his youngest daughter of him in bed with his naked older daughter.
Because of Cruz’s report and subsequent investigation by the detective and the Chester County Office of Children and Family Services, the two children were removed from his custody, and the case remains open.
At issue in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas this week are Cruz’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against Roth and Gaylord, Cruz’s complaint against ENGS for breach of contract, and Kaiser’s claim of wrongful termination.
This article appears in Mar 25-31, 2015.
I almost went to this school but heard nothing but bad things about it and to stay clear of it. What a shame.
I went to this school and let me tell you, when I went I had to opt out of a class because one of the teachers were inappropriate. This place is sad & the owners need to just step down & stop covering up their tracks. This place made me feel uncomfortable & made me really reconsider my love for nannying. Luckily I was able to find my own placement.
I went to this school and it was a complete waste of my time and money. They made me get a $250 hair cut/color and buy an expensive interview outfit so that I could “present myself properly” to clients, but then refused to ever let me interview with anyone. After months of school and thousands of dollars in tuition, I never got a job and had to move back home and return to college for a masters degree. I’m surprised nothing like this has happened to Roth and Gaylord before now.
My daughter went to ENGS. I was appauled at the lack of professionalism and down right immaturity of all the staff. Especially Gaylord and Roth. Total waste of what could be a wonderful opportunity for young women. They should be ashamed of themselves. This story doesn’t surprise me a bit.
They have a horrible reputation locally. Poor girl. I’m so sorry she’s going through this.
I attended ENGS and was incredibly disappointed in my experience there. When I brought up an issue of feeling intimiadted, ignored, and inappropriately treated I was yelled at and told I was immature and a trouble maker. It seemed like an amazing opportunity, but it was nothing that it seemed. Not only was the school incredibly unprofessional, but they also treat students incredibly inappropraitely. They call us present us as professional and treat us like children hoping no one will take a stand. If you’re still considering this school despite this article, I advise you to reconsider. They will not support you, they are in it for the money and reputation.
I attended this school and have worked with them on placement over the years since. I’ll second the mother who commented above on lack of professionalism and immaturity!
As a former employee of ENGS I know that the money and the feeling of self importance is the motivating factor of this business. It’s all about the money…period. I would find it hard to believe that they would put money and reputation before the well being and safety of a child. They mislead their students and potential students. Telling them they have jobs waiting. This is false. They are a placement agency that charges a HUGE amount for training. They will not negotiate placement fees because heaven forbid they have to take a cut in a enormous placement fee to be competitive. These girls are told they will live in lovely homes and live a glamorous lifestyle. Don’t kid yourself…you are the HELP. I left after 3 months. I could not live a lie and mislead these poor girls. I couldn’t sleep at night. Being screamed at and treated with such disrespect I couldn’t do it anymore. Brad Gaylord and his mother deserve to loose this business. Shame on them.
My daughter went to this school. The owners and operators are devious, lying, money-hungry people. They are only concerned about themselves and the money that young girls can bring to them. They do not care about their students and they definitely mislead them into believing their are great jobs awaiting them. There are few if any great jobs that pay the kind of money they are led to believe they will be offered. If you challenge Bradford or his mother on any level, they will call your crazy, blame your family upbringing, or anything else they can do to discredit you. If all else fails, they will force you to leave the school often loosing all the thousands of dollars given to them to attend the classes. They two have no right to be in business. They have done many despicable things and have no right to continue to operate a business. Bradford and Sheilah are immature, dishonest, and unprofessional.
The English Nanny and Governess School is one of three nanny schools in the country. The high cost is because they are the top in their business class. They are professionals at what they do.
I’ve known Brad and his mother Sheila Roth for over 50 years and have never seen either of them do anything inappropriate. They both conduct themselves with the utmost integrity, respect for other people and commitment to their profession. Based on my relationship with them, I find it impossible to believe these accusations.
I suggest you stay tuned. I know of few people who are are horrible as they two. They have done many things to hurt young girls. Some who can afford to sue, do so. There is a settlement that involves those girls signing a document to never speak ill of the school. They have done the same to previous students. The news finally has this story and you are going to be quite surprised at what comes out. Maybe not as professional as you think.
All these comments are making me want to puke. It’s unfortunate that some of you had a bad experience. But attending ENGS was life changing for me. I learned so much that has made me a better, more creative, confident nanny. No matter the age of the child. The variety of classes offered covers everything you would ever need to know. Preparing me to be the best nanny I can and mother one day ! Worth every penny to me. I still carry my text books with me on a daily basis. So many kids are sucked into technology now a days. We had an awesome creative unplugged play class. So many activities to do with no technology ! I hate to see all of this negativity written about a school that changed my life for the better. I love my job and wouldn’t trade it for anything in the world. I have this job today because of ENGS!!!
I am an Alumni of the ENGS as well. Unlike some of you. I have had none of the experiences you all describe. ENGS charges high placement fees for a reason. They are one of first schools to have trained Professional Nannies in this country. They train their Nannies to be the best in the business. I got two jobs through them. Both locally. But they were well paying for the time. I would always recommend their training program. To me, these accusations seem so out of character for both Mrs. Roth or Brad Gaylord. They are very professional. Have integrity and have been kind to me over the last eleven years I have known them. They both as well as the Staff have treated me with respect and have supported me as well. They taught me all I needed to know about caring for children in a professional manner. I still use the techniques i learned and behave in a manner befitting the school. They taught me to be a great Child Care Professional and Teacher! They are respectful, and unless you violate the school’s rules or behave inappropriately on the job. I see absolutely no reason for them for treating Any of their Students or Alumni in the way they are describing above. Also, I have a very hard time believing they would put the safety of and welfare of any child before a profit!
I also attended ENGS. I have not seen a more Professional School. The program there was topnotch. I paid a lot of money to go there for a reason. That was to obtain the training to be a better Child Care Professional. Through their training program I became a Nanny. I got two jobs through their Placement Department. Although I was placed locally, they paid pretty good money. I wasn’t promised the moon, as they were straight forward and honest about what I was to expect to make locally. Realistically, you can’t expect to be making a million, as a Nanny or Governess. and I doubt they would promise that. I have not had a bad experience with them and I have known them for some time. The owners as well as the Staff behave in a Professional way, with integrity befitting their stature. They have supported me and treated me with respect. I have been treated always as a Professional with kindness. I am sorry but I just cannot believe the very negative, hateful comments here nor the accusations that Mrs. Roth and Brad Gaylord are even capable of doing the despicable things they are accused of. Also, unbelievable to even think they would place a child’s safety and well being before a profit! The reason they charge high fees is because they are the FiRST School to train Professional Nannies in this Country. We ought to be able to deal with any situation that might occur on the job as Professionals. They train you to be the best! Otherwise you can go to an ordinary agency and try to get a “Nanny” job for above minimum wage. I am glad I graduated from there and have the training as a Nanny, from ENGS. I still use the training and technique I learned there.
Where you in the same class with the student that Bradford slept with?
This is absolutely ridiculous. Mr Gaylord is nothing but respectful, caring, and professional. I recently graduated from ENGS and cannot believe this poor journalism. Where is the other side of the story? The school trains nannies and places them all over the world and maintains a high standard. Why is the nanny school at trial for emotional distress? Is it where the money is? This is defamation. The school is the best school in the world for nannies and placing clients-and this case is one where a lawyer is attempting to take the fame from the school by publishing articles trying to get attention to the case and himself. As I said this is ridiculous, the school has done nothing but the best for its students. This is a case related to a client, if the girl was so inflicted with distress why did she not notify the authorities herself?
Nanny2012 sure seems like Bradford…what former student would blame the lawyer, use words like defamation or get into the merits of the case. Nice try.
The school’s owners have a horrible reputation. This article or case isnt a surprise.
My prior response was to how the office staff/staff have handled things through placement services over the years. The schooling itself and the teachers at the time I attended were good. Many of the girls in my class did not have a good experience with jobs through the school or the way conflicts were handled with families, myself included. Nannies have been placed with families that shouldn’t have a nanny re-placed with them! Yet, it means more $ for the school, so whats the harm in placing another nanny?
Unless the person making the comment above was in my class, there were strong words at the time I attended the program of someone sleeping with a student.
Before students attend this school they must pass a psycho-social exam. This would rule out the comment made above in the article. To my understanding no background check or anything other than an application and phone interview is done on the parents. Yes, this article is very poorly written. However, based off my own personal experiences with this business over 10+ years, what is written here doesn’t come as a surprise.
User Nice Try, is defamation a big word for you? Reading the article and understanding the case isn’t difficult. What poor journalism “‘nanny school'” really? My comment is related to the article here which is related to the litigation, not the school itself. Is this an attempt to draw negative PR to the school and not actually draw attention to the lack of merit surrounding this litigation?
No, Bradford it’s not a big word for me. Neither is pedophile, which is a disgusting horrible thing that child providers and people training child providers need to be cognizant of and are required to report. If this school turned a blind eye (or worse willing ignored) a pedophile client solely for money, then the article isn’t a PR attack. It’s a public service. It is exactly what the media should be doing.
As to the litigation, the defense doesn’t seem to be saying that they weren’t told of the child abuse. Nor are they denying that they did not report it. Instead, they are saying the student wasn’t trustworthy and attacking her personally. So, assuming the reporter can read a complaint and correctly report the pertinent facts, it is not even in dispute that this student informed you and your mom about the abuse and you did NOTHING about it. Whether that deserves a legal remedy for the student is to be determined. But the public shaming is more than deserved.
As a client of ENGS who did hire through them I believe them to be in it for the money. When hiring through them they emphasized the training of the girls but never backround checked me or my husband. They never visited or asked for references to my character before sending a nanny here to interview. I love the nanny I hired. The nannies coming out if ENGS can be extremely trained and professional. But that does not mean the administration there is. Once I paid the school the placement fee I never heard from them again. My nanny was left to negotiate her contract details alone (other than salary – which I am told is what the school bases their placement fee off of). In my opionion, the school is concerned about money and reputation. If you can pay them and dont argue with them, theyll send a nanny.
By the comments under this article, its very apparent that the school needs to be investigated on the way business is run. As one of three nanny schools in the country it seems like business practices are falling through the cracks. By reading these comments its pretty obvious people are interested in what is happening. The battle of likes and dislikes are pretty active in the comments. I’m hopeful that there will be a follow up article to what happened in this court hearing. Also hopeful that this article and comments stay up so that future clients, and nanny/governess candidates are able to read this before making a decision to go with ENGS.
I hope there are follow up articles about this battle. Considering that Fox News, Cleveland Scene, ABC, and other news organizations to advertise their services I hope people can see this news too. People should know what it is that they’re really getting and what kind of business they are really supporting. Seems to me this is not a very honest business from the negative reviews from previous students not only here but also on review websites. I would love to know how this resolves.
My daughter just graduated from this “school” this past year and was not offered one job. When we went to look into the school they gave us a binder full of job opportunities available all over the country. When the time came to place the girls, there were only 3 available. I have real issues with both Bradford and his mother. Most certainly they are in it for the money only. He is not someone that the girls were comfortable with. Also, they don’t interview the families that are looking for a nanny, which is a huge red flag. You would assume that would be their number one job after receiving a request for a nanny. If only we’d known that ahead of time. Also, the living quarters for the students are awful. At the time, the smoke detectors weren’t even working. However, my daughter did get a nice job on her own and some of the knowledge she learned has been put to good use. I would NEVER recommend this place.
I also attended this school and can say they are not professional at all. I went on a flyout and witnessed a lot of questionable things yet the school didn’t care they just wanted to send someone else out to receive their money. Once you make the school mad they just cut you off. They also say they will help you negotiate and do a contract but once they recieve te placement fee from the family you never hear from them again. They are money hungry people. They people who have had positive experiences with the school I see attended years ago. I can tell you that a lot has changed at the school now. They don’t have as many girls in their classes so there is less money and they aren’t getting the high profile clients they used to so they are going down hill. They don’t care about their nannies they care about the money you can make them. It’s sad but true!
I am a graduate of ENGS and while I learned a lot about myself at this school, the most important thing I learned was it needs to be shut down. The staff only cares about their fancy cars and pay checks not about the children and families who are involved. Mr. Gaylord and the staff promise to be a sounding board and come to your aid if you ever have a problem with your placement, but I can tell you I was left on my own once they received their placement fee. That is until the three month window has passed and they can then charge another placement fee to the family if you wanted out of your position. I was placed with a family and had issues from the first week and in our training at the school we were told to immediately contact them which I did, but my calls and e-mails were never returned. I did my du diligence in looking into the school before paying the tuition, but I now know that they threaten legal action to anyone who posts a negative review of them. I am hopeful that a full investigation finally occurrs to put ENGS out of business for good.
Trial of the case is now in its fourth week at the Lakeside courthouse. It may finish this week.
The owners of the school were found to be responsible for intentional infliction of emotional abuse and wrongful termination this past Thursday by a jury of their peers
I have heard several people refer this ENGS as one of three nanny schools in the US. Can someone tell me the other two?
Our daughter went to this “school” in April 2012 probably about the time that this all happened as we recall Heidi left not long after she graduated. I feel the school probably was legit back in its heyday, and its a great concept but we experienced the same as most have reported here–its all wonderful until you question ANYTHING from Bradford (we were never even allowed to talk to Sheleigh about our concerns) and then it becomes all about how anything lacking in the program is all your child’s fault, that if your child is not getting job offers its all about her. To me this is nothing different from the old “finishing school” scams of the 1960s and 1970s and the more current modeling “school” scams that have you pay a bunch of up front fees and sell you on the glamorous well paying jobs you will have that never materialize. The several “fly outs” she went on and the one job she started were nothing short of horrific–the fear these girls have being completely isolated and at the mercy of these families in an unfamiliar town puts them at the absolute mercy of the school. They do little background checking of the families, because certainly if they did they would have verified that the family that they sent her to was totally and completely nuts, and had what we suspected was a sex offender uncle living with them making lurid comments to her and saying he knew where she slept etc. etc. The father insisted on providing our daughter a cell phone and putting her personal email on it even though she protested just so he could snoop on what she was reporting back to us! Bradford deliberately sets the girls against their own parents who are paying for the program, telling them they are adults and capable of negotiating their own contracts, and not to be in touch with us about what they are doing outside of the “official communication” on their facebook page–and we are the ones paying the $10k plus tuition! After she left and no jobs were forthcoming I started vetting the school further and found out the reasons they are not an accredited vocational school in Ohio is that the Ohio State Board of Vocational examiners would not approve them because they had nothing to back up their claims of the hours and content of training provided–their “syllabus” is never followed! I am glad this is finally coming to light and hope they get shut down once and for all–I won’t say it was a total waste of money in that our daughter matured really fast from this awful experience and learned some important skills that she has been able to apply to the nanny jobs she has been able to find on her own, but that don’t pay even close to what the school will lead you to believe is out there.
Re above post–was April 2011, not 2012.
Why would anyone pay a lot of money for “nanny schooling” this just sounds ridiculous. I’ve been a nanny for 10 years now and I am with my third family making $52,000 annual salary. Go through a nannying agency and look at the family profiles and see which family sounds like a match for you.
Judge Corrigan saw Christina’s case the same way that I did … before the trial! The following is extracted from one of the Appeal documents:
“On October 30,2013, Judge Brian Corrigan granted defendants motion for summary
judgment in part. The ruling denied Ms, Cruz claims for defamation and intentional infliction
of serious emotional distress but allowed her claim for breach of contract and Mrs. Kaiser’s
claim for wrongful discharge to remain.”
The only justification for Mrs. Kaiser’s claim for wrongful discharge (sounds like a health issue) is that she was ordered to do something that was detrimental to public welfare … telling Christina to withhold the report of child-abuse. If the order was never given, then why offer to settle???
Attending ENGS was a decision that I do wish I would have looked into further. The professors that taught the courses were an amazing blessing, and the girls I attended with have become life long friends… but Mrs. Roth, Bradford Gaylord were far from helpful. When going to the school for my interview, I was shown a large binder of jobs all over the world… come to find out none of those jobs were available and were from years and years prior. They ” guarantee placement” for graduates, and that was not the case. Very few of my classmates actually received jobs from the school at the end of the program. The scandal that has surfaced about Mrs. Roth and Bradford is not shocking in the slightest. The administration is money focused, and cares very little about their students finding placements that are right for them. When I chose not to take a job that was obviously not a good fit for me, Lynne and the rest of the staff yelled at me over the phone and said good luck ever finding a job thru them again… there is nothing wrong with turning down a job offer that is not a good match! As a nanny, you want the best fit for you but also the child/ family you will work for and ENGS should want that for their nannies… My classmates and I wish we had looked into the school further before attending. Another issue was the dorms, not only did nothing work in the building, but our heat went out in the winter and Bradford took two weeks to fix the problem while making jokes about how he still has heat at his house.. It was also extremely dirty upon our arrival. We also told him a moldy smell was in the dorm and he did nothing to check into it further, and was angry with us that we kept telling him about it.I ended up finding my last two jobs on my own, and have LOVED my jobs. I want to thank the professors for what they taught me, they are the only good in that school besides the secretary Ricky. i STRONGLY encourage girls looking into the school to look elsewhere. Highly doubt they will be in business after this year.
@JeffreyMiller think you have you been seriously mis lead by this horribly run company. I am thankful for my friends and professors but I did not leave ENGS with any knowledge that was amazing or things I didn’t know from nannying in the past. it was a waste of my money and my classmates money. Mrs Roth and Gaylord have no respect or honesty in them. They con young girls into taking jobs and interviewing for jobs they don’t want. They are angry after you decide not to take a position. you “think” wrong that I am proud of that school. I am embarrassed to say I supported such a horribly run business.
we would’ve considered the child endangered and so did Cruz. I back her 100%
I am a graduate of the English Nanny & Governess School – class of 1995. I am amazed at the feedback this lawsuit has brought. Some with valid points, others not. While having reviewed different articles regarding this lawsuit and the ensuing comments, I am dumbfounded as to the “lynch mob” mentally stated in the articles as well as the reviews of those articles. Quite frankly…I am appalled at the lack of respect and objectivity with which this case has generated. Former graduates and non-graduate students making references as if all the students and graduates felt the same. Please don’t because that is not an accurate representation of the rest of us. I acknowledge that Mr. Gaylord and Mrs. Roth have made mistakes throughout their careers…so have I.
The school does have to re-evaluate some of the more valid comments made. For example:
– The school does put too much emphasis on profits and not enough on a “well-fit” match between client and graduate.
– Mr. Gaylord’s demeanor can be putting off to some, but not all.
– Mrs. Roth does talk “above” the audience instead of to them. Yes, those of us who have heard her are aware of this, and yes, she does need to work on this. Having said this, SHE DOES NOT DESEERVE DISREPECTFUL AND UGLY COMMENTS – NO ONE DOES! SHE IS A HUMAN BEING LIKE YOU AND ME. PERIOD!!
– The English Nanny & Governess School does need to revamp their security screening for both potential students and clients.
– The communication between owners, G.M., staff, students, former and current graduates, and clients needs to more effective and efficient to prevent misunderstandings and to promote understanding.
– Everyone, and I do mean everyone, needs to take ownership of their part in all this including Ms. Cruz.
I understand that some of the examples stated seem trivial, but they are not. In order to get things fixed some times it means tackling the small stuff first.
My experiences with Mrs. Roth during my time at the school and at INA conferences have found her to be warm, pleasant, kind, professional, and quite frankly, a joy to be around. As to the school befitting this comment “…whether these families are physically, emotionally or sexually abusive seems to be fairly irrelevant” and “We are pressured to say whatever we have to say (even if it is untrue) in order to make a good impression on interviews.” it is unfounded to say the least. The commenter was stating a feeling of how she felt…it is her perception not a FACT. My experiences and perceptions are completely different; therefore, I see Mr. Gaylord, Mrs. Roth, and the English Nanny & Governess School in a different light.
THERE ARE TWO THINGS LEFT TO NOTE:
– RESPECT is given not earned and it is trust that is earned.
– For those of you who see and/or experienced the imperfectness of Mr. Gaylord, Mrs. Roth, and the ENGS please forgive them and move on. They are not monsters. And for those of us who are grateful to what they have done in the nanny industry… THEY NEED TO HEAR YOUR VOICES! Please step forward and speak.
Here is a quote worth remembering:
“Each of us is responsible for everything and to every human being.”
– Dostoyevsky
Lynette Wommer, C.P.N.
The evidence at trial showed that as soon as Ms. Cruz witnessed the child-sex-abuse, she safely extracted herself from the abuser’s custody and sought immediate advice from the highly authoritarian professionals at ENGS, who purported to be her mentors and had her career in her hands. Roth and Gaylord both immediately told her not to report. Thankfully Ms. Cruz persisted under extremely difficult circumstances, including increased pressure and then outright abuse from Roth and Gaylord, and reported anyway.
As for the two little girls, the case is in the hands of Chester County law enforcement, who would have never been involved if not for Ms. Cruz’s ability to overcome the pressure exerted on her by Roth and Gaylord. Ms. Cruz is a hero, and thankfully the jury understood this despite an extremely deceptive (and expensive) defense put on by the English Nanny Governess School.
As for why Mr. Miller was apparently so susceptible to Defendants’ defense (which, again, thankfully, did not fool any of his other fellow jurors), there could be many reasons, but it should be noted that his testimony during jury selection established that he is a convicted criminal who served significant time in prison.
@Peter Pattakos: How could you have misunderstood my testimony during jury selection? I’ve NEVER BEEN IN PRISON … NOT EVEN A VISIT!!!
Christina testified that after she witnessed the incident, she quietly went back to her room and returned. She couldn’t call for help because she couldn’t use her phone. She went home the next day as if nothing happened. Is “safely extracted herself from the abuser’s custody” your way of describing “the abuser/Vince Willis” driving her to public transportation?
The “immediate advice” that Christina “sought” was from the Placement Director/Co-Plaintiff Heidi Kaiser on Saturday. They decided that it could wait until Monday … leaving the girls in the care of the “Abuser/Vince Willis” until Monday! WHAT KIND OF HERO IS THIS??? Bradford testified that Heidi never talked to him that Monday … and THAT makes more sense! According to testimony, Christina described the incident to Bradford 2 WEEKS LATER!
Christina didn’t get a job. Neither did 5 of the other 8 students. You say that Chester County Law Enforcement would have never been involved were it not for your Client’s report. Would they have been notified if she got a job? Why did it take over a month for her to report???
Oh, yeah. Her installment payments for tuition costs began to “bounce” 🙁
Why can’t I find anything from a “Vince Willis, Child-Abuse, Chester County, PA” Google Search? I could be wrong, but it seems that you refer to this as an open case. I’d really like to verify that this case was reported.
Challenge for anyone reading this comment. If I’ve never been in prison, then I would have NEVER TESTIFIED (during Jury Selection) that I was!!! I didn’t … but I DID testify that Misdemeanor Charges had been ERONEOUSLY posted as Felonies. I may have been denied the privilege of serving on Jury Duty until I was able to get the error corrected. 🙂 I think the erroneous posting was made on purpose. Wish I could find a lawyer to take MY case (: Thought of asking you, Peter. But I don’t think I need a “flim-flam” lawyer to win 🙂
“Misdemeanor charges had been erroneously posted as felonies?” And you never served time? How does that work? I might be mistaken in remembering your testimony on whether you went to prison but my notes state that you were terminated from a job for lying on the application about two felony convictions. Is that not true, Mr. Miller? And did these convictions not relate to drug possession?
In any event, the evidence did show that Cruz reported immediately upon arriving safely out of the alleged child abusers custody, and followed the advice of the professionals at ENGS from there until she realized that they intended to suppress her report. You were free to believe the Defendants’ testimony. Thankfully, none of the other jurors did.
If anyone is curious about the alleged child-abuser, the affidavit of Chester County Detective Gerald Davis is quoted above and is public record in this case.
@Peter Pattakos: I don’t think that drug related charges from the year 1999 have anything to do with this case or my credibility. However, a Confidential Informant asked me twice to help him find our “local distributor”. I never touched money or drugs. I was indicted for 2 counts of Felony Drug Trafficking; but plead guilty to 2 counts of Misdemeanor Permitting Drug Abuse. Six months suspended, $250 fine, 2 years probation. I had little help from my Public Defender; but I destroyed the D. A. ‘s case just like I’m destroying your’s. DON’T DO DRUGS!!!
It’s interesting that you use the Jury’s verdict to support your claims against E.N.G.S. Considering that Judge Corrigan ruled against your claim of “Emotional Distress” in Summary Judgement … you must have been TOTALLY AMAZED that the Jury awarded almost 3 TIMES WHAT YOU HAD REQUESTED!!! Doesn’t that make you question the Jury’s judgement??? I WAS DISGUSTED!!!
When Bradford Gaylord testified, his contempt for you was obvious. I was aware of how you were twisting and distorting the case, and understood his feelings. The second time that Mrs. Roth testified, she seemed a little more “feisty” than the first. I think she was a “proud Mom” 🙂 The other Jurors thought of Bradford as a “monster”. I saw a man standing up for his family and business … I think I used the word “Hero” 🙂
One of the Jurors said that he was angered when Bradford said that he would respond the same way today as he did then. Christina told him about the incident (2 weeks after it occurred); and he told his mother the next morning. Seemed reasonable to me. Maybe that’s because I can’t recall ANYTHING that Christina or Bradford said about this conversation that indicated Bradford already knew (or should have known) about the incident (from Heidi Kaiser).
One last thing before Christmas Break:
Christina’s account of the incident to Bradford and Mrs. Roth (and even Heidi Kaiser) was a BIG ISSUE!!! Whatever Christina said to Heidi on Saturday could wait until Monday. Is that the account that Christina told Barbara and Angel and Bradford and Mrs. Roth?
The final account that was finally submitted to authorities who could actually HELP THE GIRLS was like a “Lifetime Movie Network” movie script. I find it hard to believe that an educated professional like Sherry would have helped Christina write something like that as an official report. Was it written in that style to influence and draw sympathy from a Jury?
So, you were fired from your job for lying on your application about two felony convictions, and you believe this has nothing to do with your credibility? That’s interesting.
I see that you also misunderstand Judge Corrigan’s ruling on summary judgment on the emotional distress claim, which he reversed when it was shown that the Defendants withheld evidence showing their retaliation against Christina, including evidence that they tried to send another nanny to work in the alleged child-sex-abuser’s home without telling her anything about Christina’s allegations.
I do agree with you that Mr. Gaylord was upset when he was required to testify about his misdeeds. Believe it or not, that is not an uncommon phenomenon among guilty or liable defendants.
@Peter Pattakos: I received a “Digital Conviction”. The Indictment was for two(2) felonies. The Conviction was for two(2) misdemeanors. Fourteen years later I look at my Criminal History Report after applying for a job that requires a Background Investigation and see a conviction for 2 felonies. I showed the report to my new employer, who terminated me shortly thereafter. The computer error was corrected after a 2 month loss of income and a great deal of difficulty in identifying who could make the correction. The error is the result of either gross negligence/incompetence or a vindictive D.A. Either way; I feel that this error could have happened to anyone who plead guilty after a plea bargain or was as troublesome as I was to the D.A. The A.C.L.U. will hear from me again.
Let’s get back on topic!
Heidi testified that she told Bradford about the incident, and Bradford testified that she did not. One of them was telling a lie.
If Heidi was telling the truth:
1) Bradford told her to tell Christina not to report the incident.
2) Bradford told Heidi to send more resumes to Vince Willis (the child-abuser) and told her not to tell the nannies about what Christina had experienced.
3) Heidi sent resumes of nannies that she knew Vince Willis would reject.
4) Vince Willis withdrew from his client status because he wasn’t receiving resumes of “The Cream Of The Crop”.
If Bradford was telling the truth:
1) I’ve explained in previous comments that it’s VERY POSSIBLE to me that Heidi never told Bradford about the incident.
2) Christina was rejected by Vince Willis and there was no known reason not to send more resumes.
3) HERE’S MY PROBLEM!!! THE PERSON WHO REFUSED TO TELL CHRISTINA NOT TO REPORT THE INCIDENT (HEIDI) WAS THE ONE WHO SENT THE ADDITIONAL RESUMES!!! Why didn’t she refuse to do that also??? WHY WOULD HEIDI EVEN TAKE A CHANCE OF ENDANGERING OTHER NANNIES??? Of course; Heidi knew the resumes would be rejected by Vince Willis, so SHE HAD NO NEED TO TELL THE NANNIES ABOUT THE INCIDENT THAT CHRISTINA HAD EXPERIENCED!
4) This may not even be relevant. But the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants told Christina not to report the incident because they were afraid of losing “high-caliber clientele”. They lost Vince Willis … is this what inspired that allegation???
Summary: I find it easy to believe that Christina had been describing “odd behavior” between Vince Willis and his daughters each day of her 3 day “extended interview”. Heidi didn’t think that Christina’s description of the incident that occurred on the last day was sufficient to report, but when she had to send more resumes she made the independent decision to send resumes that would be rejected.
Heidi LIED about telling Bradford for the same reason that Cristina LIED about the “Special Loan”! What was going on between you, Christina, Sherry, and Theresa (and later Heidi)??? How did this team decide to “stick it to the ‘fat-cats'” (paraphrasing) as stated in what must have been the most embarrassing email evidence presented during the trial?