Nanny Sabotage: Mom Caught Putting Pills in Dad's Wine

The Nanny's Discovery

The family hired a nanny on a 6-month initial contract to care for Evie. As a live-in caregiver present in the Millennium Tower apartment in San Francisco, the nanny had direct observation of daily family interactions, including between Russell and Tara Walsh.

During her employment, the nanny, Abrehet Asmelash Tedla, directly witnessed Tara Walsh placing medications — described as "pills" — into Russell's wine on multiple occasions. The nanny observed this behavior, understood its significance, and felt compelled to alert Russell to what she had witnessed.

The Consequence for the Nanny

After the nanny informed Russell of what she had observed regarding the pills being placed in his wine, Tara Walsh responded by firing the nanny. Rather than accepting the nanny's testimony as grounds for investigation or intervention, Tara Walsh terminated her employment — removing a witness to the drugging conduct.

This termination pattern mirrors other witness intimidation tactics documented in the case: legal threats to Aunt Brie (F-033), retaliation through employment termination (F-019), and coordinated family pressure on anyone who disclosed information about Tara Walsh's conduct.

Legal Significance

The nanny's testimony corroborates toxicology evidence showing Russell had ingested lithium and Seroquel without his knowledge. It also corroborates Russell's own account of feeling drugged on multiple occasions. The nanny's observation occurred in their own apartment with direct visual observation of Tara's conduct — the highest quality of eyewitness evidence.

The nanny's sworn testimony (affidavit filed by Russell in his Petition for Domestic Violence Restraining Order) provides third-party corroboration of battery through drugging. This is particularly significant because:

• It comes from a neutral party hired by the family
• The nanny had no motive to fabricate allegations
• She made the observation contemporaneously during employment
• She reported it to Russell while still employed
• She was subsequently fired for reporting the conduct

Pattern of Multiple Druggings

The nanny testified that this conduct occurred "on multiple occasions" — not a single isolated incident. This pattern evidence is crucial for establishing premeditation and knowledge on Tara Walsh's part that she was administering medication without consent.

Russell's own account documented in his emergency protective order petition also referenced multiple instances where he suspected he was being drugged, describing periods when he felt inexplicably disoriented, confused, and unable to account for his actions — symptoms consistent with involuntary administration of psychiatric medication.

Connection to Child's Welfare

This evidence is particularly significant in the custody context because it demonstrates a pattern of behavior by Tara Walsh involving:

• Covert administration of dangerous medications
• Tampering with household members' food and drink
• Awareness that the conduct was wrong (hence the secrecy)
• Willingness to escalate to witness termination to cover the conduct

These factors are directly relevant to fitness to have custody of a child who is dependent on the accused parent for all nutrition and care.