My family never had any katulong/yaya (at least not since I've been alive). I can definitely see how one could become attached to the family she cares for, especially after decades of servitude.
I was scrolling through some Twitter threads and something jumped out at me.
A handful of non-Filipinos seemed to be demonizing the author for his actions. But given the circumstances, what do you guys think he should have done? The critics were saying he should have paid her more, enrolled her in English lessons, get her counseling, etc. to extract her from the "slave" situation. Some even said he should've acted as soon as he came to the realization that it was wrong.
Now my issue is that it's not that black and white to me. Sure the author realized his Lola was being mistreated, but the person in the wrong was still the author's mother. He described a few instances where he stood up to his mother to defend Lola but I'm sure he had his qualms about escalating. As for the actions taken once his mother had passed, I thought they were appropriate. He attempted to give her some independence by teaching her to drive, giving her a debit card, etc. but she just couldn't take it. And he even had her go back to the PI didn't he? She chose to come back to his family. The non-Filipinos claimed that was just Stockholm Syndrome. The impression I got was that he genuinely wanted his Lola to live as a family member and not hired help but she wanted to do the things she was used to. The non-Filipinos cried he was just painting himself as the "benevolent slavemaster" and the fact he let her stay and help was repulsive. Granted we only habe the author's side of the story and Lola is gone so we will never hear her side.