In 2002, Sen. Claire McCaskill's audit on child-care providers called for sweeping changes in the way day-care facilities are run.
Five years later, has anything changed?
State legislators and day-care advocacy groups say things haven't changed.
"There has not been any legislation or any rule regulations passed," said Andie Schleicher, executive director of the Child Day Care Association in St. Louis. "There have been changes, but nothing has passed. There are a lot of people working on it."
Jeanette Mott Oxford, state representative for the 59th District in St. Louis, is one of those people. She's been working to improve income guidelines for subsidized child care for more than three years.
"Other child-care legislation has been in the works, but it's my understanding that nothing has been done to address the problems the audit pointed out," she said. "Part of the problem is that no House committee is charged with overseeing child-care issues, and I think that's a real shame."
The audit, conducted when McCaskill was the state auditor, said day-care regulations do not adequately limit the number of children allowed in a day-care facility and penalties are too weak to deter providers from breaking the law.
Not only is punishment lacking, according to the audit, but there is no standard criteria for penalizing providers when there has been a violation.
Child care providers are required to be licensed in Missouri if they care for more than four children, according to the audit, but bureau officials suspect there are several thousand unlicensed child care facilities operating in Missouri.
Another problem is that state law allows a licensed family child-care home to care for 10 unrelated children — and an unlimited number of related children.
Brewer said the problem with being allowed to have an unlimited number of related children is that there could be way too many kids at the facility and too few adults.
The death of an infant at an unlicensed day-care facility in Nixa earlier this year brought attention to problems at unlicensed day-care centers.
Police said the 4-month-old died accidentally. However, there were 16 children in the home being supervised by only one adult when the infant died.
The owner was charged with operating a child care facility without a state license and could face up to a year in the Christian County Jail and a maximum $1,000 fine if convicted of the Class A misdemeanor.
Brewer said people should report unlicensed facilities they believe are violating guidelines to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, or talk to the prosecuting attorney in their county.
email Claire McCaskill and let her know you appreciate what she's doing, and ask for a follow up audit on child day cares in Missouri!
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Child Protection and Reformation
Chapter 210
Child Protection and Reformation
Section 210.211
August 28, 2006
210.211. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to establish, maintain or operate a child-care facility for children, or to advertise or hold himself or herself out as being able to perform any of the services as defined in section 210.201, without having in effect a written license granted by the department of health and senior services; except that nothing in sections 210.203 to 210.245 shall apply to:
(1) Any person who is caring for four or fewer children...
Click here to read the entire license requirements.
Child Protection and Reformation
Section 210.211
August 28, 2006
210.211. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to establish, maintain or operate a child-care facility for children, or to advertise or hold himself or herself out as being able to perform any of the services as defined in section 210.201, without having in effect a written license granted by the department of health and senior services; except that nothing in sections 210.203 to 210.245 shall apply to:
(1) Any person who is caring for four or fewer children...
Click here to read the entire license requirements.
Audit of Missouri Daycare Standards
Missouri is in severe need of child care regulations!
http://www.auditor.mo.gov/press/2002-52.htm
See the official report (PDF)
...child care providers are required to be licensed in Missouri if they care for more than four unrelated children (WHY does it matter if they're related?). Auditors found bureau officials have not always effectively dealt with unlicensed child care facilities and current state penalties do not deter some providers from operating illegally.
...Unlicensed providers can only be charged with an infraction, which carries a maximum $200 fine for the first violation of state law. The fine has not deterred providers from operating illegally even though some were prosecuted and fined. Statements from providers show how they openly refuse to follow state law: “I do keep more than four non-related children at one time. I plan to continue to do so. I do not want to give the names. I do not want a license.” In addition, fines levied against unlicensed providers are much higher in other states.
http://www.auditor.mo.gov/press/2002-52.htm
See the official report (PDF)
...child care providers are required to be licensed in Missouri if they care for more than four unrelated children (WHY does it matter if they're related?). Auditors found bureau officials have not always effectively dealt with unlicensed child care facilities and current state penalties do not deter some providers from operating illegally.
...Unlicensed providers can only be charged with an infraction, which carries a maximum $200 fine for the first violation of state law. The fine has not deterred providers from operating illegally even though some were prosecuted and fined. Statements from providers show how they openly refuse to follow state law: “I do keep more than four non-related children at one time. I plan to continue to do so. I do not want to give the names. I do not want a license.” In addition, fines levied against unlicensed providers are much higher in other states.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Shop for a Cause at Macy's!
On October 13, 2007, Macy’s will celebrate a national day of support for nonprofit organizations in communities nationwide!
When you make a $5 donation to First Candle, you will receive a ticket for 10-20% off on all purchases made that day.
100 percent of your donation will be used to support the research, education, advocacy and grief support services at First Candle.
Click here for the link!
When you make a $5 donation to First Candle, you will receive a ticket for 10-20% off on all purchases made that day.
100 percent of your donation will be used to support the research, education, advocacy and grief support services at First Candle.
Click here for the link!
More Media Contacts
Please use the sample letter in this blog to ask for a story from the following:
To submit a story idea to one of the ABC News shows listed below, write a single page letter including your name, phone number, and address. Include photocopies of backup information. On the outside of the envelope, write "Story Idea." If a producer is interested in your story, he/she will contact you. Here are the show addresses:
20/20
147 Columbus Avenue
New York, NY 10023
Primetime
147 Columbus Avenue
New York, NY 10023
Nightline/This Week
1717 DeSales Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
World News With Charles Gibson
47 West 66th Street 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10023
Good Morning America
147 Columbus Avenue
New York, NY 10023
To submit a story idea to one of the ABC News shows listed below, write a single page letter including your name, phone number, and address. Include photocopies of backup information. On the outside of the envelope, write "Story Idea." If a producer is interested in your story, he/she will contact you. Here are the show addresses:
20/20
147 Columbus Avenue
New York, NY 10023
Primetime
147 Columbus Avenue
New York, NY 10023
Nightline/This Week
1717 DeSales Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
World News With Charles Gibson
47 West 66th Street 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10023
Good Morning America
147 Columbus Avenue
New York, NY 10023
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Nathan!
That is his name! Nathan Jay Blecha. When I met him at the hospital the first thing I said was how smart he looked. He was looking right in my eyes when I held him for the first time, and he looked like a wise old man. In the 3 months that he spent with us, he has taught so many people so much, and changed lives forever.
Day Care Owner Liable In SIDS Death
Day Care Owner Liable In SIDS Death
Please keep in mind this article is over 6 years old, and studies and research would find today that this infant's death was NOT SIDS, rather suffocation due to being laid down for sleep on her stomach.
By ERIC RICH
The Hartford Courant
January 31, 2001
A jury deliberated less than two hours Tuesday before awarding $800,000 to a woman whose daughter died of sudden infant death syndrome two years ago at a day care center in Bolton.
In one of the first judgments of its kind in the state, the six-member jury found the day care owner liable in the death of Shelby LePage because she failed to take steps that might have prevented the child's death.
The attorney for Shelby's mother had argued that Barbara Horne, the owner of Barbara's Day Care, allowed the infant to sleep on her stomach on Dec. 8, 1998, even though she knew that particular sleeping position was associated with a higher risk of SIDS. Shelby was between two and 12 times more likely to die of SIDS as a result, LePage's attorney, Gerald S. Sack, said.
After the verdict in the wrongful death case was read at Rockville Superior Court, a relieved Mary LePage said the case sends an important message to day care providers, who, she said, have been slower than parents to grasp the significance of sleeping position. LePage, who took the stand during four days of testimony, said the trial was emotionally difficult but important for that message.
"If this information getting out saves the life of one child, then it was worth it," she said.
LePage, of Coventry, waited 74 days after Shelby's birth to return to her job at a printing company in Norwich. The next day, Shelby's second at the day care center, LePage got a phone call. For her, every new parent's worst fear had come true.
Police investigated, as did state child-service workers. A pathologist from the state medical examiner's office ruled that Shelby died of SIDS and classified the manner of death as natural, rejecting such options as homicide or accident.
No action was taken against Horne or her day care program -until LePage filed the wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of her daughter's estate.
After the verdict, Horne shook her head and stared into an empty corner. She walked from the courtroom red-eyed and stunned.
"It's not fair," she said as her attorney, Jay Melley, rushed to her side. "It was natural causes. It's not fair."
Melley had argued that experts have conflicting opinions about the link between sleeping position and the poorly understood syndrome that took Shelby's life.
"It's a curveball from nature," he told the jury. "It happens without explanation."
After the verdict, Melley declined comment and would not say whether he would appeal.
Although similar actions have been brought in other states, William J. Sweeney, past president of the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association, said he knew of no such cases in this state.
"I certainly know of people who have thought of bringing one," Sweeney said, "but most people think it's a pretty tough case to win" because of the sudden nature of the syndrome.
Sweeney said one of the issues that vexes such claims, and one that he believed probably will be raised on appeal, is whether the defendant should have been able to foresee the danger of a syndrome that strikes so suddenly and, often, without warning.
The verdict came just hours after Dr. Ira Kanfer told the jury that SIDS can occur to a child in any position, even "in the arms of a mother." Kanfer, the defense's sole witness, was the medical examiner who conducted an autopsy on Shelby
"Since no one knows what causes SIDS, the fact that the infant was placed on its side and then found dead on its stomach is just irrelevant," Kanfer testified.
But the plaintiff's expert witness, Dr. Herbert Scherzer, told the jury the sleeping position contributed to the death.
"The chance of her dying on the day she died was tremendously increased because she was lying prone," he testified.
In his summation, Sack said Horne had testified that she knew of the link but simply was not considering it at the time.
"When you accept a vulnerable infant into your home," he said, "you should be thinking about SIDS."
Please keep in mind this article is over 6 years old, and studies and research would find today that this infant's death was NOT SIDS, rather suffocation due to being laid down for sleep on her stomach.
By ERIC RICH
The Hartford Courant
January 31, 2001
A jury deliberated less than two hours Tuesday before awarding $800,000 to a woman whose daughter died of sudden infant death syndrome two years ago at a day care center in Bolton.
In one of the first judgments of its kind in the state, the six-member jury found the day care owner liable in the death of Shelby LePage because she failed to take steps that might have prevented the child's death.
The attorney for Shelby's mother had argued that Barbara Horne, the owner of Barbara's Day Care, allowed the infant to sleep on her stomach on Dec. 8, 1998, even though she knew that particular sleeping position was associated with a higher risk of SIDS. Shelby was between two and 12 times more likely to die of SIDS as a result, LePage's attorney, Gerald S. Sack, said.
After the verdict in the wrongful death case was read at Rockville Superior Court, a relieved Mary LePage said the case sends an important message to day care providers, who, she said, have been slower than parents to grasp the significance of sleeping position. LePage, who took the stand during four days of testimony, said the trial was emotionally difficult but important for that message.
"If this information getting out saves the life of one child, then it was worth it," she said.
LePage, of Coventry, waited 74 days after Shelby's birth to return to her job at a printing company in Norwich. The next day, Shelby's second at the day care center, LePage got a phone call. For her, every new parent's worst fear had come true.
Police investigated, as did state child-service workers. A pathologist from the state medical examiner's office ruled that Shelby died of SIDS and classified the manner of death as natural, rejecting such options as homicide or accident.
No action was taken against Horne or her day care program -until LePage filed the wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of her daughter's estate.
After the verdict, Horne shook her head and stared into an empty corner. She walked from the courtroom red-eyed and stunned.
"It's not fair," she said as her attorney, Jay Melley, rushed to her side. "It was natural causes. It's not fair."
Melley had argued that experts have conflicting opinions about the link between sleeping position and the poorly understood syndrome that took Shelby's life.
"It's a curveball from nature," he told the jury. "It happens without explanation."
After the verdict, Melley declined comment and would not say whether he would appeal.
Although similar actions have been brought in other states, William J. Sweeney, past president of the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association, said he knew of no such cases in this state.
"I certainly know of people who have thought of bringing one," Sweeney said, "but most people think it's a pretty tough case to win" because of the sudden nature of the syndrome.
Sweeney said one of the issues that vexes such claims, and one that he believed probably will be raised on appeal, is whether the defendant should have been able to foresee the danger of a syndrome that strikes so suddenly and, often, without warning.
The verdict came just hours after Dr. Ira Kanfer told the jury that SIDS can occur to a child in any position, even "in the arms of a mother." Kanfer, the defense's sole witness, was the medical examiner who conducted an autopsy on Shelby
"Since no one knows what causes SIDS, the fact that the infant was placed on its side and then found dead on its stomach is just irrelevant," Kanfer testified.
But the plaintiff's expert witness, Dr. Herbert Scherzer, told the jury the sleeping position contributed to the death.
"The chance of her dying on the day she died was tremendously increased because she was lying prone," he testified.
In his summation, Sack said Horne had testified that she knew of the link but simply was not considering it at the time.
"When you accept a vulnerable infant into your home," he said, "you should be thinking about SIDS."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
