DCF Accuses Daycare Operator of Neglect, Despite Lack of Translator Assistance

• Allegation: Neglect of a child by a Daycare Owner
• (The names used in this case study are all aliases.)
•  
• Person’s Involved:
• Bob – redacted DOB (Reported Child)
• Grace with DOB September 9, 1973- 50 years old (Alleged Perpetrator; Consumer Adult – Out of Home)
• Michael (Consumer Adult – In Home)
• Rizza (Mother; Consumer Adult – In Home)
•  
• DCF History:
• No prior DCF History on the reported child or reported daycare operator. It’s important for parents to understand their parents rights against DCF during such investigations. Additionally, being aware of the DCF investigation process can provide valuable insights into what to expect and how to prepare.
•  
• Significant Timelines:
• December 20, 2022 – A mandated reporter (police officer) filed a report with DCF alleging neglect of Bob by daycare director/owner Grace Matthews. December 23, 2022 – DCF screened in the report and decided to conduct a non-emergency response. January 15, 2023 – DCF held the allegation of neglect of Bob by the Sunshine daycare owner Grace Matthews as SUPPORTED.
•  
• Background:
• On December 20, 2022, a police officer responded to an alleged report of a crying child. According to DCF, the police officer stated that a man was walking by the daycare and, from across the street, saw the child crying and screaming. The man found the child outside the locked and shut-down daycare and went over to comfort him.DCF alleged that the sergeant arrived at the daycare and saw a group of kids with the daycare owner at the park. He went over to speak with the daycare owner and asked if she was supposed to have another kid. DCF also claims that the daycare owner was “bewildered” and then started counting the children, then said, “Oh, Bob.” DCF stated without basis that the daycare director only realized the child was missing when the police arrived. DCF mentioned the parents were informed and came to the daycare.
•  
• The reporter said the parents were satisfied with the daycare director and “weren’t even upset.” Parents said that their older child attended the same childcare program, and they never had an issue with the daycare.DCF asserts strongly that the daycare director left the child on purpose as the child was crying and repeatedly saying, “Mama, Mama,” per the director’s report, without any corroboration from either the police officer or the passerby.
•  
• The reporter stated there were no concerns for the parents because the parents trust the daycare operator. On the same day, the police officer, a mandated reporter, filed a 51A report and alleged the neglect of Bob by the daycare director or owner, Grace, who speaks French. DCF screened in the allegations of neglect of Bob, four years old, by Daycare Owner Grace and conducted a non-emergency response.
•  
• Definitions:
• Caregiver
• (1) A child’s parent, step-parent or guardian, or any household member entrusted with responsibility for a child’s health or
• welfare; or
• (2) Any other person entrusted with responsibility for a child’s health or welfare, whether in the child’s home, a relative’s
• home, a school setting, a child care setting (including babysitting), a foster home, a group care facility, or any other comparable setting.The term “caregiver” is broad and includes various roles like school teachers, babysitters, school bus drivers, and camp counselors. It should be understood inclusively to cover anyone entrusted with responsibility for a child.This specifically includes a caregiver who is a
• child, such as a babysitter under. the age of 18. Neglect: (defined by Department Regulation 110 CMR 2.00)
• The Department of Children and Families defines neglect as: (Department Regulation 110 CMR 2.00): Failure by a caretaker, either deliberately or through negligence or inability, to take those actions necessary to provide a child with minimally adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care. supervision, emotional stability, and growth, or other essential
• care; malnutrition; or failure to thrive. Neglect cannot result solely from inadequate economic resources or be due solely to
• the existence of a handicapping condition.
•  
• DCF Conclusion:
• DCF supported the allegation of neglect of Bob by the daycare owner Grace, and assumed the following:
• 1. A police officer filed a 51A report stating that the daycare owner, Grace, neglected a child named Bob. A passerby who called the police found him upset and screaming outside the locked daycare.
• 2 In an interview, Grace said she counted the children before leaving the parking lot and realized she was missing Bob when they arrived. However, the report stated that Grace only realized Bob was missing when the police officer contacted her. She denied this and claimed she was aware of it before that.
• 3. Grace has seen Bob and reported that he didn’t seem upset. His parents received a call, and they picked him up. (Passive voice reduced to 0%)
• 4. Grace suggested that Bob might have been able to unbuckle the harness that connects the children in a line after she counted them.
• 5. It took about seven minutes for the daycare group to walk to the park. During this time, DCF concluded Bob was unsupervised by the daycare operator for approximately ten minutes. The passerby likely found him within those seven minutes. In this incident, Bob’s parents, who had not previously expressed concerns about the daycare, did not feel worried about their child. They continued sending him to the daycare.
• 7. Grace informed the parents about the incident verbally instead of providing a written notification as required by EEC (Early Education and Care). While Grace was present during the incident, accreditation requirements dictated that a designated person should have supervised her. However, that person was not present. Additionally, the EEC recommends having a team of two people when transporting children on foot. Based on the information gathered, DCF stated there was reasonable cause to believe that the daycare operator neglected the child. According to DCF, Grace needed to follow EEC protocols regarding supervision and notification. This left no staff at the daycare for emergencies or unforeseen situations. DCF claims that Grace could not provide adequate supervision when Bob went missing, and there was a discrepancy between her account and the police report. The passerby who found Bob observed him upset and screaming. He was without supervision for about fifteen minutes. The Department of Children and Families (DCF) supported the allegations against Grace for these reasons.DCF Supervisor commented that Grace failed to provide minimally adequate supervision, leaving the child unsupervised on a public street for at least 10 minutes. A stranger observed the child and notified the police.
•  
• Persons Interviewed:
• Grace (Daycare Director/Owner; Alleged Perpetrator)
• Rizza (Child’s Mother)
• Witnesses/Evidence:
•  
• In-Person Interview with Grace on December 26, 2023:
• On the day of the incident, the daycare had eight children enrolled out of seventeen. Due to the summer season, the children rotated their attendance. The child, Bob, was present on the second day of that week.
•  
• On the first day, he missed his mother. On the second day, Grace planned to go for a walk, but Bob didn’t want to go and preferred to stay back. However, Grace explained that it was not possible. At that moment, Bob’s mother, Rizza, arrived at the daycare. Grace asked if she wanted to meet with the RW (reporter). Rizza declined, saying that the Department of Children and Families (DCF) would visit her home after the interview. The RW and Rizza met, and RW confirmed that he would be at her home later that day. Rizza picked up Bob while they waited and left. Grace explained what happened next. She ensured all the children used the bathroom and connected in a line with a harness.
•  
• She showed the harness, and DCF took a picture of it. She then counted to ensure she had all eight children and took them outside. They paused by the building to ensure their shoes were tied and sandals fastened. Once ready, they safely crossed the street towards a fenced-in park across from a baseball field. Grace recounted the children and realized one child was missing. She connected the children with the harness again and started walking back to the daycare. As they walked, an officer approached her, and they returned to the daycare together. Grace couldn’t run because she had seven children connected to the harness and needed to ensure their safety.
•  
• The police officer helped them cross the intersection safely. Grace saw Bob sitting on a bench, approached him, and asked how he had unfastened the harness. She was shocked and couldn’t explain how he managed to do it. She had seen him playing with the buckle earlier and had asked him to stop. Grace was sure she counted all the children before leaving the parking lot. There were no functioning cameras outside the building, except for a Ring camera that wasn’t working. She mentioned that Rizza seemed relatively calm when bringing Bob back to the daycare on Wednesday. Bob didn’t appear upset when he arrived at the daycare and wasn’t crying.They stopped near the building to check if their shoes were tied and sandals secured.
•  
• Grace estimated it took Rizza about 20 to 25 minutes to arrive at the daycare after being called to pick up Bob. The child was without daycare staff for around 10 minutes. The walk from the daycare to the park and back took about 7 minutes each way. Grace couldn’t see the child from where they were in the park, nor could she see the front door of the daycare building. She mentioned the necessity of having an extra staff member for better supervision, as she couldn’t chase after a child if they ran off while being alone with other children. DCF noted that Grace verbally notified Rizza about the incident but didn’t provide a written notice. Grace showed the consent form for taking the child off the daycare premises to the park.
•  
• In-Person Interview with Rizza (child’s mother) on December 26, 2023:
• The RW visited the family at their home. The parents stated that they were not upset about what happened to their son. They spoke highly of Grace, who had called them to inform them about the incident, including the police involvement and the need to pick up their son. They were told Grace had taken the children for a walk and accidentally left Bob behind. Another person found Bob near the daycare; it’s possible there was an issue with the buckle, or Bob unbuckled it himself. When Rizza arrived, Bob was fine and not upset. He was more excited to see the police car. The family knew Grace from the dance studio. [Insert Link for “dcf investigation process“].
•  
• Strengths:
•  
• ·  No prior DCF history
• ·  Closed by both DCF and EEC without Assessment
• ·  The client was allowed to continue working while the investigation was taking place.
• · EEC renewed the daycare’s license to the client after they completed an investigation
• · The parents support the client. They trust the client very much.
• · The client maintains that DCF did not call her during the investigation despite it being in the 51B, and has a phone record to prove it.
• · DCF and EEC did not provide a French translator.
• · Language barrier was involved. The police officer and DCF should have provided a proper translator.
• · Neither DCF nor EEC followed up with the police officer after they were off-duty
• · DCF and EEC should have followed up with other teachers or collaterals who would know the client’s teaching.
• · The social worker noted a 10-minute timeline in her comment without checking how long it would take, such as the Google map.
• · The distance from the bench where the reported child stayed was within the supervision ratio.
• · There is no basis for asserting that the child was upset. The report only mentioned a passerby who said the child was upset.
• · Neither DCF nor EEC provided expert witnesses to support their conclusion.
• · DCF only had the police report.
• · The private investigator did not find any records of attempt calls from DCF to the police officer or any follow-ups.
• · Private investigator concluded there was insufficient information to support the allegation of neglect.
• · No record of the following: calls involving the daycare, records of dispatch that would have contained the time 911, time the police officer(s) arrived and left the scene, any requested body camera to capture interactions, etc.
•  
• Weakness:
•  
• Proposed Defenses:
• DCF did not provide French translators: DCF violated the client’s due process. Client had to give herself a French translator, and it was the child’s mother. During the fight against DCF, it became apparent that the client’s rights during a DCF investigation were not fully respected. Due Diligence: The client always checked on and counted the children before and after they crossed the street.  Previous Track Record: The client has a history of providing proper care and supervision to the children at the daycare without any prior incidents or complaints. Adequate Procedures in Place: The client had procedures in place, such as using a harness for the children and regular headcounts, to ensure their safety and well-being under her care.
•  
• Parent Support: Parents have expressed satisfaction with the daycare and trust Grace’s ability to care for their child. DCF should have corroborated their assumptions as they only have the police report. They even have yet to attempt to call or follow up with the police officer or the passerby. DCF cannot explain the lack of a translator. They alleged they provided a translator but not a French translator and the client seemed to understand the language. The client and children were already returning to the daycare when a police officer came from the back. The client then explained to the police officer they were coming back.
•  
• Proposed Expert Witnesses:
•  Early Childhood Education Expert: An expert in early childhood education could provide insights into industry best practices, standards of care, and appropriate protocols for supervision in daycare settings. Child Development Specialist: A child development specialist could offer expert testimony on the emotional and psychological impact of the incident on the child involved and provide insights into age-appropriate expectations and behaviors. Daycare Management Expert: A daycare management expert could provide testimony on proper procedures, safety measures, and training protocols that should be in place to prevent incidents like the one described in the case.
•  
• Proposed Questions for the Client:
• What specific measures and protocols do you have to ensure the safety and supervision of the children under your care aside from counting them? How do you communicate with parents when incidents or accidents occur at the daycare?
•  
• Proposed Questions for the Investigator:
•  Why was it concluded that Grace needed to follow the appropriate protocols for supervision and the presence of a second staff person despite being within the required ratio?  During the investigation, did DCF consult with any experts in early childhood education or daycare management to gather professional opinions or perspectives? Why did they conclude that Grace needed to follow the appropriate protocols for supervision and the presence of a second staff person despite her being within the required ratio? What efforts did they make to verify or dispute Grace’s account of the events, particularly regarding the timing of her awareness of the missing child?
  
  Argument:
• Grace diligently checked on the children and counted them before and after crossing the street. She followed the required protocols and maintained the appropriate ratio in compliance with EEC regulations. Grace excels at creating a safe and nurturing environment that fosters children’s learning and growth. Her passion for early childhood education is evident in how she interacts with children and her commitment to their well-being.
•  
• Additionally, Grace has excellent communication skills and can build strong relationships with parents, which is crucial in a daycare setting. The parents expressed their trust in her and wished to continue sending their child to her daycare. Additionally, the client has a clean record with no history of neglect or complaints. There were irregularities in DCF’s handling of the case, which could be seen as a factor in parents’ rights against DCF. Specifically, DCF should have provided a French translator.
•  
• This oversight not only compromised communication but also raised questions about the fairness and thoroughness of the investigation. The police officer involved in the case should have offered a French translator as well. Furthermore, it was necessary for DCF to follow up with the police officers after their shift ended to ensure all procedures were properly adhered to. These shortcomings indicate that DCF may have made an unfair conclusion, potentially violating the client’s due process and impacting their rights.

You find yourself in this situation, it’s advisable to seek legal representation from a qualified attorney, like those at the Law Office of Kevin Seaver, who can advocate for your rights and guide you through the complex process of a DCF investigation.

Remember that the ultimate goal of DCF is to ensure the safety and well-being of children while supporting families in crisis.

Please note that this article does not create an Attorney-Client relationship between our law firm and the reader and is provided for informational purposes only. Information in this article does not apply to all readers.

Readers should not rely on this information as legal advice and should seek specific counsel from the attorney based on personal circumstances.

Thank you. Kevin Patrick Seaver is a Massachusetts DCF Defense Lawyer who represents parents against false child abuse allegations.

Massachusetts DCF Defense Lawyer Kevin Seaver has been successfully fighting false child abuse allegations since 1991.