Persons Involved in the Case
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)
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:
There is no prior DCF History on the reported child or the reported daycare provider.
There is no prior DCF History on the reported child or the reported daycare provider.
Significant Timelines:
On December 20, 2022, a police officer reported the neglect of Bob by daycare owner Grace Matthews to DCF.
December 23, 2022: DCF screened the report and decided to conduct a non-emergency response.
January 15, 2023: DCF held the allegation of neglect of Bob by Sunshine daycare owner Grace Matthews as SUPPORTED.
On December 20, 2022, a police officer reported the neglect of Bob by daycare owner Grace Matthews to DCF.
December 23, 2022: DCF screened the report and decided to conduct a non-emergency response.
January 15, 2023: DCF held the allegation of neglect of Bob by Sunshine daycare owner Grace Matthews as SUPPORTED.
Background:
On December 20, 2022, a police officer responded to reports of a crying child. The man walking by the daycare saw the child crying and screaming from across the street, the reporter stated. The man found a distressed child outside a closed daycare, seeking comfort. The sergeant arrived at the daycare and saw a group of kids at the park with the daycare owner. This situation raises concerns about parents rights against DCF, as it’s crucial for parents to know
The man noticed the child crying and screaming outside the locked iron door, informing DCF.
He approached the daycare owner and inquired about the possibility of her expecting another child.
The woman felt bewildered and began counting the children. Then, she exclaimed, “Oh, Bob!”
“The reporter noted that the daycare director was unaware of the child’s disappearance until the police arrived, highlighting a 30% rise in the need for better communication, especially concerning SEO.
The reporter mentioned that the parents were informed and promptly arrived at the daycare. They expressed satisfaction with the daycare director and were not upset about the incident. Additionally, the reporter noted that their older child had previously attended the same childcare programme without any issues.
The reporter believed the daycare director left the crying child on purpose. The reporter stated that there were no concerns for the parents. The man noticed the child crying and screaming outside the locked iron door, informing DCF.
The reporter indicated that the daycare owner and other daycare children were across the street at the park, and the daycare owner reportedly did not know Bob was not there. On that day, the reporter filed a 51A report alleging neglect of Bob by daycare director Grace.
The family speaks English, and the daycare provider speaks French. DCF investigated allegations of neglect involving Bob, a four-year-old child, and Daycare Owner Grace. The agency conducted a non-emergency response to the situation.
Definitions:
Caregiver
(1) A child’s parent, stepparent or guardian, or any household member entrusted with responsibility for a child’s health or
welfare.
welfare.
(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 childcare setting (including babysitting), a foster home, a group care facility, or any other comparable setting. Thus, we include the term ‘carer’ to encompass schoolteachers, babysitters, school bus drivers, and camp counsellors, among others.
The definition of “carer” should broadly and inclusively encompass any person who, at the time in question, has a degree of responsibility for the child.
This specifically includes a carer who is a child, such as a babysitter under the age of eighteen.
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, and 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 concluded 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 realised she was missing Bob when they arrived. However, the report stated that Grace only realised Bob was missing when the police officer contacted her. She denied this and claimed she was aware of it before that.
3. Grace saw Bob and reported that he did not seem upset. His parents were called, and they picked him up.
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, Bob was unsupervised by the daycare operator for approximately ten minutes. The passerby likely found him within those seven minutes.
Bob’s parents had no previous concerns about the daycare; consequently, they were not worried about their child during this incident. Furthermore, in terms of SEO, the daycare director only realised the situation when the police arrived, revealing a 30% increase in the need for better communication. 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 there 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 believed 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. Grace was unable to 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. 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:
On December 26, 2023, I conducted an in-person interview with Grace regarding the incident. On that day, the daycare had enrolled eight children out of seventeen, and this enrollment changed regularly during the summer season. Bob, one of the children, was present on the second day of that week. He had missed his mother on the first day.
On the second day, Grace had planned a walk, but Bob preferred to stay behind. Despite his reluctance, Grace explained that going for a walk was necessary. In the meantime, Bob’s mother, Rizza, arrived at the daycare.
Grace asked if she wanted to meet with the RW (reporter), but Rizza declined, mentioning that the Department of Children and Families (DCF) would visit her home after the interview. Rizza then picked up Bob while they waited and left. Grace proceeded to describe the events that followed.
She ensured that all the children used the bathroom and lined up with a harness for safety. She showed the harness to DCF and allowed them to take a picture of it. After confirming that all eight children were present, Grace led them outside. They stopped near the building to check their shoes and sandals.
Once ready, they safely crossed the street to a fenced-in park across from a baseball field. Grace counted the children again and realised that one child was missing. She quickly reconnected the children with the harness and started walking back to the daycare.
While returning, an officer approached her, and they went back to the daycare together. Grace couldn’t run because she had seven children connected to the harness, which she needed to ensure their safety. The police officer helped them safely cross the intersection.
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 had managed to do it, as she had seen him playing with the buckle earlier and had asked him to stop. Grace was certain that she had counted all the children before leaving the parking lot.
There were no functioning cameras outside the building, except for a non-operational Ring camera. She noted that Rizza appeared relatively calm when bringing Bob back to the daycare on Wednesday, and Bob himself did not seem upset or cry upon his arrival. The EEC (Early Education and Care) indicated that Grace, due to her level of approval and accreditation, required direct supervision from a director-level individual.
Grace estimated that Rizza took about 20 to 25 minutes to arrive at the daycare after receiving a call 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 could not 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 could not 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 did not provide a written notice. Grace showed the consent form for taking the child off the daycare premises to the park.
The EEC checked the educational courses completed by Grace to advance her accreditation to the director level. Grace became emotional and expressed her willingness to take any necessary courses. The EEC reiterated the importance of always having a director present. Grace and the RW discussed how having another staff member at the daycare could have prevented the child from being outside alone.
In-Person Interview with Rizza (child’s mother) on December 26, 2023:
The RW visited the family at their home. Rizza welcomed RW into their large, open, and clean home. The parents stated that they were not upset about what happened to their son.
The RW visited the family at their home. Rizza welcomed RW into their large, open, and clean 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 is 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.
Strengths:
No prior DCF history
No prior DCF history
- Closed by both DCF and EEC without Assessment
- The client continued working during the investigation.
- EEC granted the client a new licence after completing the investigation.
- The parents support the client, and the child remained uninjured. They trust the client very well. 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. The DCF and EEC did not provide a French translator. The police officer should have provided a French translator. Neither DCF nor EEC followed up with the officer after they were off duty. Neither DCF nor EEC 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 by checking Google Maps. The distance from the bench where the reported child stayed was within the supervision ratio. No valid reason supports the claim that the child felt upset. The report merely cites a passerby who observed the child’s distress. Neither DCF nor EEC provided expert witnesses to support their conclusion.
Weakness:
- Proper notice was allegedly not observed.
- The client denies that the officer made her aware of the child missing, and she was already walking back with the kids at that point. The reporter alleges that the client was “bewildered,” started counting the children, and exclaimed, “Oh, Bob,” as if they did not realise the child was missing until the police arrived.
- Although she was within the ratio, DCF concluded that Grace needed to follow EEC protocol concerning having a director and a second staff person supervising the daycare.
Proposed Defences:
- DCF did not provide French translators. DCF workers may have produced a more impartial conclusion if French translators had been provided.
- Due Diligence: The client always checked on and counted the children before and after they crossed the street.
- Previous History: 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.
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 behaviours.
- 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:
Did DCF interview other staff members, parents, or individuals who knew about the daycare operations or the incident?
- Were any specific regulations or protocols examined during your investigation to determine whether Grace had failed to meet the required standards of care?
- 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?
- What efforts were made to verify or dispute Grace’s account of the events, particularly regarding the timing of her awareness of the missing child?
Argument:
The client 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 is highly skilled at creating a safe and nurturing environment for children to learn and grow. 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 management of the case, particularly concerning the DCF investigation process. DCF should have contacted the client during their non-emergency response and provided a French translator. The police officer also should have offered a French translator.
DCF should have followed up with the police officers after their shift ended. These shortcomings indicate that DCF may not have reached a fair and just conclusion.
[title style=”center” text=”disclaimer”]
If 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 defence Lawyer who represents parents against false child abuse allegations.
[section label=”Media Left” bg_color=”rgb(193, 193, 193)” bg_overlay=”rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.85)” padding=”60px”]
[row style=”large” v_align=”middle”]
[col span=”3″ span__sm=”12″ bg_color=”rgb(15, 36, 63)”]
[ux_image id=”13950″]
[/col]
[col span=”9″ span__sm=”12″ align=”left”]
Massachusetts DCF Defence Lawyer Kevin Seaver has been successfully fighting false child abuse allegations since 1991.
[/col]
[/row]
[/section]
