837287 answer to amici.pdf (application/pdf Object)
The Washington State Supreme Court in their July 2011 opinion in Kathleen Hardee v DSHS upheld the legislative intent via RCW 43.215.005(4)(c) that the health, safety and well-being of the child in licensed day care is paramount over a right for someone to provide that care.
The Washington State Supreme court opined July 7, 2011: "A license is an endorsement that lends credibility and esteem to an individual. It is a benefit granted by the State and it encourages third parties to believe that the State sanctions and positively evaluates the work of the license holder." Speaking further to a license being granted: "Rather, the revocation is a withdrawal of the State's endorsement and certificate of approval."
By "third parties" the Washington State Supreme Court means parents out there...parents who want the best for their children.
In repeated cases starting in January 1994 when 7 month old Jessie Hunt died, his mother had that belief...that having a day care license meant that DSHS had positively evaluated the work of the license holder where her son went while she went to work. The same for Jaclyn Frank's mom, ten years later. Eighteen month old Jaclyn died December 1, 2005 in a licensed day care home.
I thank the Washington State Supreme Court Justices James M. Johnson who wrote the lead opinion. Gerry Alexander, Tom Chambers and Susan Owens "signed lead opinion." Justice Barbara A. Madsen was the "Concurrence Author", signed by Debra L. Stephens and Mary Fairhurst. Justice Richard B. Sanders who lost his election bid to Charles Wiggins, dissented. I'll address Justice Sanders dissent in another article.
Although the Justices are far removed from the direct connection to seeing the sweet faces of Jessie and Jaclyn their ruling may give a small comfort to Jessie and Jaclyn's parents who precisely spoke the same words to anyone and everyone after their children died.
This is also a thank you to Attorney General, Rob McKenna who authored the State's response to SEIU 925, Childcare Advocate Resource and Education and NW Justice Project's Amici Curiae and delivered it to the Court on January 5, 2010 (click on link above for that). An Amici Curia is basically a paper/report these three organizations wrote to say Kathleen Hardee should not have had her daycare license revoked.
McKenna wrote: "Instead the Court should recognize how the importance of providing child care supports using the preponderance of evidence because that standard reflects the public interest in protecting children from inadequate providers."
It is my estimation that a preponderance of daycare providers who supported SEIU 925 were involved in getting the annual training requirement removed from the family home child care regulations in October 2004; and who since have never advocated for it's return.
Yet ironically in their pitch to the Washington State Supreme Court they see themselves in the same licensing vein as a licensed physician.
Now that the Washington State Supreme Court has weighed in on protecting children in licensed day care and the Attorney General, also, made such an argument, we now focus on the Department of Early Learning (DEL) to get their child day care licensing, oversight, complaint investigation and enforcement duties together.
I suggest that SEIU 925, C.A.R.E and the Family Child Day Care Association take some time to reflect on the children who have been hurt, maimed and the ones who died in licensed (and unlicensed) care. An analysis of your websites doesn't reflect you have a heart about those children. Only, in my opinion, self interest.
You have or at least are presenting no balance.
I have helped families of daycare children and I have helped licensed daycare providers who were treated unjustly by DEL.
With this Washington Supreme Court decision and Rob McKenna's answer to your brief maybe the balance can evolve this year. I'm willing to present to DEL and these daycare organizations to move towards that balance.
No comments:
Post a Comment