Date: Fri 25-Dec-1998

Publication: Bee

Author: MICHEL

Quick Words:

Linda-Elf-Health-hearing

Full Text:

Popular Day Care Provider Has Her License Revoked

BY MICHELE HOGAN

Linda Elf, former family day care provider, had her license revoked on

December 16, 1998, following a summary suspension by the Department of Public

Health.

Earlier, parents and other people who know Mrs Elf personally expressed their

outrage at the Department of Public Health for proposing to revoke her

license. Parents said she was "the best of the best."

The Department of Public Health has informed Mrs Elf that she has until

December 30 to file briefs and exceptions, and present oral argument to the

Commissioner of Public Health. Otherwise, the revocation becomes final.

Although Mrs Elf holds little hope of reversing the proposed decision of the

Department of Health, she plans to try.

Following an inspection by the Department of Health on August 12, Mrs Elf had

her license suspended on August 14. The Department of Public Health officials

cited 12 charges against her, all of which she disputed.

The charges concerned the quality of child-care provided by Mrs Elf, her

ability to handle emergency situations, having correct paperwork for each

child, and having two children over capacity.

Mrs Elf said a summary suspension is a severe action for the Department of

Health to take. She said that one of the licensing specialists, Pat Galante,

testified that she had only been involved with one other summary suspension

case, and that was for child abuse.

Mrs Elf also questioned the timing of the suspension. She said that "if they

were truly worried about the children, they would have shut me down that day."

Instead they left the children in Mrs Elf's care for two days before issuing

the summary suspension.

Mrs Elf's lawyer pointed out that the anonymous complaint that prompted the

August 12 inspection included information about an earlier visit by DPH that

would not be general knowledge to people outside of DPH. Also, he argued, the

complaint was written in language peculiar to the Department of Health. In the

hearing he pressed for an explanation. He said, "Isn't it true there never was

an anonymous complainant? This comes from the DPH." Pat Galante, however,

denied that the complaint originated with the DPH.

The hearing on September 29 and October 2 included testimony by Officer Steve

Ketchum of the Newtown Police, Sandra Lok, and Pat Galante, the two licensing

specialists with the DPH, Mrs Elf, her daughter, parents of children who had

been cared for Mrs Elf, and friends. When Mrs Elf's testimony was at odds with

that of the department inspectors, the Department of Health consistently

decided that Mrs Elf's testimony was "not credible."

In the Proposed Memorandum of Decision, Donna Brewer, hearing officer who

presided at the hearing, wrote that "Section 19a-87b-6(e) requires that

providers have personal qualities appropriate for working and communicating

with children and their families, including good judgment about supervision

and safety for children, personal competence, emotional stability and

dependability."

Parents of children in Mrs Elf's care testified that Mrs Elf consistently

excelled in working and communicating with their children and with them.

Mrs Elf testified that she became frustrated by the Department of Health

inspectors, but did not become angry.

Mrs Brewer wrote that "Respondent's testimony that she never became angry,

that she was merely `frustrated' and `gave up,' is simply not believable."

However, the Department of Health found that, "A preponderance of the evidence

establishes that commencing with the investigators' arrival at respondent's

facility, respondent not only ignored the needs of the children in her care on

August 12, 1998, but she precipitated a situation that caused the children to

experience stress and anxiety."

The report states that "Perhaps most telling was the absence of any testimony

affirmatively establishing that respondent took any active responsibility for

engaging the children in any activity while the investigators were present.

Indeed, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that respondent's focus

was on arguing with the investigators, disputing the information they were

collecting, calling the police, detaining the investigators against their

will, and arguing with the police officer when he arrived. The children and

their welfare were clearly of secondary, if any, importance through this time

period."

The hearing officer, Donna Brewer, wrote in her report that "The Department

sustained its burden of proof with regard to all allegations set forth in its

summary suspension notice and proposed license revocation, by means of

substantial independent, reliable and probative evidence."

Upon hearing of the results, Mrs Elf said that she was not surprised. She

said, "There is no justice in the Department of Public Health. Not one bit of

my testimony was taken. They are an arrogant and corrupt department."

She questioned the objectivity of a hearing officer who is herself, employed

by the Department of Health.

Earlier Mrs Elf expressed concern that a letter she had written in June of

1997 could have resulted in the harsh treatment she received from the

Department of Health. The letter outlined complaints collected from several

day care providers regarding the Department of Health and their inspection

procedures.

Mrs Elf feels wronged by the Department of Health and is considering taking

her story to 20/20, 60 Minutes or a similar television or radio program.

Meanwhile she is completing her degree in early childhood education.