Date: Fri 18-Sep-1998

Publication: Bee

Author: MICHEL

Quick Words:

DPH-Elf-Wasserman-Galant-Lok

Full Text:

Parents Rally In Support Of Suspended Day Care Provider

BY MICHELE HOGAN

The state Department of Public Health (DPH) has cited 12 charges against Linda

Elf, a local day-care provider, and proposes to revoke her license at a

hearing scheduled for September 29 in Hartford.

The charges stem from a Wednesday, August 12, inspection of Mrs Elf's home

that ended with Mrs Elf being charged with disorderly conduct by Newtown

police. She was taken from her home during the middle of her work day in

handcuffs, and a neighbor put in charge of the children in day-care. Many

parents who know Mrs Elf are outraged by incident, and have shown strong

support. Some even plan to attend the hearing.

"It's like a witch hunt," Mrs Elf said.

In the spring of 1997, Mrs Elf wrote a letter of complaint about the DPH,

which was forwarded by State Rep Julia Wasserman to the commissioner of the

state agency. Today, she wonders if her vocal disapproval of their methods and

regulations, particularly their right to inspect the personal homes of home

day-care providers, had an impact on how she was later treated by department

inspectors.

Following the recent inspection, performed by Patricia J. Galant and Sandra L.

Lok, licensing specialists with the DPH, Mrs Elf's license was suspended. The

12 charges relate to the quality of her care of the children; incomplete forms

and permission slips for each child; failure to allow department

representatives to inspect all parts of the facility on March 9, 1998, and

caring for one child more than her license allows on March 13, and two more

than allowed on August 12.

Renee Gill, board chairperson of the Connecticut Family Day Care Association

Network, Inc, and Sandy Hook resident, said, "Well, I don't know if witch hunt

is quite the word." She explained that when people set up a licensed day-care,

they must agree to follow certain regulations, including allowing inspectors

through your private home.

Mrs Gill said, "[Mrs Elf] blatantly disregarded the regulations. She

frightened [the inspectors]. I know these inspectors. They are not from this

area, and they are tough."

Mrs Elf said charges of caring for one or two children over the limit, even if

proven, do not normally result in the revocation of a license. (Although

repeated infractions could, Mrs Gill said.)

In the proposed revocation papers prepared by the DPH, the first two charges

are: "you failed to demonstrate that you are properly qualified to handle

child care responsibilities and emergencies" and "you failed to demonstrate

appropriate personal qualities appropriate for working and communication with

children and their families..."

These are arguably the most serious charges, as they pertain directly to the

quality of care she provides for the children, and these are the ones that

have been most strenuously refuted by the people who know Mrs Elf.

Four times the inspectors mention that during their visit she ignored the

children in her care, including a 16-month-old who "cried during most of the

inspection."

Mrs Elf said that the mother of the child who cried August 12 is highly

supportive of her, and her day care.

Parents adamantly disagree with inspectors about the quality of care Mrs Elf

provides.

The Newtown Bee has received nine letters to the editor supporting Mrs Elf and

her abilities and qualities as a child-care provider and none reporting

deficits in her ability to work with children and their families.

Ms Gill said that she has known Linda for many years. "She has an excellent

program, and it would truly be an injustice to deny any provider of this

quality a license."

The Department of Public Health received a letter from a parent that asked, "I

would like to know if it is this department's view to use `Gestapo Tactics' to

review facilities or was this just the inspectors? These women, Ms Galante and

Ms Lok, acted in an unprofessional ... manner. It is my belief that their

emotions got the best of them."

There is no question that the August 12 inspection was tense, difficult and

friction-filled. The DPH charges state that Mrs Elf "repeatedly argued and

expressed agitation toward two department representatives and detained them in

[her] home against their will."

Mrs Elf denies that she prevented them from leaving.

Mrs Elf said she decided to call the police during the inspection because she

said she needed a mediator. The police charged her with disorderly conduct.

Her court date has been continued once, because of a lawyer who did not turn

up at the appointed time, and will be re-scheduled for another time at the

Danbury Superior Court.

Mrs Elf was also charged by the health department with not allowing the

inspectors to inspect all parts of the facility. The regulations currently

allow the licensers "the right to inspect the entire premises [including areas

not used for day care], including files, drawers, closets, attics, garages and

sheds without a search warrant."

In 1997, Mrs Elf questioned this regulation and asked (as best as she can

recall): "Is it true that providers are not allowed a Fourth Amendment right

against illegal search and seizure, and what about the rights of the

provider's family who lives in the home?"

Mrs Elf said last week, "I believe in regulations, but what you have is an

abuse of power. Why don't they get the people who are hurting children,

killing children. Don't waste tax dollars on this."

Shocked Parent

Newtown resident Michele Travis said, "I'm speechless. I can't believe this is

happening to [Linda Elf]. She is wonderful with my son."

Mrs Travis said that she choose Linda to look after her children because "I

wanted home, warmth, and love for my children."

Her three-year-old son has been in Mrs Elf's care 8:30 am to 5 pm Monday to

Friday since he was six months old.

Mrs Travis explained that her son had special needs, which make it especially

hard when it comes to day-care. Mrs Travis said, "She is wonderful with him.

Linda took a [graduate-level] course to better understand his needs. She

watches the therapist so she can follow-through during the day. He absolutely

loves it there. He loves her."

Mrs Travis said, "I don't trust my children with anybody. If I can't get my

mother, or Linda, we don't go out."

But with a responsible position as MIS Manager for Northeastern Region FPA

medical management, Mrs Travis suddenly had the problem of finding alternate

care for her children.

Mrs Travis said, "It's been difficult. My son needs a consistent schedule.

Recently, he has had more temper tantrums, which he had been getting out of.

It has been very disruptive for our family, and I'm sure it has for other

parents, too."

Mrs Travis said that she got a letter from the Department of Health stating

that Mrs Elf's license had been summarily suspended. The letter went on to say

"it [DPH] summarily suspends a license only when there is substantial evidence

that day-care children may be in imminent danger."

Mrs Elf said, "If there was imminent danger, why did they wait two days to

hand deliver the letter of summary suspension? The inspection was on

Wednesday. I was left running the day-care Thursday and Friday. They delivered

the suspension letter Friday afternoon. If there was imminent danger to the

kids, why did they leave me in charge those two days? It just doesn't make

sense."