Date: Fri 02-Oct-1998

Publication: Bee

Author: CURT

Quick Words:

Linda-Elf-Hearing-Day-Care

Full Text:

Parents Rally To Linda Elf's Defense At Hearing On Her Day Care License

Revocation

BY MICHELE HOGAN

Newtown parents attested during a hearing in Hartford on Tuesday, September

29, that Linda Elf is an excellent day-care provider for their children. They

said she is "the best of the best."

However, state workers testified otherwise.

The state Department of Public Health proposes to revoke Linda Elf's day-care

license on the grounds that she failed to demonstrate appropriate personal

qualities appropriate for working and communicating with children and their

families, and 11 other charges.

Testimony is scheduled to continue Friday, October 2, at the DPH office in

Hartford. Lana M. Glovach, DPH employee and hearing officer, will recommend

"findings of fact and conclusions of law" that will be the basis of the

summary suspension and the proposed license revocation of Linda Elf of Sandy

Hook. A final decision on both actions will be made within 60 days of the

hearing.

The matter stems from an August 12 state inspection of Mrs Elf's home day

care. DPH inspector Sandra Lok, who was one of the inspectors on August 12,

testified that Mrs Elf's day-care children were in imminent danger.

Mrs Elf's lawyer, Vincent McCarthy, pressed witnesses for the state to come up

with any evidence for this claim. His line of questioning aimed to show that

Mrs Elf's worst offense was to be an annoyance to people in authority.

After hearing the testimony of Newtown Police Officer Steve Ketchum and Ms

Lok, Newtown parent Sherry Smith said, "Linda deserves an apology from the

state and the Newtown police."

Officer Ketchum, who charged Mrs Elf with disorderly conduct, and Ms Lok,

whose report was instrumental in having Mrs Elf's day-care facility closed by

the state, testified in front of a hearing room packed with mostly Newtown

parents and friends offering support for Mrs Elf.

Vincent McCarthy, Mrs Elf's lawyer, began by asking if it would be possible to

get a decision sooner than 60 days. He reminded Ms Glovach that the state had

closed Mrs Elf's business, her "livelihood taken away without due process." He

questioned if the entire procedure violates her rights under the constitution,

as there was no hearing provided prior to closing her down.

The Arresting Officer

Officer Ketchum testified that he did not recall a great deal of commotion

when he entered Mrs Elf's facility. But when he tried to get stories about

what was happening, Mrs Elf repeatedly interrupted his conversation with a

state inspector, Patricia Gallant, and Mrs Elf raised her voice. He said that

her main issue was her accusation that Mrs Gallant had copied information from

a wall calendar. He said, "Mrs Elf continued to interrupt in a loud manner,

obviously in an effort to disrupt my conversation with the day-care

licensers."

He said that she turned her back to him, inches in front of him, and that he

had to physically move her. He said she continued yelling at them, and she

pointed her finger, raised, within a foot or two of the officer and the

licensing specialists.

He said that the children were visibly upset, crying, a boy literally

clutching at Mrs Elf's legs, another girl standing close to Mrs Elf, appearing

upset.

He said that he then exited the facility and stayed outside with the day-care

licensing specialist (taking statements) for the next 45 minutes.

Ms Lok and Ms Gallant of the DHP told Officer Ketchum that Mrs Elf had

detained them for ten to 15 minutes. Officer Ketchum said that he determined a

charge of disorderly conduct was warranted when he took the licensing

specialists' statements.

Officer Ketchum called Officer John Cole and the two officers re-entered the

building to tell Mrs Elf she was being charged with disorderly conduct.

Officer Ketchum said Mrs Elf was "significantly calmer. The children were

napping or attempting to nap."

Mr McCarthy asked, "Why did you handcuff Mrs Elf?"

Officer Ketchum responded that it was standard procedure for a disorderly

conduct charge and that he handcuffed her on her driveway, outside the patrol

vehicle.

Officer Ketchum also testified that Mrs Elf lied to him about her daughter

Courtney's age because she wanted to leave Courtney to care for the children.

Regulations state that a substitute must be 20 years old or older. Mrs Elf

said Courtney was 20, but she did not produce a photo ID to prove it. Police

found out later that Courtney was actually 19 years old and would be turning

20 in about two weeks time. Mrs Elf then found another substitute, a neighbor,

who was clearly over 20 years old and left the children with her.

Children At Risk

He said that during his visit Mrs Elf lost her temper and was visibly shaking.

"They were in danger," he said.

Under cross examination, Officer Ketchum was asked why he thought the children

were at risk, and what risk? He said that he felt that she had lost control of

her temper and was in a combative mood. He said the children could have been

stepped on. However, Mr McCarthy pointed out, no child was stepped on.

Mr McCarthy questioned, "Did she take a swing at anyone?"

"No," Officer Ketchum answered.

Did she push someone? Again "no."

Officer Ketchum said that Ms Gallant said that Mrs Elf had attempted to grab

her clipboard.

"Did she touch someone?" questioned Mr McCarthy. Again, the police officer

answered no.

Officer Ketchum was asked if there was any other danger that he saw. He

replied, "Possibly psychological." Although he had earlier said that he was

not a parent himself, he said that "I wouldn't want any child of mine in a

situation where a day-care provider might lose their temper. The situation

could have escalated to a physical altercation."

Mr McCarthy finished, "but it didn't."

Mr McCarthy asked, "What are the elements of a disorderly conduct charge?"

Officer Ketchum said it can be "an annoying manner" and that it covers a wide

range. He went on to say that "anyone who creates a verbal disturbance can be

charge with disorderly conduct."

After the morning's testimony, John Davis, a parent who attended the hearing,

said, "What's really annoying is that there is a police officer who thinks

that you can arrest someone for being annoying, and it didn't require anything

more than that."

DPH Testimony

Ms Lok testified that the DPH responded to an anonymous complaint on the day

of the visit.

Mr McCarthy questioned if the complainant really was anonymous, or was instead

fabricated by the DPH. Mrs Lok said that she was aware that Ms Elf had made

complaints about prior inspectors.

Mr McCarthy pointed out that the wording of the complaint, "Complainant stated

that Mrs Elf is doing group day care -- even though she is licensed for family

day care" is much more consistent with language used within the DPH than with

common language. (Group day care has regulations that allow for 12 children,

and family day care has less stringent regulations for up to six children.)

The complaint continues, "She also stated that on the day Mrs Elf had an

inspection from DPH, she refused to give access to the entire home because she

had more children in the upstairs area."

The lawyer queried, "Who would know that she refused to give access to her

entire home? How would anyone else guess? Isn't it true there never was an

anonymous complainant? This comes from the DPH."

Mrs Lok said that it is "absolutely not true. When we get a complaint, we do

not focus on who made the complaint." She explained that their procedure is to

investigate each complaint.

Mrs Elf was licensed for home day care, which allows six pre-school age

children, with three additional children allowed before or after school hours.

But, since the visit was during the summer holiday, she was only permitted six

children.

Ms Lok said that the first thing she did when they got to Mrs Elf's home

child-care facility was to count the children. She said that there were ten

children and three adults present. She explained that one of the adults

identified herself as a mother looking for day care. She soon left with her

two children, leaving eight children with Mrs Elf and her daughter (age almost

20) on the premises. This is two over capacity.

Mrs Elf explained to the workers that one child was only there because her

regular provider was on vacation. The other child was not under Linda Elf's

care but was being babysat by her daughter, Courtney. Mrs Lok explained that

the child Courtney Elf was babysitting had to be counted as under Mrs Elf's

care because she was in Mrs Elf's home.

Locked In

Ms Lok said that when they arrived the children were engaged in an activity,

but as the visit progressed, they were milling about, with one or two crying.

Ms Lok also cited Mrs Elf for incomplete forms and began to explain the two

regulations that she had infringed. After reading the infractions, Ms Lok told

Mrs Elf to sign it. She said that Mrs Elf wanted to write on her (Ms Lok's)

clipboard and attempted to grab it.

Mrs Lok said that she pulled it back and asked her to stop reaching for it.

Then she said that Mrs Elf said that Ms Gallant had taken information from her

personal calendar. The inspectors did not allow Mrs Elf to see the information

she suspected them of taking, and "Mrs Elf became aggressive." Mrs Lok said,

"She got loud with us. She felt we had violated her civil rights."

Mrs Lok said that she explained that they were ready to leave, and Mrs Elf

"locked the door [a chain lock and the door knob] and turned around and said,

`You're not leaving.'"

After her testimony, Mr Davis, a parent, said that Mrs Elf's lock is a push

button on a door knob. He said that it's the type that opens when you turn the

knob.

During cross examination, Mr McCarthy asked Ms Lok, "Did you consider trying

to leave by any other door?"

Ms Lok replied that she stood about five feet from the door. She said, "I was

in the position where I could not do anything to control what was happening

with the children. I just stood there. Ms Gallant called the department and

said we were not being allowed to leave." She said it lasted for ten or 15

minutes, and "I felt the situation was out-of-control."

Mrs Lok said that Mrs Elf showed poor judgment with regard to the children and

their safety and that the children should have been her first concern.

When Mr McCarthy asked Mrs Lok, "Did you feel the children were in imminent

danger?" she said "Yes."

Mr McCarthy then asked her why she left children in her care for two days.

[The visit was mid-day Wednesday, August 12, and the summary suspension was

delivered Friday afternoon.] "Why did you wait so long?" he asked.

Ms Lok responded that the decision was out of her control. She said that her

professional superiors had to be the ones to take emergency action.

Mr McCarthy asked if a facility could be closed down in less time, in the same

day, and Ms Lok said that it could.

"Why wasn't this facility closed down the same day? Can't we infer that it

wasn't closed down because the children were not in immediate danger? ... What

danger were the children in?" the lawyer asked.

Ms Lok responded: "The environment is supposed to be one that nurtures."

Mrs Elf's lawyer pressed: "What specific harm did you see occurring for the

children while you were there?"

Ms Lok answered "no physical [harm]" but a threat of emotional harm. She said

that there were at least two children cryin.

Mr McCarthy asked her if children cry in day care.

Ms Lok said "yes."

"Are they at risk of emotional harm?"

"No."

Ms Lok said that "things escalated throughout, when [Mrs Elf] called the

police, and the two phone calls." Mrs Lok said that Mrs Elf made two quick

phone calls, and at one point she heard Mrs Elf say, "They are investigating

over-capacity. Put out the word."

Ms Lok said that these phone calls "cause concern."

Mr McCarthy asked her if she was aware that there are a number of day-care

providers who feel their civil rights are at risk during visits, and Mrs Lok

said "yes." He asked if she knew that there are networks of day-care providers

who call each other. Mrs Lok said she did not know about that.

Ms Lok reiterated that for about 40 minutes the children were "not engaged in

any activity, just milling around, not knowing what was going on."

Parents Respond

After hearing the testimony, parents gathered to express annoyance with the

state and support for Ms Elf.

Sherry Smith said, "They could have called the parents, and they all would

have given glowing reports. I spent three weeks evaluating day cares. I had

three long visits, and Linda Elf is the best. The kids really love her."

Another parent, whose children were with Mrs Elf for many years before

starting school, described Mrs Elf as her mentor.

"She is the best of the best," Michelle Travis said.

Parent Joanne Davis was unhappy with the state for taking Mrs Elf away from

them, when "you as a parent, do your homework" and select her to care for your

child.