Manchester case dodges child-abuse rule

By Andrew Garber

• A decision by state regulators allows a day-care operation in a home where a member of the household had been convicted of sexually molesting children.

Maine's law is clear when it comes to protecting day-care children from possible physical or sexual abuse.

The Department of Human Services is not allowed to give day-care homes permission to operate if anyone in the household has been convicted of child abuse.

The DHS found a way to work around the law when it came to Deborah Bickford's day-care home in Manchester.

On April 20, 1992, DHS received a report that Bickford's teen-age son had admitted to sexually molesting three children. The abuse occurred in a home outside of Bickford's day-care operation, according to Jim Chaplin, supervisor for the DHS day-care licensing division.

Three months passed after the report was filed.

On July 16, 1992, a state inspector visited Bickford's home. The report of that visit states that Bickford told the inspector her son would not be allowed near the day-care children.

On July 23, 1992, Bickford's son was convicted in juvenile court of two counts of gross sexaul assault and sentenced to two years probation, according to court records.

On July 24, 1992, DHS put a letter from Bickford in her day-care file assuring the department her son would not be allowed near day-care children.

Even though Bickford had applied on Nov. 4, 1991, to renew her registration - and even though state law stated day-care providers cannot be given permission to operate if a resident of their home has been convicted of child abuse or neglect - DHS allowed her operation to remain open.

The lack of action is no small matter, said Gwen Morgan, a leading national expert on day-care licensing who reviewed the case for the Portland Press Herald and Maine Sunday Telegram.

''It is a very great danger in child care if household members, particularly teen-aged sons, are inclined to sexually molest children,'' Morgan said. ''The law is very clear and the risk is very great. They are really shortchanging Maine children if they are not enforcing that particular law.''

About two months passed after Bickford's son was convicted. Then, on Sept. 17, 1992, DHS investigated a complaint that Bickford was allowing her son to be near the day-care children.

It was true, the state found.

The inspector recommended that Bickford's license not be renewed, stating that Bickford's son ''is not being kept from the day-care children and that the Bickfords . . . have no intention of following through on'' Deborah Bickford's letter in July that stated her son would be kept away from the children.

Three months passed after the September investigation.

On Dec. 22, 1992, the state sent Bickford a letter saying her registration would not be renewed. DHS cited the law that prohibits the state from issuing a registration if anyone in the day-care household has been convicted of child abuse.

A protracted legal battle followed. The Bickfords hired an attorney and appealed the decision. Hearings were held. In May 1993, a state administrative hearing officer upheld the DHS decision to deny Bickford's registration.

But that was not the end of the matter.

One month after the hearing officer upheld DHS' decision, Bickford, through her attorney, requested permission to operate a new day-care facility 61 feet from her existing home.

Paul Bright, the day-care licensing supervisor at the time, sent Bickford's attorney a letter stating that the proposed facility met state requirements. Bright reiterated that DHS wanted Bickford's son to be ''excluded from the day-care program and children at all times.''

Bickford later sent a detailed description of her new day-care operation and wrote ''the department can trust me and my staff to . . . keep (her son) and the day-care children separated.''

Chaplin, the supervisor of day-care licensing, said he doesn't like the outcome of the case.

''I guess the rationale was there was no need for him to be in the center, so he's not going to be around the day-care kids. It is not his home.''

Bickford currently has a license to care for 12 children under age 16.

On two occasions, Bickford declined to comment when contacted by telephone. She also did not respond to a certified letter requesting an interview.

The attorney who represented Bickford at the time, Joseph O'Donnell of Augusta, said the state's decision to let a new day-care facility be built was appropriate. ''We felt it was the only outcome given the circumstances,'' he said.

''These folks have run a successful child-care center for some 14 years. At the time of the alleged incident some six years ago or so, the parents were all informed. All parents who used that center,'' O'Donnell said.

''They were strongly supportive of Mrs. Bickford. They militated in order for her to continue to provide care for their children. They knew that the alleged incident had nothing at all to do with the child-care center in the slightest,'' he said.''