State probing day-care center after toddler’s death
ALEXA WELCH EDLUND/TIMES-DISPATCH
Richmond Police detective Victoria Griffith leaves the Yellow Brick Road Day Care during an investigation of 13-month-old Andrew Joseph Johnson’s death.
Virginia social-services regulators are conducting an investigation that could cost a Richmond child day-care center its license to operate after the death of a 13-month-old boy in one of its vans.
Yellow Brick Road Day Care & Learning Center was closed yesterday as social-services officials interviewed employees inside the business in Highland Park, said owner Valerot Whitlow and Brenda Barnett, who has two sisters employed there.
The state launched the investigation immediately after the death of Andrew Joseph Johnson, who was discovered in a van operated by Yellow Brick Road on Monday afternoon. The toddler died of environmental heat exposure after being left alone in the van for at least four hours.
Authorities have charged Whitlow's son, Keishawn L. Whitfield, a day-care employee who was driving the van, with felony child neglect.
In a brief interview outside the day-care center, Whitlow said the social-services investigators were "making sure that we're doing what we're supposed to do."
She said she hoped to reopen today and added that her son would not be working there. She declined further comment.
The investigation by the Virginia Department of Social Services is being conducted separately from an ongoing criminal investigation.
"We would be looking at it from a regulatory standpoint," said Brent Kennedy, operations manager for the agency's licensing division.
Kennedy said he would not comment on the investigation until it is completed and a determination is made, which he said should happen soon. Investigators for the agency's Central District field office, based in Henrico County, conducted a detailed inspection yesterday at the center.
Richmond investigators believe Whitfield picked up Andrew at his home in Whitcomb Court at 7:15 a.m. Monday and thought he had dropped off the toddler at the center at 2003 Fourth Ave., where other children were dropped off that morning.
Whitfield drove the large white van, which seats about 10 people, to his home in the 2700 block of Garland Avenue around noon and went to sleep. He found the toddler in the back of the van about 4 p.m., called police within about a half-hour, and attempted to revive the child.
Authorities believe Andrew was in the van from the time he was picked up that morning until he was discovered late that afternoon. Investigators have no evidence suggesting that any employee in addition to Whitfield was in the van. The vehicle was in police custody yesterday.
State licensing standards require at least one day-care employee or the driver to remain in the vehicle whenever a child is present. The standards also state: "Staff shall verify that all children have been removed from the vehicle at the conclusion of any trip."
If investigators find Yellow Brick Road substantially in violation of state licensing standards for day-care centers, the state could recommend revocation of the center's license, which was renewed for two years in February.
However, the center could continue operating, with increased state inspections, while going through a three-stage process that ultimately could be decided in circuit court.
Richmond Commonwealth's Attorney Michael N. Herring said yesterday that it is too soon to determine if any additional criminal charges are justified. A city police detective was inside the day-care center yesterday, but she declined to comment as she left.
Currently, only Whitfield has been charged, with felony child neglect. He was released Tuesday on $20,000 bond pending a preliminary hearing Aug. 4.
The day-care center was licensed by the state in late 2001. The city approved an increase in the center's capacity from 25 to 40 children in 2007.
Barnett said outside Yellow Brick Road yesterday that social-services investigators were inside interviewing her two sisters, who work for the day-care center. One of Barnett's sisters, she said, had grown fond of Andrew.
"It really hurt her heart," Barnett said. "She really loved that little boy."
She added that Yellow Brick Road takes good care of children. "They were in good hands," she said.
Normally, day-care centers undergo unannounced state inspections every six to eight months.
The state had conducted 14 inspections at Yellow Brick Road since 2004 and found regulatory violations on 11 occasions. Most of the violations were minor and quickly corrected.
Among them were violations of record-keeping requirements, including the lack of a daily record for two infants there in 2007 and for one infant in care there during an inspection the previous year.
The last inspection, on Feb. 3, found Yellow Brick Road to be substantially in compliance with state requirements and recommended renewal of the center's license for two years. However, the inspector also noted the lack of criminal-background and Child Protective Services checks for three employees, who were not named.
Whitfield had been put under court supervision in January on a drug possession charge. He had been charged with felony possession of cocaine with intent to distribute it in late 2007.
He initially pleaded guilty and then withdrew the plea. The judge found in January that the evidence was sufficient to convict Whitfield of felony cocaine possession, but he took the case under advisement and put the defendant under supervision instead of convicting him.
Had Whitfield been convicted on the charge, he would have been prohibited from working at the center under state law.
Contact Michael Martz at (804) 649-6964 or
.
Staff writer Reed Williams contributed to this report.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
to all that wanted to know who (taxpayers vs. parents) is paying this daycare you can get a little info from the dept of ss website. This daycare is supported by the city of richmond dept of ss, which means a lower income family can apply for “daycare assistance” the parent is required to have a job & work during hours when the daycare is open. most city/county “supported” daycares do offer transportation due to the fact that alot of the parents use the buses to commute to work. once approved, the dept of ss works a “deal” with the daycare and the fee is based on the parents income. in return the daycare receives assistance from the city/county on utility bills & receives aid for food, the daycare also receives a substantial tax credit. pls no replies that i must know bcause i’m a welfare mom, i sometimes wish, i was curious about the whole transportation thing myself.
This guy picks the kids up early in the am and misses a child? He gets out of the van and goes to sleep? He doesn’t know the child is in the van?? How in the heck does that work? I just can’t believe this…
so basically this daycare employees crack dealers & people who are too stupid to realize a 13mo didn’t make it to school. The article states that one of the workers had “grown fond” of the little boy, HELLO, did you not realize you hadn’t seen him all day? Everyone working that day should be charged. Not that money will fix a broken heart or bring back the child but I hope the parents sue the crap out of this place & I hope this will open some eyes & stricter regulations will be passed to protect innocent children from stupid adults!
bserious- I would hope that if you have a child that was caught with drugs you would be the responsible parent and not let them work around “children”. The guy is 23 and his mother should have known better, I’m sure like I said in a previous post that this was not his first time being “caught” with drugs or intention to sell. Have you ever heard of tough love? Why did he take the van off the daycare premises and go home to sleep! I’m sure that is a violation and the mother knew. No, as a responsible parent I would not allow any child of mine work for me in any capacity especially if it had anything to do with children and my child was involved with drugs. No parent is perfect but some parents let their love for their child blind them and now because of that another parent has lost their child.
I feel very sorry for the family that lost their child due to NEGLIGENCE plain and simple. So now no matter if the daycare gets shut down and this person goes to jail, that grieving family will never get to see their baby grow up. Mrs. Whitlow will be able to visit her son in jail and see him and talk to him, where’s the justice in that? And from previous stories he has a son that he doesn’t support so he will also be a victim of this and a charge of the taxpayer. The taxpayer will now have to pay for this man to be in jail and for his son since he can’t pay child support.
Yes he was not convicted of the crime but the fact the he was charged and put under advisement is a problem. I don’t think I would want my child going to that daycare if I had prior knowledge of that fact. It brings about the owner\mother’s judgement in only thinking of her child instead of all of the children attending her program. The mother seems to be the selfish one in this. I am sure the guy didnt mean to leave a baby in there but what happened to the check check and double check? Does he not do a walk through? Doesn’t he sign a paper stating he checked the van? That to me is crazy. I pray for the family of that little baby. It breaks my heart. And the man who was neglectful will have to pay the price for his actions.
“The state had conducted 14 inspections at Yellow Brick Road since 2004 and found regulatory violations on 11 occasions.“
And they were still allowed to have a license? I don’t care how minor a violation is…if it is something that is a regularly occuring violation, then they should have their license revoked for good. Our children are too precious and innocent to allow these people to slip through the cracks.
Oh and lets not even get on the topic of the mans criminal record. It disgusts me to read this. As a mother of a little girl, it sickens me to read this. I can’t imagine the pain the family of the child is going through.
Does anyone know of a site you can go where you can check the records of day cares?
Spider- Actually, all it means is they had it on them… maybe you need to look up the word “possession” in the dictionary. If you actually understood anything about the law you’d understand that a charge of possession with intent to distribute is reflective of the amount of narcotics on hand. Possession is a charge that reflects a small amount found.
Just because he’s in possession doesn’t mean he was planning to use. Do you not think they drug tested him at court? If he had tested positive I highly doubt he would have continued under advisement.
Regardless, this has nothing to do with drugs. It’s to do with a man who clearly has no common sense (in ever sense of the word) and a woman who does not properly run her daycare.
bserious-
Thank You. I couldn’t have said it better myself. And ‘possession’ does IMPLY that he was a user, but that does not mean that he was in fact a user. What you all need to realize is that regardless of what he did in his past, he was not convicted. When will we get off out soap boxes and look at the bigger picture here. An innocent child is dead. Point Blank. I really wish you all would get a grip.
People- stay focused. A child is dead.Was he texting, making a deal, was the child from Whitcomb, is it taxpayers money-what difference does it make- A Child Is Dead!Lets pray for the family-including the family of the Yellow Brick Road. I am sure they are not rejoicing over this. And for you insensitive ignorant people out there who don’t know the law-if he was not found guilty- the daycare/his mother was not wrong for letting him drive the van. I am sure if you had a child that needed money to the point that he felt that he had to sell drugs-you would rather have him working with you(keeping an eye on him as much as possible)than on the corner twirling. Should she be penalized for wanting to help her child? I believe that if she had any idea that her son was not capable of the job set before him - she would not have risk a child’s life-let alone her bussiness. And..for all you self righteous/do no wrong people who never make mistakes - I pitty you when you do
And to “metoo” - you’re the ignorant one as an article published yesterday in the TD said that the driver was convicted with posession (not the possession with intent to distribute that he first pleaded guilty to then withdrew the plea). Posession implies that the person uses the drug, rather than sells it.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.


Advertisement