State probing day-care center after toddler’s death

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.

» 27 Comments | Post a Comment

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

 
View More: yellow brick road day care,yellow brick road day care ,city of richmond,
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by Spider on July 09, 2009 at 7:54 am

A drug dealer (or former drug dealer) should not be allowed around children. A drug user should not be allowed around children.  An earlier article called the driver of the van a “good kid” - there is no way this guy was a good kid.  Yes, I think in the interest of full disclosure, the name of the judge should be disclosed.  It’s public record.  Has this judge let other “good kids” off so easily?

Flag Comment Posted by MeToo on July 09, 2009 at 7:36 am

Opinion8d: perhaps this daycare just decided to offer the service of picking the children up.  If many come from low income areas it’s highly possible the parents do not have transportation to get them there on their own.  It’s a privately owned business, they can provide whatever services they want.

Sounds more like you just don’t think you should have to be bothered with dropping your little rugrat off at daycare.  If you want that ‘level of service for [your] child’ then find a daycare that provides it.

edrebber: Where in the article does it say he was a drug USER?  Just shows your ignorance.  You thing all those dope boys on the corner are addicts?  Think again.  Most don’t touch the stuff, they just want the money.  What does the judges name have to do with any of it?  Do you plan to start sending the judge hate mail?  Why would he need to be impeached? Because he gave a ‘sentence’ that was within the scope of the law and you don’t like it?  Well, I don’t like that OJ was running free for all those years, but I’m not after the jury’s heads.

It all boils down to the owner hiring her son because it was the easy thing to do, but not necessarily the right or smart thing to do.  He should be held accountable for the child’s death and the mother should be held accountable for hiring someone she shouldn’t have.

Flag Comment Posted by edrebber on July 09, 2009 at 1:30 am

Interesting that the name of the judge that allowed this drug addict to continue working at a child care facility was not published.  Too bad the judge can’t be forced to send his children or grandchildren to this daycare facility.  The state legislature should start impeachment proceedings against the judge.

Flag Comment Posted by Opinion8d on July 09, 2009 at 12:15 am

In reply to dvlbch:

Thank you for your reply. I just wanted to know why I can’t get that level of service for my child. Not the being left in the van part, but the picking up in the morning part. Does anyone really choose to live in Whitcomb Court? Can they? I have no idea. I don’t think I would live there voluntarily, but hey, I give credit that no matter where the mother was from, she was probably working and needed care for her son so she could aspire for a better life. I hope that is the case. But I sure would like to know how I could get my daycare provider to pick up my child from home. It would be fantastic.

Flag Comment Posted by JustAThought on July 09, 2009 at 12:13 am

“Stimulus money” helps fund childcare for many of these parents. Where can I sign up because my bank account needs to be stimulated??

Flag Comment Posted by dvlbch on July 09, 2009 at 12:03 am

Answer to Opinon8ed: What difference does it make who is paying the daycare provider for this child there are working mothers that live in Whitcomb Court. Just because the child was picked up from a housing project doesn’t mean that the mother is on welfare.

Flag Comment Posted by Opinion8d on July 08, 2009 at 11:36 pm

Question: I pay for daycare for my child, but nobody picks him/her up. Why is a daycare picking up a child from Whitcomb Court? Interesting…Who is paying for this care? The taxpayers, or the parents?

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.
Click here to post a comment.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Online Features
Blogs
DataCenter
Videos
Weekend
 

Advertisement