BookWormMom
When the man OWNS the school, it is an entirely different story.
I've posted this before, but I will explain it again...
When you apply for a DSS license to operate a preschool you are subjecting yourself to THEIR policies. One of which, is that they can suspend your license while they investigate. Much like you agree that the police/DMV can suspend your driving license if you are suspected of violating the laws of the road. Because he OWNS the school it is exactly the same as if it were an in-home daycare. It can't continue to operate while it is being investigated. This is how things work when you are dealing with a private school...something you CHOSE for your child.
They are 100% correct. Being a private preschool, Creative Frontiers and licensee Robert Adams, are subject to the rules of the Department of Social Services. Exactly the same as if he were running a daycare from his home. It IS NOT the same as if he was the principal at a public school where they would just remove the person in question and investigate.
The application Mr. Adams would have signed (LIC200A) states the following:
18. APPLICANT(S)/LICENSEE(S) RESPONSIBILITIES:
A. IN ADDITION TO COMPLYING WITH THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO LICENSING AND FIRE SAFETY, I/WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER STATE, FEDERAL AND/OR LOCAL LAWS WHICH ARE NOT ENFORCED BY THIS AGENCY BUT THAT MAY NEED TO BE MET, SUCH AS ZONING, BUILDING, SANITATION AND LABOR REQUIREMENTS.
The Health and Safety Codes mentioned in the application are commonly referred to as Title 22 regulations. In the case of Creative Frontiers/Robert Adams, the DSS cites that the applicable law that was violated (as indicated in the DSS report) are 1596.885 (a) (b) and (c) and 1596.8897 (a) (1) (2) (4) and it references Regulation sections 101170 101212 (d) (1) (C) (D) 101223 (a) (1) (3) 101230 (C)
Like me, most of you probably don’t know off the top of your head what Health and Safety Code Section 1596.885 or 1596.8897 state. Good thing you have me to look it up for you. 1596.885 states (stay with me, it’s long):
"The department may deny an application for or suspend or revoke any license, registration, or special permit issued under this act upon any of the following grounds and in the manner provided in this act:” "(a) Violation by the licensee, registrant, or holder of a special permit of this act or of the rules and regulations promulgated under this act.There is also a part (d) and (e) but they are not applicable.
"(b) Aiding, abetting, or permitting the violating of this act or of the rules and regulations promulgated under this act.
"(c) Conduct which is inimical to the health, morals, welfare, or safety of either an individual in or receiving services from the facility or the people of this state.
Still with me? I know it is a lot of information.
Basically, in English, this means the DSS can revoke a license if it feels the need to. The "aiding, abetting, or permitting" reference is most likely in reference to Ms. Higgins' alleged failure to report. The alleged molestation falls within section (c). In reading this, it is hard to deny that DSS was well within their guidelines upon their shutting of the school.
Section 1596.8897 is in regards to the Criminal Background clearance. It states:
(a) The Department shall conduct a criminal record review of all persons specified in Health and Safety Code Section 1596.871(b). The Department has the authority to approve or deny a facility license, or employment, residence or presence in the facility, based on the results of this review.
It is easy to get confused. It is a lot of information and legal-speak. One thing is crystal-clear. DSS was definitely within their legal rights to revoke the license. There was not one, but several complaints that were considered to have substantial enough evidence to justify the revocation. With the DSS, this can mean the original complaint plus an employee confirming, verifying time sheets, looking through files, etc. Ms. Mertens not having criminal background clearance and being left alone with the children(as required for ALL people working in the school)was enough to warrant the temporary revocation. It is also important to note that it was NOT the fault of Ms. Mertens herself nor AARP to have this done. As a licensed childcare center, Creative Frontiers School was required by law to send Ms. Mertens for this process or apply to have her fingerprints transferred to the facility. Again, this is stated clearly in the application, LIC 200A:
D. I/WE SHALL ENSURE THAT ALL PERSONS SUBJECT TO FINGERPRINT REQUIREMENTS SHALL ALSO SUBMIT A CHILD ABUSE INDEX CHECK FORM TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
The blame game that has gone on has been preposterous. The insinuation that the DSS was trying to make something out of nothing to close the school down is just downright absurd. They were within their legal rights to do so. Because of the nature of the complaint they received, they needed to act for the safety of the children. This would be the same in ANY preschool setting. This is the way that preschool licensing works. It is not like public elementary school where a person can be removed. In this case, Mr. Adams is a named licensee. The school could not possibly be allowed to operate while they investigate the claims. They wouldn't do it for anyone else, why should Mr. Adams be the exception?
The business license from the school was also revoked on the same day. Honestly I am not sure of the EXACT reasons listed for the revocation of the license as I have not been able to find the closure paperwork, but if you refer to the Agreement to Postpone the Appeal Paperwork, it states that the school was closed...
"...pursuant to Citrus Heights Municipal Code ("CHMC") (ADD SYMBOL)22-114, the City issued a temporary suspension of the Business License for Creative Frontiers on the basis that a serious and immediate threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public exists, and also issued a notice to the revocation of the General Business effective fifteen(15) days from the service of the notice of revocation, unless a timely appeal was filed...."
This doesn't exactly help for the reasoning for the closure as Citrus Heights Municipal Code, CHMC 22-114 is regarding the method of revocation and how to appeal, however CHMC 22-113 states:
Sec. 22-113. Grounds for Revocation.
A general business license may be revoked for any of the following reasons, if the Finance Director finds in writing:
(1) The business is operated in a manner or is housed on premises or within a building which violates or is in violation of any City, state, federal, or otherwise applicable codes, rules, regulations or laws; or
(2) The holder of the license has violated one or more conditions upon which the license has been issued; or
(3) Pursuant to the Business and Professions Code Section 16000 subdivision (c), the applicant or business no longer holds, a valid contractor's license issued by the State of California, Contractor's State License Board.
After reviewing this, it isn't clear if it was the numerous building code violations (1), or possibly that the conditions upon which the license was granted were violated with the revocation of the preschool license (2).
Upon reading all of this information, can anyone really say that the Department of Social Services or the City of Citrus Heights acted unfairly? Can you really say it was a conspiracy theory? That the DSS just needed a "big case"? No. Common sense tells you that they acted well-within their own laws and regulations. Something Mr. Adams agreed to when he signed those applications. What about poor Mr. Bob? That's a matter of opinion.
Awesome job of locating, deciphering and putting these documents in lay terms.
ReplyDeleteThank you!
This can't be correct. They had an agreement with AARP, bu AARP did not hold up their end of the bargain so it is not their fault. They had an agreement with the building department, but the building department did not hold up their end of the bargain so it is not their fault. They had an agreement with CHPD that he would turn himself in, but CHPD did not hold up their end of the bargain so it is not their fault. They had an agreement with the city licensing department, but the city did not hold up their end of the bargain so it is not their fault. There were more agreements, but I am starting to sound like a broken record here It is becoming evident that there is a conspiracy, but not the one they are claiming.
ReplyDeleteOnce all the disclosures were made, and the evidence for the shut down was presented, most people with the ability to form an independent thought should have realized how they had been taken advantage of. I don't know if the few remaining "SUPPORTERS" are ignorant, stubborn or just not paying attention?! Even the Adams girls must see the writing on the wall. In a way, I feel sorry for those who helped and donated. Did they realize the gravity of the situation? I wonder how many of the "members" of the Creative Frontiers Facebook page are actually just remaining on there to see what happens next. I know I AM!!
ReplyDeleteNo longer a supporter, no longer blind, no longer ignorant and no longer taken advantage of.