Exemptions may put Utah kids in danger

State officials have not been following the law, or even their own rules, in licensing child-care facilities in Utah, according to a legislative audit issued Thursday.

Since 2002, the Bureau of Child Care Licensing has granted more than 50 licenses to people who either have criminal records themselves or employ or live with convicts, all violations of state law. In one case, the husband of a child-care provider sexually abused a 5-year-old girl in his wife's care.

Although the woman's husband failed a criminal background check, her license for in-home child care was granted without the approval of the executive director of the Utah Health Department as required by state law.

Auditors on Thursday told lawmakers they were aware of a "few other" times when abuse had occurred in exempted facilities. Those examples are not included in the report, and auditors later declined to reveal additional details.

The audit was presented to the legislative Audit Subcommittee.

In all, between 2002 and 2004, 51 individuals were granted similar exemptions in violation of either state law or the bureau's administrative rules, the audit states. The crimes in those cases range from felony sexual activity with a minor and child sexual abuse to drunken driving and aggravated assault.

State law forbids anyone convicted of a felony to provide child care or be involved in the operation of a child-care center. The Bureau of Child Care Licensing is also prohibited from issuing licenses to those with misdemeanor convictions, except in certain circumstances.

Such exemptions are no longer granted and steps are being taken to address those that have already been awarded, said Dr. Marc Babitz, director of the health department's Division of Health Systems Improvement, which oversees the audited bureau.

"When the issue of the background criminal investigations came up, I was very concerned," said Babitz, who became division director in May. "The law seems to me to be fairly clear."

The bureau has also taken other steps to address problems raised by Thursday's audit, such as the apparent ease with which providers have historically been able to get "variances" on other administrative policies.

The report cites cases in which an in-home provider was allowed not to fence an outside play area because the person "didn't want to 'put the neighbors out,' " or the required child-to-provider ratio was permitted to be exceeded because the provider felt "up to it.' "