So Sad...

[kidkair]

Maybe she was hiding a death of one of the infants. Maybe she shook one or it died of SIDS and she over the top panicked.

[daycare]

Maybe she was hiding a death of one of the infants. Maybe she shook one or it died of SIDS and she over the top panicked.

I think someone else said that too and I agree....something smells fishy!!!

[Cat Herder]

Business tie-ins murky at day care
Owner of property where fire killed 4 children mum; fugitive suspect's ex-classmates recall her as angry bullyBy TERRI LANGFORD
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
March 7, 2011, 1:09AM

A 22-year-old day care operator's flight from justice has left government agencies red-faced and her family speechless. Now, questions linger about how an angry teen arsonist described by high school classmates as an arrogant bully ended up in the day care business.

Jessica Rene Tata was the face of Jackie's Child Care, the home-based day care that caught fire Feb. 24, killing four children. Tata, a criminal justice major at Houston Community College, is thought to have fled to Nigeria the day before the first of 14 charges, including four counts of manslaughter, were filed against her.

The extent to which she may have had business partners remains unclear. The property where the day care was located - a house at 2810 Crest Park Drive - is owned by Ronald Velasco, who has not returned repeated calls from the Houston Chronicle to explain his relationship with Tata.

Records show that Velasco is an officer in what appears to be one of his father's health care businesses, called Great Home Health Care Inc. Another of his father's health care businesses, called Vel-Nay Tru Living, is based at 12810 Westbranch Court, along with one of his son's businesses, Excelsior Home Solutions.

It is not clear if Ronald Velasco has a part in Vel-Nay, which, according to state records received more than $515,000 in Medicaid funds in the past year.

According to the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services, Vel-Nay provides training and support services for mentally disabled adults.

"We are busy. We are so busy right now," said Rodolfo Velasco from the door of his west Houston business, Vel-Nay Tru Living.

A younger man's voice instructed him to just "Shut the door!" When asked about his son's property on 2810 Crest Park Drive, the father said: "I don't know what he owns," before slamming the door.

Various reports indicate that Tata's father, Godfrey Tata, has a thriving health care business, but the only mention in a search of databases at four state agencies was a failed application to be in the substance abuse business.

"Our system shows a man named Godfrey N. Tata of Houston sought a chemical dependency counselor license in the mid-1990s but did not pass the required exam and therefore was not licensed by us," said Carrie Williams, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of State Health Services.

He listed several businesses with the Harris County Clerk's Office, but most of the listings have expired. Velasco business records reveal no business partnerships with the Tatas, who continued their silence.

Tata's parents, Godfrey and Josephine, appear to have divorced decades ago. Jessica Tata is the youngest of five children.

Few willing to speak
Few people will talk about Tata. Those who knew her at Katy Taylor High School, where she set a fire in 2002 and was subsequently removed, speak of her as an angry bully and then ask that their names not be used.

"If she was going somewhere and you were in her way, she was either going to push you out of the way or mow you down," said Kat, a 2006 Taylor graduate who did not want her last name used. "It was all about Jessica all the time."

But the post-high school Tata has her supporters.

"This is not the Jessica I knew," said Dia Walcott, 24, a single mom who used Jackie's Child Care for her son, who was not there at the time of the fire. "No one forced her to do this (child care). She did it because she loves kids. And we went to her - we passed up so many day cares that were probably cheaper - but we went to her because we liked her."

"The thing that really kills me about all this ... I do know she was about to close the day care," Walcott said. "She was attending nursing school, or trying to. She hired people to come in and sit with the kids for a while."

Records show Jessica first registered "Jackie's Child Care" at another location in 2007, but state officials insist Tata never had a child care before being licensed a year ago at the home that burned.

At the time of the fire, Tata had seven children in her care 3 years old and younger. Video from a local Target indicates she left the seven by themselves to shop.

Fire at high school
As a registered day care home, Tata was allowed to supervise, by herself, up to 12 children - but no more than six younger children and six older children - at certain times of day.

The more than 2,000 home day care centers licensed in Houston are not required to have a city of Houston fire inspection.

The fire at the Jackie's Child Care operation exposed serious cracks in the anonymous city-county-state bureaucracies many Texans take for granted.

The Houston Fire Department and Harris County District Attorney's Office spent days after Tata's disappearance pointing fingers at one another.

Documents obtained by the Chronicle last week reveal that her day care home application wasn't vetted thoroughly.

Although she admitted in juvenile court she set a fire at Taylor High School in 2002, her three-year probation for the incident, which was technically not a conviction, was omitted from her application. A background check failed to find it.

Two classes of day care
Tata's day care home application - one of 11,056 applications sent to the Texas Department of Public Safety in 2010 for a background check - indicated she had never been accused of a felony as an adult or juvenile. Arson is a second-degree felony.

It is now believed that a lack of the original arrest report kept her arson case file from making it to the database used by DPS to conduct agency background checks.

In Texas, the most stringent regulations are applied to day care centers, the type of care most often used by wealthier families. Then there is a second-class type of day care, registered or licensed homes that are clustered in poorer neighborhoods and have fewer regulations. Most offer 24/7 care.

The state subjects them to fewer regulations in hopes of keeping operators from skipping the licensing process entirely, putting more children at risk in illegal operations.

Records show Tata received a total of $11,086.38 from the Texas Department of Agriculture, which distributes a federal grant to day care operators for food expenses. She received $5,773 from the Texas Workforce Commission in day care subsidies to working poor women. One mother said Tata charged $400 to $500 a month.

Reporters Peggy O'Hare and Claudia Feldman contributed to this report.

[Max]

I know this is old but I just came across this thread.
So so heartbreaking It looks like she was brought back to the U.S.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Day-care-fire-fugitive-returns-to-Houston-1687273.php

Wonder if they ever got to the bottom of what really happened that day


I have to say something on the age thing...

She's not old enough to know to give her life to save the life of the kids no matter what. Until you are old enough to know that they always completely come before you..... you shouldn't be able to be alone with them. I'm certain 22 isn't old enough to know that.... educated or not... experienced or not... mother or not....... it's just too young.

Nope, I can't agree with this one bit. How can you be 'certain' of that :confused: There are so many young men and women who signed up to give their lives for their country, the children in this country being included. I know that's different, and you may disagree with 18 yr olds signing up in the military, but my point is that there are many 22 yr olds and younger who DO put others' lives before their own. Daycare settings included. I'm willing to bet there are providers of all ages who wouldn't put the childrens' lives first in an emergency situation.

Military aside, there are young persons in other difficult careers that are competent of making sound life or death decisions.

No disrespect Nan, I know you have a plethora of great knowledge in many daycare aspects.

SOME 22 year olds should not be operating a daycare or caring for children, but that is SOME, not ALL. SOME older caregivers should not be operating a daycare... it all boils down to the individual and their abilities. Not age.

[bklsmum]

She ended up coming back and she was convicted of one count of felony murder and got 80 years. They dropped the rest of the charges because it would have been a waste of money and resources and continued to put the families through trials that would not have resulted in any more actual time in jail. She will be eligible for parole after 30 years.

[Blackcat31]

ugh!

6 years

[nannyde]

I know this is old but I just came across this thread.
So so heartbreaking It looks like she was brought back to the U.S.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Day-care-fire-fugitive-returns-to-Houston-1687273.php

Wonder if they ever got to the bottom of what really happened that day


I have to say something on the age thing...



Nope, I can't agree with this one bit. How can you be 'certain' of that :confused: There are so many young men and women who signed up to give their lives for their country, the children in this country being included. I know that's different, and you may disagree with 18 yr olds signing up in the military, but my point is that there are many 22 yr olds and younger who DO put others' lives before their own. Daycare settings included. I'm willing to bet there are providers of all ages who wouldn't put the childrens' lives first in an emergency situation.

Military aside, there are young persons in other difficult careers that are competent of making sound life or death decisions.

No disrespect Nan, I know you have a plethora of great knowledge in many daycare aspects.

I think military training received by a 22 year old is quite different than child care training.

How many child care classes EVER discuss giving your life for your charges. Where is that in any state regulations?

Our military is founded on risking your life for your countrymen, other soldiers, property etc. They are given weapon training and physical training to be the protectors. They are told "thank you for your service". Ever hear that as a standard saying given to child care providers? How many child care providers die each year when they are caring for kids compared to their age mate military counterparts?

It's not really a comparable profession.

In the thread my concern was her age and the NUMBER of kids she was allowed to have. She had way too many kids and only got two out. She did not try to get out the ones she knew were confined in playpens.

I'm thinking in terms of total responsibility that she could manage at her young age and experience of practicing getting them out in a fire. I don't think 22 is old enough to have the life experience to give your life for others or the wisdom to prevent having to give your life.

My son is considering the military at 18. He will have many weeks and years of training AND supervision. Tata had no daily supervision. That's another big difference.

[Max]

I think military training received by a 22 year old is quite different than child care training.

My son is considering the military at 18. He will have many weeks and years of training AND supervision. Tata had no daily supervision. That's another big difference.

It is quite different. I joined at 18 and served for 6 years. There was no training on how to sacrifice yourself. Training or not, there are soldiers who absolutely should not be trusted with a firearm and who I wouldn't trust to watch my back if we were deployed, yet they remain in our Army. Age has nothing to do with it. People will always slip through the cracks.

My point is that age isn't a factor when determining if you're capable to give your life for others. Irregardless of your profession and irregardless of training. When it comes down to it, you either risk your life or you don't.

I'm thinking in terms of total responsibility that she could manage at her young age and experience of practicing getting them out in a fire. I don't think 22 is old enough to have the life experience to give your life for others or the wisdom to prevent having to give your life.

Do you mean that 22 isn't old enough, unless you've received specialized training? (Not being rude, just trying to clarify.)

I think sacrificing yourself is something you have or you don't and saying age is the reason she didn't rescue those children is quite insulting IMO.

[Blackcat31]

It is quite different. I joined at 18 and served for 6 years. There was no training on how to sacrifice yourself. Training or not, there are soldiers who absolutely should not be trusted with a firearm and who I wouldn't trust to watch my back if we were deployed, yet they remain in our Army. Age has nothing to do with it. People will always slip through the cracks.

My point is that age isn't a factor when determining if you're capable to give your life for others. Irregardless of your profession and irregardless of training. When it comes down to it, you either risk your life or you don't.



Do you mean that 22 isn't old enough, unless you've received specialized training? (Not being rude, just trying to clarify.)

I think sacrificing yourself is something you have or you don't and saying age is the reason she didn't rescue those children is quite insulting IMO.

Things are usually only insulting or offensive if the shoe fits....kwim? that is NOT directed AT you personally.

I never at 22 yrs old thought that I knew everything but it was and is a common thought that at 22 most people DO think they know everything they need to know.

At 42+, you realize how much you didn't know...

Personally, I think her age DID play into her choices and decisions. If that is offensive to anyone that is currently that age or close to it then so be it.
But I guarantee that whatever the answer is for a 22 yr old will be different when they are no longer 22.

[mommyneedsadayoff]

Things are usually only insulting or offensive if the shoe fits....kwim? that is NOT directed AT you personally.

I never at 22 yrs old thought that I knew everything but it was and is a common thought that at 22 most people DO think they know everything they need to know.

At 42+, you realize how much you didn't know...

Personally, I think her age DID play into her choices and decisions. If that is offensive to anyone that is currently that age or close to it then so be it.
But I guarantee that whatever the answer is for a 22 yr old will be different when they are no longer 22.

I agree with this. The saying "hindsight is 20/20" rings true and the farther you get away from that age, the more clear things seem to get. I think age can generally play a factor in why people do things or react certain ways. Just looking back at 22 year old me, I KNOW I would have reacted differently than I would now if in the situation like Tata. The IMPACT and seriousness of what was happening would have registered far differently because I am older and more experienced now and also because I am a mother.

[nannyde]

It is quite different. I joined at 18 and served for 6 years. There was no training on how to sacrifice yourself. Training or not, there are soldiers who absolutely should not be trusted with a firearm and who I wouldn't trust to watch my back if we were deployed, yet they remain in our Army. Age has nothing to do with it. People will always slip through the cracks.

My point is that age isn't a factor when determining if you're capable to give your life for others. Irregardless of your profession and irregardless of training. When it comes down to it, you either risk your life or you don't.



Do you mean that 22 isn't old enough, unless you've received specialized training? (Not being rude, just trying to clarify.)

I think sacrificing yourself is something you have or you don't and saying age is the reason she didn't rescue those children is quite insulting IMO.

I don't think 22 is old enough to have the wisdom to know you can't handle 9 little kids... can't leave them alone while you quickly go get something at the target... can't have the TIME under your belt to have small groups that teach you how to care for kids and develop the pure love for their life.... have the selflessness to try to get them out even if you are going to get burned.... the wisdom to ALWAYS check every burner when cooking and when leaving the room with kids who CAN get up... turn off and put out of reach... and on and on.

She didn't have any burns. She lived in a small house. She knew where the confined kids were.

I truly believe it takes maturity to self teach and grow into the idea that their lives are more valuable than your own. I don't think too many workers in fields where they aren't specifically trained to protect and serve... who would lay their life for a kid other than their own. Our natural instinct to self protect has to be dismantled wherein we grow into the idea that first... do everything to avoid being in that position (like not taking kids you can't get out in a fire) and that should tragedy strike you will give your life trying to save theirs.

[Max]

I 100% agree age plays into decision making. No question there. Nan was saying she was certain the woman's young age made her unable to risk her life to rescue the kids and no 22 year old has the capacity to make those decisions with that number of kids. That's what I disagree with.

Age may have been a factor but it wasn't the sole reason for her actions (or lack thereof). And not all 22 year olds would be incapable of risking their life in that situation.

[Unregistered]

Hi I wanted to share I was in this exact situation. I'm in my 20s and had a house fire recently.I think it has to do with how mature u are being that young.her leaving those kids to go shopping says alot that she is irresponsible if u don't no better than to leave kids alone u should not be watching kids.some are more mature for there age and some are immature .I did save the children and get them out safe ,I was burned but thats what you do to save the children's lives are way more important than your own.i would say I'm more mature than most my age I no how to remain calm in an emergency situation and other things. The kids are the most important no matter what.i don't think it's age that matters it's the person .

[Max]

I don't think 22 is old enough to have the wisdom to know you can't handle 9 little kids... can't leave them alone while you quickly go get something at the target... can't have the TIME under your belt to have small groups that teach you how to care for kids and develop the pure love for their life.... have the selflessness to try to get them out even if you are going to get burned.... the wisdom to ALWAYS check every burner when cooking and when leaving the room with kids who CAN get up... turn off and put out of reach... and on and on.

She didn't have any burns. She lived in a small house. She knew where the confined kids were.

This provider certainly didn't have the maturity, among other skills, to properly care for those children.

22 isn't old enough for some, perhaps most, but not all.

[trix23]

Unreal... she was cheap too. So I guess those people valued their $ more than their child's well-being. You get what you pay for. So sad