What can happen to children at the small day-care centers that Idaho legislators refused to include in the state's licensing and safety requirements this year? Plenty, as news from another state with laws like Idaho's - Missouri - reveals.
There, the husband of a day-care operator watching five children has been charged with sexually abusing two children at the center and as many as 40 others over the past 30 years, the Associated Press reports.
William Huck Sr. of a rural area about 50 miles south of St. Louis is in jail with bond posted at $1 million after a 4-year-old boy at the center told his parents Huck forced him to perform oral sex. Huck is also charged with molesting the boy's sister, now 10.
In court documents, Huck admitted to sexual conduct with the boy 12 times in the past year, and said he had molested 40 different children over a three-decade period. Their ages were as low as 6 months. Huck's wife operates a day-care center that has no name and no license.
Missouri, like Idaho, requires no license for centers serving fewer than six children.
The bill members of the Idaho House Health and Welfare Committee killed in February would have required licensing of all centers serving two or more children, and would have beefed up safety standards for centers serving up to 12 children, which now face minimal regulation.
Would such a law have protected the Missouri children from William Huck? Maybe not. Its regulations would have required Huck's wife to disclose to parents and the state if he were a registered sex offender. And to date, he is not. In fact, he had never been arrested or accused of misconduct with children.
But who's to say what difference licensing and regulation might have made to the center where he abused those children? Knowing the state takes an interest in how you are treating children could be enough.
One thing is certain: The legislators who opposed the Idaho bill on the grounds that children should be home with their mothers have left many of those who are not with their mothers more vulnerable to abuse. What possible sense can that make to anyone - other than a William Huck? - J.F.
