Update: Houston Daycare Operator Arraigned In Deadly Fire That Killed 4 Toddlers

[x635 4,066]

Very sad. Thoughts and prayers are with the children and their parents. I can't imagine how horrible it must be.

Also, thoughts and prayers are with the Houston emergency responders who were at this incident. It has been described by many, literally, as "hell". Kudos to the first due Engine and Truck companies on interior ops, they made several rescues of children and infants who were trapped by flames. And kudos to the firefighters working EMS today, as they worked very hard to save each and every child, even though many were likely.

Not saying anyone dropped the ball, but please remember to inspect EVERY daycare facility or "house" you can find in your district routinely, and report ANY violations. You can also report if the structure, staff, or equipment is unsuitable in case of fire. Make sure the staff knows the evacuation plan, and has one in place-that includes teacher-baby ratio tp do so. Also, PLEASE be vigilant if you use daycare.

3 children die in day-care fire; 4 others injured

By ZAIN SHAUK and PEGGY O'HARE

HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Feb. 24, 2011, 5:31PM

Three children were killed and four remain hospitalized this afternoon after a fire at a child care operation in west Houston.

HFD Executive Assistant Chief Rick Flanagan said CPR was being performed on four of the children as they were being taken to a hospital. The ages of the children range from 18 months to 3 years.

FULL STORY: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7444462.html

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Very sad. Thoughts and prayers are with the children and their parents. I can't imagine how horrible it must be.

Also, thoughts and prayers are with the Houston emergency responders who were at this incident. It has been described by many, literally, as "hell".

FULL STORY: http://www.chron.com...an/7444462.html

My condolences to the families of the deceased children. My thoughts and prayers are with the injured children and their families.

God bless the firefighters that responded to this incident. After personally responding to the Taconic Crash, I can only say that "hell" does not come close to describing what incidents like these are like.

RIP

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

My question is was the building sprinkled, was it alarmed? When was the first call for aid, where and how did it start? Who ran the program and what is their staff to child ratio? I think the answer to these questions will give us greater insight into how something like this happened. Obviously it is not often that these happen but the common theme among these incidents is the failure to plan for emergencies by the staff of the program.

[IzzyEng4 427]

My question is was the building sprinkled, was it alarmed? When was the first call for aid, where and how did it start? Who ran the program and what is their staff to child ratio? I think the answer to these questions will give us greater insight into how something like this happened. Obviously it is not often that these happen but the common theme among these incidents is the failure to plan for emergencies by the staff of the program.

Read the AP article here, should answer some of your questions for now as it is still under investigation: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gsbctj4xluevNv0TRO5K-GNztH6Q?docId=c2afcd12bb6544189495d6ac54e84cfb

It was a private dwelling, so probably no residential sprinklers. Many daycare services are conducted at homes and yes usually they are alarmed or have smoke detectors. I don't know thier local laws but the article quotes:

HOUSTON – From the outside, only a hole hacked in the roof offers any sign that a home day care center had been filled with so much smoke from a kitchen fire that firefighters needed thermal imaging equipment to locate some of the victims.....

Investigators will be seeking answers Friday about what sparked the fire a day earlier at Jackie's Child Care, and looking for any indication that the fire need not have happened. A neighbor said day care operator Jessica Tata said she told firefighters that the fire started in the kitchen, while she was in the bathroom.

...

The residence was licensed last March 1 as a registered child-care home, according to Texas Department of Family and Protective Services records. State regulations allow no more than six children under preschool age to be cared for in any 24-hour period in registered child-care homes, said Gwen Carter, a spokeswoman for the department. Preschool age is generally defined as 5 or younger, she said.

Carter declined to comment when asked whether the Tata home was in compliance with that rule Thursday.

[firemoose827 324]

My condolences to all involved, the families of the children, and the firefighters who tried to rescue them. You did your best, and we are all here to back you. My thoughts and prayers to you all. Stay Safe.

[x635 4,066]

The woman responsible for this horrific tragedy has fled the country, avoiding criminal charges:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7990398

http://www.khou.com/home/HFD-chief-The-worst-thing-we-did-was-trust-Jessica-Tata-117268578.html

[INIT915 1,119]

From a criminal investigation perspective, this is fairly inexcusable. Anyone facing charges of this nature who has ties to a foreign nation wouldn't ordinarily be left so "free" top do so.

[grumpyff 1,159]

I feel for the crews involved, and hope that they know they did everything they possibly could have done to save the children's lives, and that they are taking advantage of any counseling that is availible to them. As to the scumbag that fled the country I hope she gets the justice she deserves,. Hopefully Nigeria will cooperate with any State Department requests for extradition.

[Stepjam 118]

Some Houston-area legislator will probably sponsor a bill making Texas the most stringent regulator of day care providers. Was this woman licensed? Is a license even required? Why does it always take a tragedy?

[x635 4,066]

Some Houston-area legislator will probably sponsor a bill making Texas the most stringent regulator of day care providers. Was this woman licensed? Is a license even required? Why does it always take a tragedy?

Texas is already VERY stringent on day care providers. However, it's hard to keep track of every home day care, because many are not licenses, their licenses have expired, or they claim not to be active. Right now, it appears she slipped right through the cracks with her criminal background check when she applied for her license. Read more below:

Fugitive Jessica Rene Tata may have lied to get her Texas child care home license when she told the state licensing agency she had no juvenile record despite having served three years of probation for setting a fire at Katy's Taylor High School when she was 14

Which makes me curious. Did she do this to cover something up, like injure one of the children?

Read more: http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/default/article/Suspect-in-deadly-day-care-blaze-had-prior-arson-1040036.php#ixzz1Fey86Wbh

I believe that US Marshalls are already on the ground in Nigeria, with the help of Nigerian Officials and Houston DA and FD investigators.

[abaduck 123]

From a criminal investigation perspective, this is fairly inexcusable. Anyone facing charges of this nature who has ties to a foreign nation wouldn't ordinarily be left so "free" top do so.

I can see where you're coming from, but evidently there was a problem with getting the DA to approve charges and issue a warrant. Once she's arrested & charged there can be any bail conditions necessary.

Until then she's as free as you or I; she is an American citizen. I'm British born so I too have dual citizenship. I'm not some kind of second-class American citizen because of that and I certainly won't accept being treated differently because I have 'ties to overseas'; that's the kind of attitude that got thousands of loyal American citizens with ties to Japan stripped of their rights and locked up in prison camps in the last war.

Mike

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

I can see where you're coming from, but evidently there was a problem with getting the DA to approve charges and issue a warrant. Once she's arrested & charged there can be any bail conditions necessary.

Until then she's as free as you or I; she is an American citizen. I'm British born so I too have dual citizenship. I'm not some kind of second-class American citizen because of that and I certainly won't accept being treated differently because I have 'ties to overseas'; that's the kind of attitude that got thousands of loyal American citizens with ties to Japan stripped of their rights and locked up in prison camps in the last war.

Mike

Summed up perfectly. She was "injured" during the fire (read emotionally distressed), so she was taken to the hospital for treatment so she was unable to be interviewed by the fire marshall. Since she was not charged with any wrong doing so was free to go, as would be the right of anyone. It was only after the investigation so she charged. Read the Firehouse.com article, it the chief fire marshall had some interesting comments along the line of there was no reason to suspect her of any wrong doing until it was too late. It seemed to me that while the investigators may have gotten played, its not like they could hold her without any real evidence pointing to the contrary. And I am sure that someone will chime in, while they didn't actually need a reason to detain her, they could have anyway, but I was not there, I do not know but I can sure tell you that her lawyer was there from day one running interference between the client and the investigators.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

From a criminal investigation perspective, this is fairly inexcusable. Anyone facing charges of this nature who has ties to a foreign nation wouldn't ordinarily be left so "free" top do so.

Ok but she wasn't charged, barely even interviewed, Sir I understand we approach this from two very different prospectives but how would the accused be controlled or monitored without violating her right against illegal search and seizure, right to due process and right against cruel and unusual punishment? Following her is one thing (add potentially illegal as well, harassment?) but since there was not enough evidence at the time to make an arrest, what options did Law enforcement have do anything? You can't hold her indefinitely until you create a case, and clearly 48-72 hours did not cut it because 48-72 hours after the fire she was still in the country and not charged.

It maybe inexcusable but what realistically could else have be done?

Edited March 4, 2011 by bvfdjc316

[x635 4,066]

Here's the DA's timeline:

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/DA+Timeline.pdf

Here's the FD's timeline:

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/hfdtimeline.pdf

It goes into a little more depth. Her, her family, and her lawyer, basically knew all the tricks to delay the investigation, giving her plenty of time to flee.

[Just a guy 493]

First things first, let's not forget the main fact that there are 4 dead innocent children here - THEIR RIGHTS are the ones that need to be protected. With that in mind let's not worry about the SUSPECTS 4th ammendment rights, let's keep in mind that the investigation has determined that her reckless / negligent actions led to the deaths of these children. I'm sure the answer will be " well what happened to innocent until proven guilty ?" My answer to that is if there is enough evidence to issue a warrant and persue prosecution then there is a VERY STRONG indication that a person is guilty. Just because a jury lets someone off the hook in no way means they are not guilty.. legally yes, but in the grand scheme of things no.

There are mant questions in my mind. Why were the Houston PD not involved ? You have 4 children dead in a fire, at the very least you need to probe this to see if there was criminality.

The one thing I read in the articles was that the Houston Fire Chief Garrison I believe his last name was said something to the effect of " We trusted this womans lawyer." ARE YOU KIDDING ME ? Anyone in law enforcement will tell you that many criminal defense attorneys are literally one step above the people they defend and in some cases giving them a whole step above is a lot of credit.

As far as "not infringing " on the suspects rights.... first she should have been interviewed right away... she claimed amnesia.. did she suffer a head injury ? She claimed mental stress or some nonsense like that, right away a seasoned investigator would have been suspect of that. Putting a 24 hour surveillance on this woman while the investigation was progressing would not have violated her rights or " harassed her." Clearly she wasn't being searched, seized or punished by any way by following her movements. If law enforcement wanted to track her electronically then they would have needed the OK of the court.

It seems like the DA dropped the ball, the FD dropped the ball, etc...

We have a 76 year old extradition treaty with Nigeria and none of the 27 crimes listed on the treaty match what this woman is charged with. Interpol is involved as is the US Marshal Service and the hope is that the charges can be ammended to fit the treaty to expedite extradition when this woman is caught.

God Bless the 4 victims, may they rest in peace

[x635 4,066]

Why were the Houston PD not involved ?

In Texas, many arson investigators are also commisioned police officers (as part of their job requirment), and can and do make arrests. Just like the PD, they are at the mercy of the District Attorney's office.

They are better trained and equipped to investigate and hanle this type of crime. Many members of this division of HFD are on Federal teams that investigate fire bombings, church fires, etc and have extensive experience and certifications.

Here's some more information on HFD's Arson Investigation Division.

http://www.houstontx.gov/fire/divisions/arson.html

[INIT915 1,119]

Ok but she wasn't charged, barely even interviewed, Sir I understand we approach this from two very different prospectives but how would the accused be controlled or monitored without violating her right against illegal search and seizure, right to due process and right against cruel and unusual punishment? Following her is one thing (add potentially illegal as well, harassment?) but since there was not enough evidence at the time to make an arrest, what options did Law enforcement have do anything? You can't hold her indefinitely until you create a case, and clearly 48-72 hours did not cut it because 48-72 hours after the fire she was still in the country and not charged.

It maybe inexcusable but what realistically could else have be done?

Surveillance of a suspect doesn't violate their any of their rights. In fact, it does not require any of the following:

1) Court Order

2) Warrants

3) Probable Cause

4) Reasonable Suspicion

5) Etc., Etc., Etc.

What does surveillance have to do with "Cruel and Unusual Punishment." Check out Furman v. Georgia, one of the controlling cases in US jurisprudence for 8th Amendment violations.

Please give me one credible source where legitimate surveillance of a suspect in a crime was found to be, and I will quote you here, "potentially illegal as well, harassment?)"

[INIT915 1,119]

I can see where you're coming from, but evidently there was a problem with getting the DA to approve charges and issue a warrant. Once she's arrested & charged there can be any bail conditions necessary.

Until then she's as free as you or I; she is an American citizen. I'm British born so I too have dual citizenship. I'm not some kind of second-class American citizen because of that and I certainly won't accept being treated differently because I have 'ties to overseas'; that's the kind of attitude that got thousands of loyal American citizens with ties to Japan stripped of their rights and locked up in prison camps in the last war.

Mike

Guess what. You can follow and conduct surveillance upon people who are as free as you and I.

Can I clearly assume your speaking from first hand experience and training in constitutional law and criminal investigations?

(I will not even entertain your comment concerning disparities in citizens versus non-citizens, as I find it insulting.)

[Just a guy 493]

I can see where you're coming from, but evidently there was a problem with getting the DA to approve charges and issue a warrant. Once she's arrested & charged there can be any bail conditions necessary.

Until then she's as free as you or I; she is an American citizen. I'm British born so I too have dual citizenship. I'm not some kind of second-class American citizen because of that and I certainly won't accept being treated differently because I have 'ties to overseas'; that's the kind of attitude that got thousands of loyal American citizens with ties to Japan stripped of their rights and locked up in prison camps in the last war.

Mike

I'm not sure where you are going with the second class citizen thing ? This woman is an American citizen as she was born in Texas. Now you are talking about locking people up in camps ??? Did I miss something ??? I don't give a s*** if this woman was from the US, canada, iran, tahiti or any other speck of sand in the world, her actions led to the death of 4 children... THAT FACT AND ONLY THAT FACT MATTER HERE

[INIT915 1,119]

I'm not sure where you are going with the second class citizen thing ? This woman is an American citizen as she was born in Texas. Now you are talking about locking people up in camps ??? Did I miss something ??? I don't give a s*** if this woman was from the US, canada, iran, tahiti or any other speck of sand in the world, her actions led to the death of 4 children... THAT FACT AND ONLY THAT FACT MATTER HERE

Well said. How people made the jump from conducting a legitimate criminal investigation to ethnic cleansing and discrimination is beyond me.

Consider this analogy: When a topic takes a technical turn in firefighting, I personally tend to sit back and follow the discussion, because I admittedly know very little of the specifics of firefighting. Yet, here, commentators citing constitutional provisions and other violations of the law are not basing their posts in any semblance of law or facts and it does quite a disservice to law enforcement in general as well as members of this board who may accept their comments as "facts."

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Surveillance of a suspect doesn't violate their any of their rights. In fact, it does not require any of the following:

1) Court Order

2) Warrants

3) Probable Cause

4) Reasonable Suspicion

5) Etc., Etc., Etc.

What does surveillance have to do with "Cruel and Unusual Punishment." Check out Furman v. Georgia, one of the controlling cases in US jurisprudence for 8th Amendment violations.

Please give me one credible source where legitimate surveillance of a suspect in a crime was found to be, and I will quote you here, "potentially illegal as well, harassment?)"

What you are quoting me on was a question, not really that much of a statement given the question mark, aside from the fact that I misspelled and (add), It should have been phrased more as, is it potentially illegal to surveil someone when it can as be construed as harassment. And I got my answer. I am sorry for the confusion.

Additionally, the violation of the 8th would have been in the form of detention. Again sorry for the confusion, clearly my wording was off.

[abaduck 123]

I'm not sure where you are going with the second class citizen thing ? This woman is an American citizen as she was born in Texas. Now you are talking about locking people up in camps ??? Did I miss something ??? I don't give a s*** if this woman was from the US, canada, iran, tahiti or any other speck of sand in the world, her actions led to the death of 4 children... THAT FACT AND ONLY THAT FACT MATTER HERE

Look, a previous poster said "Anyone facing charges of this nature who has ties to a foreign nation wouldn't ordinarily be left so "free" top do so"

That got me a bit riled, since I fall into exactly that category. I'm sensitive to the issue of citizens being treated differently because of their origins or ancestry - which is why I brought up the AJA case, as the most egregious example of that. INIT915 seems to be suggesting (if I got that wrong I'm sorry bro) she should have been somehow detained or restricted from travel prior to her being arrested or charged, purely because (unlike most citizens) she had 'ties' to a foreign country. That's bad and wrong; treat all citizens the same, whether they have ties to a foreign country or not.

Put her under surveillance by all means; that's a totally legitimate investigative tactic - and an investigation was certainly warranted. But if she gets on a plane... what? She gets on the plane, there's nothing you can do. If you had evidence to arrest her she would be under arrest already and nowhere near a plane.

I have three young kids myself; I purposely didn't speak as to the nature of the incident because I don't think I could do so coherently.

Mike

[abaduck 123]

Guess what. You can follow and conduct surveillance upon people who are as free as you and I.

Can I clearly assume your speaking from first hand experience and training in constitutional law and criminal investigations?

(I will not even entertain your comment concerning disparities in citizens versus non-citizens, as I find it insulting.)

Bro, I didn't speak as to citizens vs. non-citizens; I spoke as to native-born citizens vs. foreign-born citizens. You said she should have been treated differently because she was a citizen who had ties to overseas. If you want to treat her differently, you want to treat *me* differently. I find *that* insulting. That's what got me riled. Maybe more riled than the remark deserved, but it's a sensitive issue for me.

Mike

[x635 4,066]

C'mon, guys. Let's not get up in each others faces There's no winners in a online debate, only harbored hostile feelings Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and a rebuttal.As far as quoting laws, there's a rule about quoting laws on this forum:

OK, now back to the topic at hand....

Private investigators follow people all day for a living-cheating spouses, etc.

This woman should have been charged immediately with something, that way the terms of her bail could have been the revocation of her passport. Hindsight is 20/20, but the DA and Judge are the ones who ultimately failed to take prompt legal action. Look at the timelines I posted at the links above....one thing is clear, the D.A. repeatedly dropped the ball. Even if they got her on a minor charge just to hold her up a little.

Also to note, Dallas is at least an 8 hour drive from Houston. And to get trhough the airport also takes a bit of time. And who funded this last minute flight, which cost a fortune? The brother, who set up the "Foundation" that accepted monetary donations, but was set up like a business with him getting the profits? Who drove her to Dallas? There are now a lot more people who should be charged as accomplices.

I doubt she would be able to survive in prison though. These parents should get closure one way or another, although there lives are destroyed.

[INIT915 1,119]

Bro, I didn't speak as to citizens vs. non-citizens; I spoke as to native-born citizens vs. foreign-born citizens. You said she should have been treated differently because she was a citizen who had ties to overseas. If you want to treat her differently, you want to treat *me* differently. I find *that* insulting. That's what got me riled. Maybe more riled than the remark deserved, but it's a sensitive issue for me.

Mike

Well, sorry if this is news to you, but anyone who has the means, opportunity, and impetus to flee to a foreign nation needs to be approached from a different perspective. Especially when we know in advance that it's a nation with strict extradition rules, such as Nigeria. That's the reality of a criminal prosecution and of the world we live in.

[x635 4,066]

At what point would she be considered to be in Nigeria? For example, if during her flight they issued a warrant, before she deplaned and went through their customs, would she still be considered in America legally?

[abaduck 123]

Well, sorry if this is news to you, but anyone who has the means, opportunity, and impetus to flee to a foreign nation needs to be approached from a different perspective. Especially when we know in advance that it's a nation with strict extradition rules, such as Nigeria. That's the reality of a criminal prosecution and of the world we live in.

I don't disagree at all - motive and means for sure. Especially someone like Madoff who could have bought a fleet of private jets and bribed himself into a lot of countries. That's a huge factor - when setting bail, after someone has been arrested and charged. You can't restrict someone's movements on suspicion. I agree with the suggestion that some easily provable minor charge probably could & should have been brought, while getting evidence for more serious charges.

It also seems to me that this would be a genuinely useful case to have considered material witness proceedings...

Mike

[INIT915 1,119]

I don't disagree at all - motive and means for sure. Especially someone like Madoff who could have bought a fleet of private jets and bribed himself into a lot of countries. That's a huge factor - when setting bail, after someone has been arrested and charged. You can't restrict someone's movements on suspicion. I agree with the suggestion that some easily provable minor charge probably could & should have been brought, while getting evidence for more serious charges.

It also seems to me that this would be a genuinely useful case to have considered material witness proceedings...

Mike

While your sentiment is correct, material witness orders are very hard to successfully apply for. I can count on one hand the number I have worked on, and I assure you, State and Federal judges are hesitant to issue them.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

She fled to Nigeria, the home of Ponzi Phone Scammers Inc.? We'll never see her again......

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Well said. How people made the jump from conducting a legitimate criminal investigation to ethnic cleansing and discrimination is beyond me.

Consider this analogy: When a topic takes a technical turn in firefighting, I personally tend to sit back and follow the discussion, because I admittedly know very little of the specifics of firefighting. Yet, here, commentators citing constitutional provisions and other violations of the law are not basing their posts in any semblance of law or facts and it does quite a disservice to law enforcement in general as well as members of this board who may accept their comments as "facts."

Sir, I have given this post some thought and I do not aim to stir the pot but I do have this to say. Even working in emergency services and paying taxes you do not use the fire department or EMS everyday. Sure your taxes go to them and you live within certain health and safety codes, it is not everyday that your house catches fire, you crash your car or need to go to the ER. However, every citizen, resident and individual must always abide by the laws that govern the land all day everyday. Even within the confined of your own home, the law, and law enforcement follows you inside. If your house is on fire, or you need to go to the ER, these are choices we make where no one says you must call EMS or you must have the fire department, we follow what our desires at the time are. This is not the same for laws, we must follow all laws and regulations where ever we go, we can not choose which laws we want to follow and which ones we don't. With this in mind, individuals need to know their rights, the laws and the limits of powers of those in authority positions if we are to continue to live in a harmonious society. While you can choose to ignore the topics on this board and in real life that deal with fire fighting or EMS, that is your choice. With that being said, I can not ignore the topics of law and order or else I am going to thrown in jail. Laws are not always fair and they are not always right, but I still must follow them, and if I must follow them well then I need to know how to use them, how to protect myself from them and how they will be used against me. I am not claiming to be a law enforcement officer or a lawyer, or even a legal expert, but I do claim to have a working knowledge of the law. This working knowledge allows me to both use the powers of law to my advantage and to protect myself behind them. If your house catches fire you can claim ignorance of firefighting, but if I steal a car I can not claim ignorance of the law. What I am saying, if I was not clear is that the law is around us at every turn, it governs where we live, where we walk, how we interact with people it is part of our daily lives that we all have a part in, other topics are not this way. Firefighting and EMS does not touch everyone in the same way that laws and their enforcement do.

This is just a musing, it is not to incite conflict and I am not trying to insult or demean anyone. I am just pointing out that there are two very different topics that impact people in very different ways. It would be totally natural to me to have an opinion on this matter even if I was not qualified to have one simply because the law affects me day in and day out in the same way that it affects you, I am not totally sure you can say that same thing about firefighting.