D.A. Seeks to Block Suspect’s Child-Care Job

Hoping to prevent a woman accused of child abuse from continuing to work with children, the Ventura County district attorney’s office filed a motion Wednesday that would forbid the woman to care for any children until her upcoming trial is complete.

After learning that Mary Margaret Major, 48, is being paid to care for the 7-year-old child of a close Simi Valley friend, Deputy Dist. Atty. John Blair filed a motion in Ventura County Municipal Court that would amend the terms of her release until her trial.

The prosecutor is seeking to prohibit Major from caring for any children unless under the supervision of an adult until her trial on felony child abuse charges is concluded. Judge Edward F. Brodie is scheduled to hear the motion Monday.

“We’ve taken this action after concerns were expressed to us by a member of the public,” said Blair, who declined to comment further on the case.

Though prosecutors believe Major is responsible for a 1996 incident that left a baby boy with severe neurological damage, she has been earning money for the past several months caring for a 7-year-old girl in her home while the mother is at work.

Since the incident, Major has voluntarily surrendered her child-care license and agreed to never again apply for one or seek employment at any licensed child-care facility in the state.

But the law does not prevent Major from baby-sitting.

“It seems almost unbelievable that this has happened and in many respects it is,” said Alan Klop, licensing director for the state’s Department of Social Services. “But our hands are kind of tied in this situation. . . . We can’t do anything unless she breaks the law.”

Major was arrested and charged with one count of child abuse in January after a three-month investigation into the September 1996 incident that left an 11-month-old boy with injuries that doctors believe will be permanent.

According to police records, the boy’s father dropped off the baby at Major’s home at 7:35 a.m. Sept. 24 and went to work.

About 1:30 p.m., Major called for an ambulance because the boy had stopped breathing. When officers arrived they found the boy lying in a crib with his eyes closed and breathing with difficulty.

Major told the officers that, without warning, the boy had simply gone limp in her arms.

The boy was taken to Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles, where a pediatric neurosurgeon said the injuries were like that “of a child who had fallen out of a second-story window and landed on a driveway below,” according to a police document.

Authorities suspect the child received the injuries after Major shook him.

Major surrendered her child-care license in October, prior to a scheduled hearing by the state’s Department of Social Services, which alleged that she either caused or permitted an injury so severe that the boy suffered a debilitating stroke.

In December, the district attorney’s office filed one charge of felony corporal punishment to a child against Major, with an additional allegation that she inflicted bodily harm.

No trial date has been set, but a preliminary hearing is scheduled June 30.

This latest chapter in Major’s case emerged after Larry Wilkin learned that his estranged wife, Dianne, had hired the woman to care for their daughter during the day.

“I was amazed to find that out,” Wilkin said. “It’s a travesty of justice that this woman is still allowed to keep working with children. And what’s even worse is that I was told that I would have to wait until there’s some kind of incident before I can do anything about it.”

Wilkin said his wife believes the charges against Major are false and that she feels comfortable leaving their daughter in her care.

Attempts to reach his wife were unsuccessful.

Though Major is not breaking any laws or conditions of her release by caring for the child, Wilkin and state officials are concerned that the system has compromised the safety of children for the rights of an accused criminal.

But Steve Semper, a Sacramento-based attorney who represents the Department of Social Services, said Major’s current work falls beyond the department’s jurisdiction and added that he was pleased by Major’s lifetime ban as a licensed child-care professional.

“We got a whole lot more than if the matter was taken to hearing,” Semper said. “If that had happened, the most we could have gotten was a two-year suspension, after which she could reapply and start caring for kids again.”

Semper added that the department lacks the power to prevent Major or any other child-care professional from caring for children in a capacity similar to that of a baby-sitter.

“The very worst thing we can do to somebody is revoke their license. That’s it,” Semper said. “Anything beyond that would have to come from a court.”

Wilkin said he was pleased to learn that the district attorney had taken action regarding his daughter’s situation and hopes that the matter is resolved soon.

“My wife is a very good mother, and I trust her caring for our kids,” he said. “I just think this was an error in judgment. And if [Major] is acquitted, then I wouldn’t mind having her care for my daughter. But as long as there are charges against her, I’ve got a problem with that.”