.

Oakdale Day Care Provider Found Not Guilty of Child Endangerment, Neglect Charges

A jury found Jennifer Goldetsky, 43, not guilty of all charges.

After more than two months since she was first charged, an Oakdale day care provider was found not guilty of child endangerment and child neglect charges.

Jennifer Goldetsky, 43, was acquitted in Washington County District Court on Oct. 17 after a three-day trial. 

Goldetsky was accused of locking three young boys — a 5-year-old and 4-year-old twins — in her backyard shed in February when Washington County licensors came to visit. She was charged in July with two counts of child endangerment and two counts of child neglect. 

Goldetsky could not be reached for comment, but Goldetsky told the Pioneer Press that the accusation came from a parent who Goldetsky told could no longer bring her children to her day care.

Goldetsky's attorney said the accuser was "unbelievable" and "had a motive to lie," according to the Pioneer Press. 

Goldetsky lost her license, but she told the Pioneer Press that she "knew the truth would come out" — and if it didn't then she would "go down fighting."

 

Sign up for Oakdale Patch's free e-newsletter | Like us onFacebook | Follow us on Twitter


Simon D October 24, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Smells like another case of greasing the wheels of justice to get the outcome that was desired. This woman did hide kids to pass a surprise state inspection that would have been failed because she had too many kids in the home, correct? She lost her license because of what she did, yet this was dismissed from child neglect charges because the parents made bad witnesses?
sharon J October 24, 2012 at 03:18 PM
get the facts, you weren't on the jury
sharon J October 24, 2012 at 03:20 PM
You don't have any facts you weren't on the jury, being over is not a criminal charge so there would of been No need for her to hide kids, she would of got a slap on the hand. You would be surprised at the lack of Job county workers do. so don't go off your thoughts go off of facts. the accuser of this crime continued to bring her child to this daycare for 2 and half weeks until their contract ended.. if the accuser saw neglect would she bring her child back..???
Simon D October 24, 2012 at 06:41 PM
Here is a fact, this provider lost their daycare license for negligent disregard of the law. As far as the accuser bringing the child back, I cannot say but its likely a case of need. Most people would be in quite a bind if they were suddenly without childcare. It might not be the easiest thing to do to find alternative childcare at a moments notice. Give my regards to your friend Jennifer, Sharon.
Happy in St. Michael October 25, 2012 at 03:46 AM
Simon, you obviously don't know anything about child care licensing, the number of false accusations by disgruntled or psychotic parents about child care providers, or the unprofessional and sometimes stupid way the counties handle the "investigation." I don't know Jennifer, but the fact that licensing believed a parent is not surprising at all as family child care providers are presumed guilty until proven innocent, based on licensing regulations and investigators. It's sad. If a jury decided that she didn't lock the children in a shed, it's because there was a preponderance of the evidence that she DID NOT do it. I don't know anyone, no matter how desperate, who would bring their child to a provider who had locked children in a shed in the middle of winter without appropriate clothing. Their children would be safer with anyone else!
JoJo October 25, 2012 at 04:34 AM
If I believed my daycare provider willingly locked children in a shed as was accused by this parent, I'd not return for even a "goodbye". It's what makes me think the accuser was lying in the first place. Also, it takes very little to lose your license...this he said/she said thing almost always ends up with the county siding with the accuser, as in this case. If the jury found this gal innocent, then she's innocent. The social workers and accuser involved should be paying her legal bills now. You lose, you pay!
Simon D October 25, 2012 at 05:37 AM
Happy, your "preponderance of evidence" comment is humorous. A jury finding someone not guilty is a far cry from innocence. I bet you think O.J. Simpson was innocent, or the cops who bludgeoned Rodney King were innocent, because a jury found them not guilty. This didn't end up in court because of spite against a daycare provider by disgruntled parents. What color is the sky in your world? Just because the prosecution doesn't present enough hard evidence in trial that these kids were locked up, that is certainly not the same thing as a "preponderance of evidence" that it didn't happen.
Simon D October 25, 2012 at 05:48 AM
JoJo, do you believe that being found not guilty is the same as being innocent? The jury didn't find the defendant innocent, they found the defendant not guilty. If they found the defendant innocent, the accusers would likely be brought up on charges of frivilous lawsuit, falsified police reports, and perjury. The outcome was not guilty, which means the prosecution failed its case. The journalist or editor who included the word "innocent" in the headline misused the term.
Lola October 25, 2012 at 02:04 PM
Simon, I do not know Jennifer and it sounds like you don't either, or even all of the FACTS (NOT LIES) of this case. But unlike you I DO know childcare. Under suspicion the provider loses the license until cleared..( how's that for being GUILTY???) Parents take their 'feelings' to a whole other level for revenge. (ex:Over a simple issue of not being able to watch their child later evenings- one hour extra-making the work week 60 hour week) AND have dealt with lying, vengeful, disgruntled parents. You don't know the craziness they will go through just to get even. LIES LIES LIES right and left. The worst of their character comes out and the provider 'pays' the price. Providers have so many rules to follow and all the time lovingly caring for the children. Providers do what they do. BECAUSE they enjoy AND love the children.
Kathy Olson October 27, 2012 at 02:29 AM
There was more than just a parents word if this went to court. I don't know anything about child care...or how easy it is for a provider to lose a liscense. But I do know that a case like this wouldn't go forward without more than one person's statement/complaint. I'm not stating the accused is guilty...but being found not guilty means that there was "reasonable doubt". In the eyes of the law-it is better to let 100 guilty people go free than to find one innocent person guilty. I'm seeing a lot of assumtions being posted when there aren't a lot of facts in the article.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something