In regards to the revocation of the license of Curious Kids Childcare

We, the parents of children attending Curious Kids Childcare, are at odds with the State’s
decision to revoke the license.

We find the response of revocation to be woefully unjust. We have no evidence that Curious
Kids Childcare continues to be willfully or blatantly out of compliance nor do we have any
evidence that the state allowed for any corrective measures.

The state’s decision to revoke the license is fatal to a respectable North Dakota business in an
industry that is underserved, it is disruptive to North Dakota working professionals, and it is
disruptive to North Dakota families.

We write this not to minimize the fact that due to a series of unfortunate and unusual
contributing factors three children were able to escape the grounds unnoticed and were
returned by a passerby in a short window of complacency by the staff on an unusual day. This is
an alarming incident to all of us, most of all to the owner, Michelle Roeszler.

We have received the revocation notice and find the following items in the “Factual Basis for
Revocation”, to indeed, not be facts:
- The use of the word “bonfire” is misleading as it is specifically used to describe large
fires. The fires that Michelle did have were, in fact, small and contained in a backyard fire
bowl. She kept the lid at arm’s reach at all times and did not let children run or engage in
unsafe behavior around the fire. A different word should have been used in this official
document to more clearly describe what types of fires the children were being exposed
to.
- The Revocation Notice, notes that “Ms. Roeszler, in turn, had the parents sign letters of
support to continue to allow having bonfires at the child care.” We, the parents, were not
asked to write those letters, but did so when we realized that the licensing specialist was
concerned about them. There was no clear disallowance of a small, contained fire in
licensing regulations (only one sentence disallowing open burning that is in a paragraph
referring only to trash.) Ms. Roeszler never even received an official correction from the
county about the fire. As soon as Ms. Roeszler was told she could not have a permit by
the city fire authorities, she removed the fire bowl. It is unfair to use this situation to
justify a revocation.
- The Revocation Notice speaks to the fact that the staff, when interviewed, could not
remember the exact number of children on the playground. We think it is important to
note that the incident happened on Friday, April 27th and the staff were not interviewed
until the following Thursday, May 3rd. It should not be surprising for witnesses to
remember exact details 6 days after an incident occurred. It is clear that the number of
children is not an issue as there were sufficient staff present that day on the playground.
- Included in the Factual Basis section was a quote from a parent saying that it was no
surprise that her toddler knew how to open the gate because his sister had shown him

Doc ID: 36512a1ffa70fb5c480385873a7a467ce4ca8cf2

 how the day before. This is not, in fact, what the parent said, so the quote is a
mischaracterization. The parent said her 5 year old daughter tried and failed to open the
gate the day before (the bungee cord prevented her from opening it). We see no reason
for this to be included as a basis for revocation. A toddler learning something from an
older sibling has no part in a child care revocation. The issue at stake is the loss of
supervision from staff.
- It is important to note that the Fire Inspector required the yard gate to be openable with a
one step system so that children could escape if all adults were incapacitated in the
event of a fire. In other child care centers, there are one step gates with no additional
security mechanisms.The fire inspector understood the need for it with kids and offered
the exemption to fire code. Previous to this incident the safe dispersal area was outside
the gate but now the fire inspector has allowed for a safe dispersal area within the
confines of the closed gate more than 59 feet away from the building. The new safe
dispersal process has been completed with the new fire inspector and a key lock has
been installed to the gate making it non-operational.

In addition to the problematic aspects of the investigation, there is a fundamental unfairness in

the due process in this case and unequal treatment under the law. The Century Code states
that the day care operator should be able to operate until the appeal process is decided or until
their license expires ("whichever comes first"), so if a provider's license happened to be expiring
one week after revocation notice, s/he would only be able to operate for one week, whereas one
whose license happened to be expiring after 11 months, would have all that time to appeal in
court and stay open. This is fundamentally unfair to those whose license expire soon after their
revocation notice (as is the case for Ms. Roeszler, who only had about 6 weeks from time of
revocation notice to time of license expiration).

Following the incident, Mrs. Roeszler immediately delivered the facts to the parents and proper
authorities, immediately made corrective actions to her physical space and procedures, and has
since upheld the policies to ensure this never happens again. Her vigilance is unparalleled, and
a testament of her dedication to the children in her care. Her vigilance also demonstrates her
willingness to change her policies in order to meet compliance and to provide the best care
possible.

We write this, we support, and we stand behind Michelle in spite of this serious incident. Her
record of 11 years of successful business in the State of North Dakota should further validate
her. You will find a deluge of Fargo families, whose children have been nurtured by Mrs.
Roeszler and whose parents can attest to her highest quality of care, that are loudly and
stubbornly advocating for her to remain in business.

Beyond our concern for providing high quality care for our own children, we pale at the message
this revocation sends to anyone considering becoming a licensed day care operator. This
precedent would establish an enormous business risk for anyone considering entering the

Doc ID: 36512a1ffa70fb5c480385873a7a467ce4ca8cf2

market, putting further strain on an industry already facing extreme capacity shortages. We don't
want that to happen to our fellow North Dakota families, friends and neighbors.

We are hoping beyond hope for a reasonable resolution for us, everyone hard at work at the
DHS, Michelle, and most importantly, the children. We ask that the rules be applied fairly
considering other day care providers have had similar and even more egregious major
violations and have not had their licenses revoked.

We love the care center we have chosen for our children. We love its vision and execution, we
love the staff, we love the family community, we love Michelle. We trust her with our whole
hearts, we trust her with the most vulnerable parts of ourselves; we trust her with our children.

We ask that you reconsider this decision and not revoke her license.

Thank you for your consideration!

---

Below are the signatures of a parent of each and every child at Curious Kids.

_________________________________

Jake and Maribeth Joraanstad

_________________________________

Alison and Michael Vetter

_________________________________

Heather Ranck and Ryan McManus

Doc ID: 36512a1ffa70fb5c480385873a7a467ce4ca8cf2

_________________________________

Erica Rathje

_________________________________

Peter and Julia Schott

_________________________________

Sara and Joseph Mwagura

_________________________________

Julie Grommesh

_________________________________

Allyson Imbrone

_________________________________

Nate and Sarah Tabbbut

Doc ID: 36512a1ffa70fb5c480385873a7a467ce4ca8cf2

_________________________________

Christine and Steve Schulz

_________________________________

Chris and Shasta Reindl

_________________________________

Tu-Uyen Tran and Erin Bieri

_________________________________

Katherine Jensen

________________________________

Drew Kelly

________________________________

Sabrina Lippincott

Doc ID: 36512a1ffa70fb5c480385873a7a467ce4ca8cf2

________________________________

Kylie and Eric Hall

_________________________________

Adrienne Wickenheiser

Doc ID: 36512a1ffa70fb5c480385873a7a467ce4ca8cf2