Local Mom: I Tried To Check Sex Offender's Background, Found Nothing
John Burbine of Wakefield, facing numerous child sex charges, was a Level 1 sex offender. A Wakefield mom reports she checked out Waterfall Education Center two years ago and found nothing.
A Wakefield mom whose son was tutored by an illegal day care business where more than a dozen children may have been sexually abused says she checked out the proprietors' background — and found no red flags.
On Thursday afternoon, news spread quickly through the region about the indictment of a Wakefield couple for numerous charges stemming from an illegal day care operation where graphic child sexual abuse occurred and was even recorded.
Woman's Son Was Tutored There for Two Years
John and Marian Burbine were the proprietors of Waterfall Education Center, which offered tutoring and day care to children in numerous area towns. The Middlesex County District Attorney's office alleges that at least 13 children were abused there while under the care of John Burbine, 49.
During his Thursday press conference, District Attorney Gerry Leone noted that allegations had come up against John Burbine in both 2005 and 2009, but that the complaints were deemed not prosecutable at the time. Leone also reported John Burbine had a 1989 conviction for indecent assault and battery and was classified as a Level 1 sex offender — the category for those deemed least likely to re-offend.
After reading our story about the Burbines a Wakefield woman called Patch. She reported she had looked into Waterfall Education Center two years ago when she first brought her son there for tutoring services. The woman, who asked that her name not be used, indicated that her son is not thought to be one of the victims in the case. Still, she asked for anonymity to protect the identity of her child.
The local mother said she did not see Burbine on the sex offender registry and that she had seen Marian Burbine's teaching credentials and was satisfied.
This summer the Mass. Department of Children and Families showed up at her home to interview her child as part of the investigation into the Burbines. The woman reported that she inquired with the Wakefield Police and was told that under state law, there was nothing they could have told her even if they had known.
'Kind of Creepy'
During the conversation, the woman indicated that a tutor from the business was assigned to her son, and that during the occasional sick day, Marian Burbine would "just slide" John Burbine in as a last-minute replacement. At his press conference, Leone noted that much of the alleged abuse occurred at the homes of the victims, although this woman said that she would bring her son to the Waterfall's Lincoln Street office for his tutoring - while either she or her husband waited. She also believes that her son was tutored by John Burbine only once during the two year period.
The woman also indicated that she found John Burbine from the start to be "kind of creepy," and generally very quiet around her and her husband. Still, she added that she was not trying to look into his background because of any specific suspicion.
"We were just checking because anyone that interacts with our kid, we want to be sure they were on the up and up," she told Wakefield Patch. She added that her impression of Marian Burbine was of being "a little flaky," "rather meek," and possibly like she was trying to run her first business. She added that John Burbine originally worked downstairs in the office space distributing Shaklee health products and that his work space later merged with his wife's.
Overall though, this parent's main concern is the fact that John Burbine spent so much time under the radar, only to emerge facing dozens of child sex abuse charges.
"The thing that upsets me most about this whole sex offender registry is... he was lumped in with people who urinate in public. He was still allowed to be with kids," she said.
Visit our "Wakefield Man Accused of Child Sex Abuse" topic page for full coverage on the issue.
BarT
7:51 am on Friday, December 7, 2012
Sandusky wasn't on the registry, either.
T Nelson
8:11 am on Saturday, December 8, 2012
RIGHT! These creeps have to start somewhere and get caught to be on the registry. Although this guy should have been and likely he has a juvenile record considering he was 18 when the first conviction occurred.
Bosgem
10:10 am on Friday, December 7, 2012
Nepotism!!! The Police forgot to tell the Lady that the guys Father was on the Wakefield Police Dept...............How convenient!!!! The description of Marian Burbine is similiar to ALL the Townies in this Town. Which is screwed up!!!
ge2727
4:19 pm on Friday, December 7, 2012
What does this animals father have to with anything and why would she be told that his father was a PO.
Jay Whitmire
4:58 pm on Tuesday, December 11, 2012
This story sounds a little familiar. In NC, the Little Rascals Daycare case started out
the same way. All the convictions were overturned. The children ended up being coached, etc. However, if this guy did do this, he's extremely unusual. It should also be noted that the Adam Walsh Act tiers have been shown to be completely useless as you might expect from a government-operated enterprise. This doesn't mean that a person can't be evaluated and future risk determined, it means government employees have no background in this arena and are wholly unqualified to make those evaluations.
Heather
7:29 am on Thursday, December 20, 2012
To all of us who are concerned for our children's safety, I urge you all to contact your Local State Representative in hopes to propose an amendment to Massachuseets State Legislature that we as citizens have the right to obtain information on ALL Level Sex Offenders!
I firmly believe that it is imperative that Massachusetts State Law Makers agree and vote unanimously for allowing the public to exercise their rights to obtain information on ALL level sex offenders/ perpetrators.
This information should be made available to assist and educate interested citizens in forming their own risk assessments based on the offender's personal circumstances and conviction history.
Jay Whitmire
10:29 am on Thursday, December 20, 2012
@Heather
If we are to protect children, we have to base those decisions on facts and not emotions. The facts are that ex offenders are extremely unlikely to offend again: second lowest recidivism rate only to murderers.
I often hear "who cares, any abuse is too much!". That is correct. If you could help 5 children or 95 children which would you choose and why? Without knowing anything else, I would choose to help the 95 children. This is exactly the choice we are making when we focus solely on additional punishment on ex offenders. We are choosing to take all of our resources (money, personnel, attention) and focus them solely on 5% of the children who may be abused by a stranger.
95% of abused children are abused by family, friends (36% of the registry are under 18), and trusted adults (teachers, family friends, etc). By spending our entire resource budget on those not likely to offend again, we are ignoring that majority of children that are being abused by those they know.
There's a more reasoned approach: risk management. With limited budgets we have to spend the money where it will do the most good. First, there are dangerous sex offenders to be sure. However, currently the Tier system has been shown to be unreliable at determining which ex offenders are a danger. So the first thing should be to demand that the ID of dangerous offenders be accurate.
Second we should demand prevention. The best way to help a victim is to prevent them from becoming a victim.
Simon Vaughn Markham
1:13 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
local law enforcement need to take the time and money spent on taking down small time drug dealers, and divert it to stopping sick psycopaths like this, punish them so badly that an example is set, and focus more time/money into stopping these sick F**Ks... the children are more important than anything else and more needs to be done for them to prevent this from happening in the future.
Jay Whitmire
5:40 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
@Simon. You are on the right track, more resources need to be diverted to protecting children. The problem is law enforcement focused on ex sex offenders already consumes millions of dollars with no impact at all. There's no impact because of the low recidivism rates amongst the general population of offenders. The rate of child abuse has seen no effects of the Sex Offender Registry because 95% of offenders are first timers. That reason is because when all types of abuse are considered, a child has a 95% chance of being abused by family, friends, and trusted adults as opposed to strangers.
Now, there are certainly dangerous sex offenders who need to be watched more closely. However, the current system treats almost all the same whether they were put on the list for public urination or a contact offense.
A much more reasoned approach would be to take all the money being wasted on a proven ineffective registration system and put it toward a more focused system where high risk offenders are watched with GPS tracking, and since there are fewer to watch, they get a lot of attention from authorities.
All that money needs to go toward preventing child abuse in the first place and assisting those already victimized. At this point victims basically get squat. All the money is spent on enforcement that has shown ineffective in reducing child abuse.
We can do better than that. All children need our protection and deserve our most effective effort.