Nicole Brodeur | 'Nicest guy'? No one checked

"I hided myself."

That's how a 4-year-old girl described to her stunned parents how she escaped convicted sex offender James Warning.

Warning had been subcontracted to install doors on the Seattle family's fireplace last July.

While he was there, he exposed himself to the little girl, told her to touch him, to take her clothes off and then chased her around the couch.

The girl's nanny was just 19 steps away, washing dishes.

The parents found out about it only when the little girl told them that night as she twirled around in front of them in her dance-class leotard.

And they found out about Warning's background only after calling the company he worked for, getting his name, and checking the King County sex-offender registry themselves.

"What we found left us cold," said Sally Bock, the girl's mother, who agreed to talk on the record about her daughter's close call.

In 1988, Warning had been found guilty of attempted murder, kidnapping and attempted child molestation after luring a 6-year-old girl into his truck. When she refused to touch his genitals, he choked her until she was unconscious and then abandoned her in the woods.

He was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Among the conditions of his release was that he may not have contact with children under 12 unless in the company of an adult aware of his offenses.

But no one had told Bock or her nanny anything. And the company Warning worked for was shocked to hear of his background and what he had done. They called him "the nicest guy."

They figured that as long as he was licensed and bonded ...

"That he didn't grab my daughter and run down the stairs ... " Bock started. It was a thought she couldn't bear to finish.

The state doesn't require all employers to background employees, said Christine Anthony of the state Department of Licensing.

There are requirements of certain professions, including security guards and private investigators, she said. "But I don't believe there is a general requirement."

Bock is stunned.

"So what are we supposed to do now?" she asked. "Not only choose a reputable company but ask if they do background checks, then ask who they're sending, and check on them?

"It kills me that it was up to us," Bock said. "I'm not so naive to think that background checks are perfect. But I think it puts too much on the public."

I agree. It's one thing to run your ZIP code through the King County sex-offender registry, warn your children without alarming them, and feel that you've done what you could, using the tools that you have.

It's another to blindly open your door to someone sent out to fix something — and suffer so much damage instead.

Last month, Warning was sentenced to three years in prison.

Friends have suggested that Bock sue the company that put Warning in her living room, and her daughter in danger.

"But that wouldn't change anything to make children safer."

Background checks might not make us completely safe, but they would be one more tool for the seemingly impossible job of living with sex offenders.

After all, some of them are better at "hided" themselves than those who may have to escape them.

Nicole Brodeur's column appears Tuesday and Friday. Reach her at 206-464-2334 or nbrodeur@seattletimes.com.

She's going to buy a porcupine.