Clark County Department of Family Services: Case Review of 82 Cases Identified by The District Attorney's Office December 2010

ClarkCounty DepartmentofFamilyServices:
CaseReviewof82 CasesIdentified bythe DistrictAttorneys Office

December2010
ClarkCountyDepartmentofFamilyServices 82CaseReviewExecutiveSummary November,2010

Case Review Overview: The information presented in this document details an extensive review and response to each of the 82 child welfare cases presented by the Clark County DistrictAttorneys(DAs)OfficetotheLegislativeSubcommitteeonChildWelfareandJuvenile JusticeonJune21,2010. Thecasesidentifiedrepresentawiderangeofchildwelfareserviceprovisiondates.Manyof these cases included child welfare service history that occurred prior to 2004, during a time whenchildwelfareserviceswerebifurcated,withtheCountyprovidingchildprotectiveservices (CPS) and the State providing permanency and adoption services. Case history and documentationfortheoldercases,particularlythosethatinvolvedservicesprovidedbyboth the County and State, were difficult to locate and interpret. The analysis of child welfare performancewasalsochallengingasthepoliciesandproceduresinplaceatthetimeservices wereprovidedwerenotconsistentwithwhatisknowntodayaschildwelfarebestpractice.For many of these older cases, if evaluated by todays standards, the service provision would be consideredinsufficient;yet,atthetimetheserviceswereprovided,theyrepresentedstandard practiceandexistingpolicy. Forcasesthatincludedchildwelfareservicehistorysubsequentto2008,theanalysisofservice provisionandpracticewaseasier.In2008,followingthecompletionofexternalcasereviews and child welfare service related assessments, all which cited inadequate direct service/case management policies and procedures, the Department of Family Services (DFS) conducted a comprehensiveredesignandrewriteofpoliciesandprocedures,includingthoserelatedtoCPS. InApril2010,theStatewideCPSSubstantiationPolicywasalsoupdated,andincludedrevisions totheinvestigativecriteria/evidencenecessarytosubstantiateaCPSinvestigation.Withboth theDFSandStatewidepolicyupdatesthatoccurredbetween2008and2010,analysisofthe more recent cases focused on compliance with existing policy and expectations regarding performance. CaseReviewMethodology:DFSmanagementconductedacomprehensivereviewofthecase documentationrelatedtoeachcase.Intotal,managementreviewedmorethan25,000pages of case notes alone. In reviewing each case, management evaluated the documentation included in the Statewide child welfare services database (UNITY), including the CPS investigative report details and findings, case notes, child fatality details, child placement locationsanddirectories,courtreports,andvariousriskandsafetyassessments.Inaddition, for older cases, management reviewed the documentation contained in archived files and imagedhardcopycasefiles.Courtrecordsandminuteswerealsoreviewed.Intwoinstances, the actual recording of a court hearing was viewed. Additionally, in the absence of documentation, management spoke, when possible, to staff assigned to the cases to gather
additional information. The review was comprehensive and thorough and responded to the majorissuesidentifiedbytheDAsOfficeoneachcase. The DFS responses to the cases are lengthy. DFS management believes the transparency in whichthecasefactsarerepresentedwillprovideabroaderperspectiveoftheservicesprovided byDFS.Therearecaseswherethedocumentationreviewedandpresenteddoesnotalignwith theinformationpresentedbytheDAsOffice.DFSmanagementwilloffernosuppositionasto those discrepancies. The case related information provided by DFS is represented as documentedinDFSstaffelectronicandhardcopycasefilesandcourtrecords. DespiterepeatedeffortsmadebyDFSmanagementtoidentifyandrevieweachcase,someof the information presented by the DAs Office did not provide sufficient detail to identify the specificcasereferenced.DFSmanagementmaderequeststotheDAsOfficeseekingassistance incaseidentification.Whilehelpfulinsomeinstances,theDAsOfficewasunabletoidentifyor provide clarifying/additional information related to other cases referenced. The cases that werenotreviewedasaresultofthisissueareclearlyidentifiedintheapplicableindividualcase reviewsection(AppendixC). The case reviews include facts/information as documented in the case record, as well as, in some cases, brief analysis/commentary on child welfare practice related issues or concerns. Whereperformanceorpracticerelatedconcernswerenoted,concurrentwiththisreview,DFS managementfollowedupwiththechildrenandfamiliesidentifiedinthereportstoensurechild safety.DFSmanagementtakesstaffperformanceissuesseriously,andinthosecasesbroader reviews of individual case management practices will be conducted and staff performance addressedasnecessary. SystemicIssues:Cases,asreviewedindividually,mayhighlightthepracticeofindividualstaff; whenreviewedintotality,thesamecasesmayalsohighlightissuesthataresystemictochild welfare. Some of these issues are subject to DFS management influence or control; other issues require the partnership and problemsolving assistance of others, including the DAs Office. DFS management is committed to initiating reform from within DFS where necessary andtobeingacollaborativepartnerinresolvingtheissuesthatinvolveothers. Forthecasesreviewed,wherethesituationorcircumstanceofthecasehighlightedasystemic issue,thatissueisnoted;insomecasestherewerenosystemicissuesidentified.AppendixA summarizesthecasesandassociatedsystemicissues. Overall,thesystemicissuesidentifiedareasstatedbelow,andDFShaseithercompletedorwill completetheactionstepsrequiredtoresolvetheissueorinitiatecollaborativeproblemsolving withothercommunitypartnersaccordingtothetargeteddatesidentified: CaseRecordDocumentation:Caserecorddocumentationqualityvariedfromstaffperson tostaffperson.Therewerealsoqualitydifferencesnotedrelatedtothedate(year)ofDFS involvement; case documentation in older cases was less thorough than case
documentation in more recent cases. In the more recent cases, however, it was noted there was a lack of documentation related to the court hearings and outcomes; a lack of documentationrelatedtointeractionswiththeDAsOffice;andalackofspecificitytothe documentation related to collateral contacts, (including relatives, friends, educational/medical/clinical service providers, etc.) specifically their relationship to the family, what services they provided, what their qualifications were, and how the informationsharedrelatedtothefamilyscircumstancesorinvolvementwithDFS.Insome cases, while the documentation was robust, this lack of clarity made interpreting the familysstatuschallenging. o DFSmanagementwillreviewexistingpolicies,and,wherenecessary,modifythe policies and/or have supervisors focus on staff training to improve case documentation.(AnticipatedCompletionbyMay2010) o DFSmanagementwillreviewexistingpolicies,andwherenecessary,modifythe policies to include required documentation guidelines for supervisors and managementstaff.(AnticipatedCompletionbyDecember2010) ChildSafetyandOutofHomeCare:Basedonthiscasereview,DFSmanagementbelieves that permanency inhome, outofhome, and licensing staff need additional training specifically related to child safety and risk. DFS management will review the existing CPS safetycurriculumandcustomizetrainingspecificallyforthesestaff.Whilenotresponsible for conducting CPS investigations, this staff spends considerable time in homes where childrenreside.Asaresult,theyneedacomprehensiveunderstandingofchildsafetyand risk.(AnticipatedCompletionbyMarch2011) Children Born To/Associated with Individuals Receiving DFS Services: While not specifically addressed in existing policy, DFS management will develop policies and procedures that provide clear practice expectations regarding children born into a family already involved with or receiving DFS services; who are the biological children of a non custodialparentreceivingDFSservicesnotassociatedwiththem;orwhoareregularlyleft in the care of an individual who is receiving DFS services. This case review highlights inconsistenciesinstaffpractice.(AnticipatedCompletionbyDecember2010) o DFSwillalsodeveloptrainingforalldirectservice/casemanagementstaff,sothat they betterunderstandthe requirements NRS432B.330 specifically asit relates tochildrenwhoareormaybeinneedofprotection. (AnticipatedCompletionbyFebruary2011) ChooseYourPartnersCarefullyCampaign:Otherstateshavesuccessfullyimplementedthe Choose Your Partners Carefully campaign. The campaign focuses on educating the public regardingthedangerspartnerscanpresenttochildren.Inmanyofthecasesreviewed,a child entered the child welfare system due to abuse/neglect perpetrated not by the biological parent, but by that parents partner. DFS management proposes the implementation of a public awareness campaign in Nevada like the Choose Your Partners Carefully Campaign to help educate the public about this issue as it relates to child abuse/neglect. The DAs Office has agreed to partner with DFS in moving this
recommendation forward and asking for assistance from the Child Death Review Team in implementation. Community Partnerships and Managing Child Maltreatment: Recognizing child maltreatmentisacommunitywideeffort,anditrequiresthatDFSpartnerwithcommunity serviceproviders,educationalsystems,medicalproviders,andlawenforcement.Thiscase reviewindicatedthattheremaybealackofunderstandingonthepartofsomecommunity partners in understanding child welfare practices and/or in reporting child abuse/neglect. DFS will initiate efforts to create greater opportunities for collaboration, and where appropriate,willformalizepracticeexpectationswithcommunitypartners. o DFScreatedageneralchildmaltreatmentpresentationthatalsoexplainstherole andservicesprovidedbyDFS,andchildprotectiveservicesinparticular.DFSstaff completedthesepresentationsatlawenforcementsubstations. o DFS is working to modify the law enforcement presentation and to film the presentationsothatitmaybemadeavailableonDVDandpresentedasneeded. (AnticipatedCompletionbyMarch2011) o DFSstaffnotifieslocalhospitalsofthependingbirthofchildrenwhosemothers areinvolvedwithDFScases.Hospitalsarethensupposedtoimmediatelyreport thebirthofthosechildrentotheChildAbuseandNeglectHotline.However,the current practice is not formalized in writing with community partners. In collaborationwithcommunitypartners,DFSmanagementwillreviewtheexisting practice and determine if it requires modification. Once the practice is agreed upon, DFS will formalize it through a Memorandum of Understanding with our communitypartners.Intwoofthecasesreviewed,thehospitalsfailedtonotify the Hotline and the children were released into the care of the mothers subsequenttobirth.(AnticipatedCompletionbyMarch2011) o ProbationandparoleofficersareinvolvedinthelivesofmanyDFSclients.DFS management will outreach to these agencies and offer to provide child maltreatment training and awareness presentations in an effort to improve partnerships and provide information on DFS roles and responsibilities. If possible, we will work with these partners to identify and agree upon policy/practice expectations and to formalize those through Memorandums of Understanding.(AnticipatedCompletionbyMarch2011) CourtContinuances:Manycasesreviewedinvolvedhearingsthatwerecontinued;some hearingswerecontinuedmultipletimes.Therearelegitimatereasonsforcontinuances,but anydelaysthatoccurcreatehardshipforfamilies(Case62possiblyhighlightsunnecessary continuances).DFSmanagementwilldiscussthisissuewiththeCourtsandtheDAsOffice to see if improvements can be made to ensure more timely court hearings and issue resolutionforfamilies.(AnticipatedCompletionbyDecember2010) DA/DFSCaseReview:Reviewing,withotherswhohavedifferentchildwelfareexpertise, thecircumstancesandinformationknownregardingcasesprovidesagoodopportunityto makemoreinformedandwellroundedcasemanagementdecisions.Reviewingcasesand
examining child welfare practices also provides information on agency performance and allowsforpracticechanges/improvement. o DFSmanagementbelievesthatitwouldbebeneficialforDFSstaffandtheDAs Officetojointlyreviewanycaseinwhichtheallegedperpetratorhashadmore than5priorCPSinvestigationsandanycaseswithasexualabuseallegation.Such reviewwouldprovideappropriatechecksandbalancesinthedecisionsthatare made and may better integrate review of the sexual abuse cases for criminal proceedings. The DAs Office and DFS should meet to discuss the appropriate processesforsuchreview.(AnticipatedCompletionbyDecember2010) o Every month, DFS management will review a random sample of cases in which the alleged perpetrator has had more than 3 prior CPS investigations to ensure compliance with investigative policies and procedures and to validate the assistantmanagerreviewandapprovalthatshouldbehappeninginaccordance withDFSpolicy. o DFS management believes that the active participation of direct service/case management staff in case review processes improves performance. With assistance from Casey Family Programs, an expert in this process from the JuvenileProtectionAssociationinIllinois,visitedwithDFSstaffandconductedthe firstGrandRoundReviewinAugust2010.PlanningforthisactivitybeganinMay 2010,andCase78wasselectedforthereviewinlateJune.Theselectionofthis casewasmadepriortotheDAsreleaseofthe82Cases.Themethodologyand process recommended and then demonstrated at the August Grand Round session will serve as the model used for continued implementation and improvement.(AnticipatedCompletionbyDecember2010) DFS Attorney Representation/Waiver of Reasonable Efforts: Federal and State statutes provide much guidance around the waiving of reasonableefforts in child welfarecases in whicheithertheperpetratorsoftheabuseortheabuseitselfmeetscertaincriteria(ASFA, NRS 432B.393). To illustrate, NRS 432B.393 provides that DFS must make reasonable effortstopreserveandunifythefamilyofachild,exceptincertaincircumstances.These circumstances would include situations where the natural parent has committed or participatedinamurder,hascausedabuseresultinginsubstantialbodilyharmtothechild orcommittedotherextremeorrepetitiouschildabuse,orhasleftanewbornchildwithan emergency services provider with the intent of abandoning the child. In such situations, DFSisnotrequiredtomakereasonableeffortstopreserveandunifythenaturalfamilyof thechild,andthustheusualstatutoryobligationtomakereasonableeffortsisexcused,or waived.ThewaiverismadethroughamotionbroughtbeforethecourtbytheDAsOffice. In absence of a court approved waiver of reasonable efforts, DFS staff must continue to make reasonable efforts to reunify a family, and under NRS 432B.109 and NAC 432B.400 mustdevelopacaseplanforsuchfamilyreunificationwithin45daysofthechildsremoval fromthehome. DFSmanagementdisagreeswithhowtheDAsOfficecurrentlyexercisestherighttowaive reasonable efforts, and without attorney representation, DFS staff lacks an ability to put
these issues before the Court. In two of the cases reviewed, the DAs Office negotiated awaytheabilitytofilethemotionearlyinthecase.Suchanegotiationmakesitchallenging forDFSstafftomeetthefederalrequirementsrelatedtomakingreasonableeffortstoward family reunification, and it makes it nearly impossible to meet the NRS/NAC requirement related to having a case plan developed within 45 days of the childs removal from the home.DFSmanagementdoesnotbelievethatarequesttowaivereasonableeffortsshould beusedtonegotiateorpleabargain. Additionally,theDAsOfficewillonlyfileamotiontowaivereasonableeffortssubsequent tocaseadjudication.Caseadjudicationcantakeanextendedperiodoftime.Itisdifficult forDFSstafftoworkwithfamilies(asrequiredbyFederal/Nevadalaw)underthepremise of family reunification for extended periods of time knowing that DFSs intention or preference is to waive reasonable efforts and/or terminate parental rights. Other child welfarejurisdictionsintheState(WashoeCounty)donotwaituntilcaseadjudicationtofile thesemotions. o DFS management believes that in absence of attorney representation in court, DFSandtheDAsOfficeshouldjointlydevelopanagreementorrelatedpolicyon waivingreasonableefforts,andthatsuchagreement/policywouldprovideclarity for DFS case management staff as well as improve the achievement of permanencyforchildren.(AnticipatedCompletionbyDecember2010) o To assist DFS staff in making requests for waivers of reasonable efforts, the criteria requirements are now included on the petition requests. DFS staff has beentrainedontherequirementsandunderstandthatifanyofthecriteriaexist theymustrequestthewaiverofreasonableeffortsbefiledbytheDAsOffice. Data and Management Reporting: Since 2006, DFS has expanded internal capacity to create child welfare services reports for management. These reports principally help supervisorsmanagethedaytodayactivitiesofdirectservice/casemanagementstaff. o ChildProtectiveServices(CPS)andInHomeandOutofHomeCareOperational Management Reports: Management reports were developed and released for staffuseinOctober2008.Thereportsareavailableinmultipleformats,andthe reportdatacanberolleduptodivisionallevelsorfiltereddowntoindividualunit and worker levels. The reports identify key information related to CPS investigations and permanency case management, including timeliness of investigative response, child contacts, parent contacts, completion of safety assessments,andpreviousinvestigativehistory.Allsupervisorsweretrainedon report utilization in November, 2008. DFS continues to offer training on the reports. DisputeResolutionProtocol:TheDisputeResolutionProtocolwasenactedbyDFSandthe DAsOfficeinlate2009.Theprotocolprovidesaformalmechanisminwhichchildwelfare cases and related decisions can be reviewed with management from both agencies, particularlywhenthereisdisagreementordiscordbetweenstaff.
While the Dispute Resolution Protocol seems to be helping to resolve some conflicts,thereareotheroccasionswheretheprocessmaybeoccurringtoolate to allow for conflict resolution. When conflict was identified, particularly as it relatedtocaseclosure,theissuesseemedtoinvolvetheDAsOfficerequesting additionalassessmentsormakingrequirementsofthefamilythathadnotbeen clearlyarticulatedinthefamilycaseplaninitially.Apotentialresolutionmaybe toincludetheDAsOfficeinthedevelopmentofcaseplansforfamilies;theDAs OfficeandDFSwoulddevelopanagreementastohowthatparticipationwould occur. There may also be a conflict with service providers who are designated/approved by DFS to provide services (e.g. the DAs Office dissatisfaction with the results of psychosexual, domestic violence, or physical abuse assessments and requesting they be completed multiple times). DFS managementwillfurtherdiscussthisissuewiththeCourtsandtheDAsOfficeto explorepotentialresolution.(AnticipatedCompletionbyDecember2010)
Information Integration/Availability: The information gathering process used to conduct this case review demonstrates the challenges associated with accessing child welfare relatedinformation.ThecurrentStatemandatedchildwelfareinformationsystem,UNITY, iscumbersometonavigateandaccessinginformationischallenging.Informationcontained inolderreportsisoftennotavailableandmustbesearchedforintheprevioussystemused to document CPS investigations, FamilyTracs, or is simply nonexistent. Permanency case documentationandrecordkeepinginUNITYpriortochildwelfareintegration(2004)isalso limited.Whilealloftheseissueswereclearlychallengingforcasereviewers,information accessibility must be even more frustrating for the direct service/case management staff whomustreviewtheexactsamedocumentationwithgreaterregularity. o CourtrelatedinformationisnotreadilyavailableinUNITYasthereisnointerface betweenthecourtandchildwelfaresystems.Courtminutesmustbeaccessedin a separate system and the documentation in UNITY often does not reflect a summary of court hearings. DFS management will develop a work around to address this issue, but clearly system integration is preferable. (Anticipated CompletionbyDecember2010) o Most concerning, however, is that as demonstrated in cases where the DAs Officefiledpetitionsindependently,thereisnomechanismtoaccessorintegrate those filings in UNITY, and consequently investigation findings are often inaccurate (e.g. findings are listed as unsubstantiated or substantiated as opposedtoCourtsubstantiated).Inanothercase,asimilarissueisseeninthata casewasclosed,andthenuponappealbytheDAsOfficereopened.DFScase recorddocumentationindicatestheclosure,andalthoughthecasecontinuesto be managed by DFS staff there is no explanation regarding the appeal and its impact on the documented closure. The cases reviewed which exhibited inaccuratefindingsinUNITYwillbecorrectedbyDFS,andpolicyrevisionsmade toremedythissystemintegrationissue.
ThereisalsonoexistingprocessormechanisminplaceprovidingDFSnotification ofmotionsorappealsfiledbytheDAsOffice.DFSandtheDAsOfficemustfind awaytoreconcilethisissue.(AnticipatedCompletionbyDecember2010) Mental Health Services Availability/Provision: Mental health services, particularly in patientdrugtreatmentservices,arenotreadilyavailableinthecommunity.Inthecases reviewed, there were times when the DAs Office requested assessments be completed multipletimes,whichmayindicatedissatisfactionwiththeserviceproviderorassessment results.Therealsocontinuestobemanychallengesinprovidingmentalhealthservicesto children. The solutions to address these issues are complex, but DFS management has been working collaboratively with the State Department of Health and Human Services MentalHealthandDevelopmentalServicesDivisionandDivisionofChildrenandFamilies (DCFS) to identify the issues and implement appropriate solutions. The discussions and effortsareongoing. o DCFS and DFS are currently working to redesign the model of care provided by Specialized Foster Care Agencies (higher level of care providers). With the assistance of Casey Family Programs, an expert in treatment level foster care visited DFS in late October, with the other child welfare agencies Statewide participatinginthedialogueandplanning.Theredesignneedstobepresented duringthe2011LegislativeSession.(AnticipatedCompletionbyJune2011) o SB343,passedinthe2009LegislativeSession,allowsprioritytobegiventhrough State Mental Health services/programs for child welfare involved families. Planningontheprocessestoimplementthatrequirementiscurrentlyunderway. (Ongoing)
o
Parents with Existing Warrants/Case Closure: While not currently contained in existing policy, DFS management is exploring the development of policy related to parents resolving any existing arrest warrants prior to case closure. (Anticipated Completion by December2010) Policy and Procedure Implementation: Over the last few years, the State and DFS have revised many child welfare related policies and procedures. Several of the older cases raised issues which have been addressed by these recently adopted policy changes. The followingpolicychangeswereincludedamongtherecentrevisionsandupdates: o Child Protective Services: In November 2008, DFS implemented and trained staff on new policies and procedures for the Child Protective Services (CPS) Division,includingtheChildAbuseandNeglectHotline. These policies establish clear criteria for the purpose of screening abuse/neglect allegations in/out for investigation. Allegations are also defined, allowing for improved consistency in making report related assignments. As part of the policy changes, Hotline staff also now renders determinations regarding screening reports in/out, assign investigation priority response timeframes, and assign investigations to
CPSunits. Previously,screeningandpriorityassignmentdecisionswere madeattheCPSunitlevel. These policies require that all investigative findings, in which an alleged perpetrator has been named in three or more prior CPS investigations duringtheprecedingtwoyears,beapprovedbyAssistantManagers. These policies clearly identify the requirements for DFS staff to see children associated with investigations in accordance with the priority time frames assigned at the Hotline. Child contacts for Priority 1 responses must be made within 3 hours; child contacts for Priority 2 responsesmustbemadewithin24hours;andchildcontactsforPriority3 responses must be made within 72 hours. DFS staff must make good faitheffortstoseethechildrenwithinthosetimeframes,andiftheyare unable to do so, the case must be staffed with a supervisor so that alternate arrangements can be made. Staff is also required to make, regular ongoing contact with children for as long as an investigation remainsopen. These policies require that CPS staff review the familys prior child welfare services history in UNITY as part of the investigative process. Staff must also document that review of the history in a case note to indicatecompliancewithpolicy. These policies incorporate expectations around addressing and investigating incidents of domestic violence. In particular, it provides guidance regarding the placement of a child with a parent(s) who has beenconvictedofdomesticviolence,ensuringstaffcompliancewithNRS 432B.157. o InHome and OutofHome Care: By December 2009, DFS implemented new policiesandproceduresforthePermanencyDivision,includinginhomeandout ofhomecareunits. Thepoliciesestablishcleardirectionandexpectationsregardingchildand family contacts. For children placed in outofhome care, direct service/casemanagementstaffarerequiredtomakefacetofacecontact withthechildaminimumofonceevery30days(somecircumstanceswill warrant increased contact). For children placed inhome, the contact requirements vary, but initially are required weekly for the first four weeksofserviceprovision.Thereafter,theminimumcontactrequiredis biweekly.(Completed) o StateWide Substantiation Policy: On April 23, 2010, the Statewide Substantiation policy was updated. This revised policy provides much needed clarityaroundthecriteriarequiredforsubstantiatingeverychildabuse/neglect allegation (as opposed to providing only general guidance and direction as contained in the previous policy). The policy defines child abuse/neglect as it relatesspecificallytoNRS432B.Itprovidesguidanceonwhatconstitutesdirect, indirect, and circumstantial evidence. It also omits previous language that
allowed for an isolated incident of abuse/neglect to be unsubstantiated. (Completed) ProperNoticeofService:WhilenotaDFSissue,twoofthecasesrevieweddemonstrate propernoticeofserviceissues.Inthefirstcase(Case21),aTerminationofParentalRights wasoverturnedduetoafailuretoprovidetheparentwithpropernotice.Inthesecond case(Case37),theNevadaSupremeCourtoverturnedaCourtsubstantiatedchildwelfare finding for failure to provide proper notice. DFS management requests the DAs Office reviewthisissueandfindanappropriateresolution. Staff Education/Training: DFS staff regularly participate in child welfare related training and education. Training is offered by DCFS, internal DFS training staff, and community partners,includingtheDAsOfficeandlawenforcementagencies. o Since 2008, new DFS staff has attended a comprehensive child welfare core trainingprovidedbytheUniversityofNevada,LasVegas.Additionally,newstaff receivesonthejobtrainingpriortobeingassignedcases. o DFS investigative staff attended three sequential trainings regarding the Statewide Safety Practice Model. The instruction focuses on the assessment of childsafetyandriskandthedevelopmentofsafetyplans. o DFS case management staff is currently participating in a twoday training class onabuse/neglectinvestigationsofferedbytheDAsOfficeandlawenforcement agencies.(AnticipatedCompletionbyDecember2011). o In an effort to further enhance staff training around child safety, DCFS has contractedwithanationalchildwelfareresourcecentertodevelopanddelivera 9daycorecurriculumonchildsafetyandinvestigativetechniques.Thattraining is scheduled to be delivered in early 2011; all DFS CPS staff will be required to attend.(AnticipatedCompletionbyApril2011) Supervisory Expectations: DFS management has developed a set of comprehensive supervisory expectations; these expectations were fully implemented in October 2010. Theseexpectationsidentifythespecificrequirementsofeachsupervisoranddelineatethe number of times they must meet oneonone with staff and the dialogue and documentation that is required to ensure appropriate case management oversight. To supportthiseffort,withtheassistanceofCaseyFamilyPrograms,anexpertonchildwelfare case supervision has been delivering monthly training on supervision to DFS supervisors sinceDecember2009.(AnticipatedCompletionbyDecember2010) Summary: DFS management recognizes the importance of child safety and the importance of family connectednessfor our staff, it is their lives work. Providing child welfare services is extraordinarily complex, and DFS staff rely on many partnerships in order to provide those servicestochildrenandfamilies,theDAsOfficeandlawenforcementagenciestonameafew. Without these partnerships, DFS staff could not do the work necessary to keep children safe andfamiliestogether.
10
Thegoalofanychildwelfaresystemistopromotethesafety,permanency,andwellbeingof childrenandfamilies.Thisischallengingwork,inlargepart,duetothefactthattheoutcomes andresultsarebasedontheaccuratepredictionofhumanbehavior.Asachildwelfareagency, wearetaskedwithnotonlyensuringthesafetyandwellbeingofthechildrenweserve,but underFederallawandguidelinesmustalsoensurethatwemakeeveryreasonableeffortto preserveandreunifyfamilieswhoenteroursystemwhenpossible.Allchildrenwhoare removedfromtheirfamiliesandcomeintofostercarearetraumatized.Asachildwelfare agencywemustweighthepotentialriskoftraumarelatedtoleavingchildrenintheirhomes againsttheguaranteedpsychologicaltraumaofremovingthem. Forsomechildwelfareagencies,includingDFS,thereisanaturaltensionthatresultsbetween theagencyandcriminaljusticepartnersthepurposesandrolesoftheagenciesaredifferent. Childwelfareagencies,whileinvolvedinensuringpublicsafety,arenotcriminaljustice agencies,butratherhumanservicesagencies.Childwelfarecasesareheardinfamilycourt settings,whichfocusmoreonproblemsolvingfamilyissuesasopposedtocriminalcourts whichfocusoncommunityprotectionandsanctioning.Despitethis,DFSandotherchild welfareagencies,relyheavilyoncriminaljusticeagenciestopartnerinaddressingchild maltreatment.
Itseasytoseeandunderstandhowmanyfeelthateverychildwhoexperiencesabuseand/or neglectatthehandsoftheirparentsorcaregiversshouldsimplyberemovedandnever returned.But,whileourprimaryroleasachildwelfareagencyistoensurechildsafetyand minimizerisk,wealsomustworktohelpkeepfamiliestogetherbyworkingwithparentsto developnewparentingskillsandcapacitythatwillallowthemtocareappropriatelyfortheir childrengoingforward. These82casesidentifiedbytheDAsOfficeinvolved190childrenwho,inmanycases,had repeatinvolvementwithchildwelfareservices.Someofthecasesidentifiedhadrecentchild welfarehistory,whileothershadhistorythatspanned20plusyears.Thousandsofchildren andfamiliesreceivedchildwelfareservicesoverthelasttwentyyears;from2007to2010, alone,morethan75,000childrenreceivedservicesfromDFS(AppendixB).Whileeverychild matters,the190childrenassociatedwiththese82casesrepresentlessthan.003%ofthe childrenwhoreceivedDFSservicesoverthelastthreeyears.Manychildrenwhoareremoved fromtheirfamiliesandenterfostercarewillleaveoursystemsafelytoreturntothecareof theirfamilies.
11
CASE #
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
CaseRecordDocumentation ChildSafety&OutofHomeCare
X X
ChildrenBornTo/Associatedwith IndividualsReceivingDFSServices
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
ChooseYourPartnersCarefully Campaign CommunityPartnerships& ManagingChildMaltreatment CourtContinuances DA/DFSCaseReview Data&ManagementReporting DFSAttorneyRepresentation/ WaiverofReasonableEfforts DisputeResolutionProtocol InformationIntegration/ Availability MentalHealthServices Availability/Provision Parentsw/ExistingWarrants/ CaseClosure Policy&Procedure Implementation ProperNoticeofService StaffEducation/Training SupervisoryExpectations
Summaryof82Cases/SystemicIssues
X X X X X X X X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X X
X X
12
NotApplicable
CASE #
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
X X
ChildSafety&OutofHomeCare
X X X X X X
CaseRecordDocumentation
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X
ChooseYourPartnersCarefully Campaign CommunityPartnerships& ManagingChildMaltreatment CourtContinuances DA/DFSCaseReview Data&ManagementReporting DFSAttorneyRepresentation/ WaiverofReasonableEfforts DisputeResolutionProtocol InformationIntegration/ Availability MentalHealthServices Availability/Provision Parentsw/ExistingWarrants/ CaseClosure Policy&Procedure Implementation ProperNoticeofService StaffEducation/Training SupervisoryExpectations NotApplicable
X X X X
13
CASE #
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
X X X X X X X X X X X
ChildSafety&OutofHomeCare ChooseYourPartnersCarefully Campaign CommunityPartnerships& ManagingChildMaltreatment CourtContinuances
CaseRecordDocumentation
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X
DA/DFSCaseReview Data&ManagementReporting DFSAttorneyRepresentation/ WaiverofReasonableEfforts DisputeResolutionProtocol InformationIntegration/ Availability MentalHealthServices Availability/Provision Parentsw/ExistingWarrants/ CaseClosure Policy&Procedure Implementation ProperNoticeofService StaffEducation/Training
14
X X X X X X X X
SupervisoryExpectations NotApplicable
DFS Statistical Overview: 2007 - 2010 (YTD)

All information in this report is from the DFS case management system as of Nov 1, 2010, unless otherwise noted.
Child Protective Services

2007 Total Hotline Calls Answered Child Abuse/Neglect Referrals Received Child Abuse/Neglect Investigations Substantiated Investigations No Data Available 14,314 12,558 1,899 2008 Total No Data Available 11,043 9,450 1,850 2009 Total 20,395 8,367 7,244 1,993 2010 YTD Total 16,456 9,134 6,669 1,646 Grand Total 36,851 42,858 35,921 7,388
The data above represents multiple children and families. Also, some children and families have multiple referrals and investigations within the date range. Non-case management system data. Data tracked January 2009 - September 2010. CPS found credible evidence that maltreatment occured.
Adoptions
Finalized Adoptions 2007 Total 283 2008 Total 332 2009 Total 429 2010 YTD Total 341 Grand Total 1,385
Petitions
2007 Total Petitions Filed* 1,328 2008 Total 1,340 2009 Total 1,184 2010 YTD Total 621 Grand Total 4,473
*CPS files a petition when it believes the child's safety or health is in jeopardy, and the child is in need of protection. The court
reviews the case and makes a determination regarding the child's welfare.
Reunifications
Children Reunified 2007 Total 2,790 2008 Total 2,556 2009 Total 2,320 2010 YTD Total 1,517 Grand Total 9,183
Services Provided
Children Provided with Services Cases Provided with Services 2007 Total 24,176 9,276 2008 Total 20,593 7,773 2009 Total 17,115 6,592 2010 YTD Total 16,308 6,339 Grand Total 78,192 29,980
15
DACaseID:
DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

Thiscaseinvolvedonechildwhosedeathwassuspiciousforabuseandasiblingwithbrain damageinawheelchairasaresultofabuse.Theperpetrator(mothersboyfriend)returnedto themothershomeuponhisreleasefromcustody.Hewasonfelonyprobationforchildabuse. Themotherwastoldhecouldnotbearoundherchildrenandsheknewhewasconvictedfor abusingherchild.Themotherliedtoauthoritiesregardinghislivinginherhome. Law EnforcementcontactedtheDDAonthiscasebecausetheywereconcernedaboutfollowthrough byDFS. DFSdidnotwanttofileaneglectpetitionagainstthemotherforfailuretoprotect.We disagreed.
DFSRESPONSE:
UNITYCase#: Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription):
1280421 022010 CourtSubstantiated 102009(2) Unsubstantiated 092007 Unsubstantiated 112006 CourtSubstantiated 072005 CourtSubstantiated 102004 Unsubstantiated 022002 CourtSubstantiated 022010ReportDate: Male,15YOA Female,9YOA Male,7YOA Male,7YOA Male,5YOA Female,3YOA Male,9months Male,4months(deceasedin2002)
AgeofChild(ren)Involved:
CaseStatusasofReview: ChildFatality,Child Abuse/NeglectRelated: SummaryResponse:
X X
Open Closed Yes No
Note: The information and timelines provided by the DAs Office on this case do not align to the case record documentation. The information provided below provides a summarized history of the case, and generally respondstotheissuespresentedbytheDAsOffice. In2002,DFSreceivedareportallegingphysicalabusethreatofharm,physicalinjurydeath,andphysical abuseagainstthenaturalfather.Thefourmontholdchildsinjuriesappearedconsistentwithshakenbaby syndrome.DFSinitiatedaninvestigation,tookProtectiveCustodyofallchildren,removedthemfromthe home,andplacedtheminthecareofarelative. DFSinterviewedthemother,andsheindicatedtherehadbeenissueswiththenaturalfatherbondingwith thechild.Shedescribedasituationinwhichthefatherattemptedtoteachthethen3montholdchildto behave, and when she intervened, he choked her and injured her neck. She indicated that the father admittedtocausingthechildscurrentinjury,andsheattributedhisbehaviortodruguse. Thehospitalconductedaskeletalexamofthechild,andtheexamresultswerenegativeforevidenceof previousinjury/trauma.Thechildpassedawayfromtheinjuries.
16
The DAs Office filed a petition on this case, and the allegations against the natural father were Court substantiated.Thechildrenwerereturnedtothecareofthemother.DFScontinuedtoprovideformal supervisionuntilOctober2002.Atthetimeofcaseclosure,theautopsyresultswerenotcompleteandthe allegedperpetratoroftheabusecouldnotbelocated. In early January 2003, the final autopsy findings were released, and the childs cause of death was determinedtobenatural.Thechildsufferedfromarespiratoryillness,whichcouldnotberuledoutasa contributingfactorinthechildspassing.Criminalchargeswerenotfiledagainstthefather. InOctober2004,DFSreceivedanabuse/neglectreportallegingphysicalabusethreatofharmandphysical abuseagainstthenaturalmotherandfather(sameallegedperpetratorasinthe2002case).A7month oldchildwastakentothehospitalforalargebumponthehead.Lawenforcementconductedacriminal investigation,andDFSconductedaninvestigation.Thechildwasseenbybothaforensicpediatriciananda regularpediatrician.Neitherphysiciancouldattributetheinjurytochildabuse/neglect.Theparentswere bothinterviewedasweretheotherchildren.Theparentsdeniedknowledgeofhowtheinjuryoccurred, andthechildrendeniedbeingabused/neglectedbyeitherparent.Basedonalackofcredibleevidence, theinvestigationwasunsubstantiated.Criminalchargeswerenotfiledagainsteitherparent. In July 2005, DFS received an abuse/neglect report alleging physical abuse threat of harm and physical abuse against the father and lack of supervision against the mother. The child previously injured in the 2004reportwasagaininjured.Thechildwasseenatahospitalandsufferedfromadeformitytotheleft leg,bruisingtotheabdomenandleg,andpossibleheadtrauma.Lawenforcementconductedacriminal investigation,andchargedthefatherwithfelonychildabusewithsubstantialbodilyharm.Hewasfound guiltyandsentencedtofouryearsinprison. DFS also conducted an investigation and the Court substantiated all allegations against the father; the allegationsagainstthemotherweresubstantiatedbyDFS.DFSinitiallyremovedthechildren,andplaced them with relatives until October 2005, when they were returned to the mother. DFS provided formal supervisionofthefamilyuntilJanuary2007,whentheCourtorderedtheterminationofwardship.Atthat time, the mother had fully complied with her case plan, participated actively with the medical care/treatment of the injured child, and received a variety of services for both her and the children, including participating in clinical/psychological assessment and therapy and receiving Early Childhood Services. CaserecorddocumentationdoesnotindicateconcernspresentedbylawenforcementtotheDAsOffice regardingconcernswithDFSlackoffollowthrough. CaserecorddocumentationdoesnotindicateDFSstaffopposedfilingapetitiononthenaturalmother. Since2005,DFShasinvestigatedfiveadditionalreportsofabuse/neglect.Thechildrenarecurrentlyplacedin foster care, with a permanency goal of reunification (with mother) as a waiver of reasonable efforts was not submitted.Casenotesdocumentthattheremaybeapendingrequestforawaiverofreasonableeffortsonall biologicalparentsofthechildren(motherandnaturalfather)andthatthepermanencyplan,ifthewaiversare granted,wouldbeadoptionbyrelatives.Themotheriscurrentlyexpectinganotherchild.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
17
PersonnelIssues/Outcomes:
N/A
RelevantSystemicIssues:
CaseRecordDocumentation: ChildSafetyandOutofHomeCare: ChildrenBornTo/AssociatedwithIndividuals ReceivingDFSServices: ChooseYourPartnerCarefullyCampaign: CommunityPartnershipsandManagingChild Maltreatment: CourtContinuances: DA/DFSCaseReview: DataandManagementReporting: DFSAttorneyRepresentation/Waiverof ReasonableEfforts: DisputeResolutionProtocol: InformationIntegration/Availability: MentalHealthServicesAvailability/Provision: ParentswithExistingWarrants/CaseClosure: PolicyandProcedureImplementation: ProperNoticeofService: StaffEducation/Training: SupervisoryExpectations:
18
DACaseID:

Inthiscasetheparentshadapriorsubstantiatedhistoryandtherewascourtwardshipofthe childrenforphysicalabuse,drugs,anddomesticviolence.DFSreceivedanewreport.Father admittedsexabuseof6and8yearolddaughters.Fathermovedoutofhomeforashorttime thenreturnedhome.Fatherwasfoundtohaveasexualpreferenceforyoungchildren.Healso failedapolygraphregardingtheextentofthesexualabusetohisdaughters. DFS(including supervisorsandadmin)failtosubmitcasetoDAsofficeforapetitionforalmostayear.Case broughttoourattentionbyaconcernedDFSworkerwhowastroubledbythedepartments inaction.
DFSRESPONSE:
UNITYCase#: Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved:
1281538 012005 052002 CourtSubstantiated CourtSubstantiated
012005ReportDate: Female,8YOA Female,6YOA
CaseStatusasofReview: SummaryResponse:
Open Closed
On January 7, 2005, DFS received a report of abuse/neglect alleging sexual abuse against the natural father.ThereportwasjointlyinvestigatedbybothDFSandlawenforcement.Thenaturalmotherwasthe reportingsource;thefatheradmittedtotheabuse.Aspartoftheinitialinvestigation,thenaturalfather did fail a polygraph. The family had prior child welfare services history dating back to May 2002, which includedonepriorCourtsubstantiatedinvestigation. Earlyinthecase,thefatherdidmoveoutofthehome,butlaterreturned.DFSstaffwasmadeawareofhis returnafterthefact.Casenotesindicatethatthefatherremainedinthehomeduetofinancialreasons, but that the mother did not work. The mother agreed to follow a safety plan which required that the fathernotbeleftalonewiththechildren.Sheplannedtodivorcethefatherassoonastheyoungestchild wenttoschoolfulltime. Severalmonthsafterthesafetyplanwasinplace,theplanwasviolated(thechildrenwerenotreabused) and that, combined with the results of the fathers psychosexual assessment, caused DFS staff to seek Courtinterventionandsupervisionofthecase.
Caserecordsdocumentadelayinthesubmissionofthepetition.Areviewoftheservicesprovidedtothe familyindicatesthatDFSstaffattemptedtomanagethecaseinformally;however,caserecordsreviewed supportCourtinterventionandsupervisionmuchearlierthanrequestedbyDFSstaff.
SubsequenttoCourtinvolvement,themotherattendednonoffendingparentingclassesandthefatherenrolled in a psychosexual assessment and treatment program. The children were enrolled in and regularly attended therapy.Thefatherwascriminallychargedandconvictedoftheabuseandsentencedtofiveyearsprobation. Themotherandfatherdivorced.ThecasewasclosedinSeptember2007,andtherehavebeennoadditional reportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor5years,9months.
19
RelevantStatute:
N/A
Theprimarychildprotectiveservicesinvestigatorassignedtothiscaseisnolongerwiththeagency.
CaseRecordDocumentation: ChildSafetyandOutofHomeCare: ChildrenBornTo/AssociatedwithIndividuals ReceivingDFSServices: ChooseYourPartnerCarefullyCampaign: CommunityPartnershipsandManagingChild Maltreatment CourtContinuances: DA/DFSCaseReview: DataandManagementReporting: DFSAttorneyRepresentation/Waiverof ReasonableEfforts: DisputeResolutionProtocol: InformationIntegration/Availability: MentalHealthServicesAvailability/Provision: ParentswithExistingWarrants/CaseClosure: PolicyandProcedureImplementation: ProperNoticeofService: StaffEducation/Training: SupervisoryExpectations:
20
DACaseID:

Thiscaseinvolvedaninfant(male)livingwithmotherandfather.FatherisaTier2sexoffender forsexuallyabusingboys.Therewaspriorhistoryofsubstantiatedchildabuseandneglectwith siblingsinCalifornia.OnesiblingwasdiagnosedwithFailuretoThriveandparentalrightswere terminated.Therewasanotherinfantthatthemotherphysicallyabusedbyablowtothehead. Theparentsgaveuptheirparentalrightsforthatchild.Therewasathirdsiblingthatwasremoved fromtheircareandparentsagainrelinquishedtheirrights.Parentsneversuccessfullyworkeda caseplan.TherewereatotaloffourothersiblingswhowerebroughttotheattentionofCalifornia DFSandallwereadopted.TheparentsthenmovedtoLasVegas. DFSrefusedtoplacethenew infantinprotectivecustody.TheDAsofficeinsistedonfilingapetitionforwardship.Theparents cametocourtandindicatedtheywerenotinterestedinworkingacaseplananddecidedto relinquishtheirparentalrights. Duringthecourseofthisinvestigationaneighborreportedthat hertoddlersondisclosedsexabusebythisTier2offender. AconcernedDFSworkerwhosaid theycouldntsleepatnightbecauseDFSadministrationtoldthemtoleavethisinfantinthehome withtheparentsalsobroughtthiscasetotheDDA.
DFSRESPONSE:
1323454 UNITYCase#: 112005 Substantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 112005ReportDate: Male,2months
Open Closed
OnNovember29,2005DFSreceivedareportthatafamilywithpriorchildwelfarehistoryinCaliforniahad relocatedtoLasVegas.Sourcebelievedthefamilysrelocationwasduetomotherscurrentpregnancyand adesiretoavoidfurtherchildwelfareservicesinvolvementinCalifornia.WhileinCalifornia,themother and father had four other children removed and/or relinquished parental rights for adoption. The reporting source was concerned about the welfare of the newborn child because of the familys prior history and the father being a registered sex offender. DFS confirmed the familys prior child welfare historyinCaliforniawithSonomaCountyandthefathersstatusasaregisteredsexoffender.Thefamilys lastabuse/neglectreportinCaliforniawas7yearspriortothecontactwithDFS. ThecasewasstaffedwithDFS management,anditwasdecidedthataworkerwouldconductahomevisit, assesschildsafety,andmeetwiththeparentstodeterminewillingnesstoreceiveservices.If,afterthe home visit, it was determined that the child was not safe, and/or the parents were unwilling to receive services,thechildwouldbeplacedintoProtectiveCustody. After completing the initial home visit and assessing child safety, it was determined that there were no identified "imminent safety issues" which warranted an immediate removal. During the initial visit (and subsequentvisits),thebabyappearedclean,asdidtheresidence.Theparentshadthenecessarysupplies tocareforthebaby.TheparentshadWICinplaceforthebabyandMedicaidforbothmotherandbaby. TheparentsassuredDFSstaffoftheirintentiontocooperatewithanyproposedservicesinordertokeep theirchild.Theyagreedtoclinicalassessments,homebasedservices,andpublichealthnurseassistance. Forthesereasons,DFSmanagementandstaffdecidedtoleavethechildinthecareoftheparents,butto placethematteronCourtcalendarduetotheriskfactorsassociatedwiththeparentshistory.TheDAs
21
officedisagreedwiththisapproachandpreferredthechildberemoved.DFSstaffinformedtheparentsof theDAspositionandinformedthemthattheCourtwouldmakethefinaldecision.Theparentsoptedto request the immediate removal of the child. The child was removed from the parents and taken into ProtectiveCustodyonJanuary5,2006.Shortlythereafter,theparentsrelinquishedparentalrightssothat anadoptioncouldbefinalizedwiththesamefamilywhohadpreviouslyadoptedthechildssiblings. DFSbecameawarethatthefatherwasthesubjectofacriminalinvestigationforpossiblysexualabusinga 3yearold neighbor in late January 2006. DFS was not made aware of this investigation until after conductinganinitialassessmentoftheinfantandafterthatchildwasremovedfromthehome. Thereisnocaserecorddocumentationsupportingthisassertion.
The case remains closed, and there have been no additional reports received on this family for 4 years, 10 months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
TheprimaryDFSstaffassignedtothiscaseisnolongerwiththeagency.
22
DACaseID:

Newbornbabytestedpositiveformethamphetamine,mompositiveformeth,dadpositivefor methandparentshasacriminalhistoryofmanufacturingmeth. Newbornand6yearleftin homewithparentsbyDFS. DAsofficedisagreed.
DFSRESPONSE:
1286192 072007 Unsubstantiated 012006 CourtSubstantiated 062005 Unsubstantiated 052005 Unsubstantiated 082004(2) Unsubstantiated 042004 Unsubstantiated 092003 Unsubstantiated 012001 CourtSubstantiated 012006ReportDate: Male,7YOA Female,2days
Open Closed
In January 2006, DFS received a report alleging physical abuse and parent substance abuse against the natural mother and parent substance abuse against the natural father. The report was received subsequent to the birth of a drug exposed infant. DFS staff immediately placed a hold on the newborn childwhileshewasstillhospitalized.ThisholdallowedDFStoauthorize/determinewhoreceivedthechild atthetimeofrelease.Theparentscriminalhistorieswereconfirmedsubsequenttothereceiptofthis abuse/neglectreport. ThisfamilyhadpriorchildwelfarehistorydatingbacktoJanuary2001whichincludedsevenpreviouschild protectiveservicesinvestigations,sixthatwereunsubstantiatedandonethatwasCourtsubstantiated. While the newborn was held in the hospital for six days, the 7yearold child was left in the care of the fatherandmother.OnJanuary23,2006,DFSstaffconductedahomevisittoensurethechildrenssafety andthatthefamilywasadequatelypreparedtocarefortheinfant.Atthehomevisit,DFSrequiredboth parentsimmediatelysubmittodrugtesting.AttheProtectiveCustodyHearingheldJanuary24,2006,DFS requestedthatthenewbornchildbereleasedtothefather.TheCourtagreedwiththerecommendation. ThereisnocaserecorddocumentationthatindicatestheDAsOfficedisagreedwiththeplacementofthe childrenatthetimeoftheProtectiveCustodyHearing. OnJanuary26,2006thedrugtestresultsforbothparentscamebackpositive.Naturalfatherinsistedhe was clean, and another test is ordered. The father failed to comply with the new test request, and on February1,2006,thechildrenwereremovedfromtheparentsperCourtordermadeatthePleaHearing heldonthatsamedate.TheCourtadvisedtheparentsthatthechildrenwouldbereturnedtothemwhen the drug screens were clean. Case record documentation indicated the DAs Office became concerned aboutthechildrensplacementimmediatelypriortothePleaHearing(January31,2006).
23
ApetitionwasfiledbytheDAsofficeattherequestofDFSandheardatthePleaHearingonFebruary1, 2006.ThechildrenweremadewardsoftheCourtandplacedinthecareofpaternalrelatives.Thefamily wasmonitoredbyDFSupuntilJuly21,2006,whenthematernalgrandmotherobtainedlegalguardianship ofthechildren.Wardshipwasterminated,andthecasewasclosed. A new report was received in July, 2007; the report was investigated but was deemed unsubstantiated. The children remained in the care of the maternal grandmother. The case is closed, and there have been no additionalreportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor3years,2months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
24
DACaseID:

In1999therewasasubstantiatedcaseandcourtwardshipforaninfantwhosufferedphysical abuse(multiplefractures,burn,seizures)whileinthecareofhismotherandfather.Thefatheris violentandnevercompletesacaseplan.Thecourtclosedthecasewarningthemothernotto allowthefatherunsupervisedcontactwiththechildren. In2005therewasanewreporttoDFS thatthefatherwasbackinthehome,physicallyabusivetothemotherandchildren.Thecasewas notsubmittedtotheDAsofficeforapetition. InApril2006themotherleftthenewbaby alonewiththefatherandthebabydied.Childfatalityissuspiciousforabuse.
DFSRESPONSE:
1294814 042006 CourtSubstantiated 102005 Substantiated 101999 CourtSubstantiated 042006ReportDate: Male,6YOA Male,4YOA Female,6months(deceased)
X X
Open Closed Yes No
In1999,DFSreceivedareportallegingphysicalabuseofaninfantagainstthenaturalfather.Theinfant hadmultiplefracturesofthehumerus,ribs,andclavicle.Duringthecourseoftheinvestigation,theinfant, whoremainedwiththenaturalmother,experiencedaburn.DFSstaffconsultedwithaphysician,andthe medicalreviewdeterminedthattheburnwasaccidentalandnotrelatedtoabuse/neglect.Thechildwas alsodiagnosedwithamuscledisorderthatcontributedtoseizureactivity.Neitherthemuscledisordernor theseizuresweredeterminedbymedicalreviewtobecausedbyabuse/neglect. WhiletheinvestigationconcludedwithaCourtsubstantiatedfindingagainstthefatherandmother,there wasneveradeterminationofwho,fatherormother,committedtheabuse.Thefamilywasrequiredto participateinongoingcasemanagementservices.Thefather,however,wasnoncompliantwiththecase plan. OnJune2,2000,theCourtterminatedwardship,citingthatthemotherremainedcompliantwithhercase plan,thechildrenweredoingwell,andthefatherdidnotresidewiththem(andneverhad),andthecase was closed. The Court reminded the mother to protect her and the children from the father and also providedaCourtorderstipulatingonlysupervisedvisitationbetweenthechildrenandthefather.
InOctober2005,DFSreceivedanewabuse/neglectreport,allegingemotionalabuseanddomesticviolence againstthemotherandfather,aswellasphysicalabuseanddomesticviolenceagainstthefather.The reportwasmadebylawenforcement.DFSstaffconductedaninvestigationandrenderedsubstantiated findingsagainstbothparents. Whiletheinvestigationwassubstantiated,caserecorddocumentsaconcerningdelayinDFSstafffollow up,monitoring,andserviceprovision.Theremayormaynothavebeenaneedtofileapetitionandtoseek

25
Court intervention and supervision. The case record documentation lacks detail and the investigation appearstobeinsufficient. In March 2006, while the previous investigation was being concluded, another abuse/neglect report was received from law enforcement regarding the death of the youngest child. The surviving children were immediatelytakenintoProtectiveCustodyandwereplacedwiththematernalgreataunt.Theywerelater placedwiththematernalgrandmother.ThechildrenwerereturnedtothemotherinOctober,2006. Neither the father nor the mother were charged or found guilty of the infants death, and the autopsy findingslistedthecauseofdeathasUndetermined.Despitethis,theinvestigationwasconcludedasCourt substantiatedagainstthefatherforphysicalabuseandlackofsupervisionrelatedtotheinfantdeath.The fathersdomesticviolencehistory,variousinconsistenciesintheinformationherelayed,andhisadmission toleavingtheinfantaloneledtothesubstantiatedfindings. TheCourt,withagreementfromtheDAsOffice,dismissedwardshipofthesurvivingchildrenwhenthemother obtainedfullcustodyonMay24,2007.Thecaseisclosed,andtherehavebeennoadditionalreportsreceived onthisfamilyfor4years,5months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A

26
DACaseID:

InApril2004caseissubstantiatedforsexualabuse.Thevictimis13yearsoldandhassix siblings(boysandgirls).Thefather(perpetrator)wenttothreecounselingsessions.Hestopped goingassoonasDFSclosedtheircase. CasewasnotsubmittedtoDAsofficeforapetition. Casecamebackinthesystemafteritwasreportedthattheperpetratorhadreturnedtothe homeandthevictimleftduetofeelinguncomfortable.
DFSRESPONSE:
1287559 082007 CourtSubstantiated 102005 CourtSubstantiated 082005 Unsubstantiated 022005 Unsubstantiated 032004 Substantiated 052001 Unsubstantiated 032004ReportDate: Female,13YOA Female,12YOA Female,11YOA Female,9YOA Female,5YOA Male,3YOA Male,9months
Open Closed
InMarch2004,DFSreceivedareportofabuse/neglectallegingsexualabuseagainstthenaturalmothers boyfriend.Thereweresixotherchildreninthehome(siblings),andtheallegedperpetratorwasnotthe allegedchildvictimsnaturalfather,butwasthenaturalfathertohersixsiblings.Thisfamilyhadprior childwelfarehistory,includingoneunsubstantiatedinvestigationconductedin2001. Whiletheperpetratorparticipatedinminimalservices,themotherwasdeemedprotectiveofthechildand initiatedaTemporaryRestrainingOrder(TPO)againsthim.TheTPOwasapproved,andtheCourtordered onlysupervisedvisitationoftheperpetratorsnaturalchildren.Theperpetratormovedoutofthehome andinitiatedcounselingservices,includingparticipatinginapsychosexualeducationprogram. DFSsubstantiatedtheinvestigation,andprovidedinformalcasemanagementservices,includingproviding financialassistance,transportation,housingassistance,andcounseling/clinicalservicesfor5months.DFS did not seek Court intervention and supervision primarily due to the mothers protective capacities and willingnesstoreceiveservices.
NRS 432B. 340 (2) provides child welfare agencies the ability to manage cases informally under circumstancesinwhichthechildisnotinimminentdangerandtheparentsarewillingtoparticipateinand receiveservices.DFSchosetoexercisethatrightinthiscase. Thechildsmotherwasprotectiveofthechildandtooksteps,includingfilingforaTemporaryProtection
27
Order, to demonstrate that capacity. The mother was receptive to DFS involvement and services, and Court intervention and supervision did not seem necessary. Based on the statutory provision and the mothersreceptivenesstoservicesatthattime,DFSdidnotrequestthattheDAsOfficefileapetition. DFS did receive subsequent reports of abuse. In February 2005, DFS received an abuse/neglect report allegingphysicalabuse.Thechildfromthepreviousreportranaway,waspickedupbylawenforcement, who filed the report alleging physical abuse against themother. The child allegedly was beaten with an extensioncord.ThechildwasplacedinProtectiveCustody.Caserecorddocumentationindicatesshehad fadedmarksindicativeoftheallegationsandthatthemotheradmittedtolosinghertemperandcausing the injury. The child was returned home and DFS initiated family preservation services, but unsubstantiatedtheinvestigation(seedetailsregardingthe2005CPSSubstantiationPolicyunderSystemic Changessection).AtthetimeoftheProtectiveCustodyHearing,caserecorddoesnotindicateDAconcern regardingthiscaseorthechildsplacement. InAugust2005,DFSreceivedanabuse/neglectreportallegingphysicalabuseofthesamechild.Duringthe course of the investigation, the mother denied purposefully causing the child harm/injury. She was not interested in pursuing family preservation services, and at the Protective Custody Hearing the Court requested that all other children in the home be placed on the petition. Despite DFS submission of the petitionrequest(inaccordancewiththeCourtrecommendation),theDAsOfficedidnotfilethepetition andtheCourtconsequentlydismissedthecaseandthechildwasreturnedhome.DFSunsubstantiatedthe investigation. InOctober2005,DFSreceivedanabuse/neglectreportallegingsexualabuseagainsttheperpetratorfrom the2004case,andphysicalabuseagainstthemother.Thechildwasremovedfromthehomeandplaced in Protective Custody. The investigation revealed that the perpetrator did not complete counseling and related services subsequent to the previous reports. The investigation also revealed that the child was uncomfortableinherhome,astheperpetratorhadreturned.DFScompletedtheinvestigationandthe allegations were Court substantiated. All children were made wards of the Court, and the case was managed formally with Court oversight and supervision. The children remained in the home with the mother,buttheperpetratorwasrequiredtomoveoutofthefamilyhome.InMay2007,DFSdiscovered theperpetratorhadreturnedtothehome,andthechildrenwereremoved. In August 2007, while still participating in formal case management services, DFS received a new abuse/neglectreportallegingthreatofharmagainstbothmotherandfather.Itwasrelatedtothebirthof a new child, who needed to be removed from the home and placed in Protective Custody (all other childrenremainedincareatthistime).
DFS continued to provide services through January 2009, when the Court terminated wardship as the mother wascompliantwithhercaseplan.Thefatherremainedoutofthehomeandwasonlyminimallycompliantwith the case plan. The Court provided the mother temporary full custody of the children and instructed her to petitionforfullcustodyinFamilyCourt.Thecaseisclosed,andtherehavebeennoadditionalreportsreceived onthisfamilyfor3years,1month.
RelevantStatute:
NRS432B.340Determinationthatchildneedsprotectionbutisnotinimminentdanger. 1.Iftheagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservicesdeterminesthatachildneedsprotection,butisnotin imminentdangerfromabuseorneglect,itmay: (a)Offertotheparentsorguardianaplanforservicesandinformtheparentsorguardianthattheagencyhas nolegalauthoritytocompeltheparentsorguardiantoaccepttheplanbutthatithastheauthoritytopetition thecourtpursuanttoNRS432B.490ortoreferthecasetothedistrictattorneyoralawenforcementagency;or (b)FileapetitionpursuanttoNRS432B.490and,ifachildisadjudicatedinneedofprotection,requestthat
28
the child be removed from the custody of the parents or guardian or that the child remain at home with or withoutthesupervisionofthecourtorofanypersonoragencydesignatedbythecourt. 2.Iftheparentorguardianacceptstheconditionsoftheplanofferedbytheagencypursuanttoparagraph(a) ofsubsection1,theagencymayelectnottofileapetitionandmayarrangeforappropriateservices,including medicalcare,careofthechildduringtheday,managementofthehomeorsupervisionofthechild,theparentsor guardian. (AddedtoNRSby1985,1376;A2001SpecialSession,42)
N/A
29
ACaseID:
DACaseDescription:
Sexabusecase.HerfatherinHawaiisexuallyassaultedvictim.Casesubstantiatedthereand criminalprosecutioninitiatedbutfatherabsconded.MotherleftHawaiiwithvictimandother childrenandmovedtoLVwhereshereunitedwiththePerpetrator.DFSdidnotwanttofile petitionagainstthemother.DAsofficefiledpetitionagainstmotherforfailuretoprotect.
7
UNABLETOIDENTIFY CASEBASEDON INFORMATION PROVIDED
DFSRESPONSE:
UNITYCase#: Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: CaseStatusasofReview: SummaryResponse:
Open Closed
N/A
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
Note:
DFSmanagementmaderequestsoftheDAsOfficetoreceivecaseidentifyinginformationforall82cases referenced.TheDAsOfficewasunabletoprovidesuchinformationforthiscase.Basedontheinformation provided,DFSwasunabletocompleteareview.
30
DACaseID:

MotherhadextensivehistoryofneglectanddruguseinCalifornia.ShemovedtoNevadaand continuedherdruguseandneglect.Sheleftherchildrenaloneinatrailerwhilesheconducteda drugdealinacasino.Onechildismurderedandtheotherwasparalyzedforlife.Thesurviving childismadeawardofthecourt. DFSwantedtheplanforthischildtobelongtermfoster care.TheDAsofficedisagreedandfiledforterminationofparentalrights.
DFSRESPONSE:
1267524 UNITYCase#: 22003 CourtSubstantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 022003ReportDate: Female,10YOA Female,3YOA(deceased)
X X
Open Closed Yes No
In 2003, DFS received a report alleging lack of supervision, parent substance abuse, and threat of harm. Thereportreferencedthestabbingdeathofa3yearoldchildandthestabbinginjuriesof9yearoldchild, whowerebothleftalonebytheirnaturalmother.Lawenforcementbelievedthemurderwasconnected tothemothersdruguseactivities.ThereportwasmadetoDFSninedaysaftertheincidentoccurred. DFS confirmed extensive previous child abuse/neglect history with Riverside County in California. The deceasedchildhadpreviouslybeenremovedfromthemotherin2000.ThemotherlaterrelocatedtoLas Vegaswithherchildren.TherehadbeennopriorreportsreceivedbyDFSrelatedtothisfamily. The mother was criminally charged (and later convicted) with felony child abuse and neglect with substantialbodilyharm,andthesurvivingchildwasmadeawardoftheCourt.
ThiscasecameintothechildwelfaresystempriortoStatechildwelfareintegration(whichwasfinalizedin 2004). Under Federal and State law (Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA); NRS 432B.393), DFS is mandatedtoprovidereasonableeffortstoreunifychildrenwithbirthparentsunlessreasonableeffortsare waivedatthetimeofcaseadjudication.Caserecorddoesnotdocumentthatawaiverofreasonableefforts wasmadebytheAttorneyGeneralsOfficeorDAsOffice.Itisunknownbasedonthereviewofthiscase why a waiver of reasonable efforts was not filed, as it would have expedited the termination of parental rightsandultimatelytheprocessingoftheadoptionforthesurvivingchild. In2004,inordertomeetfederaltimelinesforchildpermanency,themotherwasinformedthatDFSwould be filing for a termination of her parental rights. Accordingly, the childs permanency plan became adoption,withaconcurrentplanofreunification.DuringaChildFamilyTeammeeting,therewasdiscussion of potential other planned permanent arrangements for the child as well as consideration of an open adoptionagreement;themothersattorneyrejectedbothoptions.
31
InApril2005,theCourtdeniedDFSsfirstrequestfortheterminationofparentalrights.Later,thepresiding judgemetwithallpartiesinhischambersandindicatedthathewouldplayanactiveroleinthemanaging thiscase.Thejudgeindicatedthathewasopentoconsideringreunificationofthesurvivingchildandthe mother, but that the child must feel comfortable returning, and the mother must be able to care for the childsspecialneeds. DFS, however, opted to appeal the denial of the termination of parental rights to the Nevada Supreme Court, and the childs permanency goal remained adoption, with a concurrent plan of reunification. In addition,anewpetitionfortheterminationofparentalrightswasfiledwiththecurrentCourt. The January 2006, the case record documents a Court ordered permanency goal of Other Planned PermanentLivingArrangement(OPPLA),withaconcurrentgoalofadoption.Therationaleprovidedbythe judgeforchangingthechildspermanencygoalwasthatthecurrentfosterparentswerewillingtocarefor thechildlongterm,thenaturalmotherremainedincarcerateduntilthechildwouldbemorethan17years old,andthatthechildmaintainedarelationshipwithhermother.Thejudgeindicatedthatadoptionwas notnecessarytoachievepermanencyforthischild,asithadbeenestablishedintheseotherways. AtnopointinthecaserecorddoesitindicatethatDFSwantedthepermanencygoaltobeOPPLA,butwas required to adopt the goal by the Courts decisions and the absence of a waiver of reasonable efforts. Eventuallythemotherrelinquishedherparentalrightsandthefosterparentsadoptedthechild. Thecaseisclosed,andtherehavebeennoadditionalreportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor7years,7months.
RelevantStatute:
AdoptionandSafeFamiliesAct:PL10589Sec.101 (a)InGeneral.Section471(a)(15)oftheSocialSecurityAct(42U.S.C.671(a)(15))isamendedtoreadasfollows: "(15)providesthat "(A)indeterminingreasonableeffortstobemadewithrespecttoachild,asdescribedinthisparagraph,andin making such reasonable efforts, the child's health and safety shall be the paramount concern; "(B) except as providedinsubparagraph(D),reasonableeffortsshallbemadetopreserveandreunifyfamilies "(i)priortotheplacementofachildinfostercare,topreventoreliminatetheneedforremovingthechildfrom thechild'shome;and"(ii)tomakeitpossibleforachildtosafelyreturntothechild'shome; "(C) if continuation of reasonable efforts of the type described in subparagraph (B) is determined to be inconsistent with the permanency plan for the child, reasonable efforts shall be made to place the child in a timelymannerinaccordancewiththepermanencyplan,andtocompletewhateverstepsarenecessarytofinalize thepermanentplacementofthechild;"(D)reasonableeffortsofthetypedescribedinsubparagraph(B)shallnot berequiredtobemadewithrespecttoaparentofachildifacourtofcompetentjurisdictionhasdetermined that "(i)theparenthassubjectedthechildtoaggravatedcircumstances(asdefinedinStatelaw,whichdefinitionmay includebutneednotbelimitedtoabandonment,torture,chronicabuse,andsexualabuse);"(ii)theparenthas "(I)committedmurder(whichwouldhavebeenanoffenseundersection1111(a)oftitle18,UnitedStatesCode, iftheoffensehadoccurredinthespecialmaritimeorterritorialjurisdictionoftheUnitedStates)ofanotherchild oftheparent;"(II)committedvoluntarymanslaughter(whichwouldhavebeenanoffenseundersection1112(a) oftitle18,UnitedStatesCode,iftheoffensehadoccurredinthespecialmaritimeorterritorialjurisdictionofthe UnitedStates)ofanotherchildoftheparent;"(III)aidedorabetted,attempted,conspired,orsolicitedtocommit suchamurderorsuchavoluntarymanslaughter;or"(IV)committedafelonyassaultthatresultsinseriousbodily injurytothechildoranotherchildoftheparent;or"(iii)theparentalrightsoftheparenttoasiblinghavebeen terminatedinvoluntarily; "(E)ifreasonableeffortsofthetypedescribedinsubparagraph(B)arenotmadewithrespecttoachildasaresult
32
ofadeterminationmadebyacourtofcompetentjurisdictioninaccordancewithsubparagraph(D) "(i)apermanencyhearing(asdescribedinsection475(5)(C))shallbeheldforthechildwithin30daysafterthe determination;and"(ii)reasonableeffortsshallbemadetoplacethechildinatimelymannerinaccordancewith thepermanencyplan,andtocompletewhateverstepsarenecessarytofinalizethepermanentplacementofthe child;and "(F) reasonable efforts to place a child for adoption or with a legal guardian may be made concurrently with reasonableeffortsofthetypedescribedinsubparagraph(B);". (b)DefinitionofLegalGuardianship.Section475ofsuchAct(42U.S.C.675)isamendedbyaddingattheendthe following: "(7) The term 'legal guardianship' means a judicially created relationship between child and caretaker which is intended to be permanent and selfsustaining as evidenced by the transfer to the caretaker of the following parental rights with respect to the child: protection, education, care and control of the person, custody of the person,anddecisionmaking.Theterm'legalguardian'meansthecaretakerinsucharelationship." (c) Conforming Amendment.Section 472(a)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 672(a)(1)) is amended by inserting "for a child" before "have been made". (d) Rule of Construction.Part E of title IV of such Act (42 U.S.C. 670679) is amendedbyinsertingaftersection477thefollowing: 42USC678:SEC.478.RULEOFCONSTRUCTION. "NothinginthispartshallbeconstruedasprecludingStatecourtsfromexercisingtheirdiscretiontoprotectthe health and safety of children in individual cases, including cases other than those described in section 471(a)(15)(D)." The statutes in most States use a broad definition of what constitutes reasonable efforts. Generally, theseefforts consist ofaccessible, available, andculturally appropriate services that aredesigned to improvethecapacityoffamiliestoprovidesafeandstablehomesfortheirchildren.Theseservicesmayinclude family therapy, parenting classes, drug and alcohol abuse treatment, respite care, parent support groups, and home visiting programs. Some commonly used terms associated with reasonable efforts include "family reunification,""familypreservation,""familysupport,"and"preventiveservices."Servicestobeprovidedtothe childandfamilyshouldbespecifiedinacaseplan. NRS432B.393Preservationandreunificationoffamilyofchildtopreventoreliminateneedforremovalfrom home before placement in foster care and to make safe return to home possible; determining whether reasonableeffortshavebeenmade. 1.Exceptasotherwiseprovidedinthissection,anagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservicesshallmake reasonableeffortstopreserveandreunifythefamilyofachild: (a)Beforetheplacementofthechildinfostercare,topreventoreliminatetheneedtoremovethechildfrom thehome;and (b)Tomakeitpossibleforthesafereturnofthechildtothehome. 2.Indeterminingthereasonableeffortsrequiredbysubsection1,thehealthandsafetyofthechildmustbe theparamountconcern.Theagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservicesmaymakereasonableeffortstoplace thechildforadoptionorwithalegalguardianconcurrentlywithmakingthereasonableeffortsrequiredpursuant tosubsection1.Ifthecourtdeterminesthatcontinuationofthereasonableeffortsrequiredbysubsection1is inconsistent with the plan for the permanent placement of the child, the agency which provides child welfare servicesshallmakereasonableeffortstoplacethechildinatimelymannerinaccordancewiththatplanandto completewhateveractionsarenecessarytofinalizethepermanentplacementofthechild. 3.Anagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservicesisnotrequiredtomakethereasonableeffortsrequiredby subsection1ifthecourtfindsthat: (a)Aparentorotherprimarycaretakerofthechildhas: (1) Committed, aided or abetted in the commission of, or attempted, conspired or solicited to commit murderorvoluntarymanslaughter; (2)Causedtheabuseorneglectofthechild,orofanotherchildoftheparentorprimarycaretaker,which resultedinsubstantialbodilyharmtotheabusedorneglectedchild; (3)Causedtheabuseorneglectofthechild,asiblingofthechildoranotherchildinthehousehold,and theabuseorneglectwassoextremeorrepetitiousastoindicatethatanyplantoreturnthechildtothehome
33
wouldresultinanunacceptablerisktothehealthorwelfareofthechild;or (4)Abandonedthechildfor60ormoredays,andtheidentityoftheparentofthechildisunknownand cannotbeascertainedthroughreasonableefforts; (b)Aparentofthechildhas,fortheprevious6months,hadtheabilitytocontactorcommunicatewiththe childandmadenomorethantokeneffortstodoso; (c)Theparentalrightsofaparenttoasiblingofthechildhavebeenterminatedbyacourtorderuponany basisotherthantheexecutionofavoluntaryrelinquishmentofthoserightsbyanaturalparent,andthecourt orderisnotcurrentlybeingappealed; (d)Thechildorasiblingofthechildwaspreviouslyremovedfromthehome,adjudicatedtohavebeenabused orneglected,returnedtothehomeandsubsequentlyremovedfromthehomeasaresultofadditionalabuseor neglect;or (e)Thechildislessthan1yearofage,thefatherofthechildisnotmarriedtothemotherofthechildandthe fatherofthechild: (1) Has failed within 60 days after learning of the birth of the child, to visit the child, to commence proceedingstoestablishhispaternityofthechildortoprovidefinancialsupportforthechild;or (2)Isentitledtoseekcustodyofthechildbutfailstodosowithin60daysafterlearningthatthechildwas placedinfostercare. (f)ThechildwasdeliveredtoaproviderofemergencyservicespursuanttoNRS432B.630. (AddedtoNRSby1999,2031;A2001,1258,1843;2001SpecialSession,45;2003,236)
N/A
34
DACaseID:

TheDAsofficedisagreedwithDFSwhenwedeterminedwewouldnotfileamotiontostaya courtsordertoDFStoremoveafosterchildfromalockedmentalhealthfacilitythatwas inappropriateandnottheleastrestrictiveunderthelaw. Note:DFShadpromisedtofindthe childafamilyfosterhomeatapreviouscourthearingandfailedtodoso.Therewasnolegalbasis torequestastayofthecourtsorder.
DFSRESPONSE:
1284377/180834 UNITYCase#: N/A Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: AttheTimeofDocumentedIncidentDescribedbytheDA: Male,14YOA
Open Closed
Atthetimeofthedocumentedincident,thischildhadbeenincareforsixyears.Between2001and2007 hewasplacedin38locations,31ofwhichwerehigherlevelofcareorresidentialtreatmentfacilities. OnApril17,2007theCourtorderedthechildoutofDesertWillowTreatmentCenter(DWTC)by5:00PM, April19,2007andplacedinChildHaven.DFSstaffimmediatelyreviewedthisCourtorderataChildFamily Team meeting, which included staff from the States Childrens Mental Health Division (who had been assisting in managing the childs mental health needs). The team recommended that the child not be movedfromhiscurrentplacementandindicatedthatsuchamovewasnotinhisbestinterest.Despite this,DFSattemptedtocomplywiththeCourtorderandtosecureaplacementthroughcontactingmultiple fosterhomes.Basedonthechildshistoryandneeds,notreatmentagenciesorfosterhomeswerewilling to accept placement. The States unlocked residential facility for childreneven refusedplacement citing theycouldnotmeethisneeds.Thechildhadpreviouslybeenplacedinthere,andhadbecomeviolent. WhileDFScouldnotfindahomeforthechildinthecommunity,staffalsoagreedthatChildHavenwasnot clinicallyappropriateforthischild,asitpresentedtoomuchstimulationandlackedanysortoftherapeutic environment or support services. Furthermore, the child, when previously placed at Child Haven, had acted out behaviorally and sexually. The manager of Child Haven was concerned about his ability to protectotherchildrenplacedatChildHavenduringthestay/placementofthechildinquestion.
With no other foster home resources willing to take placement (including State mental health facilities) andnotwantingtojeopardizethesafetyofotherchildrenplacedatChildHaven,DFSapproachedtheDA inordertogettheirassistancewiththecase.TheDAsOfficedeniedDFSsrequestforassistance,andDFS compliedwiththeordertohavechildplacedinChildHaven. DFScontinuedtoactivelysearchforafosterfamilyplacementandwasabletosecureaplacementoneday afterhisarrivalatChildHavenwithatreatmentlevelfosterhome.Withinfivedaysofthisnewplacement, thechildstabbedateacherwithpencil,requiringlawenforcementintervention,andthenewplacement requestedthechildsremoval.Hewasimmediatelyplacedbackinalockedfacility.
35
Thecaseremainsopen.Sincethisincidentin2007,anddespitemultipleeffortstodiagnosisandtreatthechilds mental health and neurological ailments, including clinical review and treatment at UCLA Medical Center, this childhascontinuedtobechallengingtobothinitiallyplaceandmaintaininplacement.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
36
DACaseID:
DACaseDescription:
TheDAsofficerefusedtofileaGuardianshiprequestedbyDFS.Theproposedguardianswerethe sameparentswhoserightshadbeenterminated,therewasnoevidencetheyhadaddressedtheir abuse/neglectissuesandthefatherwasaconvictedsexoffender.Assuch,fatherwasineligibleto beaguardianunderourlaw.TheparentsresidedoutofstateandtheprocessproposedbyDFS violatedtheICPC(InterstateCompactonthePlacementofChildren).
10
DFSRESPONSE:
Open Closed
N/A
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
Note:
DFSmaderequestsoftheDAsOfficetoreceivecaseidentifyinginformationforall82casesreferenced.TheDAs Officewasunabletoprovidesuchinformationforthiscase.Basedontheinformationprovided,DFSwasunable tocompleteareview.
37
DACaseID:

Reportofphysicalabusetochild.Motherwhippedchildleavingbruisingaboutthebodyand strangledchildtothepointfoamappearedaroundthechildsmouth.Therewasanadult eyewitnesstotheabuse.Theabusewasdonebecausethechildcriedduetofearofabuginher room. DFSleftchildwiththemotherandtookthematteroffthecourtcalendar.Thereisa correspondingcriminalprosecution. DFSWorkerandSupervisorobjectedtotheDAfilinga petitionandaskthatitbedismissed.
11
DFSRESPONSE:
1340590 UNITYCase#: 092007 Substantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 092007ReportDate:
Female,6YOA
Open Closed
OnSeptember10,2007,DFSreceivedanabuse/neglectreportallegingphysicalabuseagainstthenatural mother. Law enforcement filed the report after responding to a complaint of child abuse. The mother admittedtohittingthechild,thechildhadvisiblemarks,anddisclosedthathermotherhitherwithabelt. Lawenforcementarrestedthenaturalmotheratthescene,andthechildwasplacedinProtectiveCustody. ThenaturalmotherwasreleasedonSeptember11,2007. Therewasaneyewitnesstotheabuse,thenaturalmotherspartner;thisindividualwasalsothereporting partyoftheabuse.Aspartoftheinvestigation,DFSinterviewedthisindividualwhodeniedthechildwas foamingfromthemouth,butacknowledgedthechildwasscreamingandcryingasaresultoftheincident. DFSdidnotleavethechildwiththemother,asthemotherwasincarcerated.DFSimmediatelytookthe childintoProtectiveCustody.Thechildwas,however,returnedtothecareofthenaturalmotheraday later after multiple investigatory interviews had been conducted and it was determined there were no concernsofimpendingdanger. Aspartoftheinvestigation,DFSstaffinterviewedthechild whoindicatedthiswasthefirsttimeher
mother has ever hit her and that usually she was grounded and privileges taken away when punished.Staffalsoconsultedwiththechildsschoolteacherwhoprovidednoconcernsabout themothers care ofthe child,and hadalways found themotherto be responsive. The childs naturalfather,whowhilenolongerinarelationshipwiththechildsmother,alsodidnotexpress anyconcernsaboutthemotherscareoftheirchild.
The mother was cooperative and agreed to enter into parenting classes. The mothers partner also remainedinthehome,andwasdeemedtohavesufficientcaregiverprotectivecapacitiestoensurethatan incidentlikethisdidnotoccuragain.
38
NRS 432B. 340 (2) provides child welfare agencies the ability to manage cases informally under circumstancesinwhichthechildisnotinimminentdangerandtheparentsarewillingtoparticipateinand receiveservices.DFSchosetoexercisethatrightinthiscase. This matter was taken off calendar. A request for petition was, however, submitted on September 28, 2007. The petition was heard before the Court on October 17, 2007. DFS advised the Court that the natural mother had been compliant with services and had completed parenting classes. DFS recommendedthepetitionbedismissedandtheCourtagreed. TheDAsOfficefiledamotionobjectingtotheCourtsruling;however,theCourtuphelditsinitialrulingto dismissthecase.Theinvestigationwasagencysubstantiated.
Thecaseisclosed,andtherehavebeennoadditionalreportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor3years.
RelevantStatute:
NRS432B.340Determinationthatchildneedsprotectionbutisnotinimminentdanger. 1.Iftheagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservicesdeterminesthatachildneedsprotection,butisnotin imminentdangerfromabuseorneglect,itmay: (a)Offertotheparentsorguardianaplanforservicesandinformtheparentsorguardianthattheagencyhas nolegalauthoritytocompeltheparentsorguardiantoaccepttheplanbutthatithastheauthoritytopetition thecourtpursuanttoNRS432B.490ortoreferthecasetothedistrictattorneyoralawenforcementagency;or (b)FileapetitionpursuanttoNRS432B.490and,ifachildisadjudicatedinneedofprotection,requestthat the child be removed from the custody of the parents or guardian or that the child remain at home with or withoutthesupervisionofthecourtorofanypersonoragencydesignatedbythecourt. 2.Iftheparentorguardianacceptstheconditionsoftheplanofferedbytheagencypursuanttoparagraph(a) ofsubsection1,theagencymayelectnottofileapetitionandmayarrangeforappropriateservices,including medicalcare,careofthechildduringtheday,managementofthehomeorsupervisionofthechild,theparents orguardian. (AddedtoNRSby1985,1376;A2001SpecialSession,42)
N/A
N/A
39
DACaseID:

SameworkerandsupervisorasinEx11.Youngchildfoundwithmotherinfilthyhomewith marijuanagrowingoperation. Bothparentshavedruguseissues.Fatherhashistoryofdrug abuse. Workerwantstohandlecaseinformally.DAsofficeobjects. Casetransferredto WashoeCountyandpetitionisfiledtoseekwardship.
12
DFSRESPONSE:
1339766 UNITYCase#: 82007 Substantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 082007ReportDate: Female,2YOA

Open Closed
ThiscasewasmanagedbythesameworkerandsupervisorasinCase11. OnAugust7,2007,CPSreceivedanabuse/neglectreportallegingparentsubstanceabuse,filthyhome,and lack of necessity, and plausible risk of physical injury against the natural mother and filthy home and parentsubstanceabuseagainstthenaturalfather. DFSassistancewasrequestedbylawenforcement,whicharrivedattheparentshouse,respondingto a callthatthenaturalmotherwasundertheinfluenceanddrivingwiththechildunrestrainedinthevehicle. Accordingtolawenforcementtheparentshousewasfoundtobefilthy.Therewasnofoodinthehome, drug paraphernalia lying around and there were concerns that the home was used as a marijuana grow house. While DFS staff immediately responded to the scene, they were not allowed into the upstairs sections of the house. DFS staff was provided pictures of the home that supported law enforcement findings. The natural parents were arrested, and the child was placed into Protective Custody. The paternal grandparentswereidentifiedashighprofilecommunityresidents.ThematterwassetforaPleaHearing onAugust22,2007,aftertheinitialhearingscheduledforAugust15,2007,wascontinued. CaserecorddoesnotdocumentDFSstaffsintenttomovethecaseforwardformallyorinformally.Rather, caserecorddocumentationindicatesthattheinvestigationwasongoing,andthatadecisioncouldnotbe madebyAugust15,2007(theoriginalPleaHearingdate).AttheAugust15,2007ReviewHearing,thePlea HearingwasrescheduledforAugust22,2007. DuringthecourseofDFSinvolvementallegationsweremadethattheassignedinvestigatorwasafriendof thepaternalgrandmother;therefore,thecasewastransferredtoanewinvestigator.Thenaturalmother alsoallegedthattheDAsOfficewasstatingliesaboutherandherfamily. To avoid perceptions of favoritism and impropriety given the community standing of the paternal grandparents, County and DFS management requested assistance from Washoe County. Washoe County
40
agreedtoassist,andsentachildprotectiveservicesinvestigatortocompletetheinvestigation;thecase wastransferredtothatinvestigatoronAugust16,2007. At the August 22, 2007 Plea Hearing, the parents entered a denial to the petition. Subsequently, an EvidentiaryHearingwassetforOctober11,2007;thishearingwouldlaterbecontinuedtoFebruary28, 2008.AttheFebruary28,2008hearing,thepetitionwasdismissedastothefatherandamendedastothe mother.Themotherplednocontesttodrivingwiththeminorwithoutthechildbeinginacarseat.The Courtorderedbothparentstosubmittodrugtesting,andiftheresultswerenegativethenthecasewould beclosed.Testswerenegative,andthecaseclosedonMarch13,2008. Thecaseisclosed,andtherehavebeennoadditionalreportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor3years,1month.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
41
DACaseID:
DACaseDescription:
Caseinvolvesanolderteenthatsexuallyassaultedhisyoungersisterforyearstothepointshe mustbesurgicallyrepaired.Themotherseesthevictimsinjuryandfailstoseekmedical treatment.DespiteourrequestDFSrefusedtoplacechildreninprotectivecustody.
13
DFSRESPONSE:
Open Closed
N/A
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
Note:
42
DACaseID:
DACaseDescription:
Schoolnurse,counseloranddoctorallsuspectvictimisbeingsexuallyabused.Supervisorofsex abuse unit refused to accept case for investigation. Victim ends up in Monte Vista hospital and Metrorespondsandinvestigatedthecase.
14
DFSRESPONSE:
Open Closed
N/A
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
Note:
43
DACaseID:

Childrenphysicallyandsexuallyabusedbyfather.Fatherchargedcriminally.Heisoutof custodyandpendingjurytrial. Childrenleftwithmotherwhoreuniteswithfather.Therewas littletonocontactbyDFSformonths. Thereisnotreatmentforfamily. Childrenarefound filthyandtraumatized,asmotherhadreunitedwiththefather.
15
DFSRESPONSE:
1312979 022010 Unsubstantiated 102005 CourtSubstantiated 102004 CourtSubstantiated 102004ReportDate: Male,8YOA Female,6YOA
Open Closed
DFS initially became involved with this family in October 2004, due to allegations of sexual abuse by the naturalfather.TheallegationswereinvestigatedandCourtsubstantiated.Thenaturalfatherwaspending criminalprosecution,butcaserecorddocumentsthatthosechargesmayneverhavebeenfiled(theywere denied by the DAs Office on the first submission and then later reviewed for a second time with no subsequentreferencetothefiling). The children were removed from the natural mothers care early in the investigation process, but were returnedtothemotherinlateOctober2004.ThenaturalfathermovedoutofthehomeandperCourt orderwasnotallowedtohavecontactwiththechildren. DFSstaffmakesmonthlycontactwiththefamilyfromOctober2004toJune2005.AttheendofJune,the familyrelocatestoMoapa.TheworkerattemptstomakehomevisitsonJune25,2005,August6,2005, andSeptember7,2005nooneishome. Services were provided/coordinated for the family. The sexually abused child victim was enrolled in therapythroughmultipleserviceprovidersstartinginJanuary2005.Themotherparticipatedinthenon offending parenting classes and family preservation services were put in place toward the end of DFSs case management responsibilities. The father initiated participation in the psychosexual offender treatment. On October 5, 2005, DFS received another report of abuse/neglect on the family; the childrens school contactedthedepartmentwithconcernsofthechildrenbeingdirty.DFSstaffrespondedandconfirmed thechildrenweredirty.Caserecorddocumentationindicatesthatduringindividualinterviewsthechildren were traumatized and there wereconcerns of continued abuse/neglect. The childrendisclosed that the propertyonwhichtheylivedhadtwotrailers.Onetrailerbelongedtothemother,andtheothertothe father.Thechildrenindicatedthattheywereoftenleftaloneinthefatherstrailerwhilethemotherwasin another building. They also indicated that they slept on the couch in the fathers trailer and that their motherandfatherslepttogetheronthebed.
44
DFSmanagedthecaseforalmostfouryears,andthechildrenwereeventuallyreturnedtothemotheron June11,2008.TheCourtterminatedwardshiponNovember26,2008,despiteDFSstaffrecommendation tokeepthecaseopenuntilthefathercompletedhissexualoffendertreatment.Thecaserecorddoesnot documentthattheDAsOfficeopposedtheterminationofwardship. DFSreceivedasubsequentreportofabuse/neglectinFebruary,2010.Thereportwasnotrelatedtoprevious abuse/neglectallegations,andtheinvestigationwasunsubstantiated.Thecaseremainsclosed,andtherehave beennoadditionalreportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor7months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
45
DACaseID:

Childsexuallyabusedbyfather.ReportmadeinNov.of2005.WorkerinterviewedvictiminJan 2006.Victimleftinhomewithmotherandnopetitionsought. CasesubmittedtoDAfive monthslaterwhenitappearsthemotherwasnolongercooperative.
16
DFSRESPONSE:
1322815 UNITYCase#: 112005 Unsubstantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 112005ReportDate: Female,17YOA Female,15YOA Female,13YOA Male,12YOA
Open Closed
OnNovember,3,2005DFSreceivedareportallegingsexualabuseagainstthenaturalmothersboyfriend. The assigned worker made four contact attempts, but was not successful until January 2006. The investigatorinterviewedthechildandthechilddisclosedthathermothersboyfriendhadsexuallyabused her.Arrangementsweremadeforthechildtoresidewithherauntduringtheinvestigationprocess. ThiscasewasreferredforapetitioninMay10,2006,primarilybecauseofthemothersinabilitytoprotect thechildandongoinglackofcooperationduringtheinvestigativeprocess.Areviewofcasemanagement servicesprovidedindicatesthatDFSstaffattemptedtomanagethecaseinformally;caserecordsreviewed supportCourtinterventionandsupervisionmuchearlierthanrequestedbyDFSstaff. TheCourtdismissedthepetitionagainstthemotherinOctober2006,subsequenttoseveralcourthearing continuances. The mother completed all non offending parenting classes. The Court dismissed the petition against the mothers boyfriend in November, 2006 as he had completed psychosexual offender treatment. The investigation was unsubstantiated by the department. Case record documented that the childs testimonychangedatleast3times,affectingheroverallcredibility.Intheinvestigationclosingsummary, notesindicatethateventheDAdidnotfindthechildacrediblewitness.
Thecaseisclosed,andtherehavebeennoadditionalreportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor4years,10months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
46
N/A
47
DACaseID:

DAreceivedasubstantiatedphysicalabusecaseforpetition.Thecasehistoryindicatesthe following:therewasapreviousreferralforphysicalabusethatwasunsubstantiatedbyDFS.The DFSinvestigatorwhoinvestigatedthefirstcasewrotethatthesafetyplanconsistedoftellingthe childtolistentohisparentsanddohishomework.Theworkerstated[Thechild]wasableto understandthatbycompletinghisworkit[physicalabuse]waslesslikelytooccuragaininthe future.
17
DFSRESPONSE:
In May 2007, DFS submitted a petition request to the DAs Office regarding a report of abuse/neglect receivedallegingplausibleriskofphysicalinjuryandphysicalabuseagainstthenaturalmotherandfather. Thisfamilyhadpriorchildwelfarehistory,includingoneunsubstantiatedinvestigationconductedin2006. CaserecorddocumentssupporttheassertionsmadebytheDAsOffice.Acasenotespecificallymakesthe statementasindicated. 1331508 012010 Substantiated 052007 CourtSubstantiated 042007 Unsubstantiated 102006 Unsubstantiated 042007ReportDate: Male,9YOA
Open Closed
CaserecordsdocumentaconcerningdelayinDFSStafffollowup,monitoring,andserviceprovision.Thecase recorddocumentationlacksdetailandtheinvestigationappearedtobeinsufficient. This case closed in June 2010, with the child being permanently placed with his natural father (per NRS 432B.550, 1B). There remained a no contact order between the child and the natural mother. No further reportshavebeenreceivedonthisfamilyfor3months.
RelevantStatute:
NRS 432B.550 Determination of custody of child by court; determination of whether agency which provides childwelfareserviceshasmadereasonableeffortsrequired. 1.Ifthecourtfindsthatachildisinneedofprotection,itmay,byitsorder,afterreceiptandreviewofthe reportfromtheagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservices: (a)Permitthechildtoremaininthetemporaryorpermanentcustodyoftheparentsofthechildoraguardian with or without supervision by the court or a person or agency designated by the court, and with or without retainingjurisdictionofthecase,uponsuchconditionsasthecourtmayprescribe; (b)Placethechildinthetemporaryorpermanentcustodyofarelativeorotherpersonthecourtfindssuitable to receive and care for the child with or without supervision, and with or without retaining jurisdiction of the case,uponsuchconditionsasthecourtmayprescribe;or (c)Placethechildinthetemporarycustodyofapublicagencyorinstitutionauthorizedtocareforchildren,
48
the local juvenile probation department, the local department of juvenile services or a private agency or institutionlicensedbytheDepartmentofHealthandHumanServicesoracountywhosepopulationis100,000or moretocareforsuchachild.
(Added to NRS by 1985, 1383; A 1987, 1195; 1991, 1183, 1359, 1936; 1993, 468; 1999, 2040; 2001, 1261, 1847; 2001 SpecialSession,51;2003,236;2005,2096;2005,22ndSpecialSession,47;2009,216)
N/A
49
DACaseID:

ProtectiveCustodyHearinginvolvingnewbornbabyboy.Mothertestedpositiveforamphetamine (consistentwithmethamphetamineuse).Motherdenieddruguseduringpregnancybutadmitted 6yearhabittoincludecocaine,heroin,amphetaminesandalcohol.Motherhadonecleandrug test.DFS,overDAobjection,movedtotakethecaseoffcalendarandnotproceedwithapetition againstthemother.
18
DFSRESPONSE:
1340581 UNITYCase#: 092007 Unsubstantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 092007ReportDate: Male,1day
Open Closed
This family came to the attention of DFS on September 9, 2007, due to allegations of parent substance abuse and drug exposed infant against the natural mother. The report was made by a local hospital subsequent to the birth of a child. The child tested negative at the time of the birth for all illegal substances,butthemothertestedpositiveforamphetamineuse.Themotherhadreceivedprenatalcare. Thenewbornchildwasnotimmediatelyreleasedtothemotherscare.DFSconductedaninvestigation, interviewing the mother, maternal grandmother, and uncle. The mother admitted to a prior history of druguse,includingamphetamine,cocaine,heroin,andalcohol.Shedeniedusingdrugs,otherthanthose prescribed by her physician, while pregnant. The mother estimated the last time she used illegal substanceswasinDecember,2006.DFSstaffrequiredthemothersubmittoadrugtest(hairandurine). Thedrugtestresultswerenegativeforillegalsubstanceuse. DFSstaffvisitedthemothershomeanditwasfoundtobeappropriate.Themotherhadthenecessary supplies to care for the infant. The maternal grandmother was also interviewed; she indicated she was aware of the mothers drug use history. She also indicated she would be a support system for her daughter and grandchild, and would stay in the home to assist as necessary. She indicated she did not believe her daughter had recently been under the influence of drugs. The maternal uncle was also contacted,andheindicatedthemotherhadappropriatefamilysupporttoprovidecarefortheinfant. ThechildwassubsequentlyreleasedfromthehospitaltothecareofthenaturalmotheronSeptember12, 2007. AttheProtectiveCustodyHearingheldonSeptember18,2007,DFSstaffrequestedthematterbetaken offCourtcalendar.StaffadvisedtheCourtthatthemotherhadtestednegativeforillegalsubstancesand had the appropriate family supports in place to assist with the care of the newborn child. The Court agreedandtookthematteroffcalendar. DFSstaffmadeanotherunannouncedhomevisitonSeptember19,2007.Thehomewasappropriateand thechildappearedtobedoingwell.Thematernalgrandmotherandwaspresentandindicatedthatwhile
50
shewasnotlivingthere,shewasstayingtoassistwiththechild.DFSstaffmadereferralsforthefamilyto Nevada Early Intervention Services and a public health nurse. Staff also provided information regarding substanceabuseassessment/treatment. Thecaseremainsclosed,andtherehavebeennoadditionalreportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor3years.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
CaseRecordDocumentation: ChildSafetyandOutofHomeCare: ChildrenBornTo/Associatedwith IndividualsReceivingDFSServices: ChooseYourPartnerCarefullyCampaign: CommunityPartnershipsandManaging ChildMaltreatment: CourtContinuances: DA/DFSCaseReview: DataandManagementReporting: DFSAttorneyRepresentation/Waiverof ReasonableEfforts: DisputeResolutionProtocol: InformationIntegration/Availability: MentalHealthServices Availability/Provision: ParentswithExistingWarrants/Case Closure: PolicyandProcedureImplementation: ProperNoticeofService: StaffEducation/Training: SupervisoryExpectations:
Note:
51
DACaseID:

MotheristransportedfromCCDCtohospitalandgivesbirthtonewbaby.Motheradmittedto methamphetamineuse.MothercurrentlyhasanotherchildinthecustodyofDFSandinfoster care. DFSrequestedthatthecasebetakenoffcalendaroverobjectionoftheDA.
19
DFSRESPONSE:
082007ReportDate: Female,1YOA Male,1day
CaseStatusasofReview:
Open
Closed
SummaryResponse:
DFSinitiallybecameinvolvedwiththisfamilyinSeptember2005duetoallegationsagainstthe17yearold natural mother of parent substance abuse. The allegations were investigated and Court substantiated. ThechildwasplacedinDFScustodyandthemotherrelinquishedparentalrightsinApril2007,afterwhich thechildwasplacedforadoption. InAugust2007,DFSreceivedasecondabuse/neglectreportalleginglegalprotectionneeded,parentinjail, andparentsubstanceabuse.Thenaturalmotherhadgivenbirthtoanotherchildwhileincarcerated.The newbabydidnottestpositivefordrugs/illegalsubstances. DFSstaffinitiatedanewabuse/neglectinvestigation,andcontactedthemothersProbationOfficer.The naturalmotherwaspendingreferraltoaninpatientdrugtreatmentaspartofherprobation.Themother expressed a willingness to enter a longterm residential treatment program that would allow mothers/childrentostaytogether. DFSstafffeltthemothersparticipationinaninpatientprogramwouldensurethemotherscooperation withDFSwithoutanadditionalpetitionbeingfiled.AttheProtectiveCustodyHearing,boththeCourtand DArecommended,however,thatDFSfileapetitiononthiscase.DFScompliedwiththerequest. The mother did follow through with entrance to a residential drug treatment program and successfully graduated; she maintained a drug free lifestyle for 18 months. She also obtained her GED. The Court terminatedwardshipofthischildonJanuary8,2009andtheDFScasewasclosed. Thiscaseremainsclosedandnofurtherreportshavebeenreceivedonthisfamilyfor3years,1month.
52
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
53
DACaseID:

ParentsonlyinLasVegasshortperiodoftimeandmothergivesbirthtonewbaby.Parents havementalhealthanddrugissues.Therearefiveotherchildrennotinthemotherscareand CPShistoryintwootherstates. DAobjectswhenDFSmovestotakematteroffcalendarand notfileforwardship.
20
DFSRESPONSE:
1283568 092007 08122001 092007ReportDate: Female,1day Female,6YOA
CourtSubstantiated Unsubstantiated
Open Closed
This family first came to the attention of DFS on August 12, 2001. An abuse/neglect report was filed againstthenaturalmotherallegingparentmentalincapacity.DFSconductedaninvestigation,andwhile there was not credible evidence to support the allegation, the mother chose to relinquish her parental rights,andthechildwasadoptedthroughaprivateadoptionagency. On September 7, 2007, DFS received a report on the natural mother alleging parent mental incapacity, parentsubstanceabuse,andplausibleriskofphysicalinjury.Thisreportwasmadebyahospitaldueto therecentbirthofadrugexposedinfant. CPS initiated an investigation, and the natural mother admitted to using marijuana throughout the durationofherpregnancy. ThenaturalmotherdidhavepriorchildwelfareserviceshistoryinTexasandFlorida.DFSconfirmedthat historywiththosestates. Case record documentation indicates that DFS staff immediately placed a hold on the child while hospitalized.ThisholdallowedDFStoauthorize/determinewhowouldtakephysicalcustodyofthechild atthetimeofrelease. TheassignedchildprotectiveservicesinvestigatorwhoattendedtheProtectiveCustodyHearingrequested aoneweekcontinuancetogatheradditionalinformation.Thehearingwassetforaweeklater. SubsequenttotheProtectiveCustodyHearingreview,theDFSstaffrequestedthatthechildbeplacedin fostercare(uponreleasefromthehospital)andsubmittedapetitionrequest.Thechildwasneverinthe careofthenaturalmotherorputativefather(bothnamedonthepetition). ThereisnoindicationinthecaserecordorCourtminutesthatDFSstaffrecommendedtotakethematter offCourtcalendarortodismissthepetition.
54
Thenaturalmothersparentalrightswereterminated,andthechildwassubsequentlyadopted.Thecasewas closedinMarch2010andnofurtherreportshavebeenreceivedonthisfamilyfor3years.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
55
DACaseID:
DACaseDescription:
Adoptioncasewherepaternalgrandfatherwaswillingtoadoptfivesiblingsfromfourto fourteenyearsofage. TheDAgavelegaladviceonhowtoaccomplishtheadoptionunderthe law. DFSdecidedthatbecausethegrandfatherwouldnotdivorceorreunitewiththe grandmotherwhohewasseparatedfrom(congenialrelationshipfor10yearsafterseparation) thattheycouldnotcompletetheadoption.
21
DFSRESPONSE:
1272413 UNITYCase#: N/A Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription):
AttheTimeofDocumentedIncidentDescribedbytheDA: Female,14YOA Male,13YOA Female,9YOA Male,7YOA Female,5YOA
Open Closed
Thiscaseinvolvestheplacementoffivechildrenwithapaternalgrandfather.Thechildrenwereinitially placedwiththegrandfatherin2003.InMarch2005,thegrandfatherexpressedaninterestinadoptingthe children. The natural mother and fathers parental rights were terminated that same month. The grandfatherwasmarried,buthewasnotlivingwithhiswife.However,hemaintainedregularcontactwith her. InFebruary2006,theDAsOfficewasconsultedbythepermanencycasemanageronhowtheadoption couldbeaccomplishedwiththegrandfatherunwillingtodivorce. TherewasconsiderableemaildialoguebetweenDFSstaffandtheDAsOfficeabouthowtoaccomplish the adoption, as the Court was displeased that the termination of parental rights had been approved knowingthatthegrandfatherwasnotasuitableadoptiveresourcegivenhismaritalstatus.Itappearsthat thefinalrecommendationonhowtoproceedwasincludedinanemaildatedFebruary15,2006fromthe DAassignedtothecase,whoindicated:(oneoftheDAs)toldmethattheadoptiveparentdoesnot havetobedivorced.Thatweonlyneedaletterofunderstandingbetweenthetwoofthem. ThisadvicecontradictsNevadaAdministrativeCoderequirements(NAC127.420,2D). DespitethefactthatDFSadoptionstaffcouldnotproceedduetocoderequirements(NAC127.420,2D), therecontinuedtobeapresumptionthattheissuewassimplyaninability/unwillingnessforDFStoadjust itspolicyrequirements. Meetingsweresubsequentlyheldwiththegrandfather,theDAsOffice,andtheDFScasemanager.They jointlyagreedthatthebestsolutionwouldbelongtermrelativefostercareplacement,giventheinability toproceedtoadoption. Thenaturalmotheralsoretainedanattorneytocontestherterminationofparentalrightsonthegrounds
56
thatshewasnotproperlyserved.Theterminationofparentalrightswaseventuallyoverturnedwhich effectivelypreventedthechildrenfrombeingadoptedandledtoachangeinthepermanencyplanforthe youngestchildrenfromadoptiontoreunification,andfortheolderchildrenfromadoptiontolongterm fostercare. DFSprovidedongoingcasemanagementofthisfamily.In2009,theyoungestchildrenwerereunifiedwiththe mother,andinJanuary2010,theCourtorderedtheterminationofwardshipforthosechildren.Thetwooldest childrencontinuetobeplacedwiththeirgrandfatherunderDFSsupervision. DFShasprovidedoversightofthiscaseformorethan7years,andtherehavebeennofurtherreportsofabuse andneglectinthiscasesincetheoriginalsubstantiatedreportofabuse/neglectwasreceivedonJune2,2003.
RelevantStatute:
NAC127.420Approvalofprospectiveadoptiveparents;denialofapplicationtoadopt;applicantsconvictedof crime.(NRS127.230,127.2817) 1. To be approved as a prospective adoptive parent, the applicant must demonstrate his capacity to be a parentandtomeettheneedsofanadoptedchild,includinghisabilityto: (a) Provide the child with conditions and opportunities to promote the healthy personality growth and developmentofthepotentialofthechild; (b)Assumeresponsibilityforthesafety,care,support,educationandcharacterdevelopmentofthechild;and (c)Offerareasonablyhappyandsecurefamilylifewithlove,understanding,guidanceandcompanionship. 2.Anapplicationtoadoptmustbedeniedif: (a) The applicant has submitted false information or has withheld information relevant to the study of his home. (b)Theapplicantrefusesorfailstoprovideinformationrequestedbytheagencywhichprovideschildwelfare serviceswithintheperiodestablishedbytheagency. (c)Twopersonsarejointlyapplyingtoadoptachildandthepersonsarenotlegallymarriedtoeachother. (d) The marriage of two persons legally married to each other who are jointly applying to adopt a child is determinedbytheagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservicestobeunstable. (e)Theapplicantismarriedandhisspousehasnotjoinedintheapplication. (f)Thesizeofthehousingoftheapplicantisinadequatetoaccommodateanadditionalchild. (g)Thelivingconditionsofthehomeoftheapplicantareinadequateandcouldbehazardoustothehealthof thechild. (h)Theapplicanthasnotdemonstratedfinancialresponsibilityandsoundmanagementofhisfinances. (i)Theapplicanthasnotadequatelypreparedtoprovideongoingphysicalandemotionalcaretothechild. (j) The agency which provides child welfare services has, based on its evaluation of the applicant, concerns relatingtotheapplicantsmoralcharacter,mentalstabilityormotivationforadoptingachild. (k)Exceptasotherwiseprovidedinsubsection3,theagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservicesdetermines that,baseduponasubstantiatedinvestigation,theapplicantoramemberoftheapplicantshouseholdwhois18 yearsofageorolder: (1)Hasbeenconvictedofacrimeinvolvingharmtoachild; (2)Haschargespendingagainsthimforacrimeinvolvingharmtoachild;or (3) Has been arrested and is awaiting final disposition of the charges pending against him for a crime involvingharmtoachild. (l)Theapplicantoramemberoftheapplicantshouseholdwhois18yearsofageorolderhaschargespending againsthimforafelonyconvictioninvolving,orhasbeenarrestedandisawaitingfinaldispositionofpossibleor pendingchargesagainsthiminvolving: (1)Childabuseorneglect; (2)Spousalabuse; (3)Anycrimeagainstchildren,includingchildpornography;
57
(4) Any crime involving violence, including rape, sexual assault or homicide, but not including any other physicalassaultorbattery;or (5) Physical assault, battery or a drugrelated offense, if the assault, battery or drugrelated offense was committedwithinthelast5years. (m)Theagencywhichprovideschildwelfareserviceshasconcernsandreasonabledoubts,basedonanyother relevantinformation,aboutthesafetyorwellbeingofthechild,ifthechildisplacedwiththeapplicant. 3.Anagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservicesshallnot,withouttheapprovaloftheAdministratorofthe Division or the designee of the Administrator, assist in the adoption of a child by a person who the agency determines has been convicted of one or more felonies, gross misdemeanors or misdemeanors. The Administrator of the Division or the designee of the Administrator shall not approve such an adoption if the applicanthasbeenconvictedofafelonydescribedinparagraph(l)ofsubsection2.Ifanagencywhichprovides childwelfareservicesrecommendssuchanadoption,theagencyshallsubmittotheAdministratoroftheDivision or the designee of the Administrator a complete record and explanation of the situation. An agency which provides child welfare services may, without submitting the matter to the Administrator of the Division or his designee,denyanapplicationbysuchapersontoadoptachild. 4.Theagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservicesshallnotifytheapplicantinwritingwhentheapplication hasbeenapprovedordenied.Iftheapplicationisdenied,thenoticemustincludethereasonforthedenial. (AddedtoNACbyDiv.ofChild&Fam.ServicesbyR05602,eff.7302002)
N/A
58
DACaseID:

OnJune15,2007aoneyearoldchildwasfounddeadwhileinthecareofhisparents.There wasnohistoryofaccidentorillness.Thedeathwasunexplainedandunderinvestigation. The fatherhasa2004felonyconvictionforChildCrueltyandInflictingInjuryonaChild. Both parentsadmittedtoandtestedpositiveformarijuanause. Thesurviving7yearoldsiblingwas leftinthehomebyDFS. OnJuly4ththatchildwasbroughttoChildHavenafterherfatherhit herleavingbruisesonherarms,legsandbuttocksaswellascausinganinjurytohermouthafter hepushedherintothestairwaywhilethemotherwatchedandfailedtoprotect.
22
DFSRESPONSE:
1338461 072007 062007 CourtSubstantiated Unsubstantiated
062007ReportDate: Female,7YOA Male,11months(deceased)
Open Closed Yes No
ThisfamilyfirstcametotheattentionofDFSonJune15,2007.Anabuse/neglectreportwasfiledagainst the natural mother and father alleging physical injurydeath and physical abuse. This investigation was conductedjointlywithlawenforcement.Theparentsprovidednoexplanationfortheinjuryordeathof their11montholdchild.DFShadnopriorhistorywiththisfamily. Neitherthefathernorthemotherwerechargedorfoundguiltyoftheinfantsdeath.Theautopsyfindings released on August 7, 2007 listed the cause of death as Undetermined. The investigation was unsubstantiated. The father was convicted in California in 2004 for two counts of child cruelty and one count of inflicting injuryonachild.Theconvictionswereforabusinghisstepchild,whodidnotlivewithhiminNevadaand whowasnotassociatedwiththeDFScase. Bothparentsdidadmittousingandtestedpositiveformarijuanasubsequenttothechildsdeath. Thesurvivingsiblingwasplacedwithfictivekinuntilwhichtimethecauseofdeathcouldbedetermined. The autopsy on the deceased child was held on June, 16, 2007, and the preliminary results showed no knowncauseofdeath.Sincethepreliminaryautopsyresultsdidnotindicatearelationshipbetweenthe childsdeathandchildabuse/neglect,thesurvivingsiblingwasreturnedtotheparentshome. On July 19, 2007, DFS received a second abuse/neglect report on this family. It alleged parent substance abuse,lackofsupervision,andphysicalabuseagainstbothnaturalmotherandfather.Thereportalleged the surviving sibling had bruises to her body because the natural father hit her with a belt while mother watched. TheinvestigationwasCourtsubstantiatedandthechildwasplacedbackinthecareoffictivekin.Apetition
59
was filed, and the child was made a ward of the Court. The child remained in care with fictive kin until December2007,whentheCourtreturnedthechildtotheparentsastheyhadshownimprovementsintheir behaviorandwerecomplyingwithcaseplanrequirements.ThecasewouldlatercloseonJune9,2008,with noobjectionfromtheDAsofficebeingnoted. Thiscaseremainsclosedandnofurtherreportshavebeenreceivedonthisfamilyfor3years,2months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
N/A
60
DACaseID:
DACaseDescription:
WhilelivinginLasVegasatoddlerpresentedtoalocalhospitalwithalegfractureandbruises. Therewasahistoryofafracturetotheoppositelegwhilethefamilywasinanotherstate.DFSs planwastoleavethechildwiththemotherandherboyfriend(thepotentialperpetrators)and makeareferraltotheotherstatesDFSandclosethecase.TheDAsofficedisagreedandfileda Petition.
23
DFSRESPONSE:
Open Closed
N/A
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
Note:
61
DACaseID:
DACaseDescription:
Apreschoolagechildwasbeatenbyhermothersboyfriendwithabeltresultinginbruisesall overherbody.Duringtheinvestigationthemotherliedtothepoliceandtoldthemtheinjuries werefromacaraccident.Themotherwasadomesticviolencevictimoftheabuserand continuedtomaintainherrelationshipwithhim.DFSdidnotremovethechildren,thoughtthe motherwasappropriateanddidnotwanttofileapetition.TheDAsofficedisagreed.
24
DFSRESPONSE:
Open Closed
N/A
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
Note:
62
ACaseID:

Thiscasesinvolvedbabiesages9monthsand1yearold.Theparentshavementalhealthand drugabuseissues.Thiswasour3rdpetitionontheseparents.Inthefirstpetitionthebabywas senttolivewithrelatives.Inthesecondpetitionthefamilywasgivenservicesandcasewas closedinOctober2006.ThenextreferralcamejustthreemonthslaterinJanuary2007.Same issues. ThedepartmentkeptthechildrenwiththeparentsoverDAobjection.DFSmovedto terminatewardshipoverDAobjectionatthefirstreviewinJuly2007.Thecourtruledwiththe DAsoffice. AftercourttheparentsabscondedwiththechildrentoTexas.
25
DFSRESPONSE:
1311693 012007 CourtSubstantiated 092006 Unsubstantiated 102005 CourtSubstantiated 082004(2) Substantiated 012007ReportDate: Male,1YOA Male,4months
Open Closed
ThisfamilyfirstcametotheattentionofDFSin2004duetoallegationsofparentmentalincapacityand parent substance abuse against the natural mother. The mother allowed the childs grandmother to assumeguardianshipofthechildandthecasewasclosed. Asecondabuse/neglectreportwasfiledOctober8,2005,againstthenaturalmotherandfatherforparent mentalincapacityandparentsubstanceabuse.Thereportwasfiledbyahospitalsubsequenttothebirth of another child. The child did not test positive for drugs/illegal substances at the time of birth, but hospital staff were concerned about the parents inability to care for the child. DFS conducted an investigation,whichwaslaterCourtsubstantiated.Thebabywasinitiallyplacedinoutofhomecare,but returnedtotheparentsinApril2006,astheparentswerecompliantwiththecaseplanandthemothers mentalhealthissueswerestabilized. Athirdabuse/neglectreportwasfiledSeptember13,2006,againstthenaturalmotherforparentmental incapacity and parent substance abuse. The report was filed by a hospital subsequent to the birth of another child. DFS had an existing open case on the family, but conducted another investigation. DFS authorizedthereleaseofthenewbornchildfromthehospitaltothenaturalparents.AtthePleaHearing, thepetitionwasheldpendingarecommendationonthecontinuationofwardshipfortheotherchildren byDFSpermanencystaff.Theinvestigationwaslaterunsubstantiated,andonOctober25,2006,wardship wasterminated.CaserecorddoesnotdocumentDAobjectiontotheterminationofwardship.
63
Afourthabuse/neglectreportwasfiledonJanuary3,2007againstthenaturalmotherforparentmental incapacityandplausibleriskofphysicalinjury.ThereportwasfiledbytheHealthDistrictandindicated concerns that the mother was again suffering from mental health issues. DFS staff conducted an investigation, and initially removed the children from the home. The investigation was Court substantiated.AttheDispositionalHearingheldinMarch,theCourtorderedthechildrenreturnedtothe parentsoverDAandDFSobjection.TheCourtindicatedtothefamilythatiftheyparticipatedinservices, the case would be closed at the next sixmonth Review Hearing. The DA responded that they would reviewthecaseforapossiblewaiverofreasonableeffortsandthattheywouldbefilingastayoftheorder tobereviewedbythejudge.TheCourtorderwasreviewedandupheld.Thechildrenweresubsequently returnedtotheparentsincompliancewiththeCourtorder. AsalsoorderedbytheCourt,theparentsparticipatedinmentalhealthservicesandreengagedinservices withthePublicHealthNurseandEarlyChildhoodServices(ECS).ECSterminatedservicesafter3months because the family was doing so well. The Public Health Nurse also terminated services because the childrenwerehealthyandontarget. At the Review Hearing on July 13, 2007, DFS recommended the termination of wardship. However, an alternateHearingMasterwaspresidingthatdayandagreedtosetitforastatuscheckin60days.DFS justifieditsrecommendationtoclosethecaseastheparentswereagaindoingwell,hadparticipatedin andcompletedservices. UnbeknownsttoDFS,thefamilyputadepositdownforanapartmentinTexas.Thefamilyexpectedthe casetobeclosed(pertheCourtscommentsattheDispositionalHearinginMarch),andwiththeirrentin LasVegasincreasing,theywishedtobeclosertofamilysupportinTexas.AftertheReviewHearing,and despitethefactthecasewasnotclosed,thefamilychosetomove.Themothermaintainedalmostdaily contactwiththeDFSworkerandprovidedinformationastothefamilyslocationandonthestatusofthe children. DFS placed the matter back on Court calendar and requested a welfare check by Texas child welfare services.Texaschildwelfarestaffwentouttotheparentsnewhomeandconfirmedthatthehomewas appropriate.Additionally,theyconfirmedthatthemotherhada3monthsupplyofhermedicationand alreadyhadanappointmentsetupwithamentalhealthprovider.Basedontheinformationprovidedby allpartiesandTexas,theCourtterminatedwardshiponAugust1,2007.
Thiscaseremainsclosedandnofurtherreportshavebeenreceivedonthisfamilyfor3years,9months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
64
65
DACaseID:
DACaseDescription:
Theparentsinthiscasehadtheirparentalrightsterminatedontwootherchildrenatthe timeDFSreceivedthisreferralinJune2007.Themotherwasfoundpassedoutwithasyringe inherbed,drugresidueinbaggies,andtourniquetonthefloor.Thefouryearoldwasfound outsideonthe2ndfloorplayingunsupervisedandthetwoyearoldwasfoundoutsidewitha syringe/needleinhismouth.Policearousedmotherafterconsiderableeffort.Shedenied druguse. DFShandledthecaseinformally.Theyplacedthechildrenwiththefatherwho sayshequitusingdrugsayearago.(Nodrugtestgiventoconfirm.)Onemonthlater,inJuly, thepolicefindthechildrenindeplorableunsafeconditions,i.e.,drugs,syringes,paraphernalia allover.Thefathertoldpolicehepreviouslylosthischildrenduetomethamphetamineuse. WhentheassignedDAaskedtheworkerwhyshedidnotrequestapetitioninJunethe workerneverresponded.
26
DFSRESPONSE:
UNITYCase#: Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s)Specific toDADescription):
1269883/1276710 072007 CourtSubstantiated 062007 CourtSubstantiated 122005 UnabletoLocate 072002 Substantiated 122001 CourtSubstantiated 072007ReportDate: Male,3YOA Male,1YOA
Open Closed
ThisfamilyfirstcametotheattentionofDFSinDecember2001duetoallegationsofparentsubstance abuse.TherewasasubsequentreportreceivedinJuly2002duetoallegationsofparentalsubstance abuseandlackofnecessity.The2001investigationwasCourtsubstantiatedandthe2002investigation wassubstantiated. Subsequent to the 2002 investigation, the case was transferred to the State Division of Children and FamilyServices,andthereisnocaserecorddocumentationavailable.Thepermanencycaseeventually ledtoaterminationofparentalrightsonbothparentsinOctober2003. InJune2007,DFSreceivedareportofabuseandneglectduetoallegationsofplausibleriskofphysical injury,lackofsupervision,parentsubstanceabuse,andparentinjail,againstthenaturalmother.Law enforcementfiledthereportwithDFS,subsequenttoreceivingareportofachildplayingunattended onabalconywithasyringeinhismouth.Whenrespondingtothereport,lawenforcementfoundthe motherpassedoutonthebedandunresponsive.Drugparaphernaliawasalsoincloseproximitytothe mother,althoughshedeniedthedruguse. DFS staff removed the children and placed them in Protective Custody. At the Protective Custody Hearing,theCourtorderedthereleaseofthechildrentothenaturalfather,afterahomecheckwas conducted. Case record documentation indicates that DFS was aware of fathers prior child welfare historyandthepreviousterminationofparentalrightspriortotheProtectiveCustodyHearing.There is no case record documentation indicating whether DFS recommended or refuted the father as the placementchoiceforthechildren.
66
At the Protective Custody Hearing, DFS informed the Court that the children were released to the fatherandtheCourtrequestedthefatherfileforfullcustodyofthechildren.Thefatherdidindicatehe nolongeruseddrugs,buttherewasnofollowuporrequiredtestingmadebyDFSstaff. TherewasnofurtherCourtinvolvementuntilDFSreceivedanewreportinJuly2008.DFSreceiveda reportallegingfilthyhome,parentsubstanceabuse,parentinjail,andplausibleriskofphysicalinjury against the father. Law enforcement responded toa complaint of anindividual residingillegallyin a home. DFS Staff responded to the home, and the house was in disarray, and there was drug paraphernaliastrewnaboutthehome. There is no case record documentation regarding the DAs inquiry or caseworker response regarding thepetitionrequest.
SubsequenttotheJuly2008report,thechildrenwereremovedfromthehome,madewardsoftheCourt,and theinvestigationwasCourtsubstantiated.AterminationofparentalrightswasgrantedinMarch2009,andthe childrenwerelateradoptedthatsameyear.Nofurtherreportshavebeenreceivedonthisfamilyfor3years,2 months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A

67
DACaseID:

Thiscaseinvolvesafouryearoldchildwithsignificanthealthissueswhoisalsolegallyblind. ThefirstreferraltoDFScamein2005andthechildwasmadeawardofthecourtduetodrug abuseofparent.Therewerealsosignsofphysicalabuse.Wardshipwasterminated11/2/06. Fivedayslateranewreportwasreceivedformedicalneglect.Medicalpersonnelthought mothersneglectwaslifethreatening.ServiceswereprovidedbyDFS. Anotherreportwas received6/5/07whenthechildwasadmittedtothehospitalforabdominaltrauma.Themother andherboyfrienddelayedseekingmedicaltreatment.Thefouryearoldandhisnewbabysister weremadewardsofthecourtagain. InMarch2008,whileunderthesupervisionofDFSthere wasanothersubstantiatedphysicalabusecaseonthefouryearold.Hehadmarksonhisface consistentwithaslap.Hewaslivingwiththemothersboyfriendatthetime.DFSreunifiedthe childrenwiththemother.DuetoascheduledcourthearingtheassignedDDAreviewedthecase andnotedtheextensivehistoryandthatthemotherandboyfriendhadneveraddressedphysical abuseinacaseplan.TheDDAobjectedtoplacementwiththemotherandobjectedtoany expeditedcaseclosure. AmeetingwasscheduledwithDFSmanagement,theassignedworkers, andtheDDA.AfteratwohourmeetingreviewingthesafetyandriskfactorsDFSmadeahome visitthatday,foundthechildrenatriskandremovedthechildrenfromthemother.
27
DFSRESPONSE:
1322867 062009 CourtSubstantiated 032008 Substantiated 012008 Unsubstantiated 122007 Unsubstantiated 072007 CourtSubstantiated 062007 CourtSubstantiated 112006 Substantiated 112005 CourtSubstantiated 032008ReportDate: Male,4YOA Female,8months(deceased)
X X
Open Closed Yes No
This family first came to the attention of DFS in 2005 due to allegations of parent in jail and parent substanceabuseagainstthenaturalfatherandparentsubstanceabuseagainstthenaturalmother.DFS conducted an investigation, which would later be Court substantiated. The petition as filed does not include information related to, or allegations of, physical abuse against the children. The children were madewardsoftheCourt,serviceswereprovidedtotheparents,andtheCourtterminatedwardshipon November2,2006. Asecondabuse/neglectreportwasfiledonNovember9,2006duetoallegationsofmedicalneglect.The report was filed by a physicians office, and indicated that one of the children suffered from an eye conditionthatrequiredfollowup.Thephysiciansofficewasconcernedaboutthelackoffollowthrough by the parents. DFS staff made contact with the mother, and she indicated she was outoftown, her insurance had been terminated and recently reinstated, and that she intended to followup with the
68
physician.ShewasreferredtoservicesprovidedthroughthedepartmentandtheAssistanceLeague(at that time a contracted partner with DFS to provide voluntary case management services). Case record documents that this case was staffed with the DAs Office and that they agreed it could be handled informally.TheinvestigationwasCourtsubstantiated,however. AthirdreportofabuseandneglectwasfiledJune5,2007alleginglackofsupervisionandphysicalabuse against the natural mother and her boyfriend (he was the natural father of a then newborn child). The injured child was found to have a midintestinal rupture, which was believed to be a result of physical abuse.Thenaturalmotherandtheboyfrienddidadmittonoticingthechildwasnotwell,andthrowingup fortwodays;theydelayedseekingmedicalattention.Whenfinallyseekingassistance,thechildrequired surgery. DFSrequestedtheDAsOfficefileapetitiononthischildaswellasthenewbornchild.Thechildrenwere bothplacedwithrelativeswithsupervisionprovidedbyDFS.Thecareofthechildrenwassharedjointly withthematernalandpaternalgrandmothers.Themotherwasallowedunsupervisedcontact/visitation with the children; however, the boyfriend (alleged perpetrator of the physical abuse) was allowed only supervisedcontact.Intheend,theallegationofphysicalabusewasstrickenfromthepetition,andthe lackofsupervisionallegationswereCourtsubstantiated. On March 25, 2008, DFS received another report of abuse/neglect. The children were still placed with relatives at this time. The report allegedphysicalabuse against the natural mother and boyfriend. The samechildfromthepreviousreportwasfoundtohavebruisingonhischeekthatwasconsistentwitha handprint.Thechildwasremovedandplacedonlyinthecareofthematernalgrandmother(previously both paternal and maternal grandmothers provided care). DFS requested the DAs Office file a new petitiononthiscase.TheDFSinvestigationwassubstantiated,butnotCourtsubstantiated. OnJune26,2008aReviewHearingwasheldandthechildrenwereplacedbackinthecareofthenatural mother;theDAsOfficeobjectedtothisplacement,buttheCourtapprovedthereunification.TheDAs account of this case indicated that the mother and boyfriend had never addressed the physical abuse issuesinanycaseplan;however,caserecorddocumentsthattheallegationsofphysicalabusehadbeen stricken from the prior petition (June 5, 2007). The case plan at that time accurately reflected the allegationsofabuse/neglectasdescribedonthefinalpetition.Thecaserecorddoesnotdocumentthat DFSrecommendedanexpeditedcaseclosure. SubsequenttotheJune26,2008hearing,theDAsofficerequestedameetingwithDFSmanagementand stafftofurtherdiscussthefamilyreunification.ThemeetingoccurredonJuly1,2008.TheDAexpressed concerns regarding the childrens placement and the mothers protective capacities. Based on those concerns, DFS agreed to request a clinical assessment of the naturalmother;drug testingof thenatural mother (and related assessment if testing positive); anger management assessment for the boyfriend/fatherandthecompletionofallrelatedrecommendations;continuedinhomeservicesbyDFS to include weekly visits; and the maintenance of services for the children including occupational and speechtherapy. OnSeptember2,2008,DFSstaffcompletedanunannouncedhomevisitandfoundthechildreninthecare of an individual who claimed to be the mothers new boyfriend. As the individual in question was not known to DFS, the children were removed from the home and placed again with the maternal grandmother.
On September 12, 2008, the Court approved guardianships for the children and DFS subsequently closed the caseonthisfamily.Becauseofthechildwelfarehistoryofthenaturalmotherandherinabilitytocareforthe children, DFS approved coguardianship of the youngest child with the maternal grandmother and paternal
69
grandparents; and sole guardianship of the oldest child with the maternal grandmother. At the time, this seemedthemostappropriatewaytoachievepermanencyforbothchildren.Thereisnonotedobjectionbythe DAsOfficetothisplanattheCourthearing. OnJune30,2009anewabuse/neglectreportwasreceivedbyDFSinreferencetothenow2yearoldchild.The childhaddrownedinthematernalgrandmothersswimmingpoolwhileleftinthecareofthenaturalmother (grandmother still retained guardianship of the child). The surviving sibling was taken into Protective Custody andremainsinDFScare.BothDFSandtheDAsofficeagreedtohavethematernalgrandmothersguardianship terminated and that a longterm placement option would be sought for the sibling. The mother has been chargedcriminallyinreferencetothechilddrowningandisawaitingtrial. Thecaseremainsopenforthesurvivingsibling.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
70
DACaseID:

Thechildreninthiscaseareoneandtwoyearsold.TheyweremadeWardsoftheCourtin December2006duetodrugabuseofparents,neglectandfathersfailuretoregisterasaTierII sexoffender. OnApril15,2008DFSrecommendedclosingthecasedespitethefacttheywere stillpayingthemothersrentandprovidingfoodvouchers. TheyalsofailedtoadvisetheDDA thatthemotherhadtestedpositiveforcocaineinherurineonApril3andApril14th.Wardship wasterminatedovertheDAsobjection. Thechildrenwerebackincustody12dayslaterdue toneglect.
28
DFSRESPONSE:
1328621 082008 042008 102006(2) CourtSubstantiated Substantiated CourtSubstantiated Unsubstantiated 062006 Unsubstantiated 082008ReportDate: Male,2YOA Male,1YOA Female,12days
Open Closed
On October 18, 2006 DFS received a report of abuse/neglect alleging filthy home and lack of necessity againstthenaturalmotherandfatherandanadditionalallegationofparentsubstanceabuseagainstthe father.ThechildrenwereremovedfromthehomeandmadewardsoftheCourt.DFSrequestedtheDAs Officefileapetitionandconductedaninvestigation.TheallegationswereCourtsubstantiated.Thefamily hadpriorchildwelfarehistory,includingtwopriorunsubstantiatedinvestigations. ThefatherwasaTierIIsexoffender,andatthetimeofthisinvestigation,wasnotincompliancewithhis probationrequirementsregardingregistration. ThechildrenwerereunifiedwiththemotherinMay2007(thefatherhadmovedoutofthehome),asshe maintained compliance with her case plan and continued to participate in Drug Court. At the Review HearingonOctober16,2007,however,DFSrequestedthecaseremainopenforanadditional90days.In earlyOctober,themotherhadrelapsedandagainuseddrugs.TheCourtagreedtokeepthecaseopen, andDFScontinuedtoprovideoversight. DFS again requested the Court to keep the case open in January 2008. The Court agreed, and DFS supervisioncontinued.ThecaserecorddocumentationisinsufficienttodeterminethereasonsfortheDFS staffrequesttomaintainserviceprovisiononthecase.
71
AttheApril15,2008,ReviewHearing,DFSstaffrecommendedcaseclosure.Themotherhadmaintained compliancewithhercaseplanandwassoontobegraduatingfromDrugCourt.TheCourtagreedwiththe departmentsrecommendation,andwardshipwasterminated. NeitherthecaserecordnorDFSfinancerecordsindicateDFScontinuedtoprovidefinancialassistanceof anysorttothefamilyimmediatelypriortocaseclosure.Infact,therecordsindicatethattheonlytimethe motherwasprovidedrentassistancewasinAugust,2007($650). ThereisnocaserecorddocumentationthatthemothertestedpositiveforcocaineuseonApril3orApril 14.ThereisonlyacasenoterecordingafaileddrugtestthatoccurredinDrugCourtinFebruary2008. ThecaserecorddoesdenotethatonApril2,2008themotherwasinperfectcomplianceandinphaseIIIof DrugCourt. Thepetitionrequestforthesubsequentcase(seebelow)allegedthenaturalmotherspositivedrugtesting onApril3/14,butthereisnothingintheDFSelectronicorhardcopycasefiletosupportthisinfact,the casenoteonApril2seemstocontradictit. DFSreceivedanotherreportofabuse/neglectonApril27,2008.Thereportwasmadebylawenforcement who arrested the natural mother for outstanding warrants for nonsufficient funds. At the time of her arrest, the mother had left the children in the care of their father, who in turn, had left them with a neighbor for several days. DFS requested the DAs Office file a petition, again took wardship of the children,andplacedthechildreninoutofhomecare. In July 2008, the mother gave birth to another child and entered Healthy Families Inpatient Drug Treatment.Theonlychildtoremaininthecareofthemotheratthistimewasthenewborn. DFS continued to provide case management services, and the children were reunified with the natural motherinDecember2008.Thereunificationoccurredduetothemothersongoingparticipationinand compliancewiththeHealthyFamiliesprogram. ThechildrenreturnedtocareinAugust2009,whenlawenforcementfoundthechildreninthecareofthe naturalfather(whowasnotsupposedtohaveunsupervisedcontactwiththechildren).
ThechildrenremaininthecareofDFS.DFShascompletedaterminationofparentalrightsonthenaturalfather forthetwoolderchildren,andthemotherrelinquishedherrightstothosechildren.Terminationofparental rights is pending on the remaining children. The children currently reside with a foster family, but the permanencyplanforthechildrenisadoptionbyarelative.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
72
73
DACaseID:

Thiscaseinvolvesthedeathofaphysicallyandmentallyhandicappedfouryearold.Thechild wasleftinacarinswelteringheatforapproximately17hours. Therewereinexcessof20prior referralstoDFSfrom19882007.Mostrecentlyin2005,2006,2007.Despitetheextensivehistory, lackofcooperationbytheparentsandevidenceofneglectitdoesnotappeartheseinvestigations wereeverstaffedwiththeDAsofficeforthefilingofapetition. Thedetailsinthiscaseare extensiveandshouldbethesubjectofanindependentreview. Further,inreferencingthiscase inatelevisioninterviewDFSsuggestedthattheexistinglawhinderedtheirabilitytosubstantiate abuse/neglect.ThisargumentshouldbeconsideredinlightofDFSproposinglegislationin2007 thatwouldraisethelevelofproofneededtoinvestigatereportsofabuse/neglect.TheDAsoffice andtheFamilyCourtJudgetestifiedagainstthislegislation.
29
DFSRESPONSE:
1296724 062008 CourtSubstantiated 022007(2) Unsubstantiated 092005 Unsubstantiated 052005 Unsubstantiated 012005 Unsubstantiated 122004 Unsubstantiated 032004 Unsubstantiated 062000 Unsubstantiated 021999 Unsubstantiated 051998 Unsubstantiated 051993 Unsubstantiated 041991 Substantiated 041990 Unsubstantiated 011989 Unsubstantiated 011988 Substantiated 062008ReportDate: Male,15YOA Male,14YOA Male,12YOA Male,9YOA Male,4YOA(deceased)
CaseStatusasofReview: ChildFatality,Child Abuse/NeglectRelated:
X X
Open Closed Yes No
74
SummaryResponse:
On June 9, 2008, DFS received a report of abuse/neglect due to the death of a physically and mentally handicappedchildwhohadbeenleftinacarforupto17hours. This family had child welfare history dating back to 1988. There were approximately 21 prior reports received on this family between 1988 and 2008. There is no case record documentation indicating the previousreportswerestaffedwiththeDAsOffice. TheDAsrequestforanindependentreviewofthiscasewasaccommodatedinAugust2008,whenatthe requestofDirectorMorton,thechairoftheClarkCountyChildDeathReviewTeamwasaskedtoconvenea groupofmemberstoreviewthechildwelfareagencysinvolvementwiththisparticularfamily.The creation,governance,andrulesrelatedtoChildDeathReviewTeamsareoutlinedinNRS432B.403 432B.4095 CoreteammembersandatlargemembersoftheClarkCountyChildDeathReviewTeamwereinvitedto participate.Themembersincluded:DFSseniormanagement,theDAsOffice(bothjuvenileandcriminal attorneys),LVMPD,CoronersOfficeMedicalExaminers,andanAssociateDeanfromTouroUniversity.The groupmetoveratwomonthperiod,holdingfour(4)separatesessions.Thememberswereeach providedwithdetailedcasehistory/relatedDFSdocumentationandeverypriorchildprotectiveservices reportwasdiscussedandevaluated.Attheconclusionofthereview,asevenpageconfidentialreportwas compiledandpreparedbytheNevadaInstituteforChildrensResearchandPolicy. Inadditiontothespecialreview,DFSconductedaninternalreview.Therecommendationsfromthat reviewwereprovidedtotheLegislativeCounselBureau.TheLegislativeCounselBureauacceptedthe recommendations. While both reports are confidential, DFS implemented many of the recommendations, most of which involvedchangestopolicyandwereimplementedinNovember2008. Thomas Morton, the DFS Director, interviewed with local media in response to inquiries on this specific case.HiscommentswerefocusedonthechallengesfacedbythedepartmentgiventhecurrentStateCPS SubstantiationPolicy,specificallyaroundtheallegationofMedicalNeglect,andhowitwasbothdefinedin theexistingpolicyandrelatedtothestandardsthatweresetforsubstantiation.Sincethistime,thepolicy referredtobyMr.Mortonhasbeenrewritten. Neither DFS nor Thomas Morton proposed any legislation in 2007. Mr. Morton did, however, testify in supportofSenatorHorsfordsproposedlegislationtochangethestandardforchildremovaltomatchthe standardsfordangerofseriousharmasdefinedincaselawbyFederalCourts.
Thiscaseremainsopenandthechildrenareplacedinoutofhomecare,theolderchildrenwithapermanency goaloflongtermfostercareandtheyoungerchildrenwithapermanencygoalofadoptionbyarelative.
RelevantStatute:
NRS432B.403Purposeoforganizingchilddeathreviewteams.Thepurposeoforganizingmultidisciplinary teamstoreviewthedeathsofchildrenpursuanttoNRS432B.403to432B.4095,inclusive,isto: 1.Reviewtherecordsofselectedcasesofdeathsofchildrenunder18yearsofageinthisState; 2.Reviewtherecordsofselectedcasesofdeathsofchildrenunder18yearsofagewhoareresidentsof
75
Nevadaandwhodieinanotherstate; 3.Assessandanalyzesuchcases; 4.Makerecommendationsforimprovementstolaws,policiesandpractice; 5.Supportthesafetyofchildren;and 6.Preventfuturedeathsofchildren. (AddedtoNRSby2003,863;A2007,1508) NRS432B.405Organizationofchilddeathreviewteams. 1.Thedirectororotherauthorizedrepresentativeofanagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservices: (a)Mayprovisionallyappointandorganizeoneormoremultidisciplinaryteamstoreviewthedeathofachild; (b)ShallsubmitnamestotheExecutiveCommitteetoReviewtheDeathofChildrenestablishedpursuantto NRS432B.409forreviewandapprovalofpersonswhomthedirectororotherauthorizedrepresentative recommendsforappointmenttoamultidisciplinaryteamtoreviewthedeathofachild;and (c)Shallorganizeoneormoremultidisciplinaryteamstoreviewthedeathofachildunderanyofthe followingcircumstances: (1)Uponreceivingawrittenrequestfromanadultrelatedtothechildwithinthethirddegreeof consanguinity,iftherequestisreceivedbytheagencywithin1yearafterthedateofdeathofthechild; (2)Ifthechilddieswhileinthecustodyoforinvolvedwithanagencywhichprovideschildwelfare services,orifthechildsfamilypreviouslyreceivedservicesfromsuchanagency; (3)Ifthedeathisallegedtobefromabuseorneglectofthechild; (4)Ifasibling,householdmemberordaycareproviderhasbeenthesubjectofachildabuseandneglect investigationwithintheprevious12months,including,withoutlimitation,casesinwhichthereportwas unsubstantiatedortheinvestigationiscurrentlypending; (5)Ifthechildwasadoptedthroughanagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservices;or (6)IfthechilddiedofSuddenInfantDeathSyndrome. 2. Areviewconductedpursuanttosubparagraph(2)ofparagraph(c)ofsubsection1mustoccurwithin3 monthsaftertheissuanceofacertificateofdeath. NRS432B.407Informationavailabletochilddeathreviewteams;sharingofcertaininformation;subpoenato obtaininformation;confidentialityofinformation. 1.Amultidisciplinaryteamtoreviewthedeathofachildisentitledtoaccessto: (a)Allinvestigativeinformationoflawenforcementagenciesregardingthedeath; (b)Anyautopsyandcoronersinvestigativerecordsrelatingtothedeath; (c)Anymedicalormentalhealthrecordsofthechild;and (d)Anyrecordsofsocialandrehabilitativeservicesorofanyothersocialserviceagencywhichhasprovided servicestothechildorthechildsfamily. 2.Eachorganizationrepresentedonamultidisciplinaryteamtoreviewthedeathofachildshallsharewith othermembersoftheteaminformationinitspossessionconcerningthechildwhoisthesubjectofthereview, anysiblingsofthechild,anypersonwhowasresponsibleforthewelfareofthechildandanyotherinformation deemedbytheorganizationtobepertinenttothereview. 3.Amultidisciplinaryteamtoreviewthedeathofachildmaypetitionthedistrictcourtfortheissuanceof, andthedistrictcourtmayissue,asubpoenatocompeltheproductionofanybooks,recordsorpapersrelevant tothecauseofanydeathbeinginvestigatedbytheteam.ExceptasotherwiseprovidedinNRS239.0115,any books,recordsorpapersreceivedbytheteampursuanttothesubpoenashallbedeemedconfidentialand privilegedandnotsubjecttodisclosure. 4.Informationacquiredby,andtherecordsof,amultidisciplinaryteamtoreviewthedeathofachildare confidential,mustnotbedisclosed,andarenotsubjecttosubpoena,discoveryorintroductionintoevidencein anycivilorcriminalproceeding. (AddedtoNRSby2003,863;A2007,2106) NRS432B.4095Civilpenaltyfordisclosureofconfidentialinformation;authoritytobringaction;depositof money.
76
1.EachmemberofamultidisciplinaryteamorganizedpursuanttoNRS432B.405,amultidisciplinaryteam organizedpursuanttoNRS432B.4075,anadministrativeteamorganizedpursuanttoNRS432B.408orthe ExecutiveCommitteetoReviewtheDeathofChildrenestablishedpursuanttoNRS432B.409whodisclosesany confidentialinformationconcerningthedeathofachildispersonallyliableforacivilpenaltyofnotmorethan $500. 2.TheAdministratoroftheDivisionofChildandFamilyServices: (a)Maybringanactiontorecoveracivilpenaltyimposedpursuanttosubsection1againstamemberofa multidisciplinaryteamorganizedpursuanttoNRS432B.4075,anadministrativeteamortheExecutive Committee;and (b)ShalldepositanymoneyreceivedfromthecivilpenaltywiththeStateTreasurerforcredittotheState GeneralFund. 3.Eachdirectororotherauthorizedrepresentativeofanagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservicesthat organizedamultidisciplinaryteampursuanttoNRS432B.405: (a)Maybringanactiontorecoveracivilpenaltypursuanttosubsection1againstamemberofthe multidisciplinaryteam;and (b)Shalldepositanymoneyreceivedfromthecivilpenaltyintheappropriatecountytreasury. (AddedtoNRSby2007,1500)
N/A
77
DACaseID:

Thiscaseinvolvesthephysicalabuseofafiveyearoldchild.Thephysicalabusetowit:the hittingofthechildinthefaceresultinginabloodynosewhilescreamingprofanitiesatthechild. Thisoccurredinpublicandwaswitnessedbycitizens.Policerespondedandarrestedthemother forchildabuse.DFSreceivedthecase.Theyreturnedchildtothemotherandlabeledit unsubstantiated.TheDFSinvestigationdocumentedthatthemotheradmittedhittingthechild; thechildsaidthemotherhithimandlawenforcementcontactconfirmedanindependentwitness reportedthatthemotherhitthechildatleastfivetimesinthefaceresultinginanosebleed. It doesnotappearthattheeyewitnesswasinterviewedbyDFS.ThecasewasreportedJanuary10th 2008. NinedayslatertheclosingsummarystatesCPSinvestigationdidnotyieldsubstantive evidenceinsupportofallegationsofPhysicalAbuse.Caseclosedunsubstantiated.Itwasnot staffedwiththeDAsoffice. AtthetimeofthecriminalPreliminaryHearingonMay5th2008 thedefenseattorneyforthemothercalledtheDFSworkerasawitnesstotestifythatthiswasnot abuse.TheJudgeexpressedhisgraveconcernaboutthisworkerstestimonyandheldthemother toanswerforchildabuse.
30
DFSRESPONSE:
This family came to the attention of DFS on January 10, 2008 due to allegations of physical abuse and parentinjailagainstthenaturalmother.Thereportwasmadebylawenforcementwhorespondedtoa localstoreafterreceivingacomplaintfromaneyewitnessthatamotherwasobservedslappingachildin thefaceatleast5times,causingthechildsnosetobleed.Thenaturalmothersfriend(whowaswitness totheincident)reportedtolawenforcementthatthechildwasslappedtwice.Themotherwasarrested forfelonychildabuse. DFSstaffrespondedimmediatelytothesceneandwasabletointerviewthemotherpriortoherbeing transportedtojail.Sheadmittedtoslappingthechildwhenhebecameupsetthathecouldntstayoutside byhimselfandsaidtheFword.ThemotherreportedthatthechildattendedKindergarten,butthatshe hadrecentlybeenrequiredtoattendaparentconferenceduetothechildkickinganotherstudentand cursing.Thechildsemotional,developmental,andcognitivefunctioningdidnotappeartobeage appropriateaccordingtostatementsmadebythemother. Thechildwasinterviewedindependently.Theinvestigatoraskedhimspecificallyifhehadanyinjuries.He statedno.Hewasalsoaskedifhismotherhithim.Heconfirmedhismotherslappedhim.Hewasalso askedifhewasafraidofhismother,andhestatedno.Photostakenofthechildimmediatelyafterhewas takenintocustodywerereviewedandthosephotosshownoevidenceofmarksorbruises.Thecase recordprovidesnodocumentationregardingthechildsufferingfromabloodynoseorotherinjuryasa resultoftheincident.
1343726 122008 Unsubstantiated 102008 Unsubstantiated 012008 Unsubstantiated 012008ReportDate: Male,5YOA
Open Closed
DFSstaffalsointerviewedthematernalgrandmother.Accordingtothegrandmother,themotherhadno
78
CPS,drugoralcoholabuseissues.Thechildwasreleasedtothematernalgrandmotherandreturnedto thecareofthemothersubsequenttoherreleasefromjail. CaserecorddoesnotdocumentthatDFSstaffinterviewedthemothersfriend,whowasalsoatthescene, oranyotherwitnesseswhomayhavebeenpresent. Whiletheinvestigationwasclosedasunsubstantiatedduetoalackofsubstantiveevidence,themother wasreferredtoparentingclassesbyDFSstaff. Themotherscriminalconvictionwasreducedtoamisdemeanor,andshewasorderedtoattenddomestic violenceclassesaswellasparentingclasses.Themothercompletedbothoftheserequirementsas providedbydocumentationfromtheNorthLasVegasJusticeCourt.
Thereweretwosubsequentreportsofabuse/neglectin2008investigatedbyDFS.Bothwereunsubstantiated. Information contained in the additional reports indicates the child had been diagnosed as schizophrenic and autisticandwasintheprocessofreceivingservices.Thiscaseremainsclosedandnofurtherreportshavebeen receivedonthisfamilyfor1year,9months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A

79
DACaseID:

ThiscasecametotheattentionofDFSinApril2007duetobruisingonanalmost2yearold child.Thecasewasbeinginvestigatedandduringtheinvestigationthechildsufferedfurther bruisingtohisback.TheDAsofficefiledapetitioninMay2007.Thischildalongwithhisfour siblingsageseightandyoungerweremadewardsofthecourt. Thechildrenwerereturnedby DFStothemotherandherboyfriendinNovember2007. Uponreturnhomethe2yearoldboy continuedtosustainunexplainedinjuriesandbruises.InJanuary2008hewasfoundtohavea healingbrokenfingerforwhichhehadnotbeentreated. DFSdocumentedthatthechild bruiseseasilyandhasahighpainthresholdThesenewinjurieswerenotstaffedwiththeDAs office. AtacourthearingonMarch27,2008DFSarguedthatthecaseshouldbeclosed. TheassignedDDAhavingreviewedallofthecasenotesandpriorhistoryobjectedandrequested theinjuredchildundergoacompletemedicalassessmentbyachildabusespecialist.Thechildren remainedinthehome. Thenextdaythetwoyearoldwasfoundwithnewinjuriestowit:linear markstohisupperbackandneck.Thechildrenwereremovedfromtheparents. TheDFS workerblamedtheDDAforthenewabusestatingthattheDDAupsetthemothersboyfriendby arguingagainstcaseclosure. ThemedicalevaluationrequestedbytheDDAconcludedthe following:isabatteredchildwithahistoryofsafetyissuesandconcerns.Icannotemphasize enoughthatthischildisatveryhighriskforcontinuedchildphysicalabuseandatriskforchild deathbychildabuseifleftinanunprotectedenvironmentashehasbeeninthepast.hehas normalperceptionofpainandexperiencespain. TheDDAfiledasecondpetitionallegingallof theunexplainedbruisesandinjuriestoincludethebrokenfinger.
31
DFSRESPONSE:
1336148 032008 CourtSubstantiated 012008 Unsubstantiated 072007 CourtSubstantiated 042007 CourtSubstantiated 032007 CourtSubstantiated 032008ReportDate: Female,8YOA Female,4YOA Female,3YOA Male,2YOA
Open Closed
This family came to the attention of DFS in April 7, 2007 due to allegations of plausible risk of physical injury and physical abuse against the natural mother and her boyfriend. The report was filed by a physician.ThechildwasfoundtohaveMongolianspotsonthelowerbackandrightankle,bruisingonthe rightandleftthighs,andamarkontheleftcheekconsistentwithahandprint.Allchildrenwereremoved fromthehomeandbroughtintoProtectiveCustody. The child was seen by a forensic pediatrician four days after the report was received. The pediatrician confirmedthespotsonthechildsbackwereMongolianspots,butallotherbruisinghadfaded.TheCAT scanandskeletalexams,whichwerealsoadministered,werenegativeforevidenceofinjury/trauma.
80
OnApril12,2007,attheProtectiveCustodyHearing,theCourtwasinformedofthemedicalfindingsand themattertakenoffcalendar;DFSwasorderedbytheCourttocontinuemonitoringthecase.Thechildren weresubsequentlyreturnedhome. OnApril18,2007duringaroutinehomevisit,thechildwasagainfoundtohavemarksonhisback.The childrenwereplacedinProtectiveCustody,andremovedfromthehome.DFSrequestedtheDAsOffice fileapetitiononthecase.ThisinvestigationwasCourtsubstantiated. In June 2007, the mother gave birth to a new child; that child was also removed from the care of the motherandfather.AllchildrenwerereunifiedwiththeparentsinNovember2007asthenaturalmother wascompliantwithhercaseplan,andserviceswereprovided.ThecasewasheldopenforongoingDFS monitoring,however. InJanuary,2008DFSreceivedanewreportofabuse/neglectalleginglackofsupervisionandphysicalabuse againstboththemotherandherboyfriend.Thereportwasmadebyahospital.DFSstaffwaspreviously contactedbythemotherwhoindicatedthatthechildhadbruisingonhischest.DFSstaffrequestedshe takethechildtoahospital.Thechildwasseenatahospitalandwasfoundtohaveahealedbrokenfinger (approximately35weeksold).Thefindingsofthisvisitgeneratedthenewreportreceived. DFS investigated theselatest allegations of abuse/neglect. Thephysiciandid notindicate concern about themotherscareofthechildrenandalsocouldnotconfirmthattheinjurieswereabuse/neglectrelated. Atthetimeofthisinvestigation,thefamilywasalsoreceivingservicesfromEarlyChildhoodServices(ECS). TheECSclinicianassignedtothechildvisitedthechildatdaycare,andnotedthatchildbruiseseasilyand hasahighpainthreshold.ThecaserecordreflectsthatstatementasprovidedtoDFSbytheECSclinician. DFS staff also interviewed themother, the allegedchild victim, the siblings, and daycareproviderduring thecourseoftheinvestigation.Therewasnoinformationobtainedfromanyofthesesourcesthatcould confirmtheinjurywasabuse/neglectrelated. DFSunsubstantiatedtheinvestigation.ThecasewasnotstaffedwiththeDAsOffice. AttheMarch27,2008ReviewHearing,allpartiesexcepttheDAsofficewereinagreementwithcase closure.TheDAexpressedconcernsovertherecentchildinjuriesandrequestedthatthechildbe evaluatedatSunriseHospitalthefollowingday.TheCourtorderedtheexaminationandthatthechildren shouldremaininthehome. AnewreportwasreceivedonMarch28,2008indicatingthechildhadbruisestohisback.Basedonthe newinformation,wardshipremainedintact,andthechildrenwereagainremovedfromthehome. ThecaserecorddoesnotcontainevidenceofDFSstaffblameoftheDAforthemostrecentabuse. While DFS investigated the latest allegations of abuse, the medical evaluation of the child as previously ordered by the Court was completed. The evaluation concluded: the child is a battered child with a history of safety issues and concerns. I cannot emphasize enough that this child is at very high risk for continued child physical abuse and at risk for child death by child abuse if left in an unprotected environmentashehasbeeninthepast.hehasnormalperceptionofpainandexperiencespain. It should be noted that the same forensic pediatrician who saw the child in April 2007 conducted this evaluation;thispediatricianpreviouslycouldnotconcludethechildwasbeingabused/neglected.
81
DFSrequestedtheDAsOfficefileapetitiononthiscase,andtheinvestigationwasCourtsubstantiated. Wardship continued, and the children remained in outofhome care until the family was reunified in August2008. In December 2008, DFS and the DAs Office staffed the case to discuss closure at an upcoming Review Hearing. In March 2009, the DAs Office agreed with the DFS recommendation to close the case, and wardshipwasterminated.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
82
DACaseID:

ThisisanexcerptofanemailexchangebetweenaDDAandDFSabouttheirrefusaltobringa childintoprotectivecustody.TheDDAwroteonFebruary12,2008Iamverydisappointedby thatdecision.IpersonallycannotunderstandhowDFScanrecommendthatachildremaininthe careofaparentwhoisactivelyusingdrugsandengagingincriminalbehaviors.Tosaythatthere isnosafetyconcernswhentheknowndrugabusingparentrefusestosubmittodrugtestingflies inthefaceofeverythingwearesupposedtodoforchildren.Iunderstandsheisateenagerbutto saythattherearenosafetyconcernsorrisksisludicrous.Idontreallycareifsheishappyinher placementwithhermotherthatisanonissuethiscomesdowntoacasewhereDFSis apparentlywillingtopermitateenagertocalltheshotsratherthandoingwhatisright.Dont forgetthiscaseisaboutsexabuse,domesticviolence,drugabuseandparentalmanipulationofa youngchild.IwillbeaskingthecourttomovethehearingtoadayIcanbepresentasInolonger feelconfidentintheabilityofDFStorepresentthefactualinformationofthiscasetothecourt withoutminimizingthedangerposedtothischildbyhercontinuedplacementinhermothers care. DFSmanagementresponsewasItisthedepartmentpositionthatchildrenonlyberemoved whenitissupportedbyoursafetyassessment.
32
DFSRESPONSE:
1331384 UNITYCase#: 092006 CourtSubstantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: AttheTimeofDocumentedIncidentDescribedbytheDA: Female,14YOA
Open Closed
This family came to the attention of DFS on September 28, 2006 due to allegations of emotional abuse, domestic violence, legal protection needed, and sexual abuse against the father. The case was investigated by DFS and Court substantiated as to the emotional abuse/neglect and sexual abuse. The childwasnotremovedfromthecareofthemotheruntilDecember2006,becausethetwowereresidingin a shelter, and not with the alleged perpetrator. In December 2006, the child was removed from the motherasshehadallowedthechildtohavecontactwithherfather.Thechildwasplacedwitharelative. At the Review Hearingin December 2007, there was a joint recommendationmade to the Court by DFS andtheDAsOfficethatthechildbeplacedintofostercareduetothemotherjustbeginningtocomplete hercaseplan,testingpositiveforcocaine,andtherelativeplacementindicatingtheycouldnolongerkeep thechild.TheCourtdeniedthisjointrecommendationandorderedasafetyplanbedevelopedwiththe motherandthatfamilypreservationservicesbeputinplacewithinoneweek. OnFebruary142008,theDAsOfficerequestedastaffingwithDFStoreviewtheplacementofthechild withthemother.TheDAexpressedconcernsaboutnotremovingthechildfromthemotherscare,asthe motherhadnotparticipatedactivelyinservices,particularlyinfamilypreservationefforts. DFS staff articulated that, despite the mothers slow case plan compliance, they believed the child had continuedtodowellsincebeingreturnedtothemother.ThechildmaintainedallAsandBsinschool,
83
had missed only four days of school, had been accepted into multiple magnet school programs, had auditionedandbeenacceptedintoadancegroup,wasastudentaideatschool,andvolunteeredatthe WhitneySeniorCenter.DFSstaffacknowledgedtherewasrisk,butthattherewerenosafetythreatsthat wouldwarrantremoval. AttheReviewHearingonFebruary26,2008,subsequenttothecasestaffingwiththeDAsOffice,DFSstaff presentedthesameinformationdiscussedwiththeDAsOfficetotheCourt.TheCourtagreedwithDFS, andorderedthemothersparticipationinDrugCourt,weeklyDFSunannounced/announcedhomevisits, thatnaturalmotherandchildenterintotreatment,andthattheminorabidebythenocontactorderwith herfather. CaserecorddocumentsthatDFSstaffacknowledgedtheriskassociatedwiththischilds placementwith the natural mother both to the DA and the Court. However, the risk factors alone did not constitute immediateorimminentdangerofseriousharm.
GuardianshipwasgrantedtoapaternalauntinApril2009.Thiscaseremainsclosedandnofurtherreportshave beenreceivedonthisfamilyfor4years.
RelevantStatute: N/A PersonnelIssues/Outcomes:

N/A

84
DACaseID:

TheDAsofficefiledapetitioninthiscaseinvolvingthreechildrenagesone,twoandnine. Thefatherwasconvictedofchildendangermentin2006.Hisprobationwasrevokedandhewas incarceratedfor12monthsinCCDC.Thefatheralsohaddruguseissuesanddomesticviolence convictionsagainstthemother. Themotherneglectedthechildrenbyleavingthemalonein Motel6.Thereareseveralpriorreferralstoincludeafirearmbeingshotinthehome,linearmarks ononechildaftermotherhitwithbelt,anddomesticviolence.DFSreturnedthechildrentothe home. AtthepleahearingaDFSSupervisorappearedandaskedtodismissthepetition.TheDA objected.TheDAprevailedandthechildrenweresubsequentlymadewardsofthecourt.
33
DFSRESPONSE:
1324640 012008 CourtSubstantiated 052007 Unsubstantiated 032006 Unsubstantiated 012006 Unsubstantiated MostRecentIncident: Female,9YOA Male,2YOA Female,1YOA
Open Closed
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSinJanuary2006,duetoallegationsofphysicalabuseagainstthe naturalmother.Thereportindicatedthenaturalmotherspankedoneofthechildrenwithabelt,leavinga linearmark/bruisingonthethigh.DFSstaffrespondedtothecomplaintonthesamedayitwasreceived. Boththenaturalmotherandchilddescribedthesamesequenceofeventswheninterviewedseparately. Themotherandchildadmittedthatthemotherhadspankedthechildwithabelt,andthatatonepoint thechildturnedandthebeltstruckthechildsinnerthighleavingamark.Whenconductingabodycheck ofthechild,however,themarkonthechildsthighwasnotconsistentwithabeltmark,andthecoloringof themarkwasindicativeofabruisesustainedpriortothedaysevents.Theotherchildinthehomewas alsocheckedformarks/bruises,andtherewerenovisiblesignsofeither.Theinvestigatoreducatedthe motheronappropriatediscipline.Theinvestigationwasunsubstantiatedduetolackofcredibleevidence. InMarch2006,DFSreceivedasecondabuse/neglectreportallegingplausibleriskofphysicalinjuryagainst thenaturalmotherandthefather.DFSinvestigatedandfoundthatthefatherwasunloadingaweapon, and it went off accidentally. The father admitted to accidentally firing the weapon where it was stored (thechildrenwerenotpresent),andtheweaponwasconfiscatedbylawenforcement.Thefamilydeclined servicesandthecasewasunsubstantiated. In May 2007, DFS received a third abuse/neglect report allegingemotional abuse anddomestic violence againstthemotherandthefather,aswellasphysicalabuseagainstthemother.Thereportallegedthe mother grabbed the child by the hair and dragged her around the house causing neck and head pain. Accordingtothereportingsource,therewerenovisiblemarksorbruisesonthechild.DFSconductedan investigation and interviewed the child. The child confirmed the event, but did not have any marks or bruises. The child indicated she was not fearful of her mother. The mother was interviewed, and she denied the incident. The mother also denied any allegation of domestic violence in her household. In absenceofcredibleevidence,theinvestigationwasunsubstantiated.
85
The case record does not document information regarding the fathers child endangerment conviction. DFSstaffreviewedhiscriminalbackgroundaspartofthiscasereviewandfoundthathewasconvictedof child endangerment in July 2006. Based on the dates of DFS service provision and the dates of the conviction, it appears as if the charge/conviction occurred in between events reported to and services providedbyDFS. It also appears as though, based on the circumstances surrounding the charge/conviction, that law enforcement should have reported the incident formally to DFS for followup/investigation. DFS never receivedarelatedreport. In January 2008 another abuse/neglect report was received that alleged lack of supervision against the mother. Law enforcement made the report after receiving a call that three small children were unsupervised in a motel. Law enforcement removed the children, and they were placed into Protective Custody.DFSconductedaninvestigation.Duringaninterviewwiththemother,sheadmittedtoleaving the children alone and acknowledged that leaving her 9yearold child in charge was a mistake. At the Protective Custody Hearing, the Court approved the release of the children to the mother pending DFS verification of the mothers housing arrangements and completing interviews with the children. The childrenwerelaterreleasedtothemother. DFSrequestedtheDAsOfficefileapetition,andthepetitionisfiledonboththemotherandthefather. ThechildrenweremadewardsoftheCourt,andtheallegationswerelaterCourtsubstantiated. ThereisnoinformationinthecaserecordorCourtminutesthatindicatesaDFSsupervisoraskedforthe petitiontobedismissedatthePleaHearing. Casedocumentationindicatesthatthepetitionwasamendedagainstthemothertoreflectthatshelacked theresourcestocareforthechildren,followinganegotiationbetweentheparentsattorneysandtheDAs Office. DFSformallymanagedthecaseuntilJuly2008.Thefamilymaintainedfullcompliancewiththecaseplan andparticipatedinservices.AttheJuly2008ReviewHearingtheCourtterminatedwardship,andtheDFS casewasclosed.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
86
87
DACaseID:

Inthiscasethefirstreportregardingneglect/drugusebythemothercamein2002.Thecase wasunsubstantiated. ThenextreportcameinMarch2007.Atthistimethemotherhadthree childrenagesfive,two,sixmonthsandshewaspregnant.Allegationswereagaindruguseand wereunsubstantiated. Nextreports(s)(thereareactuallymultiplereferralsthatcomeinovera periodofdaysinJune2008)arefordruguse,neglectandaneyeconditionsufferedbytheseven montholdthatrequireshospitalization.Theeyeconditionhasdoctorsbaffledandmedical personnelindicatethatsomeofthemothersstoriesdontaddup.Onedoctorsuggestsmedical neglect.Themothertestspositiveinhairandurineformarijuanaandcocaine.OnJune26,2008 thecaseisclosedasunsubstantiated. DFSpolicydirectsthatpositivedrugstestsalonedonot resultinsubstantiation. OnJuly1stthereisanewreportallegingdrugs,domesticviolenceand neglect.ThesecaseswerenotstaffedwiththeDAsoffice.Thiscasewasstillbeinginvestigated whenonJuly6ththesevenmontholdwasadmittedtothehospitalwithskullfractures,brain bleedsandoldribfractures.
34
DFSRESPONSE:
1277618 UNITYCase#: 072008(2) Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): 062008(2) CourtSubstantiated Unsubstantiated Unsubstantiated 032007 Unsubstantiated 092002 Unsubstantiated 072008ReportDate: Female,6YOA Female,1YOA Male,8months
Open Closed
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSin2002,duetoallegationsoflackofnecessityagainstthenatural mother.Thereportallegedthemotherdidnothavethenecessarysuppliestocareforaninfant.DFSstaff conductedaninvestigation,buttherewasalackofcredibleevidencetosupporttheallegations,andthe investigationwasunsubstantiated. InMarch2007,anotherabuse/neglectreportwasreceivedallegingparentsubstanceabuse.Thereport indicated the mother used drugs in the presence of her children. DFS conducted an investigation. The natural mother tested negative for any illegal substance, and the children were found to be properly supervised.Duetolackofcredibleevidence,theinvestigationwasunsubstantiated. InJune2008,DFSreceivedtwonewreportsofabuseandneglect.Thefirstreportallegedfilthyhomeand parentsubstanceabuse.Thereportingsourceindicatedthatthemotherwasnolongercaringformostof her children, and was maintaining care of the youngest child only. The reporting source also indicated concernforthechildthatremainedinthemotherscare,asthechildwasnotabletoopeneithereye.The reportingsourcealsoindicatedthehousewasfilthy. Thereportingsource,inadditiontocallingtheChildAbuseandNeglectHotline,alsocalledtheparamedics regardingthechildseyeissues.Theparamedicsrespondedtothehomeandindicatedthatthechildhad pinkeye,andrequestedfollowupwithaphysician.
88
WheninterviewedaspartoftheDFSinvestigation,themotherindicatedshehadtakenthechildtoseea physician on June 12, 2008, and was provided the appropriate medications for the child. However, DFS received another report of abuse and neglect on June 18, 2008, when the child was admitted to a local hospital.Thechildwasdiagnosedwithpeiorbitalcellulitis,aninflammation/infectioninbotheyes. The physician initially stated when making the report, that abuse/neglect could not be ruled out. However, during the course of the investigation, case record documentation indicates that: [the physician]cannotpinpointwhattheproblemis.[Thephysician]statedthatsomeofmom'sstorymatches up and some of it doesn't. [The physician] stated that the injury to [childs] eye doesn't seem to be intentionalorabuseofanysort. Another physician indicated that there didnt appear to be abuse, but perhaps neglect, as the mother didntunderstandwhatsheneededtodototreatthechildscondition.OnJuly1,thechildwasagainseen byaphysician,andtheeyeinfectionhadgreatlyimproved. Duringthecourseofbothinvestigations,themotherdidtestpositiveforcocaineandmarijuana. Both investigations were unsubstantiated, but the mother agreed to allow her children to reside with a relative while she stabilized the home environment. She was also referred to a substance abuse assessment. ThepolicyreferencedisnotaDFSpolicy,butastatewidepolicypromulgatedbytheDivisionofChildren and Family Services. The Statewide Substantiation Policy, Policy 200, in effect at the time, stated the following: D.Caretakersdrugoralcoholabuseimpairshis/herabilitytosupervise,protectorcareforthe child.Impairmentsuggeststhatacaretakersuseofsubstancesprohibitshim/herfrombeingable toadequatelyperformhis/herparentaldutiesandresponsibilities.Druguseincludesprescription drugs,overthecounterdrugs,aswellastraditionalstreetdrugs.(Thisalsoincludesaninfantwho isbornaffectedbyprenatalillegalsubstanceabuseorwhohaswithdrawalsymptoms).Apositive toxicology test alone is not sufficient to substantiate abuse, but one or more additional factors mustbepresentanddocumented. Examples: Substanceabuseissuespreventcaretakerfromprotectingorprovidingforthechild. Othersafetyfactorspresentaredirectlyrelatedtotheuseofdrugsoralcohol. Thecaretakerhasperiodsofincapacitationduetosubstanceabuse. Thecaretakerusesdrugsinfrontofachildorleavesdrugparaphernaliainareas accessibletochildren. Thecaretakerdriveswiththechildinthevehiclewhenlegallyintoxicatedor incapacitatedbysubstanceabuse. Thecaretakerleavesthehouseholdfrequentlytopurchaseorusedrugswithoutregard tochildsupervision. Thecaretakerallowsnumerousvisitorsintoandoutofthehomeatallhoursoftheday andnightwithoutregardtotheirpotentialharmtothechild(ren). Theparent'swillingnesstorectifyingtheproblemdoesnotalterthesubstantiationoftheneglect allegation. ThecaserecorddoesnotdocumentsufficientinquirybyDFSstaffintothenaturalmothersfrequencyof druguse,andtheimpactthatmayormaynothavehadonherabilitytoparent. InJuly2008,DFSreceivedtwoadditionalreportsofabuseandneglect.ThefirstreportreceivedonJuly1, 2008 alleged plausible risk of physical injury, parent substance abuse, emotional abuse, and domestic
89
violenceagainstthemotherandhernewboyfriend.DFSinvestigatedtheallegations,respondingwithin24 hoursofthereport.DFSstaffinterviewedboththemotherandherboyfriendseparately,andtheyboth denied the allegations. The boyfriend indicated he was outoftown until the day prior to the DFS staff visit. The mother also did not appear to have sustained the physical injuries as described in the report (bustedlipandbrokenbloodvesselinhereye).Thechildrenwereallseen,andtheyappearedtobedoing well.Duetoalackofcredibleevidence,theinvestigationwasunsubstantiated. Priortotheclosureofthatinvestigation,anewreportwasreceivedonJuly6,2008.Thereportindicated thattheyoungestchildwastransportedtoalocalhospitalafter,accordingtothemother,hewasdropped onhis head. Theinjuries were not consistent with themothers explanation, as the child suffered from severeheadtraumaandwasalsofoundtohavemultipleribfracturesinvariousstagesofhealing. Thechildrenwereallremovedfromthehome,andplacedinProtectiveCustody. Allchildrenremainincare,withtheexceptionofonewhowasplacedwiththebiologicalfather.Thetermination ofthemothersparentalrightsiscurrentlypending.Thepermanencyplanfortheremainingchildrenisadoption byarelative.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A

90
DACaseID:

Inthiscasethefirstreportcamein2006forphysicalabuse,emotionalabuseanddomestic violence.Itwasunsubstantiated. InOctober2007acitizeneyewitnesssawthefatherhitthesix yearoldintheface57times.Lawenforcementdescribedthefatherastransient,thehomeasa messandarrestedhimforchildabuse.Thesixyearolddescribedbeinghiteverydayaswellas beingforcedtodomilitarytypepunishmentlikepushups.Theboyaskedpolicetoteachmeto beabetterkidsomydadwonthitme. TheassignedDDAinsistedthatapetitionbefiledand thatthecasebehandledwithformalwardshipandcustody.TheDAobjectedwhenDFSandthe CourtreturnedthechildtothefatherandtheDDAobjectedagainwhentheCourtterminated WardshipMarch31,2008,asthefatherhadnotcompletedhiscaseplan. Twomonthslater therewasanewreportwhenthefatherhittheboyandfracturedthechildshand.Thechildis nowawardofthecourtagain.
35
DFSRESPONSE:
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSinNovember2005,duetoallegationsofphysicalabuse,emotional abuse, and domestic violence against the natural mother. DFS conducted an investigation of the allegations,andduetoalackofcredibleevidencetheinvestigationwasunsubstantiated. On October 2, 2007, DFS received a subsequent report alleging physical abuse and parent in jail. There was an eye witness to the abuse (a repairman working in an adjacent home) who reported seeing the fatherstrikethechildandmadeareporttolawenforcement.Lawenforcementmadecontactwiththe fatherwhodeniedtheincident,butthechilddisclosedthathewashitandthathewassubjecttomilitary typepunishment.Thefatherwasarrestedfortheabuse,andthechildwasremovedfromthehome.The matterwassetforaProtectiveCustodyHearingOctober4,2007. At the October 4, 2007 Protective Custody Hearing the child remained in custody and the matter was scheduledforCourtreviewonOctober11,2007.AttheReviewHearing,thematterwasreferredforplea which was scheduled for October 22, 2007. DFS immediately submitted a petition request to the DAs Office.TheDAsOfficedidnotfilethepetitionasrequestedbyDFS.DFSlaterconferredwiththeDAs Officeandwasrequiredtoresubmitthepetitionrequest;theReviewHearingwasrescheduled. OnOctober29,2007,theDAindicatedapreferenceforthecasetobeCourtinvolveddueprimarilytothe eyewitnessandthephysicalbruisingonthechild.Thecaserecorddocumentationdoesnotindicatethat DFSstaffpreferred,atanypoint,tohandlethiscaseinformally.ThePleaHearingwasheldonNovember 5,2007.ThefatherdeniedtheallegationandthematterwassetforanEvidentiaryHearinginDecember. AttheEvidentiaryHearing,thepetitionwassustained,andthechildwasmadeaformalwardoftheCourt. Thechildremainedinoutofhomecare,placedwitharelative.
91
1323026 052008 CourtSubstantiated 102007 CourtSubstantiated 112005 Unsubstantiated 052008ReportDate: Male,8YOA
Open Closed
OnJanuary7,2008,attheDispositionalHearing,theDAarguedagainsttheDFSrecommendationthatthe childbereturnedtothefatherforthepurposesofaTrialHomeVisit.DFSbasedtherecommendationon the fathers compliance with his case plan, attendance at parenting classes, and his anger management assessment/treatment. The Court agreed with DFS. The DA requested a stay of the order, which was denied.TheDAalsoindicatedanappealwouldbeforthcoming.Thereisnoindicationthattheappealwas filed.Thechildwasreturnedtothecareofthefatherthatsameday. On March 31, 2008, at the Review Hearing, the Court indicated that the father had worked diligently at completing his case plan and objectives, and terminated Court wardship of the child. DFS informed the Courtthatthefatherhadnotcompletedtheangermanagementassessment/treatment.Thereisnocase recorddocumentationtoindicatethatDFSrecommendedcaseclosureatthattime. InMay2008,DFSreceivedasubsequentreportofabuse/neglectallegingphysicalabuseagainstthefather. Thechildhadsustainedafracturedhand.DFSconductedaninvestigation,whichwasCourtsubstantiated.
ThechildremainsinDFScarewithapermanencyplanofreunificationwiththenaturalmotherwhoresidesin California.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A

92
DACaseID:

ThefirstreportinthiscasecametoDFSinJune2006.Allegationsweredomesticviolenceand filthyhome.Caseunsubstantiated. NextreportcameinFeb2007withallegationsofphysical abuseandneglect.InvestigationstartedinFebandtherearenonotesuntilanewinvestigatoris assigned8monthslaterinOctober2007.CaseisclosedunsubstantiatedinNovember. New reportonMarch5,2008allegationsaredomesticviolence.Childrenareinfantand2yearold toddler.CaseclosedMarch11thasunsubstantiated.CasenotstaffedwiththeDAsoffice. Withinonemonththeinfantisfounddeadinaclutteredcrib.Petitionnowfiledforneglect,filthy homeanddomesticviolence.
36
DFSRESPONSE:
1328975 042008 CourtSubstantiated 032008 Unsubstantiated 022007 Unsubstantiated 062006 Unsubstantiated 042008ReportDate: Female,2YOA Female,5months(deceased) X Open(permanencyreview102110)
Closed Yes No
This family came to the attention of DFS in June 2006, due to allegations of emotional abuse, domestic violence,filthyhome,andlackofnecessityagainstthenaturalmotherandfather.Thereportwasfiledby a military base Family Advocacy Center. DFS conducted an investigation, but could not confirm that domestic violence was a factor in the home. The parents participated in marriage counseling and were willingtoattendparentingclasses.Lackingcredibleevidence,thecasewasclosedasunsubstantiated. InFebruary2007,DFSreceivedasubsequentreportofabuse/neglectallegingphysicalabuseandlackof necessityagainstthemotherandfather.ThereportwasagainfiledbytheFamilyAdvocacyCenter.The reporter indicated that the child had physical injuries and was filthy. DFS initiated the investigation; however,thereisalackofcaserecorddocumentationbetweencasenotesenteredaftertheinitiationin February and October 2007. Based ontheabsenceof documentation, the case reviewersassume there wasanabsenceinDFSserviceprovisionaswell. In October 2007, the case was reassigned to a new investigator and the case record documentation improved.AtthetimeofDFSfollowup,themotherhadgivenbirthtoasecondchild.WhentheDFSStaff contactedthefamily,theolderchildhadrecentlybeenseenatalocalhospital,andthephysicianindicated the child had a diaper rash, but that the parents were providing appropriate care. Body checks were conductedonbothchildrenandtherewerenovisiblemarksorbruises.Uponinspection,thefamilyhome wasconsideredappropriate.Duetoalackofcredibleevidence,theinvestigationwasunsubstantiated. InMarch2008,DFSreceivedasubsequentreportofabuse/neglectallegingdomesticviolenceagainstthe mother and the father. The reporting source indicated there was altercation between the parents, and thatthefatherhadbeendetainedbymilitarypoliceasaresult.Thesourcealsoindicatedtherewasaprior
93
incidentofdomesticviolenceinSeptember2007. DFS initiated an investigation. A body check was conducted on the children, and there were no visible marksorbruise.TheparentscontinuedtoworkwiththemilitaryFamilyAdvocacyCentertoresolvetheir interpersonalissues.Theinvestigationwasunsubstantiated;thecasewasnotstaffedwiththeDAsOffice. InMarch2008,DFSreceivedareportallegingdeathofchild,emotionalabuse,andfilthyhomeagainstthe motherandfather.MilitarypolicereferredthecasetoDFSafterachildwasfoundnotbreathinginacrib filledwithstuffedanimals.DFSconductedaninvestigationincooperationwiththemilitarypolice.Thecrib was found to be cluttered, filled with dirty diapers and stuffed animals. The surviving sibling was taken intoProtectiveCustodyandplacedwitharelative.TheinvestigationwasCourtsubstantiated.
ThesurvivingsiblingremainsinDFScareandisplacedwithrelative.Aterminationofparentalrightsispending, andthepermanencyplanforthechildisadoption.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
TheinvestigatorassignedtothecaseinFebruary2007,isnolongerwiththeagency.
94
DACaseID:

In2006,oneofthemostbrutalcasesofchildabuseobservedinthelastfiveyearswasbrought totheattentionofDFS.Thecaseinvolvedathreeyearoldlittlegirlwhohadtraveledtothe UnitedStatesfromEuropewithhermothertostaywithanindividualinLasVegas.Duringthe approximatethreemonthsthatshewasherebeforeactuallybeingplacedintoprotectivecustody, thelittlegirlsustainedabrokenarm,hadherfingernailspulledoff,waspunchedinthefacewhile beingforcedtostickhertongueout,hadmultiplecontusionstoherbodyandhadalife threateninginjurythatrequiredemergencyevacuationoffluidsonherbrain.Theprimary perpetratoroftheinjurieswasidentifiedasthemothersboyfriend.Anabuse/neglectpetition wassustainedagainsthiminjuvenilecourtwhenhefailedtoparticipateinthoseproceedings. Criminalchargeswerefiledagainstbothindividualsandthemotherwasultimatelydeported beforeacriminalcasecouldberesolvedagainsther.Thecriminalchargesagainsttheboyfriend wereultimatelydismissedbasedonevidentiaryissues. In2008,theboyfriendbecameafather toabiologicaldaughterandalocaldistrictcourtjudgeawardedhimphysicalcustodyofthechild. ThatinformationwasultimatelyreportedtoDFSinMarch2009.DFSperformedaninvestigation andSafetyAssessment,whichdidnotsupporttheremovalofthenewbabydespitethecourts substantiationofthephysicalabusetotheotherchild.DFSdidnotsubmitapetitionrequestfor thecase. TheassignedDDAfiledapetitionwithouttherequestofDFStoseekprotective custodyofthebaby.TheassignedDDAalsofiledamotiontohavethebabyplacedintoprotective custodypendingtheresolutionofthepetition. TheHearingMasterdeniedthemotionfor placementintoprotectivecustodybasedonthepositiontakenbyDFSinleavingthechildinthe careofthefather.DFSdidperformaRiskAssessmentandindicatedthattherisktothebabywas veryhighasaresultofthehistoricalinformationconcerningthefather,yettheyrefusedtotake anyactiontoremovethechild.
37
DFSRESPONSE:
1353791/1329753 UNITYCase#: 032009 Unsubstantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 032009Report: Female,1YOA
Open Closed
This case came to the attention of DFS in 2006, due to allegations of physical abuse against the natural motherandherboyfriend.Thechildinvolvedinthecasesufferedmultiplephysicalinjuries,indicativeof abuse.Criminalchargesfortheabusewerefiledonboththemotherandtheboyfriend.Thechild,once recovered, was placed in the care of the natural father who resided in Germany. The mother was deportedpriortoanyresolutionofthecriminalcaseandthechargesagainsttheboyfriendweredismissed duetoevidentiaryissues.DFSconductedaninvestigation,whichwasCourtsubstantiated.Theboyfriend didnotparticipatein/attendanyhearingsrelatedtothechildwelfarecase.
95
In2008,DFSreceivedanewreportofabuse/neglectontheboyfriend(detailedabove)asaDistrictCourt Judgeawardedhimphysicalcustodyofhisbiologicalchild.DFSinitiatedaninvestigationandassessedthe safety and risk of the child. The child was not found to be in immediate or imminent danger of serious harm.Duetothefatherspriorchildwelfarehistory,however,theriskassessmentwasfoundtobehigh toveryhighforfutureriskofmaltreatment.ServiceswereprovidedtothefatherthroughEarlyChildhood Services (ECS). ECS reported that the father was appropriate with his child, but that he could use assistance in setting boundaries as the child often controlled the household. In addition, DFS staff conductedmultipleunannouncedhomevisitsandthechildwasneverfoundtohaveanymarksorbruises andwasneverobservedtobefearfulofthefather. TheDAsOfficefiledapetitionindependentlyfromDFS.Thepetitionallegedthatthebiologicalchildwasin needofprotectionduetothepreviouslysubstantiatedphysicalabuseand/orimpropersupervision.The DAsOfficearguedfortheremovalofthebiologicalchild,whichtheCourtdidnotgrantduetoafailureto findconditionsofimmediatedangerbasedonthefatherscurrentactionsorinactions. Though the child was not removed, as requested by the DA, DFS continued to monitor the case thru October2009.Thefathervoluntarilyparticipatedinservices. Duringthissametimeperiod,thefathersattorneychallengedthe2006substantiatedpetitionindicating theDAdidnotprovidepropernoticeofservice.The2006substantiatedpetitionservedasthebasisforthe 2008petitionfiling.ThiscasewasheardbytheNevadaSupremeCourt,whichruledthatthefatherdidnot receivepropernoticeofservice,and,thus,theruling(petition)in2006wasoverturned. Asaresultoftheoverturned2006petition,therewasconsequentlynobasisforthe2008petitionasits argumentrestedsolelyonthe2006case.TheDAsOfficeverballyadvisedDFSthattheirofficewouldre fileonthe2006case.Todate,thatfilinghasnotoccurred.
This case is currently closed, and there have been no additional reports received on this family for 1 year, 6 months.
RelevantStatute:
NRS432B.520Issuanceofsummons;authorizingtheassumptionofcustodybycourtandremovalofchildfrom certainconditions;authorizingtheattachmentofchildandplacementofchildinprotectivecustody. 1.Afterapetitionhasbeenfiled,thecourtshalldirecttheclerktoissueasummonsrequiringthepersonwho hascustodyorcontrolofthechildtoappearpersonallyandbringthechildbeforethecourtatatimeandplace stated in the summons. If the person so summoned is other than a parent or guardian of the child, then the parentorguardian,orboth,mustalsobenotifiedbyasimilarsummonsofthependencyofthehearingandofthe timeandplaceappointed. 2.Summonsmaybeissuedrequiringtheappearanceofanyotherpersonwhosepresence,intheopinionof thecourt,isnecessary. 3.Eachsummonsmustincludenoticeoftherightofpartiestocounselattheadjudicatoryhearing.Acopyof thepetitionmustbeattachedtoeachsummons. 4.Ifthe: (a)Personsummonedresidesinthisstate,thesummonsmustbeservedpersonally; (b)Personsummonedcannotbefoundwithinthisstateordoesnotresideinthisstate,thesummonsmustbe mailedbyregisteredorcertifiedmailtothelastknownaddressoftheperson;or (c)ChildwasdeliveredtoaproviderofemergencyservicespursuanttoNRS432B.630andthelocationofthe parent is unknown, the summons must be served on the parent by publication at least once a week for 3 consecutive weeks in a newspaper published in the county and if no such newspaper is published, then a
96
newspaperpublishedinthisstatethathasageneralcirculationinthecounty.Thefailureoftheparenttoappear in the action after the service of summons on the parent pursuant to this paragraph shall be deemed to constitute a waiver by the parent of any further notice of the proceedings that would otherwise be required pursuanttothischapter. 5.Ifitappearsthatthechildisinsuchconditionorsurroundingsthatthewelfareofthechildrequiresthat custodybeimmediatelyassumedbythecourt,thecourtmayorder,byendorsementuponthesummons,thatthe person serving it shall at once deliver the child to an agency which provides child welfare services in whose custodythechildmustremainuntilthefurtherorderofthecourt. 6.Ifthesummonscannotbeservedorthepersonwhohascustodyorcontrolofthechildfailstoobeyit,or: (a)Inthejudgesopinion,theservicewillbeineffectualorthewelfareofthechildrequiresthatthechildbe broughtforthwithintothecustodyofthecourt;or (b) A person responsible for thechilds welfare has absconded with the child orconcealed thechild froma representativeofanagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservices, thecourtmayissueawritfortheattachmentofthechildsperson,commandingalawenforcementofficerora representativeofanagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservicestoplacethechildinprotectivecustody. (AddedtoNRSby1985,1381;A1991,922;2001,1259;2001SpecialSession,49)
N/A
97
DACaseID:

Thiscaseinvolvesafouryearoldchildwithfacialbruising.Themotherfailedtoprovidean explanationfortheinjuries,whichwerecredibleandthecourtsustainedthepetitionattrial. Approximately30daysbeforethetrial,themothergavebirthtoasecondchild.DFSknewthat themotherwaspregnantandfailedtotakeanyactiontopreventthebabyfrombeingreleased fromthehospitaldespitetheolderchildbeinginprotectivecustodyandthemotherbeingthe primarysuspectinthephysicalabuseoftheolderchild.DFSthenprovidedaminimal investigationandlearnedthatthemotherhadmovedinaboyfriendwithDomesticViolence convictionsfrom2007(Arizona)and2008(Florida)andhehadnotundergoneanycounselingto addressthesituation.TheinvestigatorandsupervisorassessedthematterbasedontheDFS SafetyandRiskAssessmenttoolsandleftthebabyinthecareofthemother. Thetrialwas ultimatelyconductedonMarch23,2009andthemotherwasfoundtoberesponsibleforthe injuriestotheolderchild.Attheconclusionofthetrial,theDDAaskedforthebabytobe removedfromthemotherbasedonherphysicalabuseoftheoldersibling.DFSwasnot supportiveoftheremovalandtheHearingMasterleftthechildwiththemotherpendingfurther investigation.AssignedDDAmadeanabuse/neglectreportwhenDFSrefusedtopickupthe baby.DDAthendiscussedmatterwithinvestigator,supervisorandassistantmanagerregarding SafetyandRiskAssessments.DFSrefusedtosubmitapetitionrequestandDDAfiledwithoutDFS support.Babyremainedwithphysicallyabusivemotheranddomesticviolenceperpetrating boyfriendandtherewasnosafetyplanimplementedbyDFS. Atrialwasheldonthesecond petitionandtheHearingMasterdismissedthepetitionbasedlargelyonthefactthatDFSdidnot findanyimmediateorimpendingsafetythreatstothechildon2homevisits.Theolderchild remainswithfamilymemberswhilethebabyishomewiththephysicallyabusivemotherandno monitoringofthesituation.DFSplanstoreunitetheolderchilddespitethemothersrefusalto provideanexplanationfortheheadinjuriestotheolderchild. Themotherhasabuse/neglectproceedingsinGermanyandLouisianabutDFSfailedto obtainthoserecordsduringeitheroftheirinvestigations.
38
DFSRESPONSE:
1350065 042009 102008 Unsubstantiated CourtSubstantiated
042009ReportDate: Male,4YOA Female,1month
Open Closed
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSinOctober2008,duetoallegationsofphysicalabuseagainstthe naturalmother.Uponinvestigation,thechildwasfoundtohavebruisingtotheface,consistentwithhand prints.Thechildindicatedthatthemotherhadcausedtheinjury,althoughthemotherdeniedcausingthe bruising.ThechildwasplacedinProtectiveCustody,andDFSrequestedtheDAsOfficefileapetition.The allegationswereCourtsubstantiatedandthechildwasplacedwiththematernalgrandparents.
98
ThemothergavebirthtoanewchildinFebruary2009.ThecaserecorddoesnotdocumentDFStookany action to prevent the release of the newborn from the hospital to the natural mother. DFS staff did complete, however, a risk and safety assessment on this child; the child was deemed safe and not in immediateorimminentdangerofseriousharm. DFSstaffwasawarethefatherofthenewbornchildwasconvictedofdomesticviolencecrimesinArizona andFlorida. InMarch2009,theDAsOfficefiledanewreportofabuse/neglectwiththehotlineonthenaturalmother allegingphysicalriskofharmforthenewborn.DFSconductedaninvestigationintotheseallegations.The DAsOfficeindependentlyfiledapetitiononthisinvestigation.Thispetitionwouldnotbeheardbythe CourtuntilJune,2009. TheEvidentiaryHearingforthefirstpetitionwasheldonMarch23,2009.Thepetitionwasupheldandthe mother deemed responsible for the injuries to the child. Court minutes reflect that the DAs Office requestedtheotherchildbeplacedinProtectiveCustody,butthattheCourtdeniedtherequest.These minutesdonotdetailthepositionofDFSstaffontheplacementorcustodystatusofthechild. ThepetitionfiledindependentlybytheDAsOfficeinMarch2009regardingthebirthofthenewchildwas dismissedbytheCourtonJune8,2009.BetweenthedatesthepetitionwasfiledindependentlybytheDA andtheJune8hearingwherethepetitionwasdismissed(approximately3months),DFSstaffconducted8 homevisits. ThemotherinthiscasedoeshavechildwelfarehistoryinGermanyandLouisiana.DFSstaffrequestedthe child welfare history from Louisiana on April 8, 2009. There is no case record documentation regarding suchrequesttoGermany.
OnAugust26,2009,thechildplacedinoutofhomecarewasreunifiedwiththemotherasshehadcompleted hercaseplan. DFS continued to monitor this case, conducting more than 19 home visits between the time the child was reunifiedandApril8,2010whentheCourtterminatedwardship.Themotherhaddemonstratedappropriate parenting skills and engaged in outside services. At this hearing, the case record documented that the DA requestedthatthenaturalmotheradmittocausingtheinjuriestothechild.TheCourtrepliedthatthemother hadcompliedwiththeCourtsrequestsandthatherfocusshouldbeonthewelfareofherchildren. This case is currently closed, and there have been no additional reports received on this family for 1 year, 5 months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
99
100
DACaseID:

DFShadanoriginalreportin2007regardingmentalhealthissuesforthemother.Therewasno courtinvolvementonthatcase. In2009DFSreceivedanotherreportregardingmentalhealth issuesforthemother,alcoholproblemsanddomesticviolencebetweenmotherandfatherof newbornchild.DFSinvestigationrevealedthatmotherhadherrightsterminatedtotheoldest child(childin2007report)inUtahasaresultofheralcoholproblemsandfailuretoworkacase plan. DFSleftthechildinthehomewiththenewfatherandenactedasafetyplan,which permittedthemothertoalsoremaininthehomewithadditionalsupervisors(familymembers andneighbors).Attheprotectivecustodyhearing,thecourtapprovedthesafetyplan. The assignedDDAfiledapetitionattherequestofDFS.Atthepleahearingon6/9/09,DFSinformed theassignedDDAandthecourtthatthebiologicalfatherwasatier2sexoffender.DFSdidnot recommendtheremovalofthechildfromthesexoffenderscare,deferringthatdecisiontothe court.TheDDAaskedforthecourttomodifytheplacementandplacethechildwiththematernal grandmother.Fortunately,thecourtmodifiedtheplacementofthechildpendingfurther investigationbyDFS. Unfortunately,thesexoffenderfatherandthementallyunstable,alcohol usingmotherwerepermittedtocontinuetoresideinthehomewiththematernalgrandmother andchild.
39
DFSRESPONSE:
1339061 052010 CourtSubstantiated 042010 Unsubstantiated 052009 CourtSubstantiated 072007 Unsubstantiated 052009ReportDate: Male,1YOA(adopted) Male,1month
Open Closed
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSinJuly2007duetoallegationsofparentmentalincapacity,parent substance abuse, and physical abusethreat of harm against the natural mother. The report was made subsequenttothebirthofachild.Thereportingsourcewasthenewbornchildsnaturalfather. DFS initiatedaninvestigation and requestedlaw enforcement and medical response to the home at the timeoftheinitialvisit.Thereportindicatedthatthemotherwasapotentialharmtoherselforthechild, andDFSstaffanticipatedthatadditionalassistancemaybenecessary.Uponarrival,themotherappeared to be fine and was at home with her sister who had come from California to assist with the newborn. Interviews with the mother indicated that the mother and the childs natural father had recently separated, and that he had promised to retaliate. The mother indicated she would be relocating to California, and DFS staff followedup once she moved by making a report to California child welfare services.ThereportwasscreenedoutbyCalifornia,asitdidnotrisetothelevelofabuse/neglect,butit wasreferredtoacommunityagency.DFSunsubstantiatedtheinvestigation.
101
In May 2009, DFS received a report of abuse/neglect alleging physical risk of harm against the natural motherandfather.Thereportindicatedthatthemotherandfatherhadanargumentandshethreatened to harm herself, him, and the newborn child. The father left and when he returned, found the mother coveredinblood.Themotherwastransportedtoalocalmentalhealthhospital. Duringtheinvestigation,DFSstaffconfirmedthatthechildwhowas thesubjectofthe2007reportwas adoptedbyafamilyinUtahduetothemothersmentalhealthissuesandinabilitytoworkacaseplan. Thenewbornchildwasunharmedbytheincidentwiththemother,butremainedinthecareofthefather. Themotherwasallowedtoremaininthehome,butwasonlyallowedtohavesupervisedcontactwiththe infant. The maternal grandmother relocated from California, and moved in with the family to offer assistancewiththenewbornandwithsupervisionofthemother. ThesafetyplanasdescribedabovewasapprovedbytheCourtattheProtectiveCustodyHearingheldon June3,2009. TheDAsOfficefiledapetitionattherequestofDFS.AtthePleaHearing,DFSadvisedtheCourtthatthe biological father of the newborn child was a Tier II sex offender (20022003 conviction in Oregon). However,thefathercompletedalltermsofhisprobation.ThechildwasthenplacedbytheCourtintothe careofthematernalgrandmother.DFSreferredthefatherforapsychosexualassessment.Hecompleted theassessmentandengagedintreatment. Thecaserecorddocumentationdoesnotindicatethatthechildsplacementdecisionwasdeferredtothe CourtbyDFSstaff. Caserecorddocumentationindicatedthatwhilethechildwasplacedinthecareofthegrandmother,that the grandmother and child still resided in the family home (essentially providing the same placement arrangementagreedtointhesafetyplan). Information regarding the maternal grandmothers residence and her relocation from California is provided throughout case record documentation. It does not reflect whether or not the Court or DAs Office was also aware of this, but given the maternal grandmothers involvement in the case it may be reasonabletoassumewhentheCourtorderedthechildintothecareofthegrandmotherthatallparties wereawaresheresidedinthehomewithboththenaturalmotherandfather.
DFScontinuedtoprovidecasemanagementservicestothisfamily,andreceivedtwosubsequentabuse/neglect reports.InApril2010,anewreportwasreceivedrelatedtothemothergivingbirthtoanewchildandthelack ofcomplianceincompletinghercurrentplan.Thereportwasinvestigatedandunsubstantiated. The following month another report was received. The grandmother intervened when the mother physically attackedachild.Thegrandmotherdidnotimmediatelycallthepolice,andwasnolongerdeemedprotectiveof thechildren.Thechildrenwereremovedfromthehomeandarecurrentlyplacedinoutofhomecare,although ICPChasrecentlybeenapprovedforplacementofthechildrenwithapaternalgreatauntanduncleinIdaho.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
102
N/A
103
DACaseID:

DFSoriginallybecameinvolvedinMay2007regardingthemotherleavingherphysically disabledchildrenhomealoneforaminimumperiodofthirtyminutes.DFSconductedminimal investigationandultimatelyclosedthecaseunsubstantiatedwhenthemotherfledwiththe childrenandDFScouldnotsubsequentlylocatethem. AsecondreferralcametoDFSonJune6, 2008,whichallegedNeglect/ParentsSubstanceAbuse,EducationalNeglect,MedicalNeglect Neglect/LackofSupervision,EmotionalAbuseandNeglect.DFSactuallyrecommendedapetition onthisreferralandthecourtsustainedtheallegationsafterthemotheradmittedtheissues existed. OnFebruary9,2009,anewreportwascalledinforanabuse/neglectregardinganew baby.Thereportindicatedthattheolderchildrenhadnotbeenreturnedtothemotherbasedon herfailuretocompletehercaseplanandthatthemotherdidnothaveadequateresourcesfor thenewbaby.Duringthecourseofthatinvestigation,themothertestedpositiveforecstasyand wasobservedbreastfeedingthebaby.Despitethepositivedrugtestresultsandthecontinued problems,DFSfoundthebabysafe,leftthebabywiththedrugusingmotherandunsubstantiated thecase.Apetitionwasneversubmittedtothedistrictattorneysofficeforcourtinvolvement. OnApril21,2009,DFSreceivedafourthreferralregardingthemotherandthisoneinvolvedthe medicalneglectofthenewbaby.DuringthecourseoftheinvestigationDFSleftthechildinthe careofthemotherandfinallyplacedthematteronforaprotectivecustodyhearingonJune3, 2009.Duringtheinvestigation,themothertestedpositiveonMarch26,2009,forcocaineinher hair,onMay7,2009,positiveforalcoholinherhairandonMay12,2009,positiveforcocainein herurine.Despitethemotherscontinueddruguse,DFSleftthechildinthehomeclaimingthat therewerenosafetyissuessupportingtheremovalofthechild.DFSdidrequestapetitiontobe filedbytheDAsoffice.
40
DFSRESPONSE:
1337697 042010 Unsubstantiated 072009 CourtSubstantiated 042009 Substantiated 022009 Unsubstantiated 062008 CourtSubstantiated 052007 Unsubstantiated 042009ReportDate: Female,8YOA Male,7YOA Male,3YOA Male,3months
Open Closed
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSonMay19,2007duetoanallegationoflackofsupervisionagainst thenaturalmother.Thereportwasmadebylawenforcementwhorespondedtothemothersresidence toacomplaintthatchildrenwerelefthomealone.Upontheirarrival,theyfound3childrenhomealone, and30minuteslaterthemotherarrived,indicatingshehadleftthemtopayhercellphonebill.Thehome was sufficient and there was food and supplies necessary to care for the children. One of the children sufferedfrommusculardystrophy. DFSinitiatedaninvestigationandmadecontactwiththefamilyonMay21,2007.Attheinitialvisitthe mother was caring for the medically fragile child, but the other children were with the paternal grandmother.Themotherdeniedtheallegationsindicatingsheleftthechildrenforonlyfor15minutes
104
and had asked a neighbor to assist with watching the children. She acknowledged the neighbor never came to the residence. DFS interviewed the paternal grandmother confirming the location of the remainingchildren. DFS staff received a followup call from the paternal grandmother on May 24, 2007 indicating she was concernedasthemotherhadleftforCalifornia.DFSstaffcompletedacomprehensiveelectronicsearch for themothers whereabouts, but was unable tolocate hernew address. Thecase was closedJuly21, 2007asunsubstantiated,asDFSstaffwasnotabletolocatethefamilytocompletetheinvestigation. On June 6, 2008, DFS received a second report of abuse/neglect alleging emotional abuse, domestic violence, education neglect, lack of necessity, lack of supervision, and parent substance abuse. DFS initiatedaninvestigationandrequestedtheDAsOfficefileapetition.Thechildrenweremadewardsof theCourt,andplacedwithrelatives.TheinvestigationwasCourtsubstantiated. OnFebruary9,2009,DFSreceivedareportofabuse/neglectinreferencetothemothersnewbornchild allegingplausibleriskofphysicalinjury.DFSpermanencystafffiledthereportwiththehotline.Thereport doesnotindicatethemotherwasnoncompliantwithhercaseplan.Thereportwasfiledasthechildhad beenreleasedfromthehospitalwiththenaturalmother,despiteDFSstaffhavingcalledlocalHospitalsto reportthependingbirthandrequestaCPSreportbefiledwiththeHotlineatthetimeoftheactualbirth. An investigation was initiated, and the mother and newborn child were referred to Nevada Early InterventionServicesandareferralwasmadeforapublichealthnurse(whowaslaterassigned). During the course of the investigation the mother tested positive in her hair for low levels of illegal substance,buttestednegativeforillegalsubstanceinherurine.Themotherwasbreastfeedingthechild duringthistime.Concernedaboutthemothersdrugusewhilebreastfeeding,DFSstafffollowedupwitha scientist at the lab who indicated that because the mother tested negative in the urine, she was not passingsubstancestothechildthroughbreastmilk.Further,ifanysubstanceswerepassingtothechild throughbreastmilkthenthechildwouldhaveapositiveurinetest.Thechildsurinetestednegativefor illegalsubstancesinFebruaryandMay,2009. The child remained in the home with the mother and the investigation was closed as unsubstantiated. CaserecorddocumentationdoesnotindicatetheinvestigationwasstaffedwiththeDAsOffice. OnApril2009,DFSreceivedasubsequentreportofabuse/neglectallegingmedicalneglectandplausible riskofphysicalinjuryagainstthemotherregardinghercareofthenewbornchild.Thereportisfiledbya Wraparound In Nevada case manager. The reporting source indicated the mother failed to provide medicalcareforthechild.Thereportingsourcealsoindicatedconcernregardingthemothersdruguse andbreastfeeding. An investigation was initiated, and DFS staff interviewed the childs pediatrician who indicated the child hasbeenseenwithfrequency,includingonFebruary17and26,March31,andApril14.Thepediatrician did not indicate concern for the childs wellbeing. Further, DFS staff confirmed the mother had also followedupwiththeneurologistregardingtestingthebabyforahereditarycondition. Due to continued concerns regarding the mothers drug testing and breastfeeding, DFS staff again contactedthelabtodiscussmothersdrugresultsonMay18,2009.Thescientistreviewedthemothers drugtestsfromMarch26,May7,andMay12,2009.Thescientistconcludedthatthedrugtestssuggested reuse,however,didnotbelievethatthemotherslevelswerehighenoughthattheywouldpassto the child through breast milk. As mentioned previously, the childs urine was tested for illegal substance duringthistimeandtestednegative.
105
DFSstaffsubstantiatedtheinvestigationforplausibleriskofphysicalinjuryandtookProtectiveCustodyof thechild.DFSstaffrequestedtheDAsOfficefileapetition;thefatherwas addedtothepetitionasan allegedperpetratorofabuse/neglect.Thechildwasnot,however,immediatelyremovedfromthehome. TheProtectiveCustodyHearingwasheldonJune3,2009,andtheCourtagreedthechildcouldremainin the home with the mother, with the stipulation that the father visits regularly. The mother and father deniedtheallegationsatthePleaHearingandanEvidentiaryHearingwasscheduled. Prior to the Evidentiary Hearing, however, DFS received a new report of abuse/neglect on July 16, 2009 regarding a domestic violence incident that occurred between the mother and father. When the Evidentiary Hearing was held on September 18, 2009 both parents entered a no contest plea to the petition.AttheDispositionalHearing,thecaseplanswerereviewedandacceptedbytheCourt,andthe childwasmadeaformalward.Atthattime,thechildwasnolongerinthecareofeitherparent,having beenremovedsubsequenttotheJuly16report. DFScontinuestoprovideongoingcasemanagementservices.Thetwoolderchildrenwerereunifiedwiththe motherinDecember,2009.TheinfantwasreunifiedinJanuary2010. To date, the mother has completed her case plan. The father, however, has not completed his domestic violencecounseling.ThemotherrelinquishedherparentalrightstothemedicallyfragilechildinFebruary2010. Adoptionispendingforthatchild. AttheReviewHearingheldinJune2010,DFSrecommendedcaseclosure,buttheCourtoptedtokeepthecase openforanother90days,settingastatuscheckinSeptember2010.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
106
107
DACaseID:

OnMay18,2009,DFSreceivedareport(5threferral)regardingadomesticviolence situationinvolvingachild.WhenDFSresponded,theylearnedthatthemotherofthechildhad originallycometotheattentionofDFSin1999andhadanagencysubstantiatedcaseforlack ofsupervision.TheninApril2001areportregardingthemothersuseofcrackcocainewas minimallyinvestigatedandclosedasunsubstantiatedwithoutDFSrequestingadrugtestfrom themother.ThethirdreferralcameinAugust2002regardingimpropersupervision,lackof resourcesanddrugsells.AgainDFSdidaminimalinvestigationandevenafterthemother admittednothavingfoodinthehome;theyclosedthecaseasunsubstantiated.DFSprovided somefoodvouchersanddidnotinvestigatetheunderlyingcausesincludingnodrugtesting forthemother.ThefourthreferraltoDFSoccurredinJanuary2003andinvolveddruguseby themother.DFSfinallyrequestedapetitionandthecourtsubstantiatedtheallegations.The childrenwereplacedintofostercareandthemotherultimatelyfailedtocompleteacaseplan andhadherparentalrightsterminatedtothechildren. Astothe5threferral,DFSinvestigatedthematterandfoundthatthemotherwasresiding witharegisteredsexoffender(grandfather),thegrandmotherandafamilyfriend.Themother haddeniedusingdrugsbutultimatelytestedpositiveformethamphetamine,cocaineandcoca ethyleneinMay2009.Despitethehistory,currentdruguse,sexoffenderresidinginthe homeandthefatherofthechildcommittingmultipleactsofdomesticviolence,DFSleftthe childinthehomeandinformedthecourtthattherearenosafetyissuesnecessitatingthe removalofthechild.
41
DFSRESPONSE:
UNITYCase#: Date(s)ofReport(s) HighlightedReport(s)Specific toDADescription):
1267768 052009 CourtSubstantiated 102003 CourtSubstantiated 012003 CourtSubstantiated 082002 Unsubstantiated 042001 Unsubstantiated 111999 Substantiated 041997 Substantiated 52009ReportDate(forchildwithintactparentalrights): Female,1YOA
AgeofChild(ren)Involved: CaseStatusasofReview: SummaryResponse:
Open Closed
OnMay18,2009,DFSreceivedareportofabuse/neglectallegingplausibleriskofphysicalharmagainst thenaturalmother.Thereportwasmadebylawenforcementwhorespondedtoadomesticdispute complaint. This family had prior child welfare history dating back to April 1997, which included four previously substantiated investigations (two with Court involvement), and two unsubstantiated investigations. TheApril2001,reportallegedparentsubstanceabuse.DFSstaffcontactedthemother,whoindicated sheandherchildwerelivingwithhermother.Shetoldstaffthatthechildsfatherwastryingtolocate her, and that he was hoping to do that through filing a report with child protective services. The motherappearedwellasdidthechild.Thechildhadnosignsofabuse/neglect.Thecasewasclosedas unsubstantiated.
108
InAugust2002,anotherreportwasreceivedalleginglackofnecessityandlackofsupervisionagainst thenaturalmother.Thereportingsourceindicatedthehousewasindisarray,therewasnofood,and thechildrenwereunkempt.Thereportingsourcealsoindicatedthatthemothersboyfriendwasselling drugs from the residence. DFS conducted an investigation, making a home visit the same day the reportwasreceived.Themotheradmittedshedidnothaveanyfoodavailableforthechildren.She alsoindicatedshereceivedassistancefromhersisterandherboyfriend.Thehomedidnotappearto beindisarrayandthechildrenappearedwell.DFSstaffprovidedthemotherwithfoodvouchersand othernecessarysuppliestocareforthechildren.Theinvestigationwasunsubstantiated. InJanuary2003,DFSreceivedareportofabuse/neglectallegingabandonment,lackofnecessity,and parentsubstanceabuseagainstthemother.Thereportallegedthatthemotherleftthechildrenalone forseveraldays,andthatshewasaddictedtococaine.DFSinitiatedaninvestigation,andrequested theDAsOfficefileapetitionthatwaslaterCourtsubstantiated.Themotherinitiallydeniedleavingthe childrenalone,butadmittedtohavingadrugproblem.Thechildrenweremadeformalwardsofthe Court,andthemothersparentalrightswereterminated.ThechildrenwereadoptedinJune2005. InOctober2003,DFSreceivedareportofabuse/neglectrelatedtothebirthofanewchild.DFSstaff wasawareofthepregnancyandhadpreviouslyrequestedahospitalalertonthemother;asaresultof thatalert,thehospitalprovidedadditionalinformationtoDFSatthetimeofbirth.Thischildwasmade awardoftheCourt,andlikewiththesiblings,themothersparentalrightswereterminatedandthe childplacedforadoption. The May 2009, report was investigated by DFS staff. The mother had another child and law enforcement responded to a domestic dispute complaint. A friend of the mother got violent in the homethreateningotherpeople,includingthechild.Thematernalgrandfatherwaspresentwhenthis occurred, and the case record documents that he was a registered sex offender. The child was not removedfromthehome. At the Protective Custody Hearing held on June 3, 2009, the Court placed the child with the mother requiringasafetyplanthatinvolvedthematernalauntcheckinginonthefamilyeveryotherday,and DFSstaffconductinghomevisitsthreetimesperweekuntilcasetransfer. Drugtestswererequestedofthemotherandshetestedpositiveformethamphetamineandcocaine. At the Plea Hearing held on June 9, 2009, the mother admitted to the allegations. The DAs Office objectedtothechildsplacementwiththemother,citingherdruguseandthepreviousTPR.TheDA indicatedtheywouldbefilingawaiverofreasonableefforts.DFSsupportedthechildremaininginthe care of the mother, providing that the safety plan remain in place. The Court ordered the child to remaininthecareofthemother. At the Dispositional Hearing held on June 30, 2009, the case plan was submitted and the child was madeawardoftheCourt.ThemotherwasnotifiedbytheCourtthatifshetestedpositivefordrug use,herchildwouldberemovedandplacedinoutofhomecare. In August 2009, the case record documents disagreement between the DAs Office and DFS staff regardingamotiontowaivereasonableefforts.DFSstaffdidnotmakearequesttoputthematteron calendarduetothemothersprogress.TodatetheDAsOfficehasnotrequestedthematterbeputon calendar.
109
DFS continues to provide ongoing case management services. The mother is currently completing Drug Court, andtheCourthasagreedtoclosethecaseuponhersuccessfulcompletion. To date, the mother has completed her case plan and remained drug free. She has completed counseling to addressherdomesticviolencehistory.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
110
DACaseID:

InMay2008,DFSreceivedareportfromamedicalproviderindicatingthatatenyearoldchild hadsuspiciousbruisinginsidehermouthandtherewassuspectedsexualabuse.Thecasewas assignedtothesexualabuseunitandtheinvestigatorinterviewedthechild.Therewasno disclosurefromthechild.Atthatpoint,theinvestigatorwantedtoclosethecasebutouroffice wasabletoconvinceDFStofileapetitionallegingphysicalabuse(unexplainedphysicalinjury). Thecasewenttotrialandthecourtfoundanunexplainedphysicalinjuryandmadethechildrenin thecasewardsofthecourt.Thechildrenwerepermittedtoresideinthehomewiththeparents ontheconditionthattheircontactwassupervisedbyagrandparentlivinginthehome.The parentsweregivencaseplanswithcounselingservices.Theparentshaverefusedtoprovidea credibleexplanationfortheinjuriesthroughoutthetimethecasehasbeenopen. InJune2009, DFSrequestedthatwardshipoverthechildrenbeterminateddespitetheparentsnotproviding anexplanationfortheinjuriestothechild.TheDAsofficedisagreed.
42
DFSRESPONSE:
1347536 UNITYCase#: 62008 CourtSubstantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 062008ReportDate: Female,9YOA Male,4YOA
Open Closed
InJune2008,DFSreceivedareportofabuse/neglectallegingsexualabuseagainstthenaturalmotherand herboyfriend.Thereportwasfiledbyalocaldentistwhoobservedbruisingtothesoftpaletteofachilds mouthontwoseparateoccasions.Thedentistindicatedthatthefirsttimehesawthechildhenoticedthe bruising,andpurposefullyscheduledarequiredsecondvisit30dayslatertoseeifithealed.Thedentist indicatedthebruisewaslargeratthechildssecondvisit. DFSinitiatedaninvestigationandforensicallyinterviewedthechildonJune20,2008.Thechildmadeno disclosureregardingthesexualabuse.Themotherandherboyfriendwerealsointerviewed,andneither couldidentifyhowthechildsinjurywassustained. Theinvestigatorconferredwithaforensicpediatricianwhoindicatedthatifachildhadbruisingtothesoft paletteitcouldbecausedbyshovingsomethinghardintothemouth,andthatifthebruisinggotlarger afteraperiodoftime,thentheinjurytothemouthhadcontinued. According to case record documentation the investigator submitted the case for closure, but the supervisordeniedtheclosureduetothechildsunexplainedinjury.
111
Instead,DFSstaffrequestedtheDAsOfficefileapetitionandthechildrenwereremovedfromthehome andplacedwithpaternalgrandparents.AttheProtectiveCustodyHearingheldonJuly3,2008,theDAs Officerequestedthematterbecontinuedpendinganotheropinionfromaphysician.OnJuly15,whenthe hearingwascontinuedDFSindicatedthatthechildwasscheduledtoseeaspecialistregardingtheinjury. TheDAsOfficerequestedtoproceedgiventheevidenceathand. AtthePleaHearingheldonJuly22,2008,themotherandherboyfrienddeniedtheallegations,andthe matterwassetforanEvidentiaryHearing.Thechildrenremainedinthecareofthepaternalgrandparents. On August 11, 2008 the Evidentiary Hearing was continued until October 2, 2008. The mother and her boyfriendhiredanewattorneyandtheattorneyrequestedanothercontinuanceuntilNovember14,2008. The children remained in the care of paternal grandparents. The November 14, hearing would later be continueduntilDecember12,2008,againattherequestofthemotherandboyfriendsattorney. On December 12, 2008 the Evidentiary Hearing was held. The Court made a finding of nonaccidental injurycausedbybluntforcetrauma,butnotedthatthecasewillnotbetreatedlikeasexabusecase. At the Dispositional Hearing held January 7, 2009, the mother and boyfriend were provided case plans, which included a physical abuse assessment. The case plans did not include counseling services. The childrenwerereturnedtothemotherwithcontacttobesupervisedbyagrandparentwhoalsoresidedin thehome. Themotherandboyfriendcompletedthephysicalabuseassessment.Theassessmentindicatedthatthe riskforanotherunexplainedinjurywaslowanddidnotrecommendanyfurthertreatment. OnJune30,2009,DFSrecommendterminationofwardshipataReviewHearing.TheDAsOfficeobjected and recommended that the mother needed to complete counseling to address Post Traumatic Stress Disorder(PTSD)issuesasthoseunresolvedissueswoulddiminishherprotectivecapacities.Althoughthe motherdiddiscloseanabusivechildhood,thereisnoindicationthatshewaseverdiagnosedwithPTSD. The Court ordered for the mother to complete individual and couples counseling, and requested the matter be put back on calendar prior to the next Court date if DFS deemed appropriate to reconsider closure. On December 17, 2009, the Court agreed with DFS recommendation to terminate wardship. The DAs Officeobjectedindicatingthatthemotherandboyfriendhadnotreceivedthenecessarytrainingonhow toavoidasimilarsituation.
This case is currently closed, and there have been no additional reports received on this family for 2 years, 3 months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
112
113
DACaseID:

Amotherandherteenagedaughter(lowfunctioningat8yroldlevel)whorecentlyhadher ownchildareinvolved.Themother/grandmotherallowedanineteenyearoldtoresideinthe homeforanunknownperiodoftime.Heistheputativefatheroftheteenagemotherschild.In March2009,hewasarrestedonsix(6)countseachofpreparing/distributingminorpornography andpossessionofchildpornography.Theteenagemotherisidentifiedasthevictimofthechild pornography. TherewasasexabuseinvestigationbyDFSinlateMay2009,whichwasclosedas unsubstantiated.Themother/grandmotherdisclosedpreviousdrugusetotheinvestigatoratthat time,butwasnotdrugtested. OnMay27,2009,DFSreceivedareportfromamandatoryreporterraisingconcernsregarding theteenagemothersabilitytoprovideforthecareofthenewbabybasedonhercognitive abilitiesandthefactthattheputativefatherofthechildwasinjail.Thecurrentinvestigatordrug testedthemother/grandmotherasshewishedtobeconsideredforplacementoftheinfant.The mother/grandmothertestedpositiveforgreaterthan20,000pgofmethamphetamineinherhair. Thecurrentinvestigatordidnotcallinanewreportregardingthedrugissuesforthe mother/grandmotherasitrelatestoherabilitytocarefortheteenagechild.DFSinvestigators continuetoverbalizethatdrugusealoneisnotabasistoremoveachildanddonotraisesafety issues. TheDDAassignedtothecasehasarticulatedthefollowingsafetyconcernsinanattemptto persuadeDFStoperformathoroughinvestigationintothecareoftheteenagemotherandher newbaby:Thereisamentallyimpaired16yearoldchild(operatingat8yroldlevel)whowas sexuallyabusedbyaperpetratorhermotherallowedtoliveinthehome.Thatthemother/ grandmotherhassubsequentlytestedpositiveforalargeamountofmethamphetamine, indicatingheavyusageduringthetimeframeinwhichtheabusewasoccurring.
43
DFSRESPONSE:
1355234/1263831 UNITYCase#: 052009(2) CourtSubstantiated(infantinvestigation) Date(s)ofReport(s) Substantiated(teenparentinvestigation) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 052009Reports: Female,16YOA Female,1day
Open Closed
Tworeportsofabuse/neglectwerereceivedonMay27,2009regardingthesamefamily.Thefirstreport alleged sexual abuse against the maternal grandmother regarding the teen mother. The second report allegedlackofsupervisionagainsttheteenmother. Thereportingsourceforbothreportswasstaffatalocalhospital.Thereportingsourceindicatedthatthe father of the teen mothers newborn child was arrested for stolen property, possession of child pornography (the teen mother being the victim of the pornography), and a probation violation. The reportingsourcealsoexpressedconcernsregardingtheteenmothersabilitytocareforthenewborn.
114
DFSinitiatedaninvestigationintothesexualabuseallegationsmadeagainstthematernalgrandmother. DFSstaffinterviewedthegrandmotherwhoindicatedthatonlytwochildrenresidedinherhome,theteen mother and another biological child. She also indicated that her daughter and the male individual in question had a relationship with one another prior to his turning 18. That relationship resulted in her daughters pregnancy. She indicated that he had resided with them, but only for a twoweek period of time. The grandmother indicated she was not aware of the pornography issue or that he had taken picturesofherdaughteruntilhisarrest.Thegrandmothervoluntarilydisclosedpastdruguse.
DFSstaffforensicallyinterviewedtheteenmother.Sheindicatedhernewbornsfatherhadtakenmultiple pictures of her naked and sent them to others via his cell phone. She indicated that they dated for 10 months,andthatheprostitutedothergirls.Sheindicatedhermotherdidnotlikehimasshefelthewas lazy.Shesharedaroomwithhermotherduringthetimehelivedwiththem,andhewouldsharearoom with her brother. She indicated she had been sexually active since she was 14, but with a different partner. Based on the information gathered during the investigatory process, on June 12, 2009 the investigationwassubstantiated(withoutCourtintervention)againstthegrandmother. Basedonthisreviewofthecaserecorddocumentation,whileDFSstaffsubstantiatedtheinvestigation,the factpatternsupportedCourtinterventionandsupervision. Simultaneous to the initiation of the previous investigation, DFS also initiated an investigation into the allegationsmadeagainsttheteenmotherandthenewbornchildsfather.Thefatherofthenewbornchild wasincarceratedandtherewereconcernsregardingtheteenmothersabilitytocareofthechild. The newborn was immediately removed from the care of the teen mother, and placed in outofhome care. The case record documents that the maternal grandmother was interested in being a placement option, but that she tested positive to methamphetamine, preventing her from providing care for the newborn. DFSstaffrequestedtheDAsOfficefileapetition,andtheteenmotherdeniedtheallegationsatthePlea HearingwhichwasheldonJune17,2009.AnEvidentiaryHearingwasscheduledforAugust13,2009. OnJuly28,theteenmotherenrolledintheFreshStartFamilyServicesprogramandbecamearesidentof theprogramshomesthatspecializeinteenmothersandbabies.Thisplacementarrangementwasmade andapprovedbyboththeteenmotherandhermother. AttheEvidentiaryHearing,thefatherplednocontesttotheallegationsandthepetitionwascontinuedfor theteenmotherfor90days.ShewasorderedtomaintainhernewplacementattheFreshStartprogram, demonstrate her ability to parent, complete parenting education, and submit to a cognitive evaluation. The newborn remained in outofhome care as the Fresh Start facility did not meet the licensing requirementstotakeplacementofaninfant. The Court hearing was continued until September 21, 2009, where it was determined by an alternate HearingMasterthatthenewbornwouldbereturnedtotheteenmother.TheHearingMasterindicated thataslongastheFreshStartprogramwouldassisttheteenmotherwithreceivingthenecessaryservices forthenewbornandtheagencysstaffhadcompletedandclearedbackgroundchecks,thenewborncould residethere. OnNovember9,2009,thepetitionagainsttheteenmotherwasdismissed,butwardshipofthenewborn wasmaintained.
115
Subsequenttotheteenmothersdismissalfromthecase,DFScontinuedtoprovidecasemanagementservices totheteenmotherandnaturalfather.Thefathercompletedbothdruganddomesticviolenceassessments,and basedontheassessmentresultswasnotrequiredtoreceiveadditionalservices/treatmentforeitherissue.The fathercompletedhiscaseplanandtheCourtterminatedwardshiponMay10,2010. This case is currently closed, and there have been no additional reports received on this family for 1 year, 4 months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
116
DACaseID:

InDecember2008,DFSreceivedareportfromamandatoryreporterraisingconcernsofsexual abusewithafourteenyearoldgirl.DFSassignedaninvestigatorandtheyoungladywas interviewed.Duringtheinterview,shedisclosedmultipleincidentsofsexualabusebyher stepfatheroccurringinthefamilyhomeoverthecourseofaseventoeightyearperiod.The investigationalsorevealedtwobrotherslivinginthehomewiththeallegedperpetrator.The motherofthechildrenwasinterviewedanddeniedtheabuseandaccusedthedaughterofbeing aliar.Thefathersubmittedtoapolygraphandwasfoundtobedeceptive. Despitethedisclosureofsexualabuseandthestatementsbythemother,DFSleftthetwo youngerbrothersinthehomewiththemother,whileaskingtheallegedperpetratortoleavethe home.DFSsubmittedapetitionrequestform,whichindicatedthatthemothershouldnotbe chargedsinceshewasprotective. AfterthepetitionwasfiledandwithoutDDAknowledge, DFSsubsequentlypermittedtheperpetratortomovebackintothehomewiththemotherasthe supervisingpartyforthetwoyoungerboys. Thevictimofthesexualabuserecantedher disclosureshortlyafterthemotherstartedtotellherhowmuchthebrothersmissedherandhow thingswouldbedifferentinthehome. Thecaseresolvedwithanocontestpleabytheperpetrator.Thetwobrothersarepotential victimsandthecourtexpressedreluctancetotaketheboysoutofthehomebasedonthelength oftimethatDFShadpermittedthemtoremainhome.
44
DFSRESPONSE:
1351720 UNITYCase#: 122008 CourtSubstantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 122008ReportDate: Female,14YOA Male,5YOA Male,1YOA
Open Closed
OnDecember18,2008,DFSreceivedareportofabuse/neglectallegingsexualabuseagainstthestep father.Thereportingsourceindicatedthatthatthechildhadlivedwithhermaternalgrandmothersince thebeginningoftheschoolyear,butthatsheoccasionallyvisitedhermother.Thechildhadrecentlygotten intotroubleandthegrandmotherdecidedthechildwouldhavetoreturntothemothershome.Thechild theninformedthegrandmotherofbeingsexuallyabusedbythestepfather. ThechildwasinterviewedattheSouthernNevadaChildrensAssessmentCenteronDecember20,2008, anddisclosedthesexualabuse.Thechildreportedlivingwiththegrandmotherandgrandfather.Thechild reportedhavingtwohalfbrothers(biologicalchildrentothestepfather),andthathernaturalfatherwas incarceratedandhadnotbeenincontactforseveralyears. ThegrandmotherwasinterviewedonDecember20,2008.Shereportedthatshehashadlegalguardianship ofthechildsinceinfancy,andthatthechildhaslivedwithheronandoffsincebirth.Shereportedthatthe childhasbeenlivingwithhersinceSeptember2008,becausethechildsfamilylivedinasmallonebedroom apartment.
117
Thegrandmotherstatedthatthechilddescribedbeingmolestedbythestepfatherwhenshewastoldthat shewasgoingtohavetomovebackinwithhermother.Thegrandmotherfiledapolicereportandtookthe childtoSunriseHospital.Thegrandmotherwasdirectedtokeepthechildinherhomeandtoensurethat thechildhadnocontactwiththestepfather. DFSstaffmadeanunannouncedvisittothemothershomeonDecember20,2008.Thestepfatherdenied theallegationsandthemotherdeniedbeingawareoftheabuse.Sheexpressedconcernregardingthe truthfulnessofthechildsallegations. Thestepfathersubsequentlyleftthehome,andasafetyplanwascompletedandwassignedbythe mother.Itstatedthatthehewastohavenocontactwithhisremainingbiologicalchildrenpendingfurther notice.DFSstaffalsospokewithlawenforcement,informingtheDetectivethattheparentshadbeen interviewed,andthatwhiletheallegedperpetratorschildrenwereremaininginthehome,hewouldbe stayingathismothershomeindefinitely. Contactwasalsomadewiththe1yearoldchildatthemothershome.The5yearoldmalechildwas interviewedattheSouthernNevadaChildrensAssessmentCenteronDecember20,2008.Thechilddenied beinginappropriatelytouchedbyanyone. DFSstaffrequestedtheDAsOfficefileapetition.AProtectiveCustodyHearingwasheldonDecember24, 2008.Allthreechildrenwereincludedonthepetition.Themotherwasexcludedfromthepetition,asshe wasdeemedprotectiveandwasunawareoftheallegedabuse.Furthermore,thestepfatheragreedto leavethehomeandtheallegedvictimwouldremainwiththegrandmother,havingnocontactwiththe stepfather.TheCourtorderedsupervisedvisitationwiththeallegedperpetratorandtheremaining children.Nocontactwasorderedbetweentheallegedvictimandthestepfather. OnJanuary1,2009,themothercalledtheinvestigatortoinquireaboutmovingintoalargerapartmentwith thepaternalgrandmother.Sheaskedifherhusbandwouldbeabletoreturntoandliveinthehome.The motherwasinformedthatthegrandmotherneededtohaveabackgroundcheckcompletedandthata safetyplanwouldneedtobeputintoplace. ThemotherandtwochildrenwereauthorizedbyDFSstafftomoveinmidJanuarywhenshecouldno longeraffordtomaintainaseparateresidence.Shemovedinwiththepaternalgrandmotherandthe father,andanewsafetyplanwasdeveloped.Itrequiredthateitherthegrandmotherormothersupervise anycontactthefatherhadwithhischildren. OnJanuary8,2009thePleaHearingwascontinuedasthemotherwaserroneouslyincludedonthepetition andneededtoberemoved.ThenewPleaHearingwasscheduledforJanuary15,2009.Thestepfather deniedtheallegationsandanEvidentiaryHearingwasscheduledforFebruary25,2009;itwaslater continuedtwoadditionaltimesandeventuallyheldinJune,2009. OnMarch31,2009DFSstaffspoketothegrandmotherandshestatedthechildgotupsetwiththematernal grandfatherwhenshewastoldshewasgrounded.Thechildthenstatedthatsheliedabouttheallegations againstherstepfatherandwantedtogotothemothershome. OnJune18,2009,DFSstaffmetwiththeallegedchildvictimandtheDAtoprepareforCourt.Caserecord documentationindicatedthatthechildstatedthatDFSwasinvolvedwiththefamilybecausesheliedabout herstepfathertouchingher.TheDAstateddisbeliefregardingthechildsrecantedstatement,andthe childgotangryandlefttheroomslammingthedooronthewayout.
118
AnEvidentiaryHearingwasheldonJune19,2009.CaserecordsdocumentthattheCourtapprovedthe continuedplacementoftheremainingchildrenwiththeirmotherasshecontinuedtosupervisecontact betweenthechildrenandthefather.Thefatherwasorderedtocompleteapsychosexualandsubstance abuseassessment.NeithercaserecorddocumentationnorCourtminutesreflecttheCourtsreluctanceto removethechildrenfromthehomeduetothelengthoftimetheyhadbeenallowedtoremainthere. AhomevisitwasconductedonJuly29,2009atthematernalgrandmothershome.Thechildagainstated thatherallegationsagainstherstepfatherwerealie. Anunannouncedhomevisitwasalsoconductedatthemothershome.Sheinquiredaboutthecontinued needforsupervisedvisitationasshehadanewjobandsupervisionwiththefatherandtwoboyswouldbe difficultwithhernewjob.ShewastoldbyDFSstaffthatsupervisionwouldhavetobediscussedinCourt, andthesafetyplanremainedaspreviouslyapproved. AnannouncedhomevisitwasconductedonSeptember10,2009atthematernalgrandparentshome.The allegedchildvictimstatedthatsheliedaboutrecantingherstoryandthatthestepfatherdidmolesther. Shewasreferredforcounseling.InNovember,2009,thechildwasallowedtovisitthesiblingsandthe mother,butanocontactorderremainedwiththestepfather. AReviewHearingwasheldonJanuary14,2010.Discussionwasheldregardingthevisitationand supervisionrequirementsforallchildren.TheCourtrequestedtohearfromtheallegedchildvictimbefore liftingthenocontactorderwiththestepfather;however,unsupervisedcontactwiththefatherandboys wasgranted.AnotherhearingwassetforFebruary11,2010. Atthesubsequenthearing,DFSrecommendedwardshipterminationforallchildren.TheCourtconfirmed thevalidityoftheguardianshipwiththegrandparentsandterminatedwardshipofthechildvictim,only. TheCourtterminatedthewardshipfortheremainingchildrenonJune17,2010.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
119
120
DACaseID:

ThisisanexampleofemailsentbytheassignedDDAtoDFSregardingtheirrequesttoterminate wardship over two children and return them to their biological father without approval from anotherstate(violationofICPC). OurofficeisnotinsupportofanyattemptbytheClarkCountyDepartmentofFamilyServices to request termination of wardship on this case. According to records maintained by the Las VegasMetropolitanPoliceDepartment,FatherstartedhiscriminalcareerinNevadain1991(age 20). He was arrested and charged with DUI Controlled Substance in November 1991. In December of the same year he was arrested for a Sexual Assault (ultimately denied for prosecutionforunknownreason).ByJune1992,FatherwasarrestedandchargedwithPossession ofaControlledSubstancewithIntentToSell.InJuly1992Fatherwasarrestedandchargedwith Robbery with Deadly Weapon. That charge was ultimately plea bargained to Attempt Robbery (Felony)in1993.In1992hewasalsoarrestedandconvictedofcarryingaconcealedweapon.In 1993,FatherwasreleasedbythecriminalcourttoInpatientDrugProgram(noindicationthatthis was completed). In 1994, father was arrested for Aiming a Firearm and being an Ex Felon in Possession of a Firearm. Through the criminal court system father received probation.By 1995, father was arrested for being under the influence of controlled substance and negotiated that case to a misdemeanor drug charge he apparently did not successfully integrate his inpatient drugexperiencestolifeonthestreets.HealsohadaDUIinvolvingLiquorarrest.In1997,hewas arrestedforPossessionofImitationControlledSubstanceandresistingapoliceofficer.Thereisa policereportfromApril1997(Metro)whichstates: Victim came in contact with suspect at the heritagelounge. Victim tried toleaveinher vehicle buthepulledherout.Suspectandvictimusedtodatein1992.Suspectstartedtohitvictimand grabbeda$20.00billoutofherhand.Suspectalsobrokeoffvictim'snecklaceandbracelettaking themboth.Suspectthenleftwithsomefriends.Victimstatedsuspectwenttoprisonin1993for robbingher.Fatherwassentencedto3years,stayedandplacedon4yearsofprobation. In1999,hecontinuedtohavecriminalinvolvementandthenapparentlyleftthestateofNevada. In2003accordingtoyournoteshephysicallyabusedoneofthechildren,bystrikinghimwitha belt,leavingsubstantialbruisesandweltsandhadformalservicesthroughTennessee.Thechild wasonly8yearsoldatthetimeoftheabuse. OnJune21,2003thefatherwasarrestedandchargedwithChildAbusebytheNashvilleMetro PoliceDepartment.Presumablythisisfromthebeatinghegavetheson. On April 1, 2004 father was arrested and charged with possession of weapon by prohibited person, possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia and "assault, recklessendangerment,deadlyweapon".(NashvillePolice).Fathercontinuedhiscriminallifestyle withdrugsandgunswhileheclaimsthathewastheprimarycareproviderforhissons. OnDecember13,2004arrestedbyATFforPossessionofFirearm(Federalcharge) In2005,hewasconvictedonaweaponrelatedchargeandforcedtoregisterasaresultofthat conviction from Tennessee. The father was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary, Lompoc,CAinMayof2006.HewasparoledonMarch14,2007toNashville,Tennesseeandison paroleuntilMarch13,2010. Youcanseefromthe14yearsofdocumentedcriminalinvolvementthatthefatherwasengaged insellingdrugs,usingdrugs,drivingwhileusingdrugsandalcohol.Hewasalsoengagedinviolent criminalconductwhichinvolveddeadlyweapons(guns)andjustfouryearsagowasconvictedin Tennesseeofagunrelatedoffenseforwhichhewassentencedtoprison.Hedid10monthsin prison. It does not appear that he has changed his life to the point where two children can be
45
121
safely placed into his care. live that lifestyle.Additionally, the motherwasdeathly afraid of him becauseshelivedaveryviolent12yearswithhim.Therewasalotofdomesticviolencebetween them.OnJune30,1995,shefiledforandwasgrantedaTPO. ItismylegalopinionthattheClarkCountyDepartmentofFamilyServiceswillbeviolatingICPC by simply requestingthetermination ofwardship andpermitting the children tobe placedinto thecareofthefatherwithouttheapprovalofTennesseeICPC.DFSknowsorreasonablyshould know that the father intends to return to the state of Tennessee with the children if the court follows the recommendation.There is no legal basis to terminate wardship at this time and it cannot be argued that reunification has occurred at any time prior to the June 9, 2009 court hearinginthismatter. IrespectfullybelievethattheClarkCountyDepartmentofFamilyServicesneedstoappealthe denial by Tennessee ICPC, through appropriate channelsand not try to circumvent the ICPC process.Thereshouldbesomesupervisionofthechildrenwhileinthefather'scaretoinsurethat theyarenotbeatenwithforeigninstrumentsandthathecanhandletheirbehaviors.Hebeatan8 yearoldforassociatingwithsomeonehedidnotapproveofwhatishegoingtodotoa14year oldwhohasteenageissuesofdruguse? Additionally, I did not see a recent safety or risk assessment in Unity (the last documents were from2007).Itookthelibertyofcompletingablankriskassessmentwhichhasthefollowing: CurrentComplaintNeglect1 PriorInvestigations3(3inNevadaand1inTennessee) HouseholdCPS1 NumberofChildren0 Ageofyoungestchild0 Primary caretaker/inconsistent 0 (based on the beating it is arguable but I gave benefit of doubt) Primarycaretakermentalhealth0(againbasedonphysicalabuseitisarguablebutgave benefitofdoubt)
DFSRESPONSE:
1330211 012007 CourtSubstantiated 112006 Unsubstantiated 082006 Unsubstantiated 012007ReportDate: Male,12YOA Male,7YOA
Open Closed
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSin2006duetoallegationsofabuse/neglectagainstthenatural mother. In 2006, DFS conducted two investigations, both unsubstantiated. In 2007, however, DFS received an additional report of abuse/neglect alleging lack of necessity, parent substance abuse, and physicalriskofharmagainstthenaturalmother. Based on initial investigative findings, the children were removed from the home and placed with the maternal grandparents. DFS requested the DAs Office file a petition, and when filed the natural father was added to the petition due to his inability to care for the children as a result of incarceration in California.Asaresultofbeingnamedonthepetition,andsincereasonableeffortswerenotwaived,the
122
naturalfatherreceivedacaseplanthathewasrequiredtocompleteuponhisreleasefromprison. Thecaserecorddocumentsthefatherslengthycriminalhistory,whichdatesbackto1991.Thefather servedjailtimeinCaliforniaandwasreleasedfromjailonMarch14,2007.Hecompletedhisprobationin March2010.Hehashadnoknownsubsequentcriminalchargessince2006. DFSstaffconfirmedthefatherwasinvolvedwithTennesseeChildrensServicesin2003,fortheabusive punishmentofhisoldestchild.TennesseeChildrensServicesdidnotremovehischildrenatthetimeof theirinvolvement,however.Thereisnocaserecorddocumentationtoindicatewhetherornothewas convictedofthechildabusechargein2003. ThechildrensfatherwasinvolvedintheCourtproceedingsfromPleaHearingforward,attendingCourt hearingsviatelephone.Hemadeconstantphonecontactwiththechildrensubsequenttohisreleasefrom jail,andsentthechildren$80.00biweeklyforallowance.Thefathersextendedfamilyalsomadefrequent contactwiththechildren.ThechildrenunderwenttherapyfromMarch2007,tothetimeofreunification withthefather.Thechildrenstherapistsupportedreunificationwiththefather. Uponhisreleasefromjail,thefathercompletedhisfamilyCourtorderedcaseplanandheldasteadyjobas a welder in Tennessee. Prior to completing probation, DFS staff maintained contact with his probation officer,whostatedhewasdoingwell,andthathetestednegativeonalldrugtests. OnDecember10,2008,duetothemotherslackofcompliancewithhercaseplan,thefatherscompliance withhiscaseplan,andthechildrenexpressingadesiretobereunifiedwiththeirfatherinTennessee,the CourtacceptedDFSrecommendationthatthechildrenspermanencygoalbechangedtoreunification withthenaturalfather. Subsequent to the change in permanency goals for the children, DFS staff requested Tennessee provide services and support to the family through the ICPC process. Tennessee denied the request, citing the fatherspreviouschildwelfarehistoryasthebasisfordenial.Tennesseetookmorethan6monthstoissue thedenial. Case recorddocuments that DFS staff were fully aware the father was residingin Tennessee and that is wherethechildrenwouldberesiding.ThatfactwastheimpetusfortheinitialrequestforICPC. On June 17, 2009, the case was staffed with the DAs Office, and they indicated concern regarding the denial for ICPC received by Tennessee and the lack of child welfare supervision that would occur subsequenttoreunification. On August 4, 2009, at the Permanency Review Hearing the Court terminated wardship of the children based on DFS staff recommendation. Case record documentation does not indicate the DAs Office objectedtotheterminationofwardshipatthistime. ThesafetyandriskassessmentsreferencedwereimplementedinNovember,2008.Duetothefactthey aretoolsprimarilyutilizedwhenconductinginvestigations,andthatthiscasewasreferredtoDFSin2007, therewouldnotbeacompletedversionofthisexacttoolinUNITY.Additionally,asaresultofthechanges andupdatestothetools,previouslycompletedassessmentsarenolongeravailableinUNITY.
ThechildrenwerereunifiedwiththefatheronAugust11,2009.Thiscaseiscurrentlyclosed,andtherehave beennoadditionalreportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor1year,1month.
123
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
N/A
124
DACaseID:

AfamilycametotheattentionofDFSafterthefathershotthreeMetroPoliceOfficerswhile theyweretryingtoexecuteasearchwarrantonthehome.Twoofthethreechildrenwerehome duringtheincidentandtraumatizedbytheevents.Themotherofthechildrenhadahistoryof childprotectiveserviceinvolvementinCaliforniaandthefatherhadacriminalhistoryfrom Californiathatwasrevealedduringtheinvestigation. TheinitialresponsefromDFSwastonot fileapetitionalleginganyabuseorneglectbasedonthefatherbeinginjailandthemother appearingtobeprotectiveofthechildren.ApetitionwasfiledbytheDDAassignedtothecase withoutarequestbeingmade.Thepetitionwasultimatelyresolvedandthefatheragreedto participateinacaseplanwithcounselingservices.Thecriminalcaseisstillpendingatrialand thereisastronglikelihoodthatthefatherwillbegoingtoprison. Despitethefactual circumstancesandtheuncertaintyofthefutureforthemotherandchildrenbasedontheir financialdependenceonthefather,DFSrecommendedtheclosureofthecase,citingnosafetyor riskconcernsforthechildren.Basedonthatrecommendationthecourtterminatedwardship overtheobjectionoftheDDAassignedtothematter.
46
DFSRESPONSE:
1351873 UNITYCase#: 122008 CourtSubstantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 122008ReportDate: Female,13YOA Male,12YOA Male,3months
Open Closed
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSonDecember29,2008duetoallegationsofphysicalabuseagainst the natural mother and father. The report was made by law enforcement SWAT officers who while executingasearchwarrantatthehomewereinvolvedinashootoutwithresidents.Thenaturalmother andtwochildrenwerepresentatthetimeoftheincident.Thefatherwasarrestedatthescene,butthe motherwasnot. DFS staff confirmed the mothers child welfare history in California which was related to a domestic violence incident with a former boyfriend. The child protective services investigation related to the incidentwasunfoundedbyCalifornia.Thenaturalfatherwasconfirmedtohaveacriminalhistoryoutof Californiaaswell. A case note entered by DFS staff on December 31, 2008 indicates staff requested the DAs Office file a petition.However,whenreviewingtheactualelectronicformrequestthatshouldbepresentinUNITY,it ismissing.TheDAsOfficedid,however,fileapetitionwiththeCourtonJanuary5,2009. At the Protective Custody Hearing on December 31, 2008, the Court ordered the children released to mother,ifshepassedadrugtestandhadappropriatehousing.Thechildren,whowereremovedfromthe home at the time of the incident, were approved to be released to maternal grandmother, pending her backgroundcheck.DFSstaffrequestedtwoweekstoreviewthechildprotectiveserviceshistoryonthe familyfromCalifornia,buttherequestwasdeniedandanotherreviewsetforoneweeklater.
125
At the followup hearing, the Court ordered the children returned to mother. The DA objected to the release,butthechildrenwerereturnedtothemotherwithasafetyplanthatincludedanuncleresidingin thehomewiththemotherandchildren. AttheEvidentiaryHearing,thefatherplednocontesttothepetition.Themotherspetitionwasheldfor 90days,tobedismissedifsheremaineddrugfree,hadnoassociationwithnaturalfathersassociates,and thechildrenremainedinNevada. The father completed an anger management assessment as required by the Court. The assessment indicatedthefatherdidnotneedangermanagementcounseling.Theprovidercitedthatthefatherwas tryingtoprotecthisfamilywhentheincidenttookplace. Case records documented that the maternal grandmother continued to provide financial support to the family,andhadbeendoingsoforsometime. AttheJune2,2009,ReviewHearing,DFSstaffadvisedtheCourtthatDFSwasnotinthepositionto recommendcaseclosureduetothependingcriminalcaseagainstthefather.TheCourtorderedthe workertoholdaChildandFamilyTeammeetingtodiscussthepossibilityofclosure,duetothefathers attorneymakingsucharecommendationatthathearing. AReviewHearingwassetforJune16,2009,andtheDFSworkerreportedtotheCourtthatthereappeared tobenosafetyconcernsduringhisbiweeklyvisitswiththefamily.Thefathersattorneyreportedtothe Court that the fatherhadcompletedhis case plan objectives, and as a resultthecase shouldbe closed. TheDAsOfficerequestedthatthefamilyhomebesearchedforweaponsandforthefathertoresubmit toanangermanagementassessmentpriortoclosure.TheCourt,afterhearingallarguments,terminated wardshipanddirectedDFSstafftofiletheorderwithFamilyCourt.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
126
127
DACaseID:

OnJune26,2009,aDFSworkerconductedanunannouncedhomevisittocheckontwo children.Thechildren(whowere6yearsoldand18monthsoldrespectively)werewardsof thecourtandwereplacedwiththeirmaternalauntfollowingremovalfromtheirmothers home.Whentheworkerarrivedforthehomecheck,shefoundthechildrenhadbeenleftin thecareoftwoadultmaleswhohadnotbeenbackgroundcheckedandwerenotauthorized tocareforthechildren.The18montholdwassittingontrainingpotty.Hishandsweretied behindhisbackwithshoelaces.Arashcoveredhisbodyandhiseyeswereredandinfected withdischargesurroundinghiseye.Thechilddidnothaveadiaper.Theadultmalestated thatthechildwastiedupsothathecouldnotscratchtherash.Thesixyearoldwasfound sittingonthecouchwatchingtelevisionwithseveralotherchildren.TheDFSworkercalledher supervisortorespond. AfterconsultationwithaDFSAssistantManagerandafterspeaking withtheperpetrator,theworkerandsupervisorremovedthetwochildrenwhowerewards. However,theydidnotremoveanyoftheperpetratorschildrenfindingthattherewereno safetyconcerns.Recordsreflectthatthemotherhadfour(4)children.Thechildrenwere9 yearsold,7yearsold,5yearsoldand6monthsoldatthetimeoftheincident. Whenthe18montholdwardwastakentoChildHaven,hewastreatedforimpetigo, scabies,eczema,staphandconjunctivitis.Hehadanopensoreunderhisscrotum.Thechild hadligaturemarksonhiswristsandlowerlegs. DFSdidnotcallpolicetorespondto investigatethechildabuseuntilsevenhourslater,whenmuchoftheevidencewaslostor destroyed.WhenMetroresponded,theligaturemarksonthewristshadfadedandwereno longervisible,buttheywerestillabletoobservetheligaturemarkstothechildslegsdespite thepassageofseveralhours. WhenCPSattemptedtocontacttheperpetratorschildrenthenextday,theperpetrator reportedthatthechildrenhadbeentakentoCaliforniabytheirgrandmother.The grandmotherandchildrenwerenotabletobelocatedforfive(5)days.Whentheywere located,CPShadCaliforniaauthoritiesconductacourtesyinterview.Thechildrendidnot disclosedirectabuse.BasedontheirrelocationtoCalifornia,DFSdeterminedthechildren tobesafeandclosedthecaseunsubstantiatedasagainstherownchildren.Thecasewas neverreferredtotheDistrictAttorneysOfficeforfilingofapetitionbasedontheriskofharm tothosechildren.TheDistrictAttorneysOfficediscoveredthisactionbyDFSandinformed themoftheDAsintenttofileapetition.
47
DFSRESPONSE:
1273400/1355856/1323512 UNITYCase#: 062009(2) Unsubstantiated(biologicalcase) Date(s)ofReport(s) Substantiated(relativefostercase) (HighlightedReport(s)Specific toDADescription): FosterChildren:062009ReportDate: AgeofChild(ren)Involved: Male,6YOA Male,1YOA BiologicalChildren:062009ReportDate: Female,11YOA Male,9YOA Female,7YOA Male,5YOA Male,6months
Open Closed
128
SummaryResponse:
OnJune26,2009,DFSreceivedaninstitutionalabusereportontherelativecaregiveroftwochildren, whowereinthecustodyofthedepartment.DFSpermanencystafffiledthereportuponarrivingtothe hometoconductahomevisitanddiscoveringaoneyearoldchildsittingonapottychairwithhands tiedbehindtheback.Thechildwascoveredinarashandeyesappearedtobeinfected.Thechildhad beenleftinthecareoftwoadultmen,notknowntoorapprovedbyDFSstafftoprovidecareforthe child. Atthetimeoftheinitialarrival,thebiologicalchildrenofthecaregiverwerealsopresent.After consultationwithanassistantmanager,theDFSstaffremovedthetwochildrenwhowerewardsofthe Court.Thecaregiversbiologicalchildrenwerenotremovedfromthehome. Afterfurtherconsultation,DFSstafffiledasecondabuse/neglectreportonthecaregiverregardingher biologicalchildren.DFSstaffreturnedtothehometoassessthewellbeingofthecaregiversbiological children, arriving at the home with law enforcement at approximately 1:00 AM on June 27, 2009; no onewashome. The oneyear old child was diagnosed with scabies, eczema, conjunctivitis, impetigo, and cradle cap. Thechildhadligaturemarksonhandsandfeet. DFSstaffdidnotcontactlawenforcementuntilseveralhoursaftertheinitialarrivalatthehome.Law enforcementresponding,whencontacted,totheChildHavencampus. Digitalpicturesweretakenofthechildsinjuriesbythepermanencyworkershortlyaftershearrivedat thehome. WhenDFSstaffagainwenttothecaregivershomeonJune27,2009,thecaregiverreportedthather children were in California with their grandmother and that they left on June 26, 2009. She further statedshewasnottryingtofleeinquiry,butrathertherewasapreviouslyexistingplantorelocatethe childrentothegrandmotherinCalifornia.DFSstaffcontactedthegrandmotherinCalifornia,butwas unabletoconnectwithher. On July 1, 2009 aphone call from thegrandmother was receivedby the DFS staff. She reported she picked up the children on June 26, 2009, and they were residing with her in Victorville, CA. The grandmotherfurtherstatedthatthetripwasplannedandhadnothingtodowiththerecentincident. Thegrandmotherstatedtherewasnotimetableforthereturnofthechildrenbacktotheirmother,and thatthemotherwasplanningtomovetoCalifornia. OnJuly2,2009,DFSstafffaxedareportandlettertoCaliforniachildwelfareservicesinSanBernardino Countyregardingthechildrenrequestingfurtherinvestigation.OnJuly9,2009,DFSstafffollowedup withtheSanBernardinoagencytodeterminethestatusofthecase. SanBernardinochildwelfarestaffindicatedthechildrenhadbeenseenandtherewerenoinjuriesor issues with them or the natural mother. San Bernardino staff also indicated that the maternal grandmotherwasinthehome,andhadbeeninvolvedinraisingthetwoolderchildrenandwaswilling toassistthenaturalmotherwiththechildren.SanBernardinoconcludedthatthegrandmothershome wasappropriateforthechildren,andtherewerenoconcernsregardingchildwellbeing. PrimarilybasedontheinformationreceivedbytheSanBernardinochildwelfareservicesagency,DFS staff unsubstantiated the investigation against the caregiver for the abuse/neglect of her biological
129
children;theinstitutionalinvestigationwassubstantiated,however. There is no case record documentation to indicate the DAs Office has filed an independent petition relatedtothecaregiversbiologicalchildren. The institutional abuse case is currently closed, and there have been no additional reports received on this familyfor1year,3months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
130
DACaseID:

OnJuly24,2009,aoneyearoldchilddiedfromabusiveinjuriesinflictedbyhisfather,whohad ahistoryofdomesticviolenceandotherviolentcrime.Thechildhadobviousscratchesand significantbruisingtohisfaceandbody.Anautopsylaterrevealedabdominalinjury,internal hemorrhagingandmultipleribfractures. CPSinvestigatedthisfamilythreetimesinearly2009followingmultiplehotlinecallsonJanuary3, March2andMarch29.Thehotlinecallsincludeddetailedallegationsregardingthechildren(ages 1year,2yearsand5years)beingleftaloneforextendedperiodsoftime.Thereportsreferenced thefathersperiodicincarcerationanddetailedmothersextensivedrinkinganddruguse, includingregulardruguseinfrontofthechildren.Thereportsdescribedthehomeasfilthywith anoverwhelmingodorandtrash(includingdirtydiapersandoldfood)piledupfromthefloorto thecountersinthekitchen.Thebathtubwasblackwithfilthandtherewasstandingurineinthe toilet.Thereportsdetailedthatthehomewaswithoutpowerorfoodandthatthemotherwas seensellingherfoodstampsfordrugmoney. Despitethefactthattheinvestigationsrevealedsubstantialcredibleevidencetosupportthe allegationsandtheirownriskassessmentreflectedthatthefamilyremainedamoderaterisk, DFSclosedallthreeinvestigationsasunsubstantiatedwithoutreferringthemtotheDistrict AttorneysOfficeforfilingofapetition.Twowereclosedwithoutservices.Onecaseindicated thattheDepartmenthandleditinformally.ThefamilywasnotreferredtotheDistrict AttorneysOfficeuntiltheoneyearoldchilddiedfromtheabusiveinjuriesinflictedbyhisfather.
48
DFSRESPONSE:
1351949 072009 022009(2) 012009 CourtSubstantiated Unsubstantiated Unsubstantiated
072009ReportDate: Female,6YOA Male,2YOA Male,1YOA(deceased)
X X
Open Closed Yes No
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSonJanuary3,2009duetoallegationsofinadequateshelterand lackofsupervisionagainstthenaturalmother.DFSstaffrespondedtotheresidenceandmadecontact withababysitterinthehome,whoindicatedthemotherwasnothome.AsDFSstaffwasinformedthat themotherwasnothomeatthetimeofthefirstvisit,lawenforcementassistancewasrequested.Law enforcementindicatedthattheyhadrecentlybeenouttothehomeinresponsetoadomesticdispute. They indicated that based on previous interaction with the mother earlier that day; there were no concernsaboutthechildrenresidingwithher. Atthesecondvisittothehome,itwasdiscoveredthatthemotherwasthesameindividualwhostated she was a babysitter earlier. The home did not have power, but the mother indicated she was not livingthere,butwaslivinginsteadwithhermotheratadifferentlocation.DFSstaffconfirmedherliving
131
arrangements. The children were seen and appeared to be well. As there was no indication of abuse/neglect,thecasewasclosedasunsubstantiated. InMarch2009,DFSreceivedtwoadditionalreportsofabuse/neglectagainstthemother.TheMarch2, 2009,thereportingsourceallegedthemotheruseddrugsinfrontofthechildren,soldherfoodstamps for drugs and alcohol, that the home was filthy with no food or electricity, and that she leaves the children alone for periods of time. DFS staff initiated an investigation and went to the mothers residence.Theresidencewasobservedtobeindisarray.Althoughthemotherindicatedthechildren were staying with the maternal grandmother, DFS staff informed the mother the residence required cleaning before the children could return. DFS staff also held a conversation with the apartment manager,whoagreedtosprayforroachesandcleanthecarpets.WhenDFSreturnedthenextday,the apartmentwasobservedtobecleanwithfood,water,andworkingutilities.Duringanunannounced visittothemothershome15daysafterinitialcontact,theresidenceremainedcleanandappropriate. Thetwoyoungerchildrenwerealsothere;thechildrendidnothaveanymarksorbruisesanddidnot appearfearfulofthemother.Theinvestigationwasunsubstantiated.
Thethirdreport,whichcametotheattentionofDFSonMarch29,2009,allegingfailuretoprotectand environmental neglect. The report was filed by law enforcement who had found a young child left home alone. The residence was again found to be filthy without food and power. During the initial contactwiththemother,shereportedshelefthertwoyoungerchildrenwithherfriendbecauseher grandmother was in the hospital. The friend was arrested by law enforcement for leaving the child alone. The mother indicated she was staying in the home of her childrens paternal grandparents because of her homes current condition as well as interpersonal issues with her neighbors. This informationwasconfirmedthroughavisitwiththeaforementionedgrandparentsaswellassubsequent unannouncedvisits.Theinvestigationwasunsubstantiated. The final report for the family was received on July 24, 2009 and alleged physical injury/death and plausible risk of physical injury. This was the first report received that presented any physical abuse allegations.Thereportwasfiledbylawenforcementwhorespondedtothehomewheretheyoungest childwasunresponsive.Theoldestchildhadremainedinthecareofthematernalgrandmother,and the other surviving sibling was removed from the care of the mother and placed with the maternal grandmother.Thecauseofdeathforthechildwasbluntforcetraumawithcontributingconditions;DFS received a copy of the final autopsy report on December 16, 2009. The childs father was criminally chargedwithhisdeath,andhepledguiltytoseconddegreemurder. ThechildwelfarecasewasCourtsubstantiatedagainstboththemotherandthefather. Based on this review of the case record documentation, there may have been sufficient information to substantiateonthesecondinvestigationreceivedandtoprovideongoingservicestothefamily.Thefathers involvementwiththefamilywasnotsufficientlyexploredbyDFSstaff. DFScontinuestoprovideongoingcasemanagementservices.Areferralwasmadeforterminationofparental rights in May 2010, but until termination of parental rights is granted, the childrens permanency goal will remainreunificationwiththemother.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
132
N/A
133
DACaseID:

OnJuly2,2009,anallegationofsexualabusecameintotheCPSChildAbuseHotline.Thecase wasassignedtoaninvestigator,whoimmediatelyinterviewedthevictimchildandhermother. Basedonherpreliminaryinterviews,theinvestigatorenteredintoa"safetyplan"underwhichthe motheragreedtoallownocontactbetweenthechildandtheperpetrator. Thereafter,the investigatorhadlittleornocontactwiththefamilyformorethan30days. Whenthechild victimwasinterviewedattheSouthernNevadaChildren'sAssessmentCenteronAugust6,2009, shedisclosedthatintheinterveningmonthhermothermovedinwiththeperpetratorandthat shewascurrentlylivingwiththeperpetrator.Thevictimdisclosedbeingsexuallyabusedpriorto theCPSreportandbeingreoffendedintheinterveningmonthafterhermothermovedinwith theperpetrator.Thechildwassubsequentlyremoved,butnotuntilaftershehadbeenre victimizedandforcedtolivewithhersexualabuser.
49
DFSRESPONSE:
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSin2002duetoallegationsofsexualabusefondlingagainstthe naturalfather.DFSconductedaninvestigation,interviewingthemother,father,andchild.Theparents weregoingthroughacontentiouscustodybattleatthattime,andbothmadenumerousallegationsof child abuse/neglect against one another. Due to a lack of credible evidence, the investigation was unsubstantiated. Asecondreportofabuse/neglectwasreceivedbyDFSonJuly2,2009.Thereportallegedsexualabuse against the natural father and was filed by the childs mother. DFS staff immediately initiated an investigation. The child was forensically interviewed at the Southern Nevada Childrens Assessment Centeron July 2, 2009. The child disclosed that her fatherhadtouchedherbreast. Themother was interviewedas well, and agreed toinstitute a safety plan which provided for no contactbetween the childandherfather.Thechildwasleftinthecareofthemother,andtheyrelocatedfromthefamily hometoresidewithafriendofthemother. DFSstaffdidnothavecontactwiththemotherandthechildagainuntilAugust4,2009.Themother thencontactedDFSstaffandinformedthemshehadmovedbackintothefamilyhomewiththealleged perpetrator. The child was reinterviewed on August 6, 2009. During the interview, the child disclosed that in the interveningmonth,despitethesafetyplanbeinginplace,herfatherhadagaintouchedherbreast.Law enforcementsubmittedthecaseforacountoflewdnessinAugust2009,howeveritwasdenied,andno chargeswerefiled. 1280440 072009 022002 Substantiated Unsubstantiated
072009ReportDate: Female,13YOA
Open Closed
134
ThechildwasremovedfromthecareofthemotherandplacedinoutofhomecaresubsequenttotheAugust interview.TheDFSinvestigationwasCourtsubstantiatedandthechildremainedcareuntilMarch2010,when thechildwasreunifiedwiththemother.WardshipofthechildwasterminatedbytheCourtonApril15,2010. Thiscaseisclosed,andtherehavebeennoadditionalreportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor1year,2months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
135
DACaseID:

InJune2009,CPSunsubstantiatedasexualabusecasewithcredibledisclosuresfromtwo victims.ThecasewascalledintotheHotlineandassignedtoaninvestigator,whointerviewedthe 15yearoldchild.Thechilddisclosedthatwhenshewas12or13shehadsurgeryonherfeet. Shetookherpainmedicationandfellasleeponherparentsbed.Whenshewoke,herpanties hadbeenrippedoffandherbrawasoff.Inanotherinstance,shewokeuptoseeashadowy figurethatsheidentifiedasherfathertakingoffherpants.Shepretendedtorolloverinher asleepandherfatherlefttheroom.Inathirdinstance,shewaslyinginbedwhenshefelther fathershandonherleg.Shewasabletogetupandgetinhersistersbedtogetawayforhis advances.Inafourthinstance,herfathertoldhertotakeXanax.Thechildpretendedtotakeit, butdidnot.Herfatherkeptaskingifshewassleepy.Thevictimsecretlycalledhermotherand askedhertocomefromworkforfearthatthefatherwasgoingtosexuallyabuseheragain.In eachinstancewherethefathersexuallyabusedthischild,themotherwasconfrontedwiththe fathersactionsandshedidnothingtoprotectherchildren.Thevictimalsodisclosedthather fathersexuallyabusedher(nowadult)sisterseveralyearsearlier. CPSinterviewedthesisterwhodisclosedthatherfatherrepeatedlysexuallyabusedher.She describedthathewouldgiveherXanaxandthentouchesheronceshewasasleep.Inthefirst instancesheremembered,hegaveherNyquil.Aftershefellasleep,shefelthimtouchingher vaginalareaandshefelthisfingerinsidehervaginalopening.Whenshemoved,hegotupand lefttheroom.Inanotherinstance,whenshewas15yearsold,hetriedtogiveherXanax.She pretendedtotakeit.Thatnight,hecameintoherroomandlaydowninthebednexttoher.He triedtopulldownherpantsbutwhenshemoved,hestopped.Aminutelatershefelthimtouch hervaginalarea,hurtingherreallybadly.Whenshemovedagain,hestoppedforamomentbut thenstartedtouchingheragain.Sheturnedoverandhefinallystoppedandlefttheroom.When shetoldhermother,hermotherdidnotbelieveherorprotecther.Despitereceivingthese detaileddisclosures,CPSclosedthecaseunsubstantiated. TheDistrictAttorneylearnedof thecaseandindependentlyfiledapetition.Thefatherplednocontesttothepetition
50
DFSRESPONSE:
1325153 UNITYCase#: 042009 Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): 022007 Unsubstantiated(CourtSubstantiatedsubsequenttoDAfiling independentpetitionfiling) Unsubstantiated 022006 Unsubstantiated 042009ReportDate: Female,17YOA Female,15YOA
Open Closed
This family first came to the attention of DFS on February 06, 2006 due to allegations of emotional abuse,domesticviolence,andphysicalabuseagainstthenaturalmotherandtheadoptivefather.DFS conductedaninvestigationthatwasunsubstantiated. DFSreceivedthesecondreportforthisfamilyonFebruary23,2007.Thereportwasfiledbylocallaw enforcement who had responded to a report that a female child had been sexually assaulted by her adoptivefather.Thechildreportedthatherfatherwouldgivehermedicationtohelphersleep,and thatshewouldsubsequentlyhavesorenessinhervaginaandtroubleurinatingthenextday.Thechild
136
also reported that her sibling woke up with her bra undone and underwear torn, after taking pain medication following foot surgery. The child reported these allegations while staying at a friends house. The police report indicated that the alleged victim had runaway twice and been arrested for battery/domesticviolence. DFSstaffmadenumerousattemptstocontacttheallegedchildvictim,butwasunabletodoso.DFS staff interviewed the childs sibling (referenced in the report), who provided no corroborating information;shedisclosednosexualabuse.DFSalsointerviewedthefather;hedeniedtheallegations. TheinvestigationwasclosedasunsubstantiatedonApril19,2007afterrepeatedunsuccessfulattempts tolocatetheallegedvictimathomeandschool. ThethirdreportwasreceivedonApril24,2009allegingsexualabuseagainsttheadoptivefather.This reportwasstaffedwithlawenforcementonApril24,2009.DFSstaffattemptedahomevisitonApril 25,2009.DFSstaffwasinformedthefamilynolongerlivedatthataddress,butwasprovidedaphone numberforoneofthechildren. DFSstaffwasabletomeetwiththechild(thesiblingreferencedinthefirstreport)onApril29,2009, and she disclosed that she had been sexually abused by her father on multiple occasions for a few years. She stated her father fondled her breast and vaginal area on multiple occasions and that the mostrecentincidentoccurredinDecember2008.Shestatedherfatherhadbeenoutofthehomefor2 months. The child was forensically interviewed May 1, 2009, at the Southern Nevada Childrens Assessment Center.Shediscussedhavingtotakepainmedicationwhenshehadsurgerywhenshewas12or13. Shestatedshewokeupwithherunderwearrippedoffandherbraundone.Shedidnotknowwhat happened.Shetoldhersister,andhermotherultimatelyconfrontedthefather.Herespondedthat thechildmusthavehadaroughnightoftossingandturning,andthiswasthereasonfortheripped underwear.Shedidnotdiscussthesituationfurtherwithhermother.Shereportedasimilarincident occurredonthecouch.Sheimmediatelytoldhermotherwhowokeupherfathertoconfronthim.He saidshemusthavebeendreaming.Shereportedanotheroccasionwherethefathertriedtogiveher Xanex. She called her mother, who was working at the time, and asked her to come home. Her motherarrivedwithin30minutes.Shestatedthatherfathermixespainpillswithalcohol,andthathe doesntrememberanythingwhenhedoesthis.Shealsodiscussedhersistersallegations(asdescribed inthefirstreport)andstatedthathermotherdidntbelievehersisterbecausetheallegationscame out during a fight between her sister and father. The alleged victim stated that her mother didnt believe her at first, but now believed her. The child felt safe in her home now that her father lives elsewhere.
The alleged victims sister was interviewed at the Southern Nevada Childrens Assessment Center on May2,2009.Shestatedthatsheusedtogetintophysicalaltercationswithherfatherregularlybefore hemoved.Shereportedthatherfathertouchedhervaginalareawhileshewassleepingandtriedto giveherpillssuchasXanex.Thefirstincidentoccurredwhenshewaslyingonthecouchaftertaking Nyquil.ShedidntreportthisincidentbecauseshewasdazedfromtheNyquil,andwasunsurethatthe abuse really happened. She reported that a similar incident occurred when she was 15. She stated thatshedidnttellhermotheruntilonenightwhensheranawayandbegangettingintotrouble.Her mother didnt believe her because she had stolen her fathers car, and her mother thought she was lyingastheallegationswerenotmadeuntilshewasintrouble. ThechildrensmotherwasinterviewedonMay2,2009.Shereportedthatshedidnotinitiallybelieve theallegationsbroughtforthbyheroldestdaughterbecausetheallegationswerenotmentioneduntil shegotintotrouble.Sheconfrontedherhusband,buthedeniedeverything.Sheseparatedfromher husbandforaperiodoftime,butlaterallowedhimbackhomeforfinancialreasons.Mostrecently,he
137
had been out of the house for 2 months, and she did not plan on taking him back as she was more financiallystable.Shereportedthatshewouldbefilingforcustodyanddivorcesoon.Shestatedthat theoldestchilddoesntspeaktothefather;however,theyoungerchildwouldlikearelationshipwith him.Themotherreportedthattheyoungerchildwasneverleftalonewiththefather.Shereported beingopentocounselingandreceivinginhomeservices.
ThefatherwasinterviewedonJune8,2009.Hestatedthesetypesofallegationswerebroughtagainst himbefore,andthattheywereridiculous.Hestatedhehadbeenoutofthehomefor5months,and thathetakesLoratab,Soma,andXanexforhisacuteanxiety.Hestatedhewouldnotattempttoget custodyofthechildrenbecauseheadoptedthem.Hewasopentocounselingandwouldliketohavea healthyrelationshipwithhisdaughters.
ThefathercontactedtheinvestigatoronJune25,2009andindicatedthathemayhaveanopportunity tomoveoutofthestate,andwantedtomakesurethatitwasokay.Hewasadvisedthatthecasewas beingsubmittedforclosure.TheinvestigationwasclosedasunsubstantiatedonJuly5,2009byDFS staff. Basedonthiscasereview,despitethefactthatthemotherwasprotectiveofthechildren,therewas sufficientinformationtosubstantiateontheApril24,2009reportandtoprovideongoingservicesto thefamily.CaserecordsreviewedsupportedCourtinterventionandsupervision. TheDAsOfficeindependentlyfiledapetitiononJuly30,2009,citingthesameallegationslistedinthe reportreceivedbyDFSonApril24,2009(seeabove).Themotherandfatherwerebothnamedas perpetratorsinthispetitionandbothchildrenwerealsonamed. CourtrecordsindicateaPleaHearingwasheldonJuly30,2009.Thechildrenwereplacedwiththe mother,andthefatherwasorderedtohavenocontactwiththechildren.AcontinuationofthePlea HearingwasheldonAugust6,2009.Thefathersattorneyenteredadenialtothepetitiononbehalfof thefather.ThemotherspleawascontinuedbytheCourt. ThefatherplednocontestattheEvidentiaryHearingheldonNovember11,2009.TheCourtaccepted thepleaandrecommendedthatthepetitionagainstthemotherbedismissedasshehadbeen compliant.Shehadenrolledinnonoffendingparentingclasses,counseling,andhadmaintainedno contactwitthefather.AttheDispositionalHearingheldonDecember3,3009thechildrenweremade wardsoftheCourt.
DFS continued to provide case management services to this family until April 22, 2010. At the time of case closure, the mother maintained sole legal and physical custody of the child. The father was prohibited from having any contact with the child until completion of a psychosexual assessment and following any related recommendations.Therehavebeennoadditionalreportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor1year,5months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
138
139
DACaseID:

InJune2009,a17montholdchildpresentedatUniversityMedicalCenterwithextensive2nd and3rddegreeimmersionburnstobothhands.Theburnsencompassedtheentiretyofboth handsendinginaringshapedlinearoundthewristssuchthattheyresembledmittens.Mother admittedresponsibilityfortheinjuries,butattemptedtoexplainthemasaccidental. Atthe dispositionalhearing,theDepartmentsubmittedmotherscaseplantotheCourt.Thecaseplan didnotrequirethemothertoengageinanyservicestoaddressthephysicalabuseofthechildnor diditincludeamentalhealthassessment.AttherequestoftheDistrictAttorneysOffice,the CourtdirectedtheDFSworkertoprepareanamendedcaseplanincludingthoserequirements. Whentheamendedcaseplanwaspresentedtothecourtseveralweekslater,itstilldidnot includeanylanguagetoaddressthemothersphysicalabuseofthischild.Whenconfrontedwith theomission,theDFSworkerstatedthatitwasherbeliefthatthephysicalabuseonlyappliedto thefather.Thiswasdespitethefactthatthemotherhadpriorsubstantiatedpetitionsfor physicalabuseofthechildrenandsheadmittedtocausingtheseinjuries.
51
DFSRESPONSE:
1320708 UNITYCase#: 062009 Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): 122007 Substantiated(requireschangeinUNITYtoCourt Substantiated) CourtSubstantiated 082007 CourtSubstantiated 112006 CourtSubstantiated 082005 Unsubstantiated 062009ReportDate: Male,5YOA Male,2YOA Female,1YOA
Open Closed
This family came to the attention of DFS on June 4, 2009 due to allegations of physical abuse and plausible risk of physical injury against the natural mother. This family had prior child welfare history datingbacktoAugust2005,whichincludedthreepreviousCourtsubstantiatedchildprotectiveservices investigations.ThefamilyspreviouscasewithDFSclosedonMarch16,2009. In June 2009, a report was filed by a local hospital providing medical care to a child presenting with second and third degree burns to the hands. The reporting source indicated the mother alleged the childwasburnedwhilewashingherhands,butthattheburnsweresosevere,theyappearedtohave occurred as a result of punishment. DFS initiated an investigation, interviewing the mother who admittedtocausingthechildsinjuries,butstateditwasaccidental.Thechildrenwereremovedfrom thecareofthemother,andplacedinoutofhomecare.DFSrequestedtheDAsOfficefileapetition.
140
Themotherdenied the petition, but later plednocontest. Case recorddoes not reflectdiscussion or disagreementbetweenDFSstaffandtheDAsofficeregardingthemotherscaseplan.Infact,thereare multiplereferencestothefactthatDFSstaffintendedtorequestandeventuallydidrequestamotionto waive reasonable efforts on the mother. A case note dated on June 6, 2009, indicates that DFS staff informedthemotherthatduetoherhistorywithCPSandthenewinjuryto[thechild]thataMotionto WaiveReasonableEffortsmaybesubmittedtotheCourtandthatifgrantedDFSwouldnotberequired togive[her]acaseplanandworkwithheronreunification.TheCourtwasalsoadvisedonJune18, 2009DFSstaffintendedtorequestawaiverofreasonableefforts. SubsequenttothetransferofthecasefromDFSchildprotectiveservicesstafftopermanencystaff,the case record indicates permanency staff developed a case plan with the mother. Records do not documentthecontentsofthatcaseplan.AttheJanuary7,2010DispositionalHearing,Courtminutes reference a continuance request made by DFS staff who indicated to the Court the case plan was not complete. The mothers case plan, according to Court minutes, was discussed at a hearing held on January 28, 2010.TheminutesindicatethemotherwasnotpresentatthehearingduetoaconflictwithCriminal Court requirements. The minutes indicate that a Motion to Waive Reasonable Efforts was pending hearingonFebruary4,2010andthattheDAsOfficerequestedthatdiscussionregardingthecaseplan behelduntil that Motion hadbeendecided. Themothers attorney objected to the request, and the Courtproceededwiththecaseplanreview.WhileCourtminutesindicatedtheplanwasonlyamended to include a mental health component, other case records indicate the amendment included a componenttoaddressphysicalabuse.
OnFebruary18,2010,theCourtapprovedtheMotiontoWaiveReasonableefforts,essentiallymakinganycase planineffectnullandvoid.DFScontinuestoprovidecasemanagementservices,andthepermanencygoalsfor thechildrenremainadoption.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
141
142
DACaseID:

InDecember2007,DFSinvestigatedacaseinvolvinga13yearoldgirlwhowasrepeatedly sexuallyabusedbyhermothersadultboyfriendbeginningatage10andcontinuingoverthe courseofseveralyears.Thechilddescribedtheboyfriendremovingherpants,rubbinghervaginal areaandkissingherstomach.Heforcedhertobendoverandrubbedhiserectpenisagainsther vaginalarea.Healsomadeherfondlehispenis.Duringtheinitialinvestigationanddespitethe boyfriendspleainchildwelfarecourt,themotherneverbelievedherchildandmaintaineda romanticrelationshipwiththeperpetrator. InMarch2009,DFSrequestedtoclosethecase despitethefactthatcriminalchargeswerependingagainsttheperpetrator,theboyfriendhadnot undergoneanytreatmentorworkedhiscaseplan,themothercontinuedtomaintainaromantic relationshipwiththeperpetrator,andthemotherrefusedtobelieveherdaughter. TheDistrict AttorneyobjectednotingtheobviousconcernsforthesafetyofthechildandCourtrefusedDFSs requestforclosure.
52
DFSRESPONSE:
1276493 122007 Substantiated 112002 Unsubstantiated 012001 Unsubstantiated 122007ReportDate: Female,13YOA Male,6YOA
Open Closed
This family came to the attention of DFS on December 21, 2007 due to allegations of sexual abuse againstthenaturalmothersboyfriendandfailuretoprotectagainstthemother.Thisfamilyhadprior child welfare history dating back to January 2001, which included two previous unsubstantiated child protectiveservicesinvestigations. The December 2007, report was filed by the mother, who expressed concern that her boyfriend was inappropriatelytouchingherdaughter.Whilethemotherwasthereportingsource,duringthecourseof theinvestigationthemotherexpressedherdisbeliefthattheabuseoccurred.Themothersboyfriend plednocontesttothepetitioninMay,2008.Hewaslaterchargedcriminallyfortheabuse. The mother, however, completed Court ordered services and the petition against her was later dismissedonJune24,2008.CaserecordsindicatethattheDAsOfficerecommendedshebedismissed duetoherwillingnesstoparticipateinservices,maintainingherchildscounseling,andmaintainingno contactbetweenthechildandtheperpetratoroftheabuse.TheDAsOfficeindicatedtheywouldnot agree to terminate wardship of the child or to close the case until the criminal case concluded. The Courtconcurred. DFSstaffrecommendedcaseclosureataReviewHearingheldonMarch1,2009.Caserecordsdonot document the rationale behind the request. The Court would not close the case, as the mother still expressedadisbeliefoftheallegationsinopenCourt.
143
Basedonthiscasereview,themothersdismissalfromthepetitionwasunfortunate.Shecontinuedtoexpress disbelief that the abuse/neglect occurred, which ultimately diminished her ability to protect the child. The motheralsocontinuedtomaintainarelationshipwiththeperpetrator,althoughshedidnotallowcontactwith herchildren.Thecaserecordreflectsanemphasisinrequiringtheserviceparticipationoftheperpetrator,with adenialofcaseclosurebasedonthestatusoftheperpetrator.Theperpetratorhadnocontactwiththechild since December 2007, and had no biological relationship to the child. If the mother had remained on the petition,thefocusofthecasemayhavemoreappropriatelyshiftedtoher,focusingonincreasingherabilityto protectherchildrenandhelpinghercometotermswith(andacknowledge)theabusethatoccurred. ThecaseremainsopenandDFScontinuestoprovidecasemanagementservicestothefamily.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
144
DACaseID:

InMay2009,a3yearoldchildwasdeterminedbyCPStohaveanadultsizebitemarkonher armandtworedmarksonherlegs.ThevictimtoldboththereporterandtheCPSinvestigator mommybitme.ThereporteralsoinformedCPSthatsheobservedthemotherpullthechilds hairsohardthechildwasliftedofftheground,that(fromoutside)sheheardthechildscreaming insidetheapartmentforanextendedperiodoftime,andthatthechildandher2yearoldbrother werefrequentlyleftoutsidewithoutsupervision.Inoneinstance,theytriedtobringthe3year oldbacktothefamilyapartment,butthedoorwaslockedandnoonewouldanswer.Inanother instance, the 2yearold was outside unattended without a diaper and was almost hit by a car. The source reported seeing the mother with a black eye on a previous occasion. Mother also presented with a black eye and bruised arm when interviewed by CPS. The mother pled no contesttothepetition. Atthedispositionalhearing,DFSrecommendedthatthechildrennotbemadewardsandthat the case be closed. Despite the mothers plea to the allegations, the DFS caseworker communicatedtotheDDAthatshedisbelievedtheallegations. TheCourt,atthebehestofthe District Attorney, kept the case open and required DFS to develop a case plan to address the childrenssafetyandtoincludespecificcounselingforthephysicalabuse.
53
DFSRESPONSE:
1355193 072010 052009 Unsubstantiated Substantiated
052009ReportDate: Female,3YOA Male,2YOA
Open Closed
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSinMay2009duetoallegationsofphysicalabuseagainstthe natural mother and father. The report was filed by law enforcement who responded to a domestic disputecomplaint.DFSinitiatedaninvestigation,anduponarrivalatthehomefoundthechildtohave sustained an adult size bite mark on her arm and two red marks on her right leg. The child was interviewedandindicatedthathermotherbither.Themotherdeniedtheallegation,andstatedthat thebitemarkwascausedbythechildssibling. DFSalsointerviewedthesourcewhoreportedtheincidenttolawenforcement.Thesourceindicated witnessingthemotherpullthechildshairsohardshewasphysicallyliftedoffthegroundandalsothat thechildrenarefrequentlyleftoutsidewithoutsupervision. The children were immediately removed from the home and placed in outofhome care until June 1, 2009, when they were released to the natural father and the uncle, who relocated from California to assistthefamily. BoththemotherandfatherinitiallydeniedtheallegationsandanEvidentiaryHearingwasscheduled. AttheEvidentiaryHearing,themotherenteredanocontestplea,butthefatherspetitionwasheldfor 90days.TheDispositionalHearingforthemotherwasheldonOctober13,2009,butcontinuedforone weekuntilOctober20,2009.Atthattime,DFSstaffrecommendedthatthechildrennotbemadewards
145
oftheCourt.Thefamilywascooperatingwithservices,andthechildrenhadpreviouslybeenreturned to the care of the father. DFS staff believed that case management oversight and services could continuetobeprovidedinlieuofmakingthechildrenwardsoftheCourt.However,theCourtdisagreed and ordered the children be made wards. The case record does not indicate that DFS staff recommendedcaseclosure. CaserecorddoesnotdocumentDFSstaffdisbelievedtheallegations. AttheDecember22,2009,ReviewHearingthecasewasorderedclosedbytheCourtandwardshipof thechildrenterminated.Thepetitiononthefatherwasalsodismissed.Themotherhadbeencompliant withhercaseplan,includingclinicalassessments,therapy,andparentingclasses.
DFS received a second report of abuse/neglect in July 2010 alleging physical abuse. One of the children presented at a local hospital with an injury to the jaw. Initially it was diagnosed as a fracture, but later the physicianindicatedthexrayshadbeenreadincorrectly.Thecasewasunsubstantiated. Thiscaseremainsclosed,andtherehavebeennoadditionalreportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor2months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A

146
DACaseID:

OnAugust2009,afiveyearoldchildwasseverelybeatenwhilelivinginthehomeofherfather andstepmother.Uponreturntohermotherscare,thechildhadmultiplebruisesintheshapeof fingermarksonherupperthighnearhergroinarea,abruiseintheshapeofahandprintonher buttocks,andalong,linearbruiseonherthighthatappearedtobeabeltmark.Shealsohada bruiseunderherlefteyeandtwobruisestoherfacenearherchinandjawlinewhichappeared circularlikeafingerprint.Thebruiseswerebotholdandnew.Thechildhadsufferedsignificant hairlosswhileinthecareofherfather,andshehadnotbeentreatedforaurinarytractinfection whileinherfatherscaredespitethefactthatfatherhadbeenadvisedoftheneedfortreatment. Asaresultoftheextensiveabuseofthisfiveyearold,shewasplacedwithhermotherandher stepandhalfsiblings(ages5years,3yearsand6months)wereremovedfromthehome. Whenthecasetransferredworkers,thepermanencyworkererroneouslybelievedthatthat NorthCarolinaFamilyAssessmentSurvey(NCFAS)atoolrecentlyrolledoutbythe Departmentwasariskassessmenttooland,basedontheresultsofherNCFASassessment recommendedthattheinfantandtwootherveryyoung&vulnerablechildrenbereturnedhome. WhentheDAobjected,theerrorwasdiscoveredandthechildrenwerenotreturnedhome.
54
DFSRESPONSE:
1336366 042010 092009 Substantiated CourtSubstantiated
092009ReportDate: Male,5YOA Female,3YOA Male,7months
Open Closed
This family came to the attention of DFS in September 2009 due to allegations of plausible risk of physicalinjuryandfailuretoprotectagainstthenaturalfatherandthestepmother.Thereportwasfiled byDFSchildprotectiveservicesstaffwhowereinvestigatinganotherreportinvolvingachildwhowas halfsiblingtooneofthechildrenreferencedinthisreport. DFSinitiatedaninvestigation.Thefiveyearoldchildhadbruisingontheface,legs,andbuttocks.Some bruisingappearedconsistentwithfingerprints.Thechildhadabeltlikelinearmark/bruiseaswell.The childrenwereremovedandplacedinoutofhomecare. DFS recommended the Courts return the children to care of the parents at the Dispositional Hearing heldonOctober22,2009.TherecommendationwasnotsolelybasedontheNCFASassessment,and thetoolwasnotviewedasariskassessmenttoolbyDFSstaff.Therecommendationforreunification was based on the NCFAS, the parents engagement in treatment which included their completion of parentingclasses,andthepaternalgrandmotherswillingnesstomoveintothehome. The DAs Office requested a 2week continuance to receive the results of the anger management assessment.TheCourtcontinuedthehearinguntilNovember3,butallowedthechildrentoreturnto the home where they would remain in the care of the paternal grandmother. That hearing was
147
continueduntilNovember17andagainuntilNovember22. At the continued Dispositional Hearing held on November 22, 2009, DFS staff recommended that the motherbeallowedtoreturnhome.Thatrecommendationwasbasedonthemotherscompletionofthe angermanagementassessment,whichdidnotspecifyfollowupotherthancouplescounselingandthe priorcompletionofparentingclasses.Inaddition,thepaternalgrandmotherremainedinthehometo assist with the care of the children, and DFS staff would be conducting announced and unannounced homevisits.CourtminutesindicatethattheCourtagreedandallowedthemothertoreturnhomewith reunificationtooccurwithin90days. Anewreportofabuse/neglectwasreceivedinApril,2010duetothebirthofanewchild.Thechildwasborn drugexposedandtheinvestigationwassubstantiated.DFScontinuestoprovidecasemanagementservicesand supervisiontothefamily.Therehavebeennoadditionalreportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor5months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
148
DACaseID:

Mother admitted her abuse and neglect petition in September 2007 and was ordered to completeDrugTreatment.Atthe6monthReviewhearinginMarch2008,Motherwascontinuing to relapse and was ordered into the Family Court Drug Court program. In mid2008, mother appeared to be doing well and DFS reunified the children into her home. Shortly after the children were reunified, mother began to relapse again. Between July 2009 and January 2010 mother failedto submit urine samples ortested positivein herurine: 7/29 (residualTHC), 7/31 (new marijuana use), 8/3 (new marijuana use), 8/14 (new marijuana use), 8/17 (new marijuana use), 9/2 (missed UA), 9/23 (missed UA), 10/26 (new marijuana use), 11/2 (Opiates and new marijuana use), 11/26 (Opiates), 12/7 (new marijuana use), 12/28 (Opiates and residual marijuana). In January 2010 she remained in poor compliance with Level I in Drug Court and tested positive in her hair at extremely high levels (>25,000 for Cocaine, 6224 Benzoylecgonine and328Norcocaine).Thereafter,motherfailedtoreturntodrugcourt.TheCourtsuasponteput thematteronforprotectivecustodyreview. AtthePChearing,DFSarguedthatdespitetheextremelyhighlevelsofdrugs,thechildrenwere safeinmotherscareandshouldnotberemoved.DFSrepeatedlytoldtheCourtithadnosafety concerns. The District Attorneys Office pointed out to the Court that mother was using large amountsofillegaldrugsonaregularbasis.TheDDAnotedthat,whilemomdeniedusinginthe home,sheisresponsibleforthecareofthechildren24/7andthatsheisnotandcannotbean appropriate caregiver while she is high or withdrawing from drugs. The Court ordered the children removed from the mothers home finding significant ongoing safety threats to the childrenbasedonmotherspatternofdruguse.
55
DFSRESPONSE:
1314384 UNITYCase#: 092007 CourtSubstantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 092007ReportDate: Male,11YOA Male,9YOA Female,8YOA Female,3YOA Male,1dayYOA
Open Closed
This family came to the attention of DFS in September 2007, due to allegations of parent substance abuseanddrugexposedinfantagainstthenaturalmother. Thereportwasmadebyalocalhospitalsubsequenttothebirthofadrugexposedinfant.Thenewborn child was not released to the mothers care, but rather placed from thehospital with a maternal aunt. DFSrequestedtheDAsOfficefileapetition,whichthemotherlateradmittedto,andtheinvestigation wasCourtsubstantiated. InMay2008,themothercompletedinhomedrugtreatment.Caserecorddocumentationindicatedthe followinginformationwasprovidedinareportsummarizingthemothersparticipationindrugtreatment: [patient] maintains a safe, clean environment for her children and uses appropriate disciplinary
149
techniques,andspendsqualitytimewithherchildren.[She]didverywellintheprogram,butindicated shebelievedfuturetherapywouldbeadvantageous.Itisrecommendedthatshereceiveassistancefrom alicensedmentalhealthprofessionaltoaddresspersonalissuesthatsheprefersremainconfidentialbut donotappeartocauseriskforherchildrenatpresent. OnSeptember15,2008,withCourtapproval,thenewbornwasreturnedtothemother.Laterthatmonth mother relapsed and agreed to participate in Drug Court. She continued to receive some outpatient drug treatment services, but struggled with maintaining a commitment to receiving them. She also continuedtotestpositiveonrequireddrugtests. AttheCourthearingonMarch18,2009,DFSrecommendedcaseclosuredespiterecentdrugusedueto themothersabilitytocareforherchildrenandmaintaintheirsafety.DFSrecommendeda30daystatus check to ensure drug levels decreased prior to case closure. The DAs Office requested that substance abuse treatment be ordered. The Court required a 60day status check, and the case remained open. DFSreferredthemothertodrugtreatment,andsheinitiatedDrugCourtparticipationinJuly2009. AtaReviewHearingonMay20,2009,DFSreportedthat5drugtestsweregiventomotherandonly1 wastaken,whichwaspositiveformarijuanainherurine.TheDAsOfficerecommendedthechildrenbe removed, but the Court denied the request, and the children remained in the home with additional services. InDecember2009,themotherwasincarceratedduetobeingoutofcompliancewithDrugCourt,andthe childrenwereremovedfromthehome.DFSrecommendedallowingthechildrentoreturntohomeupon themothersrelease.TheDAsOfficedisagreedwithreturningthechildrenhome.TheCourt,however, orderedthechildrenreturnedhomewithweeklyvisitsbyDFSstaff. InJanuary2010,themotherwasagainincarceratedduetobeingoutofcompliancewithDrugCourt.At the Protective Custody Hearing held on January 13, 2010, the DAs Office again recommended the children be removed from the mothers care. DFS staff supported maintaining placement due to the mothers continued ability to meet her childrens physical, medical, and educational needs and her continued attendance in counseling. DFS staff also noted that during the 2years that DFS had been providingservicestothefamilythemotherhadneverabusedorneglectedherchildrenduetodruguse. TheCourtorderedthechildrensremoval,andthechildrenwereplacedwithmaternalaunt.
ThecaseremainsopenandDFScontinuestoprovidecasemanagementservicestothefamily.Themotheris currently participating in inpatient drug treatment (there was a fourmonth wait to receive services), but a terminationofparentalrightsispending.Thepermanencygoalforthechildrenisadoptionbyrelative.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
150
151
DACaseID:

InSeptember2009,DFSrecommendedcaseclosureonasexualabusecaseinwhichthe mothers41yearoldboyfriendsexuallyabusedher12yearolddaughter.The12yearoldwas sittingonthecouchwhentheboyfriendputhishandonhervaginalareaandbeganrubbingit.He toldherthathedidnotwanttohitit.Hesaidheonlywantedtoseeit.The12yearoldalso disclosedthattheboyfriendplayedwithheroneyearoldbrothersgenitals.Theperpetratorwas thefatheroftheoneyearoldandwasonthechildsbirthcertificate. Despitethefactthatthe perpetratorcontinuedtodenytheabuseandhadnotobtainedanevaluationoranytreatment whatsoever,DFSrecommendedclosingthecaseinthebeliefthatthemotherwasprotectiveand thattherewasavalidprotectiveorderinplace.Infact,noprotectiveorderwasinplacebecause themotherhadfailedtoappearforthehearingtoextend.Sincethefathermaintainedhis parentalrightstotheoneyearold,ifthecasehadbeenclosedbasedupontherepresentationsof DFSthechildwouldhavebeenplacedinsignificantdangeroffurtherabuse.
56
DFSRESPONSE:
1350248 052010 102008 Unsubstantiated Substantiated
102008ReportDate: Female,12YOA Male,8YOA Male,1month
Open Closed
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSonOctober14,2008duetoallegationsoffailuretoprotectand medicalneglectagainstthenaturalmotherandsexualabuseagainstthemothersboyfriend(whowas alsothenaturalfatherofoneofthechildren).Thereportwasfiledbylawenforcementwhoresponded to a report of sexual abuse. DFS initiated an investigation, and the children were removed from the homeandplacedinoutofhomecare. DFSrequestedtheDAsOfficefiledapetition,andthechildrenwerereturnedtothecareofthemother at the Protective Custody Hearing. The natural mother was protective when she learned about the allegations.Shenolongerallowedherboyfriendtoresideinherhome,filedchargesagainsthim,and filedforaTemporaryProtectionOrder. TheCourtsubstantiatedthepetitionallegationsagainsttheboyfriend.Thepetitionagainstthemother wasdismissed,primarilybecauseshewascompliantwithCourtrequirementsandremainedprotectiveof her children. While the allegations against the mother were not Court substantiated, the DFS investigationwassubstantiated. In March 2009, at a Review Hearing the Court terminated the wardship of the natural mothers two biologicalchildren,butthecaseremainedopenedastothechildsharedwiththeboyfriend.DFSstaffdid recommendcaseclosureforallchildren.Staffindicatedthatwhiletheboyfriendrefusedtoadmittothe allegationsandrefusedtreatment,themotherremainedprotectiveofallchildren.
152
AttheSeptember9,2009,ReviewHearingDFSstaffagainrecommendedcaseclosureduetothemother completing nonoffending parenting classes, enrolling her daughter in counseling and demonstrating protectivecapacity.TheCourtagreedtoclosethecaseafterthemotherfiledforcustodyofthechildren. AttheMarch,2010ReviewHearingtheCourtterminatedwardshipoftheremainingchild,providingthe motherwithsolelegalandphysicalcustodyofthechild,withthefatheronlyhavingsupervisedcontact oncehecompletedtreatment. DFS received a subsequent report of abuse/neglect in May 2010. The report was not related to theprevious sexualabuseallegations.DFSconductedaninvestigation,andtheinvestigationwasunsubstantiated.Thecase remainsclosedandnofurtherreportshavebeenreceivedonthisfamilyfor4months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
153
DACaseID:

Between 2000 and 2008, CPS received 9 calls reporting abuse and/or neglect on this family. Four(4)ofthereportsweresubstantiated,four(4)wereunsubstantiatedandonewasscreened outwithoutanyinvestigation.NoneofthecaseswerereferredtotheDistrictAttorneysOffice forfilingofapetition. ThecasethatwasscreenedoutbyCPSwithoutinvestigationoccurred September 10, 2008 and involved physical abuse of multiple young children by their father/stepfather. The reporting source told the hotline that the 7yearold child had marks/bruises on his leg and shin. The child stated that he received the bruises while fooling around with his stepfather. He stated that he and his stepfather fight a lot and that the step fatherlikestoleavemarksonhim.Thechildtoldthesourcethathisstepfatherbeatstheshit outofhimandpusheshimaround.The7yearoldstatedthathisstepfatherpunchedhis4year oldbrotherintheribcage,hurtinghim.The7yearoldalsoreportedthathisstepfatherhitsand pusheshistwoyearoldsisterwhenshedoesntlisten.DespitethefamilyslongCPShistoryand the calltaker having knowledge that the stepfather had criminal history including violent charges, this call was screened out without even speaking with the children or any investigationwhatever. Approximately nine (9) months later, the familys now 3yearold child presented at the hospitalwithafemurfracture(thisisthesamechildthatwasallegedtobephysicallyabusedasa 2yearold above). Her leg was broken when her stepfather threw a door over an upstairs loft balconydownontothelivingroomfloorbelow,wherethechildwassleeping.Thedoorstruckthe childsleg,breakingit.Thefamilyreportedthatchildrenregularlysleptinthisareaontheliving roomfloorbecausetherestofthehousewastoodirtyandclutteredtosleepin.Whenthechild presentedatthehospitalshewasdescribedasfilthywithextremelypoorhygiene.Thehospital socialworkerdescribedhospitalstaffhavingtocleancakedfecalmatteroutofthechildsperianal area. Hospital staff described the other children as being equally filthy and stated that mother allowedthemtorunaroundunsupervised.Theystatedthatthemotherwreakedofalcohol,was argumentativeandactingbizarre. Whenrespondingtothehouse,CPSdescribedtheconditionsinsideasdeplorable,withclothes, foodandmiscellaneousitemsstrewnacrossthehouse.Duringthehomevisit,themotherwas nottendingtotheyounger children,butinsteadtheolderchildrenwereassumingthat responsibility.Thevictimssiblingsdescribedthatthestepfathergetscrazyandbreaksthings. Thefamilymembersstatedthatstepfatherisknowntodrinkalcoholandthathehadbeen drinkingthatnight.Acriminalhistoryofstepfatherreviewedthatnightrevealedhistoryviolence, includingdomesticviolenceagainstthemother.CPSleftthechildreninthecareofthemother withmotherpromisingnottoallowcontactbetweenthefatherandthechildrenorbetweenthe stepfatherandthechildren.Betweenthetimeoftheoffenseandtheprotectivecustodyhearing, themotherviolatedtheagreementtoallownocontactnumeroustimes.ShealsotoldDFSthat shewasfinanciallydependentonthemeninherlifeandthat,forthatreason,shewantedto movebackinwiththeabuser.Thechildrenwereremovedfromhercareattheprotective custodyhearingattherequestoftheDistrictAttorney.
57
154
DFSRESPONSE:
1291359 022010 062009 112008(2) Substantiated CourtSubstantiated Unsubstantiated Substantiated 102007 Unsubstantiated 052007 Substantiated 092006 Substantiated 072006 Unsubstantiated 042006 Unsubstantiated 012000 Substantiated 062009ReportDate: Female,12YOA Male,8YOA Male,5YOA Female,4YOA Female,3YOA Female,1month
Open Closed
Between2000and2010,DFSreceived10reportsofabuse/neglectonthisfamily.Thechildwelfare historyincludedsixsubstantiatedinvestigations,withonebeingCourtinvolved,andfour unsubstantiatedinvestigations. Inadditiontotheabove,thehistoryalsoincludedareportthatwasscreenedoutforinvestigation.The reportscreenedoutonSeptember10,2008,indicatedoneofthechildrenhadmarks/bruisesontheleg andshin.Thesourcereportedthatwhenaskingthechildhowtheinjuryoccurred,thechildindicated theinjurywascausedbyhisstepfather.Thesourcereportedthatthechildalsoindicatedhissister wasabusedbythestepfather,andthatthehousewasdirty. Based on this review of the case record documentation, the report should have been screened in for investigation. On June 21, 2009, DFS received a report of abuse/neglect alleging physical abuse against the natural motherandthestepfather.Thereportwasreceivedbyalocalhospitalthatwasprovidingmedicalcare to a child presenting with a femur fracture. Hospital staff indicated the child was filthy, and that the mothersmelledofalcohol. DFS conducted a joint investigation with local law enforcement. DFS staff interviewed the natural mother,stepfather,thechildren,andmedicalpersonnel.Thehousewasfoundtobefilthy.DFSstaff requested the DAs Office file a petition. Initially, the mother and the children went to stay with the maternal grandmother. A safety plan was developed; it required that the stepfather as well as the father to one of the children have no contact with the children due to prior history. Prior to the Protective Custody Hearing held on June 23, 2009, the mother failed to comply with the safety plan. Thechildrenwereremovedfromthecareofthemotherasaresultandplacedinoutofhomecare.
155
The case remains open, with the children placed in outofhome care. In February 2010, DFS received a new report of abuse/neglect alleging sexual abuse against a paternal uncle (who, based on case record documentation,mayalsobeaminor).Thisincidentoccurredpriortotheabusewhichbroughtthechildreninto care.DFSconductedaninvestigationwhichwassubstantiated. Thepermanencygoalsforthechildrenarereunification.Therehavebeennoadditionalreportsreceivedonthis familyfor7months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
156
DACaseID:

InApril2009,afosterparentinformedCPSthatthe4yearoldchildinhercarehaddisclosed sexualabuse.Thechildisspecialneedsandsuffersfromcerebralpalsy.Thechildwas interviewedattheSouthernNevadaChildrensAdvocacyCenter,whereshedisclosedthather mothersboyfriendwoulddobadthingstoher.Thechilddisclosedthathewouldgounderher skirt,pulldownherpantiesandsmellherbutt.Shesaidhiswienerwouldtouchherbutt whenhesmelleditandhewouldtellherIloveyouwhenhedidit.Shesaidhermothersaw himsmellherbuttwithhiswienerandthatshetoldthevictimyoudontwanttohavethat. Followingthisdisclosure,DFSdidnothingfortwomonthstofurtherinvestigatetheabuseor protectthechild. OnJuly1,2009,DFScontactedthechildstherapistandconfirmedthedisclosures.The therapistadvisedthatthevictimdisclosedthathermothersboyfriendwouldchokeherandput hiswienerinherbuttandithurt.Shealsodescribedhimputtinghispenisinhermouthand demonstratedhimtakingboththeirclothesoffandrubbinghisgenitalareaagainsthers. Yet, nothingwasdoneforanotherfour(4)weeks.Finally,onJuly28,2009,DFSforthefirsttime reviewedthevideotapeofthechildsdisclosureattheSNCAC.Thereafter,theinvestigator directedthatthechildsvisitationwiththemotherbestoppedandshecalendaredthematterfor protectivecustodyreview.
58
DFSRESPONSE:
042009ReportDate: Male,6YOA Female,4YOA
Open Closed
This family came to the attention of DFS on December 7, 2008 due to allegations of plausible risk of physicalinjuryandphysicalabuseagainstthenaturalmother.Thechildrenweremadewardsofthe Courtandplacedinoutofhomecare. Thechildrenremainedinoutofhomecarewhenthesecondreportofabuse/neglectwasmadeonApril 24,2009.ThereportwasfiledbyDFSstaffassignedtomanagethefamilysexistingoutofhomecare permanencycase.Thechildhaddisclosedtoherfostermotherthatshehadpreviouslybeensexually abusedbyhermothersboyfriend;thisdisclosurepromptedthenewabuse/neglectreport.Whilethe report was filedin April 2009, the abuse referencedin the report occurred prior to/concurrently with theabusewhichbroughtthechildintocareitdidnotoccurwhilethechildwasreceivingserviceswith DFS. ThechildwasforensicallyinterviewedattheSouthernNevadaChildrensAssessmentCenteronMay8, 2009,andduringtheinterviewdisclosedbeingsexuallyabusedbythemothersboyfriend.Thechilds siblingwasalsointerviewed,butprovidednodisclosure.
157
The investigation was transferred to a new investigator on June 8, 2009 due to the unexpected, long termmedicalabsenceoftheinvestigatorwhohadpreviouslybeenassignedtothecase. Thechildwasneverleftinanunsafesituation,however,asthechildwasalreadyplacedinoutofhome care,andhadnocontactwiththeperpetratorofthesexualabuse.Additionally,themotherwasonly allowedcontactwiththechildattheDFSVisitationCenter. On July 2, 2009 DFS staff discussed the case with the childs therapist, who confirmed the child had madesimilardisclosuresregardingthesexualabuse. OnJuly28,2009,DFSstaffreviewedthechildsforensicinterviewDVD,andplacedthematterbackon Court calendar. The mothers visitation, while only having occurred at the DFS Visitation Center, was alsosuspended.TheinvestigationwaslaterCourtsubstantiated.
Thecaseisopen,andthechildrenremainplacedinoutofhomecare.Terminationofparentalrightsispending andthecurrentpermanencygoalforthechildrenisadoption.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A

158
DACaseID:

Three children (ages 14, 5 and 2) were taken into protective custody on February 11, 2010, after their father attacked their mentally retarded, bedridden maternal aunt with an axe. The father then left the home and brutally bludgeoned a 28yearold woman (who was a random stranger) and her fourmonthold baby with the axe, killing the infant and critically injuring the woman. WhenCPSrespondedtothescene,theyspokewiththemother,whotoldthemthatthefather hadbeenactingstrangelythelastfewweeks.Shestatedthatheappeareddehydratedwithdark circles under his eyes, he hadnt been sleeping, he had been doing a lot of thinking and was having dreams regarding death and angels. The mother denied any drug or alcohol use by the father.TheCPSinvestigatorremovedthechildrenafterdeterminingthattheywereunsafeinthe motherscarebaseduponherdecisiontoleavethechildrenwiththefatherwhilehewasclearly displayingunusualandbizarrebehavior. The 2yearold was transported to the hospital by the Fire Department prior to CPS arrival. A bodycheckwasdoneonthechild.Ahealedburnmarkwasfoundonthechildsleftribcageand hehadrednessandscarringonhisbuttocks,whichappearedtobecausedbyadiaperrash.He hadbruisingonbothshinsandasmallredmarkonthemiddleofhisneck.Hehadasmallblister on his bottom lip. The child was observed running, throwing items and taking offhis diaper to urinateonthefloor.Thechildappearedtobeverballydelayed,ashewouldnotspeakandonly grunted. Afterthecrimescenehadbeencleared,CPSwasallowedtoviewthefamilyhome.PriortoCPS access,policehadimpoundedthedecorativeaxeusedtokillthewomanandinfantandasecond axewithapointedspearendthatwasusedtoattackthementallyretarded,bedriddenmaternal aunt. They also had impounded 2 decorative Samurai swords as well as marijuana, scales and drugparaphernalia. Uponenteringthehome,theCPSinvestigatornotedastrongodorofurinethroughoutthehome. Theflooringinthemainlivingareawassoiledwithnumerouspilesoftrash(includingoldfood, food containers, and cigarette butts) up against the walls. The kitchen area had piles of trash againstthewalls,pilesofdishesinthesinkandonthecounters,andpilesoffoodonthefloor. Therewereashesandcigarettebuttsonthecountersandfloor.Therefrigeratorcontainedonly old, spoiled food and there was old liquid and food crusted to the bottom and sides of the refrigerator.Thereappearedtobenoediblefood. The master bedroom closet was full of clothing, trash and paperwork. A dresser in the closet contained an ashtray with cigarette butts and the remains of smoked marijuana cigarettes, commonlyreferredtoasroaches.Themasterbedroomwasindisarraywithmaterialstoroll marijuanaonthebed.Thebedsidetablewascoveredinoldcigarettebutts,roachesandashes. Thebedroomthatappearedtobelongtothe2and5yearoldboyshadamattressonthefloor. Thesheetswerestainedwithfecesandtherewasfecalmattersmearedonthewalls.Therewas trash throughout the room and marijuana roaches and ash on the childrens windowsill. The bedroomthatappearedtobelongtotheaunthadastrongstenchofurine.Therewerenosheets onthebedandaurinesoakedblanketwasonthefloor.Themattresswassoakedinbloodwhere theaunthadbeenattackedwhilelyingonthebed. Thetoiletinthebathroomwascloggedwithfecesandurine.Therewasobviouswaterdamage
59
159
and mold on the bathroom wall next to the shower. There was a pitbull in the backyard that preventedaccess,butCPSwasabletoseeanaccumulationoftrashbagsinthebackyard.Despite MetroHomicidealreadybeingpresent,theCPSinvestigatorindependentlycalledtheMetroChild AbuseandNeglectUnitregardingthelivingconditions. Inasubsequentinterview,themotherdisclosedthattherewasalonghistoryofmentalillnesson the fathers side of the family, including two of the fathers brothers being diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic.Themothersdescriptionoffathersrecentbehaviorreflectedagitatedandbizarre behaviorforseveraldayspriortotheattacks.Hehadtoldthemotherthathedidnothavelongto live and that he was talking of angels and death. Three days before the attack, the father had passedout.Whenheawoke,hewasapparentlydelusionalandbelievedsomeonehadhithim & knocked him out, so he started swinging and fighting. In his rage, he grabbed a picture and smasheditonthefloor.Noonesawtheincident.Whenfamilymembersfoundthepicture,the fatherfirstdeniedknowingwhathappened.Twodayslater(thedaybeforetheattack),thefather toldthemotherwhathadreallyhappened.Themotherdescribedthatinthedaysleadingupto the attack, the father had a different look in his eyes that reminded her of his schizophrenic brothers. The mother also admitted that the father was using marijuana, despite her prior statementsthathedidnotuseanydrugs. Inaninterviewwiththe14yearolddaughter,thedaughterstatedthatshewasawareoffathers marijuanause.Shealsostatedthatseveraldayspriortotheattackherfatherhadbeendisplaying abnormal behaviors and saying strange things. His conduct was so strange that she and her motherhadbothcommentedonitandtalkedaboutit.ShealsodescribedanincidentinJanuary 2009whenshewas13yearsoldandinthe6thgrade.Shehadrunawayfromhomeandwhenshe returned her father beat her with a belt. He had her bend over a dresser while he beat her. Whenshekeptliftingherheadup,heslammedherfaceintothedressercausingabruiseonher cheek.Shealsohadbruisesonherbuttocksfromthebelt,butshedidnevertoldanyoneabout thebeltmarks.CPSrecordsshowthattheyinvestigatedtheincidentandverifiedthemarkonthe victims face, but unsubstantiated the allegation after the parents denied knowing how she sustainedtheinjuries.Theyneverdidabodycheckandneverdiscoveredthebeltmarksonher backside. Theday after the attack, DFS released the childrenback to the mother, finding that shehad sufficientprotectivecapacitytokeepthechildrensafe.OnFebruary17,DFSreceivedmothers drug tests back, reflecting positive results for marijuana in both her hair and urine. Since that time, the mother has gone to visit the father in jail. In an interview February 24, the mother admittedthatacoupleweeksbeforetheattack,thefatherwasnotascommunicativeasnormal and was pacing around the house. He was saying things like you cant kill an angel and go to Heavenandyouhavetokillthedevil.ShesuggestedthathegotoUMC,butdidnotpursueit afterhesaidhedidntthinkitwasnecessary. ThemothertoldDFSifIleavehim,whichIhavetodoformyownsanity,Idontknowwhatthat woulddotohim.But,thenshedescribedthefathercryingwhenshetalkedaboutleavingthe statewiththechildren.Laterintheconversation,themothertalkedaboutpossiblystayinginLas Vegasforthefatherstrialandthenleavinglater. DFSreleasedthesechildrenfromprotectivecustodythedayaftertheattackwithoutacourt hearingorcompletedinvestigation. DFSindicatedthattheywerenotinclinedtorequestfilea petitionorcourtintervention.DFSindicatedthattheirinitialfindingswerethatthechildrenare safeandthatthecasedoesnotwarrantaformalcourtprocess.TheStateinitiatedadispute resolution,indicatingtheirconcernsregardingmothersmentalhealthandherongoingprotective capacities.DFSultimatelyagreedthatapetitionwasappropriateagainstfatherandmother.
160
DFSRESPONSE:
1352390 022010 012009 CourtSubstantiated Substantiated
022010ReportDate: Female,14YOA Male,5YOA Male,2YOA
Open Closed
This family came to the attention of DFS on February 11, 2010 due to allegations physical abuse and plausibleriskofphysicalinjuryagainstthenaturalfather.Thereportwasfiledbylawenforcementwho respondedtoahomicidereport.TheinitialscenewaschaoticasLawEnforcementsortedoutincident events. It would later be determined that the natural father had attacked his medically and developmentally challenged sisterinlaw who was bedridden. He then left the home and brutally bludgeoneda28yearoldwomanandher4montholdchildwithanaxethathappenedtobewalking downthestreet.Thechilddiedatthesceneandthebabysmotherwascriticallyinjured.Thenatural motherwasatworkatthetimeoftheincident. Theparents2yearoldchildwastransportedtothehospitalwherehewasphysicallyassessed.Itwas notedthathedidhaveanoldhealedburnmarktohisleftribcage,adiaperrash,andablisteronhis bottomlip.Whatappearedtobebruisingonhislowerbackandbuttockwaslaterdeterminedtobe Mongolianspots.ThehousewasfoundtobeunkemptasdescribedintheDAsstatement. ThenaturalmotherwasinterviewedbylawenforcementandwouldlaterbeinterviewedbyDFSstaff theeveningoftheincidentregardingtheplacementofthechildren. After the crime scene had been cleared, DFS staff was allowed to enter the family home. Law enforcement had previously impounded axes, swords, marijuana, and other drug paraphernalia. The description of the home and the interviews conducted by DFS staff with the natural mother and children, as provided by the DA above, is reflected in case record documentation and is taken nearly verbatimfromDFSstaffcasenotes. ThechildrenremainedinoutofhomecarethenightofFebruary11,2008,asthemotherhadtomake necessaryarrangementsforhersister.Thenextmorningthenaturalmotherwasfurtherassessedby DFS staff, and it was determined that she did not pose an immediate or imminent danger of serious harm toherchildren. Thechildren were releasedto hercarewith theunderstanding that DFS would continuetomonitorandassistwithservices. With the assistance of DFS staff, the natural mother and the children did not return to their family home. Instead they were provided an alternative place to reside until the mother could make more permanentrelocationplans. The mother contacted her husband in jail subsequent to the event. She also tested positive for marijuanause,howevereverytesttakensincethattimehasbeennegative.
161
DFSdidnotopposefilingapetitiononthefather,butinitiallywasuncertainaboutfilingthepetitionon themother.DFSmanagementandtheDAsofficeinitiatedtheDisputeResolutionProtocol.Several meetingsoccurredbetweentheDAsOfficeandDFS.DFSmanagementadvisedtheDAthattheywould notrefutethefilingofapetitiononthefather,howeverrequestedthatthepetitiononthenatural motherbecontinued.TheDAsOfficeagreed,andthepetitiononthefatherwasCourtsubstantiated andthepetitiononthemotherwasdismissedonSeptember9,2010.
The Court terminated wardship of the children, and the case was closed on September 23, 2010. The father remains in jail pending criminal trial. There have been no additional reports received on this family for 7 months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
162
DACaseID:

InDecember2008,afivemontholdinfantpresentedatthehospitalwithanonacutefracture ofhisrightdistalhumerus(upperarmbone).Thefracturewasdeterminedtobeapproximatelya weekold.Abonescanwasconductedwhichrevealedadditionalhealedfracturesoftheinfants right tibia (lower leg bone), left distal radius (wrist), right distal radius, and four of his left posteriorribs#7,8,9,&10.Duetothehealedconditionoftheseinjuresitwasdeterminedthat they were inflicted a different time than the humerus fracture. The parents were unable to provideamedicallyjustifiableexplanationforanyoftheinjuriestothisinfant.Theinvestigator staffed the case with a medical expert and ruled out a possible diagnosis for brittle bone disease,basedonthelackoffamilyhistoryandthechildslackofexternalindicatorsaswellasthe typeofinjuries,whichwereindicativeofabuseratherthanamedicaldisorder. AbackgroundcheckrevealedthatthemotherpreviouslylivedinTexasandtwoweekspriorto thisinfantsbirthshetestedpositiveforbarbituratesandamphetamines.Drugtestsconductedin Texas five days after the infants birth showed the mother positive for PCP and barbiturates. Texasclosedtheircaseafterthemothercompletedadrugassessment,whichdidnotrecommend treatment,andbothparentscompletedparentingclasses. The abuse and neglect petition was negotiated with both parents pleading no contest. The StateagreednottofileaMotiontoWaiveReasonableEffortsforsixmonthstogivethefamilyan opportunity to provide a medically justifiable explanation for the injuries and commence treatment. To date, the parents have not provided a medically justifiable explanation for the injuriestothisinfantand,asaresult,aPetitionforTerminationofParentalRights(TPR)wasfiled inDecember2009. This infant sustained no new injuries while placed with his local foster parents for several months.However,afterbeingtransferredtoarelativeplacementoutofstate,theinfantrecently sustainedanewfracturetohisrightarm.Theoutofstatechildprotectionagencyruledtheinjury as[abuseorneglect]indicatedwithperpetratorunknown.Aphysicianinthatjurisdictionalso ruledoutthepossibilityofbrittlebonedisease. Despitealloftheabove,inFebruary2010,theassignedNevadaDFSsupervisorcommunicated to our office that she was not certain she wanted to proceed to TPR. They stated that they wantedthechildtestedforbrittlebonediseasesothatitcanbeproventhattheinjurieswere abusive in nature. At the time of the request, she had not reviewedeither the local or outof state medical record. As a result, she was completely unaware that the records indicated that these types of injuries were indicative of abuse. She told our deputy that it was not fair to require the parents to admit the abuse, despite the parents clear agreement in the plea negotiations that they would providea medically justifiable explanation for theinjuries and the factthatshehadaccesstothemotherspriorstatementtoatreatmentproviderthatshemight knowwhoinjuredthisinfant. TheDistrictAttorneysOffice,withtheassistanceoftheCPSinvestigatorandsupervisor(who understoodthatthesewereabusiveinjuriesandsupportedTPR),wereabletoeducatethe permanencyworkerandsupervisorinthiscase.Thiseducationprocesswasongoingfor approximatelytwomonths,duringwhichthepermanencystaffwouldnotcommittowhether theywouldsupportthependingTPR.
60
163
DFSRESPONSE:
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSonDecember20,2008duetoallegationsofphysicalabuseand plausibleriskofphysicalinjuryagainstthenaturalmotherandfather.Thereportwasfiledbyalocal hospital,providingcaretoachildwithadistalhumerusfracture.Thechildwasfivemonthsold. Thecasewasstaffedwithamedicalexpert,andthepossibilityforbrittlebonediseasewasruledout, andtheexpertopinionindicatedtheinjurieswereindicativeofabuse. DFSstaffconferredwithTexaschildwelfareservicesstaffandthemotherschildwelfarehistorythere wasconfirmed.Texashadpreviouslyprovidedservicestothemother,particularlythoserelatedtodrug use.Anassessmentcompletedindicatedshedidnotrequirefurthertreatment.Shealsocompleted parentingclasses. DFSstaffrequestedtheDAsOfficefileapetition.Theparentsbothplednocontesttothatpetitionon June8,2009atthePleaHearing.TheCourtminutesstatethefollowing: Pursuant to negotiations, MOTHER and FATHER WITHDREW DENIAL and entered a NO CONTEST PLEA as to Petition 1, with the stipulation that any statements made to a treatment providerwillNOTbeusedagainsthim/her.Additionally,theDistrictAttorney'sofficehasagreed NOT to file a Motion to Waive Reasonable Efforts for the next 6 months, as to both parents. CounselstipulatedtothefactsasoutlinedinPetition1. ItisunclearwhytheDAsOfficeagreedtoprovidetheparentswithanadditionalsixmonthstoprovide amedicallyjustifiableexplanationfortheinjuries,asDFShadalreadyrequestedmedicalopinionaspart oftheinvestigationandsuchanexplanationhadbeenruledout.Caserecorddocumentationindicated as early as January 20, 2009, DFS staff would have preferred to waive reasonable efforts given the severity of the childs injuries and the absence of an explanation from the mother and father as to cause.CasenotesfromthatdatereflectaconversationbetweenDFSstaffandtheparentsattorney,at which time, staff informed the attorney of department intent. On February 22, 2009, case record documentedDFSstaffdiscussedthewaiverwiththeDAsOffice.AgainataChildFamilyTeammeeting heldonMay29,2009,thedepartmentpositionwastowaivereasonableeffortsonthecase. SubsequenttotheDAsnegotiatedagreementatthePleaHearingonJune8,2009,theparentswerenot abletoprovidetheexplanationrequiredandalsofailedtomakesignificantprogressontheircaseplan goalsandrequirements.DFSstaffsubmittedareferraltotheDAsofficetoterminateparentalrightsin September, 2009. The Termination of Parental Rights Hearing was held on April 19, 2010. Unfortunately, the termination was denied by the Court, as the DAs Office could not prove that the parentskneworshouldhaveknownhowthechildsinjuriesoccurred.
164
1351763 092010 122008
Pending CourtSubstantiated
122008ReportDate: Female,1YOA Male,5months
Open Closed
Sincenomotiontowaivereasonableeffortswasfiledandtheterminationofparentalrightswasdenied, DFS is now required to make reasonable efforts to reunify the child with parents who still cannot provideaplausibleexplanationofhowthechildssevereinjuriesoccurred. In August, 2009, the children were placed via an ICPC agreement in Illinois with a maternal aunt. In December2009,DFSwasnotifiedthatthechildsufferedabrokenarm.Thechildremainedintheaunts care until removed by Illinois child protective services in February, 2010. The child was returned to Nevada. On March 3, 2010, DFS management requested a multidisciplinary team meeting (medical, legal, and childwelfarestaff)toreviewallthexraysfrominitialinjurytomostrecentinjurytodetermineifany furthertestingwasneededandtoruleoutanymedicalexplanationforinjury.TheDeputyDAcontacted DFSmanagementafterthemeetingwasrequested,astherewasconcernthatDFSwasattemptingto prove that the parents were not responsible for the injuries and were not supportive of terminating parental rights. DFS management explained that given the parents had already attempted to use a medical explanation for the previous injuries, the meeting was being requested to formally/finally resolvethepossibilityofamedicalexplanation.DFSmanagementexpressedthatstaffweresupportive of the termination of parental rights, as DFS staff had made the referral and had been supportive previouslyofawaiverofreasonableefforts. The multidisciplinary team meeting was held, and a forensic pediatrician explained why testing for brittlebonediseasewasnotnecessarygiventhefamilyhistoryandtheintrusivenessofthetestingto thechild.Theradiologisthadalsoreviewedallxraysfromthepreviousinjuryandmostcurrentinjury anddidnotfindanyindicationtowarrantamedicalcause.Itwasdeterminedthatnofurthertesting wasneeded,andthatanycareprovidersshouldbemadeawareofthechildspreviousinjuriesandhow thoseareaswouldbeatriskforfuturereinjury. Thisinformationisnotcontainedinthecaserecord,butmadeavailablethroughDFSstaffinterviews.
The case is open, and the children remain placed in outofhome care. While the permanency goal for the childrenisadoption,theterminationofparentalrightshasbeendeniedbytheCourtonce.Thenaturalmother recentlygavebirthtoanewchild;thehospitaldidnotcallinareport,andthechildwasreleasedtothemother atthetimeofbirth.ThemotherselfreportedtoDFSthatshecaringforhernewborn.DFSstaffcalledinanew reportandinitiatedaninvestigation.ThenewbornchildwasplacedinProtectiveCustodyandplacedinoutof home care with siblings. DFS will continue to provide case management services to the family, but does not supportreunification.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
165
166
DACaseID:

In July 2009, the District Attorneys Office filed a petition alleging that a father had sexually abusedaminorchildandthereforewasaninappropriatecaregiverforthechildreninthefamily. Thevictiminthesexualabusewasnotachildallegedinthepetition,butratherwashishalfsister whowassevenyearsyoungerthanhe.Thepetitionalsoallegedthathisprioractsofdomestic violenceagainstthemotheradverselyaffectedhisabilitytocareforthechildren.Specifically,the petition alleged that the father threatened to put a knife to the throat of her daughter in the presence of her two young daughters, ages four (4) and five (5). Criminal databases also confirmedasignificanthistoryofdomesticviolence,includingtwoconvictions.OnSeptember29, 2009,adefaultwasenteredagainstthefather.ThefamilyhasbeenunderthesupervisionofDFS sincethattime. DespitetheCourtSubstantiationbeinginplace,inNovember2009,DFSoverturnedtheir agencysubstantiationsforRiskofSexualInjuryastothree(3)ofthefamilysfive(5)children. Thefatherwasnotifiedofthereversalandwasalsonotifiedthatthesubstantiationswouldbe removedfromtheStatescentralChildAbuseandNeglectregistry. InFebruary2010,theStatewasservedwithaMotiontoSetAsideDefault,citingDFSsreversal ofitsagencysubstantiationonthesameallegations.TheDistrictAttorneysOfficecontactedDFS to confirm the departments actions. DFS verified that it is against department policies to overturnanagencysubstantiationwhenacourtsubstantiationwasinplace.However,theyalso acknowledgedthattheyhadoverturnedthesubstantiation. ItshouldalsobenotedthatDFSrecordsdatedDecember23,2009reflectthatDFSintendedto closethecaseastotwoofthefatherschildrenatthenextcourthearingwithanorderthathe would have no contact with those children until he completed a psychosexual evaluation and completed his sex offense treatment with regard to his victim. Thus, while department administrationhadunsubstantiatedtheriskofharmtothesechildren(andthereforenecessarily found no credible evidence of a risk of harm to these children), the records prepared by the workeratthesamepointintimereflectaclearconcernforthesafetyofthesechildrenifleftin hiscarepriortosexoffendertreatment.And,despitetheclearsafetyconcernperceivedbythe worker,sheintendedtoclosethecasewithoutensuringthatthefatherreceivedtreatment.Of equal concern is that the caseworkers note does not address the fact that he even has a third child.Itisunclearwhatherintentwouldhavebeenastothatchild.Fortunately,theCourtdid notclosethecaseatthesubsequenthearingdespiteDFS.
61
DFSRESPONSE:
1355899 UNITYCase#: 062009 CourtSubstantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 062009ReportDate: Female,5YOA Male,4YOA Male,3YOA Female,1YOA Male,2months
Open Closed
167
SummaryResponse:
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSinJune2009,duetoallegationsofsexualabuseandplausible riskofphysicalinjuryagainstthefather.Thereportingsourceallegedthatthefathersexuallyabusedhis halfsister, and as result posed a threat to his two biological children and their mothers three other children(notrelatedtohim).Thereportingsourcealsocitedincidentsofphysicalabuseanddomestic violence. DFSinitiatedaninvestigation,andthechildrenremainedinthecareofthenaturalmother.Asafetyplan was developed, and the father was not allowed to have contact with any of the children. DFS staff confirmedthefatherscriminalhistory. DFSstaffrequestedtheDAsOfficefileapetition.Initially,thepetitionwasfiledagainstthefatherwho allegedly molested his sister (father of two children), as well as the father of the remaining children (threechildren).Themotherofthechildrenwasneverlistedonthepetition. CourthearingvideooftheSeptember11,2009,continuedPleaHearing,depictsthatthefatherofthe threeofthechildren(nottheallegedperpetratorofsexualabuse)wasdismissedfromthepetitionas werehisthreechildren.ThosechildrenwerenotmadewardsoftheCourt,asthemotherwasnotlisted on the petition and the father was dismissed. The petition, as revised, included only the alleged perpetratorofsexualabuseandhistwobiologicalchildren. AttheDispositionHearingheldonSeptember29,2009,theallegationsagainstthefatherwhoremained onthepetitionwereCourtsubstantiated. In addition to those allegations being Court substantiated, DFS staff agency substantiated the same allegationsagainstthefatherastheypertainedtothethreenonbiologicalchildrenwhohadpreviously beendismissedfromthepetitionattheSeptember11Courthearing. Subsequent to the agency substantiation, he was sent a notification, in accordance with DFS Policy, confirming the agency substantiation and providing a right of appeal. DFS is required by statute to provide an appeal process for individuals who are determined to have committed acts of child abuse/neglect and are substantiated as the perpetrators of a child welfare case (NRS 432B.190; NAC 432B.300). By policy and process, that appeal process is only provided to those individuals where the investigationissubstantiatedbyDFSandnotbyaCourt.Inthiscase,thatfactpatternheldtruethe nonbiological children had been dismissed from the petition and the Court substantiation was applicable only to the remaining biological children. The DFS agency substantiation was applicable to thenonbiologicalchildrenwhowerepreviouslydismissedfromtheCourtsubstantiatedpetition. Theperpetratoroftheabusethenrequestedanappealoftheagencysubstantiation,andhiscase(asit pertained to the three nonbiological children) was reviewed by the DFS internal appeals review committee. This committee determined that there was not sufficient evidence to meet the criteria requiredforthesubstantiationoftheallegations.Asaresultofthisfinding,thedepartmentoverturned thesubstantiationandsentouttheappropriatenotifications. The DAs Office was served a Motion to Set Aside the Court substantiated petition in February, 2010. WhencontactedbytheDAsOffice,DFSadministrationconfirmedthatthesubstantiationasitpertained tothethreenonbiologicalchildrenwasoverturnedsubsequenttointernalreview.
168
InMay2010,DFSstaffandtheDAdiscussedclosingthecase,withcustodybeingprovidedtothenatural mother.TheDAwasnotopposedtocaseclosureinthisscenario. On June 29, 2010, the Court was provided with an update regarding the natural fathers arrest and subsequentincarcerationforanadditionalincidentofdomesticviolencetowardsthemother.DFSstaff recommended termination of wardship, with solecustodybeing provided to thenatural mother. The Court acknowledged that they had received the court report and based on the information provided which included the mothers compliance and demonstration of protective capacities, the Court supportedthedecisiontoterminatewardship.
Thiscaseremainsclosed,andtherehavebeennoadditionalreportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor1year,3months.
RelevantStatute:
NRS 432B.190 Regulations to be adopted by Division of Child and Family Services. The Division of Child and FamilyServicesshall,inconsultationwitheachagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservices,adopt: 1.Regulationsestablishingreasonableanduniformstandardsfor: (a)ChildwelfareservicesprovidedinthisState; (b) Programs for the prevention of abuse or neglect of a child and the achievement of the permanent placementofachild; (c)Thedevelopmentoflocalcouncilsinvolvingpublicandprivateorganizations; (d)Reportsofabuseorneglect,recordsofthesereportsandtheresponsetothesereports; (e) Carrying out the provisions of NRS 432B.260, including, without limitation, the qualifications of persons withwhomagencieswhichprovidechildwelfareservicesenterintoagreementstoprovideservicestochildren andfamilies; (f)Themanagementandassessmentofreportedcasesofabuseorneglect; (g)Theprotectionofthelegalrightsofparentsandchildren; (h)Emergencyshelterforachild; (i)Theprevention,identificationandcorrectionofabuseorneglectofachildinresidentialinstitutions; (j)Developinganddistributingtopersonswhoareresponsibleforachildswelfareapamphletthatiswritten inlanguagewhichiseasytounderstand,isavailableinEnglishandinanyotherlanguagetheDivisiondetermines isappropriatebasedonthedemographiccharacteristicsofthisStateandsetsforth: (1)Contactinformationregardingpersonsandgovernmentalentitieswhichprovideassistancetopersons whoareresponsibleforthewelfareofchildren,including,withoutlimitation,personsandentitieswhichprovide assistancetopersonswhoarebeinginvestigatedforallegedlyabusingorneglectingachild; (2)Theproceduresfortakingachildforplacementinprotectivecustody;and (3)Thestateandfederallegalrightsof: (I)Apersonwhoisresponsibleforachildswelfareandwhoisthesubjectofaninvestigationofalleged abuseorneglectofachild,including,withoutlimitation,thelegalrightsofsuchapersonatthetimeanagency whichprovideschildwelfareservicesmakesinitialcontactwiththepersoninthecourseoftheinvestigationand atthetimetheagencytakesthechildforplacementinprotectivecustody,andthelegalrightofsuchapersonto beinformedofanyallegationofabuseorneglectofachildwhichismadeagainstthepersonattheinitialtimeof contactwiththepersonbytheagency;and (II) Persons who are parties to a proceeding held pursuant to NRS 432B.410 to 432B.590, inclusive, duringallstagesoftheproceeding;and (k) Making the necessary inquiries required pursuant to NRS 432B.397 to determine whether a child is an Indianchild. (AddedtoNRSby1985,1370;A1987,1439;1991,922;1993,2706;1995,787;1997,2471;2001,1700,1839, 1850;2001SpecialSession,36;2003,236,251,650;2005,2094;2007,1086,1502)
169
NAC432B.300Resolutionofgrievances.(NRS432B.190) 1.Anagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservicesshallestablishandmaintainaprocedureforthereviewofa grievanceofanapplicantfororrecipientofitsservices. 2.Anapplicantfororrecipientoftheservicesofanagencywhichprovideschildwelfareserviceswhowishes toobtainareviewofagrievanceconcerninganactionordecisionoftheagencyaffectingtheservicesthatmayor arebeingprovidedtotheapplicantorrecipientmustfileawrittenrequestwiththeagencywhichprovideschild welfareserviceswithin30daysafterthedateonwhichtheactionordecisionthatisthesubjectofthegrievance occurredorwasmade. 3.Agrievancemustnotberesolvedthroughaprocessofreviewestablishedpursuanttothissectionif: (a) The applicant or recipient is entitled to a hearing because the grievance constitutes a contested case as definedinNRS233B.032; (b)Thematterwhichisthesubjectofthegrievanceispresentlythesubjectofaproceedingbeforeacourtof competentjurisdiction; (c) The applicant or recipient has initiated an action or proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction to resolvethematterwhichisthesubjectofthegrievance;or (d)Thesubjectofthegrievancehasalreadybeendecidedbyacourtofcompetentjurisdiction. [WelfareDiv.,StandardsforChildProtectiveServicespartArt.IIH,eff.91187](NACAbyDiv.ofChild&Fam. ServicesbyR04502,7232002)
N/A
170
DACaseID:

InSeptember2009,LasVegasMetropolitanPoliceDepartmentrespondedtoacallofafour montholdinfantnotbreathing.Whenmedicalpersonnelarrived,thechildwasnotbreathing andhadnopulse.Thefatherreportedthathewasnappingwiththechildwhilethemotherwas atwork.Thefatherstatedthatwhenheawokethechildwasbreathingshallowandcrying.It wasntuntilafterarrivingatthehospitalthattheinfantsheartbeganbeatingonitsownagain. Followingaskeletalsurvey,doctorsdiscoveredtwohealing,nonacuteribfracture(meaningthat thefractureshappenedseveraldaysprior).Thechildwashavingseizuresandwasadmittedto thePediatricIntensiveCareUnit.Neitherparentcouldprovideamedicallyjustifiableexplanation fortheinfantsinjuries.AdoctorinformedtheCPSinvestigatorthattheinfantscriticalcondition uponpresentationwasduetooxygendeprivation,notpneumonia. Arecordscheckonthefatherrevealedthatheandhisthenwife(nowhisexwife)were arrestedin1994inconnectionwithinjuriestotheirthenonemontholdson.Theytookthechild tothedoctorforafeverandxraysdisclosedabrokenclavicleandribs.Thefatherattributedthe injuriestocosleepingwiththeinfant.Eventually,thechargesweredropped. Shortlyafterourcasewasfiled,wereceivedaRequestforMotiontoWaiveReasonableEfforts fromtheCPSinvestigatorinthiscase.ThematterissetforadjudicatoryhearingonMarch19, 2010.Sincethemotiontowaiveisnotripeuntiltherehasbeenafindingofabuseandneglect,it istheStatesintenttofilethemotionassoonasthematterisadjudicated. OnFebruary3,2010,theDistrictAttorneysOfficereceivedacommunicationfromthe permanencyworkerassignedtothecasethatshewantedtostartthereunificationprocess.The DistrictAttorneysOfficerespondedthatweintendedonwaivingreasonableeffortsinaccordance withtherequestofthedepartment.Thepermanencyworkerindicatedthatshedidnotagree withthatdecisionandthatshedidnotwanttheDistrictAttorneysOfficetofilethemotion. Despitethefactthattheparentshavenotprovidedamedicallyjustifiableexplanationforthe injuries,thepermanencyworkermaintainedthatthechildwasreadytobereunified. DuetotheconflictingrequestsfromDFS,theDAsOfficewasrequiredtoinitiateadispute resolutionbetweenCPSandpermanency,requestingthattheygiveusacleardirectionontheir intent.ItisunfathomabletotheDAsOfficethatoneemployeeofthedepartmentwouldview thisassoseriousastorelievethedepartmentfromitsfederalmandatetopreserveandreunify thefamily,whileattheverysametimeanotheremployeeofthesameagencyissayingthatnot onlyshouldthefamilybereunifiedbutthattheyareinfactreadytobegintheprocess.
62
DFSRESPONSE:
1357363 UNITYCase#: 092009 CourtSubstantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 092009ReportDate: Male,5months
Open Closed
171
SummaryResponse:
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSinSeptember2009,duetoallegationsofphysicalabuseand failure to protect against the natural mother and father. The report was filed by law enforcement respondingtothereportofachildfoundnotbreathing.Thefatherindicatedthathewastakenanap, andwhenhewokeupthechildwasbreathingshallowlyandcrying.ThefatherstartedCPRandcalled 911. Uponarrivalatalocalhospital,medicalpersonnelindicatedthataskeletalsurveyrevealedtwohealing ribfractures. Neither parent could provide a medically justifiable explanation for the childs current and previous injuries. Caserecorddocumentationindicatesthatthenaturalfatheradmittedtolawenforcementthatin1994 hewasarrestedwhenhis,now16yearoldson,wastreatedforribfractures,butthatthefatherwas clearedofwrongdoingandthechargesweredropped. DFSdiscussedwaivingreasonableeffortswiththeDAsOfficeinSeptemberandOctober2009.Itwas the intent of the department to request the waiver due to the severity of the childs injuries and no viableexplanationbeingprovidedfromeitherthemotherorfather. TheDAspositionisthatawaiverofreasonableeffortscannotbesubmitteduntilwhichtimethecaseis adjudicated.DFS,however,isuncertainofthebasisforthispositionaswaiversofreasonableeffortsare filedasearlyasPleaHearinginotherjurisdictions,includingWashoeCounty. The delay in waiving reasonable efforts is significant for the department, as it often takes months to adjudicateaCourtinvolvedcase.Thecasereferencedheretook8monthstoadjudicateasaresultof5 Court hearing continuances, 4 of which occurred as a result of the DAs Office failure to provide discoveryinformationtothedefenseattorney.Understatute,DFSisrequiredtoprovideacaseplanto thefamilywithin45daysofachildsremovalfromhome(NRS432B.190,NAC432B.100).Ifawaiverof reasonable efforts is not promptly filed, DFS is obligated to provide reasonable efforts to reunify childrenandfamiliesoncaseswherethatisnotthedepartmentsintentordesire,andarguably,notin thechildrensbestinterest. Case record documentation indicates that in February 2010, the DAs Office requested that DFS permanencystaffprovidedirectionontheMotiontoWaiveReasonableEfforts.DFSpermanencystaff respondedindicatingthattherewasnointenttowaivereasonableefforts;DFSchildprotectiveservices staff intervened and indicated that there was support to waive reasonable efforts. Given the contradictoryinformation,theDeputyDArequestedtheofficialpositionofDFSonthemotion. While DFS management responded that DFS supported filing the motion to waive reasonable efforts, the DFS permanency case manager expressed concern regarding the fact that a case plan had been developed and the department had been making reasonable efforts to reunify the family for four months,andstaffwasnotclearonhowamotiontowaivereasonableeffortscouldbeaddressed.DFS proceededwiththerequesttowaivereasonableefforts.
172
There is no record of the formal Dispute Resolution Protocol being enacted on this case. There was concernexpressedfromDFSpermanencystaffregardingthefactDFShaddevelopedacaseplanforthe family and spent months of effort working toward reunification in the absence of the waiver of reasonableeffortsbeingfiledtimelyandthedelayincaseadjudication. It is difficult for DFS permanency staff to work with families (as required by Federal law) under the premiseoffamilyreunificationforextendedperiodsoftimeknowingthatthedepartmentsintentionis towaivereasonableeffortsandterminateparentrights.
Thecaseisopen,andthechildremainsplacedinoutofhomecare.Themotiontowaivereasonableeffortswas granted,andthedepartmentisrecruitingforanadoptivehomeforthechild.
RelevantStatute:
NRS432B.190RegulationstobeadoptedbyDivisionofChildandFamilyServices.TheDivisionofChildand FamilyServicesshall,inconsultationwitheachagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservices,adopt: 1.Regulationsestablishingreasonableanduniformstandardsfor: (a)ChildwelfareservicesprovidedinthisState; (b)Programsforthepreventionofabuseorneglectofachildandtheachievementofthepermanent placementofachild; (c)Thedevelopmentoflocalcouncilsinvolvingpublicandprivateorganizations; (d)Reportsofabuseorneglect,recordsofthesereportsandtheresponsetothesereports; (e)CarryingouttheprovisionsofNRS432B.260,including,withoutlimitation,thequalificationsofpersons withwhomagencieswhichprovidechildwelfareservicesenterintoagreementstoprovideservicestochildren andfamilies; (f)Themanagementandassessmentofreportedcasesofabuseorneglect; (g)Theprotectionofthelegalrightsofparentsandchildren; (h)Emergencyshelterforachild; (i)Theprevention,identificationandcorrectionofabuseorneglectofachildinresidentialinstitutions; (j)Developinganddistributingtopersonswhoareresponsibleforachildswelfareapamphletthatiswritten inlanguagewhichiseasytounderstand,isavailableinEnglishandinanyotherlanguagetheDivisiondetermines isappropriatebasedonthedemographiccharacteristicsofthisStateandsetsforth: (1)Contactinformationregardingpersonsandgovernmentalentitieswhichprovideassistancetopersons whoareresponsibleforthewelfareofchildren,including,withoutlimitation,personsandentitieswhichprovide assistancetopersonswhoarebeinginvestigatedforallegedlyabusingorneglectingachild; (2)Theproceduresfortakingachildforplacementinprotectivecustody;and (3)Thestateandfederallegalrightsof: (I)Apersonwhoisresponsibleforachildswelfareandwhoisthesubjectofaninvestigationofalleged abuseorneglectofachild,including,withoutlimitation,thelegalrightsofsuchapersonatthetimeanagency whichprovideschildwelfareservicesmakesinitialcontactwiththepersoninthecourseoftheinvestigationand atthetimetheagencytakesthechildforplacementinprotectivecustody,andthelegalrightofsuchapersonto beinformedofanyallegationofabuseorneglectofachildwhichismadeagainstthepersonattheinitialtimeof contactwiththepersonbytheagency;and (II)PersonswhoarepartiestoaproceedingheldpursuanttoNRS432B.410to432B.590,inclusive, duringallstagesoftheproceeding;and (k)MakingthenecessaryinquiriesrequiredpursuanttoNRS432B.397todeterminewhetherachildisan Indianchild. 2.Regulations,whichareapplicabletoanypersonwhoisauthorizedtoplaceachildinprotectivecustody withouttheconsentofthepersonresponsibleforthechildswelfare,settingforthreasonableanduniform standardsforestablishingwhetherimmediateactionisnecessarytoprotectthechildfrominjury,abuseor
173
neglectforthepurposesofdeterminingwhethertoplacethechildintoprotectivecustodypursuanttoNRS 432B.390.Suchstandardsmustconsiderthepotentialharmtothechildinremaininginhisorherhome, including,withoutlimitation: (a)Circumstancesinwhichathreatofharmsuggeststhatachildisinimminentdangerofseriousharm. (b)Theconditionsorbehaviorsofthechildsfamilywhichthreatenthesafetyofthechildwhoisunableto protecthimselforherselfandwhoisdependentonothersforprotection,including,withoutlimitation,conditions orbehaviorsthatarebeyondthecontrolofthecaregiverofthechildandcreateanimminentthreatofserious harmtothechild. TheDivisionofChildandFamilyServicesshallensurethattheappropriatepersonsorentitiestowhomthe regulationsadoptedpursuanttothissubsectionapplyareprovidedwithacopyofsuchregulations.Asusedin thissubsection,seriousharmincludesthethreatorevidenceofseriousphysicalinjury,sexualabuse,significant painormentalsuffering,extremefearorterror,extremeimpairmentordisability,death,substantialimpairment orriskofsubstantialimpairmenttothechildsmentalorphysicalhealthordevelopment. 3.SuchotherregulationsasarenecessaryfortheadministrationofNRS432B.010to432B.606,inclusive. (AddedtoNRSby1985,1370;A1987,1439;1991,922;1993,2706;1995,787;1997,2471;2001,1700,1839, 1850;2001SpecialSession,36;2003,236,251,650;2005,2094;2007,1086,1502) NAC432B.400Caseplanforchildreceivingfostercare;reportsregardingchildplacedoutsidestatewhere parentsreside.(NRS432B.190) 1.Theagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservicesshalldevelopawrittencaseplanforachildwithin45days afterthedateonwhichthechildisremovedfromhishome.Thecaseplan: (a)Must: (1)Ifpossible,bedevelopedjointlywithaparentorguardianofthechildwhoisreceivingfostercare; (2)Bedevelopedwithinputfromthechildiftheagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservicesdeterminesit isappropriate,basedontheageandstageofdevelopmentofthechild;and (3)Bedevelopedwithinputfromthefosterparentcaringforthechild. (b)Mustincludeaplantoensurethat: (1)Thecarethatthechildreceivesissafeandproper;and (2)Theparentorguardianofthechildreceivesservicestoimprovetheconditionofthehomeaswellasto facilitatethesafereturnofthechildtohishomeoranotherpermanentplacement;and (c)Mustbeupdatedatleastonceevery6monthsandsubmittedtothecourtwiththereportrequiredbyNRS 432B.580. 2.Thecaseplandevelopedpursuanttosubsection1mustinclude: (a)Astatementaddressingthelongtermgoalsoftheplan,includingreunificationofthechildandhisfamily, permanentplacementofthechildwitharelative,placementofthechildforadoption,placementofthechildinto alegalguardianshiporplacementofthechildintoanotherpermanentlivingarrangement; (b)Aprojectedtimebywhichthesegoalsshouldbeachieved; (c)Adescriptionofthecurrentstrengthsofthefamilyandtheneedswhichmustbesatisfiedtoachievethese goals; (d)Adescriptionofservicesofferedorprovidedtopreventremovalofthechildfromhishomeandtoreunify thefamilyofthechild; (e)Adescriptionofthetypeofhomeorinstitutioninwhichthechildisplaced; (f)Adescriptionofthesafetyandappropriatenessoftheplacementtoensurethatthechildreceivesproper care,including,withoutlimitation,adescriptionofthemannerinwhichtheagencywillaccomplishthisgoal; (g)Adescriptionofthemannerinwhichtheagencywillensurethatservicesareprovidedtothechildandthe fosterparentswhichaddresstheneedsofthechildwhileinfostercare,including,withoutlimitation,the appropriatenessofservicesthathavebeenprovidedpursuanttothecaseplan; (h)Adescription,asapplicable,oftheprogramsandserviceswhichwillassistachildinfostercarewhois16 yearsofageorolderprepareforthetransitionfromfostercaretoindependentliving; (i)Ifthegoalofthecaseplanisadoptionorplacementinanotherpermanenthome,adescriptionofthesteps thatwillbetakentofinalizetheadoptionorplacement,includinganystepsthatwillbetakentorecruitadoptive parentsthroughtheuseofelectronicorothertypesofstate,regionalandnationaladoptionexchanges,orby
174
othermeans; (j)Adescriptionofthemannerinwhichaplacementwillbemadeandthereasonsthatsuchaplacementwill beinthebestinterestofthechild,withparticularconsiderationgiventoaplacementthatissafeandintheleast restrictivefamilialenvironmentavailable; (k)Inadditiontothefactorssetforthinparagraph(j),ifthegoalofthecaseplanisreunificationofthechild andhisfamily,thedescriptionprovidedpursuanttoparagraph(j)mustindicatethatparticularconsiderationwill begiventoaplacementthatisincloseproximitytothehomeoftheparentofthechild; (l)Ifthechildwillbeplacedinafamilyfosterhomeorinstitutionforchildcarethatislocatedasubstantial distancefromorinadifferentstatethanwherethefamilyofthechildresides,adescriptionofthereasonsthat suchaplacementwillbeinthebestinterestofthechild; (m)Ifachildisplacedinafamilyfosterhomeorinstitutionforchildcarethatislocatedinadifferentstate thanwheretheparentsofthechildreside,adescriptionofthefrequencywithwhichacaseworkerfroman agencythatprovideschildwelfareservicesandthatislocatedinthestateinwhichthechildisplacedorthestate inwhichtheparentsofthechildresidewillvisitthefosterhomeorinstitutionandwillsubmitareporttothe agencythatprovideschildwelfareservicesinthestateinwhichtheparentsofthechildreside; (n)Adescriptionoftheeffortsthatwillbemadetoplacechildrenwhoaresiblingstogether; (o)Aplanforfamilyvisitation,including,withoutlimitation,visitingsiblingsifthesiblingsarenotresiding together; (p)Astatementindicatingthattheproximityoftheschoolinwhichthechildwasenrolledatthetimethathe wasplacedinfostercarewasconsideredasafactorintheselectionoftheplacementforfostercare;and (q)Thehealthandeducationrecordsofthechildtotheextentthoserecordsareavailable,including,without limitation: (1)Thenamesandaddressesoftheprovidersofhealthcareandeducationofthechild; (2)Thegradelevelatwhichthechildperforms; (3)Documentationoftheimmunizationsthatthechildhashad; (4)Documentationofanyknownmedicalorpsychologicalproblemsofthechild; (5)Documentationofanymedicationsprescribedforthechild;and (6)Suchotherhealthoreducationalinformationconcerningthechildastheagencywhichprovideschild welfareservicesdeterminesisnecessary. 3.Theagencywhichprovideschildwelfareservicesshallensurethatthereportdescribedinparagraph(m)of subsection2issubmittedtotheagencylocatedinthecountyinwhichtheparentsofthechildresideatleastonce every12months. 4.Asusedinthissection: (a)Educationrecordsmeansareportcardorotherreportofprogressandanindividualeducationplan,if applicable. (b)FamilyfosterhomehasthemeaningascribedtoitinNRS424.013. (AddedtoNACbyDiv.ofChild&Fam.Services,eff.51496;AbyR04502,7232002)
N/A
175
176
DACaseID:

Siblingsages9(male)and13(female)arebeingraisedbyfatherandstepmother.Thefamily wasthesubjectofnine(9)abuseandneglectreportsbetweenFebruary2007andFebruary2010. OnFebruary14,2007,thethen7yearoldboyhadcutsinsidehismouth.Itwasreportedthat thechildstatedthathisstepmothercausedtheinjurybyforcefeedinghimoatmealwithafork. Healsohadagougeontherightsideofhismouth.DFSverifiedtheinjuries,butclosedthecase unsubstantiatedafterthestepmotherdeniedcausingthem. OnFebruary15,2007,whileinvestigatingthepriorreport,anadditionalreportwasreceivedthat sixmonthsagothechildcametoschoolwithablackeye.Staffstatedthathefrequentlycameto schooldirtyandthathewasalwayshungry.Staffhadmadespecialarrangementsforthechildto eatinthecafeteriasohewouldnotgohungry.Theseallegationswerealsounsubstantiatedupon denialsoftheparents. OnMarch28,2007,areportwasreceivedfromamandatoryreporterthatthethen11yearold childdisclosedthatsheandherbrotherweresleepinginthefatherscarwhileheworks.Upon denialsfromthefamily,thecasewasclosedunsubstantiated. On May 16, 2007, a mandated reporterdisclosed thatthe 7yearold boy disclosed being hit withahairbrushandpusheddownstairsbyhisstepmother.Hewastoldtostandinacornerwith hishandsoverhishead.ThestepmothertoldhimtoShutupforfivefuckingminutesandcalled himanasshole.Thereportingsourceindicatedthathehadbruisesonhisleftwrist,onhisback between his shoulder blades and a red mark on his right wrist. The reporting source indicated that she believed the children were coached and that they knew they were not supposed to disclosetoCPS.Aninterviewwiththechildconfirmedthathewaspusheddownthestepsbythe stepmother.However,therestofthefamilydeniedtheabuseandcharacterizedthechildasa liarwithbehavioralproblems.Thereafter,thematterwasclosedunsubstantiated. On December 30, 2007, a report came in to the hotline from law enforcement. The report indicated ongoing domestic violence in the home. The domestic violence included the father grabbing the stepmother by the neck, pulling her hair, calling her a piece of shit bitch and threateningtokillher.Stepmotherstatedthatfathercontrolsthefinances,forceshertosignher unemploymentchecksovertohimandthathethreatenedtohurtherdogsifshedidnotcomply. Shestatedthatfatherknewhowtohitherwithoutleavingmarks.Thereportalsoindicatedthat inApril2006,fatherbrokethesonsarm.Stepmothertoldtheofficerthatthefamilyliedtocover up the injury by saying he tripped over the family dog and fell. CPS did not investigate the allegations,closingthemInfoOnly. 7.Minor,...hasexpressedbeingafraidofhisfatheranddisclosedhewaschokedbyhis fatherthenightbefore.SchoolstaffhavereportedtoCPSthatwhen[minor]hastotake abadnoticetoschool,heis"literallyshaking"withfear.Theschoolalsoreportedthat when[minor]getsintroubleinschool;thefatherkeepshimoutforacoupleofdays. Thecasenotesreflectthatthedaughterwasleftinthehomebecauseshedidnotdiscloseany abuseorneglecttoSpecialist...Thenextday,afterthecasewasstaffedwithaseniorDeputy DA,thedaughterwasremoved.Bothchildrenweresubsequentlymadewardsasaresultofthe Fathersextensiveabuse.
63
177
DFSRESPONSE:
1334995 022010 CourtSubstantiated 112009 CourtSubstantiated 072009 Unsubstantiated 102008 Unsubstantiated 022008 Unsubstantiated 052007 Unsubstantiated 032007 Unsubstantiated 022007 Unsubstantiated 022010ReportDate: Female,13YOA Male,10YOA
Open Closed
ThisfamilyfirstcametotheattentionofDFSinFebruary,2007.BetweenFebruary2007andFebruary 2010, the family was the subject of eight abuse/neglect investigations, two of which were Court substantiated,andsixofwhichwereunsubstantiated. OnFebruary14,2007DFSreceivedareportofabuse/neglectallegingphysicalabuseagainstthestep mother.Thereportingsourceindicatedthatthechildhadcutsinthemouththatwerecausedbythe stepmothergaugingtheinsideofthismouthwhilefeedingthechildoatmeal.Thereportwasmadeby schoolstaff. DFSinitiatedaninvestigation,interviewingthestepmotherwhodeniedtheallegations.Thechildwas interviewed,andindicatedthattheinjurywasaccidental,butwascausedbythestepmother.DFSalso metwiththereportingsource,whoindicatedthatshewasconcernedaboutthechildasthechildhad previouslyappearedatschoolwithbruisesandwasoftenhungry.DFScompletedafollowupvisitwith thefamily,andastherewerenootherconcernsinthehome,thecasewasunsubstantiated. DFSdidreceiveanadditionalinformationreportonFebruary15,2007.Thereportingsourcereferenced ablackeyethechildhadseveralmonthspreviously,andalsoindicatedthechildcametoschoolhungry. Despite the additional information received, case record documentation does not indicate any additionalinvestigationwascompleted. Based on this review of the case record documentation, the investigation was limited in scope and lackedappropriatefollowup. OnMarch28,2007anadditionalabuse/neglectreportwasreceivedalleginglackofnecessityandlackof supervisionagainstthenaturalfather.Thereportingsourceindicatedthatthefatherandchildrenwere sleepinginacaratthefathersplaceofemployment. DFSinitiatedaninvestigation,interviewingthechildrenwhodeniedsleepinginthecarwhiletheirfather wasworking,butadmittedtosleepinginacarwhileheplayedsoftball.Theparentswereinterviewed andtheydeniedtheallegations.Thecasewasunsubstantiatedduetoalackofcredibleevidence.
178
On May 16, 2007 DFS received a report of abuse/neglect alleging physical abuse against the step mother.Thereportingsourcewasschoolstaff,andindicatedthechilddisclosedbeinghitwithahair brush,beingpusheddownthestairs,andhavingtostandinthecornerforanextendedperiodoftime. DFSinitiatedaninvestigation,andinterviewedthechildwhoadmittedtobeingpusheddownthestairs, butdeniedtheotherphysicaldiscipline.Thechilddidnothaveanymarksorbruises.Heindicatedhe wasnotafraidofhisstepmother.Staffalsointerviewedthereportingsourcewhoindicatedthechild hadissueswithlying.Thestepmotherwasinterviewedanddeniedtheallegations.Thechildssibling wasalsointerviewed,andindicatedthataspunishmenttheydohavetostandinthecorner.Thesibling indicated that the other child had recently urinated all over and that the father had hit him over his clotheswithabelt,butthattherewerenomarksandbruisesasaresult.Theinvestigationwasclosed asunsubstantiated. On December 30, 2007 DFS received an abuse/neglect report alleging emotional abuse and domestic violence against the father and the stepmother. The report was made by law enforcement who respondedtoacomplaintofdomesticviolence.Thestepmotherdisclosedtolawenforcementthather husbandhadpreviouslybrokenthechildsarmandhadalsobeenviolentandphysicalwithher.She reportedthathehadthreatenedtokillher. The following statement from the DAs statement above is out of sequence with regard to the December2007report.
7.Minor,...hasexpressedbeingafraidofhisfatheranddisclosedhewaschokedbyhisfatherthenight before. School staff have reported to CPS that when [minor] has to take a bad notice to school, he is "literallyshaking"withfear.Theschoolalsoreportedthatwhen[minor]getsintroubleinschool;thefather keepshimoutforacoupleofdays.
ThisstatementwastakenverbatimfromacasenotethatisdatedFebruary28,2010,andisrelatedtoa laterincident. Based on this review of the case record documentation, the report, however, should have been screenedinforinvestigation. BetweenDecember2007andJuly2009,DFSreceivedthreeadditionalreportsofabuse/neglectonthis family.Allinvestigationswereinvestigatedandunsubstantiated. In November 2009, DFS received another report alleging failure to protect, emotional abuse, physical abuse,plausibleriskofphysicalinjury,andlackofsupervisionagainstthenaturalmother,naturalfather, andstepmother.Thereportingsourcewasschoolstaff.Thesourcereportedthatthechilddisclosed domestic violence andphysical abuse. The child had a bruise on his forehead and face that the child disclosedwascausedbybeingpushedheadfirstintoawallbyhisfather.DFSstaffmadecontactwith thechildandobservedthemarksandbruisesasdescribedbythereportingsource.DFSdidnotrequest theDAsOfficefileapetition.Thechildrenwerenotremovedfromthehome. Whilethiscaseremainedopen,inFebruary2010,DFSreceivedanotherreportofabuse/neglectalleging failure to protect, lack of supervision, plausible risk of physical injury, and physical abuse against the fatherandstepmother.Thereportingsourcewasschoolstaffwhoindicatedthechildhadabruiseon hisneckandhedisclosedhisstepmothercausedtheinjury. Thechildwasthenremovedfromthehomeandplacedinoutofhomecare.Thechildssiblingwasleft inthehome,asshedidnotdiscloseanyabuse/neglect.DFSrequestedtheDAsOfficefileapetition. TheDAexpressedconcernregardingtheotherchildbeingleftinthehome.Thechildwasremovedand wouldlaterbeplacedwithhernaturalmotheranddismissedfromthepetition.
179
BothinvestigationswereCourtsubstantiated. Basedonthisreviewofthecaserecorddocumentation,thechildrenshouldhavebeenremovedfrom thehomeinNovember2009,DFSstaffshouldhaverequestedtheDAsofficefileapetitionatthattime aswell. The case is open, and the child remains placed in outofhome care. The permanency goal for this child is reunificationwithhisfather.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
180
DACaseID:

InMay2009,theDistrictAttorneysOffice,JuvenileDivision,receivedadelinquency submission on an 8yearold child, alleging that he had committed various sexual offenses.Thesubmissionrevealedthatthechildhadtiedarubberstringaroundaseven (7) yearold boys penis and left it there. It wasnt until several days later that the victims parent discovered the string. By that time, the victims penis was swollen and purpleandheneededtobetakentotheemergencyroom.Ininvestigatingthisoffense, the detective found out that when the child was seven (7), he tied a string around his ownpeniswhileinschoolandtiedapenciltotheotherendtothestring.Heallowedhis classmatestoseeitpriortobeingdiscovered.Whenhewassix(6)yearsold,thischild inappropriately fondled a young girl. The matter was staffed with the DA, DFS and law enforcement. In the meeting, a determination was made that the matter would be pursued as a child welfare matter, not as a delinquent matter due to the age of the offender.AfterthecasewasreferredtoDFS,DFScontactedtheDistrictAttorneysOffice andaskediftheycouldhandlethematterinformally.WithassurancesthatDFSwould ensure that DFS would actively supervise the case and the child would receive the necessarycounseling,theDAagreedtoinformalsupervision. Lessthantwo(2)weeks later,DFSclosedthecaseunsubstantiated.Whiletheyreceivedapromisefromthe familytogetthechildcounselingatalocalresourcecenter,thecenterwasnotqualified toprovidesexoffensespecifictreatment.Inaddition,DFSdidnotkeepthecaseopen longenoughtomakesurethechildsassessmentwascomplete;muchlessmakingsure thechildreceivedthenecessarytreatment. 1272432 052009 Unsubstantiated 092003 Unsubstantiated 092002 Unsubstantiated 052009ReportDate: Male,12YOA Male,8YOA
64
DFSRESPONSE:
Open Closed
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSonMay4,2010duetoallegationsofsexualabuseagainstthe naturalmotherandfather.Thereportindicatedthatafatherofa7yearoldchildhadfoundhischild with a string tied around his penis. The child indicated that it had been tied there by a friend. The reportDFSreceivedwasrelatedtothechildsfriend. TheincidentinquestionwasreportedtoLawEnforcementonMarch8,2009althoughwasnotreferred to DFS until May, 2009. DFS conducted the child welfare investigation jointly with law enforcement. The DFS investigation was unsubstantiated as staff was unable to determine that the alleged child perpetratorwasavictimofsexualabuse. ThecaserecordreflectsthatonMay6,2010,theDFSstaffcontactedlawenforcementandspokewith theDetectiveinvolvedinthematter.DFSstaffwasadvisedthenthattheDAsOfficewouldnotbefiling criminalchargesonthechild.
181
On May 13, 2010, DFS staff contacted the DA to staff the case. A case note made that same day, summarizedDFSstaffsunderstandingofthatmeetingandindicatesthatthefamilywouldbeprovided withcontactnumberstoserviceprovidersinLaughlin,sothatthechildcouldenrollincounseling.The parentsweretobeadvisedoftheirdutytoassurethatchildwasenrolledincounselingandthatthey were required to follow the recommendations of the counselor. The parents were also to be advised thatfailuretocomplymayresultinanabuse/neglectpetitionbeingfiledagainstthem.Thecaserecord doesreflectthattheparentscontactedtheNevadaMentalHealthCenterinLaughlintoseekservicesfor theirsonpriortocaseclosure. The case record does not document that the family would receive ongoing DFS supervision. DFS supervisionisnotextendedtofamilieswithoutasubstantiatedallegationofabuse/neglectagainstthe parentoranunresolvedsafetythreat.
Thiscaseremainsclosed.Therehavebeennoadditionalreportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor1year4months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
182
DACaseID:

InNovember2009,amatterwassetforR&Dhearing.Thesexabuserpledguiltyandwasgoing toprisonfor3years.Thepsychosexualassessmenthadhighrisktoreoffend.TheSexualAbuser wasthefatherto8yearsoldandStepfathertothevictim14yearold. DFSrecommendedcaseclosurewithnowardshipsincesexabuserwouldbeinprisonforthree years.Motherjuststartedvictimcounseling1weekpriortosuggestedclosure.Motherplansto seekfullcustodyinthenext6months,butdoesnotseearushsincefatherisinprison.Wardship wasnotdeclared(October14,2009).Mothernevercompletedthenonoffendingparent counselingandDFSfailedtoinsureherparticipation. AfterDFSrecommendedcaseclosureandnowardship,DFSreceivedreportthatthesexabuse victimwassuicidalandcuttingherselfbecausehermothercontinuedarelationshipwiththe perpetrator(December29,2009).DFShadfailedtoinsurethevictimscounseling,choosingto closethecasefortheirnumbers.OurOfficehadtofileasecondpetitionregardingthemother's neglectandemotionalabuseofthesexabusevictim.Motherultimatelyenteredanocontestplea tothesecondpetition.
65
DFSRESPONSE:
1338240 122009 CourtSubstantiated 032009 CourtSubstantiated 062007 Substantiated 032009ReportDate: Female,14YOA Female,8YOA
Open Closed
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSinMarch,2009duetoallegationsofsexualabuseagainstthe stepfather.Thisfamilyhadpriorchildwelfarehistory,includingonesubstantiatedinvestigation.The Marchreportwasfiledbylawenforcementinvestigatingareportofchildsexualabuse. DFS initiated an investigation, and requested the DAs Office file a petition. The stepfather pled no contesttothechildwelfarepetitionandwaschargedandconvictedcriminallyfortheabuse. OnOctober20,2009,aReviewHearingwasheldandcaseclosurewasdiscussed.DFSstaffsupported the closure as the perpetrator of the abuse was in jail and had no contact with the child. The Court deniedtheclosure,requestingthatDFSgatheradditionalinformationregardingthechildrenincluding the identification of counseling / therapy for the child victim and determining the ongoing custody relationships. The Court also requested a case plan for the stepfather to include counseling that followstherecommendationsofapsychosexualassessment.Thematterwascontinuedfor2weeks. On November 3, 2009, the Court reconvened and was satisfied that the appropriate services were in placeandthatthemotherwouldfileforfullcustody.TheCourtterminatedwardshipofthechildren andthecasewasclosed.
183
OnDecember29,2009,DFSreceivedanotherreportofabuse/neglectallegingthesexualabuseagainst the mother. The child ran way from home, and was taken into custody by police. The other child remainedinthecustodyandcareofthenaturalmother.Priortorunningaway,thechildwasstillin weekly treatment with her therapist. Her mother, however, was continuing a relationship with the perpetratorandthechildfeltshewasnotsupportedbyhermother.DFSrequestedtheDAsOfficefile apetition,whichwaslaterCourtsubstantiated.
Thecaseremainsopenwiththechildplacedinoutofhomecare.Themotherhascompletedparentingclasses, andthechildremainsintherapy.Thereisanocontactorderinplacebetweenthemotherandthechilduntil thetherapistapprovessuchcontact.Thepermanencygoalofthechildremainsreunification.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
184
DACaseID:

Originalallegationswerethatmothersboyfriendsexuallyabused5yearoldgirl.Natural motherandBoyfriendimproperlysupervised3yearoldresultinginchildfallingoutofbedroom windowresultinginafracturetoherlegandaskullfracture.NaturalmotherandBoyfriendhave prescriptiondrugabuseaddictions.Boyfriendusesmarijuana.NaturalFatheralsohasdruguse issues.CasecameinJanuary2009. NaturalmotherhaddomesticviolenceissuesinMay09andcaseplanwasamendedtoinclude domesticviolencecounseling.Throughoutcasemotherhasbeencompletelyloyaltothe Boyfriend.OnSept10,2009incourtmotherandBoyfriendactedasacoupleandBoyfriendwas allowedtherapeuticcontactwith3yearold,butnocontactwithsexabusevictim. On10/12/09MotherbrokeupwithBoyfriendandmovedintomaternalgrandmothershome. Trialhomevisitstarted10/13/09.Casescheduledfor60daystatuscheckon11/3/09.DFS recommendscaseclosuresbecauseMotherandBoyfriendbrokeupthereforetherearenomore issuesandnoneedtomonitor.ThetrialhomevisitwasonlythreeweeksoldwhenDFS recommendsclosingthecase.Courtreportactuallyrecommendedcontinuedwardship,but caseworkerbroughtterminationorders.Courtdeniedtermination.
66
DFSRESPONSE:
1350710 122008 112008 Substantiated CourtSubstantiated
112008ReportDate: Female,5YOA Female,3YOA
Open Closed
This family came to the attention of DFS on November 2, 2008, due to allegations of physical abuse, parent substance abuse, plausible risk of physical injury, lack of supervision, and failure to protect against the natural mother and her boyfriend. The report was made by hospital staff who were providing care to a child who fell from a second story window. The child had sustained a fractured femur. DFSinitiatedaninvestigation.Thenaturalmotherreportedthatchildwasplayingintheroomwiththe dooropen,butthatthechildtookthewindowlockoff,openedthewindow,andfellout.Thenatural motherstatedthatshewasinthekitchenwhentheincidentoccurred,howeveradmittedthatshedoes havealockontheoutsideofthebedroomdoortokeepthechildrenintheirroomatnight.Thenatural mother denied that the child was locked in the room when the accident happened. The natural mothersboyfriendwasinterviewed,andcontradictedthemothersstory.Hestatedthatthechildhad been put down for a nap, and the window was open several inches, but that the child opened the windowmore,andfellout.Hestatedthatthedoorwasclosed;however,itwasnotlocked. ThemotherandboyfriendbothtestedpositiveforMarijuanaandthemotherforaprescriptiondrug, Loratab,forwhichshedidnothaveaprescription.
185
DFS requested the DAs Office file a petition and the children are removed from the home. The uninjuredchildwasplacedwithherfather,andtheinjuredchildremainedinthehospital.Bothchildren werelaterplacedwiththematernalgrandmother, Whilethiscaseisopen,DFSreceivedanewreportofabuse/neglectinDecember,2008allegingsexual abuseagainstthemothersboyfriend.Thereportisfiledbyalicensedsocialworkerprovidingservices to the family as a result of the open DFS case. The reporting source alleged that one of the children disclosed being sexually abused by the mothers boyfriend. DFS requested the DAs Office file a new petition. InMarch2009,theDAsOfficeagreedtoremovethesexualabuseallegationsfromthepetitiondueto lackofcredibleevidence. In May 2009, the mothers case plan was amended to include domestic violence counseling. Case recorddocumentationindicatedthemotherremainedloyaltoherboyfriend.ReviewHearingminutes for the September 10, 2009 Court hearingindicated theboyfriend would only be allowed therapeutic contact with the child involved in the previous allegations of sexual abuse. The no contact order remainedfortheotherchild. InOctober2009,themotherseparatedfromtheboyfriendandmovedintothematernalgrandmothers home. A Review Hearing was held on November 3, 2009, neither the Court minutes nor case record documentationindicatesthatDFSstaffrecommendedcaseclosure.TheCourtterminatedwardshipata subsequenthearingonJanuary5,2010.
Thiscaseremainsclosed,andtherehavebeennoadditionalreportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor1year,9months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
186
187
DACaseID:

On December 2, 2009 DFS received their third report on this family this one came to the attention of DAsOffice after law enforcement responded to the residence on a report of suspected child abuse. One of the children called thepolice and advised that his mother was beating him. The child reported to officers that his mother had hit him multiple times with a broom. The child was observed to have abrasions to the side of the face, swelling to the arm, numerousscarsandcutstothechestarea.Thechilddisclosedtoofficersthatmotherfrequently hitshimandthatshealwaysusesanobject.Thechildshowedofficersacurlingironthatmother frequently uses to hit him. Officers interviewed an older sister who confirmed the brother's statements that mother hithim multiple times with a broom.The officeralso told officers that mother frequently hits her as well. The sister had no visible injuries on that night. The mother admittedhittingthesonmultipletimes"allover"hisbodywithabroom.Motheralsoadmittedto officersthatsheregularlyhitsthechildrenwithobjectsasameansofdiscipline.Motherstated thatshehasusedthecurlingirontohitherson. ThePolicearrestedthemotherforfelonychildabuse.ThefamilyhadtwopriorcontactswithCPS, whichwereunsubstantiated,eventhoughtheimpropersupervisionactuallywasproven. ThatonDecember24,2007,DFSmadeanunannouncedhomevisittotheresidencetodeliver donationsandfoundchildrenages7yrs.,3yrs.,23mos.,2yrs.,7yrs.,and3yrs.homealonewithout supervision. The children belonged to two sisters. DFS employees waited 1.5 hours and then placedchildrenintoprotectivecustody. On November 9, 2007, DFS received this report Source reports that two young male children, bothapproximatelythreetofiveyearsold,arecontinuouslyleftwithoutsupervisionandtheyrun thestreets.Sourcehashadtopickthetwoboysoutofthestreetthreetimesinthelastweek. Source reports that the first time they were found on Maryland Parkway. Source reports that yesterdayandtodaytheyonthepropertystreets;yesterdaytheywerefoundonLuluAvenueand this morning they were found on Turner Street. Source reports that the smaller threeyearold malewasalmosthitbyacartoday. DFSclaimedthattheoldestboywasaproblemandsincetheotherchildrenwerenotdirect victimstheyshouldbereunified,leavingthesoninfostercare. DFSemployeesactivelyworked toconvincethecriminalcourttomodifyitsrestrictionsonMotherscontactwiththevictim contrarytotherequestsbyDAsOffice. DispositionalReportpreparedbyDFSandNIA(Nevada InitialAssessment)contradictedthemother'sandDFS'positionthattheotherchildrenwerenot abused.DespitethatinformationDFSclaimedthattheMother'sadmissionofstrikingtheother childrenandtheoldestdaughter'sadmissionofmotherstrikingherweretheresultofalanguage barrier/misunderstanding.ThecourtultimatelyagreedwithDFSandreturnedthethreesiblings tomother,priortomotherengaginginanycounselingtrulydesignedtochangeherbehaviors.We couldnotresolvethedisputebutchosetohandleitbysayingthatwedeferredtoDFS' assessmentofthesituation,withoutsayingwesupportedit.
67
188
DFSRESPONSE:
1342319 122009 CourtSubstantiated 122007 Unsubstantiated 112007 Unsubstantiated 122009ReportDate: Female,14YOA Male,13YOA Female,9YOA Male,5YOA
Open Closed
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSonDecember9,2009duetoallegationsofphysicalabuseand plausibleriskofphysicalinjuryagainstthenaturalmother.Thisfamilyhadpriorchildwelfarehistory, includingtwounsubstantiatedinvestigationscompletedinNovemberandDecember,2007. The2009reportwasfiledbylawenforcementrespondingtoacomplaintofchildabuse.Thevictimhad called the police indicating his mother was beating him. The child had multiple injuries, including an abrasiontotheface,andswellingtothearm.Thechildalsohadmanyscarsandcutstothechestarea. He showed police officers the curling iron that the mother frequently used to hit him. Officers interviewed the older siblings who confirmed the childs statements, and indicated that they were frequentlyhitaswell.Themotheradmittedtotheabuse,andwasarrestedforfelonychildabuse. DFS initially became involved with this family on November 9, 2007, due to a report alleging lack of supervision.Themotherhadleftthe12yearoldalonewiththreeotherchildren.Uponinitialcontact with the family, DFS staff learned the family had just immigrated to America from Ethiopia 3 months prior.Throughtheuseofaninterpreter,thefamilyexplainedthatinEthiopiaitwascustomarytoleave youngerchildrenwitholdersiblings.DFSstaffexplainedtheNevadalawsforprovidingchildsupervision andtheinvestigationwasunsubstantiated. The second report came to DFS on December 24, 2007, when DFS staff went to the home to deliver Christmasgifts,andagainfoundthechildrenhomealone.Uponinvestigation,themotherandhersister wenttoCatholicCharities,andleftthechildrenwiththe16yearoldaunt.Theauntlefttheapartment to go to another apartment, leaving the children alone. A safety plan was developed that included extended family members agreeing to provide supervision at all times to the children. Followup unannouncedhomevisitsconfirmedthatthefamilywasprovidingadequatesupervision. DuringthecourseoftheDFSinvestigation,themotherstatedthatduringtheincidentinquestion,the olderchildwashittingoneofthetoddlers,sheintervenedandthentheolderchildstartedhittingher. Shehadabroominherhandfromsweepingandusedthebroomtoprotectherselffrombeinghitand notforthepurposeofhittingherchild.However,themotherdoesadmittousingphysicaldiscipline withinstrumentsinthepasttoreprimandthechildren. Caserecorddocumentationindicatedthechildvictimhadbehavioralissuesthatwouldrequireservices beputinplace.DFSstaffbelievedthoseservicescouldbestbecoordinatedandinitiatedwiththechild remaininginoutofhomecare.Themotheralsoneededtoreceiveassistanceindevelopingappropriate interventionstrategieswhendealingwiththechild.
189
For these reasons, DFS staff pursued the reunification of the remaining children while recommending thischildremaininoutofhomecare. Case record documentation does not indicate that DFS staff actively tried to convince the Court to modify the contact restrictions between the child victim and the mother. Rather it appears as if DFS staffwastryingtoclarifywhatrestrictionswereinplace.AtthecriminaltrialonDecember28,2009, thetwoolderchildrenincludingtheprimaryvictimrecantedtheirstories.TheCriminalDAinformedthe DFSstaffthattheCriminalCourtsorderedanocontactwiththechildrenandthemotheruntilservices were started for the family. The Public Defender also contacted DFS staff, and contradicted the CriminalDAsinformationbystatingthatthenocontactorderwasinplaceunlessotherwisedetermined byDFS. OnFebruary17,2010,theDAconfirmedwiththeCourtthattherewasnotanocontactorderinplace andthatDFScoulddeterminetheplacementofthechildrenbackinthehome. On February 17, 2010, there was a Court hearing to discuss reunifying three of the children with the mother.DFSreportedtotheCourtthatFamilyPreservationServiceswouldbeprovidedinthehome andthataFamilySupportWorkerwasbeingassignedtoassistthemotherwithbeingintroducedtoand obtainingcommunityresources.TheCourtreleasedthethreechildrentothemotherandapprovedthe reunificationoftheprimaryvictimonceserviceswereinplace. InlateFebruary2010,thechildwhoremainedinoutofhomecaretransitionedtothehomeofanaunt. Service remained in placed. In March 2010, the child was charged with battery of a classmate and placedonprobation. OnMarch10,2010,attheDispositionalHearingtheCourtsubstantiatedphysicalriskofabuserelated to the three children who were not the primary victims of the abuse/neglect incident and physical abuserelatedtothechildwhowastheprimaryvictim.Thepetitioncontainsallfourchildren,butonly referencesthephysicalabuseoftheprimaryvictim. On May 14, 2010, the child was reunified with the mother, with 8 hours a week of Psychosocial Rehabilitation services in place. In June, 2010 the child began counseling with Childrens Clinical Services.
ThecaseremainsopenandDFScontinuestoprovidecasemanagementservicestothefamily.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
190
CaseRecordDocumentation: ChildSafetyandOutofHomeCare: ChildrenBornTo/Associatedwith IndividualsReceivingDFSServices: ChooseYourPartnerCarefullyCampaign: CommunityPartnershipsandManaging ChildMaltreatment: CourtContinuances: DA/DFSCaseReview: DataandManagementReporting: DFSAttorneyRepresentation/Waiverof ReasonableEfforts: DisputeResolutionProtocol: InformationIntegration/Availability: MentalHealthServices Availability/Provision: ParentswithExistingWarrants/Case Closure: PolicyandProcedureImplementation: ProperNoticeofService: StaffEducation/Training: SupervisoryExpectations:
191
DACaseID:

OnApril6,2010,DFSreceivedthefollowingreport:Yesterdaymorning(4.5.10approx9am)a personwitnessedthemotherslapthe4yearoldchildintheheadwithanopenhand.Itwas reportedthemotherwasslappingthechild"upside"theheadseveraltimes,themotherwas slappingthechildwhileleavingafitnesscenter.Itwasfurtherreportedthemotherwashitting thechildhardenoughthatthechild'sheadwasbangingagainstthewallandstaffatthefitness centerheardthewallbeingbanged.Thechildwasinacrouchedpositionwhilethemotherwas hittingher.Sourcereportedthechildwasrefusingtogetinthecarwiththemother.Source reportedthemotherwastellingthechildshewasembarrassingher.DFSinvestigationconsisted ofspeakingtothemotherwhodeniedtheincidenttookplaceinthemannerdescribed. OnApril7,2010,DFSinvestigatorattemptedtointerviewthechildwiththemotherinthehome andobservedthefollowing:Aformalinterviewcouldnotbeconductedwithchildatthistimeas shewouldnotspeaktoSpecialist.Towardstheendofthehomevisitshedidsayacoupleof things;howevershewasnotcomfortabletomeetwithSpecialist.Childappearedtobe somewhatfearfulofhermotherasobservedthatwhenhermotherwenttowardshershebacked awayandraisedherarmsinfrontofherface. BetweenApril7,2010andMay25,2010,therearenoentriesregardingDFSinvolvementwiththe family.OnMay25,2010,theallegationswerefinallydiscussedwiththefatherandhedenied knowledgeofthespecificallegations. DFShasindicatedthecasewillbeunsubstantiated. ThematterwasneverstaffedwiththeDAsofficeanditdoesnotappearthatamedical professional,despitetherepeatedblowstothechildsheadandindicationthatherheadhitthe wall,examinedthechild.Theindependenteyewitnesstestimonywouldbeenoughto substantiatealegalcaseagainstthemother.Thereisnoindicationthatthefamilywasreferred foranyservices.
68
DFSRESPONSE:
1361618 UNITYCase#: 42010 Unsubstantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 042010ReportDate: Female,4YOA
Open Closed
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSonApril6,2010duetoallegationsofplausibleriskofphysical injury against the natural mother. The report was filed by a medical professional who witnessed the incident.Thereportingsourceindicatedthatthemotherslappedthechildontheheadwithanopen handseveraltimes,andthatthechildsheadhitthewallasaresultoftheslap. DFSinitiatedaninvestigation,interviewingthemother,thefather,thechild,andthereportingsource. Themotherdeniedtheallegations. OnApril7,2010,DFSstaffattemptedtointerviewthechild,butthechildrefusedtospeakwithstaff.
192
ContactwouldlaterbemadeonMay,25,2010,wherethechilddeniedbeingphysicallydisciplinedby parents.Caserecorddocumentationindicatesthatthechildappearedfearfulofthemother.DFSstaff interviewed the reporting source, who repeated her recollection of events similarly to what was documented in the initial report. The father was interviewed and indicated he was not aware of the incidentandthathehasneverseenthemotherslapthechild. Therecordreflectsthatinformationwasprovidedtoparentsforparentingclassesaswellascounseling forthefamily.Familywascooperativeandopentoaccessingvoluntaryservices.Theywereprovided withanextensiveresourcepacket.ThecasewasnotreferredtotheDAsOfficeandtheinvestigation wasunsubstantiated. Based on the review of this case record documentation, DFS management initiated a well check of the child. Additionally,theremayhavebeensufficientinformationtosubstantiateontheinvestigation,andtoprovideon going services to the family. The case record documentation lacks detail and the investigation appears to be insufficientandnoncompliantwithpolicyandprocedure.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
Basedonthiscasereview,DFShasimplementedacomprehensivecasereviewoftheDFSstaffdirect services/casemanagementstaffinvolvedwiththiscasetobetterdeterminetheoverallconsistency/inconsistency ofpolicyandprocedureapplicationandcompliance.

193
DACaseID:

OnApril21,2010,DFSreceivedthefollowingreportfromlawenforcement: Reportstateslawenforcementrespondedtothehome. ChildreportedthatonSunday(04/18/10),herstepfathergotangrywithherandaccusedherof "lookingatboys"atchurch.Shestatedthatatchurch,herstepfatherpulledherhairtotheground andgrabbedherwristandarms.Herstepfatherthenstartedtoshoveherandtoldherhewould continuethisathome.Shestatedthatherstepfatherwasyellingandscreamingather.She reportedthatherwristsandherheadhurtfromherstepfatherhurtingher. Childstatedthatthenextday(Monday,04/19/10),shewenttoschoolandspokewiththeschool counselor.Childreportedwhathappenedtothecounselor.DuetochildhavingbruisesCPSwas notified.SourcereportsthatchildalreadyhadanOPENCPScaseinCaliforniaduetomedical neglect.Themotherhadrefusedmedicaltreatmenttochild. ChildreportedthattheschooltoldhertogohomeandwaitforaCPSworkertorespondtoher. Childstatedthatwhenshegothome,herstepfatherandmotherwereyellingatherbecauseshe wasn'tinclassesallday.Theyaccusedherofditching.Childstatedshewasn'tditching,shewasin theschoolnursesofficeandspokewiththecounselorformostoftheday.Shestatedher stepfatherthreatenedherandmadethemothergototheschool(onTuesday,04/20/10)andfind outwhathappened. Shereportedthattheschooltoldthemotherthatareportwasfiled.Themothertoldthe stepfatherandhewasangry.Hecalledchildonhercellphoneatschoolandthreatenedherthat shewouldgetitwhenshegothome.Childstatedthatsheistiredofbeingabusedbyher stepfather,andshewasveryafraidtogohome,sosheranawayfromhome. OnApril22,2010,thecasewasassignedtoaDFSinvestigator.Itappearsthatthechildisplaced withheradultbrotherwithnolegalcasebeingfiled.
69
DFSRESPONSE:
1361981 UNITYCase#: 042010 Unsubstantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 042010ReportDate: Female,17YOA
Open Closed
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSonApril21,2010,duetoallegationsofphysicalabuseagainst the natural mother and stepfather. The report was filed by law enforcement who responded to a complaintofphysicalabuse.Theyrespondedtothehomeofthechildsadultsibling,althoughthechild residedwiththemotherandstepfatherinBakersfield,California.ThechildranawayfromCalifornia andcametostaywiththesiblinginLasVegas.Thesiblingcontactedlawenforcementduetoconcerns themotherwasenroutetopickthechildup. TheinformationcontainedintheDAsdescriptionaccuratelyreflectstheinformationcontainedinthe abuse/neglectreport.However,whatisnotcontainedintheDAsdescriptionisthattheabuse/neglect
194
referencedbythechildtranspiredinCalifornia,whereshe,themother,andstepfatherreside. DFSinitiatedaninvestigation.DFSstaffconfirmedthefamilysCaliforniaresidency,butdeterminedthat thechildwasinneedoflegalprotectionasherguardianswereinanotherstate;thechildwasbrought intoProtectiveCustody. DFSstaffcontactedCaliforniachildwelfareservices,whoinformedDFSthattherewasanopencasefor the family in reference to medical neglect. The California agency initiated another investigation and wenttothefamilyhomeandinterviewedthemother,stepfather,andthechildssibling.Afterfurther investigation, DFS staff released the child to the care of the adult sibling who returned the child to California.Californiacontinuedtoinvestigatethematter. TheDFSinvestigationwasclosedasunsubstantiated,primarilybecauseitdidnothavejurisdictionofthe caseanditwasbeingresolvedinCalifornia.
Thiscaseremainsclosed,andtherehavebeennoadditionalreportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor5months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
N/A
195
DACaseID:

OnJanuary8,2010,DFSreceivedareportfrompoliceofficersregardingthefollowing:Source statesthattherewasanaltercationlastnightbetweenmotherandchildduetochildskipping school.Childtoldsourcethathermotherpinnedhertothewallbyherneck,thenwhenchildsaid shewantedtokillherself,motherthrewaknifeatchildsfeetandsaidsomethingtotheeffect thatsheshouldgoaheadanddoit.Childtoldsourcethatshepickeduptheknifeandstabbed herselfinthethightwotimes.Childcurrentlyhasthetwostabwoundsaswellasscratcheson herneckfromhermotherpinninghertothewallbyherneck.Sourcestatesthatchildwas treatedathospitalandreleasedtothecareofherfather. Sourcestatesthatmothergaveadifferentversionoftheeventsthattookplace.Mothertold sourcethatshepushedchildintothewallbutshedidnotchokeher,butmotheradmittedthat shemighthavecausedtheinjuriestochildsneck.Mothersaidthatchildgottheknifeherself, mothertookitawayfromher,childtookitback,andthenshestabbedherself.Mothertold sourcethatshe(mother)hadacoupleofdrinkspriortotheincident,howevermotherwasnot "buzzed"orintoxicated".Sourcealsostatesthatmotherdidnotappeartobeincapacitated. SourcestatesthatmotherisbeingarrestedforChildAbuseandChildEndangerment.Motherwas releasedthenextdayfromjail. Sourcestatesthatbothvictimandsiblingarecurrentlywiththeirfatherattheaboveaddress. FathertoldsourcethathewouldbetakingvictimtoMontevista,butsourcedoesnotknowwhat transpiredtocausefathertomakethatdecision. DFScontinuestoworkthecase.DFSdidnotmakeareferralforapetition.MotherhasaDUI from2009andwasapparentlydrinkingonthenightthatshephysicallyabusedchild.Victimalso disclosedsexualabusebymother'scurrentboyfriend(January2010)andaformerboyfriend(at age9).Thesexabuseandphysicalabusebymotherwasreportedbythevictimtohertherapist.
70
DFSRESPONSE:
1360096 UNITYCase#: 012010(2) Substantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) Unsubstantiated (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 012010ReportDates: Female,16YOA Male,9YOA
Open Closed
This family came to the attention of DFS on January 28, 2010, due to allegations of physical abuse againstthenaturalmother.Thereportwasmadebylawenforcementwhorespondedtoacomplaintof physicalabuseagainsta16yearoldchild.TheinformationcontainedintheDAsdescriptionaccurately reflectstheinformationcontainedintheabuse/neglectreport.Themotherwasarrestedforchildabuse andchildendangerment. DFSinitiatedaninvestigation,andinterviewedthechild,thesibling,naturalfather,andlaterthenatural mother. Thechildvictimindicatedthathermotherwasangrywithherforskippingschool.Whenhermother
196
questionedheraboutit,hermothergotangry.Sheindicatedhermotherwasdrunk.Duringthecourse of the argument, the child told her mother she had been sexually abused by the mothers boyfriend. Themotherbecameevenangrier.Atsomepoint,thechildsmotherhandedheraknifeandtoldherto killherself;thechildproceededtostabherselfintheleg. At the time of the investigation, a second report of abuse/neglect alleging plausible risk of physical injuryandsexualabuseagainstthemotherwasreceived.Thereportwasfiledbyatherapistproviding thechildservicessubsequenttotheabuseeventdescribedabove. DFSstaffinterviewedthemother,themotherdeniedprovidingthechildwiththeknifeortellingherto killherself.Sheacknowledgedonlyrecentlybeingnotifiedofthesexualabusecomplaint.Sheindicated thatmenwouldnolongerbeallowedaroundherchild. ThecaserecorddoesnotspecificallydocumentthemotherscriminalhistoryasitrelatestoDUI,itdoes referencethatshehadacriminalhistory. Thesiblingwasinterviewedanddeniedknowledgeoftheevent.Heindicatedhedidnotwitnessit.This childremainedinthecareofthemother,butthechildvictimremainedinthecareofhernaturalfather. Thefatherretainedprimarycustodyofbothchildren. Thefirstinvestigationwasunsubstantiated,andthesecondsubstantiated.DFSdidnotrequesttheDAs Officefileapetition. The sexual abuse allegations were referred to law enforcement for investigation, and based on the childsdisclosure,thecasemayhavebeensubmittedforprosecution. Basedonthisreviewofthecaserecorddocumentation,whileDFSstaffsubstantiatedtheinvestigation, the fact pattern, at a minimum, supported informal, ongoing DFS supervision and service provision. ThecaseshouldhavebeenreviewedwiththeDAsOffice,aswell. Thiscaseremainsclosed,andtherehavebeennoadditionalreportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor8months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
197
198
DACaseID:

OnFebruary11,2010,DFSreceivedthefollowingreport: On2/5/10,theMotherfiledapolicereportstatingthatherthreechildrenhaddisclosedthattheir stepfatherhadtouchedtheminasexualmanneronnumerousoccasions.Sheindicatedthatprior tocontactingthepolicesheconfrontedhimandkickedhimoutofthehouse.Asaresultofthe reportallthechildrenwereinterviewedbyadetective. Twoofthethreechildrenrevealedsexualabuse,withonechildindicatingthattheabuseoccurred thenightbeforethepolicereport.Onechildindicatedthatthetouchingbeganwhenshewas seven(lastingforseveralyears). Betweenthereportandthedateofthememo,thechildrenremainwiththemotherandDFS hasdocumentednumerousproblemswithfindingthemotherandthechildren.Infact,oneofthe threechildrenstillhasnotbeenseenbytheassignedinvestigator.(FebruarytoJune2010).The childrenhavenotbeeninanydocumentedcounseling. IncriminalcourtthePerpetrator enteredanAlfordPleatoAttemptLewdnesswithChildUnder14yrsofAge. DFSdidnot submitfordependencypetition. NevadaInitialAssessmentcouldnotbecompletedbecausemomfailedtocooperatewith interviews.SafetyAssessmentdoneon2/17/10identifiedsexabuseassafetythreatbut identifiedmotherasprotectivebasedoncallingpoliceandkickingherhusbandoutofthehome. Nofurthersafetyassessmentdonein4months,especiallyafterthemotherfailedtocooperate withDFSinvestigation. Themotherisstillmarriedtostepfather(married2006)nodivorce recordsinClarkCountyandnoTPO.Fatherisinjailawaitingsentencingbutnocounselingfor motherorchildren.
71
DFSRESPONSE:
1319271 022010 062005 Substantiated Unsubstantiated
022010ReportDate: Female,14YOA Female,12YOA Female,10YOA
Open Closed
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSonFebruary11,2010duetoallegationsofsexualabuseagainst thestepfather.Thefamilyhadpriorchildwelfarehistory,includingoneunsubstantiatedinvestigation in2005. TheFebruary2010,reportwasfiledbylawenforcementwhorespondedtoacomplaintofsexualabuse. Thenaturalmothercontactedlawenforcementindicatingthatherthreechildrenhaddisclosedtoher theyhavebeeninappropriatelytouchedbytheirstepfather.
199
DFS initiated an investigation upon the receipt of the report. DFS staff did initially have difficulty locating and connecting with the natural mother. When she was located, she denied she had intentionallyevadedDFS.ThenaturalmotherindicatedshewasconfusedbecausetheCriminalCourt proceedingswereinprogressandthatshehadmaintainedregularcontactwithlawenforcement.She didnt understand the need for both DFS and law enforcement involvement. Law enforcement corroborated her participation in the criminal proceedings and her regular contact with them. The Detectiveassignedtothecriminalcasedescribedthenaturalmotheras100%protective. ThestepfatherdidenteranAlfordPleainthecriminalproceeding.Heiscurrentlyinjailandawaiting sentencing. DFS did not request the DA file a petition. The mother immediately reported the crime to law enforcement and has remained protective of her children. She actively participated in the criminal proceedings.Thechildrenabusedwerenotthebiologicalchildrenoftheperpetrator. CaserecorddocumentationrelatedtotheNevadaInitialAssessment(NIA)wascompletedinUNITYand itwasupdatedasadditionalinformationwasreceived.TheNIAisdesignedtobealivingdocumentthat isnotfinalizedorcompleteduntiltheendofaninvestigation. Caserecorddocumentationdoesnotindicatethemotherwasuncooperative.Shedidnotimpedethe completionoftheNIA,andherbehaviordidnotwarrantanupdatedSafetyAssessment. Case records do not document that the mother has divorced the father or filed for a Temporary ProtectionOrder.Thestepfatherremainsinjailawaitingsentencing. TheDFSinvestigationwassubstantiated.
Thiscaseremainsclosed,andtherehavebeennoadditionalreportsreceivedonthisfamilyfor7months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
200
201
DACaseID:

On April 24, 2009, DFS received the following report : Child was upset and stressed today becausetherewasafightlastnightathome.Duringtheconversationwithsourcechilddisclosed thatshehasbeensexuallyabusedbyherfatheronmultipleoccasionsforafewyears.Childsaid thatherfatherfondledherbreastandvaginalareaonmultipleoccasions.Childstatesthatshe was typically taking Nyquil or Loratab to help her sleep when the incidents occurred. Child indicatedthatthefondlinghasbeenaboveandbeneathherclothing.Sheindicatedthatsheis notsureifherfatherhaseverpenetratedhervaginaloranalarea. Victimwasabletogivespecificdetailsabouttheabuse.Sheindicatedthatheroldersisterhad toldherthattheirfatherhadalsotouchedher.Shestatesthatthishasoccurredmultipletimes withhersister.Sheindicatedthatoldersisterreportedthesexualabusetoafamilyfriendabout ayearortwoago.Lawenforcementwasinvolvedatthattime,butoldersisterdidnotwantto presscharges. Victimindicatedthathermotherhasbeenawareofthesexualabusetothegirlsforafewyears. Sheindicatedthatsheandoldersisterhaveeachtoldtheirmotheraboutthesexualabuse,but mother initially did not believe them. Victim said that she initially told her mother about the sexualabuseacoupleofyearsago.Victimindicatedthathermothernowbelievesthem,buthad notcontactedlawenforcement. DFShadpreviouslyreceivedthebelowreportinFebruary2007fromlawenforcement faxreceivedfromsexualassaultunit.Faxreportsthefollowing:Thatchildreportedthatoverthe pastfewyears,herfatherhasbeensexuallyassaultingher.Childstatesthatherfatherwouldgive hersomemedicationtohelphersleepandthenextdayshewouldhavetroubleurinatingandshe wouldfeelsorenessinhervagina.Shealsoreportedthatheryoungersisterhadsurgeryonher foot and took pain medication before bed. When sister woke up her bra was undone and her underwear was torn. Sexual assault detectives were contacted and interviewed child. Source reportsthatvictimisconsistentwithherstoryaftertellingfourtimes.Shehasbeenarunaway twiceandarrestedonceforbattery/domesticviolence.Sheissexuallyactiveandgeneratedthis allegationwhilestayingatafriendshouse. DFSalsohadthisreportfromFebruary2006: Onlastnight(2/02/06),childwasbeatupbyherfather.Accordingtosource,thefamilyhasa phonerulethatthechildrenarenotallowedtohavephonecallsafter8pm.Lastnightthephone rangatapproximately7:45pmandchildtriedtoanswerthephone.Fatherpickedthephoneup andwouldnotallowchildtogetthephone.Childthoughtthatfatherwasplayingandteasing withhersoshewentovertohimandbegantusslingwithhimforthephone.However,father wasnotplayingandhebecameangrywithchildandsnappedonher.Fatherchasedchildaround thehomeandstartpunchingher.Naturalmomtriedtouseherselfasashieldbetweenthetwo ofthembutfathercontinuedtoreacharoundandendeduphittingchildintheface.Theyall struggledforabout10minutesuntilmotherwasabletomaneuverherbodysothatchildcould runaway.Mothertoldchildtorunoutside.Thenfatherturnedonmotherandthrewhertothe groundbyherhair.Hestartedtodragherwhileshewasonthefloorbutthenrealizedthat motherwasn'twhohewasafter.Soheranoutsideafterchildwhohegrabbedbythehairand threwheadfirstintothegaragedoor.Fatherthenpunchedchildinthefaceandhitherinthe side.Motherthenranuptofatherandhithimintheheadwithatextbookinanefforttogethim offofchild.Butitdidnotworkandheturnedaroundandstartedhittingmotheragain.Father grabbedmotherbythehairandthrewherdown.Atthispoint,motherhadthecarkeysinher handandunlockedthedoorforchildtogetin.Childthenlockedherselfintothevehicle.
72
DUPLICATECASE SEERESPONSEFOR50
202
Themotherandchildrenfinallygotawayaftermotheryelledatsibling(whowitnessedtheentire incident)tocallthepolice.Siblingchildcalledthepoliceandtheyjumpedintothevehiclebutleft beforethepolicearrived.Motherthendrovetoafriend'shouseandcalledthepolice.Oncethe policearrivedtheyescortedmotherbacktothehomeandarrestedfatherontwocountsof domesticviolence.DespitehavingallthisinformationDFSchosenottorequestthatwefilea petition.DAsOfficelearnedofcaseanddirectfiledbeforethedisputeresolutionprocesswas implemented.Theperpetratorplednocontesttothesexualabusepetitionwhenthedaughter appearedtotestifyagainsthim.MotherhadalreadyphysicallyseparatedandfiledforTPOsoshe wasgivenfurtherproceedings.DFSdidnotgetapermanencyworkerassignedafterthecourt substantiatedpetitionforseveralweeksandasofJunetheirrecordsindicatethatthematteris unsubstantiated(althoughitiscourtsubstantiated).Theremainingminorvictimisnowreceiving counseling.
DFSRESPONSE:
UNITYCase#: Date(s)ofReport(s) (SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: CaseStatusasofReview: SummaryResponse:
Open Closed
N/A
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
N/A
203
DACaseID:

OnMarch30,2010,DFSreceivedthefollowingfromlawenforcement: Sourcestatesthatthefatherhasfelonywarrantsfordomesticviolencerelatedincidents.Thatat 10:33amthismorningpolicelocatedthefatherandattemptedtopullhimover.Thatthefather acceleratedtoahighspeedandpolicecontinuedtopursuehiminahighspeedchase.Thatthe fatherwasdrivingerraticallyandjumpedcurbsmorethanoncewhilepolicewerepursuinghim. Thatwhenpolicewerefinallysuccessfulinpullinghimover,theydiscoveredthatalsointhecar werethefather'sthreechildrenandthechildren'smother,(actuallymotherofonly2ofthe children).Thatthefatherappearedtobeintoxicatedwhenpolicepulledhimoverthismorning. Thatheadmittedtodrinkingfourbeersthismorning.Thattwoemptybeercanswerelocated insidethecar.Thatthemotheradmittedthatshewasawarethefatherwasdrinkingwhiledriving withherandthechildreninthecar.Thatthefatherwasarrestedonhiswarrantsaswellasfelony childendangermentduetodrivingerraticallyandathighspeedswiththethreechildreninthecar. DFSrecordsindicatethattherewasnocontactbetweentheassignedinvestigatorandthe motherorthechildreninAprilorMay2010.InJune2010,theonlycontactsDFSmadewerewith themotherofthethirdchildinthecar. AtthistimeDFSintendstoclosethecasewithouta petitionorstaffingwithDAsOffice. Thepolicerecordsindicateahistoryofdomesticviolence betweenthefatherandmother(2009and2010).ThepolicerecordsalsoindicatethattheFather hasseriousfelonychargesinadditiontothechildneglect/endangermentfromtheabovereport. Hehasattemptmurder,kidnap1stdegree,robberywithdeadlyweapon,burglaryandcoercion withforcechargespending. Motherisunemployedandwaslivingatamotel/hotelinMarch 2010.
73
DFSRESPONSE:
1361465 UNITYCase#: 032010 Substantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 032010ReportDate: Female,1YOA Male,1YOA Male,1YOA
Open Closed
This family came to the attention of DFS on March 30, 2010 due to allegations of plausible risk of physical injury against the natural father. The report was filed by law enforcement. The information contained in the DAs description accurately reflects the information contained in the abuse/neglect report. DFSinitiatedaninvestigationmakingcontactwiththenaturalmotheroftwoofthechildrenonMarch 31,2010.Thechildrenwereseenandappearedtobewell.Thefamilyhadpreviouslybeenstayingata motelwiththenaturalfather.However,aftertheincidenthewasincarcerated.DFSstaffagainsawthe children and mother on May 24, 2010 and again all appeared to be doing well. The mother was referredforservicesatthistime.TheotherchildwasseenonJune14,2010.DFSstaffhadbeenunable tolocatethechildsmotherastheinformationinitiallyprovidedtothedepartmentwasinaccurate.DFS staffattemptedtointerviewthefather,butherefusedtospeakwithstaffduetothependingcriminal
204
charges. DFSsubstantiatedtheinvestigationinJuly,2010.ThecasewasnotstaffedwiththeDAsOffice. CaserecorddocumentationdoesindicateDFSstaffwasawareofthefatherscriminalhistory,including a domestic violence conviction in 2004. The mother of one of the children does disclose a domestic violenceincidentwiththefatherthisisnotthemotherwhowasridinginthecarduringthetimeofthe incident. OnMay24,2010,caserecorddocumentationindicatedthatthemotherhadrecentlybeenemployed. InMarch2010,asreferencedabove,shewasresidinginahotel.
Basedonthereviewofthiscaserecorddocumentation,DFSmanagementinitiatedawellcheckofthechildren. Thecaserecorddocumentationlacksdetailandtheinvestigationappearstobeinsufficientandnoncompliant withpolicyandprocedure.
RelevantStatute:
N/A

205
DACaseID:

OnApril21,2010,DFSreceivedthefollowingreportSourcereportsthattheincident happenedatthefathershomelastnight.7yearoldcametoschoolwithbruisesonhisright arm.Thebruisingcoveredalargeportionofhislowerarm.Childsaidhealsohasbruisesonhis hipandlowerback,butsourcedidnotlookthere.Childsaidhisfatherhithimwithabelt.Father wasupsetbecausechilddidnotfinishhisdinner.Sourcedoesnotknowhowmanytimeschild washitwiththebelt.Childsaidthathewascryingsohismotherpickedhimupandhelpedhim lastnight.Childsaidthathisfatherhitshimwithabeltwhenheisreallyangry.Ifheisnottoo mad,fatherjusthitschildwithhishand.Sourcereportsthatthisisnotadailything.Sourcedoes notknowwhenthelasttimefatherhitchildwiththebeltpriortolastnight.Sourceisnotaware ofchildhavinganymarksinthepast.Fatherhastoldchildthatthisishowhewasdisciplined,so thatiswhathewilldotohim. DFSrecordsindicatethatthechildwaswiththemotherandtheydidnottakeanylegalstepsto protectthechildfromthefatherdespitephysicalproofthatthefatherhadphysicallyand emotionallyabusedthechild. Thelegalrecordsindicatethatthemotherandfatherhadthe marriageannulledbutthatthefatherhasvisitationandhewenttogetthechildinMay2010. TherecordsindicatethatDFSdidnotreferthefathertoanyservicestoaddresstheDomestic Violence/ChildPhysicalAbuse.Theabuserappearstomaintainunlimitedaccesstothechild.
74
DFSRESPONSE:
1361990 UNITYCase#: 042010 Unsubstantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 042010ReportDate: Male,9YOA
Open Closed
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSinApril21,2010duetoallegationsofphysicalabuseagainstthe natural father. School staff reported the abuse. The information contained in the DAs description accuratelyreflectstheinformationcontainedintheabuse/neglectreport. DFS initiated an investigation, and saw the child. Case record documentation indicated the child had severallinearmarksonhisbody.Thechilddisclosedthathisfatherhithimseveraltimeswithabeltdue tonoteatinghisdinner.Duringfollowupinterviewswiththechild,thechildindicatedthatthefather had not hit him before. At the time DFS made contact with the child, he had been returned to his motherscare.Thechildlivedoneweekwiththemotherandthenextweekwiththefather. Thefatherwasalsointerviewedandadmittedtotheabuse,indicatingitwasonetimeeventandwould nothappenagain. Caserecorddocumentationindicatesthatthemotherandfatherwerenolongermarriedandthattheir marriagewasannulled.Thefatherretainedvisitationrightswiththechildaftertheannulment. CaserecorddocumentationdoesnotindicateDFSstaffreferredthefatherforservices;theinvestigation wasunsubstantiated.
206
Basedonthereviewofthiscaserecorddocumentation,DFSmanagementinitiatedawellcheckofthechildren. Thecaserecorddocumentationlacksdetailandtheinvestigationappearstobeinsufficientandnoncompliant withpolicyandprocedure.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
207
DACaseID:

OnApril12,2010,DFSreceivedareportinvolvingasevenyearoldgirlwhohadbeenphysically abused,observeddomesticviolencebetweenhermotherandmothersboyfriendandclaimed thatthemotherandmothersboyfriendusedmarijuanainthehome.Thereportindicatedthat thesubjectminorprimarilyresideswithagrandmotherfigureandvisitswithhermother1to2 days/nightsatatime.Thereportfurtherindicatedthatthechildwasstruckinthefacewitha platethrownbymothersboyfriendduringanincidentofdomesticviolencebetweenmotherand mothersboyfriend. Whenthesubjectminorwastransportedtoschoolsheinformedthepersonthatshehitadoor becausehermothertoldhertolieifanyoneaskedhowshereceivedthemarkunderherlefteye. Thebruisewasobservedtobelongandbluishincolor. DFShasnotintervenedinthematteraccordingtonotes.Thechildstillapparentlyliveswith fictivekin(nolegaldocuments)andapparentlyvisitswiththemother.Theassignedinvestigator spoketothechildandobservedtheinjury.Theinvestigatordoesnotnoteanycontactwiththe motherorthemothersboyfriend.Theinvestigatordoesnotnoteanycontactwiththechildsince Aprilinterview.Thisisanexampleofeitherpoorinvestigation,poorsupervisionorinformal handling.
75
DFSRESPONSE:
1361779 UNITYCase#: 042010 Substantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 042010ReportDate: Female,7YOA Male,3YOA
Open Closed
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSonApril12,2010duetoallegationsofphysicalabuseagainst thenaturalmotherandherboyfriend.Thereportwasfiledbyaclosefriend(fictivekin)ofthefamily. Thereportingsourcehadtakenthechildtoschool,andnoticedabruiseonthechildsface.Whenasked howthebruiseoccurred,thechilddisclosedshewashitbyaplatethattheboyfriendhadthrownatthe mother. The source also indicated that both the mother and boyfriend used marijuana. The source indicatedthechilddidnotresidewiththemother,butforonetotwodaysperweek. DFS initiated an investigation, and the child was interviewed on April 13, 2010 at school. The child presented with the bruising on the face as described in the report. The child disclosed that she had beenhitintheeyewithaplatethattheboyfriendhadthrownatthemother.Thechilddeniedseeing themotherandboyfriendhiteachother,althoughdisclosedtheypushedoneanother.Thechildstated shefeltsafeatthemothershouse,butfeltscaredwhenthemotherandtheboyfriendwouldfight.The childindicatedshelivedwithhergrandmotherduringtheweek,butwenttohermothershouseonthe weekend. Case record documentationindicates a gapbetween theinitial contact with the child on April 13 and attemptedcontactonMay24andJune1,2010.Facetofacecontactismadeagainwiththefamilyon
208
June7,2010.Thereisnoknownexplanationforthelackofcontactand/ordocumentation. On June 7, 2010, DFS staff interviewed the natural mother. She corroborated the childs statements. OnJune22,2010,DFSstaffinterviewedtheboyfriend.Heindicatedhehadnointentionofhittingthe childwiththeplate,butthathethrewtheplateoutofangerathermotherandshouldnothavedone so. On June 22, 2010, DFS staff followedup with the reporting source who indicated the child was doing well. The source reiterated that the boyfriend did marijuana and had involvement with law enforcement.Theinvestigationwasconcludedassubstantiated,butthecasewasnotreferredtothe DAsOfficeforfilingapetition. Basedonthisreviewofthecaserecorddocumentation,whileDFSstaffsubstantiatedtheinvestigation,thefact pattern,ataminimum,supportedareferraltocommunityservices.Thecaseshouldhavebeenreviewedwith theDAsOffice,aswell.
RelevantStatute:
N/A

209
DACaseID:

InJan2009,perpetratorshookhisgirlfriends1yearoldbabycausingsubduralhematomas andretinalhemorrhages.DFSintervenedtoprotecttheshakenchildbutneverconductedany investigationwhatsoeverintoperpetrator. Atthetimeoftheinjurytothegirlfriendsbaby, perpetratorhadababybyanotherwoman.Thatotherwomanwasalsopregnantwithhissecond child. InFeb.2010,atthetimeofhisreleasefromcustody,perpetratorcontactedDFS (presumablybecauseatermofhisjailreleasewastocomplywithDFS).DFSagainfailedto investigatehiminanywayandinsteaddeterminedthatsinceperpetratorwasnotplanningon reunifyingwiththeinjuredchildhehadnoaccountabilityonthecase. Threemonthslater, perpetratorkilledhis1yearoldbiologicalchild.Preliminarymedicalrecordsrevealthatatthe timeofherdeath,thechildhad:headtraumaandmultiplefractures.Multiplebilateralrib fractures,bilateralclaviclefractures,buckletypefractureleftdistaldiaphysis,nondisplaced buckletypefractureproximallefttibia,leftretinalhemorrhage(recordsfromophthalmologynot yetreceived),subduralhematomawithquestionofacuteorchronicbleeds. DFSreleaseda statementtothepressstatingthattheyhadensuredthesafetyoftheinjuredchild,anddenying furtherresponsibility(Werenotapolicingagencylikethat.LVRJ6/10/10)
76
DFSRESPONSE:
1363018 UNITYCase#: 062010 CourtSubstantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 062010ReportDate: Female,2YOA Female,1YOA(deceased)
X X
Open Closed Yes No
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSinJune2010,duetoallegationsofphysicalabuseagainstthe natural father. The report was filed by law enforcement who responded to a complaint of physical abuse.Whenlawenforcementarrived,thechildwasbarelybreathingandsufferedfromaheadinjury. Thechildwastransportedtoalocalhospital. While DFS has no prior reports on this family, the father of the injured child was, however, the perpetrator of abuse on another child associated with a DFS case in January 2009. His previous case withDFSreferencedashakenbabyincidentinwhichhewascriminallycharged,convicted,andserved 10monthsinprison.Inthiscase,heperpetratedabuseonhisgirlfriendschild;thechildwasnothis biological child. The abuse occurred in Nye County, and DFS became involved when the child was transported to a local hospital. The injuries sustained by the child were not fatal. When the child presented at the hospital, medical personnel initially believed that the child had RSV. DFS staff requestedaskeletalexam,andtheresultsrevealedpreviousinjury/traumaindicativeofabuse/neglect. At the time of this incident, case record documentation indicated the perpetrator had one biological child,andwhileincarceratedthemotherofthatchildgavebirthtohissecondchild.
210
CaserecorddoesnotdocumentDFSstaffeithermadecontactwiththeperpetratorsbiologicalchildor madecontactwiththenewbornchildonceborn. On February 12, 2010, DFS staff became aware that the perpetrator had been released from jail, and that he was nolongerinvolved with the injured childs mother. Theinjured child remained placedin outofhomecare,andDFSwasconsideringreunificationwiththebiologicalfatherinanotherstate.DFS staffnotedthattheperpetratoroftheabusehadnoaccountabilityonthecaseprimarilybecauseof hisseveredrelationshipwiththemotherandinabilitytocontactthechild. The perpetrator contacted DFS staff to inform them he had completed parenting classes on April 16, 2010. Those classes were previously required of him as part of his case plan. As a condition of his parole,hewasrequiredtocomplywithDFS.Anotherconditionofhisparolewasthathehasnocontact withchildren. On June 4, 2010, DFS received the report in reference to the injury of the biological child. The informationcontainedintheDAsdescriptionaccuratelyreflectstheinformationcontainedinthecase recorddocumentationrelatedtothetypeofinjuriessustainedbythechild. Itshouldbenotedtheperpetratordidnotlivewiththenaturalmotherandhisbiologicalchildrenand thatDFSstaffwerenotawarehewasprovidingcaretochildren. The article referenced was published in the Las Vegas Review Journal on June 11, 2010. The public informationofficerwasquotedasstatingthefollowing: Christine Skorupski, a spokeswoman for the Clark County Department of Family Services, said heragencyhasrecordsofTaylorasanallegedchildvictimandaperpetratorofchildabuse,but shecouldnotprovidethedetailsofhishistory. But Skorupski said that previous allegations of abuse against Taylor involved a child in an unrelatedhousehold,notKaitlynn. Family Services had not received reports involving Taylor's biological children before the latest incident,Skorupskisaid,andtheagencywasunawarethattherewerechildreninhiscare. "Whenweinterveneinafamily,ourfocusisthesafetyofthechildandworkingwiththefamilyto addresstheirneeds.Inthepriorcase,weaddressedtheissuesnecessarytoensurethesafetyof thatchild,"Skorupskisaid."OnceTaylornolongerplayedaroleinthatfamily,wedidn'tfollow himontomonitorwhathedoeswithhislife.We'renotapolicingagencylikethat."
Thiscaseremainsopen.Thepermanencyplanforthesurvivingsiblingisreunificationwiththemother;thechild, however,remainsinthecareofthematernalgrandparents.
211
RelevantStatute:
NRS432B.330Circumstancesunderwhichchildisormaybeinneedofprotection. 1.Achildisinneedofprotectionif: (a)Thechildhasbeenabandonedbyapersonresponsibleforthewelfareofthechild; (b)Thechildhasbeensubjectedtoabuseorneglectbyapersonresponsibleforthewelfareofthechild; (c)Thechildisinthecareofapersonresponsibleforthewelfareofthechildandanotherchildhasdiedasa resultofabuseorneglectbythatperson; (d)Thechildhasbeenplacedforcareoradoptioninviolationoflaw;or (e)ThechildhasbeendeliveredtoaproviderofemergencyservicespursuanttoNRS432B.630. (AddedtoNRSby1985,1371;A1991,52;1999,830;2001,1256;2005,2038)
N/A
212
DACaseID:

41dayoldinfantwasmurderedbymothersboyfriendwhilemotherwasincarceratedon unrelatedcharges.Atautopsy,itwasdeterminedthattheinfantsustainedarightparietalskull fractureandseveretraumaticbraininjury(acuteandchronic),includingbilateralsubdural hemorrhages,neuronalnecrosis,diffusecerebraledema,subarachnoidhemorrhages,multifocal axonalspheroidofCajalandcerebralcorticalcontusionalhemorrhages.Infantalsosustained acuteburnstoover1/3ofhisbodyandwassufferingfromstarvation.Atthetimeofdeath,infant weighed.2kglessthanhisbirthweight,hewasonlyonecmlongerthanhewasatbirthandhis headcircumferencewas4.8cmSMALLERthanitwasatbirth.Photosshowskinhangingoff infantsbuttockswherethefattytissueshouldbe.Currently,wehaveaTPRtrialscheduledfor 7/1/10oninfantssibling,whois6yearsold).MotherwassubsequentlychargedwithChild AbusewithSubstantialBodilyharmfortheinjuriestoinfant. OnMarch12,2010,areportcameintotheCPShotlineindicatingthatthemotherwasengagedto anewmanwhohadtwochildren,ages9and5.Thereportindicatedthatmotherwaslivingin thehomewiththechildren. Wheninterviewed,thenewboyfriendindicatedthathewas awareofthechargesbutdeniedthatthemotherhadanyroleinthechildsinjuries.Healso statedthatthemotherhadwatchedthegirlsonceortwiceonherown.However,thepaternal grandmotherreportedthatthemotherhadbeenpickingthechildrenupatschoolandcaringfor themforunknownlengthsoftime. Thefatherrefusedvoluntaryservicesstatingthathehad talkedtoanattorneyandwasadvisedthathedidnthaveto. On5/21/10and6/7/10,theDAs officesoughttostaffthiscasewithDFStodiscussthesafetyconcernstothe9and5yearolddue tothefactthatthecasewasclosedunsubstantiated,leavingthesechildreninthecareofaperson responsiblefortheabuse,neglectandordeathoranotherchild.Thiscasewasstaffedfordispute resolutionbetweentheDAsOfficeandDFS.
77
DFSRESPONSE:
1331634/1361543/1315411 102010 032010 052006 032010ReportDate: Female,9YOA Female,5YOA InProgress Unsubstantiated CourtSubstantiated
X X
Open Closed Yes No
This family came to the attention of DFS on March 12, 2010 due to allegations of plausible risk of physical injury against the stepmother. The report was filed by DFS staff that was involved with the stepmother,andresponsibleformanagingtheexistingoutofhomepermanencycaseforherbiological child. Thestepmotherhadpreviouschildwelfarehistory,includingthreepriorchildwelfareunsubstantiated investigations, and one Court substantiated investigation related to the death of her child. The last report received by DFS on the stepmother came on March 9, 2009. The report was filed by law enforcement who responded to a complaint of physical abuse. Upon arrival, law enforcement
213
discoveredachildwhohadsuffered3rddegreeburnstohisbody.Thechildsubsequentlypassedaway from the injuries sustained. While the mother was incarcerated at the time of the childs death, the injurieswereattributednotonlytotherecentabuse,buttoalengthyperiodofsustainedabuse.The motherwassubsequentlychargedwithfelonychildabuse.DFSremovedthemothersremainingchild, andthemotheriscurrentlypendingaterminationofparentalrights. While DFS has no prior reports on this family, the father of the injured child was, however, the perpetrator of abuse on another child associated with a DFS case in January 2009. His previous case withDFSreferencedashakenbabyincidentinwhichhewascriminallycharged,convicted,andserved 10monthsinprison.Inthiscase,heperpetratedabuseonhisgirlfriendschild;thechildwasnothis biological child. The abuse occurred in Nye County, and DFS became involved when the child was transported to a local hospital. The injuries sustained by the child were not fatal. When the child presented at the hospital, medical personnel initially believed that the child had RSV. DFS staff requestedaskeletalexam,andtheresultsrevealedpreviousinjury/traumaindicativeofabuse/neglect. Aspartofthemostrecentinvestigation,thefather,whenintervieweddeniedhiswifehadanythingto dowiththeabuseofherbiologicalchild.Heindicatedthathischildrenwererarelyleftinhercare.The paternal grandmother contradicted that information, however, and indicated that the children were frequentlyleftwiththestepmother. CaserecordsindicatethefatherhadpreviousCourtsubstantiatedchildwelfarehistoryrelatedtodrug abusethatoccurredinMay,2006. OnMay28,2010,thefatherrefusedtoreceivevoluntaryservices;heindicatedhisattorneyhadadvised himhedidnothavetoparticipate. Theinvestigationwasunsubstantiated. TheDAsofficeexpressedconcernsaboutthiscaseandinitiatedtheDisputeResolutionProtocol.The casewasstaffedwithDFSmanagementandtheDeputyDA.DFSadvisedtheDAsofficethatDFSwould notrefuteapetitionbeingfiledonthiscasebasedontherequirementsofNRS432B.330.DFSadvised theDAsofficethattheywouldneedtoinitiatethefilingofthepetitiontogetDFSinvolvedinthecase. TheDAsofficeagreed.AnewreportwasthenfiledwiththeHotlineandiscurrentlybeinginvestigated.
BasedontheoutcomeoftheDisputeResolutionProtocol,theDAsOfficeindependentlyfiledapetitiononthe naturalmother,naturalfather,andthestepmotheronSeptember23,2010.Thiscaseremainsopen.
RelevantStatute:
NRS432B.330Circumstancesunderwhichchildisormaybeinneedofprotection. 1.Achildisinneedofprotectionif: (a)Thechildhasbeenabandonedbyapersonresponsibleforthewelfareofthechild; (b)Thechildhasbeensubjectedtoabuseorneglectbyapersonresponsibleforthewelfareofthechild; (c)Thechildisinthecareofapersonresponsibleforthewelfareofthechildandanotherchildhasdiedasa resultofabuseorneglectbythatperson; (d)Thechildhasbeenplacedforcareoradoptioninviolationoflaw;or (e)ThechildhasbeendeliveredtoaproviderofemergencyservicespursuanttoNRS432B.630. (AddedtoNRSby1985,1371;A1991,52;1999,830;2001,1256;2005,2038)
214
215
DACaseID:

Wheninfantwas3monthsold,hismotherandfatherengagedinadomesticdispute. Followingthedispute,fatherleftinfantinthecareoftheemotionallydistraughtmother,who yelledthatshedidnotwantthechild,leftinfantoutinthecoldandstartedthrowingallofinfants belongingsoutthewindow.Oncepaternitywasestablished,CPSreturnedinfanttothecareof hisfather.Ashorttimelater,fatherreturnedinfanttohismotherdespitethemothersclear demonstrationofinstability.Fatherreportedthathewasinconstantcontactwiththemother duringthistime. Thereafter,inFeb.2008,themotherturnedthecareofthechildovertothe childspaternalaunt.Thepaternalauntdescribedchildasfilthy,hungryandwearingatshirtasa diaperwhenshereceivedhim.Thepaternalauntthenturnedthecareofchildbackoverto fatherandhisnewgirlfriend. InMay2008,oneyearoldchildwastakenintocareafterhewasrepeatedlyandseverely physicallyabusedbyfathersgirlfriend,whowasfivemonthspregnantatthetime.Theabuse includedextensivewhippingwithanextensioncord,includingwhipmarksacrossthechilds genitals.Ittookthreedaysfollowingthereporttocontactthechildduetofatherhidingchild fromauthorities.WhilechildwasinthecareofDFS,fatherandgirlfriendintentionally misdirectedDFSregardingwheregirlfriendwaslivinginordertopreventtheirnewbabyfrom beingtakenintocare.ThenewbabywastakenintocareafterDFSwasnotifiedofherbirthby paternalrelatives.Ultimately,thevictimandnewbabywerereunifiedwithfatherand girlfriend/motheraftertheycompletedportionsoftheircaseplans.ThecasewasclosedonMay 6,2010upontherecommendationoftheEarlyChildhoodServicestherapist. OnJune4,2010,thenowthreeyearoldpresentedatUMCwithatraumaticheadinjury,towhich heultimatelysuccumbed.Theinjurywasinflictedbythegirlfriend.Atthetimehewasadmitted tothehospital,the3yearoldhadacastfromatibiafracture,whichoccurredapproximately threeweeksearlier.Girlfriendreportedthattheleginjuryoccurredatthechildsdaycarebut subsequentinvestigationdeterminedthattheinjuryoccurredinhercare.Moreover,uponchilds admissiontothehospital,girlfriendexplainedthatanabrasiontothemiddleofhisforeheadhad occurredfromafall23weekspriorandabumptotherightsideofhisheadoccurred2weeks priorwhenchildranintoatable.Fatherappearedtoacceptallofgirlfriendsexplanations withoutquestion,evenexpressingshocktothemediawhenhediscoveredthatshewasthe onewhoinflictedthetraumaticinjuriestothechild. DespiteFathersrepeatedfailuretoprotectdeceasedchildandhisfailuretoprotectnewbaby (bymisdirectingCPSre:girlfriendswhereaboutstoavoidherbeingtakenintoprotective custody),DFSleftnewbabyinfatherscareandcustodyuntilremovedbythecourton6/15/10at therequestofDA. 1332577/1351717
78
DFSRESPONSE:
062010 Substantiated 122008 CourtSubstantiated 052008 CourtSubstantiated 062006 Unsubstantiated 062010ReportDate: Male,4YOA(deceased) Female,1YOA
216
X X
Open Closed Yes No
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSinNovember2006,duetoallegationsofneglect,abandonment, plausibleriskofphysicalinjury,andparentinjailagainstthenaturalmotherandfather.Thereportwas filedbylawenforcementwhorespondedtoadomesticdisputecomplaint.Themotherandfatherhad arguedandthemotherindicatedshenolongerwantedtocarefortheinfant,placingtheinfantoutside theresidence.Thefatherindicatedtolawenforcementthathealsodidnotwanttocareforthechild. ThechildwasbroughttoChildHavenbylawenforcementasaresultoftheincident. DFSinitiatedaninvestigation.Duringthecourseoftheinvestigation,thefatherdeniedstatingtolaw enforcementthathedidnotwanttocareforthechild,andinsteadindicatedthatthechildwasbrought intocarebecausehewasnotnamedonthebirthcertificate.DFSstaffcontactedlawenforcementwho indicated the father was neither for nor against the child being brought into care. At the Protective CustodyHearingonNovember14,2006theCourtorderedthechildreturnedtothecareofthefather. The case was closed as unsubstantiated in November 2006. The father was, however, referred to communityservices. Case record documentation related to later DFS involvement with the family indicates that the father doesreturntheinfantbacktothecareofthemother. Caserecorddocumentationindicatesthechildsnaturalmotherdidrelinquishcareofthechildtothe paternalaunt.Thepaternalauntindicatedthatwhenshereceivedthechild,hewasfilthy.Thechildis eventuallyreturnedtothecarethenaturalfatherandhisnewgirlfriend. InMay2008,DFSreceivedareportallegingphysicalabuseandlackofsupervision.Thereportingsource wasanonymous.Thereportingsourceacknowledgedwitnessingthegirlfriendhitthechildsohardon thebackthatsheknockedhimtotheground.Thereportingsourcewitnessedmultiplesmallbruiseson hisface,andwhenaskingthegirlfriendwhathappened,shedisclosedpinchingthechildontheface. Upon initiating investigation, the child presented with linear marks on his lower abdomen that were notedtolookwhiplikeandbruisingtohislowerback.Thechildalsopossiblyhadscabies.DFSstaff haddifficultylocatingthefamily,asfatherandgirlfriendwereawarethatchildprotectiveserviceshad been called. Thechild was removed from thehome andplaced with thepaternal grandmother. The girlfriend admitted to hitting the child with an extension cord. The investigation was Court substantiated. ThegirlfriendwaspregnantatthetimeDFSconductedthisinvestigation,andthefathermisledDFSstaff astoherwhereaboutsinordertopreventthenewchildfrombeingtakenintocare.InDecember2008, thepaternalauntcontactedDFStoinformthemofthechildsbirthandlocation. BothchildrenwerereunifiedwiththeparentsinOctober2009.Theparentshadcompletedaportionof their case plans. At the recommendation of the Early Childhood Services therapist, the Court terminatedwardshipandthecasewasclosedonMay17,2010. On June 4, 2010 DFS received a new abuse/neglect report alleging physical abuse/death against the
217
naturalfatherandthegirlfriend.Lawenforcementfiledthereportafterrespondingtoacomplaintof physicalabuse.Thechildhadpresentedatalocalhospitalwithamassiveheadinjury.DFSinitiatedan investigation. The girlfriend initially did not admit to causing the injuries and indicated the child had fallenandbumpedhishead.ThechildpassedawayfromtheinjuriesonJune7,2010.Thegirlfriend lateradmittedtocausingtheinjuriesandwascriminallychargedwiththechildsdeath. Thesurvivingsiblingwasplacedwithpaternalgrandmothervoluntarilybytheparentsatthetimeofthe childsinjury.BasedontheinformationDFShadatthetimeofthechildsdeath,therewasnoindication thefatherpresentedanimmediateorimminentdangerofseriousharmtothesurvivingsibling.Asthe investigationunfoldedandnewinformationwaslearned,DFSstaffwouldlateragreethatthefatherwas notanappropriatecaretakerofthesurvivingsibling.Itisimportanttonotethatthesurvivingsibling remainedinthecareofthepaternalgrandmotheruntiltheCourtofficiallyorderedthechildremoved from the father and into the care of the paternal grandmother on June 17, 2010. The father was allowedtoresideinthehomewiththegrandmotherandchild,butsupervisionofthechildandfather wasrequired.
Thiscaseisopenandthechildremainsplacedwiththepaternalgrandmother.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A

218
DACaseID:

On4/22/10,aseriouslyendangeredchildwasremovedfromanabusiveparentbecausetheDA was empowered to speak on behalf of the public interest and was not limited by the attorney clientrelationship. On 12/21/09, threemonthold presented at hospital emergency room at the request of the infantspediatrician.AreporttotheCPShotlineindicatedthattheparentshadpreviouslybeen given feeding instructions for child due to the infants failure to gain weight appropriately. Despitethefeedingplan,childhadonlygained10oz.inthethreemonthssinceherbirth.The reportindicatedthatthemotherwasdepressedduetotherecentdeathofheroneyearoldchild, (whichwasduetoacongenitalheartdefectnotneglect).Thereportindicatedthatthemother didnotfeedinfantwhenshewashungry,payattentiontoherorcomforther. Thereporter alsorelayedthatthefatherofinfantandstepfatherofthreeyearoldisaregisteredsexoffender. It was determined that the father was a Tier One Sex Offender for Attempt Lewdness with a Minorformolestingan8yearoldgirl.Thefathersprobationofficerverifiedthatfatherwasnot tohaveunsupervisedcontactwithanyoneunder18yearsold. Upon CPS contact at the hospital, the infant was observed to be small and pale with a distendedbelly.Infantwasobservedbyhospitalstafftobeeatingwell.Whilethepediatrician had not ruled out an organic cause, it was believed that mother was not feeding the child. Reportsdated12/23indicatesthatinfantgained4ozinthe2daysshewasinthehospitalandall organic causes for failure to thrive had been ruled out. Investigation revealed that mother confided in a friend that she was lyingin bed with one child on one side and the infant on the other.Themothergotuptofeedinfant(whowashungry)andwhenshereturned,siblinghad died. Uponinterview,thefatheradmittedapriordiagnosisofIntermittentExplosiveDisorderasa teen,andbothparentsadmittedpriormethaddiction. On12/27/10,thehospitalindicatedthatinfantwouldbereadyfordischargefromthehospital. Shehadgained1lb.4oz.sinceshewasadmitted.On12/28/10,themothercalledthenurseto askaboutinfantscurrentweightandaskedifitwasdoneonthesamescale.Whenthenurse triedtoupdatethemotherregardinginfantsrecentfoodintake,themotherrefusedtolistenand hunguponthenurse. DFStookinfantintoprotectivecustody,thoughtheyleftanotherchild inthehome.Attheprotectivecustodyhearing,DFSrequestedthatthechildbereleasedhome withmom.TheDAexpressedconcernsregardingmothersmentalhealthandherabilitytocare forthechild.TheCourtgrantedDFSsrequestovertheDistrictAttorneysobjection.Thematter was subsequently staffed between the DAs Office and DFS, in which the DAs office expressed concerns of possible Munchausens by Proxy. On 12/30/10 a nurse expressed concerns that motherwasleavinginfanthomealonewithfatherwhileshetooksiblingtodaycare. Infantgainedweightsteadilyuntilabout1/4/10,andthendroppedoff.Thechildwaspositive for RSV in the interim, but also on 1/18/10 had the distended belly again and would cry if someonetouchedherbelly.On1/22/10,aDFSworkerreceivedareportthatthemotherwould complainofavarietyofmedicalailmentsfortheinfantandevendiscussedsurgery(tonsillectomy, adenoidectomy, gtube). It was reported that mother had credibility issues and has attention seeking behaviors. It was also reported that the father had been arrested recently and had attemptedsuicideinthepastfewdays.Itwasreportedthatthemotherwaspregnantagain. On 1/26/10, mother reported to DFS that child toldher Daddy touched my pee pee while
79
219
78
sleeping.On1/27/10,anewhotlinereportwasgeneratedregardingthesexualabuseofchild. On1/28/10,childdisclosedsexualabuseinaforensicinterview.Followingtheforensicinterview, bothgirlsweretakenintoprotectivecustody.Attheprotectivecustodyhearing,bothgirlswere released to mother who had obtained a TPO against father, promised to divorce him and espousedthatshewouldprotect. On 2/24/10, concerns were expressed that the mother was not demonstrating appropriate parenting skills and, if the mother had learned anything, it was not being implemented in the home.DFSdeterminedtheywouldincreasetheamountoftherapywhichwasdoneinthehome. On3/1/10,themothercalledtheworkertoreportthattheinfanthadundergonesurgerytofixa breathing issue. She also indicated that the doctors were considering a GTube for infant to resolve her weight issue. A GTube was inserted 3/4/10, and thereafter infant began to gain weightrapidly. Acasenoteon3/19/10indicatesmotherfailedtoattendherNonOffendingParentclassanda case note 3/23/10 indicates mother is in minimal compliance. Infant was repeatedly hospitalizedinFebruaryandMarchforanumberofillnessesincludingreflux,aspirationandear infections. On April 9, 2010, mother admitted to DFS that she had visited father in CCDC. On 4/11/10,infantwasweighedandhadlost1lbsince3/21/10. On 4/13/10, infant was again admitted to hospital for purported choking. Hospital staff reported that the child was filthy, mom looked homeless and they were concerned she was hospitalshopping.Whileinthehospital,infantdemonstratednoneofthesymptomsdescribed bythemotheri.e.turningblue,aspirating,seizuresorboutsofdiarrhea.Thehospitalsocial worker indicated to DFS that the doctors did not believe that infant was safe in mothers care. When interviewed, mother was not able to articulate infants feeding schedule and claimed to haveneverbeentaughttousethegtubepump.Motherstherapistcautionedthatmotherwas verysmartandthatmotherwascapableofmanipulatinganassessment.Shealsocautionedthat motherneededconsistenttherapybecausethereisadiscrepancybetweenfantasyandrealityin herworld.Nevertheless,DFSdevelopedasafetyplanwiththeintentofreturninginfanthome. On4/22/10,aprotectivecustodyhearingwasheld.Atthathearing,DFSrepresentedtothe Court that the mother had finally come clean, admitted that she had missed some overnight feedingsanddidnotknowhowtousethefeedingpump.But,DFSassuredthecourtthatsheis nowcommittedtomeetinginfantsneedsandthattheywouldprovidesupportiveservices.The DAopposedreleasetomother,notingthelonghistoryoffailuretothriveandhowmotherhas notavailedherselfofthecounselingopportunitiesaffordedher.TheDAnotedthatmomwasnot attending to her own hygiene and was not feeding infant. Infant was finally brought into protectivecustody. Sincebeingremovedinfanthasgainedoverthreepounds.Sheisbondedtohercaregivers andiseatingwell.OnJune9,2010,infantsgtubewasremoved.
DFSRESPONSE:
1359473 092010 InProgress 042010 Substantiated 012010 Substantiated 122009 CourtSubstantiated 042010ReportDate: Female,3YOA Female,6months
Open Closed
220
SummaryResponse:
This family came to the attention of DFS in December 2009, due to allegations of medical neglect, plausibleriskofphysicalinjury,andsexualabuseagainstthenaturalmotherandfather.Thereportwas filed by a local hospital that was providing medical care to 6monthold child who was not gaining weight and consequently referred for inpatient care by a local physician. The reporting source indicatedthatthephysicianhadpreviouslyprovidedtheparentswithinstructiononfeedingthechild, but the child still had not gained any weight. The reporting source indicated that the parents had recently lost another child due to a congenital heart defect, and that the mother appeared to be depressed. ThereportingsourcedidnotreportthatthefatherwasaTierIsexoffender.Theinformationisnot containedintheabuse/neglectreport,butratherisdocumentedincasenotesmadebyDFSstaffwho, uponreceiptofthereport,initiatedaninvestigationfirstreviewingtheparentscriminalhistoryrecords. ThefatherwasconvictedofAttemptedLewdnesswithaMinorwhenhewas18.Hewassentencedfor twotosixyearsinprisonandservedfouryears.Whileinprison,hecompletedsexoffendercounseling. DFSstaffspokewithfathersprobationofficer,whoconfirmedtheparametersofhisclientsparoleand indicatedhewasnottobealonewithchildrenundertheageof18.Theprobationofficerindicatedthe fathers wife was aware of the terms and signed a document attesting to her knowledge. DFS staff informedthehospitalstaffofthisinformationinordertoensurethechildwasnotleftalonewithhim whilehospitalized. Case record documentation dated December 23, 2009 indicates that subsequent to the childs admissiontothehospitalthechildproceededtogainweight.Earlymedicaltestingdidnotindicateany organiccausesforfailuretothrive.Thechildwas,however,diagnosedwithreflux. Caserecorddocumentationindicatesthatthemotherstherapist,duringatelephoneconversationwith DFSstaff,statedthatthemotherdisclosedheroneyearoldchildpassedinherbedwhileshegotupto feedhernewborn.Whenshereturnedfromfeedingthebaby,theotherchildwasdeceased. Uponinterview,thefatherindicatedhewasdiagnosedwithIntermittentExplosiveDisorderinsecondor third grade. He was prescribed medication while in high school, and admitted his juvenile criminal recordswerelengthyduetohismanyfights. Bothparentsadmittopriordrugaddition.Thefatherindicatedhelastusedmethamphetamineseven yearsprior,whenhewas18.Heonlyusedforayear,andstoppedwhenarrested(describedabove). The mother indicated she used the drug in 2002 and 2003. She stopped using when she joined the military. CaserecorddocumentationindicatesthatatthetimeofhospitaldischargeonDecember27,2009,the infant was doing well and had gained weight. The nurse notified staff that when speaking to the mother,sheinquiredaboutwhetherornotthehospitalusedthesamescaletoweighthechild.When thenurseattemptedtoupdateheronthechild,themotherabruptlydisconnectedthecall. DFS staff placed both children in Protective Custody at the time the investigation was initiated. The olderchildwasallowedtoremaininthehome,whiletheyoungerchildremainedplacedinthehospital. TheProtectiveCustodyHearingwasheldonDecember28,2009.Atthehearing,theCourtorderedthe fathertoonlyhavesupervisedcontactwithchildren.Theyoungerchildwasallowedtobereturnedto thecareoftheparentswithappropriateservicesinplace,andtheolderchildwasallowedtoremainin thehomeaswell.
221
DFSarrangedforeveryotherdaynursingvisitsandEarlyChildhoodServicesopenedacase.DFSstaff providedfinancialresourcesfordaycaretoensuretheolderchildwasnotleftalonewiththefather. CaserecorddocumentationdoesnotindicatetheDAsOfficehadconcernsregardingthepossibilityof MunchausensbyProxy. A case note dated December 30, 2009 documents contact between DFS staff and the assigned nurse. Thenurseindicatedtostaffthatshehadahunchthemotherwasleavingtheyoungerchildwiththe fatherwhileshetooktheotherchildtodaycare.Shehadnoproofthiswasoccurring. OnJanuary4,2010,DFSstaffvisitedthehomeandthefamilywasill.Theolderchildrequiresrepeat visitstomedicalproviderstoassistingettingwell.OnJanuary7,2010,DFSstaffwascontactedbythe nurse whoindicated thattheinfant had RSV, was runninga fever, andbeing referred to the ER. The childhaslost6ounces.OnJanuary11,2010,themotherconfirmsthechildsdiagnosisofRSV. OnJanuary19,2010,DFSstaffvisitsthehomeandconferredwiththenursewhowasalsothere.The infant had gained weight since the previous week. While the mother had missed a couple of doctor appointments for the child, the child had seen the pediatrician earlier that day. The pediatrician provided several referrals and was concerned about the childs round, protruding stomach. An ultrasound was ordered for the abdomen and deemed a priority. On January 24, the results of the childs stomach ultrasound revealed no abnormalities, but due to the childs extended stomach, the physicianreferredthechildtoagastroenterologistforevaluationfordelayedgastricemptying. CaserecorddocumentationindicatesthatthefatherwasarrestedonJanuary14,2010.Hewasreleased onJanuary20,2010. OnJanuary22,2010,caserecorddocumentationindicatesthatDFSstaffreceivedaphonecallfroma nonprofitvolunteer.Thedescriptionofinformationprovidedbythecontact,asdocumentedbytheDA above, is a summary of the DFS staff case notes. Case record documentation indicates in totality, however, that one of the children had significant medical issues requiring legitimate medical intervention. On January 27, 2010, DFS received a new report of abuse/neglect alleging sexual abuse against the father.ThereportwasfiledbyStatementalhospitalstaffthatwasprovidingtreatmentforthefather. The reporting source indicated the mother disclosed the abuse to her, and that the mother had also contacted local law enforcement. The father was being treated for a recent suicide attempt. DFS forwardedthereporttolawenforcement. DFS initiated an investigation and on January 28, 2010, the child was forensically interviewed and disclosedtheabuse.ThechildrenwereplacedinProtectiveCustodyandremovedfromthehome.At the Protective Custody Hearing the children were returned to the mother. The Court deemed the motherprotectiveasshehadcontactedtheappropriatelawenforcementagencies,DFS,andfiledfora TemporaryProtectionOrderagainstthefather.Anocontactorderwasissuedforthefather. On February 2, 2010, the younger child had surgery to fix a diagnosed floppy airway. The physician reported that the child has severe laryngomalacia that could be interfering with the feeding coordination. He reported that Failure to Thrivemaybe associated topoor feeding with respiratory symptoms associated with gatroesophageal reflux disease and laryngomalacia and reactive airway disease.Despitethesurgery,thechildstillaspiratedonliquidsandsoftfoods,anditwasdetermined thatagtubewasrequired. InFebruary24,2010,theECSworkerexpressedconcernoverthemothersparentingabilityandability to implement new skills learned in treatment at home. After consulting with ECS it was agreed to
222
increasethetherapyinthehomewiththemother. OnMarch19,2010,themotherwasnotabletoattendparentingclassduetobeinginthehospitalwith her child who recently had surgery. The case note dated March 23, 2010, references the mothers minimal compliance with tasks such as making appointments and completing welfare and SSI applications. The case note also indicates that according to the safety assessments completed there werenosafetythreats,buthighriskduetotheyoungerchildsmedicalconcerns,theemotionalstateof the mother due to the death of a child, and the older childs behavioral issues. The case note documentsthatthemotherwaspregnantagain. OnApril9,2010,caserecorddocumentationindicatesthatthemotheradmitstovisitingthefatherin jail.Italsoindicatesthatshewasintheprocessofcompletingdivorcepaperworkwiththeassistance ofDFSstaff. OnApril12,2010,whenthenursevisitsthehomethechildsweightis10lbs.4oz(adecreaseof1lb). Latercasedocumentation,though,indicatesthatthechildwasalsoseenbythephysicianthatsameday andweighed11lbs.4oz. OnApril13,2010,theyoungerchildwasadmittedtothehospitalforchoking.DFSstaffspokewiththe hospital social worker who indicated that according to hospital staff the mother and child were filthy andthatthemothercouldnotrecitethechildsfeedingschedule.DFSstafflaterspokewiththenurse, and she indicated that both mother and child appeared fine, and that mother had recited the childs feedingschedule. Case record documentation indicated the child gained weight while in the hospital, and did not demonstrate the issues purported by the mother. An evaluation with a forensic pediatrician was orderedbythechildsprimaryphysician. On April 16, 2010, DFS received a new report of abuse/neglect alleging failure to thrive against the natural mother. The report is filed by hospital staff as a result of the childs most recent hospital admission. OnApril19,2010,themotherstherapistsubmittedaprogressnotetoDFSstaff,indicatingthemother was not doing things maliciously to the children, but felt there was a sense of fantasy and poor parenting. AttheProtectiveCustodyHearing,DFSreportsthatthemotherdidnotfullyunderstandhowtoutilize thefeedingpumpduetopoordischargeplanningbythehospital.Themotherwas,however,currently beingeducatedonhowtocareforherchild.DFSstaffindicatedthat,ifthechildwasreturnedtothe mother,nursingstaffwouldbeinthehomeaminimumof12hoursaweek. Themotherhadalsomovedinwithafamilyfriendwhowouldassisther.Thechildsphysicianwould continuetoseethechildweekly.Themothersattorney,supportedtheplan,butacknowledgedthatit hasbeendifficultforthemothertoprioritizehergriefcounselingandparentingclassesduetodealing withherchildsintensivemedicalneeds.TheCourtordersthattheyoungerchildwillberemoved,but theolderchildwillremaininthehome.TheCourtinstructsDFSstafftorevisitthereunificationissue later. AsofJuly2010,themotherhadcompletedparentingclasses.Shereengagedingriefcounseling,and completedanassessmentatSouthernNevadaAdultMentalHealth. OnSeptember8,2010,DFSreceivedanewabuse/neglectreportallegingplausibleriskofphysicalinjury.
223
Thereportwasfiledbyalocalhospital,subsequentthebirthofthemotherschild.Thechildinitially wenthomefromthehospitalwiththemother,asthehospitaldidnotcallinthereportuntilthechild hadalreadybeenreleasedwiththemother.Uponreceivingthereport,DFSstaffbegandevelopinga safety plan that included arranging for biweekly nursing visits to the home to ensure the newborn remainedwellandgainedweight.Themotherstherapistsupportedtheplan. Case record documentation indicates that the DAs Office requested DFS staff place the child in ProtectiveCustodyandremovedthechildfromthehome;theDAindicatedthatnoservicescouldbe putinplacetoensurethechildssafety.ThechildwasremovedfromthehomeonSeptember9,2010. TheProtectiveCustodyHearingwasscheduledonSeptember13,2010,andcontinuedduetotheCourt requestingadditionalinformationregardingthemotherscareoftheotherchild. Thiscaseremainsopen.Thetwoyoungestchildrenareplacedinoutofhomecare,andtheoldestchildisplaced withthemother.Thepermanencygoalforallchildrenisreunification.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
224
DACaseID:

OnMarch24,2010,theDAsOfficewasnotifiedbyaMetroChildAbuseInvestigatorthatDFS wasallowingcontactbyamother,whowaschargedwithmurderofoneofherchildren,withthe survivingsiblingofthemurderedchild. InMay2009,themotheradmittedtoinflictingbluntforcetraumatochildsabdomenresultingin death. The mother was subsequently charged with the Murder of child. Mother pleads no contesttotheabuseandneglectpetition.Atthetimeofchildsdeath,hehadpreviouslybeen diagnosedwithFailuretoThrive.Accordingly,thefatherwaschargedwithneglectandfailureto protectthechildrenfromthemother.OnNov.30/09,thefatherpleadnocontesttothepetition and it was agreed that a motion to waive reasonable efforts would not be filed for six months becauseDFSindicatedthatitwantedtoworkwiththefathertoseeiftheycouldreunifywithhim. OnFebruary14,2010,thefatherbailedmotheroutofjail.Thefatherexpressedthatheloves mother,hethinkssheisagoodmotherandhewantshertoreunifywiththechildrenaswell,that hebelievedmotherwasagoodcookandshetookgoodcareofthechildrensnutritionalneeds, despitedeceasedchildsdiagnosisforFailuretoThrivepriortohisdeath. OnFebruary16,the father brought the mother to his scheduled visitation so that she could see the children. DFS allowedthevisit. On April 12, 2010, the District Attorneys Office brought a motion for a no contact order, seeking to cease visitation with the mother. The Court ruled that the supervised visits should stop, but that DFS was to arrange therapeutic visits. In the court report for 5/20/10, the caseworker indicated that a referral for psychosocial services was submitted 4/14 and that therapeuticserviceswillprobablystart5/25.Shealsonotedthatsupervisedvisitshadtaken place4/27and5/11.Thereportalsoindicatedthatbothparentsceasedanyandallparticipation in services on 3/5/10. The District Attorneys Office will consult with DFS to cease contact immediately.
80
DFSRESPONSE:
1354851 UNITYCase#: 52009 CourtSubstantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 052009ReportDate: Female,2YOA Male,1YOA(deceased) Female,2months
X X
Open Closed Yes No
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSinMay2009,duetoallegationsofphysicalinjury/deathagainst thenaturalmotherandfather.Thereportwasmadebylawenforcementregardingachildadmittedto a local hospital for an illness/injury suspicious for abuse/neglect. Results of the autopsy revealed the childdiedfrombluntforcetraumatotheabdomen,andtherewereoldinjuriestoabdomen,indicating ongoing abuse. The mother was criminally charged for the childs death, and both the mother and fatherplednocontesttothechildwelfarepetition.
225
Case record documentation does notcontain anyinformation regarding concerns presented from law enforcementtotheDAsOfficeregardingparent/childvisitationarrangements. CaserecorddocumentationindicatesthatDFSstafffirstbecameawareofthefathersintenttobringthe naturalmotheronvisitationswiththesurvivingsiblingonFebruary2,2010whenthefatherinformed thefostermotherandshereportedtheinformationtostaff.DFSstaffappropriatelyinformedthefoster mother that any such visitation would require DFS approval and must occur at a DFS facility with appropriate security. Case notes also indicate that he informed the foster mother that he has saved enoughmoneytopostbailforthechildsmother. Caserecorddocumentationindicatesthatthefirsttimethechildrenvisitedwiththenaturalmotherwas onFebruary16,2010.ThechildrenhadnotseentheirmothersinceMay2009.Thevisitwasheldwith thechildrensEarlyChildhoodServicestherapist,thefather,andthemother.Thetherapistagreedto providethefamilywithcouplecounseling,parentingclassesrelatedtochildrenwithspecialneeds,and tosupporttherapeuticvisitswiththeparentsandchildren.Thenextvisitwasscheduledandheldon March9,2010.AdditionalvisitationwasscheduledforMarch23,April6,May4,May18,andJune1, 2010. OnApril5,2010theCourtheardmotionstowaivereasonableeffortsandnocontactonthefamily.The hearingwascontinueduntilApril12,2010,buttheCourtorderednofurthervisitationwiththechildren andparentsuntilthatconcluded.ThefamilysvisitationforApril6wascancelledasaresult. OneweeklatertheCourtheardtheargumentsforthenocontactbetweentheparentsandchildren. TheCourtgrantedthemotioninpartandorderedtherapeuticvisitationforthechildrenandparents. Thedepartmentrequestedtwoweekstomakearrangementforthevisitationasthecurrenttherapist couldnolongerconductthevisitation.TheCourtorderedthatvisitationmusttakeplacewithin2 weeks,evenifitwasnottherapeutic.TheDAsOfficeobjectedtotheCourtsruling.TheCourtadvised theDAthattheycouldfileanothermotionatalaterdate,ifthevisitationcausedthechildrento regress. TheDAsOfficeagreedtodismissthemotiontowaivereasonableeffortsafterthefathersattorney arguedthattheDAsOfficehadpreviouslymadeanagreementtoallowthefathersixmonthstowork hiscaseplan. ThecourtreportpresentedattheMay20,2010,ReviewHearingdoesindicatethattheparentsstopped participatinginservicesonMarch5,2010.Othercaserecorddocumentationindicatesthatthereason forlackofparentalserviceparticipationwastheirinabilitytopay.Caserecorddocumentationdoesnot indicateDFSstaffwasawareoftheparentslackofserviceparticipationuntillateApril;thisdelaymay haveoccurredasaresultofbothparentsresidingandreceivingservicesinCalifornia.
The mother and the father no longer visit with the children as an ICPC was approved with the paternal grandmotherwhoresidesinArizona.Thepermanencygoalofthechildrenremainsadoption.Thetermination ofparentalrightswascompletedonSeptember16th,2010,duetofailureofparentstocomplywithtreatment plan.Thenaturalmotherwasrecentlysentencedtojailtimeforthedeathofherchild.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
226
N/A
227
DACaseID:

On March 2010, a foster parent with five (5) prior unsubstantiated reports, including an institutional report for sexual abuse was alleged to have severely beaten two children. The report stated that foster parent physically abused two children who were currently in his brotherscare.(Thebrotherisalsoafosterparentforseveralabusedand/orneglectedchildren.) Thereportstatedthatbothchildrendisclosedbeingphysicallyabusedbyfosterparentwhowas allegedly disciplining the children for caretaker because caretaker was tired of dealing with them. Child disclosed that foster parent whipped him and another child. He also stated that foster parenthadpreviouslygivenchildablackeye.Whenconfrontedwiththefactthattherewasa priorallegationaboutfosterparentgivingchildablackeye,childexplainedthatvictimrecanted becausefosterparentstoldthemthatwhatgoesonintheirhomesstayintheirhomes.Foster Parents also told the children that they would make the other children beat them up if they reportedabuse. Childreportedthatayearpriorfosterparenthadwhippedhimwithanextensioncordduetobad grades.Childshowedhisscarstothereceivingteam.Childhadoldscarsonhisshinandarms. Thescarswereobservedtobelooped,biganddeep.Childalsoreportedthatfosterparenthad punchedhiminthefacewhilewearingaring6monthsprior.Childsustainedabruiseonhisface asaresultoftheabuse. Thereportingsourceindicatedthatchildwasextremelyafraidwhendisclosingtheabuse.Source reportedthatitseemedlikechildwantedtosaymore,butwastooafraid.Childwaspreviously scheduledtobeplacedatfosterparentshomethatnight,butchildwasadamanthedidnotwant tobeplacedtherebecausehewasafraidhewouldbeattacked. An adoption had been scheduled for 3/10. However, the adoption was stayed pending the investigation of the above allegations and similar allegations being made by the same children againstfosterparent.OneDSFcaseworkerinvestigatedtheallegationsagainstonefosterparent A different worker investigated the allegations against the other foster parent. The victim children were removed from one foster parents care and a petition was filed and sustained againsthimontheallegations. Incontrast,theinvestigatorofthecompanionfosterparentcasedidnotdocumentinterviews withthevictimchildrenoranyindependentobservationoftheinjuriestothosechildren.Instead, theinvestigatoronlydocumentedinterviewsofthechildrenwhowerecurrentlyinhiscare.The interviews lasted approximately 1015 minutes each and were conducted in the courthouse outside the courtroom where the adoption had been scheduled to take place. When those childrendeniedthattheyhadbeenabused,thecasewasclosedunsubstantiated. Theclosurereflectsthattherewasnodisclosureofabusebythechildreninthefosterparents care,thatthefosterparentdidnotadmittousingphysicaldiscipline,thattherewasnoevidence ofmarksorbruisesandthatallthecollateralsinthecasetalkveryhighlyofthefosterparent. TheDAsOfficeaskedDFStoreviewthiscase.
81
DFSRESPONSE:
1336693 032010 082009 032009(2) 052008 042007 Unsubstantiated Unsubstantiated Unsubstantiated Unsubstantiated Unsubstantiated
228
032010ReportDate: Male,17YOA Male,15YOA Male,9YOA
Open Closed
This family came to the attention of DFS on March 10, 2010 due to allegations of plausible risk of physicalinjuryagainstanadoptiveandlicensedfosterfather.Theadoptive/fosterfatherhadprevious child welfare history, including five prior unsubstantiated investigations. The report was filed by DFS staffassignedtomanagetheoutofhomepermanencycaseofoneofthechildrenpreviouslyplacedin the home of this fathers brother (who was also an adoptive and licensed foster parent)this foster/adoptivefatherwasunderinvestigationforabuserelatedallegations. TheinformationcontainedintheDAsdescriptionaccuratelyreflectstheinformationcontainedinthe abuse/neglectreport. Theadoptive/fosterfatherwasscheduledtofinalizeanotheradoptionthemorningofMarch11,2010. Subsequenttothereceiptoftheabuse/neglectreport,however,theadoptionwaspostponedpending theoutcomeoftheinvestigation. The investigations being conducted against both foster parents (brothers) were assigned to different investigators. Additionally, because both individuals were licensed foster parents, a licensing investigator was also assigned to review the cases in order to make a determination on any related violationsofStatelicensingrequirementsthatmayhaveoccurred. Theinvestigationagainsttheotheradoptive/fosterparentwasCourtsubstantiated;thechildrenwere removedfromthehome.Inthiscase,theadoptive/fosterfathersadoptedchildpresentedwithmarks andbruisesthatoccurredasaresultofphysicalabuse. DFS initiated an investigation, and made contact with the caseworker, adopted/foster children and adoptive/foster father the morning of March 11 at the Family Court complex. The Adoption Hearing was scheduled to take place at that time, and the family was unaware it would be postponed until arriving at the Court building. The child protective services investigator assigned to the case met the familythere. The investigator was able to discuss the case with another DFS staff person, the outofhome permanencyworker,assignedtothechildwhowaspendingadoption.Thischildwasoneofthealleged childvictimsidentifiedintheabuse/neglectreport.DFSstaffindicatedthatthechildhadbeenplacedin thehomeformorethanayearandthattherehadnotbeenanyconcernsaboutthecareprovided.Staff indicatedthechildhadneverdisclosedabuse/neglect. Aninterviewwasalsoconductedwiththechildreferencedinthereport.Hedidnotpresentwithany marksorbruisesanddeniedhisfosterfatherbruisingorinjuringhim.Thechilddisclosedhehadbeen spankedorhitwithabeltforpunishment,butthatmostofthetimehewouldonlyloseprivileges. Theolderchildreferencedinthereportwasalsointerviewed.He,too,deniedbeingabused/neglected in the home. He denied witnessing other children being abused. He indicated he was tired of DFS
229
involvementinthehousehold,andthatotherchildrenwouldmakeupliesabouthisfosterfatherjust to get out of foster care. The child indicated a loss of privileges was the only form of punishment received.ThischildwasagaininterviewedatschoolonMarch24,2010.Heagaindeniedanyallegation ofabuse/neglect. Three of the adopted children were also interviewed. The first child was interviewed on March 11, 2010.Heindicatedthathisfathertreatedthechildrenwell,andthatpunishmentconsistedofalossof privileges. On March 24, DFS staff again made contact with this child at school. The child was very reserved and only spoke when spoken to; he again denied allegations of being hit by his father. The secondchildwasinterviewedonMarch24,2010atschool.He,too,deniedallegationsofabuse.The thirdadoptedchild(currently18yearsofage)wasalsointerviewedthatsamedayatschool.Hedenied beinghitorhittingothersinthehome. Theallegedchildvictimstherapistwascontacted,andprovidednoconcernsforthechildswellbeing. He reported: interactions in sessions have been appropriate and their communication is good. [Child] appears to feel comfortable around [Father].Bothhave described rules, consequences and routinessetinplaceinthehomethataredevelopmentallyappropriateandhavecontributedto[Childs] stabilizationandimprovementinoverallfunctioning.[Father]appearstobeanurturingandsupportive caregiver.Idonothaveconcernsregarding[Fathers]parentingorfosteringabilities.DFSstaffalso spoke to the receptionist at the service providers office, who indicated observing only appropriate interactionsbetweenthefatherandchildren.DFSstaffalsocontactedthechildrensmedicalprovider; wellcheckshadbeenconductedonthechildreninJanuary,2010.Thephysicianindicatedthechildren hadbeenexaminedheadtotoeandtherewerenoindicationsofabuse/neglect. When interviewed the foster/adoptive father denied the allegations and described himself as a nurturingandpatientcaregiver. Duetoanabsenceofphysicalevidenceordisclosureofabuse,theinvestigationwasunsubstantiated; theinvestigationclosuresummarydocumentsthis. TheDAsOfficedidrequestDFSmanagementreviewthiscase.Thecasewasreviewed,andinabsence ofanycredibleevidence,theinvestigationwasclosedasunsubstantiated.
Whiletheinvestigationwasunsubstantiated,outofanabundanceofcaution,DFSdidproceedwitharevocation of the adoptive/foster fathers foster parentlicense. That revocation was appealed, but was upheld at a Fair Hearing. The child who was pending adoption was subsequently placed with a new foster family that is interestedinadoption.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
230
CaseRecordDocumentation: ChildSafetyandOutofHomeCare: ChildrenBornTo/AssociatedwithIndividuals ReceivingDFSServices: CommunityPartnershipsandManagingChild Maltreatment: ChooseYourPartnerCarefullyCampaign: CourtContinuances: DA/DFSCaseReview: DataandManagementReporting: DFSAttorneyRepresentation/Waiverof ReasonableEfforts: DisputeResolutionProtocol: InformationIntegration/Availability: MentalHealthServicesAvailability/Provision: ParentswithExistingWarrants/CaseClosure: PolicyandProcedureImplementation: ProperNoticeofService: StaffEducation/Training: SupervisoryExpectations:
231
DACaseID:

Thefactsofthatcaseare:PetitionofsexualabuseofteenagerbystepfatherfiledinMay2008. Failure to protect by mother was monitored by the court and later dismissed. Case against stepfatherwasadjudicatedincivilandcriminalcourt.Motherdemonstratesprotectivecapacity astothechildrenasreportedtotheCourtbyDFS.Fatherisonprobationandactivelyinvolvedin hissexoffensecounselingbuthas111/2yearslefttocomplete.Familywishestoremainan intactfamily.Thepermanencyplanisreunification. Thevictimhascompletedvictimcounseling.Sheis18yearsoldandappearedincourtrequesting termination of wardship as to her on January 26, 2010, which the court granted. Sibling was previouslyterminateduponreachingtheageofmajority.Therearetwochildren,agesnineand ten,stillremaininginthefamilyhome. Thereiscurrentlyachaperoneagreementinplacethatallowsthefatherinthehomeduringthe day.Overnightsarenotpermittedyet. DFSrecommendedcaseclosurearguingthenaturalmotherisprotectiveandthepetitionasit relatestoherisdismissed.DFSrepresentedtothecourton10/27/2009thattherearenosafety concerns,themotherisprotective,therearenomoreservicestoofferthisfamilyandthatParole andProbationcanmonitor. TheDAarguedthatthisisanintactfamilywiththeplanofreunification.Theperpetratorhasnot been reunified nor completed his case plan, thus it is premature to close the case. Parole and Probationcannotbereliedupontomonitorthefamilyandensurethesafetyoftheminorchildren living in the home as the probation officer reported to the DDA that he only goes to the home once every other month, or so. Probation officer also indicated that he only knows if the chaperone agreement is being violated if someone reports it to him. Ultimately, in March 2010, DFS agreed to keep the case open for the worker to properly document the mothers protectivecapacity.
82
DFSRESPONSE:
1346431 UNITYCase#: 042008 CourtSubstantiated Date(s)ofReport(s) (HighlightedReport(s) SpecifictoDADescription): AgeofChild(ren)Involved: 042008Report: Male,17YOA Female,16YOA Male,9YOA Female,7YOA
Open Closed
ThisfamilycametotheattentionofDFSinApril2008,duetoallegationsofsexualabuseandphysical abuseagainstthestepfather.Thereportwasfiledbylawenforcementwhorespondedtoacomplaint ofateenrunaway.Thechildwaseventuallylocatedbylawenforcement,butdisclosedbeingsexually fondledbyherstepfathertwoyearspreviously.Shealsodisclosedbeingphysicallyabusedbyherstep fatherthemonthprior.

232
DFS conducted an investigation; the investigation was Court substantiated. The father was also criminally charged for the abuse, later convicted, and received probation. The children were not removedfromthehome,asthemotherremainedprotectiveofthem,andthefathermovedoutofthe residence. The mother completed nonoffending parenting class and ensured the child received the appropriateservices,includingcounseling.Thestepfathercompletedapsychosexualassessment,and wasrecommendedtoattendoneyearofcounseling. Both the child victim and her sibling had wardship terminated by the Court, due to aging out. There weretwoyoungerchildrenwhoremainedwardsoftheCourtatthetimethechildvictimswardshipwas terminated. There was a chaperone agreement put in place for the child victim and her younger sibling in August 2009.TheagreementremainedineffectfortheremainderofDFSserviceprovision. At the Review Hearing held on January 26, 2010, DFS staff recommended case closure. The Court indicatedthatadditionalinformationwasneededtoassessthemothersprotectivecapacitiesandasked DFSstafftogathertheinformationandthehearingwascontinued.Caserecorddocumentationindicated theDAsOfficehadconcernsaboutcaseclosureasthestepfatherhadnevercompletedapolygraph. On February 2, 2010, the DAs Office asked for a continuance as a disagreement with DFS recommendations remained. The Court granted a second, twoweek continuance. The DAs Office initiatedtheDisputeResolutionProtocol.AmeetingwasheldbetweentheDAandDFSmanagementand it was agreed that the younger children would participate in sex abuse prevention education. Shortly thereafter,thechildrencompletedtherequiredpreventionclasses. OnJuly6,2010,theCourtterminatedwardshipofthetworemainingchildrenandthecasewasclosed. CaserecorddocumentationindicatestheDAsOfficestronglyobjectedtotheclosureasthestepfather had not yet completed his counseling. The DA refused to sign the Termination Order due to the objectiontoclosure,andtheCourtallowedtheDAtosigntheorderonlyassertingthattheorderwas wordedcorrectly.
This case remains closed, and there have been no additional reports received on this family for 2 years, 5 months.
RelevantStatute:
N/A
N/A
233
CaseRecordDocumentation: ChildSafetyandOutofHomeCare: ChildrenBornTo/AssociatedwithIndividuals ReceivingDFSServices: CommunityPartnershipsandManagingChild Maltreatment: ChooseYourPartnerCarefullyCampaign: CourtContinuances: DA/DFSCaseReview: DataandManagementReporting: DFSAttorneyRepresentation/Waiverof ReasonableEfforts: DisputeResolutionProtocol: InformationIntegration/Availability: MentalHealthServicesAvailability/Provision: ParentswithExistingWarrants/CaseClosure: PolicyandProcedureImplementation: ProperNoticeofService: StaffEducation/Training: SupervisoryExpectations:
234

Clark County Department of Family Services: Case Review of 82 Cases Identified by The District Attorney's Office December 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clark County Department of Family Services: Case Review of 82 Cases Identified by The District Attorney's Office December 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ClarkCounty DepartmentofFamilyServices:

CaseReviewof82 CasesIdentified bythe DistrictAttorneys Office

ClarkCountyDepartmentofFamilyServices 82CaseReviewExecutiveSummary November,2010

DFS Statistical Overview: 2007 - 2010 (YTD)

Child Protective Services

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

CaseStatusasofReview: ChildFatality,Child Abuse/NeglectRelated: SummaryResponse:

Open Closed Yes No

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

012005ReportDate: Female,8YOA Female,6YOA

Caserecordsdocumentadelayinthesubmissionofthepetition.Areviewoftheservicesprovidedtothe familyindicatesthatDFSstaffattemptedtomanagethecaseinformally;however,caserecordsreviewed supportCourtinterventionandsupervisionmuchearlierthanrequestedbyDFSstaff.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

CaseStatusasofReview: ChildFatality,Child Abuse/NeglectRelated: SummaryResponse:

Open Closed Yes No

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

CaseStatusasofReview: ChildFatality,Child Abuse/NeglectRelated: SummaryResponse:

Open Closed Yes No

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

082007ReportDate: Female,1YOA Male,1day

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

AttheTimeofDocumentedIncidentDescribedbytheDA: Female,14YOA Male,13YOA Female,9YOA Male,7YOA Female,5YOA

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

062007ReportDate: Female,7YOA Male,11months(deceased)

CaseStatusasofReview: ChildFatality,Child Abuse/NeglectRelated: SummaryResponse:

Open Closed Yes No

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

SubsequenttotheJuly2008report,thechildrenwereremovedfromthehome,madewardsoftheCourt,and theinvestigationwasCourtsubstantiated.AterminationofparentalrightswasgrantedinMarch2009,andthe childrenwerelateradoptedthatsameyear.Nofurtherreportshavebeenreceivedonthisfamilyfor3years,2 months.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

CaseStatusasofReview: ChildFatality,Child Abuse/NeglectRelated: SummaryResponse:

Open Closed Yes No

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

CaseStatusasofReview: ChildFatality,Child Abuse/NeglectRelated:

Open Closed Yes No

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

1343726 122008 Unsubstantiated 102008 Unsubstantiated 012008 Unsubstantiated 012008ReportDate: Male,5YOA

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

RelevantStatute: N/A PersonnelIssues/Outcomes:

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

1323026 052008 CourtSubstantiated 102007 CourtSubstantiated 112005 Unsubstantiated 052008ReportDate: Male,8YOA

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

CaseStatusasofReview: ChildFatality,Child Abuse/NeglectRelated: SummaryResponse:

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

042009ReportDate: Male,4YOA Female,1month

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.

AgeofChild(ren)Involved: CaseStatusasofReview: SummaryResponse:

DACaseDescription:Numbersinsertedcorrelatetodepartmentsummary response.LanguageusedinthissectionremainsassubmittedbytheDistrict Attorney.