.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15 ... n&psp=news
Mother: DHS Didn't Interview Suspect In Recent Child Death
Human Services Had Policy Requiring Interviews Of All In Home
Arthur Kane and John Ferrugia , CALL7 Investigators
POSTED: 2:39 pm MST February 28, 2008
UPDATED: 10:35 am MST February 29, 2008
DENVER -- The man charged with murder in the death of a 2-year-old girl was never interviewed by Denver Department of Human Services workers in an earlier abuse investigation, a CALL7 Investigation found.
Alexis Ortiz, 31, is facing charges of killing Joslyn Asberry Feb. 1 at the home where he was living with the girl’s mother, police records show.
CALL 7 Investigator John Ferrugia found that DDHS opened an investigation Dec. 10 after another child in the home went to Oakland Elementary School with a mark on her face.
According to Joslyn’s mother, the child told teachers that Alexis Ortiz pushed her down a stairs.
The mother, who declined to talk on camera, told Ferrugia that DDHS workers visited the home in mid-January but did not interview Ortiz even though he was at home.
The worker scheduled another visit on Jan. 25, but the mother was not at home. A week later Joslyn died.
The case has striking similarities to the December death of Luz Valdez.
DDHS was investigating an allegation that her mother’s boyfriend was dropping Luz, but a DDHS worker did not interview the boyfriend before closing the investigation in the case, family members said. He is charged with murder in Luz’s death.
After 7NEWS uncovered that error in the Valdez case, DDHS manager Roxane White issued a memo requiring that case managers interview everyone responsible for child care during the investigation.
“Every person who is in the house and has care taking responsibilities for the child should be interviewed,” White told Ferrugia.
The assessment checklist clearly includes a question asking whether “all caretakers for children (were) interviewed?”
Despite the checklist, which was in place before Joslyn’s death, the worker apparently did not interview Ortiz, according to the Joslyn’s mother.
“But specifically with the Feb. 1 case everybody in the house would include the alleged abuser, right?” Ferrugia asked White.
"Everyone who has care taking responsibilities and is in the home should be interviewed," White responded.
.
Investigations, interviews
Moderators: family_man, LindaJM
.
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/i ... xml&coll=2
Alabama DHR clashes with families over recording interview sessions
Friday, February 29, 2008LISA OSBURN
News staff writer
A St. Clair County Department of Human Resources worker sent a woman involved in an abuse case a letter earlier this month telling her she could not record any conversation with her caseworker, although state law allows it, the woman's attorney said.
The letter sent by Meredith Marsh, a social worker in Pell City, said that Holly Richards could not record conversations with her "at any time, at any location, for any reason."
It's not the first time a DHR employee has tried to prohibit someone from recording conversations. A Jefferson County man says he was threatened with legal action for recording sessions with a caseworker.
Alabama state law allows conversations to be recorded if at least one of the parties is aware of the recording. Richards' attorney, Terry Carlisle, said his client and other people involved in DHR cases need those recordings to protect themselves in court, when it may come down to their word against that of a DHR employee.
Jefferson County resident Jim Humber said he was threatened with prosecution for trying to record his communication with DHR workers while fighting for custody of two grandchildren.
"I said, `Put me in jail,'" Humber said, when he was cautioned by a DHR worker about recording conversations.
Humber said the tapes, which he keeps along with all other documentation of the case, were instrumental in winning his case.
John Bradford, spokesman for DHR, said the department does not instruct employees on how to respond to requests to record conversations. But sometimes that decision is made by the courts, he said.
"This has not been an issue to my knowledge and certainly could be addressed at the local juvenile court and county DHR level," he said.
Bradford said DHR is concerned about the risk of taped conversations circulating that contain confidential and embarrassing information about child abuse victims.
A concerned resident might hesitate to report possible abuse if that person knew "the information might be recorded, videotaped or broadcast over a cell phone or otherwise made public along with their identity," Bradford said.
Bradford said DHR policy permits, but does not require, workers to record interviews if the person consents. "Resources would be better utilized hiring workers to protect children from abuse and neglect," he said.
Carlisle says all DHR interviews should be recorded for accuracy and objectivity.
The National Coalition of Child Protection and Reform, a private group in Alexandria, Va., has taken the position that not only should families have the right to record interviews with caseworkers, but every child welfare agency should be required to "record every interview with every party in a child abuse investigation," said Richard Wexler, the organization's executive director.
"There should be, at a minimum, an audiotape," he said, "and the reason for that is even when there is no malice, it is human nature that we will tend to hear what we want to hear or what we expect to hear.
"It seems to me that any agency seeking the truth should welcome this," he said.
Alabama DHR Commissioner Page Walley said that recording every single interview is a policy he has not considered. He has 1,800 social workers who conduct 30,000 investigations each year.
"With my participation with the various national child welfare organizations and the reading I have done on best practice guidelines, or from the federal monitors' work during the R.C. days in Alabama, I have neither seen this used in child welfare practice or heard it recommended," Walley said.
In January 2007, the R.C. consent decree was lifted from the state. The decree established federal oversight in 1991 to settle a lawsuit on behalf of children in state custody. The child central to the case was referred to by his initials, R.C.
Wexler has said Alabama DHR was a national model for other welfare agencies. But he said this week he has concerns about the department's "obsession with secrecy."
Seen as insult:
"This is a part of Alabama that has not reformed yet," he said. "Whenever they hide behind secrecy it is, in a sense, an insult to all of the good people in the system who have done so much to improve child welfare in Alabama."
He said the argument that recordings would discourage a concerned resident from reporting abuse is "utterly irrelevant to this issue" and a "giant red herring." Most child abuse hot lines record conversations, which is considered the best practice in handling the calls, Wexler said.
Carlisle said anybody can make mistakes, even social workers, but that is forgotten in a courtroom.
"The judge is going to believe DHR 99.99 percent of the time," he said. "They have their hearts in the right place, but sometimes they don't get it right. If they cut out the ability to record what a caseworker says, woe unto us who go before DHR and a judge. We have no protection whatsoever."
.
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/i ... xml&coll=2
Alabama DHR clashes with families over recording interview sessions
Friday, February 29, 2008LISA OSBURN
News staff writer
A St. Clair County Department of Human Resources worker sent a woman involved in an abuse case a letter earlier this month telling her she could not record any conversation with her caseworker, although state law allows it, the woman's attorney said.
The letter sent by Meredith Marsh, a social worker in Pell City, said that Holly Richards could not record conversations with her "at any time, at any location, for any reason."
It's not the first time a DHR employee has tried to prohibit someone from recording conversations. A Jefferson County man says he was threatened with legal action for recording sessions with a caseworker.
Alabama state law allows conversations to be recorded if at least one of the parties is aware of the recording. Richards' attorney, Terry Carlisle, said his client and other people involved in DHR cases need those recordings to protect themselves in court, when it may come down to their word against that of a DHR employee.
Jefferson County resident Jim Humber said he was threatened with prosecution for trying to record his communication with DHR workers while fighting for custody of two grandchildren.
"I said, `Put me in jail,'" Humber said, when he was cautioned by a DHR worker about recording conversations.
Humber said the tapes, which he keeps along with all other documentation of the case, were instrumental in winning his case.
John Bradford, spokesman for DHR, said the department does not instruct employees on how to respond to requests to record conversations. But sometimes that decision is made by the courts, he said.
"This has not been an issue to my knowledge and certainly could be addressed at the local juvenile court and county DHR level," he said.
Bradford said DHR is concerned about the risk of taped conversations circulating that contain confidential and embarrassing information about child abuse victims.
A concerned resident might hesitate to report possible abuse if that person knew "the information might be recorded, videotaped or broadcast over a cell phone or otherwise made public along with their identity," Bradford said.
Bradford said DHR policy permits, but does not require, workers to record interviews if the person consents. "Resources would be better utilized hiring workers to protect children from abuse and neglect," he said.
Carlisle says all DHR interviews should be recorded for accuracy and objectivity.
The National Coalition of Child Protection and Reform, a private group in Alexandria, Va., has taken the position that not only should families have the right to record interviews with caseworkers, but every child welfare agency should be required to "record every interview with every party in a child abuse investigation," said Richard Wexler, the organization's executive director.
"There should be, at a minimum, an audiotape," he said, "and the reason for that is even when there is no malice, it is human nature that we will tend to hear what we want to hear or what we expect to hear.
"It seems to me that any agency seeking the truth should welcome this," he said.
Alabama DHR Commissioner Page Walley said that recording every single interview is a policy he has not considered. He has 1,800 social workers who conduct 30,000 investigations each year.
"With my participation with the various national child welfare organizations and the reading I have done on best practice guidelines, or from the federal monitors' work during the R.C. days in Alabama, I have neither seen this used in child welfare practice or heard it recommended," Walley said.
In January 2007, the R.C. consent decree was lifted from the state. The decree established federal oversight in 1991 to settle a lawsuit on behalf of children in state custody. The child central to the case was referred to by his initials, R.C.
Wexler has said Alabama DHR was a national model for other welfare agencies. But he said this week he has concerns about the department's "obsession with secrecy."
Seen as insult:
"This is a part of Alabama that has not reformed yet," he said. "Whenever they hide behind secrecy it is, in a sense, an insult to all of the good people in the system who have done so much to improve child welfare in Alabama."
He said the argument that recordings would discourage a concerned resident from reporting abuse is "utterly irrelevant to this issue" and a "giant red herring." Most child abuse hot lines record conversations, which is considered the best practice in handling the calls, Wexler said.
Carlisle said anybody can make mistakes, even social workers, but that is forgotten in a courtroom.
"The judge is going to believe DHR 99.99 percent of the time," he said. "They have their hearts in the right place, but sometimes they don't get it right. If they cut out the ability to record what a caseworker says, woe unto us who go before DHR and a judge. We have no protection whatsoever."
.
.
http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ci_921553 ... st_emailed
Dealing with DSS, police
Letters
Article Last Updated: 05/10/2008 03:10:40 AM EDT
Saturday, May 10
Many ask me what to do when the Department of Social Services or the police unexpectedly come to your door regarding your children. The police and DSS may not enter your premises unless they have a warrant or unless there are exigent circumstances. Politely ask to see the warrant. If they do not produce a warrant politely tell them to arrange an appointment so that you can meet with them with your attorney. In instances where there is a bona-fide emergency, they are allowed to enter the premises. But it is for them to figure out when those circumstances exist: always refuse to allow them into your home and always refuse to allow them to interview or examine your children. Even if they do so without your permission, make it perfectly clear that they are doing so without your permission or consent.
Your words should be clear: "I do not want to talk to you." "Please leave the premises." "You are not allowed to see my children." "Call to make an arrangement to speak to me with an attorney." If they say, "we are going to anyhow," your response should always be, "I cannot stop you from doing what you will do, but you do not have my consent or permission."
There are some
circumstances when the police and DSS may enter your home without your permission, and even other circumstances where they may actually take your children. Your job is simply to make it clear that they do so over your objection. But you never have to speak to the police; you never have to speak to the DSS; and you are asking for nightmare if you engage in any conversation with them. It is especially tempting to talk when they are taking your children, but that is when it is especially important that you do speak.
Politely tell other members of your family that they do not have to speak to the police or the DSS. It is not unlawful to do so. Do not be intimidated by language — which is unfortunately common, that you are "not being cooperative" or that you are "starting to be threatening." You never have to speak to them.
After they leave, videotape your children. Immediately have the children seen by a therapist you can trust, as well as medical professional you can trust. Immediately call your attorney. If they do take your children or if they want to place you under arrest, do not resist.
RINALDO DEL GALLO, III
Pittsfield
The author is a practicing family law attorney and spokesperson of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition.
.
http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ci_921553 ... st_emailed
Dealing with DSS, police
Letters
Article Last Updated: 05/10/2008 03:10:40 AM EDT
Saturday, May 10
Many ask me what to do when the Department of Social Services or the police unexpectedly come to your door regarding your children. The police and DSS may not enter your premises unless they have a warrant or unless there are exigent circumstances. Politely ask to see the warrant. If they do not produce a warrant politely tell them to arrange an appointment so that you can meet with them with your attorney. In instances where there is a bona-fide emergency, they are allowed to enter the premises. But it is for them to figure out when those circumstances exist: always refuse to allow them into your home and always refuse to allow them to interview or examine your children. Even if they do so without your permission, make it perfectly clear that they are doing so without your permission or consent.
Your words should be clear: "I do not want to talk to you." "Please leave the premises." "You are not allowed to see my children." "Call to make an arrangement to speak to me with an attorney." If they say, "we are going to anyhow," your response should always be, "I cannot stop you from doing what you will do, but you do not have my consent or permission."
There are some
circumstances when the police and DSS may enter your home without your permission, and even other circumstances where they may actually take your children. Your job is simply to make it clear that they do so over your objection. But you never have to speak to the police; you never have to speak to the DSS; and you are asking for nightmare if you engage in any conversation with them. It is especially tempting to talk when they are taking your children, but that is when it is especially important that you do speak.
Politely tell other members of your family that they do not have to speak to the police or the DSS. It is not unlawful to do so. Do not be intimidated by language — which is unfortunately common, that you are "not being cooperative" or that you are "starting to be threatening." You never have to speak to them.
After they leave, videotape your children. Immediately have the children seen by a therapist you can trust, as well as medical professional you can trust. Immediately call your attorney. If they do take your children or if they want to place you under arrest, do not resist.
RINALDO DEL GALLO, III
Pittsfield
The author is a practicing family law attorney and spokesperson of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition.
.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests