Why Was The CPS Case Workers Not Prosecuted as Well?


CRITICAL INCIDENT RESPONSE TEAM FINAL REPORT
R.H.
November 22, 2010
Executive Summary
On March 26, 2010, the Department of Human Services (DHS) received a report
from law enforcement officials that 9-year-old R.H. had been hospitalized with
serious physical injuries. At the time he was injured, R.H. was in the care of his
adoptive parents who had previously been certified foster parents. DHS had
received referrals concerning this child and this family prior to this incident. On
April 7, DHS Director Dr. Bruce Goldberg declared that a Critical Incident
Response Team (CIRT) be convened. This is a discretionary CIRT, not mandated
by the Oregon Statute known as Karly’s Law. This is the final report of the R.H.
CIRT team.
This case raised several issues, which can be summarized as follows:
· On multiple occasions, the Department received information regarding
concerns about this foster home that was not adequately considered during
the screening process, investigation of abuse reports, foster home recertifications
and the adoption review process; and
· The Department’s foster home case review process at the local office level
did not ensure the concerns about this foster home – including those
evaluating the foster family as an adoptive family — were comprehensively
or objectively reviewed and acted upon.
As a result, the CIRT team is recommending the implementation of the following
actions:
1. Create a model using specialized staff to perform CPS assessments on abuse
allegations that occur in certified foster homes;
2. Develop and implement statewide a formal structure and process – like the
foster home case review process that occurred in this case — that would
include reviewing certification exceptions, reports of alleged abuse,
certification violations, or other areas of concern regarding certified foster
homes; and
3. Institute a mandatory review process when two abuse allegations or
certification concerns have been raised or documented, regardless of their
outcomes.
Because this was the second CIRT in Lane County within a very short time period,
the agency sent a Rapid Response Team to Lane County in April 2010 to review
files, observe branch processes and engage staff and community partners in an
improvement plan for the county.
These actions were in addition to the CIRT process and resulted in several action
items, including:
· Central Office consultation and review of multiple cases involving foster
homes identified by staff where concerns had been identified.
· Enhanced foster home staffings by improving the communication structure
to ensure that all staff involved with the home had input at the staffing,
knew what the results were, and were accountable for follow-through on
action items.
· Created a process with Central Office foster care consultant to review homes
having three or more staffings due to certification issues.
· Enhanced training and practice discussions with staff to ensure that
comprehensive assessments and ongoing safety assessments were being
done by staff in accordance with the Oregon Safety Model.
· Worked with local School Districts to set up Student Care Teams to staff
cases and improve communication between schools and child welfare
caseworkers.
The Department has also separately addressed any necessary personnel actions
involving individual employees or their supervisors.
Summary of Reported Incident
On March 26, 2010 the Department of Human Services received a report that nineyear-
old R.H. had been hospitalized after suffering multiple, serious physical
injuries. R.H. sustained the injuries while in the care of his foster/adoptive family.
Upon receipt of this information, a referral was generated and assigned to a Child
Protective Services (CPS) worker. Law enforcement was notified by cross-report
from department staff, and they began a criminal investigation.
On May 28, 2010, R.H.’s adoptive parents, A.H. and R.E.H., were both arrested.
On July 28, 2010, A.H. pleaded guilty to one felony charge of first-degree assault
and three felony counts of first-degree criminal mistreatment. She was sentenced to
a prison term of 10 years, 10 months in prison, with no chance of early release. On
the same day, her husband, R.E.H. pleaded guilty to a felony charge of seconddegree
assault. He will serve a prison term of five years, 10 months
Background
R.H.’s adoptive family had been involved with the Department of Human Services
for nearly seven years becoming a certified foster home in 2003. For the purpose
of this CIRT document R.H.’s adoptive father will be referred to as R.E.H., and
R.H.’s adoptive mother will be referred to as A.H. R.H. was first placed with this
family as a 4-year-old foster child on February 10, 2005. This family subsequently
adopted R.H.
The CPS review in this case included nine child abuse reports, the first of which
was received by DHS on October 30, 2003. Five of the nine reports were assigned
to a CPS worker for a safety assessment, two of the reports were documented and
Closed at Screening and two were assigned for assessment but closed prior to
conducting any interviews. Of the five reports that were investigated, the
allegations included Neglect, Physical Abuse, Mental Injury and Threat of Harm.
Each of the five assessments ended with a disposition of Unfounded. Unfounded
means there was no indication of abuse or neglect. The four reports that were not
investigated by DHS included concerns of Physical Abuse, Neglect and Threat of
Harm.
In addition to the CPS review, there was a review of the certification file for this
foster adoptive family.
Chronology
The history of DHS contacts with the family leading up to the most recent injury of
R.H is shown below:
CERTIFICATION: R.E.H. and his wife, A.H. were first certified as foster
parents in January of 2003. They were certified to have as many as 5 children in
their home, and the family requested to start with just one child and do short term
respite for up to four children. Background checks were completed, and no
criminal history or child welfare history was located.
Closed at Screening: Allegations of Physical Abuse. On October 30, 2003, the
department received a report that a 4-year-old foster child had a dime-sized bruise
on his chest that was caused by physical abuse. The documentation indicates the
report was closed at screening because the injury was minor and could have been
caused in a variety of ways. The CIRT team concluded that this report should have
been assigned for an assessment.Background
R.H.’s adoptive family had been involved with the Department of Human Services
for nearly seven years becoming a certified foster home in 2003. For the purpose
of this CIRT document R.H.’s adoptive father will be referred to as R.E.H., and
R.H.’s adoptive mother will be referred to as A.H. R.H. was first placed with this
family as a 4-year-old foster child on February 10, 2005. This family subsequently
adopted R.H.
The CPS review in this case included nine child abuse reports, the first of which
was received by DHS on October 30, 2003. Five of the nine reports were assigned
to a CPS worker for a safety assessment, two of the reports were documented and
Closed at Screening and two were assigned for assessment but closed prior to
conducting any interviews. Of the five reports that were investigated, the
allegations included Neglect, Physical Abuse, Mental Injury and Threat of Harm.
Each of the five assessments ended with a disposition of Unfounded. Unfounded
means there was no indication of abuse or neglect. The four reports that were not
investigated by DHS included concerns of Physical Abuse, Neglect and Threat of
Harm.
In addition to the CPS review, there was a review of the certification file for this
foster adoptive family.
Chronology
The history of DHS contacts with the family leading up to the most recent injury of
R.H is shown below:
CERTIFICATION: R.E.H. and his wife, A.H. were first certified as foster
parents in January of 2003. They were certified to have as many as 5 children in
their home, and the family requested to start with just one child and do short term
respite for up to four children. Background checks were completed, and no
criminal history or child welfare history was located.
Closed at Screening: Allegations of Physical Abuse. On October 30, 2003, the
department received a report that a 4-year-old foster child had a dime-sized bruise
on his chest that was caused by physical abuse. The documentation indicates the
report was closed at screening because the injury was minor and could have been
caused in a variety of ways. The CIRT team concluded that this report should have
been assigned for an assessment.4
RECERTIFICATION 2004: The initial Recertification was positive, and there
were no CPS or certification issues noted in the recertification. The CIRT team
concluded that some discussion regarding the Closed at Screening from October
30, 2003 should have been noted during this recertification. It is unclear from the
recertification documents whether the certifier knew about or even considered the
closed at screening incident.
REFERRAL 001: Allegation of Neglect – Disposition: Unfounded. On July
13, 2004 the department received a report that a 3-year-old developmentally
delayed foster child had been losing weight while in the foster home. Additionally,
the child had multiple injuries including a black eye, multiple scrapes and sores on
his body, shoes that were too small and blood blisters on his feet. As part of the
assessment, collateral contacts were made regarding the child’s weight loss and the
allegation of neglect was unfounded. However, there was no inquiry into the cause
of the child’s physical injuries. The CIRT team concluded that this assessment
was incomplete due to the lack of investigation into the child’s injuries. The team
noted that if this report were to have come in today, Karly’s law would have
required more in terms of investigation and assessment by both DHS and law
enforcement due to the visible injuries on the child.
REFERRAL 002: Allegation of Physical Abuse – Closed without contact. On
July 29, 2004 the department received a report that a 2-and-a-half-year-old foster
child had a small bruise on his penis from where his mother hit him with a
hairbrush. This report was initially assigned for a CPS assessment but it was then
closed without contacting the child. The CIRT team concluded that a CPS
assessment should have been completed. The team again noted that if this report
were to have come in today, Karly’s law would have required more in terms of
investigation and assessment by both DHS and law enforcement due to the visible
injuries on the child.
REFERRAL 003: Allegation of Neglect – Closed without contact. On
November 12, 2004, the department received a report that a 2-year-old foster child
had a scratch on her shoulder and multiple bruises on various parts of her body,
including a fading black eye, what looked like finger print marks on her leg, and a
fading bruise on her lower back. The foster parent provided a possible explanation
for some of the injuries but not others. The report was initially assigned for a CPS
assessment but it was subsequently closed without contacting the child. The CIRT
team concluded a CPS assessment should have been completed. The team noted
here, too, that if this report were to have come in today, Karly’s law would have
required more in terms of investigation and assessment by both DHS and law
enforcement due to the visible injuries on the child.
RECERTIFICATION 2005: The second Recertification was positive. The
Certifier documented that the three previous referrals were unfounded, but did not
clearly identify certification issues or whether follow-up was needed. Certifier
documents in re-certification study, that one child lost weight in their care, but
gained weight when placed out of the home. The certifier noted that the while that
child had been in their care, the family had been working with various doctors and
dieticians.
PLACEMENT: In February, 2005, R.H. was placed in foster care home of A.H.
and R.E.H. They would later become his adoptive parents.
REFERRAL 004: Allegation of Physical Abuse – Unfounded. On April 26,
2005, the department received a report that a child had disclosed that his previous
foster mother, A.H., beat him while he was a foster child in the home. The
screener documented the child’s disclosure and the history of concerns about the
foster home as the reason for assigning the report for a CPS assessment. The
referral was assigned for a CPS assessment. Initially the child disclosed that A.H.
would “beat him by biting him.” The report did not clarify what the child meant
by this statement. Later he reported that A.H. never beat him and that he lied about
the abuse. The child never said why he lied but did say he was afraid of A.H.
There was no documentation that A.H., R.E.H. or any of the other children or
adults in the home at the time the abuse was alleged to have occurred were
interviewed as part of the assessment. The CIRT team concluded that the
unfounded disposition was issued prematurely because additional interviews were
necessary to complete the assessment, and A.H., R.E.H. and the other children
should have been interviewed about the allegation even though the child recanted.
RECERTIFICATION 2006: The third Recertification was positive. The report
did include behavior and possible medical issues of R.H., including enuresis, mood
swings and a statement that R.H. has a hard time doing homework. At the time
R.H. would have been about 6 years old. There was no documentation of what
strategies the foster parent was given or had discussed to manage R.H.’s behaviors.
There were no CPS assessments or certification issues noted. The CIRT team
concluded that this recertification should have provided some notation of referral
004 from April 26, 2005.RECERTIFICATION 2007: The fourth Recertification was positive. The
certification file noted that R.H.’s caseworker had been to the home and witnessed
him being well cared for. It also noted that R.H. had never disclosed any
mistreatment to the certifier. The certification record also included notation that
there had never been a concern about maltreatment of any of the children in the
A.H. and R.E.H. foster home. The CIRT team concluded that this was an
inaccurate reflection of the record and past concerns should have been noted in the
report
REFERRAL 005: Allegation of Mental Injury and Neglect – Unfounded. On
June 12, 2007, the department received reports from multiple people of seeing 6
year old R.H. dressed inappropriately for the rainy weather. Other family members
were observed to be dressed in warm clothing. Additionally, R.H. was not allowed
to eat and was made to stand for hours. R.H. appeared to have lost weight and his
demeanor and affect had changed. According to one reporter A.H. admitted she
made R.H. stand for several hours as punishment. The report was assigned for
assessment, and a CPS worker interviewed R.H. and two other children, who made
no disclosures of abuse. The CPS worker also interviewed A.H. who denied the
allegations. There was no documentation that A.H.’s husband, R.E.H. was
interviewed. R.H. was seen by a physician who reported no concerns about weight
gain/loss or child abuse. The documentation indicates the children were
interviewed together. The CIRT team concluded that in order to be consistent with
policy, children should have been interviewed separately, if possible and in a
neutral location. It is unclear whether interviewing the children separately would
have changed the disposition of this referral.
REFERRAL 006: Allegations of Neglect – Unfounded. On January 12, 2008,
the department received a report about R.H. being emotionally abused and
neglected. Also, that A.H. used food as a way to discipline R.H. The reporter
commented that “R.H. is beaten down mentally and maybe physically.” The
reporter stated that R.H. may be made to go days without food as punishment. The
report was assigned for assessment. The children, including R.H., were interviewed
and made no disclosures of abuse, nor did A.H. admit to abusive behavior. The
file information does not indicate whether R.E.H. was ever interviewed nor does it
indicate that the children were interviewed separately. As part of the assessment,
R.H. was seen by a physician who reported no concerns for abuse. To be in
compliance with policy, R.E.H. should have been interviewed. Policy is also clear
that if possible children should be interviewed separately in a neutral location. It is
also unclear whether this referral was considered comprehensively, in the context
of the previous referrals and reports concerning R.H. The disposition wasunfounded. The CIRT team concluded that it was unclear whether an interview
with R.E.H., or interviewing household members separately would have supported
a different disposition. In addition, during the assessment the CPS worker learned
that R.H. was now the only child in the home being home schooled, another
indicator of his disparate treatment. Although not evidence of abuse, isolation
from teachers and other mandatory reporters may have made R.H. more vulnerable
than the other children to abusive situations in the home.
REFERRAL 007: Allegations of Mental Injury, Neglect and Threat of Harm –
Unfounded. On August 6, 2008 the department received a report about the poor
treatment of 7-year-old, R.H. by A.H. The family had been at a wedding and R.H.
looked scared to death of A.H. The reporter said that A.H. may have been
withholding food from him as well. R.H. was dressed inappropriately for the
weather. It was a hot day and he was wearing a long sleeve shirt. The reporter
also indicated that over the past winter, R.H. was made to stay outside in freezing
conditions. The report was assigned for a CPS assessment. R.H. was interviewed
at the same time as two other children. None of the children disclosed abuse. As
part of this assessment the worker interviewed A.H. and her husband, R.E.H. The
documentation indicates they were interviewed separately and provided no
concerning information. The disposition was coded as unfounded. The CIRT
team concluded that this referral should also have considered prior CPS history
including Referrals 005 and 006. In addition, to be in compliance with policy,
children should be interviewed separately, if possible. It is unclear whether
interviewing the children separately would have ended in a disclosure of abuse or
in a different disposition.
Closed at Screening: Allegations of Neglect and Threat of Harm.
On May 12, 2009, the department received a report that 8-year-old, R.H. had
weeping sores on his legs, and that A.H. had gone on vacation instead of taking
him to the doctor. In addition, the reporter stated that R.H. was made to stand in
the rain for extended periods of time as punishment and was force fed when he
refused to eat. During a recent holiday, R.H. was made to stand on the porch for
hours. The reporter also said that A.H. coached the children on how to answer
questions from department staff and did not want family members speaking to
R.H. This report was Closed at Screening. The CIRT team concluded that this
report should have been assigned for a CPS assessment.
Summary of Child Placement Review
In addition to the contacts with the A.H. and R.E.H. foster family, DHS conducted
a file review for each of the other foster children who had lived in this home. The
file review showed that multiple injuries were noted on several different children
who were placed in this home, and most of these injuries were not reported to the
Child Abuse Hotline as being suspicious for abuse. Therefore, they were not
investigated by CPS. Many of the injuries were similar in nature, including: black
eyes, bite marks, and scratches.
The CIRT team noted that although a bite mark, scratch or black eye in and of
itself is not always indicative of child abuse or neglect, it’s important to note the
pattern, frequency, and explanation of injuries with the children that resided in this
foster home. In several instances, A.H. provided the only explanation of how the
injuries occurred. Although the caseworkers may have spoken with these children
about their injuries, there was no documentation to support that an interview
occurred.
The CIRT team also noted concern that the foster mother reported similar
behaviors by many of the children placed in the home — including incopresis, food
hoarding, eating to the point of vomiting, oppositional defiance, withdrawal and
out-of-control behaviors. However, in some of the cases that were reviewed, this
behavior was documented to have ceased once the children were no longer in that
foster home. Some biological parents described out of control behaviors/or
withdrawn behaviors during visits that were out of the ordinary for their children.
Issues and Recommendations
Issue #1: The overarching issue in this case is that, in spite of concerning
information being reported about this family and the care they were providing to
foster children in their home, that information was not adequately considered. It
appears that the relationship between department employees (CPS workers and
certifiers) and this department-certified foster home impacted the objectivity of the
CPS worker, the foster-home certifier, their supervisors and other managers, when
determining how to address the concerns and allegations of child abuse.
It is worth noting that the record included information from other professionals
providing services to children in the home and to the foster parents. Most of those
professionals also did not have concerns about these foster parents or about the
children in their care. The CIRT team’s consultation with a mental health
professional affirmed that it is very difficult for any social worker or social
services professional, who must have a relationship with clients to be effective, to
also be fully objective about information that may be of concern about those
clients.
Issue #2: It appears that the foster home case review process in the local branch
office included reviews of the comprehensive record of certification issues and
abuse reports. However, in some cases the issues, especially reports similar to
those that previously had been Closed at Screening or determined to be
Unfounded, were viewed as already assessed and dealt with, rather than identified
as a part of a pattern of conduct by the foster parent.
Issue #3: There was a discrepancy between information in the adoption home
study and foster care certification file. Despite the information documented in the
adoption home study which would have likely adversely affected the family’s
ability to care for adoptive children, the family was still selected. In addition,
foster care certification references raised questions about differences in parenting
attitudes and practices toward the family’s birth and adopted children that were not
considered within the assessment of the parents’ capacity to provide safety and
nurturing in the adoption home study.
Recommendations:
1) To ensure objectivity regarding allegations of abuse in foster homes, the R.H.
CIRT team recommends that the Department create a separate unit to
investigate allegations of child abuse in family foster homes. The Office of
Investigations and Training, which is currently administered under the Office of
the DHS Director and will be a “shared service” between the DHS and Oregon
Health Authority after the agencies split in 2011, currently conducts
investigations of abuse involving children in foster care in residential treatment
settings. That assignment could be expanded to include family foster homes as
well. Alternatively, CAF could create a separate unit in Central Office to serve
this purpose, or it could create a process whereby family foster home abuse
investigations were conducted by CPS staff from a district other than the district
that certifies the foster home. Additionally, policy regarding investigations of
abuse in foster homes should ensure that the Oregon Safety Model’s
requirement that information be comprehensively assessed, including reviews
of prior concerning reports about foster homes – even those that were
“unfounded” or “closed at screening” – be included in the assessment process.
2) The R.H. CIRT team also recommends that the Department develop and
implement statewide a formal structure and process for reviewing concerns or
abuse allegations in certified foster homes. That process should include
reviewing certification exceptions, reports of alleged abuse, certification
violations, or other areas of concern regarding certified foster homes. In
addition, to ensure objectivity in that review process, the CIRT teamrecommends that those reviews require the inclusion of individuals who have
no relationship to the foster family or to the child welfare staff responsible for
that foster home’s certification or the foster children in the family’s care.
3) The R.H. CIRT team additionally recommends that a mandatory review of a
foster home occur when two abuse allegations or certification concerns have
been raised or documented, regardless of their outcomes. In addition, the CIRT
team also recommends specifying in the policy or rule that creates the review
process require a discussion of the cumulative information, including any
historical certification exceptions, reports of alleged abuse, certification
violations or other areas of concern.
4) To improve consistency and increase objectivity regarding foster parent
recertification and revocation decisions, the CIRT team also recommends that
CAF Central Office create a statewide resource for local offices on certification
issues. Policy or rule should require Central Office review and approval of any
local decision to revoke or resolve a concern about a foster home by
“counseling foster parents out” (i.e., encouraging them to withdraw their
request for recertification). Additionally, when a foster home is up for
recertification, if that home has been subject to one or more mandatory foster
home case reviews (described above), Central Office should be required to
approve the recertification of that foster home.
5) Finally, the CIRT team recommends that the Department strengthen its policies
regarding the assessment of individual adoption applicants when information is
discovered about the family that would be considered a “red flag” or would be
otherwise concerning regarding the protective capacity of the family. This
includes information about the applicant’s family of origin, childhood abuse or
other traumatic incidents, treatment obtained in the interim period of time,
patterns of conduct that may reflect choices driven by prior trauma and life
events, that would likely adversely impact their parenting capacity. Because of
the skills required to collect and analyze this highly sensitive information and
fully implement these new policies, training for certifiers and adoption workers
in support of this policy change is critical.
Notably, the findings of the R.H. CIRT team are similar to several findings the
Foster Care Safety Team made following a review of multiple foster home case
files. The Foster Care Safety Team (FCST) was convened in the fall of 2009, in
response to a previous CIRT report about a long-time foster parent who was
arrested and convicted of child abuse. The FCST consisted of law enforcement
child advocates, and other concerned Oregonians and was asked to look not only at
cases after abuse has happened, but to help prevent future abuse. The FCST report
and recommendations were published in March 2010. Those recommendations are
now in the process of being implemented by the Department.
Because the work to implement the FCST recommendations is on-going and could
not have impacted the work with the child victim or foster/adoptive family in this
case, and because of the extensive systems review the FCST conducted of the
foster care system, the Department asked the R.H. CIRT team to specifically
examine this case keeping in mind the Foster Care Safety Team report and
recommendations. Two members of the FCST were also members of the R.H.
CIRT Team. The recommendations of the CIRT team in this case support and
enhance several of the recommendations by the FCST.
Audit Points
1) By January 30, 2011, CAF, in partnership with the Office of Investigations
and Training, will complete an analysis of the different options
recommended in this report to create a separate unit to investigate
allegations of child abuse in family foster homes. That analysis will include
the cost to implement each alternative approach suggested by the CIRT
Team and should be presented to the Legislature as part of the 2011-13 child
welfare policy, workload and budget discussion.
2) By January 30, 2011, CAF will develop a project plan that will outline the
timelines, and any associated workload and fiscal impacts, to implement
state wide the family foster home “sensitive case review process” and all
accompanying policy and procedures changes recommended in this report.
3) Also by January 30, 2011, CAF will develop an analysis of the workload and
fiscal impact to create the capacity in Central Office to better support
consistent and objective recertification and revocation decisions across the
state.
4) CAF will continue to pursue making permanent the action the Department
took in July, 2010 when it adopted temporary rule OAR 413-120-0246
Adoption Applications and Standards for Adoption. That temporary rule
now provides that:
o All adoptive home studies will assess any concerning history of an
individual applicant, to include dynamics reported in the applicant’s own
birth/adoptive family and any patterns of individual or familial conduct,
and consider whether that history adversely impacts parenting capacity. It
also requires that the assessment of the concerns and how they have been
or are being reconciled is documented in the case file; and
o The home study process will review all prior home studies for foster care
or adoption, as well as references, for consideration of any patterns of
conduct that require further assessment.
Purpose of Critical Incident Response Team Reports
Critical incident reports are to be used as tools for department actions when there
are incidents of serious injury or death involving a child who has had contact with
DHS. The reviews are launched by the Department Director to quickly analyze
DHS actions in relation to each child. Results of the reviews are posted on the
DHS Web Site. Actions are implemented based on the recommendations of the
CIRT Review Team.
The ultimate purpose is to review department practices and recommend
improvements. Therefore, information contained in these incident reports includes
information specific only to the Department’s interaction with the child and family
that are the subject of the CIRT Review.

About yvonnemason

Background:  The eldest of five children, Yvonne was born May 17, 1951 in Atlanta, Georgia. Raised in East Point, Georgia, she moved to Jackson County, Ga. until 2006 then moved to Port St. Lucie, Florida where she currently makes her home.  Licensed bounty hunter for the state of Georgia. Education:  After a 34 year absence, returned to college in 2004. Graduated with honors in Criminal Justice with an Associate’s degree from Lanier Technical College in 2006. Awards:  Nominated for the prestigious GOAL award in 2005 which encompasses all of the technical colleges. This award is based not only on excellence in academics but also leadership, positive attitude and the willingness to excel in one’s major. Affiliations:  Beta Sigma Phi Sorority  Member of The Florida Writer’s Association – Group Leader for St Lucie County The Dream:  Since learning to write at the age of five, Yvonne has wanted to be an author. She wrote her first novel Stan’s Story beginning in 1974 and completed it in 2006. Publication seemed impossible as rejections grew to 10 years. Determined, she continued adding to the story until her dream came true in 2006. The Inspiration:  Yvonne’s brother Stan has been her inspiration and hero in every facet of her life. He was stricken with Encephalitis at the tender age of nine months. He has defied every roadblock placed in his way and has been the driving force in every one of her accomplishments. He is the one who taught her never to give up The Author: Yvonne is currently the author of several novels, including:  Stan’s Story- the true story of her brother’s accomplishments, it has been compared to the style of Capote, and is currently being rewritten with new information for re-release.  Tangled Minds - a riveting story about a young girl’s bad decision and how it taints everyone’s life around her yet still manages to show that hope is always possible. This novel has been compared to the writing of Steinbeck and is currently being written as a screenplay. This novel will be re-released by Kerlak Publishing in 2009  Brilliant Insanity – released by Kerlak Publishing October 2008  Silent Scream – Released by Lulu.com October 2008- Slated to be made into a movie Yvonne’s Philosophy in Life - “Pay it Forward”: “In this life we all have been helped by others to attain our dreams and goals. We cannot pay it back but what we can do is ‘pay it forward’. It is a simple
This entry was posted in Murdered Children at the Hands of Foster Parents and CPS and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Why Was The CPS Case Workers Not Prosecuted as Well?

  1. Elisa Breitenbach says:

    How much longer will these unfounded child abusers get by with abusing our children with the blessings of the courts? When will we care about our children enough to STOP THIS? We must find a way!!!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s