“This afternoon I met with Chief Bergamine and the members of the investigative team investigating the death of Shaniya Davis.

Following the presentation by the investigators with the Fayetteville Police Department, Chief Bergamine has requested the SBI’s assistance to determine if Fayetteville Police have received complete and accurate records from Cumberland County DSS regarding this case. Based upon the information provided to me and my senior staff by the Fayetteville Police Department concerning these issues, I share their concern and I have requested the assistance of the SBI to assist us in this regard.”

 Department of Social Services’ Statement On Davis Information Requests

 

FAYETTEVILLE, NC – The Cumberland County Department of Social Services has received numerous requests to release information regarding any connection the department has to Shaniya Davis and her family.

 

In response, the department is releasing the following statement explaining why those requests for information will be denied:

 

The Cumberland County Department of Social Services, through our County Attorney’s Office, consulted with the District Attorney’s Office of the 12th Prosecutorial District, in accordance with North Carolina General Statute §7B-2902(d).

 

The District Attorney has concluded pursuant to North Carolina General Statute §7B-2902(d)(3) and (5) that the release of any information at this time is likely to jeopardize the State’s ability to prosecute the defendant and also is likely to undermine an ongoing or future criminal investigation.

 

As a result, we will deny any request related to the release of information in the child fatality of Shaniya Davis.

 

“We extend our heartfelt sympathy to the family and the community,” said Director Brenda Jackson. “Our focus continues to be on assisting law enforcement in any way possible.”

Peter Quinn, 53, was charged with aggravated assault and related offenses in the incident, which occurred Tuesday while the two were waiting for a case to be heard in Courtroom K at 1801 Vine St.

After being led out of the building, he was held in a police holding cell for about 15 hours before being released, he said.

Department of Human Services social worker Tamika Cintron, 36, contended that Quinn elbowed her and called her offensive names, according to a police report and DHS Commissioner Anne Marie Ambrose. Ambrose said that Cintron did not know why Quinn elbowed her.

Quinn, in a phone interview yesterday, denied the allegations.

Cintron did not return a phone call for comment.

On Tuesday morning, the two were in the waiting room on a dependency case in which Quinn was representing a parent. Cintron was there to testify in her role as DHS social worker. Cintron was sitting down.

According to a police report, Quinn sat down and threw Cintron’s jacket to the side, then elbowed her in the left side of the ribs. Cintron then stood up and said to Quinn: “What the hell is wrong with you?”

Cintron said Quinn then got up and called her a “bitch.” She then went to Courtroom K to get away from Quinn and Quinn tried to follow her into the room but was stopped at the door by court officers, according to the report.

One observer who was in the court area said yesterday that he saw Cintron by the door yelling, “He hit me! He hit me!” referring to Quinn. The observer said Cintron was “visibly shaken and crying.”

Ambrose yesterday called Cintron an “excellent social worker.”

City records show that Cintron began working at DHS about two years ago. Ambrose said that Cintron characterized the incident as an “unprovoked attack.”

Quinn said that during his approximately 18 years of handling dependency cases “nobody ever accused me of this stuff.”

He said that when he went to sit down in the empty seat, he did not initially know Cintron was next to him. He said that the sleeve of her jacket was on his seat and that he moved it toward her seat.

That “pissed her off,” he said, contending that she then said to him: “What the f— are you doing?”

He contended that she elbowed him, then got up and started yelling in the hallway, which separates the waiting area from Courtroom K.

An aggravated-assault charge is routinely lodged when an alleged victim is a member of a protected class, including that of a social worker. Quinn was also charged with simple assault and reckless endangerment.

Sources who know Quinn professionally yesterday described him as argumentative.

One source who works in Family Court said that Quinn “has had difficulties in dealing with people on a daily basis.” Another source called Quinn “crazy” and said that “lots of people” have had confrontations with him.

When asked about these comments, Quinn said: “I don’t think that’s true.”

Ambrose said she was not aware of any other recent case of a social worker reportedly being attacked while in court. DHS records show there have been 17 reports of social workers’ being injured while out in the field since social worker Danelle Cooper was beaten by Sharonda Sowell in North Philly in fall 2007.

Do you know a child who has died after reports of abuse where made to DSS?  Did DSS ignore your report and fail to protect the child?

Do you know a child who has died in foster care or after being adopted from foster care due to child abuse or neglect?

Are you the family member of a child that died during or after DSS involvement?

Are you a family member of a child who has died as a result of DSS policy violations or inaction when it came to investigating reports of abuse?

Do you have documented proof of unethical and illegal activities being committed by DSS in the state of North Carolina?  

Has DSS removed your child/ren or a child you know unlawfully?

Are you a grandparent or relative who has been denied kinship custody?

Do you have proof of perjury, tape recordings, copies of forged or falsified documents, lies?

Do you think the laws should be changed to hold DSS accountable when they break the law or violate their own policies? 

Do you believe the law needs to change to make DSS transparent, and remove their ability to hide behind confidentiality laws?

Do you believe that any complaints against DSS should be handled by an outside agency with no relationship to DSS?

Do you believe if DSS breaks the law and/or policy they should be criminally charged?

Do you have an idea or plan of an effective way to change DSS?

Are you a former DSS worker who is willing to speak about the corruption in this state or the county you worked for?

I want to hear from you.  Please email me at nixonlisa70@yahoo.com

I am trying to compile a list of proven complaints against DSS in North Carolina and I need your help to do so.

Information on all 100 counties in the state of North Carolina is needed.

The purpose of this research is not just to do a story about the corruption, but to inform the public and the legislature so that needed changes to the laws can be made.

If you have any information or answers to the questions above, I am asking you to contact me and share that information. I do require documented proof of actual violations committed by DSS. 

If you were actually abusing your child or children, you need not respond.  I cannot, nor will I help you. 

I am only looking for those that have been wronged by DSS, whose rights were violated, or children whose lives were cut short because DSS failed to protect them.   

Most importantly, I am seeking information on any child that has died in this state with DSS involvement.  It is very hard to find any information about these children, so if you know of any please contact me as soon as possible and include links to any articles, blogs, websites or any other source of information about these children.

I am also looking for volunteers to help me inform the legislature through phone calls, emails and any other contact we can think of.

The only way to affect changes to Child Protective Services in North Carolina is to join together and speak out in a loud, clear voice and demand that change.

The only way that the lawmakers and the public are going to listen is to show them documented proof.

I cannot do this alone, so the question is…whose with me?

Innocence Destroyed is not being produced by a half-witted conspiracy theorist but by former firefighter and federal law enforcement officer, Bill Bowen. Bowen, as you can see in the shorter version of the film he has posted on YouTube and which I have embedded below, is intelligent and articulate and just the sort of man needed to produce such a documentary. When you listen to Bowen, you instinctively know that here is a man you can trust–here is a man who tells the truth.

If the short version is any indication of what the full length version will be like, then this film should be entered into competition at Sundance, Slamdance and other film festivals. It is incredibly professional, and the original musical score, particularly Adriana’s Theme by Steve Berkowitz is gorgeous.

But behind the beautiful music is the ugly reality, so ugly the movie is not recommended for anyone under sixteen, of children being tortured and murdered while in the care of the very people who are supposed to protect children, Child Protective Services. Particularly difficult to watch are some of the autopsy photos.

The film opens with a heartrending interview with Tausha Cram, mother of Adriana Cram, the subject of the movie’s theme song. Tausha did not even find out her daughter had been murdered until a month after her death and then found out that she was murdered and buried in Mexico–that’s correct, not New Mexico, but Mexico.

Earlier Tausha had turned to Child Protective Services for help in obtaining insurance and medicine for her daughter’s medical condition. Instead of helping her, CPS took her daughter into custody and charged Tausha with medical neglect. Rather than placing the child with her aunt as promised, CPS placed Adriana with an aunt and uncle of Tausha’s abusive partner, whom she had left because of his abuse. The aunt and uncle lived in Mexico. Adriana went to live with them and was beaten and tortured on a daily basis until she died.

Adriana’s story is just one of the thousands that Bill Bowen has investigated in the past three years. The film tells only a few of these stories. The film reveals that the torture and death of children in the custody of Child Protective Services is too widespread to be ignored.
Bowen also investigates the secrecy of Child Protective Services, the supposed “best interest of the child” standard of CPS and family court, the nepotism in many Child Protective Services agencies, child abuse by CPS investigators, children who have disappeared or who have run away from CPS care, bias in family court and court transcripts that don’t accurately reflect audio recordings

Bowen interviews not only parents who have had their children murdered while in the custody of CPS, he interviews forensic pathologists, former CPS workers, court reporters and more.
Bowen’s short film, Innocence Destroyed, filmed by Chris Walters and Dan Jagels, is a powerful indictment of Child Protective Services. It is powerful not only because of Bowen’s exhaustive search for the truth, but also because of his skill as a writer and filmmaker.

Bowen’s skill as a filmmaker is seen throughout the movie, but it is particularly shown at the beginning and near the end. The opening interview with Tausha Cram draws you into the film. The closing scene (see the photo above) of Tausha lying on Adriana’s grave in Mexico, asking for her daughter’s forgiveness, is one of the most unforgettable images I have ever seen in any movie.

If this film doesn’t move you, then you might question whether or not you really are a member of the human race.

The best professional judgment of child protection workers may, in hindsight, be wrong.  For this and other reasons, child protection workers usually have some level of immunity from prosecution.¹  When individual government officials are sued for monetary damages they generally are granted either absolute or qualified immunity. The United States Supreme Court has stated that qualified immunity is the norm, absolute immunity is the exception.²

Should that immunity disappear when, in their official capacities as child protection workers, they make knowingly inaccurate or false statements which result in the wrongful removal of a child?  California law provides for public employee immunity from liability for an injury caused by the employee instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of their employment, even if he or she acts maliciously and without probable cause.³  However, a public employee has no such immunity if he or she acted with malice in committing perjury, fabricating evidence failing to disclose exculpatory evidence or obtaining evidence by duress.

Generally, whether an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment is ordinarily a question of fact to be determined in light of the evidence of the particular case. Some courts hold that immunity for child protective workers exists as long as they act responsibly in the performance of their duties. The immunity applies even where a complaint alleges caseworker misconduct or intentional wrongdoing.⁴  Others hold that the worker must be involved in a function critical to the judicial process itself. In either case, the more outrageous the employee’s alleged tortuous conduct, the less likely it could be described as foreseeable, and the less likely the social service agency could be required to assume responsibility for the act as a general risk of doing business.

Recent Cases

In Doe v. Lebbos (later overruled)⁵ the Ninth Circuit held that a social worker was entitled to absolute immunity for allegedly failing to investigate adequately the allegations of abuse and neglect against a father and in allegedly fabricating evidence in a child dependency petition because those actions had the  requisite connection to the judicial process to be protected by absolute immunity (at 826).” In Van Emrik v. Chemung County Dep’t of Soc. Servs. ⁶ the court found that child protective caseworkers were entitled to qualified immunity in connection with the removal of a child from the custody of her parents during a child abuse investigation. In the Sixth Circuit and the District of Columbia Circuit the type of immunity depends on the particular task the worker is doing. In Gray v. Poole ⁷ the court held that qualified immunity covers social workers acting as investigators, while social workers testifying as witnesses are protected by absolute immunity. In Rippy ex rel. Rippy v. Hattaway ⁸ the court ruled that absolute immunity protects social workers who initiate proceedings on behalf of a child. In Austin v. Borel ⁹ the court ruled that child protection workers were not entitled to absolute immunity when they filed an “allegedly false verified complaint seeking the removal of two children” from the family home (at 1363).

Ethical considerations

There is, of course, a difference between misrepresentation of a piece of physical or verbal evidence and the actual creation of false evidence.  Misrepresentation involves the willful giving of a misleading representation of the facts. Creation of false evidence involves the act of improperly causing a ‘fact’ to exist.   More often, critics and attorneys accuse workers of a willingness to misrepresent, selectively quote, and misconstrue information to support their claims and therefore to present an entirely misleading case. Rather than sticking to agency protocols and training the workers sensationalize their documentation and findings in a misleading fashion.

To what extent are such allegations true? Do workers consciously or unconsciously misrepresent evidence, and selectively engage in systematic distortion? How often do they make deliberate efforts to mislead, deceive, or confuse their own supervisor or the court in order to promote their own personal or ideological objectives? How frequently are workers omitting or concealing material facts? Under the guise of vigilance, are there child protection workers whose adherence to rules and procedures is purposely excessive?

From a social work, legal, or judicial perspective, making a knowing misrepresentation in a child protection case is a serious ethical breach. The NASW Code of Ethics, 4.01(c), notes that: “Social workers should base practice on recognized knowledge, including empirically based knowledge, relevant to social work and social work ethics.”  At 4.04 the Code goes on to state: “Social workers should not participate in, condone, or be associated with dishonesty, fraud, or deception.”    Dishonesty, shading the truth, or a lack of candor cannot be tolerated in child protection services, a field of endeavor built upon trust and respect for the law. Whether or not child protection workers deserve immunity from prosecution when they misrepresent or fabricate evidence is a question each states’ courts are dealing with.  Similarly, each court must decide whether such misconduct warrants setting aside the decision to remove the child from his or her home. In the final analysis, the question might soon find itself before the U.S. Supreme Court.

A worker’s misrepresentation or fabrication of evidence is particularly pernicious because it puts the whole field of child protection in a negative light. Whether or not immunity is granted, there is simply no excuse for this kind of willful and egregious conduct.

The state did not meet a federal goal for reducing the number repeat child abuse and neglect from September 2008 to March 2009, resulting in a fine.

The federal government has set goals for child abuse that no state should fall below in order to improve the child welfare system. Though Illinois has improved in the area of repeated accounts of child abuse, the state has not met the federal standard, said Mark Testa, director of the Children and Family Research Center at the University.

Kendall Marlowe, spokesman for the Department of Children and Family Services, said that during the reporting period, 7.6 percent of abused children in Illinois were re-abused. The federal benchmark standard is 5.4 percent. Because of this, Illinois is liable for a fine from the federal government.

Testa said he believes a fine may not be the best action.

“It’s an argument that yes, Illinois is not doing well, but a fine doesn’t seem to be the right remedy,” Testa said. “Maybe we should use that (money) to see why Illinois does not meet the national standard. That would be the logical thing to do.”

Samantha Webster, a sophomore in DGS who hopes to one day work with DCFS and the court system, said she also thought there might be a better way than fines to improve conditions in Illinois.

“Taking away money sucks but it isn’t going to change the parents,” she said.

Testa said that about 300,000 reports are made to child-abuse hotlines in Illinois each year.

“A report is made to a child-abuse hotline, so doctors and policemen and social workers are mandated by law to report suspected abuse of child,” he said. “Child protected investigators have to, within 24 hours, make contact with the family, and some point after that make contact with the child.”

Testa said that though many reports are made, in many cases of child maltreatment, there won’t be sufficient evidence. About 25,000 children are substantiated each year, and it is considered “repeat maltreatment” if a report is made for the same child twice within six months.

Marlowe said he is not sure where the money will come from, nor how much the state would be fined.

Testa said he believes Illinois needs to be more disciplined about following procedures that are already in place for dealing with child abuse. He said social workers are supposed to ask a systematic set of questions, a “safety assessment,” but this does not take place in every case. He said that Illinois might also need to try to improve resources for child abuse services, especially in southern Illinois, where there is the highest recurrence of maltreatment.

“We need to make sure there are enough resources there to help the family,” Testa said. “It’s much more difficult to provide these services when you’re a spread out community. We need to change some practices and provide others.”