A nine-month investigation into child welfare cases at the Montezuma County Department of Social Services alleges dozens of violations of state regulations and administrative law, according to the Office of Colorado’s Child Protection Ombudsman.
The investigation by the oversight agency took place August 2018 to April 2019 and was triggered by complaints from local residents and child protection professionals.
After reviewing 15 child protection cases from June 2014 to December 2018, the ombudsman claims that Montezuma County Department of Social Services violated state law nine times and state regulations 58 times when handling 21 referrals and assessments, according to the ombudsman’s preliminary report. A final report is expected to be released this month.
The investigation came more than three months after The Journal, beginning in April, contacted the Colorado Department of Human Services about complaints about the local Social Services department. The state office reported at the time that no one had filed a complaint.
“The violations demonstrate concerning gaps in the MCDSS’ case practices that have impacted the safety and well-being of children and families,” states the report, compiled by Colorado Child Protection Ombudsman Stephanie Villafuerte.
No charges have been filed, said 22nd Judicial District Attorney Will Furse, but he will be “thoroughly reviewing” the report to determine whether charges are warranted.
Alleged violations of administrative laws do not necessarily mean crimes were committed.
The 55-page ombudsman report captures two key areas of analysis: evidence of violations of state law and regulations, and systemic issues identified by residents and stakeholders.
The three most serious issues with Social Services’ practices are delayed response to reports of abuse and neglect; noncompliant information sharing with law enforcement; and inadequate supervision of child welfare cases.
The Social Services office is required to respond to reports of child abuse and follow state laws and regulations to determine whether the reports are founded.
The office was found to be out of compliance in 18 child protection assessments. Seven involved suspected sex abuse; five, suspected physical abuse; three, suspected neglect; and one case each for drug use, mental health, and a medical issue.
Interviews with 23 county residents and child protection professionals revealed four systemic issues: lack of responsiveness to children and families’ needs; lack of objectivity in the assessment of child abuse and neglect cases; lack of transparency surrounding case practices; and lack of trauma-informed practices.
Montezuma County Social Services Director Gina Montoya released a copy of the investigation report to The Journal, along with Social Services’ written response to the state office. A final report will be released on the Colorado Child Protection Ombudsman website in August under case 2018-3050.
“We take it very seriously and want to be transparent,” Montoya told The Journal. “We’re working to analyze and address where improvement and more training is needed.”
She attributed many of the problems to improperly completed casework forms.
Montoya took over the post in July 2018 after former director Josiah Forkner abruptly resigned while on administrative leave. Forkner ran the department from October 2014 to April 2018, replacing longtime director Dennis Story. After Forkner’s resignation, Furse initiated a “preliminary investigation” into Social Services but filed no charges.
In her responses to the ombudsman’s report, Montoya said the department “acknowledges that it has made mistakes and does not dispute portions of the CPO investigative report. What is clear after reviewing the report is that the department has room to improve. We will continue to strive for perfection in all cases.”
Montoya noted that most of the problems occurred before she took over the department. The CPO report identified 20 assessments and three out-of-home cases that raised concerns, Montoya said. In her written response, she said many of the reviewed cases were connected to one caseworker, who resigned in April 2018.
“That staff member resigned before the initiation of the CPO’s investigation after his supervisor confronted him after discovering the shortcomings of his job performance that are identified in the CPO report,” Montoya wrote.
Department staff “strives to act in the best interest of children” and undergoes countless hours of training, Montoya said. During the investigation period – June 2014 through December 2018 – Social Services conducted 1,207 assessments and served 111 children in out-of-home placements, Montoya said.
Twenty-three violations were technical and had “no impact on child safety,” said.
She also noted the report is based on a small sample size and “many of the cases” were handled by the caseworker who resigned.
In her response to the state office, Montoya wrote that Social Services “is confident that the vast majority of its work with children and families has been handled in accordance with applicable legal and regulatory standards.”
The ombudsman issued six recommendations to help Montezuma County Social Services improve case practices, comply with state law and regulations and improve its relationship with the community.
The report concluded that Social Services will require guidance from the Colorado Department of Human Services – its supervising entity – to prevent violations.
“The purpose of the investigation is to identify problems so there can be corrective action going forward,” said Villafuerte.
Improved response times for child protection is needed, Montoya said, and additional training and policies are underway.
The Colorado Child Protection Ombudsman investigation provides details from 15 cases with compliance issues in the June 2019 report.
Besides analyzing case files, the ombudsman staff spent three days in Cortez in June 2018, interviewing more than a dozen residents, law enforcement, the district attorney, child protection professionals, parents and former caseworkers. The CPO conducted more than 40 hours of interviews with 23 people.
According to the report:
In early 2018, Social Services received reports that two children had been sexually assaulted. More than two months later, a county caseworker contacted the children for the first time, and law enforcement was not notified of the allegation within required time frames. The cases ended up not meeting the definition of abuse, but the delayed response violated required time frames.Social Services sometimes failed to properly respond to reports of abuse and neglect in a timely fashion. For example, according to the report, a mandatory reporter stated two children, ages 6 and 5, had marks on their faces, and the children reported they had been hit by a parent. Social Services assigned a five-day response to the cases when they should have assigned either a three-day or immediate response time based on regulations.Social Services failed to interview child victims within required time frames. In nine of the 23 referrals and assessments reviewed, Social Services violated required time frames 18 times. For example, a face-to-face interview with an 11-year-old who fought at school, threatened suicide and had been exposed to domestic violence was required by Feb. 15 but was not conducted until April 18, two months late. In another case, a homeless 13-year-old who often arrived at school tired and hungry missed 35 days of school, was interviewed 12 days after the required deadline.The investigation suspected bias by child protection stakeholders in sexual assault cases. In one case, during a Child Protection Team meeting, participants reported to the state ombudsman that Social Services did not want to make a finding on two children who admitted sexual assault on a third child because they knew the families and were worried about the impact on the children’s lives. Other participants urged Social Services to make a sexual abuse finding to acknowledge the victim had been assaulted.Social Services’ “failure to substantiate a finding of sexual abuse means that none of the children involved will be required to receive treatment to address abuse that occurred,” investigators said. Social Services does not require a process for dealing with conflicts of interest; consequently, it has no record of demonstrated bias or conflict of interest.
The investigation found inadequate trauma-informed care for children and families. In an incident corroborated by case documents, an 8-year-old boy’s caregiver beat him with a belt, and the child reported the abuse at school. School employees observed bruises on the child and contacted Social Services, and the abuser admitted to causing the injury. But when the child missed school for not feeling well, the caseworker asked him if he knew what a “hypochondriac” was, then reported that the child was “manipulating the dynamics” to stay home from school.Local child protection stakeholders interviewed about the case told the ombudsman that the caseworker “minimized the child’s trauma when they assumed his actions – including his statement that he didn’t feel well – were deceitful.”
In a written response to the ombudsman, Montoya admits that mistakes were made but offers explanations, solutions and criticism of the investigation.
She states that previous reviews by Colorado Department of Human Services have been favorable and comparable to “similarly sized Social Services departments across the state.”
Countering the ombudsman’s claim that Social Services failed to protect children by removing them from their home and requiring treatment for their family, Montoya says her department is “legally mandated” to leave children in their home when possible. She also states that her department cannot mandate treatment for families without a court order.
“To ensure that children remain in their homes, (Social Services) provides day treatment, intensive family therapy, home-based therapy, family preservation services and case management,” Montoya states. The department contracts with the local Renew domestic violence shelter, Piñon Project family resource center and Recovery Center for substance abuse.
Montoya attributed some lapses in response times to a breakdown in communication or staff turnover. In some cases, a former employee led to the assumption that child abuse victims had been properly contacted when they hand not, and when the disparity was realized, law enforcement was contacted about the child. In another case, the child had been contacted, but it had not been documented because of staff turnover.
Montoya says improvements were made before the ombudsman’s report was released. For example, she says, a checklist with tasks and response times has been distributed to all caseworkers. Also, contacts must now be documented by the end of the week that they occur. A document-sharing process was implemented to provide the DA and law enforcement agencies information regarding child abuse allegations.
DA Furse said the exchange of information on child abuse cases has “vastly improved” since Montoya became director.
“Social Services investigates child abuse cases in tandem with law enforcement and the District Attorney,” he said.
Other monitoring programs and improvement plans include:
A Citizens Review Panel is in place, and Social Services’ grievance policy is posted on the county website.A conflict of interest policy is in the county handbook, and Social Services has arranged additional staff training from Metro State University.Social Services launched an annual meet-and-greet with collaborators in fall 2018 to help collaborators learn about the various resources and to further discuss ways to improve services and communication. This fall, the broader community will be invited.
A Citizens Review Panel is in place, and Social Services’ grievance policy is posted on the county website.A conflict of interest policy is in the county handbook, and Social Services has arranged additional staff training from Metro State University.Social Services launched an annual meet-and-greet with collaborators in fall 2018 to help collaborators learn about the various resources and to further discuss ways to improve services and communication. This fall, the broader community will be invited.Former Social Services Director Story said he was aware of the investigation but not the details.
During his tenure, he said, caseworkers focused on meeting with families. State requirements made their job more challenging, he said.
“The job became more and more data entry, data control and reports,” Story said. “It became more difficult to do the job of helping families when you had to tend to the computer so much.”
Story confirmed that main goals of staff are to keep families together, address problems and promote safety and health. Therapy and training for family members is available from many community sources, not just Social Services, he said.
jmimiaga@the-journal.com
State recommendations for improving child welfare
The following are six recommendations by Colorado’s Child Protection Ombudsman after a nine-month investigation that revealed violations of state law and regulations at Montezuma County Social Services.
1.
The Colorado Department of Human Services, which oversees county Social Services, should conduct an on-site audit of Montezuma County child welfare cases. The audit should include face-to-face interviews with child victims in a timely manner. The audit should assess the implementation of correct response time frames for reports of child abuse and neglect. The audit should be used to identify trends in the system that need improvement, and improvement plans should be developed. The findings should be submitted to CPO.
2.
The CDHS should provide the MCDSS technical assistance in developing protocols and ensure the MCDSS is in compliance with state laws and regulations which requires cross-reporting of child abuse allegations between county departments and local law enforcement agencies.
3.
The CDHS should provide technical assistance to MCDSS staff to ensure they can demonstrate a clear understanding of state regulations and requirements for:
a.
Initial response and assessment of reports of child abuse and neglect.
b.
Requirements for handling ongoing cases.
4.
The CDHS should ensure the Montezuma County Social Services is in compliance with state regulations outlining that county departments have a conflict resolution process. The CDHS should work with county Social Services to develop policies for ensuring the public is aware of the resolution process and their right to submit concerns about social service employees who handle child welfare cases.
5.
Montezuma County Social Services should expand its conflict of interest policy to incorporate the following elements:
a.
When to disclose prior or current personal relationships between MCDSS staff and individuals involved in child welfare cases.
b.
How to document reported conflicts of interest in all child welfare cases.
c.
Provide written guidance and training for employees regarding how to address conflicts of interest, including but not limited to, when an employee needs to be removed from a case.
The MCDSS should also make its conflict of interest policy available to the public.
6.
Montezuma County Social Services should evaluate its relationships with citizens and child protection stakeholders. To do this, the department should:
a.
Utilize an independent mediator to facilitate a meeting with citizens and child protection stakeholders that allows them to provide the department feedback regarding its practices and engagement with the community.
a.
This information should be compiled by the county Social Services and utilized to create a strategic plan to improve communication and transparency with the broader community. This plan should be made available to the public.
