But incomplete.
King 5's Susannah Frame tells us about the scandal.
KING 5 News has learned that a court has paved the way for a little boy to sue the state agency who was supposed to protect him.
Snohomish County Sheriff's deputies found 4-year-old Shayne Abegg starving to death in an Everett apartment in March. He weighed just 22 pounds, which is half of what a normal 4-year-old should weigh.
Today a Snohomish County Court Commissioner ruled that Shayne should have an attorney to pursue a lawsuit against the Department of Social and Health Services.
. . .
DSHS received four complaints that Shayne was being neglected, had bruises on his face, and appeared to be starving.In January of this year, two months before Shayne's rescue, a social worker visited the little boy and saw no problems.
But Frame does not go on to ask which elected officials are responsible for this DSHS failure. Unlike Ms. Frame, I am not a highly paid journalist, but I think she might get some answers to that question if she were ask these three elected officials some questions: Governor Christine Gregoire, Speaker Frank Chopp, and Majority Leader Lisa Brown.
And if Frame doesn't ask those three some questions about this case, perhaps another "mainstream" journalist will — unless protecting elected Democrats is more important to those journalists than protecting kids like this little boy.
Posted by Jim Miller at May 31, 2007 06:18 PM | Email ThisOr not.
Posted by: Voter on May 31, 2007 08:33 PMWhile offices full of Neros fiddle, little kids are abused.
No! It's NOT all good.
Posted by: Independent voter on May 31, 2007 09:08 PMBack when Eli Creekmore was having his head dunked in a toilet by his mother's "boyfriend", my husband was being taught in grad school that health professionals could get in REAL TROUBLE for not reporting suspected abuse. I read about little Eli and thought---SO, THEY WANT EVERYONE ELSE TO TAKE THE HEAT, BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR KIDS? AND IF THEY FAIL LIKE THIS, THEY DON'T WANT THEIR OWN HEADS TO ROLL? What utter nonsense and a disgrace that thinking is. I decided right then and there that DSHS stank big time. They can fail a kid and get away with it, but nobody else is supposed to. HUH????
Posted by: Michele on May 31, 2007 11:18 PMThe public does not expect perfection from a state agency. But it does expect accountability. What actions will be taken to ensure this doesn't happen again?
I mean, c'mon, four complaints that the child was being neglected, only one of which would have had to have been adequately investigated to discover the four year old child was 22 lbs!!!
I fear this suit will cost taxpayers possibly tens of millions in either a settlement or a verdict finding culpable neglect by DSHS. But it's clear that it's cost Shayne Abegg so much more. And that's the real tragedy.
If the Governor was truly exhibiting leadership, she would have already ordered an investigation into this back in March once the tragedy became known. But that didn't happen. Why?
Posted by: Donovan on May 31, 2007 11:45 PMOne one hand, DSHS has to deal with what is certainly a mountain of complaints against parents and guardians, some of which are valid and some of which are not -- and any time they fail to bat 1000 in sorting which is which, they've ruined someone's life. On the other hand, in cases like this one, we see incomprehensibly bad judgment from time to time.
I don't pretend to know enough about the inner workings of DSHS to prescribe a solution. But in one sense, in a partial answer to Bruce, I *do* think Republicans would do a better job of running DSHS. Republicans have their special interest groups that they're in bed with, just as do the Democrats. But the Dems are in bed with (and largely owned by) trial lawyers and public employee unions, both of which will block any real accountability among government employees. If an Air Force plane goes down because of a mechanical problem, or a Navy ship runs aground because of a navigation error, the squadron commander or ship's captain can pack his bags, because his career is pretty much over, and trial lawyers and public employee unions have zip-a-dee-doo-dah to say about it. So they tend to be pretty careful. Anyone think that kind of accountability is present at DSHS?
Posted by: TB on June 1, 2007 12:38 AM-loser pays tort system reform/legislation vastly expanding the contempt power of judges to include contempt for bringing frivolous law suits.
-abolish collective bargaining for state employees
Relief for court system overcrowding, reduce the number of attorneys by strangling off their revenue flow.
The vast bulk of private enterprise is union free; why not government?
Not happening here in the Soviet of Washington....
Posted by: Hank on June 1, 2007 05:42 AMI have never heard of a DSHS employee being fired for failing to do their job; a way to common problem. How many heads of CPS have been fired because a CPS employee failed to protect those in their charge? Not a one that I know of. How many DSHS employees were fired for their participation in the Wenatchee "child sex abuse" scandal where numerous people were sent to JAIL on trumted up charges and false testimony of the cops foster daughter.
Who at WSDOT took responsibility for squandering $162,000,000 on the Port Angeles dry dock fiasco? Which WSDOT manager was fired for killing a couple of people because they tested an ill maintained 520 bridge without first stopping traffic? Which WSDOT manager was fired for allowing the I-90 bridge to sink?
No one! Except for the poor sucker taxpayer.
However, the precedent on handling kids and the 'family' situation is what say we say, complicated. The decision to remove a kid is difficult and it comes with a court hearing- i.e. district court liberal judge. It is the judge who sets precedent.
And what parent isn't going to squawk to high heaven if you remove their kid? What parent doesn't think he/she is the cat's meow? What parent doesn't promise they are going to get off drugs? What parent isn't going to say they can and will be a good parent from now on?
And there is the courts and social workers who work with the disenfranchised (of their kids) parents. It is a tough burden.
We have had one of our kids kidnapped by a parent. We have had kids who were locked in bedrooms during the day and fed candy so they wouldn't cry during mommies sleepy time during the day. Those are no-brainers.
And so with my experiences on these no-brainers above, I still say the case is more complicated than what the 'newspaper' is quoting. If they investigate and the kid appears healthy, what is the State to do. They need 'proof'.
BTW, we ended up adopting two of our foster kids. What was supposed to be a two month deal and back to the parents after they completed a couple simple programs dragged on for two years before the State pulled the plug. Funny thing, too, the State wasn't sure the judge would go along with the recommendation for adoption.
Lots of things wrong with the system. Don't forget judges. Booth Gardner, who I vote for governor the first time he ran for office, was going to get DSHS under control and even he couldn't.
After all, many of you were quick to denounce Darcy Burner for running for Congress because she had a small child at home.
Posted by: ivan on June 1, 2007 08:10 AM
So what! Go home little kid we're not talking about Darcy Burner you nimrod. Come back when you can stay on topic. Maybe you should take your ritalin. Forgot today didn't you?
Posted by: REBEL on June 1, 2007 08:39 AMSo what! Go home little kid we're not talking about Darcy Burner you nimrod. Come back when you can stay on topic. Maybe you should take your ritalin. Forgot today didn't you?
Posted by: REBEL on June 1, 2007 08:39 AMIt is reasonable to propose that, in cases like this, DSHS should determine what if anything it can/should do to prevent similar problems in the future. But as swatter points out, DSHS cannot be expected to stop all evil.
Complaints against trial lawyers and unions are tired and silly. It's especially ironic just after you call for accountability -- that's precisely what trial lawyers provide, and what this story is about. And unions are legal under federal law; if there are aspects of union contracts that you don't like, propose renegotiating them.
Posted by: Bruce on June 1, 2007 08:50 AMThe mind set coming out of the '70s through the late '90s was that reunification with biological parents was the preeminent goal. So much so it became reunification at any cost. Until the '90s when the death toll mounted of children in DSHS car. The death toll and the Braame decision have begun the shift at DSHS.s
That mind set is slowly changing. However the entrenched upper management at DSHS is still in this policy. DSHS management is of the type where middle to upper management is all education, and management with little ground level experience, it's all theory driven.
There are many good in the field social workers. We got in involved in a program that focused on the best outcome for the child. This program was canceled for a number of reasons. Once again bureaucracy trumps results. The field workers burn out in fighting the system for the benefit of the children. The other class of social worker is those who have been absorbed by the collective just do the job, nothing more.
Besides the entrenched out of touch bureaucracy the other big problem is operational. DSHS got a huge boost in the budget on the order of 12% - 14% yet they are cutting services to the children and parents.
This matters because before you can permanently remove kids you've got to give the parents a chance, and prove they aren't changing. When you don't give them the services, usually court ordered the case gets hung up in the system Second actual service to the kids are being cut.
Dead and harmed kids are only the symptom of as seriously dysfunctional agency. And no one is willing to discuss remaking of DSHS.
Posted by: JCM on June 1, 2007 08:51 AMWhen I was younger, I used to coach basketball and also joined Big Brothers. I was scared then what people would say and would be deathly afraid if I did it now, but even more so if people can arbitrarily be picked up for looking like a criminal in their minds.
In my case, I would be afraid I would be picked up because I disagreed with the management in my city. They know it and don't like the criticism.
How about those Clinton foes who had suspicious IRS audits foisted on them?
We gotta watch government and giving it too much power. I agree with the tapping of phones for terrorist reasons, but just barely.
On the other hand, I want to add my disgust on my the "Village" that didn't take care of this kid. Luckily, it wasn't too late and hopefully he doesn't have brain damage.
Posted by: swatter on June 1, 2007 09:07 AMDSHS is a mess too.
How can democrats continue to talk about the things they do "for the children" - and as a better question how can the press let them get away with it - when is is so obvious that the democrats are screwing up childrens lives.
To me DSHS = IRS.
Posted by: John Bailo on June 1, 2007 09:36 AMAs a parent of adopted children, I had to go through quite a process to be able to adopt my children, if only every perspective parent had to do so before they could "have" children, we would probably be in a population crisis for lack of babies. But to even propose such an option is scary. We live in a free society, and for many of us conservatives, the freer the better, but that comes with many risks. I, for one, do not want a government deciding who can be a parent and who cannot, but when we begin to discuss these issues of abuse, DSHS, CPS, etc, that is exactly what we begin doing. True we are doing it on the back end, but it isn't stretch to have someone wonder if it would not be better to do it at the front end. After all, the intention is for the best.
The fact is, there is and always will be abuse of children. When we look at this little boy, we are naturally outraged. We SHOULD be. But our outrage needs to be first directed at the father (and the mother?) Shayne is the victim of a crime far more so than he is a victim of bureaucratic negligence. When we begin to assign responsibility to others for failing to take invasive action we open ourselves for greater government intrusion. If there is a fear of lawsuits and punitive action for failing to make the right call in interfering with a family, the obvious choice for the government is to strengthen their authority to intervene with less and less evidence. Is that what we want?
Are we conservatives now going to look to the government to "take care" of things? Do we want to give them the level of authority necessary to prevent all cases of abuse? Do we want them to decide at what level of "abuse" they can intercede and remove a child from the parents?
I am not saying that Shayne did not need some sort of legal remedy for his situation. Surely a 4 YO is not in a position to file a complaint on his own behalf, so someone would need to do it, but I wonder if a social worker is an appropriate agent to evaluate a situation when numerous complaints are lodged. Maybe there could be a better due process. Probably more expensive. But in some places it is good to spend money and so we might have to be willing to pony up to make a system that truly puts the welfare of the child first when his life is in danger.
I don't think a law suit against DSHS is significantly helpful since the perpetrator of the crime was the father. I do think that if people were negligent, they should be appropriately punished, and if the system is actually structured to allow abuse, it should be changed. If a court case was lodged to force an actual audit and review of the system, it would be much more productive than one that simply uses a monetary penalty for a blanket determination that DSHS could have done better.
Blech. I could have written this better, and there is so much more to say, but it's a start.
Posted by: Eyago on June 1, 2007 10:18 AM"The topic is kids."
As usual you don't get it. The topic is incompetence by people tasked to look out for kids. Jeez.
Posted by: REBEL on June 1, 2007 10:19 AMIt will be a cold day in hell indeed when the likes of you get to decide for me what I can say or not say.
Posted by: ivan on June 1, 2007 10:23 AMThis is the kind of thing we get when you have a massive welfare state managing people's lives. From "Click it or Ticket" - at Night to making sure you raise your children in the state approved and prescribed manner to an "education" that produces children that can't read or write, there isn't a crack or crevice of our lives they haven't poked their crummy little claws into. And by all measures people seem to went more government control instead of less.
I have yet to see any government agency or program that is run efficiently, properly or at some acceptable minimum of service. The only thing they manage to do is pay their people twice what the private sector does (true, not verbosity).
The simple fact is that government can't do everything. That has been proved so many times in the past you'd think it would be a forgone conclusion (must be that non-education at work). If we would expect less from government instead of more, the things that we did task it to do could be done better.
You are free to say whatever you want. On. Your. Own. Blog.
Start your own and YOU can decide what is on and off topic.
You are a guest on this blog and should respect decorum. And if it takes a cold day in hell for me to tell you that, then consider packing a parka.
Posted by: Eyago on June 1, 2007 10:32 AMLast I heard he's still working for them.
Posted by: Tyler on June 1, 2007 10:35 AMtwisted priorities in a liberal state. dosent DSHS have some type of whistleblower policy? if so, does it have any teeth? why not? i also like Eyago's idea of some type of (independent) case effectiveness or case success audits with REAL (firing) consequences for managers too, not just those on the front line. someone is signing off on all this.
and the alleged abuser parent(s)? no slack. EVER. no excuses for that. severe punishment.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on June 1, 2007 11:04 AMYou are living in your own little world with your fingers in your ears sayin g"blah blah blah...I can't hear you".
Here is an "actionable proposal"
#1: Fire the social worker that last saw the boy and said there was no problem. Clearly there WAS a problem.
Please tell us all why this should not be done and then I will give you more "actionable proposals:.
Posted by: pbj on June 1, 2007 11:05 AMAs for DSHS..on the other end of the spectrum, I know this guy who has an ex-wife who has accused him of molesting his daughter. There is no physical evidence (no injuries), and he's cooperated with the investigation from day 1. He even passed a lie detector test with flying colors. The mom, who has wanted to move out of state for a few years, has yet to take a lie detector test and has hit her daughter repeatedly with family around. Yet DSHS has not dropped the investigation and as a result, the court will not allow the father to see his daughter without an adult and DSHS charges $50/hour to supervise. Instead of doing what's right, they're doing what is in their own financial interests.
On one hand, they won't protect children when they get multiple valid complaints (like in this latest case)...but they'll go out of their way to make money off of fathers based on one obviously baseless complaint as long as there is money to be made.
Posted by: drw on June 1, 2007 11:09 AMStill using grade school level social skills I see.
Using periods as a means to emphasize text where tone of voice is absent is a literary convention and not a sign of illiteracy. Want to compare transcripts?
As far as decorum is concerned, I don't have to be an anybody to remind you of what it means to play nicely with others. You attempt to hijack a thread, which is reasonably understood to be bad form in the blogging world and then you throw insults at those who call you on it. If I understand it, your poor sandbox etiquette has gotten your messages expunged in the past, so I think the blog owner has had cause to enforce his rules with you. I guess that makes you somebody while this nobody hasn't even gotten a warning much less a reminder from some other nobody that I am out of line. I bow your your "somebody"ness.
Posted by: Eyago on June 1, 2007 11:50 AMThe stat you need is that 78% of all live-ins commit murder in order to accuse drw of being the exception.
Posted by: swatter on June 1, 2007 03:16 PMYou mean like FEMA?
Fire the social worker that last saw the boy and said there was no problem. Clearly there WAS a problem. Please tell us all why this should not be done
I don't know all the facts -- what the social worker saw or could reasonably have been expected to see or do based on that. DSHS should investigate this and then decide what actions are appropriate.
I would think that there's plenty of opportunity here to increase the number of field workers (who are always very over burdened) and pay for them through the streamlining (downsizing) of the too large contingent of bureaucrats performing administrivia functions.
Maybe yes, maybe no -- I have no idea. But it's so easy to attack management. Yet all organizations -- including the right-admired private sector that I've been in all my life -- have management. What DSHS management functions, exactly, should be discontinued? Or, if it's just a matter of incompetent managers, how should they hire more competent ones?
the click it or ticket law. It made me wonder how is it there's money to enforce that
Surely you realize that law is barely enforced, but having it on the books saves many, many lives and dollars. Are you saying we should only have laws that we enforce strictly?
78% of child murders in the home are at the hands of boyfriends who move in.
Anyone can misquote statistics, but you've got to be missing the common-sense gene to believe this whopper. About 30 seconds on Google showed me that this is total BS:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm03/figure4_2.htm
Indeed, in 2003, 78% of child murders were done by parents. The report doesn't say how many were by boyfriends, but I bet it's under 5%.
What state agency do you wor for Bruce? It is quite obvious from your defense of the idefensible that you are a government employee. Why don't you come clean with us?
What a silly analogy. The DSHS case involves a govt employee failing to realize that a private citizen was abusing a child in his home. In Abu Ghraib, many govt employees -- in prisons they ran -- deliberately abused people. Flushing the Quaran was the least of it, as you should know.
Posted by: Bruce on June 2, 2007 11:26 PMSo how does that make a non-abusive person the exception? These animals are the exception. Most men are not monsters...in fact, very few of us are.
Posted by: drw on June 4, 2007 10:42 AM