Sound Politics: Another DSHS Failure?

June 26, 2007

Another DSHS Failure?

It certainly appears so.

It took 10 years for the state of Washington to decide Chornice Lewis was an unfit foster mother.

The price of official inertia was a young girl's vision.

Lewis, 33, is awaiting trial on two charges of assault, including torture. Her plea: not guilty.

The victim: her claimed cousin and foster daughter, now 16, who lived with Lewis for a decade in Tacoma and South King County.

State records show the girl was abused for years: beaten, burned, locked in a storage closet and a car trunk, and partially blinded with hypodermic needles.

Let me be clear. The villain, assuming these charges are true, is Chornice Lewis. But it is also true, assuming this story is generally correct, that Washington state officials should have rescued the victim years earlier.

And credit where due: The official who finally removed the girl from the home is social worker Heidi Canfield, who works for — DSHS.

Posted by Jim Miller at June 26, 2007 09:16 AM | Email This

Comments

1. You are right. We use agency, but DSHS and the judge require 3 month checkups on-site where they interview the child about things and report to the judge about status. Those are scheduled visits but there is no way the foster parents can control bruises, burns, etc..

I would say this is a failure.

Posted by: swatter on June 26, 2007 09:34 AM

2. DSHS is a seriously broken agency. And it's broke from the top down. Gregoire's and previously Locke's failure to demand reform at DSHS has given the entrenched bureaucracy the go ahead to continue as before. Meanwhile the budget goes up, and services to kids and parents are cut.

Posted by: JCM on June 26, 2007 10:13 AM

3. another DSHS failure. And everyone knew. This agency stinks. Gregoire, what say you?

Posted by: Michele on June 26, 2007 10:25 AM

4. #3 Michele,

Increase the budget by another 12% should solve the problem.

Posted by: JCM on June 26, 2007 10:43 AM

5. If you are willing to trust your personal responsibility to the government, or when you have no choice as in the case of a child, you just might be severely maimed or die. The government can't possibly do the right thing for everyone, and when we expect it to do so, there is always disastrous results. If this is what happened with child protective services, imagine how the government will botch something more routine as socialized health care. But wait, the evidence for that is already out there in the the British and Canadian systems.

There is no substitute for personal responsibility, a caring family unit and a for-profit system that recognizes the urgency of responding to customer needs.

Posted by: Jeff B. on June 26, 2007 11:45 AM

6. Can you imagine the howls from the left if it were a GOP governor?
To get a grasp of it, just recall how they squealed about Gitmo and the need to hang Rummy.
Gee, we have torture to children going on just shy of being endorsed by the agency and it's system.

Posted by: PC on June 26, 2007 12:55 PM

7. Two things struck me about this. The first was the case worker's bureaucratic attitude of "well, there wasn't a problem before, so there must not be one now". You would think when numerous neighbors are complaining, the cops are suspicious, and the teachers and counselors are not only fearful for her, but disputing the mother's claims that the kid is a lier and troublemaker, you probably shouldn't be so damned lazy and simply take the foster mother's word for it. Even taken at face value, the mother's story doesn't pass the sniff test. Thank God this kid got a new case worker, or she'd probably be dead right now.

The other thing that struck me was, why in the world was this woman being licensed by the state to be a foster mom in the first place, and being given custody of this girl based solely on her word the kid was her niece, without anything resembling proof? I mean really, this woman was 22 at the time, single, on welfare with three kids, and taking "care" of her disabled mom, and the state was giving her two or three foster kids at a time?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Posted by: Mike H. on June 26, 2007 01:26 PM

8. Blinded with hypodermic needles? What kind of a sadist is this foster mom? Sounds like Saddam Hussein.

Posted by: Peggy U on June 26, 2007 01:38 PM

9. These things are easily explainable if you look at the larger picture of the ideology that controls DSHS. It's leader, with her hyphenated last name, as well as Gregoire, are Gender Feminists. The belief that all ills in society are the result of "patriarchal control and oppression."

Most of the DSHS funds are committed to collecting child payments from fathers that have been kicked out of the lives of their children. This is doubly rewarding for DSHS, because they get a "reward" from the federal government for collecting these funds. And, of course, it fits with the overall ideology that men and fathers are bad.

So, in that context, it runs against the prevailing ideology to ever question a woman or a mother. Even though the majority of child abuse is committed by women.

You can't fix the problem until DSHS is cleaned of the gender feminist scream queens that run the place.

Posted by: BananaLand on June 26, 2007 02:41 PM

10. There will always be some who fall through the cracks and there will never be a way to make all caregivers responsible. The best way to ensure that the great majority of children can thrive and grow up is to nuture and support strong families. Government will never be able to do what a strong family support system can.

DSHS, like public schools has suffered through a couple of decades of "progressive" thought. It is going to be difficult to fix a seriously flawed system. Meanwhile, society has delinked, in my opinion, the responsiblity aspects of parenting. Back in the day, people use to get married and then have kids. Now, they hook-up producing children and they may or may not marry the sperm donor. The effect on kids has been devasting. Yes, I know that there are some abusive marriages, but by and large, committed partners are better for raising kids.

Posted by: WVH on June 26, 2007 02:54 PM

11. Follow the money. If it was not profitable for DSHS to take the child, then that is why they were there. If the ability to adopt them out, or get IV-D funds from teh Feds was not there - that is why nothing was done.

DSHS is a money making machine for the State of WAshington. Nothing will be done to change them as long as that is the case.

Look at DCS alone - they have contracts with the Prosecutors to prosecute for them. THey have contracts with the sheriffs offices to handle civil subpoena's for them, and they have contracts with the Commissioners to hold priority hearings for them for a fee. Sample signed contracts can be seen at http://washingtonsharedparenting.com/?p=203

In 2004, DCS received $94 million from the feds under Title IV-D for the collection of child support. Yet, not one single charge was filed against a parent that kept the kids from seeing the other parent - why!? Simple - they don't get paid to do that. So much for equal protection laws in this state.

Ride the gravy train of DSHS!

Posted by: jojo on June 26, 2007 10:59 PM

12. jojo:

In so many things, it usually is follow the money. Also, track where the education funding money goes in the future. The per pupil expenditure increases, but are not necessarily comparable increases in student achievement in terms of the average student increasing their basic skills. I think you may be on to something.

Posted by: WVH on June 27, 2007 12:14 AM

13. Yep, this is what we get from BIG Government.

So what do YOU say CATO...?

Posted by: ArmyMedic/Vet on June 27, 2007 06:43 AM