Discrimination Against CLCM Investigator

This office conducted an investigation of your allegations by reviewing the associated child welfare case file which includes histories of visits, legal documents and correspondence. Robert Byczkowski, Child Welfare Program Manager was also contacted for information and clarification. Additionally, the Citizens Review Board (CRB) which met on April 8, 2015 as well as safety plan documents and Letter of Expectation documents were reviewed.

Your client Sue is a Social Work Assistant. In your last session she disclosed that she is concerned that on a recent home visit, herself and a senior colleague did not follow the necessary policies and procedures. They had visited a family with a history of neglect and domestic violence and did not ask to see the child or enter the home, both these actions are prescribed as appropriate as part of their work.

RESOURCE UPDATE: Client continues to report last week she went to Center 37 and she was told that her Center is now 066. Client was upset that she was transfer to another shelter. As per the client she will lose her Linc V if she is transferred to Center 66. CM tries to explain to the client HRA transfer many clients because Center 37 is overcrowded. Client reported she requested for her case to be closed. Client continues to report she spoke with HRA Rep Ms. Perez who requested for the client to put her request in writing. Client stated she did put her request in writing to have her case closed from center 66. Then the client provided this worker with copy

A report was received on 06/05/2017 alleging that the mother (Hermionne) left Ashante (C-V 17) with a non-relative since 02/2017 without any legal rights. According to the report, the mother refuses to take her child back home and will not engage with Ms. Aarons (caretaker) to provide legal documentation for the child to be enroll in school and taken to a Primary Care Physician. Ashante has not been is school for the past 4 months and are unable to enroll in school without paperwork. According to the report, Ashante self mutilates her arms, and the mother refuses to get counseling. The report indicates Ashante was to follow-up with a Cardiologist for a chest pain and the mother refuses to take her to the doctor.

Contrary to the alleged, Dr. Brock refuted the claim, defending that he never established a doctor-patient relationship with Anita, which relieves him of liability. In order to validate his refute, Dr. Brock provided four factual elements that were supported by his counterparts; Dr. Whitfield and Dr. Ketcham. The four elements that were presented in the affidavit included: (1) That there has never been a doctor-patient relationship between Dr. Brock and Anita Oliver, (2) Dr. Brock has never seen or talked to Anita or Cathy Oliver, (3) Dr. Brock was not employed, engaged or requested to serve as a consultant to treat Anita, (4) and Dr. Brock was not employed or engaged to consult with doctors treating Anita, concerning complaints or medical problems. In order to support Dr. Brock’s refute, Dr. Whitfield and Dr. Ketcham provided affidavit’s as

On Tuesday July 7, 2015, at approximately 3:01 PM, Kiana Beekman, (MFCU Investigator) (Beekman) received a call on the state office telephone from HILL, Lucy (Service Facilitator of Lucy Hill Services (LHS). During the conversation, Beekman asked HILL to clarify her role and responsibilities as a service facilitator, in addition to the role and responsibilities of HARRIS, LaFrance as the Employer of Records (EOR) for Medicaid Recipient DANIEL, Rose and MCGHEE, Inocencia as DANIEL’s aide. She was also asked to provide any documentation of training on timesheet submission and approvals that she provided HARRIS and MCGHEE under the Department of Medicaid Services (DMAS) Consumer-Directed care aide program.

Iraida (PSA) received a call from Ileana who requested the HCSS to leave. As per Ileana, the HCSS had an attitude and they weren’t getting along. She requested the HCSS to leave her at her MD office and she’d be taken home by transportation. Ileana alleged the HCSS was talking badly about her to the MD office staff (HCSS denies this). Ileana was informed that we wouldn’t be able to leave her alone. SC was informed of situation and attempted to speak to Ileana over the phone. Ileana couldn’t speak since she was being seen by the MD. Aide was able to redirect Ileana and calm her down. She allowed the HCSS to accompany her back home. HCSS is refusing to return to the case.

On 07/14/2016, at approx. 1230 hours, I made contact with Jennifer Dombrosky (Najera) the mother of Nick Merva and Kevin Najera. She said her children did receive the court subpoena and were aware of the hearing. She indicated Kevin's condition has become worse since the incident and he has an uncontrollable studder and hand tremor due to the trauma. I said I would have the ADA contact her to discuss the case. I forwarded her phone number that she supplied to ADA Hoppes.

CPSW did a home visit to meet with Ms. Berner and to discuss about her safety plan since the children are moving with her on10/29/16 from the foster provider. Ms. Berner was late for her appointment and CPSW waited a 40 minutes for Ms. Berner. Ms. Berner apologized for being late. CPSW explained Ms. About safety plan. Ms. Berner understood and she signed them. Ms. Berner stated that she will be doing a house arrest for two weeks and the recommendation of her criminal court is to obey law and continue taking her medication on time and seeing her therapist. Also, cooperating with her PO and CPSW. CPSW consulted with the supervisor and she has approved both children to move back with Ms. Berner. Goal 1-2

In the case we are asked to look at with the two little girls, the office was alerted due to neglect and issues of locking the children away in order to not have contact with them and avoid physical discipline. Again having a large amount of experience with this personally I can speak on several different instances in which the agency needs to be involved. My middle son, again who is not my biological child, has 4, soon to be 6 other half siblings by his biological mother. None of which she has custody of. They have all been removed by CPS. In her case it was for the use of narcotics, in and around the children as well as during pregnancy with 4 of the 6 children she has. She is currently pregnant with number 5 and 6 of her living children though technically they are 9 and 10. She has previously had two singleton abortions and an abortion of a set of twin girls. She has had 4 other boys removed now, ages 5, 3, and a set of twin boys who are 18 months. CPS has already stated that the children she is pregnant with now will be removed as well upon their birth. So in a case such as hers, she was given a year to prove to the courts that she wanted to work towards keeping her twins, they set up visitation for her at the cps office, as well as classes for her to attend, weekly drug screens, parenting classes, and set financial goals she had to meet.

I called the constituent, she asked how can she file a grievance against a CW caseworker that is no longer working for the DHS. She said that Karl Kikman, who was the CW CPS caseworker had told her back in June, that if she cooperates with CW and let him get in her house, this CW case will have a UNFOUNDED disposition, but he lied, after she fully cooperated with him, the case has been coded as a FOUNDED.

Unfortunately, even though these individuals went through the proper channels and reported their suspicions to her father’s supervisor, CPS was never notified. One such instance involved a trip to the emergency room. Talia was taken to the emergency room, where a military doctor noted bruises and welts present and also was told by the child herself that her injuries were inflicted by her father. When the doctor confronted Talia’s father about it, he of course denied it. In the end, the doctor concluded the child must have made up her accusations.

Merriam Webster defines Affirmative Action as “the practice of improving the educational and job opportunities of members of groups that have not been treated fairly in the past because of their race, sex, etc.” Opinions on affirmative action in the United States vary greatly depending on who is asked. In a poll done by Pew Research in 2009, it was found that 59% of African Americans, 53% of Hispanics, and 22% of whites agree that minorities should get preferential treatment (Stewart). Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) called into question the application of the 14th amendment in rejecting Allan Bakke admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis.

Dorothy called again in December of 2016 stating that the abuse did not stop. Immediately I contacted Devrey Hachenberg, of NorthWest Senior and Disability Services APS and AFH Licensing Manager and a new investigation was opened. Devrey talked to Dorothy and suggested to find a new place and that

She wanted to file a formal complaint against a CW case worker who is her son's CW caseworker. The constituent stated that the caseworker does everything that the mother of the child (who is her grandson) and she believes that the CW caseworker is violating her and her son's civil rights. Her son's attorney had told her if her son wants to have her child back, they needs to gain the CW caseworker and make the CW caseworker her best friend.