Child Death Lawsuit Against Child Protective Services Demands Transparency
It’s pretty self-explanatory when it comes to what we expect from Child Protective Services (CPS).
Though while we expect the agency to provide a safety net for children in less-than-ideal conditions to land on, sometimes there are children who fall through the holes.
As reported by Channel 8 News Now, there are a combined 51 cases in Nevada regarding children who have died or nearly died in 2017 and 2018 after their contact and oversight by child welfare agencies, thus leaving them open to personal injury lawsuits of a wrongful death and others.
One case regards a 13-year-old boy who died after being taken out of the care of his mother and placed in the care of his father, who was already on probation for felony child abuse.
The home itself was that of a 1-bedroom apartment with the child’s father, his wife, and 11 other children. And as a means of punishment, the father would have the child stand against the wall with his hands up while the children beat him with whatever they chose.
Once the child’s death had been discovered, the father was accused of murder (scheduled to go to trial in January 2020,) but where does that leave the system that placed him there?
In order to prove a wrongful death claim, one must prove one of many acts of negligence or maliciousness.
The aspect of maliciousness could be attributed to his father by means of murder (if proven), but attorney Marjorie Hauf, who is representing the mother of the child in their lawsuit, believes CPS didn’t do a background check on the father before the placement nor did CPS agents check up on the child afterward, such would prove negligence.
The case becomes even more complicated as the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB,) which audits state agencies, performed their own investigation and found that that there were no system failures on the account of CPS in the overall 51 cases, leaving Hauf blown away.
The LCB audit document, which is composed of only 3 pages and reveals little on the individual cases, also has Hauf under the impression that the child’s case wasn’t included in the review.
Regardless of the result of LCB’s audit, it doesn’t change the fact that a child was placed in the care of a man that was already under probation for child abuse, a distinction which should have already made him unqualified to take him in.
Nonetheless, if LCB and CPS are sticking with their stories, perhaps there’s information that’s yet to come to light, or the two have committed other acts of wrongdoing that if proven, can contribute to the case.