the Tragic CPS failing of Sirita Sotelo

Three weeks before she was born, Sirita1 Sotelo was the subject of a Child
Protective Services (CPS) referral, alleging prenatal substance abuse by her
mother. After she tested positive for cocaine at birth on February 12, 2000, CPS
filed for dependency and placed Sirita in foster care.
Over the next three years, the department made numerous attempts to reunite
Sirita with her mother. Services were provided to address the mother’s
substance abuse and mental health issues. Four times Sirita was placed with
her mother, only to again be removed due to allegations of abuse or neglect.
During this period, Sirita experienced seven different placement episodes,
alternating between foster care and placement with her mother. She spent over
25 months in foster care, in eight different foster homes,2 and 19 months placed
with her mother. Significant periods of placement with the mother lasted four
months, five months and ten months. While efforts were being made to reunite
Sirita with her mother, the child’s father, who was notified of the dependency
action, did not involve himself in the dependency process, or seek placement of
Sirita.
In May 2003, the department filed for termination of parental rights, based on the
length of time Sirita had been in state care, the failed reunification attempts with
the mother, and the father’s lack of participation in the dependency action or
reunification efforts. However, after learning that the department was seeking to
terminate parental rights, Sirita’s father stepped forward and requested that she
be placed with him and his wife. The department then conducted a home study,
and developed a service plan for the father, which included a drug/alcohol
assessment, parenting classes, weekly visits with Sirita and a psychological
evaluation. The father successfully completed these services, and in November
2003, Sirita was placed with her father, stepmother and their four children.
Over the following 12 months, the department continued to supervise Sirita’s
placement with her father and provide case management services. Monthly
visits to check on Sirita’s health and safety occurred in December 2003, January
2004, February 2004 and the last visit occurred in May 2004. Although
caseworkers identified a need for counseling, this service was not implemented.
In November 2004, the dependency was dismissed, as the father had
established a parenting plan gaining custody of Sirita.
On January 22, 2005, only two months after the dependency case was closed,
CPS received a referral from law enforcement reporting a suspicious death of
four year-old Sirita. The stepmother and another relative had been with Sirita the
night of her death and reportedly called poison control stating that Sirita had
gotten sick eating glue. Later that evening, the relative checked on Sirita andfound her dead, and then called 911. According to law enforcement, the child
appeared gaunt, malnourished and pale. Medical examiners later determined
she died as a result of blows to the head and body causing a fractured skull and
severed liver. The stepmother later stated that she couldn’t handle Sirita’s fits
and tantrums and admitted she threw her in a cold shower and beat her after the
child wet her pants.
The Office of the Family and Children’s Ombudsman conducted a case
investigation of the Division of Children and Family Services’ (DCFS)
involvement with Sirita and her parents. The Ombudsman reviewed all records
and reports from DCFS, treatment reports, professional evaluations, as well as
applicable Children’s Administration (CA) Policy and Procedure and state law.
The purpose of the Ombudsman’s investigation was to determine DCFS’
compliance with department policy and procedure, and state law, and to identify
changes in law, policy and procedure that will better protect children from abuse
and neglect.
The Ombudsman identified the following areas of concern:
• Lack of services provided to Sirita, her father and stepmother, following
her placement in their care.
• Delay in establishing permanency for Sirita.
• Frequency of health and safety checks did not comply with CA policy.
• The father’s and stepmother’s CPS referral history may not have been
fully considered prior to placing Sirita in their home.
• Although the father completed both a psychological evaluation and
drug/alcohol assessment prior to Sirita’s placement, there was no similar
evaluation of the stepmother.
Based on our review of this case, the Ombudsman developed several
recommendations aimed at: strengthening case supervision following a child’s
return to a parent’s care; assuring that appropriate services for successful
reunification are provided; and improving assessment of other adult care-givers
in the parent’s home. These areas of concern and recommendations are
discussed in greater detail below.
On pp. 6 and 9 of this report, as well as in the Chronology of Placement
Episodes and Significant Events at the end of the report, the Ombudsman refers
to and/or states that on November 12, 2003, DCFS conducted a Child Protection
Team (CPT) staffing. This conclusion was based on information then available to
the Ombudsman, including the CPT Case Presentation Summary dated
November 12, 2003. On February 7, 2006, the Ombudsman was informed by the
Department of Social and Health Services, Division of Children and Family
Services, that although the CPT was scheduled, the CPT did not occur prior to
Sirita Sotelo’s placement with her father or prior to dismissal of the dependency a
year later. Section 2562 of Children’s Administration Practices and Procedures
Guide then required a CPT “[i]n all cases prior to return home or dismissal of
dependency, when the child is age six or younger and any risk assessment has
resulted in a risk level of moderately high or high risk.” Sirita’s case was
assessed as high risk; she was 3 years old at the time of placement with her
father; and age 4 when the dependency was dismissed.