BRIAN E. CLAYPOOL, (SBN 134674) 1 NATHALIE VALLEJOS (SBN 324721) THE CLAYPOOL LAW FIRM 2 4 East Holly Street, Suite 201 Pasadena, California 91103 3 Telephone: (626) 345-5480 4 Attorney for Plaintiffs 5 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 6 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES—CENTRAL DISTRICT 7 8 Victor Avalos, an individual; A.G., a minor Case No. 9 Garcia; R.O., a minor through his guardian COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES through his Guardian ad Litem, Carlos ad litem, Maria Barron; D.O., a minor 1. Wrongful Death (CCP §377.60) ad litem, Maria Barron; D.L., a minor 2. Negligence sounding in wrongful death 10 through her guardian ad litem, Maria 11 Barron; B.L., a minor through her guardian 12 through his guardian ad litem, Maria Barron; N.L., a minor through his guardian 13 ad litem, Maria Barron; Estate of Anthony Avalos, through special administrator 14 David Barron, Plaintiffs, 15 16 17 vs. County of Los Angeles, a public entity; 18 Hathaway-Sycamores Child and Family 19 20 21 22 23 24 Services, a private non-profit, public benefit 501c(3) corporation; Mark Millman, an individual; Anna Sciortino, an individual; Shane Bulkley, an individual; Ikea Vernon, an individual; Mishi Wasse, an individual; Gabriela Robles, an individual; Michelle Thomas, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive. Defendants. 3. Gross Negligence sounding in wrongful death 4. Negligent Supervision sounding in wrongful death 5. Negligent Hiring and Retention sounding in wrongful death 6. Violation of Civil Rights (CCP §52.1) sounding in wrongful death 7. Negligence (Mandatory Duty) 8. Gross Negligence 9. Negligent Supervision 10. Negligent Hiring and Retention 11. Violation of Civil Rights (CCP §52.1) 12. Survival Action (CCP 377.34) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT I. 1 INTRODUCTION 2 3 Ten-year-old Anthony Avalos was allegedly murdered on June 21, 2018 by 4 his mother Heather Barron and her boyfriend Kareem Leiva. In addition to Anthony, 5 his six half siblings also lived in the home with Barron and Leiva. Anthony’s death 6 occurred after years of reports of abuse were made to the Los Angeles County 7 Department of Children and Family Services. Barron has been charged with murder, 8 child abuse resulting in death, and torture while Leiva has been charged with 9 murder, torture, and assault on a child causing death. 10 Plaintiff Victor Avalos brings this action under the provisions of California 11 Code of Civil Procedure §377.60. 12 13 14 VENUE AND JURISDICATION II. 1. Venue is proper in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the 15 County of Los Angeles, Central District, in that the underlying wrongdoing, acts, 16 omissions, injuries, and related facts and circumstances upon which the present 17 actions is based occurred in the City of Lancaster, County of Los Angeles, 18 California, within the judicial boundaries of the Central District of this Superior 19 Court. This Superior Court has jurisdiction over the present matter because, as 20 described herein, the nature of the claims and amounts in controversy meet the 21 requirements for unlimited damages jurisdiction. 2. Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies by duly and 22 23 properly filing proper notices of claim pursuant to the Government Claims Act 24 (California Government Code Section 911.2 etc. et. seq.). Defendant County of Los 25 Angeles has notified Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs’ claims were received and under 26 investigation. No further response has been given to Plaintiffs following the 45-day 27 statutory notification period. 28 COMPLAINT -2- 1 2 III. PARTIES 3. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Victor Avalos was an individual residing in 3 Mexico and the biological father of decedent Anthony Avalos. 4 4. At all relevant times, minor Plaintiff A.G. was a minor child residing in the 5 County of Los Angeles, State of California. Carlos Garcia is A.G.’s biological 6 father, and is A.G.’s guardian ad litem for purposes of this lawsuit. 7 5. At all relevant times, minor Plaintiff R.O. was a minor child residing in the 8 County of Los Angeles, State of California. Maria Barron is R.O.’s aunt, and is 9 R.O.’s guardian ad litem for purposes of this lawsuit. 10 6. At all relevant times, minor Plaintiff D.O. was a minor child residing in the 11 County of Los Angeles, State of California. Maria Barron is D.O.’s aunt, and is 12 D.O.’s guardian ad litem for purposes of this lawsuit. 13 7. At all relevant times, minor Plaintiff B.L. was a minor child residing in the 14 County of Los Angeles, State of California. Maria Barron is B.L.’s aunt, and is 15 B.L.’s guardian ad litem for purposes of this lawsuit. 16 8. At all relevant times, minor Plaintiff D.L. was a minor child residing in the 17 County of Los Angeles, State of California. Maria Barron is D.L.’s aunt, and is 18 D.L.’s guardian ad litem for purposes of this lawsuit. 19 9. At all relevant times, minor Plaintiff N.L. was a minor child residing in the 20 County of Los Angeles, State of California. Maria Barron is N.L.’s aunt, and is 21 N.L.’s guardian ad litem for purposes of this lawsuit. 22 10. At all relevant times, decedent Anthony Avalos was a minor child 23 residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. The Estate of Anthony 24 Avalos was created by the probate court in the Central District and the Hon. Paul T. 25 Suzuki ordered that David Barron, the uncle of Anthony Avalos, be appointed 26 special administrator of the Estate of Anthony Avalos. 27 28 COMPLAINT -3- 1 11. At all relevant times, Defendant County of Los Angeles, (“County”) is a 2 public entity organized, existing, and conducting business under the laws of the 3 County of Los Angeles and the State of California. County is the employer and 4 principal of all individuals employed by Los Angeles County Department of 5 Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) that came into contact with decedent 6 Avalos and minor plaintiffs. The instant case demonstrates the custom and practice 7 of deliberate indifference towards children by the agency. 8 12. At all relevant times, Defendant Hathaway-Sycamores Child and Family 9 Services (“Hathaway”) was a private non-profit, public benefit 501c(3) corporation 10 which operates and manages its business locations from its headquarters in 11 Pasadena, CA, County of Los Angeles and the State of California. Hathaway is the 12 employer of all individuals employed by Hathaway that came into contact with 13 decedent Avalos and minor plaintiffs. 13. At all relevant times, Mark Millman (“Millman”) is a social worker 14 15 employed by the Los Angeles County DCFS. He is sued in his individual capacity. 14. At all relevant times, Anna Sciortino (“Sciortino”) is a social worker 16 17 employed by the Los Angeles County DCFS. She is sued in her individual capacity. 15. At all relevant times, Shane Bulkley (“Bulkley”) is a social worker 18 19 employed by the Los Angeles County DCFS. He is sued in his individual capacity. 16. At all relevant times, Ikea Vernon (“Vernon”) is a social worker 20 21 employed by the Los Angeles County DCFS. She is sued in her individual capacity. 17. At all relevant times, Mishi Wasse (“Wasse”) is a social worker employed 22 23 by the Los Angeles County DCFS. She is sued in her individual capacity. 18. At all relevant times, Gabriela Robles (“Robles”) is a social worker 24 25 employed by the Los Angeles County DCFS. She is sued in her individual capacity. 26 19. At all relevant times, Michelle Thomas (“Thomas”) is a social worker 27 employed by the Los Angeles County DCFS. She is sued in her individual capacity. 28 COMPLAINT -4- 1 20. Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are the agent, employee, 2 supervisor, employer, servant, principal, partner, joint-venturer or co-conspirator of 3 County, and each was at all times alleged herein acting within the course and scope 4 of his or her employment and with the express authority, ratification, knowledge and 5 consent of his or her employer and/or supervisor. County and DOES 1 through 50 6 were in some way responsible for the harm that was sustained by decedent and 7 Plaintiffs as alleged herein and/or cooperated and/or facilitated or contributed to the 8 harm suffered by Plaintiff as alleged herein. County and DOES 1 through 50 also 9 knew and/or should have known and/or were put on notice of the actions of each 10 and every other Defendant listed as DOES 1 through 50 which caused harm either 11 directly or indirectly to each of the Plaintiffs as herein alleged and failed/refused to 12 take act action to prevent the harm alleged herein from occurring. 21. DOES 1 through 25 are employees/agents of, or consultants to County, 13 14 working at all relevant times under the direction, supervision, and control of County. 15 Defendants DOES 26 through 50 are employees/agents of County working at all 16 relevant times under the direction, supervision, and control of County in managerial, 17 supervisory capacities. 18 22. Defendants DOES 51 through 100, inclusive, are the agent, employee, 19 supervisor, employer, servant, principal, partner, joint-venturer or co-conspirator of 20 Hathaway, and each was at all times alleged herein acting within the course and 21 scope of his or her employment and with the express authority, ratification, 22 knowledge and consent of his or her employer and/or supervisor. Hathaway and 23 DOES 51 through 100 were in some way responsible for the harm that was 24 sustained by decedent and Plaintiffs as alleged herein and/or cooperated and/or 25 facilitated or contributed to the harm suffered by Plaintiffs as alleged herein. 26 Hathaway and DOES 51 through 100 also knew and/or should have known and/or 27 were put on notice of the actions of each and every other Defendant listed as DOES 28 COMPLAINT -5- 1 51 through 100 which caused harm either directly or indirectly to each of the 2 Plaintiffs as herein alleged and failed/refused to take action to prevent the harm 3 alleged herein from occurring. 23. DOES 51 through 66 are employees/agents of, or consultants to Hathaway 4 5 working at all relevant times under the direction, supervision, and control of 6 Hathaway. DOES 67 through 100 are employees/ agents of Hathaway working at all 7 relevant times under the direction, supervision, and control of Hathaway in 8 managerial, supervisory capacities. 9 10 IV. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 24. Decedent Anthony Avalos was the child of Heather Barron and Victor 11 Avalos. At the time of his death he lived with his six half siblings, mother Barron 12 and Barron’s boyfriend, Leiva. His half siblings are A.G. (GAL Carlos Garcia), 13 D.O. and R.O. (GAL Maria Barron), and N.L., B.L., and D.L. (father Kareem 14 Leiva). At the time of Anthony’s death, the only father who had given up his 15 parental rights over his children was the father of D.O. and R.O. 16 25. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services 17 (“DCFS”) is a child welfare agency that is required by state law to investigate 18 allegations of abuse and neglect. Beginning in February 2013, DCFS received the 19 first call reporting allegations of abuse involving Anthony Avalos. From February 20 2013 until the time of his death on June 21, 2018, there were at least 13 reports of 21 abuse and neglect involving Anthony and his half siblings. As will be detailed 22 below, several of these allegations were deemed substantiated. The instant case 23 demonstrates the custom and practice of deliberate indifference towards children by 24 the agency. The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act includes California Penal 25 Code 11165.9. Section 11165.9. DCFS, and by extension the County, owed a 26 statutory duty pursuant to California to receive all reports of reported child abuse 27 and to report substantiated allegations of abuse to the Department of Justice. 28 COMPLAINT -6- 1 26. Hathaway-Sycamores Child and Family Services (Hathaway) is a private 2 social services agency that provides social services to at risk families through its 3 contract with DCFS. Hathaway provided in home services for Barron, Anthony, and 4 one of his half siblings beginning in February 2015, which lasted six to nine months. 5 Counselor Barbara Dixon (“Dixon”), an employee of Hathaway, was assigned to 6 work with Anthony and the family. Barbara Dixon was also the counselor assigned 7 to Gabriel Fernandez, another young boy that was killed by his mother and her 8 boyfriend in 2013. At a preliminary hearing in the Gabriel Fernandez case, Dixon 9 testified after she was granted immunity. At the hearing, Dixon admitted to not 10 disclosing the abuse of Gabriel Fernandez to DCFS at the direction of her 11 supervisor. Q: So one of those requirements was that when you observed injuries, you were 12 to call the DCFS hotline; is that correct? 13 A: I was to discuss it with my supervisor. Q: You believed that your duties as a mandated reporter were to discuss it with 14 your supervisor? 15 A: Correct. Q: Not to call 911 or the DCFS hotline? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: And was that your custom and practice while working at Hathaway Sycamore? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: So whenever you observed injuries on a case that you - - whenever you observed injuries on a child abuse case you were servicing, you would first 20 discuss with your supervisor whether this was something that needed to be 21 reported to the DCFS hotline? A: Correct. 22 Q: So if your supervisor said, ‘Ms. Dixon, don’t report these injuries to the 23 hotline,’ you follow that directive? A: Correct. 24 Plaintiffs believe that Dixon also failed to report signs of abuse of Anthony in the 25 instant matter. Hathaway’s actions in the Fernandez case and its aftermath placed 26 Anthony directly in harm’s way. Hathaway continued to use Dixon and assigned her 27 to be Anthony’s therapist. Hathaway should have immediately removed Dixon after 28 COMPLAINT -7- 1 Gabriel Fernandez was murdered and conducted an audit of all the cases she had 2 been assigned to in order to see if there were other occasions where she failed to 3 report suspected child abuse. Hathaway has implemented a policy that violated 4 California mandated reporter laws. The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act 5 includes California Penal Code 11165.9. Section 11165.9. Hathaway owed a 6 statutory duty pursuant to California to receive all reports of reported child abuse 7 and to report substantiated allegations of abuse to the Department of Justice. 27. Unfortunately, the 2013 torture and murder of Gabriel Fernandez was not 8 9 the first or the last taking place by a child in the DCFS system. In particular, the 10 Lancater/Palmdale DCFS office has a custom and practice of egregious behavior 11 that has led to the murders of several children. In 2013, there was Gabriel Fernandez 12 who was tortured and murdered by his mother and her boyfriend following countless 13 red flags of physical and sexual abuse that DCFS social workers knowingly failed to 14 properly respond to, leaving Gabriel in the home with his abusers. Gabriel’s mother 15 and boyfriend were convicted of first-degree murder. In addition to the conviction of 16 Gabriel’s mother and her boyfriend, three DCFS employees are being criminally 17 prosecuted stemming from Gabriel’s death. In 2018, Anthony Avalos was also 18 tortured and murdered by his mother and her boyfriend following 13 referrals to 19 DCFS and countless red flags. Most recently, on July 5, 2019, 4 year-old Noah 20 Cuatro died after multiple red flags of physical and sexual abuse that had been 21 substantiated by DCFS. A social worker even filed a petition to remove Noah from 22 his parents’ home, which was granted. However, following the judge’s granting of 23 the petition of removal, no DCFS employee actually removed the child from the 24 home for months, leaving him in what was known to be a dangerous home to die. 25 28. Following the death of Gabriel Fernandez and other child fatalities, the 26 Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors created the Blue Ribbon on Child 27 Protection and charged it with reviewing child protection failures. The Commission 28 COMPLAINT -8- 1 published a report on April 18, 2014 date that stated, “The Commission 2 unanimously concluded that a State of Emergency exists, which requires a 3 fundamental transformation of the current child protection system.” The 4 Commission gave a plethora of recommendations to institute a complete systematic 5 change to child protection services. Despite this, change did not come to the 6 children that found themselves in the system. 7 29. Subsequent to the Blue Ribbon Commission Report there have been other 8 child fatalities, including that of Anthony Avalos and Noah Cuatro, all from the 9 same Lancaster DCFS office. After Anthony’s death an audit was conducted of the 10 handling of his case and child protection services in Los Angeles County. The 4311 page audit report found systematic failures in how Anthony’s case was handled and 12 within DCFS. Among the action needed to work on these systematic failures was the 13 training of social workers in various areas, including on how to interview children. 14 DCFS employees have not been trained on how to effectively interview young 15 children. 16 30. Anthony’s death was not unexpected, neither was the abuse faced by his 17 half siblings. DCFS records show that DCFS was complicit in the abuse and neglect 18 of Anthony and his half siblings, and ultimately in Anthony’s death. The records 19 show that DCFS failed to properly investigate claims of physical and sexual abuse, 20 including, but not limited to their interviews, failure to review DCFS history, failure 21 to coordinate with law enforcement, violating their own policies, failing to complete 22 Structured Decision Making Tool timely and truthfully, and failing to adjudicate 23 despite the presence of exigency and imminent danger to Anthony and his half 24 siblings. It should further be noted, that each referral led to a new social worker 25 being assigned to the family and each failed in the duty of care owed to Anthony 26 and his half siblings. In particular, there is a recording of a call reporting abuse 27 where the social worker is actually laughing at the allegations of abuse. This 28 COMPLAINT -9- 1 nonchalant attitude by the recipient of the report shows the complete disregard 2 DCFS employees had for the safety of the children they were employed to protect. It 3 further shows the lack of training and supervision that existed within an agency 4 where an employee can laugh off a report alleging abuse of a child and consequently 5 not accept it. 31. From 2013 to Anthony’s death in 2018 there were at least 13 credible 6 7 reports to DCFS from Anthony and his half siblings, family members, law 8 enforcement, school administrators, a teacher, and a counselor who reported that 9 Anthony and his six half siblings were denied food and water, beaten, sexually 10 abused, dangled upside-down from a staircase, forced to crouch for hours while 11 holding heavy objects, locked in small spaces with no access to the bathroom, 12 forced to fight each other, and forced to eat from the trash. Despite these continued 13 allegations of abuse, and some being found substantiated, DCFS continued to leave 14 the children in Barron’s and Leiva’s care, exposing Anthony and his half siblings to 15 continued torture and abuse. Below is a timeline of the all the referrals made to 16 DCFS and details of each: 17 18 19 20 Timeline of Referrals of Abuse a. February 28, 2013 and March 4, 2013 February 28, 2013 and then March 4, 2013, it was reported that Anthony’s 21 maternal step-grandfather had sexually abused him. The adequate allegation was 22 substantiated, yet Anthony was never provided counseling or therapy to cope with 23 the trauma and Barron was not disciplined for failing to safeguard Anthony. 24 Barron admitted to the DCFS social worker that Anthony had been acting 25 strangely for months, including urinating on his younger sister. For months Barron 26 observed Anthony’s odd behavior and did not question it – allowing the sexual 27 predator continuous access to him, despite his documented sexual predator history. 28 COMPLAINT -10- 1 Barron failed to act and protect Anthony. However, despite this, DCFS failed to add 2 an allegation of general neglect (WIC 300b) against Barron and failed to investigate 3 her failure to protect Anthony and his half siblings despite overwhelming evidence 4 that Barron was committing ongoing child abuse by not protecting Anthony from 5 further sexual abuse. Furthermore, there was no safety plan put in place to ensure 6 the children’s safety and the supervision of the children to prevent sibling-to-sibling 7 abuse. DCFS failed to provide counseling for Anthony for the sexual abuse and to 8 Barron to teach her coping mechanisms for the strange behavior Anthony was 9 exhibiting. Furthermore, DCFS failed to review Barron’s history, which would have 10 shown her own reports of physical abuse against her stepfather while a minor, the 11 same stepdad who anally penetrated Anthony. The fact that Barron was also abused 12 by her stepfather but had no problem with exposing her children to him and 13 allowing her children to spend weekends alone with the sexual predator grandfather 14 underscores her maligned parenting skills and her patent willful disregard for the 15 safety or well-being of her children. Despite this clear need for intervention, DCFS 16 did nothing. 17 18 b. April 29, 2014 Allegations were reported against Barron of physical and emotional abuse and 19 neglect as it pertains to Anthony and three of his half siblings. The reports of general 20 neglect were substantiated while allegations of physical abuse were wrongfully 21 found to be inconclusive and emotional abuse unfounded. The report entailed Barron hitting the children with objects, such as hoses, 22 23 yelling at them, and locking them in their room for hours. When the social worker 24 visited the home, Anthony and one of his half siblings disclosed that Barron hit 25 them hard with belts. 26 During the social worker’s visit regarding this referral, Barron admitted to 27 28 COMPLAINT -11- 1 spanking the children. The social worker did not pose any follow up questions. She 2 should have asked Barron if she left marks or bruises on the kids when she spanked 3 them and whether she used any other objects to inflict corporal punishment. Barron 4 also admitted that following the 2013 sexual abuse of Anthony by his step5 grandfather, the Special Victim’s Unit referred them to counseling, but she stopped 6 attending because the therapist was more interested in her than Anthony. Again, the 7 social worker did not conduct follow up questions to see what Barron meant by this. 8 The social worker failed to properly investigate the allegations of abuse and 9 neglect reported by the caller and by the children. She took Barron’s comments at 10 face value and conducted no follow-up inquiry. The social worker ignored red flags 11 that showed Barron was not capable of protecting or caring for her children – 1) 12 corporal punishment she inflicted (as reported by relatives and the children), and 2) 13 that a therapist was questioning her actions so Barron stopped taking Anthony to his 14 much needed therapy sessions. On many occasions, DCFS should have 15 “permanently” removed Anthony and his half-siblings from the home. This referral led to the disclosure that Anthony was touching his sister’s 16 17 private parts, something Barron was already aware of and admitted to. Despite 18 knowledge of this abuse, Barron continued to allow Anthony to share a room and 19 bed with his sister and other half siblings and did not supervise them. DCFS 20 employees knew this and did nothing. A safety plan was created to protect the 21 children. It required that Anthony not sleep in the same room as his half-siblings and 22 that he not be left alone with them. It was decided that Anthony would stay with his 23 aunt Maria Barron until it was safe for him to return. During visits by a second 24 social worker on May 9, 2014 and May 21, 2014, sleeping arrangements were not 25 discussed, and the children were not interviewed in violation of multiple mandatory 26 duty requirements. There is no note in the documents as to what was considered 27 when deciding to return Anthony to the home. DCFS should have never returned 28 COMPLAINT -12- 1 Anthony to the home. However, there was no change in sleeping arrangement as 2 required by the safety plan and no further inquiry into this. 3 These allegations led to a Voluntary Maintenance Plan to be opened from 4 May 20, 2014 to December 4, 2014 that required DCFS to monitor the family more 5 closely and provide resources and services. 6 On June 18, 2014 and July 28, 2014, social worker Millman who was the 7 assigned voluntary family maintenance social worker designated to work with the 8 family visited the home. He failed to interview the children, despite having access, 9 in violation of Department of Social Services mandatory duty requirements. 10 11 c. October 9, 2014 Allegations of physical and emotional abuse and neglect were made against 12 Barron pertaining to Anthony and five of his half siblings. The allegation of general 13 neglect was substantiated while the emotional abuse allegation regarding Anthony 14 and the emotional abuse allegation pertaining to the half siblings was wrongfully 15 inconclusive. The physical abuse allegations were deemed wrongfully inconclusive 16 as to Anthony and unfounded as to his five half siblings. 17 The reporting parties, which included service providers that were mandated 18 reporters, indicated that Barron “curses a great deal and should try to use kinder 19 forms of communication with her children.” Among the statements heard by the 20 reporting party were, “He’s a little shit, he’s a little punk,” “Shut up or I’ll have to 21 put your ass on timeout,” and “Shut up Marie, you’re faking it, you’re making 22 yourself cry. I don’t even feel pity for you, you’re annoying. The reporting party 23 went so far as to tell DCFS that Barron had “nothing but anger toward the children,” 24 and that Barron had no affection towards the children and was “completely 25 detached,” inflicting a lot of verbal and emotional abuse against the children. 26 Two social workers visited the family on October 9, 2014. One was the social 27 28 COMPLAINT -13- 1 worker that was given the referral and the other was Millman, who was the 2 voluntary family maintenance social worker for the family. Both knew of the 3 allegations of neglect and physical and emotional abuse and willfully failed to 4 protect Anthony and his half-siblings by permanently removing them from the 5 home. 6 Millman did not assess the family for emotional abuse, which includes 7 cursing at a child or calling them a bad word as Barron did. Millman was complicit 8 in the ongoing emotional abuse of Anthony and his half siblings by knowingly 9 allowing the verbal abuse to continue and failing to report it. Furthermore, he failed 10 to ensure the safety of the children when he had reports of abuse from mandated 11 reporters. Millman’s inaction and failure to intervene, sent the message to the 12 children that they could not trust social workers to protect them, giving the children 13 no hope that the torture and abuse they were suffering could be stopped by anyone. 14 When the second social worker arrived, Barron was resistant to let the 15 children be interviewed and refused to do so. Instead of forcing Barron to allow her 16 access to the children, the social worker went along with Barron and allowed Barron 17 to call the shots as to how the investigation into the allegations of abuse would be 18 investigated. Instead of demanding access to the children, the social worker 19 scheduled a planned visit with Barron, giving her time to potentially intimidate and 20 coach the children. This violated proper DSS mandatory duty requirements since the 21 visit should have been unannounced. 22 The social worker returned on the next day. When speaking to Barron, the 23 mother admitted to cussing at her children, hitting them with a belt, spanking her 24 children, and putting hot sauce in their mouth if they talk back or say a bad word 25 (which undoubtedly they learned from her given the numerous reports of her 26 swearing at the children). DCFS social workers should have permanently removed 27 all the children after this chocking physical abuse witnessed by social workers. 28 COMPLAINT -14- 1 Rather than being appalled by this or finding that Barron had abused the children, 2 the social worker advised Barron that if her actions caused marks or bruises on the 3 children it would be inappropriate. In fact, leaving a mark or bruise on a child is 4 illegal not just inappropriate. This is just another example of the complete 5 incompetence and deliberate indifference that the social workers exhibited toward 6 the children. 7 Barron refused to allow the children to be interviewed unless she was allowed 8 in each interview. Again, the social worker acquiesced this demand, allowing 9 Barron to direct the way the investigation into this referral was conducted, in 10 violation of DSS mandatory duty requirements. The social worker acted in violation 11 of DCFS policy and ignored the parental influence on a child’s interview, especially 12 when abuse is involved. Child R.O. reported that his mother spanked him and put 13 hot sauce in his mouth, however, when the social worker asked if he was scared of 14 Barron (in her presence), he stated no. What can be expected of a child that has 15 already been abused and ignored by DCFS? Moreover, it is foolish to think any 16 victim of abuse, particularly a young child, will admit to being scared of the alleged 17 abuser, when the abuser is their mother and the child is in the mother’s presence. In 18 Anthony’s interview, the social worker only asked about the sexual abuse by his 19 step-grandfather, which Barron did not allow him to respond to. The social worker’s 20 failure to competently interview Anthony and to allow Barron’s influence and 21 interruption are a clear example of the social worker’s deliberate indifference 22 toward the children. 23 Following her interview of the children, on October 14, 2014, the social 24 worker finally spoke with the reporting party who stated that she called the hotline 25 to report the abuse because when she contacted social worker Millman, he “seemed 26 to blow it all off like there was not a problem and that he had not even had the 27 mother taking parenting class or anything.” The reporting party stressed her 28 COMPLAINT -15- 1 concerns for the children’s safety. Instead of taking the report from a mandated 2 reporter seriously, the social worker then called Millman who said he had no 3 concerns for the children and that even though Barron did “cuss and yell” at the 4 children that was just because she was overwhelmed by having so many children 5 under the age of seven and that Barron was doing the best she could. It is egregious 6 that Millman would minimize Barron’s conduct and make excuses for her when 7 even he had seen the verbal/emotional abuse. Millman’s standard of Barron doing 8 “the best she could” is not the standard to be used by DCFS and does not protect 9 children. Ultimately the deliberate indifference of Millman and other social workers 10 resulted in Barron continuing to the “the best she could” by torturing and killing 11 Anthony. 12 13 d. November 5, 2014 A reporting party, designated as being a mandated reporter on the referral 14 form, alleged a child in the home was the victim of abuse and that the siblings were 15 at risk. DCFS wrongfully deemed this report “no disposition” for the allegations in 16 this referral, which indicates that the referral was evaluated out or downgraded 17 despite it being an immediate response. 18 The mandated reporter stated that while visiting the home, she heard one of 19 the children say, “She’s bad because she whips our ass.” The reporter further stated 20 that Barron “continues to get frustrated easily and hits the children as a form of 21 discipline.” Barron even threated the children in front of the reporter saying, “Don’t 22 think, because she is here, I won’t whip your ass.” 23 There was no disposition for the allegations in this referral, which indicates 24 that the referral was evaluated out or downgraded despite it being an immediate 25 response. DCFS again failed to follow their own policies in regards to investigation. 26 The mandated reporter stated that while visiting the home, she heard one of 27 the children say, “She’s bad because she whips our ass.” The reporter further stated 28 COMPLAINT -16- 1 that Barron “continues to get frustrated easily and hits the children as a form of 2 discipline.” Barron even threated the children in front of the reporter saying, “Don’t 3 think, because she is here, I won’t whip your ass.” 4 Here, DCFS again deliberately ignored red flags and signs of child abuse. A 5 mandated reporter alleged Barron was being abusive to the children and DCFS 6 chose not to investigate, in violation of mandatory duty requirements. DCFS’s 7 decision to do nothing, not even investigate the allegations of child abuse and the 8 threat by Barron to whip her child shows a willful disregard for the children’s well9 being and safety. Even a few days letter when a DCFS learned that Barron failed to 10 make the children available for any of their scheduled therapy sessions, DCFS chose 11 to do nothing which facilitated Barron and Leiva’s ongoing pattern of abuse, torture, 12 and death. 13 14 e. April 24, 2015 A member of law enforcement reported to DCFS that allegations of physical 15 abuse and that the siblings were at risk against Barron. The allegations were 16 wrongfully deemed unfounded and inconclusive. 17 A.G. was taken to the police station after observing the child had injuries on 18 his body when he picked him up for his weekly visit – an old bruise, a visible red 19 hue to the back of the ear, and slight abrasion to the back of the neck. When Carlos 20 Garcia, A.G.’s father asked what happened, A.G. said, “mom did this to me.” When 21 law enforcement tried to ask further questions, A.G. shut down. This was another 22 red flag for DCFS as shutting down when asked of abuse is likely the result of 23 intimidation, threats, and fear. 24 Social worker Anna Sciortino visited Barron’s home in response to the 25 referral. When she arrived, Barron was waiting on the porch. Barron refused to 26 allow the social worker to enter the home and refused to allow the children to be 27 interviewed. Furthermore, Barron knew the social worker would be coming and was 28 COMPLAINT -17- 1 prepared with what she alleged was a note from A.G.’s daycare provider regarding 2 A.G.’s injuries. The social worker did not insist and left the home. Again, here is 3 another social worker that allows Barron to dictate how the investigation will be 4 conducted in deliberate disregard for the well being of the children. 5 The referral was an “Immediate Response” referral that required the social 6 worker see and speak to all the children. Despite this, the social worker left without 7 doing either, in direct violation of DSS mandatory duty requirements. The social 8 worker should have been on high alert given the urgency of the referral, Barron’s 9 refusal to let her in the home or speak to the children, and Barron being prepared 10 with an alleged note from the daycare provider regarding A.G.’s injuries. These 11 constitute more red flags about Barron and her abuse of the children that DCFS 12 deliberately ignored. At this time, the social worker should have obtained a warrant 13 to secure seeing the children immediately. However, instead of following DSS and 14 DCFS policy and ensuring the immediate safety of the children, the social worker 15 called Barron and scheduled a visit for April 27, three days after the date of an 16 “Immediate Response” referral that required immediate action. Again, Barron is 17 dictating how DCFS conducts its investigations, allowing her to coach the children 18 prior to DCFS’s scheduled visit. DCFS was aiding and abetting Barron in the 19 ongoing child abuse and ordained her a social worker by allowing Barron to define 20 the parameters of DCFS investigations. 21 Furthermore, the social worker was also negligent in her initial response to 22 the referral by arriving alone to the Barron home. An “Immediate Response” referral 23 requires the social worker to take law enforcement with them to conduct the 24 investigation. This referral demonstrates the deliberate indifference of yet another 25 DCFS social worker that failed to protect the children from Barron and continued to 26 expose them to her abuse. 27 28 COMPLAINT -18- 1 Social worker Sciortino made her announced and scheduled home visit on 2 April 27, 2015. Sciortino informed Barron that she would need to conduct a criminal 3 background check for every adult living in the home, this was to include Kareem 4 Leiva. However, Barron said Leiva did not live at the home and Sciortino 5 erroneously made no further inquiry. Sciortino should have known Barron was lying 6 given that Anthony had disclosed to her that Leiva lived at the home, and the fact 7 that Barron and Leiva had a child together in the home. 8 Sciortino then offered Barron services which Barron declined citing that the 9 children still received therapy twice a week from the voluntary family maintenance 10 case. This was false since the VFM case and associated services are reported in 11 DCFS records to have stopped on December 4, 2014. However, despite this being 12 documented, Sciortino was so grossly neglectful that she believed Barron and made 13 no further inquiry or follow-up. 14 Sciortino interviewed A.G. during her April 27 visit. When she interviewed 15 A.G., she observed the injuries that made up the allegations of physical abuse 16 against Barron and asked A.G. how he got his “oweies.” A.G. replied, “Daddy hurt 17 me.” A.G.’s disclosure of abuse to Sciortinio should have been grounds alone for 18 permanent removal of the child, yet another example of a DCFS social worker’s 19 deliberate indifference. A.G. contradicted his initial disclosure regarding the abuse 20 where he stated that Barron had caused the injuries. It should be noted that Sciortino 21 conducted the interview in front of Barron, who was able to intimidate and scare 22 A.G. into changing his initial disclosure. Barron’s presence during the interview 23 violated DCFS policies. 24 DCFS records show that Sciortino made no face-to-face visits in May. This is 25 in violation of DCFS policies that require children in an open DCFS case to be seen 26 face-to-face at a minimum once a month. Sciortino prepared the Structured Decision 27 Making Assessment (“SDM”) on June 4, 2015 having only visited the family in 28 COMPLAINT -19- 1 April 2015, which is out of compliance with DCFS policy. In the SDM, Sciortino 2 inaccurately scored the family on questions, even shockingly and falsely reporting 3 that Barron had “strong skills” when it came to parenting. It was deliberate 4 indifference of Sciortino to report Barron had a strong parenting skills given the 5 number of allegations of neglect and physical and emotional abuse against her. 6 Sciortino’s inaccurate reporting on the SDM led to the closure of the 7 referral/investigation and DCFS’s failure to investigate. 8 9 f. April 27, 2015 Barron made allegations of emotional abuse and general neglect against 10 A.G.’s father following an altercation when they were exchanging A.G. in which 11 Garcia threw a show at Barron and the children witnessed it. Only an allegation of 12 general neglect was found substantiated. 13 The documentation for the referral shows no investigation being conducted by 14 Bulkley, or the April 24 referral social worker, Sciortino. While there is no 15 documentation of Bulkley conducting an investigation, he prepared the referral’s 16 disposition, erroneously recommending the referral be closed although the risk 17 assessments on the “Screener’s Narrative” shows that her family is at a “HIGH risk 18 of abuse or neglect,” based on 1) the number of children involved, 2) the current 19 allegations, 3) the number of previous referrals/cases, and 4) the mother’s past 20 criminal history. It is shocking and aghast to see a social worker show deliberate 21 indifference by closing a case when the family is assessed as being at a high risk of 22 abuse or neglect. This evil conduct was nothing short of criminal and willful 23 disregard. All the children should have been removed from the home. 24 DCFS’s conduct in reference to this referral shows multiple levels of 25 negligence and deliberate indifference. First, Bulkley relied on “the children are 26 currently involved in a VFM case and getting services.” This is inaccurate as the 27 voluntary family maintenance case with social worker Millman was from May 20, 28 COMPLAINT -20- 1 2014 to December 2, 2014. There was no VFM case at the time of this referral, and 2 none had existed for more than four months. Next, Bulkley deems the allegations 3 inconclusive because the children are already in an open case, but there was no 4 evidence of an open case. Then, like Millman, Bulkley makes excuses for Barron 5 stating that she has her hands full with five children under the age of seven. If this is 6 the standard for effective parenting endorsed by DCFS social workers, more 7 children will end up dead in the coming years. 8 9 g. June 12, 2015 There was an “Immediate Response” referral with allegations of physical 10 abuse against Barron as a result of her bringing A.G. to the Lancaster DCFS office 11 for a visit with Garcia with a visible bruise to his forehead, a scrape to his chin, and 12 a bruise to his upper forearm. Barron claimed A.G. received the injuries from falling 13 in the shower. The allegations in this referral were all wrongfully deemed to be 14 unfounded. 15 A social worker was the reporting party in this referral after observing that 16 A.G. had a visible bruise to his forehead, a scrape on his chin, and a bruise to his 17 upper forearm. At the time this referral was made, there were already seven prior 18 referrals and an open referral from April 24, 2015, more than enough to have all the 19 children permanently removed from the home. 20 Sciortino was given this referral. Barron stated that A.G. had fallen in the 21 shower. When Sciortino interviewed A.G. on June 12 about his injuries, the child 22 stated that A.G. had not been with him in a week making it impossible that the 23 injuries were from falling in the shower at his house. Sciortino confirmed that she 24 was aware A.G. had not been in Garcia’s home in a week. However, there is no 25 evidence that she made a further inquiry with Barron despite her categorical lie to 26 DCFS. 27 28 COMPLAINT -21- 1 Sciortino ordered a forensic exam of A.G., but a HUB employee stated the 2 doctor said there was no need for a forensic exam. It was negligent and deliberate 3 willful disregard that Sciortino did not talk to the doctor personally to share her 4 additional knowledge of the case. Best practice would have been to speak with the 5 doctor and convey the differing injuries of the injury because her telling of the 6 events would have influenced the doctor’s decision that the injuries could have 7 occurred or could not have occurred as stated by Barron. 8 9 10 h. September 18, 2015 First Referral There was a referral with allegations of physical child abuse against Barron. 11 The reporting party was an employee at Lincoln Elementary School to whom 12 Anthony confided in. Anthony told the reporting party that he moved to his aunt’s 13 home because his mom was hitting him and his siblings, locking them in their room 14 for hours as punishment, would have Anthony and in his siblings do the “Captain’s 15 Chair” which consisted of squatting against the wall for long periods of time, and hit 16 them with a ping pong paddle in the mouth, butt, and hands. These allegations were 17 all shockingly and wrongfully deemed inconclusive. 18 An employee at Lincoln Elementary School to whom Anthony confided in 19 reported that Anthony told the reporting party that he moved to his aunt’s home 20 because his mom was hitting him and his siblings, locking them in their room for 21 hours as punishment, would have Anthony and in his siblings do the “Captain’s 22 Chair” which consisted of squatting against the wall for long periods of time, and hit 23 them with a ping pong paddle in the mouth, butt, and hands. Despite this report 24 being made on September 18, social worker Ikea Vernon did not make initial 25 contact with the family until September 21, in violation of DSS mandatory duty 26 requirements. 27 During Vernon’s face to face visit with Barron, the children’s uncle David 28 COMPLAINT -22- 1 Barron and aunt Maria Barron, the mother Barron reported that the children had 2 been with her brother’s family since September 17 because the children disclosed to 3 David abuse by Leiva and law enforcement said for the children to stay with David. 4 Interestingly enough, despite the countless allegations of child abuse made against 5 Barron and Leiva prior to this referral, not once had DCFS removed the children 6 from the home. It had to be a relative to step in and try to stop the children’s 7 exposure to the abuse. 8 Furthermore, despite this referral relating to allegations of physical abuse and 9 general neglect, there is no documentation that Vernon created a safety plan for the 10 children to remain with the aunt and uncle while the investigation was ongoing. In 11 fact, there is no mention of a safety plan or course of action throughout the 12 investigation, in violation of DD mandatory reporting requirements. 13 When David and Maria Barron, the children’s aunt and uncle went to the 14 Lancaster DCFS office and asked Vernon about the status of the investigation, 15 Vernon refused to give them any information and told them the investigation was 16 confidential and they would need to get information from Barron, the accused 17 abuser. Vernon failed to engage the aunt and uncle who were helping to keep the 18 children safe while she conducted her investigation, and incorrectly told them she 19 could not advise them as to the status of the investigation. Vernon and other social 20 workers had a pattern of siding with Barron in these referrals, making excuses for 21 her and failing to implement DCFS policies for the safety of the children, and 22 disregarding the individuals like David and Maria that were actively trying to 23 protect the children from further abuse. 24 Vernon’s Interview with Barron 25 Regarding the allegations of abuse, Barron told Vernon, “I always asked them 26 [the children] if they felt like they are being hurt by Kareem and they would say, 27 ‘No.’” This is not a typical question for a parent to ask their children unless there is 28 COMPLAINT -23- 1 a suspicion of mistreatment, and social worker Vernon did not pick up on this red 2 flag, and consequently making no further investigation. Despite the children making 3 allegations of abuse against Leiva, Vernon made no contact with him and took 4 Barron’s denial of abuse as truth. 5 There were also allegations of general neglect surrounding the children being 6 locked in their bedrooms, their basic needs not being met, and Barron’s mental 7 health. While Barron told Vernon she never locks the children in their room, Vernon 8 did observe that the door to the children’s room had a lock on the outside of the 9 door. Despite seeing this, Vernon failed to question this, did not document if she 10 looked inside the room to see if that side had a lock, and did not question Barron 11 about the safety concerns associated with having a lock on the outside of the door. 12 Vernon’s Interview with David Barron 13 David Barron reported that Barron’s children told him and his wife Maria that 14 Barron will lock them in their rooms for hours at a time, where they urinate and 15 defecate on themselves and the floor. Standing alone, this willful neglect report was 16 enough to remove all the children from the house of horrors. 17 In regards to the children’s allegations of food deprivation, David stated that 18 the children said they are not given food and that one sibling is forced to eat 19 partially frozen burritos. The child himself also reported this to Vernon. David 20 further stated that he helps Barron by giving her food sometimes for the children. 21 Vernon made no further inquiry into how often David gave the family food or why 22 this was necessary. 23 David also reported to DCFS that sometimes the children do not bathe for 24 weeks and that they have arrived at his home with dried feces in their pants. Vernon 25 failed to ask any follow-up questions. 26 David further reported to Vernon that in the past, he and his wife had to raise 27 Anthony and his half siblings because Barron was partying, using 28 COMPLAINT -24- 1 methamphetamine, and saying she was suicidal. Despite these serious allegations of 2 potential mental instability, Vernon failed to address this topic further with David 3 and Barron, and failed to drug test Barron. This exemplifies the gross incompetence 4 and deliberate indifference of DCFS and this social worker. Allegations that a 5 mother is on drugs and suicidal directly effect the safety of the children in the home 6 and should have been immediately addressed by Vernon, instead the allegations 7 were not addressed at all. 8 Children’s Reports of Abuse and Neglect to Social Worker Vernon While 9 Staying with David and Maria Barron 10 When interviewing the children, Vernon minimizes and discounts their 11 disclosures of abuse. When one of Anthony’s younger brothers reported, “Kareem 12 slams me on (redacted).” While Vernon observed this child had a small bruise on his 13 right cheek her report states that she could not be sure the bruise was caused by 14 abuse and that she did not get a meaningful statement from this child. Apparently 15 reports of physical abuse do not equate to meaningful statements. This child also 16 reported not bathing regularly, which Vernon did not inquire about, in violation of 17 DSS mandatory duty requirements. 18 Another of Anthony’s brothers disclosed, “Kareem hits me, Anthony,” and 19 other siblings. Further reporting, “Kareem hung me upside down on the floor and hit 20 my head.” He said, “My mom spanks me on the butt with a belt.” He said, “Kareem 21 spanks me everywhere, he puts me in my room and makes me be on trouble; he 22 hurts me on my head, cheek, and butt.” These shocking disclosures alone should 23 have warranted permanent removal of all of the children. 24 Anthony’s younger sister reported, “Kareem hits (redacted) and bangs his 25 head on the wall.” She further reported, “Kareem wil place (redacted) arms across 26 his chest and try to choke him,” and that Leiva hangs one of her brothers over the 27 stairs by his legs, gives her and another siblings “Indian burns,” and that Leiva will 28 COMPLAINT -25- 1 kick one of the brothers in the leg really hard. This child told Vernon that she 2 wanted to live with her aunt and uncle because her mother Barron, “Hits us,” and 3 had hit her on the, “butt with a belt, her hand, or hard sandals or shoes.” This little 4 girl then showed Vernon a small mark on her right calf stating that it was from one 5 Halloween when Barron was curling her hair and, “burned her with the curling iron, 6 because ‘I kept moving and she said stop.” In her report, Vernon minimizes this 7 injury saying it had healed and was very small. Vernon made no further inquiry into 8 the allegations of abuse or the child’s desire to live with her aunt and uncle. This 9 child also disclosed that Barron locks them in their room, locking the door from the 10 outside. She also reported not being given food and getting in trouble when she tried 11 to sneak food because she was hungry by being forced to “scrub the walls until the 12 night time.” 13 Anthony reported when he was with his uncle and aunt, “I’m never ever 14 going to see Heather again, she locks us up in our rooms and makes us starving.” He 15 then stated Barron, “switches the locks and the lock is on the outside of my room.” 16 At least two of his half siblings confirmed this and a service provider confirmed 17 seeing a lock on the boys’ door. Anthony further reported “We don’t have enough 18 food sometimes or he [Leiva] doesn’t let me eat.” Anthony further reported that he 19 “is not able to bathe all the time.” Vernon made no further inquiry. When a sibling 20 of Anthony reported that he was only able to take cold baths, Vernon also made no 21 further inquiry. Vernon’s failures to investigate exhibits the highest level of willful 22 disregard and deliberate indifference toward those helpless children and borders on 23 criminal. 24 Vernon’s Failure to Assess if there were Signs of Abuse 25 At no time in her report, did Vernon describe what clothing the children were 26 wearing, only stating they were “appropriately dressed.” This raises the question of 27 how much of the children’s bodies were exposed for Vernon to be able to assess 28 COMPLAINT -26- 1 whether there were injuries and signs of abuse. The LA County DCFS Child 2 Welfare Policy Manual requires that when conducting a visual exam of a child for 3 suspected injuries, the social worker must determine If there is cause to believe that 4 physical harm has occurred based on the nature of the allegation, the age of the 5 child, and the results of her interview with the child and/or parent/guardian. Here, 6 the referral was for physical abuse, the interviews of David and Maria, and all the 7 children gave cause to believe physical harm had occurred while in Barron’s home. 8 However, Vernon did not arrange the children’s clothes and did not request a Public 9 Health Nurse to assess the children for signs of abuse as required due to Anthony 10 and his brothers being of the opposite sex and above the age of three. 11 Given the significant disclosures of abuse by Anthony and his siblings, the 12 best practice would have been to have the children forensically interviewed and 13 forensically examined by a Forensic Pediatrician. Vernon failed to do both. 14 Vernon’s Interview with Social Worker Wasse 15 At the time of this referral, there was an open family maintenance case for 16 one of Anthony’s brothers and social worker Mishi Wasse was the assigned social 17 worker. DCFS failed the children by customarily assigning different social workers 18 for each new allegation of abuse! Wasse told Vernon she had no concerns for the 19 children in Barron’s home. However, she then relays disclosures of abuse made by 20 Anthony’s brother against Leiva – that Leiva farts in his face, slams him against the 21 wall, and hits his head on the wall. Wasse’s incompetence and deliberate 22 indifference is shown by her not deeming these serious reports of abuse as being “of 23 concern.” Furthermore, Wasse and Vernon show complete incompetence and willful 24 disregard as neither one created a new referral for these allegations of physical 25 absue and as such no investigation was conducted. 26 Vernon’s Interview with Service Providers 27 Vernon failed to inquire about the frequency of their contact with the 28 COMPLAINT -27- 1 family and obtain dates of their home visits. When the service providers said 2 they were working with Barron on how she disciplined the children, Vernon made 3 no further inquiry as to why the service providers felt this was needed or how 4 Barron disciplined the children. 5 Interaction between Social Worker Vernon While Staying with Mother 6 Heather Barron 7 On September 25, 2015, Barron called Vernon because the children’s school 8 would not release the children to her since school personnel had spoken with David 9 and Maria Barron. Vernon, instead of being concerned for the well-being of the 10 children, went to the school to see why the children were being withheld from 11 Barron. Despite there allegedly being a verbal agreement that the children would 12 remain with the aunt and uncle until September 25, Barron said she got the children 13 on September 24. Vernon had no idea. Furthermore, there is no documentation that 14 the return of the children to Barron had been discussed or safety measures put in 15 place and she had no contact with the second alleged abuser, Leiva, prior to Barron 16 taking the children. Vernon re-interviewed the children. 17 Vernon’s Visit Following the Children’s Return to Barron’s Home 18 The children returned to Barron’s home on September 24, 2015, Vernon did 19 not visit the children at the home to ensure their safety until October 29, 2015. She 20 then returned on November 20, but left when she received a work call and did not 21 return until November 23. Again, no meaningful investigation occurred on theses 22 visits, in direct violation of mandatory. 23 Even when Vernon was informed on October 5, 2015 that Anthony had a 24 fractured foot and that Barron did not plan to take him to the hospital because 25 Barron said it was “not bad and was not broken” Vernon made no visit, no 26 investigation on how Anthony fractured his leg, or created a new referral for 27 potential physical abuse. Vernon did tell Barron to take Anthony to the hospital and 28 COMPLAINT -28- 1 provide her with a copy of the after visit summary, however, Barron did not 2 provided this documentation and Vernon conducted no follow-up to ensure Anthony 3 had been seen by a doctor. 4 5 Vernon’s Preparation of Documents Late Vernon created the initial Safety Assessment on November 17, 2015, when 6 pursuant to DSS policy, it should have been created on September 22, 2015. 7 Furthermore, Vernon reported on the assessment that the children were safe despite 8 all the reports of abuse she received directly from the children, underscoring her 9 deliberate indifference toward the children. 10 The SDM Risk Assessment was also prepared late with Vernon creating it on 11 December 8, 2015 when DCFS guidelines required it to be prepared on November 12 23, 2015. 13 14 Vernon’s Choice to Protect the Mother Instead of the Children According to the risk assessment, the final risk level of abuse and neglect was 15 high, and the recommended decision was to promote the referral to a case. However, 16 Vernon did not follow the recommendation writing, “Mother demonstrates a 17 protective capacity over the children and provides for their basic needs. SW did not 18 observe marks or bruises indicative of abuse or neglect and children recanted their 19 statements reporting that they were coached by the maternal uncle and aunt.” 20 Vernon’s decision to protect Barron by siding with her shows her complete 21 lack of training, inability to property assess a situation, failure to conduct a proper 22 investigation, and so many acts of gross negligence and deliberate disregard toward 23 the children. Vernon should have had a forensic interview conducted of each of the 24 children, but did no further investigation – believing the mother’s denials of abuse 25 and the convenient excuse that the aunt and uncle who were trying to help coached 26 the children. 27 28 COMPLAINT -29- 1 Second Referral 2 Deputy Gelado of the Lancaster Sheriff’s Station called in allegations of 3 physical abuse and neglect against Barron and Leiva. This referral was opened at the 4 same time as the first, but was assigned to social worker Gabriela Robles. Deputy 5 Gelado reported to DCFS that after interviewing the children, law enforcement 6 decided to have them stay with the aunt, and the mother agreed. Deputy Gelado 7 relayed to DCFS all the acts of abuse the children disclosed to law enforcement, 8 which were consistent with the reports of abuse later made by the children to social 9 worker Vernon. 10 Social worker Robles did not follow DSS and DCFS policies and attempted 11 contact on two occasions by herself. Ultimately, she never spoke with anyone 12 involved in this referral. She failed to review her assigned referral (going to 13 Barron’s house instead of David and Maria’s). Deputy Gelado’s allegations were 14 wrongfully deemed unfounded. 15 16 i. September 19, 2015 Reporting party alleged physical abuse and that the siblings were at risk of 17 abuse against Leiva because he was a member of the MS-13 gang and had been 18 abusing Anthony and his half-brothers. DCFS wrongfully made no disposition. 19 An uncle of Anthony and his half siblings made reports of abuse consisted 20 with the report the children had made to social worker Vernon on September 21, 21 2015 as well as adding new allegations – Leiva slammed the boys on the floor, 22 kicked Anthony in the stomach, threw dirty diapers at the children, locked them in 23 their bedrooms, and doesn’t give them food. The uncle further reported that Barron 24 cut her wrists five days prior and sent him pictures of it saying she hates her life and 25 wants to die. 26 Despite all these significant reports that placed the children’s safety and well- 27 being into question, DCFS exhibited willful disregard by choosing to incorrectly 28 COMPLAINT -30- 1 evaluate the referral out. This means that there was no investigation into this report 2 of abuse or of Barron trying to commit suicide. DCFS’s own policy required this 3 referral be treated as a new referral and be investigated as such. 4 DCFS failed to follow their own policies and left the children in a dangerous 5 environment when they should have all been permanently removed from the home. 6 7 j. April 28, 2016 An Immediate Response referral was created alleging general neglect against 8 Barron and physical abuse, emotional abuse, and sibling at risk against Leiva when 9 all the children were observed with bruises on their faces. The allegation against 10 Barron was shockingly and wrongfully deemed unfounded and the rest inconclusive. 11 The referral included reports that Leiva made the children fight each other, 12 children are placed in time out for very long period of time, food is withheld, 13 children dig food out of the trash, and that Leiva mistreats all the children but his 14 biological ones. 15 The first social worker assigned could not make contact with the family. The 16 second social worker was Michelle Thomas who went to Barron’s home on April 29 17 without law enforcement in violation of DCFS policy. 18 Thomas believed Barron’s report that she had not seen Leiva since January. 19 When asked about her mental health, Barron denies that she is suicidal, but does 20 state she does not attend therapy. Thomas did not check the mother’s wrist for 21 evidence of the alleged cutting and did not make her submit to a drug test. 22 When interviewing the children, Thomas used a template as shown in the 23 verbal child interviews all reading the same. The children, not surprisingly, all 24 denied that there was any abuse or neglect in the home. Anthony even went so far as 25 to deny ever knowing Leiva. This should have raised a huge red flag with Thomas 26 that the kids were lying, had she reviewed their prior referrals, because in April 27 2015, Anthony reported that Leiva sometimes lived with them. It is obvious that 28 COMPLAINT -31- 1 Anthony knows who Leiva is, but they have been intimidated, coached by Barron, 2 and were in fear of further abuse. Moreover, one of Anthony’s younger brother gave 3 Thomas the same account as Barron about how they all received bruises on their 4 faces – they were fighting each other. However, he also admitted that Leiva was 5 present when the children were fighting which directly contradicts Barron’s 6 statement to Thomas that she had not seen Leiva since January. When Thomas 7 checks in with family maintenance social worker Wasse about the family, Wasse 8 tells Thomas that she believes Leiva is hanging around the house. Furthermore both 9 Wasse and Vernon, the social worker that investigated the April 2015 referral, both 10 told Thomas that the children knew who Leiva was. Despite the significant 11 contradiction, Wasse’s own belief that Leiva was present in the home, and Wasse’s 12 and Vernon’s reports that the children knew who Leiva was, Thomas conducted no 13 further inquiry into this or made any attempt to contact Leiva, in direct violation of 14 DSS and DCFS guidelines and policies. In fact, Thomas recommended that the case 15 be closed, despite the issues surrounding Leiva and the fact that the SDM Risk 16 Assessment indicated the children were at “high risk for abuse and neglect in the 17 home with a recommendation to promote.” 18 19 k. November 2017 Another report of abuse was filed in November 2017 and wrongfully deemed 20 inconclusive. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 l. June 20, 2018 Anthony and his half-siblings were was tortured and abused for years as evidenced by the above referrals. The torture and abuse escalated in the days prior to his death, presumably because he said he liked boys. Anthony had hot sauce poured on his face and mouth, was whipped with a looped cord belt, held upside down and dropped on his head repeatedly, withheld food and then force fed, slammed into furniture and the floor, denied access to the bathroom, and made to endure his COMPLAINT -32- 1 siblings inflicting pain on him pursuant to the demands of Barron and Leiva. “At 2 one point, Anthony could not walk, was unconscious lying on his bedroom floor for 3 hours, was not provided medical attention and could not eat on his own.” Anthony’s injuries included sunken eyes and cardiac arrest. Medical findings 4 5 related to his death included bruising, ulcerations, a brain hemorrhage, multiple 6 hematomas, cerebral edema, scattered subarachnoid bleeding/possible venous sinus 7 thrombosis, severe hyperkalemia, hypernatremia, acute kidney injury, and multiple 8 other abrasions. 9 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 10 WRONGFUL DEATH 11 12 [California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.60] 13 (By Victor Avalos against All Defendants) 14 32. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every 15 allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause 16 of action. 17 33. Plaintiff Victor Avalos as surviving heir of his son Anthony Avalos 18 asserts a wrongful death action against all Defendants pursuant to §377.60 et seq. of 19 the California Code of Civil Procedure. Said claim is based upon the fact that the 20 negligent, reckless, and wrongful acts and omissions of Defendants, as alleged 21 herein, was a direct and legal cause of Anthony’s death. 22 34. Anthony’s death was not unexpected. The DCFS records show that DCFS 23 was complicit in the abuse and neglect of Anthony and his half siblings, and 24 ultimately in Anthony’s death. The records show that DCFS failed to investigate 25 properly, including, but not limited to their interviews, failure to review DCFS 26 history, failure to coordinate with law enforcement, violating their own policies 27 failing to complete Structured Decision Making Tool timely and truthfully, and 28 COMPLAINT -33- 1 failing to adjudicate despite the presence of exigency and imminent danger to 2 Anthony and his half siblings. It should further be noted, that each referral led to a 3 new social worker being assigned to the family and each failed in the duty of care 4 owed to Anthony and his half siblings. 5 35. Hathaway failed to report suspected child abuse as evidenced by Dixon’s 6 testimony at the preliminary hearing in the Gabriel Fernandez case. Furthermore, 7 Hathaway’s actions in the Fernandez case and its aftermath placed Anthony directly 8 in harm’s way. Hathaway continued to use Dixon and assigned her to be Anthony’s 9 therapist. Hathaway should have immediately removed Dixon following her 10 preliminary hearing testimony and conducted an audit of all the cases she had been 11 assigned to in order to see if there were other occasions where she failed to report 12 suspected child abuse. 36. As a result of the above acts and omissions of Defendants, Anthony was 13 14 tortured and abused for years, as evidenced by the above referrals. The torture and 15 abuse escalated in the days prior to his death, presumably because he said he liked 16 boys. Anthony had hot sauce poured on his face and mouth, was whipped with a 17 looped cord belt, held upside down and dropped on his head repeatedly, withheld 18 food and then force fed, slammed into furniture and the floor, denied access to the 19 bathroom, and made to endure his siblings inflicting pain on him pursuant to the 20 demands of Barron and Leiva. 37. Anthony’s injuries included sunken eyes and cardiac arrest. Medical 21 22 findings related to his death included bruising, ulcerations, a brain hemorrhage, 23 multiple hematomas, cerebral edema, scattered subarachnoid bleeding/possible 24 venous sinus thrombosis, severe hyperkalemia, hypernatremia, acute kidney injury, 25 and multiple other abrasions. 26 38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as alleged above, 27 Plaintiff Victor Avalos has been deprived of the life-long love, companionship, 28 COMPLAINT -34- 1 comfort, society, and care of Anthony, and will be deprived for the remainder of his 2 natural life. 3 39. Plaintiff Victor Avalos is claiming wrongful death damages under the 4 Fourteenth Amendment claims, and also under their state law claims for negligence 5 and civil rights violations. 6 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 7 WRONGFUL DEATH SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE 8 (By Victor Avalos against All Defendants) 9 10 40. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every 11 allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause 12 of action. 13 41. Defendants had a legal duty to Plaintiffs. Defendants knew of the abuse 14 and misconduct occurring in the Barron home, yet failed to take appropriate action 15 to investigate and stop the abuse. Defendants received numerous reports and 16 complaints about the Barron home and the suspected abuse of the minor Plaintiffs 17 and decedent. However, Defendants failed to properly and/or adequately investigate 18 the complaints and repeatedly failed to take appropriate action as mandated by the 19 Welfare and Institutions Code sections and/or Department of Social Services 20 (“DSS”) regulations set forth below. 42. Defendants County and DOES 1-50, despite receiving numerous reports 21 22 and evidence of abuse and neglect of minor Plaintiffs and decedent, negligently 23 investigated these reports, failed to develop a mandatory “case plan”, and failed to 24 place a “300 hold” on the children, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 25 Section 300, et seq. 26 43. Defendants failed to investigate or otherwise respond to the reported 27 instances of child abuse and/or neglect of minor Plaintiffs and decedent as mandated 28 COMPLAINT -35- 1 by Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 328, 16504(a), 16501(d), and/or 2 16501(f), and/or DSS Regulations 31-101, 31-105, 31-110, 31-115, 31-120, and/or 3 31-125. 44. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 328 states, “The social worker shall 4 5 interview any child four years of age or older who is the subject of an investigation 6 to ascertain the child’s view of the home environment. DCFS made visits to the 7 Barron home in which social workers did not interview Anthony or his half-siblings 8 that were four years and older. 9 45. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 16501(f) states, “County welfare 10 departments shall respond to any report of imminent danger of a child immediately.” 11 There are countless instances of Anthony and his half-siblings being in imminent 12 danger and there was no immediate response from social workers. Additionally, 13 some referral were emergency referrals and social workers failed to see or speak to 14 the children the day of the referral. 46. DSS Regulation 31-101 states DCFS workers need to be skilled in 15 16 “emergency response”. The social workers responding to the Barron home regarding 17 referrals made about child abuse against Anthony and his half-siblings were not 18 skilled in this area. There is evidence that even referrals designated emergency 19 referrals were not properly responded to by social workers, and sometimes were not 20 responded to at all. 47. DSS Regulation 31-105 states that a social worker shall immediately 21 22 initiate and complete the Emergency Response Protocol process when it is necessary 23 to determine whether an in-person investigation is required. Furthermore, the social 24 worker shall record all available and appropriate information on the Emergency 25 Response Protocol form SOC 423 (10/92), or an approved substitute. DCFS social 26 workers repeatedly failed to fill out the requisite forms in the instant case, including, 27 but not limited to, SOC 423 Form (10/92). 28 COMPLAINT -36- 1 48. DSS Regulation 31-115 dictates that among the factors in determining the 2 need for an in-person investigation, is when allegations and/or behavioral indicators 3 which are suggestive of abuse, neglect, or exploitation. Here, DCFS social workers 4 failed on multiple occasions to follow this, which amounts to statutory breach of a 5 mandatory duty. 6 49. Defendants failed to accept reports of suspected child abuse and/or 7 neglect of minor Plaintiffs and decedent without legal justification and did not 8 properly maintain a record of all reports received as mandated by Penal Code 9 section 11165.9. DCFS violated their statutory duty by refusing to accept a case of 10 reported child abuse related to Anthony and his siblings on more than one occasion. 11 DCFS’s failure to take a report is even more egregious than the act itself of refusing 12 to accept a report. There is a recording of a call reporting abuse where the social 13 worker is actually laughing at the allegations of abuse. This nonchalant attitude by 14 the recipient of the report shows the complete disregard DCFS employees had for 15 the safety of the children they were employed to protect. It further shows the lack of 16 training and supervision that existed within an agency where an employee can laugh 17 off a report alleging abuse of a child and consequently not accept it. 50. As “mandated reporters” under Penal Code sections 11165.7(a)(15) and 18 19 (18), Defendants failed to report suspected child abuse and/or neglect of minor 20 Plaintiffs and decedent to appropriate authorities and failed to make initial reports or 21 follow up reports within 36 hours of receiving said reports of abuse and/or neglect 22 as mandated by Penal Code sections 11165.9 and 11166(a). 23 51. Defendant negligently delivered child protective services of minor 24 Plaintiffs and decedent by failing to properly conduct an assessment and develop a 25 case plan as mandated by DSS Regulations 31-201, 31-205, 31-206, and/or Welfare 26 and Institutions Code section 16501.1(d). 27 28 COMPLAINT -37- 1 52. Even though said Defendants received various reports of abuse and/or 2 neglect of minor Plaintiffs and decedent, and observed some of the abuse and/or 3 neglect themselves, Defendants failed to conduct a basic evaluation of risks to 4 determine whether an emergency situation existed as mandated by Welfare and 5 Institutions Code section 16504 and/or DSS Regulations at 31-101, 31-105, 31-110, 6 31-115, 31-120, and/or 31-128. 53. Despite Defendants receiving numerous reports of abuse and/or neglect of 7 8 minor Plaintiffs and decedent from multiple sources, and observing some of the 9 abuse and/or neglect themselves, Defendants failed to control the conduct of 10 Heather Barron and Kareem Leiva, and/or otherwise protect minor Plaintiffs and 11 decedent as mandated by Welfare and Institutions Code sections 16504(a), 12 16501(d), and/or 16501(f). 54. These negligent and reckless acts and omissions were a substantial factor 13 14 and a legal cause of the damages and injuries sustained by minor Plaintiffs and 15 decedent, and the legal cause of decedent’s death as alleged in this complaint. Had 16 Defendants fulfilled their mandated and legal duty of care, minor Plaintiffs and 17 decedent would not have been harmed and decedent would not have been murdered. 18 55. Additionally, under California Evidence Code section 669, the negligence 19 of Defendants, and their employees or agents, may be presumed for the reason that: a. Defendants, and each of them, violated the child protection statutes, placing 20 21 minor Plaintiffs and decedent in harms way pursuant to California Penal Code 22 section 273(a) (Endangerment) and failing to investigate reports of child 23 abuse; 24 b. The violations proximately caused injury to minor Plaintiffs and decedent; 25 c. The injuries to minor Plaintiffs and decedent were occurrences of the nature 26 which the statutes are designed to prevent; and 27 28 COMPLAINT -38- 1 d. Minor Plaintiffs and decedent were members of the class of persons for 2 whose protection these statutes were adopted. 3 56. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, 4 including its employees or agents, and each of them, as alleged herein, minor 5 Plaintiffs and decedent suffered injuries including, but not limited to, physical and 6 mental pain and suffering, physical injuries, past and future costs in medical care 7 and treatment, and past and future loss of earnings capacity, in an amount not yet 8 ascertained, but which exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court. 57. As a direct and proximate result of the act and omissions of Defendants, 9 10 including its employees or agents, and each of them, as alleged herein, Avalos and 11 minor Plaintiffs suffered the loss of companionship of Anthony Avalos. 12 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 13 WRONGFUL DEATH SOUNDING IN GROSS NEGLIGENCE 14 (By Victor Avalos against Hathaway) 15 16 58. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every 17 allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause 18 of action. 19 59. As stated above, Defendant Hathaway acted negligently and with willful 20 disregard towards Plaintiffs. It had a duty of care that it breached, which was the 21 actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries. 22 60. In doing each and all of the acts and omissions herein alleged, Hathaway 23 engaged in a course of conduct which was grossly negligent, extreme and 24 outrageous. Hathaway engaged in said course of conduct with wanton and reckless 25 disregard of the consequences or harm that was likely to result to minor Plaintiffs 26 and decedent. 27 28 COMPLAINT -39- 1 61. Hathaway assigned employee Barbara Dixon to work with the Barron 2 family after it had actual knowledge that, despite being a mandated reporter, Ms. 3 Dixon had in the case of Gabriel Fernandez, another child who was killed while 4 under DCFS’ care, consciously, intentionally, and willfully not reported abuse of 5 Fernandez by his mother and her boyfriend. Ms. Dixon is and was a mandated 6 reporter under Penal Code section 11165.7(a)(15) and (18) that intentionally 7 violated her duties under the code section to report child abuse, this is a crime. 8 62. Additionally, Hathaway has a policy of having supervisors discourage the 9 reporting of child abuse in violation of mandated reporter laws. Ms. Dixon testified, 10 after being granted immunity, under oath in the Gabriel Fernandez case, that she had 11 been told by her supervisor not to make a report regarding the abuse of Gabriel 12 Fernandez. 25 Q: So one of those requirements was that when you observed injuries, you were to call the DCFS hotline; is that correct? A: I was to discuss it with my supervisor. Q: You believed that your duties as a mandated reporter were to discuss it with your supervisor? A: Correct. Q: Not to call 911 or the DCFS hotline? A: Correct. Q: And was that your custom and practice while working at Hathaway Sycamore? A: Yes. Q: So whenever you observed injuries on a case that you - - whenever you observed injuries on a child abuse case you were servicing, you would first discuss with your supervisor whether this was something that needed to be reported to the DCFS hotline? A: Correct. Q: So if your supervisor said, ‘Ms. Dixon, don’t report these injuries to the hotline,’ you follow that directive? A: Correct. 26 63. Despite all this, Hathaway, continued to employ Ms. Dixon to work with 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 children and assigned her to work with decedent, knowingly placing them in harm’s 28 COMPLAINT -40- 1 way. Hathaway’s actions in the Fernandez case and its aftermath placed Anthony 2 directly in harm’s way. Defendant Hathaway should have immediately removed Ms. 3 Dixon following her preliminary hearing testimony and conducted an audit of all the 4 cases she had been assigned to in order to see if there were other occasions where 5 she failed to report suspected child abuse. 64. The conduct of Defendant Hathaway was willful, malicious, conscious, 6 7 extreme, outrageous, and warrants the imposition of punitive damages against it. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 8 9 WRONGFUL DEATH SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION 10 (By Victor Avalos against All Defendants) 11 12 65. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every 13 allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause 14 of action. 15 66. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants were under a duty to supervise 16 the conduct of its social workers and employees to enforce those regulations 17 necessary for the proper enforcement of the laws of the State of California and to 18 exercise ordinary care to protect minor Plaintiffs and decedent from abuse as 19 established herein. 20 67. Defendants were negligence and careless in that they failed to properly 21 train and supervise its employees. Furthermore, Defendants negligently entrusted its 22 employees or agents with exercising the laws for the protection of minor Plaintiffs 23 and decedent. 68. Defendants negligently failed to supervise their employees appropriately 24 25 so as to prevent the type of violations of policy and statutory laws and regulations as 26 alleged herein that led to the injuries sustained by minor Plaintiffs and the death of 27 Anthony Avalos. 28 COMPLAINT -41- 1 69. Defendants negligently failed to supervise their employees so as to 2 prevent the types of incidents herein alleged, failing to properly train and to 3 supervise the training of its employees or agents about correct manner in which to 4 effectuate the child protection laws enacted to protect minor Plaintiffs and decedent. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 5 6 7 8 WRONGFUL DEATH SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION 9 (By Victor Avalos against All Defendants) 10 70. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every 11 allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause 12 of action. 13 71. As agencies working with children, DCFS and Hathaway were entrusted 14 with the care of minor children within their system. 15 72. At no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendants have in 16 place a system or procedure to reasonably investigate, supervise, and monitor its 17 employees. 18 73. At no time during the periods alleged did Defendant County have in place 19 a system or procedure to reasonably investigate, monitor, or supervise Hathaway, 20 one of its largest agents used to provide mental health services to children and their 21 families within the DCFS system. 22 74. Defendants were or had reason to be aware of and understand how 23 vulnerable children are to sexual and physical abuse. 24 75. Defendants were put on notice, and had reason to know that Hathaway 25 employee Barbara Dixon and her supervisor, had previously engaged in dangerous 26 and inappropriate conduct, and that it was, or should have been foreseeable, that 27 they would engage in dangerous and inappropriate conduct again. 28 COMPLAINT -42- 1 76. DCFS knew of the pattern of Hathaway to violate mandatory reporting 2 laws. Dixon herself testified in a preliminary hearing in the Gabriel Fernandez case 3 that she it was the custom and policy of Hathaway and herself not to report child 4 abuse and in fact she did not report the abuse she observed of Gabriel Fernandez and 5 was directed to do so by her supervisor. Despite knowing this, DCFS continued to 6 contract with Hathaway, and even had Dixon assigned to Avalos and his family. To 7 this day, DCFS continued to contract with Hathaway. 8 77. For its part, Hathaway hired Dixon as a licensed therapist once she 9 received her licensed, post the death of Gabriel Fernandez, and retained her and her 10 supervisor even after her testimony about not reporting child abuse. 11 78. Defendants’ conduct was a breach of their duties to Avalos and his half- 12 siblings. 13 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 14 WRONGFUL DEATH SOUNDING IN VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 15 16 [California Civil Code Sections 52.1] 17 (By Victor Avalos against County of Los Angeles) 18 79. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every 19 allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause 20 of action. 21 80. This action is brought pursuant to California Civil Code Section 52.1. 22 This cause of action is to redress the deprivation, under color of statute, ordinance, 23 regulation, policy, custom, or practice of usage, of rights, privileges, and immunities 24 secured by the Constitutions of the United States and California including, but not 25 limited to, the right to be free from violence and threats of violence. 26 27 28 COMPLAINT -43- 1 81. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendants, 2 and each of them, violated minor Plaintiffs and decedent’s civil rights and subjected 3 them to physical violence. 4 82. During all times mentioned herein, Defendants, separately and in concert, 5 acted under color and pretense of law, under color of the statutes, ordinances, 6 regulations, policies, practices, customs, and usages of the State of California and 7 County of Los Angeles. Each of the Defendants, separately and in concert, deprived 8 minor Plaintiffs and decedent of the rights and privileges secured to them by the 9 Civil Code as alleged herein. 83. Minor Plaintiffs and decedent were subjected to the deprivations alleged 10 11 herein as a result of the failure of Defendants to properly train their employees or 12 agents. 13 84. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, 14 including its employees or agents, as alleged herein, minor Plaintiffs and decedent 15 suffered injuries including, but not limited to physical and mental pain and 16 suffering, physical injuries, past and future costs of medical care and treatment, and 17 past and future loss of earnings and earnings capacity, in an amount not yet 18 ascertained, but which exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court. 85. As a further direct and proximate cause of the acts alleged herein, 19 20 Plaintiffs seek attorney’s fees as provided for in California Civil Code Sections 21 52.1(b) and 52.1(h) in an amount to be shown according to proof at trial. 22 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 23 NEGLIGENCE (BREACH OF MANDATORY DUTY) 24 25 (By Plaintiffs A.G., R.O., D.O., B.L., D.L., and N.L against All Defendants) 26 27 28 COMPLAINT -44- 1 86. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every 2 allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause 3 of action. 4 87. Defendants had a legal duty to Plaintiffs. Defendants knew of the abuse 5 and misconduct occurring in the Barron home, yet failed to take appropriate action 6 to investigate and stop the abuse. Defendants received numerous reports and 7 complaints about the Barron home and the suspected abuse of the minor Plaintiffs 8 and decedent. However, Defendants failed to properly and/or adequately investigate 9 the complaints and repeatedly failed to take appropriate action as mandated by the 10 Welfare and Institutions Code sections and/or Department of Social Services 11 (“DSS”) regulations set forth below. 88. Defendants County and DOES 1-50, despite receiving numerous reports 12 13 and evidence of abuse and neglect of minor Plaintiffs and decedent, negligently 14 investigated these reports, failed to develop a mandatory “case plan”, and failed to 15 place a “300 hold” on the children, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 16 Section 300, et seq. 17 89. Defendants failed to investigate or otherwise respond to the reported 18 instances of child abuse and/or neglect of minor Plaintiffs and decedent as mandated 19 by Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 328, 16504(a), 16501(d), and/or 20 16501(f), and/or DSS Regulations 31-101, 31-105, 31-110, 31-115, 31-120, and/or 21 31-125. 22 90. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 328 states, “The social worker shall 23 interview any child four years of age or older who is the subject of an investigation 24 to ascertain the child’s view of the home environment. DCFS made visits to the 25 Barron home in which social workers did not interview Anthony or his half-siblings 26 that were four years and older. 27 28 COMPLAINT -45- 1 91. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 16501(f) states, “County welfare 2 departments shall respond to any report of imminent danger of a child immediately.” 3 There are countless instances of Anthony and his half-siblings being in imminent 4 danger and there was no immediate response from social workers. Additionally, 5 some referral were emergency referrals and social workers failed to see or speak to 6 the children the day of the referral. 92. DSS Regulation 31-101 states DCFS workers need to be skilled in 7 8 “emergency response”. The social workers responding to the Barron home regarding 9 referrals made about child abuse against Anthony and his half-siblings were not 10 skilled in this area. There is evidence that even referrals designated emergency 11 referrals were not properly responded to by social workers, and sometimes were not 12 responded to at all. 93. DSS Regulation 31-105 states that a social worker shall immediately 13 14 initiate and complete the Emergency Response Protocol process when it is necessary 15 to determine whether an in-person investigation is required. Furthermore, the social 16 worker shall record all available and appropriate information on the Emergency 17 Response Protocol form SOC 423 (10/92), or an approved substitute. DCFS social 18 workers repeatedly failed to fill out the requisite forms in the instant case, including, 19 but not limited to, SOC 423 Form (10/92). 20 94. DSS Regulation 31-115 dictates that among the factors in determining the 21 need for an in-person investigation, is when allegations and/or behavioral indicators 22 which are suggestive of abuse, neglect, or exploitation. Here, DCFS social workers 23 failed on multiple occasions to follow this, which amounts to statutory breach of a 24 mandatory duty. 25 95. Defendants failed to accept reports of suspected child abuse and/or 26 neglect of minor Plaintiffs and decedent without legal justification and did not 27 properly maintain a record of all reports received as mandated by Penal Code 28 COMPLAINT -46- 1 section 11165.9. DCFS violated their statutory duty by refusing to accept a case of 2 reported child abuse related to Anthony and his siblings on more than one occasion. 3 DCFS’s failure to take a report is even more egregious than the act itself of refusing 4 to accept a report. There is a recording of a call reporting abuse where the social 5 worker is actually laughing at the allegations of abuse. This nonchalant attitude by 6 the recipient of the report shows the complete disregard DCFS employees had for 7 the safety of the children they were employed to protect. It further shows the lack of 8 training and supervision that existed within an agency where an employee can laugh 9 off a report alleging abuse of a child and consequently not accept it. 96. As “mandated reporters” under Penal Code sections 11165.7(a)(15) and 10 11 (18), Defendants failed to report suspected child abuse and/or neglect of minor 12 Plaintiffs and decedent to appropriate authorities and failed to make initial reports or 13 follow up reports within 36 hours of receiving said reports of abuse and/or neglect 14 as mandated by Penal Code sections 11165.9 and 11166(a). 15 97. Defendant negligently delivered child protective services of minor 16 Plaintiffs and decedent by failing to properly conduct an assessment and develop a 17 case plan as mandated by DSS Regulations 31-201, 31-205, 31-206, and/or Welfare 18 and Institutions Code section 16501.1(d). 98. Even though said Defendants received various reports of abuse and/or 19 20 neglect of minor Plaintiffs and decedent, and observed some of the abuse and/or 21 neglect themselves, Defendants failed to conduct a basic evaluation of risks to 22 determine whether an emergency situation existed as mandated by Welfare and 23 Institutions Code section 16504 and/or DSS Regulations at 31-101, 31-105, 31-110, 24 31-115, 31-120, and/or 31-128. 25 99. Despite Defendants receiving numerous reports of abuse and/or neglect of 26 minor Plaintiffs and decedent from multiple sources, and observing some of the 27 abuse and/or neglect themselves, Defendants failed to control the conduct of 28 COMPLAINT -47- 1 Heather Barron and Kareem Leiva, and/or otherwise protect minor Plaintiffs and 2 decedent as mandated by Welfare and Institutions Code sections 16504(a), 3 16501(d), and/or 16501(f). 100. These negligent and reckless acts and omissions were a substantial factor 4 5 and a legal cause of the damages and injuries sustained by minor Plaintiffs and 6 decedent, and the legal cause of decedent’s death as alleged in this complaint. Had 7 Defendants fulfilled their mandated and legal duty of care, minor Plaintiffs and 8 decedent would not have been harmed and decedent would not have been murdered. 9 101. Additionally, under California Evidence Code section 669, the 10 negligence of Defendants, and their employees or agents, may be presumed for the 11 reason that: 12 a. Defendants, and each of them, violated the child protection statutes, placing 13 minor Plaintiffs and decedent in harms way pursuant to California Penal Code 14 section 273(a) (Endangerment) and failing to investigate reports of child 15 abuse; 16 b. The violations proximately caused injury to minor Plaintiffs and decedent; 17 c. The injuries to minor Plaintiffs and decedent were occurrences of the nature 18 which the statutes are designed to prevent; and 19 d. Minor Plaintiffs and decedent were members of the class of persons for 20 whose protection these statutes were adopted. 21 102. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, 22 including its employees or agents, and each of them, as alleged herein, minor 23 Plaintiffs and decedent suffered injuries including, but not limited to, physical and 24 mental pain and suffering, physical injuries, past and future costs in medical care 25 and treatment, and past and future loss of earnings capacity, in an amount not yet 26 ascertained, but which exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court. 27 28 COMPLAINT -48- 1 103. As a direct and proximate result of the act and omissions of Defendants, 2 including its employees or agents, and each of them, as alleged herein, Avalos and 3 minor Plaintiffs suffered the loss of companionship of Anthony Avalos. 4 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 5 GROSS NEGLIGENCE 6 7 8 (By Plaintiffs A.G., R.O., D.O., B.L., D.L., and N.L against Hathaway) 104. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every 9 allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause 10 of action. 11 105. As stated above, Defendant Hathaway acted negligently and with willful 12 disregard towards Plaintiffs. It had a duty of care that it breached, which was the 13 actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries. 14 106. In doing each and all of the acts and omissions herein alleged, Hathaway 15 engaged in a course of conduct which was grossly negligent, extreme and 16 outrageous. Hathaway engaged in said course of conduct with wanton and reckless 17 disregard of the consequences or harm that was likely to result to minor Plaintiffs 18 and decedent. 19 107. Hathaway assigned employee Barbara Dixon to work with the Barron 20 family after it had actual knowledge that, despite being a mandated reporter, Ms. 21 Dixon had in the case of Gabriel Fernandez, another child who was killed while 22 under DCFS’ care, consciously, intentionally, and willfully not reported abuse of 23 Fernandez by his mother and her boyfriend. Ms. Dixon is and was a mandated 24 reporter under Penal Code section 11165.7(a)(15) and (18) that intentionally 25 violated her duties under the code section to report child abuse, this is a crime. 26 108. Additionally, Hathaway has a policy of having supervisors discourage 27 the reporting of child abuse in violation of mandated reporter laws. Ms. Dixon 28 COMPLAINT -49- 1 testified, after being granted immunity, under oath in the Gabriel Fernandez case, 2 that she had been told by her supervisor not to make a report regarding the abuse of 3 Gabriel Fernandez. Q: So one of those requirements was that when you observed injuries, you were 4 to call the DCFS hotline; is that correct? 5 A: I was to discuss it with my supervisor. Q: You believed that your duties as a mandated reporter were to discuss it with 6 your supervisor? 7 A: Correct. Q: Not to call 911 or the DCFS hotline? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: And was that your custom and practice while working at Hathaway Sycamore? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: So whenever you observed injuries on a case that you - - whenever you observed injuries on a child abuse case you were servicing, you would first 12 discuss with your supervisor whether this was something that needed to be 13 reported to the DCFS hotline? A: Correct. 14 Q: So if your supervisor said, ‘Ms. Dixon, don’t report these injuries to the 15 hotline,’ you follow that directive? A: Correct. 16 109. Despite all this, Hathaway, continued to employ Ms. Dixon to work with 17 18 children and assigned her to work with decedent, knowingly placing them in harm’s 19 way. Hathaway’s actions in the Fernandez case and its aftermath placed Anthony 20 directly in harm’s way. Defendant Hathaway should have immediately removed Ms. 21 Dixon following her preliminary hearing testimony and conducted an audit of all the 22 cases she had been assigned to in order to see if there were other occasions where 23 she failed to report suspected child abuse. 110. The conduct of Defendant Hathaway was willful, malicious, conscious, 24 extreme, outrageous, and warrants the imposition of punitive damages against it. 25 // 26 27 // 28 COMPLAINT -50- 1 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION 3 4 5 (By Plaintiffs A.G., R.O., D.O., B.L., D.L., and N.L against All Defendants) 111. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every 6 allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause 7 of action. 8 112. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants were under a duty to 9 supervise the conduct of its social workers and employees to enforce those 10 regulations necessary for the proper enforcement of the laws of the State of 11 California and to exercise ordinary care to protect minor Plaintiffs and decedent 12 from abuse as established herein. 13 113. Defendants were negligence and careless in that they failed to properly 14 train and supervise its employees. Furthermore, Defendants negligently entrusted its 15 employees or agents with exercising the laws for the protection of minor Plaintiffs 16 and decedent. 114. Defendants negligently failed to supervise their employees appropriately 17 18 so as to prevent the type of violations of policy and statutory laws and regulations as 19 alleged herein that led to the injuries sustained by minor Plaintiffs and the death of 20 Anthony Avalos. 115. Defendants negligently failed to supervise their employees so as to 21 22 prevent the types of incidents herein alleged, failing to properly train and to 23 supervise the training of its employees or agents about correct manner in which to 24 effectuate the child protection laws enacted to protect minor Plaintiffs and decedent. 25 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 26 NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION 27 28 (By Plaintiffs A.G., R.O., D.O., B.L., D.L., and N.L against All Defendants) COMPLAINT -51- 1 116. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every 2 allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause 3 of action. 4 117. As agencies working with children, DCFS and Hathaway were entrusted 5 with the care of minor children within their system. 118. At no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendants have in 6 7 place a system or procedure to reasonably investigate, supervise, and monitor its 8 employees. 9 119. At no time during the periods alleged did Defendant County have in 10 place a system or procedure to reasonably investigate, monitor, or supervise 11 Hathaway, one of its largest agents used to provide mental health services to 12 children and their families within the DCFS system. 120. Defendants were or had reason to be aware of and understand how 13 14 vulnerable children are to sexual and physical abuse. 121. Defendants were put on notice, and had reason to know that Hathaway 15 16 employee Barbara Dixon and her supervisor, had previously engaged in dangerous 17 and inappropriate conduct, and that it was, or should have been foreseeable, that 18 they would engage in dangerous and inappropriate conduct again. 122. DCFS knew of the pattern of Hathaway to violate mandatory reporting 19 20 laws. Dixon herself testified in a preliminary hearing in the Gabriel Fernandez case 21 that she it was the custom and policy of Hathaway and herself not to report child 22 abuse and in fact she did not report the abuse she observed of Gabriel Fernandez and 23 was directed to do so by her supervisor. Despite knowing this, DCFS continued to 24 contract with Hathaway, and even had Dixon assigned to Avalos and his family. To 25 this day, DCFS continued to contract with Hathaway. 26 27 28 COMPLAINT -52- 1 123. For its part, Hathaway hired Dixon as a licensed therapist once she 2 received her licensed, post the death of Gabriel Fernandez, and retained her and her 3 supervisor even after her testimony about not reporting child abuse. 4 124. Defendants’ conduct was a breach of their duties to Avalos and his half- 5 siblings. 6 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 7 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 8 [California Civil Code Sections 52.1] 9 10 (By Plaintiffs A.G., R.O., D.O., B.L., D.L., and N.L against County of Los 11 Angeles) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 125. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 126. This action is brought pursuant to California Civil Code Section 52.1. This cause of action is to redress the deprivation, under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, policy, custom, or practice of usage, of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitutions of the United States and California including, but not limited to, the right to be free from violence and threats of violence. 127. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendants, and each of them, violated minor Plaintiffs and decedent’s civil rights and subjected them to physical violence. 128. During all times mentioned herein, Defendants, separately and in concert, acted under color and pretense of law, under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, practices, customs, and usages of the State of California and County of Los Angeles. Each of the Defendants, separately and in 28 COMPLAINT -53- 1 concert, deprived minor Plaintiffs and decedent of the rights and privileges secured 2 to them by the Civil Code as alleged herein. 3 129. Minor Plaintiffs and decedent were subjected to the deprivations alleged 4 herein as a result of the failure of Defendants to properly train their employees or 5 agents. 6 130. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, 7 including its employees or agents, as alleged herein, minor Plaintiffs and decedent 8 suffered injuries including, but not limited to physical and mental pain and 9 suffering, physical injuries, past and future costs of medical care and treatment, and 10 past and future loss of earnings and earnings capacity, in an amount not yet 11 ascertained, but which exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court. 131. As a further direct and proximate cause of the acts alleged herein, 12 13 Plaintiffs seek attorney’s fees as provided for in California Civil Code Sections 14 52.1(b) and 52.1(h) in an amount to be shown according to proof at trial. 15 16 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 17 SURVIVAL ACTION 18 19 20 21 [California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.34] (By the Estate of Anthony Avalos against All Defendants) 132. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every 22 allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause 23 of action. 24 133. This cause of action is brought by the Estate of Anthony Avalos, based 25 on violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights and pursuant to Section 377.34 of 26 the California Code of Civil Procedure. 27 28 COMPLAINT -54- 1 134. As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants as alleged, decedent 2 suffered intense physical and emotional pain, anguish, distress, despair, and 3 suffering all during the time of reports of abuse and neglect were made to 4 Defendants and up until the time of his death. The Estate of Anthony Avalos is 5 claiming survival damages under their federal and state law claims. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT -55- WHEREFORE, PLAIN TIFFS pray for ajury trial and for judgment against Defendants as follows: FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 1. For past, present and future general damages in an amount to be determined at trial, in excess of $50 million. 2. For past, present and future Special damages, including but not limited to past, present and future lost earnings, economic damages and others, in an amount to be determined at trial; 3. Any appropriate statutory damages; 4. For punitive damages as to the gross negligence cause of action. 5. For costs of suit; 6. For interest as allowed by law; and 7. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. DATED: July 31, 2019 THE CLAYPOOL LAW FIRM By: Brian E. Claypool, Esq. Nathalie Vallejos, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs -56? COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury. DATED: July 31, 2019 THE CLAYPOOL LAW FIRM By: 27 L0 Brian E. Claypoolflisq. Nathalie Vallejos, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs -57- COMPLAINT