(253) 948-0250
LOCAL TO TACOMA.
SERVING ALL OF WASHINGTON.
Hero Default Alt Text

JB V. State of Washington, Department of Social & Health Services/Child Protective Services

Free Case Review

JB’s Horrific Childhood as Documented by DSHS/CPS

DSHS failed, then 9-month-old, JB when it received a referral that the baby who had been abandoned by her drug addicted, prostitute mother who was in and out of jail. The failures by CPS in this case are beyond comprehension. One is left speechless by the extent of negligence displayed during DSHS’s investigations of numerous reports of abuse filed by family, medical personnel and members of the community.  If CPS had set out to demonstrate sheer incompetence and dereliction of duty, they could not have done a better job.  Bullet point references in DSHS’s own files illustrate and support this fact.

Background & Initial Neglect

  • A sibling of 9-month-old JB had already been removed from her home for neglect.
  • DSHS took 8 days to assign an investigator after initial contact. The grandmother confirmed neglect and abandonment.
  • CPS delayed investigation by 48 days, only to find JB’s mother missing, allegedly abusing drugs, prostituting herself and living recklessly. The investigation ended with no follow-up.

Escalating Allegations Ignored

  • Two months later: Referral alleged drug use, child starvation, and threats of prostitution with JB in tow. A CPS investigator corroborated details but dismissed the report as “hard to prove.”
  • Subsequent events: JB was kidnapped by her alleged father, who violently threatened to kill her and the family. After a city-wide police alert and arrest, CPS again failed to assess JB’s safety upon return to her mother.

Foster Placement and Persistent Abuse

  • JB was made a ward of the state and placed with foster parents without vetting.
  • Almost immediately, JB was reported with facial bruising; CPS accepted a farce of an injury explanation without further inquiry.
  • Later, JB was diagnosed with a tibia fracture; CPS again accepted the foster parents’ story of a playground injury.

Reports of Abuse by Foster Parents

  • Foster parents admitted to punishing JB with “water treatment.” JB showed fear, yet no intervention followed.
  • CPS received repeated referrals citing:
    Black eyes, bruises, scratches, beatings with a shoe and belt.
    -Witness statements and visual evidence of ongoing abuse.
  • No protective actions were taken, and referrals were closed without justification.

Systemic Breakdown

  • Despite nearly a dozen red flags, CPS granted the foster parents a license nearly two years after JB’s placement.
  • Within two months, the Seattle Police removed JB due to clear evidence of severe physical and sexual abuse including:
    – Adult bite marks, broken bones, and ritualistic torture.

Final Discrimination & Continued Harm

  • JB was placed with a loving family initiating adoption, but was removed by a social worker who said JB should “stay with a white family.”
  • In the next foster home, JB was again sexually abused—this time by the foster family’s son.

Evidence from CPS’s Files

Your browser cannot display this PDF. Click here to open or download it.

Download

As You Can See From
The State’s Own Files:

DSHS was repeatedly warned—with graphic, specific detail—that Jayonna was in danger in both her birth and foster homes.

Where Did the State Fail JB?

Under Washington law, the State has basic duties to children in its custody and care. They are:

1. Legal Duty to Investigate Child Abuse

  • Washington law requires DSHS to investigate any reports of possible child abuse or neglect. This duty cannot be passed off to others.
  • If abuse is found, DSHS must refer the case to the courts.
  • If DSHS conducts a negligent or biased investigation that results in placing a child in harm’s way, the child (and their parents) have the right to sue.

2. Duty of Care to Dependent Children

  • Once a child is in state custody, DSHS has a “special relationship” and therefore a heightened legal duty to protect them from harm.
  • This includes:
    Protecting children from foreseeable harm.
    Assessing foster homes before placement.
    Monitoring those placements over time.
    Investigating new abuse allegations in foster care.

3. Common Law Duty When Government Actions Create Risk

Even aside from specific statutes, courts have held that public officials like DSHS workers owe a duty of care when their actions (or inaction) put people at risk, especially vulnerable individuals like children.

IF YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW HAVE SUFFERED SIMILAR ABUSE, PLEASE CONTACT US. WE’RE HERE TO HELP.

Call Now Button