By Matt Coker
Niveen Ismail headed into a Santa Ana courtroom last week facing the possibility of a three-year prison sentence for allegedly asking a private investigator to kidnap her 7-year-old son from his foster parents.
But, after three hours of deliberations, the jury found the Newport Beach 45-year-old not guilty, and based on the press accounts from the trial, it's easy to see why.
Ismail, who lost parental rights to her son in 2005 when officers found him home alone, contacted and met P.I. Robert Young in November 2009. According to the Orange County District Attorney's office (OCDA), Ismail proposed paying Young a large sum of money to kidnap her son from his foster family in Lake Forest and take him to Tijuana. From there, prosecutors alleged, Ismail planned to take her son to Europe or her native Egypt.
But the investigator later contacted the Newport Beach Police Department, and another meeting was set up on Dec. 4, 2009, that had Ismail joined by the P.I. and an undercover cop she believed was working with her point person. At that meeting, the OCDA claimed, Ismail discussed obtaining passports for her and her son, asking again for her son to be kidnapped in exchange for money. She was then arrested, and when trial began Dec. 7 Ismail was facing one felony count of solicitation to commit kidnapping.
What blew the case for prosecutors were the secretly recorded tapes from Ismail's meeting with Young and the undercover, according to Jon Cassidy's coverage in the Orange County Register. Young testified that Ismail threw out the kidnapping idea as a "what if" at the first meeting, but while she is heard discussing such a plot at the follow-up meeting, she did not actually request it, Cassidy reports. Instead, Ismail is heard continually trying to steer the conversation back to another idea: spying on the foster family, according to Cassidy, who adds it was the investigators who were heard repeatedly bringing up the kidnapping.
Ismail was told a kidnapping would cost $5,000 versus $500 for surveillance on the foster family. After initially providing Young and his fake partner with a photo of her son--and indication she was in on the kidnapping--she later changed her mind and only paid $500, Cassidy reports.
Senior Deputy District Attorney Beth Costello presented circumstantial evidence that Ismail had begun applying for an Egyptian passport and looked online for driving directions to the Mexican border and flight information from Mexico to Europe, but that obviously was not enough for the jury to buy that the mom had, as the charges suggest, solicited to commit a kidnapping.
"We had an intelligent jury that sifted through rumor, innuendo and distraction thrown at them by the prosecution," Ismail's attorney, Ann Cunningham, reportedly told Cassidy. "The case was all on tape."
Source http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2011/12/niveen_ismail_gladys_remigio_k.php
CPS corruption hurts and destroys families worldwide. Please use caution posting about CPS here or anyplace on the internet. For your protection, using your full, real name and precise location is not advised. CPS has eyes everywhere and CPS is notorious for taking what people say, twisting it, embellishing on it and then using it against them in CPS "investigations" and at court proceedings.
Showing posts with label grand jury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label grand jury. Show all posts
Monday, December 19, 2011
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Kentucky - Social worker says she falsified records
By Valarie Honeycutt Spears
A former Kentucky state social worker indicted by an Anderson County grand jury in August has told investigators that she falsified records in abuse and neglect cases, according to a court document recently filed.
Margaret "Geri" Murphy, who resigned in January, is charged with nine counts of tampering with public records in her role investigating allegations of child abuse and neglect for the Cabinet for Health and Family Services.
Details of nine cases, several involving child sexual abuse, were outlined in a document titled the Commonwealth's Bill of Particulars, filed in Anderson Circuit Court Oct. 18 by Attorney General Jack Conway's office.
The court document says that in one case, which ran from December 2007 through April 2008, Murphy investigated an allegation of sexual abuse of an infant by the infant's mother's boyfriend. In deeming the allegation "unsubstantiated," Murphy allegedly documented that a state police trooper told her that a hair found in the baby's pubic area was tested and found to be dog hair rather than a human hair.
But the officer told an investigator that he never told Murphy that the hair was dog hair, and that it had not been tested.
Two agencies, including police, filed complaints about Murphy's actions in the case, the court document said.
The mother later reunited with her boyfriend, and the case was reopened in October 2010 on the basis of new allegations of sexual abuse by the boyfriend, the document said.
"During that time, Murphy attempted to take part of an interview and examination of the child at an agency in Lexington, and the KSP trooper told Murphy to leave and has indicated he believes Murphy's actions contributed to the child being abused again," the court document said.
Murphy's attorney William Patrick said Friday that he could not comment on the case. But Patrick said a pre-trial conference was set for November. Murphy was issued a criminal summons in August and has pleaded not guilty.
In abuse and neglect cases, social workers make findings about the validity of allegations and document their work in a report titled a "continuous quality assessment."
In a case involving the alleged sexual abuse of an 11-year-old child by her father, Murphy admitted to falsifying the continuous quality assessment, the court document said. In that case, Murphy is accused of documenting that the suspect had been interviewed by state police. Murphy also is accused of documenting that the perpetrator denied the abuse and passed a polygraph.
However, police told an investigator that the suspect had never been interviewed or taken a polygraph.
Murphy "stated that this particular case 'bothered her' because she had falsified information. She admitted that she believed the child had been sexually abused, but still unsubstantiated and closed her case," the court document said.
In 2010, Murphy investigated a report of the sexual abuse of a 7-year-old child and deemed it "unsubstantiated." She had said that the child made inconsistent statements and that she had interviewed the suspect with police, and that the suspect denied the allegations and passed a polygraph test, according to a court document.
But police said they never interviewed the suspect and the suspect never took a polygraph, according to the court document.
The cabinet will not respond specifically to the cases in the bill of particulars, spokeswoman Jill Midkiff said.
"However, upon discovering that there were problems with the way in which Ms. Murphy conducted her investigations in these and other cases not involving falsifications, the Commissioner of the (Department of Community Based Services) had Ms. Murphy's cases reviewed to ensure that appropriate action was taken in accordance with the policies and procedures of the agency," Midkiff said.
Officials in Conway's office would not comment Friday. But in August, Conway said that his office began investigating after receiving a complaint from a resident whose family was in a court case to which Murphy had been assigned.
Tampering with public records is a Class D felony punishable by one to five years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 on each count.
Here's a link to the court document:
http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2011/10/28/23/45/155LTT.So.79.pdf
Source http://www.kentucky.com/2011/10/29/1938928/court-document-describes-former.html
A former Kentucky state social worker indicted by an Anderson County grand jury in August has told investigators that she falsified records in abuse and neglect cases, according to a court document recently filed.
Margaret "Geri" Murphy, who resigned in January, is charged with nine counts of tampering with public records in her role investigating allegations of child abuse and neglect for the Cabinet for Health and Family Services.
Details of nine cases, several involving child sexual abuse, were outlined in a document titled the Commonwealth's Bill of Particulars, filed in Anderson Circuit Court Oct. 18 by Attorney General Jack Conway's office.
The court document says that in one case, which ran from December 2007 through April 2008, Murphy investigated an allegation of sexual abuse of an infant by the infant's mother's boyfriend. In deeming the allegation "unsubstantiated," Murphy allegedly documented that a state police trooper told her that a hair found in the baby's pubic area was tested and found to be dog hair rather than a human hair.
But the officer told an investigator that he never told Murphy that the hair was dog hair, and that it had not been tested.
Two agencies, including police, filed complaints about Murphy's actions in the case, the court document said.
The mother later reunited with her boyfriend, and the case was reopened in October 2010 on the basis of new allegations of sexual abuse by the boyfriend, the document said.
"During that time, Murphy attempted to take part of an interview and examination of the child at an agency in Lexington, and the KSP trooper told Murphy to leave and has indicated he believes Murphy's actions contributed to the child being abused again," the court document said.
Murphy's attorney William Patrick said Friday that he could not comment on the case. But Patrick said a pre-trial conference was set for November. Murphy was issued a criminal summons in August and has pleaded not guilty.
In abuse and neglect cases, social workers make findings about the validity of allegations and document their work in a report titled a "continuous quality assessment."
In a case involving the alleged sexual abuse of an 11-year-old child by her father, Murphy admitted to falsifying the continuous quality assessment, the court document said. In that case, Murphy is accused of documenting that the suspect had been interviewed by state police. Murphy also is accused of documenting that the perpetrator denied the abuse and passed a polygraph.
However, police told an investigator that the suspect had never been interviewed or taken a polygraph.
Murphy "stated that this particular case 'bothered her' because she had falsified information. She admitted that she believed the child had been sexually abused, but still unsubstantiated and closed her case," the court document said.
In 2010, Murphy investigated a report of the sexual abuse of a 7-year-old child and deemed it "unsubstantiated." She had said that the child made inconsistent statements and that she had interviewed the suspect with police, and that the suspect denied the allegations and passed a polygraph test, according to a court document.
But police said they never interviewed the suspect and the suspect never took a polygraph, according to the court document.
The cabinet will not respond specifically to the cases in the bill of particulars, spokeswoman Jill Midkiff said.
"However, upon discovering that there were problems with the way in which Ms. Murphy conducted her investigations in these and other cases not involving falsifications, the Commissioner of the (Department of Community Based Services) had Ms. Murphy's cases reviewed to ensure that appropriate action was taken in accordance with the policies and procedures of the agency," Midkiff said.
Officials in Conway's office would not comment Friday. But in August, Conway said that his office began investigating after receiving a complaint from a resident whose family was in a court case to which Murphy had been assigned.
Tampering with public records is a Class D felony punishable by one to five years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 on each count.
Here's a link to the court document:
http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2011/10/28/23/45/155LTT.So.79.pdf
Source http://www.kentucky.com/2011/10/29/1938928/court-document-describes-former.html
Sunday, August 28, 2011
County says child-protection rifts are mending
By Courtney Vaughn
Hi-Desert Star
Published: Saturday, August 27, 2011 2:14 AM CDT
SAN BERNARDINO — A representative from the county’s Children’s Assessment Center says it is working with partner agencies to resolve many of the shortcomings identified in a grand jury report.
An investigation into the Children and Family Services Department of San Bernardino County and its partner agencies found a dysfunctional relationship between CFS and the assessment center. The Children’s Assessment Center is a private-public partnership that provides medical and psychological evaluations to children of physical and sexual abuse. It partners with CFS, along with Loma Linda University Medical Center, law enforcement, the District Attorney and county Health Department to ensure child abuse cases are properly handled.
According to the report, the center sees between 80 and 100 children each month.
The investigation of CFS, formerly referred to as Child Protective Services, was done on behalf of the grand jury’s Human Services Committee, which reviews social services operations in the county.
Spokesmen from the county don’t deny tensions and communication barriers among CFS, the assessment center and other partner agencies, but they reject many allegations made in the grand jury report.
Assessment center affiliates alleged to grand jurors that some of the county’s social workers were unqualified and didn’t follow protocol.
“There is confusion as to how to work a case. Morale is low,” investigators wrote in their final report.
Despite their statements, jurors do not provide evidence to show CFS ever did anything wrong in its operations.
The grand jury listed lack of accountability and oversight as endemic problems in the CFS department. Jurors say Riverside County CFS uses an auditing system called Technical Assistance, Review and Consultation (TRAC). San Bernardino County CFS was offered training for the system but turned down the offer.
CFS has a heavy burden of responsibility. The county agency takes on numerous cases of potentially harmful home environments each month. In Yucca Valley alone, 60 cases have been referred to the CFS office this month. A local office worker, who did not want to be identified, said the number of cases usually increases during the beginning of the school season.
Department dissolves board of advisors
Jurors charged that CFS has eroded the leadership structure at the assessment center. They noted that CFS representatives discontinued the Child Assessment Center’s advisory board a few years ago and stopped attending other partner agency meetings.
Gregory Devereaux, CEO of San Bernardino County and chairman of the assessment center, said what occurred was a gradual lack of participation by key people from partner agencies.
“When it started, it was a high-level partnership with high-level involvement by all the players…. Over time, responsibilities would get passed down to the next level and the next level and the next. It wasn’t that the commitment waned, but the board got passed down to lower levels in those organizations,” Devereaux said via phone on Friday.
He said the advisory board needed people who had the capability to solve resource problems.
Devereaux says CFS and other agencies were aware of the communication issues and were working to resolve them during the time of the grand jury investigation. He and county spokesman David Wert acknowledged the discord between partnerships, but say none of the behind-the-scenes problems ever affected service to families or children.
Shrinking budgets, tightening tensions
A rift between CFS and Loma Linda University Medical Center, which provides forensic medical exams for children at the assessment center, can be traced to budget constraints.
In 2007, Loma Linda raised its rates of service. David Wert, public information officer for the county, says county administrators instructed CFS to see if the work could be done by another medical facility for a lower rate.
“Everybody’s budgets were already getting tight,” Wert said in a telephone interview Friday. “Some tension developed at that point.”
After CFS requested proposals from other hospitals, it was determined that Loma Linda was the only facility with qualified staff to perform the services needed.
The grand jury report noted CFS started asking the Sheriff’s Department to request and fund forensic medical exams, to offset some of the financial pressure.
‘Right people’ are working at it, CEO says
Aside from visible tensions, the report stated CFS was uncooperative with the grand jury when asked to release information. And the jury wasn’t the only one. CFS also requested a subpoena before releasing any information to the assessment center’s Child Death Review Team, which was investigating a child’s death.
“CFS hides behind a screen of confidentiality, and does not want to give out any information,” jurors wrote.
Devereaux said the “screen of confidentiality” isn’t a screen, but the law.
“The people that they interviewed don’t know the law,” he said.
Devereaux said by law, no agency can release information about its clients or patients unless subpoenaed by a judge.
Allegations aside, Devereaux and Wert said working relationships that once faltered are being restored. “We’ve gone to a new structure. We’ve got the right people at the table and relationships are being rebuilt,” Devereaux said.
Source http://www.hidesertstar.com/articles/2011/08/27/news/doc4e5895c6d6ec4617887769.txt
Hi-Desert Star
Published: Saturday, August 27, 2011 2:14 AM CDT
SAN BERNARDINO — A representative from the county’s Children’s Assessment Center says it is working with partner agencies to resolve many of the shortcomings identified in a grand jury report.
An investigation into the Children and Family Services Department of San Bernardino County and its partner agencies found a dysfunctional relationship between CFS and the assessment center. The Children’s Assessment Center is a private-public partnership that provides medical and psychological evaluations to children of physical and sexual abuse. It partners with CFS, along with Loma Linda University Medical Center, law enforcement, the District Attorney and county Health Department to ensure child abuse cases are properly handled.
According to the report, the center sees between 80 and 100 children each month.
The investigation of CFS, formerly referred to as Child Protective Services, was done on behalf of the grand jury’s Human Services Committee, which reviews social services operations in the county.
Spokesmen from the county don’t deny tensions and communication barriers among CFS, the assessment center and other partner agencies, but they reject many allegations made in the grand jury report.
Assessment center affiliates alleged to grand jurors that some of the county’s social workers were unqualified and didn’t follow protocol.
“There is confusion as to how to work a case. Morale is low,” investigators wrote in their final report.
Despite their statements, jurors do not provide evidence to show CFS ever did anything wrong in its operations.
The grand jury listed lack of accountability and oversight as endemic problems in the CFS department. Jurors say Riverside County CFS uses an auditing system called Technical Assistance, Review and Consultation (TRAC). San Bernardino County CFS was offered training for the system but turned down the offer.
CFS has a heavy burden of responsibility. The county agency takes on numerous cases of potentially harmful home environments each month. In Yucca Valley alone, 60 cases have been referred to the CFS office this month. A local office worker, who did not want to be identified, said the number of cases usually increases during the beginning of the school season.
Department dissolves board of advisors
Jurors charged that CFS has eroded the leadership structure at the assessment center. They noted that CFS representatives discontinued the Child Assessment Center’s advisory board a few years ago and stopped attending other partner agency meetings.
Gregory Devereaux, CEO of San Bernardino County and chairman of the assessment center, said what occurred was a gradual lack of participation by key people from partner agencies.
“When it started, it was a high-level partnership with high-level involvement by all the players…. Over time, responsibilities would get passed down to the next level and the next level and the next. It wasn’t that the commitment waned, but the board got passed down to lower levels in those organizations,” Devereaux said via phone on Friday.
He said the advisory board needed people who had the capability to solve resource problems.
Devereaux says CFS and other agencies were aware of the communication issues and were working to resolve them during the time of the grand jury investigation. He and county spokesman David Wert acknowledged the discord between partnerships, but say none of the behind-the-scenes problems ever affected service to families or children.
Shrinking budgets, tightening tensions
A rift between CFS and Loma Linda University Medical Center, which provides forensic medical exams for children at the assessment center, can be traced to budget constraints.
In 2007, Loma Linda raised its rates of service. David Wert, public information officer for the county, says county administrators instructed CFS to see if the work could be done by another medical facility for a lower rate.
“Everybody’s budgets were already getting tight,” Wert said in a telephone interview Friday. “Some tension developed at that point.”
After CFS requested proposals from other hospitals, it was determined that Loma Linda was the only facility with qualified staff to perform the services needed.
The grand jury report noted CFS started asking the Sheriff’s Department to request and fund forensic medical exams, to offset some of the financial pressure.
‘Right people’ are working at it, CEO says
Aside from visible tensions, the report stated CFS was uncooperative with the grand jury when asked to release information. And the jury wasn’t the only one. CFS also requested a subpoena before releasing any information to the assessment center’s Child Death Review Team, which was investigating a child’s death.
“CFS hides behind a screen of confidentiality, and does not want to give out any information,” jurors wrote.
Devereaux said the “screen of confidentiality” isn’t a screen, but the law.
“The people that they interviewed don’t know the law,” he said.
Devereaux said by law, no agency can release information about its clients or patients unless subpoenaed by a judge.
Allegations aside, Devereaux and Wert said working relationships that once faltered are being restored. “We’ve gone to a new structure. We’ve got the right people at the table and relationships are being rebuilt,” Devereaux said.
Source http://www.hidesertstar.com/articles/2011/08/27/news/doc4e5895c6d6ec4617887769.txt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)