Everlyse Cabrera
Girl, 2, vanished in June while under the care of foster parents
Marlena Olivas and Ernesto Cabrera speak about leaving a Christmas gift for their missing daughter Dec. 24 in front of her last known location, a foster home in North Las Vegas. Photo by Ralph Fountain.
A confidential case review detailing the flawed interactions between Clark County Family Services and the foster parents of a missing toddler has blindsided state authorities and attorneys for the missing child's family.
Nevada Director of Health and Human Services Michael Willden, whose agency has oversight of state child welfare services, said Friday that when he requested the case review from county officials last year, he was told no such document existed.
Advertisement
Attorney David Gibson Jr., who represents the parents of Everlyse Cabrera in a lawsuit against Clark County, said county officials failed to turn over the case review to them as part of discovery and told him and attorney Gregory Mills more than once that no such report existed.
"No one wants to give over the smoking gun," a frustrated Gibson said Tuesday. "It begs the question: What else are they concealing that they don't want us to know about?"
The seven-page case review dated June 29 was obtained by the Review-Journal and includes a timeline of Manuel and Vhee Carrascal's history as foster parents leading up to the disappearance of Everlyse. The girl, who would have celebrated her third birthday in January, was reported missing June 10. North Las Vegas police said their investigation into her disappearance has gone nowhere.
"This is a puzzle, and we don't even have the starting piece," North Las Vegas Police Spokesman Tim Bedwell said.
Since an initial interview with police, the Carrascals have declined to speak with them again. They told police that Everlyse opened the front door and disappeared sometime during the night. Although the child was discovered missing about 8 a.m., police were not contacted until noon June 10.
North Las Vegas police were unaware of the case review until recently, but they have gone over it and determined that it contained no leads for the investigation.
The case review lays out 16 findings and concerns, including failure to ensure that the couple completed required training, inadequate investigations into how a foster child suffered serious burns in the Carrascal home in 2005 and poor communication within Family Services about problems with the couple's performance as foster parents.
Clark County Spokesman Erik Pappa took issue with Gibson's statements that the county was trying to hide something and said that Gibson is aware the case review is an attorney work product that was done in anticipation of pending litigation.
"My understanding is that they (Gibson and Mills) knew full well the document existed, that it was attorney work product and that it was privileged," Pappa said.
The work was performed by child welfare consultant Ed Cotton at the request of the county. Cotton on Tuesday declined to discuss the details of the case review.
"It has long been the rule that this type of expert assistance is not a public record or discoverable in the case until the parties are going to use it at trial," Pappa said.
That leads into the reason it was not given to Willden, Pappa said.
"You waive this rule if you give the product to anyone outside the organization," he said.
As for why Willden was saying last week that he had been told the document did not exist, Pappa said he could not comment on that.
Gibson said that at the least, the lawyers from the district attorney's office should have acknowledged the report existed, even if they refused to turn it over.
"If they were going to claim it was privileged, they should have included a privilege log in the discovery materials," Gibson said. "They didn't."
Gibson said the case review contains vital information that supports the allegations made in the lawsuit brought by Marlena Olivas and Ernesto Cabrera, the parents of Everlyse. The lawsuit, which names eight individuals and Clark County Family Services, alleges that the county put Everlyse in jeopardy when she was placed with foster parents who were poorly vetted, trained and supervised.
The allegations are supported by the details of the case review that have been disclosed in media reports, Gibson said.
Amy Jaffe, who supervised two caseworkers that had children in the Carrascal home, had access to information that showed the caseworkers were not making home visits, Gibson said.
Gibson said the report shows she did nothing. Cotton stated that no caseworker was in the Carrascal home before the disappearance of Everlyse, Gibson said.
Jaffe is named individually in the lawsuit. She supervised David Cronister, the caseworker assigned to Everlyse.
"This report basically makes our case for us," Gibson said. "It's no wonder they don't want us to have it."
Clark County Commission Chairman Rory Reid, who has worked with Willden in trying to improve the quality of child welfare services, said he has not seen the Cabrera case review and was unaware that it was a bone of contention.
"Whatever was done in the past, it's hard to make the argument that we don't want transparency now," Reid said. "We're supporting legislation that will make that possible. Nobody's trying to hide the ball."
REVIEW LISTS CONCERNS ABOUT FOSTER PARENTS
In a seven-page report Clark County that has refused to release to the public, a consultant identified 16 concerns in the dealings between Department of Family Services staff and foster parents Manual and Vhee Carrascal. The Carrascals were entrusted with the care of foster child Everlyse Cabrera, who was 2 when she was reported missing June 10. The concerns, as listed in a case review by child welfare consultant Ed Cotton, are the following:
• Although Family Services placed seven different children with the Carrascals, no caseworker visited the home before Everlyse disappeared.
• Lisa Lamb, the licensing worker who recommended renewal of the Carrascal's foster license in May, was never told about a 3-year-old foster child who suffered burns while in the couple's care. The burn incident happened on Dec. 7, 2005.
• The Carrascal's 14-year-old son was never interviewed about the foster child who suffered burns. The teen also was never interviewed during the licensing procedure.
• The investigation of the burned foster child consisted only of an interview with the foster mother. The investigator never spoke with the foster child, never looked at medical records, never interviewed the foster father and was unaware there was a teenager in the home who might have been a witness. The investigator was never told the foster parents had waited several hours before seeking medical treatment for the foster child's second- and third-degree burns, which the family said was caused by hot soup.
• Although child welfare supervisor Christine Vela wanted an investigation of the burn incident, staff for the child abuse reporting hot line determined the report was for information only and did not refer the incident for investigation.
• Vela, a child welfare supervisor, was never told that the burned foster child in the Carrascal's care had required overnight hospitalization for his injuries.
• A foster licensing manager said that caseworkers should have been told of the Carrascals' history as foster parents before placing children with the family. David Cronister, Everlyse's caseworker, said he was not provided with that information.
• None of the caseworkers responsible for the foster children in the Carrascals' home knew that the couple's 34-year-old son also lived with them.
• The family did not tell Family Services the adult son had returned home, and on the May renewal application, the family stated there were only two adults residing in the home.
• Only the foster father was interviewed at the licensing renewal meeting, although the mother was the primary caregiver.
• In December 2005, a foster child was placed with the Carrascals while the licensing investigation was "pending." The home should have been on hold, but the process is confusing and leaves room for discretionary staff decisions.
• The family could have been kept on hold until it complied with training requirements.
• The foster family never completed required training, nor was the training waived.
• The Carrascal home was not licensed by a Department of Family Services licensing worker; a contract person was used.
• One licensing staff member expressed concerns that the family should not have been licensed in the first place because of “unrealistic expectations.”
• Caseworkers lacked access to the licensing notes on foster parents and were not always aware of issues within foster homes.
Source: Ed Cotton Case Review, Manual and Vhee Carrascal Foster Home, June 29, 2006
