Specific examples of how Clark County's Department of Family Services failed in its mission to protect abused or neglected children were excised from an independent consultant's report released to the public in December.

The censored material, obtained by the Review-Journal Tuesday, included eight pages of case details that illustrate why independent reviewers for the county were doubtful about the safety of more than one-third of the children in 1,352 cases reviewed by consultants. Child Welfare Consultant Ed Cotton conducted the review for Clark County from May to October of 2006.

"Were you asked by anyone in the department to take out or change anything?" Assemblywoman Susan Gerhardt, D-Henderson, asked Tuesday, when Cotton gave a presentation to the state-appointed Blue Ribbon Panel on Child Death Review for Southern Nevada.

"I wasn't told to take them out; I was asked to consider it," Cotton said during his first appearance before the panel.

Cotton complied with the request from Clark County Deputy District Attorney Mary-Anne Miller. He said it was his understanding that immediate action would be taken in cases where a child's safety was in question.

Cotton doesn't know whether that happened.

"So, has nothing been done to check on the status of the children in this report?" Gerhardt asked.

Clark County Department of Family Services Director Tom Morton couldn't answer that question. Morton said Tuesday was the first day the county had a complete list of the identities of the children in the cases highlighted by Cotton.

Cotton turned over the last of the names to Morton at Tuesday's meeting of the Child Death Review panel.

Morton said he had been directed not to talk about the eight pages in question.

"Under the specific direction of the district attorney, I've been asked not to comment on any part of the report that is not public," he said.

In a copy of the censored section obtained by the Review-Journal, the 57 highlighted cases included instances in which:

• A caseworker placed children removed from a drug-abusing mother with their father, who has a history of sexually abusing minors. That caseworker had not read the children's case file.

• Children taken from a father who killed the mother were placed with relatives who were illegal immigrants likely to be deported.

• A caseworker reunited six children with their natural mother although she failed to meet parenting goals. Afterward, family services received multiple complaints from people telling them the children were begging for food, but no investigation was conducted. The report noted: "The worker claims that pieces of food on the floor were 'reasons to believe' that the kids are fed enough!"

• A pediatrician expert documented Shaken Baby Syndrome in a child death. But no charges were filed.

• A stepfather abused a 5-year-old boy. Although the child's body, including his penis and anus, were "covered with bruises," police were never called. When the caseworker was asked by a reviewer why police weren't contacted, the worker said: "I don't know."

• A 10-month-old child was removed from his drug-abusing mother and placed with two aunts in succession. At the time of Cotton's review, the child had not been seen by a case worker since March 12. Phone numbers for both aunts were disconnected. "It is unknown where the child is at this time," the report said.

Gerhardt said she received a copy of the censored case vignettes Monday night.

Since the Blue Ribbon Panel on Child Death Review was empowered to make recommendations to lawmakers for improving child welfare and the death review process, Gerhardt said, she thinks other panel members should have the information as well.

Assistant Clark County Manager Darryl Martin was asked by panel members if he had any objections to the panel members receiving the information.

"I can't say you can or can't release the information," Martin said, adding that the deputy district attorney's motivation in excluding the material was to protect the privacy of the minors involved. "The biggest concern was for the confidentiality of the children."

In the end, Cotton agreed to rewrite the eight pages of case details in a more general fashion and release it to the panel.

Panel member Stu Fredlund said it seemed to him that obtaining information from the county has always been a challenge.

"It's a lack of trust," Fredlund said. "Information is not provided, and once again, it's exactly the same old issue."

Gerhardt agreed and added that withholding this type of information does nothing to restore the public's faith in the system.

"If what we're trying to accomplish is to move forward and change the public perception ... this doesn't do much to change the public perception," Gerhardt said.