EDITORIAL: County’s child welfare response falls flat

A sure sign that government lacks accountability: When public officials use taxpayer resources to shoot the messengers of news they don’t want to hear.

The failures of Southern Nevada’s child welfare system are beyond tragic. Over the past several months, the Review-Journal’s Yesenia Amaro has reported on the deaths of children in foster care, the oversight of the Clark County Department of Family Services, the guidelines that might have contributed to child deaths and potential conflicts in the examination of those deaths. The Review-Journal has followed the story for the same reasons it covers other important government issues: to provide taxpayers with information about the effectiveness of the services they pay for. Readers are more than capable of reaching their own conclusions based on our reporting.

We don’t write such stories to ingratiate ourselves with the government officials we cover. Indeed, some of Ms. Amaro’s stories provide unflattering (to say the least) details about the capabilities of the Department of Family Services.

Clark County officials are unhappy with her coverage. But instead of focusing their scrutiny inward, the county is coming after Ms. Amaro. It’s picking this fight over word usage fully supported by a dusty relic commonly known as a dictionary.

Clark County Communications Director Erik Pappa, a former journalist, posted to the county’s website an attack on Ms. Amaro and the Review-Journal headlined, “Setting the Record Straight.” He did so because the Review-Journal justifiably refused his demand that the newspaper publish an extensive correction/retraction over the difference between the words “goal” and “policy.”

Everyone who insists they’re “setting the record straight” most assuredly isn’t. Mr. Pappa’s exercise in hair splitting says that in 2007, the County Commission set a goal that no more than one child under the age of 2 (except siblings) would be placed in a foster home. A goal is not to be confused with a policy, Mr. Pappa says. Never mind that Merriam-Webster (that dictionary thing) lists as one definition of policy: “a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body.” Never mind that the same resolution Mr. Pappa cites calls for the county to make those goals formal policies. The terms are basically synonymous.

The guideline is important because 16-month-old Michell Momox-Caselis and an unrelated 9-month-old child were placed in the same foster home last year. On Oct. 12, Michell died from an antihistamine overdose. The foster father believed to be responsible for the overdose committed suicide that same day. Mr. Pappa says the print edition headline that appeared over Ms. Amaro’s Jan. 11 report, “County policies ignored by DFS,” is evidence of irresponsible, slanted, sensational journalism. Yet the first paragraph of Ms. Amaro’s story used the word “goals.” The report also included a statement from Mr. Pappa that the one-child-under-2 rule — or should we call it a suggestion? — was a goal, not a policy.

More than seven years ago, county commissioners formally declared that such a guideline is best for foster children. That guideline wasn’t followed at a home in which a foster child died. And the Review-Journal’s reporting is the problem? Please. Mr. Pappa also didn’t appreciate that Ms. Amaro, in writing on a commissioned review that cleared DFS in the child’s death, reported that the review was completed by the leader of a DFS contractor. Pay no attention to that potential conflict of interest, you ignorant masses! You might start asking questions we don’t want to answer!

Speaking of unanswered questions, Mr. Pappa conveniently neglects to mention that he has refused to provide Ms. Amaro with the number of children under age 2 housed at Child Haven, the county’s shelter for abused, neglected and abandoned children.

The Review-Journal’s reporting is not the problem here. Clark County’s pointless protests do much more than validate Ms. Amaro’s DFS coverage — they suggest she’s just scratching the surface.