Written by Kathryn Lyon in
"The Wenatchee Report"
copyright 1995


Table of Contents


I.	Introduction	1


A.	Some General Facts	1
1.	The Rings	1
2.	The Simple Origins	3
3.	The Story Continues	9
4.	Goals and Limitations	10

B.	Chelan-Douglas County Governmental Structure	11
1.	Demographics	11
2.	Criminal Justice System	12
3.	Social Service Agencies	13
a.	Guardian ad Litem	13
b.	Division of Children and Family Services	14


II.	Governmental Activities Involving Families in the Chelan-Douglas County Areas	15


A.	DCFS Activities in Chelan-Douglas Counties	15
1.	Children's Protective Services	15
a.	Agency Goals	15
b.	Provisions for Cultural Differences	16
c.	Eligibility for CPS Services	17
d.	Investigation	18
2.	Child Welfare Services	18
3.	Dependencies	19
a.	Declaration	19
b.	Filing	19
c.	Dependency Fact-Finding Hearing	19
d.	Disposition	20
e.	Out of Home Placement	21
f.	Termination: Filing at Disposition	21
g.	Service Plan	22
h.	Review Hearings	22
4.	Foster care	22
5.	Adoption	23

B.	Application to Facts: Biased Attitudes, Negative Expectations, Discriminatory Practices	23
1.	Overview	23
2.	Interview Summaries	24
a.	Paul Glassen	24
(1)  Status with DCFS: Background	24
(2)  Observations of Discriminatory Practices	28
(3)  The Chain of Command	29
b.	Juana Vasquez	30
(1)  Status with DCFS: Background	30
(2)  Observations of Discriminatory Practices	33
c.	Juan Garcia	37
(1)  Status with DCFS	37
(2)  Observation of Discriminatory Practices	42

C.	Relationship Between DCFS and Law Enforcement: Systematic Intolerance and Negative Expectations	47
1.	Target Population	47
a.	Overview	47
b.	Interview:  Paul Glassen	48
c.	Interview:  Juan Garcia	48
d.	Interview:  Juana Vasquez	49
2.	Joint Interviews	49
a.	Interview:  CPS Supervisor Tim Abbey	49
b.	Review of CPS Policy	51
(1)  CPS Manual	51
(2)  CPS Child Interview Form Guidelines	52
Principles for Legally Sound Interviewing	53
c.	Police Interview Practices	53
3.	Other Problems Involving Combined DCFS/Police Practices	54
a.	Voluntary Placement Agreement to Make Children Available for Police Interviews	54
(1)  Ralph Gausvik/Barbara Garaas	54
b.	Police Threats Involving DCFS	57


III.	Governmental Acts Regarding Sex Abuse Investigations and Prosecutions	58


A.	The Anatomy of the Investigation	58
1.	A Note on Organization	58
2.	Chronology of Events	60
3.	Examples of Investigations	61
a.	Cherie Town	61
b.	Pastor Robert Roberson	67
c.	Robert Devereaux	73
4.	The Inconsistent Statements of Selected Witnesses	77

B.	The Witnesses:  Children	78
1.	Factors Bearing on the Reliability of Children's Statements	78
a.	Police Documentation of Child Interviews	78
b.	Anecdotal Information Regarding Child Interviews	82
(1)  Videotaped Interview:  K.A.	83
(2)  Videotaped Interviews:  B.H. and M.H.	85
M.H.	85
B.H.	87
Brenda Welch	89
(3)  Videotaped Interview:  S.D.	89
Pine Crest Records	94
(4)  Juan Garcia	95
(5)  J.D.	98
(6)  Tim Abbey	99
(7)  Carleen Arnold Regarding J.D. and A.D.	100
(8)  Videotaped Interview: Paul Glassen	101
2.	Review of Law and Social Science	102
a.	Memory	102
b.	Suggestibility	102
(1)  The Effects of Interviewer Bias	103
(2)  The Effects of Repeated Questions	105
(3)  The Effects of Repeating Misinformation Across Interviews.	105
(4)  Emotional Tone of the Interview	105
(5)  The Effects of Being Interviewed by Adults with High Status	105
(6)  The Effect of Stereotype Inducement	106
c.	Interview Errors	106
(1)  Unfounded Allegations	106
(2)  Inadequate Investigation	106
(3)  Recantation	107
(4)  Vindictiveness and Control	107
(5)  Poor Quality Interviewing	107
(6)  Bias	108
d.	Latticed Allegations	108
e.	Repressed Memory	110
f.	Therapy as Investigation	110
g.	Recorded Interviews	111
3.	Review of Law Relevant to Reliability of Child Witnesses	111
a.	Taint Hearing	111
b.	Videotaping	112

C.	The Defendants: Vulnerable Adults	113
1.	The Criminal Dispositions	113
Factors Bearing on Reliability of Confessions	116
2.	Some Case Examples: The Statements of the Accused	118
a.	Interview:  Scharlann Filbeck	118
b.	Interview:  Laura Holt	120
c.	Interview:  Linda Miller	121
d.	Interview:  Idella Everett	122
e.	Interview:  Donna Hidalgo	123
f.	Interview:  Kerri Ann Knowles	125
g.	Letter:  Jeannie Bendt	126
h.	Interview:  Cherie Town	127
i.	Interview:  Susan Everett	129
j.	Interview:  Karen Lopez	131
k.	Interview:  Karen Lopez	132
3.	Review of Social Science Literature	134
a.	False Confessions	134
b.	Relative Powerlessness: The Right to Counsel	137
c.	Police Interrogation of the Mentally Retarded	139
4.	Review of Relevant Legal Materials	140
a.	Voluntariness of Confessions	140
b.	Right to Counsel	143
c.	Failure to Preserve Evidence	144


IV.	The Judicial Response	146


A.	Overview	146

B.	Areas of Concern	146
1.	Absence of Counsel	147
2.	Disparate Representation for the Indigent	149


V.	Retaliation: The Psychology of Fear	150



VI.	Conclusion:  Suggested Areas for Action	153


A.	Suggested Areas for Reform	154
1.	Use of Videotaping and Protocols	154
2.	Civil Accountability	156
3.	Governmental Investigation	156

 
 
SOURCES


APPENDIX

Mental Health Services for Minors
Inpatient Hospital Care: WAC Enablement
Interstate Compact for Transportation of Minors


ATTACHMENTS

I.	Introduction
A.	Some General Facts
	1.	The Rings

According to 1994 statistics held by the Wenatchee Chamber of Commerce, the greater Wenatchee area in Chelan County has a population of 58,000.  The city attractively nestles at the confluence of the Wenatchee and Columbia rivers in the heart of the state's apple growing region.  Directly across the Columbia River from Wenatchee is its twin city, East Wenatchee, in Douglas County:  population 29,300.  According to materials disseminated by the Wenatchee Chamber of Commerce, Wenatchee is the "crown jewel of north central Washington."  Wenatchee is also in an isolated geographic pocket,  three hours away from the state's biggest cities: Seattle, across the Cascade mountain range to its west, and Spokane, across the cultivated fields and semi-arid desert to the East.
These seemingly peaceful communities have become devastated by allegations of group sexual activity involving children. The facts in the Wenatchee and East Wenatchee areas present a curious dichotomy. On one hand, it is alleged that rings of adults and children met for years at the home of Robert Devereaux, a single male foster parent. According to one girl's report, rings of men and women dressed in black and wearing sunglasses took turns having sex with several children in rows of bunkbeds strewn across an upstairs bedroom. Another girl said that 15 to 20 adults stood in line to have intercourse with as many children. You had to bring a child to pay admission, said one adult participant.
Other times it was at the Pentecostal Church. According to the account of an adult, children would be called to the alter at the front of the congregation one by one. Pastor Robert Roberson would then perform ritualized acts of sex in the guise of cleansing them of the devil. Children describe up to 19 adults changing partners with 10 to 12 children all over the church basement. Children and adults describe that they met at homes of various parents, such as the 700 square foot home of Harold and Idella Everett. Harold, it has been said, would direct everyone in performing sex acts, including oral and vaginal intercourse. These events happened with great regularity, at least three times a week by many accounts.
On the other hand, in early 1994, Detective Robert Perez, who is not Hispanic as his name implies, took over as head of the crimes against children unit of the Wenatchee Police Department after taking a brief training course.(1) Immediately upon taking office,  Detective Perez began aggressively questioning children and adults from families of Wenatchee's disadvantaged: the poor, the emotionally impaired, racial minorities, people with mental disabilities. According to police performance evaluation records, this practice is typical of Perez' history of "targeting" people.(2) Shortly after taking on his new position, Perez became foster parent for a child who is now the State's key witness.
Detective Perez' interviews are invariably successful. As an example, one day Detective Perez interviewed an 11 year old girl from nine in the morning until two in the afternoon. After she continued to deny that her mother and others had molested her, Perez said, "This is enough fooling around." Then he picked up the phone and called some officers to pick up and arrest the child's mother. He then hung up and said, "Well, you got ten minutes to speak now. Get it out and I'll stop that phone call." The child immediately made "disclosures."(3) Similarly, a CPS worker saw Detective Perez call a child a "liar" and pick up the phone and threaten to make a call to place him in juvenile hall if the child didn't tell what Perez "knew had happened.(4)
According to interview records, police reports and testimony, adults limited by poverty and mental disabilities are interrogated for hours, confronted with what Detective Perez "knows" to be true, called liars and derogatory names, threatened with life imprisonment, ugly death in confinement, the certainty of never seeing their loved ones again. "But," Perez has repeatedly been quoted as saying, "we'll go easy on you. I'll testify for you. I'll personally tell the judge that you've cooperated with me. All you gotta do is tell me what I already know."(5)

Vulnerable children and adults have become the "witnesses" to what is perhaps the largest documented sex ring case in the nation. Upwards of 45 people have been charged, sometimes with thousands of counts of rape of a child in the first degree. (6) Most of these adults are women. Many of the adults confessed truthfully or succumbed to the interview process and signed lengthy statements typed by Detective Perez. The statements are rich with detail about the defendant and others.
These statements have to suffice as the official version of the facts. All contemporaneous field or interview notes are admittedly destroyed by Detective Perez.(7) Many of these interrogations have been witnessed by other officers or by CPS personnel. Faced with staggering prison sentences and the incentives inherent in plea bargaining, many of these individuals have pled guilty. Almost all have now recanted their statements. Many of those who have recanted are still facing trial or sentencing and recant at great peril to the plea bargaining process.(8)
Some of the children have recanted as well.(9) Evidence which is likely to be uncontroverted, suggests that some children have been isolated and separated from family, schools, friends, churches in order to preserve their statements. (10) A majority of these children were apparently sent to a locked mental facility in Idaho, sometimes for upwards of four weeks, without any civil commitment process.(11) A large number of these children are placed in a therapy program which deals with the process of retrieving memories. (12)
2.	The Simple Origins
In 1992 D.E., then eight years old, lived with her mother and father and her sister and three brothers in a tiny house bespeaking the family's poverty. D.E.'s mother, Idella Everett, has an IQ recently tested as 58.(13) Her father, Harold Everett, can neither read nor write. The Everetts have lived most of their lives in Wenatchee, Washington.
According to incident reports of Wenatchee Police Department Officer Kevin Dresker, (14) on February 26, 1992 a school counselor contacted the Wenatchee police because D.E. told him her "privates" hurt. From her statement and her recent behaviors the counselor suspected she had been sexually molested. That same day a CPS worker, Kate Carrow, interviewed D.E. at her school. D.E. purportedly told her that the day before two boys, Pancho and Julio, had put their fingers in her vagina while she was walking down an alley on her way home from school. Pancho and Julio are first graders at D.E.'s school. D.E. said that her sister M.E. had been in the alley with her when this happened. However, M.E. told Ms. Carrow that not her but their brother, R.E. had been there. Ms. Carrow was not satisfied.
Upon receiving this information Kate Carrow, on February 26, took D.E. to an emergency room doctor. Dr. Ettinger's finding was that D.E.'s genital area was "grossly normal." D.E. told Dr. Ettinger that two boys from school had touched her. (15)
Following up on this information, Officer Dresker contacted D.E. at her school on February 28, 1992. He told her he was a "kid safety" person. he talked about "good touching: where someone may kiss or hug you," about "bad touching: like when someone hits or kicks you," and about "secret touching: where someone touches your 'private parts.'" After some initial reluctance Donna acknowledged that she had some "touching troubles." She repeated that Julio and Pancho had touched her on her "pee pee." Kate Carrow, who was also present, drew six boxes on a piece of paper.  Officer Dresker labeled the fourth box "secret," or "private part' touch. D.E. said she had that kind of touch. When Officer Dresker asked who had done this she said, "Pancho and Julio." She "made a mark by the groin area," of a drawing supplied to her for this purpose, to show where she had been touched. She said at different times that she had been touched with a hand and a stick. She also was inconsistent about who had been with her.
Neither Officer Dresker nor Ms. Carrow were satisfied. At this point both Officer Dresker and Kate Carrow "felt that D.E. had been molested, but that she was afraid to tell us who had molested her, so she was making up a story about Julio and Poncho. Julio and Poncho are both in the first grade at Lincoln school. Some of the statements and the apparent amount of physical damage to D.E., didn't match what we were told." (16)
On March 2, 1992, Officer Dresker interviewed Harold and Idella Everett. The Everetts related that on February 25, 1992, D.E. had come home from school and told them that two boys had kicked her in an alley. Then on February 27, 1992, after CPS had contacted her at school, D.E. told her parents that the two boys had approached her in an alley, pulled down her pants and "put their hands up her."
On March 3, 1992, Kate Carrow took D.E. to see a doctor at Wenatchee Valley Clinic. This time the doctor, Dr. Eisert, indicated that there was physical evidence consistent with sexual molestation. The medical examination results indicated no bruising, scarring, recent or old trauma of the anus. The vaginal area was without obvious adhesions or scars. Reference was made to an absence of hymenal tissue and hyper vascularity. No acute scars or obvious acute tears were observed in the examination or subsequent colposcopy examination.(17)
On the same day, Officer Dresker spoke with D.E.'s siblings, M.E. and R.E. (then six) at the Wenatchee Police Department. M.E. said D.E. hadn't been walking with her when the alleged incident occurred, but with R.E. She didn't know anything about "touching troubles." R.E. said that he was walking a little behind D.E. on February 25, 1992. He saw Julio hit D.E. "in the privates with a stick," while she had her clothes on. Kate Carrow remained unsatisfied. Upon hearing this, Ms. Carrow spoke to Harold and Idella Everett, who "agreed to a voluntary placement of D.E." D.E. was placed in a foster home. (18)
Nearly two weeks later, on March 16, 1992, Officer Dresker and Kate Carrow were contacted by D.E.'s foster mother, Debbie Cawdrey. Ms. Cawdrey said that initially D.E. would only talk about Julio and Pancho. On March 11, according to Ms. Cawdrey, D.E. "wasn't ready to say who hurt her." However on March 12, Debbie asked D.E. if she was "ready to talk." and D.E. said that she was. Debbie's husband Pete had then questioned D.E. and she said that a male approached her when she was walking with a friend, Veronica. This male grabbed her and "put his hand in as far as it would go." She thought the man's name was "Abel." Debbie told D.E. she was proud of her for her disclosure. Ms. Cawdrey was satisfied.
After receiving this information on March 16, 1992, Officer Dresker and Kate Carrow talked to D.E. at her school about the "touching troubles." D.E. refused to talk to Officer Dresker about these touching troubles. She turned away and was "almost to the point of crying." Officer Dresker reports that, "I asked her if she knew the person that she had touching troubles with and she nodded yes." Because D.E. was "having a hard time talking about the incident," Officer Dresker drew a series of stick figures. Through a process of elimination, D.E. pointed to the larger of two stick figures. Officer Dresker concluded that D.E.'s assailant was an adult male.
Because D.E. was "still having problems telling who the person was," Officer Dresker asked D.E. to whisper the name of the person to a stuffed animal. After a time, D.E. faintly whispered, "Abel." Officer Dresker then "told her how brave she was for talking." With reluctance, D.E. indicated on pictures provided by Kate Carrow that the man had touched her on the vaginal area with his hand. D.E. then identified Abel as a man who used to live with her sister, Karen Lopez. Although D.E. told Officer Dresker that her friend Veronica had been present and had seen the incident and that she had later discussed the touching with Veronica, Veronica denied memory of any of this when she was interviewed by Officer Dresker on the same day. No matter, Officer Dresker and Kate Carrow were satisfied.
On March 19, 1992, Officer Dresker and Officer Ramirez went to the home of Abel Lopez. Apparently Mr. Lopez could speak only Spanish but Officer Ramirez interpreted for Officer Dresker. Officer Dresker then later wrote the incident report. Officer Dresker related in his report, "I told Abel that (D.E.) said that the touching occurred and the doctors report confirmed that touching had occurred and I just wanted him to be honest with me so I could hear his side. I told him that I didn't feel he was being honest with me. I told Abel that if he wasn't honest with me, it could hurt him later on. I advised him that maybe it was possible that (D.E.) wanted him to touch or even touched him first. I told him that I knew the incident occurred, I just wanted to hear his side of the story as to what happened." At last, Mr. Lopez related that D.E. had grabbed his hand and put it to her vagina but he had snatched it away and went home.
Mr. Lopez purportedly believed that by telling the officers what they wanted they would be satisfied and let him go. They were indeed satisfied but they didn't let him go. Officer Dresker asked him to sign a statement. Abel Lopez asked if by signing a statement it meant he wouldn't be able to talk to a lawyer. Officer Dresker said no. Abel requested a lawyer a few times thereafter but, according to Officer Dresker, he continued to volunteer information. Officer Ramirez asked Abel if he wanted a lawyer or he wanted to talk and Abel said he wanted to talk. At that point Abel said he had lied in his statement and he had not touched D.E. (Wenatchee Police Department Incident Report, dated 3/2/92. Officer Kevin Dresker.)
And so it began.
From this simple origin, D.E. has become the paramount complaining witness regarding sex rings in the Wenatchee and East Wenatchee areas. Most of her allegations include the time frame prior to her interview by Officer Dresker. After her disclosures in 1992, D.E. was returned to the family home. In October of 1993, she was placed in the home of Robert Devereaux, a single male foster parent, because of allegations that her father Harold Everett had been physically abusive (spanking her brother with a belt.) In early 1994, Detective Robert Perez completed a brief training course in investigating child abuse allegations. Shortly thereafter, he took over as head of the crimes against children unit of the Wenatchee Police Department. He immediately set out on a course of aggressive investigation of child sex abuse allegations.
In March of 1994, D.E. was placed as a foster child in the home of Detective Perez. In June of 1994, Detective Perez made sexual comments about D.E.'s former foster father, Robert Devereaux, indicating his belief that Mr. Devereaux was sexually abusing the foster children in his charge, and implying he would get him someday.(19)
Robert Perez has testified that it took several months for D.E. to bond with him.(20) Then,  in January of 1995 she told Detective Perez that she wanted to talk about others who had molested her. She named her parents and seven other adults, including Robert Devereaux.  She described group acts of sex involving several children at various locations.(21) Three days later D.E. told Perez about several other adults, and additional child victims.
On March 13, 1994, D.E. drove around in a police vehicle with Detective Perez, Kate Carrow, and Laurie Alexander, also a Wenatchee CPS worker. D.E. pointed out 15 locations in Wenatchee and six locations in East Wenatchee, including Pastor Robert Roberson's Pentecostal Church, as being locations where she and other children had been molested by groups of adults. D.E. was interviewed by Detective Perez on March 14, again with Laurie Alexander and Kate Carrow present. On this and her previous disclosures D.E. described various sexual activities including penile/vaginal penetration. She said that at the Pentecostal Church they would sing songs and then go down to a "big room" where touching and intercourse occurred. She identified over 25 adults and a dozen children.(22)
Police reports document that D.E. has been interviewed formally by police more than a dozen times. Many more interviews are undocumented. Detective Perez has testified that Donna experienced many emotional difficulties at his home. When she acted up he told her several times that he would have to have her removed, at least temporarily. (23) Her disclosures may have followed a pattern of these statements.
According to an article in the Wenatchee Daily World, around the time of the trial of Donna Hidalgo in mid September, 1995,  D.E. started to throw things around the Perez home. Detective Perez had D.E. charged and taken to juvenile detention. After a stay in juvenile detention, D.E. was then placed in another foster home. After she had testified against Ms. Hidalgo, D.E. was returned to the Perez home. However she soon had a temper tantrum again. The trial of Kerri Knowles, scheduled to begin the week of October 2, 1995 was continued because D.E. was purported to be experiencing emotional difficulties. 
Detective Perez has testified that D.E.'s disclosures, made to him and his wife Luci at their home, became so frequent that he could no longer take them down. He told D.E. to save her statements for formal police interviews at the station. According to her statements and testimony, D.E. has named over 90 people as her molesters.
D.E.'s is only one of many stories.
3.	The Story Continues
On July 28, 1995, Honna Sims, a Sunday School teacher at the Pentecostal church, was acquitted of all charges of child rape and child molestation. Jury members expressed outrage that the matter had even come to trial. Jury foremen Karl Ohlmer said that the trial had been a waste of the county's resources. He said he was concerned about the people previously convicted. (24)
On August 8, 1995, all counts were dismissed against Donna Rodriguez, an alleged ring participant. On September 8, 1995, all felony counts were dismissed against former foster parent Robert Devereaux, an alleged prominent "ring" head: five counts of child rape first degree, four counts of child molestation first degree, two counts of witness tampering. Mr. Devereaux pled to misdemeanor counts of assault fourth degree and rendering criminal assistance. He received no jail time. The prosecutor's office defended its recommendation: adult and child recantations and other evidentiary problems had led them to uncertainty that they could prove their case.
Yet the prosecution of these cases is ongoing. On August 24 and on August 31, 1995, two new women (Susan Everett and Karen Lopez) were arrested and charged with having sex with children in group situations. Susan Everett confessed to Detective Perez but subsequently recanted to me when I interviewed her on September 5, 1995.(25) Linda Miller was convicted by jury of all eight counts of child molestation on September 14, 1995. Donna Hidalgo received a hung jury on or about September 29, 1995.
According to videotaped interviews, on August 22, 1995 Detective Perez and Detective Magnotti questioned two children at the family home while no adults were present. Detective Perez searched the house and then Detective Magnotti took the 11 year old boy outside. Detective Perez questioned the girl in the home alone. He told her that 30 people had seen her being sexually molested by certain named adults. When she repeatedly denied he told her, "You're lying to me. I don't believe you." He told her she was lying to him several times. (26) Detective Magnotti questioned her brother. Detective Magnotti said to him, "I'll make a deal. If you tell me something, if you tell what happened there, then you won't get in trouble." (27)
If the allegations of group sexual activities against children are true they are indeed terrible. On the other hand, if alleged practices of governmental overreaching are true a number of questions are raised. How could children and intellectually limited adults make up statements rich with detail? Why would people confess or plead guilty, for that matter, to untrue allegations? What could possibly motivate government agents who are sworn to protect our rights to instead callously disregard them? How could such conduct be tolerated by the interacting systems of the local governmental and judicial communities?
This study attempts to address these questions. 
4.	Goals and Limitations
This report will attempt a system-wide review of governmental activities involving children and families in the Wenatchee area. Many of these activities involve court proceedings, including dependency actions. Further, this study examines governmental actions regarding the investigation and prosecution of child sex cases in Douglas and Chelan Counties.
This report will examine factors that bear on the reliability of the evidence gained through the governmental actions. It will examine factors that bear on the integrity of the investigation itself. The facts of the alleged Chelan/Douglas County sex ring investigations are myriad and complex. It is not possible, within the scope of this report to relate all of these facts. Nor is it within the scope of this report to prove the truth or falsity of the allegations or to speculate on the likelihood of either.
This report will examine factors which suggest the bias or expectations of certain governmental agents and indicate that governmental actions reflect such biases or expectations. It is also the intent of this report to examine relationships between governmental agencies as they bear on methodology and decision-making, and as they may serve to explain the perpetuation and tolerance of discriminatory and coercive practices.
This report examines practices toward children and families in dependency-related actions, as well as actions toward children and families in the investigation and prosecution of child sex cases. These matters are perceived as related in the Wenatchee area. Without understanding the parts we cannot be expected to understand the whole. It is the goal of this study to enhance the degree of human understanding of systematic governmental abuse of power.
This report does not attempt an in-depth review of materials from the areas of law or social science. It does attempt to review representative legal and psychological materials in certain relevant areas. This report is intended as a starting point for analysis, validation and further investigation.
This report recognizes that statements from anecdotal sources may reflect opinion or subjective interpretation of disputed fact. Other statements may be viewed as self-serving. Anecdotal materials are presented herein not for their truth but for the questions they raise, for the patterns they suggest and for their value as a starting point for analysis, validation and further investigation.
B.	Chelan-Douglas County Governmental Structure
	1.	Demographics
According to statistical information provided to me by the Wenatchee Chamber of commerce, Chelan County has a population of 58,000. This population is further broken down as follows:

?	White: 51,975
?	Black: 107
?	Indian/Eskimo: 578
?	Asian: 521
?	Hispanic: 7571
?	Other: 4819

The Douglas County population is broken down as follows:
?	White: 26, 494
?	Black: 64
?	Indian/Eskimo: 263
?	Asian: 221
?	Hispanic: 4353
?	Other: 2258

2.	Criminal Justice System
Wenatchee has an elected mayor, Earl Tilly. On April 24, 1995, Mayor Tilly came out strongly in support of the sex ring investigations. In a letter, dated April 24, 1995, entitled: "To: The Children of Wenatchee," Mayor Tilly stated that he had spent much time "with the law enforcement men and women who protect us," and "(t)his is what I have learned and know to be true." In part, Mayor Tilly concluded that the child abuse cases are being "properly investigated." He added, "There is some 'police-bashing' going on by some individuals who have questionable motives." Mayor Tilly stated that child abuse will not be tolerated. He said that the crimes in Wenatchee equaled the bombing tragedy in Oklahoma City that President Clinton had recently talked to the public about. Safety in Wenatchee, he concluded, is "not only a goal...this is a mandate!" (28A)
Three judges preside over criminal matters in both Chelan and Douglas Counties: Judge T. W. Small, Judge Carol Wardell, Judge John Bridges. (28B) Also working within the criminal justice system are the prosecuting attorney and four deputy prosecuting attorneys (Chelan County); and the prosecuting attorney and two deputy prosecutors and a victim/witness coordinator with duties including the interviewing of children (Douglas County). 
The Wenatchee police department handles crimes in the metropolitan area and is headed by Chief Kenneth Badgley. Beneath him there are two captains, seven sergeants, three corporals, four detectives and 28 patrol officers. Detectives are assigned to four basic units: Crime Prevention, DARE, Drug Task Force, and Street Crimes. Within these units are such specialties as sex crimes. Detectives rotate, usually on a two year rotation, within these units and specialities.
The Douglas County Sheriff's Office, headed by Sheriff Dan LaRoche, employs one undersheriff, one captain, three sergeants, and four detectives. These detectives are not assigned to units, nor do they specialize. The Chelan County Sheriff's Office handles cases outside the metropolitan area of Wenatchee. Under the sheriff are three chiefs, five sergeants, five detectives, approximately 35 field patrol deputies and 40 corrections department officers.
3.	Social Service Agencies
		a.	Guardian ad Litem
Chelan and Douglas Counties utilize a guardian ad litem program in civil judicial proceedings in which it is alleged that a child has been subjected to child abuse or neglect. (29) Sue Baker heads the Chelan-Douglas County program, which is a member of the state and national organization, CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates.)
In Wenatchee, all 17 CASA volunteers are specially trained and then appointed by a judge to represent the best interests of a child in court. When a child is removed from the home, subject to a dependency action, CASA is called by the court clerk's office. Most of these children are victims of abuse and neglect. The guardians ad litem play a neutral role, interacting with CPS but independently reporting to the court with their recommendations on placement of the child. The CASA volunteers try to follow through with the case until it is permanently resolved. They rarely play a role in investigation of child abuse and indeed the volunteers are not specially trained to do so. The guardians are only involved in dependency and not in criminal matters. The CASA program in Chelan and Douglas counties has a board of directors. One of the board members is a superior court judge. (30)
b.	Division of Children and Family Services
The Washington State Division of Children and Family Services (DCFS), a division of the Department of Social and Health Services, is further divided into Children's Protective Services (CPS) and Child Welfare Services (CWS). The Regional Administrator for DCFS is Roy Harrington, with an office in Spokane. DCFS Area Supervisor is Carol Billesbach, out of Moses Lake. The CPS program head for Chelan and Douglas Counties is supervisor Tim Abbey. He heads CPS caseworkers: Laurie Alexander, Pat Boggus, Kate Carrow, Dean Reiman, Linda Wood, Jim Moser, Gary Murene, and Karen Oilser. Child Welfare Services is headed by supervisor Steve Warmen. Caseworkers are Connie Saracino, Sue Bridges, Russ Haugen, Pat Waunch, Trisha C'Debaca, and Joanne Blanford. The structure and enabling legislation for Children's Protective Services and Child Welfare Services will be discussed in greater detail below.

II.	Governmental Activities Involving Families in the Chelan-Douglas County Areas
A.	DCFS Activities in Chelan-Douglas Counties
An understanding of governmental activities regarding families in the Wenatchee area requires an examination of statutes and policies. When reading the next section, the reader is urged to consider this legal framework.
1.	Children's Protective Services
		a.	Agency Goals
According to the CPS manual, the goal of CPS "shall be to protect children from child abuse and/or neglect while preserving the family's integrity and cultural and ethnic identity (to the maximum extent possible) consistent with the safety and permanency needs of the child." (31)
Stated more pragmatically within the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), the goals of CPS are "to protect children from child abuse and neglect through the provision of services to:  (a) Assess risk of abuse or neglect of children; (b) Develop case plans preventing or remedying child abuse and neglect in the shortest reasonable time; and (c) Maintain, support, or reunify families to the extent possible consistent with the safety of the child."(32) Within this framework, the DCFS manual regarding CPS sets out specific guidelines and rules governing caseworker activities such as intake/assessment (33); assessment/investigation (34); placement of children (35); and provision of case records(36). (Also see RCW Chapter 26.44)(37)

b.	Provisions for Cultural Differences
Sensitivity to matters of race and to maintaining cultural ties is emphasized throughout stature and policy.(38) Again, the CPS policy manual sets out these goals with great specificity. The Ethnic and Cultural Policy is set out in 26.12 as follows:
DCFS shall recognize and acknowledge ethnic group differences in child abuse and neglect assessment and intervention. In addition to the policies and guidelines for Indian Children...and Limited English Proficient...clients...DCFS social workers shall:
A.	Use ethnographic interviewing techniques to better understand cultural differences, practices and norms.
B.	Use the child's or family's cultural group to determine whether the parental behavior is an accepted child rearing method. Consult with agency or community recognized cultural experts to obtain the acceptable community standards.
C.	Develop resources assuring that social workers communicate effectively with the members of various cultural groups and involve them in case planning...
D.	Develop resources to assist staff in interventions with families of different cultures. (39)

Bilingual services must be provided to non-English speaking applicants and recipients of DSHS services. "The services shall be provided to the extent necessary to assure that non-English speaking persons are not denied, or unable to obtain or maintain, services or benefits because of their inability to speak English."(40) Interpreters must be provided and all written communications must be in the person's spoken language.(41)
 CPS is required to make a determination of whether a child is an American Indian.(42) Many statutory requirements govern Native Americans. For example, RCW 13.34.250 states that:
Whenever appropriate, an Indian child shall be placed in a foster care home with the following characteristics which shall be given preferences in the following order:
(1)	Relatives;
(2)	An Indian family of the same tribe as the child;

(3)	An Indian family of a Washington Indian tribe of a similar culture to that tribe;
(4)	Any other family which can provide a suitable home for an Indian child, such suitability to be determined through consultation with a local Indian child welfare advisory committee. (43)

Washington Administrative Code Title 388-73 provides for licensing for foster care homes. Implementation of the licensing statute requires recognition of "unique tribal, cultural and religious sovereignty of Indian nations, tribes and communities."(44) An agency with an Indian child in its caseload is required to develop staff training programs and social service resources designed to meet the child's special needs. In developing such programs and resources the agency must coordinate with tribal, Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs social service staff and appropriate Native American consultants. (45)
c.	Eligibility for CPS Services
CPS referrals can come from any source, including an anonymous one.(46) CPS programs do not focus on substantiation of specific allegations of child abuse and neglect but on assessment of risk. A referral shall be assigned for investigation and provision of services only when the alleged perpetrator is the child's parent or caretaker; a person acting in loco parentis; or a third party and the parent is negligent in protecting the child from further abuse or neglect.(47) A DCFS caseworker is required to utilize the Case and Management Information System (CAMIS) to conduct an intake interview with a referent. Information is scored according to certain risk factors including characteristics of the child and of the caretaker, the severity of the child abuse or neglect and the past history of abuse or neglect. The intake worker is required to contact collateral sources where verification or further information is required. The intake worker must then complete a sufficiency screen. The intake worker then examine various "risk factors" and assigns a "risk tag" to referrals that are accepted for investigation. A six point scale for risk assessment ranges from 0 (no risk) to 5 (high risk.)(48)

d.	Investigation
Response time for investigation depends on the level of risk. Those cases receiving moderate to high risk tags at intake require a face-to-face CPS victim interview within ten working days. The CPS social worker is required to interview individually and face-to-face "all alleged perpetrators, who are reasonably available and willing," and the child's caretaker(s). Contact with alleged perpetrators may be coordinated with law enforcement agencies. In moderate to high risk cases the CPS caseworker is required to notify law enforcement (49), and he may request the assistance of law enforcement to assure child safety, take the child into protective custody or assist with the investigation.(50)
The CPS interview is for purposes of gathering information, case planning, and not for gathering information for criminal prosecution. In so doing the social worker may cooperate with law enforcement.(51) Cases tagged for the high standard of investigation may receive three service outcomes: a written voluntary service agreement with the family; a dependency action filed in juvenile court; or case closure.(52)
2.	Child Welfare Services
Once a dependency (below) has been established by the court, a Child Welfare Services (CWS) social worker may take over responsibility for the child and the family. The duties of CWS include developing, supervising and monitoring a coordinated and comprehensive plan to strengthen care for dependent children. This division is also responsible for recruiting prospective adoptive and foster homes, including homes for children of ethnic minorities and Indian homes, siblings, handicapped and the mentally disturbed. The CWS office has a function of investigating complaints of abuse, neglect and abandonment and, if appropriate, bringing such matters to the attention of the court. The CWS caseworker is authorized to monitor out of town placements and accept custody of children from parents and juvenile court where authorized by law, and to provide child welfare services including placement for adoption. CWS is authorized to provide for foster or group care and to purchase care for children. (53)
3.	Dependencies
		a.	Declaration
Dependency actions are governed by RCW Chapter 13.34. The statutory declaration toward these matters is as follows:
The legislature declares that the family unit is a fundamental resource of American life which should be nurtured. Toward the continuance of this principle, the legislature declares that the family unit should remain intact unless a child's right to conditions of basic nurture, health, or safety is jeopardized. When the rights of basic nurture, physical and mental health, and safety of the child and the legal rights of the parents are in conflict, the rights and safety of the child should prevail. The right of a child to basic nurturing includes the right to a safe, stable, and permanent home and a speedy resolution of any proceeding under this chapter.(54)

b.	Filing
A dependency action is commenced by the filing of a petition.(55) If the child is taken into custody under an emergency court order, he may be placed in shelter care.(56) At that point the supervising agency (usually CPS) may authorize physical, medical or mental examinations and treatment.(57) A child may not be detained longer than 72 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays or holidays, unless a court has been entered for continued shelter care.(58) Parents must be notified of various rights including the right to a court hearing within 72 hours of the time the child was taken into custody, and the right to legal representation at that hearing. (59)
c.	Dependency Fact-Finding Hearing
A dependency fact-finding hearing is generally a closed proceeding. The burden is upon the state, represented by the Attorney General, to prove the case by clear, cogent and convincing evidence.(60)
The court may find the child to be "dependent." This means he has been abandoned, abused or neglected by a person legally responsible for his care; has no parent, guardian or custodian able to adequately care for him so that he is in circumstances of substantial danger to his psychological or physical development; or he is developmentally disabled and his parent, guardian, or legal custodian determines, along with DSHS that appropriate services cannot be provided in the home. If the child is found to be dependent the court goes on to the dispositional stage.(61)
d.	Disposition
The person or agency filing the petition (usually CPS) must provide to the court a social study, or written evaluation of matters regarding the disposition of the case, to include social records and (optionally) facts relevant to the child's cultural heritage. The parent is provided a copy and given the opportunity to review and comment or submit an alternate plan. The petitioner is also required to file a predispositional study where the child was found to have been abused or neglected by the person legally responsible for his care, or where no parent, guardian or custodian was able to adequately care for him, thus causing a risk of substantial physical or psychological harm.(62)
The predispositional study must include a description of specific programs for both parent and child, necessary to prevent harm to the child; the availability of these services; and the agency's plan for ensuring such services are delivered. Where the petitioner recommends removal of the child from the home or continued out of home placement, he must set out his reasons, including any previous efforts to work with the parents and child within the home; in home treatment programs that were considered and rejected; and preventative services offered or provided that failed to eliminate the need for removal.
The petitioner must also set out likely harms the child might suffer if removed, including an exploration of the meaning of separation and loss to both parents and child under the circumstances of their particular attachment; as well as a description of steps that will be taken to minimize these harms.(63)
e.	Out of Home Placement
Among the resolutions available to the court at the dispositional hearing are programs allowing the child to remain at home under services designed to alleviate the immediate danger to the child. Or the court may order that the child be removed from the home and placed in the custody and care of a relative, the DSHS, or a licensed child placing agency for placement in a foster or group home. A court must find that reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the home, that services have been offered to the family, and that preventative services have failed to prevent the risk to the child.(64)
f.	Termination: Filing at Disposition
Upon entering an order removing the child from the home, the court may order a petition seeking termination of the parent and child relationship. To do so the court must find it ti recommended by the supervising agency, that it is in the best interests of the child, and that provision of further services to reunite the family would be unreasonable because of the existence of aggravated circumstances which make it unlikely the child will be returned home in the near future. Among such aggravated circumstances are the conviction of the parent of first, second or third degree rape of a child; criminal mistreatment, assault in first or second degree, murder, manslaughter, or homicide by abuse. In determining whether an aggravated circumstance exists the court may also consider the parent's failure to complete available treatment ordered by the court. (65)


g.	Service Plan
When a court finds that a termination petition should be filed no specific plan for reunification of the child must be pursued by DSHS.(66) Otherwise the agency must set out a plan for parents, specifying what services will be offered them and what they are required to do in order to satisfy the court's concerns and reunify with the child. The agency is required to encourage maximal parent-child contact, including regular visitation and participation by the parents in the child's care, unless the court determines that visitation is not in the interests of the child's health, safety, or welfare. Further:
A child shall be placed as close to the child's home as possible, preferably in the child's own neighborhood, unless the court finds that placement at a greater distance is necessary to promote the child's or parents' well-being.(67)

h.	Review Hearings
The statute calls for periodic review hearings. However "(a) child shall not be returned home at the review hearing unless the court finds that a reason for removal as set forth in this section no longer exists."(68) If the child isn't returned the court must set out in writing its reasons, including the parent's efforts to correct the problem; the degree to which they cooperated with the case plan; whether reasonable services have been offered to the family to facilitate reunion. The court may also order that a petition seeking termination of the parent-child relationship be filed.(69)
4.	Foster care
Children subject to such actions are often placed in foster care. Children may also be placed in foster care where there is mere probable cause to believe that the child is abused or neglected or that he would be injured if not taken into custody.(70) A child and his parent(s) may agree to a voluntary shelter care placement and give written consent. Or, the child's parents or guardian can voluntarily request the placement with the agreement of the department.(71) In terms of foster care placement DCFS is required to give due concern to several factors, including the child's individual needs, and his ethnic and religious background.
5.	Adoption
Where a court terminates parental rights, the child may be placed for adoption. RCW Chapter 26.33 governs terminations and adoptions. The Washington Administrative Code which governs adoptive placements provides:
(1)(a) The agency shall protect the child from unnecessary separation from the child's birth parents when the birth parents are capable of and willing to successfully fulfill their parental role or can be helped to do so.
(b) The agency's adoptive placement of a child shall be made only when the child is freed for adoption by action of a court of competent jurisdiction giving the agency authority to place such child for adoption and to consent to the child's adoption as provided by chapter 26.33 RCW. (72)

Among the factors that the agency must consider are the racial, ethnic and cultural heritage of the child. The agency shall avoid discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.(73)
B.	Application to Facts: Biased Attitudes, Negative Expectations, Discriminatory Practices
	1.	Overview
Governmental activities in Wenatchee have not occurred for random reasons. In this section, I explore the environment under which certain governmental decisions were made regarding children and families. Certain State protective service agencies tolerated and contributed to the investigation and prosecution of alleged child offenders. An analysis of actual DCFS practices in the Wenatchee area might help to clarify the foundations of governmental decision-making. For purpose of this study, it well be assumed that the official policies of the Chelan/Douglas County branch of DCFS located in Wenatchee endorses the laws, rules and goals set out in the materials above. According to interview sources, the reality is something else entirely.
For purposes of this section I have summarized interviews with two former DCFS social workers, Paul Glassen and Juan Garcia, and a CPS supervisor currently on administrative leave, Juana Vasquez. All of these interviews were videotaped. All of these individuals were interviewed in the offices and in the presence of Washington State Representative, Val Stevens.
The results of these interviews reflect several areas of concern including:
?	Biased attitudes and actions.
?	Negative expectations toward minorities or the disadvantaged.
?	Inadequate services for minorities or the disadvantaged.
?	Unachievable court order conditions for minorities or the disadvantaged.
?	Lack of essential services such as interpreters.
?	Failure to place children in culture-relevant homes.
?	Failure to assist families with resolution of problems necessary to placement.
?	Failure to facilitate visitation/placement with relatives.
?	Inappropriate or premature termination of parental rights.

2.	Interview Summaries
		a.	Paul Glassen
			(1)  Status with DCFS: Background
Paul Glassen holds a masters degree in clinical sociology from Seattle University and a Bachelor's degree in rehabilitation counseling from the Evergreen State College. He has worked as a social worker or a mental health counselor over a 29 year period. His employment has included work in residential treatment facilities for children. He has completed a certificate program in children's mental health. Prior to his suspension he worked as a State Child Welfare Services caseworker in the Division of Children and Family Services in Wenatchee. He is married with one young son. I interviewed Mr. Glassen on August 4, 1995 and videotaped the interview. The following are excerpts from his interview and do not include commentary as to fact or opinion by the author. (74)
In June of 1994, Mr. Glassen attended a luncheon along with other DCFS social workers including Juan Garcia. Also in attendance was Wenatchee Police Department Detective Robert Perez. Throughout the luncheon Detective Perez made jokes and off-color remarks of a sexual nature. "But finally what really concerned me was that the butt of a couple of jokes was this foster parent, Bob Devereaux. I do remember one thing that he said that was...I couldn't believe it. He said something like, 'Well, some of these children are old enough to drive. I'll bet he teaches them to drive.' And then apparently sort of mockingly imitating the foster parent, says, 'Come on, Honey, sit here on my lap and grab this stick shift.'" It was Mr. Glassen's opinion that Detective Perez indicated that he was out to get Mr. Devereaux. (Also, see affidavit: Paul Glassen, April 6, 1995.(75)
According to Mr. Glassen, Robert Devereaux had come under sharp criticism by senior DCFS staff members because he is a single male foster parent. The Devereaux foster home had been investigated on occasions but none of the alleged concerns were substantiated.(76) At one time Mr. Devereaux was required by DCFS to take on a female housekeeper. When that proved unwieldy and expensive, Mr. Devereaux complained about this requirement at the State level. He asserted that this requirement represented sex discrimination because no similar requirement was placed on single female foster parents. The State agreed and the local DCFS office was forced to drop this requirement. Senior staff members continued to voice negative expectations and concerns about Mr. Devereaux. Mr. Glassen saw no grounds for their statements and began to associate them with the kind of ethnic biases he had observed. Now it was gender bias.
On August 3, 1994, Robert Devereaux was arrested by Detective Perez on charges of molesting foster children in his charge. One of his alleged victims purportedly told Detective Perez that Mr. Devereaux had him sit on his lap and he touched her breasts and vaginal area. (Note: this alleged event is markedly similar to the statements made by Detective Perez at the luncheon attended by Mr. Glassen and Mr. Garcia, above.) Mr. Glassen went to the Devereaux home on the late afternoon of Mr. Devereaux' arrest. One of the foster children in the home had telephoned him and said that Detective Perez had taken Mr. Devereaux into custody and left the children there alone.
The children were upset. "Actually they needed a great deal of counseling. They were very upset. They were, of course, saying they didn't want to be moved. They didn't want to go anywhere else. This was their home." Mr. Glassen remained at the home from 3:30 p.m. until he was relieved by another DCFS worker. The children were all taken to the station for questioning by approximately 7:00 p.m.
On August 4, Mr. Glassen interviewed A.R., a child who was on his caseload. She had been a foster child in the Devereaux home. A.R. was in juvenile detention for allegedly trying to poison Mr. Devereaux with iodine. Although police officers had fully investigated and completed charging of A.R.(77), Detective Perez went to the juvenile center to question A.R. when he found out about the incident. Mr. Glassen did not know this when he spoke to A.R.
Mr. Glassen interviewed A.R. within the scope of his employment in regard to a question of her future foster care placement. According to Mr. Glassen, "Finally she blurted out, I think her first comment was, 'I told a whole bunch of lies yesterday to a policeman about Dad.'"(78) She was referring to her foster father, Mr. Devereaux. A.R. told Mr. Glassen that Detective Perez had pressured her into saying these things. She described being asked highly leading questions by Detective Perez. Mr. Glassen immediately related the child's statements to Katie Hershey, juvenile detention officer. Mr. Hershey is married to one of the Chelan County Deputy Prosecutors.
On August 5, 1994, police came to the Wenatchee DCFS office. They arrested Mr. Glassen, handcuffed him, and escorted him to their police vehicle in the presence of staff and clients. He was booked into jail and charged with witness tampering. Later the charge was dropped and he was charged with obstructing justice, because he had interviewed other children who had been in the Devereaux home. All of these children were on Mr. Glassen's caseload. The charges were later dismissed by the court.
Mr. Glassen's supervisor, Juana Vasquez told Mr. Glassen that he had acted appropriately, in her opinion. Nevertheless, on August 10, 1994, Mr. Glassen was placed on paid administrative leave. He remained in this status until he was fired on approximately March 25, 1995. The firing was the result of an investigation by the Office of Special Investigation (OSI) unit of DSHS. CPS supervisor Tim Abbey and Detective Robert Perez apparently cooperated with and participated in this investigation.
The OSI report is lengthy and includes much cumulative material.(79) It concludes that Mr. Glassen violated DCFS rules and regulations in several ways. One of these violations referred to a situation known as the "Jesse" case, where Mr. Glassen had fought against the pressures of senior DCFS staff in order to reunite a child with his natural father in Mexico. Mr. Glassen acted through the court, in dependency proceedings, and understands that such placement was in accordance with the State and Federal laws and policies.(80) The investigation also concluded that Mr. Glassen had failed to report an incident of child abuse. Mr. Glassen believes this claim was a "complete fabrication and a distortion of the procedures for this type of proceeding." Mr. Glassen said that he believes he was fired because of his actions in the "Jesse" case, and his "efforts to improve services to all clientele including minorities."
After Mr. Glassen was fired he granted an interview to a Spokane television station, KREM 2 Television, a CBS affiliate in Spokane. He spoke about his experiences. Later that week the reporter, Tom Grant, called Mr. Glassen and told him that he had just interviewed a woman, Linda Miller, at the jail. Mr. Grant related that Ms. Miller had just told him that she had been interrogated for many hours by Detective Perez and she had finally signed a confession which included observations of other individuals having sex with children. One of these individuals was Paul Glassen. Mr. Glassen relates, "this to me was a, just a staggering development."(81)
At the time of my interview, Mr. Glassen was residing with his family in Canada because he feared his child would be taken from his home by the State. No additional charges had yet been filed but he is fearful that they will.
(2)  Observations of Discriminatory Practices
Mr. Glassen said that at peak harvest time some sixty percent of Wenatchee's population is Hispanic. There have been some recent demographic changes to include many more Hispanics residing in the area. Many Hispanic children are now enrolled in school. He believes that at the present time, twenty percent of children in the area's schools are Spanish-speaking.
Mr. Glassen told me: "There was a lingering attitude on the part of the senior (DCFS) staff that was negative toward Hispanics or that part of the population. It usually came out in the form of comments about, comments suggesting that services provided to the Spanish-speaking population were sort of special services, that somehow they were more than other children were getting." However, according to Mr. Glassen, such was not the case at all.
Mr. Glassen said that, "I often was concerned that Spanish-speaking parents did not understand the process that they were being subjected to. It was a difficult process at many times for any parent to understand." He added, "I think the other thing that I found discouraging was an attitude that somehow a Spanish-speaking parent, say an agricultural worker who had come from Mexico and had a child here, was less concerned about the child's welfare than some other parent might be...I didn't see any systematic, as they seemed to imply, worse concern for their children's welfare amongst any minority group. And that was always sort of the implication."
Many senior DCFS staff members were resentful because of Mr. Glassen's handling of the "Jesse" case, the case where he had worked to return a child to his father in Mexico. The child at the time had been residing with foster parents who wanted to adopt him. These parents fought Mr. Glassen's actions through the courts, and certain DCFS staff supported them. Mr. Glassen said that the DCFS office seemed to have become "split along familiar lines, and they were the familiar lines that had led to a discrimination suit, um, my supervisor (Juana Vasquez) against other employees of the division."
(3)  The Chain of Command
Mr. Glassen related that he had filed a child abuse referral in regards to the actions of Detective Perez toward K.A.; and in regards to D.E. residing in the home of Detective Perez and thus being subjected to continued questioning and pressures.(82) He voiced his concerns many times about discriminatory CPS practices at the local level. Mr. Glassen relates:
I was shocked when within the system of the State approach to reporting to a supervisor and an area manager and regional administrator and all the way up to Olympia. About the time this occurred there was an investigation going on of a terrible incident at a foster home in Seattle where an infant had died. And the Secretary of DSHS distributed a memo to all employees saying, if you have concerns about anything that goes on with children that the department's involved in, you report them up the chain of command. And if you're disappointed with the response you get, you come to us in Olympia. We've responded to other caseworker reports and we'll respond to yours. In fact, when I was arrested and then sent home on this home assignment, I went directly to Olympia. And I walked in and I said, "I need to talk to somebody who's superior to my regional administrator." And I described things I've told you about how the children were left in the home, the way the child told me she had been coerced in her testimony, the way I'd been arrested. And that administrator and assistant director carefully took notes and noted everything that had happened and told me it would be looked into...I never heard anything about it being investigated. But when I was fired last spring, it was that same person to whom I'd reported to in Olympia who came to Wenatchee to fire me.




b.	Juana Vasquez
			(1)  Status with DCFS: Background
I interviewed Juana Vasquez on August 15, 1995 and videotaped the interview. Again, the following reflects her statements of opinion and fact, and not my own. Ms. Vasquez told me that when she was very young she had been a migrant seasonal farm worker along with her parents. Her family followed the crops, working in Oregon and California until they decided to stay in Washington when she was five. Her immediate family has lived in the Quincy area, immediately neighboring Wenatchee, to this date.
Ms. Vasquez graduated from Quincy High School in 1969. She attended community college in Moses Lake and then transferred to the University of Washington. She worked during summers to help support her education. In addition, teachers and counselors assisted her in attending community college, where a professor assisted her in getting a Ford Foundation Scholarship.
Ms. Vasquez worked with Employment Security in Moses Lake while attending community college. In summers she worked full time. Between 1979 and 1981 she was employed by CPS in Ephrata. She has worked for CEDA Assessment Center as a vocational counselor, dealing with the disadvantaged and other qualified clients.
Ms. Vasquez was employed for approximately six years by Gonzaga University as Director of Minority Affairs and as Assistant Dean of Admissions. Although she found this to be a prestigious and enjoyable position, and although she felt she had gained the trust and confidence of the staff, Ms. Vasquez decided that she "could assist the community better," in the capacity of social work. She worked in the Walla Walla DSHS office between 1979 and 1989, when she transferred to the Wenatchee office. Ms. Vasquez said that she returned to the Wenatchee area because she is a first generation American citizen and has no relatives in Washington except her nuclear family. Although her mother died in 1989 she considers it important for the rest of her nuclear family to "retain a closeness."
Ms. Vasquez told me that she experienced a discriminatory attitude almost immediately upon coming to work for the Wenatchee office. Within six months of her employment a supervisory position opened up within CPS and she applied for it. One of the senior CPS social workers, Dean Reiman, approached her and told her that other office employees were much more qualified than was she, including his wife, Pat Boggus, also a CPS social worker. "During that conversation, Dean Reiman told me...that he would never allow himself to be supervised by a Mexican."
During the course of her employment, Ms. Vasquez experienced many discriminatory comments, attitudes and practices by DCFS employees. When she attained the position of CPS supervisor she indicated that she wouldn't tolerate such activities. Her statements were resented or ignored. She felt that she was a supervisor in name only, unable to impact discriminatory practices. She felt that she was being "set up" through the vehicle of the families that she served. "That...really upset me, that families and children were being used and manipulated to make me look bad. They didn't care what was happening to these kids and these families as long as I was looking bad."
Because of these concerns, Ms. Vasquez said that she had no choice but to file a racial discrimination lawsuit. She named CPS and DCFS and individual caseworkers including Dean Reiman, Tim Abbey, Pat Boggus. After she filed, she encountered anger and resentment. She said that she would implement policies and they would be returned to her desk with the large letters, "B.S." written on them.
The lawsuit was successful. The trial resulted in an unanimous finding of discrimination by an all-white jury. Ms. Vasquez received $60 thousand, but she didn't feel that the suit had been about money. She had believed it would send the message that the office's discriminatory practices would no longer be tolerated. The contrary was true.
Senior DCFS caseworkers continued to ignore her authority. They continued to manipulate families to get to her. For example, Pat Boggus removed only two of four children from an obviously abusive and dangerous home environment and left behind the two who were on Ms. Vasquez' caseload.
Ms. Vasquez said that she had got into serious trouble because of the criminal charges against Robert Devereaux. She had heard comments around the office by Dean Reiman, Pat Boggus and Tim Abbey, referring to rumors about abuse at his home. None of these rumors were substantiated although many of them led to investigations. She felt that the rumors and DCFS actions toward Mr. Devereaux represented a policy of gender discrimination. However, she took the position that if the staff believed the rumors, the Devereaux home should be shut down. This was refused because there wasn't enough evidence. When Mr. Devereaux was charged, Ms. Vasquez asked for documentation of any CPS investigation of these events, because some of the children in the home had been under her supervision. She learned that no one could produce a referral of alleged abuse, that no caseworker had been assigned to the situation.
Paul Glassen advised her that he had spoken to a child who recanted to him her previous statement that Mr. Devereaux had molested her. Ms. Vasquez felt that Mr. Glassen had acted appropriately. She became aware that the police were investigating this situation. Although she believes that she went out of her way to cooperate with the police, they perceived that she wasn't facilitating them in talking to Mr. Glassen. (See attached, 83)
The following day, Ms. Vasquez was called into a meeting with Carol Billesbach, DCFS Area Supervisor, and Dee Wilson, acting Regional Administrator. Mr. Wilson told Ms. Vasquez that he was going to give her a Personal Conduct Report for misconduct in regards to her failure to facilitate the police investigation of Mr. Glassen. The report was given to her; it was written and signed by Dean Reiman. Ms. Vasquez, in turn, tried to tell Mr. Wilson of her concerns, including those about the discriminatory actions of her office. Mr. Wilson told her, "shut up about that, Juana. You're not to talk to anybody about that and you're not to talk to me."

On September 15, 1994, Ms. Vasquez met with Carol Billesbach who advised her she was on home assignment. Ms. Vasquez was told her only responsibility was to remain by the phone during office hours. She was barred from speaking to the media, DCFS clients, and from approaching the DSHS building. At the date of my interview, Ms. Vasquez remains on home assignment. She finds home assignment to be very oppressive. "You feel like you're a prisoner...Now you can't leave your work at home and you can't leave your troubles and your work at the office...I don't know when I'm gonna get a call about another allegation of ir I'm gonna be fired."
Ms. Vasquez says that she hasn't simply resigned because, "I'm entitled to a non-hostile working environment. I'm entitled to pursue a living, and I'm entitled to help people. That's what I got an education for. That's what I'm entitled to work for. And I'm entitled to live."
Ms. Vasquez says that she is concerned about the fairness of the OSI investigation that is underway. She says that the investigator, Ross Carmen, is rumored to dislike Hispanics and to be a close friend of Dean Reiman.
(2)  Observations of Discriminatory Practices
Ms. Vasquez said that as soon as she came to the Wenatchee DCFS office she heard a lot of discriminatory comments from senior caseworkers about Hispanics and Native Americans. They would mimic Native Americans and say "how." These caseworkers apparently resented the laws governing Native Americans, although Native American advisors came to the office to ensure that laws governing DCFS practices toward Native American families were followed. She said that certain DCFS caseworkers ignored these practices. She heard the comment, "I don't know why we need to do this. We know what to do with Native American kids."
Ms. Vasquez said: "The attitude was the Native American kids shouldn't be placed within their own culture. That the white culture would give them many more advantages than their own culture." She said this attitude was also reflected in the practices of the DCFS employees. She said that their recruitment of Native American and Hispanic homes was "nonexistent." She said no efforts were made to find culturally relevant foster or adoptive homes.
This practice greatly concerned Ms. Vasquez. "(I)t's so traumatic, just in moving kids from their home environment regardless of the fact they've been physically abused or often quite seriously abused. They still had specific needs that environment provides for them, food is one, the language too. Many of these children would come out speaking Spanish and they were in non Spanish-speaking homes and it was just very difficult for these children to communicate their needs, or communicate their state of mind, how they were feeling about having been uprooted from their family and placed in entirely strange situations for them."
Ms. Vasquez said that services to such children were completely lacking as part of dependency actions. She would see court reports that required only that the state provide medical, dental and foster care. These reports ignored many of the needs the child might have, or services that were essential for reunification, such as visitation, relative placement, counseling, religious needs.
Ms. Vasquez said that the lack of such services was a definite factor in terms of the reunification of families. "I'll tell you the attitude that I...saw in the office was just, lets just get these kids out of this home, place them in foster care and basically lets see how fast we can terminate parental rights...I've seen instances where some social workers would have even made up referrals if they felt that some children need to be removed to a foster home." Ms. Vasquez said that these practices usually involved Hispanic families or families that were low income, mentally, or otherwise disadvantaged.
Ms. Vasquez said that she understands that the Wenatchee area has the highest rate of termination of the child and parent relationship statewide.(84) "People all over the state would be amazed at how many terminations we did. Termination for minority parents went very quickly, within a matter of six months, six to nine months. Uh, as far as low IQ people, I would see the same pattern. There was just no positives...for these families. There was just like, we've got the children. We know what's best for them and what's best for them is not to return to this environment. It was regardless of the abuse and neglect."
According to the observations of Ms. Vasquez, discriminatory expectations included the extended family of the child. Even where Ms. Vasquez was satisfied that a relative was protective and willing to follow any and all CPS requirements, Pat Boggus, for example, would refuse visitation. "She was very adamant that it was just guilt all down that family line...We can't allow grandparents or aunts or uncles or anybody to come in and visit these kids because basically they're all guilty of what this one person may have done."
Ms. Vasquez said that such practices did not occur with all cases. If a social worker liked an individual immediately he or she might work very hard to reunify the family. The majority of such clients were not minorities, however. Regarding the non-favored families, Ms. Vasquez said that the practices would often persist even if the parent were successful in meeting court-ordered conditions. "There's an example of a father who was in court, but a court report stated he was not in court. The same individual would come into the office on a regular basis to visit with the caseworker or the supervisor, who in this case was Mr. Tim Abbey, would come in consistently and try to talk to him. And sometimes he would get to talk. And I would see a report by Mr. Abbey saying the person has not maintained any contact with the department...They were just being railroaded. I mean, no matter what they did they would not be acknowledged. In fact it would be stated that they didn't do it."
Ms. Vasquez stated that at dependency hearings, although an attorney for the parent would be present in court, often an interpreter would not. Given little choice of the parent's position, there was often insufficient information not to terminate the parent-child relationship.
Ms. Vasquez described her observation that this practice of termination of parent rights related to community wishes regarding adoption and foster care. "I tell you what really surprised me when I was in the Wenatchee office, and I couldn't really do anything about it when I was just a social worker. I would see these big signs placed there all over the office. And sometimes they would place a candy bar, like, you know, fastened with a piece of tape. And the sign would read, 'Whoever gets me a child, a baby, first can have this candy.'" Hispanic kids were viewed as "cute" and the comments were that it was too hard to get blond, blue-eyed children.
A child might be taken from the home and placed for adoption within three to six months. "These people knew that the parental rights would be terminated and this child would remain there as their child. They knew this up front...because the social worker would tell them that was the plan."
The existence of prospective adoptive parents played a role in how the Wenatchee DCFS pursued reunification of children and families. "If they had someone to adopt the children then, or they wanted to help a foster parent or an adoptive family get the kids, then their attitudes would change toward the clients and the termination. And I mean that these clients would never be able to do anything to satisfy the social worker so they could reunify the family. This was just a fast, one track route."
Ms. Vasquez said that the Office of Civil Rights mandated a policy that prohibited DCFS employees from reporting matters of immigration policy.(85) Immigration status cannot be a factor when caseworkers deal with clients, according to this policy. Many DCFS staff members chose to ignore that policy as they had in the past. She was aware, for example, that DCFS caseworker Laurie Alexander called the Immigration and Naturalization Services to report a client's illegal alienage. The immigration officers came to the DCFS office and took the parent into custody.
"And that practice really bothered me. Because a lot of the practice was if there was some parent who was in any kind of trouble, or there was a warrant for the arrest or something, the workers would schedule a visit for that person with the children.  And the police would come in or immigration would come in and these children would see their parents being arrest...(T)hese kids were just, they would wonder what the heck was going on. They were surprised and they would cry and it was just traumatic. You could see it was traumatic for them. It was just totally unfair, unfair to put these kids in this situation. I mean, if these parents had done something wrong, set them up somewhere else. Don't set them up in front of their children...I don't know why they put aside the feelings of these children."
c.	Juan Garcia
			(1)  Status with DCFS
I interviewed Juan Garcia on June 28, 1995 and again on August 15, 1995. Both interviews were videotaped. Mr. Garcia said that he graduated in 1990 from Eastern Washington University with a degree in sociology and a minor in social work. He began his professional employment by working as a migrant farm worker employment coordinator. In 1992, he worked as a case manager for Children's Home Society. He worked there for about a year and then was employed by the CPS office in Wenatchee, under the supervision of Tim Abbey.
Mr. Garcia said that his brother Jerry had worked for DSHS in Wenatchee previously but became frustrated with the system and practices and resigned after a short time. At the point of leaving Jerry called Juan and told him of the position but warned him to be careful of Tim Abbey and Dean Reiman and Pat Boggus. Jerry said he was very critical of the work environment, particularly as Juana Vasquez' lawsuit was going on.
Mr. Garcia became immediately critical himself of what he perceived to be discriminatory practices. He felt that services were denied to Hispanic families, or that nearly unattainable court requirements made it close to impossible for such parents to regain custody of their children. He would file written complaints and provide them to Mr. Abbey, but the complaints would subsequently be returned to his desk. Mr. Garcia kept these returned complaints in a drawer in his desk. He also spoke out at staff meetings and individually to other social workers and to Mr. Abbey. There was no positive response. The only other Hispanic employee throughout the DCFS office was Juana Vasquez.
When Mr. Garcia started to work for Wenatchee CPS, there were no Hispanic foster homes. Yet the Hispanic population numbered, Mr. Garcia believed, between 20 to 25 percent of the population. (86) Mr. Garcia believed that this practice was contrary to the goals and stated policies of the Division of Children and Family Services. When his suggestions to recruit Hispanic foster homes were rejected by Pat Boggus, who was then in charge of foster care licensing, Mr. Garcia went out and recruited Hispanic foster homes on his own. He successfully recruited several homes, all on his own time and without pay, after 5:00 p.m. He received no involvement or support of the department.
Mr. Garcia completed 25 foster care packets, each approximately 30 pages long. When he was through compiling the required paperwork, he left the stack of foster care packets on Ms. Boggus' desk. When he hadn't heard from Ms. Boggus about the homes in a few days, he asked her about her progress in licensing the foster homes. She told him that they were "lost." Although Mr. Garcia had already spent between 40 and 50 hours on the project, he then redid all of the substantial paperwork. Many foster homes were subsequently licensed, but none of them are currently utilized, to his knowledge.
During the course of Ms. Vasquez' lawsuit some of the DCFS caseworkers made a point of appearing friendly toward Mr. Garcia and sensitive to Hispanic cultural issues. However, when it became clear that Mr. Garcia was actually supportive of Ms. Vasquez, that practice changed. When it became known to the office that Mr. Garcia would be testifying he was approached by Pat Boggus who asked him to testify that she had supported his Hispanic foster home recruitment. Since she had opposed his efforts every step of the way, Mr. Garcia thought she was trying to encourage him to testify falsely. Then her husband, Dean Reiman, called Mr. Garcia and encouraged him to testify on Ms. Boggus' behalf. He told Mr. Garcia that Ms. Boggus could have prevented him but she hadn't done so. Again, Mr. Garcia felt he was being encouraged to testify falsely.
Mr. Garcia testified on Ms. Vasquez' behalf at her trial. He described various discriminatory practices that he had observed. After Ms. Vasquez' legal victory, Mr. Garcia was subjected to harassment and accused by Dean Reiman of not seeing the "big picture." His requests for vacations were repeatedly denied. Mr. Garcia worked at the Wenatchee CPS office for 30 months without a vacation. His caseload became disproportionately large.
A child named Manuel Sanchez was on Mr. Garcia's caseload. Manuel's mother had a brain tumor that disfigured her and left her physically and mentally incapacitated. The woman's condition was not responsive to medical treatment and it was progressive. Without adult supervision of any kind, Manuel became increasingly out of control, skipping school and hanging out on the streets. Mr. Garcia concluded that the mother was incapable of meeting Manuel's needs and the mother agreed. Manuel was placed in foster care in 1992, pursuant to a dependency action.
In 1993, Manuel was returned to his mother, over Mr. Garcia's objections, by Tim Abbey. Mr. Abbey reasoned that the State had already spent too much money on the family and, strictly speaking, the circumstance wasn't one of abuse or neglect. By then the mother's condition had worsened. Manuel immediately got into problems with truancy and recurrence of runaway behaviors. The school principal called Mr. Garcia in May of 1994 and said that Manuel needed to be placed in foster care. Manuel's mother agreed and was adamant that Manuel shouldn't be bounced around from her home to various foster homes. Finally Mr. Garcia placed Manuel in a culturally relevant Hispanic foster home in Bridgeport, under a voluntary placement agreement.
On a Friday, approximately June 10, 1994, the foster parent left a message for Mr. Garcia to let him know that Manuel and her son had got in a fight. She was not requesting that Manuel be removed, but merely responding to Mr. Garcia's request that she report any problematic situations. Mr. Garcia was not at work that day. The voice mail message was intercepted by Tim Abbey. On that day, two social workers picked up Manuel at the foster home and took him back to his mother's home without explanation. They did not discuss their actions with her or with the foster mother, who was Spanish-speaking.
Manuel's mother immediately left several frantic messages on Mr. Garcia's voice mail. She spoke to Mr. Garcia upon his return. She was concerned that she could not cope with Manuel. Her concerns were valid. Manuel was soon back on the streets. In July of 1994 Manuel got into some criminal problems and the juvenile court commissioner ordered that a dependency petition be issued. He requested the assistance of Manuel['s public defender to accomplish this. Juan was contacted by the public defender and started the process of preparing the petition. The matter was scheduled for court in August, 1994.
Before the hearing, Tim Abbey asked Mr. Garcia to go to California with a foster family to assist them with a number of teenagers while they took a vacation. Because Mr. Garcia had unsuccessfully requested a vacation many times, Mr. Abbey said this was his opportunity.
Immediately upon his return, Mr. Garcia was placed on administrative leave by area manager Carol Billesbach. He was told that it was alleged that he had acted inappropriately in regards to one of the foster children, while in California. He denies this claim. Mr. Garcia was told he was to have no contact with any care providers, foster parents or anyone from the foster care system. He was told to stay in the house from eight to five and to have no contact with anybody from DCFS except Mr. Abbey. He was not allowed to return to his office or remove any items from the office.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Garcia learned that while he had been gone Manuel and another 12 year old boy had murdered a Hispanic field worker. He learned this from CPS supervisor Tim Abbey, who came to Mr. Garcia's house in a panic. Mr. Abbey brought the files of Manuel and his family with him. He said that he wanted Mr. Garcia "to work on the files to make it appear that I'd justified Manuel's removal." Mr. Abbey told Mr. Garcia that he wanted him to remove two pages from the Service Episode Records, the hand written documentation of individual case activities that a caseworker is required to complete as an ongoing part of his client's file. Mr. Abbey urged Mr. Glassen to replace these pages with falsified and post-dated reports. Mr. Abbey told Mr. Garcia that his failure to do that might impact the results of the OSI investigation into Mr. Garcia's alleged misconduct in California. According to Mr. Garcia, Mr. Abbey said, "this can be very difficult for you, if we don't get the cooperation. We can work this out. It's really simple here to do this." Mr. Abbey said that it would be a much more difficult investigation unless Mr. Garcia cooperated. Mr. Garcia recalls that Mr. Abbey said, "I can't promise what is going to happen, but I can tell you that this can be an easy, this can be a one month investigation, or it could be ten months or a year."
Mr. Abbey came to Juan Garcia's home three times in as many days. Each time he asked him to falsify the documents to say that there had been a number of problems in the foster home which might have justified Manuel's removal. It was necessary that Mr. Garcia write this because such reports are handwritten and Mr. Garcia is guardian of the record.
My Abbey indicated that his actions were motivated by a communication from Roy Harrington, Regional Administrator of DCFS, based in Spokane. Mr. Abbey showed Mr. Garcia the memorandum. The memorandum, dated August 25, 1994, reads:
Why did I have no clue that at least one of these kids were ours until I see the Wenatchee World. This murder is getting statewide attention. If you don't think I and Oly have an immediate need to know then something is truly, truly wrong over there. I want some info ASAP immediately summarizing our role. Why in the hell you all didn't get me info as soon as you knew we had a history with this (these) kids, is beyond me. Read the goddamn media policy which Carol referenced to all of you two weeks ago. Get me some info in writing now! Fernandez, Glassen, Garcia and now this? The two of you better get a hold of things over there. I don't want to see or hear finger-pointing, I want results. Get me info.(87) (attached.)

Mr. Garcia refused to cooperate. He said that he was frightened. He knew that Mr. Abbey would go to the Office of Special Investigations and make it more difficult. "I basically knew that I was not gonna be able to work at CPS after that." Mr. Garcia was on paid administrative leave for eleven months. He was fired on June 21, 1995, after an OSI investigation substantiated Mr. Garcia's legal wrongdoing. Mr. Garcia was never interviewed  by the OSI investigators.

(2)  Observation of Discriminatory Practices
Mr. Garcia told me that he frequently saw examples of discriminatory attitudes towards Hispanics by DCFS staff members. These attitudes included racial insensitivity. "They were real stereotypical type of ideological type of ideas people have about Hispanics. Now, there's differences. Just because we all speak Spanish doesn't mean we're doesn't mean we're all from the same cultural background...And they believe that everybody's actually from Mexico around here...But there's a lot of people from Honduras, Columbia, Cuba, Puerto Rico, El Salvador, Guatemala ...We're not just talking about migrants. This family's been here twenty or thirty years, but there's no distinction."
Mr. Garcia said that he had observed examples of inadequate services provided to Hispanic families as required by dependency court orders. Many of the services were practically unattainable, given the limitations imposed on these families by virtue of their poverty and language difficulties. Often, court ordered services are inaccessible to them. "If they don't get these done, then always the social worker's going to go back into court and say, 'well, we don't have a mother here who's working enthusiastically toward these goals that we have.'...And again they're thrown into the system here that is set up against them, that is stacked so much against them that ultimately the court's gonna give up and terminate this particular mother's rights."
According to Mr. Garcia, a major barrier to attaining court expectations is language. "A mother shows up at these parenting classes or whatever recommendation they may be...in English. so she would just sit there, even though she's only Spanish-speaking, non interacting with the rest of the group. So then the parenting individual, whoever's running the class, would then write a bad report...because she's not participating. And again, that goes back to the social worker and the social worker then gives that to the judge and you see how the system's set up for them to fail. And it fails pretty rapidly, the way I see it." The consequence of failure is termination of the parent and child relationship by the court.
Interpreter services are sometimes not provided to families. Sometimes children, even the actual alleged victim, are asked to interpret for their parents. Because none of the DCFS staff but he and Juana Vasquez were Hispanic, the intake process often failed to appropriately respond to these cases. Cases of emergent danger, for example, might not be rated high enough to justify a caseworker investigation. Some of these cases were ones with actual high risk factors such as medical evidence. "I believed that families were at risk the whole three years I was there."
Mr. Garcia said that Hispanic professionals such as teachers and day care providers would contact him about Hispanic children whom they had previously reported as being likely abuse victims. He said he would enquire about what these professionals had said to the intake person. He said he "just couldn't believe what information they were giving. The intake worker didn't get it. She or he would then just minimize the information, as to his interpretation of it."
Hispanic parents sometimes had difficulty in accessing DCFS services, according to Mr. Garcia. "I would file complaints of the instances of just insensitivity toward clients in a sense where clients were just being ignored at the front (desk) because they didn't speak any Spanish. I mean they would walk by them like they were invisible. That's the funny thing, it's like that person was a nonexistent individual. An Hispanic person could be standing up there for a half hour and I mean the people would walk up there, walk around, get stuff right in front of that individual and be kind of uncertain about looking at them in the eyes for the fear of having to communicate with this individual like that person was a statue or a fiend or something, I don't know. And I observed this so many times I finally made a complaint. And I said you need to either hire a receptionist or somebody and people here need to be a bit more sensitive to people up front...She or he might know English, you never know. Give them an opportunity to communicate before you make this preassumption (sic), you know, stereotyping them again, that everyone that's brown up there doesn't speak any English."
Transportation was another factor in accessing services, according to Mr. Garcia. Mothers of poor Hispanic families may not drive or have access to a car. If their husband were in the fields or in jail these mothers could not access services such as parenting or counseling. They were also obligated to the needs of their children. "You know, those (children remaining at home) are still at home to take care of. They still need diapers, they still need clothing, they still need to get to school, they still need to get bathed. They still need their parental care. She's doing that, but at the same time you give her all these recommendations, she still has to go and finish anger management, parenting classes, get u.a.'s if they had a concern of drugs. You know, basically it was the kind of stuff that would just make the barriers so high, unreachable expectations."
Mr. Garcia said that he was very concerned about the practice of placing Hispanic children in non culturally-relevant homes. "I had trouble seeing that all the time. I had trouble with Anglo foster parents being very derogatory towards Hispanic children, about their culture, about their food, about their habits. They were just not culturally sensitive...or really concerned about their culture."
Mr. Garcia said that the Wenatchee juvenile court system may provide little or not equity  for certain Hispanics or minority people, especially those who are poor. "Young Hispanic women, those with not a history of problems, are targeted and given such a hard service recommendation that it's an impossible goal to meet. And so they go back to court with low recommendations. They go back to court without the support of the department. They go back to court which then the only evidence the court can rule on...then leads to termination and leads ultimately to adoption. Which the kids are placed in Anglo foster homes, which are eventually adopted out to that particular foster home, being a non-traditional Hispanic home...The child just never leaves your foster home and then within months you can have him adopted if the mother hasn't complied with the court order."
Mr. Garcia said that he believes the practice of placing children for foster care and for ultimate adoption in non culturally-relevant homes to be "cultural genocide."
The extended family is typically not considered as a resource, despite DCFS policy. He stated that there are pressures placed on the Wenatchee DCFS by potential foster and adoptive parents. Foster parents are sometimes dependent on the income they receive from foster children, according to his observations.(88) Adoptive parents also put pressure on the department for financial reasons, since State adoptions are far less expensive than private ones.
Mr. Garcia told me that he knows that a CPS worker, Laurie Alexander, was or is concurrently employed by New Hope, a private adoption agency. He said that poor Hispanic mothers have told him that they were very confused about Ms. Alexander's twin roles. In one case, the woman was told that failure to relinquish the child for adoption through New Hope might lead to her being deported. Mr. Garcia said that the Hispanic mother "couldn't distinguish what role she (Ms. Alexander) was playing at which particular time." Mr. Garcia said that the mother speaks only very limited English and Laurie Alexander speaks no Spanish. The adoption paperwork was in English. Ms. Alexander did not use an interpreter.
Mr. Garcia described another example. A young girl, under 18, was approached by Ms. Alexander immediately after giving birth. "At the time she was a minor and didn't have the consent of a mother to do this... And so she couldn't distinguish between her being an adoption social worker or CPS social worker. She just sees Laurie as both." The mother, reminded of her financial limitations, agreed to relinquish her infant for adoption.
Mr. Garcia said that the child's father came into the CPS office before the adoption was complete. Mr. Garcia spoke to him. The father thought the CPS office was an adoption agency. He communicated that he wanted custody of his son. He wanted to talk to Ms. Alexander. Mr. Garcia went back to Ms. Alexander's office and told her this, but she put on her coat and left out the back way. (Note: the child's maternal grandmother, who was interviewed on June 22, 1995, said that she also tried to gain custody of the child. She was told the agency didn't want the child with her. She was never notified nor did she sign anything before the adoption.)(89)
According to Mr. Garcia, these mothers knew Laurie through previous involvements with their families. However, in neither case were the infants subject to a dependency action by the state prior to being relinquished for private adoption.
Mr. Garcia said that it was his observation that certain DCFS social workers shared a stereotypical belief that people of low income are naturally abusers. "The expectation is that everyone who is at that level of income is an abuser or a sexual molester or some type of stereotype that the social workers have."
Mr. Garcia said that he has concerns about the way foster care is used as part of investigation. Foster parents would encourage disclosures from children, which he felt would contaminate the results. Sometimes they would come to the office with lengthy written "disclosures." Mr. Garcia would say, "you know you guys are just ruining this case, contaminating everything...So now we're gonna have to filter out this paper this lady gave me and it just really makes our job a lot more difficult."
Mr. Garcia said he was especially concerned about the Perez foster home because of the relationship he held as a police officer. He made verbal complaints to Tim Abbey about it. Mr. Abbey told him Perez was a police officer and had a right to question foster children in his care. Mr. Garcia said that his concern was that Detective Perez would not be able to turn off his role of policeman. "Just living with the victim is an interview."
Mr. Garcia said that he was also concerned about therapy which was a form of investigation. To his knowledge, therapy was frequently discontinued once a disclosure was made. He mentioned particular concerns about the recovered memory of therapy of Cindy Andrews.
Mr. Garcia said the DCFS office has facilities for videotaping. "We had a one-way mirror there. The child wouldn't even know she was being interviewed."


C.	Relationship Between DCFS and Law Enforcement: Systematic Intolerance and Negative Expectations
A review of Wenatchee Police Department Incident Reports reveals that one or more DCFS caseworkers usually accompany Detective Perez on interviews of children. Yet none of  these caseworkers has come forward to complain about problems with his methodology or concerns about the reliability of witnesses' statements. (Except, see Juan Garcia, above.) Presumably these social workers are supportive of the nature of Detective Perez' investigations. In later sections, problems are suggested about the methodology of Detective Perez.
How can it be that problems might be tolerated between independent systems? This section examines the nature of the interdependent relationship between Wenatchee Police Department and the Wenatchee office of the Division of Children and Family Services as it bears on this question.
1.	Target Population
		a.	Overview
All of the child witnesses in the sex ring cases have been subjected to DCFS activities in the past. Most of them have spent extensive periods in foster care. Several have made allegations of abuse. Some have admittedly made false allegations of abuse in the past.
Most of the accused are from a markedly vulnerable population. For example, Idella Everett has an IQ which has been tested variously at 58 or 68. Her husband, Harold Everett can neither read nor write. Scharlann Filbeck has been in special education since sixth grade and is mentally ill. Her husband, Gary Filbeck, can neither read nor write. Cherie Town has been in special education since first grade. Kerri Knowles has suffered from physical disabilities and emotional problems because of childhood and adult sexual victimization. Manuel Rodriguez is Hispanic and Spanish-speaking. Linda Miller has emotional problems. And so it goes. Most of the accused live in circumstances of extreme popery. Many are on welfare.
Of the approximately 45 people who have been charged, few...notable some charged in connection with the Pentecostal Church, such as Honna Sims, and Pastor Robert and Connie Roberson, and former foster parent Robert Devereaux...deviate from this pattern.
Many of these people have been DCFS clients.(90) They may represent the same throwaway  population that have been ill treated or ignored by Wenatchee DCFS agents in the past.
b.	Interview:  Paul Glassen
And unfortunately the parents that I knew, sometimes I knew from my work, that are involved, these are extremely vulnerable people to start with, often retarded people, people who came from extremely deprived backgrounds...It's a very ugly business when that's the kind of person the police go out and pick up and tell they're going to accuse them of additional offenses and then work out some sort of plea bargain when they get that person to testify against someone else.

c.	Interview:  Juan Garcia
Q:	Is it your observation, if you know, that there's any particular category of people that have been singled out or been targeted perhaps by Detective Perez in terms of his investigation of the current sex cases in Wenatchee?
A:	Oh, it's fairly obvious. You can observe by the individuals that have been alleged and convicted are those from the poor, developmentally delayed, mentally retarded,...those who are on a really limited income, those individuals who don't have the economic background to get an attorney or even have the knowledge to look for a proper attorney... And those who aren't going to have the ability to know their rights from a legal standpoint, to speak, not speak, what to say, what am I agreeing to, what am I signing?...I think it reflects Detective Perez' ego. I think it reflects his history with the Wenatchee Police Department...and how he goes after or has attempted to go after those who are uncooperative with him and those who are weak.(91)



d.	Interview:  Juana Vasquez
Asked about whether the pattern of discriminatory practices might tie in with the sex case investigations, Juana Vasquez said:
A:	I don't know. I just know the attitude of the social workers...the comments to describe them..."scumbag," "sleazeball," "mentally retarded," "God, these people stink!" They're just not appropriate. And then they've followed through with their comments with actions. I don't know if anything's connected there. I just realize that a lot of the people that are involved or that have been accused...are people that have gone through our system, CPS, numerous times.
Q:	Have these same people encountered a discriminatory attitude?
A:	In the office, yes. By the social workers, yes. (92)

2.	Joint Interviews
		a.	Interview:  CPS Supervisor Tim Abbey
In an interview on July 11, 1995, CPS Supervisor Tim Abbey discussed the subject of his office's cooperation with the investigations of Detective Perez. The following represent his assertions of fact and opinion and not those of the author.
The "vast majority" of the office's cases involve joint interviews of children, involving DCFS and law enforcement, according to Mr. Abbey. In 1986, Chelan County Prosecutor Gary Riesen drew up a policy calling for such joint interviews. This practice is also consistent with RCW 26.44, according to Mr. Abbey, which states that interviews are a mutual responsibility. In Wenatchee, police officers are understood to bear primary responsibility for the interview because their cases require a much higher burden of proof at trial. The police officer always takes the lead in such interviews and decides what to ask and what information is needed.
Mr. Abbey said that in his experience both the police officer and the CPS worker takes notes. The police officer then types up the report. Notes are shared and compared before the reports are typed. This is to determine if they "drastically disagree." The officer and the caseworker get together shortly after the interview but not necessarily on the same day, at which time they compare notes to make sure they are "conformed." This is the "rule" within the Wenatchee office.(93)
Mr. Abbey said that social worker notes have a different purpose than police notes. DCFS notes are usually called for by the police in cases where they have interests in common. However, in criminal courts, CPS resists production of records.
Service Episode Records are done for case planning and regarding federal money audits. There has been internal discussion, according to Mr. Abbey, about how frequently Service Episode Records should be kept. In Mr. Abbey's opinion they needn't be kept daily or contemporaneously with an event.
Mr. Abbey said that RCW Chapter 26 deals with interviewing children. The statute says to avoid leading questions. I asked him why this was and he said, "because the defense can skewer us if we do." I asked him if there were other reasons and he said, "Also, no one wants innocent people convicted." He said that leading questions can contaminate the answers. He is trained to use open-ended questions, and to avoid such actions as nods, or inflections. Questions, he said, should be phrased along the lines of, "did anyone hurt you?" rather than, "did Daddy hurt you?" The idea is to get to the truth.
However, according to Mr. Abbey, if a child says he was abused, and he wasn't, then "something else is going on." In the Wenatchee sex cases, he said, many children have been interviewed and many said nothing happened. If a child says no and this is a first referral then the denial "can be reliable," and it "might go no further." If there are repetitive referrals and multiple denials you must determine whether the child is trying to "hassle" someone or if the child is being abused. Such a denial is not necessarily reliable. You would then need to ask "other kinds of questions," such as family history.

According to Mr. Abbey, his caseworkers receive some training unique to sexual abuse. For example, CPS workers are trained not to use dolls so much. Mr. Abbey said that the CPS manual describes 11 steps that should be part of a sex abuse interview process. He didn't have a copy of the manual to give me because "all of the stuff is in the possession of the judge" as part of an in camera review. Mr. Abbey acknowledged that "there are probably inconsistencies" between the recommendations in the manual and the practices used in Wenatchee.
Mr. Abbey said that he doesn't know what policies govern police interviews. He said that he didn't observe any concerns when he observed a child interview done by Detective Perez. When asked if the interview was consistent with DCFS policy, Mr. Abbey said he "wouldn't say if it was or it wasn't." He said that within the policy there are different styles. The officer used "different styles and questions," than would a DCFS worker. In determining the reliability of an interview, Mr. Abbey said that, "you have to look also at do these kids have the opportunity to get together to conform their information." He said he is not aware that the children had been presented with statements of others about them. He said, "I would have to be concerned if an interviewer said, 'this is what someone else said,'" He said that this would be a kind of leading question that might contaminate the results.(94)
b.	Review of CPS Policy
			(1)  CPS Manual
The DCFS Manual, Chapter 26, Child Protective Services, Rev. 41, 09/93 states that the CPS worker may request the assistance of law enforcement to assist with an investigation:
The social worker shall gather information for risk assessment, family evaluation, and case planning rather than gather evidence for criminal prosecution. The social worker is not a law enforcement agent but shall work cooperatively with law enforcement. (95)

The DCFS caseworker is authorized, according to the policy manual, to interview children "outside the presence of the parents where the child is found." Such locations may include school premises, day care facilities, the child's home, (26.32(A) Section 26.32 goes on to say:
B.	The social worker shall determine if the child wishes a third party to be present during the interview. The social worker shall make a reasonable effort to have the interview observed by a third party so long as the child does not object and the presence of a third party will not jeopardize the investigation.
C.	The initial interview with the child may be critical to later dependency and/or criminal hearings. The social worker needs to make every effort to avoid saying or doing anything that could be construed as leading or influencing the child.
F.	The social worker shall coordinate the detailed fact gathering interview of the child victim with other investigating professionals. Information obtained by this  interview may be shared in order to limit the number of times a child must be questioned regarding allegations of child abuse or neglect.
H.	Supervisors may assign sexual abuse cases to social workers who are not experienced in handling sexual abuse cases (which will involve interviews with children) only after the social worker completes the following to increase their comfort and skill levels:
1.	Read these DCFS guidelines and discuss them with a supervisor.
2.	Observe two or more sex abuse interviews with children conducted by another experienced social worker.
3.	Do two or more joint interviews with an experienced social worker and social worker and receive feedback from the other worker.
4.	Read three or more contemporary books on child sexual abuse.
I.	All social workers who do sexual abuse interviews with children must attend the specialized DCFS training. "Assessing Child Sexual Abuse; the Disclosure Interview" or its replacement equivalent within three months of assignment to interview children in cases of alleged sexual abuse.

(2)  CPS Child Interview Form Guidelines
According to discovery requests made by defense counsel representing defendants in these matters, the Wenatchee DCFS Office utilize the CPS Child Interview Form Guidelines prepared by the Harbor view Sexual Assault Center. Among these materials are the "Principles for Legally Sound Interviewing."
Principles for Legally Sound Interviewing
Have no preconceived assumptions: consider and explore all possible explanations for concerns about possible abuse.
Use a non-coercive environment and approach; never pressure, intimidate, or offer rewards in order to obtain a response.
Elicit information in an open-ended fashion initially. (E.g., "Tell me more about that.") Proceed to more specific questioning only when the open-ended approach is no longer productive.
Do not ask suggestive questions which contain an expected answer. (E.g., "Your dad touched your pee pee, didn't he?")
Avoid repeated questioning when questioning is unproductive or child is resistant or denying abuse.
Once the child has described an experience, clarify the information with him/her to ensure accurate understanding.
Specifically state:
1.	The importance of telling the truth.
2.	That it's okay to say "I don't know."
3.	That the child can ask if he/she doesn't understand a question.
Document accurately and completely; verbatim documentation of questions/answers regarding specific abuse questioning is desirable. (96)

Because DCFS social workers defer entirely to law enforcement when conducting joint child interviews such suggested practices are not given effect.
c.	Police Interview Practices
Detective Perez testified at the trial of Honna Sims that he took over as detective in charge of the Wenatchee Police Department's child sex crimes cases after attending a brief training course on the subject of child interviewing. He testified that the only books that he has read on the subject are those he read during the course. He testified that he has not read any book or article since that course was completed. (97)
According to numerous accounts, Detective Perez asks leading and suggestive questions, confronts his child subjects with information that he says he already "knows" is true, and calls them "liars" when they deny these things. Many of these interviews are lengthy. He has allegedly engaged in highly coercive practices such as threatening children with detention or with the immediate arrest of a parent if they didn't tell. (98)
These practices will be discussed in greater detail in coming sections.
3.	Other Problems Involving Combined DCFS/Police Practices
Some additional practices involving joint DCFS/police practices are mentioned below. This list is illustrative only.
a.	Voluntary Placement Agreement to Make Children Available for Police Interviews
			(1)  Ralph Gausvik/Barbara Garaas
Wenatchee area children subject to sex abuse investigations are sometimes removed from the family home where no sufficient basis otherwise exists. The children are then placed in foster care and subsequently questioned by Detective Perez.
On June 8, 1995, I interviewed Ralph Gausvik and Barbara Garaas.(99) They have four children under the age of 14. One of them has cerebral palsy and, although 11, functions only at the third grade level. He is fearful and easily frightened because of his condition.
On May 29, 1995, Barbara and Ralph saw Luci Perez. wife of Detective Perez, at a Laundromat run by Barbara's stepfather. D.E., their foster child was with her. When Luci Perez saw Ralph, she spread her arms wide, shielding D.E. She told Ralph to stay away.
On May 30, 1995, Detective Perez came to the home of Ralph Gausvik and Barbara Garaas along with Kate Carrow of CPS. Present in the home were Barbara and two of the children. The other two children were at school. Detective Perez read Barbara her rights and accused her of being in a sex ring. He said the ring was at the Everett house and "we know you and your boyfriend are in a sex ring." When Barbara denied this was true, Detective Perez said, "little girls don't lie." Perez added, "we know you're both in on it. Why don't you confess that you did this stuff because you and know you're lying and you can get help. Otherwise I'll put you in jail or prison.' When she said she wanted a lawyer, Detective Perez went in the bedroom and told her oldest son to get dressed and come with him.
Kate Carrow then proceeded to ask questions about the children. She presented Barbara with paperwork, but Barbara says that she was so "shook up" that she was unable to read it. Detective Perez also talked to Barbara about the papers. He said, "if you don't sign the paper we can take you to jail right now." Barbara felt she didn't have any choice and signed the papers. Kate Carrow told Barbara this was a voluntary agreement or notification of temporary custody for one night only. (100) When the two children came home from school Ms. Carrow took them away to foster care.
(Note: Paperwork they received was: Temporary Custody Notification, 5/30/95. Reason: "allegations of sexual abuse and failure to protect/on going investigation.)
On Wednesday, May 31, 1995, Kate Carrow called Barbara. She said she had a paper that Barbara needed to sign if she wanted to keep her welfare benefits. When Ms. Carrow arrived she asked Barbara to sign a voluntary placement agreement to keep the children in foster care between May 31 and June 14, 1995. Both Barbara and Ralph were present at the time and Ms. Carrow read the papers to them. When they hesitated to sign, Ms. Carrow said again, "if you don't sign you won't get welfare." Feeling they had no choice, both signed the papers. (101)
(Note: This paperwork was: "Voluntary Placement Agreement." It included the responsibilities of the parents: keep DCFS informed; participate with DCFS in making decisions about child; work cooperatively with DCFS staff; maintain personal contact with child; provide appropriate medical, social, school information; cooperate with Office of Support Enforcement to determine to determine amount of support I will pay and pay support consistent with agreement with OSE as set out by court order.)
On Friday, June 2, 1995, Ralph and Barbara filed notice that they wished to terminate the voluntary agreement that they had signed because they didn't want the foster care placement to continue. They were told to wait until Monday. On Monday, June 5, 1995, Ms. Carrow told them she hadn't been able to follow up on the investigation because she had been on vacation. She said she would send them papers regarding the court hearing on Wednesday. They asked her "what court hearing?" and Ms. Carrow said, "yes, you'll have to go to court now."
On Tuesday, June 6, 1995, Ralph and Barbara went out to try to retain an attorney. They were unable to pay the $50,000 he asked. When they returned home they found a Temporary Custody Notice from CPS stuck in the door. (102) The reason for custody was: "allegations of sexual abuse/failure to protect." The paper said that one of the children, their son who has cerebral palsy, had disclosed sexual abuse by his parents along with other adults. One of their daughters said that she had witnessed abuse of others. According to the paperwork, the children were jointly interviewed by Detective Perez and Kate Carrow.
(Note: This paperwork was, "Temporary Custody Notification," 6/5/95. Included the language: "Allegations of sexual abuse/failure to protect. T.G. disclosed that his parents sexually abused him along with other adults. D.G. disclosed she has witnessed abuse to others."
On July 7, 1995, after several unsuccessful dependency court battles, Ralph Gausvik and Barbara Garaas were arrested and placed with high bail in Chelan County Regional Jail on multiple counts of rape of a child.

b.	Police Threats Involving DCFS
In a videotaped interview on August 15, 1995, Juan Garcia, former Wenatchee CPS caseworker told me that he observed Detective Perez attempting to use CPS as a means of extracting a confession from an adult.
Q:	Did you see anything that he said to her that...concerned you?
A:	Uh, just the same mannerisms, the same abusiveness, the same loudness, the same profanity. And threats of using CPS as a tool to get disclosures or admittants out of this particular individual... And he pointed right at me and said, "Juan is gonna take your children if you don't tell me who abused your child."
Q:	Did you think you had enough basis to take her child at that point?
A:	Oh, no...(Perez said to her) "I don't fucking believe you and you better tell me the damn truth or Juan's gonna take your child."...And I stepped in there and I said, "I'm not taking nobody's child without evidence." And I left the room. (104)

III.	Governmental Acts Regarding Sex Abuse Investigations and Prosecutions
A.	The Anatomy of the Investigation
	1.	A Note on Organization
The official facts concerning the sex abuse cases in Chelan and Douglas Counties are myriad and complex.  Police reports alone are voluminous.  Over forty-five cases have been charged.  For purposes of this study it will not be possible to discuss all of the facts, or to discuss many facts in detail.  In addition, the fact patterns are sometimes slippery and amorphous, as the alleged witnesses are reinterviewed, sometimes several times, and confronted with additional facts and/or directed questions.  Additional witnesses frequently emerge and these witnesses may, in turn, alter the facts.  The trials, investigations and arrests are ongoing.
In the first section below, I have set out a chronological summary of child sexual abuse investigations by the Wenatchee Police Department for the period between 1992 and 1995, focusing on more recent events.  The chronology also includes the concurrent investigations of sex ring cases carried out by the Douglas County Sheriff's Office and the Douglas County Prosecutor's Office.  I have also included facts regarding criminal prosecutions, legal proceedings, and other events relevant to these events.  I have identified alleged child witnessses by initials.  This summary is compiled from Wenatchee Police Department Incident Reports, Douglas County Sheriff's Incident Reports, the interviews of Jeannie Dierickx, Victim/Witness Coordinator for the Douglas County Prosecutor's Office; legal pleadings; and other documentation.  The chronology is used herein to show the development of these investigations and prosecutions and the evolution of the sex ring cases.
The section entitled Examples of Investigations sets out three cases.  These cases are presented in some detail and are illustrative only.  These examples are taken from police incident reports and other reports, and include anecdotal information, which will be clearly identified.  I have chosen one example which began as what might have been a more simple case of intra familial abuse, the case of Cherie Town.  The other two cases are those of Robert Devereaux and Pastor Robert Roberson, the two most prominent "ring" heads.

Finally, I have included a selection entitled, Inconsistent Statements of Selected Witnesses.  This selection is an attachment, entitled Exhibit A, to the Affidavit of Steven C. Lacy in Support of Motion to Dismiss Due to State's Failure to Preserve Evidence, filed on June 22, 1995.  This affidavit was prepared on behalf of Robert Devereaux by his attorney, Steven Lacy.  The statements are gathered from police and other reports and the results of various interviews.  Much of these materials were obtained by Mr. Lacy from the State, as part of the discovery process.  In his affidavit, Mr. Lacy states: "This summary is produced for the sole purpose of showing that there has been a material change in the nature of statements alleged to have been made by the alleged victims in this case..."  (105) I have produced these materials as found with the exception of deleting the children's names and substituting initials.
The witness summaries were prepared as relevant to the defense of Robert Devereaux.  Because these witnesses are key to several cases, the inconsistencies have broader application.



2.	Chronology of Events
The following section represents a detailed chronology of events relevant to the investigation of sex ring cases in Wenatchee.  Because of its detail and its complexity, this section might be more properly placed in the appendix section of this report.  Because this chronology is useful in demonstrating that these facts are indeed detailed and complex, and because the following sections will make references to these facts, I have included it in proximity to these sections.
This chronology is intended for reference and not for careful reading.  The reader may simply wish to turn to Section 3.


3.	Examples of Investigations
		a.	Cherie Town
In a videotaped interview at Purdy Women's Prison on July 5, 1995, Cherie Town told me that she is married to Meredith Eugene Town and they have two children together: J.T. (d.o.b. 3/9/80) and W.T. (d.o.b. 11/5/82).  She said that both boys have been diagnosed as "hyperactive."  Ms. Town told me that she has been in special education since the first grade and dropped out of school in the tenth grade.  (106)
The Town family has been subject to DCFS involvement since the birth of their youngest child.  Twice, over the course of the years, the children were removed from the home as part of dependency actions.  After the second dependency action in 1986, the children were returned after approximately eight months.
Ms. Town did well on the court ordered conditions.  In her parenting class she received a certificate, and then helped the teacher the following session.  After the children were returned, DCFS provided a homemaker to help out in the home.  Neither of these dependency actions were in the Wenatchee area.  Nor did they involve any allegations of sexual abuse.
DCFS provided ongoing services to the family.  The Towns moved to Wenatchee in 1989.  Wenatchee CPS provided limited services, such as checking the house periodically, but the family was not subject to a dependency action.
On October 15, 1994, Meredith Town fired a gun through the closet door in the family home.  He had been drinking at the time.  Ms. Town called 911 and three Wenatchee police officers came out and arrested her husband.  One of these was Detective Perez.  After Meredith was arrested, Ms. Town filed a restraining order and filed for single custody of their children.
Sometime after January of 1994, W.T. told her in the backyard of their home that he had "stood watch" for his father.  Ms. Town wasn't sure what he meant.  He told her his father was "playing with his brother."  It took until morning for Ms. Town to figure out that W.T. meant that Meredith was molesting J.T.  She did not question J.T. or W.T.  Meredith remained out of the home.
Ms. Town was confused about what to do.  She was advised by a friend, Laura Holt, to contact the Rape Crisis Center.  It was approximately three weeks later that she finally got in for an appointment, although she admits that she delayed for a few days because she was "in a turmoil" because she had filed for divorce from Meredith.
Cherie went to the Rape Crisis Center about the first or second week of February with W.T. and J.T.  Linda, the counselor, interviewed the boys and then told Cherie that she would have to notify the police.  Three days later, Cherie got a telephone call from Detective Perez telling her that she had to take J.T. down to the Wenatchee police station for an interview.  He said he had already interviewed W.T. at his school.  Perez said he tried to talk to J.T. at school, but apparently the school would not permit it.
At the Wenatchee Police Department, Cherie had to wait in the hall while Detective Perez took J.T. in for an interview.  He wouldn't tell her what happened and instructed J.T. not to talk to her about it.  He said that someone would be at her home within two to three days to check the house over.  She was not interviewed.
According to the Affidavit of Probable Cause, filed by Chelan County Prosecutor Gary A. Riesen on April 7, 1994, Jean Wood of Wenatchee Rape Crisis advised Detective Perez that W.T. and J.T. had disclosed that they had been raped by their father, Meredith Town.  She told him that Mr. Town was planning to flee the area and take the boys to Kansas on April 1, 1994.  Detective Perez then interviewed W.T. at Lincoln Elementary School and W.T. told him that his father had forced him to perform oral sex and acts of anal intercourse on two occasions: July and October of 1993.
The Douglas County Sheriff's Department located Mr. Town at District Court where he was picking up a trip permit.  Detective Perez interviewed J.T., who said his father had had anal sex with him between the Winter of 1992 and the Fall of 1993.  J.T. related that in the Spring of 1994, his father had anal sex with him on a logging road.
Detective Perez then interviewed Meredith Town who acknowledged he had had regular anal and oral sex with his sons.  Mr. Town was arrested and taken into custody.  (107) Mr. Town was booked on 62 counts of child rape in the second degree, and four counts of indecent liberties.  (108) Mr. Town was unsuccessful at a motion to suppress his statement to Detective Perez.  (109) He entered into a guilty plea to an amended information of two counts of child molestation in the first degree, and two counts of child rape in the second degree.  On advice of his attorney, Mr. Town stipulated to an exceptional sentence upward of 240 months in prison.  (110)
W.T. and J.T. remained at the home.  On April 5, 1994, Juan Garcia and another DCFS caseworker came to her home.  A few minutes later, Detective Perez arrived.  Detective Perez immediately asked her "what tavern were you in?"  He was referring to the previous day when she was at a doctor's appointment and not at home.  She told them which doctor she had seen and Juan Garcia said that that should be easy to verify. (111)
Cherie said that Perez then took her into the kitchen and told her her rights.  The social workers stayed in the living room with the boys.  Later they took the boys out front.  When Cherie came to the part in the rights form about remaining silent, she said, "Is that like taking the fifth?"  Perez told her "It is and it isn't."  He didn't explain further.  She didn't think that she needed an attorney.  However, Detective Perez told her that possibly she would be arrested for molestation.
He then took her into the backyard.  According to Cherie, Detective Perez said, "I've heard the stories that you have molested your children."  When she didn't know what he was talking about, Detective Perez said, "I've heard 'em and I know they're true and if you don't confess to it I'll make sure you spend the rest of your life in prison."  She said he kept badgering her and finally she got so upset she couldn't talk for about five minutes.  Detective Perez said, "If you don't start talking again you will be arrested and you will be charged."  Detective Perez said he knew th