San Carlos tribe, family and lawmakers press for reforms after Emily Pike’s death

The Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on the Department of Child Safety convened a hearing to review the case of 14‑year‑old Emily Pike and consider reforms after the San Carlos Apache Tribe and Pike’s family said the systems meant to protect children failed her.

Lawmakers, tribe leaders and family members told the committee that a chain of jurisdictional and communication breakdowns — among tribal social services, licensed group homes, the Arizona Department of Child Safety (DCS) and local police — delayed or limited responses after Emily left a Mesa group home and was later found murdered. ‘‘This crime must not go unsolved,’’ San Carlos Apache Tribal Chairman Terry Rambler told the committee, and the tribe has offered a $75,000 reward; the FBI offered a matching reward.

The hearing brought several strands together: family testimony about delays and how Emily was reported; tribal leaders’ calls to change state systems so missing Native children trigger the same alerts as other missing children; and agency explanations of licensing, jurisdiction and reporting obligations. The family’s spokesperson, Gail Baciulli, read a statement saying Emily ‘‘was murdered in the most heinous way’’ and that the family learned of the finding after a leaked Gila County bulletin. Emily’s uncle, who identified himself as Alrepack Jr., asked lawmakers to remove the practical difference between a ‘‘runaway’’ and a ‘‘missing’’ classification for children in group homes.

DCS Director Katie Ptak told the committee that Emily was not in state custody when she was placed at the facility called Sacred Journey: ‘‘She was placed there pursuant to [the tribe’s] contract,’’ Ptak said, and under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) the tribe had exclusive jurisdiction because Emily was an enrolled tribal member living on tribal land at the time the tribe assumed custody. Ptak also said DCS licenses group homes statewide and regulates congregate care under Title 21, but tribal custody affects who has authority over placement and some case details.

Tribal leaders criticized how alerts and regulatory notifications were handled when Emily ran from the group home. Chairman Rambler requested that Arizona require the Office of Licensure and Regulation (OLR) and DCS to activate statewide alert systems for Native children who go missing ‘‘regardless of whether the child is in the AZDCS system or not.’’ The tribe also recommended mandatory intergovernmental MOUs and annual meet‑and‑confers so contact points and procedures are current.

Family advocates and lawmakers described operational failures they want changed: alarms that can be disabled in group homes, inconsistent sharing of a child’s placement or clinical history with caregivers, delays in forensic interviews and public notification, and the way a ‘‘runaway’’ classification can lower investigative priority. The tribe asked the legislature to require group‑home alarm systems to report when a window or door alarm is disabled and proposed issuing temporary phones with a tracking app to children in congregate care; Chief Terry Rambler said Emily did not have a phone and ‘‘had she had one, her fate may have been different.’’

Multiple presenters described steps already taken: DCS said it established a Missing and Runaway Children unit (MARCS) in November 2024; the tribe noted passage of HB2281 (Emily’s Law) to create a turquoise alert for missing Indigenous elders, and committee members and tribal officials discussed expanding notice and coordination for Indigenous children. Law enforcement witnesses said they use standard procedures to classify and investigate missing persons — including NCIC entry, NCMEC bulletin creation and tiered response thresholds — but that forms and communications sometimes lack tribal custody fields, which can delay outreach to tribal social services.

Committee members directed that the oversight process continue with stakeholder meetings to translate recurring suggestions from the hearing into regulatory and legislative options. No formal motions or votes were taken during the hearing; lawmakers said they will return with recommendations and potential statutory changes. The family asked for additional review of the group homes that cared for Emily (OASIS and Sacred Journey were specifically named by the family) and for review of how and when law enforcement released investigative information.

The hearing closed with lawmakers and tribal leaders agreeing to follow up. ‘‘We will come up with solutions that will protect children whether they are tribal or not,’’ Chair Senator Warner said. The committee scheduled further stakeholder meetings to develop legislative and regulatory proposals.