Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scores of commenters allege systemic problems at Child and Family Services, call for independent oversight
Summary
Multiple speakers in public comment alleged pattern problems at County Child and Family Services — including unverified reports, improper removals, withheld documentation and cases where children were returned to dangerous situations — and asked the board for independent oversight, recorded case contacts and a public accounting of agency practices.
Dozens of family members, advocates and community leaders used the March 10 public comment period to describe recurrent problems with San Bernardino County Child and Family Services (CFS) and to demand independent oversight, access to reports and stronger accountability.
Speakers detailed similar patterns: reports they said were one‑sided or contained factual inaccuracies, chronic difficulty obtaining case documents, children returned to homes they described as unsafe (including a recent mauling incident), and what several commenters characterized as a failure of the existing oversight structures to correct systemic problems.
"Where is the money going if the services are not being provided to families?" asked Leticia Howard, who said she completed services but would not have her children returned. Several speakers urged the board to require mandatory recording of all CFS family contacts and interviews so court reports cannot be fabricated; an organizational representative from the Safe Foundation sent the board model language for a bill that would require recorded contacts.
Speakers also raised specific, urgent welfare incidents: a mother and grandmother described a two‑year‑old who survived a pit‑bull attack and said Child Protective Services planned to return the child to the same home and dog. Another commenter said the coroner and other records were being withheld and families were forced to pay for independent autopsies or legal documents to obtain basic information.
Multiple public commenters said they will pursue additional oversight steps if county processes do not change, including outreach to the grand jury and the state auditor. The board did not take immediate, formal action on the public‑comment requests during the meeting; staff noted the comments and the board asked for follow‑up avenues but did not adopt a specific board‑led oversight program on the spot.
Speakers asked the board to make public standard operating procedures, grievance processes and case‑report review practices to increase transparency and ensure consistent application of due process to families across the county.
