Plea may not cost Oklahoma DHS worker’s job

Woman admits ignoring claims

BY JAY F. MARKS

Published: December 9, 2008

An Oklahoma Department of Human Services worker pleaded guilty Monday to failing to report child abuse.


Nancy Cannady, 65, was given a one-year suspended sentence by an Oklahoma County judge after she pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge.

Cannady was charged in September 2007 with ignoring a 5-year-old girl’s claim that she had been sexually abused.

The Guthrie resident could have been sentenced to a year in jail by Special Judge James Croy.

She also must pay court costs and a $500 fine.

DHS officials said the conviction likely will not jeopardize her job since it was not a felony charge.

Cannady’s status with the agency will be reviewed by administrators, spokesman George Johnson said.   [See related articles:  Oklahoma Foster Care System

Defense attorney Robert Manchester described Cannady as a dedicated worker who made a mistake, then acknowledged it with her guilty plea.

Manchester said Cannady was distraught to learn that the abuse complaints she had not reported in June 2007 were true.

Cecil Frazier confessed in September 2007 to sexually assaulting her and another girl, according to court papers.

Frazier, 18, was charged with eight counts of rape, sodomy and lewd acts with a child.

http://www.newsok.com/plea-may-not-cost-oklahoma-dhs-workers-job/article/3328771

Related articleDHS worker admits failing to report child abuse

0

Who is checking on whom?

Over and over again I read how background checks are done on the foster parents, and yet over and over again I read about cases where the abusive person within a foster home is NOT the parent held responsible for the child-in-care.  In the other related-article, "DHS Worker admits failing to report child abuse", the person who repeatedly raped the girls was not the foster parent, but the foster brother:

The child's foster brother later confessed to sexually abusing the girl and another girl. [ http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=9489825]

In April, 2007 another case was investigated by the same newspaper, asking if foster families are scrutinized enough:

A secret report shows state Department of Human Services workers knew about serious problems at an Oklahoma City foster home where four boys were staying, but didn't shut it down until one boy revealed he had been sexually abused there.

The foster father, Paul Stephen Hull, last week pleaded guilty to joining a live-in male lover in sexually assaulting one of the foster sons — multiple times.

The rape victim said the two men called him and boys his age their "candy.”

Hull — a longtime teacher — was so highly regarded by Oklahoma Department of Human Services officials that they paid him to keep more than the normal limit of special-needs foster children in his home, The Oklahoman has learned.

The case is raising questions about whether the state agency responsible for the care of troubled and deprived children scrutinizes its foster parents enough.   [From:  "What DHS knew ... but didn't act on until a foster child reported sexual abuse", Nolan Clay and Randy Ellis, April 15, 2007, http://www.newsok.com/what-dhs-knew-...-but-didnt-act-on-until-a-foster-child-reported-sexual-abuse/article/3040569 ]

Records show the partner/friend of the highly respected foster father spent time in an Iowa juvenile center for beating a 22-month-old boy to death in 1981 and lost parental rights to seven of his own children.  It was also noted Hull's "friend" was on probation for drug possession.

At the time of this particular case, District Attorney Greg Mashburn said:

he realizes DHS officials cannot discriminate against gays but should review their policies. "It's a concern to me,” he said. "Hopefully, they've taken a fresh look at it to make sure something like that doesn't happen again.”

[The victim in this particular case has demanded $175,000 from the state because child-welfare workers placed and left him in a home that was not safe.]   

Personally, I don't think a homosexual is more prone to rape a child than a heterosexual, so one has to wonder who is being screened, who is being protected, and who is allowing children to be put in high risk situations where sexual abuse is more likely to happen, and most importantly, why isn't all of this being closely monitored and reported?  (Is safe and appropriate state-care simply too costly?)

Meanwhile, I am grossly amused  when PAPs will complain about the nature of certain types of questions asked of them during their pre-screening application process for adoption approval.  On some sites, some PAP's have even argued that the sexually-related questions asked of couples are offensive and invasive, and have little to do with home safety or being "fit parents" to a needy, wanting child.

Gee... this all makes me wonder.... how DOES the sexual practice of certain individuals affect a newly placed child in a home? 

I can't help but ask: if every person sexually abused within their foster/adoptive homes was given $175,000 from the state, how long would it take for the government to make sure each child placement services was completely dedicated to child safety?

"if every person sexually

"if every person sexually abused within their foster/adoptive homes was given $175,000 from the state, how long would it take for the government to make sure each child placement services was completely dedicated to child safety?"

Well if the Canadian government is any indication they are paying out from a previous lawsuit over government "care" and didn't slow them down a bit. In fact it had the opposite affect. Now they are ready for another lawsuit after losing the first one, they learned from their mistakes. We are seeing it now as we face the government with a new lawsuit. Our best guess is they plan to wait till we are old and most of us have died off before they deal with this matter in court like they did with the native residential schools (A.K.A: The re-education centers for the native savages) victims.

DHS worker keeps job

This woman seems to get away with everything she is also linked to the Aurora Cruz case (the 7 month old girl who died) she didn't do her job on that case either and now here we are several years later and she still works for DHS. As far as background checks go I don't believe they do checks on the foster parents any better then they do on DHS employees. If they do check them they obviously don't care. This article said that the judge said she could keep her job because she didn't commit a felony having a felony wouldn't have stopped her from working for DHS she definately would not be the first or the only one. 

Pound Pup Legacy