Mono Grandjury

The Committee interviewed the complainant who voiced three primary concerns: • The alleged victim is continuing to be abused/molested and no action by any government agency is occurring. • The conduct of the Child Protective Services Director during an interview in relation to the case; he allegedly treated the complainant with disrespect and unprofessionally. Additionally, he demanded a tape recording of the alleged victim talking with a friend about abuse/molestation incidents. • The complainant alleged there was/is disparate treatment of Hispanics by the agencies involved.

The Committee talked with the CPS Director who indicated that he had interviewed the complainant concerning the original complaint. He also added that his department did investigate the complaint and could do very little as the alleged victim would not talk and there was little corroborating evidence to support the allegations. He assured the Committee that his department would investigate again if new and substantial information was obtained.

The Committee received a list of potential witnesses from the complainant and contacted all who had telephone numbers. Some of the witnesses never returned the phone calls, and others provided no information to the Committee.

The Committee interviewed members of the District Attorney’s Office who offered information on their past investigations related to this case. The District Attorney’s Office could not prosecute or take any action since the alleged victim would not cooperate or talk. The District Attorney’s Office assured the Committee that they would aggressively investigate again if new information was obtained or the alleged victim would come forward and talk. 8

After all the interviews, the Committee determined that there is not enough evidence to support any further action. The Committee is convinced that all agencies involved acted appropriately in this matter.

The Committee determined that the CPS Director conducted a thorough investigation within the policies and directives of his department.

The Committee determined that there appeared to be no disparate treatment against Hispanics by the agencies involved. According to the District Attorney’s Office, interpreters were used and individuals in all involved departments were sensitive to the needs and cultural differences in the Hispanic population.