Child Dies: Who’s Welfare is the A.C.S. Looking After?

The New York Times recently published an article about the death of a young girl named Marchella Pierce, who was in the child welfare program in Brooklyn, NY.
The article describes the upcoming trial regarding her death, in which her mother, grandmother, former case worker and the case-worker’s supervisor have been indicted.

When Marchella died in September, she was four years-old, and weighed eighteen pounds.
A CNN article reported that officials stated her cause of death as, “acute drug poisoning, blunt impact injuries, malnutrition and dehydration”—a horrifying way for any human being to die.

It’s terrible that people can do this to one another.
The fact that this was done to a child, and one who was supposed to be under the care of a child welfare agency, makes it even more so.

Marchella’s mother and grandmother have been indicted with murder and manslaughter charges, respectively, among others.
Damon Adams, her former case worker, and Chereece Bell, his supervisor, are being charged with criminally negligent homicide, official misconduct and endangering the welfare of a child.

Adams is also being charged with tampering with public records and falsifying records.
This is apparently the first time a New York that child service worker is being charged with any form of homicide.

And they should be, I think. But there are, of course, several opinions.

John Mattingly, commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services (A.C.S), is quoted in the same New York Times article, about the possible ramifications of charging welfare workers.
“If the people who are interested in those kinds of jobs see these actions taken by the district attorney, we have a concern, with social workers all around the country, that this will hurt our ability to recruit and retain talented people,” Mattingly said.

It seems that John Mattingly’s concern is misplaced, although I almost appreciate it.
The sentiment seems to be that if people don’t apply to or stay in social services, agencies will become even more understaffed and the possibilities for abuse and neglect going undetected wil rise.

However, given the circumstances of Marchella’s death, Mattingly’s comments come off as shallow.
He did acknowledge, in the same statement, that the A.C.S. failed in its purpose to protect Marchella. But that’s not enough.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is quoted in another Times article saying that Marchella’s death was not a result of overloaded employees.
He cited the national caseload average for a social worker as 15. Adams and Bell had nine.

Adams was required to make biweekly visits to Marchella’s house.
Over the year and a half period leading up to her death, Adams recorded two attempts to contact Marshella’s mother, Carlotta Brett-Pierce. One record was of a phone call and another was an attempted home visit.

So, if Adams was not overwhelmed with a large caseload, what is his excuse for such little effort and care?
It seems to me that the only explanation is sheer negligence.

In addition to the lack of visits and attention paid to Marchella’s case, Adams has the additional charges of tampering with public records and falsifying records.
After Marchella’s death, Adams recorded an additional five entries, claiming that he had met with her family in March, April, June and August.

There seems to be two reasons for this: either Adams forged the records outright, or he is an incredibly forgetful man.
I don’t know what the truth is, but I know what it appears to be: criminal negligence.

Even if the entries that were recorded following Marchella’s death are legitimate, I fail to see how seven visits over a year and half period can seem sufficient to any person with a conscience.
Bell, Adam’s supervisor, was similarly accused by prosecutors of creating records after Marshella’s death.

In the records, Bell reports to have had discussions with Adams concerning Marshella’s case.
She is not, however, being indicted with the same falsifying charges as Adams is.

This is not a case wherein a tragedy occurred despite repeated interventions and best attempts of a social service agency.
Instead, it seems fairly obvious that someone was not doing their job, and that, as a result, a child was killed.

That Adams and Bell were social service employees should make them more culpable, not protected under an administrative umbrella.
In fact, charging the Administration for Children’s Services’ former employees would probably improve the public’s view of the agency.

If the A.C.S. exists to help and protect children, then it shouldn’t matter who the responsible party is, only that they be brought to justice.

Alysia Sawchyn can be reached at asawchyn@spartans.ut.edu.