I-Team Investigation: Baby's Death in NV Clark County Care

I-Team Investigation: Baby's Death in Clark County's Care

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6503306

When a seemingly health baby boy took his last breath at Child Haven

last August, few details were released about his death. Now, much more

is known about the quality of care Joshua Sharp received at the Clark

County facility.

The Channel 8 I-Team began investigating Joshua's death the day it

happened pouring over records from the police, the coroner, the county

and the state.

Read DFS's Child Fatality Report in the Case of Baby Joshua Sharp

For the first time, after some nine months, we see the face of Baby

Joshua and hear from his heartbroken family.

Carol Sharp, Joshua's grandmother, said, "We had to tell them their baby

was gone.'

Amanda Guidaitis can barely speak. Joshua Sharp, the baby's father,

said, "We weren't bad parents."

As Amanda listens to her boyfriend and his mother talk about the death

of their baby boy, it's as if she fears opening her mouth might cause

her to join him.

In June of 2006, Clark County Child Protective Services took

17-month-old Joshua Sharp from his teenage mom and dad. They'd taken him

to the hospital for a fever.

Sharp said, "The social worker came in and said, 'You guys don't have a

stable place to stay.' We were living with friends."

The caseworker told Joshua, Sr. the system could better care for their

baby. But it didn't.

A Child Haven employee made the call to 911. "Yeah, I'm at Child Haven

and I have a little child that's not breathing."

Child Haven staff administered CPR.

Baby Joshua never again showed signs of life.

The coroner ruled he died of natural causes from an ear infection that

progressed to a blood infection that attacked his entire body.

Dr. Harold Naiman said, "It seems, as a pediatrician and a father, it

seems very unnatural for a 17-month-old child to die of an infection

that may have progressed to sepsis and death."

Documents obtained by the I-Team suggest poor record keeping, a lack of

communication and a failure to follow-up interfered with Baby Joshua's

medical care. The only time he saw a doctor was the visit to the

hospital with his parents.

In the county's custody, a physician's assistant -- without access to

the baby's medical records -- prescribed antibiotics twice. The P.A.

prescribed a ten-day course in late July for an ear infection and then

again in early August for another ear infection and an eye infection.

A chronology of care put together by the county after Joshua's death

shows he received his medicine as prescribed. But a review of county

records by the state Department of Health and Human Services found it

impossible to say for sure.

One log notes Joshua received his medicine days before the pharmacy

delivered it. There are no nursing notes to indicate whether anyone

regularly checked his eyes and ears. In fact, the nursing notes stop all

together twelve days before he died.

Though his parents visited Child Haven almost every day to see their

son, they didn't know he was sick.

Joshua Sharp, Sr. said, "I go in there everyday and question them.

What's going on with my son? This was my kid. But they always told me

he's fine, he's fine. They never said nothing about an ear infection."

According to the state's review, the medical staff did not share

information about Joshua with the caregivers at Child Haven, his

caseworker, or his parents.

The day he died staff thought he seemed perfectly healthy. He spent the

morning playing with his mom, ate lunch and then went down for a nap.

During bed checks at 4:45 p.m. he was alive, but five minutes later he

wasn't.

Sharp continued, "From what they tell us, it took a couple of days for

his organs to shut down. How come they didn't' notice this?"

Why? Because they didn't pay any attention to him.

Baby Joshua's mother, Amanda shyly expresses the same concern. "I just

thought we could do it better than them. I didn't think they were doing

their job very good."

Amanda wishes she'd had more of a voice against a system dead set on

saving her son.

Emails the I-Team has gathered between the county and the state show the

county rejects the state's review.

The Department of Family Services Director Tom Morton declined our

request for an on-camera interview, but he did send the statement.

"Our hearts are with the family, and we share in their grief.

"Out of respect for their privacy, we do not wish to add to their

pain by commenting further on any specifics related to this case.

"Child Haven has a long history of helping families in crisis, and

we are always looking for ways to improve the quality of care we provide. "

We will continue to take a critical look at our policies and

procedures to ensure our children have the best care possible."

According to the state, as of May 10th, Clark County has yet to provide

a plan to correct the problems it found at Child Haven.

The I-Team has learned the family does have a lawyer and he's in

discussions with the county.

CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A

DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL

SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

CPS Does not protect children...

It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even

killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

every parent should read this .pdf from

connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US

These numbers come from The National Center on

Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)

Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

Perpetrators of Maltreatment

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59

Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13

Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241

Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF

REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES

TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY

ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...