The Whitick case, Bloombreg, Vargas and me.

ACS flacks told the world that it was not required by regulation that the children in the Whitick case be visited immediately. It was incumbent that either ACS or NYPD make contact as soon as possible, physical and visual contact, because there was a credible report that children were being seriously hurt and they were! 2 days later the cops got involved. Emergency Children's Services had a case worker call the family (!) and of course an adult answered and said that there was no problem, so the matter rested until Tuesday when cops found the kids beaten and battered and needing ambulances. No one has asked whether these kids got beaten before, during or after ACS's very brilliant telephone call.

Mayor Bloomberg told the world that he was outraged, outraged mind you, and that by golly he was going to get to the bottom of it all. Two years plus and no follow up to his outrage is apparent. The puppy dog journalists have no further questions...

I was brought up on charges for supposedly not making an immediate midnight, non emergency cruel, needless and heartless case visit. Cops, detectives in fact, had already been to the home, extensively. A doctor did not call in a report, because there was nothing reportable. Cops called in a report that was rejected. They tried a second time and an exageration or lie was added to the report to make it viable, as the NYS Office of Children's Services is known to do.

While I was brought up on charges the Supervisor One, Hani Malek, who was with me and agreed that there was no need to call police got promoted to Supervisor Two. Go figure!

So, yes I have this thing about the Whitick case, but everyone who cares about children or who pays taxes that go to NYC's ACS should, because here was a call from a person with a name and phone number, not an anonymous call, about kids getting the stuffing beaten out of them. In fact that was an IRT (Instant Response Team) case but since Ramon Vargas was both the manager on duty, and the IRT coordinator, and it was after all, Super Bowl Sunday, and he has this off to the side, curtained off office that no other Child Protective Manager has at ECS, well...

As I approach the first anniversary of my somewhat forced resignation I have renewed energy and will to see that this case, and the matter of Ramon Vargas, accident that has already happened, not get lost.
Who is the idiot who brought me up on charges for this? Well, he isn't an idiot, he's Maradesa Adegbola.

While Vargas is no moron he has put children at serious risk, not that that would bother anyone at ACS.

Oh, yes, the Whitick Case was called in to Child Protective Services on Superbowl Sunday, 2005. What with the television sets on bosses' desks, is it any wonder that no one went to see those kids that day???

Would You Believe It? No Reply! Why I do not trust the Inspector General's Office, or if you'd rather think so, it's just fiction.....

Whatever happened to the investigation of the Whitick case ?

Eugene Weixel, Child Protective Specialist
Administration for Children’s Services
Emergency Children’s Services
492 First Avenue Unit 579 Ground floor
New York, New York 10016-9103

BEN W. DEFIBAUGH
ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL
180 Water Street, 2nd Floor,
New York, N.Y. 10038
Fax: 212-331-3308
Dear Mr. Defibaugh:
I am writing you first in regards to an ACS case that I believe your office is investigating, the (media case that faded away prior to the election Whitick case ) case. I communicated to the ACS Commissioner that there were memos sent by management to certain supervisors that set arbitrary limits on the number of cases that Emergency Children’s Services would classify as “visits” per shift. ----Whitick case ) case came to Emergency Chidlren’s Services and may account for why a telephone call was made to Ms. XXXXXXX rather than a visit to her home to assess her children’s situation. My communication with the Commissioner also regarded another case that you might want to look at I am including the relevant e mail communications between Mr. Mattingly, Ms. Chahine and me:
Subject: From Eugene Weixel re: IRT case of this morning
Date: 2/11/05 1:18:42 P.M. Eastern Time
From Eweixel (@AOL>COM)
To: John. Mattingly@dfa.state.ny.us
At the risk of receiving additional disciplinary charges I am bringing a case to your attention that demonstrates the extreme of irresponsible casework decisions by those who issue directives in ECS. Rather than name this case here in the Internet email I will simply say that I worked on an IRT case last night (this morning) and I carried out directives that left three children in a dangerous situation.
1. I have documented the case thoroughly, and I have sent a memo to Mr. Jean - Philippe as well as the supervisors and managers involved.
I must say also that I have followed the recent media case. I would hope that you are aware of the memos regarding limitations of case visits that were sent by management to the supervisors who were involved in that case, both before and after the media "blowup."
In my humble opinion these kinds of fiascos will continue as long as ECS supervisors and managers enjoy the impunity they are accustomed to. (End)
I received a reply from Ms. Chahine which I answered (both are included):
Subject: Email Sent Commissioner
Date: 2/12/2005 12:37:56 A. M. Eastern Standard Time
To: Eweixel@aol.comMr. Weixel,
It would be helpful if you could forward to me the memos that we mentioned in your e-mail to the Commissioner for follow up. Thanks
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

My reply was as follows:
Subject: Re: Email sent Commissioner
Date: 12/12/2005 9:37:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Eweixel
To: Zeinab.Chahine@dfa.state.ny.us
In a message dated 2/12/2005 12:37:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Zeinab.Chahine@dfa.state.ny.us writes:
Mr. Weixel,
It would be helpful if you could forward to me the memos that we mentioned in your e-mail to the Commissioner for follow up. Thanks
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
These memos were sent to supervisors xxxx,xxxxxx Mr. xxxxxx and I believe also to Mr. xxxxxx. I doubt they'd actually give them to me because they'd fear getting into some sort of trouble. They were sent by CPM Mr. xxxxxxxxxx (Spelling?).
Thank you for responding as you did to this concern and also for the speedy action to place one of the children in my IRT case of Thursday night / Friday morning.
The case in which I was involved is summarized in a memo I sent to my supervisor, manager and director:
ADMINISTRATION
for CHILDREN’S
SERVICES
Memo
To: xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
From: Eugene Weixel
CC: XXXXXX XXXXXX
Date: 02/11/05
Re: Redacted case SCR 214xxxxxx et al.
I must express my grave concerns regarding this case. This is a case in which a xxxxteen-year-old girl alleges that her stepfather sexually fondled her and “attacked” her. This child’s mother believes the child and moved the child into a rented room in someone else’s house to keep her away from the stepfather. This mother however was not willing to cooperate with police in identifying the stepfather in order that he be arrested. In an interview the mother stated her preference to have this xxxxxeen-year-old child taken from the home in order that the marriage to the alleged subject stepfather be preserved.This mother told the CPS that the father had threatened to kill her and had thrown objects around and “talked about killing people” in front of the two younger children.
The child disclosed to hospital staff as well as to her own mother that the father had fondled her vaginal area at least two times. This child, when asked by this CPS if she felt herself safe in the home where she was returned to the stepfather answered, “I don’t know.”
I objected to the decision to take the family out of the EAU gateway to the shelter system where the mother had agreed to take her children and I also objected to leaving the children in the home with this subject father.
The family was being accepted into the shelter system and was taken out of this system abruptly and placed into a high-risk situation.
A false entry was made in the case record: “worker has not obtained any information from child nor the mother to assess risk. All information are from various Sources including social worker and doctor.” This is contradicted by my case entries, it does not reflect anything I told you or any other supervisor or manager, and police and hospital staff can dispute it. While the child could not be interviewed at any depth because she had been asleep (after one in the morning, when her mother had brought her to the precinct at around 3:00 PM) and because of a language barrier, the child would not tell the CPS that is not afraid at her home. (She speaks and understands limited English). The mother had a lengthy interview with CPS that was facilitated by Elmhurst Hospital translation service and there was another discussion with medical staff, police and CPS with the mother that was facilitated by a (Native language) speaking nurse. I had no reason to misrepresent these facts, nor did I do so to you, to Mr. xxxxx, or to Mr. xxxxxxx.

To clarify the situation for you , Mr. Inspector General, I emphasize that I was in telephone communication with my supervisor and with supervisor George Baird, night administrator at ECS, throughout the case from the Elmhurst General Hosptal Pediatric Emergency Room, From the Emergency Assistance Unit, while in transit to the Emergency Assistance Unit and from the home of the subject family. I carried out their instructions to the letter while I made my objections clear.I hope I have helped in shedding light onto the BIG MEDIA CASE THAT WENT AWAY WHILE BLOOMBERG FOLLOWED IN THE POLLS Whitick case and a similar matter that you might wish to look into. (As you may know Ramon Vargas was the Child Protective Manager directly involved with both of these cases).
Thank You,
Eugene Weixel
917-680-5034
CC: John Mattingly
Zeinab Chahine


YES, THERE WAS THIS BIG MEDIA CASE AT THAT TIME, AND THE PRESS WROTE THAT AN INVESTIGATION WAS UNDERWAY AND NEVER REVISITED THE STORY (THE ELECTION WAS IN THE FUTURE AND AT THE TIME THE MAYOR'S STANDING WAS SHAKY) Whitick case



By the way, after Vargas ordered me to drag this teenage sex abuse victim and her terrorized mother back to the home of the terrorizer Zeinab Chahine had to get personally involved in partially rescuing the situation from Vargas' hasty abrupt and uninformed decision. Once again it was not Vargas who incurred wrath, but me, the one who warned via email the higher ups of the disaster Vargas had created. But me, for making the higher ups responsible for what their agency was doing.

Not revised. This is the heart of the problem with Ramon Vargas.