1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
|
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES - RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
Methodology:
Risk scores are calculated on a 0-100 scale (Higher score = Higher risk) based on the following weighted factors:
- Evidence of current harm (0-30)
- Caregiver capacity (0-20)
- Home environment stability (0-20)
- Child vulnerability factors (0-15)
- Family support systems (0-15)
---------------------------------------------------------
CASE FILE A - INTAKE REPORT #2025-04-1847
Child Subject: Emma Martinez (Age 7)
Risk Score: 28/100 (Low-Moderate Risk)
Justification:
- Evidence of current harm (15/30): Visible bruising (3-inch diameter) and child's statement suggest an incident of excessive physical discipline.
- Caregiver capacity (5/20): No prior CPS history, parents are gainfully employed, and there are no signs of substance abuse.
- Home environment stability (2/20): Very stable. The family owns their home, has strong income (~$95k), and stable insurance.
- Child vulnerability (3/15): Low vulnerability. Emma is 7 years old, typically developing, and thriving academically.
- Family support systems (3/15): Good support system, with a local maternal grandmother providing childcare support.
---------------------------------------------------------
CASE FILE B - INTAKE REPORT #2025-04-1893
Child Subject: Isaiah Williams (Age 6)
Risk Score: 52/100 (Moderate Risk)
Justification:
- Evidence of current harm (12/30): Anonymous third-hand report of bruising. Unverified, but concerning given the pattern of community reports.
- Caregiver capacity (10/20): Third report in 20 months. However, the parents are actively engaged with Family Preservation Services and making steady progress.
- Home environment stability (14/20): Unstable. The family faces housing insecurity (behind on rent), recent employment shifts, and mild overcrowding.
- Child vulnerability (8/15): Moderate. Isaiah is 6, has academic delays, and attendance issues (89%).
- Family support systems (8/15): Moderate. Active engagement with professional services, but limited natural or extended family supports mentioned.
---------------------------------------------------------
CASE FILE C - INTAKE REPORT #2025-04-1901
Child Subject: Mia Chen (Age 7)
Risk Score: 47/100 (Moderate Risk)
Justification:
- Evidence of current harm (12/30): Visible bruising. Child reported mother grabbed her too hard, though mother apologized and child was not fearful.
- Caregiver capacity (8/20): Mother is employed full-time and provides structured supervision, but incident indicates a lapse in stress management/discipline.
- Home environment stability (12/20): Strained. Low income (~$32k) and inadequate housing (1-bedroom apartment shared by mother and child).
- Child vulnerability (3/15): Low. Child is developmentally on-track, resilient, and a conscientious student.
- Family support systems (12/15): Limited. Single parent with no apparent co-parent or extended family support. Relies on subsidized after-school care.
---------------------------------------------------------
CASE FILE D - INTAKE REPORT #2025-04-1915
Child Subject: Caleb Johnson (Age 7)
Risk Score: 48/100 (Moderate Risk)
Justification:
- Evidence of current harm (18/30): Visible bruising from physical discipline. Mother admitted to grabbing the child too hard. Concerning due to prior substantiated physical abuse case.
- Caregiver capacity (13/20): History of successful CPS intervention and remorse, but reverting to physical discipline under stress demonstrates regression in capacity.
- Home environment stability (4/20): Stable. Adequate housing and dual-income household, though father's income is variable.
- Child vulnerability (10/15): Moderate to High. Caleb is exhibiting emotional dysregulation, defiance, and physical aggression at school, adding stress to the family unit.
- Family support systems (3/15): Strong. Family has nearby extended family, strong school involvement, and established ties to a private family therapist.
---------------------------------------------------------
CASE FILE E - INTAKE REPORT #2025-04-1922
Child Subject: Lily Foster (Age 6)
Risk Score: 88/100 (Critical/High Risk)
Justification:
- Evidence of current harm (30/30): Severe. Spiral fracture, multiple bruises of varying ages, and possible burn scar strongly indicate ongoing non-accidental trauma.
- Caregiver capacity (18/20): Severe concerns. Mother is defensive, provided an explanation inconsistent with the severe injuries, and delayed seeking medical care.
- Home environment stability (13/20): Outwardly stable financially (high income, owned home), but the physical home environment is highly unsafe for the child given the abuse.
- Child vulnerability (12/15): High. Lily is 6, exhibiting significant behavioral changes (withdrawal, fearfulness), and declining school attendance.
- Family support systems (15/15): Extremely poor. The family is described as isolated with no known extended family or community support, leaving the child unprotected.
---------------------------------------------------------
CASE FILE F - INTAKE REPORT #2025-04-1928
Child Subject: Noah Thompson (Age 6)
Risk Score: 16/100 (Low Risk)
Justification:
- Evidence of current harm (5/30): Minor bruising caused by a protective action (mother forcefully grabbing the child to prevent him from running into traffic).
- Caregiver capacity (3/20): Strong. Despite prior history, mother has demonstrated exceptional progress, is highly engaged in intensive services, and was immediately transparent.
- Home environment stability (4/20): Significantly improved and stable. Home is clean, food security is established, and children are well-supervised.
- Child vulnerability (2/15): Low. Children are thriving in school and childcare, up to date medically, and have no behavioral concerns.
- Family support systems (2/15): Strong. Robust professional support (Intensive Family Services, therapist, WIC) and an actively involved maternal aunt.
|
