SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCE
We want to hear from you
The government’s most sacred duty is to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Yet, across Washington state, a silent crisis is unfolding behind closed doors. Following a shift in state policy in 2023, the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) has struggled to balance family preservation with child safety. The result has been a tragic increase in critical incidents and fatalities that were preventable.
This page documents the collapse of our child welfare safety net—not to assign blame for political reasons, but to demand accountability for survival. To solve a crisis, you must first face it. The following timeline and reports detail a systemic failure that has left caseworkers handcuffed by bureaucracy and children exposed to deadly risks. It is a painful record, but a necessary one.
The Reality: Imminent harm
The stark reality is unavoidable: this is about imminent physical harm. Vulnerable children are being left in dangerous situations or placed into unsafe environments because the agency charged with protecting them is failing.
The tragedy here is not just about bad outcomes; it is about the obfuscation and misapplication of policy. DCYF leadership is hiding behind red tape and twisting their own rules to justify inaction, while children are paying the price.
Caseworkers are citing “pressure to close cases” and a lack of “articulable imminent harm” as barriers to removal, even when infants are born testing positive for fentanyl or methadone. The department has allowed a loophole to widen, where the definition of “danger” is debated while the reality of death is ignored. This is a failure of transparency and accountability.
The solution: Expose these failures, close loopholes, and compel the department to comply with the law. The standard must be restored, with the child’s safety paramount, not the system’s bureaucracy.
The Diagnosis: How did this happen?
In 2021, the Legislature passed the “Keeping Families Together Act” (House Bill 1227), which included a delayed implementation date to allow the system time to prepare. On July 1, 2023, the law took effect, fundamentally changing the standard for removing children from dangerous homes.
- The policy shift: The law raised the legal threshold for removal to “imminent physical harm.”
- The failure: Crucially, the law did not explicitly define “imminent harm” in the context of drug exposure.
- The consequence: Without a clear definition, caseworkers now feel legally barred from removing infants from environments rife with hard drugs (fentanyl, meth) unless immediate physical violence is occurring.
- The result: Since July 2023, DCYF has increasingly opened “risk-only” cases—acknowledging the danger but leaving the child in the home, often by the time it is too late.
The Legislative Solution
House Republicans, led by Rep. Travis Couture and Rep. Joshua Penner, are fighting to enact specific reforms that protect children over bureaucracy.
1. House Bill 1092: The “Rebuttable Presumption” (by Rep. Travis Couture)
- The goal: Stop the guessing game.
- The fix: Creates a legal presumption that active use of hard drugs (like fentanyl) in a home constitutes imminent physical harm. This removes the ambiguity that currently paralyzes caseworkers.
2. House Bill 2511: Defining “imminent harm.” (by Rep. Tom Dent)
- The goal: Fix the language.
- The fix: The current law is vague, leaving “imminent harm” open to interpretation. This bill establishes a clear, statutory definition of “imminent physical harm” that includes substantial risk from high-potency synthetic opioids, so judges and caseworkers are no longer afraid to act.
3. House Bill 2660: Closing the shelter care loophole (The current fight)
- The goal: Stop the “Revolving Door.”
- The status: This is the primary bill currently moving through the Legislature.
- The fix: It ensures that when a child is removed for safety, they are not returned to the same dangerous environment within 72 hours due to legal technicalities.
- Our position: While necessary, this bill does not go far enough. We are fighting to amend it to include the stronger protections from HB 1092.
4. The data accountability demand (by Rep. Joshua Penner)
- The goal: We cannot fix what we cannot measure.
- The fix: Penner is demanding longitudinal data on “near-fatalities.” Currently, DCYF admits they do not track how many children survive a near-death incident only to die later in the same home. We are demanding that this transparency be included in the budget, after Deputy Director Julie Watts admitted in a memo that DCYF “does not have a way of pulling data on recidivism or safety plan failure.”
5. Restoring the safety net (PICC & Maddie’s Place)
- The goal. Prevent the collapse of the only facilities in Washington capable of weaning drug-exposed newborns safely.
- The fix. A two-pronged approach.
- For Maddie’s Place (in Spokane): Passage of Senate Bill 6094. This bill creates a permanent Medicaid “bundled funding” model to pay for the medical care of drug-exposed infants. It also provides emergency “bridge funding” from the opioid settlement account to keep the doors open until the federal program is approved. Status: Passed Senate Health Committee; currently in Ways & Means.
- For Pediatric Interim Care Center (in Kent): A mandatory budget proviso. After funding was vetoed in 2025, resulting in a suspension of PICC services, Couture is fighting to include specific language in the 2026 supplemental budget to restore the contract and compel DCYF to resume referrals. Status: Currently in budget negotiations.
The Evidence: A timeline of failure
Below is the timeline of critical incidents and fatalities linked to these policy failures. Where available, links to the official Child Fatality Review (CFR) reports are provided.
Timeline
The Fight to Protect Children
2021: It Begins.
- May 10, 2021: The policy that started it all (House Bill 1227). The “Keeping Families Together Act” was signed into law.
2023: The Policy Shift and Initial Fatalities
- July 1, 2023: The policy shift (House Bill 1227). The “Keeping Families Together Act” takes effect. It raises the legal standard for child removal to “imminent physical harm.” This creates a loophole where caseworkers feel legally barred from removing children from environments with drug use or neglect unless immediate violence is documented.
- Aug. 10, 2023: Fatality of A.F. (Infant). Cause: Fentanyl poisoning. The infant tested positive for cocaine at birth. DCYF closed the investigation after two months despite the history; the child died shortly after.
- Aug. 26, 2023: Fatality of L.B. Cause: Homicide (suffocation). Father pushed the infant’s face into a mattress. DCYF had received six prior reports of neglect but could not intervene under the new “imminent” harm standard.
- Oct. 20, 2023: Fatality of R.C. Cause: Neglect (exsanguination). The infant died of severe diaper rash and blood loss. The high threshold for removal left the child in the home despite prior concerns.
2024: Escalation of the Crisis
- Jan. 20, 2024: Fatality of O.S. Cause: Fentanyl/drug exposure. Infant born positive for fentanyl. DCYF opened a “Risk-Only” investigation instead of removal. The child died one month later.
- March 9, 2024: Fatality of E.S. Cause: Methadone Toxicity. E.S. had been removed in Aug. 2023 after ingesting fentanyl. Under pressure to reunify, E.S. was returned for a “trial visit.” On the first night, the child ingested a lethal dose of the parents’ methadone.
- May 9, 2024: Fatality of A.M. (8 months). Cause: Homicide (Gunshot). Shot by the father, who was hallucinating on drugs. Prior reports of fentanyl use in the home had been “screened out” or left unsubstantiated.
- June 6, 2024: The ignored mandate (Senate Bill 6109). The Legislature passes SB 6109, requiring courts to give “great weight” to the lethality of high-potency synthetic opioids (fentanyl).
- June 25, 2024: Fatality of P.J. Cause: SIDS/Unsafe Sleep (Toxicity). Born positive for fentanyl/meth. DCYF opened and closed a “Risk-Only” case. The infant died two months later with meth in their system.
- July 25, 2024: Fatality of D.L. Cause: Brain bleed (abuse). Mother had severe mental health issues. Despite three subsequent reports of concern after a failed safety plan, the “imminent” threshold was not deemed met. Mother later admitted the abuse.
- Sept. 7, 2024: Fatality of H.M. Cause: Suspicious (brain bleed). The family had an open “CPS risk-only” case at the time of death, which allowed the child to stay in the home.
- Oct. 16, 2024: Fatality of D.M. Cause: Toxic effects of buprenorphine. Staff later cited “pressure to close cases” to meet statutory timeframes as a barrier to safety.
- Oct. 26, 2024: Fatality of R.L. Cause: Fentanyl toxicity. DCYF had received four intakes; only one was investigated. Cumulative risk was ignored because no single incident proved “imminent harm.”
- Nov. 6, 2024: Fatality of B.S. Cause: Medical complications/neglect. Mother positive for fentanyl/meth at birth. “Risk-only” case opened because drug exposure alone was not legally sufficient for removal.
- Dec. 18, 2024: The solution proposed (HB 1092). Rep. Travis Couture and a bipartisan group prefile HB 1092 to create a “rebuttable presumption” that active use of hard drugs creates an imminent risk.
- Dec. 22, 2024: Fatality of F.F. Cause: Homicide (physical abuse). The child had skull and rib fractures. A prior 2023 report led only to a “voluntary placement.” The child was returned, and a subsequent ER visit for a mouth injury went unreported to DCYF.
- Dec. 25, 2024: Fatality of K.G.-C. Cause: Unresponsive (Co-sleeping). The family had nine prior intakes. Case closed in March 2024 despite reports of substance use during pregnancy. The infant died on Christmas morning.
2025: Crisis Peaks and the Safety Net Cuts
- Jan. 13, 2025: House Bill 1092 referred to the House Early Learning & Human Services Committee.
- Feb. 25, 2025: Fatality of C.T. and Near-fatality of H.T. Cause: Neglect. A 7-month-old died in a home filled with feces and drug paraphernalia. The committee concluded this did not meet the “imminent danger” threshold.
- March 9, 2025: Fatality of L.C. and Near-fatality of W.C. Cause: House fire/neglect. A 5-year-old died. The report cites “challenges… with early implementation of HB 1227” as a barrier to intervention.
- March 13, 2025: Fatality of B.L. (5 years). Cause: Fentanyl toxicity. The child died while sleeping with a mother who admitted to daily fentanyl use.
- March 18, 2025: Fatality of W.T. (15 months). Cause: Fentanyl toxicity. Died napping with father; paraphernalia in the bed. DCYF staff stated they could not “articulate” the required imminent harm for a court order.
- April/May 2025: Fatality of A.F. (3-year-old). Cause: Neglect (context of abuse). Father had five prior intakes (locking kids in rooms, withholding food). Conditions were not deemed “imminent” until law enforcement intervened.
- April 27, 2025: Sine Die. The Legislative session ends. No action taken on HB 1092. The loophole remains open.
- May 9, 2025: Fatality of M.H. (3 months). Cause: Unsafe sleep. The child remained in a hazardous environment despite an open DCYF case.
- May 26, 2025: Fatality of J.D. (6 months). Cause: Unsafe sleep/meth use. Parents were “high” on meth. Staff explicitly stated they “did not have evidence to support imminent physical harm” to remove children.
- June 12, 2025: Fatality of P.L. (4 months). Born positive for cocaine/methadone. “Risk-only” case closed; child died three months later.
- June 30, 2025: The safety net is cut. DCYF terminates the contract for the Pediatric Interim Care Center (PICC), the only facility in Western WA for weaning drug-exposed newborns. Admissions stop.
- July 1, 2025: Fatality of J.B. Cause: Found in vehicle/neglect. Mother had a history of heroin use; the sibling was seen playing with used syringes. “risk-only,” and FAR cases were closed without removal.
- Aug. 2025: Fatality of S.J.H. Cause: Medical neglect. Child with complex needs. Case closed one month prior because DCYF was “unable to locate” the family.
- Dec. 6, 2025: The request for data. Rep. Joshua Penner demands longitudinal data on critical incidents to track how many children survive a “near-fatality” only to die later in the same home.
- Dec. 19, 2025: The “fentanyl tent” incident. A 9-year-old was found abandoned in a tent on Aurora Avenue. DCYF determined the child was “not in danger” because they were not in “immediate physical peril” at that exact moment.
- Dec. 26, 2025: Caucus demand. Twenty-four House Republicans demand an explanation for the Aurora Avenue decision.
2026: Current Legislative Action
- Jan. 7, 2026: Admission of ignorance. Deputy Director Julie Watts admits in a memo that DCYF “does not have a way of pulling data on recidivism or safety plan failure.”
- Jan. 12, 2026: House Bill 1092 (reintroduced). By resolution, HB 1092 is back on the table for the 2026 session.
- Jan. 13, 2026: Bureaucratic defense. DCYF Secretary Tana Senn defends the Aurora Avenue decision, stating that poverty, homelessness, and drug use “do not constitute negligence” on their own.
- Jan. 15, 2026: Defining “danger” (House Bill 2511). Rep. Tom Dent introduces HB 2511 to finally define “imminent physical harm” in state law to remove ambiguity.
- Jan. 26, 2026: The active vehicle (House Bill 2660). The bill is introduced as the primary vehicle for reform.
- Jan. 27, 2026: Public hearing on HB 2511.
- Jan. 27, 2026: Public hearing on HB 2660.
- Feb. 3, 2026: Executive action on HB 2660. The majority party passes a substitute bill; the minority votes against it “without recommendation,” arguing that the bill remains too weak.
- Feb. 6, 2026: The budget fight. HB 2660 receives a public hearing in the House Appropriations Committee. Advocates are fighting to ensure the bill includes the “imminent physical harm” standard.
- Feb. 9, 2026: Executive action on HB 2660. The majority party passes a second substitute bill; the minority party votes against the bill, “do not pass.”
- Feb. 13, 2026: Reps. Penner, Couture, and other House Republicans negotiated a major update to HB 2253 to strengthen the bill. The agreement establishes a strict zero-tolerance policy. It requires the immediate termination of a probationary license if high-potency synthetic opioids are found in foster family homes, group care facilities, crisis residential centers, or HOPE centers. This change highlights a critical double standard. If fentanyl in a foster home constitutes imminent physical harm, why is it considered family preservation when found in a parent’s home?
- Feb. 16, 2026: Reps. Couture and Penner successfully added amendments to HB 2219 to address the crisis of opioids in child care settings. The changes require a strict zero-tolerance policy and legally define “imminent physical harm” in these facilities as the presence of high-potency synthetic opioids or drug manufacturing equipment. This creates a glaring contradiction in current state policy: If the presence of fentanyl residue is considered “imminent physical harm” when a teacher leaves it, why is it considered “family preservation” when a parent leaves it?
- Feb. 16, 2026: Rep. Travis Couture made a series of motions on the House floor to force a vote on three bills–House Bill 1092, House Bill 2511, and House Bill 2692–designed to fix the “Keeping Families Together Act.” He argued that the current law’s requirement of “imminent physical harm” prevents the state from protecting children from fentanyl and abuse until tragedy strikes. Citing skyrocketing critical incidents and the deaths of toddlers, he demanded the Legislature stop waiting for children to die before acting. He posed a haunting question to the body: “Why are we sending babies back to the same fentanyl-abusing home just a day after they were revived?”
Help us compile a legislative record of DCYF failures to force real change in Olympia
We know the statistics: Critical incidents are up, preventable child fatalities are up, and safety is down. But statistics don’t move laws, your stories do.
I am looking for specific examples of:
- Screened-out calls: Did you report danger that was labeled “non imminent”?
- The “poverty” loophole: Was neglect ignored because it was called “lack of resources”?
- Retaliation: Were you afraid to speak up because of threats to your license or custody?
- Placement failures: Was a child placed in unsafe housing (hotels, cars, or tents)?
- Preventable deaths: Did a child suffer a fatality or serious injury after the agency knew about the risk but claimed they didn’t meet the “threshold” for removal?
Your story could be the evidence that protects the next child.
