Auditor finds sex offenders living in foster homes

October 29, 2011

The California State Auditor discovered more than 1,000 sex offenders have the same addresses as licensed foster homes, according to a report released Thursday by the state auditor.

In July, the auditor asked Social Services to investigate the address matches.

Those investigations resulted in legal actions taken against eight foster home licensees, six of whom had registered sex offenders living or present in licensed facilities.

Social Services discovered 36 registered sex offenders having “some association” with county foster homes and took action including removing foster children from homes and ordering registered sex offenders to leave licensed facilities. The auditor said 600 of the address match investigations showed “high risk.”

The auditor recommended Social Services should conduct regular address comparisons using the sex offender registry and its licensing information system in order to ensure that foster children are safe from sex offenders.



  1. Cindy says:

    This is rather disconcerting. I know of a couple of cases where CPS crossed the line in the past and removed children from homes based on a witch hunt mentality. To take a child from it’s parents because they think they know better and then to place that child in an unsafe environment is so over the top that it’s unthinkable, yet we actually have this occurring. 600 homes! 600!

    I really believe the burden of proof needs to be on CPS and unless a circumstance is absolutely dire, they should never have the ability to invoke the powers they have. They also wouldn’t be so over burdened if they didn’t grab every kid that they thought had a gripe. That entire agency needs a HUGE overhaul, they have done as much damage as they have done good to children, in other words for everyone they saved they harmed another in my opinion. But I could be wrong but that is the clear impression that I have. I wish someone would prove me wrong on this.

    (6) 6 Total Votes - 6 up - 0 down
    • my2cents says:

      I completely agree with you, Cindy, 100%! CPS thinks they know better and most of the workers dont even have kids and dont know what is best. They will take a child out of a loving home because they think something is wrong and after months through the court system, the parents get custody back and the child has already been tramatized. So few months away from the only family you know for some unknown reason is really sad for these children. CPS needs and overhaul just like all the other government agencies!!!

      (4) 4 Total Votes - 4 up - 0 down
      • Typoqueen says:

        I found an article that explains this study more in depth:

        This study in the CCN article was of Alameda, Fresno and Sacramento Counties so I’m sure that when they audit LA Co. in January that there will be more sex offenders than in this article, much more would be my guess. Don’t forget that Lancaster is in LA county and Lancaster is the meth capital of the country according to some people.

        I have to disagree with you and Cindy on this point though. CPS doesn’t take kids from homes unless there is good reason. I have some dealings with this and it drives me crazy that they go over board on trying to keep kids with their bio parents, even abusive parents. Anyone that works in foster care will tell you that the goal of the state is to keep the kids with the parents or their family. They are over burdened and they know it, they don’t want to take in more kids. Ca. has more foster kids then any state in the country, they can’t even keep an accurate count of how many kids are in the system. There is anywhere from 60,000 to 90,000 kids in California’s foster care system. But I can tell you first hand that when they take kids from homes those homes are really bad, not just a little bad by really really bad. Of course there are a few exceptions or screw ups, how could there not be with such an over burdened system. But it is not the states policy nor their goal. I have seen kids get abused by their parents, reunited, then abused again then reunited again, over and over. If anything they give most of the parents too many chances. Foster parents have to grow tough skin as they know that when they send their foster kids back home that there’s a good chance that the parents will repeat their abusive behavior. This strick policy of re-unification has been going on for at least the last 15 years. So I will strongly say that when a child is taken from their home that there is a 99.9% chance that the child should be out of that home.

        (-1) 5 Total Votes - 2 up - 3 down
        • my2cents says:

          I have to disagree with you. Surprise, surprise. Your just blinded by what you want to think.

          (0) 4 Total Votes - 2 up - 2 down
          • Typoqueen says:

            But I know what I know and without being too specific I have had dealings in this area. I have heard these words over and over ‘they took my kids for no reason’ as they puff on their cigs and smell like booze. I have seen the judges give kids back to their parents time and time again even though the parents didn’t attend the court ordered parenting or anger management classes. I know this, I’ve seen it. It is the policy of CPC to keep kids with their families. Case workers probably have an average of 40-50 cases each and that’s just here in SLO, in LA it’s more. They are expected to visit each foster home once a month, fill out tons of useless paperwork, go to court, meet with bio parents, visit bio parents homes, drive foster kids to dentist, doc and shrink appointments. Attend frequent training workshops and the list goes on, trust me besides being trained to reunite bio parents with their kids they don’t want more case loads. But of course you would disagree with me just to disagree with me. You are one of those that gives me a thumbs down if I say that water is wet.

            (1) 3 Total Votes - 2 up - 1 down
  2. Typoqueen says:

    What is even worse than this problem, sort of a dirty little secret that isn’t mentioned here is that there is a great deal of problems with foster kids that molest other foster kids. Many of these kids come into the system as victims of sexual abuse. Due to cutbacks it’s very difficult to get good therapy for these kids and in many cases they are switched around to other homes so much that they don’t get good stable therapy so they end up becoming predators just as the people that violated them. This isn’t so much of a problem here has it is in LA. LA is a mess, they have so many kids and not enough foster parents. The case workers in SLO and especially in so. Cal. are incredibly over burdened with a huge case loads, they don’t get to make the home visits that are supposed to be required to check on the childrens welfare and when they do visit they just pop in and out. There aren’t enough foster parents and case workers in SLO Co. but it’s not near as bad as it is in LA. It’s a sad fact that a great deal of kids in LA’s foster care have been molested and then the cycle goes on.

    (3) 5 Total Votes - 4 up - 1 down
  3. Paso_Guy says:

    This does little without some names and addresses. Are they all in LA or SF? If yes, little sleep loss here in SLO north
    What is the extent of the problem here in SLO county?

    Good reporting has details and this report has little.

    (3) 5 Total Votes - 4 up - 1 down
    • Typoqueen says:

      This is not a problem in this county. It is a problem in LA and probably SF but I know that LA has an issue with this.

      (-2) 6 Total Votes - 2 up - 4 down
  4. mkaney says:

    Sex offenders, or child molesters? BIG difference. I think it’s unfortunate they lump them all together.

    (-7) 13 Total Votes - 3 up - 10 down
    • Typoqueen says:

      To be licensed to be a foster parent you cannot have either living your home.

      (6) 6 Total Votes - 6 up - 0 down
    • BeenThereDoneThat says:

      Not saying you mean this but are you saying a rapist is o.k.???

      (0) 2 Total Votes - 1 up - 1 down
      • r0y says:

        I’m guessing he means someone caught viewing child porn (or whatever other porn is illegal) is lumped in with people who actually committed acts. There obviously is debate about whether viewing is a “gateway” to action, but nonetheless, things that are not actual assaults are lumped in with things that ARE assaults. Right or wrong, that is my assumption here on mkaney’s comment.

        (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down

Comments are closed.