San Jose, California — For a child entering state custody, a background check is not a clerical afterthought. It is one of the basic ways authorities are supposed to determine whether the place they have selected is safe. Yet a California state review of Santa Clara County found that approximately half of caregiver background checks examined were conducted only after children had already been placed. In the review’s sample, only 10 percent of emergency placements complied with state requirements, according to September reporting by KQED.
The findings followed a particularly troubling year for the county’s Department of Family and Children’s Services. Two-year-old Jaxon Juarez died in a foster home in April 2026. The foster caregiver had a prior felony child-endangerment conviction. Investigators subsequently examined much more than that single tragedy, reviewing 55 foster-care cases, 60 emergency placements and 13 resource-family approvals from April 2025 through May 2026.
Their conclusions raise a question that cannot be answered by an assurance that an agency is trying harder: when the state takes a child into protective custody, how can the public verify that the state performed the safety checks before choosing the child’s next home?
The numbers behind an alarming audit
The September 18 KQED investigation described the California Department of Social Services’ assessment as identifying major deficiencies in the timing and documentation of emergency placement procedures. The reported 10 percent compliance figure applies to emergency placements reviewed by state investigators. It is not a claim that only 10 percent of every foster placement in the county has ever been lawful, nor that nine out of ten caregivers were abusive. Those distinctions matter, but they do not make the compliance figure any less disturbing.
The review covered 60 emergency placements. If only a tenth complied with required procedures, an exceptionally large share of the sample lacked the documented steps designed to prevent a placement from becoming another source of harm. Missing documentation is not identical to proof of an unsafe home, but missing a required clearance before placement can mean a risk was not properly evaluated at the moment it mattered most.
State reviewers also said roughly half of background checks of foster parents occurred after the child was already in the home. That reverses the purpose of screening. A clearance obtained after placement may uncover a disqualifying record, but it cannot undo the days or weeks a child already spent in a potentially unsuitable setting. It also leaves the agency responding to a discovered risk instead of preventing one.
What was examined, and what was found
The scope of the review is important because it moved beyond a single employee, a single home and a single criminal investigation. Investigators evaluated dozens of children’s case files alongside emergency placement and caregiver approval processes. In 20 of the reviewed cases, state officials identified safety concerns. The reported examples included caregiver neglect, unauthorized people living inside homes, behavioral emergencies and unsupervised contact with a parent.
Those categories should not be flattened into one claim. An unauthorized household resident is not proof of sexual abuse. A behavioral emergency is not proof that a caregiver committed a crime. But the categories show why reliable oversight matters. When the identity of every adult in a home, a child’s supervision needs or the conditions attached to family contact are not recorded and checked, decisions are made with serious blind spots.
Investigators also found that criminal history evidence was not always included when staff assessed prospective foster parents and relatives. That is a different problem from simply running a database search late. It concerns whether caseworkers and approving officials were using the information available to them to make an informed placement decision.
The tragedy that preceded the review
Jaxon Juarez was two years old when he died in April 2026 while living in foster care. His death prompted questions about how the home was approved, particularly because the caregiver had previously been convicted of felony child endangerment. KQED reported that county officials later said four social workers were being fired in relation to the case, after three others had resigned. Those actions show personnel consequences, but do not establish that every employee committed the same error or that personnel changes alone repaired the underlying approval process.
Investigators and prosecutors have handled aspects of the child’s death separately. The broader state review is significant precisely because it does not rely on a single criminal finding. It asks whether ordinary agency procedures were consistently applied to children who had not been the subject of a fatal incident.
The cases they buried, read out loud.
NewNobody Reads You Anything: Your Rights When CPS Knocks
Caseworkers generally don't have to read you Miranda warnings, even when what you say ends up with prosecutors, and only a handful of states make them explain your rights at all. Adam lays out…
Santa Clara officials had another reason to examine their safeguards: a three-month-old child in the department’s care died after a fentanyl overdose in 2023, according to KQED. Two separate deaths do not by themselves establish a common cause. They do, however, make it harder to dismiss subsequent screening findings as merely a paperwork problem.
Relatives should not be penalized while checks are mishandled
One detail in the state findings deserves special attention. Reviewers raised concerns about Santa Clara’s use of extended visits with relatives or people known to a family while emergency assessment and formal approval processes were being completed. Kinship care can be a critical alternative to unfamiliar foster placement. Children may have a better chance of maintaining relationships, cultural continuity and familiar routines with people they know.
That does not exempt any household from legitimate safety evaluation. The same principles should apply consistently: know who lives there, examine relevant records, document concerns and complete the approval steps required by law. But the state must be careful not to use administrative shortcomings as a reason to close off safe family placements while overlooking identical shortcomings in unrelated homes.
For families facing removal proceedings, this tension can feel intolerably unequal. Parents may be judged by a court on their ability to maintain a safe home while the agency’s own records show that it did not consistently document the safety review of the substitute home. The remedy should be stronger, earlier screening in every placement—not automatic hostility toward relatives and not an assumption that biological families are the danger.
The county’s response
Santa Clara County Executive James R. Williams told KQED that the county was taking a systematic look at the department and implementing the state’s recommendations. He said officials had created a compliance office to conduct ongoing case reviews and strengthen documentation. That is an important response, but the value of a new office depends on what it measures and what changes in practice.
A county cannot judge reform solely by announcing that a unit has been created. A meaningful review would reveal, over time, what share of required checks is completed before children move into a home; how many exceptions were granted; who approved exceptions; how quickly the deficiencies were corrected; and whether families and courts were informed of material concerns. Those are measures of protection rather than public-relations activity.
The state set an October 7 deadline for an initial county response and November 13 for an updated corrective action plan, according to KQED. At the time of this account, the published reporting examined did not establish that every deficiency had been remedied. FAN is not presenting a completed fix as an established fact.
What a valid safety clearance must accomplish
In a functional placement system, screening is not a one-time ceremony. Records checks identify prior criminal or child welfare information. Home assessments establish who lives in the residence and whether the physical environment meets requirements. Follow-up visits verify that the approved arrangement is the one actually operating. Subsequent reports must be investigated, not merely filed.
A compliant record should allow a reviewer to reconstruct the decision: who considered which evidence, on what date, which risks were identified, and why that placement was chosen rather than a safer available option. If there is an emergency exception, that exception should be documented and resolved within a defined timeframe. Without a reconstructable decision trail, families are left to trust officials who may never have performed the basic checks.
No oversight mechanism eliminates the possibility that a child will be harmed. Nor can anyone infer abuse from the mere absence of a record. But controls exist because placing a child in state care is a serious transfer of responsibility. The state should be able to demonstrate that it acted responsibly before the move—not explain months later why records were completed afterward.
Why this is bigger than one California county
FAN’s reporting has repeatedly examined the gap between the standards applied to parents and the practices allowed inside government-supervised care. Santa Clara is a particularly stark example because state reviewers described both widespread procedural noncompliance and identifiable safety concerns. The investigation is not a referendum on all foster parents, many of whom provide compassionate and essential care. It is an account of what happens when the agency responsible for approving and monitoring homes fails to apply its own safeguards reliably.
The public needs answers that can be tested. How many children were placed before checks were complete? Were any moved after disqualifying information surfaced? Were relatives denied placement because of requirements that the county failed to apply to unrelated caregivers? What did the state find when it examined files outside its initial sample? Has the county demonstrated measurable improvements since September?
Those questions go to the heart of the government’s promise when it separates a child from family: protection. The obligation does not diminish when an agency signs a placement form. It becomes more demanding. Santa Clara’s investigation offers a clear benchmark against which the next report should be judged: children should not be the final step in a process whose safety checks are still unfinished.
Sources and further reading
- KQED, September 18, 2026: Santa Clara County Placed Children in Foster Care Without Safety Checks.
- FAN: Foster Care Research.
- FAN: Foster Care System Problems.
Don't just read it. Act on it.
Lawmakers fund and oversee this system. Tell California lawmakers what happened here.
Get an email when this case has a new development: charges, court dates, verdicts, settlements. Only about this case; unsubscribe anytime.
Lived through something like this? Your case could be the next one we document.
ABUSE IN CAREUp nextRiverside County to Pay $4.2M After Ignoring Warnings About Foster PlacementRiverside County will pay $4.2 million to two siblings abused by a foster child it placed with them without disclosing his documented history, despite removal pleas.
Nov 6, 2026
LAWSUITMissouri Youth Treatment Center Sued: Four Former Residents Allege Staff Sexual Abuse in Locked FacilityNov 7, 2026
CHARGEDVideo Audit Exposed Alleged Abuse at New York Youth Facility; Police Charged Two Staff MembersNov 7, 2026
VERDICTJury Faults New Hampshire in $16M Saddleback Group Home Rape VerdictNov 6, 2026
