Prosecutors said Tamal and Jerry Flore turned adoption into financial gain and inflicted years of abuse disguised as discipline. The verdict raises hard questions about how vulnerable children were protected after placement.
DEWITT, Michigan — The words the children used for one form of punishment were deceptively ordinary: “the square.” It was a spot in the kitchen where they said they could be made to sit for days or weeks. Other discipline, according to testimony described by the Detroit News, involved being struck with household objects, shut into rooms, assigned exhausting physical exercises and denied meals over chores.
On October 30, 2026, after a six-week trial in Clinton County, jurors returned 12 felony child-abuse convictions against Tamal and Jerry Flore, a Michigan couple who had adopted 16 children and also fostered children. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said the couple pursued adoption for financial gain and subjected children to prolonged physical and psychological abuse under the guise of discipline.
The verdict turns a case that had once been dismissed by a local prosecutor into a stark public record. But it also raises questions a conviction alone cannot answer: How were children being monitored after they entered these homes? How long did the alleged patterns continue? And what safeguards are supposed to prevent a government-approved placement from becoming another place a child needs protection from?
Six weeks of testimony, 12 felony convictions
The jury found Tamal Flore, 59, guilty of 11 felony counts: five counts of first-degree child abuse, one count of first-degree child abuse committed in the presence of another child, two counts of second-degree child abuse and three counts of third-degree child abuse. First-degree child abuse in Michigan can carry a potential life sentence.
Jerry Flore, 61, was convicted of one count of second-degree child abuse, which carries a maximum 10-year penalty. The jury did not convict him on nearly all of the other counts he faced. That distinction is important; the verdicts do not mean jurors accepted every allegation against both defendants. Their sentences had not yet been imposed as of November 4. Both are scheduled to return to the 29th Circuit Court for sentencing on January 11, 2027.
Attorney General Nessel described the conduct in her October 30 announcement as sustained abuse of children who had been in the state’s care. Clinton County Sheriff Sean Dush credited a lengthy investigation and the attorney general’s prosecutors for bringing the case to trial. Those official statements capture the prosecution’s position; the convictions establish guilt on the specific counts returned by the jury, not every claim made at earlier stages of the investigation.
Sixteen adopted children — not 16 separate convictions
The Flores have 18 children, 16 of whom were adopted, according to reporting by the Detroit News. Both the foster and adoptive parts of their household history matter because government agencies and courts had a role in placing children with the family. But the number 16 should not be read as the number of proven victims or criminal counts. The verdict covered a combined 12 felony counts, while the original investigation involved allegations concerning a smaller group of children.
The attorney general’s 2023 announcement described evidence of abuse involving eight children across the Flore household and another family, the Browns. Prosecutors said nearly 30 children in total had been adopted or fostered through the two households since 2007. That combined figure must not be attributed solely to the Flores.
These distinctions are not technicalities. Inflating the number of proven victims would make a troubling case less accurate, not more important. The publicly established facts are already grave: a large state-approved adoptive household, numerous reported accounts of harsh punishment, and a jury’s finding that criminal abuse occurred.
When “discipline” meant beatings, deprivation and confinement
The children’s descriptions, reported from the preliminary hearing by the Detroit News, painted a routine in which punishment was not limited to a brief reprimand. Several said they were struck with belts, a wooden paddle and metal or plastic kitchen implements. Others described being locked in bedrooms and required to sleep on the floor in the laundry room or garage. Some said they were kept in the kitchen’s “square” for prolonged stretches and made to hold rigid seated positions facing a wall.
Chores reportedly consumed much of their day. According to the hearing accounts, the children said they did household cleaning and cooking, with food sometimes withheld when work was judged inadequate. Police had earlier described even more severe allegations, including children being beaten with a boat oar or thrown down stairs. Those earlier police allegations should not automatically be treated as individual findings by the October jury; they form part of the case’s reported history.
Michigan law permits reasonable parental discipline. Prosecutors argued the practices described here went far beyond reasonable force and crossed into criminal harm. The verdict reflects that jurors agreed with the prosecution on 12 felony counts after hearing trial evidence.
What makes these accounts especially disturbing is the role that obedience and household labor allegedly played. Children who depend on adult caregivers for food, shelter, medical care and permission to leave a room have little leverage when a punishment becomes prolonged or degrading. In a foster or adoptive placement that follows state intervention, the child must be able to reach a trustworthy adult outside the household without having to persuade the very person accused of mistreatment.
The money question: payments intended for children
Michigan prosecutors have repeatedly said financial gain was part of the motive. In December 2023, the attorney general’s office said the Brown and Flore households collectively received more than $1 million in public benefits connected to the children, including adoption subsidies and other support. That figure covers both households and should not be represented as an amount paid exclusively to Jerry and Tamal Flore.
Adoption subsidies can serve a legitimate purpose. They can help families meet the extraordinary needs of children who have experienced trauma or require specialized services. The issue here is not that assistance exists. It is what safeguards ensure those funds benefit the children for whom they are intended, and whether agency oversight continues once an adoption is finalized.
A payment record does not reveal whether a child has eaten dinner, been allowed to attend school or been struck behind closed doors. It can, however, identify the responsible agency, the timeline of support and whether a family received government assistance while reports of harm accumulated. State investigators said their evidence included subsidy payment records, medical-benefit records, photographs, video, interviews and medical evaluations. Those materials supplied avenues to test the allegations beyond any single witness’s recollection.
Prosecutors’ assertion that the couple adopted children for money is a prosecutorial characterization of motive. The criminal jury returned child-abuse verdicts; it was not a separate civil audit determining that every dollar paid to the family was fraudulently obtained. Public accountability requires separating those points while asking whether taxpayers funded a placement where children were harmed.
The prosecution was dropped before the attorney general took over
The road to conviction was anything but straightforward. The Flores were arrested in October 2021. In April 2023, Clinton County Prosecutor Tony Spagnuolo dropped the earlier case, saying more investigation was necessary. The matter later moved to Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office, which announced new charges in December 2023.
The Detroit News reported that original police and Child Protective Services reports contained errors and statements that did not align with recorded interviews of children. Nessel said at the time that many discrepancies involved wording that did not change the substance of abuse disclosures. Her office conducted additional interviews and examined other evidence before moving forward.
This is an important part of the story, rather than an inconvenient detail. An investigation alleging serious abuse needs accurate records, especially when it relies on children’s testimony. Mischaracterized interviews can harm children, undermine credible allegations and compromise defendants’ rights. The fact that an earlier case was dismissed does not prove there was no abuse. Nor do later convictions prove that every error in the original records was harmless.
The eventual jury verdict shows that prosecutors were able to present evidence sufficient for convictions on specific counts. It also leaves an institutional lesson: child-protection workers, police and prosecutors must document precisely what witnesses said, preserve original recordings and correct inaccuracies before those records become the basis for legal decisions.
A second household — and a former state child-welfare employee
The investigation also included Joel and Tammy Brown. In December 2023, Nessel’s office charged both couples and identified Joel Brown as a former employee of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, where he had worked in the Children’s Services Administration’s Office of Family Advocate.
At that stage, prosecutors alleged Brown had used his knowledge of child-abuse investigations and child-protection law to evade detection of abuse. But the allegations against the Browns did not follow the same course as those against the Flores. A judge declined to send their child-abuse charges to trial after a preliminary examination; later reporting said those charges were dismissed for insufficient evidence.
That outcome must be respected. It would be inaccurate to present the Browns as convicted child abusers or claim a court found that a former state employee successfully concealed crimes. What the episode does show is how complicated the broader investigation became, particularly when a person familiar with the child-welfare system was among those accused.
The cases they buried, read out loud.
NewA Protected Empire: The Georgia Senator Who Took On CPS
In 2008, Georgia State Senator Nancy Schaefer stood up and called Child Protective Services a protected empire built on taking children and separating families. Adam tells her story: some 300 cases in her state,…
The distinction reinforces a larger point. Serious scrutiny is not strengthened by treating every person named in an investigation as guilty. The strongest reporting identifies exactly which conduct was alleged, what evidence was tested and what a court ultimately decided.
Two adopted children publicly defended the couple
The public record includes disagreement. Two adopted children, Sabin and Shamber Brown, spoke in defense of the Flores in 2023, according to WLNS. They said they had not been abused in the home and were surprised by the accusations. Their accounts should not be erased simply because other children described mistreatment or because jurors later convicted the couple.
Children can have markedly different experiences within the same household. Some may be punished more severely, some may witness but not directly experience incidents, and others may remember family life differently. The existence of supportive testimony does not invalidate a separate child’s report. Likewise, an accusation against a caregiver is not proof that every child in the household suffered the same acts.
Jerry Flore’s attorney, David Carter, said jurors rejected nearly all the counts brought against his client and that he intends to challenge the remaining conviction. The verdict was mixed, particularly as to Jerry, and responsible reporting should reflect that. It also should not minimize Tamal’s multiple first-degree convictions or the extensive record of testimony that reached the jury.
Why state-approved homes deserve rigorous oversight
A child who enters foster care has often already experienced profound disruption. The state tells the public that its intervention is meant to reduce danger. That promise does not end when a child moves into a licensed home, and it should not disappear after an adoption order is finalized.
Foster homes, adoptive homes and congregate facilities are not identical systems, and their regulatory rules differ. But each can involve government decisions that place a child with adults the child did not originally choose. Agencies therefore need more than initial paperwork: meaningful checks on whether children can speak privately to caseworkers, teachers, doctors or independent advocates; review of patterns of complaints; and careful assessment of whether incentives are aligned with actual child well-being.
The Flore case does not, by itself, establish how often abuse occurs in every foster or adoptive home. It demonstrates the human stakes when alleged abuse can be framed as discipline and a placement that appears permanent is treated as beyond further inquiry. The public interest lies not only in punishing perpetrators after years of damage but in learning what earlier indicators could have prompted a protective response.
FAN’s research: why “removal equals safety” is not a proven rule
Father’s Advocacy Network has compiled a research review examining abuse inside foster care and how risks vary by placement type. Its report, Children in Foster Care Face Higher Abuse Risks — What the Data Actually Shows, discusses findings suggesting elevated abuse risk in some foster-care settings compared with the general child population, including especially concerning historical estimates for group placements.
The headline figure in that research — a reported risk more than 28 times higher in certain group-care settings — must not be transferred to a Michigan adoptive household as though it measures the Flore family’s risk or represents today’s national average. Studies use different definitions of abuse, samples, age groups and observation periods; children entering care may also have different prior risks from the overall population. That is why a single multiplier cannot establish that every child in foster care faces the same danger.
The research still forces a legitimate question: if removal is justified as a safety intervention, where is the consistent public evidence that the chosen replacement setting is safer for the individual child? Averages cannot answer that for a specific home. Detailed investigations, ongoing supervision and transparent records are essential.
Readers can examine the broader evidence in FAN’s Foster Care Research library and its Foster Care System Problems analysis. Those pages assemble findings about abuse risks, placements, costs and oversight; they are a starting point for evaluating the system rather than proof that all foster parents are abusive.
The Flore convictions deserve to be considered alongside that research because they show why the government’s duty to protect does not stop when the initial removal or adoption paperwork is signed. A child’s safety is not established by the legal status of the adult in the home.
The questions Michigan still needs to answer
The felony convictions resolve important questions of criminal responsibility, but they do not provide a full administrative timeline. How frequently were children interviewed privately while they were in the Flore household? What did medical, school and welfare records show over time? Were earlier complaints made, and if so, what happened to them? Which agencies continued to approve payments or supervise placements, and which duties ended after adoption?
Those are questions for records requests, legislative oversight and independent review. It would be inappropriate to assert that state staff knowingly ignored abuse without evidence. But a system responsible for placing vulnerable children should be able to explain how its safety checks functioned, where they failed and what practices changed after investigators uncovered serious concerns.
One issue is especially urgent: when a child describes severe punishment, an agency should not accept the caregiver’s label of “discipline” as an answer. Investigators must evaluate the conduct, duration, injuries, deprivation and effect on the child. The same scrutiny that officials expect when allegations concern a biological household must apply to every home the government selects or approves.
What happens next
The sentencing hearing is scheduled for January 11, 2027. Until the court imposes sentence, any reference to a prison term must be described as a possible statutory penalty, not an outcome already ordered. Tamal Flore faces potential life sentences on the first-degree counts; Jerry Flore faces up to 10 years on his second-degree conviction. His attorney has indicated he will challenge the verdict.
The verdict is a consequential step for children whose accounts were examined in court. It should also be a warning to child-welfare institutions that legal placement and permanent adoption cannot serve as substitutes for actual safety. Public oversight should ask whether the system protected children when there was still time to prevent harm, not only whether it eventually obtained convictions.
Sixteen adopted children. A household held out as a place of care. Twelve felony convictions. Those facts warrant more than a brief headline. They demand a sustained look at the promises the child-welfare system makes to children — and the safeguards it must demonstrate when those promises fail.
Sources and further reading
Michigan Attorney General, December 4, 2023 — Initial statewide charges and investigation.
Michigan Attorney General, September 18, 2024 — Preliminary examination and evidence summary.
Detroit News, November 2, 2026 — Trial testimony, household count and investigation history.
WLNS, October 30, 2026 — Verdict, earlier prosecution and defense responses.
FAN Research Desk — Children in Foster Care Face Higher Abuse Risks.
FAN Foster Care Research Library.
Reporting note: This analysis is based on the Michigan Attorney General’s public records and attributed reporting by the Detroit News and WLNS. FAN did not independently interview the children, jurors or defendants. Allegations not resolved by the jury are labeled accordingly.
Don't just read it. Act on it.
Lawmakers fund and oversee this system. Tell Michigan 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.
CHARGEDUp nextFormer Missouri Foster Father Charged With Sodomy, Molestation After Foster Teen Reports AbuseA former Clinton County foster parent is held without bond after a teen told Missouri's Children's Division he was abused in the man's foster home from 2022 to…
Nov 3, 2026
CHILD DEATHWestmoreland County Adoptive Mother Gets 31.5 to 63 Years in Torture Death of Son, 5Nov 4, 2026
KEPT IN A SHEDWest Virginia Pays $4.4M to Adopted Kids Kept in a Shed After Neighbors Called CPSOct 24, 2026
CHARGEDEl Paso Adoptive Parents Charged After Son, 13, Found at 33 Pounds With Spine FracturesOct 24, 2026
