Concerns.

---

Our primary concern is that the civil process in question, rather than a criminal one, inadequately addressed the crimes against Qadira and failed to confront her abusers properly. The established consequences typically observed by the criminal justice system in child abuse cases were conspicuously ignored. Legal standards exist to protect child abuse victims within law enforcement and judicial frameworks. The disregard of these standards in Stephens V. McQuiston and the preceding events should not diminish their significance.

When mandatory reporting laws function correctly and an injury is reported, law enforcement initiates an investigation. This process includes interviewing the child under rigorous standards and, if a crime is detected, the criminal justice system halts any civil proceedings until a criminal judgment is rendered. Throughout this process, the child's mental health is a priority, with assessments conducted by qualified professionals such as Guardian Ad Litems, psychologists, physicians, CPS workers, and other members of a Multi-Disciplinary Child Abuse Team. These systems are designed to ensure the child gains access to essential resources and to prevent further abuse.

In Qadira’s situation, the failure of the mandatory reporting system resulted in her experiencing additional mental abuse by the legal system itself. Moreover, the outcome of the civil process precluded her from accessing any victim assistance programs from the criminal justice system, as the Portland District Attorney does not recognize her as a crime victim.

To clarify our concerns, we will outline the appropriate procedures for investigating and treating Qadira as the crime victim she truly is. This will allow you to compare and contrast the actual events with the steps that should have been taken.

From the outset, when Karellen and Renee entered Providence St. Vincent, it was imperative that Qadira's injury be reported as a crime. The 2005 Oregon Revised Statutes, ORS 419B.005, clearly define "abuse" in terms that unequivocally applied to Qadira's situation:

• “Any assault, as defined in ORS chapter 163, of a child and any physical injury to a child which has been caused by other than accidental means, including any injury which appears to be at variance with the explanation given of the injury,”

• “Any mental injury to a child, which shall include only observable and substantial impairment of the child's mental or psychological ability to function caused by cruelty to the child, with due regard to the culture of the child."

• “Negligent treatment or maltreatment of a child, including but not limited to the failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical care that is likely to endanger the health or welfare of the child.”

According to ORS 419B.010, a wide array of professionals, termed as “public or private officials,” are obligated to report any suspected child abuse. This responsibility extends to physicians, nurses, attorneys, and school employees—all of whom had contact with Qadira post-abuse. Notably, there are specific exceptions to this mandate; however, Scott Kocher did not fall under such an exception, as his interactions were not privileged attorney-client communications with Todd and Aimee. The Oregon State Bar elucidates the continuous nature of this responsibility:

"Child abuse reporting is a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week responsibility. Originally, the statute required public and private officials to report only information they learned in the performance of official duties. In 1991, however, the statute was amended to eliminate that language, with the result that mandatory reporters are never 'off-duty' for purposes of child abuse reporting." (Pg. 2)

"The belief must be subjectively and objectively reasonable. In other words, the person subjectively believes that the injury may be the result of abuse, and the belief is objectively reasonable considering all of the circumstances. The circumstances that may give rise to a reasonable belief may include, but not be limited to, observations, interviews, experience, and training. The fact that there are possible non-abuse explanations for the injury does not negate reasonable suspicion." (Pg. 3)

Should the potential abuse have been reported by any of the aforementioned officials at Providence St. Vincent, OHSU Hospital, or by school authorities, the treatment and response to Qadira's case would have likely been drastically different. Specifically, it is probable that she would have been evaluated and assisted by the Multnomah County Child Abuse Multi-Disciplinary Team, ensuring a more appropriate and specialized approach to her care and protection.

 When a suspected child abuse report is filed with law enforcement, specific standards are activated to safeguard the child from further harm while an investigation is conducted. A Child Abuse Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) is established in each county to ensure these standards are met and that the child receives optimal care. According to the portable guide “Forming a Multidisciplinary Team To Investigate Child Abuse” by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice, an MDT is defined as:

“An MDT is a group of professionals who work together in a coordinated and collaborative manner to ensure an effective response to reports of child abuse and neglect. Members of the team represent the government agencies and private practitioners responsible for investigating crimes against children and protecting and treating children in a particular community. An MDT may focus on investigations; policy issues; treatment of victims, their families, and perpetrators; or a combination of these functions.” (Pg. 2)

In Oregon, the 2005 Oregon Revised Statutes, ORS 418.747, delineate the composition of a Child Abuse Multi-disciplinary team, which should include law enforcement personnel, Department of Human Services child protective service workers, school officials, and other experts experienced in child and family mental health.

When conducting an investigation, the MDT must interview the child under specific guidelines to protect and preserve the child's psychological well-being. The 2004 Oregon Interviewing Guidelines emphasize several key standards:

• Interviewer Training: Child abuse interviewers must have extensive experience, training, and ongoing education in child protection, law enforcement, or social work, supplemented by training in child development and forensic questioning techniques.

• Interview Environment: The setting should be safe, supportive, comfortable, and child-friendly, minimizing distractions and external influences.

• Child-Specific Communication: The interviewer must adapt to the child's perceptual and communicative differences, ensuring that memory cues do not taint or distort the child’s recollections.

Unfortunately, Rudy R. Lachenmeier did not adhere to these standards during his deposition of Qadira. By seating Aimee McQuiston directly across from her, he significantly compromised the deposition's integrity. This oversight also adversely affected Sophie Burkholder, who was intimately connected to the events and recognized as a potential child abuse victim.

Clinically, if Qadira’s injury had been properly reported, she would have received specialized medical care and examinations from Cares NorthWest, one of Oregon's largest Child Advocacy Centers (CAC). Located in Portland, Cares NorthWest employs a team of multidisciplinary physicians dedicated to addressing child abuse and neglect.

Ultimately, the system designed to protect children like Qadira from abuse and neglect failed to engage, depriving her of the necessary care that an MDT or CAC could have provided. Had the mandatory reporters she encountered fulfilled their duties, not only would Qadira have accessed crucial resources for her recovery, but she also would have been spared further physical abuse. This failure led to inadequate care by Karellen and Renee and forced Qadira to confront her abuser during a deposition, compounding her trauma.

The dissonance between handling a criminal act within a civil trial's confines is starkly highlighted in Stephens v. McQuiston, as noted by Judge Michael McShane:

“I want to cut -- I want to just remind people that this is not -- now stop. We're going -- this is not one of the allegations of negligence. I just want to clarify for -- that for the jury. There may be questions that are being allowed, but again, the allegations of negligence are not failure to get quick medical care. That is not something before the jury, and I don't want the attorneys to confuse the jury with that.” (Trial Transcription, Pg. 149)

Despite Judge McShane's clarification, it's imperative to recognize that failure to provide prompt medical care, as detailed in ORS 419B.005, is considered child abuse:

“Negligent treatment or maltreatment of a child, including but not limited to the failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical care that is likely to endanger the health or welfare of the child.”

In this context, the judge's statement reflects a troubling oversight: the exclusion of critical allegations of child abuse from the trial’s scope. Further complicating matters, Judge McShane delineated the claims against Aimee McQuiston as purely based on negligence, explicitly avoiding implications of criminal behavior:

“Just a second. I do want to clarify just exactly what the claims are so the jury understands that the claims are against Aimee McQuiston in negligence for -- that she knew or should have known that pouring water onto Qadira could cause her severe injury and that she was negligent in failing to take reasonable care to avoid pouring heated water onto Qadira. Those are the issues with regard to negligence, just to clarify. It's not an issue as to, you know, whether or not should or should have not seen somebody naked. That may be some of the circumstances of what happened, but I want to clarify what the claims actually are.." (Trial Transcription, Pg. 135)

Sexual exploitation, as defined in ORS 419B.005, includes behaviors that encourage a child’s involvement in sexual activities. The incidents described, involving Qadira undressed in the bathroom, potentially fall under this definition. Despite this, no criminal investigation was pursued, leaving the implications unaddressed in the civil context.

The admissions by Todd and Aimee during Stephens v. McQuiston signal severe ethical and potentially criminal breaches:

1. Engaging in a sexually suggestive "grooming game."
2. Using heated implements in a way that caused harm.
3. Inadequate supervision and care following the injury.

These admissions highlight the failures in the system designated to protect children like Qadira. The absence of a forensic perspective in the civil trial meant that actions potentially criminal in nature were insufficiently scrutinized.

Under federal law, particularly 18 U.S. Code § 3509, child victims' rights are safeguarded in criminal proceedings, stipulating that any civil action must be stayed if it coincides with a criminal trial involving the same incident:

“If, at any time that a cause of action for recovery of compensation for damage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action is pending which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the child is the victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal action and any mention of the civil action during the criminal proceeding is prohibited. As used in this subsection, a criminal action is pending until its final adjudication in the trial court.” (Section K)

This statute underscores the intended priority of criminal over civil proceedings in matters of child abuse, ensuring that the more severe implications of criminal conduct are addressed first.

Had the proper channels been followed, the distressing narrative of Stephens v. McQuiston may have been wholly different, emphasizing the critical importance of adhering to mandatory reporting laws and recognizing the inherent criminal elements within cases of child abuse. The civil trial's conclusion, which absolved Aimee McQuiston of negligence and denied restitution to Qadira, starkly underlines the systemic failures at play, leading to an outcome that inadequately addresses the gravity of the allegations.

Dear Reader,

Thank you for engaging with this lengthy and evolving story. The Stephens family continues to seek justice for Qadira and to challenge the perpetrators of child abuse in their community. They are also committed to enhancing the integrity of the systems designed to protect children, aiming to do so peacefully and constructively. Please consider supporting our cause further.