Digre Faces Questions Over Boy’s Adoption

As outside auditors conduct a top-to-bottom review of the county Department of Children and Family Services, its director, Peter Digre, finds himself on another kind of hot seat today in an unusual closed-door session with his bosses on the Board of Supervisors.

The supervisors, led by Mike Antonovich, want Digre to explain his department’s handling of a controversial adoption case in which social workers were found to have thwarted a white couple’s efforts to adopt a black child solely on the issue of race.

Those efforts, documents show, included social worker Doris Brown’s withholding of important information from a Juvenile Court judge who was deciding whether the Rev. Wayne Coombs and his wife could adopt the young boy in 1994 after serving as his guardians for more than a year. In a deposition, Brown admitted that she knew the boy’s birth mother had ongoing problems with prostitution, criminal activity and drug abuse--and continuing allegations of child neglect--but she also testified that she never mentioned any of that in her report to the judge.

Earlier this year, the county awarded the Coombses, who ended up adopting the child, $300,000 to settle a lawsuit over the case.

Antonovich said in an interview that Brown’s actions in the case--first disclosed in a Times article--and the department’s failure to discipline her are shocking and criminal, and that Digre ultimately is to blame. Brown continues to work as a county social worker.

“If he knew about it and covered it up, it is unprofessional and irresponsible,” Antonovich said of Digre. “If he did not know about it, he should have known.”

*

In an interview Monday, Digre said a thorough investigation by his personnel staff cleared Brown of any wrongdoing, but that he welcomed an independent review of the case, perhaps by the county Human Resources Department.

“That is absolutely appropriate, because we are dealing with very complex issues,” Digre said. “I welcome other people to review this to see if we missed anything, to make sure we are doing our job.”

In recent years, Antonovich has been highly--and increasingly--critical of Digre’s management of the mammoth children’s services operation.

Antonovich initially proposed that the supervisors meet with Digre two weeks ago, in part to build support for his efforts to revamp the entire children’s services operation--either with or without Digre at the helm. But he postponed that meeting when Supervisors Don Knabe and Gloria Molina were not present, saying that he wanted to grill Digre with all five board members in attendance.

Last year alone, the conservative supervisor sponsored at least 14 board motions forcing Digre to respond to specific problems, particularly in the areas of foster care, and social workers’ oversight of abused, neglected and mentally ill children and those in the care of drug-addicted parents.

But Antonovich said he was especially incensed to read about the case, and said he wants Brown and potentially other social workers disciplined--as well as their supervisors for not disciplining them already.

Such a lack of discipline, Antonovich said, “is an act of defiance itself. The department, by ignoring [Brown’s] action, is condoning it and saying social workers don’t have to do a professional job, and can cover up pertinent information.”

Brown has refused to comment on the case.

Digre said he could not comment on personnel matters.

But an internal department response obtained Monday suggests that Brown was not disciplined because her superiors said her sole role was to research whether the Coombses would be suitable guardians for the boy, Adam.

Digre said in an interview that four other social workers played a role in assessing whether the birth mother was a fit parent, but he would not identify them or say whether they were disciplined. “They believed she was a mother who took decent care of [her children],” Digre said. Antonovich said he wants to know why the workers recommended returning the boy to the birth mother despite her problems. Based on those recommendations, the judge awarded custody of Adam to his birth mother. But within weeks, he reversed course and awarded the Coombses custody after learning from outside sources about the birth mother’s ongoing criminal problems, including another recent arrest for prostitution that could bring significant jail time, according to documents.

Digre said the judge’s reversal wasn’t due to him finding out information that Brown left out of her report. “I believe additional information came to light in the case, that there were additional allegations made and that they were substantiated,” Digre said.

“My read on this,” Digre added, “was there was insufficient attention to child safety and a very strong family preservation emphasis” that was required by state laws. That law, he said, has been changed to place the safety of children above the rights of parents not to have their children taken away.

For years, Digre has adroitly maneuvered within the rocky terrain of Los Angeles County politics, managing the mammoth child welfare system while also working to keep a majority of his five elected bosses in his camp.

*

But sources say that due to the Coombs incident and other problems, Digre is sorely testing those fragile alliances. Antonovich, many county officials and child welfare advocates say, isn’t the only supervisor growing disillusioned with the serious problems uncovered in Digre’s department.

Privately, the supervisors and their aides say that they are waiting for the results of the independent audit by Price Waterhouse before they decide whether to continue supporting Digre.

In recent weeks, some county officials were briefed on the first phase of the audit--on management issues--and told that Price Waterhouse had found significant problems at every level.

And although Price Waterhouse alluded to those findings in a confidential draft of the audit’s first phase, which is due to be released July 15, that report is said to focus more on recommending ways to improve the department.