Protecting new babies born to maltreaters: Benji’s law is not enough.

by Marie Cohen

Photo by Daniel Duarte on Pexels.com

On December 16, 2025, police were dispatched to a residence in Nampa, Idaho and found a 12-day-old infant named Benji dead in a filthy house with dog feces on the floor. Records show that five children had previously been removed from Benji’s parents due to unsafe living conditions–three in 2019 and two in 2022. Both parents’ rights were terminated to all five children, who were adopted by their foster parents. But that did not save little Benji, despite repeated calls from former foster parents and others asking child protective services (CPS) and police to check on the infant. Less than four months after Benji’s death, the Governor of Idaho signed “Benji’s Law” to expedite safety checks when reports involve infants considered at high risk of abuse or neglect. Unfortunately, Benji’s law does not go far enough. It might have prevented Benji’s death, but not the death of infants who were not the subject of calls to CPS or police.

Benji’s case was not unusual. Having one child who died of abuse or neglect seems, not surprisingly, to be a risk factor for another such tragedy. Here are only a few examples that have recently appeared in the news.

  • A two-month old infant in Washington State (“F.F.“) was placed on life support and died three days later in December 2024 after allegedly being shaken by his father, who is charged with second degree murder and homicide by abuse. The baby had a brain bleed, four older rib fractures, and a broken collarbone. The father eventually admitted to shaking the baby for five minutes in a fit of anger. The same man was convicted of second-degree crimimal mistreatment after breaking his infant daughter’s femur in 2023. The child was removed and was in foster care at the time of F.F.’s death.
  • Prosecutors allege that 14-month-old Tilly Servin was was tortured to death in Long Beach, California in November 2025. Tilly’s autopsy showed repeated instances of inflicted trauma including skull fractures and broken bones, as well as evidence that the child was deliberately starved. Her mother is suing Los Angeles Countyโ€™s child protection agency for leaving Tilly in the custody of her father, who was previously sentenced to four years in prison for exposing two other children to methamphetamine and other drugs in 2021.
  • In Wichita, Kansas, Shanna Whitton was charged with killing her 15-month-old son in August 2025 by intentionally choking him. The Sheriff’s Department has reopened an investigation into the July 2024 death of Whitton’s two-year-old daughter, which was ruled to be an accidental choking. The child had had been taken to the hospital with injuries at least three times before the choking incident that caused her death.
  • In the District of Columbia, 20-month-old Kemy Washington was found dead in January 2025 along with the body of her mother, who had overdosed on multiple types of illicit drugs. Kemy had died slowly of starvation and dehydration. Kemy’s older sister had been removed due to her mother’s drug abuse; the child’s guardianship with a relative had been ratified in court only five days after Kemy was born. Kemy’s grandmother called child protective services twice in Kemy’s short life but there was no policy allowing CFSA to investigate Kemy’s safety just because she was born to a mother who lost custody of a previous child for neglect.

Monique Peyre, who adopted three of Benji’s siblings, reported to Idaho News Now that she and others had made multiple calls to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) and local police asking them to check on Benji in the days before his death, given his parents loss of custody of five other children. She said that IDHW told her they don’t consider history when a new baby is born to a family, and that they had no current concern for the infant. It seems that they finally accepted the referral but labeled it as a “Priority III,” requiring a response within three days and seeing the child within five days. A day later, Benji was dead.

Peyre and others urged the legislature to pass a bill that would require a quicker response to a report of a baby such as Benji. They circulated a petition, spoke to the media and testified before the relevant committees. Benji’s Law was approved by the legislature and was signed by the governor on April 2, 2026. It requires that when any report is made by a mandatory reporter alleging that the parent, guardian or legal custodian of a child aged one or younger has one of four risk factors described in the legislation, IDHD must verify within 12 hours that the reported risk factor is accurate, using internal, criminal or medical records. If the risk factor is verified, the department must initiate a “Priority I Response,” which means that the child must be seen immediately, and the invetigator must complete a full written safety assessment which is described in the law.

The four risk factors listed in the law are: (1) the parent, guardian or legal custodian is listed in the child protection central registry for maltreatment that took place within the past ten years; (2) the parent, guardian or legal custodian has been convicted of an injury to a child; (3) the parent, guardian or legal custodian has had their parental rights terminated due to child abuse or neglect; or (4) a previous child was born with neonatal abstinence syndrome.

Benji’s Law is a good start, but it is far from the comprehensive solution that is needed for children born to parents who have seriously abused or neglected a sibling. The main problem is that it requires an initial report to the agency by a mandated reporter. That leaves out all the babies born to known maltreators who are never reported to the hotline, or reported by someone who is not a mandatory reporter. That rules out the grandmother of Kemy Washington in the District of Columbia, who tried twice to alert the agency to Kemy’s situation. It is often family members, who are not mandatory reporters, who notify child protective services of the danger facing a child born to a known maltreater.

It’s not surprising that the foster and adoptive parents who worked on Benji’s law were trying to address the situation they were facing when they were getting no response to their reports. But it is unfortunate that they did not consider the infants that do not have people looking out for them. They probably did not know that there is a solution well within the reach of any state government. Birth records can be matched against CPS and criminal records, which would identify the infants with first three risk factors cited in the bill. Such a process, called “birth match,” was in use in five states as of May, 2022. (At least three of these states adopted these policies in response to deaths of children born to parents responsible for the death of a previous child.) Each state has a different list of risk factors and a different requirement of what type of assessment must be done when these factors exist. Ideally, Congress would pass a law requiring such a policy as a condition of receiving federal child welfare funds.

The birth of a previous child with neonatal abstinence system, which is one of the risk factors in Benji’s Law, could not be identified by matching birth records with CPS and criminal records. This would probably require a match.with health records, which is authorized in Benji’s Law. However, it is not clear whether the birth of a previous child with neonatal abstinence syndrome makes sense as a reason for investigation. It seems more appropriate to assess the safety of a child who is itself born with neonatal abstinence syndrome and not to use a sibling‘s condition at birth as a trigger for investigation.

Apart from the lack of a birth match, Benji’s law has one major loophole in the definition of risk factors. Ebony Washington of the District of Columbia never had her rights terminated because her first child was placed in guardianship rather than adoption. Relatives often choose guardianship, rather than adoption, to avoid the termination of the parent’s rights. Therefore, the risk category should include all parents who have had a transfer of physical and legal custody due to abuse or neglect of their child.

Monique Peyre, the adoptive parent of Benji’s siblings, had it exactly right when she told Idaho News Now that “[w]hen there’s proven history, convictions, removals, termination of rights, I think there should be more urgency to check on future children rather than sending an infant home to a really high-risk situation…” Not considering history is the ultimate source of so many child and abuse deaths today. Children are left, without monitoring, in situations where history tells us to intervene. We must learn from the past to protect children in the present and future. But the laws and policies designed to do this should protect all children with known risks, not just a select few.

A Home for Every Child: an inadequate framework for assessing state child welfare programs

On December 19, 2025, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) released CFSR Technical Bulletin No. 14, the first step in its plan to replace the the existing process by which it reviews state child welfare performance with one that is less burdensome and more useful. The replacement is long overdue. But ACF’s attempt to reorganize all outcomes under one slogan–A Home for Every Child–is highly problematic. It disregards the need for larger homes for sibling groups and residential treatment for some young people. And it devalues and disincentivizes the central function of child welfare–protecting children from harm.

In an article in The Imprint called Why We Are Putting the PIP on a PIP, Alex Adams, the Assistant Secretary for ACF, explains the shortcomings of the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR’s), which are the periodic federal reviews of state child welfare systems to assess their performance and ensure they are in compliance with federal requirements. In 25 years, no state has been in substantial compliance with all the outcomes and systemic factors that are evaluated, and every state has been placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Meanwhile, the administrative burden is heavy. Adams rightly states that “this is busywork–expensive, repetitive, punitive busywork–and it has not improved child or family outcomes.” I don’t think many child welfare stakeholders would disagree. It is time for the CFSR’s to be put out of their misery.

But what will replace the CFSR’s? As a first step to a solution, ACF has announced a pilot PIP process that states can opt to follow instead of the standard PIP procedure. As described in the Technical Bulletin, “this Administration is creating a pilot opportunity for states….to center their program improvement efforts around the A Home for Every Child goal.” Interestingly, the goal is not defined in the Technical Bulletin;1 the definition is found in several other places including a press release stating that “A Home for Every Child sets an ambitious goal of achieving a foster home-to-child ratio greater than 1:1 in every state. The initiative will focus on both sides of the equation โ€” increasing the availability of safe homes through diligent recruitment, prioritizing kin, and improving retention of existing caregivers while reducing entries into foster care through effective prevention and faster pathways to permanency.” This sounds reasonable at first, but there are problems with centering program improvement planning around this goal–problems with the concept itself and with the implications of using it as an organizing principle in the assessment and improvement of child welfare performance.

A Flawed Concept

A Home for Every Child as a goal of child welfare seems to make sense on its face. To take a child into foster care when there is no place to put that child seems like folly, and a state that cannot equalize the supply and demand for foster care might need to rethink its rules about when to remove a child. But ACFs definition of that goal–one licensed home per foster child– makes no sense. Many foster homes can accommodate more than one child, and we need more larger homes to welcome sibling groups. And some young people in foster care need residential treatment before they can flourish in a foster home. For these reasons, child welfare administrators tend to use the concept of “beds” rather than “homes” when counting available placements for foster youth. What matters is not how many homes there are, but how many children can be accommodated in a placement that meets their needs. The two issues of multi-child homes and placements that are not foster homes are discussed below.

Foster homes with more than one child

As mentioned above, many if not most foster homes can accommodate more than one child. Many children come into care as part of sibling groups, and child welfare agencies hope to place as many of them together as possible. Despite their efforts, siblings are often separated in foster care for lack of homes that can accommodate them. We need more programs like Together California, a new community of 12 homes each built to house up to six siblings with full-time, professionally trained foster parents. Similar programs exist in Illinois, Florida and other states. Such homes could also be offered to relatives who are do not have room to take in larger sibling groups. The requirement of one home per child encourages states to focus on assembling as many foster homes as possible, rather than developing programs to keep sibling groups together.

Placements that are not foster homes

Secondly, A Home for Every Child should not include just foster homes. Most experts acknowledge that some children and youth need residential treatment before they can thrive in a foster home. Secretary Adams wrote in The Imprint that when the number of foster homes exceeds the number of children needing them, “[c]hildren avoid sleeping in offices or cycling through short-term rentals.” But most of the children sleeping in hotels, offices, short-term rentals, and other inappropriate placements have complex behavioral health needs and have been through many foster homes already. Media reports from California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin document the preponderance of high-needs children among those in unlicensed, inappropriate placements.2 In Adams’ own state of Idaho, the child welfare agency under his leadership reported that short-term rentals were until recently used to “temporarily house children with complex needs.” Many of these high-needs young people need residential treatment, maybe for six months or a year, before they can live in a foster home. Otherwise, they will simply be bounced from home to home until they end up in another inappropriate placement or worse.

Unfortunately Adams gives short shrift to the need for residential treatment. He writes in The Imprint that “I saw firsthand the power of this ratio [of licensed homes to children] when I ran Idahoโ€™s child welfare system. In just one year, Idaho increased from 74 to 104 foster homes per 100 childrenโ€”eliminating emergency short-term placements, expanding kinship care, augmenting prevention services, improving licensing timeliness, reducing congregate care, lowering costs, and restoring public trust.” But the press release announcing the end of Idaho foster youth being placed in short-term rentals also credited the opening of a new 16-bed assessment center which “immediately reduced the departmentโ€™s reliance on temporary housing.” The center is “designed to serve as a homelike setting for foster youth until an ideal placement in a foster home or residential treatment facility [my italics] is located.” Another such center is planned. So reducing the child-to-home ratio may have helped in closing the short-term rentals, but it certainly was not the only factor that allowed these rentals to be closed.

Moreover, Idaho is still struggling to find treatment for the youth with the most complex needs, the Idaho Press reported in October 2024, shortly before the last short-term rental closed. The article concluded that “Many of the youth require residential care for mental health, substance abuse disorder or other behavioral health issues, and there still isnโ€™t enough of this treatment available in the state.” As of December 30, 2025, DHW reports having 173 children in “congregate care,”3 of which 32 were out of state.4 If Idaho is like most states, it is the lack of high-quality, trauma-informed residential treatment facilities, rather than foster homes, that is the main cause of the stays in inappropriate placements. The Family First Prevention Services Act defined a new option for providing such care–a Qualified Residential Treatment Program (QRTP). But based on a recent listing of residential facilities, Idaho appears to have only two QRTP’s. Having a goal like “A Home for Every Child” provides no incentive to develop the needed therapeutic placements for youth with complex needs.5

Equalizing the number of licensed homes with the number of children in foster care is an arbitrary goal that does not encourage the development of needed resources, like larger foster homes and residential treatment programs. But replacing it with a one-to-one ratio of available placement slots to youth is not a good idea either. A well-functioning system needs a sizable excess capacity, because existing vacancies may not be in the right geographical area or in the right type of placement for a child who comes into care. Moreover, many existing homes and residential treatment programs are probably substandard and should be closed.6 A Home for Every Child encourages states to maximize the number of homes, regardless of quality, capacity, or the need for residential treatment.

What about safety?

The ratio of homes to children can be improved in two ways, as ACF has stated: increasing the number of foster homes or decreasing the number of children in foster care. But the latter means taking fewer children into foster care. An easy way to do this is to redefine “safety” to make it harder to find a child unsafe. It appears that states have been doing this already, driving foster care numbers down to their lowest level in years and raising concerns about children being left in unsafe conditions in states as diverse as Washington, Texas, Indiana and New Jersey. As Naomi Schaefer Riley puts it, “foster care numbers are close to record lows and there are plenty of reasons to think that states are pushing them lower and sacrificing child safety in the process. If the federal government provides them with an excuse to double down on their plans to reduce the number of kids in care, many states will jump at the chance.”

The Technical Bulletin states that A Home for Every Child “provides a unifying construct that reflects the full continuum of good practice in child welfareโ€”from prevention and family strengthening to permanency and post-permanency supportโ€”offering a cohesive framework for aligning state efforts with what works.” “From prevention to permanency” conveniently leaves out the screening and investigation of child maltreatment reports. With A Home for Every Child as the metric, the incentive is clearly to reduce entries into foster care regardless of trends in child abuse and neglect.

Some language in the Technical Bulletin suggests that other factors can be considered outside of the child-to-home ratio. States participating in the pilot must also include in their PIP’s “wraparound measures related to safety, permanency, and child and family well-being, such as adverse placement scores.” But the next sentence is “Wraparound measures should be chosen such that they will show performance improvement in areas that are expected to lead to improvements in the ratio of homes to child.” But, again, the only way child protective services can do that is reducing foster care removals. Clearly, A Home for Every Child does not center child safety.


The leadership of ACF is to be commended for seeking to reduce the burden imposed by the Child and Family Services Reviews. But the attempt to build a new quality review around a simplistic slogan like A Home for Every Child is not adequate for such a complex and serious problem as child abuse and neglect. It ignores the needs for larger foster homes to keep siblings together and for high-quality residential placements. It also creates an incentive to reduce foster care entries regardless of safety. One hopes that the current pilot will be succeeded by a more comprehensive approach that keeps safety in the forefront and recognizes the diverse needs of foster youth.

Note: After this post was published, Dr. Sarah Font of Washington University in St. Louis reminded me of another problem with A Home for Every Child. Many states rely heavily on unlicensed relatives to care for children who need placements. These states can greatly increase their count of licensed homes simply by licensing these relatives, without actually increasing the number of available placements.

Notes

  1. It does appear in the technical bulletin as an adverbial phrase in the following sentence: “In furthering efforts to achieve the 1:1 ratio of licensed foster homes to children in foster care, states will not be required to address every item or practice area identified in the CFSR Final Report.” โ†ฉ๏ธŽ
  2. In New York, these young people are often sent to residential programs that are not equipped to provide the level of care that they need. โ†ฉ๏ธŽ
  3. “Congregate care” is a term used, often pejoratively, to describe placements that are not foster homes. โ†ฉ๏ธŽ
  4. Email from A.J. AJย McWhorter, Public Information Officer, Office of the Director |Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, December 30, 2025. โ†ฉ๏ธŽ
  5. The Technical Bulletin does say that “The 1:1 ratio does not preclude states from pursuing placements outside of foster homes or from placing multiple children, for example, siblings, in one home but rather is intended to serve as an indicator spanning the full child welfare spectrum.” But the meaning of “intended to serve as an indicator spanning the full child welfare spectrum” is unclear. Placements outside of foster homes, or of more than one children in one home, do not count toward the goal of A Home for Every Child as defined by ACF. โ†ฉ๏ธŽ
  6. This statement is based on my own personal experience in the District of Columbia and Maryland as well as personal accounts from youth around the country and media reports of abuse and neglect in foster care. โ†ฉ๏ธŽ