Child victims of physical and sexual abuse in San Joaquin County, California

Right to Protect is a California based non-profit, located in San Joaquin County, providing supportive services and resources to victims and survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence, human trafficking, and stalking; assisting those whom we serve with everything from escaping their situations to living a healthy and productive life thereafter. In our efforts to fulfill our mission and vision we provide our clients with active advocacy, not only against their batterers but against a system that is set up, seemingly by design, to fail them and their children. I, Nadeya Lavandero, am the President / Founder / Executive Director of the organization, a Certified Domestic Violence Advocate and qualified expert in domestic violence which includes batterers, trauma, victimology, child abuse, abuse by-proxy, and parental alienation; at present, I am serving as Domestic Violence Advocate to the mother and protective parent of a child in San Joaquin County, 5 years old, who has consistently voiced serious and credible allegations of physical and sexual abuse against their father that have been met with, what can only be described as, concerted efforts by San Joaquin County CPS and Stockton Police Department to circumvent any and all attempts by the mother to protect her child from further abuse.

In bringing attention to the willful negligence and blatant disregard for the lives, safety, and best interest by San Joaquin County CPS and Stockton Police Department, of child victims reporting physical and sexual abuse it is my intention not only to protect those children being abused physically and sexually, who’s cries for help are falling on willfully deaf ears, but to raise awareness within the community and hold accountable the very people who, charged with the great honor and responsibility of being the protectors of our community, are guilty of abusing their authority and discretion to the detriment of the communities most vulnerable.

In the situation specific to my client, there have been more than 20 reports alleging physical and sexual abuse, all made by mandated reporters, that have been ruled as unfounded by both San Joaquin County CPS and Stockton Police Department; completely absent of even a single legitimate investigation.

Sometime around the later part of 2022, when my clients child was just 4 years old, the child disclosed abuse that they’ve been experiencing at the hands of their father; the mother subsequently filed a request with San Joaquin County Superior Court for a domestic violence restraining order, against the father, on behalf of the child. Unfortunately at trial, since the Judge, Danielle Dunham-Ramirez, was previously Supervising Counsel for San Joaquin County CPS, before being appointed to the bench by Governor Gavin Newsom, she reviewed the CPS reports and took the conclusions of CPS that the abuse was unfounded, absent any legitimate investigation, as fact. This conclusory finding resulted in the denial of the restraining order on behalf of the child and the mother was admonished to not make any more “false claims” of child abuse. What followed was not the claims of the mother or her family but of the child to their therapist, to doctors, all of whom are mandated reporters under the law, and to anyone who would listen; including CPS workers and Police during their questioning of the child. Those subsequent statements made by the child have resulted in approximately 23 reports to date, the most recent of which include allegations made by the child that their father deprives them of access to the bathroom, causing them to defecate on themself, and they are subsequently punished for doing so.  In addition, the child alleges that their father places them in the bathtub and proceeds to pull down his own pants, exposing his penis, and urinates onto the child.

In regard to the latter claim made by the child, Sergeant Bonnet of Stockton Police Department’s Sex Crimes Unit refused to request an emergency protective order stating that the facts of the case, nor the claims made by the child at this point, constitute a need for an emergency protective order. When asked if the Sergeant was saying that a father urinating on his child is not sexual abuse or abuse, Sergeant Bonnet stated unequivocally that it was his belief that such acts do not violate PC 288(a), lewd and lascivious acts onto a child for the purpose of sexual gratification, and therefore was not considered sexual abuse against the child and did not comment as to whether the emotional and psychological abuse of such degrading and dehumanizing acts on the child were being considered. Sergeant Bonnet also failed to consider the allegations as a violation of PC 273(d), which defines child abuse as willfully inflicting on a child “cruel or inhuman corporal punishment or an injury resulting in a traumatic condition.”

In June of 2023 my client, mother and protective parent of the child, filed an internal affairs complaint with Stockton Police Department because of the mishandling of the many reports made about the abuse her child has been reporting at the hands of their father. At the time of the complaint, it was against a specific Detective under Sergeant Paul Bonnet of Stockton Police Departments Sex Crimes Unit, Erika Gonzalez, whose investigations into the allegations began and ended with speaking to the child’s abuser, their father, and never any of the reporting parties; who broke protocol and stepped out of jurisdiction after hours to contact mother about false allegations of kidnapping after father filed a missing child report that had nothing to do with sexual assault or abuse allegations, after Detective Gonzalez had already communicated to the mother that the case involving reports from the child that they are being sexually abuse by their father had been closed. Since the time of the internal affairs complaint, it has been made disgustingly clear that this problem goes beyond a single Detective and is a systemic issue within the Department itself and involves several officers within the Stockton Police Department. All attempts to reach out for follow up and to schedule availability for statements with Lieutenants Brian Fry and Robert DeBois, who were the points of contact for the investigation into the Internal Affairs complaint made against Detective Gonzalez by my client, were ignored. An investigation is said to have taken place, but there was never any follow up with the complainants.

Officer E. Harris (Badge #3197) of Stockton Police Department, who was the responding Officer to a call made in February 2024 about statements of abuse made by the child against their father, interviewed the child and when the mother requested an emergency protective order Officer Harris stated that because there were no bruises or markings on the child there was no abuse and therefore no need for an emergency order. Officer Harris told the mother that all the child said was that their father pushed them, asserting that the child did not make any statements of abuse when in fact the child was clear and concise about the ways their father hurts and harms them while in his care; even going so far as to be specific about where their father hits them, stating; “here, here, and here, but not here.” The child disclosed to Officer Harris, specifically, how their father pushes them, pees on them, poops on them, locks them out of the bathroom and makes them poop in their pants, and then makes them clean their own poopy underwear and puts them on timeout for pooping in their pants. Officer Harris told mother, in the presence of her friend and witness, that he had spoken to a few Officers involved in prior calls for the same issues, before arriving at her home to interview the child. When the mother and her friend / witness attempted to reason with Officer Harris and advocate for the child, Officer Harris stated that he wasn’t going to argue with them, there were levels of authority, and he wasn’t going to go against his supervisor because he had already been instructed to take no further action. When asked if Officer Harris couldn’t make an independent decision based on what he had heard from the child that evening, he stated he wasn’t going to go any further with the case. Since Officer Harris spoke with other officer’s involved about the history of allegations and the open investigations, and did not form his opinion solely based on the child’s credible and specific statements given to him on that day, one has to wonder whether Sergeant Bonnet was one of the officer’s he spoke to and whether Officer Harris chose simply to not make any conclusions, or take any action, that contradicted what Sergeant Bonnet has already established, regardless of what he believed to be true.

Sergeant Paul Bonnet is the Sergeant in charge of the Stockton Police Department Sex Crimes Unit and the one who is believed to be responsible for preventing the reports from moving through the process or being properly investigated because even in the event that CPS makes a determination contrary to the facts of the case the Police have the ability and authority to submit a criminal report to the District Attorney’s Office for consideration of criminal charges against the father, completely independent of CPS involvement.

It is clear that there is a concerted effort by Stockton Police Department and San Joaquin County Child Protective Services to avoid taking any action on any of the reports of physical and sexual abuse made to CPS by mandated reporters, for reasons that remain unknown; and to what extent the father’s personal relationships with current and former Officers within Stockton Police Department, has hindered said investigations also remains unknown. In addition, the former employment with Stockton Police Department and past supervisory role over now Sergeant Paul Bonnet of Stockton Police Departments Sex Crimes Unit as boasted by fathers attorney, has given rise to serious and legitimate concerns about a conflict of interest that is suspected to be contributing to Sgt. Bonnet’s “professional” decision that the reports made by mandated reporters, and the statements made by the child about the abuse they are enduring, do not warrant an investigation or forwarding the case to the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office for criminal prosecution. Furthermore, at least one of the interviews with the child by law enforcement and / or CPS took place in the presence of the child’s alleged abuser, the child’s father, and when the child, out of fear, changed their statements or refused to speak about the abuse they have been enduring, the mother is then accused of and determined to be coaching the child on what to say against the father.

Furthermore, upon information provided by other professionals in the area, it would seem that the issue with San Joaquin County CPS is much more pervasive and systematic than as described above. The issues include CPS workers making arbitrary determinations about the merits of claims of abuse based on their own personal feelings and opinions about either or both of the parents and not the fullness of facts of the case stemming from a legitimate investigation. This policy as a matter of practice is detrimental to any and all children who come into contact with CPS and find themselves living what can only be described as a deeply traumatic nightmare because any child being arbitrarily removed from a good and healthy parent is just as detrimental to that child as leaving them with their abuser.

It cannot be overstated; the child is in danger and the mother is at risk because she had to willfully violate the current custody order while her attorney drafts an emergency request in order to keep the child safe. The mother and her family are terrified for the future of this child and their mental and emotional development without the protection that the Courts, CPS, and Law Enforcement are supposed to provide. We are quickly approaching the point of no return where the child will suffer irreparable harm as a result of the abuse that they are being forced to endure as a result of the willful inaction of Stockton Police Department and San Joaquin County CPS, and a system that ties the hands of parents who’s instincts are to protect their children when their lives and safety are at risk or in danger.

Although examples of the reported abuse, provided herein, are more than enough to warrant action to provide protection for this child, it is by no means exhaustive and many of the more heinous occurrences reported to Detective Erika Gonzalez, San Joaquin County CPS, and Stockton Police Department are not included in this article for the sake of the child who is being victimized, and their family. The bottom line is, even in light of what is being made public, there is a significant problem that needs to be addressed because though one victim is one too many, if it is happening to my client’s child it is most certainly happening to others.

If you are as outraged as I am, reach out to me here.