Why DCFS Los Angeles County Needs Independent Oversight

Executive Summary

Los Angeles County has formally recognized that agencies exercising coercive governmental power require independent oversight to ensure accountability, transparency, and public trust. On December 16, 2025, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors appointed Eric D. Bates as Interim Inspector General to oversee the Sheriff’s and Probation Departments, expressly emphasizing the role of independent oversight in identifying systemic risks and guiding governance decisions.

This policy brief asks a straightforward governance question: if independent oversight is necessary for law enforcement, why has comparable independent oversight not been established for the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), an agency whose actions permanently affect family integrity and child development? Constitutional doctrine and controlling Ninth Circuit authority demonstrate that independent DCFS oversight is not discretionary, but necessary.

Background and Context

The County’s decision to promptly fill the Inspector General vacancy for law enforcement reflects an institutional understanding that agencies with the power to deprive individuals of liberty require independent review to preserve legitimacy and public confidence. The Office of Inspector General exists to provide continuity in audits, investigations, and compliance monitoring, and to deliver objective information to policymakers overseeing high-risk departments.

DCFS exercises authority that is at least as intrusive as law enforcement. Through child removals, dependency filings, and recommendations that influence reunification timelines and the termination of parental rights, DCFS actions produce irreversible consequences for children and families. Despite this extraordinary authority, DCFS lacks a truly independent oversight body equivalent in authority, independence, and transparency to the oversight applied to policing and corrections.

Constitutional and Appellate Framework

The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that parental rights are fundamental liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. In Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753–54 (1982), the Court held that termination of parental rights requires fundamentally fair procedures. In Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65–66 (2000), the Court reaffirmed that the right of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children is among the oldest fundamental rights recognized by the Constitution.

The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that child removal constitutes a severe state action. In Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1137–38 (9th Cir. 2000), the court prohibited removals absent reasonable cause or exigent circumstances. In Mabe v. San Bernardino County Department of Public Social Services, 237 F.3d 1101, 1106–08 (9th Cir. 2001), the court held that unwarranted child removal constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment and violates due process.

Accountability within child welfare systems is also well established. In Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288, 1297–98 (9th Cir. 2007), the Ninth Circuit held that social workers are not immune from liability for fabricating evidence or making false statements in dependency proceedings. In Hardwick v. County of Orange, 844 F.3d 1112, 1118–22 (9th Cir. 2017), the court held that failure to conduct a meaningful investigation violates constitutional rights.

Municipal liability doctrine further underscores the duty to supervise. In Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690–91 (1978), the Supreme Court held that municipalities are liable for constitutional violations caused by policy, custom, or failure to supervise. In City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388–89 (1989), the Court held that failure to train or supervise can constitute deliberate indifference. The Ninth Circuit confirmed in Lemire v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074–75 (9th Cir. 2013), that supervisory liability attaches when policymakers fail to correct known systemic risks.

Taken together, these authorities establish that when a governing body is on notice of recurring harm, the absence of independent oversight becomes constitutionally significant.

Policy Analysis: Oversight Parity

The County’s action to ensure independent oversight of law enforcement reflects an acknowledgment that coercive power demands external accountability. DCFS wields comparable, and in many cases more enduring, power over families. The lack of independent DCFS oversight therefore represents a structural inconsistency in County governance.

Oversight parity is not punitive; it is preventative. Independent review identifies systemic risks before they result in irreversible harm, reduces civil rights exposure, and strengthens public trust in government institutions. Where oversight is absent, constitutional risk becomes structural rather than incidental.

Policy Recommendation

Los Angeles County should establish an Independent DCFS Oversight Office that is institutionally separate from DCFS and County Counsel. This office should be empowered to investigate systemic practices, review removals and reunification delays, audit constitutional compliance, and issue public findings and recommendations. The oversight body should possess subpoena authority, full access to records, protections against retaliation, and an independent budget. Such a structure would mirror the oversight principles already applied to law enforcement and corrections.

Conclusion

By appointing an Interim Inspector General for policing, the Board of Supervisors has affirmed that independent oversight is essential when government agencies exercise extraordinary power. The same principle compels the creation of independent oversight for DCFS. Establishing such oversight aligns County governance with Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent, protects constitutional rights, and restores public confidence in an agency entrusted with the most consequential decisions government can make.

Attachment: December 16, 2025, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors appointed Eric D. Bates as Interim Inspector General to oversee the Sheriff’s and Probation Departments Email Communication with Board of Supervisors: Policy Brief Submission and Formal Notice: Failure to Listen to Parents, Court Misrepresentations, and the Need for Independent DCFS Oversight

Independent Oversight for DCFS Los Angeles County