Letter: A toddler cannot speak; DCF must put safety in writing

Letter to the editor

Alachua Chronicle recently reported on a local child-abuse arrest involving a father of minor children. I am writing because the public record should not end with an arrest.

Two weeks later, his two-year-old son has still not been clearly and safely removed from the same environment connected to the current safety concerns. The urgency is greater because the accused parent is now out on bond, yet I still have not been given a clear written safety plan explaining where my child is placed, who is supervising him, what restrictions exist, or how those restrictions are enforced.

I am the child’s mother, legal parent, and the parent DCF has identified as non-offending. Yet I still have not received a written placement basis, written supervision terms, written restrictions, or written explanation for why my son is not being placed with me.

I repeatedly asked my assigned DCF contacts, Caseworker Dameon and Supervisor Zeida, for written safety-plan information. I am naming them only as assigned case contacts, not as a personal attack.

At one point, I was told by phone that DCF was “not obligated to tell me anything.” I am recounting that statement because it captures the problem. I am not a stranger to this child. If a public child-safety agency believes it can keep a two-year-old in a safety-plan placement connected to the alleged offending parent’s environment while refusing to give the legal, non-offending parent basic written safety-plan information, the public should be concerned.

DCF may call the arrangement “supervised,” but supervision is not meaningful if nothing material has changed. My son has been connected to Father’s mother’s home since he was placed with Father on or around September 12, 2024. Father and my son lived there, and Father’s mother has been part of his day-to-day caregiving environment. Naming that same paternal grandmother as the “safety monitor” does not create a neutral safety barrier; it keeps the child in the same environment and calls it supervision.

Most urgently, my son returned again with visible injuries while still subject to the current safety-plan arrangement. I immediately messaged and emailed the assigned caseworker and supervisor, asking for written direction and a safety reassessment. I received no written response.

That silence matters because I am expected to return him to the same placement arrangement where injuries are occurring or being discovered, without a written safety plan, written restrictions, or written explanation of how he is protected.

This creates dangerous circular logic. The final judgment created long gaps between my opportunities to see my child. Before that judgment, I saw him every one to two days. Since the week-long gaps were imposed, the injury concerns have escalated. Those gaps delay my ability to observe, document, and seek care before marks fade. Yet DCF appears to be relying on the effects of those same gaps to question my protective capacity, instead of recognizing that the delay itself prevents timely detection and documentation.

This is the heart of the problem: one five-day postpartum crisis has been allowed to define me for nearly two years. The dependency case did not close because I abused or physically harmed my child. It closed without a reunification case plan for me, without ongoing services being required for me, and with the matter directed to family court. Since then, I have shown current stability through treatment, medication records, and a therapist letter, and there has been no new incident involving my mental health. Yet my stable and treated diagnoses, postpartum history, and understandable distress when reporting injuries continue to be treated as if they are proof that I am unsafe.

That is a civil-rights problem. It is mental-health discrimination. It is also postpartum discrimination. A postpartum crisis is not gender-neutral. It arises from pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum recovery. A mother asking urgent child-safety questions should not be dismissed as unstable because the situation is frightening. If a disabled postpartum parent requests written communication so she can accurately process, retain, and respond to safety-plan information, that request should be treated as an access need, not defiance.

Mental-health discrimination harms children too. My son has been identified by pediatric providers as developmentally delayed, with autism-related concerns and a need for early intervention. He is more vulnerable because he is very young, speech-delayed, and less able to verbally disclose pain, fear, neglect, or abuse. I am trying to obtain evaluations, therapy, dental care, and follow-up treatment during the early-childhood window when intervention can make the greatest difference. Yet the current custody and safety-plan structure blocks my ability to consistently obtain that care.

This is also a racial and medical-equity issue. When a child has darker skin, subtle bruising may be harder to detect without proper tools, lighting, and training. Abuse should not be easier to miss because of skin tone. Child-protection systems should require appropriate training and access to tools such as alternate light source technology when documenting possible injuries across different skin tones.

Parents are told to trust the process, but trust requires transparency. During one child-protection examination, bruises were verbally identified and photographed while both the nurse practitioner and medical assistant were present. I was then told the assessment would not be provided to me because withholding it was “standard practice,” while also being told there was no harm finding for my son. A parent should not be asked to accept an unexplained conclusion when the underlying assessment, photographs, and basis for that conclusion are withheld.

Confidentiality should protect children. It should not become a shield that allows agencies to avoid accountability.

So I am asking DCF publicly: Where is the written safety plan? Who is enforcing it? What specific restrictions actually protect this child while the accused parent is out on bond? What should a non-offending parent do when a toddler repeatedly returns with visible injuries and DCF does not respond in writing before the child is expected to return? Why is the legal, non-offending parent being bypassed?

And what will it take for my two-year-old, speech-delayed child to receive due process, written protection, neutral review, and timely medical/developmental care?

I dream of a world where parents do not have to expose their most traumatic experiences publicly just to protect their children from abuse.

Sonda Eunus

---

The opinions expressed by letter or opinion writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AlachuaChronicle.com. Assertions of facts in letters are similarly the responsibility of the author. Letters may be submitted to info@alachuachronicle.com and are published at the discretion of the editor.