by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

Jose Centeno of Rohnert Park, in Sonoma County, California, was sentenced to six consecutive life sentences last week for torturing, starving, raping and sodomizing his three foster children, whom he kept hidden from the public for 10 years.

I have covered a lot of these kinds of stories for more than a decade, and this one is vying for First Place in the most horrific and demonic stories that I have ever encountered.

Rohnert Park man to serve 6 life sentences for abuse of foster children

A jury convicted Jose Centeno last month of 11 counts of child abuse and rape. The victims were his foster children who were kept hidden from the public.

A judge sentenced a Rohnert Park man to six consecutive life sentences Tuesday for abusing his three foster children who were hidden from the public, beaten and starved for about 10 years.

Handing down the sentence before a packed courtroom in Santa Rosa, Sonoma County Judge Troy Shaffer blasted Jose Centeno, who was convicted July 30 by a Sonoma County jury.

“I have never seen anything like this before,” Shaffer said, adding that Centeno had been “indescribably cruel” to his three foster children.

He received life sentences — the maximum penalties for each count — for three counts of kidnapping for ransom and three counts related to the rape of one of the children, identified in court as Jane Doe.

Centeno, 57, also was convicted of three counts of torture that each earned him sentences of seven years to life in prison; and was convicted of six other counts related to Doe’s rape for which he was given a total of 39 years in prison.

Centeno refused to leave his cell at the Sonoma County jail for Tuesday’s hearing and was not in the courtroom while Shaffer sentenced him.

Jail personnel put a camera in front of his cell so he could attend the hearing via Zoom. Centeno, however, never stepped in front of the camera so he could be seen on the courtroom’s television.

Jane Doe was in attendance Tuesday. Standing beside the television so Centeno could hear her, she calmly read a statement about the effects of her foster father’s abuse and her resolve to move forward.

“I deserve to be happy. I’m a good person who deserves a normal life. It took me years to realize that,” said Doe, who is about 20 years old.

She capped off her statement with “I am no longer a victim. I am a survivor.”

Afterward, Doe told The Press Democrat that reading her statement was both “nerve-wracking” and “courageous.” (Full article.)

Jose Centeno and his wife Gina Centeno were both arrested in August of 2020, but Gina died in jail earlier this year while awaiting trial.

Bay Area woman charged with torturing foster children dies in custody

When their arrest was made in 2020, it drew national attention, especially after it was discovered that one of the foster children had not been seen in about 10 years, Kayla Centeno, who is the only one that I could find a photo of online. The image of her as a young adult was computer generated and is supposed to be what she may look like today, if she is still alive.

Here are some more details of the case as reported by the corporate media that covered the criminal case.

In 2006, Jose and Gina Centeno adopted three young siblings who were only 2, 3, and 4 years old.

In 2010, all three children were enrolled at John Reed Elementary School.

However, following a report to Sonoma County Child Protective Services by a staff member at the school regarding suspicion of physical abuse, the Centenos pulled all three children from school, prosecutors said. The Centenos then hid the three children in captivity, telling their extended family that they had been given back to the state.

By 2012, other closer family members in the Rohnert Park area had stopped seeing the oldest of the three children, Kaya, and were told Kaya had been sent away, the District Attorney’s Office said. When family also stopped seeing the other two children, they were told all the kids had been “sent away.”

According to prosecutors, the kids were actually still in the home, locked in an upstairs bedroom behind a boarded up window and chained to their beds. During the isolation and abuse, the oldest of the siblings, Kaya, lost consciousness. Kaya’s siblings were told she had been sent away, and they never saw or heard from her again.

To this day, she has not been found.

For one of the two remaining children, the only time she would leave the room was when Jose Centeno would unchain her, take her to another room in the house, and sexually assault her.

“That sexual abuse continued for years,” said the District Attorney’s Office.

Although the Centenos hid the existence of the three adopted children from family, friends, and neighbors, they still collected money from the Adoption Assistance Program and received hundreds of dollars from the state each month.

In late 2018 or early 2019, Jose Centeno took the two remaining children to Mexico, where he left them with family. Once there, the children started to tell people what had happened to them in Rohnert Park.

In July of 2020, Mexico Child Protective Services alerted Sonoma County Child Protective Services about the reports of abuse. The children were brought back to California, and a criminal investigation began, which led to the arrests of Jose and Gina Centeno in August 2020. (Full article.)

The jury trial of Jose Centeno was conducted in July of this year (2024), and the details and testimonies that were presented in the courtroom literally traumatized the jury, as is to be expected, and as I have personally also experienced over the years from covering these types of cases.

A Sonoma County woman last saw her adopted siblings when she left for college in 2012 and was unaware her parents were abusing them at their Rohnert Park home while she was gone, she told a Sonoma County jury Thursday.

Vanessa Centeno spoke softly and wiped away tears as she testified in Sonoma County Superior Court in Santa Rosa in the ongoing trial of her 57-year-old father, Jose Centeno.

His trial began last month. He is accused of three counts each of torture and kidnapping for ransom, as well as eight additional counts related to allegations of rape and sex abuse in connection with the treatment of those adopted children.

Vanessa Centeno, one of the couple’s three biological children, was the first person to publicly provide insight into what family members knew about her parents’ relationship with her adopted siblings and how they were cared for inside the home they all shared on Camino Coronado in Rohnert Park.

The 33-year-old said she was attending Santa Rosa Junior College in 2012 when she last saw Kaya, one of the three foster children.

She asked her mother, Gina Centeno, what happened to Kaya and testified she was only told the child had relocated to a new home.

“She just wasn’t there,” Vanessa Centeno told jurors Thursday.

Investigators say Kaya has never been found. She would be about 22 years old today.

Vanessa Centeno said she headed south to attend UC Santa Cruz later in 2012.

She testified the other two adopted children were also gone when she visited. She said her parents told her they’d also been relocated to a new home and they never spoke of them again.

Investigators say the children, instead, were held upstairs and were being tortured.

Officials believe the Centenos adopted two girls and a boy in 2007 for financial gain via California’s adoption assistance program. The girls were ages 3 and 4 and the boy was 2 years old at the time.

Prosecutors said the children were hidden from the public and subjected to years of torture in their home on Camino Coronado. Prosecutors said the children were chained to their beds, barely fed and beaten for minor infractions.

The younger girl, identified in court only as Jane Doe 1, is now 21 years old.

She testified during a 2022 preliminary hearing that Jose Centeno raped and sodomized her when she was 13.

She said she and her brother, identified in court as J. Doe, now 19, were rescued after Jose Centeno brought them to Mexico and they met a U.S. citizen who they believe alerted authorities.

James Crawford-Jakubiak, a pediatrician with the Center for Child Protection at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, testified Tuesday that he evaluated the two children and their medical records after they were discovered.

He said the earlier records indicated Jane and J. Doe had been developing normally for children of their age at the time.

By the time they were discovered, however, Jane Doe was 17 years old, 4 feet 9 inches tall and about 200 pounds.

On Thursday, Penelope Linn testified she was a Child Protective Services worker assigned to the children in 2020 and “they were often confused” by social interactions.

Both struggled to understand how to use money and mail was a new concept, she said.

“(Jane Doe) had a lot of questions about things older teenagers, 17-year-olds, would generally know,” Linn testified. (Full article.)

The (jurors) told The Press Democrat that hearing the trial testimony and evidence took a toll on them and they often looked for ways to ease their minds following court proceedings.

Santa Rosa resident Skylar Molinari, 19, said she was particularly disturbed by photos of Kaya with a black eye and Jane Doe naked with feces everywhere. (Source.)

What these corporate media sources failed to report, however, was the back story about how this horror could have continued for so long with a state-licensed foster care family. A situation like this does not just happen by a rogue, rare exception to the foster care system.

To get away with a child sex trafficking operation like this, there has to be complicity from local law enforcement, to the social service agencies that allow this to happen, and none of the corporate media reports even bothered to look into that. Nor did they bother to investigate why these children were taken away from their biological family in the first place.

Here is a short video testimony that was recorded years ago from Debra Grant, who had her children taken away from her and then given to her pedophile husband, where she explains how these people get away with trafficking children.

This was in Santa Clara county, also in northern California. It’s just under 9 minutes long.

One of the articles I read while researching this story from Sonoma County today mentioned that there had also been federal lawsuit filed in this case, but that it had been settled.

It took me some time, but I found the lawsuit, and it has NOT been settled, but is still ongoing.

This lawsuit provides a LOT more details, including suing all the people and government employees who were complicit with this child sex trafficking ring.

There have been 240 documents filed in the civil suit so far, so it took me some time to read a lot of these legal briefs.

The original complaint mentioned 100 “Doe” defendants, which is what attorneys do in a civil suit when they have not yet found all the alleged criminal actors in the case.

But in the amended complaint, most of them had been listed. I am providing a copy of this complaint for the public to read here.

Here is the list of defendants in this federal civil lawsuit that are alleged to have participated and have allowed these crimes to happen:

SONOMA COUNTY – which manages and operates Sonoma County Family, Youth and Children’s Services (“FYCS”)

JOSEPHINE MCCAY – an employee of the COUNTY’S FYCS division

FREDERICK JONES – an employee of the COUNTY’S FYCS division

JACQUELINE JOHNSON – an employee of the COUNTY’S FYCS division

MONISHA SASHITAL – an employee of the COUNTY’S FYCS division

BOB HARPER – an employee of the COUNTY’S FYCS division

LINDA MORRISSEY – an employee of the COUNTY’S FYCS division

LESLIE WINTERS – an employee of the COUNTY’S FYCS division

JANET TAYLOR – an employee of the COUNTY’S FYCS division

social worker DE LA CRUZ – an employee of the COUNTY’S FYCS division

ANDREA KROEZE – an employee of the COUNTY’S FYCS division

DEBORAH GILDAY – an employee of the COUNTY’S FYCS division

D. ROMERO – an employee of the COUNTY’S FYCS division

the STATE OF CALIFORNIA – At all times relevant hereto, the STATE was working through its subdivisions, including its Department of Social Services, Health and Welfare Agency, Adoption Services Bureau – Rohnert Park Division (“Adoption Services”).

AMY LAFFERTY – an employee of the STATE’S Adoption Services Bureau.

TLC CHILD & FAMILY SERVICES

CITY OF ROHNERT PARK – the CITY was working through its subdivisions, including its Department of Public Safety (“RPDPS”).

OFFICER GONZALES – an employee of RPDPS.

OFFICER GROAT – an employee of RPDPS.

JOSE A. CENTENO – an adult individual, who is currently incarcerated in the County of Sonoma.

GINA M. CENTENO – an adult individual, who is currently incarcerated in the County of Sonoma. (Now deceased.)

That’s 21 state actors that are accused of being complicit with this state-funded Child Sex Trafficking operation, with another 79 “Doe”s that could still potentially be named as the trial advances.

This is a more accurate picture of how many people it takes to allow something as gruesome as this to happen in any location within the United States. Bad foster parents who are pedophiles and participating in child sex trafficking, can NOT do this alone.

This Complaint filed by the LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER, gives WAY more information on this case than what the corporate media is reporting, and it is publicly available information that is covered under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for Freedom of the Press, allowing me to publish this, while so far I have not seen anyone else publish it in the media.

Nothing of what I report from this Complaint has been sealed by the Court as of this writing, and is available to the public.

In this Complaint, we learn that these children who were tortured and raped were taken away from their biological parents allegedly because “Plaintiffs’ biological parents struggled with mental health and substance abuse issues and did not provide adequate care to their 4 children.”

So there were no claims of child abuse, only charges brought against the parents that they had “mental health and substance abuse issues”, which, even if true, could be said about the majority of parents in America today, especially if we include “prescription drug abuse” as a form of “substance abuse.”

Then, they were put into a foster home where the foster parents were allegedly never investigated, and where allegedly their only source of income was from the State who paid them to take care of other people’s children as Foster Parents, where they tortured, starved, and raped these children in their “care”.

The biological relatives of the victims, who wanted to adopt these children themselves, repeatedly reported signs of abuse from the Centeno’s, but went mostly unchecked.

The school teachers of the children also filed complaints, which led to the Centeno’s pulling them out of school to “home-school” them, where they were chained up, starved, and repeatedly raped.

After watching many of these cases, especially in California, for the past decade plus, I do expect these Civil Rights attorneys to win with a multi-million dollar settlement, although these cases usually take several years.

Shawn McMillan, a Civil Rights attorney based out of San Diego, is one of these law firms we have covered in the past, and Shawn has won lawsuits like this where children were illegally kidnapped by the State and put into horrible situations in Foster Care. I think he has defeated pretty much every County in Southern California, including San Diego County, Orange County, San Bernardino County, and Los Angeles County (several times.)

But the sad fact is that these attorneys can mostly only come into a case and file a civil rights lawsuit AFTER the fact, not before or during the time the children are being abused and trafficked while in the custody of the State.

The criminal investigation by the Sonoma County District Attorney is what allowed BONNER & BONNER to file their Civil case, but by then the criminals were already in jail and the damage had been done.

I am going to copy and paste some long sections from this Amended Complaint just to get it on the PUBLIC record so it can be indexed by the search engines, as many of the cases we have reported on in the past get continual traffic, even years later, by those families who end up going through the same thing and search for previous cases against sometimes the same evil state actors.

I can only guess why the corporate media doesn’t want to cover what is in this complaint which goes WAY beyond just the foster parents, but fortunately I am truly independent with no editor above me telling me what I can and cannot publish.

I have had judges, district attorneys, and lawyers threaten me over the years demanding that I take down certain articles that expose them, but I have never complied, and to date God has protected me from their threats.

I apologize for the formatting as it is copied from a .pdf, and I want to get it into html for indexing, but don’t really have the time to reformat it all.

From the Amended Complaint (I have bolded a few sentences):

Plaintiff Michelle K. was born in July 2003. Plaintiff P.K. was born in November 2004. Plaintiff Kristin K. was born in  January 1997. Plaintiffs’ biological parents struggled with mental health and substance abuse issues and did not provide adequate care to their 4 children (Plaintiff Michelle K., Plaintiff P.K., and their older sisters, Kristin K. and Kaya K.). The  children first came to the attention of the COUNTY in August 2005. In September 2006, the COUNTY took temporary  custody of the three younger children, and they were placed in foster care. Plaintiff Kristin K. was placed in the custody of her aunt, where she remained while she was a minor. The County was aware at the time P.K., Michelle K., and Kaya K. were  placed in foster care that they had emotional and psychological issues as a result of their removal from their home.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that through agreements with the COUNTY and/or the STATE, Defendant TLC conducted  an investigation into whether the Centeno household was an appropriate environment for foster children. Plaintiffs and informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendant TLC did not perform a thorough investigation,  did not speak with Jose Centeno or determine whether the Centenos had a source of income other than revenues paid to them by the COUNTY and/or STATE for fostering children, did not speak with the Centenos’ biological children about the  conditions in the home, and did not conduct a full investigation of the Centeno home.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe,  and based thereon allege, that Defendant TLC knew and understood that the COUNTY and the STATE relied upon TLC’s professional services, in part, to make placement decisions such as the placement of P.K., Michelle K., and Kaya K. in the  Centeno household. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that TLC did not fulfill its obligation to ensure that the  Centeno home remained safe after the children were placed in the home, and that TLC conducted no further investigation  into the safety and risks associated with the Centeno home before Plaintiffs Michelle K., P.K. and Kaya K. were adopted by  the Centenos.

On or about October 20, 2006, Plaintiffs Michelle K. (age 3), P.K. (age 2) and Kaya (age 4) were placed with Defendants Jose  and Gina Centeno despite the fact that there had been reports to the COUNTY of suspected child abuse, including a January  2006 report involving two other children being fostered by Jose and Gina Centeno. In addition, Plaintiffs are informed and  believe, and based thereon allege, that the COUNTY knew at the time they placed the children with the Centenos that the  Centenos had no means of support other than the money they were receiving from fostering children.

Between October 20, 2006, and September 24, 2008, Michelle K., P.K., and Kaya were provided with comprehensive support by the COUNTY, TLC, and the STATE. The COUNTY initially ensured that the children were provided with opportunities to  visit with their other sibling (Plaintiff Kristin K.) and their biological relatives.

The children were provided with healthcare  and daycare at no cost to the Centenos, and the Centenos were paid by the COUNTY and the STATE to care for the children.  An assessment was performed by the Regional Center, through which additional services were provided for the children,  including mental health services.

Despite the services being offered by the COUNTY to the children during this foster care period, the COUNTY, the STATE,  and TLC received frequent reports from the children’s biological extended family members and others that the children were  being physically and emotionally abused.

They were seen with bruising on their arms and legs and did not want to leave  family visits with Gina Centeno. Even though these reports were frequent and ongoing, COUNTY social worker F. JONES assessed that the children were having their needs met “splendidly” by Defendants the CENTENOs.

The COUNTY, the STATE, and TLC, and particularly Defendants MCCAY, F. JONES, and LAFFERTY did not consider the  children’s extended family members as prospective adoptees for the children, instead pushing an agenda to place the children with Gina and Jose Centeno. During this time period, Defendants TLC, MCCAY, F. JONES, and LAFFERTY never  met with or interviewed Jose Centeno, and never met with or interviewed the CENTENOs’ three older biological children.

Nor did Defendants TLC, MCCAY, F. JONES, and LAFFERTY follow up on prior reports of possible abusive behavior within  the Centeno household involving other foster children. At all times, Defendants TLC, MCCAY, F. JONES, and LAFFERTY knew that the services that were being provided to the children during the foster care period would be withdrawn once the  children were adopted, and that the children would be left without the safety net they so desperately required due to their maltreatment by their birth parents.

Immediately prior to the final adoption on September 24, 2008, Defendant F. JONES prepared a document concerning P.K.,  Michelle K. and Kaya. In this document, the only “vulnerability” he listed for the children was their age; stating that the  children had excellent communication skills, social development, physical health, school performance, behavioral health and  resiliency.

However, all reports prior to this final report indicated that the children were experiencing significant issues in all of the listed areas.

For example, a report just one month prior stated that Michelle K. was experiencing wetting/soiling  accidents, ignoring rules, being rough with toys or siblings, and teachers reporting her not listening, not following class rules, and disrupting the class. The only “services” provided to the children by the COUNTY, the STATE, and TLC upon adoption  were to advise the CENTENOs of services available in the community.

On September 24, 2008, Defendants Gina and Jose Centeno adopted Plaintiffs Michelle K., P.K., and their sister, Kaya. Upon adoption, the COUNTY withdrew all services that had been provided to the children.

Prior to the adoption of the children by the CENTENOs, Defendants COUNTY, STATE, and TLC had an obligation to  investigate the level of care Defendants Jose and Gina Centeno were providing to the children in their care.

Plaintiffs are  informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendants COUNTY, STATE, and TLC failed to conduct full  background checks on Defendants the CENTENOs, failed to properly inspect Defendant Jose and Gina Centeno’s home,  assess the well-being of the CENTENOs’ three biological children, and failed to speak with Kaya, Michelle K., and P.K. about  the care they were receiving outside the presence of Defendants Jose and Gina Centeno.

Further, prior to the adoption, Defendants COUNTY, STATE, and TLC failed to investigate allegations of abuse made by the maternal aunt of the children  and by Kristin K. In addition, at no time did Defendants COUNTY, STATE, or TLC interview or speak with Defendant Jose Centeno or the three biological Centeno children.

On or about June 23, 2009, the COUNTY placed another foster child (Pablo) with the CENTENOs. Plaintiffs are informed  and believe that prior to Pablo’s placement, the COUNTY did nothing to evaluate the safety of the children already living in  the Centeno household, including Kaya, Michelle K., and P.K., as required by law.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendant TLC again acted as the agent for the COUNTY  and/or the STATE to determine whether the Centeno home was safe and appropriate for introduction of  foster children,  such as Pablo.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendant TLC did not perform the  required investigation, in that Defendant TLC did not speak with Jose Centeno or determine whether the Centenos had a  source of income other than revenues paid to them by the COUNTY and/or STATE for fostering children, did not speak with  the Centenos’ biological children about the conditions in the home, did not speak with Michelle K., P.K. and Kaya K. about the conditions in the home, and did not conduct a full investigation of the Centeno home.

Within only a few weeks of Pablo’s placement, there was evidence that the CENTENOs were incapable of caring for the  children in their care and custody. In September 2009, the CENTENOs had begun to “home school” Michelle K. due to her  behavior.

In addition, although the CENTENOs had been informed that all of the children in their care needed therapy, they  had not sought therapy for the children. As of September 2009, Gina Centeno was reporting that Michelle K. was pulling her  hair out, couldn’t sit still, was bossy and aggressive, and would not follow rules.

On March 1, 2010, the COUNTY placed an infant (Maci, Pablo’s sister) with Defendants Jose and Gina Centeno.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that prior to Maci’s placement, the COUNTY did nothing to evaluate the safety of the children already living in the Centeno household, including Kaya, Michelle K., and P.K., as required by law.

With the March 1, 2010, foster  child,, Jose and Gina Centeno now had 8 children living in their household – their three biological children, who were teenagers, Kaya, Michelle K., and P.K. (8, 7, and 6 years old), a toddler (Pablo) and an infant (Maci).

Plaintiffs are informed  and believe, and based thereon allege, that the only income the Centenos received was from adoptive and foster-care  assistance. The Centenos’ “business” was taking as many children into their home as possible, even though it was clear that  they could not (and did not) care for those children.

Within only a few months of the COUNTY’s placement of an 8th child in the Centeno household, on September 7, 2010, there was a report to the COUNTY that Defendant Jose Centeno was physically abusing the children. The reporting teacher, who  was affiliated with the school attended by Kaya, Michelle K., and P.K. reported that all three children were coming to school with unexplained bruises.

The reporting party advised that Defendant Gina Centeno had a history of telling her that the  children (all of whom were under 8) were “difficult, are manipulative, and they lie.” She reported that when she told P.K. that she was going to call his mother to tell her that he had been wandering around the school grounds, he began to sob uncontrollably and scream. He told her that he would be in trouble and would be spanked 20 times.

He said he got spanked  every day. He said that he, Kaya, and Michelle were spanked with belts and “wooden spoons that never break.” He said that his parents (the CENTENOs) hit Kaya and scared him.

The reporting party further reported that Gina Centeno was cold  toward the children, that she told the reporting party that she didn’t know how to handle the children, and that pretty soon  the school wouldn’t be able to “handle this shit.”

The COUNTY worker who took the emergency response call referred it to Defendant SASHITAL, who was the COUNTY’s  social worker responsible for the safety of Pablo and Maci, who had recently been placed with the CENTENOs as foster children. No other action was taken on this referral.

The referral was assigned to Defendant JOHNSON. Her first contacts were on September 14, 2010. On that date, she learned  that P.K. had come to school with a red mark around his neck which appeared that he had been pulled by his shirt. The teachers reported they were deeply concerned about the children.

In fact, the school staff had made 4 reports to the COUNTY  in the span of a single week. Defendant JOHNSON learned that Michelle K., also, had reported being spanked with
a big black belt.

Over the next few days, Defendant JOHNSON interviewed the children. Michelle K. reported to her that her parents use their  fists and hands to hit her, that her mom hit her with a hair brush, and that her mom hit her in the face and knocked her  tooth out. Michelle K. reported that she was afraid of her parents.

She stated that for time outs, her parents make her  stand in a corner and put her hands up, stay in her bed “for weeks,” or stand in the shower holding something heavy. P.K. reported that “mom really hates me,” and calls him an “asshole” and a “liar.” He reported his mother spanks him with a belt  or spoon and that his father pinches and twists his ear.

He told Defendant JOHNSON that he was afraid of both of his parents, but was more afraid of his father. Defendant JOHNSON described P.K. as a “child who has been victimized and is seeing the world as a victim.” KAYA CENTENO told  Defendant JOHNSON that she was “really scared of my dad.”

She said he did mean things to her and hurts her feelings. He  said that he pinches and twists her ears, and that both parents make her stay outside by herself all alone for a long time and hit her. She told Defendant JOHNSON that she did not feel safe at home. She reported that Jose Centeno would push her off a wooden stool, kick her, and call her names like “asshole” and “bonehead.”

On September 17, 2010, Defendant JOHNSON met with Gina and Jose Centeno, who were present along with Pablo and  Maci. During this encounter, the Centenos placed all of the blame on the children. They said that KAYA CENTENO had  sexualized behaviors, and that all three children are liars.

The parents did admit to taping gloves on KAYA CENTENO’s  hands at night to keep her from masturbating, to making the children have time outs in the shower, and to putting alarms on their beds.

The notes from this encounter show that Defendant JOHNSON, like the teachers at the children’s school, was deeply  concerned about the welfare of the children. Following these meetings, Defendant JOHNSON discussed her concerns about  the children and the parents with Defendant SASHITAL.

On September 21, 2010, Defendants JOHNSON, SASHITAL and HARPER discussed the referral. During this meeting,  Defendant JOHNSON advised that she felt the family was overwhelmed due to the children’s behavior problems and the  number of children in their household.

She advised that she believed some of the allegations were valid as the children’s statements were consistent. Defendant JOHNSON informed Defendants SASHITAL and HARPER that she believed the  system had taken advantage of the parents as it was inconceivable to her to think that 2 parents (only one of whom is home  most of the day) could be successful in meeting the needs of these 3 traumatized children as well as 2 very young children who require significant time and attention and will have their own issues emerging soon.

She advised that the family was in need of strong support and the children were in “dire need of intensive therapy immediately.” She stated that the parents  were in denial of their ability to cope with the behaviors appropriately, and that she believed them to be overwhelmed.

The information learned by Defendant JOHNSON during her investigation was also provided to the STATE and its  representative LAFFERTY, who was the Adoption Services representative in charge of the adoption of Pablo and Maci and to TLC, who was the agency working with the COUNTY and the STATE on the adoption of Pablo and Maci.

Following her investigation, Defendant JOHNSON filed her Investigation Narrative, substantiating the allegation of  emotional abuse against the parents, and finding the allegation of physical abuse inconclusive.

In doing so, she stated that the interviews indicated a pattern of harsh physical punishment and verbal abuse, with all three children fearing their  parents and describing similar punishments from their parents.

In this report, Defendant JOHNSON stated that she believed the CENTENOs were overwhelmed and should not care for Pablo and Maci. This information was provided to the STATE  and its representative, Defendant LAFFERTY, and to TLC.

On September 24, 2010, Defendant JOHNSON met again with Defendant Gina Centeno. Again, Jose Centeno was not  interviewed. After the meeting, Defendant JOHNSON again expressed her belief that the parents were overwhelmed and had asked them to look at their limitations honestly; advising it would be a “better and less damaging decision to give up the younger children at this time.”

Defendant JOHNSON advised that she was concerned about the parents’ frustration level, volatility, and possibility of burn out, and told them that she “truly feel their trouble with the children’s behaviors are going  to be more difficult as they grow older.”

On September 30, 2010, Defendant JOHNSON consulted with Defendants MORRISSEY, WINTERS, and SASHITAL. Once  again, Defendant JOHNSON expressed her considerable concerns for this family and the parents’ ability to adequately and  appropriately parent the children in their care.

She identified KAYA CENTENO, Michelle K. and P.K. at “high risk” children, and that the risk would be increased with the adoption of the two younger children.

This information was provided to the STATE and its representative, Defendant LAFFERTY, and to TLC. 55. A few days after  this meeting, Defendants JOHNSON and LAFFERTY learned that Gina Centeno had taken her children out of school and  had also pulled them out of after-school programs.

There was now no one to observe or report on the welfare of the children  in the care of the Defendant the CENTENOs.

Despite Defendant JOHNSON’s purported “considerable concerns,” and her consultations with Defendants SASHITAL,  HARPER, WINTERS and MORRISSEY, her report that the children were at “high risk,” and that allowing the CENTENOs to  adopt the other two children would increase that risk, no services of any kind were provided to KAYA CENTENO, Michelle K. or P.K. by the COUNTY, the STATE, or TLC.

There is no indication that anybody from the COUNTY, the STATE, or TLC did anything further to check on the welfare of these “high risk” children, who were now at an increased risk as a result of the actions of the COUNTY, STATE, and TLC, and their employees.

Instead, the COUNTY, the STATE, and TLC went full-steam ahead with the plans for Defendants the CENTENOs to adopt  Pablo and Maci, which placed the three older children in increased danger. This adoption was finalized on August 19, 2011.

As a result of the actions of Defendants COUNTY, JOHNSON, SASHITAL, HARPER, WINTERS, MORRISSEY, STATE,  LAFFERTY, and TLC, Plaintiffs Michelle K. and P.K., and their sister KAYA CENTENO, became trapped in a true house of horrors.

Between the adoption of Maci and Pablo in August 2011 and late 2018, it is clear that Defendant JOHNSON’s concerns  became reality.

During that time period, Jose and Gina Centeno shackled KAYA CENTENO, Michelle K., and P.K, to their beds in their rooms or kept them in cages.

KAYA CENTENO hasn’t been seen since approximately 2012. Gina and Jose Centeno won’t say what happened to KAYA CENTENO, and she is feared to be dead.

Plaintiffs Michelle K. and P.K. were abused emotionally, physically, and sexually by the CENTENOs, severely neglected by  the CENTENOs, and tortured by the CENTENOs.

Alarms were placed on their beds to prevent them from leaving. Plaintiffs  Michelle K. and P.K. were treated worse than animals.

During that same time, Defendant JOHNSON’s fears regarding Maci and Pablo began to manifest themselves. On October  31, 2018, a Suspected Child Abuse Report (“SCAR”) was submitted to the COUNTY, and specifically to Defendant DE LA  CRUZ, by Maci and Pablo’s school with concerns about their behavior.

Defendant DE LA CRUZ took no action of any kind on this SCAR until January 3, 2019, when she finally forwarded it to  Defendant KRUEZE. In the SCAR, it was reported that Pablo was creating an unsafe environment at home and was endangering himself and others.

He deliberately rode his bike in front of traffic, and was destroying things within his home. The reporting party advised that  both Maci and Pablo were in emotionally disturbed special education classes, and that “Mom Gina needs support at home.”  Pablo reported to the reporting party that his father was emotionally and mentally abusive.

The Emergency Response Referral concerning the October 31, 2018 SCAR listed the history of emotional and physical abuse  toward KAYA CENTENO, Michelle K. and P.K. The only investigation performed on this SCAR and Emergency Response  Referral was to speak with the reporting party.

Defendant KRUEZE did not speak with Pablo, Maci, Gina or Jose Centeno, or evaluate their home and living conditions.  Defendant KRUEZE instead marked it as “evaluate out. Insufficient information to show that either parent has failed to protect either minor or failed to seek proper mental health support services for them. Insufficient information that the  father’s actions have caused and/or will lead to further emotional trauma to the minors.”

Although KAYA CENTENO, Michelle K. and P.K. were listed as additional children living in the home, there is no reference  to any questions or investigation taken by the COUNTY, or any reference to Defendants DE LA CRUZ and/or KRUEZE  reviewing this past history (and specifically Defendant JOHNSON’s extensive notes about the children in the Centeno home  being at “high risk” of abuse and neglect.) This SCAR was simply closed.

On February 7, 2019, yet another Emergency Response Referral was received by the COUNTY regarding concerning  behaviors by Pablo and Maci, including a “marked increase in Maci’s physical outbursts at school ‘possibly related to the  conflict in the home.’ ”

The Referral stated “the mother is trying very hard to address this dynamic and has expressed that she does not know what  to do. The mother presents as very overwhelmed.” This Referral was assigned to Defendant TAYLOR. The Referral listed  KAYA CENTENO, Michelle K. and P.K. as other children living in the home and referred to the 2010 investigation regarding  emotional and physical abuse of those children.

On February 11, 2019, Defendant TAYLOR presented to the Centeno home to investigate the February 7, 2019, referral.  Defendant TAYLOR met with Maci and Pablo. They informed Defendant TAYLOR that they lived with Gina, Jose, and the  Centeno’s biological children Jose and Genaro.

Neither child mentioned KAYA CENTENO, Michelle K., or P.K. In addition, Gina Centeno informed Defendant TAYLOR that she was doing everything she could to care for her “two children.” Although the Referral listed KAYA CENTENO, Michelle K.  and P.K. (who would have been teenagers), Defendant TAYLOR did not ask Gina any questions about their whereabouts.

Nor is there any evidence that Defendant TAYLOR had reviewed any documents pertaining to the 2010 referral, including, but not limited to Defendant JOHNSON’s extensive notes about the children being at “high risk” with this family.

Although Defendant TAYLOR’s notes refer to the home having 5 bedrooms, she did not actually tour the home, but just  recorded Gina Centeno’s answer to her question about the number of bedrooms.

During TAYLOR’s interview, Gina Centeno mentioned that the family received subsidy payments from their adoption of the  children. Although the Referral mentioned five adopted children, Defendant TAYLOR did nothing to ask questions about the  other three.

Shockingly, Defendant TAYLOR wrote in her note “Neither parent has a history of child abuse.” Defendant TAYLOR concluded her investigation by stating “no safety concerns identified.”

She closed the investigation as “unfounded.” 66.

In completing the SDM Risk Management tool connected with this Referral, Defendant TAYLOR concluded “no safety threats were identified at this time. Based on currently available information, there are no children likely to be in immediate danger of serious harm.”

At or about this time, Defendants Jose and Gina Centeno made the decision to rid themselves of Plaintiffs Michelle K. and  P.K, in fear that Defendant COUNTY social workers would return.

The CENTENOs traveled to Guanajuato, Mexico with Plaintiffs Michelle K. and P.K. and left them with a distant relative of  Jose Centeno.

The CENTENOs then came back to Sonoma County. Although the CENTENOs only had two children left to  care for (as their biological children were now adults), reports of abuse of those children continued to be received by the COUNTY.

In or about late March or early April 2019, the COUNTY, and specifically Defendants KROEZE and ROMERO, received a  report of multiple bruises on Maci’s arm which Gina Centeno claimed were inflicted at Maci’s school.

Although this report  generated an Emergency Response Referral which included the names of all of the children who were supposed to be in the care of Gina and Jose Centeno, Defendants KROEZE and ROMERO made the determination to designate the report as “evaluated out,” stating “no reported concerns for Maci in the home.”

No person from the COUNTY, including, but not limited to Defendants KROEZE and ROMERO, questioned Maci or Gina Centeno, or inquired about the other children in the home.

On July 23, 2019, another referral was received by the COUNTY, through Defendant GILDAY. Although this report  generated an Emergency Response Referral which included the names of all of the children who were supposed to be in the  care of Gina and Jose Centeno, and the prior substantiated findings of emotional abuse and inconclusive findings of physical abuse of Plaintiffs Michelle K. and P.K., it was “evaluated out” by Defendant GILDAY.

Full Complaint Here.

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.

If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done? (Proverbs 24:11-12)

Comment on this article at HealthImpactNews.com.

See Also:

Understand the Times We are Currently Living Through

American Christians are Biblically Illiterate Not Understanding the Difference Between The Old Covenant vs. The New Covenant

Exposing the Christian Zionism Cult

Jesus Would be Labeled as “Antisemitic” Today Because He Attacked the Jews and Warned His Followers About Their Evil Ways

Insider Exposes Freemasonry as the World’s Oldest Secret Religion and the Luciferian Plans for The New World Order

Identifying the Luciferian Globalists Implementing the New World Order – Who are the “Jews”?

The Brain Myth: Your Intellect and Thoughts Originate in Your Heart, Not Your Brain

Fact Check: “Christianity” and the Christian Religion is NOT Found in the Bible – The Person Jesus Christ Is

Christian Myths: The Bible does NOT Teach that it is Required for Believers in Jesus to “Join a Church”

Exposing Christian Myths: The Bible does NOT Teach that Believers Should Always Obey the Government

Was the U.S. Constitution Written to Protect “We the People” or “We the Globalists”? Were the Founding Fathers Godly Men or Servants of Satan?