A lawsuit has been filed against Snohomish County, alleging systematic child sexual abuse at two juvenile detention centres in Everett.
The legal action, initiated by Seattle law firm Hagens Berman representing 12 formerly incarcerated minors, accuses the county of a “shameful failure” to protect vulnerable children and teenagers from systemic sexual abuse, rape, and degradation at Denney Youth Center and Denney Juvenile Justice Center.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on 6 November, the lawsuit targets Snohomish County and up to 20 unnamed individuals.
The complaint claims that abuse involving detention guards and staff members violated the constitutional rights of minors, some as young as 10 years old.
Attorneys allege Snohomish County’s policies, practices, and procedures enabled and empowered a culture of abuse, including failure to maintain adequate reporting mechanisms for sexual abuse complaints, failure to supervise employees properly, failure to train staff regarding sexual abuse prevention and compliance with protective laws, authorisation of staff to conduct invasive strip searches, allowing staff to monitor children whilst they showered, authorisation of staff to use grooming methods such as bringing gifts, and permitting unsupervised one-on-one time with youth, including in their cells and in “blind spots” within the facility.
The lawsuit describes the abuse as an “institutional failure” resulting from Snohomish County’s wilful disregard for the safety of vulnerable children. It alleges that the county’s policies and practices enabled a culture where abuse could flourish, citing failures in reporting mechanisms, employee supervision, and staff training on sexual abuse prevention.
The complaint also highlights the authorisation of invasive strip searches, unsupervised one-on-one time with youth, and other practices that increased the risk of sexual assault.
Claims against the county include violations of state negligence laws, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and federal law violations, including Monell claims that hold local government entities liable for constitutional violations through unconstitutional policies and practices.
The allegations paint a disturbing picture of systemic failures across multiple levels of juvenile detention operations. The involvement of 12 plaintiffs suggests the abuse was not isolated to individual perpetrators but rather represented a pattern enabled by institutional structures and oversight deficiencies.
The age range of victims, with some as young as 10 years old, raises particular concerns about the vulnerability of children placed in county custody. Juvenile detention facilities assume responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of minors removed from their families and communities, making abuse within these settings a profound betrayal of public trust.
The specific policy failures identified in the lawsuit reveal multiple opportunities where proper oversight and procedures could have prevented abuse or detected it earlier. The absence of adequate reporting mechanisms meant victims lacked clear pathways to safely disclose abuse and seek help.
Inadequate employee supervision created environments where staff could exploit their positions of authority over detained youth without detection. Proper supervision protocols typically include regular monitoring of staff-youth interactions, rotation of assignments to prevent relationship formation that could facilitate grooming, and systems for tracking staff movements within facilities.
The failure to provide comprehensive training on sexual abuse prevention and recognition represents another critical gap. Staff working with vulnerable youth populations require extensive training on recognising grooming behaviours, maintaining appropriate boundaries, understanding trauma responses, and adhering to protocols designed to prevent abuse.
The authorisation of invasive strip searches without apparent safeguards created opportunities for abuse disguised as security procedures. Whilst juvenile facilities may have legitimate security concerns requiring searches, such procedures must include strict protocols including same-gender staff, multiple witnesses, and documentation to prevent exploitation.
Allowing staff to monitor children during showering similarly created vulnerable situations where youth were exposed and potentially alone with adults in positions of authority. Proper facility design and operational procedures should eliminate or minimise such privacy violations whilst maintaining necessary supervision.
The practice of allowing staff to bring gifts to detained youth represents a classic grooming tactic. Professional boundaries in juvenile justice settings should prohibit such gift-giving, which can be used to establish special relationships that facilitate abuse whilst making victims feel indebted or complicit.
Unsupervised one-on-one time, particularly in cells or facility “blind spots” where surveillance cameras or other monitoring cannot observe interactions, created ideal conditions for abuse. Proper facility operations should eliminate blind spots through design and camera placement, whilst protocols should minimise or prohibit unsupervised contact between staff and detained youth.
The accumulation of these policy failures suggests either profound negligence in facility management or, as the lawsuit alleges, wilful disregard for youth safety. Either scenario represents a catastrophic failure of the county’s duty to protect children placed in its custody.
The legal claims include both state and federal violations, reflecting the multiple ways the alleged abuse violated victims’ rights. State negligence claims address the county’s failure to exercise reasonable care in protecting detained youth from foreseeable harm.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress claims recognise the severe psychological trauma resulting from sexual abuse, particularly for children already experiencing the stress and trauma of detention and family separation.
The federal Monell claims represent particularly significant allegations, holding the county itself liable for constitutional violations through its policies and practices rather than simply seeking accountability for individual perpetrators. Monell liability requires demonstrating that county policies or customs directly caused the constitutional violations.
Successfully proving Monell claims could result in substantial damages and, potentially more importantly, court-ordered reforms to policies and practices governing juvenile detention operations. Such reforms could include mandatory training programmes, revised supervision protocols, facility design changes, and enhanced reporting and investigation procedures.
The inclusion of up to 20 unnamed individuals as defendants suggests the lawsuit may add specific staff members as named defendants once their identities are confirmed through discovery. These individuals could face personal liability for their actions in addition to the county’s institutional liability.
Snohomish County will likely mount a vigorous defence against these allegations, potentially arguing that any abuse represented actions by rogue individuals rather than systemic failures, that existing policies were adequate but were not followed, or that the county took appropriate action once abuse was discovered.
