Child advocacy centers subject of DA investigation

Cameron County’s Child Advocacy Centers, Monica’s House and Maggie’s House, have become the subject of a criminal investigation stemming from the possible leak of “confidential information,” including records pertaining to complaints of child abuse or neglect.

Board members for the organizations are being questioned by the district attorney’s office in the investigation that began Wednesday with the groups’ director.

The inquiry was prompted after information, including names of individuals who were the subject of complaints alleging crimes against children, appeared in a political advertisement for district attorney candidate Peter Zavaletta.

District Attorney Armando Villalobos said the information contained in the advertisement is sent to Monica’s House or Maggie’s House. It is confidential and not subject for public viewing, he said, as the case files contain information about complainants and victims, which are protected by law.

The ad also lists a number of cases that were “declined at intake,” most often because there was insufficient evidence to bring a charge or even make an arrest, Villalobos said.

“We are ceasing all communication with Monica’s House and Maggie’s House” until it is determined who released the information, he said.

Interviews will continue today with board members for both centers, Monica’s House in Brownsville and Maggie’s House in San Benito.

Zavaletta said he was not aware that the centers and their board of directors are subject of an investigation and declined to comment on it. “Why he (Villalobos) is choosing to investigate those two entities is something he is going to answer himself,” Zavaletta said.

The centers have been recognized for their work with abused and neglected children in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, particularly in securing prosecution of child predators.

Elizabeth Shull, director of the Cameron County Advocacy Center, which oversees Maggie’s House and Monica’s House, was not immediately available for comment Wednesday.

William Peacock, chairman of the board of directors for the centers, said information in the ad is made available to board members for reference at meetings. He confirmed that it is confidential and only used for statistical data when applying for grants and funding.

“I don’t know the legalities of it, but all the information we have there is supposed to be confidential,” Peacock said. “It did not come from the House, but I cannot speak for any of the board of directors,” he said, and added that he did not distribute the records.

Zavaletta’s ad claims “Villalobos is against our children” and accuses the district attorney of being soft on those that would abuse children.

It lists the names of 103 individuals who had complaints filed against them on crimes ranging from injury to a child to sexual assault of a child.

Seventy-seven of the complaints were “declined at intake,” meaning they were not arrested or charged. The remaining suspects received deferred adjudication, pleaded guilty or had the charges dismissed.

The political advertisement sources iDocket, an online court docket registry, and the Cameron County District Clerk’s Office for the information it contains. However, cases declined at intake are not recorded by either of these resources.

Cameron County District Clerk Aurora de la Garza said her office did not provide information for the advertisement.

On Wednesday, Zavaletta acknowledged that the sourcing on the ad was wrong but did not explain why he listed it.

He said he received the case information anonymously and now sources a report on the district attorney’s office letterhead that was delivered to his office.

“I don’t know if it did or did not” come from Monica’s House or Maggie’s House sources, Zavaletta said Wednesday of the records mentioned in the ad that ran in The Herald on Tuesday.

He said he received the report “last week,” but he wasn’t sure on what day. “It was left on our doorstep and I thought it was very credible information because it’s coming directly from the DA.”

The district attorney said he’s sure the information did not come from his office. He believes it was intercepted or redistributed from a report prepared for the advocacy centers.

“This is a serious breach of confidential information,” Villalobos said. “It’s a shame this (political race) has come down to this.”

If someone is found responsible for distributing this information, they could be charged with “release of confidential information,” a crime ranging from a misdemeanor to felony offense, depending on the circumstances.