Trying to Find the Light. Oregon Pays $4.95 Million in Devastating Child Abuse Involving The State's Inaction.

This case is one of the most harrowing child abuse tragedies in Oregon’s recent history — a gut-wrenching example of how systemic failures can allow horrific abuse to continue in plain sight, despite repeated warnings and desperate cries for help.

Three young siblings — just 5, 5, and 7 years old when the nightmare began — were subjected to five years of relentless torture by their great-aunt, Merlinda Avalos. They were starved, beaten, humiliated, and isolated, forced to sleep naked on bare mattresses in the cold, urinate in plastic bottles, wear urine-soaked clothes to school, and suffer abuse so cruel it defies belief: mouths duct-taped shut, tacks taped to bunk beds to prevent them from moving, shot in the back with a BB gun. A child was so afraid of her abuser finding out she changed into clean clothes at school, she would break down in tears.

Over the course of those five years, teachers, neighbors, and counselors made at least 20 reports to Oregon’s Department of Human Services Child Abuse Screening Hotline and to 911. These were not vague suspicions — they included reports of visible bruises, starvation, children locked outside in the rain, and terrifying first-hand disclosures from the children themselves.

Again and again, DHS CPS failed. Caseworkers dismissed the complaints as “unfounded.” They failed to follow their own policies. They didn’t take photos of injuries, failed to seek medical evaluations, and shockingly included Avalos — the known abuser — in a so-called “safety plan.” The reports were ignored. The children were left to suffer.

Finally, in April 2018, police intervened after one child made yet another disclosure. Investigators found extensive evidence of abuse, and Avalos was arrested and later sentenced to more than 12 years in prison. But by then, the damage was already done.

In 2024, nearly six years after being removed from Avalos’ home, the State of Oregon agreed to pay $4.95 million to the three children — a rare acknowledgment of responsibility in a case where the state’s inaction was both devastating and inexcusable.

But the tragedy did not end there.

Shortly after learning of the settlement, the eldest child — now 18 years old — died by suicide. His death is a painful reminder that trauma does not end when abuse stops. It lingers, destroys, and too often, claims lives long after the fact and has a rippling affect on those that were close to him..

This incredible $4,950,000 settlement— while significant — is overshadowed by the irreversible toll this abuse has taken. No amount of money can restore what these children lost: their safety, their childhood, and their brother.

Yet even in the face of such overwhelming tragedy, there was a hard-fought measure of justice. Attorneys Jeremiah V. Ross and two other lawyers refused to let the state walk away from its responsibility. They battled against dismissal, navigated complex legal barriers, and ultimately held DHS accountable for failing to act when it mattered most.

While nothing can undo what happened, we hope this outcome will not only provide some stability for the surviving siblings, but also serve as a call to action: Oregon must do better.

No child should have to suffer this way. No system should ever ignore this much pain. And no survivor should have to fight this hard for justice.

If you or a loved one has been harmed by child abuse or by government failure to protect, Ross Law and Oregon Attorney Jeremiah V. Ross will stand with you. We will listen. We will fight. And we will not let tragedy be ignored.

How Much Time Do You Have to File a Lawsuit in an Oregon Child Abuse Case?

At Ross Law, we are committed to holding abusers — and those who enable abuse — accountable. Many of our clients are survivors of childhood abuse, and we understand that the trauma caused by abuse can take years, even decades, to fully process and connect to the lifelong harm it caused. Fortunately, Oregon law (ORS 12.117) recognizes this reality and gives survivors meaningful time to come forward and pursue justice in civil court.

Under Oregon law, survivors of child abuse have until age 40 to file a lawsuit against their abuser or anyone who knowingly allowed, encouraged, or permitted the abuse to happen. If the survivor did not discover — and reasonably could not have discovered — the connection between the abuse and their injury until later in life, then the survivor has five years from the date of discovery to file a claim. The law applies whichever period is longer.

Importantly, this rule applies regardless of other time limits found in Oregon’s personal injury statutes. That means even if the general deadline to file a personal injury case has expired, a claim based on child abuse may still be valid if brought under this specific law.

ORS 12.117 defines “child abuse” broadly to include:

  • Physical or mental injury caused by intentional cruelty.

  • Sexual abuse or exploitation, including rape, incest, sodomy, and using a child in pornography or prostitution.

  • Encouraging or allowing a child to be exploited sexually.

This law does not create new causes of action, but it extends the time for survivors to hold abusers and institutions accountable and provide compensation for survivors in Civil court.

At Ross Law PDX, we’ve proudly represented victims of child abuse in seeking compensation and justice for the unimaginable harms they’ve suffered. Ross Law PDX represents children all over the State of Oregon who have suffered abuse while they were students of the abuser, in the legal custody of DHS CPS, OYA, or in Foster Care. Ross Law has also represented children who were abused by their parents, step parent, mother or father. If you or someone you care about is a survivor of abuse, we are here to listen, advise, and fight for your rights. Please call Attorney Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658.

Please remember that there may be other statutes and laws, such as the Oregon Tort Claims Act, that are involved when a Statute of Limitations issue is embedded in the case. Please also remember that the law is constantly changing and this blog article may not be up to date. This blog article is not legal advice and refers to the cases and statutes regarding child abuse and the tolling of the statute of limitations in Civil cases.

Concerning Legislation in Salem Will Result in Harm to Children From Unlawful Restraints and Isolation

As reported by Oregonlive, Oregon’s 2025 House Bill 3835 is sparking fierce debate in Salem, with lawmakers, child welfare advocates, and parents deeply divided over its implications for the safety and well-being of the state’s most vulnerable children. At Ross Law, we have represented children in the legal custody of the State of Oregon that were unlawfully restrained in out-of-state facilities or subjected to unsafe treatment. The trauma from untrained and unskilled persons restraining and isolating children for long periods of time can have devastating, long-lasting effects on the child. That is why this legislation is so concerning.

A Dangerous Step Backward for Child Protection

At its core, HB 3835 proposes significant rollbacks to Oregon’s protections for children in care. The bill would narrow the definition of what constitutes abuse when children are restrained, making it easier for staff to physically control kids without triggering investigations. It would also reopen the door for Oregon’s Department of Human Services (DHS) to send foster youth out of state for treatment—despite a documented history of abuse and neglect in such placements.

The proposed changes are not minor tweaks. They would gut key safeguards that prevent vulnerable children from being harmed under the guise of "care." As Disability Rights Oregon aptly put it, HB 3835 is a “blank check” that weakens oversight and makes it “almost impossible to enforce a wide variety of abuse and neglect laws.” The ultimate outcome will be that children are unlawfully restrained and isolated, leading to costly lawsuits against the State and facilities—lawsuits that Ross Law and other Oregon attorneys will bring to hold them accountable. These lawsuits will result in the State of Oregon DHS and CPS and facilities paying significant damages to compensate the children for the harm caused by these unlawful restraints and isolations

The Risk to Children is Real

Ross Law has represented children who were unlawfully restrained, and we know the trauma these practices inflict. Children who have been subjected to unnecessary restraint often suffer lasting physical and psychological harm. That’s why Oregon’s current rules—requiring careful oversight of restraint and seclusion practices—are so critical. They ensure that interventions are truly a last resort, not an easy fallback when staff feel overwhelmed or undertrained.

But HB 3835 threatens to reverse this progress. By loosening definitions of abuse, the bill creates a dangerous gray area where harmful restraint practices could be normalized—and where children may be hurt without accountability.

Out-of-State Placements: A Return to Past Failures

Another deeply troubling aspect of HB 3835 is its push to allow DHS to once again send foster children out of state for care. Oregon previously restricted this practice after horrifying reports of children being mistreated—given drugs like Benadryl as chemical restraints, injured in fights, or assaulted in poorly monitored facilities.

These out of State Facilities have an incentive to pay employees very little and provide little training and supervision in an effort to maximize the profit they receive from each child. When this occurs, children are often subjected to restraint and discipline in an effort to control them with minimal staff being involved. From the facilities’ perspective, it is much easier to isolate and restrain a child rather than spending the time to gain the child’s trust, interact with the child, and work to resolve the issues that are manifesting themselves as behavioral problems.

HB 3835 would allow such placements to resume with little oversight, despite DHS’s own documented failures to protect kids in these settings. Sending children far from their families and communities is not a solution—it is a recipe for more trauma and more lawsuits.

The Push for Change Ignores the Real Problem

Supporters of HB 3835 argue that current laws are too strict and discourage providers from taking on high-needs children. But this argument sidesteps the real issues: a lack of funding for proper training, low pay for frontline staff, and systemic failures within the state’s child welfare system. Loosening protections for kids is not the answer.

As Sen. Sara Gelser Blouin, a longtime champion for children’s rights, has warned, if this bill passes, “harm will occur to kids.” The stakes could not be higher.

Ross Law: Defending Children’s Rights

At Ross Law, we believe that every child deserves safety, dignity, and proper care. We have fought for compensation for children who have been unlawfully restrained and abused—and we stand ready to do so again. Laws like HB 3835 would make it harder to hold bad actors accountable and protect vulnerable kids from harm.

Children in Oregon’s care system have already endured too much. We must not allow the state to retreat from its responsibility to keep them safe. Instead of rolling back protections, Oregon should invest in better training, higher pay, and real reform—not dangerous shortcuts that put children at risk.

If you or someone you know has been abused, neglected, unlawfully restrained, or subjected to isolation while you were in foster care or in custody of the State of Oregon then please call Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658 to discuss your options. Please remember that there are time limitations and notices that may be required to be sent out so it is best to contact an Attorney with experience in suing Oregon’s DHS and Oregons CPS immediately.

Oregon's DHS Disregarding Obligations in Deadly Child Medical Neglect Cases

Oregon lawmakers are pushing back against the Department of Human Services (DHS) Child Protective Services for what they see as a misinterpretation of state law—one that could undermine accountability in the child welfare system. The controversy centers on how DHS determines when to launch a Critical Incident Review (CIR) after a child dies in a household where a prior concern has been reported.

Under Oregon law, a CIR must be conducted when a child dies of suspected abuse or neglect, and the household was previously reported to the state for a suspected abuse concern within the past 12 months. However, Oregon’s DHS has taken a narrower view, saying it only initiates reviews when the initial report met the agency’s own threshold for an "abuse" allegation. Reports that DHS "screens out"—such as those involving children who are sick or lacking emergency contacts—are not counted as abuse concerns, even if they indicate potential risks. DHS’s interpretation permits it to put on legal blinders when addressing its failures to protect medically fragile children.

This interpretation came under fire after DHS failed to conduct a CIR following a child's death in a foster home, despite a prior hotline report about the household. When another child in the same home died a month later, the agency did conduct a review, revealing the earlier case and prompting scrutiny from lawmakers like Sen. Sara Gelser Blouin. She argues that DHS is sidestepping the law’s intent, which is to ensure a review whenever there’s been any prior report of suspected abuse or neglect—whether or not the agency agrees it meets the legal threshold for "abuse."

According to Oregonlive, Gelser Blouin has introduced an amendment to clarify the statute, adding the word “suspected” to make clear that DHS must launch a review whenever there’s a prior report of concern, not just when the agency decides to act on it. The amendment passed the Senate Human Services Committee last week, highlighting the legislature’s frustration with DHS’s approach.

DHS maintains it is following existing protocols and not seeking to reduce the number of reviews. But legislative attorneys disagree, and the proposed amendment underscores the tension between the agency and lawmakers over how Oregon protects vulnerable children.

Senator Blouin’s efforts are critical to ensuring that DHS holds itself accountable, learns from past mistakes, and improves its practices to better protect children. At Ross Law, we are dedicated to helping families when DHS fails in its duty—especially when those failures result in the injury or death of a child. This includes when medically fragile children do not receive the care they need and deserve, and we stand up for families when DHS’s inaction leads to preventable tragedies. If you or someone you know was abused or neglected as a result of Oregon’s DHS’s inaction, please call Oregon lawyer Jeremiah Ross and Ross Law PDX at 503.224.1658 to discuss your options.

Jeremiah Ross Selected to The National Trial Lawyers "Top-100"

Personal Injury and Civil Rights lawyer, Jeremiah Ross, was selected to the 2025 National Trial Lawyers Top 100. According to The National Trial Lawyers, the Top 100 “is an invitation-only professional organization composed of the premier trial lawyers from each state or region who meet precise qualifications as civil plaintiff and/or criminal defense trial lawyers. Selection is based on a thorough multi-phase objective and uniformly applied process which includes peer nominations as well as third-party research. Membership is extended only to a select few of the most qualified attorneys from each state or region who demonstrate superior qualifications of leadership, reputation, influence, stature, and public profile measured by equitable and uniformly applied standards in compliance with state bar and model rule.”


How Passengers injured in an Oregon Crash Can Navigate Insurance to Get Bills Paid

Insurance issues can be complex for people to navigate. They become more complicated when dealing with passengers involved in a car crash or motor vehicle crash. Typically, passengers injured in motor vehicle crashes are focused on getting their medical bills paid first.

Every motor vehicle insurance policy issued in Oregon provides a minimum of $15,000.00 coverage to pay reasonable and necessary crash-related medical bills. Additionally, PIP policies can pay for lost wages and other benefits. The issue with passengers is which insurance policy pays first, and can the injured person use multiple insurance policies?

In Oregon, Personal Injury Protection (PIP) policies can stack, meaning multiple policies may apply to a single accident, especially when medical bills exceed $15,000 within two years. Under ORS 742.526, the law outlines a clear order of which policy pays first when more than one is available:

  1. Primary Coverage: The PIP policy on the vehicle involved in the accident is the first to provide benefits, covering the driver and any passengers. In other words, the vehicle the passenger was riding in will provide coverage first.

  2. Secondary Coverage: If the injured passenger has their own PIP policy (from a different vehicle they own), it can provide additional coverage once the primary policy is exhausted.

  3. Tertiary Coverage: If the injured person lives with a family member who has a PIP policy on another vehicle, that policy may also apply after the first two are maxed out.

This stacking structure ensures that injured parties may access all available coverage options in a tiered manner, offering added financial protection in serious accidents.

Insurance issues are never easy to navigate, and Oregon personal injury lawyers such as Jeremiah Ross work to relieve the stress from dealing with insurers. If you or someone you know has been injured in an Oregon car crash, please call Ross Law at 503.224.1658 for your free personal injury consultation.

Please remember this blog is for informational purposes only. Please do not solely rely on this post and consult with a lawyer and the law. Please remember the law is constantly changing.

Senate Grills Insurance Industry for Putting Profits Over People

When large corporations or government institutions fail everyday people—whether through negligence, bureaucracy, or outright denial of responsibility—Ross Law steps in to fight back. Ross Law and Jeremiah Ross have fought against institutional systemic failures for over a decade. Jeremiah Ross has even been featured in the news for his efforts in fighting insurance corporations’ failures. Now, politicians appear to be attempting to address America’s flawed insurance system that has put people over profits.

In a recent tense and highly charged Senate hearing, the ranking member, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), and others took aim at top insurance executives from Allstate and State Farm for allegedly cutting disaster-related insurance payouts, leaving countless American families struggling after hurricanes, wildfires, and other catastrophic events.

The Senate Homeland Security subcommittee on disaster management grilled executives from Allstate and State Farm. Senators expressed outrage over what was described as systemic failures to support policyholders during times of crisis.

“We’re talking about moms hauling water because pipes are gone, grandparents sleeping in cars, and families maxing out credit cards because their insurance companies won’t pay out,” Hawley said in his opening remarks.

A Spotlight on Real-Life Struggles

The hearing included powerful testimony from whistleblowers and affected homeowners, including Natalia Migal of Georgia. She recounted her experience with Allstate after a massive oak tree collapsed her home’s roof. While an initial adjuster confirmed a significant loss, Migal claimed the insurance company replaced that adjuster with one who minimized the damage. Ultimately, Allstate offered a payout of less than $100,000, despite her independent assessment valuing the damages at nearly $500,000.

The Insurance Companies Response

Mike Fiato, Allstate’s vice president and chief claims officer, defended the company’s actions, highlighting the insurer’s vast operation—23,000 claims professionals serving 8.4 million claims annually—and its $37 billion payout in 2024, including $4.6 billion for 132 disasters.

Fiato insisted that Allstate covered all structural damages in Migal’s case, stating the main dispute was over cosmetic damage. He also emphasized the industry’s heavy regulation by state insurance commissioners.

State Farm’s Operation Officer Michael Keating, avowed that State Farm was made up of “people” and they make mistakes. Keating stated that State Farm will do what it can to address the mismanaged claims that were discussed at the hearing. He claims that State Farm is focused on the long term interest of the policy holders and not profits.

But Senator Hawley was unconvinced.

“It sounds to me like you’re running a system of institutionalized fraud,” Hawley declared, citing sworn testimony from former Allstate adjusters who alleged they were pressured to alter reports and downplay damage estimates.

A Battle Over Trust

Hawley didn't mince words when challenging Allstate’s corporate ethics. Referring to the company’s motto, he quipped:

“You should change your slogan from ‘Our customers’ worst day needs to be our best’ to ‘Our customers’ worst day is our big profit opportunity.’”

He also criticized Allstate CEO Tom Wilson’s $26 million compensation package in 2024, contrasting it with the struggles of homeowners like Migal still waiting for fair settlements.

Allstate responded with a statement asserting that it serves one in 10 U.S. households and has paid over $20 billion in weather-related claims in the past five years.

Looking Ahead

This hearing signals bi-partisan growing scrutiny of the insurance industry’s role in claims handling—and the accountability gap many Americans feel when navigating claims processes after life-altering events. Insurance Companies in Oregon rarely face accountability, because in Oregon there is not a statute with any real consequences that will address “bad faith” when an insurance company wrongfully denies a claim. Currently Oregon Lawyers, such as Jeremiah Ross, have to rely on court decisions to force Insurance Companies to do the right thing and accept coverage for losses. Oregon’s remedies are not sufficeint to ensure that Insurers do not take advantage of Oregonians in their most vulnerable times. It is hopeful current legislation in the Oregon House passes and that there is Federal Law to prevent insrurers putting profits over people.

If you or someone you know has been subjected to an unfair insurance denial in your automobile crash case or homeowners insurance claim please contact an Oregon insurance lawyer, such as Jeremiah Ross, at 503.224.1658. Ross Law has represented numerous clients in insurance denial claims with great success. However, please remember that each case is different and Jeremiah Ross cannot guarantee any outcome.



Ross Law's Sexual Harassment Case Against Rite Aid and Rapist Featured in the News

Portland Television sation KPTV Fox 12 recently reported on a lawsuit Jeremiah Ross and the law offices of Q.E. Kuranz recently filed.

The civil law-suit was filed against Rite Aid and convicted rapist Daniel Luis Cassinelli, who served as a Rite Aid Manager. The legal action has been initiated on behalf of a young woman who suffered persistent sexual harassment while employed at a Rite Aid location in Portland. Despite the victim reporting the harassment to Rite Aid's Human Resources department, her pleas for help were dismissed without proper investigation or protective action.

The lawsuit will seek compensation for the young woman that was subjected to the predatory behavior of Cassinelli and Rite Aid's systemic failure to protect its employees. If you or someone you know were assaulted, sexually abused, or sexually harassed while working at a Portland area Rite Aid please reach out to Ross Law at 503.224.1658 to discuss your legal options, if any.