River at the back door, CPS signed off
On June 17, 2024, a three-year-old boy, identified in court papers as P.S., left a foster home on Happy Valley Road in Wood County and was pulled unresponsive from the Little Kanawha River. He was pronounced dead at WVU Medicine Camden Clark that night. Custody sat with the West Virginia Department of Human Services and Child Protective Services. The clearest failure is the placement itself, a known flight-risk toddler living about 30 yards from open water with no barrier, gate, or alarm. The Wood County Sheriff said no foul play was suspected and closed the case. The record that followed shows how warnings were documented, then ignored, until the worst happened.
In August 2023, Ripley police found P.S. at a park after he slipped out of his mother’s home. His mother, Shyana Townsend, was arrested and charged with neglect, then spent seven days in jail. CPS removed P.S. and placed him with Rebecca and David Prall in Parkersburg. The Prall property sits near a riverside dock. The lawsuit says CPS workers told the Pralls the child was autistic, non-verbal, and had a “tendency to get out of the house undetected.” It also says CPS inspected and certified the home, and that the department knew about the child’s elopement history when it approved a placement beside the river, with no fence, gate, or physical barrier restricting access to the water.
Readers need to know what “elopement” means in this context. It is not running away in the teenage sense. Elopement means a child leaves a safe area without permission or awareness of danger, often silently and quickly. For a non-verbal autistic toddler, elopement can be seconds between a door opening and a body of water. The filings state CPS knew this was a documented pattern for P.S. before and during his time in foster care.
State rules are not vague about water hazards in foster homes. Licensing standards require secure fencing with a locking gate around in-ground or stationary pools, and they direct caregivers to “take measures to prevent unsupervised access” to any water feature. The river was not a backyard pool, but the risk was obvious. Records indicate no perimeter fence between the yard and the riverbank, no door alarms, and no added locks. According to the complaint, CPS and the foster parents discussed adding technology such as door alarms. The filing states the Pralls said they would obtain safety devices, then “never did add any further safety features to their home to detect when P.S. leaves.”
The pattern formed early and did not change. By spring 2024, the boy had gotten out of the Prall home more than once. The suit states CPS knew the child “continued to leave the [Prall] residence.” Each prior escape was a warning that called for a written safety plan, physical safeguards on doors and exits, and a reassessment of the home. The filing describes none of that being implemented before June 17. The result was a placement that relied on vigilance without the basic tools that policy and common practice require.
June 17, 2024 is precise in the record. That evening, the foster mother took out the trash. The child slipped out of the house, reportedly through the back door. The time window was about 10 to 15 minutes. At 8:48 p.m., deputies were dispatched to the Happy Valley Road address for a missing child. Searchers found the boy in the Little Kanawha River near a dock behind the home. Deputies pulled him from the water and performed CPR until medics transported him to Camden Clark, where he was pronounced dead. Sheriff Rick Woodyard said no foul play was suspected, and the sheriff’s office closed the case.
CPS had met with Townsend earlier that same day for a supervised visit. The agency told her her son “continued to leave” the foster residence. Townsend asked CPS to move him to a safer home or return him to her. According to the filings, CPS declined and left him where he was. That decision kept a known elopement-risk toddler in a house by a river without alarms or a barrier, hours before he died.
The lawsuit filed March 6, 2025 in Wood County Circuit Court names the Department of Human Services and the Pralls. It alleges negligent placement, negligent supervision, and failure to implement basic safeguards after prior elopements. It cites the decision to place “within 30 yards of a river” and the absence of any “barrier or gate” as core failures. It alleges CPS refused to reunify despite Townsend’s compliance with court-ordered steps, keeping the child in a setting the record describes as predictably unsafe. The filing seeks damages and a jury trial.
On March 24, 2025, Townsend amended the complaint to add Necco, the private foster care contractor that recruited, trained, and supported the Pralls. The amended filing states CPS relied on Necco to certify and approve the Prall home as safe for this child. It alleges Necco shared responsibility for placing a known elopement-risk toddler beside open water without required safeguards, and for failing to ensure corrective action after prior wanderings. The amendment quotes the core allegation that “CPS and Necco placed Shyana Townsend’s son in a predictably unsafe environment.” The case now sits with the state, the foster parents, and the contractor all named.
What should have happened is not theory. It is the baseline described in the same materials. A child with autism and known elopement risk requires a matched home, a written safety plan tailored to exits and water hazards, and simple equipment such as door chimes and child-safe locks. When a child repeatedly escapes, agencies file a critical incident report, reassess the placement, and either harden the environment or move the child. The filings state none of that occurred. The child “continued to leave,” there was no fence or alarm, and he remained placed next to the water.
The contractor’s role matters because certification is the gate. Necco’s contract duties, as described in the filings, include recruiting and training foster parents and ensuring homes are safe before placement. That means identifying obvious hazards and requiring mitigation as a condition of certification or continued approval. The amended complaint says Necco certified and supported this home without the very safeguards its own process exists to enforce. The questions that follow are straightforward. Did the home study mark the river, the dock, the lack of a barrier, and the child’s profile. Did Necco require fencing or alarms, or did it accept promises that were never kept.
This case does not sit in a vacuum. The filings and public reporting in the packet describe a system straining under a shortage of suitable foster homes and high caseworker turnover. The pattern is familiar. Children with higher needs are placed where there is space, not where there is safety, then monitored by workers with too many cases to enforce corrections fast. That is the context in which CPS and a contractor certified a riverside home for a non-verbal, wandering toddler, documented repeated elopements, and failed to act before a drowning.
The state’s water-safety rules for foster homes make the comparison unavoidable. If a home has a pool, the rules require a fence with a locked gate. If a home has a pond or any water feature, the rules say to take measures to prevent unsupervised access. Here, the water was a river beyond the fence line, but the child’s profile made the hazard part of the home environment. A secure yard, self-latching gate, and door alarms are low-cost and obvious. The filings depict a placement that moved forward without them, then stayed in place after multiple warnings.
The record captures a chain of custody decisions that never squared with the facts on the ground. Hotline to investigator. Investigator to supervisor. Supervisor to contractor. Contractor to court. Each step had a chance to match placement to risk or to force basic safeguards. Each step defaulted to status quo. The child paid for it with his life.
Today, the sheriff’s case is closed. The civil case is open. Townsend seeks a jury trial. Necco is now a defendant with the state and the foster parents. Discovery will test what the paper trail really says about certification, monitoring, and the missed chances after each prior escape. If the process worked as designed, the home study, safety checklist, and monitoring notes will show it. If it did not, those same records will show who signed off and when.
The unanswered questions are specific. Where are the CPS home study and safety checklist that cleared the Prall home, and who signed them. After each elopement, what corrective actions did CPS order, and on what dates. Did Necco’s notes identify the river, the lack of a barrier, or missing door alarms, and what follow-up did Necco document. Why did CPS refuse to move the child on June 17 after telling his mother that he “continued to leave” the home. Who in supervision reviewed those decisions, and what policy allowed a known runner to remain 30 yards from the Little Kanawha River without a fence or alarm.
Have records that answer these questions. Send them. Tips and documents: fuckdcf.paul@pm.me
