Re: Resignation – Human Relations Commission

[Jean Hamilton]

Dear Krista Caraway,

 

On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), I acknowledge your notice of resignation from the Human Relations Commission. Thank you so much for your service to our community, especially your advocacy for our most vulnerable residents.

 

Sincerely,

Jean

 

Jean Hamilton, Chair

Orange County Board of Commissioners

---

From: Krista Caraway <kristaze...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 9:02 AM
To: Rhian Carreker Ford <rhian.car...@gmail.com>; Tanya Warren <twarr...@yahoo.com>; Josh Ravitch <ravi...@yahoo.com>; comm...@shanelukas.com <comm...@shanelukas.com>; Jenn Sykes <sykes.j...@gmail.com>; Kamau (Cory) <kbob...@yahoo.com>; WD Calvin <wdca...@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul Slack <psl...@orangecountync.gov>; Courtney McLaughlin <cmcla...@orangecountync.gov>; Heather Bolduc <hbo...@orangecountync.gov>; Shanelle Harvey <sha...@orangecountync.gov>; ALL_BOCC_MANAGER_CLERK <OCB...@orangecountync.gov>
Subject: Resignation – Human Relations Commission

 

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Phish Alert Button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.

Dear Commissioners,

Please accept this letter as formal notice of my resignation from the Orange County Human Relations Commission, effective immediately.

This decision has not been made lightly. After 2.5 years of sustained advocacy for reform and repair within Orange County systems — particularly as they relate to the safety and dignity of disabled residents — my family has concluded that we must relocate out of Orange County for our safety and long-term stability.

I remain proud of the work accomplished during my tenure, including the development of the Human Rights Proclamation and the thoughtful discussions that generated meaningful momentum around equity and accountability. Those efforts matter.

At the same time, advocacy without institutional accountability has proven unsustainable. It is difficult to reconcile the spirit of a Human Rights Proclamation with the lived experience of families navigating preventable systemic harm.

For context, I am forwarding a portion of the relevant correspondence below. In writing, the Orange County Attorney stated there were “no programmatic insufficiencies,” despite the sequence of events that ultimately led to DHHS initiating an external review. The County Manager and Board were notified of specific breakdowns and directed me to contact the DHHS hotline rather than exercising local corrective authority. That referral is what triggered the current state-level review.

What I have consistently sought is not personal advocacy, but structured mediation, meaningful corrective action, and transparency — the kind of systemic repair that aligns with the Commission’s stated values.

I am grateful for the colleagues who engaged sincerely in this work. I will continue advocating for human rights, disability equity, and systems accountability wherever I land next.

With respect,

Krista Zelt Caraway

Disability advocate · community builder · guardian

North Carolina

Unapologetic Mercy — Substack

Always working toward safer, kinder communities.

Below is confidential - forwarding for transparency and clarity for the HRC: 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Krista Caraway <kristaze...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 10:03 AM
Subject: Follow-up: Track A timeline + document recovery point of contact (Lexi)
To: Lindsey Shewmaker <lshew...@orangecountync.gov>
CC: <anthony...@dhhs.nc.gov>

Ms. Shewmaker,

Following my email of Jan 16, I’m checking in because I did not receive a reply. For clarity, I am not requesting confidential APS content in this follow-up, only timelines, points of contact, and confirmation of current benefit control.

To keep this moving constructively, could you please confirm the following in writing:

1. Track A: Estimated timeframe for completion of attorney review of releasable records and when you will schedule record review with me as Lexi’s guardian.

2. Identity documents: Name/phone/email of the DSS staff person assigned to assist with locating county of birth and coordinating replacement of Lexi’s certified birth certificate and Social Security card.

3. Benefits verification: Written confirmation that no benefits remain under the control of any prior caretaker and the appropriate point of contact for benefit-related questions.

If I don’t hear back by February 23, 2026, I will move forward with requesting assistance through alternative channels as we prepare to relocate in order to stabilize Lexi’s care and documentation.

Respectfully,

Krista Zelt Caraway

Legal Guardian of Lexi

CC: Anthony Hodges, NCDHHS

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Krista Caraway <kristaze...@gmail.com<mailto:kristaze...@gmail.com>>
Date: Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: Confidentiality, Review Process, and Immediate Protective Action – Lexi
To: Lindsey Shewmaker <lshew...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:lshew...@orangecountync.gov>>



Ms. Shewmaker,

Thank you for your response and for acknowledging the two-track approach. I want to respond specifically to your comments regarding Track B and, respectfully, ask that you step back and view this situation with fresh eyes — separate from the misinformation that has followed Lexi and my household for years.

I want to clarify several points that are essential to understanding why this is not a routine guardianship matter and why the response to date has felt misaligned.

First, I am not seeking charity, emergency assistance, or short-term crisis relief. I am also not “just a guardian” in the typical sense. In practice, I am doing what foster parents, transition teams, and child-welfare systems normally do together: reconstructing the life of a disabled person whose history, identity, finances, medical narrative, and family story were fragmented and distorted by abuse and systemic failure.

Lexi was adopted in Orange County in 2022 with a waived welfare check and no home visit or study, based on information provided by records. Her name was changed by her perpetrator without her knowledge or consent, required fees were never paid, and critical identity documents were not preserved or transferred. I personally drove to Raleigh and paid fees myself to begin correcting this — and I still need assistance because this goes far beyond what an ordinary guardian should have to untangle alone.

I am piecing together foundational questions no system ever resolved: Who are Lexi’s parents? Why was she removed from them? How did she end up placed with someone later criminally convicted of neglect with injury — someone whose own biological children have verified patterns of physical, emotional, and financial abuse, including taking out loans and credit cards in their names and keeping the money? This is not clerical work. It is reconstructive care after collapse.

Second, I need to address the persistent — and demonstrably false — narrative that my family is “well off.” That assertion came directly from Lexi’s perpetrator and appears to have been accepted without verification.

The reality is this: all four of my children receive free school lunches. Additionally, for three consecutive years, my children were not invited to the Toy Chest program, despite meeting clear indicators of financial need. That exclusion reflects how misinformation was allowed to stand unchallenged.

The impact is now undeniable. We are having to say to one of our sons, “I’m sorry — we can’t afford for you to play basketball this season.” That is not abstract hardship. It is a direct consequence of the ongoing, uncompensated cost of stabilizing a disabled adult after system failure, costs that include incontinence supplies, hygiene items, clothing, transportation, and daily care essentials. These are not discretionary expenses; they are required for health and dignity. And they are now taking resources away from other children in our household.

I also want to be clear about intent. I never sought to adopt or foster. My husband and I made permanent reproductive decisions years ago; our family was complete. I stepped in as a neighbor and a human being when a disabled adult was in danger, believing — sincerely — that the system would provide the coordination, support, and parity of care that typically accompany such intervention. Instead, the responsibility has been shifted almost entirely onto a private household.

This is why Track B cannot be framed as helping me “navigate” things I can do myself. The issue is not whether I can stand in line at a register of deeds. The issue is that these problems exist because systems failed earlier, and correcting them requires institutional participation, not referrals to charity programs designed for unrelated short-term hardship.

What I am asking for is alignment — not waiver of law, not special treatment — but recognition that this case is unusually complex and requires a response calibrated to reality, not assumptions. My goal remains cooperative, lawful resolution that stabilizes Lexi’s life and prevents further harm to my family.

I appreciate your willingness to engage, and I am hopeful that with a reset in framing, we can move forward constructively.

Respectfully,

Krista Zelt Caraway
Legal Guardian of Lexi
Private Citizen, Orange County, North Carolina


On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 8:57 AM Lindsey Shewmaker <lshew...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:lshew...@orangecountync.gov>> wrote:
Ms. Caraway,

Good morning. I appreciate your recommended two-track approach and think that sounds great. I am also glad you were able to request an official review with DHHS.

For track A, I will keep you informed regarding the attorney review of releasable records and when they are ready, I will reach out to schedule a time to review them.

For track B, I need a little bit of assistance to fully understand your questions and resource needs. You mention Lexi’s birth certificate as an example. As her guardian, you have a legal right to request a copy of that document and would just need to provide your legal documents to the register of deeds in the appropriate County. We can help you locate the county of her birth if that is part of the barrier you are facing.

You mention financial needs in a few areas and while the County has no funding source to support adult guardianship with some type of monthly stipend, we do have other financial assistance programs that may help with acute needs your family is experiencing. These programs have funding guidelines and eligibility requirements but can help with things like utility payments or a month’s rent for families who qualify. If you would be interested in this type of support, I can identify a social worker to reach out to you directly to talk through that process. <https://www.google.com/maps/search/orangecountync.gov+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+113+Mayo+Street+%0D%0A+Hillsborough,+NC+27278?entry=gmail&source=g>
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/orangecountync.gov+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+113+Mayo+Street+%0D%0A+Hillsborough,+NC+27278?entry=gmail&source=g>

<https://www.google.com/maps/search/orangecountync.gov+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+113+Mayo+Street+%0D%0A+Hillsborough,+NC+27278?entry=gmail&source=g>
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/orangecountync.gov+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+113+Mayo+Street+%0D%0A+Hillsborough,+NC+27278?entry=gmail&source=g>
Lindsey Shewmaker, Director
Orange County Department of Social Services
(919) 245-2817
lshew...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:lshew...@orangecountync.gov>

113 Mayo Street<https://www.google.com/maps/search/orangecountync.gov+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+113+Mayo+Street+%0D%0A+Hillsborough,+NC+27278?entry=gmail&source=g>
Hillsborough, NC 27278<https://www.google.com/maps/search/orangecountync.gov+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+113+Mayo+Street+%0D%0A+Hillsborough,+NC+27278?entry=gmail&source=g>


<image001.png>

From: Krista Caraway <kristaze...@gmail.com<mailto:kristaze...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2026 1:15 PM
To: Lindsey Shewmaker <lshew...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:lshew...@orangecountync.gov>>
Cc: Travis Myren <tmy...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:tmy...@orangecountync.gov>>; Caitlin Fenhagen <cfen...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:cfen...@orangecountync.gov>>; John Roberts <joro...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:joro...@orangecountync.gov>>
Subject: RE: Confidentiality, Review Process, and Immediate Protective Action – Lexi


CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Phish Alert Button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.

Ms. Shewmaker,

Thank you for your response and for outlining the confidentiality framework governing APS records. I understand and respect the requirements of N.C.G.S. §108A-80 and the related administrative code provisions, and I have been careful not to seek or disclose information outside what I am lawfully entitled to as Lexi’s Guardian of the Person.

That said, I need to clearly name the underlying problem that remains unresolved and continues to cause harm.

I am not an attorney. I am a private citizen who intervened when a disabled adult was in life-threatening danger and the system failed to act. Like many guardians, I have been forced to learn statutory and administrative law quickly and reactively — not by choice, but by necessity — simply to secure safety, records, identity documents, benefits stabilization, and basic continuity of care.

What has been deeply troubling is that DSS legal counsel appears to be operating exclusively in a defensive posture: emphasizing confidentiality and liability containment without providing a clear, lawful pathway toward stabilization and repair. The law is being presented primarily as a set of prohibitions, rather than as a framework that also contains authorized mechanisms for disclosure, correction, stabilization, and prevention of recurrence.

I want to be explicit: I do not dispute confidentiality law. I am asking why it is being used primarily to limit action and communication now, when timely protective action and transparent process should have occurred long before confidentiality became the Department’s primary talking point.

Put plainly: confidentiality would not be the barrier it is being invoked as today if DSS/APS had acted when mandated reporters raised alarms and when conditions were escalating. Instead, the practical effect of the current posture is that the system appears to protect itself — and, by extension, those who caused harm — more vigorously than it protected the disabled adult who was harmed.

I am using careful language here, but the lived reality is this: when protective services do not intervene until after law enforcement action, and then emphasize confidentiality and process over accountability and repair, it reads as institutional self-protection and cover for failure.

Beyond confidentiality, there are operational decisions in this case that remain beyond comprehension. According to the public record and reported timeline, APS required Lexi to be returned to an unsafe environment in order to “investigate,” and she was returned. She was then left there without a protective plan that prevented continued risk, without meaningful follow-up that ensured her safety, and without immediate corrective action that would have prevented further harm. Regardless of what can be disclosed from the APS file, the fact pattern itself reflects a catastrophic breakdown in protective practice.

This is also why I cannot accept “confidentiality” as the primary response to a case where multiple mandated reporters raised concerns and a disabled adult ultimately suffered confirmed harm. Confidentiality law does not exist to shield institutional failure; it exists to protect vulnerable people.

The role of DSS counsel and the burden placed on a non-attorney guardian

I do not dispute the existence of legal limits. I am asking why DSS legal counsel has not assisted in identifying lawful routes forward.

Specifically:

• Why has DSS legal counsel not assisted in identifying lawful disclosure pathways within my authority as Guardian of the Person?
• Why has no guidance been offered regarding when a court order, limited estate authority, or other lawful mechanism would be appropriate — and how DSS could assist in that process?
• Why has counsel not helped identify lawful methods for accounting for and recovering funds owed to Lexi that do not jeopardize her SSI eligibility?
• Why has the burden of navigating these barriers been shifted almost entirely onto a non-attorney no-foster / adoptive guardian, while institutional actors retain counsel and control the process?

This dynamic does not advance compliance, protection, or repair. It delays resolution and increases harm.

Setting the record straight

Finally, I need to be clear about narrative harm. Lexi’s perpetrator has spread misinformation about Lexi as a person. As her legal guardian — and as her voice until she can fully find and express her own — I will continue to correct misinformation and set the record straight through lawful channels. Nothing about that requires disclosure of protected APS information.

Protection of my household

I also need to ask a question that remains unanswered:

Who is protecting my family of six and our disability community at large?

My household absorbed the full financial, emotional, and logistical burden of stabilizing a disabled adult after documented system failure. We did so without parity of services, without stabilization support, and while navigating prolonged silence from systems charged with protection. Meanwhile:

• my family remains financially exposed,
• stabilization supports remain unresolved,
• reimbursement and fund-recovery pathways remain unclear, and
• no safeguards have been articulated to ensure my household is not further harmed or retaliated against for raising concerns.

Protection cannot be one-directional.

External review and clarification of “review” claims

You noted the option of contacting NCDHHS constituent concerns. I appreciate that guidance. I want to be clear that I have now submitted a formal written request to NCDHHS leadership requesting an independent external review to ensure appropriate routing, transparency, and a written record.

To avoid confusion or duplicative processes, please confirm in writing:

• whether DSS or the County contacted DHHS regarding this matter,
• when any internal review was initiated and completed,
• the role or division involved (titles only; names not required), and
• the scope of what was reviewed.

I am not requesting confidential APS content in that response — only process and scope.

Path forward (two-track structure)

To move forward lawfully and constructively, I am requesting:

  1.  A two-track process:

Track A: Guardian-only access to APS records within my lawful authority.

Track B: A separate, non-confidential meeting addressing operational and stabilization matters (records timelines, identity document recovery, benefits stabilization, lawful fund-recovery mechanisms, and points of contact). This meeting can be structured to avoid any disclosure of confidential APS information.

  1.  Written timelines for:

• records production within lawful bounds,
• assistance with birth certificate and Social Security replacement,
• benefits stabilization, and
• identification of lawful mechanisms for accounting for and recovering funds owed to Lexi.

  1.  Assurance that my household will not face further harm, surveillance, or retaliation as a result of pursuing these remedies.

I am not asking DSS to waive the law.
I am asking DSS — and its legal counsel — to use the law as it was intended: to protect vulnerable people and to support lawful guardianship when systems fail.

Please advise how you propose to proceed.

Respectfully,

Krista Zelt Caraway
Legal Guardian of Lexi
Private Citizen, Orange County, North Carolina

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 10:21 AM Lindsey Shewmaker <lshew...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:lshew...@orangecountync.gov>> wrote:
Ms. Caraway,

I want to share some context about APS cases under North Carolina law that may help in responding to your request below. North Carolina law provides strict confidentiality protections for records maintained by the Department of Social Services (“DSS”), including Adult Protective Services (“APS”) records. APS records are confidential pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 108A-80 and Title 10A of the North Carolina Administrative Code.

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. 108A-80, DSS is legally required to protect the confidentiality of information obtained in the course of providing protective services. Specifically, the statute states, “it shall be unlawful for any person to obtain, disclose or use, or to authorize, permit, or acquiesce in the use any list of names or other information concerning persons applying for or receiving public assistance or social services that may be directly or indirectly derived from the records.” N.C. Gen. Stat. 108A-80. Certain categories of information contained within an APS case file receive heightened confidentiality under North Carolina law, including but not limited to the identity of the reporters and witnesses in an APS case, 10A NCAC 71A .0802, specific findings contained in APS evaluation reports absent the consent of the disabled adult or a court order, 10A NCAC 71A .0803, and information protected by other state or federal confidentiality laws, 10A NCAC 69 .0301.

Pursuant to 10A NCAC 69 .0301 a DSS client has the right to access information about themselves, subject to statutory exceptions. Under 10A NCAC 69 .0101(1), a court-appointed guardian acting within the scope of a valid legal order may act on behalf of the client for purposes of record access.  Accordingly, DSS is able to share limited information in Lexi’s APS file with you in your capacity as her legally appointed Guardian of the Person. However, because your Letters of Appointment authorize you to have custody, care, and control of the ward, but expressly state that you have no authority to receive, manage, or administer the ward’s property, estate, or business affairs, DSS has limited disclosure to records reasonably related to Lexi’s health, safety, care, and personal welfare. All information outside the scope of your authority or required by law to remain confidential absent a court order will be redacted or withheld.

DSS is strictly bound by the above-referenced confidentiality laws and is prohibited from disclosing APS case information to third parties. Unauthorized disclosure of protected information may subject the Department and its employees to legal consequences. Neither DSS nor you have the authority to waive the right of confidentiality held by Lexi. The information provided to you is disclosed solely for the purposes related to your duties as the guardian and the care and welfare of Lexi. Therefore, neither Commissioner Jamezetta Bedford nor Carol Conway may attend a meeting wherein confidential information about Lexi is disclosed.

Lastly, please be advised that redisclosure to third parties of confidential information of those receiving public assistance or social services currently or in the past is unlawful except as authorized by law, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 108A-80. Sharing confidential APS case information provided to you as guardian of Lexi is similarly prohibited and may have legal consequences. If you believe additional information is needed to perform your duties as guardian of Lexi, you may seek a court order.

I hope this information helps move this process forward with a mutual understanding of when, what, and how information regarding DSS services and APS specifically can be shared.

I also understand that you have asked the Board of County Commissioners for a review of this case. The best way to make a formal request for review of any case involving DSS is through contacting NCDHHS constituent concerns at 919-527-6340. They will refer your complaint to the Division of Aging and Adult Services who will perform a review of the case and respond to you. I can share with you, as Lexi’s guardian, <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/orangecountync.gov**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*113*Mayo*Street**A0D*0A*Hillsborough,*NC*27278?entry=gmail&source=g__;KyUlKyUlKyUlKysrKyUlKysr!!BRblJqMRC2tk!QvGyuKfuqx4YqO-Vxt6gocTq4Y9xSLWVZVEG9DEIBh86jVtEgWrcdNh1hfROQSH-qzZZcTNJqrFz8E0BuSw90ryIS2R6HBB6BCteVw$> that we have done an internal review of the case as well. We take all complaints seriously and want to make sure our social work practice is continuously improved. Please let me know how you would like to proceed.
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/orangecountync.gov+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+113%0D%0A+Mayo+Street+%0D%0A+Hillsborough,%0D%0A+NC+27278?entry=gmail&source=g>

<https://www.google.com/maps/search/orangecountync.gov+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+113%0D%0A+Mayo+Street+%0D%0A+Hillsborough,%0D%0A+NC+27278?entry=gmail&source=g>
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/orangecountync.gov+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+113%0D%0A+Mayo+Street+%0D%0A+Hillsborough,%0D%0A+NC+27278?entry=gmail&source=g>
Lindsey Shewmaker, Director
Orange County Department of Social Services
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/orangecountync.gov+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+113%0D%0A+Mayo+Street+%0D%0A+Hillsborough,%0D%0A+NC+27278?entry=gmail&source=g>
(919) 245-2817
lshew...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:lshew...@orangecountync.gov>

113 Mayo Street<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/orangecountync.gov**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*113*Mayo*Street**A0D*0A*Hillsborough,*NC*27278?entry=gmail&source=g__;KyUlKyUlKyUlKysrKyUlKysr!!BRblJqMRC2tk!QvGyuKfuqx4YqO-Vxt6gocTq4Y9xSLWVZVEG9DEIBh86jVtEgWrcdNh1hfROQSH-qzZZcTNJqrFz8E0BuSw90ryIS2R6HBB6BCteVw$>
Hillsborough, NC 27278<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/orangecountync.gov**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*113*Mayo*Street**A0D*0A*Hillsborough,*NC*27278?entry=gmail&source=g__;KyUlKyUlKyUlKysrKyUlKysr!!BRblJqMRC2tk!QvGyuKfuqx4YqO-Vxt6gocTq4Y9xSLWVZVEG9DEIBh86jVtEgWrcdNh1hfROQSH-qzZZcTNJqrFz8E0BuSw90ryIS2R6HBB6BCteVw$>


<image001.png>

From: Krista Caraway <kristaze...@gmail.com<mailto:kristaze...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 3:18 PM
To: Lindsey Shewmaker <lshew...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:lshew...@orangecountync.gov>>
Cc: Carol Conway <carol.an...@gmail.com<mailto:carol.an...@gmail.com>>; Jamezetta Bedford <jbed...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:jbed...@orangecountync.gov>>
Subject: Re: Clarification of Review Statement and Requests for Immediate Administrative Action


CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Phish Alert Button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.

Ms. Shewmaker,

Thank you for your willingness to meet.

I am agreeable to meeting; however, it is important that the meeting be structured to address operational stabilization, parity of services, and financial reimbursement, not records review alone, and that it occur in a neutral and appropriate setting.

Participants

To ensure appropriate authority and productive coordination, I am requesting that the meeting include:

  *   Commissioner Jamezetta Bedford, newly elected Chair of the DSS Board, attending in her official governance capacity as a neutral elected official to help bridge DSS operations and County leadership and support clarity, alignment, and resolution;
  *   Carol Conway, a long-standing disability advocate who has been involved in this matter for an extended period and has previously raised concerns directly with DSS and County leadership; and
  *   myself, as Lexi’s legal guardian.

For DSS, I request that attendees include:

  *   yourself; and
  *   appropriate DSS leadership with authority to address records, stabilization supports, and financial reimbursement.

To maintain focus and trust, I ask that Kim Fisher and Angela Riley not attend this meeting.

Meeting Scope

To ensure the meeting results in concrete outcomes, I am requesting that the following items be included on the agenda:

1. Records and Documentation

  *   Status and timeline for full release of all DSS-held records related to Lexi (APS, CPS, placement, and payment records).
  *   Identification and correction of any missing, incomplete, or inaccurate records.

2. Financial Handling and Reimbursement of Funds Owed

  *   Foster care payments allocated during Lexi’s placement transition.
  *   SSI funds retained or misdirected while she was under DSS oversight.
  *   Any additional public funds designated for her care during that period.

It is a matter of record that the prior caretaker received public funds while Lexi was being neglected and abused, and those funds did not follow Lexi into her current safe placement. As a result, the full cost of Lexi’s care was covered out-of-pocket by my household.

Accordingly, these funds must now be recovered and reimbursed to my household, which advanced the funds for Lexi’s care. The funds should not be transferred directly to Lexi, as doing so would place her at risk of losing SSI and other disability-based benefits.

3. Supplies and Supports Issued During Temporary Placement

  *   Clarification regarding supplies and material supports issued by DSS during Lexi’s temporary placement that did not ultimately benefit Lexi.
  *   Accounting of how those supplies were tracked, transferred, or recovered when Lexi left that placement.

4. Stabilization Supports and Parity of Services

Lexi is now safe, but the full cost of that safety has been assumed by a private household. I am requesting stabilization supports at minimum equal to those provided by DSS during Lexi’s temporary placement, including:

  *   Immediate provision of material stabilization supplies (incontinence supplies/“chux,” bed pads, wipes, gloves, hygiene and sanitation items);
  *   Clothing, coats, shoes, backpack, and school essentials;
  *   A monthly placement stabilization stipend equivalent to what DSS provides during temporary placements; and
  *   A one-time stabilization payment consistent with standard DSS practice during placement transitions.

These requests are based on parity and continuity of care and do not require a finding of wrongdoing.

5. Identity Documents and Benefits Stabilization

  *   Assistance in recovering or replacing Lexi’s certified birth certificate and Social Security card.
  *   Confirmation that all current and future benefits are properly secured for Lexi.

6. Point of Contact and Timelines

  *   Designation of a DSS point of contact with decision-making authority.
  *   Clear written timelines for implementation of the above items.

Meeting Location

I am not willing to meet at the DSS office where prior observations of my family and Lexi occurred and where determinations were made based on misinformation rather than input from professionals, educators, and caregivers. That setting is not appropriate or neutral given the history and would not support a productive or trauma-informed meeting.

I am open to:

  *   a neutral county facility,
  *   a conference room at a public building, or
  *   a virtual meeting if that is preferable.

Please propose several dates, times, and neutral location options so we can move forward promptly. My goal is for this meeting to result in concrete action that stabilizes Lexi’s care and appropriately reconciles public resources without further delay.

Thank you. I look forward to your response.

Respectfully,

Krista Zelt Caraway
Legal Guardian of Lexi
Orange County, North Carolina
⚖️ Commissioner, Orange County, North Carolina - Human Relations Commission 🕊️ Office of Civil Rights and Civic Life
🧠 Chair, Orange County, North Carolina CFAC (Consumer & Family Advisory Committee) – Alliance Health & County Government
✍️ Author: Unapologetic Mercy on Substack
🎙️ Podcast: Unapologetic Mercy on Spotify


On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 2:21 PM Lindsey Shewmaker <lshew...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:lshew...@orangecountync.gov>> wrote:
Good afternoon, Ms. Conway. I want to acknowledge receipt of your email below. As John has noted, your request for case record information is currently being reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office and we will share that information with you as soon as we are able. I was not in this role when you became Lexi’s guardian and I do not believe we have had an opportunity to meet yet. I would be happy to arrange a time with you to go over records and try to answer <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/orangecountync.gov**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*113*Mayo*Street**A0D*0A*Hillsborough,*NC*27278?entry=gmail&source=g__;KyUlKyUlKyUlKysrKyUlKysr!!BRblJqMRC2tk!V2MBZ4zLzeB_LhkDzHNeLnjVZevZZ8U_RQH1cbh-WBLiCDMHPUA7NdOalhMbamRqzLWSv3NrdCOCrBXwsN-FuO-uBw-87k93GjrNaw$> your questions.

Lindsey Shewmaker, Director
Orange County Department of Social Services
(919) 245-2817
lshew...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:lshew...@orangecountync.gov>

113 Mayo Street<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/orangecountync.gov**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*113*Mayo*Street**A0D*0A*Hillsborough,*NC*27278?entry=gmail&source=g__;KyUlKyUlKyUlKysrKyUlKysr!!BRblJqMRC2tk!V2MBZ4zLzeB_LhkDzHNeLnjVZevZZ8U_RQH1cbh-WBLiCDMHPUA7NdOalhMbamRqzLWSv3NrdCOCrBXwsN-FuO-uBw-87k93GjrNaw$>
Hillsborough, NC 27278<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/orangecountync.gov**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*113*Mayo*Street**A0D*0A*Hillsborough,*NC*27278?entry=gmail&source=g__;KyUlKyUlKyUlKysrKyUlKysr!!BRblJqMRC2tk!V2MBZ4zLzeB_LhkDzHNeLnjVZevZZ8U_RQH1cbh-WBLiCDMHPUA7NdOalhMbamRqzLWSv3NrdCOCrBXwsN-FuO-uBw-87k93GjrNaw$>


<image001.png>

From: Krista Caraway <kristaze...@gmail.com<mailto:kristaze...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 1:45 PM
To: John Roberts <joro...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:joro...@orangecountync.gov>>
Cc: Travis Myren <tmy...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:tmy...@orangecountync.gov>>; Lindsey Shewmaker <lshew...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:lshew...@orangecountync.gov>>; Carol Conway <carol.an...@gmail.com<mailto:carol.an...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Clarification of Review Statement and Requests for Immediate Administrative Action


CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Phish Alert Button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.

Mr. Roberts,

Thank you for your response.

I am writing to clarify the record and identify specific, outstanding actions that remain necessary regardless of the County’s position on supervisory authority or fault.

I align with Ms. Carol Conway’s request for specificity regarding the statement that staff with the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services reviewed this matter and “found no programmatic insufficiencies.” Given the extensive prior notice to County and DSS leadership, clarity regarding this claim is essential.

For transparency and accuracy, please identify:

  *   the DHHS division that conducted this review;
  *   the date(s) on which the review occurred;
  *   the scope of what was reviewed (e.g., APS response timelines, placement decisions, financial handling, duty-of-care obligations);
  *   whether the review included the Guardian ad Litem report authored by former Orange County Judge Jay Bryan;
  *   whether the review included the findings of The News & Observer’s independent investigation published December 11–14, 2025; and
  *   whether any DHHS reviewer contacted or engaged with any of the following individuals or entities, and if so, on what dates:

• Lexi, the harmed individual;
• myself, Krista Zelt Caraway, legal guardian;
• Carol Conway, disability advocate who raised concerns repeatedly beginning September 2024;
• Lexi’s care team, including direct support providers and clinicians;
• Lexi’s school team, including educators and administrators involved in her return to school following removal from an unsafe placement.

For clarity, I want to note the following documented outreach by Ms. Conway and myself, none of which resulted in DHHS engagement with Lexi or her support network:

  *   September 12–16, 2024: Carol Conway and I contacted County leadership and DSS regarding urgent safety concerns, including communication facilitated by Travis Myren and Phyllis Portie-Ascott to Jane Garrett, Chair of the DSS Board.
  *   September–December 2024: Multiple follow-ups were made raising concerns documented in the Guardian ad Litem report.
  *   December 11–15, 2025: Following publication of The News & Observer investigation, Ms. Conway and I again contacted County and DSS leadership, including the Board of County Commissioners and DSS Board members, requesting clarification, review, and corrective action.

To my knowledge, at no point during or after these periods did any DHHS representative contact Lexi, her legal guardian, her care team, or her school team. If this understanding is incorrect, please identify who was contacted, by whom, and on what date(s).

This information is necessary to assess the nature, credibility, and completeness of the review referenced.

Separately, and independent of any determination of wrongdoing, there remain administrative, financial, and stabilization matters that require action.

For the record, Carol Conway and I attempted to resolve these issues directly with the DSS Director. Those efforts did not result in assistance or resolution and instead led to continued silence and deflection, necessitating the requests below.

Requests to DSS (Operational, Stabilization, and Non-Discretionary)

Ms. Shewmaker, as Lexi’s legal guardian, I am requesting the following actions from DSS:

  1.  Records
Written confirmation of the timeline for full release of all DSS-held records related to Lexi, including APS, CPS, placement, and payment records.
  2.  Identity Documents
Direct DSS assistance in recovering or replacing Lexi’s certified birth certificate and Social Security card, which were not transferred when she was removed from an unsafe placement.
  3.  Benefits Stabilization
Administrative assistance to confirm that all related public benefits are now properly secured for Lexi and that no benefits remain under the control of any prior caretaker.
  4.  Stabilization Support (Equivalent to Foster Care Placement)
Provision of immediate stabilization supports comparable to those routinely provided in foster care placements, including but not limited to:

     *   assistance with essential needs and care coordination;
     *   administrative support during transition from an unsafe placement; and
     *   guidance and resources typically offered to stabilize a ward following removal.

My household assumed full responsibility for Lexi’s care following system failure, and stabilization supports should not be withheld based solely on caregiver classification.

  1.  Recovery of Funds Owed to Lexi
Identification of the process for recovery and repayment of public funds owed to Lexi, including foster care and SSI funds that were not transferred and were instead covered out-of-pocket by my household following system failure.
  2.  Meeting Request
A meeting at the earliest available date with:

     *   Ms. Lindsey Shewmaker,
     *   a representative of DSS leadership or the DSS Board,
     *   Carol Conway, and
     *   myself,

for the limited purpose of addressing records production, document recovery, benefits stabilization, stabilization supports, fund recovery, and designation of a point of contact going forward.

These requests do not require a finding of fault. They reflect standard stabilization and administrative actions typically taken when a disabled ward is removed from an unsafe environment and are necessary to protect Lexi’s well-being.

Request to the County

If the County maintains that it has no supervisory role with respect to DSS, please identify the appropriate authority or office responsible for addressing administrative remediation, stabilization support, and financial recovery when public funds intended for a disabled ward were not transferred and the cost of care was assumed by a private household.

I am not requesting re-investigation. I am requesting clarity, documentation, and fulfillment of outstanding administrative, stabilization, and financial obligations so that Lexi’s needs are met without further delay.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your response.
Respectfully,
Krista Zelt Caraway
Guardian and Private Citizen of Orange County, NC
⚖️ Commissioner, Orange County, North Carolina - Human Relations Commission 🕊️ Office of Civil Rights and Civic Life
🧠 Chair, Orange County, North Carolina CFAC (Consumer & Family Advisory Committee) – Alliance Health & County Government
✍️ Author: Unapologetic Mercy on Substack
🎙️ Podcast: Unapologetic Mercy on Spotify


On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 11:16 AM John Roberts <joro...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:joro...@orangecountync.gov>> wrote:
Ms. Caraway,

Your records request was received and is being processed.

Regarding your other concerns, Orange County has no supervisory or managerial oversight of the Department of Social Services (“Department”).  Should you have concerns about programs or services at the Department you should contact the Department Director.  I will note that both Department staff and staff with the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services have reviewed the Department’s activities related to your ward and have found no programmatic insufficiencies.

John L. Roberts
Orange County Attorney
919-245-2318

<image002.jpg>

From: Krista Caraway <kristaze...@gmail.com<mailto:kristaze...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 8:31 AM
To: Travis Myren <tmy...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:tmy...@orangecountync.gov>>; John Roberts <joro...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:joro...@orangecountync.gov>>
Cc: Lindsey Shewmaker <lshew...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:lshew...@orangecountync.gov>>
Subject: Second Follow-Up and Request for Acknowledgment (Original Email Jan 2)


CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Phish Alert Button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.

Dear Mr. Myron, Mr. Roberts, and Ms. Shewmaker,

I am following up again on my email sent and received on Friday, January 2, 2025, for which I have not yet received an acknowledgment.

I want to clarify an important point for the record: there is nothing outstanding to investigate.

The facts have already been reviewed and established through:

  *   a Guardian ad Litem report authored by Jay Bryan, a former Orange County judge appointed to serve as Lexi’s GAL;
  *   extensive review of records and findings documented in that report, which is a matter of public record; and
  *   an independent investigation by The News & Observer, which included verification with multiple legal teams.

These reviews reached consistent conclusions regarding systemic failures within DSS. As such, my request is not for a new inquiry or duplicative review, but for acknowledgment, accountability, and clarity regarding next procedural steps.

I recognize and respect the importance of privacy laws, which appropriately protect individual medical and personal information. However, my request does not seek disclosure of confidential or identifying details. The findings at issue are already documented in public records and independently verified. Privacy laws do not negate the County’s responsibility to acknowledge substantiated, systemic failures or to communicate transparently about process, accountability, and corrective action.

This matter involves life-threatening harm to a disabled individual under county oversight. Continued silence—particularly when framed as a privacy concern—does not align with the scope or gravity of what has already been publicly documented.

For ease of reference, I am attaching the Guardian ad Litem report.

At minimum, I am requesting:

  *   confirmation that my January 2 email has been received and reviewed, and
  *   identification of the appropriate contact or process moving forward.

Silence in matters of this seriousness has impact. A brief acknowledgment would be a meaningful first step toward transparency, accountability, and repair.

Sincerely,
Krista Zelt Caraway

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Caitlin Fenhagen <cfen...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:cfen...@orangecountync.gov>>
Date: Fri, Jan 2, 2026 at 9:16 AM
Subject: RE: Request for Meaningful Repair – Disabled Ward System Failure
To: Krista Caraway <kristaze...@gmail.com<mailto:kristaze...@gmail.com>>

Dear Krista,

I have forwarded your email to the County Attorney, County Manager and DSS Director.

Thank you,
Cait


Caitlin Fenhagen
Deputy Manager
Office: 919-245-2303
Mobile: 919-423-4272
Email: cfen...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:cfen...@orangecountync.gov>

<image003.png>

From: Krista Caraway <kristaze...@gmail.com<mailto:kristaze...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, January 2, 2026 9:05 AM
To: Caitlin Fenhagen <cfen...@orangecountync.gov<mailto:cfen...@orangecountync.gov>>
Subject: Request for Meaningful Repair – Disabled Ward System Failure


CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Phish Alert Button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.

Please consider this correspondence formal notice and route internally to the County Attorney and appropriate executive leadership.
Request for Meaningful Repair Following System Failure Involving a Disabled Ward

To: Orange County, North Carolina
From: Krista Zelt Caraway
Re: Repair Framework – Disabled Ward (Lexi) and Household Harm

Purpose

I am writing to request meaningful repair following documented failures by Orange County systems to protect a disabled ward. These failures resulted in substantial financial, emotional, and systemic harm to both the ward and my entire household.

This request is made in good faith, with the goal of stabilization, accuracy, and prevention of further harm; not litigation escalation.

Foundational Clarification (Critical)

Lexi is not my daughter.

I am not a foster parent.

I am not an adoptive parent.

I am a private citizen and now legal guardian who intervened when the system failed to protect a disabled ward.

Orange County, through DSS and affiliated systems, retained duty of care.

That duty failed, and institutional responsibility was improperly transferred to my household.

Any repair must begin with this accurate framing. Reclassification of my role to reduce institutional responsibility is not repair.

Contextual Clarification (Relevant History)

Prior to the events involving my disabled ward, I am a documented domestic violence survivor who spent more than a decade rebuilding stability through sobriety and therapy. In 2017, after years without child support or guidance, I lawfully filed through the Child Support Enforcement Office.

That filing coincided with retaliatory legal actions, false statements under oath, and prolonged family court involvement. During that period, I was repeatedly required to “co-parent” under conditions of coercive control, despite substantiated findings that allegations against me were unfounded.

This history is relevant because it establishes a pattern in which institutional processes were used to shift scrutiny and cost onto the survivor rather than the party engaging in retaliatory conduct. This context is necessary to understand why continued exposure to Orange County systems has become unsafe and destabilizing for my household.

I. Documented Financial Harm
A. Funds Owed Directly

  *   $4,188 — Foster care payments paid to the perpetrator
  *   $2,523 — SSI funds taken by the perpetrator

Subtotal: $6,711

These funds must be recovered in full and without surveillance, penalty, or restriction.

Additional Clarification Regarding Known Misallocation and Failure to Act

At the time these funds were retained by the perpetrator, Orange County DSS personnel had knowledge that:

  *   foster care and SSI funds owed to the disabled ward had not been transferred or safeguarded; and
  *   the perpetrator continued to exercise control over those funds.

During this same period, DSS personnel supported an out-of-county placement in Alamance County by:

  *   providing supplies and material support, and
  *   accepting and relying upon that placement arrangement,

without requiring recovery, redirection, or protection of funds owed to the disabled ward.

As a result, public benefit funds intended for the care of a disabled ward were knowingly left under the control of a perpetrator and functionally diverted away from the ward’s benefit.

This constitutes documentable financial misallocation resulting from administrative action and inaction, and directly contributed to the economic harm detailed in this request.

B. Household Financial Harm Caused by System Failure
1. Legal and Attorney Costs (Economic Only)

  *   $50,000 — Attorney and legal costs incurred to date
(guardianship, protective actions, response to investigations, inter-county matters)

This amount explicitly excludes:

  *   emotional distress
  *   pain and suffering
  *   reputational harm
  *   unpaid caregiver labor

It reflects direct legal necessity created by County system failure.

2. Withdrawn Family Support (Quantified, Ongoing)

  *   $43 per day in previously provided family support withdrawn beginning November 8, 2024
  *   Withdrawal followed system-enabled misinformation and defamation
  *   Support remains withheld through the present

Calculation to date (as of 1/03/26):
417 days × $43/day = $18,103

This is ongoing, documentable economic harm; not voluntary loss.

3. Out-of-Pocket Care & Living Expenses for a Disabled Ward

The household has assumed 100% of daily living and disability-related expenses for Lexi; expenses ordinarily supported, subsidized, or coordinated by a functioning system.

These include, but are not limited to:

Medical & Personal Care

  *   Incontinence supplies (daily)
  *   Bed pads, hygiene products
  *   Replacement bedding and linens

Vision & Sensory Care

  *   Eye exams
  *   Prescription glasses (Lexi can now see)
  *   Replacement glasses due to loss, breakage, or changing prescription
  *   Associated follow-up care

Clothing & Essentials

  *   Clothing and shoes
  *   Seasonal and adaptive items

Education & Daily Living

  *   School supplies
  *   Food and dietary needs
  *   Household utilities attributable to full-time care

Community Access & Supervision

  *   Outings with Direct Support Professional
  *   Transportation (fuel, mileage, vehicle wear)
  *   Admission fees and accessibility-related costs

Health & Stability

  *   Therapy and clinical supports (separate from Section II)
  *   Activities necessary for regulation, inclusion, and quality of life

Family Integration

  *   Inclusion in family travel and vacations
  *   Lodging, transportation, and care-related costs during travel

These are ordinary, necessary expenses - not discretionary luxuries - incurred because Orange County failed to meet its duty of care to a disabled ward.

C. Estimated Annualized Out-of-Pocket Costs (Conservative)

  *   $2,000–$3,000 per month in direct disability-related expenses

Annualized estimate:
$24,000–$36,000 per year (ongoing)

This estimate:

  *   excludes unpaid caregiver labor
  *   excludes lost wages
  *   excludes emotional distress
  *   reflects cash expenses only

II. Therapeutic Repair — Entire Household (Non-Negotiable)

Given the intersection of disability abuse, systemic failure, and domestic-violence-related harm, paid therapeutic support for the entire household is required.

Coverage includes:

  *   Lexi
  *   Guardian (myself)
  *   Spouse
  *   All children in the household

Conditions:

  *   Provider of choice (trauma-informed, disability-competent)
  *   No County-assigned clinicians
  *   No data-sharing with DSS or County systems
  *   No compliance monitoring or surveillance
  *   No time-limited “crisis only” framing

Minimum standard:
Weekly therapy per person for 12 months, renewable based on clinical recommendation.

Therapy is part of harm repair; not treatment compliance.

III. Stabilization Support
One-Time Household Stabilization Fund

A stabilization fund is requested to:

  *   eliminate debt incurred due to system failure
  *   prevent further destabilization
  *   allow recovery without continued harm or surveillance

This is a standard mechanism in cases involving child-welfare failure or neglect of a disabled ward.

Amount: To be calculated based on documented losses.

IV. Records, Documents, and Identity Materials
A. Full Release of Records

Immediate release of all County-held records, including:

  *   DSS / CPS / APS files
  *   Case notes, assessments, and internal communications
  *   Placement and payment histories
  *   Medical, educational, and service referrals
  *   Inter-county and inter-agency correspondence
  *   Any records containing statements or conclusions about Lexi or my household

Records must be provided in full, without delay, and without redaction except where legally required.

B. Correction of Inaccurate Records

All records that:

  *   misclassify my role,
  *   contain false or misleading narratives, or
  *   shift responsibility away from County duty of care

must be formally corrected, with written confirmation.

C. Recovery & Replacement of Identity Documents

Immediate assistance is required to recover or replace:

  *   Certified birth certificate
  *  Social Security Card