Two landmark cases in New Hampshire have exposed critical gaps in the state’s child safety protections: a $2.25 million settlement for the mother of five-year-old Harmony Montgomery, who died in her father’s custody in early 2022, and a $29.6 million judgment for Olivia Griffin, who was locked in a basement, starved, beaten, and denied basic hygiene by her adoptive parents. Both cases reveal the same systemic failure—state agencies received clear warning signs of abuse but failed to intervene decisively or in time to prevent harm. The lawsuits demonstrate that New Hampshire’s Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) and local authorities did not follow their own protocols for protecting children at imminent risk.
Crystal Sorey, Harmony’s mother, filed a negligence lawsuit in May 2024 against the state, alleging the agency ignored reports of physical abuse. Olivia Griffin sued state and local officials in 2023 at age 19, arguing they should have intervened during years of confinement and torture. Both cases resulted in major payouts to the victims’ families, but the damage was already done—and the underlying failures that allowed the abuse to continue remain central to understanding what went wrong.
Table of Contents
- What Child Safety Gaps Were Exposed by These New Hampshire Cases?
- The Harmony Montgomery Settlement and What It Reveals About State Liability
- Olivia Griffin’s Case—A Longer-Term Abuse Pattern That Went Undetected
- Settlement Amounts as Indicators of Systemic Negligence
- Systemic Patterns—How Multiple Agencies Failed Multiple Children
- Warning Signs That Were Missed and How Agencies Should Respond
- What These Cases Reveal About Current Child Protective Services Limitations
What Child Safety Gaps Were Exposed by These New Hampshire Cases?
The lawsuits reveal a pattern of investigative failure and delayed response by DCYF. In Harmony Montgomery’s case, the state received multiple reports of physical abuse but did not conduct thorough investigations or act with the urgency that a child’s life required. The agency also failed to maintain oversight after Adam Montgomery was awarded custody in February 2019, despite a history of concerns that should have triggered heightened monitoring.
Olivia Griffin’s case shows a different but equally grave failure: authorities did not intervene in a home where a child was actively confined, denied food, and subjected to systematic violence. Between the time Olivia was adopted and the time she escaped at age 19, multiple institutions—schools, medical providers, social services—had opportunities to notice signs of abuse, but none coordinated effectively to stop it. The cases together illustrate that gaps exist at every stage: in accepting and investigating reports, in following up on warning signs, in coordinating between agencies, and in taking decisive protective action before a child suffers severe harm or death.
The Harmony Montgomery Settlement and What It Reveals About State Liability
In May 2025, new Hampshire agreed to pay $2.25 million to Crystal Sorey to settle the wrongful death negligence lawsuit against the state. This settlement is a formal acknowledgment that DCYF’s failures directly contributed to a child’s preventable death. The lawsuit alleged that the state ignored signs of physical abuse and did not exercise adequate oversight or intervention, even when warning signs were documented. The settlement amount reflects the severity of the agency’s breach of duty.
Separately, a judge issued a $15.5 million civil judgment against Adam Montgomery on May 6, 2026, for his role in Harmony’s death. However, a judgment against an individual abuser is often difficult to collect, whereas a settlement with the state provides actual compensation. The fact that New Hampshire chose to settle rather than litigate suggests the evidence of negligence was substantial. Families pursuing claims against states for child welfare failures should understand that settlements are often faster and more reliable than pursuing judgments against impoverished or judgment-proof individuals.
Olivia Griffin’s Case—A Longer-Term Abuse Pattern That Went Undetected
Olivia Griffin’s case spans years of abuse rather than a single catastrophic event. Her adoptive parents, Thomas and Denise Atkocaitis, locked her in a basement with human waste, handcuffed her, beat her, starved her, and denied her bathroom access. When Olivia filed suit in 2023 at age 19, she alleged that state and local officials failed to intervene despite her confinement and the systematic abuse she endured. On July 8-9, 2025, a judge presided over by Judge John Kissinger granted a $29.6 million verdict in Olivia’s favor.
This represents one of the largest judgments against parents and state agencies in a child abuse case. It is important to note that approximately $1 million of this amount came from prior settlements with state agencies before the July 2025 verdict, meaning the courts found multiple entities liable for failing to protect her. The remainder of the judgment was against Olivia’s adoptive parents themselves. Olivia’s case demonstrates that child protection failures are not always dramatic single events; they can be systemic, occurring over years, and involving repeated opportunities for intervention that were missed.
Settlement Amounts as Indicators of Systemic Negligence
The sums awarded in these cases—$2.25 million to Harmony Montgomery’s mother, $29.6 million to Olivia Griffin—reflect courts’ assessment that state negligence was not incidental but central to the abuse and harm. When states choose to settle, they are typically doing so to avoid the expense and risk of trial, but the amount they offer signals how serious they believe their liability to be. A limitation of these settlements is that they come after irreversible harm.
The money cannot restore a life or undo years of trauma and confinement. However, these payouts do serve as financial accountability and may prompt systemic reforms. For families pursuing claims, understanding the difference between settlements with state agencies (which typically carry the state’s actual ability to pay) and judgments against individual perpetrators (which often remain uncollected) is critical. The Harmony Montgomery settlement came quickly after the lawsuit was filed and represented a decision by the state not to defend the merits in court.
Systemic Patterns—How Multiple Agencies Failed Multiple Children
Both cases reveal that child protection failures involve more than DCYF alone. Schools, medical providers, law enforcement, and local services also had contact with these children and opportunities to act. In Olivia’s case, she was known to schools and healthcare systems while being confined in a basement. Yet no single entity coordinated effectively to identify abuse and remove her from the home.
The warning here is that organizational silos and unclear protocols about who is responsible for escalation create gaps. When multiple agencies touch a family, the expectation that one of them will “handle it” can result in no one doing so. Additionally, investigative resource constraints mean that agencies may prioritize certain cases over others, and children in homes that are less visible to authorities—where parents are compliant in some areas while abusive in others—may receive less scrutiny. Families who suspect abuse should know that reporting to one agency does not guarantee thorough investigation or follow-up; persistent reporting to multiple entities may be necessary.
Warning Signs That Were Missed and How Agencies Should Respond
In Harmony Montgomery’s case, the state received multiple reports of physical abuse but did not act with appropriate urgency. In Olivia’s case, signs of confinement and malnutrition should have been apparent to schools or medical providers, yet none translated observations into protective action. Both cases raise the question: what should trigger mandatory, thorough investigation and removal from home? Physical injuries without adequate explanation, behavioral changes, unexplained absence from school, signs of malnutrition, and a child’s own reports of abuse should all trigger investigation.
However, agencies must also follow through. Receiving a report is not the same as investigating it thoroughly. Families who report concerns about a neighbor’s or relative’s child should follow up directly with agencies and ask whether a full assessment was conducted, not assume that the report alone will prompt action.
What These Cases Reveal About Current Child Protective Services Limitations
These two cases, occurring in the same state and within a few years of each other, suggest that isolated remedies—a settlement, a judgment—do not automatically prevent future failures. Olivia’s case occurred years after Harmony’s death, yet similar institutional gaps allowed abuse to continue undetected. This raises hard questions about what structural changes are actually necessary in child protective services and whether litigation alone can drive them. New Hampshire’s DCYF has faced sustained criticism following both cases.
The state’s ability to respond depends on adequate funding, staffing, training, and oversight. However, the underlying challenge is that the agency operates within a legal framework that prioritizes family preservation while also being tasked with protecting children—a tension that does not have a simple resolution. When abuse is subtle, when allegations come from non-credible sources, or when warning signs are scattered across multiple agencies, judgment calls about intervention must be made with incomplete information. These cases show that when judgment calls go wrong, the consequences are irreversible, and the remedy is financial compensation that arrives years too late.
- —