Picon Press obtained two investigative reports from the Douglas County Sheriff's Office concerning allegations of sexual misconduct involving a former China Spring Youth Camp employee. The reports document warnings raised months before the criminal investigation, serious shortcomings in the facility's handling of complaints, and a separate investigation into whether the facility's director failed to report suspected child abuse. Combined with accounts from former employees and questions about county and judicial oversight, the records raise a fundamental question: Who was responsible for protecting these children, and why did the system fail them?
This is not simply a story about one employee accused of sexual misconduct. It is about what happened after concerns were raised, how those concerns were handled, and whether the institutions responsible for protecting children instead protected themselves. The children housed at China Spring are not disposable because they have been accused or convicted of offenses. They are still children, and they deserve adults who understand that their responsibility is to protect children, not an institution.
What the Sheriff's Investigations Reveal
According to two Douglas County Sheriff's Office investigative reports obtained by Picon Press, former China Spring Youth Camp case manager Daryan Benka was investigated for sexual conduct with juveniles under the facility's care, custody, and control. Benka was 25 years old at the time and worked at China Spring from June 2020 through October 2023. Her responsibilities included conducting assessments and providing counseling to juveniles committed to the facility.
The Sheriff's investigation identified at least three male juveniles who were reportedly involved in sexual conduct with Benka while residing at China Spring. The concerns extended beyond those alleged relationships. One witness described noticing “weird shit” at the facility, including what appeared to be preferential treatment of certain residents, while other accounts in the investigative file referred to a group of favored residents as “Benka's favorites.” Even the residents reportedly noticed the unequal treatment, raising the question of why the adults responsible for supervising them did not intervene.
Benka was arrested on December 14, 2023, on two counts under NRS 201.555, which addresses sexual conduct between certain employees of entities providing services to children and children under those entities' care, custody, control, or supervision. Those original charges were later dismissed. On November 3, 2025, Senior Judge Bill Maddox concluded that China Spring did not fall within the statutory definition of an entity providing services to children, and the District Attorney's Office appealed that ruling to the Nevada Supreme Court.
Separately, prosecutors pursued additional felony lewdness charges. The Record-Courier reported that Benka was held to answer on six counts in March 2026 and entered a not guilty plea to six counts in May. However, Our Town Reno reported on November 12, 2026, that she faces seven felony counts and that trial is scheduled for January 2027. Picon has located the District Court case number, 2026-CR-00054, and is actively seeking the amended information filed in that case to verify the current charges and resolve the discrepancy in the reported count. Until that document is obtained and reviewed, Picon is attributing the seven-count figure and January 2027 trial date to Our Town Reno, rather than presenting them as independently verified docket information.
The dismissal of the original charges raises a troubling question of its own: Why did Nevada's statutory framework fail to cover a facility entrusted with the care and supervision of juveniles? The ages of the residents do not make the allegations any less disturbing. A 17-year-old accused of a crime is still a child, not an adult.
Many young people who enter juvenile facilities come from backgrounds marked by poverty, instability, neglect, or inadequate parental supervision. Others made a mistake, found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time, or reached the point where juvenile probation was offering them one last opportunity to avoid carrying that mistake into adulthood. Whatever brought them to China Spring, they did not surrender their right to safety.
A 17-year-old is not on equal footing with a 25-year-old employee responsible for counseling, supervising, and evaluating that teenager. The employee holds institutional authority and influence over the young person's daily life and treatment within the facility. That power imbalance makes professional boundaries and protection essential. A facility cannot demand that children obey its rules while failing to protect them from the adults enforcing those rules.
The Sheriff's reports document the arrest and referral to prosecutors, but do not establish what corrective measures, if any, were implemented afterward. The public deserves to know what changed to protect the children who remain there. An arrest does not repair an institutional failure, and a prosecution does not substitute for meaningful oversight.
The Warning Signs Were Documented Months Earlier
One of the most troubling findings in the Sheriff's investigations is that concerns about Benka were raised well before the criminal investigation began. According to the investigative narrative, employees reported that Benka spent excessive time with particular male residents, met with residents alone and outside camera view, exchanged personal communications, and maintained relationships that crossed professional boundaries. These were concerns about conduct occurring inside a facility where employees were responsible for the safety and supervision of children.
On March 1, 2023, an employee provided China Spring Director Wendy Garrison with PREA misconduct training and identified approximately a dozen warning signs involving Benka. The employee requested a PREA investigation. Two days later, the employee renewed the request after reviewing resident journals containing personal letters, songs, and terms of endearment, along with concerns about removed journal pages and resident complaints. The Sheriff's report documents the employee's account that she provided surveillance information and resident journals to the facility's PREA investigator.
These were not vague concerns raised after an arrest. They were specific warnings reportedly delivered to facility leadership months earlier. The question is not simply whether the facility had policies addressing misconduct. It is whether those policies were followed when employees brought specific warning signs to management's attention. The public deserves to know what was done with the information and who was responsible for ensuring that it was investigated.
The Sheriff's investigation also examined a July 2023 complaint involving an alleged encounter between Benka and a juvenile resident at a hotel in Sparks. The facility conducted an internal investigation and classified the allegations as unfounded. The Sheriff's investigator later identified significant failures in that investigation: the juvenile was not directly questioned about his relationship with Benka, hotel surveillance was not obtained, and Benka's account of her whereabouts was not adequately verified.
Hotel records confirmed Benka stayed there during the relevant period. By the time investigators sought surveillance footage, it had been lost under the hotel's retention policy. The internal investigation did not simply leave questions unanswered. Its delays may have cost investigators evidence.
The Failure to Report: A Separate Sheriff's Investigation
The second Sheriff's report examined whether Director Wendy Garrison failed to report suspected child abuse. According to the report, Garrison learned on September 6, 2023, of a possible sexual relationship between Benka and a juvenile identified as P36. An employee relayed information reportedly obtained from another resident, who said P36 had described a relationship with Benka.
Garrison directed the employee to obtain a written statement, which was provided the following day. The investigator concluded that Garrison did not immediately report the information to law enforcement or child protection authorities. Instead, the report documents further inquiries by Garrison. On September 28, the juvenile's mother contacted her and demanded that the allegation be reported, and a report was filed on September 29.
The investigator characterized the delay as 22 days. The report also examined the July hotel complaint, which Garrison had previously discussed with a Sheriff's Office supervisor. The supervisor explained that the reported incident appeared to fall within Sparks Police Department jurisdiction and offered to prepare or forward a courtesy report. The investigator later documented that no formal report was received from Garrison.
The Sheriff's investigator concluded that Garrison was a mandated reporter and that the circumstances warranted review for possible charges under NRS 432B.240. The report recommended that the District Attorney's Office review the facts, but that recommendation is not a charge or conviction. Picon has not established whether prosecutors ultimately pursued charges or whether the county conducted a separate administrative review.
But the central question remains: Why did it take a parent's demand before a report was made? A facility director's responsibility cannot end with an internal determination that an allegation is unfounded. When children are involved, suspected abuse must be handled through the appropriate reporting and investigative channels.
What Happened to the Employees Who Raised Concerns?
Picon Press has received a detailed timeline from a former China Spring employee who requested anonymity. The whistleblower alleges that concerns about Benka were repeatedly raised with facility leadership, Human Resources, and judicial leadership before the criminal investigation became public. Not every allegation has been independently corroborated, but portions of the account correspond with events documented in the Sheriff's reports.
According to the whistleblower, Benka was placed on a 60-day remedial training plan between January and March 2023 while serving probation as a case manager. The whistleblower characterizes the plan as a response to performance deficiencies. She also alleges that an anonymous complaint submitted to Douglas County Human Resources in March 2023 was returned to Judge Nathan Tod Young, who was then overseeing China Spring.
According to her account, information about the complaint was subsequently provided to facility leadership, and employees suspected of reporting misconduct became targets of retaliation. The whistleblower further alleges that April 2023 surveillance footage captured Judge Young intervening to protect Benka while targeting an employee who had raised concerns. Picon has not independently reviewed that footage, and the allegation remains unverified.
In May 2023, another employee reportedly submitted a complaint. The following month, the whistleblower says she provided Human Resources with detailed information about internal complaints and alleged sexual misconduct involving Benka. She also requested medical leave because she did not believe Human Resources could protect her from alleged interference by judicial leadership.
While on leave, she says she learned that Benka had completed probation, received a promotion, and obtained a significant pay increase after being removed from an investigation involving her conduct. These allegations raise serious questions about what county officials knew and whether employment decisions were made with full consideration of the complaints already received. The Sheriff's reports independently document multiple complaints during this period, including the July hotel incident and the subsequent internal investigation criticized by the Sheriff's investigator.
October 2023: Termination for a Different Reason
Benka was terminated on October 2, 2023. An October 6 email from Garrison, documented in the Sheriff's investigative records, attributed the termination to a DUI arrest in Sparks, dishonesty, and failure to report the arrest as required by county policy. The whistleblower maintains that Benka was not terminated because of the reported sexual misconduct.
She further alleges that, days later, Garrison sought Benka out and attempted to have her resign at Human Resources' direction. The distinction matters. Why did repeated complaints concerning an employee's relationships with juveniles not result in her removal before a separate incident prompted termination?
December 2023: Retirement and Arrest
The whistleblower reports that Garrison retired on December 8, 2023, while criminal and administrative investigations were ongoing. Benka was arrested six days later. The whistleblower alleges that the arrest occurred at Reno Behavioral Health and questions whether Benka continued to have access to juveniles before her arrest.
Picon has not independently verified the circumstances of the arrest or the extent of any access to juveniles at that time. The whistleblower also identifies December 21, 2023, as a significant date in the county's restructuring of China Spring's governance. The actual ordinance chronology, however, is important and is addressed below.
March 2024: The Whistleblower Is Laid Off
According to the whistleblower, the internal investigation continued through March 2024. She alleges that she provided surveillance footage involving Judge Young to the county's Human Resources investigator. Four days later, after approximately 20 years at China Spring, she received a layoff notice.
She characterizes the layoff as a pretext to remove her rather than address her complaints. Picon has not independently reviewed the footage, the complete Human Resources investigation, or the personnel records necessary to establish the county's reasons for the layoff. The county should be able to produce the records supporting its decision.
Who Investigated the Investigators?
The whistleblower's account raises additional questions about the outside investigation retained by Douglas County. According to her, the county retained Reno Workplace Investigations and attorney Debra Schroeder in June 2023. She alleges that the public contract ended in January 2024, allowing the county to avoid the $50,000 approval threshold that would otherwise have required additional Board involvement.
She further alleges that interviews continued in March 2024, after the contract had ended, and that she was threatened with disclosure of information concerning Judge Young for his protection. The whistleblower also alleges that Commissioner Sharla Hales, who chaired the Board, had access to approximately ten months of investigative material, including information concerning Judge Young. She claims other commissioners were not provided the same information before voting on the layoffs.
Picon has not reviewed the underlying contract, investigative report, or communications. These allegations therefore remain unverified. But the public should be able to determine who commissioned the investigation, who received its findings, why the material was treated as privileged, and whether the Board had the information necessary to make informed decisions. An investigation should uncover misconduct, not become a shield against accountability.
The Board Was Put on Notice
The allegations of sexual misconduct involving a China Spring employee were not presented as a formal agenda item before the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners. Instead, they surfaced during public comment at the March 21, 2024 meeting. A member of the public raised concerns that employees who had reported alleged sexual misconduct involving a case manager and juveniles were among those being terminated as part of a proposed restructuring.
The speaker questioned the circumstances surrounding the terminations and warned that the decisions could discourage other employees from reporting suspected abuse. The meeting materials and minutes do not reflect a corresponding agenda item, substantive Board discussion, or formal review of the allegations. The public record establishes that the Board was put on notice, but it does not establish that the Board investigated or addressed the concerns.
A public comment is not an investigation. It is not a corrective action plan, and it is not a substitute for protecting children. The whistleblower identifies the public comment at approximately 6:38:00 in the recorded meeting. The public can review the March 21, 2024 Douglas County Board of Commissioners meeting for itself.
The question is not whether commissioners heard the concerns. It is what they did afterward. When allegations involving the safety of children and the treatment of employees who reported those concerns are brought directly to a governing body, the public is entitled to know what action followed. Silence in the minutes does not answer that question.
Where Was the Oversight?
China Spring operates within a network of public institutions, judicial authorities, county administrators, law enforcement, and an advisory board. Each has a role that warrants examination. The public deserves to know which officials had oversight responsibilities during the relevant periods, what information reached them, and what they did with it.
Ninth Judicial District Court
The Ninth Judicial District had a longstanding connection to China Spring and its juvenile justice operations. Its judicial leadership's role in receiving information about facility conditions, responding to employee concerns, and exercising oversight warrants public examination. The whistleblower's allegations concerning Judge Young should be independently investigated, although Picon has not independently verified those allegations or reviewed the surveillance footage she describes.
Douglas County
As the county responsible for the facility's administration following the 2024 restructuring, Douglas County must answer questions about management, personnel decisions, internal investigations, and complaints involving juvenile safety. The county also must explain what corrective action followed the Sheriff's investigations. The public should not have to rely on assurances that matters were handled internally.
Douglas County Sheriff's Office
The Sheriff's Office investigated the underlying allegations and subsequent reporting concerns. Its reports now provide a basis for examining the broader institutional response. The public deserves to know what referrals were made, what follow up occurred, and whether any additional investigative steps remain outstanding.
Douglas County Manager's Office
The County Manager's Office assumed administrative oversight of China Spring following the 2024 restructuring. The public deserves to know what corrective action followed and whether the failures identified in the investigations were addressed. That responsibility includes explaining how the county handled employee complaints and the allegations of retaliation.
China Spring Youth Camp Advisory Board
The advisory board is another essential part of the oversight structure. Its responsibilities include advising on the operation and development of the camp, reviewing policies, assisting with budget preparation, and maintaining public meeting minutes. The public should be able to determine what information was provided to the board, whether concerns were discussed, and what action was taken.
The following individuals are documented in the official minutes as attendees at the June 17, 2024 China Spring Youth Camp Advisory Board meeting:
Liz Florez, 2nd Judicial District
Brianna McBride, 2nd Judicial District
Andrew Haskin, 3rd Judicial District
Adam McCauley, 5th Judicial District
Pauline Salla, 6th Judicial District
Lynette Gust, 7th Judicial District
Tammy Morris, 9th Judicial District
Kathryn North, 11th Judicial District
Sharla Hales, Douglas County Board of County Commissioners
Leslie Bittleston, State of Nevada
Dan Coverley, Douglas County Sheriff
This is an attendance list, not a representation that these individuals constituted the entire board or served throughout the period when the original complaints were raised. It is simply the list of individuals identified in the June 17, 2024 meeting minutes. Picon is submitting public records requests to Douglas County and the appropriate agencies seeking complete advisory board membership and appointment records, including historical rosters, appointment dates, terms of service, meeting attendance, and changes in membership during the relevant period.
Picon intends to publish the complete, verified historical roster when those records are received and reviewed. This list should not be read to imply that every individual named served during every relevant period, knew of the allegations, or participated in any failure to report them. Those questions require appointment records, meeting minutes, correspondence, and other documentation.
The Governance Change: What Ordinance 2023-1631 Actually Did
The chronology of Ordinance 2023-1631 deserves correction. December 21, 2023 was the date of the ordinance's first reading and introduction before the Board of County Commissioners. The Board adopted the ordinance unanimously on January 18, 2024, and Douglas County announced that it would take effect February 1, 2024.
The ordinance amended provisions of Douglas County Code Chapters 2.02 and 2.26 relating to China Spring Youth Camp. The County described the change as transferring oversight from the Ninth Judicial District Court to the Douglas County Manager's Office. The former executive committee was to be dissolved, while an advisory board would continue under the revised governance structure.
The January 18 meeting record also documents the appointment of Commissioner Sharla Hales to the advisory board for a term ending December 31, 2025. The County subsequently announced that Wendy Lang would serve as an administrative liaison and that the County Manager's Office would provide direct administrative oversight. The restructuring was therefore more than a minor administrative adjustment; it changed who was responsible for the facility's management and oversight.
The timing of this change warrants examination in light of the whistleblower's allegations concerning judicial involvement in the handling of complaints. The ordinance itself does not establish that the restructuring was motivated by those allegations. But the public is entitled to understand why the governance structure changed, who participated in the decision, and whether the change affected the handling of outstanding complaints.
The Complaints Did Not End With the County
The whistleblower says she subsequently pursued complaints through several state oversight channels. According to information provided to Picon, complaints were submitted to the Nevada Attorney General's Office and reportedly referred to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline. She reports that the Judicial Commission did not respond until August 14, 2026, approximately 892 days after the initial complaints.
The whistleblower identifies Judicial Commission matters 2026-047 and 2026-139, reportedly submitted in February and May 2026. She says she was informed that dismissal of her complaints was being considered without an investigation. An additional Nevada Ethics Commission complaint was reportedly dismissed on statute of limitations grounds.
Picon has not obtained the complete complaint files or underlying dismissal decisions. These reported outcomes are therefore attributed to the whistleblower, not presented as independently verified findings. Picon has requested the records to determine how the complaints were handled and why they were dismissed.
Picon has intentionally omitted the Attorney General complaint identifiers and Sheriff's Office report numbers from this publication. The investigative reports contain an express confidentiality notice stating that they are not to be reproduced or released without authorization from the Douglas County Sheriff's Office. In light of that notice, Picon has withheld those identifying numbers rather than publish information that may be subject to confidentiality restrictions.
A dismissal based on a procedural deadline does not establish that the underlying allegations were false. The public deserves to know whether these complaints were investigated, what procedures were followed, and what findings were made. When a public employee reports alleged misconduct involving children and then pursues multiple oversight channels, the public should be able to determine whether those channels functioned as intended.
This Is Not About Protecting the Institution. It Is About Protecting Children.
Children confined in a juvenile facility cannot simply walk away, choose their counselors, or change the conditions of their confinement. They depend on the adults and institutions responsible for their care. When employees cross professional boundaries, when complaints are ignored, and when those who speak up fear retaliation, the protective structure has failed.
The public needs answers about whether China Spring has adequate safeguards, whether PREA complaints are independently investigated, and whether residents have confidential reporting mechanisms. It also needs to know whether county and judicial oversight is functioning as intended. Most importantly, what changed after these investigations, who verified that corrective measures were implemented, and is the facility safer today?
The children at China Spring are not a public relations problem, a budget line, or an administrative inconvenience. Their safety is a governmental responsibility. Their alleged conduct, their backgrounds, or the circumstances that brought them into the juvenile justice system do not diminish that obligation. The adults entrusted with their care must be held to the standards the institution demands of the children themselves.
Picon Press Calls for Accountability
Internal explanations and institutional finger pointing are not enough. Picon Press calls for an independent investigation by the Nevada Attorney General's Office into the underlying misconduct allegations, the handling of PREA complaints, the alleged failure to report, the treatment of whistleblowers, the allegations of judicial involvement, and the conduct of every entity with oversight responsibilities. The investigation should be independent of the officials and agencies whose actions are at issue.
We also call for the release of all lawfully disclosable records, including advisory board minutes, correspondence, investigative findings, administrative reviews, corrective action plans, and communications among China Spring, Douglas County, the Ninth Judicial District Court, and relevant oversight agencies. Juvenile identifying information must remain protected. Public officials should not be permitted to use confidentiality as a blanket justification for withholding records that the law requires them to disclose.
The advisory board should explain what it knew, when it knew it, whether it reviewed the allegations, and what action it took. County and judicial leadership must explain how these failures occurred and what safeguards have been implemented. Individuals whose direct oversight failures are established should consider whether they can credibly continue serving in those roles.
Employees who raise legitimate concerns must be protected from retaliation, and juvenile residents must have access to independent reporting and investigation procedures. The county must also account for the circumstances surrounding the termination of long serving employees who reportedly raised concerns, including the decision to eliminate positions during restructuring. These allegations require an independent review, not another internal assurance that everything was handled appropriately.
We call for the resignation of any official whose direct involvement in these failures is established and who cannot credibly continue exercising oversight. Accountability must extend beyond the employee accused of misconduct. It must include every person whose responsibility to protect children was compromised by action, inaction, or abuse of authority.
Related Coverage and Public Reporting
The China Spring allegations and subsequent criminal proceedings have been covered by several Nevada news organizations. The following is relevant coverage identified by Picon Press. These articles address the original arrest, advisory board questions, the facility's finances, later criminal proceedings, broader juvenile facility litigation, and the whistleblower's efforts to obtain accountability.
December 15, 2023 | Initial arrest reporting
Former China Spring Youth Camp employee accused of sex with inmates — The Record-Courier
Youth camp counselor facing felony charges for alleged sexual involvement with teens — KOLO 8 News Now
DCSO Arrest Former Youth Camp Staff Member for Sexual Conduct with Children — KRNV 2 News
Counselor of Douglas County's China Springs Youth Camp arrested on multiple child sex crimes — Carson Now
December 21, 2023 | Advisory board response
Counselor's arrest prompts questions — The Record-Courier. This article reports on questions raised by the China Spring advisory board following the arrest.
February 28, 2024 | Facility finances and criminal investigation
China Spring faces $1.2 million deficit — The Record-Courier. This article discusses the facility's financial circumstances and references the ongoing criminal investigation.
November 15, 2025 | Dismissal of original charges
Judge throws out China Spring fondling case — The Record-Courier. This article reports the dismissal of the original NRS 201.555 charges and the District Attorney's appeal.
March 25, 2026 | Preliminary hearing and additional charges
Charges upheld in 2023 China Spring sex case — The Record-Courier. This article reports that Benka was held to answer on six lewdness counts.
May 6, 2026 | Criminal proceedings
China Spring counselor denies lewdness charges — The Record-Courier. This article reports Benka's not guilty plea to six felony counts and discusses the anticipated trial proceedings.
June 24, 2026 | Broader juvenile facility abuse litigation
Federal abuse lawsuit includes China Spring — The Record-Courier. This article reports on a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of 96 people who allege sexual assault while in Nevada juvenile camps, including two specific allegations involving China Spring. The link directs readers to the publication's June 2026 archive, where the June 24 article appears; Picon was unable to verify an accessible direct article URL.
November 12, 2026 | Whistleblower and accountability
Whistleblower Expresses Frustration at Lack of Accountability in China Spring Youth Camp Sexual Misconduct Case — Our Town Reno. This article focuses on the whistleblower's account, her efforts to obtain accountability, and the reported status of the criminal proceedings.
Prior coverage does not resolve the questions raised by the investigative records. Picon's reporting examines the Sheriff's investigations, the documented reporting delays, the handling of internal complaints, and the responsibilities of the institutions charged with overseeing the facility. The public should not have to piece together the answers from scattered articles, public comments, and years of unanswered complaints.
How Can Nevada Trust This Institution?
How can parents trust China Spring with their children? How can employees be expected to report misconduct if doing so may cost them their jobs? How can the public trust an oversight system when investigative records document delayed reporting, flawed internal investigations, and warnings raised months before an arrest? These are not abstract questions; they go directly to whether the institution is fulfilling its most basic responsibility.
A child's alleged criminal conduct does not diminish that child's right to safety. It does not excuse misconduct by employees or relieve public officials of their responsibilities. The children entrusted to China Spring were entitled to protection, regardless of their backgrounds or the circumstances that brought them there. The public deserves answers, and those responsible for protecting these children must be held accountable.
Picon Press will continue pursuing the records necessary to establish who knew what, when they knew it, and what they did about it. We intend to identify those whose actions, inaction, or abuse of authority enabled misconduct or silenced those who tried to expose it. We will follow the records and name those whose responsibility is supported by the evidence. No title, position, or institutional affiliation places anyone beyond scrutiny.
Picon refuses to be Maxine to Jeff's Epstein. We will not look the other way, and we will not allow institutional silence to become the final word. We will keep asking questions, however uncomfortable the answers may be. The truth may be ugly, but the public deserves to know it, and the children entrusted to these institutions deserved far better.