SAMANTHA LAUREN MARTIN June 4, 1993 - December 3, 2006

Velvet Martin (Samantha’s mom)

Samantha Martin

This is placed here today in memory of Samantha, about whom I have written before.  Samantha's death coupled with her mother Velvet's tenacity secured passage of Samantha's Law, a Canadian child protection law.

Samantha Lauren Martin June 4, 1993 - December 3, 2006

With a song by Avril Lavigne here is an informative video tribute that celebrates both the importance of Life and also the loving memory of this young girl named Samantha Lauren Martin. It describes her brief life and the objective of her natural parents who missed having her in their home for most of her life. This article explains the reasons for that. Her mother has sought a Fatality Inquiry as well as personal closure. Samantha's death inspired Samantha's Law.

(this is an archived file from a Toronto Sun article from 2011)

SOCIAL WORKERS NEED CHILD-PROTECTION TRAINING

This is an opinion piece by my colleague and guest writer, Ray Ferris appeared in The Times Colonist. Ray sent it to me after it was published there. whom you know as the author of 'The Art of Child Protection,' and as a frequent contributor here, as well as an advisor to countless parents as well as lawyer and members of parliament. You can order the book at rtferris@telus.net

The Walker judgement and several others have made it evident that an adversarial and even hostile culture permeates the ministry responsible for child protection. There are probable causes for this. One is that provincial social workers used to be responsible for both financial assistance and child welfare. The deep-seated antagonism to assistance applicants rubbed off on child welfare cases, often the same cases. The three children’s aid societies were kinder, because they handled no assistance. All services were amalgamated by the first NDP government.

The courts used to function well. In the late seventies I studied about 200 cases which went through the Victoria court. No cases exceeded statutory time guidelines and judges were vigilant in demanding proper notices and other parental protections. Only four cases went to contested hearings. Most cases were settled by negotiation. There were many registered social workers and there was a sense of professionalism among the staff members.

WALKER'S SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 6 of 6 - Continued … More findings

This is my synopsized prose version of Justice Walker's 140-page judgement presented in several segments that reveal the substance of Walker's overview of evidence that demanded his verdict against the Ministry of Children's Child Protection. No stated opinion or fact appears here that does not also appear in the Justice Walker's ruling (legal document). It is public information

The Ministry failed to carry out its obligations to protect the children from harm and to act in their best interests, yet the fault cannot be attributed to a single Ministry employee.  Rather, many opportunities arose for the Director to conduct a proper assessment and investigation of the reports of sexual abuse. She frequently received evidence and other information and different employees were at fault at different stages for various reasons. What is compellingly obvious is that the Director and her agents formed their opinions prematurely, before the children were interviewed, and so concluded that J.P. fabricated her report information and there really was not merit to her allegations of sexual abuse by the children's father.

Most startling is the fact that until the 64th day of the First Trial, the Director maintained this view that the allegations were groundless and that J.P. was unfit to parent. Then the Director changed her mind. Nevertheless, the Director supported B.G.’s claim for custody of the children and to the detriment of the children, unreasonably preserved that plan until March 29, 2012.

Justice Walker did determine that B.G. sexually abused P.G., the youngest child, at the time that the Director allowed him unsupervised access. The Director has exhibited lack of regard for directions from this court as well as for her obligation to present candid, full disclosure to the Court during the Apprehension Proceeding. The Province is responsible in law to pay for any damages suffered as a result, and is liable for special costs of the first trial.

When finally the children were returned to their mother, the Director thwarted the plaintiffs’ request for funds from another branch of the provincial government that provides compensation to victims of criminal acts. The plaintiffs proved this.

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 5 of 6 - Trial Two

This is my synopsized prose version of Justice Walker's 140-page judgement presented in several segments that reveal the substance of Walker's overview of evidence that demanded his verdict against the Ministry of Children's Child Protection. No stated opinion or fact appears here that does not also appear in the Justice Walker's ruling (legal document). It is public information

In Trial Two the plaintiffs sought damages based on the tort of misfeasance, alleging intentional and reckless misconduct by the Director and her agents acting in breach of the standard of care as well as fiduciary duty, being motivated by bad faith and malice. The same claim for costs was made at first trial but put over to the second trial. More specifically in Trail Two plaintiffs claimed that the Director and her agents failed to protect the children from B.G.; failed to investigate reports of sexual and physical abuse; wrongfully apprehended the children from their mother; unreasonably held the unjustifiable belief that J.P. was unfit to parent; ignored Court orders; abandoned statutory obligations. The result has been ongoing emotional harm to the children from abuse by B.G. and from being withheld from their mother for two and one-half years. Further, while in the care of the Director the youngest child, P.G. was sexually abused because of the unsupervised access.  

In Justice Walker's Second Trial judgement, for ease of reference, he referred to the Director and her agents as the “Director”. The Director and the Ministry cannot be sued. Therefore, the defendant was the Province of British Columbia since the Province is responsible for the Director and the Ministry. The Province denied any basis for a finding of misfeasance, asserting that the Director fulfilled all common law and statutory duties to the children. B.G. denied all claims against him.  Judge Walker in his ruling certainly disagreed. He determined that the infant plaintiffs established the liability of the Province for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty owed to them. The plaintiffs, including J.P., also proved the misfeasance claim. Judge Walker determined that the Director and certain Ministry social workers acted well outside of their statutory mandate and the duty to protect children and that the nature of their libelous handling of the case varied depending on the individual. It ranged from intentional misconduct, bad faith, reckless disregard for their obligation to protect children, breach of the applicable standard of care to unreasonably supporting the custodial interests of the children’s father even if it meant he sexually abused them.

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 4 of 6 - First Trial

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 4 of 6 - First Trial
This is my synopsized prose version of Justice Walker's 140-page judgement presented in several segments that reveal the substance of Walker's overview of evidence that demanded his verdict against the Ministry of Children's Child Protection. No stated opinion or fact appears here that does not also appear in the Justice Walker's ruling (legal document). It is public information.

The 'First Trial' commenced on October 17, 2011 and was a joint proceeding , that is, the hearing of the Director's application for an extension of temporary custody of the children was joined with the family law action brought by the mother of J.P. against her estranged husband B.G. whom she claimed had sexually abused her children. The trial was completed in 90 days.

During most of the trial, the Director (she and her agents) remained unwavering in her opinion that the sexual abuse allegations by P.J. had no merit and that sole custody should be given to B.G.; and that J.P. was unfit to parent because of alleged notable mental and emotional instability. B.G. represented himself although relying on the Director to advance his legal cause.

(Get ready for this) On December 14, 2011 during the Trial One, the Director admitted in a written statement that it was possible that the children had been sexually abused by their father but she continued to support B.G. for sole custody and guardianship. (Bonus surprise) Then (suddenly) after 64 days of trial, on March 29, 2012, after having appointed a new trial lawyer, the Director reversed her opinion and withdrew her protection concerns about J.P. and advised the Court that the children should be returned to their mother. Thereafter the trial issues were between J.P. and B.G. until the trial concluded in May 2012. Justice Walker found that B.G. had sexually abused his three eldest children and physically abused J.P. and he ordered sole guardianship and custody to J.P., also ordering that B.G. be denied access to the children.

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 3 of 6 - Unsupervised Access

This is my synopsized prose version of Justice Walker's 140-page judgement presented in several segments that reveal the substance of Walker's overview of evidence that demanded his verdict against the Ministry of Children's Child Protection. No stated opinion or fact appears here that does not also appear in the Justice Walker's ruling (legal document). It is public information

Because of the allegations of sexual and physical abuse, Judge Walker issued a court order on December 21, 2009, that permitted B.G. to have only supervised access (A Supervised Access Order) to his children. Then on December 30, 2009 without any basis for the action, the Director apprehended J.P.'s children. Mr. Strickland without foundation, misled the Deputy Director by informing him that J.P. was suffering from mental distress and illness so severe that she was a risk both to herself and to her children. Mr. Strickland and his subordinates failed to insure the truth of information contained in their prepared report drafts to the Director. The Director then initiated the Apprehension Proceeding in Provincial Court in January 2010, but did not disclose to the presiding judges the allegations of sexual 
and physical abuse or the Supervised Access Order and the circumstances relevant to it.

The Provincial Court relying on the Director's information, made orders that permitted the Director to use her discretion in providing to B.G., access to the children, even unsupervised access. Against the vigorous objections of J.P., in May 2010, the Director did provide to B.G. unsupervised access, even though B.G. would thereby be in breach of the Supervised Access Order with which the Director was familiar.

As early as February 2010 almost all of the social workers involved with the case had become convinced that the children should be returned to their father and they supported his claim for sole custody. The children were briefly placed in care of J.P.'s sister and subsequently with her brother and sister-in-law, and by June 2010 they were with a foster parent. The Director continued temporary custody of the children well beyond the maximum time permitted by the governing statute, and kept the children in foster care until June 2012. To do this, the Director relied on part of a section of the governing legislation that she should have known was inapplicable.

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 2 of 6 - Closed Minds

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 2 of 6 - Closed Minds

This is my synopsized prose version of Justice Walker's 140-page judgement presented in several segments that reveal the substance of Walker's overview of evidence that demanded his verdict against the Ministry of Children's Child Protection. No stated opinion or fact appears here that does not also appear in the Justice Walker's ruling (legal document). It is public information.

Mr. Strickland believed J.P. was acting maliciously toward B.G. Mr. Strickland shared these biases with his staff because he believed there was no merit to J.P.'s report that B.G. had sexually abused P.G., and consequently Strickland did not conduct an assessment of J.P.'s report, disregarding the standard of care and applicable legislation. Mr. Strickland's conduct adversely affected the case social workers and furthermore, as a result, the Director (she) did not assess the report of possible sexual abuse as required by her governing statute and the standard of care, nor did she investigate.

In mid December 2009, early in the VPD investigation of sexual abuse of P.G., her mother J.P. disclosed to both the Director and Mr. Strickland that her three children were all divulging that their father had sexually abused them and she was asking the Director and Strickland for help. The children spoke of sexual touching, digital touching of genitalia and the anus, oral copulation and partial penile penetration by their father. B.G. denied all of the allegations and the Director did not investigate these reports in the manner that the standard of care commands.

 Without suitable investigation of the children's disclosures, Mr. Strickland and other social workers marginalized this supportive evidence of the sexual abuse allegations, believing them to be fabricated, and that the children had been coached, and that J.P.'s relentless efforts to prove these abuses were indications of her mental instability. Subsequently, the Director did not carry out an assessment and investigation of the children's claims, and further concluded that J.P. was unable to parent the children. 

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 1 of 6 - Strickland and Tymkow

JUSTICE WALKER'S OVERVIEW OF THE CASE, LEADING TO HIS SCATHING 2015 RULING AGAINST THE MINISTRY OF CHILDREN

My synopsized version of Justice Walker's 140-page judgement presents the substance of his overview of evidence that necessitated his ruling against the Ministry of Children's Child Protection. I present it in a prose style, in several segments. No stated opinion or fact appears here that was not in Justice Walker's ruling all of which has been made public.

Justice Paul Walker heard and ruled upon two cases between JP and BG. The plaintiffs in both cases were JP and her four children.  JP is the mother whose four children were sexually abused by BG, their father, her estranged husband. In the first case JP sought custody of her children as well as confirmation that BG was an abuser who should no longer have access to the children, and further that the Ministry was dead wrong in its assessment of both mother and father and had made a outrageous error in judging JP to be mentally unstable and placed children in BG's care. 

This second court case, J.P.'s lawsuit against the Ministry, began April 8, 2013 and ended July 3, 2015 with the published ruling by Judge Paul Walker on July 14, 2015.

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 1 of 6 - Strickland and Tymkow

The Director of Child Protection (CP) acted egregiously to the children's reports that their father sexually abused them.  The Director and her agents failed to assess and to investigate the children's claims and then imprudently apprehended the children and also granted the father unsupervised access to the children. The Director held an inflexible but unproven belief that JP had mental health issues and was unfit to parent and that BG was the most capable parent.  

B.G. was arrested and removed from the family home in October 2009 for assaulting both JP and her eldest daughter K.G. (then 5 years old), and on a charge of the uttering death threats against J.P. She immediately sought divorce and sole guardianship and custody. A restraining order was issued that prohibited B.G. from having direct or indirect contact with any of the plaintiffs. Investigative social worker Jeff Tymkow reported to the Director that K.G. had not been assaulted by B.G. Further, B.G. told Tymkow that P.J. suffered from mental health problems that Tymkow determined were not then a protection concern to the children.

Mr. William Strickland was investigative team leader responsible for assessing potential harm to children. He and Mr. Tymkow signed a letter at B.G.'s request that purported to clear B.G. of physical abuse of K.G. B.G. then used this against J.P. in court. J.P. confronted Mr. Strickland, accusing him of acting inappropriately and she also voiced her concern that B.G. may have sexually assaulted the youngest child, who was one year old at that time. Strickland apologized and assured her that he would send a written retraction and that the Director of MCFD would conduct an investigation into J.P.'s concerns about potential abuse of her children.  However, Strickland discouraged Vancouver Police Department (VPD) from taking J.P.'s claims seriously, suggesting to police that she was unstable and selfishly motivated.  Mr. Strickland's conduct adversely affected the police investigation.