THE PUBLIC MUST NOT IGNORE OR FORGET THIS CASE.

Lawyer, Jack Hittrich, J.P. in background; photo:  Mark Yuen/Vancouver Sun     

Her children were being sexually abused by their dad, and the MCFD would not believe her but treated her as unstable and non credible. MCFD botched it. Enter Lawyer Jack Hittrich who represented mom (J.P). The judge ruled in favour of mom against the ministry of children. After the first trial and ruling, MCFD ignored a court order, giving dad unsupervised access. Mom sued MCFD because its misfeasance resulted in her infant child being sexually assaulted by their father. The Judge ruled in mom's favour again, with a damning judgment against to the MCFD. All that remained was payment of a sum yet to be determined. Alarmed by this public whipping, both MCFD Minister and the Provincial Premier made a predictable promise of a Review of the system that allowed this. The government selected Bob Plecas who is capable of objectivity but is hardly an outsider. But here is the most reprehensible recent step. The government is appealing the Judge's ruling. This case has been dissected completely and this family has been dragged through the emotional mess for four years. Instead of doing the right thing, the government is appealing. Mom will wait, perhaps years more. There is almost no end to the money MCFD and the government can pour into its avoidance and denial.

I have been following this story, writing occasionally but I wouldn't be able to write the story with its disgusting details, any better than the acclaimed Vancouver Sun columnist Ian Mulgrew. With deep respect for him and for the Vancouver Sun's determination to tell truth, I will present Mulgrew's August 14th, 2015 in its entirety. It's entitled,  

PROVINCE TO APPEAL JUDGMENTS ACCUSING SOCIAL WORKERS OF NEGLIGENCE

Mom of abused kids caught in middle of what appears to be an all-out brawl

BY IAN MULGREW, VANCOUVER SUN COLUMNIST AUGUST 14, 2015

Jack Hittrich is the lawyer representing a 42-year-old woman known only as J.P. who was in the midst of a nasty divorce when her four children were seized. The province is appealing a decision that found child welfare workers in the case were negligent. File photo.

Photograph by: Mark Yuen/Vancouver Sun , Vancouver Sun

The B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development has all but declared war on the mom at the centre of scathing court rulings hammering social workers.

The provincial government wants to prevent a cost award in the scandalous six-year-old case until it has a chance to impugn the judge’s fact-finding and reasoning.

While Minister Stephanie Cadieux maintains the family isn’t the focus of her damage control, the mom was told in a letter sent Wednesday that pretty well everything Justice Paul Walker said in his blistering decisions will be disputed.

“I expect there will be grounds of appeal that put in issue the factual and legal foundation of Justice Walker’s liability findings, including bad faith, breach of fiduciary duty, special costs, etc.,” wrote government lawyer Karen Horsman in correspondence provided to The Sun.

She added, “the province disagrees with these findings and this will be a subject matter of the appeal.”

Victoria, Horsman said, wants to “defer a further damages trial before Mr. Justice Walker pending the conclusion of the province’s appeal.”

That now looks like it is going to be an all-out-knock-’em-down-and-drag-’em-out brawl.

Justice Walker savaged the ministry’s handling of a high conflict 2009 divorce involving four children and horrendous accusations of sex abuse against the father.

Given her ordeal, the 42-year-old mother known only as J.P. called the government “sadistic” for appealing the finding that child welfare workers ignored and misled the courts, allowing the dad unsupervised access to the kids enabling the abuse.

Initially, Cadieux said only that the judge had raised issues of “general importance for child protection” that required clarification by the Court of Appeal.

The mom’s Surrey lawyer, Jack Hittrich, said the most recent letter makes clear the entire judgment is being attacked.

The mom is devastated the emotionally draining battle will continue and hamper recovery for her children — seized in Dec. 2009 and returned to her only two-and-a-half-years later when the ministry recognized its mistake.

Justice Walker concluded ministry workers tainted a police investigation by inaccurately portraying the mother as mentally ill and “lost sight of their duties, professionalism and their objectivity.”

It was a landmark judgment that stripped them of the legal protection from liability normally enjoyed by social workers making discretionary decisions in good faith.

Although the disturbing findings were made three years ago, Justice Walker’s ruling last month on liability attracted public attention and spurred Cadieux to appoint retired longtime deputy minister Bob Plecas to conduct a review.

But that is turning into as much of a debacle as the controversial 2012 health ministry firings now under investigation by the ombudsman.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has launched an investigation into concerns about material the government may disclose to Plecas.

With that issue in mind, Cadieux made Plecas a “director” of child welfare — a position that legally permits him access to sensitive files such as J.P.’s but made her think as a ministry director he was not independent.

In his first contact, a letter also dated Wednesday, Plecas recognized “the strain this must place on the family.”

“The review will look at the case as a way to try to find systemic problems where I can make recommendations,” assured the man who helped design the ministry in the 1990s.

The Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who has criticized the handling of the case, “cannot proceed” with her own investigation, Plecas said, until his review is complete and “one year has passed after a critical incident.”

She can review and comment on his work “down the road.”

Earlier, Turpel-Lafond, who has followed the case since 2011, rebuffed Plecas’s invitation to meet.

Hittrich, too, said neither he nor the mom will meet with Plecas and that he will reply to the letter by asking Plecas to postpone his review until the appeal is decided.

He is considering seeking an injunction if necessary to quash the review until after the appeal as it looks like a collateral assault on the judgments.

“The Court of Appeal decision by the province complicates this issue, and, of course, I will proceed with caution,” Plecas promised in his letter.

“However, I accepted the appointment believing, that enough time has escaped, and learning and understanding what happened needs to be captured …. If from this tragic situation I can make a few recommendations that saves one child’s life, or prevent another similar case from happening, I will consider my review to be successful.”

Plecas, who provided his home phone number, plans to file a report by Oct 13.

Best intentions aside, this appears to be another gong show — a fortune in costs and legal fees going down the drain to deal with a human resources issue exacerbated by a civil service culture with an aversion to accountability.

The government’s action looks more motivated to protect bureaucrats rather than by a desire to do the right thing: Circling the wagons instead of helping victims become whole again — regardless of the cost to taxpayers, or this mom and her kids.

imulgrew@vancouversun.com

OUTRAGEOUS BUT NO SURPRISE - MCFD's appeal of the Walker Ruling

(This is an opinion piece by my colleague and guest writer, Ray Ferris 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.)

Hon. Stephanie Cadieux, Minister MCFD

    Many people are expressing outrage and horror at the appeal of the Walker judgement. I was fully expecting it for various reasons. First it is just what they always do. It is politics and has nothing to do with child welfare. Second it buys them time to work out a strategy and they count on time dulling the public awareness and lessens the political risk. Besides, they have already squandered a few million dollars of our money, so what is an extra million to protect that investment? The third reason is that they have already proved that they have terrible judgement, so we should expect another piece of bad judgment.

    I feel a bit sorry for poor Stephanie Cadieux. She made none of the decisions, but people are howling for her blood. All she can do is utter the lame platitudes prepared by her deputy minister and approved by the premier’s office. Mary-Ellen Turpel-Lafond may pour scorn on them but it runs off them like water off a duck’s back. The other device for buying time is to have the inquiry under Bob Plecas. It was carefully designed to go nowhere. The mandate was to review the policies and procedures of the MCFD and recommend changes. How does this relate to the Walker judgement? It doesn’t. Judge Paul Walker said that staff ignored court orders; misrepresented things to the court; lost their way professionally and ignored the facts when their minds were made up. In other words they were ignorant, insensitive and lacking a moral compass. So how can that be remedied by a policy and procedures fix? I can just see it on page 2008 of the Policy Manual. “Staff will act with sensitivity and good judgement at all times and will not lie to the court unless it is absolutely necessary.” The administrative fix has never worked and it never will.

    Turpel-Lafond told them that when you are in a deep hole, you should stop digging. Quite right, because the Child and Youth Representative is herself a judge and knows how the system works. You can bet your boots that those appeal court judges have read everything in the press and they are probably struggling to suppress their disgust and maintain impartiality. There is no guarantee that they will give leave to proceed with the appeal and no guarantee that they will let it drag on. So the government could soon be back at square one. If that happens, all they can do is to dispute the amount of money that is being asked for and, make no mistake, it will be in the millions. I already know the amount of money they offered in an out of court settlement before the misfeasance trial began. It was a lot, but not nearly enough to cover costs.

    Ron, I want to finish this entry on a positive note, so I will ask your readers to raise their hats and glasses to the Jack Hittrich Law Group, that carried the case gratis for millions of dollars worth of legal time. They are very high on my list of heroes.

B.C. GOVERNMENT NEEDS A CONSCIENCE.

The B.C. government is appealing Judge Walker's recent 2015 ruling that vindicated a good mother and publicly pilloried the Ministry of Children for a botched child protection case. This unfortunate mother and her children must feel like they are living a frightening fiction. Dorothy met three principle characters in the Wizard of Oz, each missing something essential. The Scarecrow required and wished for brains. The Tin Woodman desired a heart. The cowardly Lion needed courage. The B.C. Liberal Government and its Ministry of Children and Family has misplaced all three, brains, heart and courage. In this instance, the Government also reveals an absent conscience.

Put this family's experience into a justice framework. Then stand back and view what the B.C. Ministry of Children has done to Mom's family and what the B.C. Government will now compound.

In 2009 Mom and Dad were divorcing. Mom had concerns that Dad was sexually abusing their children. She reported this both to the Ministry and to Police. MCFD did not investigate this. Dad, educated and smooth talker, manipulated Ministry social workers to believe that Mom as mentally unstable. Ministry informed police of the same so police did not suitably investigate. Ministry wrongly apprehended Mom's children. Ministry provided false or misleading information to the judge to support the apprehension. Ministry sided with Dad in a custody battle. Ministry disregarded a court order and allowed Dad unsupervised access to his children. He then sexually abused his youngest child. The judge awarded the children to Mom. She sued the government. The Judge found the Ministry liable for negligence, misfeasance and breach of fiduciary duty.

Hon. Stephanie Cadieux, Photo: Doug Craig

These details are all contained within this justice framework. What would have turned this into a masterpiece, would have been heartfelt contrition by the government and by the Minister and Ministry personnel. But that is the stuff of fairy tales. So, the Premier and the Minister of Children promised a Review. Really? Bob Plecas, who is commissioned to conduct the review has no authority to place anyone under oath and he cannot lay blame. The review becomes meaningless now that the Government and the Ministry have decided to appeal Judge Walker's ruling. While this is before the court, no one is obliged to even talk to Plecas. More importantly, the hell that the government put Mom and the kids through for six years will drag on for several more years instead of settling with her. Oh, Stephanie Cadieux says this is not about the family. It's about getting clarity. How much clearer can it be? This is about not taking ownership of mistakes, and about dedicating oneself to fixing what is systemically faulty, and about sweeping this tasteless mess under the proverbial rug. These are elected officers of the Government showing up for work without a mind, heart, courage and most critically without a conscience.

CAN BINDING ARBITRATION WORK?

Resolving the Contract Impasse between Federation of Teachers versus Provincial Government

The BCFT and the government are in the midst of negotiating a new collective agreement. Negotiations have not gone well. The two parties are far enough apart and each is resistant to further accommodation that potential mediator Vince Ready walked away from the stalemate. Think about it. Over the past three months, both sides have not even met in the same room around a table yet. What kind of collective bargaining is that?