MORE BAD NEWS ABOUT THE MINISTRY OF CHILDREN

             The B.C. Ministry of Children is in the news almost every day. The items are invariably unpleasant. Two more headline stories this week, indications of a systemic limitation - control and accountability. It's not Stephanie Cadieux's fault. The Honourable Minister is an honourable woman. She cannot be responsible for what social workers and their supervisors decide and effect. Ministers change yet the negative press repeats year after year. Protection of children and care for vulnerable children is undeniably difficult and problematic. Before she is moved on, she and her office must genuinely dialogue with Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, Representative for Children and Youth and official watchdog over the Ministry of Children, and address jointly constructed plans, policies and action steps to transform this Ministry. The window of opportunity may be small since Turpel-Lafond's 10-year term is finishing.

            So here are the two newsmaker articles this week.

RECAP OF JUDGE WALKER'S LANDMARK RULING AGAINST THE MINISTRY OF CHILDREN IN 2015

My GPS weblog covered in 6 parts the momentous litigation between a mother known as J.P. versus the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development. She sued MCFD and won in July 2015.  Hers was a case in which her children were removed from her and given into the care of her husband whom it was alleged had sexually abused them. Justice Paul Walker not only condemned the Ministry but awarded the custody of the children to their mother. Here follows my synopsized version of Judge Walker's 140-page judgement.

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

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

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

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

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

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 6 of 6 - More Findings

Additional to the 6 part analysis of Judge Walker's ruling, two GPS blog posts comment further to GPS: JUDGE WALKER'S DECISION AGAINST THE MINISTRY OF MCFD … News sources jumped on this story that Judge Paul Walker ruled that the Ministry failed to protect children from sexual abuse by their father, … and GPS: JUSTICE PAUL WALKER STUNNING JUDGEMENT concerns the shock waves caused by the ruling.

As stunning and scathing as it was, the B.C. government has appealed the judgement. It also assigned Bob Plecas to do an independent review. He completed and published that report before year end again MCFD is judged wanting in some areas. Read Plecas' full report here.

A CBC News report headlined the report this way. B.C. child protection system slammed for lack of accountability, leadership, funding - British Columbia - CBC News

The Appeal results are still pending and so is compensation for JP.

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. 

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