 |
| 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,
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.
“Some time ago submissions were invited to the provincial standing interparty committee on the representative for children and youth. It is this committee which selected Ms. Turpel-Lafond and with whom she dialogues and to whom she reports. I made a fairly long submission and copied the minister, and deputy minister. In it I used the Bayne case to illustrate some of the serious flaws in the protection services and to suggest some remedies. I emphasized that I was not advocating for the Bayne case, but simply using the Baynes to illustrate some of the problems. Even before submissions had been invited, I had sent a similar letter to the minister and the deputy minister. I eventually got a reply.
