Any time that a death of a child occurs while in care of the Ministry of Children, there is a need for close scrutiny of the custodial care and the circumstances in which it happened. The death of a child in care is alarming. It is assumed that a child is in care because that life was vulnerable or endangered by risk of some kind in the existing home care. It is therefore a shock when in the supposed foster place of safety, a child dies. It is assumed that a death should not occur while in foster care unless there were mitigating medical issues. When a child dies while in the system, we can be assured that front line child protection workers are not heartless but that they rather feel the emotional impact. That empathy becomes questionable to us if the system does not openly and publicly probe into the death and learn from it so that there will be improvements to policy and practice for the sake of other future children receiving services.
Loved ones of the deceased child do not want the child's death to be invisible. Chris Martell in Saskatchewan is an example of a father insistent upon the government learning from the tragic death of his two year old son while in a foster care home. He is presently completing a five day walk to Regina today where he will present a petition to the government to take necessary steps to prevent such tragedy. In his son's case, a foster mother has already been charged with a criminal act. The Ministry demonstrates real compassion only when it honestly investigates and assesses cause and takes steps to insure that if there was fault, it is not only punished but corrected, made preventable. In such situations, the government has responsibility to account to the public how things went wrong and what is being done to correct it.
A child does not need to die to warrant a review of process in handling the care of a child. I believe that this type of accountability ought similarly to apply to care situations, notwithstanding the confidentiality concerns written into the child protection protocol. So, when a child is returned to its parents by a court ruling, that must be an occasion for disclosure of Ministry decisions which shaped the entire experience of parents and children during the time they were involved with the Ministry. Don't regard that as sensational but educational. Good social work aims to excel. Clearly, when the court ruling declares that the Ministry has not proven its case that the child should be in or remain in care, yet the child has been removed from the family home for an extended time, then important lessons should be learned and policy and procedure shaped in response. When timelines for custody and care orders that are carefully prescribed in the Act are ignored or stretched, then the attending judge and MCF supervisors and the Ministry in Victoria should disregard excuses and act to correct the practice. As 2010 closes out on the Bayne case and when Judge Crabtree returns all three children into the care of their own parents, a public accounting will be very informative and hopefully will assist Victoria to fine tune its expectations for outcomes and accountability within its decentralized structure.
