STORY: "Mothers decry lack of transparency in review of Motherisk lab," by reporter Jacques Gallant, published by The Toronto Star on July 31, 2016.
SUB-HEADING: "Those the commission was established to help say they have been shut out of the process."
GIST: "Three
mothers who claim that their children were removed from their care as a
result of faulty drug and alcohol hair tests at Hospital for Sick
Children’s Motherisk laboratory have gone to court to call out what they
see as a lack of transparency at the commission set up to review their
cases. The very people the commission was
established to help want to see everything the commission has seen when
looking at their story. The three argue in
court documents that Commissioner Judith Beaman, a retired provincial
court judge, and her staff have failed to allow them to participate in
the reviews of their cases. They want the Divisional Court to order the
commission to allow them to make submissions to the commissioner and to
hold hearings in their cases. They also
want to see the children’s aid society files that may have been
consulted in the review of their cases, as well to get the commission to
order court transcripts from their child protection proceedings to get a
full picture of what role Motherisk hair tests may have played in
removing their children from their care. None
of the allegations have been proven in court. The women’s lawyer, Julie
Kirkpatrick, declined to comment as the matter is before the court. The
commission also declined to comment. “The
Commissioner has failed to interpret her mandate correctly, has erred
in law, and has exceeded her jurisdiction by not conducting her review
in a way that places inadequate Motherisk testing in a factual context
through a fair, transparent and thorough process,” argues part of all
three women’s applications for judicial review, which were filed in
court this week. The applications go on to
say that Beaman has also failed to interpret her mandate correctly by
“denying all rights of participation to all affected parties, except for
the Children’s Aid Society, in conducting a review.” The
Motherisk Commission was established by the provincial government
earlier this year in the wake of a damning independent review which
found that the hair tests at the Hospital for Sick Children lab were
“inadequate and unreliable.” The
tests were used in thousands of child protection cases across the
country. The independent review sparked by a Star investigation that
found that prior to 2010, Motherisk did not use what is considered to be
the “gold standard” hair test. The
hospital has since discontinued hair testing in the Motherisk lab, and
has apologized to individuals and families who may have been affected. The
commission’s two-year mandate includes reviewing Ontario cases from
between 1990 and 2015 where Motherisk may have been involved, either at
the individual’s request or on Beaman’s initiative. The
commission’s review and resource centre can offer individuals
counseling and, if Motherisk is determined to have played a significant
role in the outcome of the person’s case, the commission can also refer
them to lawyers. Those individuals can then
explore the possibility of applying to the courts to have Crown ward or
adoption orders with respect to their children set aside, for example. Two of three women who have taken their case to Divisional Court have publicly shared their stories in the past. Christine
Rupert, who specifically wants a public hearing at the commission, told
the Star in 2014 that her two children were removed at birth and later
adopted out. (Beaman has said in correspondence with Rupert that the Order-in-Council
from government appointing her as commissioner does not authorize her
to hold a public hearing, according to court documents.).........Another
applicant taking the commission to court is Yvonne Marchand, who is
also the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit brought by law firm
Koskie Minsky against Sick Kids and Motherisk’s former director and
manager.........The
third applicant is a mother whose child protection case is ongoing —
she is appealing a lower court’s decision to make her child a Crown ward
without access.........The
Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, Irwin Elman, continues to
express concerns about the way the Motherisk Commission operates, and
told the Star in an interview that he believes the three women raise
questions that the commission should be considering. Elman
especially wants the commission to review every one of the thousands of
child protection cases that used a Motherisk hair strand test. (The
independent review that led to the creation of the commission
recommended that the commission should not look at every case as it
“would be a formidable, time-consuming, expensive, and impractical
exercise.”) “For young people or former
young people, it might not be perceived as a burden for someone to
review their file,” Elman told the Star. “For young people who were or
are in care, knowing the truth about what happened to them might in fact
be a remedy.”
The entire story can be found at:
See the editorial calling for an 'open' public inquiry' which I published on this Blog on January 15th, 2016, at the link below: "
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: On it's face, the government news release issued earlier today (January 15, 2016) describes important steps to be taken by the independent commission, including making available assistance to families who may have been affected by the Motherisk laboratory's flawed testing methodology, providing legal, counselling and other support to individuals involved in child protection matters that may have been impacted by a flawed Motherisk test, and developing a process to identify potentially affected individuals and inform them about the findings of the Motherisk Hair Analysis review and about the resources available through the review and resource centre. The order-in-counsel also contains an important provision: that: (The Commissioner will) "offer early advice or guidance on high priority cases, including those cases identified as high priority by children's aid societies, and review individual child protection cases that may have been affected by Motherisk hair tests between 1990 and 2015, on request or on her own initiative." That said, it would appear on the face of everything that I have read, (I would love to be proven wrong) that this will not be a public inquiry. In contrast, to the Public Inquiry into many of former pathologist Charles Smith's cases (The Goudge Inquiry), Commissioner Beaman will do her work behind closed doors for the next two years, without any public examination under oath of the officials of the Hospital for Sick Children and the staff of the Motherisk lab who are responsible for this travesty which has wrongfully caused people to lose their children and sent innocent people to prison. (In spite of the lessons the hospital was supposed to have learned from the Goudge Inquiry and the whole ugly Charles Smith experience.) Of course, the privacy and confidentiality of the hospital's victims is a prerequisite - for those that choose to exercise it. (Some may well want to testify publicly about their treatment by the hospital and its staff.) But it appears as if the famed hospital is being allowed by the provincial government to slide off the hook. Hmmmm!"
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2016/01/bulletin-motherisk-ontario-government.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to:
hlevy15@gmail.com;
Harold Levy;
Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
