Did their baby really need to be protected?
Some say an inquiry is the only way to know if child welfare workers acted appropriately
By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE / Staff Reporter
Examining the actions of child welfare authorities during last year's armed standoff on Shirley Street would conceivably be the purpose of a public inquiry into the incident.
But is an inquiry absolutely necessary?
Supporters of the parents at the centre of the controversy say an investigation is not only warranted, it's needed to probe what they consider to be a dysfunctional system harming families.
Others say they're not convinced public hearings, sure to cost taxpayers plenty, will solve anything.
Justice Michael Baker has said he won't authorize an inquiry unless new information comes to light.
Critics who say they've been ill-served by the child welfare system, and have had their children taken from their care, are not happy with the government's position.
"The children in Nova Scotia are being abused by this (child-protection) system," Marilyn Dey, a Halifax supporter of standoff couple Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen, said in a recent interview.
The couple had their infant daughter removed from their household at the end of the May 2004 siege. In a court ruling Thursday, Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen lost custody of her permanently, though the decision can be appealed.
Ms. Dey acknowledged that backers of the pair, who face a sentencing hearing that begins today for their role in the 67-hour standoff, want a public probe to stretch beyond the Shirley Street event.
"This is the way Larry and Carline feel, too, that the whole child protection business, or industry, needs to be inquired into," Ms. Dey said.
Ms. VandenElsen has been on a jailhouse hunger strike to back demands for a wide-reaching inquiry; Mr. Finck has also been behind bars awaiting sentencing.
They were convicted May 12 of several charges after a jury trial in Nova Scotia Supreme Court.
Halifax police are doing an internal review of how the department handled the standoff, but that report is not expected to be made public.
The provincial Public Inquiries Act says one commissioner or more would be appointed by the government to look into a public matter. Witnesses would testify under oath and relevant documents filed with the commission during open hearings.
Once an inquiry's report is released, the government of the day usually provides an official response.
Recent inquiries called by the province have been linked to the separate deaths of three people: James Guy Bailey, Donald LeBlanc and Theresa McEvoy.
Nova Scotia has had other probes that weren't held under the Public Inquiries Act, including one, called a "review," that examined the province's youth detention compensation program.
The high-profile review was headed by a retired Quebec judge hired by the Nova Scotia government. In 2002, he released a 632-page report with 105 recommendations.
The Halifax standoff case, which made headlines when it happened 13 months ago and later during the trial stage, has prompted letters to the editor and other public commentary.
"Children are not apprehended on a whim; they are apprehended based upon fact," a former child welfare worker said in a letter last month to The Chronicle Herald.
She said an inquiry is unnecessary, adding, a child's "right of privacy far exceeds . . . anyone else's 'need to know' " what happened in the Finck / VandenElsen case.
"Histrionic demands for information by people who don't know the facts accomplishes nothing except to stir up public sentiment with half-truths," the letter writer said.
The apprehension order regarding Mr. Finck's and Ms. VandenElsen's baby was issued after child welfare officials in Ontario alerted colleagues in Nova Scotia. Officials here wanted the couple to agree to home visits to check on their child and undergo mental health assessments, and they wanted the baby to remain in Halifax.
They wouldn't comply.
Ms. VandenElsen's sister, Maureen Davidson, is hoping the government will change its tune and launch a public probe.
"That would be, for me, a miracle," the Mannheim, Ont., woman said, of an independent inquiry.
"I would love for people to see how this really all transpired."
If anything, the Shirley Street standoff has drawn attention to child protection services and prompted those who work in the field to try to explain why the province's 20 child welfare agencies do what they do.
Earlier this month, the Hamm government, along with the Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers, published a pamphlet on child welfare.
It says in 2004, there were about 11,500 child welfare cases in Nova Scotia. Some 840 of those involved court proceedings; less than one per cent of all cases involved taking a child from home.
Graeme Fraser, the association's co-ordinator, said his group has not formally discussed the inquiry issue. Speaking in general terms as someone who knows as much about the case as the public, he said: "I'm not aware of any factors that would warrant a public inquiry."
Mr. Fraser said apprehension orders are executed as "a last resort" in child protection cases, and "only after very thoughtful consideration."
He conceded "no system is perfect." But, Mr. Fraser said, the child welfare system is better at ensuring trustworthiness than most.
"There are a lot of safeguards and checks and balances in this particular system," he said. "Part of the reason for that is because of the kind of authority that the children's services agencies have."
Mr. Fraser added that in his experience, it's "fairly common" for police to accompany social workers removing kids from their homes. "It's such a highly-charged situation," he said, of the reason officers attend.
Halifax lawyer Burnley (Rocky) Jones, who has represented Ms. VandenElsen in the past, said her case opened his eyes "to such an extent, that I never want to see another (family law) case like this."
Asked about a public inquiry, he didn't hesitate before answering yes.
"There needs to be clarification of the role of Children's Aid, which we believe to be a private organization, which on the other hand works as a complete government agency," Mr. Jones said.
"They have it two ways."
Some say an inquiry is the only way to know if child welfare workers acted appropriately
By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE / Staff Reporter
Examining the actions of child welfare authorities during last year's armed standoff on Shirley Street would conceivably be the purpose of a public inquiry into the incident.
But is an inquiry absolutely necessary?
Supporters of the parents at the centre of the controversy say an investigation is not only warranted, it's needed to probe what they consider to be a dysfunctional system harming families.
Others say they're not convinced public hearings, sure to cost taxpayers plenty, will solve anything.
Justice Michael Baker has said he won't authorize an inquiry unless new information comes to light.
Critics who say they've been ill-served by the child welfare system, and have had their children taken from their care, are not happy with the government's position.
"The children in Nova Scotia are being abused by this (child-protection) system," Marilyn Dey, a Halifax supporter of standoff couple Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen, said in a recent interview.
The couple had their infant daughter removed from their household at the end of the May 2004 siege. In a court ruling Thursday, Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen lost custody of her permanently, though the decision can be appealed.
Ms. Dey acknowledged that backers of the pair, who face a sentencing hearing that begins today for their role in the 67-hour standoff, want a public probe to stretch beyond the Shirley Street event.
"This is the way Larry and Carline feel, too, that the whole child protection business, or industry, needs to be inquired into," Ms. Dey said.
Ms. VandenElsen has been on a jailhouse hunger strike to back demands for a wide-reaching inquiry; Mr. Finck has also been behind bars awaiting sentencing.
They were convicted May 12 of several charges after a jury trial in Nova Scotia Supreme Court.
Halifax police are doing an internal review of how the department handled the standoff, but that report is not expected to be made public.
The provincial Public Inquiries Act says one commissioner or more would be appointed by the government to look into a public matter. Witnesses would testify under oath and relevant documents filed with the commission during open hearings.
Once an inquiry's report is released, the government of the day usually provides an official response.
Recent inquiries called by the province have been linked to the separate deaths of three people: James Guy Bailey, Donald LeBlanc and Theresa McEvoy.
Nova Scotia has had other probes that weren't held under the Public Inquiries Act, including one, called a "review," that examined the province's youth detention compensation program.
The high-profile review was headed by a retired Quebec judge hired by the Nova Scotia government. In 2002, he released a 632-page report with 105 recommendations.
The Halifax standoff case, which made headlines when it happened 13 months ago and later during the trial stage, has prompted letters to the editor and other public commentary.
"Children are not apprehended on a whim; they are apprehended based upon fact," a former child welfare worker said in a letter last month to The Chronicle Herald.
She said an inquiry is unnecessary, adding, a child's "right of privacy far exceeds . . . anyone else's 'need to know' " what happened in the Finck / VandenElsen case.
"Histrionic demands for information by people who don't know the facts accomplishes nothing except to stir up public sentiment with half-truths," the letter writer said.
The apprehension order regarding Mr. Finck's and Ms. VandenElsen's baby was issued after child welfare officials in Ontario alerted colleagues in Nova Scotia. Officials here wanted the couple to agree to home visits to check on their child and undergo mental health assessments, and they wanted the baby to remain in Halifax.
They wouldn't comply.
Ms. VandenElsen's sister, Maureen Davidson, is hoping the government will change its tune and launch a public probe.
"That would be, for me, a miracle," the Mannheim, Ont., woman said, of an independent inquiry.
"I would love for people to see how this really all transpired."
If anything, the Shirley Street standoff has drawn attention to child protection services and prompted those who work in the field to try to explain why the province's 20 child welfare agencies do what they do.
Earlier this month, the Hamm government, along with the Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers, published a pamphlet on child welfare.
It says in 2004, there were about 11,500 child welfare cases in Nova Scotia. Some 840 of those involved court proceedings; less than one per cent of all cases involved taking a child from home.
Graeme Fraser, the association's co-ordinator, said his group has not formally discussed the inquiry issue. Speaking in general terms as someone who knows as much about the case as the public, he said: "I'm not aware of any factors that would warrant a public inquiry."
Mr. Fraser said apprehension orders are executed as "a last resort" in child protection cases, and "only after very thoughtful consideration."
He conceded "no system is perfect." But, Mr. Fraser said, the child welfare system is better at ensuring trustworthiness than most.
"There are a lot of safeguards and checks and balances in this particular system," he said. "Part of the reason for that is because of the kind of authority that the children's services agencies have."
Mr. Fraser added that in his experience, it's "fairly common" for police to accompany social workers removing kids from their homes. "It's such a highly-charged situation," he said, of the reason officers attend.
Halifax lawyer Burnley (Rocky) Jones, who has represented Ms. VandenElsen in the past, said her case opened his eyes "to such an extent, that I never want to see another (family law) case like this."
Asked about a public inquiry, he didn't hesitate before answering yes.
"There needs to be clarification of the role of Children's Aid, which we believe to be a private organization, which on the other hand works as a complete government agency," Mr. Jones said.
"They have it two ways."
Yeah, what's that about 'absolute power'?
No comments:
Post a Comment