click for help

collapse

On this page press one of the expand buttons to see the full text of an article. Later press collapse to revert to the original form. The button below expands all articles.

show all

More recent news

This British article should be a lesson to anyone who thinks secrecy is the way to protect your child. Publicity is the weapon child protectors fear most, and the one most likely to save your children from their abuses.

expand

collapse

In the shadows of justice

The government has announced plans to open up the opaque family courts system. John Sweeney reports on the parents who are caught up in the web of secrecy.

John Sweeney
Monday June 19, 2006

The Guardian (UK)

In Tom Stoppard's play, Night and Day, Guthrie, the old hack, questions whether any story is worth dying for. And then from the bottom of his cynicism out it comes: "I've been around a lot of places. People do awful things to each other. But it's worse in places where everybody is kept in the dark. It really is. Information is light. Information, in itself, about anything, is light."

Ask "the social". Social services departments have the power to go to the family courts and take all your children away, for ever, without a jury, the press or the public knowing about it. Hostile adoptions take place behind closed doors, to protect the child.

But what if the social gets it wrong - and its experts assert abuse without properly investigating natural causes? Then a family may lose all of their children on the basis of false accusation, and they cannot go public and protest without fear of prosecution for contempt or other retribution. For example, if the social has taken Child A, B and C, and the family protest that was a mistake, the social could take Child D, too, again to protect the child. If the family hold their tongue, they might get to keep Child D ...

The pressure to remain silent in the face of losing your children for good is great, perhaps too great. Too many people complain to me that social services are too powerful, and families accused of abuse are too powerless, for every complaint to be without merit.

Reporting this kind of nightmare is not easy. Living it is unspeakably worse. Nicky and Mark Hardingham are an ordinary, extraordinary working-class couple. He drives a forklift, she tests the prawns in the same little factory in Norfolk, and appears meek and shy until you get to know and appreciate her gentle, mocking wit. They used to have three children, who they have to call in public Child A, B and C. They lost all three behind closed doors in a hostile adoption, but the couple protest their innocence. The family could not satisfactorily explain sinister, metaphyseal fractures in their son, Child B. To no avail, they pointed to a long history of brittle bones in their family - 100 fractures over four generations - and the fact that Child B was lactose intolerant. If he could not drink milk, and was not given a dietician - even though the family had asked for one - could that have affected his bone growth? No: it was abuse. (During the family court case, which I cannot report, Nicky's then lawyer applied for and got a job with Norfolk social services. She and it deny any potential conflict of interest.)

When Nicky became pregnant last year - an accident - she became terrified that Norfolk social services would take her fourth child away, too.

Last November I reported on their case for Radio 4's File On Four and also investigated that of Ian and Angela Gay, who had been convicted in the open, criminal court of poisoning their adopted child with salt. Last year, we could not identify Nicky and Mark because A, B and C had not been permanently adopted and we gave them fake names. The contrast between the two cases - one in the open and the other in the dark - was shocking.

We found fresh evidence of natural causes in both cases. The story of the Gays caused something of a national outcry. As well as the File On Four, I covered it for Newsnight, BBC TV news and the Daily Mirror, and it was followed up by the Mail, the Telegraph and others. The convictions against Ian and Angela Gay were quashed. Although they face a retrial, they are out of prison now. The story on Nicky and Mark died. They can never get A, B and C back.

I first came across the family court "black hole" in 2001 when, working for 5 Live, I started investigating the claims of people who said they were victims of Professor Sir Roy Meadow's law, that the more cot deaths you suffered, the more likely it was that you were a murderer. He gave evidence against cot death mothers Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and Donna Antony in the open criminal courts. We could report his evidence, find other experts who said it was "barbaric" "like stamp-collecting" and "just plain wrong" and report the belief of friends and families that the mothers had been wronged.

Meadow also gave evidence in the family courts. His victims could not appear on camera, they could not speak out under their own names. We could only report Meadow's evidence by risking contempt actions, which we did, time and again. Slowly, the net tightened. Blobbing out a mother's face, as she mourns the loss of a child taken from her at 25 minutes old, on the say-so, in part, of the evidence of Meadow, may have been in the interests of the child. It felt like censorship.

Back to the Hardinghams, who still protested their innocence. In April this year, Norfolk finally told them that A, B and C had been permanently adopted. By mistake or design - who knows - they had sent round a video, advertising the couple's children to adopting strangers, to Nicky and Mark. For BBC1's Real Story, broadcast last month, we filmed them watching that video and we filmed Nicky in her daughter's bedroom. We filmed, too, Nicky's grandmother, Joyce, talking about being falsely accused of child abuse in 1946 because she could not explain a mystery fracture in her daughter, Nicky's mother. And then their whole family standing by the couple.

Our film could go out because Norfolk had no children to protect: A, B and C had gone for ever and the one in Nicky's womb was not yet born and legally did not exist. Two and a half million people watched Nicky and Mark tell their side of the story.

After the show went out, the family met Norfolk and they say that a chance remark by a council officer implied that Norfolk planned to take the fourth child - an allegation Norfolk denies. The couple went to Ireland to try to keep the fourth.

When the baby was born, Norfolk arrived in Ireland the very next day. Nicky and Mark were confronted with a cruel choice: stay in Ireland, and face the Irish authorities, or go back to England, to the people who had already taken the first three children, where their parenting skills would be assessed. They chose England and drove to Dublin airport. However, at the check-in desk they were told that the new baby was too young to fly - and so the next night we were able to broadcast our second Real Story on the case.

Lisa Christensen, head of Norfolk Children's Services, has repeatedly reproached the couple for going public because it was "inappropriate".

Professor Carolyn Hamilton of the Children's Legal Centre told Real Story: "We have real concerns about more transparency and more access to the family courts because obviously children need to be protected, and so do parents from very intrusive press reporting or from gossiping about their case in the locality where they live. I don't see why having the public or the press in the courts would make it any fairer or less fair."

But others disagree. As a result of going public, 100 people supported Nicky and Mark by attending a local meeting, a thousand have signed a petition declaring their innocence and 3.7 million people watched the second Real Story - a quarter of everyone watching the telly at the time. Fresh experts have come forward, including a bone surgeon and a professor of medicine, gravely unhappy with the original medical opinion against the couple. One member of the public came forward showing that his family had gone through a second genetic test, for the LRP5 brittle bone mutation, which Nicky and Mark did not know existed. Going public to protest against claimed injustice may be inappropriate. It is certainly inconvenient. But it does help.

Information is light

After the first Real Story went out, Norfolk changed tack. Christensen wrote to Harriet Harman, the minister of justice, saying: "We would actually welcome more information being made public in this case ... allegations can be made against public bodies, but because of the confidentiality of proceedings in family courts, the full facts cannot be revealed."

The moment the couple arrived back in England, Norfolk went to court, to get an injunction requiring further reporting restrictions in the case. The injunction stated: "If you disobey this order you may be found guilty of contempt of court and may be sent to prison or be fined or have your assets seized." It is not even clear whether I can ask Nicky or Mark "how are things going?"

A website in support of the couple is in the line of fire from the council, and local reporters are now anxious about covering what happens next. For example, if Norfolk does take the fourth baby from the couple, can we report that? Or would that be against the interests of the child? 3.7 million people might like to know.

Perhaps Norfolk and other social services might care to reflect on what the constitutional affairs minister Harriet Harman said on our Real Story when she set out plans for allowing the press in to the family courts: "For justice to be done, it must be seen to be done."

I asked if she was going to change the law, and she replied: "yes".

Source:
society.guardian.co.uk/ children/ story/ 0,,1800936,00.html

Add your barber to the list of people not to trust. The state of Maine is enlisting hair stylists as snitches for the social services system.

expand

collapse

Salons join effort to stop violence
Maine hairstylists to help eliminate abuse

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - Bangor (Maine) Daily News

WATERVILLE - Maine is enlisting hairstylists in the ongoing effort to eliminate domestic abuse.

The idea is that women often open up to their hairdressers, so they should be alert and report problems.

"You build a trust with your stylist. They are the ones who are looking out for you," said Debra Krasniak of Cosmotech School in Westbrook, where a training session was held last month. "You tell your stylist a lot of things, and it becomes a safe place at times."

The second phase of training for beauty salon workers was being held Tuesday at Pierre's School of Cosmetology in Waterville, building on the earlier session in Greater Portland. Additional training will be offered next month in Bangor.

Attorney General Steven Rowe called domestic violence an "insidious problem" and pointed out that a domestic assault occurs in the state at the rate of once every 97 minutes. In the last two years, 38 Maine people died in domestic violence homicides.

The training program for beauty salon workers is similar to efforts in Florida, Idaho, Oklahoma, Virginia and Ohio, said Nicky Blanchard, spokeswoman for the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence.

It is based on a key finding of a report by the Maine Domestic Abuse Homicide Review Panel: Many people recognized abuse in relationships that ended in homicide, but did nothing.

"By familiarizing ourselves with potential warning signs of domestic violence and educating ourselves on the resources available, we increase our society's ability to help victims," said Assistant Attorney General Lisa Marchese, who led the panel.

The report by the Maine Domestic Abuse Homicide Review Panel said inaction by bystanders allows abuse to continue. "Bystanders often observe abusive and controlling behavior but do not talk to the victim," the report said.

Sometimes controlling behavior can be spotted by a stylist, Krasniak said.

"You might start offering a change [of hairstyle] and she says, 'No he would not like that,' or 'He would kill me if I cut my hair,"' she said. "You start to think there might be some control issues."

Over the years Krasniak has suspected that some of her clients were victims of abuse. Some of them opened up and described their partner's behavior.

"I would just listen to what they told me," she said. "I told them there were programs out there and just advised them to seek help."

The new program trains stylists to steer people who may be abused toward one of the state's nine domestic violence projects, Blanchard said.

Stylists are supplied with literature to post in their shops, as well as nail files that have an organization's contact information.

Similar training efforts have been conducted with state employees, law enforcement officers, clergy and schools.

"The duty to learn more and do more extends well beyond police and prosecutors," Marchese said. "Everyone in the community can help."

Source:
www.bangornews.com/ news/ templates/ ?a=135782 &z=500%20class

We have received a photocopy of a letter from Children's Aid, threatening participants in the upcoming rally on June 20. We have heard of other threats of retribution, but so far this is the only one in writing.

The parents are being threatened for violating a law intended to prevent newspapers and broadcast media from publicizing the names of vulnerable children. We do not know of any case in which courts have dealt with a parent naming his own child. Since the parents lack the means to hire appellate lawyers, it will not be dealt with in this case.

To keep this family out of further trouble, we will not disclose their names or identify the Children's Aid Society involved. We use the mark ▉ in places where our copy has material deleted.

expand

collapse

The Children's Aid Society ▉▉

▉▉▉
▉▉▉
▉▉▉

▉▉

It has come to the attention of the Society that you ▉ are involved in the United Family Front rally set for Tuesday, June 20, 2006, and that you will be making public information regarding the various children of ▉▉▉▉ and the child protection proceedings. As you ▉▉▉ amply aware, the current laws provide that the publication or public release of information regarding, and that would tend to identify, children involved in child protection proceedings is prohibited and a breach thereof would open you up to legal repercussions. Accordingly, you are not to release such information in any way.

In particular, Subsection 45(8) of the Child and Family Services Act states:

No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child's parent or foster parent or a member of the child's family.

As you have been advised in the past, breaching the prohibition against publishing or making public any information about any of your children, yourselves or any other family members, could give rise to the penalties under subsection 85(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, which states:

A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 45(7) (c) or subsection 45(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000.00 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.

In particular, ▉▉▉▉ can speak at the June 20, 2006 rally about the situations relating to your children, or speak about your "story" and the children.

You are also directed to deleted (sic) any website information relating to the child protection proceedings and also any information (such as, but not limited to, the names or part of the names of any of the children, or the names or part of the names of ▉▉ you as a parent, or the names or part of the names of any other relatives, any and all photographs of the children or either of you as a parent or of any other relatives, and any other details or comments) "that has the effect of identifying" any of your children. Obviously, information regarding a parent or other relative, a foster parent, or a worker in turn can enable the public to identify which child or children are being spoken about, so that no such information can be published or spoken about or released to the public in any form or manner whatsoever.

Kindly confirm that you have taken the necessary steps to correct or cancel any and all such breaches or potential breaches so that any further legal action will not be necessary.

Yours truly,

▉▉▉▉

Source: email from aggrieved party

Here is the story of a father who paid child support for eleven years after the death of his daughter, without knowing she was dead. It is not the first concealed death in family law. The fathers group FACT has found cases of fathers who paid child support for years to a deceased mother. At least the Texas father by rights ought to have been notified of his daughter's death. Parents of crown wards have no legal right to notice of the death of their children.

expand

collapse

Wichita Falls Texas Times Record News

Girl's death lost in the system

Dad paid support for 11 years after child killed

By Stacy Horany/Times Record News
June 7, 2006

A check in the mail led Daniel Davenport to a terrible discovery.

The Wichitan had lost his daughter, Ashley,when he and her mother broke up in 1988. Ashley stayed in the Golden State with her mother. Davenport left California in 1990 and returned to Wichita Falls.

Davenport lost Ashley again - this time to a fatal car accident in July 1995.

But he wouldn't know about the wreck until 11 years later after, receiving a refund check for child support, arrears and medical insurance from the Texas Attorney General's office.

Davenport pulled the check from his mailbox one day in April - of this year.

When Davenport and his fiancee Kelly Reece contacted the office to question the refund, they were told "the child is deceased and no more payments are required."

A check for $2,160 was all that remained of Ashley's life.

Davenport is sickened by the fact that his daughter's life was shuffled away, lost in 11 years worth of paperwork, like a file on a messy desk.

"I thought they meant she had been dead six months since that was how much child support the check was for," Davenport said. Davenport said the Texas office told him he'd have to contact the Stanislaus County Department of Child Support Services in California to find out more.

The Stanislaus County office told him Ashley had died in July 1995.

A news story Davenport obtained, published in the Modesto Bee, stated that Ashley, then 6 years old, was killed in a car accident on July 3, 1995. Her mother was driving and accelerated through a red light. The car was broadsided on the front passenger side.

Ashley was riding in a passenger's lap in the front seat. She was ejected from the vehicle and suffered fatal chest and head injuries, according to an accident report from the Modesto Police Department.

A later article in the Bee stated that Ashley's mother stayed one day in jail and received three years probation as a result of the accident.

Janece Rolfe, a spokeswoman for the Texas Attorney General's office child support division, said Texas was notified of the death in September 2005 by the Stanislaus County office - 10 years after Ashley's death.

Rolfe said Texas is in discussions with California at this time about the Davenport case.

"We're going over everything with a fine-toothed comb," Rolfe said.

In Texas, "we routinely match our case load with death certificates issued by the Vital Statistics Unit through the Texas Department of State Health Services," Rolfe said. Rolfe said the systems differ state by state, and the same procedures might not be in place in California.

Neal Selover, public information officer with the Stanislaus County Department of Child Support Services, said he was not able to speak about specific cases, citing privacy laws in California. He did not comment on any safeguards the office has to ensure clients are paying child support on live children and directed calls to the complaint division at the Stanislaus office.

In 1993, California opened a case on Ashley, and Texas was enlisted to collect the money from Davenport, who is now working as a mechanic in Wichita Falls. He said he did get behind a few times on the support payments and owed arrears.

He said he had been called to court numerous times, after 1995, and his bank account was even frozen in 2004 by the Texas Attorney General's office to pay arrears - nine years after Ashley's death.

He said he spoke with the Stanislaus office Tuesday, and they offered to send him a check for $2,000. But Davenport said he will not accept the money until they answer his questions, namely, how could both Texas and California lose a child for 11 years.

"I've got a bunch of questions they still have not answered," Davenport said. "The money is not the deal. I just want somebody to take responsibility for this."

He said he was considering obtaining legal counsel to deal with the agencies and get the story straight.

"They knew how to find me to take me to court, but they couldn't find me to tell me my little girl was dead."

Davenport and Ashley's mother had separated shortly after Ashley was born in 1988, and Davenport hadn't seen Ashley since she was 6 weeks old.

"We didn't get along," Davenport said of his former girlfriend. I was young and crazy, and one day I left to go to work and when I came home, she and Ashley were gone," Davenport said.

Davenport said he did a three-month stint in jail in California in 1988, and, by the time he got out, he had lost track of both Ashley and her mother. He said he decided to come back to Wichita Falls, his home, in 1990.

"I've tried to contact her all these years, and I haven't been able to find them," Davenport said.

Davenport has had a checkered past with the law, according to the Web site PublicData.com. He admitted his criminal history.

"My past is my past. This isn't about me. This is about the state of Texas and the state of California losing my daughter for 11 years," Davenport said.

He said he was looking forward to this fall, when Ashley would have turned 18, so that he might be able to establish a relationship with her. Now, Davenport must deal with Ashley's death.

"Nobody should have to go through this, to send payments every week on current child support only to find out their daughter died all these years ago," Davenport said. "I don't know how to even express how I feel about this."

He just found out two weeks ago where his daughter is buried.

But Davenport is not ready to mourn.

He is preparing letters to send to every Attorney General's office in the United States. He said he's written letters to Gov. Rick Perry and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and has contacted Sen. Craig Estes' office.

"I'm too upset to mourn right now. I am very mad. It sounds like to me, the system is the deadbeat," Davenport said.

Source:
www.timesrecordnews.com/ trn/ local_news/ article/ 0,1891,TRN_5784_4756054,00.html

Removal of babies from their mothers at birth sounds like a science-fiction horror story. In this real-life case Anne Marsden reports on an unnamed mother-to-be who anticipates that her baby will be seized at birth. We have encountered two other mothers, neither close to being dysfunctional, who gave birth to three babies at home to avoid baby seizure in the delivery room.

expand

collapse

The Auditors
The Canadian Family Watchdog
#308 – 1425 Ghent Avenue, Burlington, Ontario, L7S 1X5
Tel. 905-639-5684 E-mail: watching@cogeco.ca

BEST INTERESTS
By Anne Marsden

Expecting a baby is supposed to be a time of anticipated joy and usually is for most mothers and fathers- to-be.. However, for a mom-to-be in Brantford the anticipated joy has been put on the back burner because she is afraid that the joy that comes after the inevitable pain of giving birth will, in her case, be very quickly replaced by the pain of grief as she watches her baby whisked away to give another the joy she cannot allow herself to anticipate. She is allowing herself to anticipate the privilege of spending just one hour with her baby, scheduled to be delivered at the Brantford General, but nothing more. I can well understand the questions from readers that will follow reading the first three sentences of this publication given the mandate of the Childrens Aid Society of Brant is to ensure the best interests of children and many believe there is no smoke without fire when it comes to involvement of child protection agencies. However, there is an issue that should concern us all associated with the concerns (to put it mildly) presently facing mom-to-be at a time when contemplating this type of scenario with its associated fear and anxiety is not in the best interests of her health or that of her baby.

We are hearing a lot about security certificates lately and how they allow for the subject of such a certificate not to be informed of the case against them. This Brantford mom-to-be, believes, and we would agree, that according to rule of law she is entitled to know the case that Childrens Aid Society of Brant has against her that would precipitate plans for her child’s apprehension she understands to be in place. There has been much effort on her part to determine the case against her and, plenty of time for papers to be served and a child protection hearing to be held before a judge, the only person according to our legislation who can make the decision that this newborn is a “child in need of protection” and order the legislated means to protect the child’s best interests to be put in place.

CAS of Brant Executive Director, Andrew Koster refuses to respond to any requests from mom-to-be for due process regarding any concerns CAS of Brant may have so she can do her best to ensure no such concerns are valid. The Criminal Code of Canada depicts those who take a child under 14 years of age from the supervision of a parent without lawful cause as abductors. Brantford police and its Police Services Board recently refused to deal with the consequences of what the evidence, including an affidavit of the CAS of Brantford, shows is police involvement in the taking of a three year old Brantford child (the circumstances are set out in our retrospective audit report Shining a Light) out of the court ordered custody of her mother without lawful cause. Deputy Chief of Police Jeff Kellner was very much involved in the retrospective audit and the lack of consequences and has been kept up to date on this new concern. It will be interesting to see whose “best interests” are considered as he and Brantford Police in general carry out their duties after mom gives birth. A June 14, 2006 Auditors Publication.

The rally for Queens Park in Toronto on June 20, 11:00am to 12:30pm, has new leadership. The original rally organizer will be unable to attend. John Dunn is assuming some of the leadership functions, along with another person who prefers to remain nameless.

One of the rally objectives is to support Andrea Horwath's bill 88, providing for the Ontario Ombudsman to look into complaints against children's aid societies.

The last rally was unsuccessful owing the the small turnout. Dufferin VOCA has enough readers (even apart from cops and social workers) that if all readers attend with a friend or a child, it will have an impact. Bring as many people as you can.

The following article, told with an anti-mother bias, gives a creative method of baby-stealing. When Jennifer Liehne gave, birth, social services pulled out the record of a long-ago crib-death, reclassified it as the now-discredited Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, sentenced her to jail and took her baby. The mother found it impossible to find exculpatory witnesses to events over twenty years ago.

expand

collapse

Glasgow Daily Record

TRULY WICKED MUM

May 12 2006

'High risk' killer mum is caged for 10 years

By Arnot Mcwhinnie

A MOTHER who killed her baby daughter nearly a quarter of a century ago was branded "truly wicked" yesterday as she was jailed for 10 years.

A court heard Jennifer Liehne was a continuing danger to children and young people physically, emotionally and psychologically.

Liehne, whom the court heard had smothered her daughter Jacqueline repeatedly over two months before she died, broke down in tears as sentence was passed.

Because of the danger she poses, the judge, Lord Hardie, told Liehne that she would be strictly monitored for a further five years on her release.

He told her: "Your actions can only be described as truly wicked and it is impossible for any decent human being to comprehend your persistent abuse of your baby."

The High Court in Glasgow heard Liehne, 42, was not suffering from any mental illness, although medical tests suggested it was possible she might have the personality disorder Munchausen's syndrome by proxy.

The condition makes sufferers seek attention and sympathy by inducing illness in someone close to them, usually a child, so that they require medical care.

Nurse Beverly Allitt, who killed four children and was jailed for life in 1993, is also believed to suffer from the untreatable condition.

The judge told Liehne: "You were responsible for your actions and you will have the death of your baby on your conscience for the rest of your life, whatever penalty I impose.

"You are a danger to children and young people and pose a high risk of harm to the public."

And he said Liehne had to be deprived of access to children in the future.

He added it was probable if she had further children they would be taken away from her.

He said: "On her release it may be that people she lives beside might be unaware of her history and might invite her to babysit."

And passing the five-year monitoring order, he said: "The issue of the protection of children and young people from you is too important to leave to any uncertainty."

Liehne was found guilty last month of the culpable homicide of her daughter Jacqueline, who died in December 1982 aged seven months.

She had originally been charged with murder.

The court heard yesterday she was still claiming she didn't harm her child.

It was originally thought Jacqueline was the victim of a cot death but the case was reopened when social workers discovered Liehne was pregnant again in 2001. She went on to have a baby girl who is now in care.

After re-examining the case, medical experts concluded foul play was involved.

Lord Hardie said: "There is no greater bond than that of a mother and child. Throughout the seven months of her short life Jacqueline depended on you and trusted you to care for her.

"For some reason you chose to abuse that trust and that abuse manifested itself in criminal activity during the last two months before her death."

As she was led away, Liehne of Craigmillar Court, Peffermill Road, Edinburgh, burst into tears and had to grab railings to stop herself from falling.

'Your actions can only be described as truly wicked and it is impossible for any decent human being to comprehend your persistent abuse of your baby' LORD HARDIE.

Source:
www.dailyrecord.co.uk/ news/ tm_objectid=17068445 &method=full &siteid=66633 &headline=truly-wikced--name_page.html
Pointed out by a Dufferin VOCA reader

A mother has been arrested and charged with a crime for caring for her own children. Police pretend to be astonished that the children were unharmed. Here are two news articles on the case.

expand

collapse

The Fountain Pen, Guelph Ontario

Children found safely

Web posted on June 12, 2006

Deborah Farrell and her two children (Cody, 6, and Nicole, 2) were located at the Valens Conservation area by Hamilton Police on June 11, 2006. The two children were safe and unharmed and have been turned over to Family and Children Services.

Deborah Farrell, 45, of Guelph and Suzanne Craig, 45, of Allenford have been charged with Assault Level I in relation to an assault on a Family and Children Services caregiver on Saturday June 10th 2006 in the Zellers parking lot at 175 Stone Road West in Guelph.

Farrell will be in court on June 12, 2006 charged with Assault Level 1 and Breach Probation, while Craig will be in court in July charged with Assault Level 1.

The investigation is continuing. Anyone with information regarding this incident is asked to contact Constable Manfred Hoyer of the Guelph Police Service at 519-824-1212 ext.345 or CrimeStoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS.

Source:
www.thefountainpen.com/ cgi-bin/ showstory ?id=5075

Guelph Mercury

Children located 'safe and sound'

Police allege mother, accomplice seized her kids from foster parent

GREG MERCER

GUELPH (Jun 12, 2006)

A Guelph mother who eluded police over the weekend after allegedly taking her two young children from a foster mother was arrested late last night in Hamilton.

Her two children, aged two and six, were taken into custody and were to be transported back to Guelph after midnight, Guelph Police said.

On Friday, the boy and girl had been taken away from their mother by children's aid workers. They will be returned to the custody of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Guelph Police say on Saturday, their 45-year-old mother somehow found and confronted a foster mother in the middle of a busy Zellers parking lot and with the help of an accomplice reclaimed her two children.

They made off in a green older North American model station wagon that police across Ontario spent the next 30-plus hours trying to locate.

Police said throughout the weekend they were concerned for the safety and well-being of the children, who were found unharmed with their mother by Hamilton police last night.

Earlier in the day, police had requested the public's help in finding her.

"They're safe and sound," Guelph Police Sergeant Derek McNeilly reported last night, after a media alert was issued.

Police said charges are pending against the woman, who isn't being named to protect the identity of her children.

A woman described as an accomplice, who turned herself over to police earlier yesterday, will also be charged, police said.

The children's grandmother, who also lives in Guelph, said she isn't surprised her daughter would have run off with the two children.

Her daughter lost "a good guy" in her life when he died in a car accident, she said. He was the father of the young girl.

Now her children are all the woman has, the grandmother said.

"Her kids are her life. If they're trying to take her kids away, I could see her doing something drastic," she said.

"She'll try anything to keep them, I'm sure. She'll live and die for her kids."

The incident made for a few tense days for the grandmother.

She said she reached her daughter by cellphone yesterday afternoon and spoke with her grandson. Her daughter doesn't own a car and she doesn't know where she got the vehicle.

"She told me they were camping in Collingwood. I said 'You know the police are looking for you?'" she said. "I didn't get an answer."

Before that, the last time she spoke with her daughter was June 10 at a birthday party for her grandson.

Constable Manfred Hoyer, the officer leading the investigation, said it was not likely a coincidence the woman ran into the foster mother with her two children on the lot of the Zellers store on Stone Road.

The grandmother said she had no idea why children's aid workers would take the children away from her daughter.

"If it wasn't for bad luck, she would have none at all," she said of her daughter.

gmercer@guelphmercury.com

Source:
www.guelphmercury.com/ NASApp/ cs/ ContentServer ?pagename=mercury/ Layout/ Article_Type1 &c=Article &cid=1150107185989 &call_pageid=1050067726078 &col=1050421501457

Addendum: What is the difference between a mother and an axe murder? None, according to this editorial in the Guelph (Ontario) Mercury.

expand

collapse

Questioning alert criteria

(Jun 16, 2006)

When two Guelph children were snatched from a foster care provider last weekend, the incident set off a 30-hour search by police across Ontario until the children were found safe and sound by Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police at the Valens Conservation Area Sunday night. Even though the children, a six-year-old boy and two-year-old girl, were found safe and healthy, questions remain about the way the case was handled, including why an Amber Alert was not issued by police, especially when the children were missing for well over a day.

When family members spoke out against an Amber Alert issued in April after a sick man took his two children -- of whom he had custody -- to northern Ontario following a fight with his estranged wife, we supported the police decision to issue an Amber Alert to encourage the public to phone police with any information. Authorities, we argued, should always err on the side of caution when it comes to child safety. It is hard to understand then why police would not issue such an alert in this most recent case. A woman -- whose children had been taken from her by children's aid -- allegedly confronted a foster mother in a crowded parking lot and, with an accomplice, made off with her children. It is hard to see what differentiates these cases and caused police to issue an Amber Alert in one and not the other.

There are very specific criteria for when an alert is to be issued in Ontario, including the age of the child, whether officers believe the child is in danger of serious bodily harm or death and whether there is enough descriptive information to believe the alert will help to find the child.

Police may have well weighed these criteria and felt an alert was not warranted last weekend, but the decision raises the question of whether the same protocol is being followed in every case.

Source:
www.guelphmercury.com/ NASApp/ cs/ ContentServer ?pagename=mercury/ Layout/ Article_Type1 &c=Article &cid=1150451528307 &call_pageid=1050067726078 &col=1050938501375

The killers of Jeffrey Baldwin (or scapegoats) have been sentenced. Here are two articles and commentary.

A Georgia newspaper has reported in depth on maltreatment of children by the child protectors in Rabun County Georgia. Child protection in Georgia seems to be no different from Canada, but the press there is more diligent.

On June 6 voters in Alabama approved a constitutional amemdment banning same-sex marriage. The vote was 81% in favor of the ban.

The following article promoting the rights of Lesbian parents, overlooks the fact that children are being denied the right to know who their parents are. In the future, it will do people little good to look at their birth certificate for knowledge of their parents, because the certificates will be falsified from the start. Forty years from now, how will the grown child fare when he discloses to his colleagues that he has two legal mothers, no dad?

expand

collapse

The Globe and Mail

POSTED ON 07/06/06

Two mothers should be allowed on birth document, judge says

Found in breach of Charter, Ontario told to alter rules to include lesbian parents

KIRK MAKIN
JUSTICE REPORTER

An Ontario judge struck down a birth registry provision yesterday that prevents lesbian couples from being registered as parents of babies conceived through artificial insemination, saying that the regulation causes them unjustified "pain and hardship."

Mr. Justice Paul Rivard of the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the province violated the litigants' right to equality by stopping them from adding their names to the Statement of Live Births after their babies are born.

Lesbian mothers live in an atmosphere of homophobia that only is exacerbated when rules and conventions leave an impression that "there is something wrong or unnatural about their families,'' Judge Rivard said.

"Likewise, for children of lesbian mothers -- who are even more vulnerable than their parents to the lack of symbols of their families in popular culture -- exclusion of their parents from birth registration furthers this vulnerability."

Lawyers Martha McCarthy and Joanna Radbord, who represented the applicants, said yesterday that the case held enormous symbolic value for the gay and lesbian community.

"Although the case addresses one of the very last issues of discrimination against gays and lesbians in Ontario law, it is also probably the most important of all to lesbian mothers," Ms. McCarthy said in an interview.

"Indeed, I venture to say that our applicant couples would have traded all of their employment benefits, spousal support rights -- even marriage rights -- in exchange for the basic recognition that they are parents to their children. It is, in many ways, like we left the most important issue to the last."

The legal clash stemmed from the fact that the province's Vital Statistics Act specifies the terms "father" and "mother" when it comes to filling out a Statement of Live Birth.

The government insisted that the "father" has to be a biological father, and that it would be illegal to include both members of a lesbian couple on a Statement of Live Birth, since that would be tantamount to including two mothers.

About 4,500 non-biological parents are listed in Ontario each year. Judge Rivard noted in his judgment that non-biological fathers are not impeded when they attempt to register their names, yet efforts are routinely made to "target lesbian co-mothers."

Evidently moved by many of the litigants' accounts of suffering discrimination and being made to feel that their relationships and families could not measure up to those of heterosexual families, Judge Rivard said this amounted to unacceptably unequal treatment.

He noted that in the case of one couple, the birth mother was diagnosed with breast cancer shortly after having her child.

The couple feared that if the mother were to die before they could get a proper declaration of parentage, the child "would be left without any certainty as to parentage."

Judge Rivard suspended the effect of his ruling for one year to allow the province time to legislate a solution to the Charter breach.

Source:
www.theglobeandmail.com/ servlet/ story/ LAC.20060607.GAY07/ TPStory/ TPNational/ Ontario/

Alberta conceals a death with confidentiality laws.

Just the meager information in the article, shows that the police are misleading the mother, and the public: SIDS is the death of a child under one year old. We are a lot less likely to find the true cause of death as long as the press conceals the names of the persons involved.

expand

collapse

Edmonton Sun

June 5, 2006

Toddler dies in foster care

Girl found dead in crib

By ELIZA BARLOW, Staff Writer

Instead of celebrating her youngest daughter’s second birthday Tuesday, a Hobbema mother will be laying flowers on the toddler’s grave.

On May 28, the 26-year-old mother was at home waiting for a visit from her four children – ages nine, five, three and one – who were placed in foster care in December.

But the children never arrived. In their place came a group of RCMP officers and social workers who told her that her baby was dead.

Now, the mother says she wants answers on how her child died in the Innisfail foster home.

“I don’t know what happened,” said the mother Monday. “She was happy and healthy and she was just starting to talk. She was just innocent and sweet.”

Sgt. Lyle Marianchuk of the Innisfail RCMP confirmed police responded to an Innisfail home at about 8:30 a.m. on May 28 for a report that a two-year-old girl had been found dead in her crib.

“An autopsy was conducted which led to the conclusion that no foul play was involved in the child’s death,” he said.

However, Marianchuk said police will not close their investigation until they receive the results of toxicology tests on the child, which normally take six to eight weeks.

Marianchuk said it appears the little girl may have died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)-related causes.

The mother freely provided her name and the name of her late child to the Sun. However, provincial law prohibits the Sun from publishing any information that would identify children in foster care.

The mother said her children were taken from her due to her alcohol problems. But she questions why the children had to be sent to Innisfail rather than be placed with their grandmother, her mother.

“They didn’t even take my kids to family. They just shipped them out there.”

Mel H. Buffalo, spokesman for the Indian Association of Alberta, said he’s troubled by the death of the little girl, buried by her family June 1.

“They take our kids away, send them to non-native families and then send them back in coffins,” he said.

Alberta Children’s Services spokesman Mary Lou Reeleder refused to comment on any aspect of the case, citing confidentiality laws. She said a “case review” is conducted whenever a child dies or is seriously injured in foster care.

Source:
www.edmontonsun.com/ News/ Alberta/ 2006/ 06/ 05/ 1615922.html

Here are two more stories of theft within York Region CAS, from Canada Court Watch. Canada Court Watch amended its story later to include the name of the Grinch, Donna Lennon.

expand

collapse

York Region Children's Aid Society supervisor BUSTED and arrested for stealing from a child in care!

(June 2, 2006) Just to keep readers updated, in follow-up to an earlier Court Watch exclusive, a York Region CAS supervisor, Donna Lennon, was arrested by York Regional Police today for stealing from a child in the care of the York Region CAS. This CAS worker who was labelled as the Easter Grinch (see earlier post) has been nabbed officially after reports that York CAS was not cooperative in helping police to nab the chocolate-loving Easter Grinch culprit.

Readers should stay tuned for other developments. Those in the area may be interested in attending court when the York Region CAS worker appears in court which is likely to be sometime next week. Court Watch also has information to support other charges against the York Region CAS and these are being investigated as well.

More thieving of children's money by a worker with the York Region CAS

(June 2, 2006) Just after Court Watch reported the story of the Easter Grinch, more news has been passed to Court Watch about the York Region CAS. This time it is a story about more children's money being stolen. The parent who contacted Court Watch says that she has documentation to show that a worker with the York Region CAS took almost $1500 from her which was supposed to be for expenses for her child but it appears that the worker did not deposit the money with the CAS. According to the parent, MPP David Peterson has tried to get through to the York Region CAS to straighten out this mess for this parent but that the CAS will not answer questions from the MPP or even return Mr. Peterson's calls. Seems like the agency has something to hide. Court Watch will be gathering documents and publishing a full story and assisting the parent to see that charges are laid by police.

Source: Canada Court Watch

Addendum: Here is the same story from the York Region Era-Banner, giving the name of the family, but not the Grinch:

expand

collapse

CAS worker charged after cash stolen

Martin Derbyshire, Staff Writer

06/03/06 00:00:00

A York Region Children's Aid Society case worker has been charged with theft after a former Queensville resident claimed an Easter gift for her son was missing.

Alexandra Stuart assembled an Easter basket with chocolates, candies, a new bank card and a card containing the PIN number for her 12-year-old son's first bank account. The boy, who has severe emotional and psychological problems, has been in a group home for three years.

Just days before Easter, Ms Stuart took the basket to a CAS office and left it for a case worker to deliver to the boy.

"I went in to the bank for an update ... and I could see the money had been withdrawn on Good Friday," the mother said.

"Now why would my son be in the bank withdrawing the money on Good Friday? It just didn't make sense."

When she asked her son why he had withdrawn the cash, he told her he never received the gift. "He was just crying. He was inconsolable," she said.

When Ms Stuart first confronted the case worker about the missing gift, Ms Stuart said the woman accused her of taking $40 from the account.

"I called the police right away and filed a report," she said.

Police charged the case worker with theft and possession of stolen property under $5,000 Thursday.

York Region society executive director Martin McNasaid "immediate and swift" action was taken, but would not elaborate.

However, Ms Stuart claims she was told the woman, a society case worker for 22 years, had been fired.

She also said York Region CAS has returned the $40 to her, but other than that, the organization has been less than co-operative.

"That's why I am really upset. CAS has been so unco-operative," she said. "They claim it is an internal matter and confidentiality and liability issues come into play."

Source:
www.yorkregion.com/ yr/ yr4/ YR_News/ Newscentre/ Regional/ story/ 3527923p-4077097c.html

Addendum: EkaterinaEthier has a letter on the letterhead of the York Region Children's Aid Society dated February 20, 2006, signed by Anthony W Snider, Senior Counsel, stating:

We have been advised by our Area Office of the Ministry of Children and Youth Services that you have recently written to the Minister and a number of Ministry officials, expressing concern that when you reviewed a package of disclosure material that had been provided to you, relating to your own file with this agency, you discovered that you had received an e-mail that was not part of your file, but related to another family. Apparently, the memo found its way into the disclosure you received by some inadvertence or accident at our end.

(material omitted)

While the e-mail in question does reference a person's surname, the surname is a common one, and the information in the e-mail does not, in and of itself, identify who the children or family in question is. This is fortunate, as it means that, without some context or other knowledge of the family in question, it would not be possible for someone who has no knowledge of the specific family to read the e-mail and determine the identity of the family in question.

(material omitted)

Mr Snider's letter clearly states that disclosure of the email by itself is not in violation of the disclosure prohibition in the Child and Family Services Act, and since it is now evidence in a criminal case, we reproduce it below. For those not familiar with social worker procedures, it is an example of the technique of disrupting visitation, then blaming the family for not attending. The other circumstances in this case show that the mother was trying to care for her child as well as possible.

expand

collapse

Margaret Osmons/YCAS
03/08/2005 05:57PM

To		Martin McNamara/YCAS@YCAS
cc		Sue Clarke/YCAS@YCAS
bcc
Subject		Stuart Response

Hi Marty
Attached is a draft response as discussed.

In terms of the facts of the matter, briefly they are as follows:

1) The court order states that mother may initiate telephone access on reasonable notice, and not more than twice monthly; physical access is quarterly, again with mother to request. The children's wishes are to be considered in arranging access.

Mother has cancelled agreed on telephone access, or has not sought to arrange them. Many times, especially of late, the children have refused telephone access because of mother's cancellation of phone and physical access. Matters have been increasingly problematic as a result of the "no shows"; one of the children in particular has entered into crisis and requires frequent physical restraints as a result. The Society is contemplating making adjustments to the access scenario in order to better support the children.

2) Ms. Stuart was provided with a schedule of quarterly access in writing on January 25, 2005. Mother had a court hearing pertaining to the civil suit involving the Society on February 25, but did not advise us that this was the case. She did, however, advise counsel to the parties in the suit that she could not attend at court due to a visit. Counsel was concerned as she has regularly prevented the matter from being resolved by non attendance, and contacted Tony. On February 24th we advised Ms. Stuart not to attend the visit but to attend court instead. A make up visit was arranged.

As her court dates pertain to a civil matter and not a child welfare matter, we have no notice of court dates. Ms. Stuart wuld have to advise us of any conflicts, and we would work with her to accommodate.

Thanks,
Marg

March 8 letter re Alexandra Stuart.doc

Margaret Osmond, MSW
Director, Residential Services
York Region CAS
905-895-2318 Ext. 2261

Source: EkaterinaEthier

Addendum: Canada Court Watch has spoken to the mother at length, and issued a full report on the theft by Donna Lennon, dated June 5, 2006.

The following letter shows the latest frustration in John Dunn's effort to get a membership in the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa.

expand

collapse

---

503-1218 Meadowlands Drive East ● Ottawa, ON ● K2E 6K1 ● 613-228-2178

Friday, June 02, 2006

Pierre Viger – Director, Professional Standards
Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
1602 Telesat Court, Gloucester, Ontario, K1B 1B1

RE: Letter Regarding Conduct of John Dunn with Pierre Viger

Dear Pierre Viger,

I have applied for a membership with the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa and at this time my membership application has been denied by the Board of Directors or a sub-committee thereof without an explanation of the reason(s) for their decision. I am currently attempting to have a meeting with the Board of Directors or a sub-committee thereof for the purpose of clarifying with them the reason(s) for their decision and to see how I can work to meet the eligibility requirements for membership with the Society.

Having said that, I would like to request from you a letter which either confirms or denies -- with detailed explanations of your responses and/or observations -- my conduct with you during the events as laid out in the paragraphs below. I will use this letter during a meeting with the Board of Directors in my attempt to have a fair hearing for the purpose of clarifying to the Board that I have not in fact acted in a vexatious or malicious manner toward you.

Client Support Person – Complaint Review Meeting

During a complaint review meeting between yourself, Marion Roberts and a Children’s Aid Society client (Client Name Was Here in Original Letter) at the Society’s office, you will recall that I was there in the capacity of a “Client Support” person. When you entered the room, I stood up, shook your hand, and greeted you politely, and did the same with Marion Roberts. As the meeting progressed, at one point I offered a suggestion to the client, and was quickly quieted by Marion Roberts who told me that my role as a support person was to be in attendance, but not to talk openly during the meeting, and that if I wanted to talk I had to ask that the staff leave the room and that I could then proceed to communicate with the CAS client of which I was there to support. After doing so, I could then ask the staff to return and reconvene the meeting. Upon being informed of this protocol I agreed to remain silent and sat quietly during the meeting. When the meeting was over, I left without incident what so ever.

Complainant – College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers

As you will recall, I also launched a complaint naming you as the defendant with the College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers regarding the fact that you did not send me a copy of the Society’s complaint procedure after I had made three requests from you for a copy of it, which was in violation of the Child and Family Services Act, 1990, c. C-11, ss. 68(1) prior to the proclamation of Statues of Ontario, 2006, c. 5, ss. 26. During the investigation of this complaint, I was courteous, fair and professional with you as evidenced in the complaint materials and correspondence, and even offered positive words in the written complaint regarding the professional and courteous manner in which you conducted yourself towards me while we were in the room together during our initial meeting mentioned above. Once the investigation was completed and the College deemed it to be outside of their jurisdiction, I did not harass or bother you any further regarding this or any other matter.

Sincerely,

/signed/

John Dunn
Executive Director
The Foster Care council of Canada

Source: email from John Dunn

Dr Charles Smith has been responsible for the prosecution of several persons for death of children with testimony that is now under suspicion. Here is our summary of the cases. A court has just excused him from civil liability for his testimony. A legal doctrine intended to encourage witnesses to testify truthfully is now being used to protect a witness from the consequences of untruthfulness.

expand

collapse

The Toronto Star

Mother not allowed to sue doctor

Wrongly charged in killing daughter based on initial autopsy results

Pathologist Charles Smith protected by witness immunity rule, court says

Jun. 1, 2006. 05:37 AM
HAROLD LEVY
STAFF REPORTER

Former Hospital for Sick Children pathologist Dr. Charles Smith cannot be sued by a woman once charged with murdering her daughter because of a centuries-old legal rule protecting witnesses from lawsuits, a court has ruled.

The decision blocks Louise Reynolds from pursuing the $7 million lawsuit she brought against Smith, after a second autopsy revealed that Sharon, 7, died after being attacked by a pit bull in the basement of her family home in Kingston.

Smith, who once headed the hospital's prestigious pediatric forensic pathology department, Ontario's largest facility for conducting autopsies on children, had concluded following the initial autopsy that Sharon's death was the result of more than 80 stab wounds made by a knife or scissors.

Reynolds spent two years in pre-trial custody, plus time in a halfway house, and was forced to put another daughter up for adoption before prosecutors withdrew the charge on Jan. 25, 2001.

Legal experts are concerned that the decision by Ontario's Divisional Court — described by a dissenting judge as the first of its kind in Canadian jurisprudence — could shield pathologists, such as Smith, from being made accountable for their actions in the courts.

Smith's work on 44 cases involving suspicious deaths of children — including the Reynolds case — is currently under review by a panel of independent experts as part of a probe ordered by Ontario Chief Coroner Dr. Barry McLellan to protect the integrity of the coroner's office.

Reynolds alleges in a statement of claim that Smith displayed "a reckless disregard for the truth" and was motivated by "improper purposes," such as "assisting the police in securing (Reynolds') conviction, self-aggrandizement, and to avoid professional embarrassment in having to reverse his prior report." A statement of claim contains allegations that have not been proved in court and Smith denies the allegations in his statement of defence.

Justices John O'Driscoll and John Jennings accepted Smith's argument that he could not be sued because of the witness-immunity rule, which was developed by judges over the centuries to encourage witnesses to testify freely without fear of lawsuits.

O'Driscoll said in his 16-page ruling that, although the witness-immunity rule does not exist to protect wrongdoers, "it will sometimes do so," and that "for the immunity to be effective, witnesses must be protected from all lawsuits, not only unmeritorious ones."

"This protection of witnesses from the risk of suit is seen as more important than righting a wrong in a particular case," he said.

However, in a dissenting opinion, Justice Janet Wilson found that Smith was not protected by the rule because the lawsuit was directed at the initial investigation of the death that he carried out for the coroner's office and not at his ultimate testimony in court.

"Counsel for Dr. Smith argue that a pathologist appointed by the coroner to conduct an autopsy is not conducting an investigation, but is rather conducting an examination in the course of preparing evidence for a possible prosecution," she said. "I do not agree."

Wilson noted that "there is no Canadian jurisprudence considering the scope of witness immunity in circumstances sufficiently similar to this case."

Professor Alan Young, who teaches law at Osgoode Hall Law School and the University of Toronto, said in an interview that witness immunity should be reviewed because "our legal system puts a premium on accountability and there was very little concern over accountability when the witness-immunity rule was developed centuries ago."

Toronto lawyer Cindy Wasser, a director of the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, said yesterday she hopes Reynolds' case can ultimately proceed to trial.

"Louise Reynolds deserves to have a jury of her peers decide whether Dr. Smith has committed the torts of bad faith and misfeasance," Wasser said in an interview. "And the public has the right to know whether Reynolds' allegations against Smith have been proven."

The Divisional Court decision was a setback for Brenda Waudby of Peterborough and other individuals whose lawsuits against Smith have been put on hold pending final resolution of the witness-immunity issue.

"All we ask for is the opportunity to present our claims against Dr. Smith in a court of law in which he would have a full opportunity to defend his actions," Waudby said in an interview. "That shouldn't be too much too ask."

Waudby had been accused of the 1997 murder of her baby but the charge was withdrawn after six experts disagreed with Smith's conclusions about Waudby's daughter's death.

Reynolds' lawyer, Peter Wardle, said in an interview that she "is in this for the long haul and she will appeal."

Niels Ortved, who represents Smith, declined comment.

The lawsuit can continue against other defendants, including the Kingston Police Services Board.

Source:
www.thestar.com/ NASApp/ cs/ ContentServer ?pagename=thestar/ Layout/ Article_Type1 &c=Article &cid=1149112210823 &call_pageid=968332188492 &col=968793972154 &t=TS_Home

On May 16, a debate in the Ontario Legislature dealt with the subject of oversight over Children' Aid. The next day Ontario's Ombudsman André Marin sent a letter to Andrea Horwath giving his position on the matter. A copy was sent to Mary Anne Chambers, Minister of Children and Youth Services. We have a photocopy of the letter (MS word format) and a legible html copy below. The timestamp on the photocopy is 05/17/2006 11:51.

Later that day, between 1440 and 1450 according to time stamps in the Hansard, Mrs Chambers spoke again in the legislature. In two responses to questions from Howard Hampton, she denied knowledge of the letter from André Marin, though the question shows clearly that the letter had been distributed earlier. It is hard to find anything truthful in her second response:

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: The Ombudsman has independent oversight jurisdiction over the Child and Family Services Review Board, and I am sure that the Ombudsman of this province -- and I know of his commitment, which we share, to kids -- I know that the Ombudsman would not be writing to the leader of the third party if he is in fact trying to impact policy-making by this government. I have a very constructive, very positive working relationship with the Ombudsman. I am sure that if the Ombudsman has had any difficulty with what I am doing, I will hear from him directly.

Here is the letter from the Ombudsman:

expand

collapse

André Marin
OMBUDSMAN

May 17, 2006

Ms Andrea Horwath
M.P.P.for Hamilton East
Room 159, Main Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A5

Dear Ms Horwath:

RE: Bill 210, the Child and Family Services Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006

Upon review of Hansard yesterday, I noted references to my jurisdiction over the Child and Family Services Review Board under Bill 210, the Child and Family Services Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006. As you know, I have maintained that the ability to bring complaints about children's aid societies to the Board is not a substitute for independent investigative oversight of children's aid societies. The Board is an administrative tribunal. Its jurisdiction is limited to considering allegations against children's aid societies in the circumstances set out in the Act, and as eventually prescribed by regulation. This creates an adversarial and imbalanced process in which the resources of children's aid societies are pitted against those of individuals. There is no independent fact-finding done by the Board.

At present, only a few types of allegations trigger a mandatory obligation on the Board to hold a hearing. In many cases, the Board will have the discretion to determine whether to hear a matter.

Bill 210 does not introduce meaningful oversight of children's aid societies. While the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the Board, our review would be limited to considering whether the Board acted in accordance with administrative fairness principles during its procedures and in issuing its reasons. An ombudsman investigation is not an appeal of the Board's decision, and would not involve an investigation of the underlying complaints about children's aid societies. These would continue to remain immune from independent investigative oversight.

Yours truly,

/signed/

André Marin Ombudsman

cc:	Minister Mary Anne Chambers, MPP Howard Hampton, Premier Dalton McGuinty, MPP Julia Munro, MPP John Tory

We thank a Dufferin VOCA reader whose persistence got the facts from Ontario's NDP.

In the huge workload of cases taking children from parents without cause, it is easy to overlook the occasional case of a child who genuinely needs help. In this case in New York City, that failure resulted in a tragedy.

expand

collapse

New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com

Help vow too late to save bus girl

BY NANCIE L. KATZ
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Sunday, May 28th, 2006

Albert James says letter from city agency pledging help for his son arrived the day Amber Sadiq died.

Amber Sadiq

The father of the boy whose school bus prank killed 8-year-old Amber Sadiq says he finally got a letter promising desperately needed help for his troubled son — on the day of the tragedy.

In an exclusive interview, Brooklyn dad Albert James said he had been trying for 16 months to get after-school day care help for his 8-year-old son, who has serious behavioral problems.

"If I would have gotten these vouchers before, maybe this would have prevented the accident from happening," said James, 25.

The dad also charged that the boy was improperly booted from school and that officials ignored his pleas just hours before the accident to let the child return — a contention a source familiar with the situation denied.

James spoke to the Daily News days after his son sneaked onto an empty school bus and released the emergency brake — sending the vehicle hurtling into his schoolmate as she walked home from Public School 161 in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, last Monday.

On Friday, city officials, in keeping with the wishes of Amber's forgiving family, declined to charge the boy.

James describes his son as shocked, sorry and uncomprehending of "what he has done."

"I just want my son to get the proper help and hopefully put this all behind me," he said. "I'm very sorry for the loss of Amber. Words can't express how I feel. ... It broke me down in tears."

The father of three said he got the long-awaited letter from the Administration for Children's Services approving him for "daycare services for the children so they remain safe" on the day Amber died.

In a statement, ACS acknowledged working with the father since January last year, providing parenting, medical and other aid, and said it was evaluating its services.

The single father said he's worked nine hours a day to support his sons since their mother, Sophia Morales, left last year for Florida. His 7-year-old lives with him, and his 5-year-old is staying with family in Trinidad.

On Friday, James and Morales agreed to put their 8-year-old son in a therapeutic foster home.

Lacking money for child care, James said, he had to depend on the boy's ailing great-grandmother to care for his active, uncontrollable boy during the day.

She was watching him last Monday when she fell asleep. He sneaked out of the house and onto the school bus shortly after 3 p.m. Why the boy wasn't in school is a matter of dispute. James said his son had been suspended — for trying to climb aboard another school bus three days before Amber's death.

James said that just hours before the tragedy, he went to the school to meet with PS 161 officials — and was told the boy could not return to school without a letter from the regional superintendent.

That would violate Department of Education policy, which forbids schools barring elementary school children. Suspended children are supposed to be assigned to detention rooms.

A Department of Education spokesman declined comment. But a source familiar with the situation denied that any official barred the boy from school.

Last year, officials at PS 161 diagnosed his son as needing special education, James said. At first he winced at the label and refused services. Months later, he said, he went back and asked for help.

"He had behavioral problems, it was never fights. Just not listening, and running around. They won't let him come on school trips," he said.

Among the boy's 40 absences this year are at least three week-long suspensions and other days he was told the boy couldn't attend unless a guardian could stay, James said.

"They say he just runs around and they're not going to chase him," he added.

James, who was born in Crown Heights, said he got his GED and finished a two-year business school program with a 3.3 GPA in January 2005, then began working as an office manager for a law firm. He hopes to become an engineer.

Next door to his building is Amber's home, where her aunt Lucy Caba recalled James as a mischievous, mean child who also pulled pranks — like sending false fire alarms.

"I can't remember that stuff," he said. "But look at me now. I've been paying taxes since I was 14. Everyone knows I'm a hardworking father. I don't hang out on streetcorners."

Heartfelt card is sent to grieving kin

Albert James said he had wanted to visit Amber Sadiq's family and apologize to them from the moment he learned his son was responsible for the 8-year-old Brooklyn girl's death.

But he was tormented by what the appropriate move would be — and whether the family would accept his message.

James, 25, finally bought an American Greetings card on Wednesday, and got it to Amber's family on Saturday.

"Our hearts go out to you in deepest sympathy," read the greeting. "Although it is hard to put into words what we would like to say, our thoughts of deepest sympathy go out with you today."

James added these words: "Our heartfelt condolences to your family. We are deeply sorry for your loss. ... To the Sadiq family, with lots of love."

Amber's stepfather, Wascar Herrera, offered this simple message to James: "Thank you for the card."

Nancie L. Katz

Source:
www.nydailynews.com/ front/ story/ 421878p-356110c.html

The death of a foster child was concealed from his family according to Canada Court Watch, whose truthful reports stay within the law by withholding names.

The new Child and Family Services Act, enacted but not yet in force, says that a child protection order ends with the death of a child. That will make it lawful for news sources to identify the child by name. We hope the reverend Dorian Baxter will provide the name of the dead child as soon as possible.

No social worker has been held accountable for harm to her ward, even fatal harm, and this case will be no exception. The Child and Family Services Act provides:

15 (6). No action shall be instituted against an officer or employee of a society for an act done in good faith in the execution or intended execution of the person’s duty or for an alleged neglect or default in the execution in good faith of the person’s duty. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 15 (6).

A delay in reporting death results in the destruction of the most important evidence, the body. That can hardly be construed as "an act done in good faith". While there will be no criminal prosecution, a civil suit against the social workers involved might have some success.

Here is the unabridged account from Canada Court Watch:

expand

collapse

Family believes that CAS covered up death of child in foster care

(May 25, 2006) A family member called Court Watch today to report that they had just found out a few days ago that a child of this family who had been taken away by the CAS in Ontario had died while in the care of foster parents. The family was never informed of the death. At one time, family members reported seeing the child with dried blood in his ears and bruises on the child's body while in care and noticed other signs of trauma to the child but that their concerns were discounted by child protection workers. The family was told that this was only a case of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The family believe that the death was a cover-up to protect the agency involved. An investigation by authorities into this death has been commenced in the aftermath of the death of little Jeffrey Baldwin while in care of the CAS.

Source: Canada Court Watch

The Toronto Star, which has been sensitive to the views of the social services system, carries this article calling for the appointment of a Children's Ombudsman. While this sounds like an improvement, the proposed office would have no investigatory powers, and would be staffed by a young person unlikely to create serious political waves for the child protectors. Our guess is that Andrea Horwath's bill to allow André Marin to look at Children's Aid is gaining enough support that social services feels impelled to offer a neutered substitute. Look at the chosen photo and guess whether social services are trying to use the Jeffrey Baldwin tragedy to enhance their power.

expand

collapse

37 countries have one, why don't we?

Canada way behind in appointing a commissioner to represent our children

May 25, 2006. 10:28 AM
CRAIG AND MARC KIELBURGER
COURTS BUREAU

Five-year-old Jeffrey Baldwin starved to death.

Who speaks for children? In Jeffrey Baldwin's case, no one did. Not his family, not other adults in his life and not the system designed to protect children like him.

When Jeffrey died, he was not yet 6 years old, weighed a mere 21 pounds and stood just 37 inches tall. Neglect was the killer. And the role his grandparents played in his death? The courts have decided they are guilty. But the fact that Jeffrey's case was flagged within the system and then remained untouched is at the heart of this tragedy.

He lived in a crowded home with his grandparents, placed there because his own young parents could not care for him and his three siblings. His grandparents labelled Jeffrey and one of his sisters "the bad ones," not worth caring for. He was locked in an unheated room with his sister, without food, for long periods of time until he died of starvation. The Catholic Children's Aid Society had a file on Jeffrey and his siblings, but apparently they missed all the signs.

He is the poster child for kids who fall through the cracks.

In March, Norway marked 25 years since it established a national ombudsman for children. The role of this individual? To exclusively promote the interests and welfare of children.

To protect kids like Jeffrey.

Canada needs its own ombudsman for children.

And there's no better example to follow than that of Norway. The Norwegian children's ombudsman works under three directives: children are equal to adults, children are competent individuals and opportunities for children are important.

Appointed by Norway's king, the ombudsman does not enjoy any executive powers but, since 1981, has succeeded in giving children's issues political prominence by creating public debate.

As the fourth and current commissioner in Norway, Reidar Hjermann is busy. He hosts a call-in television show that enables kids to air their grievances. Not only do the children learn about their rights, they also see they have someone speaking on their behalf. Of 2,700 letters and emails he receives each year, one-third come from children.

Another three dozen countries have followed Norway's lead. But Canada isn't among them.

If Canadian children had their own commissioner for children, they would have someone who would stand independently and have the power to name and shame those who stand in the way of children's rights.

Someone who would speak for the Jeffreys of this country. At the very least, a commissioner would be a very public reminder that someone would stand up for this little boy. At the most, any one of the many people who knew about Jeffrey's life could have alerted the children's commissioner to intervene with the assistance of other existing resources.

Using the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) — which was introduced to the world in 1989 — as its cornerstone, the commissioner's sole purpose would be to represent and engage young people in the democratic process and educate youth about their rights and responsibilities under the UNCRC and as citizens of Canada.

But there is one stipulation: the commissioner must be a youth as defined by the Canadian government — that is, someone under the age of 30.

Why is this important? About 25 per cent of Canada's population is under 18. Yet, more than 7.7 million young Canadians have no formal role to play in the government. There is no single individual or federal department representing youth and no coherent or meaningful way for the opinions of young people to be heard and respected. With no voice, no vote and little economic clout, young people in Canada are one of the most disenfranchised groups in the country.

But youth have much to say about issues that affect them locally, nationally and internationally. Today, young people have the greatest access and exposure to information than any generation before them. In January, about 450,000 students aged 9 to 18 from across Canada took part in Student Vote 2006, a non-partisan parallel election experience for youth during an official election period.

And yet, youth voter turnout during elections speaks volumes about the fact that youth issues are not covered during campaigning. At the 2004 federal election, voter turnout among 18- to 24-year-olds was 38 per cent. And in 2000, it was 22.4 per cent among the 18- to 20-year-olds.

Of course children factor in every government's agenda, but in the context of "larger" issues, such as health care, housing or family support. Children's issues and youth portfolios are scattered across numerous government agencies and under different directives. But no single voice speaks for children alone.

A young commissioner would better understand and suitably create opportunities among young people to discuss government policies and ideas and issues of national importance. He or she would represent youth by forwarding to the federal government all recommendations on legislation relevant to youth. The commissioner would also stand for the voices, opinions and interests of the young people of Canada at a national and international level to represent and empower young Canadians across the country.

Over the years, the idea of a children's ombudsman in Canada has been considered, discussed and tabled numerous times. A new government delivered its inaugural Speech from the Throne on April 4, recognizing that youth are "looking to carve out their place and be heard." But youth issues failed to make it on yet another government's agenda.

To have done otherwise would have been a bold statement that the federal government is truly committed to listening to and representing the views of the young people of Canada.

It would have been a signal that the government is ready to be held accountable, perhaps by a young commissioner who only serves his or her constituents — children like Jeffrey who, in theory, had many guards on watch but no one to speak out for him.

Craig and Marc Kielburger are founders of Free the Children and co-authors of Me to We. Their column explores the impact of global issues on young people in developing nations and what it means to youth in the GTA.

Source:
www.thestar.com/ NASApp/ cs/ ContentServer ?pagename=thestar/ Layout/ Article_Type1 &c=Article &cid=1148468891797 &call_pageid=970599119419

On May 23, the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House Ways and Means Committee held hearings on child welfare. The witness list included many persons from the child protection industry, and two opponents, Richard Wexler and William Tower. Following are links:

• Hearing webpage
• Testimony of Richard Wexler, Executive Director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
• Testimony of William Tower, President of the American Family Rights Association

To understand the following article, you have to know that in social worker jargon, "place of safety" is a foster home, one where children are cared for by adults for hire. Teenaged girls are running away from foster homes to become prostitutes.

expand

collapse

May 24, 2006

Teen rescued from a life of prostitution

By TOM GODFREY -- Toronto Sun

York Regional Police have rescued a 17-year-old girl from a life of prostitution after raiding a Richmond Hill home and arresting a couple for allegedly pimping the teen, police say.

"We received a call for assistance from the victim," said York Regional Police Insp. Tom Carrique. "She was reaching out to us and we were able to extricate her."

He said the teen, who is from southern Ontario, was plucked last Wednesday after heavily-armed emergency response unit officers were called to the home.

Carrique said three teens, aged 17, 18 and 19, were found inside the home. Police said one girl was charged, one a witness and the third a victim.

"She (victim) was very distraught and upset," Carrique said yesterday. "She has been returned home safely."

He said York's vice cops are seeing more younger teens being brought to work in the region's escort agencies and massage parlours and they're trying to locate other teen hookers working in the region.

"The 15- and 16-year-olds are coming here from the GTA and other areas," Carrique said. "The girls are being used to work as prostitutes to make money."

Police said the girls and alleged pimps travel from across Ontario to work in York.

"We know there is a problem in the GTA where young girls leave their places of safety and become susceptible to predators," Carrique said. "They come to work here."

Ruddyard Oliver, 21, and Sophia Park, 18, both of Toronto, have been charged with living off the avails of prostitution and assault with a weapon.

Source:
cnews.canoe.ca/ CNEWS/ Canada/ 2006/ 05/ 23/ 1594138-ca.html
found by John Dunn

Sign at Courthouse (Michael Starr Building), 33 King Street West, Oshawa Ontario. Photo taken May 23, 2006.

Today Canada Court Watch reports that a sign is posted in the Oshawa Courthouse falsely warning that recording devices are forbidden in the courtroom. The laws of Ontario permit parties to a case to record their own proceedings.

Source: Canada Court Watch

Fathers-4-Justice is back in operation. After its disbanding, there was much exposure of faults within the organization. It appears that the problems have been corrected.

expand

collapse

PRESS RELEASE
20 May 2006 8.00pm

Breaking News: Fathers Storm TV Lotto Show

Disbanded campaign group Fathers 4 Justice (F4J) tonight confirmed that activists from the group were responsible for storming the set of the BBC's National Lottery Jet Set Programme live on air this evening.

Protestors wore "Family Law Lotto — Next Time it Could Be You" T-Shirts and held up placards as security wrestled them to the ground in front of a studio audience. The six activists included the partner of F4J founder Matt O'Connor.

F4J is re-launching after a five-month cessation in its campaign. The group was disbanded in January when an extremist fringe were accused of plotting to kidnap the Prime Ministers. Tonight's protest marked the second anniversary of the Powder Bomb attack on the Prime Minister in the House of Commons and the resumption of a dramatic new high profile campaign.

The group say that future protests will use 'agitprop' tactics at high profile events and subversion of live TV as well as pranks and hoaxes to raise public awareness about the continuing crisis in family law.

F4J spokesman and activist Guy Harrison, who in 2004 threw condoms filled with self raising flour at the PM said, "tonight marks the dramatic return of Fathers 4 Justice. The lottery is a metaphor for what can happen to any parent, mother or father, and their children, at the hands of the secret family courts. It's our duty to warn parents about what is happening and send them this message: don't play family law lotto — don't gamble with your kids."

F4J say that the organisation has been radically re-structured and that it's founder Matt O'Connor is considering delaying the launch of his new civil liberties group Agents For Change to re-focus on the campaign for open courts and equal parenting. The change of heart is attributed to his partner's situation, the second such time in four years O'Connor has had first hand experience of the family court injustice.

ENDS

For further information please contact:

Matt O'Connor (Media Advisor): 07795 341 110
Guy Harrison: 07801 010 410
Michael Cox: 07884 260 656
Email: office@fathers-4-justice.org
Web Site: www.fathers-4-justice.org

A Social Services Supervisor fired for misconduct has been reinstated in Connecticut, with back pay. This continues the perfect record of social workers never being punished for harming children, in this case by fabricating evidence.

expand

collapse

Hartford Courant

Social Worker Back On Job

State Labor Ruling Forces DCF To Rehire Employee Who Was Arrested

By COLIN POITRAS
Courant Staff Writer

May 20 2006

A state social worker who was fired following allegations of fabricating evidence and tampering with a witness in a child endangerment case has gotten her job back with back pay, officials and sources familiar with the case said Friday.

Valerie M. Miles returned to work at the Department of Children and Families last week. Miles is no longer handling abuse and neglect cases. She is currently doing research in the agency's central Hartford office after accepting a reduction in pay, said Gary Kleeblatt, a DCF spokesman.

Miles was making more than $100,000 a year as a DCF supervisor in the Hartford regional office. She was placed on administrative leave when the allegations surfaced on July 7, 2005. The agency conducted an internal investigation and fired her a short time later.

She was arrested by Hartford police on July 28, 2005, and charged with two counts of fabricating evidence and one count of witness tampering.

Police accused Miles of falsely insisting in a sworn affidavit that plastic bags of drugs were found during a raid of a Hartford home that resulted in four children being taken from their parents. Police said they never found drugs in the home. Police also accused Miles of forcing one of the family's neighbors to provide a false statement supporting her claim about drugs in the home. The neighbor later told police she felt pressured to lie, according to Miles' arrest affidavit.

Miles received a special form of probation that allowed her to avoid prosecution on the criminal charges. Under this form of probation, she was not found innocent or guilty; her prosecution was suspended pending completion of her probation.

Miles appealed her termination through her union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 4 of New Britain. Kleeblatt said the state labor relations office reviewed the case and decided not to refer the matter to a neutral arbitrator for resolution. Under state labor law, the agency was forced to reverse Miles' termination based on the labor relations' ruling, Kleeblatt said.

"She's back at work because she was able to persuade enough of the right people that she had done nothing wrong and she is innocent," Miles' lawyer, Leon M. Rosenblatt of West Hartford, said.

Rosenblatt said he is confident that Miles would have won her case had the matter gone to arbitration. He said Miles intends to sue the Hartford Police Department for damages.

Not everyone was pleased with the outcome.

"It's appalling that a government officer who has tampered with and fabricated evidence against an American citizen should be tolerated," said Thomas M. Dutkiewicz, president of Connecticut DCF Watch, an organization of parents who monitor state and national child welfare services. "They didn't just break the law; they violated someone's civil rights."

Source:
www.courant.com/ news/ local/ hc-ctdcfworker0520.artmay20, 0, 487737.story ?coll=hc-headlines-local

John Dunn follows up on his denial of CAS membership in a letter to Barbara MacKinnon. John Dunn is the most soft-spoken critic of CAS to be found. If he cannot get a membership, only cops and social workers can now become members.

expand

collapse

Friday, May 19, 2006, 10:50am

Barbara MacKinnon
Children's Aid Society of Ottawa
1602 Telesat Court
Gloucester, Ontario
K1B 1B1

RE: Meeting with Board of Directors — Rejection of Membership Application

Dear Barbara MacKinnon,

Children's Aid Societies offer memberships to people in the community as a means of providing public accountability through the right of its members to vote for members of the Board of Directors and through the dissemination of corporate information to its membership. I believe that the Society or its Board is rejecting memberships to persons simply because they have attempted to provide emotional support and/or resources to clients or potential clients of the Society in a peaceful & non-disruptive manner.

As you are aware, I faxed a letter to you requesting clarification as to why my membership application was rejected by the Board of Directors and to find out what I could do to improve my chances of obtaining a membership with the Society in the future. It is my understanding that the Board would make their decision based on the advice of yourself and other members of staff. I am also keenly aware of the fact that members of your staff were at one time instructed not to communicate with me since I have in fact supported clients of the CAS. This was mentioned to me by a staff member of your agency in 2004.

The response I received from the Board President, Brian McKee, in answer to the first part of my request simply stated that the Board "recognizes that you (John Dunn) have acted in a manner inconsistent with, and contrary to, the interests of the Children's Aid Society. In its opinion, you (John Dunn) do not have a genuine interest in the objectives of the Society."

I have not been provided with any evidence or even any suggestion as to what exactly it is that I have done to invoke such a response from the Board of Directors and as such I would like to request, again, a fair hearing or opportunity to meet with the Board of Directors for the purpose of learning what it is that I have done which suggests to the Board that I have acted in a manner which is inconsistent with and contrary to the interests of the Children's Aid Society and to learn if the decision to reject my membership application is permanent and/or irreversible.

I would also like to ask the Board -- should I be given an opportunity to meet with them -- what it is I can do to meet the criteria which would enable me to become a member of the Society in the future, as I am genuinely interested in the objectives of the Society which are, as far as I can tell from the Society's website, as follows:

"The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa is committed to protecting the children and youth of our community from all forms of abuse and neglect. We work to keep them safe and secure, both within their families and the communities in which they live."

If a meeting with the Board is refused, can I, as a member of the community, obtain access to the by-laws and or constitution of the Society for the purpose of reviewing its objects and membership eligibility requirements so that I may work toward meeting them? So far, I have not been given any means to contact the Board of Directors myself and would like to have that opportunity or at least information on how I can communicate directly with them.

I sincerely hope that neither you as Executive Director, nor the Board of Directors of the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa believe that membership with the Society should only consist of people who do not question anything the Society or its Board does or neglects to do in the execution of its duties and that people who advocate for positive change in a non-violent and peaceful manner should be refused membership.

Sincerely,

John Dunn
Executive Director
The Foster Care council of Canada
http://www.afterfostercare.ca

cc.	Pierre Viger — Director, Professional Standards — Children's Aid Society of Ottawa
cc.	Brian McKee, President — Board of Directors — Children's Aid Society of Ottawa
cc.	Ombudsman Ontario
cc.	Michelle Cheung - CBC

Source: email from John Dunn

Following a foster-care survivor's march in Thunder Bay, CAS Executive Director Rob Richardson, says things have changed over the years since the tragic events that happened to these victims. Indeed they have, though not for the better. The systematic abuse of aboriginals has changed to a capricious system sometimes abusive, sometimes not, now covering all ethnic groups.

expand

collapse

Thunder Bay's Source

Survivors march for foster care abuse

Web Posted: 5/19/2006 5:41:46 PM

Survivors came together Friday to protest what they say is the ongoing abuse of children in the foster care system.

They staged the first annual Walk for Survivors and Abuse in Foster Care starting at the Thunder Bay Children's Aid Society office and ending at the offices of MPP Michael Gravelle and MP Joe Comuzzi. Coordinators say they hope to raise awareness about what actually happens in foster care.

Victims of child rape and abuse gathered at the Children's Aid Society to tell their story. Survivors say there are many cases where children have been raped and abused in foster care. Coordinators talked to the executive director of the Children's Aid Society, and the group then walked to Michael Gravelle's office to ask questions of the government. Survivor Debi Okane says she's not doing this because she's angry or for revenge.

Survivors released balloons into the air, symbolizing releasing their pain and emotions. The executive director of the Children's Aid Society, Rob Richardson, says things have changed over the years since the tragic events that happened to these victims. Richardson says he is unsure of what kind of resolution the survivors are looking for. MPP Michael Gravelle says he feels it's his responsibility to tell their story.

In a symbolic gesture, a survivor gave Gravelle her shoe so he could take a 'walk in her shoes.'