"Society's Children" A Blog Series on At-Risk Kids in Care in Alberta

As regular readers will know I have published a number of blog posts on the recent Alberta Court of Appeal finding of contempt of court against the Alberta government Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement. You can read them here, here, here and here if you are not familiar with the case.

I have followed the contempt of court issues since the filing of the original decision by Mr. Justice Cote on July 23, 2009. These contempt of court posts are amongst the most widely read in the three years of this blog. The final legal step in the contempt of court issue was August 11, 2009 with the Court of Appeal penalty decision.

Government Contempt for the Rule of Law = Jail Time:

The court ordered jail time for the bureaucrat who was the subject of the contempt of court finding. The option of spending 8 days in jail or 40 hours of community service did not diminish the impact that incarceration could be the clear consequence for a civil servant acting like they were above the law. Feedback to this blog from workers in the department said they were “astonished” by the jail time and felt like they have been “kicked in the gut.”

Well the Court of Appeal just delivered a very loud and clear wake-up call to Alberta’s public servants. That message is that the rule of law trumps administrative complexity and any corporate culture of indifference to the law and ignorance of the law. You break the law or show contempt for the law, you risk going to jail.The precedent is established!

Moving on and Digging Deeper:

While that phase of this sad narrative is essentially over, there are two other fundamental issues that emerge from this litigation that Albertans need to think about. It ought to be a major concern to every Albertan that the actions of some in the Department of Children, Youth and Family Enhancement makes it apparent that they believed they could ignore the rule of law. It makes one wonder what other government of Alberta departments feel the same way. Albertans need to be concerned if their government is willfully blind or just plain indifferent to the impact and import of ignoring the rule of law. The natural consequence of this is chaos like we see on the streets and in the prisons of Iran today.

There is another critical outstanding and largely ignored issue. Where the best interests of the child at the centre of all this controversy served by the system? How do we know the answer one way or another? How are we as citizens to judge and evaluate the actions of those involved in the real case of the real child who is behind the contempt of court concerns?

I intend to investigate and comment on these two issues. In the coming weeks I am going to take you on a journey into facts, implications and consequences of this file. I will be working fromthe court records and anything else I can uncover. I will deal with perspectives on the government being subject to the law and what happened to this child and was it always in his best interest. for the record, I am not hired by anyone to do this. This is a pro bono project pure and simple.

I will try to give you some context and insight surrounding the facts and events and the implications and consequences that flow. I will do this through the eyes of a lawyer and a concerned citizen. I am not trained or experienced enough to judge the quality of the work outlined in the various reports and reviews of this child’s situation on file. However, I do feel qualified to ask questions and to write public policy and political commentary on what I read. I hope to hear blog comments from other people inside and outside government who are in fact qualified to make informed comments on those other aspects.

Telling the Story Behind the Contempt of Court Case and Learning Some Lessons:

I intend to tell the story in a series of blog posts that will be written every 2 or 3 days in the weeks ahead. I will do my best to describe what happened to this child in as much detail as I can under the circumstances. My posts will be based solely on the filed court records and other background material that is in the public domain. There are limitations on what I can say and they will be explained in the next blog post.

Like any good story, there are heroes and villains. But as in any critical and important human condition, it is complicated. It is not all black and white nor cut and dried. There are nuances and interpretations, especially around the question of has the best interests of this child been served. Has our government, the one you and I elected to act on our behalf, done their job, especially about ensuring the best interests of this child? Have the professionals involved made the right tough judgments about these intricate and emotional human conditions? This is not about second guessing or Monday morning quarterbacking. It is a quest for the right questions and gaining a better understanding of the context and consequences to the child in this case.

This series of blog posts will be a case study in process, policy, public interest, professional duty, politics and competing personal interests. It will be a quest for questions about what happened and why things happened the way they did. It will be a chance for Albertans to consider and make suggestions on how to fix the system to ensure our child protection system is improved in ways to better serve the best interests of the child. This has to be done on the ground and in real life, not just in theory or in some departmental business case Mission and Vision statement. It is not easy stuff to deal with so it demands that the best and brightest, most caring and capable people be properly equiped and enabled to do their jobs.

I am isolating one case out of some 13,000 at-risk children who are in some way or other under the care and control of our government. I think there is lots of blame to go around about this child and likely many others that we will never hear about. Confidentiality is a shield and sometimes a shroud.

Much of the blame in this instance has been “fixed” in the contempt of court proceedings. More blame on others may be attributed in the future and the Departments of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement as well as Alberta Justice and Attorney General conduct further investigations. Iwill be monitoring progress on those fronts in subsequent posts as well.

Fixing the Blame is Necessary but NOT Enough to Fix the Problem:

Fixing the blame is fine but it is not the way to fix the problem. Fixing the problem is about attitudes, values, culture and character. Getting serious and being successful about fixing the problem is the real test of our political, governance and policy delivery systems. It also speaks to the character of the citizenship we have in our Alberta society. First we have to really understand the problem or problems to be able to help resolve them. If we don't care enough, then why should our government and public service rise to the challenge to fix the system. After all in a democracy, our government is merely a reflection of us.

We need to be clearer and better informed about what challenges our policy maker, their expert advisers and public servants face on the front lines. What resources, tools and techniques do they have to help them deal with these kids and their troubles and tribulations? How do they solve problems and how can we as a society and as individual citizens begin to help them and the children they care for? How can this be done effectively when there are serious budget cuts coming and staff hiring freezes already impacting the capacity to do the job?

How do Albertans individually and together through social service agencies and government programs help our vulnerable at-risk kids to learn and adapt and become positive contributing members of our society? With each and every one of these children there is a story. Some sadness, some hope, some tragedy and some happiness is likely pervade each one of these young lives as they try to find and make their way in the world. We should not give up on them and we should not write them off.

It's Time for a Public Conversation About At-Risk Children in Alberta

I am looking forward to the journey and I hope you are too. I hope you will read the posts and forward the posts to share them with your friends and family. I also hope you will comment on the blog posts and help create an informative, respectful and enriching public conversation about this file and its larger implications. Albertans need to know more about these larger issues in children youth and family enhancement services. We need to care more about the vulnerable at-risk children who are, in the end result, the responsibility of our society. That's you and me! There is no "them" here.

These vulnerable at-risk kids started out as somebody’s child and some parent’s responsibility. That relationship broke down for some reason or other so now they are our mutual responsibility as a society. They are truly “Society's Children.” So we Albertans have to step up to the plate, learn more, care more, provide the required resources and create capacity for those who out there trying to do the job for these kids. And then we must require more of ourselves, our government and our social services system to do what it takes to effectively serve the best interests of our society’s at-risk children.

Tomorrow I will post some background on the Court of Appeal file on this matter and how I got to read the unexpunged version for background on the coming blog posts. If you are on our Cambridge Strategies distribution list you will be getting regular notices of new blog posts. Otherwise I suggest you subscribe to this blog through the FeedBlitz widget on the righthand sidebar.

What's the Hold up - Proclaim Bill 44 Amendments into Law NOW!

So we are getting some Ministerial musings about the timing of the proclamation of the "new" Alberta Human Rights Act. We are hearing it is set for this October or November, well after school starts and up to 6 months after the new Act was passed.

I can't see any reason to not proclaim it now and lets get this litigation circus and abuse of teachers going right off the bat when school starts in September.

Surely this law was well enough thought out in the first place that all they have to do is proclaim it and get on with it. Or, is it the case that "the powers that be" don't have a frigging clue about what the real implications of this law will be and it is now just starting to sink in?

Could it be that there are wiser minds and some bigger brains in the back rooms of provincial power are having a serious second thought? Is Cabinet getting cold feet about proclaiming the opting out provisions in Section 9 of the new law? I don't think so.

This ill-conceived law was rammed through with a reckless "damn the torpedoes" attitude in a show of pure and raw political power at play. Nothing has changed in the meantime and to retreat from a folly is never seen as preferred political option.

Besides isn't the strategic political plan to just get past this public rage over Bill 44 so it will be forgotten by the next election. Further delay just gives more time for more events to happen that would just rekindle the public rage. I see nothing to indicate that the government has all of a sudden had an epiphany and received some enlightenment and would now decide to repeal Section 9 "opting out" provisions instead. That would be good government. It just seems too late for our policy makers and law makers to choose that good government road. Sadly , it is road that is much less travelled by in Alberta these days.

If this horrendous law is as benign as the government assures us, what's the hold up? Cabinet makes the proclamation and it meets in the summer. School starts in a few weeks. Give teachers, trustees and parents some certainty (sic) and proclaim the damn law now and lets see what happens sooner than later.

Ct of Appeal Says Contempt of Court Means Jail Time but Community Service is an Alternative.

The Court of Appeal has wrestled with what is an appropriate penalty for Mr Ouelette's contempt of court for failing to promptly obey an earlier order of the court. Here is the Judgment.


The Justice reviewed the Rules that apply and here are the options: A fine but that would likely be covered by the province (we taxpayers) and that would mean no real skin off the former Directors nose.


Imprisonment until the contempt is "purged" but that purging was done the day before the second hearing on the contempt issue because the original court order was complied with and the child was returned as ordered. So that penalty is not appropriate. The Court noted, however, had the child not been returned at the last minute, imprisonment until the order was complied with may well have been appropriate, but not any more.


The final option under the Rules is imprisonment for up to 2 years but the court thought that was "harsh" so an alternative was sought between prison and a fine.


The possible resolution of the "quandary" was community service and there is case law that allows for this finding. Here is where it gets interesting and the wisdom of the courts and the judgment of the Bench come into focus. I love it when you see justice done in this way.


The final decision was to sentence Mr. Oulette to 8 days in prison for his contempt, to start once he got back from his holidays. However, the court gives Mr. Ouelette an option to avoid going to jail. He can do unpaid community service of 40 hours with a charitable organization or municipal government by October 31, 2009 and it must "not be in the child protection areas."


In addition the court ordered the payment of the solicitor-client costs of the lawyer acting for the foster mother and the child B.M. throughout the various stages. It left it up to the government to decide if it would pay those cost on behalf of Mr. Ouelette. That will likely be the case. However if the costs are not paid, then a motion could be brought to send Mr. Ouelette to jail on that basis too.


I think this is a very fair and appropriate penalty. The factors the court considered in arriving at it are interesting too. There was no "profit or bad intent" by the Director but a "considerable degree of carelessness." Since Mr Ouelette is no long in this position it is unlikely that there will be a recurrence by him. There was an apology and explanation given to the courts that served to mitigate penalty and the possibility that he received "poor legal advice."


Key to this court finding was also a "need for general deterrence (of others); and need for denunciation." These latter two heads of consideration go to the issue of the leadership, management and culture of the department which is what needs to be seriously reconsidered and fixed by the looks of it.


So that part of the drama is over. Now lets look at how well the child's interests were served in all of this and monitor how the department is responding.

Alberta Minister of Children Youth Services Reaches Out.

It is good to see the Minister of Child and Youth Services Alberta (CYSA) responding to the various events that impact from and to the department. Here is a copy of an email that I received from an anonymous source that I understand is from the Minister and distributed to the department:

"A number of incidents involving our ministry have placed us in the news headlines since the beginning of the year, including the death or injury of children in care, youth in care being charged with serious crimes, and issues such as the recent contempt of court ruling by the Alberta Court of Appeal.

These matters and the resulting attention and criticism in the media have an impact on your daily work. I know what it is like to open the newspaper or turn on the radio and hear a report claiming that our system for serving children and families is not working properly.

I want to share with you action that our ministry has been taking following these occurrences, to continue ensuring the best possible outcomes for children, youth, and families in Alberta.

Those of you working directly with children and families, and those of you that support staff who do, understand that the troubling cases reported in the media are the exception and not the rule. During times when there is more media and public attention on the work of our ministry and its staff, it is important to not be distracted but continue focusing on developing and delivering the highest-quality supports and services to the thousands of Albertans who rely on our help.

Our policies and processes are based on leading practices nationally and internationally, and following them makes good sense, since we know they are rooted in evidence-based research. At the same time, it is essential to never stop looking for ways we can make our systems even stronger. In fact, this has always been at the heart of how this ministry does business.
• A number of initiatives are currently underway to achieve that goal including:
• A recently announced review of our child intervention system, chaired by leading child intervention experts, who will examine current child intervention practices, identify leading practices from other jurisdictions, and suggest ways our system may be further strengthened.
• Examining the way our ministry administers the court orders it receives through a review being done with Alberta Justice and Attorney General.
• Reviewing and developing recommendations to strengthen the kinship care program.
• Looking at the multi-disciplinary team process that is part of the Family Support for Children with Disabilities Program.

These activities are over and above the regular reviews and adjustments to our policies and practices, which happen on a continuous basis in our ministry.
Despite our best efforts the reality is there will be times where our systems may not work as well as intended. As ministry staff, you see first hand our policies at work. If you have suggestions on how our policies or practices can be improved, I encourage you to share them with your supervisor.

I feel fortunate to be part of a team that makes such a profound and lasting positive difference in the lives of thousands of Albertans. Please accept my continued thanks and appreciation for the hard work you do for children and families.

Honourable Janis Tarchuk, Minister"

I have asked questions and raised concerns about the corporate culture of CYSA in recent posts. So it is good to see the Minister reaching out. It still begs the questions if the CYSA system is inadequate or the people are ill-prepared or insufficiently resourced to do their job there are serious problems in meeting the legal obligations to the at-risk children and youth they are supposed to be helping. If the staff lacks confidence in the departments leadership then there are very serious problems in work place.

The GOA did a "Corporate Employee Survey" in December of 2008 for each department. Here are some interesting findings for the 1,433 staff of the CYSA. While 76% of department staff were "overall satisfied" to be a GOA employee only 64% of CYSA employees were "satisfied" with their ministry or department. Not good but better than 2006 when only 61% were satisfied with the department.

CYSA staff feelings about being "valued as a GOA employee had only 53% strongly or somewhat agreeing, 31% strongly or somewhat disagreeing and 16% in the neither category. Not a very good work situation obviously.

Only 54% felt the department felt that they were helped to understand how their work "contributes to government business plan goals" and 58% believed they understood the same about the department's business plan. Only 51% believes there is an effective internal communications process in CYSA. Is that reflecting alienation of staff or indifference of leadership and management or both?

We live in rapidly changing times and CYSA's work has to be amongst the most volatile in government services. That said only 52% of staff felt they got the support needed to adapt to changes in the job or work environment and only 50% felt senior management demonstrated interest in the well being of employees and 49% believed they received meaningful recognition for work well done. Only 44% of staff felt that they were asked for employee input about plans for business improvements and that the management and leadership could make timely decisions. OUCH.

It is not all bad news for CYSA. Mostly this department is slightly below the averages of all GOA employees in most categories but when it is bead it is significantly bad. On the positive side a full 92% feel they "have a positive working relationship with coworkers and 84% are satisfied with the quality of service provided from their own work unit. 80% indicated they had confidence in the direct supervisor. It is worth noting only 64% felt that others outside their immediate work unit provided high quality service. Strange disconnect there I think.

There is a recently announced GOA hiring freeze. I wonder how many vacancies exist in CYSA that may be critically needed for people to do their job? Only 56% felt they could retain needed department employees and only 48% felt they could attract needed employees too.

There is obviously a great deal to do to improve these numbers and to better position the department to do its job. I will pose a number of question in a rage of theme areas in future posts that I hope will help Albertans consider in how they might evaluate that repositioning. The credibility gap between the leadership and field staff is the most obvious.

So good start with this email to the department Minister Tarchuk. It is going to be a long row to hoe so please don't think the job of closing the gap between the senior management and your leadership is done with one email.

Will Bill 44 Be Debated at the Alberta PC Party AGM in November?

I found out that my suggestion to the Edmonton Glenora PC constituency association to submit a resolution to the Party AGM to repeal the classroom opting out provisions of the new Alberta Human Rights Act, best known as Bill 44, did not make the cut.

There were 4 options presented to the Board members to choose from. After a number of emails trying to find out what happened. I saw the constituency President at the Folk Festival on Thursday night and she told me the results. The Bill 44 repeal resolution was dead last in the Glenora constituency board voting priority. I am not surprised but I am sure disappointed.

It now looks like the last chance to have an AGM debate by the membership of the PC Party on Bill 44 is if the Whitemud constituency makes it happen. But that is not a sure thing either. The party rules are a limit of 2 resolutions per constituency. The Bill 44 resolution in Whitemud was tied for second place with another resolution. So the Whitemud constituency will have to break the tie. The Bill 44 option could be lost in the tie breaker vote.

This is a model example of the problem with party politics. They exist primarily to pursue and preserve political power. That power presumption sometimes trumps things like having a healthy public debate based on competing values and for the sake of good governance. I recall back in the day when Stockwell Day promoted a party resolution to de-insure abortions in Alberta's health care coverage. The resolution was presented, debated, voted on and defeated. The party was stronger for it.

If the PC party accepting that Bill 44 is preferred law and therefore it is not worth debating further, I can accept that. I suppose one can take it on faith that this is the will of the party because no constituency has yet to come forward conclusively to want to test the wisdom of Bill 44 in a resolution debate and a vote. It is very clear that party resolutions are not binding on the Stelmach government. They are merely advice and influential information at best.

That said what are other Albertans to think about the PC Party when people in it will not step up to the plate to speak their minds on contentious issues and government laws? Heaven knows we have seen lots of pressure to abolish the Alberta Human Rights Commission but certain people, many I expect are in the PC Party. That is well established law and a move to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Ironically everyone on all sides of the Alberta political spectrum agreed that the hate speech provisions of the Human Rights legislation in Alberta should go but it survived the legislation review process. GO figure. That must be an example of the old joke that you don't really what to know how sausages or how laws are made.

What are political parties good for as institutions in the larger scheme of our democracy if not to find their truths and to bring their truth to the powers that be in their party and the government. All it can do is make them better and stronger.

It is clear to me that the powers that be in the PC party and the PC government clearly want the embarrassment of Bill 44 to be forgotten and to just go away, rather than to try and fix the mistake. That is a naive political hope. It will not happen. This travesty will not be forgiven or forgotten by the majority of Albertans who find Bill 44 to be a discriminatory unnecessary and abusive law.

I guess fixing this problem is now up to the citizens of Alberta. The next opportunity for that correction of Bill 44 to happen will be in 3 more years; at the next election. Thanks to Bill 44 an awful lot of serious damage can happen to our schools, our children, our education system and out teachers between then and now.