Well we are going ot see a $430M set of budget cuts this fiscal ending March 31, 2010and a requirement for an additional $2B in the year after that. Lets hope this time we do the cutting judiciously and strategically so we maintain key programs and services, especially to vulnerable Albertans.
Already we are seeing cutbacks in departments and memos are coming out from Deputy Ministers with staff directives eliminating overtime, out of province travel and so forth. This is all consistent with the fiscal update announcements earlier this week. It should not be a surprise.
Here is a window on "yesteryear" back in 2001 and a memo from Richard Ouellet, the fellow in Children's Services who was recently found in contemtp of court. It was a cost cutting exercise then, just as we face now. Question is, have we learned anything from those past experiences? This time can we avoid the kind of damage done to kids and others like the last time government had to impose budget cuts? Time will tell, but are you optimistic?
> From: Richard Ouellet
> Sent: November 16, 2001 11:42 AM
> To: Interim - CFS10 All
> Subject:
>
> 16 November 2001.
>
> To all staff.
>
> Bill has asked me to share the following with you on behalf of the
> Management Team. As Bill mentioned in his letter to staff yesterday we
> need to continue to scrutinize expenditures to meet our budget targets.
> In order to achieve this it is critical that we continue to assertively
> implement cost management strategies that have been developed over the
> past several weeks. These strategies are based on the principle that any
> changes will not affect the safety of children.
>
It is imperative that all staff are aware of, understand and support
> these strategies. The next few months will require your help to ensure
> that we continue to provide quality and responsive services to the
> children and families we support.
>
The first phase of our cost management involved a structural review
> of our organization. While there are a few areas yet to be completed we
> have made significant progress in reducing the administrative costs of the
> Authority.
>
A second key element of our strategy was the development of a Cost
> Management document that was distributed to all NCCYFs and CFRO in early
> November. I encourage you to read the document and discuss these
> strategies with your manager and co-workers, as well as bring forward any
> other ideas you may have.
>
The third phase has been a detailed review of all contracted
> services which has resulted in the reduction or termination of several
> Agency contracts and a request for a 1% reduction in contract costs for
> the remaining agencies. While these adjustments have been difficult we
> have remained true to the underlying principles inherent in the four
> pillars of our service plan. I have provided each NCCYF and CFRO manger
> with a copy of the attached listing of Agencies who received notice of
> contract reduction or termination on November 15, 2001. I should note that
> while the notice was given yesterday the effective date for the changes is
> February 15, 2002.
>
We know there are a lot of pressures on you, your peers, on
> agencies, stakeholders and the community. These have not been easy times.
> Management is asking a great deal from you and it is important for you to
> fully understand the measures being implemented and how they will affect
> you and the people we serve. We are confident that together we can
> achieve our goals.
>
> M. Richard Ouellet
Isn't it interesting how the more things change the more they stay the same. Lets hope we are wiser this time in how we implement program cuts that in the Klein days. I am optimistic by nature but will be watching carefully to see if my faith is well founded.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Day 5 Society's Child: Children's Services Takes Action But Within the Rule of Law?
Society's Child is a blog series emerging out of a Director in Alberta Children's Services being found in contempt of court. This series deals with how the best interest of the child in question has been handled by those involved. It is based on the records filed in the Court of Appeal in Alberta.
If you are just joining us here is a synopsis of the facts:
A child was in foster care with the same family almost from birth to 4.5 years old. He was removed from that foster family based on a Children’s Services investigation about alleged abuse. The Foster Mother appeal the removal decision. A Children's Services Appeal Panel reversed the Director's decision and ordered the child returned to the Foster Mother.
Children’s Services appealed that decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench sided with the government, said the Appeal Panel erred in law. That court reversed the Appeal Panel decision saying it could not "second guess" the government and confirmed the child should be removed from the foster home.
The Foster Mother then went to the Court Of Appeal who found the Court of Queen’s Bench erred in law, not the Appeal Panel. They ordered the child returned to the Foster Mother. Later the Court of Appeal found the Director to be in contempt of court for failing to follow the court order to return the child to the Foster Mother.
What events and actions that led to the contempt of court is where we pick up the story on this Day 5 of "Society's Child."
Children's Services Petitions for Adoption of the Child in the Face of the Court Order:
While waiting for the Court of Appeal decision on the future of the child the government Director who was also guardian of the child, petitioned the courts for adoption of the child by the extended family, which was caring for him at the time. It is an interesting question as to why this was done and at this time.
This seems to me to be unduly hasty given that the Court of Appeal decision to return the child to the Foster Mother had been made on January 30, 2009 but had not yet been file. In the meantime a Petition for Adoption of the child is filed by the government. One would think the prudent course would be to wait for the Court of Appeal decision to be filed. It would have some serious implications as to where the Child ought to be residing and even if this adopted was appropriate. Is this further ineptness, a continuing disregard for the courts or a tactical move to add pressure on the Foster Mother's pursuit of the government for the return of the child to her care as ordered by the court?
Foster Mother Responds With Actions of Her Own:
Faced with the government's adoption petition of the child, the Foster Mother took some significant legal steps of her own. First she had her lawyer write to the government and the Court of Queen's Bench in mid-March 2009. She was advising them that the Foster Mother was considering instructions to her lawyer about the adoption. The lawyer asked that no further steps be taken without notice to the Foster Mother.
The Foster Mother also wrote to Children’s Services on February 5, 2009 asking for the return of the child to her saying that the court had determined his return to her care was in the child’s best interest. She also suggested a meeting with Children’s Services to discuss the government’s expectations regarding the child. Interestingly, on February 5, 2009, the same day, the government’s lawyer sent a letter to the Foster Mother’s lawyer. It said to the effect that while the Court of Appeal concurred with the Appeal Panel’s decision to return the child to the Foster Mother, “…neither the Appeal Panel, nor the Court of Appeal indicated it was in the child’s best interest to return the child to your client’s care.” (Emphasis added)
If you are just joining us here is a synopsis of the facts:
A child was in foster care with the same family almost from birth to 4.5 years old. He was removed from that foster family based on a Children’s Services investigation about alleged abuse. The Foster Mother appeal the removal decision. A Children's Services Appeal Panel reversed the Director's decision and ordered the child returned to the Foster Mother.
Children’s Services appealed that decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench sided with the government, said the Appeal Panel erred in law. That court reversed the Appeal Panel decision saying it could not "second guess" the government and confirmed the child should be removed from the foster home.
The Foster Mother then went to the Court Of Appeal who found the Court of Queen’s Bench erred in law, not the Appeal Panel. They ordered the child returned to the Foster Mother. Later the Court of Appeal found the Director to be in contempt of court for failing to follow the court order to return the child to the Foster Mother.
What events and actions that led to the contempt of court is where we pick up the story on this Day 5 of "Society's Child."
Children's Services Petitions for Adoption of the Child in the Face of the Court Order:
While waiting for the Court of Appeal decision on the future of the child the government Director who was also guardian of the child, petitioned the courts for adoption of the child by the extended family, which was caring for him at the time. It is an interesting question as to why this was done and at this time.
This seems to me to be unduly hasty given that the Court of Appeal decision to return the child to the Foster Mother had been made on January 30, 2009 but had not yet been file. In the meantime a Petition for Adoption of the child is filed by the government. One would think the prudent course would be to wait for the Court of Appeal decision to be filed. It would have some serious implications as to where the Child ought to be residing and even if this adopted was appropriate. Is this further ineptness, a continuing disregard for the courts or a tactical move to add pressure on the Foster Mother's pursuit of the government for the return of the child to her care as ordered by the court?
Foster Mother Responds With Actions of Her Own:
Faced with the government's adoption petition of the child, the Foster Mother took some significant legal steps of her own. First she had her lawyer write to the government and the Court of Queen's Bench in mid-March 2009. She was advising them that the Foster Mother was considering instructions to her lawyer about the adoption. The lawyer asked that no further steps be taken without notice to the Foster Mother.
The Foster Mother also wrote to Children’s Services on February 5, 2009 asking for the return of the child to her saying that the court had determined his return to her care was in the child’s best interest. She also suggested a meeting with Children’s Services to discuss the government’s expectations regarding the child. Interestingly, on February 5, 2009, the same day, the government’s lawyer sent a letter to the Foster Mother’s lawyer. It said to the effect that while the Court of Appeal concurred with the Appeal Panel’s decision to return the child to the Foster Mother, “…neither the Appeal Panel, nor the Court of Appeal indicated it was in the child’s best interest to return the child to your client’s care.” (Emphasis added)
The government goes further in this letter to say, "In any event, my client does not believe that it is in the child's best interest to be moved from the home of is prospective adoptive parents where he has resided for over two years." (Emphasis added). There seems to be no appreciation in this position that the child had lived with the Foster Mother for over the first four years of his young life. But there are other serious concern about the content of this letter.
This letter from the government’s lawyer appears on its face to say that notwithstanding what the Court of Appeal decided it did not consider the best interest of the child and the government has decided otherwise. And so Children's Services, in this letter, appear to put itself above the courts and states it will not be complying with the order of the court. How can this be happening in a country and a province that ascribes to the rule of law?
Optional Courses of Action for Children's Services:
If the government did not like the Court of Appeal decision it could have appealed to the Supreme. But their time for such an appeal has already lapsed, and you have to wonder who was at fault for that? Alternatively and according to the rules of Court 390(1), they could have gone back to the court to ask for the decision to be reconsidered, varied or set aside. If they had new evidence that would influence or change matters they should have brought it to the attention of the court. They didn’t do that, instead they wrote a letter the opposing counsel saying they, the government, did not agree with the court and therefore they would not be following the order of the court. Astonishing!
This Rule of Court is there to enable variations of court orders to correct errors in the original decision or to reflect important facts that subsequently come to light. There is a court case, Public School Boards Association v. Alberta AG (1998) in the Alberta Court of Appeal that explains the scope of Rule 390. Rule 390 “…it is not a try again or a do over.” “It does not permit an applicant to revisit any issue because he is dissatisfied with the original decision and has thought of better arguments. Otherwise there would be no finality to litigation.”
Instead of revisiting the court decision, Children’s Services “believed" the court order was not in the child’s best interest. They took the position they were simply not going to comply with the decision of the courts. With that attitude it appears that they believed they were above the law and did not have to obey the law. This attitude to be above the rule of law, from a government, simply invites anarchy. It is amazing to me to see this attitude of appearing to be above the law expressed in any way by government in a free and democratic society like Canada and Alberta. To actually see it in writing, from my government, is even more demoralizing and unsettling.
Children's Services Tries To Negotiate a Deal:
The government officials and the Foster Mother met February 20, 2009. The government agreed to contact the extended family, who still had the child, to facilitate the Foster Mother having visits with him and to arrange “post-adoption” visits for her with the child. The government was unsuccessful in negotiating such arrangements with the extended family. The Foster Mother was advised of this failure in a letter dated February 26, 2009. The Director then petitioned for adoption of the child by the extended family on March 13, 2009.
Foster Mother Writes to Court of Appeal for Clarification of Their Order:
Through all of this, the Foster Mother still had not seen the return of the child as order by the court. On April 14, 2009 her lawyer wrote to the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal asking to appear again before the original panel of Justices to “…appeal for guidance, direction or clarification” of their decision to return the child to the Foster Mother.
Instead of re-appearing in the Court of Appeal the Deputy Registrar wrote to the Director on June 4, 2009 confirming the direction in the court’s decision that the child had to be returned to the Foster Mother.
This letter from the Court of Appeal triggered Children’s Services middle management to “…canvass the availability of upper management t arrange a meeting the following day.” That meeting happened on June 5, 2009 and included departmental senior management people, Director Ouellet, his lawyer. And according to a filed affidavit of a government employee, not the Director, these people “discussed how we could respond to the Court’s direction in a manner that would least impact the child.”
Theses Children’s Services people seem to be oblivious to the duty of care they have to serve the best interest of the child and their duty to follow the rule of law. Both duties required them to return the child to the Foster Mother as decided and ordered by the Court of Appeal. Children's Services had still not even contemplated how and when they were going to comply with the law and return the child as order by the courts in this June 5, 2009 meeting.
In fact on June 8, 2009, according to the same affidavit, the government game plan was to develop a plan that would entail returning the child to the Foster Mother “…for a period or time.” (Emphasis added). Even when they were finally considering obeying the court order they were still equivocating about fully respecting the court decision.
On June 9, 2009, the Director’s government lawyer advised the group that they had received notice that the Foster Mother had, on the previous day, filed a court application to find the Director in contempt of court. We will pick up this part of the story in the next post on Day 6 of Society’s Child.
NOTE TO READER: Here is a link to a blog post the puts all posts of the Society's Child Services in one place so you can go back and put the whole matter in context.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Hancock Steps Up to the Plate to Defer Bill 44 to Avoid Disaster for Teachers
Terrific developments on the Bill 44 fiasco. Looks like Minister Dave Hancock has asked Minister Lindsay Blackett to delay proclamation of the offensive sections that are part of the Alberta Human Rights Act. Hat tip to Chris Labossiere for bring this to my attention.
We need progressive voices in the PROGRESSIVE Conservative party to take back their place in the party. Progressive party members and MLAs need to promote socially progressive and fiscal conservative ideals that are at the heart of the party.
Failing to do this leaves the Alberta Progressive Conaservative Party vulnerable to the same fate as the federal PC party - takeover by the Reform/Alliance social conservatives.
This action by Hancock to delay proclamation is a practical reality to ensure that the efforts to make this "law" effective and enforceable. The language in the new act now is the usual wishy-washy weasel words used by politicians when they try to skirt around the hard job of trading off one competing principle for another.
It is this poor legislative drafting and fuzzy policy process that force judges to "make law" in their decisions. That is the job but the judiciary but they often have to exercise their power of interpretation because the politicians do a substandard job of drafting a clear law in the first place.
So good for Hancock. Here's to Blackett to do the right thing and leave this ill conceived laws in limbo and then to press for its repeal in the fall session.
We need progressive voices in the PROGRESSIVE Conservative party to take back their place in the party. Progressive party members and MLAs need to promote socially progressive and fiscal conservative ideals that are at the heart of the party.
Failing to do this leaves the Alberta Progressive Conaservative Party vulnerable to the same fate as the federal PC party - takeover by the Reform/Alliance social conservatives.
This action by Hancock to delay proclamation is a practical reality to ensure that the efforts to make this "law" effective and enforceable. The language in the new act now is the usual wishy-washy weasel words used by politicians when they try to skirt around the hard job of trading off one competing principle for another.
It is this poor legislative drafting and fuzzy policy process that force judges to "make law" in their decisions. That is the job but the judiciary but they often have to exercise their power of interpretation because the politicians do a substandard job of drafting a clear law in the first place.
So good for Hancock. Here's to Blackett to do the right thing and leave this ill conceived laws in limbo and then to press for its repeal in the fall session.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Opinion Polls on Voter Intentions Point in Different Directions
The polls are all over the place again just link a couple of elections ago. Only Nanos came close to reflecting the final election outcome. Opinion polls are OK but they don't predict behaviour and election DO matter.
Pollsters are out there asking the meaningless question about who you would vote for if an election were held tomorrow. The question is hypothetical, results in superficial answers and is no predictor of actual behaviour.
Ipsos Reid is out there showing 39% support for Harper up 5 point 2 months ago and Ignatieff is at 28% down 7 points in the last 2 months. Harper has had the media machine in full throttle in the past 2 months making stimulus funding announcements, delivering cheques, spending time at G8, meeting Obama and putting in a week in the Arctic as a media stunt. Hard not to get a bounce in numbers with that kind of media help.
Layton just went through a national convention with all the media focus on the petty possibility of dropping the word “New” from the party name. He only got a 1 point bounce to 14% and is deluding himself into thinking he is on the heels of catching the Liberals. The Greens under Elizabeth May had no publicity in the same timeframe and bounced up 2 points to come in at 10% support.
Ekos, with a larger sample than Ipsos, puts Harper support at 32.8, Ignatieff at 30.3, Layton at 17.3 and the Greens at 11 nationwide. These two polls done virtually at the same time have significantly different outcomes.
The more critical and relevant question is the “sentiment” index of the leaders. Ipsos found that 45% of Canadians believes that Harper has done a good job and deserves to be re-elected. 50% of us, according to Ipsos, don’t think Harper deserves to be re-elected. Nanos’ poll on the same question but a few weeks earlier said almost 60% of us don’t see Harper as good enough to be re-elected. More dissonance in the data
Harper is still leading Ignatieff on perceptions of leadership capacity to best manage issues. Again let’s get some context straight. Harper has been our Prime Minister for almost 4 years. Ignatieff has been leader of the Liberals since last December. We have not had the time to get to know Iggy nor do we have a clear sense of what direction he would want to take the country. As for Harper we are getting all too clear a sense of where he is taking the country and we are getting tired of his bullying, attack ads and strategic incoherence as he says one thing and then he does another.
We are starting to consider his total reversal on Income Trusts, the deceit he promoted last November that we were not in a recession and there would be no deficit and now he is courting China when he said he would not do that. He says the deficit will be $50B but his handpicked Parliamentary Budget watchdog says a more realistic figure could be a deficit 3 times that.
We need as much certainty and honesty and transparency as we can get in foggy times like a recession but Harper has trouble telling us the truth. He fabricates and misleads us on the facts so it is hard to know when and what to believe in anything he says.
The polls are all over the place and perhaps that is a true reflection of the uncertainty Canadians feel about their politics and politicians these days. Don’t get transfixed by the polling data about political intentions these days. Canadian fortunes can be gleaned just as well by reading Tarot Cards in these uncertain times.
Pollsters are out there asking the meaningless question about who you would vote for if an election were held tomorrow. The question is hypothetical, results in superficial answers and is no predictor of actual behaviour.
Ipsos Reid is out there showing 39% support for Harper up 5 point 2 months ago and Ignatieff is at 28% down 7 points in the last 2 months. Harper has had the media machine in full throttle in the past 2 months making stimulus funding announcements, delivering cheques, spending time at G8, meeting Obama and putting in a week in the Arctic as a media stunt. Hard not to get a bounce in numbers with that kind of media help.
Layton just went through a national convention with all the media focus on the petty possibility of dropping the word “New” from the party name. He only got a 1 point bounce to 14% and is deluding himself into thinking he is on the heels of catching the Liberals. The Greens under Elizabeth May had no publicity in the same timeframe and bounced up 2 points to come in at 10% support.
Ekos, with a larger sample than Ipsos, puts Harper support at 32.8, Ignatieff at 30.3, Layton at 17.3 and the Greens at 11 nationwide. These two polls done virtually at the same time have significantly different outcomes.
The more critical and relevant question is the “sentiment” index of the leaders. Ipsos found that 45% of Canadians believes that Harper has done a good job and deserves to be re-elected. 50% of us, according to Ipsos, don’t think Harper deserves to be re-elected. Nanos’ poll on the same question but a few weeks earlier said almost 60% of us don’t see Harper as good enough to be re-elected. More dissonance in the data
Harper is still leading Ignatieff on perceptions of leadership capacity to best manage issues. Again let’s get some context straight. Harper has been our Prime Minister for almost 4 years. Ignatieff has been leader of the Liberals since last December. We have not had the time to get to know Iggy nor do we have a clear sense of what direction he would want to take the country. As for Harper we are getting all too clear a sense of where he is taking the country and we are getting tired of his bullying, attack ads and strategic incoherence as he says one thing and then he does another.
We are starting to consider his total reversal on Income Trusts, the deceit he promoted last November that we were not in a recession and there would be no deficit and now he is courting China when he said he would not do that. He says the deficit will be $50B but his handpicked Parliamentary Budget watchdog says a more realistic figure could be a deficit 3 times that.
We need as much certainty and honesty and transparency as we can get in foggy times like a recession but Harper has trouble telling us the truth. He fabricates and misleads us on the facts so it is hard to know when and what to believe in anything he says.
The polls are all over the place and perhaps that is a true reflection of the uncertainty Canadians feel about their politics and politicians these days. Don’t get transfixed by the polling data about political intentions these days. Canadian fortunes can be gleaned just as well by reading Tarot Cards in these uncertain times.
Foster Mother Wins Appeal & the Government Goes to Court.
SOME CONTEXT AND KEY QUESTIONS:
This case is complicated and challenging but it provides a window into how our government is behaving and operating in its duty of serving the best interests of at-risk kids in and of our society. It is always dicey to generalize from one instance. But the attitude and behaviours exhibited by senior levels of Children and Youth Services Alberta (CYSA) in handling this case makes you wonder how endemic this approach is elsewhere in the department and other social service departments in the Alberta government.
The Appeal Panel is an internal government process, setup in law, to deal with various concern issues within mandate of CYSA. It is intended to resolve issues in an efficient, cost-effective manner that does not involve the time, expense and adversarial nature of litigation. It is a check and balance available for a child, a guardian, a foster parent or other child caregivers over the discretionary (and necessary) powers of the government.
The challenging issue here is why the Alberta government wanted to go to court to over-ride the internal Appeal Panel finding to reverse the Director’s decision to remove the child from the foster home. Was there evidence that the Appeal Panel did not have or discounted? Was it because the Appeal Panel made a mistake in law and was it acting outside its jurisdiction? Those were the legal arguments made by the CYSA in court.
Or was the CYSA decision to take the Foster Mother to court a tactic to grind her down by adding cost, time, energy, anxiety and frustration, hoping she would just give up? Did the CYSA believe it was infallible and in absolute control of these matters? Did the CYSA not appreciate being challenged by an agency Foster Mother? Or was it something else? I will leave the drawing of any conclusions to the reader but these are some of the serious questions begged by the behaviours of the CYSA.
THE ANALYSIS:
I have not read any of the Court of Queen’s Bench (QB) files on the Appeal Panel’s decision to reverse the Director’s order to remove the child from the Foster Mother’s home. I have read the Memorandum of Judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal that on the Queen’s Bench decision. They do a pretty thorough job of reviewing the reasons of the Queen’s Bench Chamber’s judge. I feel that is enough background to deal with this next phase of this series: Going to Court.
CYSA had every legal right to take the Appeal Panel decision to court, and in many cases they have a duty to appeal such matters to the courts. In this post I will explore the background on the two court appeals, the Court of Queen’s Bench by CYSA and the Court of Appeal by the Foster Mother. CYSA won the QB appeal at a Chambers hearing. That is not a full blown trial and the evidence is mostly affidavits. CYSA also got QB to grant a stay of execution of the Appeal Panel decision to return the child. That meant that CYSA did not have to comply with the Appeal Panel decision until the matter was dealt with in Queen’s Bench.
THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH DECISION AND REASONING:
The chambers judge in Queen’s Bench decided to reverse the Appeal Panel’s decision to return the child. The law that governed the QB judge in deciding the matter was “…based on the material before him, what is in the best interests of the child on the balance of probabilities.” [Ct of Appeal Memorandum of Judgment Para 12]
The QB judge also noted “…that both the Court (QB) and the Appeal Panel were equally positioned to determine that which is in the best interests of the child.” He went further and said “that the Panel’s decision must be held to a standard of correctness.” He also noted that no curial deference could be attributed to the Appeal Panel. That means the court could examine the evidence anew that was before the Appeal Panel. This was because the court found that there was no legal restraint for it to be bound by the facts as determined by the Appeal Panel. It also determined that “The Appeal Panel had no particular expertise in determining the best interests of the child….”.” [Ct of Appeal Memorandum of Judgment Para 13 and 14]
Based on these findings the QB judge said “…I can determine, in on the record before me, the Appeal panel erred and if so, I have all the evidence to support a determination in this matter.” So here, according to the Court of Appeal, is what the QB judge found.
THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION AND REASONING:
The Court of Appeal heard the matter on September 2, 2008; the decision was written on January 30, 2009 but not filed until March 25, 2009. Those dates are important because of the timing of the Director’s Petition for Adoption for the child by the extended family caregivers. I will talk more about that in later posts.
On “the balance of probabilities” the chambers judge concluded “…that the departmental investigative report was “comprehensive and complete and the Director relied on that report in deciding that is was in the best interests of (the child) that he be removed from (the Foster Mother’s) home.” The chambers judge said the Appeal Panel erred in law in “second guessing” the department’s investigation. They were wrong in concluding that the long time to complete the reporting was a basis for reversing the Director’s decision and that any delay in removing the child from the foster home until the report was done was a ground for reversing the Director’s decision. They were wrong to suggest that there were alternatives to deal with the Foster Mother’s adult daughter’s involvement with the child that could result in not removing the child. [Ct of Appeal Memorandum of Judgment Para 15].
The Court of Appeal said in its Memorandum of Judgment that the CYSA position was”… that the findings by the investigator, as confirmed by the Director, found that the child was at risk and in need of protection is unassailable on review by the Appeal Panel.” They argued that the Appeal Panel could only consider “various remedial alternatives.” “In other words, the Appeal Panel, the Respondent (CYSA) contends, is precluded from inquiring as to the sufficiency of the investigation or, for that matter, in any way challenging the director’s conclusions that the child was at risk. The Respondent argues that the Appeal Panel’s jurisdiction is confined to a consideration of whether some alternative other than removal of the child would have been appropriate, i.e. greater supervision, counselling, education etc.” [Ct of Appeal Memorandum of Judgment Para 18]
The Court of Appeal came down clearly and hard on the CYSA saying “The Respondent’s submission must be rejected.” They accepted that the Director's decision to remove the child was “…founded exclusively upon the investigation and no finding that a child is at risk and in need of protection can be made without reliance upon that investigation.” The Court of Appeal reads section 119(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act and says “…it seems apparent that the Appeal Panel has a broad discretion to “confirm, reverse or vary the decision of the director appealed from.’”
As a further admonition the court said the Appeal Panel powers come from “precisely the same language employed by the Legislature to describe the role of the Court of Queen’s Bench.” The say the Appeal Panel has and needs that broad discretion to accomplish it’s “…purpose, to inquire as to the sufficiency of the underlying investigation. [Ct of Appeal Memorandum of Judgment Para 19]
The Court of Appeal notes that there were legislative amendments even as far back as 2003 that also conferred this power of a broad scope of review on Appeal Panels. The said that power extended “…to an examination of the investigative underpinnings revealed by ‘any new evidence’ or engaged by oral or written representations and submissions. To hold otherwise is, in our opinion, an error of law.” [Ct of Appeal Memorandum of Judgment Para 20]
QB MADE THE ERROR OF LAW - NOT THE APPEAL PANEL:
Given this legislated power in the Appeal Panel, the Court of Appeal rejects the QB judge observations and agreement with the CYSA that there was some kind of “jurisdictional inability of the Appeal Panel to ‘second-guess’ the director, if by ‘second-guess’ he meant to substitute the Appeal Panel’s view of the evidence for that of the investigator and of the director.” They said in conclusion, “In our view, it was an error of law to so constrain the scope of review by the Appeal Panel. The Appellant (Foster Mother) is entitled to relief. The order of the Court of Queen’s Bench is set aside and the decision of the Appeal Panel is restored.” [Ct of Appeal Memorandum of Judgment Para 21]
The Foster Mother won at the Court of Appeal big time. This judgment will have positive impact on many other at-risk kids and encourage other caregivers to challenge inept investigations and inappropriate administrative decisions by government based on them. However, this story is far from over.
In the intervening period, before the Court of Appeal decision came down, the Director filed a Petition for Adoption of the child by the extended family, on March 13, 2009. This move by CYSA for adoption of the child by the extended family is clearly adding to the complexity, cost and would raise the anxiety of the Foster Mother. Her lawyer writes to the Court of Queen’s Bench indicating she was seeking client instructions to respond to the adoption process and asking to be advised of any steps taken in the matter. She also writes to the CYSA on March 18, 2009 saying essentially the same thing about seeking instructions on the adoption process.
This is upping the ante and putting more pressure on the Foster Mother, her energy, capacity, determination and her resources. One has to wonder if initiating this adoption process by CYSA was really necessary for the best interests of the child given the suspicious nature of the timing.
The Foster Mother shows that she is no quitter and she takes some retaliatory steps of her own.
Next post I will deal with the actions taken by the Foster Mother in response to the CYSA adoption move and how she initiates steps to find the Director personally in contempt of court. I will also deal with how this case finally comes to the attention of the Director and what the bureaucrats do beyond the adoption petition and how, if at all, those actions could be in the best interests of the child.
NOTE TO READERS: I have set up a blog post that will gather together in one place all the posts in this series. That way you can go back to the beginning as start following the events or check out other details as you wish. Here is the link to that age where the entire series is located. I will add the link to the bottom of all subsequent posts for convenience.
This case is complicated and challenging but it provides a window into how our government is behaving and operating in its duty of serving the best interests of at-risk kids in and of our society. It is always dicey to generalize from one instance. But the attitude and behaviours exhibited by senior levels of Children and Youth Services Alberta (CYSA) in handling this case makes you wonder how endemic this approach is elsewhere in the department and other social service departments in the Alberta government.
The Appeal Panel is an internal government process, setup in law, to deal with various concern issues within mandate of CYSA. It is intended to resolve issues in an efficient, cost-effective manner that does not involve the time, expense and adversarial nature of litigation. It is a check and balance available for a child, a guardian, a foster parent or other child caregivers over the discretionary (and necessary) powers of the government.
The challenging issue here is why the Alberta government wanted to go to court to over-ride the internal Appeal Panel finding to reverse the Director’s decision to remove the child from the foster home. Was there evidence that the Appeal Panel did not have or discounted? Was it because the Appeal Panel made a mistake in law and was it acting outside its jurisdiction? Those were the legal arguments made by the CYSA in court.
Or was the CYSA decision to take the Foster Mother to court a tactic to grind her down by adding cost, time, energy, anxiety and frustration, hoping she would just give up? Did the CYSA believe it was infallible and in absolute control of these matters? Did the CYSA not appreciate being challenged by an agency Foster Mother? Or was it something else? I will leave the drawing of any conclusions to the reader but these are some of the serious questions begged by the behaviours of the CYSA.
THE ANALYSIS:
I have not read any of the Court of Queen’s Bench (QB) files on the Appeal Panel’s decision to reverse the Director’s order to remove the child from the Foster Mother’s home. I have read the Memorandum of Judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal that on the Queen’s Bench decision. They do a pretty thorough job of reviewing the reasons of the Queen’s Bench Chamber’s judge. I feel that is enough background to deal with this next phase of this series: Going to Court.
CYSA had every legal right to take the Appeal Panel decision to court, and in many cases they have a duty to appeal such matters to the courts. In this post I will explore the background on the two court appeals, the Court of Queen’s Bench by CYSA and the Court of Appeal by the Foster Mother. CYSA won the QB appeal at a Chambers hearing. That is not a full blown trial and the evidence is mostly affidavits. CYSA also got QB to grant a stay of execution of the Appeal Panel decision to return the child. That meant that CYSA did not have to comply with the Appeal Panel decision until the matter was dealt with in Queen’s Bench.
THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH DECISION AND REASONING:
The chambers judge in Queen’s Bench decided to reverse the Appeal Panel’s decision to return the child. The law that governed the QB judge in deciding the matter was “…based on the material before him, what is in the best interests of the child on the balance of probabilities.” [Ct of Appeal Memorandum of Judgment Para 12]
The QB judge also noted “…that both the Court (QB) and the Appeal Panel were equally positioned to determine that which is in the best interests of the child.” He went further and said “that the Panel’s decision must be held to a standard of correctness.” He also noted that no curial deference could be attributed to the Appeal Panel. That means the court could examine the evidence anew that was before the Appeal Panel. This was because the court found that there was no legal restraint for it to be bound by the facts as determined by the Appeal Panel. It also determined that “The Appeal Panel had no particular expertise in determining the best interests of the child….”.” [Ct of Appeal Memorandum of Judgment Para 13 and 14]
Based on these findings the QB judge said “…I can determine, in on the record before me, the Appeal panel erred and if so, I have all the evidence to support a determination in this matter.” So here, according to the Court of Appeal, is what the QB judge found.
THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION AND REASONING:
The Court of Appeal heard the matter on September 2, 2008; the decision was written on January 30, 2009 but not filed until March 25, 2009. Those dates are important because of the timing of the Director’s Petition for Adoption for the child by the extended family caregivers. I will talk more about that in later posts.
On “the balance of probabilities” the chambers judge concluded “…that the departmental investigative report was “comprehensive and complete and the Director relied on that report in deciding that is was in the best interests of (the child) that he be removed from (the Foster Mother’s) home.” The chambers judge said the Appeal Panel erred in law in “second guessing” the department’s investigation. They were wrong in concluding that the long time to complete the reporting was a basis for reversing the Director’s decision and that any delay in removing the child from the foster home until the report was done was a ground for reversing the Director’s decision. They were wrong to suggest that there were alternatives to deal with the Foster Mother’s adult daughter’s involvement with the child that could result in not removing the child. [Ct of Appeal Memorandum of Judgment Para 15].
The Court of Appeal said in its Memorandum of Judgment that the CYSA position was”… that the findings by the investigator, as confirmed by the Director, found that the child was at risk and in need of protection is unassailable on review by the Appeal Panel.” They argued that the Appeal Panel could only consider “various remedial alternatives.” “In other words, the Appeal Panel, the Respondent (CYSA) contends, is precluded from inquiring as to the sufficiency of the investigation or, for that matter, in any way challenging the director’s conclusions that the child was at risk. The Respondent argues that the Appeal Panel’s jurisdiction is confined to a consideration of whether some alternative other than removal of the child would have been appropriate, i.e. greater supervision, counselling, education etc.” [Ct of Appeal Memorandum of Judgment Para 18]
The Court of Appeal came down clearly and hard on the CYSA saying “The Respondent’s submission must be rejected.” They accepted that the Director's decision to remove the child was “…founded exclusively upon the investigation and no finding that a child is at risk and in need of protection can be made without reliance upon that investigation.” The Court of Appeal reads section 119(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act and says “…it seems apparent that the Appeal Panel has a broad discretion to “confirm, reverse or vary the decision of the director appealed from.’”
As a further admonition the court said the Appeal Panel powers come from “precisely the same language employed by the Legislature to describe the role of the Court of Queen’s Bench.” The say the Appeal Panel has and needs that broad discretion to accomplish it’s “…purpose, to inquire as to the sufficiency of the underlying investigation. [Ct of Appeal Memorandum of Judgment Para 19]
The Court of Appeal notes that there were legislative amendments even as far back as 2003 that also conferred this power of a broad scope of review on Appeal Panels. The said that power extended “…to an examination of the investigative underpinnings revealed by ‘any new evidence’ or engaged by oral or written representations and submissions. To hold otherwise is, in our opinion, an error of law.” [Ct of Appeal Memorandum of Judgment Para 20]
QB MADE THE ERROR OF LAW - NOT THE APPEAL PANEL:
Given this legislated power in the Appeal Panel, the Court of Appeal rejects the QB judge observations and agreement with the CYSA that there was some kind of “jurisdictional inability of the Appeal Panel to ‘second-guess’ the director, if by ‘second-guess’ he meant to substitute the Appeal Panel’s view of the evidence for that of the investigator and of the director.” They said in conclusion, “In our view, it was an error of law to so constrain the scope of review by the Appeal Panel. The Appellant (Foster Mother) is entitled to relief. The order of the Court of Queen’s Bench is set aside and the decision of the Appeal Panel is restored.” [Ct of Appeal Memorandum of Judgment Para 21]
The Foster Mother won at the Court of Appeal big time. This judgment will have positive impact on many other at-risk kids and encourage other caregivers to challenge inept investigations and inappropriate administrative decisions by government based on them. However, this story is far from over.
In the intervening period, before the Court of Appeal decision came down, the Director filed a Petition for Adoption of the child by the extended family, on March 13, 2009. This move by CYSA for adoption of the child by the extended family is clearly adding to the complexity, cost and would raise the anxiety of the Foster Mother. Her lawyer writes to the Court of Queen’s Bench indicating she was seeking client instructions to respond to the adoption process and asking to be advised of any steps taken in the matter. She also writes to the CYSA on March 18, 2009 saying essentially the same thing about seeking instructions on the adoption process.
This is upping the ante and putting more pressure on the Foster Mother, her energy, capacity, determination and her resources. One has to wonder if initiating this adoption process by CYSA was really necessary for the best interests of the child given the suspicious nature of the timing.
The Foster Mother shows that she is no quitter and she takes some retaliatory steps of her own.
Next post I will deal with the actions taken by the Foster Mother in response to the CYSA adoption move and how she initiates steps to find the Director personally in contempt of court. I will also deal with how this case finally comes to the attention of the Director and what the bureaucrats do beyond the adoption petition and how, if at all, those actions could be in the best interests of the child.
NOTE TO READERS: I have set up a blog post that will gather together in one place all the posts in this series. That way you can go back to the beginning as start following the events or check out other details as you wish. Here is the link to that age where the entire series is located. I will add the link to the bottom of all subsequent posts for convenience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)