Children's Aid Societies Should Review Every Case Where Child Seized In Which Dr. Smith's Opinion Was Involved, Researchers Recommend;

THE AUTHORS NOTE THAT IN ENGLAND, AFTER THE DISCOVERY THAT DR. (ROY) MEADOWS HAD MADE SOME ERRONEOUS REPORTS THAT HAD BEEN RELIED UPON TO REMOVE CHILDREN FROM PARENTAL CARE, A REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN BY CHILD WELFARE AUTHORITIES OF ALL CASES IN WHICH HE HAD BEEN INVOLVED;

"IN OUR VIEW, CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO A SIMILAR REVIEW OF EVERY CHILDREN'S AID FILE THAT INVOLVED AN OPINION BY DR. SMITH."

EXCERPT FROM RESEARCH PAPER PREPARED FOR GOUDGE INQUIRY BY PROFESSORS NICHOLAS BALA AND NICO TROCME;

The interests and rights of Children and parents who may have been victimized by erroneous pathology reports prepared by Dr. Charles Smith need to be protected," say the authors of a paper filed with the Inquiry.

The paper, by professors Nicholas Bala and Nico Trocme, is called "Child Protection Issues and Pediatric Forensic Pathology" and has been posted on the Inquiry's Web page.

Bala and Trocme note that while it is beyond the scope of the Inquiry's terms of reference to report on individual cases in which there has been a criminal investigation.

But they recommend that, "the Commission should make recommendations about the establishment of processes to promote the interests and rights of
children and parents who may have been victimized by erroneous pathology reports prepared by Dr. Smith."

The authors note that in England, after the discovery that Dr. Meadows had made some erroneous reports that had been relied upon to remove children from parental care, a review was undertaken by child welfare authorities of all cases in which he had been involved.

"In our view, consideration should be given to a similar review of every Children’s Aid Society file that involved an opinion from Dr. Smith", they say.

"If it is concluded that his opinion may have been erroneous or inconsistent with other evidence, and his opinion was influential in the handling of the case, the CAS should take all steps to provide redress and promote the interests of the children involved."

Bala and Trocme say the possible "steps" might include:

0: If any child who has not been adopted is in agency care, the agency should assess whether a return of the child to parental care is in the best interests of the child, and take all reasonable steps to support the reunification of parents and child;

0: If a child has been adopted, the establishing of some form of open adoption that would allow for some contact between the birth parents and children involved.

0: Reimbursement of any legal costs incurred by parents in any child protection proceedings that were in any significant measure based on the erroneous opinion of Dr. Smith.

0: Removal of names from the Child Abuse Register if there is no longer credible evidence of a history of abuse.

The most problematic area would appear those situations in which a child has been adopted as, "there is no legal basis for reversal of the adoption."

The authors state that, "While profoundly unfair and psychologically distressing to the birth parents involved, it must be recognized that removal of a child from a stable adoptive home and return to the care of birth parents would likely be psychologically traumatic to the child and contrary to the child’s best interests."

But they also acknowledge that Children's Aid Societies can be unwieldy, autocratic and barely accountable - and that a time-consuming, cumbersome court system can create the unacceptable delays which make it difficult to return children to their natural parents.

The Goudge Commission has heard disturbing evidence of siblings being seized from loving mothers at birth, grandparents being forced to pour their life-savings into fighting the Children's Aid Society for the return of the child, and the permanent loss of the child through adoption - so much sorrow - so much pain - all involving the flawed opinions of Dr. Charles Randal Smith.

This humble Bloggist only wonders why the province's Children's Aid Societies would need until Commissioner Goudge issues his report in April before commencing the suggested reviews based on information publicly available through the Inquiry.