"The Goudge Inquiry also heard that Charles Smith offered his opinions in child welfare proceedings where children were removed from their parents. Those cases were not reviewed by the Commissioner and there is no plan to review those cases. We do not know how many children were affected by that work. It is safe to assume that Dr. Smith’s errors were not limited to his criminal cases and errors are likely to have occurred in his child welfare cases. This reality, combined with a lower burden of proof in child welfare proceedings, means children were likely wrongfully removed from their families as a result of his work. No one within government seems to want to tackle this question. These are the nameless, faceless victims of Charles Smith. They have no champion. They have no voice."
LAWYER SUZAN FRASER;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: In february, 2011, The Ontario Court of Appeal quashed the murder conviction of the Toronto mother who was imprisoned for life on the basis of flawed testimony from pathologist Charles Smith. “We recognize this has been a terrible ordeal for you and it’s tragic it has taken so long to uncover the flawed pathology that led to your conviction in 1995,”Justice Marc Rosenberg told Tammy Marquardt Thursday morning. “We agree … there was a miscarriage of justice,” Rosenberg said on behalf of a three-judge panel. The 38-year-old Scarborough native spent nearly 14 years in prison after being convicted of murdering her 2-year-old son, Kenneth Wynne. While other victims of Smith’s mistakes have since been acquitted, Marquardt’s “dilemma” is that fresh evidence in her case only allows a court to go as far as ordering a new trial, Lockyer told the court. The evidence is still ambiguous about how the child died but strongly suggests he died as a result of an epileptic seizure, Lockyer said. In his short life, Kenneth had suffered from asthma and pneumonia and had been treated for seizures eight times. Smith opined the cause of death was asphyxia, likely the result of smothering or suffocation. That remains a possibility, given an absence of hard evidence about why Kenneth died, the appeal court was told on Thursday. At the same time, two neurologists from the Hospital for Sick Children who independently examined the boy’s medical records found his demise was consistent with a sudden unexplained death from epileptic seizure. While three-judge panel set aside Marquardt’s conviction, the Crown has not indicated whether it intends to proceed with a new trial. The court, meanwhile, extended Marquardt’s bail. The appeal court decision came after forensic experts reviewed the conclusions of the former pediatric pathology superstar and found them illogical and “completely” unscientific. Smith’s evidence dovetailed with the Crown’s theory at the time, that Marquardt had suffocated Kenneth in a moment of anger and frustration. But he was wrong in supporting the Crown’s theory and his testimony denied the jury the option of concluding the child had instead died as a result of a seizure, Crown counsel Gillian Roberts told the court. Marquardt said she found him twisted up in bed sheets and obviously distressed. He was taken to hospital, but died three days later, after being taken off life support. Nearly two years ago, Marquardt was released on bail. She had been incarcerated in the Grand Valley women’s prison in Kitchener. Kenneth died 17 years ago, in October, 1993. Her other sons, who she named Keith and Eric live somewhere in Canada, but never had further contact with their mother.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I an grateful to Toronto lawyer Suzan Fraser, Counsel to Defence for Children International – Canada at the Goudge Inquiry, for making available the following never before published commentary which exposes three aspects of Charles Smith's legacy which she says have been often overlooked. Ms. Fraser played an important role at the Goudge Inquiry into many of Smith's cases in acting as a champion and advocate for the children who were wrongfully torn from their families in the most horrible circumstances, and giving them a voice.
"Charles Smith’s legacy does not end with those people wrongfully charged and wrongfully convicted in the deaths of children," the commentary begins.
Three aspects of Dr. Smith’s legacy are often overlooked: the surviving children taken from their families as a result of his work, the children affected by his work in non-criminal cases and the children affected by the child welfare reforms that occurred in part due to his work," it continues.
"The Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario (the Goudge Inquiry) was established by the Government of Ontario on April 25, 2007. The Goudge Inquiry heard that more than 17 children associated with the cases under review were taken into the care of the state as a result of the work of Dr. Smith. At least four children (including Tammy Marquardt’s two sons) were adopted by new families and are likely growing up thinking wrongly that their siblings died at the hands of their parents and that their parents were abusers. For the child victims torn from their parents and siblings, the Government’s compensation scheme offers up to $25,000.00. It does not address how those children are to be informed that they are victims or by whom. Some may not know that their adoption was the result of the work of Charles Smith.
The Goudge Inquiry also heard that Charles Smith offered his opinions in child welfare proceedings where children were removed from their parents. Those cases were not reviewed by the Commissioner and there is no plan to review those cases. We do not know how many children were affected by that work. It is safe to assume that Dr. Smith’s errors were not limited to his criminal cases and errors are likely to have occurred in his child welfare cases. This reality, combined with a lower burden of proof in child welfare proceedings, means children were likely wrongfully removed from their families as a result of his work. No one within government seems to want to tackle this question. These are the nameless, faceless victims of Charles Smith. They have no champion. They have no voice.
The other children are those affected by the child welfare reforms of the late 1990s. Dr. Smith, then Chief Coroner Jim Young and then Deputy Chief Coroner Jim Cairns worked to expose child abuse by the investigation of death - a cause which fuelled a moral panic that parents were getting away with murder. The panic appears to have reached its zenith in the spring and summer of 1997 when the coroner’s office conducted inquests relating to the child welfare system. One of those cases involved the death of Kassandra Sheppard. Her stepmother was wrongly implicated in Kassandra’s death.
The coroner’s jury in Kassandra’s case made 76 recommendations which formed a platform for the reform of the Child and Family Services Act in May 1999. Reform of the CFSA was needed but it led to huge increases in the number of children coming into the care of the state. The first report of the Commission to Promote Sustainability in Child Welfare, Toward Sustainable Child Welfare, ties the reforms of the 1990s to “a series of high profile child deaths at the hands of their parents [that] caused a dramatic policy shift towards a more intrusive and proactive approach.”
As a result of the reforms of the 1990s, the number of children coming into care (i.e. foster care, group care) increased dramatically. Child welfare spending grew at three times the rate of all other Ontario government programs. It is reasonable to say that some children taken into care in the larger net cast by child welfare reforms might have otherwise been able to stay safely with their families. This too is part of the Charles Smith legacy.
My heart goes out to those parents and caregivers wrongly accused in the deaths of their children and for the loss of those children. What keeps me up at night, three years after the inquiry ended, is the absence of justice for those children affected by the work of Charles Smith - children who have no champion, no advocate and no voice."
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
