PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I sense disturbing echoes with the period of time in which the Hospital For Sick Children's Scan (Suspected child abuse and neglect) Team worked hand in hand with former Dr. Charles Smith to have children seized from their parents on the flimsiest "evidence" if it could be called that - and then to testify in court in a way to ensure that the parent or care giver would be convicted. Now it is alleged by the Family Lawyers Association that questionable drug hair testing "was used in virtually every child protection case in Ontario where there was a “mere suspicion” of parental drug use," that these drug hair test results were seen as a “very significant factor” in whether to return a child to her family, and that in some cases, hair tests also “played a pivotal role” in prompting the court to remove a child. Same concerns as during the shameful Smith era. Same hospital. All the more reason for a no-hold barred intensive probe of the Hospital for Sick Children. Let the chips fall wherever they may. Above all, there must be a review of each and every case where Motherisk's drug hair test has led to children being seized and parent's charged criminally, to rectify any injustice.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
STORY: "Family lawyers sound alarm on Motherisk," by reporter Rachel Mendleson, published by the Toronto Star, on April 3, 2015.
SUB-HEADING: "The Family Lawyers’ Association’s submissions to the Motherisk review provide the first detailed analysis of the size and complexity of the issues under scrutiny."
PHOTO CAPTION: "Dr. Gideon Koren was director of Motherisk during the period now under heavy scrutiny."
GIST: "Before the Hospital for Sick Children’s Motherisk laboratory became mired in controversy late last year, hair testing was used in virtually every child protection case in Ontario where there was a “mere suspicion” of parental drug use, according to the Family Lawyers Association (FLA). These drug hair test results were seen as a “very significant factor” in whether to return a child to her family, the FLA says in its submissions to the judicial review, currently underway, of five years’ worth of Motherisk hair drug tests. In some cases, hair tests also “played a pivotal role” in prompting the court to remove a child. What’s more, Motherisk “touted itself as the laboratory of choice for hair drug testing for litigation purposes,” and failed to make clear the limitations of its tests, the FLA says. That cemented its place as the top pick among child welfare agencies — and left little room for challenge. This is the troubling picture the FLA paints in its submissions, which include a long list of concerns about Motherisk and the court’s reliance on hair testing in general......... The FLA is among several organizations urging the province to widen the scope of the review, echoing similar calls from the Criminal Lawyers’ Association and York University’s Innocence Project. The concerns the FLA cited in its submissions include: Motherisk did not appear to tell parents submitting to a hair drug test about the limitations of the analysis, or conduct any pre-screening to determine if there were other factors that might skew the results. Hair test results from Motherisk were presented as “absolute truths,” the submissions state. Often, courts were asked to rely solely on results presented without any accompanying interpretation from Motherisk. The courts “overwhelmingly” accepted hair test results from Motherisk. Once these results were introduced into evidence, the court relied on hair testing to monitor a parent’s progress, “almost to the exclusion of other evidence,” according to FLA’s submissions. Motherisk is accredited as a clinical lab, which has less rigorous standards than a forensic lab. According to the FLA, Motherisk “never disclosed” this fact to the association, and “has not provided any information on the differences between the two types of laboratories.” Motherisk’s apparent “alignment” with children’s aid societies..........The FLA’s submissions include a dozen questions for Motherisk — about the error rate for its hair drug tests, Motherisk’s qualifications to perform forensic testing, and factors that could lead to an inaccurate result."......... Questions for Motherisk from the Family Lawyers’ Association include: 1. What are the specific changes that have been made between 2010 and the present to testing procedures? 2. How are current procedures in compliance with forensic standards used worldwide? 3. Is Motherisk properly qualified to perform forensic as opposed to clinical hair analysis? 4. Do the scientists at Motherisk understand their role as “experts” to the courts? 5. What is the error rate for the type of testing used by Motherisk currently and in the past?"
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/04/03/family-lawyers-sound-alarm-on-motherisk.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case;
