STORY: "Mother sues Sick Kids and children’s aid over false hair test results," by reporter Jacques Gallant, published by the Toronto Star on August 23, 2016.
SUB-HEADING: Suit
alleges that a positive test for cocaine reported by the hospital’s
Motherisk lab led to the loss of her daughters.
PHOTO CAPTION: "Christine
Rupert is suing the Hospital for Sick Children and Children's Services
of Waterloo Region, among others, for what she says was the permanent
loss of her daughters over a false result on hair tests at Sick Kids'
Motherisk lab. "
GIST: "An Ontario mother who claims she lost some of her children due to false hair test results at the Hospital for Sick Children’s Motherisk laboratory is now suing the hospital and the children’s aid society that oversaw her case. Christine
Rupert is joined in the multimillion-dollar lawsuit by her two sons and
former partner. She alleges her two young daughters were made Crown
wards without access for the purpose of adoption as a result of
Motherisk test results that suggested she was abusing cocaine, a finding
she has always denied. “As a direct
result of the wrongful conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff
Christine Rupert has suffered and continues to suffer the permanent loss
of her children,” says the statement of claim, filed in Superior Court
last week. All plaintiffs say they have been prevented by law from contacting the girls since 2009. In
addition to Sick Kids and Family and Children’s Services of the
Waterloo Region, Rupert and her relatives are suing several named
individuals who work or have worked at the Motherisk lab or at the
children’s aid society (CAS), who according to court records have not
yet been served with the statement of claim. None of the allegations has been proven in court. Rupert’s lawyer, Julie Kirkpatrick, declined to comment......... “CASs
make decisions about the safety of a child based on the impact of
parenting on a child, not solely for the purposes of assessing drug
use,” said a statement from the agency. “CASs relied on a world-renowned
hospital and trusted in the international reputation of the Motherisk
Lab at SickKids to undertake the court-ordered testing of hair strands
to guide decision-making for children who may have been in need of
protection. “We
are deeply concerned about the possible impact that flawed drug testing
methods have had on vulnerable children and families.” These
are the latest legal proceedings involving Motherisk. Toronto law firm
Koskie Minsky also launched a potential class action lawsuit earlier
this year. Motherisk’s drug and alcohol
hair tests were deemed by an independent review last year to be
“inadequate and unreliable.” That review was sparked by a Star
investigation that found that prior to 2010, Motherisk was using a test
that was not considered to be the “gold standard.” Motherisk
results were entered into evidence in thousands of child protection
cases across the country. The lab ceased its hair testing operations in
2015, and Sick Kids CEO Dr. Michael Apkon later apologized to any
families who felt they may have been affected. The
Motherisk Commission, established by the provincial government earlier
this year, is currently reviewing cases where Motherisk results may have
played a role. In Rupert’s case,
Commissioner Judith Beaman concluded in April that “although it was not
the only evidence supporting the decision, it is clear that the results
of the Motherisk testing were a significant factor leading to the
decision made in the case involving Ms. Rupert’s children.” Rupert
is challenging that finding in a separate court proceeding. She wants
the Divisional Court to quash that part of Beaman’s conclusion, arguing
Motherisk was the only factor in her daughters being made Crown wards
for the purpose of adoption. She’s joined
by two other mothers in that case, who have decried what they see as a
lack of transparency at the Motherisk Commission. In
the recently filed lawsuit against the hospital and children’s aid
society, Rupert asks that the court declare that a miscarriage of
justice occurred in the child protection proceeding that led to her
daughters being made Crown wards and that the rights of the plaintiffs
were breached. She also wants declarations that Motherisk and the Waterloo Region CAS were negligent in her case. “At
no time did the Motherisk lab adhere to the internationally accepted
forensic standards,” says the statement of claim. “The (Hospital for
Sick Children) did not provide adequate oversight to the Motherisk lab
to ensure such standards were followed.” (The independent review completed last year found that Sick Kids had not provided “meaningful oversight” to the lab.)"
The entire story can be found at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
I am monitoring this case. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments.
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
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
