Motherisk: (Ontario): "Three mothers who claim that their children were removed from their care as a result of faulty drug and alcohol hair tests at Hospital for Sick Children’s Motherisk laboratory have gone to court to call out what they see as a lack of transparency at the commission set up to review their cases," Toronto Star reporter Jacques Gallant reports..."The three argue in court documents that Commissioner Judith Beaman, a retired provincial court judge, and her staff have failed to allow them to participate in the reviews of their cases. They want the Divisional Court to order the commission to allow them to make submissions to the commissioner and to hold hearings in their cases. They also want to see the children’s aid society files that may have been consulted in the review of their cases, as well to get the commission to order court transcripts from their child protection proceedings to get a full picture of what role Motherisk hair tests may have played in removing their childen from their care."..."The Motherisk Commission was established by the provincial government earlier this year in the wake of a damning independent review which found that the hair tests at the Hospital for Sick Children lab were “inadequate and unreliable.” The tests were used in thousands of child protection cases across the country. The independent review sparked by a Star investigation that found that prior to 2010, Motherisk did not use what is considered to be the “gold standard” hair test. The hospital has since discontinued hair testing in the Motherisk lab, and has apologized to individuals and families who may have been affected."..."The Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, Irwin Elman, continues to express concerns about the way the Motherisk Commission operates, and told the Star in an interview that he believes the three women raise questions that the commission should be considering. Elman especially wants the commission to review every one of the thousands of child protection cases that used a Motherisk hair strand test."

STORY: "Mothers decry lack of transparency in review of Motherisk lab," by reporter Jacques Gallant, published by The Toronto Star on July 31, 2016.

SUB-HEADING: "Those the commission was established to help say they have been shut out of the process."

GIST: "Three mothers who claim that their children were removed from their care as a result of faulty drug and alcohol hair tests at Hospital for Sick Children’s Motherisk laboratory have gone to court to call out what they see as a lack of transparency at the commission set up to review their cases. The very people the commission was established to help want to see everything the commission has seen when looking at their story. The three argue in court documents that Commissioner Judith Beaman, a retired provincial court judge, and her staff have failed to allow them to participate in the reviews of their cases. They want the Divisional Court to order the commission to allow them to make submissions to the commissioner and to hold hearings in their cases. They also want to see the children’s aid society files that may have been consulted in the review of their cases, as well to get the commission to order court transcripts from their child protection proceedings to get a full picture of what role Motherisk hair tests may have played in removing their children from their care. None of the allegations have been proven in court. The women’s lawyer, Julie Kirkpatrick, declined to comment as the matter is before the court. The commission also declined to comment. “The Commissioner has failed to interpret her mandate correctly, has erred in law, and has exceeded her jurisdiction by not conducting her review in a way that places inadequate Motherisk testing in a factual context through a fair, transparent and thorough process,” argues part of all three women’s applications for judicial review, which were filed in court this week. The applications go on to say that Beaman has also failed to interpret her mandate correctly by “denying all rights of participation to all affected parties, except for the Children’s Aid Society, in conducting a review.” The Motherisk Commission was established by the provincial government earlier this year in the wake of a damning independent review which found that the hair tests at the Hospital for Sick Children lab were “inadequate and unreliable.” The tests were used in thousands of child protection cases across the country. The independent review sparked by a Star investigation that found that prior to 2010, Motherisk did not use what is considered to be the “gold standard” hair test. The hospital has since discontinued hair testing in the Motherisk lab, and has apologized to individuals and families who may have been affected. The commission’s two-year mandate includes reviewing Ontario cases from between 1990 and 2015 where Motherisk may have been involved, either at the individual’s request or on Beaman’s initiative. The commission’s review and resource centre can offer individuals counseling and, if Motherisk is determined to have played a significant role in the outcome of the person’s case, the commission can also refer them to lawyers. Those individuals can then explore the possibility of applying to the courts to have Crown ward or adoption orders with respect to their children set aside, for example. Two of three women who have taken their case to Divisional Court have publicly shared their stories in the past. Christine Rupert, who specifically wants a public hearing at the commission, told the Star in 2014 that her two children were removed at birth and later adopted out. (Beaman has said in correspondence with Rupert that the Order-in-Council from government appointing her as commissioner does not authorize her to hold a public hearing, according to court documents.).........Another applicant taking the commission to court is Yvonne Marchand, who is also the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit brought by law firm Koskie Minsky against Sick Kids and Motherisk’s former director and manager.........The third applicant is a mother whose child protection case is ongoing — she is appealing a lower court’s decision to make her child a Crown ward without access.........The Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, Irwin Elman, continues to express concerns about the way the Motherisk Commission operates, and told the Star in an interview that he believes the three women raise questions that the commission should be considering. Elman especially wants the commission to review every one of the thousands of child protection cases that used a Motherisk hair strand test. (The independent review that led to the creation of the commission recommended that the commission should not look at every case as it “would be a formidable, time-consuming, expensive, and impractical exercise.”) “For young people or former young people, it might not be perceived as a burden for someone to review their file,” Elman told the Star. “For young people who were or are in care, knowing the truth about what happened to them might in fact be a remedy.”

The entire story can be found at:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/07/31/mothers-decry-lack-of-transparency-in-review-of-motherisk-lab.html

See the editorial calling for an 'open' public inquiry' which I published on this Blog  on January 15th, 2016, at the link below: "

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: On it's face, the government news  release issued earlier today (January 15, 2016)  describes important steps to be taken by the independent commission,   including making available assistance to families who may have been affected by the Motherisk laboratory's flawed testing methodology, providing  legal, counselling and other support to individuals involved in child protection matters that may have been impacted by a flawed Motherisk test, and developing a process to identify potentially affected individuals  and   inform them about the findings of the Motherisk Hair Analysis review and about the resources available through the review and resource centre. The order-in-counsel also contains an important provision: that: (The Commissioner will) "offer early advice or guidance on high priority cases, including those cases identified as high priority by children's aid societies, and review individual child protection cases that may have been affected by Motherisk hair tests between 1990 and 2015, on request or on her own initiative."  That said, it would appear on the face of everything that I have read,   (I would love to be proven wrong) that this will not be a public inquiry. In contrast, to the Public Inquiry  into many of former pathologist Charles Smith's cases (The Goudge Inquiry), Commissioner Beaman will do her work behind closed doors for the next two years, without any public examination under oath of the officials of the Hospital for Sick Children and the staff  of the Motherisk lab who are responsible for this travesty which has wrongfully caused people to lose their children and sent innocent people to prison. (In spite of the lessons the hospital was supposed to have learned from the Goudge Inquiry and the whole ugly Charles Smith experience.)  Of course, the privacy and confidentiality of the hospital's  victims is a  prerequisite  - for those that choose to exercise it. (Some may well want to testify publicly about their treatment by the hospital and its staff.) But it appears as if the famed hospital is being allowed by the provincial government to slide off the hook. Hmmmm!"

Harold Levy:  Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;

http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2016/01/bulletin-motherisk-ontario-government.html

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:

I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.

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;