The province has filed notice it plans to appeal sa国际传媒 Supreme Court Justice Paul Walker鈥檚 ruling that slammed social workers for actions that included ignoring the courts and allowing unsupervised access for a father who had sexually abused his children. The government has a legal right to appeal, but that doesn鈥檛 mean it鈥檚 the right thing to do in this case.
The decision to appeal will prolong a family鈥檚 ordeal that has already lasted six years. It is hard to see how more legal wranglings will do anything but deepen the wounds of three children who have already suffered too much.
It鈥檚 an ordeal that began in 2009, when the director of child protection received a report that the father involved had been arrested and removed from the family home for allegedly assaulting the mother and the eldest of the couple鈥檚 four children, who was five years old at the time. The man was also charged with uttering death threats against the mother.
That was the beginning of a bitter custody battle and a series of events that resulted in the mother suing the province and the ministry.
In ruling for the mother and her children, Walker found the ministry liable for negligence, misfeasance and breach of fiduciary duty. He said social workers sided with the abusive father, failed to investigate the mother鈥檚 allegations of sexual abuse, wrongly apprehended her children and then provided false or misleading information to the judge to support the apprehension.
Walker also found that social workers tainted a police investigation by inaccurately portraying the mother as mentally ill, and went so far as to disregard a court order and allow the father unsupervised access to his children, during which he sexually abused his youngest child.
Children and Family Development Minister Stephanie Cadieux said the decision to appeal 鈥渋s not about the family involved, but about every family that the ministry may interact with in the future. sa国际传媒 government lawyers advise me there is reason to believe the trial judge erred in a number of areas, and an appeal is warranted.鈥�
Another government statement says Walker鈥檚 ruling raises issues of 鈥済eneral importance for child protection鈥� that require clarification before the Appeal Court. However, the lawyer acting for the mother said the government is seeking more than clarification and, in fact, wants 鈥渇ull dismissal鈥� of all the mother鈥檚 and children鈥檚 claims.
Regardless of any legal technicalities involved, a reading of Walker鈥檚 341-page report shows an alarming list of errors, bad decisions and improper actions by social workers and ministry officials. It is clear the welfare of the children involved was not paramount in those actions.
If there are points of law to be cleared up, they should be taken care of quickly, without involving the children. If the intent of the appeal is simply to avoid government liability, that would be shameful and heartless.
The government鈥檚 reasons for the appeal had better be good ones. The well-being of a family is too high a price to pay if the intent is merely to duck responsibility and avoid expensive damages.
