Morley Emerging as Advocate

August 8, 2005

Morley Emerging as Advocate

"The recent media focus on the director's case review of Sherry Charlie's death has shown how complex these issues are," says Morley. "This reinforces the importance of a non-partisan approach to learning from these deaths."
News Release from the Office of the Child and Youth Officer, August 4, 2005

The "Public Commentary and Other Communications" section of the website for the Child and Youth Officer is acquiring documents that are far more interesting than the timid annual reports previously criticized on these pages. Recent publications from that Office are not without criticism but they are a big step closer to seeing Jane Morley act as an advocate.

Beware when you hear appeals for "non-partisan" behaviour as there is rarely such a thing, and calls for neutrality are frequently attempts to protect the status quo. On August 4th the Ministry of Children and Family Development released a censored version of the report on the death of Sherry Charlie. Unlike the previous summary which attracted criticism, the censored report is what one would get from a freedom of information request, the original document with some sections blanked out so as to protect privacy. Unfortunately, it appears that about 50% of the document was blanked out, including all of a seven page appendix which discussed the Ministry's previous involvement with the "kith & kin" foster family. You won't find the document on the Ministry's website; they distributed it by issuing a media advisory which invited those who wanted a copy to contact the Ministry's Director of Communications. Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley issued her statement within hours of the Ministry's release of its highly censored report. Her statement noted that "as much detail as can be released publicly, consistent with privacy laws, has been released." It then went on to say:

"Reports severed for privacy reasons often do not give a full picture," says Morley. "In this case, while the severed report will allow the public to understand better the recommendations made by the reviewer, the severed personal information is important to a full understanding of the underlying issues. For example, some of the detail that has been cut explains better why the Agency made the decision it did."

"It is for this reason that the chief coroner's independent, external review process is so important," Morley comments. "In a setting where privacy can be protected, concerned parties will be able to come together to examine the circumstances of Sherry's life and death and creatively come up with recommendations on how a death such as Sherry's might be avoided in the future."

Morley deserves credit for making the point that the release of the Ministry's report does not answer all the questions arising from the death of Sherry Charlie and that a further independent process is necessary. Time will tell whether her preferred process is adequate.

Minister of Children and Family Development, Stan Hagen, responded to criticism that Sherry's placement was a cost saving measure by alleging, according to a CBC report, that "it cost the government more to enroll Charlie in the kith and kin program than foster care would have cost." Those who have the information that could support or refute Hagen's assertion are forbidden from doing so by reason of protection of privacy. Unlike the social workers who know the truth and are sworn to secrecy, Jane Morley is free to examine the record and comment on the accuracy of Hagen's claim. It would be a great non-partisan public service if she did that.

On August 4th Morley also issued a letter and a "non-report" which is posted on the public commentary section of her website. The letter is addressed to all who participanted in a review her office conducted of service providers; 47 individual interviews and 59 group meetings with 464 people were asked questions about the state of services for children. In the covering letter she published she said:

"The summary of themes set out in the attached summary is not a statement of my own observations, although I have learned from what was heard. As Child and Youth Officer, to fulfill my responsibility as an independent observer, I need to take information from many different sources, to reflect on it and to articulate more personally my own analysis, observations and advice."

While we await Morley's next annual report, which will express her observations, she deserves credit for publicizing a summary of what others are telling her. The 7 page summary devotes a half page to strengths and the rest to criticisms that are so strong that in her covering letter she wrote:

"I worry that by reinforcing the hammering that has left that ministry, and the many dedicated people who work within it at all levels, often beleaguered and depressed, I may be working against the change that it is my responsibility to support."

"Yet what my team heard from those who participated in the Asking Questions project must be conveyed to and acknowledged by those who are responsible for services for children, youth and families and for leading the systemic change to the child welfare system that the government has set as a goal for itself. The themes reported in the attached summary were repeated by ministry staff, as well as by service providers working for agencies on contract with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. These are the people who constitute the strength that must be built upon if the system is to change for the better."

Hagen would be well advised to study the summary of the service provider project. It includes the observation that "Many service providers expressed a belief that the government's agenda is simply to reduce spending-rather than ensuring that the needs and interests of children are met." The opportunity for providers to discuss their concerns with Morley or her staff was sorely needed as a replacement for the mechanisms that were eliminated by the Campbell government. At the time they fired the Children's Commission and the Child and Youth Advocate, they also made it illegal for service providers to speak out as advocates for their charges. When he was in Opposition, Campbell used the case of the Draayer's to hammer the former government. "My question to the Premier is simply this: how can he justify any further delay in allowing those girls to go home," stormed Campbell. When he became Premier, Campbell did his best to see there would never be another case like the Draayer's, not by resolving problems but by silencing foster families and other care providers so they cannot publicly advocate on behalf of the children in their care. Silencing the caregivers was a draconian move to bury the kind of criticism that Morley has summarized. Now it is up to her to give caregivers a voice against a government that is believed to put cost cutting ahead of children.