Unanswered questions

First, an apology to our readers. I wrote in my comment on July 11 that a then- 11 year old girl had been returned to the foster home in which she had complained she had been sexually violated. This was inaccurate. The 11 year ld didn’t make an official complaint until years later. A more thorough probe on my part would have revealed this confusion of facts. Our readers expect and deserve an accurate portrayal of the events of the County that we cover in these pages. I fell short of that mark in this Comment. For this I apologize unconditionally.

The most disappointing aspect of my error is that it has diverted attention from the pressing need for an independent investigation into the actions of the Children’s Aid Society of Prince Edward County in this matter. Despite my fumbling of key facts, there remain serious unanswered questions about what happened in that foster home and why the CAS didn’t do more to protect these vulnerable children.

The CAS knew they had a problem in the foster home in 2005. They had barred this man from caring for foster children while the police and the Crown investigated complaints made by girls who had left his care in 2004 and 2005. (He was convicted last month of numerous sex crimes perpetrated against children in his care.) When the Crown concluded in 2005 that it did not have enough to make charges stick—a hurdle made higher when weighing the trauma of making the girls testify—the charges were dropped.

It is what the CAS did next that must be scrutinized more closely.

Rather than end its arrangement with the foster parent, the CAS instead placed vulnerable children in the accused sexual predator’s home. Between 2005 and 2010, more than a dozen children were sent to live in his home including the 11 year old described in my column on July 11. CAS officials were warned this was a bad idea. People close to the case shook their heads, astounded the CAS would take such a risk with vulnerable children.

Not until this particular young girl—now-16— came forward in 2010 with complaints that the foster parent had been sexually abusing her for years, did the CAS finally remove her and other children from this home.

The CAS leadership suggest in a letter to this newspaper and in response to our coverage that when this third girl complained in 2010, she was removed and never returned. They have never explained, however, why they put this girl, and other children, in a home they had good reason to suspect was a dangerous and evil place.

Why put these, or any, children in harm’s way? Why take the risk? These are the questions that must still be answered. Not by bureaucratic mumbling of promises to improve procedures and oversight (why weren’t these measures in place already?)—but real answers about how the CAS failed these children.

We as a community need to know these answers. We are, in part, complicit in their actions. It is on our behalf that we ask child protection workers to remove children at risk from their families. We do this for their own good. That is what we believe.

When we learn, however, that children have been sexually abused over many years in at least two local CAS-supervised foster homes, our faith in this institution to do its most fundamental and solemn duty evaporates in an instant. They must now prove to you and me they are competent to continue to manage this important responsibility.

Last November, when he sentenced foster parents Joe and Janet Holm to prison sentences for an array of sex crimes involving girls in their care, Justice Geoff Griffin said it was his hope that “the public demand an inquiry into what took place at the home.”

We must continue to demand answers from the local CAS. How were the threats to these children overlooked? Why weren’t these children and their homes monitored much more carefully? How could the abuse go on for years without action? Why risk placing children in the care of a man you had reason to suspect had done terrible things to other children?

In response to the criticism raised by Justice Griffin, and underlined by the conviction of a second foster family, CAS Executive Director Bill Sweet attempted to sweep the mess into the dustbin of history.

“Without question, this has been one of the most difficult chapters in the long history of the Children’s Aid Society of the County of Prince Edward. With this stage in the legal process now behind us, we rededicate ourselves to our mission: protecting the safety and well-being of children in this community.”

This response may have been good enough if Sweet were responsible for managing money or public assets—but it is not nearly good enough when you have been entrusted with the well-being of our children.

It is time the CAS explained what went wrong. It is long past the time for answers.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca