Loss of innocence

Concerns mount over number and severity of incidents involving Bayfield Treatment Centres

The stories are both alarming and disturbing. One family comes home to find every room turned over—every drawer emptied onto the floor—10-inch kitchen knives propped up under sheets on every bed. The water taps have been turned on and left until the well was dry—but in the meantime, destroying cupboards and floors. Another homeowner miles away is getting ready to take his young children to school. He opens the front door to find vile words and images spray painted upon his front door and vehicle. He closes the door to shield his children’s eyes and innocence.

In Consecon a single woman, fearful of rising incidences of vandalism and trespassing, retreats to her garage as “thundering footsteps approached,” young voices shouting and swearing through her garage door. It would be months before she would feel comfortable in her own home.

These were just some of the growing number incidents involving runaways from several Bayfield Treatment Centres—six residential facilities located in Prince Edward County for young boys with a variety of behavioural, social, emotional and psychological challenges.

Seven homeowners from across Hiller and Ameliasburgh went to a committee of council meeting last week to tell their stories and seek new regulations to protect them from a facility they say has grown too large, and with some clients perhaps too potentially dangerous, for a group home setting.

Bayfield’s attorney Richard Wright, however, said the facility does good work, is a good corporate citizen and was recently named Foster Parents of the Year by the Child Welfare League of Canada.

Few of the victims argue. Most of the neigbours who addressed the committee last week said they felt the facility provides an important community service and has reacted responsibly to compensate victims. But the residents of this community don’t want to be victims. They want to feel safe in their own homes. They don’t want a reactive response but a proactive one.

To do this, they want Bayfield to take in fewer youths, particularly the most troubled and potentially dangerous. And they want more open discussion with the community in which they reside. They argue that Bayfield is operating a commercial business in residential neighbourhoods. They say tighter regulations are needed to minimize the impact of its operations on their neighbours—as there would be if any other commercial business were allowed to set up in a residential neighbourhood.

Michael McCartney is a retired health-care advisor currently residing on County Road 1. His home was one of 11 broken into or vandalized in an incident earlier this year—causing between $25,000 and $50,000 in damage. Weapons and a vehicle were also stolen.

McCartney understands the challenges of caring for and managing Bayfield’s growing facility and praises the work they do.

But he says Bayfield’s success has led to growth—now providing homes to 100 clients in six facilities in the County.

“What is the appropriate size?” asked Mc- Cartney. “Is this too many?

“As a community we have a responsibility to look after these children—but we have to find solutions that enable us to feel safe in our own homes.”

McCartney acknowledged that many of the offences are minor, but some are not. He says police respond to about a call each week attributable to the Bayfield facility. He suggests that Bayfield be encouraged to increase security provisions in line with the growth of clients and the risk posed by those in its care.

Other suggest the municipality enact minimum distance separation rules to keep group homes 500 metres apart in urban areas, two kilometres apart in rural areas. Some just want an apology and a promise to do better.

Bayfield officials declined to address the committee or their neighbours.

Instead Bayfield’s lawyer Richard Wright urged council to wait until his client could provide a “more fulsome response” and not rush into rules governing group homes.

“This is a highly regulated sector,” said Wright. “Council should not go running into this issue without all the information. “This is a corporate citizen that responded quickly and responsibly to each and every incident reported.”

But it was the neighbours who made the strongest impact on Thursday—earning them praise and appreciation from at least one councillor, Terry Shortt, grateful that local homeowners acknowledge the important role Bayfield plays in the lives of these troubled youth and that none are demanding that the facilities leave this community.

The County Road 1 resident forced to shield his daughter from the vandalism and graffiti on the family home and car observed the irony of the issue.

“Bayfield Treatment Centres exist to protect and help our youth,” said the troubled dad. “Yet they have harmed my daughter in a profound way. Is she considered to be some form of collatteral damage? Or just a negative externality that is the cost of doing business? Neither is acceptable to me.”

Council agreed to wait until June 28 to hear Bayfield’s “more fulsome account.”