On November 16, 1999, a legal action was started against
our family by kidnapping our child - an apprehension to
use the legal euphemism.
Before we knew anything about it, Tina Berryman, an
employee of Molly Maid who had cleaned our home once,
made a complaint. Our home is too large for my wife
Linda and me to clean, so we have a maid service. Tina
Berryman has no statement on record, only a paraphrase
by a social worker. It appears the maid was appalled
that the house needed cleaning when she arrived.
On Tuesday November 16, around 10 am, two people showed
up at our door wearing smiles but clearly hostile,
inviting themselves into our home. I refused them
permission to enter. There were a few words exchanged,
in which they identified themselves as representatives
of Children's Aid with a complaint that there was a lock
on our child's door. I ended the discussion by closing
the door.
At 6:15 pm the same day, two policemen came with a woman
from Children's Aid, showing a warrant authorizing them
to apprehend our son, Ken aged 3 years. I respected the
warrant, but declined to answer any substantive
questions until talking to a lawyer. After my wife
talked to the police for an hour, one of the policemen
told me our child would be left with us if I removed a
broken crib from Ken's room, otherwise Ken would be
taken to a foster home. I retreated to my office to
call a lawyer, but since the raid was after business
hours, it took 15 minutes. I removed the crib and they
took Ken anyway. I gave him a goodbye hug and he was
gone. They did not really suspect abuse, because they
did not examine Ken before taking him.
Linda got to visit Children's Aid on Wednesday and
Thursday, on the second visit they even let her visit
Ken for a while. She took a toy and clothing for Ken
both times and recognized when Ken was having a bowel
movement, requiring her to leave for a clean diaper.
These facts were misrepresented in the CAS affidavits.
We got a lawyer, Evelyn Huber, to represent us and
Friday morning we were informed that Children's Aid
intended to apply for crown wardship, meaning that we
would never see Ken again. I am a graduate of six
foster homes and two boarding schools, and I know from
personal experience just what a nightmare they are. Our
care of Ken was heaven compared to that.
The next Monday at 10 am we went to the Orangeville
Courthouse with our lawyer, and she worked out a consent
agreement with Children's Aid, under which we could get
Ken returned in nine days provided we complied with six
listed conditions. As part of the consent, we were
permitted to visit Ken for one hour each weekday.
At 3 pm I saw Ken for the first time since his
abduction, Linda for the second time. We had to enter a
building with a sign affixed to the window "Lesbian and
Gay Positive Space", and in smaller type, "This is a
place where human rights are respected, and where gays,
lesbians, bisexuals, their friends and allies are
welcomed and supported". Every door has a locking
mechanism, many operated by remote control. Ken
entered, and we were ushered to a closed room with a
one-way mirror allowing observation from the adjacent
room (it had open blinds on it), several surveillance
cameras and concealed microphones. Ken had a sad-sack
look, more depressed than any I had ever seen before.
It took him a half-hour to regularly smile. When he
realized that we were leaving, he cried intensely in a
way that we had never seen before.
For six more consecutive weekdays we saw Ken under the
same conditions. Later, Kim James filed thousands of
words of affidavits using our visits as evidence against
us. On Tuesday Ken's spirits were improved. Children's
Aid had agreed Monday to let us take Ken for a haircut,
but Kim James reneged. After Wednesday's visit two
social workers, Kim James and Nina Little, met with us.
Kim opened the questioning by asking "How do you feel?".
That was quite a question from a kidnapper.
On Tuesday November 23, a reporter from the Toronto Sun,
Jean Sonmor, visited us at home to get our side of the
story, and on Wednesday she called Children's Aid, to
get their side. Also on Wednesday, our lawyer called
with a gripe that there was material on the internet
about our case that Children's Aid considered libelous.
Hard to understand, because most of what I had posted
was merely verbatim copies of their documents. Still, I
sent them an email offering to correct any libels (copy
below). They did not respond, but the next day's
treatment may be their response.
On Thursday we met Ken at 3:15 pm for an hour. During
the session I took a too-loud toy cell phone from Ken,
ignoring his 20 second tantrum, then he climbed
contentedly onto my lap. Kim James and her supervisor
Kim Evans came in after the visit and questioned us
about the six conditions in our consent. We were in
compliance with all, except that the day-care
arrangements were under way and not yet completed. Then
they asked questions unrelated to the consent, and after
five minutes I suggested that Linda should stop giving
answers outside the scope of the consent. Switching
from friendliness to hostility, they said they would
find us not in compliance with the consent and announced
that they were going to proceed with crown wardship
taking Ken from us permanently. When Ken cried today,
they said, I did not comfort him. So we had
accomplished nothing. Reviewing the agreement, the
writing did not get us Ken back December first, that was
merely their oral promise.
That evening I had to call a suicide prevention line to
get help for my wife, and later drove her to the
hospital emergency room for sedatives to make it through
the night. To maintain family harmony, I had to end all
efforts at exposure through the press or the internet.
Friday we saw Ken for another hour uneventfully. On
Monday we saw Ken again, this time with Linda's brother
Eric, who had flown in from Denver to lend his support
during the family crisis. Ken attacked the Venetian
blinds in the CAS office, and to rebut the contention of
Children's Aid that Ken's destructiveness was our
illusion, I did not interfere with him as I otherwise
would have. In the CAS account of this event they fear
a danger that could only occur if I sat by doing nothing
while my son choked to death. Tuesday's meeting with
Ken was in the same room with the still-broken blind,
but otherwise uneventful.
On Wednesday, we went to the courthouse to get our son
returned. CAS added a blizzard of new documents to the
case, and demanded that he be kept in custody for
several more months. This precluded an agreement, but
no judge was available to hear the case, even after an
all-day wait. However, the next afternoon, Thursday
December 2, 1999, a judge did hear our case and ordered
Ken returned to our custody immediately. Ken was freed
at 4:30 pm. From Ken's speech, I inferred that he was
fed waffles in captivity.
On December 7 we took Ken to see Dr Murphy, in
compliance with the judge's conditions. I took along a
large clear plastic garbage bag filled with a quarter
cubic meter of toys that were in the home at the time of
the raid, though I could have taken three such bags. We
got there 20 minutes early, time that Ken spent
cheerfully playing with toys. As soon as Dr Murphy
entered the room, Ken became sullen and uncommunicative.
Dr Murphy asked "Where's your belly-button?", and Ken
just cried. It took him two minutes to respond by
showing the doctor his stomach. Afterwards I inquired
why Ken's attitude was so negative, but Dr Murphy
insisted that his previous meeting with Ken had gone
well.
The CAS affidavits up to this point made many
allegations too broad to characterize as true or false,
but eleven of the definite facts alleged by Kim James
and eight of those by Trish Cox, even basics such as
names and phone numbers, were false to my personal
knowledge. Paulette Smith denied making the statements
attributed to her in the affidavit supporting the
warrant.
On January 19, 2000 a consent agreement was worked out
at the courthouse ending the claim for crown wardship,
but with a finding that Ken is in need of protection. I
would have chosen to litigate before a judge in
preference to the consent, but that would have been too
damaging to the family without Linda's approval. This
left us open to Children's Aid marching an army of
social workers into our home (three visits a week on
average) indefinitely. If we object, we become repeat
offenders, enhancing their chances of getting Ken into
an orphanag... oops safe home.
The attitude of CAS, and research into the law,
convinced me to pursue political remedies. An exchange
of letters starting with my elected representative in
the provincial parliament, David Tilson, was a dead end.
In January I found that anyone could become a member of
Children's Aid by paying three dollars, and did so.
Shortly thereafter, CAS sent us an intimidating letter,
threatening to put us on the Child Abuse Registry. From
this, and other actions, I know CAS understands that
they can not intimidate me, but can scare Linda. She
was terrified, so I had to proceed slowly. As a member
I requested a copy of the bylaws, finding that CAS has
17 directors, 12 elected by the members, and 5 appointed
by local politicians. I addressed Mono Council on this
subject on March 8, 2000. As a CAS member I requested a
membership list, finding that before I joined, there
were just 32 members. The bylaws give members the right
to attend board of directors meetings, and on April 19,
2000 I did so. It was a chilling experience - all of
the atrocity planners did so with unbroken smiles.
There I learned that the annual general meeting of CAS
was to be on June 20, 2000. The bylaws provided for a
cutoff date of at least 30 days before the meeting;
only members as of that day are eligible to vote in the
election. In the month up to the cutoff date, still not
using newspaper publicity, I signed up as many members
as possible and on on May 18, 2000 I deposited papers
with CAS nominating Lillian Brewer and me as candidates
for director at the annual meeting. From this point on,
CAS workers and David Thwaites lost their smiles in
dealing with me. I sent out proxy solicitations to the
32 original members, and got to the meeting with three
members loyal to our side, and 12 proxies. Before the
meeting Linda suggested alerting the Orangeville Banner,
breaking press silence.
The president of CAS and meeting chairman, Mark Van
Horne, treated us like adversaries in a court
proceeding. We found out that CAS had recruited 40 new
members. According to Patti Lowe, a member of our team
who helped count the votes, they were mostly social
workers and policemen. The vote count appears in
sequence below.
The day after the meeting, CAS filed a new set of court
motions, apparently designed to keep us in court
forever. They moved to compel us to attend an
assessment at Chedoke-McMaster hospital, and scheduled a
motion to be heard a week later extending supervision
for another six months. The supporting affidavits
suggested that all of Ken's development while growing up
was the result of successful intervention by CAS. In
this second round of litigation, they were much more
brief and accurate, avoiding the petty factual errors of
the first round.
At the oral hearing June 28, 2000 both David Thwaites
and Evelyn Huber spent most of their time putting
different spins on a letter from Dr Bakht. He did not
agree with the paraphrase by Trish Cox. Trish Cox had
an assistant, Jennifer Diamond, with her before the
lunch break. Another lawyer, Gillian Shute, a friend of
Evelyn Huber sat in on the hearing after the lunch
break.
In his opinion, Judge Allen noted that there was
resentment of CAS by McQuaid, then he went into the
entry onto the Child Abuse Register as a justification
for the resentment. He dismissed the CAS motion to
compel the Chedoke-McMaster assessment.
On July 5, 2000 there was another hearing, again before
Judge Allen. An assistant substituted for David
Thwaites. The subject was the motion by CAS to extend
the supervision by six months. The two lawyers
explained that the business before the court was setting
a date for the trial on the extension, probably in four
months, with vive voce evidence. The dispute today was
whether the supervision would remain in force during the
period up to the trial. On his own initiative, Judge
Allen requested the two parties to consent to trying the
issue of the extension of supervision using the existing
record. David Thwaites might have refused, but after a
ten minute recess, both sides agreed. The lawyers
commented on the record, CAS claiming the need for
continued supervision to ensure implementation of Dr
Bakht's recommendations. The judge again criticized CAS
for putting us on the Child Abuse Register, and noted
that the parents could take care of Kenneth without help
from CAS. He dismissed the supervision order
immediately. So we did not even have to wait until July
19 to be free.
I welcome calls from readers in Dufferin County who have
had experience with CAS, or who are willing to help
reform CAS. Call me, Robert T McQuaid, phone
519-942-0565, or email rtmq@hurontario.net
--------------------------------------------------------
Document contents
- description of our home and case discussion
1999
- Nov 16 warrant and supporting affidavits
information by Kimberly James
affidavit by Kimberly James
- Nov 19 application for child protection
- Nov 19 affidavit of Kim James
A information by Kimberly James
B notes by Jim Dickson.
C photographs
D assessment by Nina Little
E letter by Dr Ron Murphy
- Nov 22 affidavit by R T McQuaid
- Nov 22 consent order
- Nov 24 email responding to libel allegation
- Nov 26 letter to David Tilson, MPP
- Nov 29 affidavit of Kim James
A (copy of Nov 22 consent, omitted)
B letter from foster mother
C Risk assessment
D safety assessment
- Dec 2 affidavit of Kim James
- Dec 1 affidavit of Linda Prosh
A photographs, omitted
B letter of Dr Stephen G Ross
- Dec 2 affidavit of R T McQuaid
- Dec 2 notes of Judge Allen
- Dec 16 Ages and Stages test, Nina Little Alcorn
- Dec 20 Brigance Pre-School Screen by Joyce Cook
- Dec 21 affidavit of Trish Cox
- Dec 22 Adjournment request
2000
- Jan 19 consent order
- Jan 25 advertisement in Orangeville Banner
- Feb 2 Concerned Parent in Orangeville Citizen
comment by RTMQ
- Feb 9 Cover letter for bylaws
- Feb 9 letter from Minister of Community and Social
Services
- Feb 10 Letter from Chedoke-McMaster
- Feb 16 Gary Putman in Orangeville Citizen
comment by RTMQ
- Mar 28 Entry onto Child Abuse Register
- Jun 5 Letter soliciting proxies
- Jun 23 Article in Orangeville Banner on CAS meeting
- Jun 21 Cumulative Table of Contents
- Jun 21 Application status review
- Jun 21 Affidavit of Trish Cox
A May 31 Report of Nina Little Alcorn
B Jun 15 Report of Kindrey Rowland
- Jun 21 Notice of Motion to compel assessment
- Jun 21 Summary of Court Cases
- Jun 26 Affidavit of Trish Cox
A Feb 10, 2000 Chedoke-McMaster letter to CAS
- Jun 27 Answer
- Jun 27 Affidavit of Robert McQuaid
A Jun 26, 00 letter of William Weiner
B Jun 22, 00 letter of Deborah Launspach
C email of January 29, 2000 RTMQ to CAS.
D CAS letter to Prosh on Child Abuse Registry
E Brigance Pre-School Screen, Dec 20, 1999
F Ages and Stages test, Dec 16, 1999
- Jun 27 Letter of Dr Bakht
- Jul 4 Affidavit of Trish Cox
- Jun 25 Original draft of affidavit
- Jul 10 Letter to John Baird
- Aug 10 Letter from Vince Tedesco
- Epilogue
- Name Index and Glossary
--------------------------------------------------------
Description of our home and case discussion.
In 1999 Ken had a behavior I call a rampage. Linda
alluded to it with Kim James, who then misrepresented
it. During a rampage, Ken threw objects, hit people,
tipped things over, knocked things out of the grasp of
adults, and later added spitting and biting. This
developed from age 18 to 30 months. Our response was to
remove dangerous items from the area where he runs free
and to lock him away from things not for him, such as
computers. The most controversial lock was the one on
his room. Following age two years, this lock confined
him during periods of rampage (three uses a week was
typical), and as he became more adept at picking outside
locks, we locked it every night to avoid finding him
dead in the pool in the morning. Otherwise, Ken roamed
through about 1000 square feet, larger than many
apartments, with windows on three sides, he could (and
did) get my attention at any time by opening my office
door, or banging it if locked. We managed to keep
things under control everywhere except in his own room,
where he routinely disassembled his bed, the closet
doors, crib, carpeting and heating vents. He pulled on
the curtains, leaving an exposed curtain string far out
of his reach, and there was a missing globe on his lamp,
also far out of his reach. Karen Bowers, of Friends at
Hand-in-Hand daycare, gave me the cause of the problem
(which I will not repeat) and I was able to work out a
treatment. Within a few weeks I stopped the biting and
spitting, the other symptoms disappeared gradually over
four months. Aside from Karen Bowers and William
Weiner, the advice and opinions of all the professionals
involved in this case have been worthless.
The CAS legal case started out as:
1 we kept Ken locked in his room most of the time
2 our home is so filthy as to be a health hazard.
After raiding our home and making jailhouse
observations, they added:
3 our home is dangerous
4 Ken suffers from developmental delays.
Large amounts of mud-slinging were included.
(1) The lock on his door was used as above.
(2) We do not live with the level of filth alleged by
CAS, instead our home is bug-free. Neither of us are
excessively neat, that is why we hired a maid. I clean
the kitchen daily, between cleanings things pile up. On
days the maids came, I didn't clean the kitchen at all.
I clean all food accidents outside the kitchen
immediately. We have never had mold in our home except
for spoiled food at the back of the fridge.
(3) The safety allegations consist of calling anything
out of place a hazard, no matter how far-fetched. A
missing globe on a lamp, and an exposed curtain rod,
both out of the child's reach, were cited as hazards.
The missing heating grates were more of a hazard to
adults than to children. In studying this kind of
litigation, something I never did before the raid, it
appears that false filth and safety allegations are
commonplace. Children's Aid missed for weeks the real
hazard, from which Ken was well protected by multiple
locks - the swimming pool.
(4) On complete evaluations of Ken's development, he is
at or above the average level for his age. The
developmental delays were alleged by reporting only
those test items on which he failed. CAS never noticed
the contradiction in claiming that our home was so
cluttered as to be a hazard, yet too bare to allow for
development.
Here are a few more facts about our home:
During the raid, the police let Ken into the kitchen,
Ken grabbed a knife, an apple from the fridge, then ate
the apple, leaving uneaten parts around the house, all
things we would never allow while in control of our own
home.
The living room lamp was broken by Ken two days before
the raid and repaired one day after. An earlier
three-day loss cured him of TV molestation.
Neither of us have ever spanked Ken. The buttocks
scratches noted in a report occurred most likely after
Ken was in custody.
In September we decided Ken needed more contact with
other children, so we tried to enroll him in day care,
but all day care facilities were booked up.
In October I trimmed branches from a tree to avoid roof
damage. One protruded 20 cm across a 1 meter walkway,
to a door we never use. There is a bizarre CAS account
of this below.
From family history, we knew that there was an even
chance that Ken inherited color blindness at birth. We
tried to detect his condition by teaching him colors
early. In the CAS accounts, this is a form of abuse.
Neither Linda nor I are devoted to big ceremonies. When
we got married, it was before a Justice of the Peace
with just two witnesses. When Ken had his third
birthday, Linda gave him two inexpensive toys, and we
sang him happy birthday. He is too young to understand
what a birthday is. Linda forgot even this under the
stress of the police raid.
In her affidavit Kim was shocked to find there was food
on the table at supper time. Even by her account Ken
was not hungry.
The Parent Infant Programme pamphlet referred to in the
affidavits starts with a letter over the signature and
picture of single-mother Rosie O'Donnell. It refers to
a child of unspecified gender with the pronoun she. The
word caregiver, not in any dictionary before the era of
political correctness, appears in the pamphlet
repeatedly. Alleging a scientific fact without a
citation is the opposite of science - the pamphlet does
it twice. The full text is at:
http://www.iamyourchild.org/qualitycare/index.html
Most of this text is verbatim transcripts of the court
documents, primarily the Children's Aid case. To avoid
slanting the case I show all documents filed except the
photographs and notes of OPP officer Jim Dickson. I
have typed the documents exactly, even with the
unbalanced quotes, missing paragraph xi, and duplicate
paragraph 4. Computer checking shows that most of the
errors in grammar and spelling are from the original
documents, not the transcription. I tediously include
captions and jurats, because of their value to others
litigating the same CAS, and to show that CAS got basic
facts wrong such as McQuaid's phone or Huber's address
and law partner. For brevity, I start some documents
with "CAS letterhead", or "CAS memohead"; the glossary
contains the pre-printed wording. Long documents have
the name of the author and date in brackets before
paragraphs; these notes are not part of the court
record.
--------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Court of Justice
at 10 Louisa Street, Orangeville ON L9W 3P9
Court File Number 180/99
Family Law Rules, O.Reg. 114/99
Form 33A; Warrant to Apprehend Child
TO ALL CHILD PROTECTION WORKERS AND PEACE OFFICERS IN
THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO:
On the basis of an information sworn before me under
Part III of the Child an Family Services Act respecting
the child named or described at the bottom of this
warrant, I am satisfied that there are reasonable and
probable grounds to believe:
(a) that the child is in need of protection; and (b)
that a course of action less restrictive than the
child's removal to a place of safety is not available or
will not adequately protect the child.
I am further satisfied, on the basis of that
information, that the child may now be found at LOT 5
CON 4 EHS MONO TOWNSHIP.
I THEREFORE AUTHORIZE YOU TO BRING THIS CHILD to a
"place of safety" within the meaning of the Child and
Family Services Act.
This warrant expires at 5:00 am on November 17, 1999
/signed/ G Funston November 16, 1999
Justice of the peace County of Dufferin
NOTE: Any changes, alterations or corrections to this
form must be initialled by the justice of the peace. It
is a criminal offence for any other person to change the
wording of this warrant after it has been signed by the
justice of the peace.
DESCRIPTION:
Full legal name of child to be apprehended
KENNY McQUAID/PROSH
Birth date APPROX 3 YRS
Sex M
Residential address LOT 5 CON 4 EHS MONO TOWNSHIP
Telephone number 940-9847
Present whereabouts of child AT RESIDENCE
FLRO 33A (08 99)
........................................................
Ontario Court of Justice
at 10 Louisa Street, Orangeville ON L9W 3P9
Form 33: Information for Warrant to Apprehend Child
My name is KIMBERLY JAMES
I live in DUFFERIN COUNTY, ONTARIO
and I swear/affirm that the following is true:
1. I am a child protection worker employed by
DUFFERIN CHILD & FAMILY SERVICES INTAKE WORKER.
2. I have reasonable and probable grounds to believe
and do believe that KENNY McQUAID/PROSH is a child
in need of protection for the following reasons:
Sec 37(2) (B) CFSA - CRUEL/INAPPROPRIATE TREATMENT
- 3 YR OLD LOCKED IN ROOM PHYSICALLY CONFINED
3. I have reasonable and probable grounds to believe
and do believe that a course of action less
restrictive than the child's removal to a place of
safety is not available or will not adequately
protect the child, for the following reasons:
PARENTS REFUSED ACCESS TO CHILD & HOME, NEGLECT OF
BASIC NEEDS - HOUSEHOLD SANITATION CHILD SLEEPING
ON TORN MATTRESS - NO BEDDING, ENCRUSTED DIRT,
DEBRIS & FOOD WASTE.
4. I have reasonable and probable grounds to believe
that the child may be found at
LOT 5 CON 4 EHS MONO TOWNSHIP
/signed/ Kimberly James
Sworn/Affirmed before me at Town of Orangeville in
Ontario on November 16, 1999
/signed/
IRENE BEAZLEY
A Commissioner etc, Province of Ontario,
for the Children's Aid Society.
Expires September 27, 2000
........................................................
Applicant
The Children's Aid Society
of the County of Dufferin
50 Fourth Avenue, Unit 13
Orangeville ON L9W 4P1
Tel: 519-941-1530 Fax: 519-941-1525
David Thwaites, Solicitor
Wardlaw, Mullin, Carter, Thwaites and Ward
235 Broadway Orangeville ON L9W 2Z5
Tel: 519-941-1760 Fax: 519-941-3668
Respondents
Robert McQuaid and Linda Prosh
Lot 5 Con 4 EHS Mono Township
My Name is KIMBERLY JAMES
I live in DUFFERIN COUNTY, ONTARIO
and I swear/affirm that the following is true:
[James Nov 16]
ON NOV 15, 1999 DAWN FRANKS, INTAKE WORKER RECEIVED A
CALL FROM TINA BERRYMAN. SHE STATED THAT SHE HAD
CLEANED THE MCQUAID/PROSH RESIDENCE IN OCTOBER 1999 -
DESCRIBED THE HOME AS HAVING LATCHES ON THE DOORS. THE
FATHER SAID HE "BETTER LET THE MONSTER OUT". TINA SAW
MR MCQUAID UNLOCK KENNY'S BEDROOM DOOR & LET HIM OUT.
MR MCQUAID THEN WENT INTO HIS OFFICE. KENNY'S ROOM WAS
VOID OF TOYS, TORN MATTRESS ON THE FLOOR, NO BEDDING,
BEDROOM WINDOW DOESN'T OPEN, DIRTY DIAPERS IN BATHTUB
MOLD IN KITCHEN SINK & ON MATS, FOOD ENCRUSTED IN
COUNTER, DIRTY DISHES, KENNY DESCRIBED AS BEING DIRTY,
FOLLOWED TINA EVERYWHERE & HAD A TANTRUM WHEN SHE LEFT.
[James Nov 16]
THIS WORKER ATTENDED RESIDENCE THIS MORNING WITH POLICE
CONST. CRAIG ABRAHMS, SHELBURNE OPP, WE IDENTIFIED
OURSELVES & ASKED TO COME IN, HE DENIED ACCESS. MR
QUAID WOULD NOT SPEAK WITH US OUTSIDE. MR MCQUAID ASKED
WHY WE WERE THERE. I TOLD HIM I HAD RECEIVED
INFORMATION THAT THERE WAS A LOCK ON HIS SON'S BEDROOM
DOOR. MR QUAID THEN SHUT THE DOOR AND LOCKED IT.
[James Nov 16]
I SPOKE WITH PAULETTE SMITH BY PHONE, PAULETTE HAS
CLEANED THIS RESIDENCE FOR 10 YEARS, EVERY TWO WEEKS.
PAULETTE CONFIRMED TINA BERRYMAN'S OBSERVATIONS.
PAULETTE DESCRIBED THE HOME AS A "PIG STY", THE HOME IS
DIRTIER SINCE KENNY WAS BORN. PAULETTE STATED THAT
KENNY IS LOCKED IN HIS ROOM REGULARLY & THAT THERE ARE
HOOK & EYE LOCKS ON EVERY DOOR. PAULETTE STATED THAT MR
MCQUAID USUALLY LETS KENNY OUT OF HIS BEDROOM WHEN SHE
IN THERE & MR MCQUAID GOES INTO HIS OFFICE. KENNY
FOLLOWS HER AROUND & DOES NOT WANT ME TO LEAVE, SHE
BELIEVES HE IS LONELY. PAULETTE STATED THAT THERE IS
MOLDY FOOD SOMEWHERE IN THE HOUSE EVERY TIME SHE IS
THERE. I VERILY BELIEVE THE ABOVE INFORMATION TO BE
TRUE.
[James Nov 16]
AS A CHILD PROTECTION WORKER & BASED ON THE INFORMATION
PROVIDED, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT KENNY IS A CHILD
IN NEED OF PROTECTION. GIVEN HIS AGE THERE IS
SUBSTANTIAL RISK THAT HE MAY SUFFER PHYSICAL HARM CAUSED
BY HIS PARENTS FAILURE TO CARE, PROVIDE FOR OR SUPERVISE
HIM ADEQUATELY. KENNY IS CONFINED TO HIS ROOM, LOCKED
IN FOR AN UNKNOWN LENGTH OF TIME BUT ON A REGULAR BASIS.
THE HOUSEHOLD SANITATION PRESENTS RISK OF HARM TO KENNY
- SPOILED FOOD NOT DISCARDED, NO BEDDING, TORN MATTRESS.
AS PER THE ELIGIBILITY SPECTRUM THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS
CODED ABOVE THE LINE IN TWO SECTIONS AND WARRANTS AN
INVESTIGATION UNDER THE CFSA.
/signed/ Kimberly James
Sworn/Affirmed before me at Town of Orangeville
in Ontario on November 16, 199
/signed/
IRENE BEAZLEY
A Commissioner etc, Province of Ontario,
for the Children's Aid Society.
Expires September 27, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Court of Justice
at 10 Louisa Street, Orangeville Ontario L9W 3P9
Form 8B: Application for child protection.
Applicant:
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin
60 Fourth Avenue, Unit 13
Orangeville Ontario L9W 4P1 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1530
Fax: 519-941-1525
email: dcafs@hurontario.net
Wardlaw, Mullin, Carter, Thwaites and Ward
Attention: David Thwaites 235 Broadway
Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z5 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1700
Fax: 519-941-3688
eMail: dthwaites@wardlaw.on.ca
Respondents:
Robert McQuaid
RR #5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2, Canada
Phone: 940-9847
Linda Prosh
RR #5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2, Canada
Phone: 940-9847
TO THE RESPONDENTS:
A COURT CASE HAS BEEN STARTED AGAINST YOU IN THIS COURT.
THE DETAILS ARE SET OUT ON THE ATTACHED PAGES. THE
FIRST COURT DATE IS November 22, 1999 AT 10.00 am or as
soon as possible after that time at: 10 Louisa Street,
Orangeville, Ontario, L9W 3P9. If you have also been
served with a notice of motion, there may be an earlier
court date and you or your lawyer should come to court
for the motion. IF YOU WANT TO OPPOSE ANY CLAIM IN THIS
CASE, you or your lawyer must prepare an answer (Form 10
- a blank copy should be attached), serve a copy on the
applicant children's aid society and all other parties
and file a copy in the court office with an affidavit of
service (Form 6B). YOU HAVE ONLY 30 DAYS AFTER THIS
APPLICATION IS SERVED ON YOU (60 DAYS IF THIS
APPLICATION IS SERVED ON YOU OUTSIDE CANADA OR THE
UNITED STATES) TO SERVE AND FILE AN ANSWER. IF YOU DO
NOT, THE CASE WILL GO AHEAD WITHOUT YOU AND THE COURT
MAY MAKE AN ORDER AND ENFORCE IT AGAINST YOU.
The applicant children's aid society is also making a
claim for child support. You MUST fill out a financial
statement (Form 13 - a blank copy attached), serve a
copy on the society and file a copy in the court office
with an affidavit of service even if you do not answer
this case.
WARNING: This case is subject to case management, which
means that the case runs on a timetable. That timetable
says that the following steps have to be finished by the
following number of days from the start of this case:
Temporary care & custody hearing 25 days
Plan of care to be served and filed 33 days
Case conference 40 days
Settlement conference 80 days
Protection hearing or status review 120 days
You should consider getting legal advice about this case
right away. If you cannot afford a lawyer, you may be
able to get help from your local Legal Aid office. (See
your telephone directory under LEGAL AID).
Date of Issue Nov 19/99
Clerk of the court
/signed/ C Pabst
THE CHILD
Kenneth Darryl McQuaid
Date of Birth: 10/16/96
Age: 3
Gender: Male
Mother's Name: Linda Prosh
Father's Name: Robert McQuaid
Religion: Unknown
Native Status: Unknown
CLAIM BY APPLICANT SOCIETY
[Taylor Nov 18]
1. The applicant children's aid society asks the court
to make a finding under Part III of the Child and Family
Services Act that the child named in this application is
in need of protection because:
there is a substantial risk that the child will
suffer physical harm, inflicted by the person having
charge of the child or caused by that person's
failure to care and provide for or to supervise and
protect the child adequately [clause 37(2)(b)].
the child has suffered emotional harm that is
demonstrated by severe anxiety, depression,
withdrawal or self-destructive or aggressive
behaviour, and the child's parent or the person
having charge of the child does not provide, or
refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to,
services or treatment to remedy or alleviate the
harm [clause 37(2)(f)].
the child suffers from a mental, emotional or
developmental condition that, if not remedied, could
seriously impair the child's development and the
child's parent or the parent having charge of the
child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable
or unable to consent to, treatment to remedy or
alleviate the condition [clause 37(2)(h)].
[Taylor Nov 18]
2. The applicant society therefore asks for an order,
that the child be made a ward of the Crown and
placed in the care of The Children's Aid Society of
the County of Dufferin
relating to access, the details of which are as
follows:
Supervised Access at the discretion of the C.A.S.
court costs.
[Taylor Nov 18]
3. To the best knowledge of the applicant society, the
parties or the child have not been in a court case
before relating to the supervision, wardship
(guardianship) or custody of or access to the child.
[Taylor Nov 18]
4. The parties have not made a written agreement
dealing with any matter involved in this case.
[Taylor Nov 18]
5. The following is a brief statement of the facts upon
which the applicant society is relying in this
application.
The society received information on November 15, 1999
that Kenneth McQuaid, child, was being locked in his
room and that the house was filthy. A warrant of
apprehension was obtained on November 16, 1999 after
Robert McQuaid, father, refused to co-operate with the
Society. Kenneth McQuaid was brought to a place of
safety and is currently in the Society's care as there
were immediate concerns of risk of physical harm and
Kenneth was demonstrating developmental delays. There
was also concern about the lack of supervision and
interaction that Kenneth was receiving
/signature/
November 18, 1999
Debbie Taylor
Senior Program Manager
APPENDIX
The terms and conditions that the applicant society
purposes for the child's supervision are as follows:
1) Linda Prosh and Robert McQuaids visits will be at
the discretion of the Society and the Society will
supervise these visits to take place at the
Society's Office until further assessments are
completed.
2) Parents will participate in a parenting capacity
assessment completed by Dr Diane Benoit as soon as
possible.
3) Kenneth McQuaid requires a full pediatric assessment
4) Parents sign all necessary consents to fullfill the
foregoing.
--------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Court of Justice
at 10 Louisa Street, Orangeville Ontario L9W 3P9
Court File Number 180-99
Form 14A: Affidavit (General) dated November 19, 1999
Applicant(s)
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin
50 Fourth Avenue Unit 13
Orangeville Ontario L9W 4P1 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1530
Fax: 519-941-1525
email: dcafs@hurontario.net
Lawyer:
Wardlaw, Mullin, Carter, Thwaites and Ward
Attention: David Thwaites 235 Broadway
Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z5 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1760
Fax: 519-941-3688
eMail: dthwaites@wardlaw.on.ca
Respondent(s)
Robert McQuaid
RR #5 Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z2, Canada
Phone: 940-9847
Linda Prosh
RR #5 Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z2, Canada
Phone: 940-9847
My name is Kim James
I live in The Town of Orangeville, Ontario
and I swear/affirm that the following is true:
I, Kim James, of the Town of Orangeville in the County
of Dufferin, make oath and say:
[James Nov 19]
1. I am employed by Dufferin Children's Aid Society as
a Child Protection Intake Worker.
[James Nov 19]
2. Linda Prosh, date of birth December 27, 1954 and
Robert McQuaid, date of birth August 5, 1942 are the
parents of Kenneth Darryl McQuaid, date of birth October
16, 1996. The reside at RR 5 Orangeville Lot 5
Concession 4 EHS of Mono Township. Kenneth, (Ken) was
born in Toronto, Ontario. I requested Ken's birth
certificate but was informed by Linda that she was
unable to find it. Linda is self employed in computer
graphics and animation. Robert is self employed, "Quaid
Software Limited".
[James Nov 19]
3. This agency received a call on November 15, 1999
from Tina Berryman who is an employee with Molly Maid
Cleaning Service. Tina expressed her concerns about the
McQuaid/Prosh residence and the welfare of Ken McQuaid.
Tina stated that she was to their residence in October
of this year and upon entering the home Mr McQuaid
stated that he "better let the monster out" and
proceeded to Ken's bedroom where Tina observed him
unlock the door. Mr McQuaid then proceeded to his
office located down the hall. Tina described the
residence as a disgrace. Tina stated that Ken's room
was torn up, the mattress was on the floor, no toys, no
dresser in his bedroom. Tina stated that Ken was
dressed in a diaper and a t-shirt. There were 5 or 6
dirty diapers in the bathtub and the bathroom was
described as cruddy and dirty. Tina stated that there
was mould in the kitchen sink, food encrusted on the
counter, dirty dishes. Tina stated that Ken was dirty
and barely spoke and followed her around the home while
she cleaned. Tina stated that she was there
approximately an hour and a half. During this time his
father never came out of his office and his mother was
not home. Tina stated that every door in the house has
a lock on it. The initial information was received by
Dawn Franks, Intake Worker with Dufferin Children's Aid
Society. I verily believe this to be true.
[James Nov 19]
4. This worker attended the McQuaid/Prosh residence
accompanied by P.C. Abrams, Shelburne OPP on November
16, 1999 at approximately 10:35 am. We approached the
front entrance way which was blocked by a fallen tree.
Mr McQuaid answered the front door and we identified
ourselves and requested to come in and speak with him.
Mr McQuaid denied us entry, we asked him to step outside
which he also declined. Mr McQuaid asked why we were
there and I informed him that we had received a call
stating that there was a lock on their son's bedroom
door. Mr McQuaid the shut the door on us.
[James Nov 19]
5. PC Abrams and this worker returned to the Society
office and met with Kim Evans, Program Manager and was
advised to make an application for a warrant to
apprehend Ken. This worker obtained a Warrant of
Apprehension signed by Justice of the Peace Gwen
Funston. Please refer to Exhibit "A". This worker
contacted Shelburne OPP detachment and spoke with PC
Dickson requesting assistance of two officers and
informed him that I had a warrant of apprehension. This
worker then met PC Dickson and Sergeant Brodhagen at
Coffee Time just south of Hockley Valley Road. We then
proceeded to the McQuaid/Prosh residence. Mr McQuaid
answered the door and was informed that we had a warrant
of apprehension and we entered the residence at
approximately 6 pm.
[James Nov 19]
6. Ken was in the entrance way when we came into the
home. Mr McQuaid led us to the living room which was
located down the hall from the front entrance. As I
walked down the hall I observed locks on the doors,
there were two heating vents without grate coverings,
there was a large cement pillar lying on its side. Mr
McQuaid sat down on a couch in the dark, put his feet up
on the coffee table, folded his arms across his chest
and stated that he was not going to answer any of our
questions. Mr McQuaid was asked if there was a light
for the room and he replied "he broke them all, they
don't work". PC Dickson asked "who broke them?", Mr
McQuaid responded he did, he did all of this". We
inquired as to Linda's whereabouts, she was downstairs
and came upstairs asking who we were and why we were
there. Linda then stated that she knew who had done
this, referring to the individual that had made the
report to the Society. This worker clarified to Linda
that the referent did not make allegations of physical
abuse but the concerns were regarding her son being
locked in his bedroom and the dirty state of the home.
Linda stated that the doors were locked, referring to
this as "a rather elaborate system, there are actually
two types of locks to keep Ken out of the rooms". Linda
then began to talk abut Ken being destructive and that
she does not know how to control him. Linda stated that
she ends up putting Ken in his room when he is out of
control and that is why his room is a mess. I then
asked to see Ken's room and was led down the hall.
[James Nov 19]
7. Ken's room was not locked. There was half of a lock
catch located on the door but the hook had been removed
from the door frame. The door knob did have a key lock
mechanism which Linda stated they did not use. I
entered the room and observed a twin size wooden
bedframe with the supporting slats exposed, the mattress
was on the floor and there was no bedding on the
mattress. The bifold door for the closet was folded
underneath one end of the mattress. The other end of
the mattress was up against the side of a broken crib.
There were two metal rods sticking out from the crib,
approximately 3 inches in length. There was an electric
fan on the crib mattress, the heating vent was stuffed
with shredded paper. The closet was empty, there were
strips of carpet laying on the floor, there were chords
for the window dressing exposed as well as exposed light
bulbs on the ceiling. There was a locked trunk in the
corner of the room. Linda stated that Ken trashed his
room every day. I asked where he slept and she
indicated in this room. She stated that she would make
up his bed and in the morning this is how she would find
it. I asked her what she does when she hears him
trashing his room, she replied nothing. I asked if she
thought that her son had behavior problems, Linda
replied that he was a very strong little boy and very
rambunctious but never thought that he had a behaviour
problem. I indicated to her that this was not normal
behaviour for a child that is being adequately
supervised and engaged in stimulating activities. I
went on to indicate the safety concerns, to which Linda
replied that she had child proof his room as much as she
possibly could. I then pointed out the hazards that I
had noted as well as the exposed heating vents in the
hall way. Linda replied that they knew the vents were
there and that they were cautious. I clarified that my
concern was regarding an active toddler running down the
hallway and stepping into the vent could cut his leg or
break it.
[James Nov 19]
8. I asked Linda to show me the rest of the home. All
of the doors were locked by either the hook and eye
mechanism or key handle locks. The powder room bathroom
stank of dirty diapers which were piled in a small waste
basket. I then enquired about toilet training. Linda
stated that Ken was still in diapers and that he would
not sit on the toilet. I asked how many times she has
attempted to train him and she stated that she was
really busy and had not really given it much of her
time. Linda began to talk about how much she and her
husband work. I asked where Ken was while they were
working and she indicated that he was up stairs and that
is why everything was locked, to deny him access. I
asked how long Ken would be left alone at a time, Linda
was unable to give me an answer. She stated that he is
never really alone because Robert and herself are both
working in their offices. I indicated that Ken did not
have direct access to them and she said that I was
right. I observed Mr McQuaid's office and the master
bedroom which appeared to be adequately furnished and
kept. We went downstairs. A piece of art was suspended
above the stair well. Linda indicated that Ken had
knocked it off the wall. Linda stated to myself and PC
Dickson that Ken is not allowed downstairs unless she is
with him. Ken emptied a child's jigsaw on the floor of
her office and Linda said, "see, he is always doing
stuff like that". I replied that was normal behaviour
for a three year old. I then went upstairs and viewed
the kitchen.
[James Nov 19]
9. The kitchen was also on the hook and eye lock
system. The kitchen was dirty. There was a cooked tv
dinner on the table which did not appear to be touched.
I asked Linda when Ken last ate. Linda stated that she
had made him the tv dinner but that he did not eat it.
She stated that he usually throws his food and
dinnerware. I again asked when his last meal was.
Linda stated that she wasn't sure but thought Bob had
fed him lunch but she was not sure of what. Linda
stated that she thought that he may have had a muffin, I
indicated that I did see a half eaten muffin somewhere
in the house and she replied that was Ken's. Linda
stated that she had given him cereal in the morning. I
asked if the family sits down to eat together and she
replied sometimes. I asked what Ken's bedtime was, she
replied whenever they were finished working. I asked if
he had a bedtime routine. Linda did not respond. I
asked what she did to get him ready for bed, Linda
replied that she gave him some coco and then put him in
his room and shut the door. Linda stated that she likes
to take Ken for walks on their property but that she has
to carry him back because he won't walk. Linda stated
that she tries to take him to the Dufferin Resource
Centre once a week and to the park because he likes the
swing.
[James Nov 19]
10. I then began to focus on Ken. He was vocal and
verbalizing words but much of the time he was mumbling.
Ken was not able to communicate to me. He mimicked
everything I said and could not answer simple questions
such as "what color is this?". Ken was eating an apple
and he was spitting chunks out on the floor. He went
into the kitchen to obtain another apple. I had to take
a knife away from him as he was attempting to cut it.
Ken appeared to be healthy. His eyes appeared a little
sunken and dark circles were under both eyes. I
observed superficial scratch marks around his midriff.
Possibly self inflicted. There were no other visible
marks on him.
[James Nov 19]
11. I consulted with both PC Dickson and Sergeant
Brodhagen as to their thoughts about Ken being a child
in need of protection. Please see Exhibit "B". Both
officers indicated that they would not feel comfortable
leaving him in his home due to the lack of supervision
and that they had never really seen anything like this
before. PC Dickson stated that he would like to
photograph this home, I informed him that there was a
camera in my car and asked if he would obtain it. I
asked Linda if I could use here phone and consulted with
my Program Manager, Kim Evans. I relayed my concerns
for Ken's personal safety due to the hazards as well as
it appeared as though Ken was not adequately supervised
and that there was not much interaction between the
family members. Ken also appeared to present some
developmental delays. I was directed to bring him into
care. I began taking pictures of the kitchen, Ken's
bedroom and various hazards I had observed in the home.
Please see Exhibit "C". I then informed Linda that I
would be taking Ken into foster care this evening and
requested that she pack some clothes for him as well as
any toys or comfort objects that he may have.
[James Nov 19]
12. At some point I had seen Mr McQuaid get up from the
living room and walk to his office where he remained
behind closed doors for a period of time. He came out
and began to dismantle the crib which I had instructed
to Linda needed to be done due to the hazard. Linda was
obtaining items for Ken. The whole time that we were in
their home the parents did not interact with Ken once.
Linda changed Ken's diaper and got him dressed in his
coat, hat and boots. Linda was crying at this time.
Robert did not say goodbye to Ken.
[James Nov 19]
13. Ken was placed at an approved foster home in
Dufferin county.
[James Nov 19]
14. On November 17, 1999, I requested that a Parent
Infant worker observe Ken in the foster home and provide
me with initial observations and assessment. Nina
Little Alcorn summarizes in her report that she suspects
developmental lags and concerning social and language
behaviours. Ken can interact at some level, albeit
through toys. Please see Exhibit "D".
[James Nov 19]
15. I spoke with Linda by phone in the morning. Linda
stated that she is prepared to do anything that the
Society wants and that she will get Robert to cooperate
as well. Linda asked if she could visit with Ken. I
asked if she would be able to meet with me later in the
day and to bring his health card and birth certificate.
Appointment set for 4 pm.
[James Nov 19]
16. I attended the foster home for approximately an
hour and was left alone with Ken. I observed him to be
calm and playing with toys. Ken and I attempted to
communicate and once again he mimicked my speech. I was
able to redirect his attention and behaviour with ease.
When the foster mother returned home we discussed how
the evening was. She stated that he was difficult to
bath and became upset when they washed his hair. Ken
also stripped his bed twice, each time it was remade.
His bed and the bedroom were intact in the morning
except that his pillows were on the floor. At the time
of writing this affidavit Ken's behaviour has been
described as well behaved. He has not been out of
control, destructive, aggressive, he is following
direction and beginning to speak more clearly. Ken is
also taking and interest in toilet training as there are
other toddlers in the foster home who are in the process
of learning.
[James Nov 19]
17. I passed this information on to Linda during our
meeting. She seemed surprised that he has not been
destructive and she stated that it seemed that he did
not miss them. Linda and I talked about her personal
history as well as her relationship with Robert and Ken.
Linda stated that she and Robert are not very sociable
people. Linda stated that she believes Ken was about 16
months when he began to crawl and she was also concerned
about his lack of speech. Linda took Ken to Dr Trevor
Hunt in Alliston, paediatrician, on two separate
occasions to discuss her concerns. The doctor referred
Ken to an occupational therapist for the crawling. Ken
was also referred for a speech assessment. Linda claims
that the next day after visiting the doctor, Ken began
to crawl and the second visit he began to speak. Linda
did not follow up with her concerns after this. Linda
asked if Robert could come for the visit as well, I
asked if he wanted to. Linda stated that she would ask
him if he wanted to come. Linda informed me that she
met Robert at a MENSA meeting. Linda stated that both
she and Robert wanted a child.
[James Nov 19]
18. This worker has called both the family doctor and
the pediatrician but at the time of writing the
affidavit have not been able to speak with them. The
Society has made an appointment with Dr Ron Murphy for a
complete physical and developmental assessment. This is
scheduled for Friday, November 19, 1999. Please see
Exhibit "E".
[James Nov 19]
19. Linda and Ken had a scheduled visit for Thursday,
November 18, 1999 at 1:30 pm. I observed their visit
for one hour at the Society office. Linda was seated on
the couch in the room when I brought Ken in. Linda said
"hi Ken" while sitting down. Ken said "hi mom" and sat
in a chair opposite her. Linda asked Ken for a kiss.
He got up, walked around the table and stood beside her.
He leaned towards her but did not kiss her. Linda
stated that he has never kissed her. Ken then said
"that's not a kiss" and Linda kissed him saying "that's
a kiss". Ken did not engage his mother as a playmate.
The level of interaction was through the toys and not
personal. There was distance between their interaction.
Linda did attempt to hold him on her lap once, Ken did
not respond but rather sat there for a very short period
of time. Linda left the room at one point in the visit.
Ken followed her to the door. When she shut the door he
reached for the handle and made a small cry sound and
then went for the toys. When Linda came back into the
room Ken was seated on the couch and he did not get up
and greet her. Linda took him to change his diaper and
he went without any fuss. Ken found markers and paper.
Linda did not want him to have the markers and said that
she would draw him a picture. Ken tried to take the
marker that Linda was using and they were engaged in a
tug of war over the marker, Linda remarking that she was
drawing Ken a picture. Ken became frustrated with this
an threw the markers at Linda. Linda stated to me that
she does not like Ken to have markers and I replied that
she should take them away from him and put them away,
Linda did so. At the end of the visit we walked out to
the waiting area where the foster dad was. Ken
approached the foster dad and was directed to say good
bye to his mother. Linda asked for a good bye kiss.
Once again, Ken went over to his mother, leaned close to
her, did not kiss her but she kissed him. Robert did
not attend for the visit.
[James Nov 19]
20. During the visit Linda inquired as to how Ken was
behaving at the foster home. I told her that he was
doing very well. She asked how bed time was. I
informed her that last night he went to bed around 8:30
pm without any problems and slept the whole night
through, room and bed in tact. Linda appeared to be
surprised. She asked if he was throwing his food and
utensils at meal times, I said that they did not mention
that this was happening. Linda stated that she was
surprised to hear this. She then asked if there has
been any form of disruptive behaviour I replied not that
I am aware of. Linda then said, maybe he thinks there
is something wrong with us. Linda then asked Ken if he
wanted to go home. Ken did not reply. I asked Linda
how they celebrated his 3rd birthday. Linda stated that
they didn't do anything. I asked if they had a cake for
him, she replied no and stated that they are not really
big on "that sort of thing". I asked Linda what they
got him for his birthday and she said nothing because
she buys him things all the time. I asked what sort of
things she buys, she replied clothes. Linda stated that
she would only buy toys from the dollar store for him
because he is so destructive. Linda stated that they
might do something for him when he gets older.
[James Nov 19]
21. I spoke with the foster mother on the morning of
November 19, 1999 and she informed me that Ken had a
good day with them. He took a bath with their toddler
and played with bath tub toys. He was in bed by 8 pm
without incident and slept through the night. His bed
and room intact. The foster mother stated that since he
has arrived, "he hasn't broken a single thing, not even
dumped a cereal bowl. He picked up the baby's soother
this morning and said, oh, back in baby's mouth. This
is Ken's baby".
[James Nov 19]
22. My assessment of Ken McQuaid, age 3 years is as
follows: Ken is a child in need of protection as there
is substantial risk that he will suffer physical harm
caused by his parent's failure to care and provide for
or supervise and protect him adequately. Ken has been
physically confined to his room for unknown periods of
time and his movements/access has been restricted to a
bleak, unstimulating environment. The area that Ken has
access to present hazardous conditions and the household
sanitation poses neglectful conditions and as a result
there is a high potential for injury, harm or illness to
Ken. His parents excecise little supervision over him.
They are locked in their offices and therefore may be
unable to access Ken's play area quickly if necessary.
Linda and Robert do not demonstrate sufficient
qualities/abilities for child care. Their inability to
demonstrate bonding or nurturing characteristics are
presenting serious risk to Ken's well-being.
[James Nov 19]
23. I make these statements with no improper intent
/signed/ Kim James
Sworn/Affirmed before me at The Town of Orangeville
in Ontario on November 19, 1999
/signed/ GARY BRIAN PUTMAN, A Commissioner, etc,
Province of Ontario, for the Children's Aid Society.
Expires September 20th, 2000
........................................................
Exhibit A photocopy of the Information for Warrant to
Apprehend Child, shown above.
Exhibit B photocopy of notes by Jim Dickson.
Exhibit C photographs that we have never seen.
........................................................
Exhibit D
CAS memohead (see glossary)
Observation Summary
Parent Infant Program
CLIENT NAME: Kenneth McQUAID
DATE OF REPORT: November 18, 1999
DATE OF BIRTH: October 16/96
REFERRAL INFORMATION:
Kim James, intake worker for Dufferin Child and Family
Services, invited this consultant to observe Kenneth
(Ken) in the foster home of K & F Clauser on November
17/99. Ken had arrived at the Clausers' home the night
before.
Mrs James described odd behaviors and questioned
developmental delay. She was interested in our
observations and any recommendations. Little
developmental history was reported, other than creeping,
I assume on all 4's, at 16 months. Apparently the
parents periodically expressed concerns about Ken's
progress and/or behaviors, however, their worries would
diminish and it seems no active investigation or ongoing
treatment was engaged.
HOME VISIT OBSERVATIONS NOVEMBER 17/99.
I attended at the foster home over the noon hour with
Dorothy McLachlan, Program Manager. Dorothy's role was
to observe and take notes while I interacted with Ken.
We were greeted by Mrs Clauser, three young preschoolers
and two friendly dogs.
At yesterday's date Ken was 37 months and 1 day.
* despite his very recent separation from his parents
and placement in a busy household, seemingly disturbed
behavior the night before, and the earlier visit by 3
DCAF staff, Ken stayed in the (closed off) livingroom
with us. He did not demonstrate what would be
understandable stress or confusion, not apparently
alarmed, yet not initiating interaction with us.
* Ken responded very favourably to my invitation to
explore with me the contents of a small toy box. His
expression lit up with a smile and eye contact as he
found and identified "Barney and friends" and a number
of Sesame Street characters. With brief breaks,
mostly to try my keys in the two doors, Ken was easy
to re-engage and we were able to interact for roughly
45 minutes.
* Ken was most interested in my keys and the Barney and
Sesame Street figurines. He also played for quite a
while with small pegs and a pegboard. The most
striking observation was Ken's apparent disinterest in
small toy cars, even after I demonstrated propelling
it with the "vroom" sound. Ken smiled and said
"that's Ken McQuaid" to his image in a small mirror.
* Ken's language was a mix of echolalia and spontaneous
meaningful speech. He repeated a great deal of what
was said to him often without eye contact. His speech
also contained quite appropriate 2-3 word phrases (ie.
"baby sleep" after I said "baby night-night"). I
noted some sound substitutions and articulation
errors. Ken named a number of objects, he also named
a number of pictures (ie. banana, baby) and he
pointed to several body parts on a doll.
* Ken demonstrated considerable patience when he had
difficulty manipulating an object, in fact he appeared
quite gentle as he handled the various objects. Each
time Kenneth exhibited frustration, after reasonable
effort, his face reddened and tensed and he uttered a
"grrr" with other sounds. He was not very loud, nor
did he use his body or limbs as many preschoolers
would to protest. Ken did not solicit help, but did
not reject it when I offered assistance. He was able
to copy a number of my demonstrations (ie. musical
toy button).
* Ken tolerated my touch as I stroked his hair away from
his eyes, fed him one cereal bit, and "crowded" his
personal space to reach around him for a toy. At one
point Ken leaned on my leg very relaxed to play with
an object. Ken did not engage, or acknowledge,
Dorothy's presence at all, despite my introduction of
her and ongoing verbal exchange. I heard no reference
to mom or dad, or Katherine, however, we witnessed
distress at being denied another toddler's bottle and
during a search for a "see'n'say" toy. This search
occurred at the end of our visit when we also let the
other children join us. At this point Ken's behavior
became more bizarre and more anxious-appearing
(reduced eye contact, no response to our wave,
ignoring everyone else with persistent repetition of
"where's the honey?", a phrase from the toy that Ken
seemed to be uttering to himself more so as a label
for the object).
* Ken sat in the "W" position to play. His gait seemed
normal, although he was unable to jump with both feet
on the floor or from a step, and climbed the stairs
sideways in non-reciprocal fashion holding on to the
bannister.
* Ken used both hands. He placed tiny pegs in a board
with a neat pincer hold, though he stuffed Cheerios in
his mouth with his fist. Ken would not try stringing
the Cheerios on a lace, but was able to unscrew a
plastic nut and bolt. I was not able to observe paper
and crayon skills.
* Ken "lined up" a number of objects, though not
obsessively. He lined up wooden blocks mostly, would
not stack more than two. His manipulation of the toys
was not strikingly different at today's visit except
that he seemed most excited about "TV" characters and
not so with the little cars or a tiny doll and the
bottle (except to say "milk").
SUMMARY and RECOMMENDATIONS:
From this "snapshot" contact it is my impression that
Kenneth presents an intriguing mix of suspected
developmental lags and concerning social and language
behaviors (ie. limited eye contact, ecolalia, etc).
The extent, permanence, and cause(s) I believe, require
a thorough pediatric investigation before plans for
treatment (including placement?) can be made. His
strengths include his engaging appearance and
willingness to interact at some level, albeit through
the toys, and apparent change/response to handling by
the individuals around him over a very brief period of
time.
I believe accurate assessment can probably only be done
over repeated sessions, therefore I am reluctant to
offer a developmental estimate. I have reported
specific observations from my hour with Kenneth, largely
one-on-one. I would be happy to help again in any way I
can.
I have a sense of potential in this little guy. Thank
you for the opportunity to observe Kenneth and give you
feedback.
/signed/ Nov 18/99
Nina K Little Alcorn, HBA (Psych), Cert Soc Wk
Parent Infant Consultant
Parent Infant Program
/signed/ Nov 18/99
Dorothy McLachlan
Program Manager
Developmental Support Services
........................................................
Exhibit E
RONALD G MURPHY MD FRCP (C)
MEDICAL ARTS BLDG
15 ELIZABETH STREET SUITE M 16
ORANGEVILLE ONTARIO L9W 5X5
PEDIATRICS (519) 942-3501
November 19, 1999
Ms Jennifer Long-Moore
Dufferin Child & Family Services
50 Fourth Ave Unit 13 Orangeville Ont L9W 4P1
Dear Ms Moore:
RE: Kenneth McQUAID
DOB: 16/10/96
I saw Ken in the office today accompanied by you
regarding concerns over his development. Ken was
recently apprehended from his parents after concern had
been expressed regarding the home environment. It is my
understanding from you that the environment was found to
be lacking in stimulation for Ken. I understand that
there were very few if any toys available for Ken's use
and that he was severely restricted in his movement
through the family home.
He has been placed in a Foster Home where there are
other children ranging in age from 9 weeks to 14 years.
In the office today Ken presented as a healthy looking
active young boy. He did not display any stranger
anxiety and was not destructive or overly active in the
room.
Ken's general examination today revealed his weight to
be 17.4 kg which places him at the 95th percentile,
while his height at 100.5 cm places him at the 90th
percentile. His head circumference was 34 cm which is
above the 95th percentile. His general examination was
normal. There were a number of excoriations or
scratches present on both buttocks. There was a fading
bruise on the anterior aspect of the left leg and two
areas in the midline over the lower spine which appear
to be well healed areas from previous minor trauma. He
was well nourished and there were no abnormalities
detected. Developmentally Ken tended to echo our speech
today and had difficulty in following some simple
commands which would be expected by his age such as
asking him to place an object on a chair or on the
floor. One would expect Ken to be able to do this by 2
1/2 years of age and many children indeed would be able
to follow such simple instructions at an ever younger
age. He was unable to scribble initially when presented
with a pencil but eventually was able to do this after
watching me. He could not copy a circle nor could he
draw a vertical line. Again these would be milestones
expected for somebody of Ken's age. I understand he is
able to assist with some of his dressing. He is not yet
toilet trained. He was unable to balance on one foot
and could not jump. He can walk without difficulty but
I could not get him to walk backwards in the office. I
understand that he is able to walk up steps but he tends
to lead with the same foot.
The development delays which Ken in demonstrating may be
the result of lack of stimulation. I understand that
his speech is already showing some signs of improvement.
I have requested a number of investigations to rule out
any possible underlying medical cause for his delays.
Some of the investigations which I have undertaken may
take as long as a couple of months before results become
available. If Ken does not show improvement and
progression in the above mentioned delays then it may
become necessary for him to become involved with the
speech therapist, occupational therapist to assist with
fine motor, and physiotherapist if the gross motor
skills are not continuing to improve.
I would be happy to clarify any of the above findings
should you deem this necessary.
Sincerely yours,
/signed/
RG Murphy MD FRCP (C)
RGM/wl
dictated but not read
--------------------------------------------------------
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
10 LOUISA STREET, ORANGEVILLE
Form 14A: Affidavit (General) date 180/99
Applicant
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin
50 Fourth Street Unit 13
Orangeville Ontario L9W 4P1
(519)941-1530 phone
(519)941-1525 fax
Wardlaw Carter Mullin Thwaites and Ward
David Thwaites
235 Broadway, Orangeville ON
941-1760 phone
941-3688 fax
Respondents
Linda Prosh/Robert McQuaid
RR #5 Orangeville ON L9W 2Z2
940-9847
Huber & Heersche
Evelyn D Huber
184 Broadway Orangeville ON L9W 1K3
(519)940-4500 phone
(519)940-4502 fax
My name is Robert McQuaid
I live in Township of Mono, County of Dufferin
and I swear/affirm that the following is true:
[McQuaid Nov 22]
1. I have had the opportunity to review the affidavit
and attached materials of Kim James sworn November 19,
1999.
[McQuaid Nov 22]
2. I am the natural father of the child Kenneth McQuaid
born October 16, 1999 and my wife Linda Prosh is the
natural mother of the child.
[McQuaid Nov 22]
3. Linda and I have been active and loving involved
parents of Kenneth. I confirm that there are locks on
the doors in the home in order to ensure that Kenneth
does not injure himself in any of the rooms on furniture
etc. Kenneth has become increasingly destructive and
our method of dealing with this has been to restrict his
access to some of the common areas, unless he is
immediately supervised by my wife or me. There is also
a lock on his bedroom door, which we do on occasion use
to give Kenneth a time out when he is behaving
inappropriately.
[McQuaid Nov 22]
4. Kenneth is well groomed, dressed, fed and loved.
Kenneth's family physician, Dr Ross in Tottenham can
attest to the fact that there has never been occasion
when Kenneth has been treated for any injury. He is not
malnourished or otherwise neglected. In fact, my
concern until Kenneth was two years old was that he had
never had so much as a cold and I believed he needed
exposure to some colds in order to develop his immune
resistance more effectively.
[McQuaid Nov 22]
5. I have an involved relationship in Kenneth's life.
I will take him for a walk daily on our property of 67
acres. He is deeply bonded to me and does voluntarily
come to me for affection and attention. I am an active
participant in feeding him, clothing and changing him.
[McQuaid Nov 22]
6. The Police allege in their notes that I was in an
almost catatonic state. I have a strong belief in my
right to counsel, particularly in light of the
allegations being laid against me by the CAS and the
Police. I felt it in my best interest to be
non-communicative. I did not believe I had any reason
to address the allegations of the CAS because I know
Kenneth is well cared for and loved.
[McQuaid Nov 22]
7. My wife Linda does take him to the Resource Centre
in Orangeville to give Kenneth the opportunity to
interact with other children. The worker there, Debbie,
could attest to this fact.
[McQuaid Nov 22]
8. The housekeeper, Tina Berryman, had been in
attendance at our home on one occasion. I confirm that
our home could be cleaner, but the home does not pose a
risk to Kenneth.
[McQuaid Nov 22]
9. The cement pillars that the officer referred to had
been the legs of a glass table. I had removed the glass
from the table top some months ago and stored it in a
locked room because of my concern that Kenneth might
hurt himself on the glass if it fell. The cement
pillars had been used to block him from crawling behind
the wall unit in the living room. I was worried that he
would access the plugs and electrical cords. The
pillars were recently set on their sides because Kenneth
had threatened to knock them over and again I was
concerned for his safety.
[McQuaid Nov 22]
10. Linda and I had decided to place Kenneth in day
care because we believed he needs greater exposure to
other children at this stage in his life and being in
the country does not afford him the opportunity to play
with many other kids. Linda began looking in late
summer and had difficulty finding a day care that was
not full with the return to school coming soon.
[McQuaid Nov 22]
11. I confirm that we had the diapers in the tub in the
spare bathroom. We keep them there at a maximum for
three days. We then gather them and take them to the
barn. I share the changing of the diapers. I take
Kenneth two to three times a week in to Orangeville with
me to run errands. I believe he should be exposed to
other people and I am taking this opportunity.
[McQuaid Nov 22]
12. We take him on weekend outings every other weekend
to places such as the hiking area at Mono Cliffs,
Belwood Lake, the Orangeville Conservation Area.
[McQuaid Nov 22]
13. Kenneth has a huge number of Lego toys, dolls, cars
and trucks. We do not spend a great deal of money on
his toys, but he does have a number of them. They are
not stored in his bedroom. We like to supervise him
when he plays.
[McQuaid Nov 22]
14. When the cleaning ladies are in the home, I
generally try to get out of their way and go into my
work room. Kenneth enjoys the company and I leave him
following the cleaners around. Paulette generally comes
and I have known Paulette for approximately 10 years and
I know her well enough to feel comfortable leaving
Kenneth out with her. I have never had any complaints
that Kenneth interferes with their work.
[McQuaid Nov 22]
15. I do call Kenneth the Ken Monster. It is a term of
endearment to me and if Tina Berryman took it amiss,
then I cannot be responsible for that. Linda and I have
both nicknamed him that.
/signed/ Robert T McQuaid
Sworn/Affirmed before me at Town of Orangeville County
of Dufferin
Nov 22/99
E Huber
Commissioner for taking affidavits
--------------------------------------------------------
(This document is in the handwriting of David Thwaites)
IN THE MATTER OF KENNETH McQUAID
CONSENT
The parties consent to an Order
1. That the child Kenneth McQuaid born October 16, 1996
shall be in the temporary care of the Children's Aid
Society with access by the parents as arranged with
the Society.
2. that the proceedings be adjourned to December 1,
1999 at 10 am to allow for the parents to address
and implement, to the satisfaction of the Society:
(a) arrangements for the enrollment of the child in
a daycare programme approved by the Society.
(b) follow through on the recommendations of Dr
Ronald Murphy
(c) the involvement of the Infant Parent Programme
(d) appropriate house safety (for example removal of
locks on interior doors)
(e) releases of information for the child, family
doctor and community resources
(f) parenting courses and counselling, if
recommended.
dated at Orangeville the 22 day of Nov/99
/signed/ Robert T McQuaid
Linda Prosh
Kim James, Children's Aid
witness
(illegible)
--------------------------------------------------------
(message sent by email)
November 24, 1999
Dufferin Child and Family Services
dcafs@headwaters.net
Subject: Libel allegation
Sirs:
Today I received a communication from Evelyn Huber that
you considered some of the statements I had made through
the internet to be libelous. Please forward your
objections to me by E-mail, or any other form of
communication you prefer. I will give your objections
the same distribution given to my own comments.
Robert T McQuaid
RR 5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2 Canada
E-mail: robert.mcquaid@hurontario.net
--------------------------------------------------------
November 26, 1999
David Tilson MPP
david_tilson@ontla.ola.org
Subject: Child abducted by Children's Aid
Dear Mr Tilson:
On November 16, without warning, in two visits
Children's Aid removed our only child, Kenneth, age 3,
from our home. A few days later they moved in court
papers to make Ken a ward of the crown, so that we would
never see him again.
This was an intact family with a normal healthy three
year old, with regular medical checkups, never before
diagnosed with any problems.
The rest of this E-mail details the events in the
case. I am asking for your help:
(a) to get us out of our family nightmare
(b) to consider altering the procedures so that an
aggrieved family can have a chance at least to
hire legal counsel before suffering the loss of a
child, or even to reduce the funding for
Children's Aid to a level where they could not
cause this kind of mayhem for intact families.
Thank you for your consideration.
Robert T McQuaid
RR 5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2
phone: 519-942-0565
E-mail: robert.mcquaid@hurontario.net
(The rest of the E-mail, containing the case documents
up to this date, is omitted.)
--------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Court of Justice
at 10 Louisa Street, Orangeville Ontario L9W 3P9
Court File Number 180/99
Form 14A: Affidavit (general) dated November 29, 1999
Applicant
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin
50 Fourth Avenue Unit 13
Orangeville Ontario L9W 4P1 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1530
Fax: 519-941-1525
email: dcafs@hurontario.net
Wardlaw, Mullin, Carter, Thwaites and Ward
Attention: David Thwaites 235 Broadway
Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z5 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1760
Fax: 519-941-3688
eMail: dthwaites@wardlaw.on.ca
Respondents
Robert McQuaid
RR #5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2 Canada
Phone: 940-9847
Linda Prosh
RR #5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2 Canada
Phone: 940-9847
My Name is Kim James
I work in Orangeville Ontario
and I swear/affirm that the following is true:
I, Kim James, of the Town of Orangeville in the County
of Dufferin, make oath and say:
[James Nov 29]
1. I am employed by Dufferin Children's Aid Society as
a Child Protection Intake Worker.
[James Nov 29]
2. On November 18, 1999, I spoke with Audrey Campbell
who works with Dr Trevor Hunt. Dr Hunt met with Linda
and Ken on September 12, 1997 due to delayed milestones.
Dr Hunt noted that Ken would fall backwards when in a
seated position. Ken was approximately 11 months old at
this time and should have been able to meet this
milestone. Dr Hunt had made a referral for an
occupational therapist. On June 22, 1999, Dr Hunt met
with Linda and Ken due to delayed speech and a referral
was made for a speech therapist. I verily believe this
to be true.
[James Nov 29]
3. On November 22, 1999, The Society, Robert McQuaid
and Linda Prosh agreed to adjourn the matter of Kenneth
McQuaid until December 1, 1999 as the parents agreed to
work with the Society. During the interim, Kenneth
remained in the temporary care and custody of the
Society. The parents were to address and implement, to
the satisfaction of the Society six conditions. Please
see Exhibit "A". It was my understanding that if the
conditions were met to the satisfaction of the Society
that a "least intrusive measure" would be sought by the
agency in working with this family. Arrangements were
made for the parents to have one hour daily supervised
visits with Ken at the Society office. This worker
would continue with the investigation and gathering
information.
[James Nov 29]
4. This worker had opportunity to observe the visits
between Ken and his parents on four separate occasions.
Upon reuniting with his father after a six day
separation and four days for his mother there was no
form of affection shown immediately. Ken went straight
for the blocks that his parents had brought him. Ken
continued to focus his time and attention on the toys
rather than his parents. Bob finally invited Ken over
to read a story book to him. Ken appeared content and
relaxed on his father's lap. The parents present more
as teachers than playmates with Ken. Their conversation
was a question answer format. When it was time to say
good bye Ken cried a little but stopped as soon as he
saw his foster mother. This worker also received a
voice mail message from Nina Little Alcorn with the
Parent Infant Program stating that Bob McQuaid had
called her as he was complying with the conditions
agreed upon between himself and the Society. I verily
believe this to be true. Nina met Linda and Bob after
this visit and gave them a pamphlet outlining the Parent
Infant Program and spoke with them briefly about their
services. Nina had asked them to read the pamphlet.
[James Nov 29]
5. On November 23, 1999, this worker spoke with Debbie
Holmes, an employee at Community first. Debbie verified
that she has seen Linda and Ken at the resource centre
but was unsure of the frequency. Debbie stated that
Linda has had a membership with them for over a year. I
verily believe this to be true. The visit on this day
was similar to the previous day. Once again the
greeting was not affectionate. Bob immediately began
reading to Ken. Linda interrupted this on two
occasions. Linda showed Ken the toys that they had
bought him and gave him chocolates. Ken attempted to
engage his father in play by giving him a car. Bob held
it, said "my car Ken", then gave the car back to Ken.
They displayed the teacher role once again. Linda would
say, "yellow duckie, yellow block, blue jacket, blue
block," This was repeated over and over with the other
colours. At one point Linda stated, "you are far more
important to him that I am". I believe this is due to
the fact that Ken attempted to interact more with his
father. Linda asked Ken if he wanted to go on the swing
and then told him he could not. It is my understanding
from Linda that she would take Ken to the park after
their visits to Community First and Ken enjoyed the
swing. Bob had Ken on his lap and they were counting,
Ken did not appear interested and Bob responded by
saying, "were playing counting now, pay attention
child". Linda asked if he wanted to sit on her lap, Ken
got up but only stayed there for approximately 10
seconds. By 3:45 pm there was no interaction between
the parents and Ken. Ken was playing with the empty
boxes that his toys came in and the parents were having
a conversation. Ken left the visit without hugs and
kisses from his parents. This worker also made note
that the parents were concerned that they were being
audio or video taped as their visits take place in our
interview room. The interview room has a two way
mirror, two video cameras mounted on the wall and two
wall microphones.
[James Nov 29]
6. On November 24, 1999, I met with the foster mother
at her home. She informed me that Ken does need a nap
in the afternoon otherwise he is extremely cranky in the
evening. Ken has also progressed from diapers to pull
ups and is showing an interest in toilet training of the
other toddlers in the home. Ken is both giving and
asking for hugs. Ken has broken three chain locks on
their external back door as he is wanting to go outside
and play on the swing. When he has broken the locks he
says, "bad boy Ken, you broke it Ken, you can't go in
there in Ken". During my visit Ken appeared to be happy
as he was playing with the toys and sat on my lap for a
period of time while we drew a stick figure of Ken.
Later in the morning of this day, Reverend Lou Potter
called me and stated that she had just met with the
McQuaids and that they had given her verbal permission
to speak with me. Lou stated that they appeared to be
having difficulty understanding the concerns regarding
the locked doors. Lou stated that they had told her
that Ken would be confined to his room for a period of
an hour when he was bad. Lou stated that it was her
opinion that they did care for their son but had very
little practical parenting knowledge. Lou stated that
she advised them that a child three years of age should
only receive a two to three minute time out for bad
behaviour not an hour. Lou suggested that they pick up
a book on child development and one on parenting.
[James Nov 29]
7. The visit on November 24, 1999, was scheduled
between 4-5 pm. I met Ken in the foyer at the office.
When I told him it was time to see his mom and dad he
stood motionless with a void look on his face and would
not respond. Hereafter this behaviour will be referred
to as freezing. I took this time to address their
concerns about being audio and video taped. I showed
them the monitors located in the back kitchen that are
hooked up to the video cameras in their room and
explained that I was watching them on the monitors and
making notes. I explained to them the purpose of the
set up of the room. Ken was given a new stuffed toy and
more chocolate. Bob made something out of the blocks
but did not invite Ken to interact with him. Linda
asked Ken if he wanted to go home, yes or no. Ken did
not respond. She asked him again, Ken went and picked
up his coat. Ken unzipped the hood from the jacket and
said, "bad boy Ken". Linda offered to fix it. Linda
then asked again if he wanted to go home. Ken made a
whining noise this time and Bob invited Ken onto his lap
and patted his back. Ken got down and went over to the
blocks. He threw two of them. Both parents responded
by saying, "Don't throw blocks Ken, bad boy, pick them
up Ken". Ken then cleared the blocks from the table.
His parents told him to pick them up, he did not. Bob
stated, bad boy Ken and then invited him onto his lap
and read him a book. Linda interrupted by asking Ken if
he was mad at her. Linda then asked Ken how he was. No
response. Bob then asked Ken to pick up the blocks, Ken
did so. Linda then picked Ken up and sat him on her
lap. Ken struggled to get free. The visit ended once
again with no affectionate interaction. Nina Little
Alcorn and myself came into the room. Ken did the
"freezing" behaviour again when we had entered the room.
[James Nov 29]
8. After the visit Nina Little Alcorn and myself met
with Linda and Bob. Nina had asked Linda and Bob how
they were doing. Linda responded that both she and Bob
were not eating or sleeping very much. Linda then
stated that she was concerned about the long term
affects and motioned toward Bob who was sitting beside
her. Linda then mouthed the words, "especially about
him". I gave feedback to the parents of my observations
and suggested how they may interact with Ken during
their visits. I told Bob that I saw some good
interaction between them when he was reading the books
to Ken. I suggested that when they bring the blocks,
instead of them talking about the colours or the parents
building something for Ken that they invite Ken to build
something with them. Nina had suggested that they get
down to Ken's level and play. Nina asked if they had
read the pamphlet that she gave them. They stated that
they had not. A discussion took place regarding day
care centres and Nina gave them another handout on how
to look for a day care provider and booked an
appointment with them.
[James Nov 29]
9. On November 25, 1999, this worker met Ken in the
foyer again and asked if he was ready to go see mom and
dad. Ken gave this worker a hug and asked if I wanted
to go to Kelsey's. I told Ken no and said that he was
going to visit mom and dad. Ken displayed the
'freezing' behaviour once again. I called his name and
rubbed his cheek and he snapped out of it. When I took
him to see his parents he greeted them happily but once
again, no form of physical affection exchanged. This
visit was difficult to watch as the parents displayed
inappropriate responses to Ken's attempts for consoling.
This occurred when Bob and Linda began by asking Ken if
he wanted to go home, if he wanted to go on the swing,
over and over. Ken went and got his coat, repeating
what they were saying and went to put it on. They then
stated that they were not going. Ken became upset by
this and began to cry. He went to his father for
consoling. Bob sat outstretched in his chair, his arms
crossed in front of himself and did not move. Ken
attempted to prod at his father's hands, directly
looking for physical contact, no response. Not so much
as a word was uttered by either parent to console Ken.
Bob and Linda had bought Ken a toy cell phone. Ken was
happy to receive it and began to play with it
immediately. Ken was told by Linda not to break it, Bob
took it away from him and put it in his pocket. Ken
became upset by this. Bob redirected Ken's attention by
picking him up onto his lap and read him a book. Ken
asked about the phone and Bob replied that it was too
loud. Ken got down and retrieved the blocks. No one
interacted with him. Ken went to his father and asked
about the phone again, no response. Ken then went to
his mother and pointed out a truck in the magazine that
she was reading. Linda repeated his words. Ken went
back to his dad and asked to get up, Bob responded and
they began to read the book again. Bob asked Ken where
the clock was, referring to the clock in the book. Ken
looked at the clock on the wall. Linda points to the
clock on the wall and says, "what time is it Ken?". Bob
responds to Ken's answers by saying brilliant, vary
smart. Ken points to a broom in the book and Bob
responds, "that's for cleaning up after you Ken, that's
a broom". Linda asks Ken if he is sleepy. As soon as
the book was finished Bob told Ken to go and bug his
mom. Linda sat forward and picked up her magazine.
Linda then asked Ken how he was feeling and finally
picked Ken up. Ken sat on her lap a total of 30
seconds. This is when Bob and Linda began to question
Ken about going home, going on the swing and Ken getting
upset. Once Ken calmed down on his own he went to the
plastic birds that his parents had bought him. Ken
brings the birds to his father, no interaction engaged.
Ken starts to throw the birds. Linda and Bob tell Ken
not to do this. Linda says, "we don't like that bratty
behaviour". Ken echo's this. Linda then says, "that's
the cell door and that's the espionage window,"
referring to the two way mirror. Ken opens the door and
says, "good boy, want to say good bye". Bob asks Ken if
he wants to go. At 3:55 pm Bob gets the blocks and
says, "I'm going to start and lets see if you can put
some on". Bob begins and then Ken puts the rest of the
blocks on and Bob sits back on his chair, no longer
engaged. Bob says, "that's a good construction", Linda
says, "that makes it stable". Bob says to Linda that
Ken does not understand and then laughs. Linda returns
to looking at her magazine. Ken continues to build with
the blocks. Linda then places one of the birds on the
blocks and says that they should have built a bird
house. Linda then asks Ken if he wants to go home, yes
or no? Ken responds by saying. "do you want to go to
Kelsey's?". Linda says, "I think you'd be okay now, you
wouldn't take a royal fit". Bob says, "we will
celebrate your release". Ken puts a bird on the blocks
and says make them fly and knocks them off the blocks.
No response by parents. Ken then asks, "want to take
shoes off?". No response. Linda then asks Ken where
his "furbee" is, Ken does not respond. Ken goes over to
the garbage pail and pulls out the toy wrapper and
repeats five times, "that's a wrapper". Bob then asks
Ken for the wrapper. They begin to point out letters of
the alphabet. Linda says, "I'd take you to Kelsey's
now, I don't think you'd be as bad now". Ken opens the
door and says, "want to go to Kelsey's?" and shuts the
door. Linda replies, "don't slam the door Ken".
[James Nov 29]
10. I enter the room at this point and Ken greets me
and says, "want to go see mom and dad". I attempt to
redirect Ken by asking about his new toys. I begin to
play with the birds, pretending that they are flying.
Ken begins to throw the birds. Linda and Bob both say,
"see that's what he always does". Linda adds that it is
usually his food and utensils that he throws. I
continue to show Ken how to make birds fly and
redirecting him. Ken asks again, "want to go see mom
and dad" and moves toward the door. Ken then leaves the
room and goes to the foyer and greets his foster mom
with "you want a hug?"
[James Nov 29]
11. After this visit I met with Linda and Bob along
with Kim Evans, Program Manager of Child Protection.
This visit was prearranged in order to discuss the
conditions of the agreement. The first condition
regarding day care was discussed. Linda indicated that
she had been to see a couple of them and that two of
them were available December 1, 1999. Linda stated that
she had begun looking in September but that Bob didn't
like the idea. Linda would prefer to have Ken attend
every day, Bob feels that every other day is good enough
because he wants Ken at home with him. Bob also stated
that three days was enough exposure to other children
and that they have great facilities around their own
home, referring to the 67 acres that Ken can romp
around.
[James Nov 29]
12. The second condition is in reference to following
through with Dr Murphy's recommendations. They have an
appointment to meet with Dr Murphy on December 21, 1999.
Linda is wanting to ask the doctor about Ken's blood,
they do not have an agenda set for discussion with Dr
Murphy.
[James Nov 29]
13. The third condition is following through with the
Parent Infant Program. They have a visit scheduled with
Nina for December 7, 1999. I asked if they have read
the pamphlet Nina gave them, they said no. I asked how
they felt about the Parent Infant Program and whether
they thought that it was an appropriate service in
regard to Ken's needs. They both stated that they did
not know, that they would not know what the
service/program was until Nina came to their home.
[James Nov 29]
14. The fourth condition is in reference to the safety
issues at home. Bob replied that they have removed the
lock from Ken's door, the light fixture was fixed and
that they were painting his room. Bob stated that I had
not pointed out any other concerns and therefore in his
opinion this condition had been complied to.
[James Nov 29]
15. The fifth condition outlines releases of
information from their doctors. Bob stated that Dr Ross
had informed him that the Society needs to initiate the
forms. I stated to Bob that I would get the appropriate
forms for them to sign.
[James Nov 29]
16. The sixth condition states parenting courses and
counselling if recommended. Bob stated that they have
not done anything regarding this as it only states if
recommended. I informed Bob that I am recommending that
counselling and a parenting capacity assessment be
sought for the both of them. I told them that they
could call Toronto Hospital for Sick Children or
McMaster Chedoke Hospital and request names to complete
the parenting capacity assessment.
[James Nov 29]
17. I then asked Linda about her comment yesterday with
regard to her concerns about the long term affects on
Bob. Linda said she really didn't want to say anything
in front of Bob. I replied that she brought it up
yesterday in front of Bob and that it was concerning me.
Linda began to talk about their lawyer, Bob cautioned
Linda that this was not information to share with us.
Linda then stated that she felt that Bob was, "taking
this thing too far. He is wanting to move and I don't
want to move". Bob interrupted at this time and asked
me if I was trying to drive them apart. I replied that
what I was trying to do was assess the current situation
at home and to complete my investigation. Bob replied
that they did not have to answer any of my questions. I
informed him that it was my understanding from his
lawyer that they were willing to cooperate with the
Society. Bob stated that he was cooperating and would
only comply to the conditions set out in the agreement.
I asked Bob if he was saying that he would not cooperate
and answer my questions, he stated again that he would
only comply with the conditions and would not discuss
anything other than those conditions with me. I then
stated that based on my observations of their visits
with Ken that I had great concerns regarding their
parenting capacity. I told them that even after making
suggestions about increasing interaction they made
little to no effort. They had not shown an interest in
the Parent Infant Program nor did I get the sense that
they felt that it was applicable to them. I then stated
that it was very concerning that they made no effort to
console Ken today when he became upset. Linda stated
that I was lying. I stated that what I observed was Ken
getting upset after they continued to ask him if he
wanted to go home, on the swing, etc, Ken got his coat
and they said that he could not go. Ken became upset
and went to Bob who sat there and I physically copied
Bob's body posture. I informed them that neither one of
them so much as said a word to comfort Ken. Again Linda
stated that Ken did not get upset during their visit and
that I was fabricating this because I was upset with
them about what they had done. I informed Linda that
this was not personal on any level and that I was not
the only one who had observed this visit. I informed
them that Kim Evans had also observed this session and
Kim nodded her head in agreement. They asked if Ken was
going to be returned home on December 1, 1999. I
informed them that the Society would continue with the
original application and request for Crown Wardship at
this time. The rational behind this is that there is
concern about their parenting capacity and the cause of
Ken's developmental delays is unknown at this time and
now there is added concern of risk of flight if Ken is
returned home. I further stated that it is also
concerning that Bob is not willing to cooperate, that
they appear not to have an understanding or a concern
regarding Ken's developmental needs. The meeting ended
by Linda stating that she was very angry, that this was
not democratic, that this was a police state and that
they had a right to a public forum and that they would
use the public forum. Linda further stated that I was
upset with them because of the "e mail". I informed
Linda that she was entitled to her thoughts and
opinions. Bob stated that we had an agreement and could
not arbitrarily change those conditions at any time. I
asked if they had any questions and they asked if they
still had their visit with Ken. I replied that they had
scheduled supervised visits for tomorrow and next Monday
and Tuesday.
[James Nov 29]
18. I have had the opportunity to review the affidavit
of Bob McQuaid sworn November 22, 1999. In response to
paragraph '3' it is concerning that Bob identifies Ken's
behaviour as increasingly destructive but they have not
sought professional help to date to help them deal with
Ken's behaviour. Linda has stated that she does not
believe that Ken has a behaviour problem and yet both
parents have demonstrated that they are unable to
redirect Ken's behaviour and respond to his behaviour by
confining him to his room. In paragraph '5' Bob
indicates that he is an active participant in feeding,
clothing and changing Ken. Linda has stated to this
worker that she has been wanting to go and visit her
brother in Denver but has not been able to do so because
she would need to find someone to care for Ken. Linda
said that she would not feel comfortable leaving Ken
alone in Bob's care as he does not do everything he
should. Linda further stated that Bob is good in
helping change Ken's diapers and that is about it. This
information was shared the evening of November 16th and
during her office visit with Ken on the 18th of
November, 1999. In paragraph '9', Bob states that he
took the glass table apart and put it away, Linda
indicated to myself on November 16th, that Ken had
destroyed it. In paragraph 10, Bob states that he is in
support of Ken attending day care. Linda has stated
twice to me that Bob has been opposed to her wanting to
put Ken into day care. In paragraph 13, Bob states that
Ken does not have free access to his toys. A child this
age should have access to toys for purpose of
stimulating their development through pretend play. A
child at this age of development also spends a great
deal of their time in what is known as solo play in
order to learn to manipulate their environment. It is
also concerning that Bob stated that they supervise him
and that they are not interacting with him. In
paragraph 14 Bob states that he gets out of the way of
the cleaning ladies but leaves his toddler to follow the
cleaning ladies around. I thas been my experience that
a toddler would get in the way of someone attempting to
get something completed. In paragraph 15, Bob states
that the "Ken Monster" is a term of endearment to him
and Linda. I have observed this family interact for a
total of four hours and have not once heard either one
of them refer to Ken as the "Ken Monster".
[James Nov 29]
19. I spoke with Catherine, the foster mother on
November 29, 1999 inquiring as to how Ken was doing.
She stated that since Friday, November 26, 1999, Ken has
been laying on the living room floor in fetal position
and sucking his thumb. He remains in this position fro
approximately 20 to 30 minutes at a time and then will
get up and wander around the house aimlessly. Catherine
stated that while in this position he does not respond
to their attempts to arouse him. This continued until
this morning. Catherine stated that he has had a low
grade fever as well and was wondering if this is normal
behavior for Ken when he is not feeling well. Overall,
Catherine stated that she believes that Ken's behavior
while in her home has been typical behavior of a
toddler. She has noticed signs of improvement in his
speech, in socialization, affection, sense of humor,
bath and bed time and eating - he is no longer spitting
food out nor demonstrating throwing food or utensils as
Linda indicates that Ken does at home. Catherine stated
that the only time that she has had difficulty with Ken
was the afternoon of November 25th and the following
morning. I verily believe this to be true. Please
refer to Catherine's notes, attached as Exhibit "B".
[James Nov 29]
20. My assessment of the matters of Ken McQuaid are as
follows: There is a substantial risk that Ken will
suffer emotional harm if he is returned to the primary
care and custody of Linda Prosh and Bob McQuaid. I have
observed Ken's parents interact with Ken. There is
concern regarding the level and type of attachment that
they have with their son. Little to no forms of
physical affection or consoling, negative verbal
messages. Ken is demonstrating concerning 'freezing'
behaviour and the parents have demonstrated a reluctance
to work cooperatively and take an interest in the
concerns that have been brought to their attention about
their son's developmental delays. A risk assessment has
been completed with input from myself, Jennifer Moore
and Kim Evans. Jennifer Moore is a co-worker who has
also had an opportunity to observe Ken interact with his
parents. The risk assessment is a tool designed to
assist child protection workers in making a decision as
to the risk of future harm to a child. The outcome of
the risk assessment is high and clearly indicates the
identified areas of concern. Please refer to Exhibit
"C". I have also attached a copy of the Safety
Assessment which is a tool used to assess the immediate
safety of children. Please refer to Exhibit "D".
Without information from Dr Murphy regarding the cause
of Ken's developmental delays there is room to speculate
that the delays may be due to lack of adequate care and
environment. A parent capacity assessment would address
the concerns regarding quality and type of attachment
and the ability of the parents to meet the needs of Ken.
The Society has concern that if Ken is returned to his
parents at this time that there is a risk of flight and
more importantly the parents will increase the risk of
developmental delays due to their lack of acknowledging
the concerns and their lack of ability to change their
parenting attitudes and styles in regard to Ken's
present needs.
[James Nov 29]
21. I make these statements with no improper intent.
/signed/ Kim James
Sworn/Affirmed before me at Town of Orangeville in
Ontario on November 29, 1999.
/signed/
IRENE BEAZLEY
A Commissioner, etc, Province of Ontario,
for the Children's Aid Society.
Expires September 27, 2000
........................................................
Exhibit A (Consent filed November 22, shown above)
........................................................
Exhibit B
(This document is handwritten)
[Clauser] Nov 16, 99
When Kim left Ken had to be restrained from hitting his
head against the floor and the door. He took a swing a
(illegible) in franco's arms. During a bath, (hair very
dirty) he had to be restrained to stay in tub - wouldn't
stand up and gripping side of tub. Bed was the same
procedure - had to restrain him and let him scream until
he was exhausted. His only communication is parroting,
screaming and tantrums.
[Clauser] Nov 17, 99
Ken woke up at 9:00 am and I told him it was breakfast.
He walked away so I picked him up and sat him at the
table with no problems. He was like a whole new kid
today, no throwing food, no spitting food down the front
of himself; I think I can handle this. He has
compulsive behaviour turning lights on and off and
closing doors. Played with toys, but not with children.
When he got tired, he started throwing toys and needed a
time out. When in T.O. pulled a tantrum and was
violent towards me. Had a bath and went to bed with no
problems.
[Clauser] Nov 18, 99
Good day today! Only had to be reminded once not to
throw toys. He was giving Noah back his soother. Still
just mimmicking, but using the things he's heard to
communicate. ie "Want some breakfast, Ken? Played in
the bathtub. Went to bed with no problem.
[Clauser] Nov 19, 99
Actually coming to me for a hug when he's upset.
Follows me around mimmicking everything he's heard and
is following simple directions; time to eat please come
sit at the table, please open the door. Still in his
own world, but sometimes sharing toys with the other
kids.
[Clauser] Nov 20, 99
Good day! No tantrums. Woke up really early so he fill
asleep during dinner.
[Clauser] Nov 21, 99
Wants hugs and kisses from me. Good day! Played in
bathtub with other kids. Only threw toys once and sat
down for short T.O. with no tantrum. Drew a
picture-scribbles, but first time he's picked up pencil
without the "bad boy, don't touch that, Ken's a bad boy,
don't break that" litany.
[Clauser] Nov 22, 99
Had a very bad morning, tantrum while changing diaper,
tantrum because I wouldn't let him have a broken toy;
he launched himself at me with feet and fists while
holding Noah; throwing toys, pushing other kids. Had a
nap, gave me a hard time, had to put him down twice, but
woke up in a much better mood. Went for visit with Mom
& Dad and hugged me when he came out. Wanted lots of
hugs and kisses all right even from company we had.
Played in the tub with Rachel and didn't hang on to the
sides at all. No problem putting to bed.
[Clauser] Nov 23, 99
As he interacts more with the children, he is pushing
and hitting from lack of social skills. Starting to
share. We went for a hair cut today and he was asking
all the hairdressers for hugs. Brenda was here and he
wanted hugs and kisses from her and myself. Had a
temper tantrum during dinner because I wouldn't let him
just drink juice so he refused to eat supper. Played
with everyone in the bathtub. Went to bed with no
problem.
[Clauser] Nov 24, 99
Good morning - lots of hugs. Just before lunch he hit
Hannah with a play bat in the head hard enough to bruise
and welt. Really inquisitive - playing with water in
the sink and pouring it on the floor - normal kid stuff.
Good evening. Bath, bed no problems.
[Clauser] Nov 25, 99
Welcome to our world, Ken!! Didn't "zone out" at all
today, just tried to test the limits and see if temper
tantrums work; they didn't so he'd stop and go back to
playing with the other kids. When I woke him up from
his nap, I asked him if he wanted to go see Mon & Dad -
he lost it - held his breath till his lips turned blue
and threw himself to the ground and started screaming.
He went limp so I couldn't dress him and kept screaming
until I got him in the car. During supper started
screaming and wouldn't stop; I think it was a
combination of finished his juice and wanted more, tired
and continuation of tantrum from visit. Whenever I have
not been in eye sight of him he screamed and came to
find me. Like I stated before, I think he's coming into
this world. (When I T.O. him today, he's say "want a
hug" to deal his way out of T.O.) When he went to bed
last night, he took all the movies in the headboard out
of their cases and ripped out one tape and several
covers. This is the first time he has done anything
destructive.
........................................................
Exhibit C
(The date on this document, Nov 20 1999, is a mistake,
since that is a Saturday, and the document refers to
events during visitation that started on Nov 22. Nov 29
is likely. The Safety Assessment following also has an
erroneous date. The numbers 5478 are printed by the
same machine printing our names. I attribute the
document to Kim Evans on the basis of the signature,
though the first person references are from Kim James.
-RTMQ)
Dufferin Child and Family Services
50 Fourth Ave, Unit #13
Orangeville Ontario L0N 1N0
McQuaid/Prosh, Robert and Linda
5478
Case Status: Open
Case Worker: Kim James
Classification: Protection
Risk Assessment
Completed for Social Worker: Kim James
Reason for Report - Initial - within 21 days
Caregiver's Name Relationship
Prosh, Linda Mother
McQuaid, Robert Father
Remarks:
The information provided is based on conversations with
Linda and Bob, and observations made during their daily
visits with Ken. This assessment was completed jointly
with input from Jennifer Moore and Kim Evans as well as
myself.
Child's Name McQuaid, Kenneth Darryl
Child's D.O.B. 16/10/96
--------------------------------------------------------
CAREGIVER INFLUENCE
--------------------------------------------------------
CG1. Abuse/Neglect of Caregiver
4. Severe abuse/neglect as a child.
3. Recurrent but not severe abuse/neglect as a child.
2. Episodes of abuse/neglect as a child.
1. Perceived abuse/neglect as a child with no specific
incidents.
0. No perceived abuse/neglect as a child.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
0 Prosh, Linda
4 McQuaid, Robert
Mr McQuaid was abandoned by his father and raised in
foster care in the US. Linda stated that he was
severely abused while in care. No specific details
provided.
--------------------------------------------------------
CG2. Alcohol or Drug Use
4. Substance use with severe social/behavioural
consequences.
3. Substance use with serious social/behavioural
consequences.
2. Occasional substance use with negative effects on
behaviour.
1. Occasional substance use.
0. No misuse of alcohol or use of drugs.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
0 Prosh, Linda
0 McQuaid, Robert
No evidence at this time.
--------------------------------------------------------
CG3. Caregiver's Expectations of Child
4. Unrealistic expectations with violent punishment.
3. Unrealistic expectations with angry conflicts.
2. Inconsistent expectations leading to confusion.
1. Realistic expectations with minimal support.
0. Realistic expectations with strong support.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
3 Prosh, Linda
3 MaQuaid, Robert
This worker is basing this variable on observations of
the home environment, Ken's delays and the fact that the
parents state that Ken is confined to his room. Linda
made several comments that when Ken is out of control
she puts him in his room. She had indicated that she
does not know how to control his behavior and therefore
there is probably some level of angry conflict.
--------------------------------------------------------
CG4. Caregiver's Acceptance of Child
4. Rejects and is hostile to child.
3. Disapproves of and resents child.
2. Indifferent and aloof to child.
1. Limited acceptance of child.
0. Very accepting of child.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
3 Prosh, Linda
3 McQuaid, Robert
Linda and Robert both indicated that Ken had destroyed
their home and that is why they need to lock everything
away from him. There does not appear to be a bond
between parents and child. Initial contact, the parents
did not acknowledge Ken at all.
--------------------------------------------------------
CG5. Physical Capacity to Care for Child
4. Incapacitated due to chronic illness or disability
resulting in inability to care for child.
3. Physical impairment or illness which seriously
impairs child caring capacity.
2. Moderate physical impairment or illnesses resulting
in only limited impact on child caring capacity.
1. Very limited physical impairment or illness with
virtually no impact on child caring capacity.
0. Healthy with no identifiable risk to child caring
capacity.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
0 Prosh, Linda
0 McQuaid, Robert
--------------------------------------------------------
CG6. Mental/Emotional/Intellectual Capacity to Care
for Child
4. Incapacitated due to mental/emotional disturbance
or developmental disability resulting in inability
to care for child.
3. Serious mental/emotional disturbance or
developmental disability with seriously impairs
child caring capacity.
2. Moderate mental/emotional disturbance or
developmental disability with limited impairment of
child caring capacity.
1. Symptoms of mental/emotional disturbance or
developmental disability with no impact on child
caring capacity.
0. No identifiable mental/emotional disturbance.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
9 Prosh, Linda
9 McQuaid, Robert
Although both parents are high functioning and
intelligent, it would appear as though intellectual
capacity impairs their ability to care for their son
adequately as they put their needs before his and do not
understand Ken's need for interaction and a stimulating
environment.
--------------------------------------------------------
CHILD INFLUENCE
--------------------------------------------------------
4. Child younger than 2 years old, or older child with
special needs.
3. Child older than 2 years old, not regularly visible
in the community.
2. Child is under 12 years old, attends school, day
care, or early childhood development program.
1. Child is over 12 years old, and younger than 16
years old.
0. Child is 16 years old or older, with adequate
self-sufficiency skills.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
3 McQuaid, Kenneth Darryl
Ken is chronologically 3 years of age but is
developmentally delayed in speech and motor development,
also in social development.
--------------------------------------------------------
C2. Child's Response to Caregiver
4. Extremely anxious with uncontrolled fear,
withdrawal, or passivity.
3. Very anxious with negative, disruptive, and
possibly violent interaction.
2. Moderately anxious with apprehension and suspicion
toward caregiver.
1. Marginally anxious with some hesitance toward
caregiver.
0. Child trust and responds to caregiver in
age-appropriate way.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
4 McQuaid, Kenneth Darryl
There is little to no interaction with parents. Ken
presents as passive, withdrawn and aloof to his parents
presence. There is minimal eye contact and his physical
response to his mother was rigid or non-existent. Ken
has never kissed his mother. These statements are based
on observation between Ken and his mother.
--------------------------------------------------------
C3. Child's Behaviour
4. Dangerous behaviour problems.
3. Serious behaviour problems.
2. Moderate but pervasive behaviour problems.
1. Minor behaviour problems.
0. No significant behaviour problems.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
3 McQuaid, Kenneth Darryl
Within his home, Ken has exhibited destructive behavior
of objects and possessions. He has been isolated from
his parents and lacks socialization opportunities. It
should be noted that these behaviors have not been
exhibited while in foster care.
--------------------------------------------------------
C4. Child's Mental Health and Development
4. Incapacitated due to mental/emotional disturbance
or developmental delay and unable to function
independently.
3. Serious mental/emotional disturbance or
developmental delay impairs ability to function in
most daily activities.
2. Moderate mental/emotional disturbance or
developmental delay impairs ability to perform some
daily activities.
1. Symptoms of mental/emotional disturbance with
minimal impact on daily activities.
0. No identifiable mental/emotional disturbance.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
3 McQuaid, Kenneth Darryl
Dr Murphy's preliminary assessment of Ken is that he has
global developmental delays. According to Ken's parents
he displays symptoms of mental/emotional disturbances,
such as inability to communicate and destructive
behaviors to the extent that they have had to respond by
confining him and isolating him from family interactions
and sections of the home.
--------------------------------------------------------
C5. Child's Physical Health and Development
4. Severe physical illness, disability, or lack of
physical development; requires medical care.
3. Serious physical illness, disability, or lack of
physical development; restricts activities without
special care.
2. Moderate physical illness, disability, or lack of
physical development; restricts activities
somewhat but overcome with special care.
1. Mild physical illness, disability, or lack of
physical development; does not restrict
activities.
0. Healthy and no obvious physical illness,
disability, or lack of physical development.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
0 McQuaid, Kenneth Darryl
According to Dr Murphy Ken is a healthy Child
--------------------------------------------------------
FAMILY INFLUENCE
--------------------------------------------------------
F1. Family Violence
4. Repeated or serious physical violence or
substantial risk of serious physical violence in
family.
3. Incidents of physical violence in family;
imbalance of power and control.
2. Isolation and intimidation; threats of harm.
1. Verbal aggression.
0. Mutual tolerance.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
3 Family Situation.
Linda states the following about her relationship with
Robert, "there is no physical violence. There is a lack
of cooperation between myself and Robert. He doesn't
help me do anything, he expects me to do all of the
housework and attend to Ken. He is self sufficient,
everything is in his name. He doesn't really discuss
things with me". Linda did not state that she was being
emotionally abused but the above information may
indicate that she is being emotionally abused.
--------------------------------------------------------
F2. Ability to Cope With Stress
4. Chronic crisis with limited coping.
3. Prolonged crisis strains coping skills.
2. Stabilized after period of crisis.
1. Resolution without adverse effect.
0. Free from stress influence.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
9 Family Situation.
At this time this worker does not know this family very
well. Linda has indicated that she attempted suicide
when she was 21 years old. It appears as though Mr
McQuaid becomes reclusive.
--------------------------------------------------------
F3 Availability of Social Supports
4. Effectively isolated.
3. Some support, but unreliable.
2. Some reliable support, but limited usefulness.
1. Some reliable and useful support.
0. Multiple sources of reliable and useful support.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
4 Family Situation.
This family is socially isolated as a choice. They
definitely have the means and capacity to access
supports if need be but they choose to be reclusive.
--------------------------------------------------------
F4. Living Conditions
4. Extremely unsafe; multiple hazardous conditions
that are dangerous to children and have caused
physical injury or illness.
3. Very unsafe; multiple hazardous conditions that
are dangerous to children.
2. Unsafe; one hazardous condition that is dangerous
to children.
1. Fairly safe; one possibly hazardous condition that
may harm children.
0. Safe; no hazardous conditions apparent.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
3 Family Situation.
Initial observations of home are that there were
multiple hazardous conditions that pose physical danger
to Ken. Also household sanitation is a factor. This is
more disturbing factoring in that Molly Maid cleans the
home every two weeks.
--------------------------------------------------------
F5. Family Identity and Interactions
4. Negative family interactions.
3. Family interactions generally indifferent.
2. Inconsistent family interactions.
1. Family interaction usually positive.
0. Family interactions typically supportive.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
4 Family Situation.
The parents do not have consistent caring interaction
with their son. They do not provide a nurturing or
stimulating environment for him. Linda stated that she
did not know when his last meal was, she thought that
Robert may have fed him lunch but she was not sure and
did not know what he had.
--------------------------------------------------------
INTERVENTION INFLUENCE
--------------------------------------------------------
I1
4. No motivation to meet child's needs.
3. Very little motivation to meet child's needs.
2. Motivated to meet child's needs, but caregiver has
multiple impediments to solving problems.
1. Motivated to meet child's needs, but caregiver has
some impediments to solving problems.
0. Motivated to meet child's needs, and caregiver has
not impediments to solving problems.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
3 Prosh, Linda
3 McQuaid, Robert
--------------------------------------------------------
I2. Caregiver's Cooperation with Intervention
4. Refuses to cooperate.
3. Cooperates minimally, but resists intervention.
2. Cooperates, but poor response to interventions.
1. Cooperates, with generally appropriate response to
intervention.
0. Cooperates with intervention.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
0 Prosh, Linda
3 McQuaid, Robert
Robert has stated that he will "comply" with the
agreement reached until the next court date. He has not
been forthcoming with information to assist in the
investigation.
--------------------------------------------------------
ABUSE/NEGLECT INFLUENCE
--------------------------------------------------------
A1. Access to Child by Perpetrator
4. Open access with no adult supervision.
3. Open access with ineffective adult supervision.
2. Open access with effective adult supervision.
1. Limited access with effective adult supervision.
0. No access to child.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
4 Prosh, Linda
4 McQuaid, Robert
In this case, the parents have committed an act of
omission. Should Ken be returned to his home, there is
no indication that his needs would be met, thus acts of
omission would continue.
--------------------------------------------------------
A2. Intent and Acknowledgement of Responsibility
4. Deliberate or premeditated abuse or neglect.
3. Hides or denies responsibility for abuse/neglect.
2. Rationalizes abuse/neglect or doesn't understand
role.
1. Understands role in abuse/neglect; accepts
responsibility.
0. Abuse is accidental or neglect is not deliberate.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
4 Prosh, Linda
4 McQuaid, Robert
Linda has admitted that they limit Ken's access and
leave him unattended for periods of time.
--------------------------------------------------------
A3. Severity of Abuse/Neglect
4. Extreme harm or substantial danger of extreme harm.
3. Serious harm of substantial danger of serious harm.
2. Moderate harm or substantial danger of moderate
harm.
1. Minor harm or substantial danger of minor harm.
0. No harm or substantial danger of harm.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
3 Prosh, Linda
3 McQuaid, Robert
Parents have created substantial risk of physical injury
through lack of supervision of their son. They have
failed to meet his needs of emotional care through lack
of interaction and an environment void of nurturance or
stimulation.
--------------------------------------------------------
A4. History of Abuse/Neglect Committed by Present
Caregivers
4. Severe or escalating pattern of past abuse/neglect.
3. Serious recent incident or a pattern of
abuse/neglect.
2. Previous abuse/neglect.
1. Abuse/neglect concerns.
0. No history of abuse/neglect.
9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
[Evans Nov 20]
0 Prosh, Linda
0 McQuaid, Robert
No internal record of police records
--------------------------------------------------------
RISK ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
--------------------------------------------------------
A. List, in point form, all risk factors which received
a rating of 3 or 4 and any other risk factors that
should be considered:
[Evans Nov 20]
CG1. Abuse/Neglect of Caregiver - 4
C2. Child's Response to Caregiver - 4
F3. Availability of Social Supports - 4
F5. Family Identity and Interactions - 4
I2. Caregiver's Cooperation with Intervention - 4
A1. Access to Child by Perpetrator - 4
A2. Intent and Acknowledgement of Responsibility - 4
CG3. Caregiver's Expectations of Child - 3
CG4. Caregiver's Acceptance of Child - 3
CG6. Mental/Emotional/Intellectual Capacity to Care
for Child - 3
C1. Child's Vulnerability - 3
C3. Child's Behavior - 3
F1. Family Violence - 3
F4. Living Conditions - 3
I1. Caregiver's Motivation - 3
A3. Severity of Abuse/Neglect - 3
F2. Ability to Cope with Stress - 9
B. Describe the significance and interaction of the
risk factors which contribute to an overall risk rating
and should be considered in Plan of Service:
[Evans Nov 20]
The greatest significance is that all of these risk
factors increase due to Ken's age. Parents have failed
to provide a safe, secure, nurturing and stimulating
environment for their son through confinement and lack
of supervision. There is little to no interaction with
their child and there is a possibility that Ken has not
met his developmental milestones due to lack of a
positive environment.
C. Describe significant family or individual strengths
which have been identified and may be used as part of
the service plan to reduce future risk:
[Evans Nov 20]
Parents have the mental capacity to learn appropriate
child care.
D. Describe how relevant family members view the
identified risk elements and any other areas of family
functioning identified in C, above:
[Evans Nov 20]
Linda stated that she would do anything to have her son
back, however her insight into the problems is not
accurate. For example, she focused on her lack of
housekeeping as being a large issue as opposed to the
very apparent safety and developmental issues that
directly impact on Ken.
E. Give rating or overall risk for family
[Evans Nov 20]
High Risk (This item checked)
Moderately High Risk
Intermediate Risk
Moderately Low Risk
No/Low Risk
F. Identify the key risk factors and the expected
outcomes which should be addressed in this family's Plan
of Service:
[Evans Nov 20]
CG1, C2, F3 & 5, I2, A1 & 2, CG3, 4 & 6, C1 & 3, F1 &
4, I1, A3 & F2
--------------------------------------------------------
SEND FOR APPROVAL
--------------------------------------------------------
Supervisor: Kim Evans
Date Risk Assessment Completed: 20/11/99
--------------------------------------------------------
APPROVAL SECTION
--------------------------------------------------------
Approved Document: Yes No (neither checked)
Approved By: (not filled in)
Changes Required: (option checked)
........................................................
Exhibit D
Dufferin Child and Family Services
50 Fourth Ave, Unit #13
Orangeville Ontario L0N 1N0
McQuaid/Prosh, Robert and Linda
5478
Case Status: Open
Case Worker: Kim James
Classification: Protection
Safety Assessment
Completed for Social Worker: Kim James
Caregiver's Name Relationship
Prosh, Linda Mother
McQuaid, Robert Father
Child's Name McQuaid, Kenneth Darryl
Child's D.O.B. 16/10/96
Safety Factors
1. Caregiver's behaviour is violent or out of control
Not Known
At this time is does not appear that the parents
behavior has been violent or out of control, but given
that Ken is unable to communicate, this may never be
known.
2. Caregiver describes or acts toward child in
predominantly negative terms or has extremely
unrealistic expectations.
Yes
The parents have left Ken unattended for an undetermined
length of time and they do not understand why he would
destroy their home. They are not able to redirect him
or control his behavior. Linda stated that when she
takes him for walks she does not understand why she has
to carry him back. Also neither parent picked up on his
developmental milestone delays quickly.
3. Caregiver caused, or has made a plausible threat
that has or would result in, serious physical harm to
the child.
Not Known
This is unknown as Ken is unable to communicate.
4. Child's whereabouts cannot be ascertained and/or
there is reason to believe that the family is about to
flee or refuse access to the child
No
Not an issue.
5. Caregiver has not, or will not, provide sufficient
supervision to protect the child from potentially
serious harm.
Yes
This is the main reason for our involvement. They have
left Ken unattended for an unknown amount of time. He
has basically been confined within his own home and
locked out of many rooms.
6. Caregiver has not, or is unable, to meet the child's
immediate needs for food, clothing, shelter, and/or
medical care.
No
Ken appears to be a healthy boy and he has had all of
his immunization shots.
7. Caregiver has previously harmed a child and the
severity of the harm, or the caregiver's prior response
to the incident, suggests that child safety may be an
immediate concern.
No
There is no prior internal record, or police record.
8. Child is fearful of people living in or frequenting
the home.
Not Known
Ken is unable to communicate this to us. My
observations are that Ken appears to be indifferent to
his parents.
9. The child's physical living conditions are hazardous
and may cause serious harm to the child.
Yes
This is another reason for our involvement. Ken's
bedroom had many hazardous conditions in it as well as
unprotected heating vents that Ken could fall into and
cut or break his leg.
10. Child sexual abuse is suspected and circumstances
suggest that child safety may be an immediate concern.
No
Not at this time.
11. Caregiver's drug or alcohol use seriously affects
his/her ability to supervise, protect, or care for each
child.
No
There is no indication at this time that this is a
factor.
12. Other (specify):
No
SAFETY DECISION
Child to be apprehended and brought to a place of
safety.
SAFE No children considered to be in immediate danger
of serious harm.
UNSAFE Child considered to be unsafe without a
protection intervention.
(UNSAFE option checked)
IMMEDIATE SAFETY PLAN:
Apprehend and bring to a place of safety
OTHER INTERVENTIONS/ACTIONS REQUIRED:
No additional interventions/actions
Risk assessment has been initiated
(Risk assessment checked)
Full medical to determine whether Ken's delays are
genetic or environmental
Date of Completion: 16/11/99
APPROVAL SECTION
Approved Document: Yes No (neither checked)
Approved By: (not filled in)
Changes Required: (option checked)
--------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Court of Justice
at 10 Louisa Street, Orangeville, Ontario L9W 3P9
Court File Number 180/99
Form 14A: Affidavit (General) dated December 2, 1999
Applicant
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin
50 Fourth Avenue, Unit 13
Orangeville Ontario L9W 4P1 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1530
Fax: 519-941-1562
email: dcafs@hurontario.net
Wardlaw, Mullin, Carter, Thwaites and Ward
Attention: David Thwaites 235 Broadway
Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z5 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1760
Fax: 519-941-3688
eMail: dthwaites@wardlaw.on.ca
Respondents
Robert McQuaid
RR #5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2 Canada
Phone: 940-9847
Linda Prosh
RR #5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2 Canada
Phone: 940-9847
My name is Kim James
I live in Orangeville Ontario
and I swear/affirm that the following is true:
I, Kim James, of the Town of Orangeville in the County
of Dufferin, make oath and say:
[James Dec 2]
1. I am a employed with Dufferin Children's Aid Society
as a Child Protection Intake Worker.
[James Dec 2]
2. On November 26, 1999, Jennifer Moore, a co-worker of
mine, supervised the visit of Ken McQuaid and his
parents. Linda Prosh and Bob McQuaid. Jennifer
observed much of the same interaction that had taken
place in the previous four visits. A notable and
positive change is that Ken kissed his mother today for
the first time ever. Ken kisses his mother a few more
times during the visit when asked by his mother to give
her a kiss. Near the end of the visit Bob states that
he never kisses him, only hugs him. It has been a
regular occurrence that the parents ask Ken over and
over if he wants to go home, if he loves them, if he
wants to go in the truck, if he remembers their dog and
cat. Ken responds to this by retrieving his coat and
then parents say no that he can't go. This confuses and
upsets Ken. Another pattern that has been prominent
during the visits is the negative self messages that
they give Ken. "Ken you broke it, bad boy Ken". During
this visit Ken was playing with the blinds in the room.
The parents made no attempts to redirect Ken and he
eventually broke the blinds. Bob gave Ken permission to
wreck them "that's okay let him wreck them". Ken said,
"I'm not a bad boy". Mom responded by saying, "Ken
wrecked it I think". The blind cord was fully extended
and a potential choking hazard by now. Bob responds by
saying, "they're the ones who say he's never
destructive". Mom replies with, "Ken you can hang
yourself on that, then we can sue them for having unsafe
things". Bob and Linda continue to allow Ken to play
with the blinds and Linda says to Ken, "I didn't break
them, you're the one playing with them". This single
event causes great concern. The parents once again
demonstrate that they do not redirect his misbehaviour.
Not only that but during their care and supervision they
have allowed Ken to place himself in a potentially
dangerous situation, indirectly coaching him along with
it. Instead of putting Ken's safety needs first they
allow him to continue to meet their needs and goals
which at this time is to demonstrate to the Society that
Ken is destructive and the opportunity to sue the
Society for harm to their son. I understand that the
parents are upset with the Society at this time but they
have not demonstrated adequate parenting. There were
two other negative references to Ken, he broke a Mickey
Mouse watch and the time that he took Linda's wallet and
threw it out. This information is based on Jennifer
Moore's case notes and I verily believe them to be true.
[James Dec 2]
3. It is after this visit that Ken began to demonstrate
extremely concerning behaviours at the foster home. Ken
assumed the fetal position on the floor sucking his
thumb. He would maintain this position for
approximately 20 to 30 minute intervals. No matter what
the foster parents attempted to arouse Ken from this
state, Ken would not respond. This behaviour continued
over the weekend and after his visits on November 29 and
30. Originally the foster mother thought that Ken's
behaviour may have been due to the fact that he had a
low grade fever during the weekend. Ken did not have a
fever on November 29 and 30.
[James Dec 2]
4. On December 1, Ken did not have a visit with his
parents and the foster mother reports that Ken's
behaviour was very good. No headbanging, screaming,
freezing or fetal position.
[James Dec 2]
5. I observed the visits on November 29 and 30 and
noted some areas of improvement. On Monday, Ken's
maternal uncle accompanied Linda and Bob to visit with
Ken. His uncle demonstrated interactive play with Ken
while playing with the blocks and the wooden puzzle Ken
kissed his mother again upon request. There continued
to be negative self messages. The parents also made a
greater attempt to redirect Ken's behaviour. Linda was
able to successfully redirect Ken on three occasions by
engaging him another appropriate activity. Although
there was notable improvement, much of the hour was
spent in a teaching capacity and parents observing Ken
playing with toys. Ken did throw the blocks again in
the visit on Tuesday. Parents continued to set Ken up
for disappointment by asking him about going home, etc.
Bob did make attempts on Tuesday to console Ken. Ken
fell and hit his head on the floor and Bob picked him
up, held him, and rocked him in his lap and gave him
comforting words.
[James Dec 2]
6. I attended the parents home along with Trish Cox on
November 30 to complete a home safety. Trish Cox will
be their Family Service Worker when the file is
transferred. The house was very clean and it was
evident that Linda and Bob had made great efforts to
respond to the potentially hazardous conditions that I
had identified earlier. We noted some hazards to the
parents such as putting alcohol, prescription and
nonprescription medication up or under lock, as well as
makeup. The locks had been removed from Ken's bedroom,
the two bathrooms, a hall closet and the kitchen. Their
master bedroom, Bob's two offices and the basement and
laundry room doors remain locked. This is acceptable to
the Society. The greatest improvement was Ken's
bedroom. It has been painted, the potentially hazardous
conditions have been addressed, his toys and dresser
have been returned to his room. It is pleasant and
child focussed. We also advised them to put approved
child safety locks on the cabinet doors in the kitchen
and bathrooms as well as child safety plugs in the
electrical outlets that were still exposed. Linda and
Bob informed us that Ken cannot get outside and is not
outside unless he is with one of them. We did note that
they do have a pool that is surrounded by the house on
three sides but there is no fence restricting access to
a potentially hazardous situation, whether the pool is
filled with water or not. There is also a balcony off
the living room which has a large enough space between
the cement floor and the railing that would allow Ken to
fall two stories.
[James Dec 2]
7. Linda and Bob have made reasonable efforts to comply
with the conditions in the agreement with the Society.
The conditions set out in the agreement was not an
exhaustive list of our concerns as we had stated that
this is preliminary action that needs to occur in order
to consider possibly returning Ken home and when. There
are outstanding concerns that still remain. Linda and
Bob have stated that the reason for the locks on the
doors was their response to keeping Ken safe. The
concern that now arises is how will they address the
safety of Ken now that the locks have been removed from
some of the doors? What were there safety concerns
prior to our involvement that they felt they needed to
lock Ken out? They have not demonstrated an ability to
redirect Ken's behaviour on a regular basis and they
have not received any from of parenting regarding
managing children's misbehaviour. Therefore the concern
remains that we have removed their means of child
management and it has not been adequately replaced to
address Ken's behaviour or his needs. The other
condition that has not been satisfactorily met to the
Society's standard is in regard to the Parent Infant
Program. Linda and Bob have met Nina, who will be the
Parent Infant Worker and have arranged a home visit with
her. What is not satisfactory at this time is neither
Linda Nor Bob appear to be interested in the program,
they have not taken the time to read the information
about the service. They have not understood or
recognized the reason for service being to help
stimulate Ken due to his developmental delays and that
they will be required to be active participants in
learning how to interact with him. Nina has informed
them that she has rearranged her scheduled appointments
to accomodate them at this time and has taken them onto
her full caseload although there is an existing wait
list for service. This program is designed to assist
families that require and want the help. Nina has
stated to Linda, Bob and myself that it will not suffice
to provide service to this family if the only reason why
they are involved is due to compliance with the
agreement as it is extremely important that the parents
recognize and identify that their child is requiring
support services. The Parent Infant Program is a family
centered-relationship based intervention.
[James Dec 2]
8. The Society has contacted Diane Benoit, Child
Psychiatrist affiliated with Toronto Sick Children's
Hospital, and inquired as to whether she would be able
to complete a parenting capacity assessment and the
earliest availability. Diane informed this Society that
she would be able to accomodate this as early as the
week between Christmas and New Years and have a report
ready by mid January. A general inquiry was made with
regard to Ken's fetal position behaviour and Diane
responded that this is very concerning.
[James Dec 2]
9. At the time that the Society entered into the
agreement with Linda and Bob, some concerns were
identified such as; the conditions within the home, the
apparent lack of stimulation to Ken, developmental
delays of Ken and the lack of parenting knowledge and
the parenting capacity. The conditions outlined were to
address those identified areas, recognizing that
compliance was not necessarily going to result in
returning Ken on December 1, as there were other
concerns. Since signing the agreement the Society has
had an opportunity to observe the parents interact with
Ken which has resulted in very concerning inadequacies
with parenting, interaction, and attachment. Ken has
also demonstrated concerning behaviours that may be
related to his visitations with his parents. It is with
this new information that the Society does not believe
that it would be in Ken's best interests at this time to
return home to his parents care and custody. Without
the parents demonstrating that they can effectively
manage Ken's behaviour and meet his developmental needs,
Ken is at risk of further harm.
[James Dec 2]
10. On November 30, I presented this case to our Child
Abuse Review Team. It is expected that every Society
have a review team that includes persons who are
professionally qualified to perform medical,
psychological, developmental, educational or social
assessments and at least one legally qualified medical
practitioner. This is a standard under the Child and
Family Services Act. On this day a medical
practitioner, a Principal, the Executive Director of
Family Transition Place, a Program Manager of Children's
Mental Health and Child Protection, as well as myself
were present. The case was reviewed and it was the
Review Teams decision and recommendation that Linda
Prosh and Bob McQuaid be placed immediately on the Child
Abuse Registry due to Severe Emotional Abuse to Ken.
[James Dec 2]
11. I make there statements with no improper intent.
/signed/ Kim James
Sworn/Affirmed before me at The Town of Orangeville
in Ontario on December 2, 1999.
/signed/
IRENE BEAZLEY
A Commissioner etc, Province of Ontario
for the Children's Aid Society
Expires September 27, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
10 LOUISA STREET, ORANGEVILLE
Court File Number 180/99
Form 14A: Affidavit (General)
date December 1, 1999
Applicant
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin
50 Fourth Street Unit 13
Orangeville Ontario L9W 4P1
(519)941-1530 phone
(519)941-1525 fax
Wardlaw Carter Mullin Thwaites and Ward
David Thwaites
235 Broadway, Orangeville ON
941-1760 phone
941-3688 fax
Respondents
Linda Prosh/Robert McQuaid
RR #5 Orangeville ON L9W 2Z2
940-9847
Huber & Heersche
Evelyn D Huber
184 Broadway Orangeville ON L9W 1K3
(519)940-4500 phone
(519)940-4502 fax
My name is Linda Prosh
I live in Township of Mono, County of Dufferin
and I swear/affirm that the following is true:
[Prosh Dec 1]
1. I am the Respondent in this matter and therefore
have knowledge of the issues before the court.
[Prosh Dec 1]
2. Shown to me now and attached as Exhibit "A" are
photographs of our home taken after November 22, 1999.
They show the changes made to the home and particularly
to Ken's room. We have addressed the concerns raised by
the CAS in their visit on November 22, 1999 to our home.
[Prosh Dec 1]
3. Shown to me now and attached as Exhibit "B" is a
copy of a letter from our family physician, Dr Stephen
Ross dated November 30, 1999.
[Prosh Dec 1]
4. I make this affidavit in support of my Application
to have my child returned.
/signed/ Linda Prosh
SWORN before me at the Town of
Orangeville, in the County of Dufferin
this 1st day of December, 1999
/signed/
A Commissioner etc.
........................................................
Exhibit B
Tottenham Medical Centre
Tottenham Professional Building
BOX 2000, 119 QUEEN ST NORTH
TOTTENHAM ONTARIO L0G 1W0
TOTTENHAM OFFICE: (905) 936-4211-2-3
FAX: (905) 938-3493
MICHAEL RODSON MB ChB
ALAN WARD MD
WILLIAM R MILLIGAN MD
STEPHEN G ROSS, M Ec MD CCFP
DENISE D'ADDARIO MD
M GLINSKI-COMEN PhD MD
DONINIQUE LUSSIER MD
R A NISHIKAWA MD CCFP
Evelyn Huber
184 Broadway Ave
Orangeville Ontario
L9W 1K3
Re: Kenneth McQuaid
Dear Ms Huber, November 30, 1999
It has come to my attention that Kenneth McQuaid is
now under Childrens Aid Society protection.
Previously I have identified some concerns with this
child's development and the parents responses. I have
previously referred the child for Pediatrics and
Occupational Therapy Assistance.
At no point did I feel that the child was the subject
of abuse nor did I feel that either parent would be
hurtful to this child. I would hope that Kenneth could
again return to his parents, and that they could receive
some assistance in parenting.
Sincerely,
/signed/
Dr Stephen Ross
--------------------------------------------------------
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
10 LOUISA STREET, ORANGEVILLE
Court File Number 180/99
Form 14A: Affidavit (General)
date December 2, 1999
Applicant
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin
50 Fourth Street Unit 13
Orangeville Ontario L9W 4P1
(519)941-1530 phone
(519)941-1525 fax
Wardlaw Carter Mullin Thwaites and Ward
David Thwaites
235 Broadway, Orangeville ON
941-1760 phone
941-3688 fax
Respondents
Linda Prosh/Robert McQuaid
RR #5 Orangeville ON L9W 2Z2
940-9847
Huber & Heersche
Evelyn D Huber
184 Broadway Orangeville ON L9W 1K3
(519)940-4500 phone
(519)940-4502 fax
My name is Robert McQuaid
I live in Township of Mono, County of Dufferin
and I swear/affirm that the following is true:
[McQuaid Dec 2]
1. I am the Respondent in this matter and therefore
have knowledge of the issues before the court.
[McQuaid Dec 2]
2. I have had the opportunity to review the most recent
affidavits of Kim James dated November 29, 1999 and
December 2, 1999.
[McQuaid Dec 2]
3. I have grave concerns at the behaviour Ken is
currently exhibiting in his Foster environment. There
is certain behaviour that is being described that I have
never seen him exhibit when in our care.
[McQuaid Dec 2]
4. Specifically, Ken has never "frozen" as Ms James
describes in her November 29, 1999 affidavit. I have
never seen him go into a fetal position as described by
Ms James. My wife, Linda Prosh advises me, that she has
never witnessed the child exhibit either of these
behaviours either.
[McQuaid Dec 2]
5. I believe that Ken is feeling frightened and
disorientated with the current situation and is acting
in an unusual fashion.
[McQuaid Dec 2]
6. The CAS had made in issue with us that Ken had not
been behaving destructively in Foster care, initially
anyway. When Ken started to become destructive at the
CAS office during one of our visits, I did not
intervene, as I would ordinarily have, in order that the
CAS might witness some of the behaviour we had described
to him. I am concerned that Ken tried to play on the
swings at the Foster home that are in the back yard and
that is the reason for his having broken the lock there.
It is very much a part of Linda's routine with Ken to
play on the swings with him.
[McQuaid Dec 2]
7. I wish to reiterate that the environment at the CAS
office is entirely unnatural and not conducive to any
normal interaction with Ken. Ken is feeling distraught
at the separation and needs to come home. We have lined
up a number of professionals who are going to assist us
in dealing more effectively with Ken. We only ask the
opportunity to effect those changes. In order to do so,
Ken must be returned home. Ken is very loved by Linda
and me. We are both very private with our feelings in a
public environment. We look forward to entering into a
meaningful relationship with a counsellor in order to
assist us. We have made contact with William Weiner, a
counsellor in Orangeville. We met with Will on November
30, 1999 and discussed with him our situation, the CAS
involvement and our desire to retain him to assist us in
parenting. We have another visit set up on December 7,
1999 with Ken so that he might observe us. We have
provided our consent to allow Will to discuss this
matter with the CAS. We believe that this type of
counselling would be significantly more productive than
a generic parenting course.
[McQuaid Dec 2]
8. The CAS has mentioned to us that they may wish a
parenting capacity assessment to be conducted by
Hospital for Sick Children or Chedoke McMaster in
Hamilton. They have not provided us with a referral or
any further information regarding this issue.
[McQuaid Dec 2]
9. I make this affidavit in support of my Application
to have my child returned.
/signed/ Robert T McQuaid
SWORN before me at the Town of
Orangeville in the County of Dufferin
this 2nd day of December, 1999.
/signed/
A Commissioner etc.
--------------------------------------------------------
(from a photocopy of the judge's notes)
Nov 22
- on consent child is placed in temporary care &
custody of CAS with access by parents as arranged by
it.
- adjd to Dec 1/99 at 10am & on the terms & conditions
outlined in the consent filed. /signature illegible/
Dec 1/99 Mr Thwaites
Ms Huber & Parents
about 1 to 1 1/2 hour required, to consider whether
child can be returned to Parents & if so, the
conditions which should apply. 5 40 pm unable to deal
with this urgent matter.
Matter is adjourned; if parents can demonstrate a
compelling case for the return of the child & if it can
be demonstrated that CAS have been wilfully
unreasonable in delaying the return of the child,
presiding justice to consider whether costs on CAS
should be awarded.
Dec 8/99 10 AM to be given priority Justice Allen to be
approached to determine whether this motion may be
heard on an earlier date.
/signed/
Dec 2/99: Mr Thwaites & Ms Huber
- Parents present
Submissions by counsel.
for oral reasons, the child shall be returned to the
care & custody of the parents subject to the Society's
supervision & on these terms & conditions
1) child to be enrolled forthwith in "Friends" (Mon to
Fri Daycare Program).
2) Parents to work with Dr Ron Murphy of Orangeville &
follow his Recommendations & Referrals as to
possible assessments
3) continue re 2 (c) of the earlier consent filed and
2(d) & (e) and (f) plus (as to (e)) " & such other
persons providing the services described in par
2(a)(b)(c) & (f)
- adjourned to Dec 22/99 at 10 am.
/signed/
--------------------------------------------------------
Ages and Stages test, December 16, 1999
Ages & Stages Questionnaires: A Parent-Completed, Child
Monitoring System By Diane Bricker, Jane Squires, and
Linda Mounts with assistance from LaWanda Potter, Robert
Nickel, and Jane Farrell Copyright (c) 1995 by Paul H
Brookes Publishing Co
36 Month Questionnaire
Child's name: Ken McQUAID
Child's date of birth: Oct 16/96
Who is filling out this questionnaire? NKLA
What is your relationship to the child? PiP consultant
Your telephone:
Your mailing address:
City:
State:
zip code:
List people assisting in questionnaire completion:
parents
Today's date: Dec 16/99
Administering program or provider: PIP/DSS//DCAF
COMMUNICATION
1. When you ask her to point to her nose, then her
eyes, hair, feet, ears, tummy and so forth, does your
child point to at least seven body parts correctly?
(She can point to parts of herself, you, or a doll).
[Little Dec 16] YES
2. Does your child make sentences that are three or
four words long?
[Little Dec 16] YES No, it doesn't go pop.
3. Without giving him help by pointing or using
gestures, ask your child to "Put the shoe on the table"
and "Put the book under the chair". Does your child
carry out both of these directions correctly?
[Little Dec 16] YES
4. When looking at a picturebook, does your child tell
you what is happening or what action is taking place in
the picture? (For example, "Barking", "Running",
"Eating", and "Crying"). You may ask, "What is the dog
(or boy) doing?".
[Little Dec 16] SOMETIMES
5. Show your child how a zipper on a coat moves up and
down, and say, "See, this goes up and down". Put the
zipper to the middle and ask your child to move the
zipper down. Return the zipper to the middle and ask
the child to move the zipper up. Do this several times,
placing the zipper in the middle before asking the child
to move it up or down. Does your child consistently
move the zipper up when you say "up" and down when you
say "down"?
[Little Dec 16] SOMETIMES
6. When you ask, "What is your name?" does your child
say both her first and last name?
[Little Dec 16] SOMETIMES
GROSS MOTOR
1. Without holding onto anything for support, does your
child kick a ball by swinging his leg forward?
[Little Dec 16] YES
2. Does your child jump with both feet leaving the
floor at the same time?
[Little Dec 16] NO
3. Does your child walk up stairs, using only one foot
on each stair? The left foot on one step and the right
foot on the next. She may hold onto the railing or
wall. (You can look for this at a store, on a
playground, or at home).
[Little Dec 16] NO
4. Does your child stand on one foot for about 1 second
without holding onto anything?
[Little Dec 16] SOMETIMES
5. While standing, does your child throw a ball
overhand by raising his arm to shoulder height and
throwing the ball forward? (Dropping the ball or
throwing the ball underhand does not count).
[Little Dec 16] YES
6. Does your child jump forward at least 6 inches with
both feet leaving the ground at the same time?
[Little Dec 16] NO
FINE MOTOR
1. After she watches you draw a line from the top of
the paper to the bottom with a pencil, crayon, or pen,
ask your child to make a line like yours. Do not let
your child trace your line. Does your child copy you by
drawing a single line in a vertical direction?
[Little Dec 16] YES
2. Does your child thread a shoelace through a bead or
an eyelet of a shoe?
[Little Dec 16] YES
3. After he watches you draw a single circle ask your
child to make a circle like yours. Do not let her trace
your circle. Does your child copy you by drawing a
circle?
[Little Dec 16] YES
4. After she watches you draw a line from one side of
the paper to the other side, ask your child to make a
line like yours. Do not let your child trace your line.
Does your child copy you by drawing a single line in a
horizontal direction?
[Little Dec 16] YES
5. Does your child try to cut paper with child-safe
scissors? He does not need to cut the paper but must
get the blades to open and close while holding the paper
with the other hand. (You may show your child how to
use scissors).
[Little Dec 16] NO
6. When drawing, does your child hold a pencil, crayon,
or pen between her fingers and thumb like an adult does?
[Little Dec 16] NO
PROBLEM SOLVING
1. While your child watches, line up four objects like
blocks or cars in a row. Does your child copy you or
imitate and line up four objects in a row? (You can
also use spools or thread, small boxes, or other toys).
[Little Dec 16] YES
2. If your child wants something he cannot reach, does
he go and find something like a chair or box to stand on
to reach it?
[Little Dec 16] to check
3. When you point to the figure and ask your child,
"What is this?" does your child say a word that means a
person? Responses like "snowman", "boy", "man", "girl",
and "Daddy" are correct. Please write your child's
response here:
[Little Dec 16] NO apple
4. When you say, "Say seven three", does your child
repeat just the two numbers in the correct order? Do
not repeat the numbers, If necessary, try another pair
of numbers and say, "Say eight two". Your child must
repeat just one series of two numbers for you to answer
"yes" to this question.
[Little Dec 16] YES
5. Show your child how to make a bridge with blocks,
boxes, or cans, like the example. does your child copy
you by making one like it?
[Little Dec 16] to check
6. When you say "Say five eight three", does your child
repeat just the three numbers in the correct order? Do
not repeat these numbers. If necessary, try another
series of numbers and say, "Say six nine two". Your
child must repeat just one series of three numbers for
you to answer "yes" to this question.
[Little Dec 16] YES
PERSONAL-SOCIAL
1. Does your child use a spoon to feed herself with
little spilling?
[Little Dec 16] SOMETIMES
2. Does your child push a little shopping cart,
stroller, or wagon, steering around objects and backing
out of corners if he cannot turn?
[Little Dec 16] to check
3. When she is looking in a mirror and you ask, "Who is
in the mirror?", does your child say either "Me" or her
own name?
[Little Dec 16] YES
4. Can your child put on a coat, jacket, or shirt by
himself?
[Little Dec 16] NO
5. Using these exact words, ask your child, "Are you a
girl or a boy?". Does your child answer correctly?
[Little Dec 16] NO
6. Does your child take turns by waiting while another
child or adult takes a turn?
[Little Dec 16] SOMETIMES
OVERALL
1. Do you think your child hears well?
[Little Dec 16] YES
2. Do you think your child talks like other children
her age? If no, explain.
[Little Dec 16] NO echolalia
3. Can you understand most of what your child says?
[Little Dec 16] YES
4. Do you think your child walks, runs, and climbs like
other children his age? If no, explain.
[Little Dec 16] NO
5. Does either parent have any family history of
childhood deafness or hearing impairment? If yes,
explain:
[Little Dec 16] to check
6. Has your child had any medical problems in the last
several months? If yes, explain:
[Little Dec 16] to check
7. Does anything about your child worry you? If yes,
explain:
[Little Dec 16] to check
36 Month ASQ Information Summary
Child's Name: Ken McQUAID
Date of Birth: Oct 16/96
Who is filling out the ASQ? N K Little Alcorn
Relationship to child: home visitor (PiP)
Mailing address:
City:
Telephone:
Assisting in ASQ completion:
Date: Dec 16/99
OVERALL
Please transfer the answers in the Overall section of
the questionnaire by circling "yes" or "no" and
reporting any parents' comments.
1. Hears well? YES
2. Talks like other children? NO
3. Understand child? YES
4. Walks, runs, and climbs like others? NO
5. Family history of hearing impairment? to check
6. Recent medical problems? to check
7. Other concerns? to check
SCORING THE QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Be sure each question has been answered. If a
question cannot be answered, refer to the ratio scoring
procedure in The ASQ User's Guide.
2. Score each item on the questionnaire by writing the
appropriate number on the line by each item answer. YES
= 10, SOMETIMES = 5, NOT YET = 0.
3. Add up the item scores for each area and record
these totals in the space provided for area totals.
4. Indicate the child's total score for each area by
filling in the appropriate circle on the chart below.
For example, if the total score for the Communication
area was 50, fill in the circle below 50 in the first
row.
(I had to make a few wording changes because this text
can not include the graph from the original document.
The values in parentheses are the thresholds for
acceptance - RTMQ).
Communication (40) 50 with echolalia
Gross motor (40) 25
Fine motor (30) 40
Problem solving (40) 30
personal-social (40) 20
Examine the blackened circles for each area in the chart
above.
5. If the child's total score falls at or above the
threshold the child appears to be doing well in this
area at this time.
6. If the child's total falls below the threshold, talk
with a professional. The child may need further
evaluation.
OPTIONAL: The specific answers to each item on the
questionnaire can be recorded below in the summary
chart. (not done)
--------------------------------------------------------
Brigance Pre-School Screen, Dec 20, 1999
(The following document was prepared by a professional
not associated with Children's Aid, who was retained by
Friends at Hand-in-Hand day care to deal with Ken's
rampage behavior. She found he was not eligible for
help, because his score on the test was above the
threshold of 60. The test without this note is filed in
court. - RTMQ)
THREE-YEAR-OLD-CHILD DATA SHEET for the
BRIGANCE (R) PRESCHOOL SCREEN FOR THREE- AND
FOUR-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN
A. CHILD DATA
Child's Name: Kenneth
Date of Screening: Dec 20, 99
School/Program: Hand in Hand
Birthdate: Oct 16, 96
Teacher: Karen
Age: 3 years 2 months 4 days
Assessor: Joyce Cook
B. SCREENING ASSESSMENTS C. SCORING
Page/No Skill
3 1A Personal Data Response: Orally gives:
1 first name 2 last name 3 age
0
3 2A Identifies Body Parts: Points to or touches:
1 ears 2 head 3 legs 4 arms 5 fingers
6 thumbs 7 toes 8 neck 9 stomach
1245678 7
4 3A Gross Motor Skills:
1 Stands on one foot one second
2 Walks tiptoe three steps
3 Walks forward heel-and-toe three steps
12 6
5 4 Identifies Objects: Points to picture of:
1 stove 2 coat 3 car
123 9
6 5A Repeats Sentences: Repeats sentences of:
1 three syllables
2 four syllables
3 five syllables
123 9
7 6A Visual Motor Skills: Copies:
1 circle
2 horizontal line
3 vertical line
23 6
8 7A Number Concepts: Demonstrated by giving:
1 one 2 one more 3 two
13 6
9 8A Builds Tower with Blocks:
Builds a tower with:
1 3 blocks 2 4 blocks 3 5 blocks
4 6 blocks 5 7 blocks
12345 10
10 9 Matches Colors: Matches:
1 red 2 blue 3 green
4 yellow 5 orange
12345 10
11 10A Picture Vocabulary: Names:
1 tree 2 bird 3 apple
4 pencil 5 sock
1234 8
12 11 Plural s and -ing: Adds
1 plural s 2 -ing to verbs
1 5
Total Score: 76/100
D. OBSERVATIONS
1. Handedness Left
2. Pencil Grasp: Loose
3. Speech: Understandable
4. Other:
He imitates a lot of speech when he doesn't
understand the question.
E. SUMMARY
(Complete only if child is screened with group)
F. RECOMMENDATIONS
To be referred to a behavioural therapist.
(c) 1985 Curriculum Associates Inc
--------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Court of Justice
at 10 Louisa Street, Orangeville Ontario L9W 3P9
Court File Number 180/99
Form 14A: Affidavit (General) dated December 21, 1999
Applicant
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin
50 Fourth Avenue, Unit 13
Orangeville, Ontario L9W 4P1 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1530
Fax: 519-941-1525
email: dcafs@hurontario.net
Wardlaw, Mullin, Carter, Thwaites and Ward
Attention: David Thwaites 235 Broadway
Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z5 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1760
Fax: 519-941-3688
eMail: dthwaites@wardlaw.on.ca
Respondents
Robert McQuaid
RR #5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2 Canada
Phone: 940-9847
Linda Prosh
RR #5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2 Canada
Phone: 940-9847
My name is Trish Cox
I live in Orangeville, Ontario
and I swear/affirm that the following is true:
I, Trish Cox, of the Town or Orangeville in the County
of Dufferin, make oath and say:
[Cox Dec 21]
1. I am a Child Protection and Family Services Worker
with The Children's Aid Society of the County of
Dufferin. I am also a Registered Nurse with the College
of Nurses of Ontario with a B.Sc.N. I have worked
extensively with children in clinical and community
settings and at one time coordinated and supervised the
School Health Support Services for the Dufferin and
Dufferin-Peel Boards of Education. I was involved daily
in the assessment of the physical, developmental,
emotional and social needs of children. I was required
to have a comprehensive knowledge of the role,
responsibilities and interventions of Occupational
Therapists, Physical Therapists, Speech Therapists,
Dieticians and Nurses as they worked with children in
home and school environments.
[Cox Dec 21]
2. On December 14th, 1999 I met with Mr McQuaid and Ms
Prosh. Ken's room was bright and cheerful. The bedding
was clean and fresh. The bed was age appropriate. Age
appropriate toys were in evidence in the room. The
closets contained season appropriate clothing. There
was no lock on his door. The other areas of the house
which I saw were stark and lacked warmth but were clean
and free of safety concerns.
[Cox Dec 21]
3. Mr McQuaid and Ms Prosh, during this visit described
concerns related to Ken: 1. head banging on their
bodies. Mrs Prosh showed me a 3 inch fading bruise on
her groin where Ken had hit her while she was lying in
bed. The parents report that Ken does the same on their
legs in sensitive areas and that this has been happening
as often as everyday or every other day and that this
has been occuring for some time. The parents stated
that he does not head bang on anything but themselves.
2. spitting at the parents which they report only
started in the past two weeks. The parents expressed
interest in the visit about how to deal with these
behaviours. The parents are presently using different
approaches. Mr McQuaid will deal with them with time
outs or telling him to stop. Ms Prosh stated that she
screamed the last time Ken banged his head on her groin.
She sometimes says "no". Advice was given and
acknowledged. During the meeting Ken was very busy. He
would pull and hang on the curtains, hit his parents and
myself, handle objects off limits to him. Mr McQuaid
firmly and gently held Ken once when Ken was involved
with the curtains. However, neither parent responded to
Ken hitting them. During the visit the parents asked
questions about toilet training. This was discussed
briefly.
[Cox Dec 21]
4. The parents reported in this visit that the
pre-school had asked Ken to be assessed by the Dufferin
Association for Community Living, Pre-School Resource
Programme as the pre-school felt that there were
developmental delays. Mr McQuaid and Ms Prosh reported
that the pre-school found Ken to be aggressive with
other children (hitting, spitting and throwing objects
at them). The parents were surprised that the
pre-school felt that there were developmental delays and
spent some time highlighting what Ken could do and
related this to their own milestones as children.
[Cox Dec 21]
5. During this visit I observed that Ken communication
was mainly in the form of echolalia, a compulsive
repetition of what is spoken by another person. His
speech was clear. He responded to simple one step
commands. However, during the end of the interview, as
consents were being obtained and the word "CAS" was
used, Ken would respond each time with the word "evil".
[Cox Dec 21]
6. On December 16th, 1999 I met with Lee Rivoire,
Teacher and Karen Bowers, Supervisor of Hand-in-Hand
Pre-School. They stated that Ken has been attending
each day since enrollment with the usual length of stay
of 8:30 am to 5:30 pm. The staff are concerned as Ken
speaks with echolalia, does not interact with the other
children, rarely participates in circle time. They
report that he does not know how to play with toys
except cause and effect toys. The staff have found over
the last two weeks that Ken has difficulty with
transitions (going to the washroom, cleaning up, going
to circle time) and will scream and tantrum when asked
to do these things. The staff state that the parents
have told them that they use plastic utensils with Ken
as he throws things and they are afraid of being stabbed
by him. Ken consistently throws objects at the
pre-school and the staff are worried about the safety of
the other children. Ken hits the children and spits on
them and the staff. The staff is concerned as Ken says
"bad boy" with his behaviours and the mother has told
the staff she calls him that. The staff report that Ken
does not have self-help skills ie. toilet trained, uses
a sippy cup. They have noticed that he bangs his head,
front and back, on the door, wall, chair and will say to
himself "not funny" and laugh, or "that's a bad habit".
The staff state that at nap time, Ken does not sleep and
will suck his thumb, hit his head with his fist and
laugh and rock. He has also gotten up and thrown toys
around at other children. The supervisor reports that
they had no indication from his parents of any problems
with Ken at registration and feel he needs 1:1
supervision. The staff state that Ken leaves his
parents easily and is happy to see both of them when
they return. Ms Rivoire reports one time that another
mother with blonde hair was leaving and Ken attempted to
go with her. The staff state that the parents are happy
to see Ken on pick up and are interested in how he is
doing. Mr McQuaid picks up Ken the majority of the
time. They report that Ken has a good appetite, is
appropriately dressed, clean and tidy. They also noted
that regarding his echolalia, with one exception Ken
demonstrated the ability to engage, ask a question and
indicate a process with communication. Ken was told
that "Tara will bring you that toy". When the girl
brought him the toy, Ken asked, "Are you Tara?". I
verily believe this to be true.
[Cox Dec 21]
7. On December 17th, 1999 I met with Nina Little,
Infant Development Worker with Dufferin Child and Family
Services. She noted that Mr McQuaid was more relaxed
with her but that both parents were mainly spectators
throughout the visit. She did observe that Mr McQuaid
engaged Ken a little with some turntaking. The father,
however, asked Ken for his Barney figure and when given
it, kept it even though Ken wanted it back. Later when
Ken was asked for another toy by his father, Ken would
not bring it over. During her assessment visit Ken was
playing in the curtains. Mr McQuaid dealt with this by
holding Ken on his lap while vigorously patting his
back, saying to Ms Little that they are now using zero
tolerance. The intervention did not calm Ken or reduce
his activity. Ms Little was informed by the parents
that Ken was spitting, throwing things at the pre-school
and the parents stated that Ken wouldn't be able to stay
if the behaviour continues. They reported that Ken had
been referred to the Dufferin Association for Community
Living by the pre-school staff. Ms Little also
suggested a referral to a Speech and Language Therapist
for the echolalia. Ms Little noted the following about
Ken: 1. Ken remembered activities that he was involved
in with her from three weeks ago and was capable of
representational play (ie. would feed a baby doll with
a bottle). He was also capable of focussing for a
significant period of time on a variety of play tasks.
2. when Ken looked into a mirror he would say Ken good
boy, or Ken evil and laugh. The parents laughed when he
said this. 3. when Ken was shown a crocodile whose
mouth opened, his father said to Ken: "look it eats
little boys; 4. Ken has limited ability to self care
ie. dress and feed himself. The parents state they
even load his fork with food and Ken will often eat with
his fingers; 5. the developmental assessment (Ages and
Stages) indicates that Ken has poor gross motor, problem
solving and personal and social skills. Ken's fine
motor skills were appropriate. Communication could not
be accurately assessed with this tool. Ms Little was
very concerned with the severity and number of concerns
that she observed and the contrast in ability. She
stated that Ken would benefit from and assessment by a
child psychiatrist.
[Cox Dec 21]
8. Information from Dr R Murphy, paediatrician and Wil
Weiner, therapist was not available at this time. Their
input is necessary to clarify and define aspects of the
above observations. Ken McQuaid can present, in
isolated and/or controlled circumstances to function
within acceptable developmental limits. For example,
form a question without prompting which initiates a
relationship and relates to his external environment.
He is also able to remember past processes and use
representational play. Ken, however, for the most part
is below in many of his developmental milestones and
demonstrates severe aggressive hehaviours. He also
demonstrates self-soothing and self-stiming behaviours.
As well, the parents inconsistencies in parenting and
unusual interactions with Ken is concerning to the
Society. A parenting capacity assessment is still seen
as necessary because of the latter and the fact that no
interventions were put in place prior to the involvement
of the Society.
[Cox Dec 21]
9. I make this statement with no improper intent.
/signed/ Trish Cox
Sworn/Affirmed before me at The Town or Orangeville in
Ontario on December 21, 1999
/signed/ GARY BRIAN PUTMAN, A Commissioner,
etc, Province of Ontario, for the Children's
Aid Society.
Expires September 20th, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------
Court File # 180/99
CONSENT ADJOURNMENT REQUEST
ONTARIO COURT (PROVINCIAL DIVISION - FAMILY)
10 Louisa St, Orangeville Ont, L9W 3P9
Applicant CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY
Counsel DAVID THWAITES
Respondents MCQUAID / PROSH
Counsel EVELYN HUBER
Parties Present: Applicant Counsel Respondent Counsel
Reason for adjournment
to allow for Developmental Assessment of Child
All parties consent to adjourn this matter from Dec
22/99 to January 19, 2000 at 10 AM in courtroom # ___
Status quo to continue
Applicant signature (blank)
Counsel's signature /signed/ David Thwaites
Respondent signature /signed/ Robert T McQuaid
Counsel's signature /signed/ Evelyn Huber
Dated at the Town of Orangeville this 22 day of
December, 1999
Consent Adjournment Requirements: If all parties agree
to an adjournment, this Consent Adjournment Request must
be properly completed and delivered to the court clerk.
The parties may be released once the clerk has approved
the adjournment date as available unless there still
remains a matter in dispute which needs to be addressed
by the judge. The onus is on the party requesting the
adjournment to contact all other parties not present and
inform them of the next court appearance date and time.
--------------------------------------------------------
IN THE MATTER OF KENNETH DARRYL McQUAID
born OCTOBER 16, 1996
CONSENT
THE PARTIES HERETO CONSENT TO AN ORDER
on the following terms and conditions:
1. that the child Kenneth Darryl McQuaid, born October
16, 1996 shall be found in need of protection.
2. that the child, Kenneth Darryl McQuaid shall be in
the care and custody of ROBERT McQUAID and LINDA
PROSH subject to the supervision of the CHILDREN'S
AID SOCIETY OF THE COUNTY OF DUFFERIN for a period
of 6 months on the following terms and conditions:
(a) LINDA PROSH and ROBERT McQUAID shall continue
to attend and follow the recommendations of Dr
Ron Murphy and such other persons as directed
or referred by Dr Ron Murphy
(b) LINDA PROSH and ROBERT McQUAID shall continue
to cooperate and follow the recommendations of
the Infant-Parent Program, the Family Therapist
(WILL WEINER), Dufferin Association Community
Living and Family services worker.
(c) LINDA PROSH and ROBERT McQUAID shall sign
Consents to Release Information as necessary to
facilitate the terms of supervision
(d) LINDA PROSH and ROBERT McQUAID agree to "drop
by" visits by representatives of the Children's
Aid Society
(e) LINDA PROSH and ROBERT McQUAID shall
participate and have a child psychiatrist
conduct and assessment of the family to obtain
the assessment and recommendations for
parenting of Kenneth. The parents shall
cooperate and follow through with the
recommendations.
Dated this 19th day of January 2000
at the Town of Orangeville.
/signed/ Linda Prosh
/signed/ Robert McQuaid
/signed/ Trish Cox CAS for Dufferin
--------------------------------------------------------
The Banner Extra
Vol 3 No 95 Tuesday January 25, 2000
(advertisement)
DUFFERIN
Child and Family Services
(Incorporated as The Children's Aid Society of the
County of Dufferin)
Dufferin Child and Family Services is a not-for-profit
social service agency which strives to advocate for and
provide co-ordinated quality services for children,
families and individuals in Dufferin County. Our
primary service focus is on children most in need of
counselling, support and protection from abuse and
neglect, while supporting families in their central role
of caring for and nurturing children.
WE NEED FOSTER PARENTS IN
DUFFERIN COUNTY!
Dufferin Child and Family Services regular foster care
program is currently seeking 4 homes for school age
children and adolescents and 2 homes for infant and
pre-school children.
If you are interested in learning more about being a
foster parent for children of your community, plan on
attending an
INFORMATION SESSION
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2000 7:00-9:00 PM
Dufferin Child and Family Services
50 Fourth Avenue, Unit 13 (Zehrs Plaza)
Orangeville Ontario
(519)941-1530
(Call Diane Maloney ext 237 if you plan on attending)
There will be a presentation that will help to answer
any questions you may have regarding fostering, and to
explain the approval process for foster homes in
Dufferin County.
--------------------------------------------------------
The Orangeville Citizen
February 2, 2000
Concerns with CAS
For the last few weeks there has been an advertisement
in the classified section asking if anyone has had
problems with the Dufferin County CAS (Children's Aid
Society). A number of responses have been received,
even though most people are reluctant to step forward.
Those who have stepped forward have some valid concerns
and problems with this agency. Over the weekend a
number of those people gathered for a meeting near the
Orangeville area to voice their concerns.
In most cases the major complaint is the
heavy-handedness of this agency and the way it operates
by being confrontational in its approach, by not
informing parents of their rights in these matters and
an abuse of power by removing children from their homes
without warrants on the basis of flimsy evidence.
Also of concern are direct lies told the parents by some
workers eventually leading the the destruction of the
family unit.
According to spokesperson Catharine Cote of the Voices
for Children Alliance (VOCA), a group set up to combat
this abuse of power, "these types of problems should be
sounding alarm bells off as they are not only happening
in Dufferin County, but seem to be systemic throughout
the province.
"There is nothing new about these cases. These
practices have been going on for some time now. My
experience with the CAS has been that fly swatters are
used where an elephant gun is needed and an elephant gun
used where a fly swatter is needed".
In one case discussed over the weekend, the children
were removed from school without the parents being
notified. The parents found out only when the children
did not return home after school and the police were
notified of their absence. Then they were told that the
children had in fact been removed by the CAS. The major
reason for there removal was simply "poor housekeeping
practices".
Among the prime targets for the CAS are single parents
with children under the age of six.
In targeting single, economically deprived parents,
these agencies know that their resources for legal
representation are limited and these cases are easily
won as there parents soon run out of money.
As a result of parents being encouraged to stay at home
and raise their children there is now a shortage of
children available for adoption while the numbers of
people wanting to adopt have risen.
In effect this gives the government a potential reign of
terror over these families.
In one of the cases discussed the children were
apprehended and placed for adoption before the parent
was even brought to trial and in this case the reason
for apprehension was financial deprivation.
What's ironic in this case is the fact that the parent
had called the CAS asking for help.
Let's take a look at who benefits from this industry,
and it is certainly not the families involved.
- A Concerned Parent
--------------------------------------------------------
I placed an ad in the Orangeville Banner asking for CAS
experiences, and I have spoken to the Concerned Parent
author and most of the CAS victims alluded to in the
article. Every person responding to my ad was reluctant
to leave his name. In most cases the bullying they
described by CAS was worse than stated in the article.
All of the children who were targets of crown wardship
applications were free of physical defects. In two
cases from anonymous callers, crown wardship
applications were withdrawn when hidden physical defects
were found. - RTMQ.
--------------------------------------------------------
This cover letter came in response to a phone inquiry
from me to Irene Beazley for a copy of the bylaws.
-RTMQ
CAS letterhead (see glossary)
February 9, 2000
Robert T McQuaid
RR #5 Orangeville ON L9W 2Z2
Dear Mr McQuaid,
I am forwarding a copy of our by-laws as promised.
I recently spoke with you when you paid the $3.00 CAS
membership fee. We are presently in the process of
renewing memberships and I will be contacting the
Secretary-Treasurer of our Board of Directors to sign
membership cards for the 200-01 year. Once this has
been done a membership card will be sent to you.
Thank you for your interest in our agency.
Yours sincerely,
/signed/ Irene Beazley, Senior Administrative Assistant
/ib
Encl
--------------------------------------------------------
John Baird letterhead (see Glossary)
February 9, 2000
Mr Robert T McQuaid
RR 5 Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z2
Dear Mr McQuaid:
David Tilson, the Member of Provincial Parliament for
Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, has forwarded me a copy
of your letter concerning the Children's Aid Society. I
apologize for the unacceptable delay in my response.
I appreciate the time you have taken to write about this
matter and your comments have been noted. Please
understand that as the issue you raise is currently
before the courts, it would be inappropriate for me to
comment on this matter.
Thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
/signed/
John Baird, MPP
Minister
cc: Vince Tedesco, Director, Central West Region
David Tilson, MPP Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey
--------------------------------------------------------
( This letter bears the stamp:
RECEIVED
FEB 18 2000
DUFFERIN CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
Children's Aid kept it a secret until May 31, 2000
when Trish Cox handed a copy to Linda Prosh as a fait
accompli. It is the centerpiece of the next steps in
litigation.)
Children's Hospital
PO Box 2000 Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5
(905) 521-2100
FAX: (905) 522-7982
DEPARTMENT OF PEDIATRICS
HSC-3G39, 521-2100, EXT 73268/73687
CHILD ADVOCACY & ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
@ HAMILTON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE (MCMASTER SITE)
February 10, 2000
Ms Trish Cox
Dufferin Child & Family Services
13-50 Forest Avenue
Orangeville ON L9W 4P1
Dear Ms Cox:
RE: McQuaid-Prosh Family CAAP Assessment
Thank you for your referral of the above-named family to
the Child Advocacy & Assessment Program. The referral
has been accepted and the following appointments have
been scheduled. Please advise the family of the
following appointments:
Robert McQuaid, Linda Prosh and Kenneth McQuaid
Wednesday, June 28 @ 11:00 am
Friday, July 7 @ 10:45 am
Friday July 14 @ 9:30 am
Friday, July 21 @ 10:45 am (Observation Session with
Kenneth)
Friday, August 11 @ 10:45 am (Feedback Session for
Robert & Linda)
Trish Cox and Nina Little
Wednesday, July 12 @ 10:00 am
All appointments are in the 3F clinic (third floor,
colour red) at Chedoke-McMaster Hospitals, 1200 Main
Street West, Hamilton. Upon your arrival, the
receptionist should be advised that you have an
appointment with CAAP.
Sincerely,
Linda Harris
Program Assistant
Child Advocacy & Assessment Program
/ljh
HAMILTON HEALTH SCIENCES Corporation
Children's Hospital at Hamilton Health Sciences
Corporation is affiliated with the Faculty of Health
Sciences, McMaster University
--------------------------------------------------------
The Orangeville Citizen
February 16, 2000
Children's Aid responds to Feb 2 letter
[Putman Feb 16]
We are responding to the letter published in your
February 2nd edition by "A Concerned Parent". Child
protection is a difficult undertaking, filled with much
emotion by all parties involved. As child protection
workers we represent children who are most often left
without a voice to express their experiences and who are
unable to take actions to protect themselves from
neglect and abuse.
[Putman Feb 16]
Our staff work with a large number of families every
year. The majority of our work does not involved
bringing children into our care. In fact, there are
many families who work with the Society on a voluntary
basis. The nature of our work, however, can result in
our involvement with parents in an involuntary and
intrusive manner.
[Putman Feb 16]
As a result, we are not surprised, and in fact might
expect, that some parents would be less than pleased
with our interventions on behalf of their children. The
article published in the February edition tries to set
out some concerns about our agency which are not
unfamiliar to us, as most have already been heard and
attempts at resolution have been made.
[Putman Feb 16]
However, since the complaints have now been raised in a
public forum, we feel an obligation to respond in order
to accurately inform our community.
[Putman Feb 16]
Children's Aid Societies are subject to many checks and
balances on our legislated powers to intervene into
peoples lives. Children's Aid Societies are able to
investigate allegations and even to remove children from
their parents, with or without a warrant, when there are
reasonable grounds to believe they are at risk of
neglect or abuse or immediate harm.
[Putman Feb 16]
Where children are involuntarily removed or
"apprehended", Societies must seek a court order within
five days to maintain those children in its care and as
such are subject to judicial review of all their
actions.
[Putman Feb 16]
One example given in the recent article stated that
children had been apprehended because of "poor
housekeeping practices". Children are not apprehended
because of a lower than average standard of
housekeeping, which the author of the article would lead
readers to believe. Children are apprehended because of
feces on the floor, spoiled food on the counters,
mattresses with urine that children are made to sleep in
over and over.
[Putman Feb 16]
Essentially, the standard of living needs to be such
that a child's medical health is at risk before they
would be apprehended. In fact, in one very long term
situation of this nature, the Society spent thousands of
dollars to provide housekeeping and support services to
try and maintain a group of siblings with their parents
rather than remove them.
[Putman Feb 16]
Another case cited in the article states that children
were put up for adoption before a trial occurred.
Children cannot be adopted before they have been made a
crown ward by the courts or with the parents written
consents. To suggest that child protection workers
target certain sectors of our community or remove
children solely to place them for adoption is grossly
inaccurate and certainly could not be supported by the
records of the family court in this jurisdiction.
[Putman Feb 16]
The Society works with a wide variety of people. These
are single parent families and there are two parent
families, there are low income and very high income
families. The Society does not choose who it will
become involved with. Neighbours, professionals,
children and spouses make reports to us and the Society
is responsible to act upon those reports.
[Putman Feb 16]
We do that with highly educated social work staff
supported by senior supervisory staff with many years
experience. When the Society initiates court action,
Ontario Legal Aid guarantees representation for low
income parents in child welfare hearings. it is always
our goal in court actions to minimize court time and
cost by trying to reach agreement between all parties
while not jeopardizing the safety of the children
involved. The legitimate access by parents to proper
legal representation in child welfare hearings is
closely guarded by the family courts and supported by
our staff.
[Putman Feb 16]
In addition to judicial reviews, Children's Aid
Societies are legally subject to the supervision of the
Ministry of Community and Social Services through three
annual case audits, annual foster care licensing reviews
and supervision by Ministry staff.
[Putman Feb 16]
Societies are also required by law to have local
mechanisms to allow parents or children to voice their
concerns and to reach a resolution of the concerns
through a progressive process involving agency staff,
the voluntary community Board and finally the Ministry
of Community and Social Services.
[Putman Feb 16]
Any client of Dufferin Child and Family Services is made
aware of this during service or upon request either
verbally or through a pamphlet which clearly outlines
the process. Naturally, as a public agency it is not
uncommon for us to also be publically accountable to our
community through media reports such as this. Despite
these many avenues of accountability, some individuals
will always be unsatisfied.
[Putman Feb 16]
There are many families involved with the Society who
are simply going through some challenges in their lives
and require some assistance. There are also families
who are harmful to their children, and whose children
require protection.
[Putman Feb 16]
We fundamentally believe that children should be raised
by their own families. However, if a child is being
harmed physically, sexually, emotionally or otherwise
neglected their needs and rights will be paramount in
our actions.
[Putman Feb 16]
We recognize that some individuals will always be
critical. Despite that, we believe they have a right to
express legitimate concerns and complaints and we will
continue to go the extra mile to attempt a resolution.
[Putman Feb 16]
Those individuals who recently met to share their
concerns about our agency are most welcome to again
address them directly to me, jointly with the President
of our Board of Directors. You may call me at 941-1530
Ext 224, to arrange a convenient meeting time and/or you
may wish to provide your views in writing for our
review.
Gary Putman
Executive Director
--------------------------------------------------------
Since Linda would consent only to internet publicity,
not print journalism, I was unable to send the following
response, even after a day of discussion. - RTMQ
On February 2, 2000 you published a letter relating to
Children's Aid signed by "A Concerned Parent", followed
on February 16 by a rebuttal from Gary Putman, Executive
Director of Dufferin Children's Aid.
I am one of the people attacked by Mr Putman's
organization. On November 16, 1999 an action was
initiated against us by taking our child with the aid of
a warrant and two OPP officers. We then had to plead
for conditions to have our child returned, events
meeting the dictionary definition of kidnapping. I was
astonished to find that such a legal procedure existed.
In the intervening three months I have undertaken a
crash education in this area. The law is titled "The
Child and Family Services Act" (1984), enacted at a time
of hysteria about child-molesters. In thousands of
words, there are no provisions protective of parents.
The law allows Children's Aid Societies to take children
from their parents and place them in foster homes under
the doctrine of "the best interests of the child". With
this doctrine, some Canadian Indian bands suffered half
of their children adopted out to white families. Indian
objections to slow genocide led to protections from the
law, but only for Indians. In 1999 amendments, every
revision makes it easier for Children's Aid to remove
children from their natural parents.
There is a pervasive fear among all persons having
contact with Children's Aid, extending even to those not
yet involved but subject to denunciation. I have
personally spoken to most of the people mentioned by A
Concerned Parent. It was difficult to get any of them
to give a name or phone number, out of fear of
retaliation by Children's Aid.
As Mr Putman states, some clients come to Children's Aid
voluntarily, but all I have spoken to regret their
decision to do so.
As for "poor housekeeping practices", Mr Putman says
removal only occurs for such abuses as feces on the
floor (did you ever drop something during a diaper
change?), spoiled food on the counters (ever have
spoilage in your kitchen?) or mattresses with urine. He
neglects to mention that Children's Aid routinely makes
these allegations regardless of the facts.
I have the names of a mother and the adoptive family
that took her children before her trial. Only paper
formalities remained for the aftermath. The law grants
Children's Aid a club called crown wardship, ending
parental rights so they can never see their own children
again. By law, the same agency that takes children from
their natural parents supplies them to adoptive parents.
The law provides for crown wardship when "there is a
substantial risk that the child will suffer physical
harm, inflicted by the person having charge of the child
or caused by that person's failure to care and provide
for or to supervise and protect the child adequately".
This provision could strip children from Mother Teresa.
The legal aid touted by Mr Putman is no doubt available,
but is useless in the face of laws that give all power
to Children's Aid. Children's Aid workers have immunity
from all legal actions. As for appeal through the
agency itself or the ministry, the minister will ignore
any case before the courts.
Mr Putman continues " ... could not be supported by the
records of the family court in this jurisdiction". This
is true because the court records are secret. I was
turned down in a request to see the files, and I could
not even count Children's Aid cases. I challenge Mr
Putman to open his records to research so a scientist
can count children protected from abuse as well as false
allegations of abuse.
--------------------------------------------------------
Ministry of Community and Social Services
Ontario
Child Abuse Register
2 Bloor St W 24th Fl Toronto Ont M7A 1E9
(416)327-4660
March 28, 2000 (postmarked April 11, 2000)
Robert McQuaid
Linda Prosh (one copy mailed to each)
RR 5
Orangeville ON L9W 2Z2
Dear Mr McQuaid:
This letter is to inform you that you were reported to
the Family and Children's Services County of Dufferin as
allegedly having abused Kenneth McQuaid. Following
their investigation, the Society is now satisfied that
the information is verified and reportable abuse
occurred. The Society is required by law, Child and
Family Services Act (CFSA) Section 75(3), to send a
report on this matter to the Child Abuse Register, held
in Toronto by the Ministry of Community and Social
Services.
The Child Abuse Register is maintained by the Ministry
of Community and Social Services pursuant to Section
75(5) of the CFSA. The Register is used as a tool in
the overall effort to protect children and in the
prevention of child abuse. More specifically,
information maintained on it provides a general register
check for child abuse investigations conducted by
Children's Aid Societies. Statistical data is also
drawn from information on the Register.
If any further report of abuse by you is received by and
Children's Aid Society, the fact that you are on the
Register may be made known to that Society.
The law states that you or your representative may
examine the Register. You may request that your name be
removed or that the Register be otherwise amended.
As a result of this request, the Director may at that
stage decide to remove your name from the Register.
Before he can refuse your request, you are entitled to a
hearing by the Director or his designate.
For further details, see the attached excerpt from the
CFSA, 1984.
If you have any questions about the collection of this
information or if you wish to examine your information
or seek an expunction, call or write to Sandra MacAulay
at the above phone number or address.
Yours truly,
/signed/
MR Seymour
Director
Encl. (CFSA sections 75-76 were enclosed)
cc: Children's Aid Society
Orangeville Ontario
File No: 2000-00154
THE CHILD ABUSE REGISTER
The Child and Family Services Act requires that the
local Children's Aid Society (CAS) investigate all
reports of suspected child abuse. After its
investigation, the staff of the CAS then decide whether
the information verifies that there was an incident of
abuse. The CAS also decides what action to take to
protect the abused child. If the CAS decides, on the
basis of their review, that abuse has occurred, a report
must then be sent to the Child Abuse Register at the
head office of the Ministry of Community and Social
Services.
The purpose of the Register is to enable Children's Aid
Societies to find out quickly whether a child or an
alleged abuser has been involved in any previous case.
This information will help them in deciding what the
proper protection for the child should be. The Register
serves to record the name of the abused child, the name
of the alleged abuser and a few details such as the date
of the incident, the child's age and the name of the CAS
that made the report. All the information in the
Register is carefully protected under the law and
remains highly confidential.
If however, a child is repeatedly abused, or an adult
continues to abuse children, the Children's Aid Society
has access to this information which may help them
arrive at better decisions for helping the abuser and
protecting the child.
Director for the Child Abuse Register
--------------------------------------------------------
[Before our organizing, Children's Aid had 32 members.
I sent each of them this letter, getting two proxies in
return. The letter may have come to the judge's
attention indirectly. -RTMQ]
Help Fix Children's Aid!
The Dufferin Children's Aid Society has switched from
protecting children to attacking families. Specific
policies are permanent removal of children from intact
families, long-term removal of children for trifling
abuses, failure to provide in-family assistance for
families with serious problems, undermining parental
authority in families with teen-aged children, and
avoidance of serious child-abuse cases by turning
against the accusers.
The best interest of the child is in keeping his
parents. Children's Aid should apply its resources to
protect children by assisting and preserving families,
not attacking them.
Specific policies we advocate are:
- Children should not be removed from homes until the
parents have had an opportunity to respond to the
complaints against them.
- Since the most abusive homes are broken homes, foster
homes and group homes, children should be removed from
families only when the families provide a level of
care worse than foster homes.
- Children's Aid workers should stop omitting facts
favorable to families in court filings.
- Children's Aid should abide by its agreements with
parents.
We are asking for your proxy to cast your vote at the
annual general meeting of Children's Aid. These proxies
will be used to vote for two directors
- Lillian Brewer. Lillian has two children and two
grandchildren. She is employed as a factory worker.
- Robert T McQuaid. Robert has one child. He has been
the president of Quaid Software Limited since 1983.
The terms of the directors end in June of 2003. Neither
of these candidates has previously served as an officer
or director of Children's Aid, and neither has any
financial obligation to Childrens's Aid, nor anticipates
any financial loss or gain as a result of this election.
Directors serve without compensation. You are free to
revoke this proxy later by signing another one, or by
attending the meeting in person.
If you want to help fix Children's Aid, please date and
sign the enclosed proxy form, and return it in the
envelope provided. Feel free to call with any
questions.
June 5, 2000
/signed/
Robert T McQuaid RR 5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2
phone: 519-942-0565
--------------------------------------------------------
THE BANNER, Orangeville, FRIDAY, June 23, 2000
Disgruntled residents unsuccessful in bid to join DCFS
board
Robert McQuaid and Lillian Brewer want to see some
changes at local agency
by ELIZABETH JACKMAN
For the Banner
A bit of controversy surrounded this year's annual
general meeting of Dufferin Child and Family Services
held Tuesday evening at the Monora Park Pavilion.
Two local people decided to run against the four
incumbents on the 12-member board of directors.
According to Gary Putman, Executive Director, every year
four vacancies come up on the board.
Candidates are usually chosen by a nominating committee
however, the bylaw does allow for any two members of the
society to nominate two people.
This year, the new members, Robert McQuaid and Lillian
Brewer, who have become disgruntled with the Child and
Family Services, decided to take advantage of the bylaw
and run.
"In my 22 years experience, it has always been the
nominating committee choosing four candidates. This
year there were six individuals running for four spots",
said Putman.
Although McQuaid and Brewer were unsuccessful in their
bid to gain a seat on the board, McQuaid says he is not
going to give up his attempts to try to bring about
reforms to the service.
"Children's Aid has become a group that is distinctly
anti-family. Quite a few families have been
relentlessly attacked by Children's Aid, and even when
they find out no child abuse has occurred, (they)
continue the attack", said McQuaid.
McQuaid is a Mono resident who has had personal dealings
with the DCFS.
The other candidate, Lillian Brewer, says she ran for
the position because she wanted to see if she could help
families stay together, which doesn't seem to be what is
happening now.
"They are pulling children out of the home instead of
finding ways to keep them there", said Brewer. "No one
I have talked to that have had anything to do with Child
and Family Services hasn't had a problem, but they won't
speak up because they are afraid of them. You are just
one phone call away from losing your children because
you are automatically guilty until proven innocent".
"I would like to see them focus more on the family
unit", said Brewer. "People have asked for help and
then they turned it against them and took their young
kids. It should be a place for children to be safe and
taken care of".
Brewer, who like McQuaid has had personal dealings with
the agency, said she ran to make a point, that she
doesn't believe in what they are doing.
Putman would not comment on either case, other than to
say, "the issues raised by the two candidates were
individual issues to their particular situation and they
do not reflect the philosophy of this organization or
the Child and Family Services Act. We do have clients
on our board, our membership simply chose not to elect
these two individuals".
Both McQuaid and Brewer said that when Child and Family
Services realized what was going on they signed on about
40 new members, including many policemen to prevent them
from being elected.
McQuaid says he feels something has to be done, or the
problems will continue on a larger scale. "They have to
realize, that breaking up a family is not going to
accomplish anything", said McQuaid.
--------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Court of Justice
at 10 Louisa Street, Orangeville ON L9W 3P9
180/99
Cumulative Table of Contents
(continuing record)
Volume 2
Applicant
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin
50 Fourth Avenue, Unit 13 Orangeville ON L9W 4P1
Tel: 519-941-1530 Fax: 519-941-1525
Email: dcafs@hurontario.net
David Thwaites, Solicitor
Wardlaw, Mullin, Carter and Thwaites
235 Broadway Orangeville ON L9W 2Z5
Email: dthwaites@wardlaw.on.ca
Respondents
ROBERT T MCQUAID
RR 5, ORANGEVILLE ON L9W 2Z2
LINDA PROSH
RR 5, ORANGEVILLE ON L9W 2Z2
EVELYN HUBER
267 BROADWAY
ORANGEVILLE, ON L9W 2Z2
Document date tab/page
STATUS REVIEW APPLICATION A JUNE 21/00 110-114
GENERAL AFFIDAVIT OF
PATRICIA L COX A JUNE 21/00 115-127
NOTICE OF MOTION A JUNE 21/00 128-143
SUMMARY OF COURT CASES A JUNE 21/00 144-145
For the second column the alternatives are:
A = Filed by applicant
R = Filed by respondent
--------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Court of Justice
at 10 LOUISA ST ORANGEVILLE
Court File Number 180/99
Cumulative Table of Contents
(continuing record)
Applicant
THE CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF COUNTY OF DUFFERIN
50 FOURTH AVE #13 ORANGEVILLE ONT L9W 4P1
WARDLAW MULLIN CARTER THWAITES
235 BROADWAY
ORANGEVILLE L9W 2Z5
PH 519-941-1760 FAX 940-3688
ATTN: DAVID THWAITES
ROBERT McQUAID AND LINDA PROSH
RR # 5 ORANGEVILLE
ONTARIO L9W 2Z2
519-940-9847
Document date filed Tab/Page
FORM 80 - APPLICATION A 19/11/99 19/11/99 1-5
FORM 14 NOTICE OF MOTION A 19/11/99 19/11/99 6-7
FORM 14A AFFIDAVIT
(GENERAL) A 19/11/99 19/11/99 8-46
EXHIBIT 'E' TO AFFIDAVIT A 19/11/99 25/11/99 47-48
(illegible) OF SERVICE A 19/11/99 25/11/99 49-52
CONSENT A 22/11/99 22/11/99 53
AFFIDAVIT GENERAL A 29/11/99 30/11/99 54-84
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE A 30/11/99 30/11/99 85-86
Affidavit of Service R 30/11/99 30/11/99 87-99
ANSWER R 30/11/90 30/11/99 91-94
Affidavit General R 30/11/99 30/11/99 95-99
AFFIDAVIT A 02/12/99 02/12/99 100-104
AFFIDAVIT A 21/11/99 23/12/99 105-109
For the second column the alternatives are:
A = Filed by applicant
R = Filed by respondent
--------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Court of Justice
10 Louisa Street, Orangeville, Ontario, L9W 3P9
Court File Number 180/99
Form 8B: Application status review
Applicant
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin
50 Fourth Avenue, Unit 13
Orangeville, Ontario L9W 4P1 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1530
Fax: 519-941-1525
email: dcafs@hurontario.net
Wardlaw, Mullin Carter, Thwaites and Ward
Attention: David Thwaites
235 Broadway
Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z5 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1760
Fax: 519-941-3688
eMail: dthwaites@wardlaw.on.ca
Respondents
Robert McQuaid
RR #5 Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z2, Canada
Phone: 940-9847
Linda Prosh
RR #5 Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z2, Canada
Phone: 940-9847
TO THE RESPONDENTS:
A COURT CASE HAS BEEN STARTED AGAINST YOU IN THIS COURT.
THE DETAILS ARE SET OUT ON THE ATTACHED PAGES. THE
FIRST COURT DATE IS July 5, 2000 AT 11:00 am or as soon
as possible after that time, at: 10 Louisa Street,
Orangeville, Ontario, L9W 3P9
If you have also been served with a notice of motion,
there may be an earlier court date and you or your
lawyer should come to court for the motion.
IF YOU WANT TO OPPOSE ANY CLAIM IN THIS CASE, you or
your lawyer must prepare an answer (Form 10 - a blank
copy should be attached), serve a copy on the applicant
children's aid society and all other parties and file a
copy in the court office with an affidavit of service
(Form 6B). YOU HAVE ONLY 30 DAYS AFTER THIS APPLICATION
IS SERVED ON YOU (60 DAYS IF THIS APPLICATION IS SERVED
ON YOU OUTSIDE CANADA OR THE UNITED STATES) TO SERVE AND
FILE AN ANSWER. IF YOU DO NOT, THE CASE WILL GO AHEAD
WITHOUT YOU AND THE COURT MAY MAKE AN ORDER AND ENFORCE
IT AGAINST YOU.
WARNING: This case is subject to case management, which
means that the case runs on a timetable. That timetable
says that the following steps have to be finished by the
following number of days from the start of this case:
Temporary care & custody hearing 25 days
Plan of care to be served & filed 33 days
Case conference 40 days
Settlement conference 80 days
Protection hearing or status review 120 days
You should consider getting legal advice about this case
right away. If you cannot afford a lawyer, you may be
able to get help from your local Legal Aid office. (See
your telephone directory under LEGAL AID).
June 21, 2000
/signed/ C Wale Clerk of the court
THE CHILD
Kenneth Darryl McQuaid
Date of Birth: 10/16/96
Age: 3
Gender: Male
Mother's Name: Linda Prosh
Father's Name: Robert McQuaid
Religion: Unknown
Native Status: Unknown
CLAIM BY APPLICANT SOCIETY
[Taylor Jun 21]
1. The applicant children's aid society asks the court
to make a finding under Part III of the Child and Family
Services Act that the child named in this application
continues to be in need of protection because:
the child Ken McQuaid has suffered emotional harm that
is demonstrated by severe anxiety, depression,
withdrawal or self-destructive or aggressive behaviour,
and the child's parent or the person having charge of
the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable
or unable to consent to, services or treatment to remedy
or alleviate the harm [clause 37(2)(f)].
there is a substantial risk that the child Ken McQuaid
will suffer emotional harm that is demonstrated by
severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal or
self-destructive or aggressive behaviour, and the
child's parent or the person having charge of the child
does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable
to consent to, services or treatment to prevent the harm
[clause 37(2)(g)].
the child suffers from a mental, emotional or
developmental condition that, if not remedied, could
seriously impair the child's development and the child's
parent or the parent having charge of the child does not
provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to
consent to, treatment to remedy or alleviate the
condition [clause 37(2)(h)].
[Taylor Jun 21]
2. The applicant society therefore asks for an order,
that the child Ken McQuaid be placed with Robert McQuaid
and Linda Prosh, parents subject to the supervision of
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin for
a period of 6 months, on the terms and conditions set
out in the Appendix at the end of this Application form.
[Taylor Jun 21]
3. To the best knowledge of the applicant society, the
parties or the child have been in a court case before
relating to the supervision, wardship (guardianship) or
custody of or access to the child. (attach a summary of
court cases - Form 8E)
[Taylor Jun 21]
4. The parties have not made a written agreement
dealing with any matter involved in this case.
[Taylor Jun 21]
5. The following is a brief statement of the facts upon
which the applicant society is relying in the
application.
1. Although Ken McQuaid has made improvements in
language and social development, there are still
significant areas of concern.
2. Dr Bakht, child and adolescent psychiatrist, has
provided a diagnosis of parental neglect with social
and language developmental delay secondary to parental
neglect.
3. Ms Prosh and Mr McQuaid, though compliant with
recommendations, have demonstrated behaviours which
indicate difficulties in emotionally extending
themselves to their son.
/signed/ Debbie Taylor June 21/2000
Sr Program manager Child Protection Services
APPENDIX
The terms and conditions that the applicant society
purposes for the child's supervision are as follows:
(this page is left blank)
--------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Court of Justice
at 10 Louisa Street, Orangeville, Ontario L9W 3P9
Court File Number 180/99
Form 14A: Affidavit (General) dated June 19, 2000
Applicant
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin
50 Fourth Avenue, Unit 13
Orangeville, Ontario L9W 4P1 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1530
Fax: 519-941-1525
email: dcafs@hurontario.net
Wardlaw, Mullin Carter, Thwaites and Ward
Attention: David Thwaites
235 Broadway
Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z5 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1760
Fax: 519-941-3688
eMail: dthwaites@wardlaw.on.ca
Respondents
Robert McQuaid
RR #5 Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z2, Canada
Phone: 940-9847
Linda Prosh
RR #5 Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z2, Canada
Phone: 940-9847
Evelyn Huber
267 Broadway Orangeville, Ontario L9W 1K8, Canada
Phone: 940-4500
My name is Patricia Louise Cox
I work in Orangeville, Ontario
and I swear/affirm that the following is true:
[Cox Jun 21]
1. I have now been involved with this family for a
period of 7 months. During this time, I have obtained
the following information about Mr McQuaid, Ms Prosh and
their son, Ken McQuaid:
[Cox Jun 21]
i) On January 6, 2000 I spoke to Wil Weiner, behaviour
therapist, who reported that the parents were very
interested in being parents and were slowly learning
what it takes to be a parent. He stated they did not
have a lot of support around how to deal with parenting
concerns. Mr Weiner stated that the mother had more
difficulty with younger children and believed that both
parents would do better when Ken is older. He described
Ken as an internal child and that this was the result of
not a lot of parent/child interaction. Mr Weiner stated
that the parents needed a lot of teaching and support
related to parenting advice around emotional, social and
play development. On January 14, 2000, at a case
conference regarding Ken, Mr Weiner stated that Ken had
difficulty with emotional regulation. Mr Weiner
described Ken as able to engage in play and wanting to
involve his parents. He stated that Ken was a strong
child and could do significant damage and be difficult
to control. On April 27, 2000 Mr Weiner reported that
the parents were progressing; more attentive and
involved and more aware of Ken's needs. Mr Weiner
stated that the mother's attentiveness was a working
issue and that the parents needed to be "pushed to do
rather than talk". He stated that Ken's play was more
abstract, speech clearer and talking more. Mr Weiner's
goals were to focus on parenting and behaviour concerns,
toilet training and how to handle disagreements. On May
5, 2000, Mr Weiner provided a verbal report for a case
conference. He stated that he sees the parents and Ken
every two weeks and had seen a positive change with
Ken's language ie chatty, singing, saying yes now,
acknowledging himself and another. Mr Weiner states he
had been encouraging pretend play by the parents with
Ken and now there was elaborate and interactional
pretend play. He noticed that the parents are enjoying
being parents. They are taking Ken to the park,
playland at MacDonald's, reading. Mr Weiner planned to
stay involved for the next 6 months until the parents
and Ken accomplished toiletting and later, the
transition from day care to school. Mr Weiner's
intervention has varied from weekly to biweekly
involvement with the family. I verily believe this to
be true.
[Cox Jun 21]
ii) On January 7, 2000 I spoke with Karen Bowers,
Supervisor of Hand-in-Hand Day Care who stated that Ken
had been removed by them from the day care until further
notice as a result of his severe behavioural problems
and the effect on the other children and staff. Ms
Bowers expressed concern about remarks and comments by
Ken's mother about Ken. Ms Bowers reported that the
mother had said to Ken "you pest", "bad boy", and "look
at you Ken, Why can't you be like the other children.
You were such a nice baby - What happened to you?". Ms
Bowers stated that she has only seen this kind of
behaviour in children who have suffered mental abuse. I
verily believe this to be true.
[Cox Jun 21]
iii) Ken presently attends the Women's Resource Centre
three times a week and has been since February 1, 2000.
Jill Cutter, a worker at the centre, states that when he
first appeared there were difficult days. However, his
behaviour and speech have improved as he interacts more
with other children. However, Ms Cutter reported
concern with Ms Prosh in a number of areas: limited
interest in Ken's accomplishments at the centre ie when
Ms Prosh comes to get Ken she doesn't go with him to see
his craft. She asks if he has a craft and then leaves.
Ms Cutter also reported an incident where she notice
that Ken smelled of perfume and also as if he had had a
bowel movement. The staff asked Ms Prosh about this and
Ms Prosh stated that she wondered if Ken had soiled
himself earlier and so had put perfume on him. Note:
it is the expectation of the centre that mother's with
children over the age of 2 change their children's
diapers. Another worker Ms Mary Lynn Richardson
reported that at one point Ken had a Band-Aid on that
was loose and noticed underneath a substantial cut. She
stated that it looked like a slice or piece of skin was
missing. Ms Richardson changed the Band-Aid and then
ten minutes later, Ms Prosh came into the room and was
informed of the Band-Aid change. Ms Prosh said there
wasn't a cut and that he just wanted a bandaid. Ms
Richardson stated that Ms Prosh just disregarded the
whole thing, leaving the staff to be confused. Ms
Richardson also reported that at times when Ms Prosh
enters the room Ken tantrums. She reports that she has
observed Ms Prosh yelling at Ken and that Ms Prosh needs
to learn to redirect and be positive with him. Ms
Richardson also states that one day Ken was sick with
green discharge from his nose and he was coughing. Ms
Prosh responded to the centre's concern and the centre's
request to leave by asking Ken if he wanted to go. Ms
Richardson stated that it took twenty minutes before Ken
and Ms Prosh left and that it was a struggle for the
staff to get her to go home. Ms Richardson also noted
that Ms Prosh wanted Ken to colour Ms Prosh's pictures
when Ken wanted to do otherwise. Ms Richardson stated
she feels that Ken's delays are the result of lack of
socialization. Ms Richardson, on April 19, 2000,
reported that they still saw some echolalia. Ken would
do some crafts but did not interact with other children.
Ken moved around the room and played with toys. She
reported that the longer he's in the setting and with a
increasing number of children, the more frustration
there is in Ken. The centre staff have suggested that
Ms Prosh help on Wednesdays and stay in the room to
obtain parenting ideas from the teachers. I verily
believe this to be true.
[Cox Jun 21]
iv) On May 23, 2000 I spoke with Debbie Launspach,
Supervisor with Sand Box Tech, a nursery school that Ken
has attended for the last three months. Ms Launspach
stated that she has had some concerns regarding Ken and
his parents. For example, approximately six weeks
prior, Mr McQuaid, in front of Ken and the other
parents, asked Ms Launspach "How's my retarded son
doing?". Ms Launspach stated that the school staff had
been working with the mother and child on emotional
interactions ie Ken giving his mother a kiss. Ms
Launspach reported that Ms Prosh appeared reluctant with
this, as if she was not sure she was going to receive
one. Ms Launspach stated that Ken was sitting more at
circle and participated more with activities. She
noted, however, that he "freaks out with toiletting;
tantrums". They have not noticed head banging or self
stimulating behaviour. There is aggression with other
children which they treat with timeouts. On May 31,
2000 during a case conference, Ms Launspach stated that
despite progress in behaviour the following concerns
exist: after speaking a sentence or two he goes back
into himself; he is still different from his peers
though is responding to what his peers have engaged him
in; and toiletting is a problem, he lands on the floor,
yelling and screaming. I verily believe this to be
true.
[Cox Jun 21]
v) Parent Infant Consultant with the Parent Infant
Program, Nina Little Alcorn has continued to be involved
with the family for the last seven months with visits
averaging once or twice monthly. On April 20, 2000 Ms
Little Alcorn reported that the parents have been
present for each visit with good follow through with
appointments and phone calls. Ms Little Alcorn was
concerned about unnecessary qualifying comments by the
mother. She stated that she observed Ken referring to
himself as a brat. Ms Little Alcorn stated that she had
given Ms Prosh activities to encourage nurturing;
permitting a kid to be a kid and the parent to be a
parent in a safe setting, encouraging memory building
activities. During this discussion Ms Little Alcorn
also described an incident on March 17, 2000 in the
speech pathologist's office where Ms Little Alcorn was
doing a joint visit with Kindrey Rowlands, SLP. The
session generally went well for Ken although Ms Little
Alcorn reported that there were odd comments and raised
voice from the mother. The mother was not feeling well
and on antibiotics. However, at one point, Ms Little
Alcorn reported that Ken climbed onto a chair and was on
his knees on the chair when the chair fell backwards and
crashed. Ken hit his head and cried. Ms Prosh, who was
writing a cheque, stayed in her seat, barely looked up
and yelled "stop crying, that's what you get for acting
up. Ken it's not that bad". Ken sought comfort from
his mother but received it from Ms Little Alcorn and
Kindrey Rowlands. At one point, with her back to Ken,
still writing the cheque, Ms Prosh patted Ken's back and
said, "It's not that bad sweetie". There was no hug,
kiss or eye contact. Ms Little Alcorn reports also that
Ms Prosh stated that she still had problems controlling
him in the mall, at Burger King and at the airport. Ms
Little Alcorn wondered at that time how much could be
taught and felt that the parents needed support in child
management especially limit setting, discipline, rules
and boundaries, compliance and especially how to deal
with emotional needs. On May 31, 2000 Ms Little Alcorn
stated that the latest test showed delays in speech and
language and possible marginal delays in gross motor but
that this was not a concern now. Ms Little Alcorn was
concerned with Ken's fit with his peers. Ms Alcorn
Little reported on June 16, 2000 that Ken's higher level
of thinking was improving as well as his mood and
emotional regulatory abilities. She reported that
effort had been noticed with Ms Prosh in particular,
however, Mr McQuaid relationship with Ken was more
difficult to assess. Ms Little Alcorn was not sure how
Ken would continue to progress and states an assessment
by the Child Advocacy and Assessment Program would be
very helpful. Ms Alcorn Little states that she will
continue to be involved with the family only for
approximately another four months until Ken reaches the
age of four. (see report attached Exhibit A). I verily
believe this to be true.
[Cox Jun 21]
vi) Kindrey Rowlands, Speech and Language Pathologist
has been involved with Ken in weekly speech and language
intervention sessions from February 18, 2000 to June 8,
2000 for a total of 14 sessions. Ms Rowlands reports
that Ms Prosh has actively participated in sessions and
that Ken was also accompanied by his father on occasion.
She reports that both parents followed through with home
practice suggestions and provided regular verbal reports
of Ken's progress with therapy goals in everyday
situations at home. Although he has demonstrated steady
and marked progress in the relatively short time since
he was initially assessed, Ken's speech development and
his expressive and receptive language skills continue to
fall Below Average for his age. Ms Rowlands recommends
that Ken continue to receive speech and language
intervention focused primarily on developing his social
and his conversation skills; continued participation in
a program that facilitates Ken's interaction with other
children and that Ken's speech and language development
be re-assessed in the fall of 2000 (see Exhibit B). I
verily believe this to be true.
[Cox Jun 21]
vii) On April 12, 2000 Debbie Taylor, Senior Program
Manager, with the Society received a phone call from
Alice Veenman, Mono Township Council Member and Carl
Ross, Director of Social Services. They reported to Ms
Taylor that Mr McQuaid had spoken to council about "the
kid" (his son) being taken by the Society without an
appropriate complaint. Ms Veenman and Mr Ross stated
that Mr McQuaid then described the messiness in his
home, the gratings out of the floor, the the blind cords
dangling, and the broken crib. He continued to refer to
his son throughout the presentation as "the kid" and
indicated that he felt that the Society was
inappropriately involved with his family. I verily
believe this to be true.
[Cox Jun 21]
viii) This worker met with Mr McQuaid and Ms Prosh a
number of times. It was observed that on each visit Ken
was improving in speech and language and social skills
though not at par with his peers. Information regarding
the Easter Seals diaper program and the Parent Relief
Program was given to Mr McQuaid during a drop by visit.
Parents reported some destructive behaviour such a
destroying videos, throwing toys and frustration with
toilet training. However, at the case conference of May
31, 2000 Ms Prosh indicated that Ken was much easier to
handle and that they did not need to be on top on Ken as
much. Ms Prosh stated that Ken was more attached to her
now and only bangs his head on her when he is
frustrated. During the visits there was evidence of
toys, appropriate bedding and clothing. There was no
lock on his door and the drawers were still out of the
dresser. I verily believe this to be true.
[Cox Jun 21]
ix) I spoke with Dr Bakht, child and adolescent
psychiatrist, on March 3, 2000 and later met with him
June 6, 2000. Dr Bakht stated that, initially Ken, on
referral was 3, and at a local day care for three weeks.
He reported that the father was fairly bitter and angry
with the Children's Aid Society but that the mother was
composed and gave fairly honest information and admitted
her responsibility in not being an acceptable mother.
Dr Bakht stated that Ms Prosh had been most helpful as
the peacemaker with her husband and his anger at the
system. Dr Bakht stated that the father has trouble
with trusting. Dr Bakht reported that the parents
described Ken at that time as going into a rampage when
tired/bored resulting in hitting, biting, destructive
behaviour at home and at the day care. The psychiatrist
reported that Ken was not on medication and that his
physical health was fine. Dr Bakht stated that both
parents are intellectually superior but lacking the
social skills to take care of themselves and their
child. Dr Bakht reported that he originally saw Ken
with difficulties with speech and restless/hyperactive
behaviour. Dr Bakht stated that when children are not
stimulated or kept contained, they become more hyper.
Dr Bakht states that Ken was more lively and able to
have a rapport with the psychiatrist with some bright
feelings of happiness. Dr Bakht stated that the
interaction between Ms Prosh and Ken and Mr McQuaid and
Ken in his setting is okay. Initially, Dr Bakht's
provisional diagnosis was neglect of the child or ADD.
However, as Ken's behaviour and abilities have improved,
his final diagnosis was parental neglect of the child
with developmental (social and language) delays
secondary to neglect. He stated that the parents love
Ken and the neglect was not intentional but with their
emotional and financial difficulties and isolation, they
became emotionally and physically distanced from their
child. Dr Bakht stated he has provided the parents with
reassurance, psychoeducational information regarding
child rearing, good parenting, responding to cues and
presently sees the family monthly. The Society's
concerns regarding the parent's ability to apply their
knowledge at an emotional level was described to the Dr
Bakht An assessment of Ken by the Child Advocacy
Assessment Program at Chedoke McMaster Hospital was
discussed. Dr Bakht supported the decision as it would
provide a thorough and comprehensive assessment and
identify the degree of the delay and implications for
the future and provide recommendations for Ken, his
family and the professionals involved with them.
[Cox Jun 21]
x) On June 20, 2000, following a call from Dr Bakht to
this writer, I spoke with Dr Bakht. Dr Bakht reports
that Mr McQuaid and Ms Prosh had indicated through their
lawyer that they did not want to participate in an
assessment with the Child Advocacy Assessment Program.
Dr Bakht states that he supports completely the
assessment as the assessments locally have been
scattered and a comprehensive assessment would be
instrumental in identifying the degree of the delay and
implications for the future and provide recommendations
for Ken, his family and the professional involved with
them. Dr Bakht reported that he will meet with Mr
McQuaid and Ms Prosh and indicate his continued support
of the assessment.
[Cox Jun 21]
xii) Ken is clearly moving positively towards being able
to master his age appropriate developmental milestones.
However, he is still below average despite significant
intervention by many professionals. Mr McQuaid and Ms
Prosh have complied with all requests and followed
through on all interventions. However, statements and
behaviours by them indicate difficulty in applying these
on a day to day basis. Ken McQuaid was found to have
significant developmental delays secondary to parental
neglect. The concerns raised by the professionals
continue to demonstrate to the Society that Ken still at
risk of neglect. Mr McQuaid's statement to the Township
Council indicates an inability to recognize his role in
neglect with his child. The Society feels that there is
a continued need to be involved to ensure the continued
work with Ken and to monitor his progress. The Society
would like the assessment with the Child Advocacy
Assessment Program to proceed to provide a thorough and
comprehensive assessment and to identify the degree of
the delay and the implications for the future and
provide recommendations for Ken, his family and
professionals involved with them.
[Cox Jun 21]
xiii) I make this statement with no improper intent.
/signed/ Patricia L Cox
Sworn/Affirmed before me at Orangeville
in Ontario
on June 21, 2000
/signed/ Irene Beazley
A Commissioner, etc, Province of Ontario,
for the Children's Aid Society.
Expires September 27, 2003
........................................................
Exhibit A
CAS memohead
PERSONAL LIFE PLAN (Short)/ SERVICE UPDATE
PARENT INFANT PROGRAM
CLIENT NAME: Ken McQUAID
DATE OF BIRTH: 16 October 1996
DATE PLAN COMPLETED: May 31, 2000
PLANNING PARTICIPANTS: Nina K Little Alcorn/ L Prosh/ R
McQuaid (and service providers/conference participants)
PERSONAL INTRODUCTION:
[Little Jun 1]
Ken (Kenneth) is the 43 month old only child of Linda
Prosh and Bob (Robert) McQuaid. Ken is an attractive,
interesting, and engaging preschooler.
[Little Jun 1]
I do not have a complete early medical/developmental
history, however, it is my understanding that Ken was
born at term and of average size. I also believe that
he has enjoyed relatively good health, but that there
were fluctuating concerns early on about delayed motor
milestones and speech and language development.
[Little Jun 1]
Ken was initially referred to our service by a child
welfare intake worker, requesting my impressions about
Ken's developmental status. As our contact continued I
engaged with Ken's parents to provide developmental
monitoring, information, suggestions, and support.
Current Services and Supports.
[Little Jun 1]
This worker has made 8 home visits, 3 office visits and
attended one speech and language therapy appointment. I
have also participated in 2 case conferences, including
today's, and, joined with Ken's parents at a "theraplay"
session. Referrals were made by this worker to CCAC,
the Preschool Resource Program, and Wee Talk.
Literature was provided about securing quality childcare
and other private services.
[Little Jun 1]
Visits average once or twice monthly, typically
revolving around a play-and-chat session in the family
home with Ken and both of his parents. We have reviewed
the Ages and Stages Questionnaire for 36 months and the
mental subtest of the Bayley Scales of Infant
Development.
[Little Jun 1]
To the best of my knowledge the other paid, or unpaid,
supports to Ken and his parents include Ken's speech and
language pathologist, family counsellor, family service
worker, doctor (as needed), a maternal uncle, Ken's
preschool setting, and the "women's centre". CCAC found
Ken to be ineligible for service and the Preschool
Resource Program were involved only briefly.
PERSONAL PLAN AND GOALS: Wishes, Dreams and
Aspirations:
Future Directions:
[Little Jun 1]
It is my sense that Bob and Linda wish to keep their
family intact and continue to parent Ken together. They
hope for his optimal, healthy development and readiness
for successful entry to elementary school. Linda and
Bob have appeared receptive to my partnership with them,
following up on concrete suggestions regarding services,
equipment, etc. They have kept appointments and
permitted me to reschedule when necessary. I feel a
dedication to trying to follow through on ideas, such as
the speech ideas, purchasing different toys, etc.
Current Goals:
[Little Jun 1]
I continue to feel uncertainty about Ken's developmental
profile. Although he has made remarkable gains,
particularly in his speech, I'm unsure about the larger
repertoire of higher level skills, comprehension,
representational and imaginary play, mood and emotional
regulatory abilities, etc. I am not able to make a
clear statement regarding Ken's attachment
relationships. I did witness one episode of injury
followed by a reluctant response from his mom, which we
addressed by way of conversation about that incident in
particular and at length more generally about the
emotional needs of young children.
[Little Jun 1]
My role will be to attempt to offer additional knowledge
and support to achieve more of that understanding,
review Ken's development with screens we have, and offer
general resource and support around parenting this 2-1/2
to 4 year old. My service will conclude at Ken's 4th
birthday.
[Little Jun 1]
I encourage Linda and Bob's attendance at relevant
workshops/groups, Ken's participation at preschool, and,
if possible, a more comprehensive assessment.
/signed/ Nina K Little Alcorn
Parent Infant Program Consultant
May 31, 2000
/signed/ Dorothy McLachlan
Program Manager, Clinical Services
June 1/00
cc: R McQuaid/L Prosh
T Cox
kmcquaidlifeplan.wpd
........................................................
Exhibit B
ORANGEVILLE SPEECH & LANGUAGE CLINIC
PROGRESS REPORT
SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Name: Kenneth McQuaid
Date of Birth: October 16, 1996
Report Date: June 15, 2000
Age: 3 years, 8 months
PROGRESS SUMMARY
Ken participated in weekly speech and language
intervention sessions from February 18, 2000 to June 8,
2000 for a total of 14 sessions. Ken's mother actively
participated in sessions and Ken was also accompanied by
his father on occasion. Both Mr McQuaid and Mrs Prosh
followed through with home-practice suggestions and
provided regular verbal reports of Ken's progress with
therapy goals in everyday situations at home.
Intervention to date has focused on the following areas:
[Rowland Jun 15]
1. Developing Pretend Play Skills
Ken has demonstrated marked improvement in this area.
At the time of his initial assessment, Ken generally
played with toys appropriately (eg, beating a drum,
completing puzzles, stacking blocks). However, his
pretend play skills were an area of weakness. For
example, Ken appropriately named and placed furniture
and people in a doll hose, however, he did not act out
routines or involve the people in pretend conversations.
This lack of pretend play was observed across a variety
of toys.
Intervention focused on modelling pretend play in a
variety of activities. (eg, pretending to eat and drink
at a picnic and acting out familiar routines with a doll
house). Modelling pretend play was a powerful technique
and Ken quickly joined in when he observed his mother
engaging in pretend play activities. Mrs Prosh reported
that she purchases a variety of toys to facilitate Ken's
pretend play skills at home. Ken will now engage in
pretend play activities without a model with a variety
of toys both at home and at the clinic (eg, using a dish
set, fire station, and a farm). It was recommended that
Ken's parents continue to get on the floor with Ken and
engage in pretend play activities [eg, acting out
familiar routines, putting on puppet shows, using one
object to represent many objects (eg, a box might be an
airplane and then a train)]. I have not observed Ken's
play skills with his peers to date. However, this will
be an area of investigation in the near future.
[Rowland Jun 15]
2. Developing Ken's Ability to Answer Questions
Appropriately
At the time of initial assessment, Ken was able to
answer some simple "wh" questions appropriately. In
particular, he typically responded with the correct
label when asked "What's this?". When asked simple
yes/no or forced choice questions, Ken typically echoed
the question, and occasionally answered appropriately if
given further processing time.
Intervention focused on increasing Ken's ability to
appropriately answer a variety of question types while
reducing echolalia. Ken has demonstrated good progress
in this area. He is now able to answer concrete
forced-choice questions consistently (eg, Do you want
milk or juice?, do you want the bubbles or the stamps?).
Typically, these objects no longer have to be visible.
He continues to have difficulty answering abstract
forced-choice questions (eg, an echolalic response would
be likely if asked about events that will occur in
future or have occurred in the past).
Intervention has also focused on answering yes/no
questions. Ken will now consistently answer short,
simple and concrete yes/no questions (eg, Do you like
broccoli?, Do want to play with the house?, Do you have
the ball?).
Future intervention will focus on developing Ken's
ability to talk about more abstract topics.
[Rowland Jun 15]
3. Developing Use of the Pronouns "My" and "Your" in
Turn-taking Activities.
Due to Ken's tendency to repeat verbatim was is said,
pronoun confusions are common. For example, when Ken is
told "It's your turn Ken", he will respond "It's your
turn" while taking his own turn in a game. Intervention
initially focused on developing turn-taking skills while
using proper names (eg, "Mom's turn", "Kindrey's turn")
to minimize pronoun confusions. Ken developed his
turn-taking skills quickly in structured activities and
shared turns easily with other adults.
Recently Ken has begun to say "my turn" and "your turn"
appropriately in structured activities. Intervention
focusing on reducing pronoun confusions will continue.
[Rowland Jun 15]
4. Developing an Appropriate Greeting
This has been a recent target of intervention.
Currently, when an individual says "Hi Ken" he will
respond "Hi Ken". Intervention is focusing on
developing his ability to appropriately respond with the
individual's name (eg, "Hi Mom").
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Ken's speech development and his expressive and
receptive language skills continue to fall Below Average
for his age. However, he has demonstrated steady and
marked progress in the relatively short time since he
was initially assessed. Intervention to date has
focused primarily on developing his pretend play, his
conversational skills, and reducing echolalia. Ken has
demonstrated progress in his ability to talk about and
answer questions about simple, concrete topics in the
here and now. However, his ability to talk about more
abstract topics (eg, sharing stories about past events,
talking about the future, answering more complex
questions) continues to be a significant weakness for
his age. His pretend play skills have developed well.
His interactive play skills with peers will be a future
target of intervention. Importantly, he has
demonstrated an ability to generalize skills learned in
intervention sessions across a variety of settings and
situations.
The following recommendations were made.
[Rowland Jun 15]
1. It was recommended that Ken continue to receive
speech and language intervention focused primarily on
developing his social and his conversations skills,
particularly for more abstract topics.
In addition to weaknesses in these priority areas, Ken
continues to demonstrate needs in his expressive and
receptive vacabulary, in his understanding and use of a
variety of concepts, in his auditory comprehension of
longer and more complex instructions, and in his
oral-motor development. These areas will also be
addressed in future sessions.
[Rowland Jun 15]
2. Ken is currently attending a pre-school program.
Continued participation in a program that facilitates
Ken's interaction with other children is strongly
recommended.
[Rowland Jun 15]
3. It was recommended that Ken's speech and language
development be re-assessed in the fall of 2000.
Please call 519-941-1314 if I can provide any further
information.
Sincerely,
/signed/ Kindrey Rowland, M SC, S-LP(C), Reg CASLPO
Date June 15, 2000
cc: Mrs L Prosh, and Mr R McQuaid RR #5, Orangeville,
ON, L9W 2Z2
Dr Murphy, 15 Elizabeth St, Orangeville, ON, L9W
3X3
Dr S Ross, Tottenham Medical Centre, 119 Queen St
N, Tottenham, ON, L0G 1W0
N Little Alcorn, Dufferin Child & Family Services,
50 Fourth Ave, Unit #13, Orangeville, ON, L9W
4P1
Kindrey Rowland
M Sc S-LP(C) Reg CASLPO, Speech-Language Pathologist
15 Elizabeth Street, Suite M-15, Orangeville, Ontario
L9W 3Z3 Phone/Fax 519-941-1314
--------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Court of Justice
at 10 Louisa Street, Orangeville, Ontario, L9W 3P9
Court File Number 180/99
Form 14: Notice of Motion
Applicant
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin
50 Fourth Avenue, Unit 13
Orangeville, Ontario L9W 4P1 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1530
Fax: 519-941-1525
email: dcafs@hurontario.net
Wardlaw, Mullin Carter, Thwaites and Ward
Attention: David Thwaites
235 Broadway Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z5 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1760
Fax: 519-941-3688
eMail: dthwaites@wardlaw.on.ca
Respondents
Robert McQuaid
RR #5 Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z2, Canada
Phone: 940-9847
Linda Prosh
RR #5 Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z2, Canada
Phone: 940-9847
TO THE PARTIES:
THE COURT WILL HEAR A MOTION on June 28, 2000 at 11:00
am, or as soon as possible after that time at 10 Louisa
Street, Orangeville, Ontario, L9W 3P9
This motion will be made by The Children's Aid Society
of the County of Dufferin who will be asking the court
for an order for the item listed at the end of this
notice. A copy of the affidavit in support of this
motion is served with this notice. If this material is
missing, you should talk to the court office
immediately.
The person making this motion is also relying on the
following documents in the continuing record:
past affidavits
If you want to oppose this motion or to give your own
views, you should talk to your own lawyer and prepare
your own affidavit, serve it on all other parties not
later than 4 days before the date above and file it at
the court office not later than 2 days before that date.
Only written and affidavit evidence will be allowed at a
motion unless the court gives permission for oral
testimony. You may bring your lawyer to the motion.
IF YOU DO NOT COME TO THE MOTION, THE COURT MAY MAKE AN
ORDER WITHOUT YOU AND ENFORCE IT AGAINST YOU.
June 21/00
/signed/ Debbie Taylor
Wardlaw, Mullin, Carter, Thwaites and Ward
Attention: David Thwaites 235 Broadway
Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z5 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1760
Fax: 519-941-3688
eMail: dthwaites@wardlaw.on.ca
State the order or orders requested on this motion.
An order for an assessment of Ken McQuaid by the Child
Advocacy and Assessment Program at Chedoke McMaster
Hospital, Department of Paediatrics pursuant to section
54 of the Child and Family Services Act.
........................................................
At this point there is a copy of the letter from
Children's Hospital, or Chedoke-McMaster, dated February
10, 2000, but withheld until May 31.
........................................................
The affidavit of Trish Cox dated June 21, 2000 with two
attachments is duplicated here in the court papers
--------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Court of Justice
at 10 Louisa Street, Orangeville, Ontario, L9W 3P9
Court File Number 180/99
Form 8E: Summary of Court Cases
Applicant
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin
50 Fourth Avenue, Unit 13
Orangeville, Ontario L9W 4P1 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1530
Fax: 519-941-1525
email: dcafs@hurontario.net
Wardlaw, Mullin Carter, Thwaites and Ward
Attention: David Thwaites
235 Broadway Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z5 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1760
Fax: 519-941-3688
eMail: dthwaites@wardlaw.on.ca
Respondents
Robert McQuaid
RR #5 Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z2, Canada
Phone: 940-9847
Linda Prosh
RR #5 Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z2, Canada
Phone: 940-9847
My name is Patricia Louise Cox
The attached is a diary of all the steps in this case
and any other relevant court cases involving:
(a) any of the parties; or
(b) a child who is part of this case or whose
interests are part of this case.
/signed/ Patricia L Cox
June 21.00.
........................................................
Form 8E: Summary of Court Cases
Nov 22/99 Protection application
heard Nov 22/99 by Judge JB Allen
ordered Dec 9/99 Adjourned to Dec 1/99
Temporary care of CAS w/access
Dec 2/99 Protection Application
heard Dec 2/99 by Judge JB Allen
ordered Dec 2/99 Adjourned to Dec 22/99
Supervision Order (Interim)
Dec 22/99 Protection Application
heard Dec 22/99 by Judge Karswick
ordered Dec 22/99 Adjourned to Jan 19/2000
Jan 19/00 Protection Application
heard Jan 19/2000 by Judge JB Allen
ordered Jan 19/2000 Supervision Order 6
months with terms and conditions
June 28/00 Status Review Application
heard June 28/2000
--------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Court of Justice
at 10 Louisa Street, Orangeville Ontario L9W 3P9
Court File Number 180/99
Form 14A: Affidavit (General) dated June 24, 2000
Applicant
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin
50 Fourth Avenue, Unit 13
Orangeville, Ontario L9W 4P1 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1530
Fax: 519-941-1525
Wardlaw, Mullin, Carter, Thwaites and Ward
Attention: David Thwaites
235 Broadway Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z5 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1760
Fax: 519-941-3688
eMail: dthwaites@wardlaw.on.ca
Respondents
Robert McQuaid
RR #5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2 Canada
Linda Prosh
RR #5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2 Canada
Evelyn Huber
Huber & Hersche
Barristers and Solicitors
Orangeville Ontario L9W 1K3 Canada
Phone 519-940-4502
My name is Patricia Louise Cox
I work in Orangeville, Ontario
and I swear/affirm that the following is true:
[Cox Jun 26]
1. I am a child protection and family services worker
with the Children's Aid Society of the County of
Dufferin. I have been involved with this family for
seven months.
[Cox Jun 26]
2. Ken McQuaid has been assessed by a number of
professionals in the community for the significant
delays that he presented when first brought to the
attention of the Society. These professionals have also
provided interventions which have allowed Ken to move
positively towards reaching his developmental
milestones, especially in the areas of speech and
social/emotional development. However, Ken still
presents with delays and was found to be below average
in speech and language development by his Speech and
Language Pathologist, Kindrey Rowlands. Nina Little
Alcorn has expressed concern regarding his development
socially and emotionally. The nursery school staff have
identified that Ken is different. Dr Bakht, child and
adolescent psychiatrist, has diagnosed Ken as having
developmental delays (language and social/emotional)
secondary to parent neglect. He stated to this worker
that a comprehensive assessment of Ken would be useful
as the assessments done to date have been scattered and
therefore he supports a comprehensive and thorough
assessment of Ken to identify the degree of the delay
and implications for the future and to provide
recommendations for Ken, his family and professionals
involved with them. Ms Rowlands, Ms Little Alcorn and
Ms Launspach with the nursery school also stated that
they felt that this assessment would be useful for them
in their work with Ken. I verily believe this to be
true.
[Cox Jun 26]
3. Ms Prosh, at a case conference of May 31, 2000,
stated that she did not have any objection to this
assessment but expressed concern regarding her husband's
response to the suggestion. Ms Prosh was advised at the
case conference that the referral to the Child Advocacy
and Assessment Program had been initiated in February by
this writer as it was not known at that time how Ken
would progress and this writer knew that it typically
took four to six months at referral time to receive an
assessment date. At the time that the Child Advocacy
and Assessment Program referral was initiated it was
also not known to this writer that the parents had found
a psychiatrist that could provide a diagnosis.
[Cox Jun 26]
4. The Child Advocacy and Assessment Program assessment
(see Exhibit A) was to begin June 28, 2000. I spoke
with Ms Linda Harris with the program on June 23, 2000
and they have agreed to delay the first meeting date to
July 7, 2000 to facilitate this court matter with this
motion. They will add an additional date to the
assessment at the end of the assessment period.
[Cox Jun 26]
5. I spoke with Dr Bakht June 23, 2000. Dr Bakht
states that the parents reported to him at a recent
meeting that they will participate in the assessment as
long as the information obtained will not be used
against them. I stated to Dr Bakht that I had a
responsibility to the child under legislation to act on
any information that might effect the well-being of the
child. I verily believe this to be true.
[Cox Jun 26]
6. The Society has seen improvement in Ken but despite
significant intervention by many providers Ken still is
below average in his speech and language and social and
emotional development. Dr Bakht has diagnosed him as
having developmental delays secondary to parent neglect.
The Child Advocacy and Assessment Program will assist
Ken, the parents, the professionals and the Society in
determining the degree of delay, implications for the
future and to provide recommendations. Ken will be four
years old in October. The assessment will be completed
just prior to that birth date. The information received
will help Ken, for the following year, to prepare for
school where he will be introduced to very complex
social interactions and require complex speech to
effectively communicate his needs and to learn. The
assessment will be useful also, in providing information
relating to the parents and their relationship with Ken
and this information will therefore also help the
professionals assist the parents to provide for the
social and emotional needs of the child.
/signed/ Patricia L Cox
Sworn/Affirmed before me at Orangeville
in Ontario
on June 26, 2000
/signed/ Irene Beazley
A Commissioner etc Province of Ontario,
for the Children's Aid Society.
Expires September 27, 2003.
........................................................
(Exhibit A is a photocopy of the letter from
Chedoke-McMaster to Trish Cox dated February 10, 2000,
shown above chronologically.)
--------------------------------------------------------
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
at 10 Louisa Street, Orangeville, Ontario, L9W 3P9
Court File Number 180/99
Form 10: Answer
Applicant
THE CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY FOR THE COUNTY OF DUFFERIN
50 Fourth Street Unit 13 Orangeville Ontario L9W 4P1
(519) 941-1530
(519) 941-1525 - fax
WARDLAW, MULLIN, CARTER, THWAITES & WARD
Barristers & Solicitors
235 Broadway Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z5
David G Thwaites
(519) 941-1760
(519) 941-3688 - fax
Respondents
LINDA PROSH/ROBERT McQUAID
RR #5 Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z2
(519) 940-9847
HUBER & HEERSCHE
Barristers & Solicitors
184 Broadway Orangeville, Ontario L9W 1K3
(519) 940-4500
(519) 940-4502 - fax
TO THE APPLICANT:
1. I agree with the following claims made by the
applicant: 3 and 4.
2. I do not agree with the following claims made by
the applicant: 1, 2 and 5.
3. (not applicable)
4. I am making a claim of my own.
5. The FAMILY HISTORY, as set out in the application,
is correct.
6. The important facts that form the legal basis for
my position in paragraph 2 is as follows:
1. Linda Prosh and I are the natural parents of the
child, Kenneth McQuaid born October 16, 1996. We
have been active and involved parents of Kenneth.
2. A six month supervision Order was made on January
19, 2000. The terms of the supervision Order
required that the Respondent's take certain steps to
help deal with some potential developmental issues
concerning Kenneth. The respondent's have
diligently followed through with all of these
recommendations. All of the professionals involved
in Kenneth's life agree that he is making remarkable
strides, and that the parents are committed to
helping Kenneth in making those strides.
3. There is no risk of harm to the child. The parents
have taken all appropriate, required and many
voluntary steps in helping Kenneth overcome some
minor developmental delays.
4. All previous concerns with the cleanliness of the
home, and the condition of the home have been
rectified and the home is appropriate, clean and
filled with toys for the child.
5. The circumstances do not warrant a further
supervision Order to the CAS.
--------------------------------------------------------
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
AT 10 LOUISA STREET, ORANGEVILLE
Court File Number 180/99
Form 14A: Affidavit (general) dated June 27, 2000
Applicant
The Children's Aid Society for the County of Dufferin
50 Fourth Street Unit 13 Orangeville Ontario L9W 4P1
(519) 941-1530
(519) 941-1525 - fax
Wardlaw, Mullin, Carter, Thwaites & Ward
David G Thwaites
235 Broadway Orangeville, ON
(519) 941-1760 phone
(519) 941-3688 fax
Respondents
Linda Prosh/Robert McQuaid
RR #5 Orangeville, ON L9W 2Z2
940-9847
Huber & Heersche
Evelyn D Huber
184 Broadway Orangeville, ON L9W 1K3
(519) 940-4500 phone
(519) 940-4502 fax
My name is Robert McQuaid
I live in Township of Mono, County of Dufferin
and I swear/affirm that the following is true:
[McQuaid Jun 27]
1. On January 19, 2000 a consent was executed in which
we allowed the Children's Aid Society (CAS) to supervise
Ken for six months. We entered into this agreement as
the quid pro quo in response to crown wardship
application. I assume that further discussion of events
leading up to that consent is out of order. This
affidavit gives the facts I believe the court should
consider in response to efforts by CAS to extend its
supervision of Kenneth McQuaid and to force attendance
at the Child Advocacy and Assessment Program. We
initially agreed to retain the services of the
professionals currently involved in Ken's life, so as to
have some control and direction in the services and the
professionals involved. It was my understanding that
agreeing to retain all of these professionals was to be
seen as an option instead of going through a CAAP
assessment. My concern with the CAAP assessment or
similar assessment centres is that the referral comes
from the CAS and there is a strong potential for
prejudgment.
[McQuaid Jun 27]
3. Further, after our last court attendance, Linda and
I were advised after the Order was consented to that the
CAS has recommended that we be placed on the Child Abuse
Registry. No mention of this intent was ever made
leading upto the execution of the consent. These
actions by the CAS strike me as being covert and
excessive in the circumstances. We were having some
difficulty dealing with Ken. We are now seeking the
appropriate professional intervention to address these
issues. Linda and I are committed to helping Ken and
ourselves however we can. We are not merely jumping
through hoops, as the CAS insinuates, in order to comply
with the Order. We are doing what is in Ken's best
interest and are committed to continuing to do so. We
have learned a considerable amount about the resources
available to parents in our community and we are taking
advantage of them and will continue to do so.
[McQuaid Jun 27]
4. We have strictly complied with the consent.
(a) We have taken Ken to Dr Murphy and followed his
recommendations.
(b) We allowed Nina Little Alcorn of the Infant-Parent
Program to visit Ken in our home whenever she
wished.
(c) We have employed William Weiner who is a behavioural
therapist to assist us in understanding Kenneth and
responding appropriately to some of his behavioural
concerns.
(d) The Dufferin Association for Community Living
refused to treat Ken initially, because his
development was too advanced, later they did attend
him a few times.
(e) We have been attending a Speech Therapist who has
been providing Ken with help in his language and
communication.
(f) We signed all consents requested by CAS.
(g) We cooperated with TrishCox who has performed
drop-by visits.
(h) We attended child psychiatrist Dr Bakht at Peel
Memorial Hospital monthly starting in February 2000.
Until this motion, he never criticized our family,
or referred us to any other treatment.
(i) We have arranged for additional day care services
not required by the consent, keeping him in some
form of daycare regularly since December, 1999.
[McQuaid Jun 27]
4. CAS now requests that we engage in the Child
Advocacy and Assessment Program. This program is an
abuse screening program that is designed to ascertain
whether any abuse has occurred to a child. It is
designed to screen and assess the parents and their
parenting capacity. It is akin to the SCAN program at
Toronto Hospital for Sick Children. The CAS was
notified of these appointments by way of letter dated
February 10, 2000, received in their offices on February
18, 2000. The CAS knew of these appointments but waited
over three months to advise Linda or myself of these
appointments. When Linda was first advised of these
appointments, she initially indicated she might be
willing to attend. She was led to believe that this
facility was a treatment facility. She was unaware
until Will Weiner inquired into the nature of the
program, that it was a facility intended to screen for
abuse. I verily believe that we need to focus on
providing Ken with help, not trying to finger point. I
am advised by Evelyn Huber and believe it to be true
that she spoke with Linda Harris of the CAAP program on
June 27, 2000 and that Linda Harris confirmed to her
that the question asked of them by the CAS was whether
Linda and I are able to parent Kenneth. Different
professionals would see Kenneth that would meet with
Linda or I. The report and recommendations would be
sent to the CAS. There are no speech therapist or
occupational therapists. When Linda Harris was asked
what the difference between what their program offers
from the help currently being provided to my family she
advised Evelyn Huber was that they were specifically
geared towards a parenting capacity assessment.
[McQuaid Jun 27]
5. Our family has been working very closely with Will
Weiner since the end of November, 1999. Mr Weiner has
been invaluable in providing Linda and me with parenting
insight. Shown to me now and attached as Exhibit "A" is
a true copy of a report written by Will Weiner, who was
provided with the CAS material that is currently before
the Court. I am advised by Evelyn Huber and believe it
to be true that she discussed the current Court
proceedings with Will Weiner and provided him with the
material. This report does not support a need for a
parenting capacity assessment.
[McQuaid Jun 27]
6. A report from Debbie Launspach is attached as
Exhibit B. She does not agree with the dire prognosis
attributed to her by Trish Cox. I do not recall using
the word "retarded" attributed to me but if such a
remark was made by myself it certainly was not made in
the context Trish Cox and the CAS now elect to place it
for the purposes of this motion. I love my son dearly
and know him to be a bright, interesting and happy child
as confirmed by Will Weiner. I am advised by Evelyn
Huber and believe it to be true that she discussed the
current situation with Ms Launspach on Friday June 23,
2000. Ms Launspach advised Evelyn Huber, that had Trish
Cox not contacted her, none of her or her staff members
would have suspected CAS involvement. Ms Launspach has
been in the child care business for over 15 years and
has considerable experience in dealing with all sorts of
children and their families. Debbie Launspach advised
Evelyn Huber and I believe it to be true that she sees
it as a positive sign that Ken is sometimes reluctant to
come to the Day Care centre as it indicates his
happiness at staying with his parents, which whom
apppears to be very attached and bonded. Ms Launspach
has never indicated that she is concerned that Linda and
I are not involved enough with Ken, or that we are
unwilling to help, listen or learn.
[McQuaid Jun 27]
7. Here and elsewhere, Trish Cox notes Ken repeating
self-deprecating comments. She omits the true fact that
one of Ken's most common utterances in public is "Ken's
a smart boy". Trish Cox and Nina Little note an
incident in which Ken fell in Kindrey Rowlands' office.
This was not significant enough for Kindrey Rowlands to
mention in her own report, attached to the affidavit of
Trish Cox.
[McQuaid Jun 27]
8. Nothing in Kindrey Rowland's report suggests that
the parents are unwilling or unqualified to promote
Ken's speech development. Neither Will Weiner or Debbie
Launspach indicates any concern that Linda and I are not
committed to parenting Kenneth and providing him with
any and all assistance possible.
[McQuaid Jun 27]
9. Dr Bakht has never made the diagnoses to us reported
by Trish Cox. Evelyn Huber advises me and I believe it
to be true that she has had a number of discussions with
Dr Bakht and that when she inquired whether he had made
a specific diagnosis of parental neglect, he denied
that. He indicated that it was impossible to make a
firm diagnosis and that one of his considerations at the
outset, before spending any time with the family, had to
be whether developmental delays were as a result of
parental neglect. He advised that in the context of his
treatment at his office and not having had more contact
with the family in different settings than a clinic one,
it was impossible for him to make any diagnosis as to
whether or not there had been neglect.
[McQuaid Jun 27]
10. Trish Cox misrepresents a report to Mono Council.
One of the topics of my talk was false allegations by
CAS. Kid is a friendly colloquialism for child. The
complete verbatim transcript from the published minutes
of Mono Council is:
"Mr Robert McQuaid attended on Council to express his
concerns with the actions of the Dufferin Children's
Aid Society and to ask Council to use its influence
with regard to the appointment of the Society's board
of directors and its executive committee. Mayor
Creelman confirmed that it is County Council which
appoints CAS board members, and that this matter would
be brought up at the next County Council meeting by
the Mayor and Deputy-Mayor Veenman, that they would
check out the facts and advise Mr McQuaid of their
findings".
[McQuaid Jun 27]
11. Trish Cox criticizes me for addressing Mono
Council, and by implication, the other political
remedies I have and will continue to seek. Exercising
one's rights as a citizen is not to be condemned, and is
not a form of child-abuse. Since my experience in this
action, I have been astounded at and continue to
experience the vast sweeping powers of the CAS and the
community members involved in the CAS. As the CAS is
currently involved with our family I will inform myself
and become a more active member of the community and the
CAS. I strongly believe that if you feel strongly about
something, you should follow through with action as
Linda, Ken and I have done in response to the concerns
raised by the CAS. My level of commitment should
indicate my general level of commitment to becoming
involved and informing myself. This characteristic is
certainly influencing Linda any my current involvement
level in helping Ken.
[McQuaid Jun 27]
12. On November 29, 1999 CAS filed documents in this
case moving to place the parents, Linda Prosh and me, on
the Child Abuse Register. Three days later, following a
contested hearing, Judge Allen returned custody of Ken
to us. Notwithstanding this order, CAS followed though
and did place us on the Child Abuse Register. I believe
it was inconsistent with the court's finding and
premature in that no final determination had been made.
Linda and I are now on the Registry.
[McQuaid Jun 27]
13. The chronology of events surrounding the report to
the Child Abuse Register and the Child Advocacy &
Assessment Program follows:
Jan 29, 00 Robert McQuaid applies for CAS membership
by email a true copy of which is attached
as Exhibit "C".
Feb 1, 00 CAS types letter to Robert McQuaid and
Linda Prosh reporting them to the Child
Abuse Register a true copy of which is
attached as Exhibit "D".
Feb 3, 00 Robert McQuaid pays $3 in cash to Irene
Beazley for CAS membership
Feb 9, 00 Irene Beazley sends bylaws to Robert
McQuaid following phone request.
Feb 10, 00 Chedoke-McMaster sends letter to CAS
confirming appointment dates.
Feb 18, 00 CAS receives above letter from McMaster but
withholds it from McQuaid and Prosh for
over three months.
I am concerned that my attempts to become involved with
the CAS as a member, and my subsequently running for a
Directorship has prompted significant personal animosity
towards me by the CAS.
[McQuaid Jun 27]
14. Shown to me now and attached hereto as Exhibit "E"
is a true copy of the Brigance Pre-School Screen of Ken
administered by Joyce Cook on December 20, 1999. DACL
refused to assist Ken because his score of 76 was above
their development threshold of 60.
[McQuaid Jun 27]
15. Shown to me now and attached as Exhibit "F" is a
true copy of the Ages and Stages test of Ken
administered by N K Little Alcorn on December 16, 1999.
Ken's score was below the threshold on 3 categories,
while his total score of 165 was just below the combined
minimal scores of 170. However, when I completed the
items scored by Nina Little as "to check" with my own
knowledge of Ken, he scored well within the normal
overall score, above the threshold on all categories but
personal-social.
[McQuaid Jun 27]
16. I have conducted extensive research into the CAS
Court cases and court findings in relation to this
administrative body and believe that reform is necessary
for a body with such sweeping powers at first instance
that all but a few people have the financial resources
to respond to. Therefore, I pursued and will continue
to pursue political remedies through the Mono Council
appeal, and by becoming a member of the CAS, along with
many other similarly situated parents. At the annual
general meeting of CAS held on June 20, 2000, the vote
for directors was:
Cathy Chmilnitzky 69 votes
Marianne Breadner 67 votes
Janice Jordan 67 votes
John Christie 66 votes
Lillian Brewer 17 votes
Robert T McQuaid 16 votes
[McQuaid Jun 27]
17. It is my intention to continue to exercise my
political rights and freedoms in demanding legislative
reform in this area. That fact has nothing to do with
the current situation with my family. We are thriving.
The professionals who know us best, being Debbie
Launspach, Will Weiner and Dr Bakht are nothing if not
positive about our progress, commitment and interest.
[McQuaid Jun 27]
18. We have exceeded all requirements and suggestions
made to us but that is not the point. We have done
everything possible to meet Ken's best interest and that
is the point. We are not only going through the motions
of attending at the offices of various professionals
that we have retained, but we have thrown ourselves
wholeheartedly into the various treatment programs we
have participated in: the professionals agree. There
is no protection issue.
[McQuaid Jun 27]
19. At this juncture Ken's best interest would not be
served in subjecting him to yet another batter of
professionals whose intention is to find a reason for
some of Ken's delays and not provide constructive
assistance in addressing some of those issues. We are
will beyond the finger pointing stage.
[McQuaid Jun 27]
20. I make this affidavit in response to the current
motion and application before the Court.
/signed/ Robert McQuaid
SWORN before me at the Town of
Orangeville, in the County of Dufferin
this 27th day of June, 2000
/signed/ Evelyn Huber
A Commissioner etc.
........................................................
Exhibit A
WILLIAM WEINER, MA
162 BROADWAY SUITE 5 ORANGEVILLE ONTARIO L9W 2Y8
519-942-0566 wweiner@sympatico.ca
Evelyn Huber
267 Broadway
Orangeville, Ontario L9W 1K8
June 26, 2000
Re: Ken McQuaid
Dear Ms Huber,
[Weiner Jun 26]
I am a child and Family Counsellor with 20 years of
Clinical Experience and a Master of Arts Degree in
Counselling Psychology.
[Weiner Jun 26]
I have been involved with the McQuaid Family since
November 30, 1999. We met for sessions twice a week,
for the first few weeks, then weekly and now we meet
every two weeks.
[Weiner Jun 26]
My sessions with the family have been with Ken and his
parents. I also observed Ken at Sandbox Tech Daycare
and consulted with his teachers there.
[Weiner Jun 26]
I am very pleased to report that Ken has continued to
make great strides in the areas of language, imaginative
play, and behavior. The parents have also grown in
their ability to meet Ken's emotional, physical, and
developmental needs ant in their understanding of how to
work together to be good parents for Ken.
[Weiner Jun 26]
Ken's language now includes being chatty, laughing,
spontaneous singing, answering yes or no to questions
asked of him, verbally asserting himself when he wants
something, asking funny and interesting question, and
saying accurately fun and interesting comments in a
conversation. I have seen Ken's language move forward
at an excellent rate of progress.
[Weiner Jun 26]
Ken's play has moved from static repetition to
imaginative and elaborate pretend play. Ken will
include the activities that his parents have taken him
on such as the park, hardware stores, fire station,
grocery stores, Dairy Queen and other restaurants, as
well as other everyday activities that are a fascination
to a young child. Ken's play has been enhanced by his
parents' willingness to learn to play with him. This
has added to the fun for the whole family, highlighted
Ken's interests and abilities for his parents and
contributed toward stronger relationships. Ken and his
parents have developed a closer more intimate bond
during the last seven months. They obviously get so
much enjoyment from parenting Ken.
[Weiner Jun 26]
Ken's behavior has also improved in the last seven
months. He is able to play alongside other children
without being destructive or intrusive on the other
children's play. He can be trusted to go unsupervised
to his room for something and return with the item in a
responsible and prompt fashion. He is less destructive
of his toys. Ken has moved from tantrum behavior to
short bursts of tears and language of frustration and
protest. This is a significant step in that he
demonstrates to his parents, other caregivers, and
himself that he has grown emotionally enough to handle
frustration without it becoming an overwhelming
experience that requires a huge tantrum response.
[Weiner Jun 26]
Ken and parents face more challenges, as Ken now needs
to learn to use the toilet rather than a diaper. This
will foster even more feelings of success, confidence,
and competence. I would like to see Ken utilize play
mediums such as water, clay, scissors, glue, markers,
ball play, and a tricycle to continue the progress he
has made. I would like to see him continue in a
daycare/nursery school setting to encourage more
interactive play. Ken's parents will need to continue
learning how to stand up to Ken, as he becomes even more
verbally and physically demanding of his environment and
caregivers.
[Weiner Jun 26]
Both parents have demonstrated to me that they are
capable of comforting, nurturing, being good audience
participants, being playful and being passionately and
actively interested in their son's development and life.
I think that Ken's parents' have learned to utilize
their own skills and those of other people in the
community such a Counsellors, Speech Therapists, Daycare
Teachers, and other Parents to meet the constant
challenges of Parenting.
[Weiner Jun 26]
As you know the Children's Aid Society of the County of
Dufferin has stipulated that certain conditions be met
by Linda Prosh and Robert McQuaid. It is my opinion
that they have actively met and surpassed those
conditions.
[Weiner Jun 26]
Please contact me if you require further information.
Yours truly,
/signed/ William Weiner, MA
........................................................
Exhibit B
Sandbox Tech Child Care
RR #8 Mono Mills
Orangeville, Ontario L9W 3T5
June 22, 2000
To Whom this may Concern:
Child's name: Kenneth Daryl McQuaid
[Launspach Jun 22]
I received a phone call from Ken's Mom Linda Prosh back
at the beginning of Feb to see if Ken could attend
Sandbox Tech. She told me of Ken and his hitting etc.
He was kicked out of two child care centres. We were in
the middle of a move and that she would have to wait. I
was impressed that Mom was so honest with me.
[Launspach Jun 22]
March 7, 2000 was Ken's first day at Sandbox Tech Child
Care. When Mom left he was not upset. Ken joined the
other children and was introduced to the other staff
members. Went outside to play for about 45 min. Ken
was not verbal. Came in for circle with the other
children. Sat but wanted to hit his head on the floor.
He was not upset, he just wanted to do this. We said no
Ken and he stopped. He sat at circle, not really
listening or communicating with others, but he was happy
to be at circle. Would not cross his legs and would
shout out off and on at circle. When it was his turn to
share, he came up and sat on my knee and shared himself.
We asked him his name, age, which colour did he like
best, what was his favourite animal, food, etc. We
received no answers. Then I asked him the questions
again and answers then for him, Ken would parrot every
thing that I said. The other children giggled. So did
Ken. Sometimes he would stare off into space. I
thought that maybe Ken might be PDD, or something also
that line. He enjoyed playing in our class, painting,
playing with lego, cars, pegs, etc. He did not want to
talk or play with the other children. He did not want
to play in the water or with play doh. No at attempt
was made by him, but remember this was his first day.
Ken was happy when Mom came to pick him up.
[Launspach Jun 22]
After about a week or two, Ken would come in and greet
us, take off his outside shoes, and put on his slippers,
Hang up his coat and join us in the class. He would
play on the carpet and watch the children as he was
playing. He would answer questions for other children
that were playing near him. Once and awhile Ken would
hit himself on his head on the floor, carpet, shake his
head and not listen. He would scream at times. But for
only a few seconds. The other children were a little
afraid to play with him because of these out bursts.
Ken would at times just hit a child on the back, head,
face, quite hard. Then stop. So the children were very
careful if Ken would come around to play near them. Ken
is always happy to see his Mom and Dad at pick up time.
He greets them with a smile and a hug.
[Launspach Jun 22]
April: Ken is quite different. He said goodbye to
Mommy and Daddy. "Have a nice Day'. Gives kiss or hugs
at times. He enters to class. The younger children say
hi to Ken and Ken will reply to that child with a
greeting of hi. He is communicating more now. He
listens at circle most of the time, sits with his legs
crossed and does not always parrot us. He is using his
own language most of the time, when he wants to talk..
He speaks very well. Does not hit his head or lay on
the floor or through himself about. He talks about his
sharing. He sings songs with the children. He smiles
and is happy. He loves to be outside with the toys. At
times he still will hit a child. But not any one child
or for any reason that we can tell. Our approach to
this behaviour is KEN NO we do not hit. It is not nice.
Then he must give that child a hug and say that he is
sorry. Ken once had a time out. We put him on the
chair. He did sit on the chair and was not to upset.
But he did voice his NO. He did not want to set on the
chair.
[Launspach Jun 22]
Ken is learning more each day. He is taking his turn to
hand out snack and MUST say the child's name when giving
out the snack. Ken is a great eater. He enjoys food.
At times he will talk with the children about what ever
the other children are talking about.
[Launspach Jun 22]
I give Ken space and let him play with anything he
chooses in the centre for about 15 minutes before I ask
him to do something. He then can focus on what I am
asking of him. This also gives him time to listen to
the other children and lots of time for him to approach
them to play. At times a children will go over to talk
or play with Ken and Ken does not often attempt to
participate. If he does it is for a very short time.
[Launspach Jun 22]
Ken is a bright little man. He knows his colours and
shapes. He is quite good with numbers. Ken is learning
some sounds of the letters and some of the actions for
them. He knows the alphabet. We want to work with Ken
on toilet training him. He does not want us to change
him, or even place him on the toilet, let alone in the
wash room. He is very upset. Asks for Mom or Dad to
change him. We can not change him. Ken will go out of
control if we even attempt to do this. We did attempt
this once and wow what a time. We were not successful
at all. Then after being in the washroom I had to be
very firm with him to get Ken to wash his hands. But
once he washed his hands, he really enjoyed it.
[Launspach Jun 22]
June: Ken had come in twice not wanting to come to
Sandbox Tech. He was sort of upset one afternoon when
Mom brought him in. So Mom took him with her. About 35
mins later Dad came in with Ken. Ken was happy that he
came back. I feel that Robert did the right thing.
About a week later Ken's Dad brought him in. Ken really
did not want to go to Sandbox Tech. Dad had to take him
from the car and give him to me. Ken was not a happy
camper. He wanted to go home. This was not like Ken at
all. He always enjoyed his visits with us. Dad left
and Ken was fine after about 3 mins.
[Launspach Jun 22]
My staff and I can talk well with Ken and he can carry
on a conversation and be very verbal with us. I find
Ken a very bright child. Ken is a loveable little guy
with so much to give. He listens and follows directions
very well. I feel that in time Ken will communicate
with the other children and will enjoy playing at the
water and play doh centres, with the other children. I
feel that Ken has come a long way in a very short period
of time. Ken's parents are concerned with Ken and want
his needs met. Ken's parents are interested in having
Ken join us for 3 full days starting this July. I will
be able to help them out at that time.
[Launspach Jun 22]
If you have any questions or concerns I would be more
then happy to meet with you.
Sincerely
/signed/ Deborah Launspach
1-519-902-0462 8-5
1-519-941-6926 after 7pm
........................................................
Exhibit C email of January 29, 2000 RTMQ to CAS.
January 29, 2000
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin
50 Fourth Avenue Unit 13
Orangeville Ontario L9W 4P1
dcafs@headwaters.com
Dear Sirs/Madams:
I wish to become a member of the Children's Aid Society
of the County of Dufferin. As I understand from your
notice in the Orangeville Banner, persons over age 18
years residing in Dufferin County are eligible on
payment of the three dollar annual fee.
Please indicate by return E-mail where I can pay the
three dollars.
Robert T McQuaid
RR 5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2
phone: 519-942-0565
........................................................
Exhibit D Letter from CAS to Prosh on Child Abuse
Registry
(Not getting any response to the foregoing email, I
visited the office of Children's Aid on February 3,
2000, with the three dollar membership fee. I handed it
personally to Irene Beazley. Two letters arrived in our
mail on February 7, 2000, one addressed to Robert
McQuaid, the other to Linda Prosh, but otherwise
identical. Both letters were dated February 1, 2000,
but stamped through the Children's Aid postage meter on
February 3, 2000. This note is not part of the court
file. - RTMQ)
CAS letterhead
February 1, 2000
Ms Linda Prosh
RR 5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2
Dear Ms Prosh:
RE: REPORT TO CHILD ABUSE REGISTER
This letter is to advise you that your name is being
forwarded to the Ministry of Community and Social
Services Central Abuse Register. Our investigation
supports the initial referral information received in
November 1999, alleging that you had put your child at
risk of physical harm as defined in section 37.2(B),
that your son demonstrated developmental concerns as
defined in section 37.2(H) and your son has suffered
emotional harm as defined in section 37.2(F) of the
Child and Family Services Act, Revised Statutes of
Ontario, 1990, Chapter 11 as amended.
The Central Abuse Register is a file for the Province of
Ontario and persons who have been found to have abused a
child can find their names placed on this list. When
your name has been received by the register you will be
notified by letter and have the opportunity to appeal
the decision and request that your name be withdrawn.
Thank You
/signed/ Kim James Intake Worker
/signed/ Kimberley Evans Program Manager of Child
Protection Services
........................................................
Exhibit E photocopy of Brigance Pre-School Screen by
Joyce Cook, Dec 20, 1999, shown above.
........................................................
Exhibit F photocopy of Ages and Stages test by Nina
Little Alcorn, December 16, 1999, shown
above.
--------------------------------------------------------
(The following letter from Dr Bakht was introduced into
evidence through an affidavit not in my possession.
-RTMQ)
WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE
Etobicoke Hospital Campus
Brampton Memorial Hospital Campus
Georgetown Hospital Campus
www.williamoslerhc.on.ca
Brampton Memorial Hospital Campus
20 Lynch Street
Brampton, Ontario L6W 2Z8
Telephone 905.451.1710
Facsimile 905.451.2690
27 June, 2000
Psychiatric Assessment
Re: MCQUAID, Kenneth
DOB 16th October 1996
[Bakht Jun 27]
I have first seen Kenneth with both his parents for
psychiatric assessment on February 16th 2000. He was
referred by Dr Murphy, pediatrician.
[Bakht Jun 27]
Kenneth was a 3 year old, male child who lived with his
parents. He had been attending a local day care in
Orangeville.
[Bakht Jun 27]
Kenneth's father stated that Kenneth was "kidnapped" by
Children's Aid Society on 16th November and was placed
in a foster home until December 2nd 1999. Father was
extremely hostile throughout the interview against the
Children's Aid Society for "kidnapping" his child. At
times he became quite agitated, however, Kenneth's
mother was more rational and cooperative. She
elaborated that Children's Aid Society apprehended
Kenneth due to what they had noted, as there was a
safety hazard, emotional hazard and neglect for Kenneth
at home. During the time when Kenneth was in a foster
home, parents had supervised visit. Eventually he was
released to his parents' care on supervision order and
asked to fulfill certain criteria laid out by the
Children's Aid Society. Mother described such condition
include psychiatric consultation for Kenneth, assessment
by behavior interventionist, participating infant/parent
program as well as attending Dufferin area community
living program. Dr Murphy examined him and completed a
baseline laboratory blood workup.
[Bakht Jun 27]
On further questioning, Kenneth's father stated that
Kenneth goes into "rampage" particularly when he is
tired and bored. He describes the rampage as throwing
things, spitting, biting others and becoming
hyperactive. Mother added that even at the day care
Centre he was physically quite aggressive to other kids.
Both parents added that Kenneth could be quite
disruptive and active at times if his demands were not
fulfilled and other times he was fairly calm and quiet.
[Bakht Jun 27]
Parents stated that Kenneth was generally a happy child.
He ate and slept well. He did not cry for any reason
and he was pretty contented but at times he showed mood
swings when he was tired and bored. Mother stated that
Kenneth sucked his thumb at times.
[Bakht Jun 27]
Kenneth was not on any medication. His physical health
was good and had no allergy and had no serious illnesses
in the past.
[Bakht Jun 27]
Kenneth's parents stated that they had been living
together for eight years and got married in 1996 just
before Kenneth was born. Father was a 57 years old man
from the United States and spoke little about his early
life. He studied math at MIT but did not finish his
course. He worked as a computer programmer and reported
that he was "resting" at home for the last five years.
His wife described him as a loner and had poor social
contact. Kenneth's mother was a 45 years old woman.
She said that she was a high achiever in school and
stood within the first 20 in the high school diploma
throughout Quebec. She worked as a computer graphics
designer but lately had been working as a freelance
graphic designer for the video and worked part time at
Wal-Mart. She described it was a "crappy job".
Kenneth's mother stated that they had poor social
contact and honestly stated that they were quite
"disorganized" and had a lack of resources although
stated that "financially" they were "well off".
[Bakht Jun 27]
Mother stated that pregnancy and delivery with Kenneth
was a normal one. He was a chubby child and started to
crawl at 13 months and walked at 17 months. His speech
was delayed. He has been receiving speech therapy.
[Bakht Jun 27]
On mental status examination, Kenneth, an average built,
Caucasian, male, preschool child presented in casual
dress. His personal hygiene and grooming was fairly
normal. He had a small bluish spot on his forehead. He
was quite active during the interview and did not sit
quietly in the chair. At times he wanted to open the
door and other times he walked around. While seated he
was rocking his head back and forth a few times. The
parents stated that he also banged his head quite often
resulting that he had bruises on the forehead. He
maintained good eye contact. His speech was fairly
distinct. His affect was pleasant. Mood was euthymic.
His thought form and thought content appeared to be
normal. Cognitively, he appeared to be average for his
age as he was able to identify the name of a few things
such as watch, pen and appeared to be quite well aware
of what was going on in the interview room.
[Bakht Jun 27]
The initial impression was this three years old, male
child had recently been taken under the custody of
Children's Aid Society due to possible neglect by the
parents as claimed by Children's Aid Society although
parents were very bitter and hostile towards Children's
Aid Society with their handling of Kenneth. Father was
showing extreme frustration and anger towards them
although mother appeared to be quite cooperative and
open to accept any help for their son. There were no
positive family history of mental illnesses or behavior
problem and the pregnancy and birth of Kenneth appeared
to be fairly normal although he had some developmental
delay including speech and social skills and showed self
stimulating behavior of possible emotional neglect as
well as somehow being hyperactive and restless during
the interview which may be features of Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder which needed to be further
explored. Many professionals were involved directed by
the Children's Aid Society for identifying Kenneth and
family's need for help as well as his parents were
cooperative under the supervision of Children's Aid
Society.
[Bakht Jun 27]
Following the initial assessment I have asked the
parents and Day Care Worker to complete the Vanderbilt
Behavior checklist and arranged regular follow up on a
monthly basis. The bahavior checklist and follow up
visit with me did not reveal any evidence of Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
[Bakht Jun 27]
Parents remained very compliant and receptive to each
follow up visit. They were also very honest with
expressing their feelings towards Children's Aid
Society's involvement. Parents claimed that they
participated in all programs arranged by Children's Aid
Society for them. Kenneth's hyperactivity, aggression
and demanding behavior greatly decreased. His social
skill and speech continued to improve with parental
positive involvement increased social contact, speech
therapy and professional intervention.
[Bakht Jun 27]
My current impression is that Kenneth is delayed in some
areas of development such a language and social skill
which may be the result of unintentional neglect by
parent due to their lack of ability to identify
emotional need for their child or they were "socially
isolated" and "disorganized". However, following
Children's Aid Society's intervention and multi agencies
involvement Kenneth has been showing continuing
improvement in areas of development including emotional,
social and language skill.
[Bakht Jun 27]
He is happy and contented living with parents. They are
very involved and committed to improve Kenneth's growth,
development and gaining parental skills.
[Bakht Jun 27]
Children's Aid Society worker Ms Trish Cox has arranged
an assessment for McQuaid family by child advocacy
program at Chedoke McMaster hospital. Although I have
supported this assessment as a compliment Kenneth's case
and discussed with Ms Cox, Kenneth's parents and their
lawyer Evelyn D Huber, I am not sure whether assessment
recommendation would be any different than what Kenneth
and his family is receiving now. Kenneth's parents are
refusing this assessment fearing that the outcome of the
assessment may be used against them that will prolong
Children's Aid Society involvement with the family.
However, for the well being of Kenneth I recommend as
follow:
1) Kenneth should continue to receive speech therapy to
improve his language skills.
2) A behavior interventionist should remain involved
with Kenneth to reinforce positive and acceptable
behavior.
3) He should continue to be exposed in stimulating
environment to improve social skills.
4) Parents should continue to receive parental
counseling through the local family-counseling
agency for improving parental skills.
5) Kenneth should be periodically seen by a
developmental pediatrician for assessing his growth
and development.
6) A child psychiatrist should regularly monitor his
emotional growth and provide support and
encouragement to the parent for maintaining their
cooperation with various professionals helping
Kenneth.
[Bakht Jun 27]
This multidisciplinary team approach would greatly help
to improve Kenneth's physical and emotional growth.
[Bakht Jun 27]
I hope this information is helpful.
/signed/
Dr M Bakht
MBBS, DCH, Dip Ch Psych(C) FRCP(C)
Child & Adolescent Psychiatrist
MB/ns
--------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Court of Justice
at 10 Louisa Street, Orangeville Ontario L9W 3P9
Court File Number 180/99
Form 14A: Affidavit (General) dated July 4, 2000
Applicant
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin
50 Fourth Avenue, Unit 13
Orangeville, Ontario L9W 4P1 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1530
Fax: 519-941-1525
Wardlaw, Mullin, Carter, Thwaites and Ward
Attention: David Thwaites
235 Broadway Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z5 Canada
Phone: 519-941-1760
Fax: 519-941-3688
eMail: dthwaites@wardlaw.on.ca
Respondents
Robert McQuaid
RR #5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2 Canada
Phone 940-9847
Linda Prosh
RR #5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2 Canada
Phone 940-9847
Evelyn Huber
Huber & Hersche
Barristers and Solicitors
Orangeville Ontario L9W 1K3 Canada
Phone 519-940-4502
My name is Patricia Louise Cox
I work in Orangeville, Ontario
and I swear/affirm that the following is true:
[Cox July 4]
1. The Children's Aid Society of Dufferin County has
been involved with Mr McQuaid, Ms Prosh and their son
Kenneth for approximately 10 months. As a result of our
intervention and recommendations in the original
supervision order, Ken has made strides. Had the
Society not identified concerns related to Ken's social,
emotional and speech development, and determined the
need for professional assistance for Kenneth and his
parents, we wonder what Ken would look like today. As
it is, as identified in the reports of Nina Little
Alcorn and Kindry Rowlands, Ken still presents with
developmental delays. We note that Dr Bakht, child and
adolescent psychiatrist recommends the following:
i) Kenneth should continue to receive speech therapy
to improve his language skills.
ii) A behaviour interventionist should remain involved
with Kenneth to reinforce positive and acceptable
behaviour.
iii) He should continue to be exposed in stimulating
environment to improve social skills.
iv) Parents should continue to receive parental
conseling through the local family-counseling
agency for improving parental skills.
v) Kenneth should be periodically seen by a
developmental pediatrician for assessing his
growth and development.
vi) A child psychiatrist should regularly monitor his
emotional growth and provide support and
encouragement to the parent for maintaining their
cooperation with various professionals helping
Kenneth.
This multidisciplinary team approach would greatly
help to improve Kenneth's physical and emotional
growth.
Given the fact that Kenneth continues to present with
delays and along with Dr Bakht recommendations and the
positive role that the Society has had in assisting Ken
to move forward to date, the Society feels the need to
maintain a presence that will monitor and provide
positive direction.
[Cox July 4]
2. I make this statement with no improper intent.
/signed/ Trish Cox
Sworn/Affirmed before me at DUFFERIN
in ONTARIO CANADA
on July 4, 2000
/signed/
ORRAL MAE PATRICIA MORRISON
A Commissioner etc, Province of Ontario,
for the Children's Aid Society.
Expires April 5, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------
My affidavit of June 27, 2000 got the job done, but was
frustrating to read. Evelyn Huber cleaned up my version
for the court. In expurgating comments such as the
"Trojan Horse" as insufficiently dignified for the
court, Evelyn Huber translated many of my comments into
ungrammatical language, and a few platitudes. This is
the linguistic counterpart of going to court in grubby
clothes. The version I submitted to Evelyn Huber is
below. In my version, sub-paragraph numbers match the
numbers of the document referenced.
The statement about court procedures is not strictly
correct, since courts will allow live testimony with
cross-examination, but only after the family has been
nearly destroyed by pre-trial maneuvering. In practice,
it is rare, even in crown-wardship cases.
My paragraph 5.4 is a statistical proof of bias by CAS.
I would like to hear from any reader with better
knowledge of statistics who can devise a better test.
In paragraph 9, deleted entirely in court, I show the
deleterious effect of CAS surveillance. Building a
network to support Ken in homeschooling was impossible
as long as CAS investigators alienated everyone we made
contact with.
[McQuaid Jun]
1. On January 19, 2000 a consent was executed in which
we allowed the Children's Aid Society (CAS) to supervise
Ken for six months. We entered into this agreement as
the quid pro quo to avoid crown wardship. I assume that
further discussion of events leading up to that consent
is out of order. This affidavit gives the facts I
believe the court should consider in response to efforts
by CAS to extend its supervision of Kenneth McQuaid and
to force attendance at the Child Advocacy and Assessment
Program.
[McQuaid Jun]
2. We have strictly complied with the consent.
(a) We have taken Ken to Dr Murphy and followed his
recommendations.
(b) We allowed Nina Little Alcorn of the Infant-Parent
Program to visit Ken in our home whenever she
wished. We have employed William Weiner to play
with Ken about 20 times. The Dufferin Association
for Community Living refused to treat Ken
initially, because his development was too
advanced, later they did attend him a few times.
(c) We signed all consents requested by CAS.
(d) We allowed Trish Cox to do drop-by visits.
(e) We attended child psychiatrist Dr Bakht at Peel
Memorial Hospital monthly starting in February
2000. Until this motion, he never criticized our
family, or referred us to any other treatment.
We have arranged for additional day care services not
required by the consent, keeping him in some form of
daycare regularly since December, 1999.
[McQuaid Jun]
3. CAS now requests that we engage in the Child
Advocacy and Assessment Program. The program is
unnecessary, because we have already complied with all
terms of the consent. CAS scheduled this program to
extend beyond the supervision period, then concealed it
from us for over three months, evidencing bad faith.
Trish Cox misrepresented the assessment to Linda Prosh,
making her initially willing to participate. But when
we found the true nature of the program, we declined.
[McQuaid Jun]
4. The procedures of this court do not allow for
cross-examination or discovery, making it impossible to
compel a witness to answer a question, and permitting
CAS to engage in deception by omission. The affidavit
of Trish Cox in support of extension of supervision
contains many instances.
[McQuaid Jun]
4.i. William Weiner's actual statement appears as
Exhibit G. It is not in accord with the paraphrase by
Trish Cox.
[McQuaid Jun]
4.ii. We find it impractical to get a statement from
Karen Bowers, because the events described by Trish Cox
are too far in the past for accurate recollection.
[McQuaid Jun]
4.iv. A letter from Debbie Launspach is attached as
Exhibit A. She does not agree with the dire prognosis
attributed to her by Trish Cox. I do not recall the
"retarded" remark attributed to me, but in informal
circumstances I frequently use hyperbole. CAS does not
understand hyperbole or chooses to misrepresent it.
[McQuaid Jun]
4.v. Here and elsewhere, Trish Cox notes Ken repeating
self-deprecating comments. She omits the true fact that
one of Ken's most common utterances in public is "Ken's
a smart boy". Trish Cox and Nina Little note an
incident in which Ken fell in Kindrey Rowland's office.
This was not significant enough for Kindrey Rowland to
mention in her own report, attached to the affidavit of
Trish Cox. Trish Cox is grasping for trifles.
[McQuaid Jun]
5.vi. Nothing in Kindrey Rowland's report suggests that
the parents are unwilling or unqualified to promote
Ken's speech development.
[McQuaid Jun]
5.vii. Trish Cox misrepresents a report to Mono
Council. One of the topics of my talk was false
allegations by CAS. Kid is a friendly colloquialism for
child. The complete verbatim transcript from the
published minutes of Mono Council is:
Mr Robert McQuaid attended on Council to express his
concerns with the actions of the Dufferin Children's
Aid Society and to ask Council to use its influence
with regard to the appointment of the Society's board
of directors and its executive committee. Mayor
Creelman confirmed that it is County Council which
appoints CAS board members, and that this matter
would be brought up at the next County Council
meeting by the Mayor and Deputy-Mayor Veenman, that
they would check out the facts and advise Mr McQuaid
of their findings.
[McQuaid Jun]
4.viii. We have treated gift offers from CAS as a
Trojan Horse.
[McQuaid Jun]
4.ix. Dr Bakht has never made the diagnoses to us
reported by Trish Cox. The correct opinion of Dr Bakht
is in Exhibit H. I stand by any of my statements inside
or outside this proceeding that removal of children from
intact families that have caused them no harm is an
outrage.
[McQuaid Jun]
4.xii. Trish Cox criticizes me for addressing Mono
Council, and by implication, the other political
remedies I have sought. Exercising one's rights as a
citizen is not a disease, and is not a form of
child-abuse.
[McQuaid Jun]
5. On November 29, 1999 CAS filed documents in this
case moving to place the parents, Linda Prosh and me, on
the Child Abuse Register. Three days later, following a
contested hearing, Judge Allen returned custody of Ken
to his parents. Notwithstanding this order, CAS
followed though and did place us on the Child Abuse
Register. While this action is not under jurisdiction
of this court under the CFSA, it is inconsistent with
the court's opinion.
[McQuaid Jun]
5.1. As justification for the Child Abuse Register
report CAS attached a document titled "Risk Assessment"
by Kim Evans. This form is junk science both in its
design and use.
[McQuaid Jun]
5.2. test design: Most of the questions are vague.
The scientifically interesting question of abuse of the
caregiver is offensive judicially because it harms one
person for the wrongdoing of another, or in social
worker terms, deprives a child of his parents on account
of faults of his grandparents. Question F3 on social
supports treats every farm family as abusers. Question
A1 rates any unrestricted parental care as abuse.
[McQuaid Jun]
5.3. test use: In giving a bad score of 3 for the
physical violence question, F1, Kim Evans supports it
with the quote: "There is no physical violence". At
the time of the investigation, a crown wardship motion
was pending, which we resisted with all available means,
leading to demerits on question I2 for failure to
cooperate with the intervention.
[McQuaid Jun]
5.4. This technical paragraph subjects the work of Kim
Evans to the same technique used to expose scientific
fakery. Her numerical evaluations are:
Rating 0 Excellent 9 times
Rating 1 Good none
Rating 2 Medium none
Rating 3 Bad 14 times
Rating 4 Very Bad 8 times
Rating 9 Unknown 3 times
Discard the nines, Unknown, and assume unrealistically
that the five remaining ratings are equally likely. A
standard statistical test gives chi squared of 24 with
four degrees of freedom. In an unbiased evaluation, the
likelihood of a result as bad as Kim Evans' is .00008,
less than one in ten thousand. This far exceeds any
standard hurdles such as 95% confidence or beyond a
reasonable doubt. The assumption of normal distribution
is more realistic, but must produce an even worse
likelihood, since Kim Evans distribution is U shaped
rather than bell shaped. For this analysis I relied on
"Introduction to Mathematical Statistics" by Paul G Hoel
and "A Handbook of Mathematical Functions" by Milton
Abramowitz and Irene A Stegun.
[McQuaid Jun]
5.5. In non-technical language, Kim Evans has taken the
faults that we all share and exaggerated each to the
extreme. That should have been apparent to any reader
even without statistics.
[McQuaid Jun]
5.6. The chronology of events surrounding the report to
the Child Abuse Register and the Child Advocacy &
Assessment Program follows:
Nov 30, 99 Child Abuse Review Team of CAS recommends
reporting McQuaid and Prosh to Child Abuse
Register.
Dec 2, 99 Judge Allen returns custody of Ken
to parents.
Jan 29, 00 Robert McQuaid applies for CAS membership
by email (Exhibit B)
Feb 1, 00 CAS types letter to Robert McQuaid and
Linda Prosh reporting them to the Child
Abuse Register (Exhibit C)
Feb 3, 00 Robert McQuaid pays $3 in cash to Irene
Beazley for CAS membership
Feb 3, 00 Postage meter imprint on above letter.
Feb 9, 00 Irene Beazley sends bylaws to Robert
McQuaid following phone request. (Exhibit
D)
Feb 10, 00 Chedoke-McMaster sends letter to CAS
confirming appointment dates.
Feb 18, 00 CAS receives above letter from McMaster but
withholds it from McQuaid and Prosh for
over three months.
The timing suggests that the Child Abuse Register report
and the Child Advocacy & Assessment Program may be a
form of retaliation or intimidation for the membership
application.
[McQuaid Jun]
6. Exhibit E attached is the Brigance Pre-School Screen
of Ken administered by Joyce Cook on December 20, 1999.
DACL refused to assist Ken because his score of 76 was
above their development threshold of 60. Exhibit F is
the Ages and Stages test of Ken administered by N K
Little Alcorn on December 16, 1999. Ken's score was
below the threshold on 3 categories, while his total
score of 165 was just below the combined minimal scores
of 170. However, when I completed the items scored by
Nina Little as "to check" with my own knowledge of Ken,
he scored well within the normal overall score, above
the threshold on all categories but personal-social.
Ken suffers from no more developmental problems than the
normal variation between individuals, most notably late
talking.
[McQuaid Jun]
7. Examination of the law and the attitude of CAS
workers convinced me that serious reform was necessary.
Therefore, I pursued political remedies, through the
Mono Council appeal, and by becoming a member of the
CAS, along with many other similarly situated parents.
At the annual general meeting of CAS held on June 20,
2000, the vote for directors was:
Cathy Chmilnitzky 69 votes
Marianne Breadner 67 votes
Janice Jordan 67 votes
John Christie 66 votes
Lillian Brewer 17 votes
Robert T McQuaid 16 votes
CAS brought this motion to court the following day.
[McQuaid Jun]
8. The CFSA is vague about many terms such as abuse or
neglect. In other areas suffering from vague laws a
body of cases becomes a guide both for future judicial
decisions and for laymen to know their rights and
obligations. CAS cases are secret, preventing laymen
from learning the law either directly at the courthouse,
or indirectly through accounts of legal journalists.
There is only a tiny public window in the form of
published appellate decisions. Disregarding Young
Offenders and Adoptions, the law librarian at York
University was able to show me 96 published cases
dealing with the CFSA. None of them define issues in
dispute in this case, such as when it is proper to put
locks on doors, and of course, none deal with the silly
factor of eye contact, mentioned six times by CAS in
this case. As long as almost all CAS cases are secret,
it is simply impossible for a layman to be in compliance
with the law. This court ought to recognize the same
principle that parents lobbying CAS have made
politically - the best interest of the child is served
by keeping his parents.
[McQuaid Jun]
9. The requirement to execute disclosure agreements
with CAS has been harmful to Ken. CAS routinely
approaches persons involved in Ken's care with
misrepresentations requiring us to terminate
relationships with them. The first letter of Dr Murphy,
attached as Exhibit D to the affidavit of Kim James
filed November 19, 1999, falsely reports that Ken has no
toys. I took Dr Murphy a clear plastic bag filled with
200 liters of toys in the house at the time of the raid,
though I could have filled three such bags. On all
visits Ken's mood has changed from cheerful to taciturn
immediately on meeting Dr Murphy. Linda Prosh, acting
without the requirement of CAS took Ken to the Community
First Centre, and later to the Women's Centre, but can
now use neither because of the hostility resulting from
contact with CAS. Friends at Hand-in-Hand daycare is
unavailable to us for similar reasons. We also
encountered a child psychologist who refused to help us
because she will not get involved in litigation.
[McQuaid Jun]
10. By moving to extend supervision, under
circumstances where it can be extended yet again, CAS
apparently intends to extend the supervision as long as
possible. When Ken reaches college age, I will be 72
years old, making it likely that his higher education
will be financed from savings rather than income. The
unbounded drain of twenty thousand dollars a year for
legal costs unrelated to his care and development could
imperil his education.
[McQuaid Jun]
11. During the original raid, CAS promised to leave our
child in our home if we removed a crib from his room,
but apprehended him anyway after we complied. In the
courthouse negotiation for the consent of November 22,
1999, they promised to return Ken at the end of a two
week observation period, but reneged by filing 36 pages
of motion documents to retain custody. At the
negotiation for the consent of January 19, 2000, they
promised that the supervision would end six months from
the apprehension on May 16, 2000 - time served was the
operative phrase. Trish Cox in her own handwriting put
May 16 as the expiry date on many of our consent forms.
Still, CAS later insisted on July 19, 2000, a date that
they now ask to extend. We have scrupulously complied
with our consent agreements, while they have defied
their agreements, both formal and informal, and acted
contrary to the opinion of the court on the Child Abuse
Register. We are requesting that the court for once
compel CAS to respect their own agreement.
Exhibit A Letter by Debbie Launspach
Exhibit B application for membership
Exhibit C Letter regarding Child Abuse Register
Exhibit D Transmittal letter for bylaws
Exhibit E Brigance Pre-School Screen
Exhibit F Ages and Stages test
Exhibit G William Weiner letter
Exhibit H Dr Bakht letter
--------------------------------------------------------
July 10, 2000
John Baird
Ministry of Community and Social Services
Office of the Minister
Hepburn Block Queens Park Toronto ON M7A 1E9
Dear Mr Baird:
This letter is in response to your letter of February 9,
2000 in which you declined to answer any questions about
a matter before the courts. To help you find your own
records, I enclose the first page of the email that I
sent to David Tilson on November 26, 1999 while our
child was still in custody, and your response.
Our son was seized by Children's Aid on November 16,
1999. On July 5, 2000 judge Allen dismissed the entire
action, ending the court case. The damage has been
severe because we have been compelled to incur legal
expenses unrelated to our son's care of about $15,000,
Can you now answer the questions raised in my original
letter to David Tilson?
/signed/
Robert T McQuaid
RR 5
Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2
phone: 519-942-0565
email: robert.mcquaid@hurontario.net
--------------------------------------------------------
July 10, 2000
Dufferin Child and Family Services
50 Fourth Avenue Unit 13
Orangeville Ontario L9W 4P1
citation: Ontario Court of Justice
at 10 Louisa Street, Orangeville Ontario
court file number 180/99
Applicant: Children's Aid Society of
Dufferin
Respondents: Robert T McQuaid
Linda Prosh
Dear Sirs:
Under a recent court action against our family, cited
above, you received consent from us to exchange
information with various persons regarding our family.
On July 5, 2000 Judge Allen dismissed the entire court
action.
Please take notice that any authority from us under
those consents is now canceled.
/signed/ Robert T McQuaid
/signed/ Linda Prosh
RR 5
Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2
--------------------------------------------------------
(Eight letters were sent, each to just one of the
addressees shown below. -RTMQ)
July 10, 2000
Deborah Launspach
Sandbox Tech Child Care
RR #8 Mono Mills
Orangeville, Ontario L9W 3T5
Ronald G Murphy
Medical Arts Bldg
15 Elizabeth Street Suite M 16
Orangeville Ontario L9W 5X5
Dr Diann Superina-Bell
Toronto Western Division
399 Bathurst St
Toronto Ontario M5T 2S8
Friends at Hand-in-Hand Day Care
70 First Street
Orangeville Ontario L9W 2E5
Kindrey Rowland
15 Elizabeth Street, Suite M-15
Orangeville, Ontario L9W 3Z3
Dr M Bakht
WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE
Brampton Memorial Hospital Campus
20 Lynch Street
Brampton, Ontario L6W 2Z8
Dufferin Association for Community Living
14 Stewart Court Suite 100
Orangeville Ontario L9W 3Z9
Women's Resource Centre
c/o Orangeville Alliance Church
232 Broadway
Orangeville Ontario
Dear Mr/Dr etc:
Children's Aid started a legal action against our family
in November 1999. Under that action we were required to
authorize you to disclose information about us and our
son Kenneth McQuaid to Dufferin Child and Family
Services incorporated as the Children's Aid Society of
the County of Dufferin.
On July 5, 2000, judge Allen dismissed the entire action
unconditionally. Consequently, any authority you have
from me or my wife Linda Prosh to exchange information
with Children's Aid is now canceled.
Robert T McQuaid
RR 5
Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2
phone: 519-942-0565
email: robert.mcquaid@hurontario.net
--------------------------------------------------------
CAS letterhead
July 12, 2000
Mr R McQuaid and Ms L Prosh
RR 5
Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2
Dear Mr McQuaid and Ms Prosh
Enclosed please find copies to letters sent the
providers who had been involved with you and Kenneth.
Sincerely,
/signed/
Trish Cox, B Sc N, RN
Child Protection and Family Services Worker
........................................................
(There were eight letters enclosed, identical except
for the addressees, all shown in the single copy below.
-RTMQ)
CAS letterhead
July 12, 2000
Ms Deborah Launspach
Sandbox Tech Child Care
RR #8 Mono Mills
Orangeville Ontario L9W 3T5
Ms Mary Lynne Richardson
Women's Resource Centre
Alliance Church
232 Broadway Avenue
Orangeville Ontario
Nina Little Alcorn
Parent Infant Program
Dufferin Child and Family Services
50 Fourth Avenue, Unit 13
Orangeville Ontario L9W 4P1
Kindrey Rowland
Speech-Language Pathologist
Orangeville Speech and Language Clinic
15 Elizabeth St Suite M-15
Orangeville Ontario L9W 3X3
Wil Weiner
162 Broadway Unit #5
Orangeville Ontario L9W 1K3
Dr R Murphy
Paediatrician
15 Elizabeth St
Orangeville Ontario L9W 3X3
Dr D Superina-Bell
Paediatric Consultant
Child Health Unit
Toronto Western Hospital
University Health Network
399 Bathurst St 3rd Floor
Toronto Ontario M5T 2F8
fax: 1-416-603-5180
Dr M Bakht
Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist
William Osler Health Centre
Brampton Memorial Hospital Campus
20 Lynch Street
Brampton Ontario L6W 2Z8
fax: 905-451-2690
Re: Kenneth McQuaid
dob October 16, 1996
Dear Mr/Ms etc:
Please be advised that Kenneth McQuaid and his family
are no longer involved with the Children's Aid Society
under a Supervision Order.
In the future, if there are any further concerns for the
physical, sexual or emotional well being of Kenneth or
concerns related to neglect or a pattern of neglect,
that may lead to any of the latter, please contact
Dufferin Child and Family Services at 941-1530
Sincerely,
/signed/
Trish Cox, BScN, RN
Child Protection and Family Services Worker
/signed/
Debbie Taylor, BA, BSW
Senior Program Manager
cc: Mr R McQuaid
Ms L Prosh
--------------------------------------------------------
John Baird letterhead
July 28, 2000
Mr Robert T McQuaid
RR 5
Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2
Dear Mr McQuaid:
Thank you for your letter of July 10, 2000 concerning
the children's aid society.
I have noted your concerns and appreciate the time you
have taken to write about this matter. I have asked Mr
Vince Tedesco, who is the Regional Director of our
Central West Region, to review your letter and provide
you with a more detailed response. You can expect a
response within the next month.
Once again, thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
/signed/
John Baird, MPP
Minister
c: Mr Vince Tedesco
--------------------------------------------------------
Ontario
Ministry of Community and Social Services
CENTRAL WEST REGION
1140 Burnhamthorpe Rd W Suite 212
Mississauga ON L5C 4E9
Tel (905) 897-3112
Fax (905) 896-0206
August 10, 2000
Dear Mr McQuaid:
Thank you for your letter of July 10, 2000 regarding
your concerns about the actions of the Children's Aid
Society in Dufferin County and the impact of these
actions on your family. The Honourable John Baird,
Minister of Community and Social Services asked that I
look into your concerns and to provide a more detailed
response to you.
We acknowledge that the apprehension of a child is
extremely distressing to families. As you may know, it
is the legislated mandate of Children's Aid Societies,
such as Dufferin Child and Family Services to determine
if a child is in need of protection. It is the
expectation of the Ministry of Community and Social
Services that the societies give due consideration to
reports and other relevant information that are received
by them in carrying out their mandate. If the situation
is severe and a child is in urgent need of protection, a
Children's Aid Society may proceed to apprehend the
child. Placement of the child outside the home may be
for a short period of time during which the child's
family has an opportunity to engage in activities that
increase their capacity to care for the child. The
child also may be given certain opportunities that
enhance this or her growth and development. Not all
apprehensions result in a child becoming a Crown Ward
without access to the child by a parent.
If the parents have made attempts to deal with the
problems in the family through counselling or other
activities, and the child is no longer considered to be
in need of protection, the child may be returned to his
or her home. If the child is returned to the care of
the parents, the judge may grant a supervision order for
a period of time to ensure that the gains made continue.
Once this is no longer required, the judge may terminate
the supervision order and the case is closed. I am told
that the judge dismissed the request of Dufferin Child
and Family Services for an extension of the supervision
order on July 5, 2000 as, in his opinion, it was no
longer required.
If you continue to have concerns with the actions of the
agency, there are procedures that Children's Aid
Societies are required to have in place to hear
complaints. Under the Child and Family Services Act,
each Children's Aid Society (CAS) must have a formal
complaint procedure. Individuals who are not satisfied
with the services provided to them by the CAS may have
their situation reviewed. The first step is to discuss
the matter with the social worker who was involved with
you, then the Supervisor, and if the matter remains
unresolved, with the Executive Director. The fourth
step is to request a hearing by the Board of Directors.
If the situation remains unsettled at that point, then
you may request a review by the Ministry of Community
and Social Services under Section 68(3) of the Child and
Family Services Act.
Should you have questions reagarding the mandate of
children's aid societies or the review process, please
contact Kaye Rempel, Program Supervisor at 519-886-4222,
ext 220.
Thank you for writing and sharing your concerns with the
Ministry of Community and Social Services.
Sincerely,
/signed/
Vince Tedesco
Regional Director
--------------------------------------------------------
Epilogue
Examination of this and other cases suggests that all
CAS affidavits are the work of a single composer working
from notes supplied by caseworkers. Nina Little Alcorn
wrote her own memos candidly, all other caseworkers
spoke through a composer skilled in journalistic smear
without specific facts constituting libel. In this
case, and every other one I have seen, CAS asserts that
any child in its custody is showing signs of
improvement, taking full credit. Disparaging his
abilities at the start furthers the effect. Here they
took credit for getting Ken interested in toilet
training, though that was not done until eight months
later, and Ken's speech improvements, though rapid
improvement in his speech began a month before the raid,
for example, the first correct use of a verb with an
object.
We got onto the Child Abuse Register March 28, 2000, but
new legislation, enacted by the Provincial Parliament in
1999 and proclaimed into law March 31, 2000, abolished
it. Its replacement is a Canada-wide computer system
containg a full verbatim record of all Children's Aid
cases.
The remaining legacies of Ken's abduction are the
permanent Children's Aid record, a large number of other
parents met through the internet but excluded from the
court record, and the ongoing effort, which I am now
calling Dufferin VOCA, to get CAS to change its policies
politically. In this effort, I am surprised by the
silence of voices that ought to defend the family, such
as the clergy.
In my previous career I have been a party to every kind
of lawsuit from squabbles over rent cheques to a hundred
million dollar tort action against my company. This
litigation is for even larger stakes than a
multi-million dollar suit, yet is conducted with less
respect for the rights of the parties than a
small-claims case.
Here are some facts withheld during the litigation for
strategic reasons. During the year preceding the raid,
Linda worked part-time outside the home, and I took care
of Ken during the day. This accounts for Linda's
ignorance about Ken's care during the raid. My story
never got to court. The construction of heating vents
in our home allows Ken and me to talk to each other
while he is in his room and I am in my office, so he was
not isolated even when locked in. In other cases where
CAS finds bugs in a home, they ostentatiously report
them. We had none.
A vital element to prevailing over CAS was the hardening
of Linda's attitude. While she was dead-set against a
court hearing in January, by June she was willing to do
whatever it took to get rid of CAS, including newspaper
publicity.
--------------------------------------------------------
Name Index and Glossary
Craig Abrams
Constable, Shelburne OPP. PC Abrams is his title.
John B Allen
Judge of the Ontario Court of Justice, who decided
all three contested hearings in this case. None of
the websites critical of judges have any reports on
him.
John Baird
Minister of Community and Social Services for the
Province of Ontario. His letterhead contains, in
French and English:
Ministry of Community and Social Services
Office of the Minister
Hepburn Block Queens Park Toronto ON M7A 1E9
(416)325-5226
M Bakht
Child Psychiatrist, Peel Memorial Hospital,
Brampton Ontario.
Orangeville Banner
A newspaper published twice a week in Orangeville.
Irene Beazley
Senior Administrative Assistant, CAS.
Diane Benoit
Psychiatrist, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.
Many parents assessed by her have lost their
children.
Tina Berryman
The employee of Molly Maid whose report initiated
this action.
Karen Bowers
Friends at Hand-in-Hand Day Care (qv).
Marianne Breadner
Director, CAS.
Lillian Brewer
Resident of Orangeville, grandmother whose son had
his children removed by CAS, a case that has taken
up of weeks of trial time at the Orangeville
courthouse. She became a candidate for CAS
director.
G D (Greg) Brodhagen, badge 7184, Sergeant
Shelburne Detachment,
Ontario Provincial Police
phone 519-925-3838
One of two police officers conducting the raid
caregiver
A politically correct word for anyone looking after
a child. Use of this term avers that a salaried
worker has the same value as a parent.
CAS letterhead (for external correspondence)
DUFFERIN Child and Family Services
(Logo) (Incorporated as The Children's Aid Society
of the County of Dufferin)
Gary Putman BA MSW Executive Director
Tel 519-941-1530
Fax 519-941-1525
50 Fourth Ave Unit 13
Orangeville Ontario L9W 4P1
www.headwaters.com/dcafs/
dcafs@headwaters.com
Child Protective Service
Children's Mental Heath Service
Developmental Support Service
Dufferin Children's Fund
CAS memohead (for internal correspondence)
DUFFERIN Child and Family Services
(Logo) (Incorporated as The Children's Aid Society
of the County of Dufferin)
Chedoke McMaster Hospital
Hospital offering Child Advocacy & Assessment
Program. The first syllable is pronounced shed.
Their website gives a department called the Canadian
Centre for Studies of Children at Risk, disclosing
their bias. Their website is:
http://www-fhs.mcmaster.ca/cscr/
Child Abuse Register
A statutory list of child abusers in Ontario. There
is no provision for judicial review before entry
onto the reigster.
Child Abuse Review Team (CART)
A committee required by statute in each Children's
Aid Society, to decide on entry to the Child Abuse
Register.
Child Advocacy and Assessment Program (CAAP)
A program at Chedoke-McMaster Hospital to assess
parents of children at risk.
Child and Family Services Act (CFSA)
Legislation giving powers to CAS.
Cathy Chmilnitzky
Director, CAS.
John Christie
Director and Vice President, CAS.
Orangeville Citizen
A newspaper published once a week in Orangeville,
circulation 11,000. Web page: www.citizen.on.ca
Katherine Clauser (or Catherine)
13 Hawthorne Road, Orangeville Ontario, phone
519-942-2912. Foster mother of Ken McQuaid in
November 1999
Community First
A drop-in children's centre.
Joyce Cook
Employee of Dufferin Association for Community
Living. She tested Ken and found him too advanced
for treatment.
Catharine Cote
Founder of VOCA, a citizen's group opposing abuse by
Children's Aid Societies throughout Ontario
Patricia Louise (Trish) Cox
The second CAS caseworker for Kenneth McQuaid.
John Creelman
Mayor of Mono Township, Dufferin County Ontario.
crown wardship
The term in Ontario law for termination of parental
rights.
Jill Cutter
Client of Women's Resource Centre.
Jim Dickson, badge 6627
Shelburne Detachment,
Ontario Provincial Police
phone 519-925-3838
One of two police officers conducting the raid.
Dufferin Association for Community Living (DACL)
14 Stewart Court Suite 100
Orangeville Ontario L9W 3Z9
phone: 519-941-8971
fax: 519-941-9121
Dufferin County
A county in Ontario containing Orangeville and Mono
Township, 279 square km, population 45,657 by 1996
census.
echolalia
Involuntary repetition of words or phrases just
spoken by others
euthymic
Mood in the normal range, not depressed or elevated.
Kimberley Evans
Program Manager, CAS. Supervisor of all intake
workers in Dufferin CAS.
Dawn Franks
Intake worker, CAS.
FRCP
Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians.
Friends at Hand-in-Hand
70 First Street Orangeville Ontario L9W 2E5
phone: 519-942-3337
Daycare centre in Orangeville attended by Kenneth
for three weeks.
Gwen Funston
Justice of the Peace who signed warrant.
Linda Harris
Program Assistant, Child Advocacy & Assessment
Program.
Evelyn D Huber
Huber & Heersche
184 Broadway Orangeville ON L9W 1K3
(519)940-4500 phone
(519)940-4502 fax
Lawyer for Robert McQuaid and Linda Prosh. CAS
never got her address correct, nor the spelling of
Heersche.
Trevor Hunt
paediatrician, Alliston Ontario
ib
Initials of typist Irene Beazley
Kimberly James
Intake worker
Dufferin Child and Family Services
50 Fourth Ave Unit 13
Orangeville Ontario L9W 4P1
phone 519-941-1530 ext 238
E-mail: dcafs@headwaters.com
The above was copied from her business card during
the raid.
Janice Jordan
Director, CAS
Kelsey's
A restaurant in Orangeville. The typical meal,
beverage and tip is $15 Canadian per person.
Deborah (Debbie) Launspach
Sandbox Tech Child Care (qv)
Nina K Little Alcorn
CAS employee, Parent-Infant Program. Little is her
primary surname.
Jennifer Long-Moore
The CAS annual report shows no employee with this
name, but does show Jennifer Moore and Jennifer
Longmore, both intake workers.
Patti Lowe
Daughter-in-law of Lillian Brewer.
Dorothy McLachlan
Program Manager, Clinical Services, CAS, supervisor
of Nina Little Alcorn.
Kenneth Daryl McQuaid
born Oct 16, 1996, child whose abduction started
this case. CAS misspells his name Darryl.
Robert T McQuaid
father of child abducted in this case
RR 5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2
phone: 519-942-0565
email: rtmq@hurontario.net
Molly-Maid
A franchised cleaning-service company. See:
http://www.mollymaid.com/canada.html
Mono
Township in Dufferin County Ontario, 279 square km,
population 6552 by census of 1996. Rhymes with
Sonny Bono.
Jennifer Moore
CAS intake worker, but see Jennifer Long-Moore.
Ms
Title for a woman, used in this text only in
verbatim transcripts, and for women who specifically
request to be so identified.
Ronald G Murphy
Medical Arts Bldg
15 Elizabeth Street Suite M 16
Orangeville Ontario L9W 5X5
(519) 942-3501
Pediatrician for Ken engaged by CAS.
Orangeville
A town in Dufferin County Ontario, 70 km northwest
of Toronto, population 21,498 by 1996 census.
Parent-Infant Program(me)
Name for the activities of Nina Little Alcorn.
parenting capacity assessment
A recent fad in child care originated at the
Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. See Diane
Benoit.
Louise (Lou) Potter CPC
Covenant Community Church,
3 Zina Street, Orangeville
941-2707, pastor
Eric Prosh
Brother of Linda Prosh, uncle of Kenneth McQuaid.
Linda Prosh
mother of child abducted in this case
RR 5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2
phone 519-940-9847
Gary Putman
Executive Director, CAS. CAS is organized under the
same law as any non-profit corporation, with members
electing a board of directors, and the directors
electing the management: president, secretary,
treasurer. There is a statutory office called
"local director" for Children's Aid Societies only
that must be occupied by a senior social worker, and
exercises a number of unique powers. Executive
Director is a pretentious term for local director.
Mary Lynn Richardson
Client of Women's Resource Centre and member of the
Board of Directors of CAS.
Lee Rivoire
Employee of Friends at Hand-in-Hand daycare.
Stephen G Ross
Tottenham Medical Centre, Tottenham Ontario.
Physician for Kenneth McQuaid for three years prior
to the raid.
Kindrey Rowland
15 Elizabeth Street Suite M-15
Orangeville Ontario L9W 3Z3
Phone/Fax 519-941-1314
Speech Therapist. I spell her name correctly,
but most documents in this case incorrectly call
her Rowlands.
Sandbox Tech Child Care
RR #8 Mono Mills, Orangeville Ontario L9W 3T5.
Paulette Smith
Owner of Orangeville Molly-Maid franchise.
Toronto Sun
A daily newspaper, circulation 235,000.
Debbie Taylor
Senior Program Manager, CAS. She supervises all
caseworkers.
Vince Tedesco
Regional Director, Central West Region of the
Ministry of Community and Social Services
David G Thwaites
lawyer for Children's Aid
Wardlaw, Mullin, Carter, Thwaites and Ward
His resume from his website appears below:
PRACTICE: In Orangeville since 1981, partner since
1991
EXPERIENCE: Mr. Thwaites' practice is as a
litigation lawyer providing counsel in the areas of
insurance law, employment law, Church discipline,
family law and criminal law. He has provided
counsel to numerous Church and para-Church
organizations and to individuals in the Christian
marketplace. He is counsel to the Children's Aid
Society of the County of Dufferin. He has lectured
at numerous seminars sponsored by the Law Society of
Upper Canada, The Canadian Council of Christian
Charities and the Canadian Bar Association and has
contributed articles to the Church and the Law
Update regularly on topics including Church
Liability, Employment Law and Human Rights, as well
as articles on Sexual Abuse and Liability Insurance
for the Law Society and the Canadian Bar Association
of Ontario. He is a member of Council for the
Canadian Bar Association of Ontario, the Charity and
Not-for-Profit Law Section of the Canadian Bar
Association and the Christian Legal Fellowship.
EDUCATION: LL.B., University of Western Ontario,
1979
Call to Bar, 1981
David Tilson
MPP, the elected representative of Dufferin County
in the Ontario Provincial Parliament.
Mark Van Horne
President, CAS.
Alice Veenman
Deputy-Mayor of Mono Township.
VOCA
See Catherine Cote.
Carol Wale
Clerk of Court, Ontario Court of Justice, 10 Louisa
Street, Orangeville Ontario.
Wardlaw, Mullin, Carter, Thwaites & Ward
The following profile of the law firm (and Thwaites
qv) came from the firm website at
http://www.wardlaw.on.ca/ as of June, 2000.
Firm Profile
With a history dating back to 1896, Wardlaw, Mullin,
Carter, Thwaites & Ward is a full service law firm
located in Orangeville on the northwest perimeter of
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
As the largest law firm in the region, the firm
consists of five lawyers serviced by experienced
staff. The staff and lawyers ensure that the firm
is able to provide full legal services for our
clients.
The firm is divided into the solicitor's practice
with an emphasis on charities and not-for-profit
organizations as well as corporate-commercial, real
estate, estate law, intellectual property, and the
litigation practice with its emphasis upon civil,
family, employment and criminal litigation. Both
the solicitors and barristers practice
administrative and municipal law as well.
The firm is committed to being pro-active in working
with clients to develop immediate and long term
strategic plans to avoid legal problems before they
occur. This is accomplished through an effective
Legal Risk Management approach to the practice of
law.
William Weiner
Child and Family Counsellor
162 Broadway Suite 5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Y8
519-942-0566 wweiner@sympatico.ca
Women's Resource Centre
c/o Orangeville Alliance Church, 232 Broadway,
Orangeville Ontario
--------------------------------------------------------