Any lawyers from Canada here?

[Ellen]

This family needs help - I suppose the only way to find them is through the reporter. I'll postthe article in two parts because it's quite long

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=828ef15e-a2c0-4729-b708-ba3116fa0fdd&k=85191 (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=828ef15e-a2c0-4729-b708-ba3116fa0fdd&k=85191)

Taken, as if they're not yours
Quebec parents of a diabetic son who refused to send him to an 'unsafe' school lose him to the state

William Marsden
CanWest News Service


Saturday, May 13, 2006

CREDIT: Brian Corn, Knight Ridder

Since February, two brothers, ages nine and 10, have lived in foster care. "This whole thing began because we asked for textbooks," the mother says.

MONTREAL - Their bunk beds are empty, their toys idle, their books shelved, and their musical instruments -- two violins, an electric piano and an antique accordion -- tucked away in their cases.

Signs of a past life that their parents keep undisturbed, waiting for the nightmare to end; waiting for their two boys to return and for life to get back to normal.

On Feb. 15, a judge in youth protection court ordered their two boys, aged nine and 10, into foster care.

The reason given was that the parents were negligent of their children's health and schooling.

But as subsequent events have proved, the reason the boys were taken away was not because the parents weren't loving and caring. If anything, it's because they cared too much. They refused to allow the government to impede their children's progress.

At the end of the day, the unyielding parents collided with a rigid bureaucracy, and their relatively peaceful life collapsed around them.

Youth Protection laws forbid public disclosure of the children's identity. So their names as well as those of the parents, cannot be released.

"If they can take our children away, they can take anybody's children away," the boys' mother said. "This whole thing began [in 2004] simply because we asked the school to supply us with text- books."

Actually, it began much earlier than that.

It began when the youngest boy, whom we will call Timothy, was three years old and diagnosed with type 1 diabetes -- the most severe.

For the rest of his life, Timothy will have to inject himself with daily doses of insulin as well as take extreme care in regulating his diet, exercise regime and mental health.

Their first experience with the disease taught them that if they wanted to ensure Timothy's long-term wellbeing, they would have to do it themselves.

"We found out he was diabetic when we went to wake him up one morning, and he wouldn't wake up," his father said. "We rushed him to the hospital. He was in a coma for three days."

The reason he fell into a diabetic coma was because Timothy's doctor had misdiagnosed him, his parents said.

"He almost died," his mother said.

To the parents, the lesson was clear: Don't trust doctors.

Both Timothy's parents are academics who were preparing for careers as university professors. They are both strong-minded -- some might say headstrong -- people. Social and community activism is part of their fabric.

His mother wrote her master's thesis on sexual harassment in the university. She has a degree in music and has won a Governor-General's medal for academic excellence. His father, who had published a philosophical reflection on a John Lennon song, was writing his master's thesis in philosophy.

When diabetes struck Timothy, they put their careers on hold.

Around the time Timothy was diagnosed with diabetes, his parents had a third child, whom we'll call Susan. She was born with nasal stenosis, a narrowing of the nasal passage that can cause severe breathing problems in newborns. The child was sent home with an oxygen tank and the parents were forced to give her 24-hour-a-day care.

Timothy's parents set out to make sure he was on the best diabetic regimen possible. Together with Timothy's doctor, over time they developed one that has kept him in good heath and out of hospital.

"He has never fainted or had a hypoglycemia [low blood level] or a hyperglycemia [high blood level] event," his father said.

They wanted to instill in him the discipline he would need for the rest of his life to manage his illness and recognize danger signals. But they also recognized that he was too young to be completely responsible for himself.

By 2002, he was old enough to go to school. But his parents worried that no school was equipped to watch over him carefully enough to ensure his regimen was followed.

"We went to see the principal of the school and told him what was required in terms of diabetes care," the mother said. "He told us that this was beyond their abilities and suggested home schooling."

Timothy's doctor also felt that home schooling was the safest route and wrote out a prescription to that effect.

"We decided that if Timothy was going to be home schooled we should home school his brother too," who had completed kindergarten at the time, the father said. "We made the decision to treat them equally."

The parents signed registration forms with the appropriate school board and got the necessary approvals for their curriculum.

For the next two years they created a program that met the Ministry of Education's requirements. Plus they taught the boys music, art and French.

"We did not start out wanting to home school our children," said the father. "But we began to realize that home schooling was better than sending them to a school. We could teach the curriculum in a couple of hours that was supposed to take a week at the school."

After spending their savings and maxing out their credit, Timothy's parents joined the ranks of those with diabetic children who go on welfare.

For the next two years, the parents taught the boys at home. At the end of the first school year, the school tested the older boy, whom we'll call Jeffrey, to ensure he was keeping up with the provincial curriculum. It didn't test Timothy because he was in kindergarten.

The results were excellent. Margaret Mitchell, who was in charge of home schooling at the school board but is now retired, noted in her report that Jeffrey "displayed fluency and was very articulate in his reading with an excellent vocabulary." She said "he was performing above grade level." He also performed well in mathematics and his French conversation was "confident ... and demonstrated good expression" while his French reading "showed excellent accuracy."

They renewed the boy's home schooling registration and on June 16, 2003, received confirmation from Ms. Mitchell that the school had received the required documents for them to home school the children.

The trouble started at the end of the second year.

"When we hadn't heard from the school board about testing the boys, I called up to make an appointment," the father said.

Much to the parents' surprise, they received a letter from the school stating that "your file is incomplete, consequently your child(ren) (sic) will not be assessed."

The parents phoned up and demanded the children be assessed. They also put their demand in writing.

But the board refused.

The school claimed the parents had not filed a proper curriculum. To make sure there would be no future problems, the parents wrote a lengthy curriculum and asked the school to lend them textbooks, which they would return at the end of the year. They also asked for a tutor to be made available to evaluate the boys' progress at regular intervals.

The school board refused both requests, claiming it had no obligation to supply books. Finally, the parents got free books from the Kateri School in Kahnwake. But the school board refused to accept the curriculum based on those texts.

The parents filed a complaint with the Quebec Human Rights Commission, claiming the school was discriminating against home schoolers. The complaint is still being investigated.

When the parents persisted in their demands, the school in turn demanded that they send the boys to school.

"We told them fine, we'll send the boys to school but they have to guarantee that they can look after [Timothy]," the mother said. "They refused that and even asked us to sign a waiver saying they were not responsible if anything happened to him. That was unacceptable."

So the parents refused to send the boys to school, and the board refused to test them.

The argument between the family and the school board went on for almost a year. Then the school board called in youth protection authorities.

In March, 2005, a child-care worker showed up at the parents' house.

The worker gave it a "Code 3," which means there was no urgency and no need to take the children out of the home.

"Youth protection told us they would decide if the children should go to school," the mother said. "I thought, 'Great, they can ensure that [Timothy] will have the health care he needs.' "

Between March and June 2005, a social worker from the English youth protection agency tried to straighten things out between the school and the parents. The parents agreed to register their children at the local school. But when the school could not guarantee that Timothy would get proper care, they refused to follow through.

After three months, when there was no resolution to what was essentially an alleged truancy issue, the English youth protection agency transferred the file to the French youth protection branch claiming this was at the parents' request.

"We never requested this," the father said. "We're English."

[Ellen]

Things went from bad to worse when, in the fall of 2005, Timothy's regular doctor fell ill and had to close his practice.

The parents continued to have Timothy tested every three to six months at Verdun Hospital to assure that his blood sugar levels, body weight and cognitive skills were normal. The results showed he was in good health, and they believed his careful regimen was the reason.

But the fact that he didn't have a regular doctor raised concerns with the new French youth protection worker assigned to the case.

She forced the parents to take Timothy to a doctor at the Montreal Children's Hospital for a checkup. The youth protection worker was present during the consultation.

"The meeting didn't go well," the father admitted.

He said the family took an immediate dislike to the doctor, who, he said, arrogantly ordered them around. They had the impression he regarded them as little more than welfare recipients guilty of child abuse.

"Timothy had just been tested at Verdun Hospital, and he didn't want to have more blood taken from him. So we refused to allow the doctor to check him. Finally, the doctor stormed out of his office."

The doctor wrote a four-page report raising serious concerns about Timothy's health. It said he distrusted Timothy's test results from the Verdun Hospital, considering them too good to be true. He also distrusted the fact that the parents refused to allow him to examine Timothy.

The youth protection worker took the parents to court, asking the judge to force them to send Timothy and Jeffrey to school and, as a precautionary measure, to order a doctor's examination of Timothy. She stated, however, that she wanted the children to remain with the parents.

The judge had a different idea.

Citing the parents' apparent lack of co-operation with the doctor, the doctor's report that raised potential health concerns about Timothy and the parents' apparent refusal to send the children to school, she ordered both children to be put into foster care. Oddly, neither the youth protection worker nor the judge paid any attention to the youngest child, Susan, who remained at home.

"We were shocked and so was the social worker," the mother said. "Nobody had predicted this. I cried for four days.

"When they took them it was a shock to the system because they take them as if they are not your own children."

The two boys were taken away on Feb. 15. Jeffrey was immediately placed in a foster home on the island of Montreal.

But because the youth protection branch could not find a home for Timothy that would give him proper care, the youth protection worker brought him to the Montreal Children's Hospital. He stayed at the hospital for three weeks.

There, doctors checked him over and found that he was in good health and that his cognitive abilities were in the "upper normal range," thus putting to rest the previous doctor's claim that he was suffering "dangerous hypoglycemia."

Doctors, however, raised concerns that the emotional trauma from the foster care order and hospitalization had destroyed his regimen.

"Because of the emotional turmoil and irregular eating, his control during the hospitalization was erratic," a doctor's report states.

Finally, a place was found for Timothy in a foster home in Laval.

Youth protection enrolled the boys in separate English schools under two different school boards.

The parents are allowed to see the boys one hour a week. The youth protection worker tells them what they can and cannot say to the children, the parents said.

"The social worker told me that I have to tell my boys that foster care is the best thing for them, otherwise she will mark me in the file as non-co-operative," the mother said. "She told me that if the boys are unhappy it will cause emotional stress to the foster parents. I refuse to tell them that. I tell them that I love them."

The parents fear that Timothy is not getting proper health care from the foster parents and the school. They point out that his sugar counts are too often in danger zones.

Timothy's father said that to bring down his sugar levels, his new doctor has increased his insulin dosage.

The parents are scheduled to go back to youth protection court on Wednesday. The problem is they don't have money for a lawyer, and they have no idea how to persuade the judge to return their children.

They have to prove they are ready to adhere to the judge's demands.

The first demand, that Timothy be checked by a doctor, has already been fulfilled. The parents have also organized a specialist for Timothy to replace his last doctor.

But schooling is still an issue.

Both parents are adamant that school boards have an obligation to help educate children even if they are home schooled. They also remain adamant that if they send their boys to school, the school has an obligation to ensure Timothy's good health.

"It's like a totalitarian state," the father said. "What can we do?"

Meanwhile, the Quebec government is charging them $12.80 a day for each boy for foster care. It has suggested in a letter that they should use their federal child care and GST allowance to pay it.

It is also halving their welfare payment.

[jmmilleros]

What a sad story this is. It shames me that something this terrible could happen in Canada. These people have been shuffled around so much that no one is really involved or seems to really know what's going on. Too often, people in government simply rely on written statements, although as you see in this case, much of the 'facts' they rely on are actually conjecture or opinion.

I know from personal experience how the government can take a person down on their luck and make them feel about an inch tall. When I was pregnant, I was unfairly dismissed from my job in a factory. I had to go to my MP and fight with EI, enduring four months of holier-than-thou case workers and telephone agents sneering at me because apparently needing assistance makes you less than human.

The fact that their child is actually regressing and unhealthier than before he was out of the parent's care should be a big red flag to anyone watching... but apparently no one is. Let's hope this mess is cleaned up with little lasting effect on the children.

For more articles on childrens health issues, visit www.yourchildrenshealth.com.

[Ellen]

Don't use kids as pawns in turf war


The Gazette


Tuesday, May 16, 2006


Taking children away from their parents is one of the most traumatic events imaginable in a family's life. For the state to loosen, even temporarily, the bonds that tie parent and child requires not only a compelling reason, but one specified in law.

On Saturday, The Gazette's William Marsden described a troubling case in which two boys were removed from the care of their parents for reasons that seemed to have little to do with their safety.

Here are the facts: The younger boy has Type 1 diabetes, for which he was diagnosed at age 3. Control over insulin intake is critical in such a young child. Improperly managed, the disease can lead to loss of eyesight, limbs, kidney disease or amputation, according to the Canadian Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

When it came time to enroll the boy, the parents explained to the school what was involved in caring for him. The school principal said that care on that level was beyond the school's ability and that they should consider home-schooling.

For two years, they home-schooled their two sons. According to tests the school administered at the end of the first year, the older boy performed above grade level. The diabetic child was in kindergarten, and so not tested.

Relations between parents and school broke down over the parents' request that the school provide books needed for home-schooling. The school insisted the children be sent to school. The parents refused to sign a waiver, releasing the school from responsibility if anything happened to their son.

In February, the case ended up in court. Despite the fact that the child-protection worker stated she wanted the children to remain with their parents, Judge Ginette Durand-Brault ordered the two boys into foster care.

The youth-protection system was unable to provide a foster home capable of caring properly for the diabetic child. He ended up having to stay in the Children's Hospital for three weeks until a suitable foster home was found. As though to further loosen the family ties, protection officials have enrolled the two children in separate English schools under two school boards.

The entire affair seems perverse. Since it was created in 1979, Quebec's youth-protection system has been underfunded and understaffed. It has struggled to provide a safety net to children who are battered, sexually assaulted, starved or abandoned. Throughout the last nearly 30 years, the law has insisted on keeping children within their family milieu, as long as doing so did not compromise their safety and well-being.

Nothing in the case of these two young boys suggests that their parents were anything but devoted to them. The parents might have been aggressive about ensuring that their diabetic son receives the care he needs to control a potentially deadly illness. So what? Quebec should be thankful to them - for doing a good job.

These children should be returned to their parents immediately before any further harm is done.

© The Gazette (Montreal) 2006

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=f0cf265c-2d0b-42f9-9d52-71dc1f9b1c03 (http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=f0cf265c-2d0b-42f9-9d52-71dc1f9b1c03)

[Ellen]

Return diabetic boy, brother to their parents, doctor says
WILLIAM MARSDENThe Gazette
Thursday, May 18, 2006

A diabetic boy and his brother who were put into foster care last February should be returned to their parents, a doctor with the Montreal Children's Hospital says.
Constantin Polychronakos, who has examined the diabetic boy, said yesterday that he should be returned to his parents under strict provisions for care of his Type 1 diabetes, which is the most severe form of the disease.
"I hope the judge returns them to their parents," Polychronakos said.
He said that there are ways to deal with doctors' concerns about the boy's health other than taking him away from his parents, which he said is extremely traumatic.
Polychronakos made the statement after testifying before Judge Ginette Durand-Brault of youth protection court, who on Feb. 15 ordered the two boys into foster homes, citing health and scholastic concerns. Both boys, age 9 and 10, were being home schooled.
Youth protection law forbids publication of the names of the boys or their parents. The children are now living in separate foster homes and going to separate schools.
The case became controversial after the parents refused to send the boys to school, claiming the school was not equipped to care for a severe diabetic.
Youth protection worker Melanie Poulin, 24, has petitioned the court to keep the boys in foster care until Dec. 31, after which their situation would be reassessed. She wants the parents and the boys to undergo psychological examinations.
The parents refused to show up at the hearing yesterday, claiming the court has no intention of giving them back their children no matter what they do or say. The parents claimed they have been "too traumatized" by the actions of youth protection officials to show up in court.
"They (youth protection) are blaming us for what they have done to us," the mother told The Gazette.
Durand-Brault ordered the parents be subpoenaed to appear in court today. The father said they will abide by the order.
Polychronakos told the court that doctors had legitimate fears about the diabetic boy's health, believing the parents were not giving him enough insulin.
"I have never seen (a dosage of) only one insulin injection a day," he said. He called this regimen dangerous and, quoting a colleague, claimed that with such a low insulin dose "you are going to fry your brain."
Too little insulin could cause a diabetic to fall into a coma.
The parents have argued that their regimen has succeeded in keeping their son in perfect health through the careful management of his stress, diet, exercise and insulin. The regimen was worked out with the boy's previous doctor, who has retired.
Youth protection forced the parents last December to send the child to a doctor at the Children's Hospital after they refused to send their boys to school.
Polychronakos was the only witness, and his testimony went unchallenged.
The doctor told the court that when the diabetic boy was taken away from his parents, youth protection couldn't find a foster home, so they put him in the Children's Hospital.
He said the mother told her son they might never see him again.
"He cried," Polychronakos said. He said the mother also at one point told her son that foster care "costs $1,000 a month and his dogs would have to be put down." Again, the boy cried.
The family had said in an interview they had bought the pets to help the boy manage his stress.
Polychronakos also said the parents never visited the boy during the three weeks he was in the hospital.
He said he understood that youth protection had imposed visiting restrictions but he did not know what they were.
He said that despite doctors' concerns the boy's regimen was unsafe, tests showed he had suffered no brain damage and was "very intelligent."
The hearing continues today.
wmarsden@thegazette.canwest.c0m

© The Gazette (Montreal) 2006

[selketine]

This is a confusing case - one shot a day for type 1? I wonder what the kid's A1C looked like.

It does sound like a mess and I'm sure the boys are traumatized. :(

[cydnimom]

Brothers returned to parents
Son has diabetes. Strict conditions imposed on health care, education

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=82492254-f233-4e0b-94e4-ec979bee64eb&k=50041&p=2

Published: Friday, May 19, 2006

A judge has ordered that a severely diabetic boy and his older brother who were put into foster care be returned to their parents, effectively ending a three-month battle between the couple and youth protection services.

But Judge Ginette Durand-Brault imposed strict conditions yesterday on issues of health care and education to which the parents readily agreed.

The youth protection court judge's decision appears to have ended a dispute that has raged since Feb. 15, when the same judge ordered the children into foster care.

Yesterday's sudden turnaround brought tears of happiness from the parents. Outside the courtroom, the father said he was "totally relieved, totally relieved for the children," before breaking down in tears. The mother also cried.

The father said having his children home "will be like starting over again, at zero."

"But thank God we have lots of experience," he added.

To get back their children, the parents were forced to compromise on issues of schooling and health care for the boy who has Type 1 diabetes, the most severe form of the disease.

The parents had been home-schooling their children and had settled on a regimen of diet and insulin with the boy's previous doctor, who retired last year.

The judge ordered the parents to follow a diabetes treatment regimen set by Dr. Constantin Polychronakos of the Montreal Children's Hospital.

The parents and the two boys, age 9 and 10, must also meet at least once a week with a youth protection worker. The social worker will also have access to the diabetic boy's medical file.

As well, the judge ordered that the boys finish their school year at the schools where they are enrolled.

The parents are also not allowed to discuss with the children in any negative way what has happened to them.

"There is to be no discourse, in order to protect their psychological peace of mind so they won't be damaged by this," she said.

Finally, the judge ordered that both parents undergo a psychological examination.

The sudden turnaround in court came yesterday when lawyer Claude Grant, who works for the Quebec Home-based Schooling Association, showed up suddenly to represent the parents.

The organization, which represents about 300 families in Quebec who home-school their children, agreed to pay his costs.

The association's spokesperson, Pierre Campagnion, said he believed this was a case "where the system went awry."

He said the association has had three other cases where home-schooling families have found themselves pitted against "inexperienced youth protection workers" and unco-operative school boards. He said he sent Grant in "to douse the flames."

"The judge applied the law," Grant said afterward.

He added there are too many examples of conflicting issues between parents and schools spiralling out of control, and it's the children who suffer.

The family's problems began in spring 2004, when the Lester B. Pearson School Board refused to test the boys after they had been home-schooled. The board claimed the parents had not properly registered the boys for home-schooling. The parents claimed they had done so.

This led to a battle between the parents and the board, at the end of which the board complained to youth protection that the boys were not registered in school.

Youth protection workers initially tried to settle the home-schooling issue. But then doctors at the Montreal Children's Hospital complained to youth protection that the diabetic boy's daily insulin dosages were too small and he risked brain damage.

Both boys were then placed into foster homes and sent to different schools. Polychronakos increased the boy's insulin dosage to two injections a day from one. Tests showed there was no brain damage from his insulin regimen. Both boys are doing well in school.

This week's court proceeding was to hear a motion by youth protection to continue foster care until the end of the year.

Youth protection lawyer Anne-Marie Leduc claimed the parents were not co-operating with the 24-year-old youth protection worker and indicated the mother had been psychologically abusive to the diabetic boy after he was placed in a foster home.

Testimony showed neither the mother nor the father had visited the boy during a three-week stay in hospital when he was first removed from his home. The parents claimed they thought they were forbidden to visit him. But the youth care worker testified she had asked them to visit him.

On the other hand, the worker said, subsequent weekly meetings between the father and his sons "went very well."

At one point, the mother refused to meet with the youth protection worker. She wrote to the worker that the meetings were "counterproductive to reuniting us with our children."

The mother has stated she was so furious with youth protection for taking away her children, she was reluctant to co-operate.

The children are to be given back to the parents today.

The case is not over, however. A new date is to be set for final witnesses and arguments concerning youth protection's motion to have the children put in foster care until the end of the year. The judge said she will rule on this motion before June 15, when she begins a three-month leave.

If the parents adhere to the provisions set out by the judge, the children will not go back into foster care, Grant said.

wmarsden@thegazette.canwest.com