Header graphic for print

Abuse Claims Law Review

On the Protection of our Children, Parents, and Neighbours: Rights, Responsibilities, and Remedies.

Preventing Child Abuse is Everyone’s Responsibility

By Graham Rudyk on Posted in Child Abuse

April is National Child Abuse Prevention month in the United States.  As in years past, President Barack Obama has issued a Presidential Proclamation to mark the occasion, stating, “every child deserves the opportunity to grow up with the promise and protection of a loving family. This month, we recommit to that vision, and to providing care, stability, and a brighter future for our sons and daughters”.

Here in British Columbia, the Provincial Government issued a news release recognizing April 5, 2012 as Child Abuse Prevention Day.  Part of that statement reads:

Whether they’re our own children, our neighbours’, or a stranger’s, we all share responsibility for their well-being, and in B.C., citizens also have a legal obligation to report suspected abuse.

As important as it is to raise awareness with campaigns such as this, I think we all know that every day is child abuse prevention day.  Child abuse prevention is more than just an important  community initiative.  In fact, as highlighted in the BC Government’s news release,  reporting suspected abuse  is a legal duty for citizens in B.C.

Section 14 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act (the Act) creates a legal duty to make a report if  “a person has reason to believe that a child is in need of protection”.   Some of the circumstances in which a child is considered to be in need of protection are set out in section 13 of the Act.  This section is not exhaustive, and has been interpreted and applied many times by the courts.  These circumstances inlcude situations where the child has been, or is likely to be, physically harmed by the child’s parent, where the child has been, or is likely to be, sexually abused or exploited by the child’s parent, or has been, or is likely to be,  physically harmed because of neglect by the child’s parent. 

Making a report is as simple as making a call to your local Ministry office.  These calls are confidential.  See this link for useful contact information.

Being aware of this duty is the first step in deciding how and when to act upon it.  If you think you have reason to believe that a child is in need of protection, you should seek appropriate legal advice that applies to your specific concerns.

For more information, see the BC Government’s news release, or contact a lawyer.

 

 

 

 

RCMP Faces Class-Action Lawsuit

By Graham Rudyk on Posted in Uncategorized

 

RCMP Faces Class-Action Lawsuit for Mistreatment and Harassment of Female Officers

 

 

 

 

 

 

From 1991 to 2010, Janet Merlo was a constable with the Nanaimo RCMP.  During her 19 years of service she says she was subjected to gender-based bullying, harassment and discrimination by male officers.

While no longer working for the RCMP, Merlo is not willing to forgive and forget.  Merlo is the representative plaintiff in a lawsuit which was filed yesterday in the BC Supreme Court against the federal government for alleged harassment and mistreatment of women RCMP officers.

Merlo is asking the court to grant class-action status to the suit (a process that could take up to two years). If class-action status is granted, over 150 current and former female RCMP members are ready to join Merlo in her fight. 

It’s too late for me,” Merlo said in a statement issued Tuesday, “but I hope that this lawsuit will bring about some positive change for women who are still with the RCMP and women who join in the future.”  (source: According to an article in the Vancouver Sun, the pleadings claim that:

“When she became pregnant in the spring of 1992…Merlo was called into the office of a senior officer, who yelled at her because she was pregnant.  The senior officer suggested to Merlo “next time keep your f—ing legs closed” if she wanted to have a career in the RCMP” 

Merlo was persistently subjected to sexists remarks, sexual pranks and double standards.

Merlo claims that every time she complained of any harassment nothing would come of it, and on one occasion, a superior actually told her to “forget about it.”

“For many of these women the consequences of the bullying, harassment and discrimination have been devastating, including post-traumatic stress syndrome, attempted suicides, depression, broken relationships, and failed marriages.”

While Merlo’s allegations have yet to be proven, the RCMP has started to publicly address the broader issue of discrimination against its female officers.  Bob Paulson, the RCMP’s new Commissioner, recently stated that all complaints involving discrimination and harassment of women officers must be taken seriously and investigated properly.

 Will this be enough to tackle the RCMP’s seemingly entrenched culture of gender discrimination and harassment? A good place to start would be for Merlo and her fellow women officers to have their voices heard in the Supreme Court. Canadians need to know that the BC Courts take this kind of discrimination seriously as well, and will do something about it.

Posted by Special Guest Blogger, Jane Marsden

Getting it Right for Seniors in BC

By Graham Rudyk on Posted in Elder Care

Every year, more than 50,000 British Columbia seniors and their families are impacted by home and community care services. 

Earlier this month, BC’s Ombudsperson, Kim Carter, released a report on the Office of the Ombudsperson’s investigation into the care of seniors in BC.  The 400-plus page report is the result of a three year investigation and makes 143 findings and 176 recommendations on how the Ministry of Health and the five regional health authorities should improve the quality of services being provided to seniors in the province.

As Kim Carter stated earlier this month:

Our report focuses on key areas where significant changes should be made with many recommendations that can be implemented quickly…We need to provide a renewed commitment to some of the most deserving and vulnerable members of our communities; a commitment that focuses on their needs, listens to their concerns and respects their choices.

The Report, entitled The Best of Care: Getting it Right for Seniors in British Columbia (Part 2), forms the second part of an investigation into systemic senior care issues first commenced in 2008.  Part 1 of the report focused more narrowly on residents’ rights, public information, and the role of resident and family councils.

Part 2 of the Report looks at the more general issues of home and community care and the role of the Ministry of Health and the regional health authorities.  More specifically, the Report looks at issues such as access to services, availability and adequacy of information, standards of care, the complaints process, and the monitoring and prevention of abuse. 

Although all the recommendations are too numerous to list here, some of the recommendations include:

  • That the health authorities ensure that seniors are assessed for home and community care services within two weeks of referral;
  • That the Ministry of Health work with the health authorities and other stakeholders to develop a program to ensure that:
    • all seniors and their families are informed of the availability of home and community care services
    • all seniors and their families are informed that they can meet with health authority staff to determine what supports are available to them;
  • That the Ministry of Health take the steps necessary to ensure that Patients Care Quality Offices can respond to a broader range of complaints, including complaints from resident and family councils;
  • That the Ministry of Health establish a program to provide support for seniors and their families to navigate the home and community care system and bring forward concerns and complaints by January 2013;
  • That the Ministry of Health will work with the health authorities to develop provincial guidelines for the reporting and tracking of abuse and neglect;
  • That the Ministry of Health take the necessary steps to provide comprehensive legal protection from adverse consequences for anyone, including staff, who makes a complaint in good faith about home and community care services; and
  • That the Ministry of Health take the steps necessary to ensure that seniors who receive home support services or live in assisted living residences have the same level of legal protection from financial abuse as those who live in residential care facilities.

To find the Report and the rest of its recommendations, please go to the Office of the Ombudsperson’s website. 

In response to the Report, the BC Government has announced a “comprehensive action plan” to improve seniors’ care in our Province. 

However, although the Ombudsperson’s Report and the Government’s response seem to be steps in the right direction, what remains to be seen is whether this Report will prompt any real and lasting change.  According to a recent article in the Globe and Mail, two years before the Office of the Ombudsperson began its investigation, the government had already received a report with similar findings from a blue-ribbon council on aging and seniors’ care.   

Time well tell if these are truly “sweeping changes”, or if this issue will, yet again, be swept under the rug.

(Many thanks to my articled student, Jane Marsden , for her assistance in researching and preparing this post!).

“My Dad Shot My Laptop” – A Family Lawyer’s Take on the Tommy Jordan Debate

By Graham Rudyk on Posted in Domestic Abuse

Tommy Jordan’s video has gone viral.  In his “Facebook Parenting:  For the troubled teen“, posted on Facebook and YouTube on February 8, 2012,  Mr. Jordan, the frustrated parent of a rebellious 15, “going on 16″, year-old daughter, attempts to humiliate her for posting a complaint on her Facebook page about her life of drudgery and servitude  (i.e.: her chores).  Apparently, this use of Facebook was especially galling to Mr. Jordan, as he had just spent half the previous day upgrading his daughter’s laptop, spending about $130 on software in the process.   He was upset to see that his efforts on her behalf were not only unappreciated, but were actually used against him to complain, of all things, about his laziness.

If you’re reading this post, chances are you’ve already seen the video.  If you haven’t, take a moment and do so.  As you will see, Mr. Jordan takes the time to read his daughter’s post aloud, pausing now and again to editorialize, and concludes by destroying her laptop on camera by shooting it with his .45. 

As of the writing of this blog, Mr. Jordan’s video has over 24 million views.  Last time I checked, there were over 190,000 comments posted.   The debate (if that is a fair description, given the nature of some of the comments) seems to be: Is this abuse or not? Is this good parenting?  Is this just understandable frustration, or the actions of a parent on the edge? 

A brief review of the comments will reveal that opinions are polarized.   He’s a hero to some, a disgrace to others, and a joke to many, many more.

So, is this abuse?  My response: is that even a question?

Of course it’s abuse.  As stated by Melinda Smith, M.A. and Jeanne Sega, Ph.D. at helpguide.org, abuse, at its core, is all about control:

An abuser doesn’t “play fair”.  Abusers use fear, guilt, shame, and intimidation to wear you down and keep you under his or her thumb. 

Let’s be clear here: This is not about taking sides.  We can’t tell who’s right or wrong in this father-daughter dispute from the little we know from the video itself.  I am sure it has been going on for years, and that this is just the latest skirmish in a long-standing war of attrition.  I feel for both father and daughter in this situation. 

It’s not about gun control either.  That’s a red herring.  Obviously his video would not have attracted so much attention if he hadn’t filled his daughter’s laptop full of exploding hollow-point rounds, and I probably wouldn’t be writing about it now.  Ultimately, however, I couldn’t care less if he had used a gun, a bat, or a sledgehammer to destroy that laptop, or if he had simply thrown it in the lake (environmental concerns aside).  Regardless of the method used to destroy the computer, the video (not just the dramatic conclusion) was clearly an attempt to control through humiliation and intimidation.  That’s abuse. 

Whether or not Mr. Jordan deserves to be labelled an “abuser”, his behaviour is abusive.  Of this there should be no doubt.

We should be slow to judge Mr. Jordan, but we should be quick to recognize abuse when we see it.  Mr. Jordan needs to recognize this himself, and find another way to deal with this situation.

I wish Mr. Jordan and his daughter well.

 

 

Can You Sue the Vatican?

By Graham Rudyk on Posted in Sexual Abuse

Allegations of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church continue to make the news.  Last week in Milwaukee, 550 claims of sexual abuse were filed against the Archdiocese in bankruptcy proceedings.  In the Milwaukee action, one priest alone is accused of sexually abusing 200 boys at a school for deaf children.

In 1992, Richard Sipe, a Certified Clinical Mental Health Counselor who also spent 18 years as a Benedictine monk and priest, stated:

 The current revelations of abuse are the tip of an iceberg, and if  the problem is traced to its foundations the path will lead to the highest halls of the Vatican.

Two decades since that statement was made, sexual abuse claims have been filed against the Catholic Church in almost every province in Canada.

It used to be that the Catholic Church answered only to God (or to  itself, depending on your point of view),  through its own set of complex legal rules, or “canons”, not the state.  However, recent cases have brought the Church, in its lower echelons at least, down to Earth.

The question is: how far up the hierarchy will the blame be allowed to travel?

In John Doe v. Bennett, 2004 SCJ No. 17 [Bennett], the Supreme Court of Canada [SCC] held the Roman Catholic Diocese of St. George’s in Newfoundland vicariously liable for the sexual abuse by a parish priest against a number of boys who were under his care.  The court said in that case:

The relationship between the bishop and the priest in the Diocese is not only spiritual but temporal.  First, the Bishop provided Bennett with the opportunity to abuse his power.  Second, Bennett’s wrongful acts were strongly related to the psychological intimacy inherent in his role as priest.  Third, the Bishop confirmed an enormous degree of power on Bennett relative to his victims.

However, the SCC did not take a step further up the ecclesiastical ladder, declining to address the Diocese’s own submission that the Roman Catholic Church, not the Diocese, should be liable.  The Court held that it would need more evidence regarding the hierarchical structure and administration of the Church in order to make such a determination.

Bennett was undoubtedly an important decision.   However, in order to fully address the issue of abuse within the Church, the courts are going to have to dig deeper, before they can climb higher.

Beyond “Categories”

By Graham Rudyk on Posted in Child Abuse, Elder Abuse

Who are the most vulnerable members of our families?

For most of us, it is only natural to think first of our children.  But vulnerability is not simply a function of age.  Ultimately, it is a function of dependence.

Children are vulnerable because they lack the independence and the capability, for the most part, to fend for themselves.  However, many other members of our families and our communities are in the same position, and require the assistance of others on a daily basis in order to meet their needs. It is common to speak of child abuse and elder abuse as separate matters, and lawyers often treat them as distinct areas of law.  Abuse, however, can occur at any age.

Obviously the effects of abuse can differ in every situation, and by no means are all abuse claims alike in terms severity or harm, but the underlying concern is the same: defending the rights of those who cannot defend themselves.

Abuse claims can be categorized and sorted according to the age of the victims, and this can be useful for the purposes of focusing our discussion on particular issues.  However, this should not keep us from recognizing that the ultimate concern is the protection of those who cannot protect themselves, and recognizing the rights of everyone to dignity and respect, at any age.

Beyond “Compensation”

By Graham Rudyk on Posted in Elder Abuse

The law, we so often hear, is full of “grey areas”.  It’s unpredictable, imprecise.  There is not always one right answer.  Sometimes circumstances are complex, and opinions, even (or especially) amongst lawyers and judges, can vary.  What seems wrong in one situation might seem acceptable in another.  The “right thing to do” is sometimes just a matter of perspective.  But does this “grey area” really have any place in a discussion of the rights of our children to safety and security, or the rights of our parents or elders to dignity and respect?

While abuse, like so many things, might not be capable of a precise definition, it is something that you know when you see it.  Isn’t it?

It is one thing to appreciate perspectives or give the benefit of doubt when addressing claims between parties of equal power.  What is fair in one context is perhaps foul in another, depending on the circumstances, and on what lawyers and judges refer to as the “legitimate expectations” of the parties. But is there really any debate that our children can “legitimately expect” to have their best interests made paramount, regardless of circumstances?  Is there really any debate that our parents can “legitimately expect” that those entrusted to manage their affairs will put their parents’ needs above their own?

The problem of abuse is not so much about knowing how to find it, or even what to do about it after it has been uncovered.  It is, ultimately, about how to make it stop.  The law is not the best, or the only, tool in this regard.  All too often the law in this area is about finding ways to compensate victims of abuse for injuries that no money can heal, and no apology can rectify.

If there is a way to move beyond compensation, beyond “damages for pain and suffering”, and to a place where the law becomes a positive tool to effect change, to deter harm – to protect, not simply to punish – I think we have a duty to find it.  I think we can.