The Debra Steven's Case - Lunenburg - report to the Minister of Community Services

NEW LINK!
Totally Deceived: The Journey out of Denial

(Visit our parent blog site Revealing Truth for Child and Family Justice http://revealingtruthinnovascotia.blogspot.com/ for more concerns with Children's Aid/Family and Children's Services/Community Services in Nova Scotia and our sister site What's Wrong with Nova Scotia's Children and Family Service Act: Comments & Recommendations http://revealingtruthinnovascotia2.blogspot.com/ Links are also to the right under LINKS)

This is a synopsis of the one of the cases in the original 372 page document. This report can be found in the Nova Scotia Archive and Records Management Library with the call no. HV 745 N8 H54 1994. As such, it is a matter of public record. You can view this information at http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/library/library.asp?ID=7095. The library is located at 6016 University Avenue (Corner of University Avenue and Robie Street), Halifax, Nova Scotia, CANADA, B3H 1W4.

Hours of Operation:

Monday to Friday:8:30 am to 4:30 pm,

Wednesday Evening: 4:30 pm to 9:00 pm,

Saturday: 9:00 am to 5:00 pm

Synopsis submitted by Linda Youngson B.A., B.Ed., M.Ed.

A Synopsis of:

A Report To The Minister of the Department of Community Services
Submitted by
Brian Hillier MSW, CSW
Andrew Koster MSW CSW
November 1, 1994

[Lunenburg Family and Children Services (FCS)
Debra Stevens Case]

April 1983 (59,62)
Debra Stevens made a private informal arrangement that was originally only supposed to continue until the end of the summer - Her 10 yr old son Clayton was to live with his gymnastics coach Dawn Henderson and her husband Steven. (Clayton was very involved with gymnastics) . Younger son, Ryan, remained at home with mother.

Summer 1983 (part of Complaint #1) (81)
Clayton was sexually assaulted by a neighbor of the Hendersons. The Hendersons told Clayton to stay away from this person and that they would speak to the neighbour.

August 25, 1983 (62)
Anonymous call to Lunenberg FCS (just before Clayton was suppose to return home after staying with coach for the summer!):
- complaint against Debra Stevens regarding supervision and nutrition
- Public Health Nurse made immediate home visit (remember, at this time, only Ryan was living with his mother)

August 26, 1983 (62)
Agency spoke with Public Health Nurse
- Nurse supportive of mother but suggested Steven’s home be monitored
- Plans for 2 home visits and contact with 2 references put forth by Debra Stevens (But Agency did nothing )

September 1, 1983 (70)
Amendments to the Children’s Services Act to protect the right of single parent mothers giving their children up for adoption

December 1983 (63)
Agency spoke with Ryan’s Daycare Centre and his babysitter :
- both expressed concerns and asked the Agency to intervene BUT Agency did nothing.

December 29, 1983 (65)
In letter to the Agency, the Public Health Nurse - offers to continue to visit mother and suggests possible assistance for Debra Stevens. “the approach suggested by the Nurse is much more consistent with the philosophical thrust directed by the Child Protection Manual than that employed by the Agency”

Jan 12, 1984 (59, 63-64)
Debra Stevens placed her 2yr old son Ryan with the Hendersons. The plan was originally suppose to be temporary- “Debra Stevens would be afforded an opportunity to get some counseling and get her life together”
- Dawn Henderson requested involvement of FCS
-”The question of who proposed this placement and why, are issues of dispute between Dawn Henderson and Debra Stevens.”
Note: FCS did not provide the counseling.

Jan 13,1984 (63)
FCS entered into a voluntary care agreement with Debra Stevens and then made the Hendersons a provisional foster home, a “specific“ foster home BUT they would be approved as a “general” foster home within the next year.

Meanwhile (59, 64)
2 Subsequent voluntary agreements maintained this arrangement

September 30, 1984 (59,64)
FCS agreements lapsed BUT both boys continued to live with the Hendersons

Winter and spring 1985 (59-60, 66)
Debra Stevens and Dawn Henderson discussed the possibility of the boys being adopted by the Hendersons

Again, Dawn Henderson requested the involvement of FCS again.
“the relationship between Debra Stevens and the Hendersons subsequently deteriorated and became increasingly conflicted”

April 1985
“Dawn Henderson at this point was pressing Debra Stevens to make a decision . . . Although Ms Stevens continued to visit with her children, she did not feel that she was in a position to take them back. It seems clear that she was deeply conflicted about what she should do”

Once again, Dawn Henderson asked the Agency to intervene - A meeting was held at the Agency with Dawn Henderson, Debra Stevens and her sister Dolores Campbell and an unnamed social worker from the Agency. “Ms Stevens recollects the Agency as strongly supporting adoption . . . The Agency and Ms Stevens both agree that Dawn Henderson was very strongly articulating her interest in adopting the boys” (16,65-66)

“The Agency advises that it . . . did not provide her [Debra Stevens] with any counseling regarding her rights, or lack thereof, subsequent to an adoption (60).”

“It is Debra Steven’s contention, that if she had been provided with proper social work services, she would not have been pressured (in her view) into adoption. Futhermore, she alleges that she was misled regarding the adoption. Ms Stevens contends that she believed she was entering into an ‘OPEN’ adoption with the Hendersons, whereby she would maintain some parental rights, in order that she might have regular contact with her children.

Second, Ms Stevens contends that she and her family complained for years about the welfare of Ryan and Clayton in the Henderson home and that her complaints were ignored (61).”

“Debra Stevens alleges that the Agency understood from the discussions that were held that what was being arranged was an ‘open adoption’ and that in fact this term ‘open adoption’ was one that she got from the Agency (69).

Some time after meeting (66)
Debra Stevens consented to adoption. “Debra Stevens alleges that prior to signing the adoption consent in July of 1985, she had a discussion with a lawyer . . . this lawyer advised that in the adoption she would be giving up her parental rights but he also suggested that if she wanted to ensure continued access, she should get an agreement in writing from the Hendersons guaranteeing continued access. She states that she approached Dawn Henderson about this and that Dawn Henderson agreed to provide such an agreement.”

June 25, 1985 (68)
Notice of Proposed Adoption

July 24, 1985 ? (68)
Consent to Adoption signed by Debra Ivany (Stevens)

July 25, 1985
Consent to Adoption (67-68)

“On July 25, 1985 [July 24th?- see pg 68 “signed by Debra Ivany”] , Dawn and Steven Henderson drove Debra Stevens to the office of THEIR solicitor. This solicitor witnessed Debra Stevens’s Consents to Adoption.. . . Debra Stevens . . . recalls that the issue of access was dealt with and that the Henderson’s lawyer advised her that his clients were prepared to give access to her children on forty-eight hours notice.” [BUT] “Both Dawn and Steven Henderson indicated that prior to this meeting, their lawyer had advised then that the agreement ‘wasn’t worth the paper it was written on’. . .

The problem here, is that the lawyer for the Hendersons was quit correct in his assessment of the access agreement. This document which Debra Stevens thought would ensure the continuation of some of her parental rights, had no basis in law, and was founded almost entirely on the future goodwill of the Hendersons. Yet the inference that she [Debra Stevens] drew from the discussions with both lawyers and the involvement of the Agency, was that this document was somehow binding (67-68)”

August 19,1985 (68)
Consent to Adoption signed by Edward Ivany

February 17,1986
“Clayton [Ivany] signed his Consent to Adoption. This was required under Section 16 of the Children’s Services Act because Clayton was over twelve(68)”

“Clayton recalls that the meeting regarding the signing of HIS Consent was held at the Agency and that Dawn and Steven Henderson were present . He further recalls that he was told by Agency staff that this would be an ‘open adoption’. He understood this to mean that he would continue to have contact with his mother. He also recalls that this confirmed what he had discussed with his mother. Clayton expressed a great deal of remorse about this issue because he had encouraged his mother to consent to the adoption based on his understanding that it would be OPEN. (69-70)

Janet Moore signed a declaration declaring that Clayton had signed his consent freely and with understanding . (68-70)

Sometime in 1986 (part of Complaint # 1) (81)
Clayton, the older son, shared the incident of being sexually assaulted by a neighbor of the Henderson’s in 1983 with his maternal aunt Dolores Campbell and “asked her not to share it with anyone else as he was worried that he would get in trouble with the Hendersons”

March 18,1986 (68,70)
Adoption Order granted

April 9,1986 (68)
Letter from the Department advising that adoption order had been granted on March 18,1986

Meanwhile
The relationship between Debra Stevens and Dawn Henderson continued to break down

October 9, 1986 (part of Complaint #1) (81-82)
Maternal aunt,Delores Campbell, learned that Ryan, the younger son, had spent an overnight with the neighbor of the Hendersons who had sexually abused his older brother, Clayton, in 1983. As a result, she phoned the Agency informing them of Clayton’s sexual abuse and to voice her concern for Ryan. She also informed the agency about “the beginning conflict around access”.

On the same day, she followed this call up with a letter to the Agency

“The Agency responded to this concern by phoning Dawn Henderson and reviewing the matter with her . . . the Agency did not proceed further. They made no record of the complaint or their responses and they neglected to get back to the referent [Delores Campbell]”

December 20, 1986 (part of Complaint #1) (82-83)
Not hearing from the Agency, Ryan’s maternal aunt Delores Campbell, wrote the Agency wanting to know what follow-up had been done concerning her report.

“The Agency wrote back . . . indicating they had lost her initial letter . . . Their letter reads: ‘we are completely satisfied that the Hendersons took appropriate action in dealing with the isolated incident. I stress the word ‘isolated’ since Clayton has not been allowed to associate with the gentleman whom you referred to.’

January 23, 1987 (part of Complaint #1) (83)
Delores Campbell “wrote back saying that the Agency had misunderstood her. She went on to say that Ryan [not Clayton] was the focus of her concern as she heard that he had spent the night at the home of the alleged perpetrator and was concerned that because of his age he was vulnerable”

February 25, 1987 (part of Complaint #1) (83)
The Agency wrote back to Delores Campbell stating “I am completely satisfied that the Hendersons have handled the issue you raised in a very acceptable manner. This applies not only to Clayton, but also to his brother Ryan.”

Some later date (83-84)
Both Dawn and [Steven] Henderson advised that there was at least one occasion subsequently when Ryan was left in the care of these people” !

Summer of 1987 (part of Complaint #2) (84)
Oldest son Clayton, 14 yrs old, was tenting in the back yard of the Hendersons when an older friend who had been drinking came by. Clayton was called into the house and told that he could not go back outside. Clayton swore at Dawn Henderson and Steven Henderson struck Clayton splitting his lip and splattering blood on the wall. Clayton was then sent to his room.

Several days later Steven Henderson recounted the incident to Debra Stevens showing her the blood splatters on the wall.

September 29, 1988 (part of Complaint #2) (84-85)
Following a phone call covering the same subject, Delores Campbell , the boys’ aunt wrote to the Department of Community Services, again expressing conflict over access to the boys and recounting the incident leading up to Clayton’s split lip.

There is some debate whether the Lunenberg office was informed of this complaint BUT “the Department wrote back and stated: “ . . . we are of the view hat we have no role to [play in facilitating a resolution to the problem that exists between Mr. And Mrs. Henderson and your sister”

Also, October 7, 1988
Lunenberg case note dated this day states that the mother, Debra Stevens, had gone to a lawyer with her concern, that her lawyer sent letters to Alex Shaw, Departmental Solicitor, and that, as a result, the solicitor, Alex Shaw, expressed doubts about the suitability of the foster home. BUT the writer of these case notes had assured the solicitor that “this is an excellent home”.

The reviewers of this report state “No investigation of this complaint was ever carried out”.

September 1989 (Complaint # 4) (87-90)
Debra Stevens phoned the Lunenburg office on at least 2 occasions to express concerns about access as well as concerns about Steven Henderson’s emotional stability and giving alcohol to her son Clayton, now 16 years old

The Lunenburg office had no record of this complaint BUT Debra Stevens made an audio recording of the second phone call where she refers to the original conversation. “. . . there is obviously problems with Mr. Henderson . . . He called my husband up yesterday and was crying . . . Every time he calls he cried . . .there is something definitely wrong in this house . . He’s practically given Clayton everything he wanted in order to keep him there . . I’ve never seen anybody so emotional about a boy in my life as Steve . . . I’ve never heard anybody talk on the phone and start crying like they do, I mean, he can’t get two words out and he’s crying.”

She then goes on to state that she can bring forth an adult witness who saw Steven Henderson give her son alcohol.

Then she related an incident that her son Clayton informed her had taken place when his wife, Dawn, was away. Mr. Henderson was drunk, “he was crying at the table . . . He was saying Clayton didn’t love him any more . . Then he passed out on the floor . . . Then Clayton says, ‘Ya, we got him tucked in Mom, . . . then he got back out, you know, and then he started again‘”

From there Debra Stevens related an incident concerning Dawn Henderson (adopting mother and gym teacher) and Clayton: “ I’ve gotten stories of Dawn Henderson putting Clayton up the rope in front of the school in front of friends, and his hands were blistered and they all, like calluses on his hands, from climbing the ropes . . .the calluses all cracked open on his hands and the blood was running down his arms and he was crying cause he didn’t want to go up that rope because it hurt his hands so bad, and she said ‘pain is gain, Clayton, pain is gain, you go up those ropes.’ And he cried, she made him cry, she embarrassed him in front . . And that’s mentally cruelty in my mind, that’s really not right to do to a child”

Finally she states “ isn’t it your job to investigate”.

The reviewers states, once again “the Agency has no record of this complaint and no investigation was ever done as a result” BUT remember Debra Stevens had her audio recording!

October 1, 1989 (part of Complaint # 3) (86)
Delores Campbell wrote a letter to the Minister of Community Services expressing concerns about adoption and access and relating the incident of Clayton’s split lip and Steven Henderson showing the splattered blood to his mother Debra Stevens.

October 31, 1989 (part of Complaint #3) (86-87)
After staff of Community Services discussed the situation with the Lunenburg staff, the Lunenburg Agency staff wrote a memorandum to the Minister on this date stating “The Hendersons . . .are well respected foster parents . . . Mrs. Henderson is a Board Member . . . Ms Janet Moore, acting Executive Director of Family and Children Services of Lunenburg County . . . feels the boys receive(d) excellent care at the Hendersons."

November 2, 1989 (part of Complaint #3) (87)
The Minister wrote back to Delores Campbell stating “I have notified Mrs. Janet Moore, Acting Executive Director of Family and Children’s Services of Lunenburg County, of your concerns.” BUT the Lunenburg staff state “they have no recollection of this discussion and there is no documentation in their file. There is no record of any investigation being done.”

November 8, 1989 (Complaint #5) (90)

By 1990 (60)
The oldest son Clayton “moved back in” with his mother . Younger son, Ryan, was still with the Hendersons.

August 1990 (60)
Clayton “disclosed that throughout his time in the care of the Hendersons, he had been the victim of regular sexually abuse at the hands of Steven Henderson.”

August 17,1990 (60)
Steven Henderson arrested for sexual assault

August 24,1990 (60)
Steven Henderson appeared in court - charged with 4 counts of sexual assault (including Clayton and 2 other foster children)

Dec 17 1990 (60)
Debra Stevens had applied to Supreme Court NS for custody of Ryan - Justice Walter Goodfellow removed Ryan from the custody of the Hendersons and placed him with his mother Debra Stevens

May 27, 1991 (60)
Steven Henderson convicted of sexual assault - sentenced 23 months jail time - Crown appealed - increased to 4 years (served 19 months)

Observations and Conclusions for Section A (Debra Stevens case) of the Review (14-20)

"1. Child welfare occupies a critical position in the social safety net for children and families.
Generally speaking, its function can be described as protecting children and supporting the integrity of families. In Debra Steven’s case the system failed on both counts.

2. The Department employed a narrow literalist approach to Section 14A of the Children’s
Services Act . . . This approach created a void in legislative protection for a natural parent like Debra Stevens, a void which could have been but was not, filled by sound social work practice.

When they designed the amendment they were focused on the vulnerable postpartum mother and the potential for her to be victimized shortly after birth by the “baby sellers” . . . However. . . they [the department] took the view that when the placement was already a fait accompli there was no point in counseling the natural mother . . . The intent of 14A was to protect the natural mother. The point must be made that the natural mother can also be victimized by imbalances in the power relationships between her and the adoptive parents, both in relative and non relative adoptions. Furthermore, it can be argued that in the adoption of an older child, who has already bonded with the natural parent, there is more potential for trauma to the child if these process issues are not dealt with properly.

3. Despite the Agency’s view that their role in the adoption was only “facilitative” . . . a Child
Protection Agency has an authority which cannot be denied or abdicated. . . .
Given that Debra Stevens was clearly, deeply conflicted about the adoption, and that this notion of OPEN adoption was pivotal to this proposed arrangement, it is our view that the Agency should have ensured that Debra Stevens fully understood what other alternatives were available to her, and, that in this adoption she was giving up all of her parental rights, regardless of what the access agreement said. . . . The agency’s action, or lack thereof, did facilitate the problem, just as the void in the legislation did. . . .

In short, Debra Stevens failed to obtain proper independent legal advise prior to signing her consent to what she believed was an “OPEN” adoption. No one took the responsibility to ensure proper advice; Debra Stevens herself, the first lawyer she spoke to, the Henderson’s, the Henderson’s lawyer, the Agency, or the Department.

4. The Agency’s relationship with Debra Stevens, from 1983 through to the adoption in 1986, was one of passivity, rather than the proactive role required by the Child Protection Manual. If the Agency staff had been more proactive, there is a good chance that the adoption would not have occurred at all. The provision of good social work services should have focused on support services, such as those suggested by the Public Health Nurse, to keep the children in the home, perhaps supplemented with a brief period of alternate care.

(5. is not in document)

6. The complaints from Debra Stevens and her sister, between 1986 and 1989, were inadequately documented and insufficiently investigated by the agency, contrary to protection policy and procedure.

In complaint # 4 and 5, there appears to be little doubt that legitimate complaints were
appropriately made, and yet, not acted upon according to the Department’s protection policy
and procedure.

7. It is our view that the problem in this case was that of bias, and thus objectivity. There was a “double bias” on the part of the agency at work throughout the history of Debra Stevens and the Hendersons.

First the Agency continually focused on the presence of the access dispute between Debra Stevens and the Hendersons rather than the complaints themselves.

Second, there was this pervasive bias in the Agency that (1) The Hendersons, and in particular, Dawn Henderson, were the “superstars” of the foster care system, and that, (2) Debra Stevens was a nuisance, and thus not to be taken seriously. With the possible exception of Complaint #1, this double bias seems to run through the entire history of this matter, and effectively prevented the Agency from doing what it was suppose to do.

As a result, the complaints of Debra Stevens and her family were not given the “careful
examination of facts to determine the validity” which they required.

8. Patrick Hickey’s allegation of earlier reporting of sexual abuse by Steven Henderson is extremely troubling. Despite extensive investigation on our part of what happened in April of 1987, we remain unable to reach a firm conclusion. The failure of the Agency staff to document the allegations, or any investigation of them in its records is non-complience in and of itself.

All of the possible explanations are cause for concern. The implications of some are frightening. What is clear is that the Agency failed to conduct a proper investigation of the allegations in 1987.

At best, the Agency had an allegation that one of its foster children, who had a history of being sexually abused, was being sexually abused again, and they failed to properly investigate.

At worst, it infers that the Agency had an allegation of sexual abuse against Steven Henderson more than three years prior to Clayton’s disclosure and did not investigate it properly.

9. The Agency ceded much of the case management responsibility for children in the Henderson foster home to Dawn Henderson, reducing the Agency’s ability to monitor care in the home and to recognize any possible signs of sexual abuse. It could be argued that the apparent autonomy of the Henderson foster home played a facilitative role in the sexual assault by Steven Henderson.

10. It is unreasonable to expect that Government can legislate for every eventuality, especially in the area of social services . . . However, it is our view that . . . sound social work practice . . . is expected to fill in the gaps in legislation, policy and procedure. No manual can cover every eventuality. Sound social work theory and practice should."

Recommendations (21-24)