A Review of the Handling of the Case of Mrs. X and Moral Panic and excerpt from Sexual Offenses Against Children

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

Chronology of Events from

A Review of the Handling of the Case of Mrs. X

And

Excerpt from
Moral Panic and Sexual Offenses Against Children
Compiled by Linda Youngson B.A., B.Ed., M.Ed.

Though I would encourage everyone who reads this chronology to access the original 129 page document, A Review of the Handling of the Case of Mrs. X, and read it in its entirety, I realize that many people will not have the time or the opportunity to do so. For this reason , I have tried to condense this review as accurately as possible for research and advocacy purposes. Unfortunately, A Review of the Handling of the Case of Mrs. X, is not available on the net but we did get a copy directly from the NS Department of Community Services. I suggest that you request a copy from this provincial government department as well. You can also see a copy at Nova Scotia Archives and Records Mangement Library - Call No. HV 8079 C46 C536. See listing at http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/library/library.asp?ID=7205 . As such, it is a matter of public record. 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

I would like people to take note that in this review the identity of the family is protected by referring to the parents as Mr. and Mrs. X and the children are only referred to as the older or the younger boy - at times specifying the ages. I bring this to the forefront because I am presently reading another review presented to the Minister of Community Services of 3 different cases. In this review the families, including the children, are identified by name BUT NONE of the professionals are identified, they are only referred to by title or position.

I find this deeply disturbing. How can individuals in the system be held accountable if no one is named? Such a review is not acceptable.

I also encourage people to read and access the academic document, Moral Panic and Sexual Offenses Against Children in its entirety which includes mention of the Mrs. X case as well as the development of the parent's rights movement in Nova Scotia. This was written by Anthony Thomson, Department of Sociology, Acadia University and was presented for the 26th Annual Meeting of the Atlantic Association of Sociologists and Anthropologists, St. John's, Nfld., 23 March 1991.

The following is a brief excerpt (with page numbers in brackets):

“Provincially another incident, this time in Cape Breton, brought the issue of parent's rights to a head. This was the Mrs. X case. On the surface, this incident is the opposite of what would be expected of the "moral panic" interpretation. In this view, the child is believable and the state will enter easily into prosecutions based on unfounded accusations. There has been, however, in Britain and the United States, a significant counter-response to the tendency to believe child victims and enter into prosecutions. According to Karmen, one half a million families every year in the United States are subject to investigations as a result of mistaken accusations. These take many forms, one of which has been termed the "sexual allegations in divorce syndrome".(59)  In the Mrs. X case, the Children's Aid Society of Cape Breton took custody of two young boys from their mother. She had expressed fears that her sons were being sexually abused by their father when they visited him, the couple having been divorced four years earlier, in 1986.(60)  She complained to the society, but instead of investigating, the agency charged Mrs. X with hurting the children by focusing on the allegations.(61) Local officials dismissed her claims as unfounded and damaging to the children. The boys remained wards of the Social Agency for 22 months and at one point came close to being adopted by a Nova Scotia family.

In February 1990, County Court Judge Simon MacDonald overturned an earlier Family Court decision giving the Children's Aid Society custody, and "recommended the community services minister look into procedures for the apprehension of children and investigations into allegations of child abuse."

The Minister ordered the review, undertaken over three months by Marilyn Peers, executive director of the Halifax Children's Aid Society, only after a newly-formed parents advocacy group, the Cape Breton Parents Rights Group, supported by women's groups and professionals, went public with concerns over the agency's operations".(62)

The Report vindicated the mother and was critical of the guidelines for the investigation and handling of abuse complaints, and accused the supervisor and caseworker of "biased attitudes,... lack of sensitivity" of "`the abuse of authority and the need for control'". The Report recommended that the two workers be fired.(63) There were "`major errors in professional judgement and violations of the Code of Ethics.'"(64)

Basically, the workers saw the problem in terms of a problem "between divorced parents" to be dealt with through their respective lawyers. The caseworkers considered Mrs. X "aggressive, emotional and demanding", blamed her for making up the allegations, "for coaching the children" and emotionally harming them.

The Cape Breton Children's Aid Society responded by firing the Director (the supervisor in the case), and transferring the caseworker out of child protection.

The Board agreed to replace the salary of Mrs. X for five years so that she can remain at home with her children. In the view of Barry Costello, the Executive Director of Family and Children's Services in Kings County, the "Society was very biased in its dealings with Mrs. X. The agency wanted to prove its preconceptions and then try to justify its erroneous conclusions."(65)

Conclusion

The parent's rights movement is a very complex phenomenon. From my point of view it has both progressive and reactionary components. There are contradictory elements which need to be discussed. . . .”

Now on to the Main feature:

A Chronology based on

A Review of the Handling of the Case of Mrs. X
Marilyn R Peers MSW, RSW Reviewer

Submitted to Mr. Guy LeBlanc
Minister of Community Services
Province of Nova Scotia
November 9, 1990

1985
Family Court Social Worker (SW) Robert Schella referred mother to CA “ because of his concern that father might be physically abusing children” (37-38).
BUT Intake worker Sharon Kelloway saw no evidence of physical abuse (52).
Meanwhile, the agency was influenced by the negative opinion of Ray Musgrave , a counselor at Family Services of Eastern NS. He believed the mother “was domineering and controlling and that it was obvious to him, she was trying to get rid of her husband“ (37, 61).

1986
Father contacted agency - disagreed with mother over discipline (52).
Mother and Father separated and divorced (16).

Jan 1987
Mother made phone call to Jim Chisholm (52) at the agency. Mother was “disturbed about the somewhat obsessive sexual behavior of her five year old son not only to himself but to his two years old brother. . . . [as well as] aspects of her ex-husband’s behavior which were inappropriate when he played with the boys during his visits to her home" (16).
Jim Chisholm stated “that he had advised Mrs X to go to Children‘s Services at the Cape Breton Mental Health Clinic for advice on better understanding her son‘s behaviour at his stage of development“ (54)

A few days later
The intake worker, Marie Boone (53) phoned mother and closed the matter on the grounds that there were no grounds to suspect abuse (16)

Marie Boone stated“ it was Mrs X who phoned the agency to say she had over-reacted and now considered the game played with the boys by her husband was normal and was no longer influencing the behavior of the boys . . . call from Mrs X lasted 15-20 min . . . she felt Mrs X was of the view the behaviour was normal”
BUT mother stated, that this “doesn’t appear to be anything of the conversation that I did have with Marie Boone . . . she remained very worried about her son‘s behavior”

AND Jim Chisholm stated“ that that it was Ms Boone who called Mrs X” (53-54)

March 1987
Mother came to agency “worried that her five year old son was refusing to go on overnight visits with his father.” Father’s lawyer wrote her a letter “alleging that she was in fact turning her son against his father”
Mother stated “to the Intake Worker that she wished the boys to have a good relationship with their father” Mother “asked whether a worker from the agency might be able to interview the youngster and learn the reason for his reluctance”(16, 54)
“Lengthy interview” with Intake worker Flo Lang with 25 yrs experience . Worker suggested possible sexual abuse and suggested that mother get lawyer. (38, 54 -55, 60)
Intake info went to supervisor Ian McPherson (55,61)
BUT mother’s request for assistance not acted upon - “saw the matter as a problem between the divorces parents and their lawyers” - AND Mother “not notified of this decision”(16-17,55)

May 1987
Mother came to agency again . Spoke to Flo Lang “lengthy interview” (56) Wanted to know why no worker had contacted her since her request for assistance in March.(17) “”when he [older son] did go [on visits to father] because he felt pressured to do so by his father, he would return from the visit in a ‘highly emotional aggressive state ’”(56)
Intake info went to Jim Chisholm, the assigned worker (56)

A week later
Jim Chisholm visited the home for ½ hour BUT would not interview the children because “they did not appear withdrawn nor emotionally upset”(17, 56) Found mother’s “concerns too vague to act on, and assured her the children’s behavior was not uncommon and that she should continue to explain to the boys it was good to visit with their father” Said he would contact 2 counselors she had been seeing at Family Services of Eastern NS: Ilona MacKenzie and Sister Rose MacNeil.(56-57)

Following weeks
“ Five year old son shared information with his mother that suggested to her that there was inappropriate sexual behavior towards the son on the part of the former husband.”(17)

Meanwhile
For a future court hearing to vary access, Judge Darryl Wilson requested Sister Rose MacNeil Counselor at Family Services of Eastern NS to do assessments on mother, father and children .
Sister Rose MacNeil (58)“ felt there was sufficient validity to warrant attention to the son’s concern to his mother and relayed this to the agency worker.(17)
Sister Rose MacNeil questioned husband - professed innocence . Phoned Ilona Mackenzie and Ray Musgrave BUT both felt there was no sexual abuse (58)
AND agency felt the matter was a continuation of a divorce conflict, and that mother was using allegations of sexual abuse to deny access visits to her husband (17-18).
HOWEVER Sister Rose MacNeil “felt there were legitimate concerns and had no reason to believe Mrs X was not telling the truth.“ BUT Sister MacNeil called out of town before assessment were finished. (57-58)

Early June
Father interviewed by the agency - denied accusations (58)

Meanwhile
Mother “sought help from a number of professionals in the community”

Date ?
Mother called Cape Breton Mental health Clinic (Dr. Blood) asked if children could be accessed by them BUT “Dr Blood explained it was the role of the Children’s Aid Society to become involved with disclosures, not the Mental Health Clinic” (58)

June
Jim Chisholm made 2nd half hour visit to home “found her concerns still too vague“ (57)

Mid June
Mother and her sister went to agency “expressing concerns that her older son had told her of the game he and his brother had to play with his father“ . One hour talk with Jim Chisholm and Ian MacPherson. Mother was told to take her children to visit with father.(58)

Date ?
“Mrs X made an audio tape in which she attempted to have her older son repeat what he had previously confided in her . . . The son described the father’s actions in a game that made him cry . . . In the opinion of the Reviewer [Marilyn R Peers ], an interview of the child was justified because of what he said on this tape and on other previous occasions”
BUT Jim Chisholm - did not discuss this tape with the mother and he did not interview the father concerning the contents of this tape.
Ian MacPherson - stated this audiotape contaminated future concerns
HOWEVER Dr Blood stated “tape didn’t show any evidence of trying to get the child to say something” (59)
BUT agency felt there was “still insufficient information in this audiotape on which to base an interview with the child” (17)
HOWEVER “In the opinion of the Reviewer [Marilyn R Peers ], an interview of the child was justified because of what he said on this tape and on other previous occasions (59).
Father denied allegations when interviewed by agency worker - wanted matter to go to Family Court (18).

July 17, 1987 - Notice to Bring - Court appearance #1
Agency gave no services to assist mother and children (This is suppose to be an important preventative aspect of the Children and Family Services Act ) because “no concern for children” BUT implemented the Notice to Bring as “part of the investigation process to facilitate the protection of children where one felt that children were being hurt” ! ! ! (60) - So they either did not have the basis for requesting a court appearance or they neglected to give services when they were required!

Court ordered Cape Breton Hospital to do assessments of parents and children. Father was given weekly unsupervised visits. (18, 62)

Agency lawyer, Robert Crosby was replaced by Charles Keliher because Crosby had been father’s lawyer for previous divorce and access case BUT Keliher was from the same firm as Crosby so there was still a conflict of interest. (59-60)

July 30
Agency worker, Jim Chisholm wrote a letter to Dr Blood with negative opinion of mother, attempting to taint doctor's opinion against mother.

August 3, 1987

Mother went to RCMP (visit #1) and asked for an investigation of possible sexual abuse (18, 62).
BUT RCMP Constable Martell (63) contacted agency worker, Jim Chisholm, and was told that the agency was aware of mother’s concerns and that she should be referred back to the Children’s Aid Society (18). Jim Chisholm tainted RCMP opinion against Mother and told RCMP that Dr Blood was doing an assessment. [This was the 2nd time Jim Chisholm actively tainted people's opinion ( Dr Blood and RCMP Constable Martell ) against the mother! ]

Early AugustMother requested new worker. Sandy Bowes, the Executive Director of the agency granted this request . The supervisor Mrs Hildegrade O’Neil , who was in charge during an absence of Mr MacPherson, assigned a new worker, Ms. Sandra MacNeil to the case. (68)

August 6, 1987
Dr Blood of Cape Breton Hospital assessed 5 year old boy:

“ the boy made disclosures to the psychologist which indicated inappropriate and unwanted behavior of a sexual nature had occurred to him during a visits or visits with his father. This disclosure was videotaped and the psychologist immediately advised the agency that the child’s statement needed to be treated seriously. He recommended a through investigation of the child’s allegations”(18, 63).
HOWEVER, Dr Blood did not think it was his place to question the child for additional information (49).
Ms Sandra MacNeil “viewed the videotape disclosure by the older boy in its entirety and felt the child should be interviewed. HOWEVER supervisor Ian Mr. MacPherson, on his return, disagreed this should be done even though he had not seen the videotape.” He also removed Ms Sandra MacNeil from the case and returned it to Mr. Jim Chisholm (68) - remember Sandy Bowes, the Executive Director of the Agency had already granted the mother's request for a new worker.
“The extent of personal control exercised by Mr. MacPherson on Sandy Bowes the Executive Director as well as over policies and casework decisions was a major concern raised with the Reviewer by Mrs. X, a number of professionals both within and without the agency and by members of the public. This decision [ by  Ian Mr. MacPherson] failed to recognize a professional responsibility to make a change when a client’s complete lack of confidence in the worker has occurred in such a complex matter and when the worker was also aware of the very poor working relationship (69)”

August (6 ?) 1987
Mother returned to RCMP Constable Martell (visitit #2) (43) to inform them of her son’s disclosure to Dr Blood. RCMP - took statements from parents
- spoke to Dr Blood on phone
- searched father’s home
BUT - RCMP did not find any “physical evidence” to lay “criminal charges”
AND - agency did not pursue investigation (18-19)
BUT - RCMP not aware of video tape ( ?)

September 18, 1987 - Family Court Hearing #2
Dr Blood’s assessment of son and mother was filed for this court appearance BUT Dr Blood was NOT asked to testify ! (19, 29, 41)

Assessment:- Concerned for boy -possible sexual abuse - wanted an investigation
- Positive report on the mother
- Concern about the agencies assumptions and lack of action (44)

November 1987 - Court (29)

March 22 1988 - Children Apprehended (19, 39)

May 20, 1988 - Court Hearing (32-39)

Early July
Children moved to 2nd foster parents when 1st foster parents moved out of area.(20)
“The older boy had been told at the time of apprehension that he would be returning home in the summer so he was not overly upset to learn of their [the first foster parents] leaving . The move to the new foster home however, quickly brought a noticeable change in the children’s behaviour however. Ms. MacMillian noted the new foster mother’s concern that the boys were reluctant to eat. When Ms. MacMillian visited them, she found them both depressed and looking very different. After she returned from taking them for a drive the older youngster refused to get out of the car. He was confused about all that had happened and wanted to live with his mother.”

July 11, 1988 - Court Hearing (33-44)

August 19, 1988 - Wardship Order - permanent Care and Custody
Judge Darryl W Wilson - the Court decision was “A shock to ALL parties including agency ” (34).
Decided that Fran Tessier would be appointed as counselor for both parents. (35)

August 30, 1988
Parents were told of last chance plan with 8 counseling sessions with Fran Tessier - Threatened: “your children will be gone and that will be it. You will never see them . . .”
BUT “The Reviewer notes the lack of clarity in the goal of counseling” (96-97)

September 6, 1988 - Written decision

October 20,1988 - Case ConferenceIan
MacPherson, Jim Chisholm and Ms Tessier - decided that parents could have visits with children again.

November 9,1988
First visit with parents “The foster mother called the worker shortly after to say the older boy refused to take his jacket off and stated that he wished to go home to his mother. The worker returned to talk with him and noted he was depressed and confused. The foster mother explained that he had been pulling his hair out by twirling it in his fingers.” (99)

November 29, 1988
When mother again expressed concern, a Case Conference was called with supervisor McPherson, agency worker Mr. Jim Chisholm , counselor Fran Tessier, another counselor Ms. Paula Hines , and Dr Blood. Parent’s visits were immediately stopped and boys were immediately sent back to 1st foster parent out of the area. “Ms. Hines who had to leave the meeting early was later shocked to learn of the decision, particularly as Mr. Chisholm had told her in July before the decision for wardship that he thought the children would be going back to Mrs. X after the hearing” (20, 35,101)

Dec 1, 1988
Boys returned to original 1st foster home . “The older boy . . .very hyper, forgetful and difficult to manage . . difficulties in school . . . Twisting at his hair . . . bald spot. The younger boy . . . Wetting the bed” ( 105)

March 21, 1989
Judge Ryan of the County Court granted application for a trial ‘de novo’

September 28, 1989 - Trial de Novo - Appeal
14 days appeal before Judge G S MacDonald (20, 106)
3 consultants :

Dr Rosemarie Sampson - Psychologist - Halifax - for mother (MSVU?)
Mr Ross Dawson - Social Worker- Toronto - for father
Dr Marliess Sudermann - psychologist -London , Ontario - for Court
“The Reviewer notes that all three consultants raised questions about the way in which the agency handled the matter “ (107-108)

Late December 1989
Parent visitations reinstated (20, 108).
“The boys were very excited about their first visit with their mother . . . After the second visit the older boy asked when he could go home “ (108)

January 19, 1990 - Interim Court Order to return children to their mother (20)

March 19, 1990 - Final Court Order to return children to their mother (20)

July 1990
Father given monthly supervised visitation (20)

December 1990
Father's access to be reviewed (20)
“ The children returned home and displayed very aggressive behaviour. The older boy was extremely angry and blamed his mother for not trying to stop ‘the bad men‘ from taking them. He felt he should have tried to climb a tree or to have run away to escape being taken."

Excerpts from a letter to the Reviewer from Ms. Paula Hines at the Cape Breton Mental Health Clinic indicate the nature of the boy’s difficulties:

"‘Since the boys have returned, there certainly have been problems, mostly with discipline and dealing with their anger . . . A lot of anger within the children is related to a sense of abandonment by her [their mother]. They cannot understand how she let them go when ‘the men’ came. They also have difficulty trusting adults, partly because of their ‘abandonment’ by parents. . . . Furthermore, this is partly due to the way certain Children’s Aid society worker’s handled them, often saying things to them and not following through [such as visits]. . . . Nightmares are few and far between now, but worries about ‘bad men coming’, still exist. They see men that look like the ones that came and took them away and they become scared’ " (108-109)

“The Children’s Aid Society of Cape Breton also agreed to pay the sum of $3,000 to Mrs. X on a strictly “Without Prejudice” basis and without any admission of liability on their part. Mrs. X executed a completed release to the Children’s Aid Society of Cape Breton for any claims she may have against the agency on account of their actions leading up to and including and since the apprehension of her two children. The terms were to remain confidential by the parties but were partially waived to allow them to participate in this review. The Children’s Aid Society of Cape Breton also agreed to pay $1,000 to Mr. X.
Mrs. X explained to the Reviewer that she signed this agreement because she felt she had no alternative to her financial dilemma. She was substantially in debt from all her legal costs and realized she would have no money to care for her children when they were returned to her care” (109A)

“ It was reported to this reviewer from some staff and from several people in the community that Mr. Chisholm was heard to show a lack of respect for Mrs. X in the way he described her to others and the comments he made with respect to the role religion played in her life.” (111)

“The lack of case recording in this complex matter was clearly unacceptable.” (111)
“ In reviewing the handling of this matter by Mr. Chisholm his performance as a protection worker fell below acceptable standards of practice” (112)
“Mr MacPherson also had a professional responsibility to ensure a change in social workers was made when it was clear the working relationship between the client and worker had deteriorated” (115-116)

Excerpt from Summary of Review: (125-126)
“the Reviewer found major errors in professional judgment and violations of the Code of ethics”
“workers’ biased attitudes, the lack of sensitivity, the abuse of authority and the need for control. The lack of knowledge with respect to the investigative process and the failure to give priority to the protection of the children”
“the Reviewer noted discrimination against Mrs. X throughout the handling of this case . . . The statements of Mr. X were taken at face value whereas the mother’s were denied and attributions made of her motivation . She was blamed for . . . going to other professionals when she got no help from the agency . . . for her restrained reaction when her children were apprehended ”[after she had been instructed to do so by the workers] “The mother’s concerns raise and highlight the powerlessness of clients and the importance of checks and balances in the use of the agency’s authority. . . The issue in this case is the regrettable abuse of power which was used against Mrs. X and which was disguised as protecting the children“
“One lesson that these children may take from this whole experience is that grown-ups do not listen when they tell them of your problems and that instead of being helped, you are punished”

Review Recommendations (127-129)
1. That the Board of the Children’s Aid Society of Cape Breton terminate the employment of supervisor Mr Ian MacPherson and case worker Mr. Jim Chisholm.
* My research: It would seems that Mr Ian MacPherson was terminated BUT he has resurfaced working for the NS Justice Department while Mr. Jim Chisholm was shuffled elsewhere.
2. . . .3.

4.That the Board of the Children’s Aid of Cape Breton make the following financial compensation to Mr. X, Mrs. X, and their children;
(a) That both Mr. And Mrs. X be compensated for ALL legal costs which to date have not been paid by the Children’s Aid Society, and in relation to the Notice to Bring and Apprehension Hearings in the Family Court under the Children’s Services Act and at the County Court appeal proceedings.
(b) That for a period of five years from January 19, 1990 Mrs. X be paid a monthly sum of money equivalent to the pay she would receive at her place of employment in order for her to remain at home to provide the security that is much needed by her two young sons.
(c) That the Children’s Aid Society of Cape Breton provide funding for such resources as are reasonably necessary for the emotional rehabilitation of the two boys including the cost of any supervised visits by the father which may in future be ordered.
(d) That Mrs. X be provided additional funds by the Children’s Aid Society of Cape Breton in an amount adequate to properly compensate her for the emotional trauma she suffered as a result of the agency’s handling of this matter.
5. . . 6. . . .7 . . . 8 . . .

http://ace.acadiau.ca/soci/agt/justice/aasapaper91.htm