Report: Gage-Grey-led agency routinely flouted law

The following are edited excerpts from the Office of the Children's Advocate's report on how the Child Protection and Family Services Agency – then known as the Child Development Agency, or CDA – handled the removal of wards from the Sunshine Child Care Facility after the home was served a notice to quit in 2015.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Child Development Agency (CDA) had good ground on which to be concerned about the welfare of the wards at Sunshine in light of the expired notice to quit. However, the CDA acted unreasonably in approaching the situation. Staff and the wards of Sunshine thought of the facility as a warm, loving and caring environment. All staff were known as 'Auntie'; a close familial bond had been developed between the children at the facility and the Gilgal Holiness Church – they all attended church, had an extended circle of 'Aunties' and 'Uncles', who endeavoured to make them feel special by celebrating Christmas and birthdays with them, supervising homework and going on fun outings together. Each child, though not necessarily related to the other by blood, saw themselves as being part of a family. The CDA’s handling of this matter splintered these bonds.

2. The failure of the CDA to effectively communicate the actual date of the removal to the operators of Sunshine, coupled with the coordinated arrival of the “convoy of vehicles” at the premises on February 24, 2015, only served to underscore the anxiety that already existed among the children and the inevitable chaos that would unfold during the process. The attitude of some of the CDA’s officers on the ground, as well (in particular Mr Leonard Leslie), compounded the situation and depicted the CDA as caring more about directives as opposed to the well-being and state of mind of the children.

3. The CDA breached Section 62 of the Child Care and Protection Act which provides, inter alia, that one of the rights of a child who resides in a residential childcare facility, is the right to be consulted on matters that may (or will) impact upon him/her. It is very clear on the evidence, that though the children were spoken to, it was more to advise them of the impending move and not so much to engage them as to where they wished to be placed.

4. The CDA failed to satisfactorily prepare the wards for the impending move. Apart from CDA CEO Roaslee Gage-Grey’s response by way of a letter to the children’s advocate on March 13, 2015, nowhere else is there any mention that all these children were counselled, consulted and visited on various occasions.

There was only one occasion on which the children were interacted with in a bid to “allay their fears” and based on the description given, this was not anything that could reasonably be considered as any therapeutic and psychologically appropriate preparation. The children also deny any such opportunity being afforded to them.

5. Improper planning and the indecent haste with which the CDA acted displayed disregard for the rights of the wards to continuity of care. In executing the move, no files were either requested or taken from Sunshine. In fact, the CDA only requested the wards’ files the day after all three of their officers were served with summonses to appear before the children’s advocate in relation to this matter – almost an entire month after the children had been removed.

No consultation was had with any of the caregivers at Sunshine as to whether any of the children had special needs, health issues or were exhibiting any particular vulnerabilities so that the new facilities could be appropriately briefed. This compromised the quality of care being offered to these children by the State. For example, two-year-old M.M. (the “seizure baby”), who had been placed at the Maxfield Park Children’s Home, had a seizure and was placed on the wrong medication because the caregivers were caught unaware. Also, 13-year-old B.C. had not had the benefit of attending the counselling sessions that she routinely attended because of her previous suicidal attempt.

It is to be noted from the review of the children’s evidence as well as that of Gage-Grey's, because of the sudden removal executed by the CDA, there were some children who were out of school for approximately six weeks. This included wards who were preparing for national examinations. Gage-Grey admitted that it is usually a daunting task getting placements for wards at a school, particularly in the middle of a school term. With this knowledge in hand, why then the indecent haste, especially in light of the additional two-and-a-half-month window that Sunshine had received from the court?

6. Section 14 of the Child Care and Protection Act in paragraphs (5) and (7) speak to the temporary nature of placements in a place of safety. The CDA routinely flouts the law in this regard and its own policies which exist in theory more than anything else.

7. The systems within the CDA are not the most efficient. Even though the former Regional Director had been contacted when ward B.C. placed a cord around her neck and provided advice to Sunshine as to how to treat with the situation, the CDA was not aware of the incident. The CEO’s explanation for this was that the particular Regional Director was no longer within the employ of the CDA. Needless to say, this is unacceptable; effective systems supersede personalities and individual memories. The fact is that the CDA has responsibility for this child and should have adequate systems which can effectively track her individual situation and needs so that appropriate responses can be pursued.

8. The evidence has confirmed the uncaring and boorish approach exhibited by Mr Leonard Leslie in his handling of the removal of six-year-old M.B. on February 24. He does not deny that he was unwilling to relent to the pleadings of M.B.’s sister and the caregiver that little M.B. was a part of a family; in fact, he has said that the account of the caregiver clearly demonstrates that she recalled the details more clearly than he did. His position on this matter should satisfy the CEO, who when asked specifically about how the agency would treat with a situation like this if it is in fact confirmed, was very non-committal in her response, saying that she would need to hear from the officer.

In light of Mr Leslie’s admission and the findings herein, the CDA has 21 days from the date of receiving this investigative report to provide a written account to the children’s advocate as to what disciplinary and/or other measures have been pursued against Mr Leslie who based on his training, according to the CEO, should have acted in a bid to soothe and calm the children.

9. Going forward, the CDA needs to approach situations such as these in a more measured manner. Though they initially had a good premise on which to act, they compromised themselves by not having an effective plan which adequately took all the relevant rights and best interests of all the wards into account. A proper plan, with appropriate guidance to their staff on the ground must be crafted before any actions are pursued. This plan is to include placements in educational facilities, files of the children and briefings as to any special requirements and proper/quality psychological preparation for the wards involved in a bid to minimize the inevitable emotional fall out. A template of such a plan is to be submitted to the Office of the Children’s Advocate within 21 days from the receipt of this investigative report.

10. Intensive training of front-line members of the CDA’s staff must occur as a priority. This should not just be confined to the bureaucratic aspects and theory of children’s issues, but emphasis must also be placed on the need for these individuals to acquit their duties with emotional intelligence. The CDA is required to submit to the Office of the Children’s Advocate a training plan within 30 days from the receipt of this investigative report.

Kindly be advised that failure to comply with these recommendations within the stipulated time frame will result in this investigative report being tabled in the Houses of Parliament.