Affidavit of Michael Bear - Phoenix Sinclair Inquiry

[107] One result of these recommendations was the Chief Medical
Examiner called for an inquest to examine the issues raised.
[108] One of the recommendations dealt with the inadequacy of the
assessment process data with respect to Tracia Owen (Recommendation
One). The assessment process, in my view, is extremely important because
it in effect gathers and analyzes the information in order to determine the
child's needs and how those needs can be met — e.g. in the community or
elsewhere, by the extended family or other options. Assessment is the basis
for case management planning and must be constantly updated to take into
consideration the changing circumstances. The standards in the Child and
Family Services Standards Manual go into a great deal of detail. There was
an issue raised with the number of standards, when they were published,
whether they were new or old. This is obviously a concern in the sense
everyone should be operating from the same page. Having said this I
thought the standards were for the most part codification of common sense
application of child welfare issues. It is obvious that assessment should be
in writing so workers can add to and build upon previous issues dealing with
the child. This is an ongoing process that should be flexible, constantly
trying to match the child and family to appropriate services. Without
detailed records being kept no one can determine what has been done or
what should be done. Each child needs a plan for their safety and their
growth but the plan may need extensive changes as circumstances dictate.
[109] Failure to adhere to this standard does not assist supervision and
certainly does not assist situations where there is a change of workers or the
child is being moved from one environment to another.
[110] The other issue frequently raised during the course of the inquiry is
the reality of child welfare practice in Winnipeg in contrast to Little Grand
Rapids. There is no question that resources, training of staff, options, etc.
can be substantially different depending on the reserve and its social
problems. So this does have to be taken into consideration. However, the
danger I fear is that the excuse of this inequality can mean the creation of a
two-tier system of child welfare. If we accept the standards cannot be
applied in Little Grand Rapids and the standards are minimum expectations,
are we not left with children in Little Grand Rapids getting less than
minimum expectation of the child welfare system. This, in my view, is
unacceptable. Obviously the resources must be available so the standards
are attainable. One cannot expect standards to be met without the means
provided to meet them. Until this can be achieved it is important that the
standards try to be achieved wherever possible.
26