Pubdate: Fri, 28 Nov 2014
Source: Toronto Star (CN ON)
Page: A1
Copyright: 2014 The Toronto Star
Contact:  http://www.thestar.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/456
Authors: Rachel Mendleson News and Richard J. Brennan

PROBE TARGETS SICK KIDS HAIR TESTS

Province Launches Review Of Controversial Motherisk Lab Program After
Star Stories

Queen's Park will probe five years' worth of hair drug tests performed
by the Hospital for Sick Children, used in child protection and
criminal cases, amid an ongoing Star investigation.

Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur said the independent review of
Motherisk laboratory program at Sick Kids, led by retired Appeal Court
justice Susan Lang, is a "first step" that could spark a much larger
inquiry.

Lang will specifically examine the "adequacy and reliability" of the
hair testing method used by Motherisk between 2005 and 2010 in child
protection and criminal proceedings, Meilleur said.

Children's aid societies depend heavily on Motherisk's hair tests,
which are routinely accepted without challenge in courts across
Ontario as evidence of parental substance abuse and have influenced an
unknown number of child custody decisions.

Cabinet decided Wednesday to launch the investigation following a
Court of Appeal decision that cast doubt over the evidence Motherisk
presented in the trial of Toronto mother Tamara Broomfield.

Broomfield was found guilty in 2009 of giving her toddler a
near-lethal dose of cocaine in 2005, based in part on Motherisk's
tests of the boy's hair. Her cocaine convictions were tossed after
fresh expert evidence criticized the tests as "preliminary." She
served more than half of a seven-year prison sentence before she was
released last year on bail, pending appeal, and lost custody of her
son.

Meilleur said the retired judge's review is the best way to ensure
public confidence in the system.

"Part of the purpose of this review will be to determine whether
additional reviews should be undertaken with respect to specific cases
or classes of cases," she said. "This is a first step. It may end there."

Lang will submit a report to the province by June 30, Meilleur
said.

The attorney general said Lang, who was appointed to the bench in 1989
and named to the Court of Appeal for Ontario in 2004, is an expert in
family law.

"We have no doubt she is the best person to do that," Meilleur
said.

Sick Kids spokeswoman Gwen Burrows said the hospital "welcomes the
independent review" and is "confident that the questions which have
been raised over the past few weeks will be addressed through this
process."

"Our teams look forward to working closely with Justice Lang
throughout this review," Burrows said in an email. "We will carefully
consider any recommendations that may be made to improve processes
associated with this complex and evolving area of analytical
laboratory science."

Toronto criminal lawyer Daniel Brown praised the province's decision
to launch the probe.

"The government has taken a huge step forward to address the concerns
surrounding forensic hair testing raised in the Broomfield case," said
Brown, who tried in 2010 to get her trial judge to reopen her case.

"Moving forward, I hope that courts will exercise caution in relying
on the results of hair-testing analysis without assurances that the
science is an accurate indicator of alcohol or drugconsumption," he
said.

The Motherisk review, which will be officially announced on Friday, is
the latest in a series of high-profile inquiries into Sick Kids,
dating back decades.

In October 2008, Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Stephen Goudge issued
a report lambasting forensic pathology's state of affairs in the wake
of the inquiry into flawed child death investigations by former Sick
Kids pediatric pathologist Charles Smith.

In 1984, then-Justice Samuel Grange led a royal commission
investigating a series of baby deaths at Sick Kids, but in the end, no
one was held criminally responsible.

Calls for the province to examine past Motherisk cases have been
mounting since the October appeal court decision in the Broomfield
case.

At Broomfield's trial, Motherisk founder and director Gideon Koren
testified that tests of the boy's hair showed he had regularly
ingested high doses of cocaine for more than a year leading up to an
overdose.

The appeal court decision came after Craig Chatterton, deputy chief
toxicologist in the office of the chief medical examiner in Edmonton,
said the "gold-standard" technique was not used.

Chatterton, who gave his opinion as an independent consultant, also
said the tests should have been conducted in a forensic lab, rather
than in a clinical lab, like Motherisk.

Based on the conclusions Motherisk presented, Chatterton claimed it
was "not possible" to determine whether the boy had ingested or been
exposed to cocaine over an extended period.

Despite repeated requests, Sick Kids has not said how many other
child-welfare cases were influenced by the same type of analysis. The
hospital has defended the reliability of its Motherisk program.

Sick Kids has said Motherisk has been using the gold-standard
technique to test hair for cocaine since 2010, and defends the
technique used in 2005 in the Broomfield case as "highly reliable,"
based on cross-testing.

That leaves a question hanging over at least five years of cases.
Motherisk performed more than 23,000 hair tests in 2011- 95 per cent
of which were billed to public agencies, such as children's aid
societies, according to documents related to a freedom of information
request.

In late 2009, before Motherisk switched to the gold-standard
technique, the lab told children's aid societies in a newsletter that
cocaine was "by far" the most common drug detected in the lab.

The Star investigation has revealed international experts, a British
High Court and a U.S. government department have raised questions
about the validity of the drug and alcohol hair tests in general.

Meilleur said the review would be limited to the hair drug tests
Motherisk performed from 2005 to 2010, using the technique that was
used in the Broomfield case.

In defending the Motherisk program, Sick Kids has repeatedly pointed
to a report written by Utah toxicologist Douglas Rollins, which was
filed in court during Broomfield's appeal process and supported
Motherisk's analysis in the case as "valid and reliable."

However, when Rollins was cross-examined by Broomfield's lawyer, he
conceded the analysis did not meet the international standards for
evidence presented in court, according to a transcript of the proceeding.

The appeal court ruling in the Broomfield case was issued after the
Crown agreed that the fresh expert evidence should be admitted and
Broomfield's cocaine convictions tossed. It did not address the
reliability of the Motherisk program.

Broomfield, meanwhile, has abandoned her appeals of other child abuse
convictions related to her son.

The boy, now 11, suffered permanent brain damage as a result of the
2005 cocaine overdose. The October decision did not say how he gained
access to the drugs. After her son's overdose, Broomfield told police
that she had found drugs in her apartment building before, court
documents state.  
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D