Pubdate: Tue, 26 Jan 2016
Source: Toronto Star (CN ON)
Copyright: 2016 The Toronto Star
Contact:  http://www.thestar.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/456
Author: Jacques Gallant
Page: A1
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

OUT-OF-PROVINCE PARENTS DENIED REVIEWS IN MOTHERISK PROBE

'This Is a Canada-Wide Situation,' Says N.S. Man Who Lost Custody of 
Child Because of Lab's Tests

When William McIntyre reached out to the commission looking into 
child protection cases that used hair test results from the Hospital 
for Sick Children's Motherisk laboratory, he was shocked to learn 
that the review did not apply to him.

Motherisk hair testing was done in cases that dealt with some of 
McIntyre and Natacha LeRoy's children.

The Nova Scotia residents are among an unknown number of Canadians 
who have been affected by Motherisk hair test results - described by 
an independent review as "inadequate and unreliable" - but who don't 
have the possibility of having their cases reviewed by commissioner 
Judith Beaman because they do not reside in Ontario.

While Motherisk tests were used in four other provinces - British 
Columbia, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia - none has indicated 
the intention to form the kind of review currently taking place here.

"It's an atrocity," McIntyre, 50, told the Star on the phone from 
North Sydney, N.S. "How could this be just an Ontario thing? You came 
down and took my hair and sent it to Ontario. . . . This is not just 
Ontario. This is a Canada-wide situation."

McIntyre and LeRoy's 3-year-old son was made a ward of the province 
and later adopted as the result of a proceeding in which Motherisk 
said both parents had tested positive for traces of cocaine.

McIntyre and LeRoy - who were previously in a relationship and remain 
good friends - deny using the drug at the time.

McIntyre also claims that subsequent hair testing done in the U.S. 
showed he was negative. They say they were asking that the court 
grant custody of their son to McIntyre with access to LeRoy.

LeRoy, 40, described feeling helpless when their son was taken away. 
Now she wants answers.

"I would just like everything to come to light and be transparent," 
she said. "My little girl and son have been separated. She misses him 
and I'm sure he misses her." The commission, launched by the Ontario 
government this year, will spend the next two years reviewing 
potentially thousands of Ontario child protection cases.

Its creation follows a damning independent review - sparked by a Star 
investigation into Motherisk's practices - from retired Court of 
Appeal Justice Susan Lang in December that found that results from 
the now-discontinued drug and alcohol hair testing at Motherisk were 
"inadequate and unreliable."

Sick Kids, whose CEO apologized for Motherisk's practices in October, 
is now the defendant in at least one lawsuit, along with former lab 
director Gideon Koren and manager Joey Gareri, who testified at the 
hearing dealing with McIntyre and LeRoy's son.

"The tragedy for Natacha and William is that the surrounding 
circumstances suggest that Motherisk was the only factor that led to 
a permanent wardship order being made for their son, who has not only 
lost his parents, but his older siblings and extended family," said 
LeRoy's Ontario-based lawyer, Julie Kirkpatrick. When the government 
announced the commission, it indicated that its work would not be 
conducted outside of Ontario's borders.

"This is a national issue. They didn't recognize boundaries when they 
did the tests, so why should a review suddenly put up these 
boundaries?" said McIntyre's lawyer, Mike Dull. "These two parents 
are a prime example that this extends beyond Ontario. They deserve a remedy."

A spokeswoman for Ontario Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur told 
the Star that other provinces have been informed of the commission's 
creation "and will be kept informed as necessary."

There were 49 open child protection cases using Motherisk hair tests 
in Nova Scotia in 2014. A spokeswoman for the province's Department 
of Community Services told the Star this week that the department is 
reviewing files on a "case-by-case basis," but said no announcement is planned.

"On a case-by-case basis means that we are responding to requests for 
review as initiated by the client, the courts or the overseeing child 
welfare agency," Heather Fairbairn said.

She added that hair-strand test results would not be the "single 
determining factor" in the outcome of a case.

New Brunswick plans to monitor the outcome of the Ontario review. A 
spokesman for British Columbia's Ministry of Children and Family 
Development said hair test results would be one piece of a larger 
body of evidence in a court case and that the ministry has "no plans 
to review any case where a body of evidence has already been 
considered by a judge," adding that concerns brought to the 
government would be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Motherisk hair tests have been used in Quebec court proceedings, but 
they were either requested by individuals or children and youth 
agencies and are not tracked by the government, according to a 
Ministry of Health spokeswoman.

McIntyre said he received negative hair test results from an Ohio lab 
in 2015, but that the results - along with the fact that he has 
custody of his daughter with access to LeRoy - didn't stop the 
children's aid society from finalizing his son's adoption that year.

McIntyre and LeRoy's lawyers say it's too early for them to say what 
can now be done regarding the boy's case, adding they're waiting on 
transcripts from the court proceedings.

"The possibilities are slim," McIntyre said, "but I'll take the chance."

- ---------------------------------------------

[sidebar]

TIMELINE

TIMELINE

ZoomBookmarkSharePrintListenTranslate

1985: Motherisk is founded at the Hospital for Sick Children. Dr. 
Gideon Koren becomes its director.

Late 1990s: Motherisk begins drug and alcohol hair testing.

October 2014: Ontario Court of Appeal overturns Tamara Broomfield's 
conviction involving feeding a near-lethal dose of cocaine to her son 
after an Edmonton toxicologist questions why Motherisk had not used 
the "gold standard" when it tested her son Malique's hair for her trial.

Nov. 25: CEO Dr. Michael Apkon and pediatrician-in-chief Dr. Denis 
Daneman write that Sick Kids' probe "has reaffirmed that the public 
can have full confidence in the reliability of Motherisk's hair 
testing." Two days later, Queen's Park announces it will probe hair 
tests used in 2005-2010 child protection and criminal proceedings.

March 5, 2015: Sick Kids temporarily suspends hair testing at 
Motherisk, saying "questions have arisen that require further 
analysis." Later that month, the hospital temporarily reassigns 
oversight of Motherisk after the Star highlights ties between 
director Gideon Koren and drug company Duchesnay, which partially 
funds the laboratory.

April 17: Sick Kids permanently halts drug and alcohol hair tests at 
Motherisk, saying an internal review "further explored and validated 
. . . questions and concerns."

April 22: The province expands its probe of Motherisk to cover the 
period from 2005 to 2015. June: Koren retires.

Oct. 15: Sick Kids CEO Dr. Michael Apkon apologizes for 
"unacceptable" practices at the Motherisk lab after the hospital 
releases findings from its internal review.

Dec. 17, 2015: An independent review into Motherisk concludes the 
lab's hair test results were "inadequate and unreliable."

Jan. 15, 2016: The province announces that a commission will review 
child-protection cases that may have been affected by Motherisk testing.

January 2016: A lawsuit is launched against the hospital and lab workers.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom