Pubdate: Sat, 13 Feb 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: GT4

HEAD OF MOTHERISK PROBE HAD TIES TO SICK KIDS

Retired judge gave hospital advice in early '80s and '90s; province 
sees no conflict

Questions are being raised about the retired judge chosen by the 
provincial government to head a two-year commission reviewing child 
protection cases that used flawed hair-test results from the Hospital 
for Sick Children's Motherisk laboratory.

Justice Judith Beaman has prior legal connections to Sick Kids, the 
Star has learned. While working as a lawyer in private practice in 
the late 1980s and early 1990s, she advised the hospital's Suspected 
Child Abuse and Neglect team. The SCAN team would later come under 
fire for its actions during that period, after a public inquiry 
looked into cases by disgraced pathologist Charles Smith, who worked 
closely with SCAN members and whose findings led in some instances to 
wrongful convictions.

"The government has complete confidence that Justice Beaman's career 
and experience as a judge and a lawyer will not place her in a 
conflict with respect to her responsibilities as commissioner," said 
Christine Burke, spokeswoman for Ontario Attorney-General Madeleine Meilleur.

Burke confirmed that Beaman, considered a family law expert, provided 
advice to the SCAN team "to support preparations for court 
appearances," adding that it was more than 25 years ago and has no 
connection with the matters being dealt with at the Motherisk commission.

The commission, which began its work last month, did not make Beaman 
available for an interview.

A spokesman said Beaman never advised - nor even recalls meeting - 
Smith, and that aside from discussing court presentations with the 
SCAN team, she also flagged case law she thought would be relevant to 
their work during a period of about two years.

The issue of Beaman heading the commission has led to concern from 
the Criminal Lawyers' Association and has been raised in a letter to 
Meilleur from a lawyer representing a woman affected by Motherisk.

"Fairness and impartiality are cornerstones of our justice system. As 
a result, judges must be and appear to be unbiased," said criminal 
defence lawyer Daniel Brown, a Toronto director of the CLA.

"There is no concern about the integrity or impartiality of Justice 
Beaman, but because this is a public review, our organization is very 
concerned that her decision might appear to be coloured by her prior 
associations with Sick Kids Hospital." Christine Rupert, whose two 
daughters were removed at birth and later adopted out, wants answers 
from the government about Beaman.

Her daughters remained in foster care because, at least in part, of 
Motherisk hair tests that showed Rupert was a heavy cocaine user - a 
finding she has always fiercely denied and has gone to great lengths 
to disprove.

"I simply want to be assured that Justice Beaman was not involved in 
any way whatsoever with the previous problems at the Hospital for 
Sick Children," she told the Star, referring to the Smith scandal and 
the pathologist's association with the SCAN team.

Her lawyer, Julie Kirkpatrick, raised Rupert's concern in a Jan. 17 
letter to Meilleur, but has yet to hear back.

"I have a duty to my client to ask questions on her behalf," she told the Star.

It is not unusual for judges to have represented many different 
interests and parties before their call to the bench, said the head 
of the Family Lawyers Association.

"Generally, the family law bar was positive about (Beaman's) 
appointment as she is seen as someone experienced and knowledgeable 
about child protection law," said Katharina Janczaruk.

Beaman's name came up in 2008 at the Goudge Inquiry, which was 
looking into errors made by Smith in child death cases.

Dr. Katy Driver, a member of the SCAN team, told inquiry counsel 
Linda Rothstein that "Judy Beeman" would come in about once a month 
and "we would discuss some of the concerns that we would have had 
over different cases, different court appearances of anyone of us," 
according to a transcript.

Driver is out of the country and could not be reached for comment by the Star.

Rothstein's questions to Driver followed a discussion at the inquiry 
about a meeting of the SCAN team in which they shrugged off a 1991 
ruling by a judge who had acquitted a babysitter of killing a baby. 
The verdict came after a number of forensic experts disputed the 
evidence put forward by Smith and the SCAN team.

The judge, Patrick Dunn, was described in minutes from that meeting 
as a "family court judge at the bottom of the heap," and that his 
ruling had "no presidential value re: medical evidence," the inquiry heard.

Known as the "Amber case," it was the first case that seriously 
called into question Smith's work and a key moment in what would 
become a national scandal. The outright dismissal of the judge's 
ruling by the SCAN team was described as a missed opportunity at the 
public inquiry.

It was not clear in the inquiry transcript if Beaman attended that 
meeting of the SCAN team or helped them in preparing for the trial. 
The Motherisk commission spokesman told the Star that Beaman "has no 
recollection of speaking to the team about any particular court 
decisions," but that her advice would never have been to disregard a ruling.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom