Katelynn Sampson - Aboriginal Foster Child Murdered - Essay Example

603906 Part I: & Synthesis of Assessment Information Katelynn Sampson was seven years old at the time of her death, August 3, 2008. Fromall accounts she was a pleasant little girl who liked to jump rope and who had lots of friends in her South Parkdale, Toronto neighborhood. Ethnically she was bi-racial, with a native mother and a European father. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was called to the apartment of Katelynn’s home early in the morning of August 3, 2008 with reports that the child had choked on some food and was not breathing. However, once they arrived it was clear that the child had been dead for some time and that there were multiple signs of trauma including that both of her eyes were black and she had nearly been scalped. One of Katelynn’s custodial parents, Donna Irving, was taken into custody followed a short time later by the other, Warren Johnson. In the days and months that followed, facts about Katelynn’s short life and sad death emerged. Her biological mother, Bernice Sampson, “pleaded to three counts of trafficking cocaine in 1998 and was sentenced to 18 months in prison” (Toronto Star, 2008). In January of 2008, Sampson was charged with drug trafficking again. If convicted on that charge she could be sentenced to prison which would have put Katelynn into the care of the Childrens Aid Society (CAS). Rather than risk having her daughter placed with CAS, Sampson voluntarily relinquished custody to Irving, who she called “her best friend.” One account says that Irving “gained custody of Katelynn through a family court application that did not involve any child and family service agency and showed no signs of a criminal-background check” (Toronto Star, 2008). Another claims, “The hearings before Ontario Court Justice Debra Paulseth involved Katelynns biological mother Bernice Sampson, the guardian now charged with her death, Donna Irving, and native family court worker Bela McPherson. Sparse and businesslike, the conversations were dominated by the legal requirement of determining Katelynns biological father and the need to move proceedings along” (Smith, 2008). If Judge Paulseth, Bernice Sampson, or Bela McPherson—someone had looked into Irving’s record, they would have discovered that Irving’s was no better than Sampson’s. “Irving was convicted in 2000 of communicating for the purpose of prostitution. In 1999, she pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon and spent five days in custody and 18 months on probation. The year before, she was charged with possession of cocaine for trafficking—she entered a guilty plea to a lesser charge, got 12 months probation and was ordered into a drug treatment program” (Toronto Star, 2008). Johnson, Irving’s long-time boyfriend, who was living with her and their two younger boys at the time that the custody of Katelynn was given to Irving, was obviously not investigated either. In fact, in the court proceedings granting Irving custody of Katelynn, even though the judge referenced him, Johnson’s name was not mentioned. His background included the fact that Johnson “entered into a peace bond in 1997 with the complainant after he was charged with assault with a weapon. The charge was withdrawn” (Toronto Star, 2008). Both Irving and Johnson had violent crimes, or at least accusations of them, in their past and would not have been given custody had their criminal records been known. The neighborhood where Irving and Johnson lived with Katelynn and their biological children has a makeup of mostly lower socioeconomic income people. In a research bulletin done for the University of Toronto’s Centre for Urban and Community Studies, titled, “Toronto’s South Parkdale Neighbourhood: A Brief History of Development, Disinvestment, and Gentrification,” Tom Slater says that the Toronto’s Parkdale neighborhood is “ unique, beautiful, and troubled . . . riven with conflict between incoming gentrifiers and artists, and a long-standing population of poor and marginalized residents” (Slater, 2005, p. 1). Slater describes some of the most recent and troubling changes in the neighborhood, which contribute to its current flavor. “Thousands of patients were discharged from the Queen Street Centre into South Park-dale in the early 1980s, compounding the effects of the 1979 closure of the nearby Lakeshore Provincial Psychiatric Hospital. . . .South Parkdale suffered disproportionately from a lack of community care policies for discharged patients” (p. 2). Because so many “deinstitutionalized” psychiatric patients populated the South Parkdale neighborhood, it was seen as a “service-dependent ghetto.” Some have dubbed it a “little ghetto of misery” where “children are afraid to play outside.” The area has quite a few transients as there is inadequate housing because in the 1990’s and up to 2005, the date of Slater’s report, some gentrification took place in some parts of Parkdale. Many middle class families and artists moved in to find affordable restorable homes and lofts, eliminating many of the affordable boarding houses. This gentrification caused strife in the neighborhood between the newcomers and the long time low-income and marginalized residents. Slater concludes, “Gentrification in South Parkdale is not an instigator of social interaction but of social tensions . . . .Meetings between different residents are rarely positive or liberating encounters, because of the tremendous disparities in life chances and living standards” (p. 6). One gets the feeling that not many CAS workers frequented the area. Not even a year after Katelynn’s death, Kevin Libin of the National Post claimed that many feel the CAS is overly involved, to the point of undo interference, in the lives of children and parents. Libin says that caseworkers have more power than police officers and they often abuse these powers. Why CAS did not intervene in Katelynn’s situation is unclear, but apparently there was some reason. “Aron Shlonsky, an associate professor of social work at the University of Toronto, said it is possible for parents and legal guardians to make their own arrangements through family court without CAS becoming involved.’ They have no clue that its happened if theyre not informed,’ he said” (Toronto Star, 2008). Yet, initially it was reported that according to her mother, Katelynn had been placed in Irving’s home through CAS and Native Child and Family Services of Toronto, and the judge who granted custody to Irving consulted with a CAS worker about notification of Katelynn’s biological father. Another institution who was in a position to intervene on Katelynn’s behalf was the Parkland Public school where she attended. It was reported that she had been absent toward the end of the 2008 school year “The Toronto District School Boards safe arrival policy states parents are to notify the school when their child is absent. If a child is absent without notice, usually the school secretary or another staff member will call the home. If the parent or guardian cant be reached, ‘and the child cannot be traced, or if foul play is suspected, the decision to take further action, including calling the police, rests with the principal,’ the policy says” (Toronto Star, 2008). Not only that, under the Child and Family Services Act, teachers and school administrators must report to CAS suspicions of abuse of students by adults. Apparently, Katelynn’s absences were not reported and neither was any abuse even though EMS said it was obvious and ongoing. The judge who placed Katelynn also escaped blame even though perhaps she should have been held accountable for not ordering some investigation into the past of the person in whose hands she placed the life of a vulnerable child. Some accused Justice Paulseth of having “’dealt with the matter of this childs custody in a cavalier and overly casual manner’ and that she ‘failed to meet even a minimal standard.’ Court transcripts reveal Paulseth asked few questions about Katelynns guardian, Donna Irving, and admitted at a Feb. 19 hearing that she hadnt read the case paperwork” (Toronto Star, 2008). Eventually, though Justice Paulseth was cleared. Finally, Katelynn’s father, Mark Letang, "is also a drug addict who is also unable to manage his addiction" and his whereabouts were unknown (Toronto Star, 2008). However, a picture of Sampson, Letang, and a newborn Katelynn was published in the media after her murder, so clearly Letang knew of Katelynn’s existence. Whether she knew of his is another issue. While one likes to think that Sampson would not have intentionally abused and killed her child as it appears that Irving and Johnson did, it is possible that what was described as uncontrolled drug use would have led to neglect and abuse. If Sampson had had her priorities straight when she was charged with a second drug offense in January of 2008 when she relinquished Katelynn’s custody to Irving, she would have not seen the involvement of CAS as a threat. Her priority should have been to have as many sources as possible advocating for the best care for her child, but instead she was only concerned with getting the child back once she had cleared up her legal issues. Perhaps she also should have sought to know her so-called best friend better before placing her child in her care. Sampson did not visit her daughter to see if she was doing well. She claims she tried and was told that Katelynn was at camp on numerous occasions. Part II: Analysis Clearly, Katelynn slipped through the cracks in the system. First her parents both essentially abandoned her, and the judge who gave Irving custody of Katelynn did not care enough to even ask the name of the male adult with whom this little girl would be living. The one social worker involved, Bela McPherson of Native Child and Family Services of Toronto had one concern: the racial makeup of Irving’s household. Johnson is black, so apparently that satisfied McPherson and no inquiries were made about his background. Some defended Paulseth claiming that judges should not have to be investigators. However, one would think that they could easily obtain and read the criminal histories of the people with whom they place children. Needless to say, no one in the judicial system cared enough to check out the backgrounds of these people even though the mother admitted to being a drug addict. Drug addicts are not known for making the best choices and a judge should have considered this. CAS also should have been involved, if they do indeed have powers like many say they do. “Irwin Elman, chief advocate for the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, said: ‘There are a number of points of protection and they all failed for Katelynn. . . .A spokesperson for CAS said confidentiality restrictions prevented discussion of Katelynns case” (Libin, 2009). The restrictions did not, however, deter him from passing the blame to the Native Child and Family Services agency. “We are particularly concerned that Native Child and Family Services had something to do with the placement of Katelynn with Donna Irving, said Kenn Richard, the agencys executive director, adding that an internal review was being conducted“ (The Globe and Mail, 2008). In the end, both agencies escaped any real blame for Katelynn’s foreseeable neglect and murder mainly because the court placed Katelynn with Irving without CAS or Native Child and Family Services having any input or even knowledge of the placement according to both agencies. The school Katelynn attended neglected to notify CAS when Katelynn had been absent and surely a little girl abused so badly she died from the injuries sustained in the abuse had signs of ongoing trauma that also were not reported. All of these people share some sort of ethical blame for Katelynn’s death, but clearly the moral and actual responsibility lies with Irving and Johnson. One can only assume from the evidence that either Katelynn was the victim of the perfect storm of incompetence on several fronts, or she was the victim of racial and/or socioeconomic prejudice. Perhaps, the environmental tension in the community had something to do with why neighbors, who admit they heard screaming, but failed to report it or Katelynn’s absence from the play areas for a couple of months before she died even though they noted it. Another contributing factor is that people tend to avoid such a strife-filled neighborhood, perhaps even CAS workers who should be especially concerned with the children in such a neighborhood. Perhaps the CAS workers did not want to go into her neighborhood to check on her. Perhaps the teachers and principal at her school had seen a lot of children in the same sort of situations who did not end up dead. Maybe they chalked it up to cultural difference. The judge could have felt much the same way. One sociological explanation for cultural bias lies in the social construction theory which David Patterson and Robert Keefe describe as having three stages: externalization, objectivation, and internalization. “Externalization is described as the process by which people construct a cultural product or outcome . . . .Objectivation occurs when cultural products take on an objective reality of their own, separate from the people who create them, resulting in being viewed as part of objective reality . . . .Internalization occurs by way of socialization when people in a society learn the ‘objective facts’ of a culture and make these facts part of their everyday, or ‘internal,’ consciousness” (Patterson & Keefe, 2008, p. 113). In the case of children like Katelynn Sampson those around her assume that because she has troubled parents, lives in a troubled part of town, and/or is of mixed race, problems like child abuse and neglect are endemic. If the people around Katelynn consciously or unconsciously subscribe to that particular social construction theory, then it is easy to see how her issues were overlooked. Children in communities such as South Parkland, children of addict parents, and possibly children of native or other races may fall victim to the system failure frequently. Then, of course, there are the constant and general assumptions that the public employees—including the school employees, judge and social workers involved in the case—are overworked and underpaid. “Overstretched caseworkers, with general training, can be unequipped to specialize in interventions and the complexities each case brings. What some, middle-class agents might consider neglect, for example, is often a matter of poverty, not necessarily cruelty” (Libin, 2009). Their duties and/or responsibilities related to an abused child and the detection thereof are not clearly defined and ambiguous. The Toronto Star reports, “Ontario childrens aid societies say agencies working with First Nations children and kids in economically struggling communities are hardest hit by a province-wide cash shortfall” (Toronto Star, 2009). However, the accusations of some that “some child-welfare workers also exploit their tremendous clout to behave unethically, prejudicially or illegally” may also play a role in sad cases like Katelynn’s (Libin, 2009). Both may be true, but neither should be. Part III: Social Work Implication The intervention of a social worker could have prevented Katelynn’s death, and there were several opportunities on several levels for intervention. A social worker operating in the micro system surrounding Katelynn could have conducted home visits to check up on Katelynn. The one social worker who was aware of Katelynn’s placement should probably have made at least one follow up visit shortly after the custody hearing. Katelynn’s mother too should have been concerned enough about her daughter to drop by Irving and Johnson’s home once in a while to see her, and then insist upon seeing her. If Katelynn’s mother was undergoing some sort of addiction therapy, and the presumption is that she was since after Katelynn died, she received a very light sentence for the crime she had committed that precipitate her relinquishment of Katelynn to Irving, part of her therapy should have been to be responsible for her child (Toronto Star, 2009). When Katelynn was placed in Irving’s custody, in the South Parkdale neighborhood, some warning bells should have gone off somewhere and someone should have sent a social worker to assist in the adjustment for Katelynn even if the background information on Irving and Johnson was neglected because of ignorance. A group of researchers looked into how Canadian child welfare workers could improve on cases like Katelynn’s. These researchers recommend a system of evidence-based information be implemented rather than depending upon assumptions about a child’s environment, which would include traveling to the places where children might be in the most danger regardless of a social worker’s fear for his/her own personal safety. Measures can be taken to insure the social worker’s safety, measures that are unrealistic to insure the safety of a child in the dangerous neighborhood. For instance, a child living in such a sketchy neighborhood is not usually provided with a police escort. However, a social worker could be and should take advantage of it if fear is the excuse keeping them out of these areas. These same researchers call for “major shifts in culture and infrastructure to occur which in turn can lead to significant movement toward evidence-informed policy development” (Jack, Dobbins, Tonmyr, Dudding, Brooks, & Kennedy, 2010). This type of intervention would apply to those who encounter children like Katelynn, specifically her teachers, who presumably saw evidence of abuse but said nothing because of their own social constructions about the neighborhood she lived in, the background of her mother, her ethnic and/or socioeconomic demographic, or her living arrangement. Katelynn’s teachers, part of a mezzo system, saw her on a fairly regular basis, at least for a short time, and could have intervened. The Ontario Association of CAS website provides a section that explains how a person can detect signs of abuse and how to go about reporting them (Ontario Association of Childrens Aid Society, 2010). Perhaps this type of information should be disseminated more widely and in areas where particularly vulnerable children might live. This information could be useful to people who live in neighborhoods like Katelynn’s, where people notice children at play and then notice the signs of abuse or their absence. People need to know that it is okay to say something when they have suspicions, even if they turn out to be unfounded. A social worker could establish a relationship with a neighborhood or in a school so that people may feel comfortable approaching the social worker when they might not want to approach a police officer with their suspicions about child abuse or neglect. Since Katelynn’s death, laws have been implemented to require that teachers and others who come into contact with abused children report their suspicions. During the meeting of the legislature that followed Katelynn’s death some new laws were passed. Among them were the Children’s Safety and Protection Rights Act which “create[d] a public child abuse registry that can be made public” and The Education Act which “will require mandatory reporting of incidents of violence or abuse and it will prohibit the use of corporal punishment” (Legislative Assembly of Ontario, 2009). In light of these laws,, there are many more opportunities for social workers to intervene on the mezzo level. But the laws also illustrate the macro level of social work. Legislation and intervention from state, municipal, and federal governmental bodies is necessary to prevent further cases like Katelynn’s. Part IV: Intervention Plan Social workers should be a part of all of these concerns. A comprehensive intervention plan would have social workers regularly visiting not only the homes of children living in custody arrangements like Katelynn’s, but also the homes of known drug addicts and criminals in case there are children that are not on record. Perhaps the best approach would be to have a social worker develop and establish a relationship with as many residents of a neighborhood as possible. There should also be school counseling provided for both children and parents, and there should be a social worker advising on laws and regulations that concern children. Those who find this sort of intervention too aggressive and over ambitious should seek to join in measures to prevent child abuse and neglect rather than thwarting attempts by those who may go overboard to protect the vulnerable. Conclusion Children are vulnerable and require protection especially children who may not be cherished by their parents as they should be. Society has gone about establishing laws and safeguards for children, but, on occasion, all of them fail and an innocent child falls through the cracks in the system. The way to prevent this is to seal up the cracks: all citizens must take the responsibility of reporting anything that even remotely resembles abuse or neglect of a child; schools must report any deviation from the expected routine; judges must demand that more investigation and more evidence be presented to provide a complete picture before they bang the gavel and place a child in someone’s care; social workers must get involved. They must advocate for children on all levels. In fact, children must be their first priority. A society that does not cherish its children is doomed to failure. References Jack, S., Dobbins, M., Tonmyr, L., Dudding, P., Brooks, S., & Kennedy, B. (2010). Research Evidence Utilization in Policy Development by Child Welfare Administratiors. Child Welfare , 89 (4), 83-100. Legislative Assembly of Ontario. (2009, April 30). Official Reports of Debate. Retrieved December 3, 2011, from Ontario Legislative Assembly: http://www.ontla.on.ca/house- proceedings/transcripts/files_pdf/30-APR-2009_L143.pdf Libin, K. (2009, June 12). Childrens Aid Society workers should be reined in, critics say. Retrieved December 2, 2011, from National Post: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1690967 Ontario Association of Childrens Aid Society. (2010). Signs of Abuse. Retrieved December 2, 2011, from Ontario Association of Childrens Aid Society: http://www.oacas.org/childwelfare/signs.htm Patterson, D. A., & Keefe, R. H. (2008). Using Social Construction Theory as a Foundation for Macro-Level Interventions in Communities Impacted by HIV and Addictions. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare , XXXV (2), 111-126. Slater, T. (2005). Toronto’s South Parkdale Neighbourhood A Brief History of Development, Disinvestment, and Gentrification. Centre for Urban and Community Studies, Urban Studies. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto. Smith, J. (2008, August 8). Court transcript outlines Katelynns handover. Retrieved December , 2011, from References: http://justice.cloppy.net/index.php/references/2008/08/19/katelynnanbsp-les-services- sociaux-disen The Globe and Mail. (2008, August 6). Slain girl failed by system, advocate says. Retrieved December 2, 2011, from The Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ Toronto Star. (2008, August 6). Anger mounts in girls death. Toronto Star , pp. A01. Newspaper Source. Accessed December 2, 2011. Toronto Star. (2009, October 15). Cash cuts hit native kids . Toronto Star , pp. A07. Newspaper Source. Accessed December 2, 2011. Toronto Star. (2008, August 19). Judge failed to meet even a minimal standard in custody case of murdered child, Kormos alleges. Toronto Star , pp. A01. Newspaper Source. Accessed December 2, 2011. Toronto Star. (2009, January 9). Mother of slain toddler avoids jail . Toronto Star , pp. A06. Newspaper Source. Accessed December 2, 2011. Toronto Star. (2008, August 7). Second person arrested in 7-year-olds slaying . Toronto Star , pp. A1. Newspaper Source. Accessed December 2, 2011/. Read More