Youth-related Case Summaries
School District 61
2006 Annual Report
We were contacted by Ms. K who complained
that a high school principal acted inappropriately by not
returning her phone calls regarding her daughter and concerns
about racism. She told us that the principal only returned her
phone calls after she decided to file a formal complaint with
the Superintendent’s Office....more
Ms. K told us that despite knowing her
initial concerns had been addressed, she remained upset knowing
that the principal had not taken her phone calls seriously and
that this could happen again in the future.
We discussed this issue with the principal.
In response to our discussions and Ms. K’s concerns, the
principal wrote her a letter of apology. He emphasized that what
happened to Ms. K’s daughter was a serious matter that deserved
a prompt response from him.
Funding reinstated for orthodontics for foster child
Ministry of Children
and Family Development
2005 Annual Report
Ms M explained
she was foster parenting a 15-year-old boy whose orthodontist
recommended treatment. She said the orthodontist submitted a
request to the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s
Medical Benefits Program for funding of this treatment. However,
the request was denied on the basis that it did not meet the
program’s minimum eligibility criteria. The boy’s social worker
contacted the program for a more detailed response but no
further information was provided. Ms M believed the ministry
acted unfairly by not providing adequate reasons to support its
decision.
We contacted
the Dental Program Officer, who confirmed that Ms M’s foster son
met one of the dental criteria outlined in the ministry’s
guidelines. However, no information was submitted with regard to
the impact of the treatment on the boy’s emotional and
psychological development. The officer indicated that if the
social worker submitted this information, it would be
considered.
The social
worker later confirmed she had submitted a report, and the
program subsequently approved the treatment. We also spoke with
the Manager of the Dental Program, who advised that in future
the program would clearly communicate its criteria to the
parties by including the program criteria with denial letters.
Ombudsman Includes Dignity and Respect Criteria in its
Investigations of Public Agency’s Decisions and Actions
Ministry of Children and Family Development
2002 Annual Report
The Ombudsman initiated an investigation
into the establishment of a “special unit” at a youth custody
centre where youth were placed in the “special unit” when their
behaviour was deemed unmanageable. The special unit was created
to allow the resident sufficient time away from other influences
to regain composure. The Ombudsman was concerned that the
special unit was being used to punish residents rather than to
provide for “time out.” The Ombudsman was also concerned that
residents placed in the special unit believed that they were
being punished for their behaviour instead of being isolated
from other residents. There was also a concern that the special
unit might be used instead of “segregation” units, which have
additional safeguards in place.
In response to the concerns we identified
during the course of our investigation, the Director of the
youth custody centre undertook a review of the use of the
special unit. Following his review, the Director suspended the
use of the special unit while exploring with staff and residents
ways to achieve the original goal of providing a supportive
environment during times of problematic behaviours in a way that
was fair and respectful.
School district develops policies to address student substance
abuse
School District
2001 Annual Report
This investigation began with a complaint
from a student about the way in which school district staff
responded to suspicions that the student had engaged in drug
use.
In the course of conducting the
investigation, the Ombudsman became aware that the school
district in question lacked an adequate policy to guide district
staff when students were suspected of substance abuse, either
during school functions or on school premises. This raised two
concerns:
● It was possible that the process followed
by staff in such circumstances could be unreasonable; and
● Students would not be aware of the
process they would be part of if suspected of substance abuse.
Following discussions between this office
and school district personnel, the district agreed to reconsider
its guidelines on alcohol and drug consumption. The school
district subsequently engaged in a comprehensive process to
develop a policy to guide administrators when a student is
suspected of being involved in substance abuse, and to establish
the consequences for doing so. The objective was to ensure that
the final version provided clear information to staff and
students on the process to be followed by all concerned. This
response addressed the concerns raised in the original
complaint.
Fighting for an
Education
Ministry of Human Resources
2001 Annual Report
Ms. J, an eighteen-year-old youth on income
assistance, was enrolled in a high school diploma program. She
paid the school fee out of her Income Assistance benefits, not
realizing that the Ministry of Human Resources would cover the
cost.
When Ms. J became aware that the ministry
would pay her school fees, she advised the school district and
believed that the school district issued a cheque for
reimbursement to the ministry office. Ms. J then contacted her
counsellor at the ministry’s Skills Development Centre for help
in obtaining a refund.
Ms. J’s counsellor said that it was
unlikely that she would receive a cheque from the ministry as
there was no record that the school district had issued a refund
to the ministry. Ms. J felt the ministry was acting unfairly by
refusing to reimburse her. She subsequently contacted this
office and we contacted the counsellor. The counsellor confirmed
that both Ms. J. and the ministry had paid school fees but that
the school district had not recorded a dual payment and
therefore had not issued a reimbursement to the ministry. We
then contacted the ministry district supervisor who agreed that
Ms. J. was entitled to receive the money and arranged for the
school district to issue a cheque directly to Ms. J.
A Motherhood Issue
Ministry of Social
Development and Economic Security
2000 Annual Report
Ms. N. was a youth in care by voluntary
agreement which was soon to expire. She and her two-year-old
daughter had returned home to live with Ms. N.’s mother. The
Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security agreed to
provide the grandmother with additional income assistance to
support Ms. N. but was making no provision for the baby. The
ministry had told Ms. N. that it could not provide support for
the child unless she was a dependent of the grandmother. They
told Ms. N. that she would have to give up custody of her baby
to her mother. Although Ms. N. wanted her mother to receive
additional income support, she felt that the requirement to give
up custody of her daughter was very harsh and unfair.
If it was correct that the ministry was
imposing such a requirement as a condition of assistance, it
seemed an extraordinary intrusion into the relationship between
a mother and her child. We were hopeful the ministry could find
a better way to resolve the problem. When we contacted the BC
Benefits Coordinator, she noted that the situation was unusual,
and that the ministry could not easily address it under the
legislation. However, she agreed that it should not be necessary
for Ms. N. to give up custody of her child to her mother merely
to obtain additional income support that was clearly needed. The
BC Benefits Coordinator made a commitment to have additional
benefits issued to the grandmother.
The grandmother later confirmed that she
was now receiving assistance for both her daughter and her
granddaughter and that no change in custody had been required.
Even Citizens Under Age 19 Have the Right to Appeal
Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security
1999 Annual Report
Income Assistance recipients under age 19
are not always treated in the same way as adult clients of the
Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security (MSDES).
Although clients under age 19 have the same rights as adult
clients, we occasionally find that young people are not advised
of those rights, or that benefits to which they may be entitled
are withheld. In one recent case, we found that the client was
not informed of her right to appeal a decision....more
A mother at age 17, Ms. B had been living
in the home of her child’s paternal grandmother, with the
approval of the Ministry for Children and Families (MCF), and
was receiving Income Assistance (IA). Over time, she found that
her presence in the home was causing extraordinary conflict
between the child’s father and grandmother. She decided to leave
the home, and found room and board elsewhere.
When she informed MSDES of her move, her IA
benefits were terminated without explanation. When she and her
advocate sought an explanation, they were advised to contact MCF.
MCF advised Ms. B that it was not responsible for the decision,
and sent her back to MSDES. After six frustrating weeks with no
benefits, she contacted us.
We asked Ms. B whether she had been advised
by MSDES of her right to appeal the decision, and learned that
she had not. When we then spoke to the District Supervisor
responsible for the decision, she acknowledged that her office
had not informed Ms. B of her right to appeal. This had not been
an oversight, but was apparently based on her MCF social
worker’s unwillingness to support her decision to leave the
grandmother’s home.
We pointed out that clients have the right
to appeal even when MSDES considers there to be no merit to the
case. The purpose of the appeal is to allow the client to
present information that might affect the decision.
Nevertheless, the supervisor insisted that there was no point to
an appeal, and therefore no reason to inform Ms. B of her right.
We then contacted the MSDES Deputy
Minister, who agreed that Ms. B should have been advised of her
right to appeal. The Deputy Minister ensured that an advisory
was sent to all MSDES staff to inform them of the right of
clients under age 19 to appeal decisions. The advisory clearly
required staff to inform such clients of their rights.
Switching Residency between Parents in Different Regions Causes
Turmoil
Ministry for Children and Families
1999 Annual Report
Sixteen
year-old Mr. P was concerned that the Ministry for Children and
Families had not taken his views and needs into consideration
when insisting he return home to live with his father. A short
stay with his mother in a different region of the province had
come to an end and he was staying with a friend’s family.
He explained
that, while staying with his mother, he registered at a school
in her area where he was making good progress academically, and
established a support network. He also indicated that there were
several issues that concerned him while in his father’s care.
Nevertheless,
everyone agreed that he should not live with his mother.
Ministry staff
in his father’s region did not have any protection concerns and
advised father and son that Mr. P had to return home. Staff in
his mother’s region had not yet been involved, but since Mr. P
was in their area, we contacted the Quality Assurance Manager to
notify him of the complaint and asked him to contact Mr. P.
We were
assured that Mr. P would be contacted and that the matter would
be reviewed in consultation with both regions. Mr. P later
informed us that the Ministry had agreed to place him in a
foster home close to the school he was attending, and that he
considered the matter satisfactorily resolved.
Awareness of
Funding Came Late
Ministry assists young woman by providing funding
1999 annual report
Ms. J contacted us with a complaint that
she had not received appropriate information from the Ministry
for Children and Families about funding for post-secondary
education. As a minor, she had been in the care of the Ministry,
and recently learned that she was entitled to assistance with
the cost of post-secondary education.
However, Ms. J was unaware of the
opportunity until just before her 24th birthday. She immediately
applied, but felt that she would have received more assistance
had she applied as soon as she left the Ministry’s care.
The Ministry has discretion to approve or
deny assistance, and funds for such grants are not always
available. However, the Quality Assurance Manager reviewed Ms
J’s application. She was awarded an additional $3,000 and told
us that she would use the money to pursue studies that would
otherwise not have been possible.
|
