|
Yvonne Jones, Opposition Health and Community Services Critic and MHA for
the District of Cartwright - L’Anse Au Clair, says she is frustrated with
the government response to a case where a four year old child was
unexpectedly removed from the home of a Pasadena family after 25 months of
care. "I raised this issue in the House of Assembly today and I believe it
merits further investigation by the Minister and his department," said
Jones. "We have a child in this instance that spent the first two years of
his life being moved from family to family due to circumstances beyond the
control of the child. Now, 25 months later the child is four years old and
has finally experienced some degree of stability, yet government has taken
action to remove him from a loving family setting.
"This child was removed from the house abruptly and without proper cause
and process being followed. There was no assessment done by a child
psychologist and no meaningful reason to further uproot him from a stable
environment. I do not understand why the Tulk family were refused permanent
adoption under the law of Newfoundland and Labrador, even though he was in
their permanent care for over two years.
"There have been questions raised about the usage of a social worker to
remove the child from the house that was once employed by Health Labrador
Corporation in Shesheshit. The worker terminated her job and returned to
live on the Island portion of the province and was not an employee of
government at the time of the removal. The Minister of Health confirmed this
fact during questions from reporters this afternoon.
"There are serious questions that must be answered following the
publication of this incident involving a four year old boy. Government
policies must be revisited and a full investigation into this case launched
by the Minister of Health and Community Services. The family that has cared
for the child over the past two years is very distraught as a result of this
incident and their concerns must be addressed. It is obvious that the best
interests of the child were not considered in the poorly administered
removal that took place in Pasadena."
|