phoenix sinclair inquiry report — vol 2

8/13/2019 Phoenix Sinclair inquiry report Vol 2

1/405

The Legacy of Phoenix Sinclair

Achieving the Bestfor All Our Children

The Hon. Ted Hughes, O.C., Q.C., LL.D. (Hon), Commissioner

Volume 2December 2013


2/405


3/405

!"#$% '( )'*!%*!+

,-%(")% "*. ")/*'0$%.12%*! 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 45

4 %6%)7!89% +722"-: 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 4;

"#" $%&'()* +(, -%' .%)/, 0'/1+2' 343-'5 ######################################################################### "6

"#7 5)33', &$$&2-8()-)'3 ######################################################################################################### 7"

"#9 %&0 ,), -%)3 -2+:',4 %+$$'(; ######################################################################################### 77

"#< %+3 0%+- 0'(- 02&(: =''( 1)*',; ################################################################################ 79

7#7 -%2'' $%+3'3 &1 )(G8)24 ##################################################################################################### > ##################################### 6>

9#9#> 3-28.-82' &1 0)(()$': .13 +1-'2 ,'B&/8-)&( ################################################ 6A

9#< .%)/, +(, 1+5)/4 3'2B).'3 )(1&25+-)&( 343-'5 P.13)3Q ############################################### 6A

B )@8$. 0%$("-% ,-")!8)%C " (-"2%0'-/ ('- "*"$:+8+ 333333333333333333333333333 4D4

#9#" "3-

2'1'22+/ -& .%)/, +(, 1+5)/4 3'2B).'3O +$2)/ 7#9#7 + $2&-'.-)&( 1)/' )3 &$'(', ############################################################################### ""?

>#9#9 + .+3' $/+( )3 .2'+-', ######################################################################################### "79

>#9#< -'5$&2+24 :8+2,)+(3%)$ 1&2 $%&'()*O 5+4 9O 7CCC##################################### "7@

>#9#> $+2'(-3 +:2'' -& -2+(3)-)&( $/+( ################################################################### "76

>#< $%&'()* 2'-82(3 -& %'2 1+5)/4O 3'$-'5='2 >O 7CCC #################################################### "9C

>##

># 0&2F'2 3):(+/3 + 0+2()(: ############################################################################### "9@>##


6/405

>#> $%&'()*E3 3)3-'2 )3 =&2(O +$2)/ 76O 7CC" ######################################################################### "#>#" 7(,

2'1'22+/K ('0 =+=4 )( -%' 1+5)/4 ############################################################### "#>#7 0%& 0+3 .+2)(: 1&2 $%&'()*; ######################################################################### "#@ ('0 .&(.'2(3 1&2 $%&'()* +3 %'2 $+2'(-3 3'$+2+-' ############################################### "#@#" 92,

2'1'22+/K 2'$&2-3 &1 ,&5'3-). +33+8/-O I8(' "?O 7CC"########################## "#@#7


7/405

>#"> ')+ +3F3K 0%'2' )3 $%&'()* /)B)(:; ################################################################################# 7">

>#">#" ""-%

2'1'22+/K ')+ %+3 .&(1/).-)(: )(1&25+-)&( ########################################### 7">

>#">#7 +:'(.4 &$'(3 3)(./+)2 $2&-'.-)&( 1)/'O 5+4 ""O 7CC#9 ')+ 0&2F'2 $8238'3 .&(.'2(3 ########################################################################## 77>

>#"@ +:'(.4 /'+2(3 -%+- $%&'()* )3 0)-% F'5+-.% ############################################################ 77@

>#"@#" $%&'()* )3 +,,', -& 5.F+4E3 ')+ =8,:'- ######################################################### 77A

>#"@#7 F'5+-.% 1)/' )3 &$'(', +- )(-+F' ##################################################################### 77A

>#"A F'5+-.% 1)/' )3 ./&3',K L(& +$$+2'(- .&(.'2(3M ###################################################### 799

>#"A#" 38$'2B)3&2 1+)/3 -& '(382' ='3- $2+.-).' ####################################################### 79#"A#7 5.F+4 )3 F(&0( +3 + L-%2'+- -& .%)/,2'(M ################################################### 79>

>#"A#9 )(1&25+-)&( +=&8- 5.F+4 0&8/, %+B' F'$- 1)/' &$'(############################## 79@

>#"? F'5+-.% )3 $2':(+(- + 1&82-% -)5'O 3$2)(: 7CC< ###################################################### 796

>#"6 $%&'()* )3 2':)3-'2', 1&2 (823'24 3.%&&/O 1+// 7CC9

>#7"#" (& $2)&2 .&(-+.- .%'.F )3 ,&(' &( 5.F+4 #################################################### 7>9

>#7"#7 (& &(' 3''3 $%&'()* ############################################################################################ 7>#7"#9 1)/' ./&3)(: 1+)/3 -& $2&-'.- $%&'()* ############################################################# 7>>

>#77 $%&'()*E3 %&5' /)1'O -%2&8:% -%' '4'3 &1 &-%'23 ##################################################### 7>A

>#77#" F'5+-.% +(, 5.F+4 +3 $+2'(-3 -& $%&'()*O ='1&2' +(, +1-'2 =+=4####### 7>A

>#77#7 12)'(,3 .+// -%' +:'(.4 0)-% .&(.'2(3 1&2 $%&'()*################################# 7@7>#79 12)'(,3 2'/+4 .&(.'2(3 1&2 $%&'()*O 3$2)(: 7CC> ##################################################### 7@@

>#79#" F'5+-.% )(-'(,3 -& /'+B' 0)(()$': ############################################################### 7@@

>#79#7 L+ B'24 =2&F'( 4&8(: 0&5+(M ####################################################################### 7@?

>#79#9 "9-%2'1'22+/K + 1&3-'2 5&-%'2 .+//3 .13O 5+2.% >O 7CC>############################ 7@6

>#79#< 2'$&2- &5)-3 )5$&2-+(- 2'.'(- ,'B'/&$5'(-3 ########################################### 7A9

>#79#> 0%+- ,&'3 L+=83'M 5'+(; ################################################################################# 7A9

>#79#@ 0&2F'2 5+F'3 '11&2- -& .&(-+.- 1+5)/4 ###################################################### 7A>

>#79#A ('*- 0&2F'2 1+)/3 -& :+)( '(-24 -& F'5+-.%E3 +$+2-5'(-####################### 7A@

>#79#? 0&2F'2 +(, 38$'2B)3&2 .&(1'2 +=&8- ./&3)(: -%' 1)/'############################# 7?"

>#7< F'5+-.% 1)/' )3 ./&3', 1&2 -%' /+3- -)5' ##################################################################### 7?7

>#7


8/405

>#7> $%&'()* 5&B'3 -& 1)3%'2 2)B'2 ####################################################################################### 7?6

>#7>#" .&(.'2(3 $'23)3- +1-'2 -%' 5+2.% 7CC> )(B'3-):+-)&(############################### 7?6

>#7>#7 1+5)/4E3 5&B' -& 1)3%'2 2)B'2 ='.&5'3 F(&0(############################################ 76"

>#7>#9 -%' 1+5)/4 5&B' )(-& -%')2 ('0 %&5' ########################################################### 76"

>#7>#< 5.F+4E3 3&(3 I&)( -%' 1+5)/4 ############################################################################ 767

>#7>#> -%' 1+5)/4 )( 1)3%'2 2)B'2 ################################################################################### 769

>#7>#@ 5.F+4E3 3&(3 0)-('33 $%&'()*E3 +=83' ########################################################### 76>

>#7@ $%&'()* )3 582,'2', ######################################################################################################## 76>

>#7@#" 5.F+4E3 3&( 0)-('33'3 $%&'()*E3 ,'+-% ######################################################### 76>

>#7@#7 F'5+-.% +(, 5.F+4 2'5&B' $%&'()*E3 =&,4 12&5 -%' %&5'################### 76@

>#7@#9 -%' 1+5)/4O +1-'2 $%&'()*E3 ,'+-% ################################################################### 76@

>#7@#< ,&' T9 %'+23 &1 $%&'()*E3 +=83' ###################################################################### 76A

>#7@#> )(-'2-2)=+/ .13 )(B'3-):+-'3 3&(3E 3)-8+-)&(O I8/4 7CC>############################## 76?

>#7@#@ (& &(' F(&03 $%&'()* )3 5)33)(: #################################################################### 766

G ,@'%*86F+ .%"!@ 8+ .8+)'9%-%. 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333


9/405

4D .8((%-%*!8"$ -%+,'*+%C " *%0 2'.%$ '( ,-")!8)%33333333333333333333333333333333


10/405

"#9 .&2' 18(,)(: ##################################################################################################################### 969

">#< 1+5)/4 '(%+(.'5'(- 18(,)(:######################################################################################## 969

">#> 2'.&55'(,+-)&(3 ############################################################################################################ 96@

4G %.7)"!8'* "*. !-"*8*1 '( )@8$. 0%$("-% 0'-/%-+333333333333333333333333333 2'.&55'(,+-)&(3 ############################################################################################################

=D )@8$.-%*F+ ".9')"!% 33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 B4G

7C#" .822'(- 2&/' &1 -%' &11).' ############################################################################################# /':)3/+-)B' .%+(:' )3 2'G8)2', ######################################################################################


11/405

7C#>#9 .2)-).+/ )(I824 2'$&2-3 ####################################################################################### #> +$$&(-5'(- &1 -%' 2'$2'3'(-+-)B' ################################################################


12/405

=? #78$.8*1 )'227*8!: )",")8!: 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 BG?

7>#" .&558()-4N=+3', &2:+()D+-)&(3 ################################################################################# #"#" +(,2'03 3-2''- 1+5)/4 .'(-2' ######################################################################### #"#7 5+ 5+0) 0) .%) )-+-+ .'(-2' ############################################################################ #"#9 0&/3'/'4 1+5)/4 $/+.' ######################################################################################## #"#< (+-)B' 0&5'(E3 -2+(3)-)&( .'(-2' ################################################################# #"#> F+ () F+().%)%F ##################################################################################################### #"#@ '+:/' 82=+( -2+(3)-)&( .'(-2' ######################################################################## #7#7 ,'./)()(: -%' +8-%&2)-4 -& +$$2'%'(, .%)/,2'(#########################################

7>#7#9 1)(,)(: 3-+11 +(, B&/8(-''23 )( -%' .&558()-4 ########################################

7>#7#< 2'/+-)&(3%)$ =8)/,)(: ######################################################################################### #9 .&558()-4 &2:+()D+-)&(3 0&2F)(: 0)-% -%' .%)/, 0'/1+2' 343-'5################## #< .%+//'(:'3 1+.)(: .&558()-4N=+3', &2:+()D+-)&(3 ############################################## #


13/405

+$$'(,)* 7"

+$$'(,)* ># .&8(3'/ 1&2 $+2-)'3O 0)-('33'3O +(, &-%'23 ####################################################### >>"

+$$'(,)* @# .&55)33)&('2E3 28/)(: &( .&(1/).- &1 )(-'2'3- )338' N 5+2.% "6O 7C"9 ######## >>9

+$$'(,)* A# $2&,8.-)&( &2,'2O I&4+/O .#I#G#=# N ,'.'5='2 7O 7C"" ######################################### >?6

+$$'(,)* ?# $2&,8.-)&( &2,'2O I&4+/O .#I#G#=# N I8(' 77O 7C"7 ################################################# @76

+$$'(,)* 6# .&55)33)&('2E3 28/)(: &( 2',+.-)&(3 N ,'. 7O 7C"" ########################################## @99

+$$'(,)* "C# ,'.)3)&( 2' 3-+-', .+3' ( "O 12'',5+(O I#+# N 1'=28+24 "@O 7C"7 ################## @

+$$'(,)* ""# .&55)33)&('2E3 ,'.)3)&( &( 5&-)&( 1&2 -2+(3.2)$-3 N +8:83- "O 7C"7 ####### @?"

+$$'(,)* "7# &2,'2 2' 3-+-', .+3' ( 7O 5&(()(O I#+# N 3'$- AO 7C"7 ##################################### AC9

+$$'(,)* "9# ,'.)3)&( 2' 3-+-', .+3' ( 7O 5+( .+ N &.-&='2 77O 7C"7 ############################### A7>

+$$'(,)* ""

+$$'(,)* "6# .%)/,2'( )( .+2' +(, .%)/, 5+/-2'+-5'(- )( 5+()-&=+ H =2&0('// ########## ?>9

+$$'(,)* 7C# 38$$&2-)(: +// .%)/,2'( -& 2'+.% -%' 5&3- B8/('2+=/' H 5..8+): ########### ?A6


14/405


15/405

01#+& '*& O "1& +"'67 '( 01'&*23 +2*)%#26 , ...

,@"+% '*% E !@% +!'-: '( ,@'%*86 +8*)$"8-

These chapters tell the story of Phoenixs life and death from the many perspectivesthat were presented in this phase of my inquiry.

In keeping with my mandate, I focus in this phase on the circumstances

surrounding Phoenixs death, and in particular:146

the child welfare services providedor not providedto PhoenixSinclair and her family under The Child and Family Services Act;

any other circumstances directly related to Phoenixs death ; and

why her death remained undiscovered for nine months.

Beginning with Phoenixs birth and ending with the discovery of her death, herstory is told through the evidence of the 82 witnesses who testified in Phase I.

Where relevant, I have reproduced records made by Child and Family Serviceworkers, Employment and Income Assistance workers, and health care

professionals. It is a long narrative, spanning five years of her life and many weeksof testimony before the Inquiry.

In her opening statement on the first day of hearings, Commission Counsel saidthat one of the questions this Inquiry needed to answer was this:

How was it that Phoenix could become so invisible to a community thatincluded social service agencies, schools, hospitals, family, and friends, as toliterally disappear?

The answer to that question begins to emerge in this chapter. The evidence I heardin Phases Two and Three highlights the vulnerabilities that lead so many membersof our community to need help from the child welfare system and other

government and community supports: poverty, substance abuse, and lack ofeducation, to name a few. These systemic issues, so often rooted in the long-standing effects of racism and colonialism, are considered more fully in Phase

Three of this report.

In the analysis that follows, I comment on actions that were commendable, and onthose that failed to protect Phoenix or to support her family.

Phoenix was born healthy and had a life of possibilities and potential ahead of her.But to fulfill that potential, the signs were clear that she and her parents wouldneed support, as many families do to varying degrees. Phoenix and her familycame to the attention of the child welfare system from the moment of her birth.

That is where this narrative begins.


16/405

..: , 01#+& '*& O "1& +"'67 '( 01'&*23 +2*)%#26


17/405

01#+& '*& O "1& +"'67 '( 01'&*23 +2*)%#26 , ..


18/405

..? , 01#+& '*& O "1& +"'67 '( 01'&*23 +2*)%#26


19/405

01#+& '*& O "1& +"'67 '( 01'&*23 +2*)%#26 , ..-

? !@% +!'-: '( ,@'%*86F+ $8(%?34 ,@'%*86 8+ #'-*J ",-8$ =


20/405

..A , 01#+& '*& O "1& +"'67 '( 01'&*23 +2*)%#26

Sinclair had four sisters and two brothers. His mother was a residential schoolsurvivor. He testified that she didnt talk to him about her experience in residentialschool, adding, I can understand why. Sinclair also recalled that as a child,moving to a new foster home meant moving to a new school as well, making itdifficult to make friends and to stay in school. When asked who his parenting role

models were when he was growing up, Sinclair said that he looked to the parentshe saw on television.150

At the time that his Winnipeg CFS child in care file was closed, he had completedGrade 10 and was relying on social assistance to support himself.

Kematchs Winnipeg CFS child in care file indicates that she was apprehended atage 11, in 1993, after a report that her mother drank heavily, had drinking parties,and was physically and emotionally abusing her. Ultimately, Kematch was made apermanent ward of Cree Nation Child and Family Caring Agency (CFCA), and her

Winnipeg CFS child in care file was closed in February 1996.151In 1998, at age 16and while still a ward of the Cree Nation agency, Kematch gave birth to her first

child. The child was apprehended at birth and was made a permanent ward of thatagency.

Sinclair testified that he met Kematch through her brother. They began dating inlate 1998 and eventually moved in together. Around that same time, they began toattend the Boys and Girls Club in Winnipeg on a regular basis.152This is acommunity-based organization that provides employment programs, healthyliving programs, and after-school programs to young people.

I heard evidence from Nikki Humenchuk (then Taylor) who was a supervisor at theBoys and Girls Club on Aberdeen Avenue from 1999 to 2003. She managed thefacilities and staff and worked with the young people who dropped in.

Humenchuk testified that although it was not part of her job, if a club memberapproached her, she would try to help by acting as an advocate.

Humenchuk recalled that Sinclair and Kematch came to the club as a couple, threeto five days a week from the time she started working there in 1999 until Phoenix

was born in 2000. She remembered Sinclair as an excellent guitar player whotaught younger children to play. Kematch was more interested in the kitchen andsocializing. Both would make snacks and watch movies.

Humenchuk learned from Kematch, during the time they spent together at the club,that she had been in the care of child welfare, and her mother was an alcoholic.

Humenchuk described Kematch as immature and having trouble expressingemotions and feelings. She specifically recalled that Kematch struggled withlanguage, with understanding jokes, and with building relationships.

Humenchuk described Sinclair as nice, and quiet, shy and surprisingly quitesweet.153 She was aware that he had been in care and that he had siblings. Sherecalled that he had let her know that his time in the care of child welfare was notgood.


21/405

01#+& '*& O "1& +"'67 '( 01'&*23 +2*)%#26 , ..B

It was clear from Humenchuks testimony that through her involvement with theBoys and Girls Club, she had developed a relationship with Kematch and Sinclairsuch that they were comfortable sharing personal information with her, andrelying on her for support.

?3= /%2"!)@F+ ,-%1*"*):Kematch became pregnant with Phoenix in 1999. Sinclair testified that although heand Kematch had initially planned on keeping Phoenix, they had not prepared forher arrival.154

Humenchuk testified that in the months before the birth, she and the clubs staffnoticed that Kematch had gained weight, had an increased appetite, and wouldalways wear her coat indoors. They suspected that she was trying to conceal apregnancy, but the couple never spoke of it. Humenchuk did not haveconfirmation of the pregnancy until the day Phoenix was born.155

Note: In this Phase of my report I have chosen to reproduce some originaldocuments that were disclosed to the Commission. In other cases, especially wherethere were legibility issues, I have included transcriptions of their contents instead.Often, these were handwritten or hastily composed notes, for the purpose of filerecordings only, and they contained spelling and other errors. The transcriptionsare as faithful as possible to the originals and I have not attempted to correct ordraw attention to any such errors.

?3


22/405

..@ , 01#+& '*& O "1& +"'67 '( 01'&*23 +2*)%#26

After the meeting she made this handwritten recording in Kematchs chart:157

Writer met with Samantha to review above concerns. Samantha advised thather son (2 years) was made a p.w. of CFS because they thought I wouldhurt him. Samantha advised that the Agency felt this b/c Samantha herselfwas an abused child. Samantha advised that this pregnancy was unplanned.

Samantha and her boyfriend Steve have been together for 1 year. Samanthahad 0 prenatal care b/c she doesnt like Drs. Samantha advised that sheand Steve are unprepared for baby i.e., no crib, clothes, formula, etc. . .Samantha is unsure if they are emotionally ready. When questioned whather plans were for the baby-- I dont know, . . .

SOR #1 was a social worker with BSW and MSW degrees. She testified that therewere a number of indications that Kematchs case needed to be explored further byCFS, including Kematchs own history of childhood abuse; her lack of prenatal carefor Phoenix; her reported dislike of doctors; her ambivalence towards parenting;and the lack of practical readiness for Phoenixs arrival.

For all these reasons, SOR #1 called Winnipeg CFS at 11:15 am on April 24, 2000,the day after Phoenixs birth, to refer the case to the agency. She recorded in hernotes that Kematch had agreed to meet with child welfare to discuss a plan forparenting Phoenix.

?3


23/405

01#+& '*& O "1& +"'67 '( 01'&*23 +2*)%#26 , ..9

became quite clear that this couple is not sure if they want to parent. GivenSamanthas lack of preparation for the baby, the past concerns and theambivalence over parenting, [Redacted] is requesting workers attend

sometime today to talk with mom. [Redacted] discussed the need to do sowith Samantha and after some hesitation agreed to meet with workers.

Consulting Supervisor, Arthur Gwynn, agreed that the evening shift shouldattend to the hospital today as Samantha may be able to leave tomorrow.

Following the name and signature of the After Hours worker, the followingappears:

At 1745 Hrs, workers Diana Verrier and Dan Cianflone attended thehospital and met with Samantha and Steve. Samantha stated that herdelivery of the baby went well and Steve was with her. She was not aware ofany concerns with the babe at the time of birth. Both Steve and Samantha

stated that they were unsure about whether they wanted to parent. Samstated that she was not sure that she was ready to be a mother and felt she

should have waited longer to become a parent. The birth of Phoenix was nota planned occurrence.

As stated in the report, at 5:45 p.m., social workers Diana Verrier and DanCianflone met with Kematch and Sinclair at the hospital. Verrier noted inKematchs protection file that both Kematch and Sinclair were unsure about

whether they wanted to parent; Phoenixs birth was not planned; they did not havefamily members who would be able to care for her; and they had asked thatPhoenix be taken into care until they could prepare for her and decide whetherthey wanted to parent her.

The workers reviewed possible options with Kematch and Sinclair, according to the

file. Sinclair testified that afterwards, he and Kematch were left alone to make adecision: he had hoped that Kematch would want to parent Phoenix, but initiallythey were unsure.159 Ultimately the workers decided to apprehend Phoenix andplace her in care.160

After Phoenixs birth, Sinclair called Humenchuk at the Boys and Girls Club to askher for help because Phoenix was being apprehended.161Humenchuk testified thatshe was shocked to learn the news, and headed to the hospital immediately. Shetestified that she understood that Phoenix was being apprehended because of theconcealment of the pregnancy and the lack of prenatal care. Sinclair confirmed thathe called Humenchuk because she was already in our lives and . . . she was a good

person.162

After the Kematch protection file was opened by the After Hours Unit (AHU) ofWinnipeg CFS, it was transferred to the agencys Northwest Intake Unit. Thesupervisor of that unit was Andrew Orobko. He had a BA degree; he had been

working in child welfare since 1989 and in a supervisory capacity since 1992. Aswas the case with the majority of social workers and supervisors from the agency


24/405

.:D , 01#+& '*& O "1& +"'67 '( 01'&*23 +2*)%#26

who testified at the inquiry, Orobko had little independent recollection of hisinvolvement with the Kematch protection file.

He testified that in 2000, a file would make its way to his intake unit eitherthrough a phone screener in his unit, or via the After Hours Unit. (The CrisisResponse Unit was established in 2003.) As supervisor, Orobkos practice was to

review a file when it arrived in his unit to get a sense of the familys social historyand any history of agency involvement. He would then decide how it should bedealt with.

He assigned the matter to intake worker Marnie Saunderson. Saunderson had aBSW degree and began working for Winnipeg CFS in 1992. She had conduct of thefile only from April 25 to April 28, 2000, because she soon learned that she had aconflict of interest. Humenchuk, who was acting as the couples advocate, wasSaundersons first cousin.

Saundersons intake transfer summary, dated April 28, 2000 outlines the servicesshe provided during the few days she had the file. On April 25, 2000, she met withKematch and Sinclair at Womens Hospital. Phoenix was in the room with herparents. Kematch told Saunderson that she had changed her mind, and that she nolonger wanted Saunderson to take Phoenix. Saunderson testified that it was fairlynatural and quite common for parents to attempt to bargain with the agency

when it came to the moment that their baby would actually be apprehended.163Saunderson then moved Phoenix from the hospital to a Winnipeg CFS shelter, andthen to a foster family. Saundersons file recording was as follows:164

This writer invited the parents to help this writer to dress Phoenix and onlySteve did so. Samantha seemed only vaguely interested in the process, andwhen we were walking downstairs, she seemed more interested in chatting

and giggling with a friend. The girl that the couple met up with, appearedextremely shocked that they had just had a baby. She made it sound asthough the couple had kept this a secret on purpose.

Sinclair remembered this meeting with Saunderson. He testified that he told herthey had changed their minds about parenting Phoenix and that he asked for a

visit with Phoenix right away before Saunderson left the hospital with thebaby.165

Saundersons transfer summary further states that on April 26, 2000, she initiatedthe process to set up visits between Phoenix and her parents. Sinclair telephoned

Saunderson twice that day, inquiring about a visit. During the second conversationhe told Saunderson that he and Kematch would like their advocate from theWinnipeg Boys and Girls Club, Humenchuk, to attend with them. He testified thathe asked Humenchuk to attend the visits with Phoenix because she had acted as anadvocate for them and helped them with things they did not fully understand.166

This was the point at which Saunderson discovered that Kematch and Sinclairsadvocate was her cousin.167


25/405

01#+& '*& O "1& +"'67 '( 01'&*23 +2*)%#26 , .:.

Saunderson testified that she arranged with Sinclair for visits to begin the Fridayafter Phoenixs birth and to continue every Friday. The visits were to last two hoursand 15 minutes, and were to be loosely supervised.168

I note that Saunderson was readily prepared to include Humenchuks participationin Phoenixs life. This is consistent with the intent of The Child and Family Services

Act.As the facts will reveal, however, Humenchuks further involvement was notpursued by the agency.

Saunderson and Orobko discussed the conflict of interest that had arisen forSaunderson, on April 27, 2000, and decided that Orobko would assume conductof the file from Saunderson.169

Before transferring the file to Orobko, Saunderson contacted Cree Nation CFCA formore information about Kematchs child welfare history. Cree Nation CFCAdisclosed that Kematch had been a permanent ward of that agency; that her first-born child was also a permanent ward; and that Kematch had not been involved

with, or tried to visit that first child.When Saunderson transferred the file she wasstill waiting for more details from Cree Nation CFCA. She wrote in her intaketransfer summary:170

At this point, the parents remain somewhat ambivalent around theirmotivation to parent Phoenix. There is some indication that, despite theirinitial reaction, they are eventually wanting to parent Phoenix. This writerhas yet to receive written documentation around the reasons that Samanthas

son, [Redacted] became a Permanent Ward of Cree Nation CFS. Once thisinformation is received, it will need to be incorporated in to the finalassessment of the family and the Recommended Plan.

On April 28, 2000, Cree Nation CFCA faxed to Saundersons attention documentsfrom its files relating to Kematch.171The documents provided an outline ofKematchs history, but no information about her first child. Saunderson testifiedthat she had requested the protection file for that child, but instead receivedKematchs own child in care file.172By the time a second set of documents arrived,containing the information she had been seeking, Orobko had taken over the fileand Saunderson was no longer involved.

Orobko testified that there was nothing particularly unique or remarkable aboutthe Kematch protection file; all files in his unit came with serious parental capacityand motivation concerns and many files involved young parents with traumatic

childhoods and potential developmental issues. This was consistent with theevidence of many workers involved with Phoenix and her family who describedPhoenixs familys files as routine or typical. But, as testimony at the Inquiryshowed, as typical as this situation may have been, it demanded serious andconsistent attention to protect Phoenixs life, her health, and her emotional well-being.


26/405

.:: , 01#+& '*& O "1& +"'67 '( 01'&*23 +2*)%#26

Orobko produced a report entitled, Continued Summary of Service &Intervention. It referenced a meeting with Kematch and Sinclair at the Northwest

Winnipeg Intake Unit office at 831 Portage Avenue on April 28, 2000:173

As of this writers meeting with Samantha & Steven on Apr. 28/00, theparents are indicating a desire to continue their common-law relationship

with Phoenix being in the family fold. They advise that they came to thisposition after much deliberation and discussion.

The writer aggressively challenged the couple on their ambivalence towardparenting this child and the lack of prenatal care, the hiding of thepregnancy, and Samanthas seeming disinterest with respect to [Redacted]were raised as well.

Throughout our conversation Samantha remained flat and stoic. Sheresponded to questions in a simple and cautious manner, often pondering herresponse for a moment or two before uttering same. Complex questions oftenreceived simplistic responses, which failed to shed any meaningful light onissues, especially around why she hid this pregnancy and why she has failedto maintain any contact with [Redacted]. Her responses heavily consisted of

shrugs and I dont know. Her presentation is suggestive of somedevelopmental or psychological difficulties, however same will need to bedetermined. Samantha had great difficulty expressing why [Redacted] camepermanently into Cree Nations care, nor could she account for why she hadexpressed no desire in maintaining any contact with the child.

Steve presented as a relatively articulate and thoughtful young man. Heindicated that he permanently came into Winnipeg Child and FamilyServices care when he was 13 and he remained in the care of this Agency

until attaining the age of majority. At this point Stevens biological mothersfile [Redacted], File #935858) remains closed and his CIC file is sealed. Headvised that his experiences in Agency care have prompted him to parent hischild so that Phoenix might escape similar experiences.

Steve chose not to share many details of his time in Agency care and he willconsider this writers request for a consent to be signed so that the CIC filemight be opened and reviewed.

Orobkos observations of Kematchs presentation were consistent with the evidenceof Humenchuk, who described Kematch as Immature, cognitively delayed,

[having] trouble with showing emotions and expressing her feelings.

174

These wereimportant observations for the agency to consider in assessing Kematchs ability toparent Phoenix. Unfortunately, they were never fully explored.


27/405

01#+& '*& O "1& +"'67 '( 01'&*23 +2*)%#26 , .:

phoenix sinclair inquiry report — vol 2

Documents