Discredited hair-testing program harmed vulnerable families across Ontario: report

A review of more than 1,200 child welfare cases spanning 25 years has found that a now-discredited hair analysis program in Toronto that tested for drug and alcohol use caused extensive – and potentially irreversible - harm to vulnerable families across Ontario.

An independent commission tasked with examining the Motherisk hair-testing program says the child welfare system’s reliance on the analysis was “manifestly unfair and harmful” even when it did not substantially affect the outcome of cases.

The commission led by provincial court judge Judith Beaman says the tests were imposed by children’s aid societies on poor and otherwise vulnerable families and given excessive weight by the organizations and the courts.

Beaman says the tests had a significant impact on the outcome of 56 cases and seven of those families have obtained legal remedies, with four cases involving children being returned to their parents’ care.

The commission was convened two years ago after another report found the Motherisk program run by Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children fell short of international forensic standards for use in child protection and criminal proceedings, and said the lab “frequently misinterpreted” test results.

Children’s aid societies were directed in 2015 to stop using the Motherisk tests and the hospital shut down the program after apologizing for the issues.

But the tests had already been used in thousands of child-protection and criminal cases, and the program came under scrutiny after an appeal court decision highlighted differing expert opinions about a particular hairtesting method previously used by Motherisk.

“The discovery that unreliable test results were used as part of expert evidence in child protection proceedings for so many years undermines the public’s confidence in the fairness of our justice system, particularly with respect to how it treats vulnerable people,” Beaman said in the report released Monday.

“The testing was imposed on people who were among the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society, with scant regard for due process or their rights to privacy and bodily integrity. Many people experienced the testing, particularly when it was done repeatedly, as intrusive and stigmatizing.”