Tasered youth receives gov’t settlement

The province has agreed to establish a fund capped at $3 million to pay for the future care of a youth who became the central figure in a report by B.C.’s former children’s watchdog highly critical of his treatment after he was jolted by a police Taser at a Prince George-area group home.

The fund is part of a settlement reached in early February that ends a lawsuit filed in 2014 by the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia against the Ministry of Children and Family Development for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

It alleged the youth, now 18, endured years of emotional and physical trauma while living in numerous foster homes and group homes across the province. The province’s director of child welfare, the two owners of a Dawson Creek-area foster home, and a social worker were also listed as defendants in the case.

Under the agreed terms, the province will contribute $615,000 every six months starting June 15 into a “care fund.”

The fund will be held by the PGT to pay for services provided to the youth by Community Living British Columbia once he becomes an adult. He turns 19 years old 10 days before the payments begin.

Once the fund reaches $3 million, the province will suspend payments but continue to top up the fund when it falls below that level.

In consenting to the settlement, the province did so “without any admission of liability” and “does not accept the characterization of many of the events giving rise to the litigation,” according to a response to the proposal filed in B.C. Supreme Court. Instead, it did so because the settlement was in the youth’s “best interest” and “consistent with its mandate as legal guardian under the Child Family and Community Services Act.”

But B.C.’s current Representative for Children and Youth, Bernard Richard, cast doubt on that claim, noting the province also agreed to provide a $2.75-million lump sum payment of which $2.64 million will pay for legal costs. The losing side in a civil suit typically covers all parties’ legal costs.

The rest will go to the youth to pay for general damages related to pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity and reduced life expectancy as well as the cost of any behavioural management services prior to his 19th birthday.

The province will also provide further disbursements adding up to $209,025.88, also largely for legal costs.

“I know the ministry is not assuming responsibility and that is pretty common in these types of settlement agreements but clearly, the payment in itself is a form of admission in my view,” Richard said.

In its notice of claim, the PGT alleged MCFD consistently put the youth in homes where he suffered emotional and physical abuse.

“The ministry repeatedly failed to provide a safe, stable and nurturing home for the plaintiff,” it says.

“Rather than providing supports for foster parents, or pursuing the option of adoption, the ministry moved the child into a series of group home settings that could not provide security, stability or a longterm sustaining relationship for the plaintiff.”

The document says the Taser incident happened in April 2011 at a group home in the Tabor Lake area of Prince George, when the boy was 11 years old. About a week after he moved into his sixth group home, he escaped into a nearby trailer and then stabbed the group home manager with a steak knife.

Prince George RCMP were called, and when the boy stepped outside the trailer, police zapped him with a Taser. The document alleges that happened because the government put the boy through living arrangements that “created a situation of isolation and anxiety.”

The boy’s traumatic childhood was documented in a scathing 2013 report by the province’s previous children’s watchdog. Representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond said the youth’s suffering could have been prevented if the government had invested in proper residential care.

Richard said his office continues to monitor the province’s progress on meeting the recommendations set out in Turpel-Lafond’s report.

“There have been improvements since 2013, including adding complex care residential beds in Prince George, so certainly that’s important,” Richard said.

“These beds are set aside specifically for children in care who have very high needs or complex needs.”

“But we’re also expecting more progress made in terms of the overall care that’s provided to these youth. We think that there are still gaps. We are not of the opinion that not all of the recommendations have been implemented and the ministry agrees with us on that point.”

Richard called the settlement significant and said such costs can be defrayed with proper care in the first place.

“At least some of them,” he added. “Children with complex care will always require significant services and those services cost a lot of money.”

In an amended response to the PGT’s claim, filed in September 2016, the province said the youth lives in a “specialized residential resource” in the Lower Mainland.

“The facility was designed and constructed specifically for him and is located in a rural area, close to hospital, police and community services,” it said, adding it’s staffed by “highly trained professionals, chosen based on their experience and compatibility with him.”

He also continues to be very active and enjoys bike rides, going to the skate park and local youth centre and doing errands. He also visits his mother and siblings twice a year, facilitated by the ministry, according to the filing.

In a statement, a Ministry of Children and Family Development spokesperson said the ministry respects the decision and appreciates the roles of the PGT and the BCRCY “in advocating for the best interests of our most vulnerable children and youth.”

“In instances where the system doesn’t function as it should, these agencies provide an added safeguard to help protect the long-term interests of young people and hold the ministry to account,” the spokesperson continued.

“As this is a legal matter involving someone who received services from the Ministry, we need to be respectful of their right to privacy and cannot comment further.”

Turpel-Lafond could not be reached for comment.