Gordon Robinson | Be careful what you ask for

Readers of last Tuesday’s column would realise I’ve concerns about the process resulting in a lurid OCA report which captured Jamaica’s attention.

After admitting its investigation was prompted by a media report regarding one Carl Robanske, OCA stated:

“The objective of this investigation, therefore, was to enquire into and assess the comprehensive nature of the relationship between CPFSA and Robanske and to fully consider the actions being attributed to any interested parties.”

The OCA based its right to “investigation” on its statutory foundation. It cited the Child Care and Protection Act (CCPA) as follows:

“The Children’s Advocate shall –

(a) Keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness of-

(i) law and practice relating to the rights and best interests of children; (ii) services provided for children by relevant authorities”

in order to advise the Minister or Parliament regarding the best interests of children. CCPA defines “relevant authority” essentially as a State Agency.

Nowhere in CCPA can I find any authority to embark upon an investigation (other than into a complaint made by or on behalf of a child) especially not one capable of usurping police jurisdiction. CCPA expressly provides OCA shall not investigate a complaint if the Complainant has “a right of appeal, complaint, reference or review under any other law”.

Complaints capable of OCA investigation are to be recorded in writing and should allege the child’s rights have been “infringed” by any action taken BY A RELEVANT AUTHORITY; or the child’s interests have been adversely affected by such action.

Sexual abuse of a minor (including aiding and abetting) is very much a police matter not fodder for an OCA “investigation”. OCA’s duty is to review and report on child care facilities generally NOT to “investigate” or prosecute individuals who may be guilty of criminal offences. THIS investigation began on a media report NOT any formal complaint from anyone.

A “review” doesn’t contemplate the wide scale probe upon which OCA appears to have embarked as sole arbiter nor does CCPA allow OCA to make public “findings” adverse to any individual civil servant. If children’s best interests is the purpose, any agency “review” should be undertaken quietly; concerns arising reported to the Minister who should (again quietly) take necessary policy and administrative action including reporting to police if necessary. If, in addition to policy/administrative action, police found evidence of a criminal offence we’d know of charges laid. Instead, this massive public scandalizing of CPFSA’s CEO is collaterally embarrassing to children affected and provides no systemic solution save perhaps to burnish OCA’s profile.

The Act provides a scheme for OCA to act to protect children who may be brought before the court (by providing legal assistance); and to keep a Register of information to be received from “prescribed persons” having contact with children (e.g. doctors, nurses, teachers etc). It’s this sort of information OCA is mandated to “review” and upon which it sends advice or recommendations to Parliament. If it receives a complaint (a media report is NOT a complaint) with no reasonable alternative resort then OCA may conduct an investigation but, again, too much publicity might cause more child endangerment than the original misdeed.

Then there’s the process itself which I briefly highlighted on Tuesday. The embattled CEO was only asked to comment on adverse findings already made from diverse sources of information (not evidence). “Findings” of ministerial “error” were conveniently packaged in related findings that Ministers were misled by CPFSA’s CEO without any possibility considered that CEO was also misled and as “inadvertent” as Ministers.

OCA’s report built findings of inconsistencies in CEO’s claims on sandy foundations. It records her claims and how they were “disproved”:

“A claim that there were no girls under 18 at The Father’s House – disproved by access to birth records and various log books.”

Why not explore the possibility CEO was as misled as Ministers? Why is this “inconsistency”? Did CEO have access (or reason to seek) birth records and logs? What would CEO know outside of reports from The Father’s House?

“A claim that Robanske had no direct contact with the residents of The Father’s House – disproved by a review of the Visitors’ Log and Daily Logs as well as accounts provided by the residents.”

Sigh. Again there’s no mention of inquiry into who had access to those logs/resident accounts or why CEO should’ve inspected/sought them.

“A claim that CPFSA does not directly deal with Robanske, especially post-2018 – disproved by a number of news articles and online features including Embracing Orphans’ Year in Review 2020 which detailed its work in Jamaica through its partnership with the CPFSA and the CEO’s own admission of her fellowship with Robanske and the girls at the 2019 Christmas Party that was sponsored by Robanske.”

News articles? Online features? Really? Seriously? Attending a Christmas Party is proof of….what? Was an upside-down cake served? An organization’s review of its work contradicts what appears a carefully worded claim denying “direct” dealing with an individual?

“A claim that Robanske would have no contact, be liaising with, or being the face of Embracing Orphans in Jamaica post-2018 – disproved through call data analysis that showed telephone calls between Robanske and CPFSA representatives and diverse news articles, even up to 2021 in response to the Covid-19 pandemic following a request of Robanske that was initiated by the CPFSA.”

Here we go again. How do phone calls (by whom?) make Robanske “the face of Embracing Orphans in Jamaica”? Where was he when taking the calls? Who saw him? The essence of this claim seems to be CPFSA would deal with Embracing Orphans but Robanske would be a silent partner not seen or heard near the girls. Criticize THAT if you will but don’t imply CEO is a liar on this basis.

“Written undertaking given to the Honourable Minister of Education and Youth that, in accordance with her directive, the premises would be vacated within 90 days – disproved as way beyond July 2021 the premises still remained occupied.”

So? Maybe the terms of the undertaking were optimistic. CPFSA wouldn’t be the first overly optimistic landlord (or Health Minister) regarding timelines for project completion.

“The CEO’s account to the Children’s Advocate at the December 2022 Hearing that the Manager (Ms. McDonald) was removed from her position by the CPFSA as a part of its decision to change the way in which The Father’s House as a transitional facility would be operated – disproved through personal knowledge that it was through dialogue with the Honourable Minister(s) Fayval Williams and Robert Morgan as well as the then Permanent Secretary that Ms. McDonald was sent on leave and instructed to leave The Father’s House in order for the OCA’s investigations to proceed unfettered given the presumable influence Ms. McDonald seemed to have on the girls. This was what paved the way for the Interim Manager to assume duties on September 23, 2021.”

Jeez Louise! Which Minister can send a CPFSA employee on leave? What does it matter who had the idea? That the employee was removed by CPFSA isn’t a lie. Also, this concept of an investigator providing its own untested evidence from “personal knowledge” is suspect at best.

After the flood of verbiage three of four recommendations were targeted at CEO with one vaguely recommending better “risk management tools.” These weren’t, as CCPA requires, recommendations concerning children’s rights and best interests. This was prosecution, conviction and execution of one public servant. Why is CEO being crucified without due process? I see a reported “protest” outside the CPFSA offices on Tuesday demanding that she go. Go where? Why? What would that solve?

I urge Jamaicans not to get carried away by media hype. It’s clear this CEO has questions to answer in a proper setting; the institutional buck stops with her; and she may not have a grasp on the job’s sensitivities. But, if you focus on this CEO and succeed in banishing her, you’ll probably only permit the political directorate to shuffle its child care cards and, as the issue fades from headlines, ignore the rotten system from which it grew. Child endangerment at child care facilities is endemic. Firing one scapegoat changes nothing so be careful what you ask for.

In Jamaica we suffer from a White-Man-From-America syndrome that brainwashes too many to look up to them as oracles. This particular fox is obviously a charmer with plenty cash to throw around to ensure access to the hen house. So he fooled at least one civil servant. How? With whose help?

Never forget: Nothing in this world is as it appears. So calm down. Dig deeper. Unearth real root causes. Don’t be driven to mass hysteria by media’s shiny pyrite. Let professional investigators, including police, do their work.

Peace and Love.

- Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com