Questions remain about how people with criminal records were hired to work with at-risk youth

Newly released government documents found people with criminal records have been working in group homes for at-risk youth.

The government says the checks on caregivers revealed a history of weapons, physical violence, assault, and outstanding criminal charges on two individuals. Further review found primary caregivers were viewing adult pornography and in possession of child porn.

How did this happen and who is responsible to make sure proper criminal background checks are done?

On Wednesday, the lawyer for A Community Vision—the private contractor that ran the homes—said his client did nothing wrong and that in all cases ACV received clearance letters from the Ministry of Justice approving each caregiver.

“They never did anything other than in compliance with what the government required and that’s both the Criminal Records Review Act and also any requirements that the ministry had,” said lawyer Bryan Baynham.

Minister For Children and Family Development Stephanie Cadieux was not available Wednesday for comment. Spokesperson Bill Anderson said it was their own social workers who uncovered what was happening and ultimately “it is the responsibility of the service provider to ensure they comply with MCFD standards and the Criminal Records Review Act.”

B.C.’s children’s watchdog Marry Ellen Turpel-Lafond says the ministry can’t abdicate responsibility in this case.

“The government needs to do its job,” she said. “They’re the parent. They’re the prudent parent. You don’t hire someone to take care of your children that has a history of drug manufacture/trafficking or a history of assault or possesses weapons.

“It’s not something that we should even be debating at this point. It’s a very serious lapse and it needs to be addressed.”

The government pulled ACV’s contract, shutting down 23 of its group homes and displacing 33 vulnerable youth. Lawyer Baynham says ACV is still not sure why.

“My client has no knowledge that any of the things contained in this report are true,” he said. “All we’ve got is a redacted copy. They refused to provide any background information whatsoever.”

-With files from Rumina Daya