Lawsuit: Saskatchewan, Canada and How Could You? case-Child Death UPDATED

We covered the outrage over the numerous child deaths in Saskatchewan last June. Now, the Saskatchewan government is being sued by a mother whose 4-year-old daughter died and 2-year-old daughter was hospitalized while in care of foster parents.

“A statement of claim was filed Wednesday on behalf of Natasha Goforth, as well as the mother of two other children who were previously in the care of Tammy and Kevin Goforth.

Natasha’s four-year-old daughter June died last summer after she and her two-year-old sister were hospitalized. While few details have emerged, the foster parents have been charged with manslaughter and criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

During the bail hearings for the foster parents, relatives of the little girl were speaking out against what they called the failures of Social Services in protecting the child.

Regina-based lawyer Tony Merchant is handling the case. He said the statement of claim alleges the death and abuse were preventable and that social workers failed to protect the children or respond to numerous complaints of potential abuse.

“Social services didn’t red flag the home and had they red flagged the home, when exactly the same things arose for Natasha Goforth’s children, surely then social services would’ve said this is an atrocious situation we’ve got to get Natasha Goforth’s children out of the house,” Merchant said.

He said if social services had done something about the home earlier, this could have been avoided.

“The facts are clear. If social services had put those facts together and acted on them, then the wrong doing wouldn’t have continued for the children.”

Merchant said the plaintiffs are seeking compensation, but couldn’t offer an amount.

A statement of claim contains allegations that are not proven in court.”

Goforth mother sues Sask. government after child’s death in foster care

[CKOM 1/16/13]

REFORM Puzzle Piece

Update:“The four-year-old girl.

That’s all the brown-eyed, chubby-cheeked foster child could be called during a three-week murder trial in Regina that detailed how she was restrained with tape, and starved to skin and bones until her heart finally gave out.

A publication ban has prohibited anyone, even her own mother, from saying her name in media reports. And that remains the case as the family gives victim impact statements Friday at the sentencing hearing of Tammy and Kevin Goforth, who had been caring for the girl, and who were convicted earlier this month in her death.

Despite the publication ban, the girl’s mother resolutely wore a grey sweatshirt emblazoned with her daughter’s name inside the courtroom during the trial.

Nearly every day, she and family members waved placards outside the courthouse and chanted “justice for [daughter’s name].”

The name was carefully chosen for the girl to honour a beloved grandmother.

The child’s face and name were publicly reported and well known for nearly four years as people in Regina awaited the Goforths’ trial.

On Feb. 6, Tammy Goforth, 39, was found guilty of second-degree murder and her 40-year-old husband was convicted of manslaughter.

At the sentencing hearing, the girl’s family will freely and lovingly say her name.

But, against their wishes, it will be edited out of publications.

“I don’t see any privacy interests for the individual victim because the individual victim has unfortunately died,” said Lisa Taylor, a Ryerson University journalism professor in Toronto and former lawyer.

Taylor has studied publication bans and concluded they are often applied too broadly and at the expense of the public interest.

“When we start to look at the fact [that] this case involved a child in care, a child whose well-being should have been supported by the state … this is of vital, public interest,” Taylor argued.

Publication bans

On the first day of trial, the Crown chose to request a publication ban, under Sec. 486.4 of the Criminal Code, to conceal the girl’s name and identity.

Publication ban laws are typically intended to preserve the right to a fair trial and protect the privacy of a vulnerable person, such as a sex crime victim or young offender.

“Many of these make perfect sense when protecting a victim from further shaming or further victimization,” Halifax privacy lawyer David Fraser said. “The legislation seems to presuppose that there is a live victim who needs to be protected. So when you don’t have that, the legislation doesn’t seem to handle that very well.”

In the Goforth trial, Crown prosecutor Kim Jones made the request, in part, to protect the identity of a second victim who survived.

After the request was made, Justice Ellen Gunn had no discretion but to institute the publication ban. The new Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which came into force in July, now stipulates that publication bans are mandatory upon application of the prosecutor in all cases involving victims under age 18.

CBC’s senior legal counsel made a submission to the Crown prosecutor to narrow its submission to only ban the identity of the second foster child, who doesn’t share the same name as the deceased.

The request was denied.

In January 2015, the Toronto Star successfully fought a court-imposed ban on the identity of two-year-old Matinah, as well as her parents, who killed her.

The Crown had originally requested the ban to protect the identities of Matinah’s surviving siblings. However, it later reversed its position and a judge agreed that the ban didn’t actually help those siblings.

#YouKnowHerName​

Nova Scotia teenager Rehtaeh Parsons’s father, Glen Canning, knows too well the frustration of being muzzled by an unwelcome publication ban.

“When the person is deceased, the pub ban doesn’t protect them. It erases them,” Canning told CBC News.

His daughter died after attempting suicide as a result of relentless cyberbullying. A photograph of an alleged sexual assault against her was circulated at school and on social media.

As a victim of child pornography, a mandatory Criminal Code ban prohibited the publication of Parsons’s identity in the criminal trial last year.

“We were insulted. It was such a cold thing to do,” said Canning. “It felt like she was stolen from us a second time.”

A campaign to restore her identity used the hashtag #YouKnowHerName.

Judge Jamie Campbell, who said he had no choice but to uphold the ban, wrote in his decision “the ban serves no purpose.”

Eventually, Nova Scotia’s attorney general instructed that no one would be prosecuted for publishing Rehtaeh’s name in a non-derogatory way.”

Tammy and Kevin Goforth case sparks publication ban debate [CBC 2/12/16 by Bonnie Allen]

Update 2: “High school sweethearts who married more than two decades ago, Tammy and Kevin Goforth left court Friday to live apart for years to come after receiving their respective prison sentences.

Tammy, convicted of second-degree murder in the death of a four-year-old girl and unlawfully causing bodily harm to that child’s two-year-old sister, received a mandatory life sentence. The 39-year-old mother and grandmother won’t be eligible to seek full parole for 17 years, as ordered by Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Ellen Gunn.

Her lawyer Jeff Deagle had sought the minimum parole eligibility allowed by law — 10 years. Crown prosecutor Kim Jones had asked it be set between 18 or 20 years.

For 40-year-old Kevin, convicted of manslaughter and unlawfully causing bodily harm, Gunn had more leeway. She sentenced him to 15 years in prison for the manslaughter, but with credit for time served that is reduced to 14.

A five-year term for causing bodily harm will be served concurrently for both offenders.

Gunn said the courts had to send a message: “Child abuse and child neglect will not be tolerated.”

Gunn described the death of four-year-old as “slow, cruel and painful.” She said the Goforths, the sisters’ caregivers and legal guardians, had committed an egregious breach of trust on “powerless young children.”

While she accepted the girls were denied food, fluid and medical care, she didn’t find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they were bound or gagged but did accept they were confined in their bedroom with the door tied shut on occasion.

In Saskatchewan, prison terms for manslaughter cases involving a child typically range from four to 12 years. The Crown had sought an unprecedented life sentence, which would carry mandatory parole eligibility at seven years. Defence lawyer Noah Evanchuk had argued for a sentence in the range of 30 months to eight years in prison.

During the trial earlier this year, court heard the two youngsters were reduced to, in the words of doctors, “skin and bones” while residing in the couple’s Regina home. The Crown had argued images of “wraparound bruises” on the girls’ limbs and pressure sores combined with expert testimony suggested the children had been bound at times, but Gunn said it didn’t meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the prosecution described a pink strip of knotted cloth intertwined with wads of hair as “a gag,” Gunn said it was equally plausible that it could have been hairband, as the defence maintained. The judge did, however, accept evidence that the girls were confined in their bedroom, with the door tied shut on numerous occasions.

An answer to the question why is elusive. Gunn said the conduct of the Goforths was “deplorable and inexplicable.”

The closest to any sort of explanation during the trial was a statement Kevin gave to police almost four years ago. “It didn’t seem like she cared anymore,” Kevin replied when asked about Tammy hitting a “breaking point.” On the witness stand, he accused police of twisting his words.

Social Services placed with the girls with the Goforths on Nov. 8, 2011 under a permanent guardianship known as a person of sufficient interest. Nine months later, the couple rushed the unresponsive four-year-old to hospital. She lingered on life support for two days, then died Aug. 2, 2012. Located by police due to her sister’s dire state, the younger sibling was taken to hospital, and survived with treatment. Today she’s a thriving Grade 1 student living with her father.

The girls’ family wore sweaters emblazoned with the four-year-old’s name and carried her photo on signs outside the courthouse, but a court-imposed publication ban under the new Victims Bill of Rights prohibits identifying the girls.”

4-year-old’s death ‘slow, cruel and painful’: Foster parents sentenced [Toronto Sun 3/4/16 by BARB PACHOLIK]

Update 3:”Convicted of manslaughter in the death of a four-year-old Regina girl, Kevin Eric Goforth is seeking to overturn his lengthy prison sentence.

Goforth filed a brief, hand-written notice of appeal with the province’s high court on Thursday.

He is not appealing conviction.

Goforth, 40, and his 39-year-old wife Tammy, who earlier filed a notice of appeal, were each convicted of two charges stemming from the death of a four-year-old girl and the harm suffered by her two-year-old sister. A publication ban prohibits identifying the children, who were in the couple’s care under a permanent guardianship.

Kevin Goforth was convicted of manslaughter and unlawfully causing bodily harm. On March 4, Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Ellen Gunn sentenced him to 15 years in prison, but 14 years remain after credit for his pre-trial custody and “house arrest” while under strict bail conditions prior to trial.

Tammy was convicted of second-degree murder and unlawfully causing bodily harm. She received a mandatory life sentence with parole eligibility set at 17 years. She is appealing conviction as well as sentence.

No date for appeal hearings has been set.”

Kevin Goforth appealing sentence in child death, harming case
[Reina Leader Post 3/24/16]

Update 4:“Saskatchewan’s highest court has upheld the conviction of a foster parent who was found guilty of starving to death a girl in her care and abusing the girl’s sister but has ordered a new trial for the woman’s husband.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal released its decision Tuesday on the appeals of Tammy and Kevin Goforth, which were heard in January 2019.

The three judges unanimously upheld the conviction and sentence for Tammy Goforth, but in a split 2-1 decision ordered a new trial for her husband.

In 2016, Tammy Goforth was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of the four-year-old girl and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 17 years. Kevin Goforth was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 15 years.

Both were also found guilty of criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

The girls in foster care were rushed to hospital in 2012 and found to be severely malnourished, dehydrated and covered with bruises. The four-year-old died of a brain injury following cardiac arrest and her sister, who was two at the time, survived.

They had been in the Goforth’s care for nine months.

The Court of Appeal called the evidence of prolonged neglect and starvation of the children “extremely disturbing.”

The couple appealed their homicide convictions and sentences, but only Kevin Goforth appealed the bodily harm charge.

In her appeal, Tammy Goforth argued her murder verdict was inconsistent with her husband’s manslaughter conviction and that there was “no rational basis upon which the two verdicts can be reconciled.”

She also said evidence against her in the trial was “virtually identical” to the evidence the Crown had tendered against her husband.

But the judges called the claim unreasonable, adding that the Court of Appeal “may not interfere with a jury verdict on the ground that it is inconsistent unless the appellant persuades the court that no reasonable jury, whose members have applied their minds to the evidence, could have arrived at that verdict.”

They also said evidence against each of the Goforths wasn’t similar.

“The Crown’s case against Ms. Goforth on the charge of murder was stronger than the case it brought to bear against Mr. Goforth on that charge,” the Court of Appeal said.

“In particular, the evidence in respect of Ms. Goforth’s knowledge of the circumstances was not the same as it was in respect of Mr. Goforth’s knowledge.”

The judges noted that Tammy Goforth was the primary caregiver of the girls, managed the day-to-day undertakings in the household and dealt with social workers.

“Ms. Goforth testified she had been providing food to the children and had not deprived them of sustenance. She told Mr. Goforth the children were just sick. It was primarily her decision not to seek medical care for the children,” the decision said.

Kevin Goforth, on the other hand, testified that he worked out of the home six days a week, leaving before the children arose and returning an hour or so before their bedtime.

“He denied seeing the children without their clothes on. He stated he had not seen their injuries, but that Ms. Goforth had told him about them,” the court said.

“He said he believed his spouse when she told him the children were just sick and he claimed to have had no direct knowledge of their health problems.”

Two of the Court of Appeal judges found that the trial judge erred in her jury instructions regarding the husband and the basis on which jurors could find he had failed to provide the necessaries of life to the child.

“There is a reasonable possibility that the errors we have identified in the charge may have misled the jury,” the judges wrote in their majority decision.

“It cannot be said that the outcome of the trial on the charges against Mr. Goforth would necessarily have been the same if these errors had not occurred.””

Judges uphold conviction of woman, order new trial for husband in child death case
[Toronto Star 2/2/21 by Daniela Germano ]