Therapeutic

PO Box HM3268
Hamilton HMPX

VIA EMAIL ONLY

 

July 18, 2018

Of?ce of The Premier
Cabinet House

105 Front Street

City of Hamilton HM 12

Re: Protecting the Rights of Our Children
Dear The Honourable Premier E. David Burt, JP MP:

Please accept this heartfelt penned letter, written by a concerned citizen and an
established human services provider to the most vulnerable individuals of Bermuda.

1 am the Director of Therapeutic Consulting Services and hold a Bachelor of Science
degree in a Bachelor of Science degree in Rehabilitation and a
Master?s degree in Clinical Social Work. I have been working in the human services
?eld both locally and internationally since 1999. For the past ?fteen years, I have been
employed locally working with various populations in our community, including but not
limited to children, criminal defendants, and individuals who have been diagnosed with a
mental illness. While working here in Bermuda, I have realized a signi?cant de?ciency
in the treatment continuum of care as it relates to minor children across Bermuda.

In 1998, the Children Act (the was amended to afford children with the right to
have independent representation by way of a Litigation Guardian and Counsel. Under
Section 35 of the Act, a Litigation Guardian is appointed by the court to assist the court
in its determination of a child's best interest. To further this goal, the Litigation Guardian
meets with and establishes a relationship with the child, contacts those persons
signi?cantly affecting or having relevant knowledge of the child's life, gathers
information, examines records and otherwise investigates the child?s situation in order to
provide the Court with pertinent information and an informed recommendation as to the
child's best interest. The Litigation Guardian?s role and responsibility is solely aligned
with the child, with the child?s welfare being the paramount guiding principle. As such,
it is crucial in a small community such as Bermuda, that this individual be an
independent party from any existing Government department or other established
agencies to ensure that the focus remains on the child and eliminates the potential for
dual relationships or competing priorities.

For the past four years the issue of child representation has been the focus of much
discussion, and simultaneously much avoidance. Senior civil servants, as well as
members of this sitting Government, have acknowledged that the cost implication
associated with ensuring that the rights of the children of Bermuda are protected,
continues to be the source of reluctance to fully embrace the spirit of the Act. In a recent
Supreme Court ruling by Honourable Justice Stephen Hellman it was suggested that
children ought to have representation, if there are the fmancial means to fund the service.
The said ruling forces me to question: ?What is the value that we place on the
vulnerable? 

a

On July 28, 2014, sixteen years following the amendment of the Act, I was appointed by
the Family Court as Litigation Guardian for a minor child in what was considered the
?rst case of its kind at that time. Since then, I have been appointed by both the Supreme
and Family Courts of Bermuda to represent thirty?one children, with a current caseload
of twenty-four children. Representation is time consuming and labor intensive; requiring
Court appearances, research, clinical assessments, preparation of clinical reports
inclusive of recommendations, home visits, school visits, attendance to case conferences
with other pertinent treatment providers, ongoing advocacy, and any other
responsibilities necessary to effectively represent a child?s best interests. The Bermudian
people will likely be surprised to learn that I have unwaveringly provided this service to
the most vulnerable segment of our community without remuneration for the past four
Notwithstanding the cost implications, it is noteworthy to highlight that in these
past four years I have consistently provided Litigation Guardian services to a high
standard despite the issue of payment. I have met with multiple Government officials
who all, at a minimum have indicated the following: All citizens of this Country are
valued, and There is value in the appointment of Litigation Guardian and Counsel.

 

Whilst I appreciate and acknowledge that my initial appointment preceded this
Government, I highlight that conversations were facilitated with both the former
Government as well as this Government. Further, it appeared that there was a
commitment from this Government to ensure that Section 35 of the Act would be
preserved as evidenced by declarations made in the Throne Speech on September 8,
2017, and the subsequent Town Hall facilitated on September 18, 2017, at The Berkeley
Institute.

Thus, it was very distressing to be informed on April 24, 2018, by a sitting Magistrate,
that the Government of Bermuda through the assistance of the Foreign Commonwealth
Of?ce has initiated contact with an organization in the United Kingdom (the that
provides Litigation Guardian services. It is understood that a representative from the
same UK organization has been appointed, and appeared in Court in Bermuda with
respect to a local matter. Notwithstanding, it is important to highlight that Bermuda?s
Children Act is a direct adaptation of the same Act in the UK, under which the
mentioned UK organization functions. Further, this UK organization is funded by the
UK Government to provide Litigation Guardian services, yet the recent Supreme Court
ruling, which has been embraced by senior civil servants, places a fmancial barrier on
what should be considered a child?s right to representation. Furthermore, it should be
noted that there does not appear to be a record of any published advertisements seeking
such services. It is most unfortunate that a Labor Government would seek to engage the
services of a non?Bermudian when the same services are available through a local
agency at an exceptional standard.

 

I respect the Court and its processes as evidenced by my ongoing commitment to appear
in Court as required by way of Court Orders, despite being the only individual in the
room with the exception of Counsel for the child(ren), who is not remunerated for my
services, input and expertise. I have never declined an. appointment, and in fact, when
asked by a senior civil servant why an appointment has not been declined my response
was: ?How does one determine which children are worthy of having their rights
protected??

Again, I am forced to ponder: ?What is the value that we place on the vulnerable??
Based upon the efforts and evidence to date, it appears that there is no value. It appears
that those without a voice, with the most limited resources, the ones who require the
most protection, are the ones who are at the greatest risk.

I was encouraged by sitting members of this Government to submit a proposal to
Government to formalize what has obviously become a necessary service to the children
of Bermuda. However, when I provided the proposal, I was met with much resistance
when entering into discussions regarding costs. In numerous discussions, multiple
Government of?cials indicated that a Labor Government cannot be seen to receive
?consulting services? without paying for them. Despite what could be considered a
legitimate expectation in the face of documented commitments to settle outstanding
payments, I was informed by a senior civil servant that it does not appear that there are
grounds for a claim for payment. To be clear, I am only authorized to act in the capacity
of Litigation Guardian when appointed by the Court. As such, it could be suggested that
I have been Court mandated to provide a service, free of charge, if one follows the
rationale of this said senior civil servant. It goes without saying that the failure to pay
for the services provided has resulted in some level of consequence, of which have been
formally documented and shared with political appointees, senior civil servants, and
members of this sitting Government.

There are differing perspectives on the notion of there being ?two Bermudas? and what
distinguishes them. Sadly, it appears that I, and the children who I have had the honor of
representing, experience the phenomenon of ?two Bermudas? as one where there is a
segment with a voice, versus the vulnerable and voiceless. Justice Hellman?s Supreme
Court ruling basically allows the Government to circumvent the law based upon
whether they choose to allocate funding toward the protection of the rights of the
children of Bermuda. I look forward to living in a Bermuda that enhances the quality
of life for a_ll, whilst reinforcing that each individual of our community is valued and
worth protecting.

You will note that this correspondence has been copied to media outlets, as I have a
professional ethical obligation to highlight a breach in the protection of the rights of a
vulnerable population. Should you wish to discuss the contents of this letter, the data
collected to date, and the observations derived from the trends, I would be happy to make
myself available.

 
    

Respectfully,


watt-22117 -.

Tiffanne K.
Director

 

    

CC: The Royal Gazette
Bernews
ZBM News