[ ♪♪ ]
[ Baby Crying ]
[ Chuckling ]
>> Aw.
Aw, you're okay.
[ Chuckling ]
>> Hi, sweet girl.
>> Mark: She was taken away?
>> Yes.
>> Mark: How soon
after you'd given birth?
>> Pretty close.
I was still in
the delivery room.
>> Mark: You had one day?
>> Yeah, one day.
And then she had to stay
in the hospital
a little bit longer, because she
wasn't doing well.
>> Mark: You couldn't
even be in the same room?
>> No.
[ She Sighs ]
>> They need their moms
when they're that little.
>> Mark: And they
did that to you twice?
>> They did that to my children.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: It's the kind of loss
few parents can
ever recover from...
the loss of their children.
Heather's two baby daughters
were taken away from her by
Children's Aid workers in
Ontario right after they
were born.
Taken because of a hair test,
looking for signs of abuse of
drugs or alcohol.
It was a test that
changed her life forever.
>> I took the test because
I wanted to prove that the
accusations that were put
against me were not true.
>> Mark: What were the
accusations put against you?
>> That I was using cocaine.
And I was not using cocaine.
>> Mark: Heather isn't
her real name.
We have disguised her.
We are required by law to
protect her identity and the
identity of her children.
Ten years ago, she fled
a violent relationship.
She was jobless and struggling
to create a stable home life.
Had you used cocaine?
>> Yes.
Yeah, I've used it before.
And, I mean,
people are gonna say,
"Well, you've used
drugs before."
Yes, I've done
a lot of things.
I've lived a full life.
But I wanted to prove
that I wasn't at that time.
>> Mark: The stakes
were precariously high.
If Heather couldn't convince
Children's Aid she'd cleaned up
her life, she'd lose
both of her kids forever.
She took more than 60 urine
tests that came back clean,
but the hair tests
said otherwise.
What's it like when you're
fighting for your children
and nobody believes you?
>> You just...
[ Sighs ]
>> Mark: I'm trying to
put myself in your shoes.
>> They're not shoes
you wanna be in.
You're fighting a losing battle
and there's--
there's nothing
you can do.
[ Sniffles ]
[ ♪♪ ]
>> I now had a-- had a
tag that I couldn't drop.
>> Mark: What was the tag?
>> I'm a big druggie
and I'm a liar.
A liar and a--
and a drug addict.
So-- and you can't shake that.
>> Mark: And Motherisk gave
you that tag?
>> Absolutely.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: It wasn't just Heather.
Across the country,
parents were being
required by courts to
undergo hair tests.
Many would lose their kids.
The court decisions,
irreversible.
It all started here at one of
the most renowned children's
hospitals in the world,
The Hospital For Sick Children
in Toronto.
[ Phone Rigging ]
>> Good afternoon.
Motherisk, Kris speaking.
>> Mark: Motherisk began in
1985 as a helpline for women
who wanted to know about
the risks of alcohol,
drugs, and medication during
pregnancy and breast-feeding.
The program, the brainchild
of physician
and clinical toxicologist,
Dr Gideon Koren.
>> Out of the calls
coming to Motherisk,
about 60% are women
involved in drug abuse,
another 3, 4% with alcohol.
We get 50 calls a day,
summing up to many
thousands a year.
♪ There is a place in
Downtown Toronto ♪
>> Mark: There are
many sides to the man.
Dr Koren was a composer who
created a musical theatre at the
hospital to help
heal the children.
>> Singing and dancing,
it's like touching God.
>> Mark: He built an
international reputation by
co-authoring more than
1400 research papers,
and was a mentor to many.
Dr Bhushan Kapur worked
with Koren for two decades.
>> Dr Koren was a
superb teacher.
Absolutely top-notch.
That's the reason
I worked with him,
and I went there strictly
because of his...
Academically, it was a very,
very rich environment,
and that was due to Koren.
We had fellows coming in
from every part of the country,
every part of the world,
to train.
>> Mark: Dr Brenda Gallie
remembers a different
side of Dr Koren.
He authored a series of
poison pen letters attacking
her and other colleagues in a
dispute over drug safety.
She felt, as a teacher
or a researcher,
he was always in it for himself.
>> He's not seeking to teach us.
He's seeking to confound it
so we have to depend on him.
>> Mark: Why would he want you
to have to go to him to be able
to understand this?
>> Oh, power, ego,
importance, publicity.
He'd have to be on my papers.
You know, all of those things.
>> Mark: How important was
power and publicity to Dr Koren?
>> I think it was
very important.
>> How long have you
been doing this?
>> Mark: If Dr Koren
sought fame and publicity,
he got it when the Motherisk
drug testing lab was born.
Under his direction,
Motherisk would become
the experts for hair testing
analysis in Canada,
especially in the child
protection cases.
And the science
seemed so straightforward.
Simple strands of hair are
a warehouse of information,
storing biomarkers which reveal
proof of drug and alcohol use,
and holding that information
longer than blood or urine,
all stored on the strands,
even after the hair is cut off.
Craig Chatterton is a
scientist based in Edmonton,
and a proponent of
hair testing analysis.
>> Well, I'm a
forensic toxicologist.
I see the value and the benefits
of drugs and hair analysis.
If the analysis
is done correctly,
done appropriately, with all
the quality controls and quality
measures, quality assurance,
and interpreted correctly,
by suitably qualified
experts, then I think it's
a fantastically
powerful evidential tool.
[ Kids Chattering ]
>> Mark: And a tool to make
tough calls for some deeply
troubled families.
The hair tests promised
social workers the certainty of
science, as they tried to
determine whether parents were
fit to raise their kids.
[ ♪♪ ]
[ Chattering Continues ]
>> We relied on Motherisk
because it was the addition
of science to the study
of human behaviour.
>> Mark: Phyllis Lovell works
for Children's Aid in Ontario.
She says Motherisk tests help
make life-changing decisions.
>> That helps a worker in a
complex situation make a very
complex recommendation about
what will keep a child safe.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: By 2015, the lab
conducted more than 35,000
hair tests, with so
much on the line.
Fail the test, and you
risk losing your kids.
[ Indistinct Chatter
in Background ]
>> Mark: But not everyone was
blinded by the science.
As we'll show you, some openly
disputed the test results
and the disastrous
consequences for families.
And what were the
results of those four tests?
>> They were all the top levels
of a daily chronic
abuser of alcohol.
>> Mark: How much alcohol were
you drinking
at that point in your life?
>> None.
>> Mark: None?
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Announcer: There's always
more to our stories.
You can keep up with
The Fifth Estate
by subscribing to our
weekly newsletter.
We'll tell you what we're
working on and share updates on
past stories.
Sign up on our
website at cbc.ca/fifth.
[ ♪♪ ]
[ Kids Chattering ]
[ Dog Barks ]
>> Mark: It was a small lab at
The Hospital For Sick Kids
in Toronto, but it was
building a life-lasting legacy,
using science to help decide
whether parents were fit to
raise their kids.
And the science was
worth its weight in gold.
Between 2007 and 2015,
the Motherisk lab made
$11 million for
SickKids Hospital,
most of it from testing hair
for child protection cases.
The booming business
gave the lab director,
Dr Gideon Koren, a special
status at the hospital,
according to his colleague,
Dr Brenda Gallie.
>> The drug tests that he was
doing in his Motherisk lab were
bringing tons of money
into the hospital.
>> Mark: So he was
a cash cow for--
>> He was a cash cow.
>> Mark: The Motherisk hair
tests were being used in more
and more provinces,
but disturbing tales
began to emerge about how the
tests were actually done.
Like Lisa's story.
We are required to
disguise her as well.
>> With my second test,
the hair that was taken
from me, it was done in a
social worker's office,
with the scissors off her
desk, the tape off her desk,
a piece of cardboard out of the
garbage that she taped it to,
and my hair was very,
very short at the time.
So, it was only about
maybe 5 inches long.
The second hair test that came
back said my hair was
12 inches long, and it was a
completely different colour.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: She says she complained
about the discrepancy,
but no one listened.
The test revealed high
levels of crystal meth.
Science had spoken,
and the verdict was final.
She never saw her kids again.
>> My children believe I
chose drugs over them.
They still believe that.
They still believe that-- that I
didn't care enough to straighten
out my life and
take care of them.
>> Mark: Lisa says
after losing her kids,
she tried to commit
suicide more than once.
Her life, in ruins.
Her credibility, crushed by
the evidence against her.
>> Nobody believes that
a lab's gonna be faulty
to that extent, right?
Like, they just don't, and when
I found out--
>> Mark: Why do people not
believe that a lab--
a lab could've screwed up?
>> Because it's a lab.
You know?
They're a professional lab.
They're in a
professional hospital.
They do professional things.
Because the ministry relied on
them for their hair tests and
they thought that they
were God of hair tests,
they believed
everything they said.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: And believe they did.
By 2009, more than 10,000 hair
tests had been ordered in the
provinces of
Ontario and BC alone.
But in small-town Ontario,
one mother refused to
simply accept the lab results.
Her plan?
Fight science with science.
Tammy Whiteman's world revolved
around her two daughters,
but in 2008, Children's Aid
took them from her.
Her home life was turbulent,
and there were questions
about her parenting skills
and her mental health.
Her daughters were nine and 13,
but Tammy felt she was turning
her life around.
So, she took
multiple hair tests,
as she fought to regain
custody of her girls.
The results shocked her.
And what were the
results of those four tests?
>> They were all-- all four were
between two times to four times
the top levels of a daily
chronic abuser of alcohol,
which they told me
was anywhere from
16 to 18 drinks a day.
>> Mark: And how much alcohol
were you drinking
at that point in your life?
>> None.
>> Mark: None?
She told the court she
rarely ever drank,
but she was wasting her breath.
She says she was told she
was in denial and sent for
counselling, all because
of those tests.
So, in the eyes of the
court, you're a drunk--
>> Yep.
>> Mark: --you're a liar,
and you're a bad mother.
>> Yep.
Which was really hard
to swallow.
My mom passed
away when I was 12,
and I always swore when I had my
kids that I would be there for
everything, so at nine and
13, when they took them,
especially at that age when
girls really need their mom,
and they couldn't
give that back,
it almost killed me,
because there was nothing
I could do and it wasn't my
choice not to be there.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: So, Tammy and her
lawyer came up with a clever way
to prove Motherisk wrong.
She wore an ankle bracelet,
like a house arrest monitor,
for 90 days.
It could detect whether
she was drinking or not.
They kept it a secret
until they went back to court.
>> We surprised them
just before court,
and we had a hair test
done for the same 90 days.
I had the ankle monitor on
for 90 days,
and it came back that there
was absolutely no alcohol
consumption and no tampering,
but the hair test for those same
90 days still said I
was a chronic abuser.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: So, how could the
Motherisk test be so wrong on
four separate occasions?
Well, Tammy uses a
lot of hairspray.
She sent it to be tested.
Turns out it's 70% alcohol.
The lab would ultimately agree
some hairspray could produce
a positive test result.
That's the smoking gun.
>> Yup, that's what it was.
It took some time and
a lot of heartache,
but eventually, I did find
something that I could take back
to them and dispute
what they were saying,
and prove what I
was saying was right.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: In the end,
Tammy got her girls back,
but they weren't the same.
Tammy's daughter,
Krista, is 19 now.
She remembers moving nine times
after she was taken
from her mother.
Riddled with anxiety,
she wouldn't leave her mom's
house for two months.
What were you afraid of?
>> I feel safer in my four
walls in my house
than I do outside of them.
At least I know I can lock my
door and I have the choice on
who comes in.
>> Mark: But were you also
afraid of losing
your mother again?
>> I was afraid they were gonna
come take me away for good.
>> Mark: Tammy and her
girls are a family again.
Her eldest daughter,
Kira, is a mom now,
with a role model to rely on.
What have you learned about your
mom through this whole ordeal?
>> She's a good mom.
She-- she helps me a lot.
When my kids are sick,
I pick up the phone, and,
"Mom, I need you,"
and she's like,
"Okay, I'm coming."
Anytime I ask
her to babysit, she does.
So, it's good to have her.
>> Mark: Tammy, you're--
believe it or not--
you're the lucky one,
because you're sitting
here today with your girls.
>> Yeah.
Yeah, I'm very
thankful for that.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: Because child
protection cases are kept
strictly confidential,
Tammy's battle with
Motherisk was hidden
from the public.
So were the shortcomings
of Motherisk's tests.
But our investigation has
revealed it wasn't just families
who were
questioning the science.
We've uncovered a case in
Colorado where criminal lawyers
were raising serious concerns
about the lab and the way it was
doing its work.
It was 1993, a pretrial
in Colorado,
a death penalty case.
Motherisk would be
central to the defence.
It argued the accused wasn't
aware of his actions because he
was high on coke.
Motherisk tests backed that up,
but the state attorney
didn't buy it.
>> They were coming in as
scientific experts trying
to say, "This is what we know
and this is how we know it,"
and they were not
using scientifically
accepted procedures.
>> Mark: Eva Wilson was
the prosecutor in the case.
She did what a good
Lawyer should do.
She challenged the
reliability of the tests.
>> I mean, when you're
admitting results
in a criminal court of law,
you have to make sure that
you've got things done properly.
If you're going to be
held in custody for the results,
if they come out
positive for something,
or if you're going to
be looking at execution,
it had better be perfect.
And this was far from perfect.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: The Judge ruled
the tests were
not competent evidence.
The results were
ruled inadmissible.
But the story never
made it out of America,
and Motherisk's reputation
remained intact in Canada.
It was a missed opportunity.
As we'll show you, it would take
22 years and some 20,000
hair tests before a Canadian
judge would finally find out the
truth about the reliability
of Motherisk's tests.
>> And no forensic lab in
the world conducted tests
and interpreted those
tests in this manner, nowhere.
>> Mark: But despite
the mounting doubts,
the tests at the
lab kept coming,
and the damage kept growing.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Announcer: There's always
more to our stories.
You can stay connected with
The Fifth Estate on Facebook.
Get the latest on upcoming shows
and special video features.
[ ♪♪ ]
[ Kids Chattering ]
>> Mark: Sound science isn't
just science that stands up
to time.
It's science that
stands up to a challenge.
And in 2014, the Motherisk
lab would face a challenge it
couldn't survive.
The lab's credibility was put
on trial in a Toronto courtroom
during an appeal of a
criminal conviction.
Tamara Broomfield had been
convicted of feeding her
infant son a near lethal
dose of cocaine.
The conviction based largely
on the expertise
of Dr Gideon Koren.
The director of the Motherisk
lab testified the hair test
analysis revealed the 2-year-old
boy had ingested high doses of
cocaine for 15 months.
It was a shocking revelation.
The media dubbed
Broomfield the "Crack Mom".
She was sentenced to
seven years in prison.
She appealed her
conviction in 2014,
and Craig Chatterton,
the forensic toxicologist
from Edmonton,
was asked to review
Motherisk's medical evidence.
He says when he saw how
the lab was doing its tests,
his alarm bells went off.
>> The analytical technique as
presented to me in the paperwork
was a screening test,
a preliminary test.
>> Mark: Of a hair sample?
>> Of a hair simple, yes.
It's not a test
that is unequivocal.
It's not a test that is beyond
reasonable doubt from a legal
perspective, and it's certainly
not a test on which absolute
certainty can be relied,
evidentially speaking.
There could, or should,
have been at least one
or two higher levels,
higher-quality, more specific,
tests that had been undertaken.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: The Motherisk lab was
using a screening test like this
one for its analysis.
The kit comes with a
standard warning label,
cautioning users it was
only a preliminary test.
A maybe, not a positive yes.
But this is the test Motherisk
had been using for years,
in thousands of
child protection cases.
I'm trying to understand just
how inaccurate a preliminary
test could be.
>> The preliminary
test can be 100% spot on.
It can be absolutely
correct, which is fine.
However, it can
be 100% incorrect.
It can be a false positive.
The test may say there is a
large quantity of cocaine
present when there isn't.
So it is not a definitive test.
Then those preliminary results
can be erroneously interpreted,
misleading, and, at the
end of the day, wrong.
>> Mark: The test used to help
convict Tamara Broomfield
was circumstantial evidence,
an educated guess, at best.
Dr Koren testifies in this
particular case that this--
this child had been fed cocaine
over a period of 15 months.
Could he accurately make that
assessment based on the data
that you saw?
>> No.
It's a short answer, no.
It was unsafe to do so.
It was an inappropriate and
unreliable interpretation.
>> Mark: Unreliable because
without a follow-up test,
there was no way to confirm
the child's exposure
to drugs over time.
I don't understand how somebody
with that expertise could make
an assessment that wrong.
Can you explain that for me?
>> I can't comment as to why
Dr Koren came to
those conclusions.
>> Mark: Broomfield's
conviction was overturned,
and now people began
asking questions about the lab.
[ Kids Chattering ]
>> Mark: In 2014,
the Toronto Star
began an investigation
with a basic question...
If the lab's testing couldn't
be trusted in the Broomfield
case, what about the evidence it
presented in those thousands of
child protection cases?
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: But what was
headline news in Toronto barely
registered in Nova Scotia,
where family courts
continued to rely on
tests from the lab.
This couple submitted to
more than a dozen hair tests.
Once again, we've changed
the parents' names
and disguised their identities.
Fred and Julie had a
turbulent relationship,
marred by conflict,
fuelled by substance abuse.
They'd already lost permanent
custody of their eldest child.
In 2014, with a 4-year-old
daughter and a 2-year-old
baby boy, Fred said he
was a changed man.
He said he'd quit using
all recreational drugs,
but the couple was still on
the radar of child services.
Fred was asked to
take a hair test.
Had you ever heard
of this Motherisk?
>> No.
>> Mark: Did you know...?
>> No, didn't have a clue.
Didn't hear nothing about it.
Didn't-- this was just
something, and I said,
"Okay, go ahead."
>> Mark: So, when they asked
you to provide the--
>> Hair samples and stuff, yeah.
>> Mark: --hair samples, did you
have any concerns?
>> No.
>> Mark: Were you worried about
what they were going to find?
>> Nope.
No.
>> Mark: Why not?
>> No, because I
wasn't doing nothing,
so why should I be concerned?
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: Their son's custody
case was heard first and that's
when an expert from the
Motherisk lab
arrived to testify.
>> There was a gentleman from
Motherisk that used to go up on
the stand and he used to
say things that were just--
just astonishing to me.
>> Mark: Motherisk lab manager
Joey Gareri had testified as an
expert witness in child
protection cases across Canada.
Based on his testimony,
it was determined Fred's
hair tests revealed frequent and
intensive use of cocaine.
Fred and Julie sat
stunned in the courtroom.
>> He talked in
riddles, kind of.
It was...
And nobody understood the
science he was speaking,
so he sounded like
he really knew
what he was talking about.
>> And then to walk out and just
get up off the stand and walk
out like-- like it's nothing.
Know what I mean?
Like he was ordering an
ice cream.
>> Mmm-hmm.
>> Right?
Or what do I want my pizza?
>> Mark: The judge
found Gareri to be credible,
reliable and knowledgeable.
Because he was an
expert witness,
did you also realize the
impact of his testimonies?
>> Yes, I did.
>> Mark: And what did you
think that was going to be?
>> I figured we were gonna lose
our children because of him.
>> Mark: And that's
exactly what happened.
>> Yeah, that's exactly
what happened.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: They not only
lost custody of their son.
They weren't allowed
any access to him.
They worried their
daughter would be next.
>> Fred: They were the happiest
little two kids
that you'd ever wanna see.
There would never be one on one
end and one on the other end.
They were side by side.
>> Julie: Yeah, they were
two peas in a pod.
They had a very,
very, very strong bond,
the two of them.
>> Mark: But before their
daughter's final hearing,
a bombshell.
In the spring of 2015,
SickKids shut down
the Motherisk hair testing
lab for good.
When Fred and Julie appeared
before the same judge a month
later, the judge granted
Fred custody of their daughter,
saying she was
convinced he'd changed,
in part because Fred had his own
hair test done at an
American lab, and it
came back clean.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: Meanwhile,
back in Ontario,
the province had appointed
retired Justice Susan Lang
to investigate the lab's
procedures and protocols.
In her first ever interview
about her investigation,
Lang describes what she
calls her eureka moment.
>> And I just was...astonished
when I finally realized
that there was nothing
reliable about this.
There was nothing redeeming.
It was not going to
be a nuanced report.
It was going to say,
these results are
inadequate and unreliable,
and no forensic lab in the
world conducted tests
and interpreted those
tests in this manner, nowhere.
There was nothing
redeeming to be said.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: What was
also astonishing,
Lang said, was that virtually no
one ever challenged Motherisk's
tests in court, even when
desperate parents were certain
the results were dead wrong.
The experts were always right.
>> They were
thought to be infallible.
They were taken as the gospel,
because nobody viewed it as
something that
could be controverted.
There was no way.
There were no other
evidence to the contrary.
>> Mark: Dr Koren has never
spoken publicly about the
problems in his lab.
When we come back,
we'll confront the man
in the middle of the mess.
Dr Koren?
>> Yes.
>> Mark: My name is Mark Kelley.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Announcer: There's always
more to our stories.
You can stay connected to
The Fifth Estate on Twitter.
Get the latest on upcoming shows
and special video features.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: It was a relatively
simple scientific test with a
profound purpose,
keeping kids safe,
but after tens of thousands of
hair analysis tests run out of
the Motherisk lab at
the SickKids Hospital,
the truth emerged in 2015.
The tests were tainted,
tests that in some cases
resulted in children being
taken from their parents,
families changed forever.
In December 2015,
retired Justice Susan Lang
released the results of her
investigation into the legacy
of the Motherisk lab in Ontario.
In short, it was a tragedy.
Why did you
consider this a tragedy?
>> Well, I considered it
a tragedy for everyone, frankly.
I considered it a tragedy that--
it's not good for our justice
system that we are
relying on forensic evidence,
that it's
unreliable and inadequate.
It's a tragedy for the families.
It's a tragedy for the parents,
who may have lost,
temporarily or otherwise,
contact with their child.
It's really a tragedy
for the children.
>> Mark: A tragedy made worse
by the fact the family courts
relied on the tests as
irrefutable evidence.
>> Any forensic test is any test
that's going to be used or is
used for a legal purpose.
They need to be right.
They don't need to be
right just in criminal law.
They need to be
right in family law,
and a lot of people did not
see family law as forensic work.
They just,
"Oh, well, if it's probably so,
then fair enough."
Well, that isn't good enough.
Losing your child is the
capital punishment
of child protection law.
You need to have these
test results done right.
>> Mark: The reality?
No one in the lab had
any forensic training,
including Lab Director
Dr Gideon Koren.
>> The laboratory director,
for example, he--
he said in his statements
to us that he did not know that
they were being used
for court purposes.
>> Mark: How could he not know?
>> Good question to ask him.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: So, we set out to
find Dr Koren and ask him.
He quietly retired from
SickKids in 2015 and moved
back home to Israel, but he's
still a sought-after speaker
at international conferences.
We tracked him down at
a conference
in Windsor, England.
He was there as an international
ambassador for the research work
done at the Motherisk program.
>> And that's about
what happened to
the babies themselves.
>> Mark: He has never
spoken publicly
about Motherisk's tainted tests.
Dr Koren.
>> Yes.
>> Mark: My name is Mark Kelley.
I'm with CBC Television's
The Fifth Estate.
>> Okay.
>> Mark: How are you?
>> Good.
>> Mark: I'd like to ask
you some questions about
the Motherisk lab.
>> No, I will not-- I will
not answer.
>> Mark: There are a lot
of families in Canada,
sir, who would like to find out
what was going on in that lab.
>> Under legal instructions,
I cannot talk about that.
>> Mark: What can you tell those
families who've been torn apart
by flawed tests about what
happened and how that could
happen in your lab, sir?
Doctor, you can't
simply walk away.
These families
deserve some answers.
Just a few minutes, Doctor.
>> Please, do not follow me.
>> Mark: Doctor...
In a court submission,
Dr Koren claims his work
was accurate and reliable.
[ Kids Singing ]
♪ Ring around the rosy... ♪
>> Mark: More than
35,000 tests, tainted tests,
and so many broken families.
[ Kids Continue Singing ]
♪ We all fall down ♪
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: An Ontario commission
is now looking at cases where
the Motherisk tests played a
significant factor in removing
children from their parents.
So far, they've reconnected
just six families.
Lorne Glass is the lead lawyer
for the Motherisk commission.
The overall number for
where you've landed,
you can see, statistically,
it's just a--
it's a tiny fraction of all
those cases where Motherisk was,
at least those test results were
admitted as evidence.
Are you concerned at all that
you may have missed a lot of
cases here?
>> I'm not concerned, because I
think that we have worked hard
to try to get as many cases
as we can where kids have
been permanently
removed from families.
>> Mark: So can you recommend
any kind of specific remedy?
What is the proper remedy?
>> You know, people lost a lot
of faith in the child protection
system and in the legal
system as a result of this,
and I think our recommendations
are going to be aimed at
improving people's faith in the
child protection system and in
the legal system.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: Heather's faith
is broken,
like her family.
The commission determined
the Motherisk tests did play a
significant factor in the
removal of her two children,
but that hasn't
brought them back.
For you, was that any
kind of glimmer of hope,
that somehow there was
gonna be a remedy here?
>> I thought that I was
gonna see my children again.
I thought that the adoptive
family was gonna be notified and
there to be some sort
of unification of sorts,
that we would start...
So I was-- I was full of hope.
>> Mark: The parents who
adopted Heather's children
were notified, but they
don't want to get involved,
and the commission is
powerless to force them.
>> It was determined that, yes,
Motherisk was a key factor in--
in my trial.
But they've done
nothing since then.
There's nothing,
absolutely nothing.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: And what about
parents outside of Ontario?
In BC, the government told us
it's doing a review of the child
protection cases where
Motherisk tests were considered
in court decisions.
But that's news to Lisa,
who didn't know anything about
the scandal surrounding the lab
until we contacted her
for this story.
>> I was pretty shocked.
I cried for the
first couple seconds,
and then I thought,
"Why am I crying?
"This is a good thing.
"This is a really good thing.
"This is actually proving to
people that I wasn't wrong,
"that I wasn't incorrect,
and I wasn't lying."
That's the best part.
For me, it may be 14 years late,
but it still gives me some kind
of a happiness,
I guess, somewhere.
It's not going to fix everything
that's happened to us.
It's not going to
bring my family back.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Mark: Legally, there is
little that can be done to piece
these broken
families back together,
according to retired
Justice Susan Lang.
Given the-- the inherent
challenges here,
I'm wondering,
what is the best
that these families
can hope for?
>> I suppose the best that any
of our families can hope for is
ongoing contact
between parent and child.
Whether or not it's feasible
in a particular circumstance,
I wish I had the answer to that.
I wish I could wave a magic
wand and make it all happen,
but I suspect that
we cannot do that.
>> Mark: Instead of
a magic wand,
there are 11 lawsuits against
The Hospital For Sick Children
and the people who
led the Motherisk lab.
The hospital wouldn't
comment, but in a statement,
it said it deeply regrets what
it calls unacceptable practices
in the lab.
When it comes to
Lab Manager Joey Gareri,
the hospital says he
was just an employee,
and they deny any
allegations made against them,
claiming they were not
responsible for Dr Koren's work.
275 plaintiffs, a class action
lawsuit filed,
but the families know there's
nothing that can give them back
what they want
more than anything...
Their children.
>> No amount of money
could ever replace my son.
He was my only son,
and he was my last baby.
I'd like to see
them be penalized.
Everybody involved, I'd like
to see there be some kind of
recourse for their actions.
[ ♪♪ ]
>> Someday.
>> Mark: The loss of their
child is a wound
that time can't seem to heal.
It's left a sister wondering
if she'll ever see
her baby brother again.
>> I worry about my daughter.
I worry about how
it's affecting her.
She keeps quiet.
She doesn't talk much about him.
I think it hurts for her
to even think about him.
During the nights when
she says her prayers,
she'll ask God to-- to hurry
up and let him come back home.
[ ♪♪ ]
