Glimmer of hope for Sunbeam

The Court of Appeal has overturned an order from the Child Protection and Family Services Agency (CPFSA) for the removal of male wards from Sunbeam Children’s Home, following allegations of physical abuse at the facility.

In March 2024, the CPFSA, under a Supreme Court order, removed 52 wards from two Sunbeam Children’s Home facilities after internal investigations revealed alleged instances of abuse. The state agency also revoked the licence of the facility, which had been in operation for nearly 50 years.

Attorney-at-law Sarah Elizabeth Dixon, representing the children’s home, stated that the Court of Appeal set aside the removal order for reasons including its incorrectness. She also said that the court ruled that the CPFSA should cover both the costs of the appeal and the expenses incurred by the children’s home in the Supreme Court.

Desmond Whitely, managing director of Sunbeam Children’s Home, welcomed last Friday’s ruling but expressed sadness over the entire ordeal.

“The boys, for the agency, are wards of the State. For me and for Sunbeam, they are family. And I don’t know which family would feel good to have their children removed from them and not know where they are,” he said.

Whitely also expressed concern about the psychological toll the boys’ removal might have on them.

He further noted that the children’s home had suffered reputational harm as a result of the situation and was seeking legal counsel to determine the best way to address it.

“Where damage is done, damages should be paid. There were false accusations, innuendos, misrepresentations, and, I dare say, lies. We are looking at that. The idea that this was a place where boys were subjected to the types of abuse that CPFSA allege is untrue,” he said.

In response to the ruling, CPFSA CEO Laurette Adams-Thomas clarified that the Court of Appeal’s decision was based on a removal technicality, not on a lack of evidence.

DECISION OVERTURNED

“The Court of Appeal overturned the decision made by the trial judge based on a technicality that derives in the law regarding the collective relocation of children from a residential facility. It is important to note that the decision made by the Court of Appeal was not made because of a lack of evidence surrounding the abuse of children residing at the facility,” she said.

She said the correct protocols were followed by the CPFSA in this matter, and the trial judge approved the application made by the CPFSA and the then Ministry of Education and Youth.

Whitely, in the meantime, said he does not anticipate an antagonistic relationship with the CPFSA because of the ruling.

“I want to say categorically that we do not intend to get into an adversarial relationship with the agency. Their interest and ours remain the very same – the protection of the children,” he said. “There was a matter that we felt was unjustly handled by the agency and we sought recourse through the courts.”

Dixon explained that the court’s order now allows the Sunbeam Children’s Home to reapply for a licence to receive wards of the State.

“We would assume that the CPFSA, in fairness, would give them that fair and impartial opportunity to apply for a new licence,” the attorney said.

Adams-Thomas noted that Sunbeam’s licence to operate as a residential childcare facility was cancelled in February 2024, and would have expired on June 30, 2024.

In January 2024, the CPFSA CEO indicated that some children from Sunbeam would be placed in other residential facilities, while others would be placed in foster care or returned to their families.

The CPFSA said it also provided additional psychological and psychosocial support to assist the children during their transition out of Sunbeam.

sashana.small@gleanerjm.com