MMIWG and related - justice for Tina Fontaine

Quote:

Why do you keep insisting they sent her to the city alone? Do you have any reference for that?

Quote:

Tina wanted to reunite with her birth mother, Valentina Duck, who lived in Winnipeg.

Favel said Duck struggled with drug addiction and Favel feared she had associations with the sex trade, so she contacted Duck's CFS caseworkers to make sure it was safe for Tina to visit. It was, so Favel let Tina and her sister Sarah go to Winnipeg to see their mom.

At the end of the school year, Tina asked if she could visit her mom again and stay a week, Favel said in 2015.  

"I didn't find out until later she'd lost custody of her kids and she was back on the streets," Favel said.

Favel gave Tina a long-distance card so she could call if things didn't work out and she wanted to come home before the week was over.

Tina and her sister Sarah went to Winnipeg on June 30, but Sarah changed her mind about staying and returned home right away.

Tina stayed and Favel never saw her again.

That sound to you like she had an adult travelling with her?  Did she get a phone card so she could phone the adult travelling with her?  When she was in the car with Grandpa Creepy, was there any mention of the adult travelling with her?

Quote:

You know, if this wasn't so fucked up and infuriating it would be funny just how much we give the benefit of the doubt to those who were supposed to be responsible for her care and do their jobs. They can't help it if they let a 15-year-old on her own and didn't check on her. They just weren't trained to know they should do that. And if they had 50 people there doing the same they'd still just be untrained so no one is to blame.

Smith, do you feel that the fact that a (contract) worker allowed her to freely leave "to meet friends" was because:

a) lack of funding.  More contract workers (or, dedicated social workers) would have said "no".

b) lack of training.  If the government weren't cutting corners with contract workers, those contract workers would have known they could deny her mall trip.

c) lack of authority.  Whether "contract" or "other", nobody expected to oversee Fontaine had the legal right to detain her if she wanted to "go to the mall".

Quote:

And at the same time we hold Fontaine and her family responsible for every little thing that might have led to her death, from her not giving her name,  and looking too much like an adult, to them not being there when she travelled alone, to the obvious question that her mom must have done something.

Call me evil if you will, but I do retain some questions about why (if she felt in danger) she wouldn't be forthright with cops -- no, even getting in trouble can't be worse than dying -- and why her caregivers would send her out alone on a quest in the big city. 

Quote:

and her like she's an adult.

I'm absolutely, positively not expecting her to be an adult.  But if she felt she was in danger, all she had to do was say "I'm underage and I don't trust this man".  And yes, if she couldn't or wouldn't do that, I guess I have to wonder what "guardian" put her on a bus to Winnipeg, and why.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I'm absolutely, positively not expecting her to be an adult.  But if she felt she was in danger, all she had to do was say "I'm underage and I don't trust this man".  And yes, if she couldn't or wouldn't do that, I guess I have to wonder what "guardian" put her on a bus to Winnipeg, and why.

For the sake of argument, lets assume her family is horrible, abusive even. What's your point? At the time of her death she was in the custody of CPS.

She didn't feel she was in danger. She was trying to make money to buy a bicycle. Minors make poor decisions. That is why adults have custody of them. 

Why are you defending the fact that CPS housed her in a dangerous downtown area blocks away from a prostitution stroll? 

Pardon my two posts in a row, but since you divided your points into two...

Quote:

For the sake of argument, lets assume her family is horrible, abusive even. What's your point? At the time of her death she was in the custody of CPS.

I'm not saying her family was horrible.  I don't think that at all.  But if we're going to be rational and try to identify all the things that went wrong for her, I think letting her go to the big city by herself (or, with a younger sibling) might have been one of those things.

Are we not to mention it?

Quote:

She didn't feel she was in danger. She was trying to make money to buy a bicycle. Minors make poor decisions. That is why adults have custody of them.

Which adult had custody of her in Winnipeg?  The family who said "take this phone card and call us if anything goes pear shaped" or the CFS who said "Oh, as long as you're only going to the mall to meet with your 'friends' from a different city"?

Quote:

Why are you defending the fact that CPS housed her in a dangerous downtown area blocks away from a prostitution stroll?

???

What does the "stroll" have to do with anything?  Seriously... what does it have to do with ANYTHING?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I'm not saying her family was horrible.  I don't think that at all.  But if we're going to be rational and try to identify all the things that went wrong for her, I think letting her go to the big city by herself (or, with a younger sibling) might have been one of those things.

Are we not to mention it? 

I don't see the point in mentioning it as it did not lead to her death. She was taken into care by CPS. She was safe when they took custody. You might as well ask if her grandmother is a residential school survivor. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Which adult had custody of her in Winnipeg?  The family who said "take this phone card and call us if anything goes pear shaped" or the CFS who said "Oh, as long as you're only going to the mall to meet with your 'friends' from a different city"? 

CPS had custody of her. They placed her in the hotel. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

What does the "stroll" have to do with anything?  Seriously... what does it have to do with ANYTHING?

You can't be that naive. Girls in care are extremely vulnerable to the sex trade. They are easily lured. This is broadly known. They might as well have given her an application form. Can you really not fathom why it is a bad idea to house any vulnerable teens male or female near a dangerous area of town where men cruise for pick-ups?

Quote:

Lack of authority? No, and I am kind of mystified as to why you keep bringing it up. They were supposed to be looking after her. The cops were supposed to be protecting her.

Quote:

So I don't know. You aren't a stupid guy, but I really can't understand how you can be so indifferent in the face of people suffering.

It's not indifference, Smith.  When a three year old drowns in a backyard pool, of course we're going to say "what a tragedy" and "he died too young" and possibly "this should not have happened".  But eventually, if we start to ask what happened, we'll eventually have to ask why the gate to the pool was left open.  Does that indicate indifference to suffering?

This is exactly why I keep bringing up authority.  Because it's not clear to me that either the worker who let her leave alone, or the cop who found her in the car had the authority to prevent her from doing as she wished.  It's too vague to say that one "should have been looking after her" and the other, "protecting her".

And of course, if the CFS worker who let her leave DID, in fact, have the legal right to tell her she could not, and chose to, then I agree wholeheartedly that that worker used inexplicably poor judgement, and I'd be happy to lay blame on that worker, CFS, their use of "contract workers", etc.

Quote:

Clearly these deaths are an unsolvable mystery until you get to the bottom of whatever you think these critical points must mean.

Sorry to go off-script, Smith.

I *did* recently suggest that maybe there could be a place where we could talk about the unlocked pool gate without bothering anyone who preferred to talk about the needless tragedy.

Well that would be in that same drawer of abstractions, Magoo. Because no one is stopping you from starting a thread anytime you want, but we'll still be talking. It isn't about having sympathy for imaginary kids drowning in an imaginary pool. It is about a real girl who was dumped in the Red River off the Alexander Docks. And a real young man who was shot in the back of the head.

Trying to avoid the real problems of racism and poverty at the root of these deaths by focusing in on minutae is kind of like reducing racist murder in the states to whether stand your ground laws really let you shoot people. Of course they are legal, just like slavery was. And stacking a jury with white people is legal too.

This isn't about magic bullets or whether supervisors and cops can do their jobs (what do you think, Rev?). If you want to keep trying to pretend it is all about those points, fine. It is pretty clear, at least reading and listening and seeing what is happening here in Saskatchewan, that these murders and miscarriages of justice and the reaction to them come down to hatred and fear and white privilege and racism. 

Want the fine points? Well, there's an investigation coming. There have been a few of them, and some of them have gotten to some pretty fine points, but they don't seem to stop the killing.

But if we want to talk about minutae, how about why the teller calls me up while ignoring my friend who had been there longer but happens to be Indigenous. How do we talk about that one while avoiding the racism? Maybe he had magic glasses, or maybe my friend was invisible. Does his job give him the power to do that? Do we have the right to call it what it is if we can't prove it?

Not imaginary. Really happened.

Rev Pesky wrote:

For 6079_Smith_W:

Was there anyone in CPS who had the authority to prevent Tina Fontaine from  leaving the hotel she was staying at? Yes, or no.

Yes, but she was given permission to go the to mall to see friends. Something many teens do. The contract worker was not remiss in that. We haven't been told if the contract worker asked for the names of who she was meeting, something any parent would ask, or if the careworker had contact information for the friends parents. We haven't been told what time she was reported missing from the hotel.

Many of us don't think she should have been in that hotel at all. It would be more appropriate to house 5 year olds at the hotel because at least they could be restricted to it not that I think it is appropriate to hold 5 year olds in a downtown hotel either. 

There doesn't seem to be anything mysterious about this case.  How  about you tell us what you think, how about you answering some questions. 

Quote:

Are you saying downtown hotels are an appropriate home for children in government care?

Seem as safe as any other, unless they're free to come and go, unescorted.  It's not like children who aren't in CFS care don't live downtown.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Why are you defending the fact that CPS housed her in a dangerous downtown area blocks away from a prostitution stroll?

 

???

What does the "stroll" have to do with anything?  Seriously... what does it have to do with ANYTHING?

Magoo, the stroll has EVERYTHING  to do with it. As I understand it, if Tina had not had to walk through the stroll to get to and from the mall, she probably would NOT BE DEAD!!!

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Well of course they are free to come and go. It isn't a prison.

A mere three posts earlier, when I asked if CFS workers had the authority to prevent her from taking off, you said:

Quote:

Yes, but she was given permission to go the to mall to see friends.

Should they have prevented her, or let her?  Was the area too dangerous to allow her out, or was it not too dangerous?  Was CFS part of the problem, or were they just letting her "crash" there, and otherwise do as she wished?

You can't say they were part of the problem and at the same time say that they made perfectly normal and understandable decisions.

I'm saying that it is normal to allow a 15 year old to go out by herself if they knew the friends she was meeting and had cell numbers and they had not put her in that area. I'm saying the workers did not have the resources to fulfil her basic needs and contract workers shouldn't be expected to to look after kids in crisis because it takes continuity and contract workers have limited contracts. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

I'm saying that it is normal to allow a 15 year old to go out by herself if they knew the friends she was meeting and had cell numbers and they had not put her in that area.

Except that she WAS in that area.

Yes, therein lies the failure of CPS to provide appropriate care which was their legal duty. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I see.  So the problem was that she was put up in a hotel "on the wrong side of the tracks".

And not that they let her go check out this dangerous neighbourhood on her own (because, as you said, "Are you saying your parents didn't let you out of the house unescorted when you were 15?")

Yes, my parents totally allowed me to leave the house unescorted, but then again we didn't live near an area where people sell sex!

Tell me where I'm wrong here, but you seem to feel, simultaneously, that they should not have restricted her movement, and that they should not have allowed her, unescorted, into the wrong side of town.  Sure, it would have been nice if CFS had housed her in a hotel in the fancy part of town, where only the law-abiding rich go, but given that they didn't, it's still funny to me that you both think she should have been allowed to walk to the mall (under the circumstances) and that she should never have been allowed to walk to the mall (under the circumstances).

I think the normal rules for CPS are to allow teens out unescorted at appropriate times for a reasonable period of time. No hotel would be appropriate. She needed more trained attention and support than a contract worker could give her. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

She needed more trained attention and support than a contract worker could give her.

How would even the best "non-contract" worker have given her that attention when she was miles away, at the mall?

Is your new theory that "contract" workers are the "real" reason she died?

I'm also curious:  what did the friends she was going to meet have to say about this?  They must have just been waiting and waiting and waiting for so long.  Have we heard their story?  If nothing else, I'd like to hear about how she had friends waiting for her at the mall in a city she didn't live in.  Anything seem odd about that to you?

Yes, like I wonder if the worker checked if she had friends to meet or got any phone numbers but we  don't know the details so maybe that did happen. 

She died, in part, because of where she was housed not because of the contract worker. However, it is possible that had she had someone she thought she could ask for a bicycle she wouldn't have been on the stroll. Kids in the situation Tina was in are in crisis therefore should be placed where they can get emotional support and can be kept safe. A residence with professionals not a hotel with a contract worker. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

like I wonder if the worker checked if she had friends to meet or got any phone numbers

Would phone numbers show that she had "friends" in a totally different city, or just that she had the seven digit code to call people she didn't know?

Quote:

However, it is possible that had she had someone she thought she could ask for a bicycle she wouldn't have been on the stroll.

Well, now we're getting down to the real nub of it.  If she'd only had a bicycle, she could have breezed right by all those nasty sex workers on "the stroll", but alas, CFS provided no such bicycles.

Quote:

A residence with professionals not a hotel with a contract worker.

Same difference, if they're going to say "have fun with your 'friends' at 'the mall'".

What would such "professionals" have done differently, Pondering?

 

You are being deliberately obtuse. I said the primary problem was that she was housed in the hotel. Secondary to that, even if she had lived, she was not recieving the supports she needed. Not just a bicycle. Someone to talk to about all her problems. A supportive environment. 

You ask questions as though you are confused but you aren't. You know very well what people are saying. It just so happened the inadequate care in the form of the housing she was placed in led to her death however had she not died the housing and care would still have been inadequate to reasonably safeguard her. 

From Pondering:

Secondary to that, even if she had lived, she was not recieving the supports she needed. Not just a bicycle. Someone to talk to about all her problems. A supportive environment. 

​I would have thought she had that at her great aunt's place. 

Okay Magoo, I think we've seen enough straw men and red herrings from you. Not sure what you think you're trying to accomplish here, but it's annoying as hell and counterproductive to good discussion. 

Ah too bad, I was enjoying Magoo's contributions to the discussion.   They had the benefit of being concrete and specific to the cases.   In my view, contributions like Smith's here...

"It is about a real girl who was dumped in the Red River off the Alexander Docks. And a real young man who was shot in the back of the head.

Trying to avoid the real problems of racism and poverty at the root of these deaths by focusing in on minutae is kind of like reducing racist murder in the states to whether stand your ground laws really let you shoot people. Of course they are legal, just like slavery was. And stacking a jury with white people is legal too.

This isn't about magic bullets or whether supervisors and cops can do their jobs (what do you think, Rev?). If you want to keep trying to pretend it is all about those points, fine. It is pretty clear, at least reading and listening and seeing what is happening here in Saskatchewan, that these murders and miscarriages of justice and the reaction to them come down to hatred and fear and white privilege and racism. "

... shut down discussion by asserting vague generalities,  that when "discussed" become bloodfights over semantics.    Smith is asserting it isn't about the details of the cases, when 95% of the discussion in the media, and these threads, is exactly about the details of the cases.   If babblers want these threads to discuss systemic racism as it relates to MMIWG or Colton Bushie, it might lead to a more productive discussion if it could be conceeded that the verdicts in the cases were possibly just, or that reasonable people can disagree about their justness without being racists, and move on to the systemic aspects.   I would be eager to learn from and possibly participate in such a discussion.    I think statements like Smith's quoted above kill the discussion more than Magoo ever could.    And I read Magoo as sincerely trying to advance the discussion, not "concern trolling".    

Well, perhaps I've been misunderstanding you on these threads all this time, Smith.   I had thought your position was the verdicts in both these cases was obviously unjust, and due to racism and white privilege.   And babblers who argued in support of the justness of the verdicts, were playing games and missing the obvious racist forest for the trees, if they weren't struggling with internalized racism themselves.  

I don't have an opinion on the justness of the verdicts, and I'm not particularly interested in forming one.   I am, like you, interested entirely in the "structural racism" aspect of these events.    So when you say:

"Trying to avoid the real problems of racism and poverty at the root of these deaths by focusing in on minutae..." , I am confused.   I believe, like you,  the racist colonial history of Canada, the resulting poverty among First Nations, and the failures in the government's current support and reconciliation systems is a big part of why these tragedies happened.   But when babblers are arguing with you about the details of the evidence in the trials, or the verdict, they are not trying to avoid the problem of structural racism, they are trying to define it's limits, and in doing so, better define it.   

You are talking about two different things there Mobo.

Structural problems with CFS were a factor in failing Tina Fontaine. It isn't a direct factor in the Stanley case. And there hasn't been much discussion of the Cormier trial here, other than raising the question of who thought it was fair. But nothing about the specifics. For what it's worth, the chatter has been focusing on contract workers, the police and questions about Fontaine's family, things that have nothing to do with the aquittal.

As for Stanley, I have told you what I think. But the greater issue in my opinion isn't his motive, but the actions of the lawyers, judge and jury, and the public in reaction to the case.

I make no apologies (and I presume I speak for several people here) for pointing out that these two cases, and the reaction to them are steeped in racism and white privilege. If you don't want to see that, fine. But if you look at how this is being covered in the media you will see this is not just something some of us here are making up. 

It is real. When a town councillor says in public that Stanley would have done better to leave no witnesses, there should be no question about that.

Quote:

Ah too bad, I was enjoying Magoo's contributions to the discussion.   They had the benefit of being concrete and specific to the cases.

Magoo is more than welcome to continue posting here. Question: what about his baby drowning in the pool example was concrete and specific to the cases? Magoo likes to take up contrary positions, as is his habit, which is fine until they begin to obscure the issues (in this thread maximum sensitivity is required) with baiting, straw man arguments and red herrings. Which is fine for most issues, but not for this one.

Since most of our Indigenous babblers (and many feminists and POC) have left the board because of racism, mansplaining and white male privilege, it's my job to keep things on track and not indulge too much of the intellectual masturbation that often masquerades as serious discussion around here.

Yes. Thank you.

The story hasn't hit online yet, but the FSIN is setting up their own children's advocate separate from the province, in part as a response to the Fontaine case.

Here's another interview with a young woman who fortunately survived the streets. Read it at your discretion. I couldn't get through it because I was disturbed by hearing her experience of being let down by the people who she turned to for help.