An Ontario psychologist completed at least four assessments in child protection cases without children’s aid societies being told he had been cautioned and ordered to have a mentor by the College of Psychologists.

And now he faces allegations by the college that the mentoring program hasn’t been completed.

Oren Amitay was cautioned in December 2015 by the college’s complaints committee, relating to work he had done in a private custody and access case in family court. Among other things, the committee had said it was concerned that he did not have sufficient information in that case when he conducted what is known as a parenting capacity assessment, which typically examines parents’ ability to meet the needs of their children and whether there are supports available.

The committee also said it was concerned that certain conclusions in the assessment, particularly relating to allegations of sexual abuse, may not have been supported by “adequate or reliable information,” according to a 2017 decision from the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upholding the committee’s decision.

Amitay is now facing a public discipline hearing at the college for allegedly failing to comply with part of the complaints committee’s order, namely to complete a period of peer mentorship as part of a specified continuing education or training program (SCERP).

The discipline allegations have not been proven. Amitay’s position is that he accepted and complied with the committee’s order, his lawyer, Jamiah Ferdinand-Hodkin, told the Star, pointing out that the assessment was conducted in the context of a family court case and not in a child protection matter.

Amitay was not required to tell the four children’s aid societies in those cases that he had been cautioned and ordered to have a mentor, his lawyer said.

“It was a unique situation that resulted in unfavourable conditions for an assessment that Dr. Amitay undertook only because he believed a child’s well-being was at risk,” she told the Star in an email. “It is, and always has been, Dr. Amitay’s goal to provide comprehensive assessments to help families improve their situation while keeping them intact when it is in the child’s best interest to do so.

“The college’s decision to impose a SCERP and caution were accepted by Dr. Amitay and it is our position that he complied with these conditions. Any issues associated with the completion of the SCERP were not based upon any unwillingness of Dr. Amitay to participate but to difficulties the College experienced in finding a mentor to fulfil the role.”

She also said that since the college published its notice of hearing several weeks ago laying out the professional misconduct allegations against Amitay, he has been qualified by the court in a child protection case as an expert in the context of parenting capacity assessments.

“The court was made aware of the notice of hearing prior to Dr. Amitay being accepted as an expert,” she said.

An ongoing Toronto Star investigation has found there are no specific qualifications, methodology or oversight body in the area of parenting capacity assessments, which can be heavily relied on in child protection cases when deciding the fate of a child.

The Star found Amitay completed at least four parenting capacity assessments after December 2015 in child protection cases.

Unlike now, the law in 2015 did not require the college to post on a member’s profile when they had been cautioned or ordered to take further education/training, as these are considered less serious than a public discipline hearing, which can lead to harsher punishments including revocation of a health professional’s licence.

The four children’s aid societies confirmed to the Star that no one told them about Amitay’s past involvement with the college when he conducted parenting capacity assessments for them.

“The Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies would support any measures that the college deemed appropriate to proactively provide children’s aid societies with pertinent information about professionals conducting parenting capacity assessments,” said the association’s CEO, Nicole Bonnie, in a statement to the Star.

College registrar Rick Morris said individuals and organizations should refer to the college’s public register for information about a practitioner they’re considering hiring.

“In addition, clients may inquire directly of the practitioner about any other information regarding qualifications and authorized areas of practice or client groups, which will assist the individual or organization to make an informed choice of service provider,” he told the Star in an email.

The Star’s investigation was sparked by a December court ruling that found Hamilton psychologist Nicole Walton-Allen, who is only authorized to practise in school psychology, had lied about her credentials for years, passing herself off as a clinical psychologist. Walton-Allen had testified she completed more than 100 parenting capacity assessments.

That ruling prompted the Ontario government to order all children’s aid societies to review the credentials of assessors being used in ongoing cases, to ensure they matched with their profiles on the College of Psychologists’ public register.

In another court ruling reviewed by the Star, a judge found a psychologist had used “obsolete tests” in a parenting capacity assessment, a case that highlighted there are no clear rules on how to conduct such an assessment.

The Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services has so far resisted calls from lawyers, advocates and the official opposition to launch an independent, systemic review into the problems with parenting capacity assessments.

“It’s so important that we understand and improve on our systems so that it doesn’t happen again, and right now I just don’t think this issue is being taken seriously when it should be,” said Tammy Law, president of the Toronto chapter of the Ontario Association of Child Protection Lawyers.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“There is a lack of understanding and guidelines about what the best practices are and who should be doing (the assessments.)”

Although the caution and order to have a mentor were related to Amitay’s work on an assessment in family court and not in child protection, Law believes that there should have been a “heightened duty on him to disclose” his history with the college. She pointed out the stakes in child protection can be so much higher, where there is a potential the child will be permanently removed from the parents’ care.

“Not advising people of problems with his conduct of (parenting capacity assessments) goes to the heart of his qualifications and expertise in conducting these things,” she said.

A 2008 article published in the Canadian Journal of Family Law, by Queen’s University family law professor Nicholas Bala and Western University education professor and psychologist Alan Leschied, recommended there should be an independent body to set standards for professionals who are doing parenting capacity assessments and oversee their work.

Describing the Amitay situation as “very concerning,” Bala told the Star that at the very least, the College of Psychologists — whose members form the bulk of parenting capacity assessors — should be notifying children’s aid societies when issues with assessors arise.

“While I favour a body that deals with all the professionals who do these reports, most of whom are psychologists, at the very least we can inexpensively say that the College should be informing children’s aid societies and the family courts about this when there are orders for assessments,” Bala said.

The assessment in question that led to complaints against Amitay to the college stemmed from a custody dispute over a girl identified only as C. Amitay conducted a parenting capacity assessment of the mother and her husband (not C’s biological father), stating that removing C permanently from their care could cause significant harm, according to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board decision upholding the complaints committee decision against Amitay.

Amitay’s parenting capacity assessment was conducted after another psychologist had done a parenting capacity assessment of both biological parents, in which she recommended that custody of C be awarded to the biological father.

Both the biological father and the psychologist complained to the college’s complaints committee about Amitay.

In its caution, the committee said Amitay should ensure he has “adequate and reliable information to support any opinions, conclusions or recommendations,” and that he should take great care “when engaging in written discussions to avoid speculation that is not based on reliable information and that will not add value or clarity to the issues to be resolved.”

He was also ordered to complete a period of peer mentorship as part of a specified continuing education or remediation program, also known as SCERP. According to professional misconduct allegations in the notice of hearing for his yet-to-be scheduled public discipline hearing, the mentorship component has not been completed.

The college alleges a mentor met once with Amitay around May 2017, but was unable to continue as a result of personal circumstances. A second mentor was appointed in August that year.

In correspondence with the college’s registrar between August and September 2017, Amitay “disparaged the college’s process of self-regulation, and the competence, integrity and honesty of the (inquiries, complaints and reports committee) in its consideration of the complaints against” him, the notice of hearing alleges.

The second mentor subsequently declined to continue the mentorship after two meetings, “on the basis that you had refused to effectively participate in the peer mentorship,” the college alleges.

After the college investigated Amitay in 2018, he responded that he remained willing to complete the SCERP “and at the same time propose to the college that the goals of the SCERP have been achieved over the course of the last few years,” according to the notice of hearing.