Children should never be allowed to live in the same home where a little girl named Serenity suffered fatal injuries, says an Alberta child welfare expert.

"They all should have been automatically removed, immediately. There shouldn't have been unequal treatment of the children," said Diann Castle, a Calgary-based lawyer specializing in family law.

"Why would we say the house was unfit to care for three children and leave the other children in it? It's just unexplainable. There is no explanation for such a conduct."

Serenity was four years old when she died of acute head trauma. She weighed only 18 pounds. Her skull was fractured and her body was covered in lacerations and purple contusions. Her body also showed signs of sexual assault.

Before her death in September 2014, the little girl was living with relatives on a central Alberta reserve in a foster care arrangement under the kinship care program.

But when she was still clinging to life in Edmonton hospital, custody of Serenity and her two siblings was transferred back their biological mother. The two siblings were apprehended from the home.

However, other children in the home — up to six grandchildren of the former foster parents — stayed behind.

The circumstances of Serenity's death remain under investigation by RCMP.

'History will repeat itself'

The decision to leave the remaining children in the home is indefensible, Castle believes.

"I have certainly no understanding as to why that would happen, particularly with respect to the horrific circumstances that led to Serenity and her siblings being removed from the home," said Castle, who described the situation as appalling. "I was appalled by the facts of this case.

"It would seem to me that history will repeat itself and it's not a safe home for any child living there."

Children's Services Minister Danielle Larivee has said there is no evidence of abuse against the remaining children, and she reiterated that statement Thursday.



She said the province needs clear evidence that a child has been abused before they can be apprehended.

"Obviously, if there was evidence of abuse of a specific child, apprehension would happen. That's what we're here for, to keep the children safe and we're continuing to prioritise their safety."

Larivee said critics of the government response do not have all of the facts, but she declined to provide new information on the case.

She said the ministry is still consulting their lawyers to see if any new details can be made public.

"I understand the frustration that people have with not having those details," she said.

"I would love to disclose all those details. Unfortunately that's not in the best interest of the children involved ... but, in the meantime, I'm confident that we've done everything we can to protect the safety of those children."

The minister said biological children cannot be removed from homes simply because a criminal investigation is underway.

This photo of Serenity, taken by her mother, shows how thin the four-year-old had become. She died several days after this photo was taken in September 2014. (Supplied) Castle said the legal threshold for apprehending children has been met in this case. The Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act dictates children can be removed from the home if there is a probable risk that they will be exposed to neglect, emotional, physical or sexual abuse. Guardians unable or unwilling to provide the necessaries of life, or adequately protect children from harm can also be deemed unfit.

In the 30 years she's worked in the field, Castle has dealt with dozens of cases where children were apprehended from the home for the mere suspicion of child abuse.

"If you have a history of abuse, and you go give birth to a baby at the Foothills [Medical Centre], they will apprehend that baby immediately and you will not get that child back," she said.

Castle believes the kinship care program is struggling to meet its mandate to help place apprehended Indigenous children in safe homes with blood relatives. The reserve-based system is overtaxed and underfunded, and not as reactive as it should be to suspected cases of abuse or neglect, she said.

'I'm just going to keep fighting'

The program operates under the same set of legal restrictions as standard child welfare programs, but there is bureaucratic apathy and bias which makes these children more vulnerable, Castle claims.

"The standards are different and no one says it aloud and maybe I shouldn't be saying it out loud … but there's a difference," Castle said, speaking to her experience in the courtroom. "There are problems and the children suffer for it."

Larivee said workers with the designated First Nations agency were in contact with the family Wednesday. She repeated her statement that the well-being of the children who remain in the home is regularly monitored but said privacy legislation prevents her from saying how often.

"It just seems like they don't care," Serenity's biological mother said Thursday. "Serenity and my other kids that are still alive have suffered serious, serious abuse in that home," she claims.

Frustrated with the government response, Serenity's mother wants to keep her daughter's case in the spotlight. She's helping to organize a rally at the Alberta legislature next Friday calling on the government to investigate failures in the child welfare system.

"I want justice for my daughter, but I also want justice for the all the other kids that are still suffering," she said.

"I'm just going to keep fighting."

Serenity's case prompted the formation of an all-party panel of MLAs and experts tasked with looking at Albertas child intervention.

Committee members say they have been frustrated with the lack of information shared by the government.

During Thursday's question period, Wildrose MLA and committee member Jason Nixon asked Larivee if the information could be shared with committee members in a closed door session.

Larivee said they could ask for additional information through committee chair Debbie Jabbour, the NDP MLA for Peace River.