A report by the the Office of Children’s Advocate (OCA), detailing the relationship between chief executive officer (CEO) of the Child Protection and Family Services Agency (CPFSA), Rosalee Gage-Grey and Carl Robanske, head of the US-based organisation Embracing Orphans has concluded that the CEO failed in her administrative and moral duty.
The 93 page report was tabled in parliament on Tuesday and highlighted several instances where Robankse, (Uncle Carl) engaged inappropriately with wards of The Father’s House, a transitional facility in St James.
Robanske’s education licence was suspended in the United States in December 2016 after he was found culpable of professional misconduct. He was deemed to have a high probability of repeating sexual misconduct with a minor.
Findings of the OCA investigation:
- The Child Protection and Family Services (CPFSA) is the government entity responsible for the care and protection of children. Operationally, this means that it is charged with running children’s homes and places of safety; granting licences to qualified individuals/entities for the operation of residential child care facilities; administering the Foster Care Programme; providing administrative support for the process of adoption; and monitoring children who are placed on a Fit Person Order by the Courts, whether they be placed within a residential child care facility or they remain in familial placement. Reasonably incidental to these responsibilities is the CPFSA’s focus on having wards of the State successfully transition out of care once they attain the age of majority (i.e. 18 years). This means that there is a heavy fiduciary duty that the CPFSA bears towards some of the most vulnerable children and young persons within Jamaican society. Understandably, therefore, it is held to a high standard and should appreciate that its actions towards this cohort should be able to withstand scrutiny and serious errors of judgment which have the potential to (or actually do) put their charges at risk are unacceptable. A breach of the CPFSA’s duty of care undermines the insulation of the protective environment that the State has entrusted the Page 85 of 93 agency to provide. This Report finds that there has been such a breach of duty on the part of the CPFSA under the stewardship of its CEO.
2. The Father’s House is a transitional facility that caters exclusively to females. The wards of the State who qualify for placement at The Father’s House are identified and selected by the CPFSA. Since the news of Robanske’s suspension in the USA publicly surfaced in March 2021 and since the onset of this investigation, very deliberate and repeated attempts have been made by diverse representatives of the CPFSA to say that no females under 18 years, i.e. children, are accommodated at The Father’s House. This, however, is a recent invention that is a classic example of ‘a little too late’ and is perceived as an orchestrated effort to exclude the facility from the OCA’s jurisdiction and duty to investigate. There is a preponderance of evidence that confirms that since the opening of the facility right through to the conduct of these investigations, the CPFSA had routinely accommodated girls who were below 18 years at The Father’s House; as previously discussed, this was not for “emergency” or over-night accommodation” as the CEO proffered in a belated attempt to qualify her claims regarding anyone under 18 years being at the facility. Some of this evidence is to be found in The Father’s House’s own Admissions’ Log which records the date of admission of each girl along with their date of birth; Birth Certificates examined by the OCA as a part of this investigation; utterances by the CEO and Robanske in the media as to the age cohort being catered to; diverse media stories that spoke to the profile of the home; the Embracing Orphans’ website; as well as the OCA’s own interaction with some of the girls who resided at The Father’s House during the investigation or who formerly resided there.
3. This Report has reviewed literature that treats with the need for a carefully curated approach when dealing with children who live in, or young adults (Page 86 of 93) who grew up in alternative care. Longitudinal studies have firmly established that generally, children who grow up in institutions require a more supportive environment when compared to children who did not if they are to have positive life outcomes on a sustainable basis; this ‘supportive environment’ includes one that is free from persons who have a high probability of exploiting them in any way. It is of concern therefore, that the psychological evaluation of Robanske that was done as a part of the 2016 Hearing initiated against him by the Office of Professional Practices, concluded, inter alia, that – “He appears to have little awareness of the inappropriateness of his behavior.” and “Dr. Barnard stated, “If a person lacks insight in understanding both their unconscious and conscious motives, then there is an increased probability of that type of behavior reoccurring.” Additionally, many of these girls come into the care system fractured and having been exploited in some way. Robanske is acutely aware of these vulnerabilities. His own words in a 2017 news article which extensively quotes him about the work he is doing in Jamaica are: “Girls are especially endangered in Jamaica . . . There, females are seen as commodities by some, an attitude that leads to girls being sexually abused, neglected, exposed to violence in and out of their homes, as well as abandoned. They have been sexually and physically abused, and have run the streets.”The State therefore ought not to be purportedly ‘rescuing’ these children but in practical terms negatively impacting their life’s outcomes by having lax systems of protection and supervision in relation to whom they are exposed.
4. The CEO failed in her administrative and moral duty to these former wards of the State. Her responses indicate that she is either unaware of, or has a reckless approach to the significant vulnerability which attaches not only to them when they are minors (i.e. below 18 years) but also even after and during their transition out of the formal care system. One example of this is provided by the CEO’s response that she did not see the need to probe how old Resident B was when the incident that she complained about occurred nor whether she intended to report the matter. To her mind, it was almost as if once they hit their 18th birthday the duty of care owed to them ceases, even though they physically remain in the care of the CPFSA.
5. The CPFSA by its own admission, knew of Robanske’s antecedents from early 2018. It also knew (despite recent denials) that it had children accommodated at The Father’s House. It’s continued partnership with Robanske himself and with Embracing Orphans given the central and lead role that Robanske plays in that organization, was not only questionable but betrayed the CPFSA’s mandate and undermined its moral authority to be telling Jamaicans that they should be wary of persons who may be around children for fear that they may abuse them. The CPFSA’s knowledge of Robanske’s antecedents coupled with the liberal access to its residents from 2018 right through to 2021 (only being interrupted because the heat was turned on due to the public discourse), vividly speaks to the CPFSA’s wilful blindness and its inadequate response. Instead of decisively taking steps to protect what is accepted as a very vulnerable population, the CPFSA somewhat legitimized Robanske through its public association and endorsement and effectively justified their continued partnership by utterances such as that made by the CEO that “we continued our relationship because he did not have a criminal record.”The CPFSA operated contrary to the principle that an agent of the State with a mandate such as it has, ought to be mindful of the need to prevent exploitation and/or abuse to those in its care – whether this be at the hands of staff, volunteers or other partners. This underscores the betrayal of trust that was manifestly evident in the way in which the CEO processed the matter and executed the agency’s handling of it.
6. The residents of The Father’s House were not only accessible to Robanske but were very receptive to him perhaps because of the gifts and the attention that he would give to them. Some of the residents were able to speak about knowing and interacting with him from they were residents at Blossom Gardens Children’s Home; one even produced a photograph of herself at age 6 that she says Robanske he had shared with her from his interactions with her in that facility. He represented to them a person in authority whom they were fond of, indebted to, and liked; he also occupied a position of trust. The experience of Resident A whose account is discussed in detail in this Report, alongside the screenshot capture of messages between herself and Robanske on Facebook Messenger provide a good example of how this position of trust was violated. Robanske’s modus operandi in this situation is also very similar to that which was the subject of his suspension, viz. he contacted the minor in the USA via his Facebook account and sent her inappropriate messages about his genitalia.
7. The CPFSA operated within an environment that allowed Robanske access to children and facilitated his engagement with them. Apart from his liberal access and association with residents from the Father’s House.The OCA’s investigations confirmed three (3) other such facilities. These are – Blossom Gardens Children’s Home where prior to the Covid-19 pandemic Robanske would visit the facility and take both staff and children on excursions. Jamaica Relief Ministries (JRM) which accommodated male and female children 0 – 7 years. For example, the Visitors’ Log records that on December 18, 2018 he went for ‘barbering’.West Haven Children’s Home which accommodates male and female children with special needs. According to the Visitors’ Log Robanske visited in 2015, 2017 and on August 18, 2020 to donate bread, observe and interact with residents.
8. The OCA through this investigation has ferreted out a number of instances in which the CEO of the CPFSA has made statements (both written and oral) that are inconsistent with what the records reveal or are discrepant in some other material particular that go to the root of the matter. In the section of this Report that focuses on the inconsistencies and discrepancies of the CEO some of the main ones are –A claim that there were no girls under 18 at The Father’s House – disproved by access to birth records and various log books. A claim that Robanske had no direct contact with the residents of The Father’s House – disproved by a review of the Visitors’ Log and Daily Logs as well as accounts provided by the residents. A claim that the CPFSA does not directly deal with Robanske, especially post-2018 – disproved by a number of news articles and online features including Embracing Orphans’ Year in Review 2020 which detailed its work in Jamaica through its partnership with the CPFSA and the CEO’s own admission of her fellowship with Robanske and the girls at the 2019 Christmas Party that was sponsored by Robanske. A claim that Robanske would have no contact, be liaising with, or being the face of Embracing Orphans in Jamaica post-2018 – disproved through call data analysis that showed telephone calls between Robanske and CPFSA representatives and diverse news articles, even up to 2021 in response to the Covid-19 pandemic following a request of Robanske that was initiated by the CPFSA. Written undertaking given to the Honourable Minister of Education and Youth that, in accordance with her directive, the premises would be vacated within 90 days – disproved as way beyond July 2021 the premises still remained occupied. The CEO’s account to the Children’s Advocate at the December 2022 Hearing that the Manager (Ms. McDonald) was removed from her position by the CPFSA as a part of its decision to change the way in which The Father’s House as a transitional facility would be operated – disproved through personal knowledge that it was through dialogue with the Honourable Minister(s) Fayval Williams and Robert Morgan as well as the then Permanent Secretary that Ms. McDonald was sent on leave and instructed to leave The Father’s House in order for the OCA’s investigations to proceed unfettered given the presumable influence Ms. McDonald seemed to have on the girls. This was what paved the way for the Interim Manager to assume duties on September 23, 2021.
9. The analysis of extracted data from mobile telephones and tablets belonging to the Manager of The Father’s House and its residents provided useful information. Though discussed in detail in the relevant section of this Report, the main points reveal
(A) An open intent of the Manager of The Father’s House to deceive in her WhatsApp message as communicated via her mobile telephone number ending in -8546 in the TFH WhatsApp group chat in the following way: On 07/03/2021 at 18:56:38 – “I will help you guys with it.”; ü On 07/03/2021 at 18:56:47 – “But it can’t be known.”; and ü On 07/03/2021 at 18:56:21 – “Remember I work with the Government who is trying to “cut” ties with him.” This was in relation to the girls’ stated attempt via WhatsApp to portray Robanske in a positive light and to reach out to the Minister to “see if it could change anything.”
(B) Confirmation that there was a meeting convened by the Manager of The Father’s House on March 3, 2021 as reported by Residents B and C in their recount of how and when they made the disclosure about their experience with ‘Uncle Carl’.
(C)Confirmation that “some things are coming out of this meeting” as communicated by the Manager to the CEO on March 3, 2021 and further “when you get a chance call me.”
(D)Confirmation that like the OCA, the media had an interest in Resident B and efforts were being made to reach her on March 3, 2021. Of much significance, is that the WhatsApp messages among the CEO, the Manager, AB and RDG were quite focused on Resident B and ensuring that she did not speak to that journalist.
10. Both the Honourable Fayval Williams, Minister of Education & Youth and the Honourable Robert Morgan, Minster of State in the Ministry of Education & Youth, through no fault of their own, communicated inaccuracies to the public with regard to the Robanske issue and the CPFSA. In the relevant section of this Report it has been illustrated that the Ministers fell into error consequent upon their reliance on what has now been established as the CPFSA’s misrepresentation of the facts. Needless to say, this ought not only to be seen as unacceptable but also a dangerous precedent to allow to persist without being addressed.
