Harmful impacts and the widespread use of 'behaviour-altering' drugs in foster, group homes. Dec. 12, 2014.

With the help of the children's aid society and secret family courts this Canadian Lab Spent 20 Years Ruining Lives

“Reasonable grounds for suspicion” refers to the information that an average person, using normal and honest judgment would need to be suspicious.

http://www.oacas.org/childrens-aid-child-protection/duty-to-report/

IF THE CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY CAN BE CAN CALL PROFESSIONAL AT ANYTHING IT'S TELLING JUDGES, DOCTORS, POLITICIANS AND THE MEDIA WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR..

https://news.vice.com/article/this-canadian-lab-spent-20-years-ruining-lives

A CHILD IN ONTARIO'S CARE IS A CHILD AT RISK.

“There are lots of kids in group homes all over Ontario and they are not doing well — and everybody knows it,” says Kiaras Gharabaghi, a member of a government-appointed panel that examined the residential care system in 2016.
12 youths who died in Ontario child welfare lacked mental health support, coroner's report finds.

Most of the 12 young people who died while in the care of Ontario's child welfare system had significant mental health challenges but limited or no access to appropriate help, according to a coroner's report released Tuesday.

The expert panel convened by Ontario chief coroner Dirk Huyer found a litany of other problems, including:

• A lack of communication between child welfare societies.
• Poor case file management.
• An "absence" of quality care in residential placements.
• Evidence that some of the youths were "at risk of and/or engaged in human trafficking."

Eleven of the young people ranged in age from 11 to 18. The exact age of one youth when she died wasn't clear in the report.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/ontario-coroner-expert-panel-report-1.4837245

Grassy Narrows teen's death to be part of 'expert review' of youth who died in child welfare care

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/11-youth-care-review-1.4415649

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/12/12/ontarios_most_vulnerable_children_kept_in_the_shadows.html

“The medication problem is huge,” says Raymond Lemay, who retired this summer after 32 years as executive director of the Prescott-Russell children’s aid society. “It’s catastrophic.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/12/12/use_of_behaviouraltering_drugs_widespread_in_foster_group_homes.html

“Why are these kids on medication? Because people are desperate to make them functional,” Baird says, and “there’s so little else to offer.

http://motheriskcommission.ca/wp-content/uploads/Report-of-the-Motherisk-Commission.pdf

IF THESE MEDICATION MAKE CHILDREN FUNCTIONAL WHY IS IT WHEN A PARENT IS PRESCRIBED THE SAME OR SIMILAR MEDICATIONS THESE VERY SAME MEDICATIONS MAKE THE PARENT A RISK OR THREAT TO THEIR CHILD?

WILL THESE MEDICATED CHILDREN ONE DAY BE CONSIDERED A THREAT TO THEIR OWN CHILDREN?

https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/motherisk/

Children’s aid societies deal with children and youth who have higher levels of mental-health and behavioral problems than the general population. Still, there is evidence of a system using medication simply to keep children and youth under control.

To recognize the broad harm caused by the unreliable Motherisk hair testing, the Commission considered “affected persons” to include children, siblings, biological parents, adoptive parents, foster parents, extended families, and the bands or communities of Indigenous children.

This Report is dedicated to everyone who was affected by the testing.

https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/motherisk/

Use of 'behaviour-altering' drugs widespread in foster, group homes.

Almost half of children and youth in foster and group home care aged 5 to 17 — 48.6 per cent — are on drugs, such as Ritalin, tranquilizers and anticonvulsants, according to a yearly survey conducted for the provincial government and the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies (OACAS). At ages 16 and 17, fully 57 per cent are on these medications.

In group homes, the figure is even higher — an average of 64 per cent of children and youth are taking behaviour-altering drugs. For 10- to 15-year-olds, the number is a staggering 74 per cent.

The figures are found in “Looking After Children in Ontario,” a provincially mandated survey known as OnLAC. It collects data on the 7,000 children who have spent at least one year in care. After requests by the Star, the 2014 numbers were made public for the first time.

Top CAS officials describe the high number on “psychotropic or behaviour-altering medication” as a crisis.

“I don’t think doctors out there are trying to zombie kids as a goal,” says Dr. Ben Klein, medical director at the Lansdowne Children’s Centre in Brantford and a consultant with children’s aid societies. “The medication gets abused because the rest of the system doesn’t deal with the (mental-health) problem.”

WHAT ARE THE DOCTORS BASING THE NEED FOR MEDICATIONS ON?

A PROPER DIAGNOSIS OR ON WHAT THE WORKERS ARE TELLING THE DOCTORS ABOUT THE CHILDREN?

Typically, these children get diagnosed with ADHD because they exhibit its symptoms, including inattention, hyperactivity and acting on impulse. They get placed on medication like Ritalin, whose side effects may include insomnia and appetite suppression. If the symptoms persist, the dosage might get boosted.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/02/26/motherisk-tests-unfair-and-harmful-to-families-in-child-protection-cases.html

The OACAS is now funding work by Gissele Taraba, a manager with the Brant and Oxford children’s aid societies, to develop a guide on how children should be assessed and treated.

“Kids in the system are taking too many medications,” she says flatly.

At the Brant CAS, drugs make up 52 per cent of expenditures on health insurance claims. The top five drugs prescribed and paid for by insurance are all used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), including Concerta, Strattera and Adderall.

Drugged-up.

HELLO BRAVE NEW WORLD

The new gateway drugs.

What’s worse is that the number of children prescribed dangerous drugs is on the rise. Doctors seem to prescribe medication without being concerned with the side-effects.

Worldwide, 17 million children, some as young as five years old, are given a variety of different prescription drugs, including psychiatric drugs that are dangerous enough that regulatory agencies in Europe, Australia, and the US have issued warnings on the side effects that include suicidal thoughts and aggressive behavior.

According to Fight For Kids, an organization that “educates parents worldwide on the facts about today’s widespread practice of labeling children mentally ill and drugging them with heavy, mind-altering, psychiatric drugs,” says over 10 million children in the US are prescribed addictive stimulants, antidepressants and other psychotropic (mind-altering) drugs for alleged educational and behavioral problems.

In fact, according to Foundation for a Drug-Free World, every day, 2,500 youth (12 to 17) will abuse a prescription pain reliever for the first time (4). Even more frightening, prescription medications like depressants, opioids and antidepressants cause more overdose deaths (45 percent) than illicit drugs like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines and amphetamines (39 percent) combined. Worldwide, prescription drugs are the 4th leading cause of death.

https://dailyhealthpost.com/common-prescription-drugs/

Taraba describes child-welfare services — from education to mental health — as disconnected and blames the provincial government for the lack of integration.

“Where is the expectation from above in terms of us working together?” she says, challenging the government to take responsibility for the children legally in its care.

The lack of standardization “likely means that many children in need are not identified and referred for treatment,” concludes the survey report, co-authored by Elisa Romano, professor of psychology at the University of Ottawa.

A soon-to-be-published report by Klein, Taraba and other child-welfare experts also warns of children who have symptoms of attention deficit disorder being misdiagnosed and given “unhelpful medications” for long periods. “The big question is, what are we treating?” Klein says.

Recent scientific studies, for example, have examined the impact on infants of “toxic stress,” caused by long periods of physical or emotional abuse. The prolonged release of stress hormones changes the wiring of the developing brain, causing long-term problems with learning and with controlling of emotions and impulses.

“We don’t call it brain damage but it is brain damage,” says Klein, who is also a clinical professor at McMaster University. “It’s like a baseball bat to the head.”

Broad harm caused by Motherisk with faulty testing tearing families apart

http://www.windspeaker.com/news/windspeaker-news/broad-harm-caused-by-motherisk-with-faulty-testing-tearing-families-apart/

In the US paediatric and child trauma experts are sounding the alarm that wrongfully separating children from their parents can cause serious physical and psychological damage.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44528900:::

Something as common as a stern admonition from a teacher or foster parent can provoke a “flight or fight” response from children raised in threatening and unpredictable family environments.

Medication might make them less likely to act out, Klein adds, but it doesn’t deal with the root cause of a child’s trauma. That requires “trauma-focused cognitive behaviour therapy,” which he says is almost impossible to access in Ontario.

It seemed so perfect, so scientific - a hair test that could objectively determine whether parents of young children were abusing drugs or alcohol. But it turns out the 'Motherisk' hair testing was flawed, and improperly administered all across Canada over twenty years. The results were devastating.

After improperly conducting the test for over twenty years many who work in child protection claim the Motherisk bombshell caught them off guard. For years, children were removed from their families based on flawed hair testing for drugs and alcohol at the Motherisk lab at the Hospital for Sick Children.

Yet according to the Motherisk report, procedural safeguards were ignored. The report describes a litany of procedural injustices perpetrated on parents: parents were pressured to consent to testing; were not informed of their right to reject testing; they had adverse inferences drawn against them when they rejected testing; they were required to prove the unreliability of testing instead of the other way around; and they were refused the right to cross-examine Motherisk "experts" at summary judgment motions.

A review of nearly 1,300 child welfare cases spanning 25 years has found that a now-discredited hair analysis program in Toronto that tested for drug and alcohol use caused extensive – and irreversible – harm to vulnerable families across Ontario.

There is nothing new about the commission's finding that many parents were explicitly or implicitly told that there would be negative consequences if they did not undergo hair testing, sign consent forms or service agreements.

In fact, this type of coercive action continues to happen: parents are often given messages that if they do not consent, for example, to a finding that the child is in need of protection, that there will be negative consequences.

For example, they may be prevented from bringing further motions, or — more damning in CAS work — labelled as being "uncooperative."

The parents who were tested were powerless to resist as their rights were ripped out by the roots.

They told us that they submitted to the testing under duress, in fear of losing custody of or access to their children” only to lose access or custody anyway.

“These kids become train wrecks in the system,” Klein says. “They burn through home placements and every time it’s another separation, it’s another trauma.”

“There are definitely cases where kids are on egregious doses of, say, ADHD medications,” Klein says.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/12/12/use_of_behaviouraltering_drugs_widespread_in_foster_group_homes.html

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/12/12/use_of_behaviouraltering_drugs_widespread_in_foster_group_homes.html https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/07/03/physical-restraint-common-in-toronto-group-homes-and-youth-residences.html https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/07/03/kids-in-toronto-group-homes-can-be-arrested-for-being-kids.html https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/08/15/report-shines-light-on-povertys-role-on-kids-in-cas-system.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/sudden-infant-death-syndrome-undetermined-cause-nunavut-1.3880978 https://criminology.regis.edu/criminology-programs/resources/blog/undetermined-death https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/01/01/dont-blow-up-ontarios-child-welfare-system.html https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/12/01/kids-are-going-through-trauma-staff-are-getting-assaulted-we-are-all-in-the-trenches-together.html The written PDRC report. http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/DeathInvestigations/office_coroner/PublicationsandReports/PDRC/2013Report/PDRC_2013.html The little PDRC pie chart that knew too much. http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/sites/default/files/content/mcscs/images/195633-19.jpg

After the 276 recommendations in the last two most recent inquests into the deaths of children in care AND 30+ more from the Motherisk Commission is SCARY MARY BALLANTYNE'S children's aid society really worth the lives of anymore children in Ontario's care? MARY BALLANTYNE says: "Those who call for the overhaul of Ontario's children's aid societies fail to understand the many ways in which their system excels."

Updating the regulations under the new CYFSA provides an important opportunity for the Government to protect the Ontario public from incompetent, unqualified and unfit professionals and to prevent a serious risk of harm to children and youth, as well as their families.

As Minister Coteau said in second reading debate of Bill 89, "protecting and supporting children and youth is not just an obligation, it is our moral imperative, our duty and our privilege—each and every one of us in this Legislature, our privilege—in shaping the future of this province." IN A HISTORIC MOVE THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORK JOINS THE FIGHT TO REGULATE THE CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES AND WYNNES OUTGOING LIBERAL GOVERNMENT PROMISES TO WORK WITH THE COLLEGE TO REIN IN ONTARIO'S ROGUE AGENCY - AFTER THE ELECTION. Since it began operations in 2000, the OCSWSSW has worked steadily to address the issue of child protection workers. Unfortunately, many CASs have been circumventing professional regulation of their staff by requiring that staff have social work education yet discouraging those same staff from registering with the OCSWSSW. The new regulation was updated to only require Local Directors of Children’s Aid Societies to be registered with the College so it's up to all of us now to encourage the employees of the children's aid societies that enter family homes, schools and hospitals to be registered and their credentials checked before they are allowed to enter said places. The majority of local directors, supervisors, child protection workers and adoption workers have social work or social service work education, yet fewer than 10% are registered with the OCSWSSW. Submission-re-Proposed-Regulations-under-the-CYFSA-January-25-2018. OCSWSSW May 1, 2018 https://www.ocswssw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/OCSWSSW-Submission-re-Proposed-Regulations-under-the-CYFSA-January-25-2018.pdf If you have any practice questions related to the new CYFSA, please contact the Professional Practice Department at 416-972-9882 or 1-877-828-9380 or email practice@ocswssw.org.

Motherisk Is A Symptom Of A Larger Problem In Child Protection Work.

Respecting Procedural Safeguards.

The Charter of Rights and procedural protections for disadvantaged and poverty stricken parents have been eroded in favor of alleged efficiency in the family courts at the expense of due process and fundamental justice.

Tammy Law · for CBC News · Posted: Mar 05, 2018.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/motherisk-child-protection-1.4559905

"The parents who were tested were powerless to resist as their rights were ripped out by the roots."

There is a major power imbalance between an impoverished parent (we know that families of low socio-economic status are hugely overrepresented in the child welfare system) and a state agency. To guard against such an imbalance, it is critical that our legal system respect the time-tested procedural safeguards developed to specifically ensure that the disadvantaged party is treated fairly.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees procedural fairness when the state interferes with fundamental personal rights, such as the right by parents to care for their children. Ironically enough, the issue of taking body samples (such as hair for testing) without proper consent for the purpose of criminal investigations was found to be an infringement of the Charter 20 years ago by the Supreme Court.

WHO WATCHES THE WATCHERS... WE DO WHEN THEY WON'T! Is there a body cam for civilians or even a need for it? And isn't it illegal to record authority figures speaking to me or my own conversations with others? No, it isn't illegal to record authority figures speaking to or your own conversations with others especially when your talking about about the children's aid society and their henchworkers... It's is illegal to record other people's conversations if you are not a part of the conversation. The concept of citizen journalism (also known as "public", "participatory", "democratic", "guerrilla" or "street" journalism) is based upon public citizens "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing, and disseminating news and information." United we stand divided they'll fall. https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/743864625823304/ CONSENT TO INTERCEPTION - CANADA. Broadly speaking, documenting the facts is not a crime...Canadians can legally record their own conversations with other people, but not other peoples' conversations that they are not involved in. 183.1 Where a private communication is originated by more than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be received by more than one person, a consent to the interception thereof by any one of those persons is sufficient consent for the purposes of any provision of this Part. [1993, c.40, s.2.] The Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [Criminal Code] imposes a general prohibition on interception (recording) of private communications, but then provides an exception where one of the parties to the private communication consents to the interception of that communication. Thus, broadly speaking, Canadians can legally record their own conversations with other people, but not other peoples' conversations that they are not involved in. Other legislation in Canada protects various privacy rights, but does not prevent Canadians from recording their own conversations with others. http://www.legaltree.ca/node/908 Ontario's anti-SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) law came into force in 2015. The law is intended to discourage lawsuits aimed at the right of citizens to express themselves freely on matters of public interest without facing the threat of proceedings intended primarily to silence them. Nov 8, 2016.

AT WHAT POINT DOES A FAMILY BECOME A CLIENT OF THE CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY AGAINST THEIR WILL?

AFTER THE SOCIAL HAS THREATEN TO TAKE YOUR CHILDREN IF YOU REFUSE TO SIGN CONSENTS FORMS AND SERVICE AGREEMENTS AND THE SOCIETY TELLS YOU ARE?

OR AFTER A JUDGE ACTUALLY DETERMINES IF THERE IS ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF ABUSE OR NEGLECT TO SUPPORT ANY CLAIMED CONCERNS?

OR AFTER THE JUDGE GRANTS AND ORDER ON A PRIMA FACIE BASIS?

Here's some examples of recording officials that are perfectly legal.. https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/499149713628131/ https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/504782689731500/ https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/570836186459483/ Ontarians have a right to assume that, when they receive services that are provided by someone who is required to have a social work degree (or a social service work diploma) — whether those services are direct (such as those provided by a child protection worker or adoption worker) or indirect (such as those provided by a local director or supervisor) — that person is registered with, and accountable to, the OCSWSSW. The new regulation was updated to only require Local Directors of Children’s Aid Societies to be registered with the College so it's up to all of us now to encourage the employees of the children's aid societies that enter family homes, schools and hospitals to be registered and their credentials checked before they are allowed to enter said places. The absence of a requirement for CAS child protection workers to be registered with the College: ignores the public protection mandate of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998 (SWSSWA); avoids the fact that social workers and social service workers are regulated professions in Ontario and ignores the College’s important role in protecting the Ontario public from harm caused by incompetent, unqualified or unfit practitioners; allows CAS staff to operate outside the system of public protection and oversight that the Government has established through professional regulation; and fails to provide the assurance to all Ontarians that they are receiving services from CAS staff who are registered with, and accountable to, the College. The existing regulations made under the CFSA predated the regulation of social work and social service work in Ontario and therefore their focus on the credential was understandable. However, today a credential focus is neither reasonable nor defensible. Social work and social service work are regulated professions in Ontario. Updating the regulations under the new CYFSA provides an important opportunity for the Government to protect the Ontario public from incompetent, unqualified and unfit professionals and to prevent a serious risk of harm to children and youth, as well as their families. TOP 3 WAYS CAS USE POLICE TO DENY FAMILIES THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.

(A PROFESSIONAL AND STANDARDIZED PROCESS) #1) “Do you have something to hide?” (social workers, social trolls and police officers all try this) Children's aid workers often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrant-less search of your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed some form of abuse or neglect against your child, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the social worker puts the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. #2) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.” (social workers and your very own legal aid lawyers will both try this one to get you sign consents and service agreement) The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to keep a file open or apprehend your children, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.” In my family's experience the director of service for FCSLLG claimed the not so veiled threats were nothing more than attempt to be transparent that my wife and I failed to interpret correctly, well on video it certainly was transparent. #3) “We’ll just get a court order.” (social workers) Children's aid social workers may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a court order if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the children's aid society by requiring them to go through the process of getting a court order will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything and is one very good reason to record and document for legal purposes everything they say and do. If you have any practice questions or concerns related to the new CYFSA, please contact the Professional Practice Department at 416-972-9882 or 1-877-828-9380 or email practice@ocswssw.org. Submission-re-Proposed-Regulations-under-the-CYFSA-January-25-2018. OCSWSSW May 1, 2018 https://www.ocswssw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/OCSWSSW-Submission-re-Proposed-Regulations-under-the-CYFSA-January-25-2018.pdf WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED ACCORDING TO CUPE? The report, Towards regulation: Child protection and professional regulation in the province of Ontario, notes that the CAS workforce has expanded beyond social workers since 2000 to include child and youth workers and those with general degrees and diplomas. A 2013 OACAS survey found that only 70% of relevant job classifications would qualify for registration with the College of Social Workers. CUPE members working as child protection workers could suddenly without any kind of warning be deemed unqualified if they could not register with the College of Social Workers. Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, SO 1998 ... - Ontario.ca

AND NOW IT'S TIME FOR ...

FANTASY TRUTH IN POLITICS

Maybe had the government allowed the Ombudsman or the Privacy Commissioner or the College of Social Work oversight of the children's aid society there'd be somebody else the government could blame for the CAS but the government has the only oversight of the children's aid society from the start..

IMPACT ON STAFF ACCORDING TO CUPE: It is unfair and unjust that staff who are currently deemed qualified by the society to do their work, some of whom have decades of on-the-ground experience ruining lives, would suddenly and arbitrarily be deemed unqualified. "If the employers (government) are moving forward with professional regulation, it’s likely they will bring this issue to the next round of collective bargaining so CUPE members (unqualified child protection social workers) will have to be prepared to fight." The report also notes that the “clearest path forward” would be for the provincial government to legislate the necessity of professional regulation, which would be an appallingly heavy-handed move. AND DRAGGING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES THROUGH THE FAMILY COURTS WASN'T HEAVY-HANDED? http://joincupe2190.ca/files/2015/10/Professional-regulation-at-childrens-aid-societies.pdf Silenced, discredited, stripped of powers of moral appeal, and deprived of the interpersonal conditions necessary for maintaining self-respect and labeled "disgruntled" many people suffer from serious but subtle forms of oppression involving neither physical violence nor the use of law. Civilized Oppression and Moral Relations: Victims, Fallibility, and the Moral Community.

In Civilized Oppression J.Harvey forcefully argues for the crucial role of morally distorted relationships in such oppression. While uncovering a set of underlying moral principles that account for the immorality of civilized oppression, Harvey's analyses provide frameworks for identifying morally problematic situations and relationships, criteria for evaluating them, and guidelines for appropriate responses. This book will be essential for both graduates and undergraduates in ethics, social theory, theory of justice, and feminist and race studies. This book discusses how civilized oppression (the oppression that involves neither violence nor the law) can be overcome by re-examining our participation in it. Moral community, solidarity and education are offered as vibrant strategies to overcome the hurt and marginalization that stem from civilized oppression. https://books.google.ca/books/about/Civilized_Oppression_and_Moral_Relations.html
This report is available at Motherisk Commission © 2018 Ministry of the Attorney General

The Honourable Judith C. Beaman Commissioner
February 2018. Available in French. To recognize the broad harm caused by the unreliable Motherisk hair testing, the Commission considered “affected persons” to include children, siblings, biological parents, adoptive parents, foster parents, extended families, and the bands or communities of Indigenous children. This Report is dedicated to everyone who was affected by the testing. https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/motherisk/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA_rw_CRcx8

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2017-2018/motherisk-tainted-tests-broken-families

Former Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian wrote: “I am disheartened by the complete lack of action to ensure transparency and accountability by these organizations that received significant public funding. As part of the modernization of the Acts, I call on the government to finally address this glaring omission and ensure that Children’s Aid Societies are added to the list of institutions covered.” The only oversight for the province’s children’s aid agencies comes from Ontario’s Ministry of Children and Youth Services. "As the law stands now clients of the Ontario Children's Aid Society under Wynne's liberals are routinely denied a timely (often heavily censored) file disclosure before the court begins making decisions and the clients can not request files/disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act nor can censored information reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario or the federal counterpart." In her 2004 annual report, which was released on June 22, 2005, the Commissioner called for amendments that would bring virtually all organizations that are primarily funded by government dollars under FOI for the purposes of transparency and accountability: This would include the various children’s aid agencies in the Province of Ontario. Many parents and families complain about how difficult it is, if not impossible, to obtain information from children’s aid agencies. Many citizens complain that CAS agencies appear to operate under a veil of secrecy. Unlicensed and untrained CAS workers are making decisions which are literally destroying families, yet there is little or no accountability for their actions short of a lawsuit after the damage to the child or children has been done. In my 2004, 2009, and 2012 Annual Reports I recommended that Children’s Aid Societies, which provide services for some of our most vulnerable citizens – children and youth in government care, be brought under FIPPA. I am disheartened by the complete lack of action to ensure transparency and accountability by these organizations that received significant public funding. As part of the modernization of the Acts, I call on the government to finally address this glaring omission and ensure that Children’s Aid Societies are added to the list of institutions covered. The Information and Privacy Commissioner is appointed by and reports to the Ontario Legislative Assembly, and is independent of the government of the day. The Commissioner's mandate includes overseeing the access and privacy provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the Personal Health Information Protection Act, and commenting on other access and privacy issues. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/beef-up-information-laws-ontario-privacy-czar-says/article1120573/ https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/commissioner-cavoukian-calls-on-government-to-preserve-freedom-and-liberty-514463911.html

A corrupt agency aided and abetted by a corrupt provincial court is a travesty of justice for Canadians an insult to the judicial system, to the constitution of Canada, and to life, liberty, and justice for all.

It results in tyranny, oppression, and absolute despotism of the people. There is no greater criminal than the criminal that sits on the bench robbing children of their FAMILY HERITAGE . "If the same problems were identified in criminal court, there would be a huge public outcry." Tammy Law. Tammy Law's delusional thoughts, excuses, rationalizations and justifications for using the Motherisk test to justify denying parents due process and circumventing the Constitution, the Charter of Rights and the principles of fundamental Justice behind the closed doors of Ontario's family courts. Posted on February 27, 2018 by tammylaw After 2 years, and the review of more than 1200 cases, the Motherisk Commission came out with its report yesterday. The Report is required reading for everyone who has any role to play in child welfare – social workers, lawyers, courts, litigants. It describes a system that is dysfunctional, unfair, and undignified. In addition to its criticism of how CASs have handled drug addiction, the Commission details years of rights infringements by courts. If the same problems were identified in criminal court, there would be a huge public outcry.

I want to be clear about what I think some of the fundamental problems are and how I think we can start to change this system. Because I am first and foremost a lawyer, my thoughts naturally focus on the role of lawyers in this mess. My thoughts are summarized as follows: As lawyers, we need to recognize that good intentions are not enough. It is really easy to hide behind “the best interests of the child” and agree or acquiesce to all types of infringements of our clients’ basic human and Charter rights. This needs to stop. Lawyers need to start seeing their role in the context of defending our clients’ very real rights to human dignity and security of the person. The culture of cooperation has gone too far. While I agree that it is very very important to work with the Children’s Aid Society to address their concerns, a line must be drawn when they demand cooperation that crosses the line. As a state agent, the Society has an obligation to ensure that it works in the most minimally intrusive way possible – respecting the client’s right to individual freedom while trying to ensure that its clients are served. This is a difficult job. Lawyers and courts should be there to ensure that the fine line is respected. Society counsel need to understand that they have a public interest role. They should be providing advice to their clients in the context of being a public interest litigant. They have a duty to the court to be fair. This means that if unreliable evidence is being tendered (and there were many signs of this with respect to the Motherisk testing), they should be advising their clients about the unfairness of relying on it. Lawyers are and should be gatekeepers of evidence as much as courts are. We need to be more vigilant. As noted in the report, our role as advocates is to raise every defence possible for our clients. HOW ABOUT PRESENTING EVIDENCE THAT COUNTERS SWORN AFFIDAVITS WHEN CLIENTS HAVE IT IN ABUNDANCE... JUST SAYIN'.. Our clients are often extremely vulnerable, having lived lives that were challenged by multiple obstacles. Many have made admirable attempts to parent their children. We need to be fearless in our advocacy for them. As a lawyer, I have experienced and seen derisive, sarcastic, or rude comments directed at myself and other lawyers who attempt to defend their clients. This needs to stop. It’s our client’s right – their children’s right – that they have a full defence. http://www.tammylaw.ca/2018/02/27/report-of-the-motherisk-commission/ C.A.S. ATTITUDE: WIN CHILD WELFARE CASES AT ALL COSTS. By Gene C. Colman of Gene C. Colman Family Law Centre posted in Child Welfare on Thursday, January 1, 2015. It should not be a matter of "win" or "lose" when it comes to Ontario child welfare law. Ontario's Child and Family Services Act tells us that the paramount purpose is to "promote the best interests, protection and well being of children." One might note the glaring lack of any reference to family. In fact, there is a paucity of references to family throughout the entire CFSA even though many judges recognize the importance of maintaining family whenever possible. I had a recent experience with CAS counsel at court when representing a family unjustly caught up in the system. Our office had prepared a very persuasive and comprehensive response to the Society's Application. We attended at the mandated five day hearing that follows apprehensions from parental care. The CAS certainly had not expected such forcefulness; normally parents are so overwhelmed at this early stage that they are unable to mount an effective defence. Generally, the court will rubber stamp the CAS requests. We did not agree to just stand idly by at the first appearance and CAS counsel was surprised by our aggressive (yet fair) approach. Our written material seemed to have persuaded the judge. He instructed the lawyers to prepare a consent endorsement along the lines that we were seeking (which of course included an immediate return of the children to parental care). As we were returning to the courtroom after preparing the consent, the experienced and respected CAS counsel turned to me and my clients and remarked: "This is the third time your lawyer has beaten me." The CAS counsel's comment was made innocently enough and indeed was intended to be complimentary. But still I was shocked (but probably should not have been). Why was I so shocked? https://www.complexfamilylaw.com/blog/2015/01/cas-attitude-win-child-welfare-cases-at-all-costs.shtml Lake 88.1 “In Focus”interview with LAO’s Andreas Von Cramon and Nathalie Champagne: Date: April 8, 2014. Description: Transcript of April 8th, 2014 “In Focus” interview by Bob Perreault from Lake 88.1 FM in Perth and Andreas Von Cramon, Supervisory Duty Counsel Criminal/Family Law and Nathalie Champagne, District Area Director, Ottawa Region. Anderas von Cramon Supervisory Duty Counsel Family, Criminal Law in Brockville, Lanark, Leeds and Grenville and is married to the CAS in house lawyer for FCSLLG, Karynn Von Cramon. FCSLLG Manager of Legal Services Karynn Von Cramon $112,779.01 ($158.34 per hour) https://www.ontario.ca/page/public-sector-salary-disclosure-2017-organizations-no-salaries-disclose Anderas von Cramon operates a free family law clinic for families dealing with the CAS out of the courthouse to provide advice to people and to help them to prepare for family law cases, or to try to resolve their family cases outside the court. (sign consent forms and service agreement) Parents go in praying for competent representation and good advice and instead get someone willing to bill legal aid to guide the parents through the process of having all their rights, dignity and children stipped away from them. According to legal aid right now family lawyers willing to accept legal aid bill an average of $40 000 dollars per case for not filing documents or filing them after the court has already granted the society a supervision order.. Or the society requests the judge order the parents to sign consent or service agreements after the parents have refused to sign anything and the judges oblige the society by ordering the parents to just cooperate. Anderas von Cramon also gives basic help drafting documents. Basic means what? It means no help swearing in and filing documents or serving the document before the deadline - which means he does less than nothing. I'm willing to bet if we could check no one Anderas von Cramon has ever "helped" has ever had anything filed before or after the deadlines have passed.. Just by failing to file the required paperwork by the deadline before a first appearance in family court on a child protection matter will potentially earn a legal aid lawyer a minimum of $40 000 according to legal aid Ontario. It's almost like the government pays them to stand aside and do nothing. https://www.legalaid.on.ca/en/news/newsarchive/downloads/2014-04-08_In%20Focus%20interview.pdf?t=1495843200036 Does Ontario's CAS Show Signs of Intentional Confirmation Bias?

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. Although not a formal logical fallacy, confirmation bias is simply the tendency for individuals to favor information or data that support their beliefs. It is also the tendency for people to only seek out information that supports their a priori, or pre-existing, conclusions, and subsequently ignores evidence that might refute that pre-existing conclusion. Technically, confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and a form of selection bias, which seeks data that confirm the hypothesis under study. Avoiding confirmation bias is an important part of rationalism. The scientific method, itself, was developed to remove biases. In science, it is achieved by setting up problems so that you must find ways of disproving your hypothesis (falsifiability: A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability (or is falsifiable) if it can be proven false by contradicting it with a basic statement or observation.) Chris Selley: Ontario's stolen children still getting a raw deal as province deals with Motherisk scandal. UNACKNOWLEDGED BY ALL PARTIES.. There’s not much worse governments can do to people than take their children away, but the pure horror of it does not seem to have pervaded the public conscience. Not one charity, church or person has come forward to offer any relief to the many victims traumatized by the treatment they received at the hands of their fellow Canadians citizens and no apologizes offered to anyone but gay couples waiting to adopt.. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-ontarios-stolen-children-still-getting-a-raw-deal-as-province-deals-with-motherisk-scandal https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-motherisk-is-the-ontario-liberals-unacknowledged-and-worst-scandal If you have any practice questions or concerns related to the new CYFSA, please contact the Professional Practice Department at 416-972-9882 or 1-877-828-9380 or email practice@ocswssw.org. Submission-re-Proposed-Regulations-under-the-CYFSA-January-25-2018. OCSWSSW May 1, 2018 ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. Under suspicion: Concerns about child welfare. http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/under-suspicion-concerns-about-child-welfare

To file a human rights claim (called an application), contact the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario at: If you need legal help, contact the Human Rights Legal Support Centre at: Toll Free: 1-866-625-5179 TTY Toll Free: 1-866-612-8627 Website: www.hrlsc.on.ca