An investigative report by The Hechinger Report and HuffPost released revealed that schools in the US are increasingly using child protective services as a “weapon” against parents and the same thing is happening all over Canada as well as many other countries around the world.
https://fee.org/articles/how-school-districts-weaponize-child-protection-services-against-uncooperative-parents/?fbclid=IwAR1jhbxj2g4pmADD85j5KbJ1rnnJo1tBcdkBXGehNyiMnfC5t2QDVsMdWQA
Integrity or the lack thereof is a word used to describe a person's or an agency's character..
Respecting The Canadian Constitution And Our Procedural Safeguards..
There is a major power imbalance between an impoverished parent (we know that families of low socio-economic status are hugely over-represented in the multi-billion dollar child welfare system and race has little to do with it).
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.
Yet according to the Motherisk report, these 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.
Removal from the home — permanent removal — is not supposed to be a move taken lightly. The report goes over the legal principles, laying out that it should be a last resort. It is the “capital punishment” of child protection, according to one citation, absolutely devastating to parents, and for children it is “often the beginning of a life sentence.”
Yet in the cases reviewed here, it is imposed, often apparently cavalierly and without even a trial, for reasons that amount to a punishment for being poor.
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.
The problems detailed in the report’s 278 pages are too numerous to go into in detail. They document the many problems with the SickKids lab’s testing and with the child protection system’s overreliance on those results.
Strangely enough despite expert knowledge of all CAS workers not one of those workers ever noticed the signs of a person not under the influence drugs when the test indicated otherwise.
The hair testing process produced inconsistent and untrustworthy results despite being perceived as carrying the unimpeachable weight of scientific authority. That much we pretty much knew because of earlier reporting, though the detailed breakdown of it and the specific case references make the injustice of it sickeningly vivid.
IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD...
What happens when you call the CAS?
Calls are answered by a trained unqualified unregistered child poaching funding predators. These ‘front-line’ workers are part customer service rep, part counselor, part funding coordinator and their role is to listen carefully so they can understand how to meet their funding goals. There are several teams who work together to provide services 24/7 to your community.
The Children’s Aid Societies feel it is their role to investigate calls made by the public using a professional and internalized standardized process that avoids all the normal checks, balances and judicial oversight, in others words, all the procedural safeguards guaranteed in the Constitution, Charter of Rights and in so doing violates fundamental justice (due process).
When you call, you will be asked questions to help us determine how much support a family may need based on the individual agency's funding goals. Sometimes we can provide assistance over the phone. Other times, we will recommend that one of our workers set up a time to visit with a family to see if there are any other ways we can help or an induction worker may visit a family right away based on the nature and severity of the concern without a warrant with police assistance to intimidate parents and bully their way in to conduct a surprise search of the home while threatening to remove any children if the parents fail to cooperate and sign consent forms, service agreements and submit to various forms testing. Asking for a second opinion is asking to be taken to the Ontario family courts.
https://kpulawandsociety.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/is-the-law-really-applied-equally/
In leaked memo, Peel CAS staff asked to keep cases open to retain funding
By KATIE DAUBS Feature Writer Thu., March 14, 2013.
According to the memo, when service volume is lower than projected, there is less money for the CAS.
Though the CAS claimed the purpose of the memo wasn't to inflate numbers, between 2011 and 2013 the 46 (at the time) separate societies opened files a combined total of 42 000 files or about 14 000 files per year, in 2014 - after the Peel Memo Leak - and launching a new government funded advertising campaign and reopening 20 000 previously closed files the societies opened a combined total of over 82 000 files to meet their funding goals.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/03/14/in_leaked_memo_peel_cas_staff_asked_to_keep_cases_open_to_retain_funding.html
Impoverished: 2017 Report Shines Light On Poverty’s Role On Kids In CAS System.
The effect of provincial policies on struggling families was especially apparent in the late 1990s, when the Conservative government slashed welfare payments and social service funding while at the same time, it introduced in child protection the notion of maltreatment by “omission,” including not having enough food in the home and this after giving the society what amounted to an unlimited funding scheme. The number of children taken into care spiked as did their funding.
“The ministry has been pretty clear with us that advocacy is not part of our mandate,” Goodman said speaking for the society. “It’s not like they’re asking for the (poverty) data. They’re not.” Goodman then when on to suggest the silence suited the government more than the silence suited the society's funding goals.
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/08/15/report-shines-light-on-povertys-role-on-kids-in-cas-system.html
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
(the government that funds the CAS has sole oversight?)
"As the law stands now clients of the Ontario Children's Aid Society under Ontario government 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 long after the damage has been done.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/beef-up-information-laws-ontario-privacy-czar-says/article1120573/
http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/commissioner-cavoukian-calls-on-government-to-preserve-freedom-and-liberty-514463911.html
When the people who have power in our society can have an influence in law making, the laws that get created will not maintain the appearance of equality and the elites in society can lobby and eventually criminalize the poor.
The laws will start to benefit the big corporations (elites). This is well illustrated in Stan Cohen’s concept of the moral panic. A moral panic refers to the reaction of a group within society (elite) to the activities of a non elite group. The targeted group is seen as a threat to society also referred to as the folk devil.
Here we can see here how child welfare law is not applied equally to everyone. In this particular instance the child welfare law is benefiting the people with means.
Comack states; “While the pivotal point in the rule of law is ‘equality of all before the law’, the provision of formal equality in the legal sphere does not extend to the economic sphere. Thus, the law maintains only the appearance of equality because, it never calls into question the unequal and exploitative relationship between capital and labour.” This statement implies that the law is in place to be neutral. Therefore, the law would apply equally to everyone, including both the working and elite class. It can be said that in today’s society we have the marketization of law making.
Marketization of law making is a process that enables the elites to operate as market oriented firms by changing the legal environment in which they operate in.
Corporatism:
Fascism's theory of economic corporatism involved management of sectors of the economy by government or privately-controlled organizations (corporations). Each trade union or employer corporation would theoretically represent its professional concerns, especially by negotiation of labor contracts and the like.
One of the 14 characteristics of fascism is -
Corporate Power is Protected.
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
The people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights and procedural protections can be ignored in certain cases because of special need.
https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
CAS needs building up, not blowing up: OPSEU president
Publication Date
Monday, February 22, 2016 - 5:15pm
Toronto – OPSEU President Warren (Smokey) Thomas says the government must consult with child protection workers before taking radical measures to restructure the child protection system.
In late December, Premier Kathleen Wynne said she was looking at restructuring the CAS and was even willing to “blow up” the system. But in a letter today to Children’s Aid Society (CAS) employees represented by OPSEU, Thomas insisted that any solution must begin with constructive dialogue with all stakeholders – especially child protection workers.
“If Kathleen Wynne wants to be bold about fixing the system,” Thomas wrote, “she needs to build it up, not blow it up. And the first step in building it up is to start listening to the province’s dedicated and caring child protection workers.”
“Here’s what my members on the frontlines know: first, we need to put some real dollars into direct client service; and second, government needs to address marginalization and poverty, or else some children will always be at greater risk of coming into contact with children’s aid.”
https://opseu.org/news/cas-needs-building-not-blowing-opseu-president
FORMER ONTARIO MPP FRANK KLEES EXPLAINS "A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE."
I'm not a social worker, I'm a child protection worker...
Listen as former MPP Frank Klees explains why the government has the only oversight of the children's aid and why the society shouldn't be regulated by the College of Social Work and why the government won't allow the Ombudsman or the Privacy Commissioner to investigate complaints or any other matters regarding the society..
https://youtu.be/SA1YyWO0RTQ?list=PLsYhw09i3If44rMBDuZQ0ztayzSQU35Fy
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.
"Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 proclaimed in force."
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.
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."
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 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.
It is not reasonable or acceptable, in our view, for the government to propose laws that will permit CAS staff to operate outside this regulatory framework.
A "social worker" or a "social service worker" is by law someone who is registered with the OCSWSSW. Furthermore, as noted previously, the Ontario public has 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), that person is registered with the OCSWSSW.
The OCSWSSW also has processes for equivalency, permitting those with a combination of academic qualifications and experience performing the role of a social worker or social service worker to register with the College.
These processes address, among other things, the risk posed by "fake degrees" and other misrepresentations of qualifications, ensuring Ontarians know that a registered social worker or social service worker has the education and/or experience to do their job.
The review of academic credentials and knowledge regarding academic programs is an area of expertise of a professional regulatory body. An individual employer will not have the depth of experience with assessing the validity of academic credentials nor the knowledge of academic institutions to be able to uncover false credentials or misrepresentations of qualifications on a reliable basis.
Setting, maintaining and holding members accountable to the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. These minimum standards apply to all OCSWSSW members, regardless of the areas or context in which they practise. Especially relevant in the child welfare context are principles that address confidentiality and privacy, competence and integrity, record-keeping, and sexual misconduct.
Maintaining fair and rigorous complaints and discipline processes. These processes differ from government oversight systems and process-oriented mechanisms within child welfare, as well as those put in place by individual employers like a CAS. They focus on the conduct of individual professionals.
Furthermore, transparency regarding referrals of allegations of misconduct and discipline findings and sanctions ensures that a person cannot move from employer to employer when there is an allegation referred to a hearing or a finding after a discipline hearing that their practice does not meet minimum standards.
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.
The Children’s Aid Societies feel it's their role to take reports from the public (and child care professionals) to determine if there is sufficient basis (reasonable grounds) to open a file and start billing the taxpayers using a professional and standardized process that avoids all the normal checks, balances, judicial oversight (warrants) that prevents the police from acting like child protection social workers.
Under section 125 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act every person who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is or may be in need of protection must promptly report or act on the suspicion.
It is not necessary to be certain that a child is or may be in need of protection to make a report. “Reasonable grounds” refers to the information that an average person, using normal and honest judgment, would need in order to decide to report. This standard has been recognized by courts in Ontario as establishing a low threshold for reporting.
If it is reasonable to have more than one threshold for reasonable grounds for suspicion shouldn't the Ontario Premier have a duty to apply the same lower threshold for reasonable grounds to the children's aid society when it concerns the welfare of all the children in care or the welfare of child who don't need to be in care?
http://www.oacas.org/childrens-aid-child-protection/duty-to-report/
"Daycare operator sued for calling the CAS."
Toronto judge orders Tammy Larabie to pay $13,000 to parents of a child she worried wasn’t properly cared for.
“It’s hard enough to get people to report (to the CAS) and this will have a silencing effect,” said Mary Birdsell, executive director of Justice for Children and Youth. “The legislation is supposed to protect people from being sued if their report was reasonable.”
LOOKS LIKE MARY BIRDSELL IS UNABLE TO READ:
In the decision, Superior Court judge Lewis Richardson ruled Tammy Larabie’s call to the CAS was “unreasonable” and there “was nothing to suggest that (the baby) was in any danger.”
WAS TAMMY SUCCESSFULLY SUED BECAUSE OF HER UNREASONABLE SUSPICIONS OR BECAUSE TAMMY THOUGHT SHE COULD JUST GOOGLE REASONABLE GROUNDS OR BECAUSE THE SOCIETY CHOSE TO INVESTIGATE TAMMY'S UNREASONABLE SUSPICIONS?
USING NORMAL AND HONEST JUDGEMENT DOES TAMMY SOUND LIKE AN AVERAGE PERSON USING NORMAL AND HONEST JUDGEMENT?
THE UNFORTUNATE TRUTH IS TAMMY IS AVERAGE AND HASN'T A CLUE WHAT NORMAL AND HONEST JUDGEMENT IS LET ALONE UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF REASONABLE GROUNDS.
In a court transcript obtained by the Star, Richardson found the parents “to be competent, caring and capable” who “properly looked after the interests of their son.”
“There was no basis whatsoever to report them to the Children’s Aid,” he said. “(Larabie) acted selfishly and to protect her own interest, not for the benefit of the child.”
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/03/27/daycare-operator-sued-for-calling-the-cas.html
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?id=idBqAAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y&fbclid=IwAR2XP4nKWjBflX0zQFS_uoiJ3Om5OzPQBEzuuT10QypH12K5ZGTPl2MDpqg
Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 31
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98s31
SHOULD CUPE PROTECT CAS WORKERS WHO WERE NOT QUALIFIED TO BE REGISTERED TO PERFORM CHILD PROTECTION WORK WHEN THEY WERE HIRED?
Mary Ballantyne CEO of OACAS says, the next step is to have Ontario's estimated 5,160 child protection social workers registered and regulated by a professional college. Fifty-five per cent have a bachelor's (BSW) or master's degree in social work. A BSW is the minimum required to join the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, which is discussing the registration process with societies. Apr 03, 2016.
Mary Ballantyne, CEO of Ontario's Association of Children's Aid Societies academic credentials include and are limited to a Bachelor of Applied Science from the University of Guelph and a Masters of Industrial Relations – Human Resource Management from Queens University.
In January 2017, the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies (OACAS) launched a revamped set of curriculum for Ontario’s child protection workers. The Child Welfare Pathway to Authorization Series is designed to be more responsive and better reflect the realities of child welfare work in Ontario using an anti-oppressive framework. New training will cover topics such as equity, human rights, and anti-racism.
Imagine that, an agency that has been called as "Powerful As God" needs anti-oppressive, anti-racist human rights training in an anti-oppressive framework and here I thought Canada's Constitution, Charter of Rights and Fundamental Justice was an anti-oppressive framework.
Powerful As God on IMDB:
The Children's Aid Societies of Ontario is a documentary that delves into society's most controversial and secretive topics. The film navigates 'truth' by engaging twenty-six witnesses with diverse experiences into conversation. By facilitating a voice for individuals whose lives have been tragically affected, with observations and recommendations by experts who have worked directly with the agency (such as doctors, social workers and lawyers), the film reveals a child welfare system plagued by systemic and bureaucratic abuse that urgently requires public attention. Financed by tax dollars and wielding extraordinary power, the Children's Aid Society is deconstructed to reveal a broken system where employees have been heard to describe their influence over children and families to be as powerful as god.
The film, Powerful As God, won the MADA award (Children’s Issues) at Commffest Film Festival in Toronto, 2012. The documentary screened at three festivals and is now released online (Blackout.ca), it was nationally broadcast on television during 2013, and received television, radio and newspaper media coverage.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234353/
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.
MOTHERISK REPORT.
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/
"Ontario Association Of Child Protection Lawyers."
Sounds to me like they're closing ranks now that what's being happening in the family courts behind closed doors has been revealed by the Motherisk Report.
When the members of a group or organization close ranks, they make an effort to stay united, especially in order to defend themselves from severe criticism: In the past, the party would have closed ranks around its leader and defended him loyally.
The OACPL as an organization seeks to: provide an organized body of Recognized Child Protection Lawyers that advocate politically and socially on Child Welfare Matters in Ontario. (Recognized by who?)
So, now they're child protection lawyers. How very special of them. I wonder who their members are? Probably every lawyer employed by the children's aid society or accepted legal aid to do nothing as their client's right to fundamental justice was denied and procedural safeguards in the family courts were dropped.
https://oacpl.org/
Coroner’s panel calls for overhaul of Ontario child protection system.
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."
The report describes a fragmented system with no means of monitoring quality of care, where ministry oversight is inadequate, caregivers lack training, and children are poorly supervised. Vulnerable children are being warehoused and forgotten.
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 2018 Coroner's report.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/09/25/coroners-panel-calls-for-overhaul-of-ontario-child-protection-system.html
Between 2008/2012 death by natural causes was listed by the PDRC as the least likely way for a child in Ontario's care to have died, making up 7% of the total deaths reviewed while "undetermined cause" was listed as the leading cause of death at 43% of the total deaths that were reviewed. The remaining deaths listed by the PDRC are suicides, homicides and accidents.... In the 2010 the PDRC reported only 35% of the deaths of children in care reviewed were mysteries that simply couldn't be explained.
http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/sites/default/files/content/mcscs/images/195633-19.jpg
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 percent — 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.
HOW DO CHILDREN END UP MEDICATED? THE WORKER TELLS THE DOCTORS WHAT THEY NEED TO HEAR...
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.
“Why are these kids on medication? Because people are desperate to make them functional,” Baird says, and "there’s so little else to offer."
IS THAT SO?
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.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/12/12/use_of_behaviouraltering_drugs_widespread_in_foster_group_homes.html
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/
“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.
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
Racial (financial) profiling is an insidious and particularly damaging type of racial discrimination that relates to notions of safety and security. Racial profiling violates people’s rights under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code). People from many different communities experience racial profiling. However, it is often directed at First Nations, Métis, Inuit and other Indigenous peoples, Muslims, Arabs, West Asians and Black people, and is often influenced by the negative stereotypes that people in these communities face. (see confirmation bias)
In 2015, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) began a year-long consultation to learn more about the nature of racial profiling in Ontario. Our aim was to gather information to help us guide organizations, individuals and communities on how to identify, address and prevent racial profiling. We connected with people and organizations representing diverse perspectives. We conducted an online survey, analyzed cases (called applications) at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that alleged racial profiling, held a policy dialogue consultation, and reviewed academic research. We conducted focus groups with Indigenous peoples and received written submissions. Overall, almost 1,650 individuals and organizations told us about their experiences or understanding of racial profiling in Ontario.
We heard concerns about racial/financial profiling in the child welfare sector, particularly affecting Black and Indigenous families. We heard that systemic racism was perceived to be embedded in this system, and that racial profiling that may take place in this sector targets mothers for over-scrutiny most often.
We heard concerns that racialized and Indigenous parents are disproportionately subjected to surveillance and scrutiny, which contributes to families being reported to children’s aid societies (CASs). We also heard that once a referral to child welfare authorities takes place, families are more likely to have prolonged child welfare involvement, and be more at risk of having their children apprehended. Consultation participants suggested these experiences arise in part from referrers’ and child welfare authorities’ incorrect assumptions about risk based on race and related grounds, and intersections between these grounds and poverty.
Black, Indigenous and racialized children are overrepresented in the child welfare system
There is evidence that Indigenous, Black and other racialized children are overrepresented in the child welfare system when compared to their proportion in the general population. For example, in 2015, the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto reported that African Canadians represented 40.8% of children in care, yet they made up only 8.5% of Toronto’s population. Statistics Canada data from 2011 shows that even though Aboriginal children make up only 3.4% of children in Ontario, they represent 25.5% of children in foster care. Research from 2003 indicates that Latino children are overrepresented in cases selected for investigation by Canadian child protection services, as are Asian children when allegations of physical abuse are involved.
Consultation participants described the historical and structural inequalities that give rise to racialized and Indigenous parents having greater involvement with child welfare authorities. Some survey respondents highlighted the “Sixties Scoop” – the mass apprehension and removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities by Canadian child welfare authorities dating back to the 1960s.
There are likely many factors leading to these disproportionate representations and, on their own, they do not conclusively point to discrimination. However, overrepresentation of certain racial groups in the child welfare system may be one indicator of systemic discrimination, including systemic racial profiling.
Systemic racial profiling refers to patterns of behaviour, policies or practices that are part of an organization’s or sector’s structure, which create a position of relative disadvantage for racialized and Indigenous peoples. These policies, practices or behaviors may appear neutral, but may result in situations where racialized or Indigenous peoples tend to be singled out for greater scrutiny or negative treatment.
Although many different issues could lead to involvement by child welfare authorities, biased referrals and biased decision-making among these services may play a role.
Concerns about risk assessment standards and tools
Consultation participants raised concerns about bias in the tools and standards used to assess risk to children. Although they seem neutral, we heard that risk assessment standards and tools may lean towards more positive outcomes for White people. (see confirmation bias)
Social work researchers argue that risk assessment tools in Ontario are biased and perpetuate racism because they do not account for structural inequalities, such as racial discrimination, that may affect a child’s well-being. Parents may be blamed for these external factors, even though they are largely out of their control. We heard that relying on these tools, coupled with worker bias – which may be conscious or unconscious – may contribute to assumptions about racialized children and families being “inherently wrong or deficient.” This can lead to incorrect assumptions about the level of risk children are exposed to.
(see confirmation bias)
We also heard concerns about risk assessment standards that relate to poverty – for example, the number of children allowed per bedroom. Poverty in racialized and Indigenous families may be seen as a sign of neglect, providing a basis for a child welfare agency to become involved. We heard that these standards can affect what is seen as acceptable in a home and contribute to CAS decisions to intervene. (see confirmation bias)
It is unclear to what extent child welfare risk assessment standards and tools reflect real risk to children in all cases, or arise from White, Western, Christian middle-class norms. When standards and tools are not based on objective factors, but on the cultural norms of the dominant group, they may contribute to racial profiling. (see confirmation bias)
Concerns about biased decision-making
Concerns were also raised both about the perceived bias of authorities or individuals that refer to CASs, and perceived bias in decision-making practices when child welfare workers and authorities become involved with families. Participants said that child welfare workers, many of whom are White, may be more likely to construe family situations or the actions of Indigenous or racialized people as “risky.” (see confirmation bias)
The Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres (OFIFC) identified that Indigenous families experience “intense scrutiny of [their] ways of life” (for more information, see the full OHRC report, Under suspicion: Research and consultation report on racial profiling in Ontario). We repeatedly heard that non-Indigenous child
Welfare workers often do not understand the nature or structure of Indigenous families and cultural differences in how families live. For example, they only see that children are not being raised by their parents or are living in what they think are over-crowded conditions. In another example, Indigenous youth told us that they are sometimes put into care because they miss a lot of school due to practicing their traditions and taking part in ceremonies.
Social work researchers talked about some of the factors that may contribute to the over-scrutiny of Black parents, and the tendency to view Black parents as risks to their children and in need of intervention by CASs. For example, researchers note that child welfare authorities commonly view Black parents as “aggressive” and “crazy” when they are externalizing resistance, grief, fear or shame. They also note that Black children are perceived as needing “rescuing” from their parents. As well, we heard how Black families may be reported to CAS because their children eat non-Western foods that are specific to their culture.
Ways to address concerns about racial profiling in child welfare
Preventing and addressing racial profiling is a shared responsibility. Government, child welfare organizations and other responsible organizations must take concrete action and decisive steps to prevent, identify and respond to racial profiling. (see confirmation bias)
The OHRC has made many recommendations over several years to address racial profiling. These recommendations are included in our report, Under suspicion. Where applicable, they should be used to identify how racial profiling may be taking place in the child welfare system. They also identify specific approaches organizations should use to prevent and address racial profiling.
Overall, consultation participants agreed with the following broad strategies to prevent and address racial profiling:
Anti-bias training
Developing policies, procedures and guidelines
Effective accountability monitoring and accountability
mechanisms, including:
complaint procedures
disciplinary measures
collecting, analyzing and reporting on data
Holistic organizational change strategy
Leadership
Communication (external and internal)
Engagement with affected stakeholders.
The OHRC is also very concerned that the overrepresentation of Black and Indigenous children in the child welfare system is a possible indicator of systemic racism. We conducted a public interest inquiry to examine this issue. We requested that CASs across the province provide us with data on race and other information. In the preliminary analysis of the data, we found that for many CASs across the province, African Canadian and Indigenous children are overrepresented in care, compared to their census populations.
Next steps
The OHRC will:
Release the results of our public interest inquiry
Develop specific policy guidance to help individuals, community groups and organizations understand how racial profiling can be identified, prevented and addressed in the child welfare sector
Continue to call for the collection of race-based data and data on other Code grounds to better understand if racial disparities exist in this sector
Continue to work with community stakeholders to enhance public education on racial profiling.
For more information
To find out more about racial profiling in the child welfare and other sectors, the full Under suspicion report is available online at www.ohrc.on.ca.
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
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/under-suspicion-concerns-about-child-welfare
