Monday, October 1, 2018

Report on Professional Regulation at Children’s Aid Societies. May 2015.

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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
1."Everything in the child protection state".
The Children's Aid Society is supreme and child protection law is all-encompassing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body.
2."Nothing outside the child protection state".
The funding goals of the fascist child protection corporation is to control all children, and have every human submit to the government.
3."Nothing against the child protection state".
Any type of questioning of the child protection protection corporation will not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with or trust the government's lone oversight of child protection and our judgement, you cannot be allowed to have children and taint the minds of the of good citizens.

How would you feel about Ontario's pediatricians if they suddenly decided they didn't need to actually be qualified and didn't need professional regulation or ethical oversight, well if that would bother you then you can imagine how parents feel when unregulated workers show up at their homes..




The report argues regulation is necessary to improve public perception and confidence in the sector.

YET REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FOR NEARLY TWO DECADES WHILE REFUSING TO COOPERATE WITH THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER AS WELL AS THE CHILD ADVOCATE ISN'T CONSIDERED AN IMPEDIMENT TO GAINING THE PUBLIC'S CONFIDENCE OR THE CAUSE OF THE LACK OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE SOCIETY IN FIRST PLACE?

WHAT PLANET ARE THESE PEOPLE FROM?

WOULD THE SOCIETY HAVE GOVERNMENT FUNDING NOW HAD THE SOCIETY REFUSED TO SUBMIT TO THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORK FIRST?

IN THE VIDEO BELOW YOU CAN LISTEN AS FORMER ONTARIO MPP FRANK KLEES EXPLAINS WHY CAS SOCIAL WORKERS SHOULDN'T HAVE TO SUBMIT TO PROFESSIONAL REGULATION.

Frank Klees (born March 6, 1951) is a former politician in Ontario, Canada. He was a Progressive Conservative member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 1995 to 2014. He was a cabinet minister in the government of Mike Harris.

WE DON'T CARE WHAT KIND OF SOCIAL WORKERS THEY WANT TO CALL THEMSELVES - TIME TO STOP THE ONTARIO CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY FROM REFUSING TO OBEY THE LAW.



They also highlight that one of the 26 CAS Performance Indicators, which will eventually be made public by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, is the number of child protection workers who have a Bachelor of Social Work.


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 be deemed unqualified if they could not register with the College of Social Workers.

(why were they expanding and in what direction were they expanding?)


If the employers are moving forward with professional regulation, it’s likely they will bring this issue to the next round of collective bargaining so CUPE members will have to be prepared. 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.

NOT PUTTING THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD OR THEIR FAMILIES FIRST ARE THEY? SEEMS TO ME THOSE INTERESTS COME IN DEAD LAST.

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT CHILD PROTECTION SOCIAL WORKERS TAKING OF THEIR LANYARDS AND PUTTING ON THEIR UNION PINS TO FIGHT AGAINST PROFESSIONAL REGULATION?

http://joincupe2190.ca/files/2015/10/Professional-regulation-at-childrens-aid-societies.pdf

THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL.
Anytime anyone in the outer ring wants to avoid their own regulatory bodies/ethical oversight and all our procedural safeguards and rights they go to the children's aid society to do it..



WHY IS MANDATORY COLLEGE REGISTRATION A PROBLEM?

1. SECRET INTERNAL REVIEW PROCESSES ALREADY LABEL ALL PARENTS DISGRUNTLED:

One of the central roles of a regulatory college is to discipline members. Children’s Aid Societies already have an internal complaint review panel as well as an arms length process through the Child and Family Services Review Board. Given that complaints processes are already in place, it is unclear what additional role college registration would provide. A third collegeled disciplinary review process would add another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy and have a serious impact on the workload for any staff involved.


ISN'T THAT CUTE, THEY WANT US TO THINK THE COLLEGE IS THE UNNECESSARY OF BUREAUCRACY...

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 TEN OF THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES THROUGH THE FAMILY COURTS TO MEET FUNDING GOALS EVERY YEAR ISN'T?


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.



NOT ALL SOCIAL WORKERS ARE CREATED EQUAL.

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 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.

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.

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."

The ministry sidestepped a question emailed by the Toronto Star on whether it would impose the requirement to register their 5160 plus employees with the College of Social Work, stating instead that it is funding the authorization process and leaving the society to police themselves with secret internal processes.


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

HAVE ONTARIO FAMILY COURT JUDGES REALLY BEEN PROVIDING IMPORTANT OVERSIGHT OF THE CHILD PROTECTION PROCESSOR?

Respecting Procedural Safeguards..



WITH THE HELP OF THIS LAB THE CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY SPENT TWENTY YEARS RUINING LIVES...



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 child welfare system and race has little to do with it) 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.

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.


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.


Children’s aid societies launch major training reforms?

“We’re taking it up to that next level so that the public has confidence that when someone knocks on their door they know that they have met these minimum requirements,” says Scary Mary Ballantyne, CEO of the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies (OACAS) whose association represents all but three of Ontario’s societies.

Is the key to gaining the public's confidence in child welfare really about -at least meeting the minimums?

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.


It covers topic such as equity, human rights, and anti-racism, with a focus on Indigenous content. It also includes e-learning, assessment, and evaluation components.

Imagine that, an agency that has been called as "Powerful As God" needs anti-oppressive, anti-racist human rights training.

And here I thought the Constitution, Charter of Rights and the principles of Fundamental Justice are our anti-oppressive framework? Why isn't it the society's?

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 someday. 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.


Begs the questions, why does it take over 18 years to register and how many unqualified by College standards workers have been hired in that 18 years as they've expanded beyond just social work?

What are Scary Mary Ballantyne's, the CEO of Ontario's association of children's aid societies qualifications to speak on matters of child welfare?

She has a masters of human industrial relations and if I remember correctly a degree in industrial science and decades of on the job experience besides volunteering to sit on the independent of something PDRC with no medical training of any kind.

Do Mary's credentials qualify her by college standards for the position she holds now or has previously held?

Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 31https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98s31

In 2015 Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne proclaimed herself ready to do whatever it takes to fix the children's aid societies mess - except require the society to obey the social worker registration act or amalgamate the 47 CAS's, a key recommendation from the Jeffrey Baldwin inquest, or launch an investigation into the conduct of the frontline workers or the policies and practices of the management.

“If we could fix what is ailing the child protection system, child welfare system in this province, by starting from scratch and blowing up what exists — I would be willing to do that, because one child’s life would be worth changing the administrative structures.

But, just not yet. The premier wanted more evidence before she would act.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/12/22/premier-ponders-blowing-up-our-cas-mess-cohn.html

Oddly enough out of the hundreds of "standards" the societies claim to follow, the societies have no standards for ethics, morals or accountability.



According to Premiere Wynne the public should just assume the school boards would work closely with the children's aid society without any kind of legislation or regulation or even a legal right to enter schools needlessly interrogating children hoping to meet the agency's funding goals, so then by the same token (and as a sign of good faith) why can't we just assume the children's aid society would consent to be investigated or willingly register with the College of Social work or work closely with the Ombudsman's Office and the Privacy Commissioner without legislation or work with the Youth Advocate with legislation?

“The recent auditor general’s report demonstrates what we have known to be true for a long time; that the government has a reluctance to take ownership and responsibility for a system that protects children in this province,”

Irwin Elman, Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth said in a statement to the Star.

“That reluctance has to stop now.”

The auditor’s report describes a child-protection system riddled with problems, from - improperly conducted investigations into child abuse to a Ministry of Children and Youth Services failing to fully enforce standards.



Societies also fail to make mandatory checks of the Ontario Child Abuse Register, which would signal if caregivers have a history of abuse.

According to Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk, not one of the child-protection investigations her office reviewed was done within the required 30 days. Instead, the cases took an average of more than seven months.

In 2006, the auditor said that in about half the files reviewed, the full investigation was not completed within the required 30 days of referral.

In 2015, the auditor said not a single child protection investigation was completed within the required 30 days of being notified of concerns.


Why complete an alleged investigation when you can just take the family to family court and get a supervision order or just apprehend more long term funding with a sworn affidavit and no supporting documentation?




Lest We Forget: The 14 Characteristics of Fascism

Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt wrote an article about fascism ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20). Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine's policy.

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

The 14 characteristics are:

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

Supremacy of the Military

Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

Rampant Sexism

The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

Controlled Mass Media

Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Obsession with National Security

Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

Religion and Government are Intertwined

Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

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.

Labor Power is Suppressed

Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment

Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Fraudulent Elections

Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Copyright © 2003 Free Inquiry magazine
Reprinted for Fair Use Only.

This article was based upon the article "The Hallmarks of Fascist Regime" by Skip Stone, at

www.hippy.com/php/article-226.html.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Coroner’s panel calls for overhaul of Ontario child protection system.

https://hunchneck.blogspot.com/2018/09/coroners-panel-calls-for-overhaul-of.html

:::::::::::::::::::

Motherisk Commission calls for sweeping changes to child protection system.

https://hunchneck.blogspot.com/2018/09/are-you-sure-ive-read-terrible-things.html

::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::

Marking a Moment in Child Welfare’s Reconciliation Journey.

An apology, an acknowledgement, and time to stop talking about about it and move quickly forward passed the Motherisk tragedy and forget about all the mystery deaths in care and 310 recommendations to protect children in care not including the new coroners report and their recommendations to protect children in care.

http://www.oacas.org/2017/09/marking-a-moment-in-child-welfares-reconciliation-journey/

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 ::::

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." 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. 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. 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 PRESENTING EVIDENCE THAT COUNTERS SWORN AFFIDAVITS WHEN CLIENTS HAVE IT) 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 defense. http://www.tammylaw.ca/2018/02/27/report-of-the-motherisk-commission/

No comments:

Post a Comment