2013: An internal memo from Peel Children’s Aid Society management asks staff not to close any ongoing cases during March, as part of a strategy to secure government funding.

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

FORMER ONTARIO MPP FRANK KLEES EXPLAINS "A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE." I'M NOT A SOCIAL WORKER, I'M A CHILD PROTECTION WORKER!

https://youtu.be/SA1YyWO0RTQ?list=PLsYhw09i3If44rMBDuZQ0ztayzSQU35Fy

2016: 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 at the same time it introduced in child protection the notion of maltreatment by “omission,” including not having enough food in the home. The number of children taken into care spiked.

A new report cites poverty as a key factor in families who come into contact with the child protection system.

“We’re able to tell a story of maltreatment, but we have not done a very good job in telling a story about poverty,” Goodman said, referring to Ontario’s 47 privately run children’s aid societies.

Goodman suggests silence suited the provincial government more than it suited the society's funding goals, in particular the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, which regulates child protection and funds societies with $1.5 billion annually.

On average, 15,625 Ontario children were in foster or group-home care in 2014-15. The latest figures indicate if your still willing to blindly take the society's word for it that only 2 percent of children are removed from their home due to sexual abuse and 13 percent for physical abuse. The rest are removed because of neglect, emotional maltreatment and exposure to violence between their parents or caregivers.

“The ministry has been pretty clear with us that advocacy is not part of our mandate,” Goodman said. “It’s not like they’re asking for the (poverty) data. They’re not.”

The poverty removal rates were extracted from the government-funded Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect, compiled in 2013. A team of researchers examined a representative sample of 4,961 child protection investigations conducted by 17 children’s aid societies. The cases involved children up to 14.

Co-author Kofi Antwi-Boasiako, a PhD student at the University of Toronto’s faculty of social work, will be expanding the report into a full-fledged study.

Goodman credited the report with revealing “the elephant in the room.” Children’s aid societies have long witnessed the grinding effect of poverty on families but have rarely spoken out about it or pressured policy makers.

https://www.ourwindsor.ca/news-story/6810640-report-shines-light-on-poverty-s-role-on-kids-in-cas-system/

2018: GIVE US OUR DAILY BREAD OR GIVE US JOBS.

Welfare reform is the Ford government's next big project

Changes to Ontario's $10B social assistance system to be unveiled next week by Lisa MacLeod. Mike Crawley · CBC News · Posted: Nov 01, 2018.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-welfare-social-assistance-ontario-works-odsp-1.4885584

Ontario's social assistance reforms look like 'window dressing,' anti-poverty activist says,

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-s-social-assistance-reforms-look-like-window-dressing-anti-poverty-activist-says-1.4917350

Ontario unveils social assistance reforms, including change to definition of disability By Paola Loriggio. The Canadian Press.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4687970/ontario-social-assistance-reform-plan/

https://youtu.be/VjH4pCatx0I

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.

Under section 125 of the Ontario 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 the suspicion and the information upon which it is based to a Children’s Aid Society.

“Reasonable grounds for suspicion” 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.

Can there really be more than one standard for reasonable grounds and still be reasonable?

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.

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 has been done.

“Hundreds of organizations that are recipients of large transfer payments from the government are not subject to the provincial or municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Acts,” said the Commissioner, “which means they are not subject to public scrutiny.” Among the examples she cites are hospitals and Children’s Aid Societies. “Openness and transparency of all publicly funded bodies is essential – they should be publicly accountable.”

In her annual report for 2013 released on June 17 there is just one paragraph on children's aid on page 12:

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.

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

The basic principle behind cell organization is simple: By dividing the greater organization into many multi-person groups and compartmentalizing and concealing information inside each cell as needed, the greater organization is more likely to survive unchanged if one of its components is compromised and as such, they are remarkably difficult to penetrate and hold accountable in the same way the mafia families or terrorist organizations are.

DEFINITION of 'Protected Cell Company (PCC)'

A corporate structure in which a single legal entity is comprised of a core and several cells that have separate assets and liabilities. The protected cell company, or PCC, has a similar design to a hub and spoke, with the central core organization linked to individual cells. Each cell is independent of each other and of the company’s core, but the entire unit is still a single legal entity.

BREAKING DOWN 'Protected Cell Company (PCC)'

A protected cell company operates with two distinct groups: a single core company and an unlimited number of cells. It is governed by a single board of directors, which is responsible for the management of the PCC as a whole. Each cell is managed by a committee or similar group, with authority to the committee being granted by the PCC board of directors. A PCC files a single annual return to regulators, though business and operational plans of each cell may still require individual review and approval by regulators.

Cells within the PCC are formed under the authority of the board of directors, who are typically able to create new cells as business needs arise. The articles of incorporation provide the guidelines that the directors must follow.

The ministry is not contemplating amalgamation, said MacCharles, and is instead choosing to focus on a shared services approach.

The current hierarchical corporate structures that dominate our economies have been in place for over 200 years and were notably supported and defined by Max Weber during the 1800s. Even though Weber was considered a champion of bureaucracy, he understood and articulated the dangers of bureaucratic organisations as stifling, impersonal, formal, protectionist and a threat to individual freedom, equality and cultural vitality.

CAS actions often are shrouded in secrecy, and media investigations are chilled by CAS lawyers, who claim to be protecting the privacy rights of all involved.

There are four general reasons that the system arguably does deserve to be “demolished” — unaccountability, secrecy, money and a lack of political will:

With virtually no checks and balances, case workers have “as much power as God,” in the words of one former social worker. And they use it according to their diverse subjective impulses.

Nancy Simone, president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees local representing 275 workers at the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, argues child protection workers already have levels of oversight that include workplace supervisors, family court judges, coroners’ inquests and annual case audits by the ministry and the union representing child protection workers is firmly opposed to ethical oversight from a professional college, and the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, which regulates and funds child protection, is so far staying out of the fight.. Nancy Simone says, “Our work is already regulated to death.”

Seekingtruthcanada

The problem is that under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act of Ontario, which came into law in January 2018, the client does not have access to any records held by CAS because Part X of the Act does not take effect until January 2020. (X indeed)

Without this record access, the client does not have grounds to complain about his alleged treatment.

Does this make sense? Should CAS be able to operate behind the shield of Privacy and do anything they wish, include, possibly, break the law?

Under the guise of protecting children, in this case, the welfare of a family is being put in jeopardy by the CAS itself.

The law was enacted under the Liberal government but the current Conservative government refuses to even talk about it.

I ask the Premier, Minister of Children, Community and Social Services and the Attorney General to change the act to permit Part X to come into effect immediately.

https://www.facebook.com/Seekingtruthcanada/

The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:

I can not accept your canon that we are to judge pope, king and social workers unlike other men with the favourable presumption they do no wrong. “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”

:::

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

ACCORDING TO ALL THE LATEST REPORTS CANADA'S CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM IS RIDDLED WITH PREJUDICE AND BIAS..

COULD THAT BE A REFLECTION OF THE ANONYMOUS NO FAULT REPORTING SYSTEM?

Civilized Oppression and Moral Relations: Victims, Fallibility, and the Moral Community

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.

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.

There is an uncivilised oppression and then there is a civilised oppression. Deutsch, M. (2006) in his - A framework for thinking about oppression and its change (Social Justice Research) has used the term "civilised oppression” to characterize the everyday processes of oppression in normal life. This is very different from the other kind which involves the feudal system, apartheid, slavery, and other such illegal issues that once were in the domain of modern nation states and still are being fought daily. However, "civilised oppression" is embedded in unquestioned norms, habits and symbols, in the assumptions underlying institutions and rules, and the collective consequences of following those rules.

"Admirers of Jean Harvey's earlier work will be fascinated to read Civilized Oppression and Moral Relations. Yet this new book also stands on its own and is an important development of Harvey's insights into the relationships among the agents of civilized oppression, their victims, and the bystanders who witness it. Drawing upon feminist philosophy, Harvey recognizes the 'shared fallibility' of agents, bystanders, and victims alike, and argues compellingly for the importance of personal relationships and moral solidarity as ways to resist civilized oppression." - Christine D. Overall, Queen's University, Canada

"Combining careful analysis with compelling prose, Jean Harvey argues that communal togetherness informs obligations to learn, and to understand, how oppression functions in individual social relations. Harvey challenges us to recognize the fallible in ourselves and others even as she constructs the theoretical bulwark for a moral community. Civilized Oppression and Moral Relations offers a transforming vision of social justice essential for feminist social and political theory and practice.' - Sally J. Scholz, Villanova University, USA, and editor, Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy

"In this new book, Jean Harvey minimizes neither the harms of oppression nor the culpability of those who participate in it. But her inclusive conceptualization of the moral community leaves open the space for moral repair, for reconciliation, and ultimately, for hope. Her ideas will continue to enrich discussions in oppression studies for years to come." Carol Hay, University of Massachusetts Lowell, USA

'The philosophical world has suffered a profound loss with the passing of Jean Harvey, and we are lucky she left us one last gift. In her final volume, Harvey expands and deepens her analysis of the subtle and often invisible injuries and injustices that together constitute civilized oppression, and she also explores the possibility of resistance to that oppression, through her analysis of the moral and political agency of victims, implicated bystanders, those standing in solidarity, and oppressors. The result is a deft piece of moral and political philosophy that will be valuable to scholars, teachers, students, and activists.' - Alice MacLachlan, York University, Canada, and Co-Editor, Feminist Philosophy Quarterly

About the Author

Jean Harvey was Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Guelph, Canada.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=idBqAAAAQBAJ

What is reprehensible is that while leading good lives themselves and abhorring those of wicked men, some, fearing to offend, shut their eyes to evil deeds instead of condemning them and pointing out their malice for fear of being held accountable themselves.

Not 100% Saint Augustine.

https://youtu.be/SA1YyWO0RTQ?list=PLsYhw09i3If44rMBDuZQ0ztayzSQU35Fy

Part One. The History of CAS

The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa has its roots back in 1893. Its role as a protector of children grew out of a need for support for abandoned and orphaned children, i.e. children without families. It is interesting to note that the CAS was an offshoot of the Ottawa Humane Society. The legislation which brought it into existence was the Prevention of Cruelty to and Better Protection of Children, more commonly known as the Children’s Protection Act, of 1893. The act also brought into existence CAS branches in Peterborough and Toronto.

CAS’ original mandate was to act to protect children and to become a voice for change in the way children were being cared for. In 1906, the Ottawa CAS took it upon themselves to appoint Canada’s first juvenile probation officers who were charged with”reforming children in their homes and, if possible, the home itself.”

Thus began the slippery slope towards a private organization acting as an investigator as well as judge and jury in child welfare cases; all with a wink and a nod from the government.

In 1920 the local CASs formed an upper organization to help them with their mandate. The Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Society, OACAS, became a lobby group for local CASs.

In the mid-1940s, the government of Ontario began to subsidize the OACAS with a grant to hire full-time staff. That started the trend of the government outsourcing its responsibility to CAS. At the time the CAS had no standards for its employees, paid or volunteer, and no standards for foster homes or other institution which housed children in their care. In 1975 the government passed the Child Welfare Act which was supposed to mean higher standards for CAS and its workers, but government oversight was severely lacking. CAS could do whatever it wanted. And it did just that.

The 2015 Review

On June 1, 2017, Bill 89: Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2016, introduced by the Minister of Children and Youth Services (MCYS) in December 2016, received royal assent in the Ontario Legislature. The Bill was the result of the third legislative review, in 2015, of the Child and Family Service Act.

The 2015 review focused on two areas: improving outcomes for children and youth, and modernizing and clarifying the language of the Act. Improving outcomes for children and youth specifically focused on:

• Supporting older youth who are in need of protection

• Residential services and licensing

• Information sharing

• Permanency (seeking to provide permanent homes for children in care), including adoption

• Supporting Aboriginal children and youth.

(https://www.casott.on.ca/en/about-us/history/)

While on the surface the 2015 review appeared to be comprehensive, there were a number of issues not addressed that haunt us today. For example, there was nothing about registration, licencing or even qualifications for CAS Social Workers or Social Service Workers. The Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers was established in 1998 to regulate the practice of these workers and to protect the public interest but today the majority of frontline CAS workers are not registered with the College.

A further subject not addressed by the 2015 review was transparency and accountability of CAS to stakeholders and the taxpayers of Ontario. While the people of Ontario shell out $1.6 billion per year to CASs, the recipients are not subject to Freedom of Information laws. Why? Children’s Aid Societies are not part of the government; they are considered Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and therefore not subject to FOI legislation. Bill 89 did mention FOI requests but the section concerning FOI does not come into force until 2020.

The funding model used by the government to finance CASs was also not up for review. The $1.6 billion figure (mention in the previous paragraph) represents approximately 98% of CAS funding. The rest of their funding comes from charitable donations (for example Ottawa CAS Charitable Registration Number is 106914104 RR0001) and services delivered to third parties (CAS calls them special projects).

A Police State?

The Merriam-Webster definition of Police State is: “a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures”.

As we have seen in this article the government of Ontario has abdicated its control over child welfare to a non-government organization… the CAS.

Following the definition and our knowledge of the CAS, it is clear that we are in a police state.

Seekingtruthcanada: December 19 at 10:47 AM.

Part 2: OACAS and CAS

In this, Part 2, we shall take a closer look at OACAS, Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies.

As mentioned in Part 1, the OACAS was created in 1920 to act as a single voice for local CASs. They describe themselves, on their website (oacas.org), as follows: “OACAS is an association representing 48-member organizations. Of these, 46 of 48 are mandated Children’s Aid Societies (CASs) and Indigenous child well-being societies; two are pre-mandated Indigenous agencies.”

They also describe their mandate, on their website, as follows: “On behalf of our membership, OACAS provides advocacy and government relations, public education, training, information and knowledge management, and event planning.”

Let’s focus for a minute on their described 48 members. These 48 members are Registered Charities under the Federal Income Tax Act. They can raise funds through donations and provide tax receipts in return. Further, these same members are recipients of funds from the Ontario government to the tune of $1.6 billion per year.

Now, while it is not illegal for a Charity to lobby government, it is a bit odd that recipients of such large government payments and also tax-deductible contributions should be in the lobbying game.

In steps the OACAS.

As we see from above, the OACAS's own description of their mandate has front and centre, advocacy and government relations, both terms which are synonymous with lobbying.

Where does the OACAS funding come from? In their Financial Statements for the year ending March 31, 2018, the OACAS reports that they received $10,732,499 from the Government of Ontario and $4,107,681 from membership fees. That is $14,840,180 out a total revenue, from all sources, of $16,060,930. That’s is approximately 88% of their total revenue.

So let’s understand this. The Government of Ontario shells out $1.6 billion to CASs across Ontario. The CASs pay membership fees to the tune of $4.1 million to their advocacy and lobby group, the OACAS, and the same Government of Ontario tops up the OACAS with an additional $10.7 million.

It is an odd state of affairs, considering the OACAS and the local CASs are exempt from FOI rules until 2020 and the Government of Ontario refuses to talk about it.

In Part 3, we will delve into the qualifications of the frontline workers at local CASs.

https://www.facebook.com/Seekingtruthcanada/

SHOULD CUPE AND OPSEU SUPPORT THE CAS AND THEIR FIGHT AGAINST PROFESSIONAL REGULATION AND WHY ISN'T IT A HUGE CONFLICT OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHEN THEY DO?

Why does the children's aid society have a problem with professional regulation?

The children's aid society claim if they were suddenly forced to obey the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, SO 1998 Ontario.ca - as many as 30% of their current workforce wouldn't be qualified to register with the college though others put the number closer to somewhere between 50 and 70% of their current workforce wouldn't be qualified to register at the time they were hired to work with children. The Union's claim these workers have in some cases decades of on the job experience who would lose their jobs which wouldn't be fair to them and screw the best interest of the child coming first despite all the damage they've already done with their godlike "special powers" they've become so accustomed to.

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.

https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/499149713628131/

WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED?

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.

IMPACT ON STAFF:

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

For the last 20 or so years the CAS has hired a lot unqualified workers who joined CUPE ... Some estimates say as many as many 55% of the current CAS workforce have nothing more than a two college diploma in general social work.

PROTECTIONS FOR OTHER CUPE MEMBERS:

Luckily, many CUPE members ((who were actually qualified when they were hired)) have protections against unilateral changes to work qualifications in their collective agreements. The report notes that at least seven collective agreements have language against mandatory professional regulation and the Provincial Discussion Table language ensures that any changes to qualifications are grandparented-in with no current staff affected. 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.

AND DRAGGING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES THROUGH THE FAMILY COURTS WASN'T HEAVY-HANDED?

A TOTALLY TRUSTWORTHY 2013 OACAS survey found that only 70% of relevant job classifications wouldn't qualify for registration with the College of Social Workers. CUPE members now working as child protection workers could suddenly without warning be deemed totally unqualified to perform child protect work if forced to register with the College of Social Workers.

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 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/

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

“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.

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

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

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 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.

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. 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.

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 counter-part."

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

"Ontario Association Of Child Protection Lawyers."

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.

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?)

https://oacpl.org/

Is Child Welfare Law Really Being Applied Equally?

In 2015 before the Motherisk and the Coroner's Report former 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

Requirements of a Principle of Fundamental Justice

It "must be a legal principle about which there is sufficient societal consensus that it is fundamental to the way in which the legal system should fairly operate, and it must be identified with sufficient precision to yield a manageable standard against which to measure deprivations of life, liberty, or security of the person."[3]

The principle is "informed in part by the rules of natural justice and the concept of procedural fairness"[4]

Procedural Requirements

The PFJ do not require that an accused be entitled to the most favourable procedures possible.[5]

Whether a particular procedure will conform to the PFJ is may require the judge "to balance the competing interests of the state and individual".[6] What is required will depend on the context.[7]

Established Principles of Fundamental Justice

Established Principles of Fundamental Justice include:

Arbitrariness

Vagueness

Overbreadth

Right to Silence

Minimum Level of Mens Rea

Right to Full Answer and Defence

http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Principles_of_Fundamental_Justice

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 yet it isn't actually about the actual condition of the child or the child's welfare. It's about accusations, Cosmo quiz style parental risk assessments and fake experts and every time the society decides your a risk they get paid.

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

In leaked memo, Peel CAS staff asked to keep cases open to retain funding. By KATIE DAUBS Feature Writer Thu., March 14, 2013.

An internal memo from Peel Children’s Aid Society management asks staff not to close any ongoing cases during March, as part of a strategy to secure government funding.

According to the memo, when service volume is lower than projected, there is less money for the CAS.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/03/14/in_leaked_memo_peel_cas_staff_asked_to_keep_cases_open_to_retain_funding.html

THE ONTARIO CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY HAS OFTEN CLAIM JUDGE'S PROVIDED IMPORTANT OVERSIGHT OF THE CHILD WELFARE PROCESS, BUT FOR WHO AND WHAT?

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.

The Motherisk 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.

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 defense 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.

SO LAWYERS FAILING TO REPRESENT THEIR CLIENTS ISN'T JUST ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE 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/