HOW DID THE CAS IN ONTARIO AVOID TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR RAMPANT RACISM?
OACAS BLAMED THE PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS...
A Professional Cover Story...
(CAS funded) Research indicates that many professionals overreport families based on stereotypes around racial identities. Both Indigenous and Africa-Canadian children and youth are overrepresented in child welfare due to systemic racism but don't worry it's now even easier for those prejudicial, biased racist bastards to share your information with the children aid society.
I GUESS TEACHERS AND OTHER CHILD CARE PROFESSIONALS MUST BE ONE OF THOSE SYSTEMIC ISSUES THE SOCIETY ALWAYS BLAMES EVERYTHING ON...
scapegoats
1.
a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency.
synonyms: whipping boy, victim, Aunt Sally; More
2.
(in the Bible) a goat sent into the wilderness after the Jewish chief priest had symbolically laid the sins of the people upon it (Lev. 16).
verb
3rd person present: scapegoats
1.
make a scapegoat of.
"few things are harder for kids to bear than being scapegoated"
BUT IT REALLY SEEMS TO ME REFUSING PROFESSIONAL REGULATION IS THE SYSTEMIC ISSUE..
A document called “Yes, You Can. Dispelling the Myths About Sharing Information with Children’s Aid Societies” was jointly released by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario and the Ontario Provincial Advocate. The document, targeted at professionals who work with children, is a critical reminder that a call to Children’s Aid is not a privacy violation when you claim it concerns the safety of a child. In fact, professionals who work with children have a special responsibility, as stated in the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, to protect the safety and well-being of children.
http://www.oacas.org/childrens-aid-child-protection/duty-to-report/
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."
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/beef-up-information-laws-ontario-privacy-czar-says/article1120573/
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/commissioner-cavoukian-calls-on-government-to-preserve-freedom-and-liberty-514463911.html
:::
Regulation of child protection workers by Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers: CUPE responds.
Please send or adapt any of the following letters to the Executive Director of your CAS.
DRAFT Letter 4 – Accountability
I would like to take this opportunity to share with [CAS] concerns about the proposals to require child protection workers to be registered and regulated by the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers. It seems that regulation is presented as a panacea for much that’s wrong in Children’s Aid Societies in Ontario. The OACAS working group states that unless societies move forward together on regulation, “the goals of enhancing public confidence, raising the threshold of quality services and accountability will be eroded.” But from my perspective as a child protection worker, the proposed move toward regulation of child protection workers by the College is an attempt to shift responsibility for system failings to individual workers like me.
As a member regulated by the College, I will bear the consequences for complaints and infractions and I will be subject to sanction and punishment; in fact, a self-regulating college is designed to focus on perceptions of misconduct and place blame on an individual practitioner.
The College has no interest in the underlying or systemic causes of mistakes or discipline and no power to investigate them; if practice standards cannot be met because of systemic problems, it will be the one with the least amount of control over the system who will be held responsible.
Issues like heavy workloads, chronic understaffing, or flawed policies will go unaddressed and the problems created by crushing workloads, competing demands and insufficient budgets will become the problems of the child protection worker, not the system she or he works for.
Regulation by the College makes scapegoats of child protection workers, while permitting the Ministry, the government and children’s aid societies themselves to avoid dealing with the real issues in the sector.
Mandatory registration and regulation by the College is not in the best interest of child protection workers and ultimately, not in the best interest of vulnerable children, youth and families.
Sincerely,
http://cupe2190.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SSWCC_CAS-letters-re-college-regulation_Nov.-2016.pdf
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.
Under suspicion: Concerns about child welfare.
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)
A short Motherisk video:
https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/712354072307693/
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/ financial 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
What happens when you call the CAS?
Calls are answered by trained unregistered child protection social workers.
The Children’s Aid Societies feel it is their role to investigate calls using a lower standard for reasonable grounds for suspicion made by the public using a professional sounding internalized standardized process that avoids all the normal checks, balances and judicial oversight to go on a fishing trip, in others words, all the procedural safeguards guaranteed in the Constitution, Charter of Rights and in so doing violates fundamental justice (due process).
The society's ‘front-line’ workers are part customer service rep, part counselor, part funding coordinator and their role is to listen carefully to help meet the agency's funding goals. There are several teams who work together to provide services 24/7 in your communities.
When you call, you will be asked questions to help us determine how much support a family may need. 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.
UNREGISTERED DAYCARE WORKER SUCCESSFULLY SUED FOR MAKING AN UNREASONABLE REPORT TO THE CAS.
“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 lower threshold for reporting. "OACAS: The Duty to Report."
In a decision delivered last month, 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.”
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.”
Legislation requires that -
A person who has - reasonable grounds - to suspect that a child is or may be in need of protection must make the report directly to a Children's Aid Society and that people who work with children who suspect that a child is a victim of child abuse or neglect must report these suspicions to the CAS; failure to do so could subject the person to a fine. (which means - Any person who works with children and has reasonable grounds to believe a child is suffering some kind of abuse and fails to report it then and only then is subject to a fine.)
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/03/27/daycare-operator-sued-for-calling-the-cas.html
A landlord in BC evicting a tenant in Ontario feels her right to make anonymous reports to the children's aid society from BC allegedly based on reports from a property manager were violated when her name was disclosed to the family. As child welfare law does not prohibit the recording of child welfare social workers, it does not prohibit the children's aid societies from releasing the names of persons making reports. Attempts to prevent recording and refusal to release the names of accusers are corporate policies, not law.
The rules on reporting concerns about children in Ontario say something about the person with the concerns must report their concerns themselves, yes?
For more information please watch the short video: https://youtu.be/xi3GSzkJlAg
:::
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.
Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 31
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98s31
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/
In leaked memo, 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
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 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.
::::
This case may be shocking to readers who have not been exposed to the systemic abuses that run rampant throughout child-protection services, but it is not shocking at all to long-time critics, only one more heartbreaking story revealing the gender bias, amateurism and power-tripping that flourishes for lack of a checks-and-balance system that protects child and parent victims from arbitrary actions like those recorded in this trial.
Story 1 of 3
Barbara Kay: "Children's aid societies gone rogue."
Judge Harper wrote that that the father was lucky to “dig out from under the avalanche thrust upon him,” and that “the scars to the children” were permanent. In summary, “This was exacerbated by the actions of the Society, some police officers, some women’s groups and a school board.
The mother was, to put it mildly — confirmed by recordings, e-mails and text messages — unreliable and manipulative. The three boys repeatedly alerted the CAS to their mother’s violence, alcoholism and sexual indiscretions. Yet the CAS blithely ignored all evidence to the contrary of their own settled conviction that the mother deserved their support.
Finally the mother accused her oldest son of trying to kill her, which brought the family into a criminal court that doesn't just take society's word for everything .
Judge Harper assigned two-thirds of the court costs to the CAS — a record $1.4 million — and $604,500 to the mother.
He had scathing words for the CAS, whom he charged with becoming “a lead advocate” for the mother and the driving force for the trial.
He said that the agency went to great lengths to smother any evidence that countered their theory.
It was revealed at trial in a criminal court that mandatory document-sharing (file disclosure) was running a year late in the family court, and that one CAS supervisor, tasked with providing information to lawyers, had removed 475 pages of notes, records, summaries and emails from the file to the criminal proceedings. (This, by the way, is a criminal offence, although to my knowledge the supervisor has not been charged.) Judge Harper also noted that meetings were held to discuss how to protect the mother and case workers from the demonized father.
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-childrens-aid-societies-gone-rogue
Story 2 of 3
"CAS vows to appeal ruling of ‘bad faith."
“We stand by our decision to seek a child protection application in this matter.”
“We don’t make these decisions lightly and we take into consideration the opinions of other professionals and in this case we did so,” said Fitzgerald, referring to consultations with police, women’s groups and school officials.
Last week, Superior Court Justice John Harper slapped the CAS with a $1.4-million court bill and had harsh words for the agency, saying it failed to properly investigate a mother’s version of events in a divorce and custody battle, even when three children tried to alert authorities of the woman’s violence, alcoholism and manipulation.
THE CASE
154-day divorce and custody battle trial was spread over three years, “unprecedented” in family law cases, CAS says.
The CAS child protection application was dismissed.
Custody of children was awarded to father.
Judge found CAS “acted in bad faith,” did not properly investigate mother’s claims. (CAS disputes this and says it investigated thoroughly and stands by its decisions.)
CAS ordered to pay $1.4 million in court costs.
http://www.lfpress.com/2014/04/14/cas-vows-to-defend-ruling-of-bad-faith
Story 3 of 3
THE BIG STORY LEFT OUT OF NEWSPAPER IN ONTARIO.
Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. C.B.D.: Interests of the Children Lead to Quashing of Appeal in Child Protection Context Mark Gelowitz. Oct 31, 2014.
Though the Ontario children's aid society has claimed for years family courts judges provide important oversight in child protection matters (which doesn't appear to be in their job description) the family court judge in this case did nothing at all to prevent this tragedy and if anything was a contributing factor.
But as it turns out some judges like outside the family courts Judge Harper do provide important oversight and insight into the many faces of Ontario children's aid society.
Quashing an appeal for lack of merit is an extreme remedy. But occasionally, when very little merit coincides with another social interest, an appeal can be quashed for a combination of reasons. Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. C.B.D., released October 9, 2014, is an example of this, as the Ontario Court of Appeal quashed the appeal of the Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex (the “Society”) from a decision refusing to impose a child protection order. The Court held that the appeal had very little merit, and the interests of the children mandated that the appeal be quashed.
https://www.osler.com/en/blogs/appeal/october-2014/children-s-aid-society-of-london-and-middlesex-v
IF THE BEST PREDICTOR FOR FUTURE BEHAVIOR IS RELEVANT CURRENT BEHAVIOR THEN SHOULDN'T RELEVANT CURRENT BEHAVIOR BE THE BEST INDICATOR OF PAST BEHAVIOR.
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
Motherisk hair test evidence tossed out of Colorado court 2 decades before questions raised in Canada.
For more than two decades, Motherisk performed flawed hair-strand tests on thousands of vulnerable families across Canada, influencing decisions in child protection cases that separated parents from their children and sometimes children from their siblings. (CBC)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/motherisk-colorado-court-case-1.4364862
A Motherisk expert testified for the defence in a Colorado murder case. The judge mocked the lab’s processes. But the case remained virtually unknown in Ontario until now.
http://projects.thestar.com/motherisk/part-2/
Judge rejects proposed class-action over Motherisk drug-testing scandal.
By RACHEL MENDLESON Investigative Reporter. Thu., Nov. 2, 2017.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/11/02/judge-rejects-proposed-class-action-over-motherisk-drug-testing-scandal.html
Parents lose second bid to launch class-action suit against Motherisk over flawed hair tests.
By RACHEL MENDLESON Investigative Reporter. Tues., Nov. 27, 2018.
Despite the “knee-jerk denials” of Motherisk experts and the Hospital for Sick Children, it wouldn’t be hard to prove in court that the lab’s drug and alcohol hair tests were broadly unreliable. However, establishing this fact wouldn't advance individual cases enough to make a national class-action lawsuit the right approach for thousands of families seeking compensation.
https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2018/11/27/parents-lose-second-bid-to-launch-class-action-suit-against-motherisk-over-flawed-hair-tests.html
“We need to do more to make sure that children are safe and cared for. If a child dies, someone is responsible,” Children, Community and Social Services minister Lisa MacLeod added.
“From the CASs to group homes to my ministry, we all bear some (?) responsibility,” MacLeod said, referring to Ontario’s 49 children’s aid societies. “And I want to assure the house that, as the new minister, the buck stops with me and I will take action before I'm held accountable.”
Between 2014\15 the Ontario children's aid society claim to have spent $467.9 million dollars providing protective services that doesn't seem to extent to the 90 to 120 children that die in Ontario's foster care and group homes that are overseen and funded by the CAS.
In a National Post feature article in June 2009, Kevin Libin portrayed an industry in which abuses are all too common. One source, a professor of social work, claims that a shocking 15%-20% of children under CAS oversight suffer injury or neglect. Several CAS insiders whom Libin interviewed regard the situation as systemically hopeless. A clinical psychologist with decades of experience advocating for children said, “I would love to just demolish the system and start from scratch again.”
“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.
“It is stunning to me how these children... are rendered invisible while they are alive and invisible in their death,” said Irwin Elman, Ontario’s advocate for children and youth. Between 90 and 120 children and youth connected to children’s aid die every year. (rendered invisible by the PDRC)
WHY CAN'T THESE DEATHS BE PREDICTED WHEN THEY HAPPEN EVERY YEAR?
Vulnerable children are being warehoused and forgotten.
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.
By LAURIE MONSEBRAATEN Social Justice Reporter SANDRO CONTENTA Feature Writer. Tues., Sept. 25, 2018.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/09/25/coroners-panel-calls-for-overhaul-of-ontario-child-protection-system.html
The expert panel convened by Ontario chief coroner Dirk Huyer found a litany of other problems, including:
Evidence that some of the youths were "at risk of and/or engaged in human trafficking."
A lack of communication between child welfare societies.
Poor case file management.
An "absence" of quality care in residential placements.
Eleven of the young people ranged in age from 11 to 18. The exact age of one youth when she died wasn't clear in the report.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/ontario-coroner-expert-panel-report-1.4837245
Motherisk Is A Symptom Of A Larger Problem In Child Protection Work.
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 · 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."
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.
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 GONE theory holds that Greed, Opportunity, Need and the Expectation of not being caught are what lay the groundwork for fraud. Greed and/or need provides the motive.
Chris Selley: Ontario's stolen children still getting a raw deal as province deals with Motherisk scandal.
UNACKNOWLEDGED BY ALL PARTIES..
There’s not much worse governments can do to people than take their children away, but the pure horror of it does not seem to have pervaded the public conscience.
Not one charity, church or person has come forward to offer any relief to the many victims traumatized by the treatment they received at the hands of their fellow Canadians citizens and no apologizes offered to anyone but gay couples waiting to adopt..
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-ontarios-stolen-children-still-getting-a-raw-deal-as-province-deals-with-motherisk-scandal
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-motherisk-is-the-ontario-liberals-unacknowledged-and-worst-scandal
Between 2008/2012 natural causes was listed as the least likely way for a child in care to die at 7% (15 children) of the total deaths reviewed while "undetermined cause" was listed as the leading cause of death of children in Ontario's child protection system at only 43% (92 children) of the total deaths reviewed.
http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/sites/default/files/content/mcscs/images/195633-19.jpg
http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/DeathInvestigations/office_coroner/PublicationsandReports/PDRC/2013Report/PDRC_2013.html
:::
Should the right of the service provider to protect themselves come before the right of the client or patient to protect themselves?
Is it wrong to take precautions to protect yourself and your family or is distrusting authority just a sign of mental illness?
The most dangerous predators often look harmless — until they strike. Posted Feb 26, 2017. Scott A. Bonn Ph.D.
FROM THE US...
Traffic stops, office conversations, even child welfare and doctor's visits -- more and more people today are choosing to record life's encounters. If you are doctor, there is a good chance that at least one of your last 10 patients recorded their visit -- either with or without permission. This "new reality" has some doctors and health care clinics worried about the ownership of recordings and their potential to be used in complaints or even lawsuits. Patients also worry that recording a doctor's visit might be illegal, especially if done covertly.
What exactly are the laws governing patient recordings? In an article recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), investigators on The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice Open Recordings Project explain the often-confusing laws around recordings clinical visits.
"In the U.S., the situation is complex," said Dartmouth Institute Professor Glyn Elwyn, MD. "Wiretapping or eavesdropping statutes provide the primary legal framework guiding recording practices and protecting privacy, so a patient who would like to record a doctor's visit should familiarize themselves with laws in their state."
The primary distinction between state wiretapping laws is whether all parties must consent to the recording or just one party. In 'all-party' jurisdictions, covert recordings, on the part of doctors or patients, are illegal as everyone being recorded must consent. In 'one-party' jurisdictions, the consent of any one party in the conversation is sufficient, so a patient can record a clinical encounter without the doctor or health care provider's consent. *Currently 39 of the 50 states and Washington, D.C., conform to the 'one-party' consent rule, while the remaining 11 are 'all-party' states.
While many doctors -- and health care organizations are concerned about how recordings could be shared or used as part of a complaint, Elwyn and co-authors note liability insurers often feel differently. At the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, Arizona -- one of the few health care organizations in the country to offer patients recordings of office visits -- doctors who take part receive a 10 percent reduction in the cost of their medical defense, and $1 million extra liability coverage.
One party consent is federal law in Canada...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170710135301.htm
https://globalnews.ca/news/2763749/toronto-doctor-charged-after-police-say-woman-sexually-assaulted-during-physical/
https://globalnews.ca/news/3462701/ottawa-doctor-charged-sexual-assault/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/sarnia-doctor-charged-with-sexual-assault-history-of-convictions-investigation-1.4936370
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/doctor-sexual-assault-ottawa-police-1.4493363
Is it illegal to record someone speaking directly to you either overtly or covertly because someone in a position authority is acting unethically or committing a criminal act?
Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)
Full Document: HTML Full Document: Criminal Code
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-183.1.html
Consent to interception
183.1 Where a private communication is originated by more than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be received by more than one person, a consent to the interception thereof by any one of those persons is sufficient consent for the purposes of any provision of this Part.
1993, c. 40, s. 2. Date modified: 2019-02-14
(Accessibility Buttons available) | XMLFull Document: Criminal Code [4088 KB] | PDFFull Document: Criminal Code [7214 KB] Act current to 2019-01-30 and last amended on 2018-12-18. Previous Versions
Shonin isn’t just a wearable, it’s a body cam for civilians.
Because live-streaming with your smartphone isn’t always practical. The team behind Shonin says the camera is designed to capture “your side of the story,” citing possible uses like documenting road rage, abuses of power, events and protests, threats, and assault. Shonin also notes several everyday situations where it could be used, like walking alone at night, where the visible design of the camera itself might act as a deterrent.
The camera, which can be attached either by a clip or magnetic backing, begins recording with a tap to the body, and uses either cellular or Wi-Fi connectivity to instantly allow you to share video to destinations like Facebook Live or YouTube. It also securely stores videos on the Shonin cloud, lets you view videos on your phone via the Shonin app, and perform simple edits.
If no connectivity is available, the camera can also store encrypted captured footage to its internal 8GB SD card. The camera is also IP67 waterproof, is GPS enabled, and has a single charge that delivers 2.5 hours of battery life, which can be doubled with an additional magnetic battery.
https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/8/16/16156336/shonin-wearable-body-cam-civilians
DRUGS, SUICIDES, HOMICIDES, ACCIDENTS AND THE MYSTERIES OF PROFESSIONALLY UNREGISTERED CHILD CARE WORKERS.
“Why are these kids on medication? Because people are desperate to make them functional,” Baird says, and “there’s so little else to offer.
Yet if the parents take medication to help make them more "functional" it's a reason for to keep a file open or apprehend a child, not render assistance or relief.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/12/12/use_of_behaviouraltering_drugs_widespread_in_foster_group_homes.html
Strange that an agency that is against any form of corporal punishment isn't against giving children to people that are so willing deny children their rights as they drug, restrain and label them "problem children."
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/07/03/physical-restraint-common-in-toronto-group-homes-and-youth-residences.html
BLAME IS ALWAYS PLACED ON THE CHILDREN AND THE PARENTS.
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/07/03/kids-in-toronto-group-homes-can-be-arrested-for-being-kids.html
WHAT A FUCKIN' HELL HOLE... How many suicides, homicides and accidental deaths are acceptable to you besides all the mystery deaths every year?
https://hunchneck.blogspot.com/2018/09/concerns-about-risk-assessment.html
The inquest into Jeffrey Baldwin's death was supposed to shed light on the child welfare system and prevent more needless child deaths. Baldwin's inquest jury made 103 recommendations. Sep 06, 2013.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/inquest-into-boy-s-death-to-shed-light-on-child-welfare-system-1.1699846
Nearly six months after the inquest into the death of Katelynn Sampson began, jurors delivered another 173 recommendations. APRIL 29, 2016.
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/inquest-into-death-of-7-year-old-girl-emphasizes-duty-to-report-abuse/article29798749/?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com
276 OFFICIAL REASONS FOR CONCERN ABOUT CHILDREN IN CARE.
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 percent of children and youth are taking behaviour-altering drugs. For 10- to 15-year-olds, the number is a staggering 74 per cent.
The figures are found in “Looking After Children in Ontario,” a provincially mandated survey known as OnLAC. It collects data on the 7,000 children who have spent at least one year in care. After requests by the Star, the 2014 numbers were made public for the first time.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/12/12/use_of_behaviouraltering_drugs_widespread_in_foster_group_homes.html
The new gateway drugs.
What’s worse is that the number of children prescribed dangerous drugs is on the rise. Doctors seem to prescribe medication without being concerned with the side-effects.
Worldwide, 17 million children, some as young as five years old, are given a variety of different prescription drugs, including psychiatric drugs that are dangerous enough that regulatory agencies in Europe, Australia, and the US have issued warnings on the side effects that include suicidal thoughts and aggressive behavior.
According to Fight For Kids, an organization that “educates parents worldwide on the facts about today’s widespread practice of labeling children mentally ill and drugging them with heavy, mind-altering, psychiatric drugs,” says over 10 million children in the US are prescribed addictive stimulants, antidepressants and other psychotropic (mind-altering) drugs for alleged educational and behavioral problems.
In fact, according to Foundation for a Drug-Free World, every day, 2,500 youth (12 to 17) will abuse a prescription pain reliever for the first time (4). Even more frightening, prescription medications like depressants, opioids and antidepressants cause more overdose deaths (45 percent) than illicit drugs like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines and amphetamines (39 percent) combined. Worldwide, prescription drugs are the 4th leading cause of death.
https://dailyhealthpost.com/common-prescription-drugs/
Neglect is one of the most common child protection concerns in Ontario.
Mary Ballantyne, CEO of the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, discusses how Children’s Aid Societies help families dealing with this issue.
How is neglect a form of child abuse?
A child who is neglected is consistently not having their vital needs met. That could mean poor nutrition, lack of attention to hygiene, and so on. From a child welfare perspective, neglect is a concern because it ultimately affects a child’s ability to thrive.
http://www.oacas.org/2015/09/q-a-with-oacas-ceo-about-neglect/
