2018: Dowling daycare operator 'thrilled' with outcome of lawsuit against Sudbury CAS and police.
Executive director Elaina Groves does say it's important for the public to know that child protection workers investigate differently than police.
Decisions are made on a "balance of probabilities" which sometimes means there's not enough evidence for criminal charges let alone a conviction.
(That would be 90% of the time I'm guessing)
Groves says some may think that sounds "subjective" but she says rulings on abuse are based on the "impressions" of the social worker, the opinions of medical professionals, as well as other evidence.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/cas-daycare-operator-dowling-sudbury-child-abuse-1.4826325
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/home-daycare-lawsuit-cas-police-investigation-1.4537023
Related article:
2013: In leaked memo, Peel CAS staff asked to keep cases open to retain funding.
According to the memo, when service volume is lower than projected, there is less money for the CAS. (less than 16 000 children in care)
March is the end of the fiscal year for the agency and in the memo staff are instructed to complete as many investigations as possible, transfer as many cases as possible to “ongoing services,” (no fewer than 1,000) and not close any ongoing cases during March.
The memo was signed by seven senior managers, using their first names only. One had her full name listed. She is away for the week and could not be reached for comment.
The memo notes that “our volumes continue to be lower than our projections and this will result in less funding for our organization which directly impacts our current deficit and could impact our funding in future years. Therefore the month of March is very important and we need to make a collective effort to meet our newly discussed targets regardless of whether or not children are being abused or neglected.”
(Declining service volume -and class action and private lawsuits- means there's less money for the children's aid societies.)
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!
Listen as former conservative MPP Frank Klees explains the very reason the social worker act was introduced and became law was to regulate the children's aid societies..
Frank Klees (born March 6, 1951) is a former politician in Ontario, Canada. He was a Progressive Conservative member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 1995 to 2014. He was a cabinet minister in the government of Mike Harris.
https://youtu.be/SA1YyWO0RTQ?list=PLsYhw09i3If44rMBDuZQ0ztayzSQU35Fy
:::
Here are some facts and figures I think point to significant problems for the child welfare sector and for CAS in particular when it comes to reviewing the credentials of their "hand picked" experts who provide the results they want when they want them:
• There are over 5,000 child protection workers in Ontario (5160)
• The College regulates about 17,000 social workers and social service workers
• In Ontario, only 7% of College-registered social workers are employed by a CAS
• Only 4% of members of the Ontario Association of Social Workers work for a CAS
• Between 30% and 50% of Ontario’s child welfare workers do NOT hold a BSW
• Only 63% of direct service staff in CASs have a BSW or MSW (in 2012, it was 57%)
• Only 78% of direct service supervisors have a BSW or MSW (in 2012, it was 75.5%)
• The 2013 OACAS Human Resources survey estimates that 70% of relevant CAS job classifications would qualify for registration with the College (so about 1500 CAS currently employed workers would be unable to register with the College)
• From 2002 to 2014, 41 child welfare employees who did not hold a BSW or MSW submitted equivalency applications to register as social workers; only 16 were successful and 25 were refused. (was the test to hard for them and cause for concern? And are those 25 who couldn't pass the test still loose on the streets...?)
SEE: http://cupe2190.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SSWCC_CAS-letters-re-college-regulation_Nov.-2016.pdf
:::
"Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 proclaimed in force."
The new regulation was updated to only require Local Directors of Children’s Aid Societies to be registered with the College.
http://www.ocswssw.org/resources/legislation-submissions/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234353/
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.
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.
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.
As a key stakeholder with respect to numerous issues covered in the CYFSA and the regulations, we were dismayed to learn just prior to the posting of the regulations that we had been left out of the consultation process. We have reached out on more than one occasion to request information about regulations to be made under the CYFSA regarding staff qualifications.
A commitment to public protection, especially when dealing with vulnerable populations such as the children, youth and families served by CASs, is of paramount importance. In short, it is irresponsible for government to propose regulations that would allow CAS staff to operate outside of the very system of public protection and oversight it has established through professional regulation.
Regulations under the CYFSA:
The College has worked with government to address its concerns about regulations under the new CYFSA which set out the qualifications of Children’s Aid Society (CAS) staff. Upon learning in late November that the proposed regulations would continue to allow CAS workers to avoid registration with the College, the College immediately engaged with MCYS and outlined its strong concerns in a letter to the Minister of Children and Youth Services and a submission to the Ministry of Children and Youth Services during the consultation period.
The new regulation was updated to require Local Directors of Children’s Aid Societies to be registered with the College.
We are pleased to note that, while the new regulation does not currently require CAS supervisors to be registered, we have received a "commitment" FROM THE OUTGOING WYNNE GOVERNMENT to work with the College and the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies toward a goal of requiring registration of CAS supervisors beginning January 2019.
Key concerns:
The absence of a requirement for CAS child protection workers to be registered with the College: ignores the public protection mandate of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998 (SWSSWA); avoids the fact that social workers and social service workers are regulated professions in Ontario and ignores the College’s important role in protecting the Ontario public from harm caused by incompetent, unqualified or unfit practitioners; allows CAS staff to operate outside the system of public protection and oversight that the Government has established through professional regulation; and fails to provide the assurance to all Ontarians that they are receiving services from CAS staff who are registered with, and accountable to, the College.
Since it began operations in 2000, the OCSWSSW has worked steadily and completely unseen to silently 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.
The majority of local directors, supervisors, child protection workers and adoption workers have social work or social service work education, yet fewer than 10% are registered with the OCSWSSW.
The 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."
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.
:::
2010: Psychologist got degree from U.S. 'diploma mill'
Gregory Carter, 63, was psychologist with the Durham Children’s Aid Society has pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for misrepresenting himself and for making multiple unqualified diagnoses of mental illness.
In his practice with the Children’s Aid Society, Mr. Carter’s expertise was used to determine child custody cases.
https://nationalpost.com/posted-toronto/psychologist-got-degree-from-u-s-diploma-mill
:::
2019: Province orders children’s aid societies to review credentials of experts used in child welfare cases.
The Ontario government has ordered all children’s aid societies to immediately review the credentials of experts used to assess whether parents should lose their children.
The directive comes in the wake of an ongoing Star investigation into parenting capacity assessments, expert reports which can be heavily relied on in child protection proceedings when deciding whether children should be permanently removed from their parents’ care.
The assessments typically examine parents’ ability to address the needs of their children and whether there are supports available. As the Star’s investigation has found, there are no qualifications required to do a parenting capacity assessment, no rules around methodology and testing, and no oversight body that tracks assessors’ performance.
The investigation was sparked by a Halton region child protection case in which a judge found that psychologist Nicole Walton-Allen — who testified she has done more than 100 parenting capacity assessments — had lied about her credentials for years.
Walton-Allen is authorized by the College of Psychologists to practise in school psychology but, the judge noted at the time, materials including her CV and website listed her as a clinical psychologist.
“I became convinced that she had been intentionally using the clinical designation to increase her credibility as a psychologist,” Ontario Court Justice Penny Jones wrote in her December ruling, tossing Walton-Allen’s assessment, which had supported the society’s position that five children in one family should be placed in CAS care.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/08/23/province-orders-childrens-aid-societies-to-review-credentials-of-experts-used-in-child-welfare-cases.html
:::
2019: There’s no rule on who can write assessments that ‘effectively decide’ if an Ontario parent loses their child. Experts say that must change.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/08/02/theres-no-rule-on-who-can-write-assessments-that-effectively-decide-if-an-ontario-parent-loses-their-child-experts-say-that-must-change.html
:::
2019: Ontario psychologist used ‘obsolete’ tests in expert opinion calling for parents to lose their kids, judge says.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/08/15/ontario-psychologist-used-obsolete-tests-in-expert-opinion-calling-for-parents-to-lose-their-kids-judge-says.html
:::
2017: All of us can be harmed': Investigation reveals hundreds of Canadians have phoney degrees
A Marketplace investigation of the world's largest diploma mill has discovered many Canadians could be putting their health and well-being in the hands of nurses, engineers, counsellors and other professionals with phoney credentials.
Fake diplomas are a billion-dollar industry, according to experts, and Marketplace obtained business records of its biggest player, a Pakistan-based IT firm called Axact. The team spent months combing through thousands of degree transactions, cross referencing personal information with customers' social media profiles.
The investigation revealed more than 800 Canadians could have purchased a fake degree.
"Keep in mind this is just the one operation," said Allen Ezell, a former FBI agent who investigated diploma mills for decades. "This does not give you totality of how many are being sold throughout Canada by all schools that are operating."
Ezell, who co-wrote the book Degree Mills: The Billion-Dollar Industry That Has Sold Over a Million Fake Diplomas, estimates half of new PhDs issued every year in the U.S. are fake.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/diploma-mills-marketplace-fake-degrees-1.4279513
:::
2018: Parents rights were ripped out by the roots along with their children...
By Rachel Mendleson Investigative Reporter.
“The testing was imposed on people who were among the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society, with scant regard for due process of their rights to privacy and bodily integrity,” the report states.
Flawed drug tests used to remove scores of Canadian children from their parents and keep tens of thousands of file open, report finds.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/02/26/motherisk-tests-unfair-and-harmful-to-families-in-child-protection-cases.html
The Motherisk commission was blunt about the irreparable damage done. Many of the children who were uprooted based on the tests are now in new living situations. Some have even been adopted. So far, children have been reunited with parents in only four instances, according to the Star.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/02/27/flawed-drug-tests-split-up-scores-of-canadian-children-from-their-families-report-finds/
Without checks, balance or judicial oversight all of the parents who were tested were powerless to resist. Disadvantaged parents told us that they submitted to the testing under duress, in fear of losing custody of or access to their children” only to lose access or custody anyway.
https://www.thespec.com/news-story/8154968-motherisk-hair-testing-unfair-and-harmful-to-the-poorest-and-most-vulnerable-ontario-families/
:::
5 REASONS WHY THE MOTHERISK SCANDAL SHOULDN’T HAPPEN AGAIN.
In the interconnected scientific community, the reverberations of what happens in one corner of the globe can be felt all across it, especially when these reverberations have profound implications on people's lives.
A recent example is the Motherisk scandal in Canada. We were shocked and saddened, when we first heard of the case last year, and now that more information has come to light we decided to study it to understand how and why it happened.
In short, Motherisk was a clinic operating within Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children which became a renowned centre for hair sample testing. Between the late 1990s and early 2015, the clinic conducted hair-strand drug and alcohol tests in a lab under the direction of Dr. Gideon Koren.
The results of Motherisk’s hair tests were often used in custody and child protection cases in part to decide whether a parent was fit to care for a child.
So what exactly is the controversy?
As it turns out, for more than two decades Motherisk performed flawed drug and alcohol testing on thousands of vulnerable families across Canada, skewing decisions in over 35,000 child protection cases.
Families were torn apart. As Susan Lang, the independent reviewer who investigated the scandal, said: “losing your child is the capital punishment of child protection law.”
What went wrong? Lang’s report exposed a litany of flaws in how Motherisk conducted its tests. The picture that emerges, very clearly, is a case of flawed process, not flawed science.
1. The tests were preliminary
The tests performed by Motherisk relied on the unconfirmed results of its enzyme-linked immuno-sorbent assay (ELISA) tests.
ELISA is often used as a screening tool before more in-depth tests are undertaken. It can be used in toxicology as a rapid presumptive screen for certain classes of drugs. It’s useful if you need to screen a large number of samples when the presumption that only a small percentage will test positive. But it’s not definitive and the results can be erroneously interpreted.
The Motherisk Lab did not follow-up its presumed positive ELISA results with follow-on in-depth tests. Therefore, the results simply could not be relied upon to provide the absolute certainty needed.
As Craig Chatterton, a forensic toxicologist and a proponent of hair sample testing, correctly explains in the CBC report on Motherisk, a preliminary test like ELISA can be spot on - but, tragically for the families implicated, it can be 100% incorrect, too.
Susan Lang’s report went on to say "No forensic toxicology laboratory in the world uses ELISA testing the way MTDL [Motherisk] did."
2. Motherisk had no written standard operating procedures
Having standard, professional operating procedures in place is one of the central pillars of any testing environment, not just hair sample testing.
In this regard, Motherisk failed egregiously. The Lang report found no evidence of any written standard operating procedures at Motherisk. This raises serious doubts about the reliability and, crucially, the standardisation of its testing procedures.
Both forensic and clinical laboratories should have standard operating procedures in place for each of the tests they perform. Motherisk had no clear, documented procedures which means the processes could have varied substantially in each individual case, calling into question, rightly, the integrity of the lab’s results.
3. No transparency
Motherisk’s next misstep was the lack of formal process and documentation meant that it was almost impossible for any third party to robustly assess its results.
When the entire process isn’t adequately captured, it becomes easy for the lab to skirt over anomalies and simplify conclusions.
At Cansford Labs, for instance, we share the evidence in full. This is an absolutely vital component when the test will be involved in a highly sensitive matter like child custody.
The fact that Motherisk offered no insight into how its results were arrived at beggars belief.
4. Inadequate training and oversight
The inadequacy and transparency issues within Motherisk seeped all the way into the employees at the lab.
From reading the Lang report, Motherisk scientists were operating without any forensic training or oversight. The ELISA tests were inadequate, but even if they weren’t, the individuals interpreting the results weren’t properly trained.
Nobody at Motherisk, including, rather incredibly, Dr. Koren himself, had the proper training.
The lack of training manifested in all manner of amateurish mistakes. Staff routinely failed to wash hair samples before analysis, for example. One mother tested positive for alcohol because her alcohol-laced hairspray had not been washed off the sample. With the right training and process, these issues could easily have been avoided.
5. A compromised chain of custody
In the CBC report into Motherisk, one mother recalls how her second test was conducted after she disputed the first test’s results: “With my second test, the hair was done in the social worker’s office with the scissors out of her desk, tape off her desk and cardboard from the trash.”
Her sample tested positive for crystal meth, but laughably when she next saw her “hair sample”, the hair that allegedly belonged to her was longer and a different colour.
It should go without saying, but any robust testing process requires professionalism throughout. It’s not just about testing the sample, but also about how the sample is collected and treated.
The chain of custody is of paramount importance. Trusted professionals need to be present at every stage of the process, guided by the lab that will do the testing, and the procedures need to be the same for every single case.
Motherisk was allegedly an aberration among many other aberrations.
When things go as wrong as they did at Motherisk and with the workers using it to bash families apart, it’s important not to stick our heads in the sand. Especially when it involves vulnerable individuals.
But was Motherisk an aberration? A tragic and disastrous aberration that specifically targeted the poor.
The science of hair sample testing remains a powerful tool when the analysis is done correctly, appropriately, with quality control and assurances and interpreted by qualified experts.
Indeed, it’s only right that for vulnerable individuals, that nothing but the best will do. A fact that Motherisk seemingly forgot.
https://blog.cansfordlabs.co.uk/5-reasons-why-the-motherisk-scandal-shouldnt-happen-again
:::
Respecting Procedural Safeguards:
There is a major power imbalance between an impoverished parent (we know that families of low socio-economic status are hugely overrepresented in the child welfare system) and government funded 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.
Is it any wonder the CAS got away with using the motherisk test for over two decades?
2017 THE FIFTH ESTATE: Motherisk hair test evidence tossed out of Colorado court 2 decades before questions raised in Canada.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/motherisk-colorado-court-case-1.4364862
2017: Motherisk tests 'felt like junk science,' says lawyer in Colorado case.
https://youtu.be/WIJqYz91ceU
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.
It is unconscionable that these protections are available to accused persons, but were never considered applicable to parents at the mercy of child protection services.
There is nothing new about the commission's finding that many parents were explicitly or implicitly told that there would be negative consequences if they did not undergo hair testing. In fact, this type of coercive action continues to happen: parents are often given messages that if they do not consent, for example, to a finding that the child is in need of protection, that there will be negative consequences. For example, they may be prevented from bringing further motions, or — more damning in CAS work — labelled as being "uncooperative."
One would have thought that post-Motherisk, we would want parents and children to have more procedural protections and safeguards, and yet, it looks like the opposite is happening again.
In the wake of Motherisk, children's aid societies have continued to emphasize working with parents outside of court on a "voluntarily" basis, which might include parents giving up their children to the agency under a temporary care agreement. These agreements are usually signed without lawyers and circumvent the court, which is the only place the powers of the CAS can be kept in check.
To me, Motherisk is a symptom of a larger problem in child protection work. The Motherisk scandal came about because of the failure of the legal system to protect parents and families. Somehow, we have forgotten that the desire to do good cannot be done at the expense of rights violations.
The balance between protecting children from the risk of harm and protecting parents' and children's basic rights to fairness is a challenging one. It is easy to fall too heavily on the side of overriding a parent's rights in favour of efficiency and expediency. But to ensure that something like Motherisk never happens again, it is something to which everyone involved in child welfare — lawyers, judges and caseworkers — must strive.
Tammy Law is a lawyer practicing in child protection, family and criminal law in Toronto. This column is part of CBC's Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read this editor's blog and our FAQ.
http://www.canada24news.com/opinion/the-motherisk-saga-is-a-symptom-of-a-larger-problem-in-child-protection-work/71858-news
:::
A lawyer (even the CAS lawyers sitting in the Crown's chair) should not express personal opinions or beliefs or assert as a fact anything that is properly subject to legal proof, cross-examination, or challenge.
When engaged as a prosecutor for the CAS, a lawyer's prime duty is not to seek to slander, discredit and demean parents but to see that justice is done through a fair trial on the merits. The CAS prosecutor exercises a public function involving much discretion and power and must act fairly and dispassionately. The prosecutor should not do anything that might prevent the accused from being represented by counsel or communicating with counsel and, to the extent required by law and accepted practice, should make timely disclosure to defence counsel or directly to an unrepresented accused of all relevant and known facts and witnesses, whether tending to show guilt or innocence.
Knowingly attempt to deceive a tribunal or influence the course of justice by offering false evidence, misstating facts or law, presenting or relying upon a false or deceptive affidavit, suppressing what ought to be disclosed, or otherwise assisting in any fraud, crime, or illegal conduct.
Knowingly misstate the contents of a document, the testimony of a witness, the substance of an argument, or the provisions of a statute or like authority.
Knowingly assert as true a fact when its truth cannot reasonably be supported by the evidence or as a matter of which notice may be taken by the tribunal.
https://lso.ca/about-lso/legislation-rules/rules-of-professional-conduct/complete-rules-of-professional-conduct
:::
Motherisk Report: 13 OF 32 Recommendations to Prevent Children Who Don't Need To Be Placed In Care From Being Placed In Care Anyway.
Responsible citizenship involves appropriate participation in our civic lives. Active and engaged citizens are aware of their rights, but more importantly, they accept responsibility for protecting their rights and the rights of others.
Motherisk Recommendation #2: Drug Tests And Bodily Samples.
Ensuring the reliability of alleged expert testimony (and their fake scientific sounding tests and assessments?)
The Ministry of Children and Youth Services should direct children’s aid societies to ensure that all child protection workers meet the requirements for obtaining valid written consent, in accordance with s 4(2) of the Child and Family Services Act (s 21(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act), in every situation where a parent is asked to provide a bodily sample.
The directive should require workers to document the steps they took to obtain consent and should require workers to obtain confirmation signed by the parent acknowledging that the requirements for valid consent were met.
3. The Ontario government should amend the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to a. require courts to exclude evidence of tests of parents’ bodily samples unless the court is satisfied that the parent provided valid consent, or that the sample was obtained by order under the Act. The only exception should be situations where the introduction of the evidence is critical to protecting a child’s immediate safety. The provision should require the court to consider the parent’s right to privacy and security of the person before making this exception; (still making excuses to circumvent a Canadian citizens rights and the procedural protects of the Charter based on the word of a government funded private agency)
b. prohibit courts from admitting evidence of a person’s failure or refusal to voluntarily provide a bodily sample for testing where the evidence is being introduced in order to demonstrate that the person is less worthy of belief, is or has been engaging in substance use, or is being uncooperative; and
c. provide specific criteria for judicial orders that require a person to provide a bodily sample, with those criteria relating to the safety of a child.
CONSENT TO INTERCEPTION - CANADA.
Documenting the facts is not a crime...
Broadly speaking, Canadians can legally record their own conversations with other people, but not other peoples' conversations that they are not involved in.
183.1 Where a private communication is originated by more than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be received by more than one person, a consent to the interception thereof by any one of those persons is sufficient consent for the purposes of any provision of this Part. [1993, c.40, s.2.]
The Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [Criminal Code] imposes a general prohibition on interception (recording) of private communications, but then provides an exception where one of the parties to the private communication consents to the interception of that communication. Thus, broadly speaking, Canadians can legally record their own conversations with other people, but not other people's conversations that they are not involved in.
Other legislation in Canada protects various privacy rights, but does not prevent Canadians from recording their own conversations with others.
http://www.legaltree.ca/node/908
Summary of Recommendations: Accessibility of Legal Aid funds.
8. Legal Aid Ontario should a. in authorizing disbursements to parents’ counsel related to expert evidence, consider the complexity of child protection cases and the miscarriages of justice that could result from failing to vigorously challenge expert evidence;
(IS THAT WHY FAMILY LAWYERS DON'T ASK TO SEE THEIR COURT DISCLOSURES BEFORE OF THE FAMILY COURT START MAKING LIFE ALTERING DECISIONS ON A PRIMA FACIE BASIS?)
b. expand its Big Case Management program to child protection cases; and
c. expand its Complex Case Rate policy to child protection counsel.
9. The Ministry of the Attorney General should ensure that the total funding available to Legal Aid Ontario is sufficient to enable the Recommendations in this Report to be implemented.
Specialty legal clinic for child protection
(SEE FLIC LEGAL CLINIC BELOW)
10. Legal Aid Ontario should establish an independent specialty legal clinic focused on child protection that could accept “hard to serve” clients, provide research and mentoring for private practitioners, engage in advocacy, and bring test case litigation to protect and enhance the rights of parents in child protection proceedings.
Disclosure
11. The Family Rules Committee should amend the Family Law Rules to require children’s aid societies to provide automatic, ongoing, thorough and timely disclosure to parents. Education for judges on gatekeeping role in child protection.
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 AFTER THE DAMAGE TO THE CHILD AND FAMILY 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.”
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.
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
12. The National Judicial Institute, the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, and the Ontario Court of Justice should enhance their efforts to provide education programs and resources on expert evidence in child protection proceedings. Education should emphasize the skills judges need in order to perform their gatekeeper function in the unique context of child protection.
Extension of Counselling Services
1. The Ministry of Children and Youth Services should make free counselling services available to all affected persons,10 whether children, youth, or adults, upon request, for three more years from the date the Commission ceased to offer services (January 15, 2018).
10 We considered “affected persons” broadly to include the following:
• Children whose families were involved with CASs in part because of concerns arising from positive Motherisk hair testing, as well as their siblings, biological parents, adoptive parents, and foster parents;
• Family members, such as grandparents, aunts and uncles;
• Any other person who offered a plan for the children;
• Individuals caring for the children under a customary care agreement, kinship arrangement or a custody order; and
• The bands or communities of Indigenous children.
Harmful Impacts: The Reliance on Hair Testing in Child Protection
|xiv|
Expert reports
4. The Family Rules Committee should amend the Family Law Rules to
a. require that, where a party wishes to introduce medical or scientific test results in a proceeding, the results be accompanied by a report from an expert explaining the meaning of the test results and the underlying science behind the testing; and b. require the content of expert reports to include the requirements in Rule 52.2 of the Federal Courts Rules, and in addition, require these reports to include the known or possible impacts of gender, socioeconomic status, culture, race, and other factors in the testing or assessment of results, as well as an explanation of what steps, if any, the expert took to address these impacts.
(SO DOES THIS ONE MEAN THE CAS WILL HAVE TO SUPPLY THE COURT WITH TWO CROOKED EXPERTS NOW?)
Temporary proceedings
5. The Family Rules Committee should amend the Family Law Rules to require courts to assess the necessity for and reliability of any expert evidence through a voir dire before admitting that expert’s report into evidence on any motion in a child protection proceeding, except at the first appearance. Deviation from this requirement should only be permitted where the parent expressly acknowledges to the court that the findings of the expert are correct and the court is satisfied that the parent adequately understands the expert opinion and the Consequences of such an acknowledgement.
6. The Ontario government should amend the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to prohibit the admission of hearsay evidence of expert opinion, including test results and the interpretation of those results, at any stage of a child protection proceeding other than the first appearance.
Deviation from this requirement should only be permitted where the parent expressly acknowledges to the court that the findings of the expert are correct and the court is satisfied that the parent adequately understands the expert opinion and the consequences of such an acknowledgement.
Summary judgment motions
7. The Family Rules Committee should amend the Family Law Rule relating to summary judgment motions to a. permit only evidence that would be admissible at trial, and in particular, to prohibit hearsay evidence that does not meet the common law tests for admissibility;
b. require all expert evidence tendered at a summary judgment motion to comply with the Rule regarding experts and expert reports (as amended by these Recommendations);
c. require the court to conduct a voir dire before admitting any expert evidence; and
d. permit deviation from these requirements only where the parent expressly
acknowledges to the court that the findings of the expert are correct and the court is satisfied that the parent adequately understands the expert opinion and the consequences of such an acknowledgement.
Report of the Motherisk Commission
|xv|
Strengthening Families and Communities
Funding for band representatives
13. The federal government should immediately provide adequate funding for First Nations band representatives. The Ontario government should help to support their ongoing training needs.
The Ontario government should also move quickly, in consultation with Métis and Inuit peoples, to determine how representatives from these communities will be identified and funded to participate in child protection proceedings under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.
http://motheriskcommission.ca/wp-content/uploads/Report-of-the-Motherisk-Commission.pdf
:::
Ontario Court of Appeal Confirms Ongoing “Gatekeeper” Function in Respect of Expert Evidence. Ryan Morris and Ravi Amarnath June 22, 2017.
The Court’s decision in Bruff-Murphy provides valuable guidance as to the nature and extent of a court’s “gatekeeper” responsibility with respect to the admission of expert evidence both when the evidence is first sought to be admitted and thereafter, if prejudice emerges that was not apparent at the time of admission.
https://www.blakesbusinessclass.com/ontario-court-of-appeal-confirms-ongoing-gatekeeper-function-in-respect-of-expert-evidence/
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-getting-to-the-root-of-ontarios-family-law-mess
:::
OACPL Response to Canadian Lawyer Magazine
FEBRUARY 26, 2019. TAMMY LAW.
The Ontario Association of Child Protection Lawyers started in Spring 2017 in Windsor, Ontario with a group of Family Lawyers who saw an increased need to increase TO GET THEIR STORIES STRAIGHT AND COVER THEIR ASSES ...
OACPL
https://oacpl.org
https://www.tammylaw.ca/oacpl-response-to-canadian-lawyer-magazine/
https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/practice-areas/family/protecting-the-most-vulnerable/275829
https://99.79.133.205/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-26-Letter-to-Canadian-Lawyer-Magazine.pdf
:::
Family Law Information Centre (FLIC)
Child poaching funding predator Karynn Von Cramon, Manager of Legal Services for FCSLLG is married to Perth's legal aid lawyer Andreas Von Cramon who runs a legal clinic giving free advice to families dealing with the CAS.
Legal Aid Ontario: Lake 88.1 “In Focus”interview with LAO’s Andreas Von Cramon and Nathalie Champagne Description: Transcript of April 8th, 2014 “In Focus” interview by Bob Perreault from Lake 88.1 FM in Perth and Andreas Von Cramon, Supervisory Duty Counsel Criminal/Family Law and Nathalie Champagne, District Area Director, Ottawa Region Date: April 8, 2014.
https://www.legalaid.on.ca/en/news/newsarchive/downloads/2014-04-08_In%20Focus%20interview.pdf
Supervisory duty counsel Andreas Von Cramon who practices in both Criminal and Family Law, has seen a trend lately wherein low income residents of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville are representing themselves in the court system rather than seeking advice through the Family Law Information Centre.
COULD IT BE BECAUSE HE DOESN'T GIVE GOOD ADVICE?
The reason may be that people are not aware of the services that are provided. His concern is that these services and resources can be of assistance to those going through trying times. - Doreen Barnes
https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/4495905-family-law-services-expanded-in-tri-county-area/
::::
New expanded hours for family law services in Lanark, Leeds & Grenville legal clinic in Perth. Posted: Friday, March 28, 2014
Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) is helping the Lanark, Leeds & Grenville legal clinic provide more hours of support for financially eligible families, beginning April 1. This support will supplement the services already provided for families at the Family Law Information Centre (FLIC) in the Perth courthouse.
The expanded services for families at the clinic will include document preparation, assistance in applying for legal aid in addition to the legal advice offered at the FLIC. Independent legal advice is also available for clients who are using mediation to solve their family law matters.
The expansion of family law services in Perth is one of a number of family law projects that LAO is undertaking, thanks to $30 million over four years in additional funding from the provincial government. LAO is investing the majority of this funding into sustainable improvements to family law programs and services.
$30 million for the lawyers and social assistance cuts for the poor?
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.
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/08/15/report-shines-light-on-povertys-role-on-kids-in-cas-system.html
Location: Lanark, Leeds & Grenville Legal Clinic 10 Sunset Boulevard, Perth, Ontario, K7H 2Y2
Times: Every second Tuesday, from April 1 - 9 to 11 a.m. by appointment only
Appointments can be arranged with the advice lawyer at the Family Law Information Centre at the Perth courthouse
Thursdays, 1:30 to 4:30 p.m.
For questions or further information, please contact:
Feroneh Neil
Manager, Communications
Phone: 416-979-2352, ext.5103
Email: neilfer@lao.on.ca and/or media@lao.on.ca
https://www.legalaid.on.ca/en/news/newsarchive/1403-28_lanarkleedsgrenville.asp
:::
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). (Playing dumb) Why was I so shocked?
https://www.complexfamilylaw.com/blog/2015/01/cas-attitude-win-child-welfare-cases-at-all-costs.shtml
:::
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/…/report-of-the-motherisk-commission/
:::
FLIC services are available in family courts across Ontario. At the FLIC you can find information about separation and divorce and related family law issues, family justice services, alternative forms of dispute resolution, local community resources and court processes.
Information and Referral Coordinators (IRCs) are available at designated times to help you understand your needs and to make referrals to appropriate services. IRCs can give you information about family mediation and other ways to solve your issues without going to court.
Family Law Information Centres
Family Mediation Services
Mandatory Information Program (MIP)
https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/infoctr.php
:::
"[A]buse of process (is) the intentional use of legal process for an improper purpose incompatible with the lawful function of the process by one with an ulterior motive in doing so, and with resulting damages."
"In its broadest sense, abuse of process may be defined as misuse or perversion of regularly issued legal process for a purpose not justified by the nature of the process."
Abuse of power, in the form of "malfeasance in office" or "official misconduct," is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. ... Abuse of power can also mean a person using the power they have for their own personal gain.
The act of using one's position of power in an abusive way. This can take many forms, such as taking advantage of someone, gaining access to information that shouldn't be accessible to the public, or just manipulating someone with the ability to punish them if they don't comply.
Covert and overt abuse of power: Covert: covert means that something is hidden, in the case of power, it would mean that someone is concealing their abuse of power from the public/other service users/other care workers. Covert abuse of power can happen in any setting.
:::
http://motheriskcommission.ca/wp-content/uploads/Report-of-the-Motherisk-Commission.pdf
https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/motherisk/
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/02/26/motherisk-tests-unfair-and-harmful-to-families-in-child-protection-cases.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/motherrisk-commission-1.4552160
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
https://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2017-2018/motherisk-tainted-tests-broken-families
https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/mandel-victims-of-bad-science-at-motherrisk
https://futurecontent.co/5-reasons-motherisk-scandal-shouldnt-happen/
https://blog.cansfordlabs.co.uk/5-reasons-why-the-motherisk-scandal-shouldnt-happen-again
:::
Harassment is a form of discrimination. It includes any unwanted behaviour that offends, humiliates, degrades or marginalizes you regardless of the reasons for it. Generally, harassment is a behaviour that persists over time. Serious one-time incidents can also sometimes be considered harassment.
CRIMINAL HARASSMENT
Are you worried about your family's security because an overzealous and fanatical child poaching funding predator is:
■ targeting your family because your poor and would have to rely on legal aid and family lawyers ( the same lawyers that never noticed anything wrong with Motherisk testing and don't mind the court proceeding without a having seen a file disclosure first?)
■ using a lower corporate standard for reasonable grounds for continually launching or reopening investigations into your personal life hoping for a different result …
■ refuses to let you review your file for inaccurate information…
■ ignores or suppresses any information or documentation that indicates happy healthy children…
■ refuses you an opportunity to address concerns…
■ threatens to arbitrary remove your children if you don't allow them to search your home without a warrant or threatens court action to remove your children if you fail sign consent forms and service agreements…
■ interviews your children in school without recording the interview...
■ is contacting you over and over by phone, email and knocking at your door multiple times every day…
■ is watching your home or workplace…
■ is making you or your family feel threatened...
■ is peeking through your windows…
■ or attempts to talk your very young children into unlocking the door for them when they don't think your in the immediate vicinity...
You are experiencing criminal harassment unless it's a CAS worker it’s a crime and you can get help...
If you have reasonable grounds to suspect a child is in need of help, you need to make the call. It isn’t up to you to prove or investigate the abuse but it is up to you to reach out and help protect the child.
“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 corporate threshold for reporting.
Can there really be two standards for reasonable grounds and still be reasonable and what is lower than reasonable grounds?
Simple suspicion based on an anonymous phone call.
http://www.oacas.org/childrens-aid-child-protection/duty-to-report/
:::
Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Purpose. Section 7 of the Charter requires that laws or state actions (or government funded multi-billion dollar private corporations?) that interfere with life, liberty and security of the person conform to the principles of fundamental justice — the basic principles that underlie our notions of justice and fair process (Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] 1 SCR 350 at paragraph 19).
The wording of section 7 says that it applies to "everyone". This includes all people within Canada, including non-citizens unless a provincial government decides to make exceptions to circumvent those rights and protections .[4] It does not, however, apply to corporations[5] or parents accused of abusing or neglecting their children in Ontario.
#5 Right to silence. In R v Hebert the court held that the right to silence was a principle of fundamental justice. Statements of the accused may not be achieved through police (worker?) trickery and silence may not be used to make any inference of guilt.
WHY THE RIGHT TO SILENCE?
Loaded questions are similar to leading questions in that they subtly (or not so subtly) push the user toward a particular response. The defining feature of this question type is the assumption about the respondent that is included implicitly in the question. Loaded questions can seem pretty benign at a first glance.
A leading question is when the question suggests the desired answer. "Did he hit you with a shovel?"
A loaded question means any yes or no answer would incriminate the responder. "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Section 7 rights can also be violated by the conduct of a party other than a Canadian government body. The government need only be a participant or complicit in the conduct threatening the right, where the violation must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the government actions.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_7_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
:::
"Those in possession of absolute power can not only prophesy and make their prophecies come true, but they can also lie and make their lies come true." 100% Eric Hoffer....
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. 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.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234353/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lxxf15ZQKo
https://vimeo.com/29051387
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRju2KIQvns
:::
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES.
According to OACAS “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 corporate threshold for reporting suspicions.
So should we to assume to the society's lower "standard" is somewhere between reasonable and simple suspicion and can there really be two standards for reasonable suspicion and still be reasonable?
http://www.oacas.org/childrens-aid-child-protection/duty-to-report/
No comments:
Post a Comment