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.facebook.com/204922119886775/videos/1316641711878923/
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
https://www.thespec.com/news-story/9552213-ontario-psychologist-used-obsolete-tests-in-expert-opinion-calling-for-parents-to-lose-their-kids-judge-says/
:::
2019: 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 often means there's not enough evidence for criminal charges let alone a conviction which is probably why child protection social workers in Ontario refused to comply with the social worker registration act claiming there are no practical benefits for them agreeing to register with a college of social work that also uses a "balance of probabilities" to determine the "facts.."
The College of Social Work takes reports about concerns from the public and applies their own standard for investigating complaints as does the society and the same "balance of probabilities" making a ruling.
Groves says some may think that sounds "subjective" but she says rulings on abuse are based on the "impressions" of the unqualified unregistered social worker, the opinions of questionable medical professionals, as well as other evidence like the fraudulent Motherisk Test.
Balance of Probabilities Definition: Burden of proof in civil trials.
The common distinction is made with the burden of truth in a criminal trial, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil trial, one party's case need only be more probable than the other.
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
:::
2010: Psychologist got degree from U.S. 'diploma mill'
A 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.
Gregory Carter, 63, appeared before the College of Psychologists of Ontario’s disciplinary committee on Tuesday. He and the college agreed on the terms of the penalty, which includes a three-month suspension, a recorded reprimand and one year of supervised practice under an approved practitioner.
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
:::
2016: Nov 24, 2016 - Although the Ontario Risk Assessment was a “state of the art” clinical tool at the...
The purpose of the Child Protection Standards in Ontario (dated February 2007) is to promote consistently high quality service delivery to children, youth and their families receiving child protection services from Children’s Aid Societies across the province. The new standards are the mandatory framework within which these services will be delivered. They establish a minimum level of performance for child protection workers, supervisors and Children’s Aid Societies, and create a norm that reflects a desired level of achievement. The standards will provide the baseline for demonstrating the level of performance within the ministry’s overall accountability framework for child welfare.
http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/professionals/childwelfare/protection-standards-2007/childprotectionstandards.aspx
:::
2019: Expert who gave more than 100 assessments in Ontario child protection cases lied about credentials for years, judge finds.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/07/31/expert-who-gave-more-than-100-assessments-in-ontario-child-protection-cases-lied-about-credentials-for-years-judge-finds.html
:::
2019: Province orders children’s aid societies to review credentials of experts used in child welfare cases
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
:::
2017: Motherisk hair test evidence tossed out of Colorado court 2 decades before questions raised in Canada
A U.S. court laid out extensive problems with how hair-strand tests were being done at the Motherisk Drug Testing Lab at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto more than two decades before similar issues were uncovered in Canada.
But the lab's work continued to be used in Canadian courts and relied upon in thousands of child protection cases, including ones in which children were permanently removed from their parents.
From 1991 until 2015, Motherisk was performing what have now been determined to be unreliable and inadequate drug and alcohol tests on thousands of members of vulnerable families across Canada, with the results in some cases leading to child welfare decisions to separate children from their parents AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FILES BEENING LEFT OPEN OR REOPENNED AT WILL.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/motherisk-colorado-court-case-1.4364862
:::
2017: Motherisk tests 'felt like junk science,' says lawyer in Colorado case
Colorado prosecutor Eva Wilson exposed flaws in Motherisk's testing methodology and analysis during a murder trial in 1993.
https://youtu.be/WIJqYz91ceU
:::
Confronting Motherisk co-founder Dr. Gideon Koren.
Fifth Estate co-host Mark Kelley confronts Dr. Gideon Koren, the founder and former director of Motherisk, at a medical conference in Windsor, England this month.
https://youtu.be/3POTUUN2tXU
:::
2018: What separation from parents does to children: ‘The effect is catastrophic’
This is what happens inside children when they are forcibly separated from their parents.
Their heart rate goes up. Their body releases a flood of stress hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline. Those stress hormones can start killing off dendrites — the little branches in brain cells that transmit messages. In time, the stress can start killing off neurons and — especially in young children — wreaking dramatic and long-term damage, both psychologically and to the physical structure of the brain.
“The effect is catastrophic,” said Charles Nelson, a pediatrics professor at Harvard Medical School. “There’s so much research on this that if people paid attention at all to the science, they would never do this.”
Separating kids from parents a 'textbook strategy' of domestic abuse, experts say — and causes irreversible, lifelong damage even when there is no other choice.
“Being separated from parents or having inconsistent living conditions for long periods of time can create changes in thoughts and behavior patterns, and an increase in challenging behavior and stress-related physical symptoms,” such as sleep difficulty, nightmares, flashbacks, crying, and yelling says Amy van Schagen - California State University.
The Science Is Unequivocal: Separating Families Is Harmful to Children
In news stories and opinion pieces, psychological scientists are sharing evidence-based insight from decades of research demonstrating the harmful effects of separating parents and children.
In an op-ed in USA Today, Roberta Michnick Golinkoff (University of Delaware), Mary Dozier (University of Delaware), and Kathy Hirsh-Pasek (Temple University) write:
“Years of research are clear: Children need their parents to feel secure in the world, to explore and learn, and to grow strong emotionally.”
In a Washington Post op-ed, James Coan (University of Virginia) says:
“As a clinical psychologist and neuroscientist at the University of Virginia, I study how the brain transforms social connection into better mental and physical health. My research suggests that maintaining close ties to trusted loved ones is a vital buffer against the external stressors we all face. But not being an expert on how this affects children, I recently invited five internationally recognized developmental scientists to chat with me about the matter on a science podcast I host. As we discussed the border policy’s effect on the children ensnared by it, even I was surprised to learn just how damaging it is likely to be.”
Mia Smith-Bynum (University of Maryland) is quoted in The Cut:
“The science leads to the conclusion that the deprivation of caregiving produces a form of extreme suffering in children. Being separated from a parent isn’t just a trauma — it breaks the relationship that helps children cope with other traumas.
Forceful separation is particularly damaging, explains clinical psychologist Mia Smith-Bynum, a professor of family science at the University of Maryland, when parents feel there’s nothing in their power that can be done to get their child back.
For all the dislocation, strangeness and pain of being separated forcibly from parents, many children can and do recover, said Mary Dozier, a professor of child development at the University of Delaware. “Not all of them — some kids never recover,” Dr. Dozier said. “But I’ve been amazed at how well kids can do after institutionalization if they’re able to have responsive and nurturing care afterward.”
The effects of that harm may evolve over time, says Antonio Puente, a professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington who specializes in cultural neuropsychology. What may begin as acute emotional distress could reemerge later in life as PTSD, behavioral issues and other signs of lasting neuropsychological damage, he says.
“A parent is really in many ways an extension of the child’s biology as that child is developing,” Tottenham said. “That adult who’s routinely been there provides this enormous stress-buffering effect on a child’s brain at a time when we haven’t yet developed that for ourselves. They’re really one organism, in a way.” When the reliable buffering and guidance of a parent is suddenly withdrawn, the riot of learning that molds and shapes the brain can be short-circuited, she said.
In a story from the BBC, Jack Shonkoff (Harvard University) discusses evidence related to long-term impacts:
Jack P Shonkoff, director of the Harvard University Center on the Developing Child, says it is incorrect to assume that some of the youngest children removed from their parents’ care will be too young to remember and therefore relatively unharmed. “When that stress system stays activated for a significant period of time, it can have a wear and tear effect biologically.
:::
2007: Nearly half of children in Crown care are medicated.
The researchers have found that not only were psychotropic drugs prescribed to a clear majority of the current and former wards interviewed, but most were diagnosed with mental-health disorders by a family doctor, never visited a child psychiatrist or another doctor for a second opinion, and doubted the accuracy of their diagnosis.
A disturbing number, the network's research director, Yolanda Lambe, added, have traded the child-welfare system for a life on the street.
"A lot of people are using drugs now," she said. "There's a lot of homeless young people who have been medicated quite heavily."
'whole range of disorders'
Nowhere is concern greater than in Ontario, where the provincial government recently appointed a panel of experts to develop standards of care for administering drugs to children in foster care, group homes and detention centres.
The move was made after the high-profile case last year of a now-13-year-old boy in a group home outside Toronto came to light. The boy was saddled with four serious psychiatric diagnoses, including oppositional defiant disorder and Tourette's syndrome, and doused daily with a cocktail of psychotropic drugs before his grandparents came to his rescue. Now living with his grandparents, he is free of diagnoses and drugs.
Marti McKay is the Toronto child psychologist who, when hired by the local CAS to assess the grandparents' capacity as guardians to the boy, discovered a child so chemically altered that his real character was clouded by the side effects of adult doses of drugs.
"There are lots of other kids like that," said Dr. McKay, one of the experts on the government panel. "If you look at the group homes, it's close to 100 per cent of the kids who are on not just one drug, but on drug cocktails with multiple diagnoses.
"There are too many kids being diagnosed with ... a whole range of disorders that are way out of proportion to the normal population. ... It's just not reasonable to think the children in care would have such overrepresentation in these rather obscure disorders."
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/nearly-half-of-children-in-crown-care-are-medicated/article687480/
:::
2014: Use of 'behaviour-altering' drugs widespread in foster, group homes.
In almost half of children and youth in foster and group home care aged 5 to 17 — 48.6 per cent — are on drugs, such as Ritalin, tranquilizers and anticonvulsants, according to a yearly survey conducted for the provincial government and the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies (OACAS). At ages 16 and 17, fully 57 per cent are on these medications.
In group homes, the figure is even higher — an average of 64 per cent of children and youth are taking behaviour-altering drugs. For 10- to 15-year-olds, the number is a staggering 74 per cent.
“The medication problem is huge,” says Raymond Lemay, who retired this summer after 32 years as executive director of the Prescott-Russell children’s aid society. “It’s catastrophic.
“We should be doing other things than medicating these kids,” he says, adding his agency discourages the use of psychotropic drugs. “Medication is inappropriate in many circumstances and will do these kids long-term damage.”
MEET THE PUSHERS...
At the Brant CAS, drugs make up 52 per cent of expenditures on health insurance claims. The top five drugs prescribed and paid for by insurance are all used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), including Concerta, Strattera and Adderall.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/12/12/use_of_behaviouraltering_drugs_widespread_in_foster_group_homes.html
:::
2015: Ontario Foster Care System Overmedicates, Underdiagnoses Kids.
by Robert Franklin, Esq, Member, National Board of Directors, National Parents Organization
Before you read this article and the following blog post, you might want to go back to Sunday’s post about Molly McGrath Tierney’s excellent TEDx talk in Baltimore last year (Toronto Star, 12/12/14). Her talk is just 11 minutes long, but she pretty much demolishes the system of foster care that we foist on so many children. Tierney’s a veteran of the child welfare system and a successful manager in Baltimore. But she’s clear that the system harms kids and is driven by money. The federal government pays states for each kid taken into care where they are all too often less well off than they were with their parents. Studies show that to be the case and when we ask children their preferences, they say they want to go home to their parents.
The Star article is about the shocking overuse of psychotropic medication on children in foster care in Ontario. Mental health experts agree that kids are overmedicated, but that’s just the start of the problem.
Almost half of children and youth in foster and group home care aged 5 to 17 — 48.6 per cent — are on drugs, such as Ritalin, tranquilizers and anticonvulsants, according to a yearly survey conducted for the provincial government and the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies (OACAS). At ages 16 and 17, fully 57 per cent are on these medications.
In group homes, the figure is even higher — an average of 64 per cent of children and youth are taking behaviour-altering drugs. For 10- to 15-year-olds, the number is a staggering 74 per cent.
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.
Top CAS officials describe the high number on “psychotropic or behaviour-altering medication” as a crisis.
“The medication problem is huge,” says Raymond Lemay, who retired this summer after 32 years as executive director of the Prescott-Russell children’s aid society. “It’s catastrophic.
“We should be doing other things than medicating these kids,” he says, adding his agency discourages the use of psychotropic drugs. “Medication is inappropriate in many circumstances and will do these kids long-term damage.”
Those percentages for kids in foster care dwarf those for kids in the general population.
For youths in care, the rate of psychotropic drug use is significantly higher than the general population. A 2005 study in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry estimated that only 2.5 per cent of Canadians aged 15 to 19 were on psychotropic medication.
Of course it can be argued that kids in foster care are those with abusive family backgrounds, and are therefore more in need of medication. That’s probably true, but foster kids rarely receive proper mental health evaluations to determine whether they need medication. That means that kids who don’t need medication often get it anyway and those who do may be getting the wrong drugs or the wrong dosages.
Ontario’s highly decentralized child-protection model — 46 private agencies funded largely by tax dollars — seems to make matters worse.
Only half of children’s aid societies have a prescribed way of assessing the mental health needs of children, and barely 15 per cent of these use methods recommended by the provincial government, according to a 2009 survey sponsored by OACAS, the lobby group representing the agencies.
The lack of standardization “likely means that many children in need are not identified and referred for treatment,” concludes the survey report, co-authored by Elisa Romano, professor of psychology at the University of Ottawa.
The sheer number of kids in foster care and group homes, the lack of diagnostic resources and the need to maintain control of a population that’s experienced the worst of parental care inevitably leads to medicating children as a means of control. Unsurprisingly, the great majority of the medications given are for ADHD.
MEET THE PUSHERS:
At the Brant CAS, drugs make up 52 per cent of expenditures on health insurance claims. The top five drugs prescribed and paid for by insurance are all used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), including Concerta, Strattera and Adderall.
Again, many kids are getting that medication whether they’ve been properly diagnosed or not.
A soon-to-be-published report by Klein, Taraba and other child-welfare experts also warns of children who have symptoms of attention deficit disorder being misdiagnosed and given “unhelpful medications” for long periods. “The big question is, what are we treating?” [Dr. Ben Klein, medical director at the Lansdowne Children’s Centre in Brantford] says.
Perhaps worse, the overmedication of the kids obscures real mental health issues many of them have. The drugs damp down and alter behaviors that could tip off a mental health professional as to the proper diagnosis for a child.
Drugs can ease disruptive behaviour. But doctors and CAS officials are concerned that mental-health issues caused by trauma aren’t being addressed..,.,
Medication might make them less likely to act out, Klein adds, but it doesn’t deal with the root cause of a child’s trauma. That requires “trauma-focused cognitive behaviour therapy,” which he says is almost impossible to access in Ontario.
This is all going on despite a relative lack of information on the long-term side-effects of many of the drugs being administered. For other drugs, the side-effects are known to be harmful.
A Star investigation in 2012 found 600 cases, reported to Health Canada during a 10-year period, of children and youth suffering serious side effects while on ADHD medication, including amnesia and suicide.
Finally, kids who’ve endured significant periods of abuse, particularly early on, produce high levels of the stress hormone cortisol that can have long-term deleterious effects on learning and impulse control. That’s not ADHD, but it can be mistaken for it, resulting in both a failure to diagnose the correct problem and the wrong medication.
As a sidelight, boys are more likely than girls to undergo that particular response to abuse early in life. As psychologist David Geary has written, “M. Davis and Emory..,., found that newborn boys showed an increase in cortisol levels after exposure to mild but prolonged stressors, but newborn girls showed no such increase..,., [A]n overall sex difference in cortisol responses..,., would make boys and men more susceptible to growth disorders and other diseases – through suppression of immune functions and growth hormones..,.,” That may explain the remarkable difference between the numbers of boys diagnosed and treated for ADHD as compared to girls.
Add to that the fact that parenting in foster care is, on average, markedly worse than it is in biological families, even somewhat abusive ones, and we have a “prescription” for lasting damage to the very children we’re supposed to be helping.
A recent study co-authored by researchers at the Child Welfare Institute of the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto found that poor parenting in foster homes partly accounts for higher levels of behaviour problems in some children.
Here’s the experience of one boy, Nick Woolridge, profiled by the Star:
Woolridge was taken into care a month before his eighth birthday. He was bounced from foster homes to group homes — a dizzying 22 different homes during 10 years in care.
“I had a lot of anger issues due to my past, and dealing with my family,” he says. “And, growing up in foster homes and group homes, my anger just kept getting worse.”
During visits with his grandmother, Woolridge noticed she patiently found ways to defuse his outbursts and calm him down. Foster parents rarely tried doing so, and Woolridge says the Brant CAS too easily acquiesced to bouncing him around.
“I don’t think it’s right for a kid growing up in CAS to be shipped from foster home to foster home,” he says.
Is it any wonder that, as Molly McGrath Tierney said of kids in foster care, “they just want to go home?”
https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/22448-ontario-foster-care-system-overmedicates-underdiagnoses-kids
:::
2019: These Are The Most Dangerous & Heavily Promoted Prescription 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/
:::
Could Ontario's Pharmacies And Pharmacists Do Anything To Protect Children In Care Of The CAS?
A Rexall medication review provides the opportunity for you to sit down one on one with your Rexall Pharmacist to review your prescription and non-prescription medications. Unless your a child in Ontario's care this process will identify medication-related issues.
Why Rexall Medication Review?
The Rexall Medication Review was created specifically for people who are regularly taking multiple medications at a time.
You can rely on your pharmacist or healthcare provider to let you know if medications you take have any unsafe interactions unless your a child in Ontario's care. Not only do certain prescription medications interact dangerously with one another, but they can also interact with over-the-counter medications, vitamin and mineral supplements, or even certain foods.
In the US if the pharmacist doesn’t feel comfortable filling the prescription they can refuse to fill it.
There are many reasons, including ethical and religious beliefs, for why a pharmacist may not feel comfortable filling a prescription. We saw this recently when a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for misoprostol, a medication used to end a pregnancy.
A pharmacist is technically allowed to decline filling your prescription based on their moral beliefs. If that happens, try seeing if there’s another pharmacist working at the pharmacy and speak with them. You can also try transferring your prescription to another pharmacy to be filled, although this can add some inconvenience.
:::
2019: Court rules Ontario animal protection law enforcement regime unconstitutional.
"Animal protection laws are the only laws still enforced by private agencies, and the court ruled that private enforcement without transparency and accountability is unacceptable," said lawyer Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice, in a press release statement.
WHAT ABOUT ONTARIO'S SELF REGULATED FULLY GOVERNMENT FUNDED NON PROFIT MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR PRIVATE CORPORATION?
THE CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY...
While Breder says she agrees that in most cases, private organizations shouldn’t possess government-like powers to enter a person’s property and seize their belongings, finding the OSPCA’s powers completely unconstitutional could lead to a slippery slope for other SPCAs nationwide.
The sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in question are sections 7 and 8 (concerning individual autonomy and unreasonable search and seizure, respectively). While the decision states there is no direct charter violation of the distribution of legislative powers and “specific warrantless search and/or seizure powers” in the OSPCA Act, Justice Timothy Minnema wrote in his decision that assigning “police and other investigative powers to the OSPCA” violates s. 7.
(FUNNY HOW SECTION 7 AND 8 APPLIES TO PETS AND NOT CHILDREN)
Animal Shelters:
Like group and foster homes for apprehended children in Ontario not all animal shelters are the same. Fortunate homeless and unwanted animals end up in the hundreds of open-admission animal shelters that are staffed by professional, caring people.
At these facilities, frightened animals are reassured, sick and injured animals receive treatment or a peaceful end to their suffering, and the animals’ living quarters are kept clean and dry. Workers at these facilities never turn away needy animals and give careful consideration to each animal’s special emotional and physical needs unlike most group and foster homes who prefer to use prescription cocktails, police intervention and physical restraints on children at the first sign of a child in need.
Many less fortunate lost or abandoned animals end up in pitiful shelters that are nothing more than shacks without walls or other protection from the elements, where animals are often left to die from exposure, disease, or fights with other animals like apprehended children in Ontario's child welfare system.
https://www.peta.org/issues/animal-companion-issues/animal-shelters/
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mummified-cat-found-in-t-o-humane-society-ceiling-1.458967
https://www.cp24.com/official-calls-animal-shelter-house-of-horrors-reports-finding-mummified-cat-1.458960
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2009/11/28/humane_society_it_seems_like_house_of_horrors.html
https://thepetshopsite.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/animal-shelter-turned-into-a-%E2%80%98house-of-horrors%E2%80%99/
:::
2019: Court rules Ontario animal protection law enforcement regime unconstitutional.
The current animal protection law enforcement regime in Ontario has been ruled to be unconstitutional by the Superior Court of Justice.
The court struck down the province’s current regime Jan. 2 in a Kingston court in Bogaerts v. Attorney General of Ontario, declaring that it is unconstitutional for the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, a private charity not subject to reasonable oversight measures, to enforce public animal protection laws.
Unlike the majority of SPCAs across Canada, the OSPCA is both government funded and also privately funded by donations. The OSPCA, a charity, holds law enforcement powers, without the same transparency and accountability a public or government agency has.
“There's a bit of a divide within the animal protection movement,” says Rebeka Breder, a Vancouver-based animal law lawyer at Breder Law. “I think the concern here is that if you're going to have someone's property being searched and someone's property, like animals, being taken away, then those powers should be [given to] the government and not a private organization that's not subject to freedom of information requests. There's very little transparency and arguably, perhaps even accountability, because it's a private non-profit organization.”
The sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in question are sections 7 and 8 (concerning individual autonomy and unreasonable search and seizure, respectively). While the decision states there is no direct charter violation of the distribution of legislative powers and “specific warrantless search and/or seizure powers” in the OSPCA Act, Justice Timothy Minnema wrote in his decision that assigning “police and other investigative powers to the OSPCA” violates s. 7.
(FUNNY HOW SECTION 7 AND 8 APPLIES TO PETS BUT NOT CHILDREN)
As a result, the court suspended the declaration of invalidity for 12 months to provide Ontario time for restructuring its animal protection regime to ensure the desired accountability needed to operate with having such a public function. Minnema wrote that it would be “an untenable result” to “compromise animal welfare for even a transitional period” of time as the province “considers its next step.”
The Canadian animal law organization, Animal Justice, intervened after the case’s hearing last May and argued that in order for animals to maximally benefit from legal protections, the enforcement agency needs to be transparent.
"Animal protection laws are the only laws still enforced by private agencies, and the court ruled that private enforcement without transparency and accountability is unacceptable," said lawyer Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice, in a press release statement.
While Breder says she agrees that in most cases, private organizations shouldn’t possess government-like powers to enter a person’s property and seize their belongings, finding the OSPCA’s powers completely unconstitutional could lead to a slippery slope for other SPCAs nation-wide.
“The SPCAs across the country should remain having the powers that they do to investigate animal welfare and cruelty concerns because [due to] a lack of financial and human resources it means they're in the best position to look into these issues and to deal with them,” she says. “If we just left it up to the government, I think we would be seeing significantly less animal welfare issues being investigated.”
Suzana Gartner, mediator and founder of Toronto-based Gartner & Associates Animal Law, says she agrees with Breder’s sentiment.
“This [decision] is like a win-win for everybody in my view because if they're given an opportunity to restructure their enforcement regime and to be accountable and transparent, I think that's going to help the province. It can help them mandate their policing powers,” Gartner says.
Legal Feeds contacted Daniel Huffaker, a lawyer representing the Attorney General of Ontario, in Bogaerts v. Attorney General of Ontario. A ministry media representative, Philip Klassen, declined comment, stating via email: “We are currently reviewing this decision. As this matter is in the appeal period, it would be inappropriate to comment further.”
On Jan. 4, OSPCA general counsel Brian Shiller sent an email statement to media outlets clarifying the role of the OSPCA in this case. “There was no allegation that the Ontario SPCA was at fault for anything regarding the subject matter of the application and the court did not criticize any conduct on the part of the Ontario SPCA in its administration of the Ontario SPCA Act,” he said. “Rather, the court created a new legal principle and used it to rule that it was unconstitutional for the Province of Ontario to enact legislation that permits a private charity to have policing powers in the absence of government oversight.”
https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/general/court-rules-ontario-animal-protection-law-enforcement-regime-unconstitutional/275753
:::
Standards of Care for the Administration of Psychotropic Medications to Children and Youth Living in Licensed Residential Settings.
Summary of Recommendations of the Ontario Expert Panel February 2009.
http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/documents/specialneeds/residential/summary_report.pdf
:::
2009: Ninety children known to Ontario's child welfare system died in 2007, according to the latest report from the chief coroner's office – a number the province's new child advocate says is shocking and should trouble us all.
https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2009/02/23/why_did_90_children_die.html
:::
2011: Child Welfare and Children's Mental Health in Ontario.
In 2009–2010, spending on child welfare in Ontario represented approximately $1.4 billion. In many ways, the organization of child welfare in Ontario mirrors the organization of healthcare. Child welfare is delivered through 53 independently governed agencies who receive funding through transfer payments from the provincial government. In parallel to healthcare, where the largest proportion of spending is represented by the relatively small portion of patients who receive in-patient care, the largest proportion of spending in child welfare relates to services to children who are "in care" – foster care or group care. In Ontario child welfare, approximately 27,000 children and youth receive in-care services each year, accounting for approximately 40% of total expenditures. A much larger number of children and youth who have been maltreated or are at risk for maltreatment are supported in their homes with their families. The Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies estimates that for every one child in care, another nine children are being supported by CASs at home with their families.
The 2009–2010 spending on core children's mental health services in Ontario was $384 million (excluding funding for complex special needs). Transfer-payment recipients include stand-alone agencies that provide child and youth mental health services, 17 hospital-based outpatient programs and First Nation and non-profit Aboriginal organizations and service agencies, including 27 friendship centres. The provincial government also funds the Provincial Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental Health at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, and the Ontario Child and Youth Telepsychiatry Program. Beyond the formal mental health system, many children and youth receive mental health services through schools, private providers, CASs and other sources. As with child welfare services, the vast majority of children's mental health services are community-based, and children requiring intensive out-of-home treatment are the minority.
https://www.longwoods.com/content/22360//improving-mental-health-outcomes-for-children-and-youth-exposed-to-abuse-and-neglect
:::
2012: ADHD drugs suspected of hurting Canadian kids.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/09/26/adhd_drugs_suspected_of_hurting_canadian_kids.html
:::
Between 2008/2012 natural causes was listed as the least likely way for a child in care to die at 7% 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% of the total deaths reviewed.
92 children equals 43% of the deaths reviewed by the PDRC. 92 mystery deaths and like every other year no further action was taken to determine the cause...
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 (REDACTED)
:::
2017: Ontario children and youth with ADHD often prescribed antipsychotics, study finds
Almost 12% of people aged 24 or younger with ADHD have been prescribed antipsychotics.
One in 20 Ontario children and youth have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and many are prescribed antipsychotic drugs, despite having no other mental health diagnoses, researchers have found.
A study by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences found almost 12 per cent of kids and youth with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, were prescribed antipsychotics like Risperdal, Zyprexa and Seroquel.
"When we looked at the information on the children and youth with ADHD who were prescribed antipsychotics, a very, very small number of them had a condition where you would expect the use of an antipsychotic — conditions such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia," said senior author Dr. Paul Kurdyak, head of the mental health and addictions program at ICES.
Prescription of antipsychotics to kids with ADHD 'surprising'
They found about five per cent — or 536 — of the children and youth had a diagnosis of ADHD. Eight per cent of them were male and almost three per cent were female.
About 70 per cent of the young people with ADHD were being treated with drugs like Ritalin and Adderall, which are considered standard, first-line therapy for the common condition. About 20 per cent had also been prescribed antidepressants, "which isn't terribly surprising because depression and anxiety commonly co-occur with ADHD," Kurdyak said.
"But the surprising finding to us was the 12 per cent of kids with ADHD who were prescribed an antipsychotic," he said, explaining that the medications have a sedating effect, which could help reduce disruptive behaviour.
However, these drugs can have adverse effects, such as causing significant weight gain. One study found kids gained almost 19 pounds on average after 10 weeks on the drugs — and the risk of developing pre-diabetes or diabetes.
'Not a lot of evidence that they work for ADHD'
"We don't know why these children and youth with ADHD are on antipsychotics, but there is a risk associated with early antipsychotic exposure, so we need to know more about why they are being used, so that the benefits can be weighed against the risks."
Mark Henick, national director of strategic initiatives at the Canadian Mental Health Association, said it's known that some doctors prescribe antipsychotic medications for ADHD, and he's concerned about the high level of use in young people with the disorder.
"They're not indicated for ADHD and there's not a lot of evidence that they work for ADHD," he said Wednesday. "In fact, there's good evidence that they could be harmful."
The ICES study shows that people who go to a psychiatrist for treatment are more likely to be prescribed an antipsychotic, noted Henick, who was not involved in the research. "But it's often not appropriate in these kinds of cases, where we know psychotherapy is quite effective for ADHD."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-children-and-youth-with-adhd-often-prescribed-antipsychotics-study-finds-1.3942049
:::
2017: Nearly a third of tests and treatments are unnecessary: CIHI.
The study also showed that doctors are increasingly and inappropriately prescribing antipsychotics to children and youth. Between 2005 and 2012, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia saw a 300% increase in dispensing of quetiapine to young people aged five to 24, even though the drug is not recommended for use in children and youth.
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/16/E620
In our recent study published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, we report that nearly 40 per cent of adults with developmental disabilities in Ontario were prescribed antipsychotics over a six-year period. Sixty per cent of the individuals prescribed these medications did not have the psychiatric diagnoses for which these drugs are generally studied and approved.
This kind of prescribing has costs — for all of us.
Antipsychotic medications are expensive and their use in this population cost the Ontario government over $117 million during the six-year study period. Scale this amount across the country and the price tag becomes even more significant. If any of that prescribing is potentially inappropriate, as our study suggests, that's a lot of public health dollars that could be better spent elsewhere to support these individuals.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/no-one-is-talking-about-this-overmedicated-group-of-canadians_ca_5cd5147ce4b07bc729749505
:::
2017: New study suggests link between foster care system and youth homelessness.
OTTAWA -- A first-of-its-kind study in Canada has painted a national picture of homeless youth and drawn a link to the foster care system that researchers say could be playing a more active role in keeping young people off the streets.
The study found nearly three out of every five homeless youth were part of the child welfare system at some point in their lives, a rate almost 200 times greater than that of the general population.
Of those with a history in the child welfare system, almost two of every five respondents eventually "aged out" of provincial or territorial care, losing access to the sort of support that could have kept them from becoming homeless, the study found.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/new-study-suggests-link-between-foster-care-system-and-youth-homelessness-1.3538232
:::
2017: Stop dumping kids in care onto the street: Editorial.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2017/08/09/stop-dumping-kids-in-care-onto-the-street-editorial.html
:::
2017: Study urges federal, provincial governments to revamp foster care system to help address youth homelessness.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/08/09/groundbreaking-study-suggests-link-between-canadian-foster-care-system-and-youth-homelessness.html
:::
2019: A new study, published in Psychiatry Research, has concluded that psychiatric diagnoses are scientifically worthless as tools to identify discrete mental health disorders. ... Psychiatric diagnoses all use different decision-making rules. There is a huge amount of overlap in symptoms between diagnoses.
The main findings of the research were:
Psychiatric diagnoses all use different decision-making rules
There is a huge amount of overlap in symptoms between diagnoses
Almost all diagnoses mask the role of trauma and adverse events
Diagnoses tell us little about the individual patient and what treatment they need
The authors conclude that diagnostic labelling represents 'a disingenuous categorical system'.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190708131152.htm
:::
2019: More Canadian teens using over-the-counter drugs to overdose, data show. ERIN ANDERSSEN
The number of intentional overdoses involving common over-the-counter and prescription drugs has increased steeply among young people in the last decade, according to new data provided to The Globe and Mail by the Canadian Institute for Health Information.
The number of cases roughly doubled for children and teenagers in Alberta and Ontario, the two provinces for which data were available, in two categories of drugs that include over-the-counter painkiller medications and prescriptions for drugs such as antidepressants and sedatives, according to the CIHI data, which tracked emergency-department visits.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadian-teens-overdoses-painkillers-antidepressants-data/
:::
5 REASONS WHY THE MOTHERISK SCANDAL SHOULDN’T HAPPEN AGAIN.
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 justifying over 50 admitted apprehensions and keeping tens of thousands of files open... (cha-ching)
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.
https://blog.cansfordlabs.co.uk/5-reasons-why-the-motherisk-scandal-shouldnt-happen-again
:::
"As of January 1, 2020 FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER IN ONTARIO, if you or your family have BEEN DRAGGED THROUGH THE FAMILY COURTS AND NOT received help or support from a Children’s Aid Society, group home, or other child and family service provider in Ontario, you have the right to see and ask for corrections to your personal information in your file... ISN'T THAT NICE OF THEM?
...You can ask to see and get a copy of your personal information in your file. It includes information about your history, your health or notes from talks you’ve had with a social worker or other professional. Your service provider must help you get this information if you ask."
REQUEST YOUR FILE TODAY! Get informed, you have rights!
- Why weren't clients and suspected clients allowed to see their files?
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.”
In her annual report for 2013 released on June 17 there is just one paragraph on children's aid on page 12:
In my 2004, 2009, and 2012 Annual Reports I recommended that Children’s Aid Societies, which provide services for some of our most vulnerable citizens – children and youth in government care, be brought under FIPPA. I am disheartened by the complete lack of action to ensure transparency and accountability by these organizations that received significant public funding.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/beef-up-information-laws-ontario-privacy-czar-says/article1120573/
http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/commissioner-cavoukian-calls-on-government-to-preserve-freedom-and-liberty-514463911.html
The harshest tyranny is that which acts under the protection of legality and the banner of justice..
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
:::
2012: Concerns have been raised that child welfare systems may inappropriately target poor families for intrusive interventions.
The term “neglect” has been critiqued as a class-based label applied disproportionately to poor families WHETHER THEY BE WHITE, RED OR BLACK.
The objectives of the study are to identify the nature and frequency of clinical and poverty-related concerns in child neglect investigations and to assess the service referral response to these needs; to examine the contribution of poverty-related need to case decision-making; and to explore whether substantiated cases of neglect can be divided into subtypes based on different constellations of clinical and poverty-related needs.
This study is a secondary analysis of data collected through the 2008 Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS‑2008), a nationally representative dataset. A selected subsample of neglect investigations from the CIS‑2008 (N = 4,489) is examined through descriptive analyses, logistic regression, and two-step cluster analysis in order to explore each research objective.
ttps://www.homelesshub.ca/resource/exploration-relationship-between-poverty-and-child-neglect-canadian-child-welfare
:::
2018: What separation from parents does to children: ‘The effect is catastrophic’
This is what happens inside children when they are forcibly separated from their parents.
Their heart rate goes up. Their body releases a flood of stress hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline. Those stress hormones can start killing off dendrites — the little branches in brain cells that transmit messages. In time, the stress can start killing off neurons and — especially in young children — wreaking dramatic and long-term damage, both psychologically and to the physical structure of the brain.
“The effect is catastrophic,” said Charles Nelson, a pediatrics professor at Harvard Medical School. “There’s so much research on this that if people paid attention at all to the science, they would never do this.”
Separating kids from parents a 'textbook strategy' of domestic abuse, experts say — and causes irreversible, lifelong damage even when there is no other choice.
“Being separated from parents or having inconsistent living conditions for long periods of time can create changes in thoughts and behavior patterns, and an increase in challenging behavior and stress-related physical symptoms,” such as sleep difficulty, nightmares, flashbacks, crying, and yelling says Amy van Schagen - California State University.
The Science Is Unequivocal: Separating Families Is Harmful to Children
In news stories and opinion pieces, psychological scientists are sharing evidence-based insight from decades of research demonstrating the harmful effects of separating parents and children.
In an op-ed in USA Today, Roberta Michnick Golinkoff (University of Delaware), Mary Dozier (University of Delaware), and Kathy Hirsh-Pasek (Temple University) write:
“Years of research are clear: Children need their parents to feel secure in the world, to explore and learn, and to grow strong emotionally.”
In a Washington Post op-ed, James Coan (University of Virginia) says:
“As a clinical psychologist and neuroscientist at the University of Virginia, I study how the brain transforms social connection into better mental and physical health. My research suggests that maintaining close ties to trusted loved ones is a vital buffer against the external stressors we all face. But not being an expert on how this affects children, I recently invited five internationally recognized developmental scientists to chat with me about the matter on a science podcast I host. As we discussed the border policy’s effect on the children ensnared by it, even I was surprised to learn just how damaging it is likely to be.”
Mia Smith-Bynum (University of Maryland) is quoted in The Cut:
“The science leads to the conclusion that the deprivation of caregiving produces a form of extreme suffering in children. Being separated from a parent isn’t just a trauma — it breaks the relationship that helps children cope with other traumas.
Forceful separation is particularly damaging, explains clinical psychologist Mia Smith-Bynum, a professor of family science at the University of Maryland, when parents feel there’s nothing in their power that can be done to get their child back.
For all the dislocation, strangeness and pain of being separated forcibly from parents, many children can and do recover, said Mary Dozier, a professor of child development at the University of Delaware. “Not all of them — some kids never recover,” Dr. Dozier said. “But I’ve been amazed at how well kids can do after institutionalization if they’re able to have responsive and nurturing care afterward.”
The effects of that harm may evolve over time, says Antonio Puente, a professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington who specializes in cultural neuropsychology. What may begin as acute emotional distress could reemerge later in life as PTSD, behavioral issues and other signs of lasting neuropsychological damage, he says.
“A parent is really in many ways an extension of the child’s biology as that child is developing,” Tottenham said. “That adult who’s routinely been there provides this enormous stress-buffering effect on a child’s brain at a time when we haven’t yet developed that for ourselves. They’re really one organism, in a way.” When the reliable buffering and guidance of a parent is suddenly withdrawn, the riot of learning that molds and shapes the brain can be short-circuited, she said.
In a story from the BBC, Jack Shonkoff (Harvard University) discusses evidence related to long-term impacts:
Jack P Shonkoff, director of the Harvard University Center on the Developing Child, says it is incorrect to assume that some of the youngest children removed from their parents’ care will be too young to remember and therefore relatively unharmed. “When that stress system stays activated for a significant period of time, it can have a wear and tear effect biologically.
:::
Is the high cost of clean water and hydro putting your family at risk of CAS involvement?
Researchers at the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work at the University of Toronto say that poverty plays a significant role in kids being taken from their families and placed into care in Ontario.
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
:::
2019: 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.
Groves says some may think that sounds "subjective" but she says rulings on abuse are based on the "impressions" of the unqualified unregistered social worker, the opinions of questionable medical professionals, as well as other evidence like the fraudulent Motherisk Test.
Balance of Probabilities Definition: Burden of proof in civil trials. ... The common distinction is made with the burden of truth in a criminal trial, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil trial, one party's case need only be more probable than the other.
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
:::
DO ONTARIO CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY'S WORKERS FIT THE DEFINITION OF A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR UNDER THE ACT AND SHOULD THEY BE ACCOUNTABLE TO AN INVESTIGATIVE CODE OF CONDUCT?
A private investigator is a person who performs work, for remuneration, that consists primarily of conducting investigations in order to provide information. 2005, c. 34, s. 2 (2).
The Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005 (PSISA) regulates the private security industry. The PSISA was proclaimed into force on August 23, 2007 to help professionalize the security industry, increase public safety and ensure practitioners receive proper training and are qualified to provide PROTECTIVE SERVICES. The PSISA and its regulations govern the way the private security industry operates in Ontario.
INVESTIGATOR ARE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO AN INVESTIGATIVE CODE OF CONDUCT.
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05p34
HOW DOES THIS ACT NOT APPLY TO THE ONTARIO CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY?
Does Ontario Require a License to be a Private Investigator?
Yes. In the province of Ontario anyone performing the activities of a private investigator is required to hold a valid Ontario Private Investigator License and be employed by a licensed private investigator/agency.
It is illegal to sell yourself as a Private Investigator without holding a license and working for a licensed agency. This does not stop scammers… In Ontario you will find a handful of unlicensed and shady agencies ...
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE STANDARDS, OR LEGISLATION, OR THE BUREAUCRACY - IT'S ABOUT ETHICS AND APPLICATION. IF YOUR GOING TO FIX WHAT'S WRONG WITH CHILD PROTECTION - START AT THE BEGINNING. FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE.
IT'S NOT THE SYSTEM THAT LACKS ETHICS, MORALS AND ACCOUNTABILITY OR ACTS IN BAD FAITH - IT'S THE PEOPLE ENTRUSTED TO OVERSEE THE SYSTEM THAT LACK THOSE THINGS. IT'S NOT BAD SYSTEM THAT MAKES GOOD WORKERS BAD - IT'S BAD WORKERS THAT MAKE A SYSTEM THAT'S NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD, BAD.
:::
2015: Under suspicion: Concerns about child welfare.
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
:::
2013: Barbara Kay: Attacking the root of children's aid societies' rot.
Children are not pets. Removing them from the care of their families must be the exception, not the norm.
CAS oversight is desperately needed. As Ontario Ombudsman André Martin said in a recent Toronto Star article: “Every year my office is forced to turn away hundreds of people complaining about children’s aid societies. We are powerless to investigate these cases.” Since 2006, there have been “more than 2,500 people we have been unable to help.” -
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/bkay
:::
2019: Court rules Ontario animal protection law enforcement regime unconstitutional.
"Animal protection laws are the only laws still enforced by private agencies, and the court ruled that private enforcement without transparency and accountability is unacceptable," said lawyer Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice, in a press release statement.
While Breder says she agrees that in most cases, private organizations shouldn’t possess government-like powers to enter a person’s property and seize their belongings, finding the OSPCA’s powers completely unconstitutional could lead to a slippery slope for other SPCAs nationwide.
WHAT ABOUT ONTARIO'S SELF REGULATED FULLY GOVERNMENT FUNDED NON PROFIT MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR PRIVATE CORPORATION?
THE CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY...
The sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in question are sections 7 and 8 (concerning individual autonomy and unreasonable search and seizure, respectively). While the decision states there is no direct charter violation of the distribution of legislative powers and “specific warrantless search and/or seizure powers” in the OSPCA Act, Justice Timothy Minnema wrote in his decision that assigning “police and other investigative powers to the OSPCA” violates s. 7.
(FUNNY HOW SECTION 7 AND 8 APPLIES TO PETS AND NOT CHILDREN)
https://www.peta.org/issues/animal-companion-issues/animal-shelters/
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mummified-cat-found-in-t-o-humane-society-ceiling-1.458967
https://www.cp24.com/official-calls-animal-shelter-house-of-horrors-reports-finding-mummified-cat-1.458960
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2009/11/28/humane_society_it_seems_like_house_of_horrors.html
https://thepetshopsite.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/animal-shelter-turned-into-a-%E2%80%98house-of-horrors%E2%80%99/
:::
2019: Court rules Ontario animal protection law enforcement regime unconstitutional.
The current animal protection law enforcement regime in Ontario has been ruled to be unconstitutional by the Superior Court of Justice.
The court struck down the province’s current regime Jan. 2 in a Kingston court in Bogaerts v. Attorney General of Ontario, declaring that it is unconstitutional for the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, a private charity not subject to reasonable oversight measures, to enforce public animal protection laws.
The sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in question are sections 7 and 8 (concerning individual autonomy and unreasonable search and seizure, respectively). While the decision states there is no direct charter violation of the distribution of legislative powers and “specific warrantless search and/or seizure powers” in the OSPCA Act, Justice Timothy Minnema wrote in his decision that assigning “police and other investigative powers to the OSPCA” violates s. 7.
(AGAIN - FUNNY HOW SECTION 7 AND 8 APPLIES TO PETS AND NOT CHILDREN)
As a result, the court suspended the declaration of invalidity for 12 months to provide Ontario time for restructuring its animal protection regime to ensure the desired accountability needed to operate with having such a public function. Minnema wrote that it would be “an untenable result” to “compromise animal welfare for even a transitional period” of time as the province “considers its next step.”
https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/general/court-rules-ontario-animal-protection-law-enforcement-regime-unconstitutional/275753
:::
ANOTHER ODDLY SIGNIFICANT FACTOR ADDING TO THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN CARE.
Motherisk Report: 13 OF 32 Recommendations to Prevent Children Who Don't Need To Be Placed In Care From Being Placed In Care Anyway.
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, FILE THE REQUIRED PAPERWORK BEFORE DEADLINES HAVE PASSED OR PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT COUNTER A WORKERS SWORN AFFIDAVIT OR CHALLENGE ALLEGED EXPERTS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT JUDGES 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
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.”
In her annual report for 2013 released on June 17 there is just one paragraph on children's aid on page 12:
In my 2004, 2009, and 2012 Annual Reports I recommended that Children’s Aid Societies, which provide services for some of our most vulnerable citizens – children and youth in government care, be brought under FIPPA. I am disheartened by the complete lack of action to ensure transparency and accountability by these organizations that received significant public funding. As part of the modernization of the Acts, I call on the government to finally address this glaring omission and ensure that Children’s Aid Societies are added to the list of institutions covered.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner is appointed by and reports to the Ontario Legislative Assembly, and is independent of the government of the day. The Commissioner's mandate includes overseeing the access and privacy provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the Personal Health Information Protection Act, and commenting on other access and privacy issues.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/beef-up-information-laws-ontario-privacy-czar-says/article1120573/
http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/commissioner-cavoukian-calls-on-government-to-preserve-freedom-and-liberty-514463911.html
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).
Ensuring the Reliability of Expert Evidence
Bodily samples
2. 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 (why not video record?) 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.
(SO DOES THIS MEAN THE UNREGISTERED UNQUALIFIED SOCIAL WORKERS WILL HAVE TO DOCUMENT THREATENING TO REMOVE CHILDREN FOR A LACK OF COOPERATION SIGNING EVERYTHING A WORKER WANTS PARENTS TO JUST SIGN?)
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;
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.
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
:::
ANOTHER FACTOR ADDING TO THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN CARE.
Ontario Court of Appeal Confirms Ongoing “Gatekeeper” Function in Respect of Expert Evidence. Ryan Morris and Ravi Amarnath June 22, 2017.
In its recent decision in Bruff-Murphy v. Gunawardena (Bruff-Murphy), the Court of Appeal for Ontario (Court) set aside a jury award and ordered a new trial on the basis that the trial judge did not correctly apply the Supreme Court of Canada’s (SCC) test relating to the admission of expert evidence.
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
:::
Parents Rights were ripped out by the roots...
“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.
Without checks, balance or judicial oversight all of the parents who were tested were powerless to resist because they weren't testing people with the resources their own lawyer or to get a second opinion. Poor 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.
The ministry sidestepped a question emailed by the Toronto Star on whether it would impose the requirement to register their 5000 plus employees with the College of Social Work, stating instead that it is funding the authorization process and leaving the society to police themselves with secret internal processes.
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 a state agency. To guard against such an imbalance, it is critical that our legal system respect the time-tested procedural safeguards developed to specifically ensure that the disadvantaged party is treated fairly.
Yet according to the Motherisk report, these safeguards were ignored. The report describes a litany of procedural injustices perpetrated on parents: parents were pressured to consent to testing; were not informed of their right to reject testing; they had adverse inferences drawn against them when they rejected testing; they were required to prove the unreliability of testing instead of the other way around; and they were refused the right to cross-examine Motherisk "experts" at summary judgment motions.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees procedural fairness when the state interferes with fundamental personal rights, such as the right by parents to care for their children. Ironically enough, the issue of taking body samples (such as hair for testing) without proper consent for the purpose of criminal investigations was found to be an infringement of the Charter 20 years ago by the Supreme Court.
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
:::
No comments:
Post a Comment