Your Right to Complain to a Children’s Aid Society (and no one else so it becomes a matter for union arbitration should their employer find discipline justified)
WHAT PROTECTIONS DO INVOLUNTARY CLIENTS OF ONTARIO'S CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES HAVE BEHIND ALL THE CLOSED DOORS?
If you have a question or concern about services from a children’s aid society, you can talk to the unregistered worker who is helping you, the worker’s unregistered supervisor, or someone else at the society. If you do not want to first speak to them or if speaking to your worker or others at the society does not answer your questions, you have the right to start a formal process to complain to the society. Societies are required, by law, to establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel to review formal complaints submitted in writing who will totally deny any wrongdoing by their workers or themselves.
IS THERE ANY REASON TO TRUST THE MANY FACES OF A SOCIETY SHROUDED IN SECRECY AND THEIR ALL INTERNAL COMPLAINT PROCESSES?
https://stepstojustice.ca/questions/abuse-and-family-violence/how-do-i-complain-about-childrens-aid-society-worker
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/03/14/in_leaked_memo_peel_cas_staff_asked_to_keep_cases_open_to_retain_funding.html
:::
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.
WHAT PROTECTIONS DO INVOLUNTARY CLIENTS OF ONTARIO'S CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES HAVE BEHIND ALL THE CLOSED DOORS?
If you have a question or concern about services from a children’s aid society, you can talk to the unregistered worker who is helping you, the worker’s unregistered supervisor, or someone else at the society. If you do not want to first speak to them or if speaking to your worker or others at the society does not answer your questions, you have the right to start a formal process to complain to the society. Societies are required, by law, to establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel to review formal complaints submitted in writing who will totally deny any wrongdoing by their workers or themselves.
IS THERE ANY REASON TO TRUST THE MANY FACES OF A SOCIETY SHROUDED IN SECRECY AND THEIR ALL INTERNAL COMPLAINT PROCESSES?
https://stepstojustice.ca/questions/abuse-and-family-violence/how-do-i-complain-about-childrens-aid-society-worker
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/03/14/in_leaked_memo_peel_cas_staff_asked_to_keep_cases_open_to_retain_funding.html
:::
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
:::
2018: Anonymous reporting not guaranteed: Ontario has no privacy protection for people who report child abuse
B.C. woman 'disheartened' after learning agency had right to disclose her identity to tenant she reported and the parents had the right to face their accusor.
Despite giving individuals the option to report anonymously, there is nothing in provincial legislation that requires children's aid societies to protect the anonymity of people who report possible child abuse or neglect.
A social worker from B.C. is calling for legislative change since discovering an Ontario children's aid society was allowed to disclose her identity after she'd reported a concern anonymously.
Despite giving individuals the option to report anonymously, there is nothing in provincial legislation that requires children's aid societies to protect the anonymity of people who report possible child abuse or neglect.
Dawn Slykhuis learned that the hard way.
Ottawa eyes streamlined centre for child abuse investigations
6 months of silence from Sudbury CAS after privacy breach sees judge suspended
She has a rental home in Barrie, and two months ago while Slykhuis was in the process of evicting her tenant she was told by her property manager that there were drugs in the home and in reach of children.
Anyone who is aware of possible child abuse or neglect has a legal duty to report it. And as a social worker Slykhuis knew that she would, even though it could make her "messy eviction even messier."
Turns out it did, Slykhuis told CBC Toronto.
I reiterated several times that it's really important that I stay anonymous.
- Dawn Slykhuis
Slykhuis phoned the local children's aid society, Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions, and had to leave her name and number with a call centre so a child protection worker could call her back to take the report.
However, she says she made it clear she didn't want to be named.
"I reiterated several times that it's really important that I stay anonymous," Slykhuis told CBC Toronto. "At no point did they say that I wouldn't."
Three days later, she was shocked to receive a text message from her tenant about the report she'd filed.
The B.C. woman called the children's aid society and says she was told the tenant had indeed been informed the complaint originated in B.C.
"Her landlord who's evicting her is in British Columbia, she put two and two together and that revealed my identity," said Slykhuis.
Harassment after reporting
Slykhuis says since then her tenant has been evicted but she says the tenant is refusing to pay back roughly $10,000 in rent she had promised before she found out Slykhuis had reported her.
"The house was in very, very poor condition, you could call it trashed," said Slykhuis. "What's worse is she's taken to harassing the new tenants, my family, myself — threatening — all of it she relates back to me phoning child protection."
Even if a child protection worker hadn't told Slykhuis's tenant the call came from B.C., Slykhuis says the children's aid society later told her that her identity would have been revealed if the tenant requested to view her file.
Two months ago Dawn Slykhuis was in the process of evicting her tenant when she was told by her property manager that there were drugs in the Barrie home and in reach of children. (Submitted by Dawn Slykhuis)
Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions would not comment on Slykhuis's case specifically, but responded generally to reporting concerns about anonymity.
In an email, the agency told CBC Toronto, "confidentiality cannot be explicitly assured when making a referral if the person making the call has disclosed their identifying information."
But the email also said Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions does "adhere whenever possible to concerns about being identified that are relayed when making a report."
Slykhuis says she was "so disheartened" when she found out her identity could be revealed.
"The most important people in ensuring the safety of children in Ontario are the people reporting the abuse," she said.
"Those are the people providing the necessary information for children's aid to do their investigations. And if they're not protected, they're not going to call."
The most important people in ensuring the safety of children in Ontario are the people reporting the abuse.
- Dawn Slykhuis
On the Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions online reporting page there is an option to click "yes" to report anonymously.
The agency acknowledged that "in practice" they ask a person reporting whether "they are open to being identified" in their online form and "when speaking with an intake screener."
And Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions isn't the only agency offering anonymity as an option in reporting child abuse.
No provincial protection
The Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies says "you can report anonymously" on the "how to report abuse" page of its website.
In an email statement, a Ministry of Children and Youth Services spokesperson told CBC Toronto that in Ontario "children's aid societies are independent entities that deliver child protection services in their communities."
Children's aid societies "are expected to have policies that comply with Ontario's Case Information Disclosure Policy," but that policy "does not provide a specific approach to preserving the anonymity of individuals who report possible child abuse or neglect."
Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions told CBC Toronto that the Child, Youth and Family Services Act "does not include any provisions that address anonymity and/or privacy for the individual who makes a referral."
No privacy oversight until 2020
Slykhuis also contacted Ontario's privacy commissioner to try to file a complaint about what she considers a breach of her privacy.
But it turns out the section of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act that deals with the collection, use and disclosure of personal information doesn't fall under the oversight of the privacy commissioner. And it won't until Jan. 1, 2020.
"I don't even know what that's going to look like, or if it's going to cover people who report abuse." said Slykhuis. "But that still means we have two more years where people who report child abuse will continue to be put at risk."
In the meantime, her only recourse is filing a complaint with Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions.
The children's aid society also addressed the changes coming in 2020. In a statement, it told CBC Toronto that the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies and children's aid societies "are currently reviewing whether these provisions will cover professionals and the public who make referrals."
(Just how registered are professionals who work closely with the society if the society can keep who they are a secret.? I think parents have a right to check the records for any complaints made against any registered or licensed professionals who are making a complaint to the CAS... https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2011/09/29/bad_teachers_ontarios_secret_list.html)
More generally, Slykhuis would like to see Ontario children's aid societies remove information about being able to report anonymously from their websites.
"If I had known I couldn't report anonymously I may have given someone else's number or mailed in a complaint … done more to protect my identity," she said.
"I thought I'd done enough."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Nicole Brockbank
Reporter, CBC Toronto
Nicole Brockbank is a reporter for CBC Toronto's Enterprise Unit. Fuelled by coffee, she digs up, researches and writes original investigative and feature stories. nicole.brockbank@cbc.ca
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/anonymous-reporting-child-abuse-in-ontario-1.4708673
:::
2018: Harmful Impacts: Report of the Motherisk Commission.
"Most of the parents who were tested were powerless to resist. They told us they submitted to the testing under duress, in fear of losing custody of or access to their children. In some of the cases we reviewed, parents were told explicitly that this would be the consequence if they did not submit to testing."
Judith C. Beaman
Commissioner
Disclosure
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.
Ensuring the Reliability of Expert Evidence:
Bodily samples
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.
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.
https://youtu.be/WIJqYz91ceU
Temporary proceedings
Children's aid societies and courts often drew negative inferences about parents who didn't submit to testing or who disputed the results, she said. The tests were often used as a proxy for assessing parenting and the results were regularly admitted into evidence without the usual checks and balances, she said.
Judith C. Beaman
Commissioner
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.
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.
https://youtu.be/3POTUUN2tXU
Information for parents
The Ministry of Children and Youth Services should fund the development of a comprehensive, plain-language guide on the child protection system for parents who are involved with a children’s aid society. The Ministry should require that societies provide a copy of this guide to all parents at the time of their first interaction with them.
Summary judgment motions
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);
require the court to conduct a voir dire before admitting any expert evidence; and
C) 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.
"The testing was imposed on parents and other caregivers who were among the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society. There was scant regard for due process or their rights to privacy and bodily integrity," she said in a news conference.
Judith C. Beaman
Commissioner
Accessibility of Legal Aid funds
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;
B) expand its Big Case Management program to child protection cases; and
C) expand its Complex Case Rate policy to child protection counsel.
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.
Child welfare education for self proclaimed child protection social workers..
All social work schools in Ontario that do not already do so should offer a specialized child welfare program, which should include placements in children’s aid societies or related agencies serving parents and children. These programs should be developed with the input of parents and youth who have experience with the child welfare system. Social work schools should also ensure that their students are taught about the legal framework and social context for child protection work, including training on systemic racism.
SEEMS TO ME THREE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED.. ETHICAL AND JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT... NO RECOMMENDATION FOR WORKERS TO BE REGISTERED WITH THE COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORK AND NO JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT TO PREVENT WORKERS FROM CREATING FILES AND SEARCHING HOMES JUST TO MEET THEIR FUNDING GOALS..
https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/motherisk/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/motherisk-colorado-court-case-1.4364862
https://projects.thestar.com/motherisk/part-2/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motherisk
https://rrj.ca/hitting-the-motherlode/
"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. As part of the modernization of the Acts, I call on the government to finally address this glaring omission and ensure that Children’s Aid Societies are added to the list of institutions covered.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner is appointed by and reports to the Ontario Legislative Assembly, and is independent of the government of the day. The Commissioner's mandate includes overseeing the access and privacy provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the Personal Health Information Protection Act, and commenting on other access and privacy issues.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/beef-up-information-laws-ontario-privacy-czar-says/article1120573/
http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/commissioner-cavoukian-calls-on-government-to-preserve-freedom-and-liberty-514463911.html
The 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.”
:::
2019: Access and Privacy Under Ontario’s Child and Family Services Law.
On January 1, 2020, Part X of the Child, Youth, and Family Services Act comes into force, creating a new access and privacy framework for Ontario’s child and family services sector. The Information and Privacy Commissioner will oversee these new rules for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information.
To raise awareness of access and privacy rights among, children, youth and families, the IPC has prepared a brochure, poster and quick reference card. In the coming months, we’ll continue to update our website with additional materials for youth and answers to frequently asked questions.
If you have not done so, check out our resources for service providers. These include a guide to Part X, a guide to tracking and submitting annual statistics to the IPC and reporting privacy breaches to the IPC. Your first annual statistics report is due to the IPC on March 2021, so it is essential that you begin your tracking program as soon as Part X takes effect in January 2020.
Starting January 1, 2020, if you or your family have 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.
Under Ontario’s child and family services law, service providers must let you know how your personal information will be used and tell you how they might share it. They must also make sure any
personal information they get from you stays private and let you know if it has been lost, shared, stolen or viewed when it shouldn’t be.
Click Here For “It’s About You” Brochure
https://www.payukotayno.ca/files/2019-its-about-you-brochure-web.pdf
https://www.payukotayno.ca/access-and-privacy-under-ontarios-child-and-family-services-law/
:::
Are You Ready for the New Privacy Scheme under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017? September 24, 2019 · 5 min read By: Jordan D. Simon.
"The Children's Aid Society will provide non-identifying information from our records to qualifying adult adopted persons, adoptive parents, birth parents, birth grandparents, birth siblings, birth aunts/uncles as well as to former Crown Wards."
The new Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (Act) which largely came into force on April 30, 2018 constituted a significant overhaul of the legislative and regulatory framework for children’s services.
One of the key changes is the introduction of a detailed legislative privacy scheme to regulate the handling of personal information of individuals receiving or participating in the provision of services governed by the Act. These provisions are due to come into force on January 1, 2020.
Learn more in this edition of Reaching Out.
Overview of Changes Relating to Privacy
The provisions set out new rules as to when personal information can be collected, used and disclosed, with or without consent of an individual or their substitute decision-maker, including disclosures without consent between Children’s Aid Societies. There are also express provisions for the disclosure of personal information to the Ministry of Children and Youth Services to permit it to exercise its oversight functions. The legislation is modelled on provisions in the Personal Health Information and Protection Act, 2004.
Collection, Use and Disclosure of Personal Information
The Act creates specific rules as to when clients’ personal information can be collected, used and shared. Specifically, with the exception of personal information that is required to be collected, used or disclosed by law, the collection, use and disclosure of an individual’s personal information from the person to whom the information pertains will only be permitted if: consent is provided
the collection, use or disclosure is necessary for a lawful purpose
other information is not available that will serve the purpose of that collection, use or disclosure; and the collection, use or disclosure is limited to what is reasonably necessary There are some exceptions to the rules surrounding collection. Service providers may collect personal information without consent if it is reasonably necessary for the provision of a service and obtaining consent is not reasonably possible or, if collection is reasonably necessary to assess, reduce or eliminate the risk of serious harm to a person or a group of persons.
Exceptions to the Requirement for Consent
The Act also sets out certain exceptions to the requirement of consent when personal information is shared or disclosed. Personal information may be disclosed without consent in the following circumstances: to law enforcement to aid an investigation to a proposed litigation guardian for the purposes of contacting a relative or potential substitute decision-maker if the individual is injured, incapacitated, otherwise not capable or deceased if it is necessary to assess, reduce or eliminate risk of serious harm to a person or group of persons; or to another Children’s Aid Society or child welfare authority.
Collection of Personal Information from a Third Party
The Act outlines rules regarding the collection of an individual’s personal information from a source that is not the person to whom the information pertains. Indirect collection of personal information is permitted if the individual to whom the information relates consents. In the absence of consent, indirect collection is permitted where: the collection is necessary to assess, reduce or eliminate a risk of serious harm to a person or a group of persons and it is not reasonably possible to collect the information directly from the individual to whom it relates the collection is by a Children’s Aid Society from another Children’s Aid Society or a child welfare agency outside Ontario and the information is reasonably necessary to assess, reduce or eliminate a risk of harm to a child
it is authorized by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, or
it is required by law.
Right to Access Personal Information
The new provisions of the Act will provide clients with the right to request access to their records of personal information in addition to the right to request that their information be corrected.
Additional Requirements
There are additional requirements in the Act regarding the protection of clients’ personal information and the need to ensure that information is accurate and up-to-date. This includes an obligation to ensure that personal information is protected against theft, loss and unauthorized access. Further, in the event that personal information is stolen, lost, used or disclosed without authority, service providers are obligated to notify the affected individual at the first reasonable opportunity. In certain circumstances, the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the Minister of Children and Youth Services will also need to be notified.
Complaint Procedure
The Act creates a complaint procedure whereby any individual who has reasonable grounds to believe that the Act has been contravened may make a complaint to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Additionally, the Commissioner has the authority to conduct a review of any matter, even in the absence of a formal complaint.
The complaint procedure provides the Commissioner with broad inspection powers, including the right to access premises to inspect books, records or other documents relating to complaint. After assessing any complaint, the Commissioner may make orders regarding the collection, use, disclosure or disposal of personal information. Service providers have a right to appeal orders made by the Commissioner. However, once an order has become final as a result of there being no further right of a appeal, individuals may commence proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice for damages for actual harm suffered as a result of any contravention of the Act.
Conclusion
The new legislative privacy scheme regulating the handling of personal information reflects a move towards greater oversight by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services and a greater emphasis on accountability within the sector. As such, service providers should be in the process of auditing their current compliance protocols and accountability safeguards to ensure that they are prepared to comply with the provisions of the Act that will come into force on January 1, 2020.
Hicks Morley is uniquely situated to assist you in the development of policies and protocols in relation to these new privacy initiatives. Please contact any member of our Information, Data Security & Privacy group for more information.
The article in this client update provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP. ©
Practice Areas: Information, Data Security & Privacy
Industries: Social Services
Tags: Child and Family Services Act, Personal Health Information and Protection of Privacy Act
https://hicksmorley.com/2019/09/24/are-you-ready-for-new-privacy-scheme-under-child-youth-and-family-services-act-2017/
:::
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 along with consent forms and service agreements, with scant regard for due process of their rights to privacy and bodily integrity,” the report states. (“Behind every one of the 56 ‘cases,’ families were broken apart thousands of case files were left open to meet individual agency funding goals..)
Without all the checks, balances, procedural safeguards and judicial oversight all of the parents who were tested were powerless to resist. 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.
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.
"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. As part of the modernization of the Acts, I call on the government to finally address this glaring omission and ensure that Children’s Aid Societies are added to the list of institutions covered.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner is appointed by and reports to the Ontario Legislative Assembly, and is independent of the government of the day. The Commissioner's mandate includes overseeing the access and privacy provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the Personal Health Information Protection Act, and commenting on other access and privacy issues.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/beef-up-information-laws-ontario-privacy-czar-says/article1120573/
http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/commissioner-cavoukian-calls-on-government-to-preserve-freedom-and-liberty-514463911.html
The 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.”
:::
2019: Access and Privacy Under Ontario’s Child and Family Services Law.
On January 1, 2020, Part X of the Child, Youth, and Family Services Act comes into force, creating a new access and privacy framework for Ontario’s child and family services sector. The Information and Privacy Commissioner will oversee these new rules for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information.
To raise awareness of access and privacy rights among, children, youth and families, the IPC has prepared a brochure, poster and quick reference card. In the coming months, we’ll continue to update our website with additional materials for youth and answers to frequently asked questions.
If you have not done so, check out our resources for service providers. These include a guide to Part X, a guide to tracking and submitting annual statistics to the IPC and reporting privacy breaches to the IPC. Your first annual statistics report is due to the IPC on March 2021, so it is essential that you begin your tracking program as soon as Part X takes effect in January 2020.
Starting January 1, 2020, if you or your family have 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.
Under Ontario’s child and family services law, service providers must let you know how your personal information will be used and tell you how they might share it. They must also make sure any
personal information they get from you stays private and let you know if it has been lost, shared, stolen or viewed when it shouldn’t be.
Click Here For “It’s About You” Brochure
https://www.payukotayno.ca/files/2019-its-about-you-brochure-web.pdf
https://www.payukotayno.ca/access-and-privacy-under-ontarios-child-and-family-services-law/
:::
Are You Ready for the New Privacy Scheme under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017? September 24, 2019 · 5 min read By: Jordan D. Simon.
"The Children's Aid Society will provide non-identifying information from our records to qualifying adult adopted persons, adoptive parents, birth parents, birth grandparents, birth siblings, birth aunts/uncles as well as to former Crown Wards."
The new Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (Act) which largely came into force on April 30, 2018 constituted a significant overhaul of the legislative and regulatory framework for children’s services.
One of the key changes is the introduction of a detailed legislative privacy scheme to regulate the handling of personal information of individuals receiving or participating in the provision of services governed by the Act. These provisions are due to come into force on January 1, 2020.
Learn more in this edition of Reaching Out.
Overview of Changes Relating to Privacy
The provisions set out new rules as to when personal information can be collected, used and disclosed, with or without consent of an individual or their substitute decision-maker, including disclosures without consent between Children’s Aid Societies. There are also express provisions for the disclosure of personal information to the Ministry of Children and Youth Services to permit it to exercise its oversight functions. The legislation is modelled on provisions in the Personal Health Information and Protection Act, 2004.
Collection, Use and Disclosure of Personal Information
The Act creates specific rules as to when clients’ personal information can be collected, used and shared. Specifically, with the exception of personal information that is required to be collected, used or disclosed by law, the collection, use and disclosure of an individual’s personal information from the person to whom the information pertains will only be permitted if: consent is provided
the collection, use or disclosure is necessary for a lawful purpose
other information is not available that will serve the purpose of that collection, use or disclosure; and the collection, use or disclosure is limited to what is reasonably necessary There are some exceptions to the rules surrounding collection. Service providers may collect personal information without consent if it is reasonably necessary for the provision of a service and obtaining consent is not reasonably possible or, if collection is reasonably necessary to assess, reduce or eliminate the risk of serious harm to a person or a group of persons.
Exceptions to the Requirement for Consent
The Act also sets out certain exceptions to the requirement of consent when personal information is shared or disclosed. Personal information may be disclosed without consent in the following circumstances: to law enforcement to aid an investigation to a proposed litigation guardian for the purposes of contacting a relative or potential substitute decision-maker if the individual is injured, incapacitated, otherwise not capable or deceased if it is necessary to assess, reduce or eliminate risk of serious harm to a person or group of persons; or to another Children’s Aid Society or child welfare authority.
Collection of Personal Information from a Third Party
The Act outlines rules regarding the collection of an individual’s personal information from a source that is not the person to whom the information pertains. Indirect collection of personal information is permitted if the individual to whom the information relates consents. In the absence of consent, indirect collection is permitted where: the collection is necessary to assess, reduce or eliminate a risk of serious harm to a person or a group of persons and it is not reasonably possible to collect the information directly from the individual to whom it relates the collection is by a Children’s Aid Society from another Children’s Aid Society or a child welfare agency outside Ontario and the information is reasonably necessary to assess, reduce or eliminate a risk of harm to a child
it is authorized by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, or
it is required by law.
Right to Access Personal Information
The new provisions of the Act will provide clients with the right to request access to their records of personal information in addition to the right to request that their information be corrected.
Additional Requirements
There are additional requirements in the Act regarding the protection of clients’ personal information and the need to ensure that information is accurate and up-to-date. This includes an obligation to ensure that personal information is protected against theft, loss and unauthorized access. Further, in the event that personal information is stolen, lost, used or disclosed without authority, service providers are obligated to notify the affected individual at the first reasonable opportunity. In certain circumstances, the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the Minister of Children and Youth Services will also need to be notified.
Complaint Procedure
The Act creates a complaint procedure whereby any individual who has reasonable grounds to believe that the Act has been contravened may make a complaint to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Additionally, the Commissioner has the authority to conduct a review of any matter, even in the absence of a formal complaint.
The complaint procedure provides the Commissioner with broad inspection powers, including the right to access premises to inspect books, records or other documents relating to complaint. After assessing any complaint, the Commissioner may make orders regarding the collection, use, disclosure or disposal of personal information. Service providers have a right to appeal orders made by the Commissioner. However, once an order has become final as a result of there being no further right of a appeal, individuals may commence proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice for damages for actual harm suffered as a result of any contravention of the Act.
Conclusion
The new legislative privacy scheme regulating the handling of personal information reflects a move towards greater oversight by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services and a greater emphasis on accountability within the sector. As such, service providers should be in the process of auditing their current compliance protocols and accountability safeguards to ensure that they are prepared to comply with the provisions of the Act that will come into force on January 1, 2020.
Hicks Morley is uniquely situated to assist you in the development of policies and protocols in relation to these new privacy initiatives. Please contact any member of our Information, Data Security & Privacy group for more information.
The article in this client update provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP. ©
Practice Areas: Information, Data Security & Privacy
Industries: Social Services
Tags: Child and Family Services Act, Personal Health Information and Protection of Privacy Act
https://hicksmorley.com/2019/09/24/are-you-ready-for-new-privacy-scheme-under-child-youth-and-family-services-act-2017/
:::
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 along with consent forms and service agreements, with scant regard for due process of their rights to privacy and bodily integrity,” the report states. (“Behind every one of the 56 ‘cases,’ families were broken apart thousands of case files were left open to meet individual agency funding goals..)
Without all the checks, balances, procedural safeguards and judicial oversight all of the parents who were tested were powerless to resist. 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.
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
:::
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.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/04/03/childrens-aid-societies-launch-major-training-reforms.html
:::
What’s the difference between psychologist, psychological associate, registered psychotherapist, social worker, psychiatrist, therapist, counsellor and a child protection worker?
Some child protection workers have qualifications or minimal qualifications in social work but refuse to register or be accountable to anyone other than the ministry that holds the purse strings..
Should unregistered child protection workers with social worker qualifications have the same privilege registered social workers have?
Social Workers are registered with the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers. They have a Bachelor degree in Social Work. Social Workers provide assessment and psychotherapy to clients. They have knowledge of diagnostic criteria, and evidence-based treatments for mental health conditions.
Social Workers often play an integral role in assessment and diagnosis under supervision of Psychologists and/or Psychiatrists. Often, Social Workers have a special interest in how individuals are impacted upon by society and factors such as discrimination.
http://www.hamiltonpsych.ca/faq.html#:~:text=Social%20Workers%20are%20registered%20with,Workers%20and%20Social%20Service%20Workers.&text=Social%20Workers%20often%20play%20an,of%20Psychologists%20and%2For%20Psychiatrists.
:::
Principles of fundamental justice:
In order to be a principle of fundamental justice, a rule or principle must be (1) a legal principle (2) about which there is significant societal consensus that it is fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate, and (3) it must be identified with sufficient precision to yield a manageable standard against which to measure deprivations of life, liberty or security of the person.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html
:::
FORMER ONTARIO MPP FRANK KLEES EXPLAINS "A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE."
I'M NOT A SOCIAL WORKER, I'M A CHILD PROTECTION WORKER!
You can hear former MPP Frank Klees say in a video linked below the very reason the social worker act was introduced and became law in 1998 was to regulate the "children's aid societies" and they ignored that..
Do you care what kind of social workers they call themselves?
https://youtu.be/SA1YyWO0RTQ?list=PLsYhw09i3If44rMBDuZQ0ztayzSQU35Fy
Two decades later...
Without the deterrents professional regulation provides what prevents child protection social workers from being or becoming a danger to children and their families? (See Motherisk Report and the OHRC Report)
The union representing child protection social workers is firmly opposed to oversight from a professional college and the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, which regulates and funds child protection, is so far staying out of it.
The report Towards Regulation notes that the “clearest path forward” would be for the provincial government to -again- legislate the necessity of professional regulation, which would be an appallingly heavy-handed move according to OACAS/Cupe.
http://joincupe2190.ca/files/2015/10/Professional-regulation-at-childrens-aid-societies.pdf
https://youtu.be/kq6JCx5FlfA?list=PLsYhw09i3If44rMBDuZQ0ztayzSQU35Fy
Here are some facts and figures I think point to significant problems for the child welfare sector and for underprivileged families in particular:
• 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.
http://cupe2190.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SSWCC_CAS-letters-re-college-regulation_Nov.-2016.pdf
https://mydefence.ca/ontario-college-of-social-workers-and-social-services-defence-lawyer/
A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Logical fallacies are like tricks or illusions of thought, and they're often very sneakily used by child protection social workers and the ministry to fool people. Don't be fooled!
This post has been designed to help you identify and call out dodgy child poaching funding predator logic wherever it may raise its ugly, incoherent head.
Follow the link and rollover the icons to click for examples. If you see a child protection social worker committing a fallacy, link them to it ...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-logical-fallacy-1691259
https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
:::
2018: The commission led by provincial court judge Judith Beaman says the tests were imposed by children’s aid societies on poor and otherwise vulnerable families.
A two year long study (quick review of a 25 year period) of more than 1200 cases out of the 35 000 tests involved found that the testing was faulty in 56 cases, resulting in four instances of children being returned to their families so far..
https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/discredited-hair-testing-program-harmed-vulnerable-families-across-ontario-report
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/discredited-motherisk-hair-testing-program-harmed-vulnerable-families-report/article38111582/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/motherrisk-commission-1.4552160
2018: Parents lose second bid to launch class-action suit against Motherisk over flawed hair tests.
(why aren't the victims suing the CAS to. It wasn't the Motherisk lab techs without any judicial oversight or regulating body forcing parents to take a test they knew was fraudulent..
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/motherisk-colorado-court-case-1.4364862)
Despite the “knee-jerk denials” of Motherisk experts and the Hospital for Sick Children, it wouldn’t be hard to prove in court that the lab’s drug and alcohol hair tests were broadly unreliable.
However, establishing this fact wouldn't advance individual cases enough to make a national class-action lawsuit the right approach for thousands of families seeking compensation.
That is the finding of a Toronto Divisional Court, which has upheld the decision of a Superior Court judge not to certify the class-action lawsuit because of the highly individualistic nature of the claims by those who say they lost their children or were wrongly convicted due to the flawed testing.
“In this case, the class members were not harmed by the tests being systemically unreliable. Rather, only class members who can show that they received a false test result and that the false test result caused them to suffer an adverse outcome in legal proceedings will have compensable claims,” Justice Fred Myers wrote in a unanimous decision, which makes clear that Motherisk victims face a “very difficult” road.
But the battle is not over for the plaintiff, a Toronto mother who claims access to her son was limited for several years because of Motherisk’s faulty testing. The testing was deemed “inadequate and unreliable” for use in court from 2005 to 2015 in a government-commissioned review by retired judge Susan Lang, following a Star investigation.
“The people who were harmed by the Motherisk laboratory deserved better than this,” said the plaintiff’s lawyer, Kirk Baert. “This isn’t the last word by any means. We will be seeking leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal and I am confident we will obtain it.”
Sick Kids made millions from Motherisk’s hair tests, which were used for decades in a handful of criminal cases and thousands of child protection cases, primarily by child welfare agencies as proof of parental substance abuse. In many of these cases, satisfying the criteria for compensation the Divisional Court has outlined will be challenging, because Motherisk did not follow proper chain-of-custody procedures and did not have a records retention policy from 2005 to 2010.
Read More:
https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/discredited-hair-testing-program-harmed-vulnerable-families-across-ontario-report
:::
5 REASONS WHY THE MOTHERISK SCANDAL SHOULDN’T HAPPEN AGAIN
The picture that emerges, very clearly, is a case of flawed process, not flawed science.
1 The tests were preliminary. ...
2 Motherisk had no written standard operating procedures. ...
3 No transparency. ...
4 Inadequate training and oversight. ...
5 A compromised chain of custody.
https://blog.cansfordlabs.co.uk/5-reasons-why-the-motherisk-scandal-shouldnt-happen-again
:::
2020: TORONTO -- Ontario's child welfare system will be redesigned to focus on prevention and early intervention, the provincial government said Wednesday.
"Child welfare should not be the system that is feared," Dunlop said in a news conference. "No one should be scared to lose their children for speaking to a children's aid society."
Associate Minister of Children and Women's Issues Jill Dunlop said the new strategy will also work to address the over-representation of Black and Indigenous families in the children's aid system.
She said children and youth in care experience worse outcomes than those in a family setting, including lower graduation rates, a higher risk of homelessness and more involvement with the justice system.
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-plans-to-redesign-child-welfare-system-to-focus-on-prevention-1.5044299
:::
DOES THE MOTHERISK REPORT OVERLOOK THE OBVIOUS PROBLEM OF - UNQUALIFIED - UNTRUSTWORTHY - UNREGISTERED - UNSCRUPULOUS - CHILD POACHING FUNDING PREDATORS WORKING IN COMPLETE SECRECY WITH ALL THE REGISTERED PROFESSIONS, THE COURTS AND THE POLICE?
https://youtu.be/kq6JCx5FlfA?list=PLsYhw09i3If44rMBDuZQ0ztayzSQU35Fy
https://youtu.be/kq6JCx5FlfA?list=PLsYhw09i3If44rMBDuZQ0ztayzSQU35Fy
No comments:
Post a Comment