Without the deterrents professional regulation provides what prevents child protection social workers from being or becoming a danger to children and their families?

 

Mary Ballantyne CEO of OACAS says, the next step is to have Ontario's estimated 5,160 child protection social workers registered and regulated by a professional college. Fifty-five per cent have a bachelor's (BSW) or master's degree in social work. A BSW is the minimum required to join the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, which is discussing the registration process with societies. Apr 03, 2016.

 

Mary Ballantyne, CEO of Ontario's Association of Children's Aid Societies academic credentials include and are limited to a Bachelor of Applied Science from the University of Guelph and a Masters of Industrial Relations – Human Resource Management from Queens University.

 

A 2013 OACAS survey found that only 70% CAS job classifications would qualify for registration with the College of Social Workers.

 

So by College standards there are at least 1548 unqualified workers currently being protect by CUPE?

 

 

:::

 

A sociopath is a term used to describe someone who has antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). People with ASPD can't understand others' feelings. They'll often break rules or make impulsive decisions without feeling guilty for the harm they cause.

 

People with ASPD may also use “mind games” to control friends, family members, co-workers, and even strangers. They may also be perceived as charismatic or charming.

 

 

:::

 

2017: "It is unclear what additional role college registration would provide" says Her Royal Majesty Mary Ballantyne the First, Defender of the Children, CEO of OACAS, Master of Human Industrial Relations/Science and Member of the PDRC. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234353/

 

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.

 

 

Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 31

 

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."

 

FORMER ONTARIO MPP FRANK KLEES EXPLAINS "A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE.

 

 

Why continue to fund the CAS with tens of billions of dollars after the agency refused regulation and professional oversight in 1998?

 

In January 2017, the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies (OACAS) launched a revamped set of curriculum for Ontario’s child protection workers. The Child Welfare Pathway to Authorization Series is designed to be more responsive and better reflect the realities of child welfare work in Ontario using an anti-oppressive framework other than the Constitution, Charter of Rights and Fundamental Justice . New training will cover topics such as equity, human rights, and anti-racism.

 

According to Mary Ballantyne there are 5160 child protection social workers in Ontario and according to the College of Social Worker less than 10% of them are registered with the College of Social Work.

 

How can a woman this educated not understand the point and purpose of of independent third party oversight or the difference between a secret internal complaint process and a public complaint process?

 

Would the society have a problem if we started sending our children to unregistered doctors?

 

I think the answer is obvious. No moral compass and a bucket full of legal ethics (whatever the law allows).

 

IF THE SOCIETY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION WHY DOESN'T THE ONTARIO CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY HIRE UNREGISTERED LAWYERS OR GO TO UNREGISTERED DOCTORS?

 

:::

 

Regulation of child protection workers by Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers: CUPE responds.

 

Please send or adapt any of the following letters to the Executive Director of your CAS.

 

DRAFT Letter 2 – Professionalism

 

I understand that there are plans in the works to force anyone who works in child protection to register with the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers.

 

One of the reasons given for this change is that regulation will result in higher quality services and bring greater professionalism to the field and that this will improve the standard of child protection work in Ontario.

 

I would like to point out that a failure to meet standards of care in child protection work is very rarely the result of professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity on the part of individual child protection workers.

 

(ACCORDING TO WHO? THE CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY'S SECRET INTERNAL COMPLAINT PROCESS?)

 

The stated purpose of the College is to protect the public from unqualified, incompetent or unfit practitioners.

 

But children’s aid societies already set those standards and ensure their adherence: they determine the job qualifications. They deal with employees they deem to be unqualified or incompetent. And CASs decide whether child protection work in their area can be performed by someone who holds a Bachelor’s degree and has child welfare experience.

 

I may not hold a BSW or MSW degree, enjoy membership in the College or be subject to its regulation. But I am a professional practitioner in the child protection sector and, as such, I cannot countenance this move toward the regulation of the child protection workforce. I am resolved to fight it at every step of the way and instead campaign for the measures that will bring real benefits to at-risk youth, children and families.

 

Sincerely,

 

DRAFT Letter 6 – Privacy and discipline

 

The move toward a regulated child protection workforce in Ontario gives me cause for serious concern about my privacy as a child protection worker.

 

One of the rationalizations for registration and regulation with the College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers is the restoration of public confidence in Ontario’s child protection system.

 

But violating my rights to privacy and confidentiality will do nothing to achieve this goal.

 

::::

 

And what right to privacy?

 

A person employed by or acting as an agent for another person, private agency or government is not on their own time and have no right to privacy PERSONAL OR OTHERWISE.

 

Follow the link to read a lot more of this bullshit...

 

 

:::

 

Respecting The Canadian Constitution And Our Procedural Safeguards..

 

The Motherisk Commission details years of rights infringements by courts. "If the same problems were identified in criminal court, there would be a huge public outcry." Tammy Law.

 

There is a major power imbalance between an impoverished parent (we know that families of low socio-economic status are hugely over-represented in the child welfare system and race has little to do with it) and the state funded agency. To guard against such an imbalance, it is critical that our legal system respect the time-tested procedural safeguards developed to specifically ensure that the disadvantaged party is treated fairly.

 

Yet according to the Motherisk report, these safeguards were ignored. The report describes a litany of procedural injustices perpetrated on parents: parents were pressured to consent to testing; were not informed of their right to reject testing; they had adverse inferences drawn against them when they rejected testing; they were required to prove the unreliability of testing instead of the other way around; and they were refused the right to cross-examine Motherisk "experts" at summary judgment motions.

 

Removal from the home — permanent removal — is not supposed to be a move taken lightly. The report goes over the legal principles, laying out that it should be a last resort. It is the “capital punishment” of child protection, according to one citation, absolutely devastating to parents, and for children it is “often the beginning of a life sentence.”

 

Yet in the cases reviewed here, it is imposed, often apparently cavalierly and without even a trial, for reasons that amount to a punishment for being poor.

 

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees procedural fairness when the state interferes with fundamental personal rights, such as the right by parents to care for their children. Ironically enough, the issue of taking body samples (such as hair for testing) without proper consent for the purpose of criminal investigations was found to be an infringement of the Charter 20 years ago by the Supreme Court.

 

The problems detailed in the Motherisk report’s 278 pages are too numerous to go into in detail. They document the many problems with the SickKids lab’s testing and with the child protection system’s overreliance on those results. The hair testing process produced inconsistent and untrustworthy results despite being perceived as carrying the unimpeachable weight of scientific authority. That much we pretty much knew because of earlier reporting, though the detailed breakdown of it and the specific case references make the injustice of it sickeningly vivid.

 

Requirements of a Principle of Fundamental Justice

 

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

 

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

 

Procedural Requirements

 

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

 

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

 

Established Principles of Fundamental Justice

 

Established Principles of Fundamental Justice include:

 

Arbitrariness

Vagueness

Overbreadth

Right to Silence

Minimum Level of Mens Rea

Right to Full Answer and Defence

 

 

How is someone (person, agency or society) diagnosed sociopathic?

 

ASPD is part of a category of personality disorders characterized by persistent negative behaviors.

 

The new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) says that someone with ASPD consistently shows a lack of regard for others’ feelings or violations of people’s rights. People with ASPD may not realize that they have these behaviors. They may live their entire lives without a diagnosis.

 

To receive a diagnosis of ASPD, someone must be older than 18. Their behaviors must show a pattern of at least three of the following seven traits:

 

Doesn’t respect social norms or laws. They consistently break laws or overstep social boundaries.

Lies, deceives others, uses false identities or nicknames, and uses others for personal gain.

Doesn’t make any long-term plans. They also often behave without thinking of consequences.

Shows aggressive or aggravated behavior. They consistently get into fights or physically harm others.

Doesn’t consider their own safety or the safety of others.

Doesn't follow up on personal or professional responsibilities. This can include repeatedly being late to work or not paying bills on time.

Doesn’t feel guilt or remorse for having harmed or mistreated others.

Other possible symptoms of ASPD can include:

 

being “cold” by not showing emotions or investment in the lives of others

using humor, intelligence, or charisma to manipulate others

having a sense of superiority and strong, unwavering opinions

not learning from mistakes

not being able to keep positive friendships and relationships

attempting to control others by intimidating or threatening them

getting into frequent legal trouble or performing criminal acts

taking risks at the expense of themselves or others

threatening suicide without ever acting on these threats

becoming addicted to drugs, alcohol, or other substances

Other ways to diagnose ASPD include:

 

evaluating the person’s feelings, thoughts, behavioral patterns, and personal relationships

talking to people close to the person about their behaviors

evaluating a person’s medical history for other conditions

ASPD can be diagnosed in someone as young as 15 years old if they show symptoms of a conduct disorder. These symptoms include:

 

breaking rules without regard for the consequences

needlessly destroying things that belong to themselves or others

stealing

lying or constantly deceiving others

being aggressive toward others or animals

 

What’s the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?

 

There’s no clinical difference between a sociopath and a psychopath. These terms are both used to refer to people with ASPD. They’re often used interchangeably.

 

Some have attempted to distinguish the two by the severity of their symptoms. A sociopath may be someone who only makes minor transgressions that don’t cause serious harm or distress. But a psychopath may be described as someone who’s physically violent or put others in danger. However, when one considers the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, all of these symptoms can be found in the ASPD category.

 

Exhibiting frequently selfish behavior is in and of itself not sufficient to diagnose someone as a sociopath. An ASPD diagnosis is only given when symptoms happen for an extended period and don’t change because of punishment or lifestyle changes. Someone who’s selfish may show these behaviors for a short while, but feel bad about them or change their behavior over time or because of punishment.

 

Former Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian wrote:

 

“I am disheartened by the complete lack of action to ensure transparency and accountability by these organizations that received significant public funding. As part of the modernization of the Acts, I call on the government to finally address this glaring omission and ensure that Children’s Aid Societies are added to the list of institutions covered.”

 

The only oversight for the province’s children’s aid agencies comes from Ontario’s Ministry of Children and Youth Services.

 

"As the law stands now clients of the Ontario Children's Aid Society under Wynne's liberals are routinely denied a timely (often heavily censored) file disclosure before the court begins making decisions and the clients can not request files/disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act nor can censored information reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario or the federal counterpart."

 

In her 2004 annual report, which was released on June 22, 2005, the Commissioner called for amendments that would bring virtually all organizations that are primarily funded by government dollars under FOI for the purposes of transparency and accountability: This would include the various children’s aid agencies in the Province of Ontario. Many parents and families complain about how difficult it is, if not impossible, to obtain information from children’s aid agencies. Many citizens complain that CAS agencies appear to operate under a veil of secrecy. Unlicensed and untrained CAS workers are making decisions which are literally destroying families, yet there is little or no accountability for their actions short of a lawsuit long after the damage has been done.

 

 

 

::::

 

“There are lots of kids in group homes all over Ontario and they are not doing well — and everybody knows it,” says Kiaras Gharabaghi, a member of a government-appointed panel that examined the residential care system in 2016.

 

“It is stunning to me how these children... are rendered invisible while they are alive and invisible in their death,” said Irwin Elman, Ontario’s advocate for children and youth. Between 90 and 120 children and youth connected to children’s aid die every year. (rendered invisible by the PDRC) How did 92 children in care die between 2008/2012 according to the Ontario PDRC report? The PDRC say it's a complete mystery and no further investigation is required.

 

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.

 

 

 

WHY CAN'T THESE DEATHS BE PREDICTED WHEN THEY HAPPEN EVERY YEAR?

 

Vulnerable children are being warehoused and forgotten.

 

A scathing report from Ontario’s coroner presses the provincial government to reform a child protection system that “repeatedly fails year after year.

 

“Change is necessary, and the need is urgent,” said the report, written by a panel of experts appointed by chief coroner Dirk Huyer last November to examine the spike of deaths between January 2014 and July 2017.

 

The report describes a fragmented system with no means of monitoring quality of care, where ministry oversight is inadequate, caregivers lack training, and children are poorly supervised. The expert panel convened by Ontario chief coroner Dirk Huyer found a litany of other problems, including:

 

Evidence that some of the youths were "at risk of and/or engaged in human trafficking."

 

A lack of communication between child welfare societies.

 

Poor case file management.

 

An "absence" of quality care in residential placements.

 

Eleven of the young people ranged in age from 11 to 18. The exact age of one youth when she died wasn't clear in the report.

 

 

By LAURIE MONSEBRAATEN Social Justice Reporter

SANDRO CONTENTA Feature Writer. Tues., Sept. 25, 2018.

 

 

 

DRUGS, SUICIDES, HOMICIDES, ACCIDENTS AND THE MYSTERIES OF PROFESSIONALLY UNREGISTERED CHILD CARE WORKERS.

 

The inquest into Jeffrey Baldwin's death was supposed to shed light on the child welfare system and prevent more needless child deaths. Baldwin's inquest jury made 103 recommendations. Sep 06, 2013.

 

 

Nearly six months after the inquest into the death of Katelynn Sampson began, jurors delivered another 173 recommendations. APRIL 29, 2016.

 

 

276 OFFICIAL REASONS FOR CONCERN ABOUT CHILDREN IN CARE.

 

If refusing to submit to professional registration isn't a systemic issue, what is?

 

How Successful (Child Poaching Funding Predators) Hide in Plain Sight.

 

Katherine Ramsland Ph.D..

 

I recently spoke at a conference of homicide investigators, on the topic of "covert intelligence" in smart predators. By this, I meant that the criminal IQ of some offenders defies any measurement we currently have. I wrote a brief article a few years ago about how certain people can blend in and hunt invisibly among us for prey. So, I’m revisiting it.

 

Because of some books I’ve written, I’ve been asked if I can spot a psychopath or if I can tell whether someone is a clandestine member of the vampire subculture. But these aren’t the right questions. Not all members of either of those groups are dangerous or out to get me. Instead, people should ask if I can spot and protect myself from a predator.

 

Both groups include predatory types. The clever ones know that they shouldn’t be easily spotted. They're aware that they can best feed off others by moving with the crowd. If predators are conspicuous, they're less effective at getting what they want.

 

With the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) available for all in various books and on the Internet, people think they can just go down the list of 20 traits and behaviors and identify a psychopath. Television shows are full of people who do just that. But the truth is, most of these supposed assessments are superficial and inaccurate.

 

Spotting (and deflecting) a truly clever predator is no easy task.

 

While we’ve seen plenty of exhibitionists who claim to be vampires, as well as nasty narcissists who strut their stuff publicly enough to invite a psychopath diagnosis, a member of either group who really wants to stay hidden can fool even the experts.

 

If they remain under the radar, they can extend their manipulations of others longer—perhaps indefinitely—and tap quite a range of victims. Look at the number of psychopathic CEOs over the past two decades who've fed off people’s gullibility and resources to enrich themselves. They were most successful when no one suspected them. And "vampires” of any stripe who wish to imbibe from others for a long time, and from a wide range of people, will benefit from dressing normally, acting normally, and waiting for an opportunity to operate under the radar.

 

They'll be friendly, not friendly.

 

In The Science of Vampires, I devoted a chapter to what I called "psychological vampires"—people who con, manipulate, and deplete us without remorse, and often with ease. They are the seducers, the white-collar criminals, the con artists, and even the serial killers who know how to play us with devices like trust, charm, empty promises, pseudo-intimacy, and false excuses. They can only manage this if we believe that they’re trustworthy, genuine, honest, and without guile.

 

Thus, they must seem “normal,” not different. They’ll mimic normal relationships until they’ve earned our trust, and then make their move, deplete us without remorse, and move on to someone else.

 

That’s why the most clever and successful predators blend in.

 

So, the answer to the queries is, yes, you can spot the ones who want to be noticed, but they definitely won't succeed in exploiting us as well as those who stay in the shadows and act normal. They are closer than they appear.

 

 

Psychopathic Killers Hide in Plain Sight In Ontario's Child Welfare System.

 

The most dangerous predators often look harmless — until they strike. Posted Feb 26, 2017. Scott A. Bonn Ph.D.

 

The entertainment industry has put forward many inaccurate depictions of psychopathic killers in film, television, theater, and books. Psychopaths are often incorrectly presented as ghoulish predators or monsters who readily stand out in a crowd.

 

In reality, a psychopathic killer like Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy or Gary Ridgway (the “Green River Killer”), can be anyone — a neighbor, co-worker, lover, or a homeless person on the street. Any one of these seemingly harmless people may in reality be a stone-cold killer who preys on others. Psychopaths are social chameleons who rarely stand out in a crowd. This characteristic makes them unobtrusive and, therefore, difficult to apprehend (1).

 

Many of the most infamous and prolific serial killers in U.S. history have exhibited key traits of psychopathy, and many have been diagnosed as psychopaths by forensic psychologists following their capture. A cool and unemotional demeanor, combined with a keen intellect and a charming personality, make the psychopath a very effective predator.

 

A lack of interpersonal empathy and an inability to feel pity or remorse also characterize psychopathic serial killers. They do not value human life, and do not care about the consequences of their crimes. They are callous, indifferent, and extremely brutal in their interactions with their victims.

 

This is particularly evident in so-called power/control serial killers, such as Dennis Rader (“Bind, Torture, Kill”) and Ted Bundy. They may kidnap, torture, and/or rape and murder their prey without any outward signs of remorse.

 

Increased attention has been given to the connection between psychopathy and serial murder in recent years both by researchers and criminal justice professionals. Attendees at a 2005 symposium on serial murder conducted by the FBI concluded that psychopathy is manifested in a specific cluster of interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, and antisocial traits and behaviors frequently found among serial killers (2).

 

As reported by the FBI, these traits and behaviors involve deception, manipulation, irresponsibility, impulsivity, stimulation seeking, poor behavioral controls, shallow affect, lack of empathy, guilt, or remorse, a callous disregard for the rights of others, and unethical and antisocial behaviors. These traits define adult psychopathy, but they begin to manifest in early childhood.

 

It is important to recognize that psychopathic serial killers know right from wrong, and are able to comprehend criminal law. In particular, they know that murder violates the laws and mores of society. They do understand that they are subject to society’s rules, but they disregard them to satisfy their own selfish interests and desires (3).

 

In court, psychopathic serial killers are rarely found not guilty by reason of insanity, simply because psychopathy does not qualify as insanity in the criminal justice system. But contrary to popular mythology, psychopathic serial killers are not out of touch with reality and, as such, are not mentally ill in either a clinical or a legal sense (4). They rarely suffer from delusions (unless they also have a separate mental illness such as psychosis); nor do they tend to abuse drugs such as amphetamines or cocaine.

 

In the criminal courts, psychotic delusions are occasionally presented as a defense by the attorney of a psychopathic serial killer. Normally, such claims are easily challenged by prosecutors, because psychotic delusions are not a characteristic of psychopathy.

 

A lack of interpersonal empathy and disregard for the suffering of their victims are key characteristics of psychopathic serial killers (5). They generally do not feel anger toward their victims. Instead, they are more likely to feel cool indifference toward them. Many serial killers seem to go into a trance when they are stalking and killing a victim, and the violence they commit often has a dissociative effect on them emotionally.

 

As explained by Dr. J. Reid Meloy, author of The Psychopathic Mind: Origins, Dynamics, and Treatment, psychopathic serial killers are emotionally disconnected from their actions and, therefore, indifferent to the suffering of their victims. Their ability to dissociate themselves emotionally from their actions and their denial of responsibility effectively neutralizes any guilt or remorse that other people would feel in similar circumstances (6).

 

Do you think you would recognize a psychopathic predator if one crossed your path?

 

 

::::

 

Marketization of law making is a process that enables the elites to operate as market oriented firms by changing the legal environment in which they operate in.

 

When the people who have power in our society can have an influence in law making, the laws that get created will not maintain the appearance of equality and the elites in society can lobby and eventually criminalize (demonize) the poor.

 

The laws will start to benefit the big corporations (elites). This is well illustrated in Stan Cohen’s concept of the moral panic. A moral panic refers to the reaction of a group within society (elite) to the activities of a non elite group. The targeted group is seen as a threat to society also referred to as the folk devil.

 

Here we can see here how child welfare's interpretation of the law is not applied equally to everyone. In this particular instance the child welfare's interpretation of the law is benefiting the people with means.

 

According to OACAS “reasonable grounds” refers to the information that an average person, using normal and honest judgment, would need in order to decide to report. This standard has been recognized by courts in Ontario as establishing a lower threshold for reporting.

 

To refresh: Requirements of a Principle of Fundamental Justice.

 

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

 

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

 

Procedural Requirements

 

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

 

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

 

Established Principles of Fundamental Justice

 

Established Principles of Fundamental Justice include:

 

Arbitrariness

Vagueness

Overbreadth

Right to Silence

Minimum Level of Mens Rea

Right to Full Answer and Defence

 

 

Why should the society show their reasonable grounds for suspicion when the Ontario's judges use a "higher standard" for reasonable grounds and the police are willing to work for the society without warrants.

 

Can the best interest of the child come before the requirements of fundamental justice or are the best interest of the child and fundamental justice intricately intertwined?

 

 

Can there really be two standards for reasonable grounds and still be reasonable? Superior Court judge Lewis Richardson says no....

 

Unlicensed Daycare Operator Successfully Sued for Making an Unreasonable Report to the CAS...

 

In a decision delivered last month, Superior Court judge Lewis Richardson ruled Tammy Larabie’s call to the CAS was “unreasonable” and there “was nothing to suggest that (the baby) was in any danger.”

 

It’s a ruling which children’s advocates say ignores child care providers’ duty to report suspected child abuse or neglect to the CAS (and their reasonable grounds for suspicion?), and it could dissuade them from doing so for fear of a lawsuit.

 

“It’s hard enough to get people to report (to the CAS) and this will have a silencing effect,” said Mary Birdsell, executive director of Justice for Children and Youth. “The legislation is supposed to protect people from being sued if their report was reasonable.”

 

Before 2013 on average there were about 14 to 15 000 open files per year, by the end of 2014 after launching a government funded advertising campaign there were over 82 000 open files when the societies collectively reopen 20 000 previously closed files arbitrarily after not receiving enough reports to meet their funding goals as reported by the Toronto Star.

 

In a court transcript obtained by the Star, Richardson found the parents “to be competent, caring and capable” who “properly looked after the interests of their son.”

 

“There was no basis whatsoever to report them to the Children’s Aid,” he said. “(Larabie) acted selfishly and to protect her own interest, not for the benefit of the child.”

 

 

2013: An internal memo from Peel Children’s Aid Society management asks staff not to close any ongoing cases during March, as part of a strategy to secure government funding due to what the society referred to as $67 million dollar funding shortfall.

 

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

 

Though the CAS claimed the purpose of the memo wasn't to inflate numbers, between 2011 and 2013 the 46 (at the time) separate societies opened files a combined total of 42 000 files or about 14 000 files per year, in 2014 - after the Peel Memo Leak - and launching a new government funded advertising campaign and reopening 20 000 previously closed files the societies opened a combined total of over 82 000 files to meet their funding goals.

 

 

2016: Report shines light on poverty’s role on kids in CAS system.

 

The effect of provincial policies on struggling families was especially apparent in the late 1990s, when the conservative government slashed welfare payments and social service funding at the same time it introduced in child protection the notion of maltreatment by “omission,” including not having enough food in the home. The number of children taken into care spiked.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

::::

 

Motherisk hair test evidence tossed out of Colorado court 2 decades before questions raised in Canada.

 

For more than two decades, Motherisk performed flawed hair-strand tests on thousands of vulnerable families across Canada, influencing decisions in child protection cases that separated parents from their children and sometimes children from their siblings. (CBC)

 

 

A Motherisk expert testified for the defence in a Colorado murder case. The judge mocked the lab’s processes. But the case remained virtually unknown in Ontario until now.

 

 

Silenced, discredited, stripped of powers of moral appeal, and deprived of the interpersonal conditions necessary for maintaining self-respect and labeled "disgruntled" many people suffer from serious but subtle forms of oppression involving neither physical violence nor the use of law.

 

The GONE theory holds that Greed, Opportunity, Need and the Expectation of not being caught are what lay the groundwork for fraud. Greed and/or need provides the motive.

 

Judge rejects proposed class-action over Motherisk drug-testing scandal.

 

By RACHEL MENDLESON Investigative Reporter. Thu., Nov. 2, 2017.

 

 

Parents lose second bid to launch class-action suit against Motherisk over flawed hair tests.

 

By RACHEL MENDLESON Investigative Reporter. Tues., Nov. 27, 2018.

 

Despite the “knee-jerk denials” of Motherisk experts and the Hospital for Sick Children, it wouldn’t be hard to prove in court that the lab’s drug and alcohol hair tests were broadly unreliable. However, establishing this fact wouldn't advance individual cases enough to make a national class-action lawsuit the right approach for thousands of families seeking compensation.

 

 

IN ONTARIO CANADA JUSTICE ISN'T BLIND ... IT'S AN ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT.

 

Comack states; “While the pivotal point in the rule of law is ‘equality of all before the law’, the provision of formal equality in the legal sphere does not extend to the economic sphere. Thus, the law maintains only the appearance of equality because, it never calls into question the unequal and exploitative relationship between capital and labour.” This statement implies that the law is in place to be neutral. Therefore, the law would apply equally to everyone, including both the working and elite class. It can be said that in today’s society we have the marketization of law making.

 

Corporatism:

 

Fascism's theory of economic corporatism involved management of sectors of the economy by government or privately-controlled organizations (corporations). Each trade union or employer corporation would theoretically represent its professional concerns, especially by negotiation of labor contracts and the like.

 

One of the 14 characteristics of fascism is -

 

Corporate Power is Protected.

 

The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

 

The people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights and procedural protections can be ignored in certain cases because of special need.

 

 

2013: Nancy Simone, a president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees local representing 275 workers at the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, argued child protection workers already have levels of oversight that include unregistered unqualified workplace supervisors, family court judges, coroners’ inquests and annual case audits by the ministry and the union representing child protection workers is firmly opposed to ethical oversight from a professional college, and the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, which regulates and funds child protection, is so far staying out of the fight.. Nancy Simone says, “Our work is already regulated to death.”

 

How do you feel about child protection social workers taking off their lanyards and putting on their union pins to fight against professional regulation?

 

Ontarians have a right to assume that, when they receive services that are provided by someone who is required to have a social work degree (or a social service work diploma) — whether those services are direct (such as those provided by a child protection worker or adoption worker) or indirect (such as those provided by a local director or supervisor) — that person is registered with, and accountable to, the OCSWSSW.

 

Since it began operations in 2000, the OCSWSSW has worked steadily to address the issue of child protection workers. Unfortunately, many CASs have been circumventing professional regulation of their staff by requiring that staff have social work education yet discouraging those same staff from registering with the OCSWSSW.

 

The majority of local directors, supervisors, child protection workers and adoption workers have social work or social service work education, yet fewer than 10% are registered with the OCSWSSW.

 

"Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 proclaimed in force."

 

The new regulation was updated to only require Local Directors of Children’s Aid Societies to be registered with the College.

 

The majority of local directors, supervisors, child protection workers and adoption workers have social work or social service work education, yet fewer than 10% are registered with the OCSWSSW.

 

The existing regulations made under the CFSA predated the regulation of social work and social service work in Ontario and therefore their focus on the credential was understandable.

 

However, today a credential focus is neither reasonable nor defensible. Social work and social service work are regulated professions in Ontario.

 

Updating the regulations under the new CYFSA provides an important opportunity for the Government to protect the Ontario public from incompetent, unqualified and unfit professionals and to prevent a serious risk of harm to children and youth, as well as their families.

 

As Minister Coteau said in second reading debate of Bill 89, "protecting and supporting children and youth is not just an obligation, it is our moral imperative, our duty and our privilege—each and every one of us in this Legislature, our privilege—in shaping the future of this province."

 

A "social worker" or a "social service worker" is by law someone who is registered with the OCSWSSW. Furthermore, as noted previously, the Ontario public has a right to assume that when they receive services that are provided by someone who is required to have a social work degree (or a social service work diploma), that person is registered with the OCSWSSW.

 

The OCSWSSW also has processes for equivalency, permitting those with a combination of academic qualifications and experience performing the role of a social worker or social service worker to register with the College.

 

These processes address, among other things, the risk posed by "fake degrees" and other misrepresentations of qualifications, ensuring Ontarians know that a registered social worker or social service worker has the education and/or experience to do their job.

 

The review of academic credentials and knowledge regarding academic programs is an area of expertise of a professional regulatory body. An individual employer will not have the depth of experience with assessing the validity of academic credentials nor the knowledge of academic institutions to be able to uncover false credentials or misrepresentations of qualifications on a reliable basis.

 

Setting, maintaining and holding members accountable to the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. These minimum standards apply to all OCSWSSW members, regardless of the areas or context in which they practise. Especially relevant in the child welfare context are principles that address confidentiality and privacy, competence and integrity, record-keeping, and sexual misconduct.

 

Maintaining fair and rigorous complaints and discipline processes. These processes differ from government oversight systems and process-oriented mechanisms within child welfare, as well as those put in place by individual employers like a CAS. They focus on the conduct of individual professionals.

 

Furthermore, transparency regarding referrals of allegations of misconduct and discipline findings and sanctions ensures that a person cannot move from employer to employer when there is an allegation referred to a hearing or a finding after a discipline hearing that their practice does not meet minimum standards.

 

Submission-re-Proposed-Regulations-under-the-CYFSA-January-25-2018. OCSWSSW May 1, 2018

 

 

If you have any practice questions or concerns related to the new CYFSA, please contact the Professional Practice Department at 416-972-9882 or 1-877-828-9380 or email practice@ocswssw.org.

 

Under suspicion: Concerns about child welfare.

 

The OHRC is also very concerned that the overrepresentation of Black and Indigenous children in the child welfare system is a possible indicator of systemic racism. We conducted a public interest inquiry to examine this issue. We requested that CASs across the province provide us with data on race and other information. In the preliminary analysis of the data, we found that for many CASs across the province, African Canadian and Indigenous children are overrepresented in care, compared to their census populations.

 

Next steps

 

The OHRC will:

 

Release the results of our public interest inquiry

 

Develop specific policy guidance to help individuals, community groups and organizations understand how racial profiling can be identified, prevented and addressed in the child welfare sector

 

Continue to call for the collection of race-based data and data on other Code grounds to better understand if racial disparities exist in this sector

 

Continue to work with community stakeholders to enhance public education on racial profiling.

 

For more information

 

To find out more about racial profiling in the child welfare and other sectors, the full Under suspicion report is available online at www.ohrc.on.ca.

 

To file a human rights claim (called an application), contact the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario at:

 

If you need legal help, contact the Human Rights Legal Support Centre at:

Toll Free: 1-866-625-5179

TTY Toll Free: 1-866-612-8627

Website: www.hrlsc.on.ca

 

 

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

 

In Civilized Oppression J.Harvey forcefully argues for the crucial role of morally distorted relationships in such oppression. While uncovering a set of underlying moral principles that account for the immorality of civilized oppression, Harvey's analyses provide frameworks for identifying morally problematic situations and relationships, criteria for evaluating them, and guidelines for appropriate responses. This book will be essential for both graduates and undergraduates in ethics, social theory, theory of justice, and feminist and race studies.

 

This book discusses how civilized oppression (the oppression that involves neither violence nor the law) can be overcome by re-examining our participation in it. Moral community, solidarity and education are offered as vibrant strategies to overcome the hurt and marginalization that stem from civilized oppression.

 

 

DEFINITION of 'Protected Cell Company (PCC)

 

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

 

BREAKING DOWN 'Protected Cell Company (PCC)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Wynne's liberal ministry sidestepped a question emailed by the Toronto Star several years ago 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.

 

:::

 

A landlord in BC evicting a tenant in Ontario feels her right to make anonymous reports to the children's aid society from BC allegedly based on reports from a property manager were violated when her name was disclosed to the family. As child welfare law does not prohibit the recording of child welfare social workers, it does not prohibit the children's aid societies from releasing the names of persons making reports. Attempts to prevent recording and refusal to release the names of accusers are corporate policies, not law.

 

The rules on reporting concerns about children in Ontario say something about the person with the concerns must report their concerns themselves, yes?

 

 

"Ontario Association Of Child Protection Lawyers."

 

The OACPL as an organization seeks to: provide an organized body of Recognized Child Protection Lawyers that advocate politically and socially on Child Welfare Matters in Ontario. (Recognized by who?)

 

So, now they're child protection lawyers. How very special of them. I wonder who their members are? Probably every lawyer employed by the children's aid society or accepted legal aid to do nothing as their client's right to fundamental justice was denied and procedural safeguards in the family courts were dropped.

 

-> Sounds to me like they're closing ranks now that what's being happening in the family courts behind closed doors has been revealed by the Motherisk Report.

 

When the members of a group or organization close ranks, they make an effort to stay united, especially in order to defend themselves from severe criticism: In the past, the party would have closed ranks around its leader and defended him loyally.

 

 

C.A.S. ATTITUDE: WIN CHILD WELFARE CASES AT ALL COSTS $$$.

 

By Gene C. Colman of Gene C. Colman Family Law Centre posted in Child Welfare on Thursday, January 1, 2015.

 

It should not be a matter of "win" or "lose" when it comes to Ontario child welfare law yet it isn't actually about the actual condition of the child or the child's welfare. It's about accusations, Cosmo quiz style parental risk assessments and fake experts and every time the society decides your a risk they get paid.

 

Ontario's Child and Family Services Act tells us that the paramount purpose is to "promote the best interests, protection and well being of children." One might note the glaring lack of any reference to family. In fact, there is a paucity of references to family throughout the entire CFSA even though many judges recognize the importance of maintaining family whenever possible.

 

I had a recent experience with CAS counsel at court when representing a family unjustly caught up in the system. Our office had prepared a very persuasive and comprehensive response to the Society's Application. We attended at the mandated five day hearing that follows apprehensions from parental care. The CAS certainly had not expected such forcefulness; normally parents are so overwhelmed at this early stage that they are unable to mount an effective defence. Generally, the court will rubber stamp the CAS requests. We did not agree to just stand idly by at the first appearance and CAS counsel was surprised by our aggressive (yet fair) approach.

 

Our written material seemed to have persuaded the judge. He instructed the lawyers to prepare a consent endorsement along the lines that we were seeking (which of course included an immediate return of the children to parental care). As we were returning to the courtroom after preparing the consent, the experienced and respected CAS counsel turned to me and my clients and remarked: "This is the third time your lawyer has beaten me."

 

The CAS counsel's comment was made innocently enough and indeed was intended to be complimentary. But still I was shocked (but probably should not have been). Why was I so shocked?

 

 

Tammy Law's delusional thoughts, excuses, rationalizations and justifications for using the Motherisk test to justify denying parents due process and circumventing the Constitution, the Charter of Rights and the principles of fundamental Justice behind the closed doors of Ontario's family courts.

 

The Motherisk Commission details years of rights infringements by courts. "If the same problems were identified in criminal court, there would be a huge public outcry." Tammy Law.

 

I want to be clear about what I think some of the fundamental problems are and how I think we can start to change this system. Because I am first and foremost a lawyer, my thoughts naturally focus on the role of lawyers in this mess. My thoughts are summarized as follows:

 

As lawyers, we need to recognize that good intentions are not enough. It is really easy to hide behind “the best interests of the child” and agree or acquiesce to all types of infringements of our clients’ basic human and Charter rights. This needs to stop. Lawyers need to start seeing their role in the context of defending our clients’ very real rights to human dignity and security of the person.

 

The culture of cooperation has gone too far. While I agree that it is very very important to work with the Children’s Aid Society to address their concerns, a line must be drawn when they demand cooperation that crosses the line. As a state agent, the Society has an obligation to ensure that it works in the most minimally intrusive way possible – respecting the client’s right to individual freedom while trying to ensure that its clients are served. This is a difficult job. Lawyers and courts should be there to ensure that the fine line is respected.

 

Society counsel need to understand that they have a public interest role. They should be providing advice to their clients in the context of being a public interest litigant. They have a duty to the court to be fair. This means that if unreliable evidence is being tendered (and there were many signs of this with respect to the Motherisk testing), they should be advising their clients about the unfairness of relying on it. Lawyers are and should be gatekeepers of evidence as much as courts are.

 

We need to be more vigilant. As noted in the report, our role as advocates is to raise every defense possible for our clients.

 

HOW ABOUT PRESENTING EVIDENCE THAT COUNTERS SWORN AFFIDAVITS WHEN CLIENTS HAVE IT IN ABUNDANCE - JUST SAYIN'..

 

Our clients are often extremely vulnerable, having lived lives that were challenged by multiple obstacles.

 

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

 

Many have made admirable attempts to parent their children. We need to be fearless in our advocacy for them. As a lawyer, I have experienced and seen derisive, sarcastic, or rude comments directed at myself and other lawyers who attempt to defend their clients. This needs to stop. It’s our client’s right – their children’s right – that they have a full defence.