Should Child Protection Agencies be More Accountable
Critics Are Calling for Greater Accountability for Children's Aid
Jun 23, 2009
Children’s Aid Societies were developed as a result of a need to protect children who were often left wandering the streets, as homeless, hungry or abused by their caregivers. Early child protection advocates such as journalist J. J. Kelso, who founded the first Children’s Aid Society in Toronto in 1891, did so from revulsion that he witnessed: children living on the streets, parents prostituting their children in exchange for whisky, etc. People like Kelso sought to provide a place of safety, refuge and stability for these children and as such, have fulfilled their purposes.
Modern Children's Aid Societies are Standardized
As time went on, child protection laws matured to a point where abuse and neglect appear to some critics as occupying a wider and wider space than that of the original Children's Aid Society founded by Kelso. While children's aid societies continue to accept and act on reports of possible harm and neglect of a child, some critics feel the pendulum has swung too far the other way, where reports of harm or potential harm may be the result of misunderstandings and in some cases, even malice.
Children's aid societies obtain reports from anybody that believes they have information about a child that may be in a precarious or unsafe situation. Teachers, doctors, social workers and other professionals do take notice of situations and are in fact, legally required by law to report when they feel child maltreatment may be present. Members of the public report concerns as well. When a children's aid society receives a report, even anonymously, they are obligated to acquire as much additional information as possible to help them identify risk and rate the potential level of harm. This ranking determines how long an investigator has to start his or her investigation and/or to determine if a child is in immediate need of protection.
Children's aid societies in Ontario have recently standardized their practices ostensibly to reduce misunderstandings. These standards are set by the Ministry of Children, Youth and Families, in conjunction with feedback by Ontario's fifty-three children's aid societies. Theoretically, these standards are in place to assist an investigator to review information received in an objective way and to reduce bias, but such standards do little to reduce the harm false or exaggerated reports can do. The only response a children's aid society has to any report it receives is to conduct an investigation, no matter how frivolous or unusual it may seem.
Critics Call for Accountability of the Children's Aid
The public learns in the media about high profile child protection cases, such as the one currently being heard in Manitoba about a child allegedly raised by parents who espouse racist views. There are also cases where children, such as those in Alymer, Ontario, were removed from their homes as a result of reports of their parents using corporal punishment as a part of their religious upbringing. Parents involved in religions such as the Jehovah's Witnesses are often challenged as well when a child requires blood transfusions and the parents object.
While these high profile cases reach the media, parents across Ontario have organized themselves in an attempt to make children's aid societies more accountable, as many of them feel they were wrongly targeted or falsely accused of abuse or neglect. Still, child protection workers can only act on information they receive and what comes up in an investigation. Parents under investigation can feel intimidated by child protection agents, as the law clearly favours the interests of the child – however that may be defined. Apprehensions of a child are taken very seriously by child protection workers, but this does not mean it never happens unjustly.
As a result of a high profile litigation of Baxter v Children's Aid Society of Durham Region, the first successful lawsuit against a children's aid society, parents as well as former wards are filing more legal actions. The Plaintiff in Baxter together with other volunteers maintain a website entitled Canada Court Watch, which is sponsored by the National Association of Public and Private Accountability. In Baxter's case, his ex-wife used allegations of abuse to deny him custody and access to his children; the CAS supported the ex-wife's allegations, despite the fact there was no hard evidence of abuse by Baxter in the matter. While there have been other lawsuits, they are not as frequent as they could be as the target is often poor and disadvantaged, so such individuals tend to turn to political strategy to make change.
While in the majority of cases, judgments in child protection matters are sound and based on fact, there still needs to be a way for parents and other affected individuals to bring their cases to review by an unbiased third party to ensure their issues were treated fairly. Less of these matters should be dealt with in the courtroom (unless all other avenues fail) and involved parties need to have a say in all decisions to the extent they are able to participate. In the event wrongful treatment is found, targets need to be appropriately compensated and the matter set right.
At the present time, there is no such body in Ontario. There have been many calls for the Ombudsman to have a role, or even an independent tribunal that has the power to order remedies, including monetary damages and absolving of a parents' record. Other authorities with similar powers operate with much greater accountability with full right of appeal and remedy to those impacted.
