More CAS news..

RCMP National Investigation unit reports that CAS have acted inappropriately and have wrongly taken children

(July 3, 2008) Documents recently released were reviewed by Court Watch reporters today which clearly indicate that the RCMP at the highest level, did conduct an investigation involving the CAS in Ontario and did conclude from their investigation that the CAS had acted inappropriately and had wrongfully taken away children from their parents. In addition to this, information has been uncovered which would indicate that police at a local level where this family lives kept this report a secret until the documents were eventually uncovered. Thanks to the honestly of some good officers at the RCMP, the CAS perpetrators of this crime may be brought to justice. A number of good lawyers and police officers are now refusing to support a family court system which even they see is out of control and unaccountable. It's only a matter of time till many of these CAS workers who engage in criminal activities are going to find themselves and their agencies facing big lawsuits as the truth begins to surface of their wrongdoings.

Source: Canada Court Watch news entry for July 3, 2008 http://www.canadacourtwatch.com

also from http://www.fixcas.com/news/now/news.htm :

A video posted to YouTube yesterday shows the Barrie Gestapo deporting a child... Sorry. It shows Barrie child protectors rescuing a girl, Natalie.

This scene is repeated many times daily in Ontario though few are caught on video tape.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g8Fgq2xkTc

How disturbing.

What I learned in my teaching career was that no matter what the conditions are in a home, kids just want to be "home." That's the truth. I saw it time and again.

Just another reminder to everyone with regards to the public awareness rally in Ottawa on the 9th & 10th of July 2008.

We look forward to meeting you all and we will be doing video recorded interviews with interested parties for documentary purposes. These interviews will also be used as testimonials and sent to supporting government officals.

Details
https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=28381201672

Here is a way for everyone who could not make the Ottawa Rally to watch, join, and support child protection reform. We hope you tune in on the 9th and 10th of July 2008 to watch postive change in action.

http://www.parliamenthill.gc.ca/text/hillcam_e.html

Thank you everyone and we will see you all at Queens Park this fall.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

(hard to believe this was YEARS ago.. nothing has changed.. it has only gotten worse)

November 23rd 1981 Article from the Toronto Globe & Mail - Written by Yves Lavigne

Thousands of Ontario Children have been needlessly taken out of their homes during the past 20 years by a child welfare system that provincial officials now say was seriously misguided.

The experience along with the stigma of having been wards of Children's Aid Societies, has shattered some of these children's lives. Now many are strangers in their families, are shunned by employers and are regarded as misfits by former friends and neighbours because of the behaviour problems they now suffer.

An unknown number, as professsionals who deal with these children, have rebelled against their unwarranted plight by turning to crime. Others suffered deep emotional wounds that some experts fear could lead them to anti social behaviours and into crime later.

BOTH CHILDRENS AID SOCIETIES AND THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT say they must share the blame for what has happened to these children.
Societies say there was a financing sheme imposed by the Government - and changed this year - encouraged them to take children from families and put them into group homes and other institutions.

Provincial Officials say that they didn't know their policies were harming children, and that the financing system was drafted under pressure from socities that wanted money to break up families instead of helping keep them together.

Clive Chamberlian, a psychiatrist who in the past two decades has seen the child-care system from the different perspectives of an institution and court worker. Government policy adviser and institution administrator, says so one can be blamed for past mistakes.

"The pursuit of a scapegoat or a responsible somebody is futile" he said. "It's all of us - the way we think about problems, or the way we don't think about them."

While children and their families are the most obvious victims of Ontario's errant child welfare systems, taxpayers have also paid a heavy price.

During the two decades in which the so-called interventionist approach predominated - intervention being the jargon for taking chidren from their families - spending by Children's Aid Societies multiplied 34 times while Ontario's Population grew by less than one-half.

The Government assessment says that the societies generally have been inept at helping children. Another document, based on the same information says that many children SHOULD have been treated with less destructive alternatives to being taken from their homes.

SOCIETIES PROCESSED CHILDREN INSTEAD OF CARING FOR THEM.

One major rason that emerged from the investigation of why the system went wrong, is that the child welfare was run during the past twenty years by people who believed in the MISGUIDED NOTION THAT SOCIAL WORKERS KNOW BETTER THAN PARENTS HOW TO RAISE CHILDREN.

Not all child-care professionals thought this way, and many children were justly taken out of their homes for their own good. But because THE TREND AND FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO NEEDLESSLY TAKE CHILDREN INTO CARE WERE SO STRONG, MOST WORKERS FELT THEY HAD NO LITTLE CHOICE.

T.W.A. van Overdijk of the Branford Children's Aid Society says his agency's view "has always been that it's no good for a kid to be in the care of the society. But it's been difficult to translate that into reality".

Prompted by it's findings that the child welfare system was needlessly taking children into care and costing too much, the Government implemented last January a new financing scheme aimed at tackling both problems.

The scheme seems to have curbed the practice of taking children from their homes, but OFFICIALS CONCEDE THAT IT MAY TAKE 20 YEARS TO ROOT THE INTERVENTIONIST HABIT FROM THE SYSTEM.

THERE IS STILL NO GUARANTEE THAT CHILDREN WILL NO LONGER BE HURT BY THE SYSTEM THAT IS SUPPOSED TO HELP THEM. OFFICIALS WARN THAT REMOVING THE KINKS FROM ONE PART OF THE SYSTEM MAY FOUL THINGS UP ELSEWHERE.

But the provincial officals measure the system's costs in terms of money and shattered lives, another sort of price has been paid: IMMEASURABLE DAMAGE TO THE FAMILY COURTS, WHERE CHILD-CARE PROFESSIONALS SAY THEY HAVE BEEN DRAWN INTO DECEIT AND DISTORTION TO GET A JUDGES APPROVAL FOR CUSTODY OF A CHILD.

DR CHAMBERLAIN, WHO ADMITS TO HAVING BEEN "ONE OF THE PEOPLE OUT THERE BREAKING ALL THE RULES" SAYS THAT WHEN FACTS DIDN'T JUSTIFY TAKING A CHILD OUT OF HIS OR HER HOME, CHILD-CARE PROFESSIONALS WOULD PAINT A PICTURE FOR THE JUDGE THAT WOULD FORCE HIM TO GRANT CUSTODY.

CRIME: DEATH OF KATELYNN SAMPSON
Slain girl 'failed' by system, advocate says

KATE HAMMER

August 6, 2008

By the age of 7, Katelynn Sampson was failed by at least two child service agencies and all the protections they are meant to offer, according to her family and the provincial child advocate.

Katelynn was found dead Sunday morning in the second-floor apartment of a woman who had been entrusted with her care through the hands of the Children's Aid Society and Native Child and Family Services of Toronto, according to her mother, Bernice Sampson.

The woman, Donna Irving, was charged Sunday with second-degree murder and remains in police custody.

The round-faced third-grader slept on a bedroom floor and showed signs that she was assaulted on an ongoing basis, according to police.

With both agencies declining to comment on their involvement in Katelynn's case yesterday, exactly how the young girl slipped through cracks in the protocol and routine protections provided by child-service agencies remained unclear.

Meanwhile, the darkest details of her short life emerged through an autopsy performed at the Hospital for Sick Children.

By evening, results were not available because, according to homicide Detective Sergeant Steve Ryan, the severity and nature of her injuries had caused the autopsy to take longer than expected.

He called the state of the child's body "probably the worst thing I've seen in 20 years of policing."

Irwin Elman, chief advocate for the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, said: "There are a number of points of protection and they all failed for Katelynn.

Child Welfare has what's thought to be a pretty strict screening process."

That process generally includes a background check and a home inspection. But Donna Irving has "violent crimes on her record," Det. Sgt. Ryan said.

A spokesperson for CAS said confidentiality restrictions prevented discussion of Katelynn's case and referred reporters to the Native Child and Family Services agency.

"We are particularly concerned that Native Child and Family Services had something to do with the placement of Katelynn with Donna Irving," said Kenn Richard, the agency's executive director, adding that an internal review was being conducted.

Yesterday evening, investigators began a search of Ms. Irving's apartment and appealed to those with knowledge of Katelynn's life or any abuse to contact police.

There seems to be a lot of concerns about the way CAS operate. I know that in the education field teachers are required to report anything they think is a concern with a child. Perhaps we are doing more harm than good by reporting petty little things to the CAS. Once they get involved they're on your a$$ forever. They seem to be bumbling many cases in a serious manner.....to the point of death. I'm sure they must do a lot of good also, but it does make a person wonder..

cricket wrote:

There seems to be a lot of concerns about the way CAS operate. I know that in the education field teachers are required to report anything they think is a concern with a child. Perhaps we are doing more harm than good by reporting petty little things to the CAS. Once they get involved they're on your a$$ forever. They seem to be bumbling many cases in a serious manner.....to the point of death. I'm sure they must do a lot of good also, but it does make a person wonder..

They rely on their mandated reporters (teachers, doctors etc.) the same way they rely on their anonymous callers and "concerned" citizens (such as a vindictive neighbour, ex-partner or estranged family member)

I don't doubt some concerns are legit, the problem is what child services does after they get these calls and the way they use them. Child services is not set up to help familes, as the name suggests or what it says in most of the country's acts. It is set up to apprehend, foster and adopt, they make no money by helping families and for non profit organizations they make big money, so where is it going? Not back to us the tax payers that is for sure. There must be a lot of rich directors on the boards of these so called non profit organizations.

Once a family is involved with the CAS in litigation.. it becomes about protecting the agency and not the children.

The CAS needs oversight, the agencies need to be reformed and the CFSA needs elimination of grey areas.. but, hey that's just my opinion.

The sad part (I feel) is, how no one seems to care there is this secret war on families until it happens to them.. this is a serious issue as the agency has only become more powerful and more able to apprehend children on minimal reasons (such as risk.. which means the parent need not have done anything wrong, the worker only has to have the OPINION they may in the future)... because they have gotten away with so much over time..

I hope that when a rally happens in Haldimand-Norfolk for support of Bill 93 (Ombudsmen oversight of CAS) that many people who have expressed interest here on the forums attend and bring friends and family!

Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead -

An injustice against anyone is an injustice against all
- Martin Luther King Jr. -

A lawyer talks about your RIGHTS when it comes to recording court hearings
http://www.vimeo.com/1440454


Father tells how Ontario's Office of the Children's lawyer destroyed his children
http://www.vimeo.com/1427550

A teen from Ontario speaks about her experience during Christmas in an Ontario CAS approved foster care facility
http://www.vimeo.com/1079509

a teen who was a former ward of the CAS speaks about the forced use of prescription medications for children in the care of Ontario's Children's Aid Agencies.
http://www.vimeo.com/1092991

Children's Aid Societies must be held accountable
http://www.vimeo.com/977401

Ok Justice

You have a bone to pick and I respect that. But I have also been involved in several capacities with CAS and have found them no more or less as competent than most of the "parents" that they had to deal with.

Obviously the solution is multifold ensuring the safety of children as the first premise. How do you propose to do this without CAS or other "agency" to handle it?

You may want better trained personel, but the pay at the bottom rung for intake workers etc sucks, so they usually get 2yr college grads that they hope will develop into the job with actually burns them out.

How can a parent prove that they aren't abusing or neglecting their child? Well 99% of the parents do it every day but if you get "reported" then yes you've got a problem. CAS responds to reports/complaints. So we expect them to investigate and come up with the perfect answer and like anything in law or social justice, it doesn't always work out that way. So the system is set up to error on the side of protection of the child which it is not always set up to do.

Catch 22.

Keeping the CAS and other child protection agencies in the spotlight is one way to ensure that they are doing the best they can and hopefully improving where possible. It's not always fair, but it usually keeps this type of government service on it's toes.

But like all loudspeakers, eventually if you just keep playing the same tune, we tune out. Keeping relevant is important to the argument and best serves the cause.

ahhh yes erring on the side of the child a statement that ensures they meet their quotas for funding as far as I'm concerned.

Can you guess how many children are in care in Ontario? (I'll give you some time to answer that) and then if you know the answer, my next question is do you really believe THAT MANY children needed to be taken from their homes and families? ... I doubt it.

but erring on the side of the child is a statement many people believe in.. those same people likely don't know that if a child is taken from the home it's often months later that they get to be returned.. it's not unusual for it to take up to a year... are you telling me being ripped from a loving home and thrown in to a home of a stranger for months and months.. kept away from family, friends.. changing schools etc is really in the best interests of a child that really doesn't need "protection"

I for one have a sense of empathy and think of how I Would feel. I don't like sleeping in a bed that is not my own and I'm an adult.. imagine for one second what a child must feel like.

What's so wrong with them doing a proper investigation? it's seems like when they err on the side of the child and cause unecessary trauma.. that by their own definitions.. they are child abusers.

Like I've said.. I don't deny the need for child proptection.. but they are out of control.. am I saying get rid of them completely? NO. Do I feel they need some big changes? YES.. do they need oversight? DESPERATELY and reform? OH YES

how? here's a few ideas... feel free to add some..

Free Speech

Families should have the right to discuss their own case, in private and in public. Parents (and even children) in child protection cases are now muzzled, and may not plead their case in public. The exact measures used to silence parents vary from place to place. In Ontario, it is unlawful to publish the name of a parent or child involved in a child protection case. In some places, there is no blanket prohibition in the law, but judges routinely issue gag orders in protection cases.

Child protectors plead that confidentiality is required to protect the fragile child from emotional harm, a plea that continues even after a child's death. Yet by their own actions, they inflict the same emotional damage on their wards. Children are hawked for adoption on the internet with a picture, the child's age and a biography disclosing his most significant problems.

never suggest divorce

One activity that needs to be treated as felonious is forcing divorce against the will of both partners, a shotgun divorce.

uniforms for social workers

The law grants child protectors (and animal protectors) the powers of police, and immunities often superior to the police. Yet they appear in civilian clothes, misleading clients. The law could require these workers to appear in uniform, alerting parents to the hazards.

do not pay child care from appropriated funds

The primary fault of child protection is the seizure of children to gain funding. Any funding from appropriations is subject to this problem, and rules to eliminate the practice will be effective only until agencies find a way to thwart them. If funding for orphan children was, as in the past, the domain of private charity, such as churches, no children would be seized to gain funding. Also, the amount of available funding would be greatly reduced, restricting care to cases where it was genuinely needed.

When a child is taken into custody not for his benefit, but to gain appropriated funds, the appropriation has been the victim of a fraud. If there was an effective means of remediating this kind of fraud, families might be safe from funding-driven child seizures.

refusing psychotropics is not neglect

Failure to follow a doctor's orders is now treated as neglect. This rule turns psychiatrists into drug pushers, since parents cannot refuse to follow a prescription. In a few American states, parents now are granted authority to refuse such drugs, without that being treated as a reason for child protection intervention. Ontario should give parents the same authority.

eliminate hotlines

The child abuse hotline must be eliminated. In the year 2002 alone, reports were filed affecting 4.5 million children. After screening and investigating, less than 1 million children were found to be in need of services. Clearly, the hotline is not an effective tool to prevent child abuse, but serves only to clutter up an already overburdened system with reports fueled by overzealousness, hysteria and malice

ignore anonymous reports

Anonymous reports of child abuse should be disregarded. Right now, an anonymous report is an easy way to sick CAS on a personal enemy. But anonymous reports have a more serious problem. Parents who do not know the name of their accuser may suspect the wrong person. In June 2003 Marguerite Dias had her children taken by Children's Aid in Toronto. She did not know the identity of her accuser, but suspected a neighbor, Madelene Monast. The mother attacked her with a machete, cutting off both hands. Had the identity of the accuser been disclosed to the mother, the neighbor could have kept her hands.

eliminate mandated reporting

Mandated reports by child care professionals, doctors, teachers, day-care operators, sound nice, but are a big problem. Parents now have to think carefully before taking an injured child to a professional, because they might lose their child as a result. Also, every child care professional knows of cases in which persons have been prosecuted for non-reporting, so they over-report, causing extra work for CAS, and more fears for parents. Prosecution for non-reporting should be eliminated. Doctors will still be able to report suspected child-abuse, but will not have to do so in frivolous cases.

investigate foster deaths

Deaths sometimes occur of children under the protection of children's aid societies. The public has no way now of learning even how many there are. Serious estimates range from 28 to 80 deaths per year in Ontario. The argument of secrecy to protect the emotional development of the child does not apply to dead children, and these cases should be fully opened to public scrutiny.

citizen oversight board

Some reformers advocate an independent board to review CAS cases. But in practice, such boards would likely come under control of the same political machine running the child protection system, making them rubber stamps. A better reform might be to make the existing board of directors serve that purpose. Right now, boards of directors are puppets of management. They could become effective if their members were elected in the same manner that municipal officers are elected.

provide meaningful accounts

Currently, the published accounts do not answer the most basic questions about CAS operation: How much is spent on foster care? How much on group homes? How many child-days of care are provided? How many child-protection cases were opened? There are lots of numbers printed in the financial statements, but they do not answer the real questions.

limitation or elimination of immunity for caseworkers

Currently, child-protection workers are immune from all legal actions as long as they act in "good faith". This means they are above the law. This is no theoretical statement. In private meetings between caseworkers and parents, they regularly bully parents with their power. One caseworker told a father: "Fathers have no rights". Another told a grandmother: "We have as much power as God". It was only a slight exaggeration.

When a case gets to court, immunity prevents the presentation of true evidence. Since caseworkers are immune, they cannot suffer even from intentional perjury.

do not seize kids until after adverse hearing

The law now in most jurisdictions requires judicial authorization before child removal, but it comes with an exception for children in immediate danger. For the caseworker, this means checking a box on a form. In practice, children are always picked up first on pretense of emergency, and court hearings are after-the-fact. The caseworkers enjoy immunity, so they cannot suffer from any misrepresentation.

The law could be changed to eliminate the exception, delaying child abduction until a judge has signed a warrant on probably cause. By itself, this is unlikely to do much good, since child protection agencies with millions of dollars in revenue will find a way to induce friendly judges to rubber-stamp their requests. A more meaningful reform is to require an adverse hearing in which the parents can present evidence in opposition, and only then can the court issue a pickup order. This would at least protect innocent families able to hire competent counsel.

trial by jury before crown-wardship

Juries, not judges, should have the final word on removing parents from a child's life and turning them into crown wards.

require child's presence in the courtroom

This procedure is followed now in criminal matters, though not in the more consequential custody cases. It would eliminate two current problems. First, the child may be out of the jurisdiction of the court, and impossible to bring into the courtroom, but as it is now, the court can continue to exercise jurisdiction based on some past condition. Two courts can even claim jurisdiction over the same child. Second, as long as the child is old enough to understand, he can witness the proceedings in his own case.

provide parents with adverse evidence

Provide an automatic right for parents to receive copies of case conference notes and all evidence used against them in court, just as they would in a criminal trial. This is most vital for unrepresented parents who must get this material without specific application.

eliminate risk assessments

Child protectors now use risk assessment tools to estimate the risk of future abuse or neglect. A high score can justify child removal, even when no abuse or neglect has already occurred. Scientific analysis and reports from caseworkers confirm that these are subjective tools that reflect only the will of the caseworker. Do we lock people up because they have the capacity to rob a bank, or commit any other crime?

eliminate vagueness in definition of child abuse and neglect

Both child abuse and neglect are vaguely defined in the law. This might be tolerable if, as in other areas, the courts were open. In that case, examination of past decisions would eventually build up a body of common law that would inform parents of what they had to do to avoid a charge of abuse or neglect. But where the courts operate in secret, no parent can possibly know, until it is too late, what actions to take to be within the law. The law should define child abuse and neglect with sufficient precision that parents can know their responsibilities.

eliminate junk science from therapists as evidence

Therapy for children is now rife with junk science theories. A few years ago, there was a procedure called rebirthing, in which adopted children were compelled to struggle for hours confined in a bag to escape into the arms of their adopted parents. This was supposed to promote bonding with the new family. The procedure became discredited when Candace Newmaker died in Denver during her struggle. Sadly, this is not the only therapeutic fad, and lots of others just as silly are still in vogue. Therapists should not be giving expert testimony in child protection cases.

tell parents their rights

The United States Congress enacted a provision requiring social workers to notify a parent of certain rights at the onset of a case. That might be a good idea in Ontario as well, at least if parents had any rights. There are none enumerated in the Child and Family Services Act.

An even more comprehensive reform requires informing parents of their rights at later stages of the process.

video tape all contact between families and CAS

This would eliminate much of the private bullying by CAS workers. It would also eliminate another abuse, coaching children.


end collusion between child protectors and psychiatrists and similar expert witnesses.

When a family is examined by professionals, the family should select the professional. Allowing the child protectors to choose the professional allows for collusion between the professional and the agency.

Your suggestions for improvement seems dead on to me. Good for CAS and their future reputation and good for the families.

Public oversight still lacking -- (Editorial, comment on this story)
Updated 1 day ago


The death of seven-year-old Katelynn Sampson in Toronto Sunday and the subsequent charge of second-degree murder of her legal guardian gives rise, once again, to the need for independent oversight of child-welfare agencies.

These organizations do difficult and important work, but their efforts have for too long escaped public scrutiny.

Police charged Donna Irving, 29, in Katelynn's death in what Toronto Police Det.-Sgt. Steve Ryan called "probably the worst thing I've seen in 20 years of policing," such was the damage to the child's body.

Irving gained control of Katelynn after her mother signed over custody, despite Irving's criminal and abusive past, which included prostitution, drugs and assault.

What, if any, involvement child-welfare agencies had is unclear, but Native Child and Family Services is trying to find out what went wrong.

This is not the first tragic case involving organizations charged with overseeing the care of children. In 2003, five-year- old Jeffrey Baldwin died while in the care of his grandparents, a move sanctioned by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto. Jeffrey weighed just 19 pounds and was covered in scabs when he died.

His grandmother, 51-year-old Elva Bottineau, had previously been convicted of assault causing bodily harm in the death of her own infant daughter in 1970. The CCAS had the information in its files, but missed it.

Child-welfare agencies must regularly make difficult, life-altering decisions. In the daily course of their jobs, they must make choices that will either break up families or keep them together under complicated circumstances. They shepherd child-welfare cases through rigorous legal and decision-making processes to ensure the protection and safety of children. It is a demanding job, and one that, in a majority of cases, they complete with compassion and competence. But child-welfare agencies' decisions have serious ramifications on the lives of children, and thus should be subject to careful public scrutiny.

But they are not. Ontario is one of the minority of provinces in Canada that does not provide some kind of independent oversight of Children's Aid societies.

Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin noted in a submission to the province's Standing Committee on Social Policy in 2005 that Ontario is the only province in which child-protection agencies are essentially contracted out to private institutions in their entirety. Other provinces typically have shared responsibilities between public and private organizations. And despite the fact that CAS's are funded with public money, they are not publicly accountable.

He asked for, but did not receive, authority to investigate child-welfare agencies.

In the 2007-08 annual report, the Ombudsman reports getting 431 complaints about CAS's. The Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies noted that the number of children in its care in 2007 was up 24 per cent from 2001. At any given time, up to 30,000 children can be in the care of child-welfare agencies, with more than 9,000 as Crown wards.

Marin has lamented that three private member's bills that would have awarded his office the authority to investigate CAS's died on the order paper.

The ombudsman has provided effective oversight over many agencies, including the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

He does not have the power to lay charges, or force change. As Sun Media columnist Alan Shanoff phrased it earlier this year: "He can only shame it to fix things."

Public scrutiny is a powerful tool. In some cases, more powerful than regulations, since laws can be bypassed if no one outside of government knows.

Few organizations have such an important responsibility as that of Children's Aid societies. Allowing the ombudsman to probe whether systemic flaws exist should be an imperative.

What do you think? Visit the Sudbury Star's website at www.thesudburystar.com and add your voice to the discussion. Or send us your opinion in a Letter to the Editor at 33 MacKenzie St., Sudbury, P3C 4Y1, or e-mail it to letters@thesudburystar.com

(this was sent to The Sun, Star, Globe and Post)

Dear Editor

In the wake of the tragic death of Katelynn Sampson, it is understandable that the public are outraged. Children should not die at the hands of the people who are entrusted to care for them. While we absolutely must hold the perpetrators accountable, we must be sober in our examination of this case.

Ontario's Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth and the Legislatures Child Welfare Opposition Critics have responded to the public outcry. They have been quoted saying the system failed Katelynn and that her case revealed a hole in child protection services. Katelynn's mother went to Family Court and gave custody to the accused. Officials believe that if a child welfare agency was involved, Katelynn's caregiver would have been given rigorous background checks therefore preventing her death. Statements have even been made that little Katelynn would have fared better in foster care.

As Directors of the Foster Care Council of Canada, we represent those affected by foster care. We represent children, youth and families who are, or who have been in foster care. We strive to improve the quality and accountability of child welfare services across the country. In the year 2000 there were several high profile child deaths reported in the media. These deaths and the attention they garnered led to several amendments to the Child and Family Services Act which caused child apprehensions to skyrocket by 110% with 75% of these children becoming court ordered crown wards. Within 72 hours of Toronto CAS approaching the Legislature, these amendments were enacted.

In 2007, Children's Aid Societies reported 90 deaths in care. 14 of those deaths were determined not to be coroner's cases given the circumstances of the children's deaths surrounding health and natural causes. Of the 76 remaining cases, 37 internal reviews have been requested and referred to the Pediatric Death Review Committee.

In addition to these startling statistics, we know that child welfare agencies have, and continue to leave children in abusive situations failing to act. (ie: Jefferey Baldwin, Baby Jordan, Randy Dooley ) There are currently 25 thousand children and youth in care in Ontario. Our members tell us that the conditions they are/were forced to endure while in care are/were often worse then the ones endured prior to being taken into care.

Even with tighter regulations and legislation we continue to see foster children and children generally in society at great risk. In the spirit of demanding justice for these children, we need to examine why our system is failing and why the billions of dollars we spend in an effort to protect them are not making any real progress.

As former Crown Wards and Directors of the Foster Care Council of Canada, we send our deepest condolences to all of the families and communities who have lost a child to abuse. It's time we held the system accountable and children are given a real voice. Providing child welfare authorities with more legislative power and increased funding isn't the answer. We need only to look over the past 8 years to see how this patchwork method of resolution is failing. It's time to take a closer look at the inner workings of child welfare agencies and their cultures and demand transparency. For the children's sake, we need reform.

Erika Klein
Director of Media Relations and Public Education
Foster Care Council of Canada
www.afterfostercare.ca

Ontario Attorney-General to review child protection laws

MARIA BABBAGE, The Canadian Press, August 15, 2008 at 5:47 AM EDT

A review of legislation aimed at protecting vulnerable children such as Katelynn Sampson is under way in the wake of the seven-year-old girl's death, Ontario Attorney-General Chris Bentley said yesterday.

"We are working very hard with the Ministry of Children and Youth to make sure that whatever needs to be done will be done, whatever changes need to be made will be made, whatever we need to strengthen will be done to make sure that our children - our most vulnerable - are protected," he said.

But Mr. Bentley wouldn't say what changes might be considered, and he declined to comment on the case, saying only that Katelynn's death was "tragic for all."

"We're taking a look at the legislation - what's in it, what could be in it," he said.

The circumstances surrounding Katelynn's death have outraged many since the girl's battered body was found by police Aug. 2 in her caregiver's apartment after someone in the home called 911. Katelynn had been staying with the couple with her mother's consent.

One officer said the injuries the girl suffered were the worst he had seen in 20 years of policing. Screams of anguish were heard outside a funeral home Monday after friends and loved ones saw the injuries to the child's body.

Opposition parties and the province's child advocate have been calling for an inquest into Katelynn's death and an overhaul of the Children's Law Reform Act.

NDP MPP Peter Kormos has raised questions about the decision to award custody of Katelynn to Donna Irving, who has been charged with second-degree murder along with her boyfriend Warren Johnson.

Court transcripts revealed that few questions were asked about Ms. Irving, who had a criminal record for drugs, prostitution and violence.

Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory said Katelynn paid with her life for the system's shortcomings, and it's a "disgrace" the government hasn't yet started an investigation into what went wrong.

Mr. Bentley should order that any potential guardians be checked for a criminal record in custody cases where children are involved, Mr. Tory said this week.

http://rally4accountability.webs.com

If you think it's about protecting the children... you NEED to watch this.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6550729572496212401

Nearly Half Of Children In Crown Care Are Medicated
MARGARET PHILIP
Globe and Mail
June 9, 2007 at 2:09 AM EDT

Psychotropic drugs are being prescribed to nearly half the Crown wards in a sample of Ontario children's aid societies, kindling fears that the agencies are overusing medication with the province's most vulnerable children.

According to government documents obtained by The Globe and Mail under Ontario's Freedom of Information Act, 47 per cent of the Crown wards - the children in permanent CAS care - at five randomly picked agencies were prescribed psychotropic drugs last year to treat depression, attention deficit disorder, anxiety and other mental-health problems. And, the wards are diagnosed and medicated far more often than are children in the general population.

"These children have lots of issues and the quickest and easiest way to deal with it is to put them on medication, but it doesn't really deal with the issues," said child psychiatrist Dick Meen, clinical director of Kinark Child and Family Services, the largest children's mental health agency in Ontario.

"In this day and age, particularly in North America, there's a rush for quick fixes. And so a lot of kids, especially those that don't have parents, will get placed on medication in order to keep them under control."

Psychiatric drugs and children are a contentious mix. New, safer drugs with fewer side effects are the salvation of some mentally ill children. But some drugs have not been scientifically tested for use on children, and recent research has linked children on antidepressants with a greater risk of suicide.

Yet the number of children taking these drugs keeps rising, even in the population at large.

Pharmacies dispensed 51 million prescriptions to Canadians for psychotropic medication last year, a 32-per-cent jump in just four years, according to pharmaceutical information company IMS Health Canada. Prescriptions sold for the class of antidepressants, including Ritalin, most prescribed to children to tackle such disorders as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) rose more than 47 per cent, to 1.87 million last year; a new generation of antipsychotic medication increasingly prescribed to children nearly doubled in the same span, climbing 92 per cent to 8.7 million prescriptions.

And with close to half of Crown wards on psychotropic medication, their numbers are more than triple the rate of drug prescriptions for psychiatric problems among children in general.

With histories of abuse, neglect and loss, children in foster care often bear psychological scars unknown to most of their peers. But without a doting parent in their corner, they are open to hasty diagnoses and heavy-handed prescriptions. Oversight for administering the drugs and watching for side effects is left to often low-paid, inexperienced staff working in privately owned, loosely regulated group homes and to overburdened caseworkers legally bound to visit their charges only once every three months.

Unease over the number of medicated wards of the state is growing: This September, when provincial child advocates convene in Edmonton for their biannual meeting, the use of medication to manage the behaviour of foster children across Canada will be at the top of their agenda.

Whole Range Of Disorders'
Nowhere is concern greater than in Ontario, where the provincial government recently appointed a panel of experts to develop standards of care for administering drugs to children in foster care, group homes and detention centres.

The move was made after the high-profile case last year of a now-13-year-old boy in a group home outside Toronto came to light. The boy was saddled with four serious psychiatric diagnoses, including oppositional defiant disorder and Tourette syndrome, and doused daily with a cocktail of psychotropic drugs before his grandparents came to his rescue. Now living with his grandparents, he is free of diagnoses and drugs.

Marti McKay is the Toronto child psychologist who, when hired by the local CAS to assess the grandparents' capacity as guardians to the boy, discovered a child so chemically altered that his real character was clouded by the side effects of adult doses of drugs.

"There are lots of other kids like that," said Dr. McKay, one of the experts on the government panel. "If you look at the group homes, it's close to 100 per cent of the kids who are on not just one drug, but on drug cocktails with multiple diagnoses.

"There are too many kids being diagnosed witha whole range of disorders that are way out of proportion to the normal population. It's just not reasonable to think the children in care would have such overrepresentation in these rather obscure disorders."

The report from a government investigation into the case obtained by The Globe uncovered group home staff untrained in the use and side effects of the psychotropic drugs they were doling out; no requests from the psychiatrist to monitor the boy for problems, and little evidence of efforts to treat the boy's apparent mental-health issues other than with heavy-duty pharmaceuticals.

James Dubray, executive director of the Durham CAS where the boy was a Crown ward, acknowledges that the agency's monitoring of children on medication was lacking.

But it is no small feat, he said, for agencies like his to raise challenging children and adolescents - including some with behaviours so insufferable that their parents turn them over - when there is a chronic shortage of children's mental-health services across Canada and disruptive young people are stranded on waiting lists for psychiatrists and therapies for as long as a year.

With few specialists available, growing numbers of child-welfare workers are turning to family physicians, typically with next to no training in psychiatric disorders and no expertise in the new cutting-edge psychotropic drugs.

Are Children Being Overmedicated Out Of Expedience?
"I don't think that's an unfair conclusion," Dr. Dubray allowed. "I find it hard to make a judgment. I just know we tend to see kids for which there are either no resources or their parents can't handle them."

Behaviour Management
For Judy Finlay, Ontario's chief child advocate, the use of psychotropic drugs is a burning issue.

Since the inquests into the deaths of a handful of troubled adolescents being forcibly restrained in group homes a few years ago - and the tougher regulations on the use of physical restraints that followed - she has observed a growing trend among group homes to turn to chemical restraints to control unruly behaviour.

These children have trauma and loss in their backgrounds and, as they grow older and foster parents can no longer tolerate their behaviour, they are moved to group homes operating on a culture of strict curfews and rules. Here, too often, troubled teenagers live in close quarters, staff turnover is rapid, police visits are not uncommon, and watching television is the usual pastime.

"It's more about behaviour management than it is about intervening into mental health issues," Ms. Finlay said.

"It's the adolescents who are being given medication usually, and it's adolescents who are noncompliant. But they're supposed to be," she added. "That's their job. So as adolescents grow and challenge the system or challenge staff, it's at that time that we begin to medicate them. They are going to be challenging, and medicating isn't the way to help them through adolescence."

In fact, child psychiatrists and physicians say they face a tricky call when confronted with a tormented child or adolescent whose behaviour appears to be the symptom of a disorder that, if not treated with drugs and other therapies, will inevitably grow harder to tame.

The newer drugs are safer and backed by a growing stack of research, and physicians insist they allow some mentally ill children to function normally when nothing else works. Yet many drugs have never been tested on children by the pharmaceutical companies funding most of the research; have been studied for only short periods that fail to measure the impact of prolonged use; and are not formally approved to treat the condition being addressed.

"Just because it's safe and effective in adults doesn't mean it's safe and effective in a young person, and that's one of my concerns about the lack of research in young people," said Stan Kutcher, a child psychiatrist and Sun Life Financial chair in adolescent mental health at the IWK Health Centre in Halifax.

"Young people aren't little adults. They have different physiologies. They have different metabolisms. Their brains react differently. Their bodies react differently to drugs."

And therein lies a "horrible conundrum" for doctors. "I'm uncomfortable with kids being really sick," Dr. Kutcher said, "and I'm uncomfortable with the treatments that we have."

The National Youth in Care Network, an advocacy group for young people raised in the child welfare system, is just completing a three-year study, funded by Health Canada, of psychotropic drug use among children and adolescents in care across the country.

The researchers have found that not only were psychotropic drugs prescribed to a clear majority of the current and former wards interviewed, but most were diagnosed with mental-health disorders by a family doctor, never visited a child psychiatrist or another doctor for a second opinion, and doubted the accuracy of their diagnosis.

A disturbing number, the network's research director, Yolanda Lambe, added, have traded the child-welfare system for a life on the street.

"A lot of people are using drugs now," she said. "There's a lot of homeless young people who have been medicated quite heavily."


Well most of you know the rest of this horror story, repeated in all over Canada and the US and UK, is it any wonder they are now on drugs on the streets, in jail, or other hostage care. And the lawsuits against the drug companys go on and on, it should be the doctors, and agencies and are governments for ever allowing it.

Next Vaccines, children should NEVER be used as lab rats, they already are, by the water, air, and food, GMO hormones in everything, and toxic planet they are born onto is a toxic mess

The Canadian child protection system is very similar to that of the UK and the USA. If you never read or watch anything on this topic.. please atleast watch this and as the guy on the video says if you are not outraged and you don't speak out.. shame on you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqbJyhUAeq4

I had to call to protect my own child from something heinous that happened at the hands of an older child (I can't get into details in case someone recognized the circumstances) and, I was very disappointed in the way I was treated. I called them at the advice of the police, who thought it necessary, and to protect my child. I was very upset when I talked to them and was told that I was "heightened" I was told by a worker on the phone that she was a little worried about my child because I was "heightened" I said when her little child sits on her lap and tells her what my child told me, then, we would see if SHE was heightened. I asked her if she had kids and she said no. I don't trust them and I feel my child was let down by them. They are there for all the bogus complaints and bother good parents but, let you down when you need them. I know there are kids out there who really need them and, I hope they get the help they need.

You are so very right KellE.. it's often the children who need protecting that are ignored.. of course them allowing children in need of protection to be ignored tells people who don't bother to research further in to what really happens that the CAS is too leanient on people.

It allows people to think that if their children were taken that it MUST have been for a good reason because they know of children who should be taken that aren't (make sense?)

fact is my months of research and speaking with people have shown me that children are most often taken because of "uncooperation" meaning if a parent were to disagree with a worker or one of their theories. The parents that surrender their rights, question things.. those are the people who most often lose their children

also, what you describe isn't uncommon.. parents who call the CAS are often treated as if they were the "offender" so to speak. It's never wise to call the CAS for help (like the encourage) because they are funded in a way that promotes fostering and adoptions.. not helping families... they don't make money for helping.. they make money when children are placed in foster care and adopted out.

it's a sick sick sick cycle.. family court judges sit on various committees and panels that benefit from all this as well.. when parents are forced into assessments and classes.. you better belive their are people within the system that are profitting... all sorts of conflicts of interest.. and no one can bat an eye because they try and keep the public in the dark with gag orders and legislation that makes publishing stories illegal.

make no mistake.. there is a war on the family happening here.. it's up to us the public to stand up for our families and children before it's too late.

http://rally4accountability.webs.com

Well, I definately won't call them again. I felt scared and panicked when she said that like they were gonna start investigating me and we just did it out of concern for our own child's well being. I certainly don't trust them. My kids don't either. They are afraid that they take kids away from their families so, kids hear things at school and draw their own conclusions and my kids have only bad feelings about them

Kids are smart like that

ANNOUNCEMENT:

The date has changed to Monday October 6th. The date was changed to enable an even more successful event and we are pleased to announce the following speakers;

- Andrea Horwath, NDP Children and Youth Services Critic and MPP for Hamilton Centre (and introduced Bill 93)

- Randy Hillier, PC MPP for Lanark,Frontenac, Lennox and Addington

- Archbishop Dorian Baxter, chairman of NAPPA (National Association for Public and Private Accountability) and Canada Court Watch and MP candidate for Newmarket/Aurora

- Erika Klein, Director (specializing in Media Relations and Public Education) of The Foster Care Council of Canada



Queens Park Rally in Toronto

Monday October 6th 2008
9:00am - 4:30pm

We will be supporting Bill 93
(Ombudsman Oversight of Children's Aid Society)

For details click link below
http://rally4accountability.webs.com

or the facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=25681474812

if there is anyone here that wishes to contribute in any way whether it be ideas, suggestions.. please feel free as we are all in it together

cas.accountability@hotmail.com

we thank those who have been working hard behind the scenes since Ottawa and we look forward to meeting those who attend and those who can't we know you'll be there in spirit!

CBC radio request

What we are looking for is a parent who has had their child taking away from them by CAS/authorities for what they feel was not a just reason. We are looking for the circumstances and the how they had to fight to get their child back. All my contact details are below and I look forward to hearing from them. Kindest regards,

Lara

Lara O'Brien
Producer, The Current
CBC Radio, www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/
(416) 205- 3056 - office
(416) 909- 4447 - mobile
[ lara.obrien at cbc.ca ]