AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION ISN'T WORTH A POUND OF CURE ANYMORE.

AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION ISN'T WORTH A POUND OF CURE ANYMORE.
Posted on March 29, 2017 | Derek Flegg | Written on March 29, 2017
Comments
Letter type:
Blog Post

Author's Note:

Author's Note:

Two cases of the children's aid society's interpretation of their mandate working against the best interest of children, families and the taxpayer.

In leaked memo, Peel CAS staff asked to keep cases open to retain funding.

In 2013 the society's claimed their mandate to act in the best interest of the child forced them to attempt to defraud the taxpayers and in a bid to justify that breach of ethics they placed the blame squarely on the taxpayers , who according to the society, failed to report enough child abuse/neglect to meet their funding goals rather than admit just maybe historic rates of child abuse Ontario might actually be on the decline.

March is the end of the fiscal year for the agency and in the memo staff were instructed to complete as many investigations as possible (no fewer than 1,000), transfer as many cases as possible to “ongoing services,” and not close any ongoing cases during March.

The memo notes that “our volumes continue to be lower than our projections (projections that are based on what the society calls historic levels of child abuse,) and this will result in less funding for our organization which directly impacts our current deficit and could impact our funding in future years. Therefore, the month of March is very important and we need to make a collective effort to meet our newly discussed targets.”

A new report cites poverty as a key factor in families who come into contact with the child protection system that highlights the glaring inconsistencies in the children's aid society's interpretation of their chosen mandate as they twist it any which way to suit their funding goals.

In 2016 the society claims the ministry had made it clear they have no mandate to help underprivileged families, even if it is in the best interest of the child to do so in that it would prevent apprehensions. 

“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.” 

What does that mean? 

They're saying they're not allowed to point out or draw attention to problems caused by government policies that result in their involvement and apprehensions and more funding for the society. How is that in the best interest of the child? 

Children’s aid societies have long witnessed the grinding effect of poverty on families but have rarely spoken out about it or in anyway pressured policy makers to give more money to families with children who need it but have instead wrestled every penny away from those families towards their own dreams of empire.

Placing the blame entirely on the government and ministry, which regulates child protection and funds societies with $1.5 billion annually or about $70 000 per child per year, Goodman suggests the silence suited them. 

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

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

IS THIS A CHANCE FOR WYNNE'S LIBERALS TO FIX A 'HISTORIC' CONSERVATIVE BLUNDER?

No doubt the Wynne's liberals will fail address or rememdy this problem with the anounced  ‘historic’ changes to child-protection laws.

Is it really parental neglect if it's the government who has failed to provide adequate funding to the parents to properly care for their children in the first place? It's not the parents who are struggling to make ends meet that are guilty of neglect...

How many children are in care right now, not because their families didn't love them and wouldn't provide enough food and the other necessities but because the government choose to fund the children's aid society and not the family.  

Basic income in today's increasingly automated and jobless society would keep families together and keep loved and cared for children out of overly expensive government funded care.

Province in talks with Peel Children’s Aid Society over strategies in leaked memo. (Since when is fraud just a funding strategy?)

The agency has denied that inflating casework was the intent of the memo, and says the so-called “service strategy” has been taken out of context.

Shortly after the behind closed doors meeting with Wynne's liberals the children's aid society launched the "Just Report Anything" adverising campaign.

However, Conservative children’s services critic Jane McKenna said Thursday the memo’s optics are “terrible” and “reflect poorly on not just the Peel CAS but also the Liberal government, which bears ultimate responsibility for child welfare in Ontario.”

The Peel Children’s Aid Society has called the memo an “unfortunate use of language,” and says investigations are always carried out to ministry standards and decisions aren't being made on the needs of agency though they quite clearly are. 

Just Coincidental Or Is It The Sixties Scoop All Over Again?

Between 2011 and 2013 the then 46 separate societies investigated a combined total of 42 000 families or about 14 000 investigations per year, in 2014 - after the Peel memo leak  the societies investigated a combined total of over 82 000 families (reopening 20 000  previously closed files) in a single year as reported by the Toronto Star.

Gene Colman, a Toronto family lawyer who handles cases involving CAS, said his office has been puzzled by the substantial increase in people calling because of CAS intervention in their families.

“I thought, ‘What’s going on, why are we getting so many calls?’ I wonder if it’s related. I don’t know,” he said not looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth definition. Don't question the value of a gift

 

About The Author

Advocates for family preservation against unwarranted intervention by government funded non profit agencies.

comments powered by Disqus