Talk:Children's Aid Society (Ontario)

FIGHT RIGHTLY AGAINST CHILDREN AID SOCIETIES; F.R.A.C.A.S.

It was back in 1989 that the head of FRACAS mentioned to me his problems with the childrens aid society. At the time, the CAS was building a new building as caseloads were exploding, and I heard a few complaints.

I was interested to hear what a workshop on "Child Abuse' had to say, and I attended two of them back in 1989. A panel comprised of some 6 women, and 1 man spoke on the problem of child abuse, as they defined it 'men who abuse, women and children victims'.

You will note the model was not only anti-male, but included 'women' as victims. The more correct model would include some women and some children who abuse children including children who abuse themselves including systems that abuse children.

I recall mentioning to them that there model was incorrect, and they just starred at me as if I had said the world was not flat.

Well years later we can look back and say with 100% confidence that the CAS was corrupted with a hidden anti-male agenda that would also victimize women and the family, with a biased, bigoted model.

In the past 18 years, little has been said about this obvious corruption ? Why ?

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 23:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Children who abuse.

You will note the omission of children who abuse.

A significant error, creating a half-truth model that will polarize the issue and lead to other social problems...as they have...children seeing themselves only a potential victims...and not as potential abusers...

It is hoped history and this media will show how this agency was corrupted by a hidden agenda....

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Axe Grinding

This article seems to have been written with someone with an axe to grind. It needs to be made much more objective. --74.13.176.168 (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You couldn't be more correct. This article is CLEARLY one sided and from the get go is looking to make CAS look bad. I have had experience with CAS as a Foster Father, and while there certainly are problems, this article is a disgrace. I am tempted to see about marking it for deletion unless someone is willing to help me clean it up? Dphilp75 (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article is a disgrace. I am a strong critic of CAS who thinks it should be abolished, not reformed. I have added a new section, Mission and Organization, and rewritten Mortality Rate in Ontario to make them more effective by providing more facts and less advocacy. --rtmq January 21, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtmq (talk • contribs) 09:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I put the NPOV tag on this article because it is CLEARLY not, well, a Neutral Point of View. This article has OBVIOUSLY been written by people who have a desire to show the "evil" side of CAS and nothing else.

Wikipedia is not a place to vent frustrations.

While I agree that there are many problems with CAS, this article is not reflective of Wikipedia's best efforts. It doesn't matter how true something you write is, what does matter is that you present those "facts" in a Neutral way. That is to say, no matter how bad you feel something is, you can not post it in such an obvious "axe grinding" way.

I wonder who is willing to help me clean this article up? Dphilp75 (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

After the recent deletion review and subsequent revert this article is skewered way back the other way. The Children's Aid Society, or more specifically the Ontario branches of this private corporation have had a notorious track record; many of the published news articles and public court records are absolutely terrifying. I would encourage anyone who is interested in fixing this article to browse the plethora of links and information that have been removed via the revision history.

The deaths and inhumane suffering that CAS has been deemed "unaccountable" for is unimaginable. These violations of basic human rights are well documented. Even if the thousands of victims that this organization has preyed upon never find restitution many of their stories have still been brought to light in the press and public record. I do not believe makeshift federal constructs of legal accountability should be extended to global social accountability as well.

How does one go about making a neutral article concerning the active legitimization of child trafficking, gross political corruption and mass murder? (ref: Toronto Star) 99.229.227.162 (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with a criticism section, but I did have issue with the one that was here. I accept that there are issues and problems with CAS, and serious ones at that; but using words like "Child Trafficking" and "Mass Murder" *HARDLY* provides a NPOV.

There are MANY points that CAS could be called to the floor for, but it *MUST* be done in a NPOV, and using words like "Mass Murder" in relation to CAS will GUARANTEE a revert by me.

My issue with this becomes, and I admit perhaps unfairly; so I am open to being proven wrong, that using sites who's main purpose in life is to discredit and disband the CAS as the ONLY sources isn't acceptable. If a site who's purpose is to discredit CAS is the ONLY source used, this too will result in my reverting it.

The "Criticism" section can not be larger than the rest of the article, unless you are willing to spend the same amount of time and energy sourcing a more flattering light.

Lastly, if you TRULY wish to bring such criticisms to light on Wikipedia, then I suggest you create a "Criticisms of Canada's CAS page" rather than attempt to hijack this one. Dphilp75 (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

A recent study has shown 55% of all complaints are false, usually purported by vengeful people (e.g. parents going through divorce). Why isn't there a section on this, when it's way beyond incidental, which can be blamed entirely on the fact that CAS does not conduct actual investigations? 82.217.70.70 (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You mention there is a study and then do not provide any references. If you do, then I think it would be appropriate to add in to the upcoming criticisms section. Dphilp75 (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill 93

Control the children and you control the future. Essentially under such organizations, children belong to the government, and are simply under their parents' custody. When a child is taken by the government, the child is never said to be "kidnapped", but instead "removed". You can never claim liberty with such control over you! Even the dictatorships we are taught to despise, have not dared enter homes so far.

There is a bill, bill 93, dictating an oversight over these organizations, which is not mentioned in this article! The bill should be mentioned. The article is indeed biased, and a clear example of the weapon used by democratic tyrannies, as opposed to conventional tyrannies... keeping the public ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.102.118 (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources on this? Dphilp75 (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I just looked in to Bill 93. First of all, there is no Bill 93 at the moment. It died when the Ontario Legislature was prorogued in March, at it only had one reading then. Further, it was introduced as a Private Members bill, which RARELY get passed. Thus, this bill will need to be reintroduced to amount to a mention in this article IMHO.

However, having read the information, I must say that I support this bill. I do have to agree that CAS has far too little oversight. Dphilp75 (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved unsourced material from article to here. Please improve by rewrite or reference.

The material quoted below needs improvement, please discuss. I could see where a reference to a CRA decision could be found but the last line needs extensive referencing to prove it isn't opinion. Also "frequently" should be replaced with a number or percentage.

"Frequently, CAS agencies will employ the services of private foster care agencies which are licensed in the same manner as themselves by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services. Private foster care agencies (OPRs or "Service Partners") are contracted on a per child basis and are responsible for the care of the child in a foster or group home setting while deferring all issues that require a guardian to the child's CAS worker. Recently, Canada Revenue Agency has ruled that foster care services provided in a parent model group home by a private agency fall under the Excise Tax Act which means these services are not HST exempt. This decision by CRA will put many CAS agencies in a severe budget crisis as they rely on private foster care agencies for hard-to-mange and special needs children."Daffydavid (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

History, Ongoing change

There is no history section for this article, this seems odd. Also, there appears to be change happening in CAS due to ongoing financial mismanagement. This should be added as it appears at least one of the CAS is now under direct control of the Government.Daffydavid (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the actual history of CAS is not allowed to be discussed in the article or is simply dismissed as axe grinding. None the less it seems to be a very dark tragedy that unfolds in the collective history of the edits. If you browse the edit history you'll find a wealth of information already hidden here. Some opinions, some well referenced facts.. the most revealing information is often removed by IPs that appear to trace back to CAS servers, and replaced by that happy go lucky "for the sake of the children" mantra that they have successfully hide behind for two centuries. Avant Destiny (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Good faith edits.

Please discuss changes made on article page here. Without discussion it just becomes random edits. Daffydavid (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC) This article needs a good intro section. The main purpose and the history of the organization would help explain the overall article to the uninitiated. Daffydavid (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• I changed the opening definition to a blockquote instead of an inline quote since it's so long, and because in the source it is a list, not a sentence. It makes an awkward sentence because there are commas separating the main clauses and commas separating listed items within the clauses, and it gets confusing as to whether a comma is separating a listed item or a clause. Besides which, it's a list in the source, so it should be a list here. Being a quote of four lines, is better styled as a blockquote than a quote. I would rather see it paraphrased than quoted, but that's too big a change for me to get into today (probabably not ever). JethroElfman (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Advocacy (Lobby) Group

The Ontario Association of Social Workers does not advocate for CAS. CAS also has a long running dispute going with The Ontario College of Social Workers due to the practice of doing social work using unregistered workers by simply renaming their job title.Daffydavid (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought that was what I said with the edit. The primary role of an advocacy organization is to run commercials in order to influence public opinion, and also to lobby the government in order to influence legislation. The OACAS is made up of member CAS organizations. The OASW is made up of social workers. I guess I just assumed that the CASs would hire bona fide social workers, making OASW the advocacy organization for CAS workers (distinct from CAS organizations). If your typical CAS is hiring unregistered workers, these workers are left unrepresented, since they aren't part of the profession. I mostly wanted to make it clear that neither the OACAS nor the OASW exists to look out for the interests of the children, despite what they will say in the advertisements or literature. They represent their members. JethroElfman (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but OASW is probably the wrong rep for the workers. The ones that are registered belong to OCSW which is by law. I am unsure if the non-registered social workers (renamed as child protection worker, etc.) are represented by anyone besides a union.Daffydavid (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing the purpose of the groups. The OCSW is a regulatory agency which protects the public interest by licensing and disciplining practitioners, just as Professional Engineers Ontario does for engineers and College of Physicians & Surgeons Ontario does for doctors. The OASW is an advocacy group (perjoratively called a lobby group), which is largely an advertising agency representing the practitioners. The corresponding group for engineers is Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, and for doctors Ontario Medical Association. Neither a regulatory body nor an advocacy body performs union activities such as collective bargaining with an employer. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article for professional association fails to make the disctinction of role clear. JethroElfman (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

How about we just delete the "advocacy group" heading and list all three groups OASW, OSCW, OACAS in the Authority section with definitions such as these, with references to the "about" page of each group as source for the definition of that group's purpose. JethroElfman (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can manage to word your suggestion - I mostly wanted to make it clear that neither the OACAS nor the OASW exists to look out for the interests of the children, despite what they will say in the advertisements or literature. They represent their members. - to make this clear then go for it. I think leaving them in the advocacy section is better than authority - that's just confusing to the uninitiated.Daffydavid (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

History of the children's aid movement

I'm trying to find information about the joint nature of humane and children's aid societies which sprang from a common impulse. We could use a bit of information on that history here. My understanding is that the CAS is a breakaway from what became the THS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.48.106 (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A quick Google search for "CAS history children's aid society Canada" reveals a relatively documented but not too well known history of government endorsed and ultimately ignored social abuses committed under the guise of "Child protective services" in Canada which stretch back for over 200 years.. A majority of the official record has been suppressed via catch alls gag orders in the CPA effectively strip parents and children of their right to free speech while keeping the actual operations of CAS quite secretive in comparison to agencies in other country's that have long had government oversight of child protection services.

The authority granted to CAS is a bastardization of archaic British law known as Elizabethan Poor Law which originally provisioned for the adoption of orphans to be trained as apprentices. It is estimated to have been inherited to Canadian common law sometime before 1799. In 1814 compulsory apprenticeship by indenture was abolished in the UK. Meanwhile Canada continued to enforce and build upon this archaic set of laws which provision for children as a tradeable human resources with little more rights than personal property. By 1827 local courts in Canada had the authority to appoint legal guardians for children without families. By 1874 these laws were expanded to include any minor whose parents were in jail or dependent on public charity.

The next major turning point was in 1888 when Lady Ritchie formed the "Ottawa Humane Society". By 1893 Lady Ritchie had used the influence of her husband Chief Justice Ritchie to enact the "Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to and Better Protection of Children" with very little review or oversight. This political maneuver effectively granted the equivalent of "human property" rights to private non government corporations which legitimized the displacement of over a million Canadian children, whom were frequently taken from their homes and family prior to any sort of trial or independent review.

During the 1900's this body of law incorporated even more extreme concepts, such as the placement of children that may be hypothetically "at risk" based solely on the discretion of CAS, (regardless of whether or not the child had been in any sort of real and eminent danger or had encountered any actual harm). More recent amendments dictated that the Agency and it's agents are not accountable for their actions, nor are they required to report to or be regulated by government oversight. Any appeal against the actions of such an agency is currently handled by the agency itself. The Canadian government has reviewed some of the more extreme violations of rights and financial mismanagement, but does not supervise nor actively monitor the operations of these agencies.

Over the past century Canadian parents targeted by these agencies have been deemed "guilty until proven innocent", and the burden of proof lays solely upon the parents. Families are often torn apart and placed under crippling social and financial duress for many months prior to cases being ruled upon by a family court judge. Observing relevant cases in the modern family court system of Ontario reveals that it often takes over three months and in some cases many years for families to prove their innocence when faced with even false allegations from these agencies.

Reflecting on recent cases reported in mainstream media, false positives generated by medication interactions during "drug tests performed without consent" have been utilized to take newborns into foster care for extended periods regardless of the test results being discounted almost immediately after the tests. This process effectively disrupted parent child bonding and caused irreparable damage to the families and future well being of the children. According to current Canadian law, the agency is not accountable for these rash actions and the parents have no option of restitution or recourse. The agencies long history of acting rashly on often anonymous and potentially erroneous allegations coupled with the documented poor conditions and statistically high morbidity of foster care, seems to clearly indicate that these Agencies have likely been allowed to cause more harm to children than would have occurred in any other scenario.

The atrocity of the Canadian CAS resembles the Orphan Train Movement in the US, but differs in that the agencies involved are completely unsupervised and internally regulated. Another major difference in Canada is that children's social benefit stipends are utilized to pay the Agencies "per head" based on the agencies private tally of children placed in care; this commission based scheme was absent from the motivation behind the charity driven Orphan Train. The most striking difference is that these practices continue on today in Canada, whereas very similar practices were deemed a violation of basic human rights in the US in 1929 which effectively brought the Orphan Train to an end.

I believe I could construct a more accurate date by date timeline, and there seems to be no end to list of references documenting the masses of families and children tormented by these agencies across Canada, but really IMHO this page should be deleted and salted, and the "child protection" agencies of Canada forbidden from trying to publicly white wash their crimes on global forums. Canadian law may entitle them to be a virtually unaccountable govt shadow opt in Canada, but in the global community they should be fully accountable and their shocking history of misdeeds brought to light.

P.S. The following may be a straw man argument, but the numbers agree and it provides a unique relative perspective on the unwritten history of harm that the current article barely touches on:

Statistical comparison of the CAS morbidity report against annual averages reveals in the under 14 years of age group that involvement with CAS has resulted in the death of significantly more Canadian children than car accidents, choking hazards, sports related injuries, second hand smoke, firearm accidents, cancer, tipped televisions, uncovered swimming pools, or any other leading cause of child mortality in Canada. The CAS death toll in this age group is higher than all lethal accidents and murders resulting from parental neglect or child abuse combined. If one was to extrapolate the reported data the accumulated CAS related deaths total is likely higher than all the victims on the List of serial killers by number of victims combined.

Or more to the point, if CAS could be held fully accountable for their historical actions, this corporate legal entity would be the oldest and most proficient serial killer currently active in the world and which has been operating continuously killing one child every three days since the time of Jack the Ripper (1888). If tried and found guilty of murdered in every instance of the estimated +20,000 children who have died while under the guardianship of these agencies, the CAS conglomeration would have accumulated jail term sentences totaling roughly 320,000 years or the equivalent of about 10,500 consecutive life sentences. But alas, instead of jail time they recieve 1.4 Billion Canadian dollars a year for convertly violating the basic human rights of parents and childern in Canada under full protection of the govt; namely the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Avant Destiny (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Canada Court Watch.org

Is this a seperate group from CanadaCourtWatch.com? Removed material WP:Undue. May be appropriate if trimmed and added in a new section - suggest as sub heading to contoversy.--Daffydavid (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)