12/23 Services for Families/“Least Intrusive”/ Apprehension Last Resort/ Importance of the Family

Services for Families/“Least Intrusive”/ Apprehension Last Resort/ Importance of the Family

Section 13 (1) (2)(a-j),
(1) Where it appears to the Minister or the agency that services are necessary to promote the principle of using the least intrusive means of intervention and, in particular, to enable a child to remain with the parent or guardian or to be returned to the care of the child’s parent or guardian, the Minister and the agency shall take reasonable measures to provide services to families and children that promote the integrity of the family.

(2) Services to promote the integrity of the family include, but are not limited to, the services provided by the agency or provided by others with the assistance of the agency for the following purposes:

(a) improving the family’s financial situation;
(b) improving the family‘s housing situation;
(c) improving parenting skills;
(d) improving child-care and child rearing capabilities;
(e) improving homemaking skills;
(f) counseling and assessment;
(g) drug or alcohol treatment and rehabilitation;
(h) child care;
(i) mediation;
(j) self-help and empowerment of parents whose children have been, are or may be in need of protective services;
(k) such matters prescribed by the regulations.

( Note: See Justice Gass’ comments on section 13 in the Comments and Recommendation section below)

Section 42 (2)
“The court shall not make an order removing the child from the care of a parent or guardian unless the court is satisfied that less intrusive alternatives, including services to promote the integrity of the family pursuant to Section 13,
(a) have been attempted and have failed;
(b) have been refused by the parent or guardian; OR
(c) would be inadequate to protect the child”


Preamble to Act
“And Whereas social services are essential to prevent or alleviate the social and related economic problems of individuals and families.”

Section 9
“ The functions of an agency are to
(c) provide guidance, counseling, and other services to families for the prevention of
circumstances that might require intervention by an agency;
(e) develop and provide services to families to promote the integrity of the families, before and after intervention pursuant to this Act;”

Section 18
(1) “A parent or guardian who is unable to provide the services required by a child in the parent or guardian’s custody because the child has special needs, as prescribed by the regulation, may enter into a written agreement with an agency or the Minister for the care and custody of the child or provision of services to meet the child’s special needs.
(2)A special needs agreement made pursuant to this Section shall be made for a period not exceeding one year, but may be extended for further periods each not exceeding one year, with the approval of the Minister.”

Section 20
“Where the Minister or an agency enters into an agreement pursuant to Section 17, 18, or 19, the Minister or the agency shall, where practicable, in order to ensure the child’s best interests are served, take into account
(a) the maintenance of regular contact between the child and the parent or guardian;
(b) the desirability of keeping brothers and sisters together in the same family unit;
(c) the child’s need to maintain contact with the child’s relatives and friends;

Section 42 (4)
“Where a parent or guardian consents to a disposition order being made pursuant to Section 42 that would remove the child from the parent or guardian’s care and custody, the court shall:
- ask whether the agency has offered the parent or guardian services that would enable the child to remain with the parent or guardian”

Section 42 (2)
“The court shall NOT make an order removing the child from the care of a parent or guardian unless the court is satisfied that less intrusive alternatives, including services to promote the integrity of the family pursuant to Section 13,
(a) have been attempted and have failed;
(b) have been refused by the parent or guardian; OR
(c) would be inadequate to protect the child”

Section 44 (3)
“Where the agency places a child who is the subject of an order for temporary care and custody, where practicable, in order to ensure the best interest of the child served, take into account
(a) the desirability of keeping brothers and sisters in the same family unit;
(b) the need to remain contact with the child’s relatives and friends;”

Keeping the Family Unit Together is Important:
Preamble to Act

“The family exists as the basic unit of society, and its well-being is inseparable from the common well-being . . . AND WHEREAS parents or guardians have responsibility for the care and supervision of their children and children should only be removed from that supervision, either partly or entirely, when all other measures are inappropriate.”

Section 2(1)

“The purpose of the Act is to protect children from harm, promote the integrity of the family
and assure the best interest of the children”

Section 3 (2)(a-l)
“Where a person is directed pursuant to this Act, except in respect of a proposed adoption, to make an order or determination in the best interest of a child, the person shall consider those of the following circumstances that are relevant:
(a) the importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent or guardian and secure place as a member of a family;
(b) the child’s relationship with relatives;
(c) the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of the disruption of that continuity;
(d) the bonding that exists between the child and the child‘s parent or guardian;
(e) the child‘s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs;
(f) the child‘s physical, mental and emotional level of development;
(g) the child’s cultural, racial and linguistic heritage;
(h) the religious faith, if any, in which the child is being raised;
(i) the merits of a plan for the child‘s care proposed by an agency, including a proposal that the child be places for adoption, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent or guardian;
(j) the child‘s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained;
(k) the effect on the child of delay in the disposition of the case;
(l) the risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent or guardian;
(m) the degree of risk, if any, that justifies the finding that the child is in need of protective services;
(n) any other relevant circumstances.”

Section 17(2)(b)
“An agency shall not enter into a temporary-care agreement unless the agency
(b) is satisfied that no less restrictive course of action, such as care in the child’s own home, is appropriate for the child in the circumstances.”

Section 28(1)
“Where it appears to an agent that a child has been abandoned, a child’s only parent or guardian has died, or no parent or guardian of the child is available to exercise custodial rights over the child or has made adequate provisions for the child’s care, the agency may assume the temporary care and custody of the child, for a period not to exceed seventy-two hours, during which time the agency shall make all reasonable efforts to locate or contact a parent or guardian or, in the absence of a parent or guardian, a relative of the child who is willing and able to provide for the child’s care.”

Section 39(8)(a)(b)
“Where the agency places a child who is the subject of an order pursuant to clause (e) of subsection (4), the agency shall, where practicable, in order to ensure the best interest of the child are served, take into account
(a) the desirability of keeping brothers and sisters in the same family unit;
(b) the need to maintain contact with the child’s relatives and friends;”

Section 42 (2)
“Where the court determines that it is necessary to remove the child from the care of a parent or guardian, THE COURT SHALL, before making an order for temporary or permanent care and custody pursuant to clause (d), (e) or (f) of subsection (1), CONSIDER WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO PLACE THE CHILD WITH A RELATIVE, NEIGHBOUR OR OTHER MEMBER OF THE CHILD’S COMMUNITY OR EXTENDED FAMILY pursuant to clause (c) of subsection (1), with the consent of the relative or other person.”

Comments and Recommendations :

• Unfortunately, the agency only plays lip service to the importance of keeping the family together and offering services with the intention of keeping the family together.

• Services are either not being offered, or when services are utilized, they are not used with the intention of keeping the family unit together. Instead, they are used as thinly veiled investigative tools to gather or concoct “evidence” against the family. Some people are well aware of this, and often times this is the reason families are refusing the “services“, if offered. Then this refusal of services is used against the families. It becomes a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation. If families had confidence in the positive intent of these services, they would gladly participate, but this is not the case.

• Justice Gass’ comments and criticisms of Section 13 of the CFS Act concerning the services that are suppose to be offer to families before contemplating taking children into care are reproduced in the 2 “annual” reports,

Report: Ministers Advisory Committee on Children and Family Services Act, December 1993; and
Report: Ministers Advisory Committee on Children and Family Services Act, March 1996:

“Just to throw my own two cents worth into this section 13 which seems to have fallen far short of what it was designed to do in reality. Certainly my understanding of the basis for this new legislation was essentially that it was designed to change the focus of the child protection proceedings to eliminate the necessity, where possible of the court intervention and the need to take children into care, by promoting the integrity of the family and providing services before things had reached the critical point where the agency had to intervene and the matter had to come before the court.

And it seems to me what is happening in reality is just what has been suggested; that expectations as to what the Act was to accomplish have been raised by the very wording of section 13 and in reality there is nothing there unless the situation has already reached the critical point where there has to be intervention. And yet the whole idea of it is the least intrusive measures and to prevent intervention by providing services before the situation reaches the critical point.

The other thing is that the . . .uh . . Certainly in looking at the letter . . . what . . . when the section 13 services are intended to be provided by the Minister . . . Is not at all consistent with when they were envisaged to be provided in the legislation. There are such basic things as financial situations, housing situations, drug and alcohol rehabilitation etc., all of which in and of themselves don’t necessarily mean that a crisis is there yet but you plug in before the crisis erupts. To read the letter [?] is to suggest that section 13 really shouldn’t be in the Act. If it is going to be there then there should be something to back it up and, if not, it shouldn’t be there.

I always thought it was a preventative measure and as Mr. [Rollie] Thompson says in his commentary [The Annotated Children and Family Services Act], this provision is the cornerstone of the Act’s emphasis upon voluntary access to services for family. And it goes on to say the Minister must take reasonable measures to provide services when it appears to either that such services are necessary to further those principles and those principles are least intrusive interventions and the promotion of the integrity of the family.

Well it seems to me that it kicks the cornerstone right out from underneath the Act. Having said that, I hope that something can be done to either change the Act to fit reality, or preferably have the services put in place to bring about the whole purpose of the Act. Well good luck to you folks.”

• Section 42 (2) states that “the Court shall consider whether it is possible to place the child with a relative, neighbour or other member of the child’s community or extended family”. Section 28(1) states that the agency shall make all reasonable efforts to locate or contact a parent or guardian or, in the absence of a parent or guardian, a relative of the child who is willing and able to provide for the child’s care.” Legal counsel has informed us that the term “shall” is a legal term that allows no options. When the Court and the agency neglects to proactively inquire about these options outside of foster care, the court is not following the law.

• When family does come forward to take care and custody of the child they are automatically sent into assessment. There are grave concerns about the professionalism of these assessments including deliberate misrepresentation of statements given during the interview stage. Families are consistently being denied the option of having the these interviews taped so that it becomes their word against the “professional’s”. Tests have been wrongly administer and applied to guarantee an inaccurate “psychological label”.

• Even when assessments have been reviewed by well respected PHD psychologists and are found profoundly lacking, complaints to the NS Board of Examiner’s in Psychology have not been successful. In fact, these complaints aren’t even getting past the initial investigation stage. The NS Board of Examiners in Psychology remains extremely secretive during this process, they will not tell you who, if any people, they have contacted during the investigation, or what is being said, so that you don’t get a chance to rebut. They will not even identifying the investigation team until the investigation is finished. Then, when the decision comes down, family is told that they cannot ask any questions about the investigation and that they have no right to appeal!

• Other professional complaint system, like the Barristers’ Society, are more transparent during their complaint process. During the investigation, you have a right to know who is saying what, and you are given a chance to rebut back and forth as the investigation progresses. Ontario has the right to appeal in their parallel system that deals with complaints against psychologists.

• The question needs to be asked: Why is the NS Board of Examiners in Psychology
  being so secretive? These assessments are impacting our children and our families in an extreme way. There is concern that some psychology establishments are getting most or the majority of their business from Children's Aid Societies/Family and Children Services Agencies /Department of Community Services (CAS/FCS/DCS) -this has been admitted in court by one of the biggest contract providers.

• Contracts with CAS/FCS/DCS can be very lucrative. A local PHD psychologist while admitting there is problems with the interaction and relationship between psychologists and CAS/FCS/DCS across the province stated that there is a “particular problem” in the Halifax Metro Area. Could this be because of the high concentration of mental health care providers chasing an income here in the city.

The psychologists who are doing these assessments need to be made accountable. Our children deserve this!