The unbearable darkness of being
CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD
I have been writing about Jeffrey Baldwin off and on for more than three years, since shortly after his miserable death in his prison of a room in an east-end Toronto house on Nov. 30, 2002.
In that 42-month period, I knocked on the front door of the house, this in those early days before his grandparents were ever arrested, and was chased away by his obese, glowering and remarkably entitled grandmother, who later called police to complain about me; broke the story of how the Catholic Children's Aid Society had agreed to give custody of Jeffrey and his siblings to the grotesque grandparents without even checking its own files that detailed the pair's earlier, separate convictions for child abuse; covered much of the grandparents' criminal trial (they were found guilty of second-degree murder and will be formally sentenced on May 30); attended a tender memorial, organized by strangers, for the dead boy; and read and wrote about a searing report written by an external consultant, who described in crisp prose the ways the CCAS had failed Jeffrey.
For the longest time, I had a picture of the little boy on a wall of my home office and, later, a T-shirt with a blown-up version of the same photo.
I took them down a couple of weeks ago.
Jeffrey's grandparents, Elva Bottineau and Norman Kidman, are likely to pass the rest of their lives in prison — second-degree murder carries an automatic "life" sentence with only the parole ineligibility period still to be decided by the judge — but, as an outcome, this is so profoundly unsatisfactory as to evoke despair.
Last month, Mr. Justice David Watt of Ontario Superior Court ruled that, as Jeffrey's caregivers, the grandparents are guilty of killing him, and so they are. For her part, the grandmother is of borderline intelligence but a vicious, self-referential woman, and surprisingly capable and cunning. The grandfather is a big, lethargic dope, uninterested in much beyond his own creature comforts and unwilling to put himself out one bit to help the child who was slowly dying before his eyes.
They richly deserve their sentences, and not a whit of pity.
But, my God, Jeffrey and his little sister, centred out for cruel treatment by the grandparents though Jeffrey bore the worst of it, lived in that small house surrounded by adults.
Two of the Bottineau-Kidman grown daughters, and their men, also lived there, the most notorious of them one James Mills. Mr. Mills is the best known because he was the only one of that household to testify at trial — Judge Watt described him as "a curious mixture of blatant self-interest and unfathomable loyalty to the persons charged" — and because, as the only one in the house not related by blood or marriage, he might have been presumed to be less bound to the studied indifference that was the household's reaction to the little boy's plight.
Alas, like Mr. Kidman, whom he so admired, Mr. Mills lifted not a pinky, not once, not ever, to help the suffering Jeffrey. The night the little guy died, Mr. Mills was in the bedroom next door, playing video games.
The only price he paid for his stunningly heartless behaviour was the sting of publicity, the same price, albeit to a much lesser extent because they were not called to the witness stand, paid by the other adults who lived in the house.
So, while the grandparents are the perpetrators, while it was their legal duty and theirs alone to have properly cared for a vulnerable child, there was a larger pool of adults who donned blinkers. This is not criminal conduct, but it is morally reprehensible and depressing.
Institutionally, there were three different systems involved one way or another in the case. Two of them — the police and the administration of justice — did their jobs and emerged with honour, in reasonable good time.
Though homicide detectives probably harboured dreams of charging every person in that vile house and the agency that agreed to give the grandparents custody in the first place, and though they would have done so to wide applause, they correctly arrested only the grandparents, because only they had legal liability and opportunity and could be successfully prosecuted.
The accused were robustly defended before one of the best judges in the nation, who heard the case without a jury and wrote a 200-plus-page decision that is as sound as it is literate.
Only the Catholic Children's Aid Society came out of the abyss if not entirely unscathed — the agency, too, was called to account in the realm of public opinion — then unbowed.
At the crux of the agency's explanation for what happened was that there was, at the time Jeffrey's grandparents gained custody of him, a policy vacuum in child care.
Back then, went this explanation, when relatives stepped into the breach when parents were deemed unfit, there was no rule that workers do background checks on the relatives — as though it were perfectly acceptable that a requirement for a thorough family history, in any custody case, should flow from a formal directive.
Child-welfare agencies, chiefly the CCAS, were intimately involved with Jeffrey's various family members for 36 years; there was a wealth of frightening information about the grandparents in the files the agency failed to review.
To my knowledge, the agency has never explained — nor been asked to explain by anyone other than the press — how it was that it also approved Ms. Bottineau as one of its own paid child-care providers a mere four years after her husband was convicted of assaulting two of her youngsters from a previous marriage and despite her own conviction in the 1970 pneumonia death of her first baby, an infant named Eva who later was found to have suffered multiple fractures consistent with battered-child syndrome.
Its front-line workers involved in the case have never publicly explained their thinking.
There remains one last hope that the agency and those workers will be asked these questions and others — Ontario's chief coroner has called an inquest into the little boy's death.
The cynical view is that little good can come of these proceedings, because the recommendations of any inquest jury are only that — recommendations — and because the inquest cannot assign blame.
I don't subscribe to that view. I think the more such decisions are examined, the more publicity brought to bear on the workings of secretive organizations, the more good, ordinary people see that wasted little boy as he appeared on the autopsy table, the better.
Studies show that the sort of slow, semi-starvation Jeffrey Baldwin endured is worse, physiologically and psychologically, than total starvation. In the latter, hunger pangs disappear within a few days; in the former, there is no such blessing.
I can't bear to look at his picture any longer, but he remains in my heart. I await the inquest with eagerness.
cblatchford@globeandmail.com

To all:

I am still away at school and haven't read the blog for so long until today. I don't encourage hate or nasty comments, I don't like that people use what is supposed to be an open forum to discuss idea's and feelings about C/CAS, Jeffrey, child care, etc., to vent their problems or attack each other. I probably won't have the chance to read this again for another month.

John, thank you for all the work you are doing. Believe me, it is frustrating and hard to try and fight the 'machine'. I got sick of slamming my head into a brick wall whenever I dealt with Mary Anne Chambers or Mary McConvile! Don't get consumed!! You WILL burn out and your family will suffer because you're so busy. The absolutely must be a joint effort from everyone who wants change, one person CAN NOT do it alone.

Hope everyone is well, take care,
Amanda

Public Rally May 17, 2006

Wednesday May 17, 2006
10:30 a.m.
Courtroom 4-9
361 University Ave.

is the date for sentencing subissions before Justice Watt.

Please come out and show your outrage for failure to protect Jeffrey, failure to permit Ombudsman investigative oversight of CASs and for failure to take steps to hold CCAS criminally accountable as well for its unconscionable failure to protect Jeffrey. Stand up for Jeffrey, don't just hide behind the scenes!!!

Even the Toronto Sun gets it! In case you missed it, here's the lead editorial today: May 1, 2006 EDITORIAL: Give this watchdog more biteEver since he was appointed Ontario Ombudsman a year ago, Andre Marin has been making trouble for Premier Dalton McGuinty’s government.And that’s good, because that’s his job. Marin investigates cases where citizens receive poor service from the province, just as the auditor reports on fiscal mismanagement. Beyond dealing with individual complaints, Marin has increasingly been taking on cases where he sees a system-wide or “systemic” failure of government. Thus far he’s exposed:- Bureaucratic bungling which forced parents of severely disabled children to give them up to children’s aid societies.- A shocking failure to update the screening of newborn babies for diseases, a situation that could easily have been fixed for $2.4 million.- Arbitrary and secretive conduct by Ontario’s Municipal Property Assessment Corp. in setting property assessments. These assessments directly impact on how much property tax people pay.Such rulings haven’t made Marin popular with the government, even though he was chosen for the job by an all-party committee and says most of the problems he’s uncovered started before the Grits took office.Now he’s worried the powers of his office are being curtailed. He notes a law passed recently by the Liberals establishing a civilian review process for complaints about the police contains a specific clause keeping the agency out of his jurisdiction.Ontario, Marin says, is also lagging behind other provinces which empower their ombudsmen to probe municipalities, universities, school boards and hospitals — the “MUSH” sector which accounts for 80% of provincial spending — as well as children’s aid societies, which receive $1.5 billion annually.Soon after he was appointed to his job by the government, a committee of senior civil servants recommended his entire office be scrapped as a cost-saving measure. Bad idea.As Ontario’s ombudsman and in his previous jobs as the federal military ombudsman and head of Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit, which probes the use of police force, Marin has shown himself to be a tough, compassionate defender of ordinary citizens.We agree with him that his office should be given the same jurisdictional authority as the auditor.Marin says he doesn’t know what the government is afraid of, given that he only has the power to report on and publicize his findings. Neither do we.

Remember we have collected over 5,500 sigs, from doctors nurses, hospital social workers, in 2 cities, one in only a small affluent area, all stating agreeing with the below statement, one has been presented, already, the other should be next week, and still going strong. I am shocked by the stories from the medical community they are NOT fans of the child protection agencies, nor are the teacher, they see this system doing more harm then good. Its time to really listen to the people, of this province after all we are whom they represent. So yes we have spoken to doctors social workers nurses, lawyers, judges, parents, there needs to be change, this petition has yet to reach the family's that have had involvement , but it will be interesting to see what they have to say. The mandated reporters are not happy. They report they feel more harm is done to the child and family.

PETITION

TO The Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

WHEREAS The Child and Family Services Act of 1999 has been misused toapprehend large numbers of Canadian children; it is financially onerous tothe people of Ontario;

WHEREAS the current legislation gives CAS workers more power than anypoliceman, physician or judge, the rights of Canadian children are routinely trampled in the name of "child protection";

WHEREAS the funding of this agency is piecework based, it is financially rewarded for each file opened and each child apprehended;

WHEREAS to insure accountability and transparency, we need to have the Ontario Ombudsman have oversight over Bill C210

We the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to open up the process to public scrutiny to ensure a level playing field, and ensure a proper judicial review with proper representation.

Name (Please Print)
City Signature________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Name

(Please Print) City Signature

If people want a printable copy of this petition calling for Ombudsman oversight, Andrea Horwath will email them one. You can then print and circulate it to family, friends, neighbours, etc.

Jeffrey's case
If any 'good' comes from Jeffrey Baldwin's death it will be from the inquest called by Ontario's chief coronerBy MARK BONOKOSKI
The Grandparents Grimm -- custodial monsters Elva Bottineau and Norman Kidman -- will appear in court again May 17 to learn how long the jailer's key will be thrown away before they can apply for the unthinkable prospect of parole following their convictions for second-degree murder.
Their barbarism has been well documented in recent days, of course, despite words falling short of fully describing what is surely indescribable for even the best of writers.
When their 5-year-old grandson, Jeffrey Baldwin, died from the brutality and starvation they had inflicted upon him, for example, his weight was that of a 10-month-old baby -- his years, according to Ontario Justice David Watt, "eked out" in the "miserable existence" of a locked room described as a "dungeon" that was cold, urine-soaked and coated with the filth of human feces.
There is no mind's-eye picture that could possibly conjure the reality of that scenario -- unless, God forbid, a photograph of the poor boy's wasted corpse was able to flash on some screen in the psyche of us all.
Until then, it must hopefully remain unimaginable.
INQUEST IS NEEDED
If there is any good that can come from this horror, and the word "good" is used because of the lack of any other, it is that Ontario's chief coroner, Dr. Barry McLellan, has ordered an inquest into young Jeffrey's death -- with the focus clearly centred on the Catholic Children's Aid Society.
And rightly so.
For it was that agency -- a taxpayer-funded, social safety-net of guardianship -- that handed the boy over to his eventual killers when a simple background check would have uncovered a high degree of child abuse in that family.
In 1998, when Jeffrey's own parents were being investigated for child abuse, and he and his siblings were seized, the CCAS never opposed Bottineau's bid for legal custody of her daughter's children -- meaning they never checked their files to learn that, as a teenage mother, Bottineau herself was convicted of assault causing bodily harm in the 1970 pneumonia death of her first child, Eva, who was also found to have suffered multiple fractures.
And then there was Bottineau's husband, Norman Kidman, whose documented history has him convicted of the extreme beatings of two of Bottineau's children from a previous marriage -- another record easily accessed by the CCAS.
Yet into those abusive arms young Jeffrey Baldwin was tossed, as well as three other siblings.
Following the trial, Paul Dimitriadis -- husband of Jeffrey's paternal grandmother, Susan -- minced no words when it came to the CCAS which, according to reports, backed Bottineau and Kidman in barring the two from even visiting their grandchildren ... a visit which, in retrospect, might have led to young Jeffrey being rescued from their clutches.
But this was never to happen.
CASTLE WALLS
"I believe the Catholic Children's Aid Society lives in a big castle with high walls," he said. "And when they come out, they are guarded by pit bull terriers called lawyers, who are ready to tear anyone apart (who) try to question them."
And he, in many ways, is not far from being wrong.
Not a week goes by that I do not get one or two e-mails, and just as many calls, from a parent or a grandparent with what they see as critical concerns regarding one children's aid society or another -- concerns they want to see go public.
And this is where the "high walls" come into play. Privacy laws not only prevent names from being used, they are also used as a shield by all CAS to deflect, not only comment, but often even acknowledgement of the case in question.
And this is a dilemma for those in the news business who, after time, often find it easier to walk away from a potential story than face the inevitable dead end of the agency invoking privacy laws as a convenient and effective way to legally cover ass until the story goes away.
And it could have even happened here in the Jeffrey Baldwin case, if not for the chief coroner calling an inquest.
While the vast majority of CAS cases are undoubtedly well handled, the few that are not demand scrutiny.
Perhaps the upcoming inquest into Jeffrey Baldwin's death will find a way to address that concern as an important sidebar issue in the juggling act between privacy and protection.
While it may seem small in the greater scheme of the unfathomable picture of the horror that brought the Grandparents Grimm to trial, what of the case I wrote about a month ago about the Cobourg father who discovered -- through a third party, not the CAS -- that the man living with his ex-wife and their 7-year-old daughter was also the man written up in the local newspaper as being sentenced to "house arrest" for sexually assaulting his teenage stepdaughter's best friend?
Facts being facts, it would seem a simple task to get his daughter out of harm's way.
Surely the Children's Aid would see absurdity in these living arrangements, as well as the inherent danger of a 7-year-old little girl having an admitted sex offender as an authority figure.
But that is not the way it played out.
SEXUAL ASSAULT
In fact, the Children's Aid refused to acknowledge that the man in the newspaper convicted of the sexual assault on a teen was the same man now living with his ex-wife and therefore sharing the joint custody of his little girl.
"All I am asking is for one of two things to happen," the girl's father told me back then. "Either give me full custody of my daughter, or get him out of that house."
Neither has happened.
Today, his daughter is still living under the same roof as that convicted sex offender, but it is no longer in Cobourg.
They have packed up and moved because they have supposedly "found God," and the only church where that "God" can be found is apparently nowhere else but Peterborough.
Perhaps the children's aid there will find this odd.
But, then again, likely not.

Public Rally

I'm sorry I couldn't be at the sentencing on April 7th, however, I e-mailed all my media contacts asking them to be there and heard there were a small hand full of people. So, let's try again. Unfortunately I won't be at this one either, (in the Fall, I will be back in force) but please see post below. I will again e-mail my contacts, if you think you can get out of work or make it, PLEASE do! I don't want to cry wolf and have no one except the media show up. Hopefully this is enough of a notice so you can ask for the afternoon off work or make arrangements to be there. Please post your thoughts so I can guage if I should formally 'announce' it to the media.

Thanks,
Amanda

POST:

Anonymous said...

TO EVERYONE RE. RALLY:

Please note that I am advised by Nick Pron of T.O. Star that Wednesday May 17, 2006 starting at 10:30 a.m. in courtroom 4-9 at 361 University Ave. is the date for sentencing subissions before Justice Watt. If it goes a second day, Friday May 19th is reserved.

I told Mr. Pron that we are attempting to have public rally on the sentencing date, he suggested it be on May 17. I agree. Please come out and show your outrage for failure to protect Jeffrey, failure to permit Ombudsman investigative oversight of CASs and for failure to take steps to hold CCAS criminally accountable as well for its unconscionable failure to protect Jeffrey. Stand up for Jeffrey, don't just hide behind the scenes!!!

Posted: Thursday, April 13, 2006 11:02:27 AM

Some hate mail... WHO is this guy??

I assume he is elva's son who was one of the two children taken before she had the three girls? Elayne, can you elaborate? I don't think he is part of the paternal family...?


Date:
Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:34:55 -0400
To:
jeffreyslaw@cogeco.ca
Subject:
Jeffrey Baldwin
From:
FRED CROTTA

Amanda Reed,
Where do you get off interfering in family matters? Why do you feel the need to fight for someone you don't even know? Do you not have a life of your own? I truly believe you should consult the family before broadcasting a plaque memorial when the family hasn't been consulted. I'm sure his family would have quite a bit to say about you interfering with their personal losses. I know I do and none of it can be stated in this email, due to proper ettiquette. Being his uncle I thin k you should butt out! This is a family matter and last I checked you weren't family.
F. Crotta

My response:
That's unfortunate then because I WON'T butt out of this! YOU should have done something... he's not yours anymore. He will be the catalyst for change for all future children in this country! It's good you didn't swear because I'm posting your letter on my blog... feel free to visit me there and voice yourself, you won't offend me, though I'm SURE you must have SOMETHING better to do with your time!

By the way, I'm thrilled I'm not part of your family!

Amanda Reed
Jeffrey's Law Organization

Did you see:


"Failing Jeffrey"
The Fifth Estate

Will re air on CBC Newsworld over the weekend

RE: Plaque

I can not move installing the plaque to the Spring because of a few reasons, however, if someone else would like to be 'in charge' of organizing this, I will certainly hand over the plaque. Please let me know and please remember I have very limited internet access so may not respond as quickly...
Thanks

Is she joking??

Death cannot cloud work
Apr. 11, 2006. 01:00 AM
Abusers convicted of killing grandchild
April 8.
When a child dies or is maltreated, especially when the circumstances were preventable, demands for a full and thorough investigation are warranted. It is important that every effort be made to examine what went wrong and to identify the checks and balances that must be put in place to prevent future tragedies. Moreover, it is important that the implementation of recommendations receive both priority and adequate resources.
In the case of Jeffrey Baldwin, the 5-year-old child who died of malnutrition while in the care of his grandparents, the Toronto Catholic Children's Aid Society (CCAS) has acknowledged that its records were not checked when the grandparents applied to the courts for custody of Jeffrey a number of years ago. The CCAS has since put protocols in place to ensure this will not happen again.
While the hardships associated with Jeffrey Baldwin's tragic death must not be diminished, the Ontario Association of Social Workers cautions against allowing his death to overshadow the important and effective work the CCAS and other child welfare agencies carry out each year.
In Ontario, highly skilled child welfare staff, many of whom are social workers, conduct more than 82,000 investigations a year and provide services to 30,000 children in care. They operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Caseloads are complex and the demands on staff immense. Professionals working in this important, yet often times maligned role, need the support of the community as they continue to protect our most vulnerable citizens, our children.

Beverley J. Antle, President, Ontario Association of Social Workers, Toronto

_____________________________________________________
Well said!

Change child welfare rules
Apr. 11, 2006. 01:00 AM
Abusers convicted of killing grandchild
April 8.
Jeffrey Baldwin's death is a tragedy. Everyone from government to children's aid societies to the people who care for children and youth in need of protection like Jeffrey must learn from his experiences (and those of his siblings) so they are not repeated.
In our view, there needs to be fundamental changes to Ontario's child welfare system to avoid the chances of something similar happening to another child in the future.
Changes are needed to ensure that children are placed with the best people to provide proper care; to provide the ability for a third party to independently review the child's care and to fund the child's care and treatment accordingly. In short, providing children with the care they need, not just the "minimum" as can sometimes be the case.
As providers of high-quality treatment foster care and group home care to more than 4,000 children and youth in Ontario yearly, our members continue to work with the Ontario government, children's aid societies and other partners to recommend ways to make the system better.
Jeffrey's death must serve as a catalyst to ensure vulnerable children can get the best chance at a good life.
Richard Solomon, Executive Director, Ontario Association of Residences Treating Youth, Richmond Hill

Amanda - FYI

CBC has posted the audio and a summary of the Jeffrey Baldwin case discussion with the Ombudsman this morning at

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2006/200604/20060411.html.

If you didn't catch it this morning, thought you might want to listen in or share it with your readers.

_____________________________

Hi everyone,
I'm at school now and there is NO internet access except early in the morning. So, I won't be posting very much but will be of course reading the newspapers and keeping up as much as possible.

Take care,
Amanda

Bill 88, 2006, Ombudsman Amendment Act (Children's Aid Societies), 2006.
Andrea Horwath NDP MPP has introduced to the Legislative Assembly, Bill 88, 2006. By Introducing this to the Legislative Assembly, she is forcing the Government to publicly admit that they do not want any form of external accountability over CAS's.

Here is the permanent plaque I will be installing in Greenwood Park this summer with my dad. I will of course let everyone know when I'm going so you can all come.

May this sweet child be the catalyst for change in a corrupt, broken system to save other children from suffering the same fate... he is an angel.

Please write the Chief and Deputy Chief Coroners thanking them for calling an inquest. They could have ignored it, they could have been in bed with CCAS, but they didn't and they're not.
Thanks!
Amanda

Dr. Barry McLellan, Chief Coroner
Dr. Jim Cairns, Deputy Cheif Coroner
Office of the Chief Coroner
Coroner's Bldg, 2nd Floor
26 Grenville Street
Toronto, Ontario M7A 2G9
Phone: (416) 314-4000
Fax: (416) 314-4030

2nd Degree Murder and a Public Inquest Called!

April 7, 2006
T.O. grandparents who starved boy to death guilty of second-degree murder

TORONTO (CP) - A Toronto couple who allowed their five-year-old grandson to starve to death have been found guilty of second-degree murder.

Fifty-four-year-old Elva Bottineau and 53-year-old Norman Kidman were supposed to have saved their grandchildren from a life of abuse after they were taken from their birth parents. Instead, five-year-old Jeffrey Baldwin was confined to a locked, unheated bedroom for as much as 14 hours a day, breathing in the smell of his own urine and feces.

The details of his tragic life were outlined for the court Friday in a lengthy address by Justice David Watt that took much of the day.

Court heard he was treated like a dog, made to eat out of a bowl with his fingers and he often drank from a toilet when he was thirsty.

Immediately upon the verdict's release, Ontario's chief coroner announced that an inquest would be held.

"The circumstances surrounding Jeffrey's death have been a matter of public interest," Dr. Barry McLellan's office said in a release.

"Issues to be addressed at the inquest include the Toronto Catholic Children's Aid Society's involvement in Jeffrey's placement and the role that agency, and others, had in monitoring his well-being prior to his death."

Emergency crews were shocked when they found Jeffrey's frail body, weighing less than he did on his first birthday.

He was just 21 pounds when he died of starvation and pneumonia in November 2002, weeks before his sixth birthday.

When his sister was rescued from the house she too showed obvious signs of starvation with skinny limbs, a distended belly and open sores.

Although the children lived in squalor, the rest of the house was immaculately clean, court heard.

The couple was also found guilty of forcible confinement for the girl's care.

Bottineau's lawyer Anil Kapoor had argued his client did not deliberately kill her grandson. He cited a psychologist who testified Bottineau was mentally retarded with a personality disorder that prevented her from seeing Jeffrey waste away.

But another expert witness, Lisa Ramshaw, contradicted that assessment and said Bottineau had "a higher order of thinking than someone with mental retardation" and lied to protect herself.

Lawyer Catherine Glaister told Watt that Kidman did not plan to kill Jeffrey and had little involvement in the children's lives.

1:15pm...

... still not too much from the courthouse, but there probably won't be illegal confinement charges in regards to Jeffrey's sister...

April 5, 2006

GIVE OMBUDSMAN OVERSIGHT IN FORBIDDEN KEY AREAS
Queen's Park - Ontario

New Democrats are pushing a legislative package thatwould give the provincial Ombudsman powers to better protect Ontarians when government institutions fail them. NDP Critic for Children and Youth Issues, Hamilton East MPP Andrea Horwath,and Trinity-Spadina MPP Rosario Marchese, the party's Education Critic,unveiled a trio of private members bills they'll introduce today. They want the government to adopt the entire package and give people a fair opportunity to appeal unjust decisions.

"We believe the Ombudsman should have a broad and unfettered mandate.There's no reason why a government should stand in the way of the Ombudsman's investigation of any problem," said Marchese. "Getting to the bottom of complaints about schools, health care facilities and children's welfare is the right thing to do for kids' sake and foreveryone's sake," Horwath said.

Horwath is proposing two new laws giving the Ombudsman the currently forbidden power to investigate matters concerning the administration of Children's Aid Societies and hospital and health care facilities. Five provinces - Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick and NovaScotia - have Ombudsman oversight of child welfare issues, including child protection. Saskatchewan, Quebec and Newfoundland have independent oversight through separate offices. Eight jurisdictions in Canada --British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador,Quebec, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, and Yukon Territories -- give their Ombudsman Offices the mandate to investigate hospitals. Concerning schoolsand boards, the Ombudsman has a role in BC, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Yukon.

In December, Ontario Ombudsman André Marin told a government committee hewas "duty-bound" to seek independent oversight of CAS administrativedecisions following the death of Jeffrey Baldwin.

Currently, the CAS board of directors investigates complaints.

Similarly, the government doesn't let the Ombudsman investigate problems inhealth care or education, said Marchese. His private members bill wouldenable the Ombudsman to investigate complaints relating to school boardpolicies, such as suspensions and expulsions under the controversial SafeSchools Act. "It is vital that people have a neutral third party who can investigate andmake recommendations. Just because the government won't listen, doesn't meanpeople don't deserve to be heard," he said. "Independent oversight is crucial for families dealing with the harsh and heart-wrenching impact of decisions that adversely affect them," said Horwath. -30-

There have been a couple of requests for a public rally this Friday April 7. The day of the verdict. Is anybody interested?

April 3, 2006
Toronto Sun
Should foster care be licensed?
By VIVIAN SONG

Like licensed daycare, foster care should also be professionalized, says a professor of child and family studies and a foster parent.
"When our own children go to daycare, we as parents insist that the daycare is licensed and insist that the provider has some educational background like early childhood education," said Thomas Waldock, a professor at Nipissing University and a published child-advocate author.
"We demand more of those systems, but when it comes to foster care, because we're talking about marginalized kids from marginalized populations, we place ads in papers requesting foster parents to join the system."
On average, the base rate foster parents receive is about $26.71 a day, not including incidental fees like soccer, music lessons or special needs costs.
$350 A DAY
Costs of keeping a child in a group home - which eats the biggest chunk of the system's budget - can get as high as $350 a day.
By investing resources and money into foster parents with educational backgrounds in social work and early childhood education, children would be looked after with the same kind of standard parents exact of the daycare providers who only look after their children eight hours a day, Waldock said.
"What tends to happen is that people and the press focus on the fact that kids are left in (horrible) situations ... but where the children get placed after they're removed tends to get lost ... There's very little focus on the quality of system children go into," Waldock said.
For Jeanette Lewis, executive director of OACAS, the licensing notion is at once idyllic and impractical.
"There's something to be said for that," she said. "But at the same time, you can't professionalize love, attachment, respect and caring. That's the dilemma."

April 3, 2006
Wards move every 22 months
Aim of Ontario's new child-care legislation is to bring permanency for children in care
By VIVIAN SONG

Young people in foster and group homes move on average every 22 months, according to the ministry of children and youth services.
There are about 9,000 permanent Crown wards in Ontario, but only 10% of them are adopted each year.
Last Monday the province passed new child protection legislation in Bill 210, for children like the youth in the documentary Wards of the Crown, who spent loveless childhoods being shuffled from home to home.
Minister Mary Anne Chambers said the new bill places priority in creating greater permanence for kids in care.
"If kids are changing homes on average every 22 months, that means new schools, getting accustomed to new neighbourhoods and friends. It's not the kind of stable environment that support strong growth in kids," Chambers said.
There are no caps on the number of times a foster child can be uprooted and moved to another foster home, says Jeanette Lewis, executive director of the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, in part because there's a shortage of foster homes.
As of March of last year, the OACAS counted 8,004 foster homes and 1,460 adoption homes in the province.
"Overall, the whole question of taking care of another person's child has changed and the reality is more difficult," Lewis said.
As they grow older, existing foster parents stop fostering and retire the children back into the system. Increasingly multicultural communities also present unique challenges to an already overburdened child welfare system.
"There's a tremendous emphasis on the recruitment of foster parents from different cultures. But it's tough because in some cultures there is no word for foster care in their language. It's quite a challenge," Lewis said.
Claudette Maheux, manager of child and youth care services of the Ottawa CAS said the whole premise of foster care needs to be redefined.
"We need to do away with the term 'long-term foster care,'" she says in the film. "Foster homes should be for purposes of temporary care of children until we can find them permanence. It should not be the permanent plan."