CSA Legislation And Case Analysis: Nanaimo

CF & CSA Legislation and Case Analysis
March 5, 2014

This paper will analyze a case in Nanaimo through the Provincial Court of British Columbia, Family Division. In the matter of the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA), R.S.B.C. 1996 c.46 and the three year old child between the Director of Child, Family and Community Service and the parents. This case also covers an application from the father in the matter of the Family Relations Act (FRA), R.S.B.C. 1996 C.128 against the mother.
History
This family came to the attention of the Ministry of Children and Families in 2008 due to domestic violence reports involving the mother and father. The father was arrested. These events
happened in front of the child who was five months old at the time. There is a lengthy history of domestic violence, drugs and alcohol use in the home of this family. The mother has six children and the father has three, all of whom have been taken away with exception to the child who is the focus of this case. From 2008 to 2011, both parents have been given numerous service plans identifying risk factors such as violence, abuse, neglect, alcohol, and drugs. Evidence confirms that both parents were unable to achieve any success in dealing with these concerns. They were provided with various resources and programs in hopes that they would be able to become fit parents. The domestic violence ensued and cocaine was found in the home in 2010. The police have been involved with the parents on more than four occasions since the child 's removal in 2009. After the parents separation, In January 2011, the father entered into a risk reduction service plan to assist him in getting the child returned to him. He was unable to complete this plan. The mother also entered herself into a risk reduction service plan where the risk factors were identified as her unstable housing situation. She rarely has a fixed address and is considered homeless. From April 2010, bother parents made minimal effort to see their child. The mother left for Alberta and did not return until seven months later for the most recent hearing. The father has become difficult with Ministry officials. The mother entered into many programs in Alberta and has now been free of alcohol or drugs for 145 days. She seeks the return of her child. The child is happy and thriving with her foster parents.
Applicable Legal Framework For this case, the Director is seeking an order that the child needs protection and wants continuing custody based on section 49(5) of the CFCSA (1996) stating "(a) the circumstances that led to the child 's removal will improve within a reasonable time or, (b) the parents will be able to meet the child 's needs." (CanLii, 2011, p. 2). For the second application, under the FRA section 35(1), the father is asking the court to order him full custody over the child on the basis that the mother is unfit as well as asked for a restraining order under section 37(a) on the grounds of harassment. If the judge decides to allow the parents custody of the child, the second application will be taken into consideration. CFCSA prior to removal. When the police were called to the family 's home in 2008 for domestic violence, drugs and alcohol were found. Due to this, the police followed section 14 under the CFCSA and made a report to the Ministry of Children and Families based on section 13 concerns. There was concern that the child was being neglected and/ or emotionally harmed because of the parents behaviour. The child remained in care of the mother and in order to keep the child safe, the parents agreed not to live together upon his release from jail in 2009. They were unable to abide by this arrangement. In September 2009, the Ministry attempted to remove the child in result to the parents lack of cooperation. The mother took the child and ran away to Calgary, but was located and returned to Nanaimo. In October 2009 there was a presentation hearing where an interim decision was made for the Director to have custody of the child under the CFCSA section 35(2). CFCSA after removal. A protection hearing was filed in November 2009 but was opposed by the parents which led to mediation. This held the purpose of helping the family and the child welfare worker agree on what could be done to ensure the child 's needs were going to be met (Ministry of Children and Family Development, n.d.). Plans were made in order for the child to be returned, both parents failed to meet these expectations. In September 2010, the court found that the child needed protection, so a three-month order was made for custody to the director under section 41(1)(c) of the CFCSA. This time frame was decided based on section 43(a) which says that if the child is under five years of age at the time of the order then the interim custody must not exceed three months. Policies Section 13 of the CFCSA states the circumstances under which protection is needed for a child. The concerns that relate to my case are that "1(d) if the child has been, or is likely to be physically harmed because of neglect by the child 's parent and 1(e) if the child is emotionally harmed by the parent 's conduct" (CFCSA, 1996). The following paragraph discussing policy covers the route that the Ministry took after receiving the report involving these section 13 concerns. The family support policies utilized in this care were developed specifically to ensure that child be protected from abuse, neglect or harm (BC Ministry of Child and Family Development, 2012). This case began with an investigation because there was drugs, alcohol and domestic violence in the home. There was no immediate danger at this time so a less disruptive measure was taken. An agreement was made with the mother saying she was allowed to keep the child in her custody as long as the father did not continue living with them after he was released from jail (BC Ministry of Child and Family Development, 2012). Once it was determined the child was still at risk and was removed, the Ministry continued ongoing protection services by attempting to help the parents create and implement effective safety plans. Although the Ministry worked in favour of the family, their efforts were not effective and the parents were unable to satisfy the child protection requirements. Returning the child was not an option meaning permanent custody alternatives were considered. SDM tools. Structured decision making tools are used to assist social workers in risk assessment (Gillingham, 2011). These tools fall under one main mandatory assessment guide called the Child Protection Response Model. The tools highlighted in this model are meant to be used before any intrusion is made into the lives of the family (Gillingham, 2011). In the context of this case, the social worker determined that a child protection response was required and that the case was a high priority. Then, it was decided that the most appropriate response was an investigation. Before the investigation, the social worker did a safety assessment as well as a vulnerability assessment. The purpose of these specific tools were to assess the likelihood of future harm and immediate safety (BC Ministry of Child and Family Development, 2012). Case law. Case law is the term that describes the process in which previous cases which are similar to the current hearing in regards to legislation, are brought to the attention of the judge. The reason for this is so that he can take the outcome of the previous cases into consideration when making his decision on the current case. The mother is seeking custody of her child and if she were to be granted it, it would be considered a last chance order. A last chance order is when a parent has been granted numerous opportunities to confront her problems and care for her child, yet has been unable maintain the change. Therefore she would like one last chance to prove she is capable of caring for her child. During this hearing, the judge was referred to two separate cases where the parents involved were given last chance orders. Both mothers suffered from drug addictions but there was evidence which made the judge believe that the child 's needs would be met within a reasonable time frame. The judge ruled in favour of the mothers because he had reason to believe that the circumstances leading up to the child 's removal would likely improve. These mothers were able to satisfy the expectations of the Ministry and made use of the resources and programs available to them (CanLii, 2011). In the case being used for this paper, the mother has yet to prove she would able to keep her child safe. Witnesses. For this case, there were two witnesses who spoke in the court. One was the mother of the child and the other was a social worker from the Ministry of Child Family and Community Services designated by the Director.
Theoretical Perspectives of CYC and Child Welfare Strengths of the case In Child and Youth Care, strength-based practice means trying to see things in a more positive regard.
We try to view our client 's for what they have done right considering their strenuous circumstances rather than dwelling on their negative behaviours. Their behaviours must be acknowledged in order to ensure the safety of the children involved, but with a strength-based perspective we go into the client 's lives with the purpose of helping them, not punishing them. In saying this, I think Child Welfare workers hold the same values. Referring to this specific case, I believe the strengths lay where the Ministry gave the parents many options to help them confront their problems in order to get their child back. This case proves that Child Welfare workers are attempting to use differential response when reporting abuse or neglect in a home (Schene, 2001). Differential response means treating each family according to their circumstances, not according to what the standard reporting paradigm says. This type of treatment is reflected in this case when the family and social worker came together through mediation to make a specific plan to help them get their child
back.
Critical Analysis I believe this case was represented in a professional manner. The legislation was straight forward and I did not identify any problems in the referencing to the CFCSA. The judge made the right decision based on the child 's needs in accordance with section 13 concerns. Professional concerns. Based on my current knowledge, I would like to express my concern regarding the permanency of this custody decision. The judge acknowledges the fact that the mom has been drug and alcohol free for 145 days. This fact makes me think that the judge should award the mom some more time to prove herself. It sounds like being drug and alcohol free for 145 days is a large achievement for her and maybe she would be able to remain sober if given one last chance. I do not think it would be reasonable to give her custody of the child yet, but more time to confront her problems would be ideal. A child 's best interest is to be in a safe environment with their parents. If the mother was seeing some success, I would think it be best to try and help her as much as possible. Ethical tensions. At the end of this hearing, the judge dismisses the father 's application for full custody. I think this was a wise decision because he has a strong history of physical abuse. There is a small ethical tension in the way the court handles the proceedings surrounding the father. From the history, I noticed that the father was present at almost all of the court dates and meetings regarding his child. I think that the judge should have given reason for the dismissal of his application as well. This may be a personal ethical tension for me but I believe that a person deserves an explanation for decisions which will alter their life.
Differentiating CYC and child welfare In my opinion, Child and Youth Care and Child Welfare are difficult to differentiate because both careers work in the best interest of the child.
Child and Youth Care workers tend to work with the families and youth once their problems are identified where as social workers understand the law and how the children are at risk in their current environments. CYC focuses on assisting parents to focus on their strengths so that they can build on these traits to become a more qualified caregiver. Social workers have to focus on the child and keeping them safe through their journey with the Ministry. Social workers determine the grounds for removal and recognize the negative effects this has on a child. Once the effects are recognized, CYC workers bring theoretical approaches which are meant to ensure the child does not develop irrational behaviours from the
change.
Conclusion
Analyzing this case has broadened my knowledge in a law context. I have gained insight into the process that a social worker has to go through for every report they receive as well as the policy in which they must follow. Working on a real case was beneficial because it made me feel like was applying the skills that I was learning. I experienced the different assessment tools and forms of legislation that are relevant to my future practice. I am beginning to understand the Child, Family and Community Services Act which is crucial for a career in this field.
References
BC Ministry of Children and Family Developmet. (2012). Child protection response. Child and Youth Safety and Family Support Policies. Retrieved from http://coursematerials.library.uvic.ca/ares/ares.dll?SessionID=T113615900C&Action=10 &Type=10&Value=34672
BC Ministry of Children and Family Development. (n.d.). Family Development Response [Pamphlet]. Retrieved from http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/child_protection/pdf/Family_Development_Response.pdf
Child, Family and Community Services Act (1996) (CFCSA)
Director v. A.P.M & K.A.B, [2011]. BCPC0449 (CanLii). Retrieved February 26, 2014,from http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2011/2011bcpc449/2011bcpc449.pdf
Family Relations Act (1996) (FRA)
Gillingham, P. (2011). Decision making tools and the development of expertise in child protection practitioners: Are we 'just breeding workers who are good t ticking boxes '? Child & Family Social Work 16(4), 412-421. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2011.00756.x
Schene, P. (2001). Meeting each family 's needs: Using differential response in reports of child abuse and neglect. Best Practice/ Next Practice 2(1). 1-23. Washington, D.C.
Smith, G., Shapiro, V.B., Sperry, R,. & LeBuffe, P.A. (2014). A strength-based approach to supervised visitation in child welfare. Child Care in Practice, 20(1), 98-119. doi:10.1080/13575279.2013.847056