DEFENSIVE SOCIAL WORK

It is uncertain why there has been an increasing number of 'emergency removals' of children from parents over the past twenty years. One plausible answer is an increase in defensive social work. Child protection workers are generally drawn to their work for the best of reasons, to assist children and families. When severe injuries and even deaths occur to children, with whom CPS has had a history, social workers and the Ministry itself have received adverse publicity. When the media have sensationalized such stories, a defensive tsunami of removals has typically occurred. One might deem this erring on the side of safety, on the side of the best interests of the child, yet it has often been an unnecessary over-reach, an exaggerated attempt to do what is right. What must not be overlooked is the extent of harm caused by unnecessary removals. The stresses sustained by affected families can provoke psychological, financial and marital harm. The Child Welfare system becomes stressed because unnecessary removals divert resources, overcrowd the courts leading to lengthy delays of process and to terms that children must remain in foster care.

IS EMERGENCY REMOVAL OF CHILDREN STANDARD PRACTICE?

reunion party photo

Over a six-year period, this Blog focused upon two cases in which so-called 'emergency removal' of children occurred. That is what propelled me to speak to the grievance, which I became aware was far more frequent than I wanted to believe or that is known by the public. These two consisted of first, a family of four children in which the surprise removal, or removal without notification occurred several times, and second, the case of a girl taken from her school. In the first case, the removal and custody battle lasted four years. In the latter case the girl spent three years in foster care, originating from an incident when she, an autistic child, wandered from her back yard and was missing for three hours.

from www.lukesarmy.com

In the first case, the initial concern was that the infant had been physically abused, shaken. Was seizure without notification necessary in either of these cases? Has it become standard practice? These children were eventually returned to parents. Yet here is a gripping observation. In both the instances, the children were found not to have been maltreated, neglected, abused. That is merely symptomatic of a system that uses emergency removal as the tool with which to deal with appropriate concerns that must be investigated.

EMERGENCY REMOVAL OF CHILDREN

Call it an 'emergency removal.' There are seizures of children from parents without prior notification to parents. It happens - more times than any of us would deem reasonable. The Child, Family and Community Services Act and therefore the courts denote that only imminent danger to a child's health or to the child's life is a justification for the removal of the child without notice to parents or prior hearing. The Act (CFCSA) also stipulates the need for a prompt post removal hearing when a child is removed. In British Columbia, as in other provinces of Canada, we have a record of numerous oversights, violations or delays over the years in British Columbia. Frequently, there are removals of children 'on an emergency basis.' This may be effected unilaterally by the Ministry of Children without a court order. It may be done on the basis of an ex parte judicial authorization. The number of emergency removals has increased over the past twenty years, almost doubling. This in turn has expanded the population of children in foster care, leading to the judgment of many that the child welfare system is in crisis.

INTERFERENCE AND A CHILD'S EMOTIONS

Interference

When a child experiences removal from parents and placement with foster givers, the resultant emotions may be anguish, terror and abandonment. These reactions will be intensified if actual abuse has occurred at home. The feelings are exacerbated when reunion is delayed. For these reasons, laws generally insist that such removal must be done cautiously and sparingly. Parents, children and families should be free of unwarranted government interference in child-rearing. With that in mind, the law customarily asserts that removal of a child is only justified by imminent danger to a child's life or health. Even in such an instance, a hearing and an order is required and a prompt post-removal hearing follow.

SEIZING CHILDREN

Each year in each of our provinces in Canada, police officers and child-welfare caseworkers remove children of all ages from the custody of their parents to protect them from alleged abuse or neglect. Some of these “emergency removals” are pre-authorized by judges in ex parte proceedings until the full story is known. In other cases the removals are achieved solely on the authority of the law enforcement or child welfare agency responding to a concerned call they have received. Depending on ages of children and circumstances, the children are predictably seized without warning from their homes or schools, subjected to intrusive interrogations, medical examinations and occasionally strip-searched. They are required to live in foster homes or group homes while the legal system grinds toward a settlement of their future.