Incorporated as the Toronto Children’s Aid Society, the agency would provide a short-term shelter for neglected children and promote decent schools for the poor, separate treatment of young offenders, and more boys’ clubs and playgrounds.
The Toronto Children’s Aid Society would have a short-term shelter for neglected children and promote decent schools for the poor, separate treatment of young offenders and more boys’ clubs and playgrounds.
The twenty-seven-year-old Kelso was named president of the new society’s board of management, which was elected at this meeting. (Until 1951, the society’s board of directors was known as the board of management because, in its early days, the agency’s board members were directly involved in running the day-to-day operations of the organization.) Like the boards of many charitable organizations at that time, most of the members came from socially prominent families; but, unlike those other boards, which were made up either of all women or all men, the CAS’s board comprised ten men and ten women. The men dealt with financial matters, while the women concentrated on organizing the shelter.
Like other boards of charitable organizations at that time, most members of the CAS board came from socially prominent families. However, unlike other boards whose members comprised either all women or all men, the CAS board included ten men and ten women. The men dealt with financial matters while the women concentrated on organizing the shelter.
In February 1892, after only seven months in office, Kelso resigned the position of president, citing pressures of work — he was still a busy reporter at The Globe. There may, however, have been another reason: his temperament suited him better to initiating reforms than to managing the ongoing work that resulted from them.
Kelso was succeeded by John Kidson MacDonald, the businessman who had identified the need for a Humane Society. He was to remain president of the Toronto CAS for the next twenty-eight years.
John Kidson MacDonald
John Kidson MacDonald was born in Scotland in 1837. At the age of eight, he came with his family to Upper Canada, where they settled on a farm in Weston, a small village in York Township, northwest of Toronto.
A talent for business led him to found the Confederation Life Assurance Company, and from 1871 until his death he was a key figure in the company’s management, becoming its first full-time president in 1912. A man of great energy, determination and dedication, he was actively involved in the development of several voluntary organizations, of which the Children’s Aid Society was only one.
MacDonald’s influence over the day-to-day work of the Toronto CAS was pervasive. In 1892, one of his first acts as the agency’s president was to request that all committee reports be written and not given verbally, as had been the custom. It was characteristic of MacDonald’s businesslike approach. He rarely missed the monthly board meetings, and sat on all standing committees, while appointing dozens of subcommittees — which he also chaired, more often than not.
Leading by example, MacDonald’s many contributions of talent, time and money persuaded others, including several governors general and members of City Council, to make contributions of their own.
From 1892, MacDonald made the offices of Confederation Life at 12 Richmond Street East available to the society, which made use of them for more than fifty years. (This remains the only building that survives from the early history of both the Infants’ Home and the CAS.) The house at 33 Charles Street East, where MacDonald’s family lived for many years, was sold to the society after his death in 1927 and used until 1951 as its children’s shelter. In that year — as we will see in Chapter 5 — the house was demolished to make way for a new operational centre for the society’s work.
The Children’s Charter
With the founding of the Toronto CAS, the public and politicians alike had become well aware of the need for effective child welfare legislation. Within two years, the government introduced a bill, known as the “Children’s Charter,” that ushered in the modern era of child welfare legislation.
In 1893, the government introduced a bill, known as the “Children’s Charter”, that ushered in the modern era of child welfare legislation.
The charter — known officially as the Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to and Better Protection of Children, 1893 (and later shortened to the Children’s Protection Act) — provided for the establishment of children’s aid societies across the province. Approved by the provincial government and run by local community boards, CASs were empowered to protect children from abandonment, mistreatment and neglect and, when necessary, to place them as wards in foster homes or institutions. The courts were always to consider the best interests of the child and could refuse the parents custody, if need be. Although the act was amended on several occasions, it remained the legal basis for child welfare work in Ontario for more than sixty years.
The Toronto CAS was the first society to be recognized under the 1893 act, at which time it changed its name to the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto.
Kelso as superintendent of neglected and dependent children
The Children’s Protection Act called for the appointment of a superintendent of neglected and dependent children, and Premier Mowat was quick to appoint J.J. Kelso (who was a natural choice, given his expertise in child protection) to the post. Kelso immediately began travelling to communities across the province to organize children’s aid societies — within six months of the Toronto society’s establishment, Ottawa, Peterborough, London and Guelph had all followed suit. By 1906, there were fifty-six societies in Ontario, a number that has remained relatively stable ever since.
By 1906, there were fifty-six children’s aid societies in Ontario, a number that has remained relatively stable ever since.
Kelso also often addressed public meetings several times a week, speaking of the need for compassion in dealing with needy youngsters. He was his own public relations expert, keeping the press well supplied with articles, and soon the newspapers were supporting his cause.
So far, Kelso was the only government employee working in the field of child welfare. As a result, his perceptions and beliefs shaped the system for many years. As Beth Hoen, Phillipa Wild and Vicki Bales write:
He believed that if children were neglected it was owing to weakness or vice on the part of the parents who therefore should forfeit their custodial rights. Children in such cases, he believed, were best served by being removed from their homes and placed elsewhere, usually in a foster home, often in a rural community. Such placements were compatible with the widely held belief that rural surroundings provided a healthier environment for young people; they also provided a pool of farm labour for a still largely agrarian economy.
One consequence of these beliefs was that, throughout the Kelso era, the parents of children that CASs placed with foster parents usually were not told where their children were living. Although the public generally supported this value, it did not deter the occasional newspaper report about societies supposedly infringing on the rights of parents or breaking up families.
Throughout the Kelso era, the parents of children that CASs placed with foster parents usually were not told where their children were living. Although the public generally supported this, it did not deter the occasional newspaper report about societies supposedly infringing on the rights of parents or breaking up families.
Jones and Rutman believe that, despite his successes as superintendent — Ontario’s point man in child welfare — Kelso was never completely reconciled to his role as government official. They suggest that “He was well suited to the task of promoting and encouraging the formation of children’s aid societies but routine administration and the need to observe bureaucratic procedures and guidelines were not to his liking. He preferred the image of ‘children’s friend’ to that of ‘government official.’ He remained committed to the view that child saving was the responsibility of private citizens. Government, he believed, should assist, but never supplant, voluntary organizations.”
The children’s shelter
Each CAS in cities of over 10,000 inhabitants was required to establish and maintain a temporary receiving home for the young people in its care. Thus, one of the first acts of the new CAS of Toronto was to establish a children’s shelter. It opened without fanfare in May 1892 in a six-room, two-and-a-half-story house at 32 Centre Avenue.
The children’s shelter opened without fanfare in May 1892 in a six-room, two-and-a-half-story house at 32 Centre Avenue.
Photo reprinted with permission of City of Toronto Archives, SC1, Series B, 1896 Annual Report, Back Cover.
This property, however, quickly proved inadequate and the shelter moved in June 1894 to larger premises at 135 Adelaide Street East. That building — the former rectory of the Anglican cathedral of St. James — also proved to be imperfect as well as rundown. As a result, the society decided in 1902 to purchase (for $9,000) and renovate a large building at 229 Simcoe Street. It occupied the land between Simcoe Street and University Avenue and had a frontage of more than 40 metres.
Although it was a distinct improvement over the previous buildings, the Simcoe Street shelter in its turn became so overcrowded that an extension was added in 1908. Like the Infants’ Home, it too was closed periodically because of epidemics of contagious diseases. Hoping to reduce the spread of infection throughout the institution, in 1912 the board built a separate receiving centre in the playground to the south at a cost of $3,600. Upon admission, children were quarantined there for fourteen days before they were moved into the main building.
The society purchased 229 Simcoe Street for $9,000 in 1902. It occupied the land between Simcoe Street and University Avenue and had a frontage of more than 40 metres.
Photo reprinted with permission of City of Toronto Archives, SC1, Series B, 1903 Annual Report, Page 1.
The shelter cared for children who were four years of age or older. An informal agreement with the Infants’ Home called for that agency to look after children under four. However, according to Russell Jolliffe, the author of an earlier history of the society, cooperation between the two organizations was not always cordial.
There was no legal relationship stating that the Infants’ Home would accept children under a specific age. It seemed to depend on the good will of the Infants’ Home board and whether beds were available.
In its first four years of operation, more than 1,000 children were admitted to the society’s shelter — 443 of them in 1896 alone. The number of annual admissions increased significantly over the years, reaching 1,280 by 1919. At first, children were made wards of the society by board resolution instead of through court proceedings, but this changed in 1896, after J.J. Kelso intervened in what was the first recorded instance of conflict between him and the society he founded.
Generally, as many children were discharged as were admitted to the shelter, but the turnover was high because the children did not stay long. The board expected that a stay of ten days to a month, at a maximum, would be long enough for the society to make plans for their future, “[e]ither by compelling parents to do their duty to their offspring or [by] securing for homeless children, or those whom the courts decide should be removed from parental control, admittance to one of the public institutions provided for such cases.”
Generally, as many children were discharged as admitted to the shelter, but the turnover was high because the children did not stay long. The board expected that a stay of ten days to a month, at a maximum, would be sufficient time for the society to make plans for their future.
This meant that the agency had to plan expeditiously for the children’s discharge. Many were returned to their parents or sent to live with relatives or family friends, while others were adopted, cared for in foster homes or sent to work for families as servants.
The society’s early annual reports regularly gave examples of the circumstances of the children admitted to its care, as in these examples from 1897:
Case no. 1495 is a little girl, three years old, whose mother had got into bad ways and would not stay home. The father professed to love the child but did nothing to show his affection. The case was brought before the magistrate who gave the mother a chance to reform. When it was found that the mother did not improve, the case was again brought before the magistrate and the child was made a ward of the society and [was soon placed] in a good home.
Case no. 2111 is the son of a widow who became incapacitated through rheumatism and was fast losing control of the boy. When shown that there was a good chance for him in [a foster home] in the Northwest [Territories], she consented to surrender him to the society.
Case no. 2432 is the son of a widower who married a second time. The stepmother of this boy and his older brothers and sisters soon gained the upper hand in the household and was so unkind and cruel to them that they were driven from the home. As the father seemed quite unequal to ruling his own household, he was advised to hand the boy over to the society for placing in Manitoba. This he did and [after a short stay in the shelter] the boy is doing finely in his new home.
A few physically handicapped children — as well as those “of weak intellect” — who were admitted to the agency’s care were sent to institutions, as was the case with a developmentally handicapped girl who was placed in the asylum at Orillia. Most such children, however, remained at the shelter for a long time. The responsibility for planning for them would for many years remain a contentious issue between the society and the provincial government. The society’s view was that handicapped children should not be its responsibility, “as foster homes cannot be found for such children.”
Life at the shelter
The overall operation of the shelter was entrusted to a male superintendent, although a female nurse known as the matron ran it on a day-to-day basis. Members of the board of management’s shelter committee were expected to take turns visiting the shelter daily and to spell off the matron at intervals.
SCENES IN OUR DINING ROOM.
Photo reprinted with permission of City of Toronto Archives, SC1, Series B, 1908 Annual Report, Page 26.
The board took great pains to write a set of rules that would govern the shelter’s operation. Besides the keeping of appropriate records, they specified bedtimes, mealtimes and the activities the children were required to engage in, including daily and Sunday religious observances.
The shelter had its own school and kindergarten class, run by teachers seconded by the board of education. It also had a dental clinic. Physicians visited regularly to check on the children’s health.
Although the young people were obviously well cared for physically, their emotional and social needs were barely understood. Parents, for example, were allowed to visit for only fifteen minutes twice a week, and only if the shelter committee consented. The only time a child was allowed to leave the shelter was to go to hospital in the event of a serious illness — or when it was time to return to the family home or to be placed in a foster home or elsewhere.
Although the young people in the shelter were obviously well cared for physically, their emotional and social needs were barely understood. Parents, for example, were allowed to visit for only fifteen minutes twice a week, and only if the shelter committee consented.
The shelter quickly became a large institutional operation that accommodated between sixty and eighty children. It was described as immaculately clean — the children did most of the cleaning — with the beds a gleaming white, giving it more the appearance of a hospital than of a home. To some observers, however, it looked like a jail, what with its iron bars on the windows and the high fence that surrounded the property to prevent the children from running away.
“It is less expensive to save children than to punish criminals”
The society’s earliest motto — “It is less expensive to save children than to punish criminals” — underlies the idea that, for many years, the society saw its purpose as the prevention of crime and to provide a detention home for young offen
ders.
J.J. Kelso himself had campaigned against the inadequacy of legislation to deal with young offenders, many of whom were thrown into jails amongst hardened adult criminals. Thus it was no accident that one of the earliest advocacy tasks that the agency undertook resulted in the passing in 1894 of the federal Act Respecting the Arrest, Trial and Imprisonment of Youthful Offenders. This law set out, for the first time, procedures for dealing with young offenders separately from adults — although the establishment of juvenile courts would have to await the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908. (Even then, the establishment of juvenile courts was not mandatory, and Toronto did not get one until 1911.)
One of the earliest advocacy tasks that the agency undertook resulted in the passing in 1894 of the federal Act Respecting the Arrest, Trial and Imprisonment of Youthful Offenders. It set out, for the first time, procedures for dealing with young offenders separately from adults.
Kelso was a leader in the campaign for the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which treated a young offender “not as a criminal but as a misdirected and misguided child and one needing aid, encouragement and assistance.” For almost eighty years, this philosophy was to govern the treatment of young people who broke federal, provincial and municipal laws. It diverted children away from the criminal justice system by providing for them to be supervised in their own homes by probation officers or placed in foster homes or other specialized institutions. Under no circumstances were they to be placed amongst adult offenders.
A Legacy of Caring Page 5