A Legacy of Caring
Page 6
In Toronto, many youngsters in trouble with the law were placed in the CAS’s shelter, which acted as a detention home for young offenders. Those who the courts decided required a longer period of incarceration were eventually transferred to industrial schools or placed in children’s aid society foster homes.
In Toronto, many youngsters in trouble with the law were placed in the CAS’s shelter, which acted as a detention home for young offenders.
In 1896, there were 175 young offenders in the shelter, accounting for 40 percent of all residents. By 1914, however, 745 of the 1,445 children in the shelter were young offenders, and their numbers as a percentage of all children cared for in the shelter continued to increase — by 1919, they represented over 66 percent (841 out of 1,280) of all children in residence that year.
At first, these juvenile delinquents, as they were usually called, lived alongside — although in separate rooms from — those who had been admitted because they were in need of protection. However, because of the increase in the number of young offenders the society was required to care for, it became evident to the board that there was a need for a separate building to house them. As Jolliffe writes:
[In 1915, the agency approached the city] about the matter, pointing out that the children’s aid society was not bound to care for juvenile delinquents. The city asked the society to continue the care of these children since it was unable to do so because of the [First World] War. So, in February 1916, the board rented 226 Simcoe Street, [up the street] from the shelter, for two years as a detention home. In the following month, they hired a man and his wife to be in charge of the children. This home was for boys only, the girls remaining in the shelter. At the end of the two-year period, the city still refused to accept responsibility for juvenile delinquents.
In 1919, likely as a result of pressure from the society, legislation was enacted that made municipalities responsible for the care of young offenders, thereby compelling the city to make its own arrangements. As a result, the detention home was finally able to close its doors in March 1920.
In 1919, likely as a result of pressure from the society, legislation was enacted that made municipalities responsible for the care of young offenders, thereby compelling the city to make its own arrangements.
Summer camp
After many years of having children with a whole range of challenges living year-round at the shelter, the society moved to provide them with a more extended summer holiday experience than the Fresh Air Fund was able to do.
Photo reprinted with permission of City of Toronto Archives, SC1, Series B, 1910 Annual Report, Page 21.
AT HAPPILAND CAMP.
In 1910, an Orillia couple, Mr. and Ms. William Thomson, set up Camp Happiland on the shores of nearby Lake Couchiching and invited the society to send the shelter children there for a holiday. Every year until 1928, it became a regular feature of summer life for these children, who travelled by train to Orillia, where Thompson would meet them in his motor launch and ferry them to the scenic site. Once there, they spent their days bathing, boating and enjoying the physical and mental benefits of the country air. At night, they would sleep in tents until permanent sleeping quarters were erected in 1917.
In 1911, the society itself mounted a search for land closer to the city to provide a place where “weakly children and tired mothers” could have a holiday experience together. Seven hectares near the lakeshore in Halton County were purchased for $8,000 and became known as the Bronte Fresh Air Camp. According to Jolliffe,
A pavilion to serve as a dining room and kitchen were erected and tents were used for sleeping accommodation. Parts of the grounds were used as a farm and a team of horses and farm equipment were purchased in 1915. This was probably done in expectation that the camp would be self-sustaining for it was later recorded that enough potatoes and vegetables were grown to supply itself, Camp Happiland and the shelter.
In 1914, forty-two mothers and 140 children spent 2,155 days at the camp. It continued to provide twelve-day holidays to mothers and children until 1920, when, due to financial, administrative and transportation difficulties, its operation was given over to the Neighbourhood Workers’ Association. This was the beginning of Bolton Camp, one of the longest-running children’s summer camps in Canada. (The society retained ownership of the site until 1943.)
Substitute family care
From the very beginning, the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto placed children with substitute families. In this way, it differed from the Infants’ Home, which did not begin to do so until the 1920s. The society’s preference to place the young people in its care with substitute families in an age when most other children’s agencies preferred orphanages and other institutions was largely the result of J.J. Kelso’s strongly held belief that institutions were inappropriate places for neglected and abused children. Not only was institutional care expensive but, more importantly, children in care “crave for a real home, a real mother and a real, instead of artificial, system of work and play.”
From the very beginning, the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto placed children with substitute families. In this way, it differed from the Infants’ Home, which did not begin to do so until the 1920s.
J.J. Kelso believed that institutions were inappropriate places for neglected and abused children. Not only was institutional care expensive but, more importantly, children in care “crave for a real home, a real mother and a real, instead of artificial, system of work and play.”
Once a suitable substitute family had been selected for an individual child, the society might enter into a contract with them under which it would make annual payments on behalf of the child until he or she reached the age of eighteen years. Given its limited revenues, however, and because children were still regarded as an economic asset, the agency’s preferred approach was to negotiate placement of children in “free” homes. This relieved the agency from any responsibility to reimburse the family for the child’s care. Another form of placement was a non-binding indenture, whereby the child became part of the family.
Whatever the label, however, the status of these placements was referred to interchangeably as both foster care and adoption. (As will be described in the next chapter, the modern concept of adoption was not formalized in Ontario until 1921).
The typical substitute family home was a farm in rural Ontario — or even as far away as Manitoba or the Northwest Territories. Lacking agency escorts, the society enlisted the help of railway conductors to look after the children on their way to their placements. Once they had settled into their new homes, they were expected to work on the farm or around the house. This could result in a disregard for the children’s legal right to education and thus condemn them to limited opportunities for advancement in their future lives.
The typical substitute family home was a farm in rural Ontario, or even as far away as Manitoba or the Northwest Territories. Once they had settled into their new homes, the children were expected to work on the farm or around the house.
Most children remained in their placements until they reached the age of eighteen, or in some cases, twenty-one. Once the girls turned twelve or the boys reached the age of fourteen, however, they were expected to be self-supporting. For many, this meant working as farm labourers or as domestic servants for several years at subsistence wages.
“I arrived safely in my new home and I like it very much. I am glad you sent me out here and my Uncle and Auntie are very kind to me . . . I help Auntie to milk and feed the calves. We have five calves. I milk one cow but I will milk two when I get more used to it.”
— a society ward writing in 1897
From today’s perspective, this integration of caring for children in need of protection with employing them as household and farm help is disturbing. It was, however, consistent with Kelso’s long-held belief:
The chief cure we have for the average neglected child is to transfer him from an urban to a rural district . . . a child of a poor famil
y in a city is so cramped and hindered and restricted in his development that artificial means have to be supplied for legitimate play activities.
Nevertheless, however good their care, these children were usually placed far away from family members, often even from siblings who might be placed in foster homes in distant communities. They undoubtedly suffered from the trauma of separation and the transition from an urban to a rural way of life.
Those placed outside Ontario never received visits from society workers or government inspectors to monitor their progress. Without a doubt, some were mistreated, but many appreciated their placements, as young Fred wrote in a letter quoted in the agency’s 1897 annual report:
I arrived safely in my new home and I like it very much. I am glad you sent me out here and my Uncle and Auntie are very kind to me . . . I help Auntie to milk and feed the calves. We have five calves. I milk one cow but I will milk two when I get more used to it.
Several years later, in 1919, the annual report reproduced a letter from Harold, a much older youth, in which he writes to William Duncan, the superintendent of the shelter:
It has been a long time since I wrote to you but I am still living and in the best of health and strength . . . I can do anything on the farm now . . . I will soon be ploughing for next spring. We have all our fall wheat ready now, 150 acres [60 hectares]. There is nothing like experience . . . I am glad now that I was taken to the CAS. Mr. Duncan, you have been just like a father to every one of us and certainly used us good and I hope the boys will all appreciate it as I do.
“It has been a long time since I wrote to you but I am still living and in the best of health and strength . . . I can do anything on the farm now . . . I will soon be ploughing for next spring. We have all our fall wheat ready now, 150 acres [60 hectares]. There is nothing like experience . . . I am glad now that I was taken to the CAS. Mr Duncan, you have been just like a father to every one of us and certainly used us good and I hope the boys will all appreciate it as I do.”
— a society ward writing in 1919
Children placed within Ontario would receive a supervisory visit at least once a year, either from a home visitor from Kelso’s office or from the local children’s aid society. The visitors, who might be volunteers as often as paid employees, usually worked hard to avoid having the children recognize them as government or agency representatives. This reflected the era’s belief that a strict separation of young people from their parents was in the best interests of children in care. However, it also reveals the prevailing lack of awareness of the needs of children adjusting to a new family and surroundings and in dealing with their personal histories, as illustrated by an item from the society’s 1904 annual report:
Mrs. Harvie [J.J. Kelso’s first salaried assistant] continues her good work among the children for the Ontario Department of Neglected and Dependent Children and many are the homes all over Ontario where she is heartily welcomed by both foster parents and children.
In many cases, the children know her only as a looked-for and welcome friend of the foster parents, for when children have been adopted into homes when too young to remember anything of their past lives it is her care that she shall not say or do anything while making her visit which will inform them that she is an official visitor.
The belief of the time was that strict separation of young people from their parents was in the best interests of children in care.
These home visitors saw themselves as counsellors and friends, but there is no doubt that the quality of supervision they provided was perfunctory by modern standards, as the following reports about children in the care of the CAS of Toronto in 1919 suggest:
Her foster parents have become very much attached to Jean, who is now eight years old and in splendid health. She is taking music lessons on the piano and doing well. Everything is quite satisfactory here and I consider this child well placed.
A good farm home for Willie, aged 13. He is bright and doing well at school. Foster mother complained to me that the boy was disobedient and if left alone for any time would shirk any work left for him to do. I called at the school and had a talk with the boy, who seems to be a very bright, cheerful lad. He promised me that he would try and do better in the future. Would advise leaving him where he is as long as they will help him, for he is certainly in good company and making progress.
Eve, who is 15 now, is a good, healthy and well-developed girl. Foster mother says the only trouble is she will not always tell the truth . . . They are fond of her and want to do all they can for her. These are good respectable people . . . I am satisfied that they are doing all they can for her and that, if she remains with them and is willing to be guided by them, that she will grow up to be a good, useful woman.
The prevailing attitude seems to have been that foster parents were motivated by altruism, removing any requirement for close supervision — for which there were, in any event, no standards.
The society was never short of foster homes, because the needs of farm families exceeded the supply of available children. It did, however, have to compete with other agencies, most notably British child rescue societies such as Dr. Barnardo’s. According to Clifford J. Williams, between the 1880s and the First World War, these British agencies were settling annually about 2,500 immigrant children in Ontario homes — nearly ten times the number placed by CASs. At the turn of the century, the Toronto society was placing almost fifty children a year in foster homes; by 1919, that number had almost doubled to ninety-three.
The society was never short of foster homes because the needs of farm families exceeded the supply of available children.
The CAS of Toronto was rigorous in its approval process for those interested in becoming foster parents, as this report from the society’s 1897 annual report testifies:
The society receives a very large number of letters of inquiry for children and this is due to the kindness of the editors of nearly all the Toronto and Winnipeg weekly papers in inserting in their columns frequent letters from the [society] descriptive of children available for adoption.
The nature of the application forms which inquirers are required to fill out will be evident when it is said that, while hundreds inquire, the number who formally apply — when they become aware of what responsibilities the society requires them to assume — only adds up to scores. Even of these, many are rejected by the president and secretary, whose duty it is to pass on them.
“The nature of the application forms which inquirers interested in becoming foster parents are required to fill out will be evident when it is said that, while hundreds inquire, the number who formally apply — when they become aware of what responsibilities the society requires them to assume — only adds up to scores. Even of these, many are rejected by the president and secretary, whose duty it is to pass on them.”
— Foster home procedures, 1897
Managing the work
According to Williams, “During the first twenty or thirty years, children’s aid work was a relatively uncomplicated business of apprehending neglected or abused children referred by police, charities, churches and other organizations and individuals. After a short stay in a shelter, the child was brought before a judge and, if circumstances of neglect or abuse were substantiated, the court usually assigned the child to the society’s care for an indefinite period. The child was then placed more or less permanently with foster parents.”
As has already been indicated, some of that work, including home visiting and foster home supervision, was carried out partly by volunteers. Likewise, the members of the board of management — all of whom, apart from the secretary, were volunteers — involved themselves in the day-to-day management of the society’s business. For example, John MacDonald, the president, personally reviewed every application from those offering to become foster parents, and carefully examined every document and reference before he would allow a child to be placed in such a home.
This did not, however, render the society imper
vious to constant criticism that it employed paid staff rather than volunteers to carry out its work. The board worked hard to justify this decision, based on the volume and complexity of the work that was required to fulfil the society’s mandate.
The society was subjected to constant criticism that it employed paid staff rather than carrying out all of its work with volunteers.
The agency’s first paid employee was Stuart Coleman. He held the executive position of secretary at an annual salary of $500. His job was to keep the society’s records and to find and arrange placement in foster homes for the children living in the shelter.
The agency’s first paid employee was Stuart Coleman. He held the executive position of secretary at an annual salary of $500. His job was to keep the society’s records and to find and arrange placement in foster homes for the children living in the shelter.
Beginning in 1894, the secretary was supported by a staff member initially known as the “agent” but later renamed the inspector. For several years, John Graham held this position at a salary of $1,000 a year. His responsibilities were to attend the police court (a municipal court that dealt with minor offences) daily to help the magistrate determine how to deal with the young offenders brought before him. He was also responsible for investigating reports of neglect or cruelty toward children. This involved making home visits — usually early in the morning before the court sat or in the late afternoon and early evening after it had adjourned for the day. The workload was so heavy that it was not long before the agency had to hire an assistant to help the agent/inspector with his tasks.
The agent made home visits, usually early in the morning before the police court sat or in the late afternoon and early evening after it had adjourned for the day. The workload was so heavy that it was not long before the agency had to hire an assistant to help the agent with his tasks.