A Legacy of Caring

by John McCullagh

  For many of these newcomers, employment was harder to get than it was for Canadian-born people, and not only because of language and perceived skill barriers. Discrimination was much in evidence. Anti-Semitism was prevalent, while “No Irish need apply” notices appeared in many want ads and decorated the windows of rooms available for rent.

  During this era, women outnumbered men by a large margin, mainly as a result of the deaths of soldiers during the war. The nuclear family often comprised three generations: children, parents and grandparents. Fathers were assumed to be the providers, while mothers usually remained at home to care for their families. Divorce was rare, and remarriages and those reconstituted families that existed were usually the result of the death of a previous spouse.

  During the 1920s, women outnumbered men by a large margin, mainly as a result of the deaths of soldiers during the First World War.

  Women, generally speaking, either had families or careers, but not both. Although attitudes began to change as a result of the upheaval of the war years, a working mother, unless she was a widow, was stigmatized as having no husband — or an unreliable, improvident one. As jobs became scarce during the Great Depression, married women, and particularly women with children, were excluded from the work force.

  Women, generally speaking, either had families or careers, but not both.

  A more accepting attitude toward unmarried mothers was slowly taking hold, but most were still made to feel that having a baby out of wedlock was shameful. They were usually still sent away to give birth in secret at the home of a distant relative or in an institution such as the Infants’ Home.

  A more accepting attitude toward unmarried mothers was slowly taking hold, but most were still made to feel that having a baby out of wedlock was shameful. They were usually still sent away to give birth in secret at the home of a distant relative or in an institution such as the Infants’ Home.

  Wages for labourers, factory workers, clerks and those in service industries were generally low, while the hours were long. As a consequence, a number of slum neighbourhoods sprung up, of which none was more notorious than The Ward, located north of Queen Street between Bay Street and University Avenue. There, families lived in houses and tenements that were dilapidated, overcrowded and expensive to rent. Water supplies were often contaminated and waste disposal unsanitary. These conditions often gave rise to family stress that led, in turn, to child abuse and neglect.

  The affluence of the 1920s allowed governments to introduce old age pensions and mothers’ allowances to help those who were less well off. (The stigma attached to children born out of wedlock, however, prevented mothers’ allowances being extended to unwed mothers who wished to keep their babies.) A Soldier’s Aid Commission offered financial assistance to veterans of the war and supported their families thorough its own child welfare service. Nevertheless, the prevailing attitude was that personal success or misfortune was a function of individual character, and that government welfare should be restricted to the “deserving” poor.

  The prevailing attitude was that personal success or misfortune was a function of individual character, and that government welfare should be restricted to the “deserving” poor.

  These values were subsequently challenged, but not overcome, as a result of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Although the hardships it produced did not affect Toronto as badly as other Canadian centres, the numbers of transient people — including whole families and single women — looking for work in the city became very visible. Many people, including some social workers, perceived male transience as related to a desire to escape family responsibilities during difficult times. Arrests of the homeless for vagrancy continued.

  Many families were in dire straits because of unemployment or job cuts, not only in terms of hourly wages — the average per capita income was less than a dollar a day — but also in weekly work hours. No comprehensive government programs of unemployment insurance or social welfare existed. The government’s primary response was to create jobs through municipal public works, an initiative that was later supplemented by a limited public relief program under which benefits — taking the form of vouchers that could be exchanged for food or secondhand clothes in specified stores or depots — were carefully controlled and scrutinized. Missions operated soup kitchens, but many people remained malnourished.

  Governments and most of the population that were not destitute thought that charitable organizations would take care of the truly needy. Families in crisis, they believed, could always look to agencies such as the Infants’ Home or the CAS of Toronto for assistance. Others approached both organizations looking for children to board, in the hopes of increasing their meagre incomes.

  During the Depression of the 1930s, governments and most of the population that were not destitute thought that charitable organizations would take care of the truly needy. Families in crisis, they believed, could always look to agencies such as the Infants’ Home or the CAS of Toronto for assistance.

  The Depression, however, was also a difficult time for social agencies. The families and children with whom they worked suffered from stark privation, anxiety and worry. These conditions, in turn, often led to family arguments, alcoholism and crime, with their sequels of desertion and imprisonment. Such circumstances were a detriment to family life and the conditions in which children were brought up. The agencies did what they could, but public and private funds for their work decreased even while their caseloads increased.

  The Depression, however, was also a difficult time for social agencies. It was a detriment to family life and the conditions in which children were brought up. The agencies did what they could, but public and private funds for their work decreased even while their caseloads increased.

  Vera Moberly

  A generation younger than J.J. Kelso, Jessie Vera Moberly is another of the early heroes of child welfare in this country. From 1919 until her death in 1945, she was executive director — or executive secretary, as the position was officially known — of the Infants’ Home. It was in this capacity that she pioneered the modern system of foster family care.

  Vera Moberly was born in Fort William, Ontario (part of what is now the city of Thunder Bay), but was educated in Scotland. On her return to Canada as a young adult, she spent time with her father Frank — a government surveyor — on many of his trips across the country. During these journeys she travelled through several aboriginal communities, and it was as a result of these experiences that she developed a deep understanding of human need as well as an interest in social welfare.

  Having trained as a nurse, in 1917 Moberly attended a lecture on the subject of foster care given at the University of Toronto by a doctor from Boston. Dr. Charles Hastings, the medical officer of health for the City of Toronto, accompanied her to the lecture. In 1902, Hastings and his wife had lost their three-year-old child to typhoid fever which had arisen from contaminated milk from a local dairy. As a result of this tragedy, he committed himself to the health and welfare of children and worked tirelessly to that end.

  Moberly and Hastings were intrigued by the notion of foster care, particularly because of a series of epidemics in Toronto that had caused life-threatening diseases and death among children housed in various institutions across the city, including the Children’s Aid Society and the Infants’ Home. They believed that if they could move these children out of the institutions into the homes of foster families, they would be less likely to suffer the illnesses and death that, it seemed, were endemic to institutional care. Their theory proved correct after they persuaded the superintendent of the Infants’ Home to place two babies in foster homes as an experiment. Both babies flourished in these family settings.

  Vera Moberly was intrigued by the notion of foster care, particularly because of a series of epidemics in Toronto that had caused life-threatening diseases and death among children housed in various institutions across the city, including the Children’s Aid Society and the Infants’ Ho
me.

  Institutional care to boarding home care

  When Moberly took over as head of the Infants’ Home in 1919, two areas caused her deep concern: the continual illness among the children the agency was caring for and the difficulty of raising sufficient funds to operate the organization in the way she believed appropriate.

  There had been four epidemics at the home that year. Seventy-three of the 183 babies who were being cared for died. Moberly described the babies being looked after by the Infants’ Home as “wan, apathetic, colourless in appearance, suffering from rickets and many [other] diseases.”

  One of Moberly’s first initiatives was to go to Boston and New York to study the techniques of foster family care that had so impressed her and Charles Hastings and that child welfare agencies in those cities were starting to use. She returned to Toronto determined to replicate at the Infants’ Home the success of these American agencies.

  To do so would take knowledge, courage and vision. The public would have to be persuaded that children could be boarded in foster homes and appropriately supervised so that no harm would come to them. It would be no mean task: her ideas were opposed even by some of the board members of the Infants’ Home, enough so that they resigned.

  The approach to foster care that Moberly believed in also differed from that being provided by the CAS. As described in Chapter 2, children’s aid society foster care often meant placement or indentured service in a rural community far from home, with minimal, if any, ongoing support or supervision by the society. These types of foster homes became known as “free homes.”

  Moberly envisioned a different method, one that came to be labelled “boarding home” care. The sole motivation for becoming a boarding home foster parent would be to provide a substitute family for needy children — rather than to gain an additional pair of hands to help around the home or on the farm. These foster parents would be recruited mainly from within the city so that children could retain contact with their own families, if appropriate. Expenses would be reimbursed. Most importantly, children in boarding home care would be carefully supervised and the foster parents well supported by trained professionals.

  Moberly envisioned a different foster care technique, one that came to be labelled “boarding home” care. The sole motivation for becoming a boarding home foster parent would be to provide a substitute family for needy children — rather than to gain an additional pair of hands to help around the home or on the farm.

  In 1920, the Infants’ Home distributed leaflets and set up a booth at the Canadian National Exhibition to publicize its work and describe what was being done in other cities to care for children in foster families. The response was overwhelmingly positive; many people inquired about fostering, while others contributed money — one donation was for $10,000. Through these and other initiatives, by 1927 the Infants’ Home had recruited 634 foster homes. On an average day, 180 foster families were looking after children in the agency’s care.

  In 1920, the Infants’ Home distributed leaflets and set up a booth at the Canadian National Exhibition to publicize its work and describe what was being done in other cities to care for children in foster families.

  By 1927, the Infants’ Home had recruited 634 foster homes. On an average day, 180 foster families were looking after children in the agency’s care.

  In 1939, reflecting on her twenty years of experience in foster care, Moberly wrote:

  With what fear and trepidation we placed those first one or two babies. How [we] watched over them to be sure they would receive kindness and good care! How amazing the results! They made such progress in six weeks that we could hardly believe they were the same babies. Those were the first children in Canada to be placed by an institution in boarding homes.

  Now, children of all types and with whatever problems can find homes to meet their particular needs. Instead of regimenting underprivileged children into one pattern of behaviour in institutions, they are having the normal family life with father, mother, sister and brother, school and sports, just like any other children.

  “With what fear and trepidation we placed those first one or two babies. How [we] watched over them to be sure they would receive kindness and good care! How amazing the results! They made such progress in six weeks that we could hardly believe they were the same babies. Those were the first children in Canada to be placed by an institution in boarding homes.”

  — Vera Moberly in 1939, writing about

  twenty years’ experience in foster care

  The agency’s 1928 annual report tells the story of Jimmy, an unhappy child with impaired vision, who was one of thousands of children who benefited from the introduction of foster care. Deserted by his mother at the age of three months, he was placed with foster parents who, although living in frugal circumstances, delighted in meeting his every need. In no time at all his general disposition and health began to improve.

  The child is now a year and nine months old. What he is receiving in the way of affection, understanding and guiding can never be reckoned in dollars and cents. A few months ago, he learned to walk. For some time, he was very timid about taking even one step alone. He had to be taught confidence in getting about and what patient hours were spent by Mrs F. in accomplishing this! The F.’s want to keep Jimmie until he goes to the school for the blind. They do not like to think of that distant time.

  “The child is now a year and nine months old. What he is receiving in the way of affection, understanding and guiding can never be reckoned in dollars and cents.”

  — Infants’ Home Annual Report, 1928,

  describing one of thousands of

  children who benefitted from the

  introduction of foster care.

  If children were still in care by the time they reached their fourth birthday — the Infant’s Home’s upper age limit — they were technically transferred to the care of the Children’s Aid Society. (Some children, if it was determined that they required long-term care, were transferred to the society soon after their third birthday.) However, these children continued to live in the same foster home so that continuity of care was maintained. Over the years, hundreds of foster homes were transferred in this way between the Infants’ Home and the CAS of Toronto.

  Along with the expansion of service into boarding home care came an increase in the Infants’ Home’s staff and a gradual change in focus from nursing care to social work. Some recent social work graduates of the newly established social service program at the University of Toronto were hired, one of them being Audrey Hastings — the daughter of Charles Hastings, the city’s medical officer of health with whom Moberly had worked so closely. In the mid-1920s, these social workers were paid $1,500 a year if they were professionally qualified, or $720 if they lacked credentials.

  Social work graduates were paid $1,500 a year if they were professionally qualified, or $720 if they lacked credentials.

  These staff and foster parents introduced modern methods of child care. Together they took part in regular discussion groups for support and training and received instruction from pediatricians and child psychologists. A manual was published that provided invaluable information for a foster mother caring for a young baby.

  In the 1920s, Infants’ Home staff and foster parents introduced modern methods of child care. Together they took part in regular discussion groups for support and training and received instruction from pediatricians and child psychologists. A manual was published that provided invaluable information for a foster mother caring for a young baby.

  Moberly impressed upon the staff how important she believed it was to understand and focus on the root causes of a client’s problems. During the Depression years of the 1930s, for example, she helped several staff, through the attitudes she modelled, to be less critical toward the unemployed.

  Another outgrowth of this openness to new ideas was the establishment of regular well-baby clinics, staffed by Dr. Doris Moneypenny, whom Moberly hired in 1930 as the ag
ency’s first full-time medical doctor. In addition, she arranged for regular developmental evaluations of children in foster care in cooperation with Dr. W.E. Blatz of the department of psychology at the University of Toronto.

  The closing of the Infants’ Home shelter

  When she arrived at the Infants’ Home, Moberly found the board and staff discouraged by the circumstances under which they had to care for the children. Several nurses had resigned, both because of unclear job expectations and deficiencies in the building at 21 St. Mary Street, which Moberly described as “[c]umbersome and poorly equipped. Washing done by hand. No kitchen for properly looking after the dozens of bottle feedings for the babies. No sterilizer. Scant medical and surgical supplies. Work [in the home] done by some 30 disgruntled mothers who were there against their wills. A housekeeper whose main interest in the mothers was that they be strong and willing to work so as to keep the building clean.”

  Moberly made many changes to address these problems. She did away with the requirement that mothers stay and work in the home for several months after giving birth. Regular medical clinics were established. An electric washing machine was installed as well as a refrigerator and sterilizer for the babies’ feedings, which were to be carefully prepared according to the doctors’ prescriptions. The home’s sanitary conditions were improved and all children with the slightest suspicion of illnesses were isolated. As a result of these efforts, the home never had another epidemic.

  Moberly’s objective, however, was to close the shelter entirely. The year she took over as executive secretary, the mortality rate of the infants in the shelter was an alarmingly high 46 percent. She believed that by closing it and placing all the children in foster care, such deaths could be virtually eliminated.