There were, however, not yet any provincial standards by which CAS services could be judged. Nor were there any mechanisms that protected the rights of children in foster homes and group homes. The assumption was that those who provided these services did so with altruistic motives, and therefore standards were not necessary.
The Child Welfare Act stressed that the selection of adoption and foster homes should be suited to each child’s individual needs, a best-practice approach long undertaken by both the CAS of Toronto and the Infants’ Homes. Another outcome was the establishment of a central adoption registry, known as the Adoption Clearing Service, to match children and adoptive parents across the province. Yet another was that children were not to remain in temporary care for longer than twenty-four months; after that time, but hopefully sooner, they were either to return to their parents or be made permanent wards of the society and, if possible, adopted. In a report to the board, Richardson said he thought that:
A central adoption registry, known as the Adoption Clearing Service, was established to match children and adoptive parents across the province.
“This [new Child Welfare Act] does seem to be progressive, but it has increased the number of court actions, since one must always be conscious of the two-year limit set forth in the act for temporary wardship. The court situation, though, is at its saturation point because of the increase in court actions and the high frequency of short-term adjournments.”
— Lloyd Richardson, speaking
about the new Child Welfare Act
This [new Child Welfare Act] does seem to be progressive, but it has increased the number of court actions, since one must always be conscious of the two-year limit set forth in the act for temporary wardship. With the help of [Metro], three workers have been detailed to the supervision of temporary wards and their families to concentrate on returning them quickly to their own homes. The court situation, though, is at its saturation point because of the increase in court actions and the high frequency of short-term adjournments.
The act also reduced the maximum age that a child could remain in care to eighteen years from twenty-one. At the time the legislation came into effect, the agency had about 300 young people between those ages in its care. Most had been admitted during the war years, when protection services were minimal and permanent guardianship was the favoured means of meeting the needs of children requiring protection.
“Changing the course of human life”
The agency was growing rapidly. By 1958, it had about 350 staff, 200 of whom were professionals — social workers, child and youth workers, nurses, physicians, dentists and psychologists. They were assisted by almost 1,200 foster homes and many individual volunteers and community groups. Between them that year, they supported almost 8,000 families and more than 15,000 children, 3,000 of whom were in care at any given moment. Adoptions were legally completed for almost 430 children.
By 1958, the society had about 350 staff, 200 of whom were professionals — social workers, child and youth workers, nurses, physicians, dentists and psychologists. They were assisted by almost 1,200 foster homes and many individual volunteers and community groups. Between them that year, they supported almost 8,000 families and more than 15,000 children.
These services were paid for partly through tax dollars and partly through donations. Metro Council and other municipalities spent almost $1.5 million a year for the direct maintenance of children in care. The United Community Chest contributed about $350,000 toward protection services, work with unmarried parents and adoption services. The province granted more than $1 million a year toward the society’s work, while the federal government passed on almost $200,000 in family allowance benefits (as part of a program established in 1945). The agency relied on voluntary contributions to pay for such “extras” as birthday gifts, bicycles, and Boy Scout and Girl Guide uniforms for the children in its care.
In 1950, Stewart Sutton summed up the work of the society: “What we do, and what we leave undone, may change the course of a human life.”
“What we do, and what we leave undone, may change the course of a human life.”
— Stewart Sutton
The society’s fundamental purpose was described at that time as the protection of children from cruelty and neglect on the part of parents, guardians or others. Based on contemporary research into behavioural psychology, not least the work of Bowlby and others on the damaging effects of maternal deprivation, workers believed that the best place for a child was in his or her own home.
Workers believed that the best place for a child was in his or her own home. They made every effort to put that belief into practice by counselling families, helping unmarried parents plan for their child’s future and assisting in custody and access matters in divorce proceedings.
They made every effort to put that belief into practice by counselling families, helping unmarried parents plan for their child’s future and assisting in custody and access matters in divorce proceedings. When it was not possible for children to remain safely at home, they admitted them to the agency’s care or arranged for their adoption. They devoted much energy to recruiting and supporting foster parents and potential adoptive parents.
Many children were voluntarily admitted to care at the request of unmarried mothers or parents for whom a short-term placement would help them through a difficult period. Others were admitted through legal action under the Child Welfare Act, the society being entrusted with their guardianship.
Each child in the society’s care had a social worker — or, if they were very young, a nurse — from the Child Care department who was responsible for their welfare, health and schooling. These staff made a major effort to maintain the child’s ties to his or her family, when appropriate, and to the community at large. Plans for the children were reviewed consistently to see if it were possible to return them to their own homes or to place them for adoption.
Each child in the society’s care had a social worker — or, if they were very young, a nurse — from the Child Care department who was responsible for their welfare, health and schooling. These staff made a major effort to maintain the child’s ties to his or her family, when appropriate, and to the community at large. Plans for the children were reviewed consistently to see if it were possible to return them to their own homes or to place them for adoption.
Those who were not placed for adoption were, for the most part, cared for by foster families or in group homes. About 12 percent of the children lived either in one of four agency-run institutions (described below and in Chapter 6) or in numerous “outside institutions” operated by other organizations.
The society was also required by law to make recommendations in the case of adoptions made privately — for example, through a family doctor — and on behalf of families who were adopting a child related to them. In 1958, it was involved in 900 such adoptions.
Protection work
By now, there were almost fifty workers whose job it was to investigate and intervene in situations where children were being neglected. Many of these staff were located at the new decentralized branch offices in Scarborough and Willowdale, but most still worked in the central areas of Metro, where social problems were still more prevalent than in the suburban communities.
The Metro area’s growth created shortages of both affordable housing and employment, and for many parents the resultant pressure was too much to bear. The society and other social agencies found it hard to meet the ever-increasing demands.
The Metro area’s growth created shortages of both affordable housing and employment, and for many parents the resultant pressure was too much to bear. Alcoholism, desertion, physical abuse and incest (as intra-familial sexual abuse was usually called before the 1980s) were the unfortunate outcomes. The society and other social agencies found it hard to meet the ever-increasing demands.
Requests for service generally came by way of a complaint or referral from the police, hospitals or other social service
agencies. Because the crisis was often immediate, workers frequently had to respond quickly. Their ability to do so was enhanced by the introduction of an agency “radio car” that kept field workers in touch with the office via two-way radio — an early example of information technology.
The agency “radio car” that kept field workers in touch with the office via two-way radio
Sheila McDermott, who emigrated from England in 1955 to join the agency’s protection department, describes one of her earliest experiences:
In those days, we had to work Tuesday evenings. That’s why I was sitting at my desk after the supper hour, when I received a phone call from one of my clients — let’s call her Janet — asking me to come to her house right away because she was worried about her two boys.
When I arrived, I found that Janet and her partner — I’ll call him Peter — had been drinking heavily. Obviously the worse for wear, Peter had passed out on the living room floor. The two boys were in bed but Janet was insisting she had to go to work — she had an overnight job as a nursing aide in a private home.
Her sister-in-law and I eventually persuaded her that this would not be a good idea and that it would be best for her to sleep it off now. As we were helping her to bed, I discovered two unopened bottles of liquor under the pillow. As the two boys were fast asleep by this time, it seemed safe to leave them, so I “apprehended” the bottles instead.
Early the next morning, I went back to the house to see what was going on and found Peter was already up and away to the bootlegger. I helped Janet clean up the place and remember pouring half-filled glasses of liquor down the sink. At this point, Peter returned home joyfully clutching a bottle of rye. He graciously offered me a drink!
I sold the two bottles of liquor to my colleagues and put the money in the Protection department’s “slush fund.” However, when [executive director] Lloyd Richardson heard about this he told me in his dry, humorous way that if the Liquor Control Board [LCBO] ever got to know about it, I would be in deep trouble as (unbeknownst to me as a new immigrant) only the LCBO was permitted to sell liquor in Ontario!
“Early the next morning, I went back to the house to see what was going on and found Peter was already up and away to the bootlegger. I helped Janet clean up the place and remember pouring half-filled glasses of liquor down the sink. At this point, Peter returned home joyfully clutching a bottle of rye. He graciously offered me a drink!”
— Sheila McDermott, about one of her
earliest protection department experiences
The society’s workers tried to broaden their role to include working with families to prevent family crises and the resulting upsets for children. More often than not, though, they found themselves being called in to families when it was too late to do anything other than admit children to care. Usually, they had to settle for such limited goals, so busy were they in moving from one crisis to another, while often feeling drowned in work.
The society’s workers tried to broaden their role to include working with families to prevent family crises and the resulting upsets for children. More often than not, though, they found themselves being called in to families when it was too late to do anything other than admit children to care. Usually, they had to settle for such limited goals, so busy were they in moving from one crisis to another, while often feeling drowned in work.
Work with unmarried parents
Although the war years had loosened the community’s negative attitude toward unmarried parents, giving birth to a so-called “illegitimate” baby would still be considered a shameful act well into the 1960s. While some unwed mothers were willing to face the social stigma of being a single parent, few could afford to raise a child alone despite the extension of provincial mothers’ allowance payments to unwed parents in 1951. And those who signed a declaration of paternity, in an attempt to put legal pressure on the father to provide financially for their child, usually found that he had no resources with which to do so.
Because of the prevailing attitude, these pregnant young women, who were often teenagers, continued to feel the need to give birth in anonymous circumstances — and Toronto was still their preferred destination. This created a massive workload for the agency; in 1959, for example, the unmarried parent department admitted to care more than 700 children of unwed parents. Workers in the department worked hard, usually in close cooperation with their colleagues in the Adoption department, to find permanent homes for these children.
Pregnant young women, who were often teenagers, continued to feel the need to give birth in anonymous circumstances — and Toronto was still their preferred destination. This created a massive workload for the agency.
Ruth Mankie, who joined in the unmarried parent department as a young worker in the late 1950s, remembers one of her of her mentors:
We called Gladys Bastedo “The Angel of Moss Park” [after the inner-city housing project where she worked]. She was a tiny woman, quick as anything, and even though she seemed to us very old, [she] would run circles around us younger workers. She was a very committed and professional woman who nevertheless referred to her clients as “her little girls.” She seemed to be made of iron but she had a huge heart. She was very resourceful and incredibly independent.
The Angel of Moss Park
“We called Gladys Bastedo “The Angel of Moss Park” [after the inner-city housing project where she worked]. She was a tiny woman, quick as anything, and even though she seemed to us very old, [she] would run circles around us younger workers. She was a very committed and professional woman who nevertheless referred to her clients as “her little girls.” She seemed to be made of iron but she had a huge heart. She was very resourceful and incredibly independent.”
— Ruth Mankie
Adoption
In 1949, the society had updated its adoption policy to state that “the prime responsibility of the society regarding adoption is to consider the possibility of adoption for all children in the care of the society and to find the best possible home for each child entrusted to our care.” This policy statement represented an important shift of emphasis in Metro CAS’s adoption practice. As described in Chapter 3, for years the society had tended to respond to requests from white, economically secure but often infertile couples for perfect newborn babies who would appear in almost every respect to be their birth children. Gradually, however, the CAS of Toronto, the Infants’ Homes and other agencies had begun to gain public support for shifting the primary focus away from the needs of the potential adoptive parents and toward those of the children requiring adoption.
It remained a challenge, however, for the society to put its new policy into practice. For many years, potential adoptive parents would continue to demand newborn Caucasian babies of impeccable background. While many of the children available for adoption met this criterion, many others did not.
For many years, potential adoptive parents would continue to demand newborn Caucasian babies of impeccable background.
Nor were they all children of unmarried parents. Many were already wards of the society for whom permanent plans had to be made. These children tended to have special needs or were older, often having already spent a considerable amount of time in a foster home. In 1954, Lloyd Richardson described the challenge some of these children presented:
Peter is an attractive child with a gentle, loving nature but has developed at a slower pace than the average child. Among applicants, we find that adopting a child of limited ability such as Peter is one of the hardest things for them to consider. Children with temper tantrums or with medical problems such as epilepsy in their background are as a rule more readily appreciated than the retarded child.
Mary was born with a severe harelip and cleft palate. The repair to the lip was so skilfully done that it is barely noticeable. The repair to Mary’s palate seems miraculous, for she talks well in spite of the fact that there is a gap at one side of her upper jaw. Nevertheless, while we have been successful in finding ad
option homes for children with allergies, heart defects and other internal deficiencies, a facial deformity has proven to be most difficult for couples to accept. “Mary’s Story” is to appear in the December issue of Chatelaine. Through it, we hope at last to find adopting parents for her.
Mae is an attractive, pert little half-Chinese girl of four. Although we have visited Chinese doctors and ministers armed with her photograph, we have still not found parents for her. Her appearance has been too Anglo-Saxon for some oriental couples and too Chinese for occidental couples.
“Mary was born with a severe harelip and cleft palate. The repair to the lip was so skilfully done that it is barely noticeable. The repair to Mary’s palate seems miraculous, for she talks well in spite of the fact that there is a gap at one side of her upper jaw. Nevertheless, while we have been successful in finding adoption homes for children with allergies, heart defects and other internal deficiencies, a facial deformity has proven to be most difficult for couples to accept. “Mary’s Story” is to appear in the December issue of Chatelaine. Through it, we hope at last to find adopting parents for her.”
— Lloyd Richardson
Adoption workers tried hard to find homes for the children who needed them, including young people like Peter, Mary and Mae, and to prepare the children and applicants for adoption. Nevertheless, according to Jessie Watters, “Workers often found it was hard to convey to adoption applicants the needs of those children who presented a higher risk while facing the perception of the public at large that they were trying to control destiny in seeking to find exactly the right parents for each child.”
A Legacy of Caring Page 15