— Excerpt from Our Children
about society ward Georgie
In the mid-1960s, the society had started a specialized foster home program, supervised by Maureen Duffy, to care for children whose needs were too extensive for most foster parents. These specialized foster homes were recruited from applicants who had child care or some other related training as well as the exceptional qualities required to care for these young people.
A Home Care program was set up to provide extra support and guidance for the care providers of developmentally handicapped children in the agency’s care. Run by Lillian Keys, it taught foster parents how to understand and meet the needs of the child they were caring for and to encourage whatever potential that child may have had.
A 1970 survey reported that the society was caring for 700 children of below-average intelligence (19 percent of those in its care), of whom more than 400 were being cared for in foster homes. To support them, a Home Care program was set up to provide extra support and guidance for their care providers. Run by Lillian Keys, it taught foster parents how to understand and meet the needs of the child they were caring for and to encourage whatever potential that child may have had.
Foster Parent Association
An important development in terms of support to foster families was the establishment in 1967 of the Metro CAS Foster Parent Association (FPA). It was set up at the request of executive director Lloyd Richardson to improve communication between foster parents and the agency, to support foster parents in providing quality care to children, and to improve the community’s perception of foster parenting.
The Metro CAS Foster Parent Association established in 1967 was set up to improve communication between foster parents and the agency, to support foster parents in providing quality care to children, and to improve the community’s perception of foster parenting.
Groups of foster parents, led by Sue Barclay and Lois Wicks, began to meet regularly to exchange ideas, set goals and plan activities. Training courses were established — one year there were 120 foster parents attending courses at George Brown College. Foster parents, through the FPA, now had a voice in decisions that concerned them. They were involved in discussions regarding boarding rates and policies and procedures. They assisted in recruitment, sat on branch advisory groups and board committees and met regularly with staff.
Training courses for foster parents were established — one year there were 120 foster care providers attending courses at George Brown College.
Speaking to the FPA on the occasion of its tenth anniversary in 1977, Ed Watson, the executive director of the day, shared these thoughts about the new responsibilities undertaken by foster parents:
Fostering is in the process of change. We as agency staff fully realize that the expectations placed on you are increasing year by year. The children you get are usually seriously emotionally or physically deprived. We are often unsure how long they will be with you. You are asked to help them with the upset of visiting natural families, sometimes in your own homes. Many are in treatment and you must be a part of the process. As more older children are being adopted you must be involved in adoption placement. Many of you maintain contact with children who have returned to their natural families. Some of you are asked to testify in court.
Where you were asked in the past to accept a child into your home and treat him as you would your own, you are now expected to provide treatment for a few months or a couple of years so that the child may return home to his own family. In many cases, you cannot treat him like your own because he is different from your own children. Often you and your family have become very attached to him and you must sometimes help him to leave before you think he or his family are ready. You are in the business of treating children rather than just loving them.
What this means to you as foster parents and to us as staff is that we must work closely together to provide the best possible experience for that child while he is in care. You must share with us the knowledge and assessment of the child and we must listen to what you have to say. You must be involved with us in planning for the child and in deciding what kind of child you work with best.
A big job? You know it. That is why we would like to salute the FPA on their ten years of giving active support to foster parents, one of the agency’s most valuable and valued resources.
“Where you were asked in the past to accept a child into your home and treat him as you would your own, you are now expected to provide treatment for a few months or a couple of years so that the child may return home to his own family. In many cases, you cannot treat him like your own because he is different from your own children. Often you and your family have become very attached to him and you must sometimes help him to leave before you think he or his family are ready. You are in the business of treating children rather than just loving them.”
— Ed Watson addressing the FPA in 1977
Residences
The society’s philosophy had long been to keep children in the community if it could be done safely and, if not, to place them in foster family care or in group home programs such as those described in Chapter 5. However, institutional care was still required for some children, including those who were seriously mentally ill, developmentally delayed or physically disabled, as well as youngsters — such as those who violently attacked others — whose behaviour was considered too aggressive for most families.
As the percentage of youth and children with special needs being admitted to care increased during the 1960s and 1970s, the numbers in residential care began to rise. In 1972, for example, as many as 105 children were living in various kinds of residences owned and run by the society, while even more — 449 — were placed by the agency in outside institutions. Besides the Receiving Centre and Moberly House, the society’s residential programs in the early 1970s consisted of York Cottage and Horsham House in Willowdale, the Boys’ Residence at 305 Dawes Road in Toronto’s east end and the purpose-built Lloyd S. Richardson Residence in Scarborough.
The Boys’ Residence was described in a 1972 article:
The Boys’ Residence is a Tudor-style country mansion that doesn’t look at all like an “institution.” Set in nine acres [3.6 hectares] of rolling woodsy grounds it has a secluded country feeling in spite of high rises on the horizon and the thirteen boys ages 12 to 18 who live there obviously enjoy their surroundings to the full.
Though the house and its grounds seem rather too grand for an agency institution, they were acquired on a lease basis when [the borough of] East York appropriated the nine acres as parkland over a year ago. The house and an acre [0.4 hectares] of land are leased to Metro CAS and the rest of the acreage remains a public park.
Presiding over this impressive domain are Mr. and Mrs. Corrigan who moved here with the boys in December 1971 after 14 years of supervising the Christie Street Residence (it opened in August 1957). The Corrigans have had great success with their charges and can count more than 100 “graduates.” They plan a program that is both pleasant and structured, with much emphasis placed on schooling. When a boy is ready to leave, the Corrigans help him to find a job and offer support to him and his employer. Many come back for visits after they have become self-supporting, some bringing a wife and children.
“Presiding over [the Boys’ Residence] are Mr. and Mrs. Corrigan who moved [to 305 Dawes Road] with the boys in December 1971 after 14 years of supervising the Christie Street Residence (it opened in August 1957). The Corrigans have had great success with their charges and can count more than 100 “graduates.” They plan a program that is both pleasant and structured, with much emphasis placed on schooling. When a boy is ready to leave, the Corrigans help him to find a job and offer support to him and his employer. Many come back for visits after they have become self-supporting, some bringing a wife and children.”
— Excerpt from a 1972 article
in Our Children
Built on the grounds of the society’s East Branch at a cost o
f $600,000 and named for the agency’s executive director, the Lloyd S. Richardson Residence — or LSR, as it became known — opened its doors on May 21, 1969. It consisted of four self-contained “houses,” each holding six children. A contemporary report described its work:
The program’s aim is to be a temporary home for moderately disturbed children. The staff work toward rehabilitating the children to their own homes or if this is impossible they may move on to an adoption or foster home or whatever is the best alternative. Parents are very much involved in the program through individual and family counselling and a plan of sending children home on weekends has been working well. This keeps the parents in touch and lessens risks involved when the child must return home for good.
The children are cared for and helped individually and in groups. When a child enters the residence his behaviour is evaluated and a second evaluation is carried out when he returns home. The average length of stay is between three months and 14 months. A follow up service is provided as long as three to six months as required after the child goes home.
“The [LSR] program’s aim is to be a temporary home for moderately disturbed children. The staff work towards rehabilitating the children to their own homes or if this is impossible they may move on to an adoption or foster home or whatever is the best alternative. Parents are very much involved in the program through individual and family counselling and a plan of sending children home on weekends has been working well. This keeps the parents in touch and lessens risks involved when the child must return home for good.”
— A report on the opening of the
Lloyd S. Richardson Residence in 1969
The cost of this kind of residential treatment was high — estimated in 1967 at about $12,000 per child per year. The society was uncomfortable with the fact that children in need of institutional placement were not regarded as being just as sick as a child rushed to hospital for a physical ailment. Lloyd Richardson expressed the general sentiment of staff when he wrote: “Treatment [for children in residential care] should be financed in the same way — by hospital insurance. Eighty-five percent of these children are wards of the Crown. Children’s aid societies should not be left with the unbearable burden of deciding which children are expendable.”
By the mid-1970s, however, there was once again a move away from large institutions toward placing children in smaller, staff-operated homes in the community. Three operated as “admission-assessment” homes (where the needs of older children and youth were assessed) and seven as “hostels” (temporary homes for teenagers who could not live at home because of family conflict). At this time, the Receiving Centre and Moberly House were both closed and the buildings converted to non-residential use.
By the mid-1970s there was once again a move away from large institutions toward placing children in smaller, staff-operated homes in the community.
Meanwhile, the society recognized that a substantial number of adolescents who had spent a number of years in care needed help in preparing to live on their own in the community. It purchased or rented a number of houses and apartments as transitional homes, each for four to six youths, sixteen years of age or older, together with a volunteer adult mentor. These so-called LIFE houses — the acronym stands for Living Independently For Experience — were an immediate success and remain to this day an integral part of the agency’s efforts to help youth prepare to leave agency care.
Meanwhile, the society recognized that a substantial number of adolescents who had spent a number of years in care needed help in preparing to live on their own in the community. It purchased or rented a number of houses and apartments as transitional “LIFE” homes, each for four to six youths, sixteen years of age or older, together with a volunteer adult mentor.
Adoption
The changes that took place in society during the 1960s were reflected directly — and dramatically — in the agency’s adoption service. As a result of the availability of the new birth control pill, liberalized abortion and the trend toward unmarried mothers keeping their babies, the agency began to experience a decline in the number of infants needing adoption homes. At the same time, the number of older children and those with special needs was on the rise.
In the 1960s, the agency began to experience a decline in the number of infants needing adoption homes but an increase in the number of older children and those with special needs.
For example, in 1969 — the peak year for infant adoptions — the agency placed 1,239 children for adoption. Of these, 961 were under a year old and only 66 were over four years old. Four years later, in 1973, completed adoptions numbered just 436; of these, only 281 were babies under a year old, while 98 were older children. Sandra Scarth, who worked in the society’s adoption department, remembers:
Traditionally, school-aged children had been considered not only hard to place but generally unadoptable. Those with developmental delays, moderate to severe medical or physical problems, or with mental illness in their backgrounds, were likely to remain in foster or institutional care.
We, on the other hand, felt passionately that no child was unadoptable, but the prevailing attitude to adoption was that it was a service for childless couples wanting babies. Then the Today’s Child column appeared and began to break down that barrier as the public began to see photographs and hear about older children who needed families.
The response was overwhelming at times. The agency began to hear from couples that were interested in adopting older and handicapped youngsters. One of the first placements through the column was a child with Down’s Syndrome. When workers heard how well that placement was proceeding, they referred several more children with Down’s Syndrome. We quickly realized that there were strong adoptive families out there who could provide the long-term commitment and sense of belonging that our children needed.
“We felt passionately that no child was unadoptable, but the prevailing attitude to adoption was that it was a service for childless couples wanting babies. Then the Today’s Child column appeared and began to break down that barrier as the public began to see photographs and hear about older children who needed families.”
— Sandra Scarth
The society was also an innovator in the field of recruitment by collaborating with the province to set up parent meetings at the adoption exchange conferences. These meetings allowed potential adoptive parents from throughout Ontario to see slides of waiting children and talk to their workers. Prospective parents were also able to take part in adoption parties at which they could meet, in an informal setting, children available for adoption while playing games and enjoying refreshments with them.
Scarth and her colleagues in the adoption department also began to recognize that the traditional casework method of assessing and approving adoptive families was not providing the kind of special preparation and support they needed. Starting in 1971, therefore, they offered support groups for adoptive families during the post-placement period, as well as a post-adoption course, in conjunction with Humber College and the YWCA.
Beginning in 1971, the adoption department offered support groups for adoptive families during the post-placement period, as well as a post-adoption course, in conjunction with Humber College and the YWCA.
Medical services
At both the CAS of Toronto and the Infants’ Home, there had been a long history of medical clinics, where children in the agency’s care received specialized medical attention. Now, with one at the Charles Street offices and in each suburban branch, these were under the supervision of nurse practitioners. The clinics relied on the work of sessional physicians and the many volunteers who drove the children in for their appointments and transferred newborn babies who were to be adopted from the maternity ward to their new homes. Maggie Hunter, who became the society’s medical director in 1967, recalls:
Joan Davis, then a social worker, now director of the Central Intake Branch, in the Scarborough clinic
There were a lot more infants in c
are in those days and they had to be seen regularly. At first, we used residents at the Hospital for Sick Children until the hospital clamped down, saying their residents were not supposed to be moonlighting. That was too bad because some of them were really good. So we obtained the services of neighbourhood doctors to come in and do the clinics. They would talk to the foster moms about their sick babies. Mostly they were pretty good, but occasionally the clinic nurses would report back to me that “Dr. So-and-So doesn’t wash his hands from one patient to another” or “This doctor doesn’t think he needs to look into a child’s ears because he says he could certainly tell if they were infected without doing that”! So I had to deal with that as well as make the rounds at Sick Kids [hospital] and see any of our children in there and any of the other kids who might need the protection of the CAS.
“There were a lot more infants in care in those days and they had to be seen regularly. At first, we used residents at the Hospital for Sick Children until the hospital clamped down, saying their residents were not supposed to be moonlighting. That was too bad because some of them were really good.”
— Maggie Hunter
Over time, as a consequence of changes in the child population the agency cared for, more and more teenagers were seen in the medical clinics. For many, it became their anchor. Hunter remembers that:
They were more sexually active than previous generations of adolescents and this created all sorts of problems. We had to treat a lot of sexually transmitted diseases and make arrangements for many abortions. It was also common for us to see teens with addictions to marijuana and LSD [lysergic acid diethylamide, a hallucinogen].
Sheila Reid and a young friend weigh in.
Volunteers
During the 1960s, the number of volunteers working for the society increased by 2,000 percent. One impetus behind this change was the development of preventive services that led the agency to use the contributions of volunteers more creatively. Another was the increasing support and supervision of volunteers by professional staff.
A Legacy of Caring Page 20