Under the leadership of Sue Bochner, a visionary and a successful fundraiser, projects funded by the foundation enabled the agency to test new treatment approaches, to evaluate existing programs and to initiate public education proposals in the area of prevention. Some of the projects that received funding in the foundation’s first ten years included Creating Together, Jessie’s, the Mother Goose Program and the High Risk Infant Program.
Projects funded by the CAS Foundation enabled the agency to test new treatment approaches, to evaluate existing programs and to initiate public education proposals in the area of prevention.
Creating Together, a drop-in program in Parkdale, provided a warm environment where parents and their preschool children could play and learn together and where children could develop through activities, crafts and play materials. Because of low incomes, high unemployment and substandard, crowded housing, the pressures on these parents and children were immense. The program aimed to help families cope by developing strategies that identified and supported high-risk families before crises developed.
Creating Together, a drop-in program in Parkdale, provided a warm environment where parents and their preschool children could play and learn together and where children could develop through activities, crafts and play materials.
Jessie’s was, and is, a unique service for teenage mothers planning to keep their babies. It opened in the fall of 1981, thanks to the vision of June Callwood, a concerned social activist and well-known writer and broadcaster. The program provides teen mothers with counselling, day care, health, education and other resources and supports an increasing number of teen mothers who plan to keep their babies.
Jessie’s was, and is, a unique service for teenage mothers planning to keep their babies. It opened in the fall of 1981, thanks to the vision of June Callwood.
The Mother Goose Program helped the many CAS clients who were parents of young children and did not know how to communicate with their youngsters, perhaps because they had never had satisfactory communication with their own parents. Initiated and led by Barrie Dickson — who, besides being a CAS worker was also a published children’s author — the program offered parents “an avenue toward imaginative communication” with their children through storytelling.
The Mother Goose Program offered parents and children “an avenue towards imaginative communication” through storytelling.
The High Risk Infant Program
The High Risk Infant Program was one of the most innovative initiatives of the foundation, one which has long since become an ongoing core-funded part of the agency’s efforts to protect high-risk infants without removing them from the care of their parents. It was started in 1982 by one of the society’s nurse practitioners, Marilyn Pearson. She describes how the program came about:
A young mother kept taking her infant to Sick Kids Hospital, saying there was something wrong. The hospital could find nothing amiss, so it kept sending the child back home. I decided to go out to investigate. I found a young mother who had been abused and rejected as a child. Her baby, George, was healthy and normal, although given to irritable crying fits, but his mother simply had no idea of how to look after him. So I kept visiting because I was concerned for George’s safety and wanted to help the mother cope. When George was about nine months old, the mother called me and said bluntly: “You’d better come and take him because I think I’m going to kill him.”
“When George was about nine months old, the mother called me and said bluntly: “You’d better come and take him because I think I’m going to kill him.”
— Marilyn Pearson
George came into the society’s care and never went back to his mother, but the experience convinced Pearson of the need to become intensely involved with high-risk families to try to resolve problems before they became so acute. Before long, she was receiving dozens of calls and had a caseload full of high-risk infants, most of them less than three months old. A new program was born. It started out in Toronto East and Toronto West branches with funding from the CAS Foundation and was eventually extended across Metro. Pearson says:
It destroyed the myth of the typical high-risk mother. She is not necessarily a teenage single parent. In fact, the majority of high risk mothers CAS serves are between twenty and thirty years old, with the next biggest percentage between fifteen and twenty and a smaller number between thirty and forty-five. Most have a partner, although not always the biological parent. Predictably, poverty is a major factor. Bad housing, isolation and stress all play a part, as does, often, a history of sexual and physical abuse.
The nurse practitioners who ran the program offered these mothers a supportive hand — and ear — as well as ongoing medical and practical advice. They visited the mothers and their babies frequently — daily and on weekends, if necessary — to assess the infants’ growth, development and health, to assess the mothers’ parenting capacity, and to teach parenting skills.
The high risk infant nurse practitioners visited mothers and their babies frequently — daily and on weekends, if necessary — to assess the infants’ growth, development and health, to assess the mothers’ parenting capacity, and to teach parenting skills.
While not all cases were a success, most were. One example was the twenty-three-year-old mother who lived with her partner in a cellar in a downtown rooming house. There were open drains in the floor. The baby had a crib, but his mother kept him in her bed at night because she was afraid of the rats that emerged from the drains. She had no working refrigerator and could not afford formula. Pearson visited the family on a daily basis, fully expecting she would eventually have to apprehend the child. However, as she recalls:
We got the mom a new fridge and paid for formula and had to bail her out of trouble a few more times, but she turned out to be a great mother. She had a second child, and both youngsters did well. She became very good with the kids. She just needed to have someone show her where to look for help.
Sexual abuse
It was only in the early 1980s that Canadians began to appreciate that more children were victims of sexual abuse than had been previously suspected. Until this time, the prevailing view had been that children were more likely to be sexually abused by strangers than by members of their own family, and that the numbers of such sexually abused children were relatively few.
Until the early 1980s, the prevailing view had been that children were more likely to be sexually abused by strangers than by members of their own family, and that the numbers of such sexually abused children were relatively few.
At Metro CAS, where nobody denied that sexual abuse was a very real and complex problem, understanding of the issues and how to deal with them was limited.
Through a series of outspoken presentations to agency staff, Alexander Zaphiris, a professor of social work at the University of Houston, helped to breach the wall of silence that surrounded incest. He emphasized that most instances of child sexual abuse occurred in the family home, that the father or another close relative was usually the perpetrator and that, although more girls than boys were victims, a significant number of boys often suffered the experience of being sexually abused by family members.
(Subsequently, in 1984, the report of the federal Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youth — the Badgeley Report — estimated that “sometime during their lives, about one in two females and one in three males have been victims of one or more unwanted sexual acts. About four in five had first been committed against these persons when they were children or youths.”)
“Sometime during their lives, about one in two females and one in three males have been victims of one or more unwanted sexual acts. About four in five had first been committed against these persons when they were children or youths.”
— The Badgley Report, 1984
In 1981, Metropolitan Toronto chairman Paul Godfrey established a Special Committee on Child Abuse. Under the professional leadership of former Metro CAS community worker Lorna Gran
t, the committee decided to focus specifically on sexual abuse. Its approach was to develop a coordinated community program to address the sexual abuse of children, similar to one that had been pioneered in California by Henry Giaretto.
The achievement of the Special Committee and of the agencies represented on it — which ranged from children’s aid societies and school boards to the police and Crown attorneys — was truly remarkable. It put in place a joint CAS–police protocol for the investigation of every case of child sexual abuse. Each organization designated sexual abuse specialists, all of whom took the same training together. Crisis support groups were developed for children and adults involved in the painful experience of disclosure, and a creative prevention play was performed in schools to educate children about the problem.
Marcellina Mian, at that time the director of the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Program at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children, recalls:
In 1982, a group of us from Toronto, including Lorna Grant, Joan Davis from Metro CAS and me, went to Henry Giaretto’s program in San Jose, California, for training on sexual abuse. This was a time when little was known about how much of an issue this would be for our community, but we were prepared to take steps to address it.
We learned that children should be believed when they make a disclosure of abuse but that that belief cannot be blind. We learned about false allegations and false recantations. We learned about the role of custody and access disputes in allegations of sexual abuse and we learned about recurrent and ongoing allegations of abuse and the difficulties that these can create for all systems involved.
We also found out that not paying attention to physical abuse and neglect while concentrating on sexual abuse can have devastating consequences, and that some of the techniques we learned in the investigations of sexual abuse, such as interviewing other siblings, can be very useful in the investigation of other forms of maltreatment.
On our return, we worked to develop a protocol for an integrated response to the sexual abuse of children. Metro CAS was very much involved in that and, to this day, we have worked together on so many cases and so many issues.
“In 1982, a group of us from Toronto, including Loma Grant, Joan Davis from Metro CAS and me, went to Henry Giaretto’s program in San Jose, California for training on sexual abuse. This was a time when little was known about how much of an issue this would be for our community but we were prepared to take steps to address it.”
— Marcellina Mian
These developments improved the community’s response to child sexual abuse, and Metro CAS found itself better able to protect children from sexual abuse, investigate allegations of child sexual abuse and introduce more programs to treat those young people who had the misfortune to be sexually abused. The increase in the agency’s workload brought about by the new approaches was significant. Workers, nevertheless, realized that the changes gave hope to thousands of the city’s children and undertook the various tasks involved with enthusiasm.
The establishment in 1985 of the Toronto Street Youth Program addressed another aspect of the sexual exploitation of children. Funded by a designated grant from MCSS, it was designed as the first phase of a three-part treatment program for adolescents under sixteen years of age who were involved in — or were at risk of becoming involved in — prostitution. The police or children’s aid workers would refer young people to a short-term reception centre and safe place located at Metro CAS’s Moberly House. Agency staff would then provide them with emergency medical care, crisis counselling and close supervision to prevent them from running away.
The Toronto Street Youth Program was the first phase of a three-part treatment program for adolescents under sixteen years of age who were involved in — or were at risk of becoming involved in — prostitution.
If a youth needed intensive support, she — the program served females for the most part — was transferred to a second-phase stabilization program run by Cassata, a private, not-for-profit youth agency. At Cassata, the youth would be offered counselling, life skills training and educational programs. The third phase was intensive, community-based counselling offered by Central Toronto Youth Services.
Between them, these three components aimed to offer a safe, alternative environment to the dangers of the street. Carol Yaworski, who was the initial supervisor of the Moberly House phase of the program, wrote:
Without exception, these youth are runaways, running from social problems, inadequate parenting or physical abuse. They are usually both troubled and scared when the police bring them in. The girls are given clean pyjamas, fluffy slippers, food and, yes, teddy bears! Not all respond to this homely approach but most react like the children they are — to the caring staff, the good meals and the evening movies. Moberly’s eight staff members feel that they are meeting the needs of their young clients and providing the basis of the good parenting they sorely need. Many phone or visit later. Even those who return to the street know that they can return to Moberly if they need a safe haven.
“The girls are given clean pyjamas, fluffy slippers, food and, yes, teddy bears! Not all respond to this homely approach but most react like the children they are — to the caring staff, the good meals and the evening movies.”
— Carol Yaworski
Adoption
As outlined in the previous chapter, after 1969 the numbers of children placed for adoption declined dramatically as the result of changing societal values toward single, unmarried mothers. The picture changed again in the 1980s because, in this era, many of the newborns needing adoption came to the agency after a difficult birth or with a family history of mental illness or prenatal drug and alcohol abuse.
One such child, among many others whose story had a happy adoption ending, was Baby Holly. Just before Christmas 1982, she was found, only hours old, lying naked in a pool of water under a transport truck.
Just before Christmas 1982, Baby Holly was found, only hours old, lying naked in a pool of water under a transport truck.
When the CAS and the Infants’ Home were founded in Toronto in the late nineteenth century, foundlings — babies found abandoned at birth — were relatively common. By the 1980s, however, infants abandoned in this way were very rare due to the support services provided by the society and other agencies, particularly to young pregnant women. This is doubtless the reason why there was a tremendous response from the public and the media to Baby Holly’s plight, as described in the agency journal Our Children:
Letters, gifts, money and offers to adopt or foster her poured into the agency and to the Hospital for Sick Children where Holly, as the nurses named her, spent the first three weeks of her life. Feeling that Holly was too identifying a name executive director Doug Barr renamed her and she was placed with Linda and Don, foster parents who eventually adopted her.
“Holly’s first seven months were tough,” says Linda. “She was a sick, frightened little girl. She would gulp her bottle as if starving and then vomit it all back. She cried hysterically for hours, slept for a few minutes, woke and cried again.”
When she was about seven months old, Holly turned the corner and never looked back. Now, as she approaches her first birthday, she is a happy, outgoing little girl with sparkling black eyes and dark glossy ringlets. She can climb stairs and she’s learning to talk. She loves her brother Ian and they play well together with lots of hugging and kissing. “She’s a very special little girl,” says Linda, “and we want to assure all those who took her into their hearts that she is much adored.”
By the 1980s, most of the children Metro CAS placed for adoption were older or had special needs, often because of a physical or developmental handicap. Another change was the increasing number of children of colour who became available for adoption. The agency intensified its efforts to find families for these children from the ethnic and racial communities to which they belonged. This was particularly challenging for adoption workers because adoption was an alien concept in some of these communiti
es.
The agency intensified its efforts to find families for children from the ethnic and racial communities to which they belonged. This was particularly challenging for adoption workers because adoption was an alien concept in some of these communities.
In the meantime, subsidies, which were first allowed after the passing of the Child Welfare Act of 1978, brought the warmth and security of an adoptive family to youngsters whose needs made adoption prohibitively expensive.
The changing times, however, required more progressive adoption legislation to meet the needs of children and the families who wished to care for them. Much of the society’s policy advocacy in the early 1980s focused on this goal, particularly where the hundreds of former adoptees asking for information about their past were concerned. It also became apparent there was a need to provide supportive post-adoptive services to adopting parents, particularly those who had adopted older children or those with special needs.
These issues raised important ethical and philosophical questions. What responsibility did an agency that planned an adoption have? What did the agency owe to the adoptee who felt he or she had not been consulted on this arrangement of their life? To the birth parent to whom confidentiality and anonymity had been promised? To the adoptive parents, who were also promised confidentiality and anonymity, as well as a guarantee that the child would be “theirs”?
The Child and Family Services Act of 1984 resolved these issues. Although the 1978 Child Welfare Act had established a voluntary disclosure registry that released information when both a birth parent and an adult adoptee consented, Metro CAS’s promotion of a more comprehensive system resulted in the establishment under the new act of an Adoption Disclosure Register. Birth families and adoptees who so wished could have their names logged in this registry, at which point the registrar would search for and make contact with the other parties to determine if they, too, wished to have their identities disclosed. If so, children’s aid societies were then authorized to make the information available, provide counselling and arrange a meeting, should the parties wish one.
A Legacy of Caring Page 24