I contacted them in September, received no reply.
That's interesting.
A couple of years ago I mentioned my interest in AARC to an official of the Children's Advocate's office. The individual concerned looked at me and said, "Oh, B***n, tilting at windmills again?".
If you look at the history of the CAO you will see that it was formed circa 1987 after the previous office of the Children's Guardian was discredited, in a case where the Queen's Bench Justice had said, "I find the conduct of certain persons in the Department (Children's Services) to be sickening and disgusting." Connie Osterman, the minister, then fired the Children's Guardian and new legislation was brought in for the Children's Advocate.
At all times the office , from within the same department was supposed to be a form of watchdog to address the adequacy of programs by Child protection services. There are some who say, however, that it's real intent is to protect the Department from criticism, and ultimately, liability for the mistreatment of kids who were "in care."
There is the added level to this that the Department farms out much of the responsibility for "treatment" to a variety of privately run institutions, group homes, etc. However, these places ought to be accredited under the regulations. My understanding is that AARC is
not so accredited.
Nevertheless, in practice, the Department with the "Child Youth and Family Enhancement Act" seem to have adopted more of a policy of becoming involved in "family enhancement" without having children designated as having "status". Theoretically, it may be possible that "Family Enhancement Agreements" or "Support Agreements" are brought into effect in a way that allows children's services to support children going into AARC with the cooperation of their parents. In such cases the Children's Advocate
cannot get involved because the child is not "receiving services under the Act," the parent is.
It would seem that under this system, the Department and AARC escape accountability.
It is also worthy of note that after one Children's Advocate said that "Children's Services is so broke it cannot be fixed" he was fired. There is a long history of whistleblowers being fired in this Department.
John Mould has a long history with the department.
Under his aegis, the Children's Advocate's Office has established yet another "separate" entity, LRCY "Legal Representation of Children and Youth". ANYONE, let me repeat, ANYONE believing that a child is receiving services under the Child Youth and Family Enhancement Act and needs a lawyer to represent them can notify the office of LRCY, and a lawyer will be appointed.
So... IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE WHO HAS STATUS UNDER THE CYFEA IN AARC. TELL LRCY AND THEY WILL APPOINT A LAWYER.
but be careful You will have no controll over who that lawyer will be -- and whether they are truly at arm's length from either the Department or AARC