Youth Advocates in Canada

[Anonymous]

Somebody should contact these guys and let them know what's going on.  Children's Advocate Office
Children's Services
Hilltop House
9910-103 Street
Edmonton, Alberta
T5K 0X8

Contact Person(s): John Mould

1-800-661-3446-This is a FREE CALL in the Province of Alberta
780-427-8934-telephone #
780-427-5509-fax #

Bob Rechner at john.mould@gov.ab.ca and Bob Johnson, Regional Director for the South, at bob.johnson@gov.ab.ca

[Anonymous]

These people only advocate for children who are in the custody of Child Welfare.

They don't help kids who are placed into a treatment program outside of the Ministry.

[ajax13]

I contacted them in September, received no reply.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

XXX XXXX,

 

My apologies for the delay in getting back to you.

 

Unfortunately, the issue you bring to me is outside my jurisdiction.  The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate has a mandate only in relation to the children and youth being served under the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act and the Protection of Sexually Exploited Children Act.

 


 

John

[Anonymous]

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."

They still are, but according to Children's Services they will not send their clients to the AARC program, because they are NOT on their list of approved facilities.

If Children's Services are not sending "their" children there, then the Advocate is not responsible to advocate for them.

They all take the stance that if the child needs protection it's the responsibility of the parent. Since parental consent is required to place a minor in the program.

Now that the courts can send children to this program without parental consent and if the province is not required to pay for care. I'm sure the numbers of "court referred" clients is going to explode.

[Anonymous]

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."

They still are, but according to Children's Services they will not send their clients to the AARC program, because they are NOT on their list of approved facilities.

If Children's Services are not sending "their" children there, then the Advocate is not responsible to advocate for them.

They all take the stance that if the child needs protection it's the responsibility of the parent. Since parental consent is required to place a minor in the program.

Now that the courts can send children to this program without parental consent and if the province is not required to pay for care. I'm sure the numbers of "court referred" clients is going to explode.

Just to be clear:
If you subject your child to physical emotional and/or sexual abuse, child welfare authorities would in all likelihood apprehend the child,  and the child would then be receiving services and be entitled to assistance from the children's advocate in dealing with children's services.  

If, however, you place your child in AARC and the child is subjected to physical, emotional or other kinds of abuse, AND you bring this to the attention of children's services, children's services will NOT apprehend, and the Children's Advocate will not intervene because the child is not receiving services under the CYFEA.

So there you have the catch 22 with children's services.  If children's services are negligent in following their mandate, the Children's Advocate cannot get involved.

Seems like we're getting the run-around doesn't it?
Not Children's Services ?
must be Health and Wellness,
Not Health and Wellness?
must be Justice,
not Justice?
Must be Solicitor General and prisons.
Not solicitor General?
Has to be the parents.
That's abuse ---

[Anonymous]

Please forward your experiences to

christine.lemermeyer@aadac.gov.ab.ca

Thank you