Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An analysis of variables in child protection apprehensions and judicial dispositions in British Columbia… Campbell, James Floyd 1991

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1991_A5 C35.pdf [ 15.86MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098421.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098421-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098421-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098421-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098421-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098421-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098421-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098421-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098421.ris

Full Text

AN ANALYSIS OF VARIABLES IN CHILD PROTECTION APPREHENSIONS AND JUDICIAL DISPOSITIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA CHILD WELFARE PRACTICE by JAMES FLOYD CAMPBELL B.S.W., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1987 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Social Work We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1991 © James Floyd Campbell, 1991 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of 5o^/A^ lOOJ^jC The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE-6 (2/88) i i A B S T R A C T This study analyzes v a r i a b l e s i n the c h i l d protection apprehensions and j u d i c i a l d i s p o s i t i o n s within the B r i t i s h Columbia c h i l d welfare system. The study was based on a 10% sample of c h i l d r e n apprehended in t o care of the B.C. Superintendent of Family and C h i l d Service i n 1989. I t includes the following s p e c i f i c objectives: 1) To review reasons c h i l d r e n were being apprehended into care and develop a socio-economic and demographic p r o f i l e of these c h i l d r e n and t h e i r f a m i l i e s . 2) To determine percentages of congruence between s o c i a l workers' recommendations to the court and j u d i c i a l d i s p o s i t i o n s at the f i r s t two stages of c h i l d protection court proceedings. 3) To i d e n t i f y f a c t o r s which impact case outcomes and account f o r discrepancies between s o c i a l workers' recommendations and j u d i c i a l d i s p o s i t i o n s . 4. To explore the p o l i c y and practice implications of the research f i n d i n g s . The p r o f i l e of the apprehended c h i l d r e n i l l u s t r a t e d that a majority came int o care f o r reasons c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of neglect by omission rather than abuse by commission. Reasons for admission to care appeared to be r e l a t e d to the age and sex of the c h i l d , as well as family c o n s t e l l a t i o n . In analyzing the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the reasons f o r the c h i l d ' s apprehension i n comparison to the parents' s o c i a l , economic and educational status, i t was demonstrated that children were predominantly apprehended from households headed by parents with l i m i t e d education, low income and/or semi-skilled employment. Single female parents, parents on income assistance, a b o r i g i n a l f a m i l i e s , younger f a m i l i e s , l i v i n g i n multiple dwellings, were s t a t i s t i c a l l y over-represented when compared to the general population. The majority of court hearings proceeded within the time-frames set out i n B.C. c h i l d protection l e g i s l a t i o n . The s o c i a l workers' recommendations to the court were s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated with the j u d i c i a l d i s p o s i t i o n s at the i n i t i a l presentation to the court, and only s l i g h t l y less so at the protection hearing. Whether the parents attended court and had l e g a l counsel played a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n influencing the court's d i s p o s i t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y at the protection hearing. J u d i c i a l support for the s o c i a l workers' recommendations varied depending on the order sought, the highest percentage of agreement being when s o c i a l workers recommended the c h i l d be i n parental care, and the lowest when recommending the c h i l d become a permanent ward. The thesis draws on these research findings, concluding with research and p o l i c y recommendations to f a c i l i t a t e c h i l d protection practice i n B r i t i s h Columbia. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT . . . . . i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i v LIST OF TABLES x i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT x i v CHAPTER 1 . . . . 1 OVERVIEW OF ISSUES TO BE RESEARCHED 1 INTRODUCTION 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM AREA . . 3 Ideology and D e f i n i t i o n of Protective Services 4 CHILD PROTECTION AUTHORITIES — ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6 Soc i e t a l Awareness of the Problem 9 Prevalence of the Problem: 11 Most Vulnerable Families: a Review of the Issues 12 JUDICIAL FUNCTION IN CHILD PROTECTION MATTERS . . 17 Review of Court and S o c i a l Worker Congruence 20 SUMMARY 24 CHAPTER 2 28 THE EVOLUTION OF CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES IN B.C. . . 28 A BRIEF HISTORY OF CHILD WELFARE 28 B.C. C h i l d Welfare L e g i s l a t i v e History 31 Ministry of S o c i a l Services & Housing Overview 36 The 1988 Ministry Reorganization 38 The Organizational Changes 41 The Post-Reorg Service Delivery System 43 Programs For Independence 45 Services to the Mentally Handicapped 46 Family and Ch i l d Services 46 CHAPTER 3 49 CHILD PROTECTION LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK IN B.C 49 INTRODUCTION TO F.&C.S. ACT AND VARIABLES CONSIDERED 49 Soc i a l Worker's Authority to Investigate and Apprehend 50 TIME FRAMES WITHIN THE F.&C.S. ACT 53 Section 11 - Interim Presentation and Report to Court 53 V Section 11: Documentary Procedures 54 Section 13: Protection Hearing and Temporary Custody 57 Section 13: Documentary Procedures 59 CHAPTER 4 62 RESEARCH DESIGN and METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH STUDY 62 Research Methodology 63 Conceptual Model 65 Research design: Main frame data and Questionnaire 69 Sampling Numbers and Study Time Period 70 Pretest of Supplemental Questionnaire Design 72 Variables 73 Method of Data C o l l e c t i o n 75 Questionnaire D i s t r i b u t i o n 76 Questionnaire Return Rate 77 Cri t i q u e of Supplemental Questionnaire Return Rate 78 Methods of Data Analysis 81 CHAPTER 5 83 RESEARCH FINDINGS 83 LISTING OF VARIABLES AND FREQUENCY STATISTICS . . 83 PART 1: CASE PRACTICE VARIABLES - CHILD FOCUSED . 84 VI Child's gender and age group 84 V2 Child's age at time of apprehension 85 V3 Child's functioning a b i l i t i e s 85 V4 Child's ethnic / c u l t u r a l o r i g i n 86 V5 Child's l e g a l status at time of apprehension 86 V6 Reason f o r c h i l d ' s admission to care 86 V7 Placement of the c h i l d r e n 87 V8 Number of previous admissions to care 88 V9 Reason f o r previous admission to care 88 VI0 Number of s i b l i n g s admitted with the c h i l d 89 VII I n i t i a l plan for the c h i l d 89 VI2 Apprehension month 90 VI3 Opportunity to plan placement 90 V14 Religion of the c h i l d 91 PART 2: THE FAMILIES' CHARACTERISTICS / DEMOGRAPHICS 91 VI The family structure 91 V2 The parent - c h i l d family r e l a t i o n s h i p 91 V3 Marital status of c h i l d ' s mother 92 V4 Marital status of c h i l d ' s father 92 v i V5 R a c i a l o r i g i n of c h i l d ' s mother 93 V6 Racial o r i g i n of c h i l d ' s father 93 V7 Age of head of household 94 V8 Education l e v e l of primary income earner 94 V9 Occupational of primary family income earner 94 V10 Primary source of family income 95 V I l Total amount of household income 95 V12 Type of dwelling i n which family resided 96 V13 Tenure of the family dwelling 96 V14 Length of family's residency i n d i s t r i c t o f f i c e area 96 VI5 Number of bands served by d i s t r i c t o f f i c e 97 PART 3: F.&C.S. ORDER REQUESTED AND COURT DISPOSITIONS . 97 Procedures following apprehension: F.&C.S. Section 11 97 VI Stage at which M.S.S.&H. counsel became involved 97 V2 Soc i a l workers interim court recommendations 98 V3 Soc i a l workers recommendation of interim supervision 98 V4 Level of s o c i a l worker's opposition to parental access 99 V5 Extent to which parents were represented by l e g a l counsel 99 V6 Level of attendance by parents at court presentation 99 V7 Number of presentation hearing adjournments 99 V8 Duration of time from apprehension to interim order 100 V9 Same order requested as f i l e d i n Report to Court 100 VI0 Parental consent to s o c i a l workers recommendation 101 VII J u d i c i a l interim orders 101 V12 J u d i c i a l interim supervision orders 101 VI3 J u d i c i a l interim orders denying access to c h i l d 102 TEMPORARY WARDSHIP ORDERS: F.&C.S. Act Section 13 102 V14 Ministry l e g a l counsel involvement i n temporary orders 102 V15 Social worker's temporary custody recommendations 102 V16 Social workers recommendation of a supervision order 103 V17 So c i a l workers recommendation for length of order 103 v i i VI8 Level of s o c i a l worker's opposition to parental access 104 VI9 Extent of parental representation by leg a l counsel 104 V20 Level of attendance by parents at court hearing 104 V21 Number of protection hearing adjournments 105 V22 Duration of time from interim order to conclusion of protection hearing 105 V23 Same order requested as served i n Notice of Hearing 105 V24 Parental consent to s o c i a l workers request at hearing 106 V25 J u d i c i a l temporary custody orders 106 V26 J u d i c i a l supervision orders 107 V27 Length of temporary order made by the court 107 V28 J u d i c i a l temporary orders denying access to c h i l d 107 SUMMARY OF FREQUENCY FINDINGS 108 Part 1: Case Pract i c e Variables - C h i l d Focused 108 Part 2: The Family's Socio-Economic Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s 109 Part 3: F•&C.S. Order Requested and Court Dispositions 110 Procedures following apprehension: F.&C.S. Section 11 110 Temporary Wardship Orders: F.&C.S. Act Section 13 111 Commentary on Court Aspects 113 SECTION 11 - PRESENTATION AND REPORT TO COURT . 114 The Presentation and Report to Court 114 SECTION 13 - PROTECTION AND TEMPORARY CUSTODY HEARING 116 The Protection and Temporary Custody Hearing 117 SUMMARY 119 CHAPTER 6 120 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS 120 INTRODUCTION 120 PROCEDURE FOR TESTING LEVEL OF VARIABLE SIGNIFICANCE 122 CHILD FOCUSED DISCUSSION 124 VI Child's Gender 124 V2 Child's age by grouping, at time of v i i i apprehension 124 VI & V2 Child's age by grouping, by c h i l d ' s gender: MALE 125 VI & V2 Child's age by grouping, by c h i l d ' s gender: FEMALE 126 V4 Child's ethnic / c u l t u r a l o r i g i n 127 PART 2: THE FAMILIES' CHARACTERISTICS / DEMOGRAPHICS 129 VI The family structure compared to B.C. 129 V3 M a r i t a l status of c h i l d ' s Mother compared to B.C. 130 V4 M a r i t a l status of c h i l d ' s Father compared to B.C. 130 V7 Age of Head of Household compared to B.C. 131 V8 Education l e v e l of primary income earner compared to B.C. 132 V9 Occupational of family income earner compared to B.C. 134 VII Total amount of household income compared to B.C. 135 V10 Primary Source of Family Income compared to B.C. 136 V12 Type of dwelling which family resided compared to B.C. 137 V13 Family Tenure of Dwelling 139 REASONS FOR ADMISSION TO CARE COMPARED TO OTHER VARIABLES 139 V6 & V8 Reasons f o r c h i l d ' s admission to care by readmission 140 VI3 & V6 Unplanned apprehensions and Reasons for Admission 141 V7 & V6 Placement of the ch i l d r e n by Reasons f o r Admission 143 V6 & VI Reason f o r admission to care by c h i l d ' s gender 145 V6 & VI & V2 Reasons f o r Admission to care compared to c h i l d ' s Age Group and Gender: a gender-developmental p r o f i l e 147 V6 & V10 Reason of Admission by Source of Family Income 150 V6 & VI Reason f o r the c h i l d ' s admission to care compared to the Family structure 154 PART 3: F.&.C.S. ORDER REQUESTED AND COURT DISPOSITIONS 156 Procedures following apprehension: F.&C.S. Section 11 156 VI & V13 Stage at which M.S.S.&H. counsel became involved compared to s o c i a l worker's opportunity to plan placement 156 i x VI & V2 Soc i a l worker section 11 requests and M.S.S.&H. l e g a l counsel involvement V6 & VI0 Parents attendance at the section 11 Presentation compared to Source of income V5 & VI0 Whether parents had l e g a l counsel at the Section 11 Presentation compared to t h e i r source of income V2 & V5 Social workers recommendation by whether parents had l e g a l counsel V9 & V5 Soc i a l workers recommendation the same as f i l e d i n the Report to Court compared to Whether the parents were represented by l e g a l counsel V9 & V2 Same order requested at the presentation as f i l e d by the s o c i a l worker i n the Report to Court SECTION 13 TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDERS . . . . . . 166 V14 & V15 Stage of M.S.S.&H. l e g a l counsel involvement compared to So c i a l workers' Section 13 recommendation 166 V20 & VI0 Parents attendance at the section 13 protection hearing compared to parents source of income 168 V19 & V10 Whether parents had l e g a l counsel at Section 13 protection hearing compared to Source of parents income 169 VI9 & VI5 Whether parents were represented by leg a l counsel compared to S o c i a l workers Section 13 recommendation 170 V23 & V19 Whether the s o c i a l worker requested the same order from court as f i l e d i n the Section 13 notice compared to Whether the parents had l e g a l counsel 171 V23 & VI5 Whether the s o c i a l worker requested the same order from the court as f i l e d i n the Notice of Hearing compared to the Soci a l workers temporary custody recommendation 173 V7 & V15 & V25 The c h i l d ' s placement at the time of apprehension compared to the s o c i a l workers' recommendation i n the Notice of Hearing compared to the courts' Section 13 d i s p o s i t i o n 176 STATISTICAL ASSOCIATIONS DISCUSSED . . 178 Section 11 Presentation and Report to Court Variables 179 Section 13 Protection Hearing and Temporary Custody Variables 182 158 159 160 161 163 164 X CONCLUDING COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . 185 ORIGINAL ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY . 185 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 191 APPENDICES APPENDIX A 199 M.S.S.&H. DATA VARIABLES AND VALUE LABELS QUESTIONNAIRE VARIABLES AND VALUE LABELS APPENDIX B 210 • PRINTOUT OF VARIABLES STATISTICAL FREQUENCIES APPENDIX C 288 M.S.S.&H. FORMS S1627 & S1628 APPENDIX D. 293 REPORT TO COURT FORM S1217 NOTICE OF HEARING FORM S1200 APPENDIX E 299 COVERING LETTER TO DISTRICT SUPERVISORS COVERING LETTER TO SOCIAL WORKERS APPENDIX F 303 INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH TOPIC & SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX G 318 FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE ACT (1980) BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION x i L I S T OF TABLES Table 1 12 Reasons f o r Ch i l d Protection Apprehensions, 1989-90 . . 12 Table 2 Social Worker & Court Agreement 114 Table 3 Soc i a l Worker & Court Agreement 116 Table 4 VI Child's Gender . . 124 Table 5 V2 Child's age by grouping, at time of apprehension . 124 Table 6 VI & V2 Child's age by grouping, by c h i l d ' s gender: MALE 125 Table 7 VI & V2 Child's age by grouping, by c h i l d ' s gender: FEMALE26 Table 8 V4 Child's ethnic / c u l t u r a l o r i g i n 127 Table 9 VI The family structure compared t o B . C 129 Table 10 V3 Marital status of c h i l d ' s Mother compared to B.C. 130 Table 11 V4 Marital status of c h i l d ' s Father compared to B.C. 130 Table 12 V7 Age of Head of Household compared t o B . C 131 Table 13 V8 Education l e v e l of primary income earner compared to B.C 132 Table 14 V9 Occupational of family income earner compared to B.C. 134 Table 15 VII Total amount of household income compared to B.C. 135 Table 16 VI0 Primary Source of Family Income compared to B.C. 136 x i i Table 17 V12 Type of dwelling which family resided compared to B.C137 Table 18 V13 Family Tenure of Dwelling . . 139 Table 19 V6 & V8 Reasons f o r c h i l d ' s admission to care by readmission . 140 Table 20 V13 & V6 Unplanned apprehensions and Reasons f o r Admissiom41 Table 21 V7 & V6 Placement of the c h i l d r e n by Reasons f o r Admissiom43 Table 22 V6 & VI Reason f o r admission to care by c h i l d ' s gender 145 Table 23 V6 & VI & V2 Reasons for Admission to care compared to ch i l d ' s Age Group and Gender: a gender-developmental p r o f i l e 147 Table 24 V6 & V10 Reason of Admission by Source of Family Income 150 Table 25 V6 & VI Reason f o r the c h i l d ' s admission to care compared to the Family structure 154 Table 26 VI & VI3 Stage at which M.S.S.&H. counsel became involved compared to s o c i a l worker's opportunity to plan placementl56 Table 27 VI & V2 S o c i a l worker section 11 requests and M.S.S.&H. leg a l counsel involvement 158 Table 28 V6 & V10 Parents attendance at the section 11 Presentation compared to Source of income 159 Table 29 V5 & V10 Whether parents had l e g a l counsel at the Section 11 Presentation compared to t h e i r source of income . . . 160 Table 30 V2 & V5 So c i a l workers recommendation by whether parents had lega l counsel 161 x i i i Table 31 V9 & V5 Soc i a l workers recommendation the same as f i l e d i n the Report to Court compared to Whether the parents were represented by l e g a l counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Table 32 V9 & V2 Same order requested at the presentation as f i l e d by the s o c i a l worker i n the Report to Court . . . . . . . 164 Table 33 V14 & V15 Stage of M.S.S.&H. l e g a l counsel involvement compared to S o c i a l workers' Section 13 recommendation 166 Table 34 V20 & V10 Parents attendance at the section 13 protection hearing compared to parents source of income . . . . 168 Table 35 V19 & V10 Whether parents had l e g a l counsel at Section 13 protection hearing compared to Source of parents income 169 Table 36 V19 & V15 Whether parents were represented by l e g a l counsel compared to So c i a l workers Section 13 recommendation 170 Table 37 V23 & V19 Whether the s o c i a l worker requested the same order from court as f i l e d i n the Section 13 notice compared to Whether the parents had l e g a l counsel . . . . . . . . 171 Table 38 V23 & V15 Whether the s o c i a l worker requested the same order from the court as f i l e d i n the Notice of Hearing compared to the Social workers temporary custody recommendation . 173 Table 39 V7 & V15 & V25 The c h i l d ' s placement at the time of apprehension compared to the s o c i a l workers' recommendation i n the Notice of Hearing compared to the courts' Section 13 d i s p o s i t i o n 176 x i v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT No research i s c a r r i e d out i n i s o l a t i o n , and the f a c t that t h i s study was completed supports t h i s premise. A number of people have played s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e s i n the creation and completion of the study. This project could not have been possible without the support and cooperation of the Ministry of S o c i a l Services and Housing. L e s l i e Arnold, Superintendent of Family and Chi l d Service, deserves c r e d i t for suggesting the t o p i c ; Terry Pyper, Assistant Deputy Minister, f o r approving i t ; and Gerry Merner, Supervisor of Soc i a l Research, f o r supporting the idea and supplying the ministry data which was the basis of the study. Fred Milowsky, Regional Director; Jeremy Berland, Area Manager; and the s t a f f of the Port Moody Family and Ch i l d Service d i s t r i c t o f f i c e , also deserve thanks f o r t h e i r support of ray educational e f f o r t s over the years. I wish to express my appreciation to my f a c u l t y advisors, e s p e c i a l l y to Jack MacDonald f o r h i s time, advice, and many recommendations during the writing of the study; John Crane f o r his s t a t i s t i c a l knowledge; plus Jo Rekart f o r l i n k i n g s t a t i s t i c a l concepts to running the U.B.C. mainframe programs. In addition to the f a c u l t y are the friends you make at uni v e r s i t y . Susan Cole Marshall, who "admitted" me to the program, and my "twin" Sridhar Pendakur and hi s wife Susan, who supported me with humour and friendship. XV A s p e c i a l appreciation and gratitude i s due to my s i g n i f i c a n t other, Elsa Felker, f o r her unreserved support and encouragement during the creation of t h i s study. I wish to conclude by thanking the M.S.S.&H. s o c i a l workers who took the time from t h e i r busy schedules to complete the supplemental questionnaire. I t r u s t that t h i s paper answers some of the questions workers have asked about c h i l d protection practice and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p with the court, and proves useful as well as i n t e r e s t i n g . B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 1 CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW OF ISSUES TO BE RESEARCHED INTRODUCTION This thesis t o p i c developed from discussions with c h i l d protection s o c i a l workers employed by the Min i s t r y of S o c i a l Services and Housing (M.S.S.&H.) i n the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia (B.C.). When reviewing varying reasons c h i l d r e n were apprehended and committed by j u d i c i a l order to the care of the Superintendent of Family and C h i l d Service, discussions led to case examples where judges d i d or d i d not support the s o c i a l worker's recommendation to the court and some of the re l a t e d f a c t o r s i n the case. In subsequent conversations with l e g a l counsel on contract to M.S.S.&H., leg a l counsel representing the parents, as well as Family Court judges, i t was learned that the l e g a l profession was also not aware of trends i n c h i l d protection research. Rather, lawyers and judges, l i k e the c h i l d protection s o c i a l workers, tended to r e l y on t h e i r respective i n d i v i d u a l case experiences. A l i t e r a t u r e review confirmed there was l i t t l e research on the degree of congruence i n c h i l d protection decision-making between the decisions of judges and recommendations made to the court by s o c i a l workers. In addition to l e g a l aspects, the writer was aware that B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 2 professional c h i l d welfare l i t e r a t u r e over the past two decades emphasized a close r e l a t i o n s h i p between c h i l d protection intervention and s o c i a l l y and economically disadvantaged f a m i l i e s . Since no recent studies had been conducted to examine the s o c i a l and economic condition of families who are i n r e c e i p t of c h i l d welfare services i n B r i t i s h Columbia, the writer f e l t i t important to ascertain whether t y p i c a l f a m i l i e s r e c e i v i n g such services continue to be characterized by s i g n i f i c a n t s o c i a l and economical disadvantages. In my opinion, t h i s i s an important matter f o r consideration by persons assigned r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for developing c h i l d welfare p o l i c y i n t h i s province, because p o l i c i e s i d e a l l y should be formulated to ensure both preventative and remedial services to s o c i a l l y vulnerable f a m i l i e s . This t h e s i s , therefore, aims to examine both the administration of B.C. c h i l d protection l e g i s l a t i o n and the children and the f a m i l i e s who are r e c i p i e n t s of c h i l d protection and c h i l d welfare services. More s p e c i f i c a l l y t h i s research study proposes to: 1) Examine s a l i e n t v a r i a b l e s involved i n c h i l d protection apprehensions i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n the 1989 calendar year, i n order to review some of the reasons that c h i l d r e n are being apprehended into care, as well as develop a socio-economic and demographic p r o f i l e of these c h i l d r e n and t h e i r f a m i l i e s . B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 3 2) Determine percentages of cases where there are s i m i l a r i t i e s and discrepancies between s o c i a l workers recommendations to the court and the j u d i c i a l d i s p o s i t i o n s at the f i r s t two stages of the c h i l d protection court proceedings. 3) Identify f a c t o r s which could impact case outcomes and account f o r the discrepancies between the s o c i a l worker recommendations and the j u d i c i a l d i s p o s i t i o n s . 4) Discuss implications of the findings, recommend po l i c y a l t e r n a t i v e s , and suggest areas f o r further research. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM AREA In Canada there are two types of l e g i s l a t i o n designed to protect c h i l d r e n . One i s federal criminal law, which primarily serves to protect c h i l d r e n from physical and sexual abuse by prosecuting and punishing adult offenders. This l e g i s l a t i o n provides criminal sanctions f o r persons who t r e a t c h i l d r e n i n ways prohibited by the Criminal Code. The second i s p r o v i n c i a l c h i l d protection l e g i s l a t i o n which focuses p r i m a r i l y upon aiding abused or neglected c h i l d r e n . I t provides f o r involvement of the state i n the family through intervention by mandated c h i l d protection s o c i a l B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 4 workers and family courts. In B r i t i s h Columbia the statute providing these c h i l d welfare services i s t i t l e d "The Family and C h i l d Service Act" (1980). The p r o v i n c i a l government ministry responsible f o r providing these mandated services i s the Ministry of Social Services and Housing (M.S.S.&H.). Ministry case practice procedures are described i n the Family and C h i l d Service p o l i c y manual and the Inter-ministry C h i l d Abuse Handbook. C h i l d protection case p r a c t i c e standards i n B.C. were being developed under the guidance of the Superintendent of Family and C h i l d Service at the time of t h i s research. These standards became part of Family and C h i l d Services p o l i c y on June 1st, 1991. Ideology and D e f i n i t i o n of Protective Services The following discussion of protective services i s based l a r g e l y on the work of A l f r e d Kadushin and Judith A. Martin i n t h e i r 4th e d i t i o n of C h i l d Welfare Services. 1988. The Children's D i v i s i o n of the American Humane Association, a national standard s e t t i n g body fo r American c h i l d protective agencies, has defined "protective s e r v i c e " as a s p e c i a l i z e d child-welfare "service to neglected, abused, exploited, or rejected c h i l d r e n " . The focus of the service " i s preventive and non-punitive and i s geared toward r e h a b i l i t a t i o n through i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and treatment of the motivating factors which underlie" the problem (DeFrancis, B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 5 1955). Protective service i s : based on law and i s supported by community standards. I t s purpose i s protection of ch i l d r e n through strengthening the home or, f a i l i n g that, making plans f o r t h e i r care and custody through the courts. [It i s ] a service on behalf of c h i l d r e n undertaken by an agency upon r e c e i p t of information which indicates that parental r e s p o n s i b i l i t y toward those c h i l d r e n i s not being e f f e c t i v e l y met (Canadian Welfare Council,1954). The problems of concern to protective agencies a r i s e from s i g n i f i c a n t parental inadequacy i n exercising r o l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . The parent may be incapable of caring f o r the c h i l d , or unwilling to do so. Under the concept of "parens patriae"(parent of the country), the state has an obli g a t i o n as a "parent to a l l c h i l d r e n " , to protect the rights of the c h i l d . The dilemma f o r the state i s to avoid " i n f r i n g i n g on the ri g h t s of the general parent population while simultaneously insuring the r i g h t s of a s p e c i f i c c h i l d " (Boardman, 1962, p.8). One view i s that parental r i g h t s derive from parental r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n the nature of a t r u s t . When these r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s are u n f u l f i l l e d , the corresponding r i g h t s may be abrogated. The r i g h t of parents to the control of t h e i r c h i l d r e n i s presently regarded as an inherent natural r i g h t subject to removal f o r good cause and i n accordance with due process of law. With the concept of "parens patria e , " a t h i r d party, the court, i s introduced into the parent-child r e l a t i o n s h i p providing the c h i l d with some assurance of outside B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 6 protection and support. The j u d i c i a l power of the community to intervene on behalf of the c h i l d against the parent has ra r e l y been challenged; only i t s extent has been questioned (Simpson, 1962). The j u s t i f i c a t i o n of community intervention i s based on the need f o r community s e l f -preservation. The s t a b i l i t y and continuity of a society rests with i t s c h i l d r e n . Any danger to the l i f e of the c h i l d threatens t h i s c o n t i n u i t y . C h i l d welfare l e g i s l a t i o n r e f l e c t s an underlying premise and s o c i a l b e l i e f that c h i l d r e n are of value and deserve protection by society. The protection of c h i l d r e n from harm (whether phy s i c a l , mental or moral) i s , l i k e education and maintenance, a primary function of parenthood. English common law, from which most English-Canadian law has sprung, defines i t as a parental duty. When parents f a i l or neglect to perform t h i s primary function, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r protection devolves upon the state i n i t s character as "parens patriae". CHILD PROTECTION AUTHORITIES — ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES P r o v i n c i a l c h i l d welfare laws e s t a b l i s h a system f o r state intervention into the privacy of the family i n circumstances where the caretakers are unable or unwilling to provide a minimum standard of care. In each province there i s a government-sanctioned authority which i s charged B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 7 with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r enforcing c h i l d welfare l e g i s l a t i o n . This authority has the duty to investigate cases where i t i s reasonably suspected that a c h i l d i s i n need of protection, and i f necessary, provide appropriate protective and preventive services to the c h i l d and h i s family. In B r i t i s h Columbia t h i s mandate i s c a r r i e d out by the Ministry of S o c i a l Services and Housing (M.S.S.&H.). Ch i l d protective agencies intervene when the c h i l d ' s parents are unable or u n w i l l i n g to discharge t h e i r parental r o l e e f f e c t i v e l y , and when t h i s constitutes an actual danger to the normal phy s i c a l , emotional, or s o c i a l development of the c h i l d . Although statutory d e f i n i t i o n s d i f f e r from j u r i s d i c t i o n to j u r i s d i c t i o n as to when a c h i l d may be deemed to be i n need of protection, they generally include most of the following (Katz, Howe, McGrath, 1975): 1. Physical abuse. 2. Mainourishment; poor c l o t h i n g ; lack of proper s h e l t e r , sleeping arrangements, or parental supervision. This includes " f a i l u r e to t h r i v e " syndrome, which describes infants who f a i l to grow and develop at a normal rate . 3. Denial of e s s e n t i a l medical care. 4. F a i l u r e to insure that the c h i l d attends school r e g u l a r l y (not included i n present B.C. c h i l d protection l e g i s l a t i o n ) . 5. E x p l o i t a t i o n , overwork. 6. Exposure to unwholesome or demoralizing circumstances. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 8 Sexual abuse. Emotional abuse and neglect, involving denial of the normal experiences that permit a c h i l d to f e e l loved, wanted, secure, and worthy. These general s i t u a t i o n s , i n e f f e c t , break down int o two major categories: overt or abuse by commission (eg. physical and/or sexual abuse), and neglect or omission to provide the c h i l d with a minimum standard of care of one kind or another. As c h i l d protection agencies operate on the basis of delegated authority, they may invoke l e g a l sanctions to protect the c h i l d and h i s or her r i g h t s . L e g i s l a t i v e l y mandated c h i l d welfare agencies are viewed by themselves, by other agencies, and by the c l i e n t group as being the agency with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r invoking such sanctions. Protective services are also d i s t i n c t i v e i n that a time element i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y involved i n service d e l i v e r y . Investigations have to be made within a short period of time a f t e r the report of maltreatment i s received. The new B.C. p o l i c y standards require that: "When a complaint i s received, an i n v e s t i g a t i o n must be commenced immediately to determine whether the c h i l d ' s safety i s endangered and whether Ministry service or intervention i s required to protect the c h i l d " (M.S.S.&H. Family and C h i l d Services p o l i c y manual Volume 2, p.6.4.1; June 1, 1991). The 7. 8. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 9 standards, and the f a c t that the court may eventually be involved, require that a l l information from the complaint and the r e s u l t i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n be documented by c h i l d protection s o c i a l workers with an awareness of what i s acceptable and necessary to meet l e g a l requirements of proof. The involvement of the state as a party to the l e g a l proceeding, a proceeding which i s designed i n part to provide j u d i c i a l approval f o r s p e c i f i c state interventions, distinguishes the c h i l d welfare process from the family custody dispute where the state i s not a party. A c h i l d welfare proceeding represents the manifestation of public r e s p o n s i b i l i t y towards c h i l d r e n who are inherently powerless as a c l a s s , balancing the i n t e r e s t of the community i n responsible parenting with the privacy r i g h t s of the parents to r a i s e t h e i r c h i l d r e n as they see f i t . S o c i e t a l Awareness of the Problem There has been a growing awareness of c h i l d protection p r a c t i c e as an urgent s o c i a l issue i n Canada. This awareness has led to two opposing factions expressing concerns. One focuses attention on the apprehension of c h i l d r e n i n circumstances where i t i s alleged that c h i l d protection a u t h o r i t i e s should not have been involved. Claims of excessive government interference i n the family are often c i t e d . The a l t e r n a t i v e view focuses on cases B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 10 where a c h i l d has been neglected, abused or has died, and c h i l d protection a u t h o r i t i e s were not involved to the extent i t i s believed they should have been. In these cases concerns are expressed at the f a i l u r e of s o c i a l workers to protect vulnerable c h i l d r e n . Society has not yet come to terms with the dilemma of parental r i g h t s versus the r i g h t of society to intervene to protect c h i l d r e n at r i s k . Presently there i s no s o c i a l consensus about children's r i g h t s and parental r i g h t s i n terms of the exact l i m i t s to the t r a d i t i o n s of i n d i v i d u a l autonomy and privacy. Moreover, tension i s often caused by a broad l e g i s l a t i v e mandate f o r s o c i a l workers to help children and f a m i l i e s which i s often not accompanied by the resources needed f o r e f f e c t i v e s e r v i c e . In no other f i e l d of s o c i a l work do p r a c t i t i o n e r s have the l e g a l authority to make such major decisions, unguided by s o c i a l research, which impact f a m i l i e s as they do i n the f i e l d of c h i l d welfare. The need f o r research i n the f i e l d of c h i l d protection i s recognized by the general public and affected populations. These include the f a m i l i e s who have been investigated, the c h i l d r e n who have been taken into care, the fos t e r parents and r e s i d e n t i a l resource personnel who work with these c h i l d r e n and t h e i r f a m i l i e s , plus Aboriginal bands and t r i b a l c o u n c i ls. In addition, the enactment of c h i l d protection p o l i c y and i t s p r a c t i c e i s one of ongoing discussion among c h i l d protection s o c i a l workers, B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 11 t h e i r supervisory s t a f f , m inistry p o l i c y analysts, and senior ministry executive. Prevalence of the Problem: According to the M.S.S.&H. 1988/89 Annual Report, delegated s o c i a l workers c a r r i e d out a t o t a l of 27,059 c h i l d protection investigations during the 1988/89 f i s c a l year. These investigations and family service involvements resulted i n a t o t a l of 5,697 chi l d r e n being admitted to the care of the Superintendent of Family and C h i l d Services during t h i s period. Of t h i s t o t a l , 3,060 c h i l d r e n were brought into care by j u d i c i a l order i n response to protective concerns r e g i s t e r e d by an apprehending s o c i a l worker. The remaining 2,637 chi l d r e n came into care through voluntary agreement with t h e i r guardians f o r short term care, r e s p i t e , or s p e c i a l care. The M.S.S.&H. Annual Report also records that a t o t a l of 12,219 ch i l d r e n were i n the care of the Mi n i s t r y during the f i s c a l year and 6,522 c h i l d r e n were discharged from care. On March 31, 1989, the number of c h i l d r e n i n care i n B r i t i s h Columbia was 6,376. This study w i l l report the r e s u l t s of research focused on a representative sample of B.C. children apprehended into care through the Family Court system during the 1989 calendar year. Reasons f o r c h i l d protection apprehensions are described i n the Family and Chi l d Services Act Section 1 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 12 subsections (a),(b),(c),(d) & (e). These may be categorized i n nine subgroups with the numbers of c h i l d r e n apprehended i n each case as follows: Table 1 Reasons f o r C h i l d Protection Apprehensions. 1989-90 Section A Section B Section C Section D Section E Category Number Physical Abuse 585 • Sexual Abuse 247 . Neglect by Parent(s) 465 , Abandonment 310 Death of Caregiver(non FRA) 12 Absence of Parent(s) 392 D i s a b i l i t y of Parent(s) 663 Deprivation of Necessary Medical Care 20 Absent from Home & Endangered 366 , o 0 l TOTAL = 3060 Most Vulnerable Families: a Review of the Issues Certain groups of people i n our society are at greater r i s k f o r l i v i n g i n poverty than others; they are also at greater r i s k of re q u i r i n g c h i l d welfare se r v i c e s . Three groups i n p a r t i c u l a r experience very high rates of poverty, female-led sing l e parent f a m i l i e s , a b o r i g i n a l f a m i l i e s , as well as f a m i l i e s with a mentally or p h y s i c a l l y disabled member. Children i n these f a m i l i e s "...face the highest B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 13 r i s k of being separated from t h e i r parents and placed i n substitute care" (National Council of Welfare, 1979, p.6). A number of e a r l i e r Canadian studies demonstrated r a c i a l and socio-economic biases i n c h i l d protection apprehensions i n Canada and B r i t i s h Columbia (MacDonald, 1979; Amacher & Mair, 1979; Matheson & Neave 1967, 1971; Chan, 1982). In 1980 Hepworth estimated that 1.35% of a l l c h i l d r e n i n Canada were i n c h i l d protection care. Of these, approximately 15,000 were native c h i l d r e n (including status Indians, non-status Indians and Metis) comprising almost 20% of the t o t a l . The 1978-79 study by Kloh-Ann Amacher and Ken Mair provided a d d i t i o n a l confirmation that native Indian childre n comprised a disproportionate percentage of B.C. children i n care, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the Vancouver downtown and east-side areas. In addition, f a m i l i e s of these apprehended children tended to be poor and unemployed with 90% on income assistance, and l i v i n g i n substandard accommodation. The most disturbing f a c t was that 82.25% of the native c h i l d r e n taken into care, remained i n care or were re-admitted to care a f t e r a short period at home. According to figures compiled by M.S.S.&H. (Family and Chi l d Service Factbook, September, 1989) native c h i l d r e n comprised approximately one-third of a l l c h i l d r e n i n care i n B.C. (in care by agreement, under apprehension, or permanent wards). Of the 6,110 ch i l d r e n i n care of the Ministry i n September 1989, 2,019 or 33%, were abo r i g i n a l c h i l d r e n B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 14 (status Indian, non-status Indian, and Metis) i n contrast to the f a c t that persons of native ancestry comprise approximately 3% of the B.C. population. These s t a t i s t i c s demonstrate that h i s t o r i c a l l y and currently, a disproportionate number of B.C. native Indian children are removed from t h e i r f a m i l i e s . I t substantiates concerns that native people have expressed about the e f f e c t s of c h i l d welfare services on t h e i r f a m i l i e s and c h i l d r e n . Jack MacDonald, professor at U.B.C. School of S o c i a l Work, commenting on the Amacher-Mair study, noted that apprehension was "often accompanied by a rapid and accelerating d e t e r i o r a t i o n i n the functioning of the mothers" (1977, p.7). Once removed, native c h i l d r e n were frequently placed i n the care of non-native f a m i l i e s . Moreover, native c h i l d r e n remained i n care, separated from t h e i r f a m i l i e s and communities longer than other c h i l d r e n i n the c h i l d welfare system (Amacher-Mair, 1979). I t appears native c h i l d r e n become victims rather than b e n e f i c i a r i e s of a system that i s intended to look out f o r t h e i r best i n t e r e s t s . Current p r o f i l e s of apprehended c h i l d r e n demonstrate a disproportionate representation of c h i l d r e n from f a m i l i e s with disadvantaged socio-economic status. According to a review by Raychaba (1988), c h i l d r e n i n care often come from single parent f a m i l i e s . "Saskatchewan s t a t i s t i c s f o r 1986 state that 42.6% of t h e i r youth i n care came from mother-B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 15 led, s i n g l e parent homes. ...Ontario agency responses ranged from 31.4% to 75.0% f o r c h i l d r e n and youth i n care from s i n g l e parent f a m i l i e s " (p.26). According to the 1979 report by the National Council of Welfare which examined the c h i l d welfare systems i n Canada; There are two main reasons why poor f a m i l i e s are more l i k e l y than those with higher incomes to use children's s o c i a l s e r v i c e s . F i r s t , low-income parents run a great r i s k of encountering problems that reduce t h e i r capacity to provide adequate care f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n . Second, poor f a m i l i e s are l a r g e l y dependent upon a s i n g l e , overburdened source of help - the c h i l d welfare system - i n coping with t h e i r problems, whereas more a f f l u e n t f a m i l i e s enjoy access to a broader and superior range of supportive services.(p.2) These a r t i c l e s r a i s e the question of whether s o c i a l workers are cu r r e n t l y targeting t h e i r c h i l d protection apprehensions according to objective practices f o r s p e c i f i c types of abuse and neglect (eg. based on r i s k assessment measures), or whether they are predominately responding to l o c a l community perceptions of f a m i l i e s believed most l i k e l y to engage i n abuse or neglect of c h i l d r e n . In addition, poor f a m i l i e s are more vulnerable to greater public scrutiny, perhaps accounting i n part f o r the f a c t that they are over-represented amongst c h i l d welfare c l i e n t s (Ryerse, 1990). A d i f f e r e n t approach was taken by Gerry Merner, a researcher f o r M.S.S.&H., i n h i s "Predictive Model of Children-In-Care Caseloads" study (1985). He found that 99.05% of the variance i n B.C. s o c i a l worker c h i l d welfare B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 16 caseloads h i s t o r i c a l l y have been a response to demographics. A l i n e a r model was developed, based on the observation that c h i l d r e n of d i f f e r e n t ages have d i f f e r e n t p r o b a b i l i t i e s of coming into care. This approach holds that the c h i l d - i n -care population i s r e f l e c t i v e of the percentages and d i s t r i b u t i o n of childr e n i n various age groupings i n the general population. His research reviewed the general p r o f i l e of s o c i a l worker caseloads over a 50 year period, the years 1921 through 1983. Gerry Merner's p r e d i c t i o n was that B.C. s o c i a l worker caseloads would reduce i n numbers during the 1980s due to the higher percentage of teenagers i n the p r o v i n c i a l population; then s t a r t i n g i n 1988 i t would begin to increase and by the year 2000 s h i f t to caseloads predominantly made up of infants and toddlers (based on an "echo-baby boom" i n the 1990s). While t h i s model demonstrated t o t a l numbers of ch i l d r e n i n care over time, i t d i d not explain the s h i f t i n g percentages of ethnic groups which make up B.C. society and the disproportionate numbers of some ethnic c h i l d r e n i n care throughout the f i f t y years reviewed. A subject also not addressed i n recent c h i l d protection l i t e r a t u r e i s the degree to which childr e n i n B.C. are disproportionately apprehended i n comparison to the general c h i l d population i n r e l a t i o n to factors of gender, developmental age, s o c i a l c l a s s , family structure, parental occupation and geographic l o c a t i o n . Although several B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 17 studies have been completed i n B.C. i n the past decade ( i e . Albert Chan's M.S.W. t h e s i s , 1982) the l a s t study that considered these factors on a p r o v i n c i a l basis was a Master of S o c i a l Work thesis completed by Ken Matheson and Davis Neave i n 1967. JUDICIAL FUNCTION IN CHILD PROTECTION MATTERS The other major component i n society's response to c h i l d abuse and neglect i s the court system. The court's function i s both to prevent undue state interference i n the l i v e s of f a m i l i e s and to order ongoing intervention when needed. The court generally has four options. I t can, f o r example, dismiss a case, order a temporary or permanent change i n custody from the parents to the state, or require the state to provide services to parents and the parents to accept these services. A v a r i e t y of complex h i s t o r i c a l factors have re s u l t e d i n family courts having broad powers to exercise both "therapeutic" and " j u d i c i a l " functions (Horowitz, 1977; Ryerson, 1978; Cox & Cox, 1984). The hearing i t s e l f i s c i v i l i n nature, both i n procedure and i n terms of the necessary evidentiary burden. The l a t t e r i s the "balance of p r o b a b i l i t i e s " although, t y p i c a l of the inconsistency i n t h i s area of the law, there are varying j u r i d i c a l opinions B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 18 on the degree of proof that i s required within the parameters of the c i v i l proceeding, depending on the nature of the r e l i e f pursued by the state, and a determination of what i s i n the best i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d . Pressures which lead to a committal order with a l l of i t s future implications are extremely complex and diverse. I t i s not simply a question of deciding which of two parents are better able to care f o r a c h i l d as i n a family custody matter. The judge i n a c h i l d welfare proceeding must make a far more d i f f i c u l t assessment of whether the q u a l i t y of parenting has f a l l e n below a nebulous community standard to the point that the c h i l d would be better o f f i n a f o s t e r , group home, or other substitute care. The B r i t i s h Columbia Family and C h i l d Service Act does not provide e x p l i c i t guidelines to a s s i s t the exercise of j u d i c i a l d i s c r e t i o n . Instead the issues are resolved on a case by case basis. In a commentary on the d i f f i c u l t i e s that courts face i n c h i l d protection cases, Cox and Cox (1984) noted that the c r i t i c a l values of protecting c h i l d r e n who are at r i s k , while concurrently respecting parental autonomy, are i n c o n f l i c t and any attempt to s a t i s f y one necessarily undermines the other. U n t i l recently, when i t was alleged that a c h i l d had been maltreated, the f i r s t impulse was to attempt to rescue the c h i l d by removing the c h i l d from parental care and placing the c h i l d i n a safe haven. However, a f a i r consensus has developed that pursuit of t h i s B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 19 impulse does not always be n e f i t the c h i l d (Cox & Cox, 1984). Research suggests that c h i l d r e n have been removed from t h e i r homes more frequently than was necessary,, and often without strong j u s t i f i c a t i o n i n terms of r e a l danger to the c h i l d (Hubbell, 1981; Mandell, 1973; K e l l y & Ramsey, 1983). Removal of c h i l d r e n from t h e i r homes can also be damaging emotionally to c h i l d r e n and t h e i r parents ( L i t t n e r , 1956; Mnooken, 1973). A d d i t i o n a l l y , the "safe haven," t y p i c a l l y f o s t e r care, has many negative aspects ( G i l , 1974; Mnookin, 1973; Wald, 1975, 1976). As a r e s u l t , the e f f o r t s of government and p r a c t i t i o n e r s have s h i f t e d during the past decade and i n c r e a s i n g l y are being directed toward the goal of keeping f a m i l i e s together and r e u n i t i n g them quickly i f temporary separation has been deemed necessary. In s p i t e of the importance of the court system, there has been l i t t l e empirical research on the way courts handle cases of c h i l d abuse and neglect. Certain p r a c t i c a l problems have i n h i b i t e d t h i s research. C h i l d abuse and neglect cases are complex, the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of court records requires an understanding of the court system and the law, and the records are not r e a d i l y accessible to the public. There has also been another problem, namely the lack of e f f o r t d i r e c t e d toward developing standards f o r assessing the effectiveness of court intervention. Due to the absence of c l e a r , r e l i a b l e , consistent standards as j u d i c i a l guidelines f o r the amorphous "safety B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 20 and well being of the c h i l d " t e s t i n B r i t i s h Columbia, the determining factor i n the f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n i n c h i l d protection cases often may be based on the background, values and perceptions of the c h i l d protection s o c i a l worker (on whom judges often r e l y ) and those of the judge. Review of Court and S o c i a l Worker Congruence A review of the l i t e r a t u r e on the t o p i c of c h i l d protection s o c i a l workers apprehensions and j u d i c i a l d i s p o s i t i o n s found l i t t l e s p e c i f i c information beyond a summarizing of s t a t i s t i c s . Only two studies were located and both had been conducted by lawyers. One focused strongly on the " j u d i c i a l system's coercion" versus "lawyer's effectiveness" i n defending parental r i g h t s (Kelly & Ramsey, 1985). The second looked at a proposed Ontario model of "Alternative Dispute Resolution i n C h i l d Protection Cases" (Wildgoose, 1987), i n which a l e g a l mediation process could be introduced to deal with non-contested c h i l d protection cases. Ke l l y and Ramseys' (1985) study i n North Carolina reviewed 210 cases of abuse and neglect p e t i t i o n s brought before family court i n 1977/78. The authors found that custody was removed from parents i n 87% of these cases (183), which were "representative of the e n t i r e state c h i l d protection caseload". The 13% (27) of the cases where the c h i l d was not removed from the home were considered "low B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 21 coercion". In 32% (67) of these cases custody was returned to the parents during the time period studied (90 days i n Sept.- Dec. 1978). This group was considered "medium coercion". I t was not stated how long the remaining 55% (116) chi l d r e n continued to be i n the custody of the c h i l d protection agency. This l a s t group was considered to be the "high coercion" group. From t h e i r study, the researchers concluded that a s t a t i s t i c a l trend existed i n the North Carolina data i n d i c a t i n g that "unnecessary and apparently u n j u s t i f i e d removals occurred on a systematic basis..."(p. 279). They found no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p existed between a measure c a l l e d "removal r i s k s " which gauged the severity of the alleged problems, and the exercise of j u d i c i a l coercion. ( J u d i c i a l coercion was defined as the propensity of a court to intervene i n the l i v e s of f a m i l i e s i n which abuse or neglect i s alleged, by removing the c h i l d from the home and once removed, keeping the c h i l d out of the home for a period of time.) They found that "high and low r i s k cases were equally l i k e l y to be removed and not returned to parents" (p. 279). Their conclusion was that problems of physical violence, sexual abuse, substance abuse and abandonment were not, or les s l i k e l y to, r e s u l t i n removal or return of custody than problems r e l a t e d to poverty or status offenses by parents. This study found that j u d i c i a l coercion was l a r g e l y B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 22 exercised as a r e f l e c t i o n of how troublesome f a m i l i e s were to s o c i a l services agencies, rather than as a function of p o t e n t i a l serious or immediate harm to c h i l d r e n posed by t h e i r family environment. I t was suggested that access by a family to an attorney, was of p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t to the c h i l d i n the sense attorneys were able to reduce " j u d i c i a l coercion" and reduce "unnecessary admissions" of c h i l d r e n to state care. They found that one of the strongest impacts on a c h i l d being returned to parental care was the number of hearings that were held. The more hearings, the more l i k e l y that custody was to be returned to the parent(s). I t i s presumed the authors' b e l i e f was that l e g a l representation of parents ensures better screening of c h i l d r e n admitted to care by ensuring a v a l i d case i s proven i n court. However, the authors d i d not address the protection reasons given f o r the c h i l d r e n being taken into custody, nor discuss the e t h i c a l issues of having the c h i l d remain at home where there was a l l e g e d l y some form of ongoing abuse or neglect. Wildgoose (1987) c a r r i e d out an empirical i n v e s t i g a t i o n of 162 c h i l d protection cases i n Windsor, Ontario i n 1981 through 1984. The focus of her research was to discover how many cases commenced by the court process were disposed of and resolved by consent, withdrawn, or required a j u d i c i a l hearing f o r d i s p o s i t i o n . The purpose was to assess the degree of control exercised over the proceedings by the Children's Aid Society and document the lack of B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 23 p a r t i c i p a t i o n by family members. This was done i n order to support the implementation of " a l t e r n a t i v e processing i n s t i t u t i o n s " . Wildgoose reported that out of the 162 cases, over 55% commenced with an apprehension, and i n 72 cases (44%) the c h i l d was i n care by agreement p r i o r to the court a p p l i c a t i o n . Wildgoose also found a high degree of congruence between the d i s p o s i t i o n sought by the Children's Aid Society and the d i s p o s i t i o n order made by the court. In only one case out of the 162 observed was the agency's a p p l i c a t i o n dismissed. In 67% of the cases the d i s p o s i t i o n order was exactly the same as recommended by the Children's Aid Society. In 80% of the cases the d i s p o s i t i o n s granted by the court were s i m i l a r to those sought by the Children's Aid Society, with differences occurring only i n the duration of the orders. Wildgoose also noted that i n almost h a l f of the cases the parents received no l e g a l representation and i n 63% of the cases the c h i l d had no l e g a l representation at any stage i n the proceedings. Although d i f f e r i n g i n focus, both studies found the rates of correspondence between the d i s p o s i t i o n recommended by the s o c i a l worker and d i s p o s i t i o n ordered by the judge to be between 80% to 87% i n agreement. However, there were several shortcomings i n both studies. One was the lack of de s c r i p t i v e information on the types of c h i l d abuse and neglect which were presented to the court. A second was B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 24 there was no descriptive data provided to explain such s i g n i f i c a n t variables as the age, sex, race, or socio-economic status of the c h i l d r e n or t h e i r parents. There was also no explanation of what occurred i n the 13% to 20% of the cases i n which the judge d i d not support the c h i l d protection s o c i a l workers recommendations, nor was there an explanation as to what recommendations the s o c i a l workers had made. I t i s suggested that these are important gaps i n the foregoing research studies. SUMMARY The objectives of t h i s research study are as follows: 1: To analyze the socio-economic and demographic background of a representative sample of c h i l d r e n apprehended i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n the calendar year 1989. The data provided w i l l y i e l d basic information about the age, sex and r a c i a l or ethnic o r i g i n of the apprehended ch i l d r e n . I t w i l l also cover other f a c t o r s regarding the family, i n c l u d i n g the number of s i b l i n g s apprehended, i f the c h i l d was i n care previously, the parents education, employment and income source, and type and length of r e s i d e n t i a l tenancy i n the area. In addition, the data should include the number of parents i n the home at the time of the apprehension, and the type of alleged abuse which was the p r e c i p i t a t i n g B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 25 reason f o r the apprehension. In combination, the data should provide a d e s c r i p t i o n of a " t y p i c a l " c h i l d who i s apprehended into care, as well as a socio-economic and demographic p r o f i l e of the c h i l d ' s family. To analyze v a r i a b l e s associated with decisions by B.C. s o c i a l workers to apprehend the ch i l d r e n and other in f l u e n c i n g f a c t o r s such as: the l e g a l grounds f o r protection r e l i e d on, and some of the circumstances which impacted the decisions made during the j u d i c i a l process by the c h i l d ' s family. These decisions could include whether or not the parents attended court, i f they had l e g a l representation, and i f they consented to the s o c i a l workers a p p l i c a t i o n . To analyze variables associated with the court process and subsequent decisions of judges of the Family D i v i s i o n of the B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Court dealing with the cases r e f e r r e d f o r j u d i c i a l consideration. The decisions of the judges w i l l be analyzed at two stages of the Family and C h i l d Service Act proceedings. The Section 11 presentation and Report to Court; and the Section 13 protection and Temporary custody hearing. The degree of congruence between the j u d i c i a l decisions and s o c i a l workers' recommendations w i l l be assessed at both points. The study w i l l also examine variables B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 26 which may account f o r the discrepancies between the s o c i a l workers' recommendations and the j u d i c i a l d i s p o s i t i o n s . The aim of t h i s study i s to provide information which w i l l be useful i n the f i e l d of c h i l d protection p o l i c y . Current lack of knowledge by s o c i a l workers about apprehension trends may be contributing to r e a c t i v e and inconsistent practices p r o v i n c i a l l y . In addition, the degree of congruence between j u d i c i a l d i s p o s i t i o n s and s p e c i f i c c h i l d protection recommendations made by s o c i a l workers i n B.C. i s unknown. I t i s hoped that information gained from t h i s study w i l l be used i n the development of improved family and c h i l d services p o l i c y , s o c i a l worker education, and program considerations. Since the c h i l d welfare f i e l d i s a major employment area f o r s o c i a l workers, a p o s i t i v e public perception and confidence i n s o c i a l work practices i s of importance to the professional c r e d i b i l i t y of s o c i a l workers i n t h i s f i e l d . This chapter has provided an overview of the issues to be studied, the r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of c h i l d protection workers, and a general d e s c r i p t i o n of s i t u a t i o n s where protective services are c u r r e n t l y u t i l i z e d . I t also explored the family court r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n c h i l d welfare and some l e g a l and p r a c t i c e issues. L i t e r a t u r e on j u d i c i a l c h i l d protection d i s p o s i t i o n s was also reviewed. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 27 The next c h a p t e r w i l l e x p l o r e the e v o l u t i o n o f c h i l d p r o t e c t i o n s e r v i c e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, as w e l l as review the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of M.S.S.&H. t o d e s c r i b e t h e i r p r e s e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and d e l i v e r y systems. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 28 CHAPTER 2 THE EVOLUTION OF CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES IN B.C.  A BRIEF HISTORY OF CHILD WELFARE It i s considered a fundamental value of Canadian society that parents have a r i g h t to r a i s e t h e i r c h i l d r e n i n the way they see f i t . I t i s also believed to be fundamental to our way of l i f e that government interference i n family l i f e be kept to a minimum. As part of t h i s r i g h t , f a m i l i e s are responsible to ensure that t h e i r c h i l d r e n are safe from abuse and neglect. When s i t u a t i o n s occur i n which the care children receive i n t h e i r home f a l l s below a minimum standard, intervention by the state i s j u s t i f i e d to protect the c h i l d from t h e i r family. The o b l i g a t i o n of the state to protect c h i l d r e n from t h e i r f a m i l i e s has not always been accepted. H i s t o r i c a l l y children were considered property or c h a t t e l s . Many of the c i v i l i z a t i o n s of a n t i q u i t y gave parents a t o t a l l y unfettered r i g h t to t r e a t t h e i r c h i l d r e n i n any manner they deemed. Infanticide has been prac t i s e d i n almost every nation and culture since recorded time. The Bible provides examples such as the "slaughter of the innocents" i n the New Testament. In c l a s s i c times Plato and A r i s t o t l e maintained that k i l l i n g defective c h i l d r e n was a wise custom. In early B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 29 Scandinavia a ceremony c a l l e d Wasser weihe was the occasion of a father's decision to k i l l or not k i l l a newborn c h i l d . The Encyclopedia Britannica of 1890 states: " I t i s d i f f i c u l t to say to what extent i n f a n t i c i d e prevailed i n the United Kingdom. At one time a large number of c h i l d r e n were murdered i n England f o r the mere purpose of obtaining b u r i a l money from a benef i t club". The r i g h t of parents to determine the d i s c i p l i n e , ownership, and disposal of t h e i r children continued to be the dominant response u n t i l the 19th century. The a r r i v a l of i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , urbanization, and technological change i n the l a t e 18th and e a r l y 19th centuries was accompanied by new e x p l o i t i v e forms of c h i l d maltreatment. As chronicled by Charles Dickens, young children were forced to work i n f a c t o r i e s i n inhuman conditions or maimed i n order to beg f o r t h e i r parents. While provision was made f o r the care of orphans, f i r s t by r e l i g i o u s bodies and l a t e r by various municipal i n s t i t u t i o n s , very l i t t l e was done to protect c h i l d r e n who l i v e d with t h e i r f a m i l i e s . Ray S. Hubbard's book Crusading for Children (1943), a h i s t o r i c a l review of the Massachusetts Society f o r the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, quotes the following passage written i n 1882 about the l e g a l status of c h i l d r e n i n England: In Blackstone's time, 1723-1780, the c h i l d was considered by the law almost i n the l i g h t of a necessary e v i l . A l l provisions were established B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 30 and a l l decisions reached without reference to the welfare of the c h i l d , who, i n f a c t was not regarded as an i n d i v i d u a l with a d i s t i n c t i v e l e g a l status. This theory of negation was c a r r i e d so f a r as to permit the father to give or bequeath away the custody of h i s c h i l d without regard to i t s mother, at any time i n the c h i l d ' s l i f e or even before i t s b i r t h . I t was not u n t i l the early years of V i c t o r i a ' s reign, 1837-1901, that the mother's r i g h t s were recognized, and i t i s only within a few years that an English authority has declared that a Chancery Court w i l l i n t e r f e r e with the r i g h t s of a father to the custody of h i s c h i l d r e n , on the ground of benefit to the l a t t e r . ("Legal Status of the C h i l d " , International Review, 1882) I t i s 117 years since the famous "Mary E l l e n " case (1874) where an abused c h i l d being held i n a dark New York basement was discovered by a church s o c i a l worker, Mrs. Etta Angell Webster Wheeler. At that time there were no laws i n existence i n New York State to protect c h i l d r e n , so the case was prosecuted under e x i s t i n g laws to prevent c r u e l t y to animals, on the basis that Mary E l l e n was a member of the animal kingdom and thus e n t i t l e d to the same protection. Due to the p u b l i c i t y about the case and the influence of humanitarians who f e l t society had a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to children, laws were enacted throughout the United States and Canada and the Children's Aid movement began. No organized service had been provided i n any part of the world f o r the protection of c h i l d r e n or youth p r i o r to The Society f o r the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (S.P.C.C.) of New York being incorporated i n 1875 (Child Welfare League of America, 1937). B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 31 The l a t t e r part of the 19th century was marked by major s o c i a l reform e f f o r t s . Humane s o c i e t i e s which had been organized i n the 1860's f o r the protection of animals, prisoners and the aged, added the protection of ch i l d r e n to t h e i r programs, r e s u l t i n g i n c h i l d protection becoming a cent r a l public r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . The f i r s t c h i l d protection l e g i s l a t i o n i n Canada was enacted i n Ontario i n 1893 and provided f o r the establishment of Children's Aid So c i e t i e s throughout that province. The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l power of Canadian provinces to l e g i s l a t e i n the f i e l d of c h i l d welfare i s found i n section 92(13) of the B r i t i s h North America Act of 1867 (Now referred to as the Cons t i t u t i o n Act 1867). Under t h i s section the provinces have the r i g h t to make laws i n r e l a t i o n to "Property and C i v i l Rights i n the Province". Although the point has never been amplified i n any j u d i c i a l decision, i t appears j u d i c i a l l y s e t t l e d that l e g i s l a t i o n protecting c h i l d r e n through c h i l d welfare statutes, f a l l s within the c i v i l r i g h t s aspect of section 92(13), and therefore i s s o l e l y within the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n of the provinces (National Health & Welfare, 1981). B.C. Child Welfare L e g i s l a t i v e History The majority of the ear l y B r i t i s h Columbia h i s t o r i c a l material which follows was derived from two documents. The "Annual report of the S o c i a l Welfare Branch of the B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 32 Department of Health and Welfare", V i c t o r i a (1948), and Anna Singleton's 1950 Master of S o c i a l Work thesis "C h i l d Welfare Administration Under Protection Acts i n B r i t i s h Columbia". The more recent information was derived from the Mi n i s t r y manual "Guide f o r Supervisors"(1980) and M.S.S.&H. annual reports. The f i r s t s o c i a l statute passed by the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia a f t e r i t entered Confederation, was the Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Act of 1871. Among other things, t h i s act assigned m u n i c i p a l i t i e s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f or the r e l i e f of the poor, s t a t i n g : " i t s h a l l be the duty of every c i t y and municipality ... to make s u i t a b l e provision f o r i t s poor and de s t i t u t e . " In addition to t h i s , a s p e c i a l government fund e n t i t l e d the "Destitute, Poor and Sick Fund" was established i n 1880 to enable regional Members of the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly (M.L.A.) to provide a i d f o r r u r a l constituents. This arrangement existed u n t i l 1945, when the S o c i a l Assistance Act came into e f f e c t . Concerns about the well-being of childre n i n B.C. l e d to the enactment of both the Infants Act, and the Children's Protection Act i n 1901. The Infants Act provided f o r the le g a l t r a n s f e r of guardianship of orphaned or neglected childr e n to the State, regulation of maternity homes and the care of infants under one year of age. The Children's Protection Act provided f o r the incorporation of Children's Aid S o c i e t i e s to give care to such c h i l d r e n . The Children's B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 33 Protection Act aimed to protect c h i l d r e n from various influences deemed harmful to t h e i r physical or moral w e l l -being. Such harmful influences included not only t h e i r f a m i l i e s but also the environment within which they resided. A neglected c h i l d as re f e r r e d to i n the Children's Protection Act, meant a c h i l d under the age of 14 years of age i n any of the following circumstances: who i s found sleeping i n any str e e t , house or place of pu b l i c r e s o r t ; who i s found sleeping at night i n barns, outhouses, or i n the open a i r ; who i s found as s o c i a t i n g or dwelling with a t h i e f , drunkard or vagrant; or who by reason of neglect or drunkenness, or other v i c e s , to the parents or guardians, i s suffered to grow up without salutary parental c o n t r o l and education, or i n circumstances exposing such c h i l d to an i d l e and dis s o l u t e l i f e ; who i s found i n any di s o r d e r l y house, or i n the company of reputed c r i m i n a l , immoral or d i s o r d e r l y people; who i s a des t i t u t e orphan, or has been deserted by hi s lawful parents or guardians; who i s found g u i l t y of petty crimes, and who i s l i k e l y to develop criminal tendencies i f not removed from h i s or her surroundings; who i s found wandering about at la t e hours and not having any home or s e t t l e d place of abode or proper guardianship (Children's Protection Act 1901 and 1902). The f i r s t B.C. p r o v i n c i a l o f f i c e r to administer the Act was a volunteer, and the p o s i t i o n of P r o v i n c i a l Superintendent of Neglected and Dependent Children was an honourary appointment. He was also the general secretary of the B r i t i s h Columbia Society f o r the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, a representative f o r the English Royal Humane Society and a J u s t i c e of the Peace. Over time the amount of work expanded r e s u l t i n g i n the appointment of a B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 34 Superintendent of Neglected Children i n 1919, which gave greater force to the Act. In 1920 B.C. passed Canada's f i r s t act f o r the l e g a l adoption of ch i l d r e n , as well as the Mother's Pension Act which as s i s t e d widowed and deserted mothers i n rearing t h e i r c h i l d r e n without having to leave home to take work. Two years l a t e r the Children of Unmarried Parents Act was proclaimed to f a c i l i t a t e f i n a n c i a l support f o r the chi l d r e n of unmarried parents. In 1924 the B.C. government established the p o s i t i o n of Superintendent of Neglected and Dependent Children on a f u l l - t i m e basis. The incumbent was assigned r e s p o n s i b i l i t y fo r supervision of i n s t i t u t i o n s caring f o r c h i l d r e n and f o r s e l e c t i n g s u i t a b l e i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r c h i l d r e n placed under l e g a l guardianship by the courts. In 1927 a c h i l d welfare survey by Vancouver service clubs and the Canadian Welfare Council resulted i n more t r a i n e d s o c i a l workers being brought to B.C. and the development of s o c i a l work courses at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. In 1931 changes i n the administration of a l l s o c i a l welfare statutes were made and i n 1935 a separate Children's D i v i s i o n was formed. In 1939 the Protection of Children Act replaced the Infants Act and the Children's Protection Act. I t r e f l e c t e d society's desire f o r more p o s i t i v e and preventative services. The new act also changed the Superintendent's t i t l e from Superintendent of Neglected and Dependent B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 35 Children to Superintendent of C h i l d Welfare. At the same time the B.C. government took the f i r s t step toward assuming r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the province-wide multi-service o f f i c e s which were a feature of the M i n i s t r y u n t i l 1988. This introduced the concept of amalgamating services while at the same time d e c e n t r a l i z i n g s t a f f to the regions. The reasons f o r amalgamation included the cost of maintaining separate administrations, lack of co-ordination, and a need f o r uniform s e r v i c e s . This concept of amalgamation of service was an important development i n Canadian welfare during the 1930's and 1940's, and received United Nations commendation. In 1947 a new government department, the Department of Health and Welfare was established, and the S o c i a l Assistance Branch was renamed the S o c i a l Welfare Branch. The department assumed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r providing services under a wide range of s o c i a l s e c u r i t y , c h i l d welfare and juvenile delinquency statutes. The department also assumed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p s y c h i a t r i c s o c i a l work under the d i r e c t i o n of the S o c i a l Service Department of the P r o v i n c i a l Mental Hospital, which included the C h i l d Guidance C l i n i c , medical s o c i a l work with respect to the province's tuberculosis and venereal disease control programs, as well as h o s p i t a l clearance and welfare i n s t i t u t i o n l i c e n s i n g under the d i r e c t i o n of the Inspector of Hospitals and Infirmary placement. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 36 In 1959, the Department of Health and Welfare was divided into two new departments, The Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance and the Department of S o c i a l Welfare. In 1966, the federal Canada Assistance Plan was established to f a c i l i t a t e f e deral cost sharing of p r o v i n c i a l s o c i a l welfare programs, including c h i l d welfare se r v i c e s . In 1970 the Department of S o c i a l Welfare was reconstituted as the Department of R e h a b i l i t a t i o n and S o c i a l Improvement, and i n 1973 the Department's name was again changed to that of the Department of Human Resources. In 1976 the department was renamed the Ministry of Human Resources, and i n 1986 the ministry was given i t s current name, the Ministry of S o c i a l Services and Housing (M.S.S.&H.) when housing was added to the ministry's r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . M inistry of Soc i a l Services & Housing Overview The Ministry of S o c i a l Services and Housing i s the t h i r d largest government ministry i n the province of B r i t i s h Columbia based on expenditures. According to the "Pr o v i n c i a l Report" (March, 1988) the projected t o t a l p r o v i n c i a l expenditure budget f o r 1988-89 was $11,835 b i l l i o n . The two la r g e s t m i n i s t r i e s were Health at 30% of the t o t a l f o r $3.55 b i l l i o n and Education at 23% or $2.72 b i l l i o n . M.S.S.&H. received 16% of the t o t a l p r o v i n c i a l budget, or $1.89 b i l l i o n . B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 37 Under the Min i s t r y of Human Resources Act (1979), M.S.S.&H. has r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r matters r e l a t i n g to s o c i a l and public welfare and s o c i a l assistance. Within t h i s mandate the ministry administers a range of s o c i a l service and income s e c u r i t y programs. These programs are broadly divided i n the following f i v e types of servi c e s , the f i r s t four of which are provided by f i e l d s e r v i c e s . 1) Income Assistance and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n services, now termed "Programs for Independence", which help people i n f i n a n c i a l need and a s s i s t them i n obtaining, r e t a i n i n g or regaining employment; 2) Services f o r Families and Children, which support f a m i l i e s , protect the safety and well-being of ch i l d r e n , and provide r e s i d e n t i a l programs f o r children-in-care; 3) services to the mentally handicapped; 4) services to seniors including f i n a n c i a l assistance with the cost of p r e s c r i p t i o n drugs; and, 5) Rent supplement and s o c i a l housing programs for persons i n f i n a n c i a l need. For these f i v e ministry programmes the expenditures are as follows: Income Assistance or GAIN Programs f o r Independence, accounted f o r 60% of the ministry's 1988/89 budget, plus an a d d i t i o n a l 10% f o r R e h a b i l i t a t i o n and Support Services. Services f o r Families and Children, which includes services to mentally handicapped i n d i v i d u a l s and community services received 13.6% of the budget, with Pharmacare rec e i v i n g another 10.1% and services to seniors 2%. The Housing Commission received a l i t t l e over 1.0% of B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 38 the ministry's budget. The ministry executive consists of the Deputy Min i s t e r and f i v e A s s istant Deputy Ministers, one of whom i s the Superintendent of Family and C h i l d Service. A l l report to the Deputy Minister, with the exception of the Superintendent, who reports through the Deputy Minister to the Minister of S o c i a l Services and Housing. The ministry i s structured on a regional model. Program support services, which are c e n t r a l i z e d within the ministry headquarters i n V i c t o r i a , complement the regional functions. The province has been divided i n t o 10 management regions, each under the d i r e c t i o n of a regional d i r e c t o r . Regional d i r e c t o r s are responsible f o r the d e l i v e r y of the s o c i a l service and income assistance programs, the administration of which has been delegated to l o c a l area managers. Area managers have s i g n i f i c a n t autonomy i n managing s t a f f , deploying resources, approving contracted services and recommending grants to community agencies. They also coordinate regional and area personnel and s t a f f t r a i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s , formulate budget proposals, handle public i n q u i r i e s and ensure that c l i e n t appeals are properly processed. The 1988 Ministry Reorganization In October, 1987 at Harrison Lake res o r t , there was a three-day meeting of a l l M.S.S.&H. supervisors, managers and B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 39 s e n i o r e x e c u t i v e s . The purpose o f t h i s c o n f e r e n c e was t o d e s i g n a new model o f s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y f o r the m i n i s t r y . The reason f o r the r e o r g a n i z a t i o n was t h a t community needs and e x p e c t a t i o n s had changed. During t h e p r e c e d i n g y e a r s , the c h i l d p o p u l a t i o n i n B.C. had d e c l i n e d from 536,720 i n 1980 t o 517,500 i n 1988. In t h e same time p e r i o d the t o t a l c h i l d i n c a r e p o p u l a t i o n dropped from 8,884 i n 1978 t o 6,406 i n 1988. There was a l s o a s h i f t i n p o p u l a t i o n s e t t l e m e n t from the r u r a l communities and the l a r g e urban c e n t r e s t o the suburban a r e a s . T h i s s h i f t was e x e m p l i f i e d i n Vancouver where the s c h o o l age c h i l d p o p u l a t i o n dropped from 59,511 i n 1978 t o 50,830 i n 1988, whereas S u r r e y ' s s c h o o l age p o p u l a t i o n grew from 29,116 i n 1978 t o 37,540 i n 1988. Another phenomenon has been th e i n c r e a s i n g number of m e n t a l l y handicapped i n d i v i d u a l s who a r e moving away from home or out of i n s t i t u t i o n s and i n t o t h e community. In the 1980/81 f i s c a l y e a r t h e r e were 1,409 community r e s i d e n t i a l placements of m e n t a l l y handicapped persons; by 1989/90 t h i s was p r o j e c t e d t o approach 2,754 placements. S e v e r a l consensus p o i n t s on s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y emerged from the H a r r i s o n R e t r e a t . One was t h a t t h e m i n i s t r y ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b oundaries s h o u l d c o i n c i d e w i t h t h e e i g h t newly c r e a t e d and p o l i t i c a l l y d e f i n e d r e g i o n a l economic zones. Second was t h e c r e a t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l management p o s i t i o n s t o enhance the c a r e e r l a d d e r by c r e a t i n g an a d d i t i o n a l l e v e l i n the h i e r a r c h y . T h i r d , a major focus was B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 40 to separate the ministry into three d i s t i n c t f u n c t i o n a l services: 1) Programs For Independence (P.F.I.) f o r the Income Assistance (I.A.) and Employment I n i t i a t i v e s Programs (E.I.P.) d i v i s i o n . 2) Family and C h i l d Services (F.&C.S.) including c h i l d welfare resources, and 3) Services f o r Mentally Handicapped persons (M.H.S.), including r e s i d e n t i a l and non-residential resources f o r the mentally handicapped. On A p r i l 13, 1988, one month before the reorganization occurred, S o c i a l Services and Housing Minister Claude Richmond issued the following news release: A reorganization of the ministry's d e l i v e r y system was necessary to meet the needs of today's changing society. The number of reported cases of c h i l d abuse has increased. The demands on our income assistance programs remain strong. C h i l d populations have s h i f t e d , not only within urban centres, but throughout the province as w e l l . The government's commitment to d e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n has led to the need to support the placement of mentally handicapped people i n communities where they can l i v e independent and meaningful l i v e s . The most s i g n i f i c a n t change i s from the g e n e r a l i s t to the s p e c i a l i s t approach to income assistance and employment i n i t i a t i v e s programs, family and children's services, and support f o r the mentally handicapped. The ministry has endeavoured to provide an improved service d e l i v e r y system which i s consistent, e f f i c i e n t and equitable across the province. Service to the ministry's c l i e n t s has been improved. I am c e r t a i n that employee performance, competency and morale w i l l likewise improve, as w i l l p u b l ic confidence i n the ministry's services. In l i n e with an o v e r a l l goal of helping people during times of need and a s s i s t i n g them to regain or achieve s e l f -s u f f i c i e n c y , the following ministry objectives were established to achieve t h i s mission (M.S.S.&H. Annual Report B . C . C H I L D P R O T E C T I O N - Page 41 1988/89). 1. To p r o v i d e f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e and support s e r v i c e s t o e l i g i b l e i n d i v i d u a l s and t o a s s i s t t h o se persons t o r e t a i n o r r e g a i n f i n a n c i a l independence. 2. To r e c e i v e and i n v e s t i g a t e c o m p l a i n t s o f abuse and n e g l e c t o f c h i l d r e n and t o p r o v i d e c a r e f o r those c h i l d r e n who r e q u i r e i t , i n a manner which m a i n t a i n s o r r e s t o r e s the i n t e g r i t y o f t h e f a m i l y , wherever p o s s i b l e . 3. To p r o v i d e c a r e f o r and/or support s e r v i c e s which a s s i s t m e n t a l l y handicapped i n d i v i d u a l s t o a c h i e v e maximum independence and t o p a r t i c i p a t e as f u l l members of t h e i r communities. T h i s improved s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y was t o e q u i t a b l y and c o n s i s t e n t l y p r o v i d e s e r v i c e s t o c l i e n t s by s p e c i a l i z e d s e r v i c e u n i t s a c r o s s the p r o v i n c e . These u n i t s were t o develop e x p e r t i s e through h a v i n g s e n i o r p r a c t i t i o n e r s , an i n c r e a s e d c a p a c i t y f o r case c o n s u l t a t i o n , case p r a c t i c e e v a l u a t i o n s , and s p e c i a l i z e d s u p e r v i s i o n . The O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Changes The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e t h a t emerged was as f o l l o w s : t h e p r e v i o u s 18 M.S.S.&H. r e g i o n a l boundaries were m o d i f i e d t o match the e i g h t economic zones, except i n the Lower Mainland area o f t h e p r o v i n c e . Due t o the p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y o f Vancouver and the s u r r o u n d i n g a r e a , the zone was / B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 42 d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e r e g i o n s , b r i n g i n g t h e number o f r e g i o n s w i t h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e r e g i o n a l d i r e c t o r s t o a t o t a l o f 10. F o l l o w i n g t h e p l a n t o s e p a r a t e s e r v i c e s i n t o the t h r e e s p e c i a l i z e d programmes, s i x t y - f i v e a r e a manager p o s i t i o n s were c r e a t e d . R e p o r t i n g t o t h e r e g i o n a l d i r e c t o r s , t h e a r e a managers a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r d e l i v e r i n g one o f t h e t h r e e programmes w i t h i n a g e o g r a p h i c a r e a . In m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s t h i s means f i v e s p e c i a l i z e d a r e a managers and a r e g i o n a l d i r e c t o r c o o r d i n a t e the s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y o f t h e programs f o r m e r l y managed by two r e g i o n a l d i r e c t o r s i n o r d e r t o meet t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e m i n i s t r y r e o r g a n i z a t i o n . I t s h o u l d be noted t h a t i n r u r a l a r e a s o f B . C , i t was no t p o s s i b l e t o s e p a r a t e d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s i n t o s p e c i a l i z e d o r f u n c t i o n a l u n i t s because o f t h e s m a l l e r number o f s t a f f and p o p u l a t i o n s e r v e d . I n t h e s e a r e a s , t h e a r e a managers a r e i n c h a r g e o f i n t e g r a t e d s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y , as a r e t h e d i s t r i c t s u p e r v i s o r s . The f u n c t i o n a l s e r v i c e model a l s o meant a s h i f t i n team s i z e and make-up. The p r e v i o u s l y i n t e g r a t e d d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s averaged a combined t o t a l o f 8 t o 11 p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f c o n s i s t i n g o f s o c i a l w o r k e r s , f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e workers and a r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f f i c e r , p l u s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s u p p o r t s t a f f d i r e c t e d by a d i s t r i c t manager. The s h i f t t o s p e c i a l i z a t i o n c r e a t e d s m a l l e r s p e c i a l i z e d o r f u n c t i o n a l teams o f 4 t o 8 workers c o m p r i s i n g e i t h e r s o c i a l workers o r f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e w o r k e r s , w i t h a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s u p p o r t B . C . CHILD PROTECTION - Page 43 s t a f f . The change i n number of s t a f f members per o f f i c e meant an increase i n the number of service units and d i s t r i c t supervisors from 172 to 262. P r i o r to reorganization there were a t o t a l of 166 integrated o f f i c e s , plus one o f f i c e providing services to the mentally handicapped, two employment o f f i c e s , as well as three day care o f f i c e s serving areas of the province. The reorganization c a l l e d f o r 262 service units c o n s i s t i n g of 103 Programs f o r Independence (P.F.I, or I.A./E.I.P.) u n i t s , 98 Family and C h i l d Service (F.&C.S.) units, 40 Integrated units, plus 21 Services to the Mentally Handicapped (M.H.S.) units p r o v i n c i a l l y . To determine o f f i c e s i z e s the s t a f f i n g numbers were based on the Resource A l l o c a t i o n Committee formula (R.A.C.), determined by X number of s t a f f covering Y number of c l i e n t s , by s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . This r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n has l e d to the s i t u a t i o n i n urban areas where the o f f i c e boundaries f o r Family and C h i l d Services may overlap two or three Income Assistance o f f i c e boundaries. In addition, Services f o r the Mentally Handicapped have been c e n t r a l i z e d f o r each area, leading to a t h i r d overlap. Overlap may not be an issue f o r c l i e n t s i n r u r a l areas as two or three programs are delivered from one d i s t r i c t o f f i c e . The Post-Reora Service Delivery System The following d e s c r i p t i o n of the M.S.S.&H. organization B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 44 focuses on the program areas that are provided by f i e l d s ervices. In order to provide services throughout the province the ministry created 257 d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s to carry out the three main programs: 1) Programs For Independence (P.F.I); 2) Mentally Handicapped Services (M.H.S.); and 3) Family and Ch i l d Services (F.&C.S.). The combination of o f f i c e s a r r i v e d at by May 15, 1988, when the reorganization was completed consisted of the following: 99 P.F.I, o f f i c e s , 19 combined P.F.I, and F.&C.S. o f f i c e s , 12 integrated P.F.I, and F.&C.S. and M.H.S. o f f i c e s , 20 M.H.S. o f f i c e s , 2 F.&C.S. and M.H.S. o f f i c e s , 84 F.&C.S. o f f i c e s , 14 C h i l d Welfare Resources o f f i c e s , 2 o f f i c e s which dispatch s o c i a l workers to outlying locations i n northern B.C., 2 Adolescent Services o f f i c e s i n Vancouver, plus 3 Emergency Service o f f i c e s i n the lower mainland. Since May 1988 the regions have increased s p e c i a l i z a t i o n of the servi c e s , by creating another 13 o f f i c e s focusing on c h i l d protection intake, and c h i l d i n care guardianship as well as adoption. The P r o v i n c i a l C h i l d Abuse Help-line and After Hours Services o f f i c e s subsequently underwent t h e i r own reorganization. The March, 1990 creation of a s p e c i a l i z e d Family and Chi l d Services o f f i c e i n Vancouver f o r Aboriginal people was a recent and innovative organizational development. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 45 Programs For Independence The 130 units providing Programs For Independence are responsible f o r assessing need under the Guaranteed Available Income For Need (G.A..I.N.) Act as well as providing income assistance and employment r e h a b i l i t a t i o n services such as day care and homemakers to c l i e n t s . Income assistance i s provided through three types of G.A.I.N. programs: 1) basic income assistance; 2) G.A.I.N. f o r handicapped persons; and 3) G.A.I.N. for seniors pension supplement. The o f f i c e s are s t a f f e d p r i n c i p a l l y by Fin a n c i a l Assistance Workers (F.A.W.s) who assess applicants' need f o r assistance under the G.A.I.N. Act and regulations. The F.A.W.s provide a basic income to B r i t i s h Colombians i n need to a s s i s t them to become independent and self-supporting with the support of the employment and Reh a b i l i t a t i o n O f f i c e r s (R.O.s). The t o t a l number of s t a f f i n t h i s f i e l d section i s 730. There are 620 F.A.W.s i n the combination of 31 Integrated and 99 P.F.I. (I.A./E.I.P.) d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s who determine e l i g i b i l i t y f o r income assistance. Some of the F.A.W.s provide the s p e c i a l i z e d r o l e of determining day care subsidies f o r people e l i g i b l e under the G.A.I.N. Act and regulations. In addition there are 110 employment and Reh a b i l i t a t i o n O f f i c e r s (R.O.s) who assess c l i e n t ' s employment c a p a b i l i t i e s and a s s i s t them i n taking upgrading courses or employment programs. Another branch i s the B . C . C H I L D P R O T E C T I O N - Page 46 Family Maintenance Program which i s s t a f f e d by 47 Family Maintenance Workers (F.M.W.s), who a s s i s t s i n g l e parents i n obtaining court orders f o r maintenance monies from former spouses. There are also 35 Income Assistance Fraud Investigators throughout the province. Services to the Mentally Handicapped There are 134 s o c i a l workers providing services to mentally handicapped persons i n B r i t i s h Columbia out of a t o t a l of 34 o f f i c e s . The M.H.S. s o c i a l workers work out of 14 integrated o f f i c e s , as well as 20 s p e c i a l i z e d family service and M.H.S. resource o f f i c e s . They provide support services to fa m i l i e s with mentally handicapped c h i l d r e n under 19 years of age through such supports as sp e c i a l needs c h i l d day care, infant development program r e f e r r a l s , homemakers and c h i l d care workers. The M.H.S. s o c i a l workers develop and supervise the placement of mentally handicapped children-in-care i n f o s t e r homes, r e s p i t e care or other resources. They also work with other agencies by a s s i s t i n g with the assessment, planning and community placements f o r mentally handicapped adults. Family and Ch i l d Services The t h i r d branch i s the Family and C h i l d Services d i v i s i o n which i s s t a f f e d by a t o t a l of 758 s o c i a l workers. Of these, 533 are i n 84 s p e c i a l i z e d F.&C.S. o f f i c e s and 75 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 47 are i n 35 integrated o f f i c e s . These 608 c h i l d protection s o c i a l workers are the s t a f f persons with the case r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s targeted i n t h i s research study. The s o c i a l workers i n the Family and C h i l d Services o f f i c e s have delegated authority under the Family and C h i l d Services Act (1980) with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g c h i l d abuse complaints and bringing matters to court when a c h i l d i s believed to be i n need of protection. The family service o f f i c e s are supplemented by another 84 s o c i a l workers i n 14 c h i l d welfare resource units whose function i s to approve and provide foster homes and s p e c i a l i z e d r e s i d e n t i a l placements f o r the children i n care. In addition, there are s p e c i a l i z e d teams such as the two Vancouver-based adolescent services units with 14 s o c i a l workers. Another 42 s o c i a l workers s t a f f the two after-hours p r o v i n c i a l emergency Help-Line centres i n the lower mainland and the duty workers i n other urban centres. In summary, 608 delegated F.&C.S. c h i l d protection s o c i a l workers are employed i n 119 d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s throughout the province and provide the following services: c h i l d protection, family s e r v i c e s , adolescent and emergency services. They also work with minors on income assistance, c h i l d r e n i n homes of r e l a t i v e s , and c h i l d r e n placed f o r adoption or i n group and f o s t e r home management under two programs: 1) family and c h i l d s e r v i c e s ; and 2) supportive c h i l d welfare resources. These c h i l d protection s o c i a l B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 48 workers made up the population which was randomly selected from to answer the supplemental questionnaire. This chapter has provided a b r i e f sketch of c h i l d protection h i s t o r y , including the development of c h i l d protection l e g i s l a t i o n i n B.C.. The chapter also reviewed the 1988 reorganization of s o c i a l services within the B.C. Ministry of S o c i a l Services and Housing and the present service d e l i v e r y model. The next chapter w i l l examine the Family and Ch i l d Service Act (1980) as the l e g a l framework f o r the present de l i v e r y of c h i l d protection services i n B.C. I t w i l l also explain the usage of sections of the F.&C.S. Act i n the research design and methodology. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 49 CHAPTER 3 CHILD PROTECTION LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK IN B.C. INTRODUCTION TO F.&C.S. ACT AND VARIABLES CONSIDERED The Province of B r i t i s h Columbia Family and C h i l d Service Act (1980) (F.&C.S. Act) i s the l e g i s l a t i v e framework used i n t h i s q u a n t i t a t i v e retrospective data analysis (Appendix G). Relevant sections of the F.&C.S. Act are quoted i n order to i d e n t i f y the dependent and independent variables used i n the study. The sections of the F.&C.S. Act described focus on c h i l d protection apprehensions and court procedures. The aspects of the F.&C.S. Act dealing with voluntary custody agreements are not described as the c h i l d r e n admitted to care under those sections were not part of t h i s study. The following d e s c r i p t i o n of the F.&C.S. Act was done i n sequential order to elucidate the steps and stages a c h i l d protection s o c i a l worker follows i n discharging the le g a l mandate, i n conjunction with the court. This sequential format also incorporates the documentation created, p r i o r to and subsequent to each contingent stage. The described documentation provided the M.S.S.&H. data provided for t h i s study from which s i g n i f i c a n t q uantitative and q u a l i t a t i v e variables were i d e n t i f i e d , as well as influenced the design of the supplemental questionnaire to ' B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 50 permit several methods of s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . S o c i a l Worker's Authority to Investigate and Apprehend The Family and C h i l d Service Act (1980) i s a p r o v i n c i a l statute designed to protect c h i l d r e n i n B.C. from abuse and neglect. I t i s l e g i s l a t i o n which attempts to define when the state becomes involved i n the care of c h i l d r e n . When the q u a l i t y of care indicates intervention may be necessary by the state, one of the a v a i l a b l e protective options i s that the c h i l d may be apprehended and removed from h i s or her family environment. Section 1 defines a " c h i l d " as a person under 19 years of age. I t also l i s t s the various l e g a l grounds on which a c h i l d may be found to be i n need of protection. The Section 1 d e f i n i t i o n of " i n need of protection" means, i n r e l a t i o n to a c h i l d , that he f a l l s within any one or more of the following categories: (a) abused or neglected so that h i s safety or well being i s endangered; (b) abandoned; (c) deprived of necessary care through the death, absence or d i s a b i l i t y of h i s parent; (d) deprived of necessary medical care; (e) absent from h i s home i n circumstances that endanger h i s safety or well being; The guiding p r i n c i p l e s of the F.&C.S. Act are minimally s p e c i f i e d i n Section 2 as follows: "In the administration and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s Act the safety and well being of a c h i l d s h a l l be the paramount considerations". B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 51 Section 3 of the F.&C.S. Act describes the administrative process by which s o c i a l workers are delegated to investigate matters of c h i l d p rotection: 3(1) The minister s h a l l designate as Superintendent of Family and C h i l d Service a person appointed under the Public Service Act, and the superintendent s h a l l be responsible to the minister f o r the administration of t h i s Act and the regulations and be the Superintendent of Ch i l d Welfare. (3) The superintendent s h a l l d i r e c t the inve s t i g a t i o n of reports that c h i l d r e n may be in need of protection and the keeping of records of the reports and in v e s t i g a t i o n s . (4) The superintendent may delegate any of his powers, duties, functions and ca p a c i t i e s under t h i s Act to any person or c l a s s of person, and that person or c l a s s of person s h a l l be subject to h i s d i r e c t i o n . Where a s o c i a l worker receives a complaint that a c h i l d i s i n need of protection (section 7) the s o c i a l worker i s required to investigate the circumstances forthwith (section 8). I f , following an i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the s o c i a l worker considers the c h i l d to be i n need of protection on any of the grounds l i s t e d i n section 1, the s o c i a l worker may, without warrant, apprehend the c h i l d and remove the c h i l d from the home. Section 9 describes the procedures and circumstances surrounding an apprehension. 9(1) Where the superintendent considers that a c h i l d i s i n need of protection, he may, without warrant, apprehend the c h i l d . (2) Where any person refuses to allow the superintendent to enter the property to apprehend a c h i l d under subsection (1), the B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - B3ge 52 superintendent may apply ex parte i n person or by telephone to a judge f o r a warrant authorizing the superintendent to enter the property, and the judge may issue the warrant on being s a t i s f i e d that a request to enter the property f o r the purpose of apprehending the c h i l d was denied, and the superintendent may, on r e c e i p t of the warrant, enter the property and apprehend the c h i l d . (3) Where the superintendent or a p o l i c e o f f i c e r has reason to believe that (a) a c h i l d i s i n need of protection, and (b) the c h i l d i s i n immediate physical danger, he may, without warrant, enter any premises, using force i f necessary and, where he considers i t necessary to do so, apprehend the c h i l d and remove him to a place of safety. (4) Where a p o l i c e o f f i c e r apprehends a c h i l d under subsection (3), he s h a l l immediately report the matter to the superintendent, and the superintendent s h a l l assume custody of the c h i l d . (5) Where a c h i l d has been apprehended and before a report i s presented to the court under section 11, the superintendent may, i f s a t i s f i e d that continued custody i s unnecessary, return the c h i l d to the parent apparently e n t i t l e d to custody. When the c h i l d has been.apprehended, the s o c i a l worker may return the c h i l d to the care of the parent(s), or place the c h i l d i n an approved c h i l d care resource, pending the report to court within seven days (sections 9(5) and 16(1)). Whichever of the foregoing options the s o c i a l worker chooses, the c h i l d i s subject to the guar d i a n s h i p o f the p r o v L n c ^ of Family and C h i l d Service u n t i l the case i s formally dealt with by a judge of the P r o v i n c i a l B . C . C H I L D PROTECTION - Page 53 Court, Family D i v i s i o n (section 10). Where a c h i l d i s returned to h i s parents pending a f u l l protection hearing, or found by a judge to be i n need of protection but returned to the parents, the superintendent r e t a i n s a d i s c r e t i o n to supervise the parents 7 care of the c h i l d (sections 11(3) & 13(2)). Where a c h i l d has been committed temporarily to the custody of the superintendent, the court may also authorize parental v i s i t a t i o n of the c h i l d . TIME FRAMES WITHIN THE F.&C.S. ACT Section 11 - Interim Presentation and Report to Court When a c h i l d has been apprehended following a protection i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the F.&C.S. Act requires the superintendent to present a written report to the court within 7 days. Section 11(1) states that "where a c h i l d i s apprehended, the Superintendent s h a l l , not l a t e r than 7 days a f t e r the apprehension and whether or not the c h i l d i s s t i l l i n h is custody, present a written report to court". Section 11(2) goes on to state that on presentation of the report, the court must determine whether the c h i l d should be returned to the parents or remain i n the superintendent's custody pending a f u l l protection hearing under Section 13. Section 11(2) subsections (a) (b) (c) (d) plus 11(3) authorize the court to make f i v e possible interim d i s p o s i t i o n s a f t e r presentation of the report to the court. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 54 The f i v e v ariables are dependent when recommended by the s o c i a l worker to the court and are again dependent when subsequently ordered by the P r o v i n c i a l Family Court Judge. The s p e c i f i c subsections, or interim d i s p o s i t i o n s that Family Court Judges may make, a f t e r considering the report to court, are set f o r t h i n section 11(2) as follows: 11(2) On presentation of a report under section (1), the court may order the c h i l d be brought to before the court and s h a l l do one of the following: (a) make an order approving the superintendents action i n returning the c h i l d under section 9(5) where he has done so; (b) order the superintendent to return the c h i l d to the parent apparently e n t i t l e d to custody; (c) order that custody of the c h i l d be retaken or retained by the superintendent u n t i l a further order i s made under section 13; (d) make an order under section 13(1), but the court s h a l l not act under paragraph (d) of t h i s subsection unless the persons r e f e r r e d to i n section 12(2)(a),(b)and(c) consent to an immediate hearing to determine whether the c h i l d i s i n need of protection. 11(3) Where the court makes an order under subsection (2) (a) or (b) of the section i t may order the superintendent to supervise the care of the c h i l d u n t i l a hearing i s held to determine whether the c h i l d i s i n need of protection-Section 11: Documentary Procedures After the s o c i a l worker apprehends a c h i l d , one of the B . C . CHILD PROTECTION - Page 55 M.S.S.&H. p o l i c y requirements i s that a c h i l d - i n - c a r e f i l e be opened. The form which ac t i v a t e s t h i s e l e c t r o n i c and physical process i s the "Admission N o t i f i c a t i o n " (M.S.S.&H. form number S1627). A large number of the study's independent variables are s p e c i f i e d i n t h i s o r i g i n a t i n g document, one of which i s the code chosen as the reason f o r the c h i l d ' s admission to care. (Appendix C contains a copy of form S1627. The variables and value l a b e l s contained i n t h i s M.S.S.&H. data are described i n Appendix A.) In the seven days p r i o r to the court appearance, the section 11(2) "Report to Court" (M.S.S.&H. form number S1217) i s completed by the s o c i a l worker. This four page document (Appendix D) s p e c i f i e s the name of the c h i l d or ch i l d r e n apprehended into care, as well as the name of the apprehending s o c i a l worker or p o l i c e o f f i c e r . The name of the s o c i a l worker making the presentation to court (who could be a d i f f e r e n t person from the s o c i a l worker who apprehended the child) i s also included. The date and the Section 1 grounds which pertain to the apprehension are noted on t h i s page. More than one subsection may be s p e c i f i e d as the reason f o r apprehension. The second page contains a q u a l i t a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n of the circumstances of apprehension by the apprehending s o c i a l worker or p o l i c e o f f i c e r . Copies of the f i r s t two pages were requested from the s o c i a l workers who completed the supplemental questionnaire for t h i s research project. Reviewing copies B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 56 of these court reports as s i s t e d the researcher i n v e r i f i c a t i o n of the primary admission code selected by the s o c i a l worker from the nine abuse and neglect codes used on the admission form. A further research study could codify descriptions and p o t e n t i a l l y determine i f newer forms of abuse (e.g. emotional abuse) are emerging, although they are presently coded under e x i s t i n g d e f i n i t i o n s . The Report to Court form also provides the names and address of mother and father of the c h i l d , t h e i r current marital status and the present whereabouts of the c h i l d . The f i n a l two pages specify the section 11 interim order requested by the s o c i a l worker, and the recommended access arrangements sp e c i f y i n g the reasons which support the recommendations made. The Report to Court i s presented to the parents and the M.S.S.&H. l e g a l counsel p r i o r to court. I t i s also f i l e d with the Family Court Judge p r i o r to verbal testimony by the s o c i a l worker. Copies are kept on the family service (FS) and c h i l d - i n - c a r e (CIC) f i l e s at the D i s t r i c t o f f i c e . Copies of these reports are not at present kept i n a c e n t r a l l o c a t i o n . I t was therefore necessary f o r the s o c i a l worker to provide a copy of each report covering the cases included i n t h i s study. J u d i c i a l d i s p o s i t i o n s from Section 11 presentations are recorded i n two places. They are recorded on the M.S.S.&H. S1628 or "Change or Close N o t i f i c a t i o n " form which s p e c i f i e s the c h i l d ' s change of placement or l e g a l status under the B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 57 appropriate F&CS Act section. This information was not ava i l a b l e to the author as the computer system used by the government ( B r i t i s h Columbia Systems Corporation) writes over the previous information recorded i n that p a r t i c u l a r v a r i a b l e column whenever new information i s re g i s t e r e d . The second record i s a signed copy of the j u d i c i a l order which i s sent to the d i s t r i c t o f f i c e f o r the c h i l d - i n -care f i l e and to V i c t o r i a Family and C h i l d Service D i v i s i o n . However, the court may take several months to process t h i s document a f t e r the order was made. For t h i s reason the data fo r t h i s study on the court orders recommended by the s o c i a l workers and the subsequent orders made by the judges were compiled from information s o l i c i t e d i n the supplemental questionnaire. Section 13: Protection Hearing and Temporary Custody Section 12(1) of the F.&C.S. Act delineates when a f u l l protection hearing i s required or i s disc r e t i o n a r y , and also provides f o r a date f o r commencement of a protection hearing, i f ordered. This section reads as follows: Where the court makes an order under (a) section 11(2) (a) or (b) i t may, or (b) section 11(2) (c) i t s h a l l f i x a date, not l a t e r than 45 days a f t e r the date of the order, f o r commencement of a hearing to determine i f a c h i l d i s i n need of protection, (emphasis added) The p a r t i a l d i s c r e t i o n afforded by section 12 means that the number of c h i l d protection population dealt with by B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 58 the court process w i l l be reduced between the time of the section 11 interim order and the section 13 protection hearing. Two subsections of section 11, ((a) and (b)) return the c h i l d to parental care, thus mean a drop out rate i n the c h i l d - i n - c a r e population p r i o r to the section 13(1) hearing. I t should also be noted that the 45 days s p e c i f i e d f o r the protection hearing i s f o r commencement only. The actual hearing of evidence may occur at l a t e r points depending on court schedules and the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the judge and lawyers assigned to the case. The f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n from the section 13(1) protection hearing could be made several months a f t e r i t s commencement. These are some of the variables addressed i n the supplemental questionnaire. At the Section 13 protection hearing, the court must determine whether the c h i l d was i n need of protection at the time of the apprehension, as well as whether the c h i l d continues to be i n need of protection at the time of the hearing. Where the court f i n d s the c h i l d i n need of protection, custody must e i t h e r be granted to the superintendent, or to the parent, subject to the superintendent's supervision. In orders granting temporary custody to the superintendent the court has d i s c r e t i o n whether or not to order parental access to the c h i l d (section 13(3)). An order awarding custody to the parent must include a provision permitting the superintendent to B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 59 supervise the care of the c h i l d f o r a period of up to 6 months (section 13(2)). The section 13(1) subsections (a) (b) (c) (d) plus 13(2) j u d i c i a l options c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l those s p e c i f i e d i n section 11. The s p e c i f i c subsections, or interim d i s p o s i t i o n s that Family Court Judges may make, a f t e r considering the protective grounds f o r the apprehension, are set f o r t h i n section 13(1) as follows: 13(1) Where, a f t e r holding a hearing to determine whether a c h i l d i s i n need of protection, the court find s that the c h i l d i s i n need of protection, i t s h a l l (a) order that the c h i l d remain i n the custody of the parent apparently e n t i t l e d to custody; (b) order the superintendent to return the c h i l d to the parent apparently e n t i t l e d to custody; (c) order the superintendent to r e t a i n or retake custody of the c h i l d f o r a period the court considers appropriate, not exceeding 12 months; (d) proceed with the matter as i f an appl i c a t i o n had been made under section 14(1)... [permanent order] 13(2) An order made under subsection (1) (a) or (b) must include a provision that the superintendent may supervise the care of the c h i l d for a period the court considers appropriate, not exceeding 6 months. Section 13: Documentary Procedures P a r a l l e l i n g the section 11 presentation and Report to Court, the s o c i a l worker uses the "Notice of Hearing" B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 60 (M.S.S.&H. form number S1200) (Appendix D) to n o t i f y each parent that the section 13 protection hearing concerning t h e i r c h i l d or ch i l d r e n w i l l take place at a designated p r o v i n c i a l court on a s p e c i f i e d date, c i t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r ground of protection selected from section 1 of the F.&C.S. Act. The notice informs the parent of the d i s p o s i t i o n subsection of section 13(1) the s o c i a l worker i s requesting of the Family Court. I t also informs the parents of t h e i r r i g h t to representation by l e g a l counsel, and t h e i r l i a b i l i t y f o r f i n a n c i a l maintenance of the c h i l d i n the event custody i s awarded to the Superintendent of Family and Ch i l d Service. The Notice of Hearing i s served upon the parents at l e a s t seven c l e a r days before the hearing (section 12(2)). Copies of t h i s notice are presented to the court at the hearing and to M.S.S.&H. l e g a l counsel; others are kept on the family service and c h i l d - i n - c a r e f i l e s at the s o c i a l worker's o f f i c e . Since copies of these forms are not c e n t r a l l y a v a i l a b l e , the information contained i n the notices of hearing i n t h i s study was s o l i c i t e d i n the supplemental questionnaire. The section 13 j u d i c i a l protection d i s p o s i t i o n s are recorded by the same methods as the section 11 interim d i s p o s i t i o n s , namely by means of the M.S.S.&H. S1628 change or close form and a subsequent copy of the judge's order. For these reasons the data on the section 13 court orders requested by the s o c i a l workers and d i s p o s i t i o n a l orders B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 61 made by the judges were compiled from information s o l i c i t e d i n the supplemental questionnaire. The next chapter describes the research design and methodology for the o v e r a l l study. I t buil d s on the description of the Family and C h i l d Service Act provided i n t h i s chapter and also addresses the s o c i a l and economic variables on the childre n and t h e i r f a m i l i e s which were described i n e a r l i e r chapters. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 62 CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH DESIGN and METHODOLOGY PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH STUDY According to Tr i p o d i , F e l l i n and Meyer, research i s the appl i c a t i o n of systematic procedures f o r developing, modifying, and expanding knowledge that can be communicated and v e r i f i e d by independent i n v e s t i g a t o r s (1969). As discussed i n the f i r s t chapter, the purpose of t h i s research study was to: 1) Examine s a l i e n t v a r i a b l e s involved i n c h i l d protection apprehensions i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n the 1989 calendar year, i n order to review some of the reasons that children are being apprehended into care, as well as develop a socio-economic and demographic p r o f i l e of these c h i l d r e n and t h e i r f a m i l i e s . 2) Determine percentages of cases where there are s i m i l a r i t i e s and discrepancies between s o c i a l worker's recommendations to the court and the j u d i c i a l d i s p o s i t i o n s at the f i r s t two stages of the c h i l d protection court proceedings. 3) Identify factors which could impact case outcomes and account for discrepancies between the s o c i a l B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 63 workers recommendations and the j u d i c i a l d i s p o s i t i o n s . 4) Discuss implications of the findings, recommend p o l i c y a l t e r n a t i v e s , and suggest areas f o r further research. Research Methodology Research i n the s o c i a l sciences involves the use of a v a r i e t y of methods to obtain r e l a t i v e l y unbiased observations of human behaviour. Research studies i n the f i e l d of human behaviour can be c l a s s i f i e d into three broad categories: experimental, q u a n t i t a t i v e - d e s c r i p t i v e , and exploratory. This study u t i l i z e d the q uantitative-d e s c r i p t i v e research design which i s explained by T r i p o d i , F e l l i n and Meyer as follows. The category of q u a n t i t a t i v e -d e s c r i p t i v e studies i s s i m i l a r to experimental studies i n that both seek quantitative descriptions among s p e c i f i e d v a r i a b l e s . Quantitative-descriptive studies d i f f e r from experimental studies i n that they do not use randomization procedures i n assigning subjects to experimental and c o n t r o l groups. In addition they do not employ the experimental manipulation of independent v a r i a b l e s . Given the nature of t h i s study as a review of c h i l d r e n who had been apprehended into care, t h e i r family structures and aspects of the court process, i t was not possible to create a control group from the general population. I t was therefore e s s e n t i a l that B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 64 t h i s study be a retrospective q u a n t i t a t i v e - d e s c r i p t i v e study. Quantitative-descriptive studies have the objective of describing associations among v a r i a b l e s , but without regard to cause and e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s . There are four subtypes of q u a n t i t a t i v e - d e s c r i p t i v e studies: hypothesis t e s t i n g , program evaluation, population d e s c r i p t i v e , and studies searching f o r variable r e l a t i o n s h i p s . This research study used the l a t t e r two subtypes. The population d e s c r i p t i v e model seeks to describe c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the designated population through asking s p e c i f i c questions with regard to quantitative-descriptions of the designated population. In t h i s study a random p r o b a b i l i t y sample of the B.C. c h i l d i n care population was obtained i n order to have p r e d i c t i v e , or c r i t e r i o n - r e l a t e d v a l i d i t y (Babbie, 1986) and generalization maximized. The study also considered quantitative methods to explore associations among s p e c i f i e d variables f o r t h i s population. One aim of t h i s study was to define variables regarding the children who were apprehended, some of t h e i r f a m i l i e s ' socio-economic and demographic v a r i a b l e s , as well as some of the court processes that occurred, s u f f i c i e n t l y to be measured. The object of t h i s being to determine whether there were any s i g n i f i c a n t associations among selected variables, i n addition to obtaining quantitative-descriptors of the sample population generally. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 65 Conceptual Model The following research conceptual model i s based on the work of K e l l y and Ramsey (1983, 1985). An inductive quantitative retrospective approach, rather than a deductive hypothesis t e s t i n g approach, was chosen for several reasons. F i r s t , past e f f o r t s to develop models of j u d i c i a l and s o c i a l service outcomes i n c h i l d protection proceedings have y i e l d e d r e l a t i v e l y low l e v e l s of explanatory power. For example, Runyan et a l . (1981) used approximately 40 independent v a r i a b l e s i n a comprehensive model of the determinants of f o s t e r care placement as an outcome i n North Carolina c h i l d protection cases. This e f f o r t resulted i n the explanation of only 17% of the variance i n the dependent v a r i a b l e . In a comment on the research of Runyan and others, Fanshel has noted: " I t should give us pause that c r i t i c a l decisions a f f e c t i n g the l i v e s of f a m i l i e s cannot be brought under greater s t a t i s t i c a l c o n t r o l . Unfortunately, such low y i e l d of explained variance i s a l l too common i n c h i l d welfare studies" (Fanshel, 1981, p.685). There i s a pressing need to improve the p r e d i c t i v e power of models of the outcomes i n c h i l d protection cases and an inductive d e s c r i p t i v e model i s responsive to t h i s need. Second, Runyan et a l . (1981) and K e l l y and Ramsey (1983, 1985) have found that the determinants of c h i l d protection outcome t y p i c a l l y include v a r i a b l e s that are not B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 66 d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the case, such as the geographical l o c a t i o n i n which the case i s heard and the source of the case's r e f e r r a l . Again, t h i s consideration suggests the need to approach the analysis of c h i l d protection outcomes with an a n a l y t i c and multivariate strategy. Third, since a primary goal of t h i s study was to i d e n t i f y variables that are manipulatable by p u b l i c p o l i c y makers and therefore useful i n e f f o r t s to improve the outcome of c h i l d protection apprehension cases, an inductive retrospective approach should maximize the l i k e l i h o o d that such va r i a b l e s w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d and that confounding variables w i l l be c o n t r o l l e d . As part of the research study, f i v e groups of independent variables were i d e n t i f i e d from previous research as l i k e l y to contribute to the explanation of outcomes i n c h i l d protection court cases. They include: 1. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the c h i l d , parents and family: e.g., c h i l d ' s age, race, type of alleged abuse/neglect, family history of problems, family structure; 2. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the C h i l d Protection s o c i a l worker: e.g., the worker's age, sex, professional education, amount of p r a c t i c e experience; 3. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the court's handling of the case: e.g., whether an immediate custody order was issued, how frequently hearings were held or adjourned, the duration of the hearings; 4. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the attorney who represents the Ministry: e.g., the attorney's age, sex, type of p r a c t i c e , experience with abuse/neglect cases; also, how the attorney generally represents c h i l d r e n i n protection proceedings such as the hours spent on the case, time spent t a l k i n g to the c h i l d , parents or B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 67 professionals; 5. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , and the j u d i c i a l and s o c i a l service systems i n which the cases were handled: e.g., j u d i c i a l and s o c i a l worker caseload per capita, r u r a l or urban s e t t i n g , range of community services and t h e i r standards, etc. Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the c h i l d , parents and family (Category 1) are included to assess the impact of the degree and nature of the problems within the family as well as the a v a i l a b i l i t y of coping resources. Most studies of abuse, neglect, and juvenile courts have emphasized variables of t h i s type i n t h e i r analyses (Clark & Koch, 1980, Maden, 1979; Gelles, 1979; Scheurer & Bailey, 1980). The American National Association of S o c i a l Workers (1979) found that the professional education, t r a i n i n g , and practice experience of American c h i l d protection s o c i a l workers varies greatly (Category 2). The majority did not have formal s o c i a l work degrees, although urban s o c i a l workers generally had more professional t r a i n i n g and experience than r u r a l s o c i a l workers. A 1988 review of s o c i a l worker q u a l i f i c a t i o n s by M.S.S.&H. personnel department found s i m i l a r r e s u l t s i n B.C. ( i n t e r n a l M.S.S.&H. document). As organizations, courts vary i n how they t y p i c a l l y approach a given type of case (Horowitz, 1977; Clark & Koch, 1980). Variables measuring the manner i n which the courts handled each case (Category 3) are included i n the model with the expectation that v a r i a t i o n i n these approaches B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 68 could influence case outcomes. Measures of the attorneys who represent the C h i l d Protection Agency (Category 4) are included i n order to assess the impact of types of l e g a l representation on the outcome of c h i l d protection cases. Previous research has indicated that c e r t a i n types of representation are more e f f e c t i v e than others (Kelly & Ramsey, 1983, 1985; Duquette, 1980). The outcome of c h i l d protection cases could also be influenced by whether a l e g a l advocate f o r the c h i l d has been appointed and whether the parents are represented by a lawyer. The s t r u c t u r a l measures of municipal, j u d i c i a l , and s o c i a l service systems (Category 5) are also included as predictors i n t h i s model. Dolbeare (1974), Garbarino (1977), and Brown & Crowley (1979) have a l l argued that there are major explanatory advantages i n including measures of contextual and s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a t i o n among j u d i c i a l and other macro-environments i n e f f o r t s to comprehend variations i n the outcomes of l e g a l reforms and the outputs of j u d i c i a l systems. S i m i l a r l y , c h i l d maltreatment research has shown that measures of community resources as well as socio-economic and demographic conditions are important predictors of s o c i e t a l responses to c h i l d abuse and neglect ( Matheson & Neave, 1967, 1971; G i l , 1974; Garbarino, 1977; Chan, 1982). B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 69 The focus of t h i s research study w i l l be on categories one, three and aspects of four of the v a r i a b l e s l i s t e d above. Due to time and resource constraints, aspects of the second and f i f t h categories were not attempted i n the study. However, the concepts and descriptions are included since they are an i n t e g r a l aspect of the a n a l y t i c strategy for t h i s a n a l y t i c quantitative retrospective model and could be incorporated i n further research on t h i s subject. Research design: Main frame data and Questionnaire Access to the Ministry of S o c i a l Services and Housing (M.S.S.&H.) data on the c h i l d - i n - c a r e population required permission of o f f i c i a l s at the Deputy Minister, Superintendent of Family and C h i l d Service and Assistant Deputy Minister l e v e l , as well as support from the research branch of the ministry. This permission was required to 1) perform the research, 2) gain access to the primary data on the M.S.S.&H. mainframe computer and 3) obtain organizational support f o r the supplemental questionnaire d i s t r i b u t i o n . The information requested i n the questionnaire focused on the c l i e n t s ' socio-economic background and j u d i c i a l decisions regarding the c h i l d r e n . No information was requested or asked about i n d i v i d u a l s o c i a l workers, or t h e i r case planning, so no permission was needed from the B r i t i s h Columbia Government Employees Union, the labour organization B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 70 representing the s o c i a l workers. The s o c i a l workers were e n t i t l e d to provide the requested information on the c l i e n t s through the delegated authority of the ministry, since at one point the Ministry had been the l e g a l guardian of the childre n covered by the study. In addition, i n l i n e with the p o l i c i e s of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia Ethics Practice Committee, a l l the information gained through the study was analyzed i n aggregate numeric form only, with no i n d i v i d u a l c l i e n t s , f a m i l i e s , judges, s o c i a l workers or d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s being i d e n t i f i e d . Sampling Numbers and Study Time Period In B r i t i s h Columbia, during the 1989 calendar year, a t o t a l of 3,671 children were brought into the care of the Superintendent of Family and C h i l d Service through apprehension. From t h i s c h i l d i n care population a random sample of 353 cases, equalling approximately 10 percent of the t o t a l population was randomly selected by M.S.S.&H. Corporate Services to be the sample population to be surveyed. In discussions with Gerry Merner, Supervisor of So c i a l Research for the B.C. M i n i s t r y of S o c i a l Services and Housing, i t was determined that a simple random p r o b a b i l i t y sample would s u f f i c e for t h i s study, rather than attempting to develop a weighting assignment i n order to do a s t r a t i f i e d random sample based on p r o v i n c i a l populations i n d i s t r i c t o f f i c e areas (Kidder & Judd, 1986; Babbie, 1986). B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 71 The random sample used as the basis f o r t h i s study was generated by computer from the 1989 c h i l d - i n - c a r e data on the ministry mainframe computer. According to Babbie (1986) when estimating sampling error based on a random sample of 350 subjects with a binomial d i s t r i b u t i o n of 90 percent accuracy, the sampling error i s estimated at plus or minus 3.25%. This random and p r o b a b i l i t y sample of 353 subjects should provide a confidence i n t e r v a l of between 86.75 to 93.25 percent, at the 95 percent confidence l e v e l f o r the information developed from the M.S.S.&H. data. The confidence i n t e r v a l and l e v e l of the data provided by the supplemental questionnaire i s considered further on i n t h i s chapter. The author had no control over the s o c i a l system that was tested, except for s p e c i f y i n g the time period within which the sample was to be drawn, and the percentage requested out of the t o t a l s p e c i f i e d population. The sample's temporal dimension was of cases drawn from a s i n g l e society: c h i l d r e n who were apprehended into care of M.S.S.&H. i n B.C. during a s i n g l e time period. This cross-s e c t i o n a l time period was the calendar year 1989, January 1st to December 31st, i n contrast to the A p r i l 1st to March 31st f i s c a l year. The calendar year was chosen f o r two reasons: 1) i t was determined that a 12 month duration of time was required i n order to counter any possible seasonal abnormalities that could occur; and 2) se l e c t i o n of the most B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 72 recent time period possible arose from issues that were i d e n t i f i e d during the pretest of the supplemental questionnaire. Pretest of Supplemental Questionnaire Design The o r i g i n a l sample data provided by M.S.S.&H. was f o r the 1988/89 f i s c a l year. During the process of gathering of the o r i g i n a l M.S.S.&H. data i t was learned that 78.9% of the chil d r e n were apprehended at the time of admission to care, while 21.1% were admitted p r i o r to apprehension. Of the chil d r e n admitted to care p r i o r to apprehension, 5.2% of the t o t a l were admitted i n the previous year. This meant the most recent apprehensions i n the sample would have been s i x months previously, with the remainder of the chi l d r e n having being admitted to care up to two years e a r l i e r . These time fact o r s had an impact on the supplemental questionnaire pretest. During discussions with M.S.S.&H. d i s t r i c t supervisors and s o c i a l workers who previewed the f i r s t sample and pretested the questionnaire, two concerns were i d e n t i f i e d which i t was f e l t could impact the questionnaire return rate: 1) o v e r a l l , there was a high rate of s t a f f turnover i n d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s . This meant that the s o c i a l worker who d i d the apprehension or court work might not be i n the o f f i c e i f a s i g n i f i c a n t period of time had passed; 2) A number of f i l e s were transferred between o f f i c e s f o r two reasons, the B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 7 3 r e s u l t of c l i e n t moves, and the creation of s p e c i a l i z e d teams and o f f i c e s within M.S.S.&H. areas. These factors highlighted the r e a l i t y that some s o c i a l workers targeted for r e c eiving the supplemental questionnaire might not know aspects of the c l i e n t ' s family background, or reasons f o r variables i d e n t i f i e d i n the court decision making process. For these reasons a more recent sample was drawn f o r the 1989 calendar year. The 1989 calendar year sample was drawn as soon as possible following completion of M.S.S.&H. data entry. This occurred early i n February 1990, and the questionnaire was d i s t r i b u t e d l a t e r that same month. The new sample meant the range of time since the c h i l d was apprehended vari e d from a minimum of two months to a maximum of fourteen months, a large improvement over the previous sample. Variables During t h i s study a t o t a l of 108 v a r i a b l e s , with t h e i r d e s c r i p t i v e value l a b e l s , were u t i l i z e d . Not a l l the variables are described i n the study's r e s u l t s as some were double blinds to ensure r e l i a b i l i t y between the M.S.S.&H. forms data and the supplemental questionnaire data. The data from the supplemental questionnaire was designed to provide descriptive p r o f i l e s of the children-in-care, t h e i r f a m i l i e s , and the court process. The p r o f i l e s of the children-in-care were based on B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 74 information obtained from such v a r i a b l e s as: sex, age, r a c i a l o r i g i n , r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n , Indian status, date of admission, reasons for admission, and whether they were adopted. The p r o f i l e s also addressed the c h i l d ' s p h y s i c a l , emotional and behaviourial c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , l e g a l status at time of admission, the number of s i b l i n g s admitted with the c h i l d as well as the number of s i b l i n g s l e f t at home, and the i n i t i a l plan and placement of the c h i l d . P r o f i l e s of the c h i l d separated f a m i l i e s were based on such va r i a b l e s as: age group, the marital status of each parent, r a c i a l o r i g i n , educational l e v e l , amount of household income, source of household income, type of dwelling the family resided i n , as well as the tenure of the dwelling, and length of residency i n the d i s t r i c t o f f i c e area. The t h i r d aspect of the study reviewed the court process at both the section 11 presentation and interim order stage as well as the section 13 protection hearing and temporary order stage. Variables addressed included whether the Ministry l e g a l counsel was involved and when, what order the s o c i a l worker asked the court f o r , and what order the court made. Also asked was whether the parents attended any part of the court hearings, i f the parents had l e g a l representation, the number of adjournments and the length of time i t took the case to be concluded, at both the interim and temporary order stages. (A l i s t of the var i a b l e s and B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 75 t h e i r value l a b e l s are provided i n Appendix A.) Method of Data C o l l e c t i o n As previously stated, the baseline data f o r t h i s study was provided by M.S.S.&H. from the 10% sample of the chi l d r e n apprehended into care i n the 1989 calendar year. These data provided the s p e c i f i c sample subjects to which the supplemental questionnaire was matched (Appendix F ) . The process f o r t h i s occurred as follows: the M i n i s t r y data provided the c h i l d ' s surname, f i r s t and middle i n i t i a l s , the d i s t r i c t o f f i c e code that was responsible f o r the c h i l d ' s f i l e , as well as the code for the s o c i a l worker who supervised the case. There was no other i d e n t i f y i n g information, eg. the c h i l d ' s address, or s o c i a l worker's name. Based on these three known items, several steps were completed. F i r s t , a l l the data was i n s t a l l e d i n t o a computer using the S t a t i s t i c a l Program For S o c i a l Sciences (hereafter known as SPSS or SPSS/PC+ fo r the personal computer version), set up i n data records and given i d e n t i f i c a t i o n code numbers. Second, a coding book was set up with the raw data printed and organized by code number. Third, mailing labels were made up for the supplemental questionnaires, to ensure each questionnaire represented the s p e c i f i c c h i l d the ministry data had i d e n t i f i e d . Fourth, a second code book was developed that i d e n t i f i e d a l l the B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 76 Family and C h i l d Service d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s i n the province, the number of questionnaires each d i s t r i c t o f f i c e was sent and the number of questionnaires returned by the o f f i c e . Questionnaire D i s t r i b u t i o n As described i n the previous chapter on the hi s t o r y and structure of the Ministry of S o c i a l Services and Housing, following the reorganization of M.S.S.&H. i n May 1988, there were a t o t a l of 122 d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s that c a r r i e d out Family and C h i l d Service functions (not including the Resource teams). Out of t h i s possible t o t a l the questionnaire was sent to 110 (90.0%) d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s i n early March 1990. The questionnaires were packaged by d i s t r i c t o f f i c e and sent to the attention of the d i s t r i c t supervisor. There were two covering l e t t e r s . One was addressed to the d i s t r i c t supervisor, the second to the s o c i a l worker. (Copies of the covering l e t t e r s are included i n Appendix E.j The number of questionnaires per d i s t r i c t o f f i c e ranged from a minimum of one to a maximum of t h i r t e e n . The average number of questionnaires sent to each d i s t r i c t o f f i c e was three. In accordance with the University of B r i t i s h Columbia ethics guidelines, s o c i a l workers who d i d not wish to take part i n the study were informed they could return the questionnaire uncompleted. Each questionnaire was also sent with a self-addressed government return-mail envelope. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 77 Questionnaire Return Rate Of the 353 (100%) questionnaires that were sent to the 110 d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s , a t o t a l of 249 (70.5%) were returned. 216 (61.2%) were returned completed, and 33 (9.3%) were returned not completed. While the majority of questionnaires were returned completed the degree of completion varied. This may have been due to f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter. These included influences due to s t a f f turnover as well as f i l e t ransfers between o f f i c e s . The supplemental questionnaire did not have a method to determine which fac t o r s influenced the return rate; a consideration which should be considered i n further research on t h i s t o p i c . 84 (95.5%) of the 88 s p e c i a l i z e d Family and C h i l d Service d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s were sent questionnaires, as were 25 (75.8%) of the 33 Integrated d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s . To c a l c u l a t e the return rate three categories were developed. The f i r s t one was a complete return r a t e . This meant a l l the questionnaires sent to that o f f i c e , regardless of number, were returned. The second category was a p a r t i a l return rate. This meant that at l e a s t one questionnaire was returned, up to one short of the t o t a l number sent to the o f f i c e . The t h i r d category of no returns covered s i t u a t i o n s where no questionnaires were returned from the d i s t r i c t o f f i c e . The return rate of the d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s based B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 78 on these three c r i t e r i a were as follows: Of the 84 F.&C.S. d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s sent the questionnaires, 67 (79.8%) of the F.&C.S. o f f i c e s returned some or a l l the questionnaires. 39 (46.4%) had complete returns, 28 (33.3%) had p a r t i a l returns, and 17 (20.2%) d i d not return any of the questionnaires. Out of the 25 Integrated d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s that were sent the questionnaires, 22 (88.0%) returned some or a l l the questionnaires. 19 (76.0%) had complete return rates, 3 (12.0%) had p a r t i a l returns, and 3 (12.0%) did not return any of the questionnaires. Overall, 89 (80.9%) of the 110 o f f i c e s that were sent questionnaires provided complete or p a r t i a l returns. Of these, 58 (52.7%) were complete return rates and 31 (28.2%) were p a r t i a l returns. Another 21 (19.1%) of the d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s did not return any of the supplemental questionnaires. C r i t i q u e of Supplemental Questionnaire Return Rate Delbert M i l l e r reviewed the disadvantages of the mail questionnaire i n his book Handbook of Research Design and  S o c i a l Measurement 3rd E d i t i o n (1977). He found the major weakness of mail out questionnaires to be the problem of nonreturn. M i l l e r stated the response rate to mailed questionnaires to be " t y p i c a l l y low, usually not exceeding 50 percent. 1 1 (p• 79) and went on to explain: < B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 79 Most ordinary studies as conducted by private and r e l a t i v e l y u n s k i l l e d persons y i e l d only from 10 to 25 percent of returns. The questionnaire must be short to have a greater p r o b a b i l i t y of return. Norton found 78.5 percent return with less than f i v e questions. Stanton reported 28.3 percent returned a three page questionnaire while 50.2 percent answered a double postcard containing a s i n g l e check. S l e t t o found an a l t r u i s t i c appeal increased returns to 67 percent i n a college trained population (p.73). One of the highest return rates reported i n the research l i t e r a t u r e i s that by Renis L i k e r t . In a study of the League of Women Voters (commissioned by the League) a cross s e c t i o n a l sample...showed a return rate of 79 percent of members (p.78). The supplemental questionnaire developed f o r t h i s study was t h i r t e e n pages i n length, not i n c l u d i n g the i n s t r u c t i o n page, plus a two page covering l e t t e r to the s p e c i f i e d s o c i a l worker. I t consisted of 50 main questions, p r i m a r i l y using numeric coding, with several spaces f o r b r i e f d e s c r i p t i v e comments, and provided a t o t a l of 192 choices fo r the s o c i a l worker to make. Each questionnaire focused on an i d e n t i f i e d c h i l d , h i s or her family, and the court process that had occurred with respect to that c h i l d . Given Delbert M i l l e r ' s comments concerning the recommended short length of the questionnaires i n order to achieve return rates of 50 to 79 percent, the supplemental questionnaires return rate of 70.5 percent t o t a l and 61.2 percent completed, should provide a basis f o r analysis of t h i s research data. According to Babbie (1986) "It' s possible to state some rules of thumb about return rates. I f e e l that a response rate of at l e a s t 50% i s adequate f o r analysis and B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 80 reporting. A response rate of at l e a s t 60% i s good. And a response rate of 70% i s very good (emphasis Babbie's). You should bear i n mind, however, that these are only rough guides; they have no s t a t i s t i c a l b a s i s , and a demonstrated lack of response bias i s f a r more important than a high response rate (p.221)." With consideration of possible of response bias, a manual review of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the 110 d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s sent the supplemental questionnaires was done. The comparison of the 89 d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s that returned the supplemental questionnaires (completely or p a r t i a l l y ) did not immediately reveal any geographic biases, eg. northern and remote o f f i c e s appeared to have a s i m i l a r return rate to urban and suburban o f f i c e s . However, other factors which could have influenced the supplemental questionnaires return rate are not known. If the returned completed supplemental questionnaires are considered a random and p r o b a b i l i t y sample of 200 and assuming a binomial d i s t r i b u t i o n of 90 percent accuracy, according to the table provided by Babbie (1986), the sampling error i s estimated at plus or minus 4.2%. This should provide a confidence i n t e r v a l of between 85.8 to 94.2 percent, at the 95 percent confidence l e v e l f o r the supplemental questionnaire data; assuming that the returned questionnaires provide a true random p r o b a b i l i t y sample. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 81 Methods of Data Analysis A l l the data provided by M.S.S.&H. and the responses from the supplemental questionnaires were coded and entered onto the University of B r i t i s h Columbia mainframe computer. A l l the data analyses, u n i v a r i a t e , b i v a r i a t e , plus multivariate, were done through the S t a t i s t i c a l Package For the S o c i a l Sciences (SPSS and SPSS/PC+) programs (Norusis, 1988, 1990). A t o t a l of 108 variables were i d e n t i f i e d or developed for t h i s study, with t h e i r r e l a t e d value l a b e l s . The variables were nominal, o r d i n a l , or i n t e r v a l , depending on the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the category, d e s c r i p t i o n , or question. Objective categories were developed for a l l questions i n order to reduce possible subjective impressions or responses. The data analysis was completed i n i t i a l l y by using frequency tables and s t a t i s t i c a l averages on a l l v a r i a b l e s (Chapter 5) providing a d e s c r i p t i v e backdrop of the three sections of t h i s study. The f i r s t was d e s c r i p t i v e , being designed to provide background information on the c h i l d r e n -in-care, and reasons why they came into care. The second section developed a p r o f i l e of the family structure and the f a m i l i e s ' socio-economic conditions at the time of the c h i l d ' s apprehension. The l a s t section described the court process and compared the s o c i a l workers recommendations with the j u d i c i a l orders. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 82 S i g n i f i c a n t or i n t e r e s t i n g v a r i a b l e s i n the three sections are further examined i n the discussion chapter ( 6 ) , where rela t i o n s h i p s are assessed through the use of crosstabulation on observed frequencies, expected frequencies and r e s i d u a l s . Two-way comparisons of the differences between the s o c i a l workers' recommendations to the court and the j u d i c i a l d i s p o s i t i o n s at the interim presentations and the temporary custody hearings were explored with selected v a r i a b l e s . In addition, Pearson's chi-square p r o b a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t was used to measure the s t a t i s t i c a l l e v e l s of a s s o c i a t i o n between these va r i a b l e s to provide a summary of the discussion chapter. The next chapter explores frequency findings of the variables generated i s the study. I t considers aspects of the c h i l d coming into care, the socio-economic and demographic variables of the c h i l d ' s family, as well as the court processes which occurred, i n percentage terms. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 83 CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH FINDINGS LISTING OF VARIABLES AND FREQUENCY STATISTICS This chapter w i l l review the s t a t i s t i c a l frequency percentages of s a l i e n t v a r i a b l e s u t i l i z e d i n the research study. As indicated e a r l i e r , the study i s based on a 10% sample (N=353) of the B r i t i s h Columbia c h i l d r e n taken into care of the Superintendent of Family and C h i l d Service through apprehension i n the calendar year 1989. The data was obtained from information provided on the Ministry of So c i a l Services and Housing (M.S.S.&H.) c h i l d a c t i v i t y forms (numbers S1627 and S1628), together with responses to a supplemental questionnaire administered to c h i l d protection s o c i a l workers. The questionnaire was s p e c i f i c a l l y designed for t h i s research study (N=216 of the N=353). The M.S.S.&H. forms were completed by the c h i l d protection s o c i a l workers at the time of admission of a c h i l d to care (S1627) and upon presentation of a Report to Court following the apprehension (S1628). Further variables on the s p e c i f i c c h i l d and h i s or her family, as well as the court process, res u l t e d from data compiled from the supplemental questionnaire administered to the s o c i a l workers who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s research. (Appendix B contains the printouts of a l l the variables.) The frequency s t a t i s t i c s were created through use of B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 84 the S t a t i s t i c a l Program f o r S o c i a l Sciences f o r the Personal Computer (SPSS-PC+), as well as The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, main frame computer SPSS-X program. The v a r i a b l e frequencies are presented, i n " v a l i d percentage" form i n order to provide a background context or baseline description f o r the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e section and analysis of s t a t i s t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n Discussion chapter s i x . This chapter describes the findings i n three categories: F i r s t : Case Pract i c e Variables: C h i l d Focused. Second: The F a m i l i e s 7 Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Third: Variables as expressed i n the Family and C h i l d  Service Act order requested by the s o c i a l worker and the  court d i s p o s i t i o n s . This l a t t e r category i s divided into two subsections; Section 11 Procedures following Apprehensions, and Section 13 Protection and Temporary Custody Orders. PART 1: CASE PRACTICE VARIABLES - CHILD FOCUSED VI C h i l d 7 s gender and age group Of the 353 c h i l d r e n i n t h i s sample, 55.2 percent were female and 44.2 percent were male. Of the females, 26.4% were 0 to 4 years of age, 19.8% were 5 to 9 years of age, 30.5% were 10 to 14 years, and 23.4% were 15 through 18 years of age. Of the males, 39.1% were 0 to 4 years of age, 25.0% were 5 to 9 years of age, 21.1% were 10 to 14 years, B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 85 and 14.8% were 15 through 18 years of age. V2 Child's age at time of apprehension The 353 c h i l d r e n ranged i n age from new-born, up to 18 years of age. A l l ages were represented, with s l i g h t l y more than half (54.1%) of the c h i l d r e n being nine years of age or l e s s . The highest frequency of age of apprehension was 15 years at 11.0% followed by 14 years at 9.9%. The t h i r d most common age of apprehension was new born at 9.1%. The smallest percentage was 18 years at 0.3%, followed by 17 years at 2.3%. The remaining percentages averaged between 6.5% f o r 2 years and 13 years, down to 2.8% f o r 12 years of age. V3 Child's functioning a b i l i t i e s This category combines the c h i l d ' s p h y s i c a l , i n t e l l e c t u a l and behavioral functioning a b i l i t i e s . 95.2% of the children were considered to be i n the normal functioning range p h y s i c a l l y , with 4.8% believed to be e i t h e r mildly or moderately p h y s i c a l l y disabled. I n t e l l e c t u a l l y 88.2% were considered to be i n the normal range and 11% i n the mild or moderate range of mental d i s a b i l i t y . Only 0.2% were thought to be severely i n t e l l e c t u a l l y disabled. Behaviorally, 72.3% of the children were considered normal, 18.5% had a mild or moderate behavioral d i s a b i l i t y and 9.2% were considered severely behaviorally disabled. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 86 V4 Child's ethnic / c u l t u r a l o r i g i n The following categories are based on the 1986 Canada Census d e f i n i t i o n s , which encompass ten categories dealing with ethnic, national, and c u l t u r a l o r i g i n . The largest percentage of childr e n apprehended into care came from a B r i t i s h background at 44.2%. Second larg e s t was a b o r i g i n a l at 35.0% of the apprehended c h i l d r e n . The t h i r d category was that of multiple c u l t u r a l and /or ethnic o r i g i n at 6.6%. Other sing l e o r i g i n and French each comprised 4.6% of the sample. German background made up 3.6% of the sample, with I t a l i a n at 1.0%. The smallest category was Chinese at 0.5%. V5 Child's l e g a l status at time of apprehension The great majority (93.5%) of the 353 c h i l d r e n who were apprehended were removed from t h e i r f a m i l i e s ' custody. A small percentage (5.4%) were already i n the care of the Superintendent of Family and C h i l d Services through the short term care agreement provisions of the Family and C h i l d Service Act (Section 4). 0.6% were already i n the Superintendent's care through s p e c i a l care agreements, with another 0.6% by intermittent s p e c i a l care agreements (both through Section 5). V6 Reason f o r c h i l d ' s admission to care Out of the 23 coding choices s p e c i f i e d by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing as reasons f o r c h i l d r e n to B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 87 come into the care of the Superintendent of Family and C h i l d Service, 15 of the codes were applicable to the apprehended children covered i n t h i s study. The l a r g e s t percentage (19.8%) of c h i l d r e n apprehended into care i n the calendar year 1989 was by reason of " d i s a b i l i t y of parent". This was followed by "physical abuse" of the c h i l d at 17.3%, "neglect endangering the c h i l d " at 14.7%, and "absence of parent" at 13.6%. "Sexual abuse" of the c h i l d was 8.8%, followed by " c h i l d absence i n circumstances which endanger" at 7.9% and "abandonment" at 7.1%. The "deprivation of medical care" category was used i n only .3% of the cases, as was " c h i l d from another province". Some of the reasons s o c i a l workers gave f o r the c h i l d ' s admission to care derived from the categories used i n voluntary short-term custody and s p e c i a l care agreements. In 4.2% of the cases the reason given was "parent - c h i l d c o n f l i c t " and i n 4.0% of the cases i t was "parental mental condition". The remaining 1.4% came int o care through s p e c i a l care agreement due to " c h i l d ' s mental, or emotional needs". V7 Placement of the childr e n Following apprehension, 37.1% of the c h i l d r e n were placed i n approved foster homes. The second lar g e s t percentage (35.1%) of the apprehended ch i l d r e n were allowed to remain with t h e i r parents pending the interim court B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 88 decision. 14.7% of the ch i l d r e n were placed i n contracted c h i l d care resources and 1.4% were placed i n h o s p i t a l s e t t i n g s . 2.8% absconded (A.W.O.L.) and 1.5% were placed i n a v a r i e t y of independent s e t t i n g s . 3.4% were placed i n r e s t r i c t e d or " c h i l d found" f o s t e r homes. Only 0.6% were placed with r e l a t i v e s , followed by another 0.3% being placed i n adoption probation homes. V8 Number of previous admissions to care 44.4% of the cases reported no previous h i s t o r y of admissions to care. However, i n 52.3% of the cases there was a previous admission to care of the c h i l d or a s i b l i n g . Of these ch i l d r e n , 43.4% had been i n care once before; 24.5% had been i n care twice; 11.3% had been i n care three times; and 8.5% had been i n care four times before t h i s apprehension. In 2.8% of the cases, c h i l d r e n had been i n care up to seven times previously. V9 Reason f o r previous admission to care The four most frequently c i t e d reasons f o r the c h i l d r e n having been previously apprehended to care were: physical abuse (19.8%), neglect concerns (16.5%), d i s a b i l i t y of parent (15.4%), and abandonment (13.2%). These were followed by the children having been i n care by short term agreement due to parental mental or emotional condition and parent-child c o n f l i c t at 8.8% each. 6.6% of the childre n B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 89 who were i n care previously were absent from home i n circumstances that endangered t h e i r safety or well-being. 4.4% were apprehended due to absence of t h e i r parent, and 3.3% were i n care through s p e c i a l care agreement necessitated by the c h i l d ' s mental or emotional condition. The f i n a l two categories selected as reasons f o r previous admissions were short term custody agreements due to parental physical condition (2.2%), and protection apprehensions due to sexual abuse (1.1%). V10 Number of s i b l i n g s admitted with the c h i l d In 52.7% of the cases only one c h i l d was apprehended, i n contrast to 18.1% of the population sample being "only" ch i l d r e n . 26.6% entered care with a s i b l i n g out of the 35.4% of the fa m i l i e s that had two c h i l d r e n , and 13.3% entered with two s i b l i n g s out of the 25.5% of the fa m i l i e s that had three c h i l d r e n . 4.0% came into care with three s i b l i n g s out of the 11.3% of the f a m i l i e s where there were four c h i l d r e n . The maximum number of s i b l i n g s apprehended into care at one time was 5, whereas some of the fa m i l i e s had up to 9 c h i l d r e n . V l l I n i t i a l plan f o r the c h i l d In 80.7% of the cases the s o c i a l worker's i n i t i a l plan for the c h i l d (at the time of the apprehension) was to return the c h i l d to the parents care. In 3.1% of the cases B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 90 the plan was to place the c h i l d with r e l a t i v e s . In 2.3% of the cases the plan was f o r the c h i l d to be placed for adoption. In 4.8% of the cases the plan was f o r the c h i l d to remain i n care u n t i l the age of majority. V12 Apprehension month Of the twelve months of t h i s calendar year, the month with the l a r g e s t percentage of apprehensions was September when 11.0% of the apprehensions took place. This was followed by June at 10.2% and November at 9.9%. The months with the fewest number of apprehensions were March and J u l y at 6.8% each, followed by A p r i l at 7.1%. V13 Opportunity to plan placement In response to the question: "To what extent did you have an opportunity to discuss placement plans with the c h i l d ' s guardian p r i o r to admission of the c h i l d to care?", s o c i a l workers stated that i n 18.5% of the cases admission was the r e s u l t of a plan discussed more than twice with the c h i l d ' s guardian some days or weeks i n advance of actual placement. In 66.0% of the cases i t was noted that admission was brought about by a breakdown i n a previous plan or by an unexpected event, where l i t t l e or no time was avail a b l e f o r d e t a i l e d planning with the c h i l d ' s guardian. The remaining 15.3% provided written answers describing circumstances many of which could be interpreted as B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 91 unexpected events. V14 R e l i g i o n of the c h i l d The majority of the ch i l d r e n d i d not appear to have a r e l i g i o u s background known to the s o c i a l worker at the time of apprehension. 76.2% were marked "unknown", followed by 11% "Protestant", 5.1% "Catholic" and 7.6% were undefined. PART 2: THE FAMILIES' CHARACTERISTICS / DEMOGRAPHICS VI The family structure The data obtained from the Mi n i s t r y forms and the supplemental questionnaire yielded s i m i l a r information with respect to family structure. 46.0% of the f a m i l i e s were i n a two parent family r e l a t i o n s h i p , and 54.0% were l i s t e d as being s i n g l e parents at the time the c h i l d was admitted to care. Of the si n g l e parent f a m i l i e s 80.0% were female headed and 18.1% were male headed, with 1.9% being headed by a person other than the mother or father of the c h i l d . V2 The parent - c h i l d family r e l a t i o n s h i p 69.0% of the fam i l i e s were described as having a b i r t h parent family r e l a t i o n s h i p to the apprehended c h i l d , with 25.4% of the cases designated as a step or blended parent. In 2.3% of the cases the parent was l i s t e d as adoptive and B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 92 i n 3.3% of the cases the c h i l d was apprehended from a r e l a t i v e . V3 Ma r i t a l status of c h i l d ' s mother In respect of the av a i l a b l e data (15.3% of the data was missing) 49.1% of the children's mothers were not i n a subsisting marital r e l a t i o n s h i p . Of these, the larg e s t percentage (24.4%) were i n the divorced or separated category. Almost as many of the mothers were si n g l e and had never married (22.1%), and 2.3% were widowed. Only 28.8% of the mothers were i n a continuing r e l a t i o n s h i p with the c h i l d ' s father. Of t h i s group 80.2% were married to the c h i l d ' s father, plus another 19.8% i n a common-law re l a t i o n s h i p with the c h i l d ' s father. 22.1% of a l l the mothers were i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s with partners other than the c h i l d ' s father. Of these 51.6% were married to the c h i l d ' s step-father and 48.4% were common-law with a partner other than the c h i l d ' s father. Only 0.3% of the mothers were l i s t e d as deceased. V4 Ma r i t a l status of c h i l d ' s father The information on the children's fathers p a r a l l e l e d that of the mothers, except less information was known about the fathers (25% of the data was recorded as missing). The majority of fathers (47.3%) were not i n sub s i s t i n g marital r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 64.5% of t h i s group were e i t h e r divorced or B . C . C H I L D P R O T E C T I O N - Page 93 separated, another 34.7% l i s t e d as being s i n g l e or never married, and 0.8% were widowed. 35.5% of the fathers were i n a s u b s i s t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p with the c h i l d ' s mother. 75.2% of these were married and 24.8% were common-law. 13.0% of the t o t a l were i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s with someone other than the c h i l d ' s mother and of these 53.0% were married to another spouse and 47.0% were i n common-law r e l a t i o n s h i p s . L a s t l y , 4.2% of the fathers were l i s t e d as deceased. V5 Racial o r i g i n of c h i l d ' s mother The majority (58.6%) of the children's mothers were of Caucasian background. A high percentage (31.7%) of the apprehended c h i l d r e n had native Indian mothers. 18.6% of these mothers, (or 5.9% of the t o t a l ) were believed to be registered status Indians belonging to 11 indian bands. This implies 81.4% (or 25.8% of the t o t a l ) of the Indian mothers were believed to be non-status at the time of apprehension. The mother's r a c i a l o r i g i n was unknown i n 7.9% of the cases. East Indian mothers comprised 1.1% of the sample and Chinese mothers 0.6%. V6 Racial o r i g i n of c h i l d ' s father P a r a l l e l i n g the de s c r i p t i o n of the children's mothers, the majority of the fathers (53.5%) were described as Caucasian. A s l i g h t l y reduced percentage were native Indian (24.9%). The father's r a c i a l background was unknown i n B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 94 18.1% o f the c a s e s . E a s t I n d i a n f a t h e r s and B l a c k f a t h e r s comprised 1.4% each, p l u s Chinese i n 0.6% of the cases. V7 Age o f head of household In 1.4% of the cases the head o f the household a t the time o f apprehension was under t h e age of 19 y e a r s . 16.4% were aged 19 through 24 y e a r s . The h i g h e s t percentage was 38.2% i n the 25 through 34 y e a r s group; t h i s was f o l l o w e d by 31.9% i n the 35 through 44 y e a r s group. 8.7% were i n the 45 through 54 years group; and 2.4% were i n the 55 through 64 years age c a t e g o r y . 1.0% were i n the 65 through 74 y e a r s group. V8 E d u c a t i o n l e v e l of primary income ear n e r In response t o the q u e s t i o n , "What was the h i g h e s t l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n completed by t h e primary income e a r n e r ? " , 32.0% of the heads of household were b e l i e v e d t o have l e s s than a grade 9 e d u c a t i o n . 47.0% had been e n r o l l e d i n grades 9 t o 13, but d i d not have a c e r t i f i c a t e of c o m p l e t i o n . 11.0% were b e l i e v e d t o have a c h i e v e d a grade 12 g r a d u a t i o n c e r t i f i c a t e . 6.5% o b t a i n e d a t r a d e c e r t i f i c a t e o r a diploma; 1.5% attended u n i v e r s i t y w i t h o u t o b t a i n i n g a degree; and 2.0% had o b t a i n e d a u n i v e r s i t y degree. V9 O c c u p a t i o n a l of primary f a m i l y income earner T h i s q u e s t i o n was based on c a t e g o r i e s used i n the 1986 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 9 5 Canada Census, which provided nineteen occupational categories to choose from. However, i n 38.3% of the cases the occupation of.the primary family income earner was not l i s t e d . In most of these cases the family was designated as being on income assistance. The second highest category was Service(non-professional) at 14.5%. This was followed by Construction at 9.8% and Other Industry at 7.3%. The remaining f i f t e e n categories ranged from 3.6% each, f o r Farming and H o r t i c u l t u r a l as well as Production, Fabrication, Assembly and Repair, to Medicine and Health, Teaching and Natural Sciences at 0.5% each. V10 Primary source of family income Soc i a l workers determined that the primary source of income for the family p r i o r to the c h i l d ' s removal i n 41.1% of the cases was from e i t h e r f u l l or part-time employment. I t was also indicated that 50.7% of the f a m i l i e s were receiving p r o v i n c i a l income assistance and 7.2% were i n re c e i p t of income from some other income support program, such as unemployment insurance, or Indian and Northern A f f a i r s benefits. The primary source of income was unknown i n 1.0% of the cases. V l l Total amount of household income Based on the question: "What was the approximate t o t a l household income l e v e l per year?", 22.7% of the children's B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 96 fa m i l i e s were estimated to have a t o t a l annual income of $9,999 or l e s s . 48.3% were estimated to be i n the $10,000 to $19,999 range, followed by 8.9% i n the $20,000 to $29,999 range. 12.3% were i n the $30,000 to $39,999 range, above which the percentage dropped to 4.4% i n the $40,000 to $49,999 range. Only 3.5% of the fa m i l i e s were estimated to be re c e i v i n g above $50,000 i n t o t a l annual household income. VI2 Type of dwelling i n which family resided At the time of apprehension 52.5% of the f a m i l i e s were res i d i n g i n a single detached house. This was followed sequentially by 20.3% of the f a m i l i e s who were r e s i d i n g i n an apartment s u i t e , 16.3% who were i n a low density townhouse and 6.9% i n a moveable dwelling such as a mobile home or t r a i l e r . 1.5% were renting hotel or motel rooms, and 2.5% were i n undefined other dwellings. VI3 Tenure of the family dwelling 66.3% of the fam i l i e s were reported as renting t h e i r dwelling, i n contrast to the 26.7% that were owned by the family. 6.9% of the tenures were l i s t e d as being on Indian reserve land. V14 Length of family's residency i n d i s t r i c t o f f i c e area 6.5% of the fam i l i e s had resided i n the d i s t r i c t o f f i c e area f o r one month or les s at the time of the c h i l d ' s B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 97 apprehension. 15.0% had been i n the area between two to s i x months and another 22.0% between seven months up to two years. The l a r g e s t percentage was 31.0% i n the two to f i v e years category. 13.0% had been i n the d i s t r i c t o f f i c e area between s i x to ten years; and 12.5% had been resident there for eleven years or more. V15 Number of bands served by d i s t r i c t o f f i c e The number of Native Indian Bands located i n the geographic area served by the Family and C h i l d Service d i s t r i c t o f f i c e v a r i e d from zero(28.6%), the l a r g e s t percentage, to nine or more bands(4.7%). 22.9% of the o f f i c e s served one band, 9.4% two bands, 8.9% three bands, 5.7% four bands, 13.5% f i v e bands, 3.1% s i x bands, 2.6% seven bands, with the smallest percentage being eight bands at 0.5%. PART 3: F.&C.S. ORDER REQUESTED AND COURT DISPOSITIONS Procedures following apprehension: F.&C.S. Section 11 VI Stage at which M.S.S.&H. counsel became involved 9.6% of the l e g a l counsel on contract to the Ministry of Social Services and Housing were involved through consultation p r i o r to the c h i l d ' s apprehension. 41.1% of B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 98 the l e g a l counsel became involved a f t e r the apprehension and p r i o r to the Report to Court. The lar g e s t percentage (49.3%) of M i n i s t r y counsel became involved only at the presentation of the Report to Court. V2 S o c i a l workers interim court recommendations At the presentation of the Report to Court, i n 71.8% of the cases the s o c i a l worker requested an interim order authorizing the Superintendent to r e t a i n or retake custody of the c h i l d u n t i l a f u l l protection hearing could be held under section 13. The next most frequent request, which occurred i n 18.3% of the cases, was f o r an order approving the Superintendent's e a r l i e r act of returning the c h i l d to parental care. In 5.2% of the cases the court was requested to order the return of a c h i l d to parental custody who had been retained i n the Superintendent's custody pending the presentation hearing. In 4.7% of the cases the s o c i a l worker requested an immediate c h i l d protection hearing, with parental consent, i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of a d i s p o s i t i o n order being made committing the c h i l d permanently to the care and custody of the Superintendent of Family and C h i l d Services. V3 S o c i a l workers recommendation of interim supervision Following the apprehension, i n 23.4% of the cases, the i n i t i a l Report to Court requested that the c h i l d be retained or returned to parental custody. In 27.8% of these cases B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 99 the s o c i a l worker requested that the court also order the Superintendent to supervise the care of the c h i l d pending the commencement of a f u l l protection hearing. V4 Level of s o c i a l worker's opposition to parental access Opposition to access to the apprehended c h i l d by the parents or others, was r e g i s t e r e d by s o c i a l workers i n only 13.9% of the cases. Where access was opposed, i t involved access by the father alone i n 41.0% of the cases, the mother alone i n 10.1% of the cases, both parents i n 17.3% of the cases, and "other" persons i n 30.9% of the cases. The l a t t e r category included: step-fathers, grandparents and common-law husbands. V5 Extent to which parents were represented by l e g a l counsel 43.5% of the parents were represented by l e g a l counsel and 56.5% d i d not have l e g a l representation at the section 11 hearing f o r the presentation of the Report to Court and making of the interim order . V6 Level of attendance by parents at court presentation 66.8% of the parents of apprehended ch i l d r e n attended the court presentation hearing, whereas 33.2% d i d not. V7 Number of presentation hearing adjournments In 84.1% of the cases there were no adjournments, and B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 100 i n 10.6% of cases there was only one adjournment. 4.8% of the cases were adjourned twice and i n only 0.5% of the cases were there three adjournments. The most common reason given f o r adjournments was the remoteness of the area of the province. This generally meant the c i r c u i t judge could only attend court monthly, with the r e s u l t being a J u s t i c e of the Peace would hear the matter within the seven days, then put i t over f o r the judge to make the Section 11 interim order when he or she returned to town f o r the next s i t t i n g of the Family Court. V8 Duration of time from apprehension to interim order The information provided by t h i s question c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l e d the findings i n the preceding v a r i a b l e . In 72.9% of the cases the section 11 interim order was made within a one week period of the apprehension. An a d d i t i o n a l 7.9% took a second week, followed by 9.9% i n the t h i r d Week. By the fourth week (4.9%) a t o t a l of 94.6% of the cases had been determined. The remaining cases took from f i v e to seven weeks (1.5% each) before the Section 11 interim order was made, with two cases taking a maximum of t h i r t e e n and seventeen weeks respectively (0.5%). V9 Same order requested as f i l e d i n Report to Court In 93.9% of the cases the s o c i a l worker asked the judge f o r the same interim Section 11 order as recorded on the B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 101 Report t o Court form. V10 P a r e n t a l consent t o s o c i a l workers recommendation The s o c i a l workers responded t h a t 66.2% o f the parents consented t o the s e c t i o n 11 i n t e r i m o r d e r they r e q u e s t e d from the c o u r t a t the Report t o Court p r e s e n t a t i o n , whereas 33.8% of the parents d i d not. V l l J u d i c i a l i n t e r i m o r d e r s P a r a l l e l i n g the s o c i a l workers r e q u e s t s o f an i n t e r i m o r d e r , i n 65.7% of the cases the judge g r a n t e d an i n t e r i m o r d e r a u t h o r i z i n g the S u p e r i n t e n d e n t t o r e t a i n o r r e t a k e custody of the c h i l d u n t i l a f u l l p r o t e c t i o n h e a r i n g c o u l d be h e l d under S e c t i o n 13. The next most f r e q u e n t o r d e r , which o c c u r r e d i n 20.2% o f the c a s e s , was making an order approving the Superintendent's e a r l i e r a c t o f r e t u r n i n g the c h i l d t o p a r e n t a l c a r e . In 8.5% of the c a s e s t h e c o u r t o r d e r e d the r e t u r n of a c h i l d t o p a r e n t a l custody who had been r e t a i n e d i n the S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s custody pending the p r e s e n t a t i o n h e a r i n g . In 5.6% o f the cases the c o u r t g r a n t e d an immediate c h i l d p r o t e c t i o n h e a r i n g . V12 J u d i c i a l i n t e r i m s u p e r v i s i o n o r d e r s Out of the 28.6% of the cases i n which t h e judge o r d e r e d t h a t a c h i l d be r e t a i n e d by the p a r e n t s or r e t u r n e d t o them, 34.4% of the time the judge o r d e r e d the B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 102 Superintendent to supervise the care of the c h i l d pending the commencement of a f u l l protection hearing. VI3 J u d i c i a l interim orders denying access to c h i l d Judges made supplementary orders denying access to the c h i l d i n only 9.7% of the presentation cases. Where denial of access was ordered i t involved the father alone i n 49.5% of the cases, the mother alone i n 5.2% of the cases, and "other" persons i n 44.3% of the cases. Again the l a t t e r category included: step-fathers, grandparents, and common-law husbands. TEMPORARY WARDSHIP ORDERS: F.&C.S. Act Section 13 V14 Ministry l e g a l counsel involvement i n temporary orders Ministry l e g a l counsel were involved i n case planning i n 47.1% of the cases p r i o r to the s o c i a l worker serving notices of hearing to the parents. In 23.6% of the cases the counsel became involved i n the seven days a f t e r the notices had been served, and i n 29.3% of the cases the ministry counsel was involved on the day of the hearing only. V15 Social worker's temporary custody recommendations At the protection hearing, i n 72.8% of the cases the B . C . CHILD PROTECTION - Page 103 s o c i a l worker requested an order authorizing the Superintendent to re t a i n or retake custody of the c h i l d f o r a period of time not exceeding 12 months. The next most frequent request, which occurred i n 11.9% of the cases, was fo r the court to order the Superintendent return the c h i l d to the parent apparently e n t i t l e d to custody. In 6.6% of the cases the court was requested to order that the c h i l d remain i n parental care. In 8.6% of the cases the s o c i a l worker requested that the matter proceed to a hearing f o r a permanent custody order f o r the c h i l d . VI6 S o c i a l workers recommendation of a supervision order Out of the 18.1% of the cases where a return to parental custody was requested, 64.1% of the time the s o c i a l worker requested the court order the Superintendent to supervise the care of the c h i l d f o r a period of time not exceeding 6 months. V17 S o c i a l workers recommendation f o r length of order  Supervision orders: Out of a possible s i x months maximum duration f o r a supervision order, the majority of s o c i a l worker requests were f o r three months at 52.0%. This was followed by s i x months at 40.0%, and two and four months at 4.0% each. Temporary Custody orders: Out of the possible twelve months duration f o r a temporary custody order, i n 62.9% of B . C . C H I L D P R O T E C T I O N - Page 1 0 4 the cases the s o c i a l worker r e q u e s t e d the c o u r t g r a n t a s i x month o r d e r . T h i s was f o l l o w e d by 22.4% f o r a t h r e e month or d e r and 9.5% f o r twelve months. Four months a t 2.6% and two months a t 1.7% were the next most f r e q u e n t l y r e q u e s t e d f o l l o w e d by e i g h t months a t 0.9%. V18 L e v e l of s o c i a l worker's o p p o s i t i o n t o p a r e n t a l access O p p o s i t i o n t o access t o t h e c h i l d by the p a r e n t s or o t h e r s , was r e g i s t e r e d by s o c i a l workers i n o n l y 10.8% of the cases t h a t proceeded t o a p r o t e c t i o n h e a r i n g . Where access was opposed, i t i n v o l v e d a c c e s s by both parents i n 23.1% of the c a s e s , the mother alone i n 23.1% of the c a s e s , the f a t h e r alone i n 17.6% of the c a s e s , and " o t h e r " persons i n 35.2% of the c a s e s . The l a t t e r c a t e g o r y i n c l u d e d : s t e p -f a t h e r s , grandparents and common-law husbands. VI9 E x t e n t of p a r e n t a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by l e g a l c o u n s e l 61.3% o f the parents were r e p r e s e n t e d by l e g a l c o u n s e l and 38.8% d i d not have l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a t the S e c t i o n 13 p r o t e c t i o n h e a r i n g . V20 L e v e l of attendance by p a r e n t s a t c o u r t h e a r i n g 81.9% of the parents attended the S e c t i o n 13 p r o t e c t i o n and temporary custody h e a r i n g , whereas 18.1% d i d not. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 105 V21 Number of protection hearing adjournments In 66.5% of the cases there were no adjournments, and i n 16.1% of cases there was only one adjournment. 9.7% of the cases were adjourned twice and 4.5% of the cases had three section 13 adjournments. 1.9% of the cases were adjourned four times. The maximum number of adjournments was f i v e i n 1.3% of the cases. V22 Duration of time from interim order to conclusion of  protection hearing The information provided by t h i s question p a r a l l e l e d the frequencies i n the preceding v a r i a b l e . The Family and Ch i l d Service Act requires a hearing to commence within 45 days. The survey found that 50.0% of the cases were determined within one month of the interim order. An add i t i o n a l 25.3% were concluded within the second month, followed by 10.4% i n the t h i r d month. By the fourth month (4.5%) a t o t a l of 90.3% of the cases had been determined. The remaining cases took f i v e (5.2%), s i x (3.9%) or seven (0.6%) months before a Section 13 order was made. V23 Same order requested as served i n Notice of Hearing In 80.1% of the cases the s o c i a l worker asked the court for the same section 13 temporary custody order as s p e c i f i e d i n the Notice of Hearing the parents had been served with and was f i l e d i n court. In 19.9% of the cases the request B . C . C H I L D P R O T E C T I O N - Page 106 was modified by reduction, e i t h e r i n the duration of the order, or a change i n the type of the order requested. V24 Parental consent to s o c i a l workers request at hearing The s o c i a l workers responded that 78.6% of the parents consented to the section 13 temporary custody order the s o c i a l worker requested from the court at the protection hearing, whereas 21.4% did not. This does not necessarily mean the parents agreed with the alleged protection grounds, rather that they consented to the type and length of order the s o c i a l worker requested. V25 J u d i c i a l temporary custody orders P a r a l l e l i n g the s o c i a l workers' requests, i n 64.2% of the cases the court granted temporary custody orders authorizing the Superintendent to r e t a i n or retake custody of the c h i l d . The next most frequent order, which occurred i n 21.9% of the cases involved the court ordering the return of the c h i l d , who had been retained i n the Superintendent's custody pending the section 13 protection hearing, to parental custody. In 7.9% of the cases the court made an order that the c h i l d remain i n the custody of the parent. In 6.0% of the cases the court made a permanent order on the c h i l d under section 14. B . C . CHILD PROTECTION - Page 107 V26 J u d i c i a l s u p e r v i s i o n o r d e r s Of t h e 29.6% o f t h e c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e c o u r t o r d e r e d a c h i l d be r e t a i n e d by o r r e t u r n e d t o t h e p a r e n t s , 77.7% o f t h e t i m e t h e c o u r t a l s o o r d e r e d t h e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t t o s u p e r v i s e t h e c a r e o f t h e c h i l d f o r up t o s i x months, a f t e r f i n d i n g t h e c h i l d i n need o f p r o t e c t i o n . V27 L e n g t h o f temporary o r d e r made by t h e c o u r t S u p e r v i s i o n o r d e r s : Out o f t h e s i x months maximum s u p e r v i s i o n o r d e r , t h e m a j o r i t y o f j u d i c i a l o r d e r s were f o r t h r e e months a t 51.4%. S i x months was t h e n e x t most commonly o r d e r e d l e n g t h o f s u p e r v i s i o n a t 34.3%. These were f o l l o w e d by f o u r months a t 5.7%, and one and two months a t 2.9% each . Temporary o r d e r s : Out o f t h e p o s s i b l e t w e l v e months d u r a t i o n o f a temporary o r d e r , i n 57.3% o f t h e c a s e s t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d a s i x month o r d e r . T h i s was f o l l o w e d by t h r e e months o r d e r s a t 24.4% and t w e l v e months a t 6.1%. Four months a t 5.3% and two months a t 2.3% were t h e n e x t most f r e q u e n t l y o r d e r e d by t h e c o u r t , f o l l o w e d by one month a t 1.5% and seven months a t 0.8%. V28 J u d i c i a l temporary o r d e r s d e n y i n g a c c e s s t o c h i l d Judges made su p p l e m e n t a r y o r d e r s d e n y i n g a c c e s s t o t h e c h i l d i n o n l y 9.9% o f t h e s e c t i o n 13 p r o t e c t i o n h e a r i n g s . Where d e n i a l o f a c c e s s was o r d e r e d i t i n v o l v e d b o t h p a r e n t s B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 108 i n 26.3% of the cases, the father alone i n 20.2% of the cases, the mother alone i n 13.1% of the cases, and "other" persons i n 39.4% of the cases. Again, the l a t t e r category included: step-fathers, grandparents, and common-law husbands. SUMMARY OF FREQUENCY FINDINGS Part l : Case Practice Variables - C h i l d Focused S l i g h t l y more g i r l s were brought into care through apprehension than boys. More than h a l f of the ch i l d r e n were under nine years of age, although 14 and 15 year olds were the most frequently apprehended. The great majority of ch i l d r e n were i n the normal functioning range p h y s i c a l l y and i n t e l l e c t u a l l y , with some behavioral problems. Aboriginal c h i l d r e n made up a disproportionately high percentage of the ch i l d r e n i n care. The great majority of c h i l d r e n were apprehended from t h e i r parents due to parental d i s a b i l i t y , neglect, or being deserted. In most cases the i n i t i a l plan was to return the c h i l d to the parents, even though h a l f of the chi l d r e n , or one of t h e i r s i b l i n g s , had been i n care before. The apprehensions were c h i l d s p e c i f i c and generally d i d not involve apprehending a l l the s i b l i n g s . T h i r t y - f i v e percent of the children were l e f t with t h e i r parents a f t e r apprehension and fi f t y - t w o percent were placed i n fos t e r or B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 109 group homes. Eighty-one percent of the c h i l d r e n were brought into care due to unexpected events. A s i m i l a r percentage had no known r e l i g i o u s background. Part 2: The Family's Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Over h a l f of the c h i l d r e n were apprehended from sing l e parent f a m i l i e s , predominantly female headed. Less than t h i r t y percent of the c h i l d r e n were apprehended from a family consisting of both of t h e i r b i o l o g i c a l parents. The remaining childr e n came from blended or step-parent f a m i l i e s . Over half of the parents were Caucasian and one-t h i r d were native Indian. Seventy percent of the parents were i n the 25 to 44 year o ld age group. Eighty percent of the parents who headed the household had not graduated from high school. Over half of the parents d i d not have occupations, were i n the service sector, or i n construction trades. F i f t y - e i g h t percent of the parents were on some type of income assistance program. Seventy-one percent of the f a m i l i e s had incomes of less than $20,000 i n 1989. Although fift y - t w o percent of the f a m i l i e s l i v e d i n detached houses, s i x t y - s i x percent of the f a m i l i e s rented t h e i r dwelling. The majority of the fa m i l i e s were not transient, s i x t y - s i x percent having resided i n the d i s t r i c t o f f i c e area for over one year. B . C . C H I L D P R O T E C T I O N - Page 110 Part 3: F.&C.S. Order Requested and Court Dispositions  Procedures following apprehension: F.&C.S. Section 11 F i f t y percent of the M i n i s t r y l e g a l counsel were involved p r i o r to the day of the Report to Court, and f i f t y percent became involved only on the day of the presentation. In seventy-two percent of the cases the s o c i a l worker asked the court that the Superintendent have interim custody of the c h i l d . In approximately twenty-five percent of the cases the s o c i a l worker asked that the c h i l d be l e f t with, or returned to parental care. A supervision order was asked f o r i n twenty-seven percent of the returns to parental custody. In eighty-six percent of the cases the s o c i a l workers were not opposed to parental contact with the c h i l d . Over f i f t y - s i x percent of the parents d i d not have l e g a l counsel at the time of presentation of the Report to Court and interim order. S i x t y - s i x percent of the parents attended the presentation of the Report to Court. Over eighty percent of the cases had an interim order made within the seven day requirement of the Family and C h i l d Service Act. Another f i f t e e n percent took up to one month to complete due mainly to c i r c u i t court l i m i t a t i o n s . Ninety-four percent of the time, s o c i a l workers asked the court f o r the same interim order as f i l e d i n the Report to Court. In s i x t y - s i x percent of the cases the parents consented to the s o c i a l workers requested interim order. The court granted the Superintendent interim custody of the B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 111 c h i l d i n s i x t y - f i v e percent of the cases. In almost t h i r t y percent of the cases the court ordered the c h i l d be i n parental care. Out of t h i s l a s t percentage, the court ordered supervision t h i r t y - f o u r percent of the time. Ninety percent of the time the court d i d not make an interim order denying access to the c h i l d . Temporary Wardship Orders: F.&C.S. Act Section 13 In almost f i f t y percent of the cases, M i n i s t r y l e g a l counsel were involved i n case planning with the s o c i a l worker p r i o r to the parents being served notice of the protection hearing. Twenty-three percent of the counsel were involved a f t e r the notices were served, and t h i r t y percent were involved the day of the protection hearing only. Seventy-three percent of the time the s o c i a l worker requested that the court order the c h i l d to be placed i n the temporary care of the Superintendent. Eighteen percent of the time the s o c i a l worker asked that the c h i l d be i n parental care. In less than ten percent of the cases was a permanent order requested. When the s o c i a l worker requested the c h i l d be returned to parental care, i n s i x t y - f o u r percent of the cases a supervision order was asked f o r . Fifty-two percent of the supervision orders requested were for s i x months, and fo r t y percent were f o r three months. When temporary custody was requested, out of the twelve B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 112 months possible duration, sixty-three percent of the requests were f o r a s i x month order, twenty-two percent were fo r a three month order, and l e s s than ten percent were f o r the f u l l twelve months allowed f o r under the act. Soc i a l workers opposed access to the c h i l d by anyone i n only eleven percent of the cases. Over sixty-one percent of the parents had l e g a l counsel at the protection hearing, and eighty-two percent of the parents attended some part of the hearing. Eighty-two percent of the cases were dealt with no or only one adjournment, and seventy-five percent of the protection hearings were concluded within one to two months. Eighty . percent of the time the s o c i a l worker asked the court f o r the same order as f i l e d on the Notice of Hearing. In seventy-eight percent of the cases the parents consented to the order the s o c i a l worker requested of the court. Sixty-four percent of the time the court made orders granting the Superintendent temporary custody of the c h i l d . T h i r t y percent of the time the court ordered the c h i l d be i n parental custody. The court made permanent orders less than seven percent of the time. In the cases where the c h i l d was ordered to be i n parental care, seventy-eight percent of the time the court ordered that the c h i l d be supervised by the Superintendent. Fifty-one percent of the supervision orders made by the court were f o r three months and t h i r t y - f o u r were for s i x months. When the court made a temporary order, B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 113 f i f t y - s e v e n percent of the time the order was f o r s i x months. This was followed by three month orders comprising twenty-four percent, with only s i x percent being f o r the f u l l twelve months possible under the temporary custody section of the act. The court made orders denying access to the c h i l d i n less than ten percent of the cases brought to protection hearings. Commentary on Court Aspects The next section of t h i s chapter examines the percentage of congruence between the Family and c h i l d Service Act orders requested by the s o c i a l worker and the dis p o s i t i o n s granted by the court, through the use of crosstabulation. In contrast to the previous description which just looked at percentages of s p e c i f i c orders made at both stages of the court process, t h i s aspect of the data analysis v e r i f i e d whether the percentages described apply to the same cases, enabling a more accurate d e s c r i p t i o n of occurrence and congruence. Although each subsection was calculated i n d i v i d u a l l y f o r the following f i g u r e s , the crosstabulation tables are presented i n aggregate for each of the two sections. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 114 SECTION 11 - PRESENTATION AND REPORT TO COURT Table 2 Soci a l Worker & Court Agreement COURT INTERIM ORDERS Approve Order MSS&H Grant Sec 9(5) Return Interim Secl3(l) Return C h i l d Custody Order Row SOCIAL WORKER 1 2 3 4 %Total REQUESTS COURT 1 sec 9(5) return 17.4 0.4 0.4 18.3 to parent 2 return c h i l d 0.5 4.2 0.5 5.2 to parent 3 MSSH interim 1.9 3.8 63.8 2.3 71.8 custody 4 sec 13(1) order 0.5 0.9 3.3 4.7 Column % Total 20.2 8.5 65.7  2 * * 0.5 0.9 * 3.3 5.6 100.0 The Presentation and Report to Court At the section 11 presentation and Report to Court s o c i a l workers requested that the c h i l d remain i n parental care (Section 11(2)(a)) 18.3% of the time. The court granted t h i s order 94.9% of the time i t was requested, as well as ordering the c h i l d be returned to the parent i n 2.6% of these cases ( e s s e n t i a l l y the same order). However, i n 2.6% of these cases the court ordered the c h i l d be i n the custody of the Superintendent pending a protection hearing. S o c i a l workers requested the c h i l d be returned to the B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 115 parents (Section 11(2)(b)) i n 5.2% of the cases. The court granted t h i s order 81.8% of the time i t was requested, as well as ordering the c h i l d be returned to the parent 9.1% i n of these cases (again, e s s e n t i a l l y the same order). However, the court also ordered the reverse i n 9.1% of these requests, ordering the Superintendent retake custody of the c h i l d u n t i l the section 13 protection hearing. S o c i a l workers requested interim custody of the c h i l d (Section 11(2)(c)) i n 71.8% of the cases. The court granted the order 88.9% of the time i t was requested. The court disagreed i n 7.8% of these cases, ordering the c h i l d remain with the parents (2.6%), or the c h i l d be returned to the parents (5.2%). On the converse, the court ordered the matter proceed to a Section 13(1) custody hearing i n 3.3% of these cases. S o c i a l workers requested the matter go immediately to a Section 13(1) custody hearing (Section 11(2)(d)) i n 4.7% of the cases. The court granted t h i s order 70.0% of the time i t was requested. However, i n 10.0% of these requests the court ordered the c h i l d remain with the parent, and i n 20.0% of these cases the court ordered the Superintendent have interim custody pending a protection hearing. S o c i a l workers requested interim supervision orders i n 6.5% of a l l the cases, or 27.8% of the 23.4% cases where the c h i l d had been returned to, or was requesting the court to return the c h i l d to parental care. However, the court B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 116 ordered interim supervision i n 9.7% of a l l the cases, or 33.9% of the 28.6% cases the c h i l d was ordered to parental care. 57.1% of the supervision orders were made when the court ordered the c h i l d be returned to parental care, and 42.9% when the court approved the Superintendents e a r l i e r action of having returned the c h i l d to parental care. S o c i a l workers requested parents be denied interim access i n 13.9% of the presentations to Court. The court made t h i s supplementary order 69.8% of the time i t was requested. SECTION 13 - PROTECTION AND TEMPORARY CUSTODY HEARING Table 3 Soc i a l Worker & Court Agreement COURT DISPOSITION ORDERS SOCIAL WORKER REQUESTS COURT -1 c h i l d remain with parent 2 return c h i l d to parent 3 MSSH r e t a i n custody 4 section 14(1) perm order Column % Total C h i l d to Remain with Par 1 Return C h i l d to Parent 2 MSS&H to Retain Custody 3 Proceed Section 14(1) 4 Row %Total * 4.6 2.0 6.6 0.7 * 11.3 11.9 2.6 8 . 6 * 61.6 72.8 2.6 * 6.0 8.6 7.9 21.9 64.2 6.0 100.0 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 117 The Protection and Temporary Custody Hearing I t should be noted approximately 30.0% of the cases do not proceed to a section 13 protection hearing a f t e r the section 11 presentation. This i s due to the court ordering the c h i l d be i n parental care and deeming that a protection hearing i s not necessary. At the section 13 protection and temporary custody hearing s o c i a l workers requested the court order the c h i l d remain with the parent (Section 13(1)(a)) 6.6% of the time. The court granted the order 70.0% of the time i t was requested, or ordered the c h i l d be returned to the parent 30.0% of the time i n these cases ( i n essence the same order). S o c i a l workers requested the c h i l d be returned to the parents (Section 13(1)(b)) i n 11.9% of the cases. The court granted the order 94.4% of the time i t was requested, or ordered the c h i l d remain with the parent i n the remaining 5.6% of these cases (again, e s s e n t i a l l y the same order). S o c i a l workers requested temporary custody of the c h i l d (Section 13(l)(c)) i n 72.8% of the cases. The court granted the order 84.5% of the time i t was requested. Where the 15.5% disagreement occurred, the court ordered the c h i l d returned to parental care. The court ordered the c h i l d remain with the parent 3.6% of these cases and the c h i l d be returned to the parent i n 11.8% of these cases. This subsection generated the majority of j u d i c i a l disagreement with the s o c i a l workers' recommendations. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 118 So c i a l workers requested the matter proceed to permanent hearing (Section 13(1)(d)) i n 8.6% of the cases. The court granted a permanent order 69.9% of the time i t was requested. However, i n the remaining 30.8% of the cases where a permanent order was requested by the s o c i a l worker, the court ordered the c h i l d remain i n temporary care of the Superintendent instead. S o c i a l workers requested supervision orders i n 11.6% of a l l the cases, or 64.1% of the 18.1% cases where the c h i l d had remained with, or where the court was being requested to return the c h i l d to parental care. However, the court ordered ministry supervision i n 16.2% of a l l the cases, or 54.7% of the 29.6% cases the court ordered the c h i l d be i n parental care. 71.4% of the supervision orders the court made were when the c h i l d was ordered returned to parental care, and 28.6% when the court approved the Superintendents e a r l i e r action of having returned the c h i l d to parental care. With respect to opposition of access to the c h i l d , s o c i a l workers requested parents be denied access i n 10.8% of the protection hearings. The court made t h i s supplementary order 91.7% of the times i t was requested. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 119 SUMMARY This chapter reviewed selected variables of t h i s study through the use of frequencies. The va r i a b l e s were examined i n t h i s manner to provide a s t a t i s t i c a l background on the children who are apprehended in t o care and the socio-economic and demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the c h i l d ' s family. In addition the chapter reviewed a number of the variables involved i n the court process and examined the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l workers recommendations to the court and the court's d i s p o s i t i o n a l orders. The next chapter builds on selected v a r i a b l e s described i n t h i s chapter, and explores r e l a t i o n s h i p s among these variables, with the aim of i d e n t i f y i n g s i g n i f i c a n t factors which could have p o l i c y implications. B . C . CHILD PROTECTION - Page 120 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS INTRODUCTION This concluding chapter consists of a discussion of the findings presented i n the previous chapter and t h e i r implications f o r c h i l d protection p o l i c y and pr a c t i c e . The organization p a r a l l e l s that of the preceding chapter i n that variables describing c h i l d r e n who were apprehended w i l l be examined, followed by variables dealing with the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i r f a m i l i e s . A t h i r d section w i l l consider reasons f o r the c h i l d ' s apprehension as rel a t e d to c h i l d s p e c i f i c and family s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . This w i l l be followed by a fourth section c o n s i s t i n g of an examination of the j u d i c i a l process and factors which occurred during the administration of the Family and C h i l d Service Act. Building on each of these descriptions, c h i l d protection p o l i c y recommendations w i l l be proposed, and further areas of research w i l l be suggested. The f i r s t two sections focus on findings selected from the study and examine the extent to which these findings support a l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Tables have been constructed to i l l u s t r a t e the s p e c i f i e d v a r i a b l e s . The B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 121 tables begin the narrative f o r the purpose of c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the variables being described. The focus of the f i r s t section of t h i s chapter i s to i d e n t i f y socio-economic and demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of f a m i l i e s i n our society that are most vulnerable to c h i l d protection interventions. This i s done by comparing s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c h i l d separated f a m i l i e s with s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the general population. The e n t a i l s a focus on the apprehended c h i l d r e n and the socio-economic and demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the f a m i l i e s of the apprehended ch i l d r e n . I t has been hypothesized that some f a m i l i e s within the general population are more vulnerable to c h i l d separation through the action of c h i l d welfare agencies than others. I t i s assumed, therefore, that the s o c i a l and demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the f a m i l i e s that have experienced c h i l d apprehension through the action of the M.S.S.&H. c h i l d welfare systems, w i l l d i f f e r from those of the general population i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The source of data used f o r t h i s comparison was the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia demographic figures from the 1986 Canada Census. This comparison has been obtained by the construction of a ser i e s of scores f o r each of the selected v a r i a b l e s l i s t e d i n the previous chapter. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 122 PROCEDURE FOR TESTING LEVEL OF VARIABLE SIGNIFICANCE Variable scores f o r each of the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s with tables were computed based on the following formula: VARIABLE SCORE = % Ps % Pbc Where Ps equals the percentage of c h i l d separated fa m i l i e s i n t h i s study, and Pbc equals the percentage of f a m i l i e s or c h i l d r e n from the general population i n B r i t i s h Columbia (Crane, 1967; Matheson & Neave, 1967). In order to appropriately evaluate the v a r i a b l e scores obtained f o r each of the demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s p e c i f i e d below, the meaning of these scores must be appreciated. Each score represents a r a t i o of the proportion of the survey sample to the proportion of the p r o v i n c i a l population f o r that p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . Thus a v a r i a b l e score of 1.00 denotes no d i f f e r e n c e between the c h i l d apprehended f a m i l i e s i n the study and the p r o v i n c i a l population, with respect to that one c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . As scores diminish, a decreasing prevalence to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s denoted. As scores increase above 1.00, a r i s i n g prevalence of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c above the general population i s indicated. Scores which vary furthest from 1.00, e i t h e r high or low,, represent demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which d i f f e r e n t i a t e c h i l d separated families from the general population i n B r i t i s h Columbia. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 123 The second form of data analysis u t i l i z e d i n t h i s chapter was c r o s s - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n tables, or crosstabulation. Crosstabulation i s s i m i l a r to the above form of analysis, except i t permits descriptions of r e l a t i o n s h i p s between two or more var i a b l e s within the sample when i t i s not possible to compare the sample to the general population. This allows e i t h e r variable to be dependent or independent. A crosstabulation table shows a c e l l f o r every combination of categories of the two v a r i a b l e s . Inside the c e l l are three numeric f i g u r e s . The top one i s the actual number of persons i n the sample data who supplied that response. This i s c a l l e d the Count or observed frequency. Second i s the expected frequency value. The expected frequency i s based on s t a t i s t i c a l l y generated frequency estimations i n order to estimate the l i k e l i h o o d of a di f f e r e n c e , to t e s t i f the n u l l hypothesis i s true. The procedure provides two sample means to use a t - d i s t r i b u t i o n and chi-square s t a t i s t i c , also known as Pearson's chi-square p r o b a b i l i t y . The t h i r d f i g u r e i n the c e l l i s the percentage f i g u r e of the count, or observed frequency out of the t o t a l sample population i n that crosstabulation comparison. The conclusion of t h i s chapter looks at the o r i g i n a l issues i n t h i s study and considers the implications of the research findings f o r c h i l d welfare and c h i l d protection p o l i c y . The chapter concludes with general p o l i c y recommendations and suggestions f o r further research. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 124 CHILD FOCUSED DISCUSSION Table 4 VI Child's Gender GENDER % OF STUDY % OF BC VARIABLE SCORE MALE 44.2 49.0 0.90 FEMALE 55.8 51.0 1.09 I t was believed that the sex of the c h i l d would have l i t t l e bearing on the c h i l d separation percentages and that the r a t i o s of the c h i l d separation population would be representative of the general population. However, the above v a r i a b l e scores indicate that c h i l d r e n who are apprehended d i d not exactly match the general population, instead, males are s l i g h t l y under-represented, and females are s l i g h t l y over-represented. This f i n d i n g i s more f u l l y examined i n following categories. Table 5 V2 Child's age by grouping, at time of apprehension  AGE GROUP % OF STUDY % OF BC VARIABLE SCORE 0 - 4 YEARS 32.0 27.1 1.18 5 - 9 YEARS 22.1 25.6 0.86 10 - 14 YEARS 26.3 25.3 1.04 15 - 18 YEARS 19.5 22.0 0.89 The above variable scores indicate that c h i l d r e n 0 to 4 years of age had the greatest chance of being separated from B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 125 parental care through the action of a c h i l d protection s o c i a l worker. In contrast, c h i l d r e n 5 to 9 years of age had the l e a s t chance of being apprehended in t o care. Children 10 through 14 years of age are s l i g h t l y above the average apprehension rate, whereas c h i l d r e n 15 through 18 years of age are the second lowest apprehension group i n comparison to the general population. The next two categories examine the c h i l d ' s age group compared to the c h i l d ' s gender. Table 6 VI & V2 Child's age by grouping, by c h i l d ' s gender: MALE AGE GROUP % OF STUDY % OF BC VARIABLE SCORE MALES MALES MALES 0 - 4 YEARS 39.1 27.2 1.43 5 - 9 YEARS 25.0 25.6 0.98 10 - 14 YEARS 21.1 25.2 0.84 15 - 18 YEARS 14.8 22.0 0.67 The apprehension rate f o r males s t a r t s at a high rate, then drops s t e a d i l y and sharply u n t i l the age of. majority. The lar g e s t percentage of males apprehended into care came from the 0 to 4 years o l d age group, at a rate of almost one and a ha l f times t h e i r representation i n the general population i n 1986. Males i n the 5 to 9 years age group were apprehended at a rate equal to the percentage found i n the general population. The 10 to 14 years age group were apprehended less frequently than expected, whereas the 15 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 126 through 18 years age group was apprehended only sixty-seven percent of t h e i r r e l a t i o n to t h e i r representation i n the general population. Table 7 VI & V2 Child's age by grouping, by c h i l d ' s gender: FEMALE AGE GROUP % OF STUDY % OF BC VARIABLE SCORE FEMALES FEMALES FEMALES 0 - 4 YEARS 26.4 26.9 0.98 5 - 9 YEARS 19.8 25.7 0.77 10 - 14 YEARS 30.5 25.3 1.21 15 - 18 YEARS 23.4 22.1 1.06 The p r o f i l e f o r females who were apprehended d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y from that of males. Females i n the 0 to 4 years of age range were apprehended at a rate very s i m i l a r to t h e i r representation i n the general population, whereas females i n the 5 to 9 years group are apprehended s i g n i f i c a n t l y less frequently when compared to t h e i r representation i n the general population. However, females i n the 10 to 14 years age group come into care at a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher rate than t h e i r representation i n the general population, and continued to be over represented i n the 15 through 18 years o l d group. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 127 Table 8 V4 Child's ethnic / c u l t u r a l o r i g i n ETHNIC ORIGIN % OF STUDY % OF BC VARIABLE SCORE BRITISH FRENCH 44.2 04.6 35.0 03 .6 01.0 00.5 04.6 06.6 31.0 02.0 02.0 05.0 02.0 04.0 12.0 38.0 1.42 2.30 17.50 0.72 0.50 0.12 0.38 0.17 ABORIGINAL GERMAN ITALIAN CHINESE SINGLE ORIGIN MULTIPLE ORIGIN The variable scoring f o r c h i l d r e n of a s o l e l y Aboriginal o r i g i n was exceptionally high. Aboriginal ch i l d r e n were shown to be over represented i n the study sample by more than seventeen times the general population. However, i t should be noted that an a d d i t i o n a l 2% of the people i n the Multiple Origins category are also considered to be of Aboriginal background. Given a 4% maximum of a l l persons with an Aboriginal background i n B.C., the ch i l d r e n were s t i l l overly represented by a r a t i o of 8.75. Both these v a r i a b l e scores f a r exceed the other two ethnic groups which were also overly represented, the French and B r i t i s h . The remaining ethnic categories were under represented i n the c h i l d separation sample, Chinese and other s i n g l e and multiple ethnic o r i g i n categories being s i g n i f i c a n t l y under represented. The r e s u l t s of t h i s category appear to indicate that B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 128 ethnic o r i g i n or c u l t u r a l group, i s a meaningful dimension i n the phenomenon of c h i l d separation. Children of Aboriginal background have substantial v u l n e r a b i l i t y to c h i l d separation, as they have had i n the past four decades. One of the p o l i c y implications f o r services to Aboriginal people i s the f i n d i n g that 81.4% of the a b o r i g i n a l children who were apprehended had mothers who were non-status. The f a c t that t h i s large percentage were non-status means that bands, t r i b a l councils and Indian and Northern A f f a i r s Canada would not be involved i n planning or funding services f o r these f a m i l i e s , thus r e q u i r i n g c u l t u r a l l y appropriate services to be developed f o r non-status a b o r i g i n a l people. In contrast to Aboriginal people, c h i l d r e n of other v i s i b l e ethnic backgrounds were less l i k e l y to experience separation through c h i l d protection involvement. Given Canada's immigration p o l i c i e s and changing percentages of the ethnic mosaic of Canadian society, the under-representation of v i s i b l e minority groups i n the c h i l d separation population should be also considered f o r further study. Over time the changing ethnic and c u l t u r a l composition of B.C. society could impact the type of preventative and support services that are required. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 129 PART 2: THE FAMILIES' CHARACTERISTICS / DEMOGRAPHICS Table 9 VI The family structure compared to B.C. FAMILY STRUCTURE % OF STUDY % OF BC VARIABLE SCORE TWO PARENTS MALE SINGLE FEMALE SINGLE 46.0 09.8 43.2 50.0 02.0 10.0 0.92 4.90 4.32 This category demonstrated i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s . I t appears that two parent f a m i l i e s (both married and common-law) are represented i n the c h i l d separated population at a r a t i o s l i g h t l y below t h e i r proportion of the general population. However, single parent f a m i l i e s i n the c h i l d separated population are represented approximately four and a h a l f times t h e i r proportion of the general population. While there were fewer singl e male parents i n the study, they were represented i n the c h i l d separation group almost f i v e times t h e i r proportion of the general population. Single female parents fared s l i g h t l y better than males. However, they too are over represented i n the c h i l d separation population by a fac t o r of almost four and a h a l f times the general population. This f i n d i n g supports the b e l i e f that being a singl e parent places greater stresses on the care-giver and increases the l i k e l i h o o d of c h i l d separation by a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r . B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 130 Table 10 V3 Marital status of c h i l d ' s Mother compared to B.C. MARITAL STATUS % OF STUDY % OF BC VARIABLE SCORE SINGLE 22.1 20.0 1.10 MARRIED 34.5 48.0 0.72 WIDOWED 02.3 05.0 0.46 DIVORCED/SEPARATED 24.4 07.0 3.49 COMMON-LAW/UNKNOWN 16.4 20.0 0.82 The v a r i a b l e scores i n t h i s category support the findings i n the previous category. Women who were married or i n a common-law r e l a t i o n s h i p experienced l e s s frequent c h i l d separation than the general population. Except for women who were widowed, women who were s i n g l e , divorced, or separated were at an increased r i s k of c h i l d separation than the general population. I t appears that women who have gone through the termination of a r e l a t i o n s h i p , due to divorce or separation, were at r i s k of c h i l d separation three and a half times that of the general population. Table 11 V4 Marital status of c h i l d ' s Father compared to B.C. MARITAL STATUS % OF STUDY % OF BC VARIABLE SCORE SINGLE 16.4 20.0 0.82 MARRIED 33.6 48.0 0.70 WIDOWED 00.4 05.0 0.01 DIVORCED/SEPARATED 30.5 07.0 4.36 COMMON-LAW/UNKNOWN 14.9 20.0 0.75 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 131 The v a r i a b l e scores i n t h i s category support the findings i n the two previous categories. Men who were married, i n a common-law r e l a t i o n s h i p , s i n g l e , or widowed experienced f a r less frequent c h i l d separation than the general population. Whereas, men who were divorced or separated, were at over four times the r i s k of c h i l d separation i n comparison to the general population. I t appears that, while male si n g l e parents are t y p i c a l l y under represented i n the general population, men who have been through a divorce or separation, and are s i n g l e parents, are at a very high r i s k of c h i l d separation. Table 12 V7 Age of Head of Household compared to B.C. AGE HEAD HOUSE % OF STUDY % OF BC VARIABLE SCORE 20 - 24 YEARS 17.4 11.0 1.58 25 - 34 YEARS 38.2 24.7 1.55 35 - 44 YEARS 31.9 20.5 1.55 45 - 54 YEARS 08.7 13.7 0.64 55 - 64 YEARS 02.4 13.7 0.18 65 - 74 YEARS 01.0 09.6 0.10 75 YEARS PLUS 00.0 06.8 0.00 The d i s t r i b u t i o n of v a r i a b l e scores produced i n t h i s category may be s i g n i f i c a n t i n that an increase i n age appears to be associated with a decrease i n v u l n e r a b i l i t y to c h i l d separation. Family heads under age 44 occur i n the c h i l d separated population over one and a h a l f times as B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 132 often as they do i n the general population. Over the age of 44 there i s a marked decrease i n the incidence of c h i l d separation when compared to the general population. These findings support the conclusion that there appears to be an inverse association between the age of family household head and the family's v u l n e r a b i l i t y to c h i l d separation. Younger f a m i l i e s appear to be at greater r i s k than the general population, whereas, f a m i l i e s i n which the head of the household i s age 55 years and over are r e l a t i v e l y immune to the phenomena of c h i l d separation. This f i n d i n g i s not s i g n i f i c a n t on i t s own, as older parents may have older, or no c h i l d r e n , whereas younger parents have a higher p r o b a b i l i t y of having younger c h i l d r e n , regardless of the echo baby boom. This category would need to be explored further comparing family structure and age of ch i l d r e n i n order to develop actual s i g n i f i c a n c e . Table 13 V8 Education l e v e l of primary income earner compared to B.C. EDUCATION LEVEL % OF STUDY % OF BC VARIABLE SCORE LESS THAN GRADE 9 32.0 11.0 2.91 GRADE 9-13 NO CERT 47.0 30.0 1.57 GRADE 9-13 CERTIF 11.0 12.0 0.92 TRADE CERT OR DIPLOMA 06.5 27.0 0.24 UNIVERSITY NO DEGREE 01.5 11.0 0.14 UNIVERSITY AND DEGREE 02.0 09.0 0.22 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 133 This v a r i a b l e demonstrated a very c l e a r reverse c o r r e l a t i o n between the amount of education and the p r o f i l e of c h i l d separated f a m i l i e s . In the l e s s than grade nine education category, approximately three times as many of the f a m i l i e s experienced c h i l d separation, compared to the general population. As the parents' educational l e v e l increases, the prevalence within the sample of c h i l d separated f a m i l i e s diminishes. When the educational l e v e l of c h i l d separated f a m i l i e s approaches that of the general population, at the high school graduation point, there i s v i r t u a l l y no difference between the two. However, as the educational l e v e l continues to increase, i t s prevalence within the c h i l d separated population diminishes s i g n i f i c a n t l y below that of the general p u b l i c . This r e s u l t appears to mean that the p r o b a b i l i t y of a c h i l d being apprehended i s greatest among f a m i l i e s where the family head has a l i m i t e d l e v e l of education. In contrast, there appears to be a decrease i n v u l n e r a b i l i t y of c h i l d apprehension when the parent has an increased l e v e l of education. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 134 Table 14 V9 Occupational of family income earner compared to B.C. OCCUPATION % OF STUDY % OF BC VARIABLE SCORE MANAGERIAL 02.6 10.0 0.26 NATURAL SCIENCE 00.5 03.0 0.17 SOCIAL SCIENCE 01.0 04.0 0.25 TEACHING 00.5 04.0 0.12 MEDICINE 00.5 05.0 0.10 CLERICAL 02.6 17.0 0.15 SALES 02.1 10.0 0.21 SERVICE —=•14.5 15.0 0.97 FARMING 03.6 03.0 1.20 OTHER INDUSTRY 07.3 03.0 2.43 PROCESSING 01.6 04.0 0.40 MACHINING 02.1 02.0 1.05 PRODUCTION 03.6 06.0 0.60 CONSTRUCTION 09.8 06.0 1.63 TRANSPORTATION 03.6 04.0 0.90 MATERIAL 01.6 02.0 0.80 OTHER EQUIP 02.1 01.0 2.10 OCC NOT CLASS —~^38.3 01.0 38.30 STUDENT 02.1 The v a r i a b l e scores indicate a s u b s t a n t i a l difference between the occupational d i s t r i b u t i o n of c h i l d separated f a m i l i e s and that of the general population. A lack of v a r i a t i o n would be indicated by a v a r i a b l e score approaching 1.00 i n every category. Three of the categories are very proximal to the general population, being "service, machining, and transportation". However, the remaining scores range from 0.12 f o r "teaching" category, to 38.30 f o r "occupation not c l a s s i f i e d " category (which was generally s p e c i f i e d as being on Income Assistance i n the questionnaire). The general trend exhibited i s that B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 135 professional and s k i l l e d trades categories are under represented i n the c h i l d separation population, i n contrast to the u n s k i l l e d occupations, such as other industry and construction. This wide d i s p a r i t y among the scores supports the b e l i e f that the occupational d i s t r i b u t i o n among fam i l i e s experiencing c h i l d separation d i f f e r s from that of the general population, and that a higher socio-economic employment status appears to have a lower p r o b a b i l i t y of c h i l d separation. Table 15 V l l Total amount of household income compared to B.C. HOUSEHOLD INCOME % OF STUDY % OF BC VARIABLE SCORE $ 0 - 9,999 22.7 15.0 1.51 $10,000-19,999 48.3 20.0 2.42 $20,000-29,999 08.9 17.0 0.52 $30,000-39,999 12.3 16.0 0.77 $40,000-49,999 04.4 12.0 0.37 $50,000-59,999 02.0 08.0 0.25 $60,000-69,999 01.0 05.0 0.20 $70,000-& OVER 00.5 07.0 0.07 The above comparative l e v e l s of income provide support fo r the previous findings on parental occupation. I t should be noted that the income l e v e l s provided f o r the fa m i l i e s that experienced c h i l d separation was the year 1989, and le v e l s of income are from 1986 census year, and do not take into account three years i n f l a t i o n which would worsen the vari a b l e scores of the c h i l d separated f a m i l i e s more than B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 136 i l l u s t r a t e d above. The household income l e v e l s of the fa m i l i e s who experienced c h i l d separation was s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s than income l e v e l of the general population. One and a half times the number of f a m i l i e s with incomes le s s than $9,999 experienced c h i l d separation compared to the general population i n B.C., and fa m i l i e s with incomes of le s s than $19,999 experienced two and a h a l f times the c h i l d separation when compared to the general population. In inverse association to these categories, f a m i l i e s earning over $20,000 are decreasingly represented among the c h i l d separation population as the l e v e l of the family income rose. These findings appear to support the b e l i e f that stresses caused by a low income influence the s u s c e p t i b i l i t y of a family to c h i l d separation, whereas an increased income provides f o r more resources and a decreased p o s s i b i l i t y of c h i l d separation. Table 16 V10 Primary Source of Family Income compared to B.C. INCOME SOURCE % OF STUDY % OF BC VARIABLE SCORE EMPLOYMENT 41.1 87.0 0.47 MSS&H IA/EIP 50.7 06.0 8.45 OTHER FINANCIAL 07.2 07.0 1.03 The above variable scores were c a l c u l a t e d by: 1) using the information on numbers of f a m i l i e s on Income Assistance B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 137 i n the M.S.S.&H. 1988/89 Annual Report i n comparison to the t o t a l number of families i n the Province of B.C. according to the 1986 census data; plus: 2) using the percentages of people employed i n the labour force i n the 1986 census year, as well as the percentages of unemployment. This c a l c u l a t i o n demonstrated that f a m i l i e s i n r e c e i p t of Income Assistance were greatly over-represented i n the c h i l d separation population by a r a t i o of almost eight and a h a l f times the general population. Being i n r e c e i p t of income assistance i s a meaningful i n d i c a t o r of v u l n e r a b i l i t y to c h i l d separation. Conversely, i t appears that being employed reduces the variable scale on c h i l d separation to le s s than h a l f of that of the general population. Being on some other form of f i n a n c i a l assistance program, such as unemployment insurance, does not appear to a f f e c t the degree of c h i l d separation when compared to the general population. Table 17 V12 Type of dwelling which family resided compared to B.C. DWELLING TYPE % OF STUDY % OF BC VARIABLE SCORE DETACHED HOUSE 52.5 62.0 0.85 APARTMENT 21.8 06.0 3.63 MOVEABLE DWELLING 06.9 03.0 2.30 ALL OTHER 18.8 29.0 0.65 The type of dwelling f a m i l i e s reside i n appears to be a fa c t o r i n the frequency of c h i l d separation which occurred. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 138 Ch i l d separated f a m i l i e s who l i v e d i n detached houses approximated the variable scale of the general population. In contrast to these f a m i l i e s , f a m i l i e s who l i v e d i n more crowded dwellings had a higher r a t i o of c h i l d separation. Families who resided i n apartment buildings experienced c h i l d separation at a rate over three and a h a l f times, and those who reside i n mobile homes at almost two and a half times the rate of the general population. These findings support the b e l i e f that overcrowding impacts family l i f e and leads to an increased i n t e r a c t i o n with c h i l d protection s o c i a l workers. Ad d i t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are that close proximity could cause an increase i n c h i l d protection reports f o r a number of reasons; eg. les s e r sound privacy and close l i v i n g arrangements could mean f a m i l i e s know about one anothers' a c t i v i t i e s , and re l a t i o n s h i p s among the tenants could more e a s i l y become strained due to over crowding, etc. The present range of s o c i a l housing options and t h e i r p o t e n t i a l impact on the q u a l i t y of l i f e on low income f a m i l i e s i s an area which would benefit from further research. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 139 Table 18 V13 Family Tenure of Dwelling TENURE DWELLING % OF STUDY % OF BC VARIABLE SCORE OWNED BY FAMILY RENTED BY FAMILY ON RESERVE 26.7 66.3 06.9 62.0 37.0 01.0 0.43 1.79 6.90 Whether a family owns or rents t h e i r dwelling also appears to impact on the amount of c h i l d separation which occurs. in the study, i f a family owned t h e i r home, they experienced c h i l d separation at a disproportionately reduced rate of approximately h a l f that of the general population. In contrast, families who rented t h e i r dwelling experienced c h i l d separation at a rate almost double the general population. Moreover, f a m i l i e s who l i v e d on native Indian reserves experienced c h i l d separation at a rate almost seven times the general population. REASONS FOR ADMISSION TO CARE COMPARED TO OTHER VARIABLES The following section of the discussion chapter w i l l hold the variable "reason f o r apprehension" constant and compare i t with other variables that have previously been examined. I t i s believed that the reasons f o r c h i l d separation are r e f l e c t i v e of gender, developmental stage, family structure, and s o c i e t a l condonation of c e r t a i n forms B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 140 of c h i l d abuse or neglect. Table 19 V6 & V8 Reasons f o r c h i l d ' s admission to care by readmission REASON FOR ADMISSION KNOWN READMIT FIRST TIME VAR S STCA parental mental condition 2. 7%. 1 .4% 1. 9 STCA parent-child c o n f l i c t 1. 9% 2 .3% 0. 8 SCA c h i l d ' s mental condition 0. 5% 0 .9% 0. 5 PROTECTION physical abuse 8. 3% 11 .1% 0. 8 PROTECTION sexual abuse 3. 2% 4 .2% 0. 8 PROTECTION abandonment 6. 5% 6 .5% 1. 0 PROTECTION absence of parent 7. 4% 4 .6% 1. 6 PROTECTION d i s a b i l i t y of parent 8. 8% 7 .4% 1. 2 PROTECTION neglect endangering 7. 9% 6 .9% •1. 1 PROTECTION c h i l d absent from home 3. 7% 4 .2% 0. 9 52 .3% 47 .6% When comparing reasons f o r admission to care by known previous admission to care, i t appeared c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a allowed f o r readmission more often than others. These were generally forms of abuse or neglect due to omission. The most noticeable example of t h i s was the category STCA parental mental condition, which had readmissions almost twice the expected l e v e l . Absence of parent i s also t o l e r a t e d more than one and a h a l f times the expected r a t i o , followed by d i s a b i l i t y of parent, and neglect. However, acts of commission, such as physical and sexual abuse, appear to not be repeated to the same extent, as t h e i r readmission rate i s less than 1.0. The only exception to the commission c r i t e r i a was the category c h i l d ' s mental B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 141 condition, which had the smallest readmission v a r i a b l e score of a l l the categories. Table 20 VI3 & V6 Unplanned apprehensions and Reasons f o r Admission REASON FOR ADMISSION PLANNED UNPLANNED RATIO STCA parental mental condition 1. 4% 2 .8% 2 .0 STCA parent-child c o n f l i c t 2. 3% 1 .9% 0 .8 SCA c h i l d ' s mental condition 0. 5% 0 .9% 1 .8 PROTECTION physical abuse 1. 9% 17 .8% 9 .4 PROTECTION sexual abuse 0. 5% 6 .6% 13 .2 PROTECTION abandonment 1. 9% 8 .0% 4 .2 PROTECTION absence of parent 1. 4% 10 .8% 7 .7 PROTECTION d i s a b i l i t y of parent 4. 7% 13 .1% 2 .8 PROTECTION neglect endangering 2. 3% 12 .7% 5 .5 PROTECTION c h i l d absent from home 1. 9% 6 .1% 3 .2 18 .6% 81 .4% The above table analyses the reason f o r admission i n comparison to whether the admission was planned, or created by an unexpected event, such as a d i s c l o s u r e . The admission reason of sexual abuse meets that c r i t e r i a at a r a t i o of 13.2 unplanned to planned. The second highest r a t i o of unplanned admission to care c r i t e r i a i s physical abuse at a r a t i o of 9.4, followed by absence of parent at 7.7. Neglect endangering the c h i l d ' s safety was fourth at 5.5 and abandonment's r a t i o was 4.2. Except for the category c h i l d absent from home i n circumstances which endanger, the remaining categories focus on the parent or c h i l d ' s mental condition where there i s a B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 142 f a r greater opportunity f o r preplanning admissions to care, with parent - c h i l d c o n f l i c t predominantly being a planned event i n the sample studied. Following the above variable, t h i s table demonstrated that the most common unplanned reasons f o r c h i l d r e n being admitted to care are overt physical or sexual abuse. Most pre-admission planning occurred when reasons f o r admission to care were d i s a b i l i t y mental conditions, e i t h e r the c h i l d ' s or the parent's, or t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n . A v a r i a b l e not addressed i n t h i s study and which could be an area of future research, i s the influence of alcohol and/or drugs on s i t u a t i o n s which become unplanned events leading to a c h i l d coming into care. P o l i c y makers should review the reasons c h i l d r e n are curren t l y being apprehended into care, and consider a l t e r n a t i v e placement options. For example, given the high r a t i o of unplanned admissions of sexually abused children to care, other options such as changing l e g i s l a t i o n to protect the c h i l d i n the home through ensuring that the offender's contact with the c h i l d i s r e s t r i c t e d , may s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduce numbers of c h i l d r e n entering care and avoid v i c t i m i z i n g c h i l d r e n a second time. When the offender i s removed from the home, e i t h e r i n the case of physical or sexual abuse, there would be increased motivation f o r offenders to modify t h e i r behaviour as they would be inconvenienced, rather than the c h i l d . In the case of B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 143 mental abuse, other p o l i c y options could be the creation of c r i s i s counselling programs, which would provide intensive short term intervention to a s s i s t the family. Table 21 V7 & V6 Placement of the ch i l d r e n by Reasons f o r Admission REASON FOR ADMISSION FOSTER PARENTS RESOURCE STCA parental mental condition 2. 5% 0 .8% 0 .0 STCA parent-child c o n f l i c t 1. 7% 1 .1% 1 .4% PROTECTION physical abuse 5. 4% 7 .1% 2 .5% PROTECTION sexual abuse 2. 5% 4 .2% 0 .8% PROTECTION abandonment 2. 3% 2 .3% 2 .0% PROTECTION absence of parent 5. 4% 5 .7% 1 .7% PROTECTION d i s a b i l i t y of parent 7. 9% 6 .5% 2 .8% PROTECTION neglect endangering 0. 0 4 .5% 1 .4% PROTECTION c h i l d absent from home 0. 8% 2 .5% 1 .1% 37 .1% 35 .1% 14 .7% When comparing the reasons f o r the c h i l d ' s admission to care with the three main placements f o r c h i l d r e n , at the time of apprehension, i t was i n t e r e s t i n g to note that leaving the c h i l d i n parental care was the second largest category, regardless of the reason f o r the apprehension. Children were removed from home more, i n percentage terms, for parental mental stress and parental d i s a b i l i t y , than f o r the c h i l d being p h y s i c a l l y or sexually abused. In cases of abandonment, or the c h i l d being absent f o r the home, the percentages of placement i n f o s t e r or parental care were r e l a t i v e l y even. I r o n i c a l l y , i n cases of neglect, child r e n B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 144 were predominantly l e f t with t h e i r parents and not placed i n foste r homes. Placement with r e l a t i v e s was not included i n t h i s analysis as i t made up just 0.6% of the study, the smallest category. Even placements i n r e s t r i c t e d f o s t e r homes, generally friends and neighbours made up 3.4% of the study, and c h i l d r e n who went AWOL made up 2.8% of the study. The p r a c t i c e of leaving one-third of the apprehended chi l d r e n at home with t h e i r parent was s t a t i s t i c a l l y examined to determine whether t h i s predominated i n c e r t a i n areas of the province, or with s p e c i f i c ethnic groups. The r e s u l t was that t h i s was a common pr a c t i c e equally represented throughout the province and r e f l e c t e d the general ethnic make up of the c h i l d i n care population. Given t h i s f i n d i n g , a question r a i s e d was: What s i t u a t i o n i n the family changed s u f f i c i e n t l y to permit one-third of the apprehended c h i l d r e n to remain at home, and yet remain at r i s k enough to require being apprehended into care? If p o l i c y makers have the object of supporting the family as the primary caretakers and reducing the number of c h i l d coming into care, several options should be considered. One option could be the development of r i s k assessment systems for s o c i a l workers to gauge whether a c h i l d should be apprehended, or what in-home services could be offered to ensure the c h i l d ' s safety at home, to reduce the number of apprehended c h i l d r e n . I f the s i t u a t i o n required c h i l d r e n be removed from t h e i r home, options i n B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 145 addition to regular foster or group homes should be considered. Present l e g i s l a t i o n l i m i t s the placement of ch i l d r e n a f t e r they have been apprehended, to e i t h e r t h e i r parent(s) or an approved c h i l d care resource. M.S.S.&H. procedures to approve a home as a c h i l d care resource generally necessitate several days time to process forms. Instead, placement options known to the c h i l d and parents, such as r e l a t i v e s , family f r i e n d s , or neighbours should be promoted as c h i l d care resources at the time of apprehension. This would require changes i n M.S.S.&H. p o l i c y and procedures, and should be r e i n f o r c e d by amended c h i l d protection l e g i s l a t i o n . Table 22 V6 & VI Reason for admission to care by c h i l d ' s gender REASON FOR ADMISSION MALE FEMALE VAR S STCA parental mental condition 0. 8% 3 .1% 0. 3 STCA parent-child c o n f l i c t 1. 6% 2 .5% 0. 6 SCA c h i l d ' s mental condition 0. 3% 0 .5% 0. 6 PROTECTION physical abuse 7. 9% 9 .3% 0. 8 PROTECTION sexual abuse 1. 6% 7 .1% 0. 2 PROTECTION abandonment 4. 8% 2 . 3% 2. 1 PROTECTION absence of parent 7. 6% 5 .9% 1. 3 PROTECTION d i s a b i l i t y of parent 8. 5% 1 .1% 7. 7 PROTECTION neglect endangering 6. 8% 7 .9% 0. 9 PROTECTION c h i l d absent from home 2. 8% 5 .1% 0. 5 44 .2% 55 .8% The above variable scores i n d i c a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y that the reason f o r a c h i l d ' s apprehension i n t o care was B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 146 influenced by the c h i l d ' s gender. In none of the above reasons was the variable score equal to, or close to 1.0, except i n the case of neglect where i t was 0.9. The two most extreme examples were, d i s a b i l i t y of parent, where males were apprehended at seven and a h a l f times the rate of females, and sexual abuse, where females were apprehended four and a h a l f times the rate of males. Females were apprehended into care two and a h a l f times more often than males due to parental mental condition and being i n circumstances which endanger, whereas males were apprehended more frequently due to abandonment and absence of parent. Females were also apprehended in t o care more frequently than males i n cases of parent-child c o n f l i c t and physical abuse. In summary, i t appears that males were apprehended into care due to the parents' i n a b i l i t y to deal with t h e i r behaviours, whereas females were apprehended in t o care due to sexual, p h y s i c a l , and emotional forms of abuse, as well as placing themselves i n circumstances where they were endangered. A comparison of these fin d i n g s , with the reasons c h i l d r e n enter care by voluntary agreement, could provide d i r e c t i o n f o r p o l i c y makers on the development of supportive services of f a m i l i e s at r i s k of c h i l d separation. The following table demonstrates that c h i l d r e n appear to be apprehended f o r reasons which are i l l u s t r a t i v e of t h e i r developmental / growth stage, as well as gender. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 147 Table 23 V6 & VI & V2 Reasons f o r Admission to care compared to  c h i l d ' s Age Group and Gender: a gender-developmental p r o f i l e REASON FOR APPREHENSION STCA Parental Mental condition 4 STCA Parent-Child c o n f l i c t 11 SCA ChiIds Mental condition 21 APPREHEND Physical abuse 22 APPREHEND Sexual abuse 23 APPREHEND Abandonment 25 APPREHEND Absence of parent 26 APPREHEND disa b i l i t y of parent 27 APPREHEND neglect 29 APPREHEND c h i l d i n circumstances AGE GROUPS and CHILD'S GENDER Row # T o t a l % 0 - 4 5 - 9 10 -14 15 -19 lm/5f 1.7% lm/3f 1.1% lm/lf 0.6% 0m/2f 0.6% 4m/6 f 2.8% 2m/3 f 1.4% 0m/2f 0.6% lm/Of 0.3% llm/10: 5.9% : 6m/3f 2.5% 6m/13f 5.4% 5m/7f 3.4% lm/3f 1.1% 3m/5f 2.3% 2m/10f 3.4% 0m/7f 2.0% 5m/2 f 2.0% 4m/If 1.4% 3m/2f 1.4% 5m/3 f 2.3% llm/9f 5.7% 9m/7f 4.5% 3m/3f 1.7% 4m/2 f 1.7% 16m/12J 7.9% : 10m/9J 5.4% : 4m/ll: 4.2% : 0m/8f 2.3% 13m/9f 6.2% 6m/10f 4.5% 4m/7f 3.1% lm/2f 0.8% lm/lf 0.6% 4m/5f 2.5% 5m/12f 4.8% 14 4.0 15 4.2 3 .8 61 17.3 31 8.8 25 7.1 48 13.6 70 19.8 52 14.7 28 7.9 59m/51f 39m/38f 31m/60f 23m/46f Column # 113 78 93 69 353 Total % 32.0 22.1 26.3 19.5 100.0 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 148 The category STCA parent mental condition was used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more often with young females under the age of 10, and decreased as the c h i l d ' s age increased. STCA parent-child c o n f l i c t was only used with c h i l d r e n over the age of 10, and again s l i g h t l y more often with females than males. Physical abuse was the second l a r g e s t category f o r apprehensions. More young males were apprehended f o r phy s i c a l abuse than young females, however, over the age of 10 the pattern reversed, with double the number of females age 10 to 14 years being apprehended compared to males. Sexual abuse was the f i f t h l a r g e s t category of apprehensions. As supported by other studies, more females were apprehended due to sexual abuse than males regardless of age group. I t i s of note however, that the two younger age groups had the c l o s e s t r a t i o of sexual abuse (1/3 males and 2/3 females). Afte r age 10 the r a t i o of males being apprehended f o r sexual abuse decreases s i g n i f i c a n t l y , with no older teenage males apprehended. I t i s possible that the percentages of sexual abuse i n the younger age groups more c l o s e l y approximate actual rates of occurrence, because teen males could be more reluctant to d i s c l o s e sexual abuse than teen females. C h i l d abandonment, regardless of age group, impacted twice as many male as female c h i l d r e n . Absence of parental care, the fourth largest category, was s i m i l a r to abandonment, insofar as more males were l e f t uncared f o r B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 149 than females, regardless of age group. D i s a b i l i t y of parent, the largest category, and neglect, the t h i r d l a r g e s t category were s i m i l a r to physical abuse, i n that the two youngest age groups had s l i g h t l y more males come into care than females. In both these categories, i n the 10 to 14 years age group, the r a t i o of females being apprehended was almost double that of the males. The s i x t h l a r g e s t category, that of being apprehended due to being i n circumstances that was predominately u t i l i z e d f o r teen females i n the 15 to 19 years of age group. The next table i l l u s t r a t e s the reason f o r the c h i l d ' s apprehension into care, with consideration of the primary source of the family's income. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 150 Table 24 V6 & V10 Reason of Admission by Source of Family Income SOURCE OF INCOME Actual Count Expected Value Employ- MSS&H Other Percent of Total ment IA-EIP Financial Row REASON FOR 1 2 3 Total » P T i r i P T I P H n T n H Ac Jr±v£iXl£iX>l O JL VJXM 1 3 6 0 9 STCA parental 3.7 4.6 .7 4.3% mental condition 1.4% 2.9% .0% 4 6 2 0 8 STCA parent c h i l d 3.3 4.1 .7 3.9% c o n f l i c t 2.9% 1.0% .0% 21 22 16 3 41 APPREHEND 16.8 20.8 3.4 19.8% physical abuse 10.6% 7.7% 1.4% 22 7 6 2 15 APPREHEND sexual 6.2 7.6 1.2 7.2% abuse 3.4% 2.9% 1.0% 23 10 9 1 20 APPREHEND 8.2 10.1 1.6 9.7% abandonment 4.8% 4.3% .5% 25 5 18 0 23 APPREHEND absence 9.4 11.7 1.9 11.1% of parent 2.4% 8.7% .0% 26 12 21 4 37 APPREHEND di s a b i 15.2 18.8 3.0 17.9% l i t y of parent 5.8% 10.1% 1.9% 27 5 22 5 32 APPREHEND neglect 13.1 16.2 2.6 15.5% 2.4% 10.6% 2.4% 29 13 3 0 16 APPREHEND c h i l d 6.6 8.1 1.3 7.7% i n circumstances 6.3% 1.4% .0% Column 85 105 17 207 Total 41.1% 50.7% 8.2% 100.0% B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 151 As previously described, expected values, the middle c e l l f i g u r e , i s the number of expected samples i n contrast to the actual count which i s the f i r s t f i g u r e i n each c e l l . The expected value, when contrasted with the actual count, helps to i l l u s t r a t e some of the s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the c e l l categories. The parents source of income appears to be strongly r e l a t e d to the reason f o r a c h i l d ' s apprehension into care i n a majority of the admissions categories. Physical abuse was the l a r g e s t category i n reasons f o r admission f o r almost twenty percent of the sample. The number of c h i l d r e n apprehended f o r physical abuse from employed f a m i l i e s was one and a h a l f times that of f a m i l i e s on income assistance. However, f a m i l i e s on income assistance predominated i n the subsequent three categories of admission covering acts of omission which included neglect, d i s a b i l i t y of parent, and absence of parent. Admission rates i n these categories were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher f o r income assistance f a m i l i e s than for employed f a m i l i e s . In the neglect category, c h i l d r e n from f a m i l i e s on income assistance entered care approximately four and a h a l f times the rate of c h i l d r e n from employed f a m i l i e s , followed by parental absence at a rate of three and a half times the rate of c h i l d r e n from employed f a m i l i e s , and one and a half times the employed families i n the case of parental d i s a b i l i t y . In contrast to these reasons, the c h i l d i n the category B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 152 of circumstances that endanger, was four and a h a l f times more l i k e l y to be from an employed family than from a family i n r e c e i p t of income assistance. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , source of income did not appear to be a f a c t o r i n the abandonment category, as both sources of income had s i m i l a r rates of c h i l d apprehension. This l a s t trend was followed c l o s e l y by the sexual abuse category, but at a l e s s e r percentage for a l l three sources of income. I t appears that parents on income assistance are under greater s t r e s s than f a m i l i e s which are employed. As a r e s u l t they are l e s s able to provide consistent care for t h e i r c h i l d r e n and may absent themselves from the home or neglect to provide f o r the e s s e n t i a l needs of t h e i r c h i l d r e n . One possible reason f o r t h i s s t r e s s and subsequent neglect may be a lack of supporting resources such as day care, a f t e r school programs, parenting courses, or support groups to a s s i s t the predominantly sing l e female parents on income assistance. In contrast to the f a m i l i e s i n r e c e i p t of income assistance, the c h i l d r e n from employed f a m i l i e s are more l i k e l y to be e i t h e r p h y s i c a l l y abused or i n unsafe circumstances, perhaps due to more l i m i t e d parental contact with the c h i l d r e n or stresses due to employment. The reasons f o r the c h i l d ' s admission to care, family composition, and family source of income are considerations that p o l i c y makers should weigh when planning services to B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 153 fam i l i e s at r i s k of c h i l d separation. This t o p i c i s further explored i n the following category. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 154 Table 25 V6 & VI Reason f o r the c h i l d ' s admission to care compared to  the Family structure FAMILY STRUCTURE Count Expected Value TWO Male Female Percent of Total parents s i n g l e s i n g l e Row REASON FOR 1 3 4 Total i n M T Q C J T C r t J T O CZ.T}V 1 2 1 6 9 STCA parental 4.2 .9 3.9 4.2% mental condition .9% .5% 2.8% 4 6 1 1 8 STCA parent- 3.8 .8 3.5 3.8% c h i l d c o n f l i c t 2.8% .5% .5% 21 31 2 8 41 APPREHEND 19.2 4.0 17.7 19.2% physical abuse 14.6% .9% 3.8% 22 10 3 3 16 APPREHEND 7.5 1.6 6.9 7.5% sexual abuse 4.7% 1.4% 1.4% 23 6 3 11 20 APPREHEND 9.4 2.0 8.6 9.4% abandonment 2.8% 1.4% 5.2% 25 7 3 16 26 APPREHEND absence 12.2 2.6 11.2 12.2% of parent 3.3% 1.4% 7.5% 26 14 4 20 38 APPREHEND 17.8 3.7 16.4 17.8% d i s a b i l i t y parent 6.6% 1.9% 9.4% 27 11 2 19 32 APPREHEND 15.0 3.2 13.8 15.0% neglect 5.2% .9% 8.9% 29 10 2 5 17 APPREHEND c h i l d 8.0 1.7 7.3 8.0% i n circumstances 4.7% .9% 2.3% Column 100 21 92 213 Total 46.9% 9.9% 43.2% 100.0% B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 155 The r e s u l t s of t h i s v a r i a b l e crosstabulation p a r a l l e l the previous d e s c r i p t i o n of parents source of income with a remarkable degree of s i m i l a r i t y . The v a r i a b l e two parent family appears to approximate the source of income from employment v a r i a b l e , whereas the v a r i a b l e female sing l e parent approximates M.S.S.&H. income assistance as source of income v a r i a b l e , i n the outcome f i g u r e s . / Tw.o^ p„ar^ ejjtj^ f;amd=l-i:es~ appear to have apprehensions due to physical abuse at a r a t i o of almost four times that of female s i n g l e parents. However, i n the subsequent three categories, female_single—parents lead i n reasons f o r admission to care through acts of omission such as: absence of parent at approximately two and a h a l f times the rate of two parent f a m i l i e s , neglect of c h i l d at over one and a half times the rate of two parent f a m i l i e s , and d i s a b i l i t y of parent at one and a half times the rate of two parent f a m i l i e s . While c h i l d r e n from two parent f a m i l i e s are twice as l i k e l y to be found i n circumstances which endanger themselves, a s i m i l a r percentage of c h i l d r e n from female s i n g l e parent f a m i l i e s were l i k e l y to be apprehended due to abandonment by the parents. The two categories which appear to exemplify the two parent and female s i n g l e parent divergence are parental mental condition and parent-child c o n f l i c t . Children were apprehended in t o care at the same rate f o r parental mental condition from female sing l e parent B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 156 fa m i l i e s , as were apprehended in t o care f o r parent-child c o n f l i c t from two parent f a m i l i e s . The next section of the study examines fact o r s which have not been examined previously i n B.C., so cannot be compared to the general population. The focus w i l l be to explore r e l a t i o n s h i p s between v a r i a b l e s involved i n the F.&C.S. court process. PART 3: F.&.C.S. ORDER REQUESTED AND COURT DISPOSITIONS  Procedures following apprehension: F.&C.S. Section 11 Table 26 VI & VI3 Stage at which M.S.S.&H. counsel became involved  compared to s o c i a l worker's opportunity to plan placement Count Expected Value Percent of Total WHEN MSS&H LEGAL COUNSEL WAS INVOLVED 1 before apprehension a f t e r apprehension presentation day only OPPORTUNITY TO PLAN Planned Unexpected admission event Other 7 3.4 3.4% 14 15.3 6.7% 16 18.1 7.7% 10 12.7 4.8% 61 57.5 29.3% 67 68.2 32.2% 2 2.9 1.0% 11 13.2 5.3% 19 15.7 9.1% Row Total 19 9.1% 86 41.3% 102 49.0% Column Total 37 139 32 208 17.8% 66.8% 15.4% 100.0% B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 157 I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that when considering only the planned admissions, s o c i a l workers involved M.S.S.&H. le g a l counsel 18.9% of the time p r i o r to apprehension, 37.8% of the time a f t e r the apprehension but p r i o r to the presentation to court, and 43.3% of the time only on the day of court presentation. While there was a s l i g h t r a t i o increase i n counsel involvement p r i o r to apprehension i n planned admissions when compared to unexpected events, i t was le s s than expected. A f t e r the unplanned apprehension, but p r i o r to the presentation to court, s o c i a l workers involved l e g a l counsel 43.9% of the time, and 48.2% on the day of presentation to court only. These findings indicated that s o c i a l worker practice was t y p i c a l l y one of involving l e g a l counsel a f t e r the c h i l d ' s apprehension whether the apprehension was planned or unplanned. A question t h i s r a i s e s i s whether s o c i a l worker case planning i s impacted by l e g a l counsel involvement, and i f so at what stage. I t appears from these findings that s o c i a l workers do not consider e a r l y involvement of l e g a l counsel to be an e s s e n t i a l part of planned admissions to care i n a majority of cases. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 158 Table 27 VI & V2 S o c i a l worker section 11 requests and M.S.S.&H.  le g a l counsel involvement Count Expected Value Percent of Total LEGAL COUNSEL INVOLVED before apprehension a f t e r apprehension presentation day only SOCIAL WORKERS SECTION 11 REQUEST Sec 9(5) Return MSS&H Sec 13(1) Return C h i l d to Interim Order Column Total 2 3.7 1.0% 17 16.0 8.1% 20 19.2 9.6% 39 18.7% 1 1.1 .5% 3 4.5 1.4% 7 5.4 3.3% 15 14.4 7.2% 64 61.7 30.6% 71 73.9 34.0% 11 5.3% 150 71.8% 2 .9 1.0% 2 3.7 1.0% 5 4.4 2.4% 4.3! Row Total 20 9.6% 86 41.1% 103 49.3% 209 100.0% This table indicated that the stage at which M.S.S.&H. le g a l counsel became involved, when compared to the s o c i a l workers' section 11 request, d i d not appear to be a s i g n i f i c a n t factor when the expected values are reviewed. The r e s u l t implies that s o c i a l workers have done the majority of the case planning (90.4%) p r i o r to M.S.S.&H. le g a l counsel's involvement and that the section 11 order sought by the s o c i a l worker did not s h i f t s i g n i f i c a n t l y at the stage M.S.S.&H. leg a l counsel became involved. Also explored was whether the s o c i a l workers' B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 159 recommended section 11 interim order was a f f e c t e d by the parents' attendance at court, or t h e i r representation by l e g a l counsel at the section 11 presentation and report to court. These are explored i n the following categories. Table 28 V6 & V10 Parents attendance at the sec t i o n 11 Presentation  compared to Source of income PARENTS SOURCE OF INCOME Count Expected Value Percent of Total PARENTS ATTENDED COURT SECTION 11 — 1 YES NO Column Total Employ- MSS&H Other ment IA/EIP Financial 1 2 3 58 74 6 56.8 69.7 11.5 28.4% 36.3% 2.9% 26 29 11 27.2 33.3 5.5 12.7% 14.2% 5.4% 84 103 17 41.2% 50.5% 8.3% Row Total 138 67.6% 66 32.4% 204 100.0% Examination of t h i s category reveals r e s u l t s which d i f f e r from popular perceptions. Out of the t o t a l 67.6% of the parents who attended court, the group with the largest percentage of attendance (71.8%) consisted of parents on income assistance, followed c l o s e l y by employed parents at 69.0%. However, parents who were dependent on other f i n a n c i a l programs only attended the sec t i o n 11 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 160 presentations 35.3% of the time, the reverse of the former two groups. Table 29 V5 & V10 Whether parents had l e g a l counsel at the Section 11  Presentation compared to t h e i r source of income Count Expected Value Percent of Total PARENTS HAD LEGAL COUNSEL YES NO Column Total PARENTS SOURCE OF INCOME Employ-ment 1 MSS&H IA/EIP 2 OTHER Financia! 3 Row Total 30 37.1 14.6% 54 45.4 26.2% 6 7.4 2.9% 90 43 .7% 55 47.9 26.7% 50 58.6 24.3% 11 9.6 5.3% 116 56.3% 85 41.3% 104 50.5% 17 8.3% 206 100.0% When comparing the parents' source of income to whether they were represented by l e g a l counsel at the Section 11 presentation and Report to Court, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that parents on M.S.S.&H. income assistance had l e g a l representation 51.9% of the time, whereas employed parents and parents on other f i n a n c i a l programs were represented by l e g a l counsel i n just 35.3% of the cases. Conversely, i t should be noted that 64.7% of the employed parents and an equal percentage of other f i n a n c i a l program parents did not B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 161 have l e g a l counsel, i n contrast to 48.1% of the parents on income assistance. A possible reason f o r t h i s f i n d i n g i s that the vast majority of the employed parents were low income earners (92.1% of a l l the fam i l i e s i n the study were believed to have t o t a l incomes of less than $39,999 per year), and so could not af f o r d l e g a l counsel, whereas f a m i l i e s on income assistance were e l i g i b l e f o r Legal A id Assistance. If t h i s i s the s i t u a t i o n , i t i s recommended that the income t e s t used by Legal Aid to determine e l i g i b i l i t y should be reviewed with consideration to the income p r o f i l e of the fam i l i e s affected by c h i l d separation. Table 30 V2 & V5 S o c i a l workers recommendation by whether parents had  le g a l counsel Count Expected Value Percent of Total PARENTS HAD LEGAL COUNSEL — 1 YES NO SOCIAL WORKER SECTION 11 RECOMMEND Approve Request MSS&H Grant Sec 9(5) Return Interim Sec 13(1) Return C h i l d Custody Order Column Total 1 2 3 4 6 6 76 3 16.1 4.4 66.2 4.4 2.9% 2.9% 36.4% 1.4% 31 4 76 7 20.9 5.6 85.8 5.6 14.8% 1.9% 36.4% 3.3% 37 10 152 10 17.7% 4.8% 72.7% 4.8% Row Total 91 43.5% 118 56.5% 209 100.0% B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 162 As i l l u s t r a t e d i n the above table, parents were represented by l e g a l counsel at the interim presentation to court i n only 43.5% of the cases. When the s o c i a l workers' recommendation was f o r the c h i l d to remain i n parental care, the parents had l e g a l counsel i n 16.4% of the cases. These quite possibly were the cases f o r which the s o c i a l worker was requesting a supervision order. However, when s o c i a l workers recommended that the court order the c h i l d be returned to parental care, the percentage of parental counsel increased to 60.4%, again po s s i b l y f o r the reason that a supervision order was being requested. These were followed by a 50.0% rate of l e g a l representation f o r the larg e s t category, a request f o r M.S.S.&H. interim custody. A s u r p r i s i n g f i n d i n g was the f a c t that 50.0% of the parents did not have l e g a l counsel at t h i s stage even through interim custody of the c h i l d was being applied f o r by M.S.S.&H.. Parents were represented at the se c t i o n 13(1) request f o r a permanent order 29.2% of the time. Although parents i n t h i s category appeared to be under-represented, t h i s could be explained by the f a c t that the F.&C.S. Act provides that t h i s order cannot be made at the section 11 stage without consent by a l l par t i e s to the proceeding. The next table follows from the above d e s c r i p t i o n . I f the parents were represented by l e g a l counsel, how much influence did t h i s have on the s o c i a l workers' recommendations. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 163 T a b l e 31 V9 & V5 S o c i a l workers recommendation the same as f i l e d i n  the Report t o Court compared t o Whether the p a r e n t s were  r e p r e s e n t e d by l e g a l c o u n s e l PARENTS HAD COUNSEL Count Expected Value P e r c e n t o f T o t a l SOCIAL WORKERS REQUESTED SAME — ORDER AS FILED 1 YES NO Column T o t a l YES NO ROW 1 2 T o t a l 80 116 196 85.3 110.7 93.8% 38.3% 55.5% 11 2 13 5.7 7.3 6.2% 5.3% 1.0% 91 118 209 43.5% 56.5% 100.0% The above t a b l e i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t s o c i a l workers d i d not change t h e i r i n t e r i m recommendations t o the c o u r t i n 93.8% of the c a s e s , o n l y changing t h e i r recommendations 6.2% o f the time. However, 85.5% of the changes, (5.3% of the t o t a l ) o c c u r r e d when the pa r e n t s were r e p r e s e n t e d by l e g a l c o u n s e l , compared t o 14.5% (1.0% of t h e t o t a l ) when they were not. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 164 Table 32 V9 & V2 Same order requested at the presentation as f i l e d by  the s o c i a l worker i n the Report to Court RECOMMENDED ORDER IN REPORT TO COURT Count Expected Value Percent of Total SOCIAL WORKER REQUESTED SAME ORDER AS FILED YES NO Column Total Approve Request MSS&H Grant Sec 9(5) Return Interim Sec 13(1) Return C h i l d Custody Order ROW 1 2 3 4 Total 36 8 147 9 200 36.6 10.3 143.7 9.4 93.9% 16.9% 3.8% 69.0% 4.2% 3 3 6 1 13 2.4 .7 9.3 .6 6.1% 1.4% 1.4% 2.8% .5% 39 11 153 10 213 18.3% 5.2% 71.8% 4.7% 100.0% Following t h i s l i n e of development, the above table i l l u s t r a t e s the section 11 options that s o c i a l workers modified i n t h e i r recommendations at the time of presentation of t h e i r reports to court. Almost 50.0% of the 6.1% of the cases where changes were requested involved a request f o r the Ministry to maintain interim custody of the c h i l d . The other 50.0% of modified recommendations supported the parent resuming care of the c h i l d . Overall, there was not a large percentage of change. However, i t should be noted that the Report to Court document does not have to be written by the s o c i a l worker and presented to the parents and the court u n t i l the day of the presentation. B . C . CHILD PROTECTION - Page Also, the period of time from apprehension to court presentation can be as short as the same day or up to a maximum of seven days. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 166 SECTION 13 TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDERS This part of the discussion chapter focuses on the Section 13 Protection Hearing and Temporary Custody Orders. I t p a r a l l e l s the previous Section 11 Interim Orders by examining the e f f e c t s of the parents' attendance at court, and whether or not they had l e g a l counsel on the s o c i a l workers' recommendation to the court with respect to custody of the c h i l d . Table 33 V14 & V15 Stage of M.S.S.&H. l e g a l counsel involvement  compared to Soc i a l workers' Section 13 recommendation SOCIAL WORKER SECTION 13 RECOMMEND Count Child Return MSS&H Grant Expected Value Remain C h i l d to Retain Section Percent of Total Parents Parents Custody 14(1) Row 1 2 3 4 Total f M f H T 1 1 1 3 7 33 3 46 Day of hearing 2.9 5.6 33 .7 3.8 29.8% only 1.9% 4.5% 21.4% 1.9% 2 5 2 27 2 36 Af t e r Notices 2.3 4.4 26.2 3.0 23 .4% served on parents 3.2% 1.3% 17.5% 1.3% 3 2 10 52 8 72 P r i o r to Notices 4.7 8.9 52.4 6.1 46.8% being served 1.3% 6.5% 33.8% 5.2% Column 10 19 112 13 154 Total 6.5% 12.3% 72.7% 8.4% 100.0% B . C . C H I L D PROTECTION - Page 167 S o c i a l workers' consultation with M.S.S.&H. l e g a l counsel was markedly improved over the degree of consultation that occurred at the section 11 presentation. However, i t was less than expected given that: 1) the s o c i a l worker and ministry counsel would have met at the section 11 presentation and could have sta r t e d planning once the hearing date was set; and 2) the f a c t that there was generally at l e a s t 30 days f o r case planning p r i o r to serving the parents Notices of Hearing. P r i o r consultation took place i n 46.8% of the section 13 cases before Notices of Hearing were served on the parents, i n comparison to 9.6% p r i o r consultation at the section 11 presentation. In 23.4% of the sect i o n 13 cases the M.S.S.&H. counsel was involved a f t e r the Notices were served, but p r i o r to court, i n comparison to 41.1% i n the section 11 cases. Even with at lea s t 30 days preplanning time a v a i l a b l e , 29.8% of the s o c i a l workers met with t h e i r l e g a l counsel only on the day of the protection hearing, compared to 49.3% of the time at the s e c t i o n 11 presentations. Considering the nature and magnitude of the section 13 protection and temporary custody hearing, i t was highly s i g n i f i c a n t that such a low percentage of ministry l e g a l counsel involvement i n pre-planning was evidenced. B . C . C H I L D P R O T E C T I O N - Page 1 6 8 Table 34 V20 & VI0 Parents attendance at the section 13 protection  hearing compared to parents source of income PARENTS SOURCE OF INCOME Count Expected Value Employ- MSSH OTHER Percent of Total ment IA/EIP Financia! ROW PARENTS ATTEND 1 2 3 Total n n fWF/^T T flM HEARING 1 51 73 7 131 53.9 70.5 6.6 82.9% YES 32.3% 46.2% 4.4% 2 14 12 1 27 NO 11.1 14.5 1.4 17.1% 8.9% 7.6% .6% Column 65 85 8 158 Total 41.1% 53.8% 5.1% 100.0% The percentage of parents who attended the section 13 protection and temporary custody hearing was markedly d i f f e r e n t from the i n i t i a l section 11 court presentation. Although t h i r t y percent of the apprehensions d i d not proceed to a protection hearing, i f they did, parental attendance at court increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y . The parents on other f i n a n c i a l programs attended i n 87.5% of the cases (up from 35.3%), parents on M.S.S.&H. income assistance attended i n 85.9% of the cases (up from 71.8%), and employed parents attended i n 78.5% of the cases (up from 69.0%). B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 169 Table 35 V19 & V10 Whether parents had l e g a l counsel at Section 13  protection hearing compared to Source of parents income PARENTS SOURCE OF INCOME Count Expected Value Percent of Total PARENTS HAD LEGAL COUNSEL YES NO Employ-ment 1 30 40.3 19.0% 35 24.7 22.2% MSSH IA/EIP 2 63 52.7 39.9% 22 32.3 13.9% Column 65 85 Total 41.1% 53.8% Other F i n a n c i a l 3 5 5.0 3.2% 3 3.0 1.9% 8 5.V, Row Total 98 62.0% 60 38.0% 158 100.0% As indicated by the above table, parental representation by l e g a l counsel increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y at the section 13 protection and temporary custody hearing, when compared to the section 11 presentation to court. Again, source of income was a f a c t o r i n which parents were represented by counsel. The l a r g e s t group was the parents on M.S.S.&H. income assistance, who had l e g a l representation 74.1% of the time. They were followed by parents on other f i n a n c i a l programs at 62.5% representation, whereas employed parents had the lowest rate of l e g a l representation of a l l , 46.2%. In a l l categories, except one, employed parents had the lowest court attendance rate and the l e a s t l e g a l B . C . C H I L D P R O T E C T I O N - Page 170 representation when compared to the other two groups. Table 36 V19 & V15 Whether parents were represented by l e g a l counsel compared to So c i a l workers Section 13 recommendation SOCIAL WORKERS SECTION 13 RECOMMEND Count Expected Value Percent of Tot a l PARENTS REP BY LEGAL COUNSEL 1 YES NO Child Return MSS&H Remain C h i l d Retain Parents To parent Custody 8 6.2 5.1% 2 3.8 1.3% 11 11.7 7.1% 8 7.3 5.1% 70 70.2 44.9% 44 43.8 28.2% Grant Section 14(1) 4 7 8.0 4.5% 6 5.0 3.8% Column Tota l 10 6.4% 19 12.2% 114 73 .1% 13 8.3% Row Total 96 61.5% 60 38.5% 156 100.0% If the matter proceeded to a secti o n 13 protection hearing, the percentage of parents with l e g a l representation increased from 43.7% to 61.5%. The majority of s o c i a l workers' requests at t h i s stage were to maintain temporary custody of the c h i l d (73.1%). This was followed by the s o c i a l workers' recommendation to return the c h i l d to parental care (12.2%), request a permanent order (8.3%), or have the c h i l d remain i n parental care (6.4%)< Sur p r i s i n g l y , parents did not have l e g a l representation i n the 28.2% of the cases that s o c i a l workers were recommending B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 171 the c h i l d be kept i n the temporary custody of the Superintendent of Family and C h i l d Service, and i n the 3.8% of cases where a permanent order was being requested. Table 37 V23 & V19 Whether the s o c i a l worker requested the same order  from court as f i l e d i n the Section 13 notice compared to  Whether the parents had l e g a l counsel Count Expected Value Percent of To t a l SOCIAL WORKER REQUESTED SAME ORDER AS FILED 1 YES NO PARENTS HAD COUNSEL Column Tot a l YES NO 1 2 70 53 76.7 46. 3 45.5% 34.4% 26 5 19.3 11.7 16.9% 3.2% 96 58 62.3% 37.7% Row Total 123 79.9% 31 20.1% 154 100.0% As i l l u s t r a t e d , s o c i a l workers recommended a d i f f e r e n t order to the court than f i l e d i n the Notice of Hearing to the parents i n 20.1% of the cases that proceeded to the section 13 protection hearing. This was a f a r larger percentage than occurred at the sect i o n 11 presentation (6.1%). Again, i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that the majority of modified recommendations (84.1%) (16.9% of the t o t a l ) occurred when the parents had l e g a l counsel, as compared to B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 172 when they d i d not (15.9%) (3.2% of the t o t a l ) . The 20.1% s h i f t i n d i s p o s i t i o n recommendations at the time of the protection hearing i n contrast to the orders s p e c i f i e d i n the Notices of Hearing was greater than expected. The F.&C.S. Act provides 45 days from the d i s p o s i t i o n of the presentation to the commencement of the protection hearing; however, the Notices of Hearing do not have to be served on the parents u n t i l 8 days p r i o r to the commencement of the hearing. This i s b a s i c a l l y the same length of time as between the apprehension and the presentation to court which only had a 6.1% rate of s h i f t i n d i s p o s i t i o n a l requests. There has also been more time to assess the family and plan with the Mi n i s t r y l e g a l counsel i n the 45 days, which r a i s e s the question about possible reasons underlying the 20.1% s h i f t i n recommendations. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 173 Table 38 V23 & VI5 Whether the s o c i a l worker requested the same order  from the court as f i l e d i n the Notice of Hearing compared to  the S o c i a l workers temporary custody recommendation ORDER SOCIAL WORKER FILED IN NOTICE Count Expected Value Percent of Total SOCIAL WORKER REQUESTED SAME ORDER AS FILED YES 1 NO Column Total C h i l d Remain Parents 1 Return C h i l d to Parents 2 MSS&H Retain Custody 3 Grant Section 14(1) 4 ROW Total 9 8.1 5.8% 13 13.7 8.4% 92 92.7 59.4% 11 10.5 7.1% 125 80.6% 1 1.9 .6% 4 3.3 2.6% 23 22.3 14.8% 2 2.5 1.3% 30 19.4% 10 6.5% 17 11.0% 115 74.2% 13 8.4% 155 100.0% In comparison to the section 11 interim order, i n which s o c i a l workers only s h i f t e d t h e i r request i n 6.2% of the cases, at the section 13 protection hearing s o c i a l workers changed t h e i r request of the court i n 19.4% of the cases, asking the court f o r a d i f f e r e n t order than they f i l e d i n the Notice of Hearing. 76.3% of these requested changes were the s o c i a l workers' request f o r temporary custody of the c h i l d , 13.4% from requesting that the c h i l d be returned to parental care, and 6.7% were changes from the matter proceeding to a permanent hearing. I t i s assumed that the B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 174 majority of these requests p a r a l l e l the courts' d i s p o s i t i o n a l orders which lean toward the c h i l d being returned to parental care. This area would need further examination to determine the degree of congruence i n these cases and what some of the s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n t i a l factors were i n s p e c i f i c cases. Unless the Notices, of Hearing were served f a r p r i o r to the required seven days c l e a r notice, one should question why there was such a large percentage of modifications i n the orders requested i n court, when compared to the orders recommended i n the served Notices. How much of t h i s r e f l e c t e d heavy caseloads and a lack of access to M.S.S.&H. le g a l counsel f o r case preparation, and how much was due to the strategy of the parent's l e g a l counsel, are questions f o r further study. However, from a comparison of t h i s v a r i a b l e with the one describing the stage at which M.S.S.&H. l e g a l counsel become involved i n the section 13 planning, i t appears that the sooner ministry counsel become involved i n the planning, the greater the percentage of s o c i a l workers changed t h e i r requests at the section 13 protection hearing. When M.S.S.&H. counsel were involved only on the day of the hearing, s o c i a l workers changed t h e i r request to the court 25.9% of the time. When ministry counsel were involved a f t e r the notices were served, but before the hearing s o c i a l workers changed t h e i r request to the court B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 175 only 19.1% of the cases. However, when s o c i a l workers met with ministry l e g a l counsel p r i o r to the parents being served notice of hearing, i f the s o c i a l worker requested the court make a change i n the order sought at the section 13 hearing, these cases made up 54.9% of the changed requests. These r e s u l t s r a i s e the question of the reasons behind the s o c i a l workers' requests f o r a changed d i s p o s i t i o n given the advance planning time. One set of variables examined were the c h i l d ' s placement at the time of apprehension, the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the placement to the order requested by the s o c i a l worker i n the Notice of Hearing, and the subsequent j u d i c i a l d i s p o s i t i o n . The following table was constructed to explore t h i s three way comparison. The c e l l s contain the s o c i a l workers' recommendations i n the f i r s t row, followed by the court or j u d i c i a l d i s p o s i t i o n i n the second. The figures are presented i n percentage terms, with percentage t o t a l s supplied f o r the columns and rows. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 176 Table 39 V7 & V15 & V25 The c h i l d ' s placement at the time of  apprehension compared to the s o c i a l workers' recommendation  i n the Notice of Hearing compared to the courts' Section 13  d i s p o s i t i o n SECTION 13 ORDERS REQUESTED & ORDERED PLACEMENT AT » T->rir»T*TT-n'»T<-«T/~>»T C h i l d remain parents 1 Ch i l d returned parents 2 MSS&H r e t a i n custody 3 Grant section 14(1) 4 /SW% 7jd% f o s t e r home REGULAR A 1.3/sw 1.3/jd . 6/SW 2.6/jd 31.9/sw 31.6/jd 6.3/sw 3.9/jd 40.0 39.5 fo s t e r home RESTRICTED B . 6/sw •7/jd 4.4/sw 4.6/jd 5.0 5.3 fos t e r home RELATIVES C .6/sw •7/jd .6 .7 l e f t with PARENTS G 5.O/sw 6.6/jd 10.0/sw 17.8/jd 18.1/sw 9.2/jd 33.1 33.6 OTHER RESOURCES J 3.2/sw 3.3/jd • 6/SW .7/jd 3.8 4.0 CONTRACTED RESOURCES K 11.9/sw 11.8/jd 1.9/SW 2.0/jd 13.8 13 .8 Ch i l d A.W.O.L. M .6/sw •7/jd 2.5/sw 2.6/jd 3.1 3.3 SOCIAL WORKER % JUDICIAL DISP % 6.3/sw 7.9/jd 11.9/SW 21.7/jd 73.1/sw 63.8/jd 8.8/sw 6.6/jd 100.0 100.0 As i l l u s t r a t e d by the above table, the degree of congruence between the s o c i a l workers' recommendations and the courts' d i s p o s i t i o n s was r e l a t i v e l y high i n a l l placement areas, except one, namely where the c h i l d had been B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 177 l e f t i n parental care at the time of apprehension. Of t h i s category, 54.7% of the time s o c i a l workers applied f o r M.S.S.&H. to r e t a i n custody of the c h i l d , 30.2% of the time fo r the c h i l d to be returned to parental care, and 15.1% of the time f o r the c h i l d to remain i n parental care. The courts' d i s p o s i t i o n s were predominantly i n favour of the parents continuing care of t h e i r c h i l d r e n i n these cases. The court granted M.S.S.&H. interim custody 27.4% of the time, returned the c h i l d to parental care 53.0% of the time, and ordered the c h i l d remain i n parental care 19.6% of the time. While the court was i n c l i n e d toward parental care when the c h i l d was placed i n a regular f o s t e r home, the j u d i c i a l s h i f t was not as dramatic or c l e a r as compared to when the c h i l d remained i n parental care. Where the c h i l d was not removed from parental care and placed elsewhere following the section 11 interim order, i t i s possible that the court concluded that i f the c h i l d had been l e f t safely i n parental care p r i o r to the protection hearing, the c h i l d could continue to remain i n parental care. I t should be noted that a s i m i l a r pattern, but at reduced percentages of variance between s o c i a l workers' recommendations and j u d i c i a l d i s p o s i t i o n s , occurred when the c h i l d was l e f t i n parental care at the time of the section 11 interim d i s p o s i t i o n a l orders. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 178 STATISTICAL ASSOCIATIONS DISCUSSED This section provides a summary of a number of the court process variables that were explored i n discussion section through crosstabulation t a b l e s . When reading these s t a t i s t i c a l association r e s u l t s i t must be remembered that the returned questionnaire data may not be a random p r o b a b i l i t y sample, and that the c o r r e l a t i o n s examined are of l i m i t e d p r a c t i c a l u t i l i t y because the two-way associations used do not occur i n the r e a l world i n i s o l a t e d p a i r s . If t h i r d or fourth v a r i a b l e s were introduced, as occurs i n r e a l l i f e , the degree of s t a t i s t i c a l association between the variables would change. Due to the majority of the research data being nominal or o r d i n a l , Pearson's Chi-Square p r o b a b i l i t y was used review the study's previously described findings and measure selected variables s t a t i s t i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n . These nonparametric procedures only provide some i n d i c a t i o n of the consistency of the data with a n u l l hypothesis. In order to state s i g n i f i c a n c e i n association through c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s , the generally accepted l e v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e at the two-tailed l e v e l i s P=.050 or less (eg. P=.010) i n order to r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis. A two-t a i l e d s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l i s used i f i t i s not c e r t a i n whether the pairs of variables are p o s i t i v e l y or negatively associated (Norusis, 1990). B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 179 The amount of data a v a i l a b l e i n the study varied depending on whether i t was from the M.S.S.&H. main frame basis data (n=353), the returned completed supplemental questionnaires (n=216), as well as what stage the protection matter proceeded to i n court (section 11 n=209) (section 13 n=158). The two-way s t a t i s t i c a l associations i n the court process are provided here as a summary of the discussion chapter are described using the following format: Number i n the sample measured: N= ( Pearson's Chi-Square: X2= , degrees of freedom: df= , and l e v e l of a s s o c i a t i o n : P=. ). Section 11 Presentation and Report to Court Variables The c h i l d ' s placement at the time of apprehension did not appear to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated at the P=.050 l e v e l with the interim order requested by the s o c i a l workers N=214 ( X2=18.353, df=27, P=.892). The reason f o r the c h i l d ' s apprehension into care and the s o c i a l worker's requested section 11 order at the presentation also did not appear to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated N=214 ( X2=26.691, df=36, P=.870). The reason f o r the c h i l d ' s apprehension did not appear to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated with the parents consent to the section 11 interim order N=205 ( X2=24.363, df=24, P=.441). Nor d i d the reason f o r apprehension appear to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated with the parents attendance at the court presentation N=208 ( X2=14.883, df=12, P=.248). However, the reason f o r the B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 180 c h i l d ' s apprehension appeared to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated at the P=.050 l e v e l with whether the parents had l e g a l counsel N=209 ( X2=36.928, df=12, P=.002). The reason f o r the c h i l d ' s admission to care d i d not appear to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated with the courts' section 11 d i s p o s i t i o n s N=213 ( X2=26.915, df=36, P=.863), nor d i d the c h i l d ' s placement at the time of apprehension N=213 ( X2=29.528, df=27, P=.336). However, the number of times that the c h i l d had been i n care appeared to have some s t a t i s t i c a l l y association on the court's interim d i s p o s i t i o n N=105 ( X2=40.345, df=24, P=.019). The parents' source of income appeared to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated with t h e i r attendance at the section 11 court presentation N=204 ( X2=10.325, df=3, P=.016). Whereas, the parents' source of income d i d not appear to be associated with whether they were represented by l e g a l counsel at t h i s stage N=206 ( X2=5.987, df=3, P-.112). ( I t should be noted that t h i s f i n d i n g was not supported i n the e a r l i e r discussion.) Conversely, i f the parents had l e g a l counsel, that f a c t o r appeared to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated with whether they attended court N=207 ( X2=64.297, df=1, P=.000). Parental attendance at court d i d not appear to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated with the duration of the section 11 d i s p o s i t i o n N=198 ( X2=10.345, df=9, P=.323). However, i f the parents had l e g a l counsel, t h i s appeared to be B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 181 s t a t i s t i c a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e x t e n d i n g t h e d u r a t i o n o f t h e s e c t i o n 11 p r o c e s s N=200 ( X 2=22.837, df=9, P=.006). The c o u r t s ' d i s p o s i t i o n a l o r d e r a l s o a p p e a r e d t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e d u r a t i o n o f t h e s e c t i o n 11 p r e s e n t a t i o n s t a g e N=203 ( X 2=50.768, df=27, P=.004). P a r e n t a l l e g a l c o u n s e l appeared t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e c o u r t s ' s e c t i o n 11 i n t e r i m o r d e r N=209 ( X 2=14.323, df=3, P=.002); i t i s assumed i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f p a r e n t a l c a r e o f t h e c h i l d . P a r e n t a l c o n s e n t t o t h e s e c t i o n 11 o r d e r d i d n o t appear t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e s o c i a l w o r k e r s ' recommendations N=205 ( X 2=10.262, df= 6, P=.114). P a r e n t a l c o n s e n t t o t h e r e q u e s t e d o r d e r a l s o d i d n o t appear t o have a s t a t i s t i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h t h e c o u r t s ' i n t e r i m d i s p o s i t i o n o r d e r s N=205 ( X 2 =6.788, df=6, P=.341). The s o c i a l w o r k e r s ' recommendations t o t h e c o u r t appeared t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p a r e n t s h a v i n g l e g a l c o u n s e l N=209 ( X 2=15 . 665 , df=3, P=.001). I n a d d i t i o n , t h e s o c i a l w o r k e r s ' s e c t i o n 11 recommendations appeared t o have a s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h t h e c o u r t s ' s e c t i o n 11 d i s p o s i t i o n s N=213 ( X 2=329.318, df=9, P=.000). A n o t h e r v a r i a b l e t h a t appeared t o have a s t a t i s t i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h t h e c o u r t s ' s e c t i o n 11 d i s p o s i t i o n s was p a r e n t a l a t t e n d a n c e d u r i n g t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t a g e N=208 ( X 2=18.107, df=3, P=.000). B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 182 Section 13 Protection Hearing and Temporary Custody  Variables The c h i l d ' s placement at the time of apprehension appeared to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated with the s o c i a l workers' se c t i o n 13 recommendations to the court N=160 ( X2=59.867, df=27, P=.000). I n t e r e s t i n g l y , the reason f o r the c h i l d ' s apprehension did not appear to s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated with the s o c i a l workers' section 13 recommendations to the court N=160 ( X2=26.628, df=30, P=.643). Nor did the reason f o r the apprehension appear to have a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a s sociation with parental attendance at the section 13 court hearing N=160 ( X2=4.482, df=10, P=.923). The reason f o r the c h i l d s ' apprehension appeared to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated with parental representation by l e g a l counsel at t h i s stage N=160 ( X2=26.607, df=10, P=.003). The reason f o r the c h i l d s ' apprehension did not appear to have a s t a t i s t i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n with the courts' section 13 protection d i s p o s i t i o n s N=152 ( X2=28.646, df=30, P=.536). The source of family income did not appear to have a s t a t i s t i c a l a s s o ciation with parental attendance at the section 13 hearing N=158 ( X2=1.851, df=3, P=.604). However, income source appeared to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated with parental representation by le g a l counsel at the section 13 protection hearing N=158 ( X2=12.406, df=3, P=.006) . Similar to section 11, there appeared to be a s t a t i s t i c a l association B . C . C H I L D P R O T E C T I O N - Page 183 between whether the parents had l e g a l counsel and parental attendance at court for the section 13 protection hearing N=159 ( X2=31.184, df=l, P=.000). Parental attendance at court d i d not appear to have a s t a t i s t i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n with the duration of the section 13 hearing N=153 ( X2=8.516, df=7, P= .289). However, i f the parents had l e g a l counsel there appeared to be a s t a t i s t i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n with an increased duration of the section 13 protection hearing stage N=152 ( X2=24.275, df=7, P= .001). Conversely, the courts' d i s p o s i t i o n a l orders d i d not appear to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated with the duration of the section 13 hearings N=147 ( X2=22.276, df=18, P=.219). Parental consent to the section 13 orders appeared to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated with the s o c i a l workers' recommendations to the court N=153 ( X2=8.361, df=3, P=.039). Parental consent to the s o c i a l workers' recommendations did not appear to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated with the courts' section 13 d i s p o s i t i o n a l orders N=147 ( X2=3.281, df=3, P=.350). Similar to the section 11 presentation, parental l e g a l counsel appeared to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated with the courts' section 13 d i s p o s i t i o n a l orders N=150 ( X2=7.834, df=3, P=.049). The c h i l d s ' placement at time of apprehension appeared to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated with the courts' section 13 d i s p o s i t i o n a l order N=152 ( X2=87.467, df=24, P=.000). Ove r a l l , the s o c i a l workers' recommendations to the B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 184 court appeared to have the most s t a t i s t i c a l association with the courts' section 13 d i s p o s i t i o n a l orders N=151 ( X2=226.656/ df=9, P=.000). Parental attendance at court continued to appear to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y associated with the courts' section 13 d i s p o s i t i o n a l orders N=151 ( X2=8.705, df=3, P=.033). B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 185 CONCLUDING COMMENTS The purpose of t h i s study was to examine current B.C. c h i l d protection practice, with the view to i l l u m i n a t i n g s a l i e n t stages i n the process, developing p o l i c y recommendations, and i d e n t i f y i n g areas f o r future research. The research findings chapter provided a frequency p r o f i l e of c h i l d r e n apprehended into care, and a socio-economic and demographic p r o f i l e of the f a m i l i e s who experienced c h i l d separation, as well as factors i n f l u e n c i n g the court process which ensued. The discussion chapter examined a number of these v a r i a b l e s i n d e t a i l and reviewed l e v e l s of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h e i r associations. The study concludes with a summary of topics i d e n t i f i e d by the research, as well as a summary of p o l i c y and research recommendations. ORIGINAL ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY The o r i g i n a l purpose of t h i s study was to develop current information on the c h i l d protection p r a c t i c e i n B r i t i s h Columbia. In order to determine t h i s the study focused on two major areas. F i r s t , a current picture was provided of the s o c i a l and economic conditions of f a m i l i e s and t h e i r c h i l d r e n who are presently i n r e c e i p t of B.C. c h i l d protection services. Second, research on the degree of congruence i n c h i l d protection decision-making between B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 186 the de c i s i o n of judges and the recommendations made to the court by s o c i a l workers was required to a s s i s t s o c i a l worker pr a c t i c e , and enable p o l i c y makers to review current c h i l d protection p r a c t i c e . An example of current p r a c t i c e which exemplified t h i s was the f i n d i n g that 35% of the apprehended ch i l d r e n are l e f t at home, notwithstanding the reason f o r the apprehension. This r a i s e s the p o l i c y and pr a c t i c e questions of why chi l d r e n are apprehended then l e f t i n parental care. This practice may be the r e s u l t of the absence of assessment guidelines f o r s o c i a l workers and d i s p o s i t i o n a l guidelines f o r the j u d i c i a r y when making decisions about c h i l d r e n being apprehended. A s i m i l a r p r a c t i c e and p o l i c y issue i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the f a c t that a b o r i g i n a l c h i l d r e n comprise 33% to 35% of the apprehended c h i l d - i n - c a r e population, but only about 4.0% of the c h i l d population of the province. |~A key fi n d i n g of t h i s research supported the occurrence of a developmental curve demonstrating that the reason f o r apprehension was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e f l e c t e d i n the c h i l d s ' gender and age group. Also demonstrated was the over representation of lower income socio-economic groups and ^ sin g l e parents, e s p e c i a l l y female, often on income assistance, as well as undereducated parents i n c h i l d separated f a m i l i e s . These demographic factors should be considered when developing support systems i n conjunction with l e g i s l a t i v e and p o l i c y revisions.) The study explored B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 187 the processes around the Family and C h i l d Service Act, and i l l u s t r a t e d differences i n court processes between the fam i l i e s who attend court with l e g a l representation and those who do not. In general the research findings demonstrated that current c h i l d protection p r a c t i c e i n B r i t i s h Columbia i s s t i l l a developing science and could benefi t from the informed a p p l i c a t i o n of program and p o l i c y development from current and emerging knowledge. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE One of the recommendations from t h i s study f o r the Ministry of Social Services and Housing i s that a " r i s k assessment system" be developed to a s s i s t s o c i a l workers to determine o b j e c t i v e l y whether c h i l d r e n should be apprehended and removed from t h e i r parents. In addition to assessment t o o l s , there i s a need f o r further preventative and family support services, both before and/or a f t e r apprehension to a s s i s t i n family integration and r e - u n i f i c a t i o n . The present development of c u l t u r a l l y based programs by aboriginal people f o r abo r i g i n a l f a m i l i e s should be supported and continued both on reserves and i n urban communities. Special attention should be given to development of services f o r non-status native Indians r e s i d i n g i n urban centres. Moreover, i n the areas of s t a f f recruitment, t r a i n i n g , as well as contracting f o r services, B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 188 emphasis should be placed on the changing c u l t u r a l and ethnic mosaic of Canadian society. There are implications and recommendations from the study f o r the consumers of c h i l d protection services as well as f o r p o l i c y makers i n the f i e l d of c h i l d protection. This study demonstrated that l e g i s l a t i v e guidelines are needed that s p e c i f i c a l l y define abuse and neglect, and c l a r i f y i n g amorphous l e g a l terms such as "the safety and well being of a c h i l d " . Also needed are l e g i s l a t i v e and po l i c y changes which would allow s o c i a l workers a vari e t y of supportive a l t e r n a t i v e s to removing c h i l d r e n from family homes. One option could include having s p e c i a l l y trained workers at the home to supervise the f a m i l i e s ' care of the c h i l d . Another option could be providing the courts with the authority to order that the offending parent leave the home instead of the c h i l d . Further options could also include l e g i s l a t i v e authorization to place c h i l d r e n with extended family members, or su i t a b l e neighbours i n si t u a t i o n s where apprehension i s e s s e n t i a l to protect the c h i l d . A further recommendation i s that l e g a l counsel be provided on a regular basis to represent parents involved i n c h i l d protection apprehensions at a l l stages. Easier access to l e g a l a i d services f o r low income earners could be one method of achieving t h i s . Legal counsel i d e a l l y should be trained i n mediation roles which encourage a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 189 i n the l e g a l proceeding to conduct themselves i n ways which reduce adversarial exchanges and promote consistent e f f o r t s to reach decisions i n the c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t . One option to support t h i s p ractice would be the p r o v i s i o n of a formalized "mediation" process f o r s p e c i f i c types of c h i l d welfare cases, as suggested by Joanne Wildgoose i n her 1985 Ontario study. The appointment of a c h i l d advocate to represent the c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t s i n designated court s i t u a t i o n s where independent advocacy i s seen to be needed, should be expanded and developed. Insofar as l e g i s l a t i v e modifications are concerned, i t would be i n everyone's i n t e r e s t to develop s p e c i f i c time periods within which the court process must be concluded, rather than continuing the present open-ended system. The study demonstrated that the involvement of l e g a l counsel often lengthens the court proceedings, regardless of the reason for the c h i l d ' s apprehension. A prolonged period of court involvement i s not i n a c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view of the c r i t i c a l developmental stages and re l a t e d emotional and bonding needs of younger childre n (Goldstein, Freud, & S o l n i t , 1973). FUTURE RESEARCH SUGGESTIONS As with any research study, the process of answering questions suggests areas for further study. The following B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 190 are several suggestions f o r future research on the subject of c h i l d protection p r a c t i c e and l e g i s l a t i o n . I would recommend a survey research project f e a t u r i n g interviews with family court judges and l e g a l counsel i n order to learn t h e i r views and recommendations with respect to c h i l d protection l e g a l p r a c t i c e . I would also recommend a review of p r o v i n c i a l and foreign c h i l d protection statutes and p o l i c i e s i n order to ascertain how other j u r i s d i c t i o n s deal with a number of the issues i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s B r i t i s h Columbia study. Such a review would help B.C. p o l i c y makers consider and assess the merits of d i f f e r e n t philosophical view points on parental r i g h t s , c h i l d r e n s ' r i g h t s , and the ro l e of the state i n family matters. In addition to a l e g i s l a t i v e review, I would recommend developing a system f o r evaluating e x i s t i n g c h i l d welfare programs and services with the view to i d e n t i f y i n g services with proven p o t e n t i a l to support vulnerable f a m i l i e s and promote family u n i f i c a t i o n . I t i s also important that future studies of family and c h i l d services also enable researchers to assess the needs of f a m i l i e s within the growing m u l t i - c u l t u r a l context of Canada. In these ways future research can contribute to a more informed c h i l d protection p r a c t i c e . B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 191 BIBLIOGRAPHY Amacher, K.A. & Mair, K. (1979). Apprehensions of Native  Children i n Vancouver: an exploratory study. Vancouver: U.B.C. unpublished. Angus, A.M. (1951). Children's Aid Society of Vancouver r  B.C. 1901-1951. Vancouver: Author. Babbie, E. (1986). The Practice of S o c i a l Research 4th e d i t i o n . Belmont: Wadsworth. Bala, N. Hornick, J . & Vogi, R. (editors) (1991). Canadian  C h i l d Welfare Law: Children, Families and the State. Toronto: T. H. Best. Baxter, I. & Eberts, M. (1978). The C h i l d and The Courts. Toronto: Carswell. Besharov, D. (editor) (1985). C h i l d Abuse and Neglect Law:  A Canadian Perspective. Washington: C h i l d Welfare League of America. Boardman, H. (1962). "A Project to Rescue Children from I n f l i c t e d I n j u r i e s " i n S o c i a l Work, 7. Brown, D.W. & Crowley, D. (1979). "The S o c i e t a l Impact of Law: An Assessment of Research" i n Law and Pol i c y  Quarterly, 1. Burak, S. (1988). "The Power of S o c i a l Workers: A Comparative Analysis of C h i l d Protection L e g i s l a t i o n " i n Canadian Journal of Family Law. 7(1). The Canadian Constitution. 1981. Ottawa. Queens P r i n t e r s . Canadian Welfare Council. (1954). C h i l d Protection i n  Canada. Ottawa: Author. <f Chan, A. W-Y. (1982). A Study of the S o c i a l and Economic  Conditions of Child i n Care Families. Vancouver: U.B.C. Thesis. C h i l d Welfare League of America, Inc. (1937). Standards f o r C h i l d Protective Organizations. New York: Author. Ch i l d Welfare Association of B r i t i s h Columbia. (1918). Report of the F i r s t Annual Convention. Vancouver: Author. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 192 Children's Protection Act. (1901 and 1902). Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Statutes. Clark, S.H. & Koch, G.G. (1980). "Juvenile Court: Therapy or Crime Control, and Do Lawyers Make a Difference" i n Law and Society Review. 14. Cox, M.H. & Cox, R.D. (1984). "Foster Care and Public P o l i c y " i n Journal of Family Issues, 5. Crane, J . (1967). Epidemiological Research on C h i l d Separation: P o t e n t i a l i t i e s and Li m i t a t i o n s . Author: Unpublished. Crane, J . (1982). The Evaluation of S o c i a l P o l i c i e s . Boston: Kluwer, N i j h o f f . DeFrancis, V. (1955). The Fundamentals of C h i l d Protection. Denver: American Humane Association. Department of Health and Welfare. (1948). Annual Report of  the S o c i a l Welfare Branch. V i c t o r i a : Author. Dolbeare, K.M. (1974). P o l i t i c a l Change i n the United States: A Framework for Analysis. New York: McGraw-H i l l . Duquette, D.N. (1980). "Liberty and Lawyers i n C h i l d Protection" i n CH. Kempe & R.E. Heifer ( E d i t o r s ) . The  Battered C h i l d . Chicago: The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press. Family and C h i l d Service Act. (1980). Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Statutes. Fanshel, D. (1978). Children i n Foster Care: A Longitudinal Investigation. New York: Columbia Un i v e r s i t y Press. Fanshel, D. (1981). "Decision-Making under Uncertainty: Foster Care f o r Abused or Neglected Children" i n American Journal of Public Health. 71. F e l l i n , P., T r i p o l , T., & Meyer, H.J. (1969). Exemplars of  S o c i a l Research. University of Michigan: Peacock. Friesen, B. (1989). Court S k i l l s f o r S o c i a l Workers. Vancouver: unpublished. Friesen, B. (1990). So c i a l Worker Empowerment i n Ch i l d  Protection Court. S p r i n g f i e l d : Thomas. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 193 Garbarino, J . (1977). "The Human Ecology of C h i l d Maltreatment: A Conceptual Model f o r Research" i n Journal of Marriage and the Family,39. Gelles, R. (1979). Family Violence. Beverly H i l l s , CA: Sage Publications. G i l , D. (1974). " I n s t i t u t i o n s f o r Children" i n A. Schorr ( E d i t o r ) . Children and Decent People. New York: Basic Books. Goldstein, J . , Freud, A.J., & S o l n i t , A.J. (1973). Beyond  the Best Interests of the C h i l d . New York: The Free Press. Hardin, M. (editor) (1983). Foster Children i n the Courts. Foster Care Project. National Legal Resource Center f o r C h i l d Advocacy and Protection. American Bar Association. Boston: Butterworth. Hepworth, H.P. (1980). Foster Care and Adoption i n Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Council on S o c i a l Development. Horowitz, D.L. (1977). The Courts and So c i a l P o l i c y . Washington, D.C: Brookings I n s t i t u t e . Hovius, B. (1982). "Children i n Need of Protection" i n Family Law: Cases, Notes and Materials . Toronto: Carswell. Hubbard, R.S. (1943). Crusading f o r Children. Boston: Massachusetts Society. Hubbell, R. (1981). Foster Care and Families: C o n f l i c t i n g  Values and P o l i c i e s . P h i ladelphia: Temple University Press. Johnston, P. (1981). The C h i l d Welfare System and Indigenous Peoples of Canada: an Overview. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Soc i a l Development. unpublished. Kahn, A. (1963). Planning Community Services f o r Children  i n Trouble. New York: Columbia Univ e r s i t y Press. Kadushin, A. & Martin, J . (1988). C h i l d Welfare Services. New York: MacMillan. Katz, S., Howe, R., & McGrath, M. (1975). "Ch i l d Neglect Laws i n America" i n Family Law Quarterly; 9(1). B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 194 K e l l y , R.F. & Ramsey, S.H. (1983). "Do Attorney's f o r Children i n Protection Proceedings Make a Difference? A Study of the Impact of Representation Under Conditions of High J u d i c i a l Intervention" i n Journal of  Family Law, 21. K e l l y , R.F. & Ramsey, S.H. (1984). "Legal and Other Determinants of E f f e c t i v e Court Intervention i n C h i l d Protection Proceedings: A P o l i c y A n a l y s i s " i n Journal  of S o c i a l Service Research, 8(2). Kidder, L. & Judd, C. (1986). Research Methods i n Social  Relations 5th e d i t i o n . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Landau, B. (1986). Children's Rights i n the Pract i c e of  Family Law. Toronto: Carswell. L i t t n e r , N. (1956). Some Traumatic E f f e c t s of Separation  and Placement. New York: C h i l d Welfare League of America. Luboff, C G . (1969). Stressor Events P r e c i p i t a t i n g C h i l d  Placement. Vancouver: U.B.C. Thesis. MacDonald, J.A. (1978). Whether the Reform of C h i l d Welfare L e g i s l a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia?. Vancouver: U.B.C unpublished. MacDonald, J.A. (1977). The Berger Commission and Children's Law i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Vancouver: U.B.C unpublished. MacDonald, J.A. (1979). C h i l d Welfare P o l i c y and the Native Indian C h i l d i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Vancouver: U.B.C. unpublished. MacDonald, J.A. (1974). A P o l i c y Approach to the  Disposi t i o n Options i n C h i l d Protection Law. Vancouver: U.B.C unpublished. Maden, M. (1979). The Di s p o s i t i o n of Reported C h i l d Abuse. Saratoga, CA: Century 21 Publishers. Maidman, F. (editor) (1984). C h i l d Welfare: A Source  Book of Knowledge and Pra c t i c e . New York: C h i l d Welfare League of America. Mandell, B.R. (1973). Where are the Children? Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 195 Matheson, K.D. & Neave, D. (1967). Epidemiological survey  of Children admitted to care i n the Province of B r i t i s h  Columbia. Vancouver: U.B.C. Thesis. Matheson, D.K. & Neave, D.C. (1971). C h i l d Separation i n  B r i t i s h Columbia: an Epidemiological Analysis. V i c t o r i a : Department of R e h a b i l i t a t i o n and S o c i a l Improvement. Merner, G. (1985). A P r e d i c t i v e Model of Children-In-Care  Caseloads. V i c t o r i a : M i n i stry of Human Resources. Merner, G. (1991). A P r o f i l e of Apprehended Children i n  Care. V i c t o r i a : Ministry of S o c i a l Services and Housing. M i l l e r , D.C. (1977). Handbook of Research Design and  S o c i a l Measurement 3rd e d i t i o n . New York: McKay. Mini s t r y of Human Resources. (1980). Guide f o r  Supervisors. V i c t o r i a : Author. Ministry of Human Resources. (1980). Staff Training  Orientation Guide. V i c t o r i a : Author. Ministry of Social Services and Housing. (1989). Annual  Report: Services f o r People 1987-88. V i c t o r i a : Author. Ministry of Social Services and Housing. (1989). Family  and Children's Services Factbook. V i c t o r i a : Author. Ministry of Social Services and Housing. (1990). Annual  Report: Services f o r People 1988-89. V i c t o r i a : Author. Ministry of Social Services and Housing. (1991). Family  and Children's Services P o l i c y Manual. Volume I I . V i c t o r i a : Author. Mnookin, R. (1973). "Foster C a r e — I n Whose Best Interest?" i n Harvard Education Review. 43(4). National Council of Welfare. (1979). In the Best Interests  of the C h i l d . Ottawa: Author-National Health & Welfare, Department of. (1981). Discussion Paper on C h i l d Protection i n Canada. Ottawa: Author. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 196 Northup, E.L. (1969). A Study of Success and F a i l u r e i n  Long-Term Foster Care: The A p p l i c a t i o n of Predictive  Techniques to Decisions i n C h i l d Placement. Vancouver: U.B.C. Thesis. Norusis, M.J. (1988). The SPSS Guide to Data Analysis f o r  SPSS/PC+. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc. Norusis, M.J. (1990). SPSS/PC+ Manuals 1 - 4 . Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc. O f f i c e of the Ombudsman. (1990). Public Report No. 22. Public Services to Children, Youth and Their Families  i n B r i t i s h Columbia: the Need f o r Integration. V i c t o r i a : Author. O f f i c e of the Ombudsman. (1991). Public Report No. 24.  Public Response to Request f o r Suggestions f o r  L e g i s l a t i v e Change to Family and C h i l d Service Act. V i c t o r i a : Author. Pinheiro, G. (1984). Parental R e s p o n s i b i l i t y : A Paper  Prepared f o r The National Task Force on C h i l d Care. Ottawa, unpublished. P r o v i n c i a l Report. March, 1988. V i c t o r i a : Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Ramsey, S. (1983). "Representation of the C h i l d i n Protection Proceedings: the Determination of Decision Making Capacity" i n Family Law Quarterly, 17. Ratner, R.S. (1990). C h i l d Welfare Services f o r Urban  Native Indians. Vancouver: United Native Nations. Raychaba, B. (1988). To be on Our Own with No Direction  From Home: a Report on the Special Needs of Youth  Leaving the Care of the C h i l d Welfare System. Ottawa: National Youth i n Care Network. Runyan, D.K., Gould, C.L., Frost, D.C. & Lada, F.A. (1981). "Determinants of Foster Care Placements for the Maltreated C h i l d " i n American Journal of Public Health. 71. Ryerse, C. (1990). Thursday's C h i l d : C h i l d Poverty i n Canada: A Review of the E f f e c t s of Poverty on \ Children. Ottawa: National Youth i n Care Network. Ryerson, E. (1978). The Best Laid Plans:  Juvenile Court Experiment. New York: America's H i l l and Wang. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 197 Scheuer, S. & Bailey, M. (1980). "Guidelines f o r Placing a C h i l d i n Foster Care" i n C H . Kempe & R. Heifer ( E d i t o r s ) . The Battered C h i l d . Chicago: The Un i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press. Shawana, P. & Taylor, R. (1988). Indian C h i l d Apprehension: a s o c i o - l e g a l a n a l y s i s . unknown. unpublished. Simpson, H. (1962). "The U n f i t Parent" i n Univ e r s i t y of  Det r o i t Law Review, 39(2). Singleton, A.G. (1950). C h i l d Welfare Administration under  Protection Acts i n B r i t i s h Columbia: Its History and  Development 1901-1949. Vancouver: U.B.C. Thesis. Timms, N. & Watson, D. (1978). Philosophy i n So c i a l Work. London: Routledge & Kegan. T r i p o d i , T., F e l l i n , P., Meyer, H.J. (1983). The Assessment of Social Research: Guidelines f o r Use of  Research i n Social Work and S o c i a l Science 2nd e d i t i o n . University of Michigan: Peacock. Vayda, E. & S a t t e r f i e l d , M. (1989). Law f o r S o c i a l Workers: A Canadian Guide 2nd e d i t i o n . Toronto: Carswell. Wald, M. (1975). "State Intervention on Behalf of Neglected Children: A Search f o r R e a l i s t i c Standards" i n Stanford Law Review, 27. Wald, M. (1976). "State Intervention on Behalf of Neglected Children: Standards f o r Removal of Children from t h e i r Homes, Monitoring the Status of Children i n Foster Care, and Termination of Parental Right" i n Stanford Law Review, 28. Watson, E.F. (1960). A Summary and Discussion of the  History and Problem of C h i l d Welfare Services i n  Vancouver with P a r t i c u l a r Reference to Temporary Foster  Home (Non-Ward) Care and Its Costs. Vancouver: unpublished. Wildgoose, J . (1987). "Alternate Dispute Resolution of C h i l d Protection Cases" i n Canadian Journal of Family  Law, 6(1). Wilson, J . (1978). Children and the Law. Toronto: Butterworths. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 198 APPENDICES B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 199 APPENDIX A M.S.S.&H. DATA VARIABLES AND VALUE LABELS QUESTIONNAIRE VARIABLES AND VALUE LABELS B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 200 M.S.S.&H. VARIABLES AND VALUE LABELS DATA LIST FILE= mssh.dat records=l / ID 1-3 BLANK 4 NAME 5-21 (A) FINIT 22 (A) SINIT 23 (A) BIRTH 24-29 SEX 30 TIE 31 MARMTH 32 MARFTH 33 RELCLD 34 RACEM 35 RACEF 36 RACECH 37 INDAOR 38 INDAGN 39-41 WORKNO 42-44 (A) PHYS 45 INTEL 46 BEHAV 47 CPDAT 48-52 INDBAND 53-55 PLANC 56 (A) SEROFF 57-59 (A) PLANI 60 (A) ADMDAT 61-66 ADOC 67-69 (A) REASAD 70-71 SIBAD 72-73 LEGSTA 74 (A) SIBALL 75-76 ADMTFR 77 TRANFM 78 PARNTA 79 ADMAGE 80-81 REASDS 82-83 SIBDIS 84 DISTFR 85 SUPOCD 86-88 (A) LOCOCD 89-91 (A) PLCTYP 92 (A) PCAAP 93 AGEGRP 94 CURAGE 95-96 HOMSA 97 NPLACES 98-99 APPDAT 100-103 EXTRA1 104 VARIABLE LABELS NAME 'surname of c h i l d ' FINIT ' f i r s t i n i t i a l of c h i l d ' SINIT 'second i n i t i a l of c h i l d ' BIRTH 'birthdate of c h i l d ' SEX 'sex of c h i l d ' TIE ' t i e breaker' MARMTH 'marital status of mother' MARFTH 'marital status of father' RELCLD ' r e l i g i o n of c h i l d ' RACEM ' r a c i a l o r i g i n of mother' RACEF ' r a c i a l o r i g i n of father' RACECH ' r a c i a l o r i g i n of c h i l d ' INDAOR 'indian accepted or reg i s t e r e d ' INDAGN 'indian agency code' WORKNO ' s o c i a l workers number' PHYS 'physical functional a b i l i t y ' •INTEL ' i n t e l l e c t u a l f unctional a b i l i t y ' BEHAV 'behavioral functional a b i l i t y ' CPDAT 'date plan l a s t changed' INDBAND 'indian band number' PLANC 'current plan f o r c h i l d ' SEROFF ' o f f i c e serving family' PLANI ' i n i t i a l plan f o r c h i l d ' ADMDAT 'admission date' ADOC 'admitting o f f i c e code' REASAD 'reason f o r admission' SIBAD '# of s i b l i n g s admitted with c h i l d ' LEGSTA 'l e g a l status on admission' SIBALL '# of s i b l i n g s i n family' ADMTFR 'admission tr a n s f e r f l a g ' TRANFM 'area transferred from' PARNTA 'formerly with parents l=yes' ADMAGE 'actual age at time of admission' REASDS 'reason for discharge' SIBDIS '# of s i b l i n g s discharged with c h i l d ' DISTFR 'discharge t r a n s f e r f l a g ' B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 201 SUPOCD 'supervising o f f i c e code' LOCOCD 'location code of placement' PLCTYP 'placement type' PCAAP 'PCA apprehended f l a g l=yes' AGEGRP 'age group of c h i l d ' CURAGE 'current age of c h i l d ' HOMSA 'home i n re c e i p t of SA l=yes' NPLACES '# of placements made by c h i l d ' APPDAT 'apprehension date yr&mon' EXTRA1 ' a c t i v i t y code at time of admission' VALUE LABELS SEX 1 'male' 2 'female'/ MARMTH 1 'single-never married' 2 'married to c h i l d s parent' 3 'married to another' 4 'divorced\separated' 5 'widowed' 6 'deceased thus n\a' 7 'common-law parent' 8 'common-law to another'/ MARFTH 1 'single-never married' 2 'married to c h i l d s parent' 3 'married to another' 4 'divorced\separated' 5 'widowed' 6 'deceased thus n\a' 7 'common-law parent' 8 'common-law to another'/ RELCLD 1 'protestant' 2 ' c a t h o l i c ' 3 'unknown' 4 'other ( s p e c i f y ) ' / RACEM 1 'Caucasian' 'native indian' 'east indian' 'Japanese' 'Chinese' 'black' 'other' 'unknown'/ 'Caucasian' 'native indian' 'east indian' 'Japanese' 'Chinese' 'black' 'other' 'unknown'/ RACECH 1 'Caucasian' 2 'native indian' 3 'east indian' RACEF B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 202 4 'Japanese' 5 'Chinese' 6 'black' 7 'other' 8 'unknown'/ PHYS 1 'normal functioning' 2 'mild\moderate d i s a b i l i t y ' 3 'severely disabled'/ INTEL 1 'normal functioning' 2 'mild\moderate d i s a b i l i t y ' 3 'severely disabled'/ BEHAV 1 'normal functioning' 2 'mild\moderate d i s a b i l i t y ' 3 'severely disabled'/ PLANC 'A' 'return to parents' 'B' 'placement with r e l a t i v e s ' 'C 'adoption' 'D' 'independence' 'E' 'authorized exception'/ PLANI 'A' 'return to parents' 'B' 'placement with r e l a t i v e s ' 'C 'adoption' 'D' 'independence' 'E' 'authorized exception'/ REASAD 01 'STCA parental mental or emotional condition' 02 'STCA parental physical i l l n e s s ' 03 'STCA mari t a l c o n f l i c t ' 04 'STCA parent c h i l d c o n f l i c t ' 05 'STCA awaiting adoption placement' 11 'SCA c h i l d s mental or emotional condition' 12 'SCA c h i l d s physical handicap' 13 'SCA c h i l d s mental handicap' 14 'SCA c h i l d s emotional disorder' 21 'PROTECTION physical abuse' 22 'PROTECTION sexual abuse' 23 'PROTECTION abandonment' 24 'PROTECTION death of caregiver' 25 'PROTECTION absence of parent' 26 'PROTECTION d i s a b i l i t y of parent' 27 'PROTECTION neglect endangering c h i l d ' 28 'PROTECTION deprivation of medical care' 29 'PROTECTION c h i l d absence i n circumstances' 41 'FRA death of guardian' 42 'COURT judges decision to tr a n s f e r guardianship' 43 'ADOPTION relinquishment by parents' 51 ' c h i l d from other province' 52 ' c h i l d from other country'/ LEGSTA 'A' 'STCA agreement (s 4)' 'B' 'SPECIAL CARE agreement (s 5)' 'R' 'INTERMITTENT agreement' 'C 'under APPREHENSION (s 9)' B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 203 •'D' 'INTERIM order (s 11.2c)' 'E' 'TEMPORARY ward (s 13.lc or .7)' 'F' 'TEMPORARY ward (s 14.7b)' 'G' 'PERMANENT ward (s 14.2)' 'H' 'PERMANENT ward (s 13.Id or 14.12)' ' J ' 'FRA WARD (s 29)' 'K' 'FRA WARD (other)' 'L' 'ADOPTION ACT WARD' 'N' 'OTHER PROVINCE WARD' '0' 'OTHER COUNTRY WARD' 'S' 'SUPERVISION ORDER (s 11)' 'T' 'SUPERVISION ORDER (s 13)'/ PARNTA 1 'yes' 0 'no'/ REASDS 21 ' c h i l d reached AGE of MAJORITY' 22 'Child MARRIED' 23 ' c h i l d DECEASED' 24 'ADOPTION completed' 25 'Child REPATRIATED' 26 'REQUESTED ORDER REFUSED by COURT' 27 'COMPLAINT WITHDRAWN by MSS&H' 28 'agreement terminated c h i l d awol' 29 'agreement terminated c h i l d h o s p i t a l i z e d ' 30 'GUARDIANSHIP TRANSFERED to RELATIVE' 31 'other j u r i s d i c t i o n ward returned' 32 'intermittent SCA ended' 33 'parent condition improved' 34 'family s i t u a t i o n improved' 35 'CARE REQUIRED by CHILD completed' 36 'TERMINATION of SUPERVISION ORDER'/ PLCTYP 'A' 'foster home REGULAR' 'B' 'foster home RESTRICTED' 'C 'foster home RELATIVE' 'D' 'indep BOARDING HOME' 'E' 'indep HOTEL\MOTEL' t-pr 'indep APARTMENT\SUITE' 'G' 'no pay PARENTS' 'H' 'no pay ADOPTION PROBATION' ' I ' 'no pay PAYS OWN BOARD' ' J ' 'no pay OTHER' 'K' 'CONTRACTED CHILD CARE RESOURCE' 'L' 'HOSPITAL or other INSTITUTION' 'M' 'A.W.O.L.'/ AGEGRP 1 ' 0-5 YEARS OLD' 2 ' 6-9 YEARS OLD' 3 ' 10-11 YEARS OLD' 4 ' 12-13 YEARS OLD' 5 ' 14-15 YEARS OLD' 6 ' 16-18 YEARS OLD'/ HOMSA 1 'YES on Income Assistance' 0 'Not on I.A. or unknown'/. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 2 0 4 QUESTIONNAIRE VARIABLES AND VALUE LABELS DATA LIST FIXED FILE='QUEST.DAT' / ID 1-3 NUMCHDT 5 NUMCHDL 6 NUMPAR 7 PREADM 8 NUMADM 9 READM1 10-11 READM2 13-14 TIMOTH 15-16 TIYEAR 17-18 ADOPTED 19 BLENDED 20 OPPORT 21 BANDS 22 MUNICPAL 23 POPULAT 24-29 SWCNL11 30 SWSEC11 31 SWSUP11 32 SWACS11 33 PARCNL11 34 PARCRT11 35 ADJUN11 36 DURA11 37-38 SAME11 39 CSENT11 40 JDSEC11 41 JDSUP11 42 JDACS11 43 SWCNL13 44 PARCNL13 45 PARCRT13 46 SWSEC13 47 SWSUP13 48 SWLEN13 49-50 SWACS13 51 ADJUN13 52 DURA13 53 SAME13 54 CSENT13 55 JDSEC13 56 JDSUP13 57 JDLEN13 58-59 JDACS13 60 FAMILY 61 RELATN 62 DURFAMI 63-64 AGEHEAD 65-66 EDUCAT 67 JOBTYPE 68-69 INCOME 70-71 SOURCE 72 RACIAL 73-74 DWELLING 75 TENURE 76 RESIDNT 77. VARIABLE LABELS ID 'coding number' NUMCHDT '# of c h i l d taken into care' NUMCHDL '# of c h i l d l e f t at home' NUMPAR '# of parents at home' PREADM 'any previous admissions?' NUMADM '# of previous admissions' READMI 'reason one l a s t admission' READM2 'reason two l a s t admission' TIMOTH '# of months since l a s t admit' TIYEAR '# of years since l a s t admit' ADOPTED 'was c h i l d adopted?' BLENDED 'blended or step family?' OPPORT 'opportunity to plan placement' BANDS '# of bands i n DO area' MUNICPAL '# of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n DO area' •POPULAT '# of population served by DO' SWCNL11 'MSSH counsel involved sec 11' SWSEC11 'SW sec 11 recomendation' SWSUP11 'SW sec 11 supervision recomm' SWACS11 'SW sec 11 access oppose' PARCNL11 'parents counsel sec 11' PARCRT11 'parents attend sec 11 court' ADJUN11 '# of sec 11 adjournments' DURA11 'sec 11 weeks duration' SAME11 'SW sec 11 same request as f i l e d ' CSENT11 'parents consent to sec 11' JDSEC11 'Judges sec 11 order' JDSUP11 'Judges sec 11 supervision order' JDACS11 'Judges sec 11 access order' SWCNL13 'MSSH counsel involved sec 13' PARCNL13 'parents counsel sec 13' PARCRT13 'parents attend sec 13 court' SWSEC13 'SW sec 13 recommendation' SWSUP13 'SW sec 13 supervision recomm' SWLEN13 'SW sec 13 length order recomm' B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 205 SWACS13 'SW sec 13 access oppose' ADJUN13 '# of sec 13 adjournments' DURA13 'sec 13 months duration' SAME13 'SW sec 13 same request as notices' CSENT13 'parents consent to sec 13' JDSEC13 'Judges sec 13 order' JDSUP13 'Judges sec 13 supervision order' JDLEN13 'Judges sec 13 length order made' JDACS13 'Judges sec 13 access order' FAMILY 'structure of family c h i l d from' RELATN 'parent-child r e l a t i o n s h i p ' DURFAMI 'duration of family s t r u c t u r e ' AGEHEAD 'age of household head' EDUCAT 'education l e v e l of income earner' JOBTYPE 'occupational t i t l e income earner' INCOME 'amount of t o t a l household income' SOURCE 'primary source of income' RACIAL 'ethnic o r i g i n of c h i l d ' DWELLING 'type of dwelling family i n ' TENURE 'family tenure of dwelling' RESIDNT 'length of residency i n DO area'. VALUE LABELS PREADM 1 'yes' 2 'no' 3 'unknown'/ READM1 01 'STCA parental mental or emotional condition' 02 'STCA parental physical i l l n e s s ' 03 'STCA marital c o n f l i c t ' 04 'STCA parent-child c o n f l i c t ' 05 'STCA awaiting adoption placement' 11 'SCA c h i l d s mental or emotional condition' 12 'SCA c h i l d s physical handicap' 13 'SCA c h i l d s mental handicap' 14 'SCA c h i l d s emotional disorder' 21 'PROTECTION physical abuse' 22 'PROTECTION sexual abuse' 23 'PROTECTION abandonment' 24 'PROTECTION death of caregiver' 25 'PROTECTION absence of parent' 26 'PROTECTION d i s a b i l i t y of parent' 27 'PROTECTION neglect endangering c h i l d ' 28 'PROTECTION deprivation of medical care' 29 'PROTECTION c h i l d absent i n circumstances'/ READM2 01 'STCA parental mental or emotional condition' 02 'STCA parental physical i l l n e s s ' 03 'STCA marital c o n f l i c t ' 04 'STCA parent-child c o n f l i c t ' 05 'STCA awaiting adoption placement' 11 'SCA c h i l d s mental or emotional condition' 12 'SCA c h i l d s physical condition' 13 'SCA chi l d s mental handicap' B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 2 0 6 emotional disorder' physical abuse' sexual abuse' abandonment' death of caregiver' absence of parent' d i s a b i l i t y of parent' neglect endangering c h i l d ' deprivation of medical care' c h i l d absent i n circumstances'/ 14 'SCA c h i l d s 21 'PROTECTION 22 'PROTECTION 23 'PROTECTION 24 'PROTECTION 25 'PROTECTION 26 'PROTECTION 27 'PROTECTION 28 'PROTECTION 29 'PROTECTION ADOPTED 1 'yes' 2 'no'/ BLENDED 1 'yes' 2 'no'/ OPPORT 1 'planned admission' 2 'unexpected event' 3 'other'/ SWCNL11 1 'before apprehension' 2 'after apprehension' 3 'presentation day only'/ SWSEC11 1 'sec 9(5) return approve' 2 'return c h i l d to parent' 3 'MSSH interim custody' 4 'sec 13(1) order'/ SWACS11 1 'NOT applicable' 2 'both parents' 3 'mother' 4 'father' 5 'other'/ PARCNL11 1 'yes' 2 'no'/ PARCRT11 1 'yes' 2 'no'/ SAME11 1 'yes' 2 'no'/ CSENT11 1 'yes' 2 'no'/ JDSEC11 1 'sec 9(5) return approve' 2 'return c h i l d to parent' 3 'MSSH interim custody' 4 'sec 13(1) order'/ JDACS11 1 'NOT applicable' 2 'both parents' 3 'mother' 4 'father' 5 'other'/ SWCNL13 1 'day of hearing only' 2 'after notices served' 3 'prior to notices served'/ PARCNL13 1 'yes' 2 'no'/ B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 207 PARCRT13 1 'yes' 2 'no'/ SWSEC13 1 ' c h i l d remain with parent' 2 'return c h i l d to parent' 3 'MSSH r e t a i n custody' 4 'section 14(1) perm order'/ SWACS13 l'NOT applicable' 2'both parents' 3'mother' 4'father' 5'other'/ SAME13 l'yes' 2'no'/ CSENT13 l'yes' 2'no'/ JDSEC13 1'child remain with parent' 2'return c h i l d to parent' 3'MSSH r e t a i n custody' 4'section 14(1) perm order'/ JDACS13 l'NOT applicable' 2'both parents' 3'mother' 4'father' 5'other'/ FAMILY l'TWO parents' 3'Male singl e parent' 4'Female single parent' 5'other family'/ RELATN 1'birth parent' 2'step or blended' 3'adoptive' 4 ' r e l a t i v e ' 5'other r e l a t i o n ' / AGEHEAD 1'under 19 years' 2'19-24 years' 3'25-34 years' 4'35-44 years' 5'45-54 years' 6'55-64 years' 7'65-74 years' 8'75 years plus'/ EDUCAT l ' l e s s grade 9' 2'grade 9-13 NO c e r t ' 3'grade 9-13 YES c e r t ' 4'trade c e r t or d i p l ' 5'university NO degree' 6'university YES degree'/ JOBTYPE 1'managerial-admin' 2'natural sciences' 3'social sciences' 4'teaching and r e l a t e d ' B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 208 5'medicine and health' 6 ' c l e r i c a l and r e l a t e d ' 7'sales' 8'service (non-prof)' 9'farming and hort' 10'other industry' 11'processing' 12'machining and r e l a t e d ' 13'production and r e p a i r ' 14'construction trades' 15'transport operating' 16'material handling' 17'other equip operate' 18'0CC NOT c l a s s i f i e d ' 19'student'/ INCOME 1'$0-9,999' 2'$10,000-19,999' 3'$20,000-29,999' 4'$30,000-39,999' 5'$40,000-49,999' 6'$50,000-59,999' 7'$60,000-69,999' 8'$70,000-79,999' 9'$80,000-99,999' 10'$100,000-and over'/ SOURCE 1'employment' 2'MSSH IA-EIP' 3'other f i n a n c i a l ' 4 ' r e l a t i v e s ' 5'other-unknown'/ RACIAL l ' b r i t i s h ' 2'french' 3'aboriginal' 4'german' 5 ' i t a l i a n ' 6'ukranian' 7'Chinese' 8'dutch' 9'single o r i g i n ' 10'multiple o r i g i n ' / DWELLING 1'detached house' 2'townhouse' 3'apartment' 4'mobile home' 5'hotel-motel room' 6'other dwelling'/ TENURE 1'owned by family' 2'rented by family' 3'on reserve'/ RESIDNT l ' l month or l e s s ' 2'2 to 6 months' B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 209 3'7 to 12 months plus' 4'2 to 5 years' 5'6 to 10 years' 6'11 years plus'/. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 210 APPENDIX B PRINTOUT OF VARIABLES STATISTICAL FREQUENCIES B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 211 SEX sex of c h i l d Value Label male female Value 1 2 Total Frequency 156 197 353 V a l i d Cum Percent Percent Percent 44.2 44.2 44.2 55.8 55.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 156 197 1 2 I, 0 . .1. 40 .1. 80 . .1. 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum ,558 000 -1.956 .130 2.000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .026 .497 .259 1.000 550.000 Median 2.000 Variance .247 Skewness -.235 Minimum 1.000 V a l i d cases 353 Missing cases B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 212 MARMTH marital status of mother V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent single-never married 1 66 18.7 22.1 22.1 married to c h i l d s pa 2 69 19.5 23.1 45.2 married to another 3 34 9.6 11.4 56.5 divorced\separated 4 73 20.7 24.4 80.9 widowed 5 7 2.0 2 . 3 83.3 deceased thus n\a 6 1 .3 .3 83.6 common-law parent 7 17 4.8 5.7 89.3 common-law to anothe 8 32 9.1 10.7 100.0 • 54 15.3 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT 66 69 34 73 7 1 17 32 VALUE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I, 0 .1, 15 .1. 30 . .1. 45 .1 60 Mean 3.391 Mode 4.000 Kurtosis -.236 S E Skew .141 Maximum 8.000 V a l i d cases 299 Histogram frequency Std e r r Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum Missing cases .128 2.220 .281 7.000 1014.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 3 .000 4.930 .896 1.000 54 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 213 MARFTH marital status of father V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent single-never married 1 43 12.2 16.4 16.4 married to c h i l d s pa 2 70 19.8 26.7 43 .1 married to another 3 18 5.1 6.9 50.0 divorced\separated 4 80 22.7 30.5 80.5 widowed 5 1 .3 .4 80.9 deceased thus n\a 6 11 3.1 4.2 85.1 common-law parent 7 23 6.5 8.8 93.9 common-law to anothe 8 16 4.5 6.1 100.0 • 91 25.8 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 MARFTH COUNT 43 70 18 80 1 11 23 16 marital status of father VALUE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I. 0 .1. 20 40 60 Histogram frequency .1 80 Mean 3.500 Mode 4.000 Kurtosis -.411 S E Skew .150 Maximum 8.000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .128 2.078 .300 7.000 917.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 3.500 4.320 .739 1.000 V a l i d cases 262 Missing cases 91 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 214 RELCLD r e l i g i o n of c h i l d V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent protestant c a t h o l i c 1 2 39 18 11.0 5.1 11.0 5.1 11.0 16.1 unknown 3 269 76.2 76.2 92.4 other (specify) 4 Total 27 353 7.6 100.0 7.6 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 39 1 18 269 2 3 — 27 4 — .. I.. . . I . . I I 0 80 160 240 320 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 2. 3. 1, 805 000 828 130 000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .039 .730 .259 3.000 990.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 3.000 .533 -1.399 1.000 Valid-cases 353 Missing cases B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 215 RACEM r a c i a l o r i g i n of mother V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Caucasian 1 207 58.6 58.6 58.6 native indian 2 112 31.7 31.7 90.4 east indian 3 4 1.1 1.1 91.5 Chinese 5 2 .6 .6 92.1 other 7 9 2.5 2.5 94.6 unknown 8 19 5.4 5.4 100.0 Total COUNT VALUE 207 112 4 0 2 0 9 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .1, 80 353 100.0 100.0 . .1, 160 . .1, 240 . .1 320 Histogram frequency Mean • Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1.892 1.000 6.133 .130 8.000 Std e r r Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .096 1.795 .259 7.000 668.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 3.221 2.692 1.000 V a l i d cases 353 Missing cases B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 216 RACEF r a c i a l o r i g i n of father V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percen Caucasian 1 189 53.5 53.5 53 .5 native indian 2 88 24.9 24.9 78.5 east indian 3 5 1.4 1.4 79.9 Chinese 5 2 .6 .6 80.5 black 6 5 1.4 1.4 81.9 other 7 10 2.8 2.8 84.7 unknown 8 54 15.3 15.3 100.0 Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 189 88 5 0 2 5 10 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .1. 40 .1, 80 . .1. 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 2.612 1.000 .285 .130 8.000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .138 2.586 .259 7.000 922.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 6.687 1.438 1.000 V a l i d cases 353 Missing cases B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 217 PHYS physical f u n c t i o n a l a b i l i t y Value Label normal functioning mild\moderate d i s a b i Value Frequency Percent 1 2 Total 260 13 80 353 73.7 3.7 22.7 V a l i d Cum Percent Percent 100.0 95.2 4.8 Missing 100.0 95.2 100.0 COUNT VALUE 260 13 .1, 80 . .1, 160 . .1, 240 . .1 320 Histogram frequency Mean 1.048 Mode 1.000 Kurtosis 16.370 S E Skew Maximum 147 000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .013 .213 .294 1.000 286.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 .046 4.272 1.000 Va l i d cases 273 Missing cases 80 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 218 INTEL i n t e l l e c t u a l functional a b i l i t y V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent normal functioning 1 240 68.0 88.2 88.2 mild\moderate d i s a b i 2 30 8.5 11.0 99.3 severely disabled 3 2 .6 .7 100.0 • 81 22.9 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 240 30 2 Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1 2 3 1.125 1.000 7.271 .148 3.000 . .1, 80 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum . .1. 160 . .1, 240 Histogram frequency .021 .353 .294 2.000 306.000 . .1 320 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 .125 2.775 1.000 V a l i d cases 272 Missing cases 81 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 219 BEHAV behavioral functional a b i l i t y V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent normal functioning 1 196 55.5 72.3 72.3 mild\moderate d i s a b i 2 50 14.2 18.5 90.8 severely disabled 3 25 7.1 9.2 100.0 • 82 23 .2 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 196 50 25 1 2 3 .1. 40 .1. 80 . . .1, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1.369 1.000 1.034 .148 3 .000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .039 .647 .295 2.000 371.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 .419 1.530 1.000 Va l i d cases 271 Missing cases 82 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 220 PLANC current plan f o r c h i l d V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 16 4.5 4.5 4.5 return to parents A 284 80.5 80.5 85.0 placement with r e l a t B 13 3.7 3.7 88.7 adoption C 12 3.4 3.4 92.1 independence D 28 7.9 7.9 100.0 Total 353 100.0 100.0 PLANI i n i t i a l plan f o r c h i l d V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 32 9.1 9.1 9.1 return to parents A 285 80.7 80.7 89.8 placement with r e l a t B 11 3.1 3.1 92.9 adoption C 8 2.3 2.3 95.2 independence D 17 4.8 4.8 100.0 Total 353 100.0 100.0 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 221 REASAD reason f o r admission V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent STCA parental mental 1 14 4.0 4.0 4.0 STCA parent c h i l d co 4 15 4.2 4.2 8.2 SCA c h i l d s mental or 11 3 .8 .8 9.1 SCA c h i l d s mental ha 13 1 .3 .3 9.3 SCA ch i l d s emotional 14 1 .3 .3 9.6 APPREHEND physical a 21 61 17.3 17.3 26.9 APPREHEND sexual abu 22 31 8.8 8.8 35.7 APPREHEND abandonmen 23 25 7.1 7.1 42.8 APPREHEND death of c 24 1 .3 .3 43 .1 APPREHEND absence of 25 48 13.6 13.6 56.7 APPREHEND d i s a b i l i t y 26 70 19.8 19.8 76.5 APPREHEND neglect en 27 52 14.7 14.7 91.2 APPREHEND deprivatio 28 1 .3 .3 91.5 APPREHEND c h i l d abse 29 28 7.9 7.9 99.4 c h i l d from other pro 51 1 .3 .3 99.7 82 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 353 100.0 100.0 Count Midpoint 14 1 15 6 4 11 1 16 117 21 172 26 28 31 0 36 0 41 0 46 1 51 0 56 0 61 0 66 0 71 0 76 1 81 I + I + I + I + I 0 40 80 120 160 Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 22.926 26.000 13.125 .130 82.000 V a l i d cases Histogram frequency 353 Std err .401 Std dev 7.543 S E Kurt .259 Range 81.000 Sum 8093.000 Missing cases Median Variance Skewness Minimum 25.000 56.904 -.106 1.000 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 222 SIBAD # of s i b l i n g s admitted with c h i l d V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent # of s i b l i n g s admitted 0 186 52.7 52.7 52.7 with apprehended c h i l d 1 94 26.6 26.6 79.3 2 47 13.3 13.3 92.6 3 14 4.0 4.0 96.6 4 9 2.5 2.5 99.2 5 3 .8 .8 100.0 Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 186 94 47 14 9 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 . .1. 40 . .1 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 796 000 234 130 000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .057 1.070 .259 5.000 281.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum .000 1.146 1.532 .000 V a l i d cases 353 Missing cases B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 223 LEGSTA l e g a l status on admission V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent STCA agreement (s 4) A 19 5.4 5.4 5.4 SPECIAL CARE agreeme B 2 .6 .6 5.9 under APPREHENSION C 330 93 .5 93.5 99.4 INTERMITTENT agreeme R 2 .6 .6 100.0 Total 353 100.0 100.0 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 224 SIBALL # number of s i b l i n g s i n family Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent family 0 64 18.1 18.1 18.1 1 125 35.4 35.4 53 .5 2 90 25.5 25.5 79.0 3 40 11.3 11.3 90.4 4 14 4.0 4.0 94.3 5 9 2.5 2.5 96.9 6 6 1.7 1.7 98.6 7 2 .6 .6 99.2 8 2 .6 .6 99.7 9 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 64 0 125 1 90 2 40 3 14 4 9 5 6 6 2 7 2 8 1 9 Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1.703 1.000 3.645 .130 9.000 .1 40 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .1, 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency .080 1.502 .259 9.000 601.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 2.255 1.590 .000 V a l i d cases 353 Missing cases B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 225 PARNTA c h i l d with parents at time of apprehension l=yes Value Label yes Count 302 Mean Mode Range Sum Midpoint 1 I. I. 0 1. 1. 000 000 .000 302.000 Value 1 Total Frequency Percent V a l i d Cum Percent Percent 302 51 85.6 14.4 100.0 Missing 100.0 353 100.0 100.0 80 Std err Std dev Minimum ,. .1. 160 . .1. 240 Histogram frequency .000 .000 1.000 Median Variance Maximum ,. .1 320 1.000 .000 1.000 V a l i d cases 302 Missing cases 51 B . C . C H I L D P R O T E C T I O N - Page 2 2 6 ADMAGE actual age at time of admission V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 32 9.1 9.1 9.1 1 18 5.1 5.1 14.2 2 23 6.5 6.5 20.7 3 22 6.2 6.2 26.9 4 18 5.1 5.1 32.0 5 18 5.1 5.1 37.1 6 15 4.2 4.2 41.4 7 14 4.0 4.0 45.3 8 20 5.7 5.7 51.0 9 11 3.1 3.1 54.1 10 10 2.8 2.8 56.9 11 15 4.2 4.2 61.2 12 10 2.8 2.8 64.0 13 23 6.5 6.5 70.5 14 35 9.9 9.9 80.5 15 39 11.0 11.0 91.5 16 21 5.9 5.9 97.5 17 8 2.3 2.3 99.7 18 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 353 100.0 100.0 Count 0 0 32 41 22 36 15 34 11 25 10 58 39 29 1 0 0 Midpoint -3.0 -1.5 .0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 10.5 12.0 13 .5 15.0 16.5 18.0 19.5 21.0 I, 0 Mean 8.465 Mode 15.000 Kurtosis -1.456 S E Skew .130 Maximum 18.000 V a l i d cases 353 .1, 12 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Ranqe Sum . .1 + I + . . 24 36 Histogram frequency .297 Median 5.575 Variance .259 Skewness 18.000 Minimum 2988.000 .1 48 8.000 31.079 -.079 .000 Missing cases B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 227 REASDS reason f o r discharge V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 185 52.4 52.4 52.4 Chil d REPATRIATED 25 9 2.5 2.5 55.0 REQUESTED ORDER REFU 26 2 .6 .6 55.5 COMPLAINT WITHDRAWN 27 22 6.2 6.2 61.8 agreement terminated 28 1 .3 .3 62.0 GUARDIANSHIP TRANSFE 30 7 2.0 2.0 64.0 other j u r i s d i c t i o n w 31 2 .6 .6 64.6 parent condition imp 33 23 6.5 6.5 71.1 family s i t u a t i o n imp 34 49 13.9 13.9 85.0 CARE REQUIRED by CHI 35 15 4.2 4.2 89.2 TERMINATION of SUPER 36 38 10.8 10.8 100.0 Total 353 100.0 100.0 Count 0 185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 11 23 9 72 53 0 Midpoint -2.0 .5 3.0 5.5 8.0 10.5 .0 5 13. 15, 18. 20, 23.0 25.5 28.0 30.5 33.0 35.5 38.0 . + . .1, 40 .1, 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode 15.550 .000 Kurtosis -1.924 S E Skew .130 Maximum 36.000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .879 16.513 .259 36.000 5489.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum .000 272.680 .154 .000 V a l i d cases 353 Missing cases 0 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 228 SIBDIS # of s i b l i n g s discharged with c h i l d Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 282 79.9 79.9 79.9 1 42 11.9 11.9 91.8 2 18 5.1 5.1 96.9 3 7 2.0 2.0 98.9 4 4 1.1 1.1 100.0 Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 282 42 18 7 4 0 1 2 3 4 I, 0 . .1, 80 . .1, 160 . .1 240 . .1 320 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum ,326 ,000 ,694 ,130 ,000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .040 .760 .259 4.000 115.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum .000 .578 2.728 .000 V a l i d cases 353 Missing cases B . C . C H I L D P R O T E C T I O N - Page 229 PLCTYP placement type V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent fos t e r home REGULAR A 131 37.1 37.1 37.1 fost e r home RESTRICT B 12 3.4 3.4 40.5 fos t e r home RELATIVE C 2 .6 .6 41.1 indep BOARDING HOME D 1 .3 .3 41.4 indep APARTMENT\SUIT F 2 .6 .6 41.9 no pay PARENTS G 124 35.1 35.1 77.1 no pay ADOPTION PROB H 1 .3 • 3 77.3 no pay PAYS OWN BOAR I 2 .6 .6 77.9 no pay OTHER J 11 3.1 3.1 81.0 CONTRACTED CHILD CAR K 52 14.7 14.7 95.8 HOSPITAL or other IN L 5 1.4 1.4 97.2 A.W.O.L. M 10 2.8 2.8 100.0 Total 353 100.0 100.0 B . C . C H I L D PROTECTION - Page 230 AGEGRP Age Group of C h i l d V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0-5 YEARS OLD 1 124 35.1 35.1 35.1 6-9 YEARS OLD 2 62 17.6 17.6 52.7 10-11 YEARS OLD 3 22 6.2 6.2 58.9 12-13 YEARS OLD 4 28 7.9 7.9 66.9 14-15 YEARS OLD 5 65 18.4 18.4 85.3 16-18 YEARS OLD 6 52 14.7 14.7 100.0 Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 124 62 22 28 65 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 ,..I. 40 .1. 80 . .1. 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 3 .011 1.000 -1.515 .130 6.000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .103 1.932 .259 5.000 1063.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 2.000 3.733 .338 1.000 Va l i d cases 353 Missing cases B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 231 CTJRAGE current age of c h i l d Value Label Count 0 0 22 40 23 39 13 37 12 22 11 47 35 48 4 0 0 Midpoint -3.0 -1.5 .0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 10.5 12.0 13 .5 15.0 16.5 18, 19, 21, V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 22 6.2 6.2 6.2 1 21 5.9 5.9 12.2 2 19 .5.4 5.4 17.6 3 23 6.5 6.5 24.1 4 18 5.1 5.1 29.2 5 21 5.9 5.9 35.1 6 13 3.7 3.7 38.8 7 17 4.8 4.8 43.6 8 20 5.7 5.7 49.3 9 12 3.4 3.4 52.7 10 8 2.3 2.3 55.0 11 14 4.0 4.0 58.9 12 11 3.1 3.1 62.0 13 17 4.8 4.8 66.9 14 30 8.5 8.5 75.4 15 35 9.9 9.9 85.3 16 32 9.1 9.1 94.3 17 16 4.5 4.5 98.9 18 4 1.1 1.1 100.0 Total 353 100.0 100.0 Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum Va l i d cases 8.946 15.000 -1.436 .130 18.000 .1, 10 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum , .1 + ... .1. 20 30 Histogram frequency .301 Median 5.650 Variance .259 Skewness 18.000 Minimum 3158.000 .1 40 9.000 31.920 -.090 .000 353 Missing cases 0 B . C . C H I L D P R O T E C T I O N - Page 232 NPLACES # number o f p l a c e m e n t s made by c h i l d V a l u e L a b e l V a l i d Cum V a l u e Frequency P e r c e n t P e r c e n t P e r c e n t 0 1 2 T o t a l 15 337 1 353 4.2 95.5 .3 100.0 4.2 95.5 .3 100.0 4.2 99.7 100.0 COUNT VALUE 15 3 37 1 0 1 2 . .1. 80 . .1, 160 . .1, 240 . .1 320 H i s t o g r a m f r e q u e n c y Mean Mode K u r t o s i s S E Skew Maximum .960 1.000 17.879 .130 2.000 S t d e r r S t d dev S E K u r t Range Sum .011 .209 .259 2.000 339.000 Median V a r i a n c e Skewness Minimum 1.000 .044 -3.774 .000 V a l i d c a s e s 353 M i s s i n g c a s e s B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 233 APPDAT apprehension date yr&mon Value Label Value Frequency Percent V a l i d Cum Percent Percent COUNT VALUE 8901 26 7.4 7.4 7.4 8902 27 7.6 7.6 15.0 8903 24 6.8 6.8 21.8 8904 25 7.1 7.1 28.9 8905 27 7.6 7.6 36.5 8906 36 10.2 10.2 46.7 8907 24 6.8 6.8 53.5 8908 30 8.5 8.5 62.0 8909 39 11.0 11.0 73.1 8910 29 8.2 8.2 81.3 8911 35 9.9 9.9 91.2 8912 31 8.8 8.8 100.0 Total 353 100.0 100.0 26 8901 27 8902 24 8903 25 8904 27 8905 36 8906 24 8907 30 8908 39 8909 29 8910 35 8911 31 8912 I. 0 , I, 8 .1, 16 .1, 24 .1, 32 .1 40 Mean Mode 8906.824 8909.000 Kurtosis -1.176 S E Skew ,130 Maximum 8912.000 Histogram frequency Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range .182 3.427 .259 11.000 Sum 3144109.00 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 8907.000 11.747 -.144 8901.000 V a l i d cases 353 Missing cases B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 234 NUMCHDT of c h i l d taken into care Value Label COUNT 112 52 32 10 8 0 1 VALUE 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 1 112 31.7 52.1 52.1 2 52 14.7 24.2 76.3 3 32 9.1 14.9 91.2 4 10 2.8 4.7 95.8 5 8 2.3 3.7 99.5 7 1 .3 .5 100.0 • 138 39.1 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 .1. 40 .1, 80 . . .1. 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode • Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1.856 1.000 2.162 .166 7.000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .078 1.137 .330 6.000 399.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 1.292 1.481 1.000 V a l i d cases 215 Missing cases 138 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 235 NUMCHDL of c h i l d l e f t at home Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 144 40.8 67.9 67.9 1 28 7.9 13.2 81.1 2 28 7.9 13.2 94.3 3 9 2.5 4.2 98.6 4 2 .6 .9 99.5 9 1 .3 .5 100.0 • 141 39.9 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 144 28 28 9 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I, 0 .1, 40 .1, 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum .604 .000 15.597 .167 9.000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .076 1.103 .333 9.000 128.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum .000 1.217 2.996 .000 V a l i d cases 212 Missing cases 141 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 236 NUMPAR of parents at home Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 1 2 Total 108 106 139 353 30.6 30.0 39.4 100.0 50.5 49.5 Missing 100.0 50.5 100.0 COUNT VALUE 108 106 1 2 .1, 40 .1. 80 . . .1, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1, 1, 495 000 -2.019 .166 2.000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .034 .501 .331 1.000 320.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 .251 .019 1.000 V a l i d cases 214 Missing cases 139 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 237 PREADM any previous admissions? V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent yes 1 113 32.0 52.3 52.3 no 2 96 27.2 44.4 96.8 unknown 3 7 2.0 3.2 100.0 • 137 38.8 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 113 96 7 1 2 3 .1. 40 .1. 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1.509 1.000 -.759 .166 3.000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .038 .562 .330 2.000 326.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 .316 .518 1.000 V a l i d cases 216 Missing cases 137 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 238 NUMADM # of previous admissions Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 1 46 13.0 43.4 43.4 2 26 7.4 24.5 67.9 3 12 3.4 11.3 79.2 4 9 2.5 8.5 87.7 5 6 1.7 5.7 93.4 6 2 .6 1.9 95.3 7 3 .8 2.8 98.1 8 1 .3 .9 99.1 9 1 .3 .9 100.0 247 70.0 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 46 26 12 9 6 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 .1, 10 .1, 20 .1, 30 .1 40 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 2, 1. 2. 358 000 360 235 000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .171 1.763 .465 8.000 250.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 2.000 3.108 1.605 1.000 V a l i d cases 106 Missing cases 247 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 239 READM1 reason one l a s t admission V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent STCA parental mental 1 8 2.3 8.8 8.8 STCA parental physic 2 2 .6 2.2 11.0 STCA parent-child co 4 8 2.3 8.8 19.8 SCA c h i l d s mental or 11 3 .8 3.3 23.1 PROTECTION physical 21 18 5.1 19.8 42.9 PROTECTION sexual ab 22 1 .3 1.1 44.0 PROTECTION abandonme 23 12 3.4 13.2 57.1 PROTECTION absence o 25 4 1.1 4.4 61.5 PROTECTION d i s a b i l i t 26 14 4.0 15.4 76.9 PROTECTION neglect e 27 15 4.2 16.5 93.4 PROTECTION c h i l d abs 29 6 1.7 6.6 100.0 . 262 74.2 Missing Count Mid 0 -1 8 1 2 3 8 5 0 7 0 9 3 11 0 13 0 15 0 17 • 0 19 18 21 13 23 4 25 29 27 6 29 0 31 Total 353 100.0 100.0 . I. 6 .1, 12 .1, 18 .1 24 Histogram frequency Mean 19.736 Mode 21.000 Kurtosis -.232 S E Skew .253 Maximum 29.000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum 28 ,974 295 ,500 000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 23.000 86.396 -1.159 1.000 1796.000 V a l i d cases 91 Missing cases 262 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 240 READM2 reason two l a s t admission V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent STCA parental mental 1 1 .3 2.7 2.7 STCA parent-child co 4 5 1.4 13.5 16.2 SCA c h i l d s mental or 11 1 .3 2.7 18.9 SCA c h i l d s emotional 14 1 .3 2.7 21.6 PROTECTION sexual ab 22 2 .6 5.4 27 .0 PROTECTION abandonme 23 2 .6 5.4 32.4 PROTECTION absence o 25 3 .8 8.1 40.5 PROTECTION d i s a b i l i t 26 12 3.4 32.4 73.0 PROTECTION neglect e 27 8 2.3 21.6 94.6 PROTECTION c h i l d abs 29 1 .3 2.7 97.3 33 1 .3 2.7 100.0 • 316 89.5 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 Count Midpoint 1 1 0 3 5 5 0 7 0 9 1 11 0 13 1 15 0 17 0 19 0 21 4 23 3 25 20 27 1 29 0 31 1 33 I, 4 I. 8 .1, 12 .1, 16 Histogram frequency Mean 21.649 Mode 26.000 Kurtosis .518 S E Skew .388 Maximum 3 3.000 Va l i d cases Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum 1.458 8.870 . 759 32.000 801.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 37 Missing cases 316 .1 20 26.000 78.679 -1.420 1.000 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 241 TIMOTH # of months since l a s t admit Value Label Count Midpoi 0 -1.0 9 .5 10 2.0 13 3.5 4 5.0 15 6.5 • 7 8.0 11 9.5 2 11.0 2 12.5 0 14.0 3 15.5 0 17.0 1 18.5 0 20.0 1 21.5 0 23.0 Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum V a l i d Cum .ue Frequency Percent Percent Percent 1 9 2.5 11.5 11.5 2 10 2.8 12.8 24.4 3 5 1.4 6.4 30.8 4 8 2.3 10.3 41.0 5 4 1.1 5.1 46.2 6 9 2.5 11.5 57.7 7 6 1.7 7.7 65.4 8 7 2.0 9.0 74.4 9 4 1.1 5.1 79.5 10 7 2.0 9.0 88.5 11 2 .6 2.6 91.0 12 1 .3 1.3 92.3 13 1 .3 1.3 93.6 15 2 .6 2.6 96.2 16 1 .3 1.3 97.4 18 1 .3 1.3 98.7 21 1 .3 1.3 100.0 . 275 77.9 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 6.231 2.000 1.250 .272 21.000 .1 + I + I 4 8 12 Histogram frequency Std err .484 Median Std dev 4.279 Variance S E Kurt .538 Skewness Range 20.000 Minimum 486.000 + . .1 16 6.000 18.310 1.028 1.000 Sum V a l i d cases 78 Missing cases 275 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 242 TIYEAR # of years since l a s t admit Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 1 13 3.7 46.4 46.4 2 4 1.1 14.3 60.7 3 6 1.7 21.4 82.1 5 3 .8 10.7 92.9 7 1 .3 3.6 96.4 9 1 .3 3.6 100.0 • 325 92.1 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 13 4 6 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I, 4 .1. 8 .1. 12 .1 16 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 2 1, 2 500 000 919 441 000 Std e r r Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .387 2.046 .858 8.000 70.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 2.000 4.185 1.719 1.000 V a l i d cases 28 Missing cases 325 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 243 ADOPTED was c h i l d adopted? Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent yes no 1 2 Total 9 207 137 353 2.5 58.6 38.8 100.0 4.2 95.8 Missing 100.0 4.2 100.0 COUNT VALUE 9 207 1 2 . .1, 80 . . .1. 160 . .1, 240 . .1 320 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1.958 2.000 19.520 .166 2.000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum 1 423 014 200 330 ,000 000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 2.000 .040 -4.619 1.000 Va l i d cases 216 Missing cases 137 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 244 BLENDED blended or step family? Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent yes no 1 2 Total 101 115 137 353 28.6 32.6 38.8 100.0 46.8 53.2 Missing 100.0 46.8 100.0 COUNT VALUE 101 115 1 2 .1, 40 .1. 80 . .1. 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1.532 2.000 -2.002 .166 2.000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .034 .500 .330 1.000 331.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 2.000 .250 -.131 1.000 Va l i d cases 216 Missing cases 137 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 245 OPPORT opportunity to plan placement V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent planned admission 1 40 11.3 18.6 18.6 unexpected event 2 142 40.2 66.0 84.7 other 3 33 9.3 15.3 100.0 • 138 39.1 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 40 142 33 1 2 3 .1, 40 .1, 80 ... .1. 120 . .1 160 Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum ,967 000 027 166 000 Histogram frequency Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .040 .583 .330 2.000 423.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 2.000 .340 .003 1.000 V a l i d cases 215 Missing cases 138 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 246 BANDS # of bands i n DO area Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 55 15.6 28.6 28.6 1 44 12.5 22.9 51.6 2 18 5.1 9.4 60.9 3 17 4.8 8.9 69.8 4 11 3.1 5.7 75.5 5 26 7.4 13.5 89.1 6 6 1.7 3.1 92.2 7 5 1.4 2.6 94.8 8 1 .3 .5 95.3 9 9 2.5 4.7 100.0 • 161 45.6 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 55 44 18 17 11 26 6 5 1 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 , I, 12 .1, 24 .1. 36 .1 48 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum ,422 000 ,154 175 000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .183 2.530 .349 9.000 465.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 6.402 1.004 .000 V a l i d cases 192 Missing cases 161 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 247 MUNICPAL # of mu n i c i p a l i t i e s i n DO area Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 1 77 21.8 39.1 39.1 2 36 10.2 18.3 57.4 3 45 12.7 22.8 80.2 4 20 5.7 10.2 90.4 5 9 2.5 4.6 94.9 6 4 1.1 2.0 97.0 7 2 .6 1.0 98.0 8 2 .6 1.0 99.0 9 2 .6 1.0 100.0 • 156 44.2 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 77 36 45 20 9 4 2 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 .1, 20 .1, 40 .1, 60 .1 80 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 2.442 1.000 2.708 .173 9.000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .117 1.642 .345 8.000 481.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 2.000 2.697 1.487 1.000 V a l i d cases 197 Missing cases 156 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 248 SWCNL11 MSSH counsel involved sec 11 V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 1 .3 .5 .5 before apprehension 1 19 5.4 9.1 9.6 af t e r apprehension 2 86 24.4 41.1 50.7 presentation day onl 3 103 29.2 49.3 100.0 • 144 40.8 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 1 0 19 1 86 2 103 3 .1, 40 .1, 80 . . .1. 120 . .1 160 Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 2, 3. 392 000 120 168 000 Histogram frequency Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Ranqe Sum .046 .672 .335 3.000 500.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 2.000 .451 -.754 .000 V a l i d cases 209 Missing cases 144 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 249 SWSEC11 SW sec 11 recomendation V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent sec 9(5) return appr 1 39 11.0 18.2 18.2 return c h i l d to pare 2 11 3.1 5.1 23 .4 MSSH interim custody- 3 154 43.6 72.0 95.3 sec 13(1) order 4 10 2.8 4.7 100.0 • 139 39.4 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 39 11 154 10 1 2 3 4 .1, 40 .1, 80 . .1 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 2.631 3.000 .121 .166 4.000 Std e rr .057 Std dev .83 3 S E Kurt .331 Range 3.000 Sum 563.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 3 .000 .694 -1.135 1.000 V a l i d cases 214 Missing cases 139 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 250 SWSUP11 SW sec 11 supervision recomm Value Label Count 14 Mean Mode Range Sum Midpoint 1 I I, 0 Value 1 Total Frequency Percent V a l i d Cum Percent Percent 14 339 4.0 96.0 100.0 Missing 353 100.0 100.0 .1. 4 I. 8 + . .1, 12 Histogram frequency 1.000 1.000 .000 14.000 Std err Std dev Minimum .000 .000 1.000 Median Variance Maximum 100.0 . .1 16 1.000 .000 1.000 V a l i d cases 14 Missing cases 339 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 251 SWACS11 SW sec 11 access oppose V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent NOT applicable 1 180 51.0 86.1 86.1 both parents 2 5 1.4 2.4 88.5 mother 3 3 .8 1.4 90.0 father 4 12 3.4 5.7 95.7 other 5 9 2.5 4.3 100.0 • 144 40.8 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 180 5 3 12 9 1 2 3 4 5 .1, 40 .1. 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1.397 1.000 4.996 .168 5.000 Histogram frequency Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .074 1.065 .335 4.000 292.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 1.135 2.549 1.000 V a l i d cases 209 Missing cases 144 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 252 PARCNL11 parents counsel sec 11 Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent yes no 1 2 Total 91 118 144 353 25.8 33.4 40.8 100.0 43 .5 56.5 Missing 100.0 43.5 100.0 COUNT VALUE 91 118 1 2 . .1. 40 .1. 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1.565 2.000 -1 950 168 000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .034 .497 .335 1.000 327.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 2.000 .247 -.262 1.000 V a l i d cases 209 Missing cases 144 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 253 PARCRT11 parents attend sec 11 court Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent yes no 1 2 Total 139 69 145 353 39.4 19.5 41.1 100.0 66.8 33.2 Missing 100.0 66.8 100.0 COUNT VALUE 139 69 1 2 . .1. 40 . .1. 80 . . .1 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1.332 1.000 -1.496 .169 2.000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .033 .472 .336 1.000 277.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 .223 .720 1.000 V a l i d cases 208 Missing cases 145 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 254 ADJUN11 # of sec 11 adjournments Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 175 49.6 84.1 84.1 1 22 6.2 10.6 94.7 2 10 2.8 4.8 99.5 3 1 .3 .5 100.0 • 145 41.1 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 175 22 10 1 0 1 2 3 .1, 40 .1, 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum .216 .000 6.604 .169 3.000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .038 .544 .336 3.000 45.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum .000 .296 2.640 .000 V a l i d cases 208 Missing cases 145 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 255 DURA11 sec 11 weeks duration V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 2 .6 1.0 1.0 1 144 40.8 70.9 71.9 2 16 4.5 7.9 79.8 3 20 5.7 9.9 89.7 4 10 2.8 4.9 94.6 5 3 .8 1.5 96.1 6 3 .8 1.5 97.5 7 3 .8 1.5 99.0 13 1 .3 .5 99.5 17 1 .3 .5 100.0 . 150 42.5 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 Count 0 0 2 144 36 10 6 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Midpoint -3.5 -2.0 -.5 1.0 2.5 4.0 5.5 7.0 8.5 10.0 11.5 13 14 16 17 0 ,5 0 ,5 19.0 20.5 . i , 40 , .1, 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Mean 1.773 Mode 1.000 Kurtosis 28.396 S E Skew .171 Maximum 17.000 Histogram Std e r r .130 Std dev 1.858 S E Kurt .340 Range 17.000 Sum 360.000 frequency Median 1.000 Variance 3.453 Skewness 4.496 Minimum .000 V a l i d cases 203 Missing cases 150 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 256 SAME11 SW sec 11 same request as f i l e d Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent yes no 1 2 Total 200 13 140 353 56.7 3.7 39.7 100.0 93.9 6.1 Missing 100.0 93.9 100.0 COUNT VALUE 200 13 1 2 .1, 40 , .1. 80 ..I 120 , . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1.061 1.000 11.752 .167 2.000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .016 .240 .332 1.000 226.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 .058 3.693 1.000 Va l i d cases 213 Missing cases 140 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 257 CSENT11 parents consent to sec 11 V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 1 .3 .5 .5 yes 1 135 38.2 65.9 66.3 no 2 69 19.5 33.7 100.0 148 41.9 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 1 135 69 0 1 2 .1, 40 . .1. 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1.332 1.000 -1.314 .170 2.000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .034 .482 .338 2.000 273.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 .233 .587 .000 V a l i d cases 205 Missing cases 148 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 258 JDSEC11 Judges sec 11 order V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent sec 9(5) return appr 1 43 12.2 20.2 20.2 return c h i l d to pare 2 18 5.1 8.5 28.6 MSSH interim custody 3 140 39.7 65.7 94.4 sec 13(1) order 4 12 3.4 5.6 100.0 •• 140 39.7 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 43 18 140 12 1 2 3 4 .1. 40 .1, 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 2. 3 , 568 000 416 167 000 Histogram frequency Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .060 .875 .332 3.000 547.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 3.000 .765 -.872 1.000 V a l i d cases 213 Missing cases 140 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 259 JDSUP11 Judges sec 11 supervision order Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Total 21 332 353 5.9 94.1 100.0 Missing 100.0 100.0 100.0 Count 21 Midpoint 1 I, 0 ,r, 5 . .1, 10 .1, 15 .1 20 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Range Sum 1.000 1.000 .000 21.000 Std err Std dev Minimum .000 .000 1.000 Median Variance Maximum 1.000 .000 1.000 Va l i d cases 21 Missing cases 332 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 260 JDACS11 Judges sec 11 access order V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent NOT applicable 1 187 53.0 90.3 90.3 mother 3 1 .3 .5 90.8 father 4 10 2.8 4.8 95.7 other 5 9 2.5 4.3 100.0 • 146 41.4 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 187 0 1 10 9 1 2 3 4 5 .1, 40 .1 80 . .1 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1.329 1.000 6.781 .169 5.000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .071 1.023 .337 4.000 275.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 1.047 2.902 1.000 V a l i d cases 207 Missing cases 146 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 261 SWCNL13 MSSH counsel involved sec 13 V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 1 .3 .6 .6 day of hearing only 1 46 13.0 29.1 29.7 a f t e r notices served 2 37 10.5 23 .4 53.2 p r i o r to notices ser 3 74 21.0 46.8 100.0 • 195 55.2 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 1 46 37 74 0 1 2 3 . .1. 15 .1, 30 , .1, 45 , .1. 60 . .1 75 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 165 ,000 -1.435 .193 3.000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .069 .873 .384 3.000 342.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 2.000 .763 -.386 .000 V a l i d cases 158 Missing cases 195 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 262 PARCNL13 parents counsel sec 13 Value Label Value Frequency Percent V a l i d Cum Percent Percent yes no 1 2 Total 98 62 193 353 27.8 17.6 54.7 100.0 61.3 38.8 Missing 100.0 61.3 100.0 COUNT VALUE 98 62 1 2 .1. 20 .1, 40 .1, 60 .1, 80 . .1 100 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1, 1, 388 000 -1.805 .192 2.000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .039 .489 .381 1.000 222.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 .239 .466 1.000 V a l i d cases 160 Missing cases 193 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 263 PARCRT13 parents attend sec 13 court Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent yes no COUNT 1 2 Total VALUE 131 29 193 353 37.1 8.2 54.7 100.0 81.9 18.1 Missing 100.0 81.9 100.0 131 29 1 2 .1. 40 ...I. 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1, 1, 181 000 801 192 000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .031 .386 .381 1.000 189.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 .149 1.671 1.000 Va l i d cases 160 Missing cases 193 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 264 SWSEC13 SW sec 13 recommendation V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent c h i l d remain with pa 1 10 2.8 6.3 6.3 return c h i l d to pare 2 19 5.4 11.9 18.1 MSSH r e t a i n custody 3 117 33.1 - 73.1 91.3 section 14(1) perm o 4 14 4.0 8.8 100.0 • 193 54.7 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 10 19 117 14 1 2 3 4 . .1. 40 . .1. 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 2.844 3 .000 2.140 .192 4.000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .052 .659 .381 3.000 455.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 3.000 .435 -1.156 1.000 Va l i d cases 160 Missing cases 193 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 265 SWSUP13 SW sec 13 supervision recomm Value Label Value 1 Total Frequency 25 328 V a l i d Cum Percent Percent Percent 7.1 92.9 100.0 Missing 353 100.0 100.0 100.0 Count 25 Mean Mode Range Sum Midpoint 1 I i — — I. 0 1.000 1.000 .000 25.000 .1. 5 Std e rr Std dev Minimum . .1. 10 , .1. 15 , + . .1. 20 Histogram frequency .000 .000 1.000 Median Variance Maximum , .1 25 1.000 .000 1.000 V a l i d cases 25 Missing cases 328 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 266 SWLEN13 SW sec 13 length order recomm (NOTE: This data includes Supervision and Permanent orders) (NOTE: 99 = permanent order) Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 1 .3 .7 .7 2 3 .8 2.1 2.7 3 40 11.3 27.4 30.1 4 4 1.1 2.7 32.9 6 84 23.8 57.5 90.4 8 1 .3 .7 91.1 12 12 3.4 8.2 99.3 99 1 .3 .7 100.0 • 207 58.6 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 Count 0 1 132 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Midpoint -10.0 -2.5 5, 12, 20, 27, ,0 ,5 ,0 ,5 35.0 42.5 50.0 57.5 65.0 72.5 80.0 87.5 95.0 102.5 110.0 .1, 40 .1, 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean 6.144 Mode 6.000 Kurtosis 120.368 S E Skew .201 Maximum 99.000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum 8, 671 112 .399 99.000 897.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 6.000 65.807 10.496 .000 V a l i d cases 146 Missing cases 207 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 267 SWACS13 SW sec 13 access oppose V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent NOT applicable 1 140 39.7 89.2 89.2 both parents 2 4 1.1 2.5 91.7 mother 3 4 1.1 2.5 94.3 father 4 3 .8 1.9 96.2 other 5 6 1.7 3.8 100.0 • 196 55.5 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 140 4 4 3 6 1 2 3 4 5 . ..I. 40 .1. 80 . .1. 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1.28.7 1.000 9.775 .194 5.000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .073 .913 .385 4.000 202.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 .834 3.286 1.000 V a l i d cases 157 Missing cases 196 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 268 ADJUN13 # of sec 13 adjournments Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 103 29.2 66.5 66.5 1 25 7.1 16.1 82.6 2 15 4.2 9.7 92.3 3 7 2.0 4.5 96.8 4 3 .8 1.9 98.7 5 2 .6 1.3 100.0 • 198 56.1 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 103 25 15 7 3 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 . .1. 40 .1. 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode • Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 632 000 574 195 000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .088 1.093 .387 5.000 98.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum .000 1.195 1.952 .000 V a l i d cases 155 Missing cases 198 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 269 DURA13 sec 13 months duration Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 4 1.1 2.6 2.6 1 73 20.7 47.4 50.0 2 39 11.0 25.3 75.3 3 16 4.5 10.4 85.7 4 7 2.0 4.5 90.3 5 8 2.3 5.2 95.5 6 6 1.7 3.9 99.4 7 1 .3 .6 100.0 • 199 56.4 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 4 73 39 16 7 8 6 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • I, 15 .1, 30 .1, 45 . .1 60 Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 2, 1, 1, 013 000 490 195 000 Histogram frequency Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum 7 310 118 460 389 000 000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.500 2.131 1.446 .000 Va l i d cases 154 Missing cases 199 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 270 SAME13 SW sec 13 same request as notices Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent yes no 1 2 Total 125 31 197 353 35.4 8.8 55.8 100.0 80.1 19.9 Missing 100.0 80.1 100.0 COUNT VALUE 125 31 1 2 I, 40 . .1. 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1.199 1.000 .329 .194 2.000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .032 .400 .386 1.000 187.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 .160 1.525 1.000 Va l i d cases 156 Missing cases 197 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 271 CSENT13 parents consent to sec 13 Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent yes no 1 2 Total 121 33 199 353 34.3 9.3 56.4 100.0 78.6 21.4 Missing 100.0 78.6 100.0 COUNT VALUE 121 33 .1, 40 .1, 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1, 1, 214 000 023 195 000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .033 .412 .389 1.000 187.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 .169 1.406 1.000 Va l i d cases 154 Missing cases 199 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 272 JDSEC13 Judges sec 13 order Valid. Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent c h i l d remain with pa 1 12 3.4 7.9 7.9 return c h i l d to pare 2 33 9.3 21.7 29.6 MSSH r e t a i n custody 3 97 27.5 63.8 93.4 section 14(1) perm o 4 10 2.8 6.6 100.0 • 201 56.9 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 12 33 97 10 1 2 3 4 .1, 20 .1. 40 .1, 60 .1 80 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 2.691 3.000 .590 .197 4.000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .058 .712 .391 3.000 409.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 3.000 .506 -.811 1.000 V a l i d cases 152 Missing cases 201 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 273 JDSUP13 Judges sec 13 supervision order Value Label V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 1 3 35 9.9 97.2 97.2 1 .3 2.8 100.0 317 89.8 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT V A L U E 35 1 1 3 I. 8 .1, 16 .1. 24 .1 32 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1.056 1.000 36.000 .393 3.000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .056 .333 .768 2.000 38.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 .111 6.000 1.000 V a l i d cases 36 Missing cases 317 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 274 JDLEN13 Judges sec 13 length order made (NOTE: This data includes Supervision and Permanent orders) (NOTE: 99 = permanent order) Value Label Count 0 5 124 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Midpoint -10.0 -2.5 5.0 12.5 20.0 27.5 35.0 42.5 50.0 57.5 65.0 72.5 80.0 87.5 95.0 102.5 110.0 V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 3 .8 2.2 2.2 1 2 .6 1.4 3.6 2 3 .8 2.2 5.8 3 34 9.6 24.6 30.4 4 7 2.0 5.1 35.5 5 2 .6 1.4 37.0 6 77 21.8 55.8 92.8 7 1 .3 .7 93.5 12 8 2.3 5.8 99.3 99 1 .3 .7 100.0 • 215 60.9 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 .1, 40 . .1, 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean 5.884 Mode 6.000 Kurtosis 116.745 S E Skew .206 Maximum 99.000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum 8 99 812 708 ,318 ,410 000 ,000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 6.000 69.184 10.391 .000 V a l i d cases 138 Missing cases 215 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 275 JDACS13 Judges sec 13 access order V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent NOT applicable 1 137 38.8 90.1 90.1 both parents 2 4 1.1 2.6 92.8 mother 3 2 .6 1.3 94.1 father 4 3 .8 2.0 96.1 other 5 6 1.7 3.9 100.0 • 201 56.9 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 137 4 2 3 6 1 2 3 4 5 , .1, 40 .1, 80 . .1, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1, 1, 270 000 10.730 .197 5.000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .073 .906 .391 4.000 193.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 .821 3.445 1.000 V a l i d cases 152 Missing cases 201 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 276 FAMILY structure of family c h i l d from V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent TWO parents 1 98 27.8 46.0 46.0 2 6 1.7 2.8 48.8 Male singl e parent 3 15 4.2 7.0 55.9 Female singl e parent 4 92 26.1 43.2 99.1 other family 5 2 .6 .9 100.0 • 140 39.7 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 98 6 15 92 2 1 2 3 4 5 .1, 20 . 1 40 .1, 60 .1 80 Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 2, 1, 502 000 -1.898 .167 5.000 Histogram frequency Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .099 1.449 .332 4.000 533.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 3.000 2.100 .014 1.000 V a l i d cases 213 Missing cases 140 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 277 RELATN parent-child r e l a t i o n s h i p V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent b i r t h parent 1 147 41.6 69.0 69.0 step or blended 2 54 15.3 25.4 94.4 adoptive 3 5 1.4 2.3 96.7 r e l a t i v e 4 7 2.0 3.3 100.0 • 140 39.7 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 147 54 5 7 2 3 4 . .1, 40 , .1, 80 . . I, 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1, 1, 4, 399 000 427 167 000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .048 .697 .332 3.000 298.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 .486 2.051 1.000 V a l i d cases 213 Missing cases 140 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 278 DURFAMI duration of family structure Value Label Count 3 37 48 11 24 8 14 7 11 0 14 8 3 3 1 Midpoint -.5 1, 2. 4, 5. 7, 8, 10. 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, V a l i d Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 3 .8 1.6 1.6 1 . 37 10.5 19.3 20.8 2 29 8.2 15.1 35.9 3 19 5.4 9.9 45.8 4 11 3.1 5.7 51.6 5 14 4.0 7.3 58.9 6 10 2.8 5.2 64.1 7 8 2.3 4.2 68.2 8 10 2.8 5.2 73.4 9 4 1.1 2.1 75.5 10 7 2.0 3.6 79.2 11 1 .3 .5 79.7 12 10 2.8 5.2 84.9 14 8 2.3 4.2 89.1 15 6 1.7 3.1 92.2 16 8 2.3 4.2 96.4 17 2 .6 1.0 97.4 18 1 .3 .5 97.9 19 3 .8 1.6 99.5 20 1 .3 .5 100.0 • 161 45.6 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 .1. 10 Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum V a l i d cases 6.031 1.000 -.307 .175 20.000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum , .1 + I + . . . 20 30 Histogram frequency .376 Median 5.215 Variance .349 Skewness 20.000 Minimum 1158.000 .140 4.000 27.193 .929 .000 192 Missing cases 161 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 279 AGEHEAD age of household head V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent under 19 years 1 3 .8 1.4 1.4 19-24 years 2 34 9.6 16.4 17.9 25-34 years 3 79 22.4 38.2 56.0 35-44 years 4 66 18.7 31.9 87.9 45-54 years 5 18 5.1 8.7 96.6 55-64 years 6 5 1.4 2.4 99.0 65-74 years 7 2 .6 1.0 100.0 • 146 41.4 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 3 34 79 66 18 5 2 Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 411 000 763 169 000 .1. 20 Std e r r Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .1. 40 .1, 60 Histogram frequency .073 1.048 .337 6.000 706.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum .1 80 3.000 1.098 .521 1.000 V a l i d cases 207 Missing cases 146 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 280 EDUCAT education l e v e l of income earner V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent les s grade 9 1 64 18.1 32.0 32.0 grade 9-13 NO cert 2 94 26.6 47.0 79.0 grade 9-13 YES ce r t 3 22 6.2 11.0 90.0 trade c e r t or d i p l 4 13 3.7 6.5 96.5 u n i v e r s i t y NO degree 5 3 .8 1.5 98.0 un i v e r s i t y YES degree 6 4 1.1 2.0 100.0 • 153 43.3 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 64 94 22 13 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 .1, 20 .1, 40 . .1. 60 .1 80 Mean Mode • Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 2.045 2, 2, 000 810 172 000 Histogram frequency Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .076 1.072 .342 5.000 409.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 2.000 1.149 1.518 1.000 V a l i d cases 200 Missing cases 153 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 281 JOBTYPE occupational t i t l e income earner V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent managerial-admin 1 5 1.4 2.6 2.6 natural sciences 2 1 .3 .5 3.1 s o c i a l sciences 3 2 .6 1.0 4.1 teaching and rel a t e d 4 1 .3 .5 4.7 medicine and health 5 1 .3 .5 5.2 c l e r i c a l and rel a t e d 6 5 1.4 2.6 7.8 sales 7 4 1.1 2.1 9.8 service (non-prof) 8 28 7.9 14.5 24.4 farming and hort 9 7 2.0 3.6 28.0 other industry 10 14 4.0 7.3 35.2 processing 11 3 .8 1.6 36.8 machining and r e l a t e 12 4 1.1 2.1 38.9 production and repai 13 .7 2.0 3.6 42.5 construction trades 14 19 5.4 9.8 52.3 transport operating 15 7 2.0 3.6 56.0 material handling 16 3 .8 1.6 57.5 other equip operate 17 4 1.1 2.1 59.6 OCC NOT c l a s s i f i e d 18 74 21.0 38.3 97.9 student 19 4 1.1 2.1 100.0 160 45.3 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 Count 0 0 5 3 1 6 4 35 14 7 7 26 3 78 4 Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum V a l i d cases Midpoint -2.0 -.5 1.0 2.5 4.0 5.5 7.0 8.5 10.0 11.5 13.0 14.5 16.0 17.5 19.0 20.5 13.337 18.000 -.695 .175 19.000 0 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .1 + I + I. . 20 40 60 Histogram frequency .354 Median 4.915 Variance 348 Skewness 000 Minimum 000 .1 80 18, 2574 14.000 24.162 -.634 1.000 193 Missing cases 160 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 282 INCOME amount of t o t a l household income V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent $0-9,999 1 46 13.0 22.7 22.7 $10,000-19,999 2 98 27.8 48.3 70.9 $20,000-29,999 3 18 5.1 8.9 79.8 $30,000-39,999 4 25 7.1 12.3 92.1 $40,000-49,999 5 9 2.5 4.4 96.6 $50,000-59,999 6 4 1.1 2.0 98.5 $60,000-69,999 7 2 .6 1.0 99.5 $70,000-79,999 8 1 .3 .5 100.0 - 150 42.5 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 46 98 18 25 9 4 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .1, 20 . .1. 40 , .1, 60 .1 80 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum ,399 000 ,192 .171 8.000 2, 2. 2, Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .094 1.340 .340 7.000 487.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 2.000 1.795 1.434 1.000 V a l i d cases 203 Missing cases 150 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 283 SOURCE primary source of income V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent employment 1 85 24.1 41.1 41.1 MSSH IA-EIP 2 105 29.7 50.7 91.8 other f i n a n c i a l 3 15 4.2 7.2 99.0 other-unknown 5 2 .6 1.0 100.0 146 41.4 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 85 105 15 0 2 1 2 3 4 5 .1, 40 .1, 80 . .1. 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1.691 2.000 3.645 .169 5.000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .048 .690 .337 4.000 350.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 2.000 .477 1.209 1.000 V a l i d cases 207 Missing cases 146 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 284 RACIAL ethnic o r i g i n of c h i l d V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent b r i t i s h 1 87 24.6 44.2 44.2 french 2 9 2.5 4.6 48.7 aboriginal 3 69 19.5 35.0 83.8 german 4 7 2.0 3.6 87.3 i t a l i a n 5 2 .6 1.0 88.3 Chinese 7 1 .3 .5 88.8 single o r i g i n 9 9 2.5 4.6 93.4 multiple o r i g i n 10 13 3.7 6.6 100.0 • 156 44.2 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 87 9 69 7 2 0 1 0 9 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I. 0 .1, 20 .1, 40 .1, 60 .1 80 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 2.883 1.000 2.237 .173 10.000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .187 2.621 .345 9.000 568.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 3.000 6.869 1.791 1.000 V a l i d cases 197 Missing cases 156 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 285 DWELLING type of dwelling family i n V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent detached house 1 106 30.0 52.5 52.5 townhouse 2 33 9.3 16.3 68.8 apartment 3 41 11.6 20.3 89.1 mobile home 4 14 4.0 6.9 96.0 hotel-motel room 5 3 .8 1.5 97.5 other dwelling 6 5 1.4 2.5 100.0 • 151 42.8 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 106 1 33 2 41 3 14 4 3 5 5 6 .1, 40 .1, 80 . . . I, 120 ...I 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode -Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1.960 1.000 1.204 .171 6.000 Std e rr Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .087 1.241 .341 5.000 396.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 1.000 1.541 1.274 1.000 V a l i d cases 202 Missing cases 151 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 286 TENURE family tenure of dwelling V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent owned by family 1 54 15.3 26.7 26.7 rented by family 2 134 38.0 66.3 93.1 on reserve 3 14 4.0 6.9 100.0 • 151 42.8 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 54 134 14 1 2 3 I, 0 .1. 40 , .1, 80 , . .1. 120 . .1 160 Histogram frequency Mean Mode Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 1. 2, 802 000 097 171 000 Std e r r Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .038 .547 .341 2.000 364.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 2.000 .299 -.084 1.000 V a l i d cases 202 Missing cases 151 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 287 RESIDNT length of residency i n DO area V a l i d Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 1 month or less 1 13 3.7 6.5 6.5 2 to 6 months 2 30 8.5 15.0 21.5 7 to 12 months plus 3 44 12.5 22.0 43.5 2 to 5 years 4 62 17.6 31.0 74.5 6 to 10 years 5 26 7.4 13.0 87.5 11 years plus 6 25 7.1 12.5 100.0 • 153 43.3 Missing Total 353 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE 13 30 44 62 26 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 , .1. 15 .1, 30 .1, 45 .1 60 Histogram frequency Mean Mode • Kurtosis S E Skew Maximum 3.665 4.000 -.658 .172 6.000 Std err Std dev S E Kurt Range Sum .098 1.390 .342 5.000 733.000 Median Variance Skewness Minimum 4.000 1.932 -.028 1.000 V a l i d cases 200 Missing cases 153 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 288 APPENDIX C M.S.S.&H. FORMS S1627 & S1628 British Columbia Services and Housing C ^ d Sjrvici REGISTRATION ""' A1 CHILD(S) LEGAL NAME I I I l _ GIVEN NAME SECOND NAME BIRTHOATE L_ ORIGINAL REGISTRATION KNOWN RE-REGISTRATION i D ? D REGISTRATION OATE . - I . I REGISTERING OFFICE OFFICE SERVING FAMILY I J_L A • F C S A A G R E E M E N T (Sec. 4) SHORT T E R M B • F C S A A G R E E M E N T (Sec. 5) SPECIAL C A R E R D FCSA AGREEMENT INTERMITTENT C D UNDER APPREHENSION (Sec. 9) L E G A L S T A T U S J • FRA (Sec. 29, WARO K • FRA (OTHER! WARO L • ADOPTION ACT WARO N O OTHER PROVINCE WARO OQ OTHER COUNTRY WARO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY 5 2 SUPT. OF FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE 1 • OTHER PROVINCE/COUNTRY 2 • PARENTIS) (FAMILY SERVICE ONLY, 3 • CHILD WILL ATTEND SCHOOL YES O 53 NO O t 2 SCHOOL NAME NUMBER OF SIBLINGS CHILD HAS L NUMBER WITH FAMILY UNIT PRIOR TO ADMISSION |_ _ ADMITTED WITH CHILD L_ CHILD'S BIRTHPLACE J I RELIGION OF CHILD PROTESTANT CATHOLIC UNKNOWN OTHER . (SPECIFY) 2D 3D R A C I A L O R I G I N CAUCASIAN NATIVE INDIAN EAST INDIAN JAPANESE M O T H E R 2D 3D *• 2D 2D 3D «D CHINESE BLACK OTHER UNKNOWN sQ sD eO sQ ?D ?D aD eQ M A R I T A L S T A T U S M O I H E A F A T H E R B I n I O $Q >• sO 2D §• 2D eO 3D 7 D 3 D rO 4D aD 4D aD [SEE REVERSE FOR CODES) PLAN FOR CHILD 63 AD RETURN TO PARENTIS, B D PLACEMENT WITH RELATIVES C D ADOPTION D D INDEPENDENCE TYPE O F PLACEMENT FOSTER HOME • A D REGULAR BO RESTRICTED C D RELATIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING 0 D COMMERCIAL GOAROING/ ROOMING HOME E D HOTEL/MOTEL F D APARTMENT/SUITE NO PAYMENT (FREE HOME) G D PARENTS HO ADOPTION I D PAYS OWN BOARD J D OTHER RESOURCES & INSTITUTIONS K D CONTRACTED CHILD CARE RESOURCE L D HOSPITAL OR OTHER INSTITUTION M D A.W.O.L. SPECIAL NEEDS DEGREE OF DISABILITY ft, r—i PHYSICAL 0 3 U J HANDICAP 66 • MENTAL HANDICAP . , n BEHAVIORAL b ' L-l PROBLEMS , NONE • NORMAL RANGE OF FUNCTIONING - MILD - MODERATE DISABILITY 3 - SEVERELY DISABLED FAMILY D A T A FAMILY NAME GIVEN NAME(S) BIRTHOATE BIRTHPLACE MOTHER FATHER PU - FATHER MARRIAGE(S) OF PARENTS MAlOEN NAME _ IF NOT ALREADY SHOWN - PARENTS) LOCATED? (INOICATE IF ABOVE ENTRY REFERS TO MOTHER (M| OR FATHER (Fj CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING ADMISSION TO CARE _ CENTRAL OFFICE USE ONLY TRANSFERRED FROM OTHER PROVINCE J _ l I I I I 71-72 73-75 SPECIAL CODE REGISTERED INDIAN _ .sD „ I O 77 A2 NOTIFICATION OF ADMISSION AGREEMENT EXPIRY OR I I COURT HEARING DATE I I OTHER PROVINCE (SP£CIFY)_ I LEGAL DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED • TO FOLLOW • AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT MAINTENANCE REGULAR (ONLY) 1 O 15 SPECIAL R E G U L A R _ REASON. TOTAL SPECIAL (REGULAR & SPECIAL) I CLOTHING 1 D 2 SCHOOL SUPP1IES DAY MONTH D I D 21 tDz3 OTHER INFORMATION INSTITUTION WILL BILL OR DIRECT PAYMENT INVOLVED 1 D 44 IT IS PROBABLE THAT THE CHILD COULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAYMENT FROM: D INDIAN AFFAIRS: DISTRICT _ _BAND _NO._ PARENTS HAVE DEFINITELY BEEN FINANCIALLY INDEPENDENT AND OFF THE RESERVE FOR OVER 1 YEAR- D D WCB O VETERANS'AFFAIRS D.C.P.P D ESTATES O OTHER (SPECIFY) Specify any associated I.O. No's eso. S.I.NQ.'S; where applicable, dale 6 place of death. SSH TO APPLY FOR FAMILY ALLOWANCE YES • NO D SUPPLY NAME AND ADORESS OF PERSON IN RECEIPT OF FAMILY ALLOWANCE PRIOR TO THIS ADMISSION. ONE TIME PAYMENT _ EXPLANA TION _3l-36 D lQ] _ 38-43 SPENDING AUTHORITY CERTIFIED THAT THE AMOUNT(S) TO BE PAID ARE CORRECT, ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE STATUTES, POLICY, OR OTHER AUTHORITY FOR PAYMENT. 45-47 SOCIAL WORKERS SIGNATURE I I I I L_ SUBMISSION OATE CASELOAD NO. DISTRICT SUPERVISOR/AREA MANAGER A3 CHILD FORMERLY WITH PARENTS 1 D A OTHER • HOME IN RECEIPT OF I.A.? I D 10 CHILD TO CARE OF PARENTS iD 'l OTHER D NAME OF PERSON OR RESOURCE PROVIDING CARE (FORMER PERSON/PLACE PROVIDING CARE) (STREET ADDRESSI . NEW SUPERVISING OFFICER/AGENCY A4 FAMILY/RESOURCE NAME 1 1 1 1 1 .... 1 1 1 1 GIVEN NAME(S) 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 APT. NO 1 1 1 HOUSE NO 1 1 1 1 STREET 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , B , C POSTAL CODE 1 1 1 1 1 L O C A T I O N C O D E 1 1 1 159-61 CENTRAL OFFICE USE ONLY ,34-51 1 1 1 1 1 152-57 ABOVE IS HOME CHILO HAS LIVED IN EARLIER YES I D NO. 2 D M COMPLETION INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE FOSTER HOME PHONE NO. J I I I I I I L B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 290 REGISTRATION NOTIFICATION : I N S T R U C T I O N S FOR C O M P L E T I O N ', All Entries On Form Musi Be Printed V Unique Identifier - Enter chi ld 's family name, given name(s), birth date and sex (M or F) 2. Original Registration or Known Re-registration - Enter an " X " in the appropriate box provided. 3. Registration Date - Enter year, month, and day of registration (or re-registration). 4. Registering Office • Enter name of registering office. 5 Registering Office Code - Enter region and office code. 6. Reason lor Admission/Registration - Indicate the corresponding code associated with the reasons outl ined below. Requires Short Term Care because of: 01 Parental mental or emotional condit ion. 02 Parental physical i l lness. 03 Marital confl ict. 04 Parent chi ld confl ict. 05 Await ing adoption placement. 29 Chi ld 's absence Irom home in circumstances that endanger his/her safety or well-being. Requires Special Care because of: 11 Chi ld 's mental or emotional condit ion. 12 Chi ld 's physical handicap. 13 Chi ld 's mental retardation. 14 Chi ld 's emotional disorder. Requires Protection because o l : 21 Physical abuse. 22 Sexual abuse. 23 Abandonment. 24 Death o l caregiver where guardianship is unclear. 25 Absence of parent(s). 26 Disabil ity ol parent(s). 27 Neglect o l parenl(s) which endangers safely or well-being ol chi ld. 28 Deprivation o l necessary medical care. 29 Chi ld 's absence Irom home in circumstances that endanger his/her salety or well-being. Chi ld committed to the Care of the Superintendent because o l : 41 Death o l sole (or both) guardian(s). 42 Court 's decis ion to transfer guardianship or custody to the Superintendent. 43 Relinquishment lor Adopt ion by Parent(s). Chi ld Admitted to Care at Request o l : 51 Other province. 52 Oil ier country. 7. Child Will Attend School - Enter an " X " in box provided, and school name. (Enter date if dil lerent than admission dale ) 8. Birthplace ol Child - Enter chi ld's place of birth. 9. Legal Status - This is the present status as established by agreement with parents or guardian, by court action under ttie Family Relations Act or the Adopt ion Act. Mark arr " X " in the appropriatu square. Chi ldren on an i i i lui i in permanent Family and Chi ld Service Act order may hu entered as permanent wards. 10 Agreement Expiry Dale - Enter the expiry date from the court order or the agreement. For F.C.S.A. registrations without orders, the court hearing date. 11. Legal Documentation - For court orders and F.C.S.A. agreements, enter an " X " where appl icable 12. Legal Responsibility - Enter an " X " in the appropriate square - note: P A R E N T S have legal responsibil i ty lor cases of intermittent care and supervision orders. 13. Religion - Enter an " X " in the boxes appl icable to the religion o l the chi ld. 14. Number of Siblings - Enter (1) total number of sibl ings chi ld has; (2) number o l sibl ings registered with chi ld. (Do not count this chi ld in totals.) 15 Plan for Child - Enter an " X " in appl icable box. (Please refer to F. & C. S. Pol icy Manual 2 11.) 16. Office Serving Family - Only enter il this is different from Registering Olf ice. II child has no family or interested relatives enter "999". If whereabouts merely unknown, "998". 17. Racial Origin - Enter an " X " in the boxes applicable to the racial origin ot the mother and natural lather ol the chi ld. 18. Type ol Placement - Enter an " X " in the appropriate box. 19 Marital Status - Enter an " X " in applicable box lor mother and lather. Code: 1 Single - never married 5 Widowed 2 Married to chi ld 's mother/father 6 Deceased and thus n/a 3 Married to another 7 Common- law with chi ld's mother/lather 4 Divorced/Separated 8 Common- law to another 20 Special Needs - Enter appl icable degree o l disability in A L L 3 boxes FAMILY DATA Enter all available family data which is relevant. CENTRAL OFFICE USE ONLY Do not make any entries in this area. NOTIFICATION OF REGISTRATION Other province (specify) is for possible wards intercepted by you, of whose entry to this province the superintendent may not be aware. AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT 1. Enter an " X " in the boxes provided if eligible al lowances are to be regular. II there are special rates involved, leave regular maintenace box blank, enter in the Special box the special rate (adding in the regular maintenance amount), speci ly daily or monthly and have the lorm countersigned by the appropriate signing authority. Speci ly what special part of payment covers. DO N O T include regular c lothing, or special transportation in Special Maintenance amounts. Show these in the appropriate areas to ensure payment. 2. If placement is institutional, mark institution box. 3. To enable F. & C. S. or Finance Division to make applicat ion, indicate il payment may be recoverable from Indian Affairs or any other agency. Where a ch i ld is of Indian racial origin, but it is known NOT to have Indian status, put " N / A " after band. 4. If possible, "enter name and address of home in receipt ol Family Al lowance prior to admission, Family Al lowance number. 5. Enter worker caseload number. CHILD FORMERLY WITH - • 1. Enter the name and address of former person or place providing care. 2, Mark an " X " in the box to denote whether the former placement involved parent(s) or other, • 3 . ' If it is known that the former home was in receipt of income assistance, enter an " X " . CHILD TO CARE OF 1. Mark an " X " to denote whether the child Is to be in the care of parent(s) or other. 2. Enter the name and address of person or resource providing care. (Enter one name only, as payee is determined from this entry: e.g., Smith, Fred W. Mrs. O R Sunshine House but not both.) CiENERAC iNSTRL ICT IONS 'i '.':. •: ": :/ • • '•' T H E FORM T O B E S I G N E D BY THE S O C I A L WORKER; AND T H E S U B M I S S I O N DATE ENTERED. IF T H E R E A R E P A Y M E N T S INVOLVED. Y O U R S I G N A T U R E IS A U T H O R I Z A T I O N FOR T H E S E P A Y M E N T S T O C O M M E N C E IF S P E C I A L R A T E S A R E INVOLVED, T H E F O R M . M U S T BE C O U N T E R S I G N E D BY T H E DISTRICT S U P E R V I S O R OR A R E A M A N A G E R A S R E Q U I R E D . L O C A T I O N CODE - Enter applicable code lor location of placement. Within B .C. , District Otlice Code (e.g., B53. H13, etc.) Outside B .C.: Z01 Alberta . Z02 Saskatchewan Z03 Manitoba Z04 Ontario Z05 Quebec '; Z06 New Brunswick Z07 Nova Scot ia 208 P E L Z09 Newfoundland Z10 Yukon . i , . . . Z11 Northwest Territories , Z20 U S A . Z30 Other Country FORM DISPOSITION • ' 1. Original and first copy to Ministry Comptrol ler. (Return undetached ) I 2.: Second copy to Local Office file. 3. ! Third copy to Area Manager. ' , : , A : , •? '.'i.i THIS FORM MUST BE PROCESSED PROMPTLY [m) British Columbia Services ancB4(ffising:HIiaarvEB0TECTI0N - Page 291 CHANGE or CLOSE NOTIFICATION CO A L L areas shaded in red MUST have ALL presently known inlormation entered. w J 3 M CHANGE TO C1 CHILUS} LEGAL NAME 1 I I I L J L_l 1 1-GIVEN NAME SECOND NAME 11 J L CHILDlSi LEGAL NAME KNOWN s IDENTITY | L J I I l_ J I I I I L GIVEN NAME SECOND NAME 1 C H A N G E C L O S E 1 O 3 Q « CHANGE/CLOSE DATE _1_ I I I REPORTING OFFICE OFFICE SERVING FAMILY M A K E NO ENTRIES to the remainder of the form U N L E S S present data o n the file is to be revised or amended. LEGAL STATUS A • F C S A A G R E E M E N T (Sec.4) SHORT TERM B D FCSA A G R E E M E N T (Sec.5) SPECIAL C A R E RD FCSA AGREEMENT INTERMITTENT CD UNDER APPREHENSION (Sec.9) D Q INTERIM O R D E R (Sec. 11.2C) E Q TEMPORARY WARD JJ>1,C>) F D TEMPORARY WARD (Sec. 14.7(b)) G O P E R M A N E N T WARD (Sec. 14,(2)) H D PERMANENT WARO (Sec, 13.1(d). 14(12)) J • FRA (Sec. 29) WARD K D FRA (OTHER) WARD L Q ADOPTION ACT WARD NO OTHER PROVINCE WARD o D OTHER COUNTRY WARD SD SUPERVISION ORDER (SEC. 11) T • SUPERVISION ORDER (SEC. 13| LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY u SUPT. OF FAMILY ANO CHtLO SERVICE 1 Q OTHER PROVINCE/COUNTRY 2 • PARENTIS! (FAMILY SERVICE ONLY) 3 D SCHOOL ATTENDANCE 53 CHILD WILL R E S U M E i G CHILD C E A S E D TO A T T E N D 2Q S C H O O L N A M E • NUMBER O F SIBLINGS CHILD HAS L_ DISCHARGED WITH CHILD I (COMPLETE AT CLOSE) RELIGION OF CHILD RACIAL ORIGIN MARITAL STATUS PLAN FOR CHILD 56 59 60 63 PROTESTANT iD M oilier Faihe, Moinei Naiuial Falner Mo, net 61 Father A D RETURN TO PARENTIS! CATHOLIC 2D CAUCASIAN i D i D CHINESE s D s D i D s D i D s D B D P L A C E M E N T WITH RELATIVES UNKNOWN 3 D NATIVE INDIAN 2d 2D B L A C K t O e D 2D 6D 2D e D c D ADOPTION OTHER 4 D EAST INDIAN 3D 3D OTHER 7D ?• 3 D ? D 3D / D D D INDEPENDENCE (SPECIFY) J A P A N E S E <D »o U N K N O W N »• e O < • a D (See Revet se le « D a D •€ Codas) E D AUTHORIZED E/CEPTION FOSTER H O M E A D REGULAR Q Q RESTRICTED C D RELATIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING D D E D H O T E L / M O T E L APARTMENT/SUITE TYPE OF PLACEMENT N O PAYMENT | F R E E HOME) G D PAHENIS , H D AUOPIION PROBAIION I • PAYS OWN HOARD j D O'HEH R E S O U R C E S & INSTITUTIONS K Q CONIRACIEO CHIt D CARE RESOUHCF L • HOSPI I AL OR OIHEH INSIilUllON M D AWOL • • • S P E C I A L M E E D S ICAI 1 • '.CE - NORM*!. RANGE ICAF OF FUNCTIONING Y OR I 1 , 1 . 1 L C2 OTHER PROVINCE (SPECIFY, AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT MAINTENANCE REGULAR IONLY) I • 17 SPECIAL LEGAL DOCUMENTATION • C A N C E L ALL PAYMENTS i Q C A N C E L 3 • REGULAR _ REASON TOTAL SPECIAL (REGULAR & SPECIAL) CLOTHING , , Q 2s SCHOOL SUPPLIES , 1 [ J 2' Day Monin Cancel D i D 3 D TRANSPORTATION -ONE TIME PAYMENT EKPI ANAIION _ 37.42 _4S50 • « D 3 C D 4 OTHER INFORMATION INSTITUTION WILL BILL OR DIRECT P A Y M E N T INVOLVED 1 • Si IT IS P R O B A B L E THAT T H E CHILD C O U L D B E ELIGIBLE FOR PAYMENT FROM: O INDIAN AFFAIRS: _ N 0 . PARENTS HAVE DEFINITELY BEEN FINANCIALLY INDEPENDENT ANO OFF THE RESERVE FOR OVER I YEAR. • G WCB O V E T E R A N S ' AFFAIRS • C P . P . • E S T A T E S O OTHER (Specily) Specify any associated l.D. No.s esp S.I.No.'s: where applicable, date & place ol dea/fl. SSH TO APPLY FOR FAMILY A L L O W A N C E YES • NO • SUPPLY NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON IN RECEIPT OF FAMILY ALLOWANCE PRIOR 3 • 26 TO THIS ADMISSION 3 D 2 SPENDING AUTHORITY CERTIFIED THAT T H E A M O U N T S ) TO B E PAID ARE C O R R E C T . ARE IN A C C O R D A N C E WITH APPROPRIATE STATUTES. POLICY. OR OTHER AUTHORITY FOR PAYMENT. Submission Dale J L. Casoload No Disiitci Supervisor/Regional Manager C3 CHILD FORMERLY WITH / Place providing care) CHILD TO C A R E OF PARENTS 1 D II OTHER Q NAME OF PERSON OR P L A C E PROVIDING C A R E (Slreei Address) (Supervising Oltico/Agency) FAMILY RESOURCE NAME " 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GIVEN NAMElS) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C4 APT NO 9 1 1 1 HOUSE NO 1 1 1 1 STREET 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 32 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 bJ C5 CHY 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,B,C POSTAL CODE 26 1 1 1 1 1 32 I 33 3b I L O C A T I O N C O D E I I I I CENTRAL OFFICE USE ONLY 1 , 1 1 1 C H A N G E OF PLACEMENT TO 6E C O U N T E D YES \C NO 2 D «2 36 C6 T H I S A R E A T O B E C O M P L E T E D B Y T H E C E N T R A L O F F I C E O N L Y SUPERVISING R E G I O N / O F F I C E C O D E M I S C E L L A N E O U S C O D E . T R A N S F E R R E D T O : O T H E R P R O V I N C E _ S P E C I A L C O D E _ O T H E R P A R T Y R E S P O N S I B L E C O D E _ V A N C O U V E R C O M P U T E R . . 5 • -6 • P R O B A B L Y R E G I S T E R E D I N D I A N _ INDIAN A C C E P T E D I A INDIAN A C C E P T E D L A P A Y A B L E 2 • . N O N - P A Y A B L E 3 • I I 1 I I I I LL.I I L.U. I Li METHOACTIVL DAIES"- RETRO TYPE PLACEMENT FILE ID I I I 1 I DK 873 SI628 (88 0!>| COMPLETION INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE : CHANGE/CLOSE NOTIFICATION Instructions loi Completion All Entries On Form Must Be Printed B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 292 Areas shaded in red M U S T B E C O M P L E T E D IN F U L L for all transactions. The remainder of the areas contained on the form will have N O E N T R Y UN-L E S S T H E S T A T U S O F A N Y P A R T I C U L A R A R E A IS T O BE R E V I S E D . In the case of a child being D I S C H A R G E D / C L O S E D from care, it is necessary to complete the section showing the reason for discharge/close code and the number of siblings being discharged/closed from care with the child. 1. K n o w n Identity - Enter the unique identity that the child is presently classified and known by on the file. 2. Change to - If there is a change to be made to the present identity enter only the required change(s), and leave unaltered areas blank. 3. Change or C l o s e - Enter an "X" in the appropriate box provided. 4. C h a n g e / C l o s e Date - Enter year, month, and day of change or close, or transfer. 5. S ib l i ngs D ischa rged /C losed - If discharge/close enter number of siblings that were discharged/closed from care witti child. (Do not count this child.) 6. R e a s o n for D ischarge /C lose - If discharge/close indicate corresponding code associated with the reason outlined below. 21 Child reached Age of Majority. 22 Child married (Court approval required for F .C.S.A. wards). 23 Child deceased. 24 Adoption completed. 25 Child repatriated (within or outside province). 26 Requested Order refused by Court. 27 Complaint withdrawn by S S H 28 Agreement automatically terminated -- child AWOL. 29 Agreement aulomatically terminated - child hospitalized 30 Guardianship transferred to relative or olher authority. 31 Ward ot other jurisdiction returned to own area. 32 Intermittent Care Agreement ended. 33 Parent(s) condition improved - able to resume care ol child. 34 Family situation improved - child can return home. 35 Care required by child has been completed. 36 Termination ol Supervision Order. 7. Repor t ing Off ice - Enter name of reporting oflice. ' 8. Repor t ing Off ice C o d e - Enter reporting region and office code. N 6 — Rnrnaininq areas on the ChangefClose Activity Fo im require an entry O N L Y il a change is to be made to already existing inloimnnon contained on the child's master record 9. Legal Sta tus - Make appropriate enlry il status has changed. (II status change reflects a new court order, show transmission in area re. Legal Documen-tation.) / 10. Lega l Respons ib i l i t y - Make appropriale enlry il a change has occuned. { N o l e ; P a , l : n l 3 h a v , ; responsibility tor cases ol 1 I. Re l ig ion - Make appropriate enlry it correction is required. I inioimilteni caie and supervision o ideis 12. Rac ia l Or ig in - Make appropriate entry if newjnformation has been received or correction is required. 13. Ch i l d C e a s e d or to R e s u m e S c h o o l At tendance - Make appropriale entry it change Iras occmred. (Enter date il dilleiont than change dale.) Emei name of school il child is returning. 14. Type of P lacement - Make appropriate entry change has occurred. (II child returned to same home, indicate in "remarks" area). 15. P lan for Ch i l d - Enter an X' in applicable box. (Refer lo F. & C S . Policy Manual 2.11.) 16. Off ice Serv ing Fami ly - Enter if not admitting office, and reports about the child are desired. When a child has no lamiiy or interested relatives entei "999". If whereabouts merely unknown. "998"., {• 17. Marital Status - Enter an X" in applicable box for mother and father, i Code:. . , 1 Single 7 never married ; 5 Widowed 2 Married to child's mother father i 6 Deceased and thus n a 3 Married to another . [ 7 Common-law with child smother lathei . . 4 . Divorced Separated * . . ; " 8 Common-law to another 18. Type of P lacement - Enler.an "X" in the appropriate box. i 19. Spec ia l Need - Enter applicable degree in A L L 3 boxes. 20. Agreement or Wardsh ip Exp i ry Date - Enter expiry date of agreements and temporary wardship orders. For all statuses except G. H. J . L. N. O. entei the expiry date'ot current agreement order, or, pending an order, the court hearing date. AUTHORIZAT ION F O R P A Y M E N T 1. II all payments are cancelled, enter an "X" in Ihe box provided. 2. II a s ing le allowance is to be cancelled, enter an "X" in Ihe "cancel" box al Ihe end ol the appropriate allowance. 3. II an allowance is changed Irom a regular 10 a special, enter the special rale (adding in Ihe regular maintenance amount), specify daily 01 monthly, and have form counter-signed by Ihe appropriale signing authority. Specily what special pai l ol payment covois. Oo N O T Include tegular clothing, special transportation in Special Maintenance amounts. Show these in Ihe appropriate areas to ensure payment. 4. It an allowance is changed from a special to a regular, enter an ""X" in the regular' box lor the allowance involved. 5. II placement is institutional or hospital mark "to be billed"' box. G. It Family (Special) Allowance is now to be applied lor. (or not), mark appropriate box and add name and address ol last lecipiont il changed from S 1627 7. II information has become available regarding Indian Alfairs or another agency who may assisl financially, complete same in the area provided i i l n s will enable application to be initiated in the area concerned.) CHILD F O R M E R L Y WITH 1. Enter the name and address of former person or place providing care. 2. Mark an "X" in the box lo denote whether Ihe former placement involved paient(s) or olher. 3. II it is known that the lormer home was in receipt of income assistance, entei an X' CHILD TO C A R E O F 1. Mark an "X" to denote whether the child is to be in the care of parent(s) or other. 2. Enter the name and address of person or resource providing care. (Enter one name only, as payee is determined from this entry: e.g., Smith, Fred W. Mrs. O R Omega House, but not both.) C E N T R A L O F F I C E U S E O N L Y Do not make any entries in this area. : G E N E R A L INSTRUCTIONS T H E F O R M TO BE S IGNED BY THE SOCIAL W O R K E R , AND THE SUBMISSION DATE E N T E R E D . IF T H E R E A R E P A Y M E N T S INVOLVED, Y O U R S I G N A T U R E IS AUTHORIZATION F O R T H E S E P A Y M E N T S TO C O M M E N C E . IF S P E C I A L R A T E S A R E INVOLVED, T H E F O R M M U S T B E C O U N T E R - S I G N E D BY THE DISTRICT S U P E R V I S O R (OR EQUIVALENT) , OR A R E A M A N A G E R A S R E Q U I R E D . Please use "Remarks" area to clarify circumstances. LOCATION C O D E - Enter applicable code for location of placement. Within B.C., District Office Code (e.g., B53, H13, etc.) Outside B.C.: Z01 Alberta Z02 Saskatchewan Z03 Manitoba Z04 Ontar io. Z05 Quebec Z06 New Brunswick" Z07 Nova Scotia Z08 P.E.I. Z09 Newfoundland Z10 Yukon Z11 Northwest Territories Z20 U.S.A. Z30 Olher Country F O R M DISPOSITION 1. Original and first copy to Ministry Comptroller. (Return undetached.) 2. Second copy to Local Office file. THIS FORM MUST BE PROCESSED PROMPTLY B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 293 APPENDIX D REPORT TO COURT FORM S1217 NOTICE OF HEARING FORM S1200 is Province of British Columbia Ministry of Social Services and Housing IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER CF THE FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE ACT S.B.C. 1980 - r f h t f ^ f c - u , PROTECTION and IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD/REN - Page 294 REPORT TO THE COURT I. Section 3(4) am duly authorized, pursuant to (Name of Person) Section 3(4) of the Family and Child Service Act, by the Superintendent of Family and Child Service of the Province of Brit ish Columbia "to present this written report -ro the court. 2. Interpretation Section 1 The chl ld/ren l isted below I s/are under the age of nineteen years and Is/are hereinafter referred to as "the ch l ld /ren" . The chi I d/ren Blrthdata 3. Section 9(1) The chl ld/ren was/were apprehended on the (City) by (Name of Officer) day of _, 19 . , Bri t ish Columbia Inter pretatlon Section 1 The chlld/ren was/were apprehended as being In need of protection by reason of being: ) (a) abused or neglected so that his safety or well being Is endangered, ) (b) abandoned, ) (c) deprived of necessary care through the death, absence or d i s a b i l i t y of his parent, ) (d) deprived of necessary medical attention, or ) (e) absent from his home In circumstances that endanger his safety or well being. This Is "Exhibit A" referred to In the Affidavit of sworn before me at (City, MunicipalIty) thi s (Prov I nee) day of 19 A Commissioner for Taking Affidavits for Bri t i sh Columbia S. 1217 (1986 11) H-16 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Paqe 295 CIRCUMSTANCES OF APPREHENSION y The circumstances that resulted In the apprehension of the chlld/ren were as follows: NAME AND ADDRESS OF PARENT(S) Mother: (Name) (Marital Status) (Address) Father: • •  (Name) (Marital Status) (Address) Other: (Name) (Address) PRESENT WHEREABOUTS OF CHILD/REN ( ) The chl ld /ren remaln(s) In the custody of the Superintendent of Family and Chi ld Service pending further Investigation and assessment and Is/are being cared for In an approved child care resource. OR ( ) The chl ld/ren has/have been returned to the parent(s) apparently entitled to custody pending the further direction of the court, pursuant to the Section 9(5) of the Family and Child Service Act. 1217 (1986 11) (page 2) INTERIM ORDER REQUESTED B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 296 8. ( ) The Superintendent of Family and Child Service requests that the court make an Section 11(2)(a) order approving the superintendent's action In returning the chlld/ren to (name) at (address) who appears to be the parent apparently entitled to custody pursuant to Section M(2)(a) of the Family and Child Service Act. OR ( ) The superintendent requests the court make an order returning the chlld/ren to Section 1 I (2Kb) at (name) (address) who appears to be the parent apparently entitled to custody, pursuant to Section 11(2 Kb) of the Family and Child Service Act. ( ) The Superintendent of Family and Child Service further requests the court make Section 11(3) an order empowering the superintendent to supervise the care of the chlld/ren pursuant to Section 11(3) until a hearing Is held to determine whether the chl ld/ren Is/ara In need of protection. OR 9. ( ) (a) The superintendent requests that the court order that the superintendent Section 11(2)(c> retake/retain custody of the chl ld/ren until an order Is made under Section 13 of the Family and Child Service Act. Section 11(4) ( ) (b) The superintendent requests that the said order Include a provision for access t>Y and by S. 1217(1986 11) (page 3) OR B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 297 (c) The superintendent opposes a provision for access to the child by (name) and by (name) for ttie following reasons: Pursuant to Section 11 (2) (d) of the Family and Child Service Act, the persons entitled to be notified consenting to an Immediate hearing, the superintendent requests that the court make an order under Section 13(1). ( ) (a) or (b) Custody remain with or be returned to the parent apparently entitled to custody, subject to supervision at the discretion of the superintendent for a period of . OR ( ) (c) Custody be awarded to the Superintendent of Family and Child Service for a period of . AND THAT access be provided to OR THAT access be denied to (name) (name) For the following reasons: (Signature of Social Worker) (Date) B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page: 298 IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE ACT S.B.C. 1980 - Chapter 11 and IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD/REN NOTICE OF HEARING TO: Take notice that on the day of , 19 , at o'clock In the noon, a hearing will take place at the Provincial Court, at , B r i t i s h Columbia , to determine (Address/City) whether: The chl ld /ren Blrthdate Is/are In need of protection by reason of being (Quote one or more of clauses In Interpretation Section 1) And further take notice that at this hearing the Superintendent of Family and Child Service will recommend that an order be made under Section 13 (1) ( ) (a) or (b) Custody remain with or be returned to the parent apparently entitled to custody, subject to supervision by the superintendent for a period of . ( ) (c) Custody be awarded to the Superintendent of Family and Child Service for a period of And further take notice that If an order Is made that the Superintendent of Family and Child Service assume custody of your ch l ld /ren , the superintendent becomes the guardian of the said chlld/ren and the court may make an order that you pay a sum of money toward the ch l ld /ren ' s maintenance. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT: (a) You are requested to be present at the hearing. (b) You have the right to be represented by legal counsel. (c) An order may be made In your absence. (d) You have the right to appeal any order within 30 days from the date the order Is made. 3 A TED at , Bri t i sh Columbia, th is day of , 19 SocI a I Worker B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 299 APPENDIX E COVERING LETTER TO DISTRICT SUPERVISORS COVERING LETTER TO SOCIAL WORKERS B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 301 THE UNIVERSITY of BRITISH COLUMBIA School of Social Work and THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES and HOUSING M.S.W. Research Project: VARIABLES INCLUSIVE IN CHILD PROTECTION SOCIAL  WORKER APPREHENSIONS and JUDICIAL DISPOSITIONS. February 19, 1990 Dear Colleague, This letter is to request your participation in this thesis research project and introduce myself. This research has been approved and is supported by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. I am a F&CS district supervisor and part-time student in the Master of Social Work program at the University of British Columbia. The research topic developed from discussions with M.S.S.&H. staff about the varying reasons children are apprehended into "care". These discussions usually led to case examples in which judges did or did not support the social workers' recommendations. A question often asked was: "Is there any research on this topic"? It appears from the literature review there is very little research on the overlap of child protection social work and the judicial/legal system in North America.. It is for this reason that your taking the time to complete this questionnaire is important. In the 1989 calendar year 3671 children were apprehended into care. This project is looking at a 10% random sample (353) of C.I.C.s provincially, therefore as an "apprehending" social worker you may receive more than one questionnaire. M.S.S.& H. Corporate Services has provided me with data from the samples' 1627's and 1628's; however, the attached questionnaire is necessary to provide information for the legal topic areas. This research proposes to examine: 1) variables involved in apprehensions in the 1988-89 fiscal year and a socio-economic demographic profile of these children and their families. 2) percentages of cases where there is support or discrepancies between social workers recommendations to the court and the judicial dispositions. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 303 APPENDIX F INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH TOPIC & SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 305 MSS&H THESIS -2-SECTION 1. CASE PRACTICE QUESTIONS DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE Id. Number C C #1-3 PI. Total number of persons in child's family who were living in the home at the time of admission to care (include only parent(s) plus the child or children admitted to care plus any other siblings). Number of children taken into care Number of children left in the home Number of parents in home: One Two CC#4(blank) C C #5 C C #6 C C #7 P2. Has this child or any other child from this family previously been admitted to care? (include admissions by STCA or SCA as well as apprehensions) #Yes No Unknown (1) (2) (3) *lf yes: (a) total number of previous admissions (b) reason(s) for last admission to care 1) . 2) (c) length of time since last admission to care: months years P3. The back of the 1627 defines 24 variables or reasons for a child to be admitted to "Care". One reason not listed, but possibly relevant is if the situation was an "adoption breakdown". Was the apprehended child previously "adopted"? Yes (1) No (2) C C #8 C C #9 CC#10-11 _ l _ CC#12-14 _ l _ CC#15-16 _ J _ CC#17-18 I CC#19 P4. Has the child been part of a blended family, or a "step-child"? Yes. (1) CC#20 No (2) B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 306 MSS&H THESIS -3-P5. To wha t extent d id y o u h a v e a n opportuni ty to discuss p l a c e m e n t plans with the ch i ld 's gua rd ian prior to admission of the chi ld to c a r e ? (p lease c h e c k one) (1) Admission was the result of a p lan d iscussed more than t w i c e with the chi ld 's gua rd ian s o m e days or weeks in a d v a n c e of a c t u a l p l a c e m e n t . (2) Admission was brought a b o u t by a b r e a k d o w n in a previous p lan or by a n u n e x p e c t e d event , such as the ch i ld be ing CC#21 a b a n d o n e d , or disclosing. Little or no t ime for de ta i l ed p lann ing with the chi ld 's gua rd ian . (3) Other (descr ibe in o n e or two sentences).; P6. How m a n y b a n d s a n d municipal i t ies a re i nc luded in the  a r e a your district o f f ice serves; a n d wha t is the total size of popu la t ion served? (answer approp r ia te categor ies) SECTION 2. ORDER REQUESTED a n d COURT DISPOSITIONS PLEASE NOTE THAT A C C U R A C Y O F THE DATA IN THIS SECTION IS IMPORTANT TO THE STUDY'S FINDINGS. Thank you . The purpose of this fo l lowing sect ion of the quest ionnaire is to de te rmine in wh i ch cases a n d w h a t p e r c e n t a g e of instances judges ' dispositions a g r e e , or d isagree with soc ia l workers r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s on a n order sought: (This will b e looked at in two stages: the initial sect ion 11 presentat ion a n d the sect ion 13 hear ing). Number of Bands N u m b e r of Municipal i t ies Popula t ion # served by D.O. (1) C C # 2 2 (2) C C # 2 3 (3) CC#24-29 J M l J B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 307 MSS&H THESIS -4-L l . At what point during the section 11 stage did MSS&H legal Counsel become involved? (answer one) Before the apprehension (1) After the apprehension (write # of days) (2) CC#30 On the day of Presentation only (3) SOCIAL WORKER'S SECTION 11 RECOMMENDATIONS L2. At the F&CS Section 11 presentation the interim order (S.1217) requested by the social worker in the Report to Court was: (please check the subsections that were filed for this case). "11(2) On presentation of a report under section (1), the court may order the child be brought to before the court and shall do one of the following: (a*) make an order approving the superintendents action in returning the child under section 9(5) where he has done so; (1) (b*) order the superintendent to return the child to the parent apparently entitled to custody; (2) (c) order that custody of the child be retaken or retained by the superintendent until a further order is CC#31 made under section 13; (3) (d) make an order under section 13(1) (4) L3. (*) 11 (3) Where the court makes an order under subsection (2)(a) or (b) of the section it may order the superintendent to supervise the care of the child until a hearing is held to determine whether the child is in need of protection." (2a/b) CC#32 COMMENTS. ; B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 308 MSS&H THESIS -5-L4. Did the social worker request a supplementary order under section 11 (4) opposing access to the child by any of the following persons? Not Appl icable (1) Both parents . (2) Mother (3) CC#33 Father (4) Other (specify) (5) C O M M E N T S _ _ ;  L5. Did any of the parents have legal counsel at any point during the section 11 presentation? Yes (1) CC#34 No (2) 16. Did either of the parents attend court for any aspect of the section 11 procedures? Yes (1) CC#35 No (2) L7. The number of adjournments before the section 11 order was made: (0 - ?) Number (1) CC#36 COMMENTS L8. What was the duration of time from the day of the Apprehension to the disposition of the section 11 order? CC#37-38 Weeks I _ l _ COMMENTS ; ; L9. Was the section 11 order requested by the social worker at the time of the court presentation, exactly the  same as filed in the (si217) Report to Court? Yes (1) CC#39 *No (2) * If a modification of the order was sought what was the specific change? B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 309 MSS&H THESIS -6-L10. Was the sect ion 11 order reques ted by the soc ia l worker a t the t ime of the presentat ion c o n s e n t e d to by the  parents? Yes (1) C C # 4 0 N o (2) C O M M E N T S J U D G E ' S SECTION 11 ORDER LI 1. At the F&CS sect ion 11 presentat ion the order m a d e  bv the judge was: (p lease c h e c k the subsect ions that we re o rde red for this case ) . "11(2) O n presentat ion of a report under sect ion (1), the court m a y order the chi ld b e brought to be fo re the court a n d shall d o o n e of the fol lowing: (a) m a k e a n order app rov ing the superintendents ac t i on in returning •the ch i ld under sect ion 9(5) whe re he has d o n e so; (b) order the super intendent to return the ch i ld to the parent apparen t l y ent i t led to custody; (c) order that cus tody of the ch i ld b e retaken or re ta ined by the super intendent until a further order is m a d e under sect ion 13; (d) m a k e a n order under sect ion 13 CD... LI2. (*) 11(3) Where the court makes a n order under subsect ion (2)(a) or (b) of the sect ion it m a y order the super intendent to supervise the c a r e of the ch i ld until a hear ing is he ld to de te rmine whether the chi ld is in n e e d of protect ion." (2a /b) C C # 4 2 C O M M E N T S ; (1) (2) CC#41 (3) (4) B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 310 MSS&H THESIS -7-L13. Did the judge make a supplementary order under section 11 (4) denying access to the child by any of the following persons? Not Applicable (1) Both parents (2) Mother (3) CC#43 Father. (4) Other (specify) (5) COMMENTS THE SECTION 11 JUDGE'S NAME was IF THERE WAS A HEARING UNDER SECTION 13 or IF IT IS STILL IN PROCESS, please complete the following applicable questions. (If the judge did not order a section 13 hearing, please go to the next section: FAMILY DEMOGRAPHICS) L14. After the section 11 order and prior to the section 13 hearing, was MSS&H legal Counsel involved in planning for the section 13 hearing? (answer one) Met on the day of the Hearing (or filing of Notices) only (1) There was discussion after Notices of Hearing were served (2) CC#44 There were discussions prior to Notices of Hearing being served (3) COMMENTS. L15. Did any of the parents have legal counsel at any point during the section 13 proceedings? Yes (1) CC#45 No (2) LI6. Did either of the parents attend court for any of the section 13 proceedings? Yes (1) CC#46 No (2) COMMENTS ; B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page MSS&H THESIS SOCIAL WORKER'S SECTION 13 RECOMMENDATIONS LI 7. A t the sect ion 13 hear ing the No t i ce fi led by the  soc ia l worker was: (p lease c h e c k the subsect ions that not ices we re served for this c a s e ) . "13(1) Where , after ho ld ing a hear ing to de termine whe ther a ch i ld is in n e e d of p ro tec t ion , the cour t finds that the ch i ld is in n e e d of p ro tec t ion , it shall; (a*) order that the ch i ld remain in the cus tody of the parent apparen t l y ent i t led to cus tody ; (b*) order the super in tendent to return the ch i ld to the parent apparen t l y enti t led to cus tody ; (c) order the super intendent to retain or re take cus tody of the ch i ld for a per iod the court considers appropr ia te , not e x c e e d i n g 12 months; (d) p r o c e e d with the matter as if a n app l i ca t i on h a d b e e n m a d e under sect ion 14(1)... (permanent order) LI8. ( #) 13(2) A n order m a d e under subsect ion (1) (a) or (b) must inc lude a provision that the super intendent m a y supervise the c a r e of the chi ld for a per iod the court considers appropr ia te , not e x c e e d i n g 6 months." ( l a / b ) C C # 4 8 LI9. The length of order reques ted by the soc ia l worker in the No t i ce of Hear ing was: (write number of months for either supervision or temporary ward) I months (1) CC#49-50 C O M M E N T S : I (1) (2) C C # 4 7 (3) (4) B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 312 MSS&H THESIS -9-L20. Did the social worker request a supplementary order under section 13 (3) or section 16 (4) opposing access to the child by any of the following persons? Not Applicable (1) Both parents (2) Mother (3) CC#51 Father (4) Other (specify) (5) COMMENTS L21. The number of adjournments before the section 13 order was made: (0 - ?) Number (1) CC#52_ COMMENTS L22. What was the duration of time from the section 11 order for a protection hearing, to the conclusion and disposition of the section 13 hearing? (round off to the nearest month) Months CC#53 COMMENTS. L23. Was the section 13 order requested by the social worker at the time of the court hearing exactly the same as  filed in the (si200) Notice of Hearing? ~ ~ Yes (1) CC#54 *No (2) * If a modification of the order was sought what were the specific changes?_ ; L24. Was the section 13 order requested by the social worker, at the time of the Hearing, consented to bv the  parents? Yes (1) CC#55 No (2) COMMENTS ; THE SECTION 13 JUDGE'S NAME was/is. B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 313 MSS&H THESIS -10-JUDGES'S SECTION 13 ORDER L25. At the section 13 hearing the order made bv the  judge was: (please check the subsections that were ordered for this case). "13(1) Where, after holding a hearing to determine whether a child is in need of protection, the court finds that the child is in need of protection, it shall; L26. L27. (a*) order that the child remain in the custody of the parent apparently entitled to custody; (b*) order the superintendent to return the child to the parent apparently entitled to custody; (c) order the superintendent to retain or retake custody of the child for a period the court considers appropriate, not exceeding 12 months; (d) proceed with the matter as if an application had been made under section 14(1)... (1) (2) (3) (4) * 13(2) An order made under subsection (1) (a) or (b) must include a provision that the superintendent may supervise the care of the child for a period the court considers appropriate, not exceeding 6 months." (1a/b) The length of section 13 order mode by the judge wgs: I months CC#56 CC#57 _ CC#58-59 L28. Did the judge make a supplementary order under section 13 (3) or section 16 (4) denying gccess to the child by any of the following persons? No or Not Applicable _ Both parents _ Mother _ Father _ Other (specify)_ COMMENTS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) CC#60 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 314 MSS&H THESIS-11-SECTION 3. The Family's CHARACTERISTICS / D E M O G R A P H I C S THIS SECTION IS TO PROVIDE S O C I O - E C O N O M I C INFORMATION O N THE FAMILIES THE CHILDREN ARE F R O M . IT IS ASSUMED THAT NOT ALL THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE O N THE FILE OR K N O W N ; HOWEVER PLEASE ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE. Dl . W h a t was the "family structure" of the family the ch i ld w a s a p p r e h e n d e d f rom? ( c h e c k one ) Two parent family (1) or a single parent family h e a d e d by: M a l e parent (3) CC#61 Fema le parent (4) Other (specify) (5) D2. Wha t was the "parent /ch i ld relationship" of the family the ch i ld w a s a p p r e h e n d e d from? Birth parent (1) S t e p / B l e n d e d paren t (2) A d o p t i v e parent (3) C C # 6 2 Relat ive (4) Other (specify) (5) D3. Duration of the a b o v e "family structure", prior to the chi ld 's removal . (approx imate ly) I years CC#63-64 D4. W h a t was the a g e of Househo ld h e a d a t the t ime of separa t ion? (if e x a c t a g e is known , write in ca tego ry ; otherwise c h e c k a g e grouping) Under 19 years (1) 19 - 25 years (2) 25 - 34 years (3) 35 - 44 years (4) 45 - 54 years . (5) 55 - 64 years (6) 65 - 74 years (7) 75 years a n d over (8) CC#65-66 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 315 MSS&H THESIS -12-D5. Educa t ion : W h a t w a s the highest level of e d u c a t i o n c o m p l e t e d by the "primary family i n c o m e earner"? (if not cer ta in p lease est imate) Less than g r a d e 9 (1) G r a d e 9 - 13, n o s e c cert . (2) G r a d e 9 - 1 3 , s e c o n d cert . (3) C C # 6 7 Trade cer t i f icate or D ip loma (4) University without d e g r e e (5) University with d e g r e e (6) D6. Employment ca tego ry : W h a t was the usual o c c u p a t i o n a l title of the "primary family i n c o m e earner"? ( check appropr ia te ca tego ry : 1986 Census) M a n a g e r i a l / administrat ive Natural s c i e n c e , engin. & ma th . Soc ia l sc iences , religion, artistic Teach ing a n d re la ted M e d i c i n e a n d heal th C le r ica l a n d re la ted Sales Service (non-professional) Farming a n d horticultural Other primary industries Processing Mach in i ng a n d re la ted Produc t ion , fabr i c ,assemb.& repair Const ruct ion t rades Transport equ ipmnt . opera t ing Mater ia l hand l ing & re la ted Other crafts & equ ipmnt . ope ra t i ng O c c u p a t i o n not classif ied(specify). Student (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) CC#68-69 D7. W h a t was the app rox ima te tota l househo ld i n c o m e level per yea r? (if not cer ta in p lease est imate) $ 0 - 9,999 (1) $10,000 - 19.999 (2) $20,000 - 29,999 (3) $30,000 - 39,999 (4) $40,000 - 49,999 (5) $50,000 - 59,999 (6) $60,000 - 69,999 (7) $70,000 - 79,999 (8) $80,000 - 99,999 (9) $100,000 a n d over (10) CC#70-71 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 316 MSS&H THESIS -13-D8. Wha t w a s the primary source of i n c o m e for this family prior to the chi ld 's remova l? Employment (full/part) (1) MSS&H Income Assis tance (2) Other f inanc ia l programs(speci fy) (3) C C # 7 2 Relatives (4) Other(speci fy) (5) D9. Ethnic / Rac ia l Origin: P lease c h e c k o n e app rop r i a te c a t e g o r y for the ch i ld (consider ing bo th parents). (1986 C a n a d a census ca tegor ies) British (1) French (2) Abor ig ina l (3) G e r m a n (4) Italian (5) Ukrainian (6) CC#73-74 Ch inese (7) I Du tch (8) O the r single origins (specify) (9) Mult iple origins (specify) (10) D10. The t ype of dwel l ing the family was residing in a t the t ime of apprehens ion : ( c h e c k one) Single d e t a c h e d house (1) Townhouse/ low density (2) Apa r tmen t bui ld ing (3) M o v e a b l e dwel l ing (4) C C # 7 5 Hote l /mote l room (5) Other dwel l ing (specify) _(6) D l l . The family's tenure of t he a b o v e dwel l ing was : O w n e d (by family) Ren ted (by family) O n Reserve (1) (2) (3) C C # 7 6 D12. Transiency: Length of res idency family was in district  of f ice a reg prior to the ch i ld 's opprehens ion . ( c h e c k one) O n e month or less Two to Six months Seven months to o yegr plus Two to Five yegrs Six to Ten yeors Eleven yeors a n d more (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) C C # 7 7 B.C. CHILD.PROTECTION - Page 317 MSS&H THESIS -14-IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER SIGNIFICANT FACTORS ABOUT THIS CASE YOU WISH TO ADD; or COMMENTS ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE; PLEASE NOTE THEM IN THE FOLLOWING SPACE. THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE. PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO PHOTOCOPY the first two pages of the REPORT TO COURT (SI217) TO SEND BACK ALSO. RETURN TO: c /o M.S.S.& H. Library - House Mail B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 318 APPENDIX G FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE ACT (1980) ATTACHMENT "C" B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 319 1980 FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE S B C CHAP. 11 (Replacing RS1979. c. 119) FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE ACT [Amendment not in force; see sheet following this Act] C H A P T E R 11 l C o n s o l i d a t e d S e P t e m b e r 6 ' 1 9 8 5 1 [Act administered by the Ministry of Human Resources} Assented to August 22. 1980. Interpretation 1. In this Act "apprehend" means to take a child into custody under this Act; "child" means a person under 19 years old; "child care resource" means (a) a foster home, (b) a group living home. (c) a facility, or (d) a child's own home approved by the superintendent for the care of a child or children; "court" means the Provincial Court; "foster home" means a private home approved by the superintendent for the placement of a child, whether or not payment is made for maintenance of the child; "guardian" has the same meaning as in the Family Relations Act; "guardian of the person of a child" has the same meaning as in the Family Relations Act; "in need of protection" means, in relation to a child, that he is (a) abused or neglected so that his safety or well being is endangered, (b) abandoned, (c) deprived of necessary care through the death, absence or disability of his parent, (d) deprived of necessary medical attention, or (e) absent from his home in circumstances that endanger his safety or well being; "judge" means a judge of the Provincial Court; "parent" does not include (he superintendent but includes (a) the mother or father of a child, (b) the guardian or guardian of the person of a child, (c) the step-parent of a child, where a step-parent relationship is established by marriage between the step-parent and the mother or father of the child, (d) a person who is under a legal duty to support or maintain a child under an order of a court or under a written agreement, (e) a person who has been granted custody of or access to the child, and (0 a person who. having acknowledged a parental relationship to the child, has supported, maintained or cared for the child; "permanent order" means a permanent order made under section 14; "superintendent" means the person designated under this Act as the Superintendent of Family and Child Service and, in relation to any power, duty or function that the superintendent has delegated to another person, includes that other person. 1980-11-1. 6-9/85 1 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 320 S B C CHAP. 11 FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE 29 ELIZ 2 (Replacing RSI979. c. 119) Principles 2. In the administration and interpretation of this Act the safety and well being of a child shall be the paramount considerations. 1980-11-2. Officials 3. (1) The minister shall designate as Superintendent of Family and Child Service a person appointed under the Public Service Act. and the superintendent shall be responsible to the minister for the administration of this Act and the regulations and be the Superintendent of Child Welfare. (2) The powers of the superintendent, for the purposes of this Act and the regula-tions, include the power, subject to this Act and the regulations, (a) to enter into an agreement with a person for the development or provision, or both, of services to children or their families in the Province, and (b) to enter into an agreement with a person for the custody of a child of whom the superintendent is guardian, or of whom the superintendent has cus-tody, but it is an implied term of the agreement that the superintendent may retake custody of the child at any time, but a person who enters into an agreement with the superintendent under this subsection is an independent contractor and is not an employee of the government. (3) The superintendent shall direct the investigation of reports that children may be in need of protection and the keeping of records of the reports and investigations. (4) The superintendent may delegate any of his powers, duties, functions and capacities under this Act to any person or class of person, and that person or class of person shall be subject to his direction. 1980-11-3. Short term custody agreements 4. Where a parent requires temporary assistance in caring for his child, the superintendent may enter into a short term care agreement with the parent providing for (a) care and custody or intermittent care and custody of the child during a period that does not exceed 3 months. (b) emergency medical treatment of the child in the absence of the parent, (c) resumption of care and custody of the child by the parent, and (d) other matters agreed between the parent and superintendent. 1980-11-4. Special care agreements 5. Where the superintendent and a parent agree that the parent's child is in need of special care, the superintendent may enter into a special care and custody agreement with the parent providing for (a) care and custody or intermittent care and custody of the child during a period that does not exceed 6 months, (b) the nature of the care to be provided to the child, (c) emergency medical treatment of the child in the absence of the parent, (d) renewal of the agreement for further periods of not more than 12 months each, and (e) other matters agreed between the parent and superintendent. 1980-11-5. 2 k9'85 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 321 1980 FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE S B C CHAP. 11 (Replacing RS1979. c. 119) General provisions respecting agreements 6. (I) Where a short term care or special care agreement has been made. (a) the parent may on notice to "the superintendent terminate the agreement and retake custody of his child at any time during the term of the agree-ment. (b) the parent is not relieved of his obligation to maintain the child. (c) the agreement does not limit the power of a court to hear an application or make an order respecting the child, and (d) the superintendent may terminate the agreement by giving the parent 7 days' notice of termination. (2) Where a short term care or special care agreement expires or is terminated and the parent neglects, refuses or is unable to resume custody of the child, the term of the agreement is extended for a period of 30 days. (3) If within the 30 days referred to in subsection (2) the parent does not resume custody of the child, the child shall be deemed to be abandoned, and the superintendent may proceed under this Act as though he had apprehended the child. 1980-11-6. Duty to report 7. (1) A person who has reasonable grounds to believe that a child is in need of protection shall forthwith report the circumstances to the superintendent or a person designated by the superintendent to receive such reports. (2) The duty under subsection (1) overrides a claim of confidentiality or privilege by a person following any occupation or profession, except a claim founded on a solicitor and client relationship. (3) No action lies against a.person making a report under this section unless he makes it maliciously or without reasonable grounds for his belief. . (4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence. 1980-11-7. Right of entry to investigate certain complaints 8. Where the superintendent has received a report that a child is in need of protection he shall investigate the circumstances, and if the parent or any other person refuses to allow the superintendent to have access to the child, the superintendent may apply ex parte to a judge in person or by telephone for a warrant authorizing him to enter and search a place specified in the warrant in order to investigate whether the child is in need of protection, and the judge may issue the warrant on being satisfied that access to the child is necessary to the investigation. 1980-11-8. Apprehending a child 9. (I) Where the superintendent considers that a child is in need of protection, he may, without warrant, apprehend the child. (2) Where any person refuses to allow the superintendent to enter the property to apprehend a child under subsection (I), the superintendent may apply ex parte in person 6/9'85 3 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 322 SBC CHAP. 11 FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE 29 ELIZ. 2 (Replacing RSI979. c. 119) or by telephone to a judge for a warrant authorizing the superintendent to enter the properly, and the judge may issue the warrant on being satisfied that a request to enter the property for the purpose of apprehending the child was denied, and the superintendent may, on receipt of the warrant, enter the property and apprehend the child. (3) Where the superintendent or a police officer has reason to believe that (a) a child is in need of protection, and (b) the child is in immediate physical danger. he may, without warrant, enter any premises, using force if necessary and, where he considers it necessary to do so. apprehend the child and remove him to a place of safety. (4) Where a police officer apprehends a child under subsection (3), he shall immediately report the matter to the superintendent, and the superintendent shall assume custody of the child. (5) Where a child has been apprehended and before a report is presented to the court under section 11, the superintendent may, if satisfied that continued custody is unneces-sary, return the child to the parent apparently entitled to custody. 1980-11-9. Custody and guardianship by superintendent 10. (1) Where a child is apprehended, the superintendent (a) has, subject to section 15, the right to custody of the child until (i) the child is returned, in accordance with this Act, to the parent apparently entitled to custody of the child, or (ii) an order terminating the superintendent's custody of the child is made under this Act. and (b) may authorize emergency medical care and treatment of the child pre-scribed by a medical practitioner. (2) Where a child is apprehended and an order that the child be or remain in the custody of the superintendent is made under this Act by a court, the superintendent is, subject to subsection (3). the guardian of the person of the child until (a) the child is returned, in accordance with this Act. to the parent apparently entitled to custody of the child, (b) another guardian or guardian of the person of the child is appointed under an enactment, or (c) an adoption order is made in respect of the child under the Adoption Act. (3) The powers of the superintendent as guardian of the person of a child under this section do not, except where a permanent order is made, include the power to consent to the adoption of the child. (4) [Repealed 1984-30-43, effective April .2, 1985.] 1980-11-10; [amended 1983-10-21. not in force, amendment not included]; 1984-30-43, effective April 2. 1985. Procedure following apprehension 11. (1) Where a child is apprehended, the superintendent shall, not later than 7 days after the apprehension and whether or not the child is still in his custody, present a written report to the court. 4 6/9/8J B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 323 1980 FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE S B C CHAP. 11 (Replacing RSI979. c. 119) (2) On presentation of a report under subsection (I), the court may order that the child be brought before the court and shall do one of the following: (a) make an order approving the superintendent's action in returning the child under section 9 (5) where he has done so: (b) order the superintendent Io return the child to the parent apparently entitled to custody, (c) order that custody of the child be retaken or retained by the superintendent until a further order is made under section 13; (d) make an order under section 13(1), but the court shall not act under paragraph (d) of this subsection unless the persons referred to in section 12 (2) (a), (b) and (c) consent to an immediate hearing to determine whether the child is in need of protection. (3) Where the court makes an order under subsection (2) (a) or (b) of this section it may order (he superintendent to supervise the care of the child until a hearing is held to determine whether the child is in need of protection. (4) An order under subsection (2) (c) may include provision for access to the child by his parents. 1980-11-11. Arranging a hearing 12. (1) Where the court makes an order under (a) section 11 (2) (a) or (b) it may, or (b) section 11 (2) (c) it shall fix a date, not later than 45 days after the date of the order, for commencement of a hearing to determine if the child is in need of protection. (2) Notice of the hearing fixed under subsection (1) shall be in writing and served, at least seven clear days before the hearing, (a) on the parents of the child and any person who had custody of the child when the child was apprehended. (b) on the superintendent, or the person designated to act for him in the locality where the hearing will take place, (c) if the superintendent believes the child is registered, or is entitled to be registered, as an Indian under the Indian Act (Canada), on the band manager or band social development officer of the Indian band to which the child belongs, and (d) on other persons the court considers appropriate, and the court may direct (e) that notice on any person referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) be dispensed with, and (0 how a notice shall be served, or that there shall be substituted service, and when a direction under paragraph (0 is complied with the notice shall be conclusive-ly deemed to have been sufficiently served, but where a person consents, service of written notice on him is not necessary. (3) A hearing under this section shall be (a) summary and civil in nature, and (b) held at a different time or at a different place from the usual time or place for sittings of the court when dealing with criminal matters. 22/12'HO • 5 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 324 S B C CHAP. 11 FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE 29 ELIZ. 2 (Replacing RSI979. c. 119) (4) Where a notice is served on a person under this section, he or his agent has a right to be heard at the hearing to which the notice relates. 1980-1 1-12. Temporary custody orders 13. (1) Where, after holding a hearing to determine whether a child is in need of protection, the court finds that the child is in need of protection, it shall (a) order that the child remain in the custody of the parent apparently entitled to custody. (b) order the superintendent to return the child to the parent apparently entitled to custody. (c) order the superintendent to retain or retake custody of the child for a period the court considers appropriate, not exceeding 12 months, and that during that time a parent pay periodically to the superintendent a sum of money for the child's maintenance, or (d) proceed with the matter as if an application had been made under section 14 (1). except that for this purpose, section 14 (2) (a) shall be read as permissive. but where the court finds that the child is not in need of protection, it shall order the superintendent to relinquish custody of him as soon as reasonably possible. (2) An order made under subsection (1) (a) or (b) must include a provision that the . superintendent may supervise the care of the child for a period the court considers appropriate, not exceeding 6 months. (3) An order under subsection (1) (c) may include provision for a parent to have access to the child. (4) Where an order for contribution to maintenance is made under this section it shall be enforced and varied in the same way as a maintenance order made under Pan 4 of the Family Relations Act. (5) Where a child is in the custody of the superintendent the court may. on application by the superintendent and on notice to the Public Trustee, appoint the Public Trustee to be the sole guardian of the estate of the child, and the Public Trustee shall, on receipt of notice of the appointment given to him by the superintendent, be the guardian of the estate of the child for a period the court orders. (6) The superintendent or a parent of the child may. subject to the giving of notices in the same way as under section 12(2). apply to the court for rescission or variation of an order made under subsection (1) or (5) of this section, on the grounds that the circum-stances have significantly changed. (7) The superintendent may. subject to the giving of notices in the same way as under section 12 (2). apply to the court for extensions, for periods not exceeding 6 months each, of an order made under subsection (1) (c) of this section where he considers it likely that the conditions that led to the taking of the child into custody will be remedied so that the child can be returned to the parent apparently entitled to custody of him. 1980-11-13. Permanent order 14. (\) Where an order has been made under section 13 (1) (c) the superintendent may. by application to be brought on for hearing not sooner than 30 days before the expiration of the order, apply IO the court for a permanent order. 6 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 325 1980 FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE S B C CHAP. 11 (Replacing RSI979. c. 119) (2) The court (a) shall make a permanent order where (i) the child's parent cannot or refuses to resume custody of the child, or (ii) the identity or whereabouts of the parents are unknown and have not been ascertained after a diligent search, and (b) may make a permanent order where (i) the superintendent considers that the child ought not to be or cannot be returned to his parent, and (ii) the conditions that led to the child's apprehension or similar poten-tially harmful conditions still persist or exist and there is little likelihood that those conditions will soon be remedied. (3) The court shall, in deciding whether to make the permanent order, consider (a) a parent's emotional condition, menial condition, mental deficiency or use of alcohol or drugs and whether these factors make the parent consistently or repeatedly unable to care adequately for the child, (b) abuse or neglect by the parent of any child in the family, (c) the child's feelings towards and emotional ties with his parents, (d) efforts made by the parents to adjust their circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the child's best interest to return home, including (i) the extent to which the parents have maintained contact with the child and with the person who has had custody of him, and (ii) the extent to which the parents, if able to do so, have contributed to the child's maintenance, and (e) any other factor that the court considers relevant. (4) A permanent order shall appoint the superintendent guardian of the person of the child and a parent shall, subject to subsection (11) and section 21, not thereafter resume guardianship of the child. (5) Where the court makes a permanent order, it shall order that the Public Trustee be the guardian of the estate of the child and shall cause a copy of the order to be sent to the Public Trustee. (6) Section 12(2) and (3) applies to a hearing of an application under this section. (7) Where the court does not make a permanent order, it shall order that (a) the child be returned to the parent apparently entitled to custody, or (b) (he child remain in the custody of the superintendent for a further period not exceeding 6 months, and may include provision for the parent to have access to the child. (8) On expiry of an order referred to in subsection (7) (b), the court shall (a) make a permanent order, or (b) order that the child be returned to the parent apparently entitled tocustody. (9) An order made under this section in respect of a child does not affect his rights respecting inheritance of or succession to property. (10) Subsection (9) does not affect the operation of the Adoption Act. (11) Where a permanent order has been made, the superintendent may apply to the court lor rescission or variation of the permanent order.' and the court may make an order under this Act it considers appropriate. (12) A permanent order made pursuant to section 13 (I) (d) shall not. unless (a) the application for the order is not opposed, or B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 326 SBC CHAP. 11 FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE 29 ELIZ. 2 (Replacing RSI979. c. 119) (b) the consent of the parents or guardian, if any, to permanent committal is obtained, be effective or operative until 6 months have elapsed from the day an order was made in respect of the child under section 11 (2) (c), but shall, in the meantime, operate as an order under section 13 (1) (c). 1980-11-14. When superintendent's duties cease 15. Where the superintendent is guardian of the person of a child or has the right to custody of him under this Act. the superintendent ceases to have guardianship or the right to custody where the child (a) becomes 19 years old, (b) becomes adopted, or (c) marries and the court approves termination of the guardianship. 1980-11-15. Placement of children 16. (1) Where a child is in the custody of the superintendent, the superintendent shall, subject to section 9 (5). arrange, as soon as possible, for the child to be placed in a child care resource. (2) Where custody of a child is awarded to the superintendent by an order made or enforceable under this Act and the superintendent is denied the exercise of custody, a court may, on ex parte application, order that the child be apprehended by a peace officer and taken to the superintendent. (3) A person who refuses or neglects to relinquish custody of a child in compliance with an order under subsection (2) commits an offence. (4) Where a court makes an order under which the superintendent has a right to custody of a child, or where a custody order is enforceable by a court, the court may order that a person (a) shall not enter premises where the child resides from time to time, or (b) shall not contact or endeavour to contact or otherwise interfere with either the child or any person having custody of or access to the child, and the court may make an order under both paragraphs (a) and (b). 1980-11-16. Visiting and inspecting 17. (1) A person who has custody of a child under an order or agreement under this Act shall (a) allow the superintendent to visit the child and to inspect the place where the child lives. (b) give the superintendent on request full information and particulars about the child, and (c) allow the superintendent on request to inspect the person's records about the care and maintenance of the child. (2) Where a person neglects or refuses to comply with subsection (1) (a) or (c), the superintendent may apply ex parte to a court for a warrant authorizing him to enter the premises where the child lives or where the records are kept and to inspect the premises or 8 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 327 1980 FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE S B C CHAP. 11 (Replacing RS1979. c. 119) the records, and the court may issue the warrant on being satisfied that the request was made and that there was no or inadequate compliance, and the superintendent may, on receipt of the warrant, enter the premises, visit the child and inspect the premises and records. I9RO-II-17. Public investigations 18. Where under this Act or by an arrangement with a child's parent a child lives apart from his parent in the custody of another person, and the superintendent considers that the custody or the place where the child lives is not in the child's best interest and should be publicly investigated, he shall report the circumstances to the minister, and the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the minister, appoint a person to inquire into and report on the matter and may direct the nature, extent and manner of the inquiry, and sections 12, 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act apply. 1980-11-18. Procedure and powers of court 19. (1) The court may, with respect to a proceeding under this Act, (a) compel the attendance of witnesses and administer oaths, and (b) adjourn the proceeding. (1.1) Where a court has made an order under section 13(1) (c), the superintendent has applied for a hearing for an order under section 13 (7) or 14 (1) and the court adjourns the proceeding, the child shall, notwithstanding the fact that the period specified in the order under section 13 (1) (c) has expired during the adjournment, remain in the custody of the superintendent until the application is disposed of by the court. (2) The court shall deliver to the superintendent a certified copy of the order made after every hearing under this Act, except in respect of an offence. (3) Where proceedings authorized by this section have been commenced before or heard by a judge who is subsequently unable to hear further proceedings in the same matter, further proceedings may be continued before and heard by another judge having jurisdiction, and he may give directions with regard to the rehearing of evidence, make any necessary interim orders and shall have the same power as if the proceedings had been commenced before and heard throughout by him. (4) Where a court issues a warrant authorizing the superintendent to enter premises. the superintendent may, if necessary, make the entry by force and may request the assistance of a peace officer, and where he makes such a request, the peace officer may accompany and assist him. 1980-11-.19: 1982-76-13. Appeals 20. An appeal lies from an order of the court, and sections 91 to 94, 98 to 102, 104, 105 and 107 to 114 of the Offence Act respecting appeals apply. 1980-11-20 Supreme Court jurisdiction 21. Nothing in this Act limits the inherent jurisdiction of the Crown, through the Supreme Court, over infants, as parens patriae, and the Supreme Court may rescind a permanent order where it is satisfied that to do so is conducive to a child's best interest and welfare. 1980-11-21. 24/9/H4 9 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 328 SBC CHAP. 11 FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE 29 ELIZ. 2 (Replacing RSI979. c. 1)9) Records 22 . (1) No person shall disclose information obtained under this Act respecting an individual except (a) to his own counsel in a proceeding. (b) when giving evidence in a proceeding, or (c) where disclosure is necessary for the administration of this Act or is required by another Act. (2) A person who contravenes this section commits an offence. 1980-11-22. Child acting contrary to law 22.1 (1) Where a peace officer considers that (a) a child is less than 12 years of age. and (b) the child (i) has acted in a manner prohibited by law, or (ii) has failed or refused to act in a manner required by law, the peace officer may take charge of the child and deliver him to a parent. (2) Action taken by a peace officer under subsection (1) is not an apprehension for any purposes under this Act. 1984-30-44. effective June II, 1984 (B.C. Reg. 165/84). Protection from liability 2 3 . No person is personally liable for anything done or omitted in good faith in the exercise or purported exercise of the powers conferred by this Act. 1980-11-23. Regulations 24 . (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations (a) respecting practice, evidence and procedure in the court in proceedings under this Act. (b) prescribing the circumstances in which a case begun before one judge may be continued before another, or in which a change of venue may be made, and (c) providing for the recognition and enforcement of orders made in another province or state as to the care, custody, maintenance and guardianship of children who. in that province or state, are in the care, custody or guardianship of a superintendent, director of child welfare or other provin-cial or state official charged with the supervision or care of children. 1980-11-24. 10 24/9/84 B.C. CHILD PROTECTION - Page 329 1980 FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE S B C CHAP. 11 (Replacing RSI979, c. 119) Consequential Amendments 2 5 t o 3 2 . [Spent. 1980-11-25 to 32.1 Commencement 33. This Act comes into force on proclamation. 1980-11-33. [Note: Act proclaimed in force June 1, 1981, B.C. Reg. 212/81, Part II Gazette Vol. 24, p. 417.] 24/4/84 I I 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098421/manifest

Comment

Related Items