| - RISK DECISION # 2 - |
 |
| Page 712 =========== |
| === RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL === for Child Protection in Ontario |
| What is the response time ? : |
| - THE THEORY - |
| Standard ( 2 ) : |
| Eligibility for Service |
| " D E T A I L S " |
| Cont'd from Page 711 |
| While... the Standard, describes the minimum requirement, the worker may be required, to respond more quickly, depending on case circumstances. There's three 3 general criteria to assist, in determining the response time to - referrals, reports, information : |
| Immediacy - One assesses whether a dangerous situation is already present, or is likely to occur in the immediate future. Seriousness - While not always easy to define, these are typically dangerous situations, that must be addressed, to avoid the likelihood of harm, to a child's life - or - health. Protection - This criteria specifies that safety intervention may be required immediately to ensure the child's safety. |
| Specific... factors, which are also considered include : |
| - > - > - > |
| - > - > - > - > - > - > - > |
| Whether the child's health -or- safety is -or- may be in immediate danger; The child's vulnerability, due to the child's age - and/or - developmental level; Whether the nature/frequency/duration/severity of the abuse/neglect indicates immediate danger; Availability of evidencce (e.g.: forensic), is likely to be available, only at the time, of reporting; The immediate need, for support -and- reassurance, to the child -and/or- non-offending parent; Possible additional risk, to the child, resulting from disclosure; Previous history, of child protection intervention (including the Child Abuse Register), and; General previous history. |
| Summary : |
| It is troubling... to realize, there seems to be no particular protocol, policy, service - and/or - plan should workers -and/or- the police, not find anything of concern, of imminent danger -and/or- issues of safety -and- care, pertaining to the child/ren, being the subject/s of a protection investigation. Equally troubling, is that there seems to be no end to the amount, extent -and/or- duration of involvement by the Agency and/or their staff. Nor is there mention, anywhere within these texts, reguaring the presumption of innocence, such as the use of the term, " alleged ", when investigating referrals, reports, information. |
| Equally troubling... is the total lack of reference, to anything, that might indicate any objectivity of those conducting the "protection investigation". Up to this point, there's clear indication that workers are strongly motivated to find something, to remain involved with the child, person -and/or- family, who are the subject/s of the investigation, whether - or - not. there may be personal prejudice and/or bias, on the part of CPS/CAS staff - or - potential of advancement, through exploitation, of a given situation... |
| Most troubling... at this point, is the obvious motivation, for CPS/CAS staff, to remain involved through the, " history ",of a family, parent(s), children, their progeny - and - so on, ad infinitum... |