Introduction

The purpose of this reference is to provide additional practice information on receiving a referral that a child may be in need of protection, determining the appropriate response, and conducting a child protection investigation related to a community caregiver. Community caregivers are defined as anyone providing care to a child in an out-of-home setting. For the purposes of these standards, there are two categories of community caregivers:

  • Community caregivers in family-based, out-of-home settings (e.g. a babysitter, foster home, kinship care/kinship service home, formal customary care home, day care homes)
  • Community caregivers in institutional out-of-home settings (e.g. non-family-based settings such as day care centres, group homes, schools and school facilities such as a school bus, religious, sporting or cultural organizations).

Community caregiver investigations are complex and require a purposeful, collaborative, and child-centered approach. Community caregivers are subject to a high degree of responsibility given their role as substitute caregivers. These roles may sometimes expose them to heightened stressors and increased vulnerability to allegations of child maltreatment. Regardless, all children have a right to be protected from maltreatment, and CASs have a responsibility to conduct thorough and objective child protection investigations into alleged concerns of child maltreatment when it is determined that an investigation is the appropriate response to a referral.

This reference highlights the key differences in standards 1-5 in relation to community caregivers (both family-based and institutional). It also includes additional practice notes which further explain the activities and concepts that are required in standards 1-5 related to community caregivers. It is intended to serve as a reference for workers when conducting these specialized types of investigations, and may also be helpful for supervisors in supporting child protection workers to carry out these specialized investigations. This reference is not meant to be used as a standalone document but is meant as a supplement to what is already contained in the Standards. Note that there are no requirements contained in this reference that are not already contained in standards 1-5.

Of additional note, there are thicker borders around certain information in this reference. This is so these sections are easy for child welfare professionals to locate. The content in these sections relates to the factors which are to be considered when conducting assessments of safety and risk in institutional settings.

Standard #1: Intake: receiving a referral and determining the appropriate response

How are the community caregiver requirements unique for this standard?

Key differences

Additional information is to be collected from the referral source in the case of referrals about community caregivers including:

  • name, address and role or relationship of the person reporting, to the alleged victim and the institutional setting or family-based setting;
  • information about the community caregiver’s own children (if applicable);
  • whether the manager/supervisor of the setting has been notified of the incident/condition and any action that has been taken;
  • identifying information for the alleged victim and other children being cared for in the setting, including names and contact information for:
    • the parent/caregiver/guardian of the child(ren),
    • where applicable, the CAS having custody of the child,
    • other children who are alleged victims who no longer reside in the setting, and
    • the facility director/administrator or the CAS supervising the setting.

For community caregiver institutional investigations, the response time options are within 12 hours (if there is an imminent threat to the safety of a child or when physical evidence is at risk of being lost due to a delay) or within 48 hours (if no imminent safety threats to the child) from the receipt of the referral. This differs from the 7 day response time option that is available for family based investigations.

Additional practice notes

Gathering additional sources of relevant information

For referrals received about community caregivers, information is also gathered from the following sources:

  • the resource file (if one exists at the agency); and
  • the alleged child victim’s case record (if one exists at the CAS) -in particular, information about their family history, disabilities, behaviour, mental health, any previous trauma or attachment difficulties, and any history of allegations.

Furthermore, the worker also collects any other information available from other staff at the agency/setting who have knowledge of the community caregiver.

Opening a case

When opening a case regarding a community caregiver:

  • Any referral with allegations about a community caregiver (family-based or institutional) is designated as such on the electronic database.
  • A referral with protection concerns about a family-based setting is opened in the same manner as any other family protection case.
  • All children being cared for in the home (including the community caregiver’s children) are listed.
  • Where there is a child welfare case on the family that is open, community caregiver cases are cross-referenced/linked with the cases of any child who is an alleged victim, and his or her family of origin.

Notification to the ministry – alleged, witnessed or suspected abuse of children

Depending on the nature of the allegation, there may be additional requirements for the CAS to report serious occurrences such as allegations of child protection concerns against licensed community caregivers to the Ministry of Children and Youth Services (MCYS) (see References (MCYS/MCSS, 2013)). It is important for CAS workers who screen referrals to be aware of these requirements.

Determining the appropriate response to a referral about a community caregiver

In the same way that a CAS assesses a referral that is not about a community caregiver, an analysis of the Eligibility Spectrum rating, along with all other available information is undertaken to assist in determining the appropriate response to a referral about a community caregiver.

Where investigations may not be required

It is important that CASs are able distinguish between referrals about licensed residential settings that raise child protection concerns (which may warrant a child protection investigation), and those which may relate to quality of care or potential licensing concerns in licensed residential settings (which may require some other type of follow up). Some examples of the latter type of referral are as follows:

  • concerns about the operational, physical or safety standards of the facility (e.g. staffing levels, quality of food served, number of bedrooms, number of children in the home);
  • concerns about the violation of the CFSA rights of children in care (i.e. that do not relate to allegations of abuse or neglect);
  • complaints about the discipline practices of caregivers (i.e. that would not be considered abusive or neglectful); and
  • use of physical restraints that do not result in injury or an allegation of abuse, and where there are no previous patterns of injuries by the same caregiver/facility or to the same child.

Workers who screen referrals should be familiar with CFSA and Ministry licensing requirements. If these concerns come to the attention of the CAS it is important to share this information with the relevant CAS department/staff or outside placement resource (OPR) with the responsibility for overseeing the residence in a timely manner. The purposes of sharing this information are to assist in facilitating:

  • appropriate follow-up with the caregiver(s) where appropriate (e.g. by those responsible for oversight of the home); and
  • any additional reporting which may need to take place if the concern meets the criteria for Serious Occurrence Reporting procedures (see References (MCSS/MCYS, 2013)).

In addition, if there is another complaints mechanism available to address the complaint, the CAS should provide information to the referent about it (e.g. complaints about rights of children in care under s.109 of the CFSA).

Referrals about foster parents

The most up-to-date practice recommendations of the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) indicate that referrals/allegations about foster homes require very careful evaluation. Foster families experience similar stressors to those experienced by other families in their communities. In addition, certain circumstances related to providing foster care may raise the risk of maltreatment (e.g. stressors associated with caring for children who may have complex needs). Lastly, other circumstances can increase the risk that a report will be filed when no maltreatment has actually occurred. These may include situations in which:

  • some birthparents or relatives may have negative feelings about the placement or the placing agency that they may express through an erroneous report;
  • children in the placement may make allegations out of frustration, confusion, or anger, or in an effort to return home;
  • some children, due to past abuse, may feel threatened by or misinterpret well-intentioned foster parent behaviour; and/or
  • children in foster care may be considered to be especially vulnerable by the community and referral sources may prefer to err on the side of caution and make reports.

In situations in which a child or other referral source may have made an erroneous report in the past, a thorough and cautious screening of subsequent reports is critical. The Child Welfare League of America states that it is preferable to err on the side of caution and conduct a protection investigation than to screen out a report that may be legitimate (CWLA, 2003).

Providing supports to the child victim’s family

When the appropriate response to a referral about a community caregiver is a child protection investigation, and the child victim’s family requires supports, the CAS may provide the family with a “community link” or open a case for “other child welfare service” (e.g. under Section 6 of the Eligibility Spectrum).

Standard #2: Planning and conducting a child protection investigation

How are the community caregiver requirements unique for this standard?

Key Differences

The investigative steps for an institutional investigation differ from those of a family-based investigation:

Required Steps in an Institutional Investigation
  1. interviews with the alleged victim(s), staff witnesses (current and former), child witnesses, facility administrator, supervisor of the alleged perpetrator and the alleged perpetrator; and
  2. examination of the physical layout of the setting.
Optional steps in an institutional investigation
  1. examination of facility files and logs such as:
    • daily logs on the activities of children;
    • a log on medications administered;
    • a record of restraints and serious occurrences; and
    • an individual file on each child.
  2. examination of information about the alleged victim(s), which may include the following:
    • characteristics of the victim(s) including their primary language and problems which might affect their ability to be interviewed (e.g. deafness, speech difficulties);
    • length of stay in setting;
    • prior allegations of abuse in any setting;
    • prior allegations of abuse related to the current incident, perpetrator or setting;
    • prior abuse or exposure to abuse in another setting;
    • child’s relationship to and feelings for the alleged perpetrator; and
    • any other information relevant to the investigation.
  3. examination of facility policy and procedures, staffing level and shift patterns, staff training and qualifications, daily routine, programming
  4. examination of records to determine if there have been allegations of abuse in the past connected with the setting

Community caregiver investigations are to be conducted by child protection workers who have specialized knowledge and skills related to these investigations.

Additional practice notes

When conducting these specialized types of community caregiver investigations it is important that roles and responsibilities of all agencies involved are clear, and that appropriate information sharing takes place between relevant parties.

Responsibilities of the investigating CAS

When it is determined that an investigation is the appropriate response to a referral, the CAS has the responsibility for conducting a thorough, objective and child-centered child protection investigation into the alleged concerns of child maltreatment.

Choosing the investigative approach

As part of the investigation plan, the same criteria and considerations are applied when the CAS chooses either the “traditional” or the “customized” investigative response for family-based community caregiver investigations.

Community caregiver investigations in institutional settings should utilize the more structured “traditional” approach, either with the police if a criminal offence has been alleged against a child in accordance with local CAS/police protocols, or without the police.

Notification to the child’s parent/primary caregiver

The CAS contacts the parent/primary caregiver prior to interviews with the child when:

  • the alleged perpetrator is a community caregiver with no relationship to the family (e.g. institutional investigations);
  • there is no reason to believe that the parent/caregiver failed to protect the child; and/or
  • there is no reason to believe that contacting the parent/caregiver may compromise the integrity of the evidence.

The child’s parent/caregiver is notified of the investigation by a worker who has an ongoing relationship with him/her. Workers will:

  • give parent/caregiver an opportunity to express his/her concerns;
  • assure parent/caregiver that safety and well-being of the child is the first priority; and
  • assure the family that the agency will conduct a thorough and unbiased investigation.

The investigating CAS informs all agencies which have children placed in a residential setting that an investigation with respect to the setting is underway.

Responsibilities of agencies with care and custody of the child(ren) (parent agencies)

As part of the investigative process, all parent agencies may be asked by the investigating CAS for information concerning their children. It is important that support and treatment for children be continued by parent agencies during the investigative process. If it is determined that the only way to ensure the child’s safety during an investigation is to move the children from the setting, the parent agencies will plan for replacement of their own children, unless emergency placement is required, in which case the investigating CAS may have to make temporary alternate arrangements.

Responsibilities of the administrator of the setting

If there is no indication that the administrator of the setting (owner, operator, director) is implicated in the alleged child protection concerns, their responsibilities include:

  • ensuring that the alleged perpetrator does not have access to the children; and
  • cooperating with the investigators in facilitating a full and complete investigation including:
    • ensuring that staff and children are available for interviews by CAS and/or police, and
    • making available all records and other documents pertinent to the investigation of the abuse allegations.

Standard #3: Conducting a safety assessment and developing a safety plan

How are the community caregiver requirements unique for this standard?

Key differences

For institutional investigations, a safety assessment tool is not available for assessments of safety threats. Despite this, every institutional investigation requires an assessment of immediate safety threats; however different factors are considered and the outcome is to be recorded as a narrative in the case record.

Additional practice notes

Application of the safety assessment

In community caregiver investigations (family-based and institutional), a safety assessment is not completed with the child victim’s own parent/caregiver unless there are protection concerns related to the family. The clinical tools that comprise the Ontario Child Protection Decision-Making Model have been designed to guide decisions related to child maltreatment which has occurred within a family context and are not appropriate for use in institutional settings.

Institutional investigations – safety assessment factors

Issues to consider in determining if there is an imminent threat to safety in an institutional setting include:

  • signs of present danger (safety threats) identified during the investigation;
  • other conditions that negatively impact the safety of the child;
  • historical information that contributes to present danger for this child/these children;
  • child vulnerability factors that contribute to or decrease the well-being of the child; and/or
  • strengths and resources of the institutional setting that can reduce, control and/or prevent threats of serious harm.

Institutional investigations – safety planning

The administrator of the setting should participate in the development of the safety plan (where one is required). The safety plan may include:

  • putting in additional staff;
  • limiting access to the child/children by the person alleged to have caused the maltreatment; and/or
  • removing the alleged perpetrator(s) from the facility.

If the safety threats outweigh the positive strengths of the child’s relationship with the setting or the ability of any safety plan to mitigate them, the safety plan could include moving the child from the setting.

Standard #4: Conducting a risk assessment

How are the community caregiver requirements unique for this standard?

Key differences

A specific risk assessment tool is not currently available for assessing risk of future maltreatment in an institutional setting. Despite this, every institutional investigation requires the assessment of longer-term risk of harm; however different factors are considered and the outcome is recorded as a narrative in the case record.

The results of the risk assessment are also shared with the community caregiver/ institution (where applicable).

Additional practice notes

Application of the risk assessment

In community caregiver investigations (family-based and institutional), a risk assessment is not completed with the child victim’s own parent/caregiver unless there are protection concerns related to the family. The clinical tools that comprise the Ontario Child Protection Decision-Making Model have been designed to guide decisions related to child maltreatment which has occurred within a family context and are not appropriate for use in institutional settings.

Institutional investigations – risk assessment factors

Factors to consider in assessing the risk of future harm in institutional settings include:

Child vulnerability factors:

A child may be considered highly vulnerable when he/she:

  • is less than 5 years of age;
  • has a medical condition or a developmental disability;
  • displays behaviours that may affect his/her immediate health or safety (e.g. endangers self or others, antagonizes someone who might hurt the child); and/or
  • is reported to have been abused, neglected AND exposed to domestic violence.

Alleged perpetrator related factors:

  • pattern of prior allegations of child maltreatment;
  • prior verified maltreatment of any child;
  • use of discipline (e.g. is the use appropriate/consistent with policy);
  • use of physical restraints (e.g. is the use appropriate/consistent with policy);
  • mental health status including substance abuse;
  • use of authority; and/or
  • interaction and relationship with child.

Setting related factors:

  • adequacy of staffing level as it relates to the alleged child victim;
  • adequacy of supervision as it relates to the alleged child victim;
  • shift patterns as they relate to the alleged child victim;
  • daily routine/programming;
  • staff training and qualifications;
  • staff and administrator’s specific perceptions of and attitudes toward the alleged child victim;
  • adequacy of this particular setting to meet the special needs of the alleged child victim;
  • pattern of previous allegations of maltreatment in the setting;
  • pattern of physical restraints regarding this child and other children in the setting;
  • the degree of cooperation with the investigation shown by the facility staff and administrator;
  • response by the facility to the allegation (e.g. if the allegation against a staff member is verified, are they responding appropriately);
  • the degree of responsibility that others in the facility have for the incident of maltreatment;
  • the degree of concern demonstrated by facility staff and administrator for the safety and well-being of the alleged victim and other children in the home; and
  • the willingness of staff and administrator to implement corrective action that will protect this child and other children from future harm.

Sharing the results of the institutional risk assessment

It is important that any risk factors which may affect the future maltreatment of children in the setting be communicated to the administrator of the institutional setting and the person alleged to have caused the child protection concerns. The results of the CAS’s risk assessment are shared in a manner appropriate to the situation. This information sharing could take place in a case conference with the relevant parties. Local protocols and procedures between CASs and institutional settings may assist in clarifying these processes further.

Standard #5: Concluding a child protection investigation

How are the community caregiver requirements unique for this standard?

Key differences

Criteria for concluding an investigation

The criteria for concluding an institutional investigation differ from family-based investigations. An institutional child protection investigation is concluded when sufficient information is gathered to determine whether:

  • original or new child protection concerns are verified, not verified or inconclusive (verification decision);
  • the child is safe;
  • there is any longer-term risk of maltreatment;
  • a child can remain in the institutional setting; and
  • the substitute caregiver, family or institution requires additional supports.
Key decisions

For institutional investigations, the verification of the alleged protection concerns and the investigation disposition decisions are both made; however a determination about whether a child is in need of protection does not need to be made.

Notification of outcome of investigation

In addition to notifying the child alleged to be in need of protection, the caregiver(s) of the child, the child’s worker, and the person alleged to have caused the child protection concerns of the outcome of the investigation, an administrator of the institutional setting, and the worker responsible for oversight of the community caregiver are also notified in the case of all community caregiver investigations (family-based and institutional).

Documentation

The documentation requirements at the conclusion of institutional investigations differ slightly from those of family-based investigations. In addition to the documentation completed during the course of an investigation that is included in standards 1-4, the following documentation is to be contained in the case record at the completion of an institutional investigation:

  • a summary of what the child protection worker believes occurred in relation to the originally alleged or new child protection concerns;
  • concerns about the future safety of children and suggested course of action;
  • documentation of any charges laid by the police;
  • documentation of any child welfare court activity;
  • the verification decision for each identified child protection concern and the rationale;
  • if the case is being closed, a summary of child or family needs that may indicate a need for community-based early intervention, prevention or treatment services and documentation of information or referrals provided;
  • the updated reason for service code (Eligibility Spectrum rating) indicating the reason for service at the conclusion of the investigation ;
  • documentation of notification provided to the child, caregiver(s), institutional facility administrator and person alleged to have caused child protection concerns regarding the outcome of the investigation; and
  • documented supervisory approval of the documentation including the investigative process and case decisions.

Additional practice notes

Making a Verification Decision – Investigations Involving the Use of Physical Restraints

When the focus of a child protection investigation is the use of a physical restraint, the following questions are considered in making the verification decision:

  • Was the child considered at risk of injuring himself or others? How appropriate was the staff’s assessment of the situation?
  • Were professionally accepted techniques used to de-escalate the situation so that physical force would not have been necessary? What behaviour management techniques were used? Were all staff trained and certified to use that technique?
  • Was physical force used as punishment or discipline?
  • Was physical force applied in accordance with relevant Ministry and facility policies/procedures? Was the technique done correctly? Was the method used safe?

Supports to children and families

At the conclusion of an investigation, it is suggested that the worker consider whether the child and/or family would benefit from community services or resources to assist in dealing with the impact of any maltreatment of the child by a community caregiver.

Notification of the outcome of community caregiver investigations

Institutional settings

Notification to the person alleged to have caused the need for protection and the administrator of the setting is provided in writing and contains non-identifying information including:

  • the details of the allegation; and
  • the verification decision and rationale.

It may also be beneficial for the CAS to have discussions with the administrator of the setting and/or the person alleged to have caused the need for protection to provide any further information on the outcome of the investigation that may be relevant (e.g. to promote further understanding the outcome, or to preventing the likelihood of future harm).

Family-based settings

Notification to a foster home, kinship service/care home or a customary care home is provided within the context of a face-to-face meeting which minimally includes the investigating worker and the worker responsible for overseeing the home. The outcome of the investigation, including the outcome of the risk assessment, is shared at this time.

Written notification is also provided to the family and the worker/agency responsible for overseeing the home and contains:

  • the details of the allegation;
  • the verification decision and rationale;
  • the details of any safety plan; and
  • recommendations regarding additional supports or corrective action.