posted Feb 22, 2011 9:36 AM by Canadian Coalition of Adoptive Families
Ontario's Community Care Access Centres
School Health Support Services Review
What are School Health Support Services?
School Health Support Services (SHSS) are provided to children and
youth in publicly-funded and private schools, and to children and youth
that are being home-schooled to assist them in pursuing their
education. The student must require SHSS in order to be able to attend
school, participate in school routines, and receive instruction,
including receiving satisfactory instruction at home. SHSS include
nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology
and dietetics. They also include personal support services which
include personal hygiene activities and routine personal activities of
living, provided to children and youth in private schools and to
children and youth who are being home-schooled.
SHSS are provided through Community Care Access Centre
(CCAC)-contracted service providers and include the training of school
personnel and provision of related medical supplies, dressings and
treatment equipment. SHSS are administered by CCACs and funded by the
Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) through the Ministry of Health
and Long-Term Care.
Why are School Health Support Services being reviewed?
The purpose of the SHSS review is to understand how well the
services of the SHSS program are being delivered, and to identify
opportunities for program improvement at the provincial level. This
project stems from a recommendation in the report ‘Realizing the Potential of Home Care, Competing for Excellence by Rewarding Results’,
to conduct a review of SHSS. The review is being lead by a
collaborative team of the Ministries of Health and Long-Term Care,
Education and Children and Youth Services, who have selected Deloitte
to conduct the review on their behalf.
The SHSS review has three areas of focus for evaluation: Access and
Equity, Coordination and Quality. Across these areas, the review has
the following objectives:
- Assess whether clients are able to access and are receiving high quality SHSS;
- Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the program’s delivery and any areas in which it could be improved;
- Identify whether the strengths are aligned with the program’s mandate;
- Investigate whether current client care models utilized by service
provider agencies are consistent with research evidence and best
practices; and
- Consider how SHSS can best serve students and their families; and
whether proposed changes will benefit the students who use the
services.
Through this evaluation, the review will help to identify strengths,
weaknesses and potential opportunities for improvement for the SHSS
program.
Review of School Health Support Services, Final Report, July 2010
The review of SHSS is the result of comprehensive consultation with
families, Community Care Access Centres, service provider agencies,
educators, researchers/academic institutions and provincial
associations. The final report describes the current state of SHSS and
presents Deloitte’s findings, consistent with the evaluation framework
of access and equity, coordination and, quality. An additional
category, mandate and accountability, was added and fifteen
recommendations are made in total across all of categories of the
evaluation framework. A brief executive summary is included in the
report.
Survey on the report's Recommendations
The following is an online survey to gather stakeholder input on Deloitte’s fifteen recommendations for SHSS.
The link below will take you directly to the survey which will
require approximately 10 – 15 minutes to complete. The survey is
available in both English and French through this link.
The survey will be open for input for 60 days, until March 27,
2011. The report will remain on the website after the online survey
has closed.
Thank you for your participation in the survey.
To view PDF format files, you need to have Adobe Acrobat® Reader installed on your computer. You can download this free software from the Adobe Web site
 |
 |
Call the ministry INFOline at 1-866-532-3161
(Toll-free in Ontario only)
TTY 1-800-387-5559
Hours of operation : 8:30am - 5:00pm |
|
|
posted Nov 14, 2010 12:47 PM by Canadian Coalition of Adoptive Families
posted Jun 11, 2010 7:12 AM by Canadian Coalition of Adoptive Families
Rafferty looks to pass another private member’s
bill
MP John Rafferty (NDP,
Thunder Bay – Rainy River) is pushing for new regulation to help combat
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. In response to concerns brought
forward by constituents, Rafferty has introduced a private member’s
bill calling for an amendment to the Food and Drug Act. The area
MP said warning labels should be placed on all liquor bottles warning
of the dangers alcohol poses to unborn children. If passed it
would become the MP’s second private member’s bill to go through the
House. Rafferty’s first private member’s bill, Bill C-501, passed its
second reading in late April. Bill C-501 looks to put unsecured
pensions at the front line of creditors when companies enter
restructuring or bankruptcy proceedings. That bill received support from
all opposition parties, however, most sitting Conservatives voted
against it. |
posted Jan 21, 2010 6:13 AM by Canadian Coalition of Adoptive Families
[
updated Jun 17, 2010 12:42 PM
]
by: New Democratic Party of Canada | Jan 19th, 2010
Dear Minister Kenney:
I urge you today to commit to bringing adopted Haitian children home to their new families immediately.
I understand the need for due diligence, preventing child
trafficking should always be a priority. However, these children have
been through this process, they have been approved by Haitian Social
Services. They are known to us, and should be brought to their parents
where they will be safe while the rest of the adoption process is
completed.
In bringing home only the approximately twenty children who have
completed the adoption process, you are abandoning the remaining
children awaiting approval for release from Haiti. I urge you to ask
President Préval to give approval for the remaining adopted children to
be sent to their new homes in Canada. The Netherlands have already
received such approval, Canada must do the same.
These children have been through too much, their parents have waited
for too long. I urge you to bring these children home immediately,
where they can be safe in their parent’s arms while the remainder of
the adoption process is completed.
I am thankful for your consideration, and I am hopeful that you will do what is right for the children and their new families.
Sincerely,
Olivia Chow, M.P. Trinity-Spadina
|
posted Aug 25, 2009 10:57 AM by Canadian Coalition of Adoptive Families
Both parents of twins get leave: EI boardLast Updated:
Friday, September 18, 2009 | 2:27 PM ET
An
Ottawa couple has successfully argued that parents of twins should both
be able to receive Employment Insurance benefits for full parental
leaves.
The father of twin girls convinced the Employment Insurance Board of
Referees that each parent qualifies to claim benefits for one of the
twins.
Christian Martin's wife, Paula Critchley, gave birth to twin girls Lucie and Athena back in April.
Both parents work for the federal government. When they learned they
were having two babies, they both applied for parental EI benefits, but
Martin was turned down.
The current policy stipulates that multiple children are considered to be one.
"Multiple people can't be equivalent to one. It's just a blatant
case of discrimination and I think that case can be made," Martin said. Entitled to same benefits He
won the case last week when the federal board ruled he is entitled to
the same benefits as his wife, a decision made public Thursday.
"So he's worked the hours, he's paid the employment insurance
premiums. And he has a child he's caring for and … he's taking time off
work to care for that child. So in all respects he was a qualified
claimant," said Stephen Moreau, the couple's lawyer.
Moreau said the ruling is the first of its kind in Canada.
"This now means that in any situation where you have two qualified
parents — so that is two people who are qualified to make an employment
insurance claim — and they have two or more children, they will now be
able to make two 35-week parental benefit claims, as opposed to one
35-week claim," Moreau said.
Moreau says the ruling reflects a new reality.
Between 1994 and 2003, Canada's multiple-birth rate rose 35 per
cent, he said, in large part because of access to fertility treatments.
Moreau says he only wishes this ruling had been made 21 months ago —
when his own twins were born.
Gail Moore, head of the group Multiple Births Canada, said the
decision sets a precedent but EI officials aren't necessarily bound by
the ruling in future cases.
|
posted Jul 30, 2009 11:24 AM by Canadian Coalition of Adoptive Families
Wed 10 Jun 2009
OTTAWA– Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster) today introduced a
Private Member’s Bill in the House of Commons, Bill C-413, An Act to
amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code
(extension of benefit period for adoptive parents). The bill would
amend the law to give adoptive parent the same number of weeks of leave
from work as the biological parent of a new-born child.
“Adoption is an important and essential act in a compassionate and
just society” said Julian. “This is a question of fairness, yes-
adoptive parents deserve the full benefits of biological parents
because their love and devotion to their children is equal to that of
any parent- but it is also a question of taking a common sense step to
make adoption a more supportive process.”
Under the current Employment Insurance program, adoptive parents are
given 35 weeks of paid leave and a further 15 of unpaid leave
afterwards. Under the law, biological parents are given both the first
35 weeks and the latter 15 as paid leave. The bill would install parity
between adoptive and biological parents in this regard. Recent studies
of adoptive parents have shown that many would have liked to have the
15 paid in order to help them better support their children.
“Adoptions in Canada are often expensive, lengthy and very
stressful” stressed Julian. “Such changes to the EI system are
worthwhile because we all have a duty to support and encourage
adoption.”
|
posted May 23, 2009 11:35 AM by Canadian Coalition of Adoptive Families
[
updated Oct 20, 2009 11:22 AM
]
(May 22, 2009). The Adoption Council of Canada (ACC) strongly supports policies and practices that protect the safety and health of all children and youth, but we do not believe that safe haven legislation is an effective way to meet this goal. Studies that track abandonment show that safe haven laws have not succeeded in eliminating unsafe, illegal abandonment. Other research suggests that the laws may encourage women to abandon infants who would otherwise have been raised by relatives or placed for adoption through established means. In addition, safe haven legislation deprives one of the biological parents (often the father) of their parenting rights and precludes the abandoned infant from
ever knowing his or her genealogical or medical histories. The ACC believes that children have a right to information about their identity (their birth mother, birth father, or other family members; their heritage; their culture; their family medical history, etc.) and that they-and their adoptive families-will benefit from having this information. Birth mothers and birth fathers also have the right to supportive services, counselling, and information that will enable them to make the best possible decision for themselves and their children. In addition, First Nations children have the right to the resources accorded to members of federally recognized bands. We believe that a more effective, humane, moral approach to protecting children at risk of abandonment would be the funding of programs for at-risk mothers and fathers. Policy and Practice Recommendations Rather than move to safe haven
legislation after the death of an abandoned child, Provinces and Territories should: * Strengthen their investment in prenatal and other family support for young, single, or at-risk parents or prospective parents; * Create and fund a community awareness campaign about the options of adoption, kinship care, and family support; * Develop a child welfare helpline; and, * Create and fund programs to educate teachers, parents, doctors, counsellors, and others about how to identify concealed pregnancies and support affected women. Safe Haven Legislation Proposed in New Brunswick Bill 60 - An Act to Amend the Family Services Act A proposed safe haven bill has been introduced in New Brunswick by Jody Carr -- Progressive Conservative member from Oromocto. To view the proposed amendment, please visit: http://www.gnb. ca/legis/ bill/pdf/ 56/3/Bill- 60.pdf.Should you wish to express your concerns over the proposed law, we encourage you to contact the following individuals: Jody Carr (PC) Email: Jody.CARR@gnb. caPhone: (506) 453-7494 Fax: (506) 453-3461 Mailing Address Old Education Building, East Block P. O. Box 6000 Fredericton, NB E3B 5H1 David Alward Leader of the Official Opposition General Information: (506) 444-2324 Reception: (506) 444-2324 Fax: (506) 453-3461 Email: david <mailto: david.alward@ gnb.ca> . alward@gnb.ca Mailing Address Old Education Building, East Block P. O. Box 6000 Fredericton, NB E3B 5H1 Social Development Minister Mary Schryer HON. MARY SCHRYER (L), MLA Quispamsis, Electoral District 30 / Legislative Assembly Phone: (506) 457-7866 Fax: (506) 453-2164 EMail Address: mary <mailto: mary.schryer@ gnb.ca> . schryer@gnb. caMailing Address Sartain MacDonald Building P. O. Box 6000 Fredericton, NB E3B 5H1 HON. SHAWN GRAHAM, Premier Contact Information Phone: (506) 453-2144 Fax: (506) 453-7407 EMail Address: Shawn
<mailto: Shawn.Graham@ gnb.ca> . Graham@gnb.caMailing Address Centennial Building P. O. Box 6000 Fredericton, NB E3B 5H1 |
posted Jan 29, 2009 6:09 AM by Canadian Coalition of Adoptive Families
Canadian Coalition of Adoptive Families
Your Name,
Home Address
Province Postal Code
E-mail Address
Home Phone Number
January 29, 2009
Your MPs Name: (www.webinfo.parl.gc.ca)
The Honourable MP X:
The Canadian Coalition of Adoptive Families is writing to inform you of our continued concerns regarding Canada's inequitable employment leave policies for adoptive families. Last year adoptive
mother Patti Tomasson of British Columbia drew attention to the flaws in Canada's current policy. When denied maternity leave benefits she took her fight to the Supreme Court of Canada, charging that the policy discriminated against adoptive mothers. The federal court of appeals ruled Tomasson was not eligible for maternity benefits as an
adoptive parent. We still believe the federal court of appeals is missing the big picture and losing out on a great opportunity to create a better system for Canadian families.
Justice Marc Nadon, in his written decision, wrote that exact parity between biological mothers and adoptive mothers "would result in discrimination against biological mothers." What the federal court has failed to see is that the current system is discriminatory against adopted children.
We are not arguing against biology. We are not arguing against the fact that childbirth can be an intensive physiological and psychological process. We won't be pitted against biological parents. We all want what is best for children.
In the last 25 years adoption has changed dramatically. International adoption has exploded. There are 1,500-2,000 international adoptions each year in Canada. Children adopted from orphanages often require additional care, attachment and trauma work, therapy and medical interventions. Domestic adoptions have changed significantly. There are about 1,000 public domestic adoptions each year in this country and 1,700 private adoptions. Many domestic adoptions are now the result of apprehensions in which babies,
children and youth have been abused, abandoned, neglected,
traumatized and prenatally exposed to alcohol and drugs. These are children already at a significant disadvantage in life, many of whom
require years of therapy, attachment work and therapy. As it stands right now, Canada's policies mean these children, get less time with their parents when, in fact, they often require more intensive care.
The Canadian Coalition of Adoptive Families is an advocacy group with members stretching from Newfoundland to British Columbia. The Adoption Council of Canada and the North American Council for
Adoptable Children supports us in this advocacy project. We highly encourage MP's to recognize the discrepancy and fix this in a timely manner. All Canadian children should be allowed 50 weeks of time to bond with their families.
Sincerely,
Your Name
on behalf of the Canadian Coalition of Adoptive Families
|
posted Jan 29, 2009 6:08 AM by Canadian Coalition of Adoptive Families
Honourable X,
I am writing about a new citizenship rule that will come into effect in April 2009.
This
rule states that because my daughter was not born here, if she is ever
in a situation where she gives birth to, or adopts a child abroad, my
grand-children will not be Canadian citizens.
This rule is
discriminatory towards my daughter, towards my family. This rule
effectively creates a second-class level of citizens. It pains me that
my daughter is deemed to have less rights than I have because she was
not born in Canada. My daughter was born in China in 2006 and we
adopted her in January 2007. We are a part of a large adoptive
community - and many in my community are baffled and angry because of
this discriminatory rule
In
my family, we value the experience one can get from living and working
abroad. I will encourage my daughter to experience other countries and
culture - and living and working abroad is the best way to do this.
I
believe that this new rule is meant to deal with "Canadians of
convenience". I believe that what triggered this rule was the
realisation that many Canadians live abroad, and have their families
abroad. In light of this, the Canadian government wants to limit its
responsibility - and avoid situation such as the recent rescue of many
Canadians who lived in Lebanon.
I would greatly appreciate
receiving information on the motives behind this regulation - after
all, I am only speculating. This rule is affecting my family directly,
and its descendants.
Regards,
Your name |
|
