Family in fishbowl

My name is (full legal name) Kim James

I live in (municipality & province) Orangeville, Ontario

and I swear/affirm that the following is true:

Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Where possible, each numbered paragraph should consist of one complete sentence and be limited to a particular statement of fact. If you learned a fact from someone else, you must give that person's name and state that you believe that fact to be true.

I, Kim James, of the Town of Orangeville in the County of Dufferin, make oath and say:

1. I am employed by Dufferin Children's Aid Society as a Child Protection Intake Worker.

2. On November 18, 1999, I spoke with Audrey Campbell who works with Dr Trevor Hunt. Dr Hunt met with Linda and Ken on September 12, 1997 due to delayed milestones. Dr Hunt noted that Ken would fall backwards when in a seated position. Ken was approximately 11 months old at this time and should have been able to meet this milestone. Dr Hunt had made a referral for an occupational therapist. On June 22, 1999, Dr Hunt met with Linda and Ken due to delayed speech and a referral was made for a speech therapist. I verily believe this to be true.

3. On November 22, 1999, The Society, Robert McQuaid and Linda Prosh agreed to adjourn the matter of Kenneth McQuaid until December 1, 1999 as the parents agreed to work with the Society. During the interim, Kenneth remained in the temporary care and custody of the Society. The parents were to address and implement, to the satisfaction of the Society six conditions. Please see Exhibit "A". It was my understanding that if the conditions were met to the satisfaction of the Society that a "least intrusive measure" would be sought by the agency in working with this family. Arrangements were made for the parents to have one hour daily supervised visits with Ken at the Society office. This worker would continue with the investigation and gathering information.

4. This worker had opportunity to observe the visits between Ken and his parents on four separate occasions. Upon reuniting with his father after a six day separation and four days for his mother there was no form of affection shown immediately. Ken went straight for the blocks that his parents had brought him. Ken continued to focus his time and attention on the toys rather than his parents. Bob finally invited Ken over to read a story book to him. Ken appeared content and relaxed on his father's lap. The parents present more as teachers than playmates with Ken. Their conversation was a question answer format. When it was time to say good bye Ken cried a little but stopped as soon as he saw his foster mother. This worker also received a voice mail message from Nina Little Alcorn with the Parent Infant Program stating that Bob McQuaid had called her as he was complying with the conditions agreed upon between himself and the Society. I verily believe this to be true. Nina met Linda and Bob after this visit and gave them a pamphlet outlining the Parent Infant Program and spoke with them briefly about their services. Nina had asked them to read the pamphlet.

5. On November 23, 1999, this worker spoke with Debbie Holmes, an employee at Community first. Debbie verified that she has seen Linda and Ken at the resource centre but was unsure of the frequency. Debbie stated that Linda has had a membership with them for over a year. I verily believe this to be true. The visit on this day was similar to the previous day. Once again the greeting was not affectionate. Bob immediately began reading to Ken. Linda interrupted this on two occasions. Linda showed Ken the toys that they had bought him and gave him chocolates. Ken attempted to engage his father in play by giving him a car. Bob held it, said "my car Ken", then gave the car back to Ken. They displayed the teacher role once again. Linda would say, "yellow duckie, yellow block, blue jacket, blue block," This was repeated over and over with the other colours. At one point Linda stated, "you are far more important to him that I am". I believe this is due to the fact that Ken attempted to interact more with his father. Linda asked Ken if he wanted to go on the swing and then told him he could not. It is my understanding from Linda that she would take Ken to the park after their visits to Community First and Ken enjoyed the swing. Bob had Ken on his lap and they were counting, Ken did not appear interested and Bob responded by saying, "were playing counting now, pay attention child". Linda asked if he wanted to sit on her lap, Ken got up but only stayed there for approximately 10 seconds. By 3:45 pm there was no interaction between the parents and Ken. Ken was playing with the empty boxes that his toys came in and the parents were having a conversation. Ken left the visit without hugs and kisses from his parents. This worker also made note that the parents were concerned that they were being audio or video taped as their visits take place in our interview room. The interview room has a two way mirror, two video cameras mounted on the wall and two wall microphones.

6. On November 24, 1999, I met with the foster mother at her home. She informed me that Ken does need a nap in the afternoon otherwise he is extremely cranky in the evening. Ken has also progressed from diapers to pull ups and is showing an interest in toilet training of the other toddlers in the home. Ken is both giving and asking for hugs. Ken has broken three chain locks on their external back door as he is wanting to go outside and play on the swing. When he has broken the locks he says, "bad boy Ken, you broke it Ken, you can't go in there in Ken". During my visit Ken appeared to be happy as he was playing with the toys and sat on my lap for a period of time while we drew a stick figure of Ken. Later in the morning of this day, Reverend Lou Potter called me and stated that she had just met with the McQuaids and that they had given her verbal permission to speak with me. Lou stated that they appeared to be having difficulty understanding the concerns regarding the locked doors. Lou stated that they had told her that Ken would be confined to his room for a period of an hour when he was bad. Lou stated that it was her opinion that they did care for their son but had very little practical parenting knowledge. Lou stated that she advised them that a child three years of age should only receive a two to three minute time out for bad behaviour not an hour. Lou suggested that they pick up a book on child development and one on parenting.

7. The visit on November 24, 1999, was scheduled between 4-5 pm. I met Ken in the foyer at the office. When I told him it was time to see his mom and dad he stood motionless with a void look on his face and would not respond. Hereafter this behaviour will be referred to as freezing. I took this time to address their concerns about being audio and video taped. I showed them the monitors located in the back kitchen that are hooked up to the video cameras in their room and explained that I was watching them on the monitors and making notes. I explained to them the purpose of the set up of the room. Ken was given a new stuffed toy and more chocolate. Bob made something out of the blocks but did not invite Ken to interact with him. Linda asked Ken if he wanted to go home, yes or no. Ken did not respond. She asked him again, Ken went and picked up his coat. Ken unzipped the hood from the jacket and said, "bad boy Ken". Linda offered to fix it. Linda then asked again if he wanted to go home. Ken made a whining noise this time and Bob invited Ken onto his lap and patted his back. Ken got down and went over to the blocks. He threw two of them. Both parents responded by saying, "Don't throw blocks Ken, bad boy, pick them up Ken". Ken then cleared the blocks from the table. His parents told him to pick them up, he did not. Bob stated, bad boy Ken and then invited him onto his lap and read him a book. Linda interrupted by asking Ken if he was mad at her. Linda then asked Ken how he was. No response. Bob then asked Ken to pick up the blocks, Ken did so. Linda then picked Ken up and sat him on her lap. Ken struggled to get free. The visit ended once again with no affectionate interaction. Nina Little Alcorn and myself came into the room. Ken did the "freezing" behaviour again when we had entered the room.

8. After the visit Nina Little Alcorn and myself met with Linda and Bob. Nina had asked Linda and Bob how they were doing. Linda responded that both she and Bob were not eating or sleeping very much. Linda then stated that she was concerned about the long term affects and motioned toward Bob who was sitting beside her. Linda then mouthed the words, "especially about him". I gave feedback to the parents of my observations and suggested how they may interact with Ken during their visits. I told Bob that I saw some good interaction between them when he was reading the books to Ken. I suggested that when they bring the blocks, instead of them talking about the colours or the parents building something for Ken that they invite Ken to build something with them. Nina had suggested that they get down to Ken's level and play. Nina asked if they had read the pamphlet that she gave them. They stated that they had not. A discussion took place regarding day care centres and Nina gave them another handout on how to look for a day care provider and booked an appointment with them.

9. On November 25, 1999, this worker met Ken in the foyer again and asked if he was ready to go see mom and dad. Ken gave this worker a hug and asked if I wanted to go to Kelsey's. I told Ken no and said that he was going to visit mom and dad. Ken displayed the 'freezing' behaviour once again. I called his name and rubbed his cheek and he snapped out of it. When I took him to see his parents he greeted them happily but once again, no form of physical affection exchanged. This visit was difficult to watch as the parents displayed inappropriate responses to Ken's attempts for consoling. This occurred when Bob and Linda began by asking Ken if he wanted to go home, if he wanted to go on the swing, over and over. Ken went and got his coat, repeating what they were saying and went to put it on. They then stated that they were not going. Ken became upset by this and began to cry. He went to his father for consoling. Bob sat outstretched in his chair, his arms crossed in front of himself and did not move. Ken attempted to prod at his father's hands, directly looking for physical contact, no response. Not so much as a word was uttered by either parent to console Ken. Bob and Linda had bought Ken a toy cell phone. Ken was happy to receive it and began to play with it immediately. Ken was told by Linda not to break it, Bob took it away from him and put it in his pocket. Ken became upset by this. Bob redirected Ken's attention by picking him up onto his lap and read him a book. Ken asked about the phone and Bob replied that it was too loud. Ken got down and retrieved the blocks. No one interacted with him. Ken went to his father and asked about the phone again, no response. Ken then went to his mother and pointed out a truck in the magazine that she was reading. Linda repeated his words. Ken went back to his dad and asked to get up, Bob responded and they began to read the book again. Bob asked Ken where the clock was, referring to the clock in the book. Ken looked at the clock on the wall. Linda points to the clock on the wall and says, "what time is it Ken?". Bob responds to Ken's answers by saying brilliant, vary smart. Ken points to a broom in the book and Bob responds, "that's for cleaning up after you Ken, that's a broom". Linda asks Ken if he is sleepy. As soon as the book was finished Bob told Ken to go and bug his mom. Linda sat forward and picked up her magazine. Linda then asked Ken how he was feeling and finally picked Ken up. Ken sat on her lap a total of 30 seconds. This is when Bob and Linda began to question Ken about going home, going on the swing and Ken getting upset. Once Ken calmed down on his own he went to the plastic birds that his parents had bought him. Ken brings the birds to his father, no interaction engaged. Ken starts to throw the birds. Linda and Bob tell Ken not to do this. Linda says, "we don't like that bratty behaviour". Ken echo's this. Linda then says, "that's the cell door and that's the espionage window," referring to the two way mirror. Ken opens the door and says, "good boy, want to say good bye". Bob asks Ken if he wants to go. At 3:55 pm Bob gets the blocks and says, "I'm going to start and lets see if you can put some on". Bob begins and then Ken puts the rest of the blocks on and Bob sits back on his chair, no longer engaged. Bob says, "that's a good construction", Linda says, "that makes it stable". Bob says to Linda that Ken does not understand and then laughs. Linda returns to looking at her magazine. Ken continues to build with the blocks. Linda then places one of the birds on the blocks and says that they should have built a bird house. Linda then asks Ken if he wants to go home, yes or no? Ken responds by saying. "do you want to go to Kelsey's?". Linda says, "I think you'd be okay now, you wouldn't take a royal fit". Bob says, "we will celebrate your release". Ken puts a bird on the blocks and says make them fly and knocks them off the blocks. No response by parents. Ken then asks, "want to take shoes off?". No response. Linda then asks Ken where his "furbee" is, Ken does not respond. Ken goes over to the garbage pail and pulls out the toy wrapper and repeats five times, "that's a wrapper". Bob then asks Ken for the wrapper. They begin to point out letters of the alphabet. Linda says, "I'd take you to Kelsey's now, I don't think you'd be as bad now". Ken opens the door and says, "want to go to Kelsey's?" and shuts the door. Linda replies, "don't slam the door Ken".

10. I enter the room at this point and Ken greets me and says, "want to go see mom and dad". I attempt to redirect Ken by asking about his new toys. I begin to play with the birds, pretending that they are flying. Ken begins to throw the birds. Linda and Bob both say, "see that's what he always does". Linda adds that it is usually his food and utensils that he throws. I continue to show Ken how to make birds fly and redirecting him. Ken asks again, "want to go see mom and dad" and moves toward the door. Ken then leaves the room and goes to the foyer and greets his foster mom with "you want a hug?"

11. After this visit I met with Linda and Bob along with Kim Evans, Program Manager of Child Protection. This visit was prearranged in order to discuss the conditions of the agreement. The first condition regarding day care was discussed. Linda indicated that she had been to see a couple of them and that two of them were available December 1, 1999. Linda stated that she had begun looking in September but that Bob didn't like the idea. Linda would prefer to have Ken attend every day, Bob feels that every other day is good enough because he wants Ken at home with him. Bob also stated that three days was enough exposure to other children and that they have great facilities around their own home, referring to the 67 acres that Ken can romp around.

12. The second condition is in reference to following through with Dr Murphy's recommendations. They have an appointment to meet with Dr Murphy on December 21, 1999. Linda is wanting to ask the doctor about Ken's blood, they do not have an agenda set for discussion with Dr Murphy.

13. The third condition is following through with the Parent Infant Program. They have a visit scheduled with Nina for December 7, 1999. I asked if they have read the pamphlet Nina gave them, they said no. I asked how they felt about the Parent Infant Program and whether they thought that it was an appropriate service in regard to Ken's needs. They both stated that they did not know, that they would not know what the service/program was until Nina came to their home.

14. The fourth condition is in reference to the safety issues at home. Bob replied that they have removed the lock from Ken's door, the light fixture was fixed and that they were painting his room. Bob stated that I had not pointed out any other concerns and therefore in his opinion this condition had been complied to.

15. The fifth condition outlines releases of information from their doctors. Bob stated that Dr Ross had informed him that the Society needs to initiate the forms. I stated to Bob that I would get the appropriate forms for them to sign.

16. The sixth condition states parenting courses and counselling if recommended. Bob stated that they have not done anything regarding this as it only states if recommended. I informed Bob that I am recommending that counselling and a parenting capacity assessment be sought for the both of them. I told them that they could call Toronto Hospital for Sick Children or McMaster Chedoke Hospital and request names to complete the parenting capacity assessment.

17. I then asked Linda about her comment yesterday with regard to her concerns about the long term affects on Bob. Linda said she really didn't want to say anything in front of Bob. I replied that she brought it up yesterday in front of Bob and that it was concerning me. Linda began to talk about their lawyer, Bob cautioned Linda that this was not information to share with us. Linda then stated that she felt that Bob was, "taking this thing too far. He is wanting to move and I don't want to move". Bob interrupted at this time and asked me if I was trying to drive them apart. I replied that what I was trying to do was assess the current situation at home and to complete my investigation. Bob replied that they did not have to answer any of my questions. I informed him that it was my understanding from his lawyer that they were willing to cooperate with the Society. Bob stated that he was cooperating and would only comply to the conditions set out in the agreement. I asked Bob if he was saying that he would not cooperate and answer my questions, he stated again that he would only comply with the conditions and would not discuss anything other than those conditions with me. I then stated that based on my observations of their visits with Ken that I had great concerns regarding their parenting capacity. I told them that even after making suggestions about increasing interaction they made little to no effort. They had not shown an interest in the Parent Infant Program nor did I get the sense that they felt that it was applicable to them. I then stated that it was very concerning that they made no effort to console Ken today when he became upset. Linda stated that I was lying. I stated that what I observed was Ken getting upset after they continued to ask him if he wanted to go home, on the swing, etc, Ken got his coat and they said that he could not go. Ken became upset and went to Bob who sat there and I physically copied Bob's body posture. I informed them that neither one of them so much as said a word to comfort Ken. Again Linda stated that Ken did not get upset during their visit and that I was fabricating this because I was upset with them about what they had done. I informed Linda that this was not personal on any level and that I was not the only one who had observed this visit. I informed them that Kim Evans had also observed this session and Kim nodded her head in agreement. They asked if Ken was going to be returned home on December 1, 1999. I informed them that the Society would continue with the original application and request for Crown Wardship at this time. The rational behind this is that there is concern about their parenting capacity and the cause of Ken's developmental delays is unknown at this time and now there is added concern of risk of flight if Ken is returned home. I further stated that it is also concerning that Bob is not willing to cooperate, that they appear not to have an understanding or a concern regarding Ken's developmental needs. The meeting ended by Linda stating that she was very angry, that this was not democratic, that this was a police state and that they had a right to a public forum and that they would use the public forum. Linda further stated that I was upset with them because of the "e mail". I informed Linda that she was entitled to her thoughts and opinions. Bob stated that we had an agreement and could not arbitrarily change those conditions at any time. I asked if they had any questions and they asked if they still had their visit with Ken. I replied that they had scheduled supervised visits for tomorrow and next Monday and Tuesday.

18. I have had the opportunity to review the affidavit of Bob McQuaid sworn November 22, 1999. In response to paragraph '3' it is concerning that Bob identifies Ken's behaviour as increasingly destructive but they have not sought professional help to date to help them deal with Ken's behaviour. Linda has stated that she does not believe that Ken has a behaviour problem and yet both parents have demonstrated that they are unable to redirect Ken's behaviour and respond to his behaviour by confining him to his room. In paragraph '5' Bob indicates that he is an active participant in feeding, clothing and changing Ken. Linda has stated to this worker that she has been wanting to go and visit her brother in Denver but has not been able to do so because she would need to find someone to care for Ken. Linda said that she would not feel comfortable leaving Ken alone in Bob's care as he does not do everything he should. Linda further stated that Bob is good in helping change Ken's diapers and that is about it. This information was shared the evening of November 16th and during her office visit with Ken on the 18th of November, 1999. In paragraph '9', Bob states that he took the glass table apart and put it away, Linda indicated to myself on November 16th, that Ken had destroyed it. In paragraph 10, Bob states that he is in support of Ken attending day care. Linda has stated twice to me that Bob has been opposed to her wanting to put Ken into day care. In paragraph 13, Bob states that Ken does not have free access to his toys. A child this age should have access to toys for purpose of stimulating their development through pretend play. A child at this age of development also spends a great deal of their time in what is known as solo play in order to learn to manipulate their environment. It is also concerning that Bob stated that they supervise him and that they are not interacting with him. In paragraph 14 Bob states that he gets out of the way of the cleaning ladies but leaves his toddler to follow the cleaning ladies around. It has been my experience that a toddler would get in the way of someone attempting to get something completed. In paragraph 15, Bob states that the "Ken Monster" is a term of endearment to him and Linda. I have observed this family interact for a total of four hours and have not once heard either one of them refer to Ken as the "Ken Monster".

19. I spoke with Catherine, the foster mother on November 29, 1999 inquiring as to how Ken was doing. She stated that since Friday, November 26, 1999, Ken has been laying on the living room floor in fetal position and sucking his thumb. He remains in this position fro approximately 20 to 30 minutes at a time and then will get up and wander around the house aimlessly. Catherine stated that while in this position he does not respond to their attempts to arouse him. This continued until this morning. Catherine stated that he has had a low grade fever as well and was wondering if this is normal behavior for Ken when he is not feeling well. Overall, Catherine stated that she believes that Ken's behavior while in her home has been typical behavior of a toddler. She has noticed signs of improvement in his speech, in socialization, affection, sense of humor, bath and bed time and eating - he is no longer spitting food out nor demonstrating throwing food or utensils as Linda indicates that Ken does at home. Catherine stated that the only time that she has had difficulty with Ken was the afternoon of November 25th and the following morning. I verily believe this to be true. Please refer to Catherine's notes, attached as Exhibit "B".

20. My assessment of the matters of Ken McQuaid are as follows: There is a substantial risk that Ken will suffer emotional harm if he is returned to the primary care and custody of Linda Prosh and Bob McQuaid. I have observed Ken's parents interact with Ken. There is concern regarding the level and type of attachment that they have with their son. Little to no forms of physical affection or consoling, negative verbal messages. Ken is demonstrating concerning 'freezing' behaviour and the parents have demonstrated a reluctance to work cooperatively and take an interest in the concerns that have been brought to their attention about their son's developmental delays. A risk assessment has been completed with input from myself, Jennifer Moore and Kim Evans. Jennifer Moore is a co-worker who has also had an opportunity to observe Ken interact with his parents. The risk assessment is a tool designed to assist child protection workers in making a decision as to the risk of future harm to a child. The outcome of the risk assessment is high and clearly indicates the identified areas of concern. Please refer to Exhibit "C". I have also attached a copy of the Safety Assessment which is a tool used to assess the immediate safety of children. Please refer to Exhibit "D". Without information from Dr Murphy regarding the cause of Ken's developmental delays there is room to speculate that the delays may be due to lack of adequate care and environment. A parent capacity assessment would address the concerns regarding quality and type of attachment and the ability of the parents to meet the needs of Ken. The Society has concern that if Ken is returned to his parents at this time that there is a risk of flight and more importantly the parents will increase the risk of developmental delays due to their lack of acknowledging the concerns and their lack of ability to change their parenting attitudes and styles in regard to Ken's present needs.

21. I make these statements with no improper intent.

Rating 0 Excellent 9 times Rating 1 Good none Rating 2 Medium none Rating 3 Bad 14 times Rating 4 Very Bad 8 times Rating 9 Unknown 3 times

My name is (full legal name) Kim James

I live in (municipality & province) Orangeville, Ontario

and I swear/affirm that the following is true:

Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Where possible, each numbered paragraph should consist of one complete sentence and be limited to a particular statement of fact. If you learned a fact from someone else, you must give that person's name and state that you believe that fact to be true.

I, Kim James, of the Town of Orangeville in the County of Dufferin, make oath and say:

1. I am a employed with Dufferin Children's Aid Society as a Child Protection Intake Worker.

2. On November 26, 1999, Jennifer Moore, a co-worker of mine, supervised the visit of Ken McQuaid and his parents. Linda Prosh and Bob McQuaid. Jennifer observed much of the same interaction that had taken place in the previous four visits. A notable and positive change is that Ken kissed his mother today for the first time ever. Ken kisses his mother a few more times during the visit when asked by his mother to give her a kiss. Near the end of the visit Bob states that he never kisses him, only hugs him. It has been a regular occurrence that the parents ask Ken over and over if he wants to go home, if he loves them, if he wants to go in the truck, if he remembers their dog and cat. Ken responds to this by retrieving his coat and then parents say no that he can't go. This confuses and upsets Ken. Another pattern that has been prominent during the visits is the negative self messages that they give Ken. "Ken you broke it, bad boy Ken". During this visit Ken was playing with the blinds in the room. The parents made no attempts to redirect Ken and he eventually broke the blinds. Bob gave Ken permission to wreck them "that's okay let him wreck them". Ken said, "I'm not a bad boy". Mom responded by saying, "Ken wrecked it I think". The blind cord was fully extended and a potential choking hazard by now. Bob responds by saying, "they're the ones who say he's never destructive". Mom replies with, "Ken you can hang yourself on that, then we can sue them for having unsafe things". Bob and Linda continue to allow Ken to play with the blinds and Linda says to Ken, "I didn't break them, you're the one playing with them". This single event causes great concern. The parents once again demonstrate that they do not redirect his misbehaviour. Not only that but during their care and supervision they have allowed Ken to place himself in a potentially dangerous situation, indirectly coaching him along with it. Instead of putting Ken's safety needs first they allow him to continue to meet their needs and goals which at this time is to demonstrate to the Society that Ken is destructive and the opportunity to sue the Society for harm to their son. I understand that the parents are upset with the Society at this time but they have not demonstrated adequate parenting. There were two other negative references to Ken, he broke a Mickey Mouse watch and the time that he took Linda's wallet and threw it out. This information is based on Jennifer Moore's case notes and I verily believe them to be true.

3. It is after this visit that Ken began to demonstrate extremely concerning behaviours at the foster home. Ken assumed the fetal position on the floor sucking his thumb. He would maintain this position for approximately 20 to 30 minute intervals. No matter what the foster parents attempted to arouse Ken from this state, Ken would not respond. This behaviour continued over the weekend and after his visits on November 29 and 30. Originally the foster mother thought that Ken's behaviour may have been due to the fact that he had a low grade fever during the weekend. Ken did not have a fever on November 29 and 30.

4. On December 1, Ken did not have a visit with his parents and the foster mother reports that Ken's behaviour was very good. No headbanging, screaming, freezing or fetal position.

5. I observed the visits on November 29 and 30 and noted some areas of improvement. On Monday, Ken's maternal uncle accompanied Linda and Bob to visit with Ken. His uncle demonstrated interactive play with Ken while playing with the blocks and the wooden puzzle Ken kissed his mother again upon request. There continued to be negative self messages. The parents also made a greater attempt to redirect Ken's behaviour. Linda was able to successfully redirect Ken on three occasions by engaging him another appropriate activity. Although there was notable improvement, much of the hour was spent in a teaching capacity and parents observing Ken playing with toys. Ken did throw the blocks again in the visit on Tuesday. Parents continued to set Ken up for disappointment by asking him about going home, etc. Bob did make attempts on Tuesday to console Ken. Ken fell and hit his head on the floor and Bob picked him up, held him, and rocked him in his lap and gave him comforting words.

6. I attended the parents home along with Trish Cox on November 30 to complete a home safety. Trish Cox will be their Family Service Worker when the file is transferred. The house was very clean and it was evident that Linda and Bob had made great efforts to respond to the potentially hazardous conditions that I had identified earlier. We noted some hazards to the parents such as putting alcohol, prescription and nonprescription medication up or under lock, as well as makeup. The locks had been removed from Ken's bedroom, the two bathrooms, a hall closet and the kitchen. Their master bedroom, Bob's two offices and the basement and laundry room doors remain locked. This is acceptable to the Society. The greatest improvement was Ken's bedroom. It has been painted, the potentially hazardous conditions have been addressed, his toys and dresser have been returned to his room. It is pleasant and child focussed. We also advised them to put approved child safety locks on the cabinet doors in the kitchen and bathrooms as well as child safety plugs in the electrical outlets that were still exposed. Linda and Bob informed us that Ken cannot get outside and is not outside unless he is with one of them. We did note that they do have a pool that is surrounded by the house on three sides but there is no fence restricting access to a potentially hazardous situation, whether the pool is filled with water or not. There is also a balcony off the living room which has a large enough space between the cement floor and the railing that would allow Ken to fall two stories.

7. Linda and Bob have made reasonable efforts to comply with the conditions in the agreement with the Society. The conditions set out in the agreement was not an exhaustive list of our concerns as we had stated that this is preliminary action that needs to occur in order to consider possibly returning Ken home and when. There are outstanding concerns that still remain. Linda and Bob have stated that the reason for the locks on the doors was their response to keeping Ken safe. The concern that now arises is how will they address the safety of Ken now that the locks have been removed from some of the doors? What were there safety concerns prior to our involvement that they felt they needed to lock Ken out? They have not demonstrated an ability to redirect Ken's behaviour on a regular basis and they have not received any from of parenting regarding managing children's misbehaviour. Therefore the concern remains that we have removed their means of child management and it has not been adequately replaced to address Ken's behaviour or his needs. The other condition that has not been satisfactorily met to the Society's standard is in regard to the Parent Infant Program. Linda and Bob have met Nina, who will be the Parent Infant Worker and have arranged a home visit with her. What is not satisfactory at this time is neither Linda Nor Bob appear to be interested in the program, they have not taken the time to read the information about the service. They have not understood or recognized the reason for service being to help stimulate Ken due to his developmental delays and that they will be required to be active participants in learning how to interact with him. Nina has informed them that she has rearranged her scheduled appointments to accommodate them at this time and has taken them onto her full caseload although there is an existing wait list for service. This program is designed to assist families that require and want the help. Nina has stated to Linda, Bob and myself that it will not suffice to provide service to this family if the only reason why they are involved is due to compliance with the agreement as it is extremely important that the parents recognize and identify that their child is requiring support services. The Parent Infant Program is a family centered-relationship based intervention.

8. The Society has contacted Diane Benoit, Child Psychiatrist affiliated with Toronto Sick Children's Hospital, and inquired as to whether she would be able to complete a parenting capacity assessment and the earliest availability. Diane informed this Society that she would be able to accommodate this as early as the week between Christmas and New Years and have a report ready by mid January. A general inquiry was made with regard to Ken's fetal position behaviour and Diane responded that this is very concerning.

9. At the time that the Society entered into the agreement with Linda and Bob, some concerns were identified such as; the conditions within the home, the apparent lack of stimulation to Ken, developmental delays of Ken and the lack of parenting knowledge and the parenting capacity. The conditions outlined were to address those identified areas, recognizing that compliance was not necessarily going to result in returning Ken on December 1, as there were other concerns. Since signing the agreement the Society has had an opportunity to observe the parents interact with Ken which has resulted in very concerning inadequacies with parenting, interaction, and attachment. Ken has also demonstrated concerning behaviours that may be related to his visitations with his parents. It is with this new information that the Society does not believe that it would be in Ken's best interests at this time to return home to his parents care and custody. Without the parents demonstrating that they can effectively manage Ken's behaviour and meet his developmental needs, Ken is at risk of further harm.

10. On November 30, I presented this case to our Child Abuse Review Team. It is expected that every Society have a review team that includes persons who are professionally qualified to perform medical, psychological, developmental, educational or social assessments and at least one legally qualified medical practitioner. This is a standard under the Child and Family Services Act. On this day a medical practitioner, a Principal, the Executive Director of Family Transition Place, a Program Manager of Children's Mental Health and Child Protection, as well as myself were present. The case was reviewed and it was the Review Teams decision and recommendation that Linda Prosh and Bob McQuaid be placed immediately on the Child Abuse Registry due to Severe Emotional Abuse to Ken.

11. I make there statements with no improper intent.

Nov 22 - on consent child is placed in temporary care & custody of CAS with access by parents as arranged by it. - adjd to Dec 1/99 at 10am & on the terms & conditions outlined in the consent filed. /signature illegible/ Dec 1/99 Mr Thwaites Ms Huber & Parents about 1 to 1 1/2 hour required, to consider whether child can be returned to Parents & if so, the conditions which should apply. 5 40 pm unable to deal with this urgent matter. Matter is adjourned; if parents can demonstrate a compelling case for the return of the child & if it can be demonstrated that CAS have been wilfully unreasonable in delaying the return of the child, presiding justice to consider whether costs on CAS should be awarded. Dec 8/99 10 AM to be given priority Justice Allen to be approached to determine whether this motion may be heard on an earlier date. /signed/ Dec 2/99: Mr Thwaites & Ms Huber - Parents present Submissions by counsel. for oral reasons, the child shall be returned to the care & custody of the parents subject to the Society's supervision & on these terms & conditions 1) child to be enrolled forthwith in "Friends" (Mon to Fri Daycare Program). 2) Parents to work with Dr Ron Murphy of Orangeville & follow his Recommendations & Referrals as to possible assessments 3) continue re 2 (c) of the earlier consent filed and 2(d) & (e) and (f) plus (as to (e)) " & such other persons providing the services described in par 2(a)(b)(c) & (f) - adjourned to Dec 22/99 at 10 am. /signed/

Ontario Court of Justice (Name of Court)		Court file number 180/99 ............................ Form 14A: Affidavit (General) dated November 29, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
at	10 Louisa Street, Orangeville Ontario L9W 3P9 Court office address

Applicant(s)

Full legal name & address for service - street & number, municipality, postal code, telephone & fax numbers and e-mail address (if any).	Lawyer's name & address - street & number, municipality, postal code, telephone & fax numbers and e-mail address (if any).

The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin 50 Fourth Avenue, Unit 13 Orangeville Ontario L9W 4P1 Canada Phone: 519-941-1530 Fax: 519-941-1525 email: dcafs@hurontario.net	Wardlaw, Mullin, Carter, Thwaites and Ward Attention: David Thwaites 235 Broadway Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z5 Canada Phone: 519-941-1700 Fax: 519-941-3688 eMail: dthwaites@wardlaw.on.ca
Respondent(s)
Full legal name & address for service- street & number, municipality, postal code, telephone & fax numbers and e-mail address (if any).	Lawyer's name & address - street & number, municipality, postal code, telephone & fax numbers and e-mail address (if any).
Robert McQuaid RR #5 Orangeville, Ontario L9W 2Z2, Canada Phone: 940-9847 Linda Prosh RR #5 Orangeville Ontario L9W 2Z2, Canada Phone: 940-9847

Caregiver's Name	Relationship
Prosh, Linda McQuaid, Robert	Mother Father

Child's Name	Child's D.O.B.
McQuaid, Kenneth Darryl	16/10/96

CAREGIVER INFLUENCE
CG1. Abuse/Neglect of Caregiver 0 Prosh, Linda 4 McQuaid, Robert	4. Severe abuse/neglect as a child. 3. Recurrent but not severe abuse/neglect as a child. 2. Episodes of abuse/neglect as a child. 1. Perceived abuse/neglect as a child with no specific incidents. 0. No perceived abuse/neglect as a child. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
CG1. Summary Descriptions. Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous Mr McQuaid was abandoned by his father and raised in foster care in the US. Linda stated that he was severely abused while in care. No specific details provided. Current
CG2. Alcohol or Drug Use 0 Prosh, Linda 0 McQuaid, Robert	4. Substance use with severe social/behavioural consequences. 3. Substance use with serious social/behavioural consequences. 2. Occasional substance use with negative effects on behaviour. 1. Occasional substance use. 0. No misuse of alcohol or use of drugs. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous No evidence at this time. Current
CG3. Caregiver's Expectations of Child 3 Prosh, Linda 3 MaQuaid, Robert	4. Unrealistic expectations with violent punishment. 3. Unrealistic expectations with angry conflicts. 2. Inconsistent expectations leading to confusion. 1. Realistic expectations with minimal support. 0. Realistic expectations with strong support. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous This worker is basing this variable on observations of the home environment, Ken's delays and the fact that the parents state that Ken is confined to his room. Linda made several comments that when Ken is out of control she puts him in his room. She had indicated that she does not know how to control his behavior and therefore there is probably some level of angry conflict. Current
CG4. Caregiver's Acceptance of Child 3 Prosh, Linda 3 McQuaid, Robert	4. Rejects and is hostile to child. 3. Disapproves of and resents child. 2. Indifferent and aloof to child. 1. Limited acceptance of child. 0. Very accepting of child. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous Linda and Robert both indicated that Ken had destroyed their home and that is why they need to lock everything away from him. There does not appear to be a bond between parents and child. Initial contact, the parents did not acknowledge Ken at all. Current
CG5. Physical Capacity to Care for Child 0 Prosh, Linda 0 McQuaid, Robert	4. Incapacitated due to chronic illness or disability resulting in inability to care for child. 3. Physical impairment or illness which seriously impairs child caring capacity. 2. Moderate physical impairment or illnesses resulting in only limited impact on child caring capacity. 1. Very limited physical impairment or illness with virtually no impact on child caring capacity. 0. Healthy with no identifiable risk to child caring capacity. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous Current
CG6. Mental/Emotional/Intellectual Capacity to Care for Child 9 Prosh, Linda 9 McQuaid, Robert	4. Incapacitated due to mental/emotional disturbance or developmental disability resulting in inability to care for child. 3. Serious mental/emotional disturbance or developmental disability with seriously impairs child caring capacity. 2. Moderate mental/emotional disturbance or developmental disability with limited impairment of child caring capacity. 1. Symptoms of mental/emotional disturbance or developmental disability with no impact on child caring capacity. 0. No identifiable mental/emotional disturbance. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous Although both parents are high functioning and intelligent, it would appear as though intellectual capacity impairs their ability to care for their son adequately as they put their needs before his and do not understand Ken's need for interaction and a stimulating environment. Current
CHILD INFLUENCE
C1. Child's Vulnerability 3 McQuaid, Kenneth Darryl	4. Child younger than 2 years old, or older child with special needs. 3. Child older than 2 years old, not regularly visible in the community. 2. Child is under 12 years old, attends school, day care, or early childhood development program. 1. Child is over 12 years old, and younger than 16 years old. 0. Child is 16 years old or older, with adequate self-sufficiency skills. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous Ken is chronologically 3 years of age but is developmentally delayed in speech and motor development, also in social development. Current
C2. Child's Response to Caregiver 4 McQuaid, Kenneth Darryl	4. Extremely anxious with uncontrolled fear, withdrawal, or passivity. 3. Very anxious with negative, disruptive, and possibly violent interaction. 2. Moderately anxious with apprehension and suspicion toward caregiver. 1. Marginally anxious with some hesitance toward caregiver. 0. Child trust and responds to caregiver in age-appropriate way. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous There is little to no interaction with parents. Ken presents as passive, withdrawn and aloof to his parents presence. There is minimal eye contact and his physical response to his mother was rigid or non-existent. Ken has never kissed his mother. These statements are based on observation between Ken and his mother. Current
C3. Child's Behaviour 3 McQuaid, Kenneth Darryl	4. Dangerous behaviour problems. 3. Serious behaviour problems. 2. Moderate but pervasive behaviour problems. 1. Minor behaviour problems. 0. No significant behaviour problems. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous Within his home, Ken has exhibited destructive behavior of objects and possessions. He has been isolated from his parents and lacks socialization opportunities. It should be noted that these behaviors have not been exhibited while in foster care. Current
C4. Child's Mental Health and Development 3 McQuaid, Kenneth Darryl	4. Incapacitated due to mental/emotional disturbance or developmental delay and unable to function independently. 3. Serious mental/emotional disturbance or developmental delay impairs ability to function in most daily activities. 2. Moderate mental/emotional disturbance or developmental delay impairs ability to perform some daily activities. 1. Symptoms of mental/emotional disturbance with minimal impact on daily activities. 0. No identifiable mental/emotional disturbance. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous Dr Murphy's preliminary assessment of Ken is that he has global developmental delays. According to Ken's parents he displays symptoms of mental/emotional disturbances, such as inability to communicate and destructive behaviors to the extent that they have had to respond by confining him and isolating him from family interactions and sections of the home. Current
C5. Child's Physical Health and Development 0 McQuaid, Kenneth Darryl	4. Severe physical illness, disability, or lack of physical development; requires medical care. 3. Serious physical illness, disability, or lack of physical development; restricts activities without special care. 2. Moderate physical illness, disability, or lack of physical development; restricts activities somewhat but overcome with special care. 1. Mild physical illness, disability, or lack of physical development; does not restrict activities. 0. Healthy and no obvious physical illness, disability, or lack of physical development. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous According to Dr Murphy Ken is a healthy Child Current
FAMILY INFLUENCE
F1. Family Violence 3 Family Situation.	4. Repeated or serious physical violence or substantial risk of serious physical violence in family. 3. Incidents of physical violence in family; imbalance of power and control. 2. Isolation and intimidation; threats of harm. 1. Verbal aggression. 0. Mutual tolerance. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous Linda states the following about her relationship with Robert, "there is no physical violence. There is a lack of cooperation between myself and Robert. He doesn't help me do anything, he expects me to do all of the housework and attend to Ken. He is self sufficient, everything is in his name. He doesn't really discuss things with me". Linda did not state that she was being emotionally abused but the above information may indicate that she is being emotionally abused. Current
F2. Ability to Cope With Stress 9 Family Situation.	4. Chronic crisis with limited coping. 3. Prolonged crisis strains coping skills. 2. Stabilized after period of crisis. 1. Resolution without adverse effect. 0. Free from stress influence. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous At this time this worker does not know this family very well. Linda has indicated that she attempted suicide when she was 21 years old. It appears as though Mr McQuaid becomes reclusive. Current
F3 Availability of Social Supports 4 Family Situation.	4. Effectively isolated. 3. Some support, but unreliable. 2. Some reliable support, but limited usefulness. 1. Some reliable and useful support. 0. Multiple sources of reliable and useful support. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous This family is socially isolated as a choice. They definitely have the means and capacity to access supports if need be but they choose to be reclusive. Current
F4. Living Conditions 3 Family Situation.	4. Extremely unsafe; multiple hazardous conditions that are dangerous to children and have caused physical injury or illness. 3. Very unsafe; multiple hazardous conditions that are dangerous to children. 2. Unsafe; one hazardous condition that is dangerous to children. 1. Fairly safe; one possibly hazardous condition that may harm children. 0. Safe; no hazardous conditions apparent. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous Initial observations of home are that there were multiple hazardous conditions that pose physical danger to Ken. Also household sanitation is a factor. This is more disturbing factoring in that Molly Maid cleans the home every two weeks. Current
F5. Family Identity and Interactions 4 Family Situation.	4. Negative family interactions. 3. Family interactions generally indifferent. 2. Inconsistent family interactions. 1. Family interaction usually positive. 0. Family interactions typically supportive. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous The parents do not have consistent caring interaction with their son. They do not provide a nurturing or stimulating environment for him. Linda stated that she did not know when his last meal was, she thought that Robert may have fed him lunch but she was not sure and did not know what he had. Current
INTERVENTION INFLUENCE
I1 Caregiver's Motivation 3 Prosh, Linda 3 McQuaid, Robert	4. No motivation to meet child's needs. 3. Very little motivation to meet child's needs. 2. Motivated to meet child's needs, but caregiver has multiple impediments to solving problems. 1. Motivated to meet child's needs, but caregiver has some impediments to solving problems. 0. Motivated to meet child's needs, and caregiver has not impediments to solving problems. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous Current
I2. Caregiver's Cooperation with Intervention 0 Prosh, Linda 3 McQuaid, Robert	4. Refuses to cooperate. 3. Cooperates minimally, but resists intervention. 2. Cooperates, but poor response to interventions. 1. Cooperates, with generally appropriate response to intervention. 0. Cooperates with intervention. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous Robert has stated that he will "comply" with the agreement reached until the next court date. He has not been forthcoming with information to assist in the investigation. Current
ABUSE/NEGLECT INFLUENCE
A1. Access to Child by Perpetrator 4 Prosh, Linda 4 McQuaid, Robert	4. Open access with no adult supervision. 3. Open access with ineffective adult supervision. 2. Open access with effective adult supervision. 1. Limited access with effective adult supervision. 0. No access to child. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous In this case, the parents have committed an act of omission. Should Ken be returned to his home, there is no indication that his needs would be met, thus acts of omission would continue. Current
A2. Intent and Acknowledgement of Responsibility 4 Prosh, Linda 4 McQuaid, Robert	4. Deliberate or premeditated abuse or neglect. 3. Hides or denies responsibility for abuse/neglect. 2. Rationalizes abuse/neglect or doesn't understand role. 1. Understands role in abuse/neglect; accepts responsibility. 0. Abuse is accidental or neglect is not deliberate. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous Linda has admitted that they limit Ken's access and leave him unattended for periods of time. Current
A3. Severity of Abuse/Neglect 3 Prosh, Linda 3 McQuaid, Robert	4. Extreme harm or substantial danger of extreme harm. 3. Serious harm of substantial danger of serious harm. 2. Moderate harm or substantial danger of moderate harm. 1. Minor harm or substantial danger of minor harm. 0. No harm or substantial danger of harm. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous Parents have created substantial risk of physical injury through lack of supervision of their son. They have failed to meet his needs of emotional care through lack of interaction and an environment void of nurturance or stimulation. Current
A4. History of Abuse/Neglect Committed by Present Caregivers 0 Prosh, Linda 0 McQuaid, Robert	4. Severe or escalating pattern of past abuse/neglect. 3. Serious recent incident or a pattern of abuse/neglect. 2. Previous abuse/neglect. 1. Abuse/neglect concerns. 0. No history of abuse/neglect. 9. Insufficient information to make a rating.
Use specific examples to justify your risk ratings. Specify the caregiver(s) or child(ren) to whom the risk factor applies. Previous No internal record of police records Current
RISK ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
A. List, in point form, all risk factors which received a rating of 3 or 4 and any other risk factors that should be considered: CG1. Abuse/Neglect of Caregiver - 4 C2. Child's Response to Caregiver - 4 F3. Availability of Social Supports - 4 F5. Family Identity and Interactions - 4 I2. Caregiver's Cooperation with Intervention - 4 A1. Access to Child by Perpetrator - 4 A2. Intent and Acknowledgement of Responsibility - 4 CG3. Caregiver's Expectations of Child - 3 CG4. Caregiver's Acceptance of Child - 3 CG6. Mental/Emotional/Intellectual Capacity to Care for Child - 3 C1. Child's Vulnerability - 3 C3. Child's Behavior - 3 F1. Family Violence - 3 F4. Living Conditions - 3 I1. Caregiver's Motivation - 3 A3. Severity of Abuse/Neglect - 3 F2. Ability to Cope with Stress - 9
B. Describe the significance and interaction of the risk factors which contribute to an overall risk rating and should be considered in Plan of Service: The greatest significance is that all of these risk factors increase due to Ken's age. Parents have failed to provide a safe, secure, nurturing and stimulating environment for their son through confinement and lack of supervision. There is little to no interaction with their child and there is a possibility that Ken has not met his developmental milestones due to lack of a positive environment.
C. Describe significant family or individual strengths which have been identified and may be used as part of the service plan to reduce future risk: Parents have the mental capacity to learn appropriate child care.
D. Describe how relevant family members view the identified risk elements and any other areas of family functioning identified in C, above: Linda stated that she would do anything to have her son back, however her insight into the problems is not accurate. For example, she focused on her lack of housekeeping as being a large issue as opposed to the very apparent safety and developmental issues that directly impact on Ken.
E. Give rating or overall risk for family ■ High Risk □ Moderately High Risk □ Intermediate Risk □ Moderately Low Risk □ No/Low Risk
F. Identify the key risk factors and the expected outcomes which should be addressed in this family's Plan of Service: CG1, C2, F3 & 5, I2, A1 & 2, CG3, 4 & 6, C1 & 3, F1 & 4, I1, A3 & F2
SEND FOR APPROVAL
Supervisor: Kim Evans	Date:

APPROVAL SECTION
Approved Document: Yes No
Approved By:	Date:
Changes Required: Yes

Safety Factor	Present	Information Supporting Safety Factor
1. Caregiver's behaviour is violent or out of control	Not Known	At this time is does not appear that the parents behavior has been violent or out of control, but given that Ken is unable to communicate, this may never be known.
2. Caregiver describes or acts toward child in predominantly negative terms or has extremely unrealistic expectations.	Yes	The parents have left Ken unattended for an undetermined length of time and they do not understand why he would destroy their home. They are not able to redirect him or control his behavior. Linda stated that when she takes him for walks she does not understand why she has to carry him back. Also neither parent picked up on his developmental milestone delays quickly.
3. Caregiver caused, or has made a plausible threat that has or would result in, serious physical harm to the child.	Not Known	This is unknown as Ken is unable to communicate.
4. Child's whereabouts cannot be ascertained and/or there is reason to believe that the family is about to flee or refuse access to the child	No	Not an issue.
5. Caregiver has not, or will not, provide sufficient supervision to protect the child from potentially serious harm.	Yes	This is the main reason for our involvement. They have left Ken unattended for an unknown amount of time. He has basically been confined within his own home and locked out of many rooms.
6. Caregiver has not, or is unable, to meet the child's immediate needs for food, clothing, shelter, and/or medical care.	No	Ken appears to be a healthy boy and he has had all of his immunization shots.
7. Caregiver has previously harmed a child and the severity of the harm, or the caregiver's prior response to the incident, suggests that child safety may be an immediate concern.	No	There is no prior internal record, or police record.
8. Child is fearful of people living in or frequenting the home.	Not Known	Ken is unable to communicate this to us. My observations are that Ken appears to be indifferent to his parents.
9. The child's physical living conditions are hazardous and may cause serious harm to the child.	Yes	This is another reason for our involvement. Ken's bedroom had many hazardous conditions in it as well as unprotected heating vents that Ken could fall into and cut or break his leg.
10. Child sexual abuse is suspected and circumstances suggest that child safety may be an immediate concern.	No	Not at this time.
11. Caregiver's drug or alcohol use seriously affects his/her ability to supervise, protect, or care for each child.	No	There is no indication at this time that this is a factor.
12. Other (specify):	No
SAFETY DECISION Child to be apprehended and brought to a place of safety.
□ SAFE No children considered to be in immediate danger of serious harm. ■ UNSAFE Child considered to be unsafe without a protection intervention.
IMMEDIATE SAFETY PLAN: Apprehend and bring to a place of safety
OTHER INTERVENTIONS/ACTIONS REQUIRED: □ No additional interventions/actions ■ Risk assessment has been initiated Full medical to determine whether Ken's delays are genetic or environmental
SEND FOR APPROVAL
Supervisor:		Date: