Search

This paper investigates the extent to which legislation influences decisions of child welfare workers regarding the referral of cases to court. It studies three Canadian jurisdictions: Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta, each of which takes a different legislative approach to the issue of court involvement in child protection. A critical examination of child welfare statutes in these provinces led to the prediction that rates of court use – or ‘judiciarization’ – would be highest in Quebec, followed by Ontario, and then Alberta. These predictions were then compared with data reflecting actual judiciarization rates in these three provinces for the year 2006. This data contradicted our initial predictions, in that Ontario’s rate of court use for child welfare cases was the highest of the three provinces, followed by Alberta, and then Quebec. Our research results thus suggest that legislation alone does not drive judiciarization in the child welfare context. As such, this paper illuminates the need for further study of the way in which child protection workers understand legislation as influencing their professional responsibilities and choices. Moreover, it indicates that further consideration is needed into how the use of judicial versus extra-judicial institutions might affect child welfare outcomes.