Case Summary

Based on the number of calls that were made to the Child Protective Services in Vancouver, failure to take action over a period of ten years shows serious laxity on the part on the part of the organization. Such organizations are charged with the role of ensuring child safety and should at all times show commitment to ensure that such children are safe at all times (Munro, 2005). When presented with information regarding a suspected abuse of children’s rights, the organization should be prompt to act and investigate. This paper analyzes the situation as it is and provides an opinion on the right mode of action the organization should have taken to protect the kids.

Procedures Not Followed

The investigators are supposed to respond to every complaint filed with them before categorizing it as unfounded. In the above case, while the organization had been contacted for close to ten years by various individuals with regard to the abuse of these children, the organization continued to ignore the prompts. Neglect of responsibilities is noted in this scenario. Over a ten year period of time, the organization ignored all the calls it received regarding this family. The organization was required to visit the children’s home every time there was a report. If this had happened, the level of abuse should have at least been controlled from going to the extreme it did.

It is the role of the investigator to interrogate the children whose welfare in question. If the organization had done this earlier, the children would have shared information regarding their situation. This is evident based on the information they shared with the court. They gave information about the information to the context of the tools used in abusing them. On January 4, 2008, the young child had shared information regarding disciplinary action meted upon her. It is therefore evident that these children would have been happy to share information about their abuse and get help.

The investigators did not make use of the information provided to them by the throughout over a period of close to ten years. Failure to act at all amounts to neglect of duties. While a lot of information was provided to the organization, it failed to act whatsoever. While they may have classified the work as unfounded, they also received information from very reliable sources such as medical experts and the teacher. With such information provided, they had every reason to take legal action against the parents. The information provided throughout was only filed and stored. It was never inspected or analyzed.

Warning Signs ignored

The investigators ignored various signs that would have offered substantial information towards taking legal, action against the parents. First, they were contacted by unknown individuals regarding the welfare of the children. The information provided to the organization came in the form of suspected neglect and abuse by both parents. This type of information was mainly provided in the early years of the abuse. As the abuse progressed, it became noticeable by more reliable personnel like teachers and medical personnel. The teacher even informed the investigators that she was 100% sure that the children were being abused.

The frequency of the reports was another cue that the investigators should have taken. The investigators were offered the information too frequently. Ignoring information that came that frequently and from so many sources is irresponsible (Gordon, 2002). The organization should have been more responsible by noting the frequency at which the information was being offered. Originating even from reliable sources, the organization should have been taken more responsibly. The organization should have a mechanism for checking the frequency at which certain events are reported. Having been stored on a computer as claimed by Frame (2014), the information should have been very to analyze and note the frequency at which abuse was being reported should have been easy to analyze.

The first form of failure occurred with the organization’s failure to respond to the numerous warnings. After receiving the information, it was stashed away without first doing any research. The investigators were informed promptly about the abuse. The information varied hence implying that the children were being abused in various ways. The information also showed that the children were being abused severely by their two parents. However, the organization failed to assist the children as was required. While the reward is appropriate for the children, it does not resolve the problem. The government and judicial system should act towards making sure that the irresponsible investigators account for their recklessness.

The government also failed in protecting the children. It is the state’s role to create systems that work so as to provide the children sufficient safety against abusive parents (Gordon, 2002). The government should also develop evaluative mechanisms to ensure that its systems work. The state therefore failed in providing what is required to provide the company with the required safety. If the systems created by the state were more effective, the children would have been more effective. The government eventually paid the settlement. While this shows some responsibility, it should be noted that the settlements made by the government are often passed to the tax-payer. More appropriate action would be to follow up to ensure that government agencies acted more promptly and responsibly.

The procedures set out in dealing with child abuse also failed. While the organization should have followed up on all reports that were made to make sure of their validity, they did not. Instead, the information was only filed. While the reporting system worked effectively and even provided the information in the case made against the state, the rest of the system failed. Every other part of the organization failed. The U.S Department of Justice (2001) requires that government organizations create a set of procedures to deal with child abuse; these procedures seem to be lacing. Moreover, there is required that specific individuals be made responsible for specific activities in children welfare agencies. This is lacking as there is lack of activity in this area.

In conclusion, the case in point shows a lot of carelessness from government agencies in dealing with cases of child abuse. The organization to which numerous cases were reported failed to make any action whatsoever. As a consequence, children were exposed to poor conditions of living for close to ten years. While the settlement makes the situation better for the children involved, the larger problem has not been resolved. The bigger problem in this case seems to be the systems put up to deal with child abuse in the country. There is also a need to develop evaluative mechanisms to deal with child abuse organizations. With such mechanisms, organizations are likely to be managed more effectively hence eliminating similar cases.


Frame, S. (2014). State to pay record settlement in child abuse caseKING5. Retrieved 12 February 2015, from

Gordon, S. (2002). Putting the picture together-Inquiry into response by government agencies to complaints of family violence and child abuse in Aboriginal communities. Austl. Indigenous L. Rep.7, 49.

Munro, E. (2005). What tools do we need to improve identification of child abuse?. Child abuse review14(6), 374-388.

U.S. Department of Justice (2001). Law Enforcement Response to Child Abuse

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more