L. v. The Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton, 2008 CFSRB 10

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

L.

v.

The Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton

REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS

Date: February 27, 2008

Citation: 2008 CFSRB 10

Indexed as: L. v. The CAS of Hamilton (CFSA s.68)

Related Decisions: Reasons for Decision on Jurisdiction – L. v. Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (CFSA s.68) – 2007 CFSRB 52

1On September 11, 2007, the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) heard the motion of the Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (the “Society”) that the Board did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaints of the Applicant. The Board ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear two of the Applicant’s complaints:

i) That the Society took the Applicant’s daughter and did not identify itself during the apprehension process;

ii) That the Society consistently engages in poor or improper communication.

2Prior to the start of the hearing on the merits of the complaints, counsel for the Society, David Felicant, requested that the Board strike the word “wrongfully” from the first issue, which originally read: “The Society wrongfully took the applicant’s daughter and did not identify itself during the process.” The Board agreed to make this change.

BACKGROUND

3Since the jurisdictional hearing before the Board on September 11, 2007, the Applicant stated that things are progressing well and he is now seeing his daughter three times a week. The second issue, that the Society consistently engages in poor or improper communication, has greatly improved since the jurisdiction hearing. The Society acknowledged that communication has greatly improved. The Applicant stated that since he came to the Board, things have improved greatly with the Society and that he “could not ask for anything better” and that the communication was “100 times better than what it was”. The Applicant is happy with how things are progressing and thanks the Society for “doing what they are doing now.”

The Society’s Argument

4David Felicant argued that the Society removed the Applicant’s daughter to protect the child. The child, according to the Society, had drugs in her system and there were historical concerns regarding the Applicant’s partner. The Society identified itself at the appropriate time through a worker named L.A. J.B., the supervisor assigned to manage the Applicant’s file, stated that his partner had two children taken away from her in the past.

The Applicant’s Argument

5The Applicant stated the Society took his daughter and did not identify itself during the process. The Society had a worker pretend that she was a nurse and took his child during what the Applicant thought was a routine check. As soon as the baby was gone, the Applicant was brought into another room and told that the baby was taken by the Society because of the historical concerns about his partner. The Applicant is uncertain why he was called Mr. J. and why nine security guards had to escort him from the hospital. During this time, it took the Applicant four days to see his daughter again.

ANALYSIS

6The Board would like to first address the issue of whether the Society consistently engages in poor or improper communication. Both the Society and the Applicant acknowledge that communication between them was a challenge in the beginning. However, as of the date of this hearing, both parties continue to work productively together. In view of the fact that this issue has been resolved between the parties, the Board will not address this complaint.

7This decision will deal solely with the question of whether the Society identified itself during the apprehension process. The relevant section for the Board to consider is Section 2(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”) which reads as follows:

2(2) Service providers shall ensure,

(a) that children and their parents have an opportunity where appropriate to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about services they are receiving.

8It is reasonable, given the Applicant’s partner’s historical past of having two children removed from her care and her drug use, that special attention was given by the Society to the health and safety of the Applicant’s daughter.

9It is important to emphasize the key wording of Section 2(2)(a) where it states, “parents have an opportunity where appropriate …” to be heard when decisions are made affecting their interests. The Applicant was promptly told that the child was in the care of the Society when the removal occurred. The Board finds that the Society informed the Applicant at an appropriate time when it was safe to do so. Accordingly, the Board dismisses the Applicant’s complaint that the Society failed to communicate with him during the apprehension of his daughter.

DECISION

10The Board dismisses the complaint for the above noted reasons pursuant to Section 68.1(7)(e) of the Act.

Wendell White Presiding Member

Deborah Simon Panel Member

Fizul Sima Panel Member