CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
S.P.
v.
The Children’s Aid Society of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry
REASONS FOR DECISION ON JURISDICTION
Date: March 4, 2008
Citation: 2008 CFSRB 14
Indexed as: S.P. v. CAS of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry (CFSA s.61)
1S.P. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on October 24, 2007, pursuant to s.61 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). On January 30, 2008, the Board heard submissions from the Children’s Aid Society of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (the “Society”) with respect to the Board’s jurisdiction to review this case. The Board heard submissions from the Society’s counsel, Elizabeth MacLennan. The Applicant, who was unrepresented, gave evidence on the motion. The child, R.R., who was given party status in this file, did not attend. He was, however, represented by counsel, Majusha Pawagi, from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.
2The Society set forth its argument in the Notice of Motion numbered paragraphs 1 through 12. Its main argument was that it was not removing the child, R.R., from the care of his foster parent, Mr. S.P.. What the Society was doing was “to terminate Mr. S.P.’s home as a foster (kin in care) home and change the funding of R.R.’s placement with Mr. S.P. to reflect that Mr. S.P. is no longer a foster (kin in care) home,” (paragraph 10). The Society contends that Mr. S.P.’s complaint was not about a proposed removal of R.R., but about the new financial remuneration that the Society was allocating for R.R. to live with him as a lodger. The Society further states in its Motion at paragraph 12 that the Board has no jurisdiction to direct the Society what to pay for the placement of a child, nor does it have jurisdiction to direct the Society to re-open Mr. S.P.’s home.
3The Society stated that what had started the process of changing the funding scheme and removing Mr. S.P.’s home from the foster kin in care programme was a complaint they had received from R.R.’s family. A summary report dated October […], 2007, attached to Supervisor D.C.’s letter of November […], 2007, noted that although there were concerns that Mr. S.P. may have an alcohol consumption problem, there was not enough evidence to support this allegation. The report also went on to say that Mr. S.P. did not seem to work in partnership with the Society and tended to be rude and aggressive. The report was also concerned with Mr. S.P.’s inability to manage his finances. It stated that the new financial arrangement was to commence on September […], 2007. The Society had no objection to R.R. continuing to live in Mr. S.P.’s home, albeit under a new financial arrangement. Mr. S.P. did not sign to acknowledge the Society’s report as requested.
4Mr. S.P. did not dispute the Society’s statements. He went on to say that given the cut in the funding to care for R.R., it would be impossible for him to continue to do so. He tried to argue that such a financial cutback was tantamount to removing the child from his care. When he was asked whether he had availed himself of the Society’s internal process to appeal their decision, the Applicant responded negatively.
5R.R. did not attend the hearing because he was indisposed. His counsel stated that he had informed her that he wished to continue to live with Mr. S.P. whom he considered to be like a father. This had been the first time in his troubled life in which he had lived continuously in the same home, namely, from June 2004. It is to be noted that R.R. turns eighteen on August […], 2008.
6The Board concurs with the Society in this particular case, that it does not have jurisdiction to determine this case under s.61 of the Act. As the Society noted, it is not removing R.R. from the care of the Applicant. What it has done is to close the Applicant’s foster home because of concerns it had investigated, as noted above, and to change the child’s contractual arrangement with him from one of care to that of a lodger. In these circumstances, the Board has no jurisdiction over the Society’s contractual arrangements with foster caregivers.
7However, the Board cannot fail but notice the following. First of all, the Applicant, as he himself stated, did not avail himself of the Society’s internal review system to challenge their report, which would have demonstrated his determination to fight for the child’s best interest. Secondly, the Society made changes regarding the financing of the residential arrangements of a youth for whom living with the Applicant for four years was his first experience in stability. The Society’s misgivings about the Applicant’s drinking and abrasive manner did not result in a recommendation of the child’s removal. It resulted in a shutting down of the Applicant’s home as a foster home, and the reduction of the monies paid out to him as rent, until R.R. became eighteen.
8R.R. was turning eighteen about eleven months after the report was issued, which would naturally have brought about a change in the relationship between the Society and the Applicant. Would it not have been in the child’s best interest to continue the original arrangement for another eleven months, or so, and continue to give him the stability he so needs? The Board cannot help but feel that little regard was given to the child’s best interest in this matter. The Board hopes that all parties concerned would place R.R.’s interest at the forefront.
Aida Graff Presiding Member
Wendell White Panel Member
Nycole Roy Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 4^th^ day of March, 2008.