L.L. v. Children’s Aid Society of the County of Bruce, 2008 CFSRB 2

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

L.L.

v.

Children’s Aid Society of the County of Bruce

REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS

Date: January 25, 2008

Citation: 2008 CFSRB 2

Indexed as: L.L. v. CAS of the County of Bruce (CFSA s.68)

Related Decisions: Reasons for Decision on Jurisdiction - L.L. v. CAS of the County of Bruce (CFSA s.68), 2007 CFSRB 66

1L.L. (the “Applicant”) filed an application pursuant to Section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”) with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on July 17, 2007 against the Children’s Aid Society for the County of Bruce (the “Society”) wherein she alleges:

1. the Society failed to respond to her complaint within the timeframes required by regulation;
2. the Society failed to comply with Subsection 2(2)(a) of the Act;
3. the Society has inaccurately recorded something in her file or record and this has not been resolved through the Society’s internal complaints review procedure.

2The Board determined that the application was eligible for review on July 24, 2007, and the Applicant and the Society were notified of this decision on that date.

3The Society, in its summary reply, dated July […], 2007, raised a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Board to hear the complaint. A hearing was convened on October 29, 2007 in H., Ontario to hear the parties’ submissions on the issue of the Board’s jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Based on those submissions, the Board ordered that a hearing would be convened to hear the Applicant’s complaints about the communication issues under Subsection 2(2)(a) of the Act unless the Applicant and the Society could resolve the issues prior to the establishment of a hearing date. The issues were not resolved, thus a hearing was held in K., Ontario on January 14, 2008.

BACKGROUND

4The Applicant has one son, S.C.L., d.o.b January […], 1999. By a Court Order of the Honourable Justice D. F. Kent on June […], 2005, S.C.L. became a Ward of the Crown, committed to the care and custody of the Society. The Court Order also stipulated that, initially, S.C.L. was to have supervised access to his biological mother at the discretion of the Society. These access visits continue to the present; once every two weeks for approximately 4.5 hours.

5In her application to the Board, the Applicant alleges that she has great difficulty in obtaining meaningful and timely information from the Society about S.C.L.. She feels that she only receives reports when she phones the Society to ask for them. She is frustrated at being the last-to-know when S.C.L.’s schedule, especially his access visits, changes. The Applicant is concerned when she learns how S.C.L. is doing because it is shared by the driver who delivers and picks up S.C.L. from his visits or through the conversations with S.C.L.’s foster mother.

6On June […], 2007 the Applicant wrote to S.J., Executive Director of the Society. The letter contained several requests – psychological assessment report, unsupervised access visits, school and medical reports, and permission to attend S.C.L.’s soccer games. It also included the statement “I am tired of having to ask and not knowing anything about my son”. As a follow-up to the letter, the Applicant also made requests for both further information and increased access via telephone on June […] and July […], 2007.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

7The legislation in the Act relevant to determining the Board’s decision is set out below.

68.1(1) If a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may,

(a) decide not to make the complaint to the society under section 68 and make the complaint directly to the Board under this section.

63(1) Where a child is made a Crown ward under paragraph 3 of subsection 57(1) or under subsection 65.2(1), the Crown has the rights and responsibilities of a parent for the purpose of the child’s care, custody and control … and the Crown’s powers, duties and obligations in respect of the child … shall be exercised and performed by the society caring for the child.

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 the services they are receiving.

ISSUES

8The Board must decide if the Applicant’s concerns about the services she was receiving were heard. The jurisdiction ruling of December […], 2007 limited those concerns to matters involving the communications between the Society and the Applicant.

9The communication concerns can be summarized into the following categories:

1. the Applicant not being informed,
2. inappropriate communication with the Applicant,
3. delayed responses by the Society to the Applicant, and
4. communication that was unclear to the Applicant

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The Applicant Not Being Informed

10a) In a letter sent to the Board on July 27, 2007, the Applicant alleged that the Society moved S.C.L. to a relief home without any prior notification. She learned this from the driver who was bringing S.C.L. to an access visit. During the visit her son confirmed the move to the relief home. The Society did not provide a response to this concern or how Ms. L.L. received the information that S.C.L. was moved to another foster home.

11b) In a Visit Report sent to the Board, dated Saturday, August […], 2007, the Applicant alleged that she did not have a visit schedule. Yet, she also stated in that same letter that the visit on August, […], 2007 occurred, as scheduled, from 9:30 am until 2:00 pm. S.M., the Society’s Supervisor to S.C.L.’s Children’s Service Worker, K.H., faxed a letter to the Board on August 30, 2007. In the letter Ms. S.M. indicated that the Applicant had been provided with a calendar of visits.

12c) In her testimony of January […], 2008, the Applicant alleged that an access visit held at the Society building on December […], 2007 was videotaped without her knowledge. S.C.L. told her about the videotaping as he had seen them (i.e. him and his mother) on a television in the observation room. She felt she should have been informed or asked permission for this videotaping to occur. K.H. testified that the television was used to monitor the toy room where the visit occurred and that without the television turned on, no audio was available to the observers. Ms. K.H. stated that current practice requires that both her and her supervisor authorize videotaping which can only occur after informing everyone in the toy room. The Society’s position is that the Applicant and her son were not videotaped during the December […], 2007 visit.

13d) The Applicant also testified that she had not been informed that her case was under review. She had learned this information in December 2007 from H.Z., who was hired from time-to-time on a “fee-for-service” basis to supervise access visits. R.T., witness for the Applicant, testified that it was Ms. H.Z. who had passed on this information during an access visit at the Applicant’s residence. The Applicant believed that the Society should be giving her this type of information directly. Ms. K.H. testified that the Applicant’s case was not under review or discussed by the Placement Assessment Review Committee of the Society. Ms. K.H. presumed that Ms. H.Z., the Access Supervisor, may have been aware of upcoming changes in access visits, which became misconstrued as a case review when speaking to the Applicant during a visit.

14e) During her testimony, Ms. K.H. indicated that the Society was seeking a tutor for the Applicant’s son and that the use of a tutor would be discussed with the Applicant once a tutor had been located. The Applicant indicated that this was the first time she had been informed of this decision but she did not inquire during the hearing why there had not been any prior notification.

15f) In her letter of July […], 2007 the Applicant stated that she was still waiting for her son’s school report card from March […], 2007. Ms. K.H. avowed in her affidavit of January […], 2008 that on June […], 2007 at a meeting at the Society Walkerton office, she had given the Applicant another copy of the son’s report card which had been previously provided.

Inappropriate Communication with the Applicant

16Many of the items listed above could be interpreted to be inappropriate communication as information was coming to the Applicant from sources other than the Society (i.e. 1(a), 1(c) and 1(d)). However, the Applicant’s major concern about inappropriate communication revolves around a letter that was dropped off at her apartment in mid-December, 2007. The envelope was opened prior to being left at her door. The envelope did not have an address on it. The Applicant stated that Ms. K.H. had informed her that the letter was opened by a Society worker who needed the address to ensure correct delivery. Information in the letter was confidential as it dealt with a meeting to discuss the changes in access visits for the Applicant’s son.

17This incident was not the first time Society documents had been dropped off at the Applicant’s residence. It was, however, the first time a complaint had been made about the practice by the Applicant. The reasons for dropping off materials at the Applicant’s residence were not given by the Society.

Delayed Responses by the Society to the Applicant

18In her application, the Applicant makes numerous statements about lengthy time delays between her contact with the Society and its response to her. However, her letter to the Board, dated July 30, 2007 only provides two examples; one is very detailed, the other is quite vague.

1. She wrote to the Executive Director of the Society on June […], 2007 complaining about the lack of information. Ms. K.H. phoned the Applicant eight days later on June […], 2007 to arrange a meeting to discuss the issues raised in the letter of June […], 2007. The meeting was held one day later on June […], 2007; a total delay of nine days.

2. The second example deals with the Applicant’s request for a copy of S.C.L.’s Psychological Assessment. In the aforementioned letter of July […], 2007 she states that she has not yet received this assessment. No further details were provided. However, the Society’s evidence does give a clearer picture. S.C.L.’s Psychological Assessment was completed in December, 2006. On January […], 2007 the Applicant telephoned Ms. K.H. requesting a copy of the report as soon as it became available. Along with many other documents the Society provided the Psychological Assessment to the Applicant as an enclosure to a letter dated August […], 2007. When she applied to the Board in July the Applicant had been waiting for at least six months. The document was mailed approximately five weeks after the Society was informed of the application to the Board.

19Notwithstanding the two issues outlined above, the Society provided ample evidence to indicate that it does attempt to reply in a timely manner. The affidavit provided by Ms. K.H. contains six separate examples of telephone calls being returned within 24-48 hours. That same affidavit provides seven examples of meetings that were arranged, except for the holiday weekend surrounding July […], 2007, within 1-3 days of a request being made by the Applicant. Ms. K.H. testified that the affidavit chronicles only the calls and meetings where major discussions occurred. Numerous brief telephone calls or short drop-in visits at the Society office were not included in the affidavit.

Communication that was unclear to the Applicant

20a) The Applicant alleged that S.C.L. had been in 18 different foster homes since he was placed in Society’s care. The Society denied that number and maintains that S.C.L. had only been in two homes since he became a Crown Ward. The Applicant did not agree with the Society’s claim, nor did the Society provide a number to refute the Applicant’s specific allegation.

21b) The time for pick-up after access visits caused much confusion during the summer of 2007. In a Visit Report dated July […], 2007 the Applicant states that S.C.L. was picked at 2:30 as scheduled. In her Visit Report dated August […], 2007, she states that the scheduled times for visits are 9:30 am until 2:00 pm. However, Ms.K. E. had phoned to indicate that pick-up on August […], 2007 would be at 2:30. The workers from the Society picked-up her son at 2:00 as per the regular schedule. In a letter faxed to S.M. on August […], 2007, the Applicant indicates that, on August […], 2007 she spoke with Ms. K.H. about the confusion. The outcome of that discussion was not reported by either party.

CONCLUSION

22The Applicant brought forward many communication issues relating to her treatment by the Society.

23Other than the long delay in receiving the Psychological Assessment, she was unable to provide any evidence of other lengthy delays. This assessment was the only identified item that the Applicant waited for in the time period prior to her application to the Board. The Board considers that the 9-day wait for a meeting following her letter of June […], 2007 is not an unreasonable or lengthy delay.

24The Applicant also raised concerns about not being informed. When she asked specific questions or raised specific concerns the Society responded. Ms. K.H. indicated that she currently had 23 clients (i.e. children for whom she has responsibility). She stated that she would have contact with the parents of children who were Crown Wards on the average of 4-6 times per year. In the 8-month period from June […], 2006 to March […], 2007, the Applicant and Ms. K.H. had significant communications via meetings, telephone conversations, or letters on 19 separate occasions. Furthermore, in the 4-month period from May […], 2007 to August […], 2007 there were 18 such contacts. The Board believes that the Society has made a thorough effort to keep the Applicant informed.

25The Applicant made two allegations about significant information not being communicated to her: 1. that the Society was conducting a case review and 2. that Society had videotaped an access visit. In both instances the information was communicated to the Applicant by someone other than a Society employee. In neither case did she follow-up by asking direct questions to the Society about what had been reported to her. The Board finds both of these allegations are unsubstantiated as they did not occur.

26In October of 2007, the Applicant was provided with a schedule of monthly meetings with Ms. K.H. that were to be held at the Society office. These meetings would provide the Applicant with a regular opportunity to ask questions, raise concerns and receive updated information about S.C.L.. Without providing any notice or reason the Applicant did not attend the first three meetings; one each in October, November and December of 2007. The Board finds it very difficult to comprehend these absences, especially since communications are the focus of her complaints against the Society.

27The Society maintains that, as the child in this case is a Crown Ward, it is has no statutory obligation to provide many of the reports that were requested by the Applicant. The Society provided these out of respect for her strong interest in S.C.L.’s well-being. Nevertheless, the Board believes the 9-month unexplained delay in forwarding a copy of the Psychological Assessment is much too long. The Board also believes that the Applicant had a valid concern about an open letter being dropped off at her door.

28In subsection 37(1) of the Act the child’s mother is included in the definition of “parent”. Subsection 2(2)(a) of the Act requires that the Society ensures that parents have an opportunity to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving. The services under consideration in this decision are limited to matters of communication from the Society to the Applicant. Based on the evidence provided, both written submissions and oral testimony, the Board concludes that the Children’s Aid Society for the County of Bruce has provided ample opportunity for the Applicant to be heard and in nearly every instance has responded to her concerns and inquiries in a timely manner. Furthermore, the Society has provided the Applicant with the numerous documents she requested. The Board believes that the Society has complied with the requirements of Subsection 2(2)(a) of the Act.

RECOMMENDATIONS

29In an effort to prevent a reoccurrence of the types of communication issues that were raised in this case the Board offers the following recommendations for consideration.

1. The Board believes that information of the type contained in correspondence between the Society and any client is confidential. Therefore, the Board suggests that the Society should refrain from dropping off any materials it wishes to give to any client, parent, or foster parent. However, if materials are being hand-delivered for whatever reason, they need to be given to the intended recipient, in well marked and sealed envelopes, and not merely left at the door.

2. The Society should consider altering its communication strategy with the Applicant. A summary report could be prepared for all telephone conversations and meetings. These written summaries could be provided to the Applicant with firm instructions to save them in an organized manner, as her personal record, in case future questions arise.

In addition, the Society could consider establishing a written calendar with the Applicant posting all regular monthly meetings. This may assist in both her organization and prevent missing visits with her son or other meetings with her Society workers.

3. The Applicant needs to attend all regularly scheduled monthly meetings with the Society. If she cannot attend, the Applicant should inform the Society and request a re-scheduling. Other than for reasons of illness, the cancellation notice should be given at least 24 hours prior to the meeting date.

4. The Applicant needs to follow-up directly with the Society every time she hears any rumours or reports regarding her son’s care or relationship with the Society from people other than Society employees. Asking for clarification should prevent the Applicant from making false assumptions about matters that affect her interests.

DECISION

30The Board dismisses the complaint under subsection 68.1(7)(e) of the Act.

Walter Rogers

Presiding Member

John Gates

Panel Member