CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
D.C-L
v.
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
REASONS FOR DECISION ON JURISDICTION & MERITS
INTRODUCTION
1This is an Application by D.C-L under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C11 (the “CFSA”). The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) was asked to review complaints made by D.C-L (the “Applicant”) about the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the “Society”). The Applicant specifically complains that the Society failed to provide her with reasons for decisions that affected her interests and generally that she has not had an opportunity to be heard in some instances with respect to services received from the Society. The Society took the position that there was no jurisdiction for the Board to deal with some aspects of this complaint and no merit to those complaints under the jurisdiction of the Board.
BACKGROUND
2The Applicant has been involved with the Society for many years and this application is in connection with services sought and received by the Applicant from the Society in respect of her son, D.C., born the […] of April, 2001. The child has been in the temporary care and custody of the Society by Court Order since August […], 2007 and a Status Review Application is currently before the Court. The Applicant is presenting a plan to the Society and to the Court whereby her son would be returned to her care or to the care of a grandmother. This plan is currently before the Court and, at this point in time, the Society is opposed. The Applicant has general concerns that she is not receiving the social work assistance and direction she requires in order to successfully implement her plan.
JURISDICTION
3The Society proceeded first with jurisdiction arguments and the Applicant responded. The parties agreed and there is no issue that the following aspects of the Application are before the Court as contemplated by section 68.1(8)(a) and, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. The matters where there is lack of jurisdiction can be summarized as follows:
(a) The allegation made by the Applicant that the presiding Justice (in Court) stated that the Society is not being fair to the Applicant and that there are no parenting or drug issues.
(b) The complaint by the Applicant about the decision of the Society not to support the plan put forward by the Applicant that the child is returned to her or to the maternal or paternal grandmother.
(c ) The request by the Applicant for more access to the child.
4With respect to the concerns listed above, the position of the Society was accepted by the Applicant and the only remaining jurisdiction issue related to the complaint by the Applicant that a previous case worker, A.S., had lied in an affidavit. The Applicant gave evidence with respect to this complaint and indicated in her evidence that this allegation had been brought to the attention of the presiding Justice on a previous child protection Court appearance and was the subject matter of some comment from the Bench. The Applicant considers this concern to still be before the Court and an issue to be addressed at trial. The Society notes that the alleged untruth is contained in an affidavit filed with the Court in the child protection proceeding. The Board finds on the evidence that this aspect of the Application is before the Court and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the Board. The Board determined that there was jurisdiction to deal with several considerations raised by the Applicant as follows:
Issues concerning the request by the Applicant for transfer of this file to N.C.A.F.S of Toronto.
Issues concerning the request by the Applicant that she attend play therapy sessions with the child.
The complaints made by the Applicant in respect of medication prescribed for the child and poor communication between the Society and the Applicant around this consideration.
Issues concerning requests by the Applicant for a case worker change.
The allegations made by the Applicant that the case worker does not adequately communicate expectations to the Applicant or assist the Applicant by providing positive direction as to what action should be taken by her to achieve her goals.
5The first complaint was withdrawn by the Applicant and there was a consensus, approved by the Board, that the considerations outlined in items 2 to 5 be addressed at a hearing on the merits.
HEARING
6An oral hearing took place on the merits after disposition of the motion on jurisdiction. It was agreed by the parties and endorsed by the Board that the hearing proceed on an issue by issue basis so that the Applicant would give her evidence with respect to an issue and the Society would respond so that all evidence was presented on an issue before moving to the next. The Applicant gave evidence on her own behalf and oral evidence on behalf of the Society was given by K.T., Supervisor. No other witnesses were called by either party. The Board makes the following determinations on the issues within Board jurisdiction:
Transfer to N.C.A.F.S of Toronto
7The complaint made by the Applicant in respect of her concerns around the request for a file transfer to N.C.A.F.S of Toronto was withdrawn. In this regard, the Applicant had a motion before the Court seeking an Order for this relief (transfer) and elected to withdraw that request in Court and at the commencement of the hearing before this Board. It was, therefore, not necessary to make a determination in respect of this complaint.
Play Therapy
8Evidence was heard with respect to this consideration and the complaint by the Applicant that her requests to participate were not properly answered. There was new information from the Society at the hearing for the Applicant and for the Board and, in particular, that the therapist had agreed to meet with the Applicant and the child in addition to the therapy already in place for the child. The Society offered, while presenting evidence, to make arrangements for two or three therapy sessions with the play therapist, L.J., the Applicant and the child (at a location to be determined) at the expense of the Society. Continuation of this therapy afterwards will depend upon any progress or lack of progress made in the initial sessions and the recommendation of the therapist. This was an acceptable resolution to the Applicant and will form the basis for a consent Order as agreed by the parties.
Medication
9An issue was raised by the Applicant with respect to medication (Ritalin) prescribed for the child and the Applicant gave evidence with respect to a lack of communication between the Applicant and case worker in respect of this medical treatment and further gave evidence with respect to her views regarding alternatives to medication (a preference not to medicate). The Society presented evidence that the child underwent a psychological assessment with a psychologist, D.F., on October […], 2007. It was Dr. D.F. who recommended a medical consultation and, as a result, an appointment was made for the child to be seen by a pediatrician, Dr. C., on October […], 2007. The Applicant was invited to attend the medical review before Dr. C. but did not show up and, after waiting for about one hour, the medical review proceeded in her absence. Dr. C. prescribed medication at that time and through inadvertence the Applicant was not notified for two or three weeks and only after she questioned the case worker. The case worker apologized to the Applicant for this oversight and the Applicant continues to believe that the child should not be medicated and that involvement in sports or some other program(s) may be effective to help calm the child or as an outlet for his aggression. The Applicant believes that the Society jumped too quickly to medication and should have tried other strategies first. The Society gave evidence with respect to the general policy with respect to medicating children and the specifics with respect to this child. The Society offered in evidence to arrange for the Applicant to meet directly with the pediatrician, Dr. C., to ask questions about the prescription treatment for the child and to discuss alternatives. The Applicant found this suggestion to be a satisfactory answer at this time to this complaint and, accordingly, this resolution will form the basis for a consent Order as agreed by the parties. The Society also offered to ask the psychologist, Dr. D.F., whether or not a review of the child’s situation at this time may be indicated (an early review) to assess the value of the current treatment program for the child which includes the prescribed medication. The Society will make these inquiries of the psychologist and will advise the Applicant of his response.
Worker Change
10The Board heard evidence from the Applicant with respect to her requests for a change in case worker in late 2004 and again on August […], 2006. It was clear from the evidence presented that a meeting was arranged by the Society immediately after the first worker change request was made to discuss these concerns and that the Applicant chose to continue working with the case worker as a result. The second request of August […], 2006 was made during a telephone discussion between the Applicant and the Supervisor, K.T.. The Applicant gave evidence that both requests were made since she was concerned that the case worker, A.S., was not working in the best interests of the family. The Applicant was able to give some specific examples of her concerns in her evidence. K.T. responded by discussing general policy considerations with respect to requests for a change in case worker and indicated that she receives regular calls of this nature from various Society clients when they are unhappy or going through a difficult period. K.T. gave specific evidence that the first request was resolved during the meeting held shortly afterwards attended by the Applicant, the case worker and herself. K.T. did not accede to the second request because of the timing which was around the time of apprehension of the child, B.. Ms. K.T. gave evidence that she would usually listen to a client requesting a worker change and explain to the client what the worker is trying to do and would ask the client to consider the negative impact. Ms. K.T. stated that lack of continuity of service and too many workers is not usually good. Since the situation in this case did not improve over time, the Society did agree to a change in case worker after receiving a request from legal counsel in November of 2006. The decision made in the first two instances was not that requested by the Applicant and, notwithstanding, the Board finds that the Applicant was heard and provided with reasons for these decisions.
Communication of Expectations to the Applicant by the Society
11The Applicant complains that the case worker does not communicate what is expected from her to help her family. The Applicant and the Society presented evidence with respect to the working relationship between the Applicant and the worker. The Society takes the position that it regularly communicates its expectations and recommendations to the Applicant through service plan of care documents, service plan of care meetings, plans of care in the context of the Court proceeding, meetings with the Applicant and through Court documentation. The Applicant is seeking a clear list from the Society of what it is the Applicant is expected to do in order to achieve her goal of having the child return to reside with her or with a grandmother. The Society takes the position that it is not that simple in this case, that there is a complicated and long history, and that all of these considerations are currently before the Court. With respect to this complaint the Board finds that the Society has provided the Applicant on an ongoing basis with information about decisions affecting her interests and the Society’s expectations. The Applicant has been given opportunities to be heard when she has had concerns about the services she is receiving. The Board is sympathetic to the Applicant’s desire to have a definitive list of requirements that she can meet which will ensure the return of her child from care but the Board is unable to find that the Society has acted inappropriately in this case.
CONCLUSION
12In addition to the Order made above concerning jurisdiction, the Board makes the following Orders:
That with respect to play therapy, and on consent, the Society will make arrangements for two or three therapy sessions with the therapist, L.J., the Applicant and the child (at a location to be determined) at the expense of the Society. Continuation of this therapy will depend upon any progress or lack of progress made in the initial sessions and the recommendation of the therapist.
That with respect to medication, and on consent, the Society will arrange for the Applicant to meet directly with the pediatrician to ask questions and obtain information about the prescription treatment for the child and to discuss alternatives with Dr. C..
That the balance of the complaints made by the Applicant be dismissed.
13The Board expects the Society to fulfill its obligations pursuant to paragraphs one and two above on or before June 30, 2008, with the full cooperation of the Applicant anticipated, and the Board will remain seized of this Application until such time as the parties have completed their obligations as set out in the consent Orders above.
Gregory Price
Presiding Member
Ruth Ann Schedlich
Panel Member
Donald Butler
Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 25th day of April, 2008.