B.B. v. CAS of the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac, 2008 CFSRB 46

Children’s Aid Society of the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac

REASONS FOR DECISION ON JURISDICTION AND MERITS

Date: May 16, 2008

Citation: 2008 CFSRB 46

Indexed as: B.B. v. CAS of the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac (CFSA s.68)

1The Applicant, brought an application for review pursuant to section 68 and section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”).

2The Applicant was present for the hearing on April 24, 2008 in Kingston and represented himself. The Applicant attended with his sister, K.B., as a support person and with his mother, M.B., as a witness. The Society provided written submissions dated April [...], 2008, including copies of various correspondence sent by the Society and a copy of the Reasons for Decision dated October 11, 2007 given after a previous hearing by this Board. The Society elected not to attend at the hearing and chose to rely upon the materials submitted. The brief provided by the Society could not be considered as evidence in this proceeding. Accordingly, the only evidence available to the Board was that given by the Applicant.

3The Applicant had made a previous complaint against Frontenac Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) in File Number CA07-0081 and a hearing with respect to that complaint took place on September 25, 2007. A Decision dated the 11th day of October, 2007 was released by a different panel of this Board. In this earlier Decision, the Board determined, in part, that the Society had not followed the appropriate Internal Complaints Review Panel procedure (“ICRP”) and ordered it to do so.

ISSUES

4The issues raised by the Applicant were detailed in the Pre-Hearing Report dated the 26th day of March, 2008 and the two issues are summarized as follows:

A. An ICRP hearing was held by the Society on the [...] day of October, 2007 and a written summary of the results was sent to the Applicant by the Society the same day. In this application, the Applicant, is alleging that the Society has failed to comply with an aspect of the complaint review procedure. As noted in the ICRP report dated the [...] day of October, 2007 filed by the Applicant (Exhibit A-3), there was future action required with respect to the fourth item which states:

In regards to your ongoing concern for the protection and well-being of the children, K. and Q., FCAS will convene a meeting with R.D., P.W., E.B. and yourself to discuss these issues further and work to develop a plan that is in the best interest of the children.

The Applicant complains that nothing happened in respect of item four after October [...], 2007.

B. The Applicant further complains that allegations of abuse of his child, K., made on October [...], 2007 were not properly addressed by the Society and that his concerns in that regard were not heard (and that the Society has continually ignored concerns of abuse of K. by his mother raised by the Applicant in the past).

BACKGROUND

5The Applicant is the father of two children namely K., born April [...], 2001 and Q., born September [...], 2002. From at least March [...], 2007, the children have maintained their primary residence with their father. The involvement between the Applicant and the Society has been voluntary and there is no indication of any child protection application being made with respect to these children pursuant to the provisions of the Act. It is clear from reading the Decision of this Board made October 11, 2007 that a significant aspect of the previous complaint was the perceived failure of the Society to investigate the complaints made by the Applicant that the children were being exposed to mental, emotional and physical abuse when visiting their mother. The subject matter of the second complaint is really a continuation of the concerns raised in the first complaint.

ANALYSIS

6With respect to the first complaint relating to Society’s failure to complete the ICRP process, the Applicant gave evidence that the only contact he had with the Society since October [...], 2007 was an unrelated meeting in the Society offices on December [...], 2007 and that otherwise, there has been no further contact and no action with respect to the ICRP requirement in item four. In attendance at this meeting were E.B., R.D., P.W. and the Applicant (Exhibit A-4). It was the initial evidence of the Applicant that the children were present at the December [...], 2007 meeting at the Society office and that discussing child protection and child well being issues was, therefore, not planned for that day. The Applicant took the position that it was not the purpose of the December [...], 2007 meeting to follow up with item four in the ICRP report since the children were at that meeting and, clearly, would not have been in attendance had that been the purpose. Upon questioning later by a panel member, the Applicant clarified that the Society did not ask him to bring the children to the December [...], 2007 meeting but that he simply chose to do so. It was the evidence of the Applicant that the focus of the meeting on December [...], 2007 was to obtain approval for an assessment by Dr.L. The Applicant explained that this is a parental capacity assessment of the Applicant, the mother, E.B. and the children and that the assessment will also address access considerations and concerns. The assessment process is being funded by the Society and the Applicant indicated that he believes the assessment is either nearly complete or just recently completed.

7The Board finds on these facts that the Society is actively addressing the concern referenced in item four of the ICRP report of October [...], 2007 and that it is premature for the Applicant to complain at this time. It was the specific evidence of the Applicant that he was personally aware of three meetings with Dr. L. in February and March of this year and that as well he had spoken with the case worker, R.D., at some length when R.D. delivered the Society submissions in this application to the Applicant. The Board anticipates that the Society will meet with the Applicant and other necessary parties upon presentation of the assessment report by Dr. L. At that time, the Society should be better equipped to continue to discuss the protection issues raised by the Applicant and to help develop a plan that is in the best interests of the children.

8The second complaint by the Applicant is that the concerns raised on October [...], 2007 (and previously) with respect to abuse of the child, K., by his mother were not heard by the Society. The Board heard oral evidence from the Applicant on this point and the Applicant reviewed the chronology provided by the Society in correspondence to the Board dated February [...], 2008 and contained at Tab 2(b) to the Society submissions. The Applicant confirmed in his evidence the chronology set out by the Society to the extent that same was within his personal knowledge. It is the evidence of the Applicant that the Society did respond to the concerns raised by the Applicant in respect of the abuse allegation involving K. and that these concerns were investigated by the Society albeit not appropriately in his view. The Applicant believes that the Society should have intervened.

CONCLUSION

9The Board finds that it does not have jurisdiction at this time to deal with the first complaint in respect of the ICRP process since that process is ongoing and not yet completed. The Board finds on the evidence that the Society is addressing item four as summarized in the ICRP report and, accordingly, this complaint is dismissed.

10The Board finds that the second complaint by the Applicant that he is not being heard by the Society in respect of recent child abuse concerns is within the jurisdiction of the Board but is premature having regard to the ongoing ICRP process as noted above. This second complaint is very much a continuation of the first complaint by the Applicant about his concerns for the protection and well-being of the children and should be dealt within the same process as noted above. These concerns remain unresolved for the Applicant and should be addressed by the Society as part of the future action required by the Society as noted on item four of the ICRP report after Dr. L. has completed the assessment.

Gregory Price Presiding Member

David Griffiths Panel Member

Fizul Sima Panel Member

Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 16th day of May, 2008.