M.H. v. Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society, 2008 CFSRB 58

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

M.H.

v.

Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society

REASONS FOR DECISION

WRITTEN REVIEW

Date: June 5, 2008

Citation: 2008 CFSRB 58

Indexed as: M.H. v. Huron-Perth CAS (CFSA s.68)

1M.H. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on March 25, 2008 pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”) against the Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”). On March 31, 2008 the Board sent a letter to the Applicant requesting additional information regarding the complaint. The Applicant contacted the Board on April 8, 2008 and requested an extension of time in order to submit the required information. The information was received on April 24, 2008 and the application was deemed eligible on April 30, 2008. The Board is conducting a written review as per Rule 60 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure. The written review is based on the application of the Applicant and the summary reply of the Society.

2The Applicant’s specific complaint to the Board was that the Society has refused to proceed with her complaint.

3The Applicant reported that she had involvement with Children Aid Societies since the age of 6 and continued until she became a young mother of 3 children. The Applicant states that the Society is now harassing her youngest daughter, age 17, who has a baby. The Applicant advised that she contacted her physician and he asked the Society to leave the Applicant and her family alone and if there were any concerns the Society could phone the doctor and he would investigate. The Applicant indicated that she has no respect for the Society. She advised that the Society was sending letters to her friends and relative’s homes requesting the Applicant and her daughter to contact the Society.

4In the response submitted by Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) on May 6, 2008 they submitted that the Applicant has made no complaint in writing to the Society, but she had filed a complaint with the Board. The Society stated that the Applicant phoned the Executive Assistant to the Executive Director of the Society advising that she was suing the agency for bothering her family as Society employees do not listen. The Applicant advised that she would have her lawyers make a 3 way conference call between them, herself and the Executive Director. She advised that this needed to happen by 4:00 p.m. that day. The Applicant left no contact information. The Applicant called the Society office again indicating that she had not heard from the Director. She confirmed that she had not made a complaint and had her concerns reviewed with a Society worker. She further stated that the Society had a letter on file from Dr. J. not to contact her directly and any concerns are to be directed through him. She refused to provide her phone number but gave the doctor’s number and stated that he was on vacation and the Society could leave a message. The Society does not have a letter from the doctor as described by the Applicant.

5The Society advised that a Society worker was attempting to locate the Applicant’s daughter regarding a referral that involved her. Previous attempts to locate her were unsuccessful. The Society worker attended a home looking for the Applicant’s daughter. No one answered the door. The Society worker left a card with her contact information in a sealed envelope addressed to the Applicant’s daughter. The worker also visited the home of the Applicant. There was no answer there and the worker also left her card in a sealed envelope addressed to the Applicant’s daughter.

6Later that same day the Society worker called the Applicant. The Applicant advised the worker that she would be calling her lawyer and having the Society charged with harassment and advised the worker to contact Dr. J. The worker informed the Applicant that there was no consent signed. The Applicant stated that the doctor would contact the agency on her behalf.

7On four other occasions and at three different locations the Society worker left her business card in a sealed envelope addressed to the Applicant’s daughter. The worker also contacted Ontario Works for contact information but was advised that information cannot be released without consent unless there is a strong indication of a child protection issue.

8The Society in its submission states that the complaint for review by the Board is not eligible for review under section 68.1(4) items 1 – 5 of the Act as she is not receiving or seeking a service from the Society. The Society does not have a file on the Applicant. The Society was only seeking her co-operation in locating her daughter who currently has an open file in regard to an investigation.

9The Society stated that they have not refused to deal with a written complaint by the Applicant as there is none.

10Further, the Society said that section 2(2)(a) of the Act does not apply as there has been no decision made affecting her or her child’s interests or concerns about services she was receiving or her child.

11The Society stated that any complaint the Applicant has about the Society and harassment for the last twenty-two years was prior to November 30, 2006 and that the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear this allegation. The Society referenced a Board decision dated March 14, 2007 between D.D. and Toronto Catholic Children’s Aid Society.

12Based on the summary reply of the Society, the Applicant has not sought or received service from the Society. It appears that the child protection service provided by the Society was to the Applicant’s daughter and not the Applicant. Accordingly, the Board dismisses the complaint.

Ruth Ann Schedlich

Board Member