CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
T.C.
v.
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
REASONS FOR DECISION ON JURISDICTION AND MERITS
Date: July 14, 2008
Citation: 2008 CFSRB 68
Indexed as: T.C. v. CAS of Toronto (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1On April 11, 2008, T.C1. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) against the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). He complained that the Society refused to proceed with his complaint, did not meet with him and did not investigate his concerns of abuse and emotional harm to his daughter. He also alleges that there were inaccuracies in the file when Society workers filed false statements during an investigation of his children’s foster parents.
2The Board conducted a hearing on July 4, 2008 in Toronto, Ontario. The Society, in a preliminary motion, argued that the Board did not have jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s complaints because he was not a person who sought or received services from them within the meaning of section 68.1 of the Act and that his lack of access is not a child protection issue and should be addressed in Court.
3This is the Board’s decision on jurisdiction and the merits of the application.
BACKGROUND
4The Applicant is the father of C.C., T.C2. and I.C. The children were taken into care by the Children’s Aid Society of Brant and subsequently placed in Toronto with J.K. and S.K. Ms. S.K. is the paternal aunt of the children. The Society became involved when the Children’s Aid Society of Brant asked that it conduct a home study of the J.K.& S.K. home. The Society provided a Child and Youth Worker from July 2004 to April 2005 to support the foster home. In 2004, the Society conducted an investigation of J.K. and S.K. following allegations made anonymously to Crime Stoppers about the treatment of the Applicant’s children. Before the investigation was completed, the allegations were withdrawn. The Society could not verify the allegations and the file was closed.
5T.C2. currently resides with the Applicant. In a Court Order dated February […], 2007, J.K. and S.K. were given custody of C.C. (d.o.b. May […], 1995) and I.C. (d.o.b. July […], 1989).
6The Applicant wrote a letter dated March […], 2008 to D.F., Director of the Society’s Intake Branch, alleging that his daughter is being emotionally harmed because she is being denied access to him, her brother, her uncle, and her grandmother. He alleges that the caseworkers who conducted the investigation in 2004 closed the file despite the vast amount of information regarding the couple’s abusive history. The Applicant disagrees with the investigation conducted by the Society in 2004 and claims that the workers filed inaccurate statements. He asked for a two hour meeting with D.F. to discuss the issue of abuse. D.F. telephoned the Applicant and spoke to him on March […], 2008. He wrote a letter to the Applicant dated March […], 2008, giving reasons why the reports of abuse did not warrant a child protection investigation.
7In a pre-hearing teleconference held on June 16, 2008, the Applicant identified two main issues:
- He wanted the Society to act on his concerns of emotional harm to his daughter. These concerns relate to a history of problems in the home where his children reside and to the fact that he has not had access or heard from his daughter in over a year.
- The Applicant also complained that in a letter written by Society workers on July […], 2004, they filed false statements saying that they had interviewed the children and that these statements constituted inaccuracies in the file.
ANALYSIS
Jurisdiction
Issue 1: Service Sought or Received
8The Society argued that the Applicant was not a person who sought or received a service within the meaning of section 68.1 of the Act because the Society was acting as an agent for the Children’s Aid Society of Brant. Three letters from the Children’s Aid Society of Brant dated April […], 2004, May […], 2004 and June […], 2004 were introduced to show that the Society was conducting a home study on their request, and that the Society would supervise and support the foster home on a fee for service basis. The children were in the care and custody of the Children’s Aid Society of Brant. The services provided by the Society were to the J.K. & S.K. family, not the Applicant. The Child and Youth Worker assigned to assist T.C2. was a service provided to T.C2. and not the Applicant. The Society claims that the Board has no jurisdiction to hear the complaints since the Applicant did not receive a service from the Society.
9In a Court Order dated February […], 2007, J.K. and S.K. were given custody of C.C. and I.C. C.C.’s access would be unsupervised and with her consent. The Society argued that access is a matter for the Court and that the proper and rightful recourse would be for the Applicant to go back to Court to have the Order enforced. The Society’s view is that this complaint is not a child protection matter. Rather, the Applicant is making an assumption of emotional harm when there are no grounds to substantiate a suspicion of abuse and the need for the Society to investigate.
10The Applicant argued that he is concerned about emotional harm to his daughter which is a child protection issue, not an issue of custody and access. His child is being isolated from a father she loves, her brother, and a grandmother whose Christmas gifts have not been acknowledged. The Applicant argued that as a result of this isolation, she is suffering emotional harm.
11The Applicant points out that the Society was working hand-in-hand with the Children’s Aid Society of Brant and was providing services to the children. In the Society’s submission, a Child and Youth Worker was provided for T.C2. and this assistance may fall within the definition of service within the Act. The Applicant made reference to a June […], 2005 letter from Ms. C. to a child psychologist which indicated that the Society was providing services. The Applicant made a complaint to the Society on March […], 2008 and he believes his concerns were not heard by the Society.
12The Board finds that the Applicant is a parent seeking child protection services for his daughter and has a right to be heard under s.2(2)(a) of the Act which states that service providers shall ensure children and their parents have an opportunity where appropriate to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interest are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving. The Applicant is complaining that his daughter is suffering emotional abuse and the Society is refusing to listen to him. The Board held it had jurisdiction to hear this issue alone and directed that all evidence must relate to this issue.
Issue 2: Inaccuracies
13The Applicant alleges that there were false statements in a letter from J.B., Intake Social Worker, and P.S., Intake Supervisor, dated July […], 2004 to Mr. J.K. and that these false statements are inaccuracies in the file.
14The Society argued that in the child protection investigation conducted by the Society in 2004, the J.K & S.K. family was receiving the service. The Applicant did not receive a service relating to this investigation. Therefore, the Board does not have the jurisdiction to hear this issue. In addition, the letter referred to by the Applicant was written by J.B. and P.S. to Mr. J.K. and is in the J.K.& S.K. file.
15The Board held it did not have jurisdiction to hear this issue. The letter in question was addressed to Mr. J.K. and would be in the J.K.& S.K. file. The Board has no jurisdiction to hear a complaint from the Applicant regarding an inaccuracy in another person’s file.
Merits
Concerns of Abuse & Emotional Harm
16The Board must determine whether the Applicant was heard when he sought child protection services for his daughter. The Applicant testified that he has not seen his daughter for over a year. He did not get a phone call on Father’s Day or his birthday. He feels that his daughter is being systematically isolated from the family and as a result, is suffering emotional harm.
17The Applicant quoted extensively from information on the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies website to emphasize his submission that the Association encourages the public to call if there is any suspicion of child abuse and it is the Society’s responsibility to investigate and determine if abuse occurred. It also states that you do not need to be sure before you call, all you need is reasonable grounds. The Applicant believes he provided D.F. with reasonable grounds. The Applicant feels that he is obligated to report abuse according to the law. He wanted to share this information with D.F., but alleges that Mr. D.F. was not interested in anything he said. The Applicant avows that Mr. D.F. did not investigate nor did his reply letter of March […], 2008 address his concerns.
18The Applicant believes that his daughter is being isolated and is suffering from emotional abuse. He introduced reports from Police Crime Stoppers regarding J.K. and S.K.. He referred to incidents described in court transcripts (incidents of a man yelling at a teenager, his son being locked out in the cold, police being called and a smashed gameboy) to support his suspicions. He testified that his daughter’s behaviour changed drastically, in that there were no phone calls, no visits at Christmas and no acknowledgement of gifts from her grandmother. He is concerned that his daughter may be controlled and manipulated by J.K. and S.K.
19The February […], 2007 Court Order stipulated that the Applicant could receive telephone calls from C.C. at two specific times each week. He has never had a call at those dates and times. However, in the last year and a half, he has received four voice messages on his telephone from C.C. at times other than those specified in the Court Order. As well, he has sent train tickets, but his daughter has never used them to visit him. He has gone to Court to restore his access and tried to get police enforcement of his access order but was unsuccessful. The last time he saw his daughter was in June of 2007 when J.K. and S.K. drove her to his home for a five hour visit.
20D.F. testified that the Society does invite people to call with suspicions of child abuse; however, the Society makes the decision whether the suspicions warrant intervention. In the case of the Applicant, his suspicions were based on no concrete information. In the absence of information, the Society would not act. After receiving the Applicant’s letter, D.F. telephoned the Applicant to discuss his concerns. All the allegations against J.K. and S.K. that were discussed over the phone and in the Applicant’s letter of March […], 2008 were dealt with in the 2004 child protection investigation. The allegations were not substantiated. In addition, the evidence provided by the Applicant established that all the incidents that were being complained about were before the Court in the child protection application and in the custody application. D.F. asked the Applicant for new concerns and information that would indicate emotional harm as demonstrated by severe depression. The Applicant did not give any information that his daughter is suffering from depression or anxiety.
21The Society argued that the Applicant is presuming emotional harm from the sole fact that he has not seen his daughter in over one year. The Applicant presented no new information of emotional harm and there was no need for the Society to intervene. Lack of contact with a child is not a ground for child protection. D.F. directed the Applicant to go back to Court to enforce his access.
22The Board finds that the Applicant’s March […], 2008 letter to the Society contained references to historical incidents that had been investigated by the Society and had been before the Court. The Society rightly refused to investigate these incidents again. The Applicant did not provide new information to warrant a new investigation.
23With regards to the Applicant’s allegation that his daughter was deliberately alienated, the Board agrees with the Society that the Applicant was required to provide more information than the bald assertion that his daughter was suffering emotional harm because she had no contact with her father and other family members for a period of over one year. While the Applicant would be unable to adduce evidence of depression and anxiety because he had not seen his daughter, he could provide evidence of his attempts to contact his daughter and the attempts of other family members, in particular his son, and the information obtained as a result of those attempts.
24The Applicant provided no evidence of attempts by him or his son, the uncle or grandmother to contact the daughter. Even though the Court Order allowed him telephone contact, he did not indicate that he made any attempts to call his daughter during the prescribed times. His daughter left him four telephone messages but he did not return her calls claiming that J.K and S.K. have an answering service and screen out his calls. The Applicant went to Court to restore his access and a court decision was rendered on August […], 2007. However, the Applicant did not provide the decision of the judge to explain why he was not successful in enforcing access.
25The Applicant sought child protection services from the Society. The Board finds that he was heard by the Society based on the limited information he provided. D.F., Director of Intake, telephoned the Applicant and discussed the concerns raised in his letter. The Applicant did not provide any new information to warrant a child protection investigation. D.F., then, wrote a letter giving the Applicant reasons for his decision.
26In conclusion, the Society was under no obligation to listen to historical concerns that had been before the court in two different proceedings. With respect to the alienation complaint, the Applicant had to provide more to the Society than the bald assertion that lack of contact equated with emotional abuse. In the absence of information within the Applicant’s control, namely attempts to contact his daughter and the results of those attempts, the concern raised by the Applicant was an access concern that was properly identified as such by the Society.
DECISION
27The Board finds that the Applicant was heard and dismisses the complaint against the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto.
John Gates
Presiding Member
Jennifer Scott
Board Member
Mary Wong
Board Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 14th day of July, 2008.