A.P. v. Dilico Anishinabek Family Care, 2008 CFSRB 76

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

A.P.

v.

Dilico Anishinabek Family Care

REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS

Date: August 6, 2008

Citation: 2008 CFSRB 76

Indexed as: A.P. v. Dilico Anishinabek Family Care (CFSA s.68)

Related Decisions: Reasons for Decision on Jurisdiction - A.P. v. Dilico Anishinabek Family Care (CFSA S.68), 2008 CFSRB 27

INTRODUCTION

1On September 12, 2007, the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from Ms. A.P. (the “Applicant”) regarding a complaint against Dilico Anishinabek Family Care (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”).

2The Applicant originally made three applications to the Board. The Board decided to join the applications, with the Society’s consent.

3In an earlier decision, the Board decided that it had jurisdiction to hear twelve of the Applicant’s seventeen complaints. The Board found that the Applicant’s complaints fall under section 68.1(4)4 and section 68.1(4)5 which read as follows:

68.1(4)4 Allegations that the society failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a) which states 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.

(4)5 Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.

4Ms. A.P. is the biological mother of T.P., d.o.b. August […], 1998; N.P., d.o.b. May […], 2000; S.P., d.o.b. March […], 2002 and L.P., d.o.b. January […], 2003. The biological father of all four children is J.G.. The mother is a member of the N. First Nation and the father is a member of the W. First Nation. In July 2007, the Society apprehended the Applicant’s children and placed them in foster care.

ANALYSIS

Complaints 1 and 3

5The Board heard that when the children were apprehended in July 2007, no effort was made to contact the children’s biological father. Two of the Applicant’s complaints concerned the failure to contact the father and not understanding whose responsibility it was to do so. During the hearing, the Board heard from Mr. J.G.. He stated the last time he had seen the children was in December 2006. He further stated that he was away living in [ ], “living loose”, “partying and having fun – living the life.” He also noted that there was a definite lack of communication between himself and the Applicant. It was also at a time when the Applicant had signed the children over to the Applicant’s older son, T.. D.C., worker for the Society, did try to track down Mr. J.G. by telephone and ultimately left messages with his mother. Unfortunately, his mother did not relay the messages. Mr. J.G. also told the Board that he was “out and about” and that is the reason he could not be contacted.

6The Board feels the Society did all that it could in light of Mr. J.G.’s testimony regarding his admission of no fixed address, and his lifestyle at the time, and dismisses the complaint as the Society took all reasonable steps to locate him. The Society was unable to hear from Mr. J.G. regarding the apprehension of his children because he could not be located. As such, there was no breach of clause 2(2)(a) of the Act.

Complaint 2

7The Board heard that the Applicant went 43 days without seeing the children and they had been separated into two different homes. The Society said that the children were placed into two homes, as that was the only option available at the time. As for not seeing the children for 43 days, it was during a time when access was to be supervised by the Society by court order.

8The Board dismisses the Applicant’s complaint and finds that the Society listened to the Applicant and did all that it could do. Because of the limited availability of foster homes, the placement of the four children into two separate homes was a necessity and therefore the Board dismisses the Applicant’s complaint.

Complaint 8

9The Applicant complained that the children were arriving for visitation hungry, dirty, smelling of urine and covered in animal fur. The Board heard that the Society did investigate and interviewed the children. The allegations could not be confirmed. The Society’s child worker spoke to the children and did not smell anything untoward. The children’s school also did not report any hygiene issues. With regard to the animal fur, it was explained as shedding from the family pets.

10The Society investigated the concerns and found that the animal fur was the result of normal shedding from the household pets. The Society interviewed the children and determined the remaining allegations made by the Applicant relating to the personal hygiene of the children could not be substantiated. The Board dismisses the complaint because the Applicant’s concerns were heard and investigated by the Society.

Complaints 9 and 10

11The Applicant alleged that the children had suffered repeated sexual and physical abuse while in foster care. A childcare worker from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer interviewed the children and could not substantiate the allegations. The police were involved and a forensic interview took place, with no substantive conclusions being reached.

12The Board finds that the allegations of abuse are unfounded and dismisses the complaint as the Applicant’s complaint was heard. The incidents were investigated by the Office of the Children’s’ Lawyer and the police and neither could substantiate the claims.

Complaint 11

13The Applicant claimed that traditional objects had been denied to the children, taken away from them and not returned. The Society reported that some items had been lost during moves between the foster homes. Society worker B.S. had logged the items, but they were misplaced. The children’s dream catchers did get returned to the family.

14The Board finds that due to circumstances beyond anyone’s control, some items were innocently misplaced during moves between foster homes. The complaint is dismissed as the Applicant was heard about her concerns and the Society tried, unsuccessfully, to locate the missing items.

Complaint 13

15The Applicant had sent many letters to the Society and they have not been responded to. The Society provided a great many letters of response for the Board’s consideration. Unfortunately, the responses were not satisfactory for the Applicant. The Society advised the Applicant that if she was not satisfied with the answers she had received, she had the option of proceeding with the Society’s complaint process or she could submit an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board, which she ultimately did.

16The Board dismisses the complaint made by the Applicant and finds the Society responded to the best of its ability. When the Applicant submitted letters to Dilico indicating concerns, Dilico addressed each of her concerns. If Dilico wasn’t clear about the concerns, they requested further details from the Applicant. While the Applicant may be dissatisfied with Dilico’s response, that does not mean her concerns were not heard. The Board finds that Dilico heard and responded to the Applicant’s concerns.

Complaint 14

17The Applicant complained that the youngest child had made comments about “bad touching” and the foster mother being mean to him. A.C., Manager, Family Services (Society), conducted an interview with the children and there was no conclusive evidence to support the allegations made by the Applicant.

18The Board dismisses the complaint made by the Applicant as she was heard by the Society. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer conducted interviews with the child, as did the police, with no substantive conclusions being reached.

Complaint 15

19The Applicant raised issues of abuse and no one interviewed the children. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer interviewed the children and found nothing substantive. The children’s lawyer had numerous opportunities to interview the children and could not substantiate the allegations. The Applicant was extremely critical of the lawyer from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, A.B., and her involvement with the allegations.

20The Board dismisses the complaint made by the Applicant. The Society heard and investigated the allegations. The children received the proper attention from the authorities. The allegations made by the Applicant could not be substantiated.

Complaint 16

21The Applicant feels the Society is refusing to deal with the issues raised in the complaint, despite the Applicant’s attempts to speak to the Society’s Executive Director and/or other employees. Ms. A.C. and the Executive Director noted that they followed all the steps, from meeting with the parents to advising her of the complaint process. She also explained that more than 50% of her staff had refused to work with the Applicant due to her hostility and confrontational nature. The Applicant continually intimidated and confronted the Society’s staff and therefore the Manager, Family Services took it upon herself to work directly with the Applicant to make sure her issues were addressed.

22The Board dismisses the Applicant’s complaint and finds that the personal disposition of the Applicant, and her hostility towards Society staff and volunteers, resulted in the decision of the Society administration to deal directly with her, thus shielding the workers from the Applicant’s misguided aggression. Further, the Family Services Manager took over the file personally and dealt directly with the Applicant to address her concerns.

Complaint 17

23The Applicant’s phone calls were not returned, drivers have not been available and visits had to be cancelled. Ms. A.C. explained that when drivers were available, the Applicant would “get in their face” and the volunteer drivers said they would not be available for the Applicant due to her menacing behaviour. The Board found that the Society addressed the Applicant’s complaint, explaining that the drivers are strictly volunteer and because of the Applicant’s menacing behaviour there wasn’t always the availability of a volunteer driver and therefore, some of the visits had to be cancelled. Due to the Applicant’s behaviour, a Parent Capacity Assessment was ordered by the Court which validated the Society’s position.

DECISION

24The Society addressed the issues raised by the Applicant in a fair, reasonable, experienced and dedicated manner. All attention was given to provide culturally appropriate care to the Applicant and her children in an attempt to support traditional Aboriginal teachings.

25The Board recognizes the Society made every effort to provide support to the Applicant while addressing each complaint. The Society noted that no disclosures were ever made by the children who appeared happy and well cared for in their foster homes. The Society staff responded appropriately to all of the numerous complaints deemed eligible for review by the Board. The Board finds that the Society listened to the Applicant’s concerns regarding all of the complaints reviewed by the Board.

26Although it had been communicated, on more than one occasion, the remedies the Board could offer, the remedy that the Applicant is seeking is legal custody of her four minor children which is beyond the Board’s jurisdiction.

27For the reasons stated above, the Board dismisses Ms. A.P.’s application.

Wendell White

Presiding Member

Ruth Ann Schedlich

Panel Member

Frances Sanderson

Panel Member