M.J. v. Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County, 2008 CFSRB 9

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

M.J.

v.

Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County

REASONS FOR DECISION

WRITTEN REVIEW

Date: February 14, 2008

Citation: 2008 CFSRB 9

Indexed as: M.J. v. CAS of Simcoe County (CFSA s.68)

1In the matter of an application by M.J., received on October 25, 2007, for a review by the Child and Family Services Review Board of a decision by the Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County and in the matter of a written hearing dated February 8, 2008.

INTRODUCTION

2M.J. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on October 25, 2007, pursuant to subsection 68.1(1) of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”) against the Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County (the “Society” or “CAS”).

3The Board determined on November 1, 2007 that the application, prima facie, was eligible for review, meaning the application was eligible to proceed to the next step in the Board’s process. The Applicant and the Society were notified of this decision by mail on that date.

4The Society filed a summary reply on November 8, 2007, in which it argued that the Board is without jurisdiction under s.68.1(8)(a) to hear this complaint because all of the issues raised have been dealt with by a Court. The Society attached the decision of Madame Justice Wildman of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Board requested additional information from the Applicant on November 21, 2007, asking specifically for any information that might assist the Board to understand the reasons for his complaint. The Board received further submissions from the Applicant on December 11, 2007.

5The Board decided that the information on file is sufficient in this case to conduct a written review of the application, pursuant to subsection 68.1(5) of the Act and section 13 of Ontario Regulation 494/06 “Complaints to a Society and Reviews by the Child and Family Services Review Board” (“O.Reg 494/06”).

BACKGROUND

6Mr. M. J. and his ex-wife had two children together: J.M.J.J. (age 7) and V.P.D.S. (age 11). The children were apprehended from their mother, who was found to be unable to care for them.

7The Applicant and his current wife, E., went through a 63-day trial in an attempt to obtain custody of the children. They were unsuccessful and both children are currently Crown Wards without access.

ISSUES

8The issues for the Board to determine are first, whether the subject matter of the complaint has been decided by the Court, and if not, whether the Society refused to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint, or failed to provide the Applicant with an opportunity for his concerns to be heard.

SUBMISSIONS

9The Society submitted in its November 8 summary reply to the original application that the subject matter of the complaint has been considered by the Court. The parties were involved in a 63-day trial and called many witnesses. The decision of Madame Justice Wildman is 68 pages long. The Applicant was represented by counsel at the Superior Court of Justice, and in his unsuccessful attempt to appeal that decision.

10The Applicant did not address the jurisdiction argument in his December 10, 2007 submissions, but clarified that his application involves the following complaints:

1. Against the CAS Child Protection Worker Assigned to Their Case:

• she abused her authority by preventing the Applicant from caring for his children; including ignoring his calls and letters demanding custody;
• she improperly involved herself in the Applicant’s efforts to maintain affordable housing, and prevented the Applicant from receiving support;
• she had an “unprofessional attachment” with the Applicant’s daughter;
• she reported false information (such as that the Applicant’s daughter hated his current wife), took information out of context, and misrepresented information in order to discredit the Applicant’s wife (such as an unannounced visit on laundry day);
• she was biased in favour of the foster/adoptive family and ignored complaints about them;
• she is not a registered social worker;
• she purposely ruined a surprise birthday celebration planned by the Applicant for his daughter;
• she told the Applicant’s daughter false information about the Applicant and his wife, for example, that they only wanted his son;
• she told the children the Applicant was not able to look after them, despite the fact that parenting class instructors told them they didn’t need the classes, and other counsellors said they were doing a great job;
• she ignored the repeated requests of the Applicant’s daughter to live with the Applicant;
• she tries to influence others to prevent the Applicant from having custody.

2. Against the Society:

• CAS ignored demands to have the file transferred to Peel in June of 2001 (where the Applicant lives) rather than Simcoe County. The Applicant believes this was so they could keep control, because Peel CAS would not have removed the children from his home;
• CAS abused its authority by having the Applicant’s access supervised;
• CAS ignored the fact the Applicant has no criminal history, no drug or alcohol issues and has been employed by the same company for 13 years;
• CAS did not follow the complaint procedure until the Applicant made calls to the Minister’s office and MPP’s offices, and the office of the Premier;
• CAS did not acknowledge progress made by the Applicant when the children were in his care;
• CAS ignored or never acted upon reports by the Applicant and his wife about abuse by the CAS worker. CAS supported this worker despite a “history of abuse”;
• the offer of family or friends to care for the children was refused;
• CAS ignored the Applicant’s concerns about emotional abuse by the grandparents;
• CAS slandered the Applicant’s wife about her abilities as a parent;
• the Applicant’s daughter was better cared for by the Applicant than CAS;
• the judge made the wrong decision and was biased in favour of CAS;
• CAS ignored the Applicant’s repeated requests to have the worker changed;
• CAS ignored the Applicant’s request for help when income was severely, negatively impacted, and used this misfortune as a reason to remove the children;
• CAS gave the Applicant inconsistent information.

11The Society was not asked to respond to the Applicant’s December 10, 2007 further submissions.

ANALYSIS

(i) Jurisdiction

12The Board’s role is to supervise a Society’s complaints process, that is, its interaction with persons receiving services, rather than to review the specific decisions made by the Society. Any complaints which focus on a disagreement with the final decision of either the Society or the Court, are not complaints the Board is able to hear pursuant to s.68.1(4):

s. 68.1(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

1. Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 68(1) as required under subsection 68(2).

2. Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.

3. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints.

4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a).

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

Clause 2(2)(a), referred to above, provides:

Service providers shall ensure 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.

13A number of the complaints raised by the Applicant in his clarification letter are outside the Board’s jurisdiction to hear. These include complaints that the Court decision was biased or wrong.

14Section 68.1(8) of the Act provides that the Board may not consider complaints where the subject matter has been determined by, or is before the Court. In order to determine the jurisdiction question, the Board must clearly understand the subject matter of the complaint. It is for this reason that the Board asked the Applicant for further information, following his initial application.

15In considering the complaints listed by the Applicant in his December 10, 2007 clarification, and comparing them to the issues before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Board finds that all of the issues have either been considered by the Court, or do not fall within our jurisdiction under s.68.1(4).

16With regard to the Applicant’s complaints against the individual child protection worker, the Board notes that numerous Society workers testified at the trial, including the worker complained of. The Applicant (through his lawyer) had an opportunity to test her information, cross-examine her, and introduce his own information. That includes testing the truthfulness of her information, and the existence of any bias. Justice Wildman makes detailed comment in her decision about the interaction by the Applicant and his wife with the CAS, and the worker complained of. The actions of the child protection worker, and her qualifications, are matters that were before the Court.

17With regard to the Applicant’s complaints against the CAS, the worker’s supervisor and the Director of Service testified and were available for cross-examination by counsel for the Applicant. There is discussion in the decision of Society efforts to deal with conflict between the primary worker, and the Applicant and his wife. There is discussion of the relationship between the children and their grandparents, and an indication that the Applicant had ample opportunity to comment on the grandparents’ involvement in the case. The decision demonstrates that housing and financial constraints were discussed at trial, and the Society’s initiatives around this issue. There was extensive discussion of communication between the Society and the Applicant and his wife, and that letters began to be copied to the Minister and the Premier’s office. The Board has been unable to find any issue that was not considered by the Court.

18It is clear that Mr. M. J., in both his original application and the December 10 submissions, is asking the Board to award him custody of his children. The Board does not have this power. The decision regarding whether the children are better off in the Society’s care, or with the Applicant, is a decision the Court makes. The Applicant does not agree with the Society’s decisions, nor with the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. A review by this Board cannot address this fundamental disagreement.

CONCLUSION

19For all of the above-noted reasons, the Board dismisses the complaint.

Heather Gibbs

Presiding Member