J.M. v. Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay, 2009 CFSRB 22

J.M. v. Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay

REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS

Date: May 15, 2009

Citation: 2009 CFSRB 22

Indexed as: J.M. v. CAS of the District of Thunder Bay (CFSA s.68)

1The Applicant, Ms. J.M., filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on January 23, 2009 pursuant to section 68(5) of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”) regarding a decision of the Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay (the “Society”). The application was determined to be eligible on February 17, 2009. The hearing was held on April 22, 2009 in Thunder Bay, Ontario.

INTRODUCTION

2The Applicant applied to the Board following a meeting with the Internal Complaint Review Panel (“ICRP”) of the Society on January […], 2009. She believed that the issues discussed during the ICRP were not resolved or dealt with in a fair and efficient manner. She was dissatisfied with the Society’s very succinct response and felt that they failed to address many of the issues she presented. She believed the Society did not fully respond to her concerns in its written summary of the ICRP dated January […], 2009.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

3The Applicant requested the opportunity to audiotape the hearing. The Board advised the Applicant that the hearing was in camera and that the information disclosed during the hearing was private and could not be published. The Board allowed the Applicant to record the hearing for her own purposes, subject to the confidentiality provisions set out in section 45(8) of the Act.

BACKGROUND

4The Applicant believes that her daughters, who are now ages seventeen and eighteen, were sexually abused by their father in the past. She believes that the Society has not sufficiently dealt with or adequately investigated this alleged abuse, particularly regarding events that occurred in 1994, 1996 and 2003. The Applicant complained that:

With regard to the ICRP, the notes taken by the Society left out numerous points made during the meeting. These include a reference to a contact with the Society in April 1996 and to the Applicant’s many attempts to request assistance from the Society.
She was concerned that the Society did not explain the decision it took in 1994 when she first contacted the Society with allegations of sexual abuse relating to her daughters.
With regard to the interaction with the Society in 1996, there was little response from the ICRP.
With regard to the issues related to events in 2003, when the girls were again interviewed by the Society, there was little response from the Society.
In 2006, she wrote to the Society requesting disclosure of her file; the Society responded that it would not disclose the file.
Over the years, no Society professionals ever met with the children.
She provided a number of her daughter K.’s drawings to the ICRP, including one drawn at age sixteen; the ICRP provided little response.
Overall, at the ICRP, there was little response by the Society to her comments and the ICRP did not hear her concerns.

5In summary, the Applicant believes that the Society, over the years, should have investigated her concerns further, and should have apologized to her for its omissions.

6Counsel for the Society submitted that:

The ICRP was a three hour process during which there was no attempt to limit the Applicant’s comments or the length of the meeting.
In 1994, the allegation of abuse was not directed at the children’s father, but was directed at the Applicant’s stepson who was subsequently removed from the home. The Society then closed the file because there was not enough evidence of abuse by the stepson.
In 1996, there was a referral based on the Applicant’s concerns regarding her daughter K.. This occurred during a marital mediation between the Applicant and her ex-husband. At that time, the mediator, who was a psychotherapist, did not contact the Society regarding allegations of sexual abuse.
In 2003, the girls were interviewed by the Society at their uncle’s home; the Society attempted again to explore sexual references by the girls.
The children never disclosed sexual abuse to the Society and only indicated that “they didn’t remember”.
The Agency interviewed the children on five occasions.
With regard to the ICRP, each of the three panel members asked questions and were attentive; they gave the Applicant every opportunity to state her concerns.
At the ICRP, Ms. Q. asked what the Applicant wished the Society to do at this stage, given that her daughters are now seventeen and eighteen.

7In summary, counsel for the Society submitted that the members of the ICRP were well chosen, experienced and willing to listen. The two page letter from the panel was reasonable and appropriate in the context of this case, with regard to the relevance of the information, and to issues of confidentiality.

ANALYSIS

8Ms. Q., the Manager of Residential Services, chaired the ICRP meeting. She provided the Board with detailed notes taken of the ICRP meeting and testified that:

She viewed the ICRP as an opportunity to hear the Applicant’s concerns; however, in hindsight, she should have clarified which incidents were being addressed.
In 1994, the allegation of abuse was not directed at the children’s father, but was directed at the Applicant’s stepson who was subsequently removed from the home. The Society closed its file because the allegation of abuse could not be verified and the Applicant’s stepson had been removed from the home.
In 1996, K.’s disclosure that her father had watched a pornographic movie did not present sufficient evidence to warrant a child abuse investigation. She acknowledged that the ICRP summary did not respond to the Applicant’s 1996 concerns.
There were no concerns raised by the Applicant between 1996 and 2003.
In 2003, the children were interviewed and provided no information that their father had abused them. The Society file was closed because the concerns were not verified.
In 2004, the Society attempted to introduce the girls to counseling as a way to assist them and the Applicant with her concerns. There was no information regarding sexual abuse received by the Society as a result of that intervention.
There is nothing on file that would indicate that the Society’s information is incomplete.
With regard to the Applicant’s concerns, the Society cannot say that the girls have not been sexually abused; however, it can only take action on the information it has been given.
The Society would not want to put children in a position of risk. Society workers would never minimize information or concerns regarding risk to children.
The children, now seventeen and eighteen, have had access to many professionals and many occasions and opportunities to disclose sexual abuse. At no time, have they given any information to support the Applicant’s concerns that they had been abused.
The daughters are now beyond the age of the Society’s jurisdiction. The Society has offered to meet with the girls and would support their goals, but this offer has not been taken up.
With regard to the Society’s written response following the ICRP, it might have been beneficial to delve further into the issues identified in the complaint and to clarify the time frames and occasions identified by the Applicant.
The Society did not provide much detailed information to the Applicant at the ICRP and in the future it would provide more.

9The issue before the Board is whether the ICRP heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided as clear a response as possible to the Applicant’s queries. The Applicant was concerned that her daughters may have been sexually abused by their father. She sought to know what steps the Society had taken to investigate this matter, specifically concerning her interactions with the Society in 1994, 1996 and 2003.

10The notes of the ICRP meeting provided by the Society demonstrate clearly that the Society heard the Applicant’s concerns. The Applicant was given a full opportunity to voice her complaints to the ICRP members. The Board wishes to acknowledge the Society’s efforts in providing the Applicant with an opportunity to express her concerns in an open manner and notes that the Society has been conscientious in its attempt to serve the Applicant and her daughters.

11The issue before the Board is whether the summary of the ICRP provided by the Society after the meeting provides a meaningful response to the concerns that were expressed during the ICRP meeting. The Board recognizes that the legislation, specifically, section 9 of Ontario Regulation 494/06, is not helpful with regard to how full an explanation the Society should provide after an ICRP. Section 9 is reproduced below:

Within 14 days after the meeting, the ICRP shall send a written summary of the results of the meeting, including any agreed upon next steps, to the complainant and the executive director of the society to which the complaint was made.

12The Board is of the view that in order for the process to be meaningful, it is necessary for the Society to provide reasons and an explanation to the Applicant that are sufficient to explain fully the conclusions that were reached. Given that the ICRP summary provides a permanent record and a closure to the ICRP process, it is important for the Society to outline what steps were taken, the conclusions that were reached, and what decisions were made, while respecting the confidentiality required by the Act.

13The Society’s letter of January […], 2009 regarding the ICRP provides no reference to the allegation received in 1996. Additionally, there is little detail regarding how the allegations received in 1994, 1996 and 2003 were investigated. The letter does not clearly outline how the conclusions and decisions following those investigations were reached.

14While the Board acknowledges that the lack of clarity in the legislation has not assisted in providing direction as to the specificity of the letter to the Applicant following the ICRP, it recognizes the importance to the Applicant of a clear and sufficient explanation of the decisions the Society made in this case over the years.

DECISION

15Pursuant to section 68.1(7)(d) of the Act, the Board directs the Society to provide the Applicant with a detailed written explanation of its reasoning and decision making related to her concerns of abuse in 1994, 1996 and 2003. This will assist the Applicant in understanding and accepting those reasons and decisions. This should include an explanation of what steps were taken, the conclusions that were reached and what decisions were made.

16This letter should be provided to the Applicant within thirty days of the receipt of this Decision.

Jennifer Scott

Presiding Member

Celia Denov

Panel Member

Richard Linley

Panel Member

Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 15^th^ day of May, 2009.