CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
M.G. & K.G.
v.
Family and Children’s Services of Guelph & Wellington County
REASONS FOR DECISION ON JURISDICTION
Date: November 17, 2009
Citation: 2009 CFSRB 70
Indexed as: M.G. & K.G. v. F&CS of Guelph & Wellington County (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1M.G. and K.G. (the “Applicants”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on September 2, 2009 under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). The Applicants sought a review of their complaints about the Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County (the “Society”).
BACKGROUND
2The Applicants are the paternal grandparents of the child, B.G., born December […], 2008. The Society apprehended the child on January […], 2009. The Society is bringing a Summary Judgment motion seeking a Crown Wardship Order, which is scheduled to be heard on November […], 2009. The Applicants are not parties in that proceeding. The Applicants’ complaint concerns the reasons for the Society’s refusal to consider them as a kinship placement for the child.
HEARING ON OCTOBER 30, 2009
3This matter, as scheduled by the Board, was to proceed to a hearing on Jurisdiction on October 30, 2009. At the outset of the hearing, with the consent of the parties, the Board reviewed the complaints set out in the application. On review, it was determined that the Applicants’ complaint “We, as the paternal grandparents, wanted kin care but were refused for no good reason whatsoever” was properly before the Board. The other complaints in the application concerned issues on behalf of parties in the protection proceedings who were not applicants before the Board. The Applicants understood that the Board has no jurisdiction to hear complaints from parties that are not before it.
4At the hearing on jurisdiction, the Applicants raised a new complaint that they were not having access to their grandchild in care and had been given no explanation by the Society as to the reasons for this denial. With the consent of the parties, the application was amended so that this fresh complaint could be heard by the Board.
5The Society conceded that the Board had jurisdiction under section 68.1(4)5 of the Act to review the two complaints before it: (a) did the Society fail to provide reasons why the Applicants were not considered as a kinship placement? and (b) did the Society fail to provide reasons why the Applicants were denied access to their grandchild?
6The parties advised the Board that before a formal hearing was scheduled to review the complaints, they were willing to meet to try to resolve them. The Board adjourned the hearing to permit these discussions to take place and the parties, without the presence of legal counsel, met in private. Mitch Snip, Supervisor of Legal Services for the Society, spoke for the Society.
7Following these discussions, the parties asked the Board to reconvene the hearing. The parties advised the Board that the two complaints had been settled on the following terms:
The Applicants advised the Board that they had received a satisfactory explanation concerning the Society’s reasons why the Society had not considered them for a kinship placement. The Applicants believed the explanation was full and honest and that they had received the information they were looking for;
The Applicants can have access to their grandchild during their son’s access visits with their son’s consent.
CONCLUSION
8Accordingly, the Board is satisfied that the parties have resolved the matters before it and no further order is required pursuant to the Act.
Greg Price Presiding Member
Richard Linley Panel Member
Jennifer Scott Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on the 17th day of November, 2009.