CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
R1.V. & R2.V.
v.
Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society
REASONS FOR DECISION ON JURISDICTION & MERITS
Date: August 4, 2010
Citation: 2010 CFSRB 38
Indexed as: R1.V. & R2.V. v. Huron-Perth CAS (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1R1.V. and R2.V. (the “Applicants”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on April 14, 2010 regarding complaints against the Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68 and 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”).
2At a pre-hearing on June 11, 2010 the Applicants’ complaints were confirmed and are as follows:
- The Society did not give them reasons why an adoption placement has not been made given that they made an application to the Society to adopt a child; and
- The Society did not respond to their written complaints about services sought or received and requesting an Internal Complaint Review Panel (“ICRP”) as required by s.68(2) of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”) and Ontario Regulation 494/06 and reviewable pursuant to subparagraph 1 of s.68.1(4) of the Act.
3A hearing into this matter was held on July 14, 2010. The Applicants provided testimony. The Society’s witness was S.J., Resource Manager. The Applicants were self-represented and the Society was represented by legal counsel.
The relevant legislative provisions for the Board to consider in this case are:
section 68.1(4) which reads:
The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:
- Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
and section 68(2) which reads:
Where a society receives a complaint under subsection (1), it shall deal with the complaint in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation.
4For the reasons that follow, the Board finds in favour of the Applicants.
BACKGROUND
5The Applicants are former foster parents with the Society. They became foster parents in 2006 and most recently, the child J was placed with them until October 2009. While J was in their care, they had expressed an interest to the Society in adopting J and other children. The child J was placed for adoption with kin in October 2009 and shortly thereafter, the Applicants closed their home to any further foster placements.
6The Applicants also applied to the Society for an internal review by the Society relating to issues that are broader than the issue identified by the Board about the adoption process. The Society did not respond to the request.
ANALYSIS
Issue #1: The Society did not give the Applicants reasons why an adoption placement has not been made given their application to the Society to adopt a child.
7The Applicants testified that they had completed two adoption applications with the Society. One was signed by both Applicants on December [...], 2007. They indicated in this application that they would be interested in adopting the child J who they were fostering and/or another 2-3 year old child. The second application was dated March [...], 2008 and was a foster/adoption home study application in which the Applicants indicated that they would consider adopting either a boy or girl up to three years of age. Both Applicants also signed this form.
8The Applicants testified that they received a letter dated November [...], 2008 from D.J. their Resource/Permanency Support Worker in which she outlined the reasons why another child could not be placed with them while the child J was in their care. The letter made reference to the Applicants’ request about respite foster care of other children in their home, the placement of more children in their home and stated:
“With regards to your questions about having more foster children placed in your home, this has been discussed with both of you on several occasions and the position remains the same. In relation to J’s needs and your abilities to manage her behaviors it was decided by the society that it would not be appropriate to have other children in your home. The combination of J’s needs and that of another child would be too great at this time.”
9During cross-examination the Applicants confirmed that the child J was removed from their home in October 2009 for reasons explained by the Society. Shortly after, sometime in November, the Applicants called the Society and closed their home to the placement of other foster children.
10The Applicants stated that the Society had explained why the child J was removed and why they could not have other children placed with them while the child J was with them. However, they testified that once the child J was removed, the Society did not give them reasons why another child was not placed with them for adoption since they had indicated on their application that they would consider adopting another child instead of the child J.
11S.J. from the Society confirmed that the Applicants had submitted two applications. She explained that there are two types of adoption applications. One is a child specific application and the other is an application to adopt any child. The Applicants had completed a child specific application with regard to the child J. S.J. further explained that the Applicants had attended a training session for prospective foster and adoptive parents during which this would have been explained. S.J. testified that the Applicants completed a child specific home study which is conducted by the Society. The Society’s practice is that home studies for prospective adoptive parents of any child are not conducted by the Society due to volume. Prospective adoptive parents of any child are required to privately arrange and pay for these home studies through an agency identified by the Society. S.J. testified that she had had no discussions with the Applicants regarding this type of adoption application and once they closed their home all of the Society’s files were closed, including the adoption file and the Applicants’ relationship with the Society was concluded. S.J. stated that she was aware that the Applicants wished to adopt a child or children other than the child J.
12S.J. testified that the Society’s practice is to communicate the closure of the adoption file to clients in writing. In this case, the Society chose not to send a letter to inform the Applicant’s that the adoption file was closed because S.J. believed that to do so would exacerbate the feelings the Applicants were experiencing as a result of the removal of the child J. S.J. acknowledged that the Society should have communicated the closure of the file to the Applicants and that she was prepared to do so. She further stated that after late November 2009, the Society did not hear from the Applicants regarding the adoption of another child until it received a copy of the material they submitted to the Board on April 14, 2010.
13The Board agrees that the Society should provide the Applicants with a letter informing them of the closure of the child specific adoption file as S.J. indicated she would do and orders it to do so. The Board also orders that this letter include an explanation why the Society did not write to the Applicants at the time of the closure of the file.
14The Board heard that the Society has a two-stream process for the adoption of children – one for a specific child and one for any child. The Applicants had completed an adoption application which the Society viewed as a child specific application and in this case, for the child J who the Applicants fostered until October 2009. The Applicants requested that the Society place other children with them during the period of time that the child J was in their home. The Society decided not to place other children with the Applicants while the child J was with them for reasons explained in the letters dated November [...], 2008 and September [...], 2009. Shortly after the child J was removed from their home, the Applicants closed their home to the placement of other children and the Society closed the file. The Society acknowledged that it did not inform the Applicants in writing that the adoption file was closed as a result of these events. This may have led the Applicants to believe that an adoption application was still open with the Society.
15The Board understands that the Society has a different process when considering applications for the adoption of any child and that this process along with other information is generally explained to prospective foster and adoptive parents. The Board also heard that the required home study for the adoption of any child is the responsibility of prospective adoptive parents to arrange and pay for themselves since the Society does not undertake these due to the volume of applicants and associated costs. The Board further understands that the Society has not placed another child with the Applicants as requested by them because the required process has not been undertaken with regard to the application to adopt any child. It is unclear whether the Society’s processes were well understood by the Applicants such that they were clear about how to proceed in the interest of adopting any child once the child J was removed. The Society did not present any evidence that it had discussions with the Applicants regarding its two-stream process for the adoption of children separate from the general information it provided during the training the Applicants received before they became foster parents for the Society.
16The Board accepts that the Applicants assumed that the applications they did complete were for the purposes of adopting both the child J and any other child. The Board also accepts that the Applicants may have assumed that an adoption application was still open with the Society since the Society had not informed them otherwise. The Board understands that the reasons why the Society did not place another child with the Applicants are related to the fact that the Applicants did not take the appropriate steps, however, the Applicants may not have known what those steps were. Therefore, the Board orders the Society to provide an explanation and the required steps in writing to the Applicants, as set out below.
Issue #2: The Society did not respond to the Applicants’ complaints about services sought or received by an ICRP as required by s.68(2) of the Act and Ontario Regulation 494/06 and reviewable pursuant to subparagraph 1 of s.68.1(4) of the Act.
17The Applicants testified that they wrote a letter of complaint to the Society dated March [...], 2010 requesting an ICRP meeting. The letter was addressed to several Society staff including the Society’s witness S.J. The Applicants stated they did not receive any response to their letter and did not make any further attempts to contact the Society. They stated that they had faxed the letter to the Society’s counsel and that they had a fax verification but did not provide a copy of it during these proceedings.
18S.J. testified that she received a copy of the letter attached to the Applicant’s April [...], 2010 application to the Board and had not received a copy of it before that time.
19The Board concludes that the Applicants made a complaint in writing to the Society in a letter dated March [...], 2010 requesting an ICRP meeting and for whatever reasons, the Society has not responded to it in accordance with Regulation 494/06. Therefore, the Board orders the Society to comply with 498/06, s.3 which reads:
Within seven days after receiving a complaint, the society shall determine whether the complaint is eligible for review under section 68 of the Act. O. Reg. 494/06, s. 3.
DECISION
20The Board orders that the Society provide the Applicants with a detailed letter informing them of the closure of the child specific adoption file and the reasons for the closure of the file. The Board also orders that this letter include an explanation as to why the Society did not write to the Applicants at the time of the closure of the file.
21The Board further orders that the Society provide a detailed written explanation as to why their application to adopt “any” child has not been processed and a written outline to the Applicants of the detailed steps that they need to take in order to pursue an application for the adoption of any child through the Society.
22Finally, the Board orders the Society to comply with regulation 494/06, s.3 which reads:
Within seven days after receiving a complaint, the society shall determine whether the complaint is eligible for review under section 68 of the Act. O. Reg. 494/06, s. 3.
23The Society shall comply with these orders in writing within seven days of this decision.
Gail Gonda Presiding Member
Lorna King Board Member
John Gates Board Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 4th day of August, 2010.