CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
R.S. & R.B.
v.
C&FS of Timmins and District
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS
Indexed as: R.S. & R.B. v. C&FS of Timmins and District (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1This is an application before the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) pursuant to section 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). The Applicants’ complaint is about the services of Child and Family Services of Timmins and District.
BACKGROUND
2On May 21, 2008, Child and Family Services Timmins and District, hereinafter referred to as CFSTD, was requested by [the Society], in [City A] to complete a child protection investigation regarding an incident of domestic violence involving the Applicants, R.S. and R.B.. CFSTD accepted the request. The request was a result of the Applicants’ concerns for confidentiality given that they had an employment relationship with [the Society]. This investigation was completed. The Applicants and CFSTD entered into a service plan on a voluntary basis which addressed the need to avoid further domestic disputes and to obtain appropriate counselling for each of the Applicants. The service plan provided that the Applicants would not reside together with the children and that the situation would be re-evaluated should the Applicants consider reconciling with one another.
3On July […], 2008, R.S. contacted CFSTD and advised, pursuant to the service plan, that he and Mrs. R.B. intended to reconcile and that accordingly their situation and the service plan needed to be reassessed and re-evaluated. The Applicants wanted to attend at an appointment as a family in [City B] in the near future and this was communicated to CFSTD. Initially CFSTD redirected the matter to [the Society]. This was confirmed in writing by a letter dated July […], 2008 sent by M.W. and M.V. of CFSTD. Ultimately on August […], 2008, [the Society] referred the matter back to CFSTD and this was confirmed in writing to each of the Applicants by L.B., Executive Director of [the Society], in her letters dated August […], 2008.
THE MERITS
4The hearing in this matter took place on January 21, 2010. The Applicants, R.S. and R.B., appeared in person and both gave evidence. CFSTD appeared by counsel, Leonard Ellery. CFSTD did not call evidence.
5On the evidence of the Applicants, the Board has identified that the following matters should be reviewed by the Board pursuant to sections 68.1(4) and (5) of the Act:
a) The allegation that CFSTD has failed to provide reasons for decisions and has failed to give the Applicants an opportunity to be heard with respect to decisions that affected the Applicants’ interests relating to:
i) CFSTD’s failure to comply with the child protection standards of service with respect to the required service response time to the Applicants’ request for the reopening of their file;
ii) The coding used by CFSTD for reassessment when reopening the Applicants’ file;
iii) CFSTD’s failure to respect its assurance to the Applicants that there would not be any communication between CFSTD and [the Society];
iv) CFSTD’s employee speaking with the daughter of one of the Applicants after she had turned 16 years of age and after the employee had been asked by the Applicants not to speak to their daughter;
Re-opening of the applicants’ file
6The Board finds that CFSTD did not hear the Applicant’s concerns arising from their initial referral that an agency independent of their employer/former employer should have carriage of the file for confidentiality reasons. CFSTD should have taken carriage of the file forthwith when the Applicants advised CFSTD pursuant to the service plan in place that they wished to be together as a family and that the Applicants intended to reconcile or alternatively, provided the Applicants with reasons for a change in its position. CFSTD had previously accepted the referral from [the Society] to investigate child protection concerns relating to the Applicants. The reasons for that referral continued to exist when the Applicants requested that their file be reopened and their situation reassessed. The voluntary service plan that needed to be reviewed was CFSTD’s document. The Applicants testified that their call to CFSTD requesting a reopening of their file took place on July […], 2008. CFSTD’s response to the Applicants was by letter dated July […], 2008.This letter advised the Applicants that their request for service was redirected to [the Society].
7There is no justifiable reason for CFSTD to take the position that the matter should be referred back to [the Society]. CFSTD had already accepted responsibility for the file concerning the Applicants in May 2008. CFSTD resumed responsibility for the Applicants’ file on August […], 26 days after the Applicants advised that they intended to reconcile and that the existing service plan therefore needed to be re-evaluated. The Applicants’ uncontested evidence, based on the applicable child protection standards in the Province of Ontario, is that the required standard for the response time to the Applicant’s request is 7 days. The Board finds CFSTD did not meet this standard. As such CFSTD failed to hear the Applicants’ concerns relating to their request for a timely re-assessment to enable the family to attend at an appointment together in [City B].
Coding of the re-opened file
8The Applicants, both of whom have had training in the social work field, gave evidence that they attempted to engage CFSTD’s Child Protection Worker, M.W., in a dialogue concerning the coding to place on their file. CFSTD’s letter dated September […], 2008 stated the eligibility spectrum disposition code for the reopened file to be 33H. The Applicants gave evidence that before this letter was written, they had advised CFSTD of several factors in their family situation that were relevant to coding considerations. The Applicants specifically disclosed in a letter dated September […], 2008, addressed to M.W., that they were of the belief that they had taken steps individually and as a couple to ensure that the proposed reunion of their family could take place in a safe and violence free home. This followed a face to face meeting with Ms. M.W. and Ms. R.B. at which Ms. R.B. noted all the initiatives that she and Mr. R.S. had taken to prepare for life together again as a family. CFSTD’ letter dated September […], 2008 confirmed that the coding for the reopened file remained unchanged. CFSTD failed to provide reasons to the applicants that took into account the depth of their knowledge and expertise. Where clients have knowledge and understanding of the factors relevant to coding of a reopened file, the response and dialogue required of CFSTD is considerably enhanced. The Board finds that this letter is not a meaningful, informed or intelligent response to the Applicants’ questions and submissions concerning coding. The Board finds that CFSTD failed to hear the Applicants’ concerns about coding and to provide them with reasons for the coding utilized.
Breach of confidentiality
9The Applicants gave evidence that they were concerned from the outset of the investigation by CFSTD that there would not be communication about the file to their employer, [the Society]. The Applicants had been assured of confidentiality by their worker at CFSTD, subject to statements about the file being sent to [the Society] at its conclusion. In the course of other proceedings involving employment issues between R.S. and his employer, [the Society], the notes of L.B., the Executive Director of [the Society], make it clear that she had planned a teleconference with R.L., Executive Director of the CFSTD, and M.V. and M.W., the social workers in that agency who had carriage of the R.B./R.S. file. Such a dialogue contravenes the assurances that confidentiality of the R.B./R.S. file would be maintained. CFSTD in breaching confidentiality failed to hear the Applicants’ concern. Further, CFSTD did not advise the Applicants of its decision to breach confidentiality and talk to [the Society], provide them with an opportunity to be heard in this regard or provide them with reasons for its decision.
Contact with the applicants’ daughter
10In the course of CFSTD’s investigation following the request by the Applicants to have their file reopened, K., a daughter in the Applicant’s family, turned 16 years of age on October […], 1998. The Applicants gave evidence that a home visit was scheduled with M.W. on October […], 2008 and that prior to that meeting they made it clear to Ms. M.W. that K. no longer wanted to be part of the process and that given her age that decision was to be respected. The Applicants testified that while they were busy with the other children who needed to get ready for dance practice, Ms. M.W. went to K.’s bedroom and spoke with her. This was clearly done contrary to the parents expressed direction that there was to be no such communication. The worker did not consult with the Applicants prior to this contact with the daughter, nor did she advise them of her reasons for consulting with the daughter.
DECISION
11Accordingly the Board makes the following orders pursuant to the Act section 68.1(7) in this matter. CFSTD shall within 30 days of the date of issue of this decision:
i) provide the Applicants with detailed written reasons for its decision not to respond to the Applicants request to reopen their file in a timely manner as required by the Provincial standards in child protection proceedings;
ii) provide to the Applicants detailed written reasons for CFSTD’s decision to leave the coding on the Applicants’ reopened file unchanged;
iii) provide the Applicants with detailed written reasons why CFSTD engaged in dialogue and disclosure of the Applicants confidential file at the request of [the Society] contrary to the assurances of confidentiality given by the agency to the Applicants.
12The Board finds that CFSTD’s social worker, M.W., spoke to the Applicants’ child, K., on October […], 2008 after she turned 16 and despite being told not to do so by the Applicants. This conversation was imprudent and disrespectful to the Applicants in their own home, especially considering that CFSTD worker was specifically asked not to have this communication. The Board orders CFSTD within 30 days of the date of issue of this decision to provide detailed written reasons for its worker’s decision to consult with the Applicants’ daughter after CFSTD worker had been told not to do so.
13The Board will remain seized of this matter for implementation purposes. Should the Applicants wish the Board to review CFSTD’s response for compliance, the Applicants must contact the Board within 40 days of the date of this decision.
CONCLUSION
14The Board finds on the Applicants’ evidence that CFSTD failed to listen to the Applicants’ concerns and failed to provide the Applicants with reasons for decisions that affected the Applicants’ interest with respect to the required response time to the Applicants’ request to have their file reopened, the coding to be given to the reopened file, the failure to maintain confidentiality of the Applicants’ file and the contact with the Applicants’ daughter after she turned 16 years old and the Applicants’ request that their daughter not be spoken to.
Sheena Scott Presiding Member
Richard Linley Panel Member
Patrick Doran Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on the 16th day of February, 2010.```